legalizing all drugs

[Haggis_McMutton]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_dependence#Addictive_potential

[BigBallinStalin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_dependence#Addictive_potential

oh that heir-onn.

[stahrgazer]

You folks are missing a major component in this discussion. If drugs were made fully legal, then companies would be eager to give them away in order to hook young, impressionable individuals or those down and out. Once hooked, they will have a gauranteed profit stream.

That is why most of the seriously addictive drugs must be controlled... that, and in some cases the supply is limited by non-market limits. (true limits to ingredients, etc.) Drugs would not be available to people who need them to fight pain or for other legitimate medical needs, only those wanting a fix and willing to do whatever it takes to get the money.

How addictive are illegal drugs compared to caffeine, nicotine, chocolate, etc.?

If the addiction rates are similar, then I don't buy your argument.

Player may have a valid argument, except, our country has allowed the exceptions of extremely addictive nicotine and alcohol.

Nicotine is far more addictive than the drugs that were popular in the 60s (Heroin, LSD, Marijuana.) I'm not sure how it would compare to crack, meth, etc. In the 60s, there was a "clinic" near Berkeley that had an extremely high rate to detox addicts, something like a 97% success rate, but when they tried it for smoking, their success rate dropped dramatically (source, information from a then-UC/Berkeley professor, personal friend who liked to discuss that with me when I was trying to quit smoking).

Few would argue that alcohol is addictive and destructive enough to cause many of the same problems that opiates cause (just, usually, a little more slowly.) Hallucinations, dt's, personality changes, depression, nightmares, night sweats, heart failure, it's all there; PLUS with alcohol, abusers get the additional little problems of malnutrition and liver cirrhosis.

I still don't care if someone wants to rot his/her brain and bodyparts with whatever, let them. It's sad for them, but it's their business, not mine. It should only be "society's" business if they use getting their fix as an excuse to commit other crimes, then, lock them away for their crimes- but don't make what they choose to put in their bodies to be a crime.

I disagree that letting more people do what they want drug-wise would limit drug availability to those who want it, not for a high but for pain; higher demand would probably make producing those drugs more profitable so more, not less, would be available.

Hey, our government could take all the "drug war" money they spend and instead use it to start government-run drug factories/hemp farms and use the proceeds to feed the poor and pay off our national debt.

[PLAYER57832]

You folks are missing a major component in this discussion. If drugs were made fully legal, then companies would be eager to give them away in order to hook young, impressionable individuals or those down and out. Once hooked, they will have a gauranteed profit stream.

That is why most of the seriously addictive drugs must be controlled... that, and in some cases the supply is limited by non-market limits. (true limits to ingredients, etc.) Drugs would not be available to people who need them to fight pain or for other legitimate medical needs, only those wanting a fix and willing to do whatever it takes to get the money.

How addictive are illegal drugs compared to caffeine, nicotine, chocolate, etc.?

If the addiction rates are similar, then I don't buy your argument.

Player may have a valid argument, except, our country has allowed the exceptions of extremely addictive nicotine and alcohol.

Nicotine is far more addictive than the drugs that were popular in the 60s (Heroin, LSD, Marijuana.) I'm not sure how it would compare to crack, meth, etc. In the 60s, there was a "clinic" near Berkeley that had an extremely high rate to detox addicts, something like a 97% success rate, but when they tried it for smoking, their success rate dropped dramatically (source, information from a then-UC/Berkeley professor, personal friend who liked to discuss that with me when I was trying to quit smoking).

I believe your data is actually incorrect or out of date.
Before posting, I tried to find references to the addictive value of nicotine. It was not easy, but there is also a relativity there. When people speak of the addictiveness of nicotine, it is usually in reference to quitting. When they talk about it in reference to Herione and cocaine (skip the marihuana and even LSD references, though.. they operate very differently), it is more in terms of how far down someone will go to keep their addiction. its not quite just a "half full glass/half empty glass" comparison. The problem with heroine is that it is so addictive people will ignore kids, steal, literally kill themselves.. and in much more immediate and demanding fashions that cigarette smokers or other tobacco users (short note.. chewing tobacco is actually supposed to be much more addictive than cigarettes). This is not just because cigarettes are legal and available. Think of what happens when smokers are kept away from cigarettes versus drug addicts of hard drugs who are kept away from them.

Few would argue that alcohol is addictive and destructive enough to cause many of the same problems that opiates cause (just, usually, a little more slowly.) Hallucinations, dt's, personality changes, depression, nightmares, night sweats, heart failure, it's all there; PLUS with alcohol, abusers get the additional little problems of malnutrition and liver cirrhosis.

Except, unlike heroine an many other drugs, the impacts you describe only happen to some people and often only after extensive use (there is a small percentage who effectively are "born alchoholic" and who will become addicted with the first drink they take, but that is a percentage of the population).\

I still don't care if someone wants to rot his/her brain and bodyparts with whatever, let them. It's sad for them, but it's their business, not mine. It should only be "society's" business if they use getting their fix as an excuse to commit other crimes, then, lock them away for their crimes- but don't make what they choose to put in their bodies to be a crime.

This is precisely why many drugs are illegal.. because they cause people to become extreme detriments to society.
I

[Lootifer]

SH*T IS HARD

[BigBallinStalin]

The Alchian-Allen Theorem (a.k.a. Third Law of Demand)

It states that when a fixed cost is added to substitute goods, the more expensive one becomes relatively less expensive, and so people are likely to increase consumption of the higher quality good. I think the best way to illustrate the theorem is with examples.

When a drug is outlawed, people face a large fixed cost equal to the expected punishment. They not only have to pay higher money prices, but they also pay in the form of a potential prison sentence. Thus, in areas where alcohol is outlawed, people tend to drink either high concentration or high quality alcohol. It’s simply not worth the trouble to smuggle regular beer. Likewise, the THC content of marijuana has increased as more effort is spent trying to eliminate marijuana use. Paradoxically, because of the higher dosages, drug prohibition can actually increase the dangers associated with drug consumption by eliminating the low cost low concentration doses from the market.

http://azmytheconomics.wordpress.com/20 ... n-theorem/

[Haggis_McMutton]

You folks are missing a major component in this discussion. If drugs were made fully legal, then companies would be eager to give them away in order to hook young, impressionable individuals or those down and out. Once hooked, they will have a gauranteed profit stream.

That is why most of the seriously addictive drugs must be controlled... that, and in some cases the supply is limited by non-market limits. (true limits to ingredients, etc.) Drugs would not be available to people who need them to fight pain or for other legitimate medical needs, only those wanting a fix and willing to do whatever it takes to get the money.

Btw. even if this is all true, surely there are better ways to deal with these problems than banning all but a couple random drugs and declaring an incredibly stupid "drug war" on them.

[Lootifer]

The Alchian-Allen Theorem (a.k.a. Third Law of Demand)

It states that when a fixed cost is added to substitute goods, the more expensive one becomes relatively less expensive, and so people are likely to increase consumption of the higher quality good. I think the best way to illustrate the theorem is with examples.

When a drug is outlawed, people face a large fixed cost equal to the expected punishment. They not only have to pay higher money prices, but they also pay in the form of a potential prison sentence. Thus, in areas where alcohol is outlawed, people tend to drink either high concentration or high quality alcohol. It’s simply not worth the trouble to smuggle regular beer. Likewise, the THC content of marijuana has increased as more effort is spent trying to eliminate marijuana use. Paradoxically, because of the higher dosages, drug prohibition can actually increase the dangers associated with drug consumption by eliminating the low cost low concentration doses from the market.

http://azmytheconomics.wordpress.com/20 ... n-theorem/

Another good example would be illegal drug vs alcohol substitution.

Drug x (say marijuana) that is a potential substitute for booze is outlawed. Result is likely to be increased alcohol abuse. Another cost that counts on the ledger against the war on drugs/prohibition.

[stahrgazer]

This is precisely why many drugs are illegal.. because they cause people to become extreme detriments to society.

Cars can make some people extreme detriments to society, but cars aren't illegal.

It shouldn't be up to the government to dictate what someone can and cannot put into their own bodies.

The government can analyze, and warn, sure. But leave the, "this is illegal" out of it.

Then, if someone DOES choose to do crime for whatever reason, punish the crime.

I'd bet prisons would be alot less crowded if the only "criminals" were those who committed real crimes, rather than those who were in possession of a substance the government has arbitrarily decided is illegal.

(Cost Effectiveness of Prison) "Substance-involved people have come to compose a large portion of the prison population. Substance use may play a role in the commission of certain crimes: approximately 16 percent of people in state prison and 18 percent of people in federal prison reported committing their crimes to obtain money for drugs.21 Treatment delivered in the community is one of the most cost-effective ways to prevent such crimes and costs approximately $20,000 less than incarceration per person per year.22 A study by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy found that every dollar spent on drug treatment in the community yields over $18 in cost savings related to crime.23 In comparison, prisons only yield $.37 in public safety benefit per dollar spent. Releasing people to supervision and making treatment accessible is an effective way of reducing problematic drug use, reducing crime associated with drug use and reducing the number of people in prison."
Source:
Justice Policy Institute, "How to safely reduce prison populations and support people returning to their communities," (Washington, DC: June 2010), p. 8.
http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upl ... eRelease...

(US Drug Prisoners) "The United States leads the world in the number of people incarcerated in federal and state correctional facilities. There are currently more than 2 million people in American prisons or jails. Approximately one-quarter of those people held in U.S. prisons or jails have been convicted of a drug offense. The United States incarcerates more people for drug offenses than any other country. With an estimated 6.8 million Americans struggling with drug abuse or dependence, the growth of the prison population continues to be driven largely by incarceration for drug offenses."
Source:
Justice Policy Institute, "Substance Abuse Treatment and Public Safety," (Washington, DC: January 2008), p. 1.
http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upl ... _AC-PS.pdf

[PLAYER57832]

You folks are missing a major component in this discussion. If drugs were made fully legal, then companies would be eager to give them away in order to hook young, impressionable individuals or those down and out. Once hooked, they will have a gauranteed profit stream.

That is why most of the seriously addictive drugs must be controlled... that, and in some cases the supply is limited by non-market limits. (true limits to ingredients, etc.) Drugs would not be available to people who need them to fight pain or for other legitimate medical needs, only those wanting a fix and willing to do whatever it takes to get the money.

Btw. even if this is all true, surely there are better ways to deal with these problems than banning all but a couple random drugs and declaring an incredibly stupid "drug war" on them.

That is an entirely different debate.
I essentially agree, but simply legalizing everything without limits is not the answer, either.

PS did you have the source referring to relative addictive potentials of nicotene versus other drugs? I have, for example seen statistics quoted saying that nicotene is more addictive than heroine. Yet, I have worked alongside highly addicted individuals who were in situations where they could not get nicotine (boats, backcountry, etc.) and not seen the kinds of medical issues we see with heroine addicts.

[PLAYER57832]

This is precisely why many drugs are illegal.. because they cause people to become extreme detriments to society.

Cars can make some people extreme detriments to society, but cars aren't illegal.

They are strictly controlled, which is what controlled substances are.

It shouldn't be up to the government to dictate what someone can and cannot put into their own bodies.

Except hwen what they put into their bodies impacts other people very seriously. This is why there are limits to alchohol use, and to many drugs. (note, I am NOT arguing that all the limits imposed are correct or sensible.. I am saying that limits are needed).

[
The government can analyze, and warn, sure. But leave the, "this is illegal" out of it.

Then, if someone DOES choose to do crime for whatever reason, punish the crime.

There is such a thing as "an ounce of prevention". When a particular substance is heavily tied to crime, then cutting the issue at the source can be more effective than waiting until there is a victim. I absolutely agree it is a touchy issue, that in many cases this argument has been falsely used.. (marihuana, for example), but the argument is valid in some cases (heroine, perhaps).

Also, in many cases we are talking about kids using drugs. I don't think we can leave these choices up to the kdis.. or even, in most cases up to the parents. It is a soceital issue.

I'd bet prisons would be alot less crowded if the only "criminals" were those who committed real crimes, rather than those who were in possession of a substance the government has arbitrarily decided is illegal.

Depends on the drug in question. I am absolutely in favor of legalizing marihuana. Some other drugs might be worth legalizing.
On the other hand, several kids have recently died "near" here from the marihuana "alternative" K something or other.

(Cost Effectiveness of Prison) "Substance-involved people have come to compose a large portion of the prison population. Substance use may play a role in the commission of certain crimes: approximately 16 percent of people in state prison and 18 percent of people in federal prison reported committing their crimes to obtain money for drugs.21 Treatment delivered in the community is one of the most cost-effective ways to prevent such crimes and costs approximately $20,000 less than incarceration per person per year.22 A study by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy found that every dollar spent on drug treatment in the community yields over $18 in cost savings related to crime.23 In comparison, prisons only yield $.37 in public safety benefit per dollar spent. Releasing people to supervision and making treatment accessible is an effective way of reducing problematic drug use, reducing crime associated with drug use and reducing the number of people in prison." Source:
Justice Policy Institute, "How to safely reduce prison populations and support people returning to their communities," (Washington, DC: June 2010), p. 8.
http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upl ... eRelease...

Treatment does not mean legalization. I am absolutely in favor of better treatment and education options. I just think that for some drugs the penalty bit has to be included.

[(US Drug Prisoners) "The United States leads the world in the number of people incarcerated in federal and state correctional facilities. There are currently more than 2 million people in American prisons or jails. Approximately one-quarter of those people held in U.S. prisons or jails have been convicted of a drug offense. The United States incarcerates more people for drug offenses than any other country. With an estimated 6.8 million Americans struggling with drug abuse or dependence, the growth of the prison population continues to be driven largely by incarceration for drug offenses."
Source:
Justice Policy Institute, "Substance Abuse Treatment and Public Safety," (Washington, DC: January 2008), p. 1.
http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upl ... _AC-PS.pdf

[/quote]
The problem with this is that everything is included.. marihuana is calculated right along side meth and heroine. In some cases, alchohol related offenses are included as well. (note sure if it is in this case or not). When you parse the data out, you get a different picture.

The "one-size fits all" approach we have to all crime is a problem in and of itself, but again.. I am not saying our current system is great, I am saying that legalizing everything is not the answer.

[stahrgazer]

Except hwen what they put into their bodies impacts other people very seriously. This is why there are limits to alchohol use, and to many drugs. (note, I am NOT arguing that all the limits imposed are correct or sensible.. I am saying that limits are needed).

The simple act of drinking, or smoking, or whatever, does not impact anyone else.

How it reacts in one's system should not be an excuse for crime, and how it may react in *your* system shouldn't limit what I can or cannot do.

There are no limits at all to alcohol use, you see. None. Not even an alcoholic is committing "a crime" if he or she drinks. (They tried, once, it was called Prohibition and it caused more crimes with bootleg stuff and more deaths with the gang wars - and so does the 'drug war' cause more crimes with bootleg stuff and more deaths with the gang wars.)

So now, "they" merely say, "don't drink and drive." Actually, you can even drink and drive, as long as you don't exceed some limit that changes state to state. Fine. Don't use and drive works for me, or don't exceed some limit that they might set.

Meanwhile, don't get all abusive is a "law" whether one drinks, drugs, or not. Don't steal is a law whether one drinks, drugs, or not.

But there is absolutely no LAW against someone drinking as much as he or she wishes, on their own time; regardless what it does to their bodies.

Similarly, there should be no LAW against someone using whatever as much as he or she wishes, on their own time; regardless what it does to their bodies.

Diabetics aren't prohibited from eating sugar and other "dangerous for them" carbs. It's SUGGESTED that they "don't do that," and that's fine. And that's how it should be about drugs. SUGGEST "don't" all they want - it shouldn't be a crime to do it anyway. Even if it kills them.

And if the commit some real crime to get a fix? THEN nail 'em.

[DoomYoshi]

I just read another great article on this topic:
http://thehumanist.org/march-april-2013/prohibition-humanism/

Some good quotes:

One example of a largely unopposed, overly harsh drug law in the United States is the Higher Education Act’s Aid Elimination Penalty, which states that any individual with a misdemeanor drug offense is to be barred from receiving federal financial aid to attend college. Because of the provision, hundreds of thousands of promising students have been forced to drop out of college because of minor, nonviolent drug offenses. The penalty was introduced in 1998 by Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN), a ... this moral crusader left office in 2010 after admitting to an affair with a staffer, lamenting in his resignation speech that he had “sinned against God.”

the Office of National Drug Control Policy estimates that this so-called war cost the U.S. federal government $15 billion, and state governments another $25 billion. Incarceration costs alone can be staggering. In 2011 the State of California spent $45,006 per inmate and approximately 31 percent of all California inmates were booked on drug offenses. To put that into perspective, the state spent $8,667 per college student in the same year. Because of the war on drugs’ mandatory minimum sentencing laws, Americans now comprise 4.4 percent of the world’s population, but 23.4 percent of its prison population.

A 1929 pamphlet distributed by the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment estimated that the total loss of federal tax revenues was $861 million, the equivalent of $108 billion dollars today.

Most anthropologists agree that human drug consumption predates human civilization.

As odd as it might seem, this suggests that humans are actually hardwired to enjoy drug consumption.

Interestingly, the findings of a forty-year-long study funded by the British government paralleled this hypothesis, and found that “very bright” individuals with IQs above 125 were about twice as likely to have tried psychoactive drugs than “very dull” individuals with IQs below 75. As Kanazawa explains, “Intelligent people don’t always do the ‘right’ thing, only the evolutionarily novel thing.”

Schedule-I drugs are generally regarded as the most dangerous, and are classified by the following criteria:

The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

Marijuana still remains on the Schedule-I list despite countless studies showing it to be non-addictive, safe for personal consumption, and to have valuable medicinal properties. Other drugs currently labeled as Schedule-I have also shown promising medical value even though their recreational use can be dangerous. MDMA (the primary ingredient in “ecstasy”) has been proven to be an effective means of treating Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. LSD (“acid”) and psilocybin (or psychedelic mushrooms) have shown potential for use in the treatment of certain psychiatric ailments. Ibogaine (a hallucinogen with psychedelic and dissociative properties) has been proven to cure heroin addiction, and GHB (gamma hydroxybutyrate, a recreational depressant also used as a date-rape drug) is commonly used outside of the United States in the treatment of narcolepsy.

[PLAYER57832]

Except hwen what they put into their bodies impacts other people very seriously. This is why there are limits to alchohol use, and to many drugs. (note, I am NOT arguing that all the limits imposed are correct or sensible.. I am saying that limits are needed).

The simple act of drinking, or smoking, or whatever, does not impact anyone else.

There you go, mixing in drinking and smoking when I already specifically said those operated in different manners.

You started with a decent argument, but now you are going to the "one size penalty doesn't fit all"... "so let's just jump to no regulation". My whole point is that is a false choice, a choice that has been made becuase it suited some interests, but not because it was the biologically, medically or socially best choice (make that set of choices).

How it reacts in one's system should not be an excuse for crime, and how it may react in *your* system shouldn't limit what I can or cannot do.

Again, you are picking your data. I am being specific. A LOT of people can drink alchohol sensibly with almost no effects. Far fewer people can smoke cigarettes. Essentially no one is able to do heroine outside of very controlled situations without very ill effects. The impacts are so serious that its way too easy for people with alterier motives to give it to someone, even without their knowledge or awareness and then have their lives forever changed as a result.

Look at how many people are now addicted to nicotine and how much evidence there is that this was at least in part a situation intentionally created in order to generate profits for some big companies. Look at how the data was even manipulated for years. Individual people just don't have the power or knowlede to combat all that in a supposedly "open and free" market. Freedom is only real when the information presented is required to be honest and real.

Alchohol, marihuana can be used "casually", for "entertanment" or whatever. LSD likely can be, as can some other substances (not getting into the entire littany here).

There are no limits at all to alcohol use, you see. None. Not even an alcoholic is committing "a crime" if he or she drinks. (They tried, once, it was called Prohibition and it caused more crimes with bootleg stuff and more deaths with the gang wars - and so does the 'drug war' cause more crimes with bootleg stuff and more deaths with the gang wars.)

Again, you are ignoring what I said and going on with your own debate. There is a big difference between Heroine and its addictive potential and alchohol. Some have argued even Cocaine is not as addictive as is thought. That may or may not be true, but what I am saying is that the addiction potential is what should decide the law.

So now, "they" merely say, "don't drink and drive." Actually, you can even drink and drive, as long as you don't exceed some limit that changes state to state. Fine. Don't use and drive works for me, or don't exceed some limit that they might set.

Meanwhile, don't get all abusive is a "law" whether one drinks, drugs, or not. Don't steal is a law whether one drinks, drugs, or not.

But there is absolutely no LAW against someone drinking as much as he or she wishes, on their own time; regardless what it does to their bodies.

Again, you are arguing your own point, not mine.

Similarly, there should be no LAW against someone using whatever as much as he or she wishes, on their own time; regardless what it does to their bodies.

Addiction is not something people can control. The problem is that heavy addiction is, to some, nothing more than a great marketing tool.. even if it winds up killing people.

Diabetics aren't prohibited from eating sugar and other "dangerous for them" carbs. It's SUGGESTED that they "don't do that," and that's fine. And that's how it should be about drugs. SUGGEST "don't" all they want - it shouldn't be a crime to do it anyway. Even if it kills them.

Diabetics don't harm other people. There is no direct link between having diabetes and getting into theft and prostitution... unless you count the need to pay for healthcare when they get turned down from insurance.

[Haggis_McMutton]

You folks are missing a major component in this discussion. If drugs were made fully legal, then companies would be eager to give them away in order to hook young, impressionable individuals or those down and out. Once hooked, they will have a gauranteed profit stream.

That is why most of the seriously addictive drugs must be controlled... that, and in some cases the supply is limited by non-market limits. (true limits to ingredients, etc.) Drugs would not be available to people who need them to fight pain or for other legitimate medical needs, only those wanting a fix and willing to do whatever it takes to get the money.

Btw. even if this is all true, surely there are better ways to deal with these problems than banning all but a couple random drugs and declaring an incredibly stupid "drug war" on them.

That is an entirely different debate.
I essentially agree, but simply legalizing everything without limits is not the answer, either.

PS did you have the source referring to relative addictive potentials of nicotene versus other drugs? I have, for example seen statistics quoted saying that nicotene is more addictive than heroine. Yet, I have worked alongside highly addicted individuals who were in situations where they could not get nicotine (boats, backcountry, etc.) and not seen the kinds of medical issues we see with heroine addicts.

No, the link I posted has heroin as the most addictive in all categories. Nicotine is #3 though and the difference between nicotine and cocaine (#2) isn't very big.

Anyway, I realise that it's inherent in the debating process for people to accentuate the differences between their opinions but sometimes I get tired of that. We seem to both agree about the direction in which legislation should move (i.e. more permissive) though perhaps we disagree about exactly how permissive it should be.

I don't have time to read this whole thread. Did you clarify exactly what your position is somewhere? Can you link that? Do you agree that stuff like marijuana, shrooms, LSD which have basically no physical addiction should be legal ?