Commentary: Legalize drugs to stop violence

[General Zod]

Hell, you can buy legal meth now with a prescription http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desoxyn, so its kinda funny banning it when I had to take it for the ADHD I had, so eh guess I am a "meth head'

I'm not sure how prescription medication makes for any kind of valid comparison for legalization in the same vein as alcohol. They're heavily regulated and can still get you put in jail just the same as recreational drugs if you have them without your doctor's permission.

[Redleader34]

The point is they are already legal, so saying METH IS 100% USELESS NO MEDICAL SUBSTANCE is a useless argument which half of page 2 was spouting.

[Rahvin]

I'm not sure how prescription medication makes for any kind of valid comparison for legalization in the same vein as alcohol. They're heavily regulated and can still get you put in jail just the same as recreational drugs if you have them without your doctor's permission.

Alcohol is also very tightly controlled in terms of its production, distribution and sale. Not in the same way that medication is regulated, but if you think the US government is lax with regard to regulation of alcohol products, you are mistaken. Alcoholic beverages are tested regularly (in wineries for example this is typically done on a monthly basis for all of the barreled wine, as well as tests before and after bottling) for their alcohol content and other indicators. This has ensured that alcohol sold in the US is free of dangerous impurities, has accurate potency labeling, etc.

Further, medical versions of controlled drugs like meth do effectively show that, when produced and used properly in consistent dosages, those drugs can be used safely. Whether prescription controls are actually necessary (or rather, whether simply supplying legally a regulated version of the product without prescription is less harmful than the current situation) is part of the question up for debate here.

Would you agree or disagree that methamphetamine manufactured in proper facilities with consistent ingredients and dosages under tight regulative oversight are more safe than the street variety brewed in home meth labs?

Would you agree or disagree that it is safer to produce methamphetamine in safety-regulated commercial production facilities than in an unregulated kitchen next door?

I'm not asking whether you think the methamphetamine should still be controlled. I'm asking whether you think that a regulated product is safer than an unregulated version of same.

[General Zod]

The point is they are already legal, so saying METH IS 100% USELESS NO MEDICAL SUBSTANCE is a useless argument which half of page 2 was spouting.

I don't see anyone making that argument on page 2. Maybe you could actually provide a quote? The only thing I saw was a reference to crystal meth, which is like comparing heroin to morphine. They're both opiates but have arguably different uses.

[Redleader34]

Really now, both heroin and morphine are addictive, during the post Civil war era it was the most addictive drug, but then and now it served as a good painkiller for surgery, and mind you,diamorphine, or heroin still has its use as a drug in the United Kingdom, so eh, its the same point that drugs that are illegal (because the magical 1924 drug act said so) are perfectly useful, just highly abused due to their rather pleasant effects.

[General Zod]

Would you agree or disagree that methamphetamine manufactured in proper facilities with consistent ingredients and dosages under tight regulative oversight are more safe than the street variety brewed in home meth labs?

Would you agree or disagree that it is safer to produce methamphetamine in safety-regulated commercial production facilities than in an unregulated kitchen next door?

I'm not asking whether you think the methamphetamine should still be controlled. I'm asking whether you think that a regulated product is safer than an unregulated version of same.

I fail to see why it matters whether I admit whether it's safer or not when it's not even an aspect of what I'm arguing at all. Obviously regulated products are safer, but that doesn't change any of my overall points.

[Justforfun000]

Crystal meth IS a very dangerous drug, and it has a very high abuse potential, but you still can't demonize it as a completely worthless and always harmful substance. It ia arguably one of the most addictive, and in many cases it becomes a serious threat to a normal lifestyle and someone's physical health...but that being said, there are people who manage to incorporate it into their life without it taking over and ruining it.

Would their life be BETTER without the drug in the picture? Oh probably...but we can play that game with alcohol, cigarettes, red meat, and any other potential carcinogen or detrimental subatance. The reality is that life is about constantly choosing activities and ingestive substances that impact your health detrimentally...just as some choices do the opposite. Some people feel the short term pleasure is worth the long-term health loss, and even that is only a POTENTIAL loss. It's perfectly possible that someone who truly uses even hard drugs in moderation (i.e. once a month regularly), might not show any significant hit to their overall longevity.

So why should society and government have the right to prevent people from choosing such activities when they demonstrate (albeit illegally) that they can partake without significantly measurable harm to themselves or others?
If people getting high on meth always ended up spaced out and wandering the streets until their buzz came down, then one could argue this was an unavoidable societal harm and should be prevented.That's just one example I could think of..

[General Zod]

Really now, both heroin and morphine are addictive, during the post Civil war era it was the most addictive drug, but then and now it served as a good painkiller for surgery, and mind you,diamorphine, or heroin still has its use as a drug in the United Kingdom, so eh, its the same point that drugs that are illegal (because the magical 1924 drug act said so) are perfectly useful, just highly abused due to their rather pleasant effects.

Your point still fails because those illegal drugs are illegal for non medical purposes. Medicinal use is still perfectly lawful. There's any number of drugs which have fallen out of favor in the medical community or wound up illegal either due to their medicinal value being shown to be incredibly low, or other drugs coming around which have been shown to be more effective with fewer harmful side effects.

[Justforfun000]

This is twice that I've posted where I seem to be running into a limit of characters. Is this a new board policy?

Just to finish a bit more of where I was going as I wanted to sum it up..

I don't really LIKE the idea of legalizing substances like Crystal Meth because for every 2 people that use it without problem, there are probably 10 that go down for the count.
Still as Rahvin is arguing quite convincingly, they are going to do this ANYWAY. You can't control people in a free society well enough to prevent drug use, so harm reduction does seem to be the most sensible strategy. The long and short of it is that drug use shouldn't be a criteria used to judge someone as a criminal. Unless there is truly some demonstrative harm to other people, it's another victimless crime. If it's a crime to themselves, then they need help to overcome it, not incarceration and punishment.

[General Zod]

This is twice that I've posted where I seem to be running into a limit of characters. Is this a new board policy?

Just to finish a bit more of where I was going as I wanted to sum it up..

I don't really LIKE the idea of legalizing substances like Crystal Meth because for every 2 people that use it without problem, there are probably 10 that go down for the count.
Still as Rahvin is arguing quite convincingly, they are going to do this ANYWAY. You can't control people in a free society well enough to prevent drug use, so harm reduction does seem to be the most sensible strategy. The long and short of it is that drug use shouldn't be a criteria used to judge someone as a criminal. Unless there is truly some demonstrative harm to other people, it's another victimless crime. If it's a crime to themselves, then they need help to overcome it, not incarceration and punishment.

The thing is the idea has never been to eliminate it entirely. There's always going to be a portion of the population who will do it anyway, so the idea has to be to minimize the amount of addicts to a reasonable level that doesn't overburden society. Criminalization obviously doesn't work, and legalization is a pipe dream. So what's left? Decriminalization with an emphasis on rehabilitation.

[Rahvin]

I fail to see why it matters whether I admit whether it's safer or not when it's not even an aspect of what I'm arguing at all. Obviously regulated products are safer, but that doesn't change any of my overall points.

Since most of your overall points seem constructed specifically to knock down straw men, rather than addressing the arguments presented to you, this seems appropriate.

The fact that regulated products are safer than unregulated products (and by extension, regulated production facilities are safer than kitchen laboratories) establishes thatt here is, in fact, a link between alcohol and some drugs. It demonstrates that, disregarding anything else, the regulation allowed by legalization should reduce harm by providing for consistent, tested doses of the substances in question.

The items we must still address are whether legalization will produce an increase in users and whether legalization will produce an increased amount of consumption per individual user (sufficient to overcome any gains made through regulating the products, as well as any reduction in violence from decreased black market activity). Unfortunately, we have no data concerning these items - we don't know whether usage would increase, or whether each user would increase consumption.

Given that legalization and regulation would, as you now admit, produce a safer product than what is currently available and would thus have a good chance of reducing deaths due to impurities and inconsistent strength, as well as drastically reducing the incidence of exploding meth labs in residential areas, and that we are unable to make a determination on whether usage and individual consumption would increase, decrease, or remain the same if the drugs were legalized, would you not agree that net harm may be lessened under legalization given only the data available?

Clearly this would need to be a tentative conclusion because the lack of data concerning increased usage/consumption represents a gigantic hole in the net harm equation. But would you concede that legalization may be a better course of action than the continued policy of incarceration (whether that incarceration is in prison or a rehab facility), pending what we find regarding the missing data?

[Rahvin]

The thing is the idea has never been to eliminate it entirely. There's always going to be a portion of the population who will do it anyway, so the idea has to be to minimize the amount of addicts to a reasonable level that doesn't overburden society. Criminalization obviously doesn't work, and legalization is a pipe dream. So what's left? Decriminalization with an emphasis on rehabilitation.

Your version of "decriminalization with an emphasis on rehabilitation" as stated eariler in the thread seemed to consist entirely of "status quo, but send drug offenders to rehab instead of jail." (If this is incorrect, please elaborate so that I can more fully understand your argument)

This doesn't seem to be "decriminalization" at all - simply a redirected sentence.

It does not address the unregulated production, distribution, and sale of illegal substances.

It does not address the violence caused by the black market that prohibition directly creates.

It does not address the massive expenditure of manpower and money wasted on a futile campaign of enforcement that could be better spent on anti-drug educational programs.

You state the goal of drug policy as "to minimize the amount of addicts to a reasonable level that doesn't overburden society." Perhaps we should cut out the middle of that statement? I think that "to minimize the impact of drug use to a reasonable level that doesn't overburden society" works better. The number of addicts of a given substance is not the only factor involved, and is in fact a very poor indicator on net harm. How may Americans are addicted to caffeine, for example? Reducing the harm caused by those substances can also reduce the burden on society. Reducing the violence caused by the black market created by prohibition also reduces the burden on society. Reducing the number of exploding meth labs also reduces the burden on society. Reducing the needless incarceration of citizens for otehrwise victimless crimes also reduces the burden on society.

There are a lot of variables in this discussion beyond "how many addicts?"

[General Zod]

Your version of "decriminalization with an emphasis on rehabilitation" as stated eariler in the thread seemed to consist entirely of "status quo, but send drug offenders to rehab instead of jail." (If this is incorrect, please elaborate so that I can more fully understand your argument)

What version? I don't believe I offered anything in the way of specifics. Or do you subscribe to the ridiculous notion that all rehab must involve locking people away in a room with padded walls until they're clean? Let's go back to your alcohol examples. You support drunk driving being illegal, yes? So what do we do with people convicted of DUIs? Send them to rehab and slap them with fines. Why is a similar system for hard drugs a bad thing?

You state the goal of drug policy as "to minimize the amount of addicts to a reasonable level that doesn't overburden society." Perhaps we should cut out the middle of that statement? I think that "to minimize the impact of drug use to a reasonable level that doesn't overburden society" works better. The number of addicts of a given substance is not the only factor involved, and is in fact a very poor indicator on net harm. How may Americans are addicted to caffeine, for example? Reducing the harm caused by those substances can also reduce the burden on society. Reducing the violence caused by the black market created by prohibition also reduces the burden on society. Reducing the number of exploding meth labs also reduces the burden on society. Reducing the needless incarceration of citizens for otehrwise victimless crimes also reduces the burden on society.

While we're on the subject of strawmen, your ridiculous examples only work if you ignore my qualifier that it causes a burden on society. Caffeine does not significantly impaire someone's ability to perform without massive doses beyond what most people could drink anyway. The amount required to cause an adverse and lethal reaction has to be taken into account, as does a drug's popularity and how much money is spent fighting it. For something obscenely popular, like alcohol, the amount of money spent fighting it was more than the amount of harm reduced. The same can be argued of marijuana. The same cannot be said of say, crystal meth or heroin or simply due to the fact that they are not popular with society. As I've said repeatedly not all drugs are created equally and a blanket approach cannot be used in dealing with them.

There are a lot of variables in this discussion beyond "how many addicts?"

As I've repeatedly attempted to point out. Your solutions are idealistic and naive, and fail to take into account a whole host of factors. Any idea that doesn't take into account its probability of successful implementation, is quite frankly, a bad idea.

[Dooey Jo]

Obviously the black market would shrink from its current 100% market share, but to think it would magically go away, unless you basically treat it like nicotine (and it is not nicotine

Believe it or not, there actually is a black market for cigarettes in the US. Eliminating anti-drug laws is not going to result in 100% clean and legal supply lines. The real question is whether the proposed alteration in laws will result in a less overall harm to society because experience shows that even when a drug is legal there will still be addicts and problems.

Yes, a realistic approach would obviously be about minimizing harm, but the claims I see, even in the article in the OP apparently, is that legalisation would immediately undermine the drug cartels and make them go away. I just don't see how you can compete them out of existence without making it truly competitive in some way, like giving it away for free to addicts (but then that's not taxation, that's subsidisation). Even then, I'm not so sure they'd disappear rather than move to something else; it's not like the Mafia disappeared when the prohibition ended. I'm just wondering what the rationale is behind these kind of statements, if there is more to it than just a mantra.

[Rahvin]

Yes, a realistic approach would obviously be about minimizing harm, but the claims I see, even in the article in the OP apparently, is that legalisation would immediately undermine the drug cartels and make them go away. I just don't see how you can compete them out of existence without making it truly competitive in some way, like giving it away for free to addicts (but then that's not taxation, that's subsidisation). Even then, I'm not so sure they'd disappear rather than move to something else; it's not like the Mafia disappeared when the prohibition ended. I'm just wondering what the rationale is behind these kind of statements, if there is more to it than just a mantra.

You don't see how legal avenues for purchasing safer versions of drugs might be an incentive to buy the state-regulated versions of drugs?

It's likely that, given commercial production and the lack of, you know, needing to smuggle the stuff illegally, that prices for government-regulated drugs could be cheaper than their illegal versions as well, even after any tax. The drug cartels aren't exactly what you'd call "lean business."

The CA state Assemblyman (Tom Ammiano) who proposed legalizing marijuana in California claims that legalization would reduce the street price by half, even with a $50/ounce tax.

[Darth Wong]

Yes, a realistic approach would obviously be about minimizing harm, but the claims I see, even in the article in the OP apparently, is that legalisation would immediately undermine the drug cartels and make them go away. I just don't see how you can compete them out of existence without making it truly competitive in some way, like giving it away for free to addicts (but then that's not taxation, that's subsidisation). Even then, I'm not so sure they'd disappear rather than move to something else; it's not like the Mafia disappeared when the prohibition ended. I'm just wondering what the rationale is behind these kind of statements, if there is more to it than just a mantra.

You don't see how legal avenues for purchasing safer versions of drugs might be an incentive to buy the state-regulated versions of drugs?

The underground trade would continue because at a bare minimum, we would put age restrictions on legal usage. That means all of the underage kids who want to do drugs would still have to go to illegal dealers. Moreover, the effect would obviously not be immediate; it would probably take years of wrangling before a legal framework could be constructed for legalized production and distribution of drugs. And then you would need to have watchdog organizations set up, you would need to create new zoning regulations, you would have massive political battles over where to allow such activity, you would have massive fights between state and federal levels, you would have massive fights between municipal and state levels, etc.

If you honestly think you could just legalize drugs and instantly kill the drug trade overnight, you must be on drugs yourself. It might be a good idea in the long run, but it would not have the dramatic immediate effects that you seem to think it would. In the short run, nothing would perceptibly change at all. Do you really think businesses are going to leap at the chance to pour capital into such a risky new venture so quickly, when they have no idea if you'll turn around and recriminalize it tomorrow?

[Rahvin]

What version? I don't believe I offered anything in the way of specifics.

Which is no fault of mine. If you believe your plan is better, then by all means provide some additional detail. So far you've basically only said "send them to rehab, instead." That's the position I've been arguing against, since it's the only position you've decided to post.

Or do you subscribe to the ridiculous notion that all rehab must involve locking people away in a room with padded walls until they're clean?

Here we go with the straw men once again.

Forced rehab is a form of incarceration, even if it involves some sort of house arrest. Clearly, that would be better than prison, but you're still not actually making the production/distribution/sale/possession of drugs legal, and so all of the negative effects of prohibition (including unregulated substances and the black market) still apply.

Let's go back to your alcohol examples. You support drunk driving being illegal, yes? So what do we do with people convicted of DUIs? Send them to rehab and slap them with fines. Why is a similar system for hard drugs a bad thing?

I never once suggested that we change laws concerning driving while intoxicated. Those laws already cover drug use in addition to alcohol; it's even illegal to drive while under the influence of prescription medications that you have a valid prescription for if those medications impair your driving ability.

I fully support sending anyone who drives while intoxicated to a rehab program (and possibly prison depending on circumstances), regardless of whether the production/distribution/sale/possession of drugs are legalized.

You do love to make arguments against positions I;ve never stated, don't you?

While we're on the subject of strawmen, your ridiculous examples only work if you ignore my qualifier that it causes a burden on society. Caffeine does not significantly impaire someone's ability to perform without massive doses beyond what most people could drink anyway. The amount required to cause an adverse and lethal reaction has to be taken into account, as does a drug's popularity and how much money is spent fighting it. For something obscenely popular, like alcohol, the amount of money spent fighting it was more than the amount of harm reduced. The same can be argued of marijuana. The same cannot be said of say, crystal meth or heroin or simply due to the fact that they are not popular with society.

I fail to see how "popularity with society" has anything to do with how much harm they cause, how much harm they could cause if regulated by the government, and the cost of maintaining prohibition.

As I've said repeatedly not all drugs are created equally and a blanket approach cannot be used in dealing with them.

And I've asked you for what your criteria would be for determining which drugs to legalize and which to continue prohibiting. You have still declined to be specific in that regard, beyond "it depends on how much they fuck you up." You've also ignored the likelihood that regulated versions of those same drugs are less likely to "fuck you up" as badly.

There are a lot of variables in this discussion beyond "how many addicts?"

As I've repeatedly attempted to point out. Your solutions are idealistic and naive, and fail to take into account a whole host of factors. Any idea that doesn't take into account its probability of successful implementation, is quite frankly, a bad idea.

Implementation isn't the problem, Zod. We have a proven model with the legalization and regulation of alcohol. There's no reason to assume that the government would be magically incapable of regulating drugs in a similar way.

The problems inherent with any proposal for legalization include the rate legalization would possibly increase usage, and the potential increased rate of consumption per user. There is insufficient data to make any solid conclusions regarding these variables.

The other major obstacle is the likelihood of any such proposal to gain enough support to actually be implemented in the first place - but that has nothing to do with a discussion on whether the proposal would work or not. This is an internet message board, not Congress. Assumption of passage is inherent in any "would this work" discussion.

[General Zod]

Which is no fault of mine. If you believe your plan is better, then by all means provide some additional detail. So far you've basically only said "send them to rehab, instead." That's the position I've been arguing against, since it's the only position you've decided to post.

Yet not all rehab is the same and only a moron would believe it is.

Here we go with the straw men once again.

So you don't actually know what a strawman is. I'm asking you whether you believe that or not, I'm not suggesting you do. Or are you incapable of realizing the difference?

Forced rehab is a form of incarceration, even if it involves some sort of house arrest. Clearly, that would be better than prison, but you're still not actually making the production/distribution/sale/possession of drugs legal, and so all of the negative effects of prohibition (including unregulated substances and the black market) still apply.

Alcoholics anonymous is equivalent to prison time? Fuck you're stupid.

I never once suggested that we change laws concerning driving while intoxicated. Those laws already cover drug use in addition to alcohol; it's even illegal to drive while under the influence of prescription medications that you have a valid prescription for if those medications impair your driving ability.

I fully support sending anyone who drives while intoxicated to a rehab program (and possibly prison depending on circumstances), regardless of whether the production/distribution/sale/possession of drugs are legalized.

You do love to make arguments against positions I;ve never stated, don't you?

These so-called strawmen are the natural consequences of your position. One you do not seem to have thought out very well, apparently. You also seem to have missed the point completely, which is to ask why a similar form of punishment we have in place for drunk driving could not also apply to public intoxication or other such charges of hard drugs as well, instead of mandatory jailtime. But hey, feel free to ignore the point and throw about fallacy names instead.

I fail to see how "popularity with society" has anything to do with how much harm they cause, how much harm they could cause if regulated by the government, and the cost of maintaining prohibition.

Whether or not the measure would be popular is directly proportionate to the realism of implementation. This is not a difficult concept to grasp, really. Suggesting something that sounds like a good idea but ignoring the realism of implementing it is stupid.

And I've asked you for what your criteria would be for determining which drugs to legalize and which to continue prohibiting. You have still declined to be specific in that regard, beyond "it depends on how much they fuck you up." You've also ignored the likelihood that regulated versions of those same drugs are less likely to "fuck you up" as badly.

Because not all drugs are created equally and it would require a far more detailed work than is capable of being done in this thread? Only an idiot thinks that all drugs should be treated the same.

Implementation isn't the problem, Zod. We have a proven model with the legalization and regulation of alcohol. There's no reason to assume that the government would be magically incapable of regulating drugs in a similar way.

There's no reason to assume they would be just as capable either.

The problems inherent with any proposal for legalization include the rate legalization would possibly increase usage, and the potential increased rate of consumption per user. There is insufficient data to make any solid conclusions regarding these variables.

Then why are you insisting that your idea is superior? It's completely illogical to assume that an idea would be superior to what we have already when there's no data to support such a claim, just because the current method isn't working very well.

The other major obstacle is the likelihood of any such proposal to gain enough support to actually be implemented in the first place - but that has nothing to do with a discussion on whether the proposal would work or not. This is an internet message board, not Congress. Assumption of passage is inherent in any "would this work" discussion.

Says who? This is like arguing that communism is a great idea on paper even though it ignores how people would actually react to such a thing being implemented. You can't ask whether or not something would work without taking into account how the public would react to it, that's just being a wanker.

[Rahvin]

The underground trade would continue because at a bare minimum, we would put age restrictions on legal usage. That means all of the underage kids who want to do drugs would still have to go to illegal dealers.

True - but would the loss of sales to adults be enough to cripple the cash flow of the drug cartels? There's a "black market" of sorts for selling alcohol and tobacco to children as well - but it mostly takes the form of fake IDs and unscrupulous shop owners (as well as theft from parents, or irresponsible parents). I fail to see how a situation with legalized drugs would be significantly different. With legalization, the drugs are already here, with no need for a cartel to smuggle anything, and no "turf" for gangs to fight over. It would be easier for a kid to buy a fake ID, or pay an adult to buy the drugs for them - just like right now with alcohol and tobacco.

Moreover, the effect would obviously not be immediate; it would probably take years of wrangling before a legal framework could be constructed for legalized production and distribution of drugs. And then you would need to have watchdog organizations set up, you would need to create new zoning regulations, you would have massive political battles over where to allow such activity, you would have massive fights between state and federal levels, you would have massive fights between municipal and state levels, etc.

I never claimed any of the effects would be immediate. Setting up watchdog operations shouldn't pose too much of a problem, considering that we already have such organizations in place for the regulation of production/distribution/sale of alcohol and tobacco. The same agencies could, with increased manpower, be retasked to include drugs as well. Zoning regualtions should be similar to alcohol - we already don't typically allow the sale of alcohol too close to schools, for example. We also don't allow public drunkenness - public intoxication laws should cover drug use just as well. Keep it in a licensed commercial establishment like a bar, or do it at home, not on the street.

If you honestly think you could just legalize drugs and instantly kill the drug trade overnight, you must be on drugs yourself.

Again, I never stated that the effects would be immediate. Commercial production for drugs wouldn't even be able to begin immediately, meaning even after ending prohibition, drugs would still be illegal by all available production means for a time.

I'm not even proposing that legalization would completely eliminate illegal and unregulated production, only that it would drastically reduce them. Hopefully, enough to cripple the drug cartels as most of their drug money now goes to legal, commercial producers and taxes.

It might be a good idea in the long run, but it would not have the dramatic immediate effects that you seem to think it would. In the short run, nothing would perceptibly change at all. Do you really think businesses are going to leap at the chance to pour capital into such a risky new venture so quickly, when they have no idea if you'll turn around and recriminalize it tomorrow?

Certainly not. But since many illegal drugs are already used for medical purposes (with well-understood effects and standardized dosages/contents), those same production facilities could simply ramp up production for commercial sale.

The economy of scale for drugs that also have medicinal use could potentially even lower the cost of those medications in general.

But during the time lapse from legalization until legal production, we're simply talking about no real change at all (except that perhaps possession would no longer be criminal, and only production/sale of unregulated drugs would result in a prison term, similar to alcohol today). It doesn't make anything worse at that point. Once commercial production begins and legal drugs are made available, the cartels should begin to see their profits shrink. Over time, the effect should be to drastically reduce the harm caused by the drug cartels (and domestic drug gangs) by reducing their funding, influence, and presence. Just like what happened with bootleggers when Prohibition ended.

[Darth Wong]

Setting up watchdog operations shouldn't pose too much of a problem, considering that we already have such organizations in place for the regulation of production/distribution/sale of alcohol and tobacco. The same agencies could, with increased manpower, be retasked to include drugs as well.

You've obviously never had to administrate anything more complicated than a bandage to your knee.

[Rahvin]

Yet not all rehab is the same and only a moron would believe it is.

And I never claimed it was. I only stated that "forced rehab" isn't different from "send them to jail" as it pertains to this discussion, meaning "forced rehab" doesn't address regulation of production/distribution, doesn't address the black market, etc. no matter what form rehab takes.

So you don't actually know what a strawman is. I'm asking you whether you believe that or not, I'm not suggesting you do. Or are you incapable of realizing the difference?

Forgive me for assuming that you meant to imply that I actually believed that rehab always involved "locking people away in a room with padded walls until they're clean." That was the clear implication of asking that question.

In case the answer wasn't clear by my response, no, I don't believe that all (or even most) rehab involves a padded cell. Most rehab I've heard of is more like a retreat, with group therapy and counciling, and relative freedom in comparison to prison.

But again, regardless of teh form rehab takes (even if it only means forced attendance to NA meetings), the issues of unregulated production and the black market remain.

Alcoholics anonymous is equivalent to prison time? Fuck you're stupid.

I don't generally count AA as rehab. But if you want to include that in your definition, that's fine - it still doesn't address the issues of unregulated production and the black market.

These so-called strawmen are the natural consequences of your position. One you do not seem to have thought out very well, apparently. You also seem to have missed the point completely, which is to ask why a similar form of punishment we have in place for drunk driving could not also apply to public intoxication or other such charges of hard drugs as well, instead of mandatory jailtime. But hey, feel free to ignore the point and throw about fallacy names instead.

Are you incapable of comprehending what you read?

Throughout the thread I've supported treating legalized drugs similarly to the way we treat alcohol. As I said in the very post you're responding to,

"Those laws already cover drug use in addition to alcohol; it's even illegal to drive while under the influence of prescription medications that you have a valid prescription for if those medications impair your driving ability.

I fully support sending anyone who drives while intoxicated to a rehab program (and possibly prison depending on circumstances), regardless of whether the production/distribution/sale/possession of drugs are legalized."

I clearly advocated using similar forms of punishment for driving while intoxicated or public intoxication regardless of the source of that intoxication. Because, you know, those laws even already exist.

You created the strawman position that I supported something else for driving while high as opposed to driving while drunk. I never supported any such position.

Whether or not the measure would be popular is directly proportionate to the realism of implementation. This is not a difficult concept to grasp, really. Suggesting something that sounds like a good idea but ignoring the realism of implementing it is stupid.

And if this were a body that had actual power to implement any idea, I might agree with you.

But we have discussions on a variety of things that, realistically, will never pass in the US. Things like massive changeovers to nuclear power, for instance. This is an internet debate board. We can discuss whether a proposed solution would be effective if implemented without considering the likelihood of its real-world implementation.

Because not all drugs are created equally and it would require a far more detailed work than is capable of being done in this thread? Only an idiot thinks that all drugs should be treated the same.

It's rather difficult to debate a position that you won't actually share with the rest of us, Zod. If you gave me some specifics, it's possible I might even agree with you in some (or even all) cases. Instead, you're making mere statements that "they're not all the same." We know that. I acknowledge that. Meth is more likely to have a negative effect than marijuana.

But given that regulated drugs are likely to be safer than unregulated drugs, and given that drug users use drugs regardless of whether those drugs are legal or not, it would seem that legalization and regulation would reduce the harm drug users do to themselves, and thus the burden to society that users represent.

There may well be certain drugs that cause sufficiently consistent and potent negative effects that even regulated versions would not significantly reduce their harmfulness. But unless you give me your criteria for which to make such a distinction, I can't say whether we agree or disagree.

There's no reason to assume they would be just as capable either.

We have a historical example of successful regulation of an extremely popular substance whose illegal production and distribution was previously supported by a black market ruled by large organised crime syndicates.

This is not suggestive that the government would likely be capable of repeating the same feat with regards to legalizing drugs how, exactly?

Then why are you insisting that your idea is superior? It's completely illogical to assume that an idea would be superior to what we have already when there's no data to support such a claim, just because the current method isn't working very well.

Because the data we do have (that drug cartels depend on prohibition to continue their trade, that unregulated products are less safe than regulated versions, that regulated production facilities are safer than homebrew labs, the success at the end of alcohol prohibition, etc) does support the conclusion that legalization would be superior.

The data we don't have doesn't prevent us from drawing tentative conclusions from the data we do have. I would imagine that, were legalization seriously discussed in an actual government body, studies would be undertaken to determine whether the number of users would increase, and whether those who use would increase their consumption.

Says who? This is like arguing that communism is a great idea on paper even though it ignores how people would actually react to such a thing being implemented. You can't ask whether or not something would work without taking into account how the public would react to it, that's just being a wanker.

I suppose we should just stop all of our discussions on solutions for Peak Oil, or global warming, or anything else where actual solutions are unlikely to gain enough support to actually happen.

Full legalization isn't likely to happen now, or in the immediate future. But if marijuana is legalized (which has a far greater chance of happening), it may spark a new public discourse on all drug prohibition. Pending the success of legalizing pot, legalization may become a real possibility.

[Kanastrous]

Setting up watchdog operations shouldn't pose too much of a problem, considering that we already have such organizations in place for the regulation of production/distribution/sale of alcohol and tobacco. The same agencies could, with increased manpower, be retasked to include drugs as well.

You've obviously never had to administrate anything more complicated than a bandage to your knee.

Specifically in the case of marijuana there's already an administrative/oversight mechanism that's been in place for decades: the Marijuana Stamp Tax. A step toward regulated trade in marijuana a la tobacco or alcohol could be started up based upon using that existing mechanism and actually issuing the stamps, rather than just creating them for the purpose of witholding them in order to stifle the trade.

[Rahvin]

Setting up watchdog operations shouldn't pose too much of a problem, considering that we already have such organizations in place for the regulation of production/distribution/sale of alcohol and tobacco. The same agencies could, with increased manpower, be retasked to include drugs as well.

You've obviously never had to administrate anything more complicated than a bandage to your knee.

Why could the agencies that already regulate alcohol and tobacco not also regulate drugs, given increased manpower?

Is there some barrier to expanding the scope of a regulatory agency to include new substances with similar regulations?

If the US is currently capable of regulating the production/distribution/sale of alcohol and tobacco, why could we not also be capable of regulating marijuana? Heroin? Cocaine?

New laws and standards would be needed, and it's probable that we'd need to enact prohibition piecemeal, developing regulatory standards for each drug rather than attempting everything at once.

But what makes expanding the scope of a regulatory agency that already oversees the production/distribution of some commercially available controlled substances to include additional commercially available controlled substances impossible?

[General Zod]

And I never claimed it was. I only stated that "forced rehab" isn't different from "send them to jail" as it pertains to this discussion, meaning "forced rehab" doesn't address regulation of production/distribution, doesn't address the black market, etc. no matter what form rehab takes.

Because that's not the point of suggesting it. This isn't difficult to comprehend.

Forgive me for assuming that you meant to imply that I actually believed that rehab always involved "locking people away in a room with padded walls until they're clean." That was the clear implication of asking that question.

What kind of moron assumes that being asked a question implies he supports that position?

But again, regardless of teh form rehab takes (even if it only means forced attendance to NA meetings), the issues of unregulated production and the black market remain.

And once again that is not the point.

I fully support sending anyone who drives while intoxicated to a rehab program (and possibly prison depending on circumstances), regardless of whether the production/distribution/sale/possession of drugs are legalized."

I clearly advocated using similar forms of punishment for driving while intoxicated or public intoxication regardless of the source of that intoxication. Because, you know, those laws even already exist.

You created the strawman position that I supported something else for driving while high as opposed to driving while drunk. I never supported any such position.

Then you clearly missed the point I was getting at. If you don't have an issue with the standards we use for intoxicated driving, then why can the same standards not be applied to other problems involving hard drug use that doesn't necessarily entail driving?

And if this were a body that had actual power to implement any idea, I might agree with you.

But we have discussions on a variety of things that, realistically, will never pass in the US. Things like massive changeovers to nuclear power, for instance. This is an internet debate board. We can discuss whether a proposed solution would be effective if implemented without considering the likelihood of its real-world implementation.

This is why you're a fucking idiot. Regulations cannot be effective if they are immensely unpopular with the public to the point they're impossible to enforce. This is why prohibition was actually repealed, and turned out to be impractical you know.

We have a historical example of successful regulation of an extremely popular substance whose illegal production and distribution was previously supported by a black market ruled by large organised crime syndicates.

This is not suggestive that the government would likely be capable of repeating the same feat with regards to legalizing drugs how, exactly?

Alcohol was previously regulated by the government before they made it illegal, then they resumed regulation. It's not as if they were creating the structure for regulation from scratch.

Because the data we do have (that drug cartels depend on prohibition to continue their trade, that unregulated products are less safe than regulated versions, that regulated production facilities are safer than homebrew labs, the success at the end of alcohol prohibition, etc) does support the conclusion that legalization would be superior.

The data we don't have doesn't prevent us from drawing tentative conclusions from the data we do have. I would imagine that, were legalization seriously discussed in an actual government body, studies would be undertaken to determine whether the number of users would increase, and whether those who use would increase their consumption.

So you suggest we take a move that contains massive risks for a questionable benefit instead?

I suppose we should just stop all of our discussions on solutions for Peak Oil, or global warming, or anything else where actual solutions are unlikely to gain enough support to actually happen.

Don't be such a wanker. I'm not suggesting that these arguments be discontinued, I'm suggesting that it's stupid to make them without taking public reaction into account.

Full legalization isn't likely to happen now, or in the immediate future. But if marijuana is legalized (which has a far greater chance of happening), it may spark a new public discourse on all drug prohibition. Pending the success of legalizing pot, legalization may become a real possibility.

If marijuana is legalized then you'll have more data to actually argue your position. Until then it's based entirely on conjecture.

[Darth Wong]

Setting up watchdog operations shouldn't pose too much of a problem, considering that we already have such organizations in place for the regulation of production/distribution/sale of alcohol and tobacco. The same agencies could, with increased manpower, be retasked to include drugs as well.

You've obviously never had to administrate anything more complicated than a bandage to your knee.

Why could the agencies that already regulate alcohol and tobacco not also regulate drugs, given increased manpower?

Have you ever heard of the phrase "easier said than done"? Do you honestly think it's as simple as waving a magic wand and saying "more manpower"? Just how fucking stupid are you, seriously?