tcarrier32;781893 wrote:the two goals of the war on drugs have been to reduce the supply of illegal drugs in the United State and lower the amount of people who use those illegal drugs in the United States.

It is actually possible to be having a positive impact while other factors are driving increased availability and usage. To claim no impact is just moronic. The debate is how to quantify the impact and whether the cost is justified. Probably more cost effective to just legalize and tie to health insurance.

Y-Town Steelhound;780068 wrote:True but paraphernalia is not. Unless you are to assume that people are not actually smoking/vaporizing their weed than you have made a very misleading statement.

Drug paraphernalia is an M4 and can be a citation or arrest.

Glory Days;782519 wrote:Drug paraphernalia is an M4 and can be a citation or arrest.

Only if that paraphernalia has been used.

gut;782262 wrote:It is actually possible to be having a positive impact while other factors are driving increased availability and usage. To claim no impact is just moronic. The debate is how to quantify the impact and whether the cost is justified. Probably more cost effective to just legalize and tie to health insurance.

I never said it had no impact. I'm telling you that overall it has had a very large negative impact. What positives have you seen, and in what way do they outweigh the negatives?

tcarrier32;783516 wrote:I never said it had no impact. I'm telling you that overall it has had a very large negative impact. What positives have you seen, and in what way do they outweigh the negatives?

I said it's idiotic to think it doesn't deter or prevent new users and abuse. And it is. It's had a negative impact? Really? So it is INCREASING the number of addicts, dealers and so on? Again, moronic. It has had a very large negative impact? By what measure? And I'd suggest any quantification on either side is, at best, fuzzy math because you can only speculate about the social costs and impact without.

Cost ineffective is miles away from street ineffective. Americans have shown time and again they generally lack the ability to say no, whether it's fatty foods, credit, etc.. It is simply a ridiculous notion to think if buying cocaine was as easy as going to the store for milk that the number of addicts and lives ruined won't substantially increase. Is it more cost effective simply to treat those people? Maybe, but that is far from conclusive.

gut;783526 wrote:I said it's idiotic to think it doesn't deter or prevent new users and abuse. And it is. It's had a negative impact? Really? So it is INCREASING the number of addicts, dealers and so on? Again, moronic. It has had a very large negative impact? By what measure? And I'd suggest any quantification on either side is, at best, fuzzy math because you can only speculate about the social costs and impact without.

Cost ineffective is miles away from street ineffective. Americans have shown time and again they generally lack the ability to say no, whether it's fatty foods, credit, etc.. It is simply a ridiculous notion to think if buying cocaine was as easy as going to the store for milk that the number of addicts and lives ruined won't substantially increase. Is it more cost effective simply to treat those people? Maybe, but that is far from conclusive.

Actually, places where drugs have been made legal have seen drops in the number of users and addicts. To ignore that is ridiculous. Remember, just because you think it is common sense, doesn't mean thats the way it is.

http://www.b12partners.net/wp/2010/09/28/drug-decriminalization-really-works-portugals-example/

http://www.medmarijuanaoil.com/portugals-drug-experience-new-study-confirms

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

herpy derpy derp.

tcarrier32;783583 wrote:Actually, places where drugs have been made legal have seen drops in the number of users and addicts. To ignore that is ridiculous. Remember, just because you think it is common sense, doesn't mean thats the way it is.

http://www.b12partners.net/wp/2010/09/28/drug-decriminalization-really-works-portugals-example/

http://www.medmarijuanaoil.com/portugals-drug-experience-new-study-confirms

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

herpy derpy derp.

Those studies also show drug use increased from ages 19-24, and marijuana use increased in ages 16-18.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0880105.html

although a few years old, drug use here in the early 2000s stayed the same or declined very slightly.

Glory Days;783656 wrote:Those studies also show drug use increased from ages 19-24, and marijuana use increased in ages 16-18.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0880105.html

although a few years old, drug use here in the early 2000s stayed the same or declined very slightly.

those who conducted the study attributed that to the rise in 12-18 year old drug use that was recorded before decriminalization was enacted.

gut;783526 wrote:I said it's idiotic to think it doesn't deter or prevent new users and abuse. And it is. It's had a negative impact? Really? So it is INCREASING the number of addicts, dealers and so on? Again, moronic. It has had a very large negative impact? By what measure? And I'd suggest any quantification on either side is, at best, fuzzy math because you can only speculate about the social costs and impact without.

Cost ineffective is miles away from street ineffective. Americans have shown time and again they generally lack the ability to say no, whether it's fatty foods, credit, etc.. It is simply a ridiculous notion to think if buying cocaine was as easy as going to the store for milk that the number of addicts and lives ruined won't substantially increase. Is it more cost effective simply to treat those people? Maybe, but that is far from conclusive.

Yes it is.

tcarrier32;783696 wrote:those who conducted the study attributed that to the rise in 12-18 year old drug use that was recorded before decriminalization was enacted.

yeah i read that...and didnt buy it. but thats just me

Glory Days;783987 wrote:yeah i read that...and didnt buy it. but thats just me

thats fine. staring good ideas in the face and saying no is pretty much what got us to this point in the first place. Harry Anslinger and Richard Nixon did the same thing (Nixon even did it to a report he PERSONALLY commissioned).

I'm also assuming, judging by your avatar, that you are a Regressive Platform voter? Against abortion, but for killing babies?

Only the criminal babies that don't obey authority. We've got to have order you know.

I Wear Pants;783757 wrote:Yes it is.

That is a completely absurd and idiotic statement. You sound like a stoner nut job when you make such claims, honestly. I'll agree that the ROI sucks, but to make a claim it increases use and availability is a claim so lacking in common sense that only someone with a brain fried by drugs could try to pass that off.

Right. I think the war on drugs is a terribly ineffectual endeavor that wastes the money, time, and lives (through increased violent crime because of it) of way too many people therefore I'm a drug addict.

To use your logic since you support the war on drugs you must have a direct stake in the status quo continuing. So you either work for the DEA or are a drug dealer yourself who's afraid to be put out of business by legitimate businessmen.

Or we could not make giant leaps like you did and discuss this like adults.

I still have yet to see anyone say why the drug war should continue and how it has been effective using actual statistics and facts rather than opinion.

Edit: And I never said it increases availability. I said it increases the numbers of addicts and dealers. Because by treating drug users as criminals we drive them underground and into hiding which only exacerbates the problems for people who are likely to be addicted to substances in the first place. If we were more open on the subject it'd be easier for a person to seek help without the negative social stigma and potential legal issues. And as far as the dealers, again, I'd rather have a Walgreens/other retail location selling drugs with trained professional employees than a bunch of shady back alley street dealers.

tcarrier32;783583 wrote:Actually, places where drugs have been made legal have seen drops in the number of users and addicts. To ignore that is ridiculous. Remember, just because you think it is common sense, doesn't mean thats the way it is.

http://www.b12partners.net/wp/2010/09/28/drug-decriminalization-really-works-portugals-example/

http://www.medmarijuanaoil.com/portugals-drug-experience-new-study-confirms

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

herpy derpy derp.

I'm aware of Portugal. However, it is problematic to say look at Portgual and expect the same results elsewhere.

Here is a statement from one of your articles you'd be wise to try to wrap your head around:
"Of course, there's no way of knowing which, if any, of these changes were caused by the change in policy — without a control group, this kind of research cannot determine cause and and effect." Hence, ridiculous to claim cause and effect when you cannot do so.

And then there's this:
"if you are found possessing it, you can be put before a panel of a psychologist, social worker and legal adviser, who will decide appropriate treatment. You are free to refuse that treatment, and a jail sentence is not an option. Drug trafficking is still illegal and punishable by jail."
So the main difference is they aren't actively seeking out and locking up users, so to claim that policy works here is rather dubious given cultural differences and size (which was also pointed out in one of the articles).

I can accept crime drops IF distribution is legal (which is not the case in Portugal), but then the problem with legalization is increased distribution and affordability and I completely reject that use doesn't increase. I'll accept that treatment is probably more effective than incarceration, but in the US the two are not mutually exclusive so again I find that claim applies rather dubious.

I Wear Pants;784083 wrote: Edit: And I never said it increases availability. I said it increases the numbers of addicts and dealers. Because by treating drug users as criminals we drive them underground and into hiding which only exacerbates the problems for people who are likely to be addicted to substances in the first place. If we were more open on the subject it'd be easier for a person to seek help without the negative social stigma and potential legal issues. And as far as the dealers, again, I'd rather have a Walgreens/other retail location selling drugs with trained professional employees than a bunch of shady back alley street dealers.

Which is ridiculous speculation. It is a statement that simply cannot be made. You have no idea what the world in legalization is.

I don't support the war on drugs, at least in present form. I reject the idea that it's net negative rather than merely cost ineffective as lacking in both common sense and proof. I don't accept Portugal as sufficient justification to implement policy even more radical than what Portugal has done.

Gut, in your mind is there a problem with drug use? (Mind you I'm not talking about drug abuse, just use at all). What I'm getting at is there is an obvious problem with alcohol abuse but the vast majority of people use alcohol responsibly. Why do we not take this sort of stance with other drugs?

Again, you're being very vague "I don't support the war on drugs" but then you also don't support the alternatives. What would you have us do and why/how would it be more effective/cost less?

gut;784089 wrote:I'm aware of Portugal. However, it is problematic to say look at Portgual and expect the same results elsewhere.

Here is a statement from one of your articles you'd be wise to try to wrap your head around:
"Of course, there's no way of knowing which, if any, of these changes were caused by the change in policy — without a control group, this kind of research cannot determine cause and and effect." Hence, ridiculous to claim cause and effect when you cannot do so.

And then there's this:
"if you are found possessing it, you can be put before a panel of a psychologist, social worker and legal adviser, who will decide appropriate treatment. You are free to refuse that treatment, and a jail sentence is not an option. Drug trafficking is still illegal and punishable by jail."
So the main difference is they aren't actively seeking out and locking up users, so to claim that policy works here is rather dubious given cultural differences and size (which was also pointed out in one of the articles).

I can accept crime drops IF distribution is legal (which is not the case in Portugal), but then the problem with legalization is increased distribution and affordability and I completely reject that use doesn't increase. I'll accept that treatment is probably more effective than incarceration, but in the US the two are not mutually exclusive so again I find that claim applies rather dubious.

Those cannot see what they are not looking for. To suggest that since there was no control group, decriminalization efforts in Portugal have had little effect on their substance abuse problems is hilarious. What cultural differences are we talking about? Nothing strikes me to make me say, "hell that'd never work here in 'Merica!" The current system is not working, and its a bit too expensive to throw off this example just because you believe (even though there is nothing to suggest it wont) the population size and "cultural differences" wont allow it to work.

tcarrier32;784436 wrote:Those cannot see what they are not looking for. To suggest that since there was no control group, decriminalization efforts in Portugal have had little effect on their substance abuse problems is hilarious. What cultural differences are we talking about? Nothing strikes me to make me say, "hell that'd never work here in 'Merica!" The current system is not working, and its a bit too expensive to throw off this example just because you believe (even though there is nothing to suggest it wont) the population size and "cultural differences" wont allow it to work.

There are also examples where decriminilaztion/legailzation led to increased use (just google it, far easier than finding more examples like Portugal). In fact, Portugal is a rather isolated success story. Amsterdam and Belgium are actually rolling back some of those liberties because the problem has grown out of control. So no, it's not concrete evidence to how it plays out. Maybe it's increased treatment that's driving the effect (and, actually, I believe use of some drugs did increase, not out of proportion with the rest of Europe but it's also been suggested the decrease in heroine and other drugs could be cyclical). And, again, since you aren't going to legalize it the bulk of the war on drugs cost isn't going to change the crime and everything else cited.

I Wear Pants;784099 wrote: Again, you're being very vague "I don't support the war on drugs" but then you also don't support the alternatives. What would you have us do and why/how would it be more effective/cost less?

I didn't say I don't support the war on drugs just agreed it's not as effective as we like. And the reality, there are no good solutions. Maybe decriminilazing pot is worth a shot, but I don't see that moving the needle because I don't think many people are really being locked up for simple pot possession. I fail to see how decriminilization is going to change the major cost and failures of the war on drugs, and certainly nothing has been offered to suggest otherwise. People have to accept that none of the outcomes are particularly acceptable, there's not a good solution.

As for alcohol, it's more of a case of not being able to put the horse back in the barn. It is, again, a very poor justification for making more drugs legal. Sure, many people drink responsibly, but I don't see a logical justification for increasing what is guaranteed to be more cases of addiction, more DUI deaths, etc.. because of that.

If you want me to be bluntly honest, gang members shooting each other (the poor innocent bystander aside) is less of a threat to me than increasing users 10-fold legalizing it and the 10% of those who will have problems (that otherwise wouldn't be using). If you want to break it down, is that a risk I'd prefer to take to save a few bucks on my taxes? Not likely.

Are the jails and crime logs evidence the war on drugs isn't working, and so the solution is do away with the laws? You may want to think about that one a bit before answering.

We should not be locking people up for having pot, smoking pot, possessing items to smoke pot, or selling pot (because we should have a licensing system wherein trained professionals can dispense it in a safe environment). Even if they don't get sent to prison. There is absolutely no logical reason to arrest roughly 1 million people a year for marijuana "crimes". None at all. It's an incredible waste of effort and resources that obviously does nothing at all as pot related arrests continue to increase even while things like violent crime and OVI/DUI continue to decrease so you can't say that they were arrested for other things with the weed charges tacked on. It's ludicrous. Then you add the social stigma that we place on these people for getting arrested for drug crimes etc.

Again, can you show me anything at all that explains how the drug war is working in any measure?

Legalize all of it. The benefits outweigh the risks.

gut;785900 wrote:I didn't say I don't support the war on drugs just agreed it's not as effective as we like.

It's not effective at all. Do you know who the majority of imprisoned traffickers are? They are bottom-of-the-totem-pole dealers, of which there are many more who are ready to take the place of them. "Not as effective as we like" is true only in that "not at all effective" is indeed less than most would like.

gut;785900 wrote:Maybe decriminilazing pot is worth a shot, but I don't see that moving the needle because I don't think many people are really being locked up for simple pot possession.

In 2009, marijuana accounted for over half the drug-related arrests in the US.

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Marijuana#Share

As seen in the link above, it also accounted for 45% of the possession charges.

gut;785900 wrote:I fail to see how decriminilization is going to change the major cost and failures of the war on drugs, and certainly nothing has been offered to suggest otherwise. People have to accept that none of the outcomes are particularly acceptable, there's not a good solution.

Decriminalization will change the cost of a war on drugs because ... well ... there will be less of a war being fought.

What is particularly unacceptable about the legalization of drug use? I'm assuming it will be something that doesn't include:
(a) attempting to force someone into a more healthy lifestyle against their will, and
(b) attempting to tie it to disrelated actions

I would be all for making shooting up/toking/snorting/etc. and driving illegal, much in the same way we do alcohol. Driving isn't what is on trial, though. Drug use, as its own individual entity, is what is being discussed. Thus, tying it to anything like driving is out.

Also, if it is to prevent people from harming themselves, why is it so different than so many other legal things like eating foods high in trans fat, smoking, drinking, chewing, etc? Why are those matters of personal responsibility, and yet with drug use, suddenly it is better for a governing body to decide what is best for everyone, and to enforce it?

gut;785900 wrote:As for alcohol, it's more of a case of not being able to put the horse back in the barn. It is, again, a very poor justification for making more drugs legal.

First, are you actually saying that if it was feasible, you would support the criminalization of alcohol? The "horse back in the barn" comment makes it sound that way.

Too, why is personal responsibility not a legitimate defense for it? What would be so horribly wrong with a policy that states that you may engage in drug use, but that any crime committed while under the influence will not be defensible with "I was high?"

gut;785900 wrote:Sure, many people drink responsibly, but I don't see a logical justification for increasing what is guaranteed to be more cases of addiction, more DUI deaths, etc.. because of that.

"Sure many people eat responsibly, but I don't see a logical justification for increasing what is guaranteed to be more cases of obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, cardiac arrest, muscular atrophe, etc ... because of that."

Such a case could be made for foods high in trans fat.

gut;785900 wrote:If you want me to be bluntly honest, gang members shooting each other (the poor innocent bystander aside) is less of a threat to me than increasing users 10-fold legalizing it and the 10% of those who will have problems (that otherwise wouldn't be using).

First, gang members rarely shoot EACH OTHER over drugs. If drug sale is the issue, it's usually violence in order to help their business (threatening storefront owners or homeowners to sell for them, buyers (of all socioeconomic classes) whose business drops off, or police officers who attempt to apprehend them).

gut;785900 wrote:Are the jails and crime logs evidence the war on drugs isn't working, and so the solution is do away with the laws? You may want to think about that one a bit before answering.

I've considered this topic quite a bit, because it hits close to home with my uncle being a member of a drug task force. Most of the people he picks up and puts away don't end up changing anything. A new recruit takes the place of the old one in no time. Plus, I find it asinine that the officers have to risk the amount of danger, and the threat of violence, on a daily basis just because a governing body seems to believe that it can make a blanket assessment of what is best for everyone, and then wants to forcibly enact laws that "protect people from themselves."

Footwedge;785932 wrote:Legalize all of it. The benefits outweigh the risks.

Or even:

Legalize all of it. There are no grounds for forcing the public to be healthy if that is against the will of a member of it.


Signed,

Someone who has never done a single drug illegally

Or you guys can do a simple google search of places that have experimented with legalization and then had to reign it back in after it became a rampant problem. "Legalize it" is a completely irresponsible response based on little more than speculation and completely ignoring the downsides and potential risks. And to make statements like "it IS ineffective" is, again, speculation because you have no comparison, no basis for saying things aren't worse, much less better with decriminalization/legalization. There's no appreciation for the massive increase in use when distribution (and affordability) increases under legalization - a tripling of use is going to lead to a tripling of addiction, and where someone may be able to drink responsibly they could easily have a problem with some other drug.

The laws don't work....we're locking too many people up....do away with the laws. This is incomprehensibly stupid. We should do away with DUI arrests, as well - clearly by the number of arrests and continued drunk driving deaths it's ineffective, so why bother? Or is that perhaps a problem that can't be 100% fixed, or even close, but is still much better with enforcement?

People keep touting legalization as some sort of panacea, citing Portugal, eventhough there are numerous examples globally and even within the US of similar experiments that were later scrapped when usage and addiction rates increased to unacceptable levels. Try looking up Needle Park, among others.