Drugs are bad m'kay

[4play]

Any one else catch the article on rolling stone about how America lost the war on drugs. source (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/17438347/how_america_lost_the_war_on_drugs)

It is six pages long but well worth the read. It makes some very valid points and for the lazy people im going to list them..

1)attacking the cartels that supply the drugs only makes them move about and costs billions.
colombia -> Bolivia -> mexico and the future seems bright for asia to play a bigger part.

2)attacking marijuana as a gateway drug is pointless. the gateway theory is tenuous at best.

3)locking dealers up for 30 years is a rubbish idea because it costs too much. better to scare the shit out of them first with actual proof that if they are seen doing it again 30 years awaits them and offer them help rehab / job placements.

4)drug related violence is very probably caused by a gang mentality and brazenness rather than business related reasons. the tactics of identifying a whole gang, their members habits, girlfriend and family and confront the whole gang with this information seems to reduce violence dramatically. even if they don't stop dealing they tend to hide away which reduces the violence.

5)the war on drug is being fought against the wrong people. Target the users not with punishment but with help. Make rehabilitation an option for all users caught for non violent offences.

personally i would be happy to see softer drugs legalised and taxed while users addicted to harder drugs (heroin, coke, crack..) be locked away until doctors consider them clean and then given help finding homes and jobs.

The best way to fight drugs is the remove the market. the supply will always be there to meet the market needs but if you shrink the market you shrink the problem.

[ilw]

Can't really add much to what you've said already, it is an interesting article and i agree with pretty much all you've said except you're point about locking addicts away in prison, i'd rather treat addiction as a medical problem so i don't think prison is the right place. Also i think legalisation of any sort would need to be preceded by a lot of thought about regulation, and possibly decriminalisation instead of legalisation may be a better option.


Cannabis is to be reclassified as a Class B drug after an official review this spring, The Times has learnt. Gordon Brown and Jacqui Smith are determined to reverse the decision to downgrade the drug when the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs completes its report in the next few months.

While its recommendations are not yet known, ministers are already making plain that the Home Secretary is prepared to overrule the expert body if necessary. Reclassifying cannabis as a Class B drug will mean that anyone found in possession of the substance could face a five-year jail term and an unlimited fine rather than a police warning and confiscation of the drug. The penalty for supplying would remain the same, at a maximum 14 years in jail and unlimited fines.

The advisory council, which rejected a previous attempt to reclassify cannabis in 2006, has been told to take into account public attitudes to cannabis as well as the medical evidence of its harm in reaching its conclusion.

...

“The sentiment from No 10 and the Home Office is very much towards reclassification. It has to be as much about the message that is being sent out as much as anything else,” a senior Whitehall figure has told The Times. New evidence on the harm to mental health that smoking stronger forms of cannabis can cause helped to prompt the latest review of the law last autumn.

In her letter to Professor Sir Michael Rawlins, the chairman of the council, requesting a further review of evidence, Ms Smith said: “Though statistics show that cannabis use has fallen significantly, there is really public concern about the potential mental health effects of cannabis use, in particular the use of stronger forms of the drug, commonly known as skunk. This is in addition to the longitudinal studies undertaken in New Zealand and the Netherlands that link cannabis use to mental health problems.”



Shortly after becoming Prime Minister Mr Brown signalled his desire to reverse David Blunkett’s 2001 decision to reduce cannabis to a Class C drug that came into effect three years later. “It is the message you send out. Why I want to upgrade cannabis and make it more a drug that people worry about is that we don’t want to send out a message, just like with alcohol, to teenagers that we accept these things.”
...

The unpublished results of authoritative research into cannabis confirm that the skunk now on sale in England is stronger than it was a decade ago, but demolish claims that a new super-strength skunk, which is 20 times more powerful, is dominating the market.
...
Another dilemma for the Government in defending a decision to press ahead with reclassification is that the latest figures from the British Crime Survey suggest a long-term fall in cannabis use. Figures from the 2006-07 survey estimate that 20.9 per cent of 16 to 24-year-olds used cannabis in the past year. However, there has been a decrease between 1998 and 2006-07 among 16 to 59-year-olds in the use of cannabis from 10.3 per cent to 8.2 per cent.


basically our charming PM is planning on bullying the medical experts into coming out with the decision he's already made by telling them to take people's ignorance and prejudice into account (a prejudice built on feeding the public fear stories about cannabis for the last 40 years). And in the letter to the council they've pushed all the medical downsides and then on the side admitted that actually the medical side of it is pretty meaningless and that its all about 'the message', despite the fact that cannabis usage is declining (and continued to decline since the reduction in class) which basically implies that lowering the class sent out bugger all message.

[j2k4]

While the U.S. "War on Drugs" is clumsy, costly, ill-implemented, poorly focused, and all-but-useless, Rolling Stone magazine is certainly not a panacea for policy.

Smoke another doob and think it through. :whistling

[ilw]

While the U.S. "War on Drugs" is clumsy, costly, ill-implemented, poorly focused, and all-but-useless but its been worthwhile?

[j2k4]

While the U.S. "War on Drugs" is clumsy, costly, ill-implemented, poorly focused, and all-but-useless but its been worthwhile?

Who said that? :whistling

[clocker]

Is j2 shooting the messenger?

[lynx]

Is j2 shooting up the messenger?fixed

[ilw]

but its been worthwhile?

Who said that? :whistling

nobody, i was asking whether you thought it had been worthwhile. Has it been iyo?

[j2k4]

messenger disabled/deleted :whistling

[j2k4]

Who said that? :whistling

nobody, i was asking whether you thought it had been worthwhile. Has it been iyo?

No.

Too much use of words like "incentivization" with no application of logic or reason; over-reliance on the blunt instrument of money.

Human nature is continually overlooked. :whistling

[munkyboy04]

Legalize all drugs. Not just the "soft ones". It would Imediatley stop crime because there would be no more dealers, People would have access to "safe" and clean drugs. And it would be easier for people to control their habits because they would have legitimate places to get them from.

I dont understand why this has not been done yet. Crime would drop by half people would be safe. and it could all be controlled.

I'm not talking about being able to go to the corner shop and buying some smack. It should all be available on prescription given out by drug workers or doctors. That way people could be helped to get off the drug's rather than "locking people up" to go cold turkey(which doesnt work because it doesnt stop the mental addiction just the physical one).

I dont understand why our laws make drug addicts criminals. when they are people with very real problems and need to be helped.

[bigboab]

Legalize all drugs. Not just the "soft ones". It would Imediatley stop crime because there would be no more dealers, People would have access to "safe" and clean drugs. And it would be easier for people to control their habits because they would have legitimate places to get them from.

I dont understand why this has not been done yet. Crime would drop by half people would be safe. and it could all be controlled.

I'm not talking about being able to go to the corner shop and buying some smack. It should all be available on prescription given out by drug workers or doctors. That way people could be helped to get off the drug's rather than "locking people up" to go cold turkey(which doesnt work because it doesnt stop the mental addiction just the physical one).

I dont understand why our laws make drug addicts criminals. when they are people with very real problems and need to be helped.

I thought that drugs were made illegal because drug using went out off control. The same thing happened with alcohol. That is why it is sold under licence.

Whether selling drugs under licence would work or not, I don't know. Anything is worth a try to save the misery that drugs cause to people, both by the drug itself and the people making profit from them because of their addiction.:(

[clocker]

I thought that drugs were made illegal because drug using went out off control. The same thing happened with alcohol. That is why it is sold under licence.


Alcohol is sold "under licence" because that's how the government can profit from it.
Prohibition in the US ended not because of the social upheaval it caused but because it was costing the Feds @500 million a year in lost tax revenue.

Drug use has been a staple of human culture since time immemorial.
We are hardwired with a multitude of pleasure receptors that clamor to be sated and there are innumerable compounds that will fit the need.

The war on drugs is nothing more (or less) than a war on human physiology.

[bigboab]

I thought that drugs were made illegal because drug using went out off control. The same thing happened with alcohol. That is why it is sold under licence.


Alcohol is sold "under licence" because that's how the government can profit from it.
Prohibition in the US ended not because of the social upheaval it caused but because it was costing the Feds @500 million a year in lost tax revenue.


Drug use has been a staple of human culture since time immemorial.
We are hardwired with a multitude of pleasure receptors that clamor to be sated and there are innumerable compounds that will fit the need.

The war on drugs is nothing more (or less) than a war on human physiology.


Sorry Clocker I was referring to the UK and should have stated that. I was referring back to the Victorian days and the availability of Gin, which caused most of the alcohol problems. I don't think the UK ever had a prohibition on alcohol.

As long as the sating of these pleasure receptors* don't interfere with other peoples lives or destroy those doing the sating, then they should be allowed.


* Where can these receptors be located? :lol:

[clocker]

Sorry Clocker I was referring to the UK and should have stated that. I was referring back to the Victorian days and the availability of Gin, which caused most of the alcohol problems. I don't think the UK ever had a prohibition on alcohol.

Gin was essentially the crack of Victorian times and the abuse of both has less to do with the intrinsic "evil" of the drug than underlying social pressure.

If you are poor, uneducated and trapped in a rigid class structure, escape of day to day misery- by any means- is inevitable.

In Victorian times - just as today- it was far easier for moralists ( who were/are inevitably more comfortably situated than the objects of their scorn and thus, can afford morals) to claim that drug abuse was the cause rather than a symptom of more widespread social problems.

Simpler to say that the Victorian street urchin was morally/physically inferior because of gin than to admit that he was fucked, even if stone cold sober.

This is not meant to ignore the fact that some people are just naturally prone to abuse and addiction and that some drugs are simply evil but the former is a medical/physiological condition and the latter is a byproduct of Darwinian selection.

Today's "War on Drugs" is an insane mishmash of Puritan morality and political expedience.
There are a hell of a lot more alcoholics than heroin addicts but anyone can buy liquor while possession of a gram of heroin lands you in prison.

In essence, proponents of the war have decided to make all of society ride the short bus because of the afflictions/failures of the few.

[bigboab]

I read one argument that said if they legalize cannabis it could abolish the 'hard drugs'. The reason behind the statement was that cocaine etc. Was easier to smuggle because the quantities required were small. Sounds a convincing argument for legalizing cannabis.

[clocker]

I read one argument that said if they legalize cannabis it could abolish the 'hard drugs'. The reason behind the statement was that cocaine etc. Was easier to smuggle because the quantities required were small. Sounds a convincing argument for legalizing cannabis.
I'm not so sure.
On one hand, such a proposal kills the "gateway drug" theory (" Today he's smoking pot, tomorrow it'll be crack!") but on the other hand it's like saying beer is OK but bourbon is not.

For an easily digested (and very entertaining) primer on the economics of smuggling, watch the movie Blow.
"Quantity" as such, isn't the issue.
If you're going to smuggle a ton of something, you may as well smuggle the contraband with the highest value, i.e., coke.

[bigboab]

I read one argument that said if they legalize cannabis it could abolish the 'hard drugs'. The reason behind the statement was that cocaine etc. Was easier to smuggle because the quantities required were small. Sounds a convincing argument for legalizing cannabis.
I'm not so sure.
On one hand, such a proposal kills the "gateway drug" theory (" Today he's smoking pot, tomorrow it'll be crack!") but on the other hand it's like saying beer is OK but bourbon is not.

For an easily digested (and very entertaining) primer on the economics of smuggling, watch the movie Blow.
"Quantity" as such, isn't the issue.
If you're going to smuggle a ton of something, you may as well smuggle the contraband with the highest value, i.e., coke.

I think that their idea was that cannabis is bulkier and not as easy to hide as cocaine. If you legalize cannabis there would be less demand for cocaine.

[clocker]

I think that their idea was ... If you legalize cannabis there would be less demand for cocaine.
Not buying that, either.
Different markets, different effects...different altogether.

If pot were legalized, the government could see some major money in the form of inevitable taxes/licensing and also save a lot of money currently spent on the prosecution/incarceration of users but I don't see how it would effect cocaine consumption at all.

[bigboab]

Here is an extract from a report on the subject of both alcohol and drug laws;


The growing opposition to punitive drug policies

In many countries increasing numbers of people––physicians, lawyers, judges, police, journalists, scientists, public health officials, teachers, religious leaders, social workers, drug users and drug addicts––now openly criticize the more extreme, punitive, and criminalized forms of drug prohibition. These critics, from across the political spectrum, have pointed out that punitive drug policies are expensive, ineffective at reducing drug abuse, take scarce resources away from other public health and policing activities, and are often racially and ethnically discriminatory. Criminalized drug prohibition violates civil liberties, imprisons many nonviolent offenders, and worsens health problems like the AIDS and hepatitis epidemics. Harm reduction is a major part of the critical opposition to punitive drug policies. Indeed, harm reduction is the first popular, international movement to develop within drug prohibition to openly challenge drug demonization and the more criminalized forms of drug prohibition (Reinarman and Levine, 1997, Levine 2002, 2003).


If anyone has a lot of spare time they can read the whole report here;

http://www.cedro-uva.org/lib/levine.alcohol.html

All I can add is that the legislation that they are implementing at the moment is not working. They need to try something else. I personally do not agree with legalizing 'hard drugs'.

[shot2hell]

legalize drugs and tax the sh*t out of it and use the money to finance the many wars we are involved in - we already legalized tobacco and alcohol, are those any better or worse that x or acid?

[clocker]

legalize drugs and tax the sh*t out of it...
And now we come to the second part of the discussion.

"Sin taxes".
The theory that something is evil but inevitable, so the government might as well give in and allow it but tax the bejeebus out of it.
Typically, these taxes are theoretically to be used to prevent the very behaviour that is raising the cash in the first place...witness all the tax on tobacco.

Unfortunately, government being what it is, all this money is diverted into whatever is most pressing or expedient at the time, rarely funding the programs originally proposed, so the sinners end up paying for all sorts of things not linked to the sin.

Where did the concept come from that says that the guvmint should be allowed to "tax the shit out of it" just because people enjoy it?

Sales tax, no problem.
Any other taxes, no.

[Imagine_If]

In the "wrong " hand drugs could be termed as, "bad"..on the other hand (in)they can be extremely useful and therefore termed as good..all depends....life is full of dualities

[clocker]

In the "wrong " hand drugs could be termed as, "bad"..on the other hand (in)they can be extremely useful and therefore termed as good..all depends....life is full of dualities
Practicing to become a politician are we?

[bigboab]

legalize drugs and tax the sh*t out of it...
And now we come to the second part of the discussion.

"Sin taxes".
The theory that something is evil but inevitable, so the government might as well give in and allow it but tax the bejeebus out of it.
Typically, these taxes are theoretically to be used to prevent the very behaviour that is raising the cash in the first place...witness all the tax on tobacco.

Unfortunately, government being what it is, all this money is diverted into whatever is most pressing or expedient at the time, rarely funding the programs originally proposed, so the sinners end up paying for all sorts of things not linked to the sin.

Where did the concept come from that says that the guvmint should be allowed to "tax the shit out of it" just because people enjoy it?

Sales tax, no problem.
Any other taxes, no.

Will this affect the Grammar Police?:wacko: