Bath Salts use spreading across Canada.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Seeing as only the pro-legalization people seem to have ideas on how to better fix the system, I'm curious what the pro-prohibition folk think would be a good way to either reduce usage, or eliminating the flow of drugs?

And please don't mention ideas that are more of the same. It doesn't work. It just doesn't. Its been proven through the last 30 years of waste on the "War on Drugs".

Portugal's model. You decriminilize use and possession. You come down hard on traffickers, dealers, distributors, etc..

This allows you to attack the problem simultaneously from the supply and the demand side. You reduce demand by giving access to treatment for users and eliminating their fear of cops/establishment. You harshly punish people who attempt to profit off drug use.

Portugal put these laws in place to combat an HIV/AIDS epidemic among the large IV drug user population.

Portugal then made it legal to carry up to a 10 day supply of drugs for personal use. They however left the laws in place against growers, distributers, sellers, and traffickers. They then switched the focus of law enformcement off the user entirely and focussed all efforts on the supplier.

Portugal then began to see what you would logically expect. More people complying with treatment, fewer cases of communicable disease, less crime associated with drug use, fewer deaths etc...

[Senator Clay Davis]

If you're saying desperate and improverished = high murder rate, why does America, one of the richest countries in the world, have a higher murder rate than Vietnam, one of the poorest?

These aren't desperate, impoverished people killing. These are rival cartels murdering each other and innocents as a sign of power and in an attempt to control trafficing routes to America. These are rich people killing other rich people and many innocent poor people too.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

If you're saying desperate and improverished = high murder rate, why does America, one of the richest countries in the world, have a higher murder rate than Vietnam, one of the poorest?

These aren't desperate, impoverished people killing. These are rival cartels murdering each other and innocents as a sign of power and in an attempt to control trafficing routes to America. These are rich people killing other rich people and many innocent poor people too.

If you're White, or possibly Asian.

America also has a huge disparity between wealth. It's a little simplistic to break it down along racial lines. There are plenty of poor white people. But there is most certainly a direct link in between how much money you have and how likely you are to go to jail in America.

We're talking about a country with high unemployment and no guaranteed health care.

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Remember when American society had chosen to draw the line that blacks were 3/5 a person and should be enslaved? Or that women can't vote? Amazingly we evolve as a society, our opinions change because of the facts presented. Continuing to throw money at an unsolvable problem is a waste of the limited funds our government, through us the taxpayers, has.

uummmm are you really equivocating the emancipation of women and abolition of slavery to drug legalization? I'll try and keep it simple but 2 of those 3 have clear ethical & functional benefits without risk, while the other.....

I'll also re-iterate: You have not presented any facts, only conjecture.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

The problem with my argument is the only way to see if it works is to legalize drugs, so obviously actually getting to test the theory is going to be impossible. But what I can prove is the number of murders Mexico has had since 2008:

6,844 killed in 2008
9,635 killed in 2009
15,273 killed in 2010
16,466 killed in 2011

I suppose the question that it comes back to is: Do you think the murder rate will remain to same or rise because of legalization? If the answer is no then why would legalizing be a bad thing? If you think yes, I'm very curious as to why you think so?



Drugs are already readily available, so thats irrelavent. And again, most people don't do heroin now because its been proven to be a destrutive drug, not because its illegal. Making it legal is not all of a sudden going to cause Joe Straightedge to start shooting up just because he legally can.

You really think its that simple, those drug based gangs won't throw in the towel, if anything they would either fight over a smaller market and it would get far more vicious. Or they would find other illegal high reward markets to develop.

the gangs in Vancouver who make a fortune in drugs wouldn't retire to Monaco, they'd work on developing other markets as well. Or they'd find other drugs. Or modify existing drugs or cheaper drugs.

Legalizing all drugs isn't a save all solution. One of the reason why people point to Europe's legalziation of some drugs is that they're not dealing with the same cartels and gangs as we are here.

I would plainly state that if you legalized drugs and taxed them then the cartels would cut their profits underneath the governments on the hard drugs. If you legalized drugs here and the market did start to shrink the wars would become far more vicious as they fight over a shrinking market and then transition to human smuggling and gun smuggling for example to make up for lost income.

Like I said, I would be fine with legalizing grass, as long as it takes it out of the hands of the drug cartels and dealers, we get quality control at a governmental level, tax it like booze or smokes, and put it in liquor stores out of the hands of pre-adults. Then you take the tax revenue and use it towards rehab programs and use it to go after the really nasty drugs.

But legalizing instantly addictive, really harmful drugs like Crack or Xtacy, or heroin or Meth is both morallly repugnant as the government shouldn't be in that kind of business, and destructive to the core group of users who are rotting away because of that.

But any war on drugs needs to change focus from the user to the dealers who profit on human misery to the smugglers who bring it in to the #######s cooking that stuff up in their bathrooms.

I feel tremendously sorry for the people that are hooked on crack and these other really bad drugs, but can we really point to the educational programs as being all that successful either?

I don't think there's a question that these drugs are toxic and instantly addictive, but people still take them.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by jammies

What we really need is for pharmaceutical companies to come up with recreational drugs that get you higher than hell, but aren't physically addictive nor destructive. Legalized or not, the problem is that the intensity of the experience seems to somewhat correlate with the destructiveness of the drug. Nobody is going to slowly kill themselves doing meth or heroin if they can get something better that isn't addictive or damaging.

Although I suppose legalizing is the first step along that road - that will make it guaranteed to be immensely profitable to be the first company to come up with such a drug.

I think that's nearly impossible my friend. Part of any addiction is mental as much as it is physical.

If you give someone a drug that gives them an incredible high, the brain is just going to ask for more, and its going to ask for it in a hard way.

Even if its just a mental need or a I think its ID need, the ID is incredibly powerful.

I read a book where the ID is even more powerful then the primitive part of your brain that regulates your instinct. The ID can even allow you to overcome your survival requirements.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

uummmm are you really equivocating the emancipation of women and abolition of slavery to drug legalization? I'll try and keep it simple but 2 of those 3 have clear ethical & functional benefits without risk, while the other.....

I'll also re-iterate: You have not presented any facts, only conjecture.

Unless he's saying that if you grind up and snort a voter eligible woman you'll get completely fracked up.

[The Yen Man]

The optics of legalizing addictive drugs are terrible as well. It's basically the government throwing up their hands and saying "Ok, you guys win, we can't curb drug use. Lets make sure we get our cut and tax the crap out of it as well, since we can't stop it".

And how would you legalize it? Do you get a doctor to write you a prescription so you can pick up some crack at the local pharmacy?

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

uummmm are you really equivocating the emancipation of women and abolition of slavery to drug legalization? I'll try and keep it simple but 2 of those 3 have clear ethical & functional benefits without risk, while the other.....

I'll also re-iterate: You have not presented any facts, only conjecture.

Haha oh man. Thank you for putting words into my mouth. My point was that people once thought one way, but their stances have evolved. I chose to use easy to see examples and you choose to say I'm equating drug legalization to slavery? Ugh, I get we completely disagree on this one, but come on really?

As for facts, this one alone should be pretty eye opening

A 2008 study by Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Miron has estimated that legalizing drugs would inject $76.8 billion a year into the U.S. economy — $44.1 billion from law enforcement savings, and at least $32.7 billion in tax revenue ($6.7 billion from marijuana, $22.5 billion from cocaine and heroin, remainder from other drugs)

And the UN Global Commission on Drug Policy says...

"The global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world."

We obviously will never agree on this, but your argument is what exactly? That legalizing drugs would result in nothing but negative consequences? Any more so than now? See I don't. Drugs are illegal now and have massive consequences. Legalizing them isn't going to change much, except save us as taxpayers a ton of money. As a taxpayer, I'm pretty much cool with that.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

I'm sorry but you're opening up a huge can of worms by legalizing addictive drugs. It'd be like the tobacco industry but a hundred times worse. Can you imagine companies legally able to produce and sell crack. Money would be poured into making it as addictive as possible in order to get people hooked and dependent on it. And all the while, the government will basically be supporting it.

Great point. I think you'd be basically be giving the profit motive to another group of thugs, but this time they wear suits and work in fancy offices.

Its nice to think that somehow legalization of hard drugs would solve problems, but it makes little to no sense at all. Some of these drugs are extremely damaging, and damaging to society as a whole. Why would you actively put something like that into the marketplace?

Just because the war on drugs isn't over and costs money doesn't mean its not worth fighting. There's no quick fix but I hardly think giving everyone easy legal access to these brutal substances is a good way to go.

[Senator Clay Davis]

But at what point is the ROI not worth it? We have already invested billions in trying to prevent usage to little or no effect. Yes hard drug usage is horrible, but at some point it is a lost cause. You analyze things as a cost-benefit analysis. The cost of trying to eliminate drugs is never going to justify the benefit. If it cost us $10 billion a year for say the next 25 years, is that really worth it? Especially since its tax dollars and cannot be replaced? I really don't think its close to worth it. Especially since there is no guarentee it will work.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by blankall

Well, that argument is wrong.

The vast majority of people can have beers on the weekend and then function through the rest of the week without having to be drunk 24/7.

The same is not true of drugs like heroin, crack, meth, etc.. People don't become addicted to heroin, because it's hard to get. People become addicted because it's an addictive drug in the sense you want to be high on it 24/7.

Some people do get addicted to alcohol, but not nearly in the same percentages. When I get drunk, I get a hangover the next day and want to stay away from beer. This is the normal response. When people come down from heroin...they want more heroin.

According to your argument, the best way to deal with addicts would be to give them unlimited amounts of drugs....simply wouldn't work for addictive hard drugs.

I'm not talking about their addictive qualities. I'm talking about the prohibitive nature of laws and social stigma they produce.

If I'm a work a day accountant who has a morphine top up twice daily, am I an unscrupulous (not trying to put words in your mouth) addict surviving off the largess of society, or, am I contributing member of society holding down a career in a professional environment?

I would say in that instance that the people who are against the social use of drugs would say I'm an addict.

There are productive people that I've known who were/are recreational cocaine users. Nothing was stopping these otherwise successful people from exactly what you described: Have some fun friday, pay for it on Saturday, ready to work on Monday.

In that sense then, are we criminalizing drugs or addiction? It seems on this continent, there is a terrific preoccupation with punitive consequences to what may be intrinsic human/mammalian behaviour.

Now, having said all that, I'm not making my argument for the 1 in however many people that can remain productive members of society are the reason drugs should be legalized. My argument is that application of criminal law in this avenue is doing society a disservice. There are, at any given point, more police assigned to Marijuana grow-ops in Vancouver than there are officers assigned to the missing women task force. There are serial killers working the streets of Vancouver, and the city is more pre-occupied with grow ops and street level enforcement.

This is a huge barrier to social justice and improvement in the quality of life of potentially hundreds of thousands of Canadians.

The cost alone of housing criminals who before were mental illness patients is a number I don't want to think of, at a time when the province is building more prisons to house otherwise non-violent, contributing members of society.

This is all, of course, apart from the intrinsic argument of individual rights.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

The optics of legalizing addictive drugs are terrible as well. It's basically the government throwing up their hands and saying "Ok, you guys win, we can't curb drug use. Lets make sure we get our cut and tax the crap out of it as well, since we can't stop it".

And how would you legalize it? Do you get a doctor to write you a prescription so you can pick up some crack at the local pharmacy?

Yes.

The government already does this with more potent and addictive substances.

[Locke]

Jesus Christ. These are horrible. Who would want this? Where does this get fun?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I'm not talking about their addictive qualities. I'm talking about the prohibitive nature laws and social stigma.

If I'm a work a day accountant who has a morphine top up twice daily, am I an unscrupulous (not trying to put words in your mouth) addict surviving off the largess of society, or, am I contributing member of society holding down a career in a professional environment?

I would say in that instance that the people who are against the social use of drugs would say I'm an addict.

There are productive people that I've known who were/are recreational cocaine users. Nothing was stopping these otherwise successful people from exactly what you described: Have some fun friday, pay for it on Saturday, ready to work on Monday.

In that sense then, are we criminalizing drugs or addiction? It seems on this continent, there is a terrific preoccupation with punitive consequences to what may be intrinsic human/mammalian behaviour.

Now, having said all that, I'm not making my argument for the 1 in however many people that can remain productive members of society are the reason drugs should be legalized. My argument is that application of criminal law in this avenue is doing society a disservice. There are, at any given point, more police assigned to Marijuana grow-ops in Vancouver than there are officers assigned to the missing women task force. There are serial killers working the streets of Vancouver, and the city is more pre-occupied with grow ops and street level enforcement.

This is a huge barrier to social justice and an improvement in the quality of life of potentially hundreds of thousands of Canadians.

The cost alone of housing criminals who before were mental illness patients is a number I don't want to think of, at a time when the province is building more prisons to house otherwise non-violent, contributing members of society.

This is all, of course, apart from the intrinsic argument of individual rights.

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.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Locke

Jesus Christ. These are horrible. Who would want this? Where does this get fun?

I think that right there is the whole point.

Doing this drug seems like punishment enough.

We should be helping these people.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by blankall

We can legalize use and allow treatment without legalizing the sale of drugs.

If its illegal to sell something, wouldn't obtaining it therefore still be illegal? So you would have drug sale be illegal, but possession of drugs is fine? And one of his arguments is weak?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I think that right there is the whole point.

Doing this drug seems like punishment enough.

We should be helping these people.

The problem is that designer drugs are typically so unnaturally addictive that its incredibly difficult to get people off of them.

[Burninator]

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.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

But at what point is the ROI not worth it? We have already invested billions in trying to prevent usage to little or no effect. Yes hard drug usage is horrible, but at some point it is a lost cause. You analyze things as a cost-benefit analysis. The cost of trying to eliminate drugs is never going to justify the benefit. If it cost us $10 billion a year for say the next 25 years, is that really worth it? Especially since its tax dollars and cannot be replaced? I really don't think its close to worth it. Especially since there is no guarentee it will work.

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.