Firefigher loses life because of crack-head

Sarcasm abounds!

Let me see if I can re-state the question. Not that it will do any good. And frankly, I really don't have strong opinions one way or the other in the drug war argument.

If the government dropped its ban on certain illegal drugs...would consumption of those drugs go up? And if so, would we be forced to bear the consequences of the irresponsibilities of those who can't control themselves in greater numbers than we have to deal with today?

 

I don't have really strong opinions on this subject either, but come on Max, you know this is a loaded "how long have you been beating your wife" question.

Any person with half a brain would know that there are costs of drug legalization (which renders rvolkin's posts superfluous and unneccessary despite his delusions of social-science grandeur). I have noted this.

There of course are also benefits, the issue is whether they outweigh the costs

Any reasoned assessment would consider both- not dim-wittedly focusing on one particularized aspect of the potential cost and cluck-cluck-cluck -ing like rvolkin invoking poor widows and fatherless children while pretending like you're some sort of keyboard prophet. Well deserving of scorn, IMO.

 

Actually, no, rvolkin, that wasn't your question at all. Your question was much more myopic. I will refresh your memory by quoting it for you (as you did for me, several times).

Now, rvolkin - where does it say "benefit" in the above sentence (or synonymous wording)? It seems like you are simply trying to throw blood in his direction and asking how much will be on his hands.

Same as above. Where is your inquiry on corresonding benefits? Help me rvolkin - I answered your questions. Is this just you being "Fair and Balanced" (TM)

 

I don't read Andymoon's posts on the drug war without knowing what he has decided on the issue beforehand - though to tell you the truth I don't read that many of them at all since I generally know what most of them are going to say.

 

As to this particular event, it most likely would not have occurred in a regulated market. Let me explain.

When cocaine was legal for anyone to buy, there were no such occurrences for a myriad of reasons. One reason was the methods that people used to ingest it. Most of the cocaine consumption was in beverages like Coca-Cola and Vin Mariani (a wine mixture).

Crack cocaine was created by and for drug dealers so that they would have an easily measured, transported dose. The welcome side effect (from the dealer's point of view) is the increased high and the resulting higher incidence of addiction and craving.

In a regulated market (talking purely about cocaine), we would see users revert to alternative, safer methods of ingestion over time (remember that it has taken a century for us to get to this point, so we will be talking about a long-term trend here, not an overnight change) and incidents like this would not happen.

Taking the same exact tone with you that you took with me, I could ask you how many more overdose deaths (deaths that were nearly unheard of before we prohibited drugs in this country) we need before we admit that the drug war kills many more people than it helps.

Crack exists directly because of the drug war and as such, this firefighter, the addict, and the family were killed by prohibition, not by crack.

 

That's an assinine statement

 

Not if you look at already existing statistics. Reported mar1juana usage is virtually identical in Amsterdam and San Francisco (based on a study conducted last year), two cities of similar sizes and demographics.

We would see an initial jump in "reported" usage as people who don't feel safe answering those surveys honestly (and who can blame them) at present would not feel compelled to lie any more.

As far as the "irresponsibilities" you mentioned, I would argue that the VAST majority of people who are predisposed to using drugs irresponsibly are already using those drugs given that our drug policy marginalizes those people who are most at risk for such behavior. As such, I would think that any additional usage numbers would end up lowering the percentages of people who use drugs "irresponsib[ly]" in favor of people who are able to use them sans negative consequences. In addition, if our system were set up to identify people who abuse drugs or use them irresponsibly, we can target treatment for those people and may even be able to curb their behavior before it gets to the point that those people negatively impact society.

Keep in mind that when cocaine and heroin, by far the worst of the currently illegal drugs, were legal and available OTC (even children could buy them for their parents), there were virtually no overdoses, no cross reactions, and no epidemic of drug addicts like we have today. People, by and large, were able to use them responsibly and people who became addicted were still able to lead productive lives, some after treatment and recovery, and some (Freud among others) were able to maintain their productive lives actively using their drug of choice.

 

You may think so, but crack was created by dealers in response to ever more draconian measures in the War on Drugs. If "blame" is to be assigned for this incident, 99% of it goes to the idiot who started a fire in his house, but if rvolkin wants to assign blame to crack, that blame goes to prohibition.

 

RV - my 2 cents....you obviously have close ties to this situation or victim seeing as how you are going to the service and funeral ...you are only going to aggravate yourself by arguing about it in here...

 

YOU are the one who wanted to assign blame to crack for this addict's behavior. Any such blame goes to the drug war for creating crack in the first place.

While you are there, ask the assembled firefighters, police, and civil servants how many of them think that the drug war is an effective way to deal with the issue of drug use and abuse in our society. In a recent survey of 300 chiefs of police, 86% reported that it is definitively NOT the way we should be approaching this issue.

 

I read every word of every post in drug war threads, even the crap that t_j posts.

 

And if we had been able to target treatment options at him as a result of his purchasing history, the same could be said.

In addition, he might have actually gotten better instead of being thrown into the never ending cycle of jail-unemployment-drug use that so many of our young people (particularly black and brown young people) are forced to endure under the current system.

 

If you knew the firefighter and their family, I'm sorry for your loss.
Starting a thread in here with an inflamatory remark challenging people to a debate about drug policy when what really happened was an isolated incident involving a person that just happened to be crack addict unintentionally burning a building down isn't helping things.

 

You must have MANY, MAAAAANNNNY friends who are firefighters and police officers if they constitute a greater sample than 1% of 1%. You should do your own survey, you know, since you're obviously not biased.