Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Astral]

The counter/petition originally in the OP has doubled since I signed it... 150k to 300k+.

It's kind of amazing, in a way. For an internet petition.

[G-Flex]

If someone wants to harm their own body, I say let them. At least in the United States, this is supposed to be included in freedom of choice. I won't speak for whatever might work in another country, though. Every culture is different.

We've tried the no-regulation approach to things like labor and drugs. It didn't work.

That sort of laissez-faire idealism is based on ideals that do make sense, but also on assumptions that do not: You cannot assume that the consumer is always rational or well-informed or otherwise capable of making the right choice, especially when it comes to things the consumer should never be expected to be an expert about, like pharmaceuticals. This is doubly true of addictive substances, where the issue of "choice" becomes a little murky in the first place. Hell, "choice" gets murky once you factor in the fact that personal and social attitudes towards things don't spring out of people's heads fully-formed anyway; there are social/religious/corporate influences at work.

Not that freedom of choice is a bad thing, but it needs to be tempered with government regulation... which is why it is. If the drug war isn't being won, it's not because the government shouldn't regulate, it's because they're going about preventing drug use in completely the wrong way.

[Johnfalcon99977]

I think ending the the war on drugs is the best way to fight drugs.

Sounds crazy, but its human nature to want what we do not have. Countries that have legalized drugs have much less drug users, while the opposite is true for countries that heavily enforce drug laws. I think poltics should look at the charts and make the best assumtion.

[G-Flex]

Countries that have legalized drugs have much less drug users, while the opposite is true for countries that heavily enforce drug laws.

Why assume that they have fewer drug users because of the lack of legislation? It's at least as (un)fair assumption that the reason they can get away with laxer drug laws is because they don't have a drug problem.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Countries that have legalized drugs have much less drug users, while the opposite is true for countries that heavily enforce drug laws.

Why assume that they have fewer drug users because of the lack of legislation?

Forbidden Fruit Effect. If you deny someone somthing they could potentially desire, even if it's somthing that isn't very wise to indulge in, it will still look more attractive simply because you cannot have it without breaking the law.

[nil]

That, plus:
- above-ground drug retailer has to follow rules, like not selling to minors.  Black marker dealers don't.
- using an illegal drug essentially requires some level of immersion in a drug-using culture, mostly to maintain a "connection" with a dealer; that culture of drug use can be self-reinforcing.

That said, I don't think the case for drug legalization does or should turn on whether or not it'll cause an increase or decrease in drug use.  It's a cost/benefit analysis and a human rights issue.

[G-Flex]

You're both making points for why something being illegal could cause people to want it more, although I disagree with some of them. But that's not the point. I'm asking why we know that countries with drug problems and drug laws have drug problems because of the laws, and not drug laws because of the problems. Either is plausible. Of course, that's assuming that there aren't cultures with free drug use where it's a problem, or cultures where drugs are illegal and not much of a problem either, which I doubt.

[Levi]

Edit:  Bleh, nevermind.

[Sensei]

At the rate it's been going it looks like it's going to peter out before 400k

[nil]

You're both making points for why something being illegal could cause people to want it more, although I disagree with some of them. But that's not the point. I'm asking why we know that countries with drug problems and drug laws have drug problems because of the laws, and not drug laws because of the problems. Either is plausible. Of course, that's assuming that there aren't cultures with free drug use where it's a problem, or cultures where drugs are illegal and not much of a problem either, which I doubt.

I hesitate to say it because surely someone else already has, but the main reason is that under a black market, prices are substantially higher than they would be under a legal market.  For example, you can get a pound of loose tobacco for less than 20 dollars.  Meanwhile, a pound of marijuana--despite the fact that criminal penalties for it are low compared to many drugs, and despite the fact that the plant is easy to grow, certainly easier than tobacco--will cost something like 1500 dollars at the very least, and  can easily be 2-3 times that for higher quality. 

This creates problems for two reasons.  One, there are huge profits to be made in trafficking, profits which many are willing to use violence to protect.  Two, the cost for the user is high, making it far more likely for them to commit crimes to "feed their habit." 

A secondary problem is that a black market product can have dangerous additives, and be of inconsistent and unknown quality.  It's a lot easier for a person to fall victim to an overdose if they don't, and short of relatively advanced testing techniques, can't, know how much of the drug they're actually taking.

A third possibility is that the availability of safer alternatives in a given class of drugs will decrease demand for the more harmful ones.  For example, it's possible that if people could get amphetamines without getting diagnosed with "ADHD" they would be less likely to seek out methamphetamines.  This one is pure conjecture, there's not really any available data on it, but I think there's a certain logic to it (particularly if we were in a situation where most drugs were legal but a few particularly harmful ones were not).


Keep in mind that some of the most inherently dangerous and brain damaging intoxicants out there are already totally legal--inhalants like glue and paint.  Inhalant abuse is a problem, true, but it's hardly rocking the foundations of society.

[G-Flex]

A third possibility is that the availability of safer alternatives in a given class of drugs will decrease demand for the more harmful ones.  For example, it's possible that if people could get amphetamines without getting diagnosed with "ADHD" they would be less likely to seek out methamphetamines.

Alternatively, correct whatever situations actually cause people to seek out a drug as dangerous as meth to begin with.

Keep in mind that some of the most inherently dangerous and brain damaging intoxicants out there are already totally legal--inhalants like glue and paint.  Inhalant abuse is a problem, true, but it's hardly rocking the foundations of society.

I don't think you can compare huffing glue to the problems posed by drugs like heroin, crack-cocaine, or methamphetamine. Please. It's not as if glue is regulated to be safe to inhale.

[lordcooper]

What happened when America experimented with the prohibition of alcohol?

[G-Flex]

A lot of bad things. Methamphetamine, heroin, and crack are not alcohol.

The criminalization of one thing causing problems doesn't mean that you shouldn't criminalize anything.

[lordcooper]

Alcohol is a drug, and a mind altering one at that.  If making one drug illegal causes a shed load of problems which mostly go away when it is made legal again, then that would suggest the almost identical problems to do with the abuse (abuse is a different thing to use IMO) and illegal trading of other drugs would follow a similar path if they were legalised.

If you throw sandstone in the air, it falls down.  It makes sense to assume the same would occur for granite.

Sorry if I'm a little less coherent than normal, I'm suffering from sleep deprivation at present.

[scriver]

Alcohol is intertwined with everyday drinking culture in a way other drugs are not. It's not really comparable.

And it's very naive to think legalisation will "solve" anything but the black market problem. If one follow your theory, drug abuse would go up just as alcoholism did after it was legalised (at least in Sweden), and the money would still go into the pockets of criminals, both abroad and at home. The way to deal with it is to stop the social, and on the individual scale psychological problems that causes drug abuse, and I think a legisation of the drug market would just get in the way of that.