I agree, a horrible impact indeed! Less violent crime, fewer homicides, fewer thefts, less people in prison, less police corruption, the end to the erosion of our civil rights, and billions of tax dollars saved.
Marc
When you put it like that I must completely agree. We must all strive to avoid such a dreadful outcome!
I’m just amused by the spectre of this Government adopting a key policy contrary to popular public opinion and the support of the police. Ever so slightly unlikely, IMHO.
The OP is either bonkers or in a time warp, Mil’ord. Put him/her on Prozac and move to a high rise flat.
Hey, I have no problem with legalizing drugs. Drug users should be ready to expect the following once they are legalized:
- Expect drugs to be taxed just like cigarettes or alchohol
- You still won’t be able to smoke up at school, work, while driving
- All those inner city drug dealers will now have to find regular day jobs. For that matter, so will the suburban drug dealers.
- Rap videos will suck
- Drugs probably wont be as potent since they will be regulated by the FDA or some such agency.
- This is an important one: don’t expect society to support your habit. You want to smoke heroine all day? Fine. But I don’t want my tax dollars supporting you because you want to get high instead work.
Problem is there is no real argument FOR legalizing drugs. For the most part, they add no real benefit to society, other than making people feel good for a little while. There are serious side effects (addiction, health problems, etc) that, politically, make it difficult to say that its ok to manufacture and sell in the US. Really the only argument that I hear in favor of legalizing drugs is that the War on Drugs isn’t working.
Hardly. Have you noticed the debates on the “wonder drug of the early part of the 21st century” – Dr Harvard PhD…somewhere in the GD vault. The largest clinical trials in the world are currently taking place in the UK and Marijuana-based drugs (pain relieving but others also) are almost certainly coming to a Pharmacy near me within 3-5 years. But not you, unless US policy changes or they ban European drugs.
The exact same arguement can be used for alcohol, correct? What benefit does alcohol add to society? The answer is that people enjoy it. Why does this not apply to pot? Certainly there are serious health problems to alcohol abuse, which are comprable if not greater than the ones for pot. And recreation use of either doesn’t appear to have an addiction problem.
Lots of things people do have side affects, but the government isn’t the one to determine what has benefit to society. Individuals tend to decide what benefits themselves.
As a preliminary matter, whatchu talking about when you say that Sweden’s drugs policy is a “successful” one? According to your own link, the number of 9th graders and military conscripts who have tried drugs has doubled over the past decade.
Moving on…
It appears that you consider drugs use to be problematic for two reasons. The first is that drugs themselves are lethal (though you exclude marijuana). Second is that drugs lead to crime and violence.
Dealing with the first point.
[Quote]
(http://www.economist.com/surveys/displayStory.cfm?Story_id=708526) from those potheads at The Economist.
So illegal recreational drugs are safer than legal recreational drugs. The exception is heroin, but even there, the largest risk of mortality is caused by the illegality of the drug, not the drug itself. If heroin was legal and users had access to clean IV needles, then 67-80% of those who die due to heroin use would live.
OK, point the second - the crime and violence associated with drugs.
Absolutely, crime is caused by illegal drugs use. But the key word there is “illegal,” not “drugs.” The overwhelming reason that crimes and violence occur because of drugs is because they cost so bloody much. “Trevor Bennett of Cambridge University … calculated that the cost of consuming heroin and crack accounted for 32% of criminal activity [in Britain].” http://www.economist.com/surveys/displayStory.cfm?Story_id=708526
So addicts commit crimes to finance their drugs use. In addition, drugs sellers use violence to prevent competition in this highly lucrative market to prevent anyone from cutting into their profits.
But why do drugs cost so much? Because they are criminalized. Heroin, cocaine, marijuana are not inherently expensive. After all, they are effectively agricultural products. Enough opium to make one kilo of heroin sells for $90 off the farm in Afghanistan. By the time the heroin makes it to the U.S., it sells retail for $290,000.00/kilo. http://www.economist.com/surveys/displayStory.cfm?Story_id=708500
Criminalization accounts for the overwhelming part of the price mark-up. “If cocaine, say, were legal, estimates Mark Kleiman, a drug-policy expert at the University of California in Los Angeles, the price would be about a 20th of its current street level. As for legal cannabis, he thinks, it would cost about as much as tea.” http://www.economist.com/surveys/displayStory.cfm?Story_id=708574
Criminalization (1) limits competition and (2) increases the opportunity costs, through threat of arrest or seizure of shipments, thus increasing cost.
Imagine we have a heroin addict living in Manchester. He has a 500 pound a week habit. That addiction is effectively unsustainable through legitimate work, so he steals purses.
No imagine that heroin is legal. Competition and the elimination of many opportunity costs means that our friend’s heroin habit now costs him 25 pounds a week. I would be shocked if our friend can’t come up with 25 pounds a week legitimately. That’s about the same as a pack-a-day smoking habit, right? When’s the last time you heard of someone going on a crime spree to but cigarettes?
As for the other side of the equation, I don’t think we will see pharmacists shooting each other to control the market for drugs when they have the same profit margin as Coca-cola.
Sua
Granted, but so what? Except (and only arguably) for news programs, television adds no real benefit to society. For no other activity (except prostitution) do we place the burden on the activity to demonstrate its social value. Everything else, the burden is on the government to (1) demonstrate its social harm, and (2) demonstrate that that social harm outweighs the harms caused by prohibition.
Sua
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by msmith537 *
Ah, I see. Happiness is not a benefit to society.
Well said as usual, Sua.
Deus, I expect such an OP from another BB, but not from an SDer. Seeing futher posts from you, I’ll assume you’re serious with this.
You’re from the UK, but let’s compare to what is going on in America. According to its own statistics, in this country drug overdoses from illegal drugs account for about 5,000 deaths per year, and that includes those that deliberately wanted to take their own lives. From legal drug overdose such as prescribed medicine, the number is three to five times that. Compare this to how deadly automobiles are. About 10x that amount in my country. And I still don’t think anyone has ever documented a drug overdose from marijuana yet. The number is a big fat zero. How many deaths can you say are alcohol related?
In America, a hundred billion dollars is spent on the local, state, and federal level each year to fight the War on Some Drugs. One day, although probably no time too soon, it will wake up from its deep sleep and realize this money could be freed up to fight for something far more serious. Terrorism comes to mind. If users are not involved in any other criminal activity, is this something that deserves a jail sentence? And what about the occasional marijuana user who uses it recreationally? And for cultivation of this plant, this is something that can result in a lifetime sentence in certain states, such as Texas, however if you want to blow somebody’s brains out, you’ll be out in four with good behavior. People that smoke marijuana are much more our concern? Why is it that the small percentage of people that claim this drug messed up their lives, want it to be illegal for the vast majority of people who do take it recreationally and can handle it? Should we also consider making it illegal for alcohol, gambling and the small percentage of people who can’t cope with this either?
The solution is the severe and merciless persecution of these substances, including marijuana, to reinforce the message that these substances, if not lethal in themselves (like marijuana), lead to more lethal substances later in life (ecstasy, heroin, cocaine).
Well, I guess the marijuana that my friends and I occasionally smoked in my youth wasn’t tainted with whatever evil spirits that caused us to go on to harder drugs. I believe something like 80% of Americans have tried marijuana at some time in their lives. I seriously doubt 80% went on to heroin, cocaine and ecstasy. This severe and merciless persecution has really worked in America, let me tell ya. The only thing booming in America right now is prisons being built.
They precipitate a life of crime and are responsible for the radical increase in violence in our nations youth. They should be eradicated by a far more ruthless pursuit of the smugglers, dealers and users than has been undertaken so far. This is the only policy which will ensure victory against the war on drugs.
What is more harsh? The drug, or the drug laws?
John
SuaSponte quote:
Originally posted by msmith537
Problem is there is no real argument FOR legalizing drugs. For the most part, they add no real benefit to society, other than making people feel good for a little while.
Granted, but so what? Except (and only arguably) for news programs, television adds no real benefit to society. For no other activity (except prostitution) do we place the burden on the activity to demonstrate its social value. Everything else, the burden is on the government to (1) demonstrate its social harm, and (2) demonstrate that that social harm outweighs the harms caused by prohibition.
I think the social harm caused by drugs has been documented reasonably well enough. The real question is whether the governments “cure” is worse than the “disease” of drugs. Intuitively, it seems kind of silly if we ban drugs because drug users are a drain on society and then have to spend all this money housing and feeding them in prisons wherer they produce nothing.
I’m just curious of a couple things:
How many of the pro-legilization folks here know someone close to them who has had their life ruined by drugs?
What % of the people in prisons for “drug related crimes” are there for 1) selling 2) using or 3) committing crimes while under the influence or to get money to buy more drugs?
What is it about taking drugs that would make you risk going to jail for several years for buying or growing it?
I do mrsmith. I also know (knew) a number of people who were killed by cars and motorcycles, and several who died as a result of unprotected sex. I have a friend who was paralyzed from the waist down at the age of 15 when he fell off his bike.
People make decisions. Some of them don’t work out. What are we to do? Outlaw everything?
DNFTT.
Well, I’m for legalization, but more so for a treatment-over-punishment approach for addicts.
I watched a cousin deteriorate to the point where he blew his brains out with a gun. Supposedly, his path toward drug addiction began with pain killers after an auto accident and progressed to heroin. I’m reasonably sure he was drinking and driving at the time of the accident.
So, ironically, alcohol abuse may have led to his drug addiction, if you want to connect the dots.
At any rate, my aunt had to deal with Mark’s addiction and excruciating attempts to quit heroin for years before he ended it all one night with a gunshot while my family, displaced by the Flood of '93, slept in her basement downstairs.
I think society’s approach to drug use kept Mark’s addiction a family matter. If we treated addicts as handicapped rather than evil, perhaps we would do more to solve the problem of drug use, and save lives. If there were a treatment center readily available and capable of handling Mark’s problems, he’d have a very good chance of being here today.
Would he have been an addict whether drugs were legal or illegal? Probably. In his case, it wasn’t the legal status of drugs that was a difference-maker. It was the approach we take to drug users. While we all make our own choices and must live with them, I would think our society would be much better off if we also recognized that it is very, very difficult to fight a physical addiction. Anybody who quit cigarettes knows this.
Realistically, the nation’s drug policy won’t change. Why? Politicians must change laws and policies concerning drugs. And the “Tough on Crime and Drugs” approach is a tried-and-true election slogan. Legalizing drugs and switching from imprisonment to treatment is not politically expedient. Nevermind the facts and studies and statistics. Throw those out the door. The most important thing to politicians is getting elected, and the toughest road to re-election is campaigning on a change of the status quo.
Am I the only one who thinks the OP is another example of the performance art that has been going around lately?
DNFTPA.
What is this, a telethon?
It’s a good question, and for many it isn’t worth it. For others it is, even so much that they will lay their life down for it. It’s about principle and standing up for something that one thinks is right. Martin Luther King and many other civil rights leaders and activists in the sixties openly broke some of the more asinine and ludicrous laws against blacks that have ever been created. MLK paid more than with jail time for what he believed in as did others. This “war on some drugs” especially marijuana are as ludicrous and as asinine.
John
Conceded, but your point has made me rethink. When you get right down to it, demonstration of a social harm does not automatically lead to the next step, a weighing of the harm of “cure” versus harm of “disease.” There are scads of things out there that cause social harm and would be relatively easy to crack down on, but are not prohibited. Sports cars, for example.
I do think that, on balance, the amount of potential and actual social harm caused by drugs calls for proceeding to the second step of the test, but it is not a given.
Not a one. Don’t think that disqualifies me from the debate, though (not that I think you were suggesting that).
Found a partial stat for question #3, and this for ##1-2:
Simply put, because the risk is minimal. Consider the numbers of people in this country who have used drugs. Even the high number of arrests and imprisonments puts a tiny dent in those numbers (particularly if you are white - look at the link)
Sua
Still waiting for Deus response to the above questions - he must take a particularly late lunch.