Joe Johnson...Up In Smoke

[Fiasco]

Originally posted by ajcardfan
There's one problem with Government sanctioned drug sales, as I see it.

Once a profit is made by the Government in the form of taxes, or from direct sales, inevitably, the goal will become to protect that revenue and/or, increase it. The money will be made not off of casual users, but the addicts. Much like alcohol companies count on alcoholics to maintain their profits. Thus, reducing drug addiction rates will be given lip service only. Much like the alcohol companies do today ofr alcoholism.

This will increase addiction rates, and I know that almost everyone who has had experience, directly or indirectly, with addiction knows how catastrophic it can be to the addicts and their families. We have too many screwed up families and kids already. Is it worth that to put drug cartels and street gangs out of business? Maybe. But you're only shifting the negative consequences, not eliminating or reducing them.

In the short term, it would be hell on our health care system as well. My insurance just went up 25% in one year. We'd need to change that system before we could even think about legalizing. I don't think there's a chance use rates would do anything but increase, bringing all the health problems associated with use.

This is completely false. Alcohol companies do not count on alcoholics to maintain their profits. Casual drinkers consume the vast majority of alcohol produced. Prohibition demonstrated that making alcohol illegal had no impact on alcoholism rates.

As far as reducing drug addiction rates being given lip service, this is already the case. Rates per capita of drug use has increased dramatically since the beginning of the war on drugs. Just like the prohibition, the government has stripped itself of oversight of the illicit drug industry. Access to drugs is <i><B>easier</i></b> now then it has ever been in the past. Just ask your childeren. Decriminalizing drugs would put the industry back under government oversight. It would become <i><b>harder</B></i> to get drugs

On your point about the revenue might lead the government to try to protect its tax revenue from drugs. We now have a failed system that is an enormous burden to taxpayers. An immense bureaucracy now exists to fight the 'war on drugs'. This bureaucracy will fight tooth and nail to protect their slide of the budget (and their jobs) despite the fact that they know the effort is a failure and waste of taxpayer money.

Lastly, on shifting negative consequences and the burden on the health care industry...

The burden of addiction is shifted to the healthcare industry where it belongs. It is much cheaper to treat an addict via healthcare then it is to incarcerate them. It's not the treatment of illness that is driving up your healthcare costs. You can lay much of the blame squarely on the shoulders of a lawsuit happy society and the escalation of malpractice insurance.

I don't think there's a chance use rates would do anything but increase, bringing all the health problems associated with

Currently you have a completely unregulated system for production and distribution of illicit drugs. Drugs are so pervasive that you can buy them in any school or on any street corner, can the same be said of alcohol? Why would returning oversight (and control) of the industry to government increase addiction rates? Emprical evidence says otherwise.

 

[Fiasco]

I for one believe marijuana alone should be made legal. Drugs such as cocaine, ectasy, heroin, LSD (and mushrooms), Speed, and PCP really screw people up pretty badly when one isn't being responsible. Marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, and from everything I've learned, it isn't even arguable.

Mushrooms rule, you leave my mushrooms alone

 

[Cards Czar]

I would give a comment but I have to wait until i get out of the Military.

 

[CardinalChris]

Originally posted by Fiasco
Mushrooms rule, you leave my mushrooms alone

And they aren't illegal until you dry them!!!

Keith Hamilton of the Giants was also picked up today for Coke and Weed possession..... Bad day for DTs.

 

[ajcardfan]

Originally posted by Fiasco
Mushrooms rule, you leave my mushrooms alone

Holland did not succeed in reducing drug use and addiction. If you've been to the train station there and the old city, you've seen how horrific it is. Here's a link, that counters everyone of your statements about how legalization wouldn't increase addiction.

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/demand/speakout/06so.htm

You'll probably say the DEA is lying. Whatever. I'd suggest that much of the reason you want legalization is this post, not your previous ones. And you know what? That's fine with me. I respect that more than users trying to cover up their real motives with "good for society" babble.

The falsest of your statements was the one that casual drinkers make up most of alcohol sales.

http://www.health20-20.org/targets_of_alcohol_advertising.htm

And, by the way, I'm NOT necessarily against legalization. I don't believe it'll be a panacea, that's all.

 

[Fiasco]

Legalization of Drugs will Lead to Increased Use and Increased Levels of Addiction. L

Good web site
http://www.drugpolicy.org

---------------------------

DEA:

During the 19th Century, morphine was legally refined from opium and hailed as a miracle drug. Many soldiers on both sides of the Civil War who were given morphine for their wounds became addicted to it, and this increased level of addiction continued throughout the nineteenth century and into the twentieth. In 1880, many drugs, including opium and cocaine, were legal — and, like some drugs today, seen as benign medicine not requiring a doctor’s care and oversight. Addiction skyrocketed. There were over 400,000 opium addicts in the U.S. That is twice as many per capita as there are today.

By 1900, about one American in 200 was either a cocaine or opium addict. Among the reforms of this era was the Federal Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, which required manufacturers of patent medicines to reveal the contents of the drugs they sold. In this way, Americans learned which of their medicines contained heavy doses of cocaine and opiates — drugs they had now learned to avoid.

Specific federal drug legislation and oversight began with the 1914 Harrison Act, the first broad anti-drug law in the United States. Enforcement of this law contributed to a significant decline in narcotic addiction in the United States. Addiction in the United States eventually fell to its lowest level during World War II, when the number of addicts is estimated to have been somewhere between 20,000 and 40,000. Many addicts, faced with disappearing supplies, were forced to give up their drug habits.

Did the use of opium skyrocket because it was legal or because the drug was not understood and not handled properly? They state that addicts were created by the misuse of morphine during the civil war and because the medicines did not require a doctors oversight.

Its been a precept of my argument for handling narcotics that control be given to the those trained to deal with it... healthcare professionals.

What was virtually a drug-free society in the war years remained much the same way in the years that followed. In the mid-1950s, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics estimated the total number of addicts nationwide at somewhere between 50,000 to 60,000. The former chief medical examiner of New York City, Dr. Milton Halpern, said in 1970 that the number of New Yorkers who died from drug addiction in 1950 was 17. By comparison, in 1999, the New York City medical examiner reported 729 deaths involving drug abuse.

We spend approximately 17 billion yearly directly on the war on drugs. (Some estimate yearly ancillary costs like incarceration exceed 40 billion). With all this effort and expense deaths from drug addiction in New York city have increased by 42 times!!! And this is proof of their argument?

The consequences of legalization became evident when the Alaska Supreme Court ruled in 1975 that the state could not interfere with an adult’s possession of marijuana for personal consumption in the home. The court’s ruling became a green light for marijuana use. Although the ruling was limited to persons 19 and over, teens were among those increasingly using marijuana. According to a 1988 University of Alaska study, the state’s 12 to 17-year-olds used marijuana at more than twice the national average for their age group. Alaska’s residents voted in 1990 to recriminalize possession of marijuana, demonstrating their belief that increased use was too high a price to pay.

Marijuana was not placed under government oversight, it was simply decriminalized. All of the same systems for production, distribution and retail of marijuana remained the same.

I take what the DEA posts with a grain of salt. Read an article like this one: http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/factsheets/childreneduc/index.cfm in which no less then 18 references are provided for the source of data for the article. Then read the DEA articles in which no data sources are listed.

 

[Fiasco]

The DEA says

By 1979, after 11 states decriminalized marijuana and the Carter administration had considered federal decriminalization, marijuana use shot up among teenagers. That year, almost 51 percent of 12th graders reported they used marijuana in the last 12 months. By 1992, with tougher laws and increased attention to the risks of drug abuse, that figure had been reduced to 22 percent, a 57 percent decline.

Drug use is down to 22% amongst 12th graders in 1992?

Drug Policy.org says

Has the drug war reduced children's access to drugs?

No. According to a 1999 survey by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, drugs are readily available to America's high school students.

Almost 90% of twelfth graders participating in the survey said that marijuana was "very easy" or "fairly easy" to get, over 47% said cocaine was "very easy" or "fairly easy" to get, and more than 32% said that heroin was "very easy" or "fairly easy" to get.(14)

The same study found that more than 54% of high school seniors have tried illicit drugs - up from 44% a decade earlier.(15) The Center on Addiction and Substance abuse reports that teenagers consider marijuana even easier to get than beer.(16)

BTW, those numbers in parenthesis are references to footnotes for the sources of the figures. Again something the DEA doesn't provide on their site. Someone isn't telling the truth.

ajcardfan said:
And, by the way, I'm NOT necessarily against legalization. I don't believe it'll be a panacea, that's all.

I don't think it is a panacea for this huge problem either. I just think it is a more efficient and effective way to apply our limited resources toward alleviating the problem. The war on drugs has been a failure of such garish porportions.

 

[Shane]

Re: some thoughts.

Originally posted by andikrist
1. The "war on drugs" and the high incarceration rate in the USA is very useful to corporations who have a pool of cheap (virtually free) labor to draw from
2. It's a fact of life that upper income folks who get busted and can afford good lawyers get more chances than the poor.
3. I have a friend from highschool days that becam a cop. His take on weed: "smoke up all you want in your house - if i catch you with it in your car or out on the street I'll have to arrest you - for being STUPID!".

I cant say that #2 is actually factual. You would be surprised how many times I have arrested the same "poor" person on different felony crimes only to see them back on the streets waiting to be arrested time and time again!

 

[Shane]

I personally would have any real heartburn if Marijuana was legalized across the board and certain restrictions put on its use like a minimum age much like tobacco and alcohol.

Then most places of employment can just have drug tests as a condition of employment and if they chose not to hire people with marijuana in there systems then thats there right.

but if it was regulated and taxed it would certainly make a lot of money for the govt.

Howevor I am VERY MUCH against legalizing anything else!

 

[Shane]

Originally posted by Krangthebrain
Well most crack users are minorities, while most cocaine users are white. Cocaine is much more potent than crack

I wouldnt say that cocaine is more potent. It may be stronger in its original form per say but I dont believe that it is any more addictive.

In fact a rock of crack is probably one of the most addictive drugs there are even moreso then powder cocaine.

 

[Krangodnzr]

Originally posted by Shane H


Howevor I am VERY MUCH against legalizing anything else!

As an admitted former hard drug user, I would agree.

Cocaine, Meth, hallucinogens, and ecstasy are extremely dangerous drugs. I will admit I've used them all, and have been addicted to a few. Luckily, I was able to step back and realize how much those drugs had hurt my life and I pretty much follow the straight and narrow now.

Marijuana is a very minor drug, and should not be treated the same (as it is now) as those other drugs. It should be legalized, taxed, regulated, the same as alcohol. Society has to protect it's members, and the other drugs have no redeeming value.

 

[Houdini]

Smokin' Joe,

So much for being a team leader on defense this coming season. Bonehead!

 

[ChiCard]

Well this thread went beyond it's original scope now hasn't it. The factor that has always been overlooked in this debate is the crime associated with "casual use". Many people like to compare the so-called "war on drugs" with prohibition. This is a fatal mistake from my perspective. The crime and violence that surrounded prohibition in the main stemed from PRODUCTION of the alcohol and the attendant battles to distribute it. The vast majority of crime involved in the use of drugs stems from SECURING it. Unless the government intends to give drugs away for free the need to secure a souce of funding for the drug purchases for users will never abate. Theft's, robberies, burglaries, home invasion, shoplifting, etc are all committed to get the drugs. that is the hidden impact upon society of illicite drug use. There is a documented case of a crack addict in Kansas City who committed 8 armed robberies in the same day to buy crack. He'd stick someone up, go and buy crack, smoke it, repeat the cycle. Once when I served on a committee to reorganize the Illinois Department of Corrections we took testimony on the effectiveness of treatment. Several National groups, who I won't name, reported to us that they considered their program a success once they were able to reach a point where addicts, through treatment, only spent 20% of their time committing crimes to support their habits. A group of 500 California addicts were reported to have committed 9000 crimes of all kinds to support their drug purchases in 6 months! And this begs the question of what we do with drug use in the work place. I wish I knew the answer. I have seen our civil liberties erroded and the agony of crack addicted new borns. Legalizing some drugs will loosen the burden on law enforcement but not upon our society as a whole. Even law enforcment resists these attempts from a selfish perspective. Many such agencies have supported themselves to a significant degree through drug related property seizures. Treatment needs to come to to fore but where we go after that is a question w/o an easy or apparent answers.

 

[ajcardfan]

Very well said ChiCard.

 

[RugbyMuffin]

Originally posted by Shane H
I personally would have any real heartburn if Marijuana was legalized across the board and certain restrictions put on its use like a minimum age much like tobacco and alcohol.

Then most places of employment can just have drug tests as a condition of employment and if they chose not to hire people with marijuana in there systems then thats there right.

but if it was regulated and taxed it would certainly make a lot of money for the govt.

Howevor I am VERY MUCH against legalizing anything else!

Shane that is why you are a good cop. You obviously are concerned with making sure people in your community are happy and safe. Plus you are open minded enough to look past the blue line but not step over it. Very cool. As I have stated before we NEED more good cops like you out there.

Peace
And Go Cards.

BTW - A couple of my rugby cop buddies tip thier hat to you. They said Vegas makes Trenton look like an kiddy ride!

 

[ChiCard]

Originally posted by RugbyMuffin
Shane that is why you are a good cop. You obviously are concerned with making sure people in your community are happy and safe. Plus you are open minded enough to look past the blue line but not step over it. Very cool. As I have stated before we NEED more good cops like you out there.

Peace
And Go Cards.

BTW - A couple of my rugby cop buddies tip thier hat to you. They said Vegas makes Trenton look like an kiddy ride!

Here,here.

 

[Shane]

Originally posted by RugbyMuffin
Shane that is why you are a good cop. You obviously are concerned with making sure people in your community are happy and safe. Plus you are open minded enough to look past the blue line but not step over it. Very cool. As I have stated before we NEED more good cops like you out there.

Peace
And Go Cards.

BTW - A couple of my rugby cop buddies tip thier hat to you. They said Vegas makes Trenton look like an kiddy ride!

Thanks Rugby! I appreciate that!