posted 12-13-98 06:50 AM ET            

Addicts' quality of life: In the present situation, addicts don't have much of a life. Not only are they addicted to an extremely dangerous drug, but they also have to be criminals or prostitutes to raise money for their addiction. Additionally, they never know what they really fill up the syringes with - how strong it is or what it's mixed with. This causes lots of overdoses (ODs). Also, a Swiss professor (can't provide reference, I'm afraid) discovered that, with clean heroin, a 40-year addiction would cause no more damage to the body than 40 years of alcoholism (which is still quite a lot of damage, of course). In effect, our drug laws kill the addicts, if not sooner (OD) then later (internal damage from trace elements).

With legal heroin the addicts would still not have much of a life. However, because prices should be significantly lower, they would not be forced into criminal careers and could, in some cases, even keep a regular job (and life). Also, they would not be subject to accidental ODs due to poisonous trace elements or varying drug strength, and they would be far more healthy.

Crime: As fewer addicts are forced into criminal careers, street crime naturally diminishes. In addition, all crime related to drug smuggling and pushing would disappear, as the market would no longer be profitable. This would be extremely significant, saving society, among other things, vast amounts of money (enough to pay for the rehabilitation of all drug users, I would guess). We all know the the US probation basically kickstarted the mafia into the prominent position it has had since the 30s - today, our drug laws create the basis for international organized crime which will IMHO be a major problem for future generations.

Increased use: For the softer drugs the increased use will probably be significant. However, this use will likely replace what would otherwise be use of alcohol, and as soft drugs are not particularly more dangerous than alcohol, nothing is lost (or gained, for that matter). Hard drugs have an entirely different audience than soft drugs - nobody uses heroin as a party drug. The average heroin user is extremely dissatisfied with life, using the drug to escape a pain that would otherwise be unbearable. People who consider suicide might certainly consider heroin instead, should it be legal, but few others would pick up a legal heroin habit unless they would also pick an illegal heroin habit (i.e., people who start using heroin would probably do so regardless of whether it's legal or not).

That's probably enough for now. C'mon everybody.

posted 12-13-98 07:17 PM ET            

Protecting the public: For some drugs (the most prominent of which is alcohol) this is quite true - people sometimes do stupid and dangerous things when their minds are clouded. It is NOT true for heroin (people on heroin are anything but dangerous) nor for psychoactive drugs such as cannabis, LSD or ecstacy. I don't protecting the public is a major concern.

Running out of money: Organized properly, heroin (etc) production could be made quite efficient - a heroin addiction certainly don't have to cost more money than alcoholism. People might still run out of money and turn to criminal activities, but no more than alcoholics already do today. As heroinists are few and far in between compared to alcoholics, I think the effect is minor.

Quitting heroin: You might be surprised to know that the physical addiction is not at all as difficult to lose as people seem to believe. At drug rehabilitation centers, it is almost always possible to break the addiction, at least if the addict is sufficiently motivated. The difficult part is keeping people off the drug when they return to society. The reason for this, IMHO, is that, today, a heroinist's social life is by necessity centered upon the heroin use. Being socially ostraziced, addicts stick to each other. Consequently, rehabilitated people have no friends to turn to, can't get a job, and basically ends up watching TV all day. Soon, they decide that life as an addict is better than no life at all.

posted 12-14-98 04:54 PM ET            

"Increased use:" Though this point correctly discusses the lower and upper ends of the 'drug scale', it seems to forget dangerous party drugs such as cocaine. This is a drug which is far more damaging than alcohol, but which still may have a 'soft drugs' audience. Yes, I think there might be an increase in this sort of drug use, which certainly is an argument against legalization.

Going beyond the practical level, I would say that, as a principle, people should be allowed to live their life as they choose. Regardless of the consequences, nobody should ever be denied taking drugs, as long as they are capable of seeing the potential harm their actions can do do themselves (and, indirectly, others). Choose your own destiny; nobody has the right to do it for you.

posted 12-14-98 05:37 PM ET            

Sure there's always the potential that people who don't really need MJ will get it through Cannabis Clubs, but I think it's very wrong that people with terminal illnesses and pain that can be relieved by smoking MJ are being deprived. Especially when the voters said it's OK.

posted 12-14-98 06:12 PM ET            

On the practical side it is true that almost all the deaths from heroin are caused by overdose. People take OD because in the black market you never know what exactly you are buying and thus the purity level of a particular heroin dose is usually unknown to the user. So, a regular heroin user can die one day just because the last freight of heroin was very pure and he didn't know. Under a decriminalised system the degree of purity of heroin would be written on the heroin pack that the user would buy in the shopping center and almost no deaths from heroin would occur.
Another argument, good for the walfare-statists, is that through the tax revenue raised many state activities can be financed without higher taxes.

posted 12-14-98 08:18 PM ET            

Anyway, I'm quite sure the vast majority of the people here is against legalization. So why don't they say something..? Of course, it's not like I can't inderstand it - there aren't really any good arguments against legalization....

posted 12-15-98 02:37 AM ET            

Since I'll probably stand uncorrected anyway, I dare say that most of the anti-legalization sentiments that float around these days are caused by societal brainwashing. People have had this "drugs evil, must punish" belief implanted through childhood conditioning, and they're not about to break out of it despite lacking good arguments not to. It has become a pillar of their morality; rejecting it would cause parts of their belief system to collapse.

posted 12-15-98 09:07 PM ET            

So, lacking any juicy external enemies, the government has cleverly decieved the citizenry into waging war upon itself.

Since all my major points remain undisputed, I'll just quote some druggy people...:

Instead of all of this energy and effort directed at the war to end drugs, how about a little attention to drugs which will end war?

Critics have told me I've ruined the lives of 50 million young people. I can't be certain of this, since only about 10 million have ever come back to thank me. - Timothy Leary

Let us declare nature to be legitimate. All plants should be declared legal, and all animals for that matter. The notion of illegal plants and animals is obnoxious and ridiculous.

LSD has indeed been known to cause psychosis... In people who haven't taken it.

posted 12-16-98 01:08 AM ET            

My opinion is based on optimism, which I'll admit, (being pessimistic) is growing dimmer and dimmer as the years go by. (Maybe its just the media (Isn't it great that in America, everything can be blamed on the media or the government? I love it!) OK, enough of that.

The thing is, that drugs ruin lives, or they ruin health (mental and physical). And by 'drugs' I obviously mean the illegals. I imagine that some of them don't have any long term effects, but that's not relevant. Wait, I just realized that I'm not in Kansas anymore. Well, Nebraska anyway, and that most people in this forum will go for the "As long as it doesn't hurt anyone else." bit. Shoot. There goes my argument. But gosh dangit! If you can help someone, (and we can) then why the heck don't we just help the kids, outlaw the drugs, imprison the drug dealers, napalm Columbia, (That's a joke), and help everyone have a "normal happy life"? Why would we want to make it more accessible for people to make themselves suffer? It just doesn't make any sense to me. I think that everyone who reads this would have to agree that if we really wanted to solve the drug problem, we could. We just aren't willing to put our hearts into it. WELL I AM! So there. (-8 My mind is kinda running around in circles, you'll have to forgive me as I have gotten minimal amounts of sleep these past few nights. But, I'm awaiting your responses.

posted 12-16-98 08:27 AM ET            

And on a philosophical level, there is no such thing as a "normal, happy life". Believe me, I would rather go to hell ten times a day than have a life conforming to (what I perceive as) your definition of a "normal, happy life". Even worse: "if we really wanted to solve the drug problem, we could." The only way to end the drug problem is to make everybody happy, so they wouldn't need to take drugs. This is not going to happen.

Imran: Drug use is not suicide! Even heroin use (as mentioned before) is no more damaging than alcoholism (or would be, if the heroin was pure). "Though drugs like heroin and crack should be kept illegal." - Naturally, you offer no reasons. Dare I suggest it's because you have no reasons?

Zan: Tobacco, while being the most addictive substance we know, is not more harmful than heroin. I'll agree with your 'OD' point though.

Greg: Sure, psychologic addiction is as bad (worse!) as anything. Still, lots of things are psychologically addictive; religion, sports, watching TV, having sex, being in a relationship. In fact, everything that really makes life worth living is, to some extent, physchologically addictive. Which does not means it is, or deserves to be, forbidden.

posted 12-16-98 09:30 AM ET            

As for the cannabis discussion, please see
http://www.newscientist.com/nsplus/insight/drugs/marijuana/marijuana.html (New Scientist magazine) Of course, I think marijuana illegality is an insult to human intelligence, and not even worth dicussing.

posted 12-16-98 09:52 AM ET            

Anyway if you do that you get better control and take people out of criminal environments.

Personally I believe that dealers encourage harder drugs not soft drugs. If you can remove that pressure by taking them out of that environment you might help.

posted 12-16-98 12:16 PM ET            

However, one argument against legalizing drugs is that the majority of the people in our society don't want their children to use them. They use the full resources at their disposal to ensure that there is a stigma against that activity: the cops will harass you, you'll be forced into a life of crime, you'll fry your brain, etc. Saying that hard drugs are just like alcohol and tobacco doesn't help your case at all, as far as I'm concerned. The anti-smoking crowd is out in full force, trying there best to get that eliminated (I personally find it amusing that some of the same people working against tobacco support "medical" marijuana). A lot of people would like to get rid of, or at least limit the use of, alcohol in our society (I'm not necessarily one of them), they just can't do it because the rest of society isn't behind them (try using your argument that hard drugs are just like alcohol at a MADD meeting, you probably won't get a very friendly response). Prohobition didn't work because too many people were already using alcohol (for obvious reasons ), so it couldn't be effectively stopped. The drug using population is still very small, however, so laws and social forces still have a chance at affecting it.

posted 12-16-98 06:15 PM ET            

Also, making things illegal is a sure way of attracting nonconformists, and teenagers are by and large people who don't want to conform (teenage rebellion, yes?).

So, while 'scaring people away' might work to some extent, it might also in many cases work against its intention. This is the information age - governments will have to find other ways to influence people than by spreading half-truths and un-truths.

"Saying that hard drugs are just like alcohol and tobacco doesn't help your case at all" - Well, I didn't say that. I did say that nicotine is the most addictive substance in common use, which I believe it is (though I don't have a reference). Also, I did say that the physical damage of long-term heroin use is comparable to that of alcohol use, if the heroin is clean (which street heroin is NOT). The point here was not to trivialize the effects of heroin abuse (which, as for alcohol abuse, are quite devastating), but to show how our laws, in effect, kill the addicts. You might be right, though: such comparisons, while truthful, may seem so outrageous to the average conditioned person that it weakens the argumentation.

"The drug using population is still very small" - Heroin, yes; cannabis, no.

posted 12-16-98 08:22 PM ET            

Because that is basically the ONLY good thing that could come out of drug legalisation, is lower crime. However, I think it is a small enough percentage that the end result would not be worth it.

As for the users, I have VERY little sympathy for them, so I won't follow the "let's do something good for them" line. It's like saying "Let's do something good for the murderers of this world". Why? They are doing something illegal, and they know it, so why the hell should we help them by legalising it? Will that help them in the long term? No. In fact, leaving them addicted to drugs that are freely available will keep them in the same merry go round they currently call a life. The only difference is they won't have to prostitute themselves, or turn to crime to do so.

Frankly, the only way to help them is to get them off it, and to stop people getting on it in the first place. Legalising the drugs is not the way to do this.

You may argue that we have no right to force them to stop using it. Well, as long as it is illegal, we have every right.

Which bring us back to a viscious circle, where you say "well, it should be legal".

As for Tobacco, well maybe it is just as damaging, however tobacco still leaves your perceptions in a normal state. Drugs alter your perceptions, therefore they are different, and should not be compared to tobacco. Tobacco smokers can and do lead normal lives. Drug users rarely do (apart from occasional cannabis users - and hell, I smoke occasionally myself).

I also disagree with the notion that people won't try it more just because it is legal. Of course they will. Children and young adults do stupid things all the time, not just to break the law, but to try out things.

Anyway, I doubt that I am going to change your opinion, and I know you won't change mine. But let me ask you a question: Would you rather live in a world with heroin (and other hard drugs), or one without?

posted 12-16-98 08:41 PM ET            

Well about 8 years ago when I was in High School and debating, the topic for my Junior year was "Prison Overcrouding." And many people used the point that a huge portion of people in jail are in for drug crimes, ie having the drugs on them.

posted 12-16-98 09:10 PM ET            

Users: I find your lack of sympathy for users both ignorant and unkind. Suicidees would, IMHO, be a far better analogy than murderers. Also, your logic here is circular: drugs are illegal, therefore drugs are bad, therefore drugs should be illegal.

Increased use: Well, as I've said, I believe soft and semi-hard drug use would increase if those drugs were legalized. I also believe that this is not necessarily a major problem.

"Anyway, I doubt that I am going to change your opinion, and I know you won't change mine." - I see this as a very unhealthy attitude. My opinion is certainly flexible, though I would prefer to base it on logic and facts, as well as philosophy. People with closed minds fail to impress me.

"Would you rather live in a world with heroin (and other hard drugs), or one without?" - I would like to live in a world where people did not feel so bad they needed heroin to get by. A world where there is no reason not to be content would be a perfect world. (I do have some philosophical issues here which I won't spend time on as they don't really matter).

Our world is not an Utopia. Heroin exists; wishing it away won't make it go away. Sure, I'd like a world without heroin, but I have to deal with the world that actually exists. I can see many reasons to argue for legalization, none of which are countered by my longing for a perfect world.

posted 12-16-98 09:56 PM ET            

DCA, I wasn't trying to impress you. Basically all your arguments so far do not even vaguelly want to make me change my mind, and seeing as I severely doubt you'll come up with too many better, ersatz you won't change my opinion. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply I had a closed mind.

I have a VERY open mind, and indeed I am one of the most vocal advocates for free speech, amking your own mind up, etc, etc, on these forums.

I doubt there's an argument that could cause me change my mind on this issue, though I will always listen.

As for my attitude on heroin users: Yeah, I have very little sympathy for them. Nothing forced them to use heroin. They always have the option of making their own mind up. Therefore, they chose to be where they are today, and I for one am not going to feel sorry for them. Just like I won't choose to feel sorry for alcoholics.

Suicides, yeah, I feel sorry for to a certain extent. However, I will always believe that they are taking the soft way out. Just like heroin, there is nothing that can force you to suicide. It is, in the end, a choice which people make.

As for utopia, and wishing for it not making it go away. Well, maybe wishing won't. But maybe fighting for it will. Heroin exists, yeah, sure. But eliminate the source, and maybe it won't. Your solution not only does not eliminate the problem, it just makes it legal. It DOES NOT solve the problems the addicts face, in fact it just keeps them in a vicious circle of drug-dependancy.

If enough people fight for it, it CAN be eliminated. So blame people for not fighting enough. Blame governments for not putting enough money into fighting it. Don't just accept it.

posted 12-16-98 10:27 PM ET            

That said, I still disagree with you.

You are correct, we do not live an a Utopia. In fact, a variation of this statement is probably why drug users get started. That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for that ideal, right?

By legalizing drugs, it's shooting ourselves as a society in the collective foot. To be striving for something, that will never happen in our lifetime most likely, but nevertheless something good, and yet at the same time allow the seeds of that idea's destruction, because we haven't met our ideal yet, is still wrong.

Legalizing drugs, just because we don't have a perfect world that doesn't need drugs yet, is silly. No matter how much drugs cause/don't cause/might cause harm, I think it is safe to say that they are (foir the most part) not part of an ideal world we want to create.

posted 12-16-98 10:36 PM ET            

Emerging crime syndicates of extreme wealth and power do not concern you? Ok, whatever.

"Well, maybe wishing won't. But maybe fighting for it will." - Well, maybe fighting for it has been tried for several decades without amounting to much. Maybe the source of the problem is not the opium or coca plants at all, but the nature of our society. Maybe people will one day realize that 'solving the problem' does not at all involve "putting enough money into fighting it". Maybe people will one day learn to simply stay the **** out of other people's business.

Drugs will exist as long as people who want to take drugs exist.

posted 12-16-98 10:55 PM ET            

Arguing that we should legalize something because making it illegal tempts rebellious people is patently ridiculous. If making things illegal didn't work to reduce the frequency of that activity, there would be no point in any laws. Would you like us to legalize theft so people aren't tempted to shoplift? Would you like to remove speed limits so people aren't tempted to drive fast? Yes, teenagers are a rebellious bunch, but they're also minors, and we in general don't trust them to make sound decisions on their own. Are you advocating removal of drinking ages as well?

"such comparisons, while truthful, may seem so outrageous to the average conditioned person that it weakens the argumentation."

The comparisons are irrelevant. You are arguing that hard drugs should be legalized. You say, essentially, "they're no worse than those things over there". You feel that this makes it okay to legalize hard drugs. The only way that it follows logically is if 1) you're assertion that they're the same is true (which I'm not sure about) and 2) "those other things over there" are not bad. I disagree with 2. Saying "we already allow some crap in our society, let's allow some more" is not a compelling argument.

"the 'practical' line of argumentation - still undisputed - from way back"

As I understand you're argument, you are saying that lives will be better for addicts, and that no real harm will be caused. I disagree with your analysis that no harm will be caused (and you have offered no evidence that this is the case, aside from pure conjecture), and, like Greg, I feel little compulsion to make the lives of addicts easier.

"Heroin exists; wishing it away won't make it go away. Sure, I'd like a world without heroin, but I have to deal with the world that actually exists."

posted 12-16-98 11:00 PM ET            

Yes, we should strive for the ideal. To me, though, the ideal world is not one where people cannot use drugs, but one where people do not want to use drugs. One of my basic beliefs is that freedom makes happiness. As such, legalizing drugs would be a step towards the ideal world - not because drugs would be available, but because poeple would be free.

I absolutely see your point, though. Still, we have very real problems here and now, and we need solutions that apply to the world we have. In the perfect world, legalization is no issue. Until then, it will solve (or, rather, remedy) numerous problems for both addicts and non-addicts, even if it does not affect the more fundamental issues.

posted 12-16-98 11:38 PM ET            

I think you're misunderstanding me here. The fact that people are attracted to what's illegal is, of course, not in itself a good reason to legalize. However, it is a factor one needs to include in the overall view. Drug laws have many effects, one of which might be to make drugs seem interesting to rebellious kids. I hope this makes things clearer.

Comparisons: As far as I know, I have not used the argument "alcohol is illegal, alcohol is as bad as heroin, ergo heroin should be illegal". Though the inconsistency (sp?) in allowing one and forbidding the other is obvious, I have not made a point of this - much for the reasons you state. My point was simply to argue that addicts' lives would be better with pure heroin than with impure street heroin. Sorry for not stating my points clearly.

Cancer and the ideal world: Cancer and drug use are inherently different things, as are medical cures and cures by law. In fact, IMHO, analogy arguments are in themselves inherently bad - they seem to explain much but do in fact explain little.

Unlike getting cancer, people start using drugs of their own free will. Curing cancer will please everybody; curing drug use is might not. Legislation is not a cure. These things have nothing in common! To illustrate my point with your analogy, though, how about: No cure for cancer is better than an ineffective cure which makes the suject's life more difficult in addition to creating immense problems for the society around him/her.

As for lacking data, I'm sorry for being unable to supply references to support my statements (the New Scientist link is good, though). Some of my observations / conclusions are based on what I learned by losing two childhood friends to heroin addiction. Naturally, it's somewhat difficult to supply references in this case.

posted 12-17-98 12:00 AM ET            

Anyway, I was not aware of being particularly offensive in my last couple of posts. This is a serious discussion, though, and when people make statements I see as wrong, I need to address them. As you have a sort of demigod status around here, I would assume you'd have a pretty thick skin. God knows I've been much more 'direct' with Imran than I've been with you in this thread.

posted 12-17-98 12:02 AM ET            

I think you are fundamentally mistaken in this belief. I am funamentally more free since I graduated from college and became gainfully employed (I can do what I want, when I want, and I can buy what I want when I want) but I am not fundamentally happier. Many other things contribute to happiness. Maybe this is true for you in particular, but that is no basis for legislating for an entire society.

"analogy arguments are in themselves inherently bad"

No, they allow us to analyze logical form by removing the issue in question. As a result of this argument by analogy, you were compelled to state your case more clearly, which is a good thing.

posted 12-17-98 12:27 AM ET            

That make me thinskinned? Not particularly. It just means if someone starts slagging me off, I will ask them to stop. They keep it up and I will ignore them. Because it isn't worth the effort.

On drugs, basically, your argument seems to be turning towards freedom, am I right? You should have the freedom to do something, because people should stay the hell out of your life?

Well, I disagree completely. Laws are there for the protection of society, and merely repealing a law because it invades your sense of freedom is not a valid argument.

As for me supporting drug cartels, and upcoming crime bosses. Um, lemme see, if we removed drug users from the equation (ie no-one were buying drugs - I'm not proposing to shoot them or anything), where would these crime syndicates get their money from? Answer is they'd either collapse, or move onto something else, such as gun smuggling (which we should fight just as assiduosly).

As for fighting not doing the job properly, so we should just legalise. That's not right either. We have been fighting tax fraud for years too, and haven't stamped it out. Does that mean we should legalise it? No. Same applies to drugs. Just because we aren't winning the war 100% doesn't mean we should just throw the towel in.

posted 12-17-98 12:28 AM ET            

I agree with DCA. Misinformation and Disinformation propagandist campaigns are not a solution to the drug problem. Working to fix society's underlying problems of poverty is.

BG, your right. Most crime isn't drug related. Most crime is white collar fraud-type crime that mostly goes unpunished. However, more than half of US prisoners are in jail for drug convictions, the majority of which are either possesion convictions, or ones that would of been 15 years ago, before the proagandists pushed through the fascist mandatory minimum laws.

Tobacco may not alter your mental state, but alcohol surely does.

Oh, and the crimes that the pushers and drug lords do affect you, BG. Just how many billions of your tax dollars go into supporting the "drug war"?

Freedom may not breed happiness, but it allows me to be confident that what I want to do with my life won't be illegal and get me arrested and my stuff confiscated just on the suspicion that I am engaging in act, without need for trial or proof.

posted 12-17-98 12:35 AM ET            

Freedom=happiness: Obviously, this is a philosophical issue, with no easy answers. On the whole, I do believe freedom is a cause of increased happiness, though it certainly does not need to be so in all cases. And, of course, there are several other causes of happiness - freedom in itself is not sufficient.

Analogies: What you're saying is true, but I still feel argumentation by analogy is in many/most cases pure obfuscation. Just because two issues seem to be analogous does not mean they actually are analogous - what is true for one might very well be false for another.

My view: Ignoring the 'liberty for all' and similar ideological arguments, my pro-legalization arguments can basically be reduced to two practical points: Less crime & higher quality of life for users. To me, these points are in themselves sufficient to legalize drugs.

I don't see why general misery and random ODing fail to constitute compelling points. Legalization would make several of the negative effects of taking drugs disappear, which is, to me, significant.

If this doesn't help, reducing crime should. Legalization would remove organized crime's perhaps the largest source of income. Street crime would drop significantly. The vast resources that are today spent on the "war on drugs" could be used for other things, ranging from welfare to tax cuts (increasing welfare might in itself be the best way to fight drugs, by removing some of the misery that make people start using them in the first place).

posted 12-17-98 12:46 AM ET            

Well, yes, you've defined what it means for something to not be illegal. Your point? Legalizing auto theft will make car thieves happier. Should we do that? Legalizing for the sake of legalizing is silly. You can't just define a problem away.

"I don't see why general misery and random ODing fail to constitute compelling points."

There are other ways to solve these problems. And I would rather pay the cost of having these things in society than the costs that I believe will come from legalization.

posted 12-17-98 12:58 AM ET            

"Laws are there for the protection of society" - Well, in this case they just don't do the job. And, I'm not pro-legalization just because of this or that one reason, but for a combination of reasons. Many small rivers make one big.

Drug cartels: Removing drug users from the equation has been tried for decades, to little or no effect. Legalization (and low pricing) would work by definition as the market becomes unprofitable.

"Not doing the job properly, so we should just legalise." - Futility in itself is not a good reason to remove a law, but futility combined with multiple negative side-effects might be. Again, it's the combination of multiple reasons which makes legalization desirable.

"A better way is to try and solve their problems" - Indeed. Removing them from a criminal environment where they are constantly harassed by police and threatened by impure drugs is a good start.

Sending drug users to prison is inherently stupid, for several reasons: Prison life is so miserable, drugs are almost necessary. Prisons are breeding grounds for drug use. Also, people with a prison record is less likely to get a job (and thereby, a life), and therefore has a better chance of ending up doing, you guessed it, drugs when they get out.

Zan: Yup, good points.

posted 12-17-98 01:07 AM ET            

Hell yes, there's data to back that up. The criminaliztion of alcohol in the 30's (is that the right time period, I'm not sure) created an instant black market of high priced, sometimes dangerous alcohol that allowed the modern organized crime family to come into existance. When you make something for which there is a market illegal, you create a black market. Basic supply and demand states that a limited supply will inflate prices, and an obvious extension of that is that when a supplier is placing themselves at risk, prices will grow even more.

posted 12-17-98 01:10 AM ET            

Here's one that works off it for you.

posted 12-17-98 01:13 AM ET            

"Your argument for the reduction in crime seems to come from your belief thatprices will drop." - Drugs go from Colombia, Thailand, the Middle East or whatever to Europe and the US in numerous steps, each taking a share of the profit. From production to consumption the price is increased by a factor of 1000, much of which is because of the efforts of our fine fine law enforcement and customs agencies. If legalized, prices would drop significantly. Even if you don't buy my figures (which i can't supply references for), simple logic should indicate this price drop.

"There are other ways to solve these problems." - Secret ways, obviously..? I'm interested, do tell me about these ways.

posted 12-17-98 01:22 AM ET            

Basic supply and demand state that at lower prices, a higher quantity will be demanded. At higher prices, a the supplier wants to sell more. The intersection of the curves sets the price. The costs of opereating in the drug business are high. Therefore drug dealers need to charge a very high price in order to stay profitable. Many, who don't have the money and won't turn to crime, are unable to engage in drug use, even if they want to. Do you believe that drug use wouldn't increase if drugs were free?

"Hell yes, there's data to back that up."

posted 12-17-98 01:36 AM ET            

Your assuming straight-line supply and demand curves. Those don't exist outside of introductory economic textbooks. Many demand curves are fairly level. Most consumption items that aren't also luxury items have fairly constant demand curves to the left of the intersection point.

I'm willing to bet that the drunk-driving rate during prohibition isn't an issue, even if anyone had been keeping track. Just how many people actually drove everywhere at that time? Besides, no one has worried about drinking and driving until sometime in the 70's (at the earliest)

You don't seriously think that the budget increases at the ATF will exceed the budget of the DEA, the policing of the coasts that the Coast Guard engages in, the drug units of every US law-enforcement agency, including the FBI, the money that the CIA spends on investigating drug lords in other countries and mafia families in the US, the money that the NSA spends keeping track of mafia members, and outspoken anti-drug advocates, and the massive cost of imprisoning millions of US citizens, do you?

posted 12-17-98 01:41 AM ET            

Again, I agree completely.

The prohibition is directly analogous to the situation today - I find it amazing that we fail to learn anything from our near history.

I'm surprised the Chinese opium 'experiment' of the 1800s have yet to be mentioned. Obviously, this society is far removed from our contemporary one, but it would still be interesting to know if similarities between this 'forced legalization' and our current debate could be found.

Most likely, a combination of ignorance and social misery could be blamed. Norway had similar problems in this period, though with alcohol.

"Accepting life as it is is the first step to accepting having your life dictated for you." - Yeah, I like it! I'm starting to run out of good ones, unfortunately....

posted 12-17-98 01:50 AM ET            

"cut it with various crap (I don't really know what kind of stuff they put in it) so that they can either afford their own habit, or so that they can just steal some of the supply that they are supposed to sell"

This statement says that selling purer drugs will cut into the profits of drug dealers. Why will legalization remove that incentive? From the arguments you guys are making, users don't seem to be all that picky about purity.

"no one has worried about drinking and driving until sometime in the 70's"

Just because it wasn't a popular cause doesn't mean it didn't happen. This was just an example. Nothing happens in a vacuum.

posted 12-17-98 02:00 AM ET            

Octopus,

"DCA seems to think that use will not increase." - As I've said numerous times, I think soft and semi-hard drug use might increase. I've also said that I don't think this is a major problem. For heroin and similar hard drugs, I think Zan said it best: "Its like claiming that most people don't go around raping and pillaging their neighbor's because they don't want to go to jail."

And your purity argument doesn't hold up - producing pure drugs is not expensive at all. Distributing drugs under the watchful eyes of the police is expensive. And, since the drugs are expensive, dealers make money by 'watering out' the goods with various chemicals. This would not happen if drugs were legalized.

As a matter of fact, I believe heroin was legal in Britain until the late 80s or so - addicts could get heroin prescriptions from their doctors. Any Englanders here know anything about that?

posted 12-17-98 02:00 AM ET            

Because no one worried about it, the levels would have been the same before, during, and after prohibition. The thought, "I shouldn't drive because I've been drinking" never occured to people even in the 50's, so why would drunk driving deaths be affected by prohibition? I'm more interested in the deaths caused by addicts who shoot someone during a robbery to obtain the money for another hit.

posted 12-17-98 02:57 AM ET            

Prohibition ended in the 30's. Started around the end of WWI.

I agree with Zan on car theft. Car theft is depriving someone else of their property; getting high doesn't. Killing someone deprives them of their right to life, getting high doesn't deprive others of their rights. Drug use is something of a different animal than other crimes with similar penalties.

posted 12-17-98 03:21 AM ET            

Zan, I can never remember which axis is which on those stupid curves, so saying the "left half" doesn't mean anything to me. The curves will definitely not be the same for an addict and a beginning (or potential user). Once chemical or psychological dependence kick in, economics goes out the window.

"I think the FDA might have something to say"

So now the FDA needs to police the drug dealers, to make sure that they're not cheating anyone? How long before you start calling the FDA a bunch of fascists?

"Because no one worried about it, the levels would have been the same before, during, and after prohibition."

Not if alcohol consumption differed. If people couldn't get drunk, they couldn't drive drunk, could they? How effective was Prohibition?

" I think soft and semi-hard drug use might increase. I've also said that I don't think this is a major problem."

I do. I'd prefer it if people didn't use drugs.

I'll say again that as far as I can see, your argument is: "It does no harm, and legalization helps addicts." I think it does do harm. Your argument so far is not compelling.

posted 12-17-98 03:29 AM ET            

The FDA wouldn't be policing the drug dealers, they'd be policing the pharmacutical companies, or companies like the tobacco industry, whichever, just like it already does (sort of, I've heard many compelling arguements that the pharmacutical companies are worse "drug dealers" than the real deal)

posted 12-17-98 03:43 AM ET            

Q: Drug dealers put impurities in drugs. "This statement says that selling purer drugs will cut into the profits of drug dealers. Why will legalization remove that incentive?"
A: "I think the FDA might have something to say..."
Q: "So now the FDA needs to police the drug dealers, to make sure that they're not cheating anyone?"
A: "The FDA wouldn't be policing the drug dealers"

So answer 2 nullifies answer 1, leaving the original question unanswered?

"As far as calling the FDA fascists, its not going to happen."

Could you give me a list of US government agencies that you believe are inehrently immune from fascism? You seem to not have a very high opinion of many US government agencies. Why is this one any different?

"Crimes commited while under the influlence are the same as drunk driving."

posted 12-17-98 03:48 AM ET            

Your first statement claims that I said something that I didn't.
I answered your second question in the paragraph that you removed the quote from.
Your final statement is a simplistic truism that I considered too obvious to state. How does it disprove my arguement?

posted 12-17-98 04:22 AM ET            

Zan: "The reason that purity is bad is because the street level dealers, who are usually addicts themselves, cut it with various crap ... so that they can either afford their own habit, or so that they can just steal some of the supply that they are supposed to sell, without their bosses noticing." [note - I am assuming that this means: Dealers insert the impurities, not the manufacturers]

Oct: "This statement says that selling purer drugs will cut into the profits of drug dealers. Why will legalization remove [the incentive to insert impurities into the drugs]?" [note - I assume that drug dealers currently insert the impurities to make their business more profitable -- did I miss something?]

Zan: "I think the FDA might have something to say about putting lethal poison into a product in order to increase profits." [note - I assumed this was a response to my question about removing the incentive to put the impurities into the drugs]

Oct: "So now the FDA needs to police the drug dealers, to make sure that they're not [putting impurities into the drugs]?" [note - since it is the dealers putting the impurities in, and the FDA is stopping the impurities, the FDA is stopping the dealers, right?]

Zan: "The FDA wouldn't be policing the drug dealers, they'd be policing the pharmacutical companies, or companies like the tobacco industry, whichever, just like it already does" [note - we've now come full circle. The FDA is stopping manufacturers from putting impurities in the drugs, but not dealers. However, according to you, the manufacturers were NEVER putting impurities in the drugs, it was the dealers. So, how is the FDA helping the impurity problem?]

posted 12-17-98 04:40 AM ET            

The FDA won't directly be policing the _store owners_ that will be selling the drugs. They'll be applying the same sort of laws that apply to tobacco and alcohol. Thus the police will do the policing of the "dealers"

I think the main miscommunication was my fault. When you said that:
"This statement says that selling purer drugs will cut into the profits of drug dealers. Why will legalization remove that incentive? From the arguments you guys are making, users don't seem to be all that picky about purity."
I oversimplified my response. My point is that the legalisation of the drugs replaces the mafia system with legitamate business, which is regulated by the FDA. When someone dies from using a product that has been spiked, or "cut" with something dangerous, the police or FBI investigate and arrest whoever is responsible for the impurities. Thus the replacement of the underworld distribution system with a standard business one removes the likelihood of impure product.
And I never did respond to the second half. The users don't have much choice. Most people have _one_ supplier, and there isn't any way to look at the product and see if its clean or not.

posted 12-17-98 05:31 AM ET            

This isn't necessarily true either. If all you and DCA care about is impurities in the drugs, you two should work on convincing people to develop inexpensive analysis and purification methods. Changing an entire society to make sure a few people get pure drugs is silly.

"the police or FBI investigate and arrest whoever is responsible for the impurities"

Are these the same organizations who currently enforce "the fascist mandatory minimum laws"? Is it just the laws that are fascist, or are the organizations fascist too?

"Which doesn't make any sense."

Well, your entire argument doesn't make sense to me, so I don't see how you have any room to criticize.

"This is an academic-level discussion, isn't it?"

No. If this were an academic level discussion, you and DCA would be required to prove your thesis, not just moan about how nobody has disproven it. You'd need to have data to back up your claims, and their would be no counter-attacks to criticisms or requirements that those who disagree need to propose an alternate solution. As it is, this discussion is you and DCA making mostly unsubstantiated claims. I was getting annoyed at DCA's little "nobody's disagreeing, I must be right" posts, so I foolishly allowed myself to get sucked in.

posted 12-17-98 07:41 AM ET            

The entire impurities issue: I don't really see why this should be an issue. By legalizing, the shadow market is replaced by a corporate or governmental chain of supply. Also, the reduction in prices removes the incentive for adding impurities, as the drugs are no longer 'worth their weight in gold'.

Of course, this does not guarantee that someone would not continue adding impurities. However, it could be far more easily tracked back to the manufacturers - if Smirnoff decided to put weird chemicals in their vodka (like criminal producers often do), we could prosecute them. This is often not the case with your local street dealer.

"Inexpensive analysis and purification methods" - This is a good idea. It would be great if users could make simple tests to the drug before injecting (or whatever) it. In the Netherlands they have 'testing centers', where you can check your XTC before using it. However, this does not solve the problem - the reason alcoholics don't have to deal with these issues is that corporate liquor producers can, on a general basis, be trusted
to produce pure liquor. Also, of course, the pragmatic attitude like that of the Dutch is necessary.

"If all you and DCA care about is impurities in the drugs" - Again, it's not all we care about. Many rivers small etc.

Unsubstantiated claims: Well, to which extent are your own claims substantiated? It's not like the burden of proof is on our shoulders; you haven't shown any substantiated reasons why the current approach works better than the one we suggest.

"Nobody's disagreeing, I must be right" - Well, do forgive me - being surrounded by people that more or less agreed with me, I was trying to provoke people like yourself into the argument. "So I foolishly allowed myself to get sucked in." - I'm sorry you see it this way. Personally, I think the debate has been quite interesting, if somewhat long-winded.

posted 12-17-98 08:01 AM ET            

However, though my view that criminalization does not 'help the kids' has been critized, I have yet to see any arguments saying why it does. Exactly what are we accomplishing by enforcing these laws?

posted 12-17-98 12:03 PM ET            

Why the hell not? Because it's still possible for your damned addicts to mess themselves up? You seem to think it's immoral that I want to stop people from taking this crap, but you want to compel me and my government to keep it pure? Everybody has the choice to take drugs, but I'm compelled to make that stupid choice low-risk for them? Is that your argument?

"It's not like the burden of proof is on our shoulders"

It sure as hell is. You guys are the ones who want to change society. Change is expensive, and needs to be justified.

"Personally, I think the debate has been quite interesting, if somewhat long-winded."

posted 12-17-98 01:22 PM ET            

Well, yes, I do think that everybody has the choice to take drugs, and I see no reason to make this choice more dangerous than necessary. However, it is not, in itself, my argument. Analysis is in many cases not possible without advanced equipment, which few have regular access to. Purification is often not possible at all.

"It sure as hell is. You guys are the ones who want to change society. Change is expensive, and needs to be justified."

It might be argued that a law for which it is not possible to find justification is a law that should not exist. Compelling reason must be established both to keep and to abolish a law. It is in this case my opinion that, while reasons might be found both for keeping and removing drug laws, the reasons to abolish weigh far heavier.

"I think that the "debate" has been anything but interesting. This thread has been a net loss for the universe. I wish I had never become involved."

Well, nobody forced you to participate. Personally, I found it interesting, and I feel that I gained much new information, if not hard facts. But then, in this area of disinformation and obfuscation tactics, hard facts are not necessarily as objective as they may seem. Similar research projects reach different conclusions, as do statistical examinations of similar data. All in all, I don't think we did too badly.

posted 12-18-98 09:05 AM ET            

The paramilitary in Colombia for example, which are guilty to over 5/6 of all the civilian massacres and finance their activities with drugsmuggling. They have even better equipment than the national army. Legalisation would (probably) take away most of their profit.

And those who are imprisoned for drugproduction are not the big crimebosses, but mostly poor farmers, who perhaps does not have many alternatives, if they want to make enough money for their families to have reasonable living conditions.

posted 12-18-98 01:31 PM ET            

We have a winner

posted 12-19-98 06:50 AM ET            

Yeah, you're right: that's a point which haven't really been paid too much attention to. I don't think it's necessarily more important than any of the other arguments, though - to me, it simply adds on to an already extensive list of Good Reasons to legalize. Legalization makes sense from a humanitarian, economic, libertarian & social point of view.