Slashdot Mirror
World Health Organization Calls For Decriminalization of Drug Use
An anonymous reader writes: We've known for a while: the War on Drugs isn't working. Scientists, journalists, economists, and politicians have all argued against continuing the expensive and ineffective fight. Now, the World Health Organization has said flat out that nations should work to decriminalize the use of drugs. The recommendations came as part of a report released this month focusing on the prevention and treatment of HIV. "The WHO's unambiguous recommendation is clearly grounded in concerns for public health and human rights. Whilst the call is made in the context of the policy response to HIV specifically, it clearly has broader ramifications, specifically including drug use other than injecting. In the report, the WHO says: 'Countries should work toward developing policies and laws that decriminalize injection and other use of drugs and, thereby, reduce incarceration. ...Countries should ban compulsory treatment for people who use and/or inject drugs." The bottom line is that the criminalization of drug use comes with substantial costs, while providing no substantial benefit.
This is one of the most messed-up issues in the history of humanity. Hopefully we'll see an end to the insane war on drugs in our lifetime! Drugs are made more dangerous by being illegal, I don't know why so few of us in the United States didn't learn the lesson from alcohol prohibition.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
...if its goal was to prevent drug usage.
No ads, no public displays of drug use, no public drug use, not even in designated public venues, and no brown paper bag bullshit either. Keep it private. No operating heavy machinery or participation in traffic while intoxicated. But yeah, the drug use itself should not be criminal.
We're seeing more places around the world with so called "safe injection sites" which seem to be helping people's safety. I've often wondered if it idea was taken a step further. Create safe haven drug houses, drugs are free, safe from impurities etc provided by the government (likely far cheaper than current policing costs). But you have to stay in a small padded room with nothing to do until the drugs leave your system, and be monitored by nurses. Would they be very popular? Would this all but eliminate the illegal drug trade if drugs were free and safe? I would think for all but the worst addicts, the novelty would be gone, and they would hopefully move on in life.
The problem is, once we get away from pot and other light drugs, the heavier ones have a pretty significant net economic cost. Historically, before our modern drug laws went insane, trying to get drugs out of a local community was a response to local economic collapses when things like opium were introduced to a region. Physically addictive drugs can be pretty devastating to a community as more workers exit the pool and more resources go to taking care of the addicts.
No, this is the old "Reefer Madness" mentality, meant to make happy both the Puritans and the prison profiteers while keeping the politicians in an elevated state of power.
What actually happens, and Portugal ran this experiment with a sample size of over 8 million people during the past decade, is that when drug use is decriminalized, the usage rate quickly falls to about half.
Most of those are people who are no longer afraid to seek treatment. Some are folks who wind up court-ordered to get treatment, and a few were drug users who were only doing it because drugs seemed cool because they were illegal.
At the end, though, the incontrovertible fact is that the community has half the number of drug users as it did under Prohibition. Prohibitionists are responsible for a doubling of the drug usage rate in the community. Does that seem counter-intuitive? So what? The data is in.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Relevant quote: "I have slowly and reluctantly come to believe that this has not been the result. Instead, drinking has generally increased; the speakeasy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of lawbreakers has appeared; many of our best citizens have openly ignored Prohibition; respect for the law has been greatly lessened; and crime has increased to a level never seen before." - John D. Rockefeller, Jr.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
The social cost off allowing the use of certain drugs (alcohol and marihuana for sure, maybe a few others) is preferable to to the cost of trying to ban them. But anyone who thinks legalizing drugs like cocaine or opiates will reduce street crime is living in a dream world; take away selling drugs to earn a living and it will be replaced by a different crime.
Unfortunately, these are not facts, but pure fantasy. First, outlawing drugs does not reduce their usage. The alcohol prohibition indicates that the converse is true. Hence this prohibition increases harm. Second, the harm done is massively increased by outlawing drugs. Most drugs are actually relatively cheap to produce in medical-grade quality, with clear instructions and standardized quality, yet the dangerous low-quality stuff on the market fetches premium prices that then go to criminal enterprises. This situation is purely crated by illegality. Finally, people that are in prison for no good reason are unproductive and cost money as well.
The whole thing is nothing but a massively misanthropic effort by religious and other authoritarians to prevent people from deciding about their own lives and to punish those that have other ideas as heavily as possible. It has zero intention to reduce negative effects and zero effect in that direction. It does increase negative effects massively though.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
The use of drugs is not exactly confined in its impact to the immediate use, which is the theory behind why it was a crime in the first place. But the other bad effects can be made illegal separately. A lot of them already are, in the form of some variation of practising pharmacy without a licence. And if a huge pharmaceutical company creates a drug that has virtually no value other than to create addictions (and deducts all the research and marketing expenses on its taxes), then someone should be going to jail.
You can still say drugs are bad, which they are in many cases, but 'bad' does not necessarily mean something the criminal justice system should address. On top of which, a lot of the time it comes down to tastes in substance abuse. Alcohol is bad for all the same reasons, and compared to some drugs is worse.
- John D. Rockefeller, Jr., 1932
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
There hasn't been a good one since David Tennant
Ending prohibition didn't kill the mob. They just switched from bootlegging to trafficking narcotics, and they reached the height of their power in the 50s and 60s, long after the prohibition ended. In the same way, while legalizing marijuana might reduce crime here in the US, cartels in Mexico are Too Big to Fail. They won't pack up their things and head home quietly if marijuana is legalized; they'll just start peddling something new.
As for legalizing highly addictive drugs like cocaine and heroin, I don't see how decriminalizing them good possibly be a good idea. The addiction rate for these drugs is 2.5 to 3 times that of alcohol. Heroin, etc. are dangerous and they weren't just banned because of moralizers.
Here is a recipe from my great-grandma's cookbook. Cough Syrup Syrup of squills four ounces, syrup of tolu four ounces, tincture of bloodroot one and one-half ounces, camphorated tincture of opium four ounces. Mix. Dose for an adult, one teaspoon repeated every two to four hours. She used to be able to go to the pharmacist and get tincture of opium.
I was initially hesitant with the legalization of pot in California and the other states. But what's fascinating is that now people get their weed from controlled environments instead some back alley with a drug dealer pushing lots of other stuff as well.
I could be 1000% wrong as I have no data to back this up, but it made me think the streets have been safer in California since the legalization of pot. Anyone have any data to back that idea up? Any stats of declining use of other more serious drugs? Maybe it hasn't been enough time yet?
Say a government wants to reduce harm without too much of a shock to the prison industry. Perhaps it could split the difference by approving medical diamorphine but giving the trademark on HEROIN® (diamorphine) back to Bayer. That way the feds could still go after street dealers for misusing the name "HEROIN".
Just banning In App Purchases would be a big move at this point in time.
Without IAPs, what's the correct way to provide a limited playable version without offering the first episode without charge and offering additional episodes as IAPs? This "shareware" model, where the prices for additional episodes are stated up front, worked for Doom.
"a limited playable version without offering" snuck in and survived preview. It should be "to provide the first episode without charge". I apologize for wasting your time.
Desoxyn (methamphetamine hydrochloride) is a prescription drug in the same schedule as Adderall and Ritalin.
This is 100% irrelevant even if it is true. The 'land of the free and the home of the brave' would not ban people from taking drugs, even for safety, just like it wouldn't allow the TSA, the NSA surveillance, or any other freedom-violating/unconstitutional nonsense to exist.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I hope this isn't what you actually believe, as it sounds like an authoritarian nightmare to me! What would happen in your little imagined scenario is that the powers of control would inevitably extend to all undesirable* behaviour and would one-day collapse under its own weight or civil war -- after millions suffered.
* Undesirable being defined by the same nutcases who put this law in to place and could include being homosexual, jewish or having drugs planted on them
Back in the real world, I firmly believe punishment should fit the crime. In the case of taking drugs I can't think why it's a crime and why we would seek punishment! Someone at home getting high doesn't even deserve a trivial fine, let alone having their life ruined.
The only time I see it coming in to play is when mixed with other activties. High controlling machinery or a vechicle? Harsher sentencing. High looking after kids? Child neglect, harsher sentencing. Vandalism or assault... you get the idea.
There will be a negative impact to society where people get hooked on drugs and drop in productivity, but we already have problems with alcoholism, gambling, etc...
Now there's one hoopy frood who really knows where his towel is!
"...while providing no substantial benefit."
I'm going to be pedantic and call BS on this one. If they hadn't been so bold and instead said "while in almost all cases failing to provide enough benefits to justify the cost" I wouldn't be making this reply.
Why am I upset about their hyperbole? Because it cuts into their credibility.
What's the specific counter-example I can provide? Read on..,.
In some societies, criminalization leads to social stigmatization even if the laws are not enforced or only lightly enforced, a stigmatization that would be absent or less strong otherwise. You see this in some parts of the United States, where the existence of little-enforced laws such as laws against littering, talking on the cell phone while driving, etc. reinforce and amplify the existing social stigma against such activities to the point that it's the stigma of being seen doing "the wrong thing," not the fear of getting a ticket or getting arrested, that drives people to follow the social norm.
Even if the enforcement of drug laws doesn't lead to reduced usage in and of itself, the stigmatization can.
Reducing the use of harmful drugs can benefit society in many ways, including fewer early deaths and fewer health problems.
The key though is that whether stigmatization by itself will lead to less drug use or not will vary from society to society and even sub-culture to sub-culture. A sub-culture which is known for being defiant of the larger society may in fact see doing things that are stigmatized by the larger society as a way to rebel. The 1960s young-adult/youth counterculture sub-culture in the United States is one example where a "main culture" stigmatizing an activity may lead to more, not less, overall use.
Now, does the existence of drug laws result in an enhanced stigma that leads to overall reduced drug use worldwide? I don't know. Is there someplace on this planet where drug laws are creating or reinforcing a stigma where the social stigma (not necessarily the fear of being caught by the police) is driving lower drug use? Almost certainly.
What's the bottom line?
* Don't summarily throw out drug laws worldwide.
* Do encourage every country and locality to ask itself to examine the totality of effects of its drug laws both within its own borders and on the rest of the world, and make an educated, informed decision about whether to change the drug laws to achieve the desired goals (which I assume are nominally a safer and healthier society, but which I sadly acknowledge may include things like keeping trading partners happy, keeping a dictator's friends flush with cash, and other factors that are irrelevant to the nominal purpose of drug laws), and if so, how.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
The bottom line is that outlawing drugs reduces their use, and correspondingly reduce their negative effects on society.
Even if I were to accept that as true (I don't), I would still be 100% opposed to the drug war, because it violates people's fundamental liberties. Such a thing would never be allowed in any truly free country, safety or no safety. It's people like you who cheer on the TSA, the NSA surveillance, free speech zones, DUI checkpoints, etc. simply because you think they keep people safe, without caring that you're supposed to be living in a free country.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself.
We don't need to make our nation any more unfree, and we don't need schools to become any more like awful prisons. Vanish, authoritarian scumbag.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
You can be addicted just as easily to legal drugs as to any substance on the federal schedule. You can be addicted to behaviors like gambling and eating. This problem needs to be addressed medically.
You think civil forfeiture and revenues from private prisons are of no substantial benefit to US law enforcement's cash flow? -- sincerely yours, your unfriendly neigborhood cop.
Ezekiel 23:20
So what exactly is the tax rate on Christians in your part of Iraq, "Jim"?
I really, really had to look to find the "ageism" in the comment you referenced. And yes, by using my magnifier I could read the fine print.
3 takers, let's see how many more you get :-).
Because obviously trying to increase the costs of the drugs, and throwing those parents in prison for years if they get caught in possession of a few doses improves the situation.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
This is a great debate between Glenn Greenwald and GWB's drug czar and in it, reference to Portugal and studies related to that are made. From there, you can do your own searching:
http://vimeo.com/32110912
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Drugs would probably be a lot safer if people didn't have to worry about SWAT kicking in the door and tossing a couple flashbangs into your infant's crib.
I wouldn't want someone who is drunk, either. Therefore, ban alcohol. Are you an idiot?
Besides, safety is not what matters. If you despise freedom that much, I'm sure North Korea would be happy to have you.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Not even extreme sports. Football, skiing, golf, jogging -- they all have dangers and people have suffered from accidents or repetitive stress injuries. Of course, sitting at home safe in your Lazyboy has its own health risks. Or driving -- that is probably one of the most dangerous things we do.
All of these people saying "I shouldn't have to pay for ...." fundamentally fail to understand that insurance about spreading risk, not concentrating it. Besides, there are risks in everything one does, and even risks in things one chooses not not to do -- attempting to fully regulate that through insurance coverage would mean everyone would be excluded for one reason or another, and only the extremely wealthy would be able to be fully free. Alternatively, by partially regulating activities -- choosing which risks to accept and which to exclude -- that is just a way for the powerful to exert control over those who have less power. Finally, there are financial costs to exclusion -- lawsuits and such. Any time litigation ensues between insurers (*) about who should pay, that is a pure unmitigated waste of resources. Better to just accept that through insurance, you might contribute a dime to a cause you don't like, but in all likelihood, someone else is going to contribute a dime to you for a reason he/she doesn't like. In the end, over hundreds of millions of people, it's a wash, and cheaper to just accept it than bitch and litigate and regulate.
(*) This could be Ins. Co. v. Individual Person (consider the individual a potential self-insurer)
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
No, this is the old "Reefer Madness" mentality, meant to make happy both the Puritans and the prison profiteers while keeping the politicians in an elevated state of power.
What actually happens, and Portugal ran this experiment with a sample size of over 8 million people during the past decade, is that when drug use is decriminalized, the usage rate quickly falls to about half.
Most of those are people who are no longer afraid to seek treatment. Some are folks who wind up court-ordered to get treatment, and a few were drug users who were only doing it because drugs seemed cool because they were illegal.
At the end, though, the incontrovertible fact is that the community has half the number of drug users as it did under Prohibition. Prohibitionists are responsible for a doubling of the drug usage rate in the community. Does that seem counter-intuitive? So what? The data is in.
My problem is that at least in the US, the disease model of addiction is used like a get-out-of-jail-free card: "I'm sick so you can't be mean to me by saying I should be responsible and seek treatment!" You see it used a lot for anything that would require lifestyle changes.
I'd go for the middle ground: Decriminalize drug use, up the penalties if your drug use causes you to break laws and put a permanent end to the ability to claim 'intoxication' as a defense when it was a voluntarily obtained state.
The other, probably easier option is to actually make it very, very clear that seeking treatment is safe--because it seems that actually we're doing every part of that except the publicity. This may be more a job for an ad firm than politicians, unless we do need to make it very explicit within the law that this can't be used against somebody.
Why not ban alcohol? I have not had any alcohol for years. How about you? How many days can you go without?
I've not had alcohol at all, but I still support other people's freedoms to drink it.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
150x the THC is not the harmless stuff the hippies from the 60's smoked.
all this means is instead of smoking a full 1 gram joint, you can get just as high off 1 or 2 hits. Therefore you are inhaling less smoke. Therefore it IS safer than the pot of the 60s
next?
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I do not support it, but I am also not a violent or only angry person. So everyone who disagrees here with me know you are save from me!
I see daily what alcohol can do to people. I have had friends who died at an age of 30 to failing livers. Others who are still alive drink 4l-8l of cider a day. They cannot stop even if they wanted to, because their liver has adjusted to these amounts and a rapid change will cause a liver failure. They first need to get their consumption down before a rehab takes them or else their need for alcohol would interfere with the other alcoholics who can actually stop drinking.
These are extremes, but many people who drink alcohol only occasionally do not realize that they are actually addicted to it. They often say something like they need their beer on the weekend or else they cannot unwind. They do not know how true this actually is. They balance their addiction with work, but if they lose their job for someone reason do they enter into a spiral.
I do not even like talking to people who are intoxicated. They fail to listen, they fail to argue, and they only want to enjoy their high on alcohol, meaning, they want to "have fun". The only people who enjoy the company of drunk people are other drunk people.
Hopefully this is tongue-in-cheek, though I know there are actually those out there who wholeheartedly believe such tripe. Why not make execution the punishment for everything? Obviously that will stop crime, and is 100% justifiable.
where the points are valid, they necessarily become part of effective protection. pregnant women should not be served at a heroin bar (or other bar, really; BTW, is it legal to refuse to serve alcohol based solely on the obvious pregnancy of the patron?)
this is the EXACT attitude on why I am against government forced health care. As they can make arguments like that, whats next coffee?? red steak? carbs???
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
> The bottom line is that outlawing drugs reduces their use,
Your bottom line is false. Look at this chart of US drug addiction rate versus US federal drug control spending from 1970-2010. Despite a massive increase in drug enforcement, the addiction rate is essentially unchanged.
And dentists would no longer have to move to Portland to make a pile of money.
Let's take this thread, pull on it, and see how the sweater unravels...
While a few nut cases shooting up schools grab headlines, the majority of gun crime is committed related to drugs.
If you have the turf around school A and I have the turf around school B and we have a conflict on who sells on the streets separating our areas, then my only recourse is to grab the AK47s, jump in the pimp-mobile and go shoot up your street hoping to take out you, my rival. Of course, since our only education in firearm use is watching Die Hard movies, it is not surprising that we miss our rival drug lord and kill two dogs, the toddler next door, and three potted begonias on the neighbour's porch.
If drugs were decriminalized then we could lawyer up and take each other to court like civilised businessmen.
Gun violence would decline and the related gap in the political discourse related to guns would be, at least, tightened in scope.
Mush of our current gun violence and thus the
I see daily what alcohol can do to people.
So what?
I know people who could say the same about angle grinders. Those things rip people to shreds in a really nasty way. Should we ban them too?
What about chainsaws?
Motorbikes?
Cars?
Light aircraft?
What about foods high in cholesterol? Heart disease is a killer.
High salt food?
Bacon?
I have had friends who died at an age of 30 to failing livers. Others who are still alive drink 4l-8l of cider a day.
So? That sucks for them and it sucks for you. I, however, know plenty of people who drink and are still very much alive and non addicted. I happen to be able to enjoy a tipple without doing such things, as do most people.
These are extremes, but many people who drink alcohol only occasionally do not realize that they are actually addicted to it.
Um...
I see where this is going. You're basically going to assume that even occasional drinkers are addited, therefore everyone is an addict therefore everyone should stop therefore we should ban it.
Yep, I like a drink or two. I'd be annoyed if you made me stop drinking because I (a) like the taste and (b) like the mild buzz and relaxation when I have a sensible amount. What's wrong with that?
Your assertion that I would fall into a spiral as opposed to getting another job is utterly unfounded.
They balance their addiction with work, but if they lose their job for someone reason do they enter into a spiral.
Frankly, excesive alcohol consumption is a really big problem in the UK. It's sort of a traditional passtime to get wasted on lager, hurl in the gutter, smash up a bus shelter then nick s shopping trolley and fill it with traffic cones on the way home.
Those people do have a problem and yet the majority of them are somewhat functional members of society and do actually have jobs (and lose them!) and don't enter into a spiral.
Basically making up stuff which is at odds with observable facts does not bolster your point.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I do not believe in recreational drugs.
Well, that's denialism at its finest. I can assure you they do very much exist and it's not something you need take on faith.
There is no need for them
There's no "need" for anything except water and nutrition pills.
Yet I like fine food and drink. That includes alcohol which is very much a drug. I also like the feeling after a glass of whisky. Sure there's no need, but like I said, there's no need for any pleasurable thing.
Also, most people aren't trying to have as many kids as possible, so there's no need for them to have sex either.
If, theoretically speaking, drug dealing would get punished with the death sentence, would we get rid of drugs and drug dealers pretty fast.
Why bother with theory when you can look at the practice. Some countries do this, yet they still execute people for drugs offences. Clearly therefore your reasoning does not hold up.
If you do not like my opinion then talk to the dad and his son in the following picture. They might agree with the World Health Organization:
So? I'm sure I could find people who agree with you who are otherwise utter lunatics. Again, obvious appeals to emotion do not bolster your point. Quite the contrary: it makes it appear that you have no rational arguments to make.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
which is the cash industry for most of the UN member states
It is not meant to be an argument. It is an opinion I have. And seeing how you are trying to argue with an opinion, unable to tell the difference between argument and opinion, do I doubt you have a use for arguments. You will be happy when you only get someone's attention, or drugs. At best would you only be looking to get my approval, but it would also be too late for it, because I am sure you are already using drugs.
I was under the impression that a lot of drugs could harm the fetus even before the second missed period.
Again, I was not arguing. This is my experience. It is what I see. There is nothing to debate.
I can also see that you have a problem. You argue just like many alcoholics. They not care for any of the warnings either and only want it their way even when it destroys them. No words will change them and only they can change themselves.
I am not saying that you are an alcoholic. This is for you to find out. Most alcoholics, who admit to having a problem, do not seek a debate. They try to find help.
The private prison industry, over-staffed militarized police departments and politicians/regulators/bureaucrats on the take would heartily disagree.
Decriminalize the public hunting of authoritarian politicians and their minions.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
The bottom line is that outlawing drugs reduces their use
Does it? On the surface, it seems that what you say is true. Do you have any data to back that up with?
Personal anecdotes:
When I was in school, all the cool kids smoked marijuana despite its illegality. Numerous people were induced to use it despite not showing the desire to use it. Marijuana was most definitely illegal at the time. Legality had no effect on usage that I saw.
When I have visited Amsterdam, there were coffee houses and such that sold marijuana openly. The businesses did not seem overly busy and at most, i saw one or two small groups of people chatting away inside. Definitely not of apocalyptic proportions. Once or twice while wandering around downtown looking at the amazing architecture, I smelled some marijuana smoke but despite my efforts, I never saw who was smoking it. Legality had no effect on usage that I saw.
But do it factually rather than the misinfotainment spouted by both sides. Take pot for instance... the genetic and economic damage is huge.
Ok, let's talk facts. Provide links to reputable studies demonstrating genetic damage over and above genetic damage from background radiation, drinking water, or eating bananas. I did a quick search and the top article was this:
http://cosmosmagazine.com/news...
Honestly, it sounds rather hokey. They submitted cells directly to smoke condensates and they did not specify the type and amount of genetic damage. It seems to me that if they had subjected cells directly to any kind of condensed chemical that cell damage of some type is sure to occur. This is not normally how cells are exposed.
Tobacco was also measured this way and found to cause genetic damage. Again, seems rather suspicious to me. No studies not performed in this manner seem to indicate genetic damage.
150x the THC is not the harmless stuff the hippies from the 60's smoked.
I recognize this talking point. It is laughable because hashish has been available for thousands of years (condensed marijuana). Marijuana has been cultivated for thousands of years as a recreational chemical. It does not seem reasonable that all of the strains from the 60s were so weak when it is clear that farmers have known how to create selective strains for thousands of years, e.g. corn and wheat.
The political Right makes it a boogy man
Indeed.
but the political Left pushes "medical marijuana" which is a bigger lie than "Iraq WMD".
Hm. If it is a lie, then why does the federal government grant prescriptions for marijuana use? Sure, at the state level, the requirements are much (MUCH!) less strict, but even at its strictest, the federal government knows there are actual medicinal uses for marijuana.
Both drive from their marketing basis rather than act on fact.
It seems like you need to do some more investigation. Yes, there is a LOT of political spin from both sides. The idea is that YOU research the facts and come to a conclusion yourself. It appears as if you have not actually researched the subject deeply and are making an opinion based on "things you have heard".
Really, try researching it with an open mind. It will not attack you and hurt you.
Please note that I am not arguing for or against, I am merely responding to what you have written.
Kind regards
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Drug users would rather do drugs than kill people. Killing people is the rather unpleasant requirement for people to fork over their money so they can buy drugs.
Cheap drugs would eliminate this problem.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It is very possible to find sensible levels for this. Just because you take drugs doesn't mean you're a bad parent. Take my dad for example. My dad was and is a heavy smoker and he even drinks a glass of beer now and then, but he still is a good dad!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
That's not clear. It's true that tobacco is reputedly the hardest drug to quit, but that is not synonmous with the highest social cost. And Freud (an informed witness) though that cocaine was more destructive than either alcohol or tobacco.
But that' doesn't mean that making them illegal doesn't have a much higher social cost than having them be legal.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Well, Freud was batshit insane, so take whatever he says with a grain of salt. But if you start to put together the costs to treat alcohol and tobacco related illness, they absolutely dwarf moneys spent on the other drugs. Now, saying that, it's a harder comparison to make since the 'harder' drugs are illegal and costly putting many of the addicts in a position to create societal harm (robbery, theft, etc). But MVAs due to drunks costs quite a bit of money as well. Back and forth ....
It's probably not going to get anyone very far by stating 'my drug is worse than your drug' - I think the bottom line is that a) people will use them no matter what legal prohibitions are thrown in their way and b) we as a society have to come up with a reasonable balance between personal liberty, social costs and straight financial costs. The 'War on Drugs' turns out to be an unreasonable way to solve this problem.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Notice how it's always "decriminalization" rather than legalization. The problem with this is that by keeping the production and distribution illegal, it retains the black market which is where much of the crime occurs. Also, this continues to justify the police apparatus that attempts to "interdict." Finally, the addicts are still going to be getting black market drugs of unknown and frequently unsafe composition. Thus, the harm is not fully minimized. The solution is legalization. Even with legalization, every effort will be made to fully corporatize it, by "regulating" it to high heaven. Pun intended! However, decriminalization recommended by an important entity such as WHO is a step in a better direction than what we have now.
The WHO recommendation is like a drug cartel/warlord's worst nightmare come true.
No sig. Move along - nothing to see here.
So we should execute and imprison people because of what you would "rather want to see?"
And what if a significant proportion of society decides they don't want to see what you like to do?
actually, they're finding game addiction (computer & gambling) are quite similar to substance addiction
http://www.webmd.com/mental-he...
and china & korea, i believe, have started to crack down (no pun intended;-) on online & gaming addiction
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01...
You think wanting to execute drug dealers and criminalizing drug use, which means police shooting people, beating people up, dragging them off to prison where they face a high likelihood of being assaulted and raped, and having their family finances liquidated for legal fees, is not being an angry and violent person, huh?
This is why statism is such an insidious poison to civilization. It makes people able to delude themselves into believing they are well intentioned when they argue for applying state power (which is violent coercion) to accomplish societal ends that they deem proper. Someone is going to be dragged away in the night. Someone is going to be beaten to death in prison. Some child is going to loose an imperfect but still sincerely loving and willing to die for that child parent because they have a behavior that displeases others.
Criminalization must be reserved only for those acts that by their very nature deprive others of life, liberty, and/or property. Period!
The government has got their filthy hands on every other vice...booze, gambling, cigarettes. If you ask me, alcohol is a much bigger problem than all the other vices combined. And yet you can roll up to a 7-11 a buy a 6 pack any day of the week. As long as Uncle Sam gets his (significant) piece of the action.
Just take a look at what is happening with the pot dispensaries in California. Due to the huge amount of tax, the price (and quality, so I hear) is better on the street than what they are selling in the shops. Now granted, the stuff they sell in the shops is supposedly medicine and not for getting high but the point stands. You can get better, cheaper stuff on the streets than what the government is blessing. I have no doubt the same would hold true if cocaine were legalized. Well, at least it would keep people from going to jail for posessing it.
Step one is decriminalizing getting stoned without approval from the state.
Step two would be decriminalize taking medicine without approval from the state.
Again, I was not arguing. This is my experience. It is what I see. There is nothing to debate.
You are either attempting to deceive me or yourself. You are not merely observing, you are also forming opinions based on your observations, then making judgements on based on those opinions.
Your opinions are most certainly up for debate, as are your judgements.
I can also see that you have a problem. You argue just like many alcoholics.
By that logic you argue like an alcoholic because you too insist you're not addicted. And don't pretend you don't drink, because alcoholics hide their drinking too. So pretending you don't drink makes you even more like an alcoholic.
I am not saying that you are an alcoholic.
Yeah you really are.
The thing is if you define everyone who drinks alcohol as an alcoholic (and you clearly are despite your protestations to the contrary), then "alcoholic" becomes a redundant, meaningless word simply synonymous with "drinker". It leaves no room for those who are addicted. The sort with liver failure, or the inability to have one drink without getting smashed.
Someone who has a couple of drinks on the weekend is not an alcoholic no matter how much you personally hate the idea of people being able to drink responsibly.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
It is not meant to be an argument. It is an opinion I have. And seeing how you are trying to argue with an opinion, unable to tell the difference between argument and opinion, do I doubt you have a use for arguments.
Ah, so in your world, opinions are magical things which stand on their own and no one should try to challenge?
Or perhaps you do not reach your opinions through any form of reasoning, so therefore there is no reasoning to argue against? So, how do youreach your opinions.
Or perhaps you merely wish to make pronouncements on the internet without anyone calling you out on your bullshit? If so, slashdot is the wrong place for you.
And your post did contain a number of arguments, some of which fell into the category of a logical fallacy. So while you can pretend that (a) you didn't make any arguments and (b) opinions are not to be challenged, it won't do any good.
You will be happy when you only get someone's attention, or drugs. At best would you only be looking to get my approval,
I'm curious why you post on the internet? Either you enjoy trolling (in which case, cool troll, bro!) or you believe that people will flock to your vapid pronouncements and heap you with praise? Or maybe you hope to convice others of the errors of their ways (in which case you're doing a mighty poor job). Or, perhaps you just enjoy patronising people:
but it would also be too late for it, because I am sure you are already using drugs.
Of course I do. I drink coffee in the week. Partly I like the taste, but I also find the caffeine useful. I like a tipple or two on the weekends as well, for a variety of reasons. I don't get your point.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Smoking in apartment buildings often affects the health of others in that building. This is why NYC regulates smoking in multi-tenant buildings.
Maybe Americans realize that there are few places you can smoke and not affect the health of others.
Hard drugs get you strongly and quickly Physically Addicted. Do not confuse that with a mild Psychological addiction. Many slashdot comments are getting this wrong. But not all addictions are the same
Many legal drugs will get you addicted. But that's why we control those substances as well. A large part of being on the federal schedule is that the illicit drug has no real medical use ( or so they say ). So it's not about which is most addictive, but rather what's addictive while arguably also having no medical use.
Well, patents ran out and pharma corps couldn't come up with anything that worked better...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Well, you needn't believe in them. Faith has nothing to do with it. It ain't homeopathy or religion, that stuff really works...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So I guess we should ban alcohol and most painkillers while we're at it?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
As long as people don't overdo it with the train of logic "if I take one pill a day, I lose 5 pounds a week, so with 2 I should lose 10", I'm with you.
IMO most of the stuff should make it a requirement that you have a through chat with your doc and a complete and through information about what the stuff does and what dangers are coming with it.
After that, gimme one good reason why someone should not get whatever chemicals he wants to get to put into his body in the way he enjoys the most? He got all the information to make an informed decision. If that is a poor decision, it is HIS problem.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Good for you. It's less toxic to inject Heroin than Methadone anyway...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Dude, whatever it is you're doing, do less of it.
Or at least pass some.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Erh... one flaw in that plan. If MJ ain't illegal, what legal grounds is there to seize it?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's really hard to tell whether you're actually serious or just trolling. Well, allow me to point to the ultimate kind of punishment for drug related issues: Killing people. And believe it or not, there are countries where people are killed for having drugs. Here a brief list.
People fucking get KILLED there for touching drugs. Not "wearing pink" or doing some menial work, or something else silly. The big one. You're not carrying a bucket to pick up crap, you kick it.
And STILL people do drugs.
Maybe, just maybe, you MIGHT realize when you look at that, that it's not the drugs themselves that are a problem. Hell, people shooting H up their veins are already looking at a death sentence. A long and agonizing one. And they FUCKING KNOW IT. And they STILL do that shit.
And you really want to tell anyone that drugs are the problem? Drugs are the fake escape from the actual problem. Solve the underlying problem and you solve the "drug problem" implicitly.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I'd support not just legalization, but free drugs for life...as long as signing up for the program required permanent sterilization.
Think about it...everyone wins.
-Styopa
Never happen, so don't wait for it. Governments don't ever restore human rights that they have been habitually trampling on, except behind the barrel of a gun.
Well, yes. The prison operator gets a small profit in exchange for huge damage to society and individuals. The very definition of fundamentally evil.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Additional controls would need to be put in place to prevent the distribution of street drugs. Silly me, of course they would! The pharma mafia would demand it. They don't want to lose that part of market share.
You appear to be right that states that haven't yet adopted voter photo ID don't fall under the 24th in this way.
The War on Drugs does provide a substantial benefit -- for the police forces who can buy shiny new toys by auctioning off stuff seized via asset forfeiture; the owners of private prisons; drug kingpins who earn their filthy lucre from peddling illicit wares; the members of public-sector prison-guard unions; and the laboratories who get to charge outrageous amounts of money to administer and process drug tests.
The general public, of course, does not share in this bounty and furthermore suffers from higher rates of violent crime spawned by prohibition.
'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
Murder hurts innocent people, drug use itself doesn't.
I can follow the argument that decriminalization of drugs will free up funds that can be better spend elsewhere, but I think that the elsewhere will be taking care of the increasing number of drug addicts and their ailments. Yes, I know, I am making assumptions here that if using drugs is no longer penalized the consumption will go up as well as keeping penalties will keep the number of users low. We have an excellent opportunity to put some facts into this by monitoring marijuana use in those states where it became legal beyond medical uses. Do more people try it? Do more people use it? Do we see a spike in things like traffic accidents due to doped drivers? Do we see the decrease in intelligence given that continued marijuana use destroys brain cells similar to heavy drinking? Do we get the same amount of lung cancer cases as from tobacco? My prediction is that the cost will stay the same, but shift to other areas such as public health care expenses, public dependent care expenses, downturn in economy, etc. At the same time, is there any benefit from sending military after the drug lords and fight them in gun battles with no real outcome? The solution is in finding out what makes people not even want to try drugs, especially those that get one hooked instantly. Eradicating demand will take care of the rest very quickly.
Imprisonment for failure to pay income tax requires having a taxable income in the first place. Someone legitimately unable to pay ACA individual shared responsibility tax almost certainly qualifies for either Medicaid or, in states that choose not to expand Medicaid, a hardship exemption. Thus one can vote without paying ACA individual shared responsibility tax by having taxable income below the federal poverty threshold. In voter photo ID states, on the other hand, one cannot vote without ID.
War on drugs causes and sustains: .... ... ... violence .... ... few police ... no jobs .... .... ....
Criminal underground economics
Government corruption financing / bribes.
Bank crimes of money laundering and tax evasion
Law enforcement personnel deaths and disabilities
Low income communities’ exploitation / enslavement
More
Public health / welfare catastrophes
Spreads diseases HIV, hepatitis, most STDs
Gang, paramilitary, gun
Long-term hospitalizations / care
More
Political / Cultural inequality, excuses, bigotry
Excuses for underfunding schools
Depressed neighborhood economics
Bad teachers
Criminal exploitation of citizens
Death of generations
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
The individual shared responsibility tax introduced in the Affordable Care Act doesn't change one thing about tax law in the slightest: if you have a taxable income, you have to pay tax. But you do raise a more general question about whether taking away a tax evader's right to vote through imprisonment is constitutional under the "or other tax" provision of the 24th Amendment.
http://healthland.time.com/2010/11/23/portugals-drug-experience-new-study-confirms-decriminalization-was-a-success/