Another Decriminalise Drugs Thread

[ballen0351]

I'm going to interpret this entrance because there are a couple of interesting little tidbits here. First of all, large drug companies like Merck cannot work with controlled substances without jumping through all kinds of legal hoops. It's a total bureaucratic mess. Secondly, we both know they would NEVER be able to work with these substances for recreational purposes. This is the barrier the government creates that hinders the free market in this instance.

Now, imagine that all of these laws are rescinded and that all of the government barriers are taken down. There is a 500 billion dollar global market in opium alone. Major drug companies are going to have a huge interest in jumping into this now legal market. This really does change everything because at least half a dozen multinational drug companies with the best r&d markets on the planet will compete to process these substances and work on safe alternatives.

All that needs to happen is for the government to get out of the way and this problem suddenly has a viable solution...and the citizens get a healthy tax break!

And again if there was a profit to be made in finding safe alternatives to getting people off dope Big Pharma would be all over it. There is nothing stopping them researching new safe alternatives to addictive pain meds.

Speaking of prescriptions what about them should they be put out to the free market as well. Or should I still need prescriptions for antibiotics, heart burn meds, insulin, perks, oxycontin ect?

 

[Makalakumu]

And again if there was a profit to be made in finding safe alternatives to getting people off dope Big Pharma would be all over it. There is nothing stopping them researching new safe alternatives to addictive pain meds.

Speaking of prescriptions what about them should they be put out to the free market as well. Or should I still need prescriptions for antibiotics, heart burn meds, insulin, perks, oxycontin ect?

You missed the point. Big Pharma can't work on recreational drugs because it's illegal. Even the research they can do on pain relief is severely limited. In a free market, for example, marijuana products would represent a huge market share in the pain relief category of drugs because it is provable better than alternatives now and much less dangerous. However, because it's a Schedule 1 drug, much of that research gets blocked. At every step the government makes the problem worse and prevents a real solution from occurring.

In the end, I think the real issue is one about control. Getting intoxicated is something that people like and other people don't like, but that isn't really the problem. The side effects, like sickness, addiction, mental illness, are the problem. However, the idea that you (as a member of society) have the right to dictate to another member of society, how they can manage their consciousness, gets in the way of seeing this.

If the silly control freaks would simply try to run their own disaster lives, smart people could start figuring out how to manage the side effects of intoxication using reason and evidence. That's the real problem.

 

[ballen0351]

You missed the point. Big Pharma can't work on recreational drugs because it's illegal.

Sure they can people invent new recreational drugs all the time. K2, Spice, and numerious synthetic Marijuanas are legal. They slowly get banned after that are shown to be dangerous. The reason Big Pharma doesn't bother is because recreational drug use is not popular. Most grown ups dont want or need recreational drugs to hide from the real world.

Even the research they can do on pain relief is severely limited. In a free market, for example, marijuana products would represent a huge market share in the pain relief category of drugs because it is provable better than alternatives now and much less dangerous. However, because it's a Schedule 1 drug, much of that research gets blocked. At every step the government makes the problem worse and prevents a real solution from occurring.

There are Marijuana based products right now that give all the benefits of the drug without the "high" yet nobody seems to like that idea I cant imagine why

In the end, I think the real issue is one about control. Getting intoxicated is something that people like and other people don't like, but that isn't really the problem. The side effects, like sickness, addiction, mental illness, are the problem. However, the idea that you (as a member of society) have the right to dictate to another member of society, how they can manage their consciousness, gets in the way of seeing this.

Until in your high or drunken state you stumble out into society and start effecting others. Why do you think there are so many cops in the bar district areas on a fri and sat night? Because people cant behave when they are intoxicated or under the influence.

If the silly control freaks would simply try to run their own disaster lives, smart people could start figuring out how to manage the side effects of intoxication using reason and evidence. That's the real problem.

Maybe if there people trying to run and hide from the real world by using dope would take care of the real problems in their real world disaster of a life they wouldn't need to hide behind dope to cope.

 

[ballen0351]

You still didnt answer the question about prescription drugs like Antibiotics, Insulin, Heart burn, depression meds. Should they be available over the counter like Marijuana and crack?

 

[Steve]

During prohibition, enterprising young criminals were often using industrial alcohol, attempting to make industrial wood alcohol safe to drink. Often, they were mistaken. The product on the market was unsafe, unregulated and resulted in many unnecessary deaths.

The Cato Institute has an interesting study on prohibition that points to several conclusions which relate directly to this conversation. http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa157.pdf

Although consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased. Alcohol became more dangerous to consume; crime increased and became "organized"; the court and prison systems were stretched to the breaking point; and corruption of public officials was rampant. No measurable gains were made in productivity or reduced absenteeism. Prohibition removed a significant source of tax revenue and greatly increased government spending. It led many drinkers to switch to opium, marijuana, patent medicines, cocaine, and other dangeroussubstances that they would have been unlikely to encounter in the absence of Prohibition.

First, that when you ban substances, people will turn to other, often more dangerous substitutes in its stead. During prohibition, when alcohol was banned, people didn't just start drinking poison, they turned to other easily obtainable drugs, like opium.

The forbidden fruit syndrome was also part of it. During prohibition, alcohol consumption dropped initially, but quickly rose above the pre-prohibition consumption levels. During prohibition rates for consumption AND alcoholism rose. Alcoholism, to over 3x its pre-prohibition levels.

The lost tax dollars to government were combined with dramatic increase in the cost of enforcement of the new laws:

The resources devoted to enforcement of Prohibition increased along with consumption. Heightened enforcementdid not curtail consumption. The annual budget of the Bureau of Prohibition went from $4.4 million to $13.4 milion
during the 1920s, while Coast Guard spending on Prohibition averaged over $13 million per year.[8] To those amounts
should be added the expenditures of state and local governments.

Prohibition had pervasive (and perverse) effects on every aspect of alcohol production, distribution, and consumption. Changing the rules from those of the free market to those of Prohibition broke the link that prohibitionists had assumed between consumption and social evil. The rule changes also caused unintended consequences to enter the equation.

The article mentions something called the Iron Law of Prohibition, which basically asserts that "the more intense the law enforcement, the more potent the prohibited substance becomes." In other words, if we end the prohibition, drugs would become less potent and safer.

When drugsor alcoholic beverages are prohibited, they will become more potent, will have greater variability in potency, will be
adulterated with unknown or dangerous substances, and will not be produced and consumed under normal market
constraints.

Statistically, production of beer was almost a lost art, and the crappy beer we Americans drank for decades was a direct result. Why? Because beer wasn't strong enough. During prohibition, almost all production of alcohol focused on distilled liquors and fortified wines.

Patterns of consumption changed during Prohibition. It could be argued that Prohibition increased the demand foralcohol among three groups. It heightened the attractiveness of alcohol to the young by making it a glamour productassociated with excitement and intrigue. The high prices and profits during Prohibition enticed sellers to try to markettheir products to nondrinkers--undoubtedly, with some success. Finally, many old-stock Americans and recentimmigrants were unwilling to be told that they could not drink. According to Lee, "Men were drinking defiantly, witha sense of high purpose, a kind of dedicated drinking that you don't see much of today."[19]Prohibition may actually have increased drinking and intemperance by increasing the availability of alcohol. One NewJersey businessman claimed that there were 10 times more places one could get a drink during Prohibition than therehad been before.[20] It is not surprising that, given their hidden locations and small size, speakeasies outnumberedsaloons. Lee found that there were twice as many speak easies in Rochester, New York, as saloons closed byProhibition. That was more or less true throughout the country.
Another setback for prohibitionists was their loss of control over the location of drinking establishments. UntilProhibition, prohibitionists had used local ordinances, taxes, licensing laws and regulations, and local-option laws toprevent or discourage the sale of alcohol in the center city, near churches and schools, on Sundays and election days,and in their neighborhoods. Prohibition eliminated those political tools and led to the establishment of speak easies inbusiness districts, middle-class neighborhoods, and other locations that were formerly dry, or gave the ap pearance ofbeing dry.

It's a long read, but worth the time if you really want to understand why, in spite of all of the money, time and energy we spend, we are losing the "war on drugs."

 

[Steve]

You still didnt answer the question about prescription drugs like Antibiotics, Insulin, Heart burn, depression meds. Should they be available over the counter like Marijuana and crack?

ballen, what purpose does a doctor serve? What about the pharmacist? What is their function with regard to these drugs? Do you see that role changing?

 

[ballen0351]

ballen, what purpose does a doctor serve? What about the pharmacist? What is their function with regard to these drugs? Do you see that role changing?

So Oxycontin I should need a prescription from a doc. But for Crack I should just be able to go to the corner liquor/recreational drug shop ?


That's my question I'm asking why should we limit access to prescription drugs and not limit access to others?

 

[Steve]

You're ignoring my questions, ballen. If you answer my questions honestly, you're question will also be answered.

Also, bear in mind the previous post, in which I shared a lot of information about what I believe would happen to "crack" if legal, safe, regulated alternatives are made available. When's the last time you responded to hallucinations and violent behavior induced by impure, improperly manufactured liquor?

Edit: And once again, I don't know about Mala, but I've pointed out several times that legal doesn't mean unfettered, unrestricted access.

 

[ballen0351]

You're ignoring my questions, ballen. If you answer my questions honestly, you're question will also be answered.

What questions about docs? Docs have a purpose now but when all things are legal what's the point of going I get an illness why not just go by my own penicillin and skip the doc visit. I feel heart burn I should just go buy the purple pill skip the doc. After all drugs are drugs. Who gets to decide what's legal and what's not. Apparently not the Govt since we already have that system in place and you don't like the choices they made.

Also, bear in mind the previous post, in which I shared a lot of information about what I believe would happen to "crack" if legal, safe, regulated alternatives are made available. When's the last time you responded to hallucinations and violent behavior induced by impure, improperly manufactured liquor?

Even pure regulated PCP will cause gallucinations , pure regulated Herion will still cause zombie like behavior and nodding off, regulated alcohol is safe, regulated crack is still not safe

Edit: And once again, I don't know about Mala, but I've pointed out several times that legal doesn't mean unfettered, unrestricted access.

So who are you to decide who gets access to what?

 

[Tgace]

Edit: And once again, I don't know about Mala, but I've pointed out several times that legal doesn't mean unfettered, unrestricted access.

But you haven't explained what it does mean.

So only addicts will get legal dope?

What about a person who wants to try an opiate? Are you saying he won't be able to buy it at the gas station? If he can't get unfettered access who will he get it from?



Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Makalakumu]

Maybe if there people trying to run and hide from the real world by using dope would take care of the real problems in their real world disaster of a life they wouldn't need to hide behind dope to cope.

And on this we agree. Lots of people who seek the effects of hard drugs need help managing some kind of trauma they experienced. It's too bad they get jail instead...or death from the side effects.

I still think there is a collapsing of concepts here. Some people just don't like the idea of getting intoxicated, but IMO this isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's the side effects. The market could manage this for recreational drug users, but it's not allowed to because of government regulation.

 

[Makalakumu]

You still didnt answer the question about prescription drugs like Antibiotics, Insulin, Heart burn, depression meds. Should they be available over the counter like Marijuana and crack?

Perhaps. If they should be managed in the private sector many things that are now controlled would no longer be controlled because it's not worth it.

 

[Steve]

But you haven't explained what it does mean.

So only addicts will get legal dope?

What about a person who wants to try an opiate? Are you saying he won't be able to buy it at the gas station? If he can't get unfettered access who will he get it from?



Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2

What it means, Tgace, is that we (as in, the country in general, and Congress in particular) will have to have a conversation and establish some rules. Are you asking for me to draft the bill?

What would it mean to you? What would you consider reasonable? Do you think people over 21? Should it be restricted to specific establishments? Prescribed? Not sold within 2 or 10 or 20 miles of a school? There is a lot to discuss, if we can first get past the idea that the prohibition is working. It's not.

 

[ballen0351]

Perhaps. If they should be managed in the private sector many things that are now controlled would no longer be controlled because it's not worth it.

So you are not going to answer the question?

 

[Steve]

So you are not going to answer the question?

I'm pretty sure that "Perhaps," is an answer. Maybe just not the one you want.

 

[ballen0351]

What it means, Tgace, is that we (as in, the country in general, and Congress in particular) will have to have a conversation and establish some rules. Are you asking for me to draft the bill?

We already have and made the rules we have in place. So your OK with congress making rules on drugs as long as it's the rules you want?

What would it mean to you? What would you consider reasonable? Do you think people over 21? Should it be restricted to specific establishments? Prescribed? Not sold within 2 or 10 or 20 miles of a school? There is a lot to discuss, if we can first get past the idea that the prohibition is working. It's not.

Prohibition not working which is debateable. Isn't a reason to change the rules. You could say we are loosing the war on murder or auto theft or rape let's make then legal to since prohibition isn't working

 

[ballen0351]

I'm pretty sure that "Perhaps," is an answer. Maybe just not the one you want.

Perhaps isn't in answer its a non answer to avioid showing hipocrisy

 

[arnisador]

Prohibition not working which is debateable. Isn't a reason to change the rules. You could say we are loosing the war on murder or auto theft or rape let's make then legal to since prohibition isn't working

Again, this seems to be acceptable logic to the 2nd Amendment fundamentalists in the gun threads--why not here?

 

[ballen0351]

Again, this seems to be acceptable logic to the 2nd Amendment fundamentalists in the gun threads--why not here?

Because of the pesky Constitution that says I have the right to keep and bear Arms. No such amendment about my right to keep and bear Crack

Besides gun crime is already banned.

 

[Steve]

We already have and made the rules we have in place. So your OK with congress making rules on drugs as long as it's the rules you want?

Of course. You've said the same thing yourself. We're a country governed under the rule of law, and we have lawful means for changing them. Laws are passed and repealed all the time.

Prohibition not working which is debateable. Isn't a reason to change the rules. You could say we are loosing the war on murder or auto theft or rape let's make then legal to since prohibition isn't working

First, success is subjective based upon whatever criteria you're using to measure success. So, in that, I agree that it's debatable. But, I think that most people would agree that it was a failure. It was costly, both in terms of lives and of money. It did not reduce the consumption of alcohol; rather, it resulted in a raise. Homicide rates went up as a direct result of prohibition. Organized crime was strengthened. And the populations of our prisons grew.

In addition, the companies that made their living by lawfully manufacturing and distributing alcohol were left high and dry (no pun intended) and the tax dollars generated through these sales was gone.

It was such a disaster that, within a few short years, Congress passed another constitutional amendment repealing it.

All of that to say that one would be hard pressed to articulate a very persuasive argument on the side of prohibition being successful.

The rest, where you bring up everything but the kitchen sink, is a red herring.