lutherblsstt
Guest
Many police officers are asking the question: if prohibition didn't work for alcohol, why are we in denial about it working for other things
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
WhatsaRoid?
Board Sponsor
Just to add
COPS SAY LEGALIZE DRUGS!
ASK US WHY
After nearly four decades of fueling the U.S. policy of a war on drugs with over a trillion tax dollars and 37 million arrests for nonviolent drug offenses, our confined population has quadrupled making building prisons the fastest growing industry in the United States. More than 2.2 million of our citizens are currently incarcerated and every year we arrest an additional 1.9 million more guaranteeing those prisons will be bursting at their seams. Every year we choose to continue this war will cost U.S. taxpayers another 69 billion dollars. Despite all the lives we have destroyed and all the money so ill spent, today illicit drugs are cheaper, more potent, and far easier to get than they were 35 years ago at the beginning of the war on drugs. Meanwhile, people continue dying in our streets while drug barons and terrorists continue to grow richer than ever before. We would suggest that this scenario must be the very definition of a failed public policy. This madness must cease!
COPS SAY LEGALIZE DRUGS!
ASK US WHY
After nearly four decades of fueling the U.S. policy of a war on drugs with over a trillion tax dollars and 37 million arrests for nonviolent drug offenses, our confined population has quadrupled making building prisons the fastest growing industry in the United States. More than 2.2 million of our citizens are currently incarcerated and every year we arrest an additional 1.9 million more guaranteeing those prisons will be bursting at their seams. Every year we choose to continue this war will cost U.S. taxpayers another 69 billion dollars. Despite all the lives we have destroyed and all the money so ill spent, today illicit drugs are cheaper, more potent, and far easier to get than they were 35 years ago at the beginning of the war on drugs. Meanwhile, people continue dying in our streets while drug barons and terrorists continue to grow richer than ever before. We would suggest that this scenario must be the very definition of a failed public policy. This madness must cease!
badfish51581
Member
That's because the argument for drug legalization is counter-intuitive. Between the heavy propaganda that started during the Nixon era and with continued violence associated with the drug trade of course most people's immediate reaction is going to be against it. Having looked into it in a lot more depth, from purely an economics stand point, legalizing (and not just decriminalizing) drugs will end cartels and gangs by completely cutting off their income streams. I've heard some very good well thought out arguments and plausible ways of implementing that policy that make so much more sense than continuing this failed policy. Both of my parents are in law enforcement and after my explanation, changed their minds about it.
Jayhawkk
Legend
You always hear great arguments but none have ever been put into effect or if they have they haven't worked. You also have to look at what scale they're talking. Switzerland isn't the US. In size or culture. Cartels and drug runners aren't in it for the drugs they're in it for the money which means if that source of income dries up they'll move to the next source. This logic pretty much uses the theory that everything will be okay with no law or governing body. it's all fine and good until you're a victim. then you want action.
I've seen plenty of arguments for decriminalization and many make sense, to me. I have yet to see any that make sense for legalization. those also vary according to the particular type of drug they want legalized.
I've seen plenty of arguments for decriminalization and many make sense, to me. I have yet to see any that make sense for legalization. those also vary according to the particular type of drug they want legalized.
dpfisher
Guest
Most police won't support this but not because it's wrong. The drug war allows them to take peoples' property even if that property wasn't bought with drug money. It also allows them to obtain funding for APCs and other urban tank type things and equip paramilitary assault forces in places with no violent crime.
dsade
NutraPlanet Fanatic
Valid point....any organization with power, by it's very nature, has the first priority of EXPANDING or PROTECTING it's power.
Jayhawkk
Legend
I don't know how valid a point that is. Most of those large and expensive items are subsidized through larger gov't. Not through propert taken. Monies and proprty recovered isn't always put back through the police system. Part so it does but I doubt that's the top reason for taking property since its attourneys that do the actual taking.
I will say money isn't monitored closely enough in where it's spent and too many depts want the cool new thing over what is needed for their jurisdiction. No different than any other angency or employee out there.
I will say money isn't monitored closely enough in where it's spent and too many depts want the cool new thing over what is needed for their jurisdiction. No different than any other angency or employee out there.
badfish51581
Member
How can you say that when this country already tried to prohibit alcohol and decided to legalize and tax it instead. Sure we still have issues with it, but you don't have the crime associated with the black market, which is one of the leading arguments.
Obviously they're in it for the money, but the reason drugs are so profitable is because of the mark ups. Cocaine is the most marked up product in circulation above 1000%. Combine that with the addictive nature of drugs and you have an obvious demand.
So what's left on the black market after drugs? Bookies? Prostitution? Guns? Extortion? Robberies? Ransom Kidnapping? What illegal/ black market business model is as profitable and easy for the street gangs of the world to get into? I don't disagree there are other illegal black market ventures that this elements will go to, but nothing on the same playing field as the drug trade.
lutherblsstt
Guest
You are right on:
Invalid Link Removed
Anti-narcotics drive has fuelled drug cartels: U.N.
VIENNA, Mar. 11, 2009 (Reuters) — A U.N. anti-narcotics drive has backfired in part by making drug cartels so rich they can bribe their way through West Africa and Central America, U.N. crime agency chief Antonio Maria Costa said on Wednesday.
The 10-year "war on drugs" campaign had cut drug output and the number of users, he said. But it had a "dramatic unintended consequence" -- profit-gorged trafficking gangs destabilizing nations already plagued by poverty and joblessness.
When mafias can buy elections, candidates, political parties, in a word, power, the consequences can only be highly destabilizing," Costa, head of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime , told a U.N. drug policy review meeting.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMAs6o9sCy4"]YouTube - Time to Legalize Drugs? Ethan Nadelmann on FOX News[/ame]
Jayhawkk
Legend
You don't think legal drugs would still have black market versions as soon as any restictions/taxes are placed on them? Now you'll just have to fight illegal versions over legsl versions. It'll just be a different fight.
My point that making an illegal drug legal in today's society is a theory best not tested. While you use prohibition as a way to fight for your cause I use it as a way to fight against it. prohibition didn't work because alcohol had become too ingrained in that society that they were not willing to let it go and were willing to risk brain damage and death to get their high in large numbers. As soon as you let loose the floodgates on drugs and there's a mistake to be made, there's no turning back.
I support decriminalization.
Since there is no large scale, successful model that can argue your side and my argument can't be won by the same token it just comes down to arguing two opinions.
My point that making an illegal drug legal in today's society is a theory best not tested. While you use prohibition as a way to fight for your cause I use it as a way to fight against it. prohibition didn't work because alcohol had become too ingrained in that society that they were not willing to let it go and were willing to risk brain damage and death to get their high in large numbers. As soon as you let loose the floodgates on drugs and there's a mistake to be made, there's no turning back.
I support decriminalization.
Since there is no large scale, successful model that can argue your side and my argument can't be won by the same token it just comes down to arguing two opinions.
lutherblsstt
Guest
Decriminalization,got ya. Good idea.Like the Netherlands.
Jayhawkk
Legend
Where in anything that I have written does it say continue down the exact same path that we're on now? I agree with what the Fox clip you posted said. The answer is probably somewhere in the middle but it isn't something that can just be thrown out there. it'll have to be slowly tested and observed to make sure we don't, with good intentions, make things even worse than they are now.
lutherblsstt
Guest
They cannot get much worse:
U.S. Leads The World In Illegal Drug Use
Invalid Link Removed
Jayhawkk
Legend
That's the difference between your opinion and mine. I've seen first hand on a personal and professional level on how much worse it can get. I don't see an advantage of legalizing drugs to the potential users as much as lower crowded prisons with users/dealers that still could of led a decent lifestyle.
lutherblsstt
Guest
The war on drugs has long been, in large part, about money. The urge to control intoxicants has been one of the greatest powers driving economies for centuries. We all know about the Dutch and British East India companies. The Mayans and Aztecs used cacao for money. Chocolate contains caffeine, theobromine and anandamide – which has a similar effect to marijuana’s THC. Today, coffee remains dominant in commerce, second only to oil.
In the nineteenth century, China was home to the Opium Wars – this time, force was used to keep drug markets open, not closed.
The key is there is demand for drugs, and so there shall be supply. If drugs are restricted, we will have human misery, but people will pay more or find other intoxicating alternatives. Most modern drug abuse has probably been with pharmaceuticals, anyway – barbiturates, benzodiazepines, etc.
In the nineteenth century, China was home to the Opium Wars – this time, force was used to keep drug markets open, not closed.
The key is there is demand for drugs, and so there shall be supply. If drugs are restricted, we will have human misery, but people will pay more or find other intoxicating alternatives. Most modern drug abuse has probably been with pharmaceuticals, anyway – barbiturates, benzodiazepines, etc.
dpfisher
Guest
I don't know how valid a point that is. Most of those large and expensive items are subsidized through larger gov't. Not through propert taken. Monies and proprty recovered isn't always put back through the police system. Part so it does but I doubt that's the top reason for taking property since its attourneys that do the actual taking.
I will say money isn't monitored closely enough in where it's spent and too many depts want the cool new thing over what is needed for their jurisdiction. No different than any other angency or employee out there.
Yeah, I agree with that. Most places are getting the money from anti-drug funding through federal grants. There are places that pretty much completely fund themselves off drug seizures too. A very few of them are probably legit seizures of some major gang leader too, I just have issue with them selling Johnny Dimebag's house and car just because he was selling a little of his stash to his friends down the street. Take away everything someone owns when they already have used illegal means to make money and then expect them to start and hold down a normal job with no possessions or transportation? That doesn't help him or society as a whole at all.
raginfcktard
Active member
just like what jayhawk said...cartels are in it for the money...so is the government! they all know who the drug dealers are but they insist and busting the little guy!
removing the stigmata from drugs my help prevent future users.
i do think the government should capitalize off of it from a taxpayer standpoint. american black market has got to be the larger than any american corporation and operates tax free. nationwide flat sales tax...but thats another subject!
removing the stigmata from drugs my help prevent future users.
i do think the government should capitalize off of it from a taxpayer standpoint. american black market has got to be the larger than any american corporation and operates tax free. nationwide flat sales tax...but thats another subject!
EasyEJL
Never enough
You are such an idiot, its amazing. We also lead the world in per capita income, per capita use of fossil fuels, etc. Things can always get significantly worse, and drug use would not go DOWN if it was legalized.
EasyEJL
Never enough
The problem with that was that alchohol was legal for a LONG time before being made illegal. 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.
dsade
NutraPlanet Fanatic
EasyEJL
Never enough
false.
Not sure which piece you think is false. Beer glorious beer dates back to before the birth of christ, distilled alchohol to the 12th century or so. heroin? needed to have needles for heroin, so much later. cocaine? crack? also later. As well, the process of creating heroin or cocaine isn't quite so easy to do from raw materials in the home as making beer or wine is.
And historically once a government allows free access to something, ever taking it away again even if it is causing huge problems is almost impossible.
I'd have no problems with the legalization of drugs if all felony crimes against persons carried a death penalty, and if there were no food stamps, section 8 housing, welfare etc that eat my income up via taxes so that the addicts can stay high all day long.
dsade
NutraPlanet Fanatic
cocaine, pot, LSD, ecstasy, meth and heroin were all legal...and you do not need needles for heroin.
EasyEJL
Never enough
cocaine, pot, LSD, ecstasy, meth and heroin were all legal...and you do not need needles for heroin.
Most illegal drugs were once legal and many were considered remedies
Right, but alchohol was used for far longer, and was and is considered a part of daily life for many, both before + after (and during) prohibition. the use of most of those is far more recent, and isn't as culturally ingrained except for perhaps psychedelic mushrooms and a few other similar things that were in use by american indians and some other groups for religious observances.
dsade
NutraPlanet Fanatic
and it is easily taxable.
I wasn't disagreeing with this point, just your erroneous statement that most drugs have never been legal.
EasyEJL
Never enough
and it is easily taxable.
I wasn't disagreeing with this point, just your erroneous statement that most drugs have never been legal.
Ah true, I suppose my thought was more around that they weren't legal for as long of a time or such an ingrained part of life, but what I wrote was never. I could use some coffee, this mornings workout was rough
But i'm all for legalization, so long as no money out of my taxes goes to drug users, or their families. Thats the bigger problem is that with "progressive" policies effectively all we do is create larger and larger population groups that are unproductive economically, and tax the smaller and smaller groups higher to pay for benefits to the unproductive. Eventually it becomes untenable, as you have to have a constantly growing population for it to work even in the shorter term. It will be interesting to see what happens to germany over the next 10-20 years as they struggle with birth rates below replacement, and how that affects GDP.
dsade
NutraPlanet Fanatic
You think supplying a substance to a grown adult, that they can choose to use or not is worthy of the death penalty?
Hope you support that when they do the same for steroids, nootropics, and P5P.
dpfisher
Guest
Hard drug use would most likely go down if soft drugs were legalized. That way the people who are still functional in normal society never really come into contact with the black market. If you had to go to a dealer to buy beer, might you not also buy weed at the same time since you're already breaking the law? As is, you go to the liquor store and never come into contact with the black market. Not that all drug dealers have harder drugs but a lot certainly know where to get them.
My preferred scenario, however, is everything be legalized because it keeps things out of the hands of kids, and I don't care if some crackhead destroys his body. I just don't want to see my money used on hassling him when there are real crimes going on.
EasyEJL
Never enough
Maybe, but using Luther's "logic" the pricing + quality of legal drugs would be bad, so you'd still go to a dealer. Also I think a bit of the people would get jaded faster on the legal stuff, and then be looking for something more. Some portion wouldn't sure, but some portion still would.
You mean like it keeps steroids out of the hands of kids? "tren" and superdrol and phera?
And you should care about the crackhead destroying his body, cause he's also likely breaking into you car for the money to buy crack or perhaps mugging your mom, and collecting your tax dollars to pay for his section 8 housing and food stamps and welfare.
badfish51581
Member
They probably would have "some" demand, but nothing on the scale the prohibition creates. Again, look at alcohol - you don't see a huge demand for 191 (95.5%) proof spirits despite the fact that most states don't allow it. In fact you don't even see that much demand for 151 (75.5%) proof relative to 80 (40%) proof spirits. Beer and wine are as popular and they don't get much stronger than 20%. Generally speaking, if you want to get drunk you just drink more.
Agreed to disagree.
I'd say cannabis has numbers pretty close alcohol.
This thinking is the problem. First, it doesn't solve the demand side of the issue and you won't ever completely solve that problem. When there's enough demand, people will step up to supply because at some point the benefits (sheer profit) will out weigh the risks. The drug war has made cocaine one of the most profitable commodities in history because of the smuggling required to get it to the demand side. As far as calling it the "right" thing to do, I guess that depends on how you look at it. I think in a free society one should be able to use whatever they want, and only be stopped when it hurts someone else. Meaning if you commit a crime while on drugs, then you will be punished, but using drugs in itself is not a crime. I think if you control potency, cost, and availability you'd see the crime associated with drugs go away. The next step then is education, and not this DARE propaganda BS, but real educated information on the risks and dangers.
Zero V
Well-known member
I wouldnt mind if we had to lose PH's and Steroids in order to face a cleaner world. As for the demand, throw them in a padded room, with no aid, nothing but water and crackers as they go through withdrawal. Record it and show it in schools on a weekly basis "this weeks losers", etc.
The general population is really incapable of making decisions. I mean look at what people have chosen to become of America. It is nothing but Porn, Drugs, Greed. That is because of too much freedom. America died 40 somethin years ago. Probably in the summer of 69....
There is a reason throughout history a select few ruled. America and other counties figured education would help make the general populace capable. They were wrong,I am sorry a guy who does pot, gots to a titty bar, slams down more than 128 oz of alchohol a week, or thinks he is a playa really shouldnt be allowed to vote.
Really a proper public sacrifice for "the greater good" would change the world. Sadly every individuals life is overvalued by themselves. I would sacrifice my life right now, in a heartbeat, if it would contribute. Sadly, short of starting a civil war I cant do much that would require my life. Being a cop doesnt work, you cant do enough, half the criminals walk. Being in the military is not justified to me because I hate the current government(i love and support military members though, just not for me) I would much rather work for a PMC and accomplish something when I pull the trigger.
The general population is really incapable of making decisions. I mean look at what people have chosen to become of America. It is nothing but Porn, Drugs, Greed. That is because of too much freedom. America died 40 somethin years ago. Probably in the summer of 69....
There is a reason throughout history a select few ruled. America and other counties figured education would help make the general populace capable. They were wrong,I am sorry a guy who does pot, gots to a titty bar, slams down more than 128 oz of alchohol a week, or thinks he is a playa really shouldnt be allowed to vote.
Really a proper public sacrifice for "the greater good" would change the world. Sadly every individuals life is overvalued by themselves. I would sacrifice my life right now, in a heartbeat, if it would contribute. Sadly, short of starting a civil war I cant do much that would require my life. Being a cop doesnt work, you cant do enough, half the criminals walk. Being in the military is not justified to me because I hate the current government(i love and support military members though, just not for me) I would much rather work for a PMC and accomplish something when I pull the trigger.
dsade
NutraPlanet Fanatic
Those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither.
Thanks, Mr. Franklin.
You are also incapable of determining for yourself what kind of books you can read, what TV shows you should watch, what clothes to wear (this uniform is fine, citizen), and what job you want.
Welcome to Hell.
Dadof2
Active member
The "War on Drugs" really has no place in a "Free Republic". Of course, we are moving away from the free republic more and more every day. We are speeding right into an oligarchy, but that is a subject for another post.
The idea of men being free on their own property, as long as they do no unjust harm to another person, is an American ideal. The idea that the state can come on your property, arrest you, and confiscate your belongings is not an American ideal.
Now I understand the argument of "I don't want my tax money spent to support drug addicts". Well, your tax money is already spent supporting drug addicts. In Thomas Jefferson's America the idea of the government supporting another person is also an un American ideal.
So the solution is to take several steps back to what this country used to be, and if that includes the right to get as high as you want, then so be it. Just respect my right not to give a **** when your health is ****ed, and you have nowhere to live. Oh, and if you come around my family while you are zonked out of your mind, I will exercise my right to **** your **** up with my vast collection of weaponry.
When you look at this issue through a larger spectrum the benefits of a more free America far outweigh the "evils" of drug use.
Even if you get away from "America the Free", and "From Freedom to Fascism" (a great flick) the benefits of legalizing drugs are still numerous and outweigh any potential cons*. The reason behind this is that some ideas are better than others,and no matter what, respecting the freedom of the individual is always the correct decision and will have the better outcome.
* the benefits being the reduction of property crimes, muggings, the destruction of street gangs and drug cartels, the taxable income from marijuana, etc.
The idea of men being free on their own property, as long as they do no unjust harm to another person, is an American ideal. The idea that the state can come on your property, arrest you, and confiscate your belongings is not an American ideal.
Now I understand the argument of "I don't want my tax money spent to support drug addicts". Well, your tax money is already spent supporting drug addicts. In Thomas Jefferson's America the idea of the government supporting another person is also an un American ideal.
So the solution is to take several steps back to what this country used to be, and if that includes the right to get as high as you want, then so be it. Just respect my right not to give a **** when your health is ****ed, and you have nowhere to live. Oh, and if you come around my family while you are zonked out of your mind, I will exercise my right to **** your **** up with my vast collection of weaponry.
When you look at this issue through a larger spectrum the benefits of a more free America far outweigh the "evils" of drug use.
Even if you get away from "America the Free", and "From Freedom to Fascism" (a great flick) the benefits of legalizing drugs are still numerous and outweigh any potential cons*. The reason behind this is that some ideas are better than others,and no matter what, respecting the freedom of the individual is always the correct decision and will have the better outcome.
* the benefits being the reduction of property crimes, muggings, the destruction of street gangs and drug cartels, the taxable income from marijuana, etc.
Zero V
Well-known member
We are maybe 5 years from hell in this country. I mean if your gona legalize crack, you mind as well make it legal for me to shoot people right? All is fair, no?
I like freedom, yes. But there is so much wrong with what freedom entitles people to today. I think freedom should be as it was in the early days. Most people dont deserve this freedom. Back then they respected themselves, and others for freedom. People had dignity, good hearts(at least a much higher % than today). You could trust people.
Between the companies that are allowed to exist that do nothing more than scam, but they are legit and allowed by our laws...
Our courts and jail system are a joke.
College is becoming a joke anymore.
Our country is a joke. I mean, poor people in countries not as well off are happier and enjoy their lives more than people in this country do. I have seen it before.
A few nukes wouldnt hurt this country at all. It would do it some good.
lutherblsstt
Guest
We are not talking about per capita income or fossil fuel use genie-a$$ we are talking about drug use. It is already the highest rate in the world in the US so how could it get worse? Also,how do you know it would not go down if de-criminalized?
EasyEJL
Never enough
How can it get worse? by going up, the math is easy. Highest rate in the world is a meaningless phrase as by definition one country always has to have the highest, one country also has to have the lowest. Does that mean that magically it can't get higher because we're already number one? No.
I don't know that it won't go down if de-criminalized, but there is no evidence that it will either.
dsade
NutraPlanet Fanatic
Actually, no - and if you don't know the difference between right to pursuit of happiness within my OWN body, provided I do not trample on YOUR freedom to do the same, and freaking murder (which is the ultimate trampling on someone else's rights) then you might want to check the mirror to find out why this country has become crap.
And for someone claiming to be a christian, most of your words could not be more Antichrist, dickish, and violent.
lutherblsstt
Guest
No its actually quantifiable.
Do you have any evidence backed reason to believe it will?
Invalid Link Removed
"Drug use is related to income, but does not appear to be simply related to drug policy, since countries with more stringent policies towards illegal drug use did not have lower levels of such drug use than countries with more liberal policies," said Louisa Degenhardt of the University of New South Wales.
"The United States, which has been driving much of the world's drug research and drug policy agenda, stands out with higher levels of use of alcohol, cocaine and cannabis, despite punitive illegal drug policies, as well as (in many U.S. states) a higher minimum legal alcohol drinking age than many comparable developed countries," the authors report.
"The Netherlands, with a less criminally punitive approach to cannabis use than the United States, has experienced lower levels of use, particularly among younger adults," the report says. "Clearly, by itself, a punitive policy towards possession and use accounts for limited variation in nation-level rates of illegal drug use."
EasyEJL
Never enough
Which one of those shows lower usage after decriminalization? Ah none, I see. The fact (again as i've previously seen you do) of thinking that wildly different geographic, economic and social groups should somehow have identical statistical distribution of a given activity is mathematically inaccurate as all those factors also figure in to the levels of an activity.
lutherblsstt
Guest
From 1972 to 1978, eleven states decriminalized marijuana possession (covering one-third of the US population) and 33 other states reduced punishment to probation with record erased after six months to one year. Yet, after 1978 marijuana use steadily declined for over a decade. Decriminalization did not increase marijuana use.
[National Research Council, "Informing America’s Policy On Illegal Drugs: What We Don’t Know Keeps Hurting Us" (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001), pp. 192-193.]
EasyEJL
Never enough
At the same time, acceptable vehicular emission standards were set to a lower level of hydrocarbons do you also want to state that lowering the emission standards also drove down marijuana usage? Kill 2 birds with one stone there, make it greener to reduce drug use. Statistics are simple to use and manipulate to prove whatever point you'd like, and often unrelated things occur at the same time. In the decade after 1978 the war on drugs was in effect, so all you are proving there is that it was effective.
lutherblsstt
Guest
Lets use Marijuana as an example
Findings from dozens of government-commissioned and academic studies published over the past 25 years overwhelmingly affirm that liberalizing marijuana penalties does not lead to an increase in marijuana consumption or affect adolescent attitudes toward drug use.
Since 1973, 12 state legislatures -- Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Ohio and Oregon -- have enacted versions of marijuana decriminalization. In each of these states Invalid Link Removed, marijuana users no longer face jail time (nor in most cases, arrest or criminal records) for the possession or use of small amounts of marijuana. Internationally, many states and nations have enacted similar policies.
The following studies examine these decriminalization policies and their impact on marijuana use. The studies' conclusions are listed chronologically.
U.S. Studies
"In sum, there is little evidence that decriminalization of marijuana use necessarily leads to a substantial increase in marijuana use." - National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine (IOM). 1999. Invalid Link Removed. National Academy Press: Washington, D.C., 102.
"The Law Revision Commission has examined laws from other states that have reduced penalties for small amounts of marijuana and the impact of those laws in those states. ... Studies of [those] states found (1) expenses for arrest and prosecution of marijuana possession offenses were significantly reduced, (2) any increase in the use of marijuana in those states was less that increased use in those states that did not decrease their penalties and the largest proportionate increase occurred in those states with the most severe penalties, and (3) reducing the penalties for marijuana has virtually no effect on either choice or frequency of the use of alcohol or illegal 'harder' drugs such as cocaine."
- Connecticut Law Review Commission. 1997. Drug Policy in Connecticut and Strategy Options: Report to the Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut General Assembly. State Capitol: Hartford. Invalid Link Removed
"There is no strong evidence that decriminalization affects either the choice or frequency of use of drugs, either legal (alcohol) or illegal (marijuana and cocaine)." - C. Thies and C. Register. 1993. Decriminalization of Marijuana and the Demand for Alcohol, Marijuana and Cocaine. The Social Sciences Journal 30: 385-399. Invalid Link Removed
"In contrast with marijuana use, rates of other illicit drug use among ER [emergency room] patients were substantially higher in states that did not decriminalize marijuana use. The lack of decriminalization might have encouraged greater use of drugs that are even more dangerous than marijuana."
- K. Model. 1993. The effect of marijuana decriminalization on hospital emergency room episodes: 1975-1978. Journal of the American Statistical Association 88: 737-747, as cited by the National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine in Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. [6]Invalid Link Removed
"The available evidence indicates that the decriminalization of marijuana possession had little or no impact on rates of use. Although rates of marijuana use increased in those U.S. states [that] reduced maximum penalties for possession to a fine, the prevalence of use increased at similar or higher rates in those states [that] retained more severe penalties. There were also no discernible impacts on the health care systems. On the other hand, the so-called 'decriminalization' measures did result in substantial savings in the criminal justice system."
- E. Single. 1989. The Impact of Marijuana Decriminalization: An Update. Journal of Public Health 10: 456-466.
"Overall, the preponderance of the evidence which we have gathered and examined points to the conclusion that decriminalization has had virtually no effect either on the marijuana use or on related attitudes and beliefs about marijuana use among American young people. The data show no evidence of any increase, relative to the control states, in the proportion of the age group who ever tried marijuana. 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.
"Consumption appears to be unaffected, or affected only minimally by decriminalization, and most people believe that it has had little impact. Further, decriminalization has proven to be administratively and economically advantageous for state law enforcement efforts."
- D. Maloff. 1981. Review of the effects of decriminalization of marijuana. Contemporary Drug Problems Fall: 307-322.
"Levels of use tended to be higher in the decriminalization states both before and after the changes in law.
- W. Saveland and D. Bray. 1980. American Trends in Cannabis Use Among States with Different Changing Legal Regimes. Bureau of Tobacco Control and Biometrics, Health and Welfare: Ottawa, as cited by E. Single in The Impact of Marijuana Decriminalization: an Update.
"The reduction in penalties for possession of marijuana for personal use does not appear to have been a factor in people's decision to use or not use the drug."
- California State Office of Narcotics and Drug Abuse. 1977. A First Report on the Impact of California's New Marijuana Law. State Capitol: Sacramento.
"The number of [hospital] admissions directly due to marijuana use decreased from ... 1970 to ... 1975. In the same time, the number of admissions for drug abuse of all types, except alcohol, [also] decreased. ... The following conclusion seem
- P. Blachly. 1976. Effects of Decriminalization of Marijuana in Oregon. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 282: 405-415.
"Data collected at four points in time in Ann Arbor [Michigan] and the control communities (which underwent no change in marijuana penalties) indicated that marijuana use was not affected by the change in law [to decriminalization.]"
- R. Stuart et al. 1976. Penalty for the Possession of Marijuana: An Analysis of Some of its Concomitants. Contemporary Drug Problems 5: 553, as cited by E. Single in The Impact of Marijuana Decriminalization: an Update.
International Studies
"The Dutch experience, together with those of a few other countries with more modest policy changes, provides a moderately good empirical case that removal of criminal prohibitions on cannabis possession (decriminalization) will not increase the prevalence of marijuana or any other illicit drug; the argument for decriminalization is thus strong."
- R. MacCoun and P. Reuter. 2001. Evaluating alternative cannabis regimes. British Journal of Psychiatry 178: 123-128. Invalid Link Removed
"Fear of apprehension, fear of being imprisoned, the cost of cannabis or the difficulty in obtaining cannabis do not appear to exert a strong influence on decisions about cannabis consumption. ... Those factors may limit cannabis use among frequent cannabis users, but there is no evidence, as of yet, to support this conjecture."
- D. Weatherburn and C. Jones. 2001. Does prohibition deter cannabis use? New South Wales (Australia) Bureau of Crime Statistics: Sydney.Invalid Link Removed
"The available data indicate that decriminalization measures substantially reduced enforcement costs, yet had little or no impact on rates of use in the United States. In the South Australian community, none of the studies have found an impact in cannabis use which is attributable to the introduction of the Cannabis Expiation Scheme [decriminalization.]"
- E. Single et al. 2000. The Impact of Cannabis Decriminalisation in Australia and the United States. Journal of Public Health Policy 21: 157-186.
"There is no evidence to date that the CEN [decriminalization] system ... Has increased levels of regular cannabis use, or rates of experimentation among young adults. These results are broadly in accord with our earlier analysis of trends in cannabis use in Australia. ...They are also consistent with the results of similar analyses in the United States and the Netherlands."
- N. Donnelly et al. 1999. Effects of the Cannabis Expiation Notice Scheme on Levels and Patterns of Cannabis Use in South Australia: Evidence from the National Drug Strategy Household Surveys 1985-1995 Invalid Link Removed (Report commissioned for the National Drug Strategy Committee). Australian Government Publishing Service: Canberra, Australia.
"The different laws which govern the use and sale of marijuana do not appear to have resulted in substantially different outcomes if we view those outcomes solely in terms of consumption patterns."
- Australian Institute of Criminology, and the New South Wales Department of Politics 1997. Marijuana in Australia, patterns and attitudes. Monograph Series No. 31, Looking Glass Press (Public Affairs): Canberra, Australia.
"While the Dutch case and other analogies have flaws, they appear to converge in suggesting that reductions in criminal penalties have limited effects on drug use, at least for marijuana." - R. MacCoun and P. Reuter. 1997. Interpreting Dutch cannabis policy: Reasoning by analogy in the legalization debate. Science 278: 47-52.
"General deterrence, or the impact of the threat of legal sanction on the cannabis use of the population at large, has been assessed in large scale surveys. These studies have compared jurisdictions in the USA and Australia where penalties have been reduced with those where they have not, and rates of use have been unaffected. ... Since no deterrent impact was found, this research illustrates a high-cost, low-benefit policy in action. Therefore, if any penalty is awarded, it should be a consistent minimum one. ... The greatest impact on reducing the harmful individual consequences of criminalization would be achieved by eliminating or greatly reducing the numbers of cannabis criminals processed in the first place." - P. Erickson and B. Fischer. 1997. Canadian cannabis policy: The impact of criminalization, the current reality and future policies Invalid Link Removed. In: L. Bollinger (Ed.) Cannabis Science: From Prohibition to Human Right. Peter Lang, Frankfurt, Germany. 227-242.
"There does not appear to be a consistent pattern between arrest rates and [marijuana] prevalence rates in the [United States] general population. ... Following precipitous increases, marijuana use began decreasing in the late 1970s, during a period of relative stability in arrest rates. The general deterrence effects of the law (i.e., arrest practices), are not apparent based on the intercorrelations of the measures presented here."
- L. Harrison et al. 1995. Marijuana Policy and Prevalance Invalid Link Removed. [15] In: P. Cohen and A. Sas (Eds.) Cannabisbeleid in Duitsland, Frankrijk en de Verenigde Staten. University of Amsterdam: Amsterdam. 248-253.
"The evidence is accumulating ... that liberalization does not increase cannabis use [and] that the total prohibition approach is costly [and] ineffective as a general deterrent."
- L. Atkinson and D. McDonald. 1995. Cannabis, the Law and Social Impacts in Australia. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice 48.Invalid Link Removed
"It has been demonstrated that the more or less free sale of [marijuana] for personal use in the Netherlands has not given rise to levels of use significantly higher than in countries which pursue a highly repressive policy."
- Netherlands Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport. 1995. Drugs: Policy in the Netherlands: Continuity and Change. The Hague.
"It is clear ... that the introduction of the CEN scheme [decriminalization] in South Australia has not produced a major increase in rates of cannabis use in South Australia by comparison with changes occurring elsewhere in Australia. ... It is not possible to attribute the moderate increases in cannabis use rates in South Australia to the removal of criminal penalties for small-scale cannabis offenses in that state."
- N. Donnelly et al. 1995. The effects of partial decriminalization on cannabis use in South Australia, 1985 to 1993. Australian Journal of Public Health 19: 281-287.
"The available evidence suggests that those jurisdictions which have decriminalized personal cannabis use have not experienced any dramatic increase in prevalence of use." - National Drug and Alcohol Research Center. 1994. Patterns of cannabis use in Australia. Monograph Series No. 27, Australian Government Publishing Service: Canberra, Australia.
"It appears clear that there is no firm basis for concluding that the introduction of the Cannabis Expiation Notice System in South Australia in 1987 has had any detrimental effect in terms of leading to increased levels of cannabis use in the Southern Australian community. ... In the context of a society which is increasingly well informed about the risks associated with drug use in general, a move toward more lenient laws for small scale cannabis offenses, such as the CEN [decriminalization] system, will not lead to increased cannabis use."
- Drug and Alcohol Services Council of South Australia, Monitoring, Evaluation and Research Unit. 1991. The Effects of Cannabis Legalization in South Australia on Levels of Cannabis Use. DASC Press: Parkside, Australia.
dpfisher
Guest
No, like it keeps alcohol out of the hands of kids. Sure they can get it but it's way WAY easier to get weed.
neoborn
Well-known member
:type:
Zero V
Well-known member
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.
I would say the country is the way it is because of the lack of a faith. Hence I shouldnt be the one looking in the mirror.... as faith in a higher power goes down, the more this country becomes worthless.
and as for your other comment. I am a realist. Think early america, and western days. Usually a sheriff was a man who believed in God(as americans did then), yet he hung/shot criminals. They would go after them with a posse, etc. I believe thats the way it should be today with criminals. And people had certain choices limited to them. I am a Christian, I am sorry I am not a panzy -.- the world needs the balance that has been stripped away from it, sadly some responsibility belongs to my people(per thos against death penalty, etc) They have molded things in a bad way.
If you were to come into my house in the middle of the night, I would shoot you until your chance of survival is 0%, or in my redneck kins style, -50%
I wont find a person guilty of nothing and harm them. But you step over the line, then it needs to be something your willing to die for.
As the man said to the cops when they arrived to find a man with 30 gunshot wounds "Officer, that is the worst case of suicide I have ever seen"
EasyEJL
Never enough
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.