Would you legalise drugs?

[kittyinthedark]

>>Good luck convincing 51% of the American workforce of that notion. I have a right NOT to be held responsible for someone's actions.>>

You may have that right, but this does not change the reality that the tax payers foot the tremendous bill for a drug war and regime of incarceration that is largely a failure. The above fact must be taken into account when possible options are weighed.

ebola

I just wanted to repeat this. I was going to say the exact same thing before ebola took the words out of my mouth. Ebola, you're so awesome, will you marry me? I even love you when we disagree :D

 

[qwedsa]

Assumption? You clearly indicated your desire for someone to "lose" this discussion, did you not? And whether I appear to "look pretty funny" isn't something I care about. Seems that you're judging people. That's not a characteristic I need to assume - you're selling yourself pretty good. And I refuse to agree with the assumption that releasing large amounts of harmful and arguably therapeutically useless substances into the general public for mass consumption is somehow going to ease the health care crisis.

no, you missed my point again. these are some of the assumptions about my character i was referring to:

You really need to separate yourself from your personal passion for drug use and legalization and assess reality (or American society in particular) from a third person perspective.

Having enjoyed drugs already puts you in a position of strong bias.

Not everybody behaves the way you wish them to.

Separate yourself from the system for a moment, pretend you never did drugs in the first place, and look at the raw behavioral patterns. Put yourself in another's shoes for once and walk a mile.

It will make you a more rounded person to understand the world beyond "me, myself, and I".

and i already explained that what i meant by "you lost" was that you abandoned arguing the point with me and resorted to making the previously quoted personal attacks on my character, although i admit the word lost might not have been appropriate

whether I appear to "look pretty funny" isn't something I care about. Seems that you're judging people

what i meant by "look pretty funny" was that the reply ive been referring to had no positive impact on the discussion and probably reduced your credibility. and no i'm not judging you, i'm judging the way in which you debate

i think it's interesting to note that your little anti-qwe rampage came right after this statement: "healthcare costs would probably decrease. even if they did, though, healthcare costs only make up 9% of that 140$bil..." [lost annually due to keeping drugs illegal... these figure came from the study you were indirectly citing as well] and after several statements of mine explaining how each part of the medical care section of htat 140bil would probably decrease

 

[qwedsa]

releasing large amounts of harmful and arguably therapeutically useless substances into the general public for mass consumption

large amounts are already released into the general public for mass consumption. the difference, upon legalization, would be that using them would be safer (not completely safe, but safer) because people wouldn't have to go through the black market

 

[Cyrus]

Dj DAnny was trying to have you lose that bias for a second and have you try and think of it from a different perspective. Understanding two perspectives can help both our points as well.

 

[qwedsa]

^the problem with that is it goes both ways. you can't just call me biased, because i can do the same to you. in fact, to me, it seems that through most of the thread djdanny simply completely ignores certain points made by our side, blatant bias. and it probly seems to him that im doing the same. calling eachother biased isnt going to get us anywhere

p.s., i don't have hte particular biases that djdanny is pointing to either...

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

what i meant by "look pretty funny" was that the reply ive been referring to had no positive impact on the discussion and probably reduced your credibility. and no i'm not judging you, i'm judging the way in which you debate

I'm in my 2nd year of Graduate School for health education and have a thorough understanding of HMO financial structures, especially in a privatized market and I know how private donor and government funding are distributed according to necessity. Private donors do not pay the emergency bills. Tax payers do. I don't need reassurance from anyone about my credibility. And as for bias, you want drugs legalized because you like to do them, right? Or is it because you're a philanthropist?

large amounts are already released into the general public for mass consumption. the difference, upon legalization, would be that using them would be safer (not completely safe, but safer) because people wouldn't have to go through the black market

Making heroin pure doesn't make it safer. Your trading off impurities for higher potency. How do you know most people die from the impurities rather than the overdose itself?

You also refuse to provide any hard data or even a logical explanation as to why you have the beliefs that you do. Instead of simply replying piecemeal to individual arguments, why don't you spend 10 minutes writing out your rationale? It will help us all out, including yourself

Where's your hard data? I provided a link to Abbott Laboratories. There's no pro/anti drug agenda attached to them, unlike the personal and clearly pro-drug websites others referenced.

Originally Posted by ebola?
>>Good luck convincing 51% of the American workforce of that notion. I have a right NOT to be held responsible for someone's actions.>>

You may have that right, but this does not change the reality that the tax payers foot the tremendous bill for a drug war and regime of incarceration that is largely a failure. The above fact must be taken into account when possible options are weighed.

ebola


I just wanted to repeat this. I was going to say the exact same thing before ebola took the words out of my mouth. Ebola, you're so awesome, will you marry me? I even love you when we disagree

Who's to say you're not going to foot the bill for a national health crisis that ensues when people begin to experience the long term effects of a life of hard drug use? Look at the crisis we're going to have when the babyboomers retire, you don't think we won't have the same when a generation of life-long drug users are in need of extensive retirement health care because of such? Nobody here is addressing the long-term use.

 

[qwedsa]

you want drugs legalized because you like to do them, right? Or is it because you're a philanthropist?

the latter

Where's your hard data? I provided a link to Abbott Laboratories

and i explained why the numbers you got from that site actually support an end to prohibition

Private donors do not pay the emergency bills. Tax payers do

somebody already brought up the case of cigarettes. the "sin tax" placed on them makes up enough money to pay for any medical costs the state hsa to pay, and much more besides

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

somebody already brought up the case of cigarettes. the "sin tax" placed on them makes up enough money to pay for any medical costs the state hsa to pay, and much more besides

As the tax goes up, purchases go down, especially in high tax areas. Also, even if the government gets extra revenue from the tax, it's minimal (way too low to even begin covering health costs) and they don't even properly allocate spending. That money is going to someone's pockets.

http://www.lungusa.org/site/apps/nl/content3.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=40408&ct=1772847

The ever increasing state and county tax revenue from cigarettes go to a general fund and does not address health care.

http://dor.wa.gov/content/taxes/other/tax_cigarette.aspx

and i explained why the numbers you got from that site actually support an end to prohibition

An end to prohibition will only cause an amazing amount of employers to turn to mandatory pre-emloyement and random drug testing. You think the widespread use of drugs isn't going to affect industry? People aren't going to want products and services rendered by individuals on last night's cocaine hangover. That costs is either going to be eaten up by consumers in higher prices or by the emplyees in lower wages or benefits. Most likely the former.

And this nonsense about prohibition creating less problems. Look at China in the recent centuries. The temporary legalizing of opium created millions of addicts. And that's just 1 drug. Nations with large populations cannot handle the legalization of such substances.

 

[human]

As the tax goes up, purchases go down, especially in high tax areas. Also, even if the government gets extra revenue from the tax, it's minimal (way too low to even begin covering health costs) and they don't even properly allocate spending. That money is going to someone's pockets.

The ever increasing state and county tax revenue from cigarettes go to a general fund and does not address health care.

Well that's shitty politicians, but doesn't do much to discredit the idea of some kind of legalization/regulation. Given that the tax revenues from psychoactive sales was to be directed specifically towards the healthcare costs associated with abuse, would your view be any different?

Private donors do not pay the emergency bills. Tax payers do.
...
Who's to say you're not going to foot the bill for a national health crisis that ensues when people begin to experience the long term effects of a life of hard drug use? Look at the crisis we're going to have when the babyboomers retire, you don't think we won't have the same when a generation of life-long drug users are in need of extensive retirement health care because of such?

Right. We also pay to put drug offenders in jail. As long as I'm paying for people suffering consequences for drugs, I'd much rather choose to pay for their freedom than for their incarceration.
Lookin at the second part closer, I think it's jumping to conclusions that legalization/regulation will lead to a "generation of life-long drug users". I'd like to see evidence that legalizing will lead to sustained (lifelong) use of drugs for a certain generation. I mean obviously you can't just provide a link, because there's no straight evidence for such a thing, but any logic or thought process would be nice. I thought the fact that there is no evidence for a significant, sustained increase in drug use post-criminalization had already been covered in this thread.

OTOH, you could just license 'em and look for potential problems beforehand (family history of cardiovascular complications being a major physiological flag).

Making heroin pure doesn't make it safer. Your trading off impurities for higher potency. How do you know most people die from the impurities rather than the overdose itself?

Every single overdose comes from not knowing the dose and/or the user's tolerance. Of course making it pure makes it safer. Are you mad? It's not like pure means "buy ounces and ounces of powder". Pure can also mean "buy in sealed XXmg ampules, solution or powder." Knowing the dose will always be safer.

An end to prohibition will only cause an amazing amount of employers to turn to mandatory pre-emloyement and random drug testing. You think the widespread use of drugs isn't going to affect industry? People aren't going to want products and services rendered by individuals on last night's cocaine hangover. That costs is either going to be eaten up by consumers in higher prices or by the emplyees in lower wages or benefits. Most likely the former.

I don't care what the fuck the person serving me was on last night, personally. I do care, however, if he's providing shitty service.

Basically I'm saying it's poor reasoning to blame the coke (or any drug) and not the person. Though I can certainly see restrictions on some jobs as necessary.

And this nonsense about prohibition creating less problems. Look at China in the recent centuries. The temporary legalizing of opium created millions of addicts. And that's just 1 drug. Nations with large populations cannot handle the legalization of such substances.

I don't think it's quite right to compare the 1800's with the current age. Way too much shit in the world has changed. People could handle legalization, if educated and conditioned correctly (might take a decade or two).

I mean it's not like one day everyone went out and bought a car. Only the most dense would blame the car accidents resultant from such a scenario on cars.

Although, on the other hand, part of me wants to agree with you, hence the idea of licensing (2nd post in this thread).

In either case, as far as healthcare goes, opiate addiction is the least of worries.

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

Well that's shitty politicians, but doesn't do much to discredit the idea of some kind of legalization/regulation. Given that the tax revenues from psychoactive sales was to be directed specifically towards the healthcare costs associated with abuse, would your view be any different?

I said before if there was some way to offset costs without taking away health care resources that need to go to the people who NEED them, then I wouldn't mind. I cannot support an action that will make health care even more difficult for the people who cannot even get it now. But I also wouldn't mind drugs going back to an illegal status the minute society can't handle it, which would inevitably be the case.

Lookin at the second part closer, I think it's jumping to conclusions that legalization/regulation will lead to a "generation of life-long drug users". I'd like to see evidence that legalizing will lead to sustained (lifelong) use of drugs for a certain generation. I mean obviously you can't just provide a link, because there's no straight evidence for such a thing, but any logic or thought process would be nice. I thought the fact that there is no evidence for a significant, sustained increase in drug use post-criminalization had already been covered in this thread.

Walk into a rehab or detox center and ask the patients there if they have been life long addicts. It's no different for any other drug. People aren't going to stop using it unless they experience a near death experience with the substance. And that's only if they are lucky enough not to overdose. Alcohol and nicotine are legal and easily accessible and look how hard it is to quit those substances. Opiates are exponentially more addictive.

Every single overdose comes from not knowing the dose and/or the user's tolerance. Of course making it pure makes it safer. Are you mad? It's not like pure means "buy ounces and ounces of powder". Pure can also mean "buy in sealed XXmg ampules, solution or powder." Knowing the dose will always be safer.

It's not the safety of the dose. It's being so tolerant of the drug that you need more and more to feel the same physical effects. And when your tolerance is very high, physical effects are a lethal way to measure dose. Someone very tolerant is going to dose themselves until they feel what they want to feel and that's where the overdoses occur. Look how many people on this board in E discussion that say "I took a pill and felt nothing, so I took another one."

I don't care what the fuck the person serving me was on last night, personally. I do care, however, if he's providing shitty service.
Basically I'm saying it's poor reasoning to blame the coke (or any drug) and not the person. Though I can certainly see restrictions on some jobs as necessary.

I'm not against legalization because of the drugs themselves, I'm against it because we are a country of people that can't handle a good thing, regardless of education. It's mostly a behavioral issue - but that's not to say the average American isn't poorly educated. It's what our society has come to evolve into. Would you want your kid to have a teacher that is underperforming because of a drug habit? Do you want your doctor to diagnose you when he or she has just come down from a LSD trip? Do you want a drugged out airplane mechanic inspecting the 747 engines on the jet you're boarding to Japan? There are going to be costs associated with keeping drugs where they should be and if it comes from taxation of the drugs themselves, you can bet they will be just as expensive as they are on the street, if not more.


The harsh reality is that we do not live alone in this nation and we must give and take when it comes to our interests. I'll glady take the risks of obtaining illegal drugs if it means keeping other pudknockers away from them. We're very addictive creatures and it's no mystery why some drugs are illegal.

 

[qwedsa]

It's not the safety of the dose. It's being so tolerant of the drug that you need more and more to feel the same physical effects. And when your tolerance is very high, physical effects are a lethal way to measure dose. Someone very tolerant is going to dose themselves until they feel what they want to feel and that's where the overdoses occur. Look how many people on this board in E discussion that say "I took a pill and felt nothing, so I took another one."

well you actually have it wrong. tolernace levels off at a point. and this point is not a lethal dose, once you reach that tolernace level. higher tolerance = more dose, yes, but also, a higher amount is required to kill you. also, once you're high, you're high

Would you want your kid to have a teacher that is underperforming because of a drug habit? Do you want your doctor to diagnose you when he or she has just come down from a LSD trip? Do you want a drugged out airplane mechanic inspecting the 747 engines on the jet you're boarding to Japan?

A. this is just as likely to happen while drugs are illegal
B. alcohol is even more likely to result in such accidents, but you arent proposing its prohibition. so whats the deal here?

 

[ebola?]

>>Opiates are exponentially more addictive.
>>

Why do you think this?

ebola

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

Opiates are exponentially more addictive

Statistically, methadone is the most unsuccessful drug to detox and rehab from.

well you actually have it wrong. tolernace levels off at a point. and this point is not a lethal dose, once you reach that tolernace level. higher tolerance = more dose, yes, but also, a higher amount is required to kill you. also, once you're high, you're high

Of course your tolerance levels off. Then after a short period of time your tolerance comes down and when your next dose is the same as your last (when your tolerance was at the high), that's where the overdose occurs. A dose that didn't kill you before is able to kill you later. That's why dosing is very tricky with such drugs and overdosing is common.

 

[qwedsa]

Of course your tolerance levels off. Then after a short period of time your tolerance comes down and when your next dose is the same as your last (when your tolerance was at the high), that's where the overdose occurs. A dose that didn't kill you before is able to kill you later. That's why dosing is very tricky with such drugs and overdosing is common.

this only accounts for some of the overdoses. and if drugs were legal, they wouldnt be in a dry period anyway, there wouldnt be this break in usage, theyd always have cheap access to the drug

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

and if drugs were legal, they wouldnt be in a dry period anyway, there wouldnt be this break in usage, theyd always have cheap access to the drug

So if you agree that there will be this steady, continuous use of hard drugs, at the same time you think there will be no eventual health repercussions from a life-long, consistent dosage of such substances like cocaine or LSD? People use LSD once and have flashbacks for the rest of their lives. I know people who have smoked pot for only a handful of years and they've regressed into useless blobs of flesh. I couldn't begin to imagine what someone would become after 20-30 years of consistent use. These people inevitably are going to be unable to contribute to their own health care much sooner than a normal aging person and someone is going to be stuck with cleaning up the mess.

 

[qwedsa]

So if you agree that there will be this steady, continuous use of hard drugs, at the same time you think there will be no eventual health repercussions from a life-long, consistent dosage of such substances like cocaine or LSD? People use LSD once and have flashbacks for the rest of their lives. I know people who have smoked pot for only a handful of years and they've regressed into useless blobs of flesh. I couldn't begin to imagine what someone would become after 20-30 years of consistent use. These people inevitably are going to be unable to contribute to their own health care much sooner than a normal aging person and someone is going to be stuck with cleaning up the mess.

well you are pointing to the extremes

LSD is not a drug that can be used every day anyway. it will stop working, this is a bad example. now, LSD VERY rarely causes lifelong flashbacks. msot commonly they last a couple weeks, decreasing in frequency in time. very rarely they can extend to months or years. this is not, however, grounds for prohibition. the user is the person who decides whether he will take this risk, not you. he should be able to weigh the pros/cons himself. flashbacks arent even common anyway, come on, you can do better..

daily cocaine use will probably bring health troubles, yes. prohibition doesnt alleviate this. it might make it worse. refer to study i referenced where crackdowns on drugs result in more use. also, contaminents and unknown dose contribute as well

your view of drugs seems to only take into account the vast extremes. most people can use drugs without problems. when drugs are legal, drug addicts can live normal lives

"So if you agree that there will be this steady, continuous use of hard drugs"
sorry to say, there already is, and prohibition isnt helping. it just wastes money on mandatory "treatment" (which doesnt work when it's mandatory), puts in jail many people without these drug problems, etc etc etc. prohibition is a mess

 

[human]

Walk into a rehab or detox center and ask the patients there if they have been life long addicts.

Well when I went to rehab, the people there weren't life-long addicts. Just people who had some issues with their drug of choice. There was this one pretty hardcore alcoholic type of guy, and another guy who had been smokin' weed for like 8 years, but other than those two there weren't any that I'd classife as life-long addicts.

Additionally, at most rehab centers people are programmed to believe that once you're an addict, you'll always be an addict. No shit a lot of them will call themselves life long addicts.

Thirdly, a rehab center is hardly a good place to get a sample of drug users who have developed a habit or addiction. The great majority of users handle these things on their own; only those with serious issues actually go to rehab voluntarily. Those who don't have serious problems and are there are probably there as part of a sentence.

Alcohol and nicotine are legal and easily accessible and look how hard it is to quit those substances. Opiates are exponentially more addictive.

From what I've read, nicotine is regarded as being more addictive than opiates. Oh, and as far as alcohol goes, alcohol withdrawals can kill a person, opiate withdrawals cannot. Plus you see advertisements for alcohol and shit everywhere. (As an aside, I oppose pretty much all advertising of any psychoactive)

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

daily cocaine use will probably bring health troubles, yes. prohibition doesnt alleviate this.

Making cocaine widely available won't alleviate it either.

Well when I went to rehab, the people there weren't life-long addicts.

Well then why were they there? Isn't rehab for people who have chronic problems with drugs? And if one goes to rehab and it actually works, why would that person go back to the same habit with the same substance? Wouldn't that just promote a life-long cycle of use?

it just wastes money on mandatory "treatment" (which doesnt work when it's mandatory), puts in jail many people without these drug problems, etc etc etc. prohibition is a mess

Treatment is manditory simply because people do not recognize addiction themselves. I'd rather see manditory treatment rather than jail time. Making it non-manditory will just let the probem grow until someone (or several people) is hurt and is just as messy of a situation.

Additionally, at most rehab centers people are programmed to believe that once you're an addict, you'll always be an addict.

You don't have to be programmed, it's a behavioral pattern in our genetics. Once it has been established, the majority of people will have a life-long problem and never be able to recreationally use a substance.

And the alcohol comparisons aren't valid like I said. If we were to ban alcohol, then you have to ban perfumes, colognes, flavor extracts, OTC medicines and suspensions, hand sanitizers and wipes, alcohol based cleaners and wipes, mouthwash, hair sprays and gels, aftershaves, etc....

 

[Eyeronie]

Making cocaine widely available won't alleviate it either.
Quote:

Now you're just ignoring everything everyone's said on the subject. Legalizing the addiction creates a better situation because of lower costs, less contact with the underworld, less violence and money in the underworld, higher purity, availability of dosage information, less money spent on incarceration and attacking the supply, less stigma, more money for rehab, etc. Been over this a million times.

Well then why were they there? Isn't rehab for people who have chronic problems with drugs? And if one goes to rehab and it actually works, why would that person go back to the same habit with the same substance? Wouldn't that just promote a life-long cycle of use?

I can't grasp your point. His point was that for most people, even those in rehab, drug addiction is a phase. Many are forced to go in the first place, many won't have to keep going. You completely missed his main point that most drug users don't even have to use rehab services in the first place. So there's some chronic drug addicts in rehab...we all admit that such addicts exist...the point is their numbers are too small and they are too responsible for their own predicament to justify this wasteful and injust war against the very substances these people happen to prefer. It's a backwards way of dealing with a very personal problem and it's very, very expensive.

Treatment is manditory simply because people do not recognize addiction themselves. I'd rather see manditory treatment rather than jail time. Making it non-manditory will just let the probem grow until someone (or several people) is hurt and is just as messy of a situation.

I love your attitude that the drug user is hopelessly in denail and that people need some outside perspective, perhaps the sociologist(?), to come in and tell them what's REALLY going on. C'mon man NOBODY knows what a problem addiction is like the addicts themselves. A few months of that lifestyle and any preconceptions about how great being addicted to meth or smack is will get demolished. If you remove the stigma, make their addiction as safe as possible, and make rehab and detox available, the addicts will come around eventually because many of these addictions simply aren't sustainable. You have so little hope for the drug user. A lot of these people are young and self destructive to begin with. Removing certain drugs won't change that, they'll end up trying to escape through other drugs/means. This escapist/self destructive phase is something a lot of people need to grow through. It's not the drugs that create it, it's a human problem to begin with. It's a question of how to help these people (not how to keep your insurance premiums down), and don't kid yourself that you're helping the addict by pushing them and their addictions underground and adding legal trouble to their already fucked up lives.

You don't have to be programmed, it's a behavioral pattern in our genetics. Once it has been established, the majority of people will have a life-long problem and never be able to recreationally use a substance.

Again your faith in humanity comes shining through. This is just simply not true on any level. Show me any source that supports this statement, or anything that pinpoints an addiction gene and can show that the majority of those born with it can never use any recreational substance. Honestly statements like this show how far out there your thinking on this subject really is.

And the alcohol comparisons aren't valid like I said. If we were to ban alcohol, then you have to ban perfumes, colognes, flavor extracts, OTC medicines and suspensions, hand sanitizers and wipes, alcohol based cleaners and wipes, mouthwash, hair sprays and gels, aftershaves, etc....

Why do you keep repeating this it makes no sense! If you can ban opiates and still use them in a medical setting, you can do the same for alcohol. Remember the idea behind banning something isn't to eliminate it off the face of the earth, it's to lower the overall usage. You'd ban alcohol the same way they did it in the twenties. Face it, advertising beer and banning pot is hypocritical and logically inconsistant.

 

[Cyrus]

How^^ And most of what you said as to what "isnt true on any level" can't be proven. There are almost always exceptions to any situation both sides can think of.