Its legal for me to go skydiving, but that doesn't mean I go do it. I can legally go to a strip club, but I haven't done it. I could get my body pierced legally, but I haven't done it. With your premise, you're basically saying everyone would get murdered because it was legal.
Let me put it this way, crabs, if murder were legal you would be dead
so, you are trying to say that the only thing stopping people from doing drugs is that it's against the law?
and yet, the facts show that this is not the case.
people still do drugs...as much if not more so.
the murder law is fairly effective (people do still get murdered), but the drug law isn't. The facts show that the drug laws simply aren't effective.
and besides, I don't think it's human nature to murder someone...but it most definately IS human nature to take drugs. The person who takes no drugs whatsoever is a rare thing indeed.
so please, show some facts about how drug use, when they were legal, is significantly higher than when they are legal...or give it up.
drugs were perfectly legal a century ago...and yet drug use wasn't nearly the problem it is now that they are legal. How do you explain that?
provide some facts to back up this apparently uninformed opinion of yours.
and to put everyone's mind at ease, bodine wasn't threatening me, he was just providing an example.
and BTW Jethro, murder infringes on someone else's right to life, drug use infringes on no one...they are fundementally different things.
I've wanted to slap Crabby on numerous occasions, but I've never wanted to kill him.
but the question is, do you want to incarcerate me if I grow a plant and smoke it?
we have established that bodine does...I'm sure he gets off on the idea of fucking up the lives of people who have never done anything to him...it's a power trip for him no doubt.
Its legal for me to go skydiving, but that doesn't mean I go do it. I can legally go to a strip club, but I haven't done it. I could get my body pierced legally, but I haven't done it. With your premise, you're basically saying everyone would get murdered because it was legal.
No I am not saying "everyone would get murdered because it was legal." And if you thought about it you would know that is not the case. I am saying the activity would increase to some degree. Just because you don't do doesn't mean that there are many others that don't. I can tell you for a fact of certain things were legal I would do them. I can also tell you that many others would do things that are currently illegal if that status were to change. Take your sky-diving example. If it were illegal to sky-dive don't you suppose there would be less of it? The cost would go up for one thing which would place a limitation on the activity.
oh that's right. in jethro's world, making something legal automatically encourages it. gotcha.
It isn't very difficult. Illegal status increases the cost associated with any activity. If the illegal status is removed then the cost will go down if there is any demand whatsoever. Lower costs increase consumption it is Econ 101.
Illegal status increases the cost associated with any activity. If the illegal status is removed then the cost will go down if there is any demand whatsoever. Lower costs increase consumption it is Econ 101
so, you just don't want poor people doing it?
and you don't mind if all that money gets sucked out of the legitimate economy and used for things like...oh...terrorism and organized crime?
so, you are trying to say that the only thing stopping people from doing drugs is that it's against the law?
Insert the word "some" between stopping and people and you would understand what I wrote.
and yet, the facts show that this is not the case. Your "facts" are a load of crap which don't reflect reality.
people still do drugs...as much if not more so. You are one stupid ....
the murder law is fairly effective (people do still get murdered), but the drug law isn't. The facts show that the drug laws simply aren't effective. I am telling you that it does reduce the use due to increased costs of both of money and risk.
so please, show some facts about how drug use, when they were legal, is significantly higher than when they are legal...or give it up. Start that rusty mind that God gave you and you would see that lowered costs and risk will increase use.
provide some facts to back up this apparently uninformed opinion of yours. Start thinking instead of believing what you have been spoon fed from those that want cheaper drugs at no risk.
we have established that bodine does...I'm sure he gets off on the idea of fucking up the lives of people who have never done anything to him...it's a power trip for him no doubt. They destroy their own lives. I have had nothing to do with your f**** up life.
tell me bodine, by this logic, the death penalty must keep people from murdering each other even more, right? Those executed never kill again.
so, you just don't want poor people doing it? The rich have always been able to do things that the poor cannot. There is nothing I can do about that fact of life. I support equal jail time for both rich and poor.
and you don't mind if all that money gets sucked out of the legitimate economy and used for things like...oh...terrorism and organized crime? There is no legitimate "economy" for certain drugs. And the money is not completely sucked out due to forfeiture laws. As for supporting terrorism and organized crime those that buy the illegal product do that, not me.
"...increased enforcement of marijuana laws fails to serve as a deterrent for adolescent use. In fact, federal statistics note just the opposite. 'As marijuana arrests rose throughout the 1990s, so did the number of adolescents reporting experimentation with marijuana,' said Stroup, citing annual data from the University of Michigan Monitoring the Future study indicating rising adolescent marijuana use since 1992. 'The fact that marijuana use among youth appears to be growing at a time when law enforcement is arresting record numbers of adult users confirms that marijuana prohibition is not an effective deterrent in marijuana consumption.'"
Since 1965 law enforcement has arrested approximately 12 million Americans on marijuana charges
and yet it's as popular as ever.
facts bodine...bring some facts with you...otherwise it's just your uninformed opinion.
Statistics indicate that over one-third of the adult American population admits to experimenting with marijuana. Is it rational to continue a federal policy that would place all these individuals in jail?
a time when law enforcement is arresting record numbers of adult users confirms that marijuana prohibition is not an effective deterrent in marijuana consumption.'"
The term "effective" is subjective. One of the reasons use has gone up is because the penalties have been steadily reduced for possession and use. Increase the penalties, such as jail time and fines, the use will be reduced.
Statistics indicate that over one-third of the adult American population admits to experimenting with marijuana. Is it rational to continue a federal policy that would place all these individuals in jail?
One of the reasons use has gone up is because the penalties have been steadily reduced for possession and use. Increase the penalties, such as jail time and fines, the use will be reduced
this is just not true.
the penalties have gotten stiffer and there has been no deterrence.
So it is offical, to crabs all the rich are white and all the poor are black.
that's not what I said at all
so...if you "support equal jail time for both rich and poor"...do you not support equal jail time for blacks and whites?
the fact is, if the color is black or white or green, the law is applied unfairly...it's a bad law...even you say you support it being applied equally, which if done would put as much as 1/3 of our entire population in jail.
One of the reasons use has gone up is because the penalties have been steadily reduced for possession and use. Increase the penalties, such as jail time and fines, the use will be reduced
this is just not true.Oh yes indeed it is true.
the penalties have gotten stiffer and there has been no deterrence.When it comes to marijuana you are just plain lying.
And here we have mr. fold. The champion of the oppressed, gays, the down trodden and MINORITIES. Unless of course they happen to disagree with his views.
Embrace the conservative minority fold. Or get used to it!
How about the Fugitive Slave Law? That always struck me as at least a little bit racist.
THX,
I don't think I could go along with legalizing Meth, Crack, Heroine...
I just don't see how society would benefit from legalizing such hardcore drugs.
Well, since the harm associated with those drugs is increased radically by their prohibition, by legalizing them society would benefit from an extreme reduction in the relative harm done by each drug. Consumption might go up some, but the harm generated by each instance of consumption would go down. Let's say a million people do meth now. And we make it legal and two million people do it instead. But the relative addiction rate plummets, and the overdose rate plummets, and the exploding meth labs rate plummets, and the meth-related theft plummets, and the meth-business-related killing and violence plummets, and the number of families shattered by jail time plummets, and the overall healthiness of doing meth goes way up (due to cleaner and better-measured doses).
Meth users would be healthier, and less likely to get and remain addicted. The families of meth users would suffer less, and have more peaceful resolution options. The economy would be healthier. The innocent would be less adversely affected by meth-related violence, and those instances of violence would be more effectively enforced and prosecuted. Gangs and the mob and such would have less income.
That looks to me like a lot of benefits to society.
Plus, the likelihood that some new, even more underground, nasty, and powerful drug will be created by the market would go down. Crack isn't the only drug that came about and gained popularity because of the drug war. I would posit that meth fits that bill pretty well too. It's the moonshine of illicit drugs.
Keeping drugs illegal in the blind hope that doing so reduces their use is an irresponsible way to look at the problem. The issue (if you're into social engineering) should be reducing the harm caused by drug use. Otherwise you're just supporting laws because they make you feel good about "doing something".
By some reports, alcohol use went up by 25% when Prohibition ended -- but related violence, corruption, accidental overdose, and widespread disregard for the law went way, way down. It was perfectly obvious to folks back then how society benefitted from making that dangerous, addictive, destructive drug legal.
There is a John Stossel special on ABC tonight called "Help Me! I Can't Help Myself". It should be really good, as most of his specials are. It's about addiction.
‘I Can’t Help Myself’ Is Addiction a Matter of Choice?
By John Stossel
April 21 — Watching TV, you'd think the whole country is addicted to something: drugs, food, gambling — even sex or shopping.
"The United States has elevated addiction to a national icon. It's our symbol, it's our excuse," says Stanton Peele, author of The Diseasing of America.
I thought it looked like an interesting show, but forgot it was on tonight. Thanks for the reminder Lance!
I've asked myself the question of whether addiction is a "disease" or a "personal choice", and my conclusion has been more towards the later.
I know I'm "addicted" to nicotine, and was addicted to caffeine for 15+ years. I made the choice to quit caffeine a few years ago, and easily did so. I've thought about quitting smoking (my dad offered me $4000 to quit) but its something I enjoy and decided to continue. When I decide I don't want to smoke, I will quit, it will be my choice.
I also know people who were addicted to alcohol, pot, or "harder" drugs who decided to quit and succeeded, by their own choices and actions.
Alot of people don't like to accept responsibility for the consequences of their choices though, or maybe its the effort to use self-control people have a problem with.
I also know people who were addicted to alcohol, pot, or "harder" drugs who decided to quit and succeeded, by their own choices and actions.
This is one of the things Stossel talks about in his intro. People quit hard drugs all the time. And nicotine is often said to be as addictive as heroin, but people have quit smoking by the tens of millions.
Making drugs legal in the blind hope that doing so will not increase addiction and social disintegration is an irresponsible way to look at the problem.
The fact is that prohibition reduced alcohol consumption. With reduced use comes less addicition. Anyone that wasn't blinded by their desire to do legal drugs would understand that.
Keeping drugs illegal in the blind hope that doing so will not increase addiction and social disintegration is an irresponsible way to look at the problem.
1) Do you think that drug addiction rates would decrease if drugs were legalized ?
2) If you do how so ?
3) I have heard you and Crabs contend that people can and are productive citizens and have stable family lives if they are drug addicts. I don't believe it for a second but for arguments sake let's say it were true. If so and people can be happy and productive citizens even when addicted then why do people seek treatment to ovecome the addiction ? I mean if they are happy and productive and family life is good then why do thousands try to kick the habit every year ?
The fact is that prohibition reduced alcohol consumption.
show us this fact.
Post the evidence.
With reduced use comes less addicition.
not necessarily.
if everyone who uses without addiction stops, this reduces use without reducing addiction.
the only intelligent way to reduce addiction (something that will exist regardless of the law) is through education. There is a shitload of money we could stop wasting on busting people and creating a blackmarket for that could be much better spent on education.
If so and people can be happy and productive citizens even when addicted then why do people seek treatment to ovecome the addiction ? I mean if they are happy and productive and family life is good then why do thousands try to kick the habit every year ?
if we made laws against everything that SOME people have to kick the habit of, shit...we would ALL be locked up!
and if you actually LOOK at those numbers of people who USE drugs vs. people who are ADDICTED to drugs, it will quickly answer your question. Out of the total amount of drugs consumed, how many are consumed by addicts? (note that this number reduces significantly if you figure out the legal drug alcohol) Certainly not everyone who consumes a drug is an "addict". The fact is, most people who use a drug can HANDLE THE DRUG THEY CHOOSE TO TAKE and are NOT the drooling idiots that the propaganda bodine has apparently bought into would have you believe. That a small percentage of others cannot is no reason to lock up the people who can use a drug of their choice and be responsible and otherwise non-criminal citizen.
If so and people can be happy and productive citizens even when addicted then why do people seek treatment to ovecome the addiction ? I mean if they are happy and productive and family life is good then why do thousands try to kick the habit every year ?
if we made laws against everything that SOME people have to kick the habit of, shit...we would ALL be locked up!
That wasn't the question. The question was
If so and people can be happy and productive citizens even when addicted then why do people seek treatment to ovecome the addiction ?
I wasn't talking about locking anyone up, it was a simple question.
The fact is that prohibition reduced alcohol consumption.
The fact is that alcohol consumption went down at the beginning of Prohibition, and then crept back up year by year. It took approximately 3 years of Prohibition before consumption exceeded pre-Prohibition levels.
With reduced use comes less addicition.
The myth of reduced use aside, during Prohibition people switched in great numbers from drinking beer to drinking hard liquor and fortified wine. They also did so more secretively, urgently, and fervently...all hallmarks of addictive behavior. If you think people drinking 100 million gallons of whiskey isn't going to produce more addiction than people drinking 100 million gallons of beer then...well, then you're thinking like Jethroignoring reality.
Not at all surprisingly, there are near-exact paralleles in the drug war. Crack is more addictive than coke, crank is more addictive than speed, heroin is more addictive than opium. Each of the former either came about or rose in popularity when each of the latter was more strictly prohibited.
And the uptick in addictive lifestyle factors -- shame (from breaking the law, and doing something "wrong"), reclusiveness, secrecy, turning toward higher highs, overindulgence -- as factors in the damage prohibition does shouldn't be ignored. With alcohol (and now with pot, to some degree), use and disregard for the law and societal approval were such that the prohibition inspired a rebellious indulgence and rollicking snubbery of the law ("the roaring 20's", plus ripples in the 50's (speed and downers and pot), 60's (pot and LSD) and 70's (coke)). With the drugs that don't have the high Neilsen ratings, users are geared more toward the "hiding druggie" model of behavior. So when you're talking about people who are using harder drugs, they basically have to default to the unhealthy model of use-- there is no social use model available. They go to the model of one or two people at home sitting there making a special (and necessarily secret) event of the use of the drug-- the equivalent of people having to buy booze from some guy's back alley and sneak home to sit and drink it (or of teens sneaking booze in a backpack and drinking in the bathroom, or by the railroad tracks or in the woods). It may be nice to think that it's good that they're ashamed and hiding and have no social environment to consume in (like drinkers do), but the fact remains that it's filling in a number of the key components of addiction, by default. Just like in Prohibition.
Anyone that wasn't blinded by their desire to do legal drugs would understand that.
There's one thing I like about you, Jethro. You discredit yourself. Keep chukcing out badboys like that, and I'll continue to have at least one thing to like about you.
Rob,
Do you think that drug addiction rates would decrease if drugs were legalized ?
Yes. I think there would be a spike effect, then I think both usage and addiction would plateau, and then fall. Addiction more than usage, because prohibition inflates addiction moreso than use.
2) If you do how so ?
Prohibition encourages the creation and use of harder, more addictive drugs. Just as Prohibition encouraged the proliferation of 150-plus-proof moonshine, so did the drug war do the same for crack, heroin, crystal meth, and others.
Prohibition encourages abusive consumption and indulgence, and non-social drug use...all major factors in addiction. It also heightens the demoralizing aspects of drug use, and creates extra artificial layers of demoralization. Spiritually, or morally or whatever, prohibition increases the weight of drug use, above and beyond whatever natural demoralization comes from the use itself. Demoralization/self-esteem deterioration are a major factor in the slide to addiction.
Over time, prohibition inflates use itself, as the profit margin drives (for lack of a better word) marketing initiative.
That pattern of consumption, shown in Figure 1 [above], is to be expected after an entire industry is banned: new entrepreneurs in the underground economy improve techniques and expand output, while consumers begin to realize the folly of the ban.
Also, as I mentioned before in my post to THX, the drug war hopelessly muddles the "information" that is readily available to people (or, in the case of school kids, which is shoved down their throats). And as soon as someone crosses the line -- and at least 50% of people do before they leave high school -- the rhetoric and law loses almost all its "power". It goes something like this: [17 year old] "Well, they lied to me about pot (or, "I don't see what's so bad about booze"), so it's fair to assume they're either lying to me about the other drugs, or they're just scaredy cats trying to 'protect' me." It's a pretty logical conclusion, actually. The laws in and of themselves practically constitute a lie about pot, so why wouldn't they lie about the other drugs? Once that conclusion is reached, the next default information source is (drug using) peers, or word of mouth. Finding non-agenda-ridden, non word-of-mouth information about heroin, or coke, is hard, and even harsher is the fact that one can't tell if the information is agenda-ridden, since the government exercises much control over the drug information compendium. They've been twisting marijuana research (and discarding research that runs contrary to agenda) for decades...it's safe to assume they're doing the same with all the other drugs.
Bad information leads to poorly informed decisions. If people are informed sufficiently, they shouldn't need prohibition to keep them from doing dangerous drugs, particularly if doing so is as patently bad as many seem to think. (How else can one explain teens doing ecstasy in spite of the super-dire warnings they've been given?) If fully-informed people are willfully deciding to harm themselves, then the problem is occuring before the drug use or abuse. Thinking that banning the drug is solving the problem is a misdirection of effort. Without that false "solution" available, society would have to actually address the precipitating factors. Prohibitionists want to catch or stop drug users before they become a problem for society, but that's already acting too late in the game.
Demand for drugs can be reduced without coercion, and it's the only healthy and lasting way to do it. The other way is destructive, and doomed to fail. And going after the problem at any level other than the demand level is even more destructive, and equally as doomed to fail. We haven't made a single appreciable long-term gain in 30 years of serious drug warrin' -- and we won't. Ever.
I have heard you and Crabs contend that people can and are productive citizens and have stable family lives if they are drug addicts. I don't believe it for a second but for arguments sake let's say it were true.
Well, me and my two sisters are doing alright, having been raised by an alcoholic. My mom managed to raise 3 kids on her own as a drug addict. Something tells me my situation is not unique.
If so and people can be happy and productive citizens even when addicted then why do people seek treatment to ovecome the addiction ?
Why do people quit smoking, or join an exercise program, or commit to a diet program, or marraige counseling, or personal counseling, or put spending limits on their pay-per-view account (or their gambling account), or switch to a better job, or cut down on their partying, or stop hanging out with deadweights, or enter into intimate relationships?
Because they want to improve their lives, by changing a factor in it which they are not happy with.
I mean if they are happy and productive and family life is good then why do thousands try to kick the habit every year ?
Because there's always room for improvement. Because people (and their priorities) change. Because maybe they don't like being an addict, or they don't like the impact the use is having on their health or their mind. Because they have kids. Because maybe it's contributing to fights, or making them irritable, or wasting their time. Or any number of other reasons why people make changes in their lives. I don't know anybody who thinks that they do everything perfectly and exactly as they wish they were (and always have). Most people I know change and adjust, and re-evaluate and adjust more, and refine and balance and adjust more. It generally all falls under the label of self-improvement.
If so and people can be happy and productive citizens even when addicted
Unless that's the case, then presumably all addicts are unemployed and depressed. Is that what you contend?
THX (disappointingly),
Or we could just shoot drug addicts
Daryl Gates already suggested that.
We could just shoot all non-drug users. That would settle the issue just as well, and still be chaeper than continuing the drug war even one more year. The instant decline in per-capita self-righteousness might actually make it worth it.
(I'm kidding too. Though the decline in self-righteousness would be sweet.)
Lance wrote: The fact is that alcohol consumption went down at the beginning of Prohibition, and then crept back up year by year. It took approximately 3 years of Prohibition before consumption exceeded pre-Prohibition levels.
Your graph is disputed by the graph above. Your graph defies reason and I have no doubt was developed for the purpose of arguing for the legalization of drugs. All the articles indicate that consumption records were not kept during the prohibition years. The graph indicating consumption just before prohibition and just after has a ring of truth that yours does not. Lance, just as Fox Mulder, "you want to believe!"
and if you actually LOOK at those numbers of people who USE drugs vs. people who are ADDICTED to drugs, it will quickly answer your question. Out of the total amount of drugs consumed, how many are consumed by addicts? How many are on that road from which they cannot get off?Certainly not everyone who consumes a drug is an "addict". The fact is, most people who use a drug can HANDLE THE DRUG THEY CHOOSE TO TAKE and are NOT the drooling idiots that the propaganda bodine has apparently bought into would have you believe. That is what most addicts tell themselves: "I can handle it" or "I am handling it." They lie to themselves as you lie to us.
How do you know that Crabby would be dead if murder were legal?
and i'm sure some of them would actually win that case too.
Yes in those places that have dumb s**** on the jury.
How do you know that Crabby would be dead if murder were legal?
Does it really need to be spelled out? Someone would do him in.
Please humor me and spell it out. I don't want to assume anything.
S-o-m-e-o-n-e w-o-u-l-d d-o h-i-m i-n.
Who would do him in? Why are you so sure someone would do him in?
Why are you so sure someone would do him in?
Because, under the premise of the statement, it would be legal.
go medkids! go medkids! go!
go medkids! go medkids! go!
oh that's right. in jethro's world, making something legal automatically encourages it. gotcha.
Its legal for me to go skydiving, but that doesn't mean I go do it. I can legally go to a strip club, but I haven't done it. I could get my body pierced legally, but I haven't done it. With your premise, you're basically saying everyone would get murdered because it was legal.
I've wanted to slap Crabby on numerous occasions, but I've never wanted to kill him.
:-)
so, you are trying to say that the only thing stopping people from doing drugs is that it's against the law?
and yet, the facts show that this is not the case.
people still do drugs...as much if not more so.
the murder law is fairly effective (people do still get murdered), but the drug law isn't. The facts show that the drug laws simply aren't effective.
and besides, I don't think it's human nature to murder someone...but it most definately IS human nature to take drugs. The person who takes no drugs whatsoever is a rare thing indeed.
so please, show some facts about how drug use, when they were legal, is significantly higher than when they are legal...or give it up.
drugs were perfectly legal a century ago...and yet drug use wasn't nearly the problem it is now that they are legal. How do you explain that?
provide some facts to back up this apparently uninformed opinion of yours.
and to put everyone's mind at ease, bodine wasn't threatening me, he was just providing an example.
and BTW Jethro, murder infringes on someone else's right to life, drug use infringes on no one...they are fundementally different things.
but the question is, do you want to incarcerate me if I grow a plant and smoke it?
we have established that bodine does...I'm sure he gets off on the idea of fucking up the lives of people who have never done anything to him...it's a power trip for him no doubt.
this idea that the law is a deterrent is interesting.
tell me bodine, by this logic, the death penalty must keep people from murdering each other even more, right?
i wasn't saying that he was threatening you, crabby. just that it could be taken that way.
Its legal for me to go skydiving, but that doesn't mean I go do it. I can legally go to a strip club, but I haven't done it. I could get my body pierced legally, but I haven't done it. With your premise, you're basically saying everyone would get murdered because it was legal.
No I am not saying "everyone would get murdered because it was legal." And if you thought about it you would know that is not the case. I am saying the activity would increase to some degree. Just because you don't do doesn't mean that there are many others that don't. I can tell you for a fact of certain things were legal I would do them. I can also tell you that many others would do things that are currently illegal if that status were to change. Take your sky-diving example. If it were illegal to sky-dive don't you suppose there would be less of it? The cost would go up for one thing which would place a limitation on the activity.
oh that's right. in jethro's world, making something legal automatically encourages it. gotcha.
It isn't very difficult. Illegal status increases the cost associated with any activity. If the illegal status is removed then the cost will go down if there is any demand whatsoever. Lower costs increase consumption it is Econ 101.
no...you said that I would be murdered.
what makes me so different from everyone else?
like what?
would you murder me?
so, you just don't want poor people doing it?
and you don't mind if all that money gets sucked out of the legitimate economy and used for things like...oh...terrorism and organized crime?
so, you are trying to say that the only thing stopping people from
doing drugs is that it's against the law?
Insert the word "some" between stopping and people and you would understand what I wrote.
and yet, the facts show that this is not the case. Your "facts" are a load of crap which don't reflect reality.
people still do drugs...as much if not more so. You are one stupid ....
the murder law is fairly effective (people do still get murdered), but the drug law isn't. The facts show that the drug laws simply aren't effective. I am telling you that it does reduce the use due to increased costs of both of money and risk.
so please, show some facts about how drug use, when they were legal, is significantly higher than when they are legal...or give it up. Start that rusty mind that God gave you and you would see that lowered costs and risk will increase use.
provide some facts to back up this apparently uninformed opinion of yours. Start thinking instead of believing what you have been spoon fed from those that want cheaper drugs at no risk.
we have established that bodine does...I'm sure he gets off on the idea of fucking up the lives of people who have never done anything to him...it's a power trip for him no doubt. They destroy their own lives. I have had nothing to do with your f**** up life.
tell me bodine, by this logic, the death penalty must keep people from murdering each other even more, right? Those executed never kill again.
I can tell you for a fact of certain things were legal I would do them.
like what?
would you murder me?
If your mind wasn't so screwed up you wouldn't have to ask that question.
so, you just don't want poor people doing it? The rich have always been able to do things that the poor cannot. There is nothing I can do about that fact of life. I support equal jail time for both rich and poor.
and you don't mind if all that money gets sucked out of the legitimate economy and used for things like...oh...terrorism and organized crime? There is no legitimate "economy" for certain drugs. And the money is not completely sucked out due to forfeiture laws. As for supporting terrorism and organized crime those that buy the illegal product do that, not me.
Since 1965 law enforcement has arrested approximately 12 million Americans on marijuana charges
and yet it's as popular as ever.
facts bodine...bring some facts with you...otherwise it's just your uninformed opinion.
but that isn't the way it's applied...and a law is only as good as the way it is applied
and the inequality between jail time for blacks and whites is HUGE.
Statistics indicate that over one-third of the adult American population admits to experimenting with marijuana. Is it rational to continue a federal policy that would place all these individuals in jail?
a time when law enforcement is arresting record numbers of adult users confirms that marijuana prohibition is not an effective deterrent in marijuana consumption.'"
The term "effective" is subjective. One of the reasons use has gone up is because the penalties have been steadily reduced for possession and use. Increase the penalties, such as jail time and fines, the use will be reduced.
Statistics indicate that over one-third of the adult American population admits to experimenting with marijuana. Is it rational to continue a federal policy that would place all these individuals in jail?
If all are caught, yes.
I support equal jail time for both rich and poor
but that isn't the way it's applied...and a law is only as good as the way it is applied
and the inequality between jail time for blacks and whites is HUGE.
So it is offical, to crabs all the rich are white and all the poor are black.
this is just not true.
the penalties have gotten stiffer and there has been no deterrence.
that's not what I said at all
so...if you "support equal jail time for both rich and poor"...do you not support equal jail time for blacks and whites?
the fact is, if the color is black or white or green, the law is applied unfairly...it's a bad law...even you say you support it being applied equally, which if done would put as much as 1/3 of our entire population in jail.
One of the reasons use has gone up is because the penalties have been steadily reduced for possession and use. Increase the penalties, such as jail time and fines, the use will be reduced
this is just not true. Oh yes indeed it is true.
the penalties have gotten stiffer and there has been no deterrence. When it comes to marijuana you are just plain lying.
There is no such thing as a racist law crabs.
If the law is not broken in the first place, the point is moot.
And here we have mr. fold. The champion of the oppressed, gays, the down trodden and MINORITIES. Unless of course they happen to disagree with his views.
Embrace the conservative minority fold. Or get used to it!
I once again had to remind you of my being a minority fold because your memory becomes rather selective at times.
You are very good at that.
How about the Fugitive Slave Law? That always struck me as at least a little bit racist.
THX,
Well, since the harm associated with those drugs is increased radically by their prohibition, by legalizing them society would benefit from an extreme reduction in the relative harm done by each drug. Consumption might go up some, but the harm generated by each instance of consumption would go down. Let's say a million people do meth now. And we make it legal and two million people do it instead. But the relative addiction rate plummets, and the overdose rate plummets, and the exploding meth labs rate plummets, and the meth-related theft plummets, and the meth-business-related killing and violence plummets, and the number of families shattered by jail time plummets, and the overall healthiness of doing meth goes way up (due to cleaner and better-measured doses).
Meth users would be healthier, and less likely to get and remain addicted. The families of meth users would suffer less, and have more peaceful resolution options. The economy would be healthier. The innocent would be less adversely affected by meth-related violence, and those instances of violence would be more effectively enforced and prosecuted. Gangs and the mob and such would have less income.
That looks to me like a lot of benefits to society.
Plus, the likelihood that some new, even more underground, nasty, and powerful drug will be created by the market would go down. Crack isn't the only drug that came about and gained popularity because of the drug war. I would posit that meth fits that bill pretty well too. It's the moonshine of illicit drugs.
Keeping drugs illegal in the blind hope that doing so reduces their use is an irresponsible way to look at the problem. The issue (if you're into social engineering) should be reducing the harm caused by drug use. Otherwise you're just supporting laws because they make you feel good about "doing something".
By some reports, alcohol use went up by 25% when Prohibition ended -- but related violence, corruption, accidental overdose, and widespread disregard for the law went way, way down. It was perfectly obvious to folks back then how society benefitted from making that dangerous, addictive, destructive drug legal.
There is a John Stossel special on ABC tonight called "Help Me! I Can't Help Myself". It should be really good, as most of his specials are. It's about addiction.
‘I Can’t Help Myself’
Is Addiction a Matter of Choice?
By John Stossel
April 21 — Watching TV, you'd think the whole country is addicted to something: drugs, food, gambling — even sex or shopping.
"The United States has elevated addiction to a national icon. It's our symbol, it's our excuse," says Stanton Peele, author of The Diseasing of America.
There are conflicting views about addiction and popular treatments. So, we talked with researchers, psychologists and "addicts" and asked them: Is addiction a choice?
 http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Living/stossel_addiction030421.html
It just started if you're on the East coast. It's on at 8:00 PM.
I thought it looked like an interesting show, but forgot it was on tonight. Thanks for the reminder Lance!
I've asked myself the question of whether addiction is a "disease" or a "personal choice", and my conclusion has been more towards the later.
I know I'm "addicted" to nicotine, and was addicted to caffeine for 15+ years. I made the choice to quit caffeine a few years ago, and easily did so. I've thought about quitting smoking (my dad offered me $4000 to quit) but its something I enjoy and decided to continue. When I decide I don't want to smoke, I will quit, it will be my choice.
I also know people who were addicted to alcohol, pot, or "harder" drugs who decided to quit and succeeded, by their own choices and actions.
Alot of people don't like to accept responsibility for the consequences of their choices though, or maybe its the effort to use self-control people have a problem with.
This is one of the things Stossel talks about in his intro. People quit hard drugs all the time. And nicotine is often said to be as addictive as heroin, but people have quit smoking by the tens of millions.
Making drugs legal in the blind hope that doing so will not increase addiction and social disintegration is an irresponsible way to look at the problem.
(Particularly when the hope isn't blind...it's willfully ignorant of a vivid historical example.)
The fact is that prohibition reduced alcohol consumption. With reduced use comes less addicition. Anyone that wasn't blinded by their desire to do legal drugs would understand that.
Lance,
1) Do you think that drug addiction rates would decrease if drugs were legalized ?
2) If you do how so ?
3) I have heard you and Crabs contend that people can and are productive citizens and have stable family lives if they are drug addicts. I don't believe it for a second but for arguments sake let's say it were true. If so and people can be happy and productive citizens even when addicted then why do people seek treatment to ovecome the addiction ? I mean if they are happy and productive and family life is good then why do thousands try to kick the habit every year ?
show us this fact.
Post the evidence.
not necessarily.
if everyone who uses without addiction stops, this reduces use without reducing addiction.
the only intelligent way to reduce addiction (something that will exist regardless of the law) is through education. There is a shitload of money we could stop wasting on busting people and creating a blackmarket for that could be much better spent on education.
Or we could just shoot drug addicts.
Bullets are cheap as hell.
This is a joke, please don't send me hate mail. I get enough of that already.
if we made laws against everything that SOME people have to kick the habit of, shit...we would ALL be locked up!
and if you actually LOOK at those numbers of people who USE drugs vs. people who are ADDICTED to drugs, it will quickly answer your question. Out of the total amount of drugs consumed, how many are consumed by addicts? (note that this number reduces significantly if you figure out the legal drug alcohol) Certainly not everyone who consumes a drug is an "addict". The fact is, most people who use a drug can HANDLE THE DRUG THEY CHOOSE TO TAKE and are NOT the drooling idiots that the propaganda bodine has apparently bought into would have you believe. That a small percentage of others cannot is no reason to lock up the people who can use a drug of their choice and be responsible and otherwise non-criminal citizen.
Alcohol Prohibition Was A Failure
this is what is known as providing references instead of opinions
If so and people can be happy and productive citizens even when addicted then why do people seek treatment to ovecome the addiction ? I mean if they are happy and productive and family life is good then why do thousands try to kick the habit every year ?
That wasn't the question. The question was
If so and people can be happy and productive citizens even when addicted then why do people seek treatment to ovecome the addiction ?
I wasn't talking about locking anyone up, it was a simple question.
The fact is that alcohol consumption went down at the beginning of Prohibition, and then crept back up year by year. It took approximately 3 years of Prohibition before consumption exceeded pre-Prohibition levels.
The myth of reduced use aside, during Prohibition people switched in great numbers from drinking beer to drinking hard liquor and fortified wine. They also did so more secretively, urgently, and fervently...all hallmarks of addictive behavior. If you think people drinking 100 million gallons of whiskey isn't going to produce more addiction than people drinking 100 million gallons of beer then...well, then you're
thinking like Jethroignoring reality.Not at all surprisingly, there are near-exact paralleles in the drug war. Crack is more addictive than coke, crank is more addictive than speed, heroin is more addictive than opium. Each of the former either came about or rose in popularity when each of the latter was more strictly prohibited.
And the uptick in addictive lifestyle factors -- shame (from breaking the law, and doing something "wrong"), reclusiveness, secrecy, turning toward higher highs, overindulgence -- as factors in the damage prohibition does shouldn't be ignored. With alcohol (and now with pot, to some degree), use and disregard for the law and societal approval were such that the prohibition inspired a rebellious indulgence and rollicking snubbery of the law ("the roaring 20's", plus ripples in the 50's (speed and downers and pot), 60's (pot and LSD) and 70's (coke)). With the drugs that don't have the high Neilsen ratings, users are geared more toward the "hiding druggie" model of behavior. So when you're talking about people who are using harder drugs, they basically have to default to the unhealthy model of use-- there is no social use model available. They go to the model of one or two people at home sitting there making a special (and necessarily secret) event of the use of the drug-- the equivalent of people having to buy booze from some guy's back alley and sneak home to sit and drink it (or of teens sneaking booze in a backpack and drinking in the bathroom, or by the railroad tracks or in the woods). It may be nice to think that it's good that they're ashamed and hiding and have no social environment to consume in (like drinkers do), but the fact remains that it's filling in a number of the key components of addiction, by default. Just like in Prohibition.
There's one thing I like about you, Jethro. You discredit yourself. Keep chukcing out badboys like that, and I'll continue to have at least one thing to like about you.
Rob,
Yes. I think there would be a spike effect, then I think both usage and addiction would plateau, and then fall. Addiction more than usage, because prohibition inflates addiction moreso than use.
Prohibition encourages the creation and use of harder, more addictive drugs. Just as Prohibition encouraged the proliferation of 150-plus-proof moonshine, so did the drug war do the same for crack, heroin, crystal meth, and others.
Prohibition encourages abusive consumption and indulgence, and non-social drug use...all major factors in addiction. It also heightens the demoralizing aspects of drug use, and creates extra artificial layers of demoralization. Spiritually, or morally or whatever, prohibition increases the weight of drug use, above and beyond whatever natural demoralization comes from the use itself. Demoralization/self-esteem deterioration are a major factor in the slide to addiction.
Over time, prohibition inflates use itself, as the profit margin drives (for lack of a better word) marketing initiative.
That pattern of consumption, shown in Figure 1 [above], is to be expected after an entire industry is banned: new entrepreneurs in the underground economy improve techniques and expand output, while consumers begin to realize the folly of the ban.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html
Also, as I mentioned before in my post to THX, the drug war hopelessly muddles the "information" that is readily available to people (or, in the case of school kids, which is shoved down their throats). And as soon as someone crosses the line -- and at least 50% of people do before they leave high school -- the rhetoric and law loses almost all its "power". It goes something like this: [17 year old] "Well, they lied to me about pot (or, "I don't see what's so bad about booze"), so it's fair to assume they're either lying to me about the other drugs, or they're just scaredy cats trying to 'protect' me." It's a pretty logical conclusion, actually. The laws in and of themselves practically constitute a lie about pot, so why wouldn't they lie about the other drugs? Once that conclusion is reached, the next default information source is (drug using) peers, or word of mouth. Finding non-agenda-ridden, non word-of-mouth information about heroin, or coke, is hard, and even harsher is the fact that one can't tell if the information is agenda-ridden, since the government exercises much control over the drug information compendium. They've been twisting marijuana research (and discarding research that runs contrary to agenda) for decades...it's safe to assume they're doing the same with all the other drugs.
Bad information leads to poorly informed decisions. If people are informed sufficiently, they shouldn't need prohibition to keep them from doing dangerous drugs, particularly if doing so is as patently bad as many seem to think. (How else can one explain teens doing ecstasy in spite of the super-dire warnings they've been given?) If fully-informed people are willfully deciding to harm themselves, then the problem is occuring before the drug use or abuse. Thinking that banning the drug is solving the problem is a misdirection of effort. Without that false "solution" available, society would have to actually address the precipitating factors. Prohibitionists want to catch or stop drug users before they become a problem for society, but that's already acting too late in the game.
Demand for drugs can be reduced without coercion, and it's the only healthy and lasting way to do it. The other way is destructive, and doomed to fail. And going after the problem at any level other than the demand level is even more destructive, and equally as doomed to fail. We haven't made a single appreciable long-term gain in 30 years of serious drug warrin' -- and we won't. Ever.
Well, me and my two sisters are doing alright, having been raised by an alcoholic. My mom managed to raise 3 kids on her own as a drug addict. Something tells me my situation is not unique.
Why do people quit smoking, or join an exercise program, or commit to a diet program, or marraige counseling, or personal counseling, or put spending limits on their pay-per-view account (or their gambling account), or switch to a better job, or cut down on their partying, or stop hanging out with deadweights, or enter into intimate relationships?
Because they want to improve their lives, by changing a factor in it which they are not happy with.
Because there's always room for improvement. Because people (and their priorities) change. Because maybe they don't like being an addict, or they don't like the impact the use is having on their health or their mind. Because they have kids. Because maybe it's contributing to fights, or making them irritable, or wasting their time. Or any number of other reasons why people make changes in their lives. I don't know anybody who thinks that they do everything perfectly and exactly as they wish they were (and always have). Most people I know change and adjust, and re-evaluate and adjust more, and refine and balance and adjust more. It generally all falls under the label of self-improvement.
Unless that's the case, then presumably all addicts are unemployed and depressed. Is that what you contend?
THX (disappointingly),
Daryl Gates already suggested that.
We could just shoot all non-drug users. That would settle the issue just as well, and still be chaeper than continuing the drug war even one more year. The instant decline in per-capita self-righteousness might actually make it worth it.
(I'm kidding too. Though the decline in self-righteousness would be sweet.)
The fact is that prohibition reduced alcohol consumption.
show us this fact. Post the evidence.
http://www.lawrence.edu/sorg/econ24/articles/tierney.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a387f354327a8.htm
http://www.vis-res.com/job1/Alc%20Chart2000.pdf
Please take note of the last link that clearly shows less consumption of alcohol after prohibition was repealed.
Lance wrote: The fact is that alcohol consumption went down at the beginning of Prohibition, and then crept back up year by year. It took approximately 3 years of Prohibition before consumption exceeded pre-Prohibition levels.
Your graph is disputed by the graph above. Your graph defies reason and I have no doubt was developed for the purpose of arguing for the legalization of drugs. All the articles indicate that consumption records were not kept during the prohibition years. The graph indicating consumption just before prohibition and just after has a ring of truth that yours does not. Lance, just as Fox Mulder, "you want to believe!"
and if you actually LOOK at those numbers of people who USE drugs vs. people who are ADDICTED to drugs, it will quickly answer your question. Out of the total amount of drugs consumed, how many are consumed by addicts? How many are on that road from which they cannot get off?Certainly not everyone who consumes a drug is an "addict". The fact is, most people who use a drug can HANDLE THE DRUG THEY CHOOSE TO TAKE and are NOT the drooling idiots that the propaganda bodine has apparently bought into would have you believe. That is what most addicts tell themselves: "I can handle it" or "I am handling it." They lie to themselves as you lie to us.