We should really stop calling it "war on drugs". It's really the "war on what people are allowed to consume, for their own sake" and so is on par with the "war on raw milk" and who knows maybe the "war on fat" or the "war on meat" in a few years. I'm not even a smoker but if somebody wants to consume/ingest all kinds of substances I don't lay any claims to his digestive track or blood stream and it's really his business to destroy himself if he so wishes, at any rate he pleases. In fact it might even be good "for the environment" since drug addicts are unlikely to have many kids and they usually have shorter life spans thus leaving a smaller carbon footprint on our precious Gaia. Clearly the society should not subsidize their medical treatment either and if they kill while hallucinating or steal to pay for their fix, being a drug-addict should not be treated as extenuating circumstances. Personal responsibility cuts both ways.
The reductionism isn't warranted. There are a group of people who liken drug use to drinking raw milk. I'm sorry, have you ever been to a town devastated by raw milk consumption? Do you see many kids born with birth defects because of raw milk consumption? Do you see raw milk addicts stealing to feed their raw milk habit?
I agree that we should end the drug war, but comments like yours are blindly one sided. Drug use isn't just high functioning professional recreational users. Its also people who poison their kids making meth at home, and people who coerce addicted women into prostitution using the promise of the next hit. Criminalization may be the wrong solution to it, but that doesn't mean its not a real social problem.
"Its also people who poison their kids making meth at home"
This particular problem is immediately solved by legalizing recreational methamphetamine. Pharmaceutical companies make methamphetamine too, and their production processes are well-regulated, produce drugs without hazardous adulterants, and do not put children in danger.
I agree with you otherwise, that the social problems caused by recreational drug abuse will not just go away if drugs are legalized. Quite a few of those problems, however, are unique to black market drugs. People would not be throwing garbage bags full of chemical byproducts onto the side of a highway if they could just produce the drugs legally. Likewise with opiates: you would not see "Krokodil" or any of the other botched attempts to replace heroin if recreational opiates were legal and accessible. Likewise with the numerous "gray area" attempts to replace marijuana. These are artificial problems with an easy solution; the rest of the social problems associated with drug abuse can and should be addressed without prohibition.
>Pharmaceutical companies make methamphetamine too, and their production processes are well-regulated, produce drugs without hazardous adulterants, and do not put children in danger.
Also, one of the reasons that making meth (and several other drugs) illegally is so dangerous and error prone is that all of the easy precursors are carefully regulated and tracked by the government.
It's kind of like how outlawing abortion wouldn't actually stop people from getting abortions; it would just make them way more dangerous.
The efforts big pharma makes to continue selling precursor drugs suggests big pharma actually love the current situation. They block laws which would help make cooking considerably harder. For all the war-on-drugs rhetoric, the laws are actually quite weak when it comes to blocking the availability of precursor compounds. Stopping the trade would lower profits. This is bad as far as the companies are concerned. http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2013/08/meth-pseudoephedri...
Exactly, it is a social problem. The problem is not chemicals, the problem is the society (or, sometimes, personal) failures that drive people to abuse chemicals because they help them avoid dealing with their problems. We have the same problem as drug addict has, only on societal level. Drug addicts feels bad and takes drug to temporarily feel less bad (which get him ever worse later). We feel bad that we have these problems and we take the drug of tougher enforcement and feel-good prohibition and imprisoning people that defy our good intentions - which makes us feel better for a short while with disastrous consequences in the long run. We as a society have to get off regulation and enforcement drugs and learn to deal with the problem as a healthy, responsible adults do. We learned to handle alcohol, we can learn to handle other chemicals too. It would be a long and painful recovery - and we didn't complete the "recognize the problem" step yet! - but we must do it if we want healthy society again.
It's entirely reasonable to discuss the extent to which drugs themselves contribute to social problems, but by this point, I think it's reliably evident that drug prohibition doesn't effectively address any social problems that might be attributed to drug use. Indeed, it's become clear that the social problems caused by prohibition are themselves more pervasive and more destructive than those caused by drugs themselves.
But it's still wrong to assume that drug use is inherently a social problem: there are plenty of people who can and do use drugs moderately, while still remaining peaceful and productive members of society, and these people are victims only of prohibition, not of the drugs themselves.
We should be careful about what we recognize as contributing factors to social problems at the macro level, especially where those influences affect the macro-level society only by way of willful human behavior. Everything might be rightly construed as a potential influence on human behavior, and anything taken to excess might inspire dangerous or irresponsible behavior; but it's very dangerous to treat human beings as fungible stimulus-response machines, and locate the nexus of responsibility for outcomes in the complex of external behavioral influences rather than in human agency itself. People should be held accountable for the actual, quantifiable harm they do to others, with consideration of what external influences contributed to their actions having only a role to play in deciding how to respond to people who actually are harming others.
Not sure if you're being sarcastic here - I do have a tendency to sometimes overcomplicate the way I express ideas, but I'm not certain that particular sentence is exceptionally overwrought.
Sorry for piling on, but it's my prerogative as an English teacher, and Marcus Brutus has a point. Phrases like:
it's very dangerous to treat human beings as fungible stimulus-response machines, and locate the nexus of responsibility for outcomes in the complex of external behavioral influences rather than in human agency itself
are great for showing your college professor you've mastered the jargon, but they don't get you many Likes on Facebook. Why not just say:
while there can be mitigating circumstances, I believe in personal responsibility
I'm sure that one might find a more concise and elegant way of expressing the thoughts I attempted to convey in that sentence. But I hope you'll agree that reducing
> Everything might be rightly construed as a potential influence on human behavior, and anything taken to excess might inspire dangerous or irresponsible behavior; but it's very dangerous to treat human beings as fungible stimulus-response machines, and locate the nexus of responsibility for outcomes in the complex of external behavioral influences rather than in human agency itself.
to
> while there can be mitigating circumstances, I believe in personal responsibility
is at best an example of extremely lossy compression. That rewording gives at most a vague impression of what my position would be were the question reduced to a mere binary "are you for or against prohibition?" contest.
I agree that concision is important, and I know that my earlier comment didn't quite achieve it, but I'd still regard concision as efficiency in the use of words: saying as much in fewer words, not using fewer words for its own sake, even if it means actually saying less.
Actually I was not sarcastic at all. I really loved that sentence as I too have a penchant for long-winding sentences that are hard to parse but in closer inspection have no noise and every word in them is essential. Comes from my days of reading Aristotle where it is not uncommon to have a page of only two sentences. Or look at the Declaration of Independence or the Treaty of Paris for more recent examples of page-sized sentences. I think it shows how far downhill we've gone in terms of literacy or perhaps even mental capacity. Yours, while not in the same league, was a sentence I really liked and it never occurred to me that people might construe my comment as sarcastic.
Apologies; my own writing style is influenced by reading a lot of eighteenth-century text, which tends to be very wordy, but which also seems to express a much higher precision of thought than the more terse modern fashions of writing.
I've noticed that Pitarou's advice on rephrasing my original reply would reduce it to something much vaguer than I'd intended, and would simply convey the conclusion of my thought process as a simple yes-or-no response, leaving my actual rationale entirely hidden.
I'm not entirely convinced that we've necessarily gone downhill in terms of literacy or mental capacity, but I agree that the outward expressiveness of language certainly has declined in comparison to the past, and this may be in part an explanation for the coarseness and contentiousness of much modern discourse.
It's a very real problem for some individuals, no quarrel there. But it's not a "real social problem". As a matter of fact I could so far as to say that I would be hard-pressed to find any "real social problems". They really all boil down to individuals making bad choices but asking society to foot the bill. And of course "social problems" are very much welcomed by the political class and various others busybodies , do-gooders, etc. who earn their livelihoods (and sometimes much more than that) by "fixing" "social problems". And please don't play the "it's about the kids" card. If the effects spill over to non-consenting adults or minors, custody can be removed or charges can be brought just like the case of parents copulating in front of their kids without having to criminalize sex.
Walk around Philly surrounded by strung out junkies and tell me its not a social problem. Step on a used syringe in New York and tell me its not a social problem. Talk to some foster kids who were taken away from parents with heroin or meth addictions and tell me its not a social problem.
Look, you can walk around those places and come back the same conclusion for Alcohol. If you walk around those places, you'll find more uneducated people, more addicts, more violence, more decay, and so on. It's very easy to conclude 'it must be the drugs', or 'these people are more violent', or 'dumber', but those would be very shallow conclusions. Drugs are a very simple way to hide from ones bleak reality. Getting rid of drugs to deal with this problem would be the same as building more houses to eliminate homelessness.
> Getting rid of drugs to deal with this problem would be the same as building more houses to eliminate homelessness.
This is an excellent thought experiment. I think everyone would be basically on board with the idea that if there were suddenly more houses (for free), that would be a good thing. It would be a huge benefit to people renting or buying housing, but I agree with you that the cost of housing is unlikely to drop to zero no matter how much suddenly appears.
So, in the analogy, do we think homeless people are being priced out of the market, or do we think they're homeless for other reasons?
Ok, then. How do you propose we fix this "social problem"? The War on Drugs clearly has not worked and D.A.R.E. has been found to be generally ineffective[1]. Throwing money at the problem is not going to fix it, bigger guns and nicer presentations are not going to change the fact that people use drugs, and will use them regardless of the consequences.
Giving people safe avenues to do what they were going to do anyway is the only sane solution. Obviously rehab clinics are here to stay, I am not arguing that drug use is always positive, because it is not. People will and do abuse legal substances, all you can offer is resources to help them stop; people have to make their own decisions.
I don't disagree with anything you said. But lets not pretend that drug use isn't actually a social problem like some pro legalization folks want to do. It has real social costs and really hurts people and communities, just like other "moral crimes" that should nonetheless probably be legal. You can think prostitution should be legal without pretending that its this totally above-board thing with totally consenting adults that doesn't have a lot of negative costs.
Prostitution is actually a bad argument. The places where it is legal, prostitutes get things like health care, readily preventative measures against the spread of STDs and forgo the need for pimps.
The "war on drugs" is really pre-crime. Its the notion that everyone that does x becomes an addict. That everyone eventually falls down the slippery slope of needing to commit crimes like stealing to get their fix, which I think we can agree just isn't true.
As a Christian, and this sadly should not be but may be hard to believe, I follow the path of free will. You are free to destroy the planet if you so choose. Its not my right to determine which poison you wish to ingest is right or wrong for you. While I do agree that some choices do have societal consequences, a "one size fits all" approach with prohibition is complete bullshit.
I do agree that measures should be taken to protect myself from others, when my actions actually do affect them. Take DUI laws for example. There's clear evidence driving while intoxicated can lead to incredible lapses of judgment. Does it mean every time you're behind the wheel with any blood alcohol count you're gonna kill someone? No but there's a severely increased chance. Yet even then I may be able to handle a higher blood alcohol content than you, so this argument is also brittle.
I guess my main point is other countries have legalized a spectrum of substances at a much less threshold of pain than we have. Its as if they seen what a colossal waste of time, energy, and resources it produces. Yet in America we let our pride get in the way of every fucking thing. We'll continue this "war on drugs" and equally our "war on terror" until we're no longer a nation. Both have pushed us close to oblivion because consistently no one is seeing any positive results. The rest of the world recognizes our folly, repeatedly calls us out on it and what? We continue business as usual? I'm sorry, I don't wish to be labeled as that incredibly dense, stupid, moronic, retarded, juvenile, or whatever other petty words I can come up with. I think we're smarter than that but if you (and by you I mean second person you all) wish to continue this farcical charade, knock yourselves out.
I'll agree to my optimism and it being a claim. Its untrue in Germany due according to the article but is the problem legalization or the laws trying to promote said legalization?
Criminal organizations seek out areas of gratification like this and once in their clutches it seems next to impossible to remove completely. Prohibition patently isn't working but instead of seeking any possible alternative, we stick our head in the sand and continue business as usual.
My problem is I see inefficiency. The war on drugs or terror are both incredibly, woefully inefficient and nothing is changing for the better, only the worse.
> Drug use isn't just high functioning professional recreational users.
But then why have the same restrictions for those cases where it really is? Why just ban them categorically rather than have a system for ensuring that people who can enjoy it safely can also do it legally?
I know, you can find flaws with any such proposal. But There are about a zillion middle grounds that make more sense than full prohibition (or full legalization).
I agree that prohibition doesn't work. My point is that its naive to pretend that those in favor of drug control are purely interested in regulating peoples bodies. Just like with alcohol. The fact that prohibition is bad policy doesn't meant that alcohol doesn't create social problems beyond just harming individual users. You can disagree with prohibition as a policy while also understanding what motivated people to institute it in the first place.
We should really stop calling it "war on drugs". It's really the "war on the communities of black and brown people" and so is on par with the US legal apparatus since the country's founding
I have a feeling making this problem into a race problem will only make it worse. If there's anything that can make completely insane drug discourse in the US even more insane (it's hard to see how it's possible but it is) - I think it's exactly making it about race. Yes, I know there's racism among law enforcement and establishment - but the source of prohibition problems is not racial. Alcohol prohibition failed, and drug prohibition failed too, for the same reason, having nothing to do with race.
It's not an empirical observation, it is a political opinion, which resides on guessing what other people think, and in my opinion getting it terribly wrong. If you approach the problem with wrong premises, you get wrong solution. If you say only problem with drug war is racism, you don't get a solution for it because you're looking in a wrong place.
I don't think anyone has ever claimed that "the war on drugs is based on racism" full stop. The word "racism" has become passe for many academics and writers. i.e.:
"Just as the capitalist system is not a capitalist plot, so racial oppression is not the work of "racists." It is maintained by the principal institutions of society, including the schools (which define "excellence"), the labor market (which defines "employment"), the legal system (which defines "crime"), the welfare system (which defines "poverty"), the medical industry (which defines "health"), and the family (which defines "kinship"). Many of these institutions are administered by people who would be offended if accused of complicity with racial oppression. It is reinforced by reform programs that address problems traditionally of concern to the "left" - for example, federal housing loan guarantees. The simple fact is that the public schools and the welfare departments are doing more harm to black children than all the "racist" groups combined." - Noel Ignatiev, http://racetraitor.org/abolishthepoint.html
I agree with the last phrase, but probably not for the reason the author intends. I admit though I didn't read the article beyond the first page - and your quote, of course - as, frankly, it contained too much wrong from the start that I didn't want to waste any more of my time on it. Reading Ignatiev's profile, he certainly looks like a person way out of the mainstream and with good deal of cookiness in him, so I'm not sure he's a good example of a mainstream academic or writer.
I think also there is confusing equality of possibilities with equality of outcomes. The outcomes are demonstrably unequal. But is this because medical industry or welfare system are racial? From what I see, some systems are now geared to give unfair advantage to minority players willing to game the system (google "Pigford settlement"). However, as I said, the overall outcomes are still very unequal. I think there are institutional causes for it, but I think the causes are not racial now (though historically they were) but viewing it through exclusively racial lens today only makes it worse, as it makes people take wrong decisions (i.e. vote for corrupt and incompetent, but racially suitable politician, instead of honest and competent one of a wrong race). Same with regard to war on drugs - if we decide it's about racism, we should then spend our efforts on ensuring persons of all races are equally punished for equal crimes. Which is exactly wrong thing to do in this situation - instead we should spend our efforts on ensuring nobody is punished for something that should not be a crime in the first place!
I think you should watch Eugene Jarecki's documentary 'the house I live in.' The source is very much racial, and this was also the case for alcohol prohibition to a large extent.
I did actually, some time ago. It is a powerful work, but I do not see how the conclusion that drug war is caused by racism follows from it. Same for alcohol prohibition - while prohibitionists featured plenty of racist propaganda, they weren't just driven by racial hate - even if America were completely racially homogeneous, there still would be prohibitionists.
"Clearly the society should not subsidize their medical treatment..."
That's one big problem - we do subsidize it. Many states even require drug addiction treatment to be rolled into health insurance. Everyone has to pay for it, so everyone has some right, or at least reasonable excuse, to tell you not to do it.
That's part of the rationale behind the Wars on Fat, Sugar, Soda, TransFats, etc etc. When your choices hit my pocketbook, then I have to care about all that stuff. It's one of the lovely side effects of socialized medicine, and socialized programs in general, that people don't like to talk or think about.
One of the benefits of "social medicine" that some people don't like to talk about is that socialized medicine as practiced in Europe is usually way cheaper for society and works a whole lot better...
You as a rich person might survive with everyone around you obese, depending on low-quality food and low-quality health care, but infectious diseases tend to spread without consulting how much you paid for your health care plans.
Bad health care actually lowers the productivity, and most above-average earners depend on productive below-average earners more than they'd like to know...
The Wars on fat, sugar, etc. are also occurring outside of socialized medicine. (I assume that by socialized medicine, you mean, in the U.S.,Medicare, Medicaid, and any other health program explicitly funded and/or provided by a government entity.) These wars are also being fought by private insurance companies, where the healthy subsidize the less-healthy, and the profit motive exists.
Not just in some state but drug treatment coverage is required in policies offered on the new Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) exchanges as well for newly eligible Medicaid recipients.
>>I'm not even a smoker but if somebody wants to consume/ingest all kinds of substances I don't lay any claims to his digestive track or blood stream and it's really his business to destroy himself if he so wishes, at any rate he pleases.
Umm, very many people use various drugs occasionally and recreationally without any harm coming to them.
Denying healthcare to users is cruel, especially as the risks involved are comparable to playing sport. Shall we deny healthcare to horse riders and rock climbers too?
Denying healthcare to addicts is especially cruel as they have a problem. Personal responsibility is not a good reason to behave like an arsehole towarda the needy.
Right. So the net outcome of the war on drugs is to help drug addicts breed until they outnumber the rest of us. That is a very clever plan and well worth the investment of our hard earned tax dollars, isn't it? :-(
I'm curious as to your definition of 'being a drug addict'.
>In fact it might even be good "for the environment" since drug addicts are unlikely to have many kids and they usually have shorter life spans thus leaving a smaller carbon footprint on our precious Gaia.
Am I about to pull out a Strawman? Probably.
A drug addict is also less likely to drive a car, fly on a airplane etc...thus not leaving a larger carbon footprint than somebody who decides to travel to the Utopia x times a year they strive; and has a society willing to 'subsidize' their medical treatment as they are not 'addicts'
What people consume has enormous impact on people around them. Ignoring the negative externalities doesn't make them go away, and it certainly won't convince those who have been affected by them.
Problem is: if you have a job in the DEA or your business in running prisons, you probably don't view the war on drugs as a broken business model at all. You'd even go so far as to hire lobbyists to keep it going...
From a political point of view, this brings the debate into much greater clarity. Either people support DEA employees and prison employees and are willing to subsidize their salaries, or they are not.
True, in general. But the prison population is also overwhelmingly non-white, and non-white people statistically vote Democrat. Prisoners can't vote. As one of the two ruling parties in America, it would be in the Democratic Party's best interest to liberalise drug laws to augment the racial minority vote.
If you never vote for a politician that is "tough on crime" by imprisoning kids that decided to smoke a joint, and so do everyone you know - and if you will treat anyone who says it's OK to do this as dangerously insane individual - you have a good chance to take it back. American society has undergone a lot of changes in the last 100 years with regard to many freedoms of many people who were persecuted by the government or denied their rights because of various government restrictions with regard to gender, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual conduct, etc. - and when people realized it is wrong the government eventually had to cave and clean up their act. It is time US realized as a society what horrendous wrong "war on drugs" is. Once they do, no prison industry would be able to resist.
Traditionally, this is not always true. Courts have often been a check on governments rather than an institution of them. In common law (or "case law") republican jurisdictions, courts are supposed to act to restrain government to acts permitted by law.
There's a very sad story of a kid who told his DARE teacher that he found a couple of joints in his parents' room.
This resulted in his parents being led away in handcuffs, and the children being taken away by social services, in tears. When he was asked about it, he said, "They told us that people who used drugs need help, and I just wanted my parents to get help."
I guess that would be a lesson to never trust people from the government claiming they're here to help. Too bad the pay for this lesson is a ruined life.
On the other hand, even when people are clueless about it being nonsense, it's hard to find politicians who are willing to support it.
Take, for example, the (successful) 2008 initiative to decriminalize marijuana in Massachusetts. Nearly every town in the state voted in favor of it, often by a wide margin (it won with 65% support statewide)[0].
Yet, my own then-congresswoman, a Democrat in a very safe district, couldn't be bothered to vocalize her support for it (in fact, in a response to an open letter from a constituent, she still clung to the ludicrous belief that marijuana contains no medicinal value, despite the copious evidence to the contrary included in that very letter).
Sadly, she's not alone in failing to represent her constituents' views on the issue of drug policy. For whatever reason, drug policy is the issue where the disparity between politicians' views and their constituents' views is the greatest and lasts the longest, far more so than any other issue I can think of.
You are completely correct. Even in Texas the majority of the citizens support legalizing medical and recreational marijuana[0] but no politician will ever bring it up.
And don't forget there is a massive lobby on the other side pushing for the continuation of the war on drugs, which probably affects the public sphere.
That's true in the sense that "everyone" knew that gay people should be able to get married. If you're under 40 and in tech, you're likely to be in a bubble of social liberalism.
I posted a link further down in the thread about the majority of Texas supporting recreational and medical cannabis use, quoting from the study
"Respondents whose age fell between 30 and 65 were most likely to be in support of the measures, with the 18-29 age group being the most unsure. Those 65 and older showed the least support but were still a part of the majority approval"
I came for an analysis of what the war on drugs business model is and why it is failing, but all I got was a press release for Sir Richard Branson attending some government conference.
There used to be an anti-alcohol war, alcohol was banned and has everybody stopped using it? No way! So what's the point in "war on drugs"? Putting the word "drugs" to as many posts possible? Making it more appealing and popular?
Maybe we should get McAfee to go back out to Belize and finish his work on some ultimate drug. Imagine something that gave the highs that heroin/cocaine/meth/whatever users seek, always giving as good a high as the first time and not ruining the user's body. If this 'soma' was really that good at hitting the spot for those that crave then there would be no need to dabble with anything else.
By analogy, the 'high grade' weed is always preferable to the 'squidgy black resin' cannabis that our grandparents used to smoke. There is no longer a market for the less effective stuff even if it is sold at a considerable discount.
I agree that the war on drugs should indeed not called a war and instead of strictly forbeeding all drugs it should instead put realistic boundaries given our society allowing and accepting some types of them! I also believe that limits and boundaries are useful in any society because having no lines does not only affect the one single person who is a heavily drug addict, but it is also affecting the entire society, thus having them completely uncontrollable is as bad as forbeeding it completely ! A state with out a police will be a joungle x
Politics isn't just about "business models". The war on drugs is certainly bad. But I still believe there are drugs that should be prohibited. Especially Heroin and Methamphetamine, and underage consumption of many others should be severely regulated.
There is no way Heroin or Meth can be "used recreationally" without causing self-destructive harm and affecting all of society.
> There is no way Heroin or Meth can be "used recreationally" without causing self-destructive harm and affecting all of society.
Please read up on diacetylmorphine maintenance programs. There is copious literature on this.
Laudanum was used safely for the better part of the late 19th century. The word "heroin" is actually a trademark of Bayer (yes, the same folks who also gave us "aspirin")[0]. It was sold successfully and without any large-scale devastating effects for several years; the reason it was eventually outlawed had nothing to do with any negative repercussions of the drug on a large scale.
As for methamphetamine, according to the MTF and NSDUH studies, the majority of people who have used methamphetamine in the last 30 days do not meet DSM criteria for substance dependence[1]. That's not looking at everyone who's ever used methamphetamine; that's looking at people who have used it within the last month. Clearly it can be used "without affecting all of society"[2].
This is, of course, ignoring the fact that methamphetamine is Schedule II and can be obtained legally (albeit in rare cases) with a prescription (under the brand name Desoxyn).
[0] Both trademarks are now generic; Bayer eventually lost these trademark protections. This is why your local drugstore is allowed to sell acetylsalicylic acid under the name "aspirin" (with a lowercase "a").
[1] Most also wouldn't meet the DSM criteria for substance abuse either, except for a technicality in the criteria that references the legal status of the drug, which is naturally self-fulfilling.
[2] Unless you are looking at the economic impacts (ie, Nicaragua 30 years ago, North Korea and Afghanistan today, in which case you have a point, but that only serves to emphasize the need to short-circuit these black markets with legal ones).
Whatever girvo did, he did while heroin was illegal. So how does what you said make any sense?
Prohibiting substances will never stop users from seeking them out. It will however make their use less safe (contamination, mislabeling, inconsistent purity, dirty needles, hesitance to seek medical attention for fear of prosecution, lack of available research on currently illegal substances hindering treatment of overdoses, etc.) and create a black market around the distribution of those substances (leading to violent crime, overflowing prisons, traumatized neighborhoods and broken families, etc.).
If fact, all of our available evidence from countries that have decriminalized hard drugs points to a reduction in abuse. That's just intuitive to me... wouldn't you be more likely to relapse if you were a felon unable to find gainful employment? Or a mother whose son just got shot for pushing crack on the corner? The repercussions of breaking up families, criminalizing and incarcerating our most vulnerable members of society, and exacerbating violence in our poorest communities cannot be understated. The drug war has caused a whole plague of societal ills, one of which ironically appears to be higher rates of drug abuse.
If heroin was legal today would you go and try it? I wouldn't, and I suspect most people either would or would not regardless of the law.
For those that would, having to go but it from some non legitimate source where they are potentially exposed to non-pure product and potential crime certainly isn't going to help their situation.
I find it interesting you get that from my comments. Personally, I blame myself (entirely) for the choices I made that ended with me in some very bad situations. Not the drugs. They're an outlet and a symptom; rarely are they the cause, in my opinion.
Methamphetamine is useful for non-self-destructive activities, which is why it is legal by prescription. Medical methamphetamine is used to treat narcolepsy and ADHD. On top of that, pharmaceutical methamphetamine is much safer, even at recreational doses, than black market drugs because the production process is well regulated.
Well actually there is a world of difference between Methamphetamine and Amphetamine (Adderall). They are in the same family like MDMA but the addition of a methyl group makes Methamphetamine a neurotoxin. "Methamphetamine is a potent neurotoxin, shown to cause dopaminergic degeneration."[1] So they although they share same traits, their hazardous effects are no where close to each other.
This is why drugs are complicated and different. Blanketing all "drugs" as bad while drinking Coffee, Whisky and Aspirin is just hypocritcal and dangerous.
Also, as an anecdote, I have received d-amphetamine by prescription and have taken Desoxyn about five times. They're not that different, Desoxyn is subjectively 'cleaner'.
I stick to caffeine though, and roughly half a Modafinil every two weeks. Amphetamine is just not my friend. Your mileage may vary.
I am aware of the difference between methamphetamine and amphetamine, but the reality is that methamphetamine is used medically and that in small doses the harm is below the measurement threshold. I do not doubt that harm is caused at recreational doses, but vastly more harm is caused by the adulterants in black market methamphetamine.
> Society can hardly intervene in every individual's self destruction. But it cannot allow drugs which are not useful for anything BUT self destruction.
Why not? Should I not be permitted to destroy myself if I so choose?
Because society needs you and who are you thinking you can take decisions for yourself not asking the government for permission? Get in line, you dangerous anarchist hippy, and be a good cog. And if you try to harm yourself again, we will put you in the cage with most violent and sociopathic people we could find and keep there until you understand we're doing this for your own good. That provided we don't kill you while trying to take from you dangerous chemicals that aren't good for you.
"I still believe there are drugs that should be prohibited. Especially...Methamphetamine,"
Methamphetamine is legal by prescription. This is the war on drugs in its truest form: giving well-connected businesses (like big pharma) special advantages at everyone's expense.
They're also presently working on CBD (one of the other common chemicals in marijuana, generally the second most prevalent after THC) derivatives for medical usage.
Heroin is presently illegal. Possession of heroin with intent to supply carries a prison sentence. Possession of heroin for personal use is a criminal offence.
Drug addicts take drugs. They're not deterred by the legal status of the drug. Heroin being illegal doesn't stop addicts taking heroin.
By making a drug hard to get illegally all you do is make a drug addict commit more crime to get it, or take more risks.
Heroin users inject contaminated drugs, using re-used (sometimes shared) needles, in dirty surroundings. This carries considerable risk of infection from diseases like hepatitis and HIV. It also carries significant risk of abscess or even amputation.
Heroin users need money to buy heroin. This money can come from sex working. Sex work is an unregulated semi-legal activity. There are risks of rape and assault. There are risks of sexually transmitted infections. People dislike the advertising associated with sex work. Because sex work is unregulated there are other vulnerable groups dragged into it - trafficked women, homeless people, and children.
Or the money comes from other crime - mugging, burglary, theft. And people spending all their cash on heroin will steal food.
Heroin's illegality means that its supply is controlled by criminal gangs. There is violence associated with these gangs.
Even the "nice" drugs - cannabis - have considerable problems from their illegal status. We can't do proper science because of the problems of getting and giving cannabis. Cannabis is sometimes grown by slaves trapped in grow-farms in houses. There are links between cannabis grow farms and housing benefit fraud in the UK.
Heroin being illegal makes it harder for people to look for or get help. We can't taper addicts down using heroin, so we use methadone. It's tricky to talk about how addictive a substance is, but some people feel that methadone is more addictive than heroin.
When heroin is too tightly controlled you just switch addicts to even worse drugs. See, for example, the Russian drug Krokodil. This is desomorphine, cooked from codeine-containing meds, but in dirty unclean situations. The high from desomorphine is intense but short-lived, so people cook and cook frequently. They're careless with the procedure. This means that they're using filthy needles to inject god-only knows what. An image search for "krokodil" returns many grisly horrific images. Addicts using krokodil live for about 3 years.
Methadone is horrid. Buprenorphine was better for me, personally. I'm tapering off that at the moment.
Also, Krokodil is... well, it's barely desomorphine. A RP/I reduction of codeine... that certainly doesn't produce what they want it to (except in tiny, tiny quantities perhaps, more as a side-chain reaction though).
Also, just to point out, a lot of the Krokodil images were mislabeled from another drug (that I can't remember) -- it's horridly dangerous, it will kill you, but it doesn't eat the flesh of your bones like is commonly reported, unless you're shooting acetone. And trust me, you know if what you're shooting hasn't been cleaned properly -- that shit hurts like fuck, and definitely ruins any "high" you might get. *shudder
There is no way you can use military force against people who use or sell heroin or meth without causing destructive harm and affecting all of society.
> The war on drugs is certainly bad. But I still believe there are drugs that should be prohibited.
Let's be clear here: a legal prohibition is nothing more than an ultimatum. It's a threat of punishment - "if you use heroin, and we catch you, we will lock you in a cage".
If you're opposed to people using heroin because it's harmful, can you explain how making people serve prison sentences and have life-long criminal records in addition to being heroin addicts somehow reduces the amount of harm that they suffer? Because, from where I'm sitting, it seems that the solution you offer to the harm caused by heroin and meth is to do even more harm to people, on top of the harm caused by the drugs.
Leaving aside issues not regarding adults (as underage consumption of many things is regulated now, there's nothing new here to be brought into the discussion), do you really think it's up to you to decide what is good and bad for everyone? Especially as you seem to be vastly misinformed on both personal and societal tolerances of both amphetamines and opiates. While both can be dangerously abused, so can be many common chemicals - like alcohol. There are ways beside prohibitionism to deal with it.
