International Panel of Experts Call for Worldwide Drug Decriminalization

The problem is that it doesn't seem to work at all. - Babbler

I'm pretty sure Saudi Arabia doesn't have much of an illicit drug problem. Prohibition is a wide term with many different applications. Our version of prohibition doesn't work because people don't care. The penalties for it are not stiff enough to deter people from engaging in drug use. So people do drugs.
 
Franks graph doesnt show regular use, but rather if a teen has 'tried' alcohol at a certain age, so I am not sure its indicative of precisely what we are referring to.

it's not really my graph it's a publication by the us surgeon general. :p

anyway,

source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=sgdrinkt&part=A90974
picrender.fcgi



i think that sheds some more light on the complexion of underage drinkers in the usa.
 
How was I supposed to know it was a typing mistake? :confused:

Because it doesn't make sense? Common sense Mobby.



No, I actually talk with my kids and have a good relationship with them like a good parent should. Imagine that.

Again, dont assume everyone lies to their parents and drinks behind their backs. They dont'.

Again, you're assuming a lot of assumptions on my part.

The other parts I deleted to avoid stupid back-and-forth that is not productive where we both produce anecdotes, facts, quotes, and statistics, but what I will say, is you have a lot of circumstantial anecdotes that seem counter to "common sense."
 
it's not really my graph it's a publication by the us surgeon general. :p

anyway,

source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=sgdrinkt&part=A90974
picrender.fcgi



i think that sheds some more light on the complexion of underage drinkers in the usa.

Casuation =/= correlation. Its probably dectected more in teens due to the fact that they have parents, family members or even social workers getting them assessed. And there are significant numbers of adults with alcohol problems that never get diagnosed simply because thats the nature of the disease...they dont think they have a problem.

Also from your link that puts this into some perspective:

Adolescents Drink Less Frequently Than Adults, But When They Do Drink, They Drink More Heavily Than Adults. When youth between the ages of 12 and 20 consume alcohol, they drink on average about five drinks per occasion about six times a month, as indicated in Figure 4. This amount of alcohol puts an adolescent drinker in the binge range, which, depending on the study, is defined as “five or more drinks on one occasion” or “five or more drinks in a row for men and four or more drinks in a row for women.” By comparison, adult drinkers age 26 and older consume on average two to three drinks per occasion about nine times a month (SAMHSA 2006).

Its not that they drink more often than adults, its that when they do drink, they do it in an abusive manner. They actually drink less frequently than adults. Why? Could it be because its harder for them to obtain the alcohol?
 
Wow, what a response! It would take me forever to respond to each point in turn, so I'll just be general about it.

1. When it comes to concerns of safety, you can find plenty of legal drugs, some freely available and others by prescription, which do just as much harm in overdose. Heroin, for example, is an opioid that is similar to prescription opioids such as morphine, fentanyl, and hydromorphone. All of them have potential for addiction and overdose. Heroin is the only one banned among them due solely to public hysteria. Point of fact is that it's pretty hard to overdose on opioids to the point of death. Usually, death only comes when the overdose is mixed with another drug.

2. The social impact of drug abuse is of concern. However, there are legal drugs, such as alcohol, whose social impact is even more widespread and destructive, I'd argue. Although little mentioned, alcoholism is more widely disabling not only to its users but also their families and the social fabric at large, since there is no criminal penalty and it is widely and freely available. Tobacco, likewise, also has worse health ramifications due to causing COPD and lung cancer, which are huge public health burdens (and therefore financial burdens). If we are to have a rational drug policy, we should at least regulate drugs according to their real harm, not their imagined public hysteria and political posturing.

3. I favor decriminalization and regulation of drugs. I favor legalizing marijuana, for example, wherein it can be sold only by certain stores and only be used in limited settings (ie. at home, in regulated bars, etc). I believe that this takes the high market demand away and removes profit from drug traffickers, which would be good. It also allows the state to keep an eye on drug users without overwhelming the criminal justice system, allowing police to concentrate on truly destructive crimes.
 
2. The social impact of drug abuse is of concern. However, there are legal drugs, such as alcohol, whose social impact is even more widespread and destructive, I'd argue. Although little mentioned, alcoholism is more widely disabling not only to its users but also their families and the social fabric at large, since there is no criminal penalty and it is widely and freely available. - Nano

And what happens when currently illicit drugs have no criminal penalty and are widely and freely available?

I favor legalizing marijuana, for example, wherein it can be sold only by certain stores and only be used in limited settings (ie. at home, in regulated bars, etc). - Nano

Do you favor cigarette smoking at home and in bars?
 
But you forget, I have 3 kids of college age as well. Would it be easy for them to do that? Sure, but they dont. Know why? Because they know its wrong to do so.

You see, not every kid out there may think the same way those kids think. Some actually respect the law and will wait until 21 to go out partying like that. I know my kids have. Now, is that anecdotal? Sure, but its still proof that such kids do indeed exist, despite your thinking to the contrary.
No, I actually talk with my kids and have a good relationship with them like a good parent should. Imagine that.

Again, dont assume everyone lies to their parents and drinks behind their backs. They dont'.
I'm not sure if that is even anecdotal...

I know I speak without actually ever having met your kids MobBoss - nor you, for that matter, but I must say that the claim you are making seems extremely optimistic at best.

Personally, I didn't start drinking until I was 24, even though I've gone to lots of parties through my adolescence and until today. From what I know, technically everyone who drinks alcohol started around 14 to 16 years old. Among my fellow high schoolers, about 150 people, I can only count 3 people (including me) who started to drink after 18 (the legal age in Norway).

But I can assure you, very few of the parents knew - and most of those still don't know - that their kids were drinking. We often discussed how elaborate schemes many people invented to make sure their parents didn't find out they were drinking, smoking or having sex.

And my area should be one of the better ones in this matter. We were one of the earliest centres for adopting alcohol prohibition in Norway, and are traditionally quite "moral", being more or less a part of the Norwegian version of the Bible Belt. From what I know of the times my parents grew up, it seems a lot can change in a generation or two...

Your kids may be some of the few exceptions, but that seems extremely unlikely. You come across as a generally smart fellow, so its definitely not a far stretch to assume your kids are smart as well and able to fool you if they so choose. Add to that that most kids consider hiding that they are drinking as nothing more than a white lie, which will only hurt their parents feelings if they find out.

Again, I haven't met you nor your kids, but I find it extremely unlikely that none of them started drinking before 21.

Ask them when they're 40-something and well-established, whether or not they were drinking before 21. Then you can be fairly sure of getting a true answer. ;)

How was I supposed to know it was a typing mistake? :confused:
You're smart, so you should have been able to pick up that that sentence was quite different in content than what else he has been posting. I admit I had to read it three times myself, but I did figure out that he probably had forgotten an "under" in the sentence.

I'm pretty sure Saudi Arabia doesn't have much of an illicit drug problem. Prohibition is a wide term with many different applications. Our version of prohibition doesn't work because people don't care. The penalties for it are not stiff enough to deter people from engaging in drug use. So people do drugs.
As I said earlier, prohibition is easier to manage in a stronger police state, like China, Iran or Saudi Arabia. But surely you are not arguing that we go down that route?

And for what it is worth, here is what I could find about drug problems in Saudi Arabia:

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime: Saudi Arabia
There appears to be no significant transit trafficking through Saudi Arabia. However, there are considerable seizures of fenetylline (a stimulant known in the region under the brand name Captagon) in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, and Turkey indicating a continuation of trafficking from production sites manly in Central and Eastern Europe into the country.

Under the Saudi Islamic Legal Code, drug trafficking is a capital crime and enforced on Saudis and non Saudis alike. There appears to be a decline in the executions in the past years. Nevertheless, this issue features regularly in reports of human rights organizations.

Data on drug abuse in Saudi Arabia is particularly scarce. It is generally assumed that the drug abuse situation in the country is not at an alarming level. However, the above mentioned trafficking of stimulants would seem to imply that these drugs are abused in Saudi Arabia at a significant scale. There is also abuse of cannabis. Reports also mention a rising abuse of heroin and cocaine, albeit at a low overall level.

Non Saudi addicts are jailed and deported. Saudis are usually sent to one of the three drug treatment hospitals in the country. Many observers note that cultural and social restrictions prevailing in the region may impede addicts from admitting to their drug abuse. There may thus also be a considerable amount of 'hidden' abuse in Saudi Arabia.
(From what I could find, there appears to be 11,000 drug rehab centres in the US = 1 rehab centre per 27,300 persons. Compare to 1 per 9.5 million persons in Saudi Arabia.)

Reuters: Saudi Arabia launches campaign to combat drug use (2007)
Saudi Arabia has embarked on a campaign to combat the spread of drugs in the conservative Islamic society whose burgeoning youth population must deal with the challenges of unemployment and strict religious rules.

[...]

"Drug addicts are ill and they need treatment, rehabilitation and monitoring," the veteran police chief said.

"Society needs to play its role in protecting against drugs ... I call on all experts, preachers, professors, media and parents to help make people aware about the danger of drugs."

There are no official figures on the number of addicts in Saudi Arabia.

[...]

Saudi Arabia puts drug traffickers, as well as murderers and rapists, to death by public beheading and the authorities regularly report several executions per month of Asian and African nationals for drug smuggling convictions.

IsraelNationalNews.com: Saudis High on Speed, According to Drug Abuse Report (25. July, 2010)
The lion's share of amphetamines being consumed in the Middle East is seized in Saudi Arabia, according to the latest global drug abuse report.

It is forbidden by Islam to ingest any intoxicant, or even to smoke tobacco – and in deeply conservative Saudi Arabia, “respectable” women are expected to cover themselves from head to toe if they set foot out the door. Nor do they generally walk through the streets without a male escort.

Whether it is despite or because of the restrictions on drinking and smoking, the 2010 World Drug Report, published by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, shows that Saudi authorities seized nearly 13 metric tons of amphetamines in 2008, out of a total of 15.3 metric tons in the entire Middle East.

The total amount of amphetamines seized throughout the world that year was 24.3 metric tons.


Matthew Nice, a UNODC amphetamine-type stimulants expert, told CNN on Friday, “I can't emphasize enough the size of this. Fifteen metric tons is absolutely huge. It's absolutely phenomenal. We're really struggling because the information base is so limited. It's definitely just the tip of the iceberg.”

One of the stimulants at the top of the seizure list is the pharmaceutical stimulant Captagon, which contains the synthetic stimulant fenetylline. It was invented in 1963 for use in treating Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), narcolepsy, and in some cases, depression as well. The product was taken off the market in 1986 after being listed by the World Health Organization under the Convention on Psychotropic Substances.

Narcotics producers in southeastern Europe have apparently been producing counterfeit Captagon tablets since the real thing was taken off the market in the 1980s. The fake, which also bears the Captagon logo, contains amphetamine mixed with caffeine and who-knows-what-else.

Not Just Amphetamines

However, it is not just amphetamines that are the problem, according to Professor Jallal Toufiq, founder of the Middle East and North Africa Harm Reduction Association.

Toufiq told CNN that all kinds of drugs are being abused in the region, and that abuse is growing. The problem, he said, is the lack of research and information.


“In the Middle East and North Africa region there's a huge void in terms of data and information,” he said. “For many countries there is a lack of political willingness because people just don't want to deal with this.”

As even turning to a strict police state will not really help stop drugs, I feel harsher laws are not the way to go to deal with this problem. Although, it might seem to help for a few decades (but at what price?)...

Also from your link that puts this into some perspective:
Adolescents Drink Less Frequently Than Adults, But When They Do Drink, They Drink More Heavily Than Adults. When youth between the ages of 12 and 20 consume alcohol, they drink on average about five drinks per occasion about six times a month, as indicated in Figure 4. This amount of alcohol puts an adolescent drinker in the binge range, which, depending on the study, is defined as “five or more drinks on one occasion” or “five or more drinks in a row for men and four or more drinks in a row for women.” By comparison, adult drinkers age 26 and older consume on average two to three drinks per occasion about nine times a month (SAMHSA 2006).
Huh? :confused:

Five drinks+ is binge drinking? Then I guess I've been binge drinking almost every time I'm drinking! :eek:

I would think 9+ drinks would qualify better for binge drinking.

Its not that they drink more often than adults, its that when they do drink, they do it in an abusive manner. They actually drink less frequently than adults. Why? Could it be because its harder for them to obtain the alcohol?
Would rational people drink more each time they are able to appropriate alcohol, or could it be that they do it because that is the "cool" thing to do?

What I mean is, is it not possible that when it becomes legal for them to drink, they have a greater tendency to stop acting like kids around something they aren't actually allowed to have, and instead behave more like adults and drink less and in more controlled forms?

Which reminds me, since the drinking age is much lower in, say, France than in the USA, and kids can thus start drinking legally at an earlier age, can anyone find some statistics of the number of alcoholics in France vs. the USA, or over how much people drink in the respective countries?

If I understand MobBoss' theory correctly, there should be a greater level of alcoholics and heavier drinking in France than in the USA. Would be interesting to see if that is really the case. :)

And what happens when currently illicit drugs have no criminal penalty and are widely and freely available?
I think Merk has a really good question here Nanocyborgasm. You need to extend your argument to account for what happens when the drugs become legal. ;)

Do you favor cigarette smoking at home and in bars?
Personally, I would prefer it to be only at home or at designated smoking zones, much like tobacco smoking today.
 
I agree that if a law is unjust, there is reason to disobey it. But there is no way anybody is ever going to convince me that our drug laws are unjust in any way.

Some of them may be ill-advised or wrongheaded, but they are not immoral or ethically unsupportable or unjust in any way and I expect my fellow citizens to obey the laws, or at least stfu and take the punishment like a man if they get caught breaking said laws.

I expect my fellow citizens to respect our freedom (I expect too much), but you'd jail millions of people (I get to help pay for that, yippee) based on the hypocritical notion of collective guilt. Do you want to be punished because somebody else did a bad thing? Now what was your reason for punishing millions of people for using drugs you dont like? Because some drug users do bad things? You wouldn't think that was so moral if you were being punished because of somebody else. Oh, and nice touch - that "if there's a reason" to violate unjust laws... When you decide the laws are unjust. If you decide they aint, everyone should obey and stfu.

But here's a suggestion: look up the homicide rates for the 20th century and take note how they ~doubled during drug wars - during Prohibition and again under Reagan et al. Why did many traffickers switch to heroin and cocaine in the 70s? How many heroin addicts before Nixon's war on pot and how many under Reagan? Why did juvenile crime rates escalate in the mid 80s? Because the penalties for adults were dramatically increased, the war on crack. I've watched the drug war machine put out lies and BS for decades with very little truth to be found, so why cant these moral laws be defended morally? As for the policy being immune to any indictment stemming from the results, does that mean the road to hell is or can be paved with good intentions?
 
As I said earlier, prohibition is easier to manage in a stronger police state, like China, Iran or Saudi Arabia. But surely you are not arguing that we go down that route? - Cheetah

No, I just made the point that prohibition is a wide term. There are tons of things in society that are legally prohibited but not enforced at any level.

As even turning to a strict police state will not really help stop drugs, I feel harsher laws are not the way to go to deal with this problem. Although, it might seem to help for a few decades (but at what price?)... - Cheetah

With your own evidence I don't understand how you can possibly draw this conclusion. My biggest problem with the positions taken by people like you and Nano is how frame your position. You see drug use happening and you immediately assert that measures taken to mitigate drug use don't work. When it clearly seems to me that the measures taken Saudi Arabia DO inhibit drug use. I think the clear position to take is: Wars on Drugs limit the amount of drugs used, but can never fully eliminate their existence. Your evidence and info from Saudi Arabia seem to indicate that there is a scant fraction of drug use there as opposed to here. Helping to stop drugs, and stopping drugs are two different things.
 
Merkinball said:
Oh great. Well since the segment of society that is most effected by drug use (IE: the lower class) is standing on its own, I guess we can stop dipping into my pocket so poor people can go out and buy drugs.

This is a very ignorant thing to say. Drug use doesn't discriminate - it doesn't matter if you're black, white latino, rich, poor or whatever. People who use drugs or want drugs do exactly that - they use and want drugs.

Drug ABUSE may be more prevalent in the lower class, but I'd argue it is barely more prevalent there than in the upper or middle classes. Do you know how much a gram of Cocaine costs? Well, it costs a lot, and a gram of Cocaine isn't even that much, and can be used in just one sitting. Poor people don't have access to that kind of money.

Added to that, a huge portion of drug abusers are doing it legally, whether it being addicted to ciggarettes, an alcoholic or addicted to prescription medication. Most drug addicts in the world are not living on the street using dirty needles and robbing people for their fix. They are people who injure themselves in some way, or have a condition (such as anxiety, ADD, psychosis, depression) that means they can get a script, legally, from a doctor to help their addiction. The problem with this, is that most medicinal medicines are opiates, benzoes and amphetamines - all VERY addictive drugs and often even after they have their injury or whatever sorted out using the drugs and therapy, they are still addicted. Did you know people say it only takes 21 days of daily use to form a habit? Once a habit is formed, addicted can follow suit relativly quickly, and physical withdrawals from benzoes, opiates and amphetamines also happen to come a lot quicker than most drugs. This is why people keep using.

Just like drug use, drug abuse also doesn't discriminate.
 
Merkinball said:
With your own evidence I don't understand how you can possibly draw this conclusion. My biggest problem with the positions taken by people like you and Nano is how frame your position. You see drug use happening and you immediately assert that measures taken to mitigate drug use don't work. When it clearly seems to me that the measures taken Saudi Arabia DO inhibit drug use. I think the clear position to take is: Wars on Drugs limit the amount of drugs used, but can never fully eliminate their existence. Your evidence and info from Saudi Arabia seem to indicate that there is a scant fraction of drug use there as opposed to here. Helping to stop drugs, and stopping drugs are two different things.

Lawlwut? Surely the measures taken by Saudi Arabia to inhib drug use do work, when they seize 13 tonnes of Methamphatmine. Right...

Also on that note, drug use in the Middle East is just as big as it is in North America. The fact is, is that they use different drugs. They use a lot of Opium, Marijuana (have you ever tried Afghanistanian Marijuana? Good stuff), and a ton of mandrax and other "mixed" drugs. When I went to school in London, I had some Indian friends who smoked Heroin at the age of 13. So much for inhibitng drug use...

If you want to point to a region or culture that really cracks down on drug use, look at SE Asia. Thailand and Indonesia for example are two of the worst places to get caught with illicit drugs, because not only will you not be able to get transfered to a prison in your home country, you may even face the death penalty. And drug abuse of illicit drugs isn't very big there, but surely you don't think it is just for America to use the death penalty for drug offenders?

But, like every other country there is loopholes in Thailand and Indonesia. The amount of pharmacies there that sell you legal pharms (they're legal if you have a script, but you don't need a script there due to being corrupt) is astonishing. So their measures for taking down drug use, again, hasn't really work at all, even though they have the death penalty.
 
And what happens when currently illicit drugs have no criminal penalty and are widely and freely available?

Same thing happening now, since people are using drugs as if there was no concern for their legal reprecussions.

Do you favor cigarette smoking at home and in bars?

I don't care so much about tobacco regulated this way, because it doesn't cause any mind altering effects that are dangerous socially. Marijuana does cause some mind altering effects that can impact the social sphere, and may impair judgement, so it is better off regulated into limited venues. Just like we regulate alcohol consumption in the US where you cannot drink in public for its potential detriment to the public order, so we can do the same for marijuana.
 
I'm not sure if that is even anecdotal...

I know I speak without actually ever having met your kids MobBoss - nor you, for that matter, but I must say that the claim you are making seems extremely optimistic at best.

Well, I think I know my kids just a tad bit better than you, or anyone else here for that matter.

But I can assure you, very few of the parents knew - and most of those still don't know - that their kids were drinking. We often discussed how elaborate schemes many people invented to make sure their parents didn't find out they were drinking, smoking or having sex.

I was one of those kids. So I know more than my share of those tricks. Not only have I repeated trusted my kids in those situations, I also verified that trust by unexepectedly checking up on them. Remember, I am a senior NCO in the Army...I am used to checking up on kids and are more than fairly savvy on how they operate.

Your kids may be some of the few exceptions, but that seems extremely unlikely.

Rofl. Since you dont know my kids at all, what do you base this on?

You come across as a generally smart fellow, so its definitely not a far stretch to assume your kids are smart as well and able to fool you if they so choose.

Nah...my kids arent as smart as me....they take after their mother. ;)

Add to that that most kids consider hiding that they are drinking as nothing more than a white lie, which will only hurt their parents feelings if they find out.

If your're a smart parent, you know how to difuse the need to have those little white lies. A huge part of that is honest communication and ensuring your kids that you will never 'blow up' at them simply for doing something you disagree with. If they had wanted to do it, they had no reason to hide it from us as our main issue would be their safety above all things. Happily, they seemed to take the lesson to heart and didnt end up drunk or pregnant like some of their friends did.

Again, I haven't met you nor your kids, but I find it extremely unlikely that none of them started drinking before 21.

/meh. Of course its extremely unlikely. My point is that it does happen. I find it extremely unlikely that you didnt drink until age 24. Were you lying about that? No?

Ask them when they're 40-something and well-established, whether or not they were drinking before 21. Then you can be fairly sure of getting a true answer. ;)

It wont matter to me when they are 40. As my two oldest are either out of the house or in the process of leaving, why wouldnt I get an honest answer now?

Again....you dont know my kids, just like I dont know you. But you dont see me calling you out on your own anecdotal comments do you?

As I said earlier, prohibition is easier to manage in a stronger police state, like China, Iran or Saudi Arabia. But surely you are not arguing that we go down that route?

I dont think it even requires a police state...but it would require a better police force than what we had in the '20s.

Which reminds me, since the drinking age is much lower in, say, France than in the USA, and kids can thus start drinking legally at an earlier age, can anyone find some statistics of the number of alcoholics in France vs. the USA, or over how much people drink in the respective countries?

If I understand MobBoss' theory correctly, there should be a greater level of alcoholics and heavier drinking in France than in the USA. Would be interesting to see if that is really the case. :)

Excep that wouldnt account for cultural differences and there are many. However, I did find this: http://www.marininstitute.org/alcohol_policy/french_drinking.htm

. The high premature death rate of French men is largely due to alcohol abuse. It is nearly double the premature death rate of French women, and the magnitude of the difference is the highest in Europe, according to the French gov:)ernment's most recent report on health.

. French youth, who can legally drink at age 16, prefer beer and distilled spirits to wine and have increased their con:)sumption fivefold since 1996, in part because 12- to 14-year-olds are drinking and binge drinking. This has led to a new government "War Against Drugs" that includes alcohol.

The world view that the French are able to control their drinking habits is untrue, according to Pierre Kopp, profes:)sor of economics at the Sorbonne. Kopp recently released the first French study estimating the cost of legal (alcohol and tobacco) and illegal drugs. Kopp estimates that alcohol costs France $18.5 billion (U.S.) each year. Drinking is responsible for nearly 53 percent of overall social costs of alcohol, tobacco and illegal drugs, he reports. (Annual cost to the state is $14.3 billion for tobacco and $2 billion for illegal drugs.)

But even these high alcohol economic cost figures are underestimated, cautions the researcher, because he left out alcohol-related crime and accidents, which com:)prise some of the largest costs to society in the United States. Kopp focused on public and private money spent on medical treatment, lost productivity, absenteeism, uncollected taxes, unpaid health contri:)butions, and preventive measures.

"There is a collective misunderstand:)ing of the dangers of alcohol in a country where a regular intake is claimed as a pro:)tection against heart problems," says Kopp. "Consumption is exceptionally high and the final bill is extremely heavy. Alcohol accounted for 42,963 deaths in France in 1997."

While I am not sure how that compares with the US, it sure doesnt sound good, does it?
 
Now if only the generally-conservative opponents we face actually took international statements/policies as valid for America... all it would get is a "we're not country x" though. :(

---

Legalise the yellow group, legalise/decriminalise and strongly regulate(if the former) the orange, and decriminalise, but not legalise, the red. Jail time will only be imposed if you commit a crime under the influence.

Regulation would be much more beneficial, as it leads to standards of health that make drug use safer. Never mind that legalisation can take a bite out of crime, and decriminalisation gives some revenue from fines, and also decreases the number of people in jail and potentially the money spent.

---

Of course, Form, who I'd normally get in a scuffle with, has the right idea. Why should we trust only one study? We should look at several studies and then make a final answer. The basic idea applies - legalise pretty much all the least severe, keep the most severe illegal but without jail time unless a crime is committed, and the middle group should be tested individually and a decision made based on that.

---

Also, the government having to ban drugs is a sad reflection - or paternalistic towards - the ability of parents to enforce discipline in our society. Many drugs wouldn't be a problem if parents were sure to teach/discipline their kids regarding them. The schools can certainly help though by showing harmful side effects.

...now what the hell do we do about peer pressure? Short of having men in camo snipe offered drugs out of a pressure-giving teen's hand?
 
Same thing happening now, since people are using drugs as if there was no concern for their legal reprecussions. - Nano

Oh please, if people didn't care about the legal repercussions there wouldn't be a black market for them. People wouldn't sneak around and do them. People would just snort lines of coke at Denny's...okay, well, that's a bad example. But the most drug users do it in secret. Most drug users try to keep their habits concealed. Drug users do not flaunt their drugs in front of cops. People avoid cops at all costs when they're doing drugs. The bottom line is that the behavior of drug addicts is altered drastically, from start to finish, specifically because of the War on Drugs.

This is a very ignorant thing to say. Drug use doesn't discriminate - it doesn't matter if you're black, white latino, rich, poor or whatever. People who use drugs or want drugs do exactly that - they use and want drugs. - kadazzle

Yeah that's fine. And lots of rich people, and lots of middle class people, end up being poor people because of substance abuse.

Drug ABUSE may be more prevalent in the lower class, but I'd argue it is barely more prevalent there than in the upper or middle classes. - kadazzle

Drug abuse is like a slide in a park. You may climb up to the top, but you'll eventually find your way to the bottom... Unless you're Rush Limbaugh.

Added to that, a huge portion of drug abusers are doing it legally, whether it being addicted to ciggarettes, an alcoholic or addicted to prescription medication. - kadazzle

Yup. And guess what. Poor people, poor people, poor people. Alcoholics are dominated by poor people. The poor smoke more than any other demographic. Poor people are more susceptible to prescription drug concoctions and meth. blah blah blah.

Lawlwut? Surely the measures taken by Saudi Arabia to inhib drug use do work, when they seize 13 tonnes of Methamphatmine. Right... - Kadazzle

Do you not understand that inhibition is not elimination? Did you bother reading anything I wrote? You quoted it. I think it was pretty clear.

Also on that note, drug use in the Middle East is just as big as it is in North America. The fact is, is that they use different drugs. They use a lot of Opium, Marijuana (have you ever tried Afghanistanian Marijuana? Good stuff), and a ton of mandrax and other "mixed" drugs. When I went to school in London, I had some Indian friends who smoked Heroin at the age of 13. So much for inhibitng drug use... - Kadazzle

Yeah, uhhhh, I spent quite a bit of time in the Middle East and Africa. And uhhhhh, I've been to a whole lot of places in a whole lot of countries and not even Addis Ababa had attitudes toward drug use like we do here. Afghanitan marijuana may be great, and it's heroin and opium is too, but it's not used like it is elsewhere. Drug use is terribly taboo in those parts, and most of it actually goes into Pakistan. Drug use is taboo in MOST Muslim nations. I really don't know what you're trying to prove with your CANADIAN FRIEND WHO GREW UP IN CANADA WHERE ATTITUDES TOWARDS DRUGS ARE LAX AND LAWS PROHIBITING THEM ARE WEAK!
 
With your own evidence I don't understand how you can possibly draw this conclusion. My biggest problem with the positions taken by people like you and Nano is how frame your position. You see drug use happening and you immediately assert that measures taken to mitigate drug use don't work. When it clearly seems to me that the measures taken Saudi Arabia DO inhibit drug use. I think the clear position to take is: Wars on Drugs limit the amount of drugs used, but can never fully eliminate their existence. Your evidence and info from Saudi Arabia seem to indicate that there is a scant fraction of drug use there as opposed to here. Helping to stop drugs, and stopping drugs are two different things.
It's not that Saudi Arabia is not able to limit drug use more than the USA: they apparently are, but at what costs?

And maybe drug use will increase if some drugs are legalised. The question is how much and which drugs? And not the least: Will the problems with increased drugs be acceptable if the problems with criminal drug suppliers is removed or lessened?

Well, I think I know my kids just a tad bit better than you, or anyone else here for that matter.

[...]

Again....you dont know my kids, just like I dont know you. But you dont see me calling you out on your own anecdotal comments do you?
Yes, of course. From my point of view, I don't even factually know that you have kids, or that you are you.

I just felt like adding some possible doubts in there, if not for you, then at least for other readers. But it is mostly pointless, non of my business and off-topic, so I'll stop at this.

Sorry if my speculations about your kids were inappropriate. I didn't mean any offense, but wanted to point out some criticism to your anecdotes.

Oh, and I didn't lie about when I started drinking. Though I'm not happy about it. For the record, I'm actually ashamed of it in a way, and don't talk about it much because I don't want people to know. But this is CFC and I'm relatively anonymous here, so... :)

I dont think it even requires a police state...but it would require a better police force than what we had in the '20s.
But how much harsher laws or extended police power should we accept, and are the gains worth the losses?

Excep that wouldnt account for cultural differences and there are many. However, I did find this: http://www.marininstitute.org/alcohol_policy/french_drinking.htm

[...]

While I am not sure how that compares with the US, it sure doesnt sound good, does it?
Interesting. And no of course not, it doesn't sound good.

Sorry, I can't make any good reply to this now. I'll be in the mountains with little Internet for the next few days. And now I really need to sleep!
 
Oh please, if people didn't care about the legal repercussions there wouldn't be a black market for them. People wouldn't sneak around and do them. People would just snort lines of coke at Denny's...okay, well, that's a bad example. But the most drug users do it in secret. Most drug users try to keep their habits concealed. Drug users do not flaunt their drugs in front of cops. People avoid cops at all costs when they're doing drugs. The bottom line is that the behavior of drug addicts is altered drastically, from start to finish, specifically because of the War on Drugs.

So you've proven my point for me. People do drugs despite the law, and that is why there is such a black market for them. The only difference in their behavior is that they take care to conceal their habit, not to avoid it. It is also impossible for legal ramifications to prevent drug use, because most of these drugs are physiologically addictive. Addicts will seek them out regardless of the risks and are willing to do anything to get them. (And I mean ANYTHING.)

But if you want to be consistent, in addition to drugs, why not ban alcohol too? It causes untold societal ills, and alcoholism is another addiction. Whole generations of families have been rendered dysfunctional and disrupted by just one or more alcoholic family members. Oh wait, we tried prohibition already in the 1920's, and its only impact was to continue alcohol use underground and enable criminal syndicates! The end result was that there was more public disorder as a result of banning the substance than there was before it was banned. Does that sound familiar? It should, because it's exactly what we have today with currently banned substances.
 
Merkinball said:
Drug use is taboo in MOST Muslim nations. I really don't know what you're trying to prove with your CANADIAN FRIEND WHO GREW UP IN CANADA WHERE ATTITUDES TOWARDS DRUGS ARE LAX AND LAWS PROHIBITING THEM ARE WEAK!

What I was trying to proove is that it's not as taboo as you think it is, and despite it being more taboo and illegal than it is in North America, there are still a lot of people who do drugs there. Besides, it was my Indian/English friend who grew up in India and England (from the age of 7 onwards). His family was fairly wealthy, hence why he went to a nice private International school, but that's besides the point.
 
So you've proven my point for me. - Nano

I'm not really so sure what your point is, considering that you like what I wrote while I was contradicting your original statement.

People do drugs despite the law, and that is why there is such a black market for them. - Nano

Yes, but this an incomplete picture though. I reckon a more accurate picture is, "some people do drugs despite the law, while some people do not do drugs because of the law."

It is also impossible for legal ramifications to prevent drug use, because most of these drugs are physiologically addictive. Addicts will seek them out regardless of the risks and are willing to do anything to get them. (And I mean ANYTHING.) - Nano

Ridiculous. While I do agree that drugs are physiologically addicting, this isn't Inception where you just wake up and people are doing drugs that they are addicted to. There's a diving board that people must jump off of before they are addicted. And the laws prevent a substantial number of people from ever stepping onto the diving board. And they also end up getting people OFF of (even physiologically addicting) drugs.

But if you want to be consistent, in addition to drugs, why not ban alcohol too? It causes untold societal ills, and alcoholism is another addiction. Whole generations of families have been rendered dysfunctional and disrupted by just one or more alcoholic family members. - Nano

Oh, don't get me wrong. I've come to feel that drugs should be legalized in society. I take Cheetah's position that the cost is just too much. And I also believe you'd see other areas of improvement (see Portugal) if we legalized drugs. I just find it insipid to pretend that our current laws do not function on a number of levels to keep people from doing drugs, and doing them much more frequently.
 
Back
Top Bottom