If the Drug War is Failing, Where did all the Cocaine Go?

[coelophysis]

In most places the quality of cocain is to poor for it to be a better choice than the reg amps.. so the people who used to want all the have now switched over to the reg amps. The rush isn't as strong but neither are the side effects. The use of reg amps eliminates the craving for coke in allot of people even coke addicts who are drinking. it took a little bit of time but the stim heads are all coming to the conclusion that paying ten bucks for a couple of pills of addy, dexmethylphenidate, or vyvanse and getting nicely lit for a night with the added benefit of also having little or no cravings for coke even when drinking, is way better than paying some ungodly price for some usually hard stepped on drug that gets you lit for a couple of minutes, causes you to crave and redose all night, has a stronger but less enjoyable effect.

Where are you getting this particular info from? It makes sense, but I just don't understand how statistics like that can even begin to be gathered.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

But diminishing supply isn't a factor. The first sentence merely provided context to my comment.

EDIT: @ BlueLeeder

 

[neversickanymore]

Hey they do care about human rights.. we are drug users and addicts and aren't in the human classification. Cops dont care about addict and users rights cause we dont have any. Oh wait we do have some rights.

We have the right to get convicted at a trail if we choose to not take the plea deal that gets us off a 12 year charge for a personal stash. We have the right to a public defender to help get us convicted. We have the right to write our congressmen while sitting in the poke while murdering, asaulting, sexauly assulting, money and drug piillferig, rapeing cops are let off to return to the beat of the utterly failed drug war they exploit. We have the right to tell people where we want to apply for a job that we are felonias criminal so he then has the right to pay us less. We have the right to be handcuffed, usually by some gorilla with an Iq around seventy and less social skill then the people we will be staying with, we have the right to have our money taken a some booking fee (translated this means stolen). We then have the right to get out of jail if we bring down some money that we will get back if we choose to return on time to get further pilfered, We have the right to know that that bail money will not be returned that the fine will magically come to within 6 dollars of the full amount of the bail if we post with our own money but cant do anything about. Then we have the right to pay an attorney to help us not loose our whole life. we certainly have the right to piss in a cup many times. We have the right to be ordered into treatment even if our only problems have ever been given to for possession charges given by cops. We have the right to not bare arms.
We have the right to be tasered. We have the right to be analy probed, raped, x rayed, figered, fingerprinted, swabbed, photographed, beaten, stripped, straitjacket, jailed and imprisoned with real criminals, executed, to have to use streat stuff cut with god knows what, phones tapped, to be blamed for every walked out crime ever, stigmatized, to use dirty needles, not to get help with treatment, not to get medications which would prevent you from dieing, to have to pay hundreds and hundreds every month to a drug dealer doctor to write out a piece of paper and "monitor" and oversee you, To not hold public office, to have no chance at student loans, and last but not least.. we have the right to say enough is enough we arent going to take this anymore and expose you drug war exploiters for what you are.


Shit boys thats only a partial list maybe they do care about the rights off users and addicts

 

[RTrain]

I think it went up all the politician's noses.






Quote Originally Posted by pmoseman View Post
WCops care about human rights

Lol, yeah sure they do 8)

Of course they care about our rights, like the right to remain silent while they f our lives over.

 

[RedLeader]

But diminishing supply isn't a factor. The first sentence merely provided context to my comment.

EDIT: @ BlueLeeder

Oh okay. I admit that I read the entire thing very fast and answered something completely different. Don't actually know what the proper question is now, so I'm confused too.

 

[pmoseman]

I mean the international police apparatus, in the form of the DEA, CIA, and Treasury cops, in the form of UNODC, etc, adding methanol to booze in the 20s and pushing for APAP in prescription opioids.

I also consider the alteration of consciousness a fundamental human right.

The musclehead cops at the gym might not be keen on sprinkling ricin into people's coffee, but POLICE writ large will do anything they can to enlarge their own powers.

Public safety and protection of property: that is the role of police. Which of these ends does poisoning cocaine acheive? One could argue the former, but they cannot be allowed to create danger in their quest to diminish danger. That too is a violation of human rights.

edit: to reiterate, I have no problem with the individuals employed as police officers, Only with their bosses' bosses, the policy makers, the lobbyists, etc. The world would be a much safer place if they just stuck to i n vestigating theft and violent crime.

Despite what you may think, there is no human right to addled consciousness or ego enlargement. Removing drugs does not prevent any real human right, like having fun, democracy, law, safety, work, travel, food and rest. You can have all your human rights kept without allowing certain drugs.

Cops following American laws care about all these rights. Does a dealer care about those rights when they decide to cut cocaine with levamisole, in order to make easy money off drug dependency?

What happened in 1920, during prohibition in America, is that alcohol manufacturers put various chemicals into their industrial mix to prevent bootlegging. Then, despite knowing it contained wood alcohol, somebody stole the alcohol, sold it for cash, and possibly killed 10,000 people. Possibly that many. This is 1920 we are taking about; not CSI Miami.

American medical practitioners use APA (paracetamol, acetaminophen) as a drug to make pain prevention medications with less opiods. Not to poison people who become addicted, ignoring labels that warn about liver damage etc., but to prevent addiction.

Where are you getting this particular info from? It makes sense, but I just don't understand how statistics like that can even begin to be gathered.

Does reg amps mean amphetamine?

 

[theWhiteLarryBird]

Removing drugs does not prevent any real human right, like having fun, democracy, law, safety, work, travel, food and rest.
Cops following American laws care about all these rights.

Not to poison people who become addicted, but to prevent addiction.

I dont know that the number of "cops following American laws" is up to my standards. Maybe yours are lower. The war on drugs is a grandiose profiteering scheme orchestrated by the US government and presented to the masses in chewable, easy-to-swallow form.

In regards to the preventing of addiction: I refer you to the US prison system.

 

[coelophysis]

Does reg amps mean amphetamine?

I would assume so yeah.

 

[neversickanymore]

Removing drugs

Is this an accurate description of what is is happening. Seems to me there are more drugs than ever. It also seems there are many many unintended side effects to this goal then. Seems to me like the way this goal is being carried out has some really strong flaws associated with it to a point where the current "solution" actually removes little or no drugs and promotes the use and selling with the black market it creates. Do you really still belive there is going to be some shift that will make a supply end or for that matter any law enforcement approach to drugs work? Because I belive that by taking out the money to be made in the black market and providing the drugs to people at a reasonable cost we would drastically reduce the amount of people who get turned on both to help an addict pay for their fix and by drug pushers creating client bases for their greedy profit. The best approach to take is to scrap the utterly failed law enforcement approach. Redirect the resources to prevention, harm reduction, drug therapy, and maintenance, and mental health services. There should be a licenses system where users and addicts can obtain a license through education on harm reduction and rehabilitation among other things. The license would allow people to purchase amounts of narcotics at state regulated stores run like pharmacies. the purity and other aspect would be regulated and all harm reduction techniques employed. there would be different classes or levels to the license that would allow drug case worker handlers a level of control over the users. If an drug user or addict has no problems ever then they are a class A.. ir there seems to be some problems then a B.. all the way down to Class R witch means you are in rehab as you seem to need help.

A person can move up and down the class based on clearly pre determined criteria to try and head off any abuse of the users and addicts. The drug case worker would be able to set meetings.. so let say they see a class a evry six moths to check up as long as there are no problems and then as we get to the people who are having the problems the frequency increases and the freedom granted to use amounts or types of drugs decreases. people who have and keep jobs and keep their lives in order are really no problem but they still get caught and have their live ruined buy the system today. But with the case workers we will be able to identify and help the people who have or develop problems. it also provides a strong incentive with better or unlimited drug being available to those who have and keep their lives going well and incentive for those who need to make some changes to get it done. It takes the money outta the street thugs, turns the producers into legit business men that no longer need to deal with the cartels as they can distribute their products as quality controlled legal product right through the stores. I do worry a little that real crime will go up a bit, but not buy the users and addicts that will likely fall off, but by the people who can no longer make shit dealing on the street. The money made selling the drugs will pay for all the projects associated with it and there will be money left over im sure. Of course this isnt the perfect plan but these few word executed would be so much better for everyone than the freak show we have going now IMO

Removing drugs does not prevent any real human right, like having fun, democracy, law, safety, work, travel, food and rest. You can have all your human rights kept without allowing certain drugs.

If we are able to remove the drugs then there can be said that no "real" human right has been taken... but there is also a case to be made by some that the right to choose to put a natural substance in their body if they aren't hurting anyone seems like it should be considered a right.. and other would say the right o use whatever they want if they dont hurt anyone or break any non drug laws because if its use should be a right. How about the right to think for and be responsible for yourself and your choices.

But we aren't talking in reality here i dont think.. seems to me that people have been using substances for as long as people have been writing down what people are doing. every attempt to remove them has failed and I think we need to retire this idea for good.

how has the drug war effected all our rights.. sure we have the right to a trial.. right to a trial in a court machine.. designed to prevent as many people as possible from using this right.. they want the money and why would they want to put a harmless drug user in the jail.. that takes money.. and we can make more money off them if we let them go but make the pay this and attend that. Treatment.. shit whats that.. there is less money to be made if a problem is addressed instead of exploited and there is never a never ending stream of money to be made of a cure.

and I kinda figured that we may just want to lump drugs with food.. why should people be able to eat water they want but not we cant use what we want. I bet you the amount of people who basically eat themselves to death is really high.. why are they aloud to do this.. why are the really realistic people allowed to practice their rights.. why are police given the right to continue destroying peoples lives for no positive reason.. why can people pound booze and act like ass clowns till they break a law but we dont even have to do a single thing other than be found to posses a drug though a random check and we can go to prison for over a decade..

Does reg amps mean amphetamine?

it means amphetamine not but not methamphetamine so the reg is in there to distinguish amphetamine from methamphetamine.

which drugs would you think should be considered to try if there were an attempt at legalization?

 

[drug_mentor]

Pmoseman, I am certain that having ownership of my own body so that I may put whatever substance I feel may benefit me, or just give me an experience I think might be worthwhile even, is a basic human right, whether you or the law makers choose to recognise that or not.

Human beings have used intoxicants for thousands of years, probably for as long as we have been around really, but the records don't date back that far, I would say this simple fact is a clear illustration that altered states of consciousness are not only part of the human experience but can be a part of what makes certain people feel happy, spiritual, enlightened or otherwise enhanced. Drug laws don't only prevent people from reaching these states, they take away the freedom of people who disregard these foolish laws and choose to pursue happiness and enlightenment as they see fit.

There might not be anything drafted up that says on paper humans have a right to get intoxicated, but as far as I am concerned, that IS a human right, so long as they are not hurting anybody else in the process.

I question how compounding APAP with opioids prevents addiction, where I live people can purchase pills that are a mix of paracetamol/APAP and codeine without a prescription and PLENTY of idiots eat these like candy all the while knowing the damage they are doing to their body. The truth of the matter is, people who want to take drugs take drugs, making silly laws to try and stop people from doing so, mixing toxic drugs like paracetamol with non toxic but addictive opioids to "prevent addiction" and putting all sorts of technology into preventing the injection of tablets that everyone who has an interest in shooting IV's any way are all good examples of idiotic ideas formulated by self righteous assholes trying to impose their values on everyone else.

If you someone doesn't want to take drugs they can exercise their right not to, similarly, I will continue to exercise my basic right to put what I choose into my body, not what my Government or my doctor dictates is good or wholesome.

 

[pmoseman]

... mixing toxic drugs like paracetamol with non toxic but addictive opioids to "prevent addiction" and putting all sorts of technology into preventing the injection of tablets...

My point is it is the phrase "human right" has an obvious meaning, the phrase would not have been used other than to link drug abuse to one of the world recognized "human rights".
Opiods are toxic. Do not pretend opiods and injectables are not responsible for harm and don't continue to lie by saying APA is a less safe alternative for pain relief.

Seems to me there are more drugs than ever
... the current "solution" actually removes little and promotes the use and selling with the black market it creates.

...natural substance in their body if they aren't hurting anyone...

which drugs would you think should be considered to try if there were an attempt at legalization?

Smoking bans work. Where it is banned harm and use reduces. Does this not prove prohibitive drug laws work?

The black market sells stolen children. Should we make that legal? Think of all the harm being done by forcing child abductees underground. We could make 3x the profit per child and that could go toward fixing up schools. It is not like everyone is going to start abducting kids, just the same ones who get away with it now and continue sexual assaults in prison and after getting out. Prison does not work.

Taking drugs is still not a human right.

It makes absolutely no difference if something appears on the surface to be natural. Rape is natural. People been doin' that since before language was invented.

The effect of drug use is harmful if users become victims of dependency or choose to abuse drugs rather than something worthwhile. Yes, this is being told what is in your best interest. Like the government does when it requires you wear safety glasses at work.

The ENTIRE argument relies on illicit drugs being harmless to anyone not doing them. Everything relies on that one point.

On the surface, if you do not think about it too long, it seems all other crimes involve harming others, except using drugs. So every debate requires an explanation of why drugs are illegal. The selling of drugs harms others, so that fits with other illegal activities and by the law of participation in a crime, the buying of drugs would also be illegal. Real tricky to understand. Had to point that out did I?

To make certain each individual user is not dealing would be impractical and since nobody sees the real benefit of drug use and so they nixed it.

That is my theory, prove me wrong.

I do not see it being proven that drugs being illegal is a source of more harm than good. I think overall it reduces dangerous behavior or is at worse an attempt to. I think there are steps to take regarding drug education, prison sentencing, addiction treatment, and police work, especially in minority communities, that can be addressed without opening the Pandora's box of legalization.

Un-nixing it might be an option, but that does not allow buying, selling, or owning more than a small quantity. So obviously most users are still going to be breaking the law. They are still obviously going to be involved in a crime network. Portugal decriminalized (un-nixed it) and they are still busting the same number of traffickers and producers as they were before. So why should harm reduce?

I dont know that the number of "cops following American laws" is up to my standards. Maybe yours are lower. The war on drugs is a grandiose profiteering scheme orchestrated by the US government and presented to the masses in chewable, easy-to-swallow form.

In regards to the preventing of addiction: I refer you to the US prison system.

Cops should be held to a higher standard since they are enforcing the law, but that does not make the claim that cops do not care about human rights any less ridiculous.

The only one swallowing is you, swallowing a conspiracy theory that does not even begin to make sense. The government profits by wasting money on drug enforcement, that doesn't work, while imprisoning 2% of its tax base? ... They collect taxes. They print money. They don't need a scheme. They need US citizens to be productive. The fact that someone is making money off "the way it is" is no big surprise; private prisons have been a growing industry recently and everyone who started prohibition is dead, so you obviously there must be a solid link between the two.

The same people in your conspiracy world would make money selling you heroin too, but in reality the government does not think you pay as much in taxes. That is why there is no conspiracy, it is more straight forward and to the point.

Prisons hold drug users and they smuggle in drugs. Can you prove whatever point you are trying to make here?

 

[drug_mentor]

As I understand it, opioids are not really toxic to any appreciable extent, that is not to say there are not a good number of dangers associated with their use but this does not equate to toxicity. They are addictive substances, and an overdose resulting in death is certainly possible, however, most opioid overdoses tend to cause death by means of respiratory depression or people choking on their own vomit, that is not the same as a drugs toxicity causing death. Perhaps I am wrong, but I have always understood opioids to be one of the gentler classes of drugs on the body and mind, generally speaking.

Where did I say that opioids or injectables were not responsible for harm? You are putting words in my mouth, no sane person would argue either of those things, the issue is that people use opioids and injectables regardless of legislation against it or other measures to stop it, by adding in EXTRA elements of danger like the presence of considerable amounts of APAP with an opioid, or things that are very unhealthy for peoples veins being put into tablets people like to inject as a deterrent, the overall harms associated with drug use is increased substantially where the impact on the use of these drugs is probably negligible, which makes it a bad idea that has hurt a lot of people over the years.

I also never argued that paracetamol is a less safe alternative for pain relief than opioids, you really like twisting peoples arguments to make yours look better don't you. There is a big difference between saying opioids are safer than APAP and saying that opioid medications would be safer for a lot of the users if they did not also contain APAP, look at the damage many people do to their organs through addictions to a drug as mild as codeine in places where it is OTC if formulated with APAP or ibuprofen for obvious proof this is the case.
`
Even if you did want to argue the presence of APAP in these opioid formulations DID prevent addiction, when addiction is still occurring in a considerable percentage of the population, is it really a fair trade off to say we will prevent X amount of people from becoming addicts, but fuck up the organs of Y amount of people that will inevitably become addicted? Not in my book it isn't, and who should have the authority to make that sort of decision about everybody else's health any way, it is a total bullshit justification and the truth is that shit is in there for no other reason than to punish pleasure seekers due to a misguided belief that Governments seem to have that drug use is a moral issue.

Would you not agree that freedom from persecution is a basic human right? If so then I would think that the freedom to use drugs without a Government imposing legal consequences on you due to an irrational objection to your desire to seek intoxication falls into this category...

 

[derr1ck]

was expensive but i had fire last night, had my ears ringing. everything is around and always will be imo. anything worth money will always find a way.

 

[bit_pattern]

That is my theory, prove me wrong.

OK.

The ENTIRE argument relies on illicit drugs being harmless to anyone not doing them. Everything relies on that one point.

Not so

http://www.bluelight.org/vb/threads...-use-drugs?p=12106013&viewfull=1#post12106013

QED.

I do not see it being proven that drugs being illegal is a source of more harm than good

Tell that to people in Juarez. Or Medellin. Or Karachi etc etc etc

Smoking bans work. Where it is banned harm and use reduces. Does this not prove prohibitive drug laws work?

No, it just shifts the problem elsewhere. Now, instead of smoking in the workplace, you get hordes of office workers huddling in doorways and alleys and instead of their colleagues being put in harms way it is the people on the street who have to walk through the plumes of smoke.

Interesting that you raise smoking because tobacco is the ONLY recreational drug where usage rates have declined over recent decades. It's exactly *because* tobacco is a drug that is produced, sold and consumed within the confines of legal structure that efforts to restrict its use have been so successful. Health authorities have been able tightly regulate the market; the way it is sold, who it is sold to, the way that it is promoted and who it is promoted to, the price that it is sold at etc. etc. etc. When you make something illegal all off that is out of reach to the authorities, there is no way of controlling it.

 

[_DankOpiAmp_]

With levamisole along with cocaine's ridiculous price and short effect length, it's no wonder. Methamphetamine can be almost pure in crystal form, lasts many times longer and is more euphoric. Bath salts are dirt cheap if that's too taboo for you and pharmaceutical stimulants fill the void in between. Cocaine has simply gone from glamorous to pointless.

 

[pmoseman]

No, it just shifts the problem elsewhere. Now, instead of smoking in the workplace, you get hordes of office workers huddling in doorways and alleys and instead of their colleagues being put in harms way it is the people on the street who have to walk through the plumes of smoke.

Interesting that you raise smoking because tobacco is the ONLY recreational drug where usage rates have declined over recent decades. It's exactly *because* tobacco is a drug that is produced, sold and consumed within the confines of legal structure that efforts to restrict its use have been so successful. Health authorities have been able tightly regulate the market; the way it is sold, who it is sold to, the way that it is promoted and who it is promoted to, the price that it is sold at etc. etc. etc. When you make something illegal all off that is out of reach to the authorities, there is no way of controlling it.

It does not just shift the problem elsewhere, it lowers smoking
http://www.nber.org/papers/w5567.
Putting smoke outside obviously is less of a problem than having it inside.

The rules of a workplace is dictated by employers, not health authorities. This does not have anything to do with controlling production or sale price of tobacco.

Legal drugs have higher usage rates than illegal drugs, even in underage populations http://sadd.org/stats.htm.
There is that one time in that one study, http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/06/11/study-more-teens-smoking-pot-than-cigarettes/.
Overall, the pattern discredits your theory that regulation decreases usage until some magic horizon where it suddenly becomes a huge problem.

... you are putting words in my mouth...

Because this is exactly what your argument requires and it is exactly what you are saying. You completely assume the damage done by preventative measures is more of a problem than a solution.

Not so

In this thread, yes. What you sent me to is another thread with the same arguments.

 

[neversickanymore]

Where are you getting this particular info from? It makes sense, but I just don't understand how statistics like that can even begin to be gathered.

sorry i didn't see this.. but this is just from what I have seen and noticed with people I know and people I have come in contact with. It really seems to be pretty common these days.

Smoking bans work. Where it is banned harm and use reduces. Does this not prove prohibitive drug laws work?

No this means that smoking bans are working. Also this isn't really prohibition. It restricts were people can smoke. I think this would be an acceptable compromise though, we stop getting arrested and exploited and we will purchase our drugs at a store and will not use them in certain Banned public locations. I dont speak for everyone but Im all good with this.

The black market sells stolen children. Should we make that legal? Think of all the harm being done by forcing child abductees underground. We could make 3x the profit per child and that could go toward fixing up schools. It is not like everyone is going to start abducting kids, just the same ones who get away with it now and continue sexual assaults in prison and after getting out. Prison does not work.

With point like this i some how think you are just trying to irritate me or get me doing more logic. I will let you logic out and see your mistakes here. No we should not just have a free market for everything that is on the black market. The selling of children and the drug trade are completely different things even though they both happen on a black market. But really this made me smile as all this is the classic emotional plea for an argument. The reason it made me smile is I hadn't yet seen a "think of the children" in this form. These are different things and just because there is a good argument for ending the law enforcement war against drug users and addicts, and I think this is clearly the case, it does not mean that I want everything that is sold on black market to be allowed to be sold in a legit market. Also the sale or trade in people is wrong on a fundamental level. This is a true criminal activity. And since I feel that the current "drug war" with its large financial gains, made buy prison and jail industry , lawyers, prosecutors, probation officers, drug testing, court monitoring, bail bondman, are all businesses that currently trade, in varying degrees in a trade of human lives. This criminal in nature, because the profit greatly of the control and destruction of peoples lives who aren't criminal. So there may be allot more support with these industries for the legalization of sale in humans with them than us as they seem to belive this trade is acceptable. I would be in no way in favor of legalizing human trafficking in any fashion let alone children.

We are sick of being compared and grouped with criminals. Drug use is not a crime and the sale pharmaceutical graded drugs to adults should not be either. The sale of stolen children is criminal. Crimes committed that involve people on drugs are criminal. Criminals commit crimes. Some criminals use drugs. Some non criminals use drugs. Law enforcement should be dealing with the criminals, both the Drug using criminals and the non drug using criminals. Because we are in favor of legalized drug use does not mean we are in favor of crime.

Taking drugs is still not a human right.

Most things have a negative side.. industry has pollution, high speed travel is dangerous, etc. but we allow these things to go on and we address the problems instead of makeing them illegal. So why is not it a human right to choose to ingest drugs. What qualifies something to be a legitimate human right? I mean what in your mind would something need to have or be about to be a human right?

It makes absolutely no difference if something appears on the surface to be natural. Rape is natural. People been doin' that since before language was invented.

I guess I dont see your point here. Are you saying that we should not legalize drugs because rape is natural but a crime, and drug use is natural as well but not a crime? You do realize that we in favor of legal drugs and aren't criminals, dont want or promote real crime. Many of us have even stated that it would be a good thing against crime if resources and man power could be shifted to the real crime. Like let the guy out of jail, who was given nine years for personal possession of herion after he was stopped for speeding on his way to work, and keep the guy who beat his grandmother to death with garden tool in jail longer than the five years he got. If your worried about crime then I would focus on the criminals.

The effect of drug use is harmful if users become victims of dependency or choose to abuse drugs rather than something worthwhile.

This is stereotypical and subjective. The picture you are drawing off and the picture you are promoting does not represent a true on of drug users. "worth while" is very subjective, what is worth while. this is getting pretty desperate considering all the absolutely worthless shit people spend huge portions of their live doing. If we are going to start making things illegal on the basis of what is deemed "worth while" then holy man do I have a bunch that should be criminalized tomorrow. Here are a few.. the home shopping network, mindless board games, 2/3 of the current grade school and high school curriculum, lawns and lawn mowing, day time tv, actually 95% of all tv, huge chunk of the internet, fast food, tractor pulls, romance novel, professional bowling and darts, naming stars, all the militaries in the world, christmas trees, all small scale college athletics. What is worth while can not be used very effectively as justification for something or against something as it is so subjective and since the world is filled to the brim with things or activities where a good argument could be made foe it to be considered useless. So if you consider drug use to be useless then why are these allowed and not the use of drugs? We all have different views on what useless.. I might think that women's college shot put is worthless, the school that is forced to pay for it because of the college athletic laws may think it worthless as it drains money and adds none, but im pretty sure that the women who compete in it find it quite worthwhile. also i have done so many amazing things with my time and a ton of drugs.. why did I not get high and sit around.. because I chose not to.. this is the same a blaming the grass jonny smokes for little johnny bad grades and lack of motivation.. could it be that little johnny just isn't that smart or is choosing not to put any effort in and is choosing to be lazy and this is just a scapegoat that little johnny and his parent use to avoid facing the truth. We in america are really god at scapegoats and quick fixes to try and fix things with out having to see, acknowledge, or fix the real problem. It never our faults and there always has to be an easy way. well on some things there just isn't an easy way and we need to take responsibility for our lives and actions.

Yes, this is being told what is in your best interest. Like the government does when it requires you wear safety glasses at work.

Pretty sure this law was aimed at the employers, making sure that the proper safety equipment and practices were taught and available for workers. Some greedy people have a tendency to exploit people for their own gain. it can take the form of not providing proper safety equipment or conditions because the implementation of these would cost the company money or rounding up users and addicts and stealing their money, locking them up with no treatment in often dangerous places, for personal gain. Yeah your right the government needs to step in many times and prevent the exploitation of people. hopefully it will do it soon on the drug war.

The ENTIRE argument relies on illicit drugs being harmless to anyone not doing them. Everything relies on that one point.

Are factories harmless to everyone who doesn't use their products, are air planes harmless to everyone who doesn't fly, are herds of cattle harmless to all who dont eat meat, are religions harmless to all those who dont practice, are cars harmless to people who dont use them, is the internet harmless to those who dont use it, is junk food harmless to those who dont eat it, Is the drug war harmless to people who aren't involved.

On the surface, if you do not think about it too long, it seems all other crimes involve harming others, except using drugs. So every debate requires an explanation of why drugs are illegal. The selling of drugs harms others, so that fits with other illegal activities and by the law of participation in a crime, the buying of drugs would also be illegal. Real tricky to understand. Had to point that out did I?

We are alive on earth pmosemkan. so we are going to get harmed. the way we are going to get harmed should be our descion. Selling fast food harms people so it should be crime then. The selling of cars harms people so this should be a crime. drinking alcohol harms people so we have another crime. Breaking up with a lover harms them so we must make this illegal, contact sports harm people, TV harms people, dairy products harm people, militaries harm people, candy harms people, red meat harms people, the sun harms people, sking harms people, dirt bikes harm people, sex harms people.. man we are going to be busy saving everyone from harm

I said it before Pmose.. filtered tap water and raw vegetables for me as the measure of a good life is how long, safe and boring, you can make it. Just going to sit in this room and have my vegetables delivered to me. Not going to take any chances.. I think I may be able to live forever if I dont leave this safe room.

To make certain each individual user is not dealing would be impractical and since nobody sees the real benefit of drug use and there is that whole dependency problem, they nixed it.

sure are allot of people doing something that has no benefit, wonder why this is? How does the current system address addiction and dependency.. oh yeah it cuts them off from their medications and throws them to the street to score the drugs they need where the legal system fighting the never ending, keep themselves in the money, drug war arrest them and throw them in jail or prison. an untreated drug addict will still be a drug addict upon release from being "corrected" by the system. But in reality why would they want to truly address this issue. We will pretend there is no problem and get rich by locking these people away. The we will release them with a record that makes it almost impossible to join back in with society.. further fuck with them by doing a couple of parole holds where we rip them out of whatever pathetic life we have allowed them to squander and throw them back in jail just for good measure.. But we know where many of them will be eventually, filling the squad cars, courtrooms, jails, prisons, lawyers offices, work programs, community service projects, tent cities, funding the sweet giant money making scam we have been running for over forty years.

I mean this is gravy. Since most drug users aren't criminals and we mostly deal with grass users, these people are easy to catch and not dangerous to deal with. Hell we just go out and look for a broken tail light and run dogs around people cars. then cuff and stuff them off to the money machine.. tell the public we need more money to protect their kids from the evils of drugs.. shit we got it made..

There is never much money in a cure, but tons of it in a system designed to keep people cycling trough and keeping that cash flowing to all the people who are making fortunes and livings of this trade in human lives.

That is my theory, prove me wrong.

psmoseman I have given you many of the reasons I think for ending the war on drugs. So I guess at this point I would love to hear why we should continue the war on drugs. Id love to hear why we should keep doing this. Some things that show positive results would be amazing and please no promises that you have a plan that will work in the future, after all they have had 40 years and a trillion dollars. So i think it well past the we got a new plan stage. Oh and I mean positive results for the world, society, users, and addicts.. not the financial gains of the legal system. Results not intentions.. cause I have heard enough of the removal of drugs and their ills from society.. It was a noble goal with the best interests of society in mind, but since it has been 40 years and Im pretty damn sure that drug use has climbed and is still climbing despite the well intentioned destruction of so many Lives, families, neighborhoods, and whole countries. So if you can keep as littel of the unaccomplished idealistic goals and out of the justifications and load up on actual accomplishment people my see that this war is just a failure and not one of the biggest failures in of all war.

You keep using the idea that drugs can harm people and such as justification of the drug war.. you say this like the war prevents drugs or drug use. A person cant use a goal as justification after the policies and approach have failed for 40 years. It kinda like trying to fly over and over on a bicycle, shit yeah flying on a bike would be awesome, but after failure after failure a person has to come to the conclusion that they aren't going to fly unless something changes.

Also I want to reiterate that I am the last person who id blind to the negative effects that drugs can have on society and people. But these consequences are still happening and this system failed. The desire to accomplish an impossible goal does not justify continuing a failed approach that has significant unintended consequences to the public and users and addicts. It time for something different cause this is insanity, exploitation, and denial.

 

[pmoseman]

This is stereotypical and subjective.

That drug use is a pass time activity?
The government makes you wear safety glasses.
The government prohibits drug use because it causes dependency and has undiscernible benefits, it is written into the laws. Look it up and look up what human rights means, it is not based on my opinion.
You have no evidence showing drug use is not associated with crime, yet marijauna use has been found to cause an increase in property crime and crime for profit. Not even the point I was trying to make, however. I was highlighting how crazy the pro logic is, that it can be applied to almost anything and is presented always without any factual evidence to support it, by using it to prove child molestation should be legal and I was also pointing out how things being natural does not imply them being good.
You have no evidence for your claims that decreasing prohibition decreases drug harm, but I have evidence that prohibition decreases use, as evidenced by smoking bans and national averages of illicit drug use compared to legal and prescription drugs.
You have presented no objective way of comparing your long list of harmful activities and picture me as some sort of prude; it is just a random list and your characterization of me is wrong.

 

[bit_pattern]

It does not just shift the problem elsewhere, it lowers smoking
http://www.nber.org/papers/w5567.
Putting smoke outside obviously is less of a problem than having it inside.

Sure, OK, but that only reinforces my actual argument - which you've conveniently ignored - is that the very successful tobacco control measures would be impossible to implement if tobacco weren't a legal drug. If people hid their tobacco usage in the way they do other drugs then there would be little that authorites could do to change their behaviour in this way.

The rules of a workplace is dictated by employers, not health authorities.

I don't know what the laws are like where you live but that is most definitely NOT true of where I am from. It is illegal to smoke in a workplace, period. Workplaces didn't just suddenly decide to ban smoking out of the sheer benevolence of the business owner, if I were a business owner I would have much preferred to keep people puffing away at their desks than popping out ever hour or two for a ten minute smoke break and the loss of productivity that entails.

Legal drugs have higher usage rates than illegal drugs, even in underage populations http://sadd.org/stats.htm.
There is that one time in that one study, http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/06/11/study-more-teens-smoking-pot-than-cigarettes/.
Overall, the pattern discredits your theory that regulation decreases usage until some magic horizon where it suddenly becomes a huge problem.

Yet smoking rates among adolescents has been in a long term decline for decades now. Why is that? Simple, an effective public health policy that used the markets and the fact that health authorities had some semblance of control over the market, regulation could actually be applied. If you don't regulate something, you can't control it.

I'd also point out that you're particularly hung up on the impact of drug markets on the demand side while completely ignoring massively disproportionate done by the illegal drug markets in source countries. The wars, the violence, the crop spraying, the destabilisation of smuggling-route countries, the near collapse of the rule of law in Mexico etc etc etc

I could not give one shit about the welfare of entitled young westerners fucking their lives up on drugs and still mount a very convincing case as to how the benefits of legalising the drug trade would outweigh the costs by oders of magnitude.

Because this is exactly what your argument requires and it is exactly what you are saying. You completely assume the damage done by preventative measures is more of a problem than a solution.

I'm pretty sure I've already offered you an argument that does NOT rely on that premise - it relies the laws of supply and demand and the drug trade is immensely destabilising that threatens the rule-of-law and even the sovereignty of nation-states. All of that can be eliminated in one fell-swoop by simply bringing drug markets back under the legal umbrella

In this thread, yes. What you sent me to is another thread with the same arguments.

Nooo, it was a post with a *different* argument that does NOT rely on drugs being harmless. You should try reading it sometime *nods*

 

[Thorns Have Roses]

If the drug war is succeeding, why are we seeing in exponential increase in "designer" (RC) and prescription drug abuse, especially opiates (including H)? I guess we just gotta fix them like we did cocaine, no way people are simply changing their preference from one drug to another. That'd be silly.

Meth is even nastier than crack, so it tends to have a quicker up and down.

Really? I've met a number of long-term meth users (folks in their forties or whatevs) who, while not as functional as long term opiate-addicts can be, still manage to get by all right and interact pleasantly with normal folk. Whereas the crack users I've met are all crazy sketch and bad at hiding how off their rocker they are. I concede that this is anecdotal, and the 909 is meth country so there is a larger pool of users to meet, so my views may be skewed.