Drug War Disaster

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Yes, according to Interpol your country was the largest exporter of synthetic recreational drugs (Ecstasy, PCP, LSD, etc. ) in the world last year. What a truely enlightened policy.

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.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Does the name Al Capone sound familiar?



That's one of the arguments of the "Legalise Drugs" movement

I know, that's the point I was making. They were rhetorical questions.

[Aeson]

Some people would get on that train that is for sure, but don't they get there now? Maybe some more would, but exposing those on TV, and educating about it would have kids think twice before they do that.
There would be legal way to help them if they want help, and not like now.

It seems you agree that drug use isn't healthy. Why make it legal and send that message that it's ok to do? It isn't a question of funding, we can fund the enforcement of drug laws and drug education if that's what we choose to do.

The US deficiency in education is something that almost everyone would agree on. Why rely soley on a system that is obviously broken when other methods are available. And there are legal drug treatment clinics. Legalizing the drugs involved are only going to increase their workload. I would support a 'step down' type program administered by a doctor. It doesn't require legalizing drugs, just legalizing them for prescription in such cases.

And you are talking above about the effects of alchohol. I do not question that - however what are the effects of a war on alchohol.

In the long run I think they would be less than perpetually allowing the problem to exist. Short term, it would be a mess, from an enforcement perspective, and also an economic one. How much so would depend on the general support for such a ban.

In any case it isn't going to happen in the forseeable future. 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.

The most important part is education. Educate don't ban.

I agree with the education part. I don't think that the problems with enforcement warrant making drug use legal though. I'm sure we can agree that murder shouldn't be made legal, and only rely on education to show people that murder is wrong. Legalizing murder (which would just be 'killing' such a case) would decrease crime, but increase non-consentual death. Sure there is collateral damage from apprehending murder suspects, time, money, even lives. But it's better to keep it illegal.

Some things are just too dangerous to allow to have free reign in society, and it's up to society to decide where to draw those lines. I think drugs certainly are too dangerous to be freely distributed, you disagree, that's fine. Overall consensus as shown in voting in the US is still that they should remain illegal.

[MikeH]

Point is, drugs are self harm. Murder harms others. Drug illegality causes crime that hurts others.

[Aeson]

I was talking about effects on society MikeH.

I really don't care that much if someone decides to destroy their life (given the proper knowlege that that is what they are doing) intentionally. But I do care if they decide to take a course of action which will negatively affect the lives of those around them. When you take drugs (at least certain drugs), it's not much different than randomly shooting bullets around. Sure you might not hit anyone, but you're drastically increasing your chances that you will over not shooting at all. On a personal level, that is the analogy I would make.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Kontiki


Absolutely hilarious, because Singapore is also one of the more socialist states around. Welcome to the left, Fez.

I thought Socialist states have weak court systems?

And if that is so explain the economic growth Singapore has. You can only get that in a capitalist free market state. Singapore isn't socialist.

From CIA Factbook:

Singapore, a highly developed and successful free-market economy, enjoys a remarkably open and corruption-free environment, stable prices, and one of the highest per capita GDPs in the world. The economy depends heavily on exports, particularly in electronics and manufacturing, and was hard hit in 2001 by the global recession and the slump in the technology sector. In 2001, GDP contracted by 2.2%. The economy is expected to recover in 2002 in response to improvements in the US economy, and GDP growth for 2002 is projected to be 3% to 4%. In the longer term the government hopes to establish a new growth path that will be less vulnerable to the external business cycle than the current export-led model, but is unlikely to abandon efforts to establish Singapore as Southeast Asia's financial and high-tech hub.

Welcome to the world of the right wing, Kontiki.

[MikeH]

There is no way to stop people taking drugs.

The only debate is how to help the addicts.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Well fair is fair ...

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

Anyway on the murder part - you actually do something against someone else, noone gets prosecuted if he or she willingly cut his own finger. However war on drugs gets you prosecuded if you did this to yourself. That is from moral and "danger" perspective for me. You are not danger to society you are a danger to yourself. Of course driving while drugged should be a serious offense... and similar.

Furthermore if drugs were made legal illegal distributors should still be prosecuted or someone who was found to encourage youngsters and such. However by legalization those activities would become unprofitable.

There is always a tradeoff. For me it seems very logical to trade the "drugs war" innocents killed/ billions spent/ gangsters and crime created etc... for more people who would get themselves into this, as they could even though they were informed (we could afford to inform them as tobbaco is pretty well known to be dangerous today), but it was their choice afterall. Not that they harmed the others. (Situations where they can harm the others should be prevented like driving and similar, but it is no different than alchohol).

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?

Just the last - yes the decision made is by society - however society is made to making standards by the few who influence it, not really by thinking the issues trough. You and I coudl at least in theory influence them the right way one day . Or at least know why we think on the issue what we think about. Which we do (even though we disagree) .

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Hmm, also forgot to mention that Singapore has strict laws against gay sex.

And?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Kontiki


Oh, this has nothing to do with enforcement or anything like that, I'm just enjoying the fact that Fez said that Singapore law was the basis for his entire beliefs system when it seems a good chunk of Singapore law goes against what he purports to believe.

Why don't you just come out and say I am a ***? Really what does that have to do anything with it?

I specifically brought up sentences about drug related crimes in Singapore. They are punishable by death. Now let me tell you something: Does this have anything to do with another social issue? Absolutely not.

Yes I believe a model of the Singaporean law system against drugs should be established in all developed nations.

[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.

Of course driving while drugged should be a serious offense... and similar.

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.

However by legalization those activities would become unprofitable.

Like alcohol and tobacco production is unprofitable?

(Situations where they can harm the others should be prevented like driving and similar, but it is no different than alchohol).

Only these situations would become more frequent.

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.

[Giancarlo]

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.

[DinoDoc]

2b) The 2nd Amendment guarantees us the right to keep and bear arms, but not for drug users, or even people who use prescription drugs assigned to others. Yup, if you own a gun and use a prescription painkiller belonging to someone else, you're a criminal subject to a very harsh sentence.

I don't get the 2nd amendment claim. It seems like you are reaching quite a bit with this one in order to get all of the first 10 in.

[El León]

Just to clarify this drug war business. It is an easily observable fact that the main profit from drugs comes from distribution, not production or trafficking. Hence, capos like Escobar, Caro Quintero, etc. are really the "medium fish" in the game. The big fish are the capos of LA, Chicago, Ny, etc. Why do we never hear about them?
And the US still has the gall to certify countries? Well, I can tell you, this is not because of any advantage point in the war against drugs... The two past presidents of the US admitted to trying drugs.. hint, hint.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by El Leon
Why do we never hear about them?

Because you refuse to watch the news?