The legalization of Heroin

[kristofires]

i would love for ll drugs to be legal i will vote libertarian from now on. i dont know if this is true but i read that there are more kids using pot here in america by the age of 15 than those in holland where its legal.
i belive this. people want what they cant have. legalize everything. i know for fact that just cause a drug is legal it isnt going to make me run out and do it. im sure the same is for others.
people are going to do it wether its legal or not. so might as well legalize everything. there would be no more drug dealers.

 

[Cokeboy]

kristofires - Have you actually read the libertarian site? These people are a joke with unrealistic, unworkable policies.
SeveredPsyche said:

Cokeboy: Do you think it would be easier to get help with an addiction problem if drugs were legal, or would people be better off with prohibition?
I think it'd probably be easier to get help while the drug remains illegal. Why? Because making it legal will open the door for many people who have experience with drugs, and who subsequently would get themselves into trouble.
The clinics can hardly handle the number of patients they see currently. Increase the user base means increasing the addict base.
The legal status of heroin does weed out some potential users. I think it should probably remain that way.

 

[SeveredPsyche]

Why are the clinics full? Because people want to get off smack. Why is that?
- Because it costs so much, a lot (most) of an addict's time is spent acquiring the funds. Often to the detriment of any "normal" job or life outside the drug scene.
- Health wise it is a hit and miss affair. Dangerous adulterants and unclean manufacturing processes cause all sorts of problems.
- Not to mention the sort of people you often come across in any black market activity.
A healthy heroin addiction, given the pure substance, is less harmful than ciggarettes. This in itself isn't a reason to legalise, but it shows the inconsistancy of the law. So why is heroin illegal in the first place?
I'm really not sure, but could guess that the addiction potential and risk of OD are what some would say. I don't believe these are the main reasons, given what is legal in western society. It seems that governments don't like people to alter their conciousness, for whatever reason. Well, except for alcohol which simply dulls all senses and is in keeping with the drone mentality.
However, I don't think heroin should be freely available at your corner store. Some regulation would be required.

 

[Cimora]

Legal does not equal more users. History shows this. Id like to hear any evidence to the contrary? Its an old and illogical argument. Why would people stop doing drugs because its illegal. I know no-one that cares its illegal. Why would more people be interested in drugs if they were legal, the people i know who dont do drugs never would regardless of the law.

 

[ebeneezer_geeza]

this link maybe of interest to some of you to see what happened when opiates were legal and then made illegal.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cu8.html

 

[twigburst]

Libertarion might not work if it was the sole party, but if it was the 3rd party it would be an improvement. They way I see it the government now isn't exactly working so I don't see how you could say any party wouldn't work. Alot of there ideas are unrealistic, but at least if they are in office spending would be down and drugs would be legal.

 

[robatussin]

\If heroin were legalized there would be less overdoses. THe reason so many people overdose on this stuff is becaus they dont know the purity of their dope. If it were regulated then people would know exactly how much they need to get off or to function normally. people ge really good stuff and think they need more than they actually do. hence overdose

 

[Cokeboy]

ebeneezer_geeza - That information on the Harrison Narcotic Act makes for very interesting reading. As I understand it, Opiates were prescribed by doctors, addicts resulted, and then the legalization was pulled, leaving the addicts needing other opiate sources, usually heroin or black market morphine. Is that the gist of it?
Cimora said:

Legal does not equal more users. History shows this. Id like to hear any evidence to the contrary?
History shows this? Where? I'd like to hear YOUR evidence on this.
I don't have numbers to back up my claim - just logic. People who used it before it became legal will continue, of course, to use. You're saying that not one user who balked at the idea due to legality would go ahead and try it after it gets the "governmental seal of approval"?

 

[SeveredPsyche]

To contradict my own argument, making it legal could lead to more users. People believe (rightly or wrongly) that heroin is illegal because it is dangerous, therefore they won't use it. If it becomes legal then it must be safe, so they will be more inclined to give it a go.

 

[Cimora]

Why would something legal be assumed safe?
booze isnt. Driving isnt. Flying in a plane isnt. People dont seem to forget the danger in these activities.
Legalising something is not like saying "hey kids, this stuff is fun!", its more like "shit there aint nothing we can do to stop you guys, we give up"
Ive never seen any drug legalisation law increase overall popularity.

 

[SeveredPsyche]

How many people drink alcohol? How many people drive? How many people use heroin?
What drug legalisation laws have you seen?

 

[Cimora]

Okay know i have to get to the nitty gritty seeing as you guys dont believe me.
1) I dont know any1 that doesnt use drug cos their illegal. Evry1 i know who doesnt use drugs doesnt use em cos their scared on the possible effects and the unknown.
2) Amsterdam. Less people smoke pot, less do heroin. Ergo legality = less users.
3) Australia. Canada. UK. None of these places has seen a rise in use despite decriminization or defacto decriminization of possession of pot.
4) Alcohol prohibition. Approx the same number of people used alcohol during the prohibition, except there was more violence and crime related.
5) Heroin trials in europe. Heroin clinics and distribution techniques have been useful for curbing harm while maintianing numbers. Most legal heroin laws only let former users buy from legit sources eg u need a drug test first.
im sure if i went looking i could get plenty more evidence that legality has no effect on use, except that illegality makes drugs more popular expecially in the young. (this is called the forbidden fruit effect which is why amersterdam is doing so well, much better than prohibtion - you know how this works, you say dont do this, and your teenager goes yeah thats what i want to do). Trust me if drugs were endorsed by anti-drug geeks, which they never do, that would be a sure fire way to REDUCE the number of drug users.
Legality isnt endorsement, and alcohol and flying arent popluar because of their legal status - they are popular because of their social status, which is quite independant of the law.
Marijuana did not suddenly become the most popular drug in places with law reform. There is simply NO evidence for this assumption, it is based mostly on fear.
Show me one country that legalised any drug, fully, and got an overall and sustained increase in use of that drug. Just one, any one and ill eat my proverbial hat.
Thats why the legalisation movement is called "evidence-based" law. Because its based on historical evidence, and overseas evidence, unlike any of the prohibtion rhetoric which is based on lies, assumptions and emotional reactions.

 

[twigburst]

Who gives a shit if more people get addicted? Also who thinks in their head, nah I can't fuck with that its illegal, also how many people that want heroin can't get it as it is now.

 

[quale]

Look I am all for legalization but the notion that this won't increase usage is just absurd. First of all it is contradicted by direct evidence from when opiates were legal. Secondly the notion that no one is detered from drugs by the laws regarding them is pretty damn ridiculous. You don't think more people would do opiates if they could buy it in a sealed dosed bottle than having to go into the ghetto and buy from the street.
What is the main problem with people using though? Is it they are high on opiates? NO! It is the monetary cost of use combined with the danger of OD. Certainly ODing is still going to be an issue but many gutter trash right now manage to maintain habits without ODing. This isn't rocket science. Moreover, if opiates are cheaply availible there will probably be way less incentive to inject...I would guess that alot of injectors would simply use the low cost patches or pills (injecting is still anathematic to most people) this significantly reduces the danger of OD. Moreover narcan would presumably also be readily availible and without the taint of illegality people would be much less likely to hide their use so they would be much more likely to recieve preventitive measures.
As to cost opiates are dirt cheap. Hell england is enacting (or at least was considering) a plan to provide heroin addicts free heroin. Their estimated cost was less than $1 per day per addict and this included all the administrative overhead. Fuck people would save more than that because of their reduced food consumption on opiates.
Moreover this is still heroin, a relatively week opiate created through the inefficent process of growing actual poppies. With things like car-fentanyl and others more than 10,000!! times as potent which can readily be mass produced as they can be synthesized from simple chemicals cost is an entire non-issue. Even for extremely tolerant addicts we are talking PENNIES per day!

 

[Cokeboy]

Cimora said:

3) Australia. Canada. UK. None of these places has seen a rise in use despite decriminization or defacto decriminization of possession of pot.
4) Alcohol prohibition. Approx the same number of people used alcohol during the prohibition, except there was more violence and crime related.
I live in Canada. Canada has not decriminalized pot, nor has it been "defacto decriminalized". Cops are unlikely to arrest you simply for being caught smoking a joint, but in no way is there an established policy in that direction. I don't know where you're getting this idea.
As for your second point, where in the world did you find the number of alcohol users during and after prohibition? On what basis do you this claim?

 

[Dr.groveller]

Originally posted by Cokeboy:
kristofires - Have you actually read the libertarian site? These people are a joke with unrealistic, unworkable policies.

Yeah, I have and I voted for a couple of Libertarian candidates yesterday. What the hell did you do? What is so unrealistic about personal freedom?
As long as I am not hurting you, or anyone else, why the fuck shouldn't I be able to do whatever the hell I want? But this is a boring political digression. Alaska has quite a few Libertarians in their state government and at one time even a libertarian senator. Doesn't sound so unrealistic to me.

Originally posted by Cokeboy:

I think it'd probably be easier to get help while the drug remains illegal. Why?

Because you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Same as it ever was. While a drug remains illegal, it is VERY hard to get treatment. 1) Perception of facing legal charges for admitting to illegal activity keeps a lot of people from seeking treatment 2) insurance co's aren't happy to learn of their "upstanding" policy holders using heroin. 3) repercussions from you job "Hi boss, I need 28 days to head into detox. 4) Money that is spent on interdiction and WOD could be spent on better and more treatment facilities. Are you really this dense? (rhetorical question)

The clinics can hardly handle the number of patients they see currently. Increase the user base means increasing the addict base.
The legal status of heroin does weed out some potential users. I think it should probably remain that way.

You're joking right? How many billions of dollars used to "fight drugs" are NOT going to treatment centers. Why are treatment centers over-run now? You'd have us believe it was because of the number of addicts rather than the lack of treatment centers. Your arguments are hollow.
doc

 

[Dr.groveller]

Originally posted by Cokeboy:
History shows this? Where? I'd like to hear YOUR evidence on this.
Holland saw a very MINOR almost insignificant increase in users once certain drugs were decriminalized. Alcohol consumption rose only a few percent in the US following prohibition and I believe (have to double check) the rate of alcoholism declined due to increases in treatment. Again, it's easier to get treatment for a legal substance than an illegal one.
You get a slight increase of users with legalization. However, you also get a slight reduction (less than the increase above) due to easier treatment.
doc

 

[Dr.groveller]

Originally posted by Cokeboy:
Cimora said:
As for your second point, where in the world did you find the number of alcohol users during and after prohibition? On what basis do you this claim?
Well, you know, it's one data point, but read the paper and I think you'll find his methods are sound. It's not the only evidence I've seen making this claim either.
Study on Effects of Prohibition on Alcohol consumption
doc

 

[Cokeboy]

Dr.groveller - Of your four points, the only one that really applies at all is the first one. Insurance companies STILL won't be happy to hear their clients are users. Detox needs are STILL going to make employers unhappy. And finally, your fourth point assumes that money spent on interdiction will be redirected to treatment - a pretty big claim.
The first point, perception of legal charges, I will not challenge. However, as a small point, most people are aware you cannot be charged for taking drugs in the past.
As for your rhetorical question, well - I'll just disregard it and address the issues.
What did I do yesterday? I did not vote in the American election. Seems reasonable - I'm not American.
My problem with the libertarian party is not their position on individual freedom - it's with their position on things like government involvement in banking, deficit spending and the like. When I last reviewed their policies, they seemed to have the notion that they could massively decrease spending, eliminate deficits, and greatly expand social programs.
Lovely thought, but it all seemed paper thin and idealistic. Lofty goals, no procedures to get there. In short, they seem economically dangerous.

 

[Dr.groveller]

Originally posted by Cokeboy:
Dr.groveller - Of your four points, the only one that really applies at all is the first one. Insurance companies STILL won't be happy to hear their clients are users. Detox needs are STILL going to make employers unhappy. And finally, your fourth point assumes that money spent on interdiction will be redirected to treatment - a pretty big claim.

Then you are ignorant. We're talking less than 1% of the current budget to fight drugs could TRIPLE the current budget to treat drugs. So, yeah, I think it's reasonable to assume that a large increase in treatment would be forthcoming.
And no, most gutter junkies do NOT know you cannot be busted for seeking treatment.
And it is a LOT easier to tell your boss you're going to AA meetings than Heroin detox. IF you want to argue that, you're more of a moron I have given you credit for, which is saying something substantial.

Originally posted by Cokeboy:

What did I do yesterday? I did not vote in the American election. Seems reasonable - I'm not American.
My problem with the libertarian party is not their position on individual freedom - it's with their position on things like government involvement in banking, deficit spending and the like. When I last reviewed their policies, they seemed to have the notion that they could massively decrease spending, eliminate deficits, and greatly expand social programs.
Lovely thought, but it all seemed paper thin and idealistic. Lofty goals, no procedures to get there. In short, they seem economically dangerous.
You're not very well versed in comprehension then if you think the libertarian party is big on social programs... I'm not arguing there are crackpots in every political party and the libertarian party is certainly at the forefront- though when you consider quacks like helms and buchannan... my point is that your dismissal of the Libertarian party was laughable at best, and at worst showed an extreme lack of understanding of the actual goals of the party. But, I'm not a party kidn of person, I vote for particular people not candidates, and it happens that some LIbertarian candidates DO have plans, and goals, and means of reaching them. I already provided examples of those elected.
Really, my main point is that your arguments (in almost all your posts) are hollow and border on straw arguments.
doc