The war on drugs ..

[Jhony5]

I don't think we would have a drug epidemic if we were to legalize all drugs. I think it would spike but in a decade or two it would pan out. People would be more educated and make wiser choices. Moneys that was spent for policing and incarcerations could go for treatments and education.

 

It's like losing weight. You can't get rid of it all at once.

 

I have never agreed with this sentiment. I believe that we would indeed have an extraordinary drug epidemic on our hands. Its like saying if rape was legalized then we wouldn't see an increase in rape.

 

That being said, I don't think anyone should ever have to spend 10, 20 or 30 years in prison for any drug offense. We have gotten way carried away with the penalties for drug offenses. To the point whereas the penalty is far more damaging to our society then is the crime.

[hugo]

The facts is legalization of all drugs, as jhony as pointed out, would actually make it more difficult for adolescents to obtain drugs, I cannot see a huge increase in adults deciding to start using heroin or coke just because it is legal.

 

From the Friedman article I posted earlier

 

Figure 3.3 shows the expenditure on alcoholic beverages expressed in constant 1982 prices between the same dates. As you will see, absolute expenditures, like the percentage spent, went up to 1937 and then fell briefly. During the war, expenditures went up sharply, peaking this time in 1946. Expenditures then fell and remained fairly constant during the forties and fifties and then, beginning in 1961, there was a sharp increase in expenditures on alcoholic beverages. For our purposes, however, the important lesson from the chart is that the legalization of alcohol clearly did not stimulate alcoholism. The legalization of alcohol was followed by a plateau in the consumption of alcohol. The kinds of things that many people have talked about as occurring during the sixties produced the sharp increase in expenditures on alcoholic beverages from 1961 to 1980. Since then expenditures have been falling in absolute terms and not only as a percentage of total consumption.

 

The obvious implication is that if currently illicit drugs were decriminalized and handled exactly the way alcohol is now handled, there is no reason to suppose that there would be a vast increase in the number of addicts. That is by no means a certainty, but every statement that I have seen asserting the contrary is based on pure conjecture and hypothesis. I have seen no hard evidence. The closest to it that I have come across is reference to the opium craze in China. Given the evidence we have-not only from alcohol prohibition but also from Holland, Alaska, and others-the burden of proof, it seems to me, is on those who maintain that there would be a completely unacceptable increase in the number of addicts.

[Jhony5]

The facts is legalization of all drugs, as jhony as pointed out, would actually make it more difficult for adolescents to obtain drugs

 

It would depend on what we mean by "legal". Legal to manufacture? Legal to possess? Legal to do whatever with it?

 

My big issue with the "all or nothing" legalization stance is my first hand knowledge of heinous drugs like meth and heroin. I have never done either, but have watched people do them.

 

Children aside, this stuff does extraordinary things to the human physiology. Changes as stark as a caterpillar turning into a butterfly. Except a far less beautiful outcome. Its just to scary to think of so many people burning the blue and going ape sh t on meth. If you drink LOTS of alcohol, you can go ape sh t. If you do any meth, ANY, you probably will go ape sh t.

 

I got this buddy with some f cked up friends from his youth that he still kicks with. We're hanging out in my buddies garage and this idiot, Tony, pulls out a small bag of crystal and offers it around. Everybody was like "Nahhhh man you go ahead". So Tony gets into it and it was quite entertaining, in a scary way. We played pool, smoked our dope and had fun watching Tony act like an escaped lunatic. Well, two days later I show up at my buddies house to bet on a few games of darts and Tony pulls into the driveway. Still hadn't slept and my lord.......the dude looked like he aged 6 years in two days. It was a profound image.

 

I really don't want that stuff on our streets. No way. Never can we allow that sh t to go unchecked.

[hugo]

It would depend on what we mean by "legal". Legal to manufacture? Legal to possess? Legal to do whatever with it?

 

My big issue with the "all or nothing" legalization stance is my first hand knowledge of heinous drugs like meth and heroin. I have never done either, but have watched people do them.

 

Children aside, this stuff does extraordinary things to the human physiology. Changes as stark as a caterpillar turning into a butterfly. Except a far less beautiful outcome. Its just to scary to think of so many people burning the blue and going ape sh t on meth. If you drink LOTS of alcohol, you can go ape sh t. If you do any meth, ANY, you probably will go ape sh t.

 

I got this buddy with some f cked up friends from his youth that he still kicks with. We're hanging out in my buddies garage and this idiot, Tony, pulls out a small bag of crystal and offers it around. Everybody was like "Nahhhh man you go ahead". So Tony gets into it and it was quite entertaining, in a scary way. We played pool, smoked our dope and had fun watching Tony act like an escaped lunatic. Well, two days later I show up at my buddies house to bet on a few games of darts and Tony pulls into the driveway. Still hadn't slept and my lord.......the dude looked like he aged 6 years in two days. It was a profound image.

 

I really don't want that stuff on our streets. No way. Never can we allow that sh t to go unchecked.

 

 

What you also have to take into account is the misery caused by the black market. Whole urban neighborhoods are being destroyed by the illegalization of drugs. Urban gangs are largely financed by drug sales. Whole countries (i.e. Columbia) are in turmoil. Al-Queda and the Taliban are partially financed by illegal drug revenues. Our prisons and law officers are overburdened. We cannot put enough sources preventing rapes, robberies and homicides. Homicides and robberies are increased due to the black market in a good that there is a demand for. The terminally stupid will always be with us. The free market will adequately punish them without government assistance.

 

When I refer to legalization I refer to placing all recreational drugs in the same position the manufacture and sales of alcohol is now in.

 

It sounds like neither you or your friends will engage in meth use upon drug legalization, nor would I go back to smoking weed.

[Jhony5]

When I refer to legalization I refer to placing all recreational drugs in the same position the manufacture and sales of alcohol is now in.

I can see it now; "Mad Matthew's brand Miraculous Methamphetamine Crystals. Quality meth with the sensible price".

 

Despite its potential for funding crime syndicates, I think we need to draw the line somewhere as to what is, and is not, OK to legalize.

 

It sounds like neither you or your friends will engage in meth use upon drug legalization, nor would I go back to smoking weed.

I really want to agree with you. I have always thought that people either will, or will not, f ck their lives up with illegal drugs. So you may well be right. I'm just too paranoid after seeing firsthand what that stuff does to people.

[snafu]

The facts is legalization of all drugs, as jhony as pointed out, would actually make it more difficult for adolescents to obtain drugs, I cannot see a huge increase in adults deciding to start using heroin or coke just because it is legal.

 

From the Friedman article I posted earlier

 

Exactly. I can see pot go up in usage only because its good.

But it wouldn't matter to allot of people if crack an meth were legal. Because we've seen what it dose. I'm sure they will go on a rise for awhile but eventually hard drugs will fix themselves. It just takes time.

[wez]

I agree with Hugo.. I don't think use would go up, and would eventually drop. I know it was a lot easier when I was in high school to get a bag of weed than find someone to buy alcohol.

[ImWithStupid]

The problems with these other drugs is not only the horrendously harmful effects to the user, his family and life, but all the other societal effects. There is a huge difference in someone who is addicted to alcohol or marijuana and that of someone addicted to meth, coke or heroin. It's not very common for a person addicted to alcohol or marijuana to have to spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars, weekly, to support their habit. This is quite common for these other drugs. This leads to crimes like robbery, theft, burglary, etc... to support their habit. Now the effects of the drug are definitely affecting more than the user or their immediate family, even though family members are also often victims of thefts by addicts.

 

You don't hear much of an alcoholic or pot head robbing anyone for beer or weed money. At most they might steal a bag of Doritos from 7-11 for the munchies.

 

I just truly think that the negative societal effects of these drugs outweigh the positives, even if there is a slight decline in use.

[ImWithStupid]

I know it was a lot easier when I was in high school to get a bag of weed than find someone to buy alcohol.

 

I never had a problem getting either one.

[wez]

The problems with these other drugs is not only the horrendously harmful effects to the user, his family and life, but all the other societal effects. There is a huge difference in someone who is addicted to alcohol or marijuana and that of someone addicted to meth, coke or heroin. It's not very common for a person addicted to alcohol or marijuana to have to spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars, weekly, to support their habit. This is quite common for these other drugs. This leads to crimes like robbery, theft, burglary, etc... to support their habit. Now the effects of the drug are definitely affecting more than the user or their immediate family, even though family members are also often victims of thefts by addicts.

 

You don't hear much of an alcoholic or pot head robbing anyone for beer or weed money. At most they might steal a bag of Doritos from 7-11 for the munchies.

 

I just truly think that the negative societal effects of these drugs outweigh the positives, even if there is a slight decline in use.

 

 

 

I think the most, certainly the worse problems come from the illegallity itself. People still use, and abuse those drugs. The illegality creates the bulk of the other crimes. It someone wants to shoot meth, there's no stopping them.

 

Really, there's no legislating stupidity.. If people wanna poisen themselves, they're gonna do it.

[Jhony5]

I never had a problem getting either one.

 

Well I did, and from what I've heard the general consensus is the same. At 15-16 years old I could sit down with my buddies on a Friday night with a bag of dope, a strip of blotter acid, cocaine (powder or rocked) but we very seldom could ever get alcohol. My drug dealers never once asked to see my ID.

 

 

It someone wants to shoot meth, there's no stopping them.

Hard to deny that. Good point indeed.

[ImWithStupid]

I think the most, certainly the worse problems come from the illegallity itself. People still use, and abuse those drugs. The illegality creates the bulk of the other crimes. It someone wants to shoot meth, there's no stopping them.

 

I don't think that most of problems, when talking about these types of highly addictive drugs, comes from the illegality. The other crimes are a result of a person having to come up with hundreds or thousands of dollars a week, that they need, to buy the drug that their bodies are craving. They will do just about anything. Theft, robbery, burglary, prostitution.

 

 

There have been several cases in our small town where not only are women and young girls prostituting themselves but we have had some mothers that have prostituted out their young teen and pre teen daughters to their dealers for meth.

 

 

I don't think you see this type of desperate behavior with alcohol or marijuana.

[wez]

I don't think that most of problems, when talking about these types of highly addictive drugs, comes from the illegality. The other crimes are a result of a person having to come up with hundreds or thousands of dollars a week, that they need, to buy the drug that their bodies are craving. They will do just about anything. Theft, robbery, burglary, prostitution.

 

 

There have been several cases in our small town where not only are women and young girls prostituting themselves but we have had some mothers that have prostituted out their young teen and pre teen daughters to their dealers for meth.

 

 

I don't think you see this type of desperate behavior with alcohol or marijuana.

 

I think that's the case all around the country.. Meth has really hit young girls hard. Nasty, nasty . But like Hugo said, I don't think people will all the sudden become drug addicts because they're legal. There is no keeping them out of the hands of children. It would be easier if it was legal, more open, and talked about. Not many girls would want to try it after they see their big sis age 40 years in 2 years of meth abuse. Scare the hell out of em, hopefully.

[Jhony5]

I don't think that most of problems, when talking about these types of highly addictive drugs, comes from the illegality. The other crimes are a result of a person having to come up with hundreds or thousands of dollars a week, that they need, to buy the drug that their bodies are craving. They will do just about anything.

Another issue along that line is, meth/heroin/cocaine addicts have huge issue in holding down a job. Whether the drugs are legal or not, this will always be an issue. Therefor one could say even if meth was legal people would still rob and steal to buy their now legal drugs.

[wez]

Another issue along that line is, meth/heroin/cocaine addicts have huge issue in holding down a job. Whether the drugs are legal or not, this will always be an issue. Therefor one could say even if meth was legal people would still rob and steal to buy their now legal drugs.

 

They may.. we know they do now. Worth a try I say.

[hugo]

I can see it now; "Mad Matthew's brand Miraculous Methamphetamine Crystals. Quality meth with the sensible price".

 

 

 

One exception, I would prohibit all advertising.

[timesjoke]

I would just like to add that trying to say drinking has not increased after it was made legal again is just plain wrong.

 

ALCOHOLIC CITY, U.S.A.

 

 

From: DON ARNOW (Hollywood, Calif.)

 

 

Alcoholism is the number-one health problem in the U.S. today. There is, however, a solution, provided we understand that alcoholism is a social malady which affects not only the alcoholic but also his family, business, and community.

 

 

To adequately portray the magnitude of the alcoholism problem today, we will look at an imaginary city that contains all the alcoholics in America. This is not a recommended solution, but within the structure of "Alcoholic City, U.S.A." we can see the degree to which all areas of our society are affected and the desperate need for effective rehabilitation.

 

 

Alcoholic City is a large city, with a population of 10 million people. This would rank as the second-largest city in the world, with Shanghai, China, number one, and Tokyo, Japan, third. About 75% are men, and 25% are women, with many teenagers and, sadly enough, many sub-teens. At least 95% of the inhabitants of Alcoholic City are employable; the remaining 5% would be the skid row derelict types. About 70% of the city would be classified as "respectable neighborhoods."

 

 

A large portion of our country's almost $9 billion in annual liquor store sales is consumed in this city. The average consumption of alcohol per adult in the U.S. per year is 2.6 gallons of straight alcohol. While this average would undoubtedly be higher for Alcoholic City with its 10 million population, at the national average they would consume 26 million gallons of pure alcohol per year. The water content of the consumed beverages would bring the figure into many millions of gallons.

 

 

The inhabitants of this city have a high crime rate, amounting to almost 3 million arrests yearly, which means 1/3 of the city is in legal trouble. If we have only one policeman for every 250 people (roughly the average of New York City), we need 40,000 policemen for Alcoholic City. They handle over 9,000 homicides and over 6,000 suicides each year. The residents, who are mostly drivers, injure over 1 million people yearly in auto accidents and 1 1/2 million are disabled. And 28,000 lose their lives because of the problem drinker. This means that our death rate for Alcoholic City comes to 1,053 deaths a day, or 43 every hour.

 

 

Now where are moneys allocated in this city? The cost to the taxpayer in just the arrest, trial, and maintenance of jails for problem drinkers is enormous--$1 billion or more yearly. There would be over $3 billion in property damage and medical expenses per year. Another $2 billion goes towards health and welfare services, and over $10 billion would be lost in man-hours to industry, civilian, government, and the military due to the alcoholic's inability to work. The liquor industry is spending close to $300 million per year in advertising in America, whereas the American government is spending only 2/3 that amount ($194 million) on the treatment of alcoholism.

 

 

If alcoholics were fully rehabilitated and contributing to society as healthy individuals, $15 billion would be saved in damage, health, and welfare. The increase in earned wages based on the 1972 average wage statistic would be $48 billion, thus making the total possible increase $62 billion.

 

 

So here is Alcoholic City, not a pretty picture to behold, but one that must be dealt with. Obviously alcoholism is a great social problem that must be resolved if this country is to continue to expand and offer opportunities for its future generations.

 

 

Source: National Alliance on Alcoholism Prevention and Treatment and the Association of Scientologists for Reform, Hollywood, Calif.

 

Drinking is a huge problem in our Country and is increasing every year, along with the costs to our Country to take care of these problem drinkers.

 

 

Outside of these problem drinkers, we have the families, mothers, fathers, children, parents, neighbors, co-workers, almost everyone around each of these people are effected in some negative way, some more than others.

 

 

The biggest problem causing so many people to get involved with drinking is how accepted it is in society. You can get drinks at football games, basketball games, baseball games, bowling alleys, pizza joints, all restaurants of quality serve drinks, our Country clubs, even our office parties, birthdays, marriage receptions, national holidays, and new years are all acceptable situations to have a drink in your hand.

 

 

Now, in each of these examples, try inserting a guy smoking a bong...........

 

Pot and other illegal drugs are kept in the shadows, privately and carefully used because they are not considered socially acceptable. It would take some time to be sure, but once these drugs have been made legal and have the social acceptance that drinking has, it is reasonable to assume that their use will be similar to the current use of alcohol.

 

 

 

Again, I must go back to my example of how things changed for young women in this Country once it was no longer considered bad to get pregnant out of wedloc. The social pressure was removed, and the mess that has followed is still getting worse every year. We now have more children born from mothers who have never been married than babies born inside homes with a married couple.

 

When will we stop dropping the standards?

[hugo]

I don't think that most of problems, when talking about these types of highly addictive drugs, comes from the illegality. The other crimes are a result of a person having to come up with hundreds or thousands of dollars a week, that they need, to buy the drug that their bodies are craving. .

 

The drugs are expensive because they are illegal.

[wez]

The drugs are expensive because they are illegal.

 

Exactly... The risk premium is 90% or more I bet..

[timesjoke]

The drugs are expensive because they are illegal.

 

Right, then why are my parents paying over $120 just for one prescription?

 

 

Even if you got them dirt cheep, most people live from paycheck to paycheck and a sudden addiction would still require them to either lose everything they own or start figuring out how to get more money fast.

 

 

Drinking is a great example, once a person loses their control and starts abusing alcohol, financial problems quickly follow. So, clearly making them legal does not remove the problem of crime and broken families. All you do is make it easier for everyone to take the risk of addiction and increse that happening because it is no longer seen as a bad thing to use these drugs.

 

 

 

 

By the way, once the government gets involved and starts adding taxes to the drugs, it is quite possible that the price would go up, just look at what people in places like New York pay for their cigs.

[hugo]

Right, then why are my parents paying over $120 just for one prescription?

 

By the way, once the government gets involved and starts adding taxes to the drugs, it is quite possible that the price would go up, just look at what people in places like New York pay for their cigs.

 

 

What you are basically stating is terrible government policies require more government to correct. The high prices of prescription drugs in the United States is largely due to the exorbitant costs imposed by the FDA on drug manufacturers. The Kefauver Amendment passed in 1962 is the primary cause of high drug costs. Repeal the Kefauver Amendment and prescription costs will drop dramaticaaly. I don't see recreational drugs as being subjected to the proof of effectiveness trials that drugs for treatment of illnesses are. I agree there is too much government. I'm trying to reduce government.

 

Pot and other illegal drugs are kept in the shadows, privately and carefully used because they are not considered socially acceptable. It would take some time to be sure, but once these drugs have been made legal and have the social acceptance that drinking has, it is reasonable to assume that their use will be similar to the current use of alcohol.

 

I have to disagree. Alcohol has been the most popular drug of choice for most cultures fhroughout history. I don't recall my grandfather recalling the cocaine parties of his youth, when coke was in cola.

 

Again, I must go back to my example of how things changed for young women in this Country once it was no longer considered bad to get pregnant out of wedloc. The social pressure was removed, and the mess that has followed is still getting worse every year. We now have more children born from mothers who have never been married than babies born inside homes with a married couple.

 

When will we stop dropping the standards?

 

My standards are the classical liberal standards of Jefferson and Madison where insuring individual liberty (at least for white guys) was the primary function of government. The surge in out of wedlock births began when government started paying women who had kids out of wedlock.

 

Ronald Reagan was right when he said that "Government is not the solution. It is the problem." He should have extended that to social issues as well as economic ones.

[Jhony5]

By the way, once the government gets involved and starts adding taxes to the drugs, it is quite possible that the price would go up, just look at what people in places like New York pay for their cigs.

 

Agreed. The prices would most certainly go way up. Pot is actually rather cheap as it is.

 

Frankly, I don't care if they legalize pot or not. I do care that the laws are so strict that they literally destroy lives. And the talking heads try to tell us that marijuana destroys lives. They got their heads so far up their ass that they can't get it right.

 

If you grow one plant, smoke it yourself and never even see another soul, let alone sell it to anyone, they will take EVERYTHING you own, including your freedom and your children and they will lock you in a cage with killers and rapist.

 

Now tell me, is that acceptable?

[hugo]

Agreed. The prices would most certainly go way up. Pot is actually rather cheap as it is.

 

 

The history of the prohibition era would argue otherwise. Of course, that was before the tax environment we live in today. Here though, once again, the argument is that terrible government causes the need for more government. The tax level should be equivalent to the taxes imposed on alcohol.

[timesjoke]

The history of the prohibition era would argue otherwise. Of course, that was before the tax environment we live in today. Here though, once again, the argument is that terrible government causes the need for more government. The tax level should be equivalent to the taxes imposed on alcohol.

 

But your again confusing a dream idea with how things like this really work.

 

A pack of cigs cost about 30 cents to produce but after taxes, some places pay over 8 dollars a pack to cover the taxes.

 

One of the excuses is that smoking causes lung problems that put the burdon of unpaid medical bills on the states. Somking pot has similar lung related problems, in fact it has more tar then tobacco, so the idea is to tax those that smoke to pay for their later medical problems that the society must deal with.

 

 

Let's not forget that this thread considered thaxing pot to pay for the fight on other drugs, so clearly it would need to be a large tax being as much of the populace would opt to grow their own instead of buying the government backed pot.

 

 

Hell, I would wager that many pot smokers would reject the government's pot just out of spite,

 

 

 

As jhony already said (I believe we can say he is expert in the subject of what pot costs), pot is already very cheap, it is difficult to imagine it getting cheaper.

 

 

 

By the way, I will admit that the story you posted was a tad confusing on how it represented itself. It seemed to me to be comparing percentages of cost to people, not percentages of use. In one place it spoke of the cost being higher during restrictive times, something of a no brainer there, in fact, it had a disclaimer about not having any real data during the illegal times so really, it seems to be without any basis to decide anything concerning use, only price.

 

Being as you just admitted that there were not over bearing taxes to deal with during those times, quite simply, there is no way to make comparisons with this modern era.

[hugo]

Pot smokers are not the ones that are robbing and killing people. the people doing that are the hard drug users. Legalizing pot will not do for society. Legalizing crack and heroin will.

 

Let me quote the greatest man of the 20th century again:

 

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.

 

Now, let us ask a constitutional question--- If it required amendments to ban and unban alcohol use, how are federal laws against drugs constitutional? No one will answer this question.

 

Property in Rights

 

This term [property] in its particular application means, "That dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces everything to which a man may attach a value and have a right, and which leaves to everyone else the like advantage.

In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandise, or money, is called his property.

In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

He has a property of particular value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties, and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

"Property," March 27, 1792 (Madison, 1865, IV, page 478)