Report calls for decriminalizing both ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ drugs

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by zamler

So what are you suggesting they will do?

No clue - kill politicians? They won't just go away

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

I understand it but like i said you aren't cutting out dick and jane, you are cutting out VIOLENT DRUG CARTELS - who wouldn't go out without a fight.

I don't know exactly what the cartels could do to retaliate. It's more likely they would try to funnel their product through the appropriate legal channels, much like the high-level beer barons post-prohibition.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

No clue - kill politicians? They won't just go away

Why? This makes no sense from a cost/benefit analysis. It would make much more sense to establish a legitimate business for selling their product.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Azure

Giving people a way to legally buy drugs will be the hardest way to come down on the dealers. Take away their source of income, and they go away.

The problem is you're dealing with addictive and mind-altering substances. Flooding neighbourhoods with cheap sources of crack has not been shown to decrease crime.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

No clue - kill politicians? They won't just go away

What? Yes they will go away if there is no profit to be made. They might move on to some other illegal activity, or go into a legit business. And seeing there is almost nothing more lucrative than illegal drugs, most will just hang it up.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by blankall

Flooding neighbourhoods with cheap sources of crack has not been shown to decrease crime.

Of course not, because they still toss those people in jail for crack use, a crime statistic.

[Ozy_Flame]

Sign me up for decriminalizing cannabis.

However, if more than that was decriminalized, I don't think I would want to be on 17th at 2 AM though when people begin using the hard stuff to keep them going all night.

[zamler]

Portugal decriminalized drug use including the hard drugs, and across the board usage dropped, as did HIV infection rates.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Sign me up for decriminalizing cannabis.

However, if more than that was decriminalized, I don't think I would want to be on 17th at 2 AM though when people begin using the hard stuff to keep them going all night.

Because that's not already happening?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by zamler

Of course not, because they still toss those people in jail for crack use, a crime statistic.

What about property and violent crime?

Are you saying making crack more easily available would decrease property and violent crime?

[Free Ben Hur!]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I have always said that I would be fine with legalizing dope as long as it can be controlled and taxed.

In no way would I ever be on board with legalizing and making available the hard stuff like Meth and crack and others because of their nature.

I'm more in line with putting a bullet in the heads of people who make a living off of hooking people on it.

+1. I'm mystified how the people that fund, organize and control the distribution of drugs like crack and meth can face their children every day knowing that those very kids could be exposed to the poison they peddle in the schoolyard.

[GGG]

I am in favour of legalize, tax and treat.

It might marginally increase use of hard drugs, to me thats okay as it isn't the governments job to prevent people from doing harm to themselves. Also the reason I don't do crack isn;t because it is illegal its because its stupid.

What it will do is reduce crime and increase access to treatment programs if the taxes generated by drug use go to enhancing treatment, education, and anti poverty programs.

Overall if you just spent the money that is current;y spent on policing and imprisoning drug users and dealers on treatment and prevention a lot of harm would be reduced. And that is before a single tax dollar.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by blankall

What about property and violent crime?

Are you saying making crack more easily available would decrease property and violent crime?

No, we're saying legalizing and regulating it actually makes it less readily available to at-risk persons.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by blankall

What about property and violent crime?

Are you saying making crack more easily available would decrease property and violent crime?

The argument is that the vast majority of people who do Crack don't care whether it is legal or illegal so the status of the drug has little bearing on its use. So property crime remains the same if the number of users stays the same.

If the government provided crack at a similar price to a dealer and made it accessible you would choose the government crack because you know it isn't laced or cut with poisons or herion.

[smoothpops]

Considering the Insite program in Vancouver has provided documentation that they are having positive and tangible results, and yet the current gov. has attempted to close them down, even going so far as to challenge them in the Supreme Court. If the program that supplies nothing but clean supplies and a safe place to practice their habits is in danger, then what are the chances the gov., on either side of the aisle, listens to this study?

[stang]

C'mon legal cocaine!!

Stop paying to fight it.
Start making money by taxing it.
Lower income taxes.
Everyone wins.

People are going to do it legal or not... May as well make $$

[SebC]

Originally Posted by smoothpops

Considering the Insite program in Vancouver has provided documentation that they are having positive and tangible results, and yet the current gov. has attempted to close them down, even going so far as to challenge them in the Supreme Court. If the program that supplies nothing but clean supplies and a safe place to practice their habits is in danger, then what are the chances the gov., on either side of the aisle, listens to this study?

Well, the Liberals were on a path to legalizing pot... they might not be willing to go all the way but it's better than what the Conservatives have done. I'd say they've gone far enough to qualify as "listening".

[Azure]

Originally Posted by blankall

The problem is you're dealing with addictive and mind-altering substances. Flooding neighbourhoods with cheap sources of crack has not been shown to decrease crime.

Never said we should do that.

I would like to see drug injection clinics similar to what we saw in BC. Fund it with the 25% tax rate on the drugs.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by smoothpops

Considering the Insite program in Vancouver has provided documentation that they are having positive and tangible results, and yet the current gov. has attempted to close them down, even going so far as to challenge them in the Supreme Court. If the program that supplies nothing but clean supplies and a safe place to practice their habits is in danger, then what are the chances the gov., on either side of the aisle, listens to this study?

Current conservative government? Not a chance in hell. They love to stick their head in the sand when it comes to issues like this.

[Daradon]

How have we gotten to post 40 without a Rob Ford joke?