Does drug decriminalization work?

[newusername 10+ year member]

Again, to draw from the study in Portugal, treatment increased substantially under decrim.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

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.

I'll take a second cop, and a camera mounted to the cop car reviewing the subjective test, over some objective blood test that cant decipher if Im actually under the influence or not.

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

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

The greatest and free-est in the world.

But can't make an educated decision (apparently).

And have the lion's share of the world's prisoners.

 

[duece212 5,000+ posts]

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.

I honestly don't understand why legalizing a substance makes it easier to address rehabilitation. We can be open to the use and abuse and create easier avenues to rehabilitation without making the drugs legal. As for addicts fearing stepping forward, sorry the law does not bust people who go to a treatment center and ask for help. Maybe focus needs to be put on rehabilitation and less on incarceration, that can be done without legalization though.

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

Its hard being better than everybody else //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

I honestly don't understand why legalizing a substance makes it easier to address rehabilitation. We can be open to the use and abuse and create easier avenues to rehabilitation without making the drugs legal. As for addicts fearing stepping forward, sorry the law does not bust people who go to a treatment center and ask for help. Maybe focus needs to be put on rehabilitation and less on incarceration, that can be done without legalization though.



Its hard being better than everybody else //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

Our society not only tells us certain drugs are bad, it tells us certain people are bad if they use them. You yourself have referred to people on the other side of this argument as 'druggies'. If marijuana use was legalized, and stopping being portrayed as the devil's weed that turns people into evil midless zombies, for example, then your brother or sister or uncle or best friend would be less likely to fear stepping into a clinic and admitting he has a problem. Admitting it to his or her family, friends, peers... boss. Deciminalize means an attitude change too. You say you are being realistic, Ive always known you to be a fair minded person whom I usually agree with... but imo its being realistic to say changing people's minds about drug abuse, its causes, its potential victims... educating people and bring users out of the shadows (users, not just abusers) will only make for a more open attitude about keeping the recreational use a more healthy situation. For the society, and the individual.
Why should a person be incarcerated at all, if he has done nothing wrong beyond use of the substance? If he didn't drive under the influence, or murder someone, rob a liquor store or otherwise harm someone or their property, why should he be incarcerated? You say focus on rehab while leaving it illegal. I can explain why making it legal would help with rehad on a societal level, and so far as Ive seen you cant explain why a person should be in jail for nothing beyond using... so where exactly is the reason for keeping its use illegal?

 

[duece212 5,000+ posts]

Our society not only tells us certain drugs are bad, it tells us certain people are bad if they use them. You yourself have referred to people on the other side of this argument as 'druggies'. If marijuana use was legalized, and stopping being portrayed as the devil's weed that turns people into evil midless zombies, for example, then your brother or sister or uncle or best friend would be less likely to fear stepping into a clinic and admitting he has a problem. Admitting it to his or her family, friends, peers... boss. Deciminalize means an attitude change too. You say you are being realistic, Ive always known you to be a fair minded person whom I usually agree with... but imo its being realistic to say changing people's minds about drug abuse, its causes, its potential victims... educating people and bring users out of the shadows (users, not just abusers) will only make for a more open attitude about keeping the recreational use a more healthy situation. For the society, and the individual.
Why should a person be incarcerated at all, if he has done nothing wrong beyond use of the substance? If he didn't drive under the influence, or murder someone, rob a liquor store or otherwise harm someone or their property, why should he be incarcerated? You say focus on rehab while leaving it illegal. I can explain why making it legal would help with rehad on a societal level, and so far as Ive seen you cant explain why a person should be in jail for nothing beyond using... so where exactly is the reason for keeping its use illegal?

I do understand the logic that aslong as somebody doesn't impact another's rights, they should be free to do what they please, and I guess that would include whatever drugs they see fit. I still have concerns about the government giving the green light and its impacts on use levels, but honestly wouldn't mind seeing it happen to see what the results would actually be. If it was made legal and there were no massive negative impacts to society or the tradeoffs of less smuggling violence, etc outweighed any new negative impacts I would have to be for it. If usage patterns grew and just traded one problem for another I'm not so sure.

If all drugs were made legal would that also include prescription drugs? Would they be deregulated so if you wanted something you would no longer have to go to a pharmacy?

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

No, and hard drugs would require a similar sort of prescription requirement. This way the intake can be monitored. Once someone reached a certain intake, you could request submission to addiction treatment.

Also, it would be beneficial to provide a safe environment in which they would do the drugs.

 

[mcsoul 10+ year member]

No, and hard drugs would require a similar sort of prescription requirement. This way the intake can be monitored. Once someone reached a certain intake, you could request submission to addiction treatment.
Also, it would be beneficial to provide a safe environment in which they would do the drugs.

How many crack rocks a day is okay?

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

Ideally, none, but you have no chance of controlling that if you leave it all on the black market.

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

And I am highly doubtful that people would smoke crack if we got rid of the drug dealers, with the exception of people who are already addicted.

 

[duece212 5,000+ posts]

No, and hard drugs would require a similar sort of prescription requirement. This way the intake can be monitored. Once someone reached a certain intake, you could request submission to addiction treatment.
Also, it would be beneficial to provide a safe environment in which they would do the drugs.

To play devil's advocate what happens when somebody wants more than the legally prescribed amount and decides to source it elsewhere?

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

They would have a hard time doing so. The government would be regulating suppliers; dealers would have to be extravagantly large to compete against the government's approved suppliers in cost and convenience, and it's doubtful that someone would turn to a dealer because they could only buy 7 grams of coke instead of 13. In a worst case scenario, it would still be better for the government to provide the drugs and a place to use them; do not let them go to the streets.

 

[duece212 5,000+ posts]

They would have a hard time doing so. The government would be regulating suppliers; dealers would have to be extravagantly large to compete against the government's approved suppliers in cost and convenience, and it's doubtful that someone would turn to a dealer because they could only buy 7 grams of coke instead of 13. In a worst case scenario, it would still be better for the government to provide the drugs and a place to use them; do not let them go to the streets.

Our current illegal drug suppliers had to start out small, I don't doubt they could do it again. Hopefully the government would be able to supply at a better price than they bargain for say medicare drug prescriptions (in the US of course.) I could easily see a meth addict sourcing an illegal supplier if the gov didn't give them enough meth for their fix or a big enough score for their money.

"In a worst case scenario, it would still be better for the government to provide the drugs and a place to use them; do not let them go to the streets." ....aslong as they aren't creating more addicts and any additional treatment methods curbed growth trends

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

How many crack rocks a day is okay?

You can thank the US govt for our rock cocaine addiction problem in this country. Before the war on drugs, marijuana was by far the drug of choice for smugglers on the southern border. The war on drugs came along and shit got serious. Did the smugglers stop smuggling? No, they simply switched out marijuana for cocaine... much easier to smuggle due to the higher value per pound, no smell, etc. The war on drugs greatly reduced the street price on cocaine, which allowed the surplus that lead to the discovery of cooking cocaine down to rock form.

Basically, the war on drugs changed the US drug population from mostly pot smoking hippies of the 70's into crack addicts of the 90's and 00's. The war on drugs has had a negative effect in relation to its goals. And that's setting aside the moral problems with the goals themselves. Criminalization does not work, this hightened attempted at crushing the 'problem' that we call the war on drugs, has only proven this to be true.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Our current illegal drug suppliers had to start out small, I don't doubt they could do it again. Hopefully the government would be able to supply at a better price than they bargain for say medicare drug prescriptions (in the US of course.) I could easily see a meth addict sourcing an illegal supplier if the gov didn't give them enough meth for their fix or a big enough score for their money.
"In a worst case scenario, it would still be better for the government to provide the drugs and a place to use them; do not let them go to the streets." ....aslong as they aren't creating more addicts and any additional treatment methods curbed growth trends

A black market will always exist, and there will always be addicts whom work the system, whatever that may be, to feed their addiction. The rules should not be made so strict as to attempt to coerce these people into conforming, 'zero tolerence' policies have not shown to be effective at stamping out the addict population. So imo the clear answer is to relax the rules for the rest of us, and focus on rehab and a open and healthy attitude for those addicts who will exist no matter what our societal policies are.