"Drugs are the curse of the land and turn women into prostitutes"

[U2Bama]

You don't think you pay for it now? You are paying for a first time offenders stay in prison right now...

I know we are paying for it now. But the costs involve much more than putting first-time offenders in prison. What about the increased costs of caring for new drug users? What if increased drug use leads to higher unemployment rates? Who takes care of the drug-addicted, unemployable users?

~U2Alabama

 

[BVS]

I know we are paying for it now. But the costs involve much more than putting first-time offenders in prison. What about the increased costs of caring for new drug users? What if increased drug use leads to higher unemployment rates? Who takes care of the drug-addicted, unemployable users?

~U2Alabama

My point was if it's legal you'll stop paying to keep someone in prison for having pocession of pot.

What do you honestly think the % of increased addicts will be? Addicts are addicts and will be addicts regardless of legality.

Who takes care of the alcoholic users?

Your points are actually pretty moot. Especially from a financial standpoint, for you'll have highly taxed drugs and less tax dollars going to a dead end war on drugs.

 

[A_Wanderer]

The war on drugs isn't dead end, it is an end in itself for consolidating power with the government.

 

[U2Bama]

My point was if it's legal you'll stop paying to keep someone in prison for having pocession of pot.

What do you honestly think the % of increased addicts will be? Addicts are addicts and will be addicts regardless of legality.

Who takes care of the alcoholic users?

Your points are actually pretty moot. Especially from a financial standpoint, for you'll have highly taxed drugs and less tax dollars going to a dead end war on drugs.

I get your argument about the cost of incarcerating drug users. I am not talking about pot. The only way they would risk being jailed would be if they commited crimes while under the influence of pot. Trust me, I have been to enough Grateful Dead and Widespread Panic concerts over the past 16 years to know that argument by memory from hearing it in the parking lot and reading the tracts that NORML passes out. Pot is not the issue. Pot is not addictive. Unless someone has gotten themselves psychologically addicted to pot, I don't think the use of pot will encourage them to break in to people's homes and take things from other people. They do not have to "cook" pot in highly combustible contraptions that endanger their neighbors' homes and apartments.

I do think there will be an increase in addictions from new users. We can say "But the legalized versions will be controlled and the addictive elements will be taken out." But then you have the issue of reducing the "fun" factor of these drugs if you weaken them, and thus a black market for the harmful formulas will still exist, and black market dealers will continue to sell it to people who want the "fun" version. I have known several drug dealers through the years (not as a customer, fortunately). They are predators. Their profit comes from the addictive qualities of their products. The value of return customers is an understatement. They don't want people coming back a month later for another dose, They want people building up an immunity so that they want more quantity. Funny thing about many of these predators, excuse me, dealers: many of them DON'T use their products!

You are correct that addicts will be addicts regardless of legality, but what about the new users who become addicted? What about the side effect risks that all of these legal users, addicted or not, pose to other members of their families or communities when under the influence of drugs? How do we explain it to a girl who gets raped by a guy on meth driven to overly-aggressive sexual desire, when she was the closest target? Just tell her, "Oh but he's not usually like that; he just got some bad meth. It doen't affect everyone like that."

On a lighter note, I hope my dental insurance doesn't go up due to the pool having to treat the awful teeth of meth-heads.

Knowing what meth, opiates and cocaine can do to people who use them and the people that they encounter, I cannot see any societal benefit in making these things more available to the general public.

To dismiss my points as "moot" is rather short-sighted. I know that's your style in here because you are usually dismissive towards posters you disagree with and that's fine. But everything I have said has been based on observations. Much of what I have posted has been of a questioning nature...who is responsible if legalization leads to scenario A, or who pays for the side effects of scenario B? Don't include pot in this discussion; let's look at some of the current trends and the dangers they pose; it goes far beyond the economics of incarceration.

~U2Alabama

 

[BVS]

I do think there will be an increase in addictions from new users. We can say "But the legalized versions will be controlled and the addictive elements will be taken out." But then you have the issue of reducing the "fun" factor of these drugs if you weaken them, and thus a black market for the harmful formulas will still exist, and black market dealers will continue to sell it to people who want the "fun" version. I have known several drug dealers through the years (not as a customer, fortunately). They are predators. Their profit comes from the addictive qualities of their products. The value of return customers is an understatement. They don't want people coming back a month later for another dose, They want people building up an immunity so that they want more quantity. Funny thing about many of these predators, excuse me, dealers: many of them DON'T use their products!

You are correct that addicts will be addicts regardless of legality, but what about the new users who become addicted? What about the side effect risks that all of these legal users, addicted or not, pose to other members of their families or communities when under the influence of drugs? How do we explain it to a girl who gets raped by a guy on meth driven to overly-aggressive sexual desire, when she was the closest target? Just tell her, "Oh but he's not usually like that; he just got some bad meth. It doen't affect everyone like that."

My point of addicts is that they will become addicts no matter what. So the fear of new users isn't due to the ease of finding the drug. Addicts will find their fix, it's part of their genetic make up. They search it out. The need of black market alcohol is pretty small...

I understand your fear of "new users" but the truth is addicts have a "hole" in their life that they will find something to fill it. Some can avoid that fall due to recognizing signs early, some have to hit bottom, etc... But the idea that it's just a matter of keeping it out of arm's way will prevent addicition is a misconception.

On a lighter note, I hope my dental insurance doesn't go up due to the pool having to treat the awful teeth of meth-heads.

Knowing what meth, opiates and cocaine can do to people who use them and the people that they encounter, I cannot see any societal benefit in making these things more available to the general public.

I honestly don't see meth ever being part of the legalization of drugs. Meth differs from corner to corner and it's pretty much a "poor man's" drug. It's like the equivelance of high school kids drinking scope or nyquil to get a buzz. Alcohol is legal but they can't get their hands on it and the high school kid is desperate for a buzz.

Plus the awful teeth would come from a person who neglects everything due to their addiction. Therefore this person wouldn't have a job to have dental insurance.

To dismiss my points as "moot" is rather short-sighted. I know that's your style in here because you are usually dismissive towards posters you disagree with and that's fine. But everything I have said has been based on observations. Much of what I have posted has been of a questioning nature...who is responsible if legalization leads to scenario A, or who pays for the side effects of scenario B? Don't include pot in this discussion; let's look at some of the current trends and the dangers they pose; it goes far beyond the economics of incarceration.

~U2Alabama

My style? I'm dismissive of those who don't back up their opinions, not those I disagree with.

I wasn't trying to be dismissive in my response. I called them moot due to the ease of negating them. Especially your financial points.

 

[U2Bama]

My point of addicts is that they will become addicts no matter what. So the fear of new users isn't due to the ease of finding the drug. Addicts will find their fix, it's part of their genetic make up. They search it out. The need of black market alcohol is pretty small...



I understand your fear of "new users" but the truth is addicts have a "hole" in their life that they will find something to fill it. Some can avoid that fall due to recognizing signs early, some have to hit bottom, etc... But the idea that it's just a matter of keeping it out of arm's way will prevent addicition is a misconception.

Not necessarily; "potential" addicts will never become addicted to something they do not try. Someone who merely experiments with these drugs is a potential addict. Think of the marketing campaigns that they tobacco companies have run through the year, even marketing to kids. The legal peddlars of these drugs will push them as something new to try. Hook, line and sinker, plenty of new catches. Customers for life. Legal predators, just like the tobacco ad campaigns of old. They'll probably even try to push fake research that their products aren't harmful, aren't addictive, etc.

People who experiment with drugs do not necessarily have a hole in their life. Many just want to try them because their friends enjoy them.

I honestly don't see meth ever being part of the legalization of drugs. Meth differs from corner to corner and it's pretty much a "poor man's" drug. It's like the equivelance of high school kids drinking scope or nyquil to get a buzz. Alcohol is legal but they can't get their hands on it and the high school kid is desperate for a buzz.

Several people, including former New Jersey polic officer Jack Cole, indra, trevster2k, U2fan628, and verte76 seem to agree with the position that ALL drugs should be legalized. So, if there is a controlled, legally dispensed version of meth available at some community dope store, does that mean that a stronger, but more addictive version that packs a much better euphoria would also be legal? As I've seen in my suburban county, opiates and meth are not restricted to the "poor" demographic. They have been quite popular with middle class teens, forty-somethings, certainly not restricted to the lower economic levels.

Plus the awful teeth would come from a person who neglects everything due to their addiction. Therefore this person wouldn't have a job to have dental insurance.

I'm not talking about their drug-induced laziness causing them to forget to brush their teeth. Heck, I've gone to bed without brushing and flossing after eating a pack of Starburst or a bag of popcorn.


An exemplary photo of what is known as "meth mouth:"

From the South Dakota Meth Awareness Project website:

When a person smokes Meth, these substances are heated, vaporized and swirl throughout the user's mouth. They irritate and burn the sensitive skin inside the mouth, create sores and lead to infection. Chronic Meth smokers have teeth rotted to the gum line from the continuous affect of the vapors on tooth enamel.
Snorting Meth also causes chemical damage to teeth. Snorting draws the caustic substances down the nasal passages, draining in the back of the throat and bathing the teeth with corrosive substances.

My style? I'm dismissive of those who don't back up their opinions, not those I disagree with.

I wasn't trying to be dismissive in my response. I called them moot due to the ease of negating them. Especially your financial points.

I posted several observations, concerns, and observations. Because you didn't think the economic concerns had merit, you decreed it all to be "moot." What about the additional economic costs, beyond treatment and medical concerns? What about having more people out there breaking into people's homes and taking things that do not belong to them? Do you really think some meth-head's need top get his kicks is more important than a person's right to retain their own property in the confines of their home? Are there not enough lives lost to drunk drivers, so that now we have to offer additional forms of recreational thrills that may endanger innoncent bystanders of passengers in other vehicles?

Someone said that legalization would take out the thug element - the pusher/dealer on the street. Not quite. The thug would merely be replaced by the corporate thugs who would attempt to market this shit to my kids, the kids across the street, the lady driving in rush hour traffic, the man who just lost his job, whomever may be curious, vulnerable, distraught or intimidated.
Predators wisely choose their prey.

~U2Alabama

 

[BVS]

Not necessarily; "potential" addicts will never become addicted to something they do not try. Someone who merely experiments with these drugs is a potential addict. Think of the marketing campaigns that they tobacco companies have run through the year, even marketing to kids. The legal peddlars of these drugs will push them as something new to try. Hook, line and sinker, plenty of new catches. Customers for life. Legal predators, just like the tobacco ad campaigns of old. They'll probably even try to push fake research that their products aren't harmful, aren't addictive, etc.

People who experiment with drugs do not necessarily have a hole in their life. Many just want to try them because their friends enjoy them.

Ok, I'm not saying everyone who experiments with drugs has a hole in their life. I'm talking about addicts, I've done a lot of work with addicts in a former part of my life. Most addicts are genetically predetermined for addiction. They will seek it out, if it's in the window or not.

I socially smoked for awhile never became addicted. I could probably try coke and never have a problem with it what so ever. Now of course there's a difference between the addictive properties of a cigarette and coke. In fact many will tell you cigs are more addictive than heroin.

Several people, including former New Jersey polic officer Jack Cole, indra, trevster2k, U2fan628, and verte76 seem to agree with the position that ALL drugs should be legalized. So, if there is a controlled, legally dispensed version of meth available at some community dope store, does that mean that a stronger, but more addictive version that packs a much better euphoria would also be legal? As I've seen in my suburban county, opiates and meth are not restricted to the "poor" demographic. They have been quite popular with middle class teens, forty-somethings, certainly not restricted to the lower economic levels.

I didn't mean poor as a demographic, just that if someone had a choice in front of them between 3 drugs most wouldn't actually choose meth. And a mass marketed meth would be completely different from what's on the streets, just like the meth at Johnny's house is different from that at Mary's.

I'm not talking about their drug-induced laziness causing them to forget to brush their teeth. Heck, I've gone to bed without brushing and flossing after eating a pack of Starburst or a bag of popcorn.

Yeah and I should have worded my response better. What I meant was that anyone who does enough meth to get meth mouth is doing a whole hell of a lot, and they more than likely don't have the kind of job that would provide dental care.

I posted several observations, concerns, and observations. Because you didn't think the economic concerns had merit, you decreed it all to be "moot." What about the additional economic costs, beyond treatment and medical concerns? What about having more people out there breaking into people's homes and taking things that do not belong to them? Do you really think some meth-head's need top get his kicks is more important than a person's right to retain their own property in the confines of their home? Are there not enough lives lost to drunk drivers, so that now we have to offer additional forms of recreational thrills that may endanger innoncent bystanders of passengers in other vehicles?

Someone said that legalization would take out the thug element - the pusher/dealer on the street. Not quite. The thug would merely be replaced by the corporate thugs who would attempt to market this shit to my kids, the kids across the street, the lady driving in rush hour traffic, the man who just lost his job, whomever may be curious, vulnerable, distraught or intimidated.
Predators wisely choose their prey.

~U2Alabama

But see this is my point, this is all speculation due to the perception that "well this is happening now, so it will just get worse when it's legal." This isn't an exponential issue, and that's where your line of thinking is coming from.

Imagine if you will if alcohol is illegal tomorrow. Black market would be crazy, and there would be no regulations.

Drunk driving deaths would rise, longer drives to underground bars on the outskirts of towns, with no closing times set by law. Jails would be filling up. Break ins would rise due to search for cash for bloated costs of booze. Intoxication deaths would rise due to higher non-regulated proofs of alcohol.

Take a look at the % of alcohol related deaths, accidents, and illegal activity on a college campus between 20 year olds and 21 year olds. The 20 year old group will almost always be higher.

Now think of that nationwide.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I think what is evident is that what people are trying to do is not so much find a way to legalise a class of dugs as such, but legalise a class of drug user. The vast majority of people who partake in illegal drug use, and I mean VAST majority, are not the junkies in the crack dens shooting up with dirty needles financed by a stolen DVD player or a $10 blow job who will end up in a mental hospital or dead having spread their misery and disease to many others. The majority are the recreational drug user who has the occasional pill at a dance party, or the occasional joint in the quiet of their own home. They - and their activities - do not disturb or intrude on others. They do not commit crimes (aside from the purchase and consumption of the drug of course). They do not partake in anti social behaviour. Any minor public disturbances as a result of their consumption are generally similar to that of drinkers - eg, getting behind the wheel of a car while under the influence. The two major problems with what they are doing are the fact that they supply criminal activity with billions of dollars a year - the majority of the drug trades earnings do not come from junkies and rock stars, they come from the suburban recreational users - and they take a risk with their health when dealing in an illegal trade of what can be toxic substances when unchecked and unregulated.
You find a way to bring those people out from the underground, from illegal to legal, give them a regulated, 'safe' option, and you instantly wipe out so many of the problems related to drugs. Billions of dollars, thousands of people, so much. Bring the activities of 80% out into the open, and it makes it easier to attack the 20% - the real problem - left behind. Would it increase addictions etc? I'm not talking about legalising a substance like meth - I see no benefit in that. I'm talking about the common, dirt cheap, available in massive quantities everywhere drugs. The type that if you want it, you get it easily and cheaply anyway. Just as easily as if it were legaly sold in every drug store. Maybe just legalise three. Pot. Ecstacy. A speed/coke type. Sure, there'd be a slight rise in users. Definitely. But not some scary thing. The pay off is huge. If there's a tiny % increase in usage, but far, far, far larger decrease in emergency issues with 'bad' purchases, and billions wiped out of the drug trade, if it strips so many people away from the trade - - - - anyway, somehow I think there has to be a better solution to the current plan of attack, and it's in releasing the recreational, non-criminal, relatively harmless user out of the illegal/black market cycle. I mean, imagine if you could somehow say, okay if you have 2 pills a night, two nights a year, you can do it legally and safely. That's hundreds of thousands of people who would fall under that category. That, at AUS$30 a pill, as seems to be the current rate here in Sydney (which I know is expensive compared to, say, London where they are about 1/4 that cost), and just 100,000 people instantly wipes $12,000,000 out of the drug trade. And what difference does it make to those users? None really. Doesn't change a thing for them, except they don't have the fear of spending time in jail or swallowing industrial strength cleaning chemicals. That level of consumption leads to probably similar statistics per 100,000 people in regards to personal health and anti social behaviour as per 100,000 people on a night on the booze. The difference though from that transaction on up the drug food chain is massive, and only positive.

And then there's pot, which just seems to have absolutely zero social side affects. Really.

Anyway, I hope you see my point, even if I don't really know how to somehow pull it off successfuly.

 

[u2fan628]

I think what is evident is that what people are trying to do is not so much find a way to legalise a class of dugs as such, but legalise a class of drug user. The vast majority of people who partake in illegal drug use, and I mean VAST majority, are not the junkies in the crack dens shooting up with dirty needles financed by a stolen DVD player or a $10 blow job who will end up in a mental hospital or dead having spread their misery and disease to many others. The majority are the recreational drug user who has the occasional pill at a dance party, or the occasional joint in the quiet of their own home. They - and their activities - do not disturb or intrude on others. They do not commit crimes (aside from the purchase and consumption of the drug of course). They do not partake in anti social behaviour. Any minor public disturbances as a result of their consumption are generally similar to that of drinkers - eg, getting behind the wheel of a car while under the influence. The two major problems with what they are doing are the fact that they supply criminal activity with billions of dollars a year - the majority of the drug trades earnings do not come from junkies and rock stars, they come from the suburban recreational users - and they take a risk with their health when dealing in an illegal trade of what can be toxic substances when unchecked and unregulated.
You find a way to bring those people out from the underground, from illegal to legal, give them a regulated, 'safe' option, and you instantly wipe out so many of the problems related to drugs. Billions of dollars, thousands of people, so much. Bring the activities of 80% out into the open, and it makes it easier to attack the 20% - the real problem - left behind. Would it increase addictions etc? I'm not talking about legalising a substance like meth - I see no benefit in that. I'm talking about the common, dirt cheap, available in massive quantities everywhere drugs. The type that if you want it, you get it easily and cheaply anyway. Just as easily as if it were legaly sold in every drug store. Maybe just legalise three. Pot. Ecstacy. A speed/coke type. Sure, there'd be a slight rise in users. Definitely. But not some scary thing. The pay off is huge. If there's a tiny % increase in usage, but far, far, far larger decrease in emergency issues with 'bad' purchases, and billions wiped out of the drug trade, if it strips so many people away from the trade - - - - anyway, somehow I think there has to be a better solution to the current plan of attack, and it's in releasing the recreational, non-criminal, relatively harmless user out of the illegal/black market cycle. I mean, imagine if you could somehow say, okay if you have 2 pills a night, two nights a year, you can do it legally and safely. That's hundreds of thousands of people who would fall under that category. That, at AUS$30 a pill, as seems to be the current rate here in Sydney (which I know is expensive compared to, say, London where they are about 1/4 that cost), and just 100,000 people instantly wipes $12,000,000 out of the drug trade. And what difference does it make to those users? None really. Doesn't change a thing for them, except they don't have the fear of spending time in jail or swallowing industrial strength cleaning chemicals. That level of consumption leads to probably similar statistics per 100,000 people in regards to personal health and anti social behaviour as per 100,000 people on a night on the booze. The difference though from that transaction on up the drug food chain is massive, and only positive.

And then there's pot, which just seems to have absolutely zero social side affects. Really.

Anyway, I hope you see my point, even if I don't really know how to somehow pull it off successfuly.

 

[U2Bama]

I socially smoked for awhile never became addicted. I could probably try coke and never have a problem with it what so ever. Now of course there's a difference between the addictive properties of a cigarette and coke. In fact many will tell you cigs are more addictive than heroin.

I smoked cigarettes for a brief time but never had any real craving for them. I am a social drinker of alcohol but I'm obviously not addicted as I have given it up for Lent before with no problems. I am however addicted to coke, the diet version in the silver and red can. I need one every morning. It's probably a good thing I've never developed a taste for coffee, especially in this age of expensive coffe places such as Starbucks and the trendy local places around here. I'll just stick to their pastries, with a Diet Coke.

And a mass marketed meth would be completely different from what's on the streets, just like the meth at Johnny's house is different from that at Mary's.

I still say, though, that it would only make good (yet sinister) business sense for the newly legal corporate manufacturers of recreational meth, opiates and cocaine to maintain the addictive qualities of these drugs. If Coke and PepsiCo can sell us addictive items, then so should they be able to. Also, if it's "completely different from what's on the streets," then it likely isn't going to be as much fun, as strong, as euphoric. The beer sold on store shelves in Alabama is not as strong as that sold in Georgia, and the Florida beer is even weaker. The Carta Blanca cerveza I had last night was nowhere near as strong as my friend's frozen margarita, but probably a bit stronger than my wife's Michelob Ultra. The street legal retail versions of the newly legal drugs would not be as strong as the black market versions that would still be available and more appealing to many users.

But see this is my point, this is all speculation due to the perception that "well this is happening now, so it will just get worse when it's legal." This isn't an exponential issue, and that's where your line of thinking is coming from.

Imagine if you will if alcohol is illegal tomorrow. Black market would be crazy, and there would be no regulations.

Drunk driving deaths would rise, longer drives to underground bars on the outskirts of towns, with no closing times set by law. Jails would be filling up. Break ins would rise due to search for cash for bloated costs of booze. Intoxication deaths would rise due to higher non-regulated proofs of alcohol.

Take a look at the % of alcohol related deaths, accidents, and illegal activity on a college campus between 20 year olds and 21 year olds. The 20 year old group will almost always be higher.

Now think of that nationwide.

I do not think alcohol, or tobacco, for that matter, are fair comparisons because they are currently legal and are mainstream consumer/retail items (with the exception of a shrinking number of "dry" counties in the U.S.). Prohibition failed because it sought to ban something that was already a legally accepted part of society. It continues to have its harmful side effects in these "dry counties" because, as you allude to with your scenario, people have to drive to the next county or several counties over or even the state line to get their alcohol, and if they drink on the way there or back or at some state line honky-tonk, then, obviously, they will be impaired while driving along miles and miles of public roads.

But that is not the direction of drug legalization; it is the opposite. You want to make more harmful items more readily available to more people (as if we are not dangerous enough with the potential to abuse alcohol).

The college campus scenario is also worthy of consideration (not a "moot point," but remember that another factor there is that many of these 18-20 year olds are away from home, unsupervised, and living in their own place for the first time. As far as the difference in "illegal activity" between 20 and 21 year olds, also remember that there will obviously be de facto "illegal activity" amongst the 20 year old drinkers, since they are illegally drinking underage while the 21 year olds are of legal drinking age. Also, they may be newer to alcohol than the older drinkers. They may less mature, less experienced, and less capable of making safe decisions.

~U2Alabama

 

[A_Wanderer]

Prohibition failed because it sought to ban something that was already a legally accepted part of society

Cocaine, laudanum and heroin were all legal at one stage or another with different levels of social acceptance; the demonisation of drugs and the fear mongering employed by anti-drug crusaders will lump everything in the worst category.

 

[BVS]

I do not think alcohol, or tobacco, for that matter, are fair comparisons because they are currently legal and are mainstream consumer/retail items (with the exception of a shrinking number of "dry" counties in the U.S.).

But can be just as harmful.

As far as the difference in "illegal activity" between 20 and 21 year olds, also remember that there will obviously be de facto "illegal activity" amongst the 20 year old drinkers, since they are illegally drinking underage while the 21 year olds are of legal drinking age. Also, they may be newer to alcohol than the older drinkers. They may less mature, less experienced, and less capable of making safe decisions.

~U2Alabama

This is exactly my point. The difference in the 20 year olds and the 21 year olds will be very similar to illegal drug users and legal drug users.

 

[U2Bama]

Anyway, I hope you see my point, even if I don't really know how to somehow pull it off successfuly.

I do see your point, and you made some very valid ones. but still, several of the drugs you mentioned as potential legalization candidates, ecstacy, speed and coke are the very ones that have had the worst impact on people in my area. Quite often, in regards to ecstacy and speed, it has started with a few teens who occasionally use it at a dance party and it leads to increased use and other, stronger drug use. Ecstacy use builds a person's tolerance to the drug; they need more for each repeat event. The street legal retain version may not always be enough. Not a chemical addiction, but a compulsive need for higher doses. Now, some users may indeed only use it once every couple of months, and the tolerance ramp may not occur; but others may use it as frequently as I drank beer in college, and that is where the problem begins with chemically-based drugs and opiates, which can lead to the risk of overdose. Also, with opiates and cocaine, this can be a fast track to addiction. Even with weakened, street legal versions, there is an increased potential to introduce new people to the dangers that we fear from the current black market versions. This is my opinion, but I do not see where it is worth a few more deaths, rapes, robberies or assaults of innocent bystanders to these people.

~U2Alabama

 

[U2Bama]

Cocaine, laudanum and heroin were all legal at one stage or another with different levels of social acceptance; the demonisation of drugs and the fear mongering employed by anti-drug crusaders will lump everything in the worst category.

But that's just it: these items had much lower levels of acceptance and were nowhere near as mainstream as alcohol and tobacco have been. Also, the production of alcohol and smoking of various plants goes back much further in just about every culture, whereas the production of opiates, coacaine and chemical drugs as used today are relatively modern. They drank mead in Beowulf and beer and wine in the Bible.

~U2Alabama

 

[U2Bama]

But can be just as harmful.

I'm not ignoring the potential for harm from the use of either of those two (although I would argue that the rapid effects and addictive qualities of opiates, meth and cocaine are greater than that from typical consumption of alcohol or tobacco). My point was merely between the comparison of mainstream retail products (tobacco, alcohol) as opposed to black market products. I would suspect that more people drink alcohol and/or use tobacco than there are people who use meth, opiates or heroin. I would also suspect that there are more people who would favor maintaining the legal status of alcohol (possibly not tobacco) than there are people who would support the legalization of opiates, meth or cocaine.

This is exactly my point. The difference in the 20 year olds and the 21 year olds will be very similar to illegal drug users and legal drug users.

I am a bit confused as to this analogy. I think the ones who would have turned to the illegal version would have run their course with the legal retail versions, whereas beer drinkers may taper off their consumption after awhile (I certainly have).

~U2Alabama

 

[A_Wanderer]

But that's just it: these items had much lower levels of acceptance and were nowhere near as mainstream as alcohol and tobacco have been. Also, the production of alcohol and smoking of various plants goes back much further in just about every culture, whereas the production of opiates, coacaine and chemical drugs as used today are relatively modern. They drank mead in Beowulf and beer and wine in the Bible.

~U2Alabama

If legalised today the levels of social acceptance would still be low; the same portion that abuses the drugs would abuse them if legal, more people may experiment in a safer environment and we would be more free.

 

[U2Bama]

If legalised today the levels of social acceptance would still be low; the same portion that abuses the drugs would abuse them if legal, more people may experiment in a safer environment and we would be more free.

You are speculating here so I hope that BonoVoxSuperStar will allow me to speculate here as well:

"More people" will very likely take being "more free" too far. If more innocent bystanders are harmed because of it, it has gone too far and it is not a benefit to society.

P.S. The helicopter is flying over my house again, same time as last night, 10:30 pm.

~U2Alabama

 

[BVS]

I am a bit confused as to this analogy. I think the ones who would have turned to the illegal version would have run their course with the legal retail versions, whereas beer drinkers may taper off their consumption after awhile (I certainly have).

~U2Alabama

Now you're confusing me.

My whole point is that if the item is illegal there's more illegal activity surrounding beyond just the pocession itself.

That's why I used 20 and 21 year olds, there's only 1 year more of "experience" yet the driving accidents, violent crimes, etc were exponentially greater in the illegal crowd. It was interesting study, I'll try to find it, it's been years.

And yes I've known drug users who have tapered off their consumption almost to 0 since college, and I also know drinkers who still think they are in college...and it's now 10 years later.

 

[BVS]

You are speculating here so I hope that BonoVoxSuperStar will allow me to speculate here as well:

Touche...

 

[u2fan628]

If legalised today the levels of social acceptance would still be low; the same portion that abuses the drugs would abuse them if legal, more people may experiment in a safer environment and we would be more free.

How people do not see this logic is beyond me.

 

[A_Wanderer]

You are speculating here so I hope that BonoVoxSuperStar will allow me to speculate here as well:

"More people" will very likely take being "more free" too far. If more innocent bystanders are harmed because of it, it has gone too far and it is not a benefit to society.

P.S. The helicopter is flying over my house again, same time as last night, 10:30 pm.

~U2Alabama

If we judge things on the basis of benefit to society instead of individual liberty people will have less freedom, I will err on the side of freedom.

urglary and violence are violations of other peoples rights in themselves: of course we could just means test the right to use drugs, so that only those that aren't going to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others can buy them.

As far as speculation goes I am not making the case for legalisation on the basis of benefit to society, it is one of liberty, even if legalisation meant all those problems it would be pro-freedom to allow it; but freedom and civil society are very often at odds.

 

[AEON]

Where is a safe enough environment to freely experiment with crack and heroin?

 

[indra]

I will say that the pro-legalization crowd makes some good arguments that are worthy of consideration.

If we are admitting that the drugs can and/or do lead to problems for some people, then who should this burden be on in the legalized drug world? Should all of society, including those who do not use the drugs nor support their use in society, bear this burden in their taxes? I think that tax money would be much better spent on paying public educators and improving the quality of education in Lowndes County, Alabama rather than subsidizing a safety net recovery program for for more people who choose to get their thrills via dangerous chemicals.

What about the additional dangers created by the behavior of additional persons who are "under the influence" of drugs/chemicals which they can readily and legally purchase in their neighborhood stores? There will undoubtedly be some people who do not do drugs while they are illegal but would choose to experiment if they were legalized. This would mean more people on the roads, in our communities, who could negatively be affected by their new hobbies and pose dangers to other members of their community.

As other have already pointed out, the drug cost is already borne by society. Taxpayers already pay for these human costs (ie to treat addictions and ODs etc) and we also pay for the useless and ultimately futile "war on drugs." However, if drugs were legalised and taxed, those taxes and part of the savings gained from no longer having to pay for this huge infrastructure currently in place to fight drugs would be able to be used to treat addictions and other various medical costs (ie ODs, etc). The rest of the money currently spent on the "war on drugs" could be spent not by going after people merely buying, selling, or using drugs, but those who are driving under the influence for example. And because I, like A Wanderer, foresee that drug use will not have the social acceptance that drinking does for quite a long time, people won't treat driving under the influence of drugs as nonchalantly as we do driving under the influence of alcohol.

I also strongly believe that the problems for society caused by additional users (of which I believe there will be far fewer than you estimate) will be more than offset by the decrease in problems cause to society by the illegality of drugs. Furthermore, I believe the dangers caused by casual users will be much easier to curb than those caused by the current crop of ruthless distributors (pushers and their suppliers) and people desperate for their next fix and desperate not to get caught. Because most of the street price of illegal drugs is due to the cost of possibly getting caught, if that threat is taken away they will be much more affordable (even with a hefty tax) for those who use a lot (addicts). This would make theft crimes to pay for drugs less likely. So yes there will still be problems caused by people who use drugs, but I believe the problems would be substantially reduced both in severity and in numbers if drugs were legalised.

I realize these legalized drugs would be "more controlled" in their production and distribution, but those weaker versions may not be enough for addictive users who want more, more, more.

I enjoy a Tecate with my meal at a Mexican restaurant; but a few shots of Jaegermeister would be more fun if I were up for an adventurous evening. Which is more dangerous to me and people whom I may encounter? Obviously, a few shots of Jaeger. I was at a lake party once where jetskis were present. A guy said, "We ought to get smashed and drive these things around the lake all day." He and everyone else were sober when he said that, but you do see the risk that he would have posed to people all over the lake if he were under the influence of alcohol (or any other drug for that matter) and piloting any type of watercraft.

I don't consider "more controlled" to mean weaker versions. The properties of the drugs would be more known though and if you expected to get a certain strength/purity of heroin for example, you would get that strength/purity, not something greater or lesser. Plus it wouldn't have other additives (unless that also was known and labeled as such) which would also help the user to avoid medical problems. I can see having varying strengths/purities of drugs being offered by their manufacturers (which could be subsidiaries of pharmaceutical companies even -- their profits from formerly illegal drugs could help keep prices down on medical use drugs). Pot and mushrooms wouldn't need elaborate production and distribution systems at all. Growing those at home or in coops or the like would work just fine.

I have a question for you. When you are out at dinner at that Mexican restaurant why do you only drink that Tecate? Jagermeister is legal isn't it? So why don't you drink it if it would be more fun? I am interested in your answer, but because I'm on a roll now I'm going to guess at it. And my guess is that it will be something along the line of "I know that a few shots of Jagermeister would render me unable to safely drive home whereas a beer with dinner will not. " (that beer, even with dinner, would render me less safe as a driver, which is why if I'm driving within 6-8 hours at the very least, I don't drink.) So if that's your thinking behind not having the Jagermeisters, why do you assume people who ould use drugs would go for the most powerful ones before driving etc? I've never driven while high or drunk, and that wouldn't change no matter what drugs were legal.

As for the guy at the party -- I really don't see what his comment has to do with keeping currently illegal drugs illegal. The man was stupid. If he was on a public waterway isn't what he was proposing illegal? If so, and if he in fact did it, he should be arrested, even if the intoxicant he used was legal to consume. Same would apply if he did it under the influence of any other drug. Now if we could make stupid people illegal....

As it is today with currently illegal drugs being illegal, even in my low-crime community we have problems with burglaries commited by meth addicts. Just two weeks ago, a string of burglaries were commited in peoples' private homes by two twenty-something women; eight of these burglaries occured in my neighborhood alone. The two women would go to the front doors of houses, knock, and if no one answered,they would break into the homes and take things that did not belong to them. What would/should have happened if they encountered a frightened resident and someone, be it the intruder or the resident, had gotten hurt? The two women were caught and are believed to be addicts. Do we really want to introduce more people to meth, opiates, cocaine, etc. so that they run the risk of posing such dangers to themselves and society, including innocent people?

~U2Alabama

See I believe for the most part that people who have the tendency to be addicts will be addicts, whether drugs are legal or not, and people who don't have that tendency won't become addicts. So I really do not see any great surge in number of addicts if drugs were legalised. Plus, with them legal the prices would be far lower (the reason the prices are high is not because the ingredients are so costly or that they are so difficult to make, but that the cost of getting caught is high, so the high price is to offset the risk), so there would be less reason to steal to feed one's habit in the first place.

Unlike several others here I would legalise even meth, as I feel it is one of the most dangerous in it's illegal forms. It is very dangerous to the user as it varies wildly from maker to maker and even batch to batch. Plus cooking meth is very dangerous to all in the vicinity, and often makes houses where it has been manufactured unfit to be inhabited again. By manufacturing it in safe, controlled environments the danger to many communities would immediatly be reduced. Plus, standardising the formula and having various strengths would even make the user more safe and would give him or her a better shot at deciding to try to kick the habit. And because there wouldn't be the fear of being arrested, those who wanted to try to kick it (or any other drug) would be more likely to seek the help they need.

 

[trevster2k]

I agree with everything indra so eloquently stated. This is how I view the whole situation. The reallocation of resources used to fight the illegal drugs, combined with the reduction in crime committed to get the funding for the drugs and gain of taxable revenue would easily offset the costs or risks of any possible, albeit I think slight, increase in drug use.

Would anyone here run out and start sampling cocaine, heroin, and so on if it was available legally? I don't advocate making it easily available to the point you could just walk into a supermarket and grab a bag of hash though. It would have to be available at certain designated places IMO.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Where is a safe enough environment to freely experiment with crack and heroin?

When you are Sherlock Holmes without any interesting cases;

I have an interest in hallucinogenic drugs and the nature of conciousness, and I would probably buy such drugs legally; there can be responsible drug use even for recreational purposes.

 

[MrPryck2U]

If they legalized every drug and if everyone went out and started doing lots of coke, crack and heroin, it sure would get rid of a lot stupid people. But seriously, if the US legalized drugs, Uncle Sam sure would piss off a lot of drug dealers.

 

[Kieran McConville]

Yeah a little education would show you that a natural plant is much healthier than booze and cigarettes anyday of the week.

Coming in fashionably late here...

I agree with the overall sentiments, but in fairness, booze is made from plants, and so are cigarettes (and yes, the big tobacco companies add a lot of stuff to their product, but the organic brands do not).

Just my little squeaky-wheel moment.

In general I concur with those who say legalise-and-regulate. The criminal industry is the problem.

 

[BVS]

Coming in fashionably late here...

I agree with the overall sentiments, but in fairness, booze is made from plants, and so are cigarettes (and yes, the big tobacco companies add a lot of stuff to their product, but the organic brands do not).

Just my little squeaky-wheel moment.

In general I concur with those who say legalise-and-regulate. The criminal industry is the problem.

Yes, but as I have found out as of late, being a smoker of American Spirits, there is no such thing as a pure cigarette.

And booze compared to pot, which one is more natural...

Overall, none of this really matters to me, except that certain crowds tend to ignore this, and it should be pointed out to them.

 

[Kieran McConville]

Fair enough.

 

[U2Bama]

As other have already pointed out, the drug cost is already borne by society. Taxpayers already pay for these human costs (ie to treat addictions and ODs etc) and we also pay for the useless and ultimately futile "war on drugs." However, if drugs were legalised and taxed, those taxes and part of the savings gained from no longer having to pay for this huge infrastructure currently in place to fight drugs would be able to be used to treat addictions and other various medical costs (ie ODs, etc). The rest of the money currently spent on the "war on drugs" could be spent not by going after people merely buying, selling, or using drugs, but those who are driving under the influence for example. And because I, like A Wanderer, foresee that drug use will not have the social acceptance that drinking does for quite a long time, people won't treat driving under the influence of drugs as nonchalantly as we do driving under the influence of alcohol.

I also strongly believe that the problems for society caused by additional users (of which I believe there will be far fewer than you estimate) will be more than offset by the decrease in problems cause to society by the illegality of drugs. Furthermore, I believe the dangers caused by casual users will be much easier to curb than those caused by the current crop of ruthless distributors (pushers and their suppliers) and people desperate for their next fix and desperate not to get caught. Because most of the street price of illegal drugs is due to the cost of possibly getting caught, if that threat is taken away they will be much more affordable (even with a hefty tax) for those who use a lot (addicts). This would make theft crimes to pay for drugs less likely. So yes there will still be problems caused by people who use drugs, but I believe the problems would be substantially reduced both in severity and in numbers if drugs were legalised.

I don't consider "more controlled" to mean weaker versions. The properties of the drugs would be more known though and if you expected to get a certain strength/purity of heroin for example, you would get that strength/purity, not something greater or lesser. Plus it wouldn't have other additives (unless that also was known and labeled as such) which would also help the user to avoid medical problems. I can see having varying strengths/purities of drugs being offered by their manufacturers (which could be subsidiaries of pharmaceutical companies even -- their profits from formerly illegal drugs could help keep prices down on medical use drugs). Pot and mushrooms wouldn't need elaborate production and distribution systems at all. Growing those at home or in coops or the like would work just fine.

Again, I'll admit that this is speculation, but pretty much anything that either side states "would happen" is just that...speculation...

A black market of cheaper, dirtier and more dangerous drugs will remain for those who do not want to purchase the "safer," highly taxed retail versions. You will still have people that want the rush and risk of meth manufactured from the chemicals under my kitchen sink and the cold and allergy medicine which I now have to register for each time I purchase them. They will be more fun, just as a shot of Jaeger is more fun than a glass of Chardonnay.

And I remain concerned that the number of "casual users" will increase, and more of them will become habitual users of drugs. Just as we can say today that fast food chains and soft drink manufacturers market to the potential addictions of children and teens to their products, tobacco companies were doing this just over a decade ago (remember Joe Camel?). The criminal drug dealers of today are predators, nothing better. The future corporate manufacturers and distributors/retailers of these legalized versions of drugs will be corporate predators with much more money and resources, and a more openly curious target market.

I have a question for you. When you are out at dinner at that Mexican restaurant why do you only drink that Tecate? Jagermeister is legal isn't it? So why don't you drink it if it would be more fun? I am interested in your answer, but because I'm on a roll now I'm going to guess at it. And my guess is that it will be something along the line of "I know that a few shots of Jagermeister would render me unable to safely drive home whereas a beer with dinner will not. " (that beer, even with dinner, would render me less safe as a driver, which is why if I'm driving within 6-8 hours at the very least, I don't drink.) So if that's your thinking behind not having the Jagermeisters, why do you assume people who ould use drugs would go for the most powerful ones before driving etc? I've never driven while high or drunk, and that wouldn't change no matter what drugs were legal.

As for the guy at the party -- I really don't see what his comment has to do with keeping currently illegal drugs illegal. The man was stupid. If he was on a public waterway isn't what he was proposing illegal? If so, and if he in fact did it, he should be arrested, even if the intoxicant he used was legal to consume. Same would apply if he did it under the influence of any other drug. Now if we could make stupid people illegal....

There are different classes of liquor licenses in Alabama and Florida; some restaurants have a class 1, which allows the sale of beer & wine (usually at "fast casual" restaurants such as Moe's Southwestern Grill or barbecue joints), while a Class 2 allows the sale of drinks containing hard liquor. In Alabama, grocery stores can not sell hard liquor, only beer and wine, but in Florida, grocery stores and drug stores can have an attached "liquor store" with a separate entrance that sells hard liquor. But neither of those are what I was talking about...

I drink a Tecate (or a Carta Blanca) with my tamales, burrito, enchilada, etc. because I enjoy the taste of a Cerveza with that food as I feel the flavors compliment one another. At the age of 34, having fun going out to dinner means enjoying my meal with my family and possibly with friends, and alcohol is by no means a necessity for the "fun" part. To be honest, I have been on perscription medications for bronchitis over the past few weeks, and the drying effect of these drugs makes a beer unrefreshing and unappealing (plus the unmentionable digestive side effects I experienced in Orange Beach two weeks ago when I had a Jimmy Buffet Landshark Lager with my fried flounder sandwich --- in between taking 3 of the 4 meds I was on). I've been much more content with diet Coke at the Mexican restaurant and Gatorade while sitting on the beach.

I do understand that alcoholic beverages have varying effects on individuals. The general rule recommended by local law enforcement is that more than two beers can render a person impaired and/or push their blood/alcohol content level above Alabama's minimum. For me, personally, one beer does not push me to or over the legal limit, nor does it impair any of my functions.

As to what drug users would do, in a legalized world, prior to driving, I'm only speculating (again) based on some of the known and observed side effects of recreational drugs and the delusions the users may experience. And another, parallel observation of this comes from the evolutionary descent of wisdom and judgement I have seen people go through by simply drinking large amounts of alcohol in a day.


The guy at the lake party was just an illustration of what stupid people envision as being much more fun when they are under the influence of something...

See I believe for the most part that people who have the tendency to be addicts will be addicts, whether drugs are legal or not, and people who don't have that tendency won't become addicts. So I really do not see any great surge in number of addicts if drugs were legalised. Plus, with them legal the prices would be far lower (the reason the prices are high is not because the ingredients are so costly or that they are so difficult to make, but that the cost of getting caught is high, so the high price is to offset the risk), so there would be less reason to steal to feed one's habit in the first place.

Unlike several others here I would legalise even meth, as I feel it is one of the most dangerous in it's illegal forms. It is very dangerous to the user as it varies wildly from maker to maker and even batch to batch. Plus cooking meth is very dangerous to all in the vicinity, and often makes houses where it has been manufactured unfit to be inhabited again. By manufacturing it in safe, controlled environments the danger to many communities would immediatly be reduced. Plus, standardising the formula and having various strengths would even make the user more safe and would give him or her a better shot at deciding to try to kick the habit. And because there wouldn't be the fear of being arrested, those who wanted to try to kick it (or any other drug) would be more likely to seek the help they need.

You mention the drugs being less expensive if legal, but earlier you envisioned high taxation to cover the cost of addiction and overdose recovery, and also higher prices to subsidize the cost of medical pharmaceuticals. Which is it? I can go out and get meth, crack or ecstacy pretty cheap by my standards.

For meth to be as "fun" as it is, the legal version would need to retain the hazardous addictive qualities of today's illegal street version. The cost of addiction would still be beyond the means of many users, and they would still break in to my neighbor's houses to take things that do not belong to them. The aggresive behavior side effects would still accompany the thrills, so the users would still be a threat to my wife and daughter and me after they have taken their dose. If we tell society that these drugs and their side effects are okay, then I say that the people who use them, the people who support them being readily available to everyone, and the corporate predators who manufacture, distribute and sell them to the users should be responsible for every victim whom the users rob, harm, rape, terrorize or kill. All I'm saying is that I have a right to politically fight the legalization of harmful chemical and/or narcotic drugs, and I will fight it.

~U2Alabama