Mexico Legalizes Personal Possession of MJ, coke, meth, LSD etc.

No, I was comparing the two's propensity to kill people the first time they are consumed, which was one of your several ad hoc criteria for something that is inherently dangerous.

Yes, as you are still yet to articulate your argument as to why making certain drugs legal would make them more dangerous.

 

The drug war is propaganda for stupid ppl and was created to make tons of money for smart ppl, who also wanted to find ways to control stupid ppl. They have done a good job so far.

Literally everyone in the world is a drug user, according to US law. Take DMT (Dimethyltryptamine) for example:

"Dimethyltryptamine (DMT) is a naturally-occurring tryptamine and potent psychedelic drug, found not only in many plants, but also in trace amounts in the human body where its natural function is undetermined."

Legal status

United States
DMT is classified in the United States as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970.

^^ from wikipedia

Yes, when you dream, you produce the psychedelic drug DMT, and are thus committing a felony. While heroin, meth, and cocaine provide little positive value, it should be everyone's RIGHT to do with their bodies what they please, as long as they are not directly harming anyone else. Maybe it's not perfect, but once you let governments start controlling your personal freedoms, you get incrementally squeezed and squeezed until you're nothing more than a slave owned by the government, which is close to what we have now.

 

They are not going to arrest and charge you for possession of dreams.

 

Anecdotal evidence will warp your perception, try something empirical instead.

You will need to link to this "survey" because I am calling out BS on this one. I review just about every study done on the subjects of drug use and abuse and this one has not made it in front of me despite several Google Alerts.

I prefer the arguments that the more sober among us make.

Pot, meet kettle.

Off topic.

Please highlight the various ways that people "endanger all others" via their recreational drug use.

People from all political persuasions believe that the drug war is lunacy. Did you read the speech by William F. Buckley or did you ignore it in the last thread?

 

So you're of the "drugs are bad, mmmmmmmmkay" camp, eh?

Prohibitionist systems are the absolute worst way to deal with drug use and abuse in a society. With a black market, kids have easier access to illegal drugs than they do alcohol and with the messages we currently send to kids, they are predisposed to ignore everything that authority figures say about drugs.

1. Adults lump mar1juana in with truly dangerous drugs like heroin and cocaine.

2. Kids, seeing their peers enjoy the use of mar1juana and not suffering ill effects, decide that everything that adults have been saying is a load of crap.

3. Kids begin their own experimentation with drugs without the biases and prejudices that they would have with truly honest, comprehensive drug education.

4. Around 1.3% of our young people will develop an addiction to one or another drug because our system gives them ready access along with information that leads them to believe that drug use is harmless.

Regulating manufacture and sales to adults is the best way to reduce the drugs to which kids are exposed.

 

I still disagree with the part of your stance that kids have easier access to illegal drugs than to alcohol, unless I am missing something.

It is a lot easier for a kid to get into his parents' or his friends' parents' liquor cabinet than to access illegal drugs.

Now if you are strictly talking about kids having to purchase alcohol at a store then I would refrain from arguing this point.

 

To be fair, just about every cocaine or heroin overdose death could be eliminated by having a known purity of a known substance. Almost every overdose death that occurs is the result of a product that is a higher purity than the user is accustomed to or because of adulterants.

On the subject of heroin, I would agree with you that we should not license it for recreational use, with the caveat that users who have not responded to other forms of abuse treatment should be allowed prescription heroin as has been done in several other countries, including Switzerland's decade-old program. These programs have reduced criminality, improved the chances of recovery from addiction, and have given the people in the program a life that they didn't have before.

I believe cocaine's addiction factor could be reduced, but would not allow regulated sales of powdered or "crack" cocaine.

 

Yes, absolutely. None of those people will be staring down the barrel of a decade long prison sentence for their choice of intoxicants. They will be purchasing a known amount of a known purity drug from a licensed distribution facility, which virtually eliminates the risk of overdose.

Yes, regulating the industry will make all of "those people" better off.

In 1900, before drugs were banned, it was estimated that 1.3% of the population was addicted to drugs.

In 1972, when Nixon coined the term "War on Drugs," it was estimated that 1.3% of the population was addicted to drugs.

In 1988, after Reagan went ballistic on the drug war, it was estimated that 1.3% of the population was addicted to drugs.

Today, after hundreds of billions, perhaps over a trillion dollars spent on prohibition, it is estimated that 1.3% of the population was addicted to drugs.

Drug policy has not changed the percentage of people who become addicted to drugs.

 

Are you aware that the Air Foce has had its pilots using amphetamines on a very regular basis for decades with virtually no instances of abuse?

 

Meth labs are entirely a construct of prohibition. In a regulated system you would have highly safe, regulated facilities producing these substances.

Yes, I was a drug abuse counselor for several years and worked in chemical dependency hospitals where I helped hundreds to recover from their addictions.

In a regulated environment, addicts could be given treatment options paid for by taxes on the drugs themselves.

Overdoses are almost entirely a consequence of prohibition. They are mostly due to the user not knowing how pure a product is or what adulterants have been added. In a regulated environment, the user would be purchasing a known quantity of a known purity and people would rarely if ever OD. In addition, prohibitionist systems like ours criminalize the people around the person ODing, in a regulated system, someone calls 911 and the drug user's OD will not kill them 97% of the time.

If you had done anything approaching a reasonable amount of research, there is no way you would be able to keep your position. As it is, you cannot support your position with empirical evidence, only anecdotal.

In a regulated system, taxes on the drugs themselves pay for those costs and then some.

 

If this is the case, then they had a heart condition before they used cocaine. In the system I would propose, such a person would have had medical tests to see if their bodies could even take it before they were given a license to purchase.

 

I am talking about a University of Minnesota study that found that minors report easier access to pot than to alcohol.

 

That just doesn't make sense to me. I would assume that nearly 100% of kids' parents' (or friends' parents') have liquor in their house (at least those not living in Utah ).

 

You would be surprised how many parents do not keep liquor in their house or, like we do, lock it up. The study didn't speculate on how the teens gained access to alcohol or pot, but the percentages for both were north of 80%. Pot, however, had a higher number, which is the reason that the current system scares me. The same people who sell pot would rather their customers buy cocaine or heroin.

 

I've just skimmed through this thread and my 2 cents are that it doesn't really matter that much if people use drugs as a choice or are driven by an underlying compulsion in the end we are still left with a lot of people addicted to drugs. The practical reality of drug use is what needs to be confronted and just locking people away has proven very problematic and a waste of resources without making much of a dent in actual drug use.

 

Concise and accurate. Repped

 

Where is the proof of any of that?

I'm still looking for the empirical evidence you have cited supporting your positions.

Again, I'd like to see the data supporting this position in the long term.

Who's the pot and who's the kettle? You hold a very minority position in supporting legalization of all drugs, and you have no data to support such a position, and you call me out for my lack of "reasonable amount of research"?

 

It is common sense for anyone who has ever worked in drug treatment facilities. Here is a great link about preventing overdoses and saving lives.

From page five of that document...

I will be more than happy to provide evidence to support my assertions. Let me know which points you would like to see evidence for and I will be more than happy to get it for you, though everything I say is just a Google away.

I have read at least the abstract of every study done on drug use and abuse in the last 20 years or so and have read summaries of the results of all the studies done since the late 1800s. I encourage everyone to get out there and study the evidence as I believe that such study can only lead to a single conclusion.

It has been estimated (by Richard Davenport-Hines, in his book The Pursuit of Oblivion) that drug profits are in the neighborhood of 300% for traffickers and a whopping 1000% for street level dealers once they cut the product down. If we go with the 300% figure and the relatively conservative estimate of $57 billion in drug purchases by Americans, that would give us in the neighborhood of $44 billion per year in potential tax revenue to offset any rise in medical costs.

In this argument, I am neither. I have based my positions off of scientific study and empirical evidence. Based on your arguments, I assume that you have not studied the issue and have based your opinions on anecdotal evidence and the lunacy propogated by the "just say no" folks.

I have plenty of data, all of my positions are based on evidence, and I will back my positions up, particularly if faced with an opponent who does the same. I do hold a minority opinion right now, but it was once a minority opinion in the US that women and African-Americans should have the right to vote, that whites could "own" other people, and that segregation was acceptable.

Just because you are in the majority of opinions doesn't make those opinions right.

 

Because that has worked so incredibly well for alcohol and limiting kids' access to same.

 

Am I really to believe that the USAF is doling out crystal meth?