Drug Prohibition Doesn't Work.

[Elfer]

Since I want to get a discussion going rather than a stream of replies to the original post, I'm going to keep this relatively short:

Prohibition doesn't work, and it never has (See: Alcohol, boxing, guns). Despite the enormous scaling up of anti-drug units in the 70s, drug us remains rampant, even 35 years later. Prohibition is a failed policy for several reasons:

- People are unwilling to report private, consensual adult behaviour. Nobody will go complaining to a police officer that somebody just purchased drugs off of them, and nobody will complain that anyone sold them drugs. Because drugs are so low-risk for users, prohibition is not an effective deterrent. This can be seen with alcohol prohibition, in that the prohibition had no appreciable or consistent effect on the rate of alcohol consumption, much the same as the case with drugs. Therefore, I don't want to see an argument about how everyone will start using drugs if prohibition is repealed unless you have some justification for making such a claim.

- Because in most cases, there is no paper trail, it is impossible to eradicate drug use and production through the use of law enforcement agencies. In 2005, the DEA seized $477 million worth of illicit drugs. However, the total value of drugs consumed in the US is around $60 billion per year, making the efforts of the DEA less than 1% effective. No drug bust, however large, has ever been a "major blow" to the drug problem in the country

- The law's role is to protect us from each other, not from ourselves. Preventing drug use is most effectively done through support from education, community, family, church, the medical sector, etc. Throwing someone in jail for a couple of months and hoping they learned their lesson is not the solution.

- An outright ban of a substance is functionally equivalent to complete deregulation of that substance. With no acceptable means or production or sale, it means that the market is turned over entirely to criminals, meaning that they control the means and purity of production, the rules governing sale (including sale to minors), and it also puts all of the profit from this market into the hands of people who are frequently involved in violent crime. Prohibition doesn't destroy a market as we'd like to believe, it just turns it into a black market.

- Simply put, there is no way to eliminate drugs and drugs use just by taking them away. As long as there is someone with money who wants to buy drugs, someone will always be there to sell drugs to them. If you seize drugs, more will be produced. If you arrest major drug figures, someone else will take their place (usually after a fair amount of bloodshed from their subordinates). If we could wish away drugs, that would be great, but we need to face the reality of the existence of drugs if we want to actually get anything done

As such, schedule I needs to be removed as soon as possible, in order to facilitate proper regulation of drugs and treatment of users.

Thoughts?

[Gunter45]

Another issue is how obscenely expensive it is to fight the hydra that is drug use. As you've said, for every bust they make, there are billions upon billions of dollars that are still making it to the streets and for every drug dealer they put in jail, the people who run the show just recruit 3 more.

It's not just an impossible battle, it's one that's bleeding our budget and tying up our law enforcement from actually fighting something meaningful.

[Elfer]

At 7/11/08 12:28 PM, Gunter45 wrote: Another issue is how obscenely expensive it is to fight the hydra that is drug use. As you've said, for every bust they make, there are billions upon billions of dollars that are still making it to the streets and for every drug dealer they put in jail, the people who run the show just recruit 3 more.

It's not just an impossible battle, it's one that's bleeding our budget and tying up our law enforcement from actually fighting something meaningful.

Well yes, that's a given. If it was free, there wouldn't be such an enormous practical difference between having drug prohibition and not having it. As it is, we end up with a gaping money pit that provides no benefit, and in fact, provides perverse incentives to damage society.

By the way, before this topic gets more people posting in it, here's some fairly relevant links:
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (Site isn't too well designed, but the idea is there.)
LEAP promo that summarizes their position (Recommended)

[KeithHybrid]

Oh, you just want drug prohibition repealed so you can use them, you crackhead.

[slowerthenb4]

conspiracy!!

[Pontificate]

At 7/11/08 01:54 PM, KeithHybrid wrote: Oh, you just want drug prohibition repealed so you can use them, you crackhead.

Possible sarcasm aside this is a common arguement used by the prohibitionists (does that, technically speaking, make us antihibitionists?) is a rather weak ad hominem: anyone who wants drugs legalised must want to take drugs. This is nonsense of course as, even if this were the case, it wouldn't detract from the valid reasons to abolish prohibition. One could just as easily say 'you only want to keep drugs banned because you have investments in the tobacco and alcohol industry' and both would be equally absurd.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc people, it's basic logic.

[fli]

There are some drugs that just cannot be approved ever in a million years because of their PROFOUND addiction and pshycological effects...

Meth.
It's a scourge on humanity...
You will literally throw away your life if you try even once.

[EKublai]

The qualm I have with all substances (in particular mind-altering substances for recreation) is that I don't think it will result incompetition with alcohol and cigarettes, I think that drugs like marijuana can go hand in hand with other drugs and with drug education the way it is in this country (a disgrace) I don't think its a good idea for legalize anything that would support such a hazard to the health to those around you. Drinking is an almost universal practice in the U.S, and we've payed the price for that on our highways, for cigarettes, it has changed medicine from a practice that researches aiming "helps people so they can lead a better life" to "helping people to bring them to a point where they can light up again" For drugs like marijuana and herion I think the symbolism of illegality is enough to keep its use at bay from really affecting the lives of those who don't use it.

[Elfer]

At 7/11/08 03:02 PM, fli wrote: There are some drugs that just cannot be approved ever in a million years because of their PROFOUND addiction and pshycological effects...

Meth.
It's a scourge on humanity...
You will literally throw away your life if you try even once.

Which is PRECISELY WHY IT MUST BE MADE LEGAL. Do you think that people involved in the illegal production and trade of methamphetamine are going to practice ethical production, distribution and regulation of the drug?

Despite the legality, meth is highly available. Prohibition is not helping to curtail the use of this drug.

Relevant question: You know that meth is harmful. You know that it is highly addictive and ruins lives. If it was made legal, would you start using it?

At 7/11/08 03:14 PM, EKublai wrote: The qualm I have with all substances (in particular mind-altering substances for recreation) is that I don't think it will result incompetition with alcohol and cigarettes, I think that drugs like marijuana can go hand in hand with other drugs

Correct, it can go hand in hand with other drugs. Whether it is legal or not.

and with drug education the way it is in this country (a disgrace) I don't think its a good idea for legalize anything that would support such a hazard to the health to those around you.

Since drug use is already rampant, is the solution to try to crack down harder due to the poor education, or to improve the education due to the poor education?

Drinking is an almost universal practice in the U.S, and we've payed the price for that on our highways,

Just as you did during prohibition.

for cigarettes, it has changed medicine from a practice that researches aiming "helps people so they can lead a better life" to "helping people to bring them to a point where they can light up again"

And yet through education and help from the medical community, the prevalence of smoking has decreased dramatically, without resorting to prohibition. This is an example of treating the cause (desire/pressure to smoke) rather than the act itself (inhaling tobacco smoke).

For drugs like marijuana and herion I think the symbolism of illegality is enough to keep its use at bay from really affecting the lives of those who don't use it.

Problem: It obviously isn't sufficient to keep the use at bay.

I think a lot of the arguments you guys are using/going to use are based on the faulty assumption that prohibition is actually doing something to curtail the use of drugs. Do you have any evidence at all to back that up?

[uhnoesanoob]

Hm, well, you don't realize the dangers of making drugs legal. When people buy drugs, they usual don't use it in public, and thus the danger is usually contained in their homes or other small places. If drugs were made legal, you'd see a lot more public use, which means that the asshole on meth might run up to a little girl and strangle her. Drugs should be made illegal simply to protect the public.

[trogdor136]

Having drugs be illegal does promote safety of the public, if they were made legal then people could easily work on making them safer which could also help protect the public from situations in which people do do drugs in public. The problem is it is difficult to tell which method is safer without doing it so the gov't has kept drugs illegal because that seems to be working decently, whereas legalizing them could be a catastrophe.

[Earfetish]

At 7/11/08 03:02 PM, fli wrote: You will literally throw away your life if you try even once.

There is no such thing as instant addiction. Far more people have tried meth than are meth-heads.

[CIX]

Whoever thinks drug prohibition works is a damn moron. The prohibition on alcohol caused the rise of street gangs, the exact same thing we see in the cities with drugs.

[DiscipleofFoamy]

At 7/11/08 04:47 PM, uhnoesanoob wrote: Hm, well, you don't realize the dangers of making drugs legal. When people buy drugs, they usual don't use it in public, and thus the danger is usually contained in their homes or other small places. If drugs were made legal, you'd see a lot more public use, which means that the asshole on meth might run up to a little girl and strangle her. Drugs should be made illegal simply to protect the public.

unfortunaltly for your argument, this obviously isn't the case. just walk down the street of any major city-especially around schools. you will undoubtedly see many people smoking pot or cigs(underage) or sometimes even shit like meth. the fact is that one of the major reasons prohibition doesn't work is that enforcement doesn't give a damn. if the kids are off school property, they arn't in the school's control, and so the teachers have no motive to enforce the law. police often simply brive past these people. because they don't want to take the time to stop and at the very leaast check ID's. people talk about using drugs in public, use them in was that are harmful to bystanders, and will continue to do so with or without prohibition.

right now, prohibition is just showing kids how easy it is to break the law and get away with it. prohibition needs to be removed, at the very least on "soft" drugs such as cannabis, but then restictions need too be placed on them just as they are placed on cigs and alcohol, and whats more, they need to be upheld. someone needs to find a way to convince the authorities that if a person is doing somethign they look too young to do, they should walk up and ask to see id, and take action if the person is too young/no id/whatever. Prohibition is an unenforceable law, but replacing it with more unenforceble laws is not the answer

[Der-Lowe]

I don't think that the little proportion of DEA drug capturing over the total drug consumption are enough to say prohibition does not work. I think prohibition's major sucess is greatly increasing the risk of the activity, hiking prices of drugs. In that way, potential drug users are disincentived to take on the habit. Now, users who are already addicted will get the money to buy them whatever the risk, but that's a different case.

But you got me thinking.

[evil-clown-12]

The problem is that no one really cares. I mean, most people I know aren't stupid enough to do more serious drugs like heroin, but no one gives a shit about weed. I mean it's not addictive and you'd have to smoke a lot of weed for it to kill you.

[JackPhantasm]

At 7/11/08 03:02 PM, fli wrote:
Meth.
It's a scourge on humanity...
You will literally throw away your life if you try even once.

Nope. I met a girl who did it only once.

[JackPhantasm]

At 7/11/08 05:58 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: I don't think that the little proportion of DEA drug capturing over the total drug consumption are enough to say prohibition does not work.

They're two different things. The concept of prohibition is amoral one. The DEA is a physical form of this, and is highly ineffective. They're still linked. But we must think about this. What is the point of prohibition, to stop drug use, or to purposefully create a black market, an underground crime demographic. To fuel the need for police, for "safety."

I think prohibition's major sucess is greatly increasing the risk of the activity, hiking prices of drugs.

Great more money for criminals.

In that way, potential drug users are disincentived to take on the habit.

Not really. 20 bucks from where I am = 5 grams. That's enough, that's like a 12 pack.

Now, users who are already addicted will get the money to buy them whatever the risk, but that's a different case.

Obviously more addictive drugs would probably still be illegal, maybe just decriminalized. You get caught, maybe you should get some *GASP* help, instead of jailtime.

[JackPhantasm]

uhnoesanoob- see below

At 7/11/08 04:58 PM, trogdor136 wrote: Having drugs be illegal does promote safety of the public,

It creates money for gangs.

THAT IS SO GREAT FOR THE PUBLIC.

[arxarts]

you have a very interesting poitn here. same goes for cigarettes, they are available to 100% of adults, yet only 25% smoke them (and the number is decreasing rapidly). same goes for other substances.

effectively, by legalizing, you are controlling and protecting, both the health of the consumer (you think cocaine or is clean?) and a very unprotected market such as children.

However, i believe it has some consequences:

-drug cartels will fight to the last man to avoid this: if it's legalized, they lose. this means violence, a lot of violence....

-there are some moral issues which you cannot evade

-some substances should not be made legal because of their dangerous effects, for example, someone could put ecstasy in your drink in a bar to rape you (if you're a woman) or to loot you (if you are a rich guy who drove in with a brand new bmw)

-drug-tourism, like in holland, destroying the local economy, there are a lot of articles about this, but i'm too lazy to link to them...

in conclusion, i say legalize coke, pot, opium and all of the un-refined beauty God gave us, because he gave us the plants, y'know. however, i say no to refined drugs because that's juts too much...

[uhnoesanoob]

At 7/11/08 10:39 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: uhnoesanoob- see below

At 7/11/08 04:58 PM, trogdor136 wrote: Having drugs be illegal does promote safety of the public,

It creates money for gangs.

THAT IS SO GREAT FOR THE PUBLIC.

Well, never said things are peachy with drugs being illegal, but you stand to lose major cities by making drugs legal. Drugs are not quite like beer, in which people can use reasonably. People on meth will stay on meth, and will constantly buy meth. This will lead to entire sections of cities being ruined by drugs.
Gangs may start violence, but at least they do their trade away from public areas. As we all know, major drug use is very bad, and while we can not prevent it, at least we can force the cockroaches in their dens.
Consider an area like New Orleans. Drug usage is popular there, but if the government sanctioned it? A good chunk of the city would be wasted, a slave to the drug trade. Have some god damn moral fiber and realize that by endorsing drugs, we are endorsing the terrible effects they have on people.

We don't want people to do drugs. They ruin lives, and hurt society. By making drugs legal, we are saying it's OK to do drugs. Is that right? Do we want to expose five year olds to junkies on the street, waiting for their fix? Should we undermine evil by using evil itself?
The answer to that, is clearly no. Gangs will always exist, and they will always find a way to make money.
We as a society can not let something as evil as hardcore drugs be available for casual use. Let the darkness stay within the dark. Let the parasites of society be hidden away from the people who contribute to it. Let them hide in the dark areas, away from the light of civilization. Let them know that they are filth, and as filth, shall be bought and sold by filth. If we allow drugs to be legal, we are stooping down to a criminal level, selling things that tear families apart. One must not fight fire with fire.

[jonnyrules935]

There is also another aspect of drugs, it is a international industry. So as an industry, its product is under the laws of economics, such as offer and demand. So legalisation of drugs would open the door to a closer control of prices and quality of the product, which isn,t the case. Since the state doesn't regulate it, its free for all, everyone could make some in their own basement, and that could result in a product that is very costly ( because of the risks involved in creating/imporing such product ) but with a discutable quality, which could result in intoxication.

So, control is vital for the protection of the user, so there should be some organization that regulates it to ensure a proper market price and quality. Legalize to control better, that's my opinion.

[uhnoesanoob]

At 7/12/08 12:20 AM, jonnyrules935 wrote: There is also another aspect of drugs, it is a international industry. So as an industry, its product is under the laws of economics, such as offer and demand. So legalisation of drugs would open the door to a closer control of prices and quality of the product, which isn,t the case. Since the state doesn't regulate it, its free for all, everyone could make some in their own basement, and that could result in a product that is very costly ( because of the risks involved in creating/imporing such product ) but with a discutable quality, which could result in intoxication.

So, control is vital for the protection of the user, so there should be some organization that regulates it to ensure a proper market price and quality. Legalize to control better, that's my opinion.

Well, the main logical problem with your argument is that you are simply comparing drugs to other products. The effects of drugs on society as a whole can be terrible, and as such, the drug battle is more or less one of values. As long as we can maintain that drugs are bad, and maintain an example by making it illegal, we are keeping the level of users much lower then if it were legal. The threat of punishment for doing something always prevents most people from doing it. If we made drugs legal, more people would take the life ruining stuff. Drugs are never safe to take. Some can really fuck you up. The most effective weapon we have against drug use is that drug use can be very very bad. By making hardcore drugs legal(Marijuana and other softcore drugs are fine IMO) we are saying its ok to take the terrible stuff. That is inexcusable.

[fli]

At 7/11/08 03:27 PM, Elfer wrote: Relevant question: You know that meth is harmful. You know that it is highly addictive and ruins lives. If it were made legal, would you start using it?

No. I have personally seen all the gay men who have done this, and they are emaciated like you wouldn't believe. Their skin oozes things (looks like blood and puss... and something else) because they're picking their skin. They prostitute, sucking dick for 5 bucks, almost always in public. I hear that this one here has full blown AIDS but still fucks other guys without condoms because he doesn't care... I hear the other is taking meds for his HIV. But, always, what do they say to me?

It only took one time, and they were hooked. And the ones that get off... goddamn. They're like Vietnam Vets... just out of it.

There are certain boundaries that we could push that I believe that is reasonable. I think that there could be certain present illegal substances that could be regulated just like any alcoholic drink. But, some drugs are just despicable and cannot be regulated safely.

Doing meth isn't nowhere near hazardous as a roach, or having a beer or two.
Yes, any substance could be an addiction-- but some of them are much more profound and dangerous than others.

The level of danger is a factor here. Weed is nowhere near as dangerous as meth. There is no real way to control meth as we can with any other drug.

Now, yes. Prohibition pushes this down. HOWEVER, it gives the law to persecute the real perpetrators of evil. Gives precedent and reason for raids, which reduces incidents that involves meth.

[poxpower]

WARNING: DEAD HORSE BEATING AHEAD.

What % of people who oppose drug use are religious vs the number of people who don't?
============

Anyways it's a hard decision to make, just as with alcohol. Drug use is not always confined to indoors and causes property damage, car crashes and can lead people to fuck up their lives and thus their family's.

So yeah if, hypothetically, drinking alcohol at bars lead 25% of the time to some vandalism, would it be justified to ban it?
If private drug use ruined families, say, 1% of the time, would it be worth banning it?

Anyways, it's a touchy subject to know how to regulate it exactly, but yeah banning it completely is just not working whatsoever.

I don't even know someone from college who hasn't smoked pot. It's completely ridiculous. You can walk around in the city and smell joint smoke. I even watched a comedy show yesterday where the dude smoked a joint right on stage.
It's a real fucking joke at this point, it's only a matter of time before we stop wasting time with this bullshit because these pot growers are getting crazy trying to escape law enforcement, concealing their crops in corn fields and holding farmers hostage basically.

It just CREATES crime.

[fli]

At 7/12/08 01:40 AM, poxpower wrote: WARNING: DEAD HORSE BEATING AHEAD.

What % of people who oppose drug use are religious vs the number of people who don't?

Well, I seem to fit a lot of the liberal stereotypes: gay, ethnic, atheist.
But, I oppose some drug use and I'm not a religious person.

I think it's a good stance:
Legalize the weed, but law enforcement ought to bust the people who create meth.

Even if I'm don't use the "it-ruins-lives" argument... meth labs basically ruins properties too. It devalues the land if the property isn't decantiminated.

[Nickitos]

But, if you were to legalize meth, sure, most of the people who trade it now wouldn't do it anymore, but then legal businesses will start selling it, imagine hordes of people going to wal-mart to buy meth...

[Skizzzle]

My whole fucking apartment complex is on meth, and man, it's some nasty shit. I wish crystal was never even manufactured to begin with.

[Korriken]

mandatory death penalty for creating or selling meth would help. and I don't mean one where you wait 20 years to kill em. if you catch em red handed making or selling meth the execution should happen in 2 days, just long enough to prep the execution chamber. and while we're at it, we should take the cheap road and hang em. screw that lethal injection bullshit that is so expensive and takes even longer than a good old fashioned necktie party.

[Drakim]

I don't know Elfer, the whole "the government should protect us from others, not ourselves" falls short on that drugs alters your mind for at least the duration of being affected by the drug. As in, you aren't sound of mind when taking drugs. Although other things do this too, such as alcohol, it's dosage is different. You can drink enough alcohol that driving is dangerous, but drinking to the point where you start seeing thing, you'll likely get alcohol poisoning and/or too busy vomiting your brains out. Drugs are different. You can get high by a small smoke that can be taken anytime, just like regular smoking. One small shot, one cute pill.

Personally, I would be uneasy to live in a society where guns are freely available, people free to drug their minds, and having a open and easy time doing it. I'm not saying that a ban would solve anything, but I'm definitly not for letting people "do as they please" in that sense, just as we don't allow you to drink and drive, simply because there is a huge risk at hand.