Drug prohibition is useless

Gogf said:
Saying that "drug prohibition is useless" is a gross exaggeration. It may not prevent 100% cases of drug use, but it certainly stops some of it.

But is stopping a more or less harmless activity (to people other than the user) worth the money, police manpower and the loss of liberty to fight it?

What happened with alcohol prohibition? People drank tended to drink more and it gave rise to powerful criminal organisations.

What happened with drug prohibition? People used more drugs, harder drugs and it gave rise to powerful criminal organisation.

The Netherlands legalised pot, sure intially use went up. But after a while it went below what it was when it was illegal!
 
Arcadian83 said:
Murder has an unwilling victim. Using drugs is a victimless act.
Unwilling victim: person who gets killed by a drunk driver.

Unwilling victim: someone who contracts cancer from sidestream smoke. Did you know second-hand smoke kills about as many NON-smokers a year as guns do....?
 
Shylock said:
But is stopping a more or less harmless activity (to people other than the user) worth the money, police manpower and the loss of liberty to fight it?

What happened with alcohol prohibition? People drank tended to drink more and it gave rise to powerful criminal organisations.

What happened with drug prohibition? People used more drugs, harder drugs and it gave rise to powerful criminal organisation.

The Netherlands legalised pot, sure intially use went up. But after a while it went below what it was when it was illegal!
That's one of the things i had in mind when i started this thread, the Netherlands and Switzerland. Both have succesfully proven that legalization is possible and doesn't lead to you, me and everybody doing crack.
Here in Germany the police seems to be very happy with the "tolerate marijuana users policy" cause it leaves them more time for the important parts of their work.

BTW, a lot of people with great knowledge about drugs and everything relating to it(like Christian Rätsch) state that legalization would actually
increase street prices. According to them, governments could reap HUGE benefits out of taxing them, similar to our days tax on alcohol and tobacco. While there is a blackmarket for smuggled/non-taxed cigarettes, it's a relative small part of the overall cnsumption, cause most people won't get involved with something criminal as long as there is an payable legal solution to their needs.
 
BasketCase said:
Unwilling victim: person who gets killed by a drunk driver.
Yes indeed. Shame and criminal charges on the drunk driver.

Unwilling victim: someone who contracts cancer from sidestream smoke. Did you know second-hand smoke kills about as many NON-smokers a year as guns do....?
This is not a topic about banning smoking.
People do not smoke two packs of marijuana a day.
Your (debatable) claim about second-hand smoke does hold weight here.
 
Arcadian83 said:
Using drugs is a victimless act.
Since somebody has dug this up I'll chime in. How about these:
Case study is that contractor I mentioned before. Due to his drug habit he spent all the deposit money he got from his clients on drugs. The result?
1) His clients get half-finished houses. Financial loss, time lost, aggravation.
2) His workers don't get paid. Families go hungry, children forced to quit school.
3) His mother and sister now saddled with debt as everybody is now going after them for compensation.

What do you call the above? Yeah right doing drugs a victimless act.
 
Dann said:
Since somebody has dug this up I'll chime in. How about these:
Case study is that contractor I mentioned before. Due to his drug habit he spent all the deposit money he got from his clients on drugs. The result?
1) His clients get half-finished houses. Financial loss, time lost, aggravation.
2) His workers don't get paid. Families go hungry, children forced to quit school.
3) His mother and sister now saddled with debt as everybody is now going after them for compensation.

What do you call the above? Yeah right doing drugs a victimless act.
but to be honest, the crime here is the embezzlement of the money, not the taking of drugs itself. he could have done the same to his clients without the drugs (maybe spending the money on women instead or something ;) ).

same with the drunk driver. the crime is driving while under the influence, not being drunk itself.
 
Women don't make you go that crazy. :p That guy also went after his mother once with a cleaver while having "a bad trip".
 
Dann said:
Women don't make you go that crazy. :p That guy also went after his mother once with a cleaver while having "a bad trip".
People with an addiction will sell their own mother to fullfill their needs. That addiction can be gambling, lifestyle-products, overeating etc. Cigarette smokers would do it too(many of them), but THEY DON'T HAVE to.Cause smoking doesn't prevent you from having a job, interact socially or force you to be " the *****" in one way or the other for your dealer. We could make the same true for most other drugs.
Edit: BTW, i know someone who attacked his parents after smoking Marihuana. Likewise i know of two others who were delivered in a mental hospital after smoking M. for 2-3 years. While i don't advocate taking ANY drug everyday, most likely they had serious psychological issues before they smoked their first joint. I don't see a argument pro-prohibition here. Consider this please, if they could had bought it legally(let's say at the apothecary), "maybe", there would have been an possibility to give them medical attention far earlier.
 
Its not pointless per se.

The problem is a lack of clarity or definition in terms of what the goal is. If the goal simply is to reduce usage, then yes, prohibition has some success.

If the goal is to eliminate usage, then you have a goal based upon a fallacy as it is impossible to eliminate usage. So, anything built on that premise is doomed to failure.
 
.Shane. said:
Its not pointless per se.

The problem is a lack of clarity or definition in terms of what the goal is. If the goal simply is to reduce usage, then yes, prohibition has some success.

If the goal is to eliminate usage, then you have a goal based upon a fallacy as it is impossible to eliminate usage. So, anything built on that premise is doomed to failure.

One other thing to consider is - what cost are we willing to pay to achieve the goal? If the goal is simply to reduce usage, then yes prohibition has some success, but the substantial investment in police resources and social cost of making the police "the enemy" by people otherwise inclined to be lawful, to say nothing of larger prison populations, makes that success somewhat Pyrrhic. "Saving someone from drugs" at the price of putting them behind bars strikes me as a very cruel form of kindness.
 
IglooDude said:
One other thing to consider is - what cost are we willing to pay to achieve the goal? If the goal is simply to reduce usage, then yes prohibition has some success, but the substantial investment in police resources and social cost of making the police "the enemy" by people otherwise inclined to be lawful, to say nothing of larger prison populations, makes that success somewhat Pyrrhic. "Saving someone from drugs" at the price of putting them behind bars strikes me as a very cruel form of kindness.

Right. There is no "problem" that can be fixed 100% by throwing X amount of money at it. Diminishing returns, etc.... so we need more realistic policies.
 
.Shane. said:
Right. There is no "problem" that can be fixed 100% by throwing X amount of money at it. Diminishing returns, etc.... so we need more realistic policies.

Right, but we also need a better understanding of what the true price of the War on Drugs is in the first place. Paying a dime to get that first nickel back is too expensive even before diminishing returns sets in.
 
on a related note, I just saw this article today

Swiss heroin model reporting benefits
A number of studies have found that Switzerland's heroin-assisted treatment plans help ease the scourge of addiction for users and society.

Initially met with criticism and apprehension, the Swiss model is now attracting the interest of other countries.

Programmes for the administration of heroin under medical supervision are still viewed warily by the World Health Organization, which is heavily influenced by governments with repressive drug policies, principally the United States.

But the Swiss model, dating from 1994, is setting trends abroad. Treatments based on heroin have been introduced or tested in Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, Britain, Spain and Canada. Specialists in several other countries, including Italy, are taking a growing interest.

"We have never advertised our programmes, but in recent years we have fielded a lot of queries from health experts and policy-makers in other countries," said Martin Hosek, coordinator of substitution treatments at the Federal Health Office.


Confirmation from abroad
So far, about 3,000 substance abusers in Switzerland have participated in these programmes, which are an important part of the government's strategy to stem the damage caused by drugs: death, disease, crime, prostitution and social exclusion.

The treatment programmes are open only to users who have a long history of drug addiction and who do not respond well to methadone or other heroin substitutes.

"Heroin-assisted treatments have certainly proved their worth for a well-defined group of people who have tried other methods and failed. It's a bit like a last chance for them," Hosek said.

"In recent years our results have been confirmed by in-depth studies in the Netherlands and Germany. These have also shown that in the most serious cases of addiction, heroin treatments can be more effective than methadone."

Switzerland's success with harm reduction has also been highlighted in a study by two researchers at the University of Zurich, sociologist Carlos Nordt and psychiatrist Rudolf Stohler, published in June in the medical journal The Lancet.


Unfounded fears
"In the beginning, people worried that the Swiss government's liberal policy would attract even more people to heroin. Those fears have proved unfounded," Nordt stressed.

Nordt and Stohler's research shows that in the canton of Zurich, home to more than a fifth of Switzerland's addicts, there were 850 new heroin users in 1990 but just 150 in 2002.

Such a downward curve is not found in other countries, especially those that have tried to crack down on drugs. In Britain and Australia, drug use rose during the same period. In Italy, it vacillated from one year to the next, but the Zurich researchers view that data as incomplete.

"In Switzerland, the medicalisation of heroin use has helped change the image of users: from rebels to losers," Nordt said. "In the eyes of the young, they're mostly just sick people, forced to get medical help."


Reduced consequences
The harm reduction policy followed by the Swiss authorities has also been successful in reducing heroin-related deaths, which have fallen by more than half over the course of a decade, and the transmission of Aids.

And there is more good news concerning the fight against crime and prostitution.

"Compared with countries like Britain, where crime is very often linked to substance abuse, this trend has almost disappeared in Switzerland over the last few years," said Nordt.

Nordt and Stohler's study does not however show that Switzerland has been more successful than other countries in improving the numbers of people who manage to leave drugs behind for good.

"Personally, I don't think either a repressive or a liberal policy can do much to free a heroin user from addiction," Nordt said. "We can only decide whether to increase the suffering of drug victims or alleviate the consequences of addiction – for users and society alike."

swissinfo, Armando Mombelli

linky

seems to make sense to me :)
 
I agree the Swiss program has its merits but I have two questions:

1) Where is the heroin used for treatment coming from? They'd still need to buy heroin from somewhere.

2) Who pays for this? I would assume taxpayers. Personally I would not be ecstatic to be working my butt off so that some junkie can float on the clouds.
 
Dann said:
I agree the Swiss program has its merits but I have two questions:

1) Where is the heroin used for treatment coming from? They'd still need to buy heroin from somewhere.

There is still lots of places where production of opium poppies is legal, due to the medical demand for opium, codeine, morphine, etc. IIRC, heroin can be derived from morphine pretty easily.

2) Who pays for this? I would assume taxpayers. Personally I would not be ecstatic to be working my butt off so that some junkie can float on the clouds.

Sure, but keep in mind this is a program to get people out of that 'cloud space', not to perpetuate it. Whether it works (and signs so far are positive) would be the real test.
 
Dann said:
1) Where is the heroin used for treatment coming from? They'd still need to buy heroin from somewhere.
I don't know, might have to look it up, but since it's a small program (only a few thousand participants) I think the heroin would be quite easy to get by, maybe confiscated stuff?

2) Who pays for this? I would assume taxpayers. Personally I would not be ecstatic to be working my butt off so that some junkie can float on the clouds.
the taxpayer would have to pay for it anyway one way or other. one option would be to put him in jail, like many countries do. Jail is funded by taxpayers as well. Or simply ignore him until he's in a critical condition and has to be treated in a hospital. not free either. and then there's drug crime that poses a lot of costs as well. so all things added up, I think that the taxpayer actually saves money. (note: this is just my feeling: I can't back that up with hard facts ;) )
 
There's always the option of Soylent Green..... :mischief:
 
{|}$~\ said:
Alcohol and tobacco ought to be illegal too. However, methamphetamines are more damaging.

Yes, because prohibition worked wonders, and reduced crime!

(sarcasm)
 
{|}$~\ said:
I mean, taxing it so much that it would be taxed out of existence.

that would be pretty pointless, stupid, and create a black market, which is why we would legalize it, to get rid of the black market.

you do realize that the drug war led to the degradation of the black inner city communities by giving the gangs profits to fight over, do you?
 
Hello JH... I'm back... for a while. I can say though that I fully agree with you for a change! :D
 
Top Bottom