More on the War on Drugs

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]EurekaBulldogLaw wrote:

You missed my point about outlaw conditions. You’re saying that if society viewed drug abuse like alcohol abuse, i.e. tolerantly, the average abuser would still steal? When he doesn’t have to? If he were given the opportunity to have a job and keep it due to lessened drug regulation? Please. This would largely reduce the crime element here.
[/quote]

I don’t know why I’m jumping into this internet shouting match, other than boredom.

I’m going to have to disagree with you on this point. I’m going to preface this by saying aside from marijuana, since it has been shown not to be physically addictive, I don’t think legalization, and especially not decriminalization, of all narcotics would affect the behavior of the “average abuser” as you call them.

I think first of all we’d have to determine what you mean by “average abuser.” I take it by the contexts of your posts you don’t simply mean drug “users.” For the sake of this post I’ll define “users” as those that only use recreation-ally. (i.e. a 6 pack/joint/line on the weekend)

Now we have to call into question what is an “abuser.” I guess in this case we’d have to define abusers that are reaping some sort of consequence (health, social, family, job related) or are physically addicted to their drug of choice.

Now that we have defined “abuser” I think it is more appropriate to categorize some “abusers” as “problematic abusers.” Some “abusers” can be what we call “functional drunks.” These would be the people that work 40 hours a week, are competent employees, have no legal ramification of their abuse and have no family problems as a result of their drinking but still drink to excess every night.

“Problematic abusers” would be those that we warn our children about in after-school specials. These would be the individual that would steal or commit other crimes in order to support their addiction. I’m guessing this is what you mean by “average abuser.”

Now that we have defined these terms for the sake or argument, and it not for anything else because this is an internet forum which seems to be the best place to argue in the modern age.

I don’t think that the “average abuser” would stop committing crimes given legalization. This is simply because there are alcoholics out there that commit crimes (and yes this does happen) in order to keep drinking. This is simply because some people are un-employable based on their addiction. This is true of so called “serious” narcotics as well as alcohol. You simply can’t show up to work drunk or high. If your addiction is so profound that you can’t show up to work without being drunk or high then your addiction will compel you to obtain your substance of choice. It would also be reasonable to assume you will seek out this substance by whatever means necessary.

I know there is an argument that if some addicts weren’t in the legal system because of the illegality of the substance they use then they would be more employable and thus wouldn’t have to resort to a life of crime to support their habit. There may be some truth to this but if we assume drugs are legal then why do we have this problem with alcoholics as well? Because of the progressive nature of addiction in some people, those that cannot maintain their status as “functional drunks.”

Admittedly, illegal narcotics users problems are compounded by their additional legal issues presented by the legal status of their drug of choice. The only similarity with alcoholics is DUI’s. Those otherwise employable people who use illegal narcotics who enter into the criminal justice system based solely on their possession of said substance is probably in the minority, and a minority withing a minority does not constitute a significant group

So to be honest the already small group of people that are committing crimes in the furtherance of their addiction will remain relatively unchanged simply due to the progressive nature of addiction.

Also to the other poster, allowing drug addicts unlimited access to substances that could cause death in large enough doses would not only be a legal nightmare most would find it morally reprehensible. I feel no great degree of pity for addicts, their choices were theirs and theirs alone, but that would be the antithesis of rehab. And I know you’re thinking that people that would sit around and use free drugs all day probably are unemployed anyway but I think in the end it would create a much more problematic addict on the whole.

Well now it’s time to go to the gym for deadlift day. Happy internet forum arguing to everyone!

22

[quote]mapwhap wrote:
Wow!! An orderly? That definitely qualifies you as an expert on the subject then!!! I’m sure your experience changing sheets and emptying bedpans gives you some real insight into drug addiction issues.

You’ve done some actual research into the subject? Really? You know what that tells me? That you sat around and read a bunch of books and studies to justify your position. Sorry pal…“research” ain’t real wold experience. I know you academic types like to think so, but it isn’t.

I’ll clarify one more time for you, since you’re clearly a little dull. I’ll make sure I type slowly so you can follow along.

What I suggested, braniac, was that they have unlimited ACCESS to the drugs they want. I never said to de-criminalize the use of hard narcotics on the street. The difference is that I don’t feel sorry for people who are addicted to narcotics…it’s their own fault they are on it. It’s not my fault, not society’s fault, not anybody’s fault but THEIR OWN. So, if they lack the ability to contol their urges to the point where it kills them, then so what?

According to most of the other posters here, there are a large number of functioning addicts in the world. So, obviously, it isn’t going to kill a whole bunch of them, and giving it to them where they can’t hurt anyone else serves the dual purpose of keeping them off the streets when they are high, and entirely destroying the profit margins currently enjoyed by criminals.

And nobody is playing “silly language games” here, you fucking douchebag. Genocide is the total elimination of entire populations off the face of the planet. It’s killing men, women and especially children for the purpose of destroying any evidence that a group of people ever existed. It’s incredibly brutal, and beyond disgusting to witness in any form. Maybe you should try doing something useful with your life, and deploying to a war zone where something like that has happened. You damn sure wouldn’t use the term like it was something to be made fun of.

Better yet, since you’re obviously far too important to society to risk your neck doing something dangerous like that…why don’t you just research it?

 [/quote]

LOL what’s more real-world experience than WORKING WITH THE PEOPLE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT? I have to stand watch over them everyday. Just admit your presumptuous “call for experience” failed.

I don’t think you’ve done ANY research into the subject. Your suggestions are way too juvenile for you to have read outside your comfort zone on this issue. A combination of research and experience is better than just one or the other. Also, assuming you know the extent of someone’s research on a topic won’t help you.

See, I show that I have experience - I’m an orderly, interning for counseling (at both the psychiatric ward as well as the addiction center), and have friends and family fighting addiction - and you keep pretending I’m a researcher because it’s easier to attack people from an anti-intellectual standpoint if they’re too “booksmart.”

I know what you suggested and I told you it is morally wrong. I don’t care if they chose to take the first step to where they are now, they do not deserve death until they have committed a crime traditionally worthy of it. I think most would agree. Maybe you actually think this, or maybe your enthusiasm is just this sophomoric. I don’t know.

You’re trying to pick on my non-technical usage of “genocide” when it has nothing to do with the argument at this stage. Despite the topic, THAT’S what you write the most about. Hmmm.

And I won’t be “deploying to a war zone where something like that happened” for the reason that I’m busy here. But you’re right, helping people here - men, women, and children of many walks of life and problems - who need it is not useful, worthy, or morally upright.

23

hooliganmel - I’ll get back to when I get my resear- …erm, work done.

24

http://snardfarker.ning.com/profiles/blogs/update-on-laredo-texas-border?xg_source=activity

I DON’T KNOW IF THIS IS LEGITIMATE OR NOT

25

An article from the Economist about California’s proposed legalization/decriminalization of Marijuana.

26

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

An article from the Economist about California’s proposed legalization/decriminalization of Marijuana. [/quote]

I do not know if it will work like they plan , but the proponents of the bill are counting on tapping the young voter that is not real active in voting

27

http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2010/07/mexican-drug-cartel-seize-texas-ranches-laredo-police-we

has any one else heard anything on this

28

I think it’s a faulty to premise to assume that car bombings from drug dealers will not happen here if we simply legalize drugs. I’m not sure if they’ll ever happen here to begin with anyways, outside of some extremely isolated incidents. But the reason these bombings occur in Mexico is simply to intimidate the police and those who cooperate with them and to make it easier for the drug cartels to remain in power. In short, they are bombing those who are a threat to their power.

If drugs were legalized here, I wouldn’t be surprised if that actually precipitated what most think will be avoided if drugs were legalized. The cartels would have every incentive to come here by any means possible and to begin attacking/bombing/shooting those who represent a threat to their business.

If it’s logical to assume that cartels will start bombing people here as long as we continue to fight the war on drugs, then isn’t it also logical to assume that they’ll begin bombing others here if drugs are legalized, namely those who begin to produce drugs here in the States. After all, a major justification for legalization is that it would help to eliminate the existence of such cartels.

If marijuana were legalized, it would allow people to grow and distribute it on their own, thereby creating direct competition with cartels currently smuggling it into the country. Why wouldn’t the cartels start bombing these people eventually? Or dispensaries?

I agree that drugs should be legalized to a certain extent, but not for profit by the govt. No matter how one looks at it, drugs are a danger to society to varying degrees and for the state to legalize them simply to profit from the downfall of those who abuse them is immoral as far as I’m concerned. I think they should just be legalized and forgotten about.

But I do not believe for one second that the legalization of drugs will stop the spread of cartel violence. I don’t have anything to back this claim up other than my own assumptions, but I suspect that the continued decriminalization of marijuana in this country has put a lot of financial pressure on cartels from south of the border.

As a result, the cartels have been forced to compensate for this by trying through violent means to lessen the financial impact that law enforcement in Mexico can have on them. Legalization will only exacerbate the pressure on cartels.

29

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

An article from the Economist about California’s proposed legalization/decriminalization of Marijuana. [/quote]

I do not know if it will work like they plan , but the proponents of the bill are counting on tapping the young voter that is not real active in voting[/quote]

AB 390 proposes that the state legalize the sale, consumption, possession and cultivation of marijuana for every citizen aged 21 or older. The bill takes 1996’s Prop 215 much further, extending legal status for marijuana beyond medicinal use to recreational use as well.

Supporters of Ammiano’s bill argue that legalization will create a large revenue stream for the state and that the claims by the bill’s opponents that abuse of the drug will increase are invalid. The arguments on behalf of the bill’s supporters may be dubious, but more disturbing is the lack of acknowledgement by the pro-legalization crowd that legalization very well may have a negative societal impact that outweighs any increase in the state’s coffers.

Legalization of marijuana does have several possible benefits. From a purely libertarian standpoint, while the current illegality of marijuana is hardly Draconian in nature, it should never be the jurisdiction of the state to determine what people willingly put into their own bodies if they do not forcibly interfere upon the rights of others when doing so. But rhetoric aside, there are also some possible tangible benefits of legalization.

Supporters of AB 390 argue that legalization will lead to the end of the black market. By allowing the cultivation and sale of marijuana across the state, smugglers and cartels from south of the border would be hard pressed to compete with people who can grow and sell marijuana much cheaper than those who must take on the additional costs that come with illegally smuggling it into the state.

The state’s Board of Equalization, which collects taxes for the state, estimates that the street value of marijuana would drop by 50% if it were legalized. This could be disastrous for smugglers and other out-of-state sources.

If legalization did indeed eliminate the black market, it would also free up police resources for other endeavors such as pursuing the sale of harder, more dangerous drugs. But the big argument that supporters of AB 390 stand by is the revenue stream that the taxation of marijuana could bring in. Rep. Ammiano estimates that tax revenues would be about $1.4 billion per year.

With a current budget deficit of $20 billion, it won’t solve the state’s fiscal problems by itself, but it will certainly help. The bill proposes that a 9% tax be levied against all retail sales and that dispensaries pay a $50 per ounce fee. But these pros are all dubious and may be entirely inaccurate.

Many studies have shown, including that of the Board of Equalization, that large taxes on products such as marijuana do not remove the incentive for a black market to exist. In Canada, where there are some of the highest taxes in the world on alcohol and cigarettes, there is a burgeoning black market for the products, especially cigarettes.

The Board of Equalization readily acknowledges that a 50% drop in street value is a generous estimate and that the 9% tax on retail sales could possibly keep retail values close to where they already are, therefore keeping the black market viable.

The state very well may pull in $1.4 billion a year in sales revenues, but it may end up spending much more than that in substance abuse costs. In 2005, California spent $19.9 billion in tobacco and alcohol-related abuse and addiction programs, roughly $545 per capita. But the state only pulled in $1.4 billion in revenue, or $38.69 in revenue.

Were the state to legalize marijuana, it can expect to incur the same costs as it does with other legalized drugs like alcohol and tobacco. Plus, since the bill allows for the cultivation and sale of marijuana by virtually anyone, there is no guarantee that the state will pull in the estimated $1.4 billion in tax revenue.

But the societal implications are even more grim, and the failure to acknowledge them on the part of AB 390’s supporters is disturbing. Marijuana may not be nearly as dangerous as crack or heroin or even alcohol, but it is still a highly addictive drug with major health risks comparable to prolonged to tobacco use.

According to the National Admissions to Substance Abuse Treatment Services (SAMHSA), more teens are admitted with a diagnosed addiction to marijuana each year than all other admissions combined. While supporters of AB 390 claim that legalization will not lead to an increase in abuse, the examples set forth in Europe and here contradict that claim.

Europe has undergone attempts to legalize marijuana recently and in every country use of the drug has risen after legalization; in the Netherlands marijuana use between 18-20 year olds tripled. The American Association of Pediatrics has performed many studies that indicate the two most commonly abused psychoactive drugs amongst teens are already legal: alcohol and tobacco. With legalization comes a removal of some of the negative stigmas behind marijuana use.

While prolonged marijuana use does not carry the same dangers as narcotics and opiates, when combined with other drugs, it is still quite dangerous to the mental health of people, especially teens. The cognitive, behavioral and somatic effects of prolonged use are widely known and are legitimate. There is also a rising abuse of pharmaceutical drugs such as Adderoll, Ritalin and Vicodine amongst teens.

The fallout from marijuana use (or any other depressant) increases greatly when combined with the abuse of other stimulants and/or depressants. I can personally attest to the harsh nature of extended concurrent abuse of various depressants. There is also some legitimacy to the claims that marijuana is a gateway drug. Law enforcement agencies argue that teens who started smoking marijuana before the age of 15 were anywhere from 55-70% more likely to use cocaine at some point.

Although it may be anecdotal, my own experiences can attest to this. My friends and I started smoking marijuana on a regular basis when we were all about 15. By the time I was 21, I had dabbled in crystal meth, opium and various pharmaceutical drugs and had heavily abused marijuana, cocaine, LSD, mushrooms and alcohol. I’m sure there are plenty of people on this forum who can make the same observations about themselves and/or their friends.

Legalization of marijuana may make sense to some for a variety of reasons, but it seems as if supporters either downplay or outright deny the possibility of far-reaching negative impacts on society.

Even if the negative aspects of legalization are simply theoretical at this point, there is credible circumstantial evidence to suggest that these theories will become reality if legalization happens here. There is evidence to suggest that it is a very real possibility that legalization will cost the state several billion dollars more per year than it will garner in tax revenues.

But the legalization of marijuana brings up many questions that AB 390’s author and supporters have not answered. Even if the state actually did net $1.4 billion per year, does this outweigh the possible negative impacts the state could suffer from a societal standpoint, especially concerning teenagers?

And are the supporters even asking themselves this question? If the state were to legalize marijuana and create a large shift in society’s views of the drug, doesn’t the state also bear the responsibility to educate its citizens about the actual dangers of marijuana abuse? Is it prepared to create a legal market on the one hand and bear the burden of discouraging teens from ever entering that market in the first place?

30

DB,

I thought both of your posts were very interesting. In reference to the first post, I have also questioned whether or not the cartels would react violently to the elimination of their profits, were it to ever happen. I think, in all likelihood, they would not react by bombing things here in the US.

I believe, in the end, they are businessmen, and would have to find a way to make a profit elsewhere. To enter into a campaign of terrorism with an established nation would, I believe, be counterproductive in the end. I would think a more intelligent approach would be to act as a legitimate supplier of quality product for import. However, realistically speaking, I doubt that would ever happen.

As for the long post on marijuana lagalization…I think, as I stated originally, that marijuana should certainly be legalized. Now, I realize my views as to WHY we should do this differ significantly from others, but it’s just an opinion, after all.

In my view, even if we were to see no net gain economically, the very fact that law enforcement could direct their efforts towards other enterprises is sufficient reason for me. I have read varying opinions on whether marijuana is a “gateway drug”, whether it is addictive or not, etc, etc. I can state that the overall “harm” to society that I have witnessed due to marijuana usage has been quite minimal.

I guess, in the end, I don’t see a lot of harm in allowing people to fuel their vices. Provided that vice doesn’t harm other people, I don’t see why law enforcement should try to fight that sort of thing.

31

I read this and thought of this thread. I:ll hightlight some parts for a ‘skim reading’

Thinking the unthinkable
Amid drug-war weariness, Felipe Calderón calls for a debate on legalisation
Aug 12th 2010 | mexico city

THE nota roja, a section reporting the previous dayâ??s murders and car crashes in all their bloodstained detail, is an established feature of Mexican newspapers. It is also an expanding one, as fighting over the drug trail to the United States inspires ever-greater feats of violence. Last month in the northern state of Durango, a group of prisoners was apparently released from jail for the night to murder 18 partygoers in a next-door state. A few days later, 14 inmates were murdered in a prison in Tamaulipas. In all, since Felipe Calderón sent the army against the drug gangs when he took office as president almost four years ago, some 28,000 people have been killed, the government says. There is no sign of a let-up, on either side.

So it came as a surprise when on August 3rd Mr Calderón called for a debate on whether to legalise drugs. Though several former Latin American leaders have spoken out in favour of legalisation, and many politicians privately support it, Mr Calderón became the first incumbent president to call for open discussion of the merits of legalising a trade he has opposed with such determination. At a round-table on security, he said this was â??a fundamental debate in which I think, first of all, you must allow a democratic plurality [of opinions]â?¦You have to analyse carefully the pros and cons and the key arguments on both sides.â?? It was hardly a call to start snortingâ??and Mr Calderón subsequently made clear that he was opposed to the â??absurdâ?? idea of allowing millions more people to become addicted. But it has brought into the open an argument that appears to be gaining currency in Mexico.

The president spoke despite some recent success for his military campaign, with several important mafia bosses captured or killed. The latest was Ignacio Coronel, whose killing last month when the army raided his house was important for the government, which has been accused of giving the Sinaloa mob an easier ride than other gangs. (A car-bomb last month in Ciudad Juárez, on the border with the United States, may have been planted by rival traffickers to draw in America as a â??neutral refereeâ??, speculates Stratfor, a Texas-based security-analysis firm.) Half a dozen government agencies are said to be searching for Joaquín â??El Chapoâ?? Guzmán, Sinaloaâ??s boss and the countryâ??s most notorious trafficker. Officials claim success in strengthening the police and bringing recalcitrant state governors into line.

Yet kicking the hornetsâ?? nest has provoked stinging turf battles, increasing the body count. In Cuernavaca, a pretty town near Mexico City that is popular with foreigners learning Spanish, a drug lord was killed by the army in December. Since then a spate of hangings around the edge of town has indicated that a gruesome succession battle is under way.

Many Mexicans are starting to weary of the horror. Four days after Mr Calderónâ??s cautious call for debate, Vicente Fox, his predecessor as president, issued a forthright demand for the legalisation of the production, sale and distribution of all drugs. Legalisation â??does not mean that drugs are goodâ?¦rather we have to see it as a strategy to strike and break the economic structure that allows mafias to generate huge profits in their business, which in turn serve to corrupt and to increase their power,â?? he wrote on his blog. Ernesto Zedillo, Mexicoâ??s president from 1994 to 2000, last year jointly authored a report with two other former heads of state, Brazilâ??s Fernando Henrique Cardoso and César Gaviria of Colombia, calling for legalisation of marijuana (ie, cannabis). Mr Cardoso later said the same of cocaine.

It is easier to be radical in retirement than in office. As president, Mr Fox backed down after George W. Bushâ??s administration protested against his attempts to decriminalise possession of drugs. (Last year Mexico decriminalised possession of small quantities, a change designed mainly to limit the scope for police to demand bribes.) But it is striking that all these former leaders are middle-of-the-road moderates, not wild-eyed leftists.

Some in the United States are now pushing in the same direction. Californians will vote in November on whether to legalise and tax the sale of marijuana to adults (it is already legal to buy and sell pot for medical complaints, which some liberal doctors consider to include insomnia, migraines and the like). The initiative may fail: polls show opinion evenly divided, and it would also have to survive scrutiny by federal authorities. Although Barack Obamaâ??s administration has stopped prosecuting the sale of â??medicalâ?? marijuana, it is opposed to legalisation.

But were the proposal to pass it would render Mexicoâ??s assault on drug traffickers untenable, reckons Jorge Castañeda, a former foreign minister. â??How would you continue with a war on drugs in Tijuana, when across the border grocery stores were selling marijuana?â?? he asks.

The problem is recognised by the politicians too. Nexos, a Mexican magazine, recently asked six likely contenders for the presidency in 2012 whether Mexico should legalise marijuana if California did. One said no, but four answered yes, albeit with qualifications. Enrique Peña Nieto, the early leader in the polls, said carefully: â??We would have to reconsider the view of the Mexican state on the subject.â??

Since marijuana provides the gangs with up to half their income, taking that business out of their hands would change the balance of financial power in the drug war. But curiously, polls suggest that one of the groups most strongly opposed to the initiative in California is Latinos.

32

It will get very interesting if Cali Legalizes Marijuana , America has been twisting Mexico’s arm to make war on drugs . I think this plus AZ’s HB1070 will be a big test on states rights . I am very pro legalize and regulate .

One of the other groups opposed are the Med. Marijuana crowd . They are afraid prices will drop

33

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
It will get very interesting if Cali Legalizes Marijuana , America has been twisting Mexico’s arm to make war on drugs . I think this plus AZ’s HB1070 will be a big test on states rights . I am very pro legalize and regulate .

One of the other groups opposed are the Med. Marijuana crowd . They are afraid prices will drop [/quote]

How will this play out?

I think the first thing will be a challenge by the federal government in the courts?

34

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
It will get very interesting if Cali Legalizes Marijuana , America has been twisting Mexico’s arm to make war on drugs . I think this plus AZ’s HB1070 will be a big test on states rights . I am very pro legalize and regulate .

One of the other groups opposed are the Med. Marijuana crowd . They are afraid prices will drop [/quote]

How will this play out?

I think the first thing will be a challenge by the federal government in the courts?

[/quote]

I think that as well

35

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
It will get very interesting if Cali Legalizes Marijuana , America has been twisting Mexico’s arm to make war on drugs . I think this plus AZ’s HB1070 will be a big test on states rights . I am very pro legalize and regulate .

One of the other groups opposed are the Med. Marijuana crowd . They are afraid prices will drop [/quote]

How will this play out?

I think the first thing will be a challenge by the federal government in the courts?

[/quote]

I think that as well[/quote]

Does it automatically become a law or does the state parliament have to ratify it?

Also, this would directly attack the federal interporetation of the interstate commerce clause with very far reaching consequences, quite a lot of what the federal government does would be illegal if it falls.

36

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
It will get very interesting if Cali Legalizes Marijuana , America has been twisting Mexico’s arm to make war on drugs . I think this plus AZ’s HB1070 will be a big test on states rights . I am very pro legalize and regulate .

One of the other groups opposed are the Med. Marijuana crowd . They are afraid prices will drop [/quote]

How will this play out?

I think the first thing will be a challenge by the federal government in the courts?

[/quote]

I think that as well[/quote]

Does it automatically become a law or does the state parliament have to ratify it?

Also, this would directly attack the federal interporetation of the interstate commerce clause with very far reaching consequences, quite a lot of what the federal government does would be illegal if it falls.

[/quote]

Those are the questions the court would answer I am sure