Languish.org

Quote
Global war on drugs 'has failed' say former leaders

The global war on drugs has "failed" according to a new report by group of politicians and former world leaders.

The Global Commission on Drug Policy report calls for the legalisation of some drugs and an end to the criminalisation of drug users.

The panel includes former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, the former leaders of Mexico, Colombia and Brazil, and the entrepreneur Sir Richard Branson.

The US and Mexican governments have rejected the findings as misguided.

The Global Commission's 24-page report argues that anti-drug policy has failed by fuelling organised crime, costing taxpayers millions of dollars and causing thousands of deaths.

It cites UN estimates that opiate use increased 35% worldwide from 1998 to 2008, cocaine by 27%, and cannabis by 8.5%.

The 19-member commission includes Mexico's former President Ernesto Zedillo, Brazil's ex-President Fernando Henrique Cardoso and former Colombian President Cesar Gaviria, as well as the former US Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker and the current Prime Minister of Greece George Papandreou.

The panel also features prominent Latin American writers Carlos Fuentes and Mario Vargas Llosa, the EU's former foreign policy chief Javier Solana, and George Schultz, a former US secretary of state.

....

Rest of item here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/world-us-canada-13624303 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/world-us-canada-13624303)

No it hasn't.  We just need more troops.

Sorry, Mongers, but you still have to do your stoner thing behind closed doors.

We have to compare it to other Global Wars. How much did Islam increase in that period in spite of the GWOI?

Quote from: The Brain on June 02, 2011, 06:14:07 AM
We have to compare it to other Global Wars. How much did Islam increase in that period in spite of the GWOI?

About 2.3% per annum.

Of course it has. One thing's the obvious silliness of declaring war on drugs in the first place, the second is that the "war" itself keeps profits so high everywhere in the production chain, there's always someone willing to take risks. Since this war isn't fought abroad for any country taking part, there are multiple legal restrictions on how to proceed against suspected drug dealers as well. If you are going to fight a war, give the soldiers the tools to fight.

And for Hod's sake, change the name. Right now, it's a war where the people on drugs are winning.

Awesome this is getting some airing in public.
Lets hope the coalition in an effort to raise money decides to legalise and tax cannabis.
Unlikely but I can hope.

Quote from: Tyr on June 02, 2011, 12:02:59 PM
Awesome this is getting some airing in public.
Lets hope the coalition in an effort to raise money decides to legalise and tax cannabis.
Unlikely but I can hope.

Most of the negative effects they are talking about aren't from cannabis.

Do you really want to legalize and tax cocaine, meth and herion?

Kill all drug users. Take their stuff and use their skins in the making of drums.

Why make new drums when all the drummers are dead?

Yet another 'legalize and tax' person goes on the Great List of Idiots.

China had some success declaring war on Sparrows.  I seem to recall that Italy has a war on mice, but I think the mice won.

The answer is not in legalizing hard drugs.

The answer is almost certainly not in spending hundreds of billions on a futile high pressure "war" against those who produce, distribute, and use drugs. This is self evidence from the fact that doing exactly that for the last 2 decades or more has had no discernible effect on the core problem.

Quote from: Barrister on June 02, 2011, 12:12:41 PM

Quote from: Tyr on June 02, 2011, 12:02:59 PM
Awesome this is getting some airing in public.
Lets hope the coalition in an effort to raise money decides to legalise and tax cannabis.
Unlikely but I can hope.

Most of the negative effects they are talking about aren't from cannabis.

True, but isnt that an argument for legalizing Cannibis?

Quote from: Barrister on June 02, 2011, 12:12:41 PM

Quote from: Tyr on June 02, 2011, 12:02:59 PM
Awesome this is getting some airing in public.
Lets hope the coalition in an effort to raise money decides to legalise and tax cannabis.
Unlikely but I can hope.

Most of the negative effects they are talking about aren't from cannabis.

Do you really want to legalize and tax cocaine, meth and herion?

For the seriously addictive-type drugs which have potentially harmful or fatal effects on users, like heroin and cigarettes, I'd like to see a "medical" rather than a "criminal" model in place - have addicts go to their physicians and get a prescription for their fix, which they could then obtain like any other pharmaceutical product - in physician-supervised, regulated doses.

Seems better for everyone than treating addicts as criminals.

Quote from: Malthus on June 02, 2011, 12:55:48 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 02, 2011, 12:12:41 PM

Quote from: Tyr on June 02, 2011, 12:02:59 PM
Awesome this is getting some airing in public.
Lets hope the coalition in an effort to raise money decides to legalise and tax cannabis.
Unlikely but I can hope.

Most of the negative effects they are talking about aren't from cannabis.

Do you really want to legalize and tax cocaine, meth and herion?

For the seriously addictive-type drugs which have potentially harmful or fatal effects on users, like heroin and cigarettes, I'd like to see a "medical" rather than a "criminal" model in place - have addicts go to their physicians and get a prescription for their fix, which they could then obtain like any other pharmaceutical product - in physician-supervised, regulated doses.

Seems better for everyone than treating addicts as criminals.

I agree.  That would solve most of the problems - including the crime and health costs associated with those same addicts attempting to access the drugs illegally.  The cost savings would offset the cost of providing the drugs by prescription (which would have to be covered by medical health plans for this to work).

Of course if we ever legalized and taxed cannibis most fiscal concerns would also go up in smoke.... :D

Quote from: Malthus on June 02, 2011, 12:55:48 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 02, 2011, 12:12:41 PM

Quote from: Tyr on June 02, 2011, 12:02:59 PM
Awesome this is getting some airing in public.
Lets hope the coalition in an effort to raise money decides to legalise and tax cannabis.
Unlikely but I can hope.

Most of the negative effects they are talking about aren't from cannabis.

Do you really want to legalize and tax cocaine, meth and herion?

For the seriously addictive-type drugs which have potentially harmful or fatal effects on users, like heroin and cigarettes, I'd like to see a "medical" rather than a "criminal" model in place - have addicts go to their physicians and get a prescription for their fix, which they could then obtain like any other pharmaceutical product - in physician-supervised, regulated doses.

Seems better for everyone than treating addicts as criminals.

Such an approach has its place, but it's not a panacea.

It's most commonly known in the Methadone treatment for opiod addiction.  Methadone is a slightly safer, and gives less of a rush (but yet blocks the same receptors, thus preventing withdrawl symptoms), which is why it is used in weening people off of opioids.

But you have to want to get off of opioids for this to work.  If you have no interest in quitting, there's not much to be said for simply giving out Methadone.

It is probably worse for other hard drugs.  There's no other, safer, alternative to methamphetamines or cocaine.  It's ethically problematic for doctors to be prescribing hard drugs.  And again it only really works if people want to quit.

Quote from: Barrister on June 02, 2011, 01:03:03 PM
It is probably worse for other hard drugs.  There's no other, safer, alternative to methamphetamines or cocaine.  It's ethically problematic for doctors to be prescribing hard drugs.  And again it only really works if people want to quit.

A lot of what doctors do is ethically difficult but we still ask them to do it.  Doctors are always having to make a decision about whether a person needs pain killers legitimately or whether they are trying to obtain the prescription drugs for other purposes.  This would be essentially the same judgment call.\

Also, I think you have artificially restricted medical treatment to only a course of treatment for quiting.  Assisting a person with an addiction to deal with the addiction in a safe manner is also a legitimate medical treatment - or so says our Court of Appeal - it will interesting to see what the SCC says about it when they release their decision in the Insite case.

Quote from: Barrister on June 02, 2011, 01:03:03 PM

Quote from: Malthus on June 02, 2011, 12:55:48 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 02, 2011, 12:12:41 PM

Quote from: Tyr on June 02, 2011, 12:02:59 PM
Awesome this is getting some airing in public.
Lets hope the coalition in an effort to raise money decides to legalise and tax cannabis.
Unlikely but I can hope.

Most of the negative effects they are talking about aren't from cannabis.

Do you really want to legalize and tax cocaine, meth and herion?

For the seriously addictive-type drugs which have potentially harmful or fatal effects on users, like heroin and cigarettes, I'd like to see a "medical" rather than a "criminal" model in place - have addicts go to their physicians and get a prescription for their fix, which they could then obtain like any other pharmaceutical product - in physician-supervised, regulated doses.

Seems better for everyone than treating addicts as criminals.

Such an approach has its place, but it's not a panacea.

It's most commonly known in the Methadone treatment for opiod addiction.  Methadone is a slightly safer, and gives less of a rush (but yet blocks the same receptors, thus preventing withdrawl symptoms), which is why it is used in weening people off of opioids.

But you have to want to get off of opioids for this to work.  If you have no interest in quitting, there's not much to be said for simply giving out Methadone.

It is probably worse for other hard drugs.  There's no other, safer, alternative to methamphetamines or cocaine.  It's ethically problematic for doctors to be prescribing hard drugs.  And again it only really works if people want to quit.

To my mind, maintenance of an addiction is a medical strategy. If you are going to replace the criminal system with a medical one, you have to have a strategy for dealing with those who simply don't wish to quit, or are unable to.

To my mind, it is simply better for our society to allow these folks to have drugs under medical supervision than to attempt to arrest and jail them, in order to deter them from being addicts.

That's on a pure cost-benefit analysis: less harms and costs to society and to the individuals involved; deterrence doesn't seem to be a great strategy. To my mind it also raises less morally troubling questions concerning the legitimacy of punishing someone for being an addict, when addiction is arguably a compulsion that the average person cannot overcome.   

I am not sure I see the benefits to switching to a 'medical model' for dealing with illegal drugs.

Medicaid is already the 800 lbs Gorilla in the back of the room when it comes to the budgets of most States. Switching to a 'medical model' will only increase costs to Medicaid and just change the address of the drug dealers e.g. from the corner of North and Genny to Glaxo-Kline Smith.

Also there will be plenty of abuse. Most of my Heroin users are currently enrolled in program and receive Suboxone treatments (the new Methadone). I catch most of them selling the pills to support their habit.

Quote from: Strix on June 02, 2011, 02:48:46 PM
I am not sure I see the benefits to switching to a 'medical model' for dealing with illegal drugs.

Medicaid is already the 800 lbs Gorilla in the back of the room when it comes to the budgets of most States. Switching to a 'medical model' will only increase costs to Medicaid and just change the address of the drug dealers e.g. from the corner of North and Genny to Glaxo-Kline Smith.

Also there will be plenty of abuse. Most of my Heroin users are currently enrolled in program and receive Suboxone treatments (the new Methadone). I catch most of them selling the pills to support their habit.

I don't see a problem with supporting Pharma companies over street sellers.

Quote from: Strix on June 02, 2011, 02:48:46 PM
Medicaid is already the 800 lbs Gorilla in the back of the room when it comes to the budgets of most States. Switching to a 'medical model' will only increase costs to Medicaid and just change the address of the drug dealers e.g. from the corner of North and Genny to Glaxo-Kline Smith.

How many prison cells will be emptied?

Quote from: garbon on June 02, 2011, 02:50:34 PM

Quote from: Strix on June 02, 2011, 02:48:46 PM
I am not sure I see the benefits to switching to a 'medical model' for dealing with illegal drugs.

Medicaid is already the 800 lbs Gorilla in the back of the room when it comes to the budgets of most States. Switching to a 'medical model' will only increase costs to Medicaid and just change the address of the drug dealers e.g. from the corner of North and Genny to Glaxo-Kline Smith.

Also there will be plenty of abuse. Most of my Heroin users are currently enrolled in program and receive Suboxone treatments (the new Methadone). I catch most of them selling the pills to support their habit.

I don't see a problem with supporting Pharma companies over street sellers.

Of course you don't.  That's like Malthus supporting Lawyers over Doctors.

Quote from: garbon on June 02, 2011, 02:50:34 PM

Quote from: Strix on June 02, 2011, 02:48:46 PM
I am not sure I see the benefits to switching to a 'medical model' for dealing with illegal drugs.

Medicaid is already the 800 lbs Gorilla in the back of the room when it comes to the budgets of most States. Switching to a 'medical model' will only increase costs to Medicaid and just change the address of the drug dealers e.g. from the corner of North and Genny to Glaxo-Kline Smith.

Also there will be plenty of abuse. Most of my Heroin users are currently enrolled in program and receive Suboxone treatments (the new Methadone). I catch most of them selling the pills to support their habit.

I don't see a problem with supporting Pharma companies over street sellers.

The problem is who will be supporting the Pharma companies. I have a major issue with tax payers footing the bill for drug addicts.

Quote from: Strix on June 02, 2011, 02:55:07 PM
The problem is who will be supporting the Pharma companies. I have a major issue with tax payers footing the bill for drug addicts.

So let's throw them all in prison where...the tax payers foot the bill for drug addicts.  :huh:

Quote from: Strix on June 02, 2011, 02:55:07 PM
The problem is who will be supporting the Pharma companies. I have a major issue with tax payers footing the bill for drug addicts.

And we don't now? :tinfoil:

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 02, 2011, 02:54:10 PM

Quote from: Strix on June 02, 2011, 02:48:46 PM
Medicaid is already the 800 lbs Gorilla in the back of the room when it comes to the budgets of most States. Switching to a 'medical model' will only increase costs to Medicaid and just change the address of the drug dealers e.g. from the corner of North and Genny to Glaxo-Kline Smith.

How many prison cells will be emptied?

How many hospital beds will be filled?

Last time I checked, Doctors and Nurses made a lot more than Corrections and Parole Officers. The idea sounds great, less crime, less need for prisons, that's if you ignore the increased costs to Medicaid, more hospitals and inpatient programs, etc, and so on.

Quote from: garbon on June 02, 2011, 02:57:56 PM

Quote from: Strix on June 02, 2011, 02:55:07 PM
The problem is who will be supporting the Pharma companies. I have a major issue with tax payers footing the bill for drug addicts.

And we don't now? :tinfoil:

Not to the extent that we would be if the system changed to a 'medical model'.

Quote from: Razgovory on June 02, 2011, 02:55:01 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 02, 2011, 02:50:34 PM

Quote from: Strix on June 02, 2011, 02:48:46 PM
I am not sure I see the benefits to switching to a 'medical model' for dealing with illegal drugs.

Medicaid is already the 800 lbs Gorilla in the back of the room when it comes to the budgets of most States. Switching to a 'medical model' will only increase costs to Medicaid and just change the address of the drug dealers e.g. from the corner of North and Genny to Glaxo-Kline Smith.

Also there will be plenty of abuse. Most of my Heroin users are currently enrolled in program and receive Suboxone treatments (the new Methadone). I catch most of them selling the pills to support their habit.

I don't see a problem with supporting Pharma companies over street sellers.

Of course you don't.  That's like Malthus supporting Lawyers over Doctors.

Think about the quality of the product!

Quote from: Habbaku on June 02, 2011, 02:57:41 PM
So let's throw them all in prison where...the tax payers foot the bill for drug addicts.  :huh:

Personally, I'd say yes, I'd prefer to see a drug user in prison living on my dime than sitting at home in front of a big screen TV getting high on my dime.

If I had the ultimate answer than I'd be a very wealthy man. I do know that the idea of legalizing drugs and switching to a 'medical model' has a lot of pitfalls and costs that are being ignored or overlooked. It's not the panacea people make it out to be.

Quote from: Barrister on June 02, 2011, 12:12:41 PM

Quote from: Tyr on June 02, 2011, 12:02:59 PM
Awesome this is getting some airing in public.
Lets hope the coalition in an effort to raise money decides to legalise and tax cannabis.
Unlikely but I can hope.

Most of the negative effects they are talking about aren't from cannabis.

Do you really want to legalize and tax cocaine, meth and herion?

Sure, why not?  Why should I carefully plan my Claritin D purchases in order to not commit a federal crime, just because someone could use the pseudoephedrine in it to cook the meth?  If people want to kill themselves, let them do it, don't restrict the freedoms of others to badly try to restrict the freedom of the junkies.

Quote from: Strix on June 02, 2011, 02:58:10 PM
Last time I checked, Doctors and Nurses made a lot more than Corrections and Parole Officers. The idea sounds great, less crime, less need for prisons, that's if you ignore the increased costs to Medicaid, more hospitals and inpatient programs, etc, and so on.

How much do nursing home attendants make?

Quote from: Strix on June 02, 2011, 02:48:46 PM
I am not sure I see the benefits to switching to a 'medical model' for dealing with illegal drugs.

Medicaid is already the 800 lbs Gorilla in the back of the room when it comes to the budgets of most States. Switching to a 'medical model' will only increase costs to Medicaid and just change the address of the drug dealers e.g. from the corner of North and Genny to Glaxo-Kline Smith.

Also there will be plenty of abuse. Most of my Heroin users are currently enrolled in program and receive Suboxone treatments (the new Methadone). I catch most of them selling the pills to support their habit.

The drugs themselves are not inherently expensive. They are expensive because they are illegal.

A "medical model" would replace a whole infrastructure designed to catch, prosecute, and jail addicts - with providing them with a prescription. The costs are a lot less. Presumably, these addicts would not have to commit a whole range of *other* crimes to support their habit - leading to a reduction of crime generally.

Naturally, a lot of addicts sell the pills they don't want to "support their habit" - that is, to get the drugs the *do* want. Not sure how giving them the drugs they want in the first place would be subject to that weakness.

The addicts will, presumably, suffer whatever bad effects taking the drugs have, but they will suffer a lot less, because the drugs will be of pharma grade and not street crap.

Quote from: Strix on June 02, 2011, 03:02:48 PM

Quote from: Habbaku on June 02, 2011, 02:57:41 PM
So let's throw them all in prison where...the tax payers foot the bill for drug addicts.  :huh:

Personally, I'd say yes, I'd prefer to see a drug user in prison living on my dime than sitting at home in front of a big screen TV getting high on my dime.

If I had the ultimate answer than I'd be a very wealthy man. I do know that the idea of legalizing drugs and switching to a 'medical model' has a lot of pitfalls and costs that are being ignored or overlooked. It's not the panacea people make it out to be.

Why is it better to see an addict in prision than at home (in front of a big screen TV or not)? I hear this repeatedly, some jokingly (I can well understand the hatred of filthy hippies and teenagers  ;) ), some not; but I don't understand it.

Why the wanting to see these people punished? To my mind, addiction is its own punishment.

Quote from: Strix on June 02, 2011, 03:02:48 PM

Quote from: Habbaku on June 02, 2011, 02:57:41 PM
So let's throw them all in prison where...the tax payers foot the bill for drug addicts.  :huh:

Personally, I'd say yes, I'd prefer to see a drug user in prison living on my dime than sitting at home in front of a big screen TV getting high on my dime.

If I had the ultimate answer than I'd be a very wealthy man. I do know that the idea of legalizing drugs and switching to a 'medical model' has a lot of pitfalls and costs that are being ignored or overlooked. It's not the panacea people make it out to be.

It all makes sense as long as you, well, ignore the cost of putting non-violent people to prison.  Notice how that cost somehow doesn't enter your mind;  in fact, you seem to treat it as a positive outcome.  That's very revealing of your mindset.

Quote from: DGuller on June 02, 2011, 03:22:09 PM
It all makes sense as long as you, well, ignore the cost of putting non-violent people to prison.  Notice how that cost somehow doesn't enter your mind;  in fact, you seem to treat it as a positive outcome.  That's very revealing of your mindset.

So, non-violent people shouldn't go to prison. Is that your mind-set?

Quote from: Strix on June 02, 2011, 03:24:40 PM

Quote from: DGuller on June 02, 2011, 03:22:09 PM
It all makes sense as long as you, well, ignore the cost of putting non-violent people to prison.  Notice how that cost somehow doesn't enter your mind;  in fact, you seem to treat it as a positive outcome.  That's very revealing of your mindset.

So, non-violent people shouldn't go to prison. Is that your mind-set?

People who don't do harm to anyone else or their property shouldn't go to prison, no.

Just make drugs legal, but make it that people who commit crimes under the influence or to get drugs have harsher sentences. win-win. legal drugs for the legal crowd, prison sentences for those that like jails for druggies.

Quote from: Malthus on June 02, 2011, 03:16:38 PM
Why is it better to see an addict in prision than at home (in front of a big screen TV or not)? I hear this repeatedly, some jokingly (I can well understand the hatred of filthy hippies and teenagers  ;) ), some not; but I don't understand it.

Why the wanting to see these people punished? To my mind, addiction is its own punishment.

Both the 'criminal model' and the 'medical model' can result in the loss of a person's freedom. People aren't usually placed in jail or prison for their first minor drug offense. Just as people aren't placed into inpatient treatment for low levels of drug addiction.

Being placed in County Jail or County Drug Rehab for 90 days are the same thing to some people. I have many parolees prefer to go back to prison than rehab.

I don't want to see people punished. I do want to see something more constructive done with my money if I have to pay for it. I see the costs of Rehab first hand, and I see a lot of wasted tax payers money. Prison is not the answer to a person's addiction but it is an answer for keeping them away until they are ready to make a change.

Quote from: DGuller on June 02, 2011, 03:22:09 PMIt all makes sense as long as you, well, ignore the cost of putting non-violent people to prison.  Notice how that cost somehow doesn't enter your mind;  in fact, you seem to treat it as a positive outcome.  That's very revealing of your mindset.

Well, if we do move to a medical model, Strix might end up without a job. That might inform his mindset too.

Quote from: DGuller on June 02, 2011, 03:29:06 PM
People who don't do harm to anyone else or their property shouldn't go to prison, no.

Now you changed your mind. So, you are ok with non-violent people going to prison who harm someone else's property?

Quote from: Jacob on June 02, 2011, 03:32:56 PM

Quote from: DGuller on June 02, 2011, 03:22:09 PMIt all makes sense as long as you, well, ignore the cost of putting non-violent people to prison.  Notice how that cost somehow doesn't enter your mind;  in fact, you seem to treat it as a positive outcome.  That's very revealing of your mindset.

Well, if we do move to a medical model, Strix might end up without a job. That might inform his mindset too.

I think he's pretty safe, he's in a union in New York.

Quote from: Jacob on June 02, 2011, 03:32:56 PM
Well, if we do move to a medical model, Strix might end up without a job. That might inform his mindset too.

I hate to break it to you but drugs are not the root of all evil and crime in the world. I would prefer that they change how drugs are handled under the law. It would make my job a lot easier. I'd have time to monitor and help the killers, rapists, arsonists, burglars, robbers, and other assorted criminals I supervise a whole lot more.

Quote from: Strix on June 02, 2011, 03:31:42 PMI don't want to see people punished. I do want to see something more constructive done with my money if I have to pay for it. I see the costs of Rehab first hand, and I see a lot of wasted tax payers money. Prison is not the answer to a person's addiction but it is an answer for keeping them away until they are ready to make a change.

The medical model that's being proposed in this thread is not enforced rehab. It's making drugs available to addicts legally, and helping them use the drugs in a setting that minimizes external causes of harm. This combined with rehab for the addicts who want it.

Quote from: Strix on June 02, 2011, 03:35:19 PMI hate to break it to you but drugs are not the root of all evil and crime in the world. I would prefer that they change how drugs are handled under the law. It would make my job a lot easier. I'd have time to monitor and help the killers, rapists, arsonists, burglars, robbers, and other assorted criminals I supervise a whole lot more.

With this and DGullers observation, I withdraw my ad hominem  :bowler:

Quote from: Strix on June 02, 2011, 03:33:15 PM

Quote from: DGuller on June 02, 2011, 03:29:06 PM
People who don't do harm to anyone else or their property shouldn't go to prison, no.

Now you changed your mind. So, you are ok with non-violent people going to prison who harm someone else's property?

I didn't change my mind, I clarified my point by expressing it more completely.  The point was that people who do not infringe upon the rights of others should not be incarcerated, or have the threat of such hanging over them.

Quote from: Strix on June 02, 2011, 03:35:19 PM
I'd have time to monitor and help the killers, rapists, arsonists, burglars, robbers, and other assorted criminals I supervise a whole lot more.

:hmm:

Quote from: Jacob on June 02, 2011, 03:35:46 PM
The medical model that's being proposed in this thread is not enforced rehab. It's making drugs available to addicts legally, and helping them use the drugs in a setting that minimizes external causes of harm. This combined with rehab for the addicts who want it.

No but enforced rehab would have to be part of it for politicians and the public to accept it. I am not saying it would be mandatory but it would have a place somewhere along the chain just as incarceration is along the 'criminal model'. People don't usually go to jail for a first offense. There is a long chain of events that leads up to it.

Quote from: Strix on June 02, 2011, 02:58:10 PM
How many hospital beds will be filled?

Bad argument.  The research done on the Insite clinic in Vancouver where drugs are injected under medical surpervision is that significant health costs have been saved by preventing people from overdosing.  In fact if we go with the medical model health costs would be minimal since drugs quality would be normalized (no side effects caused by inconsistent drugs) and use would be carried out under medical supervision.

Quote from: DGuller on June 02, 2011, 03:39:08 PM
I didn't change my mind, I clarified my point by expressing it more completely.  The point was that people who do not infringe upon the rights of others should not be incarcerated, or have the threat of such hanging over them.

There is no difference between a convicted addict stealing $100 from my wallet or my paying $100 for his regulated drug supply through taxes. Either way I am out $100. I'd just prefer he spend some time in jail for taking my $100.

Quote from: Strix on June 02, 2011, 03:41:23 PM

Quote from: Jacob on June 02, 2011, 03:35:46 PM
The medical model that's being proposed in this thread is not enforced rehab. It's making drugs available to addicts legally, and helping them use the drugs in a setting that minimizes external causes of harm. This combined with rehab for the addicts who want it.

No but enforced rehab would have to be part of it for politicians and the public to accept it. I am not saying it would be mandatory but it would have a place somewhere along the chain just as incarceration is along the 'criminal model'. People don't usually go to jail for a first offense. There is a long chain of events that leads up to it.

From the freedom point of view that's not much better.  Draconian laws should not be moderated by enforcers practicing discretion; that just serves to give those who dole out discretion disproportionate power.  Draconian laws should be moderated by being repealed and replaced with non-idiotic laws.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 02, 2011, 03:43:21 PM
Bad argument.  The research done on the Insite clinic in Vancouver where drugs are injected under medical surpervision is that significant health costs have been saved by preventing people from overdosing.  In fact if we go with the medical model health costs would be minimal since drugs quality would be normalized (no side effects caused by inconsistent drugs) and use would be carried out under medical supervision.

Rehab beds cost money. The staff used to run the facilities cost money. The facility costs money. Not sure how the savings become minimal.

I sent a parolee to rehab for marijuana use (as an alternative to incarceration). It cost Medicaid $7,500 for his two week stay.

Quote from: DGuller on June 02, 2011, 03:44:23 PM
From the freedom point of view that's not much better.  Draconian laws should not be moderated by enforcers practicing discretion; that just serves to give those who dole out discretion disproportionate power.  Draconian laws should be moderated by being repealed and replaced with non-idiotic laws.

I agree. New York already replaced their Draconian drug laws. So, I am not sure what your point is?

That's a joke. Anything that sends someone to prison for a non-violent crime, of your choosing, is Draconian to you. So, I am not sure the point of trying to continue a discussion within such limited parameters.

Quote from: Strix on June 02, 2011, 03:44:13 PM

Quote from: DGuller on June 02, 2011, 03:39:08 PM
I didn't change my mind, I clarified my point by expressing it more completely.  The point was that people who do not infringe upon the rights of others should not be incarcerated, or have the threat of such hanging over them.

There is no difference between a convicted addict stealing $100 from my wallet or my paying $100 for his regulated drug supply through taxes. Either way I am out $100. I'd just prefer he spend some time in jail for taking my $100.

Taxes are theft?  Man, you sure like mixing and matching extreme ideologies depending on which one suits you more in a particular case.  By that logic, to use the word logic with extreme charity, all poor people should be in prison, since they enjoy lower tax brackets at the expense of people in higher brackets, in liu of stealing from them.

Quote from: Strix on June 02, 2011, 03:44:13 PM

Quote from: DGuller on June 02, 2011, 03:39:08 PM
I didn't change my mind, I clarified my point by expressing it more completely.  The point was that people who do not infringe upon the rights of others should not be incarcerated, or have the threat of such hanging over them.

There is no difference between a convicted addict stealing $100 from my wallet or my paying $100 for his regulated drug supply through taxes. Either way I am out $100. I'd just prefer he spend some time in jail for taking my $100.

I think the argument here is that just giving the addict an Rx will reduce costs considrerably. Rather than them having to steal your $100 to get his fix (which will presumably cost a lot more in the form of cops, prisions, security, your time off work for being punched in the face, etc.), he could get his fix on the comparative cheap - since a drug that is legal and generic is gonna be something on the order of 100 times cheaper than a highly illegal street drug (plus the doc to prescribe it, etc.).

In short, it isn't necessarily equivalent.

Though that being noted - are the addicts not also possibly taxpayers? I dunno if it's a question of them stealing your cash, any more than any other social program recepient.

Quote from: Strix on June 02, 2011, 03:47:25 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 02, 2011, 03:43:21 PM
Bad argument.  The research done on the Insite clinic in Vancouver where drugs are injected under medical surpervision is that significant health costs have been saved by preventing people from overdosing.  In fact if we go with the medical model health costs would be minimal since drugs quality would be normalized (no side effects caused by inconsistent drugs) and use would be carried out under medical supervision.

Rehab beds cost money. The staff used to run the facilities cost money. The facility costs money. Not sure how the savings become minimal.

I sent a parolee to rehab for marijuana use (as an alternative to incarceration). It cost Medicaid $7,500 for his two week stay.

I agree that mandatory rehab isn't much better than jail. That's exactly why I'm not advocating it.

Quote from: DGuller on June 02, 2011, 03:50:29 PM

Quote from: Strix on June 02, 2011, 03:44:13 PM

Quote from: DGuller on June 02, 2011, 03:39:08 PM
I didn't change my mind, I clarified my point by expressing it more completely.  The point was that people who do not infringe upon the rights of others should not be incarcerated, or have the threat of such hanging over them.

There is no difference between a convicted addict stealing $100 from my wallet or my paying $100 for his regulated drug supply through taxes. Either way I am out $100. I'd just prefer he spend some time in jail for taking my $100.

Taxes are theft?  Man, you sure like mixing and matching extreme ideologies depending on which one suits you more in a particular case.  By that logic, to use the word logic with extreme charity, all poor people should be in prison, since they enjoy lower tax brackets at the expense of people in higher brackets, in liu of stealing from them.

I think that accurately describes the conservative position.  Though it is abit odd expressed by a government employee.  Still that sort of thing is not unheard of here.  Something like a third of the people in my area are employed by the state, but many believe that all government employees are lazy and are often unaware they are paid by taxation.  I encountered this at the Department of Revenue, which is a tax collecting agency.  It's really bizarre.

Quote from: DGuller on June 02, 2011, 03:50:29 PM
Taxes are theft?  Man, you sure like mixing and matching extreme ideologies depending on which one suits you more in a particular case.  By that logic, to use the word logic with extreme charity, all poor people should be in prison, since they enjoy lower tax brackets at the expense of people in higher brackets, in liu of stealing from them.

And where did I state taxes were theft? Nice attempt at a strawman.

The logic is simple. If I have to pay money to "help" someone else than I would prefer that help be in a certain form.

I guess you'd have to say I am one of those people who would buy someone a meal from McDonald's to hand them rather than hand them $10 when they beg for money for food.

Quote from: Strix on June 02, 2011, 04:01:52 PM

Quote from: DGuller on June 02, 2011, 03:50:29 PM
Taxes are theft?  Man, you sure like mixing and matching extreme ideologies depending on which one suits you more in a particular case.  By that logic, to use the word logic with extreme charity, all poor people should be in prison, since they enjoy lower tax brackets at the expense of people in higher brackets, in liu of stealing from them.

And where did I state taxes were theft? Nice attempt at a strawman.

The logic is simple. If I have to pay money to "help" someone else than I would prefer that help be in a certain form.

I guess you'd have to say I am one of those people who would buy someone a meal from McDonald's to hand them rather than hand them $10 when they beg for money for food.

Really? And be sued for giving him fattening food?

Quote from: Strix on June 02, 2011, 04:01:52 PM

Quote from: DGuller on June 02, 2011, 03:50:29 PM
Taxes are theft?  Man, you sure like mixing and matching extreme ideologies depending on which one suits you more in a particular case.  By that logic, to use the word logic with extreme charity, all poor people should be in prison, since they enjoy lower tax brackets at the expense of people in higher brackets, in liu of stealing from them.

And where did I state taxes were theft? Nice attempt at a strawman.

The logic is simple. If I have to pay money to "help" someone else than I would prefer that help be in a certain form.

I guess you'd have to say I am one of those people who would buy someone a meal from McDonald's to hand them rather than hand them $10 when they beg for money for food.

McDonalds? What did that poor person ever do to you?  :P

Quote from: Strix on June 02, 2011, 04:01:52 PM
I guess you'd have to say I am one of those people who would buy someone a meal from McDonald's to hand them rather than hand them $10 when they beg for money for food.

So you hate people who beg for money so they can buy food? :x

Quote from: Strix on June 02, 2011, 03:47:25 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 02, 2011, 03:43:21 PM
Bad argument.  The research done on the Insite clinic in Vancouver where drugs are injected under medical surpervision is that significant health costs have been saved by preventing people from overdosing.  In fact if we go with the medical model health costs would be minimal since drugs quality would be normalized (no side effects caused by inconsistent drugs) and use would be carried out under medical supervision.

Rehab beds cost money. The staff used to run the facilities cost money. The facility costs money. Not sure how the savings become minimal.

I sent a parolee to rehab for marijuana use (as an alternative to incarceration). It cost Medicaid $7,500 for his two week stay.

Ahhh, so you're the problem.

Quote from: Malthus on June 02, 2011, 04:04:12 PM
McDonalds? What did that poor person ever do to you?  :P

:lmfao:

Btw, in places like Chicago, Strixy, you'd be arrested for that behavior.

Quote from: garbon on June 02, 2011, 04:05:06 PM
So you hate people who beg for money so they can buy food? :x

No, I just prefer to provide the food rather than the money for some alcohol or drugs. If they want to trade the Royale with Cheese for crack that's on them.

Quote from: garbon on June 02, 2011, 04:05:37 PM
Btw, in places like Chicago, Strixy, you'd be arrested for that behavior.

Luckily I have a 'Get Out of Jail Free' card.

Quote from: Strix on June 02, 2011, 04:07:46 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 02, 2011, 04:05:37 PM
Btw, in places like Chicago, Strixy, you'd be arrested for that behavior.

Luckily I have a 'Get Out of Jail Free' card.

As a parole officer you are allowed to break laws in other jurisdictions?

Quote from: garbon on June 02, 2011, 04:08:41 PM

Quote from: Strix on June 02, 2011, 04:07:46 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 02, 2011, 04:05:37 PM
Btw, in places like Chicago, Strixy, you'd be arrested for that behavior.

Luckily I have a 'Get Out of Jail Free' card.

As a parole officer you are allowed to break laws in other jurisdictions?

Union card.

Quote from: Strix on June 02, 2011, 04:07:05 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 02, 2011, 04:05:06 PM
So you hate people who beg for money so they can buy food? :x

No, I just prefer to provide the food rather than the money for some alcohol or drugs. If they want to trade the Royale with Cheese for crack that's on them.

Understandable, although that's not how taxes really work.  One can only indirectly affect that process in a very minor way.

Quote from: Strix on June 02, 2011, 04:01:52 PM
And where did I state taxes were theft? Nice attempt at a strawman.

You implied that.  You said that being taxed $100 to help someone is the same as that someone stealing $100 from you.  It doesn't seem like much of a stretch to conclude that you regard taxation as theft, you pretty much said so in plain text yourself.  I know it sounds stupid when I repeat what you say, but that's only because the things you say are generally stupid.

QuoteThe logic is simple. If I have to pay money to "help" someone else than I would prefer that help be in a certain form.

Yes, and your preferred form seems to include theft and incarceration.  It's not the simplicity of this logic that I'm having a probelm with.

QuoteI guess you'd have to say I am one of those people who would buy someone a meal from McDonald's to hand them rather than hand them $10 when they beg for money for food.

And what exactly does that analogy have to do with arguing against providing people with drug addictions with cheap drugs?

Why do you guys assume that under a medical model, presently-illegal drugs would be covered by government insurance plans?

There are plenty of medications that patients have to pay 100% for, ie are not covered.

Legalization and taxation sounds nice in theory, and would probably work OK for pot, but the problem with most hard drugs is that the people who are addicted to them often have a hard time holding down a job, and if they don't have to steal to buy drugs are either going to become dependent on welfare or steal to afford cars, clothes, shelter, etc.

Well, they won't have to steal as much if their crack costs the same as aspirin.

As I said before I don't have a problem with treatment programs (indeed I support them), and in particular treatment programs that such as methadone that involve prescribing less harmful drugs.

But the whole concept of "medicalizing" hard drugs?  I don't think it's the answer.

One of the fastest growing addictions in the west is addictions to prescription medication.  Oxycontin is the most well known name, but any number of prescription drugs are being abused.  And the fact these drugs are legal and being prescribed doesn't make them a whole lot less damaging.

I don't want to right a whole essay on the topic, but here are a few random thoughts:

-because something is prescribed, and legal, it is destigmatized.  Plenty of nice middle class kids would never take a hit off of a crack pipe, but they may be much more willing to take some Oxys after their friend describes how good they make you feel - and they come in a nice safe pill form.

-once something can be prescribed, it can be over-prescribed.  Drug seeking clients are a huge problem for front line physicians and pharmacists - and they all know who the easy sources for prescriptions are

-if you make such prescriptions to hard to access, then you haven't done anything to shut down the illegal sources.

-and it's easy enough to sell to others.  Again, there's a booming black market in pills.

-You start loading pharmacies with cocaine and heroin, and they're going to be robbed / stolen from a lot more.

Quote from: Barrister on June 02, 2011, 12:12:41 PM

Quote from: Tyr on June 02, 2011, 12:02:59 PM
Awesome this is getting some airing in public.
Lets hope the coalition in an effort to raise money decides to legalise and tax cannabis.
Unlikely but I can hope.

Most of the negative effects they are talking about aren't from cannabis.

Do you really want to legalize and tax cocaine, meth and herion?

I'd tax herons. They are damn bastards.

Quote from: Zoupa on June 02, 2011, 04:27:15 PM
Why do you guys assume that under a medical model, presently-illegal drugs would be covered by government insurance plans?

There are plenty of medications that patients have to pay 100% for, ie are not covered.

Probably because illegal drugs placed under a medical model would more likely than not require a prescription from a doctor e.g. methadone and suboxone. For some people this means Medicaid.

Having a prescription doesnt mean your medication is covered.

Just execute them.

Quote from: Barrister on June 02, 2011, 04:33:47 PM

-once something can be prescribed, it can be over-prescribed. 

Heck, that's true even with drugs that nobody has any interest in taking recreationally.  Antibiotics have been over-prescribed to the point that many of them are nearly useless.

Quote from: dps on June 02, 2011, 05:31:31 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 02, 2011, 04:33:47 PM

-once something can be prescribed, it can be over-prescribed. 

Heck, that's true even with drugs that nobody has any interest in taking recreationally.  Antibiotics have been over-prescribed to the point that many of them are nearly useless.

Very different situations though.

Over-prescription for narcotic drugs is done by double-doctoring, deliberate deception of doctors, that sort of thing.

Quote from: Barrister on June 02, 2011, 05:36:18 PM

Quote from: dps on June 02, 2011, 05:31:31 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 02, 2011, 04:33:47 PM

-once something can be prescribed, it can be over-prescribed. 

Heck, that's true even with drugs that nobody has any interest in taking recreationally.  Antibiotics have been over-prescribed to the point that many of them are nearly useless.

Very different situations though.

Over-prescription for narcotic drugs is done by double-doctoring, deliberate deception of doctors, that sort of thing.

True, but there are a lot of doctors who just want you to go away happy.  One of the things that caused doctors to over-prescribe antibiotics was that patients by the late 60s expected to be given antibiotics when they were sick.  Most doctors of course realized that the antibiotics wouldn't do anything for many conditions, but didn't realize that they were just breeding drug-resistant bacteria, and probably hoped that there'd at least be a placebo effect.  But mostly, it was done because the patients expected it, and doctors who didn't hand out antibiotics like candy saw their patients go to the ones who did instead.

Quote from: Barrister on June 02, 2011, 04:33:47 PM
-You start loading pharmacies with cocaine and heroin, and they're going to be robbed / stolen from a lot more.

Why would anyone rob a pharmacy if they could get their fix at generic-drug prices? We're not talking here about hi-tech shit that some lab invested billions to develop.

Quote from: Martinus on June 02, 2011, 04:34:24 PM

I'd tax herons. They are damn bastards.

I don't think you can tax a bird.

Quote from: Razgovory on June 02, 2011, 06:16:43 PM

Quote from: Martinus on June 02, 2011, 04:34:24 PM

I'd tax herons. They are damn bastards.

I don't think you can tax a bird.

I don't know, try asking me a math question.

Nobody is making any sense! :(

I thought Mongers was a bloke.

Quote from: Razgovory on June 02, 2011, 06:21:38 PM
Nobody is making any sense! :(

Do I need to spell it out ?  :hmm:

I was alluding to taxing a bird-brain. :rolleyes:

Quote from: jamesww on June 02, 2011, 06:27:37 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on June 02, 2011, 06:21:38 PM
Nobody is making any sense! :(

Do I need to spell it out ?  :hmm:

I was alluding to taxing a bird-brain. :rolleyes:

:mellow:

I'm trying to figure out if I've gone crazy or everyone else has.

Quote from: Razgovory on June 02, 2011, 06:28:51 PM

Quote from: jamesww on June 02, 2011, 06:27:37 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on June 02, 2011, 06:21:38 PM
Nobody is making any sense! :(

Do I need to spell it out ?  :hmm:

I was alluding to taxing a bird-brain. :rolleyes:

:mellow:

I'm trying to figure out if I've gone crazy or everyone else has.

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

I'm appalled that this hasn't been posted yet! :angry:

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F_5HAG1QMLIrc%2FTGC8H2fKIRI%2FAAAAAAAADxo%2FJOqVCWghCO0%2Fs1600%2Fdrugs%2Bwin%2Bwar%2Bon%2Bdrugs.jpg&hash=04c208008242a8cf87ba446387fda2c07cdea158)

Monstorus

Quote from: Zoupa on June 02, 2011, 04:27:15 PM
Why do you guys assume that under a medical model, presently-illegal drugs would be covered by government insurance plans?

There are plenty of medications that patients have to pay 100% for, ie are not covered.

If it isnt then that defeats one of the main benefits of legalization.  The reason there is so much crime around drugs is because people need to steal/commit other crimes to get money to feed their addiction. 

Quote from: Zoupa on June 02, 2011, 05:04:32 PM
Having a prescription doesnt mean your medication is covered.

True, it depends on what medications are covered by whatever insurance scheme your particular jurisdiction uses.  But the point is for legalization to work it would have to be covered.

Quote from: Barrister on June 02, 2011, 04:33:47 PM
-because something is prescribed, and legal, it is destigmatized.  Plenty of nice middle class kids would never take a hit off of a crack pipe, but they may be much more willing to take some Oxys after their friend describes how good they make you feel - and they come in a nice safe pill form.

Plenty of nice young middle class kids already do. I know a not small number of people with respectable careers who manage to do I don't know how many hundreds of dollars worth of designer pills on a regular basis. Other than the drug use (and selling to each other), they don't do anything criminal to support their lifestyle. It's not the law that stops kids or doesn't stop them from using drugs.

Quote-once something can be prescribed, it can be over-prescribed.  Drug seeking clients are a huge problem for front line physicians and pharmacists - and they all know who the easy sources for prescriptions are

This is a significant concern, but one that I think can be addressed through appropriate regulation.

Quote-if you make such prescriptions to hard to access, then you haven't done anything to shut down the illegal sources.

Obviously you have to find the right balance there, but I think the guarantee of a controlled dosage and a safe environment for administering the drug may well be attractive to a number of users.

Quote-and it's easy enough to sell to others.  Again, there's a booming black market in pills.

So it's unlikely to get any worse :)

Quote-You start loading pharmacies with cocaine and heroin, and they're going to be robbed / stolen from a lot more.

Nothing says that regular pharmacies are the best way to distribute the drugs, even under a medical model. Also, presumably if it's easier to obtain the drugs, addicts will be less likely to commit crimes to get their fix.

Quote from: Barrister on June 02, 2011, 04:33:47 PM
As I said before I don't have a problem with treatment programs (indeed I support them), and in particular treatment programs that such as methadone that involve prescribing less harmful drugs.

But the whole concept of "medicalizing" hard drugs?  I don't think it's the answer.

One of the fastest growing addictions in the west is addictions to prescription medication.  Oxycontin is the most well known name, but any number of prescription drugs are being abused.  And the fact these drugs are legal and being prescribed doesn't make them a whole lot less damaging.

It is true that it will do nothing for the problem of addiction. No model is going to fix that. The "medical model" will not make people not be addicts - but then, neither does the "criminalization" model.

I disagree thought that "the fact these drugs are legal and being prescribed doesn't make them a whole lot less damaging". While addiction to drugs is in and of itself damaging, a primary cause of actual acute mortality associated with drugs has rather directly to do with their illegal status - mainly, the fact that many are contaminated and/or of uneven potency (particularly a problem of course with injected drugs). Having a pharma model will at the least solve that.

Quote-because something is prescribed, and legal, it is destigmatized.  Plenty of nice middle class kids would never take a hit off of a crack pipe, but they may be much more willing to take some Oxys after their friend describes how good they make you feel - and they come in a nice safe pill form.

I don't think that this is going to be a serious concern. Certain drug use is always going to be stigmatized no matter what (for example, injectibles). I can't see middle-class kids sticking themselves with needles even if they were legal.

Quote-once something can be prescribed, it can be over-prescribed.  Drug seeking clients are a huge problem for front line physicians and pharmacists - and they all know who the easy sources for prescriptions are

Sure, but mostly because physicians must tread the line between prescribing for legitimate pain control and merely maintaining an addiction (with the latter being unethical).

The model being proposed would allow for express addiction maintenance being a legal, legitimate and ethical medical choice. That ought to cut down the drug-seeky patients pestering multiple docs.

Quote-if you make such prescriptions to hard to access, then you haven't done anything to shut down the illegal sources.

Why make it hard to access?

Quote-and it's easy enough to sell to others.  Again, there's a booming black market in pills.

Again, that's because in order to get the "good" pills, you need to have a medical indication - which does not include addiction maintenance.

Quote-You start loading pharmacies with cocaine and heroin, and they're going to be robbed / stolen from a lot more.

Pharmacies already deal with issues relating to the storage of narcotics. Why would the situation get *worse* if these drugs were now easier to obtain? Rather the reverse will happen - you will undercut the incentive to steal, because the stuff is relatively easily available by addicts.   

You guys can't even agree with each other.

Malthus says that under "medicalization" middle class kids won't get caught up in legal pills, while Jacob says they already are.  Jacob agrees that over-prescription can be a problem, while Malthus does not.

Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2011, 09:22:56 AM
You guys can't even agree with each other.

Malthus says that under "medicalization" middle class kids won't get caught up in legal pills, while Jacob says they already are.  Jacob agrees that over-prescription can be a problem, while Malthus does not.

You mean we aren't group minds, all thinking alike?  :hmm:

Over prescription is a problem at the local mental health place I go to.  A doctor there recently got canned for it, he was essentially seduced by some some chick and gave her anything she wanted.  Methadone, Benzos, you name it.

Quote from: Razgovory on June 03, 2011, 09:46:16 AM
Over prescription is a problem at the local mental health place I go to.  A doctor there recently got canned for it, he was essentially seduced by some some chick and gave her anything she wanted.  Methadone, Benzos, you name it.

Heh, reminds me of the Simpsons - Dr. Nick Riviera.  :D

I think BB brought up a number of good points. 

Ultimately, to my mind the biggest concern is that "medicalizing" drugs would simply make their use and abuse much more widespread.  As I've said before, I'd likely have tried, say, cocaine if it were not for the fear of buying street crap and facing criminal penalties, and I am not alone in that.

Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 03, 2011, 10:10:10 AM
As I've said before, I'd likely have tried, say, cocaine if it were not for the fear of buying street crap and facing criminal penalties, and I am not alone in that.

Do you think you'd quickly become an abuser though?

Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 03, 2011, 10:10:10 AM
I think BB brought up a number of good points. 

Ultimately, to my mind the biggest concern is that "medicalizing" drugs would simply make their use and abuse much more widespread.  As I've said before, I'd likely have tried, say, cocaine if it were not for the fear of buying street crap and facing criminal penalties, and I am not alone in that.

My argument with BB is that all of the actual evidence, gleaned from places where such changes have been tried, appears to suggest the opposite.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/war-on-drugs-a-failure-international-panel-declares/article2045400/

QuoteDecriminalize or give legal access to some drugs to undercut organized crime

The report praises the way Portugal and Switzerland approached their drug problem.

In 2001, Portugal decriminalized the use and possession of all illicit drugs. In the ensuing decade, there was a slight rise in drug use but at the same pace as other countries where drugs remained criminalized.

Since 1994, hard-core addicts in Switzerland are able to get measured doses of heroin at government-approved clinics. The Swiss program has been credited with reducing crime and ending Zurich's infamous "Needle Park." As junkies found legal sources for their addiction, the report says, criminal suppliers became less visible and heroin less accessible for casual or novice users.

All of those are much less far-reaching than what you suggested.

I was interested in the last few words you quoted - my biggest concern about giving addicts an easy supply is that you make the drug more accessible to new users.

Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2011, 10:51:32 AM
you make the drug more accessible to new users.

That is called sending your kid away to college.

Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2011, 10:51:32 AM
All of those are much less far-reaching than what you suggested.

I was interested in the last few words you quoted - my biggest concern about giving addicts an easy supply is that you make the drug more accessible to new users.

What I'm saying is that, in places where changes to the drug legislation have been attempted, actual evidence suggests that the evils that you are anticipating did not in fact occur - this, based on the latest study of exactly the question under discussion. Though of course I'm open to any facts that contradict this.

The problem here is that there is a huge asymmetry in the evidence - our model has been tried, and is a self-evident failure; other models have been tried, with better success. Why are we clinging to our failed model, when there is no hard evidence it works, and lots of hard evidence it doesn't? Why reject other models, which have been shown to have better outcomes? Sure, they ain't perfect, but they are better than what we do. 

Quote from: Malthus on June 03, 2011, 10:58:43 AM
The problem here is that there is a huge asymmetry in the evidence - our model has been tried, and is a self-evident failure; other models have been tried, with better success. Why are we clinging to our failed model, when there is no hard evidence it works, and lots of hard evidence it doesn't? Why reject other models, which have been shown to have better outcomes? Sure, they ain't perfect, but they are better than what we do.

Rejecting our current model means admitting that the hard work of all the Strixes out there was for naught, and ultimately pointless.  It also means legalizing something people don't approve of, which is never a smart political move.

Quote from: Malthus on June 03, 2011, 10:58:43 AM

Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2011, 10:51:32 AM
All of those are much less far-reaching than what you suggested.

I was interested in the last few words you quoted - my biggest concern about giving addicts an easy supply is that you make the drug more accessible to new users.

What I'm saying is that, in places where changes to the drug legislation have been attempted, actual evidence suggests that the evils that you are anticipating did not in fact occur - this, based on the latest study of exactly the question under discussion. Though of course I'm open to any facts that contradict this.

The problem here is that there is a huge asymmetry in the evidence - our model has been tried, and is a self-evident failure; other models have been tried, with better success. Why are we clinging to our failed model, when there is no hard evidence it works, and lots of hard evidence it doesn't? Why reject other models, which have been shown to have better outcomes? Sure, they ain't perfect, but they are better than what we do.

I reject, or at least demand further evidence, that "our model has been tried, and is a self-evident failure".

As with pretty much any crime, it will always exist.  Theft, murder, rape, have all existed for ages.

Some people will always demand intoxicants which are harmful to themselves and others.  The question is how best to manage that fact.  Is the best approach to let people have whatever intoxicants they want, and just try to minimize the harm?  I tend to disagree.

Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2011, 11:32:22 AM
I reject, or at least demand further evidence, that "our model has been tried, and is a self-evident failure".

One in eight prisoners in the US are in for pot possession costing us 1 billion annually.  These people are not dangerous and the imprisonment has clearly failed as a deterrent for pot use since we are one of the top nations in the world for pot use.  At the very least stop tossing people in jail for it.  Make them pay a freaking fine or something.  I want pot heads to fund the public treasury not drain it.

Though you Mary Jane loving canadians are ahead of us.  Is it hard to post there with so much smoke?

Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2011, 11:32:22 AM
Theft, murder, rape, have all existed for ages.

Um...at least have the honesty to compare it to other victimless crimes like gambling.  Don't be a douchebag.

Quote from: Valmy on June 03, 2011, 11:36:10 AM

Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2011, 11:32:22 AM
I reject, or at least demand further evidence, that "our model has been tried, and is a self-evident failure".

One in eight prisoners in the US are in for pot possession costing us 1 billion annually.  These people are not dangerous and the imprisonment has clearly failed as a deterrent for pot use since we are one of the top nations in the world for pot use.  At the very least stop tossing people in jail for it.  Make them pay a freaking fine or something.  I want pot heads to fund the public treasury not drain it.

Though you Mary Jane loving canadians are ahead of us.  Is it hard to post there with so much smoke?

In this country I have never, ever, seen someone get gaol for simple possession marijuana.

Simple possession will get a diversion on the first or even second offence, and a fine thereafter.

So does that mean our drug policy is succeeding?

Quote from: Valmy on June 03, 2011, 11:37:59 AM

Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2011, 11:32:22 AM
Theft, murder, rape, have all existed for ages.

Um...at least have the honesty to compare it to other victimless crimes like gambling.  Don't be a douchebag.

Who pissed in your cheerios?

Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2011, 11:39:19 AM
So does that mean our drug policy is succeeding?

It might mean ours is since we have a significantly lower rate of Marijuana use compared to Canada :hmm:

Of course living in Austin nearly every single person I grew up with smoked dope and all ended up being successful, happy, married, contributers to society so maybe Canada wins here.

Edit: in all seriousness I wish the US would copy Canadian law here.  That sounds vastly superior.

Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2011, 11:40:22 AM
Who pissed in your cheerios?

Me?  I am in a good mood.

Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2011, 11:32:22 AM

Quote from: Malthus on June 03, 2011, 10:58:43 AM

Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2011, 10:51:32 AM
All of those are much less far-reaching than what you suggested.

I was interested in the last few words you quoted - my biggest concern about giving addicts an easy supply is that you make the drug more accessible to new users.

What I'm saying is that, in places where changes to the drug legislation have been attempted, actual evidence suggests that the evils that you are anticipating did not in fact occur - this, based on the latest study of exactly the question under discussion. Though of course I'm open to any facts that contradict this.

The problem here is that there is a huge asymmetry in the evidence - our model has been tried, and is a self-evident failure; other models have been tried, with better success. Why are we clinging to our failed model, when there is no hard evidence it works, and lots of hard evidence it doesn't? Why reject other models, which have been shown to have better outcomes? Sure, they ain't perfect, but they are better than what we do.

I reject, or at least demand further evidence, that "our model has been tried, and is a self-evident failure".

As with pretty much any crime, it will always exist.  Theft, murder, rape, have all existed for ages.

Some people will always demand intoxicants which are harmful to themselves and others.  The question is how best to manage that fact.  Is the best approach to let people have whatever intoxicants they want, and just try to minimize the harm?  I tend to disagree.

What's your metric for "success"?

Is it money spent? Our system is an endless money pit, requiring expensive courts and prisions. Not to mention the costs of making prisioners out of some who might otherwise be taxpayers.

Is it preventing people from using drugs? Our system doesn't do that. The evidence demonstrates drug use is not really affected by criminalization - drugs remain readily available.

Is it reducing the human damage associated with drug use? Our system doesn't do that at all - in many ways, it increases the human damage, making addicts into criminals and getting 'em to take street crap that can kill them.

Is it reducing the criminality associated with drug use? our system multiplies it. Addicts are criminals by definition and the inflated cost of their drugs motivates them to commit other crimes to buy 'em. The income from illegal drugs fuels organized criminality of all sorts.

Is it reducing the "yuck" factor of having ugly druggies cluttering up the place? Our system doesn't stop that from happening. Allegedly, the Swiss system does.

The only thing our system does, that the alternatives do not, is express our moral disapproval of druggies in the concrete form of legally degrading them. Which doesn't seem worth all the costs.

Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2011, 11:40:22 AM

Quote from: Valmy on June 03, 2011, 11:37:59 AM

Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2011, 11:32:22 AM
Theft, murder, rape, have all existed for ages.

Um...at least have the honesty to compare it to other victimless crimes like gambling.  Don't be a douchebag.

Who pissed in your cheerios?

He brought up a valid point.  :hmm:

Quote from: Valmy on June 03, 2011, 11:43:34 AM

Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2011, 11:40:22 AM
Who pissed in your cheerios?

Me?  I am in a good mood.

I chalked your calling me "dishonest" and a "douchebag" up to merely a bad mood.

So you meant to call me those things?

Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2011, 11:50:13 AM

Quote from: Valmy on June 03, 2011, 11:43:34 AM

Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2011, 11:40:22 AM
Who pissed in your cheerios?

Me?  I am in a good mood.

I chalked your calling me "dishonest" and a "douchebag" up to merely a bad mood.

So you meant to call me those things?

He needs to, you know, mellow out.

I know a way ...  :ccr

Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2011, 11:50:13 AM

I chalked your calling me "dishonest" and a "douchebag" up to merely a bad mood.

So you meant to call me those things?

douchebag was too far, but it was a dishonest way of arguing the ills of drug use by making the comparisons you used.

Quote from: Malthus on June 03, 2011, 11:51:58 AM

He needs to, you know, mellow out.

I know a way ...  :ccr

been a long while since i used, but the last thing it did was mellow me out.

Quote from: HVC on June 03, 2011, 11:55:28 AM

Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2011, 11:50:13 AM

I chalked your calling me "dishonest" and a "douchebag" up to merely a bad mood.

So you meant to call me those things?

douchebag was too far, but it was a dishonest way of arguing the ills of drug use by making the comparisons you used.

I'm not so fussed. Many anti-drug types truly believe that drug use is morally on par with stealing and rape (and of course, the punishments can be for things like trafficing). If so, using the comparison isn't "dishonest", though such a POV is so alien to the rest of us that it can appear that way.

Quote from: HVC on June 03, 2011, 11:56:39 AM

Quote from: Malthus on June 03, 2011, 11:51:58 AM

He needs to, you know, mellow out.

I know a way ...  :ccr

been a long while since i used, but the last thing it did was mellow me out.

The problem is that the most commonly available form of pot these days is hydro, which is bread to be very very potent. Take that when you aren't a steady smoker and what you get is paranoia, not a mellow buzz.

Sort of as if someone was to enjoy drunking a beer or two after work, but all they could get was 150 proof vodka - which they drank in the same quantities as beer.

Quote from: Malthus on June 03, 2011, 12:02:11 PM
The problem is that the most commonly available form of pot these days is hydro, which is bread to be very very potent. Take that when you aren't a steady smoker and what you get is paranoia, not a mellow buzz.

Sort of as if someone was to enjoy drunking a beer or two after work, but all they could get was 150 proof vodka - which they drank in the same quantities as beer.

Ya. The skunk stuff i used to get in high school did nothing so i didn't smoke much. The stronger stuff is too strong. Doesn't make me paranoid so much as lose all track of time. I'd be that guy staring at his watch every minute thinking half an hour has passed. That made me anxious and took away any enjoyment.

Quote from: Malthus on June 03, 2011, 11:59:17 AM

Quote from: HVC on June 03, 2011, 11:55:28 AM

Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2011, 11:50:13 AM

I chalked your calling me "dishonest" and a "douchebag" up to merely a bad mood.

So you meant to call me those things?

douchebag was too far, but it was a dishonest way of arguing the ills of drug use by making the comparisons you used.

I'm not so fussed. Many anti-drug types truly believe that drug use is morally on par with stealing and rape (and of course, the punishments can be for things like trafficing). If so, using the comparison isn't "dishonest", though such a POV is so alien to the rest of us that it can appear that way.

Well I certainly don't put stealing and rape on par with each other, so I don't know what to make of your analysis.

I just dispute the label of "victimless crime".  The user is the victim.  There are spill-over effects on wider society as well.

Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2011, 12:19:46 PM

Quote from: Malthus on June 03, 2011, 11:59:17 AM

Quote from: HVC on June 03, 2011, 11:55:28 AM

Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2011, 11:50:13 AM

I chalked your calling me "dishonest" and a "douchebag" up to merely a bad mood.

So you meant to call me those things?

douchebag was too far, but it was a dishonest way of arguing the ills of drug use by making the comparisons you used.

I'm not so fussed. Many anti-drug types truly believe that drug use is morally on par with stealing and rape (and of course, the punishments can be for things like trafficing). If so, using the comparison isn't "dishonest", though such a POV is so alien to the rest of us that it can appear that way.

Well I certainly don't put stealing and rape on par with each other, so I don't know what to make of your analysis.

I just dispute the label of "victimless crime".  The user is the victim.  There are spill-over effects on wider society as well.

The user of junk food is also the victim.  Should junk food be made illegal?

Quote from: DGuller on June 03, 2011, 12:23:24 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2011, 12:19:46 PM

Quote from: Malthus on June 03, 2011, 11:59:17 AM

Quote from: HVC on June 03, 2011, 11:55:28 AM

Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2011, 11:50:13 AM

I chalked your calling me "dishonest" and a "douchebag" up to merely a bad mood.

So you meant to call me those things?

douchebag was too far, but it was a dishonest way of arguing the ills of drug use by making the comparisons you used.

I'm not so fussed. Many anti-drug types truly believe that drug use is morally on par with stealing and rape (and of course, the punishments can be for things like trafficing). If so, using the comparison isn't "dishonest", though such a POV is so alien to the rest of us that it can appear that way.

Well I certainly don't put stealing and rape on par with each other, so I don't know what to make of your analysis.

I just dispute the label of "victimless crime".  The user is the victim.  There are spill-over effects on wider society as well.

The user of junk food is also the victim.  Should junk food be made illegal?

I wouldn't inherently rule it out (though it seems the likely answer is no).  But clearly the state has an interest in regulating junk food, just as they do alcohol, tobacco, and controlled drugs and substances.

Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2011, 11:50:13 AM
I chalked your calling me "dishonest" and a "douchebag" up to merely a bad mood.

So you meant to call me those things?

Yep because that line of the post was dishonest and douchebaggy.  I am intrigued by the idea that the victim and the perpetrator are the same person.  Can they decide not to press charges with themselves?

Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2011, 12:19:46 PM

Well I certainly don't put stealing and rape on par with each other, so I don't know what to make of your analysis.

They're on par in that the victimize a innocent third party. I can't see how you can equate (at the lowest level you provided) breaking into someones house taking their stuff and traumatizing the victim with someone sitting in their backyard getting high.

QuoteI just dispute the label of "victimless crime".  The user is the victim.  There are spill-over effects on wider society as well.

there are spill over effect with everything. As a scoiety we don't often criminalize something becasue of what tertiary side effects might occur (drugs are the only one i can think of at the moment). it's like saying we should ban alcohol because alcoholic men are much more likely to abuse ther wives or ban playstations becasue it makes kids sedentary which will effect health care costs in the future. From my point of view that's what you're saying about drugs.

Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2011, 12:25:18 PM
I wouldn't inherently rule it out (though it seems the likely answer is no).  But clearly the state has an interest in regulating junk food, just as they do alcohol, tobacco, and controlled drugs and substances.

Yes they are regulations.  For public interest and health and all that and are up for debate and can be altered.  They are not essential protections of people and property and should not be compared.  The drug laws could be changed and society could function as they are optional regulations in the public good and interest.  Making rape, murder, and theft legal would lead to anarchy so the suggestion us not repealing them (or that our anti-murder laws do not decrease murder so are not working) means that regulations cannot be changed is beyond ridiculous.

Quote from: Valmy on June 03, 2011, 12:28:54 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2011, 11:50:13 AM
I chalked your calling me "dishonest" and a "douchebag" up to merely a bad mood.

So you meant to call me those things?

Yep because that line of the post was dishonest and douchebaggy. 

AAAANNNNDDD with that, I'm outta here.

Should've done that a couple of posts ago, before revealing that your objections to drugs are purely paternalistic in nature.

Dammit valmy. First soccer now drug threads. Is there nothing you dont jynx :( :P

Quote from: HVC on June 03, 2011, 12:51:05 PM
Dammit valmy. First soccer now drug threads. Is there nothing you dont jynx :( :P

I have wicked mojo my friend.

Quote from: Valmy on June 03, 2011, 01:15:46 PM

Quote from: HVC on June 03, 2011, 12:51:05 PM
Dammit valmy. First soccer now drug threads. Is there nothing you dont jynx :( :P

I have wicked mojo my friend.

Your hot texas blood gets you in trouble :( :D

Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2011, 12:46:49 PM
AAAANNNNDDD with that, I'm outta here.

Bah I meant it with love in true Languishite fashion.

Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2011, 12:19:46 PM

Quote from: Malthus on June 03, 2011, 11:59:17 AM

Quote from: HVC on June 03, 2011, 11:55:28 AM

Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2011, 11:50:13 AM

I chalked your calling me "dishonest" and a "douchebag" up to merely a bad mood.

So you meant to call me those things?

douchebag was too far, but it was a dishonest way of arguing the ills of drug use by making the comparisons you used.

I'm not so fussed. Many anti-drug types truly believe that drug use is morally on par with stealing and rape (and of course, the punishments can be for things like trafficing). If so, using the comparison isn't "dishonest", though such a POV is so alien to the rest of us that it can appear that way.

Well I certainly don't put stealing and rape on par with each other, so I don't know what to make of your analysis.

I just dispute the label of "victimless crime".  The user is the victim.  There are spill-over effects on wider society as well.

I'll put it this way: many anti-drug types see nothing odd about classifying "doing drugs" with both "stealing" and "rape", in that they are all criminal acts, though obviously varying in severity and moral blameworthiness.

Others (and I'm one) look at that list and think that things like "stealing" and "rape" are objectively bad and inherently the sort of thing that ought to be criminalized; and that "doing drugs" isn't of the same category, much less severity. It is more of a cultural choice, like those Mormons who don't drink coffee, and that making one set of choices criminal (presumably by legislators who enjoy the occasional cigar and whisky) is simply elevating one set of cultural choices over another, for no good reason.   

I think some of your critics in this thread think that this point is so obvious, that failing to believe it is a sign of deliberate dishonesty. I don't.

Quote from: Malthus on June 03, 2011, 01:32:09 PM
I think some of your critics in this thread think that this point is so obvious, that failing to believe it is a sign of deliberate dishonesty. I don't.

Ok maybe I was wrong.  It sure looked like he was trying to spin it that way.

Quote from: Valmy on June 03, 2011, 01:39:59 PM

Quote from: Malthus on June 03, 2011, 01:32:09 PM
I think some of your critics in this thread think that this point is so obvious, that failing to believe it is a sign of deliberate dishonesty. I don't.

Ok maybe I was wrong.  It sure looked like he was trying to spin it that way.

That's the thing: you have to understand that, for some folks, taking a toke off a joint is actually morally bad in the same way that (say) stealing or raping is (albeit, not necessarily as serious a matter). It is deliberately causing, in some sense, harm to happen. In a way it can be even more blameworthy than stealing, because it is done just for entertainment: stealing can in some cases be justified by dire necessity.

I know it seems on its face absurd, but they honestly believe that.

"They" honestly believe that.

But then again, I could toss a virtual rock here, and definitely hit someone who's a drug liberal but thinks software piracy is a heinous crime.

Quote from: Slargos on June 03, 2011, 01:57:12 PM
"They" honestly believe that.

But then again, I could toss a virtual rock here, and definitely hit someone who's a drug liberal but thinks software piracy is a heinous crime.

Jacob proably :lol:

Quote from: Slargos on June 03, 2011, 01:57:12 PM
"They" honestly believe that.

But then again, I could toss a virtual rock here, and definitely hit someone who's a drug liberal but thinks software piracy is a heinous crime.

Sure - theft of intellectual property.  :)

Quote from: Malthus on June 03, 2011, 02:02:37 PM

Quote from: Slargos on June 03, 2011, 01:57:12 PM
"They" honestly believe that.

But then again, I could toss a virtual rock here, and definitely hit someone who's a drug liberal but thinks software piracy is a heinous crime.

Sure - theft of intellectual property.  :)

Concur. Trillions of dollars worth of IP is lost every year to piracy. It's pretty big.

My point is that if you're going to lambast Beeb for his position, take at least a quick look at your own first.

Quote from: Slargos on June 03, 2011, 01:57:12 PM
"They" honestly believe that.

But then again, I could toss a virtual rock here, and definitely hit someone who's a drug liberal but thinks software piracy is a heinous crime.

Yeah, I don't really see how that is obviously a inconsistent position. Software piracy is theft, in the eyes of those who think it is a crime, or ought to be.

Quote from: Berkut on June 03, 2011, 02:05:59 PM

Quote from: Slargos on June 03, 2011, 01:57:12 PM
"They" honestly believe that.

But then again, I could toss a virtual rock here, and definitely hit someone who's a drug liberal but thinks software piracy is a heinous crime.

Yeah, I don't really see how that is obviously a inconsistent position. Software piracy is theft, in the eyes of those who think it is a crime, or ought to be.

And to those who think substance abuse is a crime, or ought to be one, the difference is in degree only.

Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2011, 11:32:22 AM
I reject, or at least demand further evidence, that "our model has been tried, and is a self-evident failure".

As with pretty much any crime, it will always exist.  Theft, murder, rape, have all existed for ages.

Some people will always demand intoxicants which are harmful to themselves and others.  The question is how best to manage that fact.  Is the best approach to let people have whatever intoxicants they want, and just try to minimize the harm?  I tend to disagree.

The first thing you need to understand is you are not in a position to "let people have whatever intoxicants they want". They are already able to without your permission.

Now, all the evidence I could offer you is purely anecdotal: Pretty much everyone around me, mostly middle class college graduates, has done illegal drugs one time or another.
Some have only tried a couple times. A few became addicts.
Most have smoked. Many have taken pills, amphetamines or cocaine. I only knew one heroin addict (ODed a long time ago).

None ever faced any significant obstacle locating or securing their supply. Those that found themselves wanting more than they could pay for simply became part time pushers.

Quote from: Iormlund on June 03, 2011, 02:08:40 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2011, 11:32:22 AM
I reject, or at least demand further evidence, that "our model has been tried, and is a self-evident failure".

As with pretty much any crime, it will always exist.  Theft, murder, rape, have all existed for ages.

Some people will always demand intoxicants which are harmful to themselves and others.  The question is how best to manage that fact.  Is the best approach to let people have whatever intoxicants they want, and just try to minimize the harm?  I tend to disagree.

The first thing you need to understand is you are not in a position to "let people have whatever intoxicants they want". They are already able to without your permission.

Now, all the evidence I could offer you is purely anecdotal: Pretty much everyone around me, mostly middle class college graduates, has done illegal drugs one time or another.
Some have only tried a couple times. A few became addicts.
Most have smoked. Many have taken pills, amphetamines or cocaine. I only knew one heroin addict (ODed a long time ago).

None ever faced any significant obstacle locating or securing their supply. Those that found themselves wanting more than they could pay for simply became part time pushers.

The same argument could be used for decriminalization of everything.

So Slargos, if in fact the current approach was a failure, how would you know?

You reject that it is a self-evident failure - so what additional evidence would you need to say "Yeah, this approach is not working..."?

Quote from: Berkut on June 03, 2011, 02:13:07 PM
So Slargos, if in fact the current approach was a failure, how would you know?

You reject that it is a self-evident failure - so what additional evidence would you need to say "Yeah, this approach is not working..."?

Whoa, whoa.

The American approach is quite evidently a failure. I think decriminalization would be worth looking into.

The arguments used by Iorm, and the shitkicking Beeb has to take however, is just retarded.

Quote from: Slargos on June 03, 2011, 02:05:50 PM

Quote from: Malthus on June 03, 2011, 02:02:37 PM

Quote from: Slargos on June 03, 2011, 01:57:12 PM
"They" honestly believe that.

But then again, I could toss a virtual rock here, and definitely hit someone who's a drug liberal but thinks software piracy is a heinous crime.

Sure - theft of intellectual property.  :)

Concur. Trillions of dollars worth of IP is lost every year to piracy. It's pretty big.

My point is that if you're going to lambast Beeb for his position, take at least a quick look at your own first.

I don't get the parallel.

How does thinking that theft of intellectual property is in the same category as theft generally relate to thinking that doing drugs isn't? 

Which is to say, the philosophical approach is just pointless.

"Drugabuse is a victimless crime, man". Fuck you. You don't get to decide that, The Law does.

"You can't regulate it anyway, so might as well just give in." Fuck you. By the same token we should decriminalize rape.

The only honest way to attack this is by asking "Is this productive?"

Quote from: Slargos on June 03, 2011, 02:11:17 PM
The same argument could be used for decriminalization of everything.

Except the only argument for criminalizing drugs is precisely helping addicts control their problem. Not so with murder or theft.

Quote from: Malthus on June 03, 2011, 02:17:02 PM

Quote from: Slargos on June 03, 2011, 02:05:50 PM

Quote from: Malthus on June 03, 2011, 02:02:37 PM

Quote from: Slargos on June 03, 2011, 01:57:12 PM
"They" honestly believe that.

But then again, I could toss a virtual rock here, and definitely hit someone who's a drug liberal but thinks software piracy is a heinous crime.

Sure - theft of intellectual property.  :)

Concur. Trillions of dollars worth of IP is lost every year to piracy. It's pretty big.

My point is that if you're going to lambast Beeb for his position, take at least a quick look at your own first.

I don't get the parallel.

How does thinking that theft of intellectual property is in the same category as theft generally relate to thinking that doing drugs isn't?

Of course you don't.

Here you have two crimes whose adherents claim, with reasonable argument, are victimless.

Barrister, as an agent of Law (regardless of his personal beliefs) considers both from a legal standpoint as crimes. In degree they may differ from murder, rape, genocide or jaywalking, but they're still crimes.

He's being accosted as a "douchebag" for maintaining this position by the very same people who would laugh at one crime and frown at the other.

Now do you see?

Quote from: Slargos on June 03, 2011, 02:11:17 PM
The same argument could be used for decriminalization of everything.

I guess I view the drug laws as an attempt to reduce drug use the same way we try to reduce fat people or increase test scores or whatever.  Taking drugs is bad, they reduce productive people in society and we should try to reduce their use so we have really draconian drug laws.  Since they have not seen to be working I think we should try something different.

I do not see them as something that necessarily needs to be a crime.  Essential laws protect people and property from the aggression of others...because if you do not said people will do so themselves and anarchy or state of nature breaks out.  Heck the entire existance of society in the first place is to  protect people and their stuff from aggression.

So basically any criminal behavior that is designed to be so because it is a public good that they do less of it should indeed be considered to be decriminalized if the costs to society of enforcing them are worse than the disease or they are not effective for whatever reason.

In the USA we do have a few states who are decriminalizing certain sorts of illegal drugs (or regulating them in different ways) and we can see how that goes.  Maybe that is a good idea.

Anyway those are my thoughts on the matter.  Though I guess I should go ahead and say that I think our drug laws are empowering the drug gangs in Mexico and reforming them could also be of national security importance.  Not to mention economic importance, Mexico being one of our closest economic partners.

Quote from: Slargos on June 03, 2011, 02:18:26 PM
Which is to say, the philosophical approach is just pointless.

"Drugabuse is a victimless crime, man". Fuck you. You don't get to decide that, The Law does.

"You can't regulate it anyway, so might as well just give in." Fuck you. By the same token we should decriminalize rape.

The only honest way to attack this is by asking "Is this productive?"

I gave a complete run-down of my position above.

My point is that the approach we are taking - criminalization - has failed each and every metric of "success".

Other approaches have done better in other places, therefore we ought to be trying them here.

My only point in bringing up the "philosophical" difference, was to point out that BB wasn't being deliberatly  dishonest, because he honestly believes that taking drugs ought to be inherently criminal. Has nothing to do really with the argument.

Quote from: Slargos on June 03, 2011, 02:21:22 PM
He's being accosted as a "douchebag" for maintaining this position by the very same people who would laugh at one crime and frown at the other.

Same people?  Do I have accomplices?

And for fucksake we throw around douchebag all the time here.  I certainly would not have done such a horrible thing if I really thought we were not all friends here.

Quote from: Slargos on June 03, 2011, 02:18:26 PM
"You can't regulate it anyway, so might as well just give in." Fuck you. By the same token we should decriminalize rape.

Except if we do that people will take vengeance into their own hands.  You know that whole anarchy thing.  That whole 'the reason the legal system was invented in the first place' thing.

BB thinks looking at the Crown the wrong way should land you in gaol. I wouldn't worry about his opinion.

Quote from: Slargos on June 03, 2011, 02:21:22 PM
Of course you don't.

Here you have two crimes whose adherents claim, with reasonable argument, are victimless.

Barrister, as an agent of Law (regardless of his personal beliefs) considers both from a legal standpoint as crimes. In degree they may differ from murder, rape, genocide or jaywalking, but they're still crimes.

He's being accosted as a "douchebag" for maintaining this position by the very same people who would laugh at one crime and frown at the other.

Now do you see?

Dude. Chill and re-read the thread.  ;)

I'm the very person arguing BB is not a "douchebag" for maintaining his position.

So your ire is misdirected, to put it mildly.  :lol:

Quote from: Valmy on June 03, 2011, 02:21:52 PM

Quote from: Slargos on June 03, 2011, 02:11:17 PM
The same argument could be used for decriminalization of everything.

I guess I view the drug laws as an attempt to reduce drug use the same way we try to reduce fat people or increase test scores or whatever.  Taking drugs is bad, they reduce productive people in society and we should try to reduce their use so we have really draconian drug laws.  Since they have not seen to be working I think we should try something different.

I do not see them as something that necessarily needs to be a crime.  Essential laws protect people and property from the aggression of others...because if you do not said people will do so themselves and anarchy or state of nature breaks out.  Heck the entire existance of society in the first place is to  protect people and their stuff from aggression.

So basically any criminal behavior that is designed to be so because it is a public good that they do less of it should indeed be considered to be decriminalized if the costs to society of enforcing them are worse than the disease or they are not effective for whatever reason.

In the USA we do have a few states who are decriminalizing certain sorts of illegal drugs (or regulating them in different ways) and we can see how that goes.  Maybe that is a good idea.

Anyway those are my thoughts on the matter.  Though I guess I should go ahead and say that I think our drug laws are empowering the drug gangs in Mexico and reforming them could also be of national security importance.  Not to mention economic importance, Mexico being one of our closest economic partners.

I don't disagree with this, really. What I disagree with is the view that Barrister's position is unreasonable, when it very clearly isn't.

It may FEEL unreasonable that he compares a crime you feel is trivial to crimes you feel are non-trivial, but your feelings are irrelevant.

Quote from: The Brain on June 03, 2011, 02:25:45 PM
BB thinks looking at the Crown the wrong way should land you in gaol. I wouldn't worry about his opinion.

He has some input into whether you go on trial for looking at the Crown the wrong way, so his opinion bears watching.

Quote from: Malthus on June 03, 2011, 02:26:03 PM

Quote from: Slargos on June 03, 2011, 02:21:22 PM
Of course you don't.

Here you have two crimes whose adherents claim, with reasonable argument, are victimless.

Barrister, as an agent of Law (regardless of his personal beliefs) considers both from a legal standpoint as crimes. In degree they may differ from murder, rape, genocide or jaywalking, but they're still crimes.

He's being accosted as a "douchebag" for maintaining this position by the very same people who would laugh at one crime and frown at the other.

Now do you see?

Dude. Chill and re-read the thread.  ;)

I'm the very person arguing BB is not a "douchebag" for maintaining his position.

So your ire is misdirected, to put it mildly.  :lol:

Objection, relevance.  :P

I just think it's fucked up that a bunch of hypocritical potheads can flail their hippie hair around like they just don't care.

Quote from: Slargos on June 03, 2011, 02:27:36 PM
I don't disagree with this, really. What I disagree with is the view that Barrister's position is unreasonable, when it very clearly isn't.

It may FEEL unreasonable that he compares a crime you feel is trivial to crimes you feel are non-trivial, but your feelings are irrelevant.

I thought he was trying to spin it to where drug use was somehow on the same level as those sorts of crimes.  Malthus has showed me I was wrong on that I guess.

Still I would not have called him out in quite the same way had this not been languish and I did not like the guy.

Quote from: Slargos on June 03, 2011, 02:30:20 PM
Objection, relevance.  :P

I just think it's fucked up that a bunch of hypocritical potheads can flail their hippie hair around like they just don't care.

Oh, how I wish I had a full head of hippie hair to flail around in a carefree manner!  :lol:

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 03, 2011, 02:30:00 PM

Quote from: The Brain on June 03, 2011, 02:25:45 PM
BB thinks looking at the Crown the wrong way should land you in gaol. I wouldn't worry about his opinion.

He has some input into whether you go on trial for looking at the Crown the wrong way, so his opinion bears watching.

Only if you live under the Canadian yoke.

Quote from: Slargos on June 03, 2011, 02:30:20 PM
I just think it's fucked up that a bunch of hypocritical potheads can flail their hippie hair around like they just don't care.

:lol:

Ahem. Hypocritical former pothead thank you very much :p

While I don't think it is far to call Beebs a "douchebag" for his position (it is after all pretty common and not at all motivated by malice), I can certainly understand the frustration his position creates.

Beebs position is motivated by his basic philosophy that the role of the State is to make sure people do whatever the majority thinks is best for them, and there is very little room for personal liberty in that viewpoint, at least in any practical sense.

Drugs are bad, therefore they should be illegal.
Divorce is bad, therefore the state should be allowed to force you to remain married.


There isn't any room in this philosophy for

X is bad, but people should be allowed to deal with it themselves - or not, because the necessary infringement on liberty or cost to society needed to force compliance is worse than the problem to begin with.

So they don't look at the war on drugs, see that it is a failed "solution" that is likely much worse than the problem, and think "Hey, lets try something else". They look at it from the other end.

Drugs are bad. Therefore, anything the state does to stop people from taking them is justifiable. End of story. Putting 3% of the population in jail? No problem. Spending trillions of dollars to fight the "war"? Not an issue. No knock warrants? Phone taps? Random stops of civilians on made up "reasonable suspicion"? Perhaps regrettable, but hardly anything that really matter compared the need to control all those pesky humans. The means are *always* justified by the ends.

Like I said, this doesn't make him a douchebag - just pretty typical, unfortunately. I wish this attitude towards liberty and the role of the state WAS unusual enough to consider those who hold it to be especially objectionable.

If you live under the delusion that Law is mainly for the protection of individual civil liberties, then I suppose I can understand why you'd be frustrated.

The Law is mainly for protecting the Material Interests.

Quote from: Slargos on June 03, 2011, 02:21:22 PM
Of course you don't.

Here you have two crimes whose adherents claim, with reasonable argument, are victimless.

Barrister, as an agent of Law (regardless of his personal beliefs) considers both from a legal standpoint as crimes. In degree they may differ from murder, rape, genocide or jaywalking, but they're still crimes.

He's being accosted as a "douchebag" for maintaining this position by the very same people who would laugh at one crime and frown at the other.

Now do you see?

The thing is that we're not debating what the law is.  I think all of us know what it is, not just Barrister.  We're debating what the law should be.  In that kind of debate, using existing law as an argument would create quite a vertigo-inducing circularity.

Quote from: Slargos on June 03, 2011, 02:37:02 PM
If you live under the delusion that Law is mainly for the protection of individual civil liberties, then I suppose I can understand why you'd be frustrated.

I don't think that is the only way one would find that ignoring the individual liberties (civil or otherwise) in the pursuit of the majorities demand that people live in the manner they wish to be frustrating.

Law may not be mainly for the protection of liberty, but that doesn't mean it should simply ignore liberty - quite the opposite in fact.

http://cnn.com/video/?/video/health/2011/06/02/oppmann.pharmacy.robberies.cnn (http://cnn.com/video/?/video/health/2011/06/02/oppmann.pharmacy.robberies.cnn)

Damn. Not super relevant to the ongoing discussion, I know. Now my dream of moving to Miami and being pharmacist to the stars is crippled.  :cry:

Quote from: Zoupa on June 03, 2011, 03:50:42 PM
http://cnn.com/video/?/video/health/2011/06/02/oppmann.pharmacy.robberies.cnn (http://cnn.com/video/?/video/health/2011/06/02/oppmann.pharmacy.robberies.cnn)

Damn. Not super relevant to the ongoing discussion, I know. Now my dream of moving to Miami and being pharmacist to the stars is crippled.  :cry:

I saw in on a 3 day police robbery conference, with a half day session on pharmacy robberies.  Apparently one of the few crime categories that is increasing, and increasing dramatically at that.

Quote from: Slargos on June 03, 2011, 02:37:02 PM
If you live under the delusion that Law is mainly for the protection of individual civil liberties, then I suppose I can understand why you'd be frustrated.

Euros .  . . getting it wrong for over 200 years

QuoteWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 03, 2011, 04:10:32 PM
....

Euros .  . . getting it wrong for over 200 years

QuoteWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Man, that's just a stoner's charter. :rolleyes:

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 03, 2011, 04:10:32 PM

Quote from: Slargos on June 03, 2011, 02:37:02 PM
If you live under the delusion that Law is mainly for the protection of individual civil liberties, then I suppose I can understand why you'd be frustrated.

Euros .  . . getting it wrong for over 200 years

QuoteWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

:lmfao:

Yeah. Right.

And Iraq was fought over WMD.

Your product has no value, shyster.

Quote from: Slargos on June 03, 2011, 04:14:14 PM
And Iraq was fought over WMD.

Your product has no value, shyster.

Why do you hate freedom so?   :cry:

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 03, 2011, 04:16:50 PM

Quote from: Slargos on June 03, 2011, 04:14:14 PM
And Iraq was fought over WMD.

Your product has no value, shyster.

Why do you hate freedom so?   :cry:

Freedom is a lovely dream.  :hug:

My position on this issue is motivated by malice.

That is all.

Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2011, 03:58:51 PM

Quote from: Zoupa on June 03, 2011, 03:50:42 PM
http://cnn.com/video/?/video/health/2011/06/02/oppmann.pharmacy.robberies.cnn (http://cnn.com/video/?/video/health/2011/06/02/oppmann.pharmacy.robberies.cnn)

Damn. Not super relevant to the ongoing discussion, I know. Now my dream of moving to Miami and being pharmacist to the stars is crippled.  :cry:

I saw in on a 3 day police robbery conference, with a half day session on pharmacy robberies.  Apparently one of the few crime categories that is increasing, and increasing dramatically at that.

I can believe that.  Even if you aren't a junkie, there's thousands of dollars of merchandise in there that can be easily moved, and unlike a bank they probably don't have guards or vaults.

Quote from: Razgovory on June 03, 2011, 05:27:06 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2011, 03:58:51 PM

Quote from: Zoupa on June 03, 2011, 03:50:42 PM
http://cnn.com/video/?/video/health/2011/06/02/oppmann.pharmacy.robberies.cnn (http://cnn.com/video/?/video/health/2011/06/02/oppmann.pharmacy.robberies.cnn)

Damn. Not super relevant to the ongoing discussion, I know. Now my dream of moving to Miami and being pharmacist to the stars is crippled.  :cry:

I saw in on a 3 day police robbery conference, with a half day session on pharmacy robberies.  Apparently one of the few crime categories that is increasing, and increasing dramatically at that.

I can believe that.  Even if you aren't a junkie, there's thousands of dollars of merchandise in there that can be easily moved, and unlike a bank they probably don't have guards or vaults.

Well, according to the police analyst, it was mostly junkies that were doing these, and not more "professional" criminals.

But yes, they made the point that it was combined with the fact that pharmacies, unlike places like banks, do not have the same protections or training on what to do in a robbery, and thus proved to be easier targets.

Looked up a story about it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/07/us/07pharmacies.html

Interesting.  Sounds like a serious problem.  In Missouri, the big drug is Meth.  They've gone so far as to limit the sale of certain over the counter meds that used as ingredients.  I bought some cold medication last year and had to give them my ID before they let me have it.  I could easily imagine someone trying to steal a bunch of Ephedrine for a Meth Lab.  Bad Shit.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 02, 2011, 11:56:23 PM

Quote from: Zoupa on June 02, 2011, 05:04:32 PM
Having a prescription doesnt mean your medication is covered.

True, it depends on what medications are covered by whatever insurance scheme your particular jurisdiction uses.  But the point is for legalization to work it would have to be covered.

Under your plan, would they be covered only for people who were actually addicted, or would they be covered for people who just aren't addicted (yet, anyway), but just want to get high occasionally?  What about people who haven't even used hard drugs before, but want to try.  Would they be covered as well?  How about people who like to use recreational drugs which are currently legal, like tabacco and alcohol?  Covered, or not?  I know it sounds like I'm joking, but I'm serious.  If I want to get a pint of liquor to get drunk on, why should I have to pay for it out of pocket, but a guy who wants to drop some acid would get it provided at no charge to him?

Quote from: dps on June 03, 2011, 08:09:15 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 02, 2011, 11:56:23 PM

Quote from: Zoupa on June 02, 2011, 05:04:32 PM
Having a prescription doesnt mean your medication is covered.

True, it depends on what medications are covered by whatever insurance scheme your particular jurisdiction uses.  But the point is for legalization to work it would have to be covered.

Under your plan, would they be covered only for people who were actually addicted, or would they be covered for people who just aren't addicted (yet, anyway), but just want to get high occasionally?  What about people who haven't even used hard drugs before, but want to try.  Would they be covered as well?  How about people who like to use recreational drugs which are currently legal, like tabacco and alcohol?  Covered, or not?  I know it sounds like I'm joking, but I'm serious.  If I want to get a pint of liquor to get drunk on, why should I have to pay for it out of pocket, but a guy who wants to drop some acid would get it provided at no charge to him?

There are two issues (1) ability to get a prescription; and (2) coverage under some form of medicare plan (presumably, socialized).

To my mind, actual coverage under socialized medicare would only apply in exactly the same circumstances as with other drugs - in Canada, that means you have to be either poor, over 65, or on a specialized treatment program. In all cases there would have to be a prescription, which means some healthcare professional has designated you as addicted.

Acid wouldn't be covered at all, as it is not particularly addicting. Socialized funding for drug addicts ought to be limited to drugs that addict people, like heroin and nicotine.

For those not already addicted, coverage would not be availavble.

Way I see it, drugs would fall within two classes:

(1) drugs that are not particularly addicting. These should be legalized, regulated and taxed, like any other consumer product.

(2) drugs that are particularly addicting. These should be treated in a two-tier scheme:

- available as consumer products, as above; and

- available as prescription products to those who are diagnosed as addicts. In that case, reimbursement may be available, if they otherwise fit the criteria.

The difference between the two should be based on an objective analysis of harms [for example, on any objective analysis, alcohol itself would fit within category (2) alongside Heroin, as would tobacco].

So you're saying we could buy heroin OTC if we're not addicted to it, but would need a prescription if we are addicted?  :huh:

Quote from: Malthus on June 03, 2011, 02:23:43 PM
My only point in bringing up the "philosophical" difference, was to point out that BB wasn't being deliberatly  dishonest, because he honestly believes that taking drugs ought to be inherently criminal. Has nothing to do really with the argument.

Actually, he doesn't.  He takes drugs himself (alcohol).  He thinks that taking illegal drugs should be illegal.  It is a tautology, and absurd.

Quote from: dps on June 06, 2011, 07:48:10 PM
So you're saying we could buy heroin OTC if we're not addicted to it, but would need a prescription if we are addicted?  :huh:

No, you'd need a prescription if you expect to have your addiction publicly-funded (together with meeting a means test) - all in the interests of keeping degenerate addicts off the streets and away from committing crimes to support their fix.

Think of it in terms of alcohol, another drug known to cause physical degeneration, liver and brain damage, and addiction.

If you are not an addict, but are and adult, you can go to a store, or a bar, and buy enough booze to literally kill you - if you want. We as a society sorta expect that most people won't drink themselves to death, but will instead (say) enjoy a cold beer or two.

However, if you become a drunk, and enter that downward spiral, at some point you mayl use up all your money and piss off all your relations and end up on the street, as a typical street person.

Under this scheme, at some point in that downward spiral (presumably, before you are pushing a shopping cart, drinking Lysol strained trough a sock and mumbling to yourself) the social workers and docs can say to you 'you are an addict - here are various treatment programs. You always have the choice of entering treatment. However, if you can't or won't, the state will support a medically-supervised maintenance of your addiction as a harm-reduction measure - a certain amount of alcohol per week, available by prescription'. Presumably, this will avoid you spending your last dime on booze.

I doubt this will be all that attractive to those who are not already addicts. People will not say "hey, I can ruin my life with addiction, and the state will give me free booze! Let's do it!". It is more of a last-ditch measure for the incurable (sadly, a lot of addicts are basically incurable, as addiction above all erodes the will). 

Quote from: grumbler on June 06, 2011, 08:09:04 PM

Quote from: Malthus on June 03, 2011, 02:23:43 PM
My only point in bringing up the "philosophical" difference, was to point out that BB wasn't being deliberatly  dishonest, because he honestly believes that taking drugs ought to be inherently criminal. Has nothing to do really with the argument.

Actually, he doesn't.  He takes drugs himself (alcohol).  He thinks that taking illegal drugs should be illegal.  It is a tautology, and absurd.

Perhaps we should wait for Barrister to tell us what he thinks, rather then have you tell us what he thinks.

Yeah, I'm with you on this Malthus. Perhaps you can lobby your local MP for something like this?

Another victory in the War On Drugs.

Unarmed kid gets shot in his bathroom possibly over a bag of weed.  :smoke:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/nyregion/raymond-kelly-voices-concern-on-fatal-police-shooting-in-bronx.html

Quote from: Phillip V on February 04, 2012, 06:02:15 AM
Another victory in the War On Drugs.

Unarmed kid gets shot in his bathroom possibly over a bag of weed.  :smoke:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/nyregion/raymond-kelly-voices-concern-on-fatal-police-shooting-in-bronx.html

What was the point of your posting that?

Phil has become Tim, while the old Tim has to resort to mining the Off-Topic thread for news stories to post.  :P

Quote from: Phillip V on February 04, 2012, 06:02:15 AM
Another victory in the War On Drugs.

Unarmed kid gets shot in his bathroom possibly over a bag of weed.  :smoke:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/nyregion/raymond-kelly-voices-concern-on-fatal-police-shooting-in-bronx.html

Excellent news.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 02, 2011, 12:20:41 PM
Why make new drums when all the drummers are dead?

:lol:

The only drug I crave can only be found on the battlefield.

Nah, i'm talking shit.
I just had a shitload of lite beer.
There is nothing worthwhile to be found on the battlefield.
Well, maybe the valor of men that found themselves in situations they really didn't want to find themselves.

QuoteMexican army finds 15 tons of pure methamphetamine

GUADALAJARA, Mexico (AP) - The historic seizure of 15 tons of pure methamphetamine in western Mexico, equal to half of all meth seizures worldwide in 2009, feeds growing speculation that the country could become a world platform for meth production, not just a supplier to the United States.

The sheer size of the bust announced late Wednesday in Jalisco state suggests involvement of the powerful Sinaloa cartel, a major international trafficker of cocaine and marijuana that has moved into meth production and manufacturing on an industrial scale.

Army officials didn't say what drug gangs could have been behind the dozens of blue barrels filled with powdered meth. Army Gen. Gilberto Hernandez Andreu said the meth was ready for packaging. There was no information on where the drugs were headed.

Jalisco has long been considered the hub of the Sinaloa cartel's meth production and trafficking. Meanwhile, meth use is growing in the United States, already the world's biggest market for illicit drugs.

The haul could have supplied 13 million doses worth over $4 billion on U.S. streets.

The Sinaloa cartel, headed by Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, is equipped to produce and distribute drugs "for the global village," said Antonio Mazzitelli, the regional representative of the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime.

"Such large-scale production could suggest an expansion ... into Latin American and Asian markets," Mazzitelli said. But he also noted, "it may be a product that hasn't been able to be sold, and like any business, when the market is depressed, stockpiles build up."

A senior U.S. law enforcement official in Mexico said the operation raided in Jalisco was "probably Sinaloa."

The official, who could not be quoted by name for security reasons, said Sinaloa may be trying "to reduce its reliance on Colombian cocaine by flooding the market with meth."

Reporters were shown barrels of white and yellow powder that filled three rooms on a small ranch outside Guadalajara, Mexico's second-largest city.

The lot around the house, which included an empty swimming pool, was littered with metal canisters and cauldrons used in the production process. While the equipment appeared makeshift and partially dismantled during a tour of the facility given to news media, it was apparently used intensively.

There were no people found on the ranch or arrests made, although it appeared 12 to 15 people worked there.

The seizure of such a large quantity of meth is expected to have a big impact on the U.S. meth market. A pound of meth can sell for about $15,000.

"This could potentially put a huge dent in the supply chain in the U.S," said U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration spokesman Rusty Payne. "When we're taking this much out of the supply chain, it's a huge deal."

But that may not ultimately mean less meth in the U.S. Law enforcement officials in California's Central Valley, a hub of the U.S. methamphetamine distribution network, say a cutoff in the Mexican supply could mean domestic super labs will increase production.

"This will be a big seizure and will most likely slow down distribution for a short period of time until manufacturing can continue," said Robert Penal, a meth expert and former commander of California's Fresno Methamphetamine Task Force. "However, when there is an interruption in supply it is not uncommon for domestic super labs in California to start up operations to fill the void until the supply from Mexico can be restored."

Tom Farmer, director of the Tennessee Methamphetamine Task Force, believes the seizure could have a big impact in his state. Tennessee led the nation in clandestine meth lab busts in 2010 with 2,082, but the majority of meth in the state comes from Mexico.

Farmer said the Mexican meth is often made without pseudoephedrine, an ingredient commonly found in cold and allergy pills, which has been banned in Mexico and restricted in the United States. Most meth made in clandestine U.S. labs is made with pseudoephedrine, making it a more powerful high, he said.

"Meth users prefer domestic dope," Farmer said. "What they end up using is a combination of both. They'll use the local dope for special occasions, but when it comes to feeding their habit, they'll revert back to Mexican meth."

The Mexican army said troops received several anonymous tips and found the big drug stash in the township of Tlajomulco de Zuniga, near the Jalisco state capital of Guadalajara. The army statement said that "the historic seizure (is) the most important in terms of quantity of methamphetamines (seized) at one time."

The previous biggest bust announced by the army came in June 2010, when soldiers found 3.1 metric tons (3.4 tons) of pure meth in three interconnected warehouses in the central state of Queretaro, along with hundreds of tons of precursor chemicals used to make meth. A giant underground lab was also found in Sinaloa state.

Those other seizures were believed to be linked to the Sinaloa cartel.

The size of the Jalisco bust stunned Steve Preisler, an industrial chemist who wrote the book "Secrets of Methamphetamine Manufacture" and is sometimes called the father of modern meth-making.

"I have never seen quantity in that range," Preisler wrote. But he added: "The amounts of precursors they were importing would produce multi-tons of product."

Preisler was referring to the dramatic increase in seizures in Mexico of chemicals used to make methamphetamine, usually imported from countries such as China.

In December alone, Mexican authorities seized 675 tons of a key precursor chemical, methylamine, that can yield its weight in uncut meth. All of the shipments were headed for Guatemala, where the Sinaloa cartel is also active. Officials in Guatemala, meanwhile, seized 7,847 barrels of precursors in 2011, equivalent to about 1,600 tons.

The supply of methamphetamine in the United States has been growing, mainly due to its manufacture in Mexico, according to U.S. drug intelligence sources.

Between 2007 and 2009, seizures of methamphetamine by U.S. authorities along the Mexican border increased by 87 percent, according to the 2011 U.N. World Drug Report, the most recent statistics the U.N. has available.

Eighty percent of the meth caught being smuggled into the U.S. is seized at the Mexican border, according to the National Drug Intelligence Center.

Few drugs do as much widespread damage - both to users and the general public - as meth, which is highly addictive. It's produced with volatile chemicals that can lead to explosions.

Chronic use can lead to psychosis, which includes hearing voices and experiencing hallucinations. The stimulant effect of meth is up to 50 times longer than cocaine, experts say, so users stay awake for days on end, impairing cognitive function and contributing to extreme paranoia.

Users are known to lose massive amounts of weight, suffer scabs on their bodies and even lose teeth to "meth mouth" caused when saliva dries up and decay takes over.

I figured the meth demand curve would follow the path taken by crack, since both suffer from a scarcity of repeat customers.

Los Pollos.

Quote from: Iormlund on February 10, 2012, 04:00:15 PM
Los Pollos.

I think they opened for Los Lobos.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 10, 2012, 11:49:15 AM
I figured the meth demand curve would follow the path taken by crack, since both suffer from a scarcity of repeat customers.

I thought it already had.  It kind of came out of nowhere (in Alberta) around 2005 but then it actually stopped its advance, because word had gotten out about how bad that stuff was for you.

Mind you I deal with plenty of crack users all the time.

Quote from: Barrister on February 10, 2012, 04:23:37 PM


Mind you I deal with plenty of crack users all the time.

And who's fault is that?

Quote from: Razgovory on February 10, 2012, 04:26:52 PM

Quote from: Barrister on February 10, 2012, 04:23:37 PM


Mind you I deal with plenty of crack users all the time.

And who's fault is that?

:unsure:

I don't follow.

Quote from: Barrister on February 10, 2012, 04:37:02 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on February 10, 2012, 04:26:52 PM

Quote from: Barrister on February 10, 2012, 04:23:37 PM


Mind you I deal with plenty of crack users all the time.

And who's fault is that?

:unsure:

I don't follow.

I don't deal with crack users all the time.  I don't deal with them at all.  I don't think you should be Dealing, dude.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 10, 2012, 11:49:15 AM
I figured the meth demand curve would follow the path taken by crack, since both suffer from a scarcity of repeat customers.

useless anecdotes: girl i had relations with recently's mother is addicted to it, and has friends who are too. and an ex-coworker told me she was into it for about a half-year a few years ago. among the white trash (and other ethnic trash?) in the upper midwest, it's still around. 2/3 (of trash variety) that i know decently well have been on it or known people who were on it. the third did a lot of ecstasy and obviously more than a reasonable amount of weed, but i don't know the addictions of her family/friends

Crack is still around in ample supply.  I don't think crack consumption rates have changed much since the mid-90s.  I'm sure meth is much the same.

Quote from: Razgovory on February 10, 2012, 04:26:52 PM

Quote from: Barrister on February 10, 2012, 04:23:37 PM
Mind you I deal with plenty of crack users all the time.

And who's fault is that?

The CIA?

One thing that surprised me in Knoxville is that meth was pretty minor within Knox County.  Only in the real boondocks was meth popular.  In Knoxville, there was a little crack, but mostly just pills, pills, pills.  The quintessential crime was stealing your grandmother's jewelry to pawn for cash to buy little blue Roxicodones and Xanax bars.

That's what I've been hearing.  Legal prescription pills are the big thing these days.  There is still more then enough Meth Labs around though.  In fact, one Meth lab is more then enough.