Lots of politicians and ex-politicians admit privately their support for ending the bullshit but most of them care too much about votes and appearing "tough on drugs" to do anything.
[QUOTE=Kybalt;41066875]please elaborate[/QUOTE]
Thousands of pounds of cocaine and marijuana have been seized. All these statistics are just in the late 90s and 2000s only.
Source: [url]http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa020101a.htm[/url]
This other site has a DEA archive statistics of major DEA busts. To point out a few:
-2005 Arrest of a Mexican cocaine kingpin responsible for over $90 million worth of cocaine in the US.
- 2005 High Ranking Guatemalan Police Officers Arrested For Conspiracy To Import Cocaine Into The US.
-2006 Extradition of Colombian Drug Kingpin Responsible for Importing More Than $100 Million Worth of Narcotics.
The list goes on and on of all the convictions and seizures. While this is great on the books, that doesn't mean the drug war is making progress necessarily. Just 'good' in terms of bad guys and drugs off the streets.
[url]http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/pressrel/majorarrests_index.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Reserved Parkin;41067060]Thousands of pounds of cocaine and marijuana have been seized. All these statistics are just in the late 90s and 2000s only.
Source: [url]http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa020101a.htm[/url]
This other site has a DEA archive statistics of major DEA busts. To point out a few:
-2005 Arrest of a Mexican cocaine kingpin responsible for over $90 million worth of cocaine in the US.
- 2005 High Ranking Guatemalan Police Officers Arrested For Conspiracy To Import Cocaine Into The US.
-2006 Extradition of Colombian Drug Kingpin Responsible for Importing More Than $100 Million Worth of Narcotics.
The list goes on and on of all the convictions and seizures. While this is great on the books, that doesn't mean the drug war is making progress necessarily. Just 'good' in terms of bad guys and drugs off the streets.
[url]http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/pressrel/majorarrests_index.html[/url][/QUOTE]
Seizures effectively mean nothing when all it does is increase the street price, addicts are still gonna pay what they need to to get their fix, so why not give them safer, clean drugs and a safe area for them to do so.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;41066891]The majority of illegal drugs have been tested and studied to high hell to try and justify the reasons they're illegal.
Illegalizing any drug doesn't really do a lot of good for anyone and doesn't really mean anything.[/QUOTE]
I think they will try to illegalize the synthetic components, if it becomes a very big problem. Judging from the article, it's not at that point yet. Some drugs should stay illegal or prescription, because they do no good. What other alternative would you suggest for the bad drugs? A lot of these synthetic drugs also have other uses, so it's hard to just out right ban it.
[editline]17th June 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=bravehat;41067099]Seizures effectively mean nothing when all it does is increase the street price, addicts are still gonna pay what they need to to get their fix, so why not give them safer, clean drugs and a safe area for them to do so.[/QUOTE]
Simply, more drugs seized, equals less drugs to be had. This will drive up the price, and in theory create less incentive to buy drugs. It's better than having cheap easily available drugs to everyone. Their will always be a drug market, but instead of having a safe zone for them to do drugs, why not give them drug abuse programs? Treat their addiction.
The rise in price is not the only outcome. It also increases contamination and other black market side effects and likely ends up killing and harming far more people than are dissuaded by price. People with a real problem or addiction couldn't give a fuck about the price and will just dig themselves into debt anyway.
If they were regulated and available without the threat of a completely free for all market driven solely by the profit motive chances are they would be far safer to take for those who end up taking them. Just like how alcohol prohibition made alcohol more dangerous to use due to similar factors.
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;41067145]The rise in price is not the only outcome. It also increases contamination and other black market side effects and likely ends up killing and harming far more people than are dissuaded by price. People with a real problem or addiction couldn't give a fuck about the price and will just dig themselves into debt anyway.
If they were regulated and available without the threat of a completely free for all market driven solely by the profit motive chances are they would be far safer to take for those who end up taking them. Just like how alcohol prohibition made alcohol more dangerous to use due to similar factors.[/QUOTE]
I'm no expert in drug market economics, but that's also why I stated 'in theory.' Is their any examples of more people getting killed or hurt when the price of drugs are higher? I understand though, your point of the usual crowd of addicts buying drugs on 'credit' and then the dealers coming after them when the addict doesn't pay. Is that what you mean?
The reasoning of a regulated drug use safe zone to ensure the safety of addicts sounds off when instead we could be working on getting them to rehab and getting them off drugs, so they won't have that dependency. I'm not saying it will happen over night, but what is the point of having a drug use safe zone, when you can treat their addiction and nip all the problems of drug use right in the bud.
What I mean is the price being driven up doesn't always just act as a deterrent. What I mean is that the price of drugs is already stupid high relatively speaking due to illegality and being pushed underground and all the risk that comes with that. The fact the market is entirely unregulated means that a lot of those involved with the sales side of it will sink to ANY level in order to bolster their profits. When drugs get too expensive and they've borrowed all they can borrow, both through loan sharks and through financial institutions, addicts and problem users will just turn to acquisitive crime i.e. robbery, burglary, etc. That crime is not caused by the drug or the user but by the system that is in place.
Black market side affects include contamination, dirty paraphernalia being shared, artificially high prices, and lack of education on how to use the substances involved in a safe way. There are many more but I'm at work and don't really have time to list them right now.
Addiction even to something like heroin can be unproblematic if readily available at a reasonable price, clean i.e. uncontaminated, and with widely available safe paraphernalia. Education is key here too as well as the availability of supervision or help for those who want it. If people are able to maintain their addiction without falling into a black market suddenly addiction isn't such a big problem anymore. Look at coffee addicts. I know it's different but there are similarities even if you don't want to admit it.
[QUOTE=Reserved Parkin;41067115]I think they will try to illegalize the synthetic components, if it becomes a very big problem. Judging from the article, it's not at that point yet. Some drugs should stay illegal or prescription, because they do no good. What other alternative would you suggest for the bad drugs? A lot of these synthetic drugs also have other uses, so it's hard to just out right ban it.
[editline]17th June 2013[/editline]
Simply, more drugs seized, equals less drugs to be had. This will drive up the price, and in theory create less incentive to buy drugs. It's better than having cheap easily available drugs to everyone. Their will always be a drug market, but instead of having a safe zone for them to do drugs, why not give them drug abuse programs? Treat their addiction.[/QUOTE]
Seizing drugs means nothing considering that someone will fill the void.
People want thing. People pay for thing. Durg lord make thing. Young American boy in ghetto sell tihng.
What would happen if we legalized all the drugs out there? I mean, see it how you will but if something is illegal it will keep a large amount of people away from it, not everyone but still - and isn't that what we want, to keep people from using various drugs?
[QUOTE=innerfire34;41066640]yeah the hippy movement sure did fuck congress up when they got old enough to lead us through the cold war[/QUOTE]
Congress consists of those "shirt in pants" kids that weren't cool enough to have group sex in a teepee while blazed off their arse by dank nugs.
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;41068735]What would happen if we legalized all the drugs out there? I mean, see it how you will but if something is illegal it will keep a large amount of people away from it, not everyone but still - and isn't that what we want, to keep people from using various drugs?[/QUOTE]
Prison is worse than any drug addiction. Good luck improving your life behind bars. The facts should be enough to scare people away; look at tobacco's reputation. The fiscal impact and violence of all this nonsense isn't worth the reward.
[QUOTE=Chicken_Chaser;41068989]Prison is worse than any drug addiction. Good luck improving your life behind bars.[/QUOTE]
Well yeah if you're an addict then you should recieve help not jail, but to make sure that happen you don't have to make it legal.
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;41068735]What would happen if we legalized all the drugs out there? I mean, see it how you will but if something is illegal it will keep a large amount of people away from it, not everyone but still - and isn't that what we want, to keep people from using various drugs?[/QUOTE]
Keeping people away from drugs shouldn't really be the priority in my opinion and neither is it a measure of success as such. Making sure they know how to use them properly through education and are able to access them from a safe regulated source if they wish to indulge is far more important and removes the 'forbidden fruit' effect.
Reducing harm should be the key goal and that does not necessarily mean reducing use. This is because much of the harms associated with all the drugs is related to and caused by the effects of the black market or poor drug education - NOT the drugs themselves.
To me, harm reduction means allowing people to make informed decisions themselves based on neutral education that doesn't lean one way or the other and presents just the facts.
The stupid treatment of the subject as taboo only means less people seek help or know the truth about how to use things safely or where to obtain safe product.
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;41067261]What I mean is the price being driven up doesn't always just act as a deterrent. What I mean is that the price of drugs is already stupid high relatively speaking due to illegality and being pushed underground and all the risk that comes with that. The fact the market is entirely unregulated means that a lot of those involved with the sales side of it will sink to ANY level in order to bolster their profits. When drugs get too expensive and they've borrowed all they can borrow, both through loan sharks and through financial institutions, addicts and problem users will just turn to acquisitive crime i.e. robbery, burglary, etc. That crime is not caused by the drug or the user but by the system that is in place.
Black market side affects include contamination, dirty paraphernalia being shared, artificially high prices, and lack of education on how to use the substances involved in a safe way. There are many more but I'm at work and don't really have time to list them right now.
Addiction even to something like heroin can be unproblematic if readily available at a reasonable price, clean i.e. uncontaminated, and with widely available safe paraphernalia. Education is key here too as well as the availability of supervision or help for those who want it. If people are able to maintain their addiction without falling into a black market suddenly addiction isn't such a big problem anymore. Look at coffee addicts. I know it's different but there are similarities even if you don't want to admit it.[/QUOTE]
I understand, and yes you are correct it may infact drive a small portion to crime. However, the greater effect must be thought out here. These addicts, if they have more readily available access to drugs will sink deeper into addiction, possibly to the point where they will kill themselves on the free drug zones. As a society, we generally accept that people should contribute back(jobs, inventions, etc.). These addicts would provide little productivity, if any at all. You make a good point though, the statistics for drug related burgulary are fairly low. According to this, [url]http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/pressrel/majorarrests_index.html[/url], a reasonable chunk of 17% in state and 18% in federal, commited crimes in 2004 to obtain drug money. However, for some reason it seemed to be a lot higher in 2002,with property offenders at 30% and drug offenders at 26%. So you do have a point, that allowing free drugs should help reduce this crime statistic.
I don't bellieve you when it comes to safe heroin use. These guys claim otherwise as well. [url]http://alcoholism.about.com/od/heroin/a/heroin.htm[/url] Long term use of side effects include collapsed veins, infection of the heart lining and valves, abscesses, cellulitis, liver disease, pulmonary complications, various types of pneumonia, and of course overdose and HIV/AIDs. I'm no drug expert either, so I'm assuming that like you said, safe uncontaminated heroin would render some of these side effects null?
Finally the cost. With drugs like heroin, the body becomes resistant to multiple uses, requiring more and more of a dosage to get that "high." With free drug zones, many will continue to come back over and over, demanding an increase in heroin. Who will pay for these? Of course, the answer would be the tax payers. Not only would this take more and more money out of our already decimated economy, but it would not sit well with many of the general population. Like with many politicians, this would be one equivlant of political suicide, thus threatining their ability to run for office again. And they don't want that.
Your comparison to coffee makes sense in the concept of people with an addiction. However, that's where the similarity ends. Coffee does not provide such horrible side effects as compared to drugs, coke, etc. Also, can also be beneficial, with anti-oxidants, liver protection, and reduced risks of certain diseases.
While your argument does have some merit, the greater effect would be detrimental to society as a whole. In my opinion, education is the key. Education of the younger generation, so they stay away from drugs. An example would be cigarettes. Back in the 50s and up, smoking was considered fashionable and socially accepted. Several of my old friends would tell me they used to all hot box in classrooms off of cigarette smoke! Now days, the current generation of kids, their is a significantly lower smoking percentage due to education. Many school programs and infomercials help reinforce the discouragement of cigarette use. If we could get the same results for current drug use, then why not?
Edit: Sorry for the long type, I know it must be a pain to respond with all things going on. We can take this to messaging, if that would be more convenient for you.
[QUOTE=Van-man;41068809]Congress consists of those "shirt in pants" kids that weren't cool enough to have group sex in a teepee while blazed off their arse by dank nugs.[/QUOTE]
and the same nerdes today will run our country into the ground tomorrow
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;41066743]Well society is completely different now at least, technology is a real game changer perhaps.[/QUOTE]
Technology makes governments more powerful and allows them to control people's lives even more.
With how politics are going the government will use technology for these purposes.
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;41069622]Keeping people away from drugs shouldn't really be the priority in my opinion and neither is it a measure of success as such. Making sure they know how to use them properly through education and are able to access them from a safe regulated source if they wish to indulge is far more important and removes the 'forbidden fruit' effect.
Reducing harm should be the key goal and that does not necessarily mean reducing use. This is because much of the harms associated with all the drugs is related to and caused by the effects of the black market or poor drug education - NOT the drugs themselves.
To me, harm reduction means allowing people to make informed decisions themselves based on neutral education that doesn't lean one way or the other and presents just the facts.
The stupid treatment of the subject as taboo only means less people seek help or know the truth about how to use things safely or where to obtain safe product.[/QUOTE]
I'm just a bit ignorant in the topic, but I'm trying to see the sense - if we legalize heroin for example, it would increase the use of heroin, probably by a lot - now, doesn't the cons of heroin outweigh the pros pretty heavily, wouldn't it be catastrophic?
[editline]18th June 2013[/editline]
I mean I can definitely agree with the fact that drugs are being fought in the wrong way but I don't think allowing people to freely take them or trust that everybody can make their own decision about it is the right thing either.
[QUOTE=Reserved Parkin;41071403]I understand, and yes you are correct it may infact drive a small portion to crime. However, the greater effect must be thought out here. These addicts, if they have more readily available access to drugs will sink deeper into addiction, possibly to the point where they will kill themselves on the free drug zones. As a society, we generally accept that people should contribute back(jobs, inventions, etc.). These addicts would provide little productivity, if any at all. You make a good point though, the statistics for drug related burgulary are fairly low. According to this, [URL]http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/pressrel/majorarrests_index.html[/URL], a reasonable chunk of 17% in state and 18% in federal, commited crimes in 2004 to obtain drug money. However, for some reason it seemed to be a lot higher in 2002,with property offenders at 30% and drug offenders at 26%. So you do have a point, that allowing free drugs should help reduce this crime statistic.[/QUOTE]
How will they kill themselves? If you mean through overdose they are in a safe environment where help is available - they won't deliberately overdose - deliberate overdose doesn't really tend to happen a great deal even outside of areas like this. Overdose is mostly accidental caused by inconsistent strength and quality of product caused by the black market and it's haphazard supply chain.
There is such thing as a functioning addict - many addicts are able to hold down regular jobs and continue to perform their day to day societal obligations with no trouble so long as they maintain their addiction responsibly with sensibly timed consumption i.e. in the evening after work. More would be able to do this if it weren't for prohibition. We don't hear much about these people because they don't seek help as their addiction is not a problem to them and therefore they do not get recorded in statistics. We tend to villify and stigmatise the worst users with problems - the ones that need help - and focus on them and sob stories in the media more than we focus on reality.
Have you ever had any junkie friends? Guessing not. I'm not saying allow completely free drugs - that would be reserved for those with an actual problem on condition that they accept help given to them. Ff they can afford to pay for them themselves at a reasonable price from a licensed and properly regulated market then they should be left alone.
[QUOTE=Reserved Parkin;41071403]I don't bellieve you when it comes to safe heroin use. These guys claim otherwise as well. [URL]http://alcoholism.about.com/od/heroin/a/heroin.htm[/URL] Long term use of side effects include collapsed veins, infection of the heart lining and valves, abscesses, cellulitis, liver disease, pulmonary complications, various types of pneumonia, and of course overdose and HIV/AIDs. I'm no drug expert either, so I'm assuming that like you said, safe uncontaminated heroin would render some of these side effects null?[/QUOTE]
All of the problems you list are, as you suspected, due to the black market and not the drug itself in uncontaminated form used with clean paraphanalia at correctly calculated dosage levels. This is a rather eye opening book [URL]http://www.amazon.co.uk/books/dp/1559502169[/URL] I'd recommend reading it as an impartial source on how one might use heroin responsibly and safely and manage dependence. Diamorphine i.e. heroin is used in hospitals for that reason - it is very effective and causes very little complications in it's use at all apart from constapation and possible dependence, which, in a hospital, is not really much of a problem in the current world as the addiction can be maintained and tapered down by someone educated in how to manage it (as we should ideally all be aware of).
[QUOTE=Reserved Parkin;41071403]Finally the cost. With drugs like heroin, the body becomes resistant to multiple uses, requiring more and more of a dosage to get that "high." With free drug zones, many will continue to come back over and over, demanding an increase in heroin. Who will pay for these? Of course, the answer would be the tax payers. Not only would this take more and more money out of our already decimated economy, but it would not sit well with many of the general population. Like with many politicians, this would be one equivlant of political suicide, thus threatining their ability to run for office again. And they don't want that.[/QUOTE]
This kind of comes back to 'contributing back to society' that you mentioned earlier. If people should be considered as merely workers or "human resources" then surely they should be cared for in return for their lifetime "productive output" if they happen to develop a problem that they need help with. Politicians care too much about votes and power and this is one of the things that makes the current system of centralised government far less than ideal but that's a different argument...
The cost of producing heroin isn't actually very high, what inflates the costs is the black market so the taxpayer needn't worry really so long as these poor sick people with problems are being looked after and provided with assistance and education. Taxpayer's should stop be so selfish. The "decimated economy" is not so much to do with taxes, it's more about the gambling on Wall St. Just because the economy is "decimated" most certainly does not mean we should start putting capitalistic prick waving before the welfare of actual living people.
Sure tolerance happens but if clean product is available in a safe place with education and impartial assistance available people can work out the correct dosage, dose up, and then get on with their day. Tolerance doesn't go on indefinitely until you have to inject litres of stuff so the slippery slope to paying for [I]x[/I] amount [I]ad infinitum[/I] seems unrealistic.
[QUOTE=Reserved Parkin;41071403]Your comparison to coffee makes sense in the concept of people with an addiction. However, that's where the similarity ends. Coffee does not provide such horrible side effects as compared to drugs, coke, etc. Also, can also be beneficial, with anti-oxidants, liver protection, and reduced risks of certain diseases.[/QUOTE]
Hypethetically if caffeine were banned and pushed underground it would likely become distributed in a more concentrated form such as a powder due to being easier to transport i.e. a couple kilos of powder instead of a couple of truckloads of leaves and addiction would become more of a problem like with cocaine or heroin due to inconsistencies in the quality and content of the product leading to reduced ability for users to maintain a habit or dependency. Sure, people don't snort or inject caffeine generally but that's because it's legitimately available in far more convenient and safer forms from pretty much every grocery store. You don't not drink 6 gallons of coffee because you don't want the buzz - you don't do it because you don't want to piss out a tsunami.
Anyway coffee is far more dangerous than many realise because of it's position as a mainstream substance and the social acceptance of the abuse thereof. A lot of the benefits you list could also be applied to a beverage called Mate de Coca/Coca tea popular for being made with the same plant as cocaine but sharing pretty much none of the ill effects of the concentrate.
A few common risks and side effects of caffeine:
[quote=Wikipedia]2.1 Caffeine dependency
2.2 Cancer
2.3 Gastrointestinal problems
2.4 Psychological effects and sleep changes
2.5 Cholesterol
2.6 Blood pressure
2.7 Effects on pregnancy
2.8 Iron deficiency anemia
2.9 Coronary artery disease
2.10 Interactions with medications
2.11 Glaucoma[/quote]
[QUOTE=Reserved Parkin;41071403]While your argument does have some merit, the greater effect would be detrimental to society as a whole. In my opinion, education is the key. Education of the younger generation, so they stay away from drugs. An example would be cigarettes. Back in the 50s and up, smoking was considered fashionable and socially accepted. Several of my old friends would tell me they used to all hot box in classrooms off of cigarette smoke! Now days, the current generation of kids, their is a significantly lower smoking percentage due to education. Many school programs and infomercials help reinforce the discouragement of cigarette use. If we could get the same results for current drug use, then why not?[/QUOTE]
The whole point of education is surely that people are equipped through it to make their own decisions and not be forced one way or the other. Cigarettes are far worse than most illegal substances put together and we haven't banned them but use has gone down as education on the subject has become more prominent. People have been allowed to make their own choices and they have realised how bad it is for them. I don't think authoritarian measures like removing cigarettes from vision have been effective but that the education and awareness is mostly to credit for the fall in smokers of tobacco. Goes to show when equipped with a solid education on the ups and downs of something people can judge for themselves without being forced into submission through a prohibition regime.
Just an FYI tobacco was invented as a cash crop to replace cotton. Originally people used to consume it for friday/saturday night recreation and get lightheaded - it was impossible to smoke cigarettes continuously without endless choking - but then a new strain was formulated that when blended was able to burn evenly and be smoked continuously.
Many illegal drugs when not subject to black market side effects are more comparable to the risks assosiated with skydiving and extreme sports than of smoking tobacco or unhealthy eating and it is my contention that all 'risky activities' such as these where there is a risk of error resulting in injury should be regulated and that it should left up to the individual on whether to partake or consume. Help should be available to someone regardless of their choice if they find themselves in trouble.
[QUOTE=Reserved Parkin;41071403]Edit: Sorry for the long type, I know it must be a pain to respond with all things going on. We can take this to messaging, if that would be more convenient for you.[/QUOTE]
No problem, I appreciate the discussion and hold no animosity towards you, fellow human :)
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;41073154]I'm just a bit ignorant in the topic, but I'm trying to see the sense - if we legalize heroin for example, it would increase the use of heroin, probably by a lot - now, doesn't the cons of heroin outweigh the pros pretty heavily, wouldn't it be catastrophic?
[editline]18th June 2013[/editline]
I mean I can definitely agree with the fact that drugs are being fought in the wrong way but I don't think allowing people to freely take them or trust that everybody can make their own decision about it is the right thing either.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. The Cons of certain drugs far outweighs the Pros. The best solution is to educate the younger generation on drugs, so that when they grow up, they don't take drugs in the first place and risk that long descent down. Trusting people to make big decisions is always controversial. That's also why our current voting system involves electing an educated official, who then casts his vote for the next president. The theory is many people can't be trusted to make the decisions in the best interest, because of lack of education, prejudice, bias, etc. But anyway, I'm getting off topic here.
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;41073154]I'm just a bit ignorant in the topic, but I'm trying to see the sense - if we legalize heroin for example, it would increase the use of heroin, probably by a lot - now, doesn't the cons of heroin outweigh the pros pretty heavily, wouldn't it be catastrophic?
[editline]18th June 2013[/editline]
I mean I can definitely agree with the fact that drugs are being fought in the wrong way but I don't think allowing people to freely take them or trust that everybody can make their own decision about it is the right thing either.[/QUOTE]
It might but would [I]you[/I] do heroin if it were legalised tomorrow? That's your answer for a lot of people.
The cons of using heroin are mainly because of the black market and lack of education meaning mistakes in usage, contamination, etc.
Heroin is actually very safe when used properly hence why it is used in hospitals where it is called diamorphine.
If heroin for example were regulated properly it might put usage up but it would also make usage safer due to consistency in product quality and content and the availability of unbiased educational material on how to use and tolerance, etc.
In a situation where drugs were legal and well regulated the number of users going down would no longer really be a measure of success because it would be a safer activity to partake in with less risk involved than there is now. If you look at Portugal it tends to go down after decriminalisation anyway let alone legalisation.
It's kind of ironic really that the reason we want less drug users is because it is dangerous at the moment to use but many of the dangers are actually the result of the policy and the resulting black market - NOT the substance or activity. We confuse the harms of drug policy with the drugs themselves and end up making a clusterfuck.
a lot of the danger of heroin is if it is consumed through intravenous injection, and most of that danger is due to using dirty needles. that's why there are needle exchanges in many cities(some even operate illegally).
then the other major danger is addiction, which should be looked at as a health concern as well. you don't do addicts any favors by locking them up. it doesn't actually help their addiction, just postpone their usage(sometimes)
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;41073356]It might but would [I]you[/I] do heroin if it were legalised tomorrow? That's your answer for a lot of people.
The cons of using heroin are mainly because of the black market and lack of education meaning mistakes in usage, contamination, etc.
Heroin is actually very safe when used properly hence why it is used in hospitals where it is called diamorphine.
If heroin for example were regulated properly it might put usage up but it would also make usage safer due to consistency in product quality and content and the availability of unbiased educational material on how to use and tolerance, etc.
In a situation where drugs were legal and well regulated the number of users going down would no longer really be a measure of success because it would be a safer activity to partake in with less risk involved than there is now. If you look at Portugal it tends to go down after decriminalisation anyway let alone legalisation.[/QUOTE]
I could definitely see myself doing heroin if I could obtain it legally, I could have seen myself doing it even clearer when I was depressed. What would stop me from doing heroin everyday if it was legal? My self-control?
why when it's legal though? why aren't you doing it now? legality never stopped any drug usage of mine.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41073423]why when it's legal though? why aren't you doing it now? legality never stopped any drug usage of mine.[/QUOTE]
Okay you're right maybe I wouldn't, not in my right state of mind atleast. Tell you what, how will heroin be distributed if legalized?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41073423]why when it's legal though? why aren't you doing it now? legality never stopped any drug usage of mine.[/QUOTE]
The problem is that legalization would alter supply lines, which alters price, which obviously does alter consumption. If heroin, since that's what y'all are running with, was legalized tomorrow, it indisputably would increase in consumption (if only in the short term).
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;41073598]Okay you're right maybe I wouldn't, not in my right state of mind atleast. Tell you what, how will heroin be distributed if legalized?[/QUOTE]
in our society? if it was completely legalized then the companies who already synthesize heroin would probably distribute it to retail stores where it would be bought.
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;41073247]How will they kill themselves? If you mean through overdose they are in a safe environment where help is available - they won't deliberately overdose - deliberate overdose doesn't really tend to happen a great deal even outside of areas like this. Overdose is mostly accidental caused by inconsistent strength and quality of product caused by the black market and it's haphazard supply chain.
There is such thing as a functioning addict - many addicts are able to hold down regular jobs and continue to perform their day to day societal obligations with no trouble so long as they maintain their addiction responsibly with sensibly timed consumption i.e. in the evening after work. More would be able to do this if it weren't for prohibition. We don't hear much about these people because they don't seek help as their addiction is not a problem to them and therefore they do not get recorded in statistics. We tend to villify and stigmatise the worst users with problems - the ones that need help - and focus on them and sob stories in the media more than we focus on reality. [/quote]
Agreed, most of the time we only hear the worst stories of some addict murdering someone. I can see your point better now with a controlled setting. I think this actually should deserve a little test trial, a few small clinics with a controlled environment. Receiving the drug, the user should stay not be allowed out of the clinic, they must stay in until the drug wears off. Of course, the user can have friends over and some recreational activities. It's just the ones that get addicted and who can't control themselves. People are worried about that, but with a controlled clinic, it might actually show people that it is possible to do certain small controlled doses safely.
[quote]
All of the problems you list are, as you suspected, due to the black market and not the drug itself in uncontaminated form used with clean paraphanalia at correctly calculated dosage levels. This is a rather eye opening book [URL]http://www.amazon.co.uk/books/dp/1559502169[/URL] I'd recommend reading it as an impartial source on how one might use heroin responsibly and safely and manage dependence. Diamorphine i.e. heroin is used in hospitals for that reason - it is very effective and causes very little complications in it's use at all apart from constapation and possible dependence, which, in a hospital, is not really much of a problem in the current world as the addiction can be maintained and tapered down by someone educated in how to manage it (as we should ideally all be aware of).[/quote]
Thanks for the link, the reviews sound great about it. I might have to check it out sometime :) As both you and I mentioned, restriction and control is necessary for this 'test trial' to work good.
[quote]This kind of comes back to 'contributing back to society' that you mentioned earlier. If people should be considered as merely workers or "human resources" then surely they should be cared for in return for their lifetime "productive output" if they happen to develop a problem that they need help with. Politicians care too much about votes and power and this is one of the things that makes the current system of centralised government far less than ideal but that's a different argument...[/quote]
I know the term, "human resources" and "contributing back to society" sounds kind of like we are discardable resources, but that's how our current system works. And it's been working somewhat fine since it's inception back in the 1800s. I agree though, some politicians these days base their votes on popular opinion, even if morally, it is wrong or flawed.
You know tax payers, they will complain and moan about even the slightest new program. Again, tying back to the political side, they would not want this funded and the politicians would obey. I can see it working though, but I wish I knew more on the tolerance. It's the ones who can't control their tolerance that would be a worry, for some of them might get violent or go back to crime to get their fix. It's merely speculation, but it's still a possibility.
[quote]Hypethetically if caffeine were banned and pushed underground it would likely become distributed in a more concentrated form such as a powder due to being easier to transport i.e. a couple kilos of powder instead of a couple of truckloads of leaves and addiction would become more of a problem like with cocaine or heroin due to inconsistencies in the quality and content of the product leading to reduced ability for users to maintain a habit or dependency. Sure, people don't snort or inject caffeine generally but that's because it's legitimately available in far more convenient and safer forms from pretty much every grocery store. You don't not drink 6 gallons of coffee because you don't want the buzz - you don't do it because you don't want to piss out a tsunami.[/quote]
Yes that's the keyword. Safer. Less chance of addiction and less health problems. Though you pointed out health problems, they are still far less severe than health problems associated to drugs like heroin. Coffee also doesn't have mind altering effects like some drugs, which caused a select few stupid individuals to murder or commit some kind of crime while under the influence.
[quote]The whole point of education is surely that people are equipped through it to make their own decisions and not be forced one way or the other. Cigarettes are far worse than most illegal substances put together and we haven't banned them but use has gone down as education on the subject has become more prominent. People have been allowed to make their own choices and they have realised how bad it is for them. I don't think authoritarian measures like removing cigarettes from vision have been effective but that the education and awareness is mostly to credit for the fall in smokers of tobacco. Goes to show when equipped with a solid education on the ups and downs of something people can judge for themselves without being forced into submission through a prohibition regime.[/quote]
Alright, as mentioned at the top, let's have that controlled clinic. Educate people on smart use and let them decide. Hopefully, the general population won't lose their minds. While were at it, I honestly think weed clinics of this sort could also benefit. Weed is a lot less mind altering and of course smart use could help shape general acceptance toward it.
[editline]17th June 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;41073598]Okay you're right maybe I wouldn't, not in my right state of mind atleast. Tell you what, how will heroin be distributed if legalized?[/QUOTE]
if you read our posts between JustExtreme and I, the best way is looking to be a controlled clinic setting of some sort. Not full on legalized distribution. The biggest problem I can see about this, is the ones who can't control their addiction at these clinics and they choose to go back to crime to get their fix. The clinic idea certainly would help though, reduce crime.
I suppose that'd work.
Oh and the other problem would of course getting funding for these a test trial of these clinics, as the public perception will shape politician's decisions. Education would also be provided at these clinics, to empower the patients with knowledge. They then could make their own educated decisions whether to keep using, cut back, or stop all together. In the meantime, the DEA should continue to bust and seize illegal drugs coming in, as this would undermine the clinic's progress.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
