Drug War

[JaKiri]

fafalone said in post # :

We have a little thing called the 4th amendment here that states police cannot conduct a search without reasonable suspicion they will find something illegal.

 

I doubt they would bother searching if they didn't have 'reasonable suspicion'. Of course that depends on your definition of 'reasonable', which is another issue entirely.

[fafalone]

Achieve the DESIRED effect.

 

i.e. 5-10mg

 

It will have a significant effect, but if its taken once in a social situation by a person not trying to escape from their problems, the risk of addiction is nominal.

[Radical Edward]

fafalone said in post # :

 

We have a little thing called the 4th amendment here that states police cannot conduct a search without reasonable suspicion they will find something illegal.

 

unless you are an arab, or a weakling quasi demilitarised state.

[fafalone]

MrL_JaKiri said in post # :

 

I doubt they would bother searching if they didn't have 'reasonable suspicion'. Of course that depends on your definition of 'reasonable', which is another issue entirely.

 

That was the whole point of the case. They DID NOT have reasonable suspicion, but rather coerced the people in the car into letting conduct an illegal search.

[JaKiri]

fafalone said in post # :

That was the whole point of the case. They DID NOT have reasonable suspicion, but rather coerced the people in the car into letting conduct an illegal search.

 

Whilst I oppose this in terms of personal freedom, I must comment that it's their own fault for having illegal drugs in the vehicle.

[fafalone]

That may be so, but the case should have been thrown out of court because of the illegal search. And the point is that 4 people shouldn't be convicted because one of them had drugs.

 

If you're at a party, and the cops come in and find drugs hidden somewhere in the house, this precedent says they can go ahead and arrest everyone at the party.

[JaKiri]

fafalone said in post # :

That may be so, but the case should have been thrown out of court because of the illegal search. And the point is that 4 people shouldn't be convicted because one of them had drugs.

 

From a moralistic point of view, that's bad. From a police (deterrent) point of view, it'll work well.

 

Of course, 'arrested' as you said in your first post is very different from 'charged'.

[fafalone]

Wait so if I'm with someone that I have no idea has drugs, I should be arrested as if they were mine????

 

no

no

no

[JaKiri]

fafalone said in post # :

Wait so if I'm with someone that I have no idea has drugs, I should be arrested as if they were mine????

 

no

no

no

 

That's not what I said at all.

 

I SAID it was bad from a moral point of view. I only said it was good from a police point of view (but then a police state is good from a police point of view) and will continue to do it unless stopped by a higher power.

 

And as I said, arrested =! charged.

[fafalone]

Prohibition is not the most effective way of reducing drug use...

[JaKiri]

fafalone said in post # :

Prohibition is not the most effective way of reducing drug use...

 

The most effective way of reducing ILLEGAL drugs use would be to legalise them all (but then that's true of all crime).

 

The most effective way of reducing drug use would be to engineer a virus so that the drugs in question kill for any dosage.

 

Since prohibition is already in place, I don't see why what you said responds to my post in the slightest.

[Radical Edward]

fafalone said in post # :

Wait so if I'm with someone that I have no idea has drugs, I should be arrested as if they were mine????

 

no

no

no

 

how would they know whose drugs they are though?

[fafalone]

The most effective way of reducing overall drug misuse, abuse, and addiction is legalization, harm reduction, and unbiased education.

[Radical Edward]

absolutely, let the idiots kill themselves, and lacing all the drugs with arsenic might work too.

[fafalone]

That's where harm reduction and unbiased education come in to play. And also the differentiation between use and abuse.

 

 

Take the heroin user who's afraid of going to the hospital for an overdose because of fear of being arrested.

 

Say he had a standardized dosage unit.

 

Say Naloxone wasn't also a restricted drug.

 

Now say with me, that overdose victim would still be alive.

[Radical Edward]

are the hospitals allowed to inform the police in the US then?

[fafalone]

Yes. And if you call the paramedics, the police come too.

[Radical Edward]

that is the badness.

[JaKiri]

fafalone said in post # :

The most effective way of reducing overall drug misuse, abuse, and addiction is legalization, harm reduction, and unbiased education.

 

I doubt that legalisation would reduce addiction or misuse.

 

There's the nice example of 'tobacco'.

[fafalone]

Theres also the example of Amsterdam and Liverpool.

 

You have absolutely no evidence to back up your claim.

 

 

[fafalone]

FACT: Needle exchange programs reduce the spread of HIV in a measurable way.

 

FACT: Alcohol related deaths and violence rose during the alcohol prohibition of the 20s

 

FACT: Methadone clinics are highly successfull in reducing the number of heroin addicts, however they are severely restricted and underfunded.

 

FACT: Humans have used drugs since the beginning of our species.

 

FACT: Lying to children about the dangers of drugs results in a decrease in trust of the message.

 

FACT: D.A.R.E has been unsuccessfull in lowering the drug abuse rate.

 

FACT: Fear of police harassment is a leading cause of keeping people out of treatment programs.

 

FACT: The marijuana use rate among teenagers in the US is higher than the use rate in Europe, where the laws are more relaxed.

 

FACT: In Amsterdam, 0.1% of the population 12 and over used heroin in the last 30 days. In the US, 0.1% of the population 12 and over used heroin in the past 30 days. However in Amsterdam, use is decriminalised.

 

FACT: 31.1% of the population in Amsterdam used cannabis once in their lifetimes, and 40.4% of the US population has used it once. Source: Abraham, Manja D., Hendrien L. Kaal, Peter D.A. Cohen (2003), Licit and illicit drug use in Amsterdam, 1987 to 2001. Amsterdam: CEDRO/Mets & Schilt and the US NHSDA, 2002

 

FACT: 10% in Amsterdam used cocaine once in their lives, while 14.4% in the US have.

 

FACT: "Domestic enforcement costs 4 times as much as treatment for a given amount of user reduction, 7 times as much for consumption reduction, and 15 times as much for societal cost reduction." Source: Rydell, C.P. & Everingham, S.S., Controlling Cocaine, Prepared for the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the United States Army (Santa Monica, CA: Drug Policy Research Center, RAND Corporation, 1994), p. xvi.

 

FACT: To reduce cocaine use by 1%, it would take 4.3 times as much money by enforcement of drug laws over money spent for treatment programs. Source: Rydell, C.P. & Everingham, S.S., Controlling Cocaine, Prepared for the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the United States Army (Santa Monica, CA: Drug Policy Research Center, RAND Corporation, 1994), p. 36.

 

FACT: The National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study (NTIES) found that with treatment: drug selling decreased by 78%, shoplifting declined by almost 82%, and assaults (defined as 'beating someone up') declined by 78%. Furthermore, there was a 64% decrease in arrests for any crime, and the percentage of people who largely supported themselves through illegal activity dropped by nearly half - decreasing more than 48 percent.

Source: Center for Substance Abuse and Treatment, National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study 1997 Highlights, from the web at http://www.health.org/nties97/crime.htm.

 

I could go on and on and on.

[JaKiri]

fafalone said in post # :

Theres also the example of Amsterdam and Liverpool.

 

You have absolutely no evidence to back up your claim.

 

My claim that people become addicted to (and misuse) tobacco?

 

What?

 

ps.

 

Is this the same Liverpool that I know?

 

The one with scousers that will have your wheels off before you leave the car?

[fafalone]

Comparing a drug like tobacco with extremely little psychoactive effect that has been traditionally used by a large number of people since the begginning of the country is not a valid point in arguing against prohibition of drugs that are associated with psychoactive effects, starting with alcohol.

[JaKiri]

fafalone said in post # :

FACT: Needle exchange programs reduce the spread of HIV in a measurable way.[/b]

 

Yep. Where did I say that you shouldn't assist people suffering from the side effects of drugs? (And, knowing how you like to misinterpret, I'm excluding times when I'm being facetious (although I can't remember if I have been in this thread))

 

fafalone said in post # :

FACT: Alcohol related deaths and violence rose during the alcohol prohibition of the 20s

 

Alcohol is a bad example, because of it's presence through all of society, even in these abstentionist times.

 

fafalone said in post # :

FACT: Methadone clinics are highly successfull in reducing the number of heroin addicts, however they are severely restricted and underfunded.

 

Yep. See above.

 

fafalone said in post # :

FACT: Humans have used drugs since the beginning of our species.

 

Indeed. I don't see how it's relevent, as by this argument we shouldn't watch TV, use computers or research quantum physics because our forefathers didn't.

 

fafalone said in post # :

FACT: Lying to children about the dangers of drugs results in a decrease in trust of the message.

 

Again, quote me where I said we should lie to children about how drugs are bad mm'kay.

 

fafalone said in post # :

FACT: D.A.R.E has been unsuccessfull in lowering the drug abuse rate.

 

Everyone recognises that DARE is rubbish, especially those who oppose legalisation, because it harms the idea by association.

 

fafalone said in post # :

FACT: Fear of police harassment is a leading cause of keeping people out of treatment programs.

 

Police harassment like prosecuting people for possessing illegal drugs? You mean the police arrest people who do things that are illegal? WHEN DID THIS HAPPEN?

 

fafalone said in post # :

FACT: The marijuana use rate among teenagers in the US is higher than the use rate in Europe, where the laws are more relaxed.

 

Americans, especially the teen population, appear to have a serious antiauthority vibe.

 

fafalone said in post # :

FACT: In Amsterdam, 0.1% of the population 12 and over used heroin in the last 30 days. In the US, 0.1% of the population 12 and over used heroin in the past 30 days. However in Amsterdam, use is decriminalised.

 

There's a difference between decriminalised and legal. Class A drugs like heroin and cocaine are HIGHLY illegal in Holland (and even cannabis isn't as legalised as the sterotype), and the 'heroin parks' and the like only exist to put the problem in plain sight, rather than hidden away.

 

If anything, that statistic shows that cannabis, if 'legalised', doesn't act as a gateway drug (and there are arguments about it being such if it's illegal, too).

 

fafalone said in post # :

FACT: 31.1% of the population in Amsterdam used cannabis once in their lifetimes, and 40.4% of the US population has used it once. Source: Abraham, Manja D., Hendrien L. Kaal, Peter D.A. Cohen (2003), Licit and illicit drug use in Amsterdam, 1987 to 2001. Amsterdam: CEDRO/Mets & Schilt and the US NHSDA, 2002

 

I'm prolegalisation of cannabis, so I don't know why you're quoting these statistics at me.

 

fafalone said in post # :

FACT: 10% in Amsterdam used cocaine once in their lives, while 14.4% in the US have.

 

More people than that will have speeded, but it doesn't mean that the traffic laws should be relaxed. Again, I don't really see what the comparison is, other than that cannabis isn't a gateway drug.

 

fafalone said in post # :

FACT: "Domestic enforcement costs 4 times as much as treatment for a given amount of user reduction, 7 times as much for consumption reduction, and 15 times as much for societal cost reduction." Source: Rydell, C.P. & Everingham, S.S., Controlling Cocaine, Prepared for the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the United States Army (Santa Monica, CA: Drug Policy Research Center, RAND Corporation, 1994), p. xvi.

 

I don't care how much it costs, I'm not in favour of legalising a dangerous drug.

 

fafalone said in post # :

FACT: To reduce cocaine use by 1%, it would take 4.3 times as much money by enforcement of drug laws over money spent for treatment programs. Source: Rydell, C.P. & Everingham, S.S., Controlling Cocaine, Prepared for the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the United States Army (Santa Monica, CA: Drug Policy Research Center, RAND Corporation, 1994), p. 36.

 

I don't see why you're putting these as seperate facts, as they're the same fact from the same study from the same authors from the same research center.

 

fafalone said in post # :

FACT: The National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study (NTIES) found that with treatment: drug selling decreased by 78%, shoplifting declined by almost 82%, and assaults (defined as 'beating someone up') declined by 78%. Furthermore, there was a 64% decrease in arrests for any crime, and the percentage of people who largely supported themselves through illegal activity dropped by nearly half - decreasing more than 48 percent.

Source: Center for Substance Abuse and Treatment, National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study 1997 Highlights, from the web at http://www.health.org/nties97/crime.htm.

 

See top.

 

fafalone said in post # :

I could go on and on and on.

 

I bet you could big boy.

[fafalone]

"I don't care how much it costs, I'm not in favour of legalising a dangerous drug."

 

 

This is exactly what is wrong with drug policy. You simply don't see that education, harm reducation, and legalization is the best way we know of to REDUCE DRUG ABUSE.

 

Legalization

-Reduces deaths from overdose

-Eliminates the illicit market run by violent criminals

-Enables more people to seek help for addiction

 

Basically you're saying you don't care if it costs more, creates more addicts, raises the misuse levels, leads to more violence, and causes more death, so long as we continue to hopelessly arrest everyone involved with drugs in the world.