Drugs and Prohibition

[cybercoma]

I find it very disturbing that Im the only one that voted to end prohibition

Many people (3) said all drugs should be decriminalized. Read my first post for the definitions. If you said they should be 'legalized' that means you endorse government regulation, the same as alcohol. Decriminalization means no barriers whatsoever, other than other laws not specific to drugs (ie, food safety, general taxes, etc)

[Boges]

Yeah, it says that Im against drug addiction and crime, and you are for it. Theres only one western country that decriminalized and within ten years the ammount of drug addicts in that country was reduced by more than half. The ammount of HIV was reduced by nearly 30%. The ammount of drug use in every age group went down. And the ammount of people seeking treatment went through the roof.

The worlds criminals are absolutely in your corner on this, and criminals and trial lawyers are definately hoping we stick with the failed status quo.

As I said before criminals will be criminals. Making things they push legal will only make them find something else to push.

I'd like you to provide me with some form of evidence to suggest the frequency of alcoholism now is less than it was during prohibition when people had to do some form of illegal act to obtain the substance.

[cybercoma]

As I said before criminals will be criminals. Making things they push legal will only make them find something else to push.

This is completely untrue. The fastest way to make someone a criminal, and you can make people criminals, is by making something that htey do illegal.

[Boges]

This is completely untrue. The fastest way to make someone a criminal, and you can make people criminals, is by making something that htey do illegal.

Yeah because with all the the money that's to be made dealing illegal substance tax-free; the people dealing it are doing it because they have to, not because they want to.

I'm still curious on how legalizing such harmful drugs like heroine is going to work? Just something you can buy at Shoppers like Motrin? or are we going to have Control Boards for all these illicit drugs you guys want people to have easy access too. Tax revenue a plenty right?

BTW there isn't a prohibition on certain prescription pain-killers and that's become an illicit drug that people are getting addicted to and it's ruining people's lives.

There's a reason Oxy is called Hillbilly Heroine.

Edited April 17, 2012 by Boges

[Guest Manny]

I find it very disturbing that Im the only one that voted to end prohibition

I want to vote that way but am still wrestling with the dilemma. Would it mean that the government regulates drug production, to maintain safety of the supply? Think about the implications of that. Government regulated crack? Or ecstasy, whatever else designer drugs people might come up with? The crack smoker will smoke till they destroy themselves. Then there;s the issue of burden to society, not unlike the problem with tobacco now. Lung cancer and emphysema are the final outcomes for the heavy tobacco smoker. Sure, they did it to themselves, it's their choice. But the consequence is the cost on health care. If we could eliminate tobacco use, lung cancer would be extremely rare. Other forms of cancer would also decrease. Less expense, less wait times. Let alone quality of life for those who live longer, and for their families who don't have to see them die.

I know that it can't be enforced, that's become obvious. When the price of tobacco went way up,. the black market took over the the Indian smokes established their own market. Unregulated, this became even worse.

It shows how we need to carefully consider every action we take, all the possible consequences.

Edited April 17, 2012 by Manny

[dre]

I'd like you to provide me with some form of evidence to suggest the frequency of alcoholism now is less than it was during prohibition when people had to do some form of illegal act to obtain the substance.

Youre the one defending this albatros of a policy. You provide proof. I know that in the only real case study we have on legalization the ammount of addicts went down by more than 1/2.

As I said before criminals will be criminals. Making things they push legal will only make them find something else to push.

No this is wrong and you completely ignored my point here. Its about money and how much you want to fund them. When you take a large industry like cocaine, pot, cigarettes, or booze, with billions in sales annually and you make a rule that only criminals can earn all that money, and honest businessmen cannot, then you sponsor organized crime. I would take all that money out of their hands.

The unescapable reality is that if you are FOR prohibition, you are FOR drug use, drug addiction, and organized crime. Same goes with prostitution.

Pimps and drug dealers count on your continued support! Its how they make their money

[Boges]

The crack smoker will smoke till they destroy themselves.

Haven't you been reading this thread? Once the drug is legalized, the crack smoker won't feel the need to be rebellious and he'll see the error of his ways and stop.

[eyeball]

I'm still curious on how legalizing such harmful drugs like heroine is going to work? Just something you can buy at Shoppers like Motrin? or are we going to have Control boards for all these illicit drugs you guys want people to have easy access too.

Just one catch all board should do. Just roll everything into the provincial Liquor Control Boards and call them Substance Control Boards instead.

Tax revenue a plenty right?

Yes but not so high that they make it profitable for criminals to compete with them.

[Boges]

The unescapable reality is that if you are FOR prohibition, you are FOR drug use, drug addiction, and organized crime. Same goes with prostitution.

Pimps and drug dealers count on your continued support! Its how they make their money

So you are for regulated government sponsored production of whatever drug people can come up with. Tax it all and let people have their fill right?

I hope you're at least consistent and think that prescriptions should be done away with and any drug that a doctor can give to you should be available without any piece of paper from a physician.

Oh yeah and the prohibition on trans-fats. That's got to be repealed right? People should be allowed to have yummy trans-fat if they want right?

Edited April 17, 2012 by Boges

[Boges]

Yes but not so high that they make it profitable for criminals to compete with them.

Sort of like the case with Tobacco right now?

[eyeball]

Haven't you been reading this thread? Once the drug is legalized, the crack smoker won't feel the need to be rebellious and he'll see the error of his ways and stop.

That's a pretty silly conclusion to draw, nonetheless illicit drug use and rebelliousness do go hand in hand. Especially with teenagers.

[Jack Weber]

Sort of like the case with Tobacco right now?

And lotterys.....

[eyeball]

Sort of like the case with Tobacco right now?

Exactly. The taxes on cigarettes are obviously too high.

[eyeball]

And lotterys.....

What lotteries?

[Jack Weber]

What lotteries?

Most lotteries are run by provincial bodies to regulate them (the effectiveness of that is debateable)...

The reason is that it used to be The Mob that ran "Numbers Rackets"...

Edited April 17, 2012 by Jack Weber

[Boges]

Exactly. The taxes on cigarettes are obviously too high.

Same with Alcohol but there aren't reservations people can get duty free alcohol from. Next time I go to the US I might try to bring some alcohol back and not tell anyone. SHHHH.

And people seem to appreciate good alcohol more than cigarette smokers appreciate good cancer sticks.

Myself as a cigar smoker am a bit torn. The cigars off the reservation aren't bad but they can't compete with cuban cigars.

[Boges]

OK you guys ignored my post about this but I'm going to ask again.

For the "Anti-Prohabitionists" You need to tell me if you think getting a prescription from a doctor is something that should be done away with.

If you advocate getting heroine from a corner store legally then why should I have to go to the doctor to get a prescription strength anti-histamine?

You'd also have to assume that if heroine were widely available, why would you need to go to a doctor to obtain Oxy-Neo. Heck why Oxy-Neo, go back to Oxycotin and let em snort it.

[eyeball]

Most lotteries are run by provincial bodies to regulate them (the effectiveness of that is debateable)...

The reason is that it used to be The Mob that ran "Numbers Rackets"...

Is the wisdom of reducing the effectiveness of the Mob's ability to run this racket debatable?

[Boges]

Is the wisdom of reducing the effectiveness of the Mob's ability to run this racket debatable?

The Mob does a better job with gambling then the government does. They're actually fairer.

[Guest Manny]

OK you guys ignored my post about this but I'm going to ask again.

For the "Anti-Prohabitionists" You need to tell me if you think getting a prescription from a doctor is something that should be done away with.

If you advocate getting heroine from a corner store legally then why should I have to go to the doctor to get a prescription strength anti-histamine?

You'd also have to assume that if heroine were widely available, why would you need to go to a doctor to obtain Oxy-Neo. Heck why Oxy-Neo, go back to Oxycotin and let em snort it.

Well from my point of view it doesn't fit the harm reduction principle to allow drugs to be distributed if they are toxic. Now we can debate about toxicity. But there has to be a level beyond which something is poison, so it needs to be banned or controlled, and people need to be informed that it's bad stuff and should not use it. I still am against criminalization of the user.

[Jack Weber]

Is the wisdom of reducing the effectiveness of the Mob's ability to run this racket debatable?

No....

As in the effectiveness of the those government bodies to clean up the "crookedness" involved in running lotteries...

Edited April 17, 2012 by Jack Weber

[Boges]

I still am against criminalization of the user.

What about criminalization of the pusher? Of course assuming the pusher isn't the government, which is being advocated by many here.

[Guest Manny]

What about criminalization of the pusher? Of course assuming the pusher isn't the government, which is being advocated by many here.

Yes, criminal if it's a banned substance.

[Guest Manny]

Looking at the alcohol model, you can't make your own hard booze but you can make your own beer and wine. It's that level of toxicity that comes into play.

(Manny opens beer)

Edited April 17, 2012 by Manny

[dre]

So you are for regulated government sponsored production of whatever drug people can come up with. Tax it all and let people have their fill right?

I hope you're at least consistent and think that prescriptions should be done away with and any drug that a doctor can give to you should be available without any piece of paper from a physician.

Oh yeah and the prohibition on trans-fats. That's got to be repealed right? People should be allowed to have yummy trans-fat if they want right?

Yes I definately have a different view of government than you. I dont believe its sustainable for them to try to force healthy choices on 30 million people.

If the government wants to play a positive part, it should do what the Portugese have done, and replace inceration with treatment... Replaces "criminal" with "patient". Something that is supported by almost every study on drug policy in history.

You want the government hold your hand, and tell you what to put in your body, but I dont need that... and I dont want to pay for it.

I hope you're at least consistent and think that prescriptions should be done away with and any drug that a doctor can give to you should be available without any piece of paper from a physician.

If the prescription drug system, and the system for approving medical drugs results in a gigantic criminal black market, then yup! Well have to take a look at that too.