Mexico dissolves its FBI and moves to legalize drugs

[sigmtnman]

No, I don't believe driving a car, nice or junker, is a right at all.

One could argue anything; it doesn't mean the argument has any merit.

The idea that there are not people in prison for theft who were not high on drugs most certainly IS ludicrous which is why I've never said or even hinted otherwise...which makes me wonder why you feel the need to ascribing such a ridiculous statement to me.

The argument does have merit based on your implied argument that we should only be allowed access to what are rights.

You are either craftily arguing a straw man or you keep changing your argument from people committing crimes because they are on drugs to people committing their crimes to get drug money.

My original statement was

If a person robbed you to buy a big mac or some 24" rims, would you propose to outlaw big macs and 24" rims?

to which you replied:

There is a significant percentage of people sitting in jails and prisons right now who committed their crimes because they were on narcotics when they committed their crimes or they committed their crimes to obtain money to obtain the narcotics their bodies were driving them to have; not Big Macks...not rims...narcotics.

[RobertNashville]

...

Since my original reply was apparently misunderstood or not clear, I’ll try again…

Is driving a nice car a right? Would you be ok with nice cars being made illegal,if the commies are the majority, since there is nothing in the Constitution making them a right or from your Creator? The FBI estimated property losses of $4.5 billion in 2010 due to stolen vehicles.

No - driving a car at all or of any specific quality is not a right.

Since, in my opinion, it is not a right the cost of stolen vehicles or what would happen if the commies took over (actually, they already have with Obama being the chief one) is moot.

The idea that there are not people in prison for theft who were not high on drugs is ludicrous. Heck even the .govs bureau of Justice stats say that the minority of offenders were on drugs, committing crimes to fund drugs or perceived to be on drugs by the victims. Of note is that alcohol is included int he stats.

I absolutely agree; the idea that there are not people in prison for theft who were not high on drugs IS ludicrous which is why I never said it. Insinuating that I did say it is disingenuous.

One could argue, given an even distribution of crazies, the ones on alcohol and drugs are less likely to commit property or violent crimes.

One could argue that but I don't think the argument has merit.

-----------------------------

I'm not sure why you keep posting to me about this issue - I don't know if the issue is really important to you or if you just don't have a lot to do this afternoon or if you think I'm a lost sole that you need to bring to the right position.

Anyway, I think the U.S. legalizing narcotics would be a terribly stupid and destructive thing to do and I doubt anyone is going offer enough evidence here to change my mind about that.

Now, some may think I'm stupid or uninformed or don't understand State's rights or whatever but I'm okay with that.

Have a nice day...I've go to go vote now.

Edited August 2, 2012 by RobertNashville

[strickj]

In 2005 the DEA budget was $2.142 billion, so that left about a 1.8 billion dollar shortfall.

http://www.justice.g...cy/staffing.htm

Figure did not include property seizures.

With all seizures, they break even or come close to breaking even, depending on the year. The one seizure I linked to from 2007 totaled nearly the entire year's worth of seizures from 2005.

And I'm not sure why you keep comparing drugs to inanimate objects. Drugs are mind altering substances. Drugs cause people to steal, rob, rape and murder whilst under it's influence or in an attempt to get another fix.

Guns, cars, whatever, do not do that.

[sigmtnman]

I'm not sure why you keep posting to me about this issue - I don't know if the issue is really important to you or if you just don't have a lot to do this afternoon or if you think I'm a lost sole that you need to bring to the right position.

Anyway, I think the U.S. legalizing narcotics would be a terribly stupid and destructive thing to do and I doubt anyone is going offer enough evidence here to change my mind about that.

Now, some may think I'm stupid or uninformed or don't understand State's rights or whatever but I'm okay with that.

Have a nice day...I've go to go vote now.

I continued to post to you because you continued to post back to me. Generally in a discussion when someone addresses you, it is common to respond. Yes, I take this issue and all other issues of personal liberty seriously because I am rather sick of moral busy bodies deciding what is best for others. Discussions usually help me to better understand other peoples perspectives, but I've gathered that you feel your opinion is de facto and you really don't want stats or to understand others perspectives. That's cool, everyone is entitled to opinions and no I don't think you are a lost sole. Just free to believe as you wish, or at least until the moral busy bodies crack down on that. Yes, I did have a bit of free time waiting for some long running jobs to complete and figured I'd have a discussion, but I reckon that's not really what you are after.

[sigmtnman]

Figure did not include property seizures.

With all seizures, they break even or come close to breaking even, depending on the year. The one seizure I linked to from 2007 totaled nearly the entire year's worth of seizures from 2005.

And I'm not sure why you keep comparing drugs to inanimate objects. Drugs are mind altering substances. Drugs cause people to steal, rob, rape and murder whilst under it's influence or in an attempt to get another fix.

Guns, cars, whatever, do not do that.

Would you mind directing me to a more complete list of figures that include seized property? I'm curious about the numbers. Seizure brings in a whole additional discussion as, for the most part, property can be seized regardless of actual guilt and is damn near impossible to get back.

I compare the drugs to inanimate objects because they are inanimate. Sure they may be mind altering but so are many other inanimate objects that are legal. Ultimately it displaces accountability from individuals to the inanimate object.

The excuse that drugs cause people to steal, rob, rape and murder is just that. I'd posit that the individuals who do those were already predisposed to the activity, perhaps because they are already functioning outside the law, but who knows why. Most criminals do those things without being under the influence, but rather because of lust, gluttony, greed, wrath, envy, sloth and pride.

Curious question. Do you support a return to alcohol prohibition? Alcohol is a mind altering drug and allegedly causes all of the the things you point out according to some folks.

Edited August 3, 2012 by sigmtnman

[plank white]

Robert, I just gave you evidence. Loperamide is a narcotic. Go to a drug store and check the price. When I had the eye surgically removed last year, or the kidney stone the year before, my bottles of generic narcotics costed cheaper than a big mac. I still have the bottles nearly full, locked in the safe in case of emergency. They must not be too addictive or I would have gobbled them all up the day I got them. They suck. Only some poor people even like the feeling.

There is another narcotic that has strong analgesia but doesn't get people "very high" called Tramadol. Used for both people and pets. The po old dawg in my picture had bad arthritis and finally passed away last week. He was on several pills the last few years and he had a good life right till the last couple of days. He would have had to be put down years ago without the pills. For the last couple of years old Travis was taking enough Tramadol to stun a mule and I didn't even have to murder one person to afford to buy it from the vet. It was in fact, cheaper than the anti-inflammatory or thyroid pills.

Sorry to hear about your dog I know that must be hard to some people like me our pets are more family than some of our actual relatives so just wanted to say sorry for your loss bro

[strickj]

Would you mind directing me to a more complete list of figures that include seized property? I'm curious about the numbers. Seizure brings in a whole additional discussion as, for the most part, property can be seized regardless of actual guilt and is damn near impossible to get back.

Will have to look that up again. Took me forever to find the 2005 cash forfeiture. Totals are released in the congressional testimonials... I think.

The excuse that drugs cause people to steal, rob, rape and murder is just that.

I'd posit that the individuals who do those were already predisposed to the activity, perhaps because they are already functioning outside the law, but who knows why.

Not true at all. Substances and addiction are very powerful things.

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/topics-in-brief/drugs-brains-behavior-science-

Drugs tap into the brain's communication system and disrupt the way nerve cells normally send, receive, and process information.

Scientifically proven.

Curious question. Do you support a return to alcohol prohibition? Alcohol is a mind altering drug and allegedly causes all of the the things you point out according to some folks.

No, I do not.

Alcohol is a mind altering substance, sure, but it does not effect the brain quite like drugs do.

Take pharmaceuticals for instance. Each medicine has a different set of side effects. Same thing with alcohol and narcotics.

[sigmtnman]

Will have to look that up again. Took me forever to find the 2005 cash forfeiture. Totals are released in the congressional testimonials... I think.

Not true at all. Substances and addiction are very powerful things.

http://www.drugabuse...havior-science-

Scientifically proven.

No, I do not.

Alcohol is a mind altering substance, sure, but it does not effect the brain quite like drugs do.

Take pharmaceuticals for instance. Each medicine has a different set of side effects. Same thing with alcohol and narcotics.

Thanks strickj.

Your link didn't work for me, but I was able to find it by googling the quote.

The drugabuse.gov website actually includes alcohol as a drug that affect behavior control, judgment and memory.

Drug and alcohol abuse can disrupt brain function in areas critical to motivation, memory, learning, judgment, and behavior control.

Similar blame that we hear now for "hard" drugs was the impetus for prohibition. The Temperance movement blamed alcohol for many of society's ills, including theft, rape and murder. The "Noble Experiment" is a very interesting subject and there are volumes of information on it including prison and crime stats as well as the documented increase in consumption during prohibition.

I do understand that drugs alter ones perception and motor skills, but I don't believe that they cause people to do something that they were not predisposed to do anyway. Regardless, there are too many substances out there that can and will take the latest criminalized drugs place, not even to mention that all illegal drugs can be bought with ease if a person were to want them and seek them out. We need to address the root crime: theft, murder, rape, etc and not allow the criminal to blame his or her actions on something else. Bad things will happen regardless of how much the government uses a heavy hand to protect us.

[strickj]

Similar blame that we hear now for "hard" drugs was the impetus for prohibition.

Yeah, and quackery elixirs were considered revolutionary back then. They were uneducated, simple and believed anything that sounded convincing enough. The propaganda that fueled prohibition was pure fear tactics from religious organizations. No studies. No science. Nothing. Just the opinions of a bunch of over-reaching do-gooders.

Modern day science, medicine and decades of studies and research have gone into narcotics use.

We need to address the root crime: theft, murder, rape, etc and not allow the criminal to blame his or her actions on something else. Bad things will happen regardless of how much the government uses a heavy hand to protect us.

I agree with that. Problem is, narcotics are part of the root of the problem. It's not about making excuses for their crimes.

Do you really think that the dope fiends have convinced modern day doctors, scientists and law enforcement that?

The drugabuse.gov website actually includes alcohol as a drug that affect behavior control, judgment and memory.

Yes.

But not all mind alternating substances are created equal. Advil has different affects then chemotherapy.

Alcohol has a different affect than cocaine. Humph, tequila has a different affect then wine, even (ask me how I know).

See the difference?

Edited August 3, 2012 by strickj

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Sorry to hear about your dog I know that must be hard to some people like me our pets are more family than some of our actual relatives so just wanted to say sorry for your loss bro

Thanks Plank

Dogs are a blessing. Make em happy as possible the short time they are with us. It is cruel to "try too hard" to extend their lives after they go down hill too much. Old Travis was a rescue coonhound already graying and half-toothless when we got him. He started getting various physical complaints about 3 years ago but the vets did a great job and he lived a pretty normal life right up to the end. He stayed mobile enough to sniff the woods and bark every day, great appetite and enjoyed playing with his squeaky toys right to the end. The arthritis and such didn't do him in, but he suddenly got symptoms consistent with spleen cancer and went down quick within a day or two, so I had him put to sleep rather than subject him to a bunch of needles and tests for such an old dog. He was lucky to stay active right to the end. No sense ruining such good luck torturing the fella trying to fix the unfixable. Was surprised and pleased how well the vets kept him running relatively normal for a couple of extra years. I had been watching to make sure his quality of life remained "good enough" and he kept on trucking for an old guy.

Maybe your experience was and would be typical but I think you are still making a lot of assumptions on a small amount of experience.

Thanks Robert

You could double-check and I could easily be wrong but am guessing an over the counter, open competition, minimal sin-tax market on narcotics at retail discount pharmacies, would settle in the ballpark of $5 or $10 per day but maybe more. Maybe less. Difficult to precisely estimate. On-patent Rx costs more than off-patent Rx, and over-the-counter typically drastically drops the price when the FDA approves a previously prescription-only drug for OTC. They keep developing new opoids but most of the "typical suspects" for both medicine and abuse are 100 years old or older. Old mature tech perfected long ago. But since the exact formulations of abuse haven't been OTC for near 100 years, it takes some guessing.

When I had the kidney stone they let me out of the emergency room in the wee hours after midnite sunday, doubled over in pain with a prescription in hand. The emergency room (possibly security reasons or whatever) couldn't fill my Rx and I'd only had a couple tylenols all day. They were nice folks and did a good job, but I was still out in the parking lot barely able to walk and the only pharmacy open was on the other side of town. Anyway I finally managed to drive over there and hobble in. Had never been to that pharmacy, they didn't have my insurance info, and sold me twenty generic 10mg oxycodone + tylenol for about five bucks. Maybe even ten bucks but I usually go fill Rx and automatically get out the debit card expecting to get raped on the price. It sticks in my mind whenever I get surprised, charged a price low enough to pay with pocket change.

No insurance on Travis' medicine at the vet. The vet was selling the exact same brand name pill that humans take. They are excellent vets and good people and ain't running a charity and I'm not complaining. Pretty sure most of the stuff they sell is close to straight-up retail markup. Doubtful there is much discount. The price was $27 per ninety 50mg Tramadol. Am guessing if it happened to be legal to sell OTC at Sams club it could get cheaper than that. That was a pretty good price but on the other hand the old dawg was eating about $324 of narcotics per year. A dang dope fiend and it didn't even slow him down.

Certainly some opioids would cost more to manufacture than others, and looking at the organic chem diagrams for the various opioids they have quite a bit of variety, but barring legal and trademark and such issues, dollars to donuts most of em wouldn't be drastically different in price. If you go to wikipedia and type in opioids and follow the links they give you a couple days worth of pretty good reading material on the topic.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Assuming for the sake of argument, that the price of the previously illegal now illegal narcotics would fall to negligible amounts, is price the only thing (or the most important thing) we should consider when suggesting that these narcotics should be legal?

Hi Robert

There are numerous considerations and the "consensus" view has never been close to mine. I formed opinions working in substance abuse counseling in the early 1970's. Have kept up with it "a little bit" since but I don't pretend to have ever been an expert. Maybe 20 or 30 percent of people I knew in the field had similar views and the rest were rather hard-tail authoritarian about it, which seems about the same today.

Using typical consensus modern-day values there is little or no way to argue that substance abuse of any kind is a good thing. There is use and there is abuse. I'm not even trying to make an argument that 'use' might be sometimes good rather than bad, but it gets a little complicated. If a substance happens to be illegal then any use tends to be automatically categorized as abuse. In some people's minds, even one snort of cocaine, once per decade, would be "abuse".

The definition gets squishier with legal substances. For instance with alcohol, a rule of thumb sometimes applied-- If drinking causes a person significant problems, messes up his life and gets him in trouble or ruins his health or breaks up his family, then it is abuse. If a fella drinks occasionally but his drinking doesn't lose him his job or ruin his health or land him in jail or spoil family harmony, then it ain't abuse.

Often beginning counseling the question "is the drinking causing problems". Often the fellas we were seeing would be in denial. Drinking caused problems but they wouldn't admit it to themselves. The first step was to help the guy come to an understanding whether or not he believed that he had a problem. Unless he viewed his behavior as a problem, there wasn't much to talk about. Until the drinking would get worse until he can't fool himself any more. Like Baghdad Bob on the day before the marines roll in. "No we don't have a problem here. Everything is fine."

It was still ambiguous. Maybe a guy only drinks one time per year, but every time the fella takes a drink, the night ends with him in jail or with a broken leg or a wrecked car or a beat-up wife or a cussed-out boss. Such a fella rarely drinks but he has a serious drinking problem.

Then some solid, stable salt-of-the-earth fellows would work overtime every day and do a great job, come home and be a good family man, and drink a fifth of whiskey every night. Do the same every day like clockwork for years. Some of those guys would drink a fifth of whiskey every day for 30 years with no problemo. Eventually it became a problem when the health finally broke and they would have to decide to either quit or die.

Most alcoholics lay somewhere in-between those extremes. The people we were seeing, would usually be consuming a quart of whiskey per day, or a case of beer per day, or a gallon of wine per day. Though a quantitative threshold for abuse would be significantly lower than those amounts.

I'm just saying that the same distinctions could be made for illegal drugs-- But such distinctions are rarely drawn. With illegal substances, any use at all might be considered abuse. Even the fella who snorts cocaine one time per year, or smokes a joint one time per year.

Substance abuse, both legal and illegal, causes countless problems. And the war on drugs causes additional countless problems.

Will abuse get worse and take over the entire population unless we fight the war on drugs? Recall geometric or exponential progressions. If we start with one bacteria and it divides once per hour, then after XX hours the entire visible universe will be full to the brim with bacteria. But in practice that never happens. The bacteria hit a limit-- Often hitting the limit even before escaping the petri dish.

Drug warriors tend to believe that everyone would turn into dope fiends unless we constantly fight the drug war.

I don't think that is correct. I think there are natural limits-- That we are already near the natural limit. If we are already near the natural limit then we could stop the war on drugs-- Wipe out the problems caused by the war on drugs-- And the serious problems from substance abuse will be no worse and no better than today. It would make the best of a bad situation by refusing to let a war on drugs make our problems even worse. Substance abuse will always be with us, at about the same levels, and so just make the best of it.

[DaveTN]

We need to address the root crime: theft, murder, rape, etc and not allow the criminal to blame his or her actions on something else.

Many times the root cause is drugs, either needing money for a fix or being so high they claimed that they didn’t know what they were doing. I understand you aren’t going to buy that under any circumstances, that’s fine; it’s just a discussion.

Yes, alcohol is a dangerous drug; it has been the root cause for the death of many innocent people. In my observations as a Police Officer I would say it is a worse drug than pot. I’m sure there are people on this forum that have lost loved ones due to alcohol. But I couldn’t care less about pot; I’m talking about narcotics. These are my firsthand observations as having been a Police Officer and responding to the aftermath of criminals that needed a fix, or were out of control. I have seen firsthand the effects it has on people, I have had to take to them jail after they have committed their acts, and had to notify the families of the dead. I’ve also seen the arrested crying in jail about how it was the drugs after being told what they did.

So yes, the drugs are the root cause in many cases and if you don’t maintain drug enforcement you will be sending a message to a whole new generations that drugs are okay.

I agree with you that alcohol is bad, but I fail to see the connection between prohibition and allowing illegal drugs. Many people use alcohol as a recreational drug and don’t have problem. Many people are addicted to alcohol and it destroys their lives, and sometimes the lives of innocent bystanders. Are those the reasons you are using to justify allowing the use of crack, methamphetamine, or heroin?

So we are in agreement…. Alcohol is bad. The fact it is legal doesn’t justify making those other drugs legal.

[Guest vca2004]

I could care less about how corrupt Mexico is or how they intend to control it. Legalizing the activity of the cartels may lower violence in Mexico towards citizens and government, but it will not slow the violence between the cartels. It will also speed up trafficking over our borders and increase violence on our side when state and federal law enforcement interdict the traffickers. This just shows that Mexico will not be cooperating with us the way they have in the past to target the traffickers. Drug trafficking doesn't cause violence in Mexico because of the drug trade in Mexico; it is because of the drug trade in the US.

Even if Mexico legalized all narcs and weed tomorrow it wouldn't have an impact on the border violence. Even if private industry moved in to handle shipments from S. America, refinement and growing of marijuana there would still be the traffickers fighting over who gets what shipping lanes to bring it over the border. By legalizing it the industry on the border will grow, causing more violence on both sides making it very dangerous for our LE to target traffickers, and it will lower the street value of drugs as the market is flooded. No, I don't think this will have any positive impact at all on either side of the border. It wouldn't be such a problem if we used our available assets to close the border off and to engage traffickers on sight. Since that will not happen at least we can enjoy a drop in weed prices.

+1 100%

[sigmtnman]

To break the argument down into pieces so as not to confuse my feeble mind.

Many times the root cause is drugs, either needing money for a fix or...

This is due to the artificially high street price. Percentage wise does occur at the same rates as with Alcohol and tobacco, which are both addictive and destructive, yet readily available?

...being so high they claimed that they didn’t know what they were doing

People who are in trouble will try all sorts of reason to justify or excuse their behavior when gluttony, greed, etc was the root cause. It's like the whole black out on alcohol thing. I've drank a lot of burbon and beer in my life and never once have I blacked out. If I did black out and commit a crime it would be no different than if I committed the crime stone cold sober. I'm sorry you had to deal with and notify people of deaths, but people die every day for all sorts of reasons. Was it any easier telling family members that a loved passed away in an auto accident?

Yes, alcohol is a dangerous drug; it has been the root cause for the death of many innocent people. In my observations as a Police Officer I would say it is a worse drug than pot. I’m sure there are people on this forum that have lost loved ones due to alcohol. But I couldn’t care less about pot; I’m talking about narcotics.

I know not too many folks like analogies, but I've lost more relatives to car wrecks, bad eating habits and sedentary lifestyles (diabetes, heart disease), yet since these are performed by the majority they are deemed socially acceptable activities and no one thinks twice about them. I would wager that folks on this forum have lost far more family members due to those reasons. I won't even bring up negligent discharges. Well I reckon I did, sorry.

These are my firsthand observations as having been a Police Officer and responding to the aftermath of criminals that needed a fix, or were out of control. I have seen firsthand the effects it has on people, I have had to take to them jail after they have committed their acts, and had to notify the families of the dead. I’ve also seen the arrested crying in jail about how it was the drugs after being told what they did.

Were you called when people were on drugs and there were not problems? Do you think perhaps your view is skewed by only seeing the bad? Honest question, so please don't take it wrong.

Again, with regards to needing their fix, how often did you have to deal with tobacco (which is more addictive than opium, heroin and many other hard drugs) abusers who needed their fix?

So yes, the drugs are the root cause in many cases and if you don’t maintain drug enforcement you will be sending a message to a whole new generations that drugs are okay.

The person's destructive lack of control is the root cause. Why do the perpetrators of mass shooting commit their crimes? Do we allow them excuses and point fingers at other causes? Do we accept the liberals argument that it was somehow the guns fault?

These are the same claims made by the Temperance movement which was the group pushing prohibition. Records show that during prohibition, alcohol consumption swelled to all time highs, prices went through the roof for alcohol and that crime increased, whether due to gang/mob/dealer violence, consumption by children increased and alcohol related crime did not decrease.

Everyone knows alcohol, moonshiners, gangs and speakeasys were everywhere, the same is true of drugs, dealers, manufacturers and consumers today. The comparison to the Noble Experiment is a very valid one.

Are those the reasons you are using to justify allowing the use of crack, methamphetamine, or heroin?

No. Liberty and self determination is the reason for justification. It is not the federal governments responsibility to play nanny or to push nanny like agendas onto the citizens of the US. Whether it's welfare, telling people what they can and cant do in the privacy of their home (provided they are not molesting sheep, raping, abusing, etc) or what they can or can't ingest or the myriad of other ways they have overstepped their limits.

One final question. Do you feel drug laws have helped or hurt the perception of Police Officers in general society as well as their relationships with non officer folks?

Edited August 3, 2012 by sigmtnman

[Guest drv2fst]

I can't believe there are so many people on this board that are in favor of government telling it's subjects how to live their lives. I would have thought that this group more than most would want to respect the power of the individual to make their own decisions. What a disappointment.

Some have argued that MJ is OK but anything else is bad. That's the same as saying a revolver is OK but anything with more than 6 rounds is bad.

Some have argued that people on drugs cause crime. Isn't our argument about guns that if criminals want guns they will get them? I'd say the same about drugs. If users want them they will get them. Now do you want them to do that as a criminal or as a law abiding citizen?

Some have argued that people on drugs may hurt MY family or society as a whole. Just like people with guns may shoot up a theater watching Batman? People will do bad things to people. Their motivations or implements of this wrong doing are irrelevant. Punish the people not the product they use.

Some people argue that legalized drugs will be a high $ cost to society. We are already paying a very high $ cost with our failed prohibition policies. I don't think the cost of legal drugs would be any higher than that. However, I would speculate that High Fructose Corn Syrup has a higher cost to society than drugs. On that note, let's abolish cane sugar, Oreo's, IceCream, Soda, ......Where do we stop?

[RobertNashville]

Many times the root cause is drugs, either needing money for a fix or being so high they claimed that they didn’t know what they were doing. I understand you aren’t going to buy that under any circumstances, that’s fine; it’s just a discussion.

Yes, alcohol is a dangerous drug; it has been the root cause for the death of many innocent people. In my observations as a Police Officer I would say it is a worse drug than pot. I’m sure there are people on this forum that have lost loved ones due to alcohol. But I couldn’t care less about pot; I’m talking about narcotics. These are my firsthand observations as having been a Police Officer and responding to the aftermath of criminals that needed a fix, or were out of control. I have seen firsthand the effects it has on people, I have had to take to them jail after they have committed their acts, and had to notify the families of the dead. I’ve also seen the arrested crying in jail about how it was the drugs after being told what they did.

So yes, the drugs are the root cause in many cases and if you don’t maintain drug enforcement you will be sending a message to a whole new generations that drugs are okay.

I agree with you that alcohol is bad, but I fail to see the connection between prohibition and allowing illegal drugs. Many people use alcohol as a recreational drug and don’t have problem. Many people are addicted to alcohol and it destroys their lives, and sometimes the lives of innocent bystanders. Are those the reasons you are using to justify allowing the use of crack, methamphetamine, or heroin?

So we are in agreement…. Alcohol is bad. The fact it is legal doesn’t justify making those other drugs legal.

Well said.

[RobertNashville]

I can't believe there are so many people on this board that are in favor of government telling it's subjects how to live their lives. I would have thought that this group more than most would want to respect the power of the individual to make their own decisions. What a disappointment.

Some have argued that MJ is OK but anything else is bad. That's the same as saying a revolver is OK but anything with more than 6 rounds is bad.

Some have argued that people on drugs cause crime. Isn't our argument about guns that if criminals want guns they will get them? I'd say the same about drugs. If users want them they will get them. Now do you want them to do that as a criminal or as a law abiding citizen?

Some have argued that people on drugs may hurt MY family or society as a whole. Just like people with guns may shoot up a theater watching Batman? People will do bad things to people. Their motivations or implements of this wrong doing are irrelevant. Punish the people not the product they use.

Some people argue that legalized drugs will be a high $ cost to society. We are already paying a very high $ cost with our failed prohibition policies. I don't think the cost of legal drugs would be any higher than that. However, I would speculate that High Fructose Corn Syrup has a higher cost to society than drugs. On that note, let's abolish cane sugar, Oreo's, IceCream, Soda, ......Where do we stop?

The difference, my friend, is what those various things do to those who use them, to those immediately around them and to society itself.

It's been both my observation and the conclusion based on looking at the issue that there is a much larger "cost" to narcotics use and abuse than can be measured in dollars alone. They are often not easy to quantify but that doesn't negate that they exist.

Leaving any "moral" considerations out of it for the moment, in a sealed environment where absolutely no one else can be negatively impacted, I don't give a flying you-know-what about what anybody does to themselves. However, narcotics use very often (I believe usually) doesn't just impact only that one individual and since it does not, society has the right and I would submit, the duty and obligation to act.

[RobertNashville]

Hi Robert

There are numerous considerations and the "consensus" view has never been close to mine. I formed opinions working in substance abuse counseling in the early 1970's. Have kept up with it "a little bit" since but I don't pretend to have ever been an expert. Maybe 20 or 30 percent of people I knew in the field had similar views and the rest were rather hard-tail authoritarian about it, which seems about the same today.

Using typical consensus modern-day values there is little or no way to argue that substance abuse of any kind is a good thing. There is use and there is abuse. I'm not even trying to make an argument that 'use' might be sometimes good rather than bad, but it gets a little complicated. If a substance happens to be illegal then any use tends to be automatically categorized as abuse. In some people's minds, even one snort of cocaine, once per decade, would be "abuse".

The definition gets squishier with legal substances. For instance with alcohol, a rule of thumb sometimes applied-- If drinking causes a person significant problems, messes up his life and gets him in trouble or ruins his health or breaks up his family, then it is abuse. If a fella drinks occasionally but his drinking doesn't lose him his job or ruin his health or land him in jail or spoil family harmony, then it ain't abuse.

Often beginning counseling the question "is the drinking causing problems". Often the fellas we were seeing would be in denial. Drinking caused problems but they wouldn't admit it to themselves. The first step was to help the guy come to an understanding whether or not he believed that he had a problem. Unless he viewed his behavior as a problem, there wasn't much to talk about. Until the drinking would get worse until he can't fool himself any more. Like Baghdad Bob on the day before the marines roll in. "No we don't have a problem here. Everything is fine."

It was still ambiguous. Maybe a guy only drinks one time per year, but every time the fella takes a drink, the night ends with him in jail or with a broken leg or a wrecked car or a beat-up wife or a cussed-out boss. Such a fella rarely drinks but he has a serious drinking problem.

Then some solid, stable salt-of-the-earth fellows would work overtime every day and do a great job, come home and be a good family man, and drink a fifth of whiskey every night. Do the same every day like clockwork for years. Some of those guys would drink a fifth of whiskey every day for 30 years with no problemo. Eventually it became a problem when the health finally broke and they would have to decide to either quit or die.

Most alcoholics lay somewhere in-between those extremes. The people we were seeing, would usually be consuming a quart of whiskey per day, or a case of beer per day, or a gallon of wine per day. Though a quantitative threshold for abuse would be significantly lower than those amounts.

I'm just saying that the same distinctions could be made for illegal drugs-- But such distinctions are rarely drawn. With illegal substances, any use at all might be considered abuse. Even the fella who snorts cocaine one time per year, or smokes a joint one time per year.

Substance abuse, both legal and illegal, causes countless problems. And the war on drugs causes additional countless problems.

Will abuse get worse and take over the entire population unless we fight the war on drugs? Recall geometric or exponential progressions. If we start with one bacteria and it divides once per hour, then after XX hours the entire visible universe will be full to the brim with bacteria. But in practice that never happens. The bacteria hit a limit-- Often hitting the limit even before escaping the petri dish.

Drug warriors tend to believe that everyone would turn into dope fiends unless we constantly fight the drug war.

I don't think that is correct. I think there are natural limits-- That we are already near the natural limit. If we are already near the natural limit then we could stop the war on drugs-- Wipe out the problems caused by the war on drugs-- And the serious problems from substance abuse will be no worse and no better than today. It would make the best of a bad situation by refusing to let a war on drugs make our problems even worse. Substance abuse will always be with us, at about the same levels, and so just make the best of it.

You've obviously had more direct experience with substance abusers than I have. As I just mentioned in a post just a moment ago, my opinion that narcotics should no be legal is based on what I believe is the usual and predictable outcome of the use of narcotics (which are often different and much more severe than use and even abuse of such substances as alcohol, marjuina , etc.

From NIDA:

"It is an all-too-common scenario: A person experiments with an addictive drug like cocaine. Perhaps he intends to try it just once, for "the experience" of it. It turns out, though, that he enjoys the drug's euphoric effect so much that in ensuing weeks and months he uses it again -- and again. But in due time, he decides he really should quit. He knows that despite the incomparable short-term high he gets from using cocaine, the long-term consequences of its use are perilous. So he vows to stop using it.

His brain, however, has a different agenda. It now demands cocaine. While his rational mind knows full well that he shouldn't use it again, his brain overrides such warnings. Unbeknown to him, repeated use of cocaine has brought about dramatic changes in both the structure and function of his brain. In fact, if he'd known the danger signs for which to be on the lookout, he would have realized that the euphoric effect derived from cocaine use is itself a sure sign that the drug is inducing a change in the brain -- just as he would have known that as time passes, and the drug is used with increasing regularity, this change becomes more pronounced, and indelible, until finally his brain has become addicted to the drug.

And so, despite his heartfelt vow never again to use cocaine, he continues using it. Again and again.

His drug use is now beyond his control. It is compulsive. He is addicted.

While this turn of events is a shock to the drug user, it is no surprise at all to researchers who study the effects of addictive drugs. To them, it is a predictable outcome."

So the questions then seem to be "how predictable" and "how often does the use lead to abuse"? I don't know the answer to either but as I think is usually the best course of action with many issues; if I'm wrong I'd rather be wrong on the side of caution.

For those who want all substances "legal"; perhaps the answer is exceptionally long, long (i.e. decades) sentences to either prison or a secure facility where these people are separated from society so their chosen activity can no longer harm anyone else.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Drug use isn't the root cause of anything. A social behavior or other tendency is a root cause for a person to have a tendency to use drugs,

which is an "effect" of some root cause. Blaming it on the drug doesn't fix anything but a symptom to some root cause.

We will never fix the drug problem by making the drug illegal, or otherwise control it. We will fix it when we figure out how to inject moral behavior

back into society. That takes a lot of individuals starting to agree on certain chicken/egg arguments like how the problem came into existence,

in the first place.

Everything being done, like building fences and outlawing certain drugs is only a bandaid. It doesn't fix the underlying problem.

Property seizure laws only help breed corruption within government entities and use the excuse of funding those programs to justify the

continued corruption. Government empowerment. Crimes by the state using altruistic means against the people. Statism in disguise.

[sigmtnman]

Drug use isn't the root cause of anything. A social behavior or other tendency is a root cause for a person to have a tendency to use drugs,

which is an "effect" of some root cause. Blaming it on the drug doesn't fix anything but a symptom to some root cause.

We will never fix the drug problem by making the drug illegal, or otherwise control it. We will fix it when we figure out how to inject moral behavior

back into society. That takes a lot of individuals starting to agree on certain chicken/egg arguments like how the problem came into existence,

in the first place.

Everything being done, like building fences and outlawing certain drugs is only a bandaid. It doesn't fix the underlying problem.

Property seizure laws only help breed corruption within government entities and use the excuse of funding those programs to justify the

continued corruption. Government empowerment. Crimes by the state using altruistic means against the people. Statism in disguise.

Very profound observations and statements 6.8.

[TrickyNicky]

Drug use isn't the root cause of anything. A social behavior or other tendency is a root cause for a person to have a tendency to use drugs,

which is an "effect" of some root cause. Blaming it on the drug doesn't fix anything but a symptom to some root cause.

We will never fix the drug problem by making the drug illegal, or otherwise control it. We will fix it when we figure out how to inject moral behavior

back into society. That takes a lot of individuals starting to agree on certain chicken/egg arguments like how the problem came into existence,

in the first place.

Everything being done, like building fences and outlawing certain drugs is only a bandaid. It doesn't fix the underlying problem.

Property seizure laws only help breed corruption within government entities and use the excuse of funding those programs to justify the

continued corruption. Government empowerment. Crimes by the state using altruistic means against the people. Statism in disguise.

+1

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I thought you might like that. We definitely agree on those types of "thangs".

The rest of it is just malarky. Well, and some well placed evil.

You or someone mentioned property seizure laws somewhere back there, and that got me going.

It always gets me going.

Edited August 3, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Hell, I guess I killed this thread. Y'all get cranked up again. Sorry for the intrusion.

[sigmtnman]

Hell, I guess I killed this thread. Y'all get cranked up again. Sorry for the intrusion.

nah, You just put a nice icing on the cake. I seriously doubt that most folks who want drugs to remain criminal will never change their mind. Just like I doubt that most folks who want guns outlawed will ever change their mind. We all have opinions that we are pretty well set in. It takes a serious paradigm shift to change those and generally discussion is not the vehicle. Not implying that anyone is right or wrong with that statement, just that it is what it is.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Well, we're fixing to get that shift soon, aren't we? Called a tyranny pie loaded with ex-lax.