Bath Salts Drug Crisis

[dps]

If you listed it as a controlled substance today however you'd instantly make criminals out of millions of people.  So instead we try and go after it in other ways.

But the drug laws do make criminals out of millions of people.  And the taxpayer is stuck with the bill of investigating, arresting, charging, and incarcerating them.

But when comparing drug laws to tobacco, at least when drug users started using they knew it was illegal.  Right now millions of smokers are hooked on what is a legal product.  It seems pretty harsh to suddenly tell them one day their cigarettes are illegal.

We did it to those who drank alchohol.

Of course, I can't say that that worked out well.

Which reminds me.  Someone (grumbler, I think) posted in another thread that alcohol has one of the highest social and health costs of any recreational drug, even though it's legal (and the same can be said for tobacco).  The implication, given the context, seemed to be that perhaps other drugs should be legalized, since the one's that cause the most problems are the ones that are legal.  But it seems to me that that point can easily be turned around--the high costs associated with those few recreational drugs that are legal could indicate that letting recreational drugs be legal is a bad idea.

[Malthus]

Again, the majority of crimes in the criminal code are "hybrid" offences - one where the Crown can proceed either on summary conviction or by indictment.  Only very few offences are straight summary conviction.  So posession of marijuana in an amount listed in Schedule VIII is in the same category as causing a disturbance by being drunk and public indecency.

Yes, but the amount listed in Schedule VIII is tiny. 1 gram of has oil is nothing - no-one ever buys a single gram for personal use. Most by a quarter (7 grams) as the absolute smallest amount.

And you're making the typical non-lawyer mistake of looking at the theoretical maximum.  Nobody ever gets the maximum.  When you look at the sentencing precedents you'll very rapidly learn that Schedule I drugs are treated very differently from other drugs (like marijuana).

Then why are you mentioning the drug Schedules at all, if the legislation is irrelevant? It's you that made the claim they were vastly different because they were differently scheduled, and me that's pointing out that this isn't true. 

Of course the courts tend to treat pot differently, as a matter of case law - as, I pointed out to Viper, does society as a whole; but that's no argument, because (a) it is uneven - one cop can arrest you even though 99% of cops don't care; and (b) it is unjust to have laws on the books that allow for judges to punish you the same, or nearly the same, if they should so choose.

The fact that the laws are not enforced to the full range isn't an argument for keeping the laws on the books as they presently are, it's an argument for changing them to reflect actual practice.

[garbon]

The fact that the laws are not enforced to the full range isn't an argument for keeping the laws on the books as they presently are, it's an argument for changing them to reflect actual practice.

[DGuller]

The fact that the laws are not enforced to the full range isn't an argument for keeping the laws on the books as they presently are, it's an argument for changing them to reflect actual practice.

That's an interesting concept, I have to admit.

[Malthus]

If you listed it as a controlled substance today however you'd instantly make criminals out of millions of people.  So instead we try and go after it in other ways.

But the drug laws do make criminals out of millions of people.  And the taxpayer is stuck with the bill of investigating, arresting, charging, and incarcerating them.

But when comparing drug laws to tobacco, at least when drug users started using they knew it was illegal.  Right now millions of smokers are hooked on what is a legal product.  It seems pretty harsh to suddenly tell them one day their cigarettes are illegal.

We did it to those who drank alchohol.

Of course, I can't say that that worked out well.

Which reminds me.  Someone (grumbler, I think) posted in another thread that alcohol has one of the highest social and health costs of any recreational drug, even though it's legal (and the same can be said for tobacco).  The implication, given the context, seemed to be that perhaps other drugs should be legalized, since the one's that cause the most problems are the ones that are legal.  But it seems to me that that point can easily be turned around--the high costs associated with those few recreational drugs that are legal could indicate that letting recreational drugs be legal is a bad idea.

One problem with this is something I pointed out upthread - that some of the very worst drugs (as in, worst health effects) are otherwise-legal substances used as drugs, or home-made drugs containing impurities and poisions. For example, huffing gasoline, 'krokodil", or in the Prohibition era, bootleg booze.

Making more actual drugs illegal doesn't work to improve public health, it makes it worse: alkies, instead of drinking themselves to death slowly with legally-made booze (government certified as to purity), drink themselves to death quickly with bathtub booze (containing any number of poisions).

[Grey Fox]

The fact that the laws are not enforced to the full range isn't an argument for keeping the laws on the books as they presently are, it's an argument for changing them to reflect actual practice.

Yea! Most Speed limits should be raise by 10 to 25 mph.

[Malthus]

The fact that the laws are not enforced to the full range isn't an argument for keeping the laws on the books as they presently are, it's an argument for changing them to reflect actual practice.

The problem with speed limits is quite different, because no matter how they are raised, people will tend to go 10km faster. 

[DGuller]

The problem with speed limits is quite different, because no matter how they are raised, people will tend to go 10km faster. 

Not really.  It may seem like it only because within our living memory, speed limits have been kept absurdly low. 

The issue is in fact very similar in many ways.  Speeding is a good way for police to stop people arbitrarily, since pretty much everyone does it.  Laws that require a lot of discretion to be excercised are bad laws.

[Iormlund]

There are very good reasons to limit speed: its relation to drag, the role it plays in kinetic energy buildup and reaction distance increase.

[garbon]

There are very good reasons to limit speed: its relation to drag, the role it plays in kinetic energy buildup and reaction distance increase.

I don't think anyone was suggesting there shouldn't be limits.  More like the limits should reflect reality.  If everyone is going 75 on the Garden State Parkway - having a limit of 55 (in places) can only serve to function as a method for arbitrary enforcement/police harassment.

[viper37]

Which reminds me.  Someone (grumbler, I think) posted in another thread that alcohol has one of the highest social and health costs of any recreational drug, even though it's legal (and the same can be said for tobacco).  The implication, given the context, seemed to be that perhaps other drugs should be legalized, since the one's that cause the most problems are the ones that are legal.  But it seems to me that that point can easily be turned around--the high costs associated with those few recreational drugs that are legal could indicate that letting recreational drugs be legal is a bad idea.

Given that alcohol is so widespread, it's no surprise that it has the highest social and health costs.
A lot more people drink a beer or two than people who smoke pot.
And pot has zero positive contribution to your health, while alcohol as many, particularly wine, but also strong alcohol.
Just like coffee, it can be nocive if you take too much.  But a regular consumption of wine will prevent many cancers and heart diseases.

Overall, alcohol has a lot more positive outcome than any of the illegal drugs when you factor in everything.

[citizen k]

And pot has zero positive contribution to your health, while alcohol as many, particularly wine, but also strong alcohol.
Just like coffee, it can be nocive if you take too much.  But a regular consumption of wine will prevent many cancers and heart diseases.

I wouldn't say zero. I does help alleviate spasticity, improve appetite, reduce inflammation, etc.

[DGuller]

There are very good reasons to limit speed: its relation to drag, the role it plays in kinetic energy buildup and reaction distance increase.

Yes, but up to a point.  Speed limits have to have credibility in order to control actual speed.  Setting speed limit everywhere to 10 mph wouldn't slow us down much.

[Barrister]

Again, the majority of crimes in the criminal code are "hybrid" offences - one where the Crown can proceed either on summary conviction or by indictment.  Only very few offences are straight summary conviction.  So posession of marijuana in an amount listed in Schedule VIII is in the same category as causing a disturbance by being drunk and public indecency.

Yes, but the amount listed in Schedule VIII is tiny. 1 gram of has oil is nothing - no-one ever buys a single gram for personal use. Most by a quarter (7 grams) as the absolute smallest amount.

And you're making the typical non-lawyer mistake of looking at the theoretical maximum.  Nobody ever gets the maximum.  When you look at the sentencing precedents you'll very rapidly learn that Schedule I drugs are treated very differently from other drugs (like marijuana).

Then why are you mentioning the drug Schedules at all, if the legislation is irrelevant? It's you that made the claim they were vastly different because they were differently scheduled, and me that's pointing out that this isn't true. 

Of course the courts tend to treat pot differently, as a matter of case law - as, I pointed out to Viper, does society as a whole; but that's no argument, because (a) it is uneven - one cop can arrest you even though 99% of cops don't care; and (b) it is unjust to have laws on the books that allow for judges to punish you the same, or nearly the same, if they should so choose.

The fact that the laws are not enforced to the full range isn't an argument for keeping the laws on the books as they presently are, it's an argument for changing them to reflect actual practice.

Why do you only refer to the 1g of cannabis resin?  I've so very rarely even seen resin or oil in a file.  The other amount listed is 30g of actual cannabis - which seems like a reasonablely small amount for personal use.

And I certainly didn't say that Schedules were unimportant.  Please observe the "and", which indicated I was making an additional point, not changing the point I was making.

[The Minsky Moment]

But when comparing drug laws to tobacco, at least when drug users started using they knew it was illegal.  Right now millions of smokers are hooked on what is a legal product.  It seems pretty harsh to suddenly tell them one day their cigarettes are illegal.

Before the marijuana laws were enacted, the drug was also legal.  What it didn't have was a politically well-connected and well-financed industry to protect it from criminal legislation.