lol, triple post for the win:
for those at least open to the idea of legalization, probably the best, most suscinct argument I've seen for it.
Originally posted by inimalist
religion forum?
so thinking heroin and crack are inherently bad is a religious belief now is it?
Given there is almost 0% chance that one is going to get busted if they use drugs reasonably, the move from no government control over their distribution to any government control will reduce access and potentially potency of the drugs available. For associates of mine who make a large portion of their annual revenue from the sale of drugs, legalization would mean they would have to go out of business.
surely there's a massive contradiction in there...if governmental control means less availability...then that'll simply mean more demand for illegal sources.
Now, drug barons in south america and terrorist groups in the middle east at the moment profiting from the illegal nature of the drug trade, would not profit nearly as much from it anymore, and, contrary to what you think, I don't believe, nor do I think there is any evidence, that those groups will just move on to human trafficing or arms dealing or whatever. (the businesses already exist, and just because a drug lord doesn't get money from illegal drug trade anymore, doesn't mean that there is suddenly more demand for human trafficing that the drug lord can just get into).
if you're talking about legalising cannabis...and people who predominantly grow and import that illegally...what do you think they will move onto next...clearly other drugs...and they'll try and create a demand for it...and/or (most likely both) they'll move onto other things...one thing is for certain...they wont go away.
Originally posted by jaden101
so thinking heroin and crack are inherently bad is a religious belief now is it?
no, and maybe that was unnecessarily glib
but that seems like a rather "head in the sand" position...
I certainly would like to think that my position is subject to change if you can show me some good evidence
that you and I have had radically different experiences with hard drug users and are apparently reading totally different sources regarding demographics of the users seems to indicate that it cannot be that black and white. That being said, don't trust crackheads, lol! 😉
I personally happen to think that the abuse type of drug use is symptomatic of other social problems. Screening and treating children with depression, anxiety or other issues would potentially do much more to reduce the instance of drug abuse than would restricting the access to drugs of those who can use them responsibly.
Originally posted by jaden101
surely there's a massive contradiction in there...if governmental control means less availability...then that'll simply mean more demand for illegal sources.
indeed, in some areas.
16 year olds, for instance, will theoretically have a more difficult time finding drugs. And for them, the black market would still have to thrive, however, the origins of the drugs in that market could be different.
the 16 year olds I knew went to their parents or older siblings for alcohol, thus not promoting a black market of alcohol production, but rather of purchasing.
I don't see the real contradiction. That entire post was a put down of government control of the market. It would be way more difficult for me to go to some weed store, place an order, show id, etc, than it is to go over to my buddies house and grab something on spot.
I'm happy to admit there is no silver bullet to solving all problems associated with drug use. My personal opinion is that prohibition is 1) morally wrong 2) unconstitutional (canadian or american) 3) ineffective and 4) compounds other problems.
Originally posted by jaden101
so thinking heroin and crack are inherently bad is a religious belief now is it?
No, he is referring to the "NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY, MY FAITH IS STRONG" thing, I think.
Originally posted by jaden101if you're talking about legalising cannabis...and people who predominantly grow and import that illegally...what do you think they will move onto next...clearly other drugs...and they'll try and create a demand for it...and/or (most likely both) they'll move onto other things...one thing is for certain...they wont go away.
There is just not that much demand for heroin. If all Cannabis is legal, the people that used to make money from Cannabis can't move on to the next drug...because no one is buying it, if there was more heroin there wouldn't be more heroin users...cause most people, frankly, just don't want to try heroin.
But I really can't say much more than the guy in inimalists video. And I obviously won't "convert" you, but I believe that evidence and logic strongly suggest that legalizing drugs (all drugs) would create many positive changes.
Originally posted by Bardock42
No, he is referring to the "NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY, MY FAITH IS STRONG" thing, I think.There is just not that much demand for heroin. If all Cannabis is legal, the people that used to make money from Cannabis can't move on to the next drug...because no one is buying it, if there was more heroin there wouldn't be more heroin users...cause most people, frankly, just don't want to try heroin.
But I really can't say much more than the guy in inimalists video. And I obviously won't "convert" you, but I believe that evidence and logic strongly suggest that legalizing drugs (all drugs) would create many positive changes.
how much demand there is is irrelevant anyway...it's the damage it causes because of the funding of addiction that is the problem...as i've already shown in the UK it's over £1,000,000,000 a year...and it doesn't matter if it's controlled or not...that damage will still be getting done.
and noone's addressed any of my "how" question either...
and noone's addressed any of the facts borne from alcohol and cigarettes that even if they are legally available...if they're cheaper to get from illegal sources (as they inevitabley would be with drugs as well due to far less costs) then that's where alot of people go....especially those with little money...which is what most drug addicts fall into.
that last point isn't necessarily true
with regards to cigarette prices in Ontario Canada, through the 80s and 90s, different pricing approaches were done, and there was a tipping point where cigarettes became too expensive, and people turned to what were always cheaper illegal ones.
There is likely a price balance, which would obviously be a government policy to meet, that can be obtained for all drugs. The gvt might have to take a loss on pot, though with thousands of times the mark up on hard street drugs, it is lunacy to think the government or the free market could not still profit off of cheaper drugs. Also, it is likely that people would pay marginally more (the balance I mentioned) for legal than illegal drugs.
Originally posted by inimalist
that last point isn't necessarily truewith regards to cigarette prices in Ontario Canada, through the 80s and 90s, different pricing approaches were done, and there was a tipping point where cigarettes became too expensive, and people turned to what were always cheaper illegal ones.
There is likely a price balance, which would obviously be a government policy to meet, that can be obtained for all drugs. The gvt might have to take a loss on pot, though with thousands of times the mark up on hard street drugs, it is lunacy to think the government or the free market could not still profit off of cheaper drugs. Also, it is likely that people would pay marginally more (the balance I mentioned) for legal than illegal drugs.
the difference is the demographics of it though...cigarette smokers come from all levels of income...heroin users tend to either come from the rich (as some kind of fashionable drug...models, rockstars...etc) or from the very poorest of society
actually there is as large a mark up on cannabis as anything else because the purity levels found in street drugs is relatively similar
you also have to take into account how illegal drugs are manufactured...in a government controlled scheme you would have to pay much higher costs to produce it....as you would have wages, facilities for manufacture, distribution....you would also have to cut the drug as much as any illegal substance only with cleanly sourced and non-damaging ingredients as you couldn't hand out more pure drugs as you would simply end up with a large OD problem.
as for your last point about people paying marginally more for better legal drugs...that's the case with cigarettes for the reasons i've mentioned...it wont be the same for heroin and crack addicts..and even if it was they'd have to commit more crime to pay the higher costs...thus creating more damage that has to be policed.
Originally posted by jaden101
how much demand there is is irrelevant anyway...it's the damage it causes because of the funding of addiction that is the problem...as i've already shown in the UK it's over £1,000,000,000 a year...and it doesn't matter if it's controlled or not...that damage will still be getting done.
The point about demand was solely about the larger criminal element moving on to other illegal endevors, as you proposed. Your point here now, is a different one. Fair enough about the 1 billion pounds, now, the question is a) how much does the UK spend on prosecuting and policing drugs usage and how much money would taxing drugs create. Obviously that's speculation, but I would figure it would exceed the 1 billion, even if it didn't. Legalization would certainly decrease the burden on society caused by addiction.
Originally posted by jaden101
and noone's addressed any of my "how" question either...
What is your "how" question then?
Originally posted by jaden101
the difference is the demographics of it though...cigarette smokers come from all levels of income...heroin users tend to either come from the rich (as some kind of fashionable drug...models, rockstars...etc) or from the very poorest of society
according to what I've seen, heroin users come from all parts of society
over 50% of those who went in for treatment had full time jobs
I think you are totally mischaraterizing the typical heroin user.
Originally posted by jaden101
actually there is as large a mark up on cannabis as anything else because the purity levels found in street drugs is relatively similar
evidence?
I can't fathom that it really takes 8 times the investment to create a gram of coke over a gram of pot.
Also, given that illegal measures must be used to produce drugs, we don't have a very good idea of what the actual resource investment into drug manufacture would be.
Originally posted by jaden101
you also have to take into account how illegal drugs are manufactured...in a government controlled scheme you would have to pay much higher costs to produce it....as you would have wages, facilities for manufacture, distribution....
I'm still confident the market could produce drugs for the same price as they are on the black market.
Much of the price of making illegal drugs comes from the risk of getting caught. The illegal trade will never get rid of that.
Do you have the evidence that says this?
Originally posted by jaden101
you would also have to cut the drug as much as any illegal substance only with cleanly sourced and non-damaging ingredients as you couldn't hand out more pure drugs as you would simply end up with a large OD problem.
if you buy coke in Columbia, it is likey to be pure, as the cut costs more than the drug itself. Only after having to be smuggled over international borders does the drug appreciate in price to the point where it would be valuable enough to cut it.
The only drug this might be problematic with is heroin, though I can't imagine it being a bigger problem than now, where heroin addicts can get drugs that contain flesh eating bacteria (happened in the UK several years ago).
Originally posted by jaden101
as for your last point about people paying marginally more for better legal drugs...that's the case with cigarettes for the reasons i've mentioned...it wont be the same for heroin and crack addicts..and even if it was they'd have to commit more crime to pay the higher costs...thus creating more damage that has to be policed.
so people will commit the same level of crime for the same reasons whether drugs are illegal or not. Seems pretty moot to me.
Tackling those problems will have nothing to do with drug prohibition. In the cases of drug use that you seem to want to use as emblematic of all drug use, I would say that the majority of cases display addiction as a symptom of some other social or personal problem, rather than it just being the drugs themselves (which prohibition has done nothing about anyways, there are more, cheaper, purer drugs today than when the war on drugs started).
Originally posted by Bardock42
The point about demand was solely about the larger criminal element moving on to other illegal endevors, as you proposed. Your point here now, is a different one. Fair enough about the 1 billion pounds, now, the question is a) how much does the UK spend on prosecuting and policing drugs usage and how much money would taxing drugs create. Obviously that's speculation, but I would figure it would exceed the 1 billion, even if it didn't. Legalization would certainly decrease the burden on society caused by addiction.What is your "how" question then?
usage?...not alot....the crime that goes along with usage....huge amounts...and legalising it wont change the crimes that go with usage...as ive been saying continuously
policing trafficking?...again...not a huge amount but as i said...the organised crime behind it will simply move onto to other areas of crime...to think otherwise is simply stupid...it's like saying that if someone's salary was cut by a huge amount they wouldn't go looking for work elsewhere.
so i don't believe the financial or the social impact on society will be lessened at all...
Originally posted by jaden101
usage?...not alot....the crime that goes along with usage....huge amounts...and legalising it wont change the crimes that go with usage...as ive been saying continuously
As I continue saying not changing the crimes that go with usage is not a valuable argument AGAINST legalization. It's just saying "Either way, it's going to be shit". And the possibility that those crimes actually do decrease is there and quite valid, while, it getting worse, is pretty unlikely.
Originally posted by jaden101
policing trafficking?...again...not a huge amount but as i said...the organised crime behind it will simply move onto to other areas of crime...to think otherwise is simply stupid...it's like saying that if someone's salary was cut by a huge amount they wouldn't go looking for work elsewhere.
Why would you assume they would go into a different "illegal" branch though. And why do you think there's just demand for more players in other illegal endevors? Again, just because the drug baron can't sell his heroin anymore doesn't mean that the prostitution needs another crime boss. Really, I figure they'd much more likely supply the drugs needed legally instead...
Originally posted by jaden101
so i don't believe the financial or the social impact on society will be lessened at all...
But that's just putting your hands on your ears and yelling "LA LA LA", it is pretty obvious that a lot would change if drugs were legalized. And even if you think it won't be lessened, why the hell do want to prosecute people whose only crime is that they like to have a joint once in a while. If it is, to you, all the same, why not make the life of some people better, rather than being a pain in their ass for no good reason whatsoever.
of those who went in for treatment
there's your key statement right there.
in summer of this year there was a huge clampdown on heroin in my home city...the addiction treatment charity "addaction" expected a large uptake of people wanting treatment because of the lack of availability of the drug....they got 6 people...that's less than half a % of the the total heroin users in my hometown
evidence?
mark up is dependant on how much is cut to increase the yield of the drug...your average 8th of cannabis is as little as 1% THC and as much as 5%...it's the same with most drugs...heroin, cocaine, crack etc...
obviously this fluctuates depending on how far down the line you are when buying though....but those are the averages a friend of mine tested while at university doing her honours thesis...it's also an ongoing piece of research and she had similar results compared with the 4 previous years.
Do you have the evidence that says this?
do i have evidence that says what?...that building a manufacturing plant to produce cleaners drugs is costlier than a mud hut in the middle of the jungle?
i think it's self evident that that's the case
also...do i have evidence that the people making it would be paid more than the people who work for the drug barons in places like columbia and afghanistan?...again...that's matter of common sense.
Tackling those problems will have nothing to do with drug prohibition. In the cases of drug use that you seem to want to use as emblematic of all drug use, I would say that the majority of cases display addiction as a symptom of some other social or personal problem, rather than it just being the drugs themselves (which prohibition has done nothing about anyways, there are more, cheaper, purer drugs today than when the war on drugs started).
and making drugs legal wont have an impact on the social, personal and economic problems that result in drug use either...unless you want to employ the drug addicts to work in the drug factories 😆
from personal experience, i've never seen a single positive from drug addiction or heavy usage...and that stems from cannabis to heroin and everything in between...i've seen friends lose their jobs because their cannabis use led them to be unable to work a full day or being under the influence to the extent that it affected their work standard
i've seen a man passed out in a stairwell of a drug den with a needle in one arm and his 2 year old daughter in the other while 10 feet away was a pram with his 3 month old son in it
i've seen people battered with claw hammers because they were robbed by drug addicts.
so the idea that safer drugs are somehow an answer is beyond me...it'll result in less overdoses...big deal.
it'll have no impact on crime...it'll have no impact on demand (might even encourage those who are afraid of breaking the law to give it a go though)
the only reasonable application of the active compounds of these drugs is in medicine...and we already have safer and more effective treatments for almost everything anyway.
i certainly don't think there is any argument for allowing recreational use of drugs or allowing abuse of drugs in terms of helping society...they wont make anyone a more productive citizen...quite the opposite as is already the case.
it's simply a matter of who profits...and like i said...if it's the government and not organised crime...they'll simply find there income elsewhere.
Why would you assume they would go into a different "illegal" branch though. And why do you think there's just demand for more players in other illegal endevors? Again, just because the drug baron can't sell his heroin anymore doesn't mean that the prostitution needs another crime boss. Really, I figure they'd much more likely supply the drugs needed legally instead...
well what would you do if you were in organised crime and someone took away a large chunk of your income?....would you sit back and go "ah well...i'll just do with less money"?
please
and you seriously think they'd bit for contracts to make it legally?...you think governments would go for that?
😆 wow you really are an optimist.
But that's just putting your hands on your ears and yelling "LA LA LA", it is pretty obvious that a lot would change if drugs were legalized. And even if you think it won't be lessened, why the hell do want to prosecute people whose only crime is that they like to have a joint once in a while. If it is, to you, all the same, why not make the life of some people better, rather than being a pain in their ass for no good reason whatsoever.
i've already said i don't think that prosecuting someone who likes a spliff is a good way of dealing with it...
but then neither is tolerating and allowing someone who's an addict to carry on causing huge damage to society....why is it such a bad idea to try and stop people from wanting to take the drug in the 1st place?
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Make all drugs legal and let people moderate it themselves.If they can't, too bad. It works for alcohol and cigarettes, if you get cancer or an alcohol problem, your problem.
Nobody deserves to be imprisoned for a habit.
-AC
While I agree on principle, my ****ing tax dollars go towards those *******'s medical costs...tax dollars that I would rather spend on education and science.
Originally posted by jaden101
well what would you do if you were in organised crime and someone took away a large chunk of your income?....would you sit back and go "ah well...i'll just do with less money"?please
Again, you, for some reason, assume there is an endless supply of jobs in illegal markets. If the whole chunk of the drug trade would fall away, it doesn't mean that we need more people to traffic people, or to deal arms. We got those people. The losses made by losing the illegal drug trade can't just be picked up with the next illegal venture. You really need to address this. So far you only say "Do you think they wouldn't want to", to which my answer is "Yes they would want to, but they can't". You never address the "can't" just reapeat that they'd want to.
Originally posted by jaden101
and you seriously think they'd bit for contracts to make it legally?...you think governments would go for that?😆 wow you really are an optimist.
Yes. Our only problem with them is that they smuggle it into our countries. If that's not illegal...what reason is there not to trade with them?
Originally posted by jaden101
i've already said i don't think that prosecuting someone who likes a spliff is a good way of dealing with it...
Then it should be legalized. That's what that believe should lead to, but apparently you are against that.
Originally posted by jaden101
but then neither is tolerating and allowing someone who's an addict to carry on causing huge damage to society....why is it such a bad idea to try and stop people from wanting to take the drug in the 1st place?
It's not as such a bad idea. If you do it privately and do not spend immense chunks of government money on totally ineffective ways to deal with it (as happens at the moment). It is also bad that you presume you have the right to tell what people can do with their bodies and what not.
Originally posted by dadudemon
While I agree on principle, my ****ing tax dollars go towards those *******'s medical costs...tax dollars that I would rather spend on education and science.
You also realize that around 40 billion (federal and state tax dollars) go to the war on drugs. Coupled with the billions of tax the government doesn't receive from drugs (which could likely pay the medical bill easily), it's practically your fault if you support the war on drugs.
Really, lets be absolutely clear here, the problem are not the drug dealers...or the addicts...it's really just the people that want it illegal and **** themselves up the ass because of their faulty logic in the procees.
Again, you, for some reason, assume there is an endless supply of jobs in illegal markets. If the whole chunk of the drug trade would fall away, it doesn't mean that we need more people to traffic people, or to deal arms. We got those people. The losses made by losing the illegal drug trade can't just be picked up with the next illegal venture. You really need to address this. So far you only say "Do you think they wouldn't want to", to which my answer is "Yes they would want to, but they can't". You never address the "can't" just reapeat that they'd want to.
perhaps not...but what it does mean is that there will be war between those put out by the legalisation of drugs over who controls other aspects of organised crime...
meaning more crime....and more serious crime at that.
Yes. Our only problem with them is that they smuggle it into our countries. If that's not illegal...what reason is there not to trade with them?
because if you're suggesting they'll all of a sudden built proper manufacturing plants in order to make safer drugs...they wont...if you're insisting that they'll pay the coca farmers a proper wage to grow the product rather than do it at threat of violence and give then a barely living wage....they wont...to think that they will is just silly really.
It's not as such a bad idea. If you do it privately and do not spend immense chunks of government money on totally ineffective ways to deal with it (as happens at the moment). It is also bad that you presume you have the right to tell what people can do with their bodies and what not.
that's the only possible argument for legalising...that the money raised will be used to get people off drugs and no siphoned off for other purposes...at least that's the only way i can see it getting support.
but as is always the case...that doesn't happen...just like when the UK government said they were hiking up rail prices to reinvest in the railways...when infact only a fraction of the extra money actually was used for that.
You also realize that around 40 billion (federal and state tax dollars) go to the war on drugs. Coupled with the billions of tax the government doesn't receive from drugs (which could likely pay the medical bill easily), it's practically your fault if you support the war on drugs.
good for the US...personally i don't give a **** about their war on drugs
Really, lets be absolutely clear here, the problem are not the drug dealers...or the addicts...it's really just the people that want it illegal and **** themselves up the ass because of their faulty logic in the procees.
the only faulty logic is thinking that drug addicts aren't causing damage to society regardless of who the supplier is...you're merely sanctioning state sponsored house breaking and mugging....well done you.
apart from the flimsy reasons i've already given...what benefit do these drugs have for the taker and the society...given that there's a massive amount of medical evidence for the physical damage that psychotropic
the irony with me is that i own two books pihkal and tihkal ...and i've tried quite a few of the things in both
😄