Should we legalize and regulate all drugs?

[Machjo]

What if we just legalized and regulated every recreational drug be it nicotine, alcohol, gambling, heroin, meth, you name it, but then we just strictly regulated it. One scenario I could see would be to legalize it but regulate it similarly to how Singapore regulates casinos. If you want in, you have to apply for either a passport or an addictive-products-and-services-business (APSB) ID card, with each following slightly different rules.

If you apply for a standard passport, you could enter any such business just by scanning your passport and fingerprint. The scanner would recognize the passport as a legal passport but could not identify its holder nor recognize your fingerprint. On that, it would allow you entry. Alternatively, you could apply for an enhanced passport at extra cost that would include a scan of your fingerprints (or an indicator of any missing finger-tip) and facial image and would allow you to sign a self-exclusion form. With that, the scanner could identify the passport's holder and your fingerprint, could determine if the two match (so as to prevent a person from borrowing a friend's passport) and could deny you entry. Even if you somehow still managed to enter the premises, the facial-recognition camera could still potentially identify you. The self-exclusion would apply for the duration of the passport's validity period.

This could even allow partial exclusion. For example, a person could choose to not sign the self-exclusion form but still let his spouse hold his passport. This would mean that he couldn't enter a casino on his own since the scanner would recognize his fingerprint but not his passport and so would deny him entry. This would mean he could visit a casino only when accompanied by his spouse for example.

If you apply for a standard APSB ID card, the scanner would recognize it as a legal card but not identify its holder and would not recognize your fingerprint and so would allow you entry. Alternatively, you could apply at extra cost for an enhanced APSB card that would include facial and fingerprint scanning in which case the scanner could identify the holder of the card and the fingerprint and identify the two as matching to the same person and so deny you entry.

The self-exclusion form could also make it a misdemeanor offense punishable by a heavy fine for any person in the self-exclusion database to participate in any addictive activity from which he'd excluded himself and impose a heavy fine on any business that allowed a self-excluded person into the premises.

On the advertising front, these businesses could advertise on only one state-approved website and to access the site, one would need to clearly identify himself as not on the self-exclusion database. This might mean having to register an account on the site in person at a passport office or at a casino or other registration office and, once an account is registered, require him to sign in each time he visits the site to access its advertising. We could even prohibit these businesses from being identifiable from the outside, meaning that they'd have to hide behind a front business or residence or at least not advertise themselves on the outside of their business.

[Bonam]

Strange to focus on the technical details of scanning cards and facial recognition when your topic is "should we legalize all drugs". Seems like it could be assumed that the technical details of any solution could be worked out appropriately, and the thing to discuss is rather, whether more good or harm would be done by legalizing all drugs. Personally, I think that drugs that have a sufficiently high chance of doing serious harm even in "controlled" use should not be legal. Unless you want to legalize suicide without any restrictions, you pretty much have to draw the line at one drug or another. Further, it's strange to have a society that bans all kinds of useful products with a very slight chance to do harm, but legalizes the most harmful products imaginable. 

Edited June 4, 2018 by Bonam

[-1=e^ipi]

Yes. Legalize it all!

[Thinkinoutsidethebox]

Banning drugs ain't working, may as well give it a try... 

https://mic.com/articles/110344/14-years-after-portugal-decriminalized-all-drugs-here-s-what-s-happening#.kFCDKHBMN

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11942245

Over regulation won't help.

Edited June 4, 2018 by Thinkinoutsidethebox

[PIK]

NO!  We should not even legalize weed for a few more yrs. We need to be smart about this and decriminalize it 1st and get it right the 1st time.

[eyeball]

I like PIK's idea, no regulations or rules, just decriminalize and let the market decide.

 

[Machjo]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

I like PIK's idea, no regulations or rules, just decriminalize and let the market decide.

 

You can't really apply normal market rules to addictive products. For example, a non-addict buys an apple because he wants to buy an apple. An addict buys heroin even if deep down inside, he really doesn't want to buy it. That's why controls would be absolutely necessary.

 

To be honest, I lean more towards outright prohibition and capital punishment like in Singapore.

However, look at the direction in which we're heading politically. We've already legalized gambling with insufficient regulation: facial-recognition cameras just aren't reliable enough on their own to identify those on a self-exclusion list and casinos can still legally advertise in many places online and offline. Grocery stores can sell cigarettes so as to tempt shoppers who are trying to quit. We're now about to legalize cannabis. Unfortunately, the political trend is heading away from the direction I would like to see it go in. So, if legalize we must, then let's legalize it and regulate it appropriately so as to minimize the harm done. Unless you have an idea on how to change the political trend towards the opposite direction, then we seriously need to talk about regulation. Judging from the lack of regulation with regards to gambling, tobacco, and alcohol today, do you really have confidence in the government's ability to adequately regulate cannabis?

Edited June 4, 2018 by Machjo

[PIK]

CBC did a great report on what has happened in colorado since it was legalized and it is not pretty. Black market has grown 10 fold. Lets for once be smart about this.

[Machjo]

I don't like to put my personal life out online and especially like to maintain my anonymity. But I'll make an exception here and say that I have suffered addictions in my life myself so have experienced addictions. Those who oppose ID and fingerprint scanning at casinos or who support the sale of tobacco or alcohol at grocery stores or who support the decriminalization of cannabis have never experienced addiction. Any addict will tell you that he wants the government to make it harder, not easier, for him to access the drug he's addicted to.

If you look at gambling in Singapore, it's a problem and they even consider it a crisis, yet it's not nearly as bad as the problem in Canada. Why you might ask. The answer is simply that they have implemented and enforce an effective self-exclusion policy. In comparison, Ontario's self-exclusion policy is useless.

 

I've never suffered nicotine addiction, but I have a hard time imagining that a nicotine addict who's trying to quit wants the government to allow grocery stores to sell tobacco products. I can imagine how a recovering alcoholic would not appreciate alcohol being sold in an open isle at a grocery store either.

 

You have to have suffered addiction to understand the mind of an addict.

Edited June 4, 2018 by Machjo

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, Machjo said:

To be honest, I lean more towards outright prohibition and capital punishment like in Singapore.

 

If it came down to that I'd rather execute prohibitionists. As for monitoring and surveillance I'd rather treat politicians like criminals.

Cheers.

Edited June 4, 2018 by eyeball

[Machjo]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

If it came down to that I'd rather execute prohibitionists. As for monitoring and surveillance I'd rather treat politicians like criminals.

Cheers.

So you see nothing wrong with the easy availability of addictive products on the market without regulation?

[eyeball]

5 hours ago, Machjo said:

So you see nothing wrong with the easy availability of addictive products on the market without regulation?

Better that then a justice system that emulates an authoritarian and thinly disguised dictatorship.

[eyeball]

10 hours ago, PIK said:

CBC did a great report on what has happened in colorado since it was legalized and it is not pretty. Black market has grown 10 fold. Lets for once be smart about this.

That's because Colorado is surrounded by a black market.  Colorado IS being smart about this.  If it wasn't for the black pot market BC has been servicing these last 25 years we'd be a have-not province in need of equalization payments.  Pot has likely been more lucrative and important to BC's economy  than forestry has for years.

You're probably better off hoping Trudeau cocks legalization up.

Edited June 5, 2018 by eyeball

[Bonam]

5 hours ago, eyeball said:

 If it wasn't for the black pot market BC has been servicing these last 25 years we'd be a have-not province in need of equalization payments.  Pot has likely been more lucrative and important to BC's economy  than forestry has for years.

Selling one another drugs doesn't generate wealth. 

[PIK]

11 hours ago, eyeball said:

That's because Colorado is surrounded by a black market.  Colorado IS being smart about this.  If it wasn't for the black pot market BC has been servicing these last 25 years we'd be a have-not province in need of equalization payments.  Pot has likely been more lucrative and important to BC's economy  than forestry has for years.

You're probably better off hoping Trudeau cocks legalization up.

I want it done right and the trudeau government will 100% screw it up.It is very simple.

[eyeball]

6 hours ago, Bonam said:

Selling one another drugs doesn't generate wealth. 

No its prohibition that's responsible for the wealth, you probably couldn't give it away otherwise.

[eyeball]

13 minutes ago, PIK said:

I want it done right and the trudeau government will 100% screw it up.It is very simple.

He already has judging by the prices being touted.   

[Machjo]

18 hours ago, eyeball said:

Better that then a justice system that emulates an authoritarian and thinly disguised dictatorship.

Again, I'd rather ban drugs outright but am simply exploring how best to regulate them if the political winds should blow in the direction of legalization and if we had to legalize them under political pressure. Now are you saying that unless we totally decriminalize drugs with no more regulation than we impose on the local Toys r Us, we're now fascists?

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Machjo said:

Again, I'd rather ban drugs outright but am simply exploring how best to regulate them if the political winds should blow in the direction of legalization and if we had to legalize them under political pressure. Now are you saying that unless we totally decriminalize drugs with no more regulation than we impose on the local Toys r Us, we're now fascists?

No.

[Machjo]

20 hours ago, eyeball said:

That's because Colorado is surrounded by a black market.  Colorado IS being smart about this.  If it wasn't for the black pot market BC has been servicing these last 25 years we'd be a have-not province in need of equalization payments.  Pot has likely been more lucrative and important to BC's economy  than forestry has for years.

You're probably better off hoping Trudeau cocks legalization up.

Heroin trafficking is profitable too, but not likely something you want sold at the local 7/11.

[GostHacked]

On 6/4/2018 at 9:21 AM, PIK said:

NO!  We should not even legalize weed for a few more yrs. We need to be smart about this and decriminalize it 1st and get it right the 1st time.

Drunk driving will still be the leading cause of problems on the road.

[GostHacked]

15 hours ago, Bonam said:

Selling one another drugs doesn't generate wealth. 

Tell that to the pharmaceutical companies who sell pills that can outright kill you with a small dose.

[GostHacked]

On 6/4/2018 at 4:34 PM, Machjo said:

So you see nothing wrong with the easy availability of addictive products on the market without regulation?

They are easily available now. And a lot of them prescribed by doctors!

[eyeball]

53 minutes ago, Machjo said:

Heroin trafficking is profitable too, but not likely something you want sold at the local 7/11.

It would probably stay profitable too if 7/11 was allowed to monopolize the market.

Look, I get that regulating stuff is usually a good idea but governments tend to regulate (or not) according to how special interests or their base of support tell them to regulate (or and again I say, not regulate).  That being the case, and in lieu of regulations based far more on what science and experts advise, I'd rather we have no regulations at all.

Edited June 5, 2018 by eyeball

[Machjo]

I'm not a smoker, yet I know exactly where to buy tobacco. I'm not a drinker, yet I know exactly where to buy alcohol. I don't gamble, yet I know exactly where the local casino is and where I can buy lottery tickets.

How is it that I know where to buy tobacco and alcohol and know where to buy lottery tickets and know where the local casino is even though I don't participate in any of these yet don't know where I can buy cannabis even though I sometimes smell its stench when I head downtown? I don't know where to buy cannabis; but if it's legalized, I probably will soon enough.

I think the fact that I know where to buy legal drugs but not where to buy illegal ones shows that prohibition does work at least to a degree to push it underground and make it at least somewhat less visible. The fact that I know where to buy tobacco and alcohol and lottery tickets and where to gamble shows that the advertising laws pertaining to these aren't strict enough. They should be strict enough that I could not know where to buy these products unless I was actively looking for them, happened upon them by chance while looking for something else, or someone told me or showed me.