UNODC in talks to decriminalise all drugs world wide.

[89coupe]

I think this would be amazing. Criminal organizations around the world would blow away like the wind.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/un-to-call-on-governments-around-the-world-to-decriminalise-all-drugs-says-richard-branson-a6699851.html

[01RedDX]

.

[sputnik]

Decriminalization is actually worse.

It puts the drug monopoly in the hands of the black market with less legal repercussions and zero benefit to the government.

Full legalization is a much better option as it allows the government to tax and regulate drugs accordingly.

[89coupe]

Originally posted by sputnik
Decriminalization is actually worse.

It puts the drug monopoly in the hands of the black market with less legal repercussions and zero benefit to the government.

Full legalization is a much better option as it allows the government to tax and regulate drugs accordingly.

I'm certain that is the intent.

[Kloubek]

I have difficulty supporting this.

I'm all for legalizing and taxing weed as it is pretty benign and easy to get as it is. But I think doing the same for heavier drugs is both providing opportunity which otherwise may not have existed, as well as having the government support substances which are well known to tear people and families apart.

Let's just do the weed thing and see how it all goes....

[FraserB]

The UN can't de-criminalize anything since it has no power over the laws of member nations. All they will do is call on member nations to do this, then complain when no one does it and go back to begging for more money.

[89coupe]

uWfLwKH_Eko

[sputnik]

Originally posted by Kloubek
But I think doing the same for heavier drugs is both providing opportunity which otherwise may not have existed, as well as having the government support substances which are well known to tear people and families apart.

What are you opinions on gambling and alcohol?

[A790]

I don't feel that the current state of legislation stops anyone from doing drugs. I think that it does a good job of keeping a lot of it under the radar, but the environment that exists today is one of easy accessibility.

Education, more than legislation, is what is proven to bring usage rates down. We can better educate in a legalized environment, where information is more readily available, studies can be done far easier, and people have no need to operate within the black market.

I agree that we should approach this incrementally, but in my mind, it is important that we address it. With the right environment we could really have an opportunity to impact the cycle of addiction and improve the quality of lives for millions of people. I don't see why we wouldn't do that.

[Robin Goodfellow]

Originally posted by sputnik
Decriminalization is actually worse.

It puts the drug monopoly in the hands of the black market with less legal repercussions and zero benefit to the government.

Full legalization is a much better option as it allows the government to tax and regulate drugs accordingly.

I'm inclined to agree with you.

This gonna be a can of worms with unintended consequences.

"All drugs" is a tall order. Don't know I want see Meth sold at the kwikie mart.

[Kloubek]

Originally posted by sputnik


What are you opinions on gambling and alcohol?

Well let's throw gambling right out the window, as it's an activity one doesn't get physically addicted to.

Alcohol is a much better comparison. I actually view alcohol as more destructive than weed, by a fair margin. However, it's already legal and there is no way it would ever not be... so it's kind of a moot point.

But as far as hard drugs go, I just feel it's opening to many negative possibilities.

Meth. Not even once.

[JordanEG6]

Originally posted by Kloubek
I have difficulty supporting this.

I'm all for legalizing and taxing weed as it is pretty benign and easy to get as it is. But I think doing the same for heavier drugs is both providing opportunity which otherwise may not have existed, as well as having the government support substances which are well known to tear people and families apart.

Let's just do the weed thing and see how it all goes....

IMO, it's not about the legality of the drugs that are the problem. It's more about the users and availability. Whether or not it's legal, people will find ways to get high. More so in countries where it's illegal. It's the forbidden fruit theory. People can't have it, so they want it. If it's there, it's no big deal.

Some or most European countries decriminalize drugs across the board (to a certain extent I think) and rarely see the types of drug problems that occur in the US.

Like said above, it's about education and regulation. Up until now, all we've been doing as a society is sweeping these subjects under the rug and throwing people in jail for non-violent crimes or rehab without educating the public or funding research on different kinds of drugs. But then again, it may be too late to change that around for the US/Canada where the general public is mentally conditioned to handle the problem a certain way and where drugs are recurring issues for individuals.

[01RedDX]

.

[HiTempguy1]

Saying that legalizing anything gets rid of the black market is silly, because it doesn't :dunno:

There are still black market alcohol and cig sales to this day.

Additionally, the problem with the argument of "treating" any addicition is there needs to be a desire to be clean. People will always do drugs, no matter what we do. Drug use overall is dropping, and has been dropping just like crime has (guess those tough on crime laws are working eh?). So I do not suppprt decriminalization OR legalization.

Of course, anything that comes out of the UN is suspect nowadays, what with the war criminals running organizations like the human rights commission :rofl:

The UN is a joke.

[frizzlefry]

"End the war on drugs" really should be "End the war on drug users". Which I am all for. But the dealers and those who traffic should get kicked in the nuts. Drugs, particularly with weed, is a supplemental income for them. Unless you are Escobar and moving trucks full of blow then your hands are in other more harmful illegal activities such as prostitution, weapons smuggling, illegal gambling, loan sharking etc. Drugs are just a low risk compliment to your income profile.

Go after those guys, use the drugs to take down their other shit. Give the addicts treatment when busted for possession.

[sabad66]

I agree with the view that all drugs (yes, including "hard" drugs") should be legal. Almost all of the negatives around drugs are actually a consequence of them being illegal. For example:
- criminals getting rich and not paying taxes
- violence due to above.. take away their money and gangs will be no more
- people don't know the long term effects because researchers aren't allowed to study them
- overdoses due to inconsistent purity and/or cutting agents
- addictions because people are too afraid/embarrassed to get help before its too late
- people that could have turned out to be successful members of society having their lives ruined with a criminal record over a non-violent "crime"
- families destroyed/shamed because someone is in jail

Besides all the above problems, the #1 reason IMO is basic freedom. Why should anyone/government dictate what a free person can/can't put in their own body? I personally don't have any desire to snort coke or smoke meth or inject heroin, but if someone else wants to do it safely on their own without harming anyone else and with their own money then by all means go ahead. They are going to find a way to do it anyways, so why should they have to go buy something on the street from a criminal to do this instead of paying a legit business that can guarantee purity and pay taxes?

Just look at all the recent fentanyl deaths and all of the people dying of overdoses at raves/festivals. These are real people that are brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, parents to someone. Most of them dead because some criminal somewhere along the line lied about what they were selling.

I think society will eventually get to the point of full legalization, but not for at least another 40 years. Decriminalization is a good first step though... at least it solves some of the issues above

sorry for what seems like a Seth/Toma type rant... I have a few family members/friends (mostly in the US) that have been thrown in jail/overdosed so I have thought this through a few times

[frizzlefry]

^^^

You can't blanket all drugs like that though. Heroine maybe, but shit like bath salts or meth are a danger to others aside from the user. There is a public safety concern.

[sabad66]

What makes meth or bath salts a danger to the public? They can be used responsibly just like anything else. Did you know that people can be prescribed meth for ADD? Look it up... it's called desoxyn. Yes, I was just as surprised to learn that the FDA licensed METH to give to kids.

It all comes down to responsible use and education.

[FixedGear]

All drugs should be legalized.

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by sabad66
What makes meth or bath salts a danger to the public? They can be used responsibly just like anything else. Did you know that people can be prescribed meth for ADD? Look it up... it's called desoxyn. Yes, I was just as surprised to learn that the FDA licensed METH to give to kids.

It all comes down to responsible use and education.

But the legalize all drugs statement is rubbish. Desoxyn IS legal. Meth is not for a very good reason. The component that has a mood altering effect is extracted from legal drugs and then used to make meth. Say a cook buys up all the cold medication at a store to make a batch of meth. We give cold medication to kids! So meth should be legal! Gawd.

Looking at a simple ingredients list is asinine. Its the composition, ratio, chemical make-up and interaction of said chemicals that make something dangerous.

Some drugs are more dangerous than others. Some drugs when overdosed put a person in a coma. Some when overdosed put people into a violent psychotic episode then they die. Those drugs should not be legal.

Oxy is legal. And huge on the black market. Overdose on oxy and you slip into a coma then possibly death. Try and force yourself to OD on cold medication, same chemical component as meth, and you may die but you won't do this:

Link (https://youtu.be/lorZp6a0vCY)

All drugs are not equal. There are drugs that make people dangerous. This guy was on a small amount of PCP.

A responsible use message is fine but will fail just like MADD learns all the time...when people need to refer to or use the don't drive drunk lessons they are drunk. Or in the case of meth, whacked out on meth. Responsible thinking is not on the top of the brain's priority list. And when a couple of grams of something can take you from bliss to maniac we need to treat those drugs slightly differently.

[FixedGear]

^who cares, what gives you the right to enforce your values on other adults? Not to mention how the black market has ruined societies with violence, murders, and prison sentences.

I lived on the us-mexico border for a few years... No one from Canada can tell me drugs should be illegal because its safer or better for society. :nut:

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by FixedGear
^who cares, what gives you the right to enforce your values on other adults? Not to mention how the black market has ruined societies with violence, murders, and prison sentences.

I lived on the us-mexico border for a few years... No one from Canada can tell me drugs should be illegal because its safer or better for society. :nut:

You talk as if someone who uses Meth acts like an adult. :nut:. At least a junkie is less likely to experience a psychotic episode. I am a big proponent of stopping the war on drug users. I don't want to jail them. But seriously, some drugs are dangerous. You would be cool with legalizing PCP? Bath Salts? Meth? That shit ruins people. There is absolutely an argument for decriminalizing heroin to encourage treatment and legalizing/taxing weed. Hell, LSD even. But try and regulate that...

But some drugs people have no business using.

[FixedGear]

Yes, I think it should all be legalized, regulated, prevented, and treated. People are going to do it whether its legal or not. :dunno:

[rob the knob]

Originally posted by 89coupe
I think this would be amazing. Criminal organizations around the world would blow away like the wind.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/un-to-call-on-governments-around-the-world-to-decriminalise-all-drugs-says-richard-branson-a6699851.html

amazing?

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/2643206/original.jpg

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by FixedGear
Yes, I think it should all be legalized, regulated, prevented, and treated. People are going to do it whether its legal or not. :dunno:

Big difference between legalized and decriminalization. Your words prevented and treated fall into the decriminalization camp. Legalized and regulated fall into the legalized camp.

Treatment would be near impossible with a legalized substance, from a government standpoint. IE alcoholics. Legal, massive issues with treatment. Heavy reliance on private organizations. Still a big societal issue. Imagine if alcoholics acted like meth heads. Would be a BIG PROBLEM.

Now decriminalization on the other hand. Allows for forced treatment, control of addicts while not treating them like criminals.

Responsible use of alcohol is very possible and in wide practice. Responsible use of meth isn't something I see as a possibility.

Edit: Good antidote. Craig Ferguson, who has been 20 years sober from alcohol, said it best: "An alcoholic will steal your purse, take the money and get drunk. And feel like shit and then drink more to get over the guilt. A drug addict will steal it....then help you look for the purse."

Some addictions are worse than others. I worked with an alcoholic for 10 years, had no idea. Until his thermos full of vodka spilled everywhere. Jig was up. I can't see a meth addict functioning the same way. Some drugs are worse than others, blanket statements like legalize it all are dangerous IMO.

[FixedGear]

Originally posted by frizzlefry


Big difference between legalized and decriminalization. Your words prevented and treated fall into the decriminalization camp. Legalized and regulated fall into the legalized camp.


You mean like alcohol and tobacco?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[revelations]

I support 100% legalization = more revenue from taxes and thus, more education of users of the harm of these substances at an early age. :dunno:

Its not going to stop the crack-heads at Macs, but hopefully create a new generation of people who are aware of the various types of mind-altering drugs, and their dangers - especially at an early age.

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by FixedGear


You mean like alcohol and tobacco?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

So alcohol and tobacco = same impact on the body as meth and Crack. Got it.

Somehow I get the impression that pro legalize everything in this thread are pot heads who can't tell their dicks from their elbows. Anything to legalize weed.

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by revelations
I support 100% legalization = more revenue from taxes and thus, more education of users of the harm of these substances at an early age. :dunno:

Its not going to stop the crack-heads at Macs, but hopefully create a new generation of people who are aware of the various types of mind-altering drugs, and their dangers - especially at an early age.

But the crack heads at macs is why we are having this discussion. If they were just stoned kids legislation of pot alone would be a no brainer. :banghead:

The crack-heads at Macs are the societal issue bringing up this debate. Trying to fix that type of problem. And you just said legalization wouldn't help.

Decriminalization would. :banghead:

[dubhead]

Originally posted by frizzlefry


You talk as if someone who uses Meth acts like an adult. :nut:. At least a junkie is less likely to experience a psychotic episode. I am a big proponent of stopping the war on drug users. I don't want to jail them. But seriously, some drugs are dangerous. You would be cool with legalizing PCP? Bath Salts? Meth? That shit ruins people. There is absolutely an argument for decriminalizing heroin to encourage treatment and legalizing/taxing weed. Hell, LSD even. But try and regulate that...

But some drugs people have no business using.

The thing with bath salts and a laundry list of similar drugs is they only exist because they were custom built to mimic other drugs that are illegal but changed enough that they could be sold in the grey market. The problem of course is the alterations always seem to have very nasty side affects.

Sure if you smoke or mainline Meth you're likely to go into full junkie mode pretty quick there are however other ways to take it with out the extreme affects. PCP I will agree is bat shit crazy and likely might be a place to draw the line

[Robin Goodfellow]

Originally posted by dubhead

PCP I will agree is bat shit crazy and likely might be a place to draw the line

PCP is hardly batshit crazy. It's a pretty shitty drug, and has virtually no redeeming features. I don't know that it's that harmful, either, though.

Yes, there's the yearly smoked-PCP-and-fought-with-cops story, but it's pretty far from an epidemic.

I guess it was interesting back in grandads time when there wasn't so much choice.

Can't fucking believe PCP is still a 'thing'. :dunno:

[ZenOps]

Anything in too large an amount can be lethal. Water overdose is possible and well documented.

[Feruk]

Originally posted by frizzlefry
Some drugs are more dangerous than others. Some drugs when overdosed put a person in a coma. Some when overdosed put people into a violent psychotic episode then they die. Those drugs should not be legal.

All drugs are not equal. There are drugs that make people dangerous. This guy was on a small amount of PCP.
I don't disagree that some drugs are worse, but that has nothing to do with making them legal vs not. IMO we should be looking at usage rates. If you make it legal, there's a good chance less people will use them. Not intuitive, but Amsterdam's a perfect case study. If you legalize a drug with some horrible side effects, but the end result is less people use it, that's a win.

[theken]

Legalization leads to controlled doses, there was a video I watched on heroin addicts that some country (I forget which one) set up places for them to go get injected, clean proper amounts, and helped them get jobs instead of being in the street. If you set it up where heroin addicts and drug addicts get controlled amounts that are clean, they can lead productive lives if they aren't scraping together blow jobs to get their fix. Banning substances that are a personal choice is retarded, you ban drugs and criminals take over, people get killed. Yes there is black market booE and cigarettes, but to what extent? Are people getting murdered over bathtub moonshine? Are they getting murdered over their tobacco crops? Never heard of this before and if it's a problem it's news to me

[g-m]

Originally posted by sabad66
I agree with the view that all drugs (yes, including "hard" drugs") should be legal. Almost all of the negatives around drugs are actually a consequence of them being illegal. For example:
- criminals getting rich and not paying taxes
- violence due to above.. take away their money and gangs will be no more
- people don't know the long term effects because researchers aren't allowed to study them
- overdoses due to inconsistent purity and/or cutting agents
- addictions because people are too afraid/embarrassed to get help before its too late
- people that could have turned out to be successful members of society having their lives ruined with a criminal record over a non-violent "crime"
- families destroyed/shamed because someone is in jail

Besides all the above problems, the #1 reason IMO is basic freedom. Why should anyone/government dictate what a free person can/can't put in their own body? I personally don't have any desire to snort coke or smoke meth or inject heroin, but if someone else wants to do it safely on their own without harming anyone else and with their own money then by all means go ahead. They are going to find a way to do it anyways, so why should they have to go buy something on the street from a criminal to do this instead of paying a legit business that can guarantee purity and pay taxes?

Just look at all the recent fentanyl deaths and all of the people dying of overdoses at raves/festivals. These are real people that are brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, parents to someone. Most of them dead because some criminal somewhere along the line lied about what they were selling.

I think society will eventually get to the point of full legalization, but not for at least another 40 years. Decriminalization is a good first step though... at least it solves some of the issues above

sorry for what seems like a Seth/Toma type rant... I have a few family members/friends (mostly in the US) that have been thrown in jail/overdosed so I have thought this through a few times +1 I think Mr Frizzle has lost this one

[A790]

Originally posted by sabad66
I agree with the view that all drugs (yes, including "hard" drugs") should be legal. Almost all of the negatives around drugs are actually a consequence of them being illegal. For example:
- criminals getting rich and not paying taxes
- violence due to above.. take away their money and gangs will be no more
- people don't know the long term effects because researchers aren't allowed to study them
- overdoses due to inconsistent purity and/or cutting agents
- addictions because people are too afraid/embarrassed to get help before its too late
- people that could have turned out to be successful members of society having their lives ruined with a criminal record over a non-violent "crime"
- families destroyed/shamed because someone is in jail

Besides all the above problems, the #1 reason IMO is basic freedom. Why should anyone/government dictate what a free person can/can't put in their own body? I personally don't have any desire to snort coke or smoke meth or inject heroin, but if someone else wants to do it safely on their own without harming anyone else and with their own money then by all means go ahead. They are going to find a way to do it anyways, so why should they have to go buy something on the street from a criminal to do this instead of paying a legit business that can guarantee purity and pay taxes?

Just look at all the recent fentanyl deaths and all of the people dying of overdoses at raves/festivals. These are real people that are brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, parents to someone. Most of them dead because some criminal somewhere along the line lied about what they were selling.

I think society will eventually get to the point of full legalization, but not for at least another 40 years. Decriminalization is a good first step though... at least it solves some of the issues above

sorry for what seems like a Seth/Toma type rant... I have a few family members/friends (mostly in the US) that have been thrown in jail/overdosed so I have thought this through a few times
I agree with you.

I also find it curious that many people seem to think that making something legal means that it's suddenly super accessible. Last I checked, it's almost as easy to get E or MDMA as it is to get booze. I don't see how it being illegal has kept the substances out of anybody's hands that wanted them.

[JordanEG6]

I've listened to this guy on podcasts and read some of his work. Great reads. It's astounding how society as a whole has skewed views on drugs in general (legal or illegal) and how it's shaped the structure of law. People need to read his books:



http://www.drcarlhart.com/

[01RedDX]

.

[Cos]

.

[Robin Goodfellow]

Originally posted by 01RedDX

:rolleyes:

I guess the people of Portugal are a bunch of pot-heads whose overdose death rate is 6x lower than the EU average.

http://i.imgur.com/nP8g6gE.png

An interesting graph, but I'm a bit suspicious in that it overlooks other negative incomes/impacts.

Would like to see something a little more complete...

[killramos]

I think I am pretty supportive of decriminalization from a Darwinistic perspective. Good way to start weeding out people who have genetic tendencies towards addiction and substance abuse etc. Sad but true.

The main problem i see is if ( note i said if ) more people end up on hard drugs what kind of impact that will have on the public healthcare system.

Maybe leaving addicts on the hook for their own rehab or OD costs :dunno:

Besides if more people are satisfied with being high all day that just increases my ability to compete in a competitive workforce for better jobs :dunno:

With regard to all this talk what do people think of this in the context of when flooding a society with easy access and inexpensive drugs was considered a way to weaken a country prior to or during a war?

Historically i believe this was done in some south china area states and opium by the British?

Seems to discredit the concept that easy access to drugs doesn't increase use?

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by 01RedDX

:rolleyes:

I guess the people of Portugal are a bunch of pot-heads whose overdose death rate is 6x lower than the EU average.

http://i.imgur.com/nP8g6gE.png


In July 2001, a new law maintained the status of illegality for using or possessing any drug for personal use without authorization. The offense was changed from a criminal one, with prison a possible punishment, to an administrative one if the amount possessed was no more than ten days' supply of that substance.[1] This was in line with the de facto Portuguese drug policy before the reform. Drug addicts were then to be aggressively targeted with therapy or community service rather than fines or waivers.[10] Even if there are no criminal penalties, these changes did not legalize drug use in Portugal. Possession has remained prohibited by Portuguese law, and criminal penalties are still applied to drug growers, dealers and traffickers

Portugal decriminalized it. Which I am all for as it allows for some control by the government in terms of getting people treatment. That resulted in the decline. Full out broad stoke legalization removes that "administrative" power to force people into treatment. The Netherlands also decriminalized it. Recreational drugs are still illegal there and they don't prosecute pot possession or sale. There isn't really any country that has legalized drugs and I find that people tend to back-up their libertarian view of legalizing drugs with stats that resulted from decriminalization. Those two are very very different.

[Robin Goodfellow]

Originally posted by frizzlefry



Responsible use of alcohol is very possible and in wide practice. Responsible use of meth isn't something I see as a possibility.


Fizzle, your points are well made, and I don't mean to pick nits, but I don't know that responsible use of Alcohol is possible. I was about to suggest that the costs of irresponsible use are lower, but I'm not even sure that's the case.

Meth certainly is uglier, and ruins the user's life, and can cause crime, but it seems to be that the crimes are limited in scope, whereas the cost of alcohol seems to have a much greater reach (drunk driving).

Yes, I know this sentiment is half-baked... But overall, I'd be cautious in giving Alchohol a pass vis-a-vis meth.

[01RedDX]

.

[ryder_23]

Originally posted by sabad66


It all comes down to responsible use and education.

What hard drugs have you done? Legit question....if you haven't then you don't know what it does to you.

Not that I fully disagree(with ur initial post) but hard drugs can't be controlled with the words responsible and education.

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by 01RedDX
"Alcohol not so bad in comparison to meth." I guess you could try to go with that unless you actually look at the data:

Annual Causes of Death in the United States
http://i.imgur.com/KV7uDkf.png

(Source: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Causes_of_Death#sthash.feA5ZFQI.dpbs)

Is that adjusted for number of users? There are about 4.8 million illicit drug users (used at least once in the past month, excluding pot) in the USA which is about 1.5% of the population. 86% of people in the USA have had a drink in the past month or drink on a regular basis. Yet deaths from illicit drugs is about 1/3rd of booze despite having 57 times fewer users.

If the rate of illicit drug use was the same a booze than the deaths from it would be in the range of 969,000 which is worse than cancer and heart disease. Making illicit drugs, excluding pot, about 20x more dangerous than booze on an individual user basis.

*edit* of course as a nationwide issue alcohol certainly has illicit drugs beat. But that can be attributed to the fact that it is....legalized and socially accepted. I'm not advocating that we make booze illegal, that would make me very sad, but there has to be serious consideration when discussing legalizing something that is 20 times more dangerous. If the goal is reduced addiction and harm then decriminalization, not legalization, is clearly the way to go.

[A790]

Originally posted by frizzlefry


Is that adjusted for number of users? There are about 4.8 million illicit drug users (used at least once in the past month, excluding pot) in the USA which is about 1.5% of the population. 86% of people in the USA have had a drink in the past month or drink on a regular basis. Yet deaths from illicit drugs is about 1/3rd of booze despite having 57 times fewer users.

If the rate of illicit drug use was the same a booze than the deaths from it would be in the range of 969,000 which is worse than cancer and heart disease. Making illicit drugs, excluding pot, about 20x more dangerous than booze on an individual user basis.
I think you're missing his point.

The people that want to do these drugs are already doing them.

[01RedDX]

.

[ZenOps]

Direct deaths from type II diabetes really derives from abuse of one of the most common drugs - Sugar.

Sugar directly by way of diabetes and indirectly (through obesity and cardiovascular disease) kills far more people worldwide than all other drugs combined - with the arguable exception of alcohol (which can be considered by a chemist, a refined sugar, like rum)

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by 01RedDX


Source? Everything I see points to ~30 million users or 10%.



Which again only matters if you can prove that decriminalization or legalization increases the number of users, an argument for which there is no real basis. I think the real concern is keeping it out of the hands of kids and young people, for which there is no good solution, aside from education and parenting.

Got my numbers from here Link (https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/nationwide-trends)


In 2013, an estimated 24.6 million Americans aged 12 or older—9.4 percent of the population—had used an illicit drug in the past month. This number is up from 8.3 percent in 2002. The increase mostly reflects a recent rise in use of marijuana, the most commonly used illicit drug.

Being the USA I had to subtract weed users to get a "real" number for baddie drug users


Marijuana use has increased since 2007. In 2013, there were 19.8 million current users—about 7.5 percent of people aged 12 or older—up from 14.5 million (5.8 percent) in 2007.

24.6 - 19.8 = 4.8 million drug users excluding pot users. Maybe some pot users also use hard drugs but not most of them, I would wager very few of them. Hard to get accurate numbers out of the USA for the hard shit as they count pot as a naughty naughty life ruining drug too.

I don't think the goal of the UNODC is to satisfy libertarians and make us all free to do what we want but rather to reduce harm and unnecessary prosecutions. Decriminalization can do exactly that. There is no basis, honestly, to predict the results of legalization as no one has ever done it.

I'm not saying that usage will increase, I think that it will decrease with decriminalization. I was more addressing the "let people do whatever they want" libertarian crowd by pointing out that illicit drugs are far more dangerous than currently legal substances (that are available without prescription) on a per user basis. Legalizing them would be a dumb thing to do which is why the most liberal drug countries like the Netherlands and Portugal haven't. They decriminalized it. The legalization proponents are using decriminalization stats to make their claim. Truth is nobody knows what would happen if all drugs were legalized as nobody has done it. I just can't see any good coming from it.

[01RedDX]

.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by sabad66
I agree with the view that all drugs (yes, including "hard" drugs") should be legal. Almost all of the negatives around drugs are actually a consequence of them being illegal. For example:
- criminals getting rich and not paying taxes
- violence due to above.. take away their money and gangs will be no more
- people don't know the long term effects because researchers aren't allowed to study them
- overdoses due to inconsistent purity and/or cutting agents
- addictions because people are too afraid/embarrassed to get help before its too late
- people that could have turned out to be successful members of society having their lives ruined with a criminal record over a non-violent "crime"
- families destroyed/shamed because someone is in jail

Besides all the above problems, the #1 reason IMO is basic freedom. Why should anyone/government dictate what a free person can/can't put in their own body? I personally don't have any desire to snort coke or smoke meth or inject heroin, but if someone else wants to do it safely on their own without harming anyone else and with their own money then by all means go ahead. They are going to find a way to do it anyways, so why should they have to go buy something on the street from a criminal to do this instead of paying a legit business that can guarantee purity and pay taxes?

Just look at all the recent fentanyl deaths and all of the people dying of overdoses at raves/festivals. These are real people that are brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, parents to someone. Most of them dead because some criminal somewhere along the line lied about what they were selling.

I think society will eventually get to the point of full legalization, but not for at least another 40 years. Decriminalization is a good first step though... at least it solves some of the issues above

sorry for what seems like a Seth/Toma type rant... I have a few family members/friends (mostly in the US) that have been thrown in jail/overdosed so I have thought this through a few times

Agreed on all aspects, and I'll take my reference as a compliment :angel:

Decriminalize, legalize, fukasize, IT DOESN"T MATTER.

What matters is, others force their will on others. It's the most despicable emotional trait, and it's rampant (especially in religion).

I'm surprised that stupid fuck Duaner hasn't posted yet. Oh well, he's probably still trying to wake up from his ass kicking in the right to die thread.

[Robin Goodfellow]

Originally posted by 01RedDX
"Alcohol not so bad in comparison to meth." I guess you could try to go with that unless you actually look at the data:



How smug. A simple "look" at the data may not do the exercise justice.

Given that Alcholol is legal (Widespread usage), and Meth is illegal (Limited usage), these stats are an apples-to-oranges comparison.

If meth were legalized, these numbers would shift drastically.

While this is useful data, this matter would be better explored with an inventory of outcomes based on an equal number of addicts for both drugs.

[89coupe]

Originally posted by Robin Goodfellow


How smug. A simple "look" at the data may not do the exercise justice.

Given that Alcholol is legal (Widespread usage), and Meth is illegal (Limited usage), these stats are an apples-to-oranges comparison.

If meth were legalized, these numbers would shift drastically.

While this is useful data, this matter would be better explored with an inventory of outcomes based on an equal number of addicts for both drugs.

Why would it shift?

You think non-users would all of a sudden become users?

[A790]

Originally posted by Seth1968
Oh well, he's probably still trying to wake up from his ass kicking in the right to die thread.
Link me?

[01RedDX]

.

[g-m]

Fuck yea, meth party at reddx's house! Who's in? People don't abstain from meth because it's illegal.

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by 89coupe


Why would it shift?

You think non-users would all of a sudden become users?

Don't see why its outside the realm of possibility. Bar stars have a legal methamphetamine perk-me-up before partying. I remember the ADD kids would sell their ritalin all the time in high school to kids that would never even have the connections to score meth. There is a market for stimulants.

I guess as an aside there could be some advantages. Uber drivers could get the benefit of an obsessively cleaned and organized back seat instead of a passed out bar star with shit running down their legs and onto his seats.

[Mitsu3000gt]

I don't think a lot would change if everything was legal. Everyone isn't going to rush out to try all the ultra-hard drugs just because they are legal.

The reason most people don't do hard drugs is because it ruins your life and that of everyone close to you, not because it's illegal. All the people who want to do those drugs do them anyway already. Nobody is sitting around waiting for it to become legal, so they can finally start that meth habit they have been dreaming about. I think the number of hard drug users would remain largely the same if it were legal. If it were legalized but extremely expensive, then perhaps there would still be a large market for illegal drugs, but "street" prices would likely be nowhere near what they are now.

[JordanEG6]

Originally posted by frizzlefry


Don't see why its outside the realm of possibility. Bar stars have a legal methamphetamine perk-me-up before partying. I remember the ADD kids would sell their ritalin all the time in high school to kids that would never even have the connections to score meth. There is a market for stimulants.

I guess as an aside there could be some advantages. Uber drivers could get the benefit of an obsessively cleaned and organized back seat instead of a passed out bar star with shit running down their legs and onto his seats.

It isn't out of the realm of possibility but realistically, the possibility of someone doing those kinds of drugs based on legality alone are very low. Although this is a less extreme case - Marijuana, mushrooms and probably other psychedelics are legal in The Netherlands, but very few locals indulge in such. Just because it's there and readily available doesn't automatically entice anyone to do anything.

People who resort to drugs like Meth, Cocaine, Heroine etc are going to do so whether it's legal or not. It's not a matter of legality, it's a matter of choice. People who do want to do it, will do it.

IMO, I don't know anyone going "Oh damn, I wish Meth was legal, I could use a hit right now" or "I would totally get into Meth if it were legal". Your logic is flawed there. I could even go back to the Forbidden Fruit Theory and supply/demand of the idea of wanting to have something you cannot get. If it's there, in this case, if Meth is legal, most people won't go out of their way to try it.

[ZenOps]

I will admit to being curious about some designer drugs like Vicadin. Although arguably, even though OTC aspirins are legal, I don't use them at all - Even when I have a headache.

Seriously though, the expense and to a certain degree - the illegality is a deterrent. I'd much rather spend $50 on a good videogame than go on a one night bender on drug of choice. I guess it comes down to what a person enjoys more and what they are willing to spend their time and effort on.

[Unknown303]

I would do meth every day if it was legal.

[Robin Goodfellow]

Originally posted by JordanEG6

People who resort to drugs like Meth, Cocaine, Heroine etc are going to do so whether it's legal or not. It's not a matter of legality, it's a matter of choice. People who do want to do it, will do it.


What about accessibility?

Regardless of legality, some folks never give much though to doing a particular drug until it's made accessible to them.

Would legality not increase accessibility?

[JRSC00LUDE]

Originally posted by Robin Goodfellow
Regardless of legality, some folks never give much though to doing a particular drug until it's made accessible to them.

Is this opinion or, verifiable fact?

[JordanEG6]

Originally posted by Robin Goodfellow


What about accessibility?

Regardless of legality, some folks never give much though to doing a particular drug until it's made accessible to them.

Would legality not increase accessibility?

Not necessarily. Just because it is legal, does not equal readily accessible. Assuming from a legalization/regulation stand point, I'd imagine you'd have to jump through a few hurdles to get your drugs (prescription, ID, prior usage check etc.). This is under the assumption that individuals may be enticed to try a drug based on legality and accessibility. Again, forbidden fruit theory. :devil:

If it were simply decriminalized without regulation, that might be a different story altogether.

[frizzlefry]

I'll admit that I found LSD to be freaking amazing when I was in high school. If it were legal I wouldn't do it but simply because I don't have 16 hours to spare to be high. You need to plan ahead for that shit. But if I were camping...

[BigMass]

personally I believe you need regulations. However, if you wait until regulations are in place to legalize, then it will never happen. Politicians will always find a way to talk about how difficult and problematic regulations are and all the roadblocks and how we deal with it and handle it. They'll talk about it for 10000 years before anything happens. That's why you need to legalize first. Then in about 6 months the government will have sweeping and proper regulations in place. The order important or it will never happen. Without motivation, there is no action. Right now there is zero motivation for any government to legalize anything. This IMO shouldn't be in the hands of government, but the supreme court and made a human rights issue.

[Unknown303]

So has anyone bothered to bring up the fact that we don't all currently smoke tobacco. It's pretty accessible, it's addictive and really fucking bad for you. But for some strange reason we're not all smoking.. like we have a choice or something...

[BigMass]

Originally posted by Unknown303
So has anyone bothered to bring up the fact that we don't all currently smoke tobacco. It's pretty accessible, it's addictive and really fucking bad for you. But for some strange reason we're not all smoking.. like we have a choice or something...

if you make meth legal, every man woman and child will be on meth within 24 hours. IDK about you but I don't touch it because it's illegal, but if it was ever legal, WATCH OUT WORLD!!!!!. I'd be fucked up on that shit 24-7!!!***

*** according to the conservatives ***

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by Unknown303
So has anyone bothered to bring up the fact that we don't all currently smoke tobacco. It's pretty accessible, it's addictive and really fucking bad for you. But for some strange reason we're not all smoking.. like we have a choice or something...

Lots of people smoke, most people drink, prescription meds are WAY over prescribed (at least in the states).

We are a culture of medication. A culture of ingesting shit which alters our body chemistry. Making more medications available and assuming people won't take them is rather silly.

There are two definitions floating around in this debate and really a lot of arguments going around without clear definition.

Decriminalization of possession. My choice, helps reduce use, removes the cost associated with unnecessarily incarcerating people.

And legalization. Tax it, all legal, make some revenue and people have choice. Under this idea would Oxy be no longer a prescription medication? It's a narcotic. Would anti-depressants be available to anybody who wants them? Lithium over the counter for the housewife who had a bad day? Is there are medical benefit to PCP? Is that prescription only or available over the counter while Oxy is a doctor prescribed medication?

If the argument for 100% legalization is in furtherance of choice than shouldn't we all just be able to chose whatever drug we want whenever we want? No more pharmacists? And if legalization folks want pharmacists and believe in doctor prescribed medications, prescribed by a person who knows what they are doing, then they are picking some drugs we can chose to take over others. Supporting the idea they are against. IMO in this case pro legalization is not pro-choice but rather "girls just wanna have fun".

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by frizzlefry

IMO in this case pro legalization is not pro-choice but rather "girls just wanna have fun".

IMO

In this case...

blah, blah blah........

Let the people die with own hands.]

Get rid of the weak and dying.

[Robin Goodfellow]

Originally posted by Unknown303
So has anyone bothered to bring up the fact that we don't all currently smoke tobacco. It's pretty accessible, it's addictive and really fucking bad for you. But for some strange reason we're not all smoking.. like we have a choice or something...

Your email doesn't acknowledge the varying degrees of addictiveness.

Smoking takes some time to get its hooks into you. Some drugs get their hooks in early, and get them in deep.

Someone I know did heroin once, and for the entire next year, it was the first thing he thought of when he woke up every morning.

It's hard to imagine the same thing resulting from smoking a single, or even a pack, of cigarettes.

[FixedGear]

The only drugs i use are caffeine, alcohol, and (very occasionally) nicotene. But i still think they should all be legalized. 100% legal - all drugs.

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by Robin Goodfellow


Your email doesn't acknowledge the varying degrees of addictiveness.

Smoking takes some time to get its hooks into you. Some drugs get their hooks in early, and get them in deep.

Someone I know did heroin once, and for the entire next year, it was the first thing he thought of when he woke up every morning.

It's hard to imagine the same thing resulting from smoking a single, or even a pack, of cigarettes.

Posted this on the opening a pot store thread. This is just in regards to opiods. There are 35 classes of it, things you learn when being a doctor and when you take courses in pharm. My wife did a total of a year and half learning this shit to give it to ANIAMLS. In the administration of opiods the primary goal is to prevent addiction, and my wife had to learn it because the animal cannot talk but a miscalculation will result the animal being addicted, suffering physical withdrawal during treatment and may die. Addiction is a physical issue that complicates recovery.

So to Robin's point. The reason his buddy thought of nothing but heroin when he woke up is because his dealer was not a fucking doctor that had not tailored his pain management to him. People or animals you use this chart: Link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equianalgesic)

Almost all choices will give a high recreationally and all will elevate pain. But the trained part comes into play in terms of addiction. The choice in opioid is primarily based on the likelihood of dependency. The least likely to induce dependency wins. And they want to know everything, alcohol use, smoking, tendency to gamble. It's a whole profile.

My wife had to memorize this chart, take a year and half of courses on the drugs alone, after the bio to back it up. And this is for fucking cows and dogs!

But people? oh yeah, freedom. Take it to the courts. Human rights issue. Freedom dude!

Legalize it and usage may or may not increase. No metric. Never been done. But legalization will kill existing addicts. No doubt. Decriminalize it and then you can force them into treatment, get them clean. But 100% legalization removes any authority of state to force existing (or new) users into treatment.

[OTown]

Originally posted by frizzlefry

Legalize it and usage may or may not increase. No metric. Never been done. But legalization will kill existing addicts. No doubt. Decriminalize it and then you can force them into treatment, get them clean. But 100% legalization removes any authority of state to force existing (or new) users into treatment.

You just have all of our problems figured out. Wow. Awesome.

Now go to each and every one of those addicts and go tell them to "Go to treatment!" and see what they tell you.

Reality check: They are ADDICTS. They don't give a damn about you or what you have to say they just want to get high and whatever stands between them and the high don't matter. So how will legalization even change that? Unless you want to illegally detain these people for treatment (which wouldn't even work since to treat addiction you need a willing participant). But hey if you want to open up the public to these drugs too and have them go through the same predicament, then its all good right?

So please, good sir, explain how this would change anything?

You do realize treatment already exists for the (willing) addicts whether its legal or not, right?

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by OTown


You just have all of our problems figured out. Wow. Awesome.

Now go to each and every one of those addicts and go tell them to "Go to treatment!" and see what they tell you.

Reality check: They are ADDICTS. They don't give a damn about you or what you have to say they just want to get high and whatever stands between them and the high don't matter. So how will legalization even change that? Unless you want to illegally detain these people for treatment (which wouldn't even work since to treat addiction you need a willing participant). But hey if you want to open up the public to these drugs too and have them go through the same predicament, then its all good right?

So please, good sir, explain how this would change anything?

..ummm because when you bust them for possession they don't go through a "wham bam thank you mam" 48 hr treatment/detox just to clear them for prison. They actually get an administrative sentence (no criminal record) that includes all the preventative measures and treatments, outside of prison, that would result in the lowest likelihood of re-occurrence of substance abuse, a proven formula that works in the Netherlands and Portugal...

...um dude, are you drunk? I kinda get the idea you are one of the "don't allows drugs anything" camp. I have been a loud proponent of basic decriminalization amongst people that want 100% legalization. And have been flamed for it...Umm...decriminalization allows for some administrative control to help addicts and 100% legaliz...wtf dude? Your post makes no sense as a response to what I have been saying...good sir.

[OTown]

Originally posted by frizzlefry


..ummm because when you bust them for possession they don't go through a "wham bam thank you mam" 48 hr treatment/detox just to clear them for prison. They actually get an administrative sentence (no criminal record) that includes all the preventative measures and treatments, outside of prison, that would result in the lowest likelihood of re-occurrence of substance abuse, a proven formula that works in the Netherlands and Portugal...

...um dude, are you drunk? I kinda get the idea you are one of the "don't allows drugs anything" camp. I have been a loud proponent of basic decriminalization amongst people that want 100% legalization. And have been flamed for it...Umm...decriminalization allows for some administrative control to help addicts and 100% legaliz...wtf dude? Your post makes no sense as a response to what I have been saying...good sir.

The post was heavily laden with sarcasm, but I think you get the point.

Lets face it. You won't go through a '48 hr treatment/detox' if its legal either. In fact, those people will just keep carrying on because there will be nothing for law enforcement to stop them. To that point I do actually think that there should be some sort of treatment for inmates but, again, it would only be successful if the individual inmate himself actually WANTED to get off the drug. But again, we are talking about addicts here.

I completely agree about education and preventative measures. That does help prevent it at the root of the issue. To me this is where we should put all of our focus as we have failed miserably as a society so far.... But why does the drug have to be legal for that to happen? Wouldnt it be actually easier to have such a program if the drugs were harder to gain access to and there were actual negative legal impacts from its possession/consumption? I know tons of people who never did drugs... not because they weren't curious about it but because they had a job and were responsible and knew they would be arrested if they screwed up. So they were adults about it and avoid it. How is that not a good thing? Like it or not criminal sanctions on these drugs actually do lessen and limit use from the public.

Decriminalizing or legalizing it only send the wrong message. To me it relays that we as a society have given up and I don't think people realize the real consequences of such a surrender.

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by OTown


The post was heavily laden with sarcasm, but I think you get the point.

Lets face it. You won't go through a '48 hr treatment/detox' if its legal either. In fact, those people will just keep carrying on because there will be nothing for law enforcement to stop them. To that point I do actually think that there should be some sort of treatment for inmates but, again, it would only be successful if the individual inmate himself actually WANTED to get off the drug. But again, we are talking about addicts here.

I completely agree about education and preventative measures. That does help prevent it at the root of the issue. To me this is where we should put all of our focus as we have failed miserably as a society so far.... But why does the drug have to be legal for that to happen? Wouldnt it be actually easier to have such a program if the drugs were harder to gain access to and there were actual negative legal impacts from its possession/consumption? I know tons of people who never did drugs... not because they weren't curious about it but because they had a job and were responsible and knew they would be arrested if they screwed up. So they were adults about it and avoid it. How is that not a good thing? Like it or not criminal sanctions on these drugs actually do lessen and limit use from the public.

Decriminalizing or legalizing it only send the wrong message. To me it relays that we as a society have given up and I don't think people realize the real consequences of such a surrender.

Umm...you will go through a useless 48 detox because that happens while you are in a prison cell. Once you stop puking on yourself and won't gross out other inmates you go to real jail. Decriminalization allows for an admistrative sentence. This isn't an "I will show up" for treatment. This is a "hey, instead of jail, where you get detoxed to the point you aren't obnoxious, you get sentenced to a controlled detox facility. Where there are guards. You can't leave. But you are not a felon and leave with a clean record."

But your reply has confirmed...I am surrounded by idiots on both sides. *sigh*

:dunno:

[Unknown303]

Originally posted by Robin Goodfellow


Your email doesn't acknowledge the varying degrees of addictiveness.

Smoking takes some time to get its hooks into you. Some drugs get their hooks in early, and get them in deep.

Someone I know did heroin once, and for the entire next year, it was the first thing he thought of when he woke up every morning.

It's hard to imagine the same thing resulting from smoking a single, or even a pack, of cigarettes.

So you've never smoked then. Got it. I've smoked. I drink. I've done meth, cocaine, weed, ecstasy, shrooms.

It's all addictive. Probably not weed in my option. But smoking is definitely the one I found the second most addictive only to meth. Smoking is really the only one I ever really think about to this day. And I haven't touched any of that shit for over 10 years. Although a couple times a year I do have a cigar with some scotch or while out camping.

Decriminalization just removes jails from the equation and in places it's in place they do force people into rehab and therapy or they go to jail. They get the choice. In Portugal it's been working very well from what I've read so far.

[OTown]

Originally posted by frizzlefry


Umm...you will go through a useless 48 detox because that happens while you are in a prison cell. Once you stop puking on yourself and won't gross out other inmates you go to real jail. Decriminalization allows for an admistrative sentence. This isn't an "I will show up" for treatment. This is a "hey, instead of jail, where you get detoxed to the point you aren't obnoxious, you get sentenced to a controlled detox facility. Where there are guards. You can't leave. But you are not a felon and leave with a clean record."

But your reply has confirmed...I am surrounded by idiots on both sides. *sigh*

:dunno:
The issue here is that you don't really know anything about the current system

You do realize that the above scenario actually exists today right? Its called a Conditional Sentence.

There are tons of addicts who get busted and do actually go for treatment instead of prison and dont get a record from it.

On the flip side, if the drug is decriminalized you wont have the power to say "do this or go to prison". It will just be "i hope you do this or else". Administrative sentences are useless as they pose no punishment nor are there 'teeth' for the system to try and avoid further addiction issues.

TLDR; our current system already has all of the above provisions that you are suggesting. Only thing is you just don't hear/know about it.

[g-m]

How about preventing ODs and deaths from having known potency, purity, and weight drugs available? All this fentanyl and PMMA news would disappear

[OTown]

Originally posted by g-m
How about preventing ODs and deaths from having known potency, purity, and weight drugs available? All this fentanyl and PMMA news would disappear

How could you regulate how much drugs someone takes? People OD on (legal) prescriptions all the time and those are dosed according to physicians. So why would this change whatsoever in this case?

In fact Fentanyl in its pure form is so dangerous that its almost solely given to people on their death beds (literally) for pain management on Palliative and the terminally ill. That's why its so damn dangerous.

[01RedDX]

.

[Robin Goodfellow]

Originally posted by Unknown303


So you've never smoked then. Got it. I've smoked. I drink. I've done meth, cocaine, weed, ecstasy, shrooms.


If you see that I've never smoked, you may want to get your prescription checked.

It's quite possible long-term heroine and cigarette habits are equally hard to break,

However, it certainly takes much longer for the level of addictiveness of cigarettes to set in.



Kudos to you for quitting smoking though - No small feat, I'm sure.

[FixedGear]

Originally posted by g-m
How about preventing ODs and deaths from having known potency, purity, and weight drugs available?

Exactly.

[FixedGear]

Originally posted by 01RedDX
Yeah, this is stupid. Prohibiting a good does not eliminate the market for that good. Period.

Prohibition does more harm than good. Period.

I take back what I said earlier about decriminalization first and blah blah blah.

I support full legalization of all drugs.

:thumbsup:

[JRSC00LUDE]

Originally posted by OTown
In fact Fentanyl in its pure form is so dangerous that its almost solely given to people on their death beds (literally) for pain management on Palliative and the terminally ill. That's why its so damn dangerous.

Almost no one is taking Fentanyl on purpose. They're taking it by mistake under the guise of it being Oxy. Further, the people making it have no way of reliably controlling how much ends up in each pill, hence the deaths. Every one of which would very likely not have happened had there been a reliable safe source for people who are going to do it anyways. The war on drugs is one of the biggest jokes and drain on resources in modern times.

I find it funny that most of those in an enforcement position refuse to acknowledge realities that disagree with their doctrine. It's just like the conversations around the safety sham that is photo radar.

:dunno:

[frizzlefry]

Pretty heated debate. General consensuses I suppose is that legalization won't result in higher use. But FixedGear posted on the pot = drunk driving thread that if you make pot legal of course usage will go up. What a dumb article relating DUI to legal weed.

No one disagreed. Not a one. But when it comes to a broad stroke law legalizing all drugs everyone screams usage won't increase. Opinions shaped to fit the narrative.

I'm all for legalizing a drug if there is a medicinal use or if it is actually recreationally safe. Legalize weed, LSD likely. Shrooms. I would have been grateful if they could refine the gut rot out of shrooms when I was in high school.

But to blindly advocate legalization all drugs, when some CANNOT be dosed properly with out a doctor, is selfish and reckless in your own furtherance of liberty or just wanting to get high on the weekend. Opioids cannot be dosed without a physical examination by a doctor. That examination is purely there to mitigate dependence. There are 30+ types of opioids. Different ones have different half-lives etc. It's not a drug you can sell over the counter without being customized to the user. 5mg of a certain type of opioid may make someone high or make another person an addict without much of a high.

MDMA (ecstasy) depletes your serotonin. Awesome if you use it once a month. Without a doctor to control your doses a person may use it more often, leading to clinical depression. Depending on the person of course, but you would need a doctor's supervision to determine that.

I'm pretty much done in this thread but there is not one argument to made that justifies making all drugs legal. That is a statement by laymen. Legalize certain drugs. I'm all for it after review and consultation by doctors who know what they are doing.

[theken]

You are saying ecstasy is fine if you use it once a month and don't abuse it...essentially. Who's to say that, because it is Legal, people who already do it once a month(or don't) are going to do it more? Or at all? I have never done ecstasy, and I 100% never will, legal or otherwise, you are making blind assumptions that legality leads to usage. You can get these drugs at any given time currently, nothing is stopping people from getting them.
You are missing the point completely, the druggies will get them anyways, which is proven as a fact, I know this because there is druggies. Legalizing will not turn random people who have never done ecstasy or meth or heroin go to the store get a slurpee and a needle and inject. You are better off controlling the drugs that are produced, regulating them, taxing them. Otherwise the drugs come from somewhere else, get cut down to garbage and people die from that.

[theken]

http://m.mic.com/articles/110344/14-years-after-portugal-decriminalized-all-drugs-here-s-what-s-happening Here's some insight to the world of decriminalized drugs

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by theken
http://m.mic.com/articles/110344/14-years-after-portugal-decriminalized-all-drugs-here-s-what-s-happening Here's some insight to the world of decriminalized drugs

Yes. Decriminalized. NOT legalized. Decriminalized means you get caught with it, oh well. Maybe an administrative sentence. But it is still illegal. Trafficking illicit drugs or dealing these drugs in a decriminalized state IS ILLEGAL. Trafficking pot in the Netherlands is also still illegal :eek: they just don't enforce it. In a decriminalized state illicit drugs are not taxed, they are not over the counter, they are not sold legally and organized crime are still reaping all their profits. Addicts are simply not thrown in jail.

I would LOVE for you to show me some stats about the effects of legalized drugs on the using population and how usage did or did not increase. But you can't. Not a single country in the world has legalized or taxed any illicit drugs outside of pot.

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by theken

You are missing the point completely, the druggies will get them anyways, which is proven as a fact, I know this because there is druggies. Legalizing will not turn random people who have never done ecstasy or meth or heroin go to the store get a slurpee and a needle and inject. You are better off controlling the drugs that are produced, regulating them, taxing them. Otherwise the drugs come from somewhere else, get cut down to garbage and people die from that.

..and of course I'm not talking about new users. Although there will be some, initially at least. But there are drugs that are dangerous and, at bare minimum, would need doctor oversight to deliver. Opiates for example. There is no possible safe way to deliver them without doctor oversight. If MDMA were legal then it would need to be prescribed or the user intake regulated. Which means involvement of a doctor. Being that my wife's grandmother could barely get her properly measured opium in a timely manner to stop her from screaming while cancer was eating her from the inside out I doubt the medical establishment would think "gee, we have all these guys who want to get high for fun, we best measure out their doses to ensure they don't die ASAP."

Yeah, the medical establishment in Canada, or anywhere else, needs to be additionally burdened with measuring out safe doses for recreational users. :nut:

[l/l/rX]

My standpoint is this; let's say all drugs get legalized, you are now cutting into the profits of the gangs, gangs can adapt as well. So you now produce drugs legally, but I feel like gangs will now blackmail, threaten, bribe or use people who are not known to police to start their own "legal" operations.

I mean take for instance the mexican cartel, they look over lime factories in Mexico.

Also the italian mob in montreal and their construction contracts.

Both legal, but both operated by the underworld.

If theres a will, there's a way. Won't solve anything IMO.

[FixedGear]

Frizzlefry, didn't you say you were "done in this thread?". You have a very myopic view of the issue. No one agrees with you, and you're not going to change that by posting the same argument over and over and over and over.

[A790]

Originally posted by l/l/rX
My standpoint is this; let's say all drugs get legalized, you are now cutting into the profits of the gangs, gangs can adapt as well. So you now produce drugs legally, but I feel like gangs will now blackmail, threaten, bribe or use people who are not known to police to start their own "legal" operations.

I mean take for instance the mexican cartel, they look over lime factories in Mexico.

Also the italian mob in montreal and their construction contracts.

Both legal, but both operated by the underworld.

If theres a will, there's a way. Won't solve anything IMO.
The cartels in Mexico are far beyond the kind of gang that would be unable to survive the sudden legalization of drugs in Canada. The cartels are criminal organizations with far more resources and operate like a business.

The kind of gang that will find it difficult to continue to survive in Canada are the smaller local gangs that rely almost entirely on drugs for their income.

There's also a good argument to be made about whether or not legalization would make Canada less attractive to international cartels and organized crime groups. There are a lot of other countries in the world that do not have legalization in place, where the black market is larger and easier to get into.

Why would the cartels face significant risk and challenge at trying to enter a smaller Canadian black market vs. operating in the USA, Mexico, England, or any other first-world country where the market exists?

[01RedDX]

.

[Robin Goodfellow]

Originally posted by l/l/rX
My standpoint is this; let's say all drugs get legalized, you are now cutting into the profits of the gangs, gangs can adapt as well. So you now produce drugs legally, but I feel like gangs will now blackmail, threaten, bribe or use people who are not known to police to start their own "legal" operations.



Of course gangs will adapt, but making this an all-or-nothing proposition does nothing to advance the discussion.

Can we not, as adults, acknowledge that this would reduce drug-related-crime, but perhaps not all of it?

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by Robin Goodfellow


Of course gangs will adapt, but making this an all-or-nothing proposition does nothing to advance the discussion.

Can we not, as adults, acknowledge that this would reduce drug-related-crime, but perhaps not all of it?

It would. Legalizing pot, making it available over the counter, would help. It's a low hanging fruit that nobody can really disagree with. But 100% legalization won't work. Oxy is legal. But due to necessity it is a controlled substance. Pharmacies cannot keep it in stores as they get robbed. Nobody can carry it over the counter. Thus creating a black market for it. Perfectly legal, yet the black market exists. The black market for legal prescription drugs is worth 1 billion.

Oxy is a real world example about how legalization won't solve a black market trade issue. It all comes down to consumer availability. If a drug is not over the counter, and oxy or opium will NEVER be, then organized crime will continue. But because possession of such a drug would carry no judicial punishment due to 100% legalization then treatment cannot be enforced. This is why decriminalization is the better option vs legalization.

[FixedGear]

blame oxy for this, right?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-pymlatvH2vg/VZhD71oed6I/AAAAAAAAofI/rZjaLvCzcaw/s1600/chopped%2Boff%2Bheads%2Bmexico%2Bcarter%2Bdrugs.JPG

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by FixedGear
blame oxy for this, right?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-pymlatvH2vg/VZhD71oed6I/AAAAAAAAofI/rZjaLvCzcaw/s1600/chopped%2Boff%2Bheads%2Bmexico%2Bcarter%2Bdrugs.JPG


US authorities have reported the rise of a new breed of "pharma cartels" in Mexico, which sell illicitly_obtained prescription drugs to buyers in the United States, and pay fees to traditional drug trafficking groups.

According to an October 4_press release from the US Attorney's Office in southern California, Mexican drug trafficking organizations are moving into the lucrative black market for prescription drugs in the US.

http://www.insightcrime.org/news-briefs/mexican-cartels-prescription-pills


:dunno: