With the recession...a possible solution?

Post Reply New Topic

So the difference between amphetamines and say, caffeine pills or ephedra tablets is simply one of degree. I'm not well versed enough in chemistry to say so for certain, but I'd be willing to bet that many if not most of the bad long term effects from amphetamine use are caused by the impurity of the street product, seeing how it is made in trailers using household chemicals by amateurs. I would say that trading all of the problems now associated with methamphetamine for the possibility of strung out business people is a good deal, if meth were dirt cheap, that would cut out 90% of the problems right there. Could you really say that coming into work with a meth or coke hangover is so much worse than coming in with an alcohol hangover, or that those products are signifigantly more addictive than alcohol? I would also argue that business culture would mitigate against abuse in the pursuit of an edge, any performance gains would probably be offset by the crashes and surliness of users, as well as the bad image that even legalized drugs would give.

That's ignoring that the problem is less with them. Its possible that some white collar people might go into information and identity theft to support a habit, its possible that they could flip out and have physical altercations or worst case exercise their 2nd amendment rights in the workplace. This stuff destabilizes people - badly, you can't lose sight of that. You'll also find that the people who have nothing to lose, who don't really want to live, who are practically on a suicide-mission with the stuff; they'll often enough get crazy ideas about taking other people out with them. While I wouldn't say its the general its still an explosive enough minority to where we really can't just rationalize it away. Anything that quite literally drives someone insane and takes their mental health can easily turn them into a threat to society, that's not something to play with.

The way speeds work, like methamphetamine or its MDMA form, in killing braincells is that they overclock and turn up the temperature in your brain and that the freeradical damage is a good ways in excess of what you'd see in other types of drug. Ecstacy has one upside - the serotonin up and down usually keeps people from wanting to do it that often at all whereas sheer-up speed seems to hold people more. When dealing with speeds its not just the dirtiness of the street-drug or bad street-side pharmacology, its what the chemical in and of itself does; the factors you mentioned definitely can't help though. Also, with the addictiveness of meth, maybe there are studies out there comparing them to alcohol addiction, I could be going on heresay but I always heard that it was far more addictive and took it as such just because I've never heard anyone debate that to date. Coming to work surly or doing sloppy work with an alcohol hangover - its not good, that's very true, but it doesn't have that same ability to really unhinge people and take away their reasoning faculties, not endorsing alcohol at all but I'm still not thinking that we're dealing with the same kind of animal between the two.

Okay, let's take it at face value that doing meth is very damaging, does that seem to make any difference to the types of people that would use it? I would argue that it doesn't deter them any more than the fact that it is illegal does, and that the rate of use would stay fairly constant whether it was legal or not. Some people are deterred by danger, some aren't, and I would also argue that those who aren't would be the same ones who aren't deterred by the illegal status either. What this means to me is that as far as discouraging usage goes, making meth illegal is not effective, and certainly not efficient. Legalizing would reduce or eliminate many of the secondary affects of the drug on society, the theft and the property damage from illicit manufacture just to start. It would also bring the addicts out from the cold so to speak, so that they could be more accessible for treatment and care. Imagine the savings to certain police departments if all of the meth related burglaries, lab raids, etc were to disappear as something they have to deal with, precious resources would be freed up to deal with more important violent crime and crime prevention, everybody would benefit. Again, when it comes down to it I believe that broad legalizing with the formerly wasted money redirected to treatment would be better for everyone, except the narcotics traffickers who would see their profits dry up overnight.

What's interesting to me is that you are essentially making the same argument here that gun control advocates often use: "A potentially dangerous minority that abuses a privilege justifies stripping that privilege from the majority", in other words sacrificing liberty for security. Look at it this way, if we decide to spend the same amount of money fighting the drug problem no matter what the approach, how do you think that money would best be spent? Under the current system, we spend billions locking up millions of people, enforcing arbitrary drug laws, interdicting smuggling, etc etc. That's not even getting into the economic effect of locking up all those potential tax payers at tax payer expense. Imagine that we go with the most extreme solution, total legalization, we now have billions, maybe hundreds of billions of dollars annually to throw at the problem. With that kind of money, we could afford private detox programs for any addict that wants one, let alone what research might turn up or other social programs we might enact. My problem with the current system is that it's not simply immoral, it's inefficient, not just in money but in lives lost or ruined because of it.

Is it not as much that a dangerous minority (who do exist) might become a much larger group if such drugs were legalised? There is a dangerous minority who might abuse, and that minority might get larger if such drugs were more easily acquired...

What's interesting to me is that you are essentially making the same argument here that gun control advocates often use: "A potentially dangerous minority that abuses a privilege justifies stripping that privilege from the majority"

I am not sure I will ever be completely sold on total legalization though, since I think there is just as much of a problem in society with alcohol.

Hehe, I missed this one. It an interesting perpsective on it but it does give rise to one rather amusing image: being able to do ones part to keep the country safe from government tyranny, being able to stop a robbery, or being able to save another citizen in distress - all with a gram bag of meth.

I know that's not where you were going with it but guns definitely have a place, a reason, and a lot of positive as preventative medicine. With meth, we're purely looking at which is the lesser of two evils.

I'm actually talking more about the mindset, "we can stop violence by banning weapons" = "we can stop drug abuse by banning drugs", both grossly simplify complex issues. Ironically, their antithesis can almost be combined into one of my own tenants, "legalizing drugs will prevent more violence than banning guns".

I also happen to believe that addiction is relative, and that virtually any substance can be addictive to some people. For example, despite having personally tried many illegal drugs, as well as having prescriptions for multiple pain killers considered addictive, I've never had a problem with chemical addiction. The closest thing to an addiction that affects me is food, when I'm really in the mood for a certain meal very little can stop me, financial considerations included. The point is that some things seem to be more addictive to more people, and may even be harmful, but does that justify the cost to society that our "drug war" inflicts? In the case of meth, I think that legalizing would be the lesser of the two evils, since at the moment we don't have any known way of preventing addiction or stopping use, and legalizing would minimize the damage done both to society and the individual addicts.

This thread has been very interesting to read. I have always wondered what would come of complete legalization of drugs; especially if the money spent fighting drug use was used for education, prevention, and rehabilitation. Dox made a very good point earlier that the stigma would still be there. I think if employers continued to perform drug screenings, it would keep many people from using drugs even though they are legal.

When I was young and single, I would have said, Heck Yeah, legalize everything, simply because I did not want to get into trouble. Now, I am not always so sure. They ruin lives and warp priorities; so does alcohol. I have always considered myself very lucky to have never suffered from real addiction. I have known people who were not so lucky. I really feel bad for them...just good people caught up in the wrong things. If anything, I do not think we should be locking users up in jail. I am not sure I will ever be completely sold on total legalization though, since I think there is just as much of a problem in our society with alcohol.

Legalize pot.

I bring this up today on the 75th anniversary that alcohol prohibition was repealed.

It would create jobs, a new diverse plant for farmers and researchers to fully work with and explore (as opposed to the extremely limited availability for scientific research). It would create a new stream of tax dollars coming in and possibly invite tourism. Could decrease crime by making less criminals and taking business away from the black market and into legitimate markets. This reduction in crime would also mean a reduction in government costs.

Sounds like a good idea at a very quick first glance.

Aha! There was just as much of a problem with alcohol, back when they made it illegal! Say what you will about booze, people are not killing each other over the best street corners to sell it from, nor do you often read about chronic drunks electrocuting themselves stealing live wires to sell for their next 5th. Booze was a much bigger problem when it was illegal than legal, since legitimate business was forced out and the underworld took over. I for one would trade a drop in the sort of problems that go along with illegal drugs in a heartbeat for a rise in the types of problems caused by legal alcohol.

Assorted arguments against the efficacy of the War on Drugs

Critics often note that during alcohol prohibition, alcohol use initially fell but began to increase as early as 1922. It has been extrapolated that even if prohibition hadn't been repealed in 1933, alcohol consumption would have quickly surpassed pre-prohibition levels [39]. They argue that the War on Drugs uses similar measures and is no more effective. In the six years from 2000–2006, the USA spent $4.7 billion on Plan Colombia, an effort to eradicate coca production in Colombia. The main result of this effort was to shift coca production into more remote areas and force other forms of adaptation. The overall acreage cultivated for coca in Colombia at the end of the six years was found to be the same, after the U.S. Drug Czar's office announced a change in measuring methodology in 2005 and included new areas in its surveys.[40] Cultivation in the neighboring countries of Peru and Bolivia actually increased.[41]

Similar lack of efficacy is observed in some other countries pursuing similar[citation needed] policies. In 1994, 28.5% of Canadians reported having consumed illicit drugs in their life; by 2004, that figure had risen to 45%. 73% of the $368 million spent by the Canadian government on targeting illicit drugs in 2004–2005 went toward law enforcement rather than treatment, prevention or harm reduction.[42]

Richard Davenport-Hines, in his book The Pursuit of Oblivion (W.W. Norton & Company, 2001), criticized the efficacy of the War on Drugs by pointing out that

“
10–15% of illicit heroin and 30% of illicit cocaine is intercepted. Drug traffickers have gross profit margins of up to 300%. At least 75% of illicit drug shipments would have to be intercepted before the traffickers' profits were hurt.”

Alberto Fujimori, president of Peru from 1990–2000, described U.S. foreign drug policy as "failed" on grounds that "for 10 years, there has been a considerable sum invested by the Peruvian government and another sum on the part of the American government, and this has not led to a reduction in the supply of coca leaf offered for sale. Rather, in the 10 years from 1980 to 1990, it grew 10-fold."[43]

At least 500 economists, including Nobel Laureates Milton Friedman, George Akerlof and Vernon L. Smith, have noted that reducing the supply of marijuana without reducing the demand causes the price, and hence the profits of marijuana sellers, to go up, according to the laws of supply and demand.[44] The increased profits encourage the producers to produce more drugs despite the risks, providing a theoretical explanation for why attacks on drug supply have failed to have any lasting effect.

The aforementioned economists published an open letter to President George W. Bush stating "We urge…the country to commence an open and honest debate about marijuana prohibition... At a minimum, this debate will force advocates of current policy to show that prohibition has benefits sufficient to justify the cost to taxpayers, foregone tax revenues and numerous ancillary consequences that result from marijuana prohibition."

A 2008 study by Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Miron has estimated that legalizing drugs would inject $76.8 billion a year into the U.S. economy — $44.1 billion from law enforcement savings, and at least $32.7 billion in tax revenue ($6.7 billion from marijuana, $22.5 billion from cocaine and heroin, remainder from other drugs).[45][46] Recent surveys help to confirm the consensus among economists to reform drug policy in the direction of decriminalization and legalization.[47]

The declaration from the World Forum Against Drugs, 2008 state that a balanced policy of drug abuse prevention, education, treatment, law enforcement, research, and supply reduction provides the most effective platform to reduce drug abuse and its associated harms and call on governments to consider demand reduction as one of their first priorities in the fight against drug abuse.[48]