Drug Wars, Drug Laws, Legalization, Decriminalization

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

Making drugs illegal does not stop first timers from trying them out. The availability of coke and heroin has not lessened after all these years, and there will always be people who long for some kind of high, no matter what.

So you educate, regulate and try to aleviate the other problems that might push the vulnerable towards drug induced oblivion.

I would love to be able to go in to a pharmacy and get me pure MDMA, LSD or simply oldfashioned mushrooms, but because some square in an office decided it’s illegal i have to break the law in order to acquire what i see as a wonderful, yet once in a while, addition to an otherwise mundane life.

42

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Making drugs illegal does not stop first timers from trying them out. The availability of coke and heroin has not lessened after all these years, and there will always be people who long for some kind of high, no matter what.

So you educate, regulate and try to aleviate the other problems that might push the vulnerable towards drug induced oblivion.

I would love to be able to go in to a pharmacy and get me pure MDMA, LSD or simply oldfashioned mushrooms, but because some square in an office decided it’s illegal i have to break the law in order to acquire what i see as a wonderful, yet once in a while, addition to an otherwise mundane life.[/quote]

I wonder if you add the cost of cops chasing drug users , to courts trying to convict drug users. to prison housing convicted drug users . to the America’s national policies cost . and divided that in to the amount of drugs left on the street, how much would those drugs cost the tax payer ?

43

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Making drugs illegal does not stop first timers from trying them out. The availability of coke and heroin has not lessened after all these years, and there will always be people who long for some kind of high, no matter what.

So you educate, regulate and try to aleviate the other problems that might push the vulnerable towards drug induced oblivion.

I would love to be able to go in to a pharmacy and get me pure MDMA, LSD or simply oldfashioned mushrooms, but because some square in an office decided it’s illegal i have to break the law in order to acquire what i see as a wonderful, yet once in a while, addition to an otherwise mundane life.[/quote]

I wonder if you add the cost of cops chasing drug users , to courts trying to convict drug users. to prison housing convicted drug users . to the America’s national policies cost . and divided that in to the amount of drugs left on the street, how much would those drugs cost the tax payer ?[/quote]

It is big business, and a lot of people depend on the war on drugs for their livelyhood. Governments aren’t motivated to end these problems because it gives them justification; a reason to exist.

44

short interesting article

45

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Obviously I’m talking about a drop beyond the drop we would see if weed were legalized. Of course crime rates would drop if no one got arrested for weed possession, but even by your numbers, that drop wouldn’t be very large. According to numberof.net there are more than 14 million arrests made each year, so even eliminating 720,000 isn’t a big drop. And I’m referring to a drop in other crimes anyways.

I will say this though: according to the same sight, there are more than 1.8 million drug arrests made each year, so legalization will certainly significantly reduce that number.[/quote]

I’m not seeing how taking 720,000 people out of an already over taxed system is a bad thing.[/quote]

It wouldn’t be a bad thing if 720,000 people a year stopped smoking weed, stopped using any controlled substance for that matter. But to remove that amount of people from the legal system won’t eliminate an expense; it will only be replaced with another expense.

We know, although it is very hard to quantify accurately, that smoking weed on a regular basis does carry some monetary cost to society even if those people never enter the legal system. My point is that I agree 100% with legalization from a libertarian standpoint. But I also believe that it is wrong (and from what I have researched not profitable) to legalize weed simply for the tax revenue.

46

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Obviously I’m talking about a drop beyond the drop we would see if weed were legalized. Of course crime rates would drop if no one got arrested for weed possession, but even by your numbers, that drop wouldn’t be very large. According to numberof.net there are more than 14 million arrests made each year, so even eliminating 720,000 isn’t a big drop. And I’m referring to a drop in other crimes anyways.

I will say this though: according to the same sight, there are more than 1.8 million drug arrests made each year, so legalization will certainly significantly reduce that number.[/quote]

I’m not seeing how taking 720,000 people out of an already over taxed system is a bad thing.[/quote]

It wouldn’t be a bad thing if 720,000 people a year stopped smoking weed, stopped using any controlled substance for that matter. But to remove that amount of people from the legal system won’t eliminate an expense; it will only be replaced with another expense.

We know, although it is very hard to quantify accurately, that smoking weed on a regular basis does carry some monetary cost to society even if those people never enter the legal system. My point is that I agree 100% with legalization from a libertarian standpoint. But I also believe that it is wrong (and from what I have researched not profitable) to legalize weed simply for the tax revenue.[/quote]

Out of curiosity , what is the cost of smoking marijuana to our Society ?

47

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Obviously I’m talking about a drop beyond the drop we would see if weed were legalized. Of course crime rates would drop if no one got arrested for weed possession, but even by your numbers, that drop wouldn’t be very large. According to numberof.net there are more than 14 million arrests made each year, so even eliminating 720,000 isn’t a big drop. And I’m referring to a drop in other crimes anyways.

I will say this though: according to the same sight, there are more than 1.8 million drug arrests made each year, so legalization will certainly significantly reduce that number.[/quote]

I’m not seeing how taking 720,000 people out of an already over taxed system is a bad thing.[/quote]

It wouldn’t be a bad thing if 720,000 people a year stopped smoking weed, stopped using any controlled substance for that matter. But to remove that amount of people from the legal system won’t eliminate an expense; it will only be replaced with another expense.

We know, although it is very hard to quantify accurately, that smoking weed on a regular basis does carry some monetary cost to society even if those people never enter the legal system. My point is that I agree 100% with legalization from a libertarian standpoint. But I also believe that it is wrong (and from what I have researched not profitable) to legalize weed simply for the tax revenue.[/quote]

I’m not following why we are prosecuting people for smoking pot in the first place. It might not lessen the cost as much as I’d like to think, but you can’t deny that removing that amount of people from the system will either lower costs or increase space for actual offenders.

48

I’m surprised no one has covered the moral/ethical aspect of incarcerating people for certain marijuana charges. I forget where in the US or if it’s still that way, but I remember that in one of the states in the NE US that selling one joint to a minor can land you in prison for life. Ethically, I just don’t see that law holding any water. The harm of in-prisoning someone for life for selling a joint to minor to me seems to far outweigh the harm in the crime itself.

49

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Obviously I’m talking about a drop beyond the drop we would see if weed were legalized. Of course crime rates would drop if no one got arrested for weed possession, but even by your numbers, that drop wouldn’t be very large. According to numberof.net there are more than 14 million arrests made each year, so even eliminating 720,000 isn’t a big drop. And I’m referring to a drop in other crimes anyways.

I will say this though: according to the same sight, there are more than 1.8 million drug arrests made each year, so legalization will certainly significantly reduce that number.[/quote]

I’m not seeing how taking 720,000 people out of an already over taxed system is a bad thing.[/quote]

It wouldn’t be a bad thing if 720,000 people a year stopped smoking weed, stopped using any controlled substance for that matter. But to remove that amount of people from the legal system won’t eliminate an expense; it will only be replaced with another expense.

We know, although it is very hard to quantify accurately, that smoking weed on a regular basis does carry some monetary cost to society even if those people never enter the legal system. My point is that I agree 100% with legalization from a libertarian standpoint. But I also believe that it is wrong (and from what I have researched not profitable) to legalize weed simply for the tax revenue.[/quote]

I’m not following why we are prosecuting people for smoking pot in the first place. It might not lessen the cost as much as I’d like to think, but you can’t deny that removing that amount of people from the system will either lower costs or increase space for actual offenders.[/quote]

I know it will lower the cost to society from a monetary standpoint regarding incarceration, but I’m thinking more along the lines of healthcare costs and other less-quantifiable societal costs. This is purely anecdotal evidence, but from my own experiences people who regularly smoke weed are more likely to at least dabble in other drugs as well. Some of those people end up completely hooked on other drugs, such as cocaine (myself being one of those people back in the day). While driving under the influence of weed is nowhere near as dangerous as driving drunk, it is still unsafe, and it is also detrimental to one’s physical health. Along with that, the combination of weed (or other depressants and/or hallucinogens) and various pharmaceutical painkillers and/or psychotherapeutic drugs can have horrific effects on teenagers’ developing brains. Given that pharmaceuticals are one of the fastest (if not THE fastest) rising drug of abuse/choice amongst teenagers, I think the costs of marijuana remain high even if it were legalized.

I still support legalization despite all of this, but I think it should be legalized and forgotten about. Like I said earlier, I don’t think it is right for the state to legalize weed for profit because a) it isn’t clear at all whether the state will actually make a profit in tax revenue, especially when considering the aforementioned costs and b) I don’t think it’s right for the state to make money off of the abuse of any controlled substance. Any revenue should be directly put back into providing for various programs and so forth that deal with/alleviate the fallout from drug abuse, regardless of how severe that fallout is.

Beyond that, is the state really prepared to create a market for something when it should also bear the societal responsibility of discouraging teenagers and other prospective participants in that marketplace from ever entering it in the first place?

50

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
This is purely anecdotal evidence, but from my own experiences people who regularly smoke weed are more likely to at least dabble in other drugs as well.[/quote]

Anecdotal it may be, but it’s also true. But consider the fact that people who sell Marijuana now also sell harder drugs. This is part of the reason the gateway fallacy has had support.

51

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
This is purely anecdotal evidence, but from my own experiences people who regularly smoke weed are more likely to at least dabble in other drugs as well.[/quote]

Anecdotal it may be, but it’s also true. But consider the fact that people who sell Marijuana now also sell harder drugs. This is part of the reason the gateway fallacy has had support.[/quote]

Again, purely anecdotal, but from my own experiences most people who sell weed on a regular basis do not sell other, harder drugs. It’s usually the other way around. People, in my experiences, who sell cocaine or crystal can get weed if need be, but once they move onto harder drugs, the weed thing is a waste of time for them.

52

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
This is purely anecdotal evidence, but from my own experiences people who regularly smoke weed are more likely to at least dabble in other drugs as well.[/quote]

Anecdotal it may be, but it’s also true. But consider the fact that people who sell Marijuana now also sell harder drugs. This is part of the reason the gateway fallacy has had support.[/quote]

Again, purely anecdotal, but from my own experiences most people who sell weed on a regular basis do not sell other, harder drugs. It’s usually the other way around. People, in my experiences, who sell cocaine or crystal can get weed if need be, but once they move onto harder drugs, the weed thing is a waste of time for them.[/quote]

Interesting. The dealers in the US that I’ve come across (as well as most of the ones here) sell both pot and harder drugs.

53

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
I’m surprised no one has covered the moral/ethical aspect of incarcerating people for certain marijuana charges. I forget where in the US or if it’s still that way, but I remember that in one of the states in the NE US that selling one joint to a minor can land you in prison for life. Ethically, I just don’t see that law holding any water. The harm of in-prisoning someone for life for selling a joint to minor to me seems to far outweigh the harm in the crime itself. [/quote]

I think it is because unless organized religion says it is imoral than it is not so , people have lost their ability to reason

54

[quote]kamui wrote:
i know for a fact than some of my 15-20 yo students would retry it if it was easily available and 5 dollar a gram.

i say “retry” because some of them already tried it.

dealers are not stupids, the “first times” are often free.

[/quote]

Probably a couple would but I doubt the cost is much of a deterant until you become addicted

55

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Obviously I’m talking about a drop beyond the drop we would see if weed were legalized. Of course crime rates would drop if no one got arrested for weed possession, but even by your numbers, that drop wouldn’t be very large. According to numberof.net there are more than 14 million arrests made each year, so even eliminating 720,000 isn’t a big drop. And I’m referring to a drop in other crimes anyways.

I will say this though: according to the same sight, there are more than 1.8 million drug arrests made each year, so legalization will certainly significantly reduce that number.[/quote]

I’m not seeing how taking 720,000 people out of an already over taxed system is a bad thing.[/quote]

It wouldn’t be a bad thing if 720,000 people a year stopped smoking weed, stopped using any controlled substance for that matter. But to remove that amount of people from the legal system won’t eliminate an expense; it will only be replaced with another expense.

We know, although it is very hard to quantify accurately, that smoking weed on a regular basis does carry some monetary cost to society even if those people never enter the legal system. My point is that I agree 100% with legalization from a libertarian standpoint. But I also believe that it is wrong (and from what I have researched not profitable) to legalize weed simply for the tax revenue.[/quote]

I’m not following why we are prosecuting people for smoking pot in the first place. It might not lessen the cost as much as I’d like to think, but you can’t deny that removing that amount of people from the system will either lower costs or increase space for actual offenders.[/quote]

I know it will lower the cost to society from a monetary standpoint regarding incarceration, but I’m thinking more along the lines of healthcare costs and other less-quantifiable societal costs. This is purely anecdotal evidence, but from my own experiences people who regularly smoke weed are more likely to at least dabble in other drugs as well. Some of those people end up completely hooked on other drugs, such as cocaine (myself being one of those people back in the day). While driving under the influence of weed is nowhere near as dangerous as driving drunk, it is still unsafe, and it is also detrimental to one’s physical health. Along with that, the combination of weed (or other depressants and/or hallucinogens) and various pharmaceutical painkillers and/or psychotherapeutic drugs can have horrific effects on teenagers’ developing brains. Given that pharmaceuticals are one of the fastest (if not THE fastest) rising drug of abuse/choice amongst teenagers, I think the costs of marijuana remain high even if it were legalized.

I still support legalization despite all of this, but I think it should be legalized and forgotten about. Like I said earlier, I don’t think it is right for the state to legalize weed for profit because a) it isn’t clear at all whether the state will actually make a profit in tax revenue, especially when considering the aforementioned costs and b) I don’t think it’s right for the state to make money off of the abuse of any controlled substance. Any revenue should be directly put back into providing for various programs and so forth that deal with/alleviate the fallout from drug abuse, regardless of how severe that fallout is.

Beyond that, is the state really prepared to create a market for something when it should also bear the societal responsibility of discouraging teenagers and other prospective participants in that marketplace from ever entering it in the first place?[/quote]

I think your gateway theory has been addressed , the personality that would smoke pot would be the type that did heroin

56

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Obviously I’m talking about a drop beyond the drop we would see if weed were legalized. Of course crime rates would drop if no one got arrested for weed possession, but even by your numbers, that drop wouldn’t be very large. According to numberof.net there are more than 14 million arrests made each year, so even eliminating 720,000 isn’t a big drop. And I’m referring to a drop in other crimes anyways.

I will say this though: according to the same sight, there are more than 1.8 million drug arrests made each year, so legalization will certainly significantly reduce that number.[/quote]

I’m not seeing how taking 720,000 people out of an already over taxed system is a bad thing.[/quote]

It wouldn’t be a bad thing if 720,000 people a year stopped smoking weed, stopped using any controlled substance for that matter. But to remove that amount of people from the legal system won’t eliminate an expense; it will only be replaced with another expense.

We know, although it is very hard to quantify accurately, that smoking weed on a regular basis does carry some monetary cost to society even if those people never enter the legal system. My point is that I agree 100% with legalization from a libertarian standpoint. But I also believe that it is wrong (and from what I have researched not profitable) to legalize weed simply for the tax revenue.[/quote]

Out of curiosity , what is the cost of smoking marijuana to our Society ?[/quote]

Hard to quantify but it screws up productivity for many that smoke it. It certainly isn’t harmless. I also think it can do good for some.

For the record it should be legalized. No doubt.

57

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I think your gateway theory has been addressed , the personality that would smoke pot would be the type that did heroin

[/quote]

I hate the gateway theory. Anything that lowers inhibitions could be a gateway. Alcohol is a gateway. Other people are a gateway. Ban concerts!

58

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I think your gateway theory has been addressed , the personality that would smoke pot would be the type that did heroin

[/quote]

I hate the gateway theory. Anything that lowers inhibitions could be a gateway. Alcohol is a gateway. Other people are a gateway. Ban concerts![/quote]

Some gateways are much bigger and easier to walk through than others.

59

Remember that in Amsterdam, the use of harder drugs decreased when marijuana was decriminalized. I’m not saying that’s exactly what would happen in the US, but it’s something to consider. What that tells me is that pot was more a gateway than alcohol only because the same people who deal pot often deal other drugs or at least have contacts who do.

60

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I think your gateway theory has been addressed , the personality that would smoke pot would be the type that did heroin

[/quote]

I hate the gateway theory. Anything that lowers inhibitions could be a gateway. Alcohol is a gateway. Other people are a gateway. Ban concerts![/quote]

Some gateways are much bigger and easier to walk through than others.[/quote]

There have been studies showing that alcohol and cigarette use are better indicators of hard drugs use further on than Marijuana. I’ll try find some of them for you.