I guess I would argue that when it comes to something as potentially damaging as hard drugs, there isn't really a point when the ROI isn't worth it. Sure you're not going to eliminate drug use, but money spent on making it as less accessible as possible helps curb it's use. You can't tell me that there wouldn't be more people addicted to these damaging drugs if they were legalized. By making it legal, I'd argue society as a whole suffers a lot more than if it were made illegal. So in that sense, the money spent on preventing its use and distribution is worth it.
If money were no object then yes pursuing the end of drug usage would be a worthwhile pursuit. Its just tax dollars are finite and can only be spent once. We are in a tough global economy that is weak right now. If everything is equal. I'd rather every dollar spent on drug prohibition gets spent on education. I think education is a more valuable weapon against hard drug use than attempting to rehab people.
Again I honestly don't think making access to drugs easier is going to make more people do the worst drugs. Alcohol was prohibited and it literally did nothing to stop people from getting booze except it cost more and profited organized crime. I mean to make an extreme example, 192 proof (96% abv) alcohol is available, but in all my time working at retail liquor I don't think I ever sold a bottle (kids like to try and steal them mostly). Obviously thats an excessive amount of ABV and could easily kill someone. At some point you have to trust people will make responisble decisions. If you automatically assume people will make the worst, most reckless decision, then when do you stop policing people's morality?
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Senator Clay Davis For This Useful Post:
So do we have an actual description of what this drug does besides the terrible article in the OP? I did a quick search and it seems like it's basically meth, but it can make you really hot so some people take their clothes off when really high.
I'm pretty sure that if any pharmaceutical company put:
"Slight probability of eating people's faces"
as any part of their disclaimer, people should steer clear.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
If money were no object then yes pursuing the end of drug usage would be a worthwhile pursuit. Its just tax dollars are finite and can only be spent once. We are in a tough global economy that is weak right now. If everything is equal. I'd rather every dollar spent on drug prohibition gets spent on education. I think education is a more valuable weapon against hard drug use than attempting to rehab people.
Again I honestly don't think making access to drugs easier is going to make more people do the worst drugs. Alcohol was prohibited and it literally did nothing to stop people from getting booze except it cost more and profited organized crime. I mean to make an extreme example, 192 proof (96% abv) alcohol is available, but in all my time working at retail liquor I don't think I ever sold a bottle (kids like to try and steal them mostly). Obviously thats an excessive amount of ABV and could easily kill someone. At some point you have to trust people will make responisble decisions. If you automatically assume people will make the worst, most reckless decision, then when do you stop policing people's morality?
Agreed with pretty much all of this. Education is a key component for sure. Hell, basketball courts and hockey rinks can also do no harm.
To support this further, probably the biggest attraction to bath salts is the cost at this time. I wonder if you gave users the choice between these salts and other 'old school' drugs for the same price, which would they pick? And which is the more dangerous?
That being said, if cocaine was readily available, there would be a lot more addicts.
I can't think of anyone I know who does or doesn't do cocaine because of it's availability. Most do it because they want to and will do it legal or illegal and the ones who don't (like myself) wouldn't do it regardless because of it's effects not because it is illegal.
If you look at places who have gone the route of making drugs legal have seen very little if any increase in the use. Many report that use has gone up statisically because people are more likely to tell you they did a drug if it is legal vs. illegal for obvious reasons. In Portugal they have a lower marijuana use than the USA for cocaine use, figure that one out.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by henriksedin33
Not at all, as I've said, I would rather start with LA over any of the other WC playoff teams. Bunch of underachievers who look good on paper but don't even deserve to be in the playoffs.
Firstly, your argument about cocaine users is weak. There are levels of addictiveness. Not all hard drugs cause instant addiction. In the case of cocaine, I'd describe the level of addiction somewhere between booze and crack/heroine. That being said, if cocaine was readily available, there would be a lot more addicts. Sure many of them would function economically, but there are health concerns as well.
I think the major problem I'm having with your argument is that you are using examples of drug use to rationalize legalizing drug sales and production. We can legalize use and allow treatment without legalizing the sale of drugs.
Well, according to independent scientific inquiry, caffeine is a more addictive substance than cocaine. Their are millions of caffeine addicts in this country, and continued usage damages ones health.
In fact, I am not using anecdotal evidence to rationalize drug sales and production. I said as much in my post, whether I have those experiences or not, the analytical side of my brain is telling me, based on the evidence, that the more pressure that is applied towards criminalizing drugs, the more lucrative and prevalent they become.
This is not a trivial conclusion.
By taking the authority out of the hands of a criminal element and putting it under the regulatory weight of the federal government (who we trust to produce, regulate, distribute and administer far more potent, addictive and lethal drugs), you've removed the largest portion of funding for organized crime (profit that underwrite less profitable but still damaging criminal enterprises), as well as removed the majority of their victims (the helpless of society) from their grasp placing them and their addiction in a system designed to help them deal with their addiction.
Yes, of course there will still be a black market for drugs, just as there is for tobacco, alcohol and firearms, just like there is for pharmaceuticals. That market exists because the profit is based on theft which is far less lucrative.
As a society, we're cutting off our nose to spite spite our face.
The Following User Says Thank You to Flash Walken For This Useful Post:
The Portugal model that Blankall would probably be accepted in many places in the world...but I think we all know it would never fly in America. For one the hard right would never allow it. For another, the prison lobby and law enforcement lobby would never allow it. You also have alcohol companies and pharaceuticals who would be against it. Thats already a really steep hill to climb to implement such a system. I agree its a great model though.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
Just glad it's not actual epsom salts. Last thing my sore body needs is for those to get banned.
__________________
We may curse our bad luck that it's sounds like its; who's sounds like whose; they're sounds like their (and there); and you're sounds like your. But if we are grown-ups who have been through full-time education, we have no excuse for muddling them up.
I dont understand why people are taking this stuff. It doesn't even seem to take extended use to mess you up. It seems like one use and you're trying to kill people and having psychotic break downs. Sounds like fun...
I dont understand why people are taking this stuff. It doesn't even seem to take extended use to mess you up. It seems like one use and you're trying to kill people and having psychotic break downs. Sounds like fun...
Maybe people like the super-human strength and pain tolerance part (reported by police).
I suspect it might have made this incident a little more interesting!
A guy strangled, ripped apart and ate their family dog with his bare hands on the stuff. Other people have had to be restrained after biting police officers and a guy in Florida tore off a chunk of someone's arm. I think Bergeron would have a wee bitmore to worry about than few fingers if Burrows was on the stuff.
