Drugs and Prohibition

[eyeball]

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.

I've suggested that substance users should have to apply for medical fitness certificate before they're allowed to purchase drugs. This might make it easier to prevent fetal alcohol syndrome.

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?

Well, in the first place you better learn to spell heroin correctly because the druggist will probably just give you a baggie of Wonder Woman - which is a type of hippy lettuce.

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.

Given the assumptions you're making in this thread you clearly shouldn't even be given a medical fitness certificate to do drugs in the first place.

[eyeball]

No....

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

What crookedness, it's perfectly legal to run a lottery now. You apply for a licence, the government shakes you down and Bob's your uncle.

[Boges]

I've suggested that substance users should have to apply for medical fitness certificate before they're allowed to purchase drugs. This might make it easier to prevent fetal alcohol syndrome.

Well, in the first place you better learn to spell heroin correctly because the druggist will probably just give you a baggie of Wonder Woman - which is a type of hippy lettuce.

So you want people to apply to the government to be able to use recreational drugs? Do you feel that way about currently legalized recreational drugs?

I'm sure that'll involve some sort of fee like getting a drivers license.

BTW what if someone said EFFF you and your stupid medical fitness certificate, I'll just get the drugs myself. What type of actions should the government take against that person? Should it be a crime to do these recreational drugs without a medical fitness certificate?

[dre]

Yes, criminal if it's a banned substance.

Huge mistake. The MOST IMPORTANT thing here IS the supply side. The cost of criminalization here has a massive impact on society...

1. It flat out doesnt work. Weve spent billions on chasing cannibis dealers in the last 20 years, and prices are down by more than 50%, and availability is way up.

2. Them more you punish suppliers, the more money there is in supplying.

3. By spending billions in a futile attempt to incerate all these suppliers, instead of collecting taxes from all these suppliers you waste money that could have been used to fund treatment and education.

4. By keeping honest, regulated, tax paying businessmen out of the supply side, you guarantee more risk and more danger for all involved parties. The users who now routinely die from bad batches of drugs, and the tax payers that get stuck with the bill.

[Jack Weber]

What crookedness, it's perfectly legal to run a lottery now. You apply for a licence, the government shakes you down and Bob's your uncle.

Correct,it's perfectly legal to run a lottery...

You should check out the recent history of OLG lottery operators,strange coincidental winnings,and,OLG turning a blind eye to those "coincidences"...

Edited April 17, 2012 by Jack Weber

[Guest Manny]

Huge mistake. The MOST IMPORTANT thing here IS the supply side. The cost of criminalization here has a massive impact on society...

1. It flat out doesnt work. Weve spent billions on chasing cannibis dealers in the last 20 years, and prices are down by more than 50%, and availability is way up.

2. Them more you punish suppliers, the more money there is in supplying.

3. By spending billions in a futile attempt to incerate all these suppliers, instead of collecting taxes from all these suppliers you waste money that could have been used to fund treatment and education.

4. By keeping honest, regulated, tax paying businessmen out of the supply side, you guarantee more risk and more danger for all involved parties. The users who now routinely die from bad batches of drugs, and the tax payers that get stuck with the bill.

I know. But not talking about the supply of drugs of reasonable low toxicity. What if someone starts marketing cherry-flavoured gasoline as the new designer drug? Should the government regulate it's distribution as well? How far does it go.

[cybercoma]

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?

That's the point of discussing it. Figuring out how these things would work.

[dre]

Canada should just adopt Portugals drug policy, and go from there. Theres no guarantees and even the best possible policy wont completely remove problems associated with things like drugs and prostitution from society, but its a hell of a lot better than what we have now.

Iv thought about this quite a bit, and heres my plan.

The Federal government should surrender the power to regulate drugs back to the provinces, which make sense since the provinces are supposed to pay for police, healthcare, and prisons. Then we have a national contest where each province crafts its own drug policies based on whatever model it sees fit. After 10 years we review the results based on addiction rates, drug related crime rates, cost, etc, and we take the policy of the winning province and implement it back at the nation level again.

After the contest, the province that moved the furthest towards legalization/treatment will be the clear victor of course, but at least we will have some empyrical data to measure and we can do away with all these assumptions and broken conventional wisdom.

[dre]

I know. But not talking about the supply of drugs of reasonable low toxicity. What if someone starts marketing cherry-flavoured gasoline as the new designer drug? Should the government regulate it's distribution as well? How far does it go.

I see what you mean, and thats a tough one. But I can go to the hardware store and buy all kinds of things that can kill me almost instantly. The governments primary role should be forcing disclosure on suppliers and sponsoring education and treatment with the taxes they collect from them.

But when all else fails... the government has to respond to real danger to society. If someone sold a pill that just killed everyone who ate it, and nobody at all could use it without adverse effects, then yes... it would have to ban the sale of it.

I would wait for those extreme cases to emerge and deal with them at that point.

But lemme say something else... I dont believe that as long as consumers were educated about the dangers of your cherry gas, that many at all would use it. Hell... you can go and get high off gasoline right now if you want, and theres a handfull of people that DO! But most of the drugs that take off in popularity dont immediately kill you.

But the real question you gotta ask is this... If theres a country full of people that want to get high drinking cherry flavored gas, do you really think that the government can stop them from getting it, and using it?

Heres what would probably happen... A few idiots would die from using cherry flavored gas... they would ignore the huge "causes immediate death" warning on the can, and all the consumer information thats out there, and they would DIE. But if you PROHIBIT cherry flavored gas, the price will go up, and organized crime will take over the supply side. There will no longer BE any warnings on the cans and the government now wont have as much revenue to educate consumers.

Its highly suspect to believe that any less people would die from cherry gas, after prohibition than died before, and its quite likely that more would die now.

And one last thing... I think that if there IS a window where prohibition could work, its a very narrow one, thats very early on. If you could go ALL IN, and squash a new drug before word of it spreads then its possible you could irradicate it. Once theres a large group of people that want it though all bets are off. You are up against simple economics and there WILL BE SUPPLY FOR THAT DEMAND no matter WHAT the government does.

Edited April 17, 2012 by dre

[eyeball]

Correct,it's perfectly legal to run a lottery...

You should check out the recent history of OLG lottery operators,strange coincidental winnings,and,OLG turning a blind eye to those "coincidences"...

Official transparency and accountability is a separate issue and as you should know by now, I'd subject the state to a level of scrutiny and surveillance that would make Orwell himself blush.

The only blind eye's to these sorts of coincidences are the public's.

[eyeball]

So you want people to apply to the government to be able to use recreational drugs? Do you feel that way about currently legalized recreational drugs?

I'm sure that'll involve some sort of fee like getting a drivers license.

I think I suggested this when chasing around in circles in a similarly veined conversation with another determined prohibitionist. Sometimes you wind up following certain trains of thought to their more ridiculous conclusions, something you're even more aptly capable of demonstrating yourself apparently.

BTW what if someone said EFFF you and your stupid medical fitness certificate, I'll just get the drugs myself. What type of actions should the government take against that person? Should it be a crime to do these recreational drugs without a medical fitness certificate?

Only if it's a crime to buy a heroine without a prescription.

Edited April 17, 2012 by eyeball

[eyeball]

Canada should just adopt Portugals drug policy, and go from there. Theres no guarantees and even the best possible policy wont completely remove problems associated with things like drugs and prostitution from society, but its a hell of a lot better than what we have now.

Iv thought about this quite a bit, and heres my plan.

The Federal government should surrender the power to regulate drugs back to the provinces, which make sense since the provinces are supposed to pay for police, healthcare, and prisons. Then we have a national contest where each province crafts its own drug policies based on whatever model it sees fit. After 10 years we review the results based on addiction rates, drug related crime rates, cost, etc, and we take the policy of the winning province and implement it back at the nation level again.

After the contest, the province that moved the furthest towards legalization/treatment will be the clear victor of course, but at least we will have some empyrical data to measure and we can do away with all these assumptions and broken conventional wisdom.

Did Portugal leave it up to whatever passes for provinces there?

My issue with your contest idea is that leaving it open like this would result in people eventually moving to the least restrictive province and thereby exacerbating the problem and creating a galvanizing spectacle of unmanageability that everyone would point too as a reason not to further decriminalize/legalize their own jurisdictions.

This development is probably already apparent in the case of Vancouver having a bigger population of drug addicts although much of that could also be due to it's warmer climate making it an easier place to live homelessly.

In any case the movement of drug addicts away from smaller centres towards big cities is well documented and often has far more to do with escaping the stigmatization of mental illness and losing themselves in the anonymity of the downtown cores. The provinces will need a national drug policy to guide and ensure equality of services and more to the point that they bear their responsibility equally.

[Guest Derek L]

Full decriminalization………..And I never inhaled.

**Two caveats though, Police would require the ability to test for roadside impairment and it won’t screw up the border..

Edited April 18, 2012 by Derek L

[dre]

Did Portugal leave it up to whatever passes for provinces there?

My issue with your contest idea is that leaving it open like this would result in people eventually moving to the least restrictive province and thereby exacerbating the problem and creating a galvanizing spectacle of unmanageability that everyone would point too as a reason not to further decriminalize/legalize their own jurisdictions.

This development is probably already apparent in the case of Vancouver having a bigger population of drug addicts although much of that could also be due to it's warmer climate making it an easier place to live homelessly.

In any case the movement of drug addicts away from smaller centres towards big cities is well documented and often has far more to do with escaping the stigmatization of mental illness and losing themselves in the anonymity of the downtown cores. The provinces will need a national drug policy to guide and ensure equality of services and more to the point that they bear their responsibility equally.

Did Portugal leave it up to whatever passes for provinces there?

No Portugal didnt do that as far as I know... that part of my plan is actually mine. It occured to me, that offloading this to the provinces might be a way to try different things and develope a body of empyrical evidence.

Portugal did not fully legalize the supply either... its still technically illegal to sell, its just not enforced much.

At the end of the day, I favor complete legalization because thats what evidence suggests will work good... that evidence being approaches like the one used in portugal and our own horrible problems with prohibition and organized crime.

But at the end of the day I dont know for sure! I think we need to be willing to try different things, and measure the results. Doing stuff at the federal level makes that really hard to do... Its hard to have a "pilot project" to test out a new idea when you have the government trying to make a "one size fits all" approach from 1000 miles away. Sort of along the same veign as your complaints about the DFO.

[WWWTT]

You think we should ban cold pills?

Maybe?They are very addictive to some people.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

I refuse to participate in this poll!

The reason why is because the last question asks if you ever did recreational drugs except for alcohol and/or tobacco.

This is a flawed poll since alcohol and tobacco are drugs(legal ones)Aswell many prescription drugs are legal and can be used for recreation.

Caffeine and food can be abused too!Or can be used as would a recreation drug so therefore would fall in a similar category.

Plus this poll does not address any health issues.

WWWTT

[cybercoma]

This is a flawed poll since alcohol and tobacco are drugs(legal ones)

And the point of the last question, in the limited amount of space one has to ask the question, is to see if people have done any recreational drugs out of the most common legal ones.

Caffeine and food can be abused too!Or can be used as would a recreation drug so therefore would fall in a similar category.

So what? The question isn't about drug abuse.

Plus this poll does not address any health issues.

The forum only allows 3 questions per post. Start your own thread about health issues if you're so concerned.

[dre]

Full decriminalization………..And I never inhaled.

**Two caveats though, Police would require the ability to test for roadside impairment and it won’t screw up the border..

Police can test if they have probable cause, but we need to make it HARDER for cops to harras motorists not EASIER. They should be forced to stop these operations where they set up at an intersection and pull over every single vehicle. This aint the USSR.

As for "screwing up the border"... It all depends on how much you value our sovereignty. Theres no questions the US would make a big issue of it, threaten a trade war, etc. It would take a government with some balls to even do this, and I suspect thats why the liberals never decriminalized even after announcing their intentions to do so. We would ruffle some feathers and there would be a lot of threats and intimidation, but in the end we would probably just get more US tourists... they fly to Amersterdaam nowdays I think.

But that sad thing is we are actually BEHIND the US on this. THe federal government is trying to put on a brave face but broke-ass states are realizing criminalizing soft drugs is a terrible idea and not sustainable or unaffordable.

In fact... judging by the way things are going now, it will be the other way around. The US is slowly moving forward on this issue, while we spiral down a backwards shit abyss into the dark ages.

Edited April 18, 2012 by dre

[bush_cheney2004]

...As for "screwing up the border"... It all depends on how much you value our sovereignty.

Ahem...Canada scheduled cannabis and opiates as illegal years before the USA. Your precious sovereignty is/was intact.

[cybercoma]

I disagree, dre. In this case it is such a minor inconvenience that's exponentially outweighed by the benefit of keeping drunk drivers off the road. I understand the principle you're speaking from, but at some point you have to look at practicality.

Edited April 18, 2012 by cybercoma

[dre]

I disagree, dre. In this case it is such a minor inconvenience that's exponentially outweighed by the benefit of keeping drunk drivers off the road. I understand the principle you're speaking from, but at some point you have to look at practicality.

I am. If you want to catch drunk drivers, you could catch ten times as many pulling over cars leaving the pub parking lot at closing time, and looking for people driving strangely. You dont have have to jack up people that are doing absolutely nothing out of the ordinary at all.

Its true... shaking down everyone who dares to leave their house WOULD probably be a usefull tool for law enforcement! But where does it stop? People should only pull people over when they have CAUSE. PERIOD.

[dre]

Ahem...Canada scheduled cannabis and opiates as illegal years before the USA. Your precious sovereignty is/was intact.

I know reading isnt your strong suit, but I actually already pointed that out.

[cybercoma]

I am. If you want to catch drunk drivers, you could catch ten times as many pulling over cars leaving the pub parking lot at closing time, and looking for people driving strangely. You dont have have to jack up people that are doing absolutely nothing out of the ordinary at all.

Its true... shaking down everyone who dares to leave their house WOULD probably be a usefull tool for law enforcement! But where does it stop? People should only pull people over when they have CAUSE. PERIOD.

It has to do with the level of inconvenience. Obviously stopping everyone as soon as they step out of their house is ridiculous.

Targeting people as soon as they leave the pubs is unfair to the business owners, as there isn't enough police to cover all of the pubs and its unfair to the individual pub owners.

Also, pubs aren't the sole source of drunk drivers. It would be interesting to know if people that drink and drive more often come from bars or private homes.

In any case, This is what I mean about a reasonable level of inconvenience. Random checks are a reasonable limit on your freedom for the amount of good that comes out of it. Bankrupting a business because it's constantly targeted by random checks is not reasonable.

[dre]

It has to do with the level of inconvenience. Obviously stopping everyone as soon as they step out of their house is ridiculous.

Targeting people as soon as they leave the pubs is unfair to the business owners, as there isn't enough police to cover all of the pubs and its unfair to the individual pub owners.

Also, pubs aren't the sole source of drunk drivers. It would be interesting to know if people that drink and drive more often come from bars or private homes.

In any case, This is what I mean about a reasonable level of inconvenience. Random checks are a reasonable limit on your freedom for the amount of good that comes out of it. Bankrupting a business because it's constantly targeted by random checks is not reasonable.

YOu dont have to bankrupt pubs. If they cant make a profit without their patrons driving drunk, then they need a new business model. Lots of the pubs in my town started arranging rides for this reason.

And again... I dont see random checks as a reasonable limit, and where does it end? You could use the exact same logic to justify pretty much anything... Why not random house searches? Why not random internet and phone taps? All of these things would be valuable tools for law enforcement. Countries dont just wake up one day and create a police state, its done in a whole bunch of tiny little baby steps.

The more liberty you take away from people the easier it is to fight crime! I know that! Thats been the argument for just about every attack on liberty in history, and I feel that overall we are safest to just draw a line in the sand. We are better off having a statistically minor drunk driving problem, then we are living in a country where people cant move around without getting randomly jacked up by the government.

The police should not engage people without cause. They should focus on people who act suspiciously.

[cybercoma]

YOu dont have to bankrupt pubs. If they cant make a profit without their patrons driving drunk, then they need a new business model. Lots of the pubs in my town started arranging rides for this reason.

You're not looking at this objectively at all. Not everyone is going to be driving drunk, but the cops are going to stop everyone coming out of the establishment. That's unfair to the establishment. I don't drive drunk, but I sure as hell wouldn't keep going to a pub that's constantly monitored by the cops. I don't want to deal with that inconvenience constantly. At least when it's on the street somewhere, it's random.

And again... I dont see random checks as a reasonable limit, and where does it end?

The Supreme Court does. So it's a non-starter.

Here's a 1985 case for reference: http://scc.lexum.org/scc-eliisa/highlight?language=EN&documentScope=judgment&documentScope=news&documentScope=bulletin&all=r.i.d.e.&path=http://scc.lexum.org/en/1985/1985scr2-2/1985scr2-2.html&query=r.i.d.e.

If you don't want to read the whole thing, here's the important part:

68. In applying the Waterfield test to the random stop of a motor vehicle for the purpose contemplated by the R.I.D.E. program, it is convenient to refer to the right to circulate in a motor vehicle on the public highway as a "liberty". That is the way it was referred to in Hoffman v. Thomas, supra, and in Johnson v. Phillips, supra. In assessing the interference with this right by a random vehicle stop, one must bear in mind, however, that the right is not a fundamental liberty like the ordinary right of movement of the individual, but a licensed activity that is subject to regulation and control for the protection of life and property. Applying the Waterfield test, then, and using the word "liberty" in this qualified and special sense, it may be said that the random vehicle stop in this case was prima facie an unlawful interference with liberty since it was not authorized by statute. The first question, then, under the Waterfield test is whether the random stop fell within the general scope of the duties of a police officer under statute or common law. I do not think there can be any doubt that it fell within the general scope of the duties of a police officer to prevent crime and to protect life and property by the control of traffic. These are the very objects of the R.I.D.E. program, which is a measure to improve the deterrence and detection of impaired driving, a notorious cause of injury and death.

69. Turning to the second branch of the Waterfield test, it must be said respectfully that neither Waterfield itself nor most of the cases which have applied it throw much light on the criteria for determining whether a particular interference with liberty is an unjustifiable use of a power associated with a police duty. There is a suggestion of the correct test, I think, in the use of the words "reasonably necessary" in Johnson v. Phillips, supra. The interference with liberty must be necessary for the carrying out of the particular police duty and it must be reasonable, having regard to the nature of the liberty interfered with and the importance of the public purpose served by the interference. Because of the seriousness of the problem of impaired driving, there can be no doubt about the importance and necessity of a program to improve the deterrence of it. The right to circulate on the highway free from unreasonable interference is an important one, but it is, as I have said, a licensed activity subject to regulation and control in the interest of safety. The objectionable nature of a random stop is chiefly that it is made on a purely arbitrary basis, without any grounds for suspicion or belief that the particular driver has committed or is committing an offence. It is this aspect of the random stop that makes it capable of producing unpleasant psychological effects for the innocent driver. These effects, however, would tend to be minimized by the well‑publicized nature of the program, which is a necessary feature of its deterrent purpose. Moreover, the stop would be of relatively short duration and of slight inconvenience. Weighing these factors, I am of the opinion that having regard to the importance of the public purpose served, the random stop, as a police action necessary to the carrying out of that purpose, was not an unreasonable interference with the right to circulate on the public highway. It was not, therefore, an unjustifiable use of a power associated with the police duty, within the Waterfield test. I would accordingly hold that there was common law authority for the random vehicle stop for the purpose contemplated by the R.I.D.E. program.

All of the arguments that you've made were fully considered by the court. If you want to take the time to read through the entire decision, you can see why they decided the way they did. Ultimately, it's for the reason I said. The level of inconvenience is minor compared to the greater purpose of public safety achieved by random roadside tests.

All of your talk about liberty is addressed in there as well. Driving your car freely on public highways can be considered a liberty, but it is not a fundamental liberty. In fact, it's a highly regulated activity. You don't have a fundamental right to drive on public highways.

Anyway, like I said, it's a non-starter. The SCC has already ruled on it. You can disagree all you want, but it's clearly an effective program that has saved many lives. Most people would much rather the few minutes of inconvenience being pulled over so they can catch drunk drivers immediately, rather than the alternative: not having a few minutes of inconvenience, while the police have to wait until someone is so inebriated that they weave between lanes, wrap their car around a pole, or kill someone before the cops are able to respond.

As for your slippery slope argument, the RIDE Program began in 1977 (35 years ago). That slope doesn't seem to be very slippery.

Edited April 18, 2012 by cybercoma