BS: legalising all drugs

Subject: RE: BS: legalising all drugs
From: Barry Finn
Date: 19 Mar 09 - 04:28 AM

It was studied & the conclusion was that every $1 spent on kids during their early child care yrs in places like Head Start & such was worth $15 later, yes, it was many yrs later but the return was high. These kids were much more likely not to become drug dependant & not end up in prison. They were much more likely to continue schooling on into higher education instead of dropping out of high school. So again, it's education that works best.

As for tossing everyone in prison, that gets society nowhere. Contrary to some beliefs, it costs for more to house a convit per yr than it does to educate someone in college. I have 2 kids in college & a brother & a cousin in prison, the costs to the state are by far way more for the 2 in prison.
Durg pervention & intervention is a cheaper cost that just letting them commit crimes & then run them through the system for the remainder of their lives. Education, pervention, intervention & rehabilation only carries the costs at best for no more than a few yrs. Criminal behavior for the drug dependant lasts a lifetime.

Here in the US back in the 60' & 70's (I don't know if you were here then, I was) the drug maintance programs, instead of distributing Heroin they maintained junkies on Methadone. The crime rate dropped in drug related crime & the junkies that where on these programs many worked jobs (some junkies were only criminals after becoming drug dependant, not the other way around). The methadone because of it's over[owering strengh blocked any highs or effects from other narcotics. Troble was the Methadone was so addictive becoming dependant on it was pretty much a life sentence. "So what" says society, it's worth it. Is it? In my opinion NO! It's lives wasted when to educate is a win, win situaion.

While I agree the costs of crime are high the costs of ignorance & doing nothing of value or substance is much higher. We are building prisons (good for employment??) at a far higher rate than in the days when drugs weren't a national problem. We could be building schools instead, that produce a more disirable & productive citizen.

Believe it or not alcohol is more addictive than heroin & cigarettes are more addictive than both but the other 2 are legal, taxable & turn a clean profit. As far as a rate of recidivism here drugs users have the best shot of "kicking the habit", somethings wrong here.

Drug education & education (which is in it's self is a detterant to drug use) itself is so cheap (in comparison) that it can be worked into the public systems as an aside & over the few yrs that our kids are in school. That's pretty cheap compared to having to deal with the costs of a junkie on society over the lifetime of their "career criminal" activities.
On the costs to society that junkies rack up. We don't feed, shelther, clothe, or educate them, so there's some savings on the pro side, except when they're spending whatever time they accumulate in our prison system and we don't do farm & chain gang work so they don't pay off their crimes either. They steal at a rate that ants breed, that's one loss, destruction of property, to fightthe drug trade costs the government "billions, all beacuse junkies commit crimes for the drugs they need. Governments are run on the money the drug trade produces. the cruption that drug money costs everyone is staggering. The costs in lives, in waste & death, both innocent & the guilty is overbaring. The costs in wasted time, effort & resources is again staggering.
It makes no sense that in the past few decades we've gone so far backwards in our fight on this so called "war on drugs". When money allocated to education, prevention, intervention & rehab would be far cheaper in the long run espically when you consider that the potential for turning the wasted lives into productive lives is a windfall that's worth imagining.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: legalising all drugs
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 19 Mar 09 - 01:15 AM

You cannot effectively legislate morality. Addictive personalities are inborn, and where other drugs are illegal or not available, those personalities will become alcohol or prescription drug dependent.
Distribution of illegal drugs in the country is already a multibillion dollar business with enormous profits, profits great enough to drive 80 percent of crime(by some estimates), and leave entire urban areas to be ruled by outlaws, and fund massive corruption in our legal and police enforcements agencies. We have already passed the point where drug-related crime is doing far more damage to our society than legal availability of those substances could ever achieve.
Legalize. Control. Tax. And if the use of drugs can only be called a vice, at least let the proceeds from that vice be harnessed for good.

Subject: RE: BS: legalising all drugs
From: Claymore
Date: 18 Mar 09 - 07:18 PM

At the risk of sending thousands of "cheese eating surrender monkeys" boiling out of their holes, I will try and add the perspective of a law enforcement officer to the foregoing debate.

First, it occurs to me that back in the late sixties and early seventies when I was in college, getting my B.S. in Law Enforcement, I recall that Britain had essentially decriminalized heroin and that the drug was there for the asking at designated clinics. That policy failed at least in part due the fact that even if you make the drugs legal, the type of person using them is not. Property crimes rose at an astounding rate simply because, when you take a sufficient amount of drugs, you cannot maintain a job. This causes additional stresses on the community as the drug user has to steal to provide the other necessities of life, i.e. food, housing, 3G cell phones, Nikes and Northfaces, etc.

Later in 1978, when I was getting my Masters in Judicial Administration, my thesis was on the cost-benefit analysis of prisons on drug offenders and the result was, as it is now, overwhelmingly in favor of prison for drug offenders, setting aside the emotional issues, and concentrating on the pure economics of crime.

People generally have no clue as to the cost of law enforcement as opposed to the costs of not enforcing the laws. As an example, let us posit a situation where drugs are legal, and society has even provided a homeless type shelter for the drug addicts. Consider the costs of running such a center, with drug addicts (on drugs) as your clients. Bedlam, so you have to call, who else, the cops!

We had the same problem in the seventies when Congress passed the Kennedy Kill 'em Bill, in the early seventies, that mandated the closure of most insane asylums and most of those folks who were ill-served in the asylums got to freeze to death on the streets because we could no longer arrest them, just to get them into a warm cell. We sometimes had to wait until the person was frozen near to death and unconscious before we could call an ambulance, under implied consent that they did not wish to die, only "not go to a shelter". About half the time we were too late, and as an unattended death, it cost about $15 thousand dollars of taxpayer money for the autopsy and burial. And these people, just like the drug abusers, used up thousands of dollars in emergency room treatments, that went unpaid, driving up medical costs (whether you are insured or not).

What people do not seem to understand is that at the bottom line, it is far cheaper to lock up drug abusers than it is to let them loose on society. Consider the drug abuser who has to steal to make his next score. He breaks into a house and steals a lap top or whatever is portable enough to carry away. Let us say the lap top is worth a thousand dollars. The drug abuser is only going to get about twenty dollars from the "fence" (they are a drag on the market), thus he has to steal a lot of items in order to provide for not only the drugs under the current situation, but for food and the like under drug decriminalization. Now for the cost; an officer arrives to take a report from the victim who has just arrived home. (Thank God she was out during the crime, or the medical costs would start tracking immediately). When that officer steps out of his cruiser the cost is well over ten thousand dollars by the time he knocks on the front door. You have his salary, medical and leave benefits, cost of selection and back-ground investigation, initial training and annual retraining, all of his gear including cruiser, guns, radios, uniforms, PLUS the cost of the CAD system and dispatchers, the record keeping, evidence tracking, CSI type work, (have you ever figured out the cost of a single DNA work-up, which may be unsuccessful?). And remember this is an amortized amount paid every year from your taxes. Now add in the insurance costs to replace the lap top, and the possible mental effects of having your house's sanctity broken, and you will soon get to 30 thousand dollars for the 20 dollars the drug addict got from his ONE NON-VIOLENT crime.

And you have loons cruising the country saying that prison costs about the same per convict as a college education (which is true, without the non-collegiate crack head being in your house). And prisons, as a rule, are a great economic boon in the rural areas of this country. If you over-build, you can take the prisoner overload from the Federal system and actually make a profit. In Loudoun County, VA the Sheriff got an idea for using shipping containers welded together to house short-time and work-release prisoners and cut his prison budget in half. Many prisons are the economic life blood of their county, and yet no one calculates this economic return in the true cost of crime and punishment.

You have other loons who say that this time spent on "non-violent drug offenders" could be better spent on other more violent crime etc. etc. etc. They have no clue as to the most important rule in law enforcement, "If you make the small arrests, the big ones will take care of themselves". Consider Timothy McVeigh, who was locked up on a suspended license two days before they figured out he bombed the Murtaugh Building. If you hammer the druggies, you will solve all sorts of crime. And prison remains the highest non-drug recidivism of any program on the market, at a tenth of the cost (it was running about 30% success for 5 years in the late ninties, whereas other programs rarely do better than 10%. They will claim higher, but do poor follow-ups, which a criminal record does provide). And the simple truth teller is to ask the addict how many programs has he enrolled in the past, with the correct answer being they were all failures because here he is again… with all those little non-violent 20 dollar crimes during that period…

And so you Brits, (with a CCTV camera on every corner) I ask why, if back in the sixties all you had to do was pop in to the local clinic to get tuned up, is that program no longer workable. Hint: please don't say "Maggie" because if the program actually worked and was cost effective it would still be there…

Ahh! For some strange reason I smell cheese from under the curb-line…

Subject: RE: BS: legalising all drugs
From: bubblyrat
Date: 18 Mar 09 - 02:35 PM

Before anyone asks----No, I have never taken any "Hard" drugs,as I have always been too frightened ( and,I like to think,sensible) to even TRY ! I could certainly never stick a needle in myself. I did try cannabis once,in my forties,but didn't like it ! I HAVE twice been hospitalised to "Dry Out" from alcohol addiction, but,as I pointed out to the heroin addicts that I shared a ward with at Saint Anne's Hospital in Poole,I was not actually breaking the law,whilst they most certainly were ( not that they gave a toss,of course,but that's heroin for you ).

Subject: RE: BS: legalising all drugs
From: bubblyrat
Date: 18 Mar 09 - 02:23 PM

I say legalise cannabis,since it undoubtedly helps many sufferers of painful degenerative conditions.However,I would caution users that they would be in line for very serious penalties if caught driving cars,buses ,trains and trucks,or flying aeroplanes,whilst under its influence.Under those circumstances,there would have to be a non-negotiable and lengthy custodial sentence, say 5 years minimum.
    As to crack,crystal meth,heroin,cocaine,et al, I would make it a 20 year prison stretch for anyone in possession of,or selling,such drugs within 30 miles of any school.Since we are a small island with many schools,this would force most dealers and/or users to become concentrated in areas like Dartmoor for their pathetic activities ( preferably in the rain)
          And,of course,nobody who tests positive for "hard" drugs would get free medical treatment------that is NOT what our National Health Service is for.
               Opium is the religion of the people...( Sadly).

Subject: RE: BS: legalising all drugs
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Mar 09 - 12:45 PM

If they reeeeally want consumers to spend our way out of depression they should sell top shelf pot flowers for $200 an oz., of which $125 is tax.
Pay growers minimum wage and let them take "tips"
1/4 oz is $60

leaf will be $20 oz.

The recession will go on for another 5 years instead of 15 and be known as the happiest depression in history

Subject: RE: BS: legalising all drugs
From: The Sandman
Date: 17 Mar 09 - 01:09 PM

last time I was in Holland gigging,which was 1993,itwas legal to buy cannabis/marijuana in coffee shops,but if shops were seling anything else they were closed down.

Subject: RE: BS: legalising all drugs
From: Barry Finn
Date: 16 Mar 09 - 02:22 AM

Janie, a lot of what you say seems likely "but" my belief that there's an increase (I belive there is, like you) is due in part/mostly (?) because our Government chooses to ignor the drug problems that exist. They know & admit to the problems (their 1st & really only step) but they refuse to take any meaningful action to prevent/cure the problems. They have, for the most part choose to treat the symptoms & not the causes!
Drug users of the 60's had far more resources available to them for help than those of today. The war against drugs was lost & has not been fought in the past 35+yrs. Drug education was a partial answer 30, 40 yrs ago. Today it's only a phrase without funding. During the 60's & 70's there where inhouse treatment programs that lasted up to 2 yrs with after care beyond that. Today a user is lucky to find a place with a waiting period shorter than 3 months (that can be life or daeth for someone whose's looking & needing it) & lasts usually 30 days sometimes maybe 6 months. Yrs ago if a user was sentenced or sent to prison they were screened to see if they needed to be repremaned to a drug treatment facility as part of the sentence before or after, weither or not the crime was drug related. Today, if the crime is not a drug violation they will not recieve any drug treatment weither they admit to being a drug user of if the admit to robbing a store for drug money, they will not get treatment, unless it is a drug crime, drug related doesn't do it. I have two kids, now both just into adulhood. I never heard of them or any other school aged kids recieving more than a slight lecture on drug education. Yrs ago the school systems had people passing through all the time & actuall classes onn the subject.
Until the government puts money back into pre-natal care, early child care, health care, drug education, until it deceides to wage war against poverty, sub standard & costly education there will be no stop to the increase.
During the hard times gambling, drug addiction, alcohol shyrockets & social relief programs suffer. Since the Reagan yrs when the republicans were so fond of cutting & slashing welfare programs & all other "help the poor" & "help the needy" programs we have never recoped from the mental disdain for these programs, that was created. The funding has all but dissappeared, the pay for those that work in these fields is next to nil so is the retention of these workers. One can't single out one social problem & try to attack it. They are all intertwined & related. We need to bring back a new era of social reforms & hopefully that's part of what Obama is trying to put forth. The republicans, if they smell this their blood will boil. But we can't even attempt to rehab drug users without attacking our poor educational & health systems nor can't we move ahead without shoring up our policy towards poverty & the poor. And if anyone thinks that some of the rich don't get dragged down with poor they're blind.
It needs to be an all out war not just a battle here & there about gangs or kids with guns today & drugs tomorrow. It'll take job creation for the poor & challenged. Accessable & affordable education for the masses, national health coverage for everyone.
Some one said that the make up of the prisons (I only speak for the US that I know about) is mostly drug users. Well you missed mentioning those that are challenged in other ways. One of the areas hard hit by the funding cuts from those Reagan yrs was mental health. They also make up a huge percentage of todays prison population & there's a huge overlap between that & the drug use prison population.
Governmet control has nothing to do with the problem but the lack of Government funding & it's willingness to do nothing does.

If anyone believes that the Government is putting it's best foot forth in this effort they not at all in touch with the life that's being lived out on the street by those tha abuse drugs.
We recovered from the Reagan yrs (barely, with some lously setbacks) & now fight AIDS, not enough but we have made improvments, we now need to start to focus on a few other areas too.
If the Government can start with the funding & a bit of guidence & direction we could see some improvement.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: legalising all drugs
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Mar 09 - 08:51 PM

How does it work in Holland? I have heard tales but anyone have first hand information?

DeG

Subject: RE: BS: legalising all drugs
From: gnu
Date: 15 Mar 09 - 01:20 PM

Wellll, what you haaave is a proooof, and da proof is a proof dat da...

Sorry... Canuck joke.

Subject: RE: BS: legalising all drugs
From: 3refs
Date: 15 Mar 09 - 09:43 AM

See, now I have to change my view on London(just a bit)!

Experts need to be better experts at expressing and presenting their findings, than what they're actually being experts at! Lie to em, but make it sound good and they'll believe you!
How is it that we can have two people, same education, with the same empirical evidence to back up their findings, come up with opposite freakin answers?
If someone could answer that for me, in either one of Canada's two official languages, perhaps I could better understand Government.

Subject: RE: BS: legalising all drugs
From: alanabit
Date: 15 Mar 09 - 09:11 AM

As long as we have government ministers, who are more concerned with what the Daily Mail will write than with the actual consequences of their actions, we are unlikely to make any progress with our drug laws.

Subject: RE: BS: legalising all drugs
From: GUEST,Doc John
Date: 15 Mar 09 - 08:37 AM

In the UK we have an incompetant Home Secretary called Jacquie Smith who totally lacks any clear vision; for example, she recently started an experiment where the police harass youths who are just hanging around and committing no offences, without thinking of the conseqencies. And that's only one example! We also have a government appointed Expert Committee on Drugs comprising members who are truely experts in their field and intelligent. Canabis was recently downgraded from Group B to Group C, but Ms Smith has now upgraded it to Group B again, against the advice of the Expert Committee. This Committee recently reported on ecstacy but Ms Smith announced she would ignore their findings even before they were published! They recommended it be downgraded from the current Group A (with heroin etc) to Group B (with amphetamines) but, as promised, this advice was ignored. I despair!
Doc John

Subject: RE: BS: legalising all drugs
From: 3refs
Date: 15 Mar 09 - 08:15 AM

Haven't heard much about the legal programs for junkies. I know the Swiss have started a program and most of the stuff I've read about the one in London are positive.
I'm not in favour of legalizing all drugs. Some are just far too dangerous for anyone. Today it's "crack", back in my day in was "angel dust", no thanks! But......a pint, a puff and a pick-me-up now and then makes the world a much nicer place!

Subject: RE: BS: legalising all drugs
From: Janie
Date: 15 Mar 09 - 01:05 AM

Want to clarify that my use of dual diagnosis refers to folks who have both substance abuse/addiction diagnoses and other primary psychiatric diagnoses.

Subject: RE: BS: legalising all drugs
From: Janie
Date: 14 Mar 09 - 11:54 PM

Crack is the most destructive drug I have seen. I'm glad it wasn't around "back in the day." That is one drug that is so destructive that I don't see how making it legal would help anything. Ditto crystal meth (most of the "speed" drugs, for that matter.)

Some one said drug dealers don't tend to deal a variety of drugs. In my community that simply isn't true. (Crack may be the exception.) Like Spleen Cringe, I don't specialize in Substance Abuse but many of my clients are dually diagnosed, and I facilitate a dual diagnosis relapse prevention group. Polysubstance dependence is very common.

There are no easy answers. I agree with you, Drug Worker, that the issue is exceedingly complex.

The genetics of addiction have probably been with us since the beginning. Technology, science, and the ability to move goods and people in increasing volume and numbers, starting several hundred years ago, and burgeoning in the 20th century, has resulted in both an increase in the number of addictive substances in concentrated form, and much more widespread availability.

A very different paradigm is needed to figure out how to manage these realities. The repressive, "zero tolerance" stance that is dominant in the USA clearly doesn't work. It may have perhaps reduced cannabis use where drug testing is common in the work place, since cannabis can be detected for such a long a time. But it has had little if any effect on the use of other drugs that often lead to far more destructive behaviors, but that flush out of the system within just a few days.

Many years ago, I was addicted to morphine. I never dealt drugs, but nearly all of my associates were dealers. If they didn't themselves usually deal in a particular drug, through their contacts, they could get any drug one might want to try.    Three of my very close friends got busted. Back then, there was the "Youth Correctional Act." I don't remember what the age cut-off was, but it was over age 18 to somewhere between age 25 and 30. All three of them went to prison, to a federal Youth Correctional Facility in Lexington, KY. This was an adult prison, not a juvenile detention center. It was not a pleasant experience, but there was serious training and rehabilitation opportunities. The time they served ranged from 1 to 3 years. Under the Youth Correctional Act, if you served out your sentence and parole with no significant problems, then stayed out of trouble for another period of time (I think a year, but don't remember,) your record was sealed or expunged. They all went on to finish 2 or 4 year degrees and enter the work force with a careers that were quite respectable and paid decently. They also all grew up a bit and began to behave more maturely. Although they all three still smoke pot and dabble occasionally in other drugs, they are all now productive members of society. In addition, back then, most employers did not run CBI checks. If you had a criminal record, you could lie about it on the application and get away with it. Today, there are few employers who do not run CBI's, and very few who will hire some one with a criminal record. Even misdemeanors or a record of charges that were dismissed will keep many employers from considering you.

In our society today, there is no second chance for some one with a criminal record. I think that has largely come about as the result of stricter laws around charges and sentencing for drug related crimes. Being legally heavy-handed has obviously not worked. But I don't think legalization across the board is the answer either.

Hard core, long term addiction is in the genes. What makes addiction so widespread is widespread opportunity and access. The likelihood that any given individual will have the opportunity to use an addictive substance to which they are vulnerable is greatly increased. That is the reason for the increase in drug addiction. That opportunity and access is a reality of our world today. Zero tolerance, hard criminalization of the behaviors involved with addiction do not work, but neither will legalization without numerous caveats and restrictions and significant elements of social control. I'll be the first to say I haven't an idea of what a workable paradigm would look like, but I know we need a new one.

Subject: RE: BS: legalising all drugs
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Mar 09 - 07:56 PM

Well, seems that it comes down to legal v. criminalize and no other discussion...

That's too bad...

Education should play an important part in the discussion, too... Hey, I'm a pothead... I've also worked in a drug rehab program so I speak from some level of experience...

Some folks asy the pot is the "gateway drug"... Well, given the way things are today there is some trtuh to that in that pot smokers do have to rub elbows with folks who also peddle crack and horse...

If these folks didn't have these associations then they wouldn't really have much opportunity to experiement with harder drugs... Get the pusher outta the equation and more potheads would be perfectly happy smokin' their weed and that would be that...

But by driving potheads into a seedier world there are greater opportunties....

Back to education... Everyone knows that dumb "This is your brain" commercial, right??? Well, if we legalized drugs then we could have legitimate folks making public service commercials about the hazzards of crack and horse... I mean, I'd do one... It's go like this:

Guy playing geetar on a beach... beautiful woman... they smoke a joint... then THE VOICE: "Weed is cool... Needles ain't"...

I mean, folks gonna say that this is simplistic but it ain't simplistic at all... If we could have an open discussion about drugs then all the voices could be heard... Right now, kids only hear two voices: cops and pushers...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: legalising all drugs
From: gnu
Date: 14 Mar 09 - 07:21 PM

On the other hand.

Subject: RE: BS: legalising all drugs
From: gnu
Date: 14 Mar 09 - 07:14 PM

Okay. Fuck it. Why bother? Let the poor and uneducated wallow in poverty at the expense of the rich. Feed them drugs through an illegal and underground economy so they can be subjugated and relegated to menial labour. And spend lots of money on the police so that they can protect the rich from the druggies and their crime.

Been working well for the rich people so far.

Subject: RE: BS: legalising all drugs
From: Tangledwood
Date: 14 Mar 09 - 06:02 PM

So those at present in the illegal drug industry would become "unemployed" and turn to some other activity with possibly worse consequences?

Subject: RE: BS: legalising all drugs
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Mar 09 - 05:44 PM

Bottom line is, if there was no money to be made out of it, the illegal drug industry would cease to exist. They aren't in it for the love of it.

Subject: RE: BS: legalising all drugs
From: gnu
Date: 14 Mar 09 - 05:01 PM

You got that right sIx. Just in the past while in our little corner of the world... two young men beaten badly in their home, one man shot dead in his home, one elderly man beaten with a 2X4 outside his home.

We have strip clubs, prostitution, gambling, gun running, gangs, tobacco sold at every corner store... the provicial government just introduced it's own beer... but my aunt can't smoke pot to help her through the cancer treatment.

Fact is, we lack the education of our most precious resource. And political leaders with balls.

Subject: RE: BS: legalising all drugs
From: GUEST,Smokey
Date: 14 Mar 09 - 04:57 PM

Drug dealers very rarely peddle a variety of drugs, although they do mostly frequent pubs..

Subject: RE: BS: legalising all drugs
From: Janie
Date: 14 Mar 09 - 04:47 PM

Drugs Worker,

I'm suggesting that drug dealers often peddle a variety of drugs, and thus have an increased opportunity to "market" those other drugs to people who buy pot from them. People who might not otherwise ever seriously consider doing other drugs.

Subject: RE: BS: legalising all drugs
From: number 6
Date: 14 Mar 09 - 04:34 PM

One of the reasons drugs should be legalized is maybe creeps like this wouldn't make it on the Forbes wealthiest list ..

the world's 701st wealthiest person

I'd rather the government make the money, put it back into healthcare.

All the education in the world won't deter drug use IMHO.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: legalising all drugs
From: GUEST,Smokey
Date: 14 Mar 09 - 04:09 PM

Western governments do not want the countries which produce cocaine and opiates to become too wealthy. On the other hand tobacco and alcohol is produced 'in house', and contributes significantly to the stability of the stock market/economy. That is virtually the only reason why the law is as it is.

Subject: RE: BS: legalising all drugs
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Mar 09 - 03:38 PM

To serious addicts, having drugs legalized but 'controlled' with taxes and 'drug'stores, would not help....the amount they could buy would be limited, and many serious addicts do not work and could not afford the amount they want. (much as drugworker said above)

And before anyone says "what about booze"?...note that heroin & cocaine are supplied in a very different way, thru foreign markets, and that addiction TO heroin and other poppy derivatives has quite different effects on the body and mind. Depriving an alcoholic of booze is just not as 'hard' as trying to take a heroin addict off HIS drug.

It ain't easy.... the only real 'solutions' are pretty Draconian and not politically correct.

Subject: RE: BS: legalising all drugs
From: The Sandman
Date: 14 Mar 09 - 03:23 PM

guest,Drugs worker,you know nothing about me or my background.,or my knowledge of drugs.
so dont jump to conclusions .

Subject: RE: BS: legalising all drugs
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Mar 09 - 03:07 PM

"...Oxycodone, vicadin, etc., are are legally prescribed, as is methadone, but there is is still a huge toll taken on individuals, families and societies in the illegal (extralegal) acquisition and distribution of these drugs, not to mention use."


             But if one doesn't have a perscription for these items, they are illegal. Otherwise, how could a black market exist? There probably are things that are so dangerous that only doctors and licensed pharmacists should be in control of them, but the drug enforecement people have come down on these professionals too, so thats something that speaks to street market value.

Subject: RE: BS: legalising all drugs
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 14 Mar 09 - 02:53 PM

Thanks for the clarification, GDW. I would be interested to hear your views in more depth, though. Mine are still largely informed by stuff like this Merseyside Model (see pp 67 - 120), but I'm a mental health worker with a drug using clientele rather than a drug worker, so these ideas may well have been discredited.

Subject: RE: BS: legalising all drugs
From: GUEST,Drugs Worker
Date: 14 Mar 09 - 02:46 PM

Spleen Cringe, I deliberately did not suggest any solutions to legalisation because the issue is far too complex to discuss on a board largely devoted to folk music. I have my own views on the subject, but regard them as less important than challenging erroneous proposals such as those supplied by CB.

Janie wrote 'dissociating it from criminal trade might result in fewer people who begin smoking pot to also begin using the opiates, coke, etc.' There is no conclusive evidence that using cannabis directly leads to the desire to explore the effects of opiates or cocaine. Indeed, there's plenty of evidence to suggest the opposite.

Subject: RE: BS: legalising all drugs
From: Janie
Date: 14 Mar 09 - 02:26 PM

I'm ambivalent. Oxycodone, vicadin, etc., are are legally prescribed, as is methadone, but there is is still a huge toll taken on individuals, families and societies in the illegal (extralegal) acquisition and distribution of these drugs, not to mention use. I'm not sure that a blanket decriminalization and subsequent regulation of things like heroin, cocaine, crystal meth, etc., would have much effect on continued illegal trade, drug cartels, gangs, etc.

Although cannabis is a much different creature than it was 40 years ago, I do think it should be decriminalized. Probably the mostly commonly used of illegal drugs, dissociating it from criminal trade might result in fewer people who begin smoking pot to also begin using the opiates, coke, etc., simply because legal sources would be less likely to also be dealing some other stuff.

However, the lure of selling drugs illegally, whether or not they are also legally prescribed, is, for many of those drugs, the huge profit margin, (not for the addict simply trying to pay for his/her habit), and criminalization definitely is a factor in the profit margin.

I don't think there are any easy answers or perfect solutions. What we are doing doesn't work. However, I am not convinced that decriminalization, in general would be less problematic. It may well simply introduce a set of problems that are different, but no less difficult and costly to human lives and societies.

Subject: RE: BS: legalising all drugs
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 14 Mar 09 - 02:20 PM

Guest Drugs worker - I know plenty of drugs workers who are pro legalisation. You're right about government control though. Probably best to keep sale of drugs in the 'for profit' sector. Shares in drugs companies could fund my retirement!

Subject: RE: BS: legalising all drugs
From: GUEST,Drugs Worker
Date: 14 Mar 09 - 02:14 PM

I cannot believe that the various tenets in Captain Birdseye's proposals and his ignorance about this issue have not been challenged, apart from Art's reference to the FDA.

Let's start from the bottom, and I'm assuming that CB is talking about psychotropic substances whose use is currently regulated by legislation such as the UK's Misuse of Drugs Act - http://drugs.homeoffice.gov.uk/drugs-laws/misuse-of-drugs-act/ or those covered by the 1968 Medicines Act and only currently available from pharmacists via a prescription.

CB is suggesting this for starters: 'government control over use of clean needles, government control over quality of drugs, government control over strength of drugs'. He doesn't state which government he has in mind, but it doesn't really matter. The fact is that no government can control the 'use of clean needles' - how can it? Clean needles are supplied free of charge by the clinic where I work in the UK (and at many others), but there's no way that any government can police how used needles are then subsequently employed.

For a government to control the strength and quality (whatever that means - skunk over Leb gold?) of psychotropic drugs entering its domain it would have not only to 'corner the market' and take over all importation (and probably take over production in various other countries), but establish quality control laboratories and then either its own or a licensed chain of retail outlets.

However, even if such a system were to be introduced it would not make one dent in the production of Ecstasy, acid, home-grown dope and the gathering of magic mushrooms.

CB's next point is 'criminals will no longer find it financially viable, as their market is removed'. Far from it. Anyone would be able to buy some coke, cut it however they chose and make a very fast buck from those in need and not willing to pay the governmental rate.

This one just begs belief - 'freeing of police time, enabling more time to be spent on the attempted solving of other crimes.' Those without money will still be poor. Those who want a particular substance (and I shy away from the term 'addict' - it's not helpful) will still look for non-legal means of raising the wherewithal.

CB refers to 'revenue in taxation, to fund hospitalisation for addicts'. This again reveals his sheer ignorance about the use of psychotropic drugs. Virtually every substance listed under the Misuse of Drugs Act does not lead to physical addiction, and those that may (and I use the term very cautiously - and note the word 'physical'), such as heroin, are actually no more productive of dependency (and no more damaging) than many of the drugs prescribed by doctors.

Lastly, there's this 'if this was tried along with a government propaganda campaign against [similar to tobacco] and over a period of a couple of years found to be unsuccessful, drugs could be made illegal once more.' Well, I've been around the drugs education world far longer than CB and I can tell him, without question, that government propaganda campaigns are an utter waste of time. It is far better, and far more productive, to spend money on drugs education work within schools.

Subject: RE: BS: legalising all drugs
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 14 Mar 09 - 02:10 PM

"Legalize the works and control the sales.

BUT... spend the profit on education, starting at as early an age as possible. And, not just "drugs"... food, exercise, social skills... the three R's just don't cut the buscuit anymore."

Spot on, Gnu. Couldn't have put it better myself.

There used to be a project in Liverpool where heroin addicts were prescribed heroin rather than offered the usual methadone reduction therapies: the results were a decrease in drug related acquisitive crime, positive impact on users and their families (including less deaths, users holding down jobs and so on). I can't remember all the details but I'll try to find a link.

Problem is, politicians know this approach works but are afraid of the potential for moralistic backlash (and lost votes) from Middle England/Middle America and the sensationalist approach the right wing press will take (even though legalisation dovetails perfectly with a right-libertarian agenda).

It will never happen. After all, drug users want it and heaven forfend we give 'em what they want!

A serious question though. A lot of my clients smoke crack. It's nasty shit. Does this particular drug muddy the waters of the legalisation debate?

Subject: RE: BS: legalising all drugs
From: GUEST,Doc John
Date: 14 Mar 09 - 11:34 AM

I totally agree with all of the Capt'n's points. Yes, I'm sure there would be problems but lesser problems than we have with prohibition. Is there a parallel with the Prohibition era of alcohol in the USA, I wonder?

Subject: RE: BS: legalising all drugs
From: artbrooks
Date: 14 Mar 09 - 11:21 AM

Legalize all drugs? No. When the FDA is allowed to do what it is supposed to do, it does an excellent job of keeping unproven and dangerous drugs off the market.

Or are you speaking of illegal narcotics, marijuana and the like? Of course they should be decriminalized - these things should be regulated, at least to the degree that alcohol is, but the current level of prohibition is ridiculous. I am (physically) pretty close to the drug peddler war that is going on along the US/Mexico border, and the only reason that thousands of people a year (no hyperbole - look it up), innocent and otherwise, are being killed is the American desire for illegal narcotics. A reason for decriminalization that I don't think was mentioned is that this is the single most significant reason for the massive overcrowding in US prisons - that is, there are many thousands of people in jail for possession, use or small sale.

Subject: RE: BS: legalising all drugs
From: gnu
Date: 14 Mar 09 - 11:11 AM

Hmmmm.... to be clear, I meant education about how detrimantal drugs can be.

Subject: RE: BS: legalising all drugs
From: gnu
Date: 14 Mar 09 - 11:09 AM

Legalize the works and control the sales.

BUT... spend the profit on education, starting at as early an age as possible. And, not just "drugs"... food, exercise, social skills... the three R's just don't cut the buscuit anymore.

Subject: RE: BS: legalising all drugs
From: 3refs
Date: 14 Mar 09 - 09:48 AM

ps
Let's not forget, that with this we have to enforce what is acceptable and what is not! We must realize that there are professions where we have to say "this is not for you"! Yes "you can, but no "you" can't! Sorry!

Subject: RE: BS: legalising all drugs
From: 3refs
Date: 14 Mar 09 - 09:43 AM

Seems to me that this is closet more people need to come out of!

A tip of the hat to you!

Subject: RE: BS: legalising all drugs
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 14 Mar 09 - 09:43 AM

The argument in favour makes sense. At the moment a lot of time and money are wasted on drug testing and treatment programmes that, in many cases, do not work.

Subject: RE: BS: legalising all drugs
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Mar 09 - 09:12 AM

Prohibition is stupid... And it doesn't work... What it does is turn lots of folks into "criminals" (not), clog up our courts, our jails, or morgues and cost us billions of dollars on the way...

Very backwards, reactive thinking...

B~

Subject: BS: legalising all drugs
From: The Sandman
Date: 14 Mar 09 - 09:04 AM

I wondered what peoples opinions were.
the argument in favour is this:government control over use of clean needles,government control over quality of drugs,government control over srength of drugs ,reduction of criminal activity,by 1 . addicts who need to commit criminal activity to fund an expensive habit.
2 .criminals will no longer find it financially viable,as their market is removed.
3 ,freeing of police time, enabling more time to be spent on the attempted solving of other crimes.
4.revenue in taxation,to fund hospitalisation for addicts.
5 .amount of taxation to be considered carefully,so that government drugs were cheaper than black market drugs.
if this was tried along with a government propaganda campaign against[similar to tobacco ]   and over a period of a couple of years found to be unsuccessful,drugs could be made illegal once more.