Another drug legalisation piece

[Walsingham]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-10990921

 

As the Daily Mash observes (by proxy)

 

"My comments are nothing more than the sort of off-the-top-of-the-head ramblings one consistently hears from hippy dippy chief constables, members of the government's scientific advisory panel on getting off your **** and silly little people like Sir Nicholas Green QC, the chief druid at the UK Bar Council."

"

[vault_overseer]

I'm a supporter of legalization of MJ, although I don't know how I feel about heavier stuff. The Prohibition doesn't work and only fuels the trade by supporting street gangs with easy cash flow, so that's gotta stop. However, I'm not exactly sure how to proceed with regulation of top tier drugs - making people register as drug addicts for government supply would work in helping addicts control their usage, but would be little too big brother'ish for my liking...

[Orogun01]

Maybe to reduce the health risks of heroin use they could do like Russia and give proper instructions on the use of needles . . . and condoms.

[Walsingham]

I'm a supporter of legalization of MJ, although I don't know how I feel about heavier stuff. The Prohibition doesn't work and only fuels the trade by supporting street gangs with easy cash flow, so that's gotta stop. However, I'm not exactly sure how to proceed with regulation of top tier drugs - making people register as drug addicts for government supply would work in helping addicts control their usage, but would be little too big brother'ish for my liking...

 

I understand your reservations. At present I see drugs users in three groups:

 

1. The 'healthy' who can afford and control their use

2. The fools who can afford their abuse but can't control it

3. The victims who are given drugs as a means of exerting control

 

If I understand you correctly then you're concerned that legalisation will essentially put the State in the third role.

 

But my concern is with a fourth group

 

4. Those who suffer the effects of the illicit drug industry

 

It is my contention that this fourth group massively outnumbers the other three. We're talking whole nation states sinking beneath into a morass of corruption and violence.

[Orogun01]

The only solution to the drug problem is for the state to take the role of the druglords and turn the drug trade towards alternative venues, not one of them a consumer.

Legalization, i'm afraid that it won't be effective since most of these drugs were permitted once and even embraced. It was the series of drug epidemics that led to the banning of many products that used narcotics.

[Aram]

Well, some were only banned because they were believed to make black men immune to bullets.

[Orogun01]

Well, some were only banned because they were believed to make black men immune to bullets.

Actually cocaine was given as an incentive to black workers because it's stimulant properties. Then came along the whole "cocaine crazed negro rapes white woman" and the cops asking for higher caliber guns. There are a lot of politics involved in drug legislation that have nothing to do with the harmful effects of drugs, the current war against drugs was a result of said causes and had mostly little to do with drugs.

[vault_overseer]

drug epidemics that led to the banning of many products that used narcotics.

 

...and there have not been any drug epidemics ever since...

[Orogun01]

drug epidemics that led to the banning of many products that used narcotics.

 

...and there have not been any drug epidemics ever since...

None related to giving your kids cocaine laced candy or the actual "Coca-Cola", and that's why; gentlemen, people used to beat kids savagely.

[Humodour]

Orogun I think it's the language barrier but you're crazy.

 

I fully support 100% drug decriminalisation.

 

I only support legalisation for the soft drugs, mostly: marijuana, the tryptamine psychedelics (LSD and magic mushrooms), and the phenethylamine psychedelics (mescaline and MDMA/esctasy)

 

I also support harm minimisation measures such as drug replacement therapy.

[Nepenthe]

Well, some were only banned because they were believed to make black men immune to bullets.

Actually cocaine was given as an incentive to black workers because it's stimulant properties.

 

... and it's taken by models because it's also a diuretic. Clearly a win-win situation.

[Walsingham]

It was the series of drug epidemics that led to the banning of many products that used narcotics.

 

Before I emit a piercing shriek, may I politely enquire where you got this idea?

[Wrath of Dagon]

Didn't the British already try to force China to legalize opium?

[Walsingham]

Didn't the British already try to force China to legalize opium?

 

Indeed. Before our war on drugs we had a war FOR drugs.

[Orogun01]

Orogun I think it's the language barrier but you're crazy.

 

I fully support 100% drug decriminalisation.

 

I only support legalisation for the soft drugs, mostly: marijuana, the tryptamine psychedelics (LSD and magic mushrooms), and the phenethylamine psychedelics (mescaline and MDMA/esctasy)

 

I also support harm minimisation measures such as drug replacement therapy.

The problem is that Americans have no self control when it comes to consumption, so most of these drugs that are still being abused are just being opened to a wider audience.

 

It was the series of drug epidemics that led to the banning of many products that used narcotics.

 

Before I emit a piercing shriek, may I politely enquire where you got this idea?

I'm talking here just from an American perspective since I don't know the legislation history of other countries. In early 1900's; IIRC, the safe food and drugs act passed which required that every product put on the label the ingredients and dosage and to be subject to federal inspection. At the time a lot of drugs that hadn't been properly tested and whose long term effects were unknown were being added to almost every product with a pitch sale of being a magical ingredient.

 

Please, keep your temper down

[Walsingham]

Your point about the FDA is an interesting one, but only tangential to the history of narcotics prohibition. There was certainly a problem with drug abusers in most nations, but the drive to prohibit drugs came in the wake of the failed experiment with alcohol prohibition. Anti-alcohol agencies were desperate for a new role and found alliance with a religious right wing always eager to put the boot in on 'sin'. Plus it would be bold indeed to deny a racial note in the propaganda of the time.

 

Other nations only fell into line with the US under serious pressure from US administrations.

 

Ironically it was (arguably) the transition to prohibition which permitted the necessary funds to be pushed into narcotics to create an industry capable of causing the mass addiction it was intended to prevent. ONLY illicit supply of drugs could command such a high price for something any fool can grow on scrub land.

[Orogun01]

Yet that still wasn't enough since those groups lack the resources to effectively fight the drug trade which went through a great revival in the 70's. When the war against drugs; with his clear political agenda was launched.

The demand from soldiers coming back from combat and the hippies made America probably the biggest drug consumer in the world.

Edited August 19, 2010 by Orogun01

[Walsingham]

I'm no cultural historian, but I'd suggest you are conflating two very distinct phenomena when you talk about the 60s and 70s being into drugs. I believe the numbers taking habit forming drugs like heroin and other opiates was less than those taking elective drugs like marijuana and LSD.

 

I'd like to reiterate for anyone who's just joined this discussion: I don't believe drugs are a good thing. I simply don't believe there is any evidence that government enforced prohibition stops anyone taking them.

[Nightshape]

Orogun I think it's the language barrier but you're crazy.

 

I fully support 100% drug decriminalisation.

 

I only support legalisation for the soft drugs, mostly: marijuana, the tryptamine psychedelics (LSD and magic mushrooms), and the phenethylamine psychedelics (mescaline and MDMA/esctasy)

 

I also support harm minimisation measures such as drug replacement therapy.

 

^ What he said.

[Orogun01]

I'm no cultural historian, but I'd suggest you are conflating two very distinct phenomena when you talk about the 60s and 70s being into drugs. I believe the numbers taking habit forming drugs like heroin and other opiates was less than those taking elective drugs like marijuana and LSD.

 

I'd like to reiterate for anyone who's just joined this discussion: I don't believe drugs are a good thing. I simply don't believe there is any evidence that government enforced prohibition stops anyone taking them.

It has a bearing because it was not only the hippies that were into drugs, soldier that had developed an opiate habit overseas had now a drug problem back home. Plus it was the presence of hippies and all of their political movement that indirectly launched the drug war, since it was the only way for Nixon to nail them. It also made the US the prime consumer for all the drug lords of south america and as soon as entrepreneurial spirits picked on the success of the drug trade they found their way into the US. Plus the traffic of marijuana also gave way for the cocaine overflow of the 80's since cocaine was easier to move by the bulk and more profitable traders changed product.

[Walsingham]

Cocaine's a much 'better' product for a lot of reasons. As you point out, it is smaller when pure, and can be easily cut by vendors to boost profitability. The high is shorter than opiates or marijuana and apart from cocaine users becoming much bigger a-holes than normal, they still function. So you can keep a more stable and profitable customer base.

 

Of course it doesn't help that pop culture has accepted drug use, but that really isn't going to change because government tells them to stop. While I do think legalisation is essential, I think we as people need to reject users of class A drugs from our idol lists.

 

Sherlock Holmes doesn't count.

[Humodour]

On December 14, 2009, the Czech Republic adopted a new law that took effect on January 1, 2010, and allows a person to possess up to 15 grams of marijuana or 1.5 grams of heroin without facing criminal charges

 

On 18 June 2010, Knut Storberget, Minister of Justice and the Police announced that the ministry is working on new drug policy involving decriminalization by the Portugal model, which will be introduced to parliament before the next general election.

 

In August 2009, the Argentine supreme court declared in a landmark ruling that it was "unconstitutional" to prosecute citizens for having drugs for their personal use - "adults should be free to make lifestyle decisions without the intervention of the state".

 

In April 2009, the Mexican Congress approved changes in the General Health Law that decriminalized the possession of illegal drugs for immediate consumption and personal use

 

In the most recent Australian parliament, the Greens gained balance of power in the Senate, and co-balance in the Lower House. Their drug policy is full decriminalisation and harm minimisation.

 

And we all know about the Dutch situation.

[Walsingham]

I think it's slightly disingenuous to describe the Dutch situation as 'fine' - which is what you imply. Holland is a transhipment point for many drugs syndicates (amongst others see The Dragon Syndicates *), and has significant issues with hard drugs users (anecdotal from colleagues).

 

 

 

 

 

* The book is awesome, and Martin may well have died investigating the follow up in Thailand.

[Humodour]

I think it's slightly disingenuous to describe the Dutch situation as 'fine' - which is what you imply.

 

I did not describe that Dutch situation as 'fine', or imply that. Don't put words in my mouth. I was highlighting recent progress and reform in drug legislation around the world. Some of the above situations I am pleased as punch with, others not so much (I think the Dutch situation is a diluted mess, though it's clearly superior to the situation in Britain, Australia, or America).

 

That said, I suggest you do some more research on Dutch drug policy. What aspect of it do you dislike? The bit where drug use is treated as a health issue rather than a criminal one? The bit where harm minimisation programmes are used to treat addicts, rather than gaol time? The bit where they distinguish between soft and hard drugs to better focus law enforcement, health, and education funds? The bit where they come down as hard as ever on supply of drugs (dealers)?

 

I much prefer the way Portugal handles drug policy to the way the Netherlands do.

 

You mentioned a problem with 'hard-drug users' - the wiki page suggests the opposite. Sure, not the most ideal source, but given it cites sources and you didn't provide any at all I'm inclined to run with it.

 

The monthly prevalence of drugs other than cannabis among young people (15-24) was 4% in 2004, that was above the average (3%) of 15 compared countries in EU. However, seemingly few transcend to becoming problem drug users (0.44%), well below the average (0.52%) of the same compared countries.[22]

 

The reported number of deaths linked to the use of drugs in the Netherlands, as a proportion of the entire population, is lower than the EU average.[23] The Dutch government is able to support approximately 90% of help-seeking addicts with detoxification programs. Treatment demand is rising.[24]

 

Disclaimer: I don't know why your post irritated me so much but it did. No hard feelings.

Edited September 2, 2010 by Krezack

[Walsingham]

If it irritated you, I apologise unreservedly. I do have some people I enjoy irritating, but you are not one of them.

 

Dodging abjectly your point about problematic users, I do think that the central problem Holland has is that it takes a 'softer' line than those countries which surround it. Users and losers naturally gravitate there. Which is why our shared preference of convincing all Europe to legalise might fix the problem.

 

I suppose the object of my earlier post was to highlight the perception that Holland is not OK among at least some decision makers and law enforcement, not to mention people travelling there. A perception which needs to be addressed if you use Holland as a case study in your argument.