[Graeme S]

A warning before you TL;DW me. It's an hour long. I know.


But it's narrated by Morgan Freeman. And it's awesome in and of itself. Well worth the watch.

Breaking The Taboo - Film - YouTube

[european]

sweet!

[drunkrussian]

great documentary, just watched the whole thing

always agreed that legalizing is the way to go, especially for marijuana as a start. My question is around legalizing hard drugs...they say in amsterdam there's all those rules about the weed has to be smoked only in a coffee shop, shop can only have a certain amount on hand per day, and there are age etc. restrictions. That's great - most weed users have an income and dont live on the street.

If the same concept was applied to crack or heroin, where many users are living on the street or often on that path, and many rob to use, how will this concept work? I get it, safe injection facilities. But if they're buying it and taxed from a shop rather than a guy on the street, don't they still need to come up with the money in some way? And what happens to those drug dealers when they lose business - do they all just get desk jobs and go legit? I dunno about that.

In any case, i think even including weed in this discussion and statistics in 2012 is retarded. The damage it causes is comparable to alcohol, it should be legalized and taxed. As for the other drugs, this documentary didn't really convince me on that one. Though i do think going after the cartels hasn't necessarily worked - it just seems to shift their locations and give rise to new cartels in new places...fuuu

[Graeme S]

You're right, they will have to come up with the money some way. But the mentality behind it is that we'll be cutting other types of costs. In the Obamacare thread that was posted here awhile ago, we had a brief discussion about the "million dollar patients"; homeless people who cost the emergency medical system literally millions of dollars because of things like overdoses, communicable diseases, and injuries due to intoxication.

Let's look at a single type of incident: ambulance calls. A single ambulance call costs $750 and (if made in the DTES) would probably take about an hour. Let's assume an addict has an incident which results in an emergency call once a month (not unreasonable; some would argue too low, others too high). Because the person is homeless, they can't afford to pay the $750. That means that the government needs to pay $750 to the ambulance system because the person can't. Yet if drugs were legalized and taxed, the money could go towards treatment programs--because they are new sources of income, they could go directly towards these kinds of programs, and avoid the whole "if you're raising existing taxes then you should do something to help the people paying them" mentality. The PIMBY, if you will.


You know how in elementary school there was that one asshole who wouldn't shut up at the back of the class and was just a douche and wanted to disrupt the class? Well, this kind of program is like the colouring book your teacher would give him. Sure, it's not a solution. But it's a distraction. And it lets the rest of the class (society) function more effectively.


As I said in the Obamacare thread--it's not always about fixing a problem. Sometimes they can't be fixed. Sometimes it's just about reducing the harm that people can do to themselves and others.

[Yodamaster]

That documentary was very well put together, and I agree with the message it's conveying, I always have.

[Nightwalker]

If the same concept was applied to crack or heroin, where many users are living on the street or often on that path, and many rob to use, how will this concept work? I get it, safe injection facilities. But if they're buying it and taxed from a shop rather than a guy on the street, don't they still need to come up with the money in some way? And what happens to those drug dealers when they lose business - do they all just get desk jobs and go legit? I dunno about that.

They're robbing to use already, I don't see why it would get any worse. It could only get better with more money into recovery programs.

Drug dealers won't have a choice if they can't make any money at it. How many bootleggers peddling moonshine cause a problem in the USA today?

[Gridlock]

Honestly, I've changed my stance on the legalization of drugs(specifically mj) in more recent times.

First, let me say, I hate weed. I would love for the war on drugs to work. I hate the culture around it, the smell, the look and I've tried it, and I don't like its effects either. And the thing I hate most about 'weed culture' is I will get failed into oblivion just for saying "I hate weed". But I think the overall harm it causes is less than the societal cost to police it. As a conservative, I have to look at those financial realities.

I think the main point that I took out, is even the message is wrong about the evils of drugs. I think in ANYTHING to do with drug prohibition, I think its wrong to lump in all currently illegal drugs together as "drugs are bad, mmmk?" I think you need to look at drugs as weed, then the others.

I'm curious to see whats going to happen with Washington state and Colorado. Here you have 2 states that are in, now, complete disagreement with federal policy. It will become a states rights issue for sure. But does the Federal gov't now actually fight against their own people to promote a federal policy that the voters have said they no longer wish to partake in?

I think the result of the war on drugs has been the criminalization of culture in the US. It's black men. And I'm not saying its because they are black, but its inner cities that went through a major negative move for the past 30-40 years creating ghettos that just re-inforce the need for drugs, which in turn creates an even worse ghetto.

I think countries like switzerland..and portugal, they didn't get there over night. You are seeing steps, like insite here in Van and what happened in Washington as small steps towards a more workable solution.

Ultimately, I'm forced to believe the following, based on logic regardless of my personal belief on drugs:

Putting people in jail/prison costs a LOT of money

Putting people in jail/prison means they can no longer have a good job, etc due to now poor standing in society

That in turn reinforces their desire for drugs

Entire cities are being decimated by the incarceration of their inhabitants

It's not working.

Even, as a conservative, if I want to completely ignore the drugs, and look at it purely as a cost center...I want to spend less, so I need to do something that curbs the use at the source..and jail isn't the answer.

[GabAlmighty]

I learned the "War on Drugs" made no sense in my first year Micro/Macro economics classes.

It's frustrating trying to explain it to people who are just so closeminded they refuse to accept/believe what you're saying.

[Teh Doucher]

Honestly, I've changed my stance on the legalization of drugs(specifically mj) in more recent times.

First, let me say, I hate weed. I would love for the war on drugs to work. I hate the culture around it, the smell, the look and I've tried it, and I don't like its effects either. And the thing I hate most about 'weed culture' is I will get failed into oblivion just for saying "I hate weed". But I think the overall harm it causes is less than the societal cost to police it. As a conservative, I have to look at those financial realities.

I think the main point that I took out, is even the message is wrong about the evils of drugs. I think in ANYTHING to do with drug prohibition, I think its wrong to lump in all currently illegal drugs together as "drugs are bad, mmmk?" I think you need to look at drugs as weed, then the others.

I'm curious to see whats going to happen with Washington state and Colorado. Here you have 2 states that are in, now, complete disagreement with federal policy. It will become a states rights issue for sure. But does the Federal gov't now actually fight against their own people to promote a federal policy that the voters have said they no longer wish to partake in?

I think the result of the war on drugs has been the criminalization of culture in the US. It's black men. And I'm not saying its because they are black, but its inner cities that went through a major negative move for the past 30-40 years creating ghettos that just re-inforce the need for drugs, which in turn creates an even worse ghetto.

I think countries like switzerland..and portugal, they didn't get there over night. You are seeing steps, like insite here in Van and what happened in Washington as small steps towards a more workable solution.

Ultimately, I'm forced to believe the following, based on logic regardless of my personal belief on drugs:

Putting people in jail/prison costs a LOT of money

Putting people in jail/prison means they can no longer have a good job, etc due to now poor standing in society

That in turn reinforces their desire for drugs

Entire cities are being decimated by the incarceration of their inhabitants

It's not working.

Even, as a conservative, if I want to completely ignore the drugs, and look at it purely as a cost center...I want to spend less, so I need to do something that curbs the use at the source..and jail isn't the answer.


About the throwing people in prison bit, don't forget that many prisons in the states are privately owned and that throwing people into these prisons is a business in its self.

[xeryusx]

^
Absolutely. It's a seemingly one huge corrupt system. Some random(s) is holding a joint, gets caught, goes to trial, found guilty, given an ridiculous amount of time, goes to prison PRIVATELY owned by some rich dude (maybe even a politician). And the wheels keep spinning.

Personally, I think this "war on drugs" can never be won. It can only be slowed down. Drug dealers (not street guys, but those guys up at the top) are around because bottomline:
-society has always needed a vice in whatever form they come
-there's just way too much money to be made. Sure, there really are some people up in high places who want to stop the flow of drugs but they are heavily outnumbered by those who just want to make a quick $ (shit, even the CIA are rumored to have dabbled in the drug business but that's another topic on its own).

The hard core drugs are always imported in to the States from countries where poverty is common sight. Why? Because Americans have the biggest appetite for drugs lol. Buy dirt cheap, sell sky high (no pun intended). At the moment, they are the most influential nation in the world. The movies and music that come out from there are viewed by the entire world. More often than not, drugs are talked about or seen. The rest of the world sees this and follow suit. It's like free advertisement. Globally lol.

[dat_steve]

Morgan Freeman could narrate a Denny's menu and I'd still listen to it.

Great watch.

[hotshot1]

If it was up to me, I'd legalize ALL drugs, including all the ones that are absolutely addictive and usually affect your life in a negative way (cocaine, heroine, etc.)

For me, it's a matter of personal freedom. The government should have no say in what people can do to themselves. If people were taught the correct information about drugs, especially starting in elementary schools, the use of the really harmful drugs wouldn't be so high. And please don't say that the info taught from the beginning of the "War on Drugs" till now is correct information. It's more like government propaganda.

Also, having drugs like marijuana being illegal while tobacco and alcohol are directly related to hundreds of thousands of deaths per year is just ridiculous. Not 1 person has ever died directly from the use of pot. THC is soooo non-toxic that you'd have to smoke over 10,000 joints in a row to even have a small level of toxicity in your system.

[bing]

The War on Drugs is a colossal failure. Like the video shows, too many people in America are being incarcerated for simply possession. If it was up to me, I'd follow a dutch type model and allow certain drugs that are currently prohibited. I'd sell them in regulated stores, tax them, and divert some of the profits to helping the 10% that are problem users (according to the video) and in educating people since were going to pay one way or another.

Meanwhile, tobacco and alcohol are legalized as they are preferred by the "moral center" - police, politicians, "upstanding" citizens, etc - and are far worse than some of the drugs that are prohibited. This doesn't make any logical sense given the substantial harms they pose.

Alcohol is a factor in:
64% of all homicides
31% of all suicides
40% of all hospital admissions
50% of all highway deaths
34% of all rapes
40% of all family court appearances
(Addictions Foundation of Manitoba in Sneiderman, 1996).

Tobacco kills an estimated 400,000 Americans and 40,000 Canadians every year, which is roughly the number of Americans and Canadians killed in all of World War II, not including all the people elsewhere in the world that die as tobacco use is aggressively targeted towards those in the developing world.

[drunkrussian]

About the throwing people in prison bit, don't forget that many prisons in the states are privately owned and that throwing people into these prisons is a business in its self.

i've always heard that prisons are a business and have a few ideas on how that works, but can someone explain to me how such prisons earn most of their money? And where/who this money comes from?

is it a cheap labour thing? or a government subsidy thing? or am i totally missing something obvious?

[Graeme S]

In America, they view government as a plague upon society (the general principles of the founding of the States, and the selectively-held views of the conservative side of the US).

As a result, the American view is "Why should we let the government waste our money inefficiently when we can have corporations compete over the scraps we throw them?"

Except that when Government is unwilling to compete, corporations are free to charge what they like. Also, because corporations are out to make a buck and the priority on many lawmakers' plates is to "get these criminals off the streets" as opposed to "getting these criminals back on their feet", there's a lack of prioritization for rehabilitation and no real mentality on stewardship. It's analagous to what's happening in the US to healthcare: "Government shouldn't interfere with business because business is more efficient!" Except that it's not because you're looking at the short term gains and not the long-term losses.

[dealt]

If it was up to me, I'd legalize ALL drugs, including all the ones that are absolutely addictive and usually affect your life in a negative way (cocaine, heroine, etc.)

For me, it's a matter of personal freedom. The government should have no say in what people can do to themselves. If people were taught the correct information about drugs, especially starting in elementary schools, the use of the really harmful drugs wouldn't be so high. And please don't say that the info taught from the beginning of the "War on Drugs" till now is correct information. It's more like government propaganda.

Also, having drugs like marijuana being illegal while tobacco and alcohol are directly related to hundreds of thousands of deaths per year is just ridiculous. Not 1 person has ever died directly from the use of pot. THC is soooo non-toxic that you'd have to smoke over 10,000 joints in a row to even have a small level of toxicity in your system.

After the 10th joint you'd probably green out and sleep like a baby.

[Jason00S2000]

First, let me say, I hate weed. I would love for the war on drugs to work. I hate the culture around it, the smell, the look and I've tried it, and I don't like its effects either. And the thing I hate most about 'weed culture' is I will get failed into oblivion just for saying "I hate weed".


Marijuana is a boon to artists!

I have to agree, some people take pot too far and build their personalities around it. Same goes for other things people take to extremes, like sports, my little pony, harry potter, etc

[noclue]

The only drugs I mind are the ones that make you hallucinate/makes you aggressive.

Defenders always quote "STEVE JOBS DID LSD AND LOOK HOW CREATIVE APPLE IS NOW!" but I've seen/heard too many horror stories to support legalizing those kinda drugs.

[Jason00S2000]

The only drugs I mind are the ones that make you hallucinate/makes you aggressive.

Defenders always quote "STEVE JOBS DID LSD AND LOOK HOW CREATIVE APPLE IS NOW!" but I've seen/heard too many horror stories to support legalizing those kinda drugs.


Well, having done DMT and mushrooms, I can honestly say they were both incredible experiences that opened up my mind.

However, having the right environment for such experiences is key.

If you're in a bad place in life and you take one of those drugs, or too much, or unsupervised without a "trip sitter", you can end up really fucked up!


Check out some of these freak outs:

Damnit, I can't find the one with the naked college dude screaming and ranting in the dorm hallway. That one is a classic. So many people just walk by him before the cops show up. Poor guy.

LiveLeak.com - Naked guy overdose shrooms/LSD.

LiveLeak.com - Guy Jumps Out Of His Apartment Window After Freaking Out After Taking Salvia. America.

LiveLeak.com - Girl on LSD Freaks Out Before Her Flight at Logan Airport

LiveLeak.com - Guy Starts Freaking Out After A Hit of Salvia

LiveLeak.com - Naked Guy on Drugs Gets Tased

LiveLeak.com - Dude High As F*ck Off Sherm (LIQUID PCP) Trippin Out At The Gas Station! (MUST SEE)

LiveLeak.com - Cops and Funny Naked Guy on Acid

The first few are really fucked up. I've done salvia and I don't like it, it really scrambles your thoughts in a negative way, IMO.

FYI, I've known of two people who killed themselves a short time after coming down off LSD. A few days.

Anyone remember that story a few years back about the girl on E who jumped off a 25th floor balcony in the middle of a party? Heard it happened in Vancouver.

Having said that, I couldn't come up with creative shit without tapping into the places in my mind that drugs have opened up!

[Nightwalker]

Hallucinogen are great though. Aside from being wayyyyy down on any kind of harm index, they have the most positive effects and aren't addictive (in fact, some studies have proven them extremely useful in BREAKING addiction). But they need to be used with some respect. Particularly the stronger ones, they can be very far from recreational but amazing learning and development experiences.

If it weren't for the war on drugs, there would probably be a lot more studies/information, and knowledgeable shamans and guides around.

[MindBomber]

great documentary, just watched the whole thing

always agreed that legalizing is the way to go, especially for marijuana as a start. My question is around legalizing hard drugs...they say in amsterdam there's all those rules about the weed has to be smoked only in a coffee shop, shop can only have a certain amount on hand per day, and there are age etc. restrictions. That's great - most weed users have an income and dont live on the street.

If the same concept was applied to crack or heroin, where many users are living on the street or often on that path, and many rob to use, how will this concept work? I get it, safe injection facilities. But if they're buying it and taxed from a shop rather than a guy on the street, don't they still need to come up with the money in some way? And what happens to those drug dealers when they lose business - do they all just get desk jobs and go legit? I dunno about that.

In any case, i think even including weed in this discussion and statistics in 2012 is retarded. The damage it causes is comparable to alcohol, it should be legalized and taxed. As for the other drugs, this documentary didn't really convince me on that one. Though i do think going after the cartels hasn't necessarily worked - it just seems to shift their locations and give rise to new cartels in new places...fuuu

I'm not a proponent of the term, "hard drugs," as it was created as a part of the war on drugs, and it does a very poor job of categorizing. I prefer to refer to crack, heroin, meth, and the like, as drugs high on a harm index. I'll continue this post using that terminology.

In my mind, a discussion on the legalization of drugs low on the harm index is straightforward and simple. These drugs should be legalized, the general people is competent enough to weigh the harm and benefit balance for themselves. I consider marijuna, mushrooms, peyote, LSD, DMT, alcohol, tobacco, and others to fit in this category.

Truly dangerous, harmful, drugs become very complicated. The illegal status of heroin has never prevented a person intent on using it from proceeding. No heroin user operates under the delusion that it can be used recreationally, they realize it will consume them and are accepting of it. If that's the case, what does making heroin illegal achieve? It raises the price, it creates a dangerous lack of consistency, it allows users and dealers to be arrested. Price doesn't prevent users from using, and neither does the danger or risk or arrest. Heroin should therefore be legal, because nothing is achieved by it being illegal. The people who use it now will continue, and the money saved by not policing and arresting those users can be dedicated towards lifting them up and out of the social position that allows them to consider heroin. I use heroin as a proxy for all drugs high on the harm index.
Posted via RS Mobile

[drunkrussian]

^on that topic, often "crack" has become a "hard drug" whereas pure coccaine is something that the rich, elite investment bankers do on their off time. I believe posession of crack in the u.s actually gets you more jail time or something than of the raw stuff...or maybe it's about dealing. I don't remember exactly but i remember reading something about the whole BS around it and how it's a way to essentially pick on the residents of poor communities while not touching the white collars

also wondering if you can explain why prisons make money and how they make money. Genuinely interested, still confused how that even works. Where does the revenue come from? Just a random question to anyone haha

[Traum]

Truly dangerous, harmful, drugs become very complicated. The illegal status of heroin has never prevented a person intent on using it from proceeding. No heroin user operates under the delusion that it can be used recreationally, they realize it will consume them and are accepting of it. If that's the case, what does making heroin illegal achieve? It raises the price, it creates a dangerous lack of consistency, it allows users and dealers to be arrested. Price doesn't prevent users from using, and neither does the danger or risk or arrest. Heroin should therefore be legal, because nothing is achieved by it being illegal. The people who use it now will continue, and the money saved by not policing and arresting those users can be dedicated towards lifting them up and out of the social position that allows them to consider heroin. I use heroin as a proxy for all drugs high on the harm index.
Posted via RS Mobile
The fallacy with this type of argument here is two-fold:

1) Certain people in society don't know how to protect themselves. By making the highly harmful drugs illegal and therefore unavailable, the government is trying to protect this particular group.

2) If the harm index is high, but the substance is not illegal, it will send the wrong message to enough people that despite the dangers, this is still something that they could experiment with. This point is sort of points back to point #1 in that certain people in society really don't know any better.

An imperfect analogy that I have just thought of is seat belts and helmet laws (for cars and bikes, respectively). Everybody knows the odds of surviving a car accident is dramatically higher if seatbelts / helmets are worn, just as people know heroin are highly dangerous. But if you don't make it illegal to not wear the seatbelt and helmets, the government (and society in general) is sending the wrong message to the general public, and a significantly larger portion of the population is gonna skip both the belt and the helmet. (The equivalent to this with heroin is, they are gonna try it because it isn't illegal.)

Also, suppose there are no seat belts nor helmet laws, and a person gets seriously hurt after an accident. Who is gonna foot the significantly higher medical bill to treat that person? And who will end up paying the costs of that significantly larger number of people getting hurt from not wearing seat belts / helmets?

The analogy extends to heroin and other highly harmful drugs.

[Gridlock]

fascinating article on the subject. Super long, but it gives you a liberal view, high level on each administrations thoughts, and policies on the war.

How America Lost the War on Drugs | Politics News | Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-america-lost-the-war-on-drugs-20110324)

[polygoon7]

great film. Really makes you wonder how this is even a debate at all.

[Sid Vicious]

The fallacy with this type of argument here is two-fold:

1) Certain people in society don't know how to protect themselves. By making the highly harmful drugs illegal and therefore unavailable, the government is trying to protect this particular group.

2) If the harm index is high, but the substance is not illegal, it will send the wrong message to enough people that despite the dangers, this is still something that they could experiment with. This point is sort of points back to point #1 in that certain people in society really don't know any better.

An imperfect analogy that I have just thought of is seat belts and helmet laws (for cars and bikes, respectively). Everybody knows the odds of surviving a car accident is dramatically higher if seatbelts / helmets are worn, just as people know heroin are highly dangerous. But if you don't make it illegal to not wear the seatbelt and helmets, the government (and society in general) is sending the wrong message to the general public, and a significantly larger portion of the population is gonna skip both the belt and the helmet. (The equivalent to this with heroin is, they are gonna try it because it isn't illegal.)

Also, suppose there are no seat belts nor helmet laws, and a person gets seriously hurt after an accident. Who is gonna foot the significantly higher medical bill to treat that person? And who will end up paying the costs of that significantly larger number of people getting hurt from not wearing seat belts / helmets?

The analogy extends to heroin and other highly harmful drugs.

so you think normal people with jobs who are otherwise inexperienced with hard drugs (this constitutes probably like 90% of the population) will experiment with harder drugs simply because its decriminalized?

i doubt those people will even try weed

[Gridlock]

I think to have this debate, you need to re-focus the terms you use.

We have: The War on Drugs.

That breaks down into: The War on Pot, and The War on Drugs.

And, simultaneously, we have the debate on legalization of Pot, and of other drugs.

I don't think that the war on drugs needs to be dependent on the legal nature of said drugs. You can have something be legal, and still do whatever you want to discourage its use, as noted with tobacco and alcohol.

Hell, legalize pot, and slam more ads against its use for everyone if you want. You might actually stem its use(which, in the article I referenced above, in the early 90's, they did, through advertising)

Ultimately, the work under the second Bush's administration is really what has set in motion the pure level of ridiculousness in today's "war", going after medical weed and pot users. I don't think something needs to be legal, and state approved to become less of a priority in law enforcement.

[Ludepower]

Baby steps...
If we cant even legalize weed...theres no way they'll legalize the hard drugs.

[Graeme S]

In my mind there are three broad categories of drugs:

Non-addictive drugs (booze, pot)

Physiologically addictive drugs (coke, heroin, meth, nicotine)

Hallucinogenic drugs (LSD, mushrooms, peyote)


One of the biggest problems we face right now is that we don't divide them or police them in manners befitting their differences. My students would always ask me if smoking pot was like cigarettes--they're completely different. They didn't want to try because they thought they'd get addicted. I ran the parallel: "If you aren't addicted to Alcohol, why haven't you stopped drinking?" "Because I like it". Drugs which are not physically addictive (yes, I realize that a psychological addiction or dependence is possible--but you can even get addicted to the internet. I want to talk about the drugs themselves, not the potential problems people might face) should not be lumped in with those that are.

And by that same measure, Canada has started working extremely hard to push people away from an extremely legal yet addictive drug: tobacco. Public policy in BC has been moving towards a medically-informed solution for all highly-addictive drugs: harm reduction. Want to quit smoking? Gov't will give you quit-smoking aids. Want to make sure you don't OD on heroin? Do it in a safe place. Physical addictions are medical problems, not legal ones, and the regulatory bodies are starting to realize this.

The hallucinogens are the ones where I sort of stumble though. I'll be honest, I haven't tried them and they kind of freak me out. One of my biggest fears is losing my sanity and not being able to tell reality from fiction. I know that hallucinogens can have absolutely amazing effects on people--like some have said, they're sometimes used in therapy for those suffering from addictions, and can be incredibly helpful. They can also be inspirational, and are often referenced when talking about more peaceful cultures and how "hallucinogens aid in the sense of feeling as a part of a greater whole"--something a LOT of people could benefit from. I'm just not sure of how we could control their use as far as duration and whatnot. Dosing is (apparently) quite important.


Personally, I'm big on regulation and not restriction. Lots of money goes to gangs and criminal enterprises, and it'd be nice to take some of that away. Of course, gangs will find new sources of income (illicit drugs are not the only businesses they're in, alcoholamirite?) but by removing their stranglehold on the victims--the users--it'll help alleviate a couple of problems. Additionally, one of the things I always take note of when the police send out warnings about drugs: "You have to be careful, you never know what you're taking--it could be something totally different than what they tell you". People will use drugs. People will use drugs whether they're safe or not. People who sell drugs will try and maximize profits by cutting corners or going with new suppliers, and people are going to get hurt or die. And yet if drugs were regulated, we would have control over what goes into those pills.

Now, I'm a hardcore red tory, so while I think that everything should be regulated, I also think there should be extremely strict rules on who can buy it, how much of it can be bought, and where. One of the biggest issues with this, is that the largest users of currently-illicit drugs are those who are the least likely to have a permanent address and as a result, the least likely to have any form of ID. If we restrict the amount of impairing substances that people are going to consume, then we need to be able to track it easily. And unfortunately, because homelessness isn't likely to be solved anytime soon...well, more craptacularity.


The biggest thing that I see as a giant hypocrisy as far as this goes is the fact that social conservatives always say "It doesn't matter if you make it legal, I would never do it!" while pointing fingers at those they don't like. Joe Arpaio (the American sheriff famous for his pink-tutu chain gang prison) has said that if pot is legalized "We'll see doctors performing surgeries high, teachers getting high while they teach" and so on and so forth. Stow the fucking rhetoric. If those groups of people wanted to fuck with themselves, they could do it quite effectively with alcohol. You know what's stopping them? Their personal character. Their strengths of will. The fact that they know it's wrong. And yeah, of course, there are laws against it. But I challenge you to find a surgeon who says "Yeah, I got drunk before I went into the OR, but whatever, the guy's still alive!". You don't need drug laws to enhance safety. You need codes of conduct for people to make sure they act well in general.

[finbar]

Sorry I couldn't find the vid,

Rx Drugs - The Liverpool, England method (http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/misc/60minliv.htm)

The clinic closed due to funding issues tied to US policy.

[Traum]

so you think normal people with jobs who are otherwise inexperienced with hard drugs (this constitutes probably like 90% of the population) will experiment with harder drugs simply because its decriminalized?

i doubt those people will even try weed
Naturally, the majority of people otherwise inexperienced with highly dangerous drugs (such as heroin) will not experiment with it simply because it is decriminalized. But I am totally willing to bet that a large enough portion will -- especially teenagers. Teenagers, by their very nature, are still experimenting with all sorts of different aspects in life. Some try tobacco, some try alcohol, some try speeding, some try sex, some try gangs, some try weed. So what makes you think only an insignificant fraction of these kids will not try heroin if it is decriminalized?

Even for adults, we are prone to making wrong decisions at times. Some of us D&D. Some of us speed under unsafe conditions. Some of us make the wrong decisions when it comes to the oppsite gender and sex. The examples go on and on because by our very nature, humans are not perfect. So when it comes to substances that is known to be highly dangerous (such as heroin), we need to draw a line.

[Graeme S]

Naturally, the majority of people otherwise inexperienced with highly dangerous drugs (such as heroin) will not experiment with it simply because it is decriminalized. But I am totally willing to bet that a large enough portion will -- especially teenagers. Teenagers, by their very nature, are still experimenting with all sorts of different aspects in life. Some try tobacco, some try alcohol, some try speeding, some try sex, some try gangs, some try weed. So what makes you think only an insignificant fraction of these kids will not try heroin if it is decriminalized?

Even for adults, we are prone to making wrong decisions at times. Some of us D&D. Some of us speed under unsafe conditions. Some of us make the wrong decisions when it comes to the oppsite gender and sex. The examples go on and on because by our very nature, humans are not perfect. So when it comes to substances that is known to be highly dangerous (such as heroin), we need to draw a line.
Which is why education is even more important. But keep in mind that what (I think) most of us here are advocating is not "deregulated legalization"; we are talking about the creation of schemes similar to that of tobacco and alcohol.

As it stands, because you can only buy booze at specific stores where all staff are required to take certain training (serving it right) and you get ID'd when you look young (I was ID'd twice within a week of my thirtieth birthday), it's difficult for teens to get booze. You'll note I said difficult. That's because they can do it. And teens do stupid shit with alcohol: they overdrink, they drink and drive, and sometimes they die. But do we talk about banning liquor? No. We talk about making sure IDs get checked, making sure adults don't serve to youths, and that consumption is moderated.

So why not do the same with other substances? We don't let teens buy tobacco--why would weed be different? Yet they get it now. And can get it more easily than alcohol, because drug dealers who don't care how old you are as long as you've got money will sell to anyone. And while some dealers stay with "the soft stuff", there are teenage heroin and cocaine addicts.


Like you said, everyone makes mistakes. My mom started smoking when she was 13 because (and I quote) "When I started smoking, I didn't notice how bad it smelled from my friends who were smokers". Fifty years later, she goes through about a carton a week. By leaving these criminalized, you end up with people who get stigmatized. Drink underage? Slap on the wrist, "kids will be kids", grow up, move on. Heroin or cocaine? Get addicted, stay addicted after you turn 18, end up institutionalized and/or homeless (unless you're ridiculously lucky and have parents and family with resources).




You say that everyone makes mistakes, even adults. Do we want a single mistake to lead to a lifetime of stigma and castigation? Or do we want to say "you made a mistake, but let's help get you better".

[Traum]

I am not disputing what you are saying here, Graeme. In fact, I agree with a lot of it.

If you go back to all the statements that I've made in this thread, they were only said in relation to drugs that are known to be highly dangerous -- heroin would be the prime example here, and cocaine would be a close second even though it isn't quite as harmful as heroin.

I'm sure there are others as well, but I am not well versed enough in these matters to make any intelligent comments.

[Jason00S2000]

I'm high right now!

[Graeme S]

I am not disputing what you are saying here, Graeme. In fact, I agree with a lot of it.

If you go back to all the statements that I've made in this thread, they were only said in relation to drugs that are known to be highly dangerous -- heroin would be the prime example here, and cocaine would be a close second even though it isn't quite as harmful as heroin.

I'm sure there are others as well, but I am not well versed enough in these matters to make any intelligent comments.
I understand and appreciate that--and your point is a very valid one, especially under the current circumstances. Every now and again we'll get police reports of "overpotent heroin" or "a shipment of <x drug> which has been cut with <y harmful substance>". The nature of unregulated drugs is that you can never predict exactly what it is you're getting. This was also the case (and still is) with moonshine. When alcohol faced prohibition in the states, more people died because of the unpredictable nature of illicit alcohol. And unfortunately, the war on drugs has facilitated the current state of drugs.

I'll be honest, I'm not up on the latest statistics. And while it is more edutainment than detailed statistical analysis, an episode of Penn & Teller's bullshit took on exactly the point that you brought up--heroin and cocaine are inherently dangerous and incredibly addictive. Yet they're hardly new drugs.

In the early '70s in the US, heroin was about $30/dose, and was about 5% pure. That's like paying for a dozen timmy's, and getting half of ONE doughnut. These days, again in the US, it's about $4-5 per dose and is 80-90% pure. Especially when adjusted for inflation, heroin is now six HUNDRED percent cheaper than before the war on drugs. How's that for free market competition for you?

Now obviously those statistics have been massaged and are most likely flawed in some way, but it bears thinking: what would have happened if alcohol had done the same? If Alcohol was now half the price that it is in the states, I'd wager we'd also have a higher alcoholism rate, as well as a higher number of deaths and hospitalizations. But because we tax it, because we regulate it, because we control and accurately label alcohol so that people know what they're getting, we can limit the problems.

We can't eliminate the problems. No problems will ever really "go away". But we can do our best to minimize it and help the people affected.

[Jason00S2000]

But because we tax it, because we regulate it, because we control and accurately label alcohol so that people know what they're getting, we can limit the problems.


Marijuana is cheaper and more powerful than it was 15 years ago!

What sucks about government control over weed is, in the future you'll be able to buy a pack of pinner joints for like $50, but if you added up all the weed you're getting, I bet it would be like, less than 2 grams in total, haha

[Graeme S]

Marijuana is cheaper and more powerful than it was 15 years ago!

What sucks about government control over weed is, in the future you'll be able to buy a pack of pinner joints for like $50, but if you added up all the weed you're getting, I bet it would be like, less than 2 grams in total, haha
If alcohol is any sign (and tobacco as well), legalization would result in a wide variety of potencies.

And you could be sure what you were getting. Other than cancer.

[Jason00S2000]

And you could be sure what you were getting. Other than cancer.

Marijuana Doesn't Increase Risk of Lung Cancer, Mental Illness or Death | 10 Reasons to Revisit Marijuana Policy Now | TIME.com (http://healthland.time.com/2012/06/14/10-reasons-to-revisit-marijuana-policy-now/slide/marijuana-doesnt-cause-lung-cancer-or-death/)

[Graeme S]

Everything except death gives you cancer. Joke fail :(

[Nightwalker]

In my mind there are three broad categories of drugs:

Non-addictive drugs (booze, pot)

Physiologically addictive drugs (coke, heroin, meth, nicotine)

Hallucinogenic drugs (LSD, mushrooms, peyote)

I agree with a lot of what you're saying but wanted to make a few corrections if I may :)

Alcohol IS physiologically addictive, and has LIFE THREATENING withdrawal symptoms. An alcoholic is more sure to die quitting cold turkey than any drug addict is, including heroin users.

Pot is a psychedelic (class of hallucinogen), but it's not a very strong one. In fact much of the experience on a psychedelic is how you feel/think, rather than visual hallucination.



Now, I'm a hardcore red tory, so while I think that everything should be regulated, I also think there should be extremely strict rules on who can buy it, how much of it can be bought, and where. One of the biggest issues with this, is that the largest users of currently-illicit drugs are those who are the least likely to have a permanent address and as a result, the least likely to have any form of ID. If we restrict the amount of impairing substances that people are going to consume, then we need to be able to track it easily. And unfortunately, because homelessness isn't likely to be solved anytime soon...well, more craptacularity.

I seriously doubt the largest segment of illicit drug users are homeless. I don't know a single homeless person, but I know hundreds of drug users. I don't think the very narrow population that are homeless are making the absolutely insane amounts of money change hands every year on drugs either. Oil, weapons and drugs are the largest traded goods markets in the world.

[Jason00S2000]

A loft designed sober:

http://www.mr-uploads.com/megabot/nodrugs.jpg

A loft designed on creative enhancers:

http://www.mr-uploads.com/megabot/ondrugs.jpg

[Jason00S2000]

I need a new hip hop album to go with my late night drug reading!

[MindBomber]

The fallacy with this type of argument here is two-fold:

1) Certain people in society don't know how to protect themselves. By making the highly harmful drugs illegal and therefore unavailable, the government is trying to protect this particular group.

2) If the harm index is high, but the substance is not illegal, it will send the wrong message to enough people that despite the dangers, this is still something that they could experiment with. This point is sort of points back to point #1 in that certain people in society really don't know any better.

An imperfect analogy that I have just thought of is seat belts and helmet laws (for cars and bikes, respectively). Everybody knows the odds of surviving a car accident is dramatically higher if seatbelts / helmets are worn, just as people know heroin are highly dangerous. But if you don't make it illegal to not wear the seatbelt and helmets, the government (and society in general) is sending the wrong message to the general public, and a significantly larger portion of the population is gonna skip both the belt and the helmet. (The equivalent to this with heroin is, they are gonna try it because it isn't illegal.)

Also, suppose there are no seat belts nor helmet laws, and a person gets seriously hurt after an accident. Who is gonna foot the significantly higher medical bill to treat that person? And who will end up paying the costs of that significantly larger number of people getting hurt from not wearing seat belts / helmets?

The analogy extends to heroin and other highly harmful drugs.

A well structured response, but not compelling enough to dissuade me from my position.

If I've not misinterpreted your argument, you support maintaining the status quo approach to minimizing the impact of highly harmful drugs. A very difficult position to take, because the status quo achieves very little success at a massive cost.

In response to point 1:
I went to a very middle class high school in Langley. In that school, cocaine was readily available to anyone with the desire to experiment. I can only assume, given the high position of cocaine on a harm index that any other drug would have been available as well. An illegal status does not make a drug unavailable, as you suggest; at best, only slightly less conveniently available.

In response to point 2:
You suggest illegal status conveys a negative connotation, and that is sufficient to prevent a certain percentage of potential users from becoming users. I would suggest, it is an illegal, illicit status that sometimes draws a person to experimentation. I would also suggest, people would be aware of the highly harmful status of cocaine, crack, heroin, meth, whether they are legal or illegal, and that it is an awareness of the dangers that a drug presents that actually prevents a person from using.

Back to my original point:
By making all drugs legal significant cost savings would be realized, and they could be utilized for helping people who are currently dying of addiction unaided. The net result would be less suffering within our populous, and that's what we all seek to achieve.

I also have these thoughts... which aren't exactly politically correct... and have to do with natural selection being allowed to take place. I'll save those for another time though... since I even offend myself a bit with them.

[Jason00S2000]

You guys should like, just smoke a bong together and eat a pizza, then play some Midnight Club

[Nightwalker]

I need a new hip hop album to go with my late night drug reading!

Good Kid, m.A.A.d. City - Kendrick Lamar Full Album - YouTube

[Gridlock]

A loft designed sober:

http://www.mr-uploads.com/megabot/nodrugs.jpg

A loft designed on creative enhancers:

http://www.mr-uploads.com/megabot/ondrugs.jpg

I like the one designed sober. Needs a bit of an accent color, but its hot. The wood ceiling balances the concrete nicely.

[drunkrussian]

Good Kid, m.A.A.d. City - Kendrick Lamar Full Album - YouTube (http://youtu.be/NEWH0E1PrwM)

nah for weed smoking you need that a$ap rocky mixtape
Posted via RS Mobile

[Sid Vicious]

Naturally, the majority of people otherwise inexperienced with highly dangerous drugs (such as heroin) will not experiment with it simply because it is decriminalized. But I am totally willing to bet that a large enough portion will -- especially teenagers. Teenagers, by their very nature, are still experimenting with all sorts of different aspects in life. Some try tobacco, some try alcohol, some try speeding, some try sex, some try gangs, some try weed. So what makes you think only an insignificant fraction of these kids will not try heroin if it is decriminalized?

Even for adults, we are prone to making wrong decisions at times. Some of us D&D. Some of us speed under unsafe conditions. Some of us make the wrong decisions when it comes to the oppsite gender and sex. The examples go on and on because by our very nature, humans are not perfect. So when it comes to substances that is known to be highly dangerous (such as heroin), we need to draw a line.

lol you're making a classical slippery slope argument which is easily debunked.

look at portugals heroin use before and after decriminalization - it stabilized and even decreased after

how old are you? you're just assuming that kids are retarded and will try it because its legal? you know how easy illegal drugs are to get right?

if a kid wants to try a harder drug, and i mean really wants to he will get access to it no matter its legality

[Graeme S]

I agree with a lot of what you're saying but wanted to make a few corrections if I may :)

Alcohol IS physiologically addictive, and has LIFE THREATENING withdrawal symptoms. An alcoholic is more sure to die quitting cold turkey than any drug addict is, including heroin users.

Pot is a psychedelic (class of hallucinogen), but it's not a very strong one. In fact much of the experience on a psychedelic is how you feel/think, rather than visual hallucination.
Both points are excellent ones, and as I often do, I generalized in order to make a point.

I think a hair that we can split and (hopefully) find some common ground on is that Alcohol can create a physiological dependency, but that it's not immediately addictive in the same way that heroin, meth, and nicotine are. If you develop a psychological addiction and/or overuse it, your body becomes dependent on it.

When I think addictive substance, I think something that you use once or twice and then crave or suffer withdrawal symptoms. I totally agree, though, that once the dependency exists the body freaks out moreso than with some other drugs.

And yes, pot is a mild psychedelic, but since it is so mild and does send people on such harsh 'trips', I generally class it with alcohol. They're both drugs that people will often use to relax and unwind, generally without any harsh negative side effects (with exceptions; my mom got all paranoid when she smoked joints as a troublesome youth, and the hangovers I get can be fucking KILLER)

I seriously doubt the largest segment of illicit drug users are homeless. I don't know a single homeless person, but I know hundreds of drug users. I don't think the very narrow population that are homeless are making the absolutely insane amounts of money change hands every year on drugs either. Oil, weapons and drugs are the largest traded goods markets in the world.

I agree, and again I typed while generalizing and not fleshing things out (and at o-dark-hundred this morning). When I said that, I was referring to things like the highly-addictive heroin, crack, meth and so on. And I realize that it is a giant generalization, and that there are lots of people functioning in society who use those drugs. But the people who are in the position to be 'recreational users' of these heavily addictive drugs are often those who have the means and resources to distract themselves or get help in kicking the habit. Homeless people are much more at risk to the continuing cycle of addiction/attempted rehab/relapse.


I apologize again if my positions previously were unclear; I sometimes end up using a dull butcher's blade for speech as opposed to the laser-sharp scalpel I intend.

[Jason00S2000]

And yes, pot is a mild psychedelic, but since it is so mild and does send people on such harsh 'trips', I generally class it with alcohol. They're both drugs that people will often use to relax and unwind, generally without any harsh negative side effects


I actually get a lot of energy from smoking pot. I always burn a big fatty right before 2 hours at the gym.

[Gridlock]

I AM going to give you points on the diamond plate bath tub in your living room.