Does pot legalization stop the war on drugs?

MovingPictures said:

You're right about one thing, it is "just you". This is one of the most openly fascist posts I've seen on this forum.

Do you think you're on some sort of mission from god like the Blues Brothers? What you're proposing is to literally destroy peoples lives, so we can save people from ... destroying their lives. Yes, your insane fascist ideas of throwing people in jail for simple possession is horrific. As matter of fact, it's one of the most unAmerican ideas I've heard on this message board so far - and I've heard a number of them.

You clearly have no idea how human beings work. That part of the reason people use drugs in the first place is because they are forbbiden fruits. Making them illegal and punishable by jail creates a forum for young people especially, who are looking for an outlet to feel rebellious and independent in their new found adulthood. It's the same kind of feeling that draws us to cheer for the bad guys in the movies. Life on the otherside of the law is interesting to humans, largerly because we are minds are not hardwired to be loyal to society.

The more your parents told you not to watch a certain movie, the more you wanted to watch it. The more the PMRC tried to keep youth forbidden from listening to Judas Priest and Ozzy Osbourne, the more they wanted to hear the records and judge for themselves.

The people that give drug dealers the best promotion are people like you. By making drug use such a matter of law, you are drawing it to youth rebellion. The more dangerous the consequences become, the more they'll want to do it, like a game of high stakes five card poker to older adults.

Seriously, your post is degrading to those that have mental illness related to addiction, as you treat otherwise decent human beings like trash to be discarded "for their own good", and as somonee who has seen family struggle with it, I for one am deeply disgusted by it.

BTW, those west asian countries you adore for their brutal laws on drugs, also have terrible free speech and civil rights laws. Please, go live there for a few years and tell us how you like the governments filtering every element of your life, I'm sure it will be interesting to hear.

Click to expand...

It's complete insanity, almost certainly hypocrisy as could be teased out if he were to answer questions about whether or not other things people might potentially hurt themselves or others with should be banned, and about the least American idea I've heard here.

Mr Person said:

It's complete insanity, almost certainly hypocrisy as could be teased out if he were to answer questions about whether or not other things people might potentially hurt themselves or others with should be banned, and about the least American idea I've heard here.

Click to expand...

It's fascism.

Lets start calling this stuff what is politically.

Felis Leo said:

My point is this, MovingPictures: The war on drugs does not and has not worked because most of the focus is mainly placed on drug dealers and distributors who often plead guilty to the lesser charges of drug possession. If we wanted to effectively fight the war on drugs (for which there is little sentiment because it has been fought so ineffectively), the onus has to be on the people purchasing drugs and they have to be punished with the utmost harshness. If you lower the demand for the illegal good or service, then the incidence rate of the crime drops. And deterrence is one way of lowering demand.

Click to expand...

Beyond the political and ethical considerations, is that (the blue) even possible? Has it ever been successfully implemented in a society to end drug abuse?

From what we know here in the US, such people only stop when they reach a point of their choosing. Others forcing them into rehab, jail time, using physical abuse or coercion, social programs, homelessness/extreme poverty, etc dont work. (None are guaranteed anyway but supposedly treatment only works when the recipient is open to it and ready for it.)

So the only available implementations I see in your statement are permanent incarceration or death. I dont believe that's your belief or desire tho, is it? (Being familiar with your posting in general).

WillyPete said:

The improvement is where enforcement resources that aren't tangled up in chasing potheads down the street and through the courthouse. Now it's a civil fine/seizure situation instead of prison time.

California certainly made a mess of the new laws, but slaying the golden goose is their specialty. By placing high taxes on the trade and then abjectly failing to enforce or even competently administer their licensing scheme, they guaranteed the current situation.

It's simultaneously cutting into their new tax revenue, and encouraging scofflaws.

I suppose pot smokers get the best of both worlds, as there's shops all over, and you can go to an "illegal" shop for the lower prices, or the licensed shop for the higher quality/product consistency.

Click to expand...

I guarantee you the illegal dispensaries sell a very few of the decent items and a whole lot of crappy stuff.
This is even true for the vape kits and not just the natural buds.

My wife and I didn't even know we had entered an illegal dispensary but when we got home she said that the bud not only tasted so-so, it also wasn't nearly as potent.
And the vape cartridge she bought leaked the moment she tried to use it, so within an hour all the juice had leaked out.
It was a total waste of time and money, so for us we will be sticking with the one very good legal dispensary we discovered in Long Beach, just across from the VA Hospital, from now on.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

I guarantee you the illegal dispensaries sell a very few of the decent items and a whole lot of crappy stuff.
This is even true for the vape kits and not just the natural buds.

My wife and I didn't even know we had entered an illegal dispensary but when we got home she said that the bud not only tasted so-so, it also wasn't nearly as potent.
And the vape cartridge she bought leaked the moment she tried to use it, so within an hour all the juice had leaked out.
It was a total waste of time and money, so for us we will be sticking with the one very good legal dispensary we discovered in Long Beach, just across from the VA Hospital, from now on.

Click to expand...

That's parallel with my own experience. Their made in-house stuff was generally weak, and I could never get the same packaged goods twice, but moving to legit shops caused some sticker shock. I may have to check out your spot.

The legit place I've been going also won't sell by weight, but rather pre-packaged products (even the buds,) so there's no price break for buying more.

I've heard horror stories about the disposable vapes and cartridges.

I'll switch to dabs eventually, but I can't really be trusted around red hot anything, to which my e-nail (safely boxed atm) can attest.

MovingPictures said:

You're right about one thing, it is "just you". This is one of the most openly fascist posts I've seen on this forum.

Click to expand...

How about this, MovingPictures? I will not falsely claim that you want legalize the use of drugs with the intent of poisoning minority communities for the benefit of South American drug cartels (which would still exist even if all drugs were legalized because you cannot grow cocaine except in the countries they control), and you do not falsely call me an un-American Fascist for having the temerity to attack the nonsensical nature of current drug policy. Or continue to do so. I will not bother attacking your character in response.

MovingPictures said:

Do you think you're on some sort of mission from god like the Blues Brothers? What you're proposing is to literally destroy peoples lives, so we can save people from ... destroying their lives. Yes, your insane fascist ideas of throwing people in jail for simple possession is horrific. As matter of fact, it's one of the most unAmerican ideas I've heard on this message board so far - and I've heard a number of them.

Click to expand...

First, I do not believe in God, MovingPictures. Second I do not wish to save people from themselves. I am talking about punishing people who engage in an industry in which they pay money to some of the most horrible organizations on Earth for their own selfish pleasure. And I am not talking Marijuana. I am talking about addictive narcotics and stimulants such as cocaine, methamphetamine and heroin. If you buy cocaine or heroin, your money goes into the hands of the some of the most evil Cartels in the world, such as the Zetas, the Sinoloa Cartel, and many others in South and Central America as well as their affiliates in the United States. People who consciously pay money to those who cause the suffering of others for their own selfish pleasure should indeed be punished. If you have an argument against this, please tell me why?

Third, would you make the same argument based on the same principles in defense of those who purchase child pornography? After all, people who consume child pornography did not necessarily rape or exploit any children directly. They just feel compelled to consume pedophile imagery produced by those who do rape and exploit children. And in most cases aren't they only looking at pictures? Do you argue that the laws against possession of child pornography are unAmerican and simply the product of our high-and-mighty Puritanical inheritance?

MovingPictures said:

You clearly have no idea how human beings work. That part of the reason people use drugs in the first place is because they are forbbiden fruits. Making them illegal and punishable by jail creates a forum for young people especially, who are looking for an outlet to feel rebellious and independent in their new found adulthood. It's the same kind of feeling that draws us to cheer for the bad guys in the movies. Life on the otherside of the law is interesting to humans, largerly because we are minds are not hardwired to be loyal to society.

The more your parents told you not to watch a certain movie, the more you wanted to watch it. The more the PMRC tried to keep youth forbidden from listening to Judas Priest and Ozzy Osbourne, the more they wanted to hear the records and judge for themselves.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. Child pornography is illegal, both to produce and to purchase and possess. I am going to make the assumption that you never went around looking for child pornography to consume just because it is forbidden. Why is that? Could it be because you never had the desire inculcated in you in the first place? Perhaps because when you found out that such stuff existed, you came to find those who consume it are not seen as "glamorous villains" but as evil creeps lower than pond scum? As well as the shame and punishment that will be placed upon you for being a sex offender?

MovingPictures said:

The people that give drug dealers the best promotion are people like you. By making drug use such a matter of law, you are drawing it to youth rebellion. The more dangerous the consequences become, the more they'll want to do it, like a game of high stakes five card poker to older adults.

Click to expand...

From all indications, it is because people seek the extraordinary physical pleasure that drugs provide. Not because people told them it was wrong.

MovingPictures said:

Seriously, your post is degrading to those that have mental illness related to addiction, as you treat otherwise decent human beings like trash to be discarded "for their own good", and as somonee who has seen family struggle with it, I for one am deeply disgusted by it.

Click to expand...

Degraded? I am sorry, but unless someone was forced to take drugs against their will or honestly did not understand that drugs were addicting, they are human beings with volition who chose engage in this behavior that led to their dissipation. You have my sympathy for having gone through the suffering that drug addicts bring to their loved ones, both through their continuing addiction or, if they stop, through the permanent damage dealt to them.

MovingPictures said:

BTW, those west asian countries you adore for their brutal laws on drugs, also have terrible free speech and civil rights laws. Please, go live there for a few years and tell us how you like the governments filtering every element of your life, I'm sure it will be interesting to hear.

Click to expand...

I was using them as a point of comparison, MovingPictures. I do not think our legal system should engage in a carbon-copying process of that of Japan's or Koreas.

Lursa said:

Beyond the political and ethical considerations, is that (the blue) even possible? Has it ever been successfully implemented in a society to end drug abuse?

Click to expand...

No society on Earth has ended drug abuse. Some have lowered incidences of it through harsh punishment. But as for ending it? No. As long as drugs exist that are able to provide human beings with quick experiences of pleasure so intense that nothing else in nature can replicate it, human beings will seek them out to one degree or another.

Lursa said:

From what we know here in the US, such people only stop when they reach a point of their choosing. Others forcing them into rehab, jail time, using physical abuse or coercion, social programs, homelessness/extreme poverty, etc dont work. (None are guaranteed anyway but supposedly treatment only works when the recipient is open to it and ready for it.)

So the only available implementations I see in your statement are permanent incarceration or death. I dont believe that's your belief or desire tho, is it? (Being familiar with your posting in general).

Click to expand...

While that might work, I would only advocate permanent incarceration against those who were major drug dealers. And I do not advocate the death penalty except in cases of heinous murder, rape and bodily mayhem. Not against addicts like they do in the Philippines.

Felis Leo said:

No society on Earth has ended drug abuse. Some have lowered incidences of it through harsh punishment. But as for ending it? No. As long as drugs exist that are able to provide human beings with quick experiences of pleasure so intense that nothing else in nature can replicate it, human beings will seek them out to one degree or another.

While that might work, I would only advocate permanent incarceration against those who were major drug dealers. And I do not advocate the death penalty except in cases of heinous murder, rape and bodily mayhem. Not against addicts like they do in the Philippines.

Click to expand...

May I ask then, what you were considering for at least effective *utmost harsh punishment* for users? And by 'effective' I mean something that would significantly lower drug abuse. What's the plan?

Felis Leo said:

How about this, MovingPictures? I will not falsely claim that you want legalize the use of drugs with the intent of poisoning minority communities for the benefit of South American drug cartels (which would still exist even if all drugs were legalized because you cannot grow cocaine except in the countries they control), and you do not falsely call me an un-American Fascist for having the temerity to attack the nonsensical nature of current drug policy. Or continue to do so. I will not bother attacking your character in response.



First, I do not believe in God, MovingPictures. Second I do not wish to save people from themselves. I am talking about punishing people who engage in an industry in which they pay money to some of the most horrible organizations on Earth for their own selfish pleasure. And I am not talking Marijuana. I am talking about addictive narcotics and stimulants such as cocaine, methamphetamine and heroin. If you buy cocaine or heroin, your money goes into the hands of the some of the most evil Cartels in the world, such as the Zetas, the Sinoloa Cartel, and many others in South and Central America as well as their affiliates in the United States. People who consciously pay money to those who cause the suffering of others for their own selfish pleasure should indeed be punished. If you have an argument against this, please tell me why?

Third, would you make the same argument based on the same principles in defense of those who purchase child pornography? After all, people who consume child pornography did not necessarily rape or exploit any children directly. They just feel compelled to consume pedophile imagery produced by those who do rape and exploit children. And in most cases aren't they only looking at pictures? Do you argue that the laws against possession of child pornography are unAmerican and simply the product of our high-and-mighty Puritanical inheritance?

Click to expand...

This is one of the most desperate reaches I've seen someone make in an argument.

Have you ever bought anything from a box store? Then you've bought goods from China and Vietnam, which makes you an endorser of sweat shop labor, where children often die because they are forced to work by their elders in inhumane conditions. So, thus by your own logic, you are as guilty as the sweatshop owner because you're giving money to them with your purchases. While we're at it, think about all of the horrible things the US government has done, like constantly bombing nonaggressive actors and killing thousands. And if you eat meat, well, you're endorser of animal slaughterhouses and the cruelty that goes on there, too.

Maybe you should be put in jail for twenty years, right? But now you see why guilt by association works for all of us, and that none of us can control where our sausage is made.

Lastly, child pornography has a victim from the get-go, while there are no victims from simple drug use (no, your feelings don't count as a violation of your civil rights). If a drug dealer makes a choice to harm people in the process of obtaining the drugs, that's a choice that they and they alone make, while the whole purpose of child pornography is the need for sexually exciting imagery for the viewer to begin with. So you see, these are actually two very ****ining different things.

Felis Leo said:

From all indications, it is because people seek the extraordinary physical pleasure that drugs provide. Not because people told them it was wrong.

Click to expand...

We did they start using despite everything they were told? It's very often the thrill of breaking the law. Go ask them.

Degraded? I am sorry, but unless someone was forced to take drugs against their will or honestly did not understand that drugs were addicting, they are human beings with volition who chose engage in this behavior that led to their dissipation. You have my sympathy for having gone through the suffering that drug addicts bring to their loved ones, both through their continuing addiction or, if they stop, through the permanent damage dealt to them.

Click to expand...

You sound completely lacking in any understanding of addiction, whatsoever, and think that drug addicts simply have addiction by choice. You clearly know nothing about this mental illness and the harsh stigma connected to it, which further forces those suffering into the closet, and further down a deadly path. You'd be wise to go educate yourself on this matter, but I anticipate you to keep offering uninformed anecdotes.

I was using them as a point of comparison, MovingPictures. I do not think our legal system should engage in a carbon-copying process of that of Japan's or Koreas.

Click to expand...

Why not bring up Iran while you're at it? I mean, really. Maybe the fact that those places are very unfree and some of them outright fascist hellholes should be a clue as to the morality of their system

MovingPictures said:

This is one of the most desperate reaches I've seen someone make in an argument.

Have you ever bought anything from a box store? Then you've bought goods from China and Vietnam, which makes you an endorser of sweat shop labor, where children often die because they are forced to work by their elders in inhumane conditions. So, thus by your own logic, you are as guilty as the sweatshop owner because you're giving money to them with your purchases. While we're at it, think about all of the horrible things the US government has done, like constantly bombing nonaggressive actors and killing thousands. And if you eat meat, well, you're endorser of animal slaughterhouses and the cruelty that goes on there, too.

Maybe you should be put in jail for twenty years, right? But now you see why guilt by association works for all of us, and that none of us can control where our sausage is made.

Click to expand...

I realize that you are engaging in a tu quoque, and attempting to show the unreasonableness of my position by drawing similar examples of people feeding the economies of human suffering. We all bear responsibility for any link that we forge in the chain of human suffering. Further, it is not "guilt by association." If you knowingly put money into the hands of agents of the Sinaloa or Zeta Cartels in order to get your heroin or cocaine, you are funding people who have kidnapped, raped, tortured and murdered literally tens of thousands of people and continue to do so every day to feed your pleasure.*

*I am using the royal "you" here. I do not imagine you are addicted to drugs.

MovingPictures said:

Lastly, child pornography has a victim from the get-go, while there are no victims from simple drug use (no, your feelings don't count as a violation of your civil rights). If a drug dealer makes a choice to harm people in the process of obtaining the drugs, that's a choice that they and they alone make, while the whole purpose of child pornography is the need for sexually exciting imagery for the viewer to begin with. So you see, these are actually two very ****ining different things.

Click to expand...

How so? Again, this is an argument for the prosecution of those who produce the child pornography and engage in the direct rape and exploitation of children. But why should the buyers who did not rape or directly exploit children be punished? Aren't they simply sick people who are slaves to their own desires? Do you think anyone wants to get off on the exploitation of children if they could choose otherwise? Why should you wish to punish child pornography consumers any more than you would wish to punish people who purchase drugs from the murderous Sinaloas?

MovingPictures said:

We did they start using despite everything they were told? It's very often the thrill of breaking the law. Go ask them.

Click to expand...

I have no doubt that many people take drugs because they are forbidden and would do so no matter how harsh the punishment. But I imagine every single person who takes drugs has their own reason for doing so, whether it is for thrill seeking, whether it is for escapism, whether it is due to peer group pressure, or simple impulsivity, or some combination of these or none of these.

MovingPictures said:

You sound completely lacking in any understanding of addiction, whatsoever, and think that drug addicts simply have addiction by choice. You clearly know nothing about this mental illness and the harsh stigma connected to it, which further forces those suffering into the closet, and further down a deadly path. You'd be wise to go educate yourself on this matter, but I anticipate you to keep offering uninformed anecdotes.

Click to expand...

I do not presume any sane person ever wanted to become addicted to drugs. But many put themselves on the path to addiction, do they not? Again, unless someone took drugs that he or she did not realize were addictive (like many opioid addicts did). You can tell me that a man addicted to heroin is diseased, and I might agree that he is diseased but in the same way that a man who purposefully kissed a plague rat ended up diseased.

MovingPictures said:

Why not bring up Iran while you're at it? I mean, really. Maybe the fact that those places are very unfree and some of them outright fascist hellholes should be a clue as to the morality of their system

Click to expand...

The reason I do not bring up Iran, or Saudi Arabia or other nations with despotic regimes is because I preferred to use prosperous, law-governed democracies that have effective albeit harsh anti-drug laws to see what is effective at staunching the incidence of drug use within a democratic nation without descending into the tyrannical.

Felis Leo said:

I realize that you are engaging in a tu quoque, and attempting to show the unreasonableness of my position by drawing similar examples of people feeding the economies of human suffering. We all bear responsibility for any link that we forge in the chain of human suffering.

Click to expand...

So then we should put you in jail for ten years for helping support sweat shops, right? I mean, you're basically conceding the point.

Further, it is not "guilt by association." If you knowingly put money into the hands of agents of the Sinaloa or Zeta Cartels in order to get your heroin or cocaine, you are funding people who have kidnapped, raped, tortured and murdered literally tens of thousands of people and continue to do so every day to feed your pleasure.*

Click to expand...

Addiction is not some "pleasure". It's a force in their lives that is rooted in a strong mental illness, which research proves can't be fought with court sanction and jail. Again, you're on a moral high horse, but you support sweat shops, government coups, animal abuse, and everything under the sun with your wallet every week, yet you're not locking yourself in a jail.

How so? Again, this is an argument for the prosecution of those who produce the child pornography and engage in the direct rape and exploitation of children. But why should the buyers who did not rape or directly exploit children be punished? Aren't they simply sick people who are slaves to their own desires? Do you think anyone wants to get off on the exploitation of children if they could choose otherwise? Why should you wish to punish child pornography consumers any more than you would wish to punish people who purchase drugs from the murderous Sinaloas?

Click to expand...

If you can't distinguish the magnitude of difference between sex crimes that involve children and personal drug use, you really have bigger moral philosophy problems than I can help you with.

I'll say it again: you support sweat shops and you don't punish yourself for that.

I have no doubt that many people take drugs because they are forbidden and would do so no matter how harsh the punishment. But I imagine every single person who takes drugs has their own reason for doing so, whether it is for thrill seeking, whether it is for escapism, whether it is due to peer group pressure, or simple impulsivity, or some combination of these or none of these.

Click to expand...

Well, at least you're walking back your original position that people use drugs 'just because', so I guess that's an improvement.

I do not presume any sane person ever wanted to become addicted to drugs. But many put themselves on the path to addiction, do they not? Again, unless someone took drugs that he or she did not realize were addictive (like many opioid addicts did). You can tell me that a man addicted to heroin is diseased, and I might agree that he is diseased but in the same way that a man who purposefully kissed a plague rat ended up diseased.

Click to expand...

Many people become addicted because of their parents, or because of mental health issues they can't get treatment for, or because they are in a abusive relationship, or because their doctors got them hooked, and many become addicted because they are treating serious physical pain

You seem to not understand, nor care to understand that what I just covered includes the majority of addicts, and the stories of how they got hooked. Your posts that we should just lock those people up for decades is merciless, and as someone who doesn't believe in a diety (as I don't), I'd assume you'd value trying to give every redeemable human all the time they have to be free, since is the one life they have.

I mean, just imagine watching your life just rot away in a jail, where your together with killers, rapists, and child predators, and all because of simple mental illness. It's no different than tossing a lung cancer patient in jail for their cigarette use. They don't stop being a human just because they have a mental illness you can't relate to.

Have you no mercy and compassion for your fellow man, Felis? You're the one destroying lives in this scenario, not the drug dealers, not the drug addicts, you.

The reason I do not bring up Iran, or Saudi Arabia or other nations with despotic regimes is because I preferred to use prosperous, law-governed democracies that have effective albeit harsh anti-drug laws to see what is effective at staunching the incidence of drug use within a democratic nation without descending into the tyrannical.

Click to expand...

Ah, there's that word "prosperous" again. Anytime a conservative uses it, I know a defense of some sort authoritarian doctrine isn't far behind.

One of the bedrocks of THIS country is that fairness and "cruel" punishments that do not fit an offense are forbidden. We don't give people the death penality for stealing a candy bar, because we just understand that's not a just thing to do. These other countries might have addiction controlled, but they also have an even worse mental health crisis than the US, which is really saying something.

You can have the last word, I feel my points have been made.

Felis Leo said:

No society on Earth has ended drug abuse. Some have lowered incidences of it through harsh punishment.

Click to expand...

And which ones are those?

Saudi Arabia, for example, has extremely harsh penalties for drug use and distribution, including alcohol. You can literally be executed for dealing drugs in Saudi Arabia. Does that mean no one drinks or uses drugs? Nope. In fact, despite the difficulties in gathering data (in no small part because drugs/alcohol is far more stigmatized in SA than most nations), empirical evidence indicates that substance abuse is increasing there. Given that Saudi Arabia is basically a theocratic police state, it should be clear that penalties don't make people sober, it makes them very careful about use and distribution.
https://medcraveonline.com/MOJAMT/MOJAMT-06-00145.pdf

Similarly, Iran has some of the harshest penalties for drug use and dealing in the world, and has for decades. And yet, they still have a significant problem with opiates, mostly because of its proximity to major opiate production centers in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Iran Faces Severe Drug Crisis, Says UN Drug Abuse Watchdog

We should also note that in the US, most illicit drug use by teens is actually declining, and is at the lowest point in years -- despite the legalization of marijuana in many populous states, and no massive increase in penalties. Even in Colorado, teen pot use dropped after legalization. Hmmmm
Teen vaping continues to rise, survey finds - CNN

I haven't seen any research which shows that harsh penalties discourages drug use. Have you?

Surprise! Lots of people don't actually understand the drug problem in the US, mostly because the media and politicians hype it beyond control. The number of people using drugs has not skyrocketed in recent years. So why all the hue and cry about a crisis? It's actually because...

1) The rise of fentanyl, which is cheap and incredibly powerful, has dramatically increased the rate of overdoses and deaths.

2) Opiates are now affecting rural whites.

I also have to point out that if the possibility of dying from a fentanyl overdose doesn't discourage people from taking opiates, then why do you think they will be afraid of jail time?

No, because right now the majority of cannabis sold in the US is grown in the US illegally, and, in Humboldt county.

That remains true despite legalization.

To truly end the war on drugs, Reagan's stupefying "this is your brain on drugs" strongarming has got to go. With Nixon we spent a lot more on rehabilitation. This country is too focused on punishment, and that is generally a right wing thing. You need to decriminalize, tax and regulate all drugs. Period.

Spend money on rehabilitation, not on incarceration.

Felis Leo said:

No. But if we consider illegal cigarette sales a real problem in society that has to be curbed, then by necessity those who knowingly purchase and possess illegal cigarettes must be prosecuted just as harshly as those who sell illegal cigarettes, if not more so. It is simple economics at this point, albeit regarding an underground economy. Criminalizing the suppliers of illegal goods and services will rarely lower the incidence rate of any particular crime because there will almost inevitably be someone who will rush in to fill the illegal demand. The only way to curb the incidence rate of particular criminal activities is to prosecute and punish those who demand the illegal goods and services.

This holds true whether you are talking about drugs, alcohol, prostitution, purchasing child pornography, purchasing illegal firearms, etc. It is not merely the supply which must be criminalized, but those who demand it if you wish to staunch the rate of occurrence.

Click to expand...

Am I understanding you correctly? You want more regulations?

Mycroft said:

Not back to square one in Colorado.

Regulated retail sale of marijuana products...legal.

Purchase of retail marijuana products...legal

Growing marijuana for personal use...legal.

If your objection is taxes and regulations, grow your own. Simple as that.

Click to expand...

I tried that, then the swat team showed up without a warrant. Guess I was in the wrong state? It only cost me a month in jail, the loss of my job and fifteen thousand to get it thrown out as an illegal search and seizure. I do not have a high opinion of our justice system.

bongsaway said:

I tried that, then the swat team showed up without a warrant. Guess I was in the wrong state? It only cost me a month in jail, the loss of my job and fifteen thousand to get it thrown out as an illegal search and seizure. I do not have a high opinion of our justice system.

Click to expand...

Yep. You were in the wrong state.

But look. We are talking about federal law here. For some states, the lack of that federal law is the only thing stopping them from legalizing the stuff.

Felis Leo said:

My point is this, MovingPictures: The war on drugs does not and has not worked because most of the focus is mainly placed on drug dealers and distributors who often plead guilty to the lesser charges of drug possession. If we wanted to effectively fight the war on drugs (for which there is little sentiment because it has been fought so ineffectively), the onus has to be on the people purchasing drugs and they have to be punished with the utmost harshness. If you lower the demand for the illegal good or service, then the incidence rate of the crime drops. And deterrence is one way of lowering demand.
.

Click to expand...

I'd still really like to know what "utmost harsh punishment" for drug users you believe would have a significant effect in reducing illegal drug use?

It's hard to move forward in the discussion without some idea since we both decided permanent incarceration & death were not on the table.

MovingPictures said:

Ah, there's that word "prosperous" again. Anytime a conservative uses it, I know a defense of some sort authoritarian doctrine isn't far behind.

One of the bedrocks of THIS country is that fairness and "cruel" punishments that do not fit an offense are forbidden. We don't give people the death penality for stealing a candy bar, because we just understand that's not a just thing to do. These other countries might have addiction controlled, but they also have an even worse mental health crisis than the US, which is really saying something.

You can have the last word, I feel my points have been made.

Click to expand...

Thank you for that.

Here is the problem: You are looking for solutions to drug use that are compassionate towards those who buy and use drugs, with the belief that drug users cannot be held responsible for what they do. You seem believe that most if not all drug users are initially lured into drug use for no other reason than that drugs are forbidden, and then continue their drug use because they thereafter suffer from an irresistible compulsion brought on by addiction. You are compassionate towards the drug user. It is not that I am not compassionate towards the drug user as well as their loved ones. But that compassion is tempered with an even greater compassion for those whom the drug user has hurt directly or indirectly.

But let us say for the sake of argument that you are completely correct and that drug users have no responsibility or volition of their own, either at the outset of their experimentation and initial use of drugs, or into the furthest depths of addiction. Let me grant that. So what? Recognizing that fact has nothing to do with lowering incidences of drug disorders. Further, while you are looking at what is compassionate and what makes you personally feel good and what you feel you can personally live with, I am looking at what is effective in lowering the incidences of drug use disorders, irrespective of the harshness, or compassion or indifference such policies entail. I think that anything else is the height of emotional selfishness.

Whatever your thoughts on Japan and South Korea and impugning them as apparent tyrannies, they are still law-governed democracies that have extraordinarily low rates of drug abuse in their societies compared to ours. I do not imagine that we can ever fully copy their models or their policies, but they certainly bear looking into.

bongsaway said:

Am I understanding you correctly? You want more regulations?

Click to expand...

If by regulation you mean criminal penalties for marketing and selling highly addictive poison, yes, I certainly would not mind it one iota, bongsaway.

Visbek said:

And which ones are those?

Click to expand...

Again, Japan and South Korea. They have extraordinarily low incidence rates of drug use disorders, death from drug use disorders, and disease burdens caused by drug use disorders when compared to the United States. And I imagine it is not just because of the harshness and public shame caused by the criminal penalties, but because of their countries' very effective police forces.

Visbek said:

Saudi Arabia, for example, has extremely harsh penalties for drug use and distribution, including alcohol. You can literally be executed for dealing drugs in Saudi Arabia. Does that mean no one drinks or uses drugs? Nope. In fact, despite the difficulties in gathering data (in no small part because drugs/alcohol is far more stigmatized in SA than most nations), empirical evidence indicates that substance abuse is increasing there. Given that Saudi Arabia is basically a theocratic police state, it should be clear that penalties don't make people sober, it makes them very careful about use and distribution.
https://medcraveonline.com/MOJAMT/MOJAMT-06-00145.pdf

Similarly, Iran has some of the harshest penalties for drug use and dealing in the world, and has for decades. And yet, they still have a significant problem with opiates, mostly because of its proximity to major opiate production centers in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Iran Faces Severe Drug Crisis, Says UN Drug Abuse Watchdog

We should also note that in the US, most illicit drug use by teens is actually declining, and is at the lowest point in years -- despite the legalization of marijuana in many populous states, and no massive increase in penalties. Even in Colorado, teen pot use dropped after legalization. Hmmmm
Teen vaping continues to rise, survey finds - CNN

I haven't seen any research which shows that harsh penalties discourages drug use. Have you?

Click to expand...

Well how exactly can it be demonstrated to any level of certainty, beyond the anecdotal, why someone chose not to engage in a particular crime? At best you can look at correlative data. And it appears that law-governed countries which have both harsh criminal penalties for drug distribution, possession and use AND well-funded domestic police forces have a far lower incidence rate of drug crimes than our country.

Further, as per the article you posted regarding "deterrence," what actually deters people is the fear of getting caught and penalized rather than the harshness of the penalty. So the effectiveness of the police and crime prevention would need to come into play as well, certainly. I believe that the penalties in many instances of drug use need to be harsh in order to punish people for engaging in an illegal economy that produces death and violence on a scale we normally expect to see in a civil war or massive interethnic tribal conflict, rather than criminal enterprises.

Visbek said:

Surprise! Lots of people don't actually understand the drug problem in the US, mostly because the media and politicians hype it beyond control. The number of people using drugs has not skyrocketed in recent years. So why all the hue and cry about a crisis? It's actually because...

1) The rise of fentanyl, which is cheap and incredibly powerful, has dramatically increased the rate of overdoses and deaths.

2) Opiates are now affecting rural whites.

I also have to point out that if the possibility of dying from a fentanyl overdose doesn't discourage people from taking opiates, then why do you think they will be afraid of jail time?

Click to expand...

Again, as per the article you cited, if they believe they are very likely to be caught and punished, that may well deter more people. The importance would be to find ways to increase the efficacy of the various domestic police forces in whose jurisdictions many opioid addicts are found. My level of compassion (or lack thereof that some may accuse me of) does not change because the people purchasing illegal narcotic are poor whites anymore than it changes when I know that most of the people purchasing drugs are poor black people or poor Hispanic people, or any other ethnic group for that matter. Nor does it change if those purchasing drugs are wealthy. I believe that if we are to achieve the principles of justice that our country aspires to, the richest among us must be treated with the same level of harshness that the poorest among us face for committing the same crime.

Felis Leo said:

Here is the problem: You are looking for solutions to drug use that are compassionate towards those who buy and use drugs, with the belief that drug users cannot be held responsible for what they do. You seem believe that most if not all drug users are initially lured into drug use for no other reason than that drugs are forbidden, and then continue their drug use because they thereafter suffer from an irresistible compulsion brought on by addiction. You are compassionate towards the drug user. It is not that I am not compassionate towards the drug user as well as their loved ones. But that compassion is tempered with an even greater compassion for those whom the drug user has hurt directly or indirectly.

Click to expand...

Too bad.

We have a constitution in this country that prevents people from infringing on each others civil liberties, but that's all it covers. If you are not assaulted, stolen from, or deprived of freedom in some other way, it's none of the laws business what's going in private quaters, were all parties are consenting. It is a choice to associate with those who are going through drug addiction and open one self to the grief that situation can bring. Those who are unable to tolerate drug addicts are perfectly free to cut contact with them, and proceede on with their lives. This is the fatal flaw in your emotionalist argument that you have failed to see.

But let us say for the sake of argument that you are completely correct and that drug users have no responsibility or volition of their own, either at the outset of their experimentation and initial use of drugs, or into the furthest depths of addiction. Let me grant that. So what? Recognizing that fact has nothing to do with lowering incidences of drug disorders. Further, while you are looking at what is compassionate and what makes you personally feel good and what you feel you can personally live with, I am looking at what is effective in lowering the incidences of drug use disorders, irrespective of the harshness, or compassion or indifference such policies entail. I think that anything else is the height of emotional selfishness.

Click to expand...

What works in some countries is not destine to work in this one. Our culture is different and our values are different.

Again, you forget that the bedrock of our legal system is that "cruel and unusual punishment" is forbidden. No cause is so great for that bedrock principle to be broken, not even murder and sex crimes, much less voluntary choices to use substances. No arguing that "oh, it's for the greater good!" or "that money trickles down to drug cartels!" changes that, end of story.

Whatever your thoughts on Japan and South Korea and impugning them as apparent tyrannies, they are still law-governed democracies that have extraordinarily low rates of drug abuse in their societies compared to ours. I do not imagine that we can ever fully copy their models or their policies, but they certainly bear looking into.

Click to expand...

Again, their values are not ours and they suffer from other public epidemics because of these problems, such as having a societal stigma towards mental health that is far, far worse than in this country, which is really saying something.

You also forget that aside from drug laws, the penalities for other crimes are largely the same as what they would be in the US and are no more harsh, yet their crime rate is far less than our country anyways. This is because the education system, cultural norms, and family values in Japan are very different than the US, which is what is far more responsible for their control of crime than anything else and you are not seeing that.

Are there things to learn from the culture? Perhaps. But their legal process doesn't hold a candle to our own, which puts the doctrine of fairness above all else, and I for one will never let go of that principle for any cause in this country, no matter what my emotions regarding the issue are.