But are the two mutually exclusive? Do we have to make the use of all narcotics legal before we can help people who are addicted?
Where do you draw the line between “responsible” and “irresponsible” drug use? Does the irresponsible drug user actually have to harm someone, before you would prosecute him? Or is it already irresponsible to be using while you are a doctor, a lawyer, an airline pilot or the legal guardian of a child?
Do you advocate legalization only for marihuana or for all drugs? If it is the latter, then you want to legalize a whole lot more than the “equivalent of taking a drink”.
That’s true, we could improve treatment while still criminalizing usage. But criminalizing has a tendency to obscure some of those who need medical help the most and, besides, it’s just a stupid thing to do. There doesn’t appear to be a big increase in usage rates when penalties are relaxed.
Reluctantly, I am in favor of relaxing the criminal penalties on harder drugs than marijuana. I think the availability of legal weed and public education programs similar to those used in recent decades against cigarette smoking are the best defenses against abuse of the strongest drugs.
I don’t think the determination of responsible recreational use of mind altering products is all that difficult to make. And, no, I don’t excuse someone for their behavior while under the influence.
I fully support sentencing first-time offenders to outpatient treatment as opposed to jail time or heavy fines, but there has to be strong accountability and the threat of jail time if they don’t get clean and stay clean.
Everything I’ve read about moonshine implies that for most people who can get something better, it hasn’t been an option since after Prohibition.
But apparently in the inner city, “nip joints” sell poor black people 2-3 oz of high proof moonshine for like a dollar, which is a lot cheaper than “real” liquor sells for.
That’s the problem with the legalization idea; it basically ignores the poorest segments of the population who would drink in nip joints or who would take crank or whatever. I mean, you can buy a cheap bottle of booze for $5 bucks or less, but if all you have spare is a dollar and want a buzz, it’s probably a nip joint or nothing.
Similarly, I imagine that if someone in that situation can go to their corner store and get a crack rock of known provenance and potency for $15, or they can go get one from the guy on the corner of unknown provenance or potency for $5, they’re going to go with the $5 one. Your middle class crackheads may have a different mentality and go for the $15 one though.
If I understand you correctly, you do not just want to relax penalties for usage. You want to *remove *all penalties for usage, production, import and distribution.
I have no crystall ball to tell me the future. But for all I know about consumer markets, drastically reducing the price of a product tends to boost sales. If you add the removal of all legal obstacles and thus wide availability to the mix, I find it hard to believe in constant usage rates.
Do you really think that if dance clubs around the country openly and legally started selling Ecstasy pills at the bar, people would not buy them?
Not difficult? Then how do you define “responsible”? More importantly: at what point would you still agree to impose sanctions on a drug user?
We agre that if someone misbehaves while under the influence, they cannot be excused. But what with someone who does not misbehave? If a nurse goes on duty after using LSD the night before, should she be fired? How about an accountant? A teacher?
And if every employer can fire an employee who they know is using drugs, then how much is legalization still worth?
Lowering prices will boost sales if the demand for the product is there. That’s not the same thing as “lowering prices will create demand from people who are not interested in using the product.” You can make brussel sprouts a penny a pound and I’m still not buying them.
But sure it’s possible, maybe even probable, that usage would increase under decriminalization. That’s what public education campaigns are for, to discourage irresponsible use of vices. These public campaigns are generally more effective over the long run than arresting those who consume the products, which, unless you buy into the idea that incarceration is the only thing keeping a lid on widespread abuse, hasn’t really worked very well.
I’m not sure I understand why it’s necessary to define those terms exactly right now. Common sense would tell us that accountants would have different requirements than doctors, and so on. And I hope you agree that we really need to do something about this power we have given the nation’s employers to invade our bodies on a routine basis.
First off lowered prices are not necessarily an effect. The price of cannabis in the Netherlands and Sweden (my main sample sizes) is pretty much the same. In actuality the price is kind of higher in the Netherlands because you have access to some more specific high quality strains. A gram of Dr. Grinspoon will cost about twice as much as an average strain, just as a nicer wine is usually more expensive.
Second I don’t think lowered prices would lead to much higher consumption. I’m not going to smoke twice as much weed just because the price is halved, I’m just going to spend half as much money.
See, I’d go through it. I had a five year period a while back where I had more high-end weed than I could possibly smoke. I made batches of brownies and took them to parties. I rolled giant cones and shared them at concerts. I made capsules just for the experience, BHO as well. I made up stories that allowed me to gift it without letting anyone know the backstory.
It was the best of times, it was the better than best of times.
I agree to the point that imprisonment for people whose only transgression is usage is not helpful. I do not know how big a share of the current prison population has been sentenced for mere usage, but if it is sizeable, then I would agree to passing a law to change that.
I would not agree to making all drug usage legal though. (Maybe marihuana - I am on the fence about that one.) I believe that for a first time user the fact that drugs are illegal poses a deterrent, even if the potential consequence is not prison but only a fine or something like community service. I am not under the illusion that it would deter *all *potential first time users, but if it deters some that already makes it worth it.
Your preferred strategy as I read it puts a lot of emphasis on the responsibility of potential users. Again, I might agree to that approach when it comes to marihuana, but not for the harder drugs. They are simply too dangerous.
Experience with legal drugs such as alcohol or nicotine tells us that while most people behave responsibly most of the time in their consumption of those drugs, there are still many who do not - at least not all the time. I am sure you too have heard of parties where otherwise reasonable folks got carried away to the point that they made the unwise decision to get very very drunk (which often then leads to further unwise decisions). Sometimes that has bad consequences but since alcohol is a comparatively “soft” drug, most of the time the worst outcome is a bad hangover. If someone brings Heroin to that kind of party the outcome might be *far *worse.
I am not sure what you are referring to. If you are talking about an employers right to force employees to take drug tests and share the results with them, then I agree. I do not know to what extent American employers have that right (not an American myself), but I consider it an invasion into a person’s privacy that is not acceptable. Exceptions could be made for high risk professions like airline pilots, but that’s that. On the other hand I can *understand *that employers are interested in making sure that someone they consider hiring is not a drug addict. I just do not agree that an applicant can be forced to provide full disclosure of everything the employer might want to know.
As to the question why it is necessary to define what constitutes a “responsible” drug use: It becomes necessary, if you suggest to change legislation so that responsible drug use becomes legal while irresponsible drug use still is prosecuted. For such a legislation to work in practice the distinction would need to be clear-cut. Authorities would need to be in a position where they are able to decide, if a specific instance of drug use was irresponsible and thus needs to be prosecuted. You seemed to suggest that was easy. That’s why I wanted to know how you would do it.
If you say you would not use more, if prices go down, then that may be so. I have no reason to doubt your word. But, respectfully, what you personally would do, will not make a big difference in the grand scheme of things. You might be an outlier case. If you look at the post you just congratulated **kayaker **on, you can see a different effect. Somehow he came into possession of a large quantity of drugs that (my impression) did not cost him all that much. The effect was not only that he consumed a lot, he also handed out sizeable quantities to other people in his environment. I’d say that is a perfect case of the availability of cheap drugs boosting consumption.
You do not believe that legalization would lower prices? Why not? Today drugs need to be produced, imported and traded in secret. A lot of effort goes into hiding the trade, and people engage in it because the profit margins are huge. Its a supplier market, i.e. suppliers are rarely in a situation where they need to beat the competition’s selling prices to stay in business. If you could produce and sell Cocaine like Aspirin, a lot of those conditions would change. Suddenly you would have big companies with efficient production facilities and retail channels and a vested interest in making sales. Without state regulation I would be surprised if prices would *not *go down.
I completely disagree with drugs being illegal being a deterrent. In my experience, it makes drugs seem more exciting. Forbidden fruit tastes the sweetest after all. So I strongly believe that regulating and making it less “cool” will do more to reduce usage in first time users than throwing people in jail, assuming that is your goal. Personally, I think the world might be a better place if more people would just smoke a joint and chill out a bit. (coughcoughSmapticough )
Err … no. I’ve been to quite a few parties where various hard drugs where being used, and in my experience, the only group I’ve had issues with were the drunks. I believe alcohol is far more dangerous than many illegal drugs, and that’s before they think that they can still drive. I wouldn’t classify it as a “soft” drug at all.
And usually one doesn’t bring heroin to a party, it’s not that kind of a drug. Heroin is an opiate, which mellows people out and does not go well with alcohol. In my experience, at a party people usually bring cocaine, though sometimes it’s ecstasy or something more exotic.
It is easy. Responsible drug use is the kind where you don’t break any other laws while using drugs. You don’t steal to pay for your habit, you don’t operate a car or other dangerous machinery while tripping balls, and you don’t assault anyone while under the influence. See, no new laws required, just remove the ones that state that mere possession of these substances are illegal, and prosecute them if they break any other laws while under the influence.
According to your logic the Netherlands should have the lowest rate of Marihuana use in Europe, as it is the only country where it is (more or less) legal. I do not have the statistics at hand, but I seriously doubt that.
Speaking of Marihuana: I do not see why people try to fight me over wanting to throw Marihuana users in jail. I thought I had been pretty clear in stating that Marihuana is the one drug that least concerns me and that I do not consider imprisonment for drug users a good idea. Apparently I thought wrong, so here goes:
Marihuana is the one drug that least concerns me, and I do not consider imprisonment for drug users a good idea.
Well - I admit that I have never been to a party where Heroin was used, so you have an advantage over me here. I will not go so far as to call alcohol harmless - it certainly is not. But while not impossible it is pretty hard to accidentally consume a deadly overdose of alcohol. Cannot say the same for Heroin.
You mean people would not use Heroin at parties because they get boring when they are on it? About as boring as they get when they are stone drunk? Because people don’t do that at parties either - or do they?
You seem to be under the impression that people always make deliberate, reasonable choices. That is not my experience. If you hand people another tool to kill themselves with, most won’t. Some will.
I’ll concede that point, but I don’t think the increase could be that dramatic. It’s not like the only reason drug users aren’t under the influence all the time is because they can’t afford it. That may be true for addicts, but the vast majority of users are recreational (I’m using it more for medicinal reasons).
On the other hand the producers now have to pay taxes and fees (which criminals usually don’t), and companies like to make money, so they would be interested in keeping the prices (as well as their customers) high. I don’t think there would be a big drop in prices, might be. But if there is, you can just raise taxes.
Have to disagree here. At least in Sweden where I live, the drug responsible for most deaths by far in alcohol and it’s not that hard to over dose. I just have to go downtown any saturday here and I will see people who have over dosed on alcohol, admittedly not dead but puking, unable to walk properly or passed out is not uncommon.
According to CDC there are >2000 deaths/year from alcohol over dose in the US (which was actually way lower than I expected).
Look, heroin is just not a party drug. It’s an opiate sedative. Most people who use it become anti-social and just want to lie down and enjoy the drug. So unless it is a slumber party…
I find it interesting how views on the use of illicit drugs tend to parallel the stance like-minded people take on things like abortion and same-sex marriage.
You can doubt all you like, it doesn’t make you correct. I found lots of stats in the first page of a google search, here’s one and here’s another one.
Holy shit, are you ever wrong. Six people die every day on average in the US alone due to alcohol poisoning. Cite. This is just overdoses, and does not include drunk drivers.
Zero for three. I believe that most people are dumb, panicky animals who rarely make reasonable choices. That doesn’t make locking them up the answer to the drug problem.
