Legalize drugs to stop the violence?

TheNamelessWonder

Tree Surgeon
Joined
Dec 15, 2007
Messages
520
This guy is brilliant. He's been pitching legalization for quite a while, and he's done some of the most definitive research on the topic.

All the evidence is there. Drug prohibition does not curtail drug consumption, and has all sorts of negative side effects. Gradual legalization is the least bad option.

Discuss.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/24/miron.legalization.drugs/index.html

CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Over the past two years, drug violence in Mexico has become a fixture of the daily news. Some of this violence pits drug cartels against one another; some involves confrontations between law enforcement and traffickers.

Recent estimates suggest thousands have lost their lives in this "war on drugs."

The U.S. and Mexican responses to this violence have been predictable: more troops and police, greater border controls and expanded enforcement of every kind. Escalation is the wrong response, however; drug prohibition is the cause of the violence.

Prohibition creates violence because it drives the drug market underground. This means buyers and sellers cannot resolve their disputes with lawsuits, arbitration or advertising, so they resort to violence instead.

Violence was common in the alcohol industry when it was banned during Prohibition, but not before or after.

Violence is the norm in illicit gambling markets but not in legal ones. Violence is routine when prostitution is banned but not when it's permitted. Violence results from policies that create black markets, not from the characteristics of the good or activity in question.

The only way to reduce violence, therefore, is to legalize drugs. Fortuitously, legalization is the right policy for a slew of other reasons.

Prohibition of drugs corrupts politicians and law enforcement by putting police, prosecutors, judges and politicians in the position to threaten the profits of an illicit trade. This is why bribery, threats and kidnapping are common for prohibited industries but rare otherwise. Mexico's recent history illustrates this dramatically.

Prohibition erodes protections against unreasonable search and seizure because neither party to a drug transaction has an incentive to report the activity to the police. Thus, enforcement requires intrusive tactics such as warrantless searches or undercover buys. The victimless nature of this so-called crime also encourages police to engage in racial profiling.

Prohibition has disastrous implications for national security. By eradicating coca plants in Colombia or poppy fields in Afghanistan, prohibition breeds resentment of the United States. By enriching those who produce and supply drugs, prohibition supports terrorists who sell protection services to drug traffickers.

Prohibition harms the public health. Patients suffering from cancer, glaucoma and other conditions cannot use marijuana under the laws of most states or the federal government despite abundant evidence of its efficacy. Terminally ill patients cannot always get adequate pain medication because doctors may fear prosecution by the Drug Enforcement Administration.

Drug users face restrictions on clean syringes that cause them to share contaminated needles, thereby spreading HIV, hepatitis and other blood-borne diseases.

Prohibitions breed disrespect for the law because despite draconian penalties and extensive enforcement, huge numbers of people still violate prohibition. This means those who break the law, and those who do not, learn that obeying laws is for suckers.

Prohibition is a drain on the public purse. Federal, state and local governments spend roughly $44 billion per year to enforce drug prohibition. These same governments forego roughly $33 billion per year in tax revenue they could collect from legalized drugs, assuming these were taxed at rates similar to those on alcohol and tobacco. Under prohibition, these revenues accrue to traffickers as increased profits.

The right policy, therefore, is to legalize drugs while using regulation and taxation to dampen irresponsible behavior related to drug use, such as driving under the influence. This makes more sense than prohibition because it avoids creation of a black market. This approach also allows those who believe they benefit from drug use to do so, as long as they do not harm others.

Legalization is desirable for all drugs, not just marijuana. The health risks of marijuana are lower than those of many other drugs, but that is not the crucial issue. Much of the traffic from Mexico or Colombia is for cocaine, heroin and other drugs, while marijuana production is increasingly domestic. Legalizing only marijuana would therefore fail to achieve many benefits of broader legalization.

It is impossible to reconcile respect for individual liberty with drug prohibition. The U.S. has been at the forefront of this puritanical policy for almost a century, with disastrous consequences at home and abroad.

The U.S. repealed Prohibition of alcohol at the height of the Great Depression, in part because of increasing violence and in part because of diminishing tax revenues. Similar concerns apply today, and Attorney General Eric Holder's recent announcement that the Drug Enforcement Administration will not raid medical marijuana distributors in California suggests an openness in the Obama administration to rethinking current practice.

Perhaps history will repeat itself, and the U.S. will abandon one of its most disastrous policy experiments.
 

DarkSider

Tree Surgeon
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
796
On the other hand having drugs associated with violence and crimes is not entirely a bad thing. If you could buy coke and meth in a shop there would be a ton more users who start soft and give it a try for something stronger .. after all if you can buy it in a superkarket IT CAN'T BE THAT BAD right ?
How would all the teens get the money for their increasing needs and dependence ? Even more violence maybe ?
Corrupting innocent kids shouldn't be done to improve access of the addicts to drugs. Legalisation would need to be made to anybody no matter of age else those under the buying age would still need to go to intermediaars and nothing much changed for them.
If anything should be done - Allow soft recreational drugs like weed i guess tho i never consumed so i don't know how soft it is really but for the heavy drugs - Confirmed drug dealer ? headshot or many many years in jail simple as :p No more drugs no need for any violence.
Offer a bounty for every staged drug traffic and catch them all. They would be afraid to sell to anybody, especially the more addicted who would do anything if they get deprived of drugs for a while.
 
Last edited:

Scorpio

Head Gardener
Joined
Jan 1, 2008
Messages
373
Location
NZ
My opinion:

A legal, quick and easy acces to drugs will encourage the use, create more addiction and like DS said there would be more people who need money to get drugs so more violence.

I'm not a drug user either (not soft, nor hard) and for me, both types should be illegal. There are too many addictions in the world anyways (ask the TeensAgainstPorn-crew :p )
 

Alcibiades

Plant Geneticist
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
4,267
Location
Canada
Much as i would like to see drugs legalized; it wouldn't do away with the black market. There will almost always be an underground market for something; especially something like drugs. Considering how big the underground drug system already is; introducing legalized drugs wouldn't even dent the current flow of drugs.

And legalizing has it's own set of issues including increased dependency because if you can get drugs easily (from a legal dealer or not) you'll use them. Most people aren't really strong willed enough to resist, and if you *encourage* drug use you'll create a whole mess of social problems that we would be hard pressed to deal with.

Admittedly the 'war on drugs' is inefficient, incompetent, rife with corruption; and not all that effective. But it's more dangerous to have drugs legalized.
 

Garrett

Landscape Designer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
1,872
I agree that if our states make laws to have medicinal maryjohanna legal... then our federal resources should not be used to pursue those state approved dispensaries or growth farms. This is the epitome of ridiculousness over here.


there are going to be valid points to leaving it as is and changing it. people fear change.

if marijuana does not have the same level of detrimental effects as alcohol... I don't think we need to spend millions and billions chasing after pot. in that regard, he's right about prohibition.

the rest of the drug categories and some of his arguments leave me with this eeehhhhh.... kinda feeling.
 

Hobbezak

Garden Designer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
894
Location
Antwerp, Belgium
My opinion:

A legal, quick and easy acces to drugs will encourage the use, create more addiction and like DS said there would be more people who need money to get drugs so more violence.

I'm not a drug user either (not soft, nor hard) and for me, both types should be illegal. There are too many addictions in the world anyways (ask the TeensAgainstPorn-crew :p )

Lol, nice to see someone who thinks exactly the opposite of me.
I personally think all drugs should be made legal, even though the only drug I use is alcohol, and not that much anyway.
But I think people should be allowed to do as they like (in their private atmosphere that is), unless they in any way disturb other people. Obviously drugs & driving should be illegal, but I don't think the government should have any authority on what people do at home.

I've had a discussion about this a few weeks back with someone who thought exactly the same as you Scorpio, and he said the government should protect people who are spineless and therefore get addicted too easily. Well imho you're either a grown up, with the advantages and disadvantages, or you're not. If you can't handle the responsibility of adulthood (= freedom), then maybe the government should make other decisions for you as well? Like take away your freedom to spend your money as you like. Because if you're spineless, you probably don't have the maturity to spend your money wisely.
And it also means you'll be easier influenced by certain politicians, so your right to vote should be taken away too?
I don't think people who have the maturity to decide for themselves should be punished (i.e. taking away their freedom of choice on the matter of using drugs in a responsible way) because some spineless idiots can't handle the responsibility.
 

TheNamelessWonder

Tree Surgeon
Joined
Dec 15, 2007
Messages
520
I don't think anybody "likes" the idea of having hard drugs legal. But guess what? Banning them has failed. Locking people in jail for 30 years for selling them has failed. And oh by the way, it has spawned violent gangs, cost us $billions, is overflowing our prisons, etc etc...

Prohibition failed in the 20s and 30s and it's failing today. Legalization has a chance at success.
 

Alcibiades

Plant Geneticist
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
4,267
Location
Canada
I don't think anybody "likes" the idea of having hard drugs legal. But guess what? Banning them has failed. Locking people in jail for 30 years for selling them has failed. And oh by the way, it has spawned violent gangs, cost us $billions, is overflowing our prisons, etc etc...

Prohibition failed in the 20s and 30s and it's failing today. Legalization has a chance at success.

Too many risks associated with legalizing hard drugs.

'If you can't beat 'em, join 'em' does not work in this instance.
 

Garrett

Landscape Designer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
1,872
My opinion:

A legal, quick and easy acces to drugs will encourage the use, create more addiction and like DS said there would be more people who need money to get drugs so more violence.

I'm not a drug user either (not soft, nor hard) and for me, both types should be illegal. There are too many addictions in the world anyways (ask the TeensAgainstPorn-crew :p )

Lol, nice to see someone who thinks exactly the opposite of me.
I personally think all drugs should be made legal, even though the only drug I use is alcohol, and not that much anyway.
But I think people should be allowed to do as they like (in their private atmosphere that is), unless they in any way disturb other people. Obviously drugs & driving should be illegal, but I don't think the government should have any authority on what people do at home.

I've had a discussion about this a few weeks back with someone who thought exactly the same as you Scorpio, and he said the government should protect people who are spineless and therefore get addicted too easily. Well imho you're either a grown up, with the advantages and disadvantages, or you're not. If you can't handle the responsibility of adulthood (= freedom), then maybe the government should make other decisions for you as well? Like take away your freedom to spend your money as you like. Because if you're spineless, you probably don't have the maturity to spend your money wisely.
And it also means you'll be easier influenced by certain politicians, so your right to vote should be taken away too?
I don't think people who have the maturity to decide for themselves should be punished (i.e. taking away their freedom of choice on the matter of using drugs in a responsible way) because some spineless idiots can't handle the responsibility.


Sir did you clear your opinion with the secretary of the interior first? If not I'm afraid I'm going to have to request your post to be moderated to conform to party lines.
 

TheNamelessWonder

Tree Surgeon
Joined
Dec 15, 2007
Messages
520
Risks? Like what? Murderous gangs in our cities? Oh wait...umm...kids addicted to hard drugs? Oh wait...hmmm...
 

Scorpio

Head Gardener
Joined
Jan 1, 2008
Messages
373
Location
NZ
My opinion:

A legal, quick and easy acces to drugs will encourage the use, create more addiction and like DS said there would be more people who need money to get drugs so more violence.

I'm not a drug user either (not soft, nor hard) and for me, both types should be illegal. There are too many addictions in the world anyways (ask the TeensAgainstPorn-crew :p )

Lol, nice to see someone who thinks exactly the opposite of me.
I personally think all drugs should be made legal, even though the only drug I use is alcohol, and not that much anyway.
But I think people should be allowed to do as they like (in their private atmosphere that is), unless they in any way disturb other people. Obviously drugs & driving should be illegal, but I don't think the government should have any authority on what people do at home.

I've had a discussion about this a few weeks back with someone who thought exactly the same as you Scorpio, and he said the government should protect people who are spineless and therefore get addicted too easily. Well imho you're either a grown up, with the advantages and disadvantages, or you're not. If you can't handle the responsibility of adulthood (= freedom), then maybe the government should make other decisions for you as well? Like take away your freedom to spend your money as you like. Because if you're spineless, you probably don't have the maturity to spend your money wisely.
And it also means you'll be easier influenced by certain politicians, so your right to vote should be taken away too?
I don't think people who have the maturity to decide for themselves should be punished (i.e. taking away their freedom of choice on the matter of using drugs in a responsible way) because some spineless idiots can't handle the responsibility.

It doesn't have anything to do with "spending of your money", it's just the fact that the cosumption of it is dangerous and can get you addicted and even destroy your life. And why do you need it? For nothing. Just my honest opinion... :p
 

Alcibiades

Plant Geneticist
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
4,267
Location
Canada
Risks? Like what? Murderous gangs in our cities? Oh wait...umm...kids addicted to hard drugs? Oh wait...hmmm...

But legalizing drugs won't solve those issues.... so what's the point in doing it, other than having drugs more easily accessible.

Like i said before 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em' DOES NOT WORK in this case.
 

Hobbezak

Garden Designer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
894
Location
Antwerp, Belgium
Sir did you clear your opinion with the secretary of the interior first? If not I'm afraid I'm going to have to request your post to be moderated to conform to party lines.

I've first thought what the Great Leader Vladimir Illitsj Oeljanov would've said about it, and what Karl Marx would say. But then I thought: "Screw them, the intarnetz iz seriouz businez".
 

Scorpio

Head Gardener
Joined
Jan 1, 2008
Messages
373
Location
NZ
Risks? Like what? Murderous gangs in our cities? Oh wait...umm...kids addicted to hard drugs? Oh wait...hmmm...

It just asking for more trouble, and there's enough misery in life already ...
It could for example mean yet ANOTHER kid, who doesn't know better than to follow his friends under peer-pressure, to get hooked up and addicted to soft drugs at a young age or even to hard drugs = waste of life
 

TheNamelessWonder

Tree Surgeon
Joined
Dec 15, 2007
Messages
520
Risks? Like what? Murderous gangs in our cities? Oh wait...umm...kids addicted to hard drugs? Oh wait...hmmm...

But legalizing drugs won't solve those issues.... so what's the point in doing it, other than having drugs more easily accessible.

Like i said before 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em' DOES NOT WORK in this case.

Will it lower consumption? Maybe, probably not. But according to the evidence, consumption isn't likely to increase in any significant way. And the gangs will subside, and the prisons will have enough room to keep the real criminals locked up, and we can make billions taxing the drugs, and those who use drugs will be able to use a safer product in a safer environment, etc etc. It's about all the other problems that drug prohibition brings about, and about how drug prohibition absolutely fails to curtail consumption.


It just asking for more trouble, and there's enough misery in life already ...
It could for example mean yet ANOTHER kid, who doesn't know better than to follow his friends under peer-pressure, to get hooked up and addicted to soft drugs at a young age or even to hard drugs = waste of life

Hmmm, wanna talk about misery? How about the kid who has a felony on his record because he sold a few grams of something to an undercover cop. Stupid kid makes a mistake, he should pay for years and years, right?
 

Hobbezak

Garden Designer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
894
Location
Antwerp, Belgium
My opinion:

A legal, quick and easy acces to drugs will encourage the use, create more addiction and like DS said there would be more people who need money to get drugs so more violence.

I'm not a drug user either (not soft, nor hard) and for me, both types should be illegal. There are too many addictions in the world anyways (ask the TeensAgainstPorn-crew :p )

Lol, nice to see someone who thinks exactly the opposite of me.
I personally think all drugs should be made legal, even though the only drug I use is alcohol, and not that much anyway.
But I think people should be allowed to do as they like (in their private atmosphere that is), unless they in any way disturb other people. Obviously drugs & driving should be illegal, but I don't think the government should have any authority on what people do at home.

I've had a discussion about this a few weeks back with someone who thought exactly the same as you Scorpio, and he said the government should protect people who are spineless and therefore get addicted too easily. Well imho you're either a grown up, with the advantages and disadvantages, or you're not. If you can't handle the responsibility of adulthood (= freedom), then maybe the government should make other decisions for you as well? Like take away your freedom to spend your money as you like. Because if you're spineless, you probably don't have the maturity to spend your money wisely.
And it also means you'll be easier influenced by certain politicians, so your right to vote should be taken away too?
I don't think people who have the maturity to decide for themselves should be punished (i.e. taking away their freedom of choice on the matter of using drugs in a responsible way) because some spineless idiots can't handle the responsibility.

It doesn't have anything to do with "spending of your money", it's just the fact that the cosumption of it is dangerous and can get you addicted and even destroy your life. And why do you need it? For nothing. Just my honest opinion... :p

I think you misunderstood me. I mean that you can extend this.
1. The government tells you that you cannot use drugs, because you're not mature enough to make your own decision on this.
2. I say the government can extend this. You cannot decide on your own money, because you're not mature enough. If you spend your money not wisely (like shopping sprees, buing expensive stuff that you can't afford...), you can get into serious financial problems. This should be prevented by the government.

I didn't mean that the government should allow you to buy drugs because you buy it with your own money. I meant that the government should allow you to buy drugs because you're an adult, and therefore should have freedom of choice.
 

TheNamelessWonder

Tree Surgeon
Joined
Dec 15, 2007
Messages
520
I didn't mean that the government should allow you to buy drugs because you buy it with your own money. I meant that the government should allow you to buy drugs because you're an adult, and therefore should have freedom of choice.

Amen, brother.

I'll point out that none of the people who are clamoring for legalization are saying we should turn a blind eye to those who run somebody over while under the influence, etc. Punish those who commit other crimes, but leave well enough alone for possession and for sale.
 

Scorpio

Head Gardener
Joined
Jan 1, 2008
Messages
373
Location
NZ
My opinion:

A legal, quick and easy acces to drugs will encourage the use, create more addiction and like DS said there would be more people who need money to get drugs so more violence.

I'm not a drug user either (not soft, nor hard) and for me, both types should be illegal. There are too many addictions in the world anyways (ask the TeensAgainstPorn-crew :p )

Lol, nice to see someone who thinks exactly the opposite of me.
I personally think all drugs should be made legal, even though the only drug I use is alcohol, and not that much anyway.
But I think people should be allowed to do as they like (in their private atmosphere that is), unless they in any way disturb other people. Obviously drugs & driving should be illegal, but I don't think the government should have any authority on what people do at home.

I've had a discussion about this a few weeks back with someone who thought exactly the same as you Scorpio, and he said the government should protect people who are spineless and therefore get addicted too easily. Well imho you're either a grown up, with the advantages and disadvantages, or you're not. If you can't handle the responsibility of adulthood (= freedom), then maybe the government should make other decisions for you as well? Like take away your freedom to spend your money as you like. Because if you're spineless, you probably don't have the maturity to spend your money wisely.
And it also means you'll be easier influenced by certain politicians, so your right to vote should be taken away too?
I don't think people who have the maturity to decide for themselves should be punished (i.e. taking away their freedom of choice on the matter of using drugs in a responsible way) because some spineless idiots can't handle the responsibility.

It doesn't have anything to do with "spending of your money", it's just the fact that the cosumption of it is dangerous and can get you addicted and even destroy your life. And why do you need it? For nothing. Just my honest opinion... :p

I think you misunderstood me. I mean that you can extend this.
1. The government tells you that you cannot use drugs, because you're not mature enough to make your own decision on this.
2. I say the government can extend this. You cannot decide on your own money, because you're not mature enough. If you spend your money not wisely (like shopping sprees, buing expensive stuff that you can't afford...), you can get into serious financial problems. This should be prevented by the government.

I didn't mean that the government should allow you to buy drugs because you buy it with your own money. I meant that the government should allow you to buy drugs because you're an adult, and therefore should have freedom of choice.

Well, from Belgian to Belgian.. There is a reason you can't buy guns either, or morphine or other harmful stuff...
Guns can kill other individuals, while drugs can kill someone who's addicted to it.
 

Alcibiades

Plant Geneticist
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
4,267
Location
Canada
Risks? Like what? Murderous gangs in our cities? Oh wait...umm...kids addicted to hard drugs? Oh wait...hmmm...

But legalizing drugs won't solve those issues.... so what's the point in doing it, other than having drugs more easily accessible.

Like i said before 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em' DOES NOT WORK in this case.

Will it lower consumption? Maybe, probably not. But according to the evidence, consumption isn't likely to increase in any significant way. And the gangs will subside, and the prisons will have enough room to keep the real criminals locked up, and we can make billions taxing the drugs, and those who use drugs will be able to use a safer product in a safer environment, etc etc. It's about all the other problems that drug prohibition brings about, and about how drug prohibition absolutely fails to curtail consumption.

Well until they try it, that evidence is just an educated guess. Consumption would increase, and we'd see an immediate increase in the drug users, most simply to 'try it' and then i'm sure a bunch would be hooked since that's how addiction works.

Gangs won't subside, they have been around since the beginning of time; they just won't be quite as involved in the drug trade (and that's debatable since the black market will still remain since we've proven we can't shut it down, and there'll always be people willing to undercut the gov't prices.)

Drugs won't necessarily safer; sure they might not contain crazy cutting drugs to increase the potency but if you start letting people use drugs, they might not die from doing Ecstasy, but they might go out and run in front of traffic. You would definitely have an increase in drug related injuries/accidents/deaths.

The problems drug prohibition incurs aren't as dangerous as the costs of letting everyone have free reign on drugs. Yes it does fail to curb consumption; that doesn't mean we should open the floodgates and encourage consumption. You're simply approaching this from the wrong angle.

I didn't mean that the government should allow you to buy drugs because you buy it with your own money. I meant that the government should allow you to buy drugs because you're an adult, and therefore should have freedom of choice.

Amen, brother.

I'll point out that none of the people who are clamoring for legalization are saying we should turn a blind eye to those who run somebody over while under the influence, etc. Punish those who commit other crimes, but leave well enough alone for possession and for sale.

With the increase of drug users and amateur users at that with free access to drugs there *will* be an increase in drug related felonies/incidents; and then we're back to filling the prisons with those people. So how have we solved the 'real criminals in jail' problem?
 

Scorpio

Head Gardener
Joined
Jan 1, 2008
Messages
373
Location
NZ
I didn't mean that the government should allow you to buy drugs because you buy it with your own money. I meant that the government should allow you to buy drugs because you're an adult, and therefore should have freedom of choice.

Amen, brother.

I'll point out that none of the people who are clamoring for legalization are saying we should turn a blind eye to those who run somebody over while under the influence, etc. Punish those who commit other crimes, but leave well enough alone for possession and for sale.

You're entitled to freedom if you don't take someone else's freedom away. There's quite a big bunch of people that would do stupid things under influence, like killing, raping or suiciding.

Why do you need drugs anyways?
 
Top