Pot smokers, drug users.

[DinkinFlicka]

Since I am not in enforcement or treatment of addiction,
I would have to suspect that the punishment of jail time and loss of freedom would cause some to get help and recover from the addiction.

Are you suggesting that the age of the Opium argument negates its validity?

The validity of sobriety through enforcement?

Was that there to begin with?

 

[McDad]

I thought opium dens were the scourge of Asia. It was legal, and the consumers had a place to go for their fix. It wasn't made illegal until it became a huge problem.

Not sobriety though enforcement. Enforcement of criminal behavior. Sobriety through the motivation of not wanting to go back to jail.

 

[therealUT]

I asked about any societies or countries where it is all legal because it seems almost all went through a time when drug abuse and addiction was causing substantive issues. Opium dens in Asia as an example. Morphine addiction in the US.

If the decriminalized approach has already been tried, (because those societies didn't know enough to make it extremely difficult to obtain and use), why would we want to go back and repeat the mistakes from previous societies?

I am not sure what function you want from this example. What substantive issues were caused by opium dens in Asia? Imperfect individuals simply acting freely in a society is going to necessarily result in some issues. At what point do these issues become substantive? Moreover, substantive is a relative term; so, what are we comparing these issues to?

If your addiction to narcotics causes problems such that you can no longer function as an individual who can support himself, that might mean that the others in society must provide basic subsistence for you; however, if society has laws in place that say drug users and sellers will be imprisoned, then the other individuals in society are providing basic subsistence for you, the only difference is that you are incarcerated (which, is actually more expensive).

So, if you would care to elucidate on these substantive issues that you are afraid of, please go ahead.

 

[therealUT]

I thought opium dens were the scourge of Asia. It was legal, and the consumers had a place to go for their fix. It wasn't made illegal until it became a huge problem.

Not sobriety though enforcement. Enforcement of criminal behavior. Sobriety through the motivation of not wanting to go back to jail.

The scourge of Asia? Where do you come up with this stuff?

 

[McDad]

I am not sure what function you want from this example. What substantive issues were caused by opium dens in Asia? Imperfect individuals simply acting freely in a society is going to necessarily result in some issues. At what point do these issues become substantive? Moreover, substantive is a relative term; so, what are we comparing these issues to?

If your addiction to narcotics causes problems such that you can no longer function as an individual who can support himself, that might mean that the others in society must provide basic subsistence for you; however, if society has laws in place that say drug users and sellers will be imprisoned, then the other individuals in society are providing basic subsistence for you, the only difference is that you are incarcerated (which, is actually more expensive).

So, if you would care to elucidate on these substantive issues that you are afraid of, please go ahead.

Never said I was afraid. In fact, I started this thread seeking perspective from those of you who consume.

If the decriminalized / legal approach has been tried and the society decided to make the substance illegal, doesn't that mean that it had a net negative effect on the society in question? They didn't close opium dens for religious reasons, did they?

You are a proponent of rational thought. What rationale do you have that legalization / decriminalization will have a different outcome for our society?

 

[Chris4Vols22]

IMO, legalize everything.

Let people smoke.

Let junkies die.

Legalizing is going to have minimal effects on the amount of people that are already using. You create a new economy, lower crime rates, and likely reduce drug-related assaults.

 

[McDad]

The scourge of Asia? Where do you come up with this stuff?

I have a 'talking points thesaurus' on my desk.

 

[therealUT]

Never said I was afraid. In fact, I started this thread seeking perspective from those of you who consume.

If the decriminalized / legal approach has been tried and the society decided to make the substance illegal, doesn't that mean that it had a net negative effect on the society in question?

Not at all.

1. Alcohol was prohibited in America. Few, if any, would stand by the assertion that the consumption of alcohol in America, prior to prohibition, had a net negative effect on society.

2. It was not 'society' that banned opium use in China; it was an individual, the sovereign of China. The Chinese government was not in the least bit representative of society.

They didn't close opium dens for religious reasons, did they?

I would say that opium dens were closed for a myriad of reasons in 1729; I would say that a net negative effect on society due solely to the consumption of opium was not one of them. There were plenty of economic and international reasons to come down on opium use (the British were, in some fashion, using opium from India as a currency to trade in China; the Emperor cracks down on opium use, and the British might start paying for goods with silver and gold-standard currency, again).

You are a proponent of rational thought. What rationale do you have that legalization / decriminalization will have a different outcome for our society?

You have yet to make the case that opium use, in and of itself, had net negative effects on Chinese society. Make that case, and I will listen.

 

[McDad]

Disappointed in you, trUT. You didn't even acknowledge my talking points thesaurus line. Tsk tsk.

So, hard drug consumption has been outlawed by several cultures over several centuries and it was because of a net negative impact on society? That's opposite of everything i have heard until today.

Do all consumers become addicts? Or, is the rate of addiction high for the hard stuff?

 

[therealUT]

Disappointed in you, trUT. You didn't even acknowledge my talking points thesaurus line. Tsk tsk.

So, hard drug consumption has been outlawed by several cultures over several centuries and it was because of a net negative impact on society? That's opposite of everything i have heard until today.

Other things that have been outlawed by several cultures over several centuries:
- Homosexuality
- Prostitution
- Alcohol
- Pork
- Female education

Things that have been permitted by several cultures over several centuries:
- Slavery
- Rape (so long as those being raped are not members of said community/society)
- Honor Killings

The historical fact that many societies and cultures have permitted or prohibited certain practices provides us with nothing other than the trivial fact that these societies and cultures permitted or prohibited certain practices.

Do all consumers become addicts? Or, is the rate of addiction high for the hard stuff?

Not all consumers become addicts. The addictive properties for some very mild drugs can be more potent than the addictive properties for some very "hard" drugs. For example, meth is not physiologically addictive; caffeine is.

 

[therealUT]

Bernard Mandeville (18th Century) on Private Vice, Public Virtue:
Bernard Mandeville, "The Grumbling Hive"

Bernard Mandeville on Prostitution:
Bernard Mandeville's "A Modest Defence of Publick Stews": Prostitution and ... - Irwin Primer - Google Books

 

[McDad]

Are psychological addictions harder to overcome than physiological ones?

 

[therealUT]

Are psychological addictions harder to overcome than physiological ones?

Depends on the person. If I quit caffeine cold-turkey, I will experience some pretty substantial headaches every morning for at least the next two weeks (I drink a lot of coffee); if I was on meth and decided to quit cold-turkey, I would experience no physiological withdraw. I would simply have a psychological desire to feel the intense pleasure received in a meth high (and, depending upon duration and amount of previous use, I could have some problems with normal pleasure experiences and cognitive functions in the future...but these are not part of physiological addiction).

 

[PKT_VOL]

Agree.

Good. :hi:

Not necessarily. I assume that your premise is that one degraded person in a society degrades the society. While such a premise is ostensibly sensible, it is much more complex, and many reasonable thinkers do not associate themselves with the thought that society is merely a sum of its parts.

Well, you can get very philosophical with it. I was just trying to keep it simple; if your population becomes worthless, your collective citizens will suffer.

True, society might have to support such individuals by providing basic subsistence; however, as a practical issue, this is a relative cost that one must weigh against the cost of enforcing the current legislation. While there are certainly cheaper ways of enforcing the current legislation, there are also cheaper ways of providing basic subsistence.

I completely agree. However, I was looking at it from a more pragmatic approach. Our society is always looking to up the standards of the "disenfranchised". To me, one must keep that premise in mind when looking at this problem from a pragmatic standpoint.

I agree that the kids lose when their parents are addicted to narcotics; however, as a practical issue (once again), we must weigh this loss against what kids are losing in a society in which it can be argued that there is a black market which provides more incentive for many of these kids to peddle drugs on the street than to pursue legally permitted employment.

That is a completely different issue in my book. Totally unrelated to my point.

I agree with the black market incentive. No doubt that it is a problem. However, does an aggressive drug enforcement program outweigh the effect of a hopefully smaller black market drug market?

A question arises here with two possible and plausible answers: Why are these individuals turning to crime?

1. They have an altered mind-state. For these crimes, it appears as though it is simply a necessary condition that crime will increase. However, there are ways to control this phenomena. And, if we think about the practice of opium dens, we might be able to identify the key. Certain drugs (marijuana) could be sold and consumed anywhere; certain harder drugs (opium) might be limited to dens where individuals buy, consume, get high, and come down in a controlled environment. They get their fix; they get their high; and, they leave (or, remain forever).

Yeah, this would a semi-solution. This, of course, would assume that an addict would rather use at such a place than the comfort of their own home. That is quite a premise to lay down.

2. Which you seem to embrace below, the high is so overwhelming and tempting, that individuals will do anything to chase it. Many of the harder drugs are too expensive for these individuals to afford; therefore, they will steal to fund their addiction. This theft will often result in physical harm. Regardless of how one tries to deal with and lessen this problem, it might still be a necessary consequence. However, it is worth attempting. Prohibited substances will always be more expensive than they would be were they permitted. Marijuana is an incredibly cheap crop to grow; poppy is cheap; coca is a bit more expensive, but not overwhelmingly so; meth is incredibly cheap to produce. Were these drugs legal, I cannot imagine a situation in which a large manufacturer would not get into the business of mass producing opium and cocaine (like Brown and Williamson mass produces cigarettes); in fact, just like cigarettes, I imagine that the product would be even cheaper because it would be cut with something (tar and other BS). The end result is a cheap low-quality version of these drugs and a more expensive high-end version of these drugs (cigarettes v. Davidoff cigars; Jim Beam v. Johnny Walker Green Label; etc.). The low-quality might be both less agreeable and less potent (just enough to get a decent high). Either way, though, it would be much more affordable to the masses who want to use, resulting in less crime to fund the habit (there would also be less crime attributed to turf war and dealers' justice).

I will never argue against the commercialization of drugs with respect to price.

The problem with this argument is that it beings the original question full circle; is it a good thing for our society to make "hard" drugs very cheap and readily available? I just cannot bring myself to say that such a system would be good for our society.

Again, such an assessment is at odds with my personal freedom ideals. As much as one (like myself) would like to divorce society from a given individual/personal situation, we cannot in this day in age.

Don't think you are a hypocrite, just have to place faith in the drastic economic consequences, related specifically to the cost of the drugs, that could foreseeably result.

I would be totally down for this. Problem is, the rest of society would never be on board for this.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I think I said it earlier in this thread (again, I'm off kilter on Mondays), but when you're talking about hard drug users, the laws currently in place don't really mean squat to them. If they mug somebody to fund their fix, arrest them and charge them with battery/armed robbery. If they break into a house and kill a man for the key to his safe, charge him with murder of the first degree. The only difference in meth being decriminalized is that you won't have tweekers in jail simply for being tweekers. Now, decriminalization shouldn't change probation/parole conditions. If an addict went to prison for robbery and was regularly drug tested by his PO after his release, that's fine. The courts could also appoint rehabilitation as a method to alleviate the addiction.

I guess my main point is this:

Addicts will be addicts and act like addicts regardless of the laws of the land. If they go to jail, it needs to be for a crime that harmed/affected another person.

I know you don't know me, but do I seem like someone who should be in prison? Because by the logic of the current laws we have, I should be imprisoned week in and week out.

I don't disagree with this at all.

I don't believe this would be at odds with anything in my post. I would just seize drugs a leave the addict/dealer alone unless they wanted to go to treatment.

 

[McDad]

I have been researching this subject since starting this thread. Thanks to all who contributed. Portugal decriminalized all drugs 11 years ago. So far, everything I have read indicates the move has been successful on all fronts. Portugal does spend state money on addiction treatment and teaching users to manage their use better. Would like for anyone who can find other info to post as well.
If the cost of treatment and user education is cheaper than incarceration, and Portugal's results are valid, I have no choice but to change my view on decriminalization.

 

[McDad]

Double post

 

[volmaverick]

-It's nowhere near as unhealthy for you as cigarettes (~20 cigarettes a day versus 1-4 joints) or alcohol (long term liver damage).


/soapbox
/roll

LOL

Impact On Lungs Of One Cannabis Joint Equal To Up To Five Cigarettes

5 joint = 25 cigs

 

[milohimself]

LOL

Impact On Lungs Of One Cannabis Joint Equal To Up To Five Cigarettes

5 joint = 25 cigs

Not really, and there are many more ways to smoke marijuana than joints.

 

[volmaverick]

-There are no physically addictive properties, unlike (you guessed it) cigarettes and alcohol.


/soapbox
/roll

:lolabove:

Is marijuana addictive?

However, it's wrong to say that it is not at all addictive. More and more studies are finding that marijuana has addictive properties. Both animal and human studies show physical and psychological withdrawal symptoms from marijuana, including irritability, restlessness, insomnia, nausea and intense dreams. Tolerance to marijuana also builds up rapidly. Heavy users need 8 times higher doses to get the same effects as infrequent users.

Health Services at Brown University

Marijuana | Brown University Health Education

 

[milohimself]

volmaverick, what is your point

 

[PKT_VOL]

I have been researching this subject since starting this thread. Thanks to all who contributed. Portugal decriminalized all drugs 11 years ago. So far, everything I have read indicates the move has been successful on all fronts. Portugal does spend state money on addiction treatment and teaching users to manage their use better. Would like for anyone who can find other info to post as well.
If the cost of treatment and user education is cheaper than incarceration, and Portugal's results are valid, I have no choice but to change my view on decriminalization.

No doubt that Portugal is the most interesting experiment with respect to drug legalization.

 

[volmaverick]

No doubt that Portugal is the most interesting experiment with respect to drug legalization.

:lolabove::lolabove::lolabove::lolabove:

Would like for anyone who can find other info to post as well.

Here u go

Facts: ‘Since the implementation of decriminalisation in Portugal, the number of homicides related to drug use has increased 40 per cent. Portugal was the only European country to show a significant increase in homicides between 2001 and 2006'

Wow..what a success!!!!


‘The number of new cases of HIV / AIDS and Hepatitis C in Portugal recorded among drug users is eight times the average found in other member states of the European Union.

Wow..what a success!!!!

‘As a matter of fact Portugal remains the country with the highest incidence of IDU-related AIDS

Wow..what a success!!!!

'With 219 deaths by drug 'overdose' a year, Portugal has one of the worst records, reporting more than one death every two days. Along with Greece, Austria and Finland, Portugal is one of the countries that recorded an increase in drug overdose by over 30 per cent in 2005'

Wow..what a success!!!!


‘Between 2001 and 2007, drug use increased 4.2 per cent, while the percentage of people who have used drugs (at least once) in life, multiplied from 7.8 per cent to 12 per cent.

Wow..what a success!!!!

UN World Drug Report

WDR-2009



:lolabove::lolabove::lolabove::lolabove::lolabove:

 

[tim]

So, you think people should be locked up based on the probability that they will commit a crime. Glad that sounds better to you.

Lemme simplify it for ya. If we continue arresting drug users for violations of drug laws and subsequent probation violations we can continue to thwart some of the more serious crimes some will certainally be involved in.

 

[n_huffhines]

IMO, legalize everything.

Let people smoke.

Let junkies die.

Legalizing is going to have minimal effects on the amount of people that are already using. You create a new economy, lower crime rates, and likely reduce drug-related assaults.

Portugal has shown a significant net decrease in usage after 10 years of legalization.