THE GREAT DEBATE, PART III
Pages
| Author | Topic: THE GREAT DEBATE, PART III |
|---|---|
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Friday, June 17 2005 00:45
Profile
Homepage
While I cannot readily dispute that the banning of drugs reduces consumption, I can state with absolute confidence that it does not eliminate it, and it comes with the price of incredible increases in crime. Prohibition in the United States serves as a good model for what happens when drugs are prohibited for a purely moralistic goal, e.g. "no one should be using them therefore selling, using, or possessing them is illegal". The result of the amendment to the Constitution prohibiting alcohol was the rise of syndicated crime, the haemhorraging of millions of dollars of the economy in corruption and enforcement during a period of national history in which money was deadly tight, etc. Overall, Prohibition wasn't even effective in stamping out alcoholism; alcohol use was prominent during and after the effect of the law itself. I believe in full legalization of all currently controlled substances. Distribution should occur only through a thoroughly licensed retailer and in no case to any clients under 21, production will be strictly monitored, a heavy tax will be levied and its revenues will be applied to recovery programs and propaganda, and all substances should be subject to strict supervision by the FDA. While in principle this is certainly not as tough a stand as illegalizing drugs, I do not believe illegalizing drugs is better in anything except principle. Legalization offers benefits which banning cannot, including government revenues, ability to control production and distribution through licensing and taxation, ability to control quality and dosing (thereby eliminating the vast majority of overdoses), and ability to use a major percentage of drug revenues to help addicts recover from drugs. In addition, a society with a responsible policy towards legal drugs would recognize the importance of strong aggression against the most physically damaging substances and warning tolerance towards less physically damaging ones. In a banning system, government has no non-hypocritical way to say consuming pot (non-addictive, relatively non-toxic) is more permissible than smoking PCP (extremely addictive, profoundly toxic and with a range of permanent side-effects). This also allows specific drug-based offenses to be held specifically contemptible by law. Selling addictives to a minor, consuming mind-altering drugs before operating heavy machinery, etc. should be held under specific contempt, and there is no way for the government to do this without calling the root of the offense "involving yourself with drugs", where it really should be "misconducting yourself with drugs". My core position holds that in a pragmatic situation, a ban gives the government far less agency to solve the social problems arising from drug use than responsible legalization. I have no statistics at this time, but my position is rooted in good sense and ought to be relatively solid without them. A debate on the basic principle behind legalization would be fascinating, but we are at a critical impasse here and it would be startlingly irrelevant. My contention is that, considering the comparative ability of the government to act in suppressing the social problems caused by drug use between a criminalized system and a legalized system, legalization is the clear winner. Assuming your aim is to help people and not just random tyranny, responsible legalization is just the better answer. [ Friday, June 17, 2005 00:49: Message edited by: CSTR. ] -------------------- The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest. Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 1558
|
written Friday, June 17 2005 00:58
Profile
Can you show any evidence that what you say is true? EDIT: Well, what I mean is: what other countries are doing this right now, in order to show me that it is "just the better answer." I currently don't see anything better about it. Oh, and how does this plan reduce overdoses? [ Friday, June 17, 2005 01:01: Message edited by: An Upright stranger ] -------------------- I'm tired of the strain and the pain ___ ___ ___ I feel the same, I feel nothing Nothing is important to me ___ ___ ___ ___ __ And nobody nowhere understands anything About me and all my dreams lost at sea ___ __ But we’re not the same, we’re different tonight We’ll make things right, we’ll feel it all tonight _ The indescribable moments of your life tonight The impossible is possible tonight ___ ____ ___ Believe in me as I believe in you, tonight Go All Blacks xtraMSN Rugby _ MuggleNet Posts: 1112 | Registered: Friday, July 19 2002 07:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Friday, June 17 2005 01:21
Profile
Homepage
No country currently has a policy of full legalization; some countries, such as the Netherlands, have leagalized marijuana and other hallucinogens, but harder drugs remain illegal more or less everywhere with a government. The vast majority of overdoses and other drug-related casualties are caused by impurities and irregularities; there's no guarantee that a street dealer will provide a pure, regularly metered product; in other words, because most drugs are cut with various materials, any given dose may well be essentially poisonous. The plan is ultimately best when you consider that under a banning system, drug revenues are not going anywhere good. At their most innocent, they're buying status symbols for vicious criminals; at their worst, they're covering up criminal investigations, buying illegal weapons, and getting entered into similar corruption. Contrast this to a system of responsible legality, in which the revenue that doesn't go to treating drug users or discouraging potential users goes to those who worked to produce the drugs, who aren't going to be engaging in some kind of back-channel activity by doing it and have no incentive to delve further into crime. That's in terms of pure fiscal matters. The problem of agency is more abstract, and I'm too tired to go into detail on it right now. [ Friday, June 17, 2005 01:25: Message edited by: CSTR. ] -------------------- The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest. Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 1558
|
written Friday, June 17 2005 01:38
Profile
So if no one's done it, what makes you think the US or whoever is going to make such a turn around? It would be a blind leap of faith. quote:So your #1 position would be to eliminate this drug use? Interesting, as this plan would vastly increase drug use. And what of the crime drug use causes or assists? Wouldn't a preferable outcome be: the government reducing both crime and drug use rather than one or the other? quote:Only when there are drug revenues. Why not focus on stopping this, rather than giving in to drug users? Your arguement seems to take for granted that drug use is currently and will always continue to be a major consumer industry. [ Friday, June 17, 2005 01:42: Message edited by: An Upright stranger ] -------------------- I'm tired of the strain and the pain ___ ___ ___ I feel the same, I feel nothing Nothing is important to me ___ ___ ___ ___ __ And nobody nowhere understands anything About me and all my dreams lost at sea ___ __ But we’re not the same, we’re different tonight We’ll make things right, we’ll feel it all tonight _ The indescribable moments of your life tonight The impossible is possible tonight ___ ____ ___ Believe in me as I believe in you, tonight Go All Blacks xtraMSN Rugby _ MuggleNet Posts: 1112 | Registered: Friday, July 19 2002 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 32
|
written Friday, June 17 2005 07:25
Profile
If you think it won't, then you are extremely naive. Look at cigarettes and alcohol, both are legal and have been going strong now for many many years... -------------------- Lt. Sullust Cogito Ergo Sum Polaris Posts: 2462 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |
|
Nuke and Pave
Member # 24
|
written Friday, June 17 2005 07:37
Profile
Homepage
A question for Alec: Under your system, how are you going to prevent a minor from buying dangerous, mafia-supplied version of drugs from the dealer down the street, who can undersell government-sponsored retailers by not paying taxes and diluting his drug with other substances? -------------------- Be careful with a word, as you would with a sword, For it too has the power to kill. However well placed word, unlike a well placed sword, Can also have the power to heal. Posts: 2649 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Friday, June 17 2005 07:40
Profile
Homepage
quote:This is the point I'd like to know more about. Does anyone know of any research into this, or any relevant comparative statistics from the Netherlands or other countries? I tend to think that heavy marijuana use would not increase at all: it's not like tobacco, which is addictive, so therefore people smoke a pack or two per day, but rather it is an occasional thing for almost every user. And if occasional use rises slightly (and by occasional I mean getting high a few times per year or less), then why do we care? It's not a public health concern at that point. But this is just my guess, which I admit is grounded on nothing but my own thinking on the matter. Does anyone actually know? EDIT: And if outside commenters should shut up and let you two debate, let us know. I'll oblige. [ Friday, June 17, 2005 07:42: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Friday, June 17 2005 07:50
Profile
Homepage
Stranger: Yes, ending both drug-related crime and drug use would be nice. Nobody knows how to do that, however. Illegalization certainly hasn't done a great job with either. The rationale behind Alec's proposal (and he pretty much articulated my own beliefs) is that relatively few people will start using drugs simply because they are legal. No, there aren't stats, but it seems plausible, at least. Fear of health and financial consequences is at least as much of a motivator as fear of legal consequences. Zeviz: That's a problem I've considered and to which I've never come up with a great answer. I think legal drugs could avoid many of the expenses of the current black market, so I'm not sure how much costs would be cut other than by cutting drugs with other substances. The real deterrent is the fact that quality-controlled drugs are available, making illicit purchases much more obviously risky. And how many drug dealers would stay in business with legal and legitimate competition? For evidence, I'd like to ask where the tobacco black market is. If cigarettes are so highly taxed, why isn't underground cigarette sale such a problem? The more obvious problem is adults buying the "official" drugs and then reselling to minors for a small profit, or just giving it to friends (much like some young adults do for younger friends with cigarettes and alcohol). There's no great solution to this that I can think of any more than there is one to cigarettes or alcohol, but at least with quality assurance you know nobody is giving a buddy a lethal dose by accident. —Alorael, who can at least see one obvious benefit of legalization in the Alec sense. If illegalization hasn't stopped drugs, and it hasn't, than it's at least nice for the government to get a cut of the profits via taxes instead of hemorrhaging money for drug control and imprisonment even if the actual use rates don't change or increase. Cynical? Absolutely. Financially sound? Ask someone with a background in finance, but it seems like it to an uneducated eye. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Triad Mage
Member # 7
|
written Friday, June 17 2005 08:00
Profile
Homepage
Would it be possible to release some "marijuana locust" to destroy all plants and weed? -------------------- "At times discretion should be thrown aside, and with the foolish we should play the fool." - Menander ==== Drakefyre's Demesne - Happy Happy Joy Joy desperance.net - We're Everywhere ==== You can take my Mac when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the mouse! Posts: 9436 | Registered: Wednesday, September 19 2001 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 32
|
written Friday, June 17 2005 08:02
Profile
They are trying to do that in Columbia to handle the plants responsible for Cocaine. It seems environmentally risky... [ Friday, June 17, 2005 08:02: Message edited by: Lt. Sullust ] -------------------- Lt. Sullust Cogito Ergo Sum Polaris Posts: 2462 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Friday, June 17 2005 08:11
Profile
quote:Currently the best methods for purchasing cigarettes are: 1. Cross a border and when re-entering purchase a carton at the duty-free. 2. In USA, enter an Indian reservation and purchase with no taxes. (this loophole is getting smaller) 3. Don't buy them at all, mooch off a buddy. 4. I read/heard something a while back about truckloads of cigs from S Carolina getting diverted to NYC. Presumably mafia to take advantage of the $6/pack price differential. When looking at the black market situation for drugs, and comparing it to alcohol, there most certainly is a current black market alternative to regular branded stuff. While not the same in substance, sterno, mouthwash, cough syrup, vanilla extract, and many others all contain enough alcohol for the sought effect. These aren't taxed or controlled like Bacardi. So yeah, there are current "un-controlled alternatives" to currently legal "drugs." Edit - proofreading kills crain bells [ Friday, June 17, 2005 09:05: Message edited by: Smoked Salmon ] Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 5699
|
written Friday, June 17 2005 08:57
Profile
I have never met a pot head that admitted to being addicted, but many of them continue using the stuff no matter what. Even if the thing is not addicting biologicaly it´s mentally addicting. It provides an easy, but in the long term costly escape. Posts: 54 | Registered: Monday, April 11 2005 07:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Friday, June 17 2005 09:17
Profile
Homepage
quote:The power of the market. I mean, the kind of situation I'm describing is already in force for cigarettes, and certainly someone could black-market them for cheaper than they cost now, but people usually prefer to buy from someone whose product they are familiar with. Not to mention the fact that the ability to buy in bulk ensures that large companies subject to laws about transparency and oversight dominate the market, because they're essentially the price-setters for raw goods. As Stranger points out, there's a black market, but it's miniscule. Compare that to the multibillion dollar black industry behind most major drugs, and you can see how government regulation could help. My chief position is not to eliminate drug use, because I'm firmly convinced that's impossible. Maybe banning reduces drug use, but it leaves those who still use drugs without the same venues for rehabilitation. While I can't show statistics for a country using this policy because it hasn't been applied yet - the farthest anyone I know of has gotten is de-criminalizing soft drugs - I can tell you that the countries which fight the hardest drug wars - the US, China, the Southeast Asian countries, etc. - also have a robust drug use among the least fortunate. The policy of illegalization does not work; its legacy has been corruption, misery, and failure. I can't produce statistics to defend my plan in comparison to, say, decriminalization. But I can certainly use them to argue that the system we have now is unsatisfactory. [ Friday, June 17, 2005 09:29: Message edited by: CSTR. ] -------------------- The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest. Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Friday, June 17 2005 09:23
Profile
At first I like the sound of the argument that people are going to buy drugs anyway, so we should recognize the fact, and let the government exert some control over the process to minimize bad side effects, and extract some tax money from it as well, instead of letting criminals get all the profit. Sounds persuasive. But we could make an exactly analogous proposal about contract killings: People are going to pay hit men to rub out their enemies, and all the money will go to organized crime, and there are risks to innocent bystanders. So instead, we should legalize murder for hire. If you really want someone dead, you should be able to hire the Marines to send in a trained sniper team. Yada yada yada -- pretty much all the good things you could say about legalizing drugs seem to me to have analogues in this proposal. Now it sounds to me as though there must be a problem with this form of argument. -------------------- It is not enough to discover how things seem to seem. We must discover how things really seem. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Friday, June 17 2005 09:24
Profile
Hard drugs will never be legal because they support too many peoples livelihoods from the lawyers, police, politicians, and dealers. It is a devastating way to control people and become rich. The economics of crack and heroin are truly frightening. First we pay the dealer who sells the drugs, then we pay the policeman who puts the dealer in jail eventually -- most people get caught eventually, then we pay the lawyers to prosecute and defend the lawyer, then we pay the prison guard and the government contractor to keep the crackhead in jail and build the jail, then we pay the crooked man who owns the neighborhood because he is investing the illicit money in real estate from producing the drugs to be the mayor or political figure. That is the chain dude. Most people leave the last part out. -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Friday, June 17 2005 09:31
Profile
Homepage
quote:Interesting point. But drug use is inherently self-destructive; hiring a hitman is obviously intended first and foremost to destroy someone else. And as for using the drugs to intentionally harm innocents, the same can be done with a tack hammer, and God knows we haven't done anything about that. In the case of unintentional harms, I'd be for the same kind of regulations against public use we have against, say, cigarettes, where they are applicable. -------------------- The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest. Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 1558
|
written Friday, June 17 2005 17:14
Profile
My understanding as to why there are minimal black markets for cigarettes and alcohol is because these products are readily available and are relatively affordable. Crack is relatively harder to get and relatively expensive. If you want to reduce the black market for crack, then you will have to make sure that the controlled markets increase current consumption levels of crack by huge amounts until black markets activities become generally hard to carry out for profit. I don't particularly want my rich neighbours to use crack as much as they like, let alone my teachers and lecturers, and definately not my boss at work. Isn't it worse to have widespread drug use and it's consequences than banning drug use, policing it and having to deal with black markets? Yes, drug money is up to no good, but if the government allowed widespread drug use, than wouldn't hospitals, rehab centres and the acts of control/policing/anti-corruption etc guzzle up the revenues, leaving everything the same as before, but with the added bonus of lots more people high on crack, heroin and P? Someone said that there would be better venues for rehab if these changes happened. Aren't rehab centres widespread already, and if they don't support your area enough, isn't that something you should write to your local politician/health board about? What else ... drug use is self destructive. I don't want people in positions of power, authority and responsibility to self destruct, there will be problems. Well, at least in NZ, there have been three murderers put in jail recently who were high on P and really don't know what happened. Drug use is self destructive until it changes your behavour, then it becomes harmful to others. Weed is addictive, I don't know what some of you are on, go to NIDA or somewhere. Finally, long term drug use is bad, negative effects on areas the drugs have contact with. Weed affects brain, lungs etc. Maybe there would be lawsuits similar to those being carried out with cigarettes? Would advertising for these drugs be banned like for cigarettes? Many of these drugs are addictive, so is the government just wanting to get in on some ching-ching while these drug users kill themselves softly? Would this mean steroids become legal? What about the problems which come with this? I'm not a good debater, I hope I've sorta been able to somewhat outline some points in this. [ Friday, June 17, 2005 17:18: Message edited by: An Upright stranger ] -------------------- I'm tired of the strain and the pain ___ ___ ___ I feel the same, I feel nothing Nothing is important to me ___ ___ ___ ___ __ And nobody nowhere understands anything About me and all my dreams lost at sea ___ __ But we’re not the same, we’re different tonight We’ll make things right, we’ll feel it all tonight _ The indescribable moments of your life tonight The impossible is possible tonight ___ ____ ___ Believe in me as I believe in you, tonight Go All Blacks xtraMSN Rugby _ MuggleNet Posts: 1112 | Registered: Friday, July 19 2002 07:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 2385
|
written Friday, June 17 2005 17:17
Profile
Homepage
quote:It's called a Nano-virus. Although I don't know if nano-viruses could be programmed to target a specific plant. -------------------- I am the apidimy of seven sausages. The Abyss DEAD. TEH EVOL STRAWBERY When fruit fights back. End of World We're definitely going to blow ourselves up. Posts: 489 | Registered: Friday, December 20 2002 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 1558
|
written Friday, June 17 2005 17:19
Profile
They could, it's just not gonna happen any time soon. -------------------- I'm tired of the strain and the pain ___ ___ ___ I feel the same, I feel nothing Nothing is important to me ___ ___ ___ ___ __ And nobody nowhere understands anything About me and all my dreams lost at sea ___ __ But we’re not the same, we’re different tonight We’ll make things right, we’ll feel it all tonight _ The indescribable moments of your life tonight The impossible is possible tonight ___ ____ ___ Believe in me as I believe in you, tonight Go All Blacks xtraMSN Rugby _ MuggleNet Posts: 1112 | Registered: Friday, July 19 2002 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Friday, June 17 2005 17:35
Profile
quote:Pardon my ignorance, but are you sure that is the way free-market commerce functions? See, I was so sure I was right in thinking that in order to break into an existing market I had to do one of several things. 1. Offer a better product at the same price. 2. Offer the same product at a better price. 3. Offer the product and "eliminate" the competition. There is no option in any situation I am aware of that a manufacturer can create more market, at least on the macro scale that you seem to be envisioning. So, I just don't buy it. If another dealer hits the block offering crack at 10% the price and 100% of the quality, every crackhead on the block is quickly going to that guy for the stuff. It's the same logic behind the success of Home Depot and Lowe's in the states. Same product-cheaper price. *this message furnished by NAFTA and CAFTA* Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 1558
|
written Friday, June 17 2005 17:49
Profile
The market is kept artifically small because of all the people who want to buy drugs but can't/don't because it's illegal. I don't understand why you said stuff about entering the market. Have you read the entire thread? You know the market would be a monopoly right? [ Friday, June 17, 2005 17:52: Message edited by: An Upright stranger ] -------------------- I'm tired of the strain and the pain ___ ___ ___ I feel the same, I feel nothing Nothing is important to me ___ ___ ___ ___ __ And nobody nowhere understands anything About me and all my dreams lost at sea ___ __ But we’re not the same, we’re different tonight We’ll make things right, we’ll feel it all tonight _ The indescribable moments of your life tonight The impossible is possible tonight ___ ____ ___ Believe in me as I believe in you, tonight Go All Blacks xtraMSN Rugby _ MuggleNet Posts: 1112 | Registered: Friday, July 19 2002 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Friday, June 17 2005 17:55
Profile
Homepage
Aren't we all forgetting something here? The whole point of this thread was to be a debate between two people. If you want to debate this issue yourselves, start a spinoff thread. EDIT: Here. [ Friday, June 17, 2005 18:00: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Friday, June 17 2005 17:59
Profile
Homepage
EDIT: Thuryl's right. [ Friday, June 17, 2005 18:03: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Friday, June 17 2005 18:10
Profile
Homepage
ちきしょう [ Friday, June 17, 2005 18:12: Message edited by: Marx' Martyr ] -------------------- 人 た ち を 燃 え る た め に 俺 は か れ ら に 火 を 上 げ る か ら 死 ん だ Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Friday, June 17 2005 18:14
Profile
Moved. Sorry. [ Friday, June 17, 2005 18:16: Message edited by: Student of Trinity ] -------------------- It is not enough to discover how things seem to seem. We must discover how things really seem. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |