Legalising drugs

jnimhaoileoin

So I was speaking to an Objectivist the other day (very interesting philosophy) who supports the legalisation of drugs. Got me thinking about it and I suppose I realised that I had never really questioned the accepted view that drugs are bad ergo those who possess, use and spread them are bad and must be punished and deterred from doing so.

Perhaps the objectivist view is actually the more reasonable one i.e. people should only be punished for harming others. So the possession, use or sale of any drug would no longer be illegal or incur any punishment as it is people's right to choose what they do with their own bodies.There are obvious benefits to the state in no longer incurring the costs of putting all these people in prison and more importantly, the legalisation of these acts could reduce a number of the problems currently tied to them e.g. gang violence etc.

I still haven't really got my head around it all, I see pregnant drug-users as a grey area for example.

Would welcome the thoughts of others though!

Godfather.

your questions or ideas about legalizing drugs cover the same thoughts as assisted suicide or even gun ownership, I guess like everything else we pick and choose with our own moral compass's.
but.....don't let anybody mask the real dangers of drug use while they try to sell you the idea that drug use in moderation is safe, there are risks and conquenses involved and the damage can be irreverseable. ( yes I'm an anti drug guy, been there done that)

Godfather.

jnimhaoileoin

Oh don't get me wrong, I am in no doubt that the use of any kind of drugs is detrimental to your health. I have never and will never use them myself.

It's comparable to assisted suicide yes, gun ownership is somewhat different, though I can see the argument that a person should not be stopped from possessing a gun if it is only to be used in self-defence (I say I can see the logic of it, doesn't mean I agree with it).

rgambs

Godfather. said:

your questions or ideas about legalizing drugs cover the same thoughts as assisted suicide or even gun ownership, I guess like everything else we pick and choose with our own moral compass's.
but.....don't let anybody mask the real dangers of drug use while they try to sell you the idea that drug use in moderation is safe, there are risks and conquenses involved and the damage can be irreverseable. ( yes I'm an anti drug guy, been there done that)

Godfather.

You don't drink alcohol Godfather?
It's one of the most dangerous drugs out there.
It's legal as well.

jnimhaoileoin

rgambs said:

Godfather. said:

your questions or ideas about legalizing drugs cover the same thoughts as assisted suicide or even gun ownership, I guess like everything else we pick and choose with our own moral compass's.
but.....don't let anybody mask the real dangers of drug use while they try to sell you the idea that drug use in moderation is safe, there are risks and conquenses involved and the damage can be irreverseable. ( yes I'm an anti drug guy, been there done that)

Godfather.

You don't drink alcohol Godfather?
It's one of the most dangerous drugs out there.
It's legal as well.

The point here is that should things only be illegal that cause direct harm to others. Now granted, you could say that in using drink or drugs you are likely harming your friends and family, even if this harm is mental rather than physical. The question is at what point does the state have the right to intervene in how we live our lives? Could this intervention actually do more harm than good?

dudeman

Would the state provide food, lodging transportation and medical care for the meth heads and junkies that are unable to maintain gainful employment?

I'm not trying to argue, as I have tried to run through the hypotheticals about this very topic and not formed a position. Lots of unknowns as to how the forces of addiction and human nature might react in an environment free of legal prosecution.

jnimhaoileoin

No the state would not, if we were to adhere to the principles of objectivism by which I came across this idea in the first place. It would not be their role to do so. Certain charitable organisations could choose to do so but ultimately if you choose to destroy your life well, that would be that really

Godfather.

rgambs said:

Godfather. said:

your questions or ideas about legalizing drugs cover the same thoughts as assisted suicide or even gun ownership, I guess like everything else we pick and choose with our own moral compass's.
but.....don't let anybody mask the real dangers of drug use while they try to sell you the idea that drug use in moderation is safe, there are risks and conquenses involved and the damage can be irreverseable. ( yes I'm an anti drug guy, been there done that)

Godfather.

You don't drink alcohol Godfather?
It's one of the most dangerous drugs out there.
It's legal as well.

no sir, if I ever say "lets have a beer" it's a just a way of saying lets hook up, I'll have a bottle of water.

Godfather.

Drowned Out

dudeman said:

Would the state provide food, lodging transportation and medical care for the meth heads and junkies that are unable to maintain gainful employment?

I'm not trying to argue, as I have tried to run through the hypotheticals about this very topic and not formed a position. Lots of unknowns as to how the forces of addiction and human nature might react in an environment free of legal prosecution.

This isn't the case....We have case studies....like, entire nation case studies....not hypotheticals.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/
Health experts in Portugal said Friday that Portugal’s decision 10 years ago to decriminalise drug use and treat addicts rather than punishing them is an experiment that has worked.

“There is no doubt that the phenomenon of addiction is in decline in Portugal,” said Joao Goulao, President of the Institute of Drugs and Drugs Addiction, a press conference to mark the 10th anniversary of the law.

The number of addicts considered “problematic” — those who repeatedly use “hard” drugs and intravenous users — had fallen by half since the early 1990s, when the figure was estimated at around 100,000 people, Goulao said.

Other factors had also played their part however, Goulao, a medical doctor added.

“This development can not only be attributed to decriminalisation but to a confluence of treatment and risk reduction policies.”

Godfather.

jennycoyle said:

No the state would not, if we were to adhere to the principles of objectivism by which I came across this idea in the first place. It would not be their role to do so. Certain charitable organisations could choose to do so but ultimately if you choose to destroy your life well, that would be that really

actually.....yes, the state will once you've hit the bottom with nothing left to loose, I know of 2 people that I can think of (I partied with) that are on 100% state asstance including health and mental heath benifits, both are spun-out to the point of no return.
but not all drugies get the help they need and saddly they end up on the streets, in prison or die, and I've known a few of them as well.

Godfather.

Amongst the Ani

What we are doing now as a society is not working. We have the highest prison rate per capita in the world and yet drug use is not going anywhere. Punshing addicts with jail has not worked as a deterence. I would prefer we try and find another way to deal with this before we legalize heroine or meth but something has got to change. Its insane for us to keep doing the same things as a society and expect the results to be different. If you reduced the prison population by half we would have so much more money to use in a different avenue to treat people as addicts rather than criminals.

jnimhaoileoin

Godfather. said:

jennycoyle said:

No the state would not, if we were to adhere to the principles of objectivism by which I came across this idea in the first place. It would not be their role to do so. Certain charitable organisations could choose to do so but ultimately if you choose to destroy your life well, that would be that really

actually.....yes, the state will once you've hit the bottom with nothing left to loose, I know of 2 people that I can think of (I partied with) that are on 100% state asstance including health and mental heath benifits, both are spun-out to the point of no return.
but not all drugies get the help they need and saddly they end up on the streets, in prison or die, and I've known a few of them as well.

Godfather.

Well you're talking about how things are in a particular country, I'm talking about a hypothetical state being governed according to the principles of Objectivism

jnimhaoileoin

Amongst the Ani said:

What we are doing now as a society is not working. We have the highest prison rate per capita in the world and yet drug use is not going anywhere. Punshing addicts with jail has not worked as a deterence. I would prefer we try and find another way to deal with this before we legalize heroine or meth but something has got to change. Its insane for us to keep doing the same things as a society and expect the results to be different. If you reduced the prison population by half we would have so much more money to use in a different avenue to treat people as addicts rather than criminals.

Well exactly, think how much money the state (and so its people) would save by not having to pay to keep drug addicts and dealers in prison. This money could be used for so many worthwhile things, either social welfare, should the government have that role or else it could allow for reduced taxes in a state where the government role was limited to law and order (i.e. the Objectivist state)

dignin

Drowned Out said:

dudeman said:

Would the state provide food, lodging transportation and medical care for the meth heads and junkies that are unable to maintain gainful employment?

I'm not trying to argue, as I have tried to run through the hypotheticals about this very topic and not formed a position. Lots of unknowns as to how the forces of addiction and human nature might react in an environment free of legal prosecution.

This isn't the case....We have case studies....like, entire nation case studies....not hypotheticals.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/
Health experts in Portugal said Friday that Portugal’s decision 10 years ago to decriminalise drug use and treat addicts rather than punishing them is an experiment that has worked.

“There is no doubt that the phenomenon of addiction is in decline in Portugal,” said Joao Goulao, President of the Institute of Drugs and Drugs Addiction, a press conference to mark the 10th anniversary of the law.

The number of addicts considered “problematic” — those who repeatedly use “hard” drugs and intravenous users — had fallen by half since the early 1990s, when the figure was estimated at around 100,000 people, Goulao said.

Other factors had also played their part however, Goulao, a medical doctor added.

“This development can not only be attributed to decriminalisation but to a confluence of treatment and risk reduction policies.”

Bingo. We don't need to imagine what would happen if we decriminalized drugs and offer support to addicted drug users. It's been done and the evidence speaks for itself.

jnimhaoileoin

dignin said:

Drowned Out said:

dudeman said:

Would the state provide food, lodging transportation and medical care for the meth heads and junkies that are unable to maintain gainful employment?

I'm not trying to argue, as I have tried to run through the hypotheticals about this very topic and not formed a position. Lots of unknowns as to how the forces of addiction and human nature might react in an environment free of legal prosecution.

This isn't the case....We have case studies....like, entire nation case studies....not hypotheticals.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/
Health experts in Portugal said Friday that Portugal’s decision 10 years ago to decriminalise drug use and treat addicts rather than punishing them is an experiment that has worked.

“There is no doubt that the phenomenon of addiction is in decline in Portugal,” said Joao Goulao, President of the Institute of Drugs and Drugs Addiction, a press conference to mark the 10th anniversary of the law.

The number of addicts considered “problematic” — those who repeatedly use “hard” drugs and intravenous users — had fallen by half since the early 1990s, when the figure was estimated at around 100,000 people, Goulao said.

Other factors had also played their part however, Goulao, a medical doctor added.

“This development can not only be attributed to decriminalisation but to a confluence of treatment and risk reduction policies.”

Bingo. We don't need to imagine what would happen if we decriminalized drugs and offer support to addicted drug users. It's been done and the evidence speaks for itself.

We know all countries and people are different though, can we be sure the results would be the same everywhere? If so, why do you think other governments aren't following their lead?

Any thoughts on my grey area? The one case where you could argue for prosecuting a drug user would be in the case of a pregnant woman as that would cause clear harm to another life. How could this be policed though?

dudeman

Drowned Out said:

dudeman said:

Would the state provide food, lodging transportation and medical care for the meth heads and junkies that are unable to maintain gainful employment?

I'm not trying to argue, as I have tried to run through the hypotheticals about this very topic and not formed a position. Lots of unknowns as to how the forces of addiction and human nature might react in an environment free of legal prosecution.

This isn't the case....We have case studies....like, entire nation case studies....not hypotheticals.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/
Health experts in Portugal said Friday that Portugal’s decision 10 years ago to decriminalise drug use and treat addicts rather than punishing them is an experiment that has worked.

“There is no doubt that the phenomenon of addiction is in decline in Portugal,” said Joao Goulao, President of the Institute of Drugs and Drugs Addiction, a press conference to mark the 10th anniversary of the law.

The number of addicts considered “problematic” — those who repeatedly use “hard” drugs and intravenous users — had fallen by half since the early 1990s, when the figure was estimated at around 100,000 people, Goulao said.

Other factors had also played their part however, Goulao, a medical doctor added.

“This development can not only be attributed to decriminalisation but to a confluence of treatment and risk reduction policies.”

I was unaware of this. Sounds like it's worked out well for them.

Drowned Out

dignin said:

Drowned Out said:

dudeman said:

Would the state provide food, lodging transportation and medical care for the meth heads and junkies that are unable to maintain gainful employment?

I'm not trying to argue, as I have tried to run through the hypotheticals about this very topic and not formed a position. Lots of unknowns as to how the forces of addiction and human nature might react in an environment free of legal prosecution.

This isn't the case....We have case studies....like, entire nation case studies....not hypotheticals.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/
Health experts in Portugal said Friday that Portugal’s decision 10 years ago to decriminalise drug use and treat addicts rather than punishing them is an experiment that has worked.

“There is no doubt that the phenomenon of addiction is in decline in Portugal,” said Joao Goulao, President of the Institute of Drugs and Drugs Addiction, a press conference to mark the 10th anniversary of the law.

The number of addicts considered “problematic” — those who repeatedly use “hard” drugs and intravenous users — had fallen by half since the early 1990s, when the figure was estimated at around 100,000 people, Goulao said.

Other factors had also played their part however, Goulao, a medical doctor added.

“This development can not only be attributed to decriminalisation but to a confluence of treatment and risk reduction policies.”

Bingo. We don't need to imagine what would happen if we decriminalized drugs and offer support to addicted drug users. It's been done and the evidence speaks for itself.

Ya, there has been a pretty much overwhelming consensus among the healthcare community for decades that prohibition makes the situation worse, and that a focus on harm reduction and treating addiction as a health issue, not a legal one, is required to make progress on the social issues related to the industry.
I've been pushing this approach for about 25 years now to anyone who will listen...I can honestly say that over the last few years, I've finally started to feel like people I discuss it with are open to the idea. Even ten years ago I was called an idiot for supporting the legalization of cocaine, heroin, etc....I'd settle for decriminalization, but if that's the case, we need to accept the risks of laced drugs and the wild west business practices of the black market.

rgambs

Objectivism is junk. It is purely idealistic and makes no concessions or adjustments for the practicality of the real world.
It requires complete rationality in all of society and it's participants, and without that complete rationality it doesn't make any sense.
Objectivism rails against altruism but entirely ignores corruption and those who seek to take advantage of others. It relegates government to the role of upholding the law alone, but preaches against virtually all laws aside from those related to violence.
It is junk, but who would expect anything else from Ayn Rand.


Sorry, back to topic now lol

callen

Godfather. said:

jennycoyle said:

No the state would not, if we were to adhere to the principles of objectivism by which I came across this idea in the first place. It would not be their role to do so. Certain charitable organisations could choose to do so but ultimately if you choose to destroy your life well, that would be that really

actually.....yes, the state will once you've hit the bottom with nothing left to loose, I know of 2 people that I can think of (I partied with) that are on 100% state asstance including health and mental heath benifits, both are spun-out to the point of no return.
but not all drugies get the help they need and saddly they end up on the streets, in prison or die, and I've known a few of them as well.

Godfather.

And how much is prison costing us? And how much has the incarceration and now inability to get a job due to having a record cost those arrested for substances and ultimately us?

As to illegality of MJ. Total scam.

Drowned Out

jennycoyle said:

dignin said:

Drowned Out said:

dudeman said:

Would the state provide food, lodging transportation and medical care for the meth heads and junkies that are unable to maintain gainful employment?

I'm not trying to argue, as I have tried to run through the hypotheticals about this very topic and not formed a position. Lots of unknowns as to how the forces of addiction and human nature might react in an environment free of legal prosecution.

This isn't the case....We have case studies....like, entire nation case studies....not hypotheticals.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/
Health experts in Portugal said Friday that Portugal’s decision 10 years ago to decriminalise drug use and treat addicts rather than punishing them is an experiment that has worked.

“There is no doubt that the phenomenon of addiction is in decline in Portugal,” said Joao Goulao, President of the Institute of Drugs and Drugs Addiction, a press conference to mark the 10th anniversary of the law.

The number of addicts considered “problematic” — those who repeatedly use “hard” drugs and intravenous users — had fallen by half since the early 1990s, when the figure was estimated at around 100,000 people, Goulao said.

Other factors had also played their part however, Goulao, a medical doctor added.

“This development can not only be attributed to decriminalisation but to a confluence of treatment and risk reduction policies.”

Bingo. We don't need to imagine what would happen if we decriminalized drugs and offer support to addicted drug users. It's been done and the evidence speaks for itself.

We know all countries and people are different though, can we be sure the results would be the same everywhere? If so, why do you think other governments aren't following their lead?

Any thoughts on my grey area? The one case where you could argue for prosecuting a drug user would be in the case of a pregnant woman as that would cause clear harm to another life. How could this be policed though?

Do you have an example of how you think different countries or cultures might react differently to legalization? I think it's a pretty universal problem; i don't see the results being all that different based on geography.
I think most governments don't follow the lead for a few reasons...
- pressure and 'aid' from the US to maintain the drug war.
- it would eliminate a massive source of black-ops funding and bribe money for countries involved in the trade; again with the US on the forefront of this practice (hence the pressure to maintain the drug war in the first point)
- lobby groups: alcohol, tobacco, big pharma, big oil, the religious right, private prisons, etc etc have all rallied against legalization because upsetting the status quo upsets their bottom line or the morality they want to enforce upon us all...

As for prosecuting pregnant women for drug use....I don't see that as a legal issue either - it's a health issue. We don't prosecute women for abortions or drinking or smoking or taking handfuls of script drugs, so why single out specific drugs just because we've spent our lives being programmed to see specific ones as worse than others?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Colorado is experiencing the social and financial benefit of legalization:
http://www.mintpressnews.com/new-schools-less-crime-colorado-sees-benefits-of-marijuana-legalization/208751/

It's a no-brainer. It really is.

Drowned Out

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Colorado is experiencing the social and financial benefit of legalization:
http://www.mintpressnews.com/new-schools-less-crime-colorado-sees-benefits-of-marijuana-legalization/208751/

It's a no-brainer. It really is.

There is virtually zero resistance to legalization of MJ from the public at this point. Most polls run between 55-75% in favour...it's all bureaucracy and lobbying at this point - I think MJ legalization is fait accompli these days. The point of contention has become legalization of supposed 'hard' drugs...

Maybe all the recent od deaths in Canada will end up advancing the argument for legalization....When we start seeing middle aged suburban parents od'ing on recreational drugs that are laced with a deadly, TOTALLY LEGAL drug (fentanyl), people start to take notice that something is very wrong with the current system. At the very least, drug purity testing kits should be made widely available.

jnimhaoileoin

Drowned Out said:

jennycoyle said:

dignin said:

Drowned Out said:

dudeman said:

Would the state provide food, lodging transportation and medical care for the meth heads and junkies that are unable to maintain gainful employment?

I'm not trying to argue, as I have tried to run through the hypotheticals about this very topic and not formed a position. Lots of unknowns as to how the forces of addiction and human nature might react in an environment free of legal prosecution.

This isn't the case....We have case studies....like, entire nation case studies....not hypotheticals.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/
Health experts in Portugal said Friday that Portugal’s decision 10 years ago to decriminalise drug use and treat addicts rather than punishing them is an experiment that has worked.

“There is no doubt that the phenomenon of addiction is in decline in Portugal,” said Joao Goulao, President of the Institute of Drugs and Drugs Addiction, a press conference to mark the 10th anniversary of the law.

The number of addicts considered “problematic” — those who repeatedly use “hard” drugs and intravenous users — had fallen by half since the early 1990s, when the figure was estimated at around 100,000 people, Goulao said.

Other factors had also played their part however, Goulao, a medical doctor added.

“This development can not only be attributed to decriminalisation but to a confluence of treatment and risk reduction policies.”

Bingo. We don't need to imagine what would happen if we decriminalized drugs and offer support to addicted drug users. It's been done and the evidence speaks for itself.

We know all countries and people are different though, can we be sure the results would be the same everywhere? If so, why do you think other governments aren't following their lead?

Any thoughts on my grey area? The one case where you could argue for prosecuting a drug user would be in the case of a pregnant woman as that would cause clear harm to another life. How could this be policed though?

Do you have an example of how you think different countries or cultures might react differently to legalization? I think it's a pretty universal problem; i don't see the results being all that different based on geography.
I think most governments don't follow the lead for a few reasons...
- pressure and 'aid' from the US to maintain the drug war.
- it would eliminate a massive source of black-ops funding and bribe money for countries involved in the trade; again with the US on the forefront of this practice (hence the pressure to maintain the drug war in the first point)
- lobby groups: alcohol, tobacco, big pharma, big oil, the religious right, private prisons, etc etc have all rallied against legalization because upsetting the status quo upsets their bottom line or the morality they want to enforce upon us all...

As for prosecuting pregnant women for drug use....I don't see that as a legal issue either - it's a health issue. We don't prosecute women for abortions or drinking or smoking or taking handfuls of script drugs, so why single out specific drugs just because we've spent our lives being programmed to see specific ones as worse than others?

Your country may not prosecute for abortion but mine does! As do many others

Most of the examples you give as to why governments don't legalize drugs seem to relate to America, again none would be valid for my country.

jnimhaoileoin

rgambs said:

Objectivism is junk. It is purely idealistic and makes no concessions or adjustments for the practicality of the real world.
It requires complete rationality in all of society and it's participants, and without that complete rationality it doesn't make any sense.
Objectivism rails against altruism but entirely ignores corruption and those who seek to take advantage of others. It relegates government to the role of upholding the law alone, but preaches against virtually all laws aside from those related to violence.
It is junk, but who would expect anything else from Ayn Rand.


Sorry, back to topic now lol

I certainly agree it seems a little unrealistic and impractical in light of an established world order, I just think it's an interesting concept. Have to say Mark Pellegrino articulates himself very well in arguing in its favour, so that even where I disagreed with him I could still see where he's coming from.

I suppose I'm not really asking if such a system could be implemented over night. I'm asking if you see a value to at least certain aspects of it. I expect it finds greater support in America where there seems to be a widespread hostility towards government control and interference

Drowned Out

jennycoyle said:

Drowned Out said:

jennycoyle said:

dignin said:

Drowned Out said:

dudeman said:

Would the state provide food, lodging transportation and medical care for the meth heads and junkies that are unable to maintain gainful employment?

I'm not trying to argue, as I have tried to run through the hypotheticals about this very topic and not formed a position. Lots of unknowns as to how the forces of addiction and human nature might react in an environment free of legal prosecution.

This isn't the case....We have case studies....like, entire nation case studies....not hypotheticals.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/
Health experts in Portugal said Friday that Portugal’s decision 10 years ago to decriminalise drug use and treat addicts rather than punishing them is an experiment that has worked.

“There is no doubt that the phenomenon of addiction is in decline in Portugal,” said Joao Goulao, President of the Institute of Drugs and Drugs Addiction, a press conference to mark the 10th anniversary of the law.

The number of addicts considered “problematic” — those who repeatedly use “hard” drugs and intravenous users — had fallen by half since the early 1990s, when the figure was estimated at around 100,000 people, Goulao said.

Other factors had also played their part however, Goulao, a medical doctor added.

“This development can not only be attributed to decriminalisation but to a confluence of treatment and risk reduction policies.”

Bingo. We don't need to imagine what would happen if we decriminalized drugs and offer support to addicted drug users. It's been done and the evidence speaks for itself.

We know all countries and people are different though, can we be sure the results would be the same everywhere? If so, why do you think other governments aren't following their lead?

Any thoughts on my grey area? The one case where you could argue for prosecuting a drug user would be in the case of a pregnant woman as that would cause clear harm to another life. How could this be policed though?

Do you have an example of how you think different countries or cultures might react differently to legalization? I think it's a pretty universal problem; i don't see the results being all that different based on geography.
I think most governments don't follow the lead for a few reasons...
- pressure and 'aid' from the US to maintain the drug war.
- it would eliminate a massive source of black-ops funding and bribe money for countries involved in the trade; again with the US on the forefront of this practice (hence the pressure to maintain the drug war in the first point)
- lobby groups: alcohol, tobacco, big pharma, big oil, the religious right, private prisons, etc etc have all rallied against legalization because upsetting the status quo upsets their bottom line or the morality they want to enforce upon us all...

As for prosecuting pregnant women for drug use....I don't see that as a legal issue either - it's a health issue. We don't prosecute women for abortions or drinking or smoking or taking handfuls of script drugs, so why single out specific drugs just because we've spent our lives being programmed to see specific ones as worse than others?

Your country may not prosecute for abortion but mine does! As do many others

Most of the examples you give as to why governments don't legalize drugs seem to relate to America, again none would be valid for my country.

Yes they would. The drug war began as a US initiative, and they pressure allied countries to follow suit via aid, trade, and political pressure. Do you really think Ireland is immune to things like corporate lobby groups or drug money corrupting the legal and political systems?

jnimhaoileoin

Drowned Out said:

jennycoyle said:

Drowned Out said:

jennycoyle said:

dignin said:

Drowned Out said:

dudeman said:

Would the state provide food, lodging transportation and medical care for the meth heads and junkies that are unable to maintain gainful employment?

I'm not trying to argue, as I have tried to run through the hypotheticals about this very topic and not formed a position. Lots of unknowns as to how the forces of addiction and human nature might react in an environment free of legal prosecution.

This isn't the case....We have case studies....like, entire nation case studies....not hypotheticals.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/
Health experts in Portugal said Friday that Portugal’s decision 10 years ago to decriminalise drug use and treat addicts rather than punishing them is an experiment that has worked.

“There is no doubt that the phenomenon of addiction is in decline in Portugal,” said Joao Goulao, President of the Institute of Drugs and Drugs Addiction, a press conference to mark the 10th anniversary of the law.

The number of addicts considered “problematic” — those who repeatedly use “hard” drugs and intravenous users — had fallen by half since the early 1990s, when the figure was estimated at around 100,000 people, Goulao said.

Other factors had also played their part however, Goulao, a medical doctor added.

“This development can not only be attributed to decriminalisation but to a confluence of treatment and risk reduction policies.”

Bingo. We don't need to imagine what would happen if we decriminalized drugs and offer support to addicted drug users. It's been done and the evidence speaks for itself.

We know all countries and people are different though, can we be sure the results would be the same everywhere? If so, why do you think other governments aren't following their lead?

Any thoughts on my grey area? The one case where you could argue for prosecuting a drug user would be in the case of a pregnant woman as that would cause clear harm to another life. How could this be policed though?

Do you have an example of how you think different countries or cultures might react differently to legalization? I think it's a pretty universal problem; i don't see the results being all that different based on geography.
I think most governments don't follow the lead for a few reasons...
- pressure and 'aid' from the US to maintain the drug war.
- it would eliminate a massive source of black-ops funding and bribe money for countries involved in the trade; again with the US on the forefront of this practice (hence the pressure to maintain the drug war in the first point)
- lobby groups: alcohol, tobacco, big pharma, big oil, the religious right, private prisons, etc etc have all rallied against legalization because upsetting the status quo upsets their bottom line or the morality they want to enforce upon us all...

As for prosecuting pregnant women for drug use....I don't see that as a legal issue either - it's a health issue. We don't prosecute women for abortions or drinking or smoking or taking handfuls of script drugs, so why single out specific drugs just because we've spent our lives being programmed to see specific ones as worse than others?

Your country may not prosecute for abortion but mine does! As do many others

Most of the examples you give as to why governments don't legalize drugs seem to relate to America, again none would be valid for my country.

Yes they would. The drug war began as a US initiative, and they pressure allied countries to follow suit via aid, trade, and political pressure. Do you really think Ireland is immune to things like corporate lobby groups or drug money corrupting the legal and political systems?

In a word? Yes

Drowned Out

jennycoyle said:

Drowned Out said:

jennycoyle said:

Drowned Out said:

jennycoyle said:

dignin said:

Drowned Out said:

dudeman said:

Would the state provide food, lodging transportation and medical care for the meth heads and junkies that are unable to maintain gainful employment?

I'm not trying to argue, as I have tried to run through the hypotheticals about this very topic and not formed a position. Lots of unknowns as to how the forces of addiction and human nature might react in an environment free of legal prosecution.

This isn't the case....We have case studies....like, entire nation case studies....not hypotheticals.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/
Health experts in Portugal said Friday that Portugal’s decision 10 years ago to decriminalise drug use and treat addicts rather than punishing them is an experiment that has worked.

“There is no doubt that the phenomenon of addiction is in decline in Portugal,” said Joao Goulao, President of the Institute of Drugs and Drugs Addiction, a press conference to mark the 10th anniversary of the law.

The number of addicts considered “problematic” — those who repeatedly use “hard” drugs and intravenous users — had fallen by half since the early 1990s, when the figure was estimated at around 100,000 people, Goulao said.

Other factors had also played their part however, Goulao, a medical doctor added.

“This development can not only be attributed to decriminalisation but to a confluence of treatment and risk reduction policies.”

Bingo. We don't need to imagine what would happen if we decriminalized drugs and offer support to addicted drug users. It's been done and the evidence speaks for itself.

We know all countries and people are different though, can we be sure the results would be the same everywhere? If so, why do you think other governments aren't following their lead?

Any thoughts on my grey area? The one case where you could argue for prosecuting a drug user would be in the case of a pregnant woman as that would cause clear harm to another life. How could this be policed though?

Do you have an example of how you think different countries or cultures might react differently to legalization? I think it's a pretty universal problem; i don't see the results being all that different based on geography.
I think most governments don't follow the lead for a few reasons...
- pressure and 'aid' from the US to maintain the drug war.
- it would eliminate a massive source of black-ops funding and bribe money for countries involved in the trade; again with the US on the forefront of this practice (hence the pressure to maintain the drug war in the first point)
- lobby groups: alcohol, tobacco, big pharma, big oil, the religious right, private prisons, etc etc have all rallied against legalization because upsetting the status quo upsets their bottom line or the morality they want to enforce upon us all...

As for prosecuting pregnant women for drug use....I don't see that as a legal issue either - it's a health issue. We don't prosecute women for abortions or drinking or smoking or taking handfuls of script drugs, so why single out specific drugs just because we've spent our lives being programmed to see specific ones as worse than others?

Your country may not prosecute for abortion but mine does! As do many others

Most of the examples you give as to why governments don't legalize drugs seem to relate to America, again none would be valid for my country.

Yes they would. The drug war began as a US initiative, and they pressure allied countries to follow suit via aid, trade, and political pressure. Do you really think Ireland is immune to things like corporate lobby groups or drug money corrupting the legal and political systems?

In a word? Yes

Ok you win
seriously tho....why would you think that? A one word answer doesn't suffice - it's a far reaching question. Do you think the irish just have that much more integrity than every other western nation?

brianlux

Here in the U.S., we have a huge prison industry that relies heavily on, among other things, incarcerating people for possession of drugs. We have the worlds largest prison industry and legalizing drugs is the last thing that industry wants to have happen. No one should be incarcerated for victimless crimes.

jnimhaoileoin

Drowned Out said:

jennycoyle said:

Drowned Out said:

jennycoyle said:

Drowned Out said:

jennycoyle said:

dignin said:

Drowned Out said:

dudeman said:

Would the state provide food, lodging transportation and medical care for the meth heads and junkies that are unable to maintain gainful employment?

I'm not trying to argue, as I have tried to run through the hypotheticals about this very topic and not formed a position. Lots of unknowns as to how the forces of addiction and human nature might react in an environment free of legal prosecution.

This isn't the case....We have case studies....like, entire nation case studies....not hypotheticals.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/
Health experts in Portugal said Friday that Portugal’s decision 10 years ago to decriminalise drug use and treat addicts rather than punishing them is an experiment that has worked.

“There is no doubt that the phenomenon of addiction is in decline in Portugal,” said Joao Goulao, President of the Institute of Drugs and Drugs Addiction, a press conference to mark the 10th anniversary of the law.

The number of addicts considered “problematic” — those who repeatedly use “hard” drugs and intravenous users — had fallen by half since the early 1990s, when the figure was estimated at around 100,000 people, Goulao said.

Other factors had also played their part however, Goulao, a medical doctor added.

“This development can not only be attributed to decriminalisation but to a confluence of treatment and risk reduction policies.”

Bingo. We don't need to imagine what would happen if we decriminalized drugs and offer support to addicted drug users. It's been done and the evidence speaks for itself.

We know all countries and people are different though, can we be sure the results would be the same everywhere? If so, why do you think other governments aren't following their lead?

Any thoughts on my grey area? The one case where you could argue for prosecuting a drug user would be in the case of a pregnant woman as that would cause clear harm to another life. How could this be policed though?

Do you have an example of how you think different countries or cultures might react differently to legalization? I think it's a pretty universal problem; i don't see the results being all that different based on geography.
I think most governments don't follow the lead for a few reasons...
- pressure and 'aid' from the US to maintain the drug war.
- it would eliminate a massive source of black-ops funding and bribe money for countries involved in the trade; again with the US on the forefront of this practice (hence the pressure to maintain the drug war in the first point)
- lobby groups: alcohol, tobacco, big pharma, big oil, the religious right, private prisons, etc etc have all rallied against legalization because upsetting the status quo upsets their bottom line or the morality they want to enforce upon us all...

As for prosecuting pregnant women for drug use....I don't see that as a legal issue either - it's a health issue. We don't prosecute women for abortions or drinking or smoking or taking handfuls of script drugs, so why single out specific drugs just because we've spent our lives being programmed to see specific ones as worse than others?

Your country may not prosecute for abortion but mine does! As do many others

Most of the examples you give as to why governments don't legalize drugs seem to relate to America, again none would be valid for my country.

Yes they would. The drug war began as a US initiative, and they pressure allied countries to follow suit via aid, trade, and political pressure. Do you really think Ireland is immune to things like corporate lobby groups or drug money corrupting the legal and political systems?

In a word? Yes

Ok you win
seriously tho....why would you think that? A one word answer doesn't suffice - it's a far reaching question. Do you think the irish just have that much more integrity than every other western nation?

I'm not sure if integrity is the word, to be honest we're just quite innocent I think We've been pretty sheltered from the big bad world and we're such a small country that there's a much stronger sense of community. We all feel much closer and genuinely when something terrible happens to an Irish person we all kind of feel it. Equally our politicians aren't just distant figures of power, they're regular people and our electoral system gives us huge control over who gets elected, with money having very little if any weight or influence at all

jnimhaoileoin

P.s. our prisons are state-run, paid for by us and costing us a bloody fortune, so we differ from America in that regard also

Drowned Out

Well, I'll agree with you on the innocent part
I don't think Ireland is immune to the ills of international trade, crime, and bribery. Either way, youre pointing away from the U.S (the driving force behind the war on drugs)., saying my points don't apply to all countries...while using only Ireland as the comparison.
Different cultures def influence the decision not to legalize drugs, but I don't think many (if any) western nations' decisions on legalization are influenced more by culture than the other factors I mentioned...unless you count religion on the culture side. I know Ireland has a lot of devoutly religious folk...