20 Feb 05
Is this a battle we really need to take. Have we declared war on our own citizens? How long will the war last? What price is victory? Will it ever end? Does the criminalization of drugs lead to more violence, and more crime? What was the world like before prohibition?
Let's debate 🙂
Nyxie
20 Feb 05
Originally posted by Nyxiealcohol & cigarettes are the ones causing all the damage, convenient for those companies producing them to support the crackdown on other forms of drug trafficking.....a typical capitalistic red herring tactic
Is this a battle we really need to take. Have we declared war on our own citizens? How long will the war last? What price is victory? Will it ever end? Does the criminalization of drugs lead to more violence, and more crime? What was the world like before prohibition?
Let's debate 🙂
Nyxie
20 Feb 05
Alcohol and cigarettes do cause most of the damage, however, cocaine and heroin do have there own little problems too. If the so called war on drugs was a business it would have been out of business a long time ago. If the money we spent trying to arrest people for drugs was spent on drug treatment we would be a lot farther along then we are. If you include the cost of keeping people in jail then the numbers quadruple. Since the jails are privatized in most states the business of incarcerating people is the real money maker. It is a joke. Something like 43% of people in US jails are in for marijuana. And at this point in our history we have more people in jail than the Soviet Union ever had at one time. Screw tort reform, we need reform to the asinine drug laws in the US and I imagine in other parts of the world.
20 Feb 05
Originally posted by NyxieI don't think the question should actually be legalise or don't legalise it.
Is this a battle we really need to take. Have we declared war on our own citizens? How long will the war last? What price is victory? Will it ever end? Does the criminalization of drugs lead to more violence, and more crime? What was the world like before prohibition?
Let's debate 🙂
Nyxie
What needs to happen is that we need to destroy the profit margins on drugs.
If nobody can make any money selling them...nobody's gonna be pushing them.
20 Feb 05
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmirThat's why I never use cocaine anymore. Too many mangy drug-dealers cutting their product with aspirin or tylenol, then overcharging and underweighing. If they could grow and make good coke here in North America and cut out the ridiculous middleman, who is usually nothing more than a flea-ridden dirtbag, I would consider buying and using again.
I don't think the question should actually be legalise or don't legalise it.
What needs to happen is that we need to destroy the profit margins on drugs.
I used to be able to (and once and a while do) get excellent marijuana straight from the growers and it was always a cleaner smoke and felt less "criminal" when you were out buying because you know you weren't supporting the Hell's Angels or the crooked cops or whoever is in charge of your local, neighbourhood racket.
It's too bad they don't grow Coca here, cocaine would just be another marijuana. But since there's no money to be made by sending it to Columbia, it will always remain highly illegal and "dangerous".
20 Feb 05
2 edits
Originally posted by CliffLandinThe stupidest thing of all is that not only are most countries fighting a 'war on drugs' they can't hope to win, many of them (including the UK) have signed international treaties, saying they will prevent any trade in a list of banned substances, so it's not even something governments can change their minds about individually. The whole world system of drug control strikes me as a knee-jerk reaction, producing a bag of incoherent and arbitrary restrictions. What needs to happen is for there to be a proper analysis, at an international level and involving economists, chemists and biologists, to decide a) how harmful various narcotics are to society, and b) how best to reduce CONSUMPTION of the most dangerous ones - isn't trying to reduce the supply just going to drive prices up, making the trade more lucrative?
Alcohol and cigarettes do cause most of the damage, however, cocaine and heroin do have there own little problems too. If the so called war on drugs was a business it would have been out of business a long time ago. If the mone ...[text shortened]... ine drug laws in the US and I imagine in other parts of the world.
An example of ill-thought-through substance control policy is absinthe. Here's a little list of reasons not to drink absinthe:
It has a very high alcohol content (often around 70% ) - BUT it is rarely drunk neat, unlike say vodka which can be almost as strong.
It occasionally causes hallucinations - BUT this is only due to the alcohol, and you're liable to hallucinate if you consume a similar quantity of alcohol in the form of whiskey, wine or anything else.
If absinthe is made badly, it can contain a lot of thujone, which could cause health problems in some people if they drank it in large quantities - BUT consider all the nasties can could crop up all kinds of drink made by unscrupulous manufacturers, such as methanol. Properly made absinthe contains such minute quantities of thujone that you would have to drink gallons of the stuff in one session (ie a fatal quantity of alcohol!) before the thujone had any effect on you.
So why is absinthe illegal in many countries, while say whisky is considered OK? Answer: Absinthe was very fashionable in the early 20th century, because of its association with artists and the like. So it became a primary target of the temperance movement, who spread various rumours about absinthe being especially harmful (eg that it causes people to go insane), resulting in laws against it. Of course, in the US at least the temperance movement were even more successful, getting all alcohol banned for a time. But when that ban was lifted, the ban on absinthe remained.
20 Feb 05
1 edit
Is the war on drugs worth the cost?
If you look at the following quotes which I took from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4218851.stm
You'll probably get some idea why it is necessary to have a policy of discouraging the use of illegal drugs, not just the "hard" drugs like coke, crack, etc. but also the drug cannabis, that we used to call "soft". Scientific research is clearly pointing in the direction that cannabis use can cause serious, and they mean serious, health damage. Nothing "soft" about cannabis.
"The Department of Health says it is now generally agreed among doctors that cannabis is an "important causal factor" in mental illness."
"However we are in the process of commissioning an expert review of all the academic and clinical evidence of the link between cannabis use and mental health, particularly schizophrenia."
"There is medical clinical evidence now that there is an important causal factor between cannabis use and schizophrenia - not the only factor, but an important causal factor. That is the common consensus among the medical fraternity."
After reading this information you might be inclined to look at the question you posed in this thread from a different and more informed angle: "Is the war on drugs worth the cost?"
How about it Nyxie ?
20 Feb 05
Originally posted by shavixmir
I don't think the question should actually be legalise or don't legalise it.
What needs to happen is that we need to destroy the profit margins on drugs.
If nobody can make any money selling them...nobody's gonna be pushing them.
... ask Telerion he's an economist. He'll tell you this is impossible
20 Feb 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeBut Ivanhoe,
Is the war on drugs worth the cost?
If you look at the following qotes which I took from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4218851.stm
You'll probably get some idea why it is necessary to have a policy of discouraging the use of illegal drugs, not just the "hard" drugs like coke, crack, etc. but also the drug cannabis, that we used to call "so ...[text shortened]... ent and more informed angle: "Is the war on drugs worth the cost?"
How about it Nyxie ?
If someone knows all the risks and still wants to use it. Who are you to tell him he can't?
There was a study (about 10 years ago) into the use of Marijuana, by the way, which concluded that using it can lead to psychotic episodes.
Some very clever people used the same testing mechanisms and found the same to be true about masturbation.
But, back to the main point.
We need to destroy the drugs cartels. We need to destroy the crime involved with drugs. We need to destroy the profit margins to achieve this.
Then, you can objectivly educate people on the pros (yes, there are pros to using most drugs) and the cons of each individual drug.
20 Feb 05
Originally posted by shavixmirThis is true, but it pertains more to the [i[legal[/i] drugs than to the illegal ones. The price of the illegal drugs would come down if they were legalized as there wouldn't be as much risk in getting them to the consumer. However, the government would tax them, making themselves enough money to fund a few more wars. The pushers aren't the reason that people do drugs, that's why the war on drugs will never work. Arresting the sellers only creates new sellers as the people doing drugs will get them no matter what. Legalize it, tax it and make treatment available to the users. Although we might have to create Meth neighborhoods as they would be up at all hours of the night cutting the lawn and working on their cars.
I don't think the question should actually be legalise or don't legalise it.
What needs to happen is that we need to destroy the profit margins on drugs.
If nobody can make any money selling them...nobody's gonna be pushing them.
20 Feb 05
Originally posted by shavixmirShavixm: "If someone knows all the risks and still wants to use it. Who are you to tell him he can't"
But Ivanhoe,
If someone knows all the risks and still wants to use it. Who are you to tell him he can't?
There was a study (about 10 years ago) into the use of Marijuana, by the way, which concluded that using it can lead to psychotic episodes.
Some very clever people used the same testing mechanisms and found the same to be true about masturbati ...[text shortened]... on the pros (yes, there are pros to using most drugs) and the cons of each individual drug.
The thread's question is whether the fight against drugs is worth while, worth the costs.
Looking at the scientifice evidence about the serious health risks I'm inclined to answer that generally put question saying "yes".
Now, you are stating if someone wants to use drugs just let him. Well, a problem remains then. Is society obliged to pay for the costs caused by his drug use if he gets seriously ill ?
I would say if he knows the risks and still wants to use them he should bare the consequenses, not just the emotional consequenses for himself and his loved ones and friends, but also for the financial costs, which can grow skyhigh. How would you solve that problem ?
20 Feb 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeThere's no stopping point for this type of logic; being overweight because you eat too much and don't exercise enough increases health risks, should it be a crime to consume over n calories per day and not exercise?
Shavixm: "If someone knows all the risks and still wants to use it. Who are you to tell him he can't"
The thread's question is whether the fight against drugs is worth while, worth the costs.
Looking at the scientifice evidence about the serious health risks I'm inclined to answer that generally put question saying "yes".
Now, you are stating ...[text shortened]... but also for the financial costs, which can grow skyhigh. How would you solve that problem ?
20 Feb 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeSo are you for banning alcohol, society pays the cost of this on a daily basis. You cannot deny that alcohol is one of the most dangerous drugs out there, yet you probably drink so you aren't for banning this drug. As far as cost, does not the cost of the war on drugs bother you. Is that not society paying the cost? And the cost of that far out-weighs the cost of treatment. As for serious health risks, turn on the television and watch the ads for pharmaceuticals. A thirty second ad is taken up with fifteen seconds of side effects. Take a good look at the finances of the war on drugs just in the US. It is staggering. Billions of dollars being spent to fight a war that can't be won. You are okay with that? And those numbers that you see don't even factor in how much it costs to keep a street level drug dealer in jail for one year. Do the math. It doesn't add up to anything but bad business that you and I are financing. How would you solve that problem?
Shavixm: "If someone knows all the risks and still wants to use it. Who are you to tell him he can't"
The thread's question is whether the fight against drugs is worth while, worth the costs.
Looking at the scientifice evidence about the serious health risks I'm inclined to answer that generally put question saying "yes".
Now, you are stating ...[text shortened]... but also for the financial costs, which can grow skyhigh. How would you solve that problem ?
20 Feb 05
Originally posted by no1marauderNo1: "There's no stopping point for this type of logic"
There's no stopping point for this type of logic; being overweight because you eat too much and don't exercise enough increases health risks, should it be a crime to consume over n calories per day and not exercise?
Insurance companies use it all the time .....