legalizing all drugs

[BigBallinStalin]

well I guess that if you look at it from a too liberal standpoint it wouldn't work, because the drugs market price would plumet and the drug use would probably skyrocket.
The insane margin rates comming from the drug economy should somehow end in the government's pocket, like for tobacco or petroleum.
Adam Smith's theories don't apply to all industries and there needs to be some sort of regulations.

Well, from what I've seen in Portugal and Denmark, that didn't happen. Probably because there's only so many drugs individuals wish to consume in a given time period--regardless of the price (i.e. demand is very inelastic). That's an empirical matter though, so if anyone's familiar with research on individuals' reactions to price changes of drugs, then speak up. (inb4 someone says, "THEY DECRIMINALIZED IT!@!!" Sorry, there's more to it than that explanation).

Government doesn't deserve much of your money. If they taxed everyone 10% of net income, then I would hardly mind about them taking a cut from consumer goods too. Since they don't, then they don't deserve another excuse to be irresponsible with other people's rightfully earned money.

With regulations, there's other ways (even from the government) than simply granting a monopoly to bureaucracies or privileged businesses in handing out certifications. Besides, given the abuse of opioids, it becomes apparent that even current government regulation is a "failure"--depending on one's criteria of failure. I see the abuse of prescription pills as something more systemic, and the wrong tools of government are being applied.

[_sabotage_]

I don't take Sym seriously.

Drugs will not be legalized for the reasons that Betiko presented. And because there will always be people like Sym.

Hemp is just too useful, it can clothe, feed, house and entertain a person, fuel their existence and can be grown everywhere.

Hemp can make 6000 litres of biodiesel/biofuel per acre. We can make all parts of a house out of it except wiring. Hemp oil contains all the essential amino acids that humans need in quantities that outstrip all competitors. Three companies have used hemp to make a car body, Henry Ford is seen in a 1940 video beat his hemp car several times with an axe, showing that at half the weight of steel, it was twice as strong and less brittle. It is commonly used in side panels as well.

Canada has legalized industrial hemp production, but it's the only agricultural product in Canada that requires a license. It regulates who you can buy the seeds from, which groups you must belong too, what products you can use it for, a criminal check, etc. It basically ensures that you can't make too much money from it. This is in light of the fact that French companies have created industrial hemp with 0 THC content.

Hemp can be used to make any product oil can make, meaning it can be used to produce biodegradabile plastics. It can be used in cosmetics, body care products. When you press the seeds of a hemp plant for their oil, the remaining seed is a superior feedstock, or can be used to make flour.

Hemp can be grown anywhere. It is so competitive that when hemp is grown in rotation it eliminates the need for pesticides for two years following. It aerates the soil and prevents soil erosion.

It would just compete in too many ways with our current economic model, providing people with a bottom up approach. Prisons, pharmaceuticals, fertilizers, oil, housing, food, clothing.

If you look at the base qualities of the three parts of the hemp plant, it is absurd. I would say that its existence is complementary to human existence.

Its fibre: the strongest in the world.
Its shives: highest cellulose content in the world.
Its oil: most suited human food product in the world.

In 1916 the Department of Agriculture saw hemp as the sustainable way for future growth, yet even with 0 THC level industrial hemp, we are not even considering legalizing it.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Government has no business telling me what I can put in my body. Government is not my dad.

Any other arguments are superfluous as far as I'm concerned.

[betiko]

I'm certain that if 1g of cocaine costed only 5$ people would use it much larger quantities.
Governments wouldn't have money for any anti-drug campaigns, drug addict centers, or simply reinject the money in the regular healthcare system.

If I look at tobacco though, here in france the price of a pack might have doubled in the past 10 years. does it make me smoke less? hell no. Is it the government's excuse to keep increasing the tax on it? hell yes.

[BigBallinStalin]

@sabotage:
There's a few States that are in the process of legalizing it--and a 3 or so have legalized its production, but I'd imagine the regulation is pretty tight, so that competition becomes significantly hampered for spurious reasons.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm certain that if 1g of cocaine costed only 5$ people would use it much larger quantities.
Governments wouldn't have money for any anti-drug campaigns, drug addict centers, or simply reinject the money in the regular healthcare system.

If I look at tobacco though, here in france the price of a pack might have doubled in the past 10 years. does it make me smoke less? hell no. Is it the government's excuse to keep increasing the tax on it? hell yes.

Do you really think you'd smoke 300 cigarettes in a day if the price went from $10 per pack to $1 per pack?
It depends on how different individuals value different drugs in different quantities, so a priori neither of us can say for certain what future consumption will be.

I think your concern overlooks many other benefits which may offset the increase in consumption. We may have to accept the fact that some people prefer greater quantities at lower prices, so we should either convince them to be more responsible or whatever. As long as they're not physically hurting people, I don't really mind.

And if they're "hurting themselves," then it's about time people started to seriously address the problems of addiction with more efficient means--instead of supporting this ridiculous and harmful prohibition on drugs, which results in creating more harm than good.

[_sabotage_]

There are some natural disadvantages to to the multi-use of hemp for its cellulose, fibre and oil products, ie a seed plant has a a later harvesting date and the cellulose content may be 40% instead of 70%.

But that doesn't mean that the cellulose of a seed crop should be discarded. Unfortunately, hemp is regulated to a single use product, ie if you use the seeds, you can't use the fibres. Seeds are becoming patented mainly due to THC, but also due to specialization as a single use crop.

If we look at seed data from Europe we can see:

Fiber output, % d.w.
Vegetation period, days

straw
seeds

fiber

until technical ripening
until biological ripening
1
USO-31, standard

77.9
12.8

25.7

33.0
87
110
2
Hlera
90.3
16.1
28.5
32.7
95

120
3
Hliana
76.4*
13.9*
26.0*
34.0*
85*
109*
4
Hlukhivs’ki 33
86.0
11.8
27.2
31.3
99
125
5
Zolotonis’ki 15
92.5
8.1
25.9
29.0

113
134

that I'm too lazy to redo the graphical info, and also that specialization in one product of the plant doesn't necessarily affect other aspects of it.

As for THC content:

No
Variety

Mean THC content, % d.w.
1
USO-31, standard
0.003
2
Hliana
0.003
3
Hlera
0.001
4
Hlukhivs’ki 33
0.000
5
Zolotonis’ki 15
0.000
No
Variety
Mean THC content, % d.w.
1
Fedora 17
0.047
2
Santhica 27
0.000
3
Felina 32
0.060
4
Epsilon 68
0.065
5
Santhica 70
0.000
6
Futura 75
0.055

4 strains have 0 THC, while numerous strains have negligible THC contents.

[betiko]

I'm certain that if 1g of cocaine costed only 5$ people would use it much larger quantities.
Governments wouldn't have money for any anti-drug campaigns, drug addict centers, or simply reinject the money in the regular healthcare system.

If I look at tobacco though, here in france the price of a pack might have doubled in the past 10 years. does it make me smoke less? hell no. Is it the government's excuse to keep increasing the tax on it? hell yes.

Do you really think you'd smoke 300 cigarettes in a day if the price went from $10 per pack to $1 per pack?
It depends on how different individuals value different drugs in different quantities, so a priori neither of us can say for certain what future consumption will be.

I think your concern overlooks many other benefits which may offset the increase in consumption. We may have to accept the fact that some people prefer greater quantities at lower prices, so we should either convince them to be more responsible or whatever. As long as they're not physically hurting people, I don't really mind.

And if they're "hurting themselves," then it's about time people started to seriously address the problems of addiction with more efficient means--instead of supporting this ridiculous and harmful prohibition on drugs, which results in creating more harm than good.

are you saying that people on drugs can only harm themselves?
take drugs and driving no good; take drugs and go beat wives and kids no good; take drugs and receive some "godly advice to go harm people" ect mostly if you can afford great quantities for a minimum price; take drugs while you work no good... God know all the crazy shit people do on drugs so no, this can't be a free market.

I gave the example of tobacco, and it doesn't apply because the price doesn't influence the quantities nor quality I consume (never better said). I know that people with less money like students would buy rolling cigarets because it's cheaper.

Now I know for sure that out of my entourage people would consume more weed or coke if the price was lower, and this wouldn't benefit society.

[_sabotage_]

Betiko, RAND, a US think tank, did a cost benefit analysis on fighting drugs. By far the most cost effective method was education and treatment, the least cost effective was a war on drugs. The war on drugs cost 23 times the amount for a similar outcome.

People will use drugs if we legalize it or make it illegal. As a kid in the States, it was easier to get weed that alcohol, and I only visited, I didn't know too many people there.

Keeping drugs illegal just allocates resources to all the wrong parties: drug dealers, police and weapons manufacturers. As a former dealer who did nearly 6 years in prison just for cannabis, I can say that the harm of illegal drugs is greater than that of legalizing them.

[GeneralRisk]

I doubt if drugs, with the possible exception of POT, will ever be legalized in the USA. CIA is too addicted to the monies they make in the opium and other drug trade. Since the time the US first invaded Afghanistan, opium production has increased there by 650%. US government agencies makes money arresting people for drugs by confiscating their property.and selling it. Then offenders are thrown into Government and ever increasing privately run Prisons. Inmates are paid 25 cents a hour manufacturing anything from license plates to furniture. [slave labor] It is a possibility that they may soon decriminalize much of it. Of course it depends on if and when they start coming for the guns. They will need to make some room in the Prisons because they have not yet built enough FEMA camps to handle the volume.

[betiko]

Betiko, RAND, a US think tank, did a cost benefit analysis on fighting drugs. By far the most cost effective method was education and treatment, the least cost effective was a war on drugs. The war on drugs cost 23 times the amount for a similar outcome.

People will use drugs if we legalize it or make it illegal. As a kid in the States, it was easier to get weed that alcohol, and I only visited, I didn't know too many people there.

Keeping drugs illegal just allocates resources to all the wrong parties: drug dealers, police and weapons manufacturers. As a former dealer who did nearly 6 years in prison just for cannabis, I can say that the harm of illegal drugs is greater than that of legalizing them.

dude sabotage, you don't get my point. I'm making the apology of the legalization of all drugs in this thread rather than a war on drugs. Seems like BBS s too.
What we are not agreeing on; is that for me legalizing all drugs can't ever be done in the terms of a free market and it would need to be regulated, keeping the cost rather high so that it doesn't influence quantites people can afford.
But yes, there is a flaw with my thought. There would still be drug dealers with a parallel market selling for cheaper, just like what happens with tobacco. But at least it would be way less profitable for them and they wouldn't have as much influence in the economy.

[_sabotage_]

I agree, but I am not very trusting of the government. Whereas BBS believes they are incompetent, I believe they are devious.

Opiates and Cocaine are imports to the global north. Regulation by the government just means that they can unduly tax and tariff them. Just as prescription drugs in the US come at a ridiculous cost, so would be the price of legal drugs. Many of the problems associated with drugs have three basic reasons: the high price for consumers, the quality of the drugs, and the recipients of the profits.

An addict will be an addict either way, but when the quality is uncertain, it can lead to ODs. Many of the older kids were into herion in HK, which has some of the most pure herion available, upon their return to their native lands to go to university, several ODed due to the impurities found in the herion. This is brought about by cutting the herion due to high prices. High tariffs and taxes on the product would produce the same incentive.

Addicts will likely be addicts whether it is legal or illegal. Paying ten times the price just provides them with a greater need of resources, which can lead to criminal activities. You will see a lot see robberies conducted by Bronx crackheads than Hollywood cokeheads not due to the drugs themselves, but simple due to the ability to finance the habit. By artificially increasing the price, this is not being dealt with.

The government is not very nice. I would not provide them with a cent if I could prevent it. So far their allocation of resources in regards to drugs has been abismal. I would rather have suppliers who fund third parties for treatment and education than have the government regulate.

[saxitoxin]

Government has no business telling me what I can put in my body. Government is not my dad.

Is your philosophy conditional or consistent? That is, does it only apply to people wearing tie-dye shirts named Sunchild? i.e. ...

- Do you support legalizing marijuana?

- Do you support legalizing pills made by Pfizer out of Bleach, Paint Thinner and Ginseng, sold for $1000 each and marketed as a cure for cancer?

This isn't a loaded question; I don't have an opinion either way.

Drug use would probably increase, but I'm not even sure of that.

you know you're Dutch when ... You're proud of the fact that drugs and prostitution are legal in The Netherlands. You don't do them though. http://youknowyouredutchwhen.com/

[_sabotage_]

It is a loaded question.

Haggis stated that the government has no business telling him what to do.

Bleach, paint thinner and ginseng are all readily available and if people think that the mix can cure cancer they can do it themselves at home by hitting the supermarket. Whether it is good for them or not depends on the outcome.

There hasn't been a single death recorded as a result of marijuana, there have been deaths associated with paint thinner and bleach.

Marijuana has been shown to have many medical benefits and no side effects. The US government holds the patent on medical marijuana and yet you compare it unrelated objects.

My grandfather died of skin cancer, the other of a heart attack, my biological mother died in a car accident. Yet the sun, food and cars are all legal.

[2dimes]

I think you just supported Saxi's position. There are pharmaceuticals and food additives that may be pretty harmful out there that are perfectly legal. Maybe due to economic benefits for those trusted to protect us from the same.

In the same neutral sort of way, though again I don't think the question can be posed that way.

If your Dad told you, he did not want you to use a drug you were planning on using without his knowledge on the week end, would that change your plan?

That question might make a good poll thread. For me it might now that I'm becoming enough like him to value things he tried to tell me when
I was younger. When I was younger, probably not.

[saxitoxin]

It is a loaded question.

Often people say "I support legalizing drugs" but it's really code for "I support legalizing party drugs." I'd bet heroin is more dangerous than most therapeutic medications rejected by the FDA or EMA and yet most legalization supporters are okay with those being regulated.

[_sabotage_]

It's not just my dad telling me no, it is him lying about the effects, discarding all reports to the contrary, hiring spies, hiring kidnappers, hiring legal reps and hiring prison guards to ensure that I don't do it.

A person could take a few seeds and plant them anywhere and have weed for as long as they wanted, but if they did that, surveillance units would record it, the DEA would bust in, the courts would prosecute and you would be in jail for 20 + years.

If I went to the store and bought bleach, I could drink all I want.

[_sabotage_]

You bet it is? Then why do most pharmaceuticals attempt to mimic herion or coke and patent them?

Please give me more than you bet before making one set of suppliers an institution while the other set a criminal empire.

[saxitoxin]

Then why do most pharmaceuticals attempt to mimic herion or coke and patent them?

I'm not sure that's true.

If I went to the store and bought bleach, I could drink all I want.

If you set-up a cart on Venice Beach and started selling cups of bleach under a sign called "Tasty Summertime Drink," I'm 90% certain the cops would shut you down.

[_sabotage_]

90%?

But if I set up a supermarket and sold bleach without giving it a title, anyone could buy it and do whatever they wanted with it. Or if I set up on Venice beach and sold it without a title it would be ok. And if I did the same with cannabis I would be looking at 25 years.

[jonesthecurl]

You haven't been to Venice Beach then.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm certain that if 1g of cocaine costed only 5$ people would use it much larger quantities.
Governments wouldn't have money for any anti-drug campaigns, drug addict centers, or simply reinject the money in the regular healthcare system.

If I look at tobacco though, here in france the price of a pack might have doubled in the past 10 years. does it make me smoke less? hell no. Is it the government's excuse to keep increasing the tax on it? hell yes.

Do you really think you'd smoke 300 cigarettes in a day if the price went from $10 per pack to $1 per pack?
It depends on how different individuals value different drugs in different quantities, so a priori neither of us can say for certain what future consumption will be.

I think your concern overlooks many other benefits which may offset the increase in consumption. We may have to accept the fact that some people prefer greater quantities at lower prices, so we should either convince them to be more responsible or whatever. As long as they're not physically hurting people, I don't really mind.

And if they're "hurting themselves," then it's about time people started to seriously address the problems of addiction with more efficient means--instead of supporting this ridiculous and harmful prohibition on drugs, which results in creating more harm than good.

are you saying that people on drugs can only harm themselves?
take drugs and driving no good; take drugs and go beat wives and kids no good; take drugs and receive some "godly advice to go harm people" ect mostly if you can afford great quantities for a minimum price; take drugs while you work no good... God know all the crazy shit people do on drugs so no, this can't be a free market.

I gave the example of tobacco, and it doesn't apply because the price doesn't influence the quantities nor quality I consume (never better said). I know that people with less money like students would buy rolling cigarets because it's cheaper.

Now I know for sure that out of my entourage people would consume more weed or coke if the price was lower, and this wouldn't benefit society.

If drug users are hurting people, then I have a problem with it. If they aren't hurting people--regardless of the amount they consume, then I don't really mind. It's probably bad for some of them, but like Haggis said, I'm not their dad.

The free market position doesn't advocate snorting cocaine and then beating up people, so I'm not sure how that applies to free markets.

RE: No you don't. Neither of us know how future demand will be, but the main point is that you'd still have to weight the benefits and the costs.

[saxitoxin]

90%?

But if I set up a supermarket and sold bleach without giving it a title, anyone could buy it and do whatever they wanted with it. Or if I set up on Venice beach and sold it without a title it would be ok. And if I did the same with cannabis I would be looking at 25 years.

Your arguments are all lost on me. I have no problem with all drugs being legal. I think nembutol should be sold OTC and marketed toward aspiring suiciders. There's a reason I asked Haggis and not you.

Woody Harrelson isn't serious about drug legalization. He wants the fun drugs legalized and that's where his clamoring for bodily integrity ends and his support of a police state begins.

[_sabotage_]

I have been to Venice Beach, and I have been to prison. If somehow me spending 5 years, 9 months and 21 days in prison, nearly three of which where spent in 24 hour lockdown for selling cannabis and only cannabis, made the world a better, safer place, then at least that is something I could take from it. But it didn't.

[betiko]

I have been to Venice Beach, and I have been to prison. If somehow me spending 5 years, 9 months and 21 days in prison, nearly three of which where spent in 24 hour lockdown for selling cannabis and only cannabis, made the world a better, safer place, then at least that is something I could take from it. But it didn't.

how much did they catch you with sabotage and how long had you been under surveillance before they arrested you? did you have a criminal record before that? American justice is way out of proportion...