[lutherblsstt]

Again, you are twisting definitions, and playing semantics. The studies themselves state things like "does not lead to substantial" or "does not lead to significant" not "does not lead to". There also isn't a decrease. So if the point is to stop the drug use again I revert to the problem being with how the criminalization laws are structured, and what the penalties are. Decriminalization is not lowering drug use either. You are also drawing a parallel between decriminalizing marijuana use, where marijuana has a relatively short half/effective life and is not physically addictive, and other substances some of which have significantly longer effective times, and are physiologically addictive.

The Taliban chopped off your hand if you were caught growing poppies for opium, and what a surprise afghanistan had minimal opium production. We took over and freed them, and opium production is up enormously. Does agreeing with stiff penalties for creation of addictive drugs mean I agree with anything else they do? No. But I can't be supportive of allowing legalization of those addictive drugs unless both the penalties for crimes against person/property have their penalties raised significantly - ie death sentences for felonies, and we drop all the social welfare programs that would cause my tax dollars to house, clothe, feed and provide the drugs to someone who does nothing more than stay in a haze all day.

You stated that the drug use would go up if legalized. I pointed out that numerous studies both from the US and abroad have shown that just is not true,how is that "twisting definitions, and playing semantics"?

"The available evidence suggests that removal of the prohibition against possession itself (decriminalization) does not increase cannabis use. ... This prohibition inflicts harms directly and is costly. Unless it can be shown that the removal of criminal penalties will increase use of other harmful drugs, ... it is difficult to see what society gains."

- Evaluating alternative cannabis regimes. British Journal of Psychiatry. February 2001.http://www.ukcia.org/lib/evalalt%20report/eval.htm

Enforcing marijuana prohibition alone costs taxpayers an estimated $10 billion annually and results in the arrest of more than 872,000 individuals per year -- far more than the total number of arrestees for all violent crimes combined, including murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault.

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_****7698

I support the eventual development of a legally controlled market for marijuana, where consumers could buy marijuana for personal use from a safe legal source.

This policy exists on various levels in a handful of European countries like The Netherlands and Switzerland, both of which enjoy lower rates of adolescent marijuana use than the U.S.

Such a system would reduce many of the problems presently associated with the prohibition of marijuana, including the crime, corruption and violence associated with a "black market."

[EasyEJL]

You stated that the drug use would go up if legalized. I pointed out that numerous studies both from the US and abroad have shown that just is not true,how is that "twisting definitions, and playing semantics"?

I never stated anything of the sort, again, twisting definition, seeing what you want to see, playing with sematics. I stated it COULD get worse. Not would. The same type of argument twisting you've done the entire time, its of course because so little of what you say has actual merit that you have to gain value by distortion, both of what i've said, as well as of the studies you quote. None of the studes are "proof" that it won't. They show where in the isolated circumstances that lead to "little evidence it will get substantially worse". Of course there is little evidence it will get substantially better either.

"The available evidence suggests that removal of the prohibition against possession itself (decriminalization) does not increase cannabis use. ... This prohibition inflicts harms directly and is costly. Unless it can be shown that the removal of criminal penalties will increase use of other harmful drugs, ... it is difficult to see what society gains."

- Evaluating alternative cannabis regimes. British Journal of Psychiatry. February 2001.http://www.ukcia.org/lib/evalalt%20report/eval.htm

Suggests, not proves. Also, again, amazingly a broken link to a study you cite.

Enforcing marijuana prohibition alone costs taxpayers an estimated $10 billion annually and results in the arrest of more than 872,000 individuals per year -- far more than the total number of arrestees for all violent crimes combined, including murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault.

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_****7698

irrelevant to the discussion, we can't know the societal cost of legalization until its too late.

I support the eventual development of a legally controlled market for marijuana, where consumers could buy marijuana for personal use from a safe legal source.

This policy exists on various levels in a handful of European countries like The Netherlands and Switzerland, both of which enjoy lower rates of adolescent marijuana use than the U.S.

Such a system would reduce many of the problems presently associated with the prohibition of marijuana, including the crime, corruption and violence associated with a "black market."

I have to admit, with marijuana it is a bit different than most of the rest of the drugs. the overall damage profile of marijuana use is probably better than with alchohol or tobacco. Most marijuana users manage to keep jobs and aren't obvious users, and with no physical addiction its easier to deal with. Not very often either someone using marijuana hurts another, except thru the operation of vehicles or heavy machinery.

My problem is that if marijuana were legalized, and it was successful, someone who likes to use statistics that they bend to appear pretty will start to legalize cocaine, herioin, etc and then again with the "see how well it worked for marijuana" and we'll end up with taxpayer dollars supporting 100% (food, shelter and drugs) someone who is shooting up and is no use to society. With cocaine sometimes, and far more frequently with herion it become a downward spiral. With legalization that means the user at that point will be coddled by society, allow to have children, etc and raise them in that sort of environment. Mothers who are addicts will get pregnant and society will get to bear the cost of some losers looking for pleasure.

[lutherblsstt]

I never stated anything of the sort, again, twisting definition, seeing what you want to see, playing with sematics. I stated it COULD get worse. Not would.

from post #21 you wrote:

"Things can always get significantly worse, and drug use would not go DOWN if it was legalized". You stated definitively it would not go down here,then:

in post #22 you wrote:

"With most of the drugs that are illegal now they have never been legal. Once you go that direction, and 1/4 of the population are users, its impossible to go back.

Now what exactly did you mean when you said " Once you go that direction, and 1/4 of the population are users" ? You were not implying that it would get worse after legalization?

Suggests, not proves. Also, again, amazingly a broken link to a study you cite.

In fact, both groups of experimental states showed a small, cumulative net decline in annual prevalence after decriminalization." - L. Johnson et al. 1981. Marijuana Decriminalization: The Impact on Youth 1975-1980. Monitoring the Future, Occasional Paper Series, paper 13, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan: Ann Arbor.


Unbroken link to the same study previously cited.

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/178/2/123

irrelevant to the discussion, we can't know the societal cost of legalization until its too late.

Except for the fact that many drugs have been legal in the past in the US.

My problem is that if marijuana were legalized, and it was successful, someone who likes to use statistics that they bend to appear pretty will start to legalize cocaine, herioin, etc and then again with the "see how well it worked for marijuana" and we'll end up with taxpayer dollars supporting 100% (food, shelter and drugs) someone who is shooting up and is no use to society. With cocaine sometimes, and far more frequently with herion it become a downward spiral. With legalization that means the user at that point will be coddled by society, allow to have children, etc and raise them in that sort of environment. Mothers who are addicts will get pregnant and society will get to bear the cost of some losers looking for pleasure.

Unfounded wild speculation.

[Jayhawkk]

so the crackhead who shoots my brother because he needed 20 bucks is ok...and he shouldnt go to jail because he wasnt in his right mind? So could we then sue the government for legalizing it, i mean we are now entitled because they said it was ok for him to be on it, therefore it must accept responsibility for what it deems ok.

Legalizing drugs has no effect on the consequences of other actions that arte still illegal to commit.

There's a current and often reported situation that you should of known about that automatically proved your point as being wrong...

Drinking and driving and killing someone(veh to ped or veh to veh crash). Being in an altered state of mind will actually increase penalties over an accidental crash with nothing other than minor negligence as the proximate cause of the accident.

[EasyEJL]

from post #21 you wrote:

"Things can always get significantly worse, and drug use would not go DOWN if it was legalized". You stated definitively it would not go down here,then:

in post #22 you wrote:

"With most of the drugs that are illegal now they have never been legal. Once you go that direction, and 1/4 of the population are users, its impossible to go back.

Now what exactly did you mean when you said " Once you go that direction, and 1/4 of the population are users" ? You were not implying that it would get worse after legalization?

No, I was stating that once you legalize the drugs and they are legal for any length of time, if it were to get worse recriminalizing them is difficult. Taking away anything people view as a right is difficult.

In fact, both groups of experimental states showed a small, cumulative net decline in annual prevalence after decriminalization." - L. Johnson et al. 1981. Marijuana Decriminalization: The Impact on Youth 1975-1980. Monitoring the Future, Occasional Paper Series, paper 13, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan: Ann Arbor.


Unbroken link to the same study previously cited.

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/178/2/123

Right, at the same time the war on drugs was going, and there was a larger effort to stop things at the border, and stop dealers inside the US. None of the events are in a vacuum, and a slightly lower usage level could be viewed as a success of the war on drugs, or education of the danger, etc. The "scared straight" tv series from the same time could be responsible as well.

Also from that study

"Results The available evidence indicates that depenalisation of the possession of small quantities of cannabis does not increase cannabis prevalence. The Dutch experience suggests that commercial promotion and sales may significantly increase cannabis prevalence."

And your original statement + video was about them being legalized, not merely decriminalized. So even the study that you yourself put forwards suggest that usage would go up.

I can state with utmost assurance that marijuana use would go up by at least 1 (myself) if it were legalized

[FlawedGrunt]

if you put a .45 in the skull of every crack dealer, even if only suspected, drugs would be less of an issue. The war on drugs is the right thing to do. Its just they are doing it wrong, execute them on the spot. Or have public executions.

Woooooooo Hooooooo Martial Law here we come!

[Fastone]

if you put a .45 in the skull of every crack dealer, even if only suspected, drugs would be less of an issue. The war on drugs is the right thing to do. Its just they are doing it wrong, execute them on the spot. Or have public executions.

As I have said before Mr.religion, you need help. That is a very christian way of dealing with a situation, isn't it. I take it you're recovering hence the extreme nature of your take on this subject. This is not to say that crack dealers shouldn't be punished severely but maybe cigarette makers should be punished the same way since cigarettes kill more than all drugs combined

:bruce3:

[lutherblsstt]

I can state with utmost assurance that marijuana use would go up by at least 1 (myself) if it were legalized

Can't come up with anything to counter that!

[lutherblsstt]

Right, at the same time the war on drugs was going, and there was a larger effort to stop things at the border, and stop dealers inside the US. None of the events are in a vacuum, and a slightly lower usage level could be viewed as a success of the war on drugs, or education of the danger, etc. The "scared straight" tv series from the same time could be responsible as well.

Yes and the Vietnam War could have ended because a guy on 5th avenue in New York meditated on it.

Also from that study

"Results The available evidence indicates that depenalisation of the possession of small quantities of cannabis does not increase cannabis prevalence. The Dutch experience suggests that commercial promotion and sales may significantly increase cannabis prevalence."

And your original statement + video was about them being legalized, not merely decriminalized. So even the study that you yourself put forwards suggest that usage would go up.

You conveniently failed to mention all the ones I posted that said it would not.

[EasyEJL]

You conveniently failed to mention all the ones I posted that said it would not.

Honestly any of the studies are too short term to be relevant. A study would need to be in the minimal of a 20-30 year span as you'd need to see the generational difference. Its no different with the adoption of anything, from cellphones to computers to video games. A generation of people that has no easy access to something that suddenly gains access to it will not likely have the same usage rate of that something that a generation who grows up considering it to be "normal"

And in that 20-30 year span so many other things would change that it would be impossible to have a clean study.

[EasyEJL]

Can't come up with anything to counter that!

It would only be if it was legalized to sell commercially, or decriminalized to able to be grown in home at personal quantities. Mere decriminalization of possession wouldn't change things for me, as i would still not take the personal risks of going to an illegal dealer and potentially being caught up in anything there.

[lutherblsstt]

Honestly any of the studies are too short term to be relevant. A study would need to be in the minimal of a 20-30 year span as you'd need to see the generational difference. Its no different with the adoption of anything, from cellphones to computers to video games. A generation of people that has no easy access to something that suddenly gains access to it will not likely have the same usage rate of that something that a generation who grows up considering it to be "normal"

And in that 20-30 year span so many other things would change that it would be impossible to have a clean study.

The end of alcohol prohibition in 1933 led to immediate decreases in murders and robberies, legalization of drugs could have similar effects.

Once those involved in the narcotics trade have a legal method of settling business disputes, the number of murders and violent crime could drop.

Robert W. Sweet, a federal judge, strongly agrees: "The present policy of trying to prohibit the use of drugs through the use of criminal law is a mistake" .

When alcohol use was outlawed during prohibition, it gave rise to gang warfare and spurred the formation of some of the most well known criminals of the era, among them the infamous Al Capone. Similarly, drug dealers today resolve their disputes through violence and intimidation, something which legal drug vendors do not do.

Then there is the fact that police are more likely to be corrupted in a system where bribe money is so available. Police corruption due to drugs is widespread enough that one pro-legalization newsletter has made it a weekly feature. http://www.stopthedrugwar.org/

Janet Crist of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy mentioned that the anti-drug efforts have had "no direct effect on either the price or the availability of cocaine on our streets"

[lutherblsstt]

A report sponsored by the New York County Lawyers' Association, one of the largest local bar associations in the United States, argues on the subject of US drug policy:

“ Notwithstanding the vast public resources expended on the enforcement of penal statutes against users and distributors of controlled substances, contemporary drug policy appears to have failed, even on its own terms, in a number of notable respects.

These include: minimal reduction in the consumption of controlled substances; failure to reduce violent crime; failure to markedly reduce drug importation, distribution and street-level drug sales; failure to reduce the widespread availability of drugs to potential users; failure to deter individuals from becoming involved in the drug trade; failure to impact upon the huge profits and financial opportunity available to individual "entrepreneurs" and organized underworld organizations through engaging in the illicit drug trade; the expenditure of great amounts of increasingly limited public resources in pursuit of a cost-intensive "penal" or "law-enforcement" based policy; failure to provide meaningful treatment and other assistance to substance abusers and their families; and failure to provide meaningful alternative economic opportunities to those attracted to the drug trade for lack of other available avenues for financial advancement.
http://www.drugtext.org/library/repo....htm#footnotes

Moreover, a growing body of evidence and opinion suggests that contemporary drug policy, as pursued in recent decades, may be counterproductive and even harmful to the society whose public safety it seeks to protect. This conclusion becomes more readily apparent when one distinguishes the harms suffered by society and its members directly attributable to the pharmacological effects of drug use upon human behavior, from those harms resulting from policies attempting to eradicate drug use.
http://www.drugtext.org/library/repo....htm#footnotes

With aid of these distinctions, we see that present drug policy appears to contribute to the increase of violence in our communities. It does so by permitting and indeed, causing the drug trade to remain a lucrative source of economic opportunity for street dealers, drug kingpins and all those willing to engage in the often violent, illicit, black market trade.

Meanwhile, the effect of present policy serves to stigmatize and marginalize drug users, thereby inhibiting and undermining the efforts of many such individuals to remain or become productive, gainfully employed members of society. Furthermore, current policy has not only failed to provide adequate access to treatment for substance abuse, it has, in many ways, rendered the obtaining of such treatment, and of other medical services, more difficult and even dangerous to pursue. ”

New York County Lawyers' Association (October 2006). "Report and Recommendations of the Drug Policy Task Force". NYCLA & Drug Reform Coordination Network. http://www.drugtext.org/library/reports/nycla/nycla.htm.

[EasyEJL]

The end of alcohol prohibition in 1933 led to immediate decreases in murders and robberies, legalization of drugs could have similar effects.

Could have similar effects? Wheres your crystal ball luther? There is no particular evidence to that. We know that the physiological and psychological effects of cocaine, heroin, etc are wildly different than alchohol, so attempting to guess what will occur if it were legalized is merely guesses. Changing the federal penalty for possession with intent to distribute to a death sentence with no appeals could also have similar effects.

[lutherblsstt]

Could have similar effects? Wheres your crystal ball luther? There is no particular evidence to that. We know that the physiological and psychological effects of cocaine, heroin, etc are wildly different than alchohol, so attempting to guess what will occur if it were legalized is merely guesses. Changing the federal penalty for possession with intent to distribute to a death sentence with no appeals could also have similar effects.

It is an unnecessarily harsh sentence for a consensual crime. Why put a death sentence on something that relies on supply and demand?

I would like to re-post this for emphasis:

“ Notwithstanding the vast public resources expended on the enforcement of penal statutes against users and distributors of controlled substances, contemporary drug policy appears to have failed, even on its own terms, in a number of notable respects.

These include: minimal reduction in the consumption of controlled substances; failure to reduce violent crime; failure to markedly reduce drug importation, distribution and street-level drug sales; failure to reduce the widespread availability of drugs to potential users; failure to deter individuals from becoming involved in the drug trade; failure to impact upon the huge profits and financial opportunity available to individual "entrepreneurs" and organized underworld organizations through engaging in the illicit drug trade; the expenditure of great amounts of increasingly limited public resources in pursuit of a cost-intensive "penal" or "law-enforcement" based policy; failure to provide meaningful treatment and other assistance to substance abusers and their families; and failure to provide meaningful alternative economic opportunities to those attracted to the drug trade for lack of other available avenues for financial advancement.
http://www.drugtext.org/library/repo....htm#footnotes

Moreover, a growing body of evidence and opinion suggests that contemporary drug policy, as pursued in recent decades, may be counterproductive and even harmful to the society whose public safety it seeks to protect. This conclusion becomes more readily apparent when one distinguishes the harms suffered by society and its members directly attributable to the pharmacological effects of drug use upon human behavior, from those harms resulting from policies attempting to eradicate drug use.
http://www.drugtext.org/library/repo....htm#footnotes

With aid of these distinctions, we see that present drug policy appears to contribute to the increase of violence in our communities. It does so by permitting and indeed, causing the drug trade to remain a lucrative source of economic opportunity for street dealers, drug kingpins and all those willing to engage in the often violent, illicit, black market trade.

Meanwhile, the effect of present policy serves to stigmatize and marginalize drug users, thereby inhibiting and undermining the efforts of many such individuals to remain or become productive, gainfully employed members of society. Furthermore, current policy has not only failed to provide adequate access to treatment for substance abuse, it has, in many ways, rendered the obtaining of such treatment, and of other medical services, more difficult and even dangerous to pursue. ”

New York County Lawyers' Association (October 2006). "Report and Recommendations of the Drug Policy Task Force". NYCLA & Drug Reform Coordination Network. http://www.drugtext.org/library/reports/nycla/nycla.htm.

[EasyEJL]

It is an unnecessarily harsh sentence for a consensual crime.

Unnecessarily harsh? No, as nobody is forced to commit any crimes. As far as i'm concerned we need similar sentencing for many more crimes, particularly crimes against persons. I can't recall the %, but something over 75% of people in jail are repeat offenders. With death sentences, that no longer would be the case. The amount of money spent on repeat offenders goes down, prison overcrowding goes down, the cost of the legal system goes down, crime goes down. A win-win situation.

Why put a death sentence on something that relies on supply and demand?

I wonder sometimes if your denseness is purposeful. You would put a death sentence on it as the death sentence would be effective at changing usage. Few of the people who currently deal drugs at volume levels would continue to under that change of laws, as the risk vs reward would no longer be there. I'll agree that the war on drugs has not been as effective as it could/should be. However using your own studies your alternative of legalization offers "probably won't significantly increase drug usage other than marijuana which usage will go up with commercialization" and a hope that it would lessen police/legal/social costs. My alternative would significantly reduce usage, definitely reduce police/legal/social costs, and would be environmentally friendly as the globe is overpopulated anyhow.

[Jayhawkk]

My alternative would significantly reduce usage, definitely reduce police/legal/social costs, and would be environmentally friendly as the globe is overpopulated anyhow.

Putting overly extreme measures isn't really a solution. You'd get to the point where every law would end up with a disproportionate punishment.

[EasyEJL]

Furthermore, current policy has not only failed to provide adequate access to treatment for substance abuse, it has, in many ways, rendered the obtaining of such treatment, and of other medical services, more difficult and even dangerous to pursue. ”

Why should society provide treatment for substance abuse? Why should my tax dollars go to pay for an addict's bad choices? Nobody becomes an addict by force, its their own crappy decisions.

[EasyEJL]

Putting overly extreme measures isn't really a solution. You'd get to the point where every law would end up with a disproportionate punishment.

Define proportionate in this case? We already have disproportionate punishment in many ways, for the most part in the other direction. A man mugs an 85 year old woman and puts her in the hospital, he gets 6 months? Is that proportionate? A woman drowns her 4 children and gets to go to a psychiatric hospital and that is proportionate? When you try to measure proportionate response, you will rarely get 2 people agreeing.

When you are trying to discourage a behavior, giving a proportionate response generally means there ISNT any significant discouragement to commit that act. Illegally copying software opens you to a fine of $10,000 and or 10 years in jail per instance, so that there is actually a deterrence factor. If the fine was that you had to pay the price of the software, there would be many many many more software counterfeiting rings.

[Jayhawkk]

Can't define it in a black and white sense. It will always side with the context of that crime. However, the death penalty for a dealer is a bit much.

[EasyEJL]

Can't define it in a black and white sense. It will always side with the context of that crime. However, the death penalty for a dealer is a bit much.

Isn't $10,000 and 10 years in jail a bit much for copying a "Hannah Montana & Miley Cyrus: Best of Both Worlds Concert Tour" dvd? You make the penalties harsher to discourage behavior. I would think death sentences would be pretty discouraging.

[lutherblsstt]

Why should society provide treatment for substance abuse? Why should my tax dollars go to pay for an addict's bad choices? Nobody becomes an addict by force, its their own crappy decisions.

Surely you are not worried about costs and at thesame time supporting the drug war!

The U.S. federal government spent over $19 billion dollars in 2003 on the War on Drugs, at a rate of about $600 per second. The budget has since been increased by over a billion dollars.

Source: Office of National Drug Control Policy http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/...get/index.html

State and local governments spent at least another 30 billion.

Source: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University: "Shoveling Up: The Impact of Substance Abuse on State Budgets," January, 2001. http://www.casacolumbia.org/pdshoppr....asp?item****26

Source: Jeffrey A. Miron, Department of Economics, Harvard University: "The Budgetary Implications of Drug Prohibition," December 2008
http://leap.cc/dia/miron-economic-report.pdf

[EasyEJL]

Surely you are not worried about costs and at thesame time supporting the drug war!

The U.S. federal government spent over $19 billion dollars in 2003 on the War on Drugs, at a rate of about $600 per second. The budget has since been increased by over a billion dollars.

Source: Office of National Drug Control Policy http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/...get/index.html

State and local governments spent at least another 30 billion.

Source: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University: "Shoveling Up: The Impact of Substance Abuse on State Budgets," January, 2001. http://www.casacolumbia.org/pdshoppr....asp?item****26

Source: Jeffrey A. Miron, Department of Economics, Harvard University: "The Budgetary Implications of Drug Prohibition," December 2008
http://leap.cc/dia/miron-economic-report.pdf

Can you state with any level of assurance that the costs to society would be lower (as we creep closer and closer towards socialism) if we were to legalize drugs?

And would you rather have your dollars go to subsidize someones lifestyle of choice of staying high around the clock than attempting to stop drug abuse? I'd be all for legalizing all of them if at the same time we dropped hospitals having to treat people without insurance, and dropped food stamps, welfare, section 8 housing etc.

[dg806]

We know that the physiological and psychological effects of cocaine, heroin, etc are wildly different than alchohol,

I agree, the dependency issues on these drugs make it hard to deal with. What happens if you make them legal and 3/4 of the people get dependant and hooked? Society will fail to function as we know it.
That is also why I am against ALL steroids being classified as sched III. They are not addictive like these others.

[Jayhawkk]

You use them to deter but they have to be readily used if the need is there and I just don't see how taking a life is anywhere near what should be done as a deterrant. If the death penalty could be used on shoplifters you would have less of those too but the constitution sort of gets in the way of doing that sort of thing