Toronto public health official to push for federal decriminalization of all drugs
 

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/toront...-use-1.4013960

I kinda agree with the principal idea.

History has shown that for things like alcohol and drugs, outright ban is not the solution. It simply drives the market underground with very little that could be done without bringing up a huge controversy.

Education and market manipulation are the keys to really get things under control, and with tax revenue coming from the market itself we can fund programs for drug users as well as research into other drugs that are beneficial to our society... I.E. major pharmas are dropping antibiotic researches left and right... but we need this. So we tax the drug users who choose to consume them and fund researches for antibiotics that can benefit the rest of the society.

Yea I'm kinda torn about it, TBH.
I mean on one hand, you have the benefits of education, safety, revenue, a lessening of black market criminal activity.
But on the other hand, What hangs me up most (and probably many others), is the removal of moral stigma behind it.
Alcohol is deemed socially acceptable,and look at the astronomical number of fatalities where alcohol was a factor. And that's just deaths. There's also probably an immeasurable number of lives ruined by alcoholism. I don't know that if they'd kept prohibition, these numbers would have been higher. But it's hard to believe.

If it's decriminalized then the gov't should take over production and distribution as well. The products would be more consistent and not cut with who knows what so fewer people should end up in emergency. Then have facilities for addicts with rehab services and free drugs for those who stay there. If anyone wants to get clean then by all means help them, but if someone just wants to be an addict then I'd rather they're living in a controlled place and being given free drugs, instead of them stealing stuff all the time and leaving needles everywhere. It'd reduce the costs of insurance, policing, emergency services, and take away most of the clientele of dealers.

Meanwhile if casual users are wanting something they're getting something consistent and they can be given some information on the short and long term effects of whatever they're going to be taking.

While I agree, I feel like the stigma from some drugs would stay (meth is still gonna be meth after all) and the "cool" factor of illegal drugs would be reduced for younger partiers since it's not quite so edgy when anyone of legal age can just buy it at a proper store. It would also make it easier on emergency services since people won't be denying they took anything when they roll into the ER. Maybe some stuff should remain illegal outside of the facilities I mentioned? Then if someone really wants meth they can go get it, but average Joe can't be rolling around town with it.

There's a big difference between decriminalization and legalization.

That said I think there should be a big push to legalize other drugs that are proven to not be addictive or physically harmful. I see no reason why marijuana is legal but drugs like psilocybin or lsd are illegal. They both have potential health/psychological benefits, no risk of addiction, and little harmful health effects that I'm aware of.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/22/o...alization.html

Decades ago, the United States and Portugal both struggled with illicit drugs and took decisive action — in diametrically opposite directions. The U.S. cracked down vigorously, spending billions of dollars incarcerating drug users. In contrast, Portugal undertook a monumental experiment: It decriminalized the use of all drugs in 2001, even heroin and cocaine, and unleashed a major public health campaign to tackle addiction. Ever since in Portugal, drug addiction has been treated more as a medical challenge than as a criminal justice issue.


After more than 15 years, it’s clear which approach worked better. The United States drug policy failed spectacularly, with about as many Americans dying last year of overdoses — around 64,000 — as were killed in the Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq Wars combined.

In contrast, Portugal may be winning the war on drugs — by ending it. Today, the Health Ministry estimates that only about 25,000 Portuguese use heroin, down from 100,000 when the policy began.

So you guys would like to give your children\descendants the right to shoot heroin after they turn 18?
Any intellectual on this forum want to explain to us why red flower poppy farms in Afghanistan (90% of heroin source) are undetectable to US and Canadian drones\satellites to get destroyed?

ahh yes very true. Thanks for pointing that out.

If you think keeping it illegal makes it any less likely for them to shoot heroin, you're fooling yourself.

Decriminalizing does it make any more prevalent than it already is.

While I'm sure there are variations, from what i understand decriminalizing just means people won't be charged for carrying an amount below personal use. The drugs can actually still be confiscated. Depending on the model used

Coke used to be a rich mans drug prior to the CIA involvement in Contra (Latin American) wars funded via cocaine trafficking through out ghettos all across the US.

If you've taught them growing up about the hazards of doing heroin and they're still doing it then it's going to happen regardless of legality. In which case I'd prefer they weren't getting stuff that's cut with who knows what and boosting the profits of drug dealers.

Serious question underscore; do you think drug dealers are are more sophisticated then the NSA and Mossad combined, to be able to leech and create destruction costing the US billions annually via drugs sales?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean, as that isn't the intent of a drug dealer, they're just greedy fucks who want easy money.

isreal gets billions of dollars a year from the US... Mossad is the best, if not, one of the worlds best intelligence agencies. If drug dealers are a threat to the US... why arent the NSA and Mossad able to find\shut down these operations?

Are US and Canadian gangs above these two agencies?

If they were directed to such efforts they could probably make an impact, but it's a difficult target. We're talking about lots of loosely organized groups of varying sizes, anything from an international cartel down to an independent producer. On top of that, the more you shut down the supply, the more the costs go up, the more incentive others have to fill in the gaps.

How have you come to the conclusion that any old or new drug dealers are a difficult target?

By flipping pigeons to communicate? see 1:19 mark
The Jungle in "Training Day"