Drug War Policy for Democrats

[HoverBoarder]

This is the crux of our disagreement, I think. I question whether a reasonable-sounding proposal like "legalize marijuana and eliminate the cost of policing it" considers the implicit social costs of marijuana use. Which, in my observation, are very high: disinterest in economic activity; incomplete education; underemployment; financial dependence on the government or family members; strained relationships. And I've seen plenty of examples of all five of those.

Maybe my experience observing marijuana users isn't typical, but it's all I've got to go on. No one's life is a random simple. But from what I've seen, it is too powerful and seductive a substance for most people to use judiciously. There are some who can. But I've met very few. Your mileage may vary.

Don't get me wrong, I don't entirely oppose legalization. I'm highly ambivalent about the subject. I think the status quo, where the drug is illegal but largely acceptable, is the worst of both worlds. I think they should either have strict drug laws and enforcement, or just make it legal. And in this political climate, the more revenue-friendly approach is going to win. (Next stop: online poker .)

That is definitely an understandable concern. Marijuana is not a benign drug even if it doesn't kill anybody. It can definitely cause serious personal, mental, and family problems. Those problems however don't get better by sending those people to jail, or the current situation of creating a billion dollar market for drug dealers.

When you drive people who are suffering from drug abuse underground, you reduce the amount of people that will seek treatment for their problem. And "getting stricter" only makes those problems worse. If someone already has a lack of education/employment and relationship problems from being addicted to weed, their problems will only get worse by being sent to jail.


It makes more sense on a social, safety, and health level to make marijuana legal and to require a portion of the tax proceeds be spent on treatment. The financial benefit to having marijuana legal is large, but it not by any means the only reason.

I think once people are rationally and reasonably are explained why our current laws only make them less safe, reduces the number of people who are getting treatment, perpetuates violent dealers who target kids, increases violence in our cities, and wastes billions of tax dollars, the reasoning for keeping marijuana illegal loses its legitimacy.

In order to successfully make a change in our policy, we need more people to become aware of the damage that this law is doing to them and everyone else in this country whether they use the drug or not. There needs to be a lot more public outreach that genuinely responds to people's concerns, and we also need more economic studies, safety studies, health studies, and social studies.

One of the best studies is an example of how legalization worked in the real life example of Portugal:

That's the problem making legalization so hard. Nobody know all the facts about the issue, so we go round and round. For example, how many anti legalization people know that Portugal legalized all drugs in 2000? So we have an empirical case of what happens when the drug war is ended.

THE PORTUGAL CASE

A report was done in 2011, Drug Policy in Portugal: The Benefits of Decriminalizing Drug Use August 2011:

"In 2000, the Portuguese government responded to widespread public concern over drugs by rejecting a "war on drugs" approach and instead decriminalized drug possession and use. It further rebuffed convention by placing the responsibility for decreasing drug demand as well as managing dependence under the Ministry of Health, rather than the Ministry of Justice. With this, the official response toward drug-dependent persons shifted from viewing them as criminals, to treating them as patients. ... Now, with a decade of experience, Portugal provides a valuable case study of how decriminalization coupled with evidence-based strategies can reduce drug consumption, dependence, recidivism, and HIV infection, and create safer communities for all."
http://www.soros.org/initiatives/dr...publications/drug-policy-in-portugal-20110829

"In 2001 Portugal became the first European country to officially abolish all criminal penalties for personal possession of drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine.

At the recommendation of a national commission charged with addressing Portugal's drug problem, jail time was replaced with the offer of therapy. The argument was that the fear of prison drives addicts underground and that incarceration is more expensive than treatment — so why not give drug addicts health services instead? Under Portugal's new regime, people found guilty of possessing small amounts of drugs are sent to a panel consisting of a psychologist, social worker and legal adviser for appropriate treatment (which may be refused without criminal punishment), instead of jail.

The question is, does the new policy work? At the time, critics in the poor, socially conservative and largely Catholic nation said decriminalizing drug possession would open the country to "drug tourists" and exacerbate Portugal's drug problem; the country had some of the highest levels of hard-drug use in Europe. But the recently released results of a report commissioned by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, suggest otherwise.

The Cato paper reports that between 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8% New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003, and deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half. In addition, the number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, after decriminalization, and money saved on enforcement allowed for increased funding of drug-free treatment as well.

Compared to the European Union and the U.S., Portugal's drug use numbers are impressive. Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%. Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana.

The Cato report's author, Greenwald, hews to the first point: that the data shows that decriminalization does not result in increased drug use. Since that is what concerns the public and policymakers most about decriminalization, he says, "that is the central concession that will transform the debate."
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html#ixzz1h8s8SEzP

 

[Robrob]

happens all the time. arrest. property confiscation. Sure don't smell like liberty to me. And that's all I need to figure it out.

Of course that's not how you described it in your earlier bout of hyperbole is it?

Now give me your car and your house. Now shut up and rot.

Proceeds of criminal activity are forfeitable. Doesn't matter if you bought that car or house with the proceeds from a bank robbery or from drug dealing, it's forfeitable. Drug use is a crime. It results in jail. Drug trafficking is an economic crime, it results in both jail and economic forfeitures.

Knowledge is power.

 

[case#46cw39]

growing a plant on one's own property is hardly criminal activity. A tyrant can call anything a criminal activity. And then do exactly what I said ... in both posts.

I know about forfeiture. That's why I said it.

You would think in the 21st century humanity will finally figure out that there needs to be a victim (not oneself) for there to be a crime.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

 

[Virus]

One of the best studies is an example of how legalization worked in the real life example of Portugal:

That's not legalization. That's decriminalization for small amounts.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Taking drugs is egregious and irrational.

a) Prohibition is worse.
b) What about dangerous natural highs like big wave surfing and sky diving? Would societ be better off is the goons with the guns (the State) banned these activities?
What I do with my body is my business, so long as I do no harm to non-consenting parties. And the limits you place on "harm" define the limits of State intrusion into my life. Legalize heroin.

 

[Virus]

The comparison is fatuous. When you learn how to surf or skydive you are learning a skill. This takes dedication, discipline and the overcoming of obstacles. You become better as a person as a result of learning these skills. Drug-taking is easy, instant self gratification which is undertaken by the weak and has no benefit.

 

[Democracy Simulator]

The comparison is fatuous. When you learn how to surf or skydive you are learning a skill. This takes dedication, discipline and the overcoming of obstacles. You become better as a person as a result of learning these skills. Drug-taking is easy, instant self gratification which is undertaken by the weak and has no benefit.

No. The comparison is spot on in the context of harm. You are incorrect.

You wish to prohibit behavior which you simply don't like, which is the essence of fascism.

 

[Virus]

No. The comparison is spot on in the context of harm. You are incorrect.

You wish to prohibit behavior which you simply don't like, which is the essence of fascism.

But it ignores the context of risk/benefit.

And no, prohibiting substances that cause brain damage isn't the essence of fascism.

 

[Mudcat]

The comparison is fatuous. When you learn how to surf or skydive you are learning a skill. This takes dedication, discipline and the overcoming of obstacles. You become better as a person as a result of learning these skills.

Couldn't agree with you more, though I would definitely add more in it like Martial Arts, learning to play an instrument, enrolling in college/tech school, etc.

Drug-taking is easy, instant self gratification which is undertaken by the weak and has no benefit.

This is true, too. Always thought of pot/alcohol/cigarette users were weak willed and that doing any of these was nothing more than self-gratification and served no practical purpose... but the law restricting pot is like wise impractical and wastes resources at an alarming rate and creates situations worse than what it seeks to prevent.

It causes undue strife with our neighbors and it is stupid expensive, 3 billion dollars as of today this year alone. If the figures hold we're looking at 36-40 billion dollars down the drain, this during a time when we can ill afford it.

 

[Robrob]

growing a plant on one's own property is hardly criminal activity.

It is when it's illegal. What part of that confuses you?

A tyrant can call anything a criminal activity. And then do exactly what I said ... in both posts.

Actually, your hyperbole aside in a democracy we vote on laws. It's called majority rule. No tyrant required.

I know about forfeiture. That's why I said it.

So the reason you spun it like that was...?

You would think in the 21st century humanity will finally figure out that there needs to be a victim (not oneself) for there to be a crime.

You would think grown adults with years of life experience would know that part of a government's responsibility is to protect its citizenry from themselves.

Speeding is illegal. Who is the victim there?

a) Prohibition is worse.
b) What about dangerous natural highs like big wave surfing and sky diving? Would societ be better off is the goons with the guns (the State) banned these activities?

Since dangerous drugs are not banned because of the "high" your point is, well, pointless.

What I do with my body is my business, so long as I do no harm to non-consenting parties. And the limits you place on "harm" define the limits of State intrusion into my life. Legalize heroin.

What I do with my car is my business, so long as I do no harm to non-consenting parties. And the limits you place on "harm" define the limits of State intrusion into my life. Legalize speeding in school zones.

 

[stokes234]

False equivalence.

I'd be very surprised if someone stopped her car and fell asleep in the middle of an interstate highway as a result of having eaten a happy meal.

An alcoholic co-worker actually went sober as a result of having barely survived smashing into the rear of that car while in a drunken stupor of his own. Too late for him, though. His short-term memory was already burned out. On the bright side, that was one of those miraculously fatality-free encounters between highway drunks, but don't try to make anything of it. 35% of auto fatalities involve drunks.

http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/DrivingIssues/1101913925.html

If you're of the opinion that anything that can result in loss of life if used irresponsibly should be banned, we can extrapolate that you must be in favour of banning guns, yes?

 

[bit_pattern]

What I do with my car is my business, so long as I do no harm to non-consenting parties. And the limits you place on "harm" define the limits of State intrusion into my life. Legalize speeding in school zones.

Clearly you've fundamentally missed the point of the post you are replying to. Heroin harms an individual, it's their right to choose to harm themselves. It is not an individuals right to harm others, hence laws that limit speeding in school zones. Sheeeesh

 

[Virus]

Heroin harms an individual

Tell that to the families of addicts.

 

[case#46cw39]

Tell that to the families of addicts.

If your argument made sense, then alcohol would be illegal.

Alcohol is not illegal.

=================================

Therefore: Your argument does not make sense.

 

[Mudcat]

Alcohol is not illegal

Alcohol is still illegal to purchase in some places, usually on Sunday... A fat lot of good that does.

 

[Dessi]

The comparison is fatuous. When you learn how to surf or skydive you are learning a skill. This takes dedication, discipline and the overcoming of obstacles. You become better as a person as a result of learning these skills. Drug-taking is easy, instant self gratification which is undertaken by the weak and has no benefit.

Unless you're drawing on negative stereotypes about people, I can't guess what you mean when you say recreational drug users are "weak". However, I am very confident that the view you hold about recreational drug use follows from having absolutely NO perspective on the subject.

I'm a regular cannabis user. A few years ago, I'd started using cannabis with a close friend; we had many good nights of goofy and carefree fun with movies and food. It's just a silly little treat to ourselves. The best memories I've ever had were when my friend and I smoked and played ping pong and pool, I remember watching Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs and laughing so hard I was in tears.

It sounds really stupid and immature -- but that's the point: stupid, immature fun and bonding with friends is great in own right, it has tremendous therapeutic benefit.

I can say pretty confidently that my quality of life has improved. If you knew me from several years ago, you would have seen a person who was socially isolated, emotionally flat, totally disinterested in people and things, uptight and smug and full of herself. Goofy times with friends set me on a path on personal growth, I'm quite a bit different: I became more extroverted to the point where I actually create new friendships and can physically talk to people (this the single best personal achievement in my life), quality of my mood began to go up and up and up, I became very open to new experiences, my smuggery was replaced by a cool sense of mellow and contentedness.

Would I have become the person I am now without using cannabis? Hard to say. I certainly have no regrets about all the good times, amazing lifelong memories, and great people I've met as a result.

My experience is not unique at all. Many people perceive cannabis as being a net positive in their lives.

 

[Dessi]

And no, prohibiting substances that cause brain damage isn't the essence of fascism.

For comparison: alcohol use causes liver damage, therefore it should be illegal, right? But wait, only a tiny minority of very heavy users suffer from liver damage, the rest of the population is fine. Perhaps blanket statements like "alcohol = liver damage" is oversimplified to the point of being useless in policy decisions.

Nevermind the medical consensus that cannabis use does not cause brain damage, nevermind that many studies claiming damage have severe methodological flaws. Consider that 42% of people in the US have tried marijuana, only a very tiny minority of them appears to be mentally or physically impaired as a result of brain damage of any sort. The case seems comparable to the alcohol claim above, that the negative health impact of the very heaviest users does not generalize to all users.

If there's a strong argument that cannabis does cause brain damage, this damage appears not to be life threatening nor significantly detrimental to a person's quality of life, making it extremely hard or impossible to justify an argument for criminalizing cannabis on that basis at all.

 

[case#46cw39]

If 'brain damage so illegal' makes sense, then alcohol would be illegal.

Alcohol causes brain damage (alcohol dementia), but is not illegal.

===============================

Therefore: 'Brain damage so illegal' doesn't make sense.

 

[case#46cw39]

Since dangerous drugs are not banned because of the "high" your point is, well, pointless.

[/HILITE]

Drugs are banned because they are dangerous?

If that were so then alcohol and tobacco (which are dangerous) would be banned.

They are not banned.

=========================

Therefore: Drugs are not banned because they are dangerous.

 

[Virus]

The introduction of two poisons into society does not necessitate the introduction of a third, fourth and fifth.