Decriminalizing all drug usage has been given a reasonable-sized trial for a change: Portugal

It makes sense to decriminalize drugs, just as it made sense to decriminalize alcohol.

Again, it depends on what you mean by "work."

I certain percentage of the population will always ruin their lives with drugs, laws or no laws. 

You'll see it in Lisbon as you'll see it London or New York. 

The real difference is how much money you want to pay the police to kick ass and take names. 
8)

One must bring attention to the difference between decriminalisation and legalisation.

Decriminalisation means usually that possession is still against the law, but that it is not a criminal offence. It's like a parking violation.

I agree with decriminalisation to a certain extent. I don't see why addicts should be locked up for possession. I think they should concentrate on dealers. Dealing is not an honest way to make a living. It's despicable.

Well, having it as a criminal offense, or offense at all isn't working. . .so I'd say decriminalize it, tax it, legalize it, and only make the smuggling of it illegal. . .

Well, having it as a criminal offense, or offense at all isn't working. . .so I'd say decriminalize it, tax it, legalize it, and only make the smuggling of it illegal. . .


I have always agreed with this position.  The liquor lobby would fight it tooth and nail.

I still am against any legalization of drug use.

Of course, I have a much different background then most in here.

I have spent quite a bit of my adult life in the most "Drug Free" environment imagineable.  In my profession, and drug use will basically see you thrown out for life.

But I have also seen the effects on my son.

He is 21, and had drug issues for over 4 years.  Speed was his worst drug, but Pot has long been his drug of choice.

A twice convicted felon, both of his convictions were for actions he did under the influence of drugs.

And last week, he was arrested again.  He is out of work, and behind on his rent.  But he somehow had enough money to buy pot.  Which he had in his possession, along with Burglary Tools.  He is being held without bond, pending a hearing for parole violation.

For my wife and his mother, right out of surgery, "Happy Mothers Day".  :-\\

No matter what some pot-head tells me, I see nothing good in legalization.  "Prohibition has failed" is not a valid defense, since murder is illegal, yet people are murdered every day.  If you follow the logic of the legalization crowd, you might as well legalize everything from arson and robbery to rape.  Since none of the laws set to prevent it have worked, so therefore they must be thrown out.

And I have yet to hear a real benefit to marijuanna.  Because most of the propaganda you hear is as valid as the propaganda you hear for stem cell research.  You hear that everything is perfect, with nothing negative.  Which I laugh at.  Because nothing is so perfect.

And I have yet to hear a real benefit to marijuanna.  Because most of the propaganda you hear is as valid as the propaganda you hear for stem cell research.  You hear that everything is perfect, with nothing negative.  Which I laugh at.  Because nothing is so perfect.



If you have known anyone who has undergone chemotherapy then you would have seen, with your own eyes, at least one benefit to marijuana.

I'm sorry to hear about your son, Mushroom.  But did you actually read the results of what happened in Portugal?  It's the best evidence yet that keeping it criminal only makes things worse.

An analysis of the Portuguese "experiment" (as PDF)



No matter what some pot-head tells me, I see nothing good in legalization.  "Prohibition has failed" is not a valid defense, since murder is illegal, yet people are murdered every day.  If you follow the logic of the legalization crowd, you might as well legalize everything from arson and robbery to rape.  Since none of the laws set to prevent it have worked, so therefore they must be thrown out.
That is such a mixture of fallacy and strawman it's barely worth answering.

Here's one simple question for you to answer: if a guy smokes a joint in the privacy of his own home, what harm has he done to anyone? - including himself.

Do you really consider this to be equivalent to arson, robbery and rape?

A possibly counter-intuitive, yet critical question: if legalization has resulted in a reduction in use in those areas where it has been tried, what possible argument is there for keeping the drug illegal?


And I have yet to hear a real benefit to marijuanna.  Because most of the propaganda you hear is as valid as the propaganda you hear for stem cell research.  You hear that everything is perfect, with nothing negative.  Which I laugh at.  Because nothing is so perfect.

Another strawman - there are probably medicinal benefits to cannabis, especially for people with chronic pain; yet research to provide evidence either way is still not being allowed almost everywhere.  There have been studies started over the last year or so, so we may be seeing proof at a level above anecdote before too long.  Thing is, I've never heard anyone seriously suggest pot usage is perfect with no negatives.

Sure, there are risks associated with pot - but there are risks associated with almost everything we do, and those that apply to pot are minuscule compared to the rest of the risks we run every day.

What Philbo said!!!!!

And I have yet to hear a real benefit to marijuanna.  Because most of the propaganda you hear is as valid as the propaganda you hear for stem cell research.  You hear that everything is perfect, with nothing negative.  Which I laugh at.  Because nothing is so perfect.



As Danoota already said-it helps people undergoing chemo. Other benefits:


AIDS Wasting Syndrome
Arthritis
Brain Injury/Stroke
Multiple Sclerosis
Nausea associated with cancer Chemotherapy
Anti-Tumor Effects
Asthma
Epilepsy
Glaucoma
Schizophrenia
Migraine
Eating Disorders
General Pain


http://www.skunked.co.uk/articles/medicinal-marijuana.htm


Cat

I think that the legalization of Marijuana and taxing the hell out of it would boost our economy.    Put restrictions on it much like we do with alcohol and damn, it'd be the most successful s-h-i-t on the market!

Let me know if it becomes legal, I want to invest in selling!

Why legalize drugs?  Unless there's a medicinal purpose behind the drug, it's only designed for intoxication.

While Portugal might work somewhat as an example of how legalizing drugs decreases crime somewhat, figuring in the costs of rehabbing tons of people has got to be expensive.

Legalizing softer drugs is one thing, but legalizing the harder stuff is likely to be a net negative.

Why legalize drugs?  Unless there's a medicinal purpose behind the drug, it's only designed for intoxication.

Wrong question - there is no need for a "why" for something to be legal.  There *is* a need for a reason for something to be illegal, though.


While Portugal might work somewhat as an example of how legalizing drugs decreases crime somewhat, figuring in the costs of rehabbing tons of people has got to be expensive.
..but a small fraction of the cost of prosecuting them and locking them up.


Legalizing softer drugs is one thing, but legalizing the harder stuff is likely to be a net negative.

Got any facts & figures to back that up? Anything at all?

Wrong question - there is no need for a "why" for something to be legal.  There *is* a need for a reason for something to be illegal, though.
..but a small fraction of the cost of prosecuting them and locking them up.
Got any facts & figures to back that up? Anything at all?


You seem to get more aggressive by the day.  Speaking of drugs, they do have medications for that.

When it comes to facts and figures concerning the legalization of heroin and cocaine, I suppose we'll have to wait a few years to see what it costs Portugal.

While it is true that heroin and cocaine were essentially legal in America in the early 1900s, that was a time when they didn't exactly keep thorough records of those being rehabbed, since the more common thing to do was to lock addicts away or let them die on the street.

So no, Phil, I don't have the statistics to back up my statement.  I keep forgetting you're a stats guy.

Why legalize drugs?  Unless there's a medicinal purpose behind the drug, it's only designed for intoxication.

While Portugal might work somewhat as an example of how legalizing drugs decreases crime somewhat, figuring in the costs of rehabbing tons of people has got to be expensive.

Legalizing softer drugs is one thing, but legalizing the harder stuff is likely to be a net negative.


Interestingly enough, cocaine is legal for use as a topical anaesthetic.  Morphine and other opiates are also legal for pain control.

The only "street drug" that's listed under the schedule for "no medicinal uses" is pot.  Ironic, because as any pothead will tell you, and in my observations of users, "the munchies" are pretty obviously real.  Appetite boosters / nausea suppressants are behind the positive effects on chemo patients, elderly patients, and AIDS patients.  Glaucoma and some of the other conditions have nothing to do with the munchies, but good luck doing research as long as the drug's illegal.

As for "medicinal purpose behind the drug", well, that's up to the user.  They called valium "Mother's little helper" back in the day.  Good thing it wasn't designed for recreational use.  And it's a good thing for certain bloated talk radio show hosts that his synthetic opiates had a "medicinal purpose" behind 'em, as opposed to being for the fun of it.

(Pardon me, I'm going to have another beer.  Good thing the only "pot" I do is the one in my automatic coffee machine, which is set to autobrew at 6 o'clock tomorrow morning.  Helps me get over the hangover I get from thinking about them crazy druggies.)

Drugs are like guns.  They don't kill people: their users do.

Interestingly enough, cocaine is legal for use as a topical anaesthetic.  Morphine and other opiates are also legal for pain control.

The only "street drug" that's listed under the schedule for "no medicinal uses" is pot.  Ironic, because as any pothead will tell you, and in my observations of users, "the munchies" are pretty obviously real.  Appetite boosters / nausea suppressants are behind the positive effects on chemo patients, elderly patients, and AIDS patients.  Glaucoma and some of the other conditions have nothing to do with the munchies, but good luck doing research as long as the drug's illegal.

As for "medicinal purpose behind the drug", well, that's up to the user.  They called valium "Mother's little helper" back in the day.  Good thing it wasn't designed for recreational use.  And it's a good thing for certain bloated talk radio show hosts that his synthetic opiates had a "medicinal purpose" behind 'em, as opposed to being for the fun of it.

Drugs are like guns.  They don't kill people: their users do.


There are drugs we try to use to stop some people shooting other people with guns!

In the U.S., heroin itself has no clinical applications, but OxyContin is far worse.  It's like making Bud Light illegal and Jack Daniel's legal! 

The drug Ecstacy was indeed used in clinical setting in the '70s.  Then Congress put it on the controlled schedules, and it became strictly for fun!  Ditto acid (no to be confused with blotter acid).

You know who should be lobbying for the pot legalization?  The M&M/Mars company, Ben & Jerry's, Frito-Lay, Nabisco, Ben & Jerry's, and Dominoes Pizza!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/07/pimpflash.gif

You seem to get more aggressive by the day.  Speaking of drugs, they do have medications for that.

Aggressive?  No, not really.  Slightly less tolerant, perhaps.  Cannabis is said to be good for reducing aggression, though... strangely enough, with fewer side-effects than some of the recommended medications.  But that's illegal - why is that, do you think?


When it comes to facts and figures concerning the legalization of heroin and cocaine, I suppose we'll have to wait a few years to see what it costs Portugal.

Technically, Portugal hasn't legalized the drugs.  What it has done is decriminalize the usage (dealing & smuggling are still offences), which is part-way there.  They've had eight years now, and drug usage trends are still going the right way - fewer people overall are using & abusing drugs.


While it is true that heroin and cocaine were essentially legal in America in the early 1900s, that was a time when they didn't exactly keep thorough records of those being rehabbed, since the more common thing to do was to lock addicts away or let them die on the street.

You'll also find that usage levels back when they were legal were a lot lower than they are today.  I'm not arguing causality here - that is, I'm not arguing that usage levels today would still be at that historic low if cocaine and heroin were still legal (bearing in mind that opiate addiction was starting to become a problem at that time - heroin, of course, was marketed as a "cure" for morphine addiction); however, the huge expansion in consumption of narcotic drugs has occurred while they were illegal.  The legality of drugs has never had a noticeable impact on usage statistics.


So no, Phil, I don't have the statistics to back up my statement.  I keep forgetting you're a stats guy.

Yes, I'm a "stats guy" - in that I like to have something other than prejudice to back up my positions on a lot of things.  "Gut instinct", "common sense" and the like are all very well, but when evidence is available simply to ignore it should not be an option.

The reason I asked in this instance is that what you stated ("Legalizing softer drugs is one thing, but legalizing the harder stuff is likely to be a net negative.") is exactly the sort of opinion which drives the drug debate in an emotional and completely evidence-free environment.  It's because so many people say exactly that kind of thing that the viewpoint needs challenging.  When based on logic & evidence rather than emotion, all the arguments, be they economic, sociological or health-based show that legal drugs (be they "hard" or "soft") will result in less harm than the status quo.  So yes, it is galling when people make unsupported assertions that even for the best of reasons mean that things will be worse for more people for longer.

Aggressive?  No, not really.  Slightly less tolerant, perhaps.  Cannabis is said to be good for reducing aggression, though... strangely enough, with fewer side-effects than some of the recommended medications.  But that's illegal - why is that, do you think?



This is an interesting read on why it is illegal-and it has nothing to do with the effects it has on the user.


http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/12/22/whyIsMarijuanaIllegal.html



Cat

Thanks Cat... I was already aware of how cannabis was first made illegal (and the staggering campaign of lies and innuendo that surrounded that first bit of legislation), but it would probably do Macphisto good to read that.

So, let me get this straight.  We should stigmatize guns, but stigmatizing drugs is bad.

So, let me get this straight.  We should stigmatize guns, but stigmatizing drugs is bad.

Always there with the misunderstandings, aren't you?

Did anyone say ANYTHING AT ALL about not stigmatizing drugs?

Always there with the misunderstandings, aren't you?

Did anyone say ANYTHING AT ALL about not stigmatizing drugs?


But if you decriminalize something, that pretty much removes most of the stigma.

I took the stance I did in this thread to see if you'd notice the parallel here between this topic and the gun one.  You made a big deal out of the number of deaths from guns, and I could do the same about many harder drugs.

You suggested taking a negative view of guns, and I did of drugs.  To me, it's the same general idea.

In truth, I'd rather not stigmatize (or criminalize) either.

Nevertheless, the Right continues to demonize drugs, while the Left demonizes guns.

What both sides need to do is to shut the hell up and let people live their lives.

But if you decriminalize something, that pretty much removes most of the stigma.

I took the stance I did in this thread to see if you'd notice the parallel here between this topic and the gun one.  You made a big deal out of the number of deaths from guns, and I could do the same about many harder drugs.

You suggested taking a negative view of guns, and I did of drugs.  To me, it's the same general idea.

In truth, I'd rather not stigmatize (or criminalize) either.

Nevertheless, the Right continues to demonize drugs, while the Left demonizes guns.

What both sides need to do is to shut the hell up and let people live their lives.



I'm not too worried about drive-by heroin shootings!
::)

I'm not too worried about drive-by heroin shootings!
::)


What about addicts willing to do anything for another hit?  Gun violence and drugs coincide quite a lot, which is why I find it strange that both parties target one and not the other.

And I thought I was the one being consistent: how many times does this have to be said?  Legal prohibition only makes things worse - given the number of guns in the US, legal bans would have no effect, and just turn otherwise law-abiding people into criminals.  Why should drugs be any different?

But as far as stigmatization goes, neither guns nor drugs are good for you - you don't treat them as something "cool", something to aspire to.  You make it perfectly clear that using them is something for losers.

Your point about addicts willing to do anything for another hit - with legal drugs it becomes far less of a problem (IMO things like heroin ought to be prescribable to addicts).

Sorry if this viewpoint doesn't fit your preconceived left/right stereotype..

And I thought I was the one being consistent: how many times does this have to be said?  Legal prohibition only makes things worse - given the number of guns in the US, legal bans would have no effect, and just turn otherwise law-abiding people into criminals.  Why should drugs be any different?

No disagreement here.

But as far as stigmatization goes, neither guns nor drugs are good for you - you don't treat them as something "cool", something to aspire to.  You make it perfectly clear that using them is something for losers.

Your point about addicts willing to do anything for another hit - with legal drugs it becomes far less of a problem (IMO things like heroin ought to be prescribable to addicts).

Sorry if this viewpoint doesn't fit your preconceived left/right stereotype..


It's not preconceived, Phil.  It's actually true about both parties.  The Left pushes for things like gun bans, and the Right pushes against legalization of drugs.

If you didn't know that, then I guess you're not that familiar with American politics.

Still, I would agree that legalizing things like heroin (through a gradual logical process of regulation) would lessen problems with addicts doing crazy things.

Beyond that though, I don't see it as the government's business to stigmatize anything.  If a private group wants to do that, that's their business, but the government shouldn't be in the business of propaganda or social agendas.

What about addicts willing to do anything for another hit?  Gun violence and drugs coincide quite a lot, which is why I find it strange that both parties target one and not the other.


The vast majority of drug-related violence is among traffickers and dealers, not addicts.  Just like alcohol prohibition made Al Capone "King of Chicago" at the age of 25, drug prohibition makes millionaires out of sociopathic maggots today.  Legalization would put them and their violence out of business.  It would, of course, create some new problems, but I see these as preferable to the old ones. 

Furthermore, the by far the most harassment I've received on the streets from addicts has been from those addicted to alcohol...DRUNKS...who are hooked on a legal substance.
::)

I'm all for it. Marijuana is the biggest cash crop we have,this would boost the economy.We could sell it at the drugstore $40 for an1/8 plus tax, the only one that will suffer will be the dealer(if they are not the grower).

The vast majority of drug-related violence is among traffickers and dealers, not addicts.  Just like alcohol prohibition made Al Capone "King of Chicago" at the age of 25, drug prohibition makes millionaires out of sociopathic maggots today.  Legalization would put them and their violence out of business.  It would, of course, create some new problems, but I see these as preferable to the old ones. 

Furthermore, the by far the most harassment I've received on the streets from addicts has been from those addicted to alcohol...DRUNKS...who are hooked on a legal substance.
::)


You obviously don't live on the bad side of town.  If you lived on the east side of Greensboro, just about anywhere in Durham, the bad side of D.C., etc., you'd know what I'm talking about.

But sure, let's assume alcoholics are worse than crack addicts.

I'm all for it. Marijuana is the biggest cash crop we have,this would boost the economy.We could sell it at the drugstore $40 for an1/8 plus tax, the only one that will suffer will be the dealer(if they are not the grower).


One of the things I've always thought about is that if drugs were decriminalized, legalized and state-sold, is that the state would charge as much or more than street prices, rendering most of their efforts in vain.

$40 plus tax for an 1/8 oz? I'd grow my own, or buy bootleg for $25 a quarter.

Decriminalizing drugs does work, but it only goes so far. A meth addict could smoke all he wants and rot his teeth away legally, but he still has a $400 a day habit and is doing god-knows-what to support it.


The only "street drug" that's listed under the schedule for "no medicinal uses" is pot. 

There's quite a few others (Ecstasy, Mushrooms, PCP, LSD), but your point is taken.

A few years ago they tried to Schedule 1 Ketamine in VA, but the veterinarians would have none of it.

Ant

You obviously don't live on the bad side of town.  If you lived on the east side of Greensboro, just about anywhere in Durham, the bad side of D.C., etc., you'd know what I'm talking about.

But sure, let's assume alcoholics are worse than crack addicts.


Well...I guess I could cede your point there, it's just that I was living in Boston in the early '90s and navigated my way through plenty of junkies and crackheads, bu the DRUNKS were always the most, loud, obnoxious, smelly, and profane.  I do declare!
::)

Well...I guess I could cede your point there, it's just that I was living in Boston in the early '90s and navigated my way through plenty of junkies and crackheads, bu the DRUNKS were always the most, loud, obnoxious, smelly, and profane.  I do declare!
::)


That's radically different from life here.  Crack heads cause the most problems here.