UNODC in talks to decriminalise all drugs world wide.

[Seth1968]

The notion that ANY drug be banned / criminalized, etc, under the guise of safety, is narrow minded on many levels.

The most fundamental level is the law that says a self righteous person can imprison someone for going against their (and often their gods will) of free will.

The irony of the last statement is even more impressive than the irony of the first statement.

[Unknown303]

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by Seth1968
The notion that ANY drug be banned / criminalized, etc, under the guise of safety, is narrow minded on many levels.

The most fundamental level is the law that says a self righteous person can imprison someone for going against their (and often their gods will) of free will.

The irony of the last statement is even more impressive than the irony of the first statement.

Its not narrow minded at all when you have socialized health care

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


Its not narrow minded at all when you have socialized health care

In this regard, define "socialized".

BTW-Seth is still waiting for Duaner.

[HiTempguy1]

Um, I pay taxes which funds your healthcare, and you go and do something (the general you, not the specific you) that causes me higher taxes in the form of drug use Look the word up, its pretty straightforward.

[theken]

Cigarettes do that, and so does alcohol, which is why they are taxes heavily where that tax goes to health care I assume. Which is the point of taxing stuff that's bad for you is it not?

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by theken
Cigarettes do that, and so does alcohol, which is why they are taxes heavily where that tax goes to health care I assume. Which is the point of taxing stuff that's bad for you is it not?

Cigarettes should be outright banned You can drink a couple pints every week and it will have mostly no effect (like the whole red meat thing, it might increase your chance of getting cancer by 1%).

I'm against his stance of outright legalizing all drugs, because it means I will have to pay for the burnouts and deadbeats rather than them kicking the bucket when they OD

[theken]

Cigarettes should be banned, but they bring in money for health care, they have zero positive effect and only cause harm. Alcohol leads to kidney and liver damage, and many other issues, but they are fine, why? They are just as addicting as the others, if not more. Decriminalizing is the better word than legalizing, no one should go to jail for a drug. Who makes the decision which are harmful? A doctor from the 30s said psilocybin is bad so let's ban mushrooms? Marijuana can bankrupt big pharma, let's ban that so we can collect. Cocaine and heroin used to be is cough syrup for fuck sakes, these people decided the fate of many generation later by having zero research behind their law making.

[sabad66]

Hitempguy - i can't see how you can be against legalization if your biggest priority is saving your precious tax dollars. Do you know much money is spent in court costs/incarceration every year for these non violent crimes? Do you know how much more dangerous it is to ingest adulterated drugs? Usually people don't "kick the bucket" when ingesting their cut drugs - they end up in the hospital straining the system even more.

I'm curious how you actually think it is better for your tax dollars to keep things the way they are now vs legalizing.

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by theken
Cigarettes should be banned, but they bring in money for health care, they have zero positive effect and only cause harm.

Dude, they bring in profit. End of the day most smokers don't end up being a prolonged burden on the system. Even more so for booze. 10-15% of alcoholics will end up with cirrhosis. But that's based on people who identify themselves as alcoholics, usually because it caused social issues. Drinking limits define the stats. "Binge" drinking is 5 or more drinks in a sitting. I don't know a person who doesn't drink that much when they drink on weekends when not driving. Much misinformation about booze, not intentional, but people simply don't volunteer that they binge drink every weekend and when they do they completely understate how much they drink which skews the perceived harm. Like they say, some folks can drink and some can't. Stats are based on those that can't or behavior forced them to "out" themselves. Anyways, the government is making a profit off booze and smokes in the end. If smokes or booze didn't make money after taxing they would ban them.

That being said, an opioid is a different story IMO. Despite the fact they are far more lethal (if the same number of people who drank used illicit drugs the death rate would be 20x that of booze), if they were to be legalized they could easily pay for themselves, or more, when taxed. BUT if you tax them too much then the black market could be cheaper, which isn't the case now. The cartels have already got their claws into prescription medication. The unauthorized use of prescriptions, legal drugs, is higher than illegal drugs. And the Cartels are smuggling it, particularly in the lower states.

Now it could be that many more people use illicit drugs than the reports suggest. If that's true than the rate of people who "shouldn't use" is significantly higher than those who "shouldn't drink". Or illegal narcotics are simply more dangerous. Either way, hard narcotics are more dangerous that booze, pot, or smokes and shouldn't be compared when discussing solutions for legalizing the hard stuff.

Clearly hard narcotics cannot be over the counter. But at the same time the pricing of a newly legal controlled substance would have to be competitive enough to negate the black market from continuing to operate as it is. In 2012 a study was done on a smaller "pharma-cartel". This is a Mexican drug gang that only robs shipments of legal drugs then pays the cocaine cartels to use their shipping routes. After paying off the folks they needed to pay this one pharma-cartel made 600k a month in profit. After paying off the "big" cartels. And you know they don't charge 1% above prime. So right now with cocaine being illegal this one cartel was likely pulling in 1.2 million a month. As of 2012 the cocaine cartels were manufacturing their own versions of oxy etc rather than hijacking shipments. Less risk. But what happens when cocaine is legal? They ramp up their black market legal production. Which means a government that legalizes and taxes a drug has to price it right to an organization that doesn't pay taxes, doesn't pay shipping, doesn't claim revenue and is no longer smuggling an illegal product.

Make illegal drugs legal. Make prescription drugs available for "fun prescriptions". I support the idea. But my sticking point is that the black market won't go away. The black market will be cheaper if legal recreation drugs are taxed. Right now black market prescriptions are more expensive due to lack of legal availability (prescriptions only). Ok, take that away or make prescriptions for recreational use. But the drugs will have to be taxed. Ok, do that. The cartels and other criminal organizations will adjust their prices. Best case scenario a small cartel makes 1 million a month instead of 3. They won't go away. It will be very hard to price a legalized controlled substance to be neutral in terms of tax money while at the same time putting cartels out of business.

A very delicate balance.

[Mista Bob]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1



I'm against his stance of outright legalizing all drugs, because it means I will have to pay for the burnouts and deadbeats rather than them kicking the bucket when they OD

Where exactly do you think burnouts and deadbeats end up now when they OD? Nothing is going to change here.
Or did you think hospitals turn them away due to the drug they OD'd on being illegal?

[A790]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1
I'm against his stance of outright legalizing all drugs, because it means I will have to pay for the burnouts and deadbeats rather than them kicking the bucket when they OD

You already have to pay for that, plus administrative, enforcement, and legal costs.

If that's you're argument you'd be better served to support legalization.