Does drug decriminalization work?

[mcsoul 10+ year member]

Would businesses be able to drug test you and fire or refuse to hire you

when you are engaging in what would be legal activity?

 

[duece212 5,000+ posts]

The War on Drugs was intended to make the world drug free (well, free of the drugs they decided are illicit). This was specifically stated. They've now moved to "minimizing" the availability of drugs. Since the drug war has had no impact statistically, but has cost billions of dollars, I would classify that as a failure.

Without haivng real statistics for the US in current times and conditions under decrim of all drugs you have no idea what we are getting for those billions of dollars, you assume...

Who knows maybe we are actually getting some bang for our buck, maybe its all wasted money. We can't know though because we don't have any current data for the US in a decrim scenario.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Why not just focus more on treatment than incarceration with drugs still being illegal?

You should live in Soviet China. Hey, why not make greasy food illegal. And while its illegal, still 'focus on treatment'? Society feels greasy foods are unhealthy for the individual, and we all know the US generally is overweight. The ends justify the means, right?

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

Would businesses be able to drug test you and fire or refuse to hire you when you are engaging in what would be legal activity?

Can they fire you for drinking alcohol at home?

 

[duece212 5,000+ posts]

Would businesses be able to drug test you and fire or refuse to hire you when you are engaging in what would be legal activity?

smoking cigs is legal, yet still a condition of employment at some places

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

smoking cigs is legal, yet still a condition of employment at some places

Show me the law.

You can have smoke-free workplaces, but they cannot screen you for being a smoker.

 

[AllDayMJ 10+ year member]

Again, I don't understand what legalization has to do with that. The testing is just as required now as it would be then.

I might as well stop if you can't read.

My point is, If i smoke 5 days ago and am pulled over for suspicion of being under the influence of illicit drugs. They will perform a blood test. In my state(Iowa) we have a no tolerance policy for the existence of any drug in the bloodstream. So in theory, i could be given a DUI ticket while legitimately not under the influence of any such drugs...

If we can somehow test VALIDLY for the presence of drugs currently in someones system, we could properly regulate the use while driving. nuff said. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

Without haivng real statistics for the US in current times and conditions under decrim of all drugs you have no idea what we are getting for those billions of dollars, you assume...
Who knows maybe we are actually getting some bang for our buck, maybe its all wasted money. We can't know though because we don't have any current data for the US in a decrim scenario.

So to summarize this argument:

We don't know for sure how effective the current policy is; statistically, we cannot see any changes made by prohibition. But we should keep trying it because of the theoretical flood gates opening, even though we've seen other areas of the world where decrim hasn't raised rates.

Ideological bullshit, frankly.

 

[duece212 5,000+ posts]

Your 'risk analysis' is that DUI's kill people every year. Is there a reason you chose to ignore my point that we as a society place different 'risk criteria' on different mind altering substances just because of social pressure? Alcohol is by far a more debilitating drug, during use and in terms of prolonged effects, yet its use and possesion is legal, so long as your possesion and use fullfill certain laws... must be 21, must not operate a vehicle, etc. When I bring this point to your attention, your response is that legalizing all drugs does not meet your requirement for safety standards. Im not necessarily for legalizing all drugs, but your arbitrary line in the sand seems to have no basis beyond your own personal defition of what is safe.
No, the test has no way to prove you are high on the job. That's my point. Unless you create an unsafe situation in which drug use is suspected, why should the employer care if you smoke pot on your own time? Its paranoia, Im surprised you are falling for it.

I know of no law that allows an employer to screen possible employees based on their smoking status. And even if there were, does that mean you would agree with it, just because the law existed?

I agree that Alcohol is dangerous drug as well, one that our country seems to have more problems with than others, I sometimes wonder if that trend would carry over with other drugs...

On the employment gig...it doesn't matter if I agree with it or not if my boss can still fire me and I have no recourse. I can be in as much disagreement as I want and still be jobless //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

I might as well stop if you can't read.
My point is, If i smoke 5 days ago and am pulled over for suspicion of being under the influence of illicit drugs. They will perform a blood test. In my state(Iowa) we have a no tolerance policy for the existence of any drug in the bloodstream. So in theory, i could be given a DUI ticket while legitimately not under the influence of any such drugs...

If we can somehow test VALIDLY for the presence of drugs currently in someones system, we could properly regulate the use while driving. nuff said. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif

A substance should not be deemed illegal simply because our technology does not allow us to test for its influence in the circumstances politicians would like.
"No tolerance" simply means 'we dont have the ability, or are too lazy to go through a long process of proving anything, so we have legislated ourselves the right to assume you are guilty'.

If you can pass a road-side sobriety test that tests coordination, thought process, etc... what's the problem?

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

Also, it seems to me that most are skeptical that the individual can make a wise choice, ie. you think that a person will suddenly start doing crystal meth because it's now legal. To me, this is a good argument for proper drug education, not jail. Jail doesn't solve the root of the problem.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

I agree that Alcohol is dangerous drug as well, one that our country seems to have more problems with than others, I sometimes wonder if that trend would carry over with other drugs...
On the employment gig...it doesn't matter if I agree with it or not if my boss can still fire me and I have no recourse. I can be in as much disagreement as I want and still be jobless //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

So you are still avoiding answering if you think alcohol should be amde illegal. After this many dodges of the point, I just have to assume its because you know your answer will either make you look like a zaelot nut case, or a hypocrite. That alone should show you the double standard placed on the use of mind altering substances.
It does matter if you agree with it or not, that's the entire point of this thread, express what YOU think, not what your boss thinks or currently has the power to do. Im surprised you have missed this fundamental point of the thread so far.

You are still one of my fav people on this board.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

Also what do you druggies think will happen with your employment when drugs are legalized? Just because the government says its ok for you to get high doesn't mean your employer won't still drug test and tell you to hit the road...

I won't use it until the testing procedures are accurate enough to tell if I smoked last week or 10 minutes ago.

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

It's not just alcohol, either. We have all sorts of legal products (drugs and others) that cause significant harm but which will not land you in jail for having it in your possession.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Also, it seems to me that most are skeptical that the individual can make a wise choice, ie. you think that a person will suddenly start doing crystal meth because it's now legal. To me, this is a good argument for proper drug education, not jail. Jail doesn't solve the root of the problem.

What I find interesting is how many people think 'Americans' are typically less responsible than other people in the world. What about our geographical location makes us inately less responsible humans? If their is a trend of irresponsibility in this country, its obviously based on the society our politicians and their laws have built. Societal rules that we are discussing in this very thread.