Kofi Annan on Why It's Time to Legalize Drugs(spiegel.de)
spiegel.de
Kofi Annan on Why It's Time to Legalize Drugs
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/kofi-annan-on-why-drug-bans-are-ineffective-a-1078402.html
375 comments
The government persists with the drug war because Americans have a moral opposition to drug use: http://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2014/study-public-fe.... When I was a kid in the 1990's, 70-80% of polled adults wanted to make even marijuana illegal. For drugs aside from marijuana, that's still the case.
Your alternate theories about money and control directly contradict the history of prohibition. Did you know that at the time alcohol prohibition was instituted, fully 1/3 of the federal budget came from liquor taxes? Alcohol producers were incredibly powerful, yet their product was banned because of moral panic. To a significant degree, women's' suffrage happened when it did so they could vote for prohibition.
There is a great PBS series on this: http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/prohibition. It's a story of a grass-roots national movement of Americans, many of them heretofore politically marginalized, rising up against money and power to effect change.
Your alternate theories about money and control directly contradict the history of prohibition. Did you know that at the time alcohol prohibition was instituted, fully 1/3 of the federal budget came from liquor taxes? Alcohol producers were incredibly powerful, yet their product was banned because of moral panic. To a significant degree, women's' suffrage happened when it did so they could vote for prohibition.
There is a great PBS series on this: http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/prohibition. It's a story of a grass-roots national movement of Americans, many of them heretofore politically marginalized, rising up against money and power to effect change.
> Did you know that at the time alcohol prohibition was instituted, fully 1/3 of the federal budget came from liquor taxes?
It's not about general funding (for which the government has many sources, including straight-up printing), but about untraced monies. Money is not all equal, and for certain purposes, taxed money is much, much less valuable than untraceable drug money.
It's not about general funding (for which the government has many sources, including straight-up printing), but about untraced monies. Money is not all equal, and for certain purposes, taxed money is much, much less valuable than untraceable drug money.
I feel you're right that, at the end of the day, prohibition has been based on public opinion. That said, the government does benefit from reasons OP mentioned, and thus politicians may be likely to push an agenda that strongly supports a war on drugs when speaking to constituents, rather than having an open conversation about the pros and cons of decriminalization.
I think you're conflating the motives of agencies within the Executive branch with members of the legislature.
While it may be possible (for the sake of argument) that the DEA and CIA are extremely self-interested in the status quo, I fail to see the link to a career politician, who answers to corporate and private donors and sometimes constituents.
A congressman and an agency head have orthogonal goals and are accountable to vastly different interests.
While it may be possible (for the sake of argument) that the DEA and CIA are extremely self-interested in the status quo, I fail to see the link to a career politician, who answers to corporate and private donors and sometimes constituents.
A congressman and an agency head have orthogonal goals and are accountable to vastly different interests.
Exactly. The history said, in this case, that money and power did not win the dispute, not that their influence does not exist or should be considered negligible.
So, if in the case of drugs, society moral standards, money and power are all at the same side; what's the chance of grassroot movement changing the laws?
That question was not rethorical, but giving my own answer, I think the path is changing the perception about drug addicts. That they are ill people, not criminals. If the social perception of a drug addict is the same as an alcoholic, then there is a chance of stopping the war on drugs.
So, if in the case of drugs, society moral standards, money and power are all at the same side; what's the chance of grassroot movement changing the laws?
That question was not rethorical, but giving my own answer, I think the path is changing the perception about drug addicts. That they are ill people, not criminals. If the social perception of a drug addict is the same as an alcoholic, then there is a chance of stopping the war on drugs.
You're ignoring a morally significant dimension to the problem. Nobody becomes a drug addict by accident. They choose to do drugs and take the risk not just of bodily harm, but of becoming unable to support their families and becoming a burden on society. And your suggestion is that society should spend money to treat them of an illness that was their fault to begin with.
I happen to agree with you that treatment, not prosecution is the answer for drug addicts. But there's legitimate moral reasons to oppose the idea.
Besides that, drug use is already well on its way to becoming decriminalized. The drug war is aimed not at users, but mainly at importers and purveyors. That poses another moral question: if drugs are harmful and addictive, why can't society ban people from selling them, like it does for all sorts of other harmful products? I understand the cost-benefit justification (bans are ineffective), but voters aren't driven by cost-benefit analysis. There are legitimate moral reasons to oppose the idea that we should just let people defy society and sell harmful products just because we can't effectively prevent them from doing so.
I happen to agree with you that treatment, not prosecution is the answer for drug addicts. But there's legitimate moral reasons to oppose the idea.
Besides that, drug use is already well on its way to becoming decriminalized. The drug war is aimed not at users, but mainly at importers and purveyors. That poses another moral question: if drugs are harmful and addictive, why can't society ban people from selling them, like it does for all sorts of other harmful products? I understand the cost-benefit justification (bans are ineffective), but voters aren't driven by cost-benefit analysis. There are legitimate moral reasons to oppose the idea that we should just let people defy society and sell harmful products just because we can't effectively prevent them from doing so.
Actually, a fairly large number of people do get addicted accidentally. It often starts with a serious injury, leading to prescribed painkillers, and even using as directed by your physician can develop a dependence. Not to mention those with chronic pain who can't just stop taking them. And that dependence can take over and escalate very easily. I've seen and heard of plenty of hardworking upstanding people one would never expect becoming addicts and eventually turning to illegal means to scratch the itch.
And then there's the other end of things, where you've got young teens experimenting and getting hooked while they are young and stupid.
Or those who are being abused or suffering mental health issues with no access to mental health services, and end up self-medicating just to get by. You can say 'they should have just gotten help' but it's hardly that easy, even for an adult, and you can't expect a 14yo kid with apathetic (or worse) parents to figure out how to get help for themselves or even know that they need that sort of help. Never mind the stigma associated with seeking help.
So no, even look at morality and not cost, it's very closed-minded to assume all drug addicts should be held to blame for their own addiction and just left to wallow in their misery.
And then there's the other end of things, where you've got young teens experimenting and getting hooked while they are young and stupid.
Or those who are being abused or suffering mental health issues with no access to mental health services, and end up self-medicating just to get by. You can say 'they should have just gotten help' but it's hardly that easy, even for an adult, and you can't expect a 14yo kid with apathetic (or worse) parents to figure out how to get help for themselves or even know that they need that sort of help. Never mind the stigma associated with seeking help.
So no, even look at morality and not cost, it's very closed-minded to assume all drug addicts should be held to blame for their own addiction and just left to wallow in their misery.
I was prescribed Xanax, for anxiety attacks. The doctor verbally said to take it as needed, but did not warn of addictive potential.
The bottle however, states to take 2x daily, no warning about addiction.
Luckily, I am educated and intelligent, so I avoid taking it unless absolutely necessary, and now go months without needing it.
I have friends who were not so lucky - they interpreted "as needed" as to mean "as the bottle says if I feel any tinge of axiety". They got addicted and at best, had to go through expensive rehab programs. At worst, they succumbed to depression and died from it.
Please, do tell more me how a PhD student who follows their doctor's instructions, assuming they are a fellow expert, should be judged as having a moral failure.
The bottle however, states to take 2x daily, no warning about addiction.
Luckily, I am educated and intelligent, so I avoid taking it unless absolutely necessary, and now go months without needing it.
I have friends who were not so lucky - they interpreted "as needed" as to mean "as the bottle says if I feel any tinge of axiety". They got addicted and at best, had to go through expensive rehab programs. At worst, they succumbed to depression and died from it.
Please, do tell more me how a PhD student who follows their doctor's instructions, assuming they are a fellow expert, should be judged as having a moral failure.
touching story... nowhere I ever lived in europe I met people that got hooked on these prescription drugs (and even ended up worse), at least I didn't know. is this just my case? or some laws in US are less prohibitive (but where are the doctor's morals? don't tell me all are rotten)
http://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/pdf/hhs_prescription_drug_ab...
you might find this interesting reading then. here's a quote from the executive summary.
> The United States is in the midst of an unprecedented drug overdose epidemic. Drug overdose death rates have increased five-fold since 1980.1 By 2009, drug overdose deaths outnumbered deaths due to motor vehicle crashes for the first time in the U.S. Prescription drugs, especially opioid analgesics, have been increasingly involved in drug overdose deaths.
you might find this interesting reading then. here's a quote from the executive summary.
> The United States is in the midst of an unprecedented drug overdose epidemic. Drug overdose death rates have increased five-fold since 1980.1 By 2009, drug overdose deaths outnumbered deaths due to motor vehicle crashes for the first time in the U.S. Prescription drugs, especially opioid analgesics, have been increasingly involved in drug overdose deaths.
Clearly, we need more Drug War.
There is considerable overlap between people who've experienced abuse and people who are addicted to drugs.
In that light your comments about "they chose to do it" are horrible. People are self-medicating to relieve trauma. It might not be an effective way to relieve trauma, but given the piss-poor state of psychological treatment or judicial system for survivors of abuse it's not surprising people end up with sub-optimal solutions.
In that light your comments about "they chose to do it" are horrible. People are self-medicating to relieve trauma. It might not be an effective way to relieve trauma, but given the piss-poor state of psychological treatment or judicial system for survivors of abuse it's not surprising people end up with sub-optimal solutions.
The comments were horrible? I don't think so. There are also a lot of selfish people using drugs who screw others over at every turn. And you can't ignore that fact. A lot of people need to hit bottom in the process to recovery so you can't just give them the "victim" label either, it's about personal responsibility as well for MANY people. I'm not discounting abuse or whatever happenstance, but some are just bad people and it's not "horrible" to consider the reality of what they've done. Because some perpetrators of violent crime were victims before, but they have responsibility towards awareness and however they learn to come to terms with it is on them, not us.
"Nobody becomes a drug addict by accident."
If I choose to take drugs without the intention of becoming addicted, and I become addicted, then yes, I became addicted by accident. Even if I was aware of the risks of becoming addicted.
Much like how if I decide to drive my car without the intention of hitting anyone, then if I hit someone, it is deemed an accident. Even if I was aware of the risks of hitting someone with my car.
If I choose to take drugs without the intention of becoming addicted, and I become addicted, then yes, I became addicted by accident. Even if I was aware of the risks of becoming addicted.
Much like how if I decide to drive my car without the intention of hitting anyone, then if I hit someone, it is deemed an accident. Even if I was aware of the risks of hitting someone with my car.
The analogy is "I decide to drive my car" while drunk "then I hit someone".
In which case you are responsible. There is no accident.
It's all a question of probabilities and risk. The probability to hit someone while driving normally are pretty weak, and the consequences fairly low in normal circumstances (i.e. while you respect every law). When drunk, the probabilities go through the roof, as well as how damaging the consequences can be.
When you start to take drugs, even considering all the surrounding context, the consequences can be terrible and the probabilities are quite high.
So no, it not an accident, assuming you see yourself as a human being, able to think about these. If you see yourself as a victim who couldn't foresee anything, then good for you.
In which case you are responsible. There is no accident.
It's all a question of probabilities and risk. The probability to hit someone while driving normally are pretty weak, and the consequences fairly low in normal circumstances (i.e. while you respect every law). When drunk, the probabilities go through the roof, as well as how damaging the consequences can be.
When you start to take drugs, even considering all the surrounding context, the consequences can be terrible and the probabilities are quite high.
So no, it not an accident, assuming you see yourself as a human being, able to think about these. If you see yourself as a victim who couldn't foresee anything, then good for you.
The probably of hitting someone while drunk driving on a given day are actually fairly low, as in under 1%. The real issue is people get into the habit of driving drunk and some people will drive drunk 3-4 days a week for a decade. It's the aggregate numbers that are a problem, when 10+ million people drive drunk at least once a month it was a huge issue even if most of them never get into an accident.
People like to pretend driving drunk is somehow different from driving tired, but the risks are actually similar. In fact a large chunk of 'drunk driving' accidents have more to do with people driving home late than intoxicated. Speeding, talking even just to passengers, and just flat out not paying attention also present major risks.
PS: 13x low odds are still generally low odds. http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittPorterHo...
People like to pretend driving drunk is somehow different from driving tired, but the risks are actually similar. In fact a large chunk of 'drunk driving' accidents have more to do with people driving home late than intoxicated. Speeding, talking even just to passengers, and just flat out not paying attention also present major risks.
PS: 13x low odds are still generally low odds. http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittPorterHo...
> The analogy is "I decide to drive my car" while drunk "then I hit someone".
That's an analogy, but so is just driving. There is a risk of being presented with a situation in which you cannot avoid hitting someone every time you drive (the risk is significantly greater if you drink, but it is present irrespective.) If knowing that a risk exists with an action is sufficient to make it "not an accident" if the risk materializes when you have chosen to take the action, even when you have no intention for the risk to materialize, and even the contrary intention, then there is no such thing as an "accidental" collision -- whether with a pedestrian or another vehicle -- while driving.
If that principle, OTOH, is invalid and it is possible to have an accidental collision when driving, then the principle cannot be invoked to argue that no one becomes addicted to drugs accidentally.
That's an analogy, but so is just driving. There is a risk of being presented with a situation in which you cannot avoid hitting someone every time you drive (the risk is significantly greater if you drink, but it is present irrespective.) If knowing that a risk exists with an action is sufficient to make it "not an accident" if the risk materializes when you have chosen to take the action, even when you have no intention for the risk to materialize, and even the contrary intention, then there is no such thing as an "accidental" collision -- whether with a pedestrian or another vehicle -- while driving.
If that principle, OTOH, is invalid and it is possible to have an accidental collision when driving, then the principle cannot be invoked to argue that no one becomes addicted to drugs accidentally.
I agree with your assertments about drinking and driving and the probabilities of harmful outcomes.
I just don't think it is a good analogy for hardcore drug use. Many of us did not choose to start taking drugs. Not with any real sense of context. The consequences are very often "not real" until they become "all too real."
A better analogy, would be "What do you do when you find yourself in a car moving at high speed with no brakes and no control over speed?"
This analogy specifically does not mention how you got into that position. Because its sort of irrelevant how your brakes came to be shot. What is relevant is how you can stop without causing damage to anyone else - in this situation, like with hardcore drug use, everyone involved is a victim. My point here is that recovery and harm reduction are not about casting blame. They are about finding a damn barrier to run into instead of a minivan full of kids.
I just don't think it is a good analogy for hardcore drug use. Many of us did not choose to start taking drugs. Not with any real sense of context. The consequences are very often "not real" until they become "all too real."
A better analogy, would be "What do you do when you find yourself in a car moving at high speed with no brakes and no control over speed?"
This analogy specifically does not mention how you got into that position. Because its sort of irrelevant how your brakes came to be shot. What is relevant is how you can stop without causing damage to anyone else - in this situation, like with hardcore drug use, everyone involved is a victim. My point here is that recovery and harm reduction are not about casting blame. They are about finding a damn barrier to run into instead of a minivan full of kids.
The whole "drug users are victims" makes absolutely no more sense that "any criminal is a victim". You can't find a single person in the world who doesn't have bad circumstances. Even the people at Goldman-Sachs may have had a bad history of bullying, a difficult childhood because of divorce, a family that induced an unhealthy relation to competition or money, whatever. This example is not even a joke. Many "privileged" people had really bad psychological circumstances. But you won't say that any of the wall street crooks are victims.
I know a guy who spent 8 years of his life in prison, in many visits, mostly for petty theft and drug use/traffic (mostly cannabis). He had a really horrible life, and is a pretty cool guy, although he's obviously still struggling with addiction. He often says "there are only innocent people in prison, at least they all say that".
I know a guy who spent 8 years of his life in prison, in many visits, mostly for petty theft and drug use/traffic (mostly cannabis). He had a really horrible life, and is a pretty cool guy, although he's obviously still struggling with addiction. He often says "there are only innocent people in prison, at least they all say that".
> "The whole "drug users are victims" makes absolutely no more sense that "any criminal is a victim"."
What about people who become addicted to prescription drugs like painkillers and sleeping tablets? There may have been sound medical reasons for their use at the start.
What about people who become addicted to prescription drugs like painkillers and sleeping tablets? There may have been sound medical reasons for their use at the start.
Why does the word "victim" matter either way? We should treat drug abuse as a health matter; some people can have a few drinks and eventually get addicted and can't stop drinking every night, others are not affected that way. My mom smoked until she died from cancer, me I never smoked so I avoided the biological component of nicotine addition fortunately.
> if drugs are harmful and addictive, why can't society ban people from selling them, like it does for all sorts of other harmful products?
That begs the question: should society ban the sale of harmful products? I can buy: a sword; a gun; a packet of cigarettes; arsenic; cyanide; Doritos; Dianetics; Season 1 of Survivor and so forth. All of these things may be argued by some to be harmful (and by others not to be).
Why may I not choose to buy cocaine, LSD or marijuana as well?
That begs the question: should society ban the sale of harmful products? I can buy: a sword; a gun; a packet of cigarettes; arsenic; cyanide; Doritos; Dianetics; Season 1 of Survivor and so forth. All of these things may be argued by some to be harmful (and by others not to be).
Why may I not choose to buy cocaine, LSD or marijuana as well?
The reason is people take it as given if you mess yourself up the rest of us will have to pay for your treatment. If I have to pay for your mistakes, then I want some say in what you're doing.
Personally, I'd rather live in a more libertarian society, where you could do whatever you want (to yourself) and accept the consequences. But that's not the society we live in.
Personally, I'd rather live in a more libertarian society, where you could do whatever you want (to yourself) and accept the consequences. But that's not the society we live in.
But alcohol and tobacco are just as harmful in the sense of having to pay for the treatments and the damage to others as the rest of the drugs. Why ignore them?
It really makes no sense...
It really makes no sense...
There are all sorts of restrictions on alcohol and tobacco. In the US alcohol would be illegal if the government hadn't tried and failed to make it illegel.
> Nobody becomes a drug addict by accident.
Not true. Many people reasonably take the pills their doctor gives them and end up with an addiction.
> That poses another moral question: if drugs are harmful and addictive, why can't society ban people from selling them
Because you can't. It failed. It's not a moral question. In fact, that's specifically the problem.
> but voters aren't driven by cost-benefit analysis.
So, what of it? We should keep doing things we know don't work because the uninformed don't understand?
Not true. Many people reasonably take the pills their doctor gives them and end up with an addiction.
> That poses another moral question: if drugs are harmful and addictive, why can't society ban people from selling them
Because you can't. It failed. It's not a moral question. In fact, that's specifically the problem.
> but voters aren't driven by cost-benefit analysis.
So, what of it? We should keep doing things we know don't work because the uninformed don't understand?
>> but voters aren't driven by cost-benefit analysis.
>So, what of it? We should keep doing things we know don't work because the uninformed don't understand?
So we live in a democracy, and so have to pay at least some attention to what the people want.
The alternative is a dictatorship of some sort. Historically, those tend to ignore cost-benefit analysis and whether or not things actually work just as much as any democracy. Main difference is that the opinions of only one or a handful of people matter, and you have no access to influence those opinions, no matter what you think of them.
So we live in a democracy, and so have to pay at least some attention to what the people want.
The alternative is a dictatorship of some sort. Historically, those tend to ignore cost-benefit analysis and whether or not things actually work just as much as any democracy. Main difference is that the opinions of only one or a handful of people matter, and you have no access to influence those opinions, no matter what you think of them.
We don't live in a democracy for exactly those reasons. We have a Constitution to prevent the will of the people from doing certain things. We have representatives to temper the will of the people even more.
We are very purposefully NOT a democracy, because it is well understood that majority rule for everything is VERY bad for the minority, and EVERYONE is a minority in some aspect of their lives.
We are very purposefully NOT a democracy, because it is well understood that majority rule for everything is VERY bad for the minority, and EVERYONE is a minority in some aspect of their lives.
Sure we care what the people want. If they don't want to die in fires we hire fire-professionals and fund them to prevent and extinguish fires, teach fire-safety, etc.
Somehow people don't consider it a dictatorship that we don't poll the common person for fire-safety law...
And especially in an area (drugs) where we know that hundreds of millions of dollars of propaganda and advertising have been spent on teaching lies, we shouldn't pretend that polling the victims is going to be informative in relation to their natural (untampered) desires.
Somehow people don't consider it a dictatorship that we don't poll the common person for fire-safety law...
And especially in an area (drugs) where we know that hundreds of millions of dollars of propaganda and advertising have been spent on teaching lies, we shouldn't pretend that polling the victims is going to be informative in relation to their natural (untampered) desires.
> "So we live in a democracy, and so have to pay at least some attention to what the people want."
Why isn't marijuana legal across the US then?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/186260/back-legal-marijuana.aspx
Why isn't marijuana legal across the US then?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/186260/back-legal-marijuana.aspx
"Nobody becomes a drug addict by accident" is a remarkably ignorant way to describe the process of addiction.
But there's legitimate moral reasons to oppose the idea.
No. First, your assumptions around choice, etc. encode a whole panoply of privileged thinking. That all people have the same information, peer support, life context, apparent access to life paths and choices, etc. But let's just let that go. The other replies re: accidental addiction and a whole host of other information out there contradicts this position well enough.
The real problem with this conclusion is that it is morally illegitimate to allow a social and humanitarian problem to persist, intensify, and spread because of any so-called moral position. "Morality" that creates a set of decisions (punish drug users!) but ignores the ultimate moral fallout of those decisions is itself a position bereft of actual morality.
No. First, your assumptions around choice, etc. encode a whole panoply of privileged thinking. That all people have the same information, peer support, life context, apparent access to life paths and choices, etc. But let's just let that go. The other replies re: accidental addiction and a whole host of other information out there contradicts this position well enough.
The real problem with this conclusion is that it is morally illegitimate to allow a social and humanitarian problem to persist, intensify, and spread because of any so-called moral position. "Morality" that creates a set of decisions (punish drug users!) but ignores the ultimate moral fallout of those decisions is itself a position bereft of actual morality.
Alcohol is a drug, it is known for certain to be toxic, its abuse, and possibly even use (over years) is harmful.... yet society allows its use and even promotes it (and in Britain, its abuse is encouraged)
Yet alcoholics tend to be regarded as having an illness and are not treated as criminals, as opposed to what heroin addicts go through. Any discussion of the drug war that doesn't involve a discussion of the hypocrisy around alcohol is sorely lacking. And the drug war is about users - the UK government is currently stealthily spreading fear based propaganda around cannabis use through charity type organizations that are not obviously tied to the government.
And morality? Forget it. There really is no such thing as morality in Western societies today, except around the extreme things like pedophilia... and even then, that was hidden under the rug for decades - e.g. Jimmy Savile or the Catholic Church. Trying to bring morality into this sort of discussion is a feint. Morality tends to be an excuse for authoritarian attitudes and positions.
The best solution is to have an informed populace. Harm minimization and a more sophisticated understanding around altered states and psychological/spiritual issues by society. But that sort of thing does not mesh well with the agenda of a lot of politicians and other people.
Yet alcoholics tend to be regarded as having an illness and are not treated as criminals, as opposed to what heroin addicts go through. Any discussion of the drug war that doesn't involve a discussion of the hypocrisy around alcohol is sorely lacking. And the drug war is about users - the UK government is currently stealthily spreading fear based propaganda around cannabis use through charity type organizations that are not obviously tied to the government.
And morality? Forget it. There really is no such thing as morality in Western societies today, except around the extreme things like pedophilia... and even then, that was hidden under the rug for decades - e.g. Jimmy Savile or the Catholic Church. Trying to bring morality into this sort of discussion is a feint. Morality tends to be an excuse for authoritarian attitudes and positions.
The best solution is to have an informed populace. Harm minimization and a more sophisticated understanding around altered states and psychological/spiritual issues by society. But that sort of thing does not mesh well with the agenda of a lot of politicians and other people.
> But there's legitimate moral reasons to oppose the idea.
Are those the same "moral reasons" that people opposed the idea of suffrage and civil rights?
Are those the same "moral reasons" that people opposed the idea of suffrage and civil rights?
I'm not saying there are not legitimate moral reasons to oppose decriminalizing drugs (although I disagree with them). I'm just saying that if you want to decriminalize drugs, the most effective way in my opinion is to convince those that oppose it based on moral reasons to change their mind.
The same moral reasons you listed to condemn drug addicts can be applied to alcohol addicts. But those are saw more as ill people by the same society that consider drug addicts criminals. So I think it is a possible path.
The same moral reasons you listed to condemn drug addicts can be applied to alcohol addicts. But those are saw more as ill people by the same society that consider drug addicts criminals. So I think it is a possible path.
> The drug war is aimed not at users, but mainly at importers and purveyors.
oh please. go tell that to the black community.
oh please. go tell that to the black community.
Alcoholism is a disease, but it's the only disease that you can get yelled at for having.
"Dammit Otto, you're an alcoholic!" vs. "Dammit Otto, you have lupus!"
"Dammit Otto, you're an alcoholic!" vs. "Dammit Otto, you have lupus!"
The drug prohibition is a direct effect of the lift of alcohol prohibition: officials and LE officers needed something to do after there was no more alcohol smuggling to go after, so a new target was invented.
Public opinion does not drive policy in this case, it is driven by policy. The public has been whipped up into a frenzy about drugs for years using various fear tactics, primarily racism to scare them into having a particular opinion which you now cite as "the majority's moral opposition". The moral opposition is trained as part of a concerted and very successful propaganda campaign.
Public opinion does not drive policy in this case, it is driven by policy. The public has been whipped up into a frenzy about drugs for years using various fear tactics, primarily racism to scare them into having a particular opinion which you now cite as "the majority's moral opposition". The moral opposition is trained as part of a concerted and very successful propaganda campaign.
> Public opinion does not drive policy in this case, it is driven by policy.
Public opinion already favors it in nearly every state. The only states that have even mostly legalized it are Washington and Colorado.
> The drug prohibition is a direct effect of the lift of alcohol prohibition: officials and LE officers needed something to do after there was no more alcohol smuggling to go after, so a new target was invented.
That's a ridiculous proposition. There was a 40+ year gap between the two.
> The public has been whipped up into a frenzy about drugs for years using various fear tactics
Nixon coined the term "drug war" in 1971. Ever since then, public support for legalizing marijuana has been steadily growing: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1657/illegal-drugs.aspx. I don't think that jives with your theory of causation.
That's a ridiculous proposition. There was a 40+ year gap between the two.
> The public has been whipped up into a frenzy about drugs for years using various fear tactics
Nixon coined the term "drug war" in 1971. Ever since then, public support for legalizing marijuana has been steadily growing: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1657/illegal-drugs.aspx. I don't think that jives with your theory of causation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger
Anslinger was one of the most serious bureaucratic prohibitionists, immediately after its repeal was appointed to commission the agency associated with drug prohibition, did a 180 on all of his positions on Marijuana, and doctored scientific evidence to push for a new enforcement target, since he was given a large powerful agency with very little to do. Without a witch to hunt the witch hunter fades from relevance, so he manufactured one, and that's why we are where we are today.
Anslinger was one of the most serious bureaucratic prohibitionists, immediately after its repeal was appointed to commission the agency associated with drug prohibition, did a 180 on all of his positions on Marijuana, and doctored scientific evidence to push for a new enforcement target, since he was given a large powerful agency with very little to do. Without a witch to hunt the witch hunter fades from relevance, so he manufactured one, and that's why we are where we are today.
Not really. Cannabis and narcotics were banned in a big series of regulations between 1906 and 1937 in the USA. That was the first war on drugs. The 2nd came in the early 1980's. recommend reading Johann Hari's "Chasing the Scream" for a definitive history of the war of drug prohibition, especially Harry Anslinger's campaign against Marijuana from 1930-1937, which indeed stemmed significantly from the lift of alcohol prohibition.
What I see in that graph is that Americans get more pro-marijuana as they see the oppressive effects of the out-of-control drug war, overcoming their deference to authority
Also as people learn about the benefits versus the negative aspects through studies showing that there can be benefits under certain circumstances and that its use can be good for some people and that even abuse, compared to other controlled substances, is not that bad.
In other words people have better understanding of the narcotic, its effect and how it can benefit some people.
In other words people have better understanding of the narcotic, its effect and how it can benefit some people.
[deleted]
The 1936 classic "Reefer Madness" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reefer_Madness ) would like a word with you about how all was hunky dory in the world of drugs between Prohibition and Nixon...
You have the moral panic thing backwards. Alcohol is by far the greatest cause of addiction, addiction-related violence, and economic misery due to substance abuse. So much so that hard drug use and addiction is a drop in the bucket. Alcohol prohibition was relatively well-supported in social reform theories compared to the Drug War. There is no functional basis to support legal bans on psychedelics and soft drugs.
The results of the Drug War are so racially biased as to make it effectively a New Jim Crow, and it makes one suspect that a lot of support for the Drug War, especially the part not based in drug-scare propaganda, is based in racism.
And that's not even getting to the employment of police, prison guards, parole officers, court officials, etc. that are highly dependent on the Drug War. And before you claim the prison population are not mostly drug offenders, take a look as the "customers" of the CJ system: a million and a half arrests per year, hundreds of thousands of prison sentences, and 20% of black people having served time for drug arrests, etc. It's highly racist and highly remunerative to the employees and vendors of the CJ system.
The results of the Drug War are so racially biased as to make it effectively a New Jim Crow, and it makes one suspect that a lot of support for the Drug War, especially the part not based in drug-scare propaganda, is based in racism.
And that's not even getting to the employment of police, prison guards, parole officers, court officials, etc. that are highly dependent on the Drug War. And before you claim the prison population are not mostly drug offenders, take a look as the "customers" of the CJ system: a million and a half arrests per year, hundreds of thousands of prison sentences, and 20% of black people having served time for drug arrests, etc. It's highly racist and highly remunerative to the employees and vendors of the CJ system.
Alcohol is by far the greatest cause of addiction, addiction-related violence, and economic misery due to substance abuse.
I don't think it's been established that alcohol causes alcoholism. In fact, research shows that excessive drinking does not correlate with alcoholism[0]. A much stronger predictor of alcoholism is SES. So if we really want to fight alcoholism, we should be fighting poverty.
[0] http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2014/14_0329.htm
I don't think it's been established that alcohol causes alcoholism. In fact, research shows that excessive drinking does not correlate with alcoholism[0]. A much stronger predictor of alcoholism is SES. So if we really want to fight alcoholism, we should be fighting poverty.
[0] http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2014/14_0329.htm
As far as I know, there are two broad types of addiction... physical addiction and psychological addiction. In terms of addiction to substances, people that become physically addicted to a substance will experience physical withdrawl symptoms if that substance is taken away. Psychological addiction is based on repeatedly trying to fix a psychological issue with a substance.
People are much more likely to become psychologically addicted to alcohol than physically addicted. Alcohol provides an escape mechanism for social issues, it is that quality that makes it addictive, it doesn't need to have the same level of physical addictiveness of other drugs in order to be addictive.
People are much more likely to become psychologically addicted to alcohol than physically addicted. Alcohol provides an escape mechanism for social issues, it is that quality that makes it addictive, it doesn't need to have the same level of physical addictiveness of other drugs in order to be addictive.
Is it true that
> The government persists with the drug war because Americans have a moral opposition to drug use:
or
> Americans have a moral opposition to drug use, because the government persists with the drug war ?
Impressionable children are indoctrinated against drug use, by US law enforcement, in US public schools.
> 70-80% of polled adults wanted to make even marijuana illegal.
That's impossible, because marijuana already was illegal. If that number is correct, is measures keeping marijuana illegal (maintaining status quo), not making marijuana illegal. You can't extrapolate that to a choice people would make when not constrained by history, and when not constrained by the persuasive force of current law.
or
> Americans have a moral opposition to drug use, because the government persists with the drug war ?
Impressionable children are indoctrinated against drug use, by US law enforcement, in US public schools.
> 70-80% of polled adults wanted to make even marijuana illegal.
That's impossible, because marijuana already was illegal. If that number is correct, is measures keeping marijuana illegal (maintaining status quo), not making marijuana illegal. You can't extrapolate that to a choice people would make when not constrained by history, and when not constrained by the persuasive force of current law.
> Impressionable children are indoctrinated against drug use, by US law enforcement, in US public schools.
That's one theory, but it does not jive with the data. Millennials grew up with teachers shrieking "just say no!" at school assemblies. They were the most heavily propagandized generation with regards to the drug war. Much more so than their baby boomer teachers who grew up in the 1960's. Yet they're the ones leading the way on legalization of marijuana. So how can you say that moral opposition to drug use exists because of propaganda, when the more heavily propagandized generation is also the one with the least opposition to drugs?
I have a different theory. Moral opposition to drug usage is based on the need to establish social norms that discourage escapism and dependency. In an industrial society with booming demand for labor, that's an important social norm to instill in people. But in a post-industrial, automated society, with a robust safety net, that becomes much less important. It's not like teenagers sitting in their basement smoking pot today would otherwise be going off to work at busy factories building a solid future for their families.
That's one theory, but it does not jive with the data. Millennials grew up with teachers shrieking "just say no!" at school assemblies. They were the most heavily propagandized generation with regards to the drug war. Much more so than their baby boomer teachers who grew up in the 1960's. Yet they're the ones leading the way on legalization of marijuana. So how can you say that moral opposition to drug use exists because of propaganda, when the more heavily propagandized generation is also the one with the least opposition to drugs?
I have a different theory. Moral opposition to drug usage is based on the need to establish social norms that discourage escapism and dependency. In an industrial society with booming demand for labor, that's an important social norm to instill in people. But in a post-industrial, automated society, with a robust safety net, that becomes much less important. It's not like teenagers sitting in their basement smoking pot today would otherwise be going off to work at busy factories building a solid future for their families.
> So how can you say that moral opposition to drug use exists because of propaganda,
Because most of the opponents of legalization use the same talking points that the DARE and other school drug-abstinence programs use. Gateway drugs, etc. All the things we now know are nonsense. That's what makes it propaganda instead of information.
If these people didn't come to these opinions because of propaganda they'd use different terminology and different arguments.
> Moral opposition to drug usage is based on the need to establish social norms that discourage escapism and dependency.
No, because TV(, etc) is acceptable. Drugs are a problem because of our puritanical background. The issue isn't that you aren't being productive, it's that you're enjoying it.
Because most of the opponents of legalization use the same talking points that the DARE and other school drug-abstinence programs use. Gateway drugs, etc. All the things we now know are nonsense. That's what makes it propaganda instead of information.
If these people didn't come to these opinions because of propaganda they'd use different terminology and different arguments.
> Moral opposition to drug usage is based on the need to establish social norms that discourage escapism and dependency.
No, because TV(, etc) is acceptable. Drugs are a problem because of our puritanical background. The issue isn't that you aren't being productive, it's that you're enjoying it.
The propaganda was not particularly effective while aimed at children since its primary vehicle was tying opposition of drug use as a way to signal and support racism which was a particular societal trait the children had not yet learned. Opposition of drug use was a way to express racism without actually expressing it once it became taboo following the civil rights era.
The racism strategy was a much more powerful and effective tool for the older generation. There has been an attempt to continue to artificially associate drugs with other 'bad things' (terrorism, for example) now that associating something with black people isn't a guaranteed way to make people hate it, but success has been limited.
The racism strategy was a much more powerful and effective tool for the older generation. There has been an attempt to continue to artificially associate drugs with other 'bad things' (terrorism, for example) now that associating something with black people isn't a guaranteed way to make people hate it, but success has been limited.
The illegality of drugs means that criminal organisations use the manufacture and supply of drugs as one way to make money.
Terrorist organisations need to smuggle things into and out of their target country (weapons, money, people) and so they have expertise that they can use to smuggle drugs.
This link between terrorist groups and drugs is not new.
Even groups who are strongly anti-drugs end up having connections to drug dealing groups. The Provisional IRA was anti-drug, the Real IRA is so anti-drug that it's joined up with anti drug vigilantes, but there are links as far back as 1990 between pIRA and FARC and Columbian drug money.
To try to deny the links between terrorist groups and drug smuggling is weird in the face of so much evidence. Drugs were used as payment for the Madrid bombings.
Terrorist organisations need to smuggle things into and out of their target country (weapons, money, people) and so they have expertise that they can use to smuggle drugs.
This link between terrorist groups and drugs is not new.
Even groups who are strongly anti-drugs end up having connections to drug dealing groups. The Provisional IRA was anti-drug, the Real IRA is so anti-drug that it's joined up with anti drug vigilantes, but there are links as far back as 1990 between pIRA and FARC and Columbian drug money.
To try to deny the links between terrorist groups and drug smuggling is weird in the face of so much evidence. Drugs were used as payment for the Madrid bombings.
This reminds me of an article I read where somebody recommended abolishing the $100 note, as it was too associated with crime, and it would inconvenience criminals to have to carry bigger bundles of $20s. I wonder if/how often criminal organizations use drugs as a substitute for money for being easier to transport, verify, etc. I wonder how much that would increase if they did abolish the $100.
It might help, but drug dealers are pretty resourceful.
England has seen people using Fixed Odds Betting machines to launder money.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/08/gambling-mach...
> James, 24, looks like just another lost soul in the high street, shuttling between the six betting shops in an east coast seaside town. It's a weekday morning and if you catch up with him inside a bookmaker, you'll find him peering intently into the green glowing screen of an electronic gambling machine – feeding in £200, "a score at a time".
> But this is not a young gambler blowing his meagre wages. James is a drug dealer and his interest in the bookmakers – and the fixed-odds betting terminals (FOBTs) in each shop – is all about laundering money. "That's what turns dirty money clean," he says. Dealers feed their drug money through the machines, losing a little and then cashing out with the vast majority of their stake, James says. They can then collect a printed ticket showing they have gambled that day – meaning that if stopped by police, they can answer questions about why an apparently unemployed young man carries hundreds of pounds in rolled-up cash.
> Earlier this month the Gambling Commission, the industry regulator, fined Coral bookmakers £90,000 in profits it made from one drug dealer who had laundered almost £1m in its shops.
I don't think the gamblers care. It's unlikely he was feeding £50 notes into the machines, but £20s and £10s.
England has seen people using Fixed Odds Betting machines to launder money.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/08/gambling-mach...
> James, 24, looks like just another lost soul in the high street, shuttling between the six betting shops in an east coast seaside town. It's a weekday morning and if you catch up with him inside a bookmaker, you'll find him peering intently into the green glowing screen of an electronic gambling machine – feeding in £200, "a score at a time".
> But this is not a young gambler blowing his meagre wages. James is a drug dealer and his interest in the bookmakers – and the fixed-odds betting terminals (FOBTs) in each shop – is all about laundering money. "That's what turns dirty money clean," he says. Dealers feed their drug money through the machines, losing a little and then cashing out with the vast majority of their stake, James says. They can then collect a printed ticket showing they have gambled that day – meaning that if stopped by police, they can answer questions about why an apparently unemployed young man carries hundreds of pounds in rolled-up cash.
> Earlier this month the Gambling Commission, the industry regulator, fined Coral bookmakers £90,000 in profits it made from one drug dealer who had laundered almost £1m in its shops.
I don't think the gamblers care. It's unlikely he was feeding £50 notes into the machines, but £20s and £10s.
[deleted]
There's no intentional link usually. It's just the best illegal source of income. If it dried up they'd be smuggling blood diamonds, etc.
Terrorism is a gateway crime. :D
Terrorism is a gateway crime. :D
> Impressionable children are indoctrinated against drug use, by US law enforcement, in US public schools.
If you mean things like DARE, its worth noting that studies of DARE have shown that (despite its name and how it is sold to parents, etc.) it has no effect on participant's attitudes toward (or propensity for) drug use, but does make their attitudes toward law enforcement more positive.
If you mean things like DARE, its worth noting that studies of DARE have shown that (despite its name and how it is sold to parents, etc.) it has no effect on participant's attitudes toward (or propensity for) drug use, but does make their attitudes toward law enforcement more positive.
> it has no effect on participant's attitudes toward (or propensity for) drug use, but does make their attitudes toward law enforcement more positive.
I would say that's kind of true. I first believed what DARE said and never wanted to use any drugs. I eventually did try 1 and had a totally different experience that what they said and therefore took everything they said to be lieful propaganda.
I would say that's kind of true. I first believed what DARE said and never wanted to use any drugs. I eventually did try 1 and had a totally different experience that what they said and therefore took everything they said to be lieful propaganda.
>t has no effect on participant's attitudes toward (or propensity for) drug use
The cynical view is that DARE is pro-law-enforcement training and indoctrination, where the anti-drug focus is simply window-dressing to sell the program to parents and the public.
Even if it doesn't trick kids into thinking police are cool (which, honestly, I don't believe it does), running a DARE course is easier than most other police work, and pulls in federal subsidies too. So it benefits police even if it doesn't convince anyone of anything.
I think popular attitudes have changed significantly, particularly with respect to Cannabis. I think we're at a point where more than 50% of Americans will want to see weed legalized, or at the very least decriminalized. When Bernie Sanders said the war on drugs was a failure, there was hardly any comment, and not much public outcry at all. I don't think it's a controversial statement anymore.
We can just look at the results: "one of every three black American males born today can expect to go to prison in his lifetime" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics_of_incarcerated_Afr...)
Just apply the standards we'd use for any official enemy nation. The US jails more of its own populace than anyone else. For many people, the US is effectively a police state. Highly effective outcome of the drug war: social control of certain population segments.
We can research who's been targeted historically: Irish (and other) immigrants by alcohol prohibition. Mexican immigrants by marijuana prohibition. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dope/etc/cron....)
Just apply the standards we'd use for any official enemy nation. The US jails more of its own populace than anyone else. For many people, the US is effectively a police state. Highly effective outcome of the drug war: social control of certain population segments.
We can research who's been targeted historically: Irish (and other) immigrants by alcohol prohibition. Mexican immigrants by marijuana prohibition. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dope/etc/cron....)
> women's' suffrage happened when it did so they could vote for prohibition
Woman's suffrage happened after the prohibition. The prohibition was the 18th amendment (taking effect on January 16, 1920), and woman's suffrage was the 19th amendment (ratified on August 18, 1920).
Woman's suffrage happened after the prohibition. The prohibition was the 18th amendment (taking effect on January 16, 1920), and woman's suffrage was the 19th amendment (ratified on August 18, 1920).
You're right about the timeline of amendments, but keep in mind that in western states (as well as in Michigan and New York) women had complete voting rights before 1920. In most other states they had partial voting rights. And since divorce was uncommon at the time, voting "dry" was a big priority for women voters.
Right. Can verify. Step one of the CIA "send operations people into a country to fuck them up" is generating the money necessary for the operation locally (with the first recommendation towards that goal being to deal drugs). Global drug legalization would make it very hard for the CIA to undermine foreign governments so quickly. If you take drugs out of the equation, it is hard to generate lots of cash quickly.
Also because the ATF and law enforcement agencies get huge funding allocations fighting drugs and have lobbied for more and stricter laws as well as increased spending; it's become culturalized and almost a heritage to the point of being something families and groups rely on almost religiously throughout generations, not to mention the moralities mixed in heavily with religion.
Therefore the government understands
NNo, some people who work in the government understand that. Others have conflicting interests of cognitive biases or are stupid or have other reasons for disagreeing. 'The government' is simply not a monolithic entity and outside of certain narrow legal contexts pretending that it is leads to fallacious conclusions.
NNo, some people who work in the government understand that. Others have conflicting interests of cognitive biases or are stupid or have other reasons for disagreeing. 'The government' is simply not a monolithic entity and outside of certain narrow legal contexts pretending that it is leads to fallacious conclusions.
Or maybe they don't see Drugs as a problem. I don't think e.g. Victorian aristocrats saw poverty as a problem or that the slave traders saw exhaustion or torture and other forms of violence as a problem, far from it. I believe slaves would rather be given coffee instead of food coffee.
> And the fact that Tobacco and Alcohol companies would likely suffer as a result of drug legalisation, like cannabis.
is that true? these things aren't really mutually exclusive right? this is just my supposition, but I would imagine that there is market synergy between legal cannabis and alcohol and tobacco.
is that true? these things aren't really mutually exclusive right? this is just my supposition, but I would imagine that there is market synergy between legal cannabis and alcohol and tobacco.
The conspiracy theory I hear more often that is quite a bit more believable (though still a conspiracy theory) is that legalization would be harmful to pharmaceutical companies, based on the idea that is way more profitable to get people hooked on prescription opioids or such than have them manage long-term pain by smoking weed.
its not exactly a conspiracy, is it? that implies that it is a secret and this is not a secret. pharmaceuticals DO directly compete with cannabis. they manufacturers of those drugs have a clear motive in opposing legalization of a competitor.
It's means become ends, like so many government efforts. DEA is a jobs program, prison system is an industry.
Refer to the character Lawrence Kramer in "Bonfire of the Vanities" talking about feeding "the chow" into the criminal justice system.
Refer to the character Lawrence Kramer in "Bonfire of the Vanities" talking about feeding "the chow" into the criminal justice system.
The government isn't a single person. There are conflicting interests.
[deleted]
It absolutely is a conspiracy. I think you mean it's not an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.
Nearly all countries have some ban so I doubt full legalization is the answer. I think if you approach it to minimise harm you'd probably have varying policies depending on the drug and the situation. For example cannabis, maybe legalize and tax like cigarettes. Stuff like Heroin and Meth don't legalize private sales but let drug counsellors hand it out to addicts to kill the illegal market, prevent them being harmed by contaminated drugs and stop them breaking and nicking stuff.
"Nearly all countries have some ban so I doubt full legalization is the answer. "
Most countries went with the flow of international pressure, rather than banning as a sovereign decision. It came to a point in which any country that becomes sufficiently soft on hard drugs is labeled a "narco state", and that's widely considered reasonable grounds for a military invasion! What we're seeing today is the chilling effects of that.
Most countries went with the flow of international pressure, rather than banning as a sovereign decision. It came to a point in which any country that becomes sufficiently soft on hard drugs is labeled a "narco state", and that's widely considered reasonable grounds for a military invasion! What we're seeing today is the chilling effects of that.
> Stuff like Heroin and Meth don't legalize private sales but let drug counsellors hand it out to addicts to kill the illegal market, prevent them being harmed by contaminated drugs and stop them breaking and nicking stuff.
That's the worst of both worlds. What will happen is a lot of people will become "addicts", get the drug (legally), then sell it to drug dealers to cash out. Criminals will keep their profits high, but they'll decrease their risk (because the government will be a safe and reliable supplier).
That's the worst of both worlds. What will happen is a lot of people will become "addicts", get the drug (legally), then sell it to drug dealers to cash out. Criminals will keep their profits high, but they'll decrease their risk (because the government will be a safe and reliable supplier).
You could insist that addicts use the government-provided drugs in a clinic. Don't just hand it to them.
It's been tried a few times in reality with Heroin and seems to work ok. Sometimes they make the addicts use it in front to the counsellor to ensure they are not taking it to sell on.
http://health.spectator.co.uk/the-case-for-prescription-hero...
http://health.spectator.co.uk/the-case-for-prescription-hero...
Who will the drug dealers sell it to?
The people who aren't dependent and don't qualify for government provided dope. And there could be a lot of such people: imagine how much less risky a heroin habit sounds when you know that as as an addict you can get free clean drugs reliably, and that it will always be in front of a drug expert.
And it is less risky. I'd support a system that gives I'd more junkies of the junkies aren't destroying their health, aren't stealing, have jobs.
But of you're only allowing heroin use for dependent users in a clinic, you won't destroy the black market. There are still people developing new heroin addictions in Switzerland. And not only new users will use the black market to get heroin. Anyone who wants to use it in their own home, anyone who wants to keep their use secret will have no other choice.
And it is less risky. I'd support a system that gives I'd more junkies of the junkies aren't destroying their health, aren't stealing, have jobs.
But of you're only allowing heroin use for dependent users in a clinic, you won't destroy the black market. There are still people developing new heroin addictions in Switzerland. And not only new users will use the black market to get heroin. Anyone who wants to use it in their own home, anyone who wants to keep their use secret will have no other choice.
People who don't want to go through the hassle, or don't want to be associated with the stigma of, getting the drugs legally.
Hassle? Stigma? Hardcore drug addicts will do anything to get their fix. I have known heroin addicts, for example (one was a friend who sadly got sucked into that world). When you're zonked out on heroin most of the time, the way society perceives you is of very, very little consequence.
> Hardcore drug addicts
As another commenter mentioned, I'd imagine a lot of drug trade (maybe not in heroin, but definitely in cocaine) is not hardcore drug addicts, but occasional (or even regular) users who live (relatively) normal lives.
As another commenter mentioned, I'd imagine a lot of drug trade (maybe not in heroin, but definitely in cocaine) is not hardcore drug addicts, but occasional (or even regular) users who live (relatively) normal lives.
> why do they persist with it?
So far as I understand, a treaty[1][2] is the root of this problem. I assume that the validity and efficacy of this treaty will come into question April 19 through 21. Amending this treaty would pave the way for sensible drug control.
[1]: https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/single-convention.ht...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_...
So far as I understand, a treaty[1][2] is the root of this problem. I assume that the validity and efficacy of this treaty will come into question April 19 through 21. Amending this treaty would pave the way for sensible drug control.
[1]: https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/single-convention.ht...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_...
I always wonder what would happen to drug use if it was widely and easily available. Would usage drop because it wouldn't be "rebellious" to get drugs?
That was at least the motivation for a lot of younger drug users I know.
In my country (India), there is a region in the Himalayas - Kasaul - where marijuana grows in the wild. It is so easily accessible that you can literally pluck some on a walk through the forest.
You'd expect with such easy availability, the locals would be all addled on weed/hashish all the time. Yet, most locals tend to be non-users. Most users tend to be tourists and outsiders who come solely for the purportedly "best in the world" hashish
That was at least the motivation for a lot of younger drug users I know.
In my country (India), there is a region in the Himalayas - Kasaul - where marijuana grows in the wild. It is so easily accessible that you can literally pluck some on a walk through the forest.
You'd expect with such easy availability, the locals would be all addled on weed/hashish all the time. Yet, most locals tend to be non-users. Most users tend to be tourists and outsiders who come solely for the purportedly "best in the world" hashish
Before drugs were criminalizes in the early 20th centuries they were easily available at pharmacies, cocaine, heroin, p even hashish tinctures. The addiction rate was approxiamately the same as it is today, about 7% of the population. Most people don't get addicted to drugs, and don't want to abuse drugs. It's more of a psychological disorder, particularly exacerbated by childhood trauma and despair.
No more than gambling usage has dropped because it's no longer rebellious to gamble.
Gambling legalization is very close to drug legalization in my opinion, and that has shown that usage will increase, and the behavior will be destigmatized.
Gambling legalization is very close to drug legalization in my opinion, and that has shown that usage will increase, and the behavior will be destigmatized.
Oscar Wilde put it best: desire makes everything blossom and flourish; possession makes everything wither and fade.
Humans tend to want what they can't have - it's reactance in action.
Humans tend to want what they can't have - it's reactance in action.
Portugal decriminalised personal possession of drugs 15 years ago, which has given us some useful evidence. HIV infection rates and drug-related deaths have reduced significantly, and the prison population has reduced by over 50%. The proportion of people who have ever used drugs has increased slightly, but there has been a reduction in the number of regular drug users.
We don't really know what would happen in a laissez-faire system, but we can be fairly confident that a medicalised approach would have substantial positive effects.
https://www.unodc.org/documents/ungass2016/Contributions/Civ...
We don't really know what would happen in a laissez-faire system, but we can be fairly confident that a medicalised approach would have substantial positive effects.
https://www.unodc.org/documents/ungass2016/Contributions/Civ...
But Japan and Hong Kong and many others still have far lower drug use and crime rates despite their very tough laws on drug use, when compared to Portugal.
The article states that research shows no correlation between severe drug penalties and usage levels.
There's a few people offering anecdotes to counter that, but obviously actual research wins, the difference between Portugal and Japan are therefore likely to be cultural differences outside of strict drug laws.
There's a few people offering anecdotes to counter that, but obviously actual research wins, the difference between Portugal and Japan are therefore likely to be cultural differences outside of strict drug laws.
> cultural differences outside of strict drug laws
It's also worth noting that a culture that discourages drug use would likely be more accepting of strict drug control laws.
It's also worth noting that a culture that discourages drug use would likely be more accepting of strict drug control laws.
Japan and HK both have significant organized crime that controls the flow of drugs into the country and drives the price way up. In Japan's case the Yakuza has effectively banned certain drugs they consider "too dangerous".
Source: I had Japanese roommates in college who turned out to be potheads. They raved about the super-cheap marijuana they could get in the US, which was 1/5 to 1/10th the price as was available in Japan.
Source: I had Japanese roommates in college who turned out to be potheads. They raved about the super-cheap marijuana they could get in the US, which was 1/5 to 1/10th the price as was available in Japan.
Japan has low crime rates because there is no visible underclass like blacks in America or immigrants in Europe.
There are drugs that are partly or fully banned in other countries that are freely prescribed here (rohypnol, for example).
Mushrooms weren't banned at all until recently.
An ex's brother was prosecuted for weed but let off after paying a fine. Another guy I knew who sold was let off in exchange for his cellphone contacts.
There are drugs that are partly or fully banned in other countries that are freely prescribed here (rohypnol, for example).
Mushrooms weren't banned at all until recently.
An ex's brother was prosecuted for weed but let off after paying a fine. Another guy I knew who sold was let off in exchange for his cellphone contacts.
I havent been to Japan, but what about the Burakumin and the Ainu? Didnt Japan pass a law to stop discriminating against the Ainu at one point?
The Ainu barely exist anymore, and the whole thing about the Burakumin is that they aren't visible and all their descendants hide any connection. A better example would be the Korean descendant population, but that's still a tiny fraction of the population. (I think 1 million out of 130 million or <1%?) So there's no good comparison in Japan to the ~17% African-American population.
There are hardly any pure Ainu anymore and they did not rebel against Japanese culture when they were discriminated against. Burakumin is more of a "They work in the wrong business" discrimination and is not based on skin color or a look. Burakumin tend to be Japanese in the Japanese culture and are not really outsiders.
Japan and Hong Kong are culturally very different from Portugal, which makes comparison to Portugal difficult.
Something interesting to consider is alcohol use in Japan vs. elsewhere: http://www.cmaj.ca/content/167/4/388.1.full
Something interesting to consider is alcohol use in Japan vs. elsewhere: http://www.cmaj.ca/content/167/4/388.1.full
Very had to compare to Japan because Japan essentially legalize organized crime. Yakuza are allowed to operate as long as the follow a minimum set of laws.
Basically Japan is following a tradeoff where they have chosen organized crime of lots of unorganized or violent crime.
So it will be very hard to compare such a system with a western country which deals with these issues in such a different manner.
I can mention that drug use is fairly low in my home country Norway as well despite pretty lax laws.
We are doing something very wrong with respect to heavier drugs like heroin though since we have a lot of overdose cases. But Switzerland and the Netherlands seems to be quite good at this and they have very liberal laws.
Basically Japan is following a tradeoff where they have chosen organized crime of lots of unorganized or violent crime.
So it will be very hard to compare such a system with a western country which deals with these issues in such a different manner.
I can mention that drug use is fairly low in my home country Norway as well despite pretty lax laws.
We are doing something very wrong with respect to heavier drugs like heroin though since we have a lot of overdose cases. But Switzerland and the Netherlands seems to be quite good at this and they have very liberal laws.
Maybe we should legalize organized crime instead of drugs. The logic is about the same.
What are the traditional organised crimes?
- numbers games: this is just a lottery, only with better payouts
- drugs: already addressed
- prostitution: legal in many countries
- loan sharking: this is just lending to risky borrowers at market rates, when lending at market rates is made illegal
- protection racket: the only real crime here (and, like numbers games, the State hates competition…)
I'd be fine legalising all but the protection racket, because it really is a racket.
- numbers games: this is just a lottery, only with better payouts
- drugs: already addressed
- prostitution: legal in many countries
- loan sharking: this is just lending to risky borrowers at market rates, when lending at market rates is made illegal
- protection racket: the only real crime here (and, like numbers games, the State hates competition…)
I'd be fine legalising all but the protection racket, because it really is a racket.
Very good point; however one thing to keep in mind that in Japan, Singapore, HK etc., drugs use is seen by the great majority as a huge moral failure and a failure to the family. Social pressure and stigma of drugs use is much more severe. It's not glamorized as "stupid things teenagers do". It's vilified as "the depraved things failed human beings do". Interestingly this tack isn't one western societies have used in their toolbox to counter drugs abuse.
They also have very homogenous populations with a strong, shared sense of cultural identity.
LMTTFY: "We have black people, so we can't be like $RACIALLY_HOMOGENOUS_PLACE"
I am not sure that having a strong cultural identity as anything to do with drugs consumption. For example, I am pretty sure Russians also have a fairly homogenous population with a strong identity, and they still have an alcohol problem (for other reason I am sure). But I can't see the correlation or the causation here.
Just add another example, beef consumption is very low in Hindu countries even for non-Hindus. Similar observations are true for Muslim areas and pork consumption. Case in point is that a strong cultural identity can bring about a soft enforcement of certain practices (in Japan's case potentially help to explain lower drug consumption rates).
Worth also noting that in Asian countries, attitudes to and awareness about drugs are very extreme. Beyond being far more socially deplorable, most people also harbour ignorant views on the physical harm drugs can and can't cause. There is also less glamorisation of it in media.
Worth also noting that in Asian countries, attitudes to and awareness about drugs are very extreme. Beyond being far more socially deplorable, most people also harbour ignorant views on the physical harm drugs can and can't cause. There is also less glamorisation of it in media.
>I am not sure that having a strong cultural identity as anything to do with drugs consumption.
Why can't it? Drug use could be socially shunned, counter to cultural norms. Consider Islamic countries where alcohol use is haram. Consider also that alcohol use in both Japan and Russia is culturally accepted. Alcoholism is a significant problem in Japan too.
Why can't it? Drug use could be socially shunned, counter to cultural norms. Consider Islamic countries where alcohol use is haram. Consider also that alcohol use in both Japan and Russia is culturally accepted. Alcoholism is a significant problem in Japan too.
Vodka is part of the Russian identity. Marijuana is not part of Hong Kong's identity.
HK has insane amounts of expats, significant amounts of which smoke weed. Probably almost half the expats I met, mostly rich young folks though so it's not surprising at all.
If you're white and walking around during the night you'll constantly be approached by people trying to sell you weed and coke. (Steep prices, but significantly easier to find than in most western cities)
Edit: Wrote that in a bit of a hurry. When talking about HK you need to take into account the massive income inequality between expats and many of the locals working "normal" jobs. Weed is rather expensive for many of the locals, but for some western bankers making 10k+ USD a month it's a relatively cheap way to take a break from the rather hectic life in HK.
If you're white and walking around during the night you'll constantly be approached by people trying to sell you weed and coke. (Steep prices, but significantly easier to find than in most western cities)
Edit: Wrote that in a bit of a hurry. When talking about HK you need to take into account the massive income inequality between expats and many of the locals working "normal" jobs. Weed is rather expensive for many of the locals, but for some western bankers making 10k+ USD a month it's a relatively cheap way to take a break from the rather hectic life in HK.
It seems alcohol is often a national icon. While smoking plants.. except for Cuba maybe is rarely a culturally approved ritual.
The rational conclusion seems to be that whether drugs are legal, or decriminalized, are, at best, only part of what determines levels of drug use and drug-related crime.
China, too, have a far lower drug use rate. Not sure for Japan and Hk, but for China I think there are two main reasons. One, she was "locked in turmoil" during the 70s and the 80s, so did not get the influence from this period. Two, most young people are busy making their life, and have actually good hope to have a much better life than their parents (which is not that difficult).
China has a problem with Ketamine addiction, not helped by whole villages that mass produce the drug. There was a good documentary about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxXvTi3QRwA
With over 1B people you can bet China has drug problems too. You just don't hear about it because there's no free press there.
See: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/01/25/world/despite-a-crackdo...
China and HK have long histories of drug use and opium was widely used there prior to 1949. The Opium Wars were fought in China.
See: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/01/25/world/despite-a-crackdo...
China and HK have long histories of drug use and opium was widely used there prior to 1949. The Opium Wars were fought in China.
China certainly has drug problems, but it is not like in West: i'd have to search carefully to find one French guy of my generation or below that never tried hash. In China most Chinese I know never tried. It's just not the fashion yet. Only a very thin slice of the society is in contact with drugs.
Personally speaking (although I'm hardly one of the "younger drug users" you refer to), I would continue to consume more or less the same quantity of drugs that I do now. I would possibly increase my intake very slightly, but not significantly. The significant differences would be that I would probably pay less, I would be consuming safer, regulated substances, and I wouldn't constantly be in fear of being sent to prison for a personal lifestyle choice.
Unless the penalties drastically increase, or I am convinced that what I am doing is morally wrong, I shall probably continue to take my drug of choice for the foreseeable future.
From what I've heard, the marijuana that grows in the wild tends to be of a far lower quality than that which is cultivated.
Unless the penalties drastically increase, or I am convinced that what I am doing is morally wrong, I shall probably continue to take my drug of choice for the foreseeable future.
From what I've heard, the marijuana that grows in the wild tends to be of a far lower quality than that which is cultivated.
same for me, but I hate smoking. if things would be legal, I would much MUCH prefer different, non harmful way to consume it (food, of vaporizing some pure extract in e-cigarette style). usual vaporizers are only somewhere in the middle, plus more inconvenient.
I don't care so much about pricing, amsterdam levels would be OK for me. I consume so little that I would be OK even with higher pricing. But I could actually choose what type of effect, strength etc. I want, rather than random, mostly weak & expensive street stuff, bought from shady characters in dark alleys.
Unless society will be handling death/for life penalties for pure consumation here, I am not stopping consuming of a plant that used to grow all round us, was heavily subsidized when US colonies got independence etc. It just doesn't make sense, this is one of the cases of laws that are plain wrong (in case of this plant and all possible products from it). If there is such an immoral law, it actually feels good breaking it (but still preferring clean, legal, market-driven scenario).
I don't care so much about pricing, amsterdam levels would be OK for me. I consume so little that I would be OK even with higher pricing. But I could actually choose what type of effect, strength etc. I want, rather than random, mostly weak & expensive street stuff, bought from shady characters in dark alleys.
Unless society will be handling death/for life penalties for pure consumation here, I am not stopping consuming of a plant that used to grow all round us, was heavily subsidized when US colonies got independence etc. It just doesn't make sense, this is one of the cases of laws that are plain wrong (in case of this plant and all possible products from it). If there is such an immoral law, it actually feels good breaking it (but still preferring clean, legal, market-driven scenario).
Re: more drug choices -- that's exactly what's happening here in Colorado. There's a huge variety of choice. And at the dispensaries the staff generally very knowledgable, so it's almost like buying wine.
I've experienced it in Amsterdam (albeit in busy-over-the-counter style), glad to hear there is spot like that in US.
the thing is, effects (at least on me) can be so starkly different from type to type (i never experienced different stuff with same effects). very different to consistent dumb-down-but-generally-happy effect of alcohol (again, purely on me).
the thing is, effects (at least on me) can be so starkly different from type to type (i never experienced different stuff with same effects). very different to consistent dumb-down-but-generally-happy effect of alcohol (again, purely on me).
>I've experienced it in Amsterdam (albeit in busy-over-the-counter style), glad to hear there is spot like that in US.
It's considerably more advanced in (at least) Colorado. Due to the weird quasi-legal status in the NL, only flower, hash, and simple baked goods are available. The chemical extractions (e.g. glycerine, other solvent) that allow for a wider variety of products such as sodas are more strictly illegal in the NL. The black market supply in the NL hampers the diversity and quality of the actual products, too.
It's really quite a stark difference, and CO is leaps and bounds more advanced in this regard.
It's considerably more advanced in (at least) Colorado. Due to the weird quasi-legal status in the NL, only flower, hash, and simple baked goods are available. The chemical extractions (e.g. glycerine, other solvent) that allow for a wider variety of products such as sodas are more strictly illegal in the NL. The black market supply in the NL hampers the diversity and quality of the actual products, too.
It's really quite a stark difference, and CO is leaps and bounds more advanced in this regard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annual_cannabis_use_by_country
In the Netherlands, where marijuana is effectively legal†, the percentage of the population aged 15-64 which has used the drug at least once in the past year was 5.4 (2005). In the US the data was from 2009 (pre-legalization in Oregon and Colorado), and was 13.7%
Anecdata: I've lived in both places, weed just isn't as cool in NL as it is in the US.
† Use of marijuana in NL is totally decriminalized and it is easily purchasable by anyone over 18.
In the Netherlands, where marijuana is effectively legal†, the percentage of the population aged 15-64 which has used the drug at least once in the past year was 5.4 (2005). In the US the data was from 2009 (pre-legalization in Oregon and Colorado), and was 13.7%
Anecdata: I've lived in both places, weed just isn't as cool in NL as it is in the US.
† Use of marijuana in NL is totally decriminalized and it is easily purchasable by anyone over 18.
When I was quite a bit younger and did a semester abroad (from the US) I became friends with several Dutch students in our dorm/hostel. I remember, being the naive 19-year-old that I was, asking how cool it was that weed was legal there and stuff like that. They mostly looked at me with a tolerant but exhausted expression and said that it was more of a tourist thing. The impression I got was that it was treated by everyone the way I now look at teens who constantly talk about smoking cannabis or getting drunk as if it was the coolest thing ever. Basically it was like "yeah, sure, it's legal but come on, only dipshits make it out to be something more than a minor vice or guilty pleasure to be indulged infrequently".
I wonder if this is related to quality of life. A country like the Netherlands with stronger social services/safety nets and more 'liveable' cities must have much better quality of life for the bottom quintile of society compared to the states, and it's that quintile that is most likely to get addicted/cause other social problems.
It seems like a common thread through people getting addicted to drugs is trying to find an escape for a crappy/desperate life, so logically if it's less crappy people won't need an escape as much, right?
It seems like a common thread through people getting addicted to drugs is trying to find an escape for a crappy/desperate life, so logically if it's less crappy people won't need an escape as much, right?
Worth noting that the government in the NL is working quite hard to make it less tolerated, e.g. shuttering coffeeshops through legitimate grievances such as selling to minors or through "neighborhood improvement" or "too near a school" reasons and by criminalizing the aiding of production (taken to absurd levels such that innocent garden supply shops can be criminally liable). Production has already been and remains illegal, and the government has rejected calls by various cities to experiment with sanctioned growing.
It's quite an absurd situation, honestly.
It's quite an absurd situation, honestly.
In the US culture, I think a lot would depend on marketing and advertising. Consider the marketing of high fructose corn syrup, which is cheap, legal, hardly "rebellious," possibly a sort of low-grade high, and consumed in toxic quantities.
I'm not arguing against legalization. But I had a similar conversation with my kids about legalizing pot. I told them that whatever the health aspects of pot use are, the pot industry would use all of the tactics of the tobacco industry, to market pot as "cool" and perfectly safe.
I'm not arguing against legalization. But I had a similar conversation with my kids about legalizing pot. I told them that whatever the health aspects of pot use are, the pot industry would use all of the tactics of the tobacco industry, to market pot as "cool" and perfectly safe.
High fructose corn syrup isn't marketed to consumers. It's marketed to corporations that otherwise would use sugar. Sugar is much more expensive in the US than elsewhere because of BS tariffs advocated for by Florida sugar barons.
True, the analogy isn't perfect, but I think it serves as a model for designing and marketing substances that are cheap, addictive, and ultimately toxic.
Where I live it's illegal for tobacco companies to market their product. In any way. Anywhere. They are hidden in the shops and if one wants to buy it one needs to specifically ask for it.
[deleted]
It's not unreasonable to suggest that HFCS is in fact more toxic and more dangerous than any whole-plant drug.
(and I mean traditional plant medicines here, not, obviously, hemlock and the like :-)
(and I mean traditional plant medicines here, not, obviously, hemlock and the like :-)
Lots of plants that have medicinal effects are immediately dangerous, especially compared to what ends up being a poor diet choice that takes a while to have much of any effect.
"Medicinal" partly implies that a small amount of the substance will have an impact on the body, and there are many substances in plants where the dose does matter.
"Medicinal" partly implies that a small amount of the substance will have an impact on the body, and there are many substances in plants where the dose does matter.
[deleted]
>In my country (India), there is a region in the Himalayas - Kasaul - where marijuana grows in the wild. It is so easily accessible that you can literally pluck some on a walk through the forest.
e.g. Hindu Kush. Interestingly, cannabis has been used in India since 2000BCE.
Aren't there some tolerated/accepted uses of cannabis in India? I suppose what I'm really asking is it actually tourists or aren't there some significant traditional uses such as bhang? I can certainly understand that some users would just be tourists, but most I'm not sure of.
e.g. Hindu Kush. Interestingly, cannabis has been used in India since 2000BCE.
Aren't there some tolerated/accepted uses of cannabis in India? I suppose what I'm really asking is it actually tourists or aren't there some significant traditional uses such as bhang? I can certainly understand that some users would just be tourists, but most I'm not sure of.
I believe so, I believe most kids are doing it because it's taboo and feels something adventurous to experience.
Now legalizing drugs would also give standards and tests. Instead of potentially toxic you'd get something tested (you may get shitty product still but the producer will get busted and closed easily).
Now legalizing drugs would also give standards and tests. Instead of potentially toxic you'd get something tested (you may get shitty product still but the producer will get busted and closed easily).
Culture always shapes how we view substances. For folks in that region I'm not sure there's any stigma attached but I'll take a guess by saying they probably don't see it as a viable past time or fun to consume.
And yet, there are plenty of Asian countries (Singapore, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, etc) where drug laws are much stricter than the US's, there are very few drug addicts, and there is very little crime.
And yet there are lots of European countries with low crime rates and liberal drug laws and low usage. That is the point. There is no clear correlation here.
But these asian countries and the european ones do have a number of things in common which is different from the US. Neither has poverty problems on the scale found in the US. Neither have racial conflict at the level found in the US.
And how comparable is really Singapore? It is a single city, tightly controlled with 3x the police force of a regular western country, where they practice DDR like surveillance in the sense that citizens are taught to report each other for all sorts of minor transgressions.
The US is a lot more similar to Europe so if one was ever too look at alternative policies I think looking at European experiences makes a lot more sense for the US than looking at Asian countries which are vastly different historically, culturally and in what political system they currently employ.
But these asian countries and the european ones do have a number of things in common which is different from the US. Neither has poverty problems on the scale found in the US. Neither have racial conflict at the level found in the US.
And how comparable is really Singapore? It is a single city, tightly controlled with 3x the police force of a regular western country, where they practice DDR like surveillance in the sense that citizens are taught to report each other for all sorts of minor transgressions.
The US is a lot more similar to Europe so if one was ever too look at alternative policies I think looking at European experiences makes a lot more sense for the US than looking at Asian countries which are vastly different historically, culturally and in what political system they currently employ.
> there are very few drug addicts
This is a dubious claim. How do you actually identify the number of people who are addicted? Even if there are fewer people addicted to the very few currently illegal drugs, are there fewer people addicted altogether?
This is a dubious claim. How do you actually identify the number of people who are addicted? Even if there are fewer people addicted to the very few currently illegal drugs, are there fewer people addicted altogether?
I really find it absurd that stating facts is downvoted here on HN because it doesn't fit the hivemind. Singapore and Indonesia execute drug offenders and despite what I am told should happen in this thread, there is very little crime despite their crazier "War on Drugs". When compared to a country like Portugal, Singapore and Indonesia have far lower crime and drug use.
I think that what gets down-voted is more the implication that making drugs offences capital crimes is the chief reason Singapore and Indonesia have lower drug usage rates.
I believe that more significant influencing factors are that drug usage is socially unacceptable Singapore and Indonesia, that citizens are more willing to accept government control over their private activities, that drugs are harder to acquire.
It seems more likely that those countries are able to have capital punishment for (what the West would consider to be) minor drugs offences precisely _because_ drug use is already low and drug users are more consistently vilified by society.
I believe that more significant influencing factors are that drug usage is socially unacceptable Singapore and Indonesia, that citizens are more willing to accept government control over their private activities, that drugs are harder to acquire.
It seems more likely that those countries are able to have capital punishment for (what the West would consider to be) minor drugs offences precisely _because_ drug use is already low and drug users are more consistently vilified by society.
Yeah, for evidence of the impact culture has, look at alcohol. In almost all countries it is treated similarly: after 16-18 years old, drinking is legal. Yet there are vast differences in addiction rates and per-capita consumption.
Execution is a very drastic drug-related harm. If we killed everyone at age 50 then cancer rates would fall drastically, but it would be completely unreasonable to suggest that we had effectively solved the cancer problem.
It is worth noting that Indonesia have changed their drug policies in recent years and are moving towards a medicalised rather than criminalised approach to drug use, largely as a response to rising rates of HIV infection amongst injecting drug users.
https://www.unodc.org/indonesia/en/issues/hiv-and-drugs.html
It is worth noting that Indonesia have changed their drug policies in recent years and are moving towards a medicalised rather than criminalised approach to drug use, largely as a response to rising rates of HIV infection amongst injecting drug users.
https://www.unodc.org/indonesia/en/issues/hiv-and-drugs.html
So in these countries is the number of executions per million population higher than the deaths in the USA, say, directly attributed to drug sale/use?
"Studies have consistently failed to establish the existence of a link between the harshness of a country's drug laws and its levels of drug use."
Quote from the article we're discussing.
Quote from the article we're discussing.
I didn't downvote, but others may have downvoted because you didn't give any sources, and you don't expand on your statement. Yes, there are fewer drug users in Singapore and Japan, but they are historically and culturally extremely different to the USA.
I'm not convinced on Indonesia[1] and Hong Kong[2]; I've visited both myself several times, and drugs were easily available.
[1] http://jakartaglobe.beritasatu.com/news/bnn-says-33-die-of-d... [2] http://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/article/1826366/...
I'm not convinced on Indonesia[1] and Hong Kong[2]; I've visited both myself several times, and drugs were easily available.
[1] http://jakartaglobe.beritasatu.com/news/bnn-says-33-die-of-d... [2] http://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/article/1826366/...
I downvoted you because you're simply wrong with a couple of those countries, for example in Hong Kong there's a plenty of drug users. The statistics just aren't reported like they are in some western countries.
Singapore only executes drug dealers, producers and traffickers. This hasn't really had a significant effect on drug availability, and it still remains a major transit point for drug trafficking in Asia.
Indonesia? Drugs everywhere.
Singapore only executes drug dealers, producers and traffickers. This hasn't really had a significant effect on drug availability, and it still remains a major transit point for drug trafficking in Asia.
Indonesia? Drugs everywhere.
Singapore is a police state. Execution is illegal in Portugal as it's a human rights violation. They're very different places.
In college I smoked weed over Skype with someone in Indonesia and their buddies. They didn't really go out of their way to buy it either.
It's probably very underreported (because otherwise they would be executing a ton of people).
It's probably very underreported (because otherwise they would be executing a ton of people).
[deleted]
Politicians do whatever gets them, and keeps them, elected. If they poll and find 70% of their electorate are in favor of something, guess how they're going to vote?
I really don't understand why people put themselves in echo chambers then complain to each other why the world is the way it is. It's a waste of time.
I really don't understand why people put themselves in echo chambers then complain to each other why the world is the way it is. It's a waste of time.
Actually, that's not true. In Florida a year or two ago, ~58% voted to legalize medical marijuana, but the vote needed 60% because it was a ballot initiative. How come the Florida reps didn't go ahead and do it themselves since obviously a majority of their electorate voted that way? It's about a lot more than the electorate.
58% of the population or of the voters in that poll?
More to the point, the 58% is the fraction of the people who feel strongly for or against the drug question. Those are likely not the same segment of the population that votes for the legislature, and neither group is representative of the population!
People who vote are the electorate, if you don't vote, you don't matter.
But to answer your question, it was voters.
But to answer your question, it was voters.
Then what the sibling comment above says would be my point also. 58% of people who voted on one issue is not going to be representative of those who vote in elections; ergo the candidates would be wrong to simply bypass the system and vote in an issue that hasn't otherwise passed.
I'd like to see more direct democracy though, more atomic voting to address issues individually; that would perhaps help in this situation.
I'd like to see more direct democracy though, more atomic voting to address issues individually; that would perhaps help in this situation.
How is what I said not true? The bar is said to 60%. I said 70% so it's actually easier than I thought.
You came up with a number that was close but not enough and you think that proves a point? Get the additional 20 out of every 1000 votes. The reason it's not 50% is because people don't want flip/flopping every few years.
You came up with a number that was close but not enough and you think that proves a point? Get the additional 20 out of every 1000 votes. The reason it's not 50% is because people don't want flip/flopping every few years.
> why do they persist with it? A few reasons present themselves
Also: theatre.
Much like a lot of airport/airline security measures are theatre to reassure the common people that something is being done, the war on drugs continues because people who don't know any better (or don't believe the ineffectiveness argument) will feel less safe if it officially stops or even steps down a notch. This situation perpetuates itself, and any escalation doesn't get reversed, and feeds into the politics point others have already mentioned because people feeling less safe are less likely to vote for you next time.
Also: theatre.
Much like a lot of airport/airline security measures are theatre to reassure the common people that something is being done, the war on drugs continues because people who don't know any better (or don't believe the ineffectiveness argument) will feel less safe if it officially stops or even steps down a notch. This situation perpetuates itself, and any escalation doesn't get reversed, and feeds into the politics point others have already mentioned because people feeling less safe are less likely to vote for you next time.
> Tobacco and Alcohol companies would likely suffer as a result of drug legalisation, like cannabis.
To state this in another way- think of all of the Budweiser/Bud Light sponsorships and commercials and replace that Bud with the other kind of bud. That's about the scale and usage to expect, at the very least, if cannabis were to be completely legal everywhere alcohol is.
And all of the abuse, drunk driving, etc? Increase that somewhat. They won't be able to control all of it with treatment and education any more than they have with alcohol. Also, imagine the level of drinking at work even in the 1940's and 50's after alcohol prohibition was lifted.
Aside from cannabis, think of all of the other drugs that could be abused. Yes, drug violence, etc. will go down, but there is a tradeoff.
To state this in another way- think of all of the Budweiser/Bud Light sponsorships and commercials and replace that Bud with the other kind of bud. That's about the scale and usage to expect, at the very least, if cannabis were to be completely legal everywhere alcohol is.
And all of the abuse, drunk driving, etc? Increase that somewhat. They won't be able to control all of it with treatment and education any more than they have with alcohol. Also, imagine the level of drinking at work even in the 1940's and 50's after alcohol prohibition was lifted.
Aside from cannabis, think of all of the other drugs that could be abused. Yes, drug violence, etc. will go down, but there is a tradeoff.
It's possible to have the thing on sale while banning advertising for it; much of Europe has restrictions on tobacco advertising, sale, "plain packaging" requirements, etc.
Note that drinking at work has gone away without government intervention.
Note that drinking at work has gone away without government intervention.
Did the abuse of alcohol and it's impacts go up or down after prohibition? Probably depends on whether you count making gangsters rich and famous, and people dying from drinking bathtub gin as abuse or not, but even if you exclude all that, it's not a slam dunk that there would be a big shift in either direction for users, or that it wouldn't simply displace other drugs, legal or illegal, which you'd need to measure to get a true picture.
My understanding wasnt that the CIA was directly involved in the drug trade, but that their normal activities create infrastructure for their partners that are shady international organizations that operate outside local laws naturally creates drug smuggling networks.
They work with local organized crime to create covert hideouts and border crossings for CIA use, and give them funding and weapons in exchange, and things like the drug trade come out of that almost automatically.
They work with local organized crime to create covert hideouts and border crossings for CIA use, and give them funding and weapons in exchange, and things like the drug trade come out of that almost automatically.
> This is not a conspiracy
It is absolutely a conspiracy, just one that happens to actually have occurred and probably continues to occur.
It is absolutely a conspiracy, just one that happens to actually have occurred and probably continues to occur.
My favorite conspiracy theory regarding drug legalization is, "the rich" will want to legalize drugs to get rid of "the poor" on the theory that people who've been put out of work by machines are an unnecessary burden, and that widespread use of drugs among such people is a good way to reduce their numbers.
(I don't quite "believe" this theory in the sense of imagining a bunch of rich people sitting in a room, conspiring about this and cackling evilly. I "believe" in this more in the sense of, I think drugs are very bad for you on average and they certainly are the #1 cause of untimely death among the people I've personally known, and I think that the kind of people making policy decisions will not be that upset if large numbers of poorer people are very adversely affected by legalization, any more than they are upset by the adverse effects of draconian prohibition measures.)
(I don't quite "believe" this theory in the sense of imagining a bunch of rich people sitting in a room, conspiring about this and cackling evilly. I "believe" in this more in the sense of, I think drugs are very bad for you on average and they certainly are the #1 cause of untimely death among the people I've personally known, and I think that the kind of people making policy decisions will not be that upset if large numbers of poorer people are very adversely affected by legalization, any more than they are upset by the adverse effects of draconian prohibition measures.)
[deleted](1)
Can't "keep the black men as much as possible in prison" probably also play a "minor" role? War on drugs hits the poor and black communities the most. That is by design - the crack cocaine 100 times as powder cocaine being good example.
What the government knows (legalization with education and rehab being better than current methods) and what it does is normal. The government consists of hundreds of thousands of employees (military, civilian and contractor) plus a small handful of politicians who decide the rules.
Being politicians, it doesn't matter so much what they know as what their constituents want (or believe they want). Which leads to the government being a screwed up, multi-headed entity with many competing and opposing objectives and directives.
Being politicians, it doesn't matter so much what they know as what their constituents want (or believe they want). Which leads to the government being a screwed up, multi-headed entity with many competing and opposing objectives and directives.
They're not the only ones who benefit from the drug war. It's a tool in order to allow for mass incarceration of "undesirable people". The book "The New Jim Crow" by Michelle Alexander really spoke to me as a resident of Philadelphia. I knew full well that if a cop found 1/4oz of weed or less on me, they wouldn't do anything...but if I was black, I'd be put in jail. Now that marijuana has been "decriminalized" (I call it "equalizing" the law because it's now fair for all people) in Philadelphia, that's not as much of a problem in my city...but I'm pretty sure statewide it's still a big problem. Essentially, I think the drug war is a big, lame excuse for putting people in jail.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Jim_Crow
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Jim_Crow
This is actually a very interesting aspect of the dangerous results of having lots of laws and bans. It is like companies which makes long lists of things which can get you fired. List which are such that everybody has done a fireable offense. This allows companies to fire people at their own discretion because they will always have something on you.
Likewise the corruption laws in developing countries seem to largely be about getting rid of political opponents. Everybody is basically guilty of corruption, but only those who are on the wrong side politically actually get prosecuted. Look at Russia, if you cross Putin they can charge you with corruption right away because they no almost everybody has done it.
In this regard laws which masquerade as fighting undesirable things in society really becomes a tool of oppression.
Likewise the corruption laws in developing countries seem to largely be about getting rid of political opponents. Everybody is basically guilty of corruption, but only those who are on the wrong side politically actually get prosecuted. Look at Russia, if you cross Putin they can charge you with corruption right away because they no almost everybody has done it.
In this regard laws which masquerade as fighting undesirable things in society really becomes a tool of oppression.
> why do they persist with it?
I suspect a major cause is that prohibition is a well known method, used to handle other substances which the state wants to limit access to. Narcotics is intended for medicine and research, which makes it easy to regulate to licensed organizations. They use the same method for substances that is used to create explosives, weapon components, radioactive material, and so on. In Sweden, even things like pure alcohol or pure oxygen is regulated and require a license, since the target audience for that is quite narrow.
No one ever got fired for buying IBM, and no politician got blamed if they create regulations that limit use to only the intended target audience. Its not about being effective.
I suspect a major cause is that prohibition is a well known method, used to handle other substances which the state wants to limit access to. Narcotics is intended for medicine and research, which makes it easy to regulate to licensed organizations. They use the same method for substances that is used to create explosives, weapon components, radioactive material, and so on. In Sweden, even things like pure alcohol or pure oxygen is regulated and require a license, since the target audience for that is quite narrow.
No one ever got fired for buying IBM, and no politician got blamed if they create regulations that limit use to only the intended target audience. Its not about being effective.
To your reasons, I'd add financial interests of those involved in the WoD. Think of pre-trial asset confiscation, WoD-based grants to local law enforcement, $ to aerospace companies for WoD surveillance and detection technology, etc.
Legalization would hit many powerful interests in their revenue streams.
Legalization would hit many powerful interests in their revenue streams.
Drugs are also a perfect excuse for anything. Drop a bag of something in someone's car and suddenly they have to prove it's not theirs. They can't, of course, so now anything you do to them is justified.
Did you accidentally beat up the wrong person? Plant drugs on them and charge them with resisting arrest and possession.
Did you accidentally beat up the wrong person? Plant drugs on them and charge them with resisting arrest and possession.
The government is made up of people who respond to incentives. The war on drugs is happening because American voters will crucify politicians who are "soft on drugs". Since the politicians can't be "soft on drugs", neither can the appointed bureaucrats that answer to them.
A lot of people in law enforcement, prisons, CIA and defense industry probably also did a cost-benefit analysis and found that prohibition is a very effective way to keep their jobs.
The prison lobby (guard unions, etc) is actually fairly loud about this. They make a lot of noise around things that put and keep more people in jail. It's way past "probably"!
> This is not a conspiracy
Of course it's a conspiracy.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy
Of course it's a conspiracy.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy
> A few reasons present themselves: Ideological motivations, they just don't like the drugs. The fact that if you terrify the population you can use that as means for greater political control and discipline. And the fact that Tobacco and Alcohol companies would likely suffer as a result of drug legalisation, like cannabis.
I'm sure those are all factors, but I bet the biggest factor is just police forces pushing for huge amounts of federal funding.
I'm sure those are all factors, but I bet the biggest factor is just police forces pushing for huge amounts of federal funding.
Here's what we have in Switzerland:
http://www.premiereligne.ch/quai9/
(basically, a drug user's paradise: a "consumption space" injection rooms, clean drugs available, medical attention and reanimation in case of overdose, therapy programs and support programs with the intention to help people quit drugs without stigmatizing them and pushing them to it).
It is immensely successful. Drug crime becoming nonexistent here. The number of drug users is also decreasing, as drugs are now decriminalized, uncool, readily available and coming with friendly doctors and therapists.
http://www.premiereligne.ch/quai9/
(basically, a drug user's paradise: a "consumption space" injection rooms, clean drugs available, medical attention and reanimation in case of overdose, therapy programs and support programs with the intention to help people quit drugs without stigmatizing them and pushing them to it).
It is immensely successful. Drug crime becoming nonexistent here. The number of drug users is also decreasing, as drugs are now decriminalized, uncool, readily available and coming with friendly doctors and therapists.
Wait, you are talking maybe about heroin addicts beyond saving. But if you just want to buy some weed, you definitely must go to shady characters standing on corners of dark streets in the night, and buy overpriced at-best-mediocre-quality stuff from there (I am not racist or anything, but 100% of them in Geneva are black - that's 5 years of experience). Police guys are constantly patrolling these areas (often with dogs), dealers are super suspicious that you are an undercover cop etc.
if you get caught with tiny amount (< 1g) at the border, you will face harsh fine, full body cavity inspection etc.
Nah, this country is definitely not a paradise, just there are worse places.
if you get caught with tiny amount (< 1g) at the border, you will face harsh fine, full body cavity inspection etc.
Nah, this country is definitely not a paradise, just there are worse places.
Yes, I think it is still illegal to buy and sell marijuana here. And I am not sure if it's possible to smoke a government-issued joint at Quai9. :) Probably not.
But: you can legally grow it for your own consumption!
But: you can legally grow it for your own consumption!
"I am not racist or anything, but 100% of them in Geneva are black - that's 5 years of experience"
...it doesn't seem far of a stretch to make the leap to using your statement here to indicate that you may in fact be racist.
There was no reason to indicate their race, so why do it? Did they have blue eyes, too? What can I infer from shady blue-eyed people on street corners selling me drugs?
...it doesn't seem far of a stretch to make the leap to using your statement here to indicate that you may in fact be racist.
There was no reason to indicate their race, so why do it? Did they have blue eyes, too? What can I infer from shady blue-eyed people on street corners selling me drugs?
Geneva is something like 0.1% black. If in 5 years of buying drugs, you find that ~80% of your dealers are black, then I think you can make the assumption that most drug dealers in Geneva are black. I don't see that as racism - that's just a statement of fact.
Now, if you carried that one step further and said that black people in Geneva are probably drug dealers, then yeah, that's racist...
Now, if you carried that one step further and said that black people in Geneva are probably drug dealers, then yeah, that's racist...
I think the idea is that the racial parenthetical is completely irrelevant. It adds no meaning except to underline the point about "shady characters."
that was not the intent... those guys have probably some tough lives behind them and no future here, living often without permit on the fringe of society. it's just that meeting them in dark alleys after dark, being surrounded by suspicion etc. ain't activity I do for pleasure or some weird kick out of it; just a necessary evil.
Drug use being legal is an intermediary step, but pointless if possession and trade of drugs is illegal. Since you aways have to obtain and possess drugs in order to comsume them, drugs are still illegal. I don't even know based on what law this organization can administer clean drugs. But yes, Switzerland is doing a better job at fighting drug crime than a lot of other countries.
This is handled quite elegantly here.
Possession of drugs remains illegal indeed (we are not talking about marijuana here — this is about "hard" drugs). But you can come to one of Quai9 centres and there are drugs available directly from the government (I am not sure whether for free or for nominal price — perhaps the latter), all of Swiss pharmaceutical quality. Heroin is definitely available (the personnel will try to move heroin addicts to replacement therapy ASAP, but at first, they can continue their habit), not sure about cocaine, but I think it is there as well, as there are mentions of "sniffing places" installed, whatever it is.
Thus, there is no possession and no trade (and it's pointless to engage of criminal trade of something that is legally available from the government).
The same goes with guns. It is legal to own, buy and sell very impressive guns in Switzerland, but it is illegal to own _ammo_ (unless you are hunter, or can prove that you need self-defense — but this is how it is handled in most European countries; Switzerland is different by making actual gun trade legal).
So, how do you fire these guns? Simple: you take one of them, go to the shooting range, and there you can buy some ammo to shoot with (it is very illegal to take it home). Shooting ranges are government-supported and regulated (Swiss government actually encourages citizens to train at shooting ranges).
Possession of drugs remains illegal indeed (we are not talking about marijuana here — this is about "hard" drugs). But you can come to one of Quai9 centres and there are drugs available directly from the government (I am not sure whether for free or for nominal price — perhaps the latter), all of Swiss pharmaceutical quality. Heroin is definitely available (the personnel will try to move heroin addicts to replacement therapy ASAP, but at first, they can continue their habit), not sure about cocaine, but I think it is there as well, as there are mentions of "sniffing places" installed, whatever it is.
Thus, there is no possession and no trade (and it's pointless to engage of criminal trade of something that is legally available from the government).
The same goes with guns. It is legal to own, buy and sell very impressive guns in Switzerland, but it is illegal to own _ammo_ (unless you are hunter, or can prove that you need self-defense — but this is how it is handled in most European countries; Switzerland is different by making actual gun trade legal).
So, how do you fire these guns? Simple: you take one of them, go to the shooting range, and there you can buy some ammo to shoot with (it is very illegal to take it home). Shooting ranges are government-supported and regulated (Swiss government actually encourages citizens to train at shooting ranges).
Fascinating! The Swiss government implemented Chris Rock's suggestion for bullet control. I see a fair number of U.S. second amendment supporters citing Switzerland as an example of a safe society with high levels of weapons ownership, but I've never heard them mention this.
You can own ammo there. Range practice ammo given out in support of the militia requirements can't leave the range.
> The number of drug users is also decreasing, as drugs are now decriminalized, uncool, readily available and coming with friendly doctors and therapists.
I wish this was the norm everywhere.
I wish this was the norm everywhere.
...I was at Sechseläuten a couple of years ago --- an end-of-spring festival where the city of Zürich explodes a snowman --- and was standing behind a couple of people sharing a joint.
The friend who'd taken me there was absolutely livid. He said it was the most incompetently rolled joint he'd ever seen.
Truly, it is a different place here.
(Although the downside is that tobacco smoking is rife and getting away from the smell at bus stops, station platforms etc can hard.)
The friend who'd taken me there was absolutely livid. He said it was the most incompetently rolled joint he'd ever seen.
Truly, it is a different place here.
(Although the downside is that tobacco smoking is rife and getting away from the smell at bus stops, station platforms etc can hard.)
Tobacco smoking is unrelated to other drugs consumption. But yes, in Switzerland it is more popular than in most of the rest of Western Europe and certainly more than in California.
It's becoming better, though. Smoking in bars and restaurants recently been banned — finally we can enjoy our remaining favourite drug — alcohol — without any distractions. :)
It's becoming better, though. Smoking in bars and restaurants recently been banned — finally we can enjoy our remaining favourite drug — alcohol — without any distractions. :)
Portugal seems to be doing better from decriminalising (obviously not the same as legalisation).
Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal-decr...
Source: http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blog/drug-decriminalisation-portugal-...
Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal
Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal-decr...
Source: http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blog/drug-decriminalisation-portugal-...
Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal
I'm Portuguese, so let me give a local perspective. It is important to note that Portugal had a very low crime rate to begin with and, in comparison, drug problems smaller than the US. The experience may not translate directly.
Nevertheless, decriminalization of consumption (not traffic), has allowed drug users to reach out for treatment, which led to better statistics on drug use, better approaches to treatment and an overall decrease in hard-core drug use (cocaine, meth and such). Cannabis use is up from then, but that is perhaps an observation bias (better statistics).
The result of lower hard drug use is a lower crime rate. That effect is clear as water. It is now obvious that most crime had drug use as its cause.
Interestingly, there was a social effect that may be hard to reproduce. Hard drugs fell out of fashion. While cannabis is widespread in youth events, hard drug use is socially shunned. Perhaps the visibility of its effects hit the population, perhaps the relative personal cost became obvious, but it is certainly uncool to be a hard drug user.
Nevertheless, decriminalization of consumption (not traffic), has allowed drug users to reach out for treatment, which led to better statistics on drug use, better approaches to treatment and an overall decrease in hard-core drug use (cocaine, meth and such). Cannabis use is up from then, but that is perhaps an observation bias (better statistics).
The result of lower hard drug use is a lower crime rate. That effect is clear as water. It is now obvious that most crime had drug use as its cause.
Interestingly, there was a social effect that may be hard to reproduce. Hard drugs fell out of fashion. While cannabis is widespread in youth events, hard drug use is socially shunned. Perhaps the visibility of its effects hit the population, perhaps the relative personal cost became obvious, but it is certainly uncool to be a hard drug user.
I've always thought that, in the US, that States could provide a perfect market testing platform for various social ideas.
You don't want abortion? Make Kansas, say, a no abortion state.
Legalized drugs? Head your head to Colorado.
Socialism? Sure New Hampshire is almost there already anyway.
Well, you get the point. It's been proven that actual markets almost always work as well if not better than diktat, so these "experiments" could be monitored and all the rest.
I mean, why not give something totally new a try?
What we have now is killing people and ruining their lives as I personally live through its failings everyday.
You don't want abortion? Make Kansas, say, a no abortion state.
Legalized drugs? Head your head to Colorado.
Socialism? Sure New Hampshire is almost there already anyway.
Well, you get the point. It's been proven that actual markets almost always work as well if not better than diktat, so these "experiments" could be monitored and all the rest.
I mean, why not give something totally new a try?
What we have now is killing people and ruining their lives as I personally live through its failings everyday.
The problem is that a lot of these things are a human rights issue, and large segments of the population aren't sufficiently mobile to move to different states. So if you just allow the states to do whatever, then you're denying a bunch of people, mostly poor, human rights.
Jim Crow laws are an obvious example of that sort of problem. Abortion fits pretty well too. I'd argue that drug laws are another example, although in this case we have the human rights abuses imposed from above, and some individual states trying to break out of it.
Jim Crow laws are an obvious example of that sort of problem. Abortion fits pretty well too. I'd argue that drug laws are another example, although in this case we have the human rights abuses imposed from above, and some individual states trying to break out of it.
The problem is you cannot test economic policy in the states. Social policy, absolutely. But if you try socialism in one state and its neighbor is a tax haven, business interests will just jump over the border and you will see wealth flight. It is too easy to move between states when you have money. It is much, much more complicated to move between countries.
this fact is what makes the experiment perfect. If people all move from one place because of poor policy it will give that state the incentive to adjust their policy. People should have the freedom to chose the goverment that is most inline with their values. Forcing someone to stay somewhere and pay taxes to a say unjust war or something they are morally opposed to seem to be a terrible existence.
The problem is that there may be policies which work well if the population participates in them consistently, but which fall apart if everybody gets to pick and choose. The whole point of government is to do these things.
But if most the people agree that the policies are good and best combination of all the other states wouldn't they pay those taxes voluntarily instead of having to be coursed into paying? That is democracy right? otherwise it seems kinda selective as to whose votes mater the most.
That works if and only if the best individual choice is also the best group choice. This isn't always true, see the Prisoners' Dilemma.
For example, perhaps society benefits when you tax the wealthy to help the poor. But given the choice, the wealthy will move to where their taxes are lower, so that plan works poorly if you let individual states pick and choose.
Or perhaps society benefits when you don't tax the wealthy to help the poor, and make the poor pull themselves up by their bootstraps. But the poor will move to a state with more aid, again defeating the plan.
Obviously there are differences between the states right now, so this isn't a total obstacle. But it really only works to the extent that there is a lack of mobility between the states (people tend to want to stay where they are), or on issues where it doesn't matter.
For example, perhaps society benefits when you tax the wealthy to help the poor. But given the choice, the wealthy will move to where their taxes are lower, so that plan works poorly if you let individual states pick and choose.
Or perhaps society benefits when you don't tax the wealthy to help the poor, and make the poor pull themselves up by their bootstraps. But the poor will move to a state with more aid, again defeating the plan.
Obviously there are differences between the states right now, so this isn't a total obstacle. But it really only works to the extent that there is a lack of mobility between the states (people tend to want to stay where they are), or on issues where it doesn't matter.
Wealth inequality is the perfect example. It is in the best interests of society to keep inequality under control - extreme inequality, like we have today, has negative social and economic implications. But if you are on top, with all the money in the world, why would you ever voluntarily give your money away?
Like the other response said, its prisoners dilemma. It is in the best interests of the rich to pay for honestly a majority stake in the society because they are the ones prospering the most from it. But if any one person of the ownership class can avoid paying, they have an incredible competitive advantage over their peers they will obviously exploit.
Independently, it is never in your best interests to give your money away in taxes. It is always in your best interests to have everyone else pay them but you.
This is why you cannot test any number of policies - basic income, progressive taxation, universal healthcare, amongst many more - because if you are not getting more out of these policies than you put in you have the instant ability to flee from paying for them.
Like the other response said, its prisoners dilemma. It is in the best interests of the rich to pay for honestly a majority stake in the society because they are the ones prospering the most from it. But if any one person of the ownership class can avoid paying, they have an incredible competitive advantage over their peers they will obviously exploit.
Independently, it is never in your best interests to give your money away in taxes. It is always in your best interests to have everyone else pay them but you.
This is why you cannot test any number of policies - basic income, progressive taxation, universal healthcare, amongst many more - because if you are not getting more out of these policies than you put in you have the instant ability to flee from paying for them.
I personally love the idea, but the people in the US have already proven themselves to be impervious to facts, like the ones that would come out of studies like you suggest.
What would happen, the results of the studies would be twisted and no further adoption would happen. It might happen because the media companies don't want whatever it is was shown to be "better". Lobbyists can overcome most facts by sheer force of their donations.
Yeah, it's what has doomed our political process these days.
What would happen, the results of the studies would be twisted and no further adoption would happen. It might happen because the media companies don't want whatever it is was shown to be "better". Lobbyists can overcome most facts by sheer force of their donations.
Yeah, it's what has doomed our political process these days.
> I personally love the idea, but the people in the US have already proven themselves to be impervious to facts..
What a great insight, and yes it would seem that the political aspect and confirmation-bias issues would probably render any results moot.
This the age we live in I guess...seemingly solid oppo research on any subject are just a few clicks away.
What a great insight, and yes it would seem that the political aspect and confirmation-bias issues would probably render any results moot.
This the age we live in I guess...seemingly solid oppo research on any subject are just a few clicks away.
Socialism in New Hampshire? Did you mean Vermont?
Yes I did in fact, but the actual states don't really matter as much as the idea.
I love this idea, and it has a long history. The states are known as the "laboratories of democracy". From Wikipedia[1]:
"Laboratories of democracy is a phrase popularized by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann to describe how a 'state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.' Brandeis was an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States from 1916 to 1939.
"This concept explains how within the federal framework, there exists a system of state autonomy where state and local governments act as social 'laboratories,' where laws and policies are created and tested at the state level of the democratic system, in a manner similar (in theory, at least) to the scientific method."
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratories_of_democracy
"Laboratories of democracy is a phrase popularized by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann to describe how a 'state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.' Brandeis was an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States from 1916 to 1939.
"This concept explains how within the federal framework, there exists a system of state autonomy where state and local governments act as social 'laboratories,' where laws and policies are created and tested at the state level of the democratic system, in a manner similar (in theory, at least) to the scientific method."
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratories_of_democracy
The US works well because it's united at the federal level. What you are suggesting would only work if that level didn't exist.
The US works well for many reasons...being united at the federal level is only one small part of it.
Look of course I am aware of legal issues and all that, but doesn't make sense to enact such sweeping legislation as legalizing drugs or socialism on a small scale first before going national?
Look of course I am aware of legal issues and all that, but doesn't make sense to enact such sweeping legislation as legalizing drugs or socialism on a small scale first before going national?
This is a funny statement to me, since the initial federalization was supposed to exist without predisposing a much greater exercise in states rights than what we see today. (far fewer constraints on state law from federal)
I'd adjust your statement: "What you are suggesting would only work if the level (of federal power we have NOW) didn't exist"
That all being said, I'm not even sure my full level of pessimism is merited; certain states had been independently experimenting with e.g. health care reform 10+ years ago which ended up forming the basis for the ACA. This sort of state based trial seems like it s exactly what the parent was suggesting, and what was alluded to in Brandeis's famous "Laboratories of democracy" quote that seems very apt to this discussion.
I'd adjust your statement: "What you are suggesting would only work if the level (of federal power we have NOW) didn't exist"
That all being said, I'm not even sure my full level of pessimism is merited; certain states had been independently experimenting with e.g. health care reform 10+ years ago which ended up forming the basis for the ACA. This sort of state based trial seems like it s exactly what the parent was suggesting, and what was alluded to in Brandeis's famous "Laboratories of democracy" quote that seems very apt to this discussion.
This is a funny statement to me, since it ignores everything that happened after 1789. The evolution of a more centralized government was the result of conscious decisions by the public and lawmakers to overcome the challenges of a loose confederation.
Hell, the Constitution itself was drafted to solve the problem of arbitrarily differing business rules and trade agreements between the several states.
Hell, the Constitution itself was drafted to solve the problem of arbitrarily differing business rules and trade agreements between the several states.
I'm not sure how anything I said "ignores post 1789". In fact, my statement is precisely calling out that our history is one of incremental codification and precedent forming which has tended to constrain state vs federal power. In fact I feel like I'd be "ignoring" more had I argued the opposite point, that states still had as significant power as they once did, since that power balance was tested as quickly as 2 years later in 1791.
As you say; it was drafted to solve the problem of differing business rules/trade, but the scope was originally VERY limited to interstate commerce. I simply don't see how it can be argued against that the purview has pretty distinctly expanded from then on.
As you say; it was drafted to solve the problem of differing business rules/trade, but the scope was originally VERY limited to interstate commerce. I simply don't see how it can be argued against that the purview has pretty distinctly expanded from then on.
No you're right; I didn't fully comprehend your post. I thought you were disagreeing with the parent post but you were in fact qualifying it. I agree with everything you said.
The best argument I know for legalizing drugs is the market argument. As long as demand exist (obvious, or nobody would care), supply will rise to meet it. Law enforcement tactics that see rising drug prices as a sign of success only make the market more profitable.
While many people engage in the popular delusion that people stop an activity when you pass laws banning, it's patently obvious that banning drugs is about as successful de facto as banning abortions. This means the real question isn't about the existence of a market for drugs.
Instead, laws that affect the market for drugs are about who is allowed to be the "supply" side of the equation. Obviously, some type of regulated market would be recommended if we want to have any amount of control over the market. Instead, we pass laws that ban legitimate businesses from entering this market, which is by definition a choice to turn the drug market over to criminals. By definition.
I suggest that choosing to give organized crime and violent gangs the profits from this high-value market. Usually, this is when prohibitionists claim that they can force the market to not exist by giving the supply side even more profit with ever stricter enforcement.
While many people engage in the popular delusion that people stop an activity when you pass laws banning, it's patently obvious that banning drugs is about as successful de facto as banning abortions. This means the real question isn't about the existence of a market for drugs.
Instead, laws that affect the market for drugs are about who is allowed to be the "supply" side of the equation. Obviously, some type of regulated market would be recommended if we want to have any amount of control over the market. Instead, we pass laws that ban legitimate businesses from entering this market, which is by definition a choice to turn the drug market over to criminals. By definition.
I suggest that choosing to give organized crime and violent gangs the profits from this high-value market. Usually, this is when prohibitionists claim that they can force the market to not exist by giving the supply side even more profit with ever stricter enforcement.
And when the market is more profitable, it becomes more worth your while to engage in violent crime in order to further your drug-dealing interests. Fast food franchises generally don't engage in turf wars, and that's because fast food is a low-margin business. If dealing drugs becomes similarly low-margin, I suspect that will deal with a lot of drug-related violence.
There's a strong parallel between drug policy and sex education policy. If you acknowledge that sex is a thing people are simply going to do and you give them the information they need to do it safely and throw in a free condom or two, STDs and unwanted pregnancies are kept under good control. If your policy is "you don't need education and condoms if you just don't do it!" then STDs and unwanted pregnancies soar.
In the case of drugs, it is clear that people will use them regardless. So the question for policymakers can't be "how do we stop people using drugs?", it has to be "given that people will use drugs, how do we minimise the harm caused?"
The other interesting parallel is ashtrays in aeroplane toilets. Supposedly they're there because sometimes, despite the warnings and no-smoking signs, people light up in the loo anyway. It's better for them to have an ashtray to put the cigarette out in than to try to improvise and possibly start a fire. In a situation where a planeload of passenger's lives could be at stake, there's no room for moral grandstanding - they've done the pragmatic thing and realised that when total prohibition cannot be enforced, you simply do what you can to minimise the damage.
In the case of drugs, it is clear that people will use them regardless. So the question for policymakers can't be "how do we stop people using drugs?", it has to be "given that people will use drugs, how do we minimise the harm caused?"
The other interesting parallel is ashtrays in aeroplane toilets. Supposedly they're there because sometimes, despite the warnings and no-smoking signs, people light up in the loo anyway. It's better for them to have an ashtray to put the cigarette out in than to try to improvise and possibly start a fire. In a situation where a planeload of passenger's lives could be at stake, there's no room for moral grandstanding - they've done the pragmatic thing and realised that when total prohibition cannot be enforced, you simply do what you can to minimise the damage.
> how do we minimise the harm caused?"
I know one: we advertise drugs in movies and on billboards and put a liquor store on every other street corner, Oughta show'em.
I know one: we advertise drugs in movies and on billboards and put a liquor store on every other street corner, Oughta show'em.
New video on drug war by Kurzgesagt (excellent to get an overview): https://youtu.be/wJUXLqNHCaI
Kurzgesagt videos are the best. I found this one very helpful.
I love how all these world leaders always come out for drug legalization after they are out of power. Great timing.
Actually the UN thinks this already but politics got in the way of a statement being released:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11940643/United...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11940643/United...
One problem is that some people's careers in law enforcement are built on the "war on drugs". They need drugs to be illegal in order to justify the existence of their jobs and the meaning of their entire working lives so far.
legalize, standardize, regulate, tax, repeat. Why is this so difficult to understand?
Politics, dogma, corruption, racism. This is what prevents your logical conclusion.
We have enough problems with already legalized and standardized drugs: alcohol and tobacco. It is not wise to let smokers to increase burden on society.
You don't reduce usage of drugs by criminalising them. That's what this article is all about. If you're interested in seeing the negative effects of drug use decrease, then you should be looking at other approaches other than criminalisation.
> By contrast, there has been a near tripling of American deaths from heroin overdoses between 2010 and 2013, even though the law and its severe punishments remain unchanged.
But why heroin usage has raised?
I have read an (very convincing) argument that heroin usage is increasing due to the marijuana legalization. And no, it's not the typical "marijuana is a door the heavier drugs" thing, is merely supply and demand effect on the streets. Street dealers don't really sell weed as they used to now that better and legal weed exist, so they went on heroin. Heroin got a lot cheaper and widely available due to it (Unfortunately, I lost the article link).
I'm not arguing in favor or against legalization (I'm in favor all the way), my complain is how one folded the debate is. Numbers are great and they are definitely needed, but they may trick you into thinking that everything has a simple cause and effect when reality is much more complicated.
One striking example how lazy is legislation is the case of safer chemicals such as LSD or MDMA versus designer drugs such as 25i (nbomb). In some places such designer drugs are even legal (bath salts anyone?) due to how slow or careless the legislation is. As for LSD it's a long time in prison. The dealers are coerced to sell more dangerous substances.
But why heroin usage has raised?
I have read an (very convincing) argument that heroin usage is increasing due to the marijuana legalization. And no, it's not the typical "marijuana is a door the heavier drugs" thing, is merely supply and demand effect on the streets. Street dealers don't really sell weed as they used to now that better and legal weed exist, so they went on heroin. Heroin got a lot cheaper and widely available due to it (Unfortunately, I lost the article link).
I'm not arguing in favor or against legalization (I'm in favor all the way), my complain is how one folded the debate is. Numbers are great and they are definitely needed, but they may trick you into thinking that everything has a simple cause and effect when reality is much more complicated.
One striking example how lazy is legislation is the case of safer chemicals such as LSD or MDMA versus designer drugs such as 25i (nbomb). In some places such designer drugs are even legal (bath salts anyone?) due to how slow or careless the legislation is. As for LSD it's a long time in prison. The dealers are coerced to sell more dangerous substances.
"Street dealers don't really sell weed as they used to now that better and legal weed exist, so they went on heroin."
This is an extremely misguided statement. The demand for high quality weed has never been higher. It doesn't matter if you legalize it, because you are still taxing it 50%. The individual sellers and producers will keep doing their thing. I can tell you right now that people who sell weed don't just magically start selling heroin. The types of people who sell weed are TOTALLY different that the types of people who sell heroin.
Yes, some people exist who sell both - but those types of dealers have been selling every kind of drug they can get their hands on and will never stop.
I think you need to take another look at the supply and demand of high quality marijuana. It is hard to consistently produce high quality marijuana - and once you do cure it correctly and get it packaged, it flies off the shelf as fast as you can answer your phone, regardless of if you are in a state where it is legal or not. Furthermore, there are many people who deliver marijuana on bikes and in cars and make a very good living. These people are not going to loose business to legal dispensaries I can guarantee you. There is always demand for reliable dealers who deliver high quality to you asap. Independent producers and dealers will be able to consistently undercut dispensary prices because the government is taxing it 50%. Combined with the value of delivery and you are not going to see marijuana dealers switch to selling heroin because weed is legalized.... it doesnt work that way. Two completely different clientele/lifestyle/risk factors.
This is an extremely misguided statement. The demand for high quality weed has never been higher. It doesn't matter if you legalize it, because you are still taxing it 50%. The individual sellers and producers will keep doing their thing. I can tell you right now that people who sell weed don't just magically start selling heroin. The types of people who sell weed are TOTALLY different that the types of people who sell heroin.
Yes, some people exist who sell both - but those types of dealers have been selling every kind of drug they can get their hands on and will never stop.
I think you need to take another look at the supply and demand of high quality marijuana. It is hard to consistently produce high quality marijuana - and once you do cure it correctly and get it packaged, it flies off the shelf as fast as you can answer your phone, regardless of if you are in a state where it is legal or not. Furthermore, there are many people who deliver marijuana on bikes and in cars and make a very good living. These people are not going to loose business to legal dispensaries I can guarantee you. There is always demand for reliable dealers who deliver high quality to you asap. Independent producers and dealers will be able to consistently undercut dispensary prices because the government is taxing it 50%. Combined with the value of delivery and you are not going to see marijuana dealers switch to selling heroin because weed is legalized.... it doesnt work that way. Two completely different clientele/lifestyle/risk factors.
> The demand for high quality weed has never been higher.
A minor point, but cannabis use has gone down.
A minor point, but cannabis use has gone down.
Sources?
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...
Key findings, page 1
> Around 1 in 12 (8.6%) adults aged 16 to 59 had taken an illicit drug in the last year. This equated to around 2.8 million people. This level of drug use was similar to the 2013/14 survey (8.8%), but significantly lower than a decade ago (11.2% in the 2004/05 survey).
Cannabis, page 3 (The chart on that page is pretty clear.)
> As in previous years, cannabis was the most commonly used drug in the last year, with 6.7 per cent of adults aged 16 to 59 using it in the last year, similar to the 2013/14 survey (6.6%; Figure 1.2). Over the longer-term, between the 1998 and 2003/04 surveys, the last year use of cannabis was stable, at around 10 per cent of adults, before falling to 6.5 per cent in 2009/10. The trend since the 2009/10 survey has been relatively flat, at between six and seven per cent (Table 1.02).
> Among younger adults aged 16 to 24, cannabis was also the most commonly used drug, with 16.3 per cent having used it in the last year. This was not statistically significantly different from the level in 2013/14 (15.1%), but was a significant fall compared with the 1996 survey (25.8%).
> Although the trend in the use of cannabis among 16 to 24 year olds appears to have shown a steady increase compared with the 2012/13 survey, it is too early to conclude that this is an emerging pattern at this stage. The estimates from the 2012/13 survey appear to be out of line with recent results, and a comparison of the latest estimate to previous years may indicate that the trend, which has been falling since the peak in 1998, has gradually stabilised (Table 1.06).
For the US: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/13/teen-marijuana-use-... (sorry about huffpo. CDC need to have a better website.)
> The biennial High School Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System survey from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention revealed that the rate of marijuana use among U.S. high school students remained virtually unchanged from 2011 to 2013. It's also about 3 percent less than the peak of teen marijuana use in 1999, when nearly 27 percent of teens said they had recently used marijuana, according to the CDC data.
> In 2013, 23.4 percent of American high-school-aged teens used marijuana one or more times in the 30 days before the survey, the data show. That's nearly even with 23.1 percent in 2011.
Key findings, page 1
> Around 1 in 12 (8.6%) adults aged 16 to 59 had taken an illicit drug in the last year. This equated to around 2.8 million people. This level of drug use was similar to the 2013/14 survey (8.8%), but significantly lower than a decade ago (11.2% in the 2004/05 survey).
Cannabis, page 3 (The chart on that page is pretty clear.)
> As in previous years, cannabis was the most commonly used drug in the last year, with 6.7 per cent of adults aged 16 to 59 using it in the last year, similar to the 2013/14 survey (6.6%; Figure 1.2). Over the longer-term, between the 1998 and 2003/04 surveys, the last year use of cannabis was stable, at around 10 per cent of adults, before falling to 6.5 per cent in 2009/10. The trend since the 2009/10 survey has been relatively flat, at between six and seven per cent (Table 1.02).
> Among younger adults aged 16 to 24, cannabis was also the most commonly used drug, with 16.3 per cent having used it in the last year. This was not statistically significantly different from the level in 2013/14 (15.1%), but was a significant fall compared with the 1996 survey (25.8%).
> Although the trend in the use of cannabis among 16 to 24 year olds appears to have shown a steady increase compared with the 2012/13 survey, it is too early to conclude that this is an emerging pattern at this stage. The estimates from the 2012/13 survey appear to be out of line with recent results, and a comparison of the latest estimate to previous years may indicate that the trend, which has been falling since the peak in 1998, has gradually stabilised (Table 1.06).
For the US: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/13/teen-marijuana-use-... (sorry about huffpo. CDC need to have a better website.)
> The biennial High School Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System survey from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention revealed that the rate of marijuana use among U.S. high school students remained virtually unchanged from 2011 to 2013. It's also about 3 percent less than the peak of teen marijuana use in 1999, when nearly 27 percent of teens said they had recently used marijuana, according to the CDC data.
> In 2013, 23.4 percent of American high-school-aged teens used marijuana one or more times in the 30 days before the survey, the data show. That's nearly even with 23.1 percent in 2011.
The US drug stats have their own government web site:
https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/nationwide-...
https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/nationwide-...
> The demand for high quality weed has never been higher.
That's my point too. And I believe that this increase in demand for high quality weed made many street dealers that sell shitty weed go for heroin. Now heroin is a cheap and common option at your local street corner.
> (...) those types of dealers have been selling every kind of drug they can get their hands on and will never stop.
Exactly. As you put it, they will never stop. It's time to realize that and include them on the equation. Why there aren't policies coercing the typical street dealer to sell safer drugs rather than weird dangerous experimental stuff (like on LSD vs Nbomb)?
That's my point too. And I believe that this increase in demand for high quality weed made many street dealers that sell shitty weed go for heroin. Now heroin is a cheap and common option at your local street corner.
> (...) those types of dealers have been selling every kind of drug they can get their hands on and will never stop.
Exactly. As you put it, they will never stop. It's time to realize that and include them on the equation. Why there aren't policies coercing the typical street dealer to sell safer drugs rather than weird dangerous experimental stuff (like on LSD vs Nbomb)?
I guess to clarify is that what I see (Minneapolis-based) is that weed dealers tend to deal strictly with weed, and the other type of dealer just sells anything and everything they can get their hands on.
Furthermore, the weed dealers I know who have been doing it for 10 years+ have no intentions to stop making money when it is legalized here at some point. They are not going to start selling heroin.
In Minneapolis all of our high quality weed basically gets driven here from LA/Colorado/Anywhere people have grow houses. The keyword here is "high quality". Anybody selling low quality weed is definitely selling coke/heroin as well. That's just the nature of the market here.
I guess I am kind of rambling but I find the economics of black markets fascinating. My main point is that I contend your claim that street dealers who sell shitty weed are now "switching" to heroin. This is just not true, and doesnt make sense. If you are selling heroin, you are one of those dealers who will sell ANYTHING you can get your hands on, including shitty weed/good weed/coke/whaetever. Once a dealer decides to sell things that come with heavy jail time then they dont give a fuck what they are selling. They are just in it for the $$$
Furthermore, the weed dealers I know who have been doing it for 10 years+ have no intentions to stop making money when it is legalized here at some point. They are not going to start selling heroin.
In Minneapolis all of our high quality weed basically gets driven here from LA/Colorado/Anywhere people have grow houses. The keyword here is "high quality". Anybody selling low quality weed is definitely selling coke/heroin as well. That's just the nature of the market here.
I guess I am kind of rambling but I find the economics of black markets fascinating. My main point is that I contend your claim that street dealers who sell shitty weed are now "switching" to heroin. This is just not true, and doesnt make sense. If you are selling heroin, you are one of those dealers who will sell ANYTHING you can get your hands on, including shitty weed/good weed/coke/whaetever. Once a dealer decides to sell things that come with heavy jail time then they dont give a fuck what they are selling. They are just in it for the $$$
> Once a dealer decides to sell things that come with heavy jail time then they dont give a fuck what they are selling. They are just in it for the $$$
They just don't care for the penalty (jail time) so they will sell anything for money, there's nothing we can do about it. This thinking is precisely what I'm criticizing, this one folded way to analyze the problem.
Let's take LSD vs Nbomb example once again. Making LSD is extremely hard specially because how hard is to find the ingredients. Nbomb is a piece of cake. Here's an example which there's nothing to do with addiction or punishment, it's just the plain practicality of dealing with the substances.
Maybe there's a way to set up an environment where the law breakers would still do it while causing less harm on society. That's the discussion I'm missing, how we coerce the bad guys to not be so bad.
They just don't care for the penalty (jail time) so they will sell anything for money, there's nothing we can do about it. This thinking is precisely what I'm criticizing, this one folded way to analyze the problem.
Let's take LSD vs Nbomb example once again. Making LSD is extremely hard specially because how hard is to find the ingredients. Nbomb is a piece of cake. Here's an example which there's nothing to do with addiction or punishment, it's just the plain practicality of dealing with the substances.
Maybe there's a way to set up an environment where the law breakers would still do it while causing less harm on society. That's the discussion I'm missing, how we coerce the bad guys to not be so bad.
Making Oxycontin harder to get is why. Also people trying to get clean, then going back to doing their "old" dose.
Yes, exactly, on both points.
According to the CDC, opioid painkillers addicts are 40 times more likely to be addicted to heroin than general population. “Most heroin users have a history of nonmedical use of prescription opioid pain relievers, and an increase in the rate of heroin overdose deaths has occurred concurrently with an epidemic of prescription opioid overdoses."
I can't say opioid painkillers are the only reason, but the experts seem to agree they're, at least, a major contributing factor.
I was listening to a social worker discuss the problem recently. His experience was that most new heroin addicts started on opioid painkillers, often with legitimate prescriptions, and weren't hard drug users previously. When their doctor refused to prescribe more painkillers (or the pills they were stealing from mom ran out, etc.), they turned to the black market, where it's much easier to obtain heroin than painkillers. He estimated 90% of his cases fit this pattern of prescription drugs being the gateway to heroin.
This same guy also discussed how a lot of overdoses he saw were from recovered heroin addicts that relapsed after being prescribed an opioid painkiller for a legitimate need, e.g., after an injury. As you say, they went back to their "old dose," without realizing a) their tolerance was lower and b) black market heroin is typically much better quality and a wider range of qualities these days. In the 80's (and 90's I think) heroin was usually <10% pure (i.e., 90% filler/other), but heroin on the streets today is often around 30% but sometimes as high as 70%. I don't remember the exact numbers, something close to that. He said you could tell when a super pure batch of heroin came through town, because overdoses would spike.
Another factor I've read, can't remember where, is that the higher quality heroin has made snorting it more feasible. So, that reduces some of the stigma/ickiness associated with needles, trackmarks, etc., increasing the pool of people who'll try it. And it can be easier to overdose via snorting, because it takes several minutes to feel the full effects, unlike injecting.
According to the CDC, opioid painkillers addicts are 40 times more likely to be addicted to heroin than general population. “Most heroin users have a history of nonmedical use of prescription opioid pain relievers, and an increase in the rate of heroin overdose deaths has occurred concurrently with an epidemic of prescription opioid overdoses."
I can't say opioid painkillers are the only reason, but the experts seem to agree they're, at least, a major contributing factor.
I was listening to a social worker discuss the problem recently. His experience was that most new heroin addicts started on opioid painkillers, often with legitimate prescriptions, and weren't hard drug users previously. When their doctor refused to prescribe more painkillers (or the pills they were stealing from mom ran out, etc.), they turned to the black market, where it's much easier to obtain heroin than painkillers. He estimated 90% of his cases fit this pattern of prescription drugs being the gateway to heroin.
This same guy also discussed how a lot of overdoses he saw were from recovered heroin addicts that relapsed after being prescribed an opioid painkiller for a legitimate need, e.g., after an injury. As you say, they went back to their "old dose," without realizing a) their tolerance was lower and b) black market heroin is typically much better quality and a wider range of qualities these days. In the 80's (and 90's I think) heroin was usually <10% pure (i.e., 90% filler/other), but heroin on the streets today is often around 30% but sometimes as high as 70%. I don't remember the exact numbers, something close to that. He said you could tell when a super pure batch of heroin came through town, because overdoses would spike.
Another factor I've read, can't remember where, is that the higher quality heroin has made snorting it more feasible. So, that reduces some of the stigma/ickiness associated with needles, trackmarks, etc., increasing the pool of people who'll try it. And it can be easier to overdose via snorting, because it takes several minutes to feel the full effects, unlike injecting.
We were taught both sides of the story in our "drug diversion impact on public health" classes. Decriminalisation opens opportunities up to reduce harm to the public through reduced drug-related crimes, safer injecting (of the hard stuff) and less blood-borne viruses spreading. Australia has its own version of decriminalization known as the "harm minimisation policy". While all drug-related activities are illegal there, the judicial and healthcare systems are not so black and white about enforcing the laws.
Nonetheless, the other hand always wants its share. In the case of Australia, harm minimisation has reduced drug-related crimes, but the prevalence of drug use in the general population continues to rise, especially with regard to pills and amphetamines. Blood borne viruses are also on the rise, despite the ubiquity of safe injecting rooms in every major city and availability of "sharps kits" in every retail pharmacy.
Interestingly, the conservative party temporarily swayed from this stance and implemented a "tough on drugs" policy for part of the 90s[1]. It was dubbed to the wider public as a "harm prevention" measure i.e. protecting those yet to experiment with drugs and the wider community that didn't use illicit drugs regularly. There was a significant reduction in every measure: drug use, drug crime and spread of blood-borne viruses. This policy did not cut safe injecting and drug use services, but increased police activity and ephemeral "say no to drugs" cut-through education programs. The policy was reversed in the early 2000s.
[1] https://www.unodc.org/documents/ungass2016/Contributions/Civ...
Nonetheless, the other hand always wants its share. In the case of Australia, harm minimisation has reduced drug-related crimes, but the prevalence of drug use in the general population continues to rise, especially with regard to pills and amphetamines. Blood borne viruses are also on the rise, despite the ubiquity of safe injecting rooms in every major city and availability of "sharps kits" in every retail pharmacy.
Interestingly, the conservative party temporarily swayed from this stance and implemented a "tough on drugs" policy for part of the 90s[1]. It was dubbed to the wider public as a "harm prevention" measure i.e. protecting those yet to experiment with drugs and the wider community that didn't use illicit drugs regularly. There was a significant reduction in every measure: drug use, drug crime and spread of blood-borne viruses. This policy did not cut safe injecting and drug use services, but increased police activity and ephemeral "say no to drugs" cut-through education programs. The policy was reversed in the early 2000s.
[1] https://www.unodc.org/documents/ungass2016/Contributions/Civ...
ALL drugs should be legal. At least in the sense that using is not a criminal offence. Once drugs are legalised, regulated, quality assured by the government, and of course taxed, a large proportion of crime will be eradicated. Why would I buy illegal dirty drugs when I can buy the cleaner official versions?
Lots of money in law enforcement, prisons, etc.
Just like getting simple tax code, lots of accountants/lawyers, etc.
Just like getting simple tax code, lots of accountants/lawyers, etc.
I think if drugs themselves were legalized, non-violent drug offenders pardoned, and then former drug trafficking cartels treated legally as terrorist organizations - we would get somewhere. I really have no problem tight packing prisons if it's full of violent thugs. The only problem is how this could potentially affect the second amendment - because the war on drugs would no longer be on unarmed drug users, it would be solely on violence. Using an umbrella term like terrorism to encompass the actions of cartel gang members could potentially lead to further racial divides. It's tough. But legalize pot please, ha!
Treating terrorist organizations like terrorist organizations hasn't really helped either. The war on terror, is just as failed as the war on drugs. Basically the hard nosed simple approaches never work. You got to look and underlying causes and deal with those. But that is too intricate so people don't want to listen to such solutions.
Problem with tight packing is that lots of the criminals wont be violent but will become in these prisons, and those who are violent will become even more so. Unless you plan building prisons only for life sentences these people will come out of prison more violent and messed up than ever. That hardly a receipt for a more peaceful society.
As long as people are going to get out at some point, you can't ignore what happens to them while they are incarcerated.
Problem with tight packing is that lots of the criminals wont be violent but will become in these prisons, and those who are violent will become even more so. Unless you plan building prisons only for life sentences these people will come out of prison more violent and messed up than ever. That hardly a receipt for a more peaceful society.
As long as people are going to get out at some point, you can't ignore what happens to them while they are incarcerated.
What about people that are involved in illegal drug industry after legalizing drugs? Most of them know only how to deal drugs, know only crime, they will need to find new way to make money and probably it will not be a legal one.
So i don't know if it's better that someone stay on corner and sell cocaine to people that WANT cocaine, without (in most cases) hurt anyone else in the process OR make that person steal, extort etc.
The beauty of drug dealing (from a criminal's perspective) is that it's easy and profitable - there's a high demand from customers willing to spend a lot of money on drugs, and enforcement is very poor (judging from the ease end-users can buy drugs). Prostitution is very similar. So, if you legalize all businesses with which criminals easily earn a lot of money, a lot of them will be economically incentivised to start participating in legal businesses.
And the alternative ways to make money for a self respecting criminal are getting harder every day. Cars are more difficult to steal, people use a lot less cash, you have CCTVs everywhere, now the police even collects DNA for a robbery. I can't think of an obvious substitute to drug trafficking for these criminals. I would be also ready to bet that Tinder must have made a dent in the prostitution trade!
But not all drug traffickers are Tony Montanas, there are legions of petty criminals, or even workers who make money on the side dealing drugs.
But not all drug traffickers are Tony Montanas, there are legions of petty criminals, or even workers who make money on the side dealing drugs.
They could always open a bank or become a hedge fund manager...
[deleted]
On some level the premise of your statement is not totally incorrect. As a result of legalalized weed, It has been reported that Mexican cartels have moved to other sources of revenue such as kidnapping [1].
One of the main goals of legalization is to starve black market actors of revenue. Extortion and kidnapping don't scale nearly as well as dope; therefore they are orders of magnitude less profitable.
1.http://fusion.net/story/108575/how-mexican-drug-cartels-are-...
One of the main goals of legalization is to starve black market actors of revenue. Extortion and kidnapping don't scale nearly as well as dope; therefore they are orders of magnitude less profitable.
1.http://fusion.net/story/108575/how-mexican-drug-cartels-are-...
> without (in most cases) hurt anyone else
Surely you don't think the only victim in the drug trafficking industry are actually drug users?
Surely you don't think the only victim in the drug trafficking industry are actually drug users?
I am pro legalization but I would never see a drug user as a victim. No more than an alcoholic driving a car is a victim. The flip side of freedom is responsibility. The state will not make decisions for you, and therefore you are responsible for your own decisions. It's not like if the long term effects of drugs aren't well and widely known.
One of the biggest problems with drugs is the addictiveness. You seem to have no problem with addictions, so let me inform you. It fucking sucks. Your entirely of being is focused on getting to that next respite of peace that only some substance seems to be able to provide. Goals? Fuck em. Job? Who cares. Commit crimes for cash? Absolutely.
The problem with hardcore drug use is that it literally strips you of your decision making capabilities. Many people describe it as a secondary being within their body, for damn good reason.
The only reason I ended up 'normal' and not an addict is that I had the support system in place to deal with the underlying issues that caused my reckless behaviour, before they led somewhere I had no coming back from.
My addiction started with Adderall, prescribed by a doctor.
The problem with hardcore drug use is that it literally strips you of your decision making capabilities. Many people describe it as a secondary being within their body, for damn good reason.
The only reason I ended up 'normal' and not an addict is that I had the support system in place to deal with the underlying issues that caused my reckless behaviour, before they led somewhere I had no coming back from.
My addiction started with Adderall, prescribed by a doctor.
I agree but once the drug user is addicted it is too late. Addiction as a result of a treatment is a different matter. But the responsibility is for a user to chose to consume recreational drugs in the knowledge of the large risk of addiction and long term effects on the brain. These risks are widely known, and there is almost not a single movie that doesn't depict drug users as junkies. People should be free to take their chance nevertheless but I don't see them as victims.
That's, to the extent it's an issue at all, a short term problem that you need to accept at some point if you want to stop creating new criminals of that sort through drug prohibition.
And rehabilitating criminals in the criminal justice system becomes easier when drug-war-induced overcrowding of the prison system is reduced.
And rehabilitating criminals in the criminal justice system becomes easier when drug-war-induced overcrowding of the prison system is reduced.
> Most of them know only how to deal drugs, know only crime, they will need to find new way to make money and probably it will not be a legal one.
This entire sentence is constructed of wild, unsubstantiated assumptions, strung together one after the other.
There's no part of this that resonates with my experience of the world, nor with the apparent fact pattern of the end of prohibition in places where prohibition has been materially ended.
This entire sentence is constructed of wild, unsubstantiated assumptions, strung together one after the other.
There's no part of this that resonates with my experience of the world, nor with the apparent fact pattern of the end of prohibition in places where prohibition has been materially ended.
Forget questions of legality.
Stop and ask this question: Why do we as a society need more and more and MORE mind-altering substances to cope with life?
Seriously.
Is society headed in the right direction if almost everyone needs some type of external chemical influence just to get through the week?
I already have an answer.
Stop and ask this question: Why do we as a society need more and more and MORE mind-altering substances to cope with life?
Seriously.
Is society headed in the right direction if almost everyone needs some type of external chemical influence just to get through the week?
I already have an answer.
Forget your answer.
Stop and ask this question: Why do we as a society need more and more and MORE stimuli to cope with life?
Seriously.
Is society headed in the right direction if almost everyone needs some type of external influence just to get through the week?
I already have a answer.
Problem is, every time you fire up a computer or a phone or a TV, you're seeking a stimulus which is going to fire off chemical signals in your brain. Your mind CRAVES the stuff. You COULD just sit around creating things all the time and stimulating yourself, but that's not convenient, is it? Drugs just eliminate the bullshit by applying direct stimulus without the idiot boxes, or obviously unnecessary items like books or live performances.
Oh, and drop the coffee and tea. And sugar. And salt. And any food that tastes good. You don't need those either. External chemical influences, after all.
Stop and ask this question: Why do we as a society need more and more and MORE stimuli to cope with life?
Seriously.
Is society headed in the right direction if almost everyone needs some type of external influence just to get through the week?
I already have a answer.
Problem is, every time you fire up a computer or a phone or a TV, you're seeking a stimulus which is going to fire off chemical signals in your brain. Your mind CRAVES the stuff. You COULD just sit around creating things all the time and stimulating yourself, but that's not convenient, is it? Drugs just eliminate the bullshit by applying direct stimulus without the idiot boxes, or obviously unnecessary items like books or live performances.
Oh, and drop the coffee and tea. And sugar. And salt. And any food that tastes good. You don't need those either. External chemical influences, after all.
Sure. Food and spices are the same as heroin and marijuana.
Ha ha. You're funny.
Ha ha. You're funny.
Ha ha. You're ignorant. They're stimulants. If tomorrow all sugar and salt were banned, you'd have the same sort of violent cartels importing them illegally.
> Stop and ask this question: Why do we as a society need more and more and MORE mind-altering substances to cope with life?
Citation needed.
> Is society headed in the right direction if almost everyone needs some type of external chemical influence just to get through the week?
Who are you to decide what the "right direction" is, for anyone but yourself? Right vs Wrong is a moral judgement, not a legal one. No one should have the right to tell me what I (or anyone else) can put into my body. On a similar note, I think assisted suicide should be legal as well, but that's a discussion for another day.
Citation needed.
> Is society headed in the right direction if almost everyone needs some type of external chemical influence just to get through the week?
Who are you to decide what the "right direction" is, for anyone but yourself? Right vs Wrong is a moral judgement, not a legal one. No one should have the right to tell me what I (or anyone else) can put into my body. On a similar note, I think assisted suicide should be legal as well, but that's a discussion for another day.
Believe me. People everywhere who think just like you have decided what the right direction is.
Answer me this: Have you ever consumed an alcoholic beverage? Have you ever consumed alcohol to the point of intoxication?
Well, if you answered yes, then you used a mind-altering substance / external chemical influence for your personal enjoyment. Don't you deserve jail for this? I mean, shouldn't you have been able resist the urge to intoxicate yourself, and instead pushed yourself in the "right direction" of sobriety? Since you failed at this, we might as well throw the book at you for it, right?
Alternately, if you answered "no" to my above question(s), then you're a liar and you can see yourself out.
Well, if you answered yes, then you used a mind-altering substance / external chemical influence for your personal enjoyment. Don't you deserve jail for this? I mean, shouldn't you have been able resist the urge to intoxicate yourself, and instead pushed yourself in the "right direction" of sobriety? Since you failed at this, we might as well throw the book at you for it, right?
Alternately, if you answered "no" to my above question(s), then you're a liar and you can see yourself out.
How nice of you to be so presumptuous.
he did not say this when he still had anything to say. he could have made a difference.
nitpick but important: it's time to decriminalize, not legalize.
The distinction is that we need to maintain a government force to compel the non-use of drugs that cause public harm. We need to make drug-use punishable, on the level of littering, trespass, vandalism, and disturbing the peace.
We need to be able to confine people who lose control of themselves and cause public harm when they are high, or in service of their high, but that confinement should be treatment oriented, not punishment oriented.
The distinction is that we need to maintain a government force to compel the non-use of drugs that cause public harm. We need to make drug-use punishable, on the level of littering, trespass, vandalism, and disturbing the peace.
We need to be able to confine people who lose control of themselves and cause public harm when they are high, or in service of their high, but that confinement should be treatment oriented, not punishment oriented.
> The distinction is that we need to maintain a government force to compel the non-use of drugs that cause public harm. We need to make drug-use punishable, on the level of littering, trespass, vandalism, and disturbing the peace.
All of those except littering are generally nontrivial crimes (misdemeanors or felonies, not infractions), so making drug use punishable "on the level of" those is not only not legalization, its also not decriminalization.
(Actually, since drug use isn't generally criminal now -- possession, which is usually a prerequisite to use, is -- it would just be plain criminalization of drug use.)
All of those except littering are generally nontrivial crimes (misdemeanors or felonies, not infractions), so making drug use punishable "on the level of" those is not only not legalization, its also not decriminalization.
(Actually, since drug use isn't generally criminal now -- possession, which is usually a prerequisite to use, is -- it would just be plain criminalization of drug use.)
[deleted]
It's cowardly to display these opinions after you have left office. When he had any kind of power to do anything, he toed the line.
It will be interesting to see what happens when we reach a position where virtual drugs are possible, or virtual reality can be as addictive and detrimental to ones life as being addicted to chemicals.
Can you ban math(s)?
Can you ban math(s)?
We have already had a virtual drug in widespread use since the 1940s: television. You can hook TV watchers up to scanners to see just how much it alters their brain patterns. Its effects aren't even subtle when it comes to their physical behavior either, it's just so culturally accepted to be "couch surfing" as to be perceived as normal.
If tens of millions of people took a pill and sat basically unmoving for upwards of three hours each day, experiencing the lightshow generated by their own mind in concert with the pill, the squares would be in an uproar!
If tens of millions of people took a pill and sat basically unmoving for upwards of three hours each day, experiencing the lightshow generated by their own mind in concert with the pill, the squares would be in an uproar!
In terms of banning mathematics, the UK Government is trying its hardest to outlaw strong encryption, so...
Decriminalising ganja will also boost textile industry.
Not really, since the textile plants are of different varieties of canabis, and already allowed in lots of countries.
I actually tried to make a business plan on that in one country. To my surprise there is a huge burden of proving what exact varieties are you growing and your entire textile crops can be destroyed by police raid just out of suspicion.
No one loves freedom anymore.
[deleted]
What about the fact that drugs are incompatible with the lifestyle we want our society to have? Isn't it better instead of legalizing them to find the root cause which is forcing these people to seek escapism from reality in psychoactive substances?
I don't want to live in a society of drug addicts, I want to live among people of sound mind, body and spirit, who conduct themselves honestly and honourable among their peers.
I don't want to live in a society of drug addicts, I want to live among people of sound mind, body and spirit, who conduct themselves honestly and honourable among their peers.
> What about the fact that drugs are incompatible with the lifestyle we want our society to have? Isn't it better instead of legalizing them to find the root cause which is forcing these people to seek escapism from reality in psychoactive substances?
Should we be fighting all forms of escapism? Movies, books, comics, computer games? Daydreaming?
If not, why are "drugs" different?
Does this apply to all psychoactive substances? Tobacco? Alcohol? Chocolate? Nutmeg?
> I don't want to live in a society of drug addicts, I want to live among people of sound mind, body and spirit, who conduct themselves honestly and honourable among their peers.
Wouldn't we all? I do not think that eradicating drug use will bring about this this utopia, though.
Should we be fighting all forms of escapism? Movies, books, comics, computer games? Daydreaming?
If not, why are "drugs" different?
Does this apply to all psychoactive substances? Tobacco? Alcohol? Chocolate? Nutmeg?
> I don't want to live in a society of drug addicts, I want to live among people of sound mind, body and spirit, who conduct themselves honestly and honourable among their peers.
Wouldn't we all? I do not think that eradicating drug use will bring about this this utopia, though.
It's ridiculous and juvenile to make these kinds of comparisons.
Do people escape through books and movies? Not usually to the point that they become dangerous.
Let's be adults here.
Do people escape through books and movies? Not usually to the point that they become dangerous.
Let's be adults here.
[deleted]
What about the fact that drugs are incompatible with the lifestyle we want our society to have?
Society doesn't havena lifestyle. Individual members of society have lifestyles, so I'll rephrase that question to be more correct:
What about the fact that drugs are incompatible with the lifestyle we want our people to have?
Now it sounds as authoritarian as it is. And who is "we"? Sure, the majority is against drug legalization, but this is in a society where everyone has been exposed to lies and propaganda demonizing drugs since their childhood. Before the propaganda started, people didn't care about drugs.
What about the fact that religion is incompatible with the lifestyle I want people to have? Isn't it better instead of allowing churches to exist to find the root cause which is forcing these people to seek comfort and stability from these lie-peddlers?
I don't want to live in a society of devotees, I want to live among people of sound mind and spirit, who think for themselves and strive to consider the big questions in an intellectually honest way.
Society doesn't havena lifestyle. Individual members of society have lifestyles, so I'll rephrase that question to be more correct:
What about the fact that drugs are incompatible with the lifestyle we want our people to have?
Now it sounds as authoritarian as it is. And who is "we"? Sure, the majority is against drug legalization, but this is in a society where everyone has been exposed to lies and propaganda demonizing drugs since their childhood. Before the propaganda started, people didn't care about drugs.
What about the fact that religion is incompatible with the lifestyle I want people to have? Isn't it better instead of allowing churches to exist to find the root cause which is forcing these people to seek comfort and stability from these lie-peddlers?
I don't want to live in a society of devotees, I want to live among people of sound mind and spirit, who think for themselves and strive to consider the big questions in an intellectually honest way.
Have you considered that perhaps being fed a lifetime of propaganda has lead you to the conclusion that "drug"[1] use is somehow incompatible (if not actually assistive) to being of "sound mind, body, and spirit"?
[1] (that is, whatever we decide to lump together under that ridiculous umbrella term)
[1] (that is, whatever we decide to lump together under that ridiculous umbrella term)
> Isn't it better instead of legalizing them to find the root cause which is forcing these people to seek escapism from reality in psychoactive substances?
Depression, anxiety, moderate mania, genetic dispositions to addiction... how do we "find" these? The unfortunately thing is, we've been trying this the world over for a century and no one is meaningfully closer. In the meantime, we're destroying families and feeding an industry worth 10's, hundreds of billions founded on illegal drug trade.
Thing is, you likely already do live in a society of drug addicts. Whether discussing decriminalization or legalization, what you're allowing is those addicts to step out into the sunlight, so the society can help them reduce or end their drug usage.
Remember that laws of morality are a very tricky thing, and tend usually to inadvertently oppress significant parts of a population. Allowing a society to internally act on its compassion instead of outsourcing responsibility to a law seems to have a better outcome.
Depression, anxiety, moderate mania, genetic dispositions to addiction... how do we "find" these? The unfortunately thing is, we've been trying this the world over for a century and no one is meaningfully closer. In the meantime, we're destroying families and feeding an industry worth 10's, hundreds of billions founded on illegal drug trade.
Thing is, you likely already do live in a society of drug addicts. Whether discussing decriminalization or legalization, what you're allowing is those addicts to step out into the sunlight, so the society can help them reduce or end their drug usage.
Remember that laws of morality are a very tricky thing, and tend usually to inadvertently oppress significant parts of a population. Allowing a society to internally act on its compassion instead of outsourcing responsibility to a law seems to have a better outcome.
> What about the fact that drugs are incompatible with the lifestyle we want our society to have?
Says who? Billions of people consume alcohol and tobacco every week - these are drugs too!
I fail to see how unwinding with some weed/hash at the end of a day or at the weekend is a bad thing, or how it's any different to alcohol.
Says who? Billions of people consume alcohol and tobacco every week - these are drugs too!
I fail to see how unwinding with some weed/hash at the end of a day or at the weekend is a bad thing, or how it's any different to alcohol.
You don't get a say over my lifestyle. My life is made up of my choices, and you get 0% say over what I do with it, unless my actions directly affect you.
If I want to smoke a little pot on the weekends, I am going to do it. If you have a problem with it, I don't care, because you're not invited to my smokeout.
You are treading a dangerous line trying to write lifestyles into law. That's the same school of thought that people that oppose homosexuality and premarital sex use to to justify their unfair restrictions.
If I want to smoke a little pot on the weekends, I am going to do it. If you have a problem with it, I don't care, because you're not invited to my smokeout.
You are treading a dangerous line trying to write lifestyles into law. That's the same school of thought that people that oppose homosexuality and premarital sex use to to justify their unfair restrictions.
It really is a difficult problem. Sweden legalized heroin in the 60s and it was a disaster. On the other hand, enforcement only has a moderate impact, but comes at a huge financial and social cost. And while I don't support it, the only country with a measure of success seems to be Singapore, where you just hang anyone who has more than single dose in their possession. Maybe the grim reality is hanging a few hundred people a year would cause less social harm than letting drugs fester away at society taking how many thousands of lives a year, not to mention the countless lives destroyed by mass incarceration and the financial burden to society.
"The only country with a measure of success seems to be Singapore"
So, completely discounting the massive improvements in Portugal since decriminalisation?
So, completely discounting the massive improvements in Portugal since decriminalisation?
Note that manufacture, import and sale of drugs is still illegal in Portugal.
I find it hard to understand why so many people in the US want to switch drug policy from one extreme of the spectrum to the other. It's a rash social experiment with consequences that are hard to predict.
I find it hard to understand why so many people in the US want to switch drug policy from one extreme of the spectrum to the other. It's a rash social experiment with consequences that are hard to predict.
Well it's certainly not because they want to be able to order their heroin online, have it delivered next day, and mainline it in the safety of their own homes. Because they can already do that.
I don't know about the people in the US, but I can tell you why I want to completely legalize drugs. I see only benefits (less organized crime) with no downsides (I don't think drug usage will increase, as drugs are extremely easy to get even now). Note that the prices don't need to drop - the government could still tax drugs even higher than they tax alcohol and tobacco now - so there's no economical argument why the demand would increase.
While I'm very glad we did so, I have to point out that decriminalization of possession of small amounts of drugs is very far from legalization.
Also, it didn't really fix the drug abuse problem. It did help a lot with the social consequences of abuse by removing obstacles to seek help (or provide help).
The drug abuse problem was not completely fixed but at least it shifted the principal caretaker of the problem from the security forces to the social security.
In my view these were the main factors for the relative (and undeniable as per [1]) success of the Portugal approach:
- Decriminalizing the use and possession without the intent to distribute (the measure that gets all the credit)
- The harm reduction program [2] with measures like needle exchanges, safe rooms for drug injection (popularly known here as "salas de chuto", roughly "kick rooms"), methadone clinics
- Relocation, requalification and housing programs to vacate popular drug hotspots like, for instance, Casal Ventoso (before [3], after [4])
It is interesting because in the span of one generation heroin consumption turned from "cool, rebelious and chic" (like in Kate Moss heroin chic) to a bums drug, provided by the government to the ones that lost their ways.
This change in perception helped to break the cycle of graduation from light drugs (like cannabis) to hard drugs (like heroin) in the youth and most likely is a significant factor in the success of the portuguese approach.
Kids won't touch the hard stuff because they can see very clearly based on who ends up in "salas de chuto" or in the methadone centers the harmful effect of the drug.
[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal-decr...
[2] http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/country-data/harm-reduction/Port...
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7lOXcR05_E (graphic, drug use, in portuguese)
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqIUU80W60M (in portuguese)
In my view these were the main factors for the relative (and undeniable as per [1]) success of the Portugal approach:
- Decriminalizing the use and possession without the intent to distribute (the measure that gets all the credit)
- The harm reduction program [2] with measures like needle exchanges, safe rooms for drug injection (popularly known here as "salas de chuto", roughly "kick rooms"), methadone clinics
- Relocation, requalification and housing programs to vacate popular drug hotspots like, for instance, Casal Ventoso (before [3], after [4])
It is interesting because in the span of one generation heroin consumption turned from "cool, rebelious and chic" (like in Kate Moss heroin chic) to a bums drug, provided by the government to the ones that lost their ways.
This change in perception helped to break the cycle of graduation from light drugs (like cannabis) to hard drugs (like heroin) in the youth and most likely is a significant factor in the success of the portuguese approach.
Kids won't touch the hard stuff because they can see very clearly based on who ends up in "salas de chuto" or in the methadone centers the harmful effect of the drug.
[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal-decr...
[2] http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/country-data/harm-reduction/Port...
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7lOXcR05_E (graphic, drug use, in portuguese)
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqIUU80W60M (in portuguese)
It's usually not a good idea to assume the parameters and dynamics of a small totalitarian island state can/will/should apply to other populations.
The US incarcerated very significant percentages of its black male population under the guise of the "war on drugs" and I'm not sure if it made much of a difference. Drug use in the US is certainly not lower than in comparable countries, so I'm not sure if you could conclude that removing people from society in order to address the "drug problem" is necessarily an idea backed by solid data.
This is a common misconception.
Only 20% of state and federal prisoners (those serving more than a one year sentence) have drug crimes as their most serious conviction.
80% of prisoners are serving time for violent (47.7%), property (17.1%), or public order crimes (13.8%) that no one would argue are victimless.
While some of the other crime is related to drugs, the point is that 80% of the prisoners in the US have grievously victimized our fellow citizens and residents and are not innocent "[people removed] from society in order to address the 'drug problem'" as the parent comment stated.
Source: http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=0...
Only 20% of state and federal prisoners (those serving more than a one year sentence) have drug crimes as their most serious conviction.
80% of prisoners are serving time for violent (47.7%), property (17.1%), or public order crimes (13.8%) that no one would argue are victimless.
While some of the other crime is related to drugs, the point is that 80% of the prisoners in the US have grievously victimized our fellow citizens and residents and are not innocent "[people removed] from society in order to address the 'drug problem'" as the parent comment stated.
Source: http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=0...
Presumably, at least some proportion of that 80% is related to the legal status of drugs. E.g. robbery to support payment of inflated black-market prices, protection of production operations, etc.
>US incarcerated very significant percentages of its black male population under the guise of the "war on drugs" //
You think it was a government backed conspiracy against black males?
You think it was a government backed conspiracy against black males?
I had no idea about your Sweden claim so I looked it up. From [1] the only similar thing I can read is related to The Legal Prescription Program, which IMO is very different than "legalizing drugs (or just heroin)". Basically, they gave doctors the ability to give prescriptions to drugs such as morphine and amphetamine (without limitations, apparently) to addicts in the hopes that this would result in lower crime rates. This obviously lead to these drugs ending in users other than those participating in the program, which ended the program itself. Quite an obvious outcome IMO. This approach I think not only is flawed and very different than legalization of drugs (for everyone), but also let's be honest here, both society and our understanding of drugs and abuse in the 60s and now are very different. Maybe what wasn't possible then is possible now.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Sweden#The_Lega...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Sweden#The_Lega...
Singapore has a thriving methamphetamine ("ice") problem: http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Crime/Story/A1St... http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/young-well-edu...
Even if hanging drug users is effective, it certainly isn't a conscionable solution. However, I really don't believe that would work anyway.
Drug users should be left alone and drug abusers should have access to treatment.
Drug users should be left alone and drug abusers should have access to treatment.
And of course hanging drug users is effective: You necessarily reduce demand if you're brutal enough. Want 100% effectiveness? Pre-emptively hang everyone. War on drugs won...
It misses the fundamental point, which is that the goal isn't - or shouldn't be - a drug free society. But to reduce harm. Including to the drug users.
Accepting that ruining drug users - addicts or not - lives doesn't reduce harm needs to be the first step, because we seem all too willing to lock them up and ensure their prospects of making a living in any other way than through crime is removed, without considering that these people are also part of the community we are supposedly trying to save from harm.
It misses the fundamental point, which is that the goal isn't - or shouldn't be - a drug free society. But to reduce harm. Including to the drug users.
Accepting that ruining drug users - addicts or not - lives doesn't reduce harm needs to be the first step, because we seem all too willing to lock them up and ensure their prospects of making a living in any other way than through crime is removed, without considering that these people are also part of the community we are supposedly trying to save from harm.
We already know effective anti-epidemic measure: isolation of infected until they all will die. At high level of drug use, hanging of drug users is the only answer.
Singapore is somewhat unique in that it's a country with very restricted freedoms, which have been given up in exchange for security/safety. It's extraordinarily rule-bound, and, in many ways, is the antithesis of the United States, in which freedoms reign. In such a structured, government controlled and monitored society, all sorts of rules can be laid down, and enforced through strict punishment. I wouldn't try and use it as a model for other countries.
But - hey, might be worth executing anybody who uses drugs to see what happens. But I hope you're going to start with the really destructive ones, like Alcohol and Nicotine before you start looking at the less harmful ones such as cannabis.
But - hey, might be worth executing anybody who uses drugs to see what happens. But I hope you're going to start with the really destructive ones, like Alcohol and Nicotine before you start looking at the less harmful ones such as cannabis.
> is the antithesis of the United States, in which freedoms reign
Perhaps compared to Singapore, but my main reason for leaving the US after just 1 year, was the police state feeling that country gave me.
So many draconian rules and heavy fines and penalties. So many aggressive cops who will go after people for the smallest things: under age drinking, jaywalking etc.
American border controls are like an imaginary communist police state. Ironically old east block countries aren't like this presently.
In America there are just rules for everything. I went to an American university and compared to a European one they are total control freaks: no drinking on campus. Boys and girls can't mix. I mean they even got people patrolling the dorms to make sure rules are upheld. It is like some nazi kindergarten for adults.
I left for University in the Netherlands. Instead I got a bar on campus right outside my flat. We lived boys and girls together and nobody was walking around monitoring us.
I even heard from American high schoolers coming on exchange that public display of affection is not allowed. I had never even heard such an expression before. So kissing, hugging etc apparently isn't allowed in American high schools.
Although that sounds so crazy I am willing to believe that is a gross exaggeration.
Perhaps compared to Singapore, but my main reason for leaving the US after just 1 year, was the police state feeling that country gave me.
So many draconian rules and heavy fines and penalties. So many aggressive cops who will go after people for the smallest things: under age drinking, jaywalking etc.
American border controls are like an imaginary communist police state. Ironically old east block countries aren't like this presently.
In America there are just rules for everything. I went to an American university and compared to a European one they are total control freaks: no drinking on campus. Boys and girls can't mix. I mean they even got people patrolling the dorms to make sure rules are upheld. It is like some nazi kindergarten for adults.
I left for University in the Netherlands. Instead I got a bar on campus right outside my flat. We lived boys and girls together and nobody was walking around monitoring us.
I even heard from American high schoolers coming on exchange that public display of affection is not allowed. I had never even heard such an expression before. So kissing, hugging etc apparently isn't allowed in American high schools.
Although that sounds so crazy I am willing to believe that is a gross exaggeration.
>in which freedoms reign.
Really? Looking beyond what is drilled in to the population from birth and the US is very rule bound in my experience compared to Europe. Whilst over there I got ticketed for parking at the wrong angle, crossing the road in the wrong place. Granted not a rule, but got questions by police for walking and many other situations I forget.
Perhaps European countries have this many rules / laws but I have never experienced them being enforced
Really? Looking beyond what is drilled in to the population from birth and the US is very rule bound in my experience compared to Europe. Whilst over there I got ticketed for parking at the wrong angle, crossing the road in the wrong place. Granted not a rule, but got questions by police for walking and many other situations I forget.
Perhaps European countries have this many rules / laws but I have never experienced them being enforced
As a habitual rule-breaker since birth, I can confirm that the US is actually very rule-bound. In fact most rule-breaking is punished, even in places that supposedly encourage breaking the rules. And this has gotten even more so since 9/11. Want proof? Just look at the evolution of university computer networks. I've spent a lot of time in university (doing nothing mostly) and the networks are locked down compared to the atmosphere of open experimentation that was prevalent in the 90s. There are many, many examples to back the claim made by the parent. The US is not as free of a nation as everyone says.
>really destructive ones, like Alcohol and Nicotine
Alcohol is inherently harmful, but nicotine itself is a relatively safe drug; The harms associated with nicotine are overwhelmingly caused by the delivery mechanism of smoking.
We have alternative delivery mechanisms for nicotine that are drastically safer than tobacco smoking. E-cigarettes are most prominent, with around 95% lower harm than smoking[1], but snus is also a relatively low-harm product[2].
This principle is very important to the broader drug debate. We must be careful to separate the innate harms caused by a drug and harms that can be managed through good harm reduction policy.
[1]https://www.gov.uk/government/news/e-cigarettes-around-95-le... [2]http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/12/4/349.long
Alcohol is inherently harmful, but nicotine itself is a relatively safe drug; The harms associated with nicotine are overwhelmingly caused by the delivery mechanism of smoking.
We have alternative delivery mechanisms for nicotine that are drastically safer than tobacco smoking. E-cigarettes are most prominent, with around 95% lower harm than smoking[1], but snus is also a relatively low-harm product[2].
This principle is very important to the broader drug debate. We must be careful to separate the innate harms caused by a drug and harms that can be managed through good harm reduction policy.
[1]https://www.gov.uk/government/news/e-cigarettes-around-95-le... [2]http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/12/4/349.long
[deleted]
> But I hope you're going to start with the really destructive ones, like Alcohol and Nicotine before you start looking at the less harmful ones such as cannabis.
Well, to be fair, I wouldn't mind executing alcoholics and smokers. But you can have the best of both worlds - provide help and healthcare to ones who have fallen in drug use and execute the ones who can't complete rehab.
Well, to be fair, I wouldn't mind executing alcoholics and smokers. But you can have the best of both worlds - provide help and healthcare to ones who have fallen in drug use and execute the ones who can't complete rehab.
We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the HN guidelines.
> Sweden legalized heroin in the 60s and it was a disaster.
I can't find any source for this. What I can find is information about legal prescription from '65 to '67 to a limited number of addicts, who were able to get sufficient doses that they in effect became a source of drugs for drug dealers.
So they continued to have the same problem of dealers, but with substantially increased supply.
Note that many countries today have legal prescription of proscribed drugs to addicts. Prescription of heroin is legal in the UK, for example (and, in fact, it is not only prescribed to addicts, but also used for post-op pain management in hospitals), without the problems Sweden ran into, because the amounts are strictly controlled.
It seemed the Swedish government managed to get the worst of both worlds by continuing to fight drugs while turning themselves into a cheaper, safer source for dealers.
I can't find any source for this. What I can find is information about legal prescription from '65 to '67 to a limited number of addicts, who were able to get sufficient doses that they in effect became a source of drugs for drug dealers.
So they continued to have the same problem of dealers, but with substantially increased supply.
Note that many countries today have legal prescription of proscribed drugs to addicts. Prescription of heroin is legal in the UK, for example (and, in fact, it is not only prescribed to addicts, but also used for post-op pain management in hospitals), without the problems Sweden ran into, because the amounts are strictly controlled.
It seemed the Swedish government managed to get the worst of both worlds by continuing to fight drugs while turning themselves into a cheaper, safer source for dealers.
[deleted]
Not sure how you're claiming prescription heroin is not a problem in the UK. It is a big one.
Prescribing heroin to addicts seemed to work quite well for society
http://www.badscience.net/2006/11/methadone-and-heroin/
Unlike our former business of selling the stuff to China
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_opium_in_China
http://www.badscience.net/2006/11/methadone-and-heroin/
Unlike our former business of selling the stuff to China
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_opium_in_China
>And while I don't support it, the only country with a measure of success seems to be Singapore, where you just hang anyone who has more than single dose in their possession.
Success being what? People not doing drugs? Who said that's what people want?
Success being what? People not doing drugs? Who said that's what people want?
>the only country with a measure of success seems to be Singapore
I'm sure they also hang people for chewing gum in Singapore, or whip them or whatever, doesn't mean that we should imitate them.
Who wants to live in a society where people are treated like that?
I'm sure they also hang people for chewing gum in Singapore, or whip them or whatever, doesn't mean that we should imitate them.
Who wants to live in a society where people are treated like that?
Is there evidence to show that legalizing drugs (I don't mean e.g. tobacco here; I mean the far more dangerous ones) won't significantly increase their consumption?
I ask because, unless there is, I'm afraid I do not understand why it would be rational to do so...
I ask because, unless there is, I'm afraid I do not understand why it would be rational to do so...
Take a look at Portugal, which has now had general drug decriminalization since the early 2000s. There was an initial spike in general usage, but it dropped to lower levels than were seen before decriminalization. However the number of addicts remained the same throughout. It's a very interesting and eye-opening thing they have going there.
Legalisation, no, but decriminalisation, yes:
Take for example Portugal: Almost 1% of the population was addicted to heroin a couple of years ago, as the country moved away form a dictatorship and found freedom (also coming from a colonial war). With decriminalisation, and by treating addicts as patients, instead of criminals, the panorama improved greatly.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/evaluating-drug-d...
Take for example Portugal: Almost 1% of the population was addicted to heroin a couple of years ago, as the country moved away form a dictatorship and found freedom (also coming from a colonial war). With decriminalisation, and by treating addicts as patients, instead of criminals, the panorama improved greatly.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/evaluating-drug-d...
Far more dangerous ones, such as alcohol? Tobacco is already the 6th dangerous drug in the world.
http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/whats-most-dangerous-...
http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/whats-most-dangerous-...
And by FAR the deadliest drug in the world. Something like 90% of all drug deaths globally. It's an incredibly harmful drug. Hard drugs cause less than 1% of drug deaths that tobacco causes.
By "dangerous" I meant in the typical, colloquial sense (e.g. more likely to kill you in a shorter amount of time or what have you)...
I think you've taken in too much drug war propaganda.
Heroin, if unadulterated, is incredibly safe.
There are virtually no long-term health effects, and most overdoses/deaths are caused by it being unknown quality or cut with dangerous substances.[1] The only reason it's dangerous is prohibition
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin#Adverse_effects
Heroin, if unadulterated, is incredibly safe.
There are virtually no long-term health effects, and most overdoses/deaths are caused by it being unknown quality or cut with dangerous substances.[1] The only reason it's dangerous is prohibition
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin#Adverse_effects
Please stop spreading this meme. The long term health effects include PAWS, post-acute withdrawal syndrome. This is not coming from a drug warrior, but someone who has seen this in friends first hand.
Heroin downregulates receptors to such a degree that it can take a person months to years to never to feel normal again without opiates, depending on the length of habit.
A heroin addiction of as short a duration as three months can easily take someone 3-6 months to feel normal again from.
PAWS symptoms include anhedonia, lack of motivation, lack of concentration.
For people addicted to heroin for a decade, or for people who were addicted at young ages, they may never feel ok without long term opiate maintenance.
Heroin suppresses neurogenesis in the hippocampus.
Also, it should be made abundantly clear to anyone who has taken some oxycontin that heroin is not equivalent. A mild heroin addiction can develop in as little as three days of use, where oxycodone can be used for 2-3 weeks without developing significant withdrawal symptoms.
Heroin is more addictive than oxycodone, and it is easy to take doses that depress respiration while sleeping to unhealthy levels.
Heroin use can induce central sleep apnea in many people that use it. This is not healthy.
Drugs that downregulate receptors are incredibly irrational things to do compulsively.
Buy Feeling Good by David Burns and give yourself some cogntive behavioral therapy, please.
Heroin can make your world dark in a way you do not want to experience.
For anyone that wants to safely experiment with opiates, please stick to safer subsitutes like oxycodone, or opium.
If you want to experiment with heroin, never, ever do heroin more than two days in a row. Just two days is enough to produce some hangover effects. This is not the case with opium, or oxycodone.
And if you do have a habit, get some suboxone and get off heroin. The prohibition lifestyle will kill you.
I just buried a friend from an overdose.
Believe me, I really wish these weren't the facts. I wish heroin was as safe as this meme makes it out to be.
Heroin downregulates receptors to such a degree that it can take a person months to years to never to feel normal again without opiates, depending on the length of habit.
A heroin addiction of as short a duration as three months can easily take someone 3-6 months to feel normal again from.
PAWS symptoms include anhedonia, lack of motivation, lack of concentration.
For people addicted to heroin for a decade, or for people who were addicted at young ages, they may never feel ok without long term opiate maintenance.
Heroin suppresses neurogenesis in the hippocampus.
Also, it should be made abundantly clear to anyone who has taken some oxycontin that heroin is not equivalent. A mild heroin addiction can develop in as little as three days of use, where oxycodone can be used for 2-3 weeks without developing significant withdrawal symptoms.
Heroin is more addictive than oxycodone, and it is easy to take doses that depress respiration while sleeping to unhealthy levels.
Heroin use can induce central sleep apnea in many people that use it. This is not healthy.
Drugs that downregulate receptors are incredibly irrational things to do compulsively.
Buy Feeling Good by David Burns and give yourself some cogntive behavioral therapy, please.
Heroin can make your world dark in a way you do not want to experience.
For anyone that wants to safely experiment with opiates, please stick to safer subsitutes like oxycodone, or opium.
If you want to experiment with heroin, never, ever do heroin more than two days in a row. Just two days is enough to produce some hangover effects. This is not the case with opium, or oxycodone.
And if you do have a habit, get some suboxone and get off heroin. The prohibition lifestyle will kill you.
I just buried a friend from an overdose.
Believe me, I really wish these weren't the facts. I wish heroin was as safe as this meme makes it out to be.
So heroin isn't clinically addictive and one can't overdose on it?
Heroin isn't significantly more addictive than cigarettes.
You can also easily overdose from nicotine, its just that this is mitigated by the relatively slow delivery mechanism, which makes it so that you get terribly sick before you could consume lethal quantities.
If we can come up with an effective delivery method then heroin would be no more dangerous than cigarettes (sort of, you still can't, for example, drive on heroin, but also it doesn't destroy your body long term).
Perhaps heroin could be adultrated with a chemical that causes nausea when consumed in an amount proportional to a dangerous level of heroin. This would help heroin users build the same negative associations with high doses that cigarette smokers do, and could make them unable to consume more.
You can also easily overdose from nicotine, its just that this is mitigated by the relatively slow delivery mechanism, which makes it so that you get terribly sick before you could consume lethal quantities.
If we can come up with an effective delivery method then heroin would be no more dangerous than cigarettes (sort of, you still can't, for example, drive on heroin, but also it doesn't destroy your body long term).
Perhaps heroin could be adultrated with a chemical that causes nausea when consumed in an amount proportional to a dangerous level of heroin. This would help heroin users build the same negative associations with high doses that cigarette smokers do, and could make them unable to consume more.
While I enjoy the concept that heroin might be in some way similar to nocotine beyond both of the substances being tangible psychoactive, it does frighten me that this is actually an opinion people legitimately have.
Given that when the supply chain of heroin is disrupted the most statistically significant cause of eratic behaviour in users is that it just hurts so much I suspect its a little different to nicotine.
If you are interested in understanding drivers of addiction I would recommend looking at cases where people are forced into withdrawals.
For example: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955395915...
Although I recall another article published ages ago (early 80s) which had an interesting economic analysis of the elasticity of heroin prices, to paraphrase, resulting from what is essentially inflicting pain on users until they will pay yur asking price.
I would love someone to draw the connections to nictonine withdrawals
Given that when the supply chain of heroin is disrupted the most statistically significant cause of eratic behaviour in users is that it just hurts so much I suspect its a little different to nicotine.
If you are interested in understanding drivers of addiction I would recommend looking at cases where people are forced into withdrawals.
For example: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955395915...
Although I recall another article published ages ago (early 80s) which had an interesting economic analysis of the elasticity of heroin prices, to paraphrase, resulting from what is essentially inflicting pain on users until they will pay yur asking price.
I would love someone to draw the connections to nictonine withdrawals
Absolutely.
Symptoms of nicotine withdrawal - agitation, anxiety, difficulty concentrating.
Without access to heroin or opiates, you are in for 7 days of anguish, intense feelings of guilt, shame, darkness, self recrimination, horrible introspection, and if given the chance to end the suffering you will take more heroin, putting you back at square one.
If you soldier on, you are in for at least 3 weeks of not feeling yourself.
Best bet is to detox with suboxone, then taper suboxone, do not stay on suboxone more than 30 days or you will just be addicted to that.
Gabapentin will really help the process, you will feel almost normal after stopping the suboxone.
If you have friends addicted, this is the most pain free way to get them off.
Heroin -> suboxone 30 days -> gabapentin 30-60 days.
That recipe can get anyone with a habit off heroin almost painlessly.
Depending on the length of your habit, you might still not feel great after all that. Cannabis and tianeptine are your best friends in that case. That will get you back in shape.
After this you will see that heroin, while beautifully seductive and glorious, is a dead end in prohibitionist america.
I believe it only would have a place for someone elderly and infirmed, who could take it without interruption for the rest of their life. For those cases I think it is underused.
If you are young and healthy, it will only make your life worse than it was before you started.
Symptoms of nicotine withdrawal - agitation, anxiety, difficulty concentrating.
Without access to heroin or opiates, you are in for 7 days of anguish, intense feelings of guilt, shame, darkness, self recrimination, horrible introspection, and if given the chance to end the suffering you will take more heroin, putting you back at square one.
If you soldier on, you are in for at least 3 weeks of not feeling yourself.
Best bet is to detox with suboxone, then taper suboxone, do not stay on suboxone more than 30 days or you will just be addicted to that.
Gabapentin will really help the process, you will feel almost normal after stopping the suboxone.
If you have friends addicted, this is the most pain free way to get them off.
Heroin -> suboxone 30 days -> gabapentin 30-60 days.
That recipe can get anyone with a habit off heroin almost painlessly.
Depending on the length of your habit, you might still not feel great after all that. Cannabis and tianeptine are your best friends in that case. That will get you back in shape.
After this you will see that heroin, while beautifully seductive and glorious, is a dead end in prohibitionist america.
I believe it only would have a place for someone elderly and infirmed, who could take it without interruption for the rest of their life. For those cases I think it is underused.
If you are young and healthy, it will only make your life worse than it was before you started.
"colloquial sense" ... "or what have you"
This right here is why we don't have a sensible drug policy; many, many people think like this when approaching the subject.
This right here is why we don't have a sensible drug policy; many, many people think like this when approaching the subject.
I was merely trying to describe a category of drugs so that I can ask a question about it; you can name it whatever you want so that you can answer it, but your condescending tone and lack of an answer isn't exactly helpful in responding to the question. If you don't like my category you can always feel free to ask your own questions about other ones instead of changing mine.
Sorry if it came across as condescending; I'm just tired of the lazy "drugs are more dangerous than tobacco" argument because it's easy to repeat, but essentially meaningless. Answering your question is difficult because very few countries have legalised 'the most dangerous' drugs.
Let's take Portugal as an example, though. It decriminalised heroin in 2001; for the sake of argument, let's agree that heroin is at least very slightly more dangerous to the individual than tobacco. Portugal now has a way, way lower incidence of death due to overdose than almost every country in Europe [1]. That's not relative to numbers taking heroin, that's relative to the population, so even if heroin use has rocketed (which it hasn't; lifetime use has increased from 0.7% to 1.1% [2]) lives have still been saved overall.
[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal-decr... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal#Observ...
Let's take Portugal as an example, though. It decriminalised heroin in 2001; for the sake of argument, let's agree that heroin is at least very slightly more dangerous to the individual than tobacco. Portugal now has a way, way lower incidence of death due to overdose than almost every country in Europe [1]. That's not relative to numbers taking heroin, that's relative to the population, so even if heroin use has rocketed (which it hasn't; lifetime use has increased from 0.7% to 1.1% [2]) lives have still been saved overall.
[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal-decr... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal#Observ...
Well, it's not all or nothing. If you legalized cannabis for example, you may find that users switch to that from more harmful drugs such as alcohol, or opiates. In particular, by buying from controlled suppliers, rather than the black-market, makes them less likely to be offered worse stuff as alternatives.
By then reducing the size of the black market, you drain it of customers and money, and make it easier to police. But banning stuff that large segments of the population already do, even while suffering legal risk, is a harder policy to enforce.
There's also the fact that horse-riding, backyard pools, gun ownership, rock climbing, not eating well or excercising enough as likely to kill you as some drugs, so a consistent approach to that would be welcome too.
By then reducing the size of the black market, you drain it of customers and money, and make it easier to police. But banning stuff that large segments of the population already do, even while suffering legal risk, is a harder policy to enforce.
There's also the fact that horse-riding, backyard pools, gun ownership, rock climbing, not eating well or excercising enough as likely to kill you as some drugs, so a consistent approach to that would be welcome too.
> There's also the fact that horse-riding, backyard pools, gun ownership, rock climbing, not eating well or excercising enough as likely to kill you as some drugs, so a consistent approach to that would be welcome too.
Unlike the use of drugs, almost all of the things you mentioned fall under category of "exercise", which (correct me if I'm wrong) I believe is medically accepted to have immense benefits, whereas I'm not sure the case is the same with the drugs under consideration here...
Unlike the use of drugs, almost all of the things you mentioned fall under category of "exercise", which (correct me if I'm wrong) I believe is medically accepted to have immense benefits, whereas I'm not sure the case is the same with the drugs under consideration here...
>I believe is medically accepted to have immense benefits, whereas I'm not sure the case is the same with the drugs under consideration here...
Another flaw of your "the dangerous ones" generalization.
Does MDMA count as one of the dangerous ones? It has promising potential for the treatment of depression, PTSD, etc. Or other psychadelics such as mushrooms or LSD.
What about ketamine? It's used recreationally, but it's also commonly administered in hospitals and may also be beneficial for those suffering from depresson.
There are undoubtedly others.
Ironically, good research into these "dangeorus" drugs has been hindered largely because of the widespread perception among the public and policymakers that they are dangerous, whether or not that is actually the case.
Another flaw of your "the dangerous ones" generalization.
Does MDMA count as one of the dangerous ones? It has promising potential for the treatment of depression, PTSD, etc. Or other psychadelics such as mushrooms or LSD.
What about ketamine? It's used recreationally, but it's also commonly administered in hospitals and may also be beneficial for those suffering from depresson.
There are undoubtedly others.
Ironically, good research into these "dangeorus" drugs has been hindered largely because of the widespread perception among the public and policymakers that they are dangerous, whether or not that is actually the case.
> almost all
Unless they all are, you don't really have a point. But, for the sake of argument, pretend the list was "gun ownership, not eating well, not exercising enough" - i.e. 3 out of the original 6 (which, apparently, is "almost all"). Feel free to add any of the many, many activities which aren't "exercise" but are more likely to decrease your life expectancy such as driving, sitting, crossing the road, ...
Unless they all are, you don't really have a point. But, for the sake of argument, pretend the list was "gun ownership, not eating well, not exercising enough" - i.e. 3 out of the original 6 (which, apparently, is "almost all"). Feel free to add any of the many, many activities which aren't "exercise" but are more likely to decrease your life expectancy such as driving, sitting, crossing the road, ...
I assume you mean "rational, if your goal is to decrease drug use."
If that is the case, one must also consider all of the costs involved in making the drugs illegal, from paying people to enforce their illegality (DEA, border agents, customs inspections), increased burdens on the legal system, and the funding more prisons, the increase in thefts committed by addicts due to the rise in prices, increased burden on medical services (impure drugs are more hazardous to health)...
If your goal is "decrease drug use at all costs," then I question the rationality of the goal.
If that is the case, one must also consider all of the costs involved in making the drugs illegal, from paying people to enforce their illegality (DEA, border agents, customs inspections), increased burdens on the legal system, and the funding more prisons, the increase in thefts committed by addicts due to the rise in prices, increased burden on medical services (impure drugs are more hazardous to health)...
If your goal is "decrease drug use at all costs," then I question the rationality of the goal.
And, clearly, that goal is so vague as to be meaningless. How are "drugs" being defined? How are you deciding which substances should have their usage reduced and which shouldn't?
Of course. The list of scheduled substances is arbitrary, and must be constantly expanded as new neuroreceptor ligands are invented.
When I consider subparagraph A of the Federal Analog Act, I sometimes wonder if what is actually desired by drug-control advocates is to make certain states of mind illegal. That there could be legislation defining legal and illegal patterns of brain activity is quite a trip in itself. I thought cyberpunk was dead.
When I consider subparagraph A of the Federal Analog Act, I sometimes wonder if what is actually desired by drug-control advocates is to make certain states of mind illegal. That there could be legislation defining legal and illegal patterns of brain activity is quite a trip in itself. I thought cyberpunk was dead.
The rationale is that consumption of drugs is a personal choice and fine.
It's harm from drugs that's bad, and most of it comes from them being illegal, and thus: uncontrolled quality and quantity (overdoses, etc), overpriced (making people steal etc to buy them), black market (thus supporting a mafia that sells them, kills people etc). That, and landing people in jail (where they ruin their live, become actual hardened criminals etc) for simple pocession etc.
It's harm from drugs that's bad, and most of it comes from them being illegal, and thus: uncontrolled quality and quantity (overdoses, etc), overpriced (making people steal etc to buy them), black market (thus supporting a mafia that sells them, kills people etc). That, and landing people in jail (where they ruin their live, become actual hardened criminals etc) for simple pocession etc.
Well said - I agree that a lot of the danger of illicit drugs comes from them being cut/tampered with.
If you legalise, you can regulate, tax and educate - then drugs can be made as safely as possible, and most drug-related violence and crime dissapears.
If you legalise, you can regulate, tax and educate - then drugs can be made as safely as possible, and most drug-related violence and crime dissapears.
Why would they increase consumption? Do you think there are millions of people saying "Oh, I wish I could do meth, but I just don't want to get arrested!"
Smoking kills more people than all other drugs combined. WAAAAAY more. Same with alcohol.
Smoking kills more people than all other drugs combined. WAAAAAY more. Same with alcohol.
> won't significantly increase their consumption
It could. That's not the point.
The main point that Annan is making is that there should be a health system in place for addicts, instead of a penitentiary system (where addictions typically become worse).
The past 50 year study/failed experiment known as "The War On Drugs" has shown us that there is nothing you can do to stop people from taking drugs. The war on drugs not only wastes tax money, is not only completely ineffective, but actually drives people toward dangerous usage. If drugs aren't regulated you never know what you are getting. Just recently tourists were being sold white heroin in Holland instead of cocaine (3 fatalities AFAIR). If used in the same way as cocaine is, white heroin can be lethal. This is simply not possible if you are getting your fix from a regulated supply chain.
Basically, by regulating drugs there is hope that there will be fewer drug-related fatalities and in the long-run (possibly decades) we'll most likely see less drug-related crime. This quote from the piece sums up the remainder of the piece perfectly:
> It is time to acknowledge that drugs are infinitely more dangerous if they are left solely in the hands of criminals who have no concerns about health and safety.
It could. That's not the point.
The main point that Annan is making is that there should be a health system in place for addicts, instead of a penitentiary system (where addictions typically become worse).
The past 50 year study/failed experiment known as "The War On Drugs" has shown us that there is nothing you can do to stop people from taking drugs. The war on drugs not only wastes tax money, is not only completely ineffective, but actually drives people toward dangerous usage. If drugs aren't regulated you never know what you are getting. Just recently tourists were being sold white heroin in Holland instead of cocaine (3 fatalities AFAIR). If used in the same way as cocaine is, white heroin can be lethal. This is simply not possible if you are getting your fix from a regulated supply chain.
Basically, by regulating drugs there is hope that there will be fewer drug-related fatalities and in the long-run (possibly decades) we'll most likely see less drug-related crime. This quote from the piece sums up the remainder of the piece perfectly:
> It is time to acknowledge that drugs are infinitely more dangerous if they are left solely in the hands of criminals who have no concerns about health and safety.
This is simply not possible if you are getting your fix from a regulated supply chain.
Well, it would still be possible (see e.g. last year's horse meat scandal in Britain), but the entire supply chain would be known and could be prosecuted.
Well, it would still be possible (see e.g. last year's horse meat scandal in Britain), but the entire supply chain would be known and could be prosecuted.
You're right, I really shouldn't have such evocative language.
Even with a significant increase in consumption, it might be worth legalizing because the social costs (that is, the costs born by those who do not voluntarily choose to accept them) of prohibition could still be higher than those of the increased consumption.
> I don't mean e.g. tobacco here; I mean the far more dangerous ones
That's a very strange thing to say, given we know very well that tobacco is much more dangerous than many illegal drugs.
That's a very strange thing to say, given we know very well that tobacco is much more dangerous than many illegal drugs.
One thing I am surprised by is that it is almost never mentioned how China became drug free after Britain made China into the biggest dope user through the Opium wars.
They virtually got rid of opium usage in a relatively short time, and they did it without any sort of war on drugs approach.
They certainly fought the drug usage but they did not imprison or blame drug users. Rather than told abusers they were victims who needed help. They were given education to cope with addiction, jobs etc. Even drug dealers were, except the worst ones who were imprisoned.
It might have helped the narrative that they could blame Britain as the evil doer.
While not the same as legalization it does have some resemblance to the Portuguese approach where the focus is on helping people taken for abuse rather than punishing or imprisoning.
They virtually got rid of opium usage in a relatively short time, and they did it without any sort of war on drugs approach.
They certainly fought the drug usage but they did not imprison or blame drug users. Rather than told abusers they were victims who needed help. They were given education to cope with addiction, jobs etc. Even drug dealers were, except the worst ones who were imprisoned.
It might have helped the narrative that they could blame Britain as the evil doer.
While not the same as legalization it does have some resemblance to the Portuguese approach where the focus is on helping people taken for abuse rather than punishing or imprisoning.
China is virtually drug free?
In that case, Wikipedia could use your help cleaning up this and many related articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_drug_trade_in_China
Don't forget to cite your sources! They're sticklers about that sort of thing.
In that case, Wikipedia could use your help cleaning up this and many related articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_drug_trade_in_China
Don't forget to cite your sources! They're sticklers about that sort of thing.
> how China became drug free after Britain made China into the biggest dope user through the Opium wars.
I referring to the period following the opium ban. I believe this was the 50s, not the present day. We are also comparing to an insanely high level were the claims was that 90% of inhabitants of certain provinces were users.
I referring to the period following the opium ban. I believe this was the 50s, not the present day. We are also comparing to an insanely high level were the claims was that 90% of inhabitants of certain provinces were users.
If you're referring to the 1850s that's simply false: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_opium_in_China#/med...
If you're referring to the decades since the 1950s, under a communist regime the Chinese obviously had better things to worry about (like surviving, finding a meal or looking commie enough not to be singled out by their own children and 're-educated' in some hellish camp).
If you're referring to the decades since the 1950s, under a communist regime the Chinese obviously had better things to worry about (like surviving, finding a meal or looking commie enough not to be singled out by their own children and 're-educated' in some hellish camp).
In the meanwhile NASA found a planet covered with marijuana. http://newswatch28.com/nasa-discovers-new-planet-covered-wit... Can these two agencies be in cahoots?
That article is obviously fake, yet too unfunny to be a joke. Ouch.
Therefore the government understands that the war on drugs is likely to be unsuccessful, and we have to ask ourselves, why do they persist with it? A few reasons present themselves: Ideological motivations, they just don't like the drugs. The fact that if you terrify the population you can use that as means for greater political control and discipline. And the fact that Tobacco and Alcohol companies would likely suffer as a result of drug legalisation, like cannabis.
Lastly the CIA has been found to be involved in the drug trade on a vast scale. This is not a conspiracy, there are many well-documented books on this. They need large sums of untraceable money for clandestine operations, and drugs are an ideal source of this.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR331.html
Noam Chomsky on the War on Drugs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-JX0yXDlh8