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

[tango]

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

It's a totally different scenario.

We must put a notional value on a human life when making any decisions. As I said, if we regard the financial value of a human life as being infinite the only logical thing we can do is immediately ban just about everything that's even remotely dangerous. If it costs the economy a trillion dollars annually but saves one single life, then if a human life is of infinite worth it's worth doing. If it sends the economy back to the dark ages but saves one human life it's worth doing.

The reality is that we decide what is a proportional response to danger, which inevitably accepts that the increased expenditure associated with a safer option isn't worthwhile. You and I do it every day, albeit unconsciously. What is the financial value of your own life? What about the life of family members - if you have parents/wife/children/siblings etc, do you take them in the car with you? If so you're risking their lives in exchange for, well, what exactly? Of course the risks are minimal but the fact remains you're taking a risk, however small, in exchange for a benefit that probably could be measured in dollars and cents.

There is some merit in the slippery slope argument but it's really no different to the slippery slope we're already on where the mantra "if it saves just one life it will be worth it" is considered by some to be all that is required to impose punishing new legislation that offers marginal improvements at best. Legalising drugs would save some lives, specifically the lives of the people caught up in the crossfire when rival drug gangs meet. It would save the lives of the people no longer seriously harmed by drugs cut with whatever garbage the dealer had on hand at the time. It would save untold suffering by people who desperately want to seek help but don't want to have to confess to criminal activity in order to get it. Yes, there are risks associated with it, but it's not as if maintaining the existing prohibition is a risk free proposition.

 

[psalms 91]

Where will the government stop? If this is allowed it will no doubt lead to a discussion about nursing homes, the elderly, witholding of medical care, not that some of this hasnt already been brought up.

 

[tango]

Where will the government stop? If this is allowed it will no doubt lead to a discussion about nursing homes, the elderly, witholding of medical care, not that some of this hasnt already been brought up.

You're pulling the slippery slope argument that I just addressed Bill. They are unrelated.

If we are going to have a discussion about how much money to spend on extending the life of someone with minimal quality of life (however "quality of life" is defined) that's unrelated to whether or not we legalise drugs.

 

[psalms 91]

You're pulling the slippery slope argument that I just addressed Bill. They are unrelated.

If we are going to have a discussion about how much money to spend on extending the life of someone with minimal quality of life (however "quality of life" is defined) that's unrelated to whether or not we legalise drugs.

No, this is the same thinmg many try to pull, they want to keep the discussion narrow to prevent the other issues invlved from coming up in order to make it seem reasonable or to win a POV. Doesnt work with me and never will. Drugs are bad news and should never be legalized and I seriously doubt theat the public is stupid enough to legalize them

 

[MarkFL]

No, this is the same thinmg many try to pull, they want to keep the discussion narrow to prevent the other issues invlved from coming up in order to make it seem reasonable or to win a POV. Doesnt work with me and never will. Drugs are bad news and should never be legalized and I seriously doubt theat the public is stupid enough to legalize them

I agree with [unm]tango[/unm]...the issue of extending life (when quality of said life is questionable) has nothing to do with the legalization of drugs. They are separate issues. So, he is just staying on point rather than trying to maneuver the discussion in his favor.

The abuse of drugs is bad no matter what the law, and removing the criminal aspect from it has far more pros than cons, OMHO.

 

[tango]

No, this is the same thinmg many try to pull, they want to keep the discussion narrow to prevent the other issues invlved from coming up in order to make it seem reasonable or to win a POV. Doesnt work with me and never will. Drugs are bad news and should never be legalized and I seriously doubt theat the public is stupid enough to legalize them

It's nothing to do with keeping a discussion narrow. If you really want to go there we have to logically ban motor vehicles because they are responsible for far more deaths and injuries than drugs. It's absurd to argue that drugs are dangerous and should be banned unless you're also willing to argue that motor vehicles are dangerous and should be banned, especially if you also want to argue that you can't be putting financial values on human suffering. If human life is priceless why do we tolerate deaths and injuries on our roads - surely no amount of inconvenience would counterbalance saving human life, right?

I was rather hoping for something more considered than "the public isn't stupid enough", logically that's more or less equivalent to "100,000 lemmings can't be wrong".

 

[psalms 91]

It's nothing to do with keeping a discussion narrow. If you really want to go there we have to logically ban motor vehicles because they are responsible for far more deaths and injuries than drugs. It's absurd to argue that drugs are dangerous and should be banned unless you're also willing to argue that motor vehicles are dangerous and should be banned, especially if you also want to argue that you can't be putting financial values on human suffering. If human life is priceless why do we tolerate deaths and injuries on our roads - surely no amount of inconvenience would counterbalance saving human life, right?

I was rather hoping for something more considered than "the public isn't stupid enough", logically that's more or less equivalent to "100,000 lemmings can't be wrong".

Not sure what you are looking for, the scientific studies of these various drugs are out there and spell out what can and does happen to people who indulge. As to not being that stupid it is because of these facts and peoples own experiences with addiction or those they love experiences as to why they will never accept legalization

 

[MarkFL]

The fact that I think legalization of drugs would be beneficial to society as a whole doesn't mean I approve of drug use/abuse. It means I think people are going to use drugs whether legal or not, and it would be better to have these drugs regulated, and to remove the criminal aspect from the acquisition and possession of the drugs. With drugs that are prone to overdosing, this would actually be reduced if the purity is consistent. We wouldn't have so many people in the prison system either. Do you think a drug user/dealer is a better person after spending years in prison with violent offenders?

 

[psalms 91]

I think that it is better to offer treatment but they have to want it for it to be effective and failing all else the need to protect others and even themselves enters in. I dont necessarily agree with putting a user in prison but a dealer that is a different ballgame

 

[tango]

Not sure what you are looking for, the scientific studies of these various drugs are out there and spell out what can and does happen to people who indulge. As to not being that stupid it is because of these facts and peoples own experiences with addiction or those they love experiences as to why they will never accept legalization

Nobody is disputing that drugs can be harmful. The issue is whether society is better off with drugs being illegal (and sourced on the underground market, with all the associated issues) or legalised (and sourced on the open market, with different issues).

Endlessly saying that drugs can be harmful isn't making a case one way or the other. The fact they are currently illegal clearly isn't stopping people from using them, and the prohibition does little more than make a potentially dangerous substance more dangerous because there is no quality control and no comeback for the user who gets slipped a dud. However dangerous cocaine may be I'm sure we can both agree it becomes a lot more dangerous if it's mixed with battery acid. The fact it's illegal means the dealer can cut it with whatever he chooses and the user has no recourse in the event of being harmed.

If prohibition would prevent addiction I'd be more in favor of it, but the evidence all around us is clear that it does anything but. If anything prohibition is more likely to cause addiction, as dealers have a vested interest in getting people hooked on something so they can profit from it. Compare and contrast to a drug like alcohol or tobacco - did you ever see a beer distributor trying to encourage you to try something a little stronger? Did you ever go to a wine retailer and find them pushing you towards the spirits instead?

If there's an argument out there that explains why legalisation wouldn't work, that considers the topic more deeply than "my brother got hooked on heroin, therefore this is a terrible idea" I'd love to see it. At present all I'm seeing on the side of keeping prohibition is a lot of emotional arguments that fall to pieces given they describe the situation under the existing prohibition and typically don't consider how things would change post legalisation.

 

[tango]

I think that it is better to offer treatment but they have to want it for it to be effective and failing all else the need to protect others and even themselves enters in. I dont necessarily agree with putting a user in prison but a dealer that is a different ballgame

The trouble with this is that you need to define "a dealer".

Under UK law there are two very different drug-related offenses. One is "possession" and the other is "possession with intent to supply". On the face of it that latter offense is clearly describing dealing drugs, but the reality is different. The intent to supply doesn't necessarily mean buying in bulk to sell on and make a profit. If you give me money to go and buy you a small amount of drugs for your own personal use and I get caught, I'm caught in possession of the drugs I planned to give to you. Right there is the intent to supply. The fact we're talking nothing more than me happening to carry the money one way and the product the other way doesn't matter, the intent to supply is the kicker.

There's also the question of whether treatment is necessary. If someone is addicted to a substance, controlled or otherwise, treatment may be effective. But there are people out there who are reasonably regular users of drugs who still hold down professional jobs and for whom their drug use isn't particularly problematic. How does it help anyone to take a professional person who snorts a couple of lines of cocaine during a party one weekend and throw them in jail? At a stroke you ruin their career, you deprive them of future earnings, probably leave them on welfare for an extended period, all to "protect society" from someone who wasn't doing anyone any harm.

 

[psalms 91]

The trouble with this is that you need to define "a dealer".

Under UK law there are two very different drug-related offenses. One is "possession" and the other is "possession with intent to supply". On the face of it that latter offense is clearly describing dealing drugs, but the reality is different. The intent to supply doesn't necessarily mean buying in bulk to sell on and make a profit. If you give me money to go and buy you a small amount of drugs for your own personal use and I get caught, I'm caught in possession of the drugs I planned to give to you. Right there is the intent to supply. The fact we're talking nothing more than me happening to carry the money one way and the product the other way doesn't matter, the intent to supply is the kicker.

There's also the question of whether treatment is necessary. If someone is addicted to a substance, controlled or otherwise, treatment may be effective. But there are people out there who are reasonably regular users of drugs who still hold down professional jobs and for whom their drug use isn't particularly problematic. How does it help anyone to take a professional person who snorts a couple of lines of cocaine during a party one weekend and throw them in jail? At a stroke you ruin their career, you deprive them of future earnings, probably leave them on welfare for an extended period, all to "protect society" from someone who wasn't doing anyone any harm.

Thats the problem with all this blurring of lines, it should be simple, if you sell drugs you go to prison, if you use them you are given a chooice treatment or jail. Simple effective and no complicatingthings, to many things nowadays are complicated beyond all recognition or common sense

 

[tango]

Thats the problem with all this blurring of lines, it should be simple, if you sell drugs you go to prison, if you use them you are given a chooice treatment or jail. Simple effective and no complicatingthings, to many things nowadays are complicated beyond all recognition or common sense

Except you still didn't give any reasoning as to why legalisation is such a bad thing. You've come up with a succession of posts that are little more than emotive arguments or statements that you think something is a bad idea without addressing any of the counterpoints. You've pointed out that drugs can be harmful, something nobody is disputing. You've pointed out that drugs can have all sorts of nasty effects, something else that nobody is disputing. You've said there will be public resistance, which I don't see anybody disputing. But all the harm you're talking about that is caused by drugs is currently being caused by drugs despite the fact they are illegal.

Do you have any reasoning to indicate why things would get any worse following legalisation, to offset the reasonably anticipated benefits of basically putting the illegal dealers out of business overnight?

You've said yourself that you think marijuana can be legalised, so presumably you wouldn't want people selling that to go to jail? So at a stroke it's not as clear cut as "sell drugs, go to jail". Even if such a simplistic approach were implemented it wouldn't solve the problem because the people at the top of the chains would simply find another dealer. You'd implement a solution that endlessly went after the little fish while more or less leaving the big fish alone.

Furthermore, you say that people caught using should have a choice between treatment and jail. What exactly is there to treat, if someone is using a drug that isn't causing them any problems? To apply your reasoning to the current legal situation would require that someone caught smoking a single joint should either be treated (for what is unclear) or go to jail. How does that help anybody?

This is nothing to do with blurring of lines. Can you come up with some reasoning against legalisation?

 

[Rens]

Except you still didn't give any reasoning as to why legalisation is such a bad thing. You've come up with a succession of posts that are little more than emotive arguments or statements that you think something is a bad idea without addressing any of the counterpoints. You've pointed out that drugs can be harmful, something nobody is disputing. You've pointed out that drugs can have all sorts of nasty effects, something else that nobody is disputing. You've said there will be public resistance, which I don't see anybody disputing. But all the harm you're talking about that is caused by drugs is currently being caused by drugs despite the fact they are illegal.

Do you have any reasoning to indicate why things would get any worse following legalisation, to offset the reasonably anticipated benefits of basically putting the illegal dealers out of business overnight?

You've said yourself that you think marijuana can be legalised, so presumably you wouldn't want people selling that to go to jail? So at a stroke it's not as clear cut as "sell drugs, go to jail". Even if such a simplistic approach were implemented it wouldn't solve the problem because the people at the top of the chains would simply find another dealer. You'd implement a solution that endlessly went after the little fish while more or less leaving the big fish alone.

Furthermore, you say that people caught using should have a choice between treatment and jail. What exactly is there to treat, if someone is using a drug that isn't causing them any problems? To apply your reasoning to the current legal situation would require that someone caught smoking a single joint should either be treated (for what is unclear) or go to jail. How does that help anybody?

This is nothing to do with blurring of lines. Can you come up with some reasoning against legalisation?

In Holland everything is officially illegal but you can just smoke and buy 5 gram of pot or get heroin for free in a special place, paid by the tax payers, but they don't steal your car radio anymore now.
They made a distinction between hard and soft drugs. People who smoke pot can only get that in the coffeeshop, not harddrugs, so most don't take stronger stuff. Although that's good, the flipside is that decades ago only some real weird people used pot, but since now it's considered just as normal as taking a beer, the ones that would never go to a dealer to get it if it was illegal, now just go to a coffeeshop and buy it and get addicted or xtc at a party. They do warn if it's polluted, but I don't think any youth ever had to go to jail or pay thousands for taking xtc at the disco.

 

[tango]

In Holland everything is officially illegal but you can just smoke and buy 5 gram of pot or get heroin for free in a special place, paid by the tax payers, but they don't steal your car radio anymore now.
They made a distinction between hard and soft drugs. People who smoke pot can only get that in the coffeeshop, not harddrugs, so most don't take stronger stuff. Although that's good, the flipside is that decades ago only some real weird people used pot, but since now it's considered just as normal as taking a beer, the ones that would never go to a dealer to get it if it was illegal, now just go to a coffeeshop and buy it and get addicted or xtc at a party. They do warn if it's polluted, but I don't think any youth ever had to go to jail or pay thousands for taking xtc at the disco.

I must admit when I visited Amsterdam back in about 2004-5 or so it seemed very strange to walk into a coffee shop and ask for a beer and a joint, and for the barman to pull the beer and get a joint out from under the bar and tell me the price. I saw several signs around clubs in Amsterdam basically saying "no violence, no weapons, no hard drugs, we will call the police".

On the whole Amsterdam seemed like a nice place to be. The only part of it that gave me the creeps when I walked through it (in the daytime) turned out to be the red light district. When I walked through it there were no signs of its nighttime identity, it just felt very creepy.

 

[Rens]

I must admit when I visited Amsterdam back in about 2004-5 or so it seemed very strange to walk into a coffee shop and ask for a beer and a joint, and for the barman to pull the beer and get a joint out from under the bar and tell me the price. I saw several signs around clubs in Amsterdam basically saying "no violence, no weapons, no hard drugs, we will call the police".

On the whole Amsterdam seemed like a nice place to be. The only part of it that gave me the creeps when I walked through it (in the daytime) turned out to be the red light district. When I walked through it there were no signs of its nighttime identity, it just felt very creepy.

Lol decades ago when my dad was young he walked there, thinking it was just a normal street, or maybe it was in another city. All of a sudden a hooker tapped very hard on the window. Lol he was so scared, he just ran out of that street very fast.

 

[psalms 91]

Except you still didn't give any reasoning as to why legalisation is such a bad thing. You've come up with a succession of posts that are little more than emotive arguments or statements that you think something is a bad idea without addressing any of the counterpoints. You've pointed out that drugs can be harmful, something nobody is disputing. You've pointed out that drugs can have all sorts of nasty effects, something else that nobody is disputing. You've said there will be public resistance, which I don't see anybody disputing. But all the harm you're talking about that is caused by drugs is currently being caused by drugs despite the fact they are illegal.

Do you have any reasoning to indicate why things would get any worse following legalisation, to offset the reasonably anticipated benefits of basically putting the illegal dealers out of business overnight?

You've said yourself that you think marijuana can be legalised, so presumably you wouldn't want people selling that to go to jail? So at a stroke it's not as clear cut as "sell drugs, go to jail". Even if such a simplistic approach were implemented it wouldn't solve the problem because the people at the top of the chains would simply find another dealer. You'd implement a solution that endlessly went after the little fish while more or less leaving the big fish alone.

Furthermore, you say that people caught using should have a choice between treatment and jail. What exactly is there to treat, if someone is using a drug that isn't causing them any problems? To apply your reasoning to the current legal situation would require that someone caught smoking a single joint should either be treated (for what is unclear) or go to jail. How does that help anybody?

This is nothing to do with blurring of lines. Can you come up with some reasoning against legalisation?

Yup, about 100 million of them, as I said noone will vote for it at least in numbers to pass and God help the politician that tries to get that passed

 

[Rens]

Here's a few:

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/debate/myths/myths4.htm

 

[tango]

Yup, about 100 million of them, as I said noone will vote for it at least in numbers to pass and God help the politician that tries to get that passed

You're not making any coherent arguments here Bill, you're just falling back on what you hope the masses think. Do you have a logical argument to back your stance, or are you just hoping for strength in numbers?

 

[tango]

Here's a few:

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/debate/myths/myths4.htm

Most of the counterpoints in there seemed to be based around the problems of leaving people alone to use drugs but still leaving underground drug dealers to meet the demand. That only addresses a small part of the problem - the dealers pick up the profits while society picks up the costs. Essentially all that is doing is taking the police out of the equation, you won't solve the problems of rival gangs fighting for control of a lucrative trading patch or boosting profits by cutting their products with something else, or indeed encouraging users to try something a bit stronger, when the entire supply chain is controlled like that.