Decriminilization of illicit drugs??

[Gnostic]

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...ilure-that-bred-criminals-20120402-1w8v3.html

Arguments for:-

1. Alcohol has by far the greatest impact on society and it is legal and Tax
2. Likewise Tobacco's health effects are widely acknowledged yet it is available for a price legally.
3. A "Harm minimisation" approach will not stigmatize or criminalise those who chose to partake, and those who want help will be able to seek it easier ala AA or anti-smoking programs.
4. The Criminal Element controlling the drug trade world wide has in some cases greater resources than the state to get around the law and its enforcers.
5. "The War" has failed.

To debunk the above arguments:-
1. Alcohol being legal has made its use throughout society much more pervasive than illicit drugs. The loosening of the opening hours of our drinking establishments and all night bottle shops has seen the length of drinking sessions and amount drunk increase markedly. The social impacts are massive for alcohol which has relatively short lived effects of the CNS of its users and those users who are not addicts (which tends to be significantly less as a percentage than for illicit substances), then return to normal functionality after the hangover has passed, what will be the effects long term for society if we see a rise in use and volume on illicit substances because they are condoned by society?

2. The health effects of tobacco and to a lesser extent alcohol (as long as the idiots do not get behind the controls of machinery) are restricted to the user. Consider the effects of a user having a psychotic event due to the effects of an illicit substance and the impacts that will have on all around them and the infrastructure costs as medical facilities etc must deal with the incident.

3. Anybody seen the statistics that have shown an increase in female smoking rates in the late teen early 20 ages group? There is no/little stigma attached to drug use in the social circles that most users currently reside in. Do people really think that usage rate will not rise if purity is guarenteed and, criminality removed and price controlled to remove the cartels?
As I now rarely drink alcohol I feel stigmatized when I go to functions and do not drink yet am not driving.

4/5. This is rubbish. Some of the cartels do indeed have huge resources but to suggest they could stand toe to toe with the state is silly. The term "War" is misleading. In a war there is only one winner and many losers along the way, and the winning state/individual will use all and any means at their disposal to ensure they win. At no stage have the state/s used all the tools available to them to win the "war" in fact on many occasions the "insurgents" are allowed to walk free on technicalities with their production infrastructure intact even though they have never had legitimate financial means to accumulate the wealth necessary for their assets. Indeed even when fighting a real war such as in Afghanistan the Allies do not destroy the drug production infrastructure they regularly come across.

Others will also use the Corruption of Police Forces etc as an argument for legalisation, but such corruption is a fact of life and a sure fire way to tell if a system is working is that it is catching and prosecuting corrupt individuals in its ranks. If at any stage somebody in authority tells you that no person in their organisation is corrupt be very worried.

My final argument against decriminalisation is the financial/productive impact. Most (not all) illicit drugs have massive impacts on the ability of the user to be productive in any meaningful way. The longer the usage the greater the impact. Given the issues I outlined briefly above with the likely increase in usage how do we as a society pay and support these non-productive people. I resent now paying endless dole payments and medical support to parasites that have never and will never contribute to society except by breeding and ensuring generational continuance. If the Government does move down this path yet restricts government payments in a "Intervention" style move so that Government support payments cannot be used to support a drug habit then the crime associated with drug use will not lessen.

 

[Sully]

Got to agree gnostic. Actually alcohol and tobacco slipped into general usage before public health standards were introduced. Imagine bringing either product to market today. You'd have no chance.


Sent using Tapatalk on a very old phone

 

[Inside Shoulder]

when tobacco is taxed out of mainstream existence will it go underground? I know there is already a black market in cigarettes (particularly in New jersey judging by the sopranos) but we must be reaching a point in this country where organised crime sees an opportunity.
It is only when we reach that point that we will have a rough yardstick by which to directly evaluate the effect of legalisation or decriminalisation of previously banned drugs.
Its hard to see that involving the government in taking the money that presently goes to dealer/importers etc will change things much.

 

[suckerforred]

when tobacco is taxed out of mainstream existence will it go underground? I know there is already a black market in cigarettes (particularly in New jersey judging by the sopranos) but we must be reaching a point in this country where organised crime sees an opportunity.
.

In OZ it is called chop-chop.

 

[Schadenfreude]

Criminalization effectively means that for smoking a bit of weed, you can be jailed - and potentially have your career ruined - for doing something 30% of the country has done at one time or other.

What purpose does that serve?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I don't know - do the cops ever bust anyone unless they give them the sh1ts?
I don't think marijuana is the real issue, is it: my impression was this was about heroin and maybe crack and ice.
On the other hand i have seen plenty of people who have been ruined by mary jane.

 

[Karl]

For Pot, "Personal Use" should be decriminalised - but it should not be Legalised either. Thats when you have all the issues with having much greater ease of access and correspondingly higher useage and the headache that goes with trying to regulate quality and consistency for a product of this nature etc. You'd still get fined for doing it, but no jail time and no criminal record. The Law and the Cops should treat supply and distribution exactly the same as they do now - all criminal activities.

 

[Schadenfreude]

Karl - I agree, but then there will need to be a line drawn somewhere.

 

[Gnostic]

Criminalization effectively means that for smoking a bit of weed, you can be jailed - and potentially have your career ruined - for doing something 30% of the country has done at one time or other.

What purpose does that serve?

Get the statistics for penalties of possession of Cannabis or any other drug for that matter for "personal" use. The fact is that very very few people have been given a term of imprisonment of any discription in the last 20 years for possession. FFS most of those charged with Supplying drugs do not get a custodial sentence, which isn't surprising given the state's former top prosecutor has always been on the de-criminalising pathway. (Just as an aside I always found it totaly inappropriate that he expressed his personal beliefs on subjects like this whilst in this office. He was not an elected politican to make such comments, he was APPOINTED to enforce and prosecute the laws as enacted by parliament. If he didn't like them, which was patently obvious he should have resigned and gone back to being a defence barrister.)


This comes under Paragraph 5 - the weapons of the state were never really deployed in the "war" as fifth colunmists circumvented the deployment.

Now I do actually believe that Cannabis Possession is small clearly defined amounts should amount to a on the spot fine, similar to a traffic ticket (this is not decriminalisation but a change in focus and administration), but consider also the need for mandatory Drug Counselling sessions for those intercepted. I say this simply because it has been very well established that Cannabis is a pathway drug for significantly more serious drug addiction and IF underlying mental health issues are a causitive factor of the use in the first place this is the ideal stage at which to identify and address it before the progression to other "harder" substances.

It should be noted also that I do not prescribe to the view that Cannabis is a "soft" drug. It is not, many studies have demonstrated that it has profound long lasting effects on the user. What many seem to forget is the home grown dop of the 60-80s has been replaced by genetically modified strains wih significantly higher THC levels (sometimes over 50-100 times higher if I remember correctly). I used the term "harder" above because for drugs like ICE and oter new designer Amphetamines the impacts and consequences can be immediate and permenant or at least extremely difficult to reverse.

 

[Schadenfreude]

Yes.

So if no-one thinks its a good idea - why are the laws still on the books?

So police/prosecutors can blackmail people?

 

[Bowside]

From my experience with drugs and drug users:
- people who become addicted to drugs are predisposed to become addicted (I don't know if this is scientific theory or not - but I believe it to be true from experience)
- obviously not everyone who does drugs gets addicted to them
- weed is a gateway to some, but not to every drug and not for everyone
- drug education is poorly thought out

I have tried a few things in my time (would never touch anything truly nasty like heroin, meth, acid), in every case I did it a few times, said to myself, "right that was a bit of fun", and moved on with my life. I enjoyed it but I dont ever feel the need to do it again - and if it was offered I would probably turn it down due to other commitments.

I am in favour of the legalisation, regulation, sale and taxation of SOME drugs. I think if you want you should be able to register as an 'addict' - which disqualifies you from driving, operating heavy machinery, working on construction site's etc.. From there you can go to a pharmacist, pay them far too much money, receive drugs and then inject them in-front of the pharmacist (to make sure you are not giving them to others). I would have slightly more relaxed laws for cannabis.

No one receiving the 'common' forms of welfare (unemployment benefits, single parent, etc.) would be able to register to buy drugs.

Admittedly the system I just described has many holes in it but it would be some sort of starting point from which I would work with if I was making the law.

I think the in my case personally the idea of doing something illegal was defiantly what drew me into experimenting with drugs - and if we can have a society that views drugs in a different way less people will do them.

 

[Bowside]

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...ilure-that-bred-criminals-20120402-1w8v3.html

Arguments for:-

1. Alcohol has by far the greatest impact on society and it is legal and Tax
2. Likewise Tobacco's health effects are widely acknowledged yet it is available for a price legally.
3. A "Harm minimisation" approach will not stigmatize or criminalise those who chose to partake, and those who want help will be able to seek it easier ala AA or anti-smoking programs.
4. The Criminal Element controlling the drug trade world wide has in some cases greater resources than the state to get around the law and its enforcers.
5. "The War" has failed.

To debunk the above arguments:-
1. Alcohol being legal has made its use throughout society much more pervasive than illicit drugs. The loosening of the opening hours of our drinking establishments and all night bottle shops has seen the length of drinking sessions and amount drunk increase markedly. The social impacts are massive for alcohol which has relatively short lived effects of the CNS of its users and those users who are not addicts (which tends to be significantly less as a percentage than for illicit substances), then return to normal functionality after the hangover has passed, what will be the effects long term for society if we see a rise in use and volume on illicit substances because they are condoned by society?

2. The health effects of tobacco and to a lesser extent alcohol (as long as the idiots do not get behind the controls of machinery) are restricted to the user. Consider the effects of a user having a psychotic event due to the effects of an illicit substance and the impacts that will have on all around them and the infrastructure costs as medical facilities etc must deal with the incident.

3. Anybody seen the statistics that have shown an increase in female smoking rates in the late teen early 20 ages group? There is no/little stigma attached to drug use in the social circles that most users currently reside in. Do people really think that usage rate will not rise if purity is guarenteed and, criminality removed and price controlled to remove the cartels?
As I now rarely drink alcohol I feel stigmatized when I go to functions and do not drink yet am not driving.

4/5. This is rubbish. Some of the cartels do indeed have huge resources but to suggest they could stand toe to toe with the state is silly. The term "War" is misleading. In a war there is only one winner and many losers along the way, and the winning state/individual will use all and any means at their disposal to ensure they win. At no stage have the state/s used all the tools available to them to win the "war" in fact on many occasions the "insurgents" are allowed to walk free on technicalities with their production infrastructure intact even though they have never had legitimate financial means to accumulate the wealth necessary for their assets. Indeed even when fighting a real war such as in Afghanistan the Allies do not destroy the drug production infrastructure they regularly come across.

Others will also use the Corruption of Police Forces etc as an argument for legalisation, but such corruption is a fact of life and a sure fire way to tell if a system is working is that it is catching and prosecuting corrupt individuals in its ranks. If at any stage somebody in authority tells you that no person in their organisation is corrupt be very worried.

My final argument against decriminalisation is the financial/productive impact. Most (not all) illicit drugs have massive impacts on the ability of the user to be productive in any meaningful way. The longer the usage the greater the impact. Given the issues I outlined briefly above with the likely increase in usage how do we as a society pay and support these non-productive people. I resent now paying endless dole payments and medical support to parasites that have never and will never contribute to society except by breeding and ensuring generational continuance. If the Government does move down this path yet restricts government payments in a "Intervention" style move so that Government support payments cannot be used to support a drug habit then the crime associated with drug use will not lessen.

To rebute somewhat your arguments:

1. I do agree that alcohols use is more pervasive. However I feel your point about users who are not addicted is made with somewhat flawed logic. There are a lower number of addicts as a proportion of drinkers compared to drug users simply because those who don't get addicted to drugs normally just stop using them after a period. Furthermore, the definition of addiction is somewhat different - if I did drugs as often as I drink I would consider myself a drug addict, or at least somewhat addicted. I dont at all feel addicted to alcohol - I could not (and have not at times) drink for months at a time and it wouldn't affect me what so ever.

I would also make the point that in countries where drug's have been legalised (portugal is the notable example) the rates of use fell rather than rose as you insinuate they would. Just because something is legal does not mean it is condoned by society - smoking is not at all condoned.

Furthermore, I believe the 'binge-drinking' problem is australia is more down to the fact that it is so expensive to buy alcohol at a bar/nightclub that people instead buy their own from the store and drink before they go out - meaning they feel the need to get more drunk to compensate for not drinking later. We also glorify alcohol use, and confine it to establishments. I believe if you could drink in public there would be far less 'glorification' of alcohol in our society.

2. The affects of alcohol are not restricted to the user. The users family also feels them, as do the people who end up in hospital every weekend due to being bashed by drunk blokes.

3. There is a drug culture stigma. Cannabis use has it's own whole subculture, there is a part of the film industry that survives purely by making films about stoned dudes doing funny shit. Some drug use is glorified, and from experience very rarely lives upto expectations. The reality is drugs are not at all glorious, they are risky and dangerous, and the sooner people find that out the sooner they will stop using them.

4/5. When you think about the amount of drugs there actually are floating around you realise that even if the state is not 'losing' the drug 'war', they are certainly not winning it. The state can spend a lot of money reducing the supply of drugs - but at the end of the day if there is a market for drugs - there will be drugs, regardless of what the police do.

I do agree that police corruption is a fact of life - therefore if you are looking to reduce it would the smart thing not be to reduce the scope for corruption within the police force?

I also agree that un-productive people are a drain on society - hence why I made for provision for them in my above plan. But you have to also understand that not everyone on benefits 'are parasites that have never and will never contribute to society except by breeding and ensuring generational continuance'. And you also again make the assumption that legalisation will lead to long term increases in drug use.

 

[Bowside]

 

[Nusadan]

I should add one thing to the above, the Government can produce certain drugs such as marijuana and strictly control distribution and sale of same and at the same time fill its Treasury coffers and help the farmers etc, (Economics 101 for you)...and as Bowside above points out, the social stigma of taking drugs would see them being taken up a lot less than most would fear it would be the case...

I look at my teen kids' friends and I have hardly seen any of them smoke cigarettes...the social cachet has much lessened, and with decriminalisation and legal sale of drugs, it will happen also.

Furthermore, legally sold drugs are undoubtedly safer to use than those sold in the 'black market' where all sorts of dangerous additives are used in the production and distribution of drugs.

Put it simply, pick the lesser of two evils!

 

[Gnostic]

To rebute somewhat your arguments:

1. I do agree that alcohols use is more pervasive. However I feel your point about users who are not addicted is made with somewhat flawed logic. There are a lower number of addicts as a proportion of drinkers compared to drug users simply because those who don't get addicted to drugs normally just stop using them after a period. Furthermore, the definition of addiction is somewhat different - if I did drugs as often as I drink I would consider myself a drug addict, or at least somewhat addicted. I dont at all feel addicted to alcohol - I could not (and have not at times) drink for months at a time and it wouldn't affect me what so ever.

I would also make the point that in countries where drug's have been legalised (portugal is the notable example) the rates of use fell rather than rose as you insinuate they would. Just because something is legal does not mean it is condoned by society - smoking is not at all condoned.

Furthermore, I believe the 'binge-drinking' problem is australia is more down to the fact that it is so expensive to buy alcohol at a bar/nightclub that people instead buy their own from the store and drink before they go out - meaning they feel the need to get more drunk to compensate for not drinking later. We also glorify alcohol use, and confine it to establishments. I believe if you could drink in public there would be far less 'glorification' of alcohol in our society.

2. The affects of alcohol are not restricted to the user. The users family also feels them, as do the people who end up in hospital every weekend due to being bashed by drunk blokes.

3. There is a drug culture stigma. Cannabis use has it's own whole subculture, there is a part of the film industry that survives purely by making films about stoned dudes doing funny shit. Some drug use is glorified, and from experience very rarely lives upto expectations. The reality is drugs are not at all glorious, they are risky and dangerous, and the sooner people find that out the sooner they will stop using them.

4/5. When you think about the amount of drugs there actually are floating around you realise that even if the state is not 'losing' the drug 'war', they are certainly not winning it. The state can spend a lot of money reducing the supply of drugs - but at the end of the day if there is a market for drugs - there will be drugs, regardless of what the police do.

I do agree that police corruption is a fact of life - therefore if you are looking to reduce it would the smart thing not be to reduce the scope for corruption within the police force?

I also agree that un-productive people are a drain on society - hence why I made for provision for them in my above plan. But you have to also understand that not everyone on benefits 'are parasites that have never and will never contribute to society except by breeding and ensuring generational continuance'. And you also again make the assumption that legalisation will lead to long term increases in drug use.

Bowside you really need to read what I posted again. Nothing you have said is a rebuttal, and you have missed the point my comments regarding alcohol . That is alcohol has massive immediate effects socially and individually, as Sully said if it was brought to market now there is a big question mark whether you would be allowed to sell it. The point of difference is the relative short lived effects of the drug PHYSIOLOGICALLY. Alcohol is eliminated relatively quickly and has few long term (unless abuse is regular and long term) physiological effects. Essentially the user after a binge recovers and returns to productive life with comparatively small odds of becoming addicted. When compared to illicit substances the potential for significant long term and possibly permanent physiological and psychological effects is significantly higher than that for alcohol, and then hence the risk to society that a formerly productive member of society will have reduced in negative productivity. To costs to an individual and on a social basis are therefore much higher for illicit substances.

The discovery channel has done a very good series on the long terms effects of various illicit substances on users in which they follow users and have them perform tasks before and after their drug use. It is extremely interesting and confronting, and very effectively destroys some myths surrounding effects of various drugs "Your Body on Drugs - hosted by Robin Williams"

http://curiosity.discovery.com/topic/neuroscience/your-body-on-drugs-episode.htm

Legallising drugs will not lessening the scope for corruption in the Police Force or anywhere else. People prone to corruption will still find ways to be corrupt and reduction to a minimal level relies not on lowering opportunity in narrow areas but on selection of the correct people to enter those positions in the first place. This is based simply on the fact that as one's level of power increases so does the scope for abuse of that power. Drug related corruption is a very small portion of corrupt activity, even though it is perhaps the most widely publicized so removing that single opportunity will not do anything to address the underlying issues. Hence my comment previously, build a strong system to catch and prosecute the corrupt and ensure that only those individuals resistant to corrupt activities are selected in the first place. This was a driving factor behind the changes put in place in NSW after the Wood Royal commission - the theory was sound whether the implementation was is a debate for another day.

 

[Bowside]

I watched a few of the videos you linked but couldn't get the full episodes so the clips sort of lacked context.

I am not even going to try and deny that consistent, long term drug abuse has negative affects on people and makes them less productive - but so does long term alcohol use, so does smoking tobacco; heck I at times I can hardly concentrate without having a coffee - which is also a drug.

To me drug legalisation is a trade off. On the one hand it will save money on policing, generate taxation revenue, make the drugs safer, make cartels obsolete, hopefully reduce the usage rates of hard drugs like it did in portugal (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html). It would also mean more drug research and the possibility of gains in healthcare.

On the other hand, some people will get addicted and as you say, cause them long term physiological and psychological effects, which if left untreated will lead to them ceasing to be productive members of society.

But I think you overestimate the change that legalisation will have on rates of use. I mean currently we have a situation where, although drugs are illegal - they are not hard to source. The very fact that there is a market for them is evidence that if people want to use drugs they will do it regardless of the legalities - it is similar to alcohol use during prohibition. Furthermore, by legalising the drug the government can regulate who takes them - making it easier to offer treatment to addicts

 

[Cave Dweller]

Pot is not a man made drug. But it still has a narcotic effect that deprives you from some senses. Alcohol is legal but one or two sips, glass depends on the person does not affect you like a drug would.

Cigarettes although addictive does not have a narcotic effect that effect your senses like a drug would. Drugs bhang, hashish, and marijuana contain as their principal component narcotic resins found mostly in the glandular hairs of the plants and are pure plants from nature.

But alcohol and Cannabis have the same intoxication effects which does makes one wonder why one is legal the other considered like the devil. I think if you look at that answer it is all about controll and quality. No I am not talking about quality of pot (IMO hydrophonix) but consumers would buy a thing not knowing what they are getting. Like buying meat from from a bloke on the street or the back of a van. You do not know where it came from or what is wrong with it. They could have thrown any substance together with it no one knows. But alcohol there is regulations and control to what is exactly in it. You know there won't be a surprise like kitty litter in your beer or glass of Jim Bean. It is hard to imagine buying alcohol without knowing its potency or even whether it has been adulterated with some more dangerous substance but this is the gray area concerning Cannabis

 

[Langthorne]

Interesting thread. I think Gnostic has covered the pros and cons very well.

Education and treatment need to be the two main areas of focus, whether illicit drugs are legal or not.

For me the downside to making the current list of illicit drugs legal is that it sends a message that these things are now ok. It is hard to educate to the contrary in that situation.

The upside to making them legal, and absolutely flooding the market with cheap top quality drugs, is that drug cartels will be ruined.The question is whether we are prepared to sacrifice a few young lives for this big gain. There are plenty of precedents for this in our society. There are even precedents for sacrificing young lives for little or no gain.

On alcohol, prohibition did not completely stop people drinking, but it did limit the availability and use of alcohol, and therefore also reduced the overall total damage that alcohol caused.

 

[Cave Dweller]

It will not always work that way. If you think if you need to add control, taxes production and regulation costs to it it will cost more than buying it from the guy on the corner who is selling it tax free. If you look at simple legal pills cost more than cannabis. More people use cannabis but the hard narcotics which is man made chemical drugs cost more per grams is where the trend is and where they make their money in the modern world.

 

[MrTimms]

People prone to corruption will still find ways to be corrupt...
<snip>
...Hence my comment previously, build a strong system to catch and prosecute the corrupt and ensure that only those individuals resistant to corrupt activities are selected in the first place.

On the other hand, some people will get addicted and as you say, cause them long term physiological and psychological effects, which if left untreated will lead to them ceasing to be productive members of society.

Don't you think the people who are prone to addiction will still find way to be addicted?

I have a brother who has wasted quite a lot of his life to pot, and hocked quite a lot of mine and my family stuff in the process, but I don't blame the pot. He did it all. People aren't hopeless victims of these substances that have the ability (yes, some less than others) to make different decisions.

Why should I be made a criminal just because my wife and I, or some friends and I, wish to partake in the odd reefer for a bit of a laugh and some good times. We are responsible adults who wouldn't become addicts or suddenly say "This shit ain't cutting it, I might have a crack at crack". Criminal record is far to harsh for that.