Abstinence-Only Drug Policies Fail. Time to Legalize.

[Durandal]

Or, for that matter, let's make watching TV at midnight with your hand down your pants illegal. Do people like Nephtys actually think that everyone has to be "contributing to society" 100% of the time? Can't anyone just kind of ... chill out? Maybe even ... relax?

[Flagg]

I wouldn't legalize all drugs. I'd make pot and maybe a few other things like "shrooms" legal. The rest would be decriminalized.

I'd also strictly enforce public intoxication and raise the penalties for DUI and DWI infractions.

Everything would also be taxed heavily on the federal level, let alone the state and county level. I'm talking about at least a 50% federal tax on tobacco, alchohol, and marijuana, with all of those funds going into a national healthcare system and into rehab centers. I'd also up the legal age on all of those to 25.

Any of the decriminalized drug infractions would be dealt with as a public health issue, rather than a law enforcement one.

[The Yosemite Bear]

first you get the drugs
then you get the money
then you get the women.

see?

oh and don't get high on your own supply.

[K. A. Pital]

This primary an American situation, so I'm not really giving advice to Americans - it's your drug market after all, isn't it?

As for Russia, from my ivory tower I see very bad things due to drug sale and use, so legalizing heavy drugs is a no-no. With little to no oversight against drugs, the drug proliferation in the 90's has resulted in millions of addicts, including small children, and a rapidly developing AIDS epidemic.

These factors are far more important than the "recreational use of drugs" by some upper-middle and rich classes (in Russia that's a tiny percent of the population), and middle class people also become addicts which has been noted by the drug police' statistics.

So while I'm not sure on what kind of drugs and how to regulate abroad, here in Russia we don't need legalizing anything save weed maybe.

[The Kernel]

Nephtys, I smoke pot and I'm betting I contribute a hell of a lot more to society than you do.

For that matter, most of my co-workers also smoke pot and I'm willing to bet they contribute more than you too.

[K. A. Pital]

I thought we are speaking about legalizing far heavier drugs than pot, those which cause a deadly addiction?

[Illuminatus Primus]

I thought we are speaking about legalizing far heavier drugs than pot, those which cause a deadly addiction?

Like alcohol and tobacco?

[HemlockGrey]

These factors are far more important than the "recreational use of drugs" by some upper-middle and rich classes (in Russia that's a tiny percent of the population), and middle class people also become addicts which has been noted by the drug police' statistics.

Well, in America, the affluent don't do heroin or smoke crack. The intoxicant of choice for the upper-middle class, aside from alcohol, is prescription drugs. Crack's for poor blacks and meth is for the rednecks. Even cocaine's on the way out. The well-to-do grind up Percocet. This is part of the reason why crack cocaine carries such heavy penalties and Rush Limbaugh can throw down Oxycontin like Pez.

No one's calling for the legalization of "hard" drugs. The problem is the system (the Combine, as Ken Kesey said) is so drastically flawed it doesn't even recognize things like socioeconomic nuance. This is, after all, the same antidrug regime which at one point branded Timothy Leary "The Most Dangerous Man In America."

Am I making any sort of sense? It's 4:00 in the AM so I'm not really sure.

[K. A. Pital]

Like alcohol and tobacco?

Are alcohol and tobacco so drastically cutting the lifespans and destroying the nervous system as heroine, cocaine or the likes of those? Is the addiction so strong?

Does sipping small amounts of alcohol regulary force you into a chemical addiction?

As for nicotine, it's dangerous and by all means should be counteracted; it's only legal because tobacco companies wield such a huge influence over the consumer cattle.

[Darth Wong]

Like alcohol and tobacco?

Are alcohol and tobacco so drastically cutting the lifespans and destroying the nervous system as heroine, cocaine or the likes of those? Is the addiction so strong?

Does sipping small amounts of alcohol regulary force you into a chemical addiction?

According to the CDC, alcoholism kills roughly eighty thousand people in America every year, and causes roughly 2.3 million YPLL (years of potential life lost). People don't call it a "soft" drug because it is relatively harmless; it causes horrible damage in society. They call it a "soft" drug because that's how they rationalize making it available for sale in Wal-Mart.

As for nicotine, it's dangerous and by all means should be counteracted; it's only legal because tobacco companies wield such a huge influence over the consumer cattle.

It's legal because rich white men do it.

[K. A. Pital]

Shouldn't the work in society be aimed at lessening alcoholism, smoking and drug injection instead of foistering it?

The basic problem is that chemically addictive agents generate demand when people become addicted - they are no longer rationally choosing to buy alcohol, tobacco or drugs (even if they "chose" rationally in the first place which is doubtful), they are being moved to it by chemical addiction.

[Darth Wong]

Shouldn't the work in society be aimed at lessening alcoholism, smoking and drug injection instead of foistering it?

The basic problem is that chemically addictive agents generate demand when people become addicted - they are no longer rationally choosing to buy alcohol, tobacco or drugs (even if they "chose" rationally in the first place which is doubtful), they are being moved to it by chemical addiction.

That's the problem I have with most drug apologist bullshit. It's all well and good to say that current policy is not working, but a lot of them seem to leap to the conclusion that therefore, drugs are not really harming society, which is bullshit. Even the so-called "soft" drugs cause massive damage to society.

PS. According to the Canadian Addiction Survey, marijuana use has doubled in Canada over the last 10 years: a period during which marijuana laws were liberalized. That is not conclusive proof in and of itself, but it certainly does lend credence to the idea that liberalizing drug laws would increase usage. The question is whether it's worth it anyway.

[RedImperator]

I thought we are speaking about legalizing far heavier drugs than pot, those which cause a deadly addiction?

This is one of the problems with these kinds of debates--debates about "drugs", as opposed to any one particular drug, wind up with both sides conflating all currently illegal drugs (I'm guilty of it as well). This, of course, is not how we deal with the three widely used legal drugs (caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol) at all. With those drugs, we take into account their psychoactive, physiological, and addictive effects, and craft an individual policy for each one. Then the American government turns around and treats marijuana the same as meth and tries to tell us, with a straight face, that they're equally dangerous. This stupidity gets carried over into drug policy debates, with legalization advocates trying to pretend all drugs are like cannabis and prohibitionists pretending they're all like heroin (bonus idiocy if the prohibitionists try to simultaneously justify keeping alcohol legal).

The smart way to legalize would be to end harsh criminal penalties for users across the board, and then craft an individual policy for each drug. We could have a fine debate about that; most rational people will likely be in favor of full recreational legalization of marijuana, but from there there's quite a lot of gray area in which to work.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Like alcohol and tobacco?

Are alcohol and tobacco so drastically cutting the lifespans and destroying the nervous system as heroine, cocaine or the likes of those? Is the addiction so strong?

As a Russian you shouldn't ask me such questions. Alcoholism has been a historic nation-wide major social problem in your country. Smoking kill a half a million people every year in the U.S.

[Does sipping small amounts of alcohol regulary force you into a chemical addiction?

You're assuming its all about the drug "making you" become addicted. Recent research suggests that most severe addicts - in all drugs, and perhaps, with all addictants (including gambling, porn, sex, et al) - are significantly genetically predisposed. The same kind of people who can blow a few lines, get freaked out, and never do it again are the same people who probably can genuinely casually drink. But there are some people that if you put them on prescription drugs or let them drink at all, they WILL become dependent.

If your argument about unopposed "forced" addiction was legitimate, how could any doctors ever defend giving patients necessary opiate narcotics. Its one of the most addictive substances, but under doctor's supervision, it typically can be managed and most do not develop addiction. Your model fails.

As for nicotine, it's dangerous and by all means should be counteracted; it's only legal because tobacco companies wield such a huge influence over the consumer cattle.

Right. So now that we've made concessions due to the fact that we just cannot "make" people not play with their pleasure centers chemically or otherwise not do psychotropic drugs, let's talk about LIMITING its social costs at every level. It will always be part of the human experience. And it does not have to levy uncontrolled and unacceptable social costs because of existance. Neurochemistry suggests drug addiction, while not identical, is closely-related to mundane forms of addictive behavior. If treatment is what is called for that latter, why not the former? Suggesting that if somehow just did not happen at all there would be no social costs is called wishful thinking. Its not an argument.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Red's right. The fact is that each drug has its own social costs, potential addictiveness, and long-term consequences basket. Each also will vary over time in popularity. Therefore policy should reflect characteristics.

And please, nicotine, caffeine, and alcohol are drugs. What you, like the U.S. government are doing, is calling for a war on certain drugs. Not drugs.

This is also aside from the fact that drugs which are politically increased on the schedule are then denied for meaningful medical testing, despite evidence that it may function for various tasks. Take MDMA, psilocybin, and LSD for example. Or that heroin is an unacceptable Schedule I narcotic, but by all means, take several Oxys a day for your backpain.

[K. A. Pital]

As a Russian you shouldn't ask me such questions. Alcoholism has been a historic nation-wide major social problem in your country. Smoking kill a half a million people every year in the U.S.

I'd take my bet with medical studies if they exist. I'm personally anti-alco, tobacco or any other drugs. The thing I wonder about is whether a person who drinks alcohol which is undeniably a drug, is denigrated to the same level as a meth or heroin user, on the average. Is alcohol more or less addictive than the currently illegal heavy drugs? What's the addiction barrier - is it low or high?

All those questions must be answered before forming a clear policy which would adress each drug.

[Darth Wong]

As a Russian you shouldn't ask me such questions. Alcoholism has been a historic nation-wide major social problem in your country. Smoking kill a half a million people every year in the U.S.

I'd take my bet with medical studies if they exist. I'm personally anti-alco, tobacco or any other drugs. The thing I wonder about is whether a person who drinks alcohol which is undeniably a drug, is denigrated to the same level as a meth or heroin user, on the average. Is alcohol more or less addictive than the currently illegal heavy drugs? What's the addiction barrier - is it low or high?

All those questions must be answered before forming a clear policy which would adress each drug.

Hah ... the last time I ranted about the stupidity of bars and drinking on this forum, some stupid asshole accused me of being a "Puritan" who does not "understand drinking culture". Like it or not, alcohol is socially accepted, despite killing more Americans every year than the entire Vietnam War did.

[Illuminatus Primus]

As a Russian you shouldn't ask me such questions. Alcoholism has been a historic nation-wide major social problem in your country. Smoking kill a half a million people every year in the U.S.

I'd take my bet with medical studies if they exist. I'm personally anti-alco, tobacco or any other drugs. The thing I wonder about is whether a person who drinks alcohol which is undeniably a drug, is denigrated to the same level as a meth or heroin user, on the average. Is alcohol more or less addictive than the currently illegal heavy drugs? What's the addiction barrier - is it low or high?

All those questions must be answered before forming a clear policy which would adress each drug.

You've moved the goal posts. Now you're talking about heroin and methamphetamine specifically. The point being, a huge number of psychadelic drugs that are not known to be very addictive or known to have major health consequences are scheduled as WORSE than cocaine, pharmaceutical opiates (becuase heroin is different - they say so! so its true ), and amphetamines. Take LSD or psilocybin, for example. I'd also add that both of your new goalposts are prescribed pharmaceuticals. Methamphetamine itself is directly prescribed to patients with ADHD (who are often minors). Our policy needs to stop acting like the chemical magically changes when its some shady fuck selling it to you instead of a company.

[K. A. Pital]

The point being, a huge number of psychadelic drugs that are not known to be very addictive or known to have major health consequences are scheduled as WORSE than cocaine, pharmaceutical opiates (becuase heroin is different - they say so! so its true

That point I can agree with, it's ridiculous when you schedule a less chemically addictive and psychoactive drug and initiate harsher measures against it than against really deadly drugs...

Our policy needs to stop acting like the chemical magically changes when its some shady fuck selling it to you instead of a company.

That is undeniably correct. But shouldn't it look after regulating demand (i.e. closer attention to medical purpose prescriptions) rather than allowing it to be sold like alcohol?

Personally I don't have enough data to say which is more chemically addictive - I'd think a cross-comparison of general drug users versus brain-dead junkies and the same for alcohol drinkers versus rotting alcoholics would give meaningful percentages, indicating which substance is more socially dangerous in case of being equally widespread.

[Nephtys]

Do people like Nephtys actually think that everyone has to be "contributing to society" 100% of the time? Can't anyone just kind of ... chill out? Maybe even ... relax?

Latch onto any more statements out of context?

There's a huge difference between relaxing or doing what you want in your free time, with using drugs that can cause dramatic harm. Of those controlled drugs, I know pot is the least harmful, but sheesh. I've seen how a lot of people can be when completely stoned, and 'responsible use' is not something people get on their own, if ever. I even know someone who recreationally does shrooms. And she's loony in the head.

There's a world of difference between spending time at some convention or watching TV or whatever, which only uses up your time (and is healthy in moderation, as it reduces stress and is fun), to using hard drugs recreationally, which messes you up quite irrefutably.

[Aaron]

I'd take my bet with medical studies if they exist. I'm personally anti-alco, tobacco or any other drugs. The thing I wonder about is whether a person who drinks alcohol which is undeniably a drug, is denigrated to the same level as a meth or heroin user, on the average. Is alcohol more or less addictive than the currently illegal heavy drugs? What's the addiction barrier - is it low or high?

Tell people that your an alcoholic, then tell them that your also a drug addict. I can practically guarantee you that the reaction to the alcoholic statement will be between "meh" and "that's to bad". The drug addict statement will vary between "lets get you to rehab" to "your a fucking loser, get away before you try and kill me".

I've been both and I know lots of people that have been or are right now in that situation and the responses are pretty similar. You get more extreme reactions the more terrible the drug is percieved to be. Anecdotal evidence, yes but I'm not aware of actual studies that would attempt to tackle this.

[Anarchist Bunny]

Do people like Nephtys actually think that everyone has to be "contributing to society" 100% of the time? Can't anyone just kind of ... chill out? Maybe even ... relax?

Latch onto any more statements out of context?

There's a huge difference between relaxing or doing what you want in your free time, with using drugs that can cause dramatic harm. Of those controlled drugs, I know pot is the least harmful, but sheesh. I've seen how a lot of people can be when completely stoned, and 'responsible use' is not something people get on their own, if ever. I even know someone who recreationally does shrooms. And she's loony in the head.

There's a world of difference between spending time at some convention or watching TV or whatever, which only uses up your time (and is healthy in moderation, as it reduces stress and is fun), to using hard drugs recreationally, which messes you up quite irrefutably.

The problem most people have with understanding drug use(and please note this is coming from some one that drinks about once a month socially, and has never done anything else with out a prescription) is that the physical dependency to the drug isn't the problem here. Most healthy people can recreationally use hardcore drugs with out destroying their life. Most don't even abuse it to the point of physical dependency.

The vast majority of people that have a problem with drugs do so because they have a psychological trauma that they use the drugs as an escape or a genetic predisposition to addiction. A lot of the times both. The way these people react to drugs are what you hear about. Here's the thing though, you *poof* the drugs away and they will still continue to seek out destructive behaviors. Cutting, huffing paint, robo-tripping, and sex(which can be an addictive self destructive force in someone with the addict "gene", good luck banning that one).

The problem is that the drug isn't the cause, its just a symptom. People who actually treat addicts will tell you(And Dr. Drew Pinsky is a easy to find source on this) that getting the people off the drug is easy part. Its keeping their genetic or psychological tendencies from driving them back to a relapse that is necessary. Its a psychological treatment. And like all psychological treatments its hard to keep the person on it because it takes so long and its hard to notice the changes.

But instead lets attack the symptom. Lets waste billions of dollars punishing sick people so we can create a market that makes billions for criminals. A market that forces these sick people to damage the lives of healthy people. Lets not use that money to subsidize the utter fuck out of addiction health facilities. You know part of the reason why its so hard to get people off drugs? Its an expensive and long term full time treatment. For someone that is heavily addicted to an opiate its in the range of 4-6 months living in a controlled substance facility. The problem? Most insurance won't cough up for more than a week or two in a clinic, about the time it takes to get through the withdrawal. Its actually cheaper, and easier for the addict to keep using. And all that money thats used to target for the most part(most of the numbers I've read are in the 40%-60%) to harass otherwise law abiding nonviolent marijuana users, could help a lot of people that have real problems.

[Durandal]

There's a huge difference between relaxing or doing what you want in your free time, with using drugs that can cause dramatic harm.

Dramatic harm to whom? Me? What do you care?

Of those controlled drugs, I know pot is the least harmful, but sheesh. I've seen how a lot of people can be when completely stoned, and 'responsible use' is not something people get on their own, if ever.

According to you, there's no such thing as "responsible use", so how exactly are you defining it? There are volumes of statistics showing that marijuana is very commonly used recreationally.

I even know someone who recreationally does shrooms. And she's loony in the head.

And I'll bet you that she had severe issues well before doing shrooms.

There's a world of difference between spending time at some convention or watching TV or whatever, which only uses up your time (and is healthy in moderation, as it reduces stress and is fun), to using hard drugs recreationally, which messes you up quite irrefutably.

So what if it messes me up? What harm does it do to others? Alcohol can harm others indirectly through things like drunk driving. But we can mitigate those harms by installing breathalyzers in cars and dropping the legal limit to 0.0. We don't need to resort to turning normal people into criminals and punishing people for crimes they haven't committed. Individual freedoms are still actually worth something, theoretically.

[Anarchist Bunny]

Addendum: I would also like to state that I'm not saying that drugs are not dangerous nor should all of them be legal. I'm saying the the War on Drugs is punishing sick people for being sick, while creating an environment where dangerous violent criminals prosper and completely innocent people suffer.

Ask someone(like myself) who has had their house repeatably robbed for pawnable items to fuel drug habits, and I'm sure they'd rather have that person ruining their life on cheap easily obtainable heroin than the victims life on expensive stuff.

And I'm not saying that no recreational drugs should be outright banned. Ecstasy is a perfect example of one, since it can have lifelong affects on the brain from one time exposures.

[Darth Wong]

So what if it messes me up? What harm does it do to others?

I could see how a guy who has no children might be shallow enough to think this is a devastating argument.