Even if such a program “succeeded” in Portugal, I don’t think that necessarily translates to success in the United States.
Also, I don’t refrain from using pot because of any laws, I terrain from using it because I want to be able to pass a drug test at any time. Employers don’t have to have as cuddly view of drugs as the government. Well, not yet anyway.
Amusingly, my employer did not test for THC metabolites until it began receiving Federal funds. Now it does, so it does, and nominally has a “zero tolerance” policy for cannabis use.
I’m pretty sure *most *of those people at that level of development are probably in group homes.
I suspect the real group that is causing the problems are the ones who are adjudged to be marginally capable of handling their own affairs- in school terms, it would be the kids who were just dumb, but not “special ed”. People who can’t understand the concept of financial interest, or who think rent-to-own is a good idea, or who fall for those stupid cash payment for court settlement ads. We make jokes about stupid criminals, and I suspect this is the strata of intelligence where they actually come from.
What’s the obligation of society and/or government to someone who’s just kind of dumb versus actually mentally handicapped though?
I suspect we may have drawn our particular lines when the “zip” needed to succeed in society was much lower- these sorts could go and work in a factory doing something repetitive, or work as a farm or ranch hand, or any number of other non-intellectually demanding jobs. And at the level of the general public, economic activity was cash-based and things like drugs, loans, court settlements, etc… weren’t nearly as common as they are today. All in all, I suspect it was a little easier to navigate life reasonably well if you were slow back in say… 1930 than it is in 2018.
So what if people die from smoking? It’s a choice people are free to make
No one is robbing people for money to get a cigarette. There are no street level wars on who controls the supply of cigarettes.
The argument is that if drugs are legalized then the criminal element of manufacturing and supply is done away with and casual users won’t have to worry about criminal charges for doing nothing but getting high.
I was in Lisbon a few months ago (for a performance by the famed neo-prohibitionist Bob Dylan) where in the heart of the city’s main square, at 10am on a sunny Tuesday morning, you couldn’t walk 50 feet without getting propositioned by dealers hawking hash and coke.
It didn’t really offend me, but it was blatant and unrelenting, and I suppose there are those who don’t view such activity in a favorable light.
(I didn’t think to pay attention, but I hope that dealers had sense enough not to solicit families with kids in tow)
Except that about **50,000 **(yes, Fifty Thousand) people die each year from second hand smoke.
And yes, cigarette smuggling is a big deal.
*The illicit trafficking of tobacco is a multibillion-dollar business today, fueling organized crime and corruption, robbing governments of needed tax money, and spurring addiction to a deadly product. So profitable is the trade that tobacco is the world’s most widely smuggled legal substance. *
and of course Big Tobacco is aiding and abetting the mob:*Starting in 1999, a team of reporters from the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists pored over thousands of internal industry documents and uncovered how leading tobacco companies were colluding with criminal networks to divert cigarettes to the world’s black markets. Big Tobacco was doing it for profit — to boost sales and gain market share — as it avoided billions of dollars in taxes while recruiting growing numbers of smokers around the globe. The tobacco industry, as it turned out, did not merely turn a blind eye to the smuggling — it managed the trade at the highest corporate levels.
Those revelations, and others that followed, helped lead to government inquiries, lawsuits, and promises of a global treaty to crack down on the illicit cigarette trade. Since 2004, two major tobacco companies, Philip Morris International and Japan Tobacco International, have agreed to pay a combined $1.65 billion to the European Community and 10 member states to settle litigation that would have further exposed their involvement in cigarette smuggling. They have also committed publicly to help fight trafficking in tobacco. Similarly, this July, Canada’s two largest cigarette companies, Imperial Tobacco Canada and Rothmans Inc., pleaded guilty to aiding fsmuggling during the early 1990s; they are to pay a combined $1.12 billion, the largest such penalties ever levied in Canada.*
Organized crime syndicates and terrorist groups such as the Taliban and Hezbollah facilitate global distribution and use the profits to finance their activities. In Canada alone, police believe that 105 organized crime groups are engaged in the illicit tobacco trade, including motorcycle gangs and the Italian Mafia. Criminal organizations “are doing more than just smuggling cigarettes,” notes John W. Colledge, who oversaw international tobacco smuggling programs at the U.S. Customs Service between 1999 and 2002. “They are engaged in human, drugs, and weapons trafficking.”
More like this: in some states, a person can walk into a store and buy cannabis for personal use. Those people are not in violation of state law and may never be exposed to the criminal underworld where people have to go to a dealer who sells a range of illegal stuff.
In other words, marijuana may be a “gateway drug” that may lead to harder stuff – as long as it remains illegal. Remove the prohibition and the criminal aspect fades considerably, along with the excitement that some people feel from being naughty.
Those are the worst drugs of all.
I agree. I quit both years ago.
I know this wasn’t directed at me, but I think the argument goes something like this:
If we were starting from a clean slate where nobody drank, nobody smoked (cigs or weed), nobody used cocaine or heroin, etc. it may be a good idea to ban every single one of these substances as they cause tremendous social problems.
However, given that alcohol and cigarettes have such an ingrained social footing, any attempt to ban these two (indeed we already tried banning alcohol) would be a fool’s errand. Best to leave these legal and try to minimize the harm through education campaigns.
But do we want to add to the problem by creating more users of these other harmful substances? Putting marijuana to the side because that isn’t the topic of the thread, do we really want legal heroin, LSD, and cocaine? I cannot think of any societal benefit to the increased use of the drugs; and if they are legal, then more people will experiment. We already have the problem with alcohol and cigarettes killing more people than cars and guns combined; why add to this problem?
I don’t necessarily agree with the argument, but it has superficial appeal.
Some drugs are so inherently dangerous that they need to be controlled. It’s easy to say the people who die from addiction and eventual overdoses did so of their own doing but that’s cold comfort to their spouses and children.
And the thousands of people that die yearly due to prohibition of these substances don’t count?
Is that still part of your hypothetical, or your actual opinion? Because I certainly can.
Which you do have in mind? If you’re talking about paint or methanol, I’m with you–those things can kill you stone dead…but I’m not sure I’d call them drugs.
Are you offering a strawman and implying I said they don’t count or are you offering a false dichotomy where we can either outlaw dangerous drugs, or treat addicts compassionately, but not both?
Just let me know which fallacy you’re offering up before I respond.
I was in Lisbon last summer and experienced the same thing with drug dealers.
However, I also experienced the same thing with restaurant hosts/servers and souvenir shop proprietors; everyone in those squares is aggressively hawking their products, be it heroin, paella, or cork souvenirs. We talked to the first half dozen guys, boy was that a waste of time, but then we learned our lesson and just ignored everyone. At least the drug guys would leave you alone once you told them “no,” unlike the restaurant guys who would harangue you until halfway down the block past their place.
I did let the ginjinha guy talk me into a couple of drinks, but that was totally worth it. It didn’t take much convincing. 
I’ve thought about why people do drugs and I came up with to different answers. One is to get high and the other is to be comfortable. This brought up another question, what percentage do they fall in? Do most get high or do most get relief?
In my case I started out getting high on pot but as I got older I saw the medical benefits from it. I haven’t smoked for years because I’m taking Hydrocodone and I have to be clean on my piss test. I started taking hemp oil last week and I feel better but doesn’t do much for pain.
I found out that it did not contain CBD due to false advertisement. It is not a full spectrum oil as they claimed. Anyway, I ordered a bottle of CBD oil today. I’ll get it next week if not sooner. Get this, The 30ml bottle of 750mg oil is $60 and the 60ml bottle of 1000mg oil is $70.
Guess which I picked. 
Are will still talking about recreational use of heroin and cocaine? That’s what I meant. You believe there are societal benefits to that?
You also included LSD in that statement, which is a completely different animal compared to cocaine, which itself is not at all like heroin. Increased use of these substances would amount to more people learning about what they are and what they do. And not everyone who tries heroin once or twice is going to become a junkie, but at least they will understand heroin, which is a societal benefit.
That is the biggest benefit to increased use that we lose completely with demonization: the more ignorant we are about these substances, the worse equipped we are to deal with the direct and peripheral issues surrounding them. And when addiction becomes problematic, the fact that we cannot deny the addict access to the stuff means we will put more effort into dealing with the real world causes and effects of addiction.
Learning about things is far more effective than blithely calling them bad, stay away from them. We tried the latter approach and (some of us) have discovered that it does not work, as evidenced by the fact that you tried to cram cocaine, LSD and heroin into one tidy group in which they do not fit together.
Let’s just take heroin as an example. What would I learn from using heroin once or twice (and thankfully not becoming addicted) and then stopping? How would my attitude change and how would it change? How would society benefit from my increased knowledge more so than the knowledge I could gain by reading articles about how heroin works on the human body?