Harm Reduction

[dre]

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.

My only point is decriminalization is not the necessary policy change - diversion is.

Youre trying to ignore half the equation and youre misrepresenting what happened there.

Participation in their treatment programs did not increase until AFTER they decriminalized. And the national commision that recommended the changes researched the issue and came said the exact same thing Iv been saying.

the fear of prison drives addicts underground and that incarceration is more expensive than treatment — so why not give drug addicts health services instead?

Thats the fundamental question. Do drug addicts need prison time, or health services. What Portugal did thats diferent is to take the funds that were being wasted on enforcement and put them into treatment.

Lots of counries have tried having both criminalization and treatment programs. Whats unique about Portugal is that they did away with criminal penalties completely and moved those resources into treatment and prevention programs.

[TimG]

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.

Organized crime in involved in the distribution of Oxycontin and Morphine. Why wouldn't it be involved in the distribution of "legalized" drugs.

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.

Every dangerous substance has a purpose. For example, lead paint makes colours vibrant yet society has decided that the desire to have colourful toys is not enough to justify the harms. There is no way for you to take a consistent "libertarian" position on drugs based on harm unless you want to abandon all regulation of harmful substances.

[Oleg Bach]

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.

Of course you are stoned on pot as you write this - typical thinking - a pot head damages society incrimentally over a long period of time because they can not and will not contribute to themselves and soceity in a full and complete manner - cos they are stoned! A booze hound - does exactly the same thing but quicker.

[dre]

Organized crime in involved in the distribution of Oxycontin and Morphine. Why wouldn't it be involved in the distribution of "legalized" drugs.

Every dangerous substance has a purpose. For example, lead paint makes colours vibrant yet society has decided that the desire to have colourful toys is not enough to justify the harms. There is no way for you to take a consistent "libertarian" position on drugs based on harm unless you want to abandon all regulation of harmful substances.

Organized crime in involved in the distribution of Oxycontin and Morphine. Why wouldn't it be involved in the distribution of "legalized" drugs.

Yeah but because ordinary taxpayer regulated businesses are allowed to participate in the supply side, organized crime is a bit player.

If you however made is so that the black market was the ONLY place where Oxycontin and Morphine are available then you would be guaranteeing organized crime gets all of the revenue and profit from a huge industry. Just like we do now with illegal drugs. Nobody is saying that the black market would be reduced to absolute zero. Theres a black market for EVERYTHING from socks to kids toys. Its a matter of whether or not you want to give organized criminals a MONOPOLY on a large and lucrative industry. If you take away their monopoly they will get mosted crowded out by legal distributors.

Theres still a black market for alcohol post-prohibition... but its way way way smaller, and has way less money and power than it would if we had kept prohibition in place.

Your argument here is a complete non-starter.

[Oleg Bach]

If man kind could go back 1000 years and reconsider the acceptance of alcohol - I am sure if there was a vote - booze would not exist. - or maybe it would. I just don't like the idea of setting up an apartment block - filling it with drug addicts and seeing medical unit on wheels parked in front helping them stay drug addicts - It's a waste of human life - and of money and time...a bad habit is just that --bad! If you can break the habit..so be it - Harm reduction becomes an industry - just like aids to stop smoking tobacco - You can not stop tobacco smoking with a medication that contains nicotine...these people that advocate harm reduction are those that are also dependant on the poor and addicted for a living. These helpful souls are also addicts - addicts addicted to an income derived from dealing with addicts.

[TimG]

Yeah but because ordinary taxpayer regulated businesses are allowed to participate in the supply side, organized crime is a bit player.

I would say it is because there are other drugs which are more in demand. If crack cocaine could be produced legally but only sold under strict terms then you would see no change in the amount of organized crime. In fact, most of the organized criminals would be harder to catch since they could set up legitimate businesses which produced the stuff they sell illegally.

The problem that you wish to ignore is the demand for the drugs. That is the real issue. You really only have two choices when it comes to dealing with that demand: remove most restrictions on their distribution and use for recreational purposes (like alcohol or tobacco) or live with the crime. I think the harms caused by drugs like crack cocaine are too large to justify making them available on same terms as alcohol and tobacco.

Edited August 4, 2011 by TimG

[Oleg Bach]

I would say it is because there are other drugs which are more in demand. If crack cocaine could be produced legally but only sold under strict terms then you would see no change in the amount of organized crime. In fact, most of the organized criminals would be harder to catch since they could set up legitimate businesses which produced the stuff they sell illegally.

The problem that you wish to ignore is the demand for the drugs. That is the real issue. You really only have two choices when it comes to dealing with that demand: remove most restrictions on their distribution and use for recreational purposes (like alcohol or tobacco) or live with the crime. I think the harms caused by drugs like crack cocaine are too large to justify making them available on same terms as alcohol and tobacco.

Cocaine in any form eventually shuts down the higher and more angelic parts of the brain - leaving a lizard like person in it's wake - sure legalize coke and we will have a society of snakes..with no real feelings - no ability to tell the truth - and no spirit to speak of...do we want hell on earth?

[Sir Bandelot]

Every dangerous substance has a purpose. For example, lead paint makes colours vibrant yet society has decided that the desire to have colourful toys is not enough to justify the harms. There is no way for you to take a consistent "libertarian" position on drugs based on harm unless you want to abandon all regulation of harmful substances.

Way I see it, there's two issues here. Whether substances themselves should be illegal, and whether actions like using the substances should be illegal.

There's no way to stop people from using something like paint in a harmful way that it's not intended to be used for. Stuff like solvents and gasoline. If the thing in itself has a useful, non-destructive application, then it makes sense that as a substance it should be allowed. We need these but some people will use them to hurt themselves. Far as I know it is not illegal to sniff paint or gas.

Some substances are just poison and have no non-destructive use. Things like crack and ecstacy. I think that's where I'd draw the line on legal vs. illegal substances.

Decriminalizing self destructive behaviour is a start. But criminalization of substances is a tough call, and I'm not yet convinced that keeping them illegal would help anyone.

[TimG]

Some substances are just poison and have no non-destructive use. Things like crack and ecstacy. I think that's where I'd draw the line on legal vs. illegal substances.

Great. Then we agree that some drugs should be illegal. We can argue at the margins but it does mean we are stuck with a crime problem because people want to consume these dangereous drugs and that is not going to change no matter what the laws are.

I don't see the need to criminalize possetion either but what we need are diversion programs that get addicts the help they need. That is a higher priority than a big argument over decriminalization - especially since Canada cannot act without the US because we need to ensure we have a border which is as open as possible. If I was living in Austrialia I would probably be more open to the idea.

Edited August 4, 2011 by TimG

[dre]

I would say it is because there are other drugs which are more in demand. If crack cocaine could be produced legally but only sold under strict terms then you would see no change in the amount of organized crime. In fact, most of the organized criminals would be harder to catch since they could set up legitimate businesses which produced the stuff they sell illegally.

The problem that you wish to ignore is the demand for the drugs. That is the real issue. You really only have two choices when it comes to dealing with that demand: remove most restrictions on their distribution and use for recreational purposes (like alcohol or tobacco) or live with the crime. I think the harms caused by drugs like crack cocaine are too large to justify making them available on same terms as alcohol and tobacco.

No those arent the only two choices. You can reduce demand a bit through decriminalization and treatment like they have in Portugal.

Anyhow... I already told you want I would do...

First do the same thing Portugal has done. Stop the moronic, counter productive, and doomed-to-fail criminal enforcement, and dump some of the money saved into improving treatment, education, and prevention.

Then look at various substances on a case by case basis and see which ones should be legalized. Pot is a no brainer. Id also keep alcohol and tobacco legal well. All three of those things have enough to demand to guarantee a large supply side, so taxing and regulating is the obvious course of action. After that Id start looking at other drugs... study whether or not legalization would increase consumption... study the black market and what kind of criminal activity results from prohibition etc... study the effects on health... study the cost to society of prohibition and the benefits.

We wont do this though because the entire war on drugs is faith-based. You cant sway its supporters with evidence or numbers because they just have an intrinsic feeling that drug use is wrong, and that we should not allow it. You also have a lot of powerfull groups lobbying for the status quo. Trial lawyers love the war on drugs. Criminals and drug dealers LOVE the war on drugs.

Prohibition is a massive lucrative industry in itself and theres a lot people benefiting from it, even though the public is by and large a victim of it.

[dre]

Some substances are just poison and have no non-destructive use. Things like crack and ecstacy. I think that's where I'd draw the line on legal vs. illegal substances.

Again... thats conventional wisdom. It "seems" to people like since these drugs are so harmfull we should prohibit them. But the only possible reason to prohibit them is if it results in LESS USE! And that assertion is very much in question.

I AM open to the government prohibiting substances, but we need to throw all of this conventional wisdom and preconcieved notions out the window, and actually look at all these substances.

[TimG]

First do the same thing Portugal has done. Stop the moronic, counter productive, and doomed-to-fail criminal enforcement, and dump some of the money saved into improving treatment, education, and prevention.

You are assuming that there will be money saved. I say find the money - put it into treatment and don't worry about the laws. With a good diversion program they become irrelevant.

Then look at various substances on a case by case basis and see which ones should be legalized. Pot is a no brainer.

Pot possession is already legal based on Ont judge ruling in April. The government has 6 months to change the law or appeal.

After that Id start looking at other drugs... study whether or not legalization would increase consumption... study the black market and what kind of criminal activity results from prohibition etc... study the effects on health... study the cost to society of prohibition and the benefits.

What makes you think "studies" would provide any useful information? It all comes down to a political judgement call in the end.

We wont do this though because the entire war on drugs is faith-based.

All of our laws are "faith based" - i.e. society decides what its values are and passes laws that conform to those values. Edited August 4, 2011 by TimG

[dre]

What makes you think "studies" would provide any useful information? It all comes down to a political judgement call in the end.

Nope thats horseshit. You can collect metrics and data about the effects of these policies and thats what good policy based on. If you want to be almost guaranteed to make bad decisions you base them on ideology or "conventional wisdom".

You expect us to continue a costly enforcement regime without providing even a shred of evidence that it achieves anything usefull at all.

[TimG]

Nope thats horseshit. You can collect metrics and data about the effects of these policies and thats what good policy based on.

And you can create whatever "metrics" you want to produce the desired outcome. There is no absolute truth revealed by such studies. They always reflect the values and priorities of the researcher.

The current enforcement regime reflects the values of the majority of Canadians and keeps the Americans happy so they dont close down the border. That is all that is necessary. If there was a shift in the values of Canadians you would see the law change. Look at how gay marriage and abortion have fallen off the agenda. People opposed know they are the minority now and grumble quietly.

Edited August 5, 2011 by TimG

[eyeball]

Alcohol is a substance that can be consumed safely by casual users.

However you are still perfectly within your legal right to drink yourself to death should you choose to do so, slowly over time or overnight, it's entirely up to you.

Casual consumption of crack cocaine is an oxymoron. The same goes for any other drug that burns out your dopamine receptors.

Thanks for pointing that out Nanny. That would look good on a public education poster like the one's we see in liquor stores and on tobacco products.

In the meantime other educational and parental guidance could perhaps start steering future generations of recreational substance users towards safer substances.

It seems to me that laws prohibiting substance use violate Section 15 of the Charter, specifically rights to equality under the law. The legality of alcohol is and always was the slippery slope I'm afraid. You can challenge Sec 15 the other way by asking if Canadians that were injured or killed by drinkers were equally protected by the law. The state has gone to great lengths to remind us that death and injuries to innocent Canadians due to drugged people would be the result if drug use was legalized. It stands to reason that liquor control acts are not protecting Canadians equally given the numbers that are injured and killed by drinkers. They're not even coming close when you factor in fetal alcohol poisoning and the resulting social, health and criminal justice/incarceration costs when poisoned fetuses develop into human beings, but since fetuses don't have rights why digress? This issue is probably already FUBAR enough as it is.

If the measures and laws that are used to protect Canadians from alcohol use are deemed sufficient I see little reason why other substance users shouldn't have the Section 15 right to equal treatment under the law. The results of a law's impact on comparable groups of people are supposed to be the same, equal that is. I certainly don't deny the state's responsibility to protect society from substance use but nor do I deny that all adult Canadians have the right to expect that they can be trusted to use substances responsibly without anymore prejudice than any state facilitated addict is given not to mention the suspension of their fundamental civil liberties.

In the meantime it is unconscionable that the same state that prosecutes people for substance use also sells a substance, especially one that is so goddamn toxic to humans. Exactly what kind of message does that send anyway?

Edited August 5, 2011 by eyeball

[TimG]

In the meantime other educational and parental guidance could perhaps start steering future generations of recreational substance users towards safer substances.

Get over yourself. Government outlaws many substances because they are deemed too dangerous. Lead paint and asbestos are two examples. Are you going to argue that 'parental education' should be used instead?

It seems to me that laws prohibiting substance use violate Section 15 of the Charter, specifically rights to equality under the law.

If that were true then laws banning incandescent bulbs and BPA would be unconstitutional too. If think they all qualify for the 'reasonable limit' exemption.

In the meantime it is unconscionable that the same state that prosecutes people for substance use also sells a substance, especially one that is so goddamn toxic to humans. Exactly what kind of message does that send anyway?

It simply says that our decisions on which substances to ban and which to make legal has a certain level of arbitrariness to them. We have bed bug outbreaks in major cities because effective pesticides have been banned. Is this a reasonable restriction? Would you be OK with getting rid of it or are you a hypocrite who only cares about restrictions on stuff you want to use?

[Remiel]

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.

When you say " crack " do you mean only " crack cocaine " or do you mean ordinary cocaine as well?

[dre]

You are assuming that there will be money saved. I say find the money - put it into treatment and don't worry about the laws. With a good diversion program they become irrelevant.

Pot possession is already legal based on Ont judge ruling in April. The government has 6 months to change the law or appeal.

What makes you think "studies" would provide any useful information? It all comes down to a political judgement call in the end.

All of our laws are "faith based" - i.e. society decides what its values are and passes laws that conform to those values.

All of our laws are "faith based" - i.e. society decides what its values are and passes laws that conform to those values.

No our very worst laws are faith based. Our best ones are the result of hundreds of years of tweaking and experimentation, and trying to approve the results.

If we didnt... then alcohol will still be illegal too. We abandoned the policy because it caused more problems than it solved. We need to do the same thing with most drugs, and we need to stop wasting time imposing criminal penalties for posession of ALL drugs.

[dre]

And you can create whatever "metrics" you want to produce the desired outcome. There is no absolute truth revealed by such studies. They always reflect the values and priorities of the researcher.

Only in magic Timmy land.

[Oleg Bach]

When the local drug dealer wanders about unimpeded..selling a stimulant such as cocaine - no one bothers him...if he was selling heroine that causes you to sleep and be non-productive - the powers that be are pissed off - a coke user can be used up and burnt out in the work place - so they are profitable for a time - Heroine on the other hand grants no profit to the powers that be because they are asleep.

[Oleg Bach]

Dope makes you stupid - do we as a society have the right to ensure continued stupidity though harm reduction? Sounds like there is an industry that surrounds natural stupid and induced stupid - Heaven forbib that the dopers wake up --- thousands of those addicted to the care of the artifically stupified would be out of work - harm reduction is simply parasitic.

[Shwa]

The social damage caused by a single alcoholic is less than that of a single crack addict.

So you can make comparisons between alcohol and crack abuse. Boges would question whether you are a troll or not.

As for the social damage caused by either or, which form of social damage would you prefer to subject your kids to?

Collectively alcohol causes more damage because there are more alcoholics.

I rest my case. If we ban alcohol - make it illegal and throw all persistent drinkers in jail - then we can focus more resources on the lesser problem of crack use.

[Oleg Bach]

We are geared and prepared to deal with drunks_ we have a hundred years of experience...crack and coke addicts along with the horrific drug methamphetamine - are still new phenomenas...we really have no full understanding how it effects behaviour. I say beware of what you can not see...dope addicts for the most part don't have the unsavory appearance as chronic drunks - so we assume that casual users are just fine - coke turns you into a socio-path - a liar and a feeling less mental case...For the most part the recreational user appears fine - but after about 9 years of use - you suddenly have an un-repairable monster on your hands..sheer frinking evil..that knows how to hide it.

[eyeball]

Get over yourself. Government outlaws many substances because they are deemed too dangerous. Lead paint and asbestos are two examples. Are you going to argue that 'parental education' should be used instead?

When people start snorting asbestos to unwind at the end of the day you might have a point.

If that were true then laws banning incandescent bulbs and BPA would be unconstitutional too. If think they all qualify for the 'reasonable limit' exemption.

When people start smoking incandescent bulbs to unwind at the end of the day you might have a point.

It simply says that our decisions on which substances to ban and which to make legal has a certain level of arbitrariness to them. We have bed bug outbreaks in major cities because effective pesticides have been banned. Is this a reasonable restriction?

When people start injecting pesticides to unwind at the end of the day you might have a point.

You might have a point except that it would still be perfectly legal to drink yourself to death with state supplied booze, anytime you choose.

Would you be OK with getting rid of it or are you a hypocrite who only cares about restrictions on stuff you want to use?

Edited August 5, 2011 by eyeball

[TimG]

When people start smoking incandescent bulbs to unwind at the end of the day you might have a point.

The right of people to use the light bulbs of their choice or to sleep in bug free beds is at least as important as the right to get high.

IOW, You are admitting that you are a self absorbed hypocrite that only objects to government regulation when it stops you from doing something you want to do.