Legal drugs in Mexico

[Lare Kikkeli]

Free weed or death!

[Walsingham]

Yes, it's very cheap to give people free drugs. You realize now you have to provide total support for a completely dysfunctional human being, who can't hold a job or function in society. Drugs used to be legal, they were doing so much damage they had to be criminalized.

 

Firstly, the drive to prohibit drugs originated in the United States, and sprang from a drive to find jobs for all the Federal agents involved in trying to prohibit alcohol after it was realised it did nothing but foster organised crime. Having failed to prohibit something which had to be carefully manufactured and transported in large volumes they then tried to prohibit something which requires virtually no manuifacture and only the vaguest transportation restrictions in tiny quantities.

 

The greatest harm is not done by addicts, it's done by the supply chain and corruption which the illegal trade fosters. If one assuems the trade cannot be halted by attack, then it must be destroyed by other means.

 

It is simply childish to continue investing in the fantasy that drugs can be policed away. Maybe legalistaion isn't the way forward but where we are now is destroying whole nations.

[Wrath of Dagon]

So the solution is to create more addicts?

[Gfted1]

Of course not silly, the solution is to create a social program and abolish all laws for all mans addictions. Im holding out for the "free hookers" initiative to hit.

[Walsingham]

Of course not silly, the solution is to create a social program and abolish all laws for all mans addictions. Im holding out for the "free hookers" initiative to hit.

 

High quality drugs are cheap as chips and easy to manufacture. High quality hookers? I don't know.

 

WoD, you're missing the point, which may be down to my poor powers of explication. I'm not saying there won't be more addicts. Im saying - after talking to addicts, and recovered addicts, after years of research and study, after talking to organised criminals and police officers, that the current system does not prevent addicts. Capice?

 

The current system emphasises criminalisation, with incarceration of offenders. Incarceration has been proven not to deter offenders due to the huge sums of money arising from drug dealing, and the comparatively few law-enforcement officers available to investigate and prosecute offenders. It has also lead to record criminal populations.

 

The current system also supports the notion of interdiction. Interdiction doesn't work because it's mathematically obvious that it won't. The total drug shipment system revolves around maybe a few thousand tonnes of material being transhipped with literally billions of tonnes of safe material. Which might not be so bad if it was irradiated or something which was easy to sense, but it isn't. Moreover, because the drugs are naturally so cheap and easy to make, any losses can be pre-planned for and compensated for by over-production. For example, many gangs which use human mules will put so many mules on one flight that they know they cannot all be stopped and searched, and the profits from those which get through pay for any which are lost. this is why you always see news reports of seizures in street prices. "Police report seizure with street price of 100 million" rather than the wholesale price which would be a fraction of that.

 

Both approaches do serve to prevent the market from being overrun totally by amateurs, which is handy for organised crime since it neatly keeps their competitors down and inflates the price.

 

Organised crime, and their 'buddies' in international terrorism (who are often involved in production) corrupt whole nations, murder and oppress. They can do so because they can outspend virtually any of the producer and transhipment states. And the longer this continues the worse things get. Or hadn't you noticed the nosediving security situation in Mexico?

 

I cannot stress this enough. this isn't about some moral point of order like a townhall fish supper. this is about the future of hundreds of millions of people worldwide. And as harsh as it sounds I'm prepared to let people choose for themselves if they want to **** up their life with drugs the same way they are free to **** up their life jumping under a train, drinking alcohol or joining the military.

[Gorgon]

I'm just talking about legalization, which would drive the price down enough that druggies wouldn't need to steal, also quality control would mean a lot less overdoses and long term harmful effects. many of them would be able to hold down regular jobs. The data from trials backs me up on this.

 

It would also restore some semblance of a life for the write-offs. Half their day is spend scrambling to steal or beg for the next fix, which is why they live on the streets and cant think more than a day ahead.

[Walsingham]

I'm just talking about legalization, which would drive the price down enough that druggies wouldn't need to steal, also quality control would mean a lot less overdoses and long term harmful effects. many of them would be able to hold down regular jobs. The data from trials backs me up on this.

 

It would also restore some semblance of a life for the write-offs. Half their day is spend scrambling to steal or beg for the next fix, which is why they live on the streets and cant think more than a day ahead.

 

This is very true. I didn't interview, but I did research a heroin addict who was an heir to several billion. He took pure heroin whenever he wanted (obviously), was a total c*** but did manage to hold down a standard life in most respects.

 

To further your point, of the four recovered heroin addicts I interviewed, three of them quit when their supply became so stable that they didn't have to spend much time securing it or paying for it (they became involved in supply). The fourth guy quit through enforced rehab, but admitted that - unlike the others - he would certainly take any if offerred to him.

[Wrath of Dagon]

And as harsh as it sounds I'm prepared to let people choose for themselves if they want to **** up their life with drugs the same way they are free to **** up their life jumping under a train, drinking alcohol or joining the military.

I agree, but the problem with legalization it'll be easier for kids to get hooked, ruin their lives, and become a burden on society. I don't believe most heroin addicts can hold down a job, so either they'll turn to crime or someone else will have to pay for all their needs and wants.

[Gfted1]

Well to be fair, legalization would come with age restrictions, like booze.

[Walsingham]

And as harsh as it sounds I'm prepared to let people choose for themselves if they want to **** up their life with drugs the same way they are free to **** up their life jumping under a train, drinking alcohol or joining the military.

I agree, but the problem with legalization it'll be easier for kids to get hooked, ruin their lives, and become a burden on society. I don't believe most heroin addicts can hold down a job, so either they'll turn to crime or someone else will have to pay for all their needs and wants.

 

 

As Gfted points out, we're talking controlled, not a heroin faucet in the street. And also having clear warnings on the damn things. I'm also against legalising stuff like crack and meth because they are so completely destructive, and I suspect that legal free options would draw users away.

 

I'm also ready to prevent subscriptions being given to people who aren't already users. I'm not sure if that would help or scupper the whole point, but it seems to make sense prima facie.

 

The debate rather reminds me of the debate on suicide. Suicide used to be illegal in this country (until 1961) and some people genuinely argued that legalising it would make lots more people commit suicide. It turns out that there wasn't a massive increase. Although it is only fair to point out that I just discovered that suicide rates for boys have doubled since 1985. I would try to argue that this increase, as well as the urge to turn to drugs is down to a general change in society which has caused people to be more stressed and dysfunctional.

 

I hope its clear that I'm hardly disinterested in what happens to people, and don't like the thought of people being addicted. I simply can't add up the facts any other way.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Say no to freedom of stupidity.

 

Say no to free drugs.

 

 

Goddamn I don't get some of you nutters.

Your avatar. Look at it. Irrelevant, yes, but the irony is amazing.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Yes, I understand it would still be illegal to kids. But the point is the more easily drugs are available and the less stigma attached, the more use can be expected, especially among kids. It's pretty hard to convince your child something is wrong when even the government says it's legal.

[Walsingham]

Yes, I understand it would still be illegal to kids. But the point is the more easily drugs are available and the less stigma attached, the more use can be expected, especially among kids. It's pretty hard to convince your child something is wrong when even the government says it's legal.

 

In my experience it's far harder trying to convince a kid that heroin and crack are bad when the government tells them things like e and marijuana are the work of satan. Kids generally do whatever they're told not to do on general principle.

 

Changing tack slightly, I thought I'd test the notion that government handouts make for an increase in crappy behaviour being supported. I thought I'd look at unemployment rates in the UK and the US. I've only done some desultory checking in case my basic logic is flawed, but UK unemployment doesn't seem higher than the US according to any.

 

Thoughts?

[Gfted1]

Changing tack slightly, I thought I'd test the notion that government handouts make for an increase in crappy behaviour being supported. I thought I'd look at unemployment rates in the UK and the US. I've only done some desultory checking in case my basic logic is flawed, but UK unemployment doesn't seem higher than the US according to any.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

Not sure about the UK but in the U.S. unemployment benefits have a finite run (6 months I believe) before they are cut off so its not possible to make a long term living off it, thus "forcing" people back to work.

[Wrath of Dagon]

OK, unemployment only counts people who are temporarily out of work, not people who don't work at all or are engaged in criminal activity instead. Normal US unemployment is around 5%, of course now it's twice that because of the economic crisis.

Edited December 1, 2009 by Wrath of Dagon

[Gorgon]

5% is considered full employment by most economists, now because of the crisis the US rate is 20% last i checked, surprised me it was that bad. Anyway unemployment bennies has a limited run here too, after it runs out they shame you into looking for a job by forcing you to attend 35 hour a week 'courses' on this or that. Only those who really can't find work stay.

[Wrath of Dagon]

The official rate is something like 10.2%. Some say it's higher as you should really count underemployment. I tend to think that's bull since at that point you're not comparing apples to apples.

[Gfted1]

The official rate is something like 10.2%.

 

True, that is the current unemployment rate but that only includes people who are actively receiving benefits. Not included in that percentage are the people who have already used up all their benefit and have been removed from the list, which makes the number much closer to Gorgons.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

...the more easily drugs are available and the less stigma attached, the more use can be expected, especially among kids.

 

I would disagree.

 

It's pretty hard to convince your child something is wrong when even the government says it's legal.

 

Again, I would disagree.

[Wrath of Dagon]

The official rate is something like 10.2%.

 

True, that is the current unemployment rate but that only includes people who are actively receiving benefits. Not included in that percentage are the people who have already used up all their benefit and have been removed from the list, which makes the number much closer to Gorgons.

I'm pretty sure it counts everyone who's still looking for work. Also unemployment benefits have been extended, to may be 18 months. I don't think unemployment is anywhere near 20%, that would be Great Depression levels.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

I'm pretty sure it counts everyone who's still looking for work.

 

It does to a certain extent, if I remember correctly the cut-off is six weeks - id est if you have not actively looked for a job in the ways recognized within six weeks than you are not counted.

 

I don't think unemployment is anywhere near 20%, that would be Great Depression levels.

 

If you're counting underemployment, unemployment was much higher during The Great Depression.

[Gorgon]

I was referring to a figure from the Department of Labour statistics published a few months ago. I think the word was 'jobless rate'. I'm not sure if that's a different category. Looking at their site I couldn't find it, but honestly social science was a long time ago, I don't know what I'm looking for.

 

The latest unemployment figures say 10.2 apparently.

[alanschu]

Unemployment rate should actively count people that are not employed and looking for work. Counting this can be tricky, because someone that hits the phones and goes to interviews etc. but doesn't get counted due to not being on unemployment or having access through other means. It seems like reported numbers are at best a lower bound.

[Walsingham]

OK, well so far as I know you can go unemployed in the UK long term with minimal hassle provided you only want benefits not you know an actual life.My point being that if that free handout approach is 2% more than another system where there are no handouts then it says something about how many peopel are prepared to simply sign off on life and just scrounge. It might inform our expectations of how many would just sit about taking free drugs. Or as I say I could be way off. It's just a thought.

 

Going back to the idea that it's harder to stop kids if the govt says something's legal, there's all sorts of things which are legal but standard for parents to explain. Not sticking your tongue in the toaster, for example. Not shouting loudly near large angry men. Not shouting loudly near small quiet men. Not rubbing poo on your face. Not going on holiday without taking your malaria medicine...

[Wrath of Dagon]

Is there an upside to any of those?