Slashdot Mirror

Yes, that's something we are very familiar with after 75 years of prohibition

As a citizen of a third world hell hole, I'm really tired of being mugged by addicts, with a corrupt police force since the drug traffickers have a constant inflow of dollars and euros selling shit to your fat asses.

Calm down! We're talking about Pot, not Crack. Big, Big difference.

Marijuana is simply not physically addictive. The National Commission on Marihuana(sic) and Drug Abuse (a/k/a the Shafer Commission) looked into this exact point. They traveled to countries where people had been HEAVILY smokin' the ganj since they were little kids. They asked them if they could take their Pot away. All of them said "Sure". They did. No withdrawals. No muggings. No nothing. The people just shrugged their collective shoulders and went on about their business.

And I should know: My Mom was a staff member on the Commission (actually the assistant to the Chairman of the Commission, Gov. Raymond P. Shafer), and I heard these (and other) stories from her, first hand.

BTW, they recommended decriminalization (because they knew that legalization would never "fly"); but President Nixon, who had created the Commission to demonize Pot, refused to accept the report and had it buried .

And that's exactly why we are having this discussion now, over 39 years after the Federal Government itself recommended that Marijuana possession be decriminalized.

Here's a pithy summation from the report: "The criminal law is too harsh a tool to apply to personal possession even in the effort to discourage use. It implies an overwhelming indictment of the behavior which we believe is not appropriate. The actual and potential harm of use of the drug is not great enough to justify intrusion by the criminal law into private behavior, a step which our society takes only 'with the greatest reluctance."

But yet, because of Tricky Dick, here we are, almost 40 years later... And that's the sad, sad truth.

Essentially, someone using that graph to argue that heroin is dangerous and should be prohibited is begging the question.

Yea, the GP posted the link to the graph to show how addictive drugs are supposed to be. Three of the drugs posted weren't even on the graph.

It's dangerous because it's illegal not the other way around.

I agree. I know of no illegal drug that's really addictive and harmful. Prescription drugs can be just as addictive and harmful yet their legal.

Please note that I do not use opiates, and do not approve of their use.

Either do I. Going to parties in my old neighborhood I used to get dirty looks when a drug was passed around. When it came to me I'd just hand it to the next person. My best friend would tell people I only smoked a joint once in a blue moon. The only other drug I'd use was alcohol. And of that, I used to make homebrew beer and wine, it's been years but I still have my equipment and want to start brewing again. Unfortunately I don't have much space in my apartment.

I also do not approve of FUD, which is more common than fact when talking about drugs.

As president Nixon had a presidential commission investigate whether marijuana should be legalized. However he said no matter what they concluded he'd never agree to legalization, and that's what the commission concluded.

Falcon

Were are talking about a country that executes drug users. They are fucking barbaric & I personally hope there whole government dies in a revolution.

I have heard from people in the research community that many papers on effects of marijuana have been suppressed for political reasons over at least the last 15 years.

Legally to do the research in the US researchers have to get permission from the FDA, DEA, and probably others. However there's not much of a chance to get that permission if the research is to show how safe hemp is.

If I had to guess I'd bet that they have been suppressed for several decades regardless of who is in the Whitehouse.

As president Richard Nixon set up a presidential commission to investigate whether hemp should be legalized. However Nixon said that no matter what the commission decided he would never allow marijuana to be legalized. And that's exactly what the commission decided, "Presidential Commission Shocks White House: Recommends Marijuana Should Be 'Decriminalized'".

Falcon

That is a very good question when this report ( http://www.csdp.org/research/hosb1203.pdf ) says that it rose 26% from 1997 to 2001, while violent crime rates in the US FELL 12%.

Rate of homicides, although much lower than in US, is among the highest in the "old" EU (this just the first Google match I got: http://www.csdp.org/research/hosb1203.pdf
"For the period 1999 to
2001, the average rate (the number of
homicides per 100,000 population) was 1.6 in
the EU with the highest rates in Finland (2.9),
Northern Ireland (2.7) and Scotland (2.2). For
the other countries, the highest rates were
found in Russia (22.1), Estonia (10.6),
Lithuania (10.6) and the USA (5.6)."

(If you want find reasons for that, looking at the alcohol consumption patterns would be a good place to start. Fight between drunkards, with one of them ending up stabbed to death is the traditional way of Finnish homicide.

Secondly, if you want to have a gun in this country (Finland that is) you need a permit from police - and if you try get one for "personal protection", you won't get it. Hunting weapons are common in country with low population density and most of the area forested (and almost all the male population trained in the use of firearms by the government), but shoot a burglar with one and manslaughter conviction is practically guaranteed. Use of fire arms for protection in this country is highly discouraged, unless you a wearing a official uniform (and even the police are not that trigger happy and almost never shoot to kill)

I was curious about the murder rates, so I looked it up with google.

First, are you in one of those countries that has a major political party with the word "Christian" in the name?

Yes, but they didn't make the low limit (4%) last election, for the 2nd time in a row, I think. (Sorry couldn't resist)

Highest murder rates: Has such a study been done on the aggregate of the EU?

From around 2000, US seems to be about 6 per 100000, EU about 1.6 per 100000.

Srebrenica is in Bosnia, which has not been and is not a member of EU.

Analysis of death certificates from 2000 confirms 16.8k is accurate.

According to Mokdad et al. (http://www.csdp.org/research/1238.pdf 2004),
in 2000 there were 28663 deaths due to firearms (down from 36000 in 1990).

of those,
16586 (57.9%) were suicide
10801 (37.7%) were homicide
776 (2.7%) were accidents
270 were 'interventions', which I believe is a 'good kill' by police
230 are undetermined

I recall the case you refer to, and I tried to dig it up, but there are quite a few similar cases, mostly related to the war on drugs, and I couldn't find that needle in the haystack.

accidental killings by police in the war on drugs

Consider yourself surprised.

It is also possible to use alcohol in a responsible manner that apparently results in an increased life expectancy. (Several studies have concluded that moderate consumption of ethanol thins the blood, reducing the incidence of heart disease and stroke. Moderate use of ethanol is also associated with reduced risk of Parkinson's and Alheimer's.) Even 'moderate' use of cigarettes reduces life expectancy, increases the likelihood of a large number of diseases...and makes you smell bad, makes your teeth yellow, and annoys people around you.

>> I honestly believe that the best way to tackle the drug war would
>> be to legalize it.. Put strict taxes on all drugs (except
>> Marijuana) and sell them
>
> That's called surrender. You don't win like that. Also the attendant
> social problems.

You're surrendering to who? To the mafia? Once legalized, they wouldn't have any source of income anymore. To the drug users? They don't fight, they're just victims here.

As long as drugs are very well available on the black market, do you think anyone is protecting your childs? I don't. Only when the market those things are available on is controllable, we can try to protect our children. That's not possible on the black market.

>> The fairy tale that if it were legalized everyone would do it is
>> false.
>
> Since we don't have a nice statistical correlate for American
> behaviour and we don't have a nice contemporary example I can't
> believe this. I am a serious person after all.

In Holland, cannabis products are available for sale, and free to use. They have about 2.5% cannabis users. In America, you can get a life sentence for dealing with cannabis -- still, 5% of all americans are regularily using cannabis.

http://www.frw.uva.nl/cedro/bookstore/20.html
http://www.csdp.org/research/us_euro.pdf

And if you want to have facts about america alone -- during the prohibition of alcohol, the use of alcohol *rose*. The effects of the prohibition are well-known. Gangsters fighting on open streets, corrupt policemen, etc. The alcohol consumed was bad self-made stuff, instead of good wine or beer. Only after the prohibition, the use of alcohol began to decline again. I think this is a pretty good evidence that prohibition is not the ultimate answer to problems.

>> I truly believe that a good majority of drug use is harmless.
>
> hard data is needed not just by people from California who want to
> totally decriminalize all drugs

At least for Cannabis, here you are: http://books.nap.edu/html/marimed/

Just a few excerpts: "... few marijuana users develop dependence ...", "There is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs.", etc.

Please also note the following reports, only available on paper:

• Roques, B., et al.: Problèmes posées par la dangerosité des drogues. Rapport du professeur Bernard Roques au Secrétaire d'Etat à la Santé. Paris 1998. (french report about cannabis)
• Auswirkungen des Cannabiskonsums. Dieter Kleiber, Karl-Artur Kovar (german report about cannabis effects)

Almost all major reports issued by governments all over the world come to the conclusion that cannabis is one of the most harmless drugs available. The war on drugs and the whole illegalization causes a lot more harm, death and destroyed lifes and families than cannabis ever could.

> Nothing positive can come from drugs.

The most negative thing that comes from drugs is the total devotion to ideals, even if they're proved wrong.

"A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither"
-- Thomas Jefferson

Greetings,
-- Jorgen

Another "regular drug user" who tries to speak for the "underground drug use" masses. A pretty good sign is usually opinions such as "Most of the people I know" or "I can confidently state" that are tried to be spun as facts.

Hi. What separation of drug users is this you're talking about? Your "underground drug use" masses is an interesting concept, what exactly do you mean by this? What is the difference between a regular and an underground drug user? And are you really implying that these Silicon Valley types fall into the underground drug use group?

And you might want to know that addictive substances such as nicotine, heroin, and cocaine leads users to become abusers, because they eventually have to use it.

Oh really? Out of the three chemicals that you mention, nicotene is the most addictive, and even then a single hit won't get you addicted. Mild use without addiction can be acheived for all of these drugs. The myth of instant addiction is just that, a myth. Some drugs are more addictive than others sure, but there is no "take it once, you're doomed to be an addict" truth as you say.

I suppose I'm getting in on this discussion too late to be noticed, but just for the record...

You said:

I agree with you that drug users are not 'victims' by default, but the people in the periphery who suffer from users and traffickers are certainly 'victims' by your definition.

This is a common misconception. Let's be clear about this. The "victims on the periphery" you described are victims of the war on drugs rather than the drugs themselves.

To wit: The child caught in the crossfire of a turf-war between rival drug-dealing gangs would not have been shot if the drug trade (now 8% of world GDP!) were legal and well-regulated! (In that case, users would buy from the local apothecary, and the gangs would not be involved at all.)

The addict would also fare a LOT better under a legalized drug-trade. He/she would be assured of well-regulated purity and strength. (All the standard laws and regs about foodstuffs -- labeling and such -- would apply to drugs as well.)

Prices would plummet (heroin sells for US$90/kg in Afghanistan -- jumps to US$250,000 on the "street" in the USA). If a junkie can get a week's worth of "fixes" for a few bocks, he can support his habit *easily* with a part-time job at McDonald's... No more mugging and petty theft to support an artificially price-inflated habit...

Legal drug outlets would be a prime location for folks like 12-step programs and treatment centers to distribute *truthful* information on how to minimize the dangers of use, and how to get help when your "dalliance" turns into an addiction.

Drug abuse is a PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE, damnit! Don't make a CRIME out of it!!! It's inefficient, futile, and destructive...

Check out CSDP.org for more info...

Now, in a desperate attempt to get back on topic... ;-) Another poster in this thread notes that banning DeCSS is like banning crowbars because they "might" be used to break into houses... sorta like banning drugs because they "might" lead "some" users into the hell-hole of addiction.

Just as drug abuse is a public-health issue, illegal copying of IP is a social issue.

The suits (MPAA/RIAA/etc) made a BIG mistake by calling out the legal pit-bulls first, instead of looking for ways to embrace the new technology and shape the emerging "online ethics" by appealing to the users/abusers, offering incentives, mounting a flashy (and *friendly*) ad campaign, etc...

The fact that the MPAA/RIAA are not raking in BILLION$ from all this "illegal" copying is their own damn fault. Fsck 'em!

... my 2

--jrd

alcohol isn't addictive, although there is a gene that can facilitate addiction to alcohol (read: alcoholism) - technically speaking, alcohol isn't an addictive substance

Also, regarding that comment about a "gene that can facilitate addiction to alcohol", I'd love to hear exactly what this gene is, and the name of the protein to which it maps.

Obviously, our "child" is getting out of hand, and it's time to take him out behind the woodshed for a good thrashing. ;-)

Really, in a democracy, the government is neither parent nor child... it is a tool. Like most tools, it can be damn useful if used properly -- and damn dangerous if used poorly...

When all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail!

How true. And we've been using government for all sorts of goofy applications that the Founding Fathers never intended, like sending people to jail for activities that harm no one (except maybe the "user"). We see something we don't like, and we say, "There oughta be a law!" ...and all too often, we get what we ask for.

I won't belabor the anti-DrugWar message... it's covered too well in other posts/sites/etc.. (Links below) But, it's time we woke up and took control of our lives and livelihoods back from this errant, power-addicted, Frankenstein-monster we call a "government".

-- TaiwanJohn

Links:
Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do is the comprehensive guide to crappy, moralistic laws that crush freedom.
Here is a tarballed/zipped version of the same book (for convenient downloading)
The author of said bookrecently died awaiting sentencing for "medical marijuana" -- which is supposed to be LEGAL in California, after Prop-215
Finally, Common Sense Drug Policy has lots of great info... I'd suggest starting with the Ads section.

Obviously, our "child" is getting out of hand, and it's time to take him out behind the woodshed for a good thrashing. ;-)

Really, in a democracy, the government is neither parent nor child... it is a tool. Like most tools, it can be damn useful if used properly -- and damn dangerous if used poorly...

When all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail!

How true. And we've been using government for all sorts of goofy applications that the Founding Fathers never intended, like sending people to jail for activities that harm no one (except maybe the "user"). We see something we don't like, and we say, "There oughta be a law!" ...and all too often, we get what we ask for.

I won't belabor the anti-DrugWar message... it's covered too well in other posts/sites/etc.. (Links below) But, it's time we woke up and took control of our lives and livelihoods back from this errant, power-addicted, Frankenstein-monster we call a "government".

-- TaiwanJohn

Links:
Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do is the comprehensive guide to crappy, moralistic laws that crush freedom.
Here is a tarballed/zipped version of the same book (for convenient downloading)
The author of said bookrecently died awaiting sentencing for "medical marijuana" -- which is supposed to be LEGAL in California, after Prop-215
Finally, Common Sense Drug Policy has lots of great info... I'd suggest starting with the Ads section.

Later today (or perhaps tomorrow), www.alarmist.org will feature an article talking about the War on Drugs. If you simply cannot wait to get your hands on some interesting facts, try going to www.csdp.org. They present the facts in an occasionally biased way, but the figures seem sound and paint a grim picture.

Not that it even matters. There's always less crime the more brutal the government is (unless you count crimes perpetrated by the government). Many european countries, in addition to gun control, also censor (hate literature mostly) and there's no doubt that it does reduce Nazism and hate crime. Trampling on peoples' rights quite often does reduce crime; it's just never worth it.