The war on drugs ... does it make any sense?

[psalms 91]

I doubt the legalization of drugs would mean Coca-Cola would resume adding cocaine to their product. I also doubt it would cause a significant number people who otherwise choose not to do drugs to begin using them. Overdosing would likely decrease, because purity could be regulated if legalized. Overdosing is likely to occur when a drug user become accustomed to a certain purity, and then acquires a batch that has a significantly higher purity without knowing it, and unwittingly introduces a much larger amount of the active ingredient into their body. If drugs like cocaine and heroine are regulated this would be less likely to happen.

I see many more pros to legalization than cons, most of which [unm]tango[/unm] already outlined earlier.

The easier it is to get the more that will use it, there is a reason why some drugs are regulated. Many are very addictive and can cause addiction at the onset of use.

 

[Stravinsk]

The easier it is to get the more that will use it, there is a reason why some drugs are regulated. Many are very addictive and can cause addiction at the onset of use.

Bill, this is simply not true.

No prohibitive legislation of any kind has any sizeable negative impact on demand for any substance. Nor does wide availability increase said demand. However, those factors do influence price and they do influence crime, especially crime associated with black market activity.

When I lived in the US, the state I lived in at the time(going back quite a few years) had strict laws against Cannabis (to take one example), and lsd, and cocaine and all the others on the Federal list. However, it was not hard to find Cannabis - I got it nearly every day for free just by going to a certain area around my school. Cocaine and lsd were a bit harder to find - but one of the reasons is - they were not quite as popular. Not everyone wanted to be coked up or tripping frequently, but a whole lot of people enjoyed being stoned. If the demand for cocaine or lsd was higher, then it would be met by supply by someone. The fact is - they simply were not as popular as something like Cannabis so that supply never exceeded what the market wanted.

In my area (and as far as I know in the US as well), prescription drugs (many of which are both dangerous and addictive), can be easily obtained (and for cheap prices) with little more than a visit to a doctor. I know people that use them, and I know many (like myself) that largely avoid them. How is it that their wide availability has not prompted myself and many I know from just popping them like candy whenever we feel like it?

 

[psalms 91]

You are now starting to get into an area called addictive personality, some are more susceptable, others are not

 

[Rens]

Bill, this is simply not true.

No prohibitive legislation of any kind has any sizeable negative impact on demand for any substance. Nor does wide availability increase said demand. However, those factors do influence price and they do influence crime, especially crime associated with black market activity.

When I lived in the US, the state I lived in at the time(going back quite a few years) had strict laws against Cannabis (to take one example), and lsd, and cocaine and all the others on the Federal list. However, it was not hard to find Cannabis - I got it nearly every day for free just by going to a certain area around my school. Cocaine and lsd were a bit harder to find - but one of the reasons is - they were not quite as popular. Not everyone wanted to be coked up or tripping frequently, but a whole lot of people enjoyed being stoned. If the demand for cocaine or lsd was higher, then it would be met by supply by someone. The fact is - they simply were not as popular as something like Cannabis so that supply never exceeded what the market wanted.

In my area (and as far as I know in the US as well), prescription drugs (many of which are both dangerous and addictive), can be easily obtained (and for cheap prices) with little more than a visit to a doctor. I know people that use them, and I know many (like myself) that largely avoid them. How is it that their wide availability has not prompted myself and many I know from just popping them like candy whenever we feel like it?

Oh the guys I hung out with used it like candy. Mix 10 oxazepam with alcohol for the extra effect. A lot more people use prescription drugs too. It's big business.
Pot is forbidden here officially, but you can just buy 5 gram in a shop or have 5 plants of your own. If it was hard to get, a lot of people wouldn't use it. I would never have used it if it meant I had to go to some dealer for it.

 

[Stravinsk]

Oh the guys I hung out with used it like candy. Mix 10 oxazepam with alcohol for the extra effect. A lot more people use prescription drugs too. It's big business.
Pot is forbidden here officially, but you can just buy 5 gram in a shop or have 5 plants of your own. If it was hard to get, a lot of people wouldn't use it. I would never have used it if it meant I had to go to some dealer for it.

It will never be hard to get. No plant that can grow just about anywhere is. :smile:

 

[tango]

So you want cocaine in your coke again? Or people overdosing all over the place?

I don't really care what is put into Coke as long as it's listed on the ingredients. Then I can make an informed choice.

People are already overdosing. Drugs being illegal isn't stopping that. If you choose to abstain from drinking or smoking you'll know what I mean when I say that legalising drugs doesn't mean there will be a tidal wave of people rushing out to buy the stuff, the people who currently choose not to drink and choose not to smoke will simply choose not to use a newly legalised drug. The chances are most of the people who want to use cocaine are already using cocaine, taking their chances hoping that the dodgy guy on the street corner hasn't cut it with anything too nasty, maybe not really even considering what happens if their next hit is a hideous one. At least if the cocaine were legally sourced the user would have some guarantee of purity, the government taxes should stay less than the dealer's markup which means there's money in the pot to treat the people who do overdo it. At present the dealers pick up the money and society gets to pick up the pieces.

 

[tango]

The easier it is to get the more that will use it, there is a reason why some drugs are regulated. Many are very addictive and can cause addiction at the onset of use.

Do you drink or smoke?

 

[psalms 91]

Do you drink or smoke?

Used to, dont any more and I dont think you can compare LSD and Cocsaine and heroin with that

 

[Rens]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aK3bDDVQYhg
This is such an awesome testimony, especially where he wondered why they were walking their dog in hell and that old lady who wrote in her diary: antichrist has come to church.

 

[tango]

Used to, dont any more and I dont think you can compare LSD and Cocsaine and heroin with that

Why not? Alcohol and tobacco are freely available, you can buy them over the counter more or less without question, yet people like yourself choose not to. Why do we assume it would be any different with other drugs?

I choose not to use a whole load of legal products - I don't smoke, I don't listen to Kanye West albums, I don't buy anything that features the Kardashians in any way, and so on. Millions of other people choose not to consume products that are legal. Why assume there would be a tidal wave of people rushing to try cocaine just because it had become legal? And even if there was, when it's of known purity it's less likely there will be nasty side effects, when it's taxed there's money in the pot to help the ones that overdo it and, since it's now legal, there's no incentive for the vendors to nudge people towards trying something a bit stronger.

 

[psalms 91]

Why not? Alcohol and tobacco are freely available, you can buy them over the counter more or less without question, yet people like yourself choose not to. Why do we assume it would be any different with other drugs?

I choose not to use a whole load of legal products - I don't smoke, I don't listen to Kanye West albums, I don't buy anything that features the Kardashians in any way, and so on. Millions of other people choose not to consume products that are legal. Why assume there would be a tidal wave of people rushing to try cocaine just because it had become legal? And even if there was, when it's of known purity it's less likely there will be nasty side effects, when it's taxed there's money in the pot to help the ones that overdo it and, since it's now legal, there's no incentive for the vendors to nudge people towards trying something a bit stronger.

I have no problem with pot being legalized, the rest no way

 

[tango]

I have no problem with pot being legalized, the rest no way

So you said before, you're just not providing much of a counterargument.

 

[psalms 91]

So you said before, you're just not providing much of a counterargument.

I believe that the addiction factor and danger factor answer all I need to and I think most voters will agree. I doubt I would change your mind and you will not change mine as I have seen the damage that these drugs can do

 

[tango]

I believe that the addiction factor and danger factor answer all I need to and I think most voters will agree. I doubt I would change your mind and you will not change mine as I have seen the damage that these drugs can do

Nobody is disputing that drugs can do huge damage. The question is how much of that damage would be exacerbated or mitigated by drugs being legal.

Some of the damage is simply that the drugs aren't good for the human body. Some of the damage is undoubtedly caused by dealers who operate outside the law having a clear financial incentive to cut their product to make it go further. Some of the damage is in the form of social decay, crime to fund a drug habit and crime to protect lucrative dealing territories.

The question we have to consider is whether the overall cost to society is higher or lower if we exchange the potential for more people to use the newly legalised drugs for the reduction in crime associated with caps on prices and the reduction in suffering caused by purity being assured. Financial costs are easy to quantify and compare although admittedly social and human costs don't lend themselves to easy comparison, especially when comparing one new addict to five dead bystanders in a gang shootout is further complicated if the person doing the comparison is connected to the addict or the bystander.

 

[Lamb]

Having known plenty of teens and 20 somethings addicted to heroin, I don't think legalizing it would be the answer. They turn to the drug to run away from their problems and will go after it at any cost.

 

[psalms 91]

Where human life is concerned it should never come down to dollars and cents. I have a feeling that legalizing pot will happen but the rest will not

 

[tango]

Having known plenty of teens and 20 somethings addicted to heroin, I don't think legalizing it would be the answer. They turn to the drug to run away from their problems and will go after it at any cost.

Sure, but legalising it means they can get a reliable source of a known purity and a fixed price. If they are hooked they'll get it, legal or otherwise. It's just that if it's illegal a dodgy character on a street corner is making a huge profit and can charge pretty much whatever they want.

 

[tango]

Where human life is concerned it should never come down to dollars and cents. I have a feeling that legalizing pot will happen but the rest will not

I'm not talking about turning human life into dollars and cents, but the brutal reality is that sooner or later we have to put a financial value on a generic human life. Otherwise we have no means of determining whether things like safety equipment or regulation is effective or not. If we put a zero value on a human life then it's not worth doing anything to prevent suffering; if we put an infinite value on human life then nothing is too high a price to pay to save even one life. If we go there we'd have to ban motor vehicles and all sorts of other things. It may not be done overtly but every consideration of whether a response to a risk is proportional or not is essentially putting a price on human life and human suffering.

Either way we have to consider the costs, human and financial, of legalising drugs and compare it to the costs of keeping them illegal. The financial cost is easier to measure than the human cost but every time someone is poisoned by drugs that have been cut by an unscrupulous dealer we have to factor in the human cost associated with the drugs being illegal. Every time someone snorts cocaine cut with battery acid and destroys their nasal passages in a single hit, we have to consider the human cost of the suffering and the financial cost of treatment. Every time innocent bystanders get caught up in a crossfire between rival drug gangs battling over dealing rights to a lucrative patch, we have to consider the human cost. And of course we have to consider the human cost if more people do try drugs once they are legal and become addicted. It's just pointless to pretend that legalising drugs carries a huge human cost and keeping them illegal does not.

 

[Rens]

https://news.vice.com/article/only-...addicts-complain-about-free-government-heroin

 

[psalms 91]

What you say Tango is a slippery slope that could and probably does l;ead to should the elderly be allowed to live since they are a drain on resources and contribute very little in terms of financial worth. Be careful where you go because you might not like allm the implications