Print

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

[ECrownofFire]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/21/drug-war-incentives-police-violent-crime_n_1105701.html

Yeah, the drug war is REALLY benefiting us, isn't it?

(Don't know if this actually belongs here, but hell, I don't see any other thread for this)

[kaijyuu]

Yeah I'm pretty sure most people here agree drug prohibition is pretty darn stupid.

Funnel all that money spent preventing drugs being used into drug education and fighting stuff like DUIs and we'd be a lot better off.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If we could make an alcohol cancellation pill and give them out for free at bars, DUI's would be much rarer. There's just the question of how to cancel alcohol in your blood without breaking down cellular mitosis and killing you.

[Virex]

And you thought the war on drugs was invented to fight drug abuse? How naive

[G-Flex]

Speaking as someone who had a friend who did kill himself via heroin overdose, and whose dependency on the drug was a serious problem (for actual medical reasons in addition to those mentioned in the blog post), the part of that post insinuating that heroin addiction wouldn't actually be a problem if it weren't for criminalization sounds extremely disingenuous. This may have been true for the poster, but she shouldn't extrapolate her own experiences to everyone. Then again, I guess it's a hallmark of bloggers to be fairly self-important and assume that their own opinions and experiences apply to everyone.

I'm honestly not even sure how drug legalization across the board would work. Would that imply that all prescription drugs would also be available over-the-counter, with no drug scheduling at all? The entire thing seems like it would be extremely disastrous to me. I can understand some of the arguments, but for some reason, I just don't think that the local CVS being able to freely sell people anything without prescription (from cocaine to heroin to antibiotics) would have good consequences whatsoever. I can understand decriminalization, though, in the sense that I don't think we should treat drug addicts like criminals as we currently do.

[palsch]

There's some interesting ideas floating around with regards to a 'drug peace'.

That article comes at things from a strong treatment and abuse reduction angle. I doubt anyone will like all of it, but there are some really strong points. What I consider the core of the article;

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

These facts having now been set out, five principles might reasonably guide our policy choices. First, the overarching goal of policy should be to minimize the damage done to drug users and to others from the risks of the drugs themselves (toxicity, intoxicated behavior and addiction) and from control measures and efforts to evade them.

That implies a second principle: No harm, no foul. Mere use of an abusable drug does not constitute a problem demanding public intervention. “Drug users” are not the enemy, and a achieving a “drug-free society” is not only impossible but unnecessary to achieve the purposes for which the drug laws were enacted.

Third, one size does not fit all: Drugs, users, markets and dealers all differ, and policies need to be as differentiated as the situations they address.

Fourth, all drug control policies, including enforcement, should be subjected to cost-benefit tests: We should act only when we can do more good than harm, not merely to express our righteousness. Since lawbreakers and their families are human beings, their suffering counts, too: Arrests and prison terms are costs, not benefits, of policy. Policymakers should learn from their mistakes and abandon unsuccessful efforts, which means that organizational learning must be built into organizational design. In drug policy as in most other policy arenas, feedback is the breakfast of champions.

Fifth, in discussing programmatic innovations we should focus on programs that can be scaled up sufficiently to put a substantial dent in major problems. With drug abusers numbered in the millions, programs that affect only thousands are barely worth thinking about unless they show growth potential.

[G-Flex]

That implies a second principle: No harm, no foul. Mere use of an abusable drug does not constitute a problem demanding public intervention.

I'm not sure I like the logic here. There's always been precedent for holding people responsible for doing something risky even if no actual harm comes to pass. This is why it's illegal to drive drunk. I can understand the sentiment, but it certainly can't be taken to its logical conclusion.

I pretty much agree with the rest of the quote, though.

[JoshuaFH]

That implies a second principle: No harm, no foul. Mere use of an abusable drug does not constitute a problem demanding public intervention.

I'm not sure I like the logic here. There's always been precedent for holding people responsible for doing something risky even if no actual harm comes to pass. This is why it's illegal to drive drunk. I can understand the sentiment, but it certainly can't be taken to its logical conclusion.

I pretty much agree with the rest of the quote, though.

I always thought it was due to some form of harm coming to the state because you're harming yourself in a way that reduces your ability to contribute to society.

Not really sure though.

[fqllve]

the part of that post insinuating that heroin addiction wouldn't actually be a problem if it weren't for criminalization sounds extremely disingenuous.

It's kinda insane, really. Heroin is one of the most dangerous substances available. It requires a complete sacrifice of self to the drug as she pretty much admits. I'm all in favor of decriminalization but self-medicating with heroin is an extremely reckless thing to do.

You'd expect someone who'd used it to understand that.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

When it comes to hard drug legalization, we may not really have a choice if we want to put brakes on the global drug trade and treat addicts. If it's a criminal act in any way, shape, or form to use these things, the fact of the matter is that most people won't care about what happens to addicts. It's a sociological view of guilt and the guilty that causes this.

[GlyphGryph]

G-flex, I think it was more emphasizing that merely "using" an abusable drug is not, in itself, an issue - things like driving while drunk clearly go beyond that, I think. It seems to indicate that actually abusing the drug in and of itself might be action worthy, though I'm not sure.

But I do agree that regardless of what legalization happens or doesn't, actual destructive and risky behaviors from drug use should continue to be illegal. A lot of these drugs are terrible, and dangerous, and I'd prefer if no one ever touches them - but the disease seems to be far preferable to the cure at this point. There has to be a better way than this (especially since there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of evidence things are working the way they are - case in point, people are still dying of heroine overdoses).

Though, yeah, not sure I agree with everything that was said in the article either.

[G-Flex]

But I do agree that regardless of what legalization happens or doesn't, actual destructive and risky behaviors from drug use should continue to be illegal.

The problem is that simply using some drugs is risky and destructive, especially those that are addictive or cause people to do things they otherwise wouldn't. Taking PCP, for example, is dangerous in damn near any situation. There's also the fact that it isn't proactive; allowing unbarred access to any amount of any drug makes it pretty trivial for people to abuse them.

Also, there are things that are risky that people don't even know are risky. People taking antibiotics too often is risky for everyone, for instance, and you can be damn certain that if those could be sold over the counter, people would be buying them when they have colds; they practically try to do that already.

Point being that determining the danger of taking of a drug isn't always easy, and solutions should be as proactive as possible.

[GlyphGryph]

Point being that determining the danger of taking of a drug isn't always easy, and solutions should be as proactive as possible.

I agree with the first part. I agree that some drugs where easy access have damaging side effects within our abilities to prevent, with a minimum of side effects. These drugs should be controlled (on the distribution side, and most 'recreational' drugs are not things I would include under that. There are many drugs that clearly need some amount of regulation as well - for example, I think drug advertising, all of it, should be flat out illegal.)

The second part I could not disagree with more. The solutions should be the most effective possible, in terms of harm caused and harm prevented. The law shouldn't be trying to fix things that may or may not even be an issue.

[Luke_Prowler]

Legalizing drugs also presents the danger of them not just as a product but also as an ingrediant.

"Hey kids, want to try out some Cocaindy^tm?"

[G-Flex]

The second part I could not disagree with more. The solutions should be the most effective possible, in terms of harm caused and harm prevented. The law shouldn't be trying to fix things that may or may not even be an issue.

Sure, except in many cases the most effective solutions are proactive ones. Preventing a problem is usually better than reacting to one.