Drug War

[matter]

I agree.

[fafalone]

Radical Edward said in post # :

well one thing I know about drugs: winners don't do drugs.

 

I found some more.

 

The following people used cocaine (in wine in the late 1800s/early 1900s):

 

Anatole France, Henrik Ibsen, Émile Zola, Jules Verne, Alexander Dumas, Robert Louis Stephenson, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Queen Victoria; King George 1 of Greece; King Alphonse XIII of Spain; the Shah of Persia, William McKinley (yes, the president of the US), and finally Leo XIII (yes, the freakin' pope) and Pius X (yes, another Pope).

 

What a bunch of druggy losers they are...

[Sayonara]

Perhaps he meant "drugs don't make winners"?

 

Unless of course they're a winner due to the large piles of cash from selling drugs.

[Dave]

fafalone said in post # :

But despite the increasing risk of getting caught, drug use is not declining.

 

Just this whilst browsing; is this not blatently obvious? A lot of people who are addicted to drugs often perform acts of crime just to get the money to buy them in the first place. It's hardly a surprise that even with stricter sentences/increased chance of getting caught/etc that overall drug use isn't declining.

 

If you're talking about dealers, then it's a bit different. But these people earn a lot of money from selling drugs, and I daresay that is probably what entices them to continue.

[blike]

One of the passages on a practice MCAT I took was a passage in support of the legalization of drugs. It constructs a good argument, I'll post excerpts later.

[fafalone]

dave said in post # :

 

Just this whilst browsing; is this not blatently obvious? A lot of people who are addicted to drugs often perform acts of crime just to get the money to buy them in the first place. It's hardly a surprise that even with stricter sentences/increased chance of getting caught/etc that overall drug use isn't declining.

 

No, it's not all that obvious considering the prevalence among certain groups (college students as one example) who aren't associated strongly with other types of crime. Also consider here differentiating again between use and addiction... most efforts are aimed at stopping use, not at stopping addiction.

[blike]

I know I'm jumping into the middle of the thread here with ideas that were probably already discussed, but I'm going to anyways

 

It's obvious that drug policy has failed in the past, and is failing now. Drug policy is costly and ineffective, and many of the evils Americans relate to "drug use" are caused by drug prohibition policies. Since 1981, federal spending on drug enforcement have tripled, and limited resources--Judicial time, lawyers, prosecuters, judges, jail space, law-enforcement agents--are becoming saturated.

 

If drug laws were repealed, much of the associated crime would diminish. Drug prices are high because of the inavailability of the product. Many addicts spend thousands of dollars a week. If drugs were legalized, the prices would undoubtedly drop, and less crime would be committed in order to feed an addiction.

 

There is good reason to doubt that most people would inject heroin or cocaine into their veins even legally. The logic of legalization depends on two assumptions: that most illegal drugs are not as dangerous as commonly believed; and that the drugs and methods of consumption which are the most risky would prove unattractive to people precisely because they are so obviously dangerous.

 

I summarized this argument from E. A. Nadelmann's The Case for Legalization. He presents a very good argument.

[fafalone]

One problem that argument tho... IV use would drop drastically if prices did... since most IV users do so to get the most bang for their buck. Smoking is sufficient for rapid onset, and higher doses are sufficient to make up for the loss. But that just makes it even safer. (Very few cocaine users inject it; mostly speedballers)

 

But yeah, much of those arguments are what I've been saying since the start of this thread. Does he present anything about the misconception that legalization would just lead to thousands of more addicts?

[blike]

"Consumed in their more benign forms, few of the illicit substances are as damaging to the human body over the long term as alcohol and tobacco, and none is as strongly linked with violent behavior as alcohol. On the other hand, much of the damage caused today by illegal drugs stems from their consumption in particularly dangerous ways. There is good reason to doubt that many Americans would inject cocaine or heroin into their veins even if given the chance to do so legally. And just as the dramatic growth in the heroin-consuming population during the 1960s leveled off for reasons apparently having little to do with law enforcement, so we can expect a leveling-off-which may already have begun-in the number of people smoking crack. The logic of legalization thus depends upon two assumptions: that most illegal drugs are not so dangerous as is commonly believed; and that the drugs and methods of consumption that are most risky are unlikely to prove appealing to many people, precisely because they are so obviously dangerous.

 

Perhaps the most reassuring reason for believing that repeal of the drug-prohibition laws will not lead to tremendous increases in drug-abuse levels is the fact that we have learned something from our past experiences with alcohol and tobacco abuse. We now , for instance, that consumption taxes are an effective method of limiting consumption rates. We also know that restrictions and bans on advertising, as well as a campaign of negative advertising, can make a difference. The same is true of other government measures including restrictions on time and place of sale, prohibition of consumption in public places, packaging requirements, mandated adjustments in insurance policies, crackdowns on driving while under the influence, and laws holding bartenders and hosts responsible for the drinking of customers and guests. There is even some evidence that government-sponsored education programs about the dangers of cigarette smoking have deterred many children from beginning to smoke.

 

"

[blike]

You can read the whole thing here:

 

http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/case_for_ethan_p1.cfm

[blike]

It is not an endorsement of drug use-but rather a recognition of the rights of adult Americans to make their own choices of the fear of criminal sanctions.

[fafalone]

Nice to see an article from that site (which contains many other excellent articles) is appearing somewhere where propaganda penetrance is only slightly less than total...

[fafalone]

http://www.reconsider.org/drug_enforcement_and_crime.htm

 

New study suggesting that the drug war actually increases related crime (i.e. don't cop out with 'well sure if it was legal then it wouldn't be a crime' rubish, read it).

[badchad]

I'll jump in here and probably re-state what someone else already said.

 

I think that drugs are deemed illegal in an attempt to better society. While not all drugs are "bad" in general drug use can lead to adverse health effects along with intangible effects on society. If people are able to take any and all types of drugs health problems may arise, worker productivity will go down. This will result in a decrease in quality of life, which can affect all of us. As society we share the burdens of those who cannot afford health care, our taxes pay for many things. Allowing the free use of any and all drugs may lead to a larger burden on society.

 

Making drugs illegal is an attempt to deter there use. This logic is easily dismissed by the fact that if you really want them, anyone can score his/her drug of choice. However, these people will use drugs regardless of the law, so I don't consider them too much in my argument.

 

AN example could be smoking. It obviously effects a person's health. This raises all our healthcare costs, and also decreases worker productivity. Now that so many people are addicted, it's taking enormous effort and money to eradicate the problem. People that want to do drugs will find a way to get them. Legalizing them only increases the use because certain people don't use them simply because they are illegal, or they can't find them. If you allowed anyone to go buy a gram of coke at the gas station, it's use would increase, and the problems associated with it.