Is anyone else sick of the hypocrisy?

[Druidus]

Personally, I'm sick of it. Government officials say that "drugs" are bad. That prohibition is for our own good. That "drugs" cause crime.

But we all know this is bullcrap. They likely have a liquor cabinet stocked with alcoholic liquids, and alcohol is a very addictive and dangerous drug. In fact, while no one has ever died from cannabis, and only one person has ever verifiably overdosed on psychedelic mushrooms, insane numbers of people die from alcohol related problems every year!

And most drugs are not dangerous at all. Cannabis certainly isn't. Sure, there are some dangers, especially if you drive (though cannabis is never as bad combined with driving as alcohol is, it is as bad as some prescription medecines), but this can be effectively zero through proper safety. It may even have health benefits. Indeed, smoking cannabis was shown to have a potential reduction effect with lung cancer in a study of 60,000 people. People who smoked cannabis had less incidences of lung cancer than those who did not. This is possibly due to the fact that cannabis smoke focuses on large bronchial passages (tobacco smoke goes for the smaller ones), may cause pre-cancerous cells to prematurely commit cellular suicide, as well as being a dilative agent, meaning it may assist in the cleansing of lung passages.

But this is not what I want this debate to be about (don't worry, there will be many more psychoactive related debates started by me ).

I am here to discuss prohibition. Prohibition of alcohol was a complete and utter failure. Why should prohibition of other psychoactives be any different?

There are a number of reasons why prohibition is ridiculous, immoral, pointless, and a complete farce.

First of all, many people use illegal psychoactives as sacraments. I use cannabis in a spiritual manner (I am also quite open about it; and I know that it is only illegal to possess cannabis, not to admit to past usage), for instance. It is a part of me and my spirituality. To remove this part of me is cruel and immoral, a slap in the face to religious tolerance. I've never killed a man. I've never harmed anyone except in defense of myself. Why should I be punished for choosing to inhale smoke?

Prohibition has been proven to be ineffective. Drug use has risen all around, except for opiates since the start of the War on Drugs. The War on Drugs is having nearly no effect on drug trafficking. The only thing it does is increase the profit margin, therefore ensuring the continued success of the black market.

It is a base right to be able to alter my consciousness. No one should be allowed to take this away from me, unless I am harming others. I am not, and the majority of drug users can say this too.

Does anyone know who Al Capone is? Thousands of Al Capones exist today, because of drug prohibition. In any black market, unsanctioned by government powers and therefore not protected by government powers, violence is the only means by which disputes can be solved. If governments sanction the trade of psychoactive drugs that are currently illegal, and regulate the sale of these chemicals/plants/fungi, violence and crime would no longer be a significant force in the underground drug market. Why? Because it would no longer exist, without the staggering profit margins that black markets create.

The U.S. wastes 30 billion dollars per year on drug prohibition (and this number is increasing). This money could easily be used in any number of other possible areas. To use it in a means proven to be ineffective is immoral. And this figure of 30 billion dollars doesn't even factor in the cost of jailing close on half a million prohibition violators.

Ending prohibition reduces the use of "hard" drugs, as has been shown in countries like the Netherlands.

There are numerous other valid arguments against prohibition, but I am far too tired to detail them right now. Instead, I'd like to hear your thoughts. And if anyone can tell me why prohibition is good, I am ready. But I doubt your reasons will be valid.

One more thing... I use many types of psychoactives, and have for some time now. Do I seem particularly unintelligent? Violent? Unstable?

 

[Because_I_am]

No, you actually seem smarter than most people without drugs.

 

[gnomon]

Yes, I agree that modern U.S. drug laws are a sham and caused more problems than the drugs themselves. I don't necessarily agree with all your reasons for ending drug prohibition. There may be other reasons why the Netherlands has a lower rate of marijuana use than the United States. Cultural differences, while not that different, must be taken into account.

Ending current drug policy makes sense because of the crime problem. The "drug problem" can be dealt with if drugs are legal or illegal. It would be easier to find solutions without a prison industrial complex, corruption and poor laws being in the way.

Unfortunately, this issue seems to be a back burner for most people despite the number of lives and money involved. Recently a man had his money confiscated by police without being charged with any crime. The courts upheld this action. Combine this with the SCOTUS decisions in Hudson and Keno and you can only wonder what our rights really are in this country.

There is some sick, sweet twisted notion in knowing that some heroin users are currently using and will likely be arrested for using the opium produced by an Afghani with the blessing of the United States.

 

[Druidus]

Mods: Sorry this is in General Discussion, it should be in General Debates. Can anyone move this for me? Thanks in advance.

Gnomon, part of my argument is that the "Drug Problem" does not exist. What an individual does to his/her own body is his/her own business. Once harm is demonstratably shown to be afflicted upon others, then the government steps in. This means physically harming another being as a direct result of a drug. Drugs aren't evil. They are chemicals, without morals or ethics. It is the actions of man that can be considered evil or wrong.

At most, there should be education programs about the dangers of drugs that focus on facts not lies; as "DARE" does today. Drug education programs should enlighten individuals to the true dangers of drug use, because, while they are not nearly as dangerous as they are often portrayed to be, they do have their dangers.

 

[PetShopBoy88]

It's my body. I hsould have the right to do whatever I want to it, to put whatever I want in it.

 

[gnomon]

Mods: Sorry this is in General Discussion, it should be in General Debates. Can anyone move this for me? Thanks in advance.

Gnomon, part of my argument is that the "Drug Problem" does not exist. What an individual does to his/her own body is his/her own business. Once harm is demonstratably shown to be afflicted upon others, then the government steps in. This means physically harming another being as a direct result of a drug. Drugs aren't evil. They are chemicals, without morals or ethics. It is the actions of man that can be considered evil or wrong.

At most, there should be education programs about the dangers of drugs that focus on facts not lies; as "DARE" does today. Drug education programs should enlighten individuals to the true dangers of drug use, because, while they are not nearly as dangerous as they are often portrayed to be, they do have their dangers.

I don't necessarily disagree with your argument but there is a drug problem. This comes from my experience with the "hard" drugs (including alcohol) and time spent in a treatment hospital. There is a problem on the individual level as well as for some communities. I think the problem in certain communities would be alleviated by doing away with current drug laws and using the resources on treatment and community building. As far as the individual it will always be up to that individual.

And yes, definitely some accurate and honest educational programs. It worked with cigarettes despite its notorious addiction qualities.

 

[sherwood]

Informed use is not actually bad, but many substances can catch you and hold you in an addictive grip that you cannot help. On the other hand, many substances when used intelligently are very helpful in a physical way (to treat or cure illness) emotional/psychological and spiritual. So across the board prohibition is foolish, but some method of control is not unreasonable (such as some age restrictions or prescription style access)

 

[ChrisP]

I agree completely. Any narcotic is available to those who care to look, regardless of laws and social attitudes. Individual choice, and the responsibility that comes with it. We're trying to take away people's choices now, or at least confine them to the choices we'd like them to take (and not just in the area of substance use/abuse... depending on the fence and which side you're on).

This attitude is breeding a society that is incapable of making difficult decisions.

 

[cardero]

No, you actually seem smarter than most people without drugs.

That's Our Druidus!!

 

[Ðanisty]

The modern prohibition on drugs is ridiculous. It causes more problems than it solves. However, I don't think it should be a free for all. There are drugs that are dangerous. There are drugs that cause people to lose all rationality. I'm not convinced, however, that pot has ever hurt anyone. Making certain drugs legal would definitely reduce crime and free up space in our jails for people who really need to be there.

 

[Druidus]

I'd like to quote www.thedea.org:

Controlled Legalization​

The most comprehensive (and controversial) method of drug control would legalize all aspects of the trade surrounding a particular drug, but in doing so would create strict controls on manufacturing and sale, not unlike the current prescription system. Under controlled legalization all aspects of the drug trade are addressed, uniting Harm Reduction and counseling/treatment services with sanctioned drug sales/manufacturing in order to suppress the black market drug trade.
Goals:
1. Comprehensive education of users. In many cases, drug users are harmed not simply because they took a drug, but because they took a drug without understanding its risks and effects. By creating legal, regulated channels to get drugs through, you can require users to attend classes about safe use, medical risks, addiction, etc.
2. Keep people away from the black market drug trade. Drugs that are impure and of unknown strength are more dangerous to users, as are the sorts of people that tend to be involved in any sort of illegal trade. Decriminalization without regulation would only allow this bad situation to continue.
3. Early identification and counseling of addicts. When people get their recreational drugs through a controlled and traceable channel, you can identify people when they develop patterns of heavy use and offer them help.
4. Provide an income stream for social services. If somebody becomes addicted, there needs to be resources available to treat them as quickly and effectively as possible. By bringing recreational drug sales into the open, controlled legalization would allow us to gather billions of dollars in sales/excise taxes.
5. Stop wasting money where it doesn't accomplish anything: When the police catch Jimbo with a joint and arrest him, process him, run him through the courts and stick him in jail for week then probation for a year, it can cost the taxpayers thousands of dollars. And when Jimbo gets out, there is virtually no chance that he will stop using drugs as a result of the experience. If the goal of your social policy is to hurt people you catch disobeying you, the current system works. If the goal is to protect people from being hurt by drugs (or even reduce use) it's an abject failure. Chasing the potheads simply isn't sound social policy: We aren't going to change them. We aren't going to stop them. We might as well keep an eye on them and make a buck or two instead of endlessly pouring tax dollars into the bottomless pit that is Prohibition.
Given these goals, what might the future of drug control in America look like? Perhaps something...like this:


It's a Controlled Substances Permit card, much like a driver's license. In the future, a crazed druggie sort might have a card like this, which they could present at pharmacies in order to be able to purchase currently prohibited drugs. You may recognize the card type: It's a "smart card", a credit-card sized piece of plastic with a tiny computer chip embedded into it.

The Controlled Substances Permit Concept

Q: How would it work?
A: The card contains a computer chip and a secret encryption key. When you wish to buy a Controlled Substance, you would present the card, which would be connected to a computer hooked up to the national CSP system. The card would tell the servers who the owner was, such as "Bob Smith, #139102938543545". The servers would then send out an encoded message that only "Bob Smith's" card would be able to decode. By decoding the message correctly, the CSP smart card is able to prove its identity to the CSP system servers.



Q: OK, so the government system knows which card it is. Then what?
A: Then it's the human's turn to identify you. The CSP servers would send a photo, signature copy, and other identifying information to the computer terminal you connected the smart card to. By comparing your appearance and signature, the staff at the store should be able to identify you beyond any doubt.



Q: So, then I can buy my drugs?
A: You will be able to buy drugs that you are certified for, yes. The CSP system will track and record all activity: What you buy, how much, and when/where.



Q: Hey, wait a minute...what do you mean by "certified"?
A: Unlike the way things are currently done under the Prohibition model, not just anybody will be able to walk in off the streets and buy drugs. In order to get a permit, you will be required to attend classes on addiction, responsible drug use, and medical affects/risks.



Q: But once I do that I can buy drugs?
A: No. After the introductory class, you will be able to take classes on specific groups of drugs, such as Cannabis, Opiates, Amphetamines, Psychedelics, etc. Each class will contain extensive information on what the drugs do, relative risks of injury, death and addiction, and information on safe and responsible ways to use. You will have to pay a small fee for these classes, and will be tested on the material.



Q: **** man, that sounds hard.
A: It wouldn't be too bad. Most people would have no trouble passing on their first try. The goal is not to prevent people from getting a certification for a certain class of drugs, only to give them the information and understanding they will need to stay relatively safe.



Q: Umm. So...can I get stoned now?
A: Yes.

 

[Druidus]

Technical Matters:

​

Q: Who will be able to sell drugs?
A: Licensed pharmacies, under an extension of the current system of federal controls on prescription drugs. As the system evolved, particularly safe drugs like marijuana might migrate to less controlled points of sale (liquor stores, etc.)



Q: Will 'hard' drugs like heroin be available?
A: Eventually I believe they would be, if only to confirmed addicts as part of maintenance and treatment programs. However, the system would start out with safer, less addictive drugs as a test of the concept. If all went well, harder drugs could be made available to give users an alternative to the often dangerous black market. The system would be very flexible, able to create different requirements and restrictions on each drug/drug class as needed, and could be adjusted to suit local concerns and needs.



Q: How can you even consider providing a horrible drug like heroin?
A: The question of providing heroin is one of those classic examples of the world not working the way we think it should. Ask yourself, where do heroin dealers come from? In many cases, dealers are addicted users who needed a way to pay for their own habit. Likewise, addicts form the backbone of the black market heroin trade, keeping the dealers in business while they 'develop' new customers. By providing a legal, affordable way to get heroin you undermine the black market by removing the drug dealer's core customer base and removing much of the motivation for addicts to become dealers. Perhaps heroin would not be made available to non-addicts, but to provide it to people who are already addicted (in the context of a greater substance abuse treatment program) is simply the smart thing to do. Under such a program, you undermine the black market, reduce risks to the addicts through education and clean needles, and can ensure that they receive counseling/treatment.



Q: Would the system include alcohol and cigarettes?
A: I would like it to. Given the logistics of alcohol, it would likely remain sold by traditional liquor stores (the sheer bulk of alcohol makes it virtually impossible to integrate into a pharmacy model.) Cigarettes should certainly require training and certification; the rate of death, addiction, and injury from cigarettes almost makes heroin look safe. To allow people to simply buy such extraordinarily dangerous products without any education is grossly irresponsible.



Q: Who would produce and distribute the drugs?
A: Production would be done by licensed companies. Distribution would probably be handled by the government to reduce diversion and ensure the collection of taxes. There's no reason we can't grow our own opium poppies and coca trees in the US if we do choose to make such drugs legally available on some basis. It's time we stopped the Prohibitionists from driving billions of dollars into the hands of terrorists and other violent criminals.


Q: You mentioned getting help to addicts early on...how would this be done?
A: First, the national tracking system would identify when a person's use went up suddenly or reached levels that casual use couldn't explain. At this point, social services would be notified, and they would make contact with the individual.



Q: And if they don't want to talk to them?
A: You would be required to provide some minimal cooperation with social services to keep your CSP.



Q: If somebody becomes addicted, would they be cut off?
A: Under most circumstances, no. Drug abusers (as opposed to the majority casual users) are almost universally self-medicating for underlying psychiatric problems. To cut them off simply because they've become heavy users is sadistic and would likely be ineffective: They could always just go to the black market (which could survive if there were enough people denied access to the CSP system) or switch to more easily available drugs like alcohol. Rather than try to force them to stop using drugs, they would be allowed to continue to purchase their drug of choice so long as they met with social services. You can't force people to take help, but you can make sure they know it's available.



Q: Would it be illegal to resell drugs you purchased through the CSP system?
A: Yes. For unusually dangerous or addictive drugs, the purchaser would have to keep the drugs in their original container, which would be serialized/bar coded with a number traceable to the purchaser.



Q: Would there be age limits?
A: Yes. For soft drugs like marijuana, I can't see more than 18 as the minimum. Harder drugs would have higher requirements. There may also be additional requirements for getting a CSP, such as basic mental and physical health screening.



Q: How would you keep the system secure?
A: Heavy two-way encryption. Hacking into the system between the pharmacy and the CSP net would be about as close to impossible as anything gets. The CSP servers themselves would of course be heavily guarded, perhaps located at the current DEA headquarters.



Q: There's very little information on the card itself...why?
A: To prevent abuse if the card is lost or stolen. There isn't a home address or phone number to protect the privacy of the card holder, and there isn't a signature on the card because that would be provided by the CSP servers themselves; placing it on the card would only assist forgeries. The bar code is simply backup card identification, allowing a card to be identified in terms of owner without the relatively 'heavy' hardware of the encrypted point-of-sale terminals or in case the card's circuitry became damaged (so if you needed to replace it, the bar code could be used to identify the old card and bring up your personal information for verifying who you are.) Sales would probably not be permitted with only the bar code, however.

Philosophical and other issues:​

Q: Won't even this restricted system of drug legalization cause an increase in drug abuse?
A: I doubt it. It will almost certainly lead to increases in the use of some drugs, but the shift will not be from people who never use drugs; it will come from alcohol and tobacco users. Yes, maybe we'll get a few million more heavy pot smokers...but it will be the same people who would otherwise have been alcoholics. Legalization does not mean creating vast new legions of drug abusers; it simply means more efficiently and fairly managing the people who are already abusing drugs. A drinker who decides they'd rather be stoned than drunk does not represent an increase in drug use unless you've fallen for that old straw that alcohol 'isn't really a drug.'



Q: Isn't such a shift still a bad thing?
A: Not really. Marijuana use is less expensive to society and less dangerous than alcohol use. America would be far better off with ecstasy and marijuana as its drugs of choice than it is with alcohol and tobacco. (Visit the Statistics page of the Risks section for more information.)

5five

 

[PetShopBoy88]

The modern prohibition on drugs is ridiculous. It causes more problems than it solves. However, I don't think it should be a free for all. There are drugs that are dangerous. There are drugs that cause people to lose all rationality. I'm not convinced, however, that pot has ever hurt anyone. Making certain drugs legal would definitely reduce crime and free up space in our jails for people who really need to be there.

I don't agree with that. Yes, it's dangerous, but only dangerous to myself. Sure, drugs can cause me to commit other crimes (which, as the terminology implies, are already crimes) but the drug use itself ONLY hurts me. Even if it is highly addictive and highly harmful, it's still just ME, and nobody else should have the right to tell ME what I do with MY body.

 

[cardero]

Q: Who would produce and distribute the drugs?
A: Production would be done by licensed companies. Distribution would probably be handled by the government to reduce diversion and ensure the collection of taxes. There's no reason we can't grow our own opium poppies and coca trees in the US if we do choose to make such drugs legally available on some basis. It's time we stopped the Prohibitionists from driving billions of dollars into the hands of terrorists and other violent criminals.

So basically this factor hasn't changed.

 

[ChrisP]

So basically this factor hasn't changed.

:highfive: spot on.

Sometimes I think a lot more than half the reason drugs haven't been legalised is that they would have to be regulated, and that the people making them now wouldn't be considered for a legitimate drug making license... and then there'd be Unions, industry regulations, quality control... it's all too much for the people who pay political protection money.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I agree it is a waste, that somehow we are to believe that illegal drugs are much worse and harder on the body than legal drugs, which are also bad, just not as bad. Drug laws and prohibition really do need to be rethought. I'm also really wanting to go smoke right now. Going on three months with no weed is starting to be really hard.

 

[Druidus]

Why no weed, Luke?

Yes, regulations aren't fun. But they are necessary at times. These regulations ensure safety and also provide income to the government, so that those who damage themselves with drugs can be helped. It's still profitable, only a small portion of the money would go towards rehabilitation.

Some drug producers would be given the opportunity to produce drugs for the government, I believe. They would definately be subject to the same rules as pharmaceutical companies are today. No cutting with anything.

 

[ChrisP]

Some drug producers would be given the opportunity to produce drugs for the government,

Whether they take that opportunity would have to be seen. Just my opinion, but I think many producers would continue to operate a black market to maximise their own profits and avoid Taxation. They could also become legit and OVERproduce selling the surplus through a network of contacts.

Would people choose to buy from such a black market? Only if it was cheaper or had something the common market did not have, and what I've outlined above is not something that doesn't happen with any other product.

Sorry... just thought I'd kill that argument early .

 

[Druidus]

With strict safeguards against overproduction, it wouldn't really be an issue.

When you can walk to your local pharmacy and get some LSD for a good price, why would you want to go to the black market? The black market would die out.

Sure, you'd have to pay a low fee to get your card and your certification for the drug, but if you couldn't afford this you couldn't afford the drugs to begin with, even on the black market.

Even if, somehow, the black market managed to sell at a lower price than the government (I doubt it, because black markets are usually more expensive, to increase the profit margin), it wouldn't matter. The difference would be insignificant, and not worth endangering yourself by becoming entangled in a black market.

Oh, and before someone brings it up, you couldn't sell the drugs you bought illegally. I suppose you could, with cannabis and other such drugs, but definately not with heroin, cocaine, methamphetamines, etc. You would be issued one container for the drug, and you would have to bring that container back every time to get a refill. It would be serialized/bar coded/otherwise ID'd. Perhaps there would even be a satellite tracking device, for the unlikely event that you lost the container.

 

[CaptainXeroid]

Since hypocrisy means taking actions that are contrary to one's words, the thread title threw me off. I tend to agree that the "War on Drugs" is largely a waste of law enforcement resources, but unless there's evidence that the legislators who advocate keeping certain drugs illegal are actually using them, then the word hypocrisy is not applicable.