I concede that elected politicians talk along the same lines as you. Bully for you, bully for them.
People who seriously study public policy and public health take a very different view.
Wait - politicians don't study public policy and public health? Please drop some science via a public policy study or a public health study so that I can be educated as to why making meth and heroin legal is good for society.
Let's start with their families and go from there...
This gets a big raspberry from me.
My family has been seriously damaged by drugs and they are illegal.
Them being illegal has done zero to help my addicted family member.
It hasn't made him clean.
It hasn't made him sober.
It has not gotten him into treatment.
ZERO.
How about thinking before you type.
You are missing the point. The fact that drugs are illegal means that there is a legal deterrent. If we make all drugs legal, there will be more people walking around high and addicted, period.
I am not missing the point.
You are making a political argument in a public policy debate.
The fact that drugs ruin your life is a deterrent.
If laws were a deterrent then places with strict laws would have a markedly lower use than areas with liberal laws. Show me some research along those lines. Show me the research that says fewer people die from drugs in areas with strict laws compared with areas where there has been decriminalization. Show me the research that says there is less crime in areas with strict laws compared to areas with there has been decriminalization.
And quit falling back on what elected officials say.
I concede that elected politicians talk along the same lines as you. Bully for you, bully for them.
People who seriously study public policy and public health take a very different view.
Wait - politicians don't study public policy and public health? Please drop some science via a public policy study or a public health study so that I can be educated as to why making meth and heroin legal is good for society.
I have already done that.
Tell me what you thought of the Scientific American article I posted and bobd reposted.
After I have your report on your findings from the article I will post more. Many many many more.
As for your politicians. Some study public policy, but not as closely as they study polls.
Let's start with their families and go from there...
This gets a big raspberry from me.
My family has been seriously damaged by drugs and they are illegal.
Them being illegal has done zero to help my addicted family member.
It hasn't made him clean.
It hasn't made him sober.
It has not gotten him into treatment.
ZERO.
How about thinking before you type.
You are missing the point. The fact that drugs are illegal means that there is a legal deterrent. If we make all drugs legal, there will be more people walking around high and addicted, period.
I disagree. The world is addicted already. And the fact that drugs are illegal does not stop anyone from using them. And Coffeshops in the Netherlands prove that allowing legal usage of drugs does not increase the number of people using them. To think that we would have "more people walking around high and addicted" is highly debatable.
The fact that drugs are illegal means that there is a legal deterrent. If we make all drugs legal, there will be more people walking around high and addicted, period.
I guess this is why Prohibition was such a big fucking success.
Let's bring it back!
Is there some reason you can't/won't discuss the legalization/decriminalization distinction as brought up in the post about Portugal?
There's also the plain fact that we have millions of people in this country who are legal addicts already. They're just addicted to legal drugs that they get via prescription.
This is now starting to be a major topic up here in Canada. The Conservative government is trying to adopt American-style drug policy. Making cuts all over the place, all the while pulling sneaky maneuvers of not telling parliament how much they are going to spend on new prisons. While crime on a whole is decreasing and is at a 20 year low. Making bullshit claims about unreported crimes. They have the nerve to boast that the new prisons will create 5000 jobs. Oddly enough, Universities can just as easily create 5000 jobs, but cuts in education are fine...
Hard drugs should be free and legal so that druggies will OD faster. And society shouldn't be expected to be respectful to their dead bodies.
Exactly. If they are not going to respect their bodies why should we?
Society could also save money by using the dead junky bodies for crash test dummies, stunt extras and halloween decorations. Dead junkies could also be propped up in the audience at sports games, political rallies and concerts to give the illusion of a sold out show.
All bullshit aside (and I probably should'nt be typing this at 2am), we are not free (surprise!). If someone wants to ingest whateverthefuck - let em. Same goes for selling/buying your body. Trying to regulate things that are natural human impulses that have been around for centuries is ridiculous and it only makes the gov. $ in the end.
I don't support any law that protects a sane adult over the age of 21 from harming themselves.
because drug abusers can obviously only harm themselves. same with people who abuse alcohol. i still don't understand why we have drunk driving laws...
This logic is flawed. There are people who can handle their shit. Even coke/heroin or whatever. It all depends on the individual. That said, I know that more times than not it doesn't work out that way. I'm not sure how to quantify the safety in giving ppl the option to do what they will, but not having the choice as adults kind of goes against the whole concept of freedom.
If someone were to invent a perfectly safe ecstasy pill, what would be done about it? It's the sort of scenario clubbers like to speculate about, usually at around 6am, a little the worse for wear after a big night out. It's less common to hear it from a neuropsychopharmacologist and former government scientist ??? but it is, Professor David Nutt says earnestly, "the key question". So what does he think the government would do?
"They would ban it. They would find some pretext to ban it. I think they would, because beneath all their posturing about health lies a moral position where they don't think young people should have fun, other than being drunk."
This is just the sort of opinion that got Nutt sacked. It is a little over a year since he was fired from his post as chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), for publicly stating that alcohol and tobacco were more harmful than LSD, ecstasy and cannabis. "He cannot," declared Alan Johnson, then home secretary, "be both a government adviser and a campaigner against government policy." Nutt in turn wondered why the government wanted a scientific adviser, if it wasn't interested in hearing scientific facts.
Btw I'm fully aware this is not based in reality. These are mind garden moves.
I think what you're saying is more much based in reality, than the thought of more people taking drugs if they were decriminalized, or that lthose advocatin' that dosen't care about the children or such nonsense...
Btw I'm fully aware this is not based in reality. These are mind garden moves.
I think what you're saying is more much based in reality, than the thought of more people taking drugs if they were decriminalized, or that lthose advocatin' that dosen't care about the children or such nonsense...
And I agree with you. I'm not convinced that legalizing drugs would make every Tom, Dick and housewife a crackhead. But in reality, that's opening up a huge "what if" and as millions of ppl can attest to, drugs can absolutely ruin lives. My question is, what about those who can use without getting on a Gator/Pookie level? Should a casual, recreational user be criminalized for what they do to their own body? Is that truly being free? And again, this is some "let's suspend reality" type of question, but can that ever happen? Look at alcohol. Some people abuse it, some people use it for recreation. Where do you draw the line?
I also think suicide should be legal. Just putting that out there.
I also think suicide should be legal. Just putting that out there.
I have two questions about this, just out of interest.
Can deceased people have criminal rekkids ?
If you're caught in the act (even if it causes no harm to anyone else or violates any other laws), can you be charged with something - like attempted suicide ?
I presume you have stuff like Methadone programs for Heroin addicts in the US. So the reality is that people with serious addictions have been given legal hard drugs for many years. Just not the ones they want. Mainly because they're not the patented drug company owned variety.
Speaking of which, isn't one of the biggest problem drugs in America now the synthesized opiates that are available through healthcare professionals.
How do they figure in the war on drugs? Surely they could be stamped out at source quite easily. They are available freely and legally, through legitimate businesses after all. lol.
Not that the reality of the situation matters to the hypocrites and idiots who believe the choices are as black and white as "pass the meth" or "won't somebody thing of the children".
It's like they said in The WIre, "You follow drugs, you get drug addicts and drug dealers. But you start to follow the money... and you don't know where the fuck is going to take you."
Speaking of which, isn't one of the biggest problem drugs in America now the synthesized opiates that are available through healthcare professionals.
How do they figure in the war on drugs? Surely they could be stamped out at source quite easily. They are available freely and legally, through legitimate businesses after all. lol.
THIS
how is the war on drugs fighting this shit, forget robbing for a crack rock
these people use a pen,pad and a phonebook for their increasing need while becoming suppliers to others
The war on drugs is nothing but failed and flawed policy that's more about making money, than it is about locking up bad people.
Locking people up is the penalty and the deterrent, it's not the reason why drugs are illegal. It's amazing to see liberals talk about legalizing all drugs (not just weed) in light of the disparate impact that drugs have on the lower class. The idea that we should just let the druggies kill themselves is the ultimate right wing nonsense and code language for let all the poor die.
The US is not Portugal. We are not a religiously and ethnically homogeneous society. The people in our lower economic class are disproportionately made up of minorities who are stuck in a cycle. Forget about all the emotional and physical harm that drugs do to families - how about the economic harm? Do drug addicts make good employees?
Also, the idea that people are comparing prohibition with making hardcore drugs illegal is ridiculous because it ignores the addictiveness and harshness of those drugs. You can have a few drinks and be okay or even have more than a few and not be incapacitated. Can you take just a hit of crack and drive your kids home? Are people really going to deny that crack/herion/meth are not more addictive than alcohol?
Comments
Wait - politicians don't study public policy and public health? Please drop some science via a public policy study or a public health study so that I can be educated as to why making meth and heroin legal is good for society.
I am not missing the point.
You are making a political argument in a public policy debate.
The fact that drugs ruin your life is a deterrent.
If laws were a deterrent then places with strict laws would have a markedly lower use than areas with liberal laws. Show me some research along those lines. Show me the research that says fewer people die from drugs in areas with strict laws compared with areas where there has been decriminalization. Show me the research that says there is less crime in areas with strict laws compared to areas with there has been decriminalization.
And quit falling back on what elected officials say.
I have already done that.
Tell me what you thought of the Scientific American article I posted and bobd reposted.
After I have your report on your findings from the article I will post more. Many many many more.
As for your politicians. Some study public policy, but not as closely as they study polls.
I disagree. The world is addicted already. And the fact that drugs are illegal does not stop anyone from using them. And Coffeshops in the Netherlands prove that allowing legal usage of drugs does not increase the number of people using them. To think that we would have "more people walking around high and addicted" is highly debatable.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43544.html
The war on drugs is nothing but failed and flawed policy that's more about making money, than it is about locking up bad people.
I guess this is why Prohibition was such a big fucking success.
Let's bring it back!
Is there some reason you can't/won't discuss the legalization/decriminalization distinction as brought up in the post about Portugal?
There's also the plain fact that we have millions of people in this country who are legal addicts already. They're just addicted to legal drugs that they get via prescription.
Which is okay as long as they pay taxes.
At the very least, this shit infuriates me.
Say we legalized the kinda 7 gram rocks that Sheen likes to bang and finish.
Say we retail them at Seven Eleven or Starbucks
Wouldn't the dudes who originally robbed places for money to pay for said rocks just move to robbing direct from the banging rock retailers ?
You mean in the same way that happened with alcohol? How places that sell wine and booze are constantly being held up, not for money, but for alcohol?
Haha.
GIMME ALL YOUR BEER!!
B/w
Its pretty hard to make a swift exit with 5 cases of beer.
How many people decided not to take drugs but wanted to, just because it was illegal ?
Exactly. If they are not going to respect their bodies why should we?
Society could also save money by using the dead junky bodies for crash test dummies, stunt extras and halloween decorations. Dead junkies could also be propped up in the audience at sports games, political rallies and concerts to give the illusion of a sold out show.
How many people became addicted because it was less available ?
All bullshit aside (and I probably should'nt be typing this at 2am), we are not free (surprise!). If someone wants to ingest whateverthefuck - let em. Same goes for selling/buying your body. Trying to regulate things that are natural human impulses that have been around for centuries is ridiculous and it only makes the gov. $ in the end.
/2amrant
less aviable ?
How is it possible ? They are already outlawed.
This logic is flawed. There are people who can handle their shit. Even coke/heroin or whatever. It all depends on the individual. That said, I know that more times than not it doesn't work out that way. I'm not sure how to quantify the safety in giving ppl the option to do what they will, but not having the choice as adults kind of goes against the whole concept of freedom.
The correct drugs could sort you out.
If they are illegal, they tend to be less accessible over-all, compared with if they are sold in stores and shops.
I think what you're saying is more much based in reality, than the thought of more people taking drugs if they were decriminalized, or that lthose advocatin' that dosen't care about the children or such nonsense...
And I agree with you. I'm not convinced that legalizing drugs would make every Tom, Dick and housewife a crackhead. But in reality, that's opening up a huge "what if" and as millions of ppl can attest to, drugs can absolutely ruin lives. My question is, what about those who can use without getting on a Gator/Pookie level? Should a casual, recreational user be criminalized for what they do to their own body? Is that truly being free? And again, this is some "let's suspend reality" type of question, but can that ever happen? Look at alcohol. Some people abuse it, some people use it for recreation. Where do you draw the line?
I also think suicide should be legal. Just putting that out there.
I have two questions about this, just out of interest.
Can deceased people have criminal rekkids ?
If you're caught in the act (even if it causes no harm to anyone else or violates any other laws), can you be charged with something - like attempted suicide ?
Speaking of which, isn't one of the biggest problem drugs in America now the synthesized opiates that are available through healthcare professionals.
How do they figure in the war on drugs? Surely they could be stamped out at source quite easily. They are available freely and legally, through legitimate businesses after all. lol.
Not that the reality of the situation matters to the hypocrites and idiots who believe the choices are as black and white as "pass the meth" or "won't somebody thing of the children".
It's like they said in The WIre, "You follow drugs, you get drug addicts and drug dealers. But you start to follow the money... and you don't know where the fuck is going to take you."
THIS
how is the war on drugs fighting this shit, forget robbing for a crack rock
these people use a pen,pad and a phonebook for their increasing need while becoming suppliers to others
Locking people up is the penalty and the deterrent, it's not the reason why drugs are illegal. It's amazing to see liberals talk about legalizing all drugs (not just weed) in light of the disparate impact that drugs have on the lower class. The idea that we should just let the druggies kill themselves is the ultimate right wing nonsense and code language for let all the poor die.
The US is not Portugal. We are not a religiously and ethnically homogeneous society. The people in our lower economic class are disproportionately made up of minorities who are stuck in a cycle. Forget about all the emotional and physical harm that drugs do to families - how about the economic harm? Do drug addicts make good employees?
Also, the idea that people are comparing prohibition with making hardcore drugs illegal is ridiculous because it ignores the addictiveness and harshness of those drugs. You can have a few drinks and be okay or even have more than a few and not be incapacitated. Can you take just a hit of crack and drive your kids home? Are people really going to deny that crack/herion/meth are not more addictive than alcohol?