The drug problem was studied years ago by the RAND corporation and the US Military - a pure cost-benefit analysis. They found that treatment and education are the most cost effective way to deal with the drug problem, and that prohibition was the most costly and ineffective means of dealing with it.
Therefore the government understands that the war on drugs is likely to be unsuccessful, and we have to ask ourselves, why do they persist with it? A few reasons present themselves: Ideological motivations, they just don't like the drugs. The fact that if you terrify the population you can use that as means for greater political control and discipline. And the fact that Tobacco and Alcohol companies would likely suffer as a result of drug legalisation, like cannabis.
Lastly the CIA has been found to be involved in the drug trade on a vast scale. This is not a conspiracy, there are many well-documented books on this. They need large sums of untraceable money for clandestine operations, and drugs are an ideal source of this.
The government persists with the drug war because Americans have a moral opposition to drug use: http://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2014/study-public-fe.... When I was a kid in the 1990's, 70-80% of polled adults wanted to make even marijuana illegal. For drugs aside from marijuana, that's still the case.
Your alternate theories about money and control directly contradict the history of prohibition. Did you know that at the time alcohol prohibition was instituted, fully 1/3 of the federal budget came from liquor taxes? Alcohol producers were incredibly powerful, yet their product was banned because of moral panic. To a significant degree, women's' suffrage happened when it did so they could vote for prohibition.
There is a great PBS series on this: http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/prohibition. It's a story of a grass-roots national movement of Americans, many of them heretofore politically marginalized, rising up against money and power to effect change.
I always wonder what would happen to drug use if it was widely and easily available. Would usage drop because it wouldn't be "rebellious" to get drugs?
That was at least the motivation for a lot of younger drug users I know.
In my country (India), there is a region in the Himalayas - Kasaul - where marijuana grows in the wild. It is so easily accessible that you can literally pluck some on a walk through the forest.
You'd expect with such easy availability, the locals would be all addled on weed/hashish all the time. Yet, most locals tend to be non-users. Most users tend to be tourists and outsiders who come solely for the purportedly "best in the world" hashish
They're not the only ones who benefit from the drug war. It's a tool in order to allow for mass incarceration of "undesirable people". The book "The New Jim Crow" by Michelle Alexander really spoke to me as a resident of Philadelphia. I knew full well that if a cop found 1/4oz of weed or less on me, they wouldn't do anything...but if I was black, I'd be put in jail. Now that marijuana has been "decriminalized" (I call it "equalizing" the law because it's now fair for all people) in Philadelphia, that's not as much of a problem in my city...but I'm pretty sure statewide it's still a big problem. Essentially, I think the drug war is a big, lame excuse for putting people in jail.
> why do they persist with it? A few reasons present themselves
Also: theatre.
Much like a lot of airport/airline security measures are theatre to reassure the common people that something is being done, the war on drugs continues because people who don't know any better (or don't believe the ineffectiveness argument) will feel less safe if it officially stops or even steps down a notch. This situation perpetuates itself, and any escalation doesn't get reversed, and feeds into the politics point others have already mentioned because people feeling less safe are less likely to vote for you next time.
My understanding wasnt that the CIA was directly involved in the drug trade, but that their normal activities create infrastructure for their partners that are shady international organizations that operate outside local laws naturally creates drug smuggling networks.
They work with local organized crime to create covert hideouts and border crossings for CIA use, and give them funding and weapons in exchange, and things like the drug trade come out of that almost automatically.
My favorite conspiracy theory regarding drug legalization is, "the rich" will want to legalize drugs to get rid of "the poor" on the theory that people who've been put out of work by machines are an unnecessary burden, and that widespread use of drugs among such people is a good way to reduce their numbers.
(I don't quite "believe" this theory in the sense of imagining a bunch of rich people sitting in a room, conspiring about this and cackling evilly. I "believe" in this more in the sense of, I think drugs are very bad for you on average and they certainly are the #1 cause of untimely death among the people I've personally known, and I think that the kind of people making policy decisions will not be that upset if large numbers of poorer people are very adversely affected by legalization, any more than they are upset by the adverse effects of draconian prohibition measures.)
Politicians do whatever gets them, and keeps them, elected. If they poll and find 70% of their electorate are in favor of something, guess how they're going to vote?
I really don't understand why people put themselves in echo chambers then complain to each other why the world is the way it is. It's a waste of time.
The government is made up of people who respond to incentives. The war on drugs is happening because American voters will crucify politicians who are "soft on drugs". Since the politicians can't be "soft on drugs", neither can the appointed bureaucrats that answer to them.
> Tobacco and Alcohol companies would likely suffer as a result of drug legalisation, like cannabis.
To state this in another way- think of all of the Budweiser/Bud Light sponsorships and commercials and replace that Bud with the other kind of bud. That's about the scale and usage to expect, at the very least, if cannabis were to be completely legal everywhere alcohol is.
And all of the abuse, drunk driving, etc? Increase that somewhat. They won't be able to control all of it with treatment and education any more than they have with alcohol. Also, imagine the level of drinking at work even in the 1940's and 50's after alcohol prohibition was lifted.
Aside from cannabis, think of all of the other drugs that could be abused. Yes, drug violence, etc. will go down, but there is a tradeoff.
I suspect a major cause is that prohibition is a well known method, used to handle other substances which the state wants to limit access to. Narcotics is intended for medicine and research, which makes it easy to regulate to licensed organizations. They use the same method for substances that is used to create explosives, weapon components, radioactive material, and so on. In Sweden, even things like pure alcohol or pure oxygen is regulated and require a license, since the target audience for that is quite narrow.
No one ever got fired for buying IBM, and no politician got blamed if they create regulations that limit use to only the intended target audience. Its not about being effective.
So far as I understand, a treaty[1][2] is the root of this problem. I assume that the validity and efficacy of this treaty will come into question April 19 through 21. Amending this treaty would pave the way for sensible drug control.
And yet, there are plenty of Asian countries (Singapore, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, etc) where drug laws are much stricter than the US's, there are very few drug addicts, and there is very little crime.
What the government knows (legalization with education and rehab being better than current methods) and what it does is normal. The government consists of hundreds of thousands of employees (military, civilian and contractor) plus a small handful of politicians who decide the rules.
Being politicians, it doesn't matter so much what they know as what their constituents want (or believe they want). Which leads to the government being a screwed up, multi-headed entity with many competing and opposing objectives and directives.
To your reasons, I'd add financial interests of those involved in the WoD. Think of pre-trial asset confiscation, WoD-based grants to local law enforcement, $ to aerospace companies for WoD surveillance and detection technology, etc.
Legalization would hit many powerful interests in their revenue streams.
Can't "keep the black men as much as possible in prison" probably also play a "minor" role? War on drugs hits the poor and black communities the most. That is by design - the crack cocaine 100 times as powder cocaine being good example.
A lot of people in law enforcement, prisons, CIA and defense industry probably also did a cost-benefit analysis and found that prohibition is a very effective way to keep their jobs.
> A few reasons present themselves: Ideological motivations, they just don't like the drugs. The fact that if you terrify the population you can use that as means for greater political control and discipline. And the fact that Tobacco and Alcohol companies would likely suffer as a result of drug legalisation, like cannabis.
I'm sure those are all factors, but I bet the biggest factor is just police forces pushing for huge amounts of federal funding.
Right. Can verify. Step one of the CIA "send operations people into a country to fuck them up" is generating the money necessary for the operation locally (with the first recommendation towards that goal being to deal drugs). Global drug legalization would make it very hard for the CIA to undermine foreign governments so quickly. If you take drugs out of the equation, it is hard to generate lots of cash quickly.
Also because the ATF and law enforcement agencies get huge funding allocations fighting drugs and have lobbied for more and stricter laws as well as increased spending; it's become culturalized and almost a heritage to the point of being something families and groups rely on almost religiously throughout generations, not to mention the moralities mixed in heavily with religion.
NNo, some people who work in the government understand that. Others have conflicting interests of cognitive biases or are stupid or have other reasons for disagreeing. 'The government' is simply not a monolithic entity and outside of certain narrow legal contexts pretending that it is leads to fallacious conclusions.
Or maybe they don't see Drugs as a problem. I don't think e.g. Victorian aristocrats saw poverty as a problem or that the slave traders saw exhaustion or torture and other forms of violence as a problem, far from it. I believe slaves would rather be given coffee instead of food coffee.
> And the fact that Tobacco and Alcohol companies would likely suffer as a result of drug legalisation, like cannabis.
is that true? these things aren't really mutually exclusive right? this is just my supposition, but I would imagine that there is market synergy between legal cannabis and alcohol and tobacco.
Nearly all countries have some ban so I doubt full legalization is the answer. I think if you approach it to minimise harm you'd probably have varying policies depending on the drug and the situation. For example cannabis, maybe legalize and tax like cigarettes. Stuff like Heroin and Meth don't legalize private sales but let drug counsellors hand it out to addicts to kill the illegal market, prevent them being harmed by contaminated drugs and stop them breaking and nicking stuff.
(basically, a drug user's paradise: a "consumption space" injection rooms, clean drugs available, medical attention and reanimation in case of overdose, therapy programs and support programs with the intention to help people quit drugs without stigmatizing them and pushing them to it).
It is immensely successful. Drug crime becoming nonexistent here. The number of drug users is also decreasing, as drugs are now decriminalized, uncool, readily available and coming with friendly doctors and therapists.
I've always thought that, in the US, that States could provide a perfect market testing platform for various social ideas.
You don't want abortion? Make Kansas, say, a no abortion state.
Legalized drugs? Head your head to Colorado.
Socialism? Sure New Hampshire is almost there already anyway.
Well, you get the point. It's been proven that actual markets almost always work as well if not better than diktat, so these "experiments" could be monitored and all the rest.
I mean, why not give something totally new a try?
What we have now is killing people and ruining their lives as I personally live through its failings everyday.
The best argument I know for legalizing drugs is the market argument. As long as demand exist (obvious, or nobody would care), supply will rise to meet it. Law enforcement tactics that see rising drug prices as a sign of success only make the market more profitable.
While many people engage in the popular delusion that people stop an activity when you pass laws banning, it's patently obvious that banning drugs is about as successful de facto as banning abortions. This means the real question isn't about the existence of a market for drugs.
Instead, laws that affect the market for drugs are about who is allowed to be the "supply" side of the equation. Obviously, some type of regulated market would be recommended if we want to have any amount of control over the market. Instead, we pass laws that ban legitimate businesses from entering this market, which is by definition a choice to turn the drug market over to criminals. By definition.
I suggest that choosing to give organized crime and violent gangs the profits from this high-value market. Usually, this is when prohibitionists claim that they can force the market to not exist by giving the supply side even more profit with ever stricter enforcement.
There's a strong parallel between drug policy and sex education policy. If you acknowledge that sex is a thing people are simply going to do and you give them the information they need to do it safely and throw in a free condom or two, STDs and unwanted pregnancies are kept under good control. If your policy is "you don't need education and condoms if you just don't do it!" then STDs and unwanted pregnancies soar.
In the case of drugs, it is clear that people will use them regardless. So the question for policymakers can't be "how do we stop people using drugs?", it has to be "given that people will use drugs, how do we minimise the harm caused?"
The other interesting parallel is ashtrays in aeroplane toilets. Supposedly they're there because sometimes, despite the warnings and no-smoking signs, people light up in the loo anyway. It's better for them to have an ashtray to put the cigarette out in than to try to improvise and possibly start a fire. In a situation where a planeload of passenger's lives could be at stake, there's no room for moral grandstanding - they've done the pragmatic thing and realised that when total prohibition cannot be enforced, you simply do what you can to minimise the damage.
One problem is that some people's careers in law enforcement are built on the "war on drugs". They need drugs to be illegal in order to justify the existence of their jobs and the meaning of their entire working lives so far.
> By contrast, there has been a near tripling of American deaths from heroin overdoses between 2010 and 2013, even though the law and its severe punishments remain unchanged.
But why heroin usage has raised?
I have read an (very convincing) argument that heroin usage is increasing due to the marijuana legalization. And no, it's not the typical "marijuana is a door the heavier drugs" thing, is merely supply and demand effect on the streets. Street dealers don't really sell weed as they used to now that better and legal weed exist, so they went on heroin. Heroin got a lot cheaper and widely available due to it (Unfortunately, I lost the article link).
I'm not arguing in favor or against legalization (I'm in favor all the way), my complain is how one folded the debate is. Numbers are great and they are definitely needed, but they may trick you into thinking that everything has a simple cause and effect when reality is much more complicated.
One striking example how lazy is legislation is the case of safer chemicals such as LSD or MDMA versus designer drugs such as 25i (nbomb). In some places such designer drugs are even legal (bath salts anyone?) due to how slow or careless the legislation is. As for LSD it's a long time in prison. The dealers are coerced to sell more dangerous substances.
We were taught both sides of the story in our "drug diversion impact on public health" classes. Decriminalisation opens opportunities up to reduce harm to the public through reduced drug-related crimes, safer injecting (of the hard stuff) and less blood-borne viruses spreading. Australia has its own version of decriminalization known as the "harm minimisation policy". While all drug-related activities are illegal there, the judicial and healthcare systems are not so black and white about enforcing the laws.
Nonetheless, the other hand always wants its share. In the case of Australia, harm minimisation has reduced drug-related crimes, but the prevalence of drug use in the general population continues to rise, especially with regard to pills and amphetamines. Blood borne viruses are also on the rise, despite the ubiquity of safe injecting rooms in every major city and availability of "sharps kits" in every retail pharmacy.
Interestingly, the conservative party temporarily swayed from this stance and implemented a "tough on drugs" policy for part of the 90s[1]. It was dubbed to the wider public as a "harm prevention" measure i.e. protecting those yet to experiment with drugs and the wider community that didn't use illicit drugs regularly. There was a significant reduction in every measure: drug use, drug crime and spread of blood-borne viruses. This policy did not cut safe injecting and drug use services, but increased police activity and ephemeral "say no to drugs" cut-through education programs. The policy was reversed in the early 2000s.
ALL drugs should be legal. At least in the sense that using is not a criminal offence. Once drugs are legalised, regulated, quality assured by the government, and of course taxed, a large proportion of crime will be eradicated. Why would I buy illegal dirty drugs when I can buy the cleaner official versions?
I think if drugs themselves were legalized, non-violent drug offenders pardoned, and then former drug trafficking cartels treated legally as terrorist organizations - we would get somewhere. I really have no problem tight packing prisons if it's full of violent thugs. The only problem is how this could potentially affect the second amendment - because the war on drugs would no longer be on unarmed drug users, it would be solely on violence. Using an umbrella term like terrorism to encompass the actions of cartel gang members could potentially lead to further racial divides. It's tough. But legalize pot please, ha!
What about people that are involved in illegal drug industry after legalizing drugs? Most of them know only how to deal drugs, know only crime, they will need to find new way to make money and probably it will not be a legal one.
So i don't know if it's better that someone stay on corner and sell cocaine to people that WANT cocaine, without (in most cases) hurt anyone else in the process OR make that person steal, extort etc.
nitpick but important: it's time to decriminalize, not legalize.
The distinction is that we need to maintain a government force to compel the non-use of drugs that cause public harm. We need to make drug-use punishable, on the level of littering, trespass, vandalism, and disturbing the peace.
We need to be able to confine people who lose control of themselves and cause public harm when they are high, or in service of their high, but that confinement should be treatment oriented, not punishment oriented.
[+] [-] Synaesthesia|10 years ago|reply
Therefore the government understands that the war on drugs is likely to be unsuccessful, and we have to ask ourselves, why do they persist with it? A few reasons present themselves: Ideological motivations, they just don't like the drugs. The fact that if you terrify the population you can use that as means for greater political control and discipline. And the fact that Tobacco and Alcohol companies would likely suffer as a result of drug legalisation, like cannabis.
Lastly the CIA has been found to be involved in the drug trade on a vast scale. This is not a conspiracy, there are many well-documented books on this. They need large sums of untraceable money for clandestine operations, and drugs are an ideal source of this.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR331.html
Noam Chomsky on the War on Drugs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-JX0yXDlh8
[+] [-] rayiner|10 years ago|reply
Your alternate theories about money and control directly contradict the history of prohibition. Did you know that at the time alcohol prohibition was instituted, fully 1/3 of the federal budget came from liquor taxes? Alcohol producers were incredibly powerful, yet their product was banned because of moral panic. To a significant degree, women's' suffrage happened when it did so they could vote for prohibition.
There is a great PBS series on this: http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/prohibition. It's a story of a grass-roots national movement of Americans, many of them heretofore politically marginalized, rising up against money and power to effect change.
[+] [-] puranjay|10 years ago|reply
That was at least the motivation for a lot of younger drug users I know.
In my country (India), there is a region in the Himalayas - Kasaul - where marijuana grows in the wild. It is so easily accessible that you can literally pluck some on a walk through the forest.
You'd expect with such easy availability, the locals would be all addled on weed/hashish all the time. Yet, most locals tend to be non-users. Most users tend to be tourists and outsiders who come solely for the purportedly "best in the world" hashish
[+] [-] tomphoolery|10 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Jim_Crow
[+] [-] dspillett|10 years ago|reply
Also: theatre.
Much like a lot of airport/airline security measures are theatre to reassure the common people that something is being done, the war on drugs continues because people who don't know any better (or don't believe the ineffectiveness argument) will feel less safe if it officially stops or even steps down a notch. This situation perpetuates itself, and any escalation doesn't get reversed, and feeds into the politics point others have already mentioned because people feeling less safe are less likely to vote for you next time.
[+] [-] dragonwriter|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jMyles|10 years ago|reply
It is absolutely a conspiracy, just one that happens to actually have occurred and probably continues to occur.
[+] [-] Pxtl|10 years ago|reply
They work with local organized crime to create covert hideouts and border crossings for CIA use, and give them funding and weapons in exchange, and things like the drug trade come out of that almost automatically.
[+] [-] _yosefk|10 years ago|reply
(I don't quite "believe" this theory in the sense of imagining a bunch of rich people sitting in a room, conspiring about this and cackling evilly. I "believe" in this more in the sense of, I think drugs are very bad for you on average and they certainly are the #1 cause of untimely death among the people I've personally known, and I think that the kind of people making policy decisions will not be that upset if large numbers of poorer people are very adversely affected by legalization, any more than they are upset by the adverse effects of draconian prohibition measures.)
[+] [-] melling|10 years ago|reply
I really don't understand why people put themselves in echo chambers then complain to each other why the world is the way it is. It's a waste of time.
[+] [-] ThrustVectoring|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] purpled_haze|10 years ago|reply
To state this in another way- think of all of the Budweiser/Bud Light sponsorships and commercials and replace that Bud with the other kind of bud. That's about the scale and usage to expect, at the very least, if cannabis were to be completely legal everywhere alcohol is.
And all of the abuse, drunk driving, etc? Increase that somewhat. They won't be able to control all of it with treatment and education any more than they have with alcohol. Also, imagine the level of drinking at work even in the 1940's and 50's after alcohol prohibition was lifted.
Aside from cannabis, think of all of the other drugs that could be abused. Yes, drug violence, etc. will go down, but there is a tradeoff.
[+] [-] belorn|10 years ago|reply
I suspect a major cause is that prohibition is a well known method, used to handle other substances which the state wants to limit access to. Narcotics is intended for medicine and research, which makes it easy to regulate to licensed organizations. They use the same method for substances that is used to create explosives, weapon components, radioactive material, and so on. In Sweden, even things like pure alcohol or pure oxygen is regulated and require a license, since the target audience for that is quite narrow.
No one ever got fired for buying IBM, and no politician got blamed if they create regulations that limit use to only the intended target audience. Its not about being effective.
[+] [-] zamalek|10 years ago|reply
So far as I understand, a treaty[1][2] is the root of this problem. I assume that the validity and efficacy of this treaty will come into question April 19 through 21. Amending this treaty would pave the way for sensible drug control.
[1]: https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/single-convention.ht...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_...
[+] [-] jfmfhhdkdkd|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Jtsummers|10 years ago|reply
Being politicians, it doesn't matter so much what they know as what their constituents want (or believe they want). Which leads to the government being a screwed up, multi-headed entity with many competing and opposing objectives and directives.
[+] [-] ridgeguy|10 years ago|reply
Legalization would hit many powerful interests in their revenue streams.
[+] [-] venomsnake|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spacehome|10 years ago|reply
Of course it's a conspiracy.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy
[+] [-] maxxxxx|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baddox|10 years ago|reply
I'm sure those are all factors, but I bet the biggest factor is just police forces pushing for huge amounts of federal funding.
[+] [-] fapjacks|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] daveheq|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anigbrowl|10 years ago|reply
NNo, some people who work in the government understand that. Others have conflicting interests of cognitive biases or are stupid or have other reasons for disagreeing. 'The government' is simply not a monolithic entity and outside of certain narrow legal contexts pretending that it is leads to fallacious conclusions.
[+] [-] conceit|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] metaphorm|10 years ago|reply
is that true? these things aren't really mutually exclusive right? this is just my supposition, but I would imagine that there is market synergy between legal cannabis and alcohol and tobacco.
[+] [-] jksmith|10 years ago|reply
Refer to the character Lawrence Kramer in "Bonfire of the Vanities" talking about feeding "the chow" into the criminal justice system.
[+] [-] maxthegeek1|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tim333|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] atemerev|10 years ago|reply
http://www.premiereligne.ch/quai9/
(basically, a drug user's paradise: a "consumption space" injection rooms, clean drugs available, medical attention and reanimation in case of overdose, therapy programs and support programs with the intention to help people quit drugs without stigmatizing them and pushing them to it).
It is immensely successful. Drug crime becoming nonexistent here. The number of drug users is also decreasing, as drugs are now decriminalized, uncool, readily available and coming with friendly doctors and therapists.
[+] [-] iDemonix|10 years ago|reply
Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal-decr...
Source: http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blog/drug-decriminalisation-portugal-...
Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal
[+] [-] cubano|10 years ago|reply
You don't want abortion? Make Kansas, say, a no abortion state.
Legalized drugs? Head your head to Colorado.
Socialism? Sure New Hampshire is almost there already anyway.
Well, you get the point. It's been proven that actual markets almost always work as well if not better than diktat, so these "experiments" could be monitored and all the rest.
I mean, why not give something totally new a try?
What we have now is killing people and ruining their lives as I personally live through its failings everyday.
[+] [-] pdkl95|10 years ago|reply
While many people engage in the popular delusion that people stop an activity when you pass laws banning, it's patently obvious that banning drugs is about as successful de facto as banning abortions. This means the real question isn't about the existence of a market for drugs.
Instead, laws that affect the market for drugs are about who is allowed to be the "supply" side of the equation. Obviously, some type of regulated market would be recommended if we want to have any amount of control over the market. Instead, we pass laws that ban legitimate businesses from entering this market, which is by definition a choice to turn the drug market over to criminals. By definition.
I suggest that choosing to give organized crime and violent gangs the profits from this high-value market. Usually, this is when prohibitionists claim that they can force the market to not exist by giving the supply side even more profit with ever stricter enforcement.
[+] [-] mjw_byrne|10 years ago|reply
In the case of drugs, it is clear that people will use them regardless. So the question for policymakers can't be "how do we stop people using drugs?", it has to be "given that people will use drugs, how do we minimise the harm caused?"
The other interesting parallel is ashtrays in aeroplane toilets. Supposedly they're there because sometimes, despite the warnings and no-smoking signs, people light up in the loo anyway. It's better for them to have an ashtray to put the cigarette out in than to try to improvise and possibly start a fire. In a situation where a planeload of passenger's lives could be at stake, there's no room for moral grandstanding - they've done the pragmatic thing and realised that when total prohibition cannot be enforced, you simply do what you can to minimise the damage.
[+] [-] topsphere|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oh_sigh|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kazinator|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pigpaws|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] talles|10 years ago|reply
But why heroin usage has raised?
I have read an (very convincing) argument that heroin usage is increasing due to the marijuana legalization. And no, it's not the typical "marijuana is a door the heavier drugs" thing, is merely supply and demand effect on the streets. Street dealers don't really sell weed as they used to now that better and legal weed exist, so they went on heroin. Heroin got a lot cheaper and widely available due to it (Unfortunately, I lost the article link).
I'm not arguing in favor or against legalization (I'm in favor all the way), my complain is how one folded the debate is. Numbers are great and they are definitely needed, but they may trick you into thinking that everything has a simple cause and effect when reality is much more complicated.
One striking example how lazy is legislation is the case of safer chemicals such as LSD or MDMA versus designer drugs such as 25i (nbomb). In some places such designer drugs are even legal (bath salts anyone?) due to how slow or careless the legislation is. As for LSD it's a long time in prison. The dealers are coerced to sell more dangerous substances.
[+] [-] skyhatch1|10 years ago|reply
Nonetheless, the other hand always wants its share. In the case of Australia, harm minimisation has reduced drug-related crimes, but the prevalence of drug use in the general population continues to rise, especially with regard to pills and amphetamines. Blood borne viruses are also on the rise, despite the ubiquity of safe injecting rooms in every major city and availability of "sharps kits" in every retail pharmacy.
Interestingly, the conservative party temporarily swayed from this stance and implemented a "tough on drugs" policy for part of the 90s[1]. It was dubbed to the wider public as a "harm prevention" measure i.e. protecting those yet to experiment with drugs and the wider community that didn't use illicit drugs regularly. There was a significant reduction in every measure: drug use, drug crime and spread of blood-borne viruses. This policy did not cut safe injecting and drug use services, but increased police activity and ephemeral "say no to drugs" cut-through education programs. The policy was reversed in the early 2000s.
[1] https://www.unodc.org/documents/ungass2016/Contributions/Civ...
[+] [-] harel|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iolothebard|10 years ago|reply
Just like getting simple tax code, lots of accountants/lawyers, etc.
[+] [-] bunkydoo|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lossolo|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] frogpelt|10 years ago|reply
Stop and ask this question: Why do we as a society need more and more and MORE mind-altering substances to cope with life?
Seriously.
Is society headed in the right direction if almost everyone needs some type of external chemical influence just to get through the week?
I already have an answer.
[+] [-] timwaagh|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gohrt|10 years ago|reply
The distinction is that we need to maintain a government force to compel the non-use of drugs that cause public harm. We need to make drug-use punishable, on the level of littering, trespass, vandalism, and disturbing the peace.
We need to be able to confine people who lose control of themselves and cause public harm when they are high, or in service of their high, but that confinement should be treatment oriented, not punishment oriented.
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]