Print

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

[Neonivek]

Well I was yelled at for getting mad today

Not for screaming, hitting, throwing tantrums, or even saying that I was ticked.

It was because I was ticked off because I was being harassed to do a chore.

It frustrates me to no end. I wasn't even mad that I was told to do the chore, I am mad because I was being harassed. (To admit that is probably why I was yelled at. Because getting ticked means that I was against getting chores in general)

I love these no way out yellings I get into.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

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.

PCP is in a somewhat unique situation among drugs. Cocaine will make you jittery because your nervous system is on overdrive, Heroin will send you into a haze because your brain's pleasure center is stuck on full blast, and LSD will make you hallucinate impossible things because your thoughts start to bleed into your sensory data, but only PCP will make you shrug off bullet wounds and tear someone's appendages off with your bare hands while also making you want to do those things. It's on another level, one where no government-sponsored horror stories could truly outdo the reality of the situation. If there is anything that a War on Drugs could target for good reasons, it is PCP.

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.

It's trivial for people to use them now. If people want an illegal drug, they will practically have it thrown at them in spite of the War on Drug's efforts. It's just one of those things that can't really be stopped so long as there are drugs to take and people to take them. The best we can do is try to educate people to make good decisions of their own choice, and to put them in an environment where that is a viable option. Anything else is unfair to us all.

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.

I don't think that anyone is advocating free-for-all antibiotic usage. There's little reason for that. No black market, no serious desire for them. The only medical drugs people generally go after are painkillers of various stripes, not antibiotics.

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?"

Legislate that any food product containing addictive elements must have, in large florescent letters on the front of the package, CONTAINS ADDICTIVE SUBSTANCES: (said substances here) [substance health effects here]

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.

Some problems can't be prevented without insane and oppressive measures. This is one of them. We probably could curb drug use significantly through a War on Drugs, but that would require treating it as an actual war and executing anyone convicted of drug-related offenses. Nothing less than unquestionable death will be an effective prevention method for something so linked to base human psychology.

[GlyphGryph]

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

This does not mean all pro-active solutions are good, or that pro-activity for its own sake is the right course of action. Example: Invading Iraq.

We should be pro-active when pro-activity is the best methods of efficacy, and then only to the extent that the cost benefit analysis clearly favours it. Our current "solutions" are, arguably, pro-active. They also don't work.

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

This is disingenuous at best. Legalization does not imply carte blanc license or freedom from sensible regulation.

[G-Flex]

It's trivial for people to use them now. If people want an illegal drug, they will practically have it thrown at them in spite of the War on Drug's efforts.

This is hardly true for most people. You have to remember that if drugs weren't controlled, they wouldn't only be sold, they would be marketed. I mentioned an example of antibiotics being sold over the counter; your average person would take them for very minor things. The fact that illegal drugs are illegal is a deterrent in more ways than you think, because it means they aren't advertised (except in the case of prescription drugs) and aren't freely available. For example: Opioid pain reliever abuse is a common problem. It would be a much worse problem if people could just buy them from the drugstore whenever they wanted, because they'd be used irresponsibly and for the wrong reasons, and often by people who do it simply because they don't know better.

Obviously, abuse happens, and it's not precisely hard to get most drugs (depending on the circumstances and the drug), but the reasons for those drugs being bought, sold, and used would change if they were allowed to be sold and advertised freely. In fact, this was a significant problem before the FDA itself was established.

It's just one of those things that can't really be stopped so long as there are drugs to take and people to take them. The best we can do is try to educate people to make good decisions of their own choice, and to put them in an environment where that is a viable option. Anything else is unfair to us all.

This is a fairly libertarian viewpoint, and not one I agree with. Should we also be allowed to install asbestos in our homes, use known carcinogens in food and sell it, or anything else that's regulated? You cannot expect every single person in the nation to be enough of an expert regarding everything that they know which off-the-shelf product will potentially kill them, hurt them, or get them addicted. Yes, we should better educate people to make their own decisions, but it is totally unreasonable to expect every person in the nation (even if you only include rational adults) to have to fend for themselves when it comes to purchasing products that are safe. This is the basis of... basically all government health and safety regulations.

I don't think that anyone is advocating free-for-all antibiotic usage. There's little reason for that. No black market, no serious desire for them. The only medical drugs people generally go after are painkillers of various stripes, not antibiotics.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Why would heroin be legalized but not amoxacillin? People "go after" antibiotics right now, not recreationally, but as medication because they don't know not to because they aren't medical professionals. People would have a definitely tendency to abuse them by taking them at the first sign of basically any illness; as I said, many people already attempt to. This is not only a health hazard to the individual, but even current levels of overuse of antibiotics contribute to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Legislate that any food product containing addictive elements must have, in large florescent letters on the front of the package, CONTAINS ADDICTIVE SUBSTANCES: (said substances here)

What about substances that aren't particularly addictive, but are still quite harmful? Where exactly do we draw the line regarding what we can or cannot put in food if cocaine is allowable? And what makes you think that putting harmful and addictive substances into things marketed toward the average American, and available for cheap at the corner store, and implicitly encouraged by their acceptance, would cause people to use them less? That's exactly what you do if you want as many people as possible to become addicted: You market them and make them freely available in a socially and legally acceptable manner. See: Alcohol and tobacco, especially prior to restrictions on their marketing practices.

Some problems can't be prevented without insane and oppressive measures. This is one of them.

I would not call scheduling opioids as prescription-only "insane and oppressive". I would call the current "war on drugs" insane and oppressive, but not the fundamental concept of limiting access to things which may be significantly harmful even when used as intended.

This does not mean all pro-active solutions are good, or that pro-activity for its own sake is the right course of action. Example: Invading Iraq.

I agree, although I think Iraq is a bad example, since we were lied to about that from day one.

We should be pro-active when pro-activity is the best methods of efficacy, and then only to the extent that the cost benefit analysis clearly favours it. Our current "solutions" are, arguably, pro-active. They also don't work.

I agree that our current solutions are pretty bad, but that doesn't mean all proactive solutions are bad. And I wouldn't even consider jailing drug users "proactive" at all; it's highly reactive and perpetuates the problem far more often than it helps to solve it.

[GlyphGryph]

Then I'm not sure if we disagree all that much, truth be told. You speak to marketing being one of the primary problems from legalization - I mentioned before I believe most marketing marketing for most of these drugs should be strictly illegal. I think advertising for current completely legal prescription drugs should be outright banned in most cases on top of that. We both agree drug regulation certainly has a place, as well. In fact, I'm not entirely sure where we disagree - but then, I don't know your stance on the issue as a whole, really.

I agree, although I think Iraq is a bad example, since we were lied to about that from day one.

I'm not sure if that makes it a bad example or a perfect one, truth be told. It certainly indicates one of the primary problems of pro-active solutions, doesn't it?

I agree that our current solutions are pretty bad, but that doesn't mean all proactive solutions are bad

I never said they were, but you implied we should pursue pro-active solutions for the sake of being pro-active rather than because of their efficacy - that sort of mindset is what I was arguing against.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

This is hardly true for most people. You have to remember that if drugs weren't controlled, they wouldn't only be sold, they would be marketed.

Then it should simply be law that they cannot be marketed, only sold without advertisement or profit from pharmacies to those who want or need (withdrawl) them.

The fact that illegal drugs are illegal is a deterrent in more ways than you think, because it means they aren't advertised (except in the case of prescription drugs) and aren't freely available. For example: Opioid pain reliever abuse is a common problem. It would be a much worse problem if people could just buy them from the drugstore whenever they wanted, because they'd be used irresponsibly and for the wrong reasons, and often by people who do it simply because they don't know better.

Not if the bottle predominantly displays that the opioid is addictive, if you want it habitually you should stop using it, and describes in horrifically realistic detail what will happen to you if you become an addict.

Obviously, abuse happens, and it's not precisely hard to get most drugs (depending on the circumstances and the drug), but the reasons for those drugs being bought, sold, and used would change if they were allowed to be sold and advertised freely.

Believe me, I'm not advocating a free market free-for-all. Regulation on sales and production would be very strict, and advertising probably just shouldn't happen at all.

This is a fairly libertarian viewpoint, and not one I agree with. Should we also be allowed to install asbestos in our homes, use known carcinogens in food and sell it, or anything else that's regulated?

No meaningful number of people wants those things.

You cannot expect every single person in the nation to be enough of an expert regarding everything that they know which off-the-shelf product will potentially kill them, hurt them, or get them addicted.

Which is why we put on cigaret packages that they will get you addicted, hurt you, and kill you via lung cancer. Lo and behold, telling people what cigarets do and leaving them to be responsible or face the consequences reduced the number of smokers from 46% to 20% in the last forty years. If you give people the chance and the equipment to make the right choice, they will.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Why would heroin be legalized but not amoxacillin? People "go after" antibiotics right now, not recreationally, but as medication because they don't know not to because they aren't medical professionals. People would have a definitely tendency to abuse them by taking them at the first sign of basically any illness; as I said, many people already attempt to. This is not only a health hazard to the individual, but even current levels of overuse of antibiotics contribute to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Which is why they should remain restricted. No one wants to have to take amocacillin, but people do want to take heroin for the simple animal brain reasoning that it makes them feel better than anything else they have ever done.

What about substances that aren't particularly addictive, but are still quite harmful? Where exactly do we draw the line regarding what we can or cannot put in food if cocaine is allowable? And what makes you think that putting harmful and addictive substances into things marketed toward the average American, and available for cheap at the corner store, and implicitly encouraged by their acceptance, would cause people to use them less? That's exactly what you do if you want as many people as possible to become addicted: You market them and make them freely available in a socially and legally acceptable manner. See: Alcohol and tobacco, especially prior to restrictions on their marketing practices.

You answered your own question. I want soft or non-addictive drugs to be in the free market, but hard or addictive ones to be in the same boat as alcohol and tobacco are now.

[G-Flex]

Then it should simply be law that they cannot be marketed, only sold without advertisement or profit from pharmacies to those who want or need (withdrawl) them.

Sold... without profit? Then why would any pharmacy even sell them? And you realize that would apply to people who actually need them too, right? Who would sell sick people painkillers or other abusable drugs if nobody can actually make money off of them, unless you subsidize it all through the government?

Not if the bottle predominantly displays that the opioid is addictive, if you want it habitually you should stop using it, and describes in horrifically realistic detail what will happen to you if you become an addict.

"You should stop using this if you don't want to get addicted" isn't a very good way to prevent people at large from getting addicted to something they're using.

No meaningful number of people wants those things.

It's not about whether or not they want them, it's about whether or not they know those things are in the product to begin with, and whether or not the alternative is more expensive. If you allow for dangerous goods to be sold, often those dangerous goods are cheaper to produce than the safer ones; if the cheap stuff on the market is dangerous, simple economics dictates that the lower classes won't pay the premium for the safer things won't because they can't afford to, because the price index changes as such. See: Cheap goods made in China when the regulations fail.

Which is why they should remain restricted. No one wants to have to take amocacillin, but people do want to take heroin for the simple animal brain reasoning that it makes them feel better than anything else they have ever done.

Of course people want to take antibiotics. How many times do I have to say that it already happens every day, but with more hoops to jump through and controlled by restrictions on how it's sold/prescribed? Nobody wants to "have to" take it, but their definitions for "have to" tend to be extremely lax, ridiculous, and problematic.

[JoshuaFH]

There's also the very real possibility that legalization of any drug wouldn't even make a dent in the black market value of illegal substances.

Take, for instance, cigarettes. Cigarettes are still sold illegally at prices that undercut normal market value. This is due to the fact that Smokes are largely effected by regional pricing discrimination. You can buy cartons of cigarettes overseas at a wildly reduced price, smuggle them into regions where the pricing range is higher, and then sell them for profit.

With more harsh substances, that have large and brutal syndicates centered around them, I think that the repercussions would actually be far worse. Remember that there are very few large, legal farms to create the raw materials to make alot of today's drugs, which are actually highly refined. The farms owned by the syndicate however, would still be present and operational, and the incentive to continue selling narcotics illegally is still there. Why? Because there's a huge difference between legal to sell and able to sell at large consumption, all the while there's still huge fixed demand present.

Considering that the harshness of these new legal narcotics, and the fervor of it's base demand, would most likely give every governing body from the town level upward impetus to regulate their sale and stock. Most likely in the form of strict quality regulation, heavy taxation and tariffs, and requiring expensive licensing procedures. Then there's things out of anyone's control, like the availability of legal suppliers, and just incredible demand, that would easily increase the price of legal narcotics to match, if not exceed, street value.

And long story short, now the brutal and ruthless drug armies now have incentive to be even MORE brutal and ruthless, because now they're competing against legal entities. They can do the simple thing and just sell at less than the legal value, and most likely still make an enormous profit, or the they manipulate the market by using intimidation tactics along any part of the "chain of supply" in order to artificially increase prices in the legal sector, and thus they can afford to price gouge further on the street.

Basically, the best result would be the druggy poor are still buying from dealers and fueling the criminal underworld, while the druggy rich can feel free to abuse the legal narcotics, and absolutely no social landmarks have been reached.

[Willfor]

Not if the bottle predominantly displays that the opioid is addictive, if you want it habitually you should stop using it, and describes in horrifically realistic detail what will happen to you if you become an addict.

Every person in my fairly small class smokes. Every person in my fairly small class daily sees warning labels on packs of cigarettes that are worse than the one I am throwing behind this spoiler:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

http://img.ie/12752.jpg

Even when forced to see images of what their habit is going to do to them, they do it anyway. The ones that are on the smoke packs that they are buying cover entire sides of the packaging, and are heavily displayed. There are warnings up wherever you buy them. There is a constant stream of negative advertising against smoking. The places smokers can go to smoke around here is shrinking almost daily with the amount of restrictions being placed on where they can smoke.

At some point, it has to be thought that negative advertising can only do so much to curb abuse and self-addiction.

Also, I live in a place where we do have universal health care. I will always be paying people's health care bills for problems that they knowingly inflicted upon themselves. That is an expense of the state that trickles down to me.


That said, if smokes were made illicit, I have no doubt that smoking would still continue, and that would only fill our jails up more. So basically, I generally believe that no matter what you do with drugs (make them legal/illegal or regulated/unregulated) they are going to cost all of us money, sleep, time, energy, dignity, our basic rights, relationships, and make everything all fucked up.

Humanity.

[ECrownofFire]

Somewhat relevant:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[JoshuaFH]

Really, the War on Drugs can actually be combated effectively, it's all a matter of economic strangulation. Criminalizing drug users will always, until the end of time, have no effect on drug usage, sale, supply, smuggling, production, financing, or the many many illegal industries that help support it. Combating at the production and financing level, assassinating the drug lords and shutting down the massive farms will help, prosecuting the end user will do nothing. It won't even disincentivize the actual criminals, it's a dragon that needs to get stabbed in the heart, or it'll never stop.

Once it becomes economically impossible to continue selling in the United States profitably, it will stop. It's just a matter of treating the War on Drugs like an actual war.

[G-Flex]

That said, if smokes were made illicit, I have no doubt that smoking would still continue, and that would only fill our jails up more. So basically, I generally believe that no matter what you do with drugs (make them legal/illegal or regulated/unregulated) they are going to cost all of us money, sleep, time, energy, dignity, our basic rights, relationships, and make everything all fucked up.

To be fair, I don't think any of us are pushing for the jailing of drug users to begin with. It seems like we agree that that is a terrible approach that just congests jails without solving the problem at all.

Really, the War on Drugs can actually be combated effectively, it's all a matter of economic strangulation. Criminalizing drug users will always, until the end of time, have no effect on drug usage, sale, supply, smuggling, production, financing, or the many many illegal industries that help support it. Combating at the production and financing level, assassinating the drug lords and shutting down the massive farms will help, prosecuting the end user will do nothing. It won't even disincentivize the actual criminals, it's a dragon that needs to get stabbed in the heart, or it'll never stop.

Once it becomes economically impossible to continue selling in the United States profitably, it will stop. It's just a matter of treating the War on Drugs like an actual war.

Also: One big problem here is that it's international. Take Central and South America for instance; that's where a lot of supply originates, so how do we combat that? Not saying there's no answer, just that any answer is more complicated than if it were a solely domestic issue.

[ECrownofFire]

... it's a dragon that needs to get stabbed in the heart...

While I strongly dislike your choice of metaphor, I can agree with your overall idea. Also, legalize drugs and you're cutting off the incomes of cartels.

[kaijyuu]

I'm not an advocate of things that prevent people from hurting themselves. Others, sure. It's just not my place to tell people not to hurt themselves, provided they understand the risks and consequences. As such, I don't accept "prevention" to be a justification for the war on drugs (or any sort of prohibition). "Reckless endangerment" only applies as a bad thing to me if they're recklessly endangering others. Past that, hand them a darwin award.

Drugs do cause harm to people other than the people using them. I know that. Fight those avenues instead. Fight DUIs. Fight second hand smoke. Fight domestic abuse in general. You won't stop people from using drugs; it's absolutely impossible. You can, however, divert resources to combating the negative effects instead of learning lessons in futility by trying prohibition. "Economic strangulation" as Joshua put it has consistently been tried and failed at. You'd need a literal physical barrier to stop the flow of narcotics since human ones do not work.

[ECrownofFire]

I'm not an advocate of things that prevent people from hurting themselves. Others, sure. It's just not my place to tell people not to hurt themselves, provided they understand the risks and consequences. As such, I don't accept "prevention" to be a justification for the war on drugs (or any sort of prohibition). "Reckless endangerment" only applies as a bad thing to me if they're recklessly endangering others. Past that, hand them a darwin award.

Drugs do cause harm to people other than the people using them. I know that. Fight those avenues instead. Fight DUIs. Fight second hand smoke. Fight domestic abuse in general. You won't stop people from using drugs; it's absolutely impossible. You can, however, divert resources to combating the negative effects instead of learning lessons in futility by trying prohibition. "Economic strangulation" as Joshua put it has consistently been tried and failed at. You'd need a literal physical barrier to stop the flow of narcotics since human ones do not work.

Oh, very much this. I cannot stress this enough. I don't give a FUCK if somebody wants to space out on drugs. I only care that they know the risks and don't harm anyone else.

Drug use is not a cause of these problems, it's a symptom.