Does drug decriminalization work?

[duece212 5,000+ posts]

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.

Have you missed before where I said maybe we open the floodgates and collect some real data for awhile? What I am saying is without that real data all we have are guesses as to what would happen...

Foreign data is relative but not a perfect judge for the US's situation, you can't assume all equal. What works in one part of the world doesn't always work in another, there are many differences in people, their beliefs, their morals, etc from region to region.

 

[AllDayMJ 10+ year member]

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?

assuming someone is guilty is simply having the Majority silence the minority, slowing the development of society.

Because subjective tests tend to be rather jaded and one-sided, especially with the current disposition of law enforcement on marijuana. I would udderly fail a blood test, but in the occurrence of a road side test i would pass with ease. but who says what they think..too much judgment with little true basis. The worst i would have is a slight eye bob and a mildly green tongue. Not any true basis.

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

Have you missed before where I said maybe we open the floodgates and collect some real data for awhile? What I am saying is without that real data all we have are guesses as to what would happen...

Yes, you did change your point to this one after I pushed you on proving that drug use would increase, as you originally asserted. I was simply rebuking the point you made in that post.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

Yes, you did change your point to this one after I pushed you on proving that drug use would increase, as you originally asserted. I was simply rebuking the point you made in that post.

The increase would depend on how drug testing went about. If it remains the same, there would be no substantial increase.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

assuming someone is guilty is simply having the Majority silence the minority, slowing the development of society.
Because subjective tests tend to be rather jaded and one-sided, especially with the current disposition of law enforcement on marijuana. I would udderly fail a blood test, but in the occurrence of a road side test i would pass with ease. but who says what they think..too much judgment with little true basis. The worst i would have is a slight eye bob and a mildly green tongue. Not any true basis.

If a person can pass a test that shows they have the physical and mental capacity to drive their car, I dont see why our legal system should need to dig any deeper than that when being pulled over. Its the people who call others 'druggies' that feel the need for our laws to get more personal. Because they fear 'druggies' for various reasons. Im quite amazed to learn duece is one of those paranoid people.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

If a person can pass a test that shows they have the physical and mental capacity to drive their car, I dont see why our legal system should need to dig any deeper than that. Its the people who call others 'druggies' that feel the need for our laws to get more personal. Because they fear 'druggies' for various reasons. Im quite amazed to learn duece is one of those paranoid people.

What's more is that they don't test seniors, who without the aid of drugs, often lack the physical and mental faculties to operate an automobile.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

What's more is that they don't test seniors, who without the aid of drugs, often lack the physical and mental faculties to operate an automobile.

Senior citizens vote in greater numbers than any other slice of society. Living in Florida for a dozen years made that quite obvious. And since they vote so strongly, they are always in the 'politically correct' circles, while 'druggies' who use drugs recreationally are not. Hence the double standards.

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

The increase would depend on how drug testing went about. If it remains the same, there would be no substantial increase.

Assessing the data is extremely challenging. I'm working on a website where I dedicate a page to an explanation of the trouble in assessing information, including demographical differences, volunteering of information, causal vs correlative, etc.

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

What's more is that they don't test seniors, who without the aid of drugs, often lack the physical and mental faculties to operate an automobile.

Go to a senior's home and count the oxycodone. Double-standard, to say the least.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

Assessing the data is extremely challenging. I'm working on a website where I dedicate a page to an explanation of the trouble in assessing information, including demographical differences, volunteering of information, causal vs correlative, etc.

I am unsure if demographics in its strictest form reveal social mores...and that is the heart of the issue.

 

[duece212 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.

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.

I hate to say it, but part of my belief on this probably stems a little from what DD says above, not that I think everybody will run out and do drugs because its legal, but will some, maybe. Nobody is going to quit because its legal. If you argue education and rehab, we can do that today, while drugs are still illegal. I have a severe lack of faith in other human beings. I have my ideas of what is right and wrong and my self control, but I don't always trust that in others. An assumption but I believe that for some, legality (or more so the legal consequences) may be the straw that breaks the camels back on deciding what they do.

On the alcohol front, honestly the more I think about it, the more I question society the more I question its legality. Probably opening up a whole nother can of worms here...oh well //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

"In 2006, there were 13,470 fatalities in crashes involving an alcohol-impaired driver (BAC of .08 or higher) – 32 percent of total traffic fatalities for the year."

That is alot, I guess that opens up another question, what is an acceptable amount of deaths before something is made illegal? Its a catch 22, I'm not for the government putting their hand in everything we do, but sometimes we need policed...

Yes, you did change your point to this one after I pushed you on proving that drug use would increase, as you originally asserted. I was simply rebuking the point you made in that post.

See above, I still think that legalization won't make things better. I brought up the mentioned point to show that neither you nor I can really know what would happen to the US under decrim, we can just make assumptions.

 

[duece212 5,000+ posts]

If a person can pass a test that shows they have the physical and mental capacity to drive their car, I dont see why our legal system should need to dig any deeper than that when being pulled over. Its the people who call others 'druggies' that feel the need for our laws to get more personal. Because they fear 'druggies' for various reasons. Im quite amazed to learn duece is one of those paranoid people.

Does having a lack of trust in others make me paranoid or realistic?

Also the blood/breath tests can be just as much to protect the using driver as others. An overzealous cop could say you failed a roadside just because he wants to bust you, the blood/breath may show otherwise. Evidence with the lack of personal opinion/input can be a good thing.

 

[crash9201 10+ year member]

quite sympoly drug laws were created out of racism, biggitry and ignorance. we did not know the true affects of the drugs when we outlawed them, people made alot of things up to get make these drugs illegal. Once they became illegal people began to see them as the downfall of society and the creator of evil violent people. when i person hears the term "druggie" the image that has been burned into their head comes up; i homeless dirty somewhat phsycotic(sp?) person who steals, burglarizes and takes advantage of every1 for a fix.; true there are drug users taht fit this discription, but that is only a small percentage, in the big picture very few end up like this.

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

Lacking trust is realistic.

Fearing is paranoid.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

I hate to say it, but part of my belief on this probably stems a little from what DD says above, not that I think everybody will run out and do drugs because its legal, but will some, maybe. Nobody is going to quit because its legal. If you argue education and rehab, we can do that today, while drugs are still illegal. I have a severe lack of faith in other human beings. I have my ideas of what is right and wrong and my self control, but I don't always trust that in others. An assumption but I believe that for some, legality (or more so the legal consequences) may be the straw that breaks the camels back on deciding what they do.
On the alcohol front, honestly the more I think about it, the more I question society the more I question its legality. Probably opening up a whole nother can of worms here...oh well //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

"In 2006, there were 13,470 fatalities in crashes involving an alcohol-impaired driver (BAC of .08 or higher) – 32 percent of total traffic fatalities for the year."

That is alot, I guess that opens up another question, what is an acceptable amount of deaths before something is made illegal? Its a catch 22, I'm not for the government putting their hand in everything we do, but sometimes we need policed...

See above, I still think that legalization won't make things better. I brought up the mentioned point to show that neither you nor I can really know what would happen to the US under decrim, we can just make assumptions.

I understand where your confusion stems from now. You do not understand that rehabilitation will become much easier for a non-illegal substance. If society was more open with the use, and yes abuse, of these substances, more people would be educated on the subject, and fewer people would fear stepping forward and admitting they have a problem.

Does having a lack of trust in others make me paranoid or realistic?

Paranoid, and narcissistic. But that's okay, its because you reside in North America.