Decriminalizing Meth, Heroin, Cocaine, etc

[TX_iron]

I think we do. The best example I can think of is when they prosecuted crack more severely than cocaine, I mean talk about blatant racism/class-ism

[SkyzykS]

[quote=“TX_iron, post:78, topic:231956, full:true”]
I feel for you, and good on you for pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. Too many of those close to me have similar stories. [/quote]

Not trying to deflect a well intended atta boy- but I kind of consider myself the beneficiary of some great peoples time and effort, which at the time I was rather oblivious to. There were about a good dozen people that pulled me up by my bootstraps. As for those close to you- One could only hope. My story starts out sounding pretty bad, but the way it pans out is great. Probably the best possible outcome- A fulfilling life, stable home, loving wife and amazing son.

That being said, there are many people whom are very infrequent users and are not addicted. I don’t mean this as an insult in any way, but do you feel the drug laws should in essence pander only to those whom have the weakest resistances in regards to addiction?

No. Actually, the slap on the wrist should apply to the casual infrequent user. No sense in ruining an otherwise good life due to a lapse in judgement at a concert or some otherwise common party type event. On the other hand, once it is proven that drug use is more of a common occurrence or habitual- it should be addressed more as a behavioral problem rather than purely criminal. Put simply- use the slap on the wrist for people that it might work for. Use the mental health and hygiene system for those that warrant it. But don’t slap a felony on a college kid and ruin his life based on the substance in possession.

@ActivitiesGuy

To be clear, in my statement(s) above regarding an alternative pathway for drug possession rather than criminal prosecution, offenses committed while on drugs would be prosecuted independent of the drug offense. I am not in favor of drug-users being given preferential treatment under the “But he was high” exception. My “alternative” pathway would not exempt someone for prosecution for other offenses committed while under the influence. Someone that stole a car high could/should be prosecuted for that offense, not covered under the “But he was high” defense.

I’m pretty much on the same page as you. There currently are a lot of options similar to what you described in PA. How people respond to them is a “it is what you make of it” thing though. Some use it to straighten up and move forward, others just use it as a pause between times that they are using again. You can’t really do much about that though.

[pat]

Maybe, I don’t know any junkies…

[anon50325502]

@polo77j

I’m just laughing at the “making them volunteer” statement. It’s like I’m reliving my military days…

[pat]

I am not sure. I don’t think there is a way to measure it. Things get fuzzy at the extremes. Prohibition doesn’t work. I do not feel that the government has a right to tell you what you can and cannot consume for yourself. How do we control it when it gets out of control? I am not sure anybody knows the answer, it’s been out of control my entire life. I don’t know of a time when there was not a drug epidemic. So whatever we are doing isn’t working either. And what ever has been tried hasn’t worked. So I am hypothesizing other options. Maybe it’s only a problem for certain people and that will be a problem regardless.

[pat]

I think you may be right, it may be a draw…

[zeb1]

@pat

Prohibition doesn’t work

True, but were there more or less people drinking after they legalized it?

[TX_iron]

@SkyzykS

Not trying to deflect a well intended atta boy- but I kind of consider myself the beneficiary of some great peoples time and effort, which at the time I was rather oblivious to. There were about a good dozen people that pulled me up by my bootstraps. As for those close to you- One could only hope. My story starts out sounding pretty bad, but the way it pans out is great. Probably the best possible outcome- A fulfilling life, stable home, loving wife and amazing son.

Glad you had such a strong support system in place man, there really are some good people out there. But you came back from it and are living a good life; speaks volumes. When my friend passed, it acted as catalyst to change the others, and they are determined to not let his sacrifice be in vein.

@SkyzykS

No. Actually, the slap on the wrist should apply to the casual infrequent user. No sense in ruining an otherwise good life due to a lapse in judgement at a concert or some otherwise common party type event. On the other hand, once it is proven that drug use is more of a common occurrence or habitual- it should be addressed more as a behavioral problem rather than purely criminal. Put simply- use the slap on the wrist for people that it might work for. Use the mental health and hygiene system for those that warrant it. But don’t slap a felony on a college kid and ruin his life based on the substance in possession.

I like this idea a lot. At least for the initial infraction, that is the general direction marijuana policy is heading in some parts of the US (Houston as an example) and I think it could be applied to harder substances as well. No sense in painting the entire issue with the same brush.

[pat]

There is no way to know that, people wouldn’t say they wouldn’t answer a survey. If I were to render a guess, I would say the numbers were about the same. The problem prohibition introduced was to home brew. Just like people cut drugs today, liquor during prohibition was also cut, with things like kerosene and other heinous shit that killed people. Demon Rum and other such products concocted in bath tubs. It also made bad guys filthy rich, same thing with other drugs. Ironically, Cocaine and Opium were legal at the time…You could by morphine cough drops for your kids.
Now, you can head to your friendly liquor store, or grocery store and get drunk as shit on clean products. Alcohol related death is still a problem, but it’s not a big problem.

I guess it depends on which problem you want to solve.The drug epidemic is not one problem, it’s many problems under one umbrella. Junkies will be junkies, I don’t think you fix them. How do you talk a man who has been doing heroin for 20 years to stop? How do you tell a person who’s experienced life debilitating tragedies that they are better off sober?

The problem I am interested in solving is death and OD and I think the best way to do that is to control the quality of the product. The problem with that is you have to bring the products above ground to regulate. That way, every time you do the drug, you know what you are getting. I want to keep people out of the ER and out of the morgue. I don’t personally care what they do to themselves. I think product control is the best way to do that.

[Legalsteel]

@Aragorn

does this include deaths from trafficking/gang/Law enforcement?

It is only usage AFAIK. The crime issue is a very separate issue, which I will wholeheartedly admit.

I’ll have a look and see if I can find the methodology for you.

[zeb1]

@pat

There is no way to know that, people wouldn’t say they wouldn’t answer a survey. If I were to render a guess, I would say the numbers were about the same

I doubt that. The more readily available that you make a product the more of that product will be sold. On top of that they made something that was illegal into legal. Obviously more people began drinking than during prohibition. There was no stigma attached to it and it became more mainstream. Yes there were speakeasy’s but only a fraction of the population visited those. Now you would be hard pressed to find a refrigerator without a six pack in it, or a bottle of some sort of alcohol in the house. Has it made our country better or worse? Something like 35,000 traffic fatalities last year. Many of those directly related to alcohol consumption. Compare that to the prohibition era (taking into account the population change).

Many on this thread are confusing the issue. They say that the drug laws are not working so let’s get rid of them. But, the fact is they are still a deterrent. Many more would be using drugs if they were decriminalized. And if you disagree then you are basically saying that if we made cheeseburgers illegal there would be more of them sold in the US. How silly!

Keep the drug laws and allow those with a problem a grace period where they could get free help and no criminal record. That way we would be getting rid of that segment of the drug using market which would then drive up the cost of drugs for the remaining users. Then another percentage (not the hard users) would either stop using or not start because it would be cost prohibitive.

There is a way to fight the drug epidemic and it is NOT by getting rid of drug laws. For without the drug laws usage would go up drastically as alcohol did and as any product that is more readily available and cheaper will do.

[pat]

@twojarslave

In a society where hard drug users don’t have children and just like to get high then leave everyone else alone, I’m with you 100%. The trouble is, I’ve never seen anyone like that except for the brief period where they first start using. Perhaps I know some long-time hard drug users who can hide it that well, at least from me. Kudos to them I guess.

You make a good point here, but how much of that is because it is illegal and product inconsistent. I also do not want children born addicted. That’s something I cannot wrap my head around. But perhaps bringing it above ground we can monitor those types of issues like that perhaps even prevent. I don’t have all the answers, I don’t pretend to. I just don’t think what we are doing works. People don’t like to be sober. All centuries prior to the 20th never really had mass prohibition of drugs and I don’t remember hearing it was a problem.

Thomas Edison was a coke head, so was Sigmund Freud. Revolutionary War vets were treated for alcoholism with Laudanum. John Pemberton used cocaine to get himself off of opium, thanks to that we have Coca Cola.

History is full of self-medicated people, not everybody who uses drugs are junkies. Until very recently in history, it wasn’t regarded as a problem, I don’t know why it is now.

[zeb1]

@pat

Until very recently in history, it wasn’t regarded as a problem, I don’t know why it is now

You are correct. But look around we never had almost 70% of the population overweight either. We have become fat and oblivious. Part of being oblivious is getting drunk or using drugs.

That is the sad truth my friend.

[Alrightmiami19c]

@idaho

No disrespect to you, but what’s your point? If PCP was legal it would have made a difference?

None taken. I doubt the legality would make a difference at all.[quote=“idaho, post:30, topic:231956”]
Fine with me, as long as they call someone besides the police to handle the shit, when mommy or daddy decides to either kill the kids or go off and die like the ones you described. Look, I would like to think it would change things, if the things were like the way you want, but, I have no faith in that.
[/quote]

I don’t think it would change things in that respect. People would still do horrible, awful, despicable things.

@idaho

The problem will never go away, whether they are legal or illegal because the vast majority of people will never except personal responsibility.

Bingo.

[pat]

@zeb1

@pat

Until very recently in history, it wasn’t regarded as a problem, I don’t know why it is now

You are correct. But look around we never had almost 70% of the population overweight either. We have become fat and oblivious. Part of being oblivious is getting drunk or using drugs.

That is the sad truth my friend.

I have known teetotalers who were oblivious and stoners who were sharp as knives. And I have known stoners who were completely oblivious and teetotalers who were sharp as knives.
I don’t think the problems are that people are oblivious, it’s more that they only care about themselves and their likes and dislikes without regard for anybody else.
Destructive behavior comes in many forms. Someone mentioned personal responsibility and that’s part of it, but also giving a shit about others. If you are selfish and self serving, you will be destructive in some way, shape or form. I don’t think you jump into rabbit holes you don’t want to be in.

[zeb1]

@pat

I have known teetotalers who were oblivious and stoners who were sharp as knives. And I have known stoners who were completely oblivious and teetotalers who were sharp as knives. [/quote]

I agree with you I think it takes good number of years for alcohol or drugs to actually negatively affect someone’s brain. Of course the harder the drug the faster it may harm the brain.

I don’t think the problems are that people are oblivious, it’s more that they only care about themselves and their likes and dislikes without regard for anybody else.

True, and that is part of being oblivious. The person is oblivious to others needs and concerns and only cares about themselves.

Destructive behavior comes in many forms.

Very true, and one form are the almost 70% who are trying to eat themselves into an early grave.

[quote]Someone mentioned personal responsibility and that’s part of it, but also giving a shit about others. If you are selfish and self serving, you will be destructive in some way, shape or form. I don’t think you jump into rabbit holes you don’t want to be in.

I agree.

[jasmincar]

Drugs are a waste of time and life, but going after drug users is a bigger waste of time.

Ressources should be put somewhere else.

Water treatment and waste management needs to be funded massively. There needs to be MORE environmental regulations.