Another Decriminalise Drugs Thread

[Steve]

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.

Let's consider, however, that Prohibition also involved two constitutional amendments. The 18th, enacted in 1920, and the 21st enacted in 1933.

 

[ballen0351]

Let's consider, however, that Prohibition also involved two constitutional amendments. The 18th, enacted in 1920, and the 21st enacted in 1933.

So pass another one to legalize crack.


Again I asked you why should we restrict access to things like antibiotics and not marijuana or cocaine?

 

[ballen0351]

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 Laws are passed and repealed all the time. 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.

You also talking about banning a substance used by billions for 1000s of years that was legal one day and then banned the next. Not really apples to apples with regard to say crack cocaine used by a few hundred thousand since the late 1980s and has always been banned.

 

[Steve]

So pass another one to legalize crack.


Again I asked you why should we restrict access to things like antibiotics and not marijuana or cocaine?

Ballen, you're posting fast and reacting. Please take a few minutes to read that article from the Cato Institute. It's got a lot of great information in it, and even if you disagree, it will give you some insight into my opinions and the things I'm saying.

Regarding your question, I never said we should restrict access to antibiotics, nor did I say we should NOT restrict access to marijuana or cocaine. I did say that this is an important discussion to have AFTER we have both agreed that legalization is the right thing to do and prohibition isn't working. I'm presuming that you aren't conceding this, though.

 

[ballen0351]

Ballen, you're posting fast and reacting. Please take a few minutes to read that article from the Cato Institute. It's got a lot of great information in it, and even if you disagree, it will give you some insight into my opinions and the things I'm saying.

I've read it doesn't apply. Alcohol vs modern drugs are apples to oranges

Regarding your question, I never said we should restrict access to antibiotics, nor did I say we should NOT restrict access to marijuana or cocaine. I did say that this is an important discussion to have AFTER we have both agreed that legalization is the right thing to do and prohibition isn't working. I'm presuming that you aren't conceding this, though.

So another we need to pass the law to see what's in it kinda thing huh. Got it.

 

[Steve]

I've read it doesn't apply. Alcohol vs modern drugs are apples to oranges

So another we need to pass the law to see what's in it kinda thing huh. Got it.

Okay. I guess that's it then. Agree to disagree.

 

[ballen0351]

Okay. I guess that's it then. Agree to disagree.

I've never heard one good reason why we should open access of deadly highly addictive drugs to millions of people. There are people out there that don't do drugs because they are illegal. To them its not worth the risk. People that currently use then despite the law would use then either way. So the law does work in keeping most people off drugs.

 

[Drasken]

Lol I can see your argument about antibiotics, etc. vs crack or heroin. However, throwing pot in the mix there is kind of odd. You can OD on medicines and certainly you can OD on hard drugs. So yeah, getting a doctor and pharmacist to watch over it is a good idea. But for marijuana you physically cannot overdose. ( Actually you can, but it is a complicated process of forming a superconcentrate of THC since it takes literally your body weight in a short amount of time to be lethal. Might be why nobody ever dies from this drug. )

I honestly don't support legalization of the harder drugs. I've seen what meth, crack and heroin do to people and their family. But I can also agree that what our system is doing now is most definitely not working. The number of people in jail for drug related, non violent crimes is ridiculous. And the terms given is equally so. Maybe it's time we stop focusing on stupid Crap and fix policies that have a signifigant portion of our population behind bars. And realize that legalization of things like marijuana would let cops focus on the real crimes. And free up agencies like the DEA to deal with the drugs that are actually dangerous.

Also, I saw spice mentioned. Spice, and bath salts were never meant for human use. They were developed as a research chemical for mice to study effects on the brain. They are synthetic analogs, and are definitely not safe or in any way comparable to the real drugs. They can't use the real thing without a LOT of red tape. Why do you think it has taken so long for scientists to have the info that marijuana has various health benefits with no real risks? Or that hallucinogenic mushrooms actually cause growth in brain cells and have shown to be effective in the treatment of PTSD and many other psychological conditions?

So, my point is that we should at very least look at this and reevaluate things. I don't think we should have meth factories. But that doesn't mean I don't support legalizing pot and taxing it. At least it deserves a second look.

Edit: I have also seen what alcohol can do. I also know what happened when it was illegal.
Honestly, I think what people do is their own business as long as it is hurting Nobody else. But the points on both sides here have merit. The best course of action is likely in the middle somewhere.

 

[granfire]

The drug laws are so strict, you can't even grow HEMP in this country!
In some places you can't even use it to bed your barn animal's stall with it!

You can OD on Tylenol....

 

[ballen0351]

DEA doesn't go after pot dealers. To even get the DEA to look at a pot case you better be bringing in Tons.
People in jaulnfor drug related offenses have been arrested many many many times. How many chances should people get? You don't like the law tough its the law just because you don't like it doesn't mean you can ignore it. I don't like paying taxes but I do it. You don't need drugs to live so there is no excuse for not following the rules
Also as to cops focusing on real crimes just what is a real crime? I lock up a DUI I get told that. I lock up a crack head I get told that, I lock up a shop lifter I get told that, I stop someone for speeding I get told that. I'd lile to know what a real crime is

 

[Balrog]

Honestly, I don't have the energy for this one again. I've not heard one rational argument in favor of the prohibition.

Really? I have yet to hear one against the prohibition.

The underlying problem is that we do not treat drug offenders as the criminals that they are. Instead, we stand around wringing our hands and whining about how the poor fellow has a disease, and then try to put him through rehab, etc. It has become a game that costs the taxpayers buckets of money.

How about we lock their sorry butts up in jail where they belong? First offense, 10 years. Second offense, 20. Third offense, life. And do away with parole, good time, etc. People look upon prison sentences these days as a paid vacation, or a trip to graduate school for crime. If criminals knew that they would actually, you know....DO hard time for their offenses, I think we would see a decrease in crime.

Make the punishment mean something. Otherwise, as I said, it just becomes a game.

 

[Makalakumu]

Really? I have yet to hear one against the prohibition.

The underlying problem is that we do not treat drug offenders as the criminals that they are. Instead, we stand around wringing our hands and whining about how the poor fellow has a disease, and then try to put him through rehab, etc. It has become a game that costs the taxpayers buckets of money.

How about we lock their sorry butts up in jail where they belong? First offense, 10 years. Second offense, 20. Third offense, life. And do away with parole, good time, etc. People look upon prison sentences these days as a paid vacation, or a trip to graduate school for crime. If criminals knew that they would actually, you know....DO hard time for their offenses, I think we would see a decrease in crime.

Make the punishment mean something. Otherwise, as I said, it just becomes a game.

So, you have a problem with people putting things THAT YOU DON'T APPROVE OF in their body and you want to destroy someone's life for that. This is completely sadistic, IMO. Is this the kind of control you want to exert over everyone in your life?

 

[arnisador]

Again I asked you why should we restrict access to things like antibiotics and not marijuana or cocaine?

Your use of antibiotics can make them less effective on me as micro-organisms develop resistance. But your enjoyment of meth does not lessen my enjoyment of it.

 

[ballen0351]

Your use of antibiotics can make them less effective on me as micro-organisms develop resistance. But your enjoyment of meth does not lessen my enjoyment of it.

So? Drugs are drugs you shouldnt have a right to tell me what to put in my body after all. What about other prescription meds?

 

[arnisador]

The underlying problem is that we do not treat drug offenders as the criminals that they are.

The average MJ user is not a major threat to society. If you know 3 people who went to college, you probably know a (former?) drug user.

How about we lock their sorry butts up in jail where they belong? First offense, 10 years. Second offense, 20. Third offense, life. And do away with parole, good time, etc.

Expensive proposition to teach people that you're in charge of what they do with and to their own bodies.

Look, this should settle the issue once and for all:

[h=1]Miley Cyrus admits marijuana use: ‘Weed is the best drug on earth’ [/h][h=2]The 20-year-old starlet talks about her recreational drug use and why 'weed is much better' than other substances.[/h]

 

[arnisador]

Your use of antibiotics can make them less effective on me

So? Drugs are drugs you shouldnt have a right to tell me what to put in my body after all.

Your rights are at issue where they start affecting mine--and this is a clear public health issue.

 

[Steve]

Really? I have yet to hear one against the prohibition.

The underlying problem is that we do not treat drug offenders as the criminals that they are. Instead, we stand around wringing our hands and whining about how the poor fellow has a disease, and then try to put him through rehab, etc. It has become a game that costs the taxpayers buckets of money.

How about we lock their sorry butts up in jail where they belong? First offense, 10 years. Second offense, 20. Third offense, life. And do away with parole, good time, etc. People look upon prison sentences these days as a paid vacation, or a trip to graduate school for crime. If criminals knew that they would actually, you know....DO hard time for their offenses, I think we would see a decrease in crime.

Make the punishment mean something. Otherwise, as I said, it just becomes a game.

Leave it to the Texan to suggest building more prisons. Discounting the cost to build the prisons, assuming we had the room, it costs the taxpayers between $25k and $35k per year (depending upon which report you read) to incarcerate a prisoner.

Now, I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but according to the CDC, as of 2010, more than 1 out of every 5 American citizen age 18 to 25 used an illicit drug "within the last month." (21.6%)

Almost 17% of teens ages 16 to 18 used "within the last month." And over 13% of 26 to 34 year olds.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus12.pdf#058

Let's think this through for a moment. To keep things simple, let's just stick with the 18 to 25 year olds, but remember that there are people older than this who also use illicit drugs. This is important, because I want to make sure you understand that putting over 20% of the population ages 18 to 25 in jail for 10 years will have a pretty dramatic effect on the economy. Sure, unemployment will go down because we will be reducing the working population significantly. But we'll also have fewer people working and paying taxes, to pay for your pretty serious proposition.

So, according to the US Census (http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf), there were 30,672,088 Americans age 18 to 24 in 2010. If we prosecute and incarcerate 20%, that means we'll have 6,134,418 inmates... wow! Time $30k/year and we're looking at $184,032,540,000 per year. That's just for the 18 to 24 year olds and that's JUST for the illicit drug use.

To put your idea into perspective, according to the BJS, on December 31, 2010, state and federal correctional authorities had jurisdiction over 1,612,395 prisoners. http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2230

So, what you're talking about doing is increasing the number of inmates in State or Federal custody by somewhere around 700% and that's JUST for the 18 to 24 year olds who are doing drugs.

Can we all agree that this is unreasonable?

 

[arnisador]

I've never heard one good reason why we should open access of deadly highly addictive drugs to millions of people. There are people out there that don't do drugs because they are illegal. To them its not worth the risk. People that currently use then despite the law would use then either way. So the law does work in keeping most people off drugs.

But it could never work with guns. Sigh.

 

[Steve]

Really? I have yet to hear one against the prohibition.

Regarding this, I'd like to invite you to read the article I posted by the Cato Institute. It's pretty good, and as I said before, whether you agree or not at the end, it will at least give you some insight into an alternative perspective.

 

[ballen0351]

But it could never work with guns. Sigh.

Guns are not addictive. Guns are Constitutionally protected. And just like guns I'm not calling for more laws against drugs.