Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Legalizing drugs      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 26
view profile
History
Legalizing drugsPage 2 of 6    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
I don't know whether anyone wants to get into it or not, but there is another VERY powerful component to any discussion of legalizations:

the unspoken politics connected with each item.

There are a lot of people who oppose legalizing certain items, and will never be persuaded by ANY scientific information whatsoever, even if it comes to them from a source they implicitly and completely trust. This is because they hate, fear, or are otherwise prejudiced against those who they perceive to be advocates for that item.

Tobacco and alcohol tend to be associated with "establishment" or "traditional" and therefore more conservative, or right-wing viewpoints. Pot, and most other "recreational" drugs, are associated with anti-establishment, anti-conservative politics, therefore the only conservative group of note who supports legalization are the Libertarians, and they are only welcomed into mainstream conservative politics when conservatives are desperate for votes.

Some people will never support legalization, not because they think that the drugs in question are really that bad, so much as that they think the drugs either "cause" liberalism, or that by legalizing them, they will open the door to the adoption of otherwise entirely unrelated liberal ideas. It's a bit like the oft repeated routine, where someone stands against non-heterosexual marriage, claiming that if they allow it, they will also have to allow humans to marry non humans.
 Walts
Joined: 5/7/2005
Msg: 27
Legalizing drugs
Posted: 9/8/2013 7:47:41 AM
^^^^ I do believe this to be true Igor, especially south of me. There is some unnamed "fear" amongst some people when they hear the words "pot smoking". Enough fear that the US government decided to come up here, grab a seed seller and throw him in one of your jails for a few years. I'm sure you residents have felt much "safer" every since.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 28
view profile
History
Legalizing drugs
Posted: 9/8/2013 9:44:20 AM

Not only drugs are illegal in Russia, gays are illegal too. That makes you go hhhhmmm.


What actually makes me go "Hmmm," is that someone believes such nonsense. Apparently you are saying that accepting the fact allowing non heterosexuals to be openly so, causes IQs to fall. And that somehow, though the SAME drugs are legal in Russia as are here (i.e. alcohol and tobacco), that somehow this has magically resulted in Russians being smarter than Americans. I'd love to see your source for this bit of "insight."
 oldie_but_hottie
Joined: 2/4/2012
Msg: 29
view profile
History
Legalizing drugs
Posted: 9/12/2013 1:52:40 PM
I think society has already enough work dealing with the undesirable consequences of the "legal" and tolerated substances of tobacco, alcohol, caffeine and recreational use of prescription drugs, and the goal should be reducing the use of those causing too many problems already and not adding more stuff to the mix. The comparison of peaceful stoners to violent drinkers is unreasonable, as most people I know who like to be intoxicated use both at the same time, plus other stuff if they can get their hands on it. To each their own and if people want to be self destructive so be it, but the rest of society who values their health and wellbeing must be protected as a first priority. This includes the next generation of children that can inherit genetic defects and the genes responsible for addiction. So yeah I say legalize it ALL but those who want to use should get sterilized first and use of ANYTHING should be limited to enclosed party facilities where they can go wild and the rest of society is not exposed.
 Beauregard63
Joined: 7/15/2013
Msg: 30
Legalizing drugs
Posted: 9/18/2013 9:12:42 AM
if people want to be self destructive so be it, but the rest of society who values their health and wellbeing must be protected as a first priority. This includes the next generation of children that can inherit genetic defects and the genes responsible for addiction. So yeah I say legalize it ALL but those who want to use should get sterilized first and use of ANYTHING should be limited to enclosed party facilities where they can go wild and the rest of society is not exposed.


You're kidding I hope.

You do realize that there are plenty of chemicals in the food we eat or the air we breathe ( particularily if you live in a big city ) and in the products that we use that can cause genetic defects or serious health issues - should we sterililize everyone who comes into contact with these substances as well.
 Demigod1979
Joined: 12/4/2011
Msg: 31
view profile
History
Legalizing drugs
Posted: 9/20/2013 5:13:40 AM

I don't have an issue with the recreational use of pot. I don't have an issue with the medicinal use of pot either. What I have a problem with are drug dealers, those that sell heroin and cocaine etc.

I'd much rather be around someone who just had a toke or two than someone who had been drinking, I dislike drunks and rarely drink myself. I'll take a mellowed out pot head any day over a drinker. I'd prefer straight/sober if I had my druthers. And no, I'm not a pot smoker now but I did smoke it in my 20's and tried it again about 5 years ago and found that it's not for me. I still love the smell of pot. Legalize it for recreational use.

I've never tried pot, but always wanted to. I drink on occasion, since I feel it loosens me up and makes me more talkative, but I also have a tendency to get worked up and I'm curious to see if marijuana can help mellow me out. The thing is, drinking is socially acceptable, especially if you want to party (no alcohol = no party = no fun). As long as you do it within limits and follow the rules, no body cares, and I don't see why marijuana wouldn't also be acceptable if it was legalized. I also feel that those who use legal drugs aren't doing it because they particularly like the drug, but only because it's legal. If that's the case then the legalization of milder drugs like marijuana and ecstasy might get alcohol/tobacco users to switch, which would be a net benefit for them as well as for the society (like you said, a mellowed out pothead is much better than a drinker).
 Demigod1979
Joined: 12/4/2011
Msg: 32
view profile
History
Legalizing drugs
Posted: 9/20/2013 5:06:24 PM

That is based on the invalid assumption that alcohol/tobacco users would quit using alcohol/tobacco, and use pot/ecstasy exclusively.... What will happen is that the alcohol/tobacco user will ADD pot/ecstasy to their aresnal of "get stupid" help. Besides, alcohol/tobacco is legal, so pot/ecstasy could only be used in very private situations.

If there was even a partial drop in usage of the dangerous legal drugs then that would be a good thing (once again, a net benefit to the user and to society).


Frankly, I really don't understand why you put ecstasy in the same category as pot........... you need to find out a bit more about ecstasy, and its real effects, and how easy it is to overdose.

From Wikipedia:

Due to the difference between the recreational dose and the lethality dose, it is extremely rare for a death to be accredited just to the consumption of MDMA. While a typical recreational dose is roughly 100–150 mg (often being measured by eye and dealt with as fractions of a gram), this dose is often then repeated but remains well below the lethal dose. Consumption of the drug can be self-reinforcing while under the influence, and overdoses can occur.
...
Quoted from Dr. Julie Holland: "Not only are MDMA related cases a small percentage of all drug-related emergency room visits, but a large percentage of MDMA cases are not life-threatening. In a recent study conducted by the physicians in the Emergency Department of Bellevue, (Rella, Int J Med Toxicol 2000; 3(5): 28) regional hospital ecstasy cases phoned into the New York City poison control center were analyzed. There were 191 cases reported during the years 1993 to 1999 inclusive. This is a rate of fewer than thirty cases per year. 139 cases (73%) were mild and experienced minor or no toxicity. The most commonly reported symptoms were increased heart rate (22%), agitation (19%), and nausea and vomiting (12%). In these seven years, only one ecstasy-related death was reported, which was due to hyperthermia, or overheating.

The BBC documentary put ecstasy very low on their list of dangerous drugs, and I think for good reasons. The thing is, legalizing will allow us to regulate the dosage so if you're worried about overdosing then it's even more reason to legalize it.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 33
view profile
History
Legalizing drugs
Posted: 9/20/2013 7:09:40 PM

Those who cite that MJ is safer than alcohol & tobacco is an appeal to ignorance. I can similarly say that Knives or swords are "safer" than guns/explosives; but they both do harm in different ways


You certainly can say that, but please keep in mind that we talking legality here, and knives & swords are legal to own.

Personally, I view pot as equal to alcohol & actually less harmful in many ways. That having been said, I am not ignorant to the "Fu#!" effect. As I tell my kids, alcohol makes you dangerous, often violent, can ruin your life & that of those around you; pot can make you a loser, as it saps one's energy, drive & ambition & leads to a degree of apathy. That having been said the legal issue is historical (whether we choose to admit it or not, it is!) and proof that not as much has changed as we would like to think.

Without giving out too much personal info, I don't know all that much about too many other drugs, but I simply cannot fathom why we don't legalize, regulate & tax pot as an intelligent decision which takes into account all sides of the argument. Certainly the arguments over medical marijuana are preposterous; we prescribe far more dangerous drugs & the number of those addicted to, say, prescription painkillers is evidence enough for me.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 34
view profile
History
Legalizing drugs
Posted: 9/20/2013 7:15:54 PM

I've never tried pot, but always wanted to.


Forgive me for singling you out, but.... I think you should! (smiley face)
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 35
view profile
History
Legalizing drugs
Posted: 9/20/2013 7:18:49 PM

Guess who are first and second in IQ rating, Russia and South Korea. Not only drugs are illegal in Russia, gays are illegal too. That makes you go hhhhmmm.


hmmmm. Given the choices you present, versus the US: where would I rather live? In the US, thanks!!!!

IQ is, perhaps, not all it's cracked up to be.
 Demigod1979
Joined: 12/4/2011
Msg: 36
view profile
History
Legalizing drugs
Posted: 9/20/2013 8:13:25 PM
Great........ then we would have a society that is not hooked on just two drugs, but four...............

And how is that better? You have to acknowledge that they will just pick up the drug habit of the two new drugs rather than substituting them for the old drugs.

Once again, if they use less of the harmful drug then it'll be a net benefit. Current laws provide people the option to legally acquire two very dangerous drugs. Even those who would prefer a mild drug like marijuana or ecstasy can only legally acquire harder drugs (it is, frankly, absurd).

What makes you think that if X was legalized, then everybody would automatically get it via legal means? The market would play out. If the legal version cost $10.00/hit, the black market would sell it for $8.00. That is so easy to forsee that it is laughable. Do you think that if pot were legal that everybody would be in a line to buy it at the pot store, or would they get it from their own connection, or even easier, grow it themselves?

For the same reason that people don't buy alcohol or tobacco on the black market: BECAUSE IT'S LEGAL! Honestly, do you really need to ask such childish question?

Yep....... pot makes you stupid, and most people don't need much help in that aspect.

And what scientific evidence can you cite to show this?
 Blueline294
Joined: 3/28/2012
Msg: 37
Legalizing drugs
Posted: 9/20/2013 8:29:35 PM
@Paul

Your right they probably would screw it up, why would this be any different right? But just like tobacco even though it's marketed and taxed how many people grow their own tobacco? A few I'm sure but the number would have to be such a small percentage it may as well not even be considered.

There probably would be a limit on home growing etc. or maybe even making home growing prohibited. But what it boils down to is MONEY. The US spent around 43 billion for all facets of the fight against marijuana in 2012. That's BILLION. If they were to tax marijuana with the same rates on tobacco and alcohol now we have billions more coming in and save the 43 billion.

It's always been about the money, I was in law enforcement 28 years and virtually everything in every drug unit revolved around "money". It makes headlines when you get that truckload of drugs, but you get new equipment, uniforms, weapons, vehicles and training with the money you seize. Depending upon where you live those guys in the drug interdiction cars on the interstate are looking for the money transporters. Example being I live in Ga. south of Atlanta, anytime you see the cars in the median facing the south bound lanes on the interstate they're looking for the money vehicles. And 8 out of 10 times they know what vehicle they are looking for and are just waiting for them to show up. But a good rule of thumb is all interstates leaving metro areas carry the money, inbound carries the dope.

But back on topic...yes I personally think they will legalize marijuana federally eventually. And in my opinion after dealing with both drinkers and smokers I would much rather have to deal with the smoker.
 Demigod1979
Joined: 12/4/2011
Msg: 38
view profile
History
Legalizing drugs
Posted: 9/20/2013 8:51:14 PM

Here is where you are missing the whole black market scenario........ there already is a black market for pot and X......... and lets say that someone down the street, or wherever was making booze that was better than what was available in the store, and selling it for a lot less............... Oh, yeah, they already do that...... it is called "moonshining". Honestly, you didn't know about moonshine?

So what? There was also a black market for booze during prohibition (jeez, where did that go?). Your scenario makes no sense, since there is no reason why anyone would risk life, limb and a prison sentence to get something they can get legally (what, just to save a few bucks?) Even when governments raise prices for tobacco people still purchase them through legal channels (I saw prices nearly double when I was working in a convenience store, yet customers kept buying).

Of course if you have some statistics on a thriving alcohol/tobacco black market in the US then feel free to share them.


Pot flat lines your brain waves............................. what more do you need to know? You really haven't spent any time at all with potheads, have you...... if you had, you wouldn't be asking such childish questions.

Again, please cite scientific evidence (and no, your personal time "studying" potheads does not count).
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 39
view profile
History
Legalizing drugs
Posted: 9/21/2013 3:31:49 PM
Some good points, Paul, and some not as strong.

I knew of the large black market for cigarettes, perhaps because I live in a tobacco state, and so our news people bring such things to our attention.

If we insist upon including the existence of black markets in a calculation of whether or not to legalize things, we should recognize the existence of ALL of the black markets.

They include all sorts of things, and they don't all spring up simply because something is taxed, or regulated, or restricted. So if you wish to use the existence of them to prove some favorite gripe or issue of yours, forget it.

There is a black market in cigarettes and all other tobacco products; for beer and wine; for legal prescription drugs; for ever-the -counter drugs; for food products; you name it.

As for the idea that lots of people will grow their own, if pot is legalized, forget that too. Sure, some will. But take an honest look at human nature, before you assume many will. It really isn't THAT easy to grow anything, and prepare it for use. Look how hard it is to get people to grow their own food, or even cut their own firewood. People who eat sunflower seeds all day, buy them in packets, they don't bother to grow their own, because their time is spent on other things.
 Demigod1979
Joined: 12/4/2011
Msg: 40
view profile
History
Legalizing drugs
Posted: 9/22/2013 7:14:47 AM

To say that pot has no effect in altering the brain waves in a negative way is childish, and I really won't waste my time showing you where to find the actual facts. You could do the research much faster than me.

I DID do the research, even before I posted my response - the only thing found was a tenuous link between marijuana and schizophrenia (interestingly, there's also research that shows that the marijuana plant also contains anti-psychotic elements). I've certainly not found anything to suggest that pot use makes someone "stupid" in the conventional sense. In fact, since drinking alcohol kills brain cells, it's far more likely that beer and wine make people stupid. :p
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 41
view profile
History
Legalizing drugs
Posted: 9/22/2013 9:16:30 AM

Drugs regardless of their legality are freely available at prices any middle income individual can easily afford, and are generally less expensive that the legal high depressant alcohol.


One of the lesser, but many reasons I am glad to have left all 'recreational" drugs behind, is because that is flat out BS. I can buy a dozen quarts of VERY good vodka for what it now costs for a very small amount of Marijuana. When I was a kid, it was indeed cheaper to get high, than to get drunk (there was a time when "Nickel Bag" meant a quarter of an ounce, and the reason it was called "Nickel, was that it cost $5...now, from what I've heard, if someone says "nickel," they mean either $50, or $500) but those days are long gone.

Meaningless to the thread either way, but I couldn't let a statement that false just sit there.
 Walts
Joined: 5/7/2005
Msg: 42
Legalizing drugs
Posted: 9/24/2013 5:53:57 AM

Permanently stupid? No, not to a great extent......... Stupid while they are high? Oh yeah............. What I've seen, and many others who don't smoke pot, but have friends that do, is that they do lose a bit of their edge, or become "pot heads".


Almost like a person who has 5 or 6 beers????? Canadian beers, not that yank stuff.

I don't know what kind of pot smokers that you hang around with, or watch but, I don't think you could keep up to the people that I have a puff with. And I mean just watching us. Just like anything, some people will puff and become couch potatoes but, that is not all people. I guess it's relative to the people you associate with.
 Walts
Joined: 5/7/2005
Msg: 43
Legalizing drugs
Posted: 9/24/2013 2:12:04 PM

YOU are looking at it from the inside, where everybody is being affected the same way, I am looking at it from the outside, and have a much more objective point of view


Actually you're not being "observant" you're being "ignorant". You don't become less intelligent when you "puff"(where the hell did ya get puffed "up" from?????). I will give you that your short term memory can be affected but, it is "short term". Alcohol is a "depressant", go look up and understand the word, and what it does to the body.

A lot of what you are spewing is a repeat of "reefer madness". It didn't work back then, and it sure isn't working here. I tell ya "another" secret, just so you can walk around and tell people "you know". You don't have to smoke pot to gain any of it's properties.


We can always count on potheads for real, rational, intellectual and substantive thought........... Although, maybe the word "thought" is a bit strong for the situation............


I'm assuming you don't use pot but, by your definition and words, it sure seems like you do. Simply, you are being ignorant on the subject. I could go copy a bunch of info for ya but, with the way you handle evidence, I would say it would quickly dismissed.
 Beauregard63
Joined: 7/15/2013
Msg: 44
Legalizing drugs
Posted: 9/24/2013 4:58:20 PM
As far as being able to keep up with pot-heads once they'e "puffed up", it wouldn't be much of a problem. YOU are looking at it from the inside, where everybody is being affected the same way


Ross Rebegliati or Nickelbagliati as he was know around Whistler seemed to be able to win a gold medal in snowboard racing while testing positive for THC so in some respects that could be a bit of proof that a good deal of people do indeed have a difficult time keeping up to some pot heads. And yes I know someone who did work with Ross on a mining exploration crew way back then and Rode with him at Whistler and Ross was indeed a pot head.

Some of the people who are regular POT users at the ski hill I ski at ( Sun Peaks pretty easy to tell by smell who has toked and who has not ) also tend to ski and snowboard both faster longer and more aggressive than many of the straight people on the hill and certainly with more skill and grace and stamina than they would if they were drunk IMO.

Ross did keep his medal despite testing positive for THC - not considered to be a performance enhancing substance by the IOC and the amount of THC in his blood was miniscule. I wonder how common is it for Olympians to test positive for minute amounts of Alcohol in their blood just after winning a Gold Medal.

I am certainly not saying that Pot improves someone's ability to perform ... my opinion is that it is detrimental to their performance but not to as great a degree as alcohol is.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 45
view profile
History
Legalizing drugs
Posted: 9/30/2013 4:41:37 PM

Yep....... pot makes you stupid, and most people don't need much help in that aspect. I have no problem with allowing a small amount of pot to be possesed and used. The same laws that apply to drunk drivers should apply to pot users......... not that hard to tell who is stoned. Saying that pot is less harmful than alcohol is true in someways, and not true in others.


Just for the record, I never said that pot makes one stupid, although I did suggest apathy & loss of ambition as potential detrimental side effects. I would imagine that a stupid person smoking pot would be, well, a stupid person smoking pot. I base my opinions on this subject on observation (and plenty of it); I have seen what could only be described as a plethora of extremely intelligent pot users. The problem with those ("potheads") who don't amount to anything is not their lack of intelligence, but their seeming inability to get off the couch! One may not need to have scientific proof, if they simply acknowledge what they experience.


Taxing SALES of MJ would not be a moot point and has nothing to do with growing pot for personal consumption. We don't even entertain the discussion of taxing or the legality of those who make moonshine, or homemade wine, beer, etc. do we? This appears to be a topic broached for no reason other than to take the focus off of the topic at hand.

You seem to agree that pot is comparable to alcohol, but then choose to continue to make an argument as if you were totally against it. What are you smoking?!?!
 Flurr
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 46
view profile
History
Legalizing drugs
Posted: 9/30/2013 6:31:54 PM
There was a documentary made called "if drugs were legal". It's great and lots of information. I definitely think the benefits will out weigh the negatives. Here in Ontario you can only buy booze from the government, and its a set price, and they make a killing on it. Crime would be reduced and if educated properly the demand for drugs, alcohol, tobacco etc. Will all be reduced as well. Tabacco is a perfect example.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 47
view profile
History
Legalizing drugs
Posted: 10/1/2013 9:06:15 AM

International Centre for Science in Drug Policy - ICSDP
http://www.icsdp.org/
http://www.icsdp.org/research/publications.aspx



The temporal relationship between drug supply indicators: an audit of international government surveillance systems

http://www.icsdp.org/Libraries/doc1/All_Website_Full_Study.sflb.ashx
http://www.icsdp.org/Libraries/doc1/All_Website_Backgrounder_09_30_2230.sflb.ashx

September 2013
STUDY OVERVIEW
Published in the British Medical Journal Open, the study, entitled The temporal relationship between drug supply indicators: An audit of international government surveillance systems, raises questions about the effectiveness of international law enforcement efforts to reduce illegal drug supply.
Researchers reviewed approximately two decades of global drug surveillance data culled from government databases of illegal drug supply, and found the supply of major illegal drugs has (with few exceptions) increased, as measured through a general decline in the inflation-adjusted price and an increase in the purity of illegal drugs. Specifically, researchers found that between 1990 and 2010:
• with the exception of powder cocaine, the purity and/or potency of illegal drugs in the U.S. generally increased;
• globally, the price of illegal drugs (with few exceptions) generally decreased; and
• these troubling trends occurred despite seizures of cannabis, cocaine, and opiates generally increasing in major drug production regions and major domestic markets.



The International Centre for Science in Drug Policy said its report suggested the war on drugs had failed.

The report, published in the British Medical Journal Open, looked at data from seven international government-funded drug surveillance systems.
Its researchers said it was time to consider drug use a public health issue rather than a criminal justice issue.
The study comes two days after a senior UK police officer said class A drugs should be decriminalised.

On Sunday, Chief Constable Mike Barton, of Durham Police, said drug addicts should be "treated and cared for, not criminalised".
The chief constable, who is the intelligence lead for the Association of Chief Police Officers, told the Observer he believed decriminalisation would take away the income of dealers, destroy their power, and that a "controlled environment" would be a more successful way of tackling the issue.
He said prohibition had put billions of pounds into the hands of criminals and called for an open debate on the problems caused by drugs.

Danny Kushlick, of the Transform Drug Policy Foundation, welcomed Mr Barton's comments and said prohibition of drugs had been a "miserable failure".
"We desperately need to shift the regime from a prohibitionist one to one of legal regulation," he said.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24342421



Effect of Drug Law Enforcement on Drug-Related Violence: Evidence from a Scientific Review
Conclusions
Based on the available English language scientific evidence, the results of this systematic review suggest that an increase in drug law enforcement interventions to disrupt drug markets is unlikely to reduce violence attributable to drug gangs. Instead, from an evidence-based public policy perspective and based on several decades of available data, the existing evidence strongly suggests that drug law enforcement contributes to gun violence and high homicide rates and that increasingly sophisticated methods of disrupting organizations involved in drug distribution could unintentionally increase violence. In this context, and since drug prohibition has not achieved its stated goal of reducing drug supply, alternative models for drug control may need to be considered if drug-related violence is to be meaningfully reduced
http://www.icsdp.org/docs/ICSDP-1%20-%20FINAL.pdf



Drugs and the Meaning of Life

Drug abuse and addiction are real problems, of course—the remedy for which is education and medical treatment, not incarceration. In fact, the worst drugs of abuse in the United States now appear to be prescription painkillers, like oxycodone. Should these medicines be made illegal? Of course not. People need to be informed about them, and addicts need treatment. And all drugs—including alcohol, cigarettes, and aspirin—must be kept out of the hands of children.

I discuss issues of drug policy in some detail in my first book, The End of Faith (pp. 158-164), and my thinking on the subject has not changed. The “war on drugs” has been well lost, and should never have been waged. While it isn’t explicitly protected by the U.S. Constitution, I can think of no political right more fundamental than the right to peacefully steward the contents of one’s own consciousness. The fact that we pointlessly ruin the lives of nonviolent drug users by incarcerating them, at enormous expense, constitutes one of the great moral failures of our time. (And the fact that we make room for them in our prisons by paroling murderers and rapists makes one wonder whether civilization isn’t simply doomed.)

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/drugs-and-the-meaning-of-life/



Scoring drugs
A new study suggests alcohol is more harmful than heroin or crack

("Drug harms in the UK: a multi-criteria decision analysis", by David Nutt, Leslie King and Lawrence Phillips, on behalf of the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs. The Lancet.
http://www.sg.unimaas.nl/_OLD/oudelezingen/dddsd.pdf)

Most people would agree that some drugs are worse than others: heroin is probably considered to be more dangerous than marijuana, for instance. Because governments formulate criminal and social policies based upon classifications of harm, a new study published by the Lancet on November 1st makes interesting reading. Researchers led by Professor David Nutt, a former chief drugs adviser to the British government, asked drug-harm experts to rank 20 drugs (legal and illegal) on 16 measures of harm to the user and to wider society, such as damage to health, drug dependency, economic costs and crime. Alcohol is the most harmful drug in Britain, scoring 72 out of a possible 100, far more damaging than heroin (55) or crack cocaine (54). It is the most harmful to others by a wide margin, and is ranked fourth behind heroin, crack, and methamphetamine (crystal meth) for harm to the individual. The authors point out that the model's weightings, though based on judgment, were analysed and found to be stable as large changes would be needed to change the overall rankings.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm



The 'war on drugs' is not only ineffective, it causes more harm than it prevents. Besides which many legal drugs are more harmful (as are many private habits indulged in by individuals) than the illegal drugs.

The stated basis (harm to the individual and society) and aims of the 'war on drugs' (remove or reduce supply) are respectively, unsupported and ineffective.
One wonders why they, senselessly, persist.
 whippedboi
Joined: 3/12/2013
Msg: 48
Legalizing drugs
Posted: 10/1/2013 12:42:30 PM
^


The 'war on drugs' is not only ineffective, it causes more harm than it prevents. Besides which many legal drugs are more harmful (as are many private habits indulged in by individuals) than the illegal drugs.

The stated basis (harm to the individual and society) and aims of the 'war on drugs' (remove or reduce supply) are respectively, unsupported and ineffective.
One wonders why they, senselessly, persist.


I don't wonder why --it's obvious, there is a large lobby in favor of these laws, the many, many who earn (often,a very rich) Living through enforcement of theses laws

police, prosecutors, judges ,defense attorneys, paralegals, jail guards, prison wardens, and all the support staff for all of these.. in many countries or large cities there are entire squads of police & prosecutors dedicated solely to drug cases. as well a defense lawyers who defend mostly/only drug cases & make a huge amount of money at it

in the USA there is an organization (DEA) solely to try to arrest people for drug offenses --they'd all be out of a job if drugs were legalized or even de-criminalized

they'd then have to get honest work :(
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 49
view profile
History
Legalizing drugs
Posted: 10/2/2013 4:23:52 AM
^^^^^Ridiculous, insulting nonsense. You want REAL facts, instead of petulant idiocy like that?

Yes there is a lot of expense to enforcing anti-drug laws, and not enough for other things that needs doing. But it's ALSO true that there's not nearly enough spent on enforcing the drug laws, either. All law enforcement gets told to do a near impossible job, with next to nothing in the way of resources, as compared to what they are required to deal with.

If your favorite drugs were legalized tomorrow, the same limited resources "freed up" would be gratefully put elsewhere, NOT into tax payers pockets. And if you imagine that the tiny number of people employed in anti-drug policing constitute a significant voting block, you haven't bothered to pay attention to any factual information whatsoever.

And if you think that even a slim majority of these enforcement personnel are paid well, you are even MORE out of touch with reality.


it's obvious, there is a large lobby in favor of these laws, the many, many who earn (often,a very rich) Living through enforcement of theses laws


Bull poop. All police are underpaid. And you really don't want to know how little jailers are paid. The only people who get rich, are the politicians making the laws, and the drug dealers dodging them.
 whippedboi
Joined: 3/12/2013
Msg: 50
Legalizing drugs
Posted: 10/2/2013 11:05:27 AM
waaahhh ..they can get another job

nice how Paul K is such a good detective, he can tell by reading posts that someone is a pothead..he should become the new head of the DEA maybe or the Drug enforcement kingpin/czar

so blame the Mexicans or others, right? typical . if people in USA & other countries, but primarily the USA, did not DEMAND the crap, Mexicans would not produce or ship it.

blame your own addicts, & druggies maybe something about a society where so many crave to be stoned, f*cked up, wasted, all the time ?

where there is no demand, supply would dry up
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Legalizing drugs