• Welcome Guest

    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
    Fun 💃 Threads Overdosed? Click
    D R U G   C U L T U R E

The arguement of decrimalization of hard drugs causing larger problems is so ignorant

GodandLove said:
That's the stupidest thing I've ever seen come from your screen name OTW.

"Deter smart members of society from becoming addicts"? That doesn't even make sense. If they were smart why would they need laws to deter them in the first place? Deeerrrrr duhhhhh

Use your brain OTW.

God, you can be so stupid sometimes.


Now, onto the actual topic of discussion.

Of course drugs should be decriminalized. This is a no brainier. And contrary to what our pal OTW thinks, the penalties actually exist to deter competition and to create a monopoly on the drug game. Laws have nothing to do with deterring drug use or drug manufacturing. Drugs are and forever will be a HIGH DEMAND commodity. Politicians and Big Pharma knows this. Hell, everyone knows this. Laws are in place to maximize profits on all fronts.

The last thing drug companies like Purdue Pharma wants is someone hombrewing Heroin in the basement. That would get in the way of it's profits, If everyone's homebrewing heroin how in the hell are they going to sale their patented oxycodone? The thing about heroin is, it's VERY VERY cheap and VERY VERY EASY to manufacture. If it were legal or decriminalized the price of street heroin would be about 6 dollars a gram. That's where the Government comes in though. With it's legislative powers it can criminalize heroin increasing it's value 100 fold. Because it's a "Hot product" this allows criminals and drug lords whom are often controlled by the various shadow bodies of Government to upmarket the price. While Big pharma is reaping maximum profits from the pharmaceutical game because drugs like heroin are illegal, big government is secretly reaping maximum profits from the illicit drug trade and because these substances are illegal they control the profit margin.
Click to expand...

Yes, yes, and more yes. Not to mention the for profit prisons that make money off keeping people locked up. And every job at the DEA that depends on continuing this farcical drug war.
 
Okay I looked at the Portugal link and all it said was they decriminalized drugs and vowed to treat users, but there was no explanation of how decriminalization actually differs from legalization or what any of their penalties are (because clearly they must have SOME or they drugs would be legal).

And while I understand the point that legalization allows the government to profit off of addicts and jack up the prices of drugs while decriminalization doesn't, I still don't really understand what the differences are between legalization and decriminalization.


I guess the point is that if drugs are decriminalized then some how the black market is allowed to keep operating with their drug sales rather than government selling drugs.

Fine.


But where I get confused is that if decriminalization is obviously "less" legal than legalization, IN WHAT WAYS is it "less legal"?

Who ends up being arrested and what for and what do the penalties end up being for them?

Because if decriminalization means that drug users or drug dealers can still be thrown in prison for years or even fined really excessive amounts of money then how is that still not a problem??
 
Mycophile said:
Okay I looked at the Portugal link and all it said was they decriminalized drugs and vowed to treat users, but there was no explanation of how decriminalization actually differs from legalization or what any of their penalties are (because clearly they must have SOME or they drugs would be legal).

And while I understand the point that legalization allows the government to profit off of addicts and jack up the prices of drugs while decriminalization doesn't, I still don't really understand what the differences are between legalization and decriminalization.


I guess the point is that if drugs are decriminalized then some how the black market is allowed to keep operating with their drug sales rather than government selling drugs.

Fine.


But where I get confused is that if decriminalization is obviously "less" legal than legalization, IN WHAT WAYS is it "less legal"?

Who ends up being arrested and what for and what do the penalties end up being for them?

Because if decriminalization means that drug users or drug dealers can still be thrown in prison for years or even fined really excessive amounts of money then how is that still not a problem??
Click to expand...

Decriminalization means that "small time" users and possessors of said drug wont be prosecuted or will not serve time but rather pay a ticket or fine. Small time user/possessor meaning you only possess a personal quantity of said drug without intention to distribute. Decriminalization does not protect people who manufacture or who sell/distribute or who possess large quantities of said drug, those that fall into this category are subject to the full extent of the law, meaning they will still be tried and or prosecuted.

Decriminalization is about allowing addicts to use their drugs in peace, so to speak. Not only that, but there are varying levels of decriminalization.

Hypothetically in a scenario where drugs are decriminalized, let's say you have about 20 dollars worth of cocaine on you and you're stopped by the police.

Depending on the the state or countries bylaws it can go down a number of ways.

One, the cops find the cocaine see that it's a personal amount and say and do absolutely nothing and allow you to walk away with the cocaine in hand.

or

Two, the cops find the cocaine, confiscate it, give you a little speech about how drugs are bad blah blah, and send you on your merry way.

or

Three, the cops find the cocaine, confiscate it, give you a little speech about how drugs are bad blah blah, and write you a ticket for being in possession of cocaine before sending you on your way.

Now lets say you have 3 oz of cocaine on you, regardless of the drug being decriminalized, because you have such a large amount you are going to be subject to the full extent of the law.

That's how decriminalization works.

Legality on the other hand, well that's a different story. Again depending on the bylaws, legality is pretty much decriminalization with benefits. If that makes sense to you. When something is legal It can be bought and or sold.

Drugs like heroin being legal, very unlikely.

Decriminalized however, that's something I see it being in the near future.
 
^^^^^

See, with what you describe I STILL have a problem with decriminalization for a few reasons even though other posters may be saying that it's better than legalization.

First--I disagree with drug users getting ANY penalties, be it a small fine, ticket or not for ANY small possession of drug user or a police officer being allowed to confiscate your drugs, because a law like that basically supports the idea that possession of drugs is still "wrong" when I don't believe it is.

If you can buy and drink alcohol openly you should be able to do the same with other drugs.


Second--Isn't it left somewhat open to the cop's discretion what he wants to do. If he feels like being an asshole he can still probably give you a SERIOUSLY hard time just for having a small amount of weed or coke and I disagree with that. You should be allowed to have it and that should be that.

Likewise, isn't it somewhat up to the discretion of judges and other people in high positions if they wish to throw someone in prison even for a small 'decriminalized" amount of a drug?

If it's a fine to have $50 worth of weed are you going to tell me that a corrupt judge or another corrupt person in a high position might not decide they want to crack down on someone and just say they had a larger amount and throw them in jail?

3rd---This is the most important one...Why should a person who sells a few pounds of weed or a few pounds of shrooms go to prison for 5, 10...20 some-odd years when it's not In my opinion Morally wrong to sell or possess drugs?!?!!

I just can't support ANYONE going to prison for selling ANY amount of drugs any more than I can't support anyone going to prison for selling massive quantities of alcohol.

No matter how you look at it decriminalization still ends up meaning that there are people going to prison for selling or possessing large amounts of drugs and I still disagree with that.

There will still be people losing many years of their lives for doing things which aren't inherently wrong in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Have any of you pin heads even lived in Portugal? I can assure you while it may seem like a junkies utopia the reality of decriminalisation is very different. Organised crime not only exists, it actually thrives. Rather than running drugs in large amounts, vulnerable stooges are used to traffic and deal. Ghettos exist, and while healthcare for addicts is a great improvement on what was there before, reducing levels of addiction and diseases such as HIV from an already embarrassing high rate is hardly that impressive. While initially you saw a decrease in drug problems from a staggering high rate, since 2005 you have seen a gradual increase in not only drug related deaths but also drug related violence, particularly murder.

It's nice to see a positive results from decriminalisation, statistics are very much misleading when you actually live there. If you want to compare the opposite approach try Sweden who enforce zero tolerance.

A report by the UNODC praised Sweden for having one of the lowest drug usage rates in the western world, and attributes this to a drug policy that invests heavily in prevention and treatment (including free community services), as well as in strict law enforcement
Click to expand...

While not perfect, if you were to compare Portugal to Sweden on a simple per capita basis, Portugal still has a significantly higher number of problematic drug users.

This report comparing the two countries is interesting when you look at the hard data of actual numbers of drug issues, not cherry picking statistical trends.

http://www.academia.edu/1925564/Portugal_and_Sweden_A_Tale_of_Two_Drug_Policies
 
The bottom line is that the drug war, at least in the U.S., has failed. Are you really trying to say that prohibition has worked in any way? At least if they were legal we would be able to know what we are getting instead of ultimately getting unknown quantities of unknown drugs. And I agree with mycophile, making laws against drug use/trade assumes that there is something inherently bad/wrong about doing drugs. Drug use doesn't hurt anyone directly, other than maybe the person who is doing it, and that is their choice. The indirect harm that can come to people from other people using drugs only exists because of prohibition.

Weed is legal in Colorado, Oregon and DC. Those places haven't erupted into anarchic chaos so I really don't think drug legalization is the world ending idea you seem to think it is.

If you need some arguments from people who are on the front lines of the drug war I suggest you visit the LEAP (law enforcement against prohibition) website.

P.s. He basically concludes in that study (which is basically just a power point by some no name professor) that the effects of legalization have been nuanced but generally positive so I don't see exactly how it helps your point. No one is claiming legalization will solve all problems relating to addiction and use. He actually concludes that the restrictive policies in Sweden did not lead to a reduction in use.
 
pinpoint said:
If one wants to make an argument for decriminalization one need only look to the quintessential example that is Portugal.
Click to expand...

Yep. Portugal have done good, and crime rates fallen and all.

Whole drug thing is a catch 22 one of the biggest businesses in the world and the government are 100% making profit and 'destroying' the kilo's that they confiscate.

Society is fucked, but hell if Bluelight became the government we'd have a great time but the human race would be fucked, no offense to anyone (BTW).

that chart, of harm caused by drugs, obviouslsy alcohol will be top, its the cheapest most easily available drug world wide.

this world is beyond repair IMO. Lets walk hand in hand into extinction, let the dolphins and monkeys have a crack at it. haha
 
Spot on again jcdenton. Addiction is not a problem of society, it is a symptom of a problem.

We should also consider the roots of drug prohibition. It's not simply a vestige of america's Puritan beginnings, or else alcohol and tobacco would be illegal as well. Alcohol and tobacco are legal because they were already firmly established in western culture. The drug prohibitionist mindset came from engrained racism and xenophobia, particularly during the Mcarthy era of the 50s. Marijuana, opium, and cocaine were viewed as foreign influences that would corrupt the purity of white America. The list goes on too, cathinone from the khat tree in the Middle East, ibogaine from Africa.

These are threats to te economic and governmental power structures already in place, it's not about protecting individuals or even society at large, it's about maintaining control of the populace.
 
jcdenton said:
The bottom line is that the drug war, at least in the U.S., has failed. Are you really trying to say that prohibition has worked in any way? At least if they were legal we would be able to know what we are getting instead of ultimately getting unknown quantities of unknown drugs. And I agree with mycophile, making laws against drug use/trade assumes that there is something inherently bad/wrong about doing drugs. Drug use doesn't hurt anyone directly, other than maybe the person who is doing it, and that is their choice. The indirect harm that can come to people from other people using drugs only exists because of prohibition.

Weed is legal in Colorado, Oregon and DC. Those places haven't erupted into anarchic chaos so I really don't think drug legalization is the world ending idea you seem to think it is.

If you need some arguments from people who are on the front lines of the drug war I suggest you visit the LEAP (law enforcement against prohibition) website.

P.s. He basically concludes in that study (which is basically just a power point by some no name professor) that the effects of legalization have been nuanced but generally positive so I don't see exactly how it helps your point. No one is claiming legalization will solve all problems relating to addiction and use. He actually concludes that the restrictive policies in Sweden did not lead to a reduction in use.
Click to expand...
You only have to look at the last graph to see that Portugal still has almost double the number of drug related prisoners. Saying portugals decriminisation experiment has been a success is like saying the war in Iraq was a success. If you track the overall trends in Sweden since 1950 you can't argue against its overall effectiveness. I have lived for extended periods of time in both countries and I can assure you Portugal is not the society I see as the better role model.
 
One Thousand Words said:
You only have to look at the last graph to see that Portugal still has almost double the number of drug related prisoners. Saying portugals decriminisation experiment has been a success is like saying the war in Iraq was a success. If you track the overall trends in Sweden since 1950 you can't argue against its overall effectiveness. I have lived for extended periods of time in both countries and I can assure you Portugal is not the society I see as the better role model.
Click to expand...

Regardless of whether or not drug use is increased or decreased by any laws, I still see criminalization of drugs as being wrong.

People should have the right to put into their bodies what they wish so long as they aren't directly harming others in my opinion.

And this statement you made is still wrong and unfair in my opinion "The penalties exist to deter the smart members of society from becoming an addict. Laws do nothing to prevent the 10% of idiots who head down this road."


So all of the people that end up addicted to drugs are "stupid" now??

What about all the highly intelligent people who have become addicts?

It's just clearly flat out false to say this.

And we all know that isn't why the penalties exist, they exist because at various points in time law makers decided that drug use was somehow immoral, wrong or dangerous (the latter is sometimes true but the former are not) and the laws were set and that was that.

Not to mention that I don't personally think that those law makers cared about the addicts themselves or were trying to do them any kind of service but rather they just thought that addiction caused violence and worse crimes which in actuality I still think that more crime is created by them being illegal.

Even if Portugal is a good model and Sweden a bad one America has more crime than either most likely and has illegal drugs so neither is the best argument.

The laws don't work anyway and that's just the honest truth.

There aren't probably many fewer addicts in America because of the laws, people just find ways around them or if they obey them at all they choose to become addicted to alcohol instead of illegal substances which is often worse.

Addicts aren't necessarily "stupid" because they are addicts and the laws aren't really there to protect them from their own stupidity or they would be based on THERAPY and putting addicts in hospitals rather than prisons where they could get help and be less likely to revert to further crime when they get out again.

Instead addicts are shoved in prison with violent criminals and come out worse than they started off and not a damn one of the laws that put them there is at all aimed at preventing their "stupidity" in terms of HELPING the addict but rather based on puritanical hundred years old laws that decided that drug use was wrong and anyone who was going to indulge should actually be PUNISHED for it.

 
Last edited:
The best thing an addict can do for themselves is give up drugs. The majority of drug users out there are not abusers. Some people are cut out for drug use, some aren't. I stand by my statement that you can't legislate positively or negatively for those 10% who get into trouble by coming addicted.

The rest of us aren't bothered either way by drug laws
 
One Thousand Words said:
The rest of us aren't bothered either way by drug laws
Click to expand...

This is simply not true. There are plenty of people who do not use drugs who are either against the drug laws or actively fighting against them (for example, LEAP, which I mentioned previously). There are plenty of ways that the drug laws/war negatively effect all citizens, the money spent on it just being one example.

Could you be any more wrong about the things you say?
 
One Thousand Words said:
The best thing an addict can do for themselves is give up drugs. The majority of drug users out there are not abusers. Some people are cut out for drug use, some aren't. I stand by my statement that you can't legislate positively or negatively for those 10% who get into trouble by coming addicted.

The rest of us aren't bothered either way by drug laws
Click to expand...

How about every person that has ever used an illegal substance that ISN'T an addict but has somehow been arrested or seen his friends arrested?

The guy who smokes weed with his friends on the weekends occassionally but doesn't really do it that often and has been arrested for buying a small bag?

The guy who eats some shrooms once a year and is caught and thrown in prison?

The guy who occassionally does a couple lines of coke like twice a year and is caught and thrown in prison?

I mean man, are you even really thinking about what you are saying??

There are TONS of users out there who are not addicts and just like to occassionally get high who do not in any way need to give up substances who have been arrested and thrown in jail.
 
Mycophile you simply live in the wrong country. No one I know has ever been arrested for smoking a spliff, let alone seen jail time. The worst any of my friends have experience is a driving ticket after failing a roadside drug test, which doesnt even carry a criminal conviction. Besides this thread isn't about cannabis, which is a soft benign drug, the title clearly states hard drugs, which given the junkie out cry to my original statement would mean heroin.

You should travel to colombia or Afghanistan and witness wide scale hard drug use at its most socially destructive. The cost in healthcare in these poor countries should be a warning to any American who believes that the rest of your tax payer base would be happy to fund your habit free of charge. The term functioning addict is a pipe dream.

Typically most junkies go through several predictable stages. There is the weekend chipper, followed by the mid week chipper, where the honeymoon creates the belief that I can quit at any time. Next comes the habit, maybe every second day, I'm in control but God help you if I have to wait 45 min for my dealer to arrive. Then you will either choose the path of losing everything and end up on the street, or fighting tooth and nail to maintain your job and social network while dosing every day. It's usually this stage where the delusion of all your problems existing because of the laws of the land appears. You argue that you should be free to decide your own fate, only you can't actually see the noose that has enveloped your soul. You are no longer free, whether The Man left you alone or not. You are a slave to your drug, and unless you happen to go off grid and support yourself without the rest of societies assistence, you become a selfish drain on the community. You are never as productive at work as you think you are.

It's usually at this stage you want off the ride. You seek maintainence drugs such as methadone or subs, which for a while make you feel normal. You start to think that if you were only given free reign on your habit, you could function better, more efficient, be welcome back into society again. Only you are not free, you are still a slave. You realise this when your friends invite you on holiday, and you do a quick head count and dread the thought of not being able to access your medicine for ten days on a tropical resort. The weather prevents you from reaching your doctors appointment or you injure yourself and scream that no one cares because your tolerance to pain meds is shot, and they can't prescribe anything to fix you. Your kids ask you to drive them and their friends to the shops, but you know you are too high and it is irresponsible to drive some one else's kids in that condition. It's not the man or his laws that are holding you back now, it's your addiction and the side effects of being addicted.

Finally if you are lucky you free yourself from your noose and drugs are ruined forever. You become a boring sober crusader who tells anyone who will listen about the evils of hard drug noose.

I'm sure most junkies reading that will recognise whatever stage they are at. My guess the loudest voices in this thread are at the blaming the man stage. My experience is though the number who go from chipping to addiction is small, less than 10%. Opening the floodgates to these drugs will not improve their lives, in fact it creates a whole other series of issues that I touched on.
 
^^^^^

Ok well I guess the issue of Hard drug use is still much harder than I had admitted and it's true that I haven't seen a lot of what you are talking about but I must ask you do you believe that even the worst of hard drug addicts should actually be thrown in PRISON for years on end, sometimes a significant portion of their lives for harming no one other than themselves (at least not DIRECTLY) rather than getting help for their problem??

I mean, don't you agree that addiction should be a HEALTH issue and not a Legal one??

Even IF I were to be convinced that hardcore heroin usage should be illegal (I STILL don't) I'd see the penalty as being something along the lines of being forcibly locked in a hospital and made to undergo treatment WITHOUT it EVER going on your record, WITHOUT being subject to ANY kind of punishment (other than not being allowed to leave until treatment is up) and NOT having to be around hardened criminals who have murdered and raped people.

Do you really see Heroin and hard drug addiction as being a CRIME someone should be PUNISHED for by being thrown in prison for 5, 10, 25 years with murderers and rapists??

At the VERY least it should be seen along the same lines as someone who is suicidal and needs help but never should they be viewed as CRIMINALS and had their lives destroyed by spending a significant portion in prison and having it go on your record so employers won't hire you.

I still think even with all you've said that people should still be allowed to use hard drugs though as I just see it as immoral not allowing people to do what they want with their own bodies, but like I said...IF I were going to support any drug being illegal I'd support forced hospitalization not prison.

How it can it POSSIBLY be right to throw an addict in prison for years on end just cause he wanted to get high??
 
Who exactly is being thrown in jail for years just for being an addict? No one I know. Usually you are thrown in jail for burglary or assault to feed a habit or trafficking large amounts. These crimes should deserve jail time whether drug use was decriminalised or not.
 
One Thousand Words said:
Who exactly is being thrown in jail for years just for being an addict? No one I know. Usually you are thrown in jail for burglary or assault to feed a habit or trafficking large amounts. These crimes should deserve jail time whether drug use was decriminalised or not.
Click to expand...

Dont know where are you from, but drug charges - even minor ones - can have a big impact. For a lot of people loosing their drivers licenses equals loosing their job. E.g. in germany you can loose your license just for using a hard drug once - without even driving. A conviction can also exclude people from certain Jobs like teacher, doctor and so. Also traveling gets a lot harder.
 
None of those concerns involve being thrown in jail for years though. Yes a criminal conviction is inconvenient, and a major life set back depending on what your life dreams are, but there is one simple thing that can avoid these inconveniences. Don't get caught.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top