War on Drugs Cant Be Won, According to Global Leaders

[mlmpetert]

End the war brah.....seriously... time to release our POWs..... seriously brah

Global leaders call for a major shift to decriminalize drugs - Yahoo! News

[Redskins_P]

Legalize it!

[MTK]

Not only can it not be won, it was never a fair fight to begin with. From the beginning of time humans have sought ways to alter their reality. Decriminalizing is the only smart way to "fight" drugs. Locking people up is just silly and a huge waste of $$ and resources.

[mredskins]

Are we saying like all drugs or just like pot? Becasue if meth was legal we have a nation of zombies.

[MTK]

I'm all for legalizing weed, but not stuff like coke, heroin, etc. The harder stuff should be decriminalized though.

[JoeRedskin]

It is and has always been a public health issue. Regulate - but don't prohibit - its production, marketing and availability. Penalize it's "misuse" (i.e. driving, working, etc. while stoned; selling to minors; increased penalties for committing crimes while on regulated drugs, etc.). If you want to safely sit in your abode, smoke a billion joints, and ruin your life, fine - so long as your stupidity doesn't endanger me or mine.

Problem, of course, is two fold:

First, regardless of how well regulated, drugs will always have a large blackmarket b/c regulation is costly and adds to the cost of the product (who is going to know if I got my pot from a licensed seller or my neighbor growing plants illegally downstairs? - If I do so, am I fined? Do I go to jail? etc.). Also, sort a subsidiary of this, will all narcotics be legal? Arguably, some drugs may simply be unsafe regardless of regulation - Can I buy meth? PCP? While not "Reefer Madness", users of these drugs may not be able to effectively insulate their "altered reality" from the rest of us.

Second, and the larger problem I think, is that drug use has public health implications beyond it's immediate use. While the public harm is not as obvious, addiction is a costly drain. Readily accessible narcotics increase the likelihood of additiction and a resultant increased cost for both treatment of the addiction and for medical "injuries" resulting from the addiction. (Yes, I know alchohol and tobacco already create this and they are legal. Just pointing out we would be creating more such risks/costs).

While "decriminalization" always seems like a panacea, it is not the end all and be all. New and different costs will occur, some forseeable, some not.

With that said, and again, you want to smoke some pot in your house? Knock your bad self out.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I'm all for legalizing weed, but not stuff like coke, heroin, etc. The harder stuff should be decriminalized though.

Wait, if we are not "legalizing ... stuff like coke", but we are decriminalizing it, what are you suggesting? Can I snort coke in my house or not? Can I carry it around with me? Can I get a license to sell it? What about meth? Can I be arrested for mere possession? If I can possess it, I guess I can use it? Do I have to use it in a supervised manner or can I use it in my home? Around my kids? Around your kids?

etc. etc. etc.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Wait, if we are not "legalizing ... stuff like coke", but we are decriminalizing it, what are you suggesting? Can I snort coke in my house or not? Can I carry it around with me? Can I get a license to sell it? What about meth? Can I be arrested for mere possession? If I can possess it, I guess I can use it? Do I have to use it in a supervised manner or can I use it in my home? Around my kids? Around your kids?

etc. etc. etc.

For starters: reduce the severity of the penalties for possession, and definitely don't toss people in prison for using.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

It is and has always been a public health issue. Regulate - but don't prohibit - its production, marketing and availability. Penalize it's "misuse" (i.e. driving, working, etc. while stoned; selling to minors; increased penalties for committing crimes while on regulated drugs, etc.). If you want to safely sit in your abode, smoke a billion joints, and ruin your life, fine - so long as your stupidity doesn't endanger me or mine.

Problem, of course, is two fold:

First, regardless of how well regulated, drugs will always have a large blackmarket b/c regulation is costly and adds to the cost of the product (who is going to know if I got my pot from a licensed seller or my neighbor growing plants illegally downstairs? - If I do so, am I fined? Do I go to jail? etc.). Also, sort a subsidiary of this, will all narcotics be legal? Arguably, some drugs may simply be unsafe regardless of regulation - Can I buy meth? PCP? While not "Reefer Madness", users of these drugs may not be able to effectively insulate their "altered reality" from the rest of us.

Second, and the larger problem I think, is that drug use has public health implications beyond it's immediate use. While the public harm is not as obvious, addiction is a costly drain. Readily accessible narcotics increase the likelihood of additiction and a resultant increased cost for both treatment of the addiction and for medical "injuries" resulting from the addiction. (Yes, I know alchohol and tobacco already create this and they are legal. Just pointing out we would be creating more such risks/costs).

While "decriminalization" always seems like a panacea, it is not the end all and be all. New and different costs will occur, some forseeable, some not.

With that said, and again, you want to smoke some pot in your house? Knock your bad self out.

1. Why are drugs on the black-market inherently expensive? Even buying prescription drugs costs a pretty penny.
2. Would you rather buy alcohol and cigarettes from your neighbor downstairs or some guy on a corner or state liquor store and grocery stores?
3. Black-market drug producers have costs beyond the cost of the drugs themselves. How much less could these cost be compared to Phillip Morris and Pfizer?
4. Will making drugs legal increase consumption? How would legalization compare to current state of affairs?
5. Are soft drugs really a gateway to hard drugs?
6. What can we learn from are certain EU countries like the Netherlands and Spain and their drug policies?
7. Have you seen "Reefer Madness?"

[Dirtbag59]

Just seems like a terrible idea if you ask me. Making drugs like coke, meth, and heroine legal just seems like a great way to cause problems. I'm still reminded of an episode of bait car where a crazy guy on meth stole a car and went crazy while driving it.

Pot should probably be legal, but having experienced living next to and with pot heads it's not something I'm exactly eager to legalize. Plus the legalize pot movement overreaches when explaining the benefits of marijuana.

For example how it would replace narcotic pain relievers even though the only type of pain pot has been proven to relieve is nagging pain like arthritis and nerve pain. Not extreme pain that people experience after surgery.

I guess part of it is because Pot is more popular with the alternative medicine crowd that vilify doctors and think that Chiropractors and acupuncturist are legitimate medical professionals. So all of a sudden pot can treat everything from pain to color blindness. And people seem to be willing to run with it because for years the side effects of pot use have been overstated, so people making claims opposite of the "establishment" get the benefit of the doubt.

In the end pot is probably one of the most overrated plants on Earth. According to some it's the solution to a medical encyclopedic worth of illnesses and conditions as well as the perfect raw material to help industry reduce cost. When in fact it's simply a recreational drug that can help with a narrow scope of medical symptoms, while avoiding the type of damage that comes with long term use of drugs like alcohol.

Like I said probably should be legal but also just as dangerous might be the outrageous claims coming from the legalize pot movement.

Medical marijuana has been promoted for "compassionate use" to assist people with cancer, AIDS, and glaucoma. Scientific studies show the opposite is true; marijuana is damaging to individual with these illnesses. In fact, people suffering with AIDS and glaucoma are being used unfairly by groups whose real agenda is to legalized marijuana.

· AIDS: Scientific studies indicate marijuana damages the immune system, causing further peril to already weakened immune systems. HIV-positive marijuana smokers progress to full-blown AIDS twice as fast as non-smokers and have an increased incidence of bacterial pneumonia.

· Cancer: Marijuana contains many cancers-causing substances, many of which are present in higher concentrations in marijuana than tobacco.

· Glaucoma: Marijuana does not prevent blindness due to glaucoma

Also before you call me a hypocrite remember I don't drink (anymore) and I would fully support making cigarettes illegal. I only say this because the most common response to my "indifference" on pot seems to be "what about alcohol, how can you support alcohol/cigarettes and not pot?"

[mlmpetert]

^

Was the guy crazy because he was on meth or was he on meth because he was crazy? Like matty said I think its more about not putting people in prison for simple position or making people crimes more severe if committed on a regulated drug (ie armed robbery vs. robbery).

So my Grammy and others with arthritis or nerve pain shouldn’t have all treatment possibilities afforded to them?

And people that receive relief from chiropractors or acupuncturist should be dismissed and put on prescriptions drugs or forced into surgery or some other form of therapy?

You probably think hackie sacks are overrated too, don’t you brah?

Do you support making cigarettes illegal because you cant/couldnt control yourself from smoking or because others need to be controlled from marginally harming themselves overtime?

I just think your reasons sound selfish. Why shouldn’t I be allowed to treat my body the way I want to treat it?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

1. Why are drugs on the black-market inherently expensive? Even buying prescription drugs costs a pretty penny.

I believe prescription drugs are more costly then legally purchased prescription drugs b/c they have limited production, high demand and incur black market costs for eluding regulation. IMO, these are not factors relevant to a continuing black market for illegal drugs as there is already a large unregulated industry producing such drugs (which would probably not survive in a heavily regulated market arena), demand for black market drugs would decrease as the demand for legal drugs increased, and the cost to elude regulation is already built into the current price of illegal drugs. Do you believe, if pot were legalized, that it's black market costs would go up? I strongly doubt it. Moonshine is cheaper than a shot of Jack. Why pay more and risk criminal penalties when I can probably get a better product with fewer legal and/or health risks from a regulated vendor?

Originally Posted by saden1

2. Would you rather buy alcohol and cigarettes from your neighbor downstairs or some guy on a corner or state liquor store and grocery stores?

Depends on the neighbor - I got this one guy up the street who has some kick a** stuff. But I agree, quality control is a key benefit in regulated drugs.

Originally Posted by saden1

3. Black-market drug producers have costs beyond the cost of the drugs themselves. How much less could these cost be compared to Phillip Morris and Pfizer?

Yes & No. The actual production cost of most drugs is minimal compared to the selling price. Drug companies, however, routinely include costs for R&D and development which is extensive. IMO, the cost to a Pfizer of getting currently illegal drugs approved for public consumption would be probably be pretty high. I would imagine, because of the inherent risks presented by such drugs, that it would be higher than the average (maybe not, but still it is an expensive proposition, a study in 2003 put a drug's To Market Cost at over $802 Million: http://www.cptech.org/ip/health/econ/dimasi2003.pdf). And that's not including final marketing costs, etc. to Pfizer. I suppose, that b/c drug companies inflate their price to cover past R&D and To Market Approval costs, they could start selling the drugs at loss-leader situation to drive out the black markets by taking advantage of the benefits of mass production and initially charging cost of production only.

Not having been an illegal drug seller, not sure what costs they would have beyond the cost of manufacture and a .45 caliber.

Originally Posted by saden1

4. Will making drugs legal increase consumption? How would legalization compare to current state of affairs?

Legitimate question but also begs the question - legalization of what? Coke? Meth? Pot only? I think, as to pot, most countries are seeing that consumption is not increased. How would it compare to the current state of affairs? Just not sure - I imagine that it would immediately (and drastically) lower the amount on enforcement. Likewise, lot less people with criminal records walking around. For the long term indirect public health costs, I am just not sure it ends up a plus or minus. As I said, the immediate governmental costs would be different (regulatory agencies v. law enforcement) and, likewise, I think the long term public health costs would be different than we face by criminalizing drugs. Not sure how, but narcotics are still generally toxins whether legal or illegal.

Ultimately, I think, long term, the overall costs for legalizing pot would be less but not as drastically so as some would believe.

Originally Posted by saden1

5. Are soft drugs really a gateway to hard drugs?

Don't know. I am sure there is legitimate research to demonstrate both sides of the coin on that issue. My general understanding and belief is that, generally, they are not but may be so for some people.

Originally Posted by saden1

6. What can we learn from are certain EU countries like the Netherlands and Spain and their drug policies?

6. Probably a whole hell of a lot. Again, the economics of scale (small, homogenous countries v. US) may make a difference. Maybe not, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did.

Originally Posted by saden1

7. Have you seen "Reefer Madness?"

7. Yes, I have seen Reefer Madness both sober and stoned (many many many years ago). Can't access the clip at work but it is an eff'ing hilarious movie. I used the reference to illustrate that, while I am not suggesting mass destruction will automatically ensue from legalizing certain drugs, there certain drugs that are truly dangerous to both the user and the public if legalized for unsurpervised use.

Really, as to pot, I think legalization and regulation are the way to go. As to the harder drugs, not sure. Lots of variables out there, and I am unconvinced that, as to the more powerful narcotics, regulation ultimately relieves the indirect long term public health costs any better than law enforcement currently does.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

I just think your reasons sound selfish. Why shouldn’t I be allowed to treat my body the way I want to treat it?

'cause my tax dollars will likely be paying for your cancer treatments while your stoned ass hasn't worked a day in 20 years. :FIREdevil

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

'cause my tax dollars will likely be paying for your cancer treatments while your stoned ass hasn't worked a day in 20 years. :FIREdevil

Why do folks always point out it is their tax money when it is going to something wasteful but never say their tax money is being used for something good?

George Carlin use to say: "Your stuff is stuff other peoples stuff is sh*t."

Example:

"Got move move my stuff today."
"Got help a buddy move his sh*t today."

Kind of the same train of thought with tax dollars.

[Dirtbag59]

[quote=mlmpetert;805456]^

Was the guy crazy because he was on meth or was he on meth because he was crazy? Like matty said I think its more about not putting people in prison for simple position or making people crimes more severe if committed on a regulated drug (ie armed robbery vs. robbery).

Hard drugs like meth and coke have been proven to literally destroy the brain to the point where parts of the brain responsible for basic decisions (like not punching someone because they didn't get your order right at McDonalds) are eroded. Maybe going after the users that have done nothing besides use is the wrong COA however the people that push these drugs need to be sent to jail.

So my Grammy and others with arthritis or nerve pain shouldn’t have all treatment possibilities afforded to them?

Not saying that. However what the legalize pot movement will try to get people to believe is an effective treatment for all forms of pain and should serve as a replacement for narcotics. To me thats a big jump and an overstatement thats main purpose is to get people to join a cause under false pretenses.

And people that receive relief from chiropractors or acupuncturist should be dismissed and put on prescriptions drugs or forced into surgery or some other form of therapy?

Maybe I'm biased against chiropractors and acupuncturist but thats because I've heard stories about promises of cures for everything from arthritis to cancer and people being charged more then they would have to pay for legitimate medical procedures backed by science and peer reviewed research. Obviously not every chiropractor and accupuncturist promises to cure cancer. However Chiropractic has been proven to be nothing more then a dangerous form of massage by legitimate medical journals. Accupuncture's benefits have only proven to be therapeutic/placebo and unnecessarily risky.

It shouldn't be illegal to perform chiropractic or acupuncture however more people should be informed of the risk, and it most certainly should be illegal for both types of practitioners to claim to treat diseases for which there is no medical evidence that they can provide treatment.

You probably think hackie sacks are overrated too, don’t you brah?

Hackie sacks only marginally improve hand-eye coordination. People that use them should be put to death.

Do you support making cigarettes illegal because you cant/couldnt control yourself from smoking or because others need to be controlled from marginally harming themselves overtime?

Part of it is experience. I ended up very sick in part because of Cigarettes, which is obviously a big part my fault. However the fact of the matter is while pot has some medical benefits, cigarettes have virtually zero. And even though it makes money from sin taxes and the like it also force others to pay inflated health care cost. Still it's a pointless drug that even as a legal substance causes more harm then good.

Then again at this point the only real way to fight against cigarettes is to have it further labeled as a social stigma, more then it already is. Making them illegal would be an ineffective deterrent.

I just think your reasons sound selfish.

I never said my reasons weren't selfish. And though I didn't clearly state them as such I did infer with my "not in any rush to legalize pot" statement. Granted part of my reasons fall under the "for the good of society" column. However I won't deny that part of my reasons are in fact selfish.

Why shouldn’t I be allowed to treat my body the way I want to treat it?

You should. However I, or anyone else for that matter, shouldn't be allowed to overstate, or even outright lie, to get you to join my cause or undertake a certain form of treatment. In many cases thats what I see from the legalize pot movement, and while we're at it many alternative medicine practitioners (of course the topic of this thread is the war on drugs so I'll digress on said topic until an appropriate thread is created).

Then again simply saying "I want to get high while not destroying my liver" might not be as politically effective as "hey look, a treatment for cancer and glaucoma that big pharma doesn't want you to know about."