I can't wait for the results of this to come out so I can use it in debates with people who are against legalization. I'm almost certain Uruguay will be better off for this. The resources involved in trying to suppress cannabis is ridiculous; especially for a substance that doesn't even do as much harm to society as some other things that are perfectly legal.
Edit: yes decriminalization is not legalization. But whole point of illegality has ostensibly been to "protect people from themselves." This shows that it's not necessary.
According to the article that comment linked to; it's now on the same level as a parking-ticket for those growing it without proper registration or in possession of more than 10-days-worth. I can live with that very positive step in the right direction. Would put a huge dent in the War-On-Drugs cash-cow the USA criminal system is seriously milking. My main concern is pretty much the arrest, jailing and criminal-record that drugs causes. All that goes away if it's just a parking ticket.
Many places in the US already have local decriminalized possession of reasonable quantities. Legalization, as seen in Colorado and Washington, should be interesting since it will shortly become possible to run a legitimate business with marijuana (as far as the states are concerned...).
I don't think decrim feeds crime syndicates. California has had decrim for cannabis for a long while now. Dealers can't really make money selling cannabis because it's already so cheap at dispensaries. Most of these dealers move to states where cannabis is still illegal. In a way, dealers are not monetizing "drugs" -- they are monetizing security.
Cannabis is extremely cheap to manufacture since anyone with a bag of soil can easily grow several thousand dollars worth of plant material. The real cost is in securing the product and transporting it to the customer. In states that have decrim, the police don't even bother arresting people with cannabis because catching people running stop signs actually yield more money for the police department. There's no money to be made transporting the goods because the risk is so low.
California's decriminalization has been accompanied by partial legalization. In absence of any sort of legalization, the only place to buy drugs is through the usual channels.
"Usual channels", while not limited to, includes gangs.
When the entire production chain is legalized, the black market disappears. Decriminalization only affects the end user and leaves the black market in place.
This is utter rubbish; the negative effects on health of any activity or substance clearly cannot be judged by merely trying it. Think DDT, asbestos, thalidomide, and a massive list of other misadventures that we've tried over the past 100 or so years.
It feels like we're just about at the tipping point with cannabis. Once enough states in the US legalize it, the Feds will have to back down.
The next step will be for people to wake up to the fact that harder drugs need to be legal too. Not so that more people can take them, but so we can have less crime and eliminate a key justification for the growing police state.
>Once enough states in the US legalize it, the Feds will have to back down.
Or the federal government can just use it as a means to arrest pot-smoking undesirables at will? I don't really see how state laws come to a head with federal ones in this case - state police and lower will not enforce the federal laws, but FBI/DEA etc. can and probably will continue to. When it's a federal law granting someone a right (e.g. Roe v. Wade, the 14th amendment) then the federal government gets to go in and change state laws, but I've never heard of a case of federal laws changing because something it criminalizes was explicitly legalized in state laws. The most analogous historical precedent we have is prohibition, and iirc state laws didn't change until after the ratification of the 21st amendment, so that doesn't really apply. Unless you're saying that states would pass a constitutional amendment, which seems a little far fetched to me, though not impossible.
Look at what is happening with gay marriage. It started changing at the state level, and once the public sentiment changed enough some of the previous federal restrictions are starting to fall as well. The same could (in theory) happen with marijuana if a critical mass of states begin to legalize.
Excellent point. Consensus seems to come at the state level. Another example that seems to be happening lately is reforming of mandatory sentencing/3 strikes laws.
Some would argue that this is the point of federalism. Many small experiments carried out in parallel. The good ideas get adopted; the poor ones get dropped.
On a similar note but different law, some feel abortion was federally legalized before the states had a chance to fully settle it. Some say the previous abortion battle was never fully litigated and that's why there's a resurgence in anti-abortion laws.
There's an advantage to allowing the states to hash out laws. It's frustrating because it's slow but it also gives people a chance to catch up with the progression.
Except prohibition was a constitutional amendment, and the Supremecy Clause of said Constitution says that an amendment take precedence over any state (or federal) law.
Drug prohibition laws are federal, but not part of the constitution. Very different, legally speaking.
It turns out it's really really expensive to enforce laws without the help of local law enforcement. One example (i think) is New York's repeal of prohibition.
>I don't really see how state laws come to a head with federal ones in this case - state police and lower will not enforce the federal laws, but FBI/DEA etc. can and probably will continue to.
Obviously it's not that simple. We need massive reform in public education and affordability of healthcare (such as rehab facilities) before sane drug laws can possibly be implemented.
Actually we don't. Those would be nice to have, but the current drug policy has failed horribly. The meth "epidemic" is a perfect illustration of this: it's illegal but it hasn't stopped those that want to use it from using it.
That would solve most of the problems with meth. Quality control issues would be wiped out (and with them, many of the health and 'zoning' concerns). Stabilized price and availability would reduce many of the social concerns. The money formerly spent on pointless enforcement (lets face it, anybody who actually wants meth, has meth...) could instead be spent on actually helping people. With destigmatization, and eliminated potential consequences for not keeping a low profile, people who need help would be more inclined to seek help.
I've got legal speed in my medicine cabinet that my doctor prescribed to me for ADHD. I also have legal opiates that my doctor prescribed for pain. I don't want or need your approval for what I put in my body.
I also have a brother dead from a heroin overdose. It's illegal and it didn't stop him. Sanctimonious nanny staters like you think you're protecting people but you're just supporting organized crime, death and ruined lives by pushing this into the shadows.
The fact that so many people mess themselves up on legal amphetamines and opiates is unfortunately why there is so much opposition to legalizing drugs.
I don't care what you put in your body (legal or otherwise), its your body and your life and you are compelled to do so for reasons I might not understand, but if I found a loved one was taking a cocktail of amphetamines and opiates I would do everything in my power to see they got the help and support they needed to get off it.
Legalizing amphetamines would trigger major societal problems. What percentage of HN would feel the need to consume it in order to compete at school, the office or the market.
Nanny state? You make it sound so simple. Drugs are just chemicals. Why not say all chemicals should be legalized. What about RDX (a military-grade explosive)? Is the nanny state getting in the way of me having a good time on private property blowing stuff up? I can safely use military weapons, so why can't I purchase them privately?
Ah yes, the good old "If you legalize drugs, next we'll be legalizing plastic explosives!" slippery-slope argume... wait what? That is one hell of a new one. You guys are getting more creative every day...
Your last sentence is one big bait-and-switch. Your simple possession of RDX is an entirely different matter from "blowing stuff up". I can blow stuff up just as easily with ammonium nitrate (used by the ton for fertilizing farmland) and diesel. Both of those are legal, but perhaps you'd rather they not be? You know, just in case...
The drug war has not criminalized harmful behavior caused by drugs. That would make far too much sense. The drug war criminalizes the mere possession of drugs, regardless of any actual harmful behavior. Then the nanny state corrects your behavior by giving you a criminal record.
If you make it easier and cheaper to purchase drugs by making it legal, it is natural to expect that more people would use and purchase them, on the margin. Is that what we want?
People are going to get wasted anyhow. Why not offer legal alternatives to alcohol (which just makes us stupid and dead) and tobacco.
The only reason I see why cannabis is not legal yet is because it threatens the medical industry in a big way. Cannabis, although easily becomes an addiction, is also a big medicine for many things.
When people start to realize this in big quantities, the medical companies are going to get worried, as their prescription drugs that may cause coma and death, will not be used so much anymore.
Your question is bit of a non-sequitur, but any answer would have to depend on the drug in question.
If we're talking about alcohol, then the rise in consumption is absolutely acceptable because 1.) those who abuse are now treated as addicts instead of imprisoned by default, and 2.) those who don't abuse it are now free from the horrors of capricious and arbitrary criminal persecution.
Same goes for marijuana and tobacco (which is, in my meager experience, the most addictive drug of all).
Now, if we're talking about meth or narcotics, then obviously any rise in consumption has to be taken very seriously, and then addressed by treating addicts medically as they should be, instead of sending them deeper underground by making them criminals.
You are ignorant, have you ever been an addict? I doubt it, you've probably lived a safe life in your white middle-class bubble.
If you think you could just convince a loved one to stop doing dope and crank with words, you're living in a fucking dream world. I speak from experience, having the disease of addiction.
As someone who has lived with an (heroine) addict, I can tell you that decriminalization was essential in getting him to treatment, but he did stop consuming (after a few restarts, and after hurting a lot of people around him). The months he spent in jail didn't help at all.
Well, would you rather those same tax dollars are spent on something that doesn't work with people not getting treatment, or on treatment for those same people that is likely to work?
$10 per US citizen is over 3 billion dollars. I'm pretty sure you could do something useful with 3 billion dollars.
Hell, there are 10,000 employees at the DEA, in the most simplistic case you could replace them with drug rehab folks and that's a couple of hundred extra per state. That's enough to have an impact.
(-edit-- yeah ok, I may have overestimated the budget of the DEA, but 3 billion is not to be sniffed at, and the DEA is really only the tip of the iceberg)
What's the total cost though? I read somewhere that the cost to keep an inmate in prison is like $40k a year and a good majority of the inmate population is in there due to drug related offenses. And what about the intangibles like the impact the drug war has had on minority and low income populations? I'm with everyone else here. This really is a lesser of two evils situation and letting a few people get high and possibly ruin their lives is much better than the situation we have today with the US having the highest incarceration rate in the world.
Because I'm not? Or are you just knee-jerk assuming that because I dare to raise any comment at all, I'm opposed to the general idea?
Don't assume that ending the war on drugs will free up some large, discrete sum of money that you can go and promise away on "sweet social programs". The money saved (of which there will be plenty) is in hundreds, even thousands, of small pools across all levels of government, all of which are perpetually money-starved, and it will be gone like dew on a summer morning before you'll get anywhere near it.
>> The money saved (of which there will be plenty) is in hundreds, even thousands, of small pools across all levels of government, all of which are perpetually money-starved, and it will be gone like dew on a summer morning before you'll get anywhere near it.
Naive response - well excellent, by the sounds of it we've just freed up a whole bunch of funds in all sorts of areas for all sorts of other important stuff.
More cynical response - government waste and perpetual hunger for more cash is a constant and something else we should be fighting anyway.
Either way, I'm of the opinion that even if all the money disappeared off into a vacuum, the WoD is counterproductive. Even if we kept paying the DEA to just hang around and scratch its collective butt all day, we'd be making a positive change to society by stopping all action in the pointless 'war'.
> Because I'm not? Or are you just knee-jerk assuming that because I dare to raise any comment at all, I'm opposed to the general idea?
No where in my comment did I offer any judgement against you or your character. You're the one making assumptions.
> Don't assume that ending the war on drugs will free up some large, discrete sum of money that you can go and promise away on "sweet social programs". The money saved (of which there will be plenty) is in hundreds, even thousands, of small pools across all levels of government, all of which are perpetually money-starved, and it will be gone like dew on a summer morning before you'll get anywhere near it.
I assume nothing beyond the fact that the current system is massively expensive and demonstrably a net negative on society. My opinion is simply that the current system is worse than doing nothing at all and my philosophy is always for there to be less government intervention in people's lives than more. Therefore, my preference is that we end the war on drugs as I believe this is a better situation than we are in today.
As others have pointed out, $3B is not a small amount of money.
Also, most of the money spent in the drug war doesn't go through the DEA.
For example, DEA doesn"t run prisons. It costs about $50000 to keep someone in prison. We have about 3 million prisoners in the US. Suppose only 10% of them are in prison for drug offenses. That's about $15 billion/year. Pencils out to $50/year for each US citizen. So about $200/year per taxpayer.
Think a little and you won't have trouble finding other sources of waste. Wasted police time. Lost productivity of the imprisoned. Truancy among children with missing fathers.
Personally, I'd rather give the $200 to a harm reduction program.
Ideologically I agree with you, I don't like the idea of the state deciding what I can and cannot do to myself.
However, I think you are trivializing it. The fact that some people do something that is illegal doesn't mean that the law has no effect. Alcohol is practically the only recreational drug I use and the same applies to a large group of my friends. I am sure that if other categories had been legal, they would have been more common as well. My parents would have had a harder time convincing me not to take something if you could buy it in a safe location with knowledge that the production was controlled etc. Now I'm not necessarily saying that this would have been worse, but you're suggesting that the only thing that would happen from legalizing everything would be that people would keep consuming like they do today (because people who want something can get it anyway), and drug lords would be replaced by taxable corporations. Which I think is hardly the case.
Well, history teaches us that it probably is the case. During the alcohol prohibition in the USA, the situation was more or less equal than before it.
There aren't hard numbers of consumption during the prohibition (obviously) but statistics of alcohol related deaths and arrests seem to show that there was a serious decrease just before the prohibition, and after a few years it returns to its previous state, and was worse in some aspects.
Cross country comparisons are difficult. Just because Dutch consume less marijuana than U.S. it doesn't mean that U.S. will not consume more when it's legalized.
That's true, but the statistics tend to show that consumption rate is unrelated to its legal status.
As far as I know, there aren't any records of a boom in consumption just because a drug was legalized. And I'm not talking about marijuana only, but drugs in general, alcohol included.
Considering that, we can say that the fear of people going mad about a drug just because it was legalized is another myth of the "war on drugs".
Methamphetamine is already legal, it's a Schedule II substance. Ask your doctor about Desoxyn. Compared to pot, which is Schedule I and actually "illegal", not just highly controlled.
The current system is counterproductive in and of itself. It would be a positive step just to scrap it.
Yes, rehab centres, education and healthcare initiatives would be great and I totally think that we should have those and fund them from taxes. But even if we don't, even if we say "fuck it, legalise everything and to hell with the rest" we'd be far better off as a society. Innocents would no longer die in drug-raids gone wrong. Taxes that fund the war could be cut, suppliers could compete on quality and price, removing major reasons addicts die and steal. Criminals would no longer have an easy source of income. Lives already ruined by addiction would no longer be further destroyed by criminal records and prison time.
So yeah, legalise it. All of it. Now. We can talk about the other stuff later.
that way you can afford to improve healthcare and education whlst simultaneously reducing harm by ensuring a cleaner product is made available to users.
Yes. Prohibition does two things:
1. Pushes drugs to a black market, which increases violence and cutting drugs with even more harmful chemicals and
2. Wastes money on a useless 'war'.
Notice I didn't say it decreases use, because it doesn't (evidence: see Portugal case study, they decriminalised drugs and use went down).
If that war money had been spent towards educating people how to use drugs safely, health care and rehabilitation, instead of putting people in jail for a victimless crime, well, you tell me if that's a good idea.
The benefits of drug prohibition (if any) are far outweighed by the problems it causes.
It will probably make it harder to get if it's regulated. Plus you can open clinics that allow people to get 'weened' off of the drug instead of throwing them in a jail cell and watching them rot away.
> "lets throw drugs at the under educated and already disadvantaged that will help social inequality in our country greatly."
They already have the drugs aplenty. But we do them one better by giving them criminal records on top of their addictions. Isn't that helpful! Plus, as an added bonus, prohibition ensures that the profits from those drugs go to actual criminal organizations.
> " Why bother when mental illness has been linked to cannabis use in adolescents"
First, unless I'm missing something, no one here has proposed legalizing drugs for children. Second, tobacco has been linked to a bible-full of hellish ailments for everybody. Perhaps you'd like to illegalize that and call it a day yourself?
You think people will consume more, I think right now people is consuming with or without goverment approval. You don't need a law to consume, you just need a dealer, wich is really easy to find nowadays.
By making a good law about this kind of drugs, you just taking out lot of problems and saving lots of $$$$$ in survelliance and law enforcement wich, clearly by long proved stats, they don't work at all.
Disagree. The US bases all of it's drug laws after the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (Which arguably was US engineered)[1]. So the federal government has an international treaty obligation to create and enforce drug laws.
This is the major distinction between Cannabis prohibition and Alcohol prohibition. The latter could be turned off by the US government, the former requires snubbing the UN. There is always the unilateral option but the US wouldn't do that in this case because it would open the gates for every other country and the political interests are way too strong.
Basically for the US to formally "legalize it" the rest of the world would have to as well, which is why Argentina and Uruguay are great examples of leadership when it comes to the Drug war; they are both UN members and implied signatories to the treaty.
Funny, the US seems perfectly willing to ignore the UN when it wants to (for example, environmental agreements). Not sure why this would necessarily be any different.
The US hardly ever takes its cues from the UN. It's fairly obvious that if the US wants to take action that's not sanctioned by the UN, it will find a way to take that action or get the UN to follow along. The difficult part here is the US changing it's internal stance on drugs. Compared to that, dealing with the UN is a piece of cake.
That's also not true. The vast majority of UN treaties which the US is a signatory to are enforced by the US* on US citizens. If your claim is that we only enforce the ones we lead on then that is an impossible claim to prove - by design. 99% of UN treaties no one will ever know of, things related to fisheries, wildlife preservation, telecommunications, arms control etc... check it out for yourself on their database [1]
There are of course major examples of unilateral actions on the part of the US to be sure, but those are outliers albeit extreme ones.
I think you're mistaking the order of action. Yes, the US is a signatory to many UN treaties, but this isn't because the UN released the treaty and the US reluctantly signed up. The US is a founding member of the UN, and uses the body to enforce American values on the world. The UN convention on narcotics is a product of the US war on drugs, not the other way round. The US use trade sanctions as a stick to force others to sign up.
That treaty doesn't mean anything, it has no teeth. The US can choose to not abide by it (as it is already doing), or opt out of it at will (as it will do), and there will be no consequences under any circumstances, period.
As is the case with most things related to the UN as it applies to the US, the US can ignore it tomorrow morning, and there is absolutely nothing that will or can realistically be done about it. Who is going to do what, exactly? The US is by far the prime leader in the war on drugs, if we fold our cards, it's instantly game over, no matter what half-cocked treaties are outstanding.
Enforcement is purely optional at this point already, as has already been demonstrated in Washington and Colorado, and a lot more are going to follow.
The US is by far the prime leader in the war on drugs, if we fold our cards, it's instantly game over, no matter what half-cocked treaties are outstanding."
Hence my previous statement:
There is always the unilateral option but the US wouldn't do that in this case because it would open the gates for every other country and the political interests are way too strong.
What political interests? Most European elites are begging for the US to come around so that they can have the political cover to drop this madness. They cannot do that until World Police changes its stance, because they'd be commercially blacklisted into the Middle Age.
The political interests were there when the US could use drug policy to support this or that puppet government in Latin America or Afghanistan. This strategy has failed so thoroughly in the long run, your own backyard is now giving up and leading decriminalisation. The US government would get a lot of goodwill around the world by ending the prohibition idiocy.
>because they'd be commercially blacklisted into the Middle Age
Portugal was blacklisted to the middle ages?
Eventually Europeans will have to stop pretending everything is the US's fault and be responsible for their own countries.
Portugal decriminalised a bit more than others, they didn't legalise. Other countries have done something similar, but full legalisation would incur the wrath of US representatives at UN, WTO etc.
You stumble across something wider and interesting - representatives of democratic states writing international conventions to create obligations to implement unpopular laws.
We see this in the response to copyright infringement too e.g. ACTA - the executive thinks this is a thing that needs doing, but will never get past elected representatives because the public doesn't like it.
A lot of the hostility towards Europe stems from it's constituent governments using it like this.
No offense, but your thoughts are ridiculous. Do you really want to see the country enter a shit hole? Ask those folks in Michigan on the other side of the 8 Mile if they feel drugs need to be legalized. If they feel that drugs didn't destroy their town and community.
Look at your history and check your ideas. While I will defend the fact that you have ideas, you are grossly wrong.
The country already entered a giant shit hole, decades ago, thanks to the war on drugs.
Only Stalin's gulags held more in prison than the US has under the war on drugs. It's easily arguable that over the span of the program, we've outdone Stalin.
Poverty, crime, cartels, destroyed families, destroyed lives, millions in prison: hundreds of billions of dollars spent without solving a single thing, without fixing anything, without ever reducing addiction or stopping drug use. America's cities became war zones when the war on drugs began.
Tell Mexico's tens of thousands of innocent victims that have been slaughtered by our war, that it's all working out just swell.
He's not supporting the drug war. He's saying that "legalize everything" is not a solution to what is a complicated problem that involves intersectionality.
As unpopular as this comment is, it needs to be said. Privileged, white, upper class libertarians simply don't care how drugs affect poor communities. The free market will sort everything out.
Selective enforcement of drug laws is only one of many ways that poor and minority communities are abused by the "white supremacist capitalist patriarchy" to quote bell hooks. Legalizing drugs won't magically change anything except for rich white kids whose parents would otherwise have to pay a fine when they get arrested.
You're missing the forrest for the trees. Reforming drug laws won't solve racism, classism, or sexism. Anyway, everyone here is in favor of reforming drug laws - this thread of discussion is within the context of talking about the relatively radical position of legalizing all drugs without any supportive educational or healthcare programs.
Ah, silly me. I hadn't realized that I reject "any supportive educational or healthcare programs". I thought I supported stuff like that, but you've educated me.
Now I'm pretty sure that you're either playing me, or you really are one of those "folks" I mentioned above.
If the evil White people you are referring to didn't care about the poor, why would they say "the free market will sort everything out". They would say "the free market will screw you over, but that's the way things should be".
Do you think people in poor communities are generally finding it difficult to gain access to drugs? Do you think pushing poor people who do drugs or have friends/family members who do outside of the bounds of the law improves their lives? Do you think creating a barrier of distrust between drug users and law enforcement is helpful?
A lot of the problems of drug use are either orthogonal to legality or worsened by prohibition. We saw this with alcohol and it's just as true with marijuana and most other drugs.
You're privileged, white, and at least middle-upper class, why are you spouting your mouth off as if you know what lower class drug addicts have to deal with?
You don't, I do. This shit is real life for some of us, you can stop pretending like you give a shit, thanks.
I don't see how legalizing drugs would cause the country to enter a shit hole? The people who buy drugs now can already do it via SR or other marketplaces, but legalizing it would significantly reduce crime. There are other countries that have legalization that don't have our crime problems.
Right, because prohibition has worked out so well hasn't it? We're really helping people by giving them criminal records for non-violent drug-related offenses.
Tell you what, why don't you go ask the "folks in Michigan" if we need to bring back alcohol prohibition as well, since alcohol continues to be the most destructive by far.
Ask those folks in Michigan on the other side of the 8 Mile if they feel drugs need to be legalized. If they feel that drugs didn't destroy their town and community.
I don't have any sources at the moment, but from what I've read, the problems associated with drugs are actually due to poverty and the fact that drugs are illegal, making those who use and sell them criminals. There is an important distinction between harm due to the criminalization of drugs, and harm due to drugs per se.
There are a few real world examples of states that have decriminalized all drugs, such as Portugal:
The resulting effect: a drastic reduction in addicts, with Portuguese officials and reports highlighting that this number, at 100,000 before the new policy was enacted, has been halved in the following ten years. Portugal's drug usage rates are now among the lowest of EU member states, according to the same report.
One more outcome: a lot less sick people. Drug related diseases including STDs and overdoses have been reduced even more than usage rates, which experts believe is the result of the government offering treatment with no threat of legal ramifications to addicts.
So you must naturally support a return to alcohol prohibition, right?
Perhaps you can provide us with your own "theories and internet references" that might change our minds? Like, I don't know, maybe some evidence that throwing people in prison for minor drug offenses (a necessary consequence of making drugs illegal) has helped those people, their children, and their communities in any way. Statistically speaking, that is.
No wait I have a better idea! How about you convince me that the addicts in my own family would be better served by criminal records than by treatment. Now that's a real appeal to emotion!
So passionate for your weed, as if its the most important thing there is.
And yes I am in favor of more restrictions on both drugs and alcohol. I'm opposed to the notion that drugs and alcohol are consequence-free substances. In the wrong hands, they kill and they destroy lives.
>> So passionate for your weed, as if its the most important thing there is.
If it's so unimportant, why should we spend billions combatting it, and give people prison time and criminal records for using it?
>> And yes I am in favor of more restrictions on both drugs and alcohol. I'm opposed to the notion that drugs and alcohol are consequence-free substances. In the wrong hands, they kill and they destroy lives.
And prohibition does nothing to keep it out of those hands.
It's interesting that you've singled out marijuana. You appear to be a bit obsessed with it yourself, clinging to your emotional appeals and repeating them like mantras. Why marijuana and not a really dangerous substance like alcohol, tobacco, or prescription painkillers?
> "I'm opposed to the notion that drugs and alcohol are consequence-free substances."
See this is what we call a strawman, and this is a particularly blatant example of one. Opponents of prohibition don't argue that drugs and alcohol are "consequence-free substances". They do argue that the consequences of prohibition are far worse than those of the drugs alone.
If you are intent on making this personal, I can tell you that I haven't had a drink in over 12 years, and I remember the exact day of my last drink. If you can guess why I'll mail you a star sticker :). Oh and I don't smoke anything either.
But although I personally can't be trusted with the stuff, I have the maturity to accept that other people can, and I'm not blind to the horrors of preemptively punishing everyone else in deference to my personal weaknesses.
> "In the wrong hands, they kill and they destroy lives."
Granted. But I don't understand how you get from there, to concluding that the solution is to criminalize everyone who uses a substance, regardless of whether or not they actually do something bad with it. Criminal records are pretty good at destroying lives too, and they do nothing to help actual addicts.
Look, I realize you're probably immune to logic on this, and you seemed to acknowledge earlier that the evidence isn't on your side, so I'll spare you all that jazz and just issue a very basic rhetorical challenge:
Tell me with a straight face that the drug addicts in my family (or anywhere else) are better off being treated like criminals, on top of or in lieu of whatever treatment they may receive. Then convince me that everyone else who isn't an addict should also be treated like criminals simply for possession, just so we can continue imprisoning the "wrong hands".
You may have seen people killed by crime, or untreated addiction to other drugs. You may have seen lives ruined by the legal system. I am sure you saw many of the problems the war on drugs has given us, but you did not see anybody killed by marijuana. You did not see a plant tear a community apart.
What the fuck is an "internet source" anyway? What is next, disbelieving anything written in a book that has a black cover, instead of a white one?
My experience is that weed, alcohol and hard drugs were all part of the mix - an inseparable combination.
And no - I did not see anyone killed by crime, or lives ruined by the legal system, or some other theory of yours. Just people who drank and drugged until they were dead or caused terrible harm to their family.
Dude you are so eager to assert what I know or have seen. Enjoy your pot.
Nobody was killed by weed in your community or anywhere for that matter. Unless you're talking about gang related violence in relation to marijuana. In that case: That would be solved if it were legal.
I live in Portugal. Decriminalization of drugs for personal use happened over ten years ago. Nothing dramatic happened. Life went on as before. Except that we have less people in prison, and more in rehab. And if anything, crime went down and overall drug use decreased.
Thank you. Some (most?) North Americans seem to be culturally incapable of looking further than their country's borders to see how other nations deal with the same problem... Prohibitionists are usually dumbstruck when i raise the Portugal example, as if i must be just flat-out lying about a country that actually tried something different, and saw positive results.
Same here. I'm also from Portugal, and I lived with someone with heroin addiction. The fact that he didn't have to fear getting locked up for using was essential in getting him to get help. He's not the perfect citizen now, but he has been clean for years.
Oh oh, I know! Can we help them by imprisoning them? I bet that will work great.
Throwing the lower classes in jail for being uneducated and addicted does not solve anything. These people need help, not more prohibition. (And to be clear, it is overwhelmingly the lower classes that are targeted by prohibition. Prohibition is a powerful tool for class warfare)
I'm curious why the option of blocking this business completely is not an option. US has the biggest army in the world, right? Doesn't it have a budget for occupying an entire country in somewhere far away? Then what does stop you from asking this simple question: why don't we fight for more life quality for everybody? Why doesn't Japan has this problem, have you ever asked this to yourself?
I know I shouldn't feed clear trolls, but what exactly are you suggesting then? Because it sure as hell sounds like you are just interested in putting the warfare into "class warfare".
Prohibition does not work. The war on drugs does not work. Throwing more money at it will not work.
Yeah, investing on occupying oil lands is more profitable, right?
Don't even mention about class. If you had a piece of idea of social classes, you'd first support their life quality and realize that the drug industry is already a device of the system to knock them down.
Plus, what I proposed was to war against drug cartels, not users.
And you just keep that bullshit with the assumption of "drug war doesn't work" oh really? I know that hopeless face of the government, when it comes to stopping the crime, the eagle turns to a rabbit!
Prohibition feeds the cartels and gangs. If you want the criminal underworld to stop wreaking havoc on the lower classes, you need to take away their most profitable business, not cement their monopoly. It is just common sense that has been repeated ad nauseam throughout this thread, try reading what other people are saying.
The War on Drugs has been massively unsuccessful. The history of it gives us absolutely no reason to think that throwing even more money at it will improve anything at all.
Those numbers are bullshit. The american view of drug industry, is more than bullshit.
I see the streets. Go to 6th and Market now, or 16th and Mission, both streets have tents that sell hard drugs. Every night, there are a lot of things going on there.
Who does even attempt to stop them? I lived in multiple countries, and the toleration I see here is just incredible. I saw those who sell and use heroins, and we (me and bunch of coworkers) just passed them.
Just a regular day. I don't believe your numbers. Plus; I believe, this entire business is a way to keep the poor classes as poor. Go read about Hasan Sabbah.
I think there's an unstated idea with the person you're debating here that drug addiction is a medical/psychological issue that drug cartels profit from by taking advantage of people with a disposition towards substance abuse, not social or commercial problem.
Do you now understand why you're getting nowhere in this debate? It's like trying to convince somebody that the solution to cancer is bringing in the army to defeat viruses.
If you disagree with the fundamental assumption, you would do well to state that.
"This entire business" only keeps people poor through the dual prongs of criminalisation keeping prices up and allowing people to be thrown in jail and thus making them far less employable.
The drug on war is a combination of christian moralism and class warfare, pure and simple, just like prohibition was. Just like then, the moralists managed to convince a lot of people that it was to protect or save them, and just like then it proved to do far more damage than good.
> Doesn't it have a budget for occupying an entire country in somewhere far away?
Yes. It doesn't. US couldn't occupy successfully neither Afghanistan nor Iraq. If you'd like to occupy someone ask British. They successfully occupied India for many years.
Well, using the technique the Romans used on us. Figure out who is already powerful in the country you want to conquer and convince them they will be better off. Instead of King of X you will only be Duke of X, but look at all this lovely stuff, and you can borrow a legion to knock off your rivals if you need to.
But the important corollary of that is that the lives of the common people got better too. Not so in Afghanistan.
Because their organised crime is sort-of regulated and accepted as an inevitable part of society. Wanna try that? That's even more of a paradigm shift, I don't think you're ready for it.
Consider that one of the countries the US recently has been occupying - Afghanistan - is one of the largest sources of opium poppies in the world, and hence heroin, despite the years of US military presence and massive amounts of money invested into trying to reduce it. Supposedly heroin output
In other words: The US army is wholly insufficient to prevent heroin production in even a single country. And if they were to succeed, they'd just have made production vastly more profitable, and hence attractive, for people elsewhere.
> Then what does stop you from asking this simple question: why don't we fight for more life quality for everybody?
Why do you think this would improve life quality for anyone?
Have you known any high functioning heroin addicts?
Chances are you have even if you think you don't, but just don't know it. I have known at least one - it took a year of dealing with this person regularly before we noticed, and then only because the war on drugs causes massive price instability. Suddenly he had problems getting money enough for his abuse, and ended up stealing some. Until then, he'd been able to hide his abuse for years from everyone including his closest family. Luckily for him, he got it together enough to check himself into treatment before he got into further
The heroin users you see on the street is not nearly all of the heroin users out there, by far, any more than the alcoholics you see on the street are all alcohol users. Even heroin is not so addictive that everyone who use it even have a strong dependency on it; you find recreational heroin users out there. Of those that are dependent, not nearly everyone have problems managing their daily life in ways that makes it likely for people around them to have any idea they are using.
A huge part of the problem with even drugs that can be as nasty as heroin can be is the criminalisation that makes it impossible for users to get properly manufactured doses of known strength at a predictable low price. Most of the nastiest side effect of even many of the really hard drugs are legal and/or problems related to impurities and unpredictable doses rather than actual medical problems related to the drug itself with "normal" use. There are a few drugs where extensive abuse does have nasty medical side effects, yes. But so does alcohol and nicotine - do you propose we use military means to stop all manufacture of those too (if you do, I suggest you look up prohibition to see how that worked out last time)
Want to fight to improve life quality? Legalise pretty much everything, and invest the money currently spent on fighting it into enforcement of strict quality standards, regulating manufacturing and sale, and providing far more treatment and support for those who do need it.
The war on drugs has nothing to do with making things better - it is a mix of religiously founded moralism and a war on the poor (and by extension, in the US it is a war on black people).
Harder drugs are already legal - alcohol and tobacco. They were classified as more harmful in a study by professor David Nutt in the UK. He was then sacked as Government adviser.
He also said MDMA is safer than horse-riding. This annoyed the politicos no end, especially as a lot of them are from the horse-riding classes.
It sounds like a flippant remark until you realise it was triggered by him knowing people who have died or become brain-damaged pursuing equestrian hobbies. He then did the statistical calculations and found out that the risks of horse-riding were higher but roughly comparable to those of MDMA use.
People think MDMA is more dangerous mostly because of intense press coverage when someone does die from it. When was the last time you saw "girl dies in tragic polo accident" on the front page?
It really annoys me that people who get things wrong feel the need to delete their post, rather than just reply saying something like, "Ooops, sorry, your right."
Even when you do see "girl dies in tragic polo accident", compare that to "girl dies after taking illegal drugs", and the expected slant on the respective articles. The former would likely be framed exactly as a tragic unavoidable accident that is not her fault, while in the latter chances are good the article will be full of comments from people who can't understand how she could have possible fallen so low as to take dangerous drugs, and implicitly it is her fault, and she had clearly gone from being a good girl to a bad girl and that is how she ended up dying. Coupled with some blurbs about how many people use drugs and recent deaths and statements about what a problem it is.
Imagine if the "girl dies in tragic polo accident" was slanted the same way, and listed recent horse riding accidents and interviews with people warning about how more and more young people ride horses...
I often tell people there is a similar disconnect (yet similar risk) between motorcycle riding and skiing. Break a leg on a bike and you shouldn't have been doing that dangerous thing! Break a leg skiing? Oh man bummer! Hope I see you on the slopes next season!
I understand the sentiment, but lets not get away from ourselves here, there is a huge difference between acquiring skills through physical activities and ingesting chemicals for a short period of bliss.
No, no there's not. Both are leisure activities some people choose to indulge in, and they have similar risk profiles.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'getting away from ourselves', but considering one worthy and the other not is purely subjective and I would say prejudicial.
The "difference" is in your values, not in the responsibility of governments.
You value acquiring physical intelligence. You do not value spiritual exploration. FWIW, MDMA is not "bliss" and it's not "short." It's longer than your average horse-ride, and it's much more complicated than simple bliss (as I've read in numerous reports on erowid.org)
It is the government's responsibility to protect us through sharing appropriate information [1], not to ruin our lives through imprisonment when we undertake solo activities with no risk to others.
BTW, I'm not even an MDMA enthusiast. I just don't feel like it, too busy, but for those who want to, I just want them to be safe, have their stuff tested, etc.
[1] So, why are articles like "Death rates from ecstasy (MDMA, MDA) and polydrug use in England and Wales 1996–2002" [2] only available through a paywall!!
Yeah, I find this whole meme quite weird. There seem to be a fairly large group of people that are convinced that some or other drug will 'open up' the minds of the populace, we'll all somehow 'realise' that we're being screwed by the man, suddenly everything will be awesome and we'll all live in harmony.
It's about as convincing as "and they all lived happily ever after" at the end of a fairytale.
i am one of those people who believes that, only I don't think it's as simple as 1. take drugs, 2. figure out we're slaves. 3. ??? 4. Profit.
There are a great number of activities which slowly, in turn, help reveal that all power is within ourselves. Basically, any activity which takes us by surprise, including psychedelics but also including extreme sports, international travel. Hell, reading a good book.
and it's not as easy as realizing it to get out of the trap. that's like saying is easy to become an entrepreneur. it's about spending the rest of one's life devoted to seeking reality....
Here's the article at which the horse-riding classes took such umbrage, btw:
Equasy – An overlooked addiction with implications for the current debate on drug harms. DJ Nutt Psychopharmacology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Journal of Psychopharmacology 23(1) (2009) 3 – 5
Non-statistical anecdote: in my own acquaintance, I've known countless people who have taken MDMA, but never has my attention been called to the fact that any of them suffered from an acute harm episode as a result. However, I do know someone -- very respected in his field -- who suffered from not only permanent nerve damage, but (obviously) noticeable personality changes due to the use (or overuse -- doesn't matter) of painkillers after a rather nasty fall from a horse.
Come on, its not like I rob my mother to have another IPA. But the crack cocaine problem in Brazil on the other hand... the drug does seem to make people "crazy" quickly (or its all a media play).
Some people do though, alcohol addiction is a real problem for some people, and booze kills quite a lot of folks.
You're right, though, crack and some others seem to have horrific addiction profiles and I've even heard of Brazilian drug-lords forbidding its sale in their territory because it destroys any sort of community stability and kills the market.
I do wonder if many people would bother getting started with crack if other drugs were open to them. I also think that if there wasn't the criminal stigma we could help more of them, sooner.
There's no perfect solution, but what we have isn't working.
I really believe that the solution to the crack problem would be to provide, for free, crack to crack addicts on controled environment, with controled doses, with a medical staff ready to act in case an emergency, and with the added option to get treatment.
I know it will sound a little bit... hmmm... not-what-a-good-guy-would-say but, with this kind of policy in 10 years most of addicts would be dead, dying or getting treatment.
It's a darwin-aware policy that would remove the main problems with crack: Drug traffic and crazy killer zombies on the streets.
>> I know it will sound a little bit... hmmm... not-what-a-good-guy-would-say but, with this kind of policy in 10 years most of addicts would be dead, dying or getting treatment.
Unsure.
People say this stuff about heroin addicts too, but the truth with them is that, when provided with the sort of service you're talking about, they tend to be able to live normal-ish lives and a reasonable proportion eventually kick the habit.
I get the impression that crack (even medically pure) is way more damaging to the body though, so you might (sadly) be right. At least there would be less crime to fund the habit, and we could get help to more of them.
I believe the real answer to all drug problems is to run the world in a way that is bearable and interesting without the effects of drugs being necessary.
If crack addicts had water slides and massages, would crack still be interesting? Mainly crack seems to be an escape hatch from the brutal realities of incomplete urban life.
Putting a water slide on every block and other nice things is easier said than done, I know. But we can start making the world into the kind of place where crack isn't attractive and we can do it cheaply with inexpensive and free activities like singing, dancing, story-telling, campfires, etc.
I know, I sound like a fucking boy scout troop leader, but this kind of wholesome stuff can be good for us, doesn't depend on corporate culture and is likely what out bodies and minds evolved to perform well. We don't have to criminalize drugs, just make better things for people to do.
Altering your consciousness on such a macro level is fun.
Thing is, you can't for certain say why someone is using some substance (excepting addiction, naturally). Some people as an escape from a less-than-great life, some people for fun, others for spiritual/religious reasons, some for just straight up curiosity.
Almost the same profile as any other enjoyable activity.
I don't think it's a matter of making better things for people to do.. partly because in some cases no such thing exists.
For instance, I challenge you to find any "non-altered" experience that can measure up to the reality-bending, introspective powers of chemicals like LSD or psilocybin, the compounds in peyote, and so on.
A lot of people steal to pay for their alcohol and tobacco addictions.
My girlfriend works at the state youth detention program (INAU) and she sees a lot of those.
But yes, crack cocaine and "pasta base" here ( cocaine paste - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine_paste ) does generate severe mental problems really quickly (she sees those everyday).
Well, the biggest problem for me, as a brazilian, is that the illegal drugs trade here allows the drug lords to have so much wealth to be able to corrupt so many people (police, judges, politicians) and afford so many weapons (military assault weapons, grenades, RPGs -- yes, they have been known to down a police helicopter or two).
This far outweighs the problem of having a minority of people getting addicted to crack. Let's use this money to treat them.
Maybe because both are currently illegal in most (cocaine in all?) countries on this planet? And cannabis legalization can and should be a first step towards a legalization of all drugs, because prohibition creates more problems than it solves.
Quite a number of people steal either alcohol directly or something to trade for alcohol. It's just a lot cheaper than street drugs so you don't have to steal as much.
No dispute about the harmful effects of hard drugs. The question is whether the current model of criminalization is effective at handling those issues.
The article you posted is from well before Nutt was kicked out of his post, and it was common knowledge that this was an interest of his.
You've stooped to an ad-hominem, implying that Nutt's statistics are somehow faulty because he's got an interest in something which might "compete" with a drug he identifies as more harmful, without providing any evidence that he's wrong. That's slimy.
Oh come on. No one robs a granny to buy another single malt. There are people who abuse anything, sure. But it's a stretch to say alcohol is a net negative on society, millions of people enjoy a drink. But crack unquestionably is.
Alcohol is toxic to most major organs, is one of only a tiny number of drugs that can make normally passive people become violent, and is the world's most prolific date-rape drug. If you've ever seen the emergency room in a typical hospital on a Saturday night, you'd see that many of the millions who enjoy a drink get violent and antisocial, injuring themselves and others. Then there's domestic abuse, drunk driving, risky sex, etc etc.
You'd need to take figures on all of those effects into account before deciding whether it's a 'stretch' or not. Which is exactly what Prof. Nutt did in his paper.
That's a total non sequitur, given that I was objecting to this silly personal attack.
I do not believe that alcohol is a net negative to society. I'm pretty confident that crack cocaine is more damaging, especially to the individual user (and in fact you'll find that borne out by Nutt's research).
However, while perhaps "nobody robs a granny to buy a single malt," alcohol can very obviously have damaging effects, especially if it's misused. Sexual assault and drunk driving are just two examples.
That these exist does not mean that alcohol should be banned, and that crack is more damaging does not mean that the most effective tool to prevent it's use is criminalisation.
Or, he has a vested interest (as we all do) in reducing drug-related harm, and is trying to do so via any means possible. Developing a 'smart drug' that is as much fun as alcohol, but without the toxicity is probably the best way to try to accomplish this.
Also, getting publicly sacked from your job is not great marketing, so seems inconsistent with the money-focused approach you are suggesting. However, it is entirely consistent with standing up for your belief in harm reduction above all else.
Nutt didn't advocate restrictions on alcohol use. He argued that it was absurd to make other drugs illegal when something as dangerous as alcohol is illegal.
(By the way, if that last sentence is giving you cognitive dissonance, you need to stop and think hard about the statistics. The fact is that the most dangerous thing about pot, MDMA, LSD, and the like isn't their biochemistry. It's the fact that ignorant people have made them illegal.)
Well, no, the dangerous thing is a second order effect of the being illegal, namely you've no way of knowing what you're actually buying. FWIW I'd like to see most drugs legalized and sold OTC at Boot's. But Nutt fundamentally failed to understand that a glass of wine with dinner or a pint after work - how most people actually drink most of the time - ARE inherently safer than pills.
>> But Nutt fundamentally failed to understand that a glass of wine with dinner or a pint after work - how most people actually drink most of the time - ARE inherently safer than pills.
That depends what's in the pill, and how often there's a glass of wine, and if it's only ever one pint. Which I doubt.
Binge drinking is a very popular passtime here in the UK and is very dangerous.
Do you not think that when Prof Nutt makes these sorts of calculations they take this stuff into account? Or do you think he just pulls it all out of his arse?
Binge drinking doesn't mean what you think it does. The recommended alcohol in units is per week recognising that people might drink more on a Friday night. Binge drinking is defined as weekly limit/7 x 2. So you can be a "binge drinker" even if you drink half your units and nothing any other night! The term is just a stupid thing Tony Bliar made up.
No, no it isn't, there are recognised damages from that sort of pattern of drinking. Look up alcohol kindling for a start. That pattern in particular may be more harmful than having constant levels in your system.
You can rant and rave all you like, when the studies come in your (and my) favourite drug really is more harmful and more addictive than many/most others.
Just because you can find an article from 12 years ago saying a small glass of red may be healthy (and I bet I can find 10 more articles saying it isn't in the 12 years since that was published), doesn't mean that alcohol isn't addictive and harmful to its users. Hell, few brits drink that way anyway and your article posits that the benefit doesn't come from the ethanol but something else. It doesn't support your position at all.
Why do you have so much of a problem with this?
Why do you think the experts are liars?
Have you actually read any of Nutt's stuff? He doesn't actually advocate drug use, he's only interested in honesty and harm reduction.
--edit-- can I ask why you're so invested in this idea that alcohol must be less harmful than anything else?
I mean, the science is in. Booze is more addictive and more harmful (cancer, liver disease, alcoholism, alcohol related violence...) than lots of other drugs. Isn't an appropriate reaction to that news "oh, guess maybe those other things aren't as evil as I thought" rather than "but not really, because alcohol can't really be bad, we're only joking right lads? Booze is fine, right? I don't binge much, it's probably good for me eh? Not like those idiots taking pills"
They may well be idiots, but you're probably in denial too.
Given he is one of the UK's leading scientific minds in this area, and chaired the government's Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs until he fell out of favour, it's really not that unbelievable.
There are already other known alcohols that don't metabolise in the same way as ethanol and don't result in hangovers. I'm not sure they're 'safe'. It's possible that Prof. Nutt is talking about a benzodiazepine derivative he's working on, though finding one without the addiction potential of its class would be hard work.
And it's entirely possible he's just trolling :)
His book, "Drugs Without the Hot Air" is well worth reading. It contains some of the basic neuroscience behind drug actions, explores a lot of societal stuff and, in general was just a good read, if you're genuinely interested in this stuff.
One size does not fit all. People of Native American decedent are less prone to ailments caused by tobacco. Where as they are more prone to Alcoholism. We need to stop downgrading our freedoms to fit some abstract unit-human.
The difference between crack and marijuana to me is because crack was made to replace another drug by using and implementing a different making system. Tomorrow another drug with non-controlled chemicals will hit the street, and it will be there because it will be cheaper and easy to manufacture than cocaine or other sustitutes. Those hard drugs aren't designed to provide a new experience, they're designed to jump the system and to have maximum profit.
Uraguay is actually the second current nation to legalize this. North Korea being the first. Cannabis is not regulated as a drug at all in North Korea.
For anyone else wondering the same thing as I was, it seems this legality extends beyond just tourists, and marijuana is available too, so it's legality isn't just a technicality. Interesting stuff: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/08/marijuana-in-north-...
It may be self-regulating in a way. Could you imagine getting the munchies in a starving, dictatorial, failed nation-state. Already nothing to eat and now a drug that makes you crave food even more. No, thanks!
I'm all for legalization, but my concern would be that now gangs will grow pot in Uruguay to export to neighboring countries. This may spark turf wars and the like...
Given the limits on how much you can buy at have, hopefully they can still tackle large operations
EDIT: Let me expand, because I think people are missing the point. There are drug gangs in the region that grow pot. After this law comes in to effect it suddenly becomes easier to do business in Uruguay. Wouldn't that be an incentive to move shop to Uruguay? It seems like if all the local countries don't sign up, then you're signing yourself up for trouble.
Vicente Fox, former president of Mexico, believes that legalization of marijuana in Mexico is the solution to the extreme cartel violence in Mexico.
Of course while he was in office he was prohibitionist; my understanding is that he believes that faltering prohibition in America (primarily signaled by legalization in Colorado and Washington, and near de facto legalization in California) presents an opportunity to legalize in Mexico and choke out the cartels.
This would be the case if you completely ignore what he actually says. The merit of his arguments can be evaluated, we don't need to just judge his character.
And of course he flat out admits that he would like to grow and sell it. That is no secret.
It sounds like there'll be gains from trade for Uruguay. For a very silly reason pot can't be grown in their neighboring countries, so they get to dominate that industry.
>Wouldn't that be an incentive to move shop to Uruguay?
And? Uruguay gets additional tax revenue from them growing and moving the stuff in the clear. Cartels don't have an interest in shitting on their own doorstep, so they keep it clean; the local market for them has disappeared anyway, so there's no point in fighting for it. Win-win.
Until today, the only places in the world where marijuana was legal are two states in the US (Colorado and Washington)[0], and the entire country of North Korea[1].
Other jurisdictions have decriminalized marijuana, but most of us haven't seen the legal sale of recreational marijuana in our lifetimes (in the US, it was all-but-illegal since 1937, and truly illegal since 1970 - there were only 6 months in 1969 during which there were technically no laws prohibiting its sale).
These are exciting times we live in.
[0] Technically these haven't gone into effect yet, but I'm still counting them.
[1] Surprising, but (as far as we can tell) true. Less surprising when you consider that exports of drugs that need to be engineered (like methamphetamine) are one of North Korea's biggest sources of foreign currency.
> Don't know if there was any legal technicallity behind it, but it was (is) as legal as you can get.
It was not legal. They practice gedoogbeleid ("tolerance"). They agree that it is illegal but prosecutors rarely enforce the law, because they prioritize other crimes instead.
In both cases, sale to customers is tolerated, but sale to the coffeeshops (and growth/production) is illegal.
Because wholesale growth and production are illegal, this setup lacks a key benefit of legalization: cutting off a major source of cash to organized crime syndicates and drug cartels. (This is the exact reason that the former president of Mexico, Vincente Fox, now supports legalization).
Furthermore, in the Netherlands, coffeeshops have been dwindling in number in recent years, due to crackdowns, zoning regulations (oftentimes targeted at coffeeshops specifically), and other laws/policies that restrict the degree of "safe harbor" that such coffeshops have. (There was recently a proposal to ban sale to tourists; I believe it was due to go into effect recently, though it may have been delayed or reversed).
As long as these businesses are forced to operate in a legal grey area (whether in the Netherlands or in the US), they cannot demonstrate the true potential of legalization.
It's a very smart position, actually: the revenue from drug tourism in Amsterdam is way too high to compromise it, but resulting law-enforcement issues can be restricted to the city. Note that these issues would go away if the rest of Europe legalised cannabis: despite Amsterdam being a beautiful city in its own right, most Europeans go there to party and smoke ganja.
Legalization puts gangs and smugglers out of business, while decriminalization only has the potential to give them more customers. Legalization has much more to offer society than decriminalization.
I'm not sure what your point is. It is legal to possess and grow marijuana in Alaska.
An example of decriminalization is California where possession used to be a misdemeanor but is now an infraction and punishable by at most a $100 fine.
There's no penalty for possession of up to 4oz, or 25 plants, in a private residence, but that's most emphatically not the same as legal. That's just "fully" decriminalized, in that specific context.
Consider, however: having a single gram on your person when not in your private residence — presumably even if that single gram came from plants that you grew in yourself, in your private residence — is still punishable by a 90-day sentence a/o a $2000 fine. [1]
I can't conceive how that situation fits any definition of "legal".
It is legal. Please don't redefine terms just because because they don't align with your own political point of view.
> In Alaska, cannabis was decidedly legal (under state, but not federal, law) for in-home, personal use under the
Ravin v. State ruling of 1975. This ruling allowed up to two ounces (57 g) of cannabis and cultivation of fewer than 25 plants for these purposes.
> 1975—Alaska Supreme Court rules in Ravin v. State that “possession of marijuana by adults at home for personal use is constitutionally protected.
...
read the rest of the article, it's a nice thumbnail history of the legality of marijuana in Alaska without the inherent spin from a political organization with a particular agenda such as NORML.
First, I'm not redefining anything. Please consult Alaska statute, specifically § 11.71.040 through 11.71.060, and note that "Schedule Via", mentioned in each, includes only marijuana. Even possession of amounts less than one ounce is specifically listed as a crime, albeit not a terribly serious one.
The court's ruling in Ravin v State does not change the law; it interprets it. The referenced statues may have been added after that ruling, but they have not yet been challenged. As such they are, if only technically, still the law. I doubt it's a very strictly enforced law, particularly at the scale of personal possession, but that does not change what is or isn't legal.
Second, please don't attribute political views to me. You don't know what my views are, even on the subject at hand, and I'll bet the cash in my wallet (I just hit the ATM yesterday, so that's not an insubstantial amount) that you'd be wrong if you guessed.
Finally, while I don't dispute for a second that NORML is biased and has an agenda, that agenda is specifically and unambiguously marijuana legalization. If pot were as legal in AK as you suggest, they would be trumpeting it as an example of how things should be, or at a minimum, shouting from the rooftops that, "Look, it's legal up there, and the place hasn't fallen apart!"
In practice police do not pursue charges for marijuana possession unless it's bagged for retail. The general idea seems to be, that you can do what you want in the privacy of your home, but smoking marijuana is not socially appropriate.
It's not actually the law that's the problem. We have had ballot measures to legalize the retail of marijuana, and so far the public opinion seems to be against it. I gather that people are more or less happy with the situation as it is.
You may be confusing the law for something that actually exists, when in reality, and especially in Alaska, the question is merely what category of offense may provoke an officer to arrest you. I cannot admit to having practical experience growing, buying, and selling marijuana, nor tell of any experience that I have had in conversing with uniformed law enforcement officers about said activities. However, another person of my acquaintance suggests that marijuana use and trafficking is widely tolerated. Another person of more distant acquaintance had the curious story of having had much confiscated growing equipment returned to them out of police custody.
It is very important to note that Alaska, being in the northern latitudes, has most of its population in areas which receive less than 5 hours of daylight at the solstice. In humans lack of exposure to daylight is known to produce vitamin D deficiency, which can result in depression among other symptoms, and this disease is both prevalent and largely untreated. This to my mind is the strongest correlating factor, but the fact remains that Alaska has extremely high rates of alcoholism, murder, child and other physical abuse, vehicular accidents, as well as other drug problems.
No one is going to call the cops if you're smoking a joint, even in public. They will think you're an asshole, and being an asshole is often a good way to be arrested. If you are drunk and weaving, and you have a bag in the glove compartment, you will probably be busted for both. If you're not going out of your way to bring the fact that you smoke pot into public view, everyone will be okay with that. That may not be your definition of legal, but it is certainly a definition of legal, and as much as you or I might wish it to be otherwise, it's pretty hard to argue with the vox populi.
I think people are missing the distinction I'm trying to make. It's, as I said in my original post, a subtle and mostly technical one, so that's not unforeseeable. Once again, for posterity's sake, then: there's a difference between "decriminalization" and "legalization", namely the one between tolerated and allowed.
Per my reading and understanding of how marijuana possession and use is handled in Alaska, it falls in the former category. What Uruguay has done falls in the latter. They didn't merely say, "There's no penalty for committing this crime." They didn't merely say, "We're going to make prosecution of this crime our lowest priority." They said, "This is not a crime."
That's what's different here, and it's an important, but apparently overlooked distinction that I think needs pointing out. That's all I'm trying to say here.
"Used during observance of certain Hindu rituals. Government-owned shops in holy cities like Varanasi sell cannabis in the form of bhang. Despite the high prevalent usage, the law makes it illegal to possess any form of the psychoactive. However, this law is rarely enforced and treated as a low priority across India. Further, large tracts of cannabis grow unchecked in the wild in many parts of northern and southern India in many states such as West Bengal, Tripura, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, and Tamilnadu.[56] Many states such as West Bengal, Tripura, and the North East have their own laws allowing cannabis, locally known as ganja."
I advise everybody not to stop at the current state-sponsored propaganda of Mujica as a wise old man; for completeness, also read about his colorful, shooting-cops-in-the-back-of-the-head, soviet-union-financed terrorist activities background, or the way education, everyday violence and society in general have gone to sh*t since he's in charge. He has almost single-handledly destroyed the country.
This is the reason why I left three years ago; it got to a point I couldn't take it anymore. A lot of young, qualified people are running away for the same reasons. Even if the government changed overnight and started doing everything right, the damage they've done in the last 5-10 years will take generations to reverse :(
I hope you've settled somewhere with a more conservative gvt that has everyone's best interests at heart (sarcasm). Perhaps your new home is in the land of the free?
Hang on now, at no point did the parent comment state that he was looking for a more conservative government, nor did he state that there was anything politically wrong with Mujica. Instead he rebutted the homely, nice, old man image that was being presented of Mujica by pointing out the decidedly unpleasant things that Mujica has supposedly done (I can't comment on that; I know nothing of Mujica or his history).
If the parent had said something along the lines of "Mujica is a commie, pinko bastard who loves the USSR!" and had stated that as the flaws with Mujica as a leader, then your rebuttal (as I rather charitably term it) would perhaps be more valid. But to launch into a not-so-subtle criticism of right-wing governments in response to the parents comment seems, frankly, like rather a non-sequitur.
To preempt the inevitable comment that the parent had mentioned Mujica's "soviet-union-financed terrorist activities", and thus clearly had a problem with left-wing politics: the "soviet-union-financed" adjective seems rather less relevant than the "terrorist" adjective in both that sentence and the general theme of violent rule in the parent's post.
During the 60's, there was an uprising in violence in Uruguay. As a response, the right-wing governing party became more totalitarian and allied with the military.
Each side accuses the other of starting the violence, but the thing is a left wing guerrilla movement was started - the "Tupamaros", with Mujica as a founding member, based on the Cuban revolution ideals, and started taking military action, bombings, etc (some predate the founding of the "Tupamaros"), in which Mujica took part. The government responded with more violence, ending in the military coup of 1973 and subsequent dictatorship.
Mujica was imprisioned twice, he once staged a cinematic escape from prision, but he spent a decade in prision overall.
After the reestablishment of democracy, he joined the left wing party Frente Amplio (Broad Front), which ended up winning in 2005. He's now more subdued, but he doesn't deny his guerrilla past.
Mujica is a very complex person, and his current idolization certainly doesn't paint the whole picture, but, while I disagree with some of his policies, I respect him because he is honest to his principles.
I still live in Uruguay, I belong to an opposition party (and even ran for office :) ) but I think it's not as bad as you paint it.
The left wing government certainly has made a dent on young qualified people - their goal is to equalize but it has the effect of dragging down people who would stand out ("emparejar para abajo").
And yes, a major downside to Mujicas' government has been a huge drop in security (I was robbed twice this year already) and that's what the opposition uses as the campaign rhetoric ("more security", which is certainly needed).
What good is it to be "honest to your principles" if your principles are outdated, damaging or just plain wrong?
The event that made me leave was when thieves broke into my house, two rooms away from where my wife and I were sleeping. Thank God the noises didn't wake me up; by that time I was sleeping with a gun in my nightstand, and I really don't want to imagine what could have happened if I had woken up and walked around the house, as I had done many other times. I'd probably be either dead or in jail.
Nope, nope, nope. It took us a whole 5 months from that day to moving out of the country.
Wow :( yeah that's an awful experience (and exemplifies how security has gone down the drain). I'm glad you could find an awesome opportunity in Switzerland, and I can't think of a safer country.
I'd love to live there, but it would be very hard to leave family and friends behind, and unthinkable for my girlfriend who doesn't speak English nor German.
I do think security will get better here in Uruguay - if the current party doesn't address it, they'll lose the next elections (the ones in 2020), so they will do something. The choice of candidates for the opposition parties is unfortunate, the security issue is big enough for them to make a push in next year's elections (but not enough to win them).
I've got addicts and alcoholics in my family. My cousin died from overdose. I've got close friends who killed themselves with drink. Lots of you do too.
Exciting times? IMHO, the last thing we should celebrate is new ways to get a buzz on.
There should be more discussion about how to minimize the incredible damage caused by drugs and alcohol.
Well, alcohol is a much more dangerous drug. As far as I know, there are no known fatalities from cannabis. It's also not physically addictive (unlike alcohol or nicotine).
debatable yes, but not irrelevant. if you want to stop taking your drug of choice, and you're spared from having to cope with physical withdrawal symptoms, then that's a big plus.
Can you support the coffee is addictive comment? I drink coffee daily but have no issues short of a headache if I stop and I don't drink it on the weekends.
I'd agree with you that a lot of damages are caused by alcohol, but the people need its opium, it's part of living, we have enough rules and laws that are stopping us from enjoying life.
Legalization and Education should be done together.
We need to get to a more mature place. Yes, drugs are addictive and destructive for a meaningful % of people who use them. Let's legalize, sell, tax, educate, support, provide health facilities vs make illegal, drive up risk, create criminal activity via gangs/syndicates and put young (men) people in jail etc. I'm not thrilled for sex workers and what they go through but I'd rather have it legalized and run by the state than illegal and run by pimps.
I have a problem with alcohol. Many friends do not. It's up to me to make the best decision for my life, which is not drink and treatment as necessary, but I shouldn't tell those without the problem that it must be illegal because of my lack of self control.
I know plenty of people who do not drink or smoke (cigarettes), despite how legal it is. They have their own reasons (health concern, religion, etc).
Laws surrounding intoxication won't change. Intelligent will make the best decision for themselves, whether that's total abstinence or situational abstinence. Those who won't are probably making those same bad choices today, only the costs are greater.
It's not just about 'getting a buzz on.' Personally it helps with creativity and relaxation. It's exciting because suddenly people are starting to realise that we shouldn't be punished for wanting to do something to our own bodies that harms nobody else in anyway shape or form.
> I've got close friends who killed themselves with drink.
Thankfully this doesn't apply to me, though not for lack of trying in some cases.
But still, this is something to celebrate. Even if it only reduced the impact of drug-trafficking and related gang violence in one South American country, it would be worth celebrating. If it allows countries to de-militerize their police forces, it's a good thing. If it allows countries to save or raise tax money and spend it on social services or return it to taxpayers, it's a good thing. If it stop the selective enforcement of petty laws against outsider groups, then it's a good thing.
Getting back to those who themselves suffer from drug dependencies, if legalization of cannabis defunds black-market dealers of other drugs, then it's a good thing. If a users dependency issue is brought to light and treated earlier (which is an explicit aim of the Uruguayan experiment), then that's a good thing.
I'm not particularly interested in celebrating "new ways to get a buzz on", but as both our experiences testify, there is nothing new about "people getting a buzz on", even to an extreme, debilitating and deadly extent, what is new is how we deal with that existing reality.
So yes, let's celebrate, and support this movement to a more evidence-based response and hope we can move society's approach to these problems forward, even if only one little step at a time.
What's so interesting here is that here's a government implementing this against the will of the majority of its people. That's pretty rare period/full stop. Fascinating here. True visionary bold leadership or blatant disregard for democracy.
That's interesting. Two articles I've read (and that's all I am going on) have stated that the majority does not support and that the opposition is pushing for a referendum knowing it would win.
I suspect that nearly everyone here will be of the opinion that this is a good idea. If you are up for an alternative ( and yes I know, oh so unfashionable ) point of view, then I recommend watching this.
I watched the video for a few minutes, and I found that everything he said was very stupid. But I do want to hear some good (unfashionable!) arguments for that point of view.
Can you summarize some of his better arguments here?
Thank you ! This interview is really very good. I wish that more people, in positions of influence and power, become as humble and clear in their reasoning, as this man is.
Up in B.C., I'd appreciate legalization with a "gondola" provision. i.e. Cannabis would be legal, but if somebody insists on lighting up on a ski gondola I'm going to be stuck in for the next ten minutes, I'm allowed to toss him out if there's a nice soft snow-bank to aim for.
I'm surprised there's still people who are so concerned with punishing people for putting things in their body. Many of these things actually being present in over-the-counter medicines.
Also I despise it when people treat alcohol and tobacco as distinct from "drugs". Illicit drugs, yes.
i'm actually pretty surprised that most people totally ignore their caffeine addictions, or don't realize that they actually have a problem at all (probably due to the fact that they just don't stop taking it).
as little as one cup of strong coffee a day can lead to physical dependence, which for some people can cause quite extreme withdrawal symptoms.
I agree that downvotes are for poor comments, not differing opinions, but look at how HN doesn't work. If I say "patent lawsuit protect innovation" with supporting thoughts or "open source results in poor software", I'm likely to be downvoted as well. In most cases, it's the result of someone disagreeing with me.
In my experience that's not true. I've seen top-posts that in most other fora would be moderated out of existence, thrive on HN when they're well-supported with sources and rational thinking.
On one hand, yeah sure, some people won't end up in jail for buying/selling/consuming drugs but those are just like little drops in the sea.
The sea is actually the major criminal organizations that are perpetually conflicting with each other in order to maximize their particular profits. A situation where the demand becomes bigger (because it's not illegal anymore) will only put more fuel onto their war.
And yeah, you would say 'it was the same way with alcohol'; NO it wasn't. That was a problem of a very different society at a very different time; to put that on perspective: when have you heard of ENTIRE countries employing practically everyone (even children) to grow, launder and even murder for the business?
some people won't end up in jail for buying/selling/consuming drugs but those are just like little drops in the sea.
No. At any given time, around half of the men and women incarcerated in the US are there for non-violent drug offenses. To date, 31 million people have been arrested on drug related charges.
A situation where the demand becomes bigger (because it's not illegal anymore) will only put more fuel onto their war.
This is just obnoxiously wrong. How can you not understand that drug cartels won't even be a part of the picture after legalization? It will be LEGAL! It will be exactly the same as any other commodity. Beyond that, available evidence suggests that rates of drug abuse decrease when punishments become less draconian (see Portugal).
Ok wow, I didn't knew that the proportion of inmates related would be that high! I didn't make my homework hehe.
But drug cartels will still be part of the picture; with police out of the way they would have one less thing to worry about and they will still be fighting between each other for the market. Those people will not give up at all.
The police won't be "out of the way" if the cartels continue with murder, selling to minors, underage workers, kidnapping, tax evasion etc. Those are all still crimes even if hard drugs were made legal. The cartels would have to choose between going legit, and delivering goods like coors, malboro etc, or continuing their other illegal activities and get taken down by the police
> ... or continuing their other illegal activities and get taken down by the police.
Yeah sure, just as they are being taken down right now. Haha, they even made you consider to change the laws on their favor (yeah, if you think you came up with that idea, think again).
Also, implying that bad guys care about police/law/wrong/right...
But drug cartels will still be part of the picture
I'm having a difficult time understanding this position. If it suddenly became as legal to grow marijuana as it is to grow tomatoes, why would someone purchase their marijuana from a cartel? Assuming a country like the US regulated pot the same way that tobacco or alcohol is regulated, why wouldn't a customer just buy pot from the local supermarket?
Supply would increase quickly eroding the high-margin that attracts the cartels. They'd still be around as long as there was any drug to smuggle, but I'd expect they would bother with pot any longer.
I'm more curious what would happen to demand. And how much of the increase in demand would be as a result of actual new pot users versus current pot users who are now allowed to be open about their use.
> But drug cartels will still be part of the picture
Er, why? Its not like the similar organized crime operations that were involved in the alcohol trade during Prohibition remained "part of the picture" as "alcohol cartels" once Prohibition was lifted.
They still existed, in some cases, continuing the other organized crime they had been engaged in. So, to the extent that drug cartels are involved in other for-profit criminal activity, you can expect that with drugs legalized and that market taken over by pharmaceutical companies -- who exist, have lots of money, and existing connections with regulators -- some of the cartels would try to pivot to focus on their other lines of business. But they wouldn't still exist as drug cartels.
in my experience age has nothing to do with it. it mostly boils down to misinformation, or knowing or having known people who's lives have been ruined by drug abuse (these people also often can't discriminate between 'use' and 'abuse'), and not stopping to think how this situation was brought about in the first place, or how destigmatization of the whole topic could maybe have prevented the whole thing from getting out of hand.
Edit:
taken from the commment directly below mine at the time of writing:
I've got addicts and alcoholics in my family. My cousin died from overdose. I've got close friends who killed themselves with drink. Lots of you do too.
Exciting times? IMHO, the last thing we should celebrate is new ways to get a buzz on.
"Why is the drug czar of this country - Well, lets go back. Why do we have a drug czar in this country, a)? b) Why is he a cop? Why isn’t he a guy in recovery, who’s had alcohol and/or drug addiction and overcome it? And why doesn’t he help people with the same problem with compassion rather than condemnation? Why do we put people who are on drugs in jail? They’re sick. They’re not criminals. Sick people don’t get healed in jail. See, it makes no sense."
It is a shame that all legalization efforts goes to cannabis - the drug that causes the least problems by being illegal.
What we really need is to legalize "hard drugs"[1] - heroin, methamphetamine. These drugs cause the most harm by being illegal and it is a shame, because, for example, pure heroin is gentle and harmless drug.
Too bad I am not see this happening in the next 100 years. But I am sure that it will happen eventually. Future generations will see the "war on drugs" the same we see slavery today.
Not sure I agree about heroin being gentle and harmless, but I do think that making any drug illegal immediately creates a black market, which in turn leads to violence and powerful, wealthy crime organizations.
I'm not sure where the line should be. I'd like to say make all drugs legal, but as soon as the first high school kid is killed in a drug-related car accident we will see an army of furious parent organizations screaming about making stricter laws.
it isn't a matter of opinion. heroin is in no way a harmless drug. it's highly addictive and easily lethal if taken in to high a dose or combined with other drugs, like e.g. alcohol, or benzodiazepines.
EDIT:
the same goes for most other opiates/opioids.
hacker news is highly addictive, should we ban it too?
> and easily lethal if taken in to high a dose or combined with other drugs
Just use common sense. Water is lethal taken in to high a dose [1]. Almost every substance is lethal if taken to much for body to handle. And mixing heroin with benzos is just plain stupid. Of course if heroin would be legal, it could be printed with warnings, etc. And people take heroin (or other opioids) with benzos for two main reasons:
a) Unknowingly take a mix then dealers mix diluted opioids with benzos for better effect and to hide that their shit is weak
b) Users mix themselves then opioid is weak or doesn't produce enough high (methadone, etc)
If users should have cheap source of medical grade heroin no one would use them with benzos. So legal heroin have only benefits. Of course some people are plain stupid (for example taking too much paracetamol and end being without kidneys)
So just don't do heroin alone, have a Naloxone for worst case scenario and heroin will be safe as milk.
Your body generally prevents you from drinking too much water, and from eating too much food, etc. Besides, water and food is a necessity while heroin is not (far from it, almost no one will ever need it).
And that's what the person above meant: it's not the highly addictive or the easily lethal nature of heroin that is a problem, but the combination of both. Most things that combine these two attributes are illegal.
However, I go agree that there is a problem with the fact that it is so addictive that making it illegal makes things worse because of low quality products. Doesn't undermine the point of the post above though. In an ideal world, no one would try to get heroin.
>In an ideal world, no one would try to get heroin
It's a sad statement.
In what ideal world? Brave new world type "ideal world"? World with "shiny, happy" people which you see in TV commercials? And in an ideal world, no one would try rock climbing and BASE jumping? Because these activities are far more dangerous than doing heroin.
You see, some people like hacking on perl, some playing PC games, some enjoy rock climbing and some love doing heroin. Now the tragedy comes then government makes some things so more dangerous for the user and society by making them illegal.
I think we three might be able to agree the quote could be downgraded to:
"In an ideal world, heroin would be one of many fringe activities, like rock climbing, BASE jumping, etc."
In the mean time, many who pursue heroin aren't doing it as a hobby/for the exploration, but as a replacement for responsible living, a thrill as they grind their productive lives into the ground. That is the real tragedy, not that anyone, anywhere does it.
It's a little depressing how relatively radical the attitude of the legislators in the article is. It's not that they think this is 100% absolutely going to work. It's just that they realize what they're doing now isn't working and they need to change it and see if they can get better results.
319 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 275 ms ] threadEdit: yes decriminalization is not legalization. But whole point of illegality has ostensibly been to "protect people from themselves." This shows that it's not necessary.
Cannabis is extremely cheap to manufacture since anyone with a bag of soil can easily grow several thousand dollars worth of plant material. The real cost is in securing the product and transporting it to the customer. In states that have decrim, the police don't even bother arresting people with cannabis because catching people running stop signs actually yield more money for the police department. There's no money to be made transporting the goods because the risk is so low.
"Usual channels", while not limited to, includes gangs.
The next step will be for people to wake up to the fact that harder drugs need to be legal too. Not so that more people can take them, but so we can have less crime and eliminate a key justification for the growing police state.
Or the federal government can just use it as a means to arrest pot-smoking undesirables at will? I don't really see how state laws come to a head with federal ones in this case - state police and lower will not enforce the federal laws, but FBI/DEA etc. can and probably will continue to. When it's a federal law granting someone a right (e.g. Roe v. Wade, the 14th amendment) then the federal government gets to go in and change state laws, but I've never heard of a case of federal laws changing because something it criminalizes was explicitly legalized in state laws. The most analogous historical precedent we have is prohibition, and iirc state laws didn't change until after the ratification of the 21st amendment, so that doesn't really apply. Unless you're saying that states would pass a constitutional amendment, which seems a little far fetched to me, though not impossible.
It's a little like the MVP of government.
There's an advantage to allowing the states to hash out laws. It's frustrating because it's slow but it also gives people a chance to catch up with the progression.
Drug prohibition laws are federal, but not part of the constitution. Very different, legally speaking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_S...
I also have a brother dead from a heroin overdose. It's illegal and it didn't stop him. Sanctimonious nanny staters like you think you're protecting people but you're just supporting organized crime, death and ruined lives by pushing this into the shadows.
I don't care what you put in your body (legal or otherwise), its your body and your life and you are compelled to do so for reasons I might not understand, but if I found a loved one was taking a cocktail of amphetamines and opiates I would do everything in my power to see they got the help and support they needed to get off it.
Legalizing amphetamines would trigger major societal problems. What percentage of HN would feel the need to consume it in order to compete at school, the office or the market.
Nanny state? You make it sound so simple. Drugs are just chemicals. Why not say all chemicals should be legalized. What about RDX (a military-grade explosive)? Is the nanny state getting in the way of me having a good time on private property blowing stuff up? I can safely use military weapons, so why can't I purchase them privately?
The drug war has not criminalized harmful behavior caused by drugs. That would make far too much sense. The drug war criminalizes the mere possession of drugs, regardless of any actual harmful behavior. Then the nanny state corrects your behavior by giving you a criminal record.
The only reason I see why cannabis is not legal yet is because it threatens the medical industry in a big way. Cannabis, although easily becomes an addiction, is also a big medicine for many things.
When people start to realize this in big quantities, the medical companies are going to get worried, as their prescription drugs that may cause coma and death, will not be used so much anymore.
If we're talking about alcohol, then the rise in consumption is absolutely acceptable because 1.) those who abuse are now treated as addicts instead of imprisoned by default, and 2.) those who don't abuse it are now free from the horrors of capricious and arbitrary criminal persecution.
Same goes for marijuana and tobacco (which is, in my meager experience, the most addictive drug of all).
Now, if we're talking about meth or narcotics, then obviously any rise in consumption has to be taken very seriously, and then addressed by treating addicts medically as they should be, instead of sending them deeper underground by making them criminals.
Very simple: Law enforcement protects individuals against the actions of other individuals, and not against themselves.
Your loved one needs addiction treatment (i. e.: heathcare), and law enforcement will not solve his/her problem.
If you think you could just convince a loved one to stop doing dope and crank with words, you're living in a fucking dream world. I speak from experience, having the disease of addiction.
You are extremely naive, stop posting please.
I agree. However, I shouldn't have to clean up the mess. IE: rocketing health care costs and social programs that come out of my tax dollars.
You could fund some pretty sweet social programs and healthcare if you took back the DEA budget...
Hell, there are 10,000 employees at the DEA, in the most simplistic case you could replace them with drug rehab folks and that's a couple of hundred extra per state. That's enough to have an impact.
(-edit-- yeah ok, I may have overestimated the budget of the DEA, but 3 billion is not to be sniffed at, and the DEA is really only the tip of the iceberg)
[1]http://www.justice.gov/dea/about/history/staffing.shtml
Because I'm not? Or are you just knee-jerk assuming that because I dare to raise any comment at all, I'm opposed to the general idea?
Don't assume that ending the war on drugs will free up some large, discrete sum of money that you can go and promise away on "sweet social programs". The money saved (of which there will be plenty) is in hundreds, even thousands, of small pools across all levels of government, all of which are perpetually money-starved, and it will be gone like dew on a summer morning before you'll get anywhere near it.
Naive response - well excellent, by the sounds of it we've just freed up a whole bunch of funds in all sorts of areas for all sorts of other important stuff.
More cynical response - government waste and perpetual hunger for more cash is a constant and something else we should be fighting anyway.
Either way, I'm of the opinion that even if all the money disappeared off into a vacuum, the WoD is counterproductive. Even if we kept paying the DEA to just hang around and scratch its collective butt all day, we'd be making a positive change to society by stopping all action in the pointless 'war'.
No where in my comment did I offer any judgement against you or your character. You're the one making assumptions.
> Don't assume that ending the war on drugs will free up some large, discrete sum of money that you can go and promise away on "sweet social programs". The money saved (of which there will be plenty) is in hundreds, even thousands, of small pools across all levels of government, all of which are perpetually money-starved, and it will be gone like dew on a summer morning before you'll get anywhere near it.
I assume nothing beyond the fact that the current system is massively expensive and demonstrably a net negative on society. My opinion is simply that the current system is worse than doing nothing at all and my philosophy is always for there to be less government intervention in people's lives than more. Therefore, my preference is that we end the war on drugs as I believe this is a better situation than we are in today.
Also, most of the money spent in the drug war doesn't go through the DEA.
For example, DEA doesn"t run prisons. It costs about $50000 to keep someone in prison. We have about 3 million prisoners in the US. Suppose only 10% of them are in prison for drug offenses. That's about $15 billion/year. Pencils out to $50/year for each US citizen. So about $200/year per taxpayer.
Think a little and you won't have trouble finding other sources of waste. Wasted police time. Lost productivity of the imprisoned. Truancy among children with missing fathers.
Personally, I'd rather give the $200 to a harm reduction program.
actually it's 50%.
http://www.bop.gov/news/quick.jsp
However, I think you are trivializing it. The fact that some people do something that is illegal doesn't mean that the law has no effect. Alcohol is practically the only recreational drug I use and the same applies to a large group of my friends. I am sure that if other categories had been legal, they would have been more common as well. My parents would have had a harder time convincing me not to take something if you could buy it in a safe location with knowledge that the production was controlled etc. Now I'm not necessarily saying that this would have been worse, but you're suggesting that the only thing that would happen from legalizing everything would be that people would keep consuming like they do today (because people who want something can get it anyway), and drug lords would be replaced by taxable corporations. Which I think is hardly the case.
There aren't hard numbers of consumption during the prohibition (obviously) but statistics of alcohol related deaths and arrests seem to show that there was a serious decrease just before the prohibition, and after a few years it returns to its previous state, and was worse in some aspects.
http://www.druglibrary.org/prohibitionresults.htm
Also, in the Netherlands the marijuana consumption rate is less than in the USA, despite it being almost legal.
So, don't worry, things won't change much, except for those people who won't have to be worried about being arrested for smoking a plant.
As far as I know, there aren't any records of a boom in consumption just because a drug was legalized. And I'm not talking about marijuana only, but drugs in general, alcohol included.
Considering that, we can say that the fear of people going mad about a drug just because it was legalized is another myth of the "war on drugs".
Yes, rehab centres, education and healthcare initiatives would be great and I totally think that we should have those and fund them from taxes. But even if we don't, even if we say "fuck it, legalise everything and to hell with the rest" we'd be far better off as a society. Innocents would no longer die in drug-raids gone wrong. Taxes that fund the war could be cut, suppliers could compete on quality and price, removing major reasons addicts die and steal. Criminals would no longer have an easy source of income. Lives already ruined by addiction would no longer be further destroyed by criminal records and prison time.
So yeah, legalise it. All of it. Now. We can talk about the other stuff later.
that way you can afford to improve healthcare and education whlst simultaneously reducing harm by ensuring a cleaner product is made available to users.
Notice I didn't say it decreases use, because it doesn't (evidence: see Portugal case study, they decriminalised drugs and use went down).
If that war money had been spent towards educating people how to use drugs safely, health care and rehabilitation, instead of putting people in jail for a victimless crime, well, you tell me if that's a good idea.
The benefits of drug prohibition (if any) are far outweighed by the problems it causes.
Why bother when mental illness has been linked to cannabis use in adolescents? It's so logical to just legalize everything and call it a day.
> "lets throw drugs at the under educated and already disadvantaged that will help social inequality in our country greatly."
They already have the drugs aplenty. But we do them one better by giving them criminal records on top of their addictions. Isn't that helpful! Plus, as an added bonus, prohibition ensures that the profits from those drugs go to actual criminal organizations.
> " Why bother when mental illness has been linked to cannabis use in adolescents"
First, unless I'm missing something, no one here has proposed legalizing drugs for children. Second, tobacco has been linked to a bible-full of hellish ailments for everybody. Perhaps you'd like to illegalize that and call it a day yourself?
By making a good law about this kind of drugs, you just taking out lot of problems and saving lots of $$$$$ in survelliance and law enforcement wich, clearly by long proved stats, they don't work at all.
This is the major distinction between Cannabis prohibition and Alcohol prohibition. The latter could be turned off by the US government, the former requires snubbing the UN. There is always the unilateral option but the US wouldn't do that in this case because it would open the gates for every other country and the political interests are way too strong.
Basically for the US to formally "legalize it" the rest of the world would have to as well, which is why Argentina and Uruguay are great examples of leadership when it comes to the Drug war; they are both UN members and implied signatories to the treaty.
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_D...
There are of course major examples of unilateral actions on the part of the US to be sure, but those are outliers albeit extreme ones.
[1] http://treaties.un.org/pages/ParticipationStatus.aspx
As is the case with most things related to the UN as it applies to the US, the US can ignore it tomorrow morning, and there is absolutely nothing that will or can realistically be done about it. Who is going to do what, exactly? The US is by far the prime leader in the war on drugs, if we fold our cards, it's instantly game over, no matter what half-cocked treaties are outstanding.
Enforcement is purely optional at this point already, as has already been demonstrated in Washington and Colorado, and a lot more are going to follow.
Hence my previous statement:
There is always the unilateral option but the US wouldn't do that in this case because it would open the gates for every other country and the political interests are way too strong.
What political interests? Most European elites are begging for the US to come around so that they can have the political cover to drop this madness. They cannot do that until World Police changes its stance, because they'd be commercially blacklisted into the Middle Age.
The political interests were there when the US could use drug policy to support this or that puppet government in Latin America or Afghanistan. This strategy has failed so thoroughly in the long run, your own backyard is now giving up and leading decriminalisation. The US government would get a lot of goodwill around the world by ending the prohibition idiocy.
Portugal was blacklisted to the middle ages? Eventually Europeans will have to stop pretending everything is the US's fault and be responsible for their own countries.
We see this in the response to copyright infringement too e.g. ACTA - the executive thinks this is a thing that needs doing, but will never get past elected representatives because the public doesn't like it.
A lot of the hostility towards Europe stems from it's constituent governments using it like this.
Is this a reaction to a flaw in democracy?
Look at your history and check your ideas. While I will defend the fact that you have ideas, you are grossly wrong.
Only Stalin's gulags held more in prison than the US has under the war on drugs. It's easily arguable that over the span of the program, we've outdone Stalin.
Poverty, crime, cartels, destroyed families, destroyed lives, millions in prison: hundreds of billions of dollars spent without solving a single thing, without fixing anything, without ever reducing addiction or stopping drug use. America's cities became war zones when the war on drugs began.
Tell Mexico's tens of thousands of innocent victims that have been slaughtered by our war, that it's all working out just swell.
Why do I suddenly have the feeling that I'm being trolled?
Now I'm pretty sure that you're either playing me, or you really are one of those "folks" I mentioned above.
If the evil White people you are referring to didn't care about the poor, why would they say "the free market will sort everything out". They would say "the free market will screw you over, but that's the way things should be".
A lot of the problems of drug use are either orthogonal to legality or worsened by prohibition. We saw this with alcohol and it's just as true with marijuana and most other drugs.
You don't, I do. This shit is real life for some of us, you can stop pretending like you give a shit, thanks.
Tell you what, why don't you go ask the "folks in Michigan" if we need to bring back alcohol prohibition as well, since alcohol continues to be the most destructive by far.
I don't have any sources at the moment, but from what I've read, the problems associated with drugs are actually due to poverty and the fact that drugs are illegal, making those who use and sell them criminals. There is an important distinction between harm due to the criminalization of drugs, and harm due to drugs per se.
There are a few real world examples of states that have decriminalized all drugs, such as Portugal:
The resulting effect: a drastic reduction in addicts, with Portuguese officials and reports highlighting that this number, at 100,000 before the new policy was enacted, has been halved in the following ten years. Portugal's drug usage rates are now among the lowest of EU member states, according to the same report.
One more outcome: a lot less sick people. Drug related diseases including STDs and overdoses have been reduced even more than usage rates, which experts believe is the result of the government offering treatment with no threat of legal ramifications to addicts.
Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/portugal-drug-policy-decrimin...
You legalizers who cite theories and internet sources make me laugh. So passionate for your weed, as if its the most important thing there is.
Perhaps you can provide us with your own "theories and internet references" that might change our minds? Like, I don't know, maybe some evidence that throwing people in prison for minor drug offenses (a necessary consequence of making drugs illegal) has helped those people, their children, and their communities in any way. Statistically speaking, that is.
No wait I have a better idea! How about you convince me that the addicts in my own family would be better served by criminal records than by treatment. Now that's a real appeal to emotion!
And yes I am in favor of more restrictions on both drugs and alcohol. I'm opposed to the notion that drugs and alcohol are consequence-free substances. In the wrong hands, they kill and they destroy lives.
If it's so unimportant, why should we spend billions combatting it, and give people prison time and criminal records for using it?
>> And yes I am in favor of more restrictions on both drugs and alcohol. I'm opposed to the notion that drugs and alcohol are consequence-free substances. In the wrong hands, they kill and they destroy lives.
And prohibition does nothing to keep it out of those hands.
> "I'm opposed to the notion that drugs and alcohol are consequence-free substances."
See this is what we call a strawman, and this is a particularly blatant example of one. Opponents of prohibition don't argue that drugs and alcohol are "consequence-free substances". They do argue that the consequences of prohibition are far worse than those of the drugs alone.
If you are intent on making this personal, I can tell you that I haven't had a drink in over 12 years, and I remember the exact day of my last drink. If you can guess why I'll mail you a star sticker :). Oh and I don't smoke anything either.
But although I personally can't be trusted with the stuff, I have the maturity to accept that other people can, and I'm not blind to the horrors of preemptively punishing everyone else in deference to my personal weaknesses.
> "In the wrong hands, they kill and they destroy lives."
Granted. But I don't understand how you get from there, to concluding that the solution is to criminalize everyone who uses a substance, regardless of whether or not they actually do something bad with it. Criminal records are pretty good at destroying lives too, and they do nothing to help actual addicts.
Look, I realize you're probably immune to logic on this, and you seemed to acknowledge earlier that the evidence isn't on your side, so I'll spare you all that jazz and just issue a very basic rhetorical challenge:
Tell me with a straight face that the drug addicts in my family (or anywhere else) are better off being treated like criminals, on top of or in lieu of whatever treatment they may receive. Then convince me that everyone else who isn't an addict should also be treated like criminals simply for possession, just so we can continue imprisoning the "wrong hands".
You may have seen people killed by crime, or untreated addiction to other drugs. You may have seen lives ruined by the legal system. I am sure you saw many of the problems the war on drugs has given us, but you did not see anybody killed by marijuana. You did not see a plant tear a community apart.
What the fuck is an "internet source" anyway? What is next, disbelieving anything written in a book that has a black cover, instead of a white one?
And no - I did not see anyone killed by crime, or lives ruined by the legal system, or some other theory of yours. Just people who drank and drugged until they were dead or caused terrible harm to their family.
Dude you are so eager to assert what I know or have seen. Enjoy your pot.
http://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&ALID=2K1...
Should that be legal?
Throwing the lower classes in jail for being uneducated and addicted does not solve anything. These people need help, not more prohibition. (And to be clear, it is overwhelmingly the lower classes that are targeted by prohibition. Prohibition is a powerful tool for class warfare)
Prohibition does not work. The war on drugs does not work. Throwing more money at it will not work.
Don't even mention about class. If you had a piece of idea of social classes, you'd first support their life quality and realize that the drug industry is already a device of the system to knock them down.
Plus, what I proposed was to war against drug cartels, not users.
And you just keep that bullshit with the assumption of "drug war doesn't work" oh really? I know that hopeless face of the government, when it comes to stopping the crime, the eagle turns to a rabbit!
The War on Drugs has been massively unsuccessful. The history of it gives us absolutely no reason to think that throwing even more money at it will improve anything at all.
Seriously, get real: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/29/t...
(And you are delusional if you think I support wars. What the hell are you even driving at there?)
I see the streets. Go to 6th and Market now, or 16th and Mission, both streets have tents that sell hard drugs. Every night, there are a lot of things going on there.
Who does even attempt to stop them? I lived in multiple countries, and the toleration I see here is just incredible. I saw those who sell and use heroins, and we (me and bunch of coworkers) just passed them.
Just a regular day. I don't believe your numbers. Plus; I believe, this entire business is a way to keep the poor classes as poor. Go read about Hasan Sabbah.
Do you now understand why you're getting nowhere in this debate? It's like trying to convince somebody that the solution to cancer is bringing in the army to defeat viruses.
If you disagree with the fundamental assumption, you would do well to state that.
The drug on war is a combination of christian moralism and class warfare, pure and simple, just like prohibition was. Just like then, the moralists managed to convince a lot of people that it was to protect or save them, and just like then it proved to do far more damage than good.
Yes. It doesn't. US couldn't occupy successfully neither Afghanistan nor Iraq. If you'd like to occupy someone ask British. They successfully occupied India for many years.
But the important corollary of that is that the lives of the common people got better too. Not so in Afghanistan.
Because their organised crime is sort-of regulated and accepted as an inevitable part of society. Wanna try that? That's even more of a paradigm shift, I don't think you're ready for it.
In other words: The US army is wholly insufficient to prevent heroin production in even a single country. And if they were to succeed, they'd just have made production vastly more profitable, and hence attractive, for people elsewhere.
> Then what does stop you from asking this simple question: why don't we fight for more life quality for everybody?
Why do you think this would improve life quality for anyone?
Have you known any high functioning heroin addicts?
Chances are you have even if you think you don't, but just don't know it. I have known at least one - it took a year of dealing with this person regularly before we noticed, and then only because the war on drugs causes massive price instability. Suddenly he had problems getting money enough for his abuse, and ended up stealing some. Until then, he'd been able to hide his abuse for years from everyone including his closest family. Luckily for him, he got it together enough to check himself into treatment before he got into further
The heroin users you see on the street is not nearly all of the heroin users out there, by far, any more than the alcoholics you see on the street are all alcohol users. Even heroin is not so addictive that everyone who use it even have a strong dependency on it; you find recreational heroin users out there. Of those that are dependent, not nearly everyone have problems managing their daily life in ways that makes it likely for people around them to have any idea they are using.
A huge part of the problem with even drugs that can be as nasty as heroin can be is the criminalisation that makes it impossible for users to get properly manufactured doses of known strength at a predictable low price. Most of the nastiest side effect of even many of the really hard drugs are legal and/or problems related to impurities and unpredictable doses rather than actual medical problems related to the drug itself with "normal" use. There are a few drugs where extensive abuse does have nasty medical side effects, yes. But so does alcohol and nicotine - do you propose we use military means to stop all manufacture of those too (if you do, I suggest you look up prohibition to see how that worked out last time)
Want to fight to improve life quality? Legalise pretty much everything, and invest the money currently spent on fighting it into enforcement of strict quality standards, regulating manufacturing and sale, and providing far more treatment and support for those who do need it.
The war on drugs has nothing to do with making things better - it is a mix of religiously founded moralism and a war on the poor (and by extension, in the US it is a war on black people).
Just exactly how much MORE invasive of a state would we have to put up with to "fight for more life quality"?
There's no law against belts, but it's nevertheless illegal to beat the shit out of your kid with a belt.
It sounds like a flippant remark until you realise it was triggered by him knowing people who have died or become brain-damaged pursuing equestrian hobbies. He then did the statistical calculations and found out that the risks of horse-riding were higher but roughly comparable to those of MDMA use.
People think MDMA is more dangerous mostly because of intense press coverage when someone does die from it. When was the last time you saw "girl dies in tragic polo accident" on the front page?
Why is that so hard?
Imagine if the "girl dies in tragic polo accident" was slanted the same way, and listed recent horse riding accidents and interviews with people warning about how more and more young people ride horses...
I'm not sure what you mean by 'getting away from ourselves', but considering one worthy and the other not is purely subjective and I would say prejudicial.
(Disclaimer: I've used horses recreationally. No, I did not inhale. I do not recommend inhaling. They smell bad.)
You value acquiring physical intelligence. You do not value spiritual exploration. FWIW, MDMA is not "bliss" and it's not "short." It's longer than your average horse-ride, and it's much more complicated than simple bliss (as I've read in numerous reports on erowid.org)
It is the government's responsibility to protect us through sharing appropriate information [1], not to ruin our lives through imprisonment when we undertake solo activities with no risk to others.
BTW, I'm not even an MDMA enthusiast. I just don't feel like it, too busy, but for those who want to, I just want them to be safe, have their stuff tested, etc.
[1] So, why are articles like "Death rates from ecstasy (MDMA, MDA) and polydrug use in England and Wales 1996–2002" [2] only available through a paywall!!
[2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14533133
Risk #1 - You may hurt yourself
Risk #2 - You may discover the emperor wears no clothes and you don't have to spend your life in servitude to the ruling classes.
Which one does the government _really_ fear?
It's about as convincing as "and they all lived happily ever after" at the end of a fairytale.
There are a great number of activities which slowly, in turn, help reveal that all power is within ourselves. Basically, any activity which takes us by surprise, including psychedelics but also including extreme sports, international travel. Hell, reading a good book.
and it's not as easy as realizing it to get out of the trap. that's like saying is easy to become an entrepreneur. it's about spending the rest of one's life devoted to seeking reality....
>>All power is within ourselves >>Spending the rest of one's life devoted to seeking reality...
And these are exactly the sorts of meaningless profundities I was talking about!
Equasy – An overlooked addiction with implications for the current debate on drug harms. DJ Nutt Psychopharmacology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. Journal of Psychopharmacology 23(1) (2009) 3 – 5
http://www.synchronium.net/2009/11/02/equasy/
Non-statistical anecdote: in my own acquaintance, I've known countless people who have taken MDMA, but never has my attention been called to the fact that any of them suffered from an acute harm episode as a result. However, I do know someone -- very respected in his field -- who suffered from not only permanent nerve damage, but (obviously) noticeable personality changes due to the use (or overuse -- doesn't matter) of painkillers after a rather nasty fall from a horse.
You're right, though, crack and some others seem to have horrific addiction profiles and I've even heard of Brazilian drug-lords forbidding its sale in their territory because it destroys any sort of community stability and kills the market.
I do wonder if many people would bother getting started with crack if other drugs were open to them. I also think that if there wasn't the criminal stigma we could help more of them, sooner.
There's no perfect solution, but what we have isn't working.
I know it will sound a little bit... hmmm... not-what-a-good-guy-would-say but, with this kind of policy in 10 years most of addicts would be dead, dying or getting treatment.
It's a darwin-aware policy that would remove the main problems with crack: Drug traffic and crazy killer zombies on the streets.
Unsure.
People say this stuff about heroin addicts too, but the truth with them is that, when provided with the sort of service you're talking about, they tend to be able to live normal-ish lives and a reasonable proportion eventually kick the habit.
I get the impression that crack (even medically pure) is way more damaging to the body though, so you might (sadly) be right. At least there would be less crime to fund the habit, and we could get help to more of them.
If crack addicts had water slides and massages, would crack still be interesting? Mainly crack seems to be an escape hatch from the brutal realities of incomplete urban life.
Putting a water slide on every block and other nice things is easier said than done, I know. But we can start making the world into the kind of place where crack isn't attractive and we can do it cheaply with inexpensive and free activities like singing, dancing, story-telling, campfires, etc.
I know, I sound like a fucking boy scout troop leader, but this kind of wholesome stuff can be good for us, doesn't depend on corporate culture and is likely what out bodies and minds evolved to perform well. We don't have to criminalize drugs, just make better things for people to do.
Thing is, you can't for certain say why someone is using some substance (excepting addiction, naturally). Some people as an escape from a less-than-great life, some people for fun, others for spiritual/religious reasons, some for just straight up curiosity.
Almost the same profile as any other enjoyable activity.
I don't think it's a matter of making better things for people to do.. partly because in some cases no such thing exists.
For instance, I challenge you to find any "non-altered" experience that can measure up to the reality-bending, introspective powers of chemicals like LSD or psilocybin, the compounds in peyote, and so on.
My girlfriend works at the state youth detention program (INAU) and she sees a lot of those.
But yes, crack cocaine and "pasta base" here ( cocaine paste - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine_paste ) does generate severe mental problems really quickly (she sees those everyday).
This means spending money where it does more good.
http://www.livescience.com/4060-hangover-free-buzz-star-trek...
You've stooped to an ad-hominem, implying that Nutt's statistics are somehow faulty because he's got an interest in something which might "compete" with a drug he identifies as more harmful, without providing any evidence that he's wrong. That's slimy.
Alcohol is toxic to most major organs, is one of only a tiny number of drugs that can make normally passive people become violent, and is the world's most prolific date-rape drug. If you've ever seen the emergency room in a typical hospital on a Saturday night, you'd see that many of the millions who enjoy a drink get violent and antisocial, injuring themselves and others. Then there's domestic abuse, drunk driving, risky sex, etc etc.
You'd need to take figures on all of those effects into account before deciding whether it's a 'stretch' or not. Which is exactly what Prof. Nutt did in his paper.
I do not believe that alcohol is a net negative to society. I'm pretty confident that crack cocaine is more damaging, especially to the individual user (and in fact you'll find that borne out by Nutt's research).
However, while perhaps "nobody robs a granny to buy a single malt," alcohol can very obviously have damaging effects, especially if it's misused. Sexual assault and drunk driving are just two examples.
That these exist does not mean that alcohol should be banned, and that crack is more damaging does not mean that the most effective tool to prevent it's use is criminalisation.
No, they rob granny to buy another bottle of $15 vodka.
Also, getting publicly sacked from your job is not great marketing, so seems inconsistent with the money-focused approach you are suggesting. However, it is entirely consistent with standing up for your belief in harm reduction above all else.
(By the way, if that last sentence is giving you cognitive dissonance, you need to stop and think hard about the statistics. The fact is that the most dangerous thing about pot, MDMA, LSD, and the like isn't their biochemistry. It's the fact that ignorant people have made them illegal.)
That depends what's in the pill, and how often there's a glass of wine, and if it's only ever one pint. Which I doubt.
Binge drinking is a very popular passtime here in the UK and is very dangerous.
Do you not think that when Prof Nutt makes these sorts of calculations they take this stuff into account? Or do you think he just pulls it all out of his arse?
You can rant and rave all you like, when the studies come in your (and my) favourite drug really is more harmful and more addictive than many/most others.
(--edit-- had the term kindling wrong, now right)
Can't do that with MDMA...
Just because you can find an article from 12 years ago saying a small glass of red may be healthy (and I bet I can find 10 more articles saying it isn't in the 12 years since that was published), doesn't mean that alcohol isn't addictive and harmful to its users. Hell, few brits drink that way anyway and your article posits that the benefit doesn't come from the ethanol but something else. It doesn't support your position at all.
Oh look I can google too - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23358078 - around 9000 people a year die directly from alcohol misuse in the UK.
Why do you have so much of a problem with this? Why do you think the experts are liars? Have you actually read any of Nutt's stuff? He doesn't actually advocate drug use, he's only interested in honesty and harm reduction.
--edit-- can I ask why you're so invested in this idea that alcohol must be less harmful than anything else?
I mean, the science is in. Booze is more addictive and more harmful (cancer, liver disease, alcoholism, alcohol related violence...) than lots of other drugs. Isn't an appropriate reaction to that news "oh, guess maybe those other things aren't as evil as I thought" rather than "but not really, because alcohol can't really be bad, we're only joking right lads? Booze is fine, right? I don't binge much, it's probably good for me eh? Not like those idiots taking pills"
They may well be idiots, but you're probably in denial too.
http://www.mnn.com/health/fitness-well-being/stories/david-n...
I'm not deriding him in any way (I hope he is successful with this product). Just thought I'd mention it.
There are already other known alcohols that don't metabolise in the same way as ethanol and don't result in hangovers. I'm not sure they're 'safe'. It's possible that Prof. Nutt is talking about a benzodiazepine derivative he's working on, though finding one without the addiction potential of its class would be hard work.
And it's entirely possible he's just trolling :)
His book, "Drugs Without the Hot Air" is well worth reading. It contains some of the basic neuroscience behind drug actions, explores a lot of societal stuff and, in general was just a good read, if you're genuinely interested in this stuff.
GHB was touted as alcohol 2.0 but is now illegal for being a "date-rape drug". The irony here is that alcohol is already the leading date-rape drug.
The real irony is it's only really effective as a date-rape drug in conjunction with alcohol.
Apparently alcohol is extremely popular in North Korea. Probably a better entertainment/hunger compromise.
http://www.thebohemianblog.com/2013/11/smoking-weed-in-north...
Possibly it was never illegal, or it could be a legal grey area.
Given the limits on how much you can buy at have, hopefully they can still tackle large operations
EDIT: Let me expand, because I think people are missing the point. There are drug gangs in the region that grow pot. After this law comes in to effect it suddenly becomes easier to do business in Uruguay. Wouldn't that be an incentive to move shop to Uruguay? It seems like if all the local countries don't sign up, then you're signing yourself up for trouble.
Of course while he was in office he was prohibitionist; my understanding is that he believes that faltering prohibition in America (primarily signaled by legalization in Colorado and Washington, and near de facto legalization in California) presents an opportunity to legalize in Mexico and choke out the cartels.
So yeah, that argument is kind of: 'but George Clooney said that I should buy Nespresso!'
And of course he flat out admits that he would like to grow and sell it. That is no secret.
I think it's worth considering that legalization is the ethical choice. Irrational laws in neighboring countries shouldn't dictate all policy.
And? Uruguay gets additional tax revenue from them growing and moving the stuff in the clear. Cartels don't have an interest in shitting on their own doorstep, so they keep it clean; the local market for them has disappeared anyway, so there's no point in fighting for it. Win-win.
The revolution has to start somewhere.
I don't think the government will allow it.
And I haven't heard of any major drug gangs here (Uruguay), and I do hope and expect we won't get any after legalization.
Other jurisdictions have decriminalized marijuana, but most of us haven't seen the legal sale of recreational marijuana in our lifetimes (in the US, it was all-but-illegal since 1937, and truly illegal since 1970 - there were only 6 months in 1969 during which there were technically no laws prohibiting its sale).
These are exciting times we live in.
[0] Technically these haven't gone into effect yet, but I'm still counting them.
[1] Surprising, but (as far as we can tell) true. Less surprising when you consider that exports of drugs that need to be engineered (like methamphetamine) are one of North Korea's biggest sources of foreign currency.
Don't know if there was any legal technicallity behind it, but it was (is) as legal as you can get.
It was not legal. They practice gedoogbeleid ("tolerance"). They agree that it is illegal but prosecutors rarely enforce the law, because they prioritize other crimes instead.
In that sense, marijuana has been "legal" in Oakland's Measure Z clubs for a long time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oaksterdam,_Oakland#Measure_Z_...
In both cases, sale to customers is tolerated, but sale to the coffeeshops (and growth/production) is illegal.
Because wholesale growth and production are illegal, this setup lacks a key benefit of legalization: cutting off a major source of cash to organized crime syndicates and drug cartels. (This is the exact reason that the former president of Mexico, Vincente Fox, now supports legalization).
Furthermore, in the Netherlands, coffeeshops have been dwindling in number in recent years, due to crackdowns, zoning regulations (oftentimes targeted at coffeeshops specifically), and other laws/policies that restrict the degree of "safe harbor" that such coffeshops have. (There was recently a proposal to ban sale to tourists; I believe it was due to go into effect recently, though it may have been delayed or reversed).
As long as these businesses are forced to operate in a legal grey area (whether in the Netherlands or in the US), they cannot demonstrate the true potential of legalization.
Apparently it's been banned in most cities, but not Amsterdam: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands...
It's a very smart position, actually: the revenue from drug tourism in Amsterdam is way too high to compromise it, but resulting law-enforcement issues can be restricted to the city. Note that these issues would go away if the rest of Europe legalised cannabis: despite Amsterdam being a beautiful city in its own right, most Europeans go there to party and smoke ganja.
"Tolerated", yes (that's the official Dutch word). But definitively not legal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Places_that_have_decriminalized...
It's a subtle, and admittedly pretty technical, point but still a rather important one in this context.
An example of decriminalization is California where possession used to be a misdemeanor but is now an infraction and punishable by at most a $100 fine.
There is nothing subtle or technical about it.
There's no penalty for possession of up to 4oz, or 25 plants, in a private residence, but that's most emphatically not the same as legal. That's just "fully" decriminalized, in that specific context.
Consider, however: having a single gram on your person when not in your private residence — presumably even if that single gram came from plants that you grew in yourself, in your private residence — is still punishable by a 90-day sentence a/o a $2000 fine. [1]
I can't conceive how that situation fits any definition of "legal".
[1] http://norml.org/laws/item/alaska-penalties
> In Alaska, cannabis was decidedly legal (under state, but not federal, law) for in-home, personal use under the Ravin v. State ruling of 1975. This ruling allowed up to two ounces (57 g) of cannabis and cultivation of fewer than 25 plants for these purposes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_the_United_States
> 1975—Alaska Supreme Court rules in Ravin v. State that “possession of marijuana by adults at home for personal use is constitutionally protected.
...
read the rest of the article, it's a nice thumbnail history of the legality of marijuana in Alaska without the inherent spin from a political organization with a particular agenda such as NORML.
http://www.anchoragepress.com/news/is-that-your-final-answer...
First, I'm not redefining anything. Please consult Alaska statute, specifically § 11.71.040 through 11.71.060, and note that "Schedule Via", mentioned in each, includes only marijuana. Even possession of amounts less than one ounce is specifically listed as a crime, albeit not a terribly serious one.
The court's ruling in Ravin v State does not change the law; it interprets it. The referenced statues may have been added after that ruling, but they have not yet been challenged. As such they are, if only technically, still the law. I doubt it's a very strictly enforced law, particularly at the scale of personal possession, but that does not change what is or isn't legal.
Second, please don't attribute political views to me. You don't know what my views are, even on the subject at hand, and I'll bet the cash in my wallet (I just hit the ATM yesterday, so that's not an insubstantial amount) that you'd be wrong if you guessed.
Finally, while I don't dispute for a second that NORML is biased and has an agenda, that agenda is specifically and unambiguously marijuana legalization. If pot were as legal in AK as you suggest, they would be trumpeting it as an example of how things should be, or at a minimum, shouting from the rooftops that, "Look, it's legal up there, and the place hasn't fallen apart!"
They aren't doing that, are they?
It's not actually the law that's the problem. We have had ballot measures to legalize the retail of marijuana, and so far the public opinion seems to be against it. I gather that people are more or less happy with the situation as it is.
You may be confusing the law for something that actually exists, when in reality, and especially in Alaska, the question is merely what category of offense may provoke an officer to arrest you. I cannot admit to having practical experience growing, buying, and selling marijuana, nor tell of any experience that I have had in conversing with uniformed law enforcement officers about said activities. However, another person of my acquaintance suggests that marijuana use and trafficking is widely tolerated. Another person of more distant acquaintance had the curious story of having had much confiscated growing equipment returned to them out of police custody.
It is very important to note that Alaska, being in the northern latitudes, has most of its population in areas which receive less than 5 hours of daylight at the solstice. In humans lack of exposure to daylight is known to produce vitamin D deficiency, which can result in depression among other symptoms, and this disease is both prevalent and largely untreated. This to my mind is the strongest correlating factor, but the fact remains that Alaska has extremely high rates of alcoholism, murder, child and other physical abuse, vehicular accidents, as well as other drug problems.
No one is going to call the cops if you're smoking a joint, even in public. They will think you're an asshole, and being an asshole is often a good way to be arrested. If you are drunk and weaving, and you have a bag in the glove compartment, you will probably be busted for both. If you're not going out of your way to bring the fact that you smoke pot into public view, everyone will be okay with that. That may not be your definition of legal, but it is certainly a definition of legal, and as much as you or I might wish it to be otherwise, it's pretty hard to argue with the vox populi.
Per my reading and understanding of how marijuana possession and use is handled in Alaska, it falls in the former category. What Uruguay has done falls in the latter. They didn't merely say, "There's no penalty for committing this crime." They didn't merely say, "We're going to make prosecution of this crime our lowest priority." They said, "This is not a crime."
That's what's different here, and it's an important, but apparently overlooked distinction that I think needs pointing out. That's all I'm trying to say here.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhang
"Used during observance of certain Hindu rituals. Government-owned shops in holy cities like Varanasi sell cannabis in the form of bhang. Despite the high prevalent usage, the law makes it illegal to possess any form of the psychoactive. However, this law is rarely enforced and treated as a low priority across India. Further, large tracts of cannabis grow unchecked in the wild in many parts of northern and southern India in many states such as West Bengal, Tripura, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, and Tamilnadu.[56] Many states such as West Bengal, Tripura, and the North East have their own laws allowing cannabis, locally known as ganja."
I still cant get my head around the idea that government leaves regulation and profits to the black market. Its just makes no sense what so ever.
He is a very interesting Character. I advise everybody to learn a bit about him and his way of leading the country.
Put that aside I think that way of working one works on small Countries or Cities with small populations.
This is the reason why I left three years ago; it got to a point I couldn't take it anymore. A lot of young, qualified people are running away for the same reasons. Even if the government changed overnight and started doing everything right, the damage they've done in the last 5-10 years will take generations to reverse :(
If the parent had said something along the lines of "Mujica is a commie, pinko bastard who loves the USSR!" and had stated that as the flaws with Mujica as a leader, then your rebuttal (as I rather charitably term it) would perhaps be more valid. But to launch into a not-so-subtle criticism of right-wing governments in response to the parents comment seems, frankly, like rather a non-sequitur.
To preempt the inevitable comment that the parent had mentioned Mujica's "soviet-union-financed terrorist activities", and thus clearly had a problem with left-wing politics: the "soviet-union-financed" adjective seems rather less relevant than the "terrorist" adjective in both that sentence and the general theme of violent rule in the parent's post.
During the 60's, there was an uprising in violence in Uruguay. As a response, the right-wing governing party became more totalitarian and allied with the military.
Each side accuses the other of starting the violence, but the thing is a left wing guerrilla movement was started - the "Tupamaros", with Mujica as a founding member, based on the Cuban revolution ideals, and started taking military action, bombings, etc (some predate the founding of the "Tupamaros"), in which Mujica took part. The government responded with more violence, ending in the military coup of 1973 and subsequent dictatorship.
Mujica was imprisioned twice, he once staged a cinematic escape from prision, but he spent a decade in prision overall.
After the reestablishment of democracy, he joined the left wing party Frente Amplio (Broad Front), which ended up winning in 2005. He's now more subdued, but he doesn't deny his guerrilla past.
I still live in Uruguay, I belong to an opposition party (and even ran for office :) ) but I think it's not as bad as you paint it.
The left wing government certainly has made a dent on young qualified people - their goal is to equalize but it has the effect of dragging down people who would stand out ("emparejar para abajo").
And yes, a major downside to Mujicas' government has been a huge drop in security (I was robbed twice this year already) and that's what the opposition uses as the campaign rhetoric ("more security", which is certainly needed).
The event that made me leave was when thieves broke into my house, two rooms away from where my wife and I were sleeping. Thank God the noises didn't wake me up; by that time I was sleeping with a gun in my nightstand, and I really don't want to imagine what could have happened if I had woken up and walked around the house, as I had done many other times. I'd probably be either dead or in jail.
Nope, nope, nope. It took us a whole 5 months from that day to moving out of the country.
I'd love to live there, but it would be very hard to leave family and friends behind, and unthinkable for my girlfriend who doesn't speak English nor German.
I do think security will get better here in Uruguay - if the current party doesn't address it, they'll lose the next elections (the ones in 2020), so they will do something. The choice of candidates for the opposition parties is unfortunate, the security issue is big enough for them to make a push in next year's elections (but not enough to win them).
Exciting times? IMHO, the last thing we should celebrate is new ways to get a buzz on.
There should be more discussion about how to minimize the incredible damage caused by drugs and alcohol.
That's debatable and irrelevant anyway (coffee is addictive, should we ban it?).
Legalization and Education should be done together.
I know plenty of people who do not drink or smoke (cigarettes), despite how legal it is. They have their own reasons (health concern, religion, etc).
Laws surrounding intoxication won't change. Intelligent will make the best decision for themselves, whether that's total abstinence or situational abstinence. Those who won't are probably making those same bad choices today, only the costs are greater.
you may not see it as such, but that's exactly what's going on here.
Me too.
> My cousin died from overdose.
Mine too (and my wife's).
> I've got close friends who killed themselves with drink.
Thankfully this doesn't apply to me, though not for lack of trying in some cases.
But still, this is something to celebrate. Even if it only reduced the impact of drug-trafficking and related gang violence in one South American country, it would be worth celebrating. If it allows countries to de-militerize their police forces, it's a good thing. If it allows countries to save or raise tax money and spend it on social services or return it to taxpayers, it's a good thing. If it stop the selective enforcement of petty laws against outsider groups, then it's a good thing.
Getting back to those who themselves suffer from drug dependencies, if legalization of cannabis defunds black-market dealers of other drugs, then it's a good thing. If a users dependency issue is brought to light and treated earlier (which is an explicit aim of the Uruguayan experiment), then that's a good thing.
I'm not particularly interested in celebrating "new ways to get a buzz on", but as both our experiences testify, there is nothing new about "people getting a buzz on", even to an extreme, debilitating and deadly extent, what is new is how we deal with that existing reality.
So yes, let's celebrate, and support this movement to a more evidence-based response and hope we can move society's approach to these problems forward, even if only one little step at a time.
Maybe it would be good to put it to a popular vote, I think it would pass (by a slight margin).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36L0p2w_jtA
Its a fascinating and well put argument by Peter Hitchens that legalisation isn't beneficial to society. Yes imagine that.
Can you summarize some of his better arguments here?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nu12Dhoma0k
Also I despise it when people treat alcohol and tobacco as distinct from "drugs". Illicit drugs, yes.
Yes, fellow geeks, we're all addicts.
as little as one cup of strong coffee a day can lead to physical dependence, which for some people can cause quite extreme withdrawal symptoms.
See the heroin addicted family photo first, then make your freedom speeches.
Suggestions: - Make sure all words are spelled correctly. - Try different keywords. - Try more general keywords."
On one hand, yeah sure, some people won't end up in jail for buying/selling/consuming drugs but those are just like little drops in the sea.
The sea is actually the major criminal organizations that are perpetually conflicting with each other in order to maximize their particular profits. A situation where the demand becomes bigger (because it's not illegal anymore) will only put more fuel onto their war.
And yeah, you would say 'it was the same way with alcohol'; NO it wasn't. That was a problem of a very different society at a very different time; to put that on perspective: when have you heard of ENTIRE countries employing practically everyone (even children) to grow, launder and even murder for the business?
No. At any given time, around half of the men and women incarcerated in the US are there for non-violent drug offenses. To date, 31 million people have been arrested on drug related charges.
A situation where the demand becomes bigger (because it's not illegal anymore) will only put more fuel onto their war.
This is just obnoxiously wrong. How can you not understand that drug cartels won't even be a part of the picture after legalization? It will be LEGAL! It will be exactly the same as any other commodity. Beyond that, available evidence suggests that rates of drug abuse decrease when punishments become less draconian (see Portugal).
But drug cartels will still be part of the picture; with police out of the way they would have one less thing to worry about and they will still be fighting between each other for the market. Those people will not give up at all.
Yeah sure, just as they are being taken down right now. Haha, they even made you consider to change the laws on their favor (yeah, if you think you came up with that idea, think again). Also, implying that bad guys care about police/law/wrong/right...
I'm having a difficult time understanding this position. If it suddenly became as legal to grow marijuana as it is to grow tomatoes, why would someone purchase their marijuana from a cartel? Assuming a country like the US regulated pot the same way that tobacco or alcohol is regulated, why wouldn't a customer just buy pot from the local supermarket?
Supply would increase quickly eroding the high-margin that attracts the cartels. They'd still be around as long as there was any drug to smuggle, but I'd expect they would bother with pot any longer.
I'm more curious what would happen to demand. And how much of the increase in demand would be as a result of actual new pot users versus current pot users who are now allowed to be open about their use.
Er, why? Its not like the similar organized crime operations that were involved in the alcohol trade during Prohibition remained "part of the picture" as "alcohol cartels" once Prohibition was lifted.
They still existed, in some cases, continuing the other organized crime they had been engaged in. So, to the extent that drug cartels are involved in other for-profit criminal activity, you can expect that with drugs legalized and that market taken over by pharmaceutical companies -- who exist, have lots of money, and existing connections with regulators -- some of the cartels would try to pivot to focus on their other lines of business. But they wouldn't still exist as drug cartels.
If this is your stance, I'm curious, how old are you? (serious question)
Edit:
taken from the commment directly below mine at the time of writing:
I've got addicts and alcoholics in my family. My cousin died from overdose. I've got close friends who killed themselves with drink. Lots of you do too. Exciting times? IMHO, the last thing we should celebrate is new ways to get a buzz on.
-- Bill Hicks
What we really need is to legalize "hard drugs"[1] - heroin, methamphetamine. These drugs cause the most harm by being illegal and it is a shame, because, for example, pure heroin is gentle and harmless drug.
Too bad I am not see this happening in the next 100 years. But I am sure that it will happen eventually. Future generations will see the "war on drugs" the same we see slavery today.
[1] "hard drugs" is meaningless term
I'm not sure where the line should be. I'd like to say make all drugs legal, but as soon as the first high school kid is killed in a drug-related car accident we will see an army of furious parent organizations screaming about making stricter laws.
EDIT: the same goes for most other opiates/opioids.
hacker news is highly addictive, should we ban it too?
> and easily lethal if taken in to high a dose or combined with other drugs
Just use common sense. Water is lethal taken in to high a dose [1]. Almost every substance is lethal if taken to much for body to handle. And mixing heroin with benzos is just plain stupid. Of course if heroin would be legal, it could be printed with warnings, etc. And people take heroin (or other opioids) with benzos for two main reasons:
a) Unknowingly take a mix then dealers mix diluted opioids with benzos for better effect and to hide that their shit is weak
b) Users mix themselves then opioid is weak or doesn't produce enough high (methadone, etc)
If users should have cheap source of medical grade heroin no one would use them with benzos. So legal heroin have only benefits. Of course some people are plain stupid (for example taking too much paracetamol and end being without kidneys)
So just don't do heroin alone, have a Naloxone for worst case scenario and heroin will be safe as milk.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication
And that's what the person above meant: it's not the highly addictive or the easily lethal nature of heroin that is a problem, but the combination of both. Most things that combine these two attributes are illegal.
However, I go agree that there is a problem with the fact that it is so addictive that making it illegal makes things worse because of low quality products. Doesn't undermine the point of the post above though. In an ideal world, no one would try to get heroin.
It's a sad statement.
In what ideal world? Brave new world type "ideal world"? World with "shiny, happy" people which you see in TV commercials? And in an ideal world, no one would try rock climbing and BASE jumping? Because these activities are far more dangerous than doing heroin.
You see, some people like hacking on perl, some playing PC games, some enjoy rock climbing and some love doing heroin. Now the tragedy comes then government makes some things so more dangerous for the user and society by making them illegal.
"In an ideal world, heroin would be one of many fringe activities, like rock climbing, BASE jumping, etc."
In the mean time, many who pursue heroin aren't doing it as a hobby/for the exploration, but as a replacement for responsible living, a thrill as they grind their productive lives into the ground. That is the real tragedy, not that anyone, anywhere does it.
edit: of course there are ways of 'trying' to manage risks. but it's always a gamble, and can easily still lead to some serious harm.