War on drugs

[Pussy Galore]

I'd like to hear your take on that. Is that a good thing? Should drugs be legal? If yes why? If not why not? Should certain drugs be legal and others illegal, if so why? What should be the criteria for a substance to be judge legal? Should the US government put that much attention on the war on drugs? The criticism it receives is legitimate?


I really am indecisive on this issue so I'd like to hear some of your perspective on that

[foster]

The war on drugs is a huge joke.

Consider this - Prisons are the most tightly controlled civilian environment in the entire USA.
And yet even in this tightly restricted environment, drugs are still easily accessible.

So what does that say? I think it's always wise to accept reality and to have a pragmatic approach.

Now look at it from another angle - Massive numbers of people in jail.
We are taking fathers away from their family for drugs. We are taking mothers away from their children because of drugs. We're locking these parents up.

Now look at it from another angle - People who go into jail become surrounded by other criminals. They adopt the criminal attitude and culture and come out worse people than they were when they went in.


And finally, I would say this. drug addiction is a mental disease.
If drugs are not available, an addict will go to EXTREME measures to get high. Because drugs are illegal and at times inaccessible, addicts will turn to very poor substitutes. "Synthetic weed" for example.

Or even worse.. mainly in russia, krokodil. Easy to manufacture, it is a substitute for heroin.
The average user only lives two years and it causes flesh to fall off the bone. If you don't mind sickeningly gorey imagery than do a google image search for the term 'krokodil'

Some people say good riddance to the addicts and feel they deserve it, but there are ex-heroin addicts that become good people. They are someones daughter, someones sister or brother.

[cricket]

I don't know what needs to be done but let's get a move on already. My wife works in substance abuse and she comes home crying all the time with her patients passing away. Last week one of my co-workers lost his son, 22 years old wtf.

[seanc]

I don't know what needs to be done but let's get a move on already. My wife works in substance abuse and she comes home crying all the time with her patients passing away. Last week one of my co-workers lost his son, 22 years old wtf.


Yeah, my ex isn't a substance abuse counselor but she worked in child protective services and now runs a domestic abuse shelter. Guess what the common denominator almost always is? I'm not sure what the be all end all answer is. I do know that pretending like the war on drugs is more of a problem then substance abuse itself is not that answer.

[foster]

Yeah, my ex isn't a substance abuse counselor but she worked in child protective services and now runs a domestic abuse shelter. Guess what the common denominator almost always is? I'm not sure what the be all end all answer is. I do know that pretending like the war on drugs is more of a problem then substance abuse itself is not that answer.

I'll guess. Is it alcohol?

[seanc]

I'll guess. Is it alcohol?

Meth more often then not.

[matt72582]

I'll guess. Is it alcohol?

Sounds about right... Not to mention 4/5 violent crime happens under the influence of alcohol.

[cricket]

I should've been more specific; my wife works with people who suffer from drug addiction.

[Citizen Rules]

War on drugs? I thought this was a thread about the Reagan administration...that's before most of your time, but I remember when a War On Drugs was the catch phrase, along with Just Say No. Ha! it didn't work then, it's not working today.

We now have legalized gay marriage and all sort of personal freedoms, but adults can still be put in jail for simply Marijuana usage.

Hard drugs are bad. Alcohol can be bad too when abused. But Marijuana needs to be legalized. My state, Washington has done that and it makes a ton of money from the taxes. And you know what? in a year since weed has been legal, life goes on, the world didn't end.

It's time the US government stops being hypocrites about which substances can be consumed for recreation: alcohol, tobacco and caffeine and which can't...Marijuana.

[Pussy Galore]

What is wrong with an adult who decides to take heroin for instance, isn't it his choice? (I'm not saying it categorically, but I don't really hav an objection agains't it)

[foster]

What is wrong with an adult who decides to take heroin for instance, isn't it his choice? (I'm not saying it categorically, but I don't really hav an objection agains't it)

I don't think it's something people should be put in jail for.
Selling it maybe..

[Yoda]

What is wrong with an adult who decides to take heroin for instance, isn't it his choice? (I'm not saying it categorically, but I don't really hav an objection agains't it)
The argument is that the chemical effect of some drugs is so strong that it destroys the critical faculties on which the principle of self-determination you're referring to relies. Taking the drug is their choice, but that choice effectively destroys their ability to choose, as well as their ability to limit the effects of their choice to themselves.

[Pussy Galore]

But wouldn't that also apply to alcool if used in a huge quantity?

[Yoda]

I don't think so, for a couple of reasons.

First, lots of people get drunk in private and don't really bother anybody. This certainly isn't true of everyone, but a large number of people manage to abuse alcohol without hurting others. I don't believe this is true of heroin.

Second, the very nature of alcohol limits the amount of damage that can be done. Drinking can make people clumsy and belligerent, but it's also partially a sedative. Drinking to excess often leads to simply passing out. Drugs like cocaine and heroin have the opposite effect; they remove critical faculties and energize people, which is a particularly dangerous combination.

[foster]

But wouldn't that also apply to alcool if used in a huge quantity?

it applies to alcohol for certain people.
native americans are particularly prone to alcoholism.

[Yoda]

Well, he did say "in a huge quantity," so he's asking about alcoholics. But still, that's part of it: in addition to the fact that there are more relatively harmless alcoholics out there, there are also lots of people who can use alcohol without ever becoming reliant on it. There are lots of casual, infrequent drinkers, but not many casual, infrequent heroin users.

[matt72582]

Alcohol kills many either directly, or indirectly (drunk driving)... Though tobacco kills more, it usually only harms that user as it is hard to kill someone behind the wheel of an automobile because they were smoking a cigarette. Other drugs make people sleep, as opposed to aggressive (alcohol)... Politicians don't want to look soft on crime, but when the stock is high (medical marihuana) they start to cool off the idea of total prohibition.

I went out this weekend, and saw PLENTY of people who should not have been driving, but did anyway.

[matt72582]

Well, he did say "in a huge quantity," so he's asking about alcoholics. But still, that's part of it: in addition to the fact that there are more relatively harmless alcoholics out there, there are also lots of people who can use alcohol without ever becoming reliant on it. There are lots of casual, infrequent drinkers, but not many casual, infrequent heroin users.

I have known users of heroin... They all sat on a couch, didn't go driving. It's very harmful to the user, but it didn't affect me being near someone who used. I also didn't notice a change of behavior. More education couldn't hurt (needle exchange, testing facilities for drugs in general).

[Yoda]

Alcohol kills many either directly, or indirectly (drunk driving)... Though tobacco kills more, it usually only harms that user as it is hard to kill someone behind the wheel of an automobile because they were smoking a cigarette. Other drugs make people sleep, as opposed to aggressive (alcohol)... Politicians don't want to look soft on crime, but when the stock is high (medical marihuana) they start to cool off the idea of total prohibition.

I went out this weekend, and saw PLENTY of people who should not have been driving, but did anyway.
Aye, but drunk driving is already illegal. Which is consistent with the principle I'm describing, because the drinking itself doesn't dramatically increase the odds of someone getting hurt. But drinking and driving does, so that's the part that's a crime.

I have known users of heroin... They all sat on a couch, didn't go driving. It's very harmful to the user, but it didn't affect me being near someone who used. I also didn't notice a change of behavior. More education couldn't hurt (needle exchange, testing facilities for drugs in general).
Well, yeah, dude: they just had their fix. They feel great. The danger of heroin is not just that they'll be violent in front of you (though this is pretty anecdotal evidence, regardless). It's that it's an addiction very few people can effectively shake. It's the things people do for heroin that's particularly dangerous.

[foster]

the problem i see with certain hard drugs, like heroin, is that they can be used to exploit people.
an interesting film example is The French Connection 2.

I've also heard that pimps get girls hooked on hard drugs to control them but I don't know if that is a fact or just conjecture.

[90sAce]

IDrugs like cocaine and heroin have the opposite effect; they remove critical faculties and energize people, which is a particularly dangerous combination.
Cocaine does, but heroin is a depressant not a stimulant.

[90sAce]

I'd like to hear your take on that. Is that a good thing? Should drugs be legal? If yes why? If not why not? Should certain drugs be legal and others illegal, if so why? What should be the criteria for a substance to be judge legal? Should the US government put that much attention on the war on drugs? The criticism it receives is legitimate?


I really am indecisive on this issue so I'd like to hear some of your perspective on that
I'm in favor of legalizing and regulating most drug use.

I'd also be in favor of requiring mandatory rehab rather than jail and fines in the case of non-violent drug users assuming the drug used is illegal.

[Yoda]

Cocaine does, but heroin is a depressant not a stimulant.
Ah yes, you're quite right. In that case the danger is more in the degree of addiction, I suppose.

[Daniel M]

What is wrong with an adult who decides to take heroin for instance, isn't it his choice? (I'm not saying it categorically, but I don't really hav an objection agains't it)

Do you mean what is wrong morally, or legally? I think Yoda covers most of the former, and for that reason the legalisation pretty much falls in line with the consequences. The government(s) have a responsibility to give the people an acceptable standard of living and part of this is controlling what they use for their bodies, it's about education, people need to be aware from the dangers and deterred from it, I think that is the main priority of criminalisation. There are definitely far worse consequences to something like heroin than alcohol, alcohol is still discouraged in many ways, and it is still considered as a negative drug in someways, but it's far from as effecting as others.

But personally I believe that when it comes the actual act of using drugs, if caught, the focus shouldn't be on punishing the user - if it's something small like cannabis or a one of on a common drug, then a fine is normally issued to deter them and nothing too serious happens - but more education and rehabilition, they should be given help and have to attend programs that support them and attempt to deal with the issue rather than punish them for something they might not be very responsible for, especially the lower levels of the "social spectrum" which are particularly vulnerable. Those who should be punished should be those involved in the production and trading of it, depending on the level of it.

[Pussy Galore]

I aways talk about morally, I don't really care for legality haha. So according to what most of you say you would agree to legalize marijuana, hash, magic mushrooms, etc. But would disagree to legalise heroin, meth, crack, etc. because after using they could do some harm to others.


Is that accurate?

[Daniel M]

I aways talk about morally, I don't really care for legality haha. So according to what most of you say you would agree to legalize marijuana, hash, magic mushrooms, etc. But would disagree to legalise heroin, meth, crack, etc. because after using they could do some harm to others.


Is that accurate?

I don't think it's as simple as that, one section for one, one for another. I think it's about levels of intervention and deterrent, I think to a degree all drugs are bad, even if not directly. The lifestyles that evolve from them often cause pain for others, think about marijuana and legal highs, many of these people might resort to violence and such in order to be able to afford their habit. Then hallucinogens like mushrooms leave you not in control of your body, so obvious negative actions can occur as as a result of that. The problem is as you go up the ladder the addictions get worse, so do the lifestyles of those involved, the likeliness of acts of violence and abuse towards others, and also from a supply side the exploit-ability and violence that comes from those selling it.

The argument for legalising weed I think is mainly regarding regulation, there are argued health benefits, so a lot of people think it needs to be used and further explored medically. Also a lot of people use it, so the government would be able to tax and regulate what is sold, it should eliminate at least some of the illegal trade etc. I don't think the concern is much what marijuana does directly to your health (although there are still question marks) but was arises from it, it's becoming more and more common and socially acceptable, so naturally people are looking to ways to make it work for everyone.

[foster]

think about marijuana and legal highs, many of these people might resort to violence and such in order to be able to afford their habit. .

I can't imagine a pot head resorting to violence over a joint.
Sounds like something out of reefer madness lol.

Unlike cocaine which needs a very particular environment to grow, weed can be grown and cultivated pretty much anywhere.

They say money doesn't grow on trees, but cannabis literally does. (okay not technically a tree)

If it weren't for all these laws and regulations those who are desperate to get high but cannot afford it simply need a little patience and they can grow their own.

[Gatsby]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh7l8dx-h8M

[Mr Minio]

Sure, it's a good band.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsoqmFL1vlU

Oh, wait...

[Citizen Rules]

..So according to what most of you say you would agree to legalize marijuana, hash, magic mushrooms, etc. But would disagree to legalize heroin, meth, crack, etc. because after using they could do some harm to others.
Is that accurate? Yes that's my stance. I would be opposed to legalizing heroin, meth, crack because they are extremely dangerous, extremely additive and legalizing them would do great harm to the individual and society.

I'm for legalizing marijuana (also known as cannabis and as a more purified form, hash).

We've always had legal recreational drugs: alcohol, tobacco and caffeine. And if a person doesn't think those are drugs then they're in denial.

[foster]

One time I saw this thing on TV where they were flying helicopters over forests and locating cannabis.
Then they would go in there and kill thousands of plants.

It made me bizarrely sad, killing all of that life for no reason. It was like a holocaust.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOvwc8_QXiY

[False Writer]

I aways talk about morally, I don't really care for legality haha. So according to what most of you say you would agree to legalize marijuana, hash, magic mushrooms, etc. But would disagree to legalise heroin, meth, crack, etc. because after using they could do some harm to others.


Is that accurate?

I'd rather not have my face eaten off.

[Guaporense]

I'd like to hear your take on that. Is that a good thing? Should drugs be legal? If yes why?

You are sovereign over yourself. If you want to use substances on your body you should be able to.

If not why not? Should certain drugs be legal and others illegal, if so why? What should be the criteria for a substance to be judge legal? Should the US government put that much attention on the war on drugs? The criticism it receives is legitimate?

It's a really stupid thing, this "war on drugs". First, because it doesn't actually work, second, because it generates a crime industry out of it. Alcohol became ilegal in the US for some time and gangsters took over that business.

No government imposed restrictions on any drugs (except, drugs that might turn people into psychopaths that start killing other people, if such drugs existed in the first place).

[Guaporense]

Aye, but drunk driving is already illegal. Which is consistent with the principle I'm describing, because the drinking itself doesn't dramatically increase the odds of someone getting hurt. But drinking and driving does, so that's the part that's a crime.

Among existing main drugs, heroin, LSD, meth, etc, I don't see them as more dangerous than alcohol. Maybe cocaine, but still could be taken in a controlled environment in that case.

Well, yeah, dude: they just had their fix. They feel great. The danger of heroin is not just that they'll be violent in front of you (though this is pretty anecdotal evidence, regardless). It's that it's an addiction very few people can effectively shake. It's the things people do for heroin that's particularly dangerous.

Legalize heroin. It's mass produced so costs 10 dollars a gallon. Most people can buy a lifetime supply of heroin for 10 dollars. No problem emerges from people killing other people to get money for the drug.

[Daniel M]

You really think cocaine is more dangerous than heroin and that people should have pretty much free access to it, really?

[Yoda]

Among existing main drugs, heroin, LSD, meth, etc, I don't see them as more dangerous than alcohol.
By what standard are they not more dangerous? Heroin users are dramatically more likely to commit all sorts of crimes, violent and otherwise. More likely to die. More likely to be killed. And it's not just because the drug is illegal; other drugs are illegal and don't cause a fraction of the suffering. And alcohol didn't, either, even during prohibition.

It may be valid to argue that being illegal makes some of this work. And it may be valid to argue that even all this violence and all these destroyed lives are just part of the price we pay for individual liberty. But I don't see how it's remotely tenable to pretend there's no difference in aggregate outcomes among various types of drug use.

Legalize heroin. It's mass produced so costs 10 dollars a gallon. Most people can buy a lifetime supply of heroin for 10 dollars.
It's easy to afford a "lifetime supply" of something that kills you.

Affordability isn't the issue, and is a meaningless concept in the context of heroin. Highly addictive drugs are not actually affordable at any price, because they monopolize your life and need to be taken over and over.

[Guaporense]

By what standard are they not more dangerous? Heroin users are dramatically more likely to commit all sorts of crimes, violent and otherwise.

Why?

More likely to die. More likely to be killed.

That's not a social problem. Drinking coke increases your probability of dying.

And it's not just because the drug is illegal; other drugs are illegal and don't cause a fraction of the suffering. And alcohol didn't, either, even during prohibition.

Crime related alcohol deaths were pretty high I would think.

It may be valid to argue that being illegal makes some of this work. And it may be valid to argue that even all this violence and all these destroyed lives are just part of the price we pay for individual liberty. But I don't see how it's remotely tenable to pretend there's no difference in aggregate outcomes among various types of drug use.

Well, I am not a specialist in the effects of heroin. I though it wasn't like cocaine that stimulates people.

Let's see, effects of Heroin:

"Once heroin enters the brain, it is converted to morphine and binds rapidly to opioid receptors.11 Abusers typically report feeling a surge of pleasurable sensation—a “rush.” The intensity of the rush is a function of how much drug is taken and how rapidly the drug enters the brain and binds to the opioid receptors. With heroin, the rush is usually accompanied by a warm flushing of the skin, dry mouth, and a heavy feeling in the extremities, which may be accompanied by nausea, vomiting, and severe itching. After the initial effects, users usually will be drowsy for several hours; mental function is clouded; heart function slows; and breathing is also severely slowed, sometimes enough to be life-threatening. Slowed breathing can also lead to coma and permanent brain damage.12"

Hum, it doesn't looks like people will start killing other people because they received a dosage of heroin. So I guess it's perfectly ok for it to be legal.

It's easy to afford a "lifetime supply" of something that kills you.

Precisely.

Affordability isn't the issue, and is a meaningless concept in the context of heroin. Highly addictive drugs are not actually affordable at any price, because they monopolize your life and need to be taken over and over.

Point is that people comic crimes to get money to buy the drug. With a cheap mass produced drug the problem is solved. You buy a gallon of heroin and inject yourself like crazy until you die. It is a form of pleasurable suicide.

Yes, if you start using heroin there is a high probability that you will die. Same applies if you stick a knife into your neck. Now you think the government should forbid people to use knives?

And yes, people have the right to kill themselves.

[foster]

Affordability isn't the issue, and is a meaningless concept in the context of heroin. Highly addictive drugs are not actually affordable at any price, because they monopolize your life and need to be taken over and over.

If this were true then there would be no such thing as a functioning alcoholic.

[90sAce]

Yeah, my ex isn't a substance abuse counselor but she worked in child protective services and now runs a domestic abuse shelter. Guess what the common denominator almost always is? I'm not sure what the be all end all answer is. I do know that pretending like the war on drugs is more of a problem then substance abuse itself is not that answer.
Drug use is a symptom not a cause.

In truth I don't think the majority of drug users, even those of "hard drugs" are addicts. I think the average user of any drug is a casual user - we're just so used to seeing documentaries about junkies and crack addicts living in the street that we've developed this viewpoint of them.

And when a person is put in jail for simple drug possession, likely causing them to lose employment and less likely to be rehired you create the circumstances which lead to drug addiction in the first place.

The only drugs I'd be concerned with being made legal in some capacity are drugs which cause dissociative or hallucinogenic effects such as PCP or "bath salts", since people have committed violent acts while in a psychotic state from using these drugs.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-real-cause-of-addicti_b_6506936.html

In Rat Park, all the rats obviously tried both water bottles, because they didn't know what was in them. But what happened next was startling.

The rats with good lives didn't like the drugged water. They mostly shunned it, consuming less than a quarter of the drugs the isolated rats used. None of them died. While all the rats who were alone and unhappy became heavy users, none of the rats who had a happy environment did.

At first, I thought this was merely a quirk of rats, until I discovered that there was -- at the same time as the Rat Park experiment -- a helpful human equivalent taking place. It was called the Vietnam War. Time magazine reported using heroin was "as common as chewing gum" among U.S. soldiers, and there is solid evidence to back this up: some 20 percent of U.S. soldiers had become addicted to heroin there, according to a study published in the Archives of General Psychiatry. Many people were understandably terrified; they believed a huge number of addicts were about to head home when the war ended.

But in fact some 95 percent of the addicted soldiers -- according to the same study -- simply stopped. Very few had rehab. They shifted from a terrifying cage back to a pleasant one, so didn't want the drug any more.

Professor Alexander argues this discovery is a profound challenge both to the right-wing view that addiction is a moral failing caused by too much hedonistic partying, and the liberal view that addiction is a disease taking place in a chemically hijacked brain. In fact, he argues, addiction is an adaptation. It's not you. It's your cage.



And yes, people have the right to kill themselves.
Not following that statement. There's no way enforce a law against suicide because you can't prosecute a dead person, so I don't know what that statement even means.

[Citizen Rules]

It's hard to punish the dead.

[Yoda]

That's not a social problem. Drinking coke increases your probability of dying.
Not dramatically. And yes, behavior that markedly increases the likelihood of someone getting hurt is a social problem. It's pretty much the social problem.

Crime related alcohol deaths were pretty high I would think.
If you mean numerically, sure. But a lot more people use alcohol, so the relevant comparison would be a ratio, which I imagine would be a great deal higher with hard drugs.

Yes, if you start using heroin there is a high probability that you will die. Same applies if you stick a knife into your neck. Now you think the government should forbid people to use knives?
I think the question there would be "Do you think the government should forbid people from sticking knives in their necks?" To which I would say: yeah, probably.

Point is that people comic crimes to get money to buy the drug. With a cheap mass produced drug the problem is solved.
I'm perfectly familiar with the libertarian argument here, because I'm usually the one making it. But there are some very possible outcomes that it isn't accounting for here. For example, if heroin becomes cheap, demand for it will go up, and there will likely be a rise in the production of higher-quality heroin. And nothing about the nature of drug addiction suggests that addicts will be content with the off-brand stuff. Addicts chase greater and greater highs. Which means cost will become a factor again. Which means they're back to stealing and hurting people to support their habit.

Also, is this an empirical argument, or an axiomatic one? In other words, do you believe heroin should be legal because you think this will be the result, or do you believe it based on axiomatic beliefs about individual liberty, and would continue to support its legalization even if this were not true, and heroin continued to lead to violence after legalization?

You buy a gallon of heroin and inject yourself like crazy until you die. It is a form of pleasurable suicide.
Except most heroin users don't actually want to die: they want to stay alive and do heroin. So this isn't really a debate about whether or not people should be allowed to kill themselves (which is a difficult, complicated question). It's a debate about whether or not we should intervene when people who don't want to die are doing things to ensure that they will.

And yes, people have the right to kill themselves.
Let's just skip to the end: is there such a thing as mental illness? If so, is it ever justified to intervene in someone's affairs when they exhibit it?

[Yoda]

If this were true then there would be no such thing as a functioning alcoholic.
I think you may have misread my post, because that's been one of the points I've been making.

[foster]

I think you may have misread my post, because that's been one of the points I've been making.

Maybe I did, because now I'm confused.

"Highly addictive drugs are not actually affordable at any price, because they monopolize your life and need to be taken over and over."

Certain people have a biochemistry that makes alcohol for them to be a highly addictive drug. Yet it's still affordable and they can hold jobs. Until their liver gives out.

[matt72582]

As Bill Hicks said funnily, "There's a war on drugs, and people on drugs, are winning! 'Honey, get me a beer, got a war to win!"

[ashdoc]

pakistan has a new strategy in it's never ending war of hatred against india . it is pushing drugs grown in afghanistan into the bordering states of india and people are getting addicted .

especially the states of punjab and haryana produce martial people who have fought against pakistan and stopped its army in the tracks in past wars . now these very two states are most addicted to drugs , thus weakening their martial abilities .

of course , pakistanis themselves are also suffering due to this policy of their government agencies sponsoring drugs , but the pakistani government does not care for its own people . as long as india is weakened , it does not matter how many pakistanis have to be sacrificed for that .