Drug War Disaster

[Anodyne]

Originally posted by Aeson
Alcohol is too ingrained into society from thousands of years of it being legal and being widespread in use, and the industry that has arisen to support and promote that use. Couple that with the 'lesson' we learned the first time... it just isn't going to happen even though it should.

Most other drugs haven't had much influence in comparison. The only one that comes close is nicotine.

Thujone: In Europe since middle ages
Amanita mushrooms: Traditionally throughout the northern hemisphere for unknown period of time.
Cacti: First traces in Peru around 1300 BC.
Caffeine: Possibly since stone age, surely since 850 AD.
Cannabis: Since 6000 BC.
Opium: Since 1300 BC.
DMT: Since late 8th century.
Kava: Traditionally throughout Polynesia for unknown period of time.

Etc etc etc... I could go on and on.
The thing is, that alcohol used to be predominant only in western societies... and it's quite sad to see how it's so often being portrayed as the "morally pure" drug. There's no real reason to assume that a society based on ethyl alcohol as the main drug would be any more stable or "good" than a society based on Heroin, LSD, Psilocybine or THC.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Which drugs are illegal? Obviously there are more dangerous drugs than others, the question is where to draw the line. I'm not familiar on Dutch law, but from your statement even they seem to know that not all drugs should be made legal.

here is on elink describing the state of drug laws and enforcement in Holland

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/MISC/nethnorm.htm

a quote from there

The juridical formulation is, of course, much more complicated, but practically speaking, the use of cannabis products has been legalized; every town has at least one "hash and coffee shop", and the possession of less than 30 grams is not prosecuted by the police. In spite of this liberalization of use of soft drugs, traff cking in cannabis products is still forbidden. Besides the possession of hash, the possession by addicts of a 'usersamount' (an amount less than ½ a gram heroin, cocaine or morphine) has been permitted.

Add in being a parent and I'd support several of the illegal drugs becoming legalized. Of course the enforcement issue is still the same.

hey I am a parent of a 3yo girl

However by legalization those activities would become unprofitable.

Like alcohol and tobacco production is unprofitable?

No, you misunderstood me, the activities as "illegal selling" or trafficking, there would be legal institutions (or whatever is organised, I would prefer it at the moment being controlled by the state ) selling drugs and paying taxes.

Only these situations would become more frequent.

I agree but there is always a trade-off. Think about a number of innocents being killed in present drugs war, and other side effects it has.

And I guess we could agree that light drugs ban like pot really has no sense. I think the latest is that it is three times more likely than cigarettes to cause various cancers, but that is about it. Does this warrant a "war" on the particular substance?

I don't think there really is a problem with legalizing pot use, in the context of a society which already allows tobacco and alcohol use. In this case, it might even be beneficial as it sends a clearer signal to our youth, that legal drugs are safer than illegal drugs.

[aahz_capone]

Originally posted by Aeson

I just say... apart from many of Bezerkes points, look at the Dutch. Their society has not collapsed although many drugs are legal.

Which drugs are illegal? Obviously there are more dangerous drugs than others, the question is where to draw the line. I'm not familiar on Dutch law, but from your statement even they seem to know that not all drugs should be made legal.

In holland soft drugs laws (weed, hash, etc) are like alcohol laws in england or france. Hard drugs (lsd, crack, cociane, heroin, pcp, xtc, speed) are all cracked down on hard and addicts are stuffed into rehab and given free clean needles. because everyone can do soft drugs, it's no big deal, kids don't get hooked on it to be "cool", and fewer people go to hard drugs. Only xtc is a bit of a problem because of its easy access, concealibility, price etc. The biggest problem with xtc is that you have no idea that the product is good before it's too late, and xtc pills can be laced with all sorts of nasty sh!t.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


You're putting the cart in front of the horse, Doc.

When the demand stays constant but the supply is tightened elsewhere, this is exactly what you will see. Hey, same deal with the Prohibition.

You missed my point. My point was, same deal with The Opium Wars between Great Britain and China in the 19th century. Another point is that the drug scene in the Netherlands is not quite so cool nor as under control as we would be led to believe. The goverment of the Netherlands has drug cartels operating within their country and they're unable to control them. This exposes the bankruptcy of their liberal drug policies.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Fez
BTW, may I add something else to this little discussion... if you tax marijuana if it were legal... criminals would find a business in evading those taxes. Take tobacco for example. The mafia is known for selling cigarettes for cheap without tax stamps. Go figure! Legalisation might do more harm than good.

True. A few years ao Canada tried putting an extremely high tax on cigarettes. A cigarette smuggling industry quickly developed. There were even running gun battles on the Great Lakes between Canadian police and smugglers. Eventually the Canadians were forced to cut back the tax.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by aahz_capone


In holland soft drugs laws (weed, hash, etc) are like alcohol laws in england or france. Hard drugs (lsd, crack, cociane, heroin, pcp, xtc, speed) are all cracked down on hard and addicts are stuffed into rehab and given free clean needles. because everyone can do soft drugs, it's no big deal, kids don't get hooked on it to be "cool", and fewer people go to hard drugs. Only xtc is a bit of a problem because of its easy access, concealibility, price etc. The biggest problem with xtc is that you have no idea that the product is good before it's too late, and xtc pills can be laced with all sorts of nasty sh!t.

Because your nation has made itself known as being sympathetic and/or lenient towards drug use it has become a main manufacturing center for many of these hard drugs. Smooth. You're such a good neighbor.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


True. A few years ao Canada tried putting an extremely high tax on cigarettes. A cigarette smuggling industry quickly developed. There were even running gun battles on the Great Lakes between Canadian police and smugglers. Eventually the Canadians were forced to cut back the tax.

So that is the problem... overtaxing is not a good idea. So then legalize it and make it very cheap for everybody to get is not a good idea either.

Even here in Argentina, the Border Place interdicts thousands and thousands of cigarettes that have no tax stamps.

[Aeson]

Anodyne -

The point I was making is that in the US, making alcohol illegal would be a significantly more difficult law to enforce. The % of the population which uses alcohol is obviously much higher than any of those other drugs you mentioned.

[Anodyne]

Well, the positive thing about legalizing marijuana would be, that users / home growers would be no more classified as criminals in the eyes of the society (which is quite absurd since they never cause any damage to the common obedience to the law), but rather as normal people who they are.

I don't really see a difference between an alcoholist and a heroin-addict. No substance is any worse than another, and any substance can totally fuck you up. Control is needed in everything. And if you don't want to mix your mind up with a strong solvent like ethanol, but rather explore your consciousness with psychedelics - doing harm to no one in the process (everyone knows how drunken morons roam the streets, acting violent etc... this kind of behavior is hardly ever connected with psychedelics - why to commit crimes when you've seen the paradise?), you're labelled as a menace to the society. That's absurd, perverse and morally decadent.

[Anodyne]

Originally posted by Aeson
The % of the population which uses alcohol is obviously much higher than any of those other drugs you mentioned.

Weren't before the Europeans came.

[GePap]

I think Bezerker makes some very good arguments, and I agree with him that the 'refudiation' in this thread have been minimal, and have not engaged him on an equal par (and everyone here know I am no Libertarian)

On the issue of legalization and cost: I think this is an issue of individual getting the whole picture as to cost. For example, I think high taxes on tobacco are justified simply because of the high price the state pays for talking care of Tobacco users in terms of medical expenses. If people want low or no taxes on cigarettes, then the state needs to find a way to shift the health care burden of their care to them, and not to anyone else. Same with all other laws meant to 'protect' you fro yourself: if you don't care for the state to tell you how to live, you should not expect the state to help you once you have screwed up.

For example: seatbelt laws: I say we should modify them. Individul who whish to ignore them should go ahead and do so: they can get a free sticker at the DMV to put on their car stating "I don't care for seatbelts". Everyone else also gets a free sticker stating they do acept the law (not having either sticker would lead to a fine..its free, so get it you bums!) Then, the police would not stop them if they saw them not wearing one. The flip side is, that if you get into a car accident, the state does not bears any liability as far as trying to get you to a hospital for emergency care if you happen to suffer severe injusires because you had no seatbelt. That would be called taking responsibility for your choice.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
hey I am a parent of a 3yo girl

Sorry then, no drugs for you!

No, you misunderstood me, the activities as "illegal selling" or trafficking, there would be legal institutions (or whatever is organised, I would prefer it at the moment being controlled by the state ) selling drugs and paying taxes.

Ok. The current traffickers aren't going to pay taxes either way though. Having it state run may be a good idea, although I doubt our government's ability to compete pricewise with the black market trade that would develope.

[Aeson]

Weren't before the Europeans came.

There also wasn't a US before they came. When enforcing a law among a population, I'm sure you can see why the current population would need to be the one accounted for. Last I heard, the 'dead for centuries' crime rate was insignificant except in horror films.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by GePap
On the issue of legalization and cost: I think this is an issue of individual getting the whole picture as to cost. For example, I think high taxes on tobacco are justified simply because of the high price the state pays for talking care of Tobacco users in terms of medical expenses. If people want low or no taxes on cigarettes, then the state needs to find a way to shift the health care burden of their care to them, and not to anyone else.

I wonder if the SS money saved from smokers dying early covers the medical expenses?

[Kontiki]

Fez, you're amazingly dense. You said Singapore laws were the basis of your entire belief system. I have just pointed out that either that was a lie, or you've been lying to us about what you believe. I'd presume the former. I could personally care less if you are gay, bi, straight, into beastiality or licking toads - the fact is, the Singapore law that you love so much goes directly against that which you say you are.

As for your other comments:
- your comment about socialist states having weak court systems has been pulled out of your ass.
- socialism does not preclude free-market activity. Open your eyes and take a look at, say, Sweden, France, Canada, China, New Zealand....all "socialist" to varying degrees (socialism does not equal communism). Singapore also has one of the best social housing and health care systems in the world (very leftist notions), the government gets very involved in economy, hell, the government even considers itself democratic socialist party. If you knew anything about Singapore other than what the CIA world factbook tells you, you would know that Singapore worked under the notion of a "social contract" whereby the government would provide meaningful jobs in return for continued support.
http://www.littlespeck.com/content/e...y-011020.html. You could also check out http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/col...-88144,00.html for a little background on the ruling PAP. Or look up Temasek Holdings, the company that manages the government's investments. In April 2000, government controlled companies represented 25% of the market cap on Singapore's stock exchage including the three largest companies, top five by turnover and top four by total assets.
file:///C:/WINDOWS/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.IE5/C1U3WPMN/260,7,OVERVIEW OF PRIVATISATION IN SINGAPORE


Basically, Singapore has always been a left-of-center state, it just looked a little different than other models. if you really like the Singapore model, you're liking *gasp* leftist and socialist ideals.