DEA: Alcohol Prohibition Worked Back In The 1920's

[Chucktshoes]

So you think that the violence will stop? Are the drugs going to be free? Of course they aren’t. Are the cartels in other countries and the street gangs here going to disappear quietly into the night, or are you saying they will clean up their act and open retail stores and become productive citizens?

When was the last time that you heard about Miller Brewing Co. and Anheiser Busch having a shoot out over distribution routes? Edited June 24, 2012 by Chucktshoes

[DaveTN]

When was the last time that you heard about Miller Brewing Co. and Anheiser Busch having a shoot out over distribution routes?

I’m not talking about the violence over drug territories; I’m asking if you think burglars and armed robbers will stop breaking into houses, robbing people and stealing your stuff to get money to buy drugs? Or are you going to make the drugs free? They commit violent crimes to get money for alcohol; it’s legal. Cigarettes are the most shop lifted item in this country; they are legal. I’m asking what you think will happen when you add methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, and oxycodone to the mix?

There are pharmacies that have quit carrying some pain meds because the addicts will jump over the counter and put a gun in their face to get them. Do you think the addicts will go get jobs to buy their now legal drugs?

Give me your scenario of why a drug addict isn’t going to break into my house to steal my stuff, or stick a gun in my face and demand my money.

This might cause less drug dealers to be arrested or people that have jobs and think they can use drugs recreationally won’t have to worry about being arrested. But how will this lower the rate of crime that impacts us as citizens? It will sky rocket; why wouldn’t it?

[Chucktshoes]

I’m not talking about the violence over drug territories; I’m asking if you think burglars and armed robbers will stop breaking into houses, robbing people and stealing your stuff to get money to buy drugs? Or are you going to make the drugs free? They commit violent crimes to get money for alcohol; it’s legal. Cigarettes are the most shop lifted item in this country; they are legal. I’m asking what you think will happen when you add methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, and oxycodone to the mix?

There are pharmacies that have quit carrying some pain meds because the addicts will jump over the counter and put a gun in their face to get them. Do you think the addicts will go get jobs to buy their now legal drugs?

Give me your scenario of why a drug addict isn’t going to break into my house to steal my stuff, or stick a gun in my face and demand my money.

This might cause less drug dealers to be arrested or people that have jobs and think they can use drugs recreationally won’t have to worry about being arrested. But how will this lower the rate of crime that impacts us as citizens? It will sky rocket; why wouldn’t it?

Nope, those things probably won't decrease, I never said they would. But they aren't the majority of violent crimes related to narcotics. The majority of narcotic related crimes are committed by those in the distribution and retail end of the market. That is where I am looking for legalization to make a difference, just the same way it did with the repeal of alcohol prohibition. No matter what the vice is, if there is a demand for it, someone will find a way to meet and profit from it, legal or not. I'd rather corporate types make that profit than narco terrorists whose preferred method of increasing market share is beheading rival cartel members.

[DaveTN]

But they aren't the majority of violent crimes related to narcotics. The majority of narcotic related crimes are committed by those in the distribution and retail end of the market. That is where I am looking for legalization to make a difference, just the same way it did with the repeal of alcohol prohibition. No matter what the vice is, if there is a demand for it, someone will find a way to meet and profit from it, legal or not. I'd rather corporate types make that profit than narco terrorists whose preferred method of increasing market share is beheading rival cartel members.

No they aren’t. The majority of narcotic related crimes are the crimes the addicts commit against innocent citizens to get their next fix. Home invasion, Armed Robbery, Burglary, kidnapping, Theft, the rapes and assualts that occur during those other offenses and injuries from DUI.

If it was the cartels or gang bangers beheading each other why would we care?

[TrickyNicky]

Drugs won’t ever be legalized. Take the whole criminal/enforcement element out of it. You think we have high unemployment and a drain on social programs and medical care now; see what happens if you legalize drugs.

What makes you think the costs of drugs would drop if they were legal,FREE MARKET or that drug users would not be breaking into your homes or robbing you to get money to buy them? YOU MEAN THAT'S NOT HAPPENING NOW?

A whole new industry would be developed to grow, process and distribute the drugs; they would want paid. YES, AND NEW INDUSTRY MEANS NEW JOBS, OF COURSE MANY OF THESE JOBS WOULDN'T BE NEW BUT THE TAXES PAID ON THEM WOULD BE

The manufacturing industry doesn’t drug test because they are illegal; they drug test because you can’t have someone that is high working around machinery and putting everyone else at risk. WHY WOULD THAT HAVE TO CHANGE?

Our economy and society would crumble at even a faster rate than it is now. I DON'T THINK SO

sorry for all the caps, not trying to "scream" I just can't figure out how to change my font color on the iPhone.

Personally I don't see that many permanent negative effects happening, maybe people "go a bit crazy" in the first few months/years. But ultimately I think the people bound and determined to do drugs are already doing them. Some with six figure or higher incomes to pay for said drugs, some with no legitimate income.

As to kids changing their drug experiments from pot and alcohol to heroin and meth, I hate to say it but wake up, it's been that way for some time now. Sure it's not EXACTLY heroin, but vicodins and oxycottin(sp?) are the new "it" things, Ritalin and dexidrine are prevalent as well.

The negative behaviors associated ( sometimes unfairly) with drug use may still be there, but they don't need to be decriminalized, someones intoxicated in public, through him in the tank and slap a fine on him, DUI? Say goodbye to your license. Robbery/burglary= doing time. Armed home invasion should get you a one way ticket to Texas for euthanasia.

Clearly we may not agree, I just don't see the drugs being the problem so much as how we handle them.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Who is going to pay for the treatment and rehab centers?

Hi Dave. The money would stay about the same as it ever was. Perhaps I'm overly pessimistic suspecting that addiction treatment is ultimately no more effective than placebo. It would be cold hearted and cruel to completely de-fund treatment centers even if scientifically proven ineffective. So there will always be token money "wasted" on likely-ineffective treatment, just as it is today and as it was in the past. Am not saying that addiction is hopeless. IMO addicts who recover will do so regardless of treatment. In some cases addicts will recover IN SPITE of treatment. The strong ones successfully quit if/when they decide to quit. The weak ones do not quit regardless of how much they SAY they want to quit, and regardless of treatment. It is not a happy thought and I wish it were otherwise. Maybe am too pessimistic.

In the decades since working in the field I occasionally would meet an old client. Some of the least cooperative clients recovered best. Some of the most cooperative clients were too weak and didn't make it. Some druggies who successfully quit drugs became alcoholics. People were more likely to quit taking hard drugs or quit smoking pot, than to quit smoking tobacco. Tobacco may be one of the most addictive drugs. Lets ban tobacco! (not)

Most folks who experiment with or casually use drugs/alcohol do not become addicts. But because some people do become addicts and we can't predict which ones, it would be better if nobody would experiment. A perfect world would be fabulous, wouldn't it?

Young kids have always experimented with pot and alcohol. Most have survived the experimentation process; some have not. How will that work when the experimentation is with methamphetamine and heroin? Once they are addicted where will they get the money to buy their drugs?

Hi Dave. Many of the questions you pose in the first message are predicated on the notion that drug use would increase if it were legalized. IMO it may increase a bit before tailing off, but I'm of the opinion that there is a relatively fixed percentage of the population with addiction-prone personalities. Those individuals get addicted regardless whether a drug is legal and most potential addicts in the population are already addicted. If legalized, the DRUG USE would become more VISIBLE to the man on the street, and I get disgusted with that carp as much as the next guy. So maybe if we legalize drugs, too many people would get grossed out and then ban it again just because people don't like to see it. But the actual incidence of addiction would stay about the same. Just when it is illegal the man on the street doesn't see it so much.

Perhaps the extra visibility would be a good thing. Kids might see addicts as the pathetic human wrecks they are, rather than neighborhood folk heroes. It might be a better "don't do drugs" educational program than we could ever teach in school.

Addicts would get the money to buy drugs the same ways they always have. I posit that except for hard-core "end of the road" drugs, the incidence of addicts vs users is about the same percentage as alcoholics vs occasional drinkers. Betcha dollars to donuts that drug criminals make most of their money from casual users with 9-to-5 jobs.

Now the narcotic addicts ferinstance-- When I was working in the field we could get some of those guys on methadone programs. Narcotics are cheap to manufacture. A fella who might be shoplifting or burglaring or mugging for a several hundred dollar a day heroin habit-- That fella could work a menial janitor job and afford the daily methadone fix. Some folks managed to make that kinda thing work for themselves. Narcotics addicts won't be rocket scientists or brain surgeons, or even heavy equipment operators, but some of em are decent enough folks. Just very weak-willed and screwed up in the noggin. Many methadone program failures happened because most addicts prefer a heroin buzz to a methadone buzz, and they would backslide to the illegal variant they happened to like better. But heroin is just as cheap to manufacture as methadone. A fella could live in a rat hole and work a janitor job and be addicted to heroin if it was sold at cost+markup+tax. I'm not saying that is a desirable outcome, but its not like you or I can make it any better for certain people. It am what it am. The drug would be cheaper, pure, and of known concentration, which would avoid many health hazards, and maybe if the fella eventually kicks the habit he will be healthier if he's been taking pharmaceutical grade dope.

Stimulants, cocaine and especially amphetamines are super-nasty drugs which make some people behave badly. I'm tempted to say legalize the amphetamines and let amphetamine addicts kill themselves off as quick as possible if they don't pull out of it. But the fellas can do so much collateral damage maybe something else would be smarter. Dunno.

Japan had a bad amphetamine problem after WWII which was rather easily ameliorated with short 1 year prison sentences, delivered like clockwork, no exceptions, to any person caught in possession of even a single pill. But the Japanese culture is different and perhaps that solution would not work in our culture.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

DUI will still be crime only it will go through the roof. Who will pay for the costs associated with that?

People already drive under the influence. About the same number of people would drive under the influence if it were legal. Put em in jail for DUI. The ones who have enough sense to avoid driving under the influence, leave em alone.

The “lets legalize drugs†push comes from a bunch of pot heads...

Some folk apparently change position or lose interest in the issue. Since the late 1960's kids have been at least slight majority pro-legalization. It has been that way for such a long time that the first pro-legalization generation has aged into social security geezers. A goodly number MUST be losing interest as they get jobs and families? Otherwise by now a majority of all but the oldest geezers would be pro-legalization? When kids grow up they attend to practical matters-- Lacking adequate free time to huff weed and debate how to design the most ideal castle in the sky. Am guessing that the hard-core "legalize" crowd has at least three components--

1. Young folk who might smoke a doobie once in awhile (direct self-interest)--

2. Old hippies who never grew up (also direct self-interest)--

3. And what I suspect is the largest group-- Adults who don't care about drugs but care about freedom and disapprove the unintended consequences of a war on drugs. Who see that the war on drugs is unwinnable and resent their own freedoms abridged because big brother is watching "just in case somebody might do drugs." Risky to travel with cash for fear the authorities will steal your money. Worry how many bottles of povidone iodine are legal to keep in the bathroom closet or how many cans of coleman fuel to keep in survival supplies. Show ID and sign to buy nasal decongestant. Gawd forbid you should have TWO boxes of actifed in the house. If the authorities kick down the door with a no-knock warrant on the wrong house, even if they don't shoot you and even if they don't shoot your dogs, it is prima-facie evidence of intent to manufacture. I'm more puzzled why so many people can APPROVE the war on drugs? The cure is worse than the disease!

...pot heads that make the argument pot is safer than alcohol. That may be true. Are you making the same argument about methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, and oxycodone?

Pot appears to make a tiny percentage of people more attentive but as far as I can tell it makes most people stupid. I hate the stuff and wouldn't take pot if it was legal and free. Except for certain medical conditions, none of the typical abuse drugs are "good for you". Most everybody would be better off to never take them. I don't approve of recreational drug use. I also don't like candy bars. Candy bars are bad for you. Because I don't like em, nobody can have candy bars! Some folks don't like guns. They think because they don't like guns then nobody should have guns. You might shoot your eye out! They want to protect us from harm by taking away our guns because we are too stupid to know any better. Sound familiar?

[Guest ThePunisher]

I never understood the pothead argument that pot is ok and not addictive.Then how come they can't stop to keep from losing their good paying jobs when they have to take a drug test. I've known several people lose good paying jobs because they liked their pot more than food and shelter.

[TN-popo]

meh, nevermind.

Edited June 25, 2012 by TN-popo

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I never understood the pothead argument that pot is ok and not addictive.Then how come they can't stop to keep from losing their good paying jobs when they have to take a drug test. I've known several people lose good paying jobs because they liked their pot more than food and shelter.

As you can tell I'm no fan of pot, but it is not physically addictive because physically addictive drugs make you sick when you quit taking them. Alcohol, narcotics, barbituates, nicotine, caffeine (to a slight degree) and other drugs make you sick if you cold-turkey. But pot users do not get physically ill when they stop.

"Incapable of stopping" versus "don't want to stop", it is tricky to figure where one ends and the other begins. Some people have a fatalistic expectation to fail and the pot may be a "tool to enable the failure script" or maybe as you say those guys just like pot better than a job.

An old friend, he started smoking pot as a teen. The kind of fellow who would smoke a joint before he got out of bed in the morning then smoke one more before turning in at night. He had been smoking so many years dunno if he ever felt a thing from it. Dude never had trouble with the law and went to work every day and was a devoted hubbie and father. Though he had better luck getting along with his kids than his wives. He acted entirely normal stoned, but since there wasn't hardly any time he wasn't stoned maybe it would be difficult to tell.

When he was about age 50 there was an accident at the plant that he wasn't involved in, but he happened to be in the general vicinity and they tested everybody in that part of the plant. Maybe they have to do that in order to avoid charges of prejudice? They told him his test registered higher than anybody who had ever been tested. Gave him free counseling and said next positive test he was gone, no more chances.

So he was unhappy for a month or so but he liked having a job better than the pot, and he quit the pot and as far as I know has been quit for over a decade. Just sayin they don't ALWAYS like the pot better than the job. He acts about the same straight as he did stoned. Think about all that money he spent over all that time, when he would have got along just as good straight?

Edited June 25, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[Guest ThePunisher]

Lester

I can't speak for your friend, but I've known several friends who have smoked pot for over forty years, and if they run out of pot to smoke they're not real fun to be around; they get real grumpy. I think that would be a physical symptom. They have even stopped drinking but could not quit smoking pot. They have had difficulties in holding a job either because of drug testing or lack of desire, energy, and ambition that is caused from long years of pot smoking. And if you could have known them forty years ago and now, you would definitely conclude their brain is fried. The long term effects of smoking pot for years are just now being realized in clinical studies. I know that none of my friends that I refer to can remember anything longer than ten minutes ago if you were in conversation with them. Some people would conclude that to be age related, but I've witnessed this for a long time to realize its not caused by age.

Anyway, different strokes for different folks.

Edited June 25, 2012 by ThePunisher

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Lester

I can't speak for your friend, but I've known several friends who have smoked pot for over forty years, and if they run out of pot to smoke they're not real fun to be around; they get real grumpy. I think that would be a physical symptom. They have even stopped drinking but could not quit smoking pot. They have had difficulties in holding a job either because of drug testing or lack of desire, energy, and ambition that is caused from long years of pot smoking. And if you could have known them forty years ago and now, you would definitely conclude their brain is fried. The long term effects of smoking pot for years are just now being realized in clinical studies. I know that none of my friends that I refer to can remember anything longer than ten minutes ago if you were in conversation with them. Some people would conclude that to be age related, but I've witnessed this for a long time to realize its not caused by age.

Anyway, different strokes for different folks.

Hi Punisher. I don't disagree. Was surprised my friend quit so easily and stayed quit. If I was a betting man would have bet the other way on his prognosis. Though I didn't tell him to his face. Wished him the best and am glad it worked out.

You may be correct there could be long-term damage, though different studies find different results. Dunno much about it. Maybe some of the different results depend on who is paying for the study, or maybe that is too cynical. We can find a study to justify about any conclusion we already made. It can take months for a large THC level to excrete from the system, so your friends would have to dry out a long time to get an idea of their "baseline" situation.

Most doctors claim only "psychological dependence" unless a drug withdrawal makes you physically ill. However, feeling emotionally bad is a result of electrochemical brain activity, so you might justifiably characterize "feeling grumpy" or "unhappy" or "nervous" as physical symptoms. Some withdrawals make a person sick as a dog for days with insomnia for months. Other withdrawals will kill a person dead as a doorknob if it isn't done gradually in a hospital. Feeling grumpy isn't quite the same, but I promise I'm not trying to pick nits or defend the virtues of pot.

I don't pay attention any more, it is a boring topic except once in awhile, but recall many years ago reading studies claiming to have found organic developmental changes in adolescents who smoke pot, dunno if that is still currently believed to be true. Toward the end of adolescence there is a large "brain connection pruning" which supposedly focuses the adult brain better for real world functionality, So if you mess with the brain around that time, then whatever changes you made possibly could be "permanent". Dunno much about it.

It would be better if people did not experiment with drugs, and especially desirable for children and adolescents to avoid it.