Harm Reduction

[eyeball]

You missed the point. Legalization is no panecea.

Stop deflecting, that wasn't your point at all.

Are you suggesting that drugs would not be consumed in commercial establishments? Opium dens have been around a long time. Why wouldn't they come back if drugs are legalized?

Now you've missed the point but as long as we're on this new one, why shouldn't opium dens come back of opium is legalized?

And the medicinal compenents of marijuana can be put into a pill but that doesn't stop people from insisting they need to smoke the stuff to get the medicinal effect.

This thread is about the recreational effect. Why are you constantly trying to dance around this subject?

You are living in a dream world if you think legalization of hard drugs will have any effect on drug related crime.

Are you suggesting there is still a crime wave associated with alcoholics trying to find money to feed their addiction?

On a related note, how come we don't see liquor store clerks and beer and wine store operators shooting it out in the streets for control of the market?

Edited August 4, 2011 by eyeball

[Shwa]

So would robbing liquor stores and gas stations, and it would do less lasting damage.

Sure, but robbing liquor stores and gas stations doesn't give you a client base. A good solid understanding of the demographic is the key and great service means not only will existing clients comes back, but they will likley bring in more clients.

[Shwa]

I don't understand what you are saying in the last part - probably because when I hear an evil statement I go deaf.

Thanks for clarifying that. I am sure some of the worst, most vicious dope dealers also have similar excuses.

As far as more poor hoods - it is better for a loser to collect a welfare cheque and manage that meger sum than go around poisoning people and ruining families.

Can't really buy houses, cars and other desirable bling on a welfare salary. The enterprising dope dealer has the potential for all these things and more. Vacations, private schools for the kiddies, capital investments for retirement funds.

"Capitalism is the legitimate racket of the ruling class." - Al Capone

[Boges]

'Cept when that young enterprising kid treads on someone else's territory and winds up dead.

I like the movie American Gangster. The Denzel Washington character is portrayed as this enterprising minority that's providing a service everyone wants and creating employment for many people.

Then they show a montage with a bunch of drugged out crack-heads getting there fix. One scene with a baby crying next to it's parent that likely OD'd.

[Sir Bandelot]

And the medicinal compenents of marijuana can be put into a pill but that doesn't stop people from insisting they need to smoke the stuff to get the medicinal effect.

I have read about this and it seems that the pill and the droplets taken sublingually are not as effective as smoking, because the uptake is less efficient. Smoking is faster in relieving pain.

You are living in a dream world if you think legalization of hard drugs will have any effect on drug related crime. Addicts will always need to commit crimes to fund their habits and there will always be suppliers that break laws to supply them.

Breaking laws to fund bad habits is a seperate act and is clearly a crime. Not the same as wanting to smoke weed in the provacy of your own establishment.

And legalization of alcohol after prohibition proves you wrong.

However in my view this is all a moot point. It's clear the majority of Canadians know the truth that criminalizing a person fro grug use is completely the wrong approach. Despite that and coulteless studies confirming it's the wrong approach, it still does not change the law. And there is a very powerful reason for why that is.

Edited August 4, 2011 by Sir Bandelot

[Boges]

I have read about this and it seems that the pill and the droplets taken sublingually are not as effective as smoking, because the uptake is less efficient. Smoking is faster in relieving pain.

Perhaps Neo-Citron should release a joint for the common cold.

[Sir Bandelot]

Perhaps Neo-Citron should release a joint for the common cold.

Is that you, Saipan

[TimG]

And legalization of alcohol after prohibition proves you wrong.

Alcohol is a substance that can be consumed safely by casual users. Casual consumption of crack cocaine is an oxymoron. The same goes for any other drug that burns out your dopamine receptors. Edited August 4, 2011 by TimG

[dre]

So would robbing liquor stores and gas stations, and it would do less lasting damage.

There are some drugs we can't legalize. They are simply too destructive to the people who use them to even consider the possibility. Whether it be medical side-effects, or the debilitating effects of long-term addiction, we can't sanction drugs that ruin the users. I'm all for legalizing marijuana, but heroin and crack and meth are something completely different.

We as a society should do our best to prevent people from becoming addicted to these drugs.

And we as a society will fail. So what then?

Your idea of a dogmatic approach-- the drugs are illegal, so we must enforce the law and punish the users whenever we catch them! --what use is that?

First off, we won't catch them-- not many, at least.

Second, if we do, so what? A guy smokes up in front of a cop and we throw him in jail for a week for possession of a controlled substance. What good does that do? He gets to eat and shower and has shelter for a week, which is probably a good thing, and maybe gets some medical care. And then what? We find him again a month later and put him in jail again? What's the goal? Deterrence? Rehabilitation? Neither of those objectives are served. Our jail space is at a premium already. What's the point of filling it even more with people who won't be rehabilitated, who won't be deterred from committing the same crime in the future, and who for the most part only pose a danger to themselves?

There's no practical benefit to taxpayers of an approach like that. So what's the use?

I think TimG said it well earlier. If handing out free crack-pipes to junkies will keep them from spreading disease, there's some benefit to society. If the person doing the handing out is able to make contact with the occasional junkie who wants to get into a treatment program, there's benefit to society as well.

-k

There are some drugs we can't legalize. They are simply too destructive to the people who use them to even consider the possibility.

Thats conventional wisdom, but it isnt necessarily true. See we have always been operating under the unprovable assumption that prohibition results in less use.

The only western nation that has decriminalized all drugs is Portugal. It had some of the worst drug problems in the EU so it tried a diferent approach. It stopped all prosecution for all drugs.

What happened?

Rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%.

Drug use in older teens also declined.

Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8%.

New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003.

Deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half.

the number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040

The money saved on enforcement allowed for increased funding of drug-free treatment as well.

So your statement...

There are some drugs we can't legalize.

...assumes that prohibiting these drugs does something useful for us, but thats probably not the case. If decriminalizing would reduce the ammount these drugs are used, reduce the ammount of damage caused by them, and increase the ammount of pepole seeking treatment, then really... whats the point of prohibition?

[TimG]

The only western nation that has decriminalized all drugs is Portugal. It had some of the worst drug problems in the EU so it tried a diferent approach. It stopped all prosecution for all drugs.

Portugal has NOT decriminalized the production and sale of drugs. It has only introduced diversion programs for users of drugs. The program has been successful but it is NOT a model for legalization of drugs.

assumes that prohibiting these drugs does something useful for us, but thats probably not the case. If decriminalizing would reduce the ammount these drugs are used, reduce the ammount of damage caused by them, and increase the ammount of pepole seeking treatment, then really... whats the point of prohibition?

So you are advocating free access to all prescription drugs without a doctor's prescription?

It is a radical position to take. I don't think you will find many takers since prescriptions are intended to prevent people from hurting themselves.

If you insist that doctor's prescriptions will still be required then what changes? Drugs will still be illegal to sell for recreational purposes and criminals will break that law.

Edited August 4, 2011 by TimG

[dre]

Portugal has NOT decriminalized the production and sale of drugs. It has only introduced diversion programs for users of drugs. The program has been successful but it is NOT a model for legalization of drugs.

It is a radical position to take. I don't think you will find many takers since prescriptions are intended to prevent people from hurting themselves.

The radical position here is the status quo.

So you are advocating free access to all prescription drugs without a doctor's prescription?

No. First of all I would do what Portugal has done. Stop prosecution and increase treatment.

After that I would look at the drugs on a case by case basis, and decide which ones can be legalized so that we tax and regulate.

Beyond question though the most radical and dangerous approach possible is what we are already doing.

[TimG]

No. First of all I would do what Portugal has done. Stop prosecution and increase treatment.

I have no issue with diversion programs for addicts. In fact, that is often what happens today with simple possession in Canada. But legalization of the sale and production of drugs for recreational use is a different issue.

After that I would look at the drugs on a case by case basis, and decide which ones can be legalized so that we tax and regulate.

So you accept that, in principal, some drugs should stay illegal? Edited August 4, 2011 by TimG

[dre]

I have no issue with diversion programs for addicts. In fact, that is often what happens today with simple possession in Canada. But legalization of the sale and production of drugs for recreational use is a different issue.

So you accept that, in principal, some drugs should stay illegal?

Sure in the same way for example that asbestos and leaded gasoline are illegal. This doesnt need to have anything to do with courts, police, and prisons though.

Portugal has NOT decriminalized the production and sale of drugs. It has only introduced diversion programs for users of drugs.

I dont think thats an accurate way to describe what they did. They abolished ALL criminal penalties for use. Thats not a diversion program, its a completely end to criminalizing use and posession associated with use.

[TimG]

Sure in the same way for example that asbestos and leaded gasoline are illegal. This doesnt need to have anything to do with courts, police, and prisons though.

Sure it does if someone defies the ban. The only difference is few people bother to defy the ban.

I dont think thats an accurate way to describe what they did. They abolished ALL criminal penalties for use. Thats not a diversion program, its a completely end to criminalizing use and posession associated with use.

The key feature of their program is the diversion program. Simply decriminalizing without the diversion program would not have delivered the same benefits. I am not convinced you need to

decriminalize in order to gain those benefits if you put in place a coherent and funded diversion program like Portugal.

[dre]

Sure it does if someone defies the ban. The only difference is few people bother to defy the ban.

The key feature of their program is the diversion program. Simply decriminalizing without the diversion program would not have delivered the same benefits. I am not convinced you need to

decriminalize in order to gain those benefits if you put in place a coherent and funded diversion program like Portugal.

Decriminalizing is the cornerstone of their policy, and what sets them apart. And ending the wasteful and counter productive enforcement policy is how they freed up money for more treatment programs and removed some of the stigma around addiction so that less people were afraid to seek help. Your idea is terrible. Theres no point in having police and courts chasing around the people you are trying to treat.

Theres absolutely no rational argument for continuing criminalization. Its an utter abject failure in every way.

Edited August 4, 2011 by dre

[TimG]

Decriminalizing is the cornerstone of their policy, and what sets them apart.

Let's agree on what the word 'decriminalizing' means. It does not mean that drugs are legal to possess - even for personal use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal

In July 2001, Portugal a new law maintained the status of illegality for using or possessing any drug for personal use without authorization. The offense was changed from a criminal one, with prison a possible punishment, to an administrative one if the possessing was no more than up to ten days' supply of that substance.[1] This was in line with the de facto Portuguese drug policy before the reform. Drug addicts were then to be aggressively targeted with therapy or community service rather than fines or waivers.[7] Even if there are no criminal penalties, these changes did not legalize drug use in Portugal. Possession has remained prohibited by Portuguese law, and criminal penalties are still applied to drug growers, dealers and traffickers.[8][9]

Like I said - the diversion program is what has delivered the results. The decriminalization is secondary and it is mistake to focus on that part of their plan. We have an ad hoc diversion system in Canada but what is missing is a coherent strategy and funding.

Edited August 4, 2011 by TimG

[dre]

Let's agree on what the word 'decriminalizing' means. It does not mean that drugs are legal to possess - even for personal use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal

Like I said - the diversion program is what has delivered the results. The decriminalization is secondary and it is mistake to focus on that part of their plan. We have an ad hoc diversion system in Canada but what is missing is a coherent strategy and funding.

No thats just not true. The diversion programs are funded by money saved by ending cnforcement, and until they started treating these people more like patients than criminals very people people participated in the diversion program.

As soon as they ended criminalizing the number of people seeking treatment went through the roof.

In addition, the number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, after decriminalization, and money saved on enforcement allowed for increased funding of drug-free treatment as well.

Guess what? People dont show up and volunteer for your treatment programs while you are actively trying to throw them in prison

[Shwa]

'Cept when that young enterprising kid treads on someone else's territory and winds up dead.

Or when a kid dies from alcholol poisoning due to the booze they bought at the Liquor Store; or as the result of a DUI crash. Etc.

I like the movie American Gangster. The Denzel Washington character is portrayed as this enterprising minority that's providing a service everyone wants and creating employment for many people.

Then they show a montage with a bunch of drugged out crack-heads getting there fix. One scene with a baby crying next to it's parent that likely OD'd.

Morality via montage, one of my favourite devices. Really makes one think.

[Boges]

Or when a kid dies from alcholol poisoning due to the booze they bought at the Liquor Store; or as the result of a DUI crash. Etc.

You have to be trolling. Comparing Crack, Cocaine and Heroine to Alcohol is sorta silly.

I'm sure that kid purchase the alcohol from one of your favourite unionized LCBO employees BTW.

[TimG]

Guess what? People dont show up and volunteer for your treatment programs while you are actively trying to throw them in prison

Or maybe people learned that treatment is available. You are assuming a causal relationship when you have no data to support that assumption.

Personally, I have no issue with replacing jail time with fines for simple possession. My only point is decriminalization is not the necessary policy change - diversion is. If the government decriminalizes and does nothing about diversion then we will be much worse off.

Edited August 4, 2011 by TimG

[Shwa]

You have to be trolling. Comparing Crack, Cocaine and Heroine to Alcohol is sorta silly.

Really, trolling? So are you of the opinion that alcohol - and the damage from alcohol use and abuse - is not comparable to crack, smack or coke?

I'm sure that kid purchase the alcohol from one of your favourite unionized LCBO employees BTW.

Or from you, as one of your many side jobs...

[Oleg Bach]

Go after big Pharma and the doctors for having such lax control over the distribution their products and prescriptions. If this was nuclear material we were talking about who would you go after?

Faulty assumptions? Bar and tavern owners (safe ingestion sites) are responsible for helping people get drunk on their premises. Are you suggesting that liquor store operators be held liable for the actions of people who get drunk on their own elsewhere? Okay.

Faulty assumptions my ass...this is feigned stupidity executed rather stupidly I might add.

Getting around this is as easy as baking a brownie.

In other words you're full of crap, just like Oleg except he has en excuse.

What excuse might that be? I can tell you one thing - I had a lot of fun in my youth - all the drugs - the sex - the rock and roll - the booze - and if I could go back in time and know what I know now- I would not have bothered with any of this shit - other than the health filled persuit of woman. Dope and booze remove human potential and put us all years behind of where we should be - Is it a good thing or a bad thing? I would say it was not good....as for assisting people in any manner even if it is done in good intent - YOU are helping to destroy people with "harm reduction" - YOU are not healing the sick - you are just prolonging the suffering.

[TimG]

Really, trolling? So are you of the opinion that alcohol - and the damage from alcohol use and abuse - is not comparable to crack, smack or coke?

The social damage caused by a single alcoholic is less than that of a single crack addict. Collectively alcohol causes more damage because there are more alcoholics.

[Sir Bandelot]

Alcohol is a substance that can be consumed safely by casual users. Casual consumption of crack cocaine is an oxymoron. The same goes for any other drug that burns out your dopamine receptors.

The comment about prohibition wasn't directed at that, it was when you stated that it won't remove effects of organized crime. We can talk about whether taking something is harmful to the user, but here you have moved the goal posts.

[Sir Bandelot]

So you accept that, in principal, some drugs should stay illegal?

I don't accept it carte- blanche. It depends on what illegal means, ie. for whom. Illegal to produce and sell. Not illegal to consume. I say this because, the SUBSTANCE should be illegal, because it can only be used for destructive purposes. Other substances such as paint solvents are not illegal, but can also be used for destructive purposes.