gut;786505 wrote: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.

Hey, I took your advice and did a "simple google search" and I'm actually surprised at what I found. Here's a link and some of the gems I found...
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

Under Portugal's new regime, people found guilty of possessing small amounts of drugs are sent to a panel consisting of a psychologist, social worker and legal adviser for appropriate treatment (which may be refused without criminal punishment), instead of jail.

The question is, does the new policy work? At the time, critics in the poor, socially conservative and largely Catholic nation said decriminalizing drug possession would open the country to "drug tourists" and exacerbate Portugal's drug problem; the country had some of the highest levels of hard-drug use in Europe. But the recently released results of a report commissioned by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, suggest otherwise.

Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," says Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does.

Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%. Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana.

The Cato report's author, Greenwald, hews to the first point: that the data shows that decriminalization does not result in increased drug use. Since that is what concerns the public and policymakers most about decriminalization, he says, "that is the central concession that will transform the debate."

My question for you is, did you actually do any research on the matter? Oh, btw, your Needle Park refrence is a joke, considering that drugs in Switzerland are still legal and those experiments may have failed, but it didn't cause the government to outlaw those drugs again.

Based on the failure of Needle Park and the Letten railroad station experiments, the Swiss government, like other governments in Europe, developed consumption rooms to provide a "clean and safe" environment for addicts to inject heroin under medical supervision.

http://www.justice.gov/dea/ongoing/zurich.html

EDIT: Hey gut, I'm starting to realize why you didn't actually post anything in support of your stance! As I continue my simple Google searches, I'm finding sites that post statistics but no source to back them up and they're misrepresenting the facts! Here's one of the joke sites here:
http://www.justthinktwice.com/factsfiction/fiction_drug_legalization_works.html#FN
Is that where you got your info?

Found another article:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,974920,00.html

In an effort to stem the alarming rise in AIDS cases among drug users, Zurich, along with a few other cities in Switzerland, began an experiment three years ago in drug tolerance. Addicts were permitted to sell, buy or use drugs in the city's downtown park, the Platzspitz. Needle Park, as it quickly became known, attracted up to 4,000 drug users a day. Health officials freely distributed clean needles along with counsel on social and medical services.
The program worked: by early this year, the incidence of new AIDS cases had dropped from 50% to 5%. (Overall, 20% of Zurich's addicts have tested HIV positive.) Trouble was, the Platzspitz also became a magnet for professional dealers, especially Lebanese, Yugoslav and Turkish gangs that overran small dealers in a violent price war.
Amid complaints of rising crime, Zurich officials last week shut down Needle Park for good. Some users clustered around the central train station, others headed off in search of methadone. With sales suddenly back underground, addicts complained that the price of heroin had doubled overnight to $214 a gram. Healthworkers said efforts to prevent AIDS would be much more difficult.


Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,974920,00.html#ixzz1Nxcn4BYA

gut;786505 wrote: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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands#Results_of_the_drug_policy

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

These show positive shifts as a result. A lower percentage of the population displays what is considered to be "problematic abuse."

In fact, on page 1 of the search in Google I just did, not a single one of the links depicted "rampant problems" after decriminalization (though some simply didn't speak to effectiveness at all).

However, I'd be willing to see this evidence where drug use became an incredibly larger problem after decriminalization than it was before.

Having said all that, I would suggest that, at the end of the day, it still doesn't matter. This is an issue of personal responsibility. If I am able to smoke marijuana or pop oxycodone without committing a crime, then I should be free to do so. The fact that others cannot, and refuse to show personal responsibility should NOT be a basis for legislation to deny others their rights. It should merely mean that those who neglect responsible use, and commit a crime as a result, should be prosecuted for that crime.

gut;786505 wrote:"Legalize it" is a completely irresponsible response based on little more than speculation and completely ignoring the downsides and potential risks.

The "downsides and potential risks" are just as much speculation as the converse, which you refer to as speculation in this very sentence. There have been several cases in which decriminalization has taken place where it ended in what seems to be a positive result by all quantifiable metrics. Earlier in this thread, you baselessly dismissed one such example, saying that population size makes it an inaccurate comparison (I'd love to see the evidence behind such a claim if you have it). That's fine, but if that's the case, all such case studies are too small for accurate comparison, including those to which you would appeal to defend your own position.

The very defeater you attempt to raise against such cases like Portugal can then be raised in objection to any case study you might pull in support of your own view. If this is true (which, in and of itself, is highly speculatory so far), then there are neither knowable risks nor knowable benefits ...

... at which point, it ends up being a wash. As such, I see no reason NOT to extend liberties, since we have no reason to believe that society will be affected either way.

gut;786505 wrote: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.

With the exception that over the years, the increase in attention and money spent toward this effort has NOT shown to decrease the consumption or distribution. The fact is that we do have means for a comparison in that we have a timeline in which more and more attention has been placed on enforcing drug laws, but NO MEASURABLE STATISTIC has been able to show any direct correlation between an increase in enforcement and a decrease in distribution or use.

gut;786505 wrote: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.

This entire statement is speculatory. What case study of sufficient volume has led you to believe that use would triple as a result of legalization? Do you honestly think that 67% of the people who would be using after decriminalization would NOT have been using before, particularly when it comes to softer drugs like marijuana? Two-thirds of would-be drug users are deterred by the current impotent drug laws?

Also, addiction is not the responsibility of the governing body with drugs any more than it is with anything else. Moreover, alcohol is considered (depending on the metrics used) to be far more addictive than most drugs that would be decriminalized. For more on that: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/basicfax5.htm

As someone who has overcome a couple addictions myself, I can attest to the fact that addiction as an adult is the responsibility of nobody but that adult. It is not the responsibility of anyone else to "prevent" a person from becoming addicted.

gut;786505 wrote: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?

Incorrect. The crime was not consumption, but operating a vehicle while under the influence. However, such a problem should NOT be a defense for illegalization of alcohol. A crime is being committed WHILE under the influence, but the crime committed is not being under the influence itself. Your attempt at a comparison is a gross false dichotomy.

gut;786505 wrote:Or is that perhaps a problem that can't be 100% fixed, or even close, but is still much better with enforcement?

Over the last 30 years, there has been a rise in manpower and funding spent on enforcement, but there has not been one, single, quantifiable metric to suggest that it is "much better," or even "at all better."

gut;786505 wrote: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.

Again, if Portugal is not an adequate test because of its size, then Needle Park is even further from a reliable case for accurate representation of the problems or benefits on the whole. Also, I'm curious. Were there ever any actual studies done in Verdi Square back in the 1960s, when this experiment was done? I'd be willing to bet that the last 50 years have drastically changed in terms of what we know about drug use. Do you have a more recent (last 20 years) case study for support, as I would suggest it would be FAR more telling.

Gut, but we've established that OVI is a danger to others and violates their rights.

Doing drugs does not violate anyone else's rights.

I Wear Pants;786570 wrote:Gut, but we've established that OVI is a danger to others and violates their rights.

Whole different topic, which is why it's not even relevant to this discussion.

O-Trap;786578 wrote:Whole different topic, which is why it's not even relevant to this discussion.

Exactly, but I was just pointing out that he's using an incorrect assumption in his argument. He's trying to argue that we think that since people are arrested in large numbers for drugs and that the policy obviously isn't being very effective that we would automatically take that opinion on any crime (IE: OVI, theft, etc) which is just silly and I think he even knows it's a cheap argument to try to make. No one thinks that.

I Wear Pants;786570 wrote:Gut, but we've established that OVI is a danger to others and violates their rights.

Doing drugs does not violate anyone else's rights.

It is when my tax dollars go to treating addiction and dealing with the resulting health issues. Problem abusers do violate people's rights, and with legalization I can guarantee use (and, therefore, abusers/addiction) increases. The problem is no one who intends to use responsibly can guarantee they won't become a problem addict - which DOES violate other's rights when they commit a crime or get into their car and kill or injure someone. I mean, honestly, would a reasonable person put a gun in the hands of 10 people knowing that 1 of them will shoot you?

Prisons don't prevent or deter crime, so stop locking people up. That's exactly what you guys are arguing. There's no spinning out of it, that is the basis for your argument and it's ridiculous. There's too many drunk drivers, so we should stop arresting them. It's the exact same argument, it's not silly or cheap it illustrates the abusrdity of the position. And inherently people know this, which is why they flail away at incredibly weak justifications. Oh, but drunk drivers can hurt someone. Yeah, so do addicts

The US spent an estimated $40B on the war on drugs in 2010. Now, while tobacco and alcohol use/addiction is many multiples of drug use, care to fashion a guess what the social/economic impact is from tobacco and alcohol? It's much, much more than $40B. So if you want to make an argument about cost and ineffective, you're not making a very logical argument supported by anything other than supposition. If we end the war on drugs and it costs $60B, or $100B or $200B more in related healthcare costs, that's a good decision?

Oh, sure, let's just legalize it because people will magically ignore it on the shelves at Walmart. And despite everything we know about addiction, people will magically stop getting addicted or treatment and education programs suddenly become more effective. It's bullshit naivety.

Bigred1995;786523 wrote:Hey, I took your advice and did a "simple google search" and I'm actually surprised at what I found. Here's a link and some of the gems I found...
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

So you ignored examples of Needle Park, what happened in Alaska when they got very lax on enforcement, the UK, Belgium, Amsterdam....Your google skills clearly need work.

Here's one for you, that bastion of drug utopia, the Netherlands:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2011/05/28/2011-05-28_netherlands_to_ban_tourists_from_marijuana_coffee_shops_worries_about_amsterdam_.html
""In order to tackle the nuisance and criminality associated with coffee shops and drug trafficking, the open-door policy of coffee shops will end," Dutch health and justice ministers wrote in a letter to the country's parliament.

What!?! You mean crime and trafficking is a problem there such that they are actually rolling back "decriminalization"?

"The experiment ended after the number of addicts in the park rose from a few hundred in 1987 to more than 20,000 in 1992" - yeah, Needle Park sounds like a really roaring endorsement for legalization.

And of course there are examples in the US and elsewhere where reduced enforcement or decriminalization led to increased usage. Decriminilization may not result in an increase (not necessarily surprising because enforcement still curtails distribution), but there's really not evidence it will lead to a decrease, although in Portugal you saw a normalization to global trends/averages. And there's strong reason to suspect the treatment and education programs in Portugal are the real reason behind the reduction, but the US is already spending billions on that. And legalization is just flat out idiotic.

O-Trap;786412 wrote: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

I disagree, individual members of the public dont matter, but many individuals together make up society and i dont want to live in a society of crackheads and addicts. i dont want it driving my property value down, endangering children that live next to them, using my tax money to rehab them etc.

gut;786505 wrote: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.

Why don't you supply us with these links that you have found? So far the only links posted do not support your theory.

gut;787325 wrote:It is when my tax dollars go to treating addiction and dealing with the resulting health issues. Problem abusers do violate people's rights, and with legalization I can guarantee use (and, therefore, abusers/addiction) increases. The problem is no one who intends to use responsibly can guarantee they won't become a problem addict - which DOES violate other's rights when they commit a crime or get into their car and kill or injure someone. I mean, honestly, would a reasonable person put a gun in the hands of 10 people knowing that 1 of them will shoot you?

Less of your tax dollars would be spent treating addiction and the health problems than are currently being spent fighting the "war on drugs". Significantly less I might add. Do you think a lot of these addicts aren't receiving gov't assistance currently? They are and you are being taxed for it on top of being taxed for the "war on drugs".

gut wrote:Prisons don't prevent or deter crime, so stop locking people up. That's exactly what you guys are arguing. There's no spinning out of it, that is the basis for your argument and it's ridiculous. There's too many drunk drivers, so we should stop arresting them. It's the exact same argument, it's not silly or cheap it illustrates the abusrdity of the position. And inherently people know this, which is why they flail away at incredibly weak justifications. Oh, but drunk drivers can hurt someone. Yeah, so do addicts

Wait, is that really all you got from this? Jeez man, people aren't saying legalize drugs because prisons don't deter it and that is all. They are saying, in addition to that fact, that the tax dollars spent is not worth it and that by legalizing it, it would bring a whole new tax base in (that could be used to treat addicts and there would be additional money left over, easily).

gut wrote:The US spent an estimated $40B on the war on drugs in 2010. Now, while tobacco and alcohol use/addiction is many multiples of drug use, care to fashion a guess what the social/economic impact is from tobacco and alcohol? It's much, much more than $40B. So if you want to make an argument about cost and ineffective, you're not making a very logical argument supported by anything other than supposition. If we end the war on drugs and it costs $60B, or $100B or $200B more in related healthcare costs, that's a good decision?

First off, why are you pulling these facts from your ass? Please provide proof. Secondly, you don't think the healthcare costs exist currently? Your speculation is hilarious. If you taxed the sale of drugs, those tax dollars could be used for the healthcare, not our tax dollars.

gut wrote:Oh, sure, let's just legalize it because people will magically ignore it on the shelves at Walmart. And despite everything we know about addiction, people will magically stop getting addicted or treatment and education programs suddenly become more effective. It's bullshit naivety.

LOL, wow. Your naivety is what is bullshit.

First off, even if drugs were legalized, I highly doubt they would be made readily available at Wal-mart. HAHAHAHA. They would be at a dispensary, as is medical marijuana right now. Your 'fear tactic' talking points are just regurgitated anti-drug speech. Come up with some original thoughts when you actually do some research.

Glory Days;787362 wrote:I disagree, individual members of the public dont matter, but many individuals together make up society and i dont want to live in a society of crackheads and addicts. i dont want it driving my property value down, endangering children that live next to them, using my tax money to rehab them etc.

You don't want it, you are just an individual member of the public, so you don't matter. Again, with some of the proposed (by members on here) ideas would be that treatment would be supported by the tax on drug sales, they could use in 'safe zones'. How would legalizing drugs make your property value go down, endanger children, etc? All of a sudden everyone will be using?

The paranoya and misinformation is amazing. I'm sure you believe marijuana is a gateway drug too, right?

Glory Days;787362 wrote:I disagree, individual members of the public dont matter, but many individuals together make up society and i dont want to live in a society of crackheads and addicts. i dont want it driving my property value down, endangering children that live next to them, using my tax money to rehab them etc.

These conditions exist today in sections of nearly every major US city.

gut;787325 wrote:It is when my tax dollars go to treating addiction and dealing with the resulting health issues.

You do realize that your tax dollars already go to treating health issues right? How about the billions* of dollars that go treating obesity?
How about we start regulating what people eat? How about we stop people from buying and cooking all together and provide people with only the food they need? And on top of that, force people to exercise every day! Do you realize how much money we'd save?

*http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/causes/economics.html <----See that right there? Yeah, that's a source, and a creditable one at that! I'll get more into that later!

gut;787325 wrote:Problem abusers do violate people's rights, and with legalization I can guarantee use (and, therefore, abusers/addiction) increases. The problem is no one who intends to use responsibly can guarantee they won't become a problem addict - which DOES violate other's rights when they commit a crime or get into their car and kill or injure someone. I mean, honestly, would a reasonable person put a gun in the hands of 10 people knowing that 1 of them will shoot you?

You must be the most progressive thinker the world has ever seen! I see where you're going and I think I like it! Let's enact a prohibition on alcohol, because, problem abusers violate people's rights and we can't guarantee people won't become problem addicts and violate other's rights when they commit crime or get into their car and kill or injure someone! While we're at it, lets restrict the use of drugs to hospitals. We obviously can't trust people to not abuse these drugs on their own! So we must only allow drugs to be administered in specialized locations by qualified people! Wow, this feels awesome! You know what else we should do? I know you've thought about it! I'm starting to get goose bumps just thinking about it! LET'S REPEAL THE SECOND AMMENDMENT! That's right, I mean, honestly, would a reasonable person put a gun in the hands of 10 people knowing that 1 of them will shoot you? I mean that's essentially what we're doing with these very liberal gun laws!

gut;787325 wrote: Prisons don't prevent or deter crime, so stop locking people up. That's exactly what you guys are arguing. There's no spinning out of it, that is the basis for your argument and it's ridiculous. There are too many drunk drivers, so we should stop arresting them. It's the exact same argument, it's not silly or cheap it illustrates the absurdity of the position. And inherently people know this, which is why they flail away at incredibly weak justifications. Oh, but drunk drivers can hurt someone. Yeah, so do addicts

Do you really not see the major flaw in your logic here? Otrap has already explained this flaw to you! The consumption of any drug (including alcohol) and driving is and will always be illegal, but the drug itself should not be; that is the argument we're making!

gut;787325 wrote: The US spent an estimated $40B on the war on drugs in 2010. Now, while tobacco and alcohol use/addiction is many multiples of drug use, care to fashion a guess what the social/economic impact is from tobacco and alcohol? It's much, much more than $40B. So if you want to make an argument about cost and ineffective, you're not making a very logical argument supported by anything other than supposition. If we end the war on drugs and it costs $60B, or $100B or $200B more in related healthcare costs, that's a good decision?

I don't have to "fashion a guess", it's about $428 Billion** The only one that isn't making a logical argument is you! Based on your logic, we should just abolish tobacco and alcohol! Hell, while we're at it, trans fats, excess sugar, and salt etc...


http://www.drugabuse.gov/infofacts/understand.html** <---Look, another source!!

gut;787325 wrote: Oh, sure, let's just legalize it because people will magically ignore it on the shelves at Walmart. And despite everything we know about addiction, people will magically stop getting addicted or treatment and education programs suddenly become more effective. It's bullshit naivety.

People that don't use it will ignore it and people that will use, will use regardless if they can buy it at Wal-Mart, or that shady guy down the street, that's likely to shoot him if he thinks, the guy he's selling to is a NARC! The issue people have with the criminalization of drugs is the idea of personal responsibility! If we allow the government to tell us we shouldn't take drugs because it's bad for us or we might cause harm to others, then what's to stop them from doing the same with other things?

gut;787332 wrote:So you ignored examples of Needle Park, what happened in Alaska when they got very lax on enforcement, the UK, Belgium, Amsterdam....Your google skills clearly need work.

I didn't ignore Needle Park! If you actually read the article I posted, it stated that Needle Park worked. The problem with Needle Park wasn't the crime from the use of drugs but the selling of drugs. If better planning was done to determine who could and could not sell drugs, the problem of these bigger more violent drug dealers would have been eliminated. Here's the quote and link I posted before, in case you missed it.

In an effort to stem the alarming rise in AIDS cases among drug users, Zurich, along with a few other cities in Switzerland, began an experiment three years ago in drug tolerance. Addicts were permitted to sell, buy or use drugs in the city's downtown park, the Platzspitz. Needle Park, as it quickly became known, attracted up to 4,000 drug users a day. Health officials freely distributed clean needles along with counsel on social and medical services.
The program worked: by early this year, the incidence of new AIDS cases had dropped from 50% to 5%. (Overall, 20% of Zurich's addicts have tested HIV positive.) Trouble was, the Platzspitz also became a magnet for professional dealers, especially Lebanese, Yugoslav and Turkish gangs that overran small dealers in a violent price war.
Amid complaints of rising crime, Zurich officials last week shut down Needle Park for good. Some users clustered around the central train station, others headed off in search of methadone. With sales suddenly back underground, addicts complained that the price of heroin had doubled overnight to $214 a gram. Healthworkers said efforts to prevent AIDS would be much more difficult.


Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,974920,00.html#ixzz1O1vJFWW2

And my Google skills are top notch! I think it's your reading skills that need work because in my post I wrote..."Hey gut, I'm starting to realize why you didn't actually post anything in support of your stance! As I continue my simple Google searches, I'm finding sites that post statistics but no source to back them up and they're misrepresenting the facts!" I found many sites that made all sorts of claims to back up their view that the ban on drugs should remain, but none of them actually backs those claims up with any sort of source! Where are the sources for a lot of these claims?

gut;787332 wrote: Here's one for you, that bastion of drug utopia, the Netherlands:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2011/05/28/2011-05-28_netherlands_to_ban_tourists_from_marijuana_coffee_shops_worries_about_amsterdam_.html

""In order to tackle the nuisance and criminality associated with coffee shops and drug trafficking, the open-door policy of coffee shops will end," Dutch health and justice ministers wrote in a letter to the country's parliament.

What!?! You mean crime and trafficking is a problem there such that they are actually rolling back "decriminalization"?

Either you have a serious reading comprehension problem or you're deliberately trying to bend the article to fit your view! That article is completely about the tourist! It's no surprise that when other people come from countries with strict drugs laws to a place with pretty lax drug laws, there tend to be issues. Tell me, when you read about drug trafficking, how do you take that to mean; drugs coming in to the country or out?

gut;787332 wrote: "The experiment ended after the number of addicts in the park rose from a few hundred in 1987 to more than 20,000 in 1992" - yeah, Needle Park sounds like a really roaring endorsement for legalization.

Read the article I posted. Needle park didn't close because of the increase of individuals, but because of the violence of the outside drug dealers.

gut;787332 wrote: And of course there are examples in the US and elsewhere where reduced enforcement or decriminalization led to increased usage.

Please provide a source with verifiable statistics please.

gut;787332 wrote: Decriminilization may not result in an increase (not necessarily surprising because enforcement still curtails distribution), but there's really not evidence it will lead to a decrease, although in Portugal you saw a normalization to global trends/averages. And there's strong reason to suspect the treatment and education programs in Portugal are the real reason behind the reduction, but the US is already spending billions on that. And legalization is just flat out idiotic.

And you're basing this assumption on?

Why does a/the government exist?

cruiser_96;787465 wrote:Why does a/the government exist?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. &#8212; That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, &#8212; That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

dwccrew;787405 wrote:Why don't you supply us with these links that you have found? So far the only links posted do not support your theory.

Sigh, I'll try to make this simple...

This thread is about the War on Drugs, and the OP talks about legalization. That is idiotic on multiple levels, and THERE IS NOTHING supporting your position that legalization doesn't raise a whole bunch of unnecessary and unacceptable risks - that's what Needle Park proves, and if you want to claim legalization won't increase usage and addiction - an entirely illogical and irrational position - you have to provide evidence to the contrary and there is none.

Decriminiliaation may have some merit, but it's a mixed bag. Amsterdam has seen an increase in usage and they are increasing restrictions on the decriminalization. Since America already spends a ton on education and treatment, there probably is at least an uptick on usage/addiction but perhaps that would be acceptable given reduced costs elsewhere.

There is no example where legalization has proven more effective - Amsterdam and Portugal still conduct raids and go after dealers and traffickers. Some of you don't seem to understand that. There is no basis or successful examples for a completely irresponsible belief that legalizing drugs is going to somehow have a positive effect.

Bigred1995;787446 wrote: And you're basing this assumption on?

Common sense. What are your positions based on? Show me the statistics saying what usage and addiction and everything else are without the war on drugs and we can compare. Oh, that's right, there are none because people are making illogical assumptions completely unsupported by facts.

And, again, why do you continue to miss the point on Needle Park. An increase from 200 users to 20,000 or whatever is an acceptable outcome? One of the arguments made here is about the drug dealer violence and how the related crime magically goes away with legalization, so I think it being closed because of crime proves my point.

Glory Days;787362 wrote:I disagree, individual members of the public dont matter, but many individuals together make up society and i dont want to live in a society of crackheads and addicts. i dont want it driving my property value down, endangering children that live next to them, using my tax money to rehab them etc.

The rights of a society do not supercede the rights of an individual. That's the downfall of a strict democracy, because it opens the door for those in the minority on any particular issue for being denied rights they may otherwise enjoy.

Can I quote you in saying that individual members of the public don't matter except as part of the collective?

Odds are, if there are drug addicts, they won't be able to afford to live in areas where non-drug users live, as even at cheaper rates, drugs would hardly be cheap, and to support an actual habit would be particularly expensive.

I DO agree that tax dollars should not go into paying for rehabilitation. This was that personal responsibility I was talking about. If you do not handle your use responsibly, and you want to get out, it's up to you (or others willing to volunteer) to pay for it.

dwccrew;787405 wrote:Less of your tax dollars would be spent treating addiction and the health problems than are currently being spent fighting the "war on drugs". Significantly less I might add. Do you think a lot of these addicts aren't receiving gov't assistance currently? They are and you are being taxed for it on top of being taxed for the "war on drugs".

Good point.

dwccrew;787405 wrote:First off, why are you pulling these facts from your ass? Please provide proof. Secondly, you don't think the healthcare costs exist currently? Your speculation is hilarious. If you taxed the sale of drugs, those tax dollars could be used for the healthcare, not our tax dollars.

A novel thought, which would prolong any sustainability.

dwccrew;787405 wrote:First off, even if drugs were legalized, I highly doubt they would be made readily available at Wal-mart. HAHAHAHA. They would be at a dispensary, as is medical marijuana right now.

Are drugs in countries where it is legal just sold at the local supermarket or grocer? I doubt it. I don't know why that is the fear, as I've never heard of it being a reality anywhere.

dwccrew;787405 wrote:You don't want it, you are just an individual member of the public, so you don't matter. Again, with some of the proposed (by members on here) ideas would be that treatment would be supported by the tax on drug sales, they could use in 'safe zones'. How would legalizing drugs make your property value go down, endanger children, etc? All of a sudden everyone will be using?

I'm willing to bet that drug use MIGHT go up by double digit percentages, but that's my own speculation. It's hilarious to assume that for every person who currently uses, there are two who only refrain because it is illegal.

cruiser_96;787465 wrote:Why does a/the government exist?

To protect the liberties of its people, to provide an organized infrastructure, and to provide defense ... at least in this country.

gut;787325 wrote: Prisons don't prevent or deter crime, so stop locking people up. That's exactly what you guys are arguing. There's no spinning out of it, that is the basis for your argument and it's ridiculous.

You obviously cannot comprehend what we're saying. That is not it at all. The basis of our argument is not that we think locking people up for drugs is ineffective (it is) but that we do not think doing drugs should be illegal. Of course committing crimes while doing drugs will always be illegal. We just don't think it's right for us to tell people what to or not to put in their bodies. You obviously think you have the right to tell people what to put in their bodies, we don't.

gut;787804 wrote:Common sense. What are your positions based on? Show me the statistics saying what usage and addiction and everything else are without the war on drugs and we can compare. Oh, that's right, there are none because people are making illogical assumptions completely unsupported by facts.

And, again, why do you continue to miss the point on Needle Park. An increase from 200 users to 20,000 or whatever is an acceptable outcome? One of the arguments made here is about the drug dealer violence and how the related crime magically goes away with legalization, so I think it being closed because of crime proves my point.

An increase in drug users is not a problem unless along with it came a meaningful increase in crime. If there was an increase in users without an increase in crime then that example proves our point and not yours. And "common sense" means "I cannot find anything that actually proves my point so I'll just call anyone that disagrees illogical and hope they believe me". It's bullcrap.

Bigred1995;787446 wrote: People that don't use it will ignore it and people that will use, will use regardless if they can buy it at Wal-Mart

This is completely idiotic. You increase distribution and availability, you will increase sales - Business 101. It's much easier to trial or begin using a product on the shelf at Walmart than to risk arrest (or worse) and go to the shady area of town to find drugs. Nor do you consider people perfectly content with their responsible use of alcohol or pot and now have the leisure to trial drugs like they would a new beer and instead find addiction. It's mind boggling that something so obvious even needs to be pointed out, much less repeated.

There's a huge difference between legalization and decriminalization that many in this thread don't appear to grasp. They are not remotely equivalent.

I Wear Pants;787812 wrote:You obviously think you have the right to tell people what to put in their bodies, we don't.

Such an absolute position is irresponsible at best. People can do what they want with their bodies...So feel free to sell your kidney, right? That 10-yr should have the right to buy some alcohol or smoke cigarettes, right? The FDA should be disbanded because what you put in your body is your choice - buyer beware - right?

I'm sorry, I completely disagree with you. When externalities negatively impact society - directly or indirectly - by the choices you make then necessarily the interests of society vs. the individual need to be balanced and your choices restricted. That's reality and common sense.

gut;787801 wrote:This thread is about the War on Drugs, and the OP talks about legalization. That is idiotic on multiple levels, and THERE IS NOTHING supporting your position that legalization doesn't raise a whole bunch of unnecessary and unacceptable risks ...

Your best defense against it is a 40-50 year old section of New York that had zero regulation. I'm not sure how you think a modern study of places in Europe that offer far fewer problems, and benefits, are less relevant.

gut;787801 wrote:that's what Needle Park proves

Your Needle Park example involves too many differences between itself and what is being proposed. In addition, it is one of the most antiquated defenses of either position in this discussion. It lacks congruence, and it is significantly outdated. A parallel would be trying to use the Wild West in an attempt to suggest that guns should be outlawed.

gut;787801 wrote:... and if you want to claim legalization won't increase usage and addiction - an entirely illogical and irrational position - you have to provide evidence to the contrary and there is none.

I actually admit that there will most definitely be more use. There are probably some who would otherwise try drugs, but do not currently because of the law. However, I'd place a hefty wager on this being a much smaller proportion than you've projected in this thread (that projection was also without any evidence, the very thing to which you object in this post).

gut;787801 wrote:Decriminiliaation may have some merit, but it's a mixed bag. Amsterdam has seen an increase in usage and they are increasing restrictions on the decriminalization.

I don't have a problem with regulations at all. Those wishing that it would be decriminalized are not wanting a complete deregulation of it.

gut;787801 wrote:There is no example where legalization has proven more effective - Amsterdam and Portugal still conduct raids and go after dealers and traffickers.

On a scale that is considerably smaller in proportion, AND is far more limited in scope, because of the legality.

gut;787801 wrote:Some of you don't seem to understand that. There is no basis or successful examples for a completely irresponsible belief that legalizing drugs is going to somehow have a positive effect.

You're using a circular reasoning to define what is "successful" as there ARE places where it has driven down drug related crime, reduced the costs of drug-related law enforcement, and has seen little more addiction problems (and actually a LOWER case of addiction per user, as the number of people who begin using after legalization are tending to show addiction at a lower rate than users prior to legalization).

gut;787804 wrote:Common sense.

Logical fallacy.

gut;787804 wrote:What are your positions based on? Show me the statistics saying what usage and addiction and everything else are without the war on drugs and we can compare. Oh, that's right, there are none because people are making illogical assumptions completely unsupported by facts.

Actually, the facts have been stated many times over in links posted. Have you not read them?

gut;787804 wrote:And, again, why do you continue to miss the point on Needle Park.

I'm quite familiar with the antiquated, apples-to-burros example you keep bringing up. Needle Park was before knowledge of side effects (both long and short term) were as widely known, and it was a case where drug use was unregulated almost completely. Neither of those exist, or would be proposed, in the current discussion.

gut;787819 wrote:Such an absolute position is irresponsible at best. People can do what they want with their bodies...So feel free to sell your kidney, right? That 10-yr should have the right to buy some alcohol or smoke cigarettes, right? The FDA should be disbanded because what you put in your body is your choice - buyer beware - right?

I'm sorry, I completely disagree with you. When externalities negatively impact society - directly or indirectly - by the choices you make then necessarily the interests of society vs. the individual need to be balanced and your choices restricted. That's reality and common sense.

Quality restrictions on items are not the same as criminalizing items.

And again, you cannot comprehend very well apparently. We want regulation, no one here has said "just let it all be legal and do nothing about it". I imagine any plans we'd support would have stipulations for who can buy, where, and quantity. Just like we do with other legal drugs today.

We are not entirely anti-regulation just anti-criminalization. Or at least I am, don't want to put words in other's mouths.

gut;787804 wrote:Common sense. What are your positions based on? Show me the statistics saying what usage and addiction and everything else are without the war on drugs and we can compare. Oh, that's right, there are none because people are making illogical assumptions completely unsupported by facts.

You want to know what common sense tells me? That of course usage and addiction will go up with the legalization of drugs, because the data for tracking such things will be more accurate; more people would be more honest about their usage, but that still doesn't give the government the right to tell us what we can and cannot put into our bodies.
But you want facts?
Fact: The US has some of the toughest drug laws in the world, but leads the world in Illegal Drug Use!

(WebMD) Despite tough anti-drug laws, a new survey shows the U.S. has the highest level of illegal drug use in the world.
source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/01/health/webmd/main4222322.shtml

Hows that drug war working for ya?

gut;787804 wrote: And, again, why do you continue to miss the point on Needle Park. An increase from 200 users to 20,000 or whatever is an acceptable outcome? One of the arguments made here is about the drug dealer violence and how the related crime magically goes away with legalization, so I think it being closed because of crime proves my point.

Whatever the "population" increased to is insignificant because it wasn't a static population and not all from that particular area. People from around the world visited the park because of the nature of the park. Just because visitors increased from 200 to 20,000 (where ever you got those numbers) doesn't mean that's how fast the rate of usage went up. Just like the number of people that visited Cedar Point from the time it opened (several thousand) spanning the same number of years as the park was open (several million) isn't an indication that the number of roller coaster enthusiast increased by that much! Sure I'm sure in that time some new ones were added, but not by the numbers indicated by visitors.

gut;787816 wrote:This is completely idiotic. You increase distribution and availability, you will increase sales - Business 101. It's much easier to trial or begin using a product on the shelf at Walmart than to risk arrest (or worse) and go to the shady area of town to find drugs. Nor do you consider people perfectly content with their responsible use of alcohol or pot and now have the leisure to trial drugs like they would a new beer and instead find addiction. It's mind boggling that something so obvious even needs to be pointed out, much less repeated.

There's a huge difference between legalization and decriminalization that many in this thread don't appear to grasp. They are not remotely equivalent.

Answer this question for me and then maybe you'll understand the point I was trying to make. If drugs are legalized (not decriminalized), how likely are you to partake in the usage?

So basically what I gather from these last couple pages is gut=owned....

dwccrew;787405 wrote:
You don't want it, you are just an individual member of the public, so you don't matter. Again, with some of the proposed (by members on here) ideas would be that treatment would be supported by the tax on drug sales, they could use in 'safe zones'. How would legalizing drugs make your property value go down, endanger children, etc? All of a sudden everyone will be using?

The paranoya and misinformation is amazing. I'm sure you believe marijuana is a gateway drug too, right?

I dont want it? society doesnt want it, most polls still show this, minus marijuana.

I Wear Pants;787843 wrote:no one here has said "just let it all be legal and do nothing about it". I.

That's not true, and you don't fully comprehend the issue arguing for legal with restrictions because anything less than being on Walmart shelves will not have nearly the impact on crime that you guys think. When you place restrictions and attempt regulation, it's shown that black markets do exist and flourish. My point, again, is this thread is about the War on Drugs and people have pissed all over and want it to end but what they are not grasping is short of complete legalization (which has a host of other problems and why most rational people recognize the idiocy of it) on Walmart shelves you will still have a major enforcement issue and illicit drug trafficking.

I've said several times decriminilization deserves consideration, but I don't for one second believe it to be the panacea others seem to think, and there's no evidence to suggest it would be. But I can accept because accessibility and distribution don't really change that the impact on usage would be pretty marginal. So I think there are some marginal savings there, although I'd like to see a hard dollar figure attached to what it costs to locking people up for marijuana, because I suspect, especially for first time offenders, most of it is a night in the clink (not that different from DUI) at worst and often just a citation.

But clearly because the law is basically a slap on the wrist it's not any sort of deterrent and I'm not going to advocate stricter penalties because I don't see the harm. Now if we start talking repeat offenders or harder drugs, or at least people that commit crimes while high on drugs (as opposed to just testing positive in their system) that's going to give me pause. That's a much more complex issue - should punishments be more severe for committing crimes while high on drugs (like if using a gun). I would tend to say yes, and think it's an important distinction, and not one that can be made under decriminalization. I think this leads me to the position to leave the laws alone but don't bother with the nickel and dime stuff, i.e. look the other way (think Dutch just don't enforce the laws and Portugal is the only one with broad decriminlization).

Anyway, I don't see decriminalization as any sort solution or advancement in the initiative, but I could probably go along with locking up users being a waste of resources, but I suspect the actual cost savings are vastly overstated - already paid for whether the jail sits empty or the cop eats a donut instead of busting a pot smoker. I just don't see a rational reason why decriminalization would result in lower usage and any decrease observed is more likely attributable to confounding factors which are completely separate policy tools.