Legalized Drugs: Dumber Than You May Think

Even smart people make mistakes​—​sometimes surprisingly large ones. A current example is drug legalization, which way too many smart people consider a good idea. They offer three bad arguments.

First, they contend, “the drug war has failed”​—​despite years of effort we have been unable to reduce the drug problem. Actually, as imperfect as surveys may be, they present overwhelming evidence that the drug problem is growing smaller and has fallen in response to known, effective measures. Americans use illegal drugs at substantially lower rates than when systematic measurement began in 1979​—​down almost 40 percent. Marijuana use is down by almost half since its peak in the late 1970s, and cocaine use is down by 80 percent since its peak in the mid-1980s. Serious challenges with crack, meth, and prescription drug abuse have not changed the broad overall trend: Drug use has declined for the last 40 years, as has drug crime. ...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/ ... 42178.html

"Keep your mitts off my rice bowl, ya fuckin' doper!"
-- John P. Walters, ex drug-czar of de United States

The unfortunate fact is that there are too many people in prison because there are too many criminals.

ROFLMAO
And there are too many criminals because we criminalize everything. Back to you, asshole.

Hmm, not one reference citation. I honestly think the guy is full of crap. "Popular disapproval of drug use"? The last three presidents we had openly admitted to using drugs while their losing opponents did not.

This guy is just trying to bogart the good stuff.

IIRC drug use is also down in countries that have essentially decriminalized or legalized it. IOW, it may well be that that popularity of recreational drugs runs in cycles, irrespective of anti-drug enforcement activity.

Whether more or fewer people will use drugs when it is legalized is irrelevant; each individual controls their own decision as to whether or not to use drugs, and what others choose to do is of no direct concern to anyone else. What does matter is that, so long as drugs are illegal, they are expensive, and those who are addicted to them will engage in all manner of criminality to obtain the money to pay for their habit. THAT criminality adversely affects others, and would largely go away if drugs were legalized, causing prices to collapse.

To destroy the criminal market, legalization would have to include a massive price cut, dramatically stimulating use and addiction.

Gratuitous conclusion.

How many people do you know who would suddenly jam a needle in their arm and shoot up heroin if it only costs 10 cents per dose, who are not already doing so? I can't think of anyone; can you?

More to the point consider a thought experiment: currently, bestiality laws restrict people having sex with animals -- would YOU suddenly decide to fuck a goat or a cow if the bestiality laws were repealed? Neither would I, nor anyone else I know. And the cost of bestiality is essentially zero -- just find a farmer's field with the Bessie bovine of your dreams, and have at it. You don't even have to buy her flowers.

So, the conclusion that reduced prices and legalization will necessarily mean a massive increase in drug users is an assumption not substantiated by facts, and runs counter to virtually everything we know.

And even if it were true, who cares? As long as you and I don't have to pay for someone's addiction, it has no effect on me or you.

The other compelling reason to legalize this crap is that so long as it is illegal, it funds all manner of criminal enterprises, even terrorist organizations, because of the high profit margins that derive from the illegality. If it is legal, the massive profit margins go away, and pharma companies can compete to supply product, defunding the criminal orgs and terrorists, and eliminating the massive incentive to corrupt law enforcement and judicial officials, which happened extensively during Prohibition.

there are two ways to effectively deal with the drug "problem"

1. decriminalize possession and use by adults, regulate and tax production and sale, heavily penalize destructive actions taken while intoxicated, and free the medical and insurance world from obligation to deal with those who desire to make use of intoxicants of any form.

-or-

2. Intercept shipments of illegal drugs, poison them, and reintroduce them into the pipeline.

nothing else will substantially reduce the criminal aspect of drug use.

there are two ways to effectively deal with the drug "problem"

1. decriminalize possession and use by adults, regulate and tax production and sale, heavily penalize destructive actions taken while intoxicated, and free the medical and insurance world from obligation to deal with those who desire to make use of intoxicants of any form.

-or-

2. Intercept shipments of illegal drugs, poison them, and reintroduce them into the pipeline.

nothing else will substantially reduce the criminal aspect of drug use.

I don't think #2 would be all that effective. There's not much difference between hardcore drugs and poison anyway. How do you warn a meth head away from his (potentially) (more) poisonous meth? "Be careful - that stuff might kill you"...

there are two ways to effectively deal with the drug "problem"

1. decriminalize possession and use by adults, regulate and tax production and sale, heavily penalize destructive actions taken while intoxicated, and free the medical and insurance world from obligation to deal with those who desire to make use of intoxicants of any form.

-or-

2. Intercept shipments of illegal drugs, poison them, and reintroduce them into the pipeline.

nothing else will substantially reduce the criminal aspect of drug use.

I don't think #2 would be all that effective. There's not much difference between hardcore drugs and poison anyway. How do you warn a meth head away from his (potentially) (more) poisonous meth? "Be careful - that stuff might kill you"...

neurotoxin precursors that combine on combustion to make poison at >LD50 per dose.

isn't meth made locally?

isn't meth made locally?

Down the front of your pants. Is that local enough?
viewtopic.php?f=50&t=53228&hilit=meth

To destroy the criminal market, legalization would have to include a massive price cut, dramatically stimulating use and addiction.

Gratuitous conclusion.

How many people do you know who would suddenly jam a needle in their arm and shoot up heroin if it only costs 10 cents per dose, who are not already doing so? I can't think of anyone; can you?

More to the point consider a thought experiment: currently, bestiality laws restrict people having sex with animals -- would YOU suddenly decide to fuck a goat or a cow if the bestiality laws were repealed? Neither would I, nor anyone else I know. And the cost of bestiality is essentially zero -- just find a farmer's field with the Bessie bovine of your dreams, and have at it. You don't even have to buy her flowers.

So, the conclusion that reduced prices and legalization will necessarily mean a massive increase in drug users is an assumption not substantiated by facts, and runs counter to virtually everything we know.

And even if it were true, who cares? As long as you and I don't have to pay for someone's addiction, it has no effect on me or you.

Perhaps the author(s) or publisher of the article would do so. Maybe the know so and are projecting onto the public at large.

I have mixed feelings on this subject, but I do think JR is dumber than we may think.

isn't meth made locally?

Down the front of your pants. Is that local enough?
viewtopic.php?f=50&t=53228&hilit=meth

This is one of those tear-inducing threads. Bravo gentlemen.

Okay; this guy is flat out disingenuous:

Legalization advocates usually claim that alcohol prohibition caused organized crime in the United States and its repeal ended the threat. This is widely believed and utterly false. Criminal organizations existed before and after prohibition.

He's floating a straw man so he can knock it down and claim victory. AFAIK, the claim is not that organized crime was created by Prohibition, and ended with its repeal -- as he states in the next sentence, it was there before Prohibition and was there after it -- but rather than Prohibition fueled a massive increase in the scope and size of organized crime, and facilitated the ensuing corruption of public officials, and when Prohibition ended, the vastly more powerful elements of organized crime then switched to other PROHIBITED activities, like gambling, prostitution, and eventually DRUGS, to replace the income lost from the trafficking of illegal booze after it was legalized.

No one can be that ill-informed of the position and logic of the drug legalization argument -- to misrepresent things to the degree the author has, one must engage in a studied and deliberate form of mendacity. In this sense, he and the rest of the anti-drug Government Complex are the greatest allies organized crime has ever had in terms of maintaining their profitable monopoly on drug trafficking. It makes one wonder if he's on the take, or if he's so addled by being a drug warrior that he gladly does their bidding for free.

Okay; this guy is flat out disingenuous:

Legalization advocates usually claim that alcohol prohibition caused organized crime in the United States and its repeal ended the threat. This is widely believed and utterly false. Criminal organizations existed before and after prohibition.

He's floating a straw man so he can knock it down and claim victory. AFAIK, the claim is not that organized crime was created by Prohibition, and ended with its repeal -- as he states in the next sentence, it was there before Prohibition and was there after it -- but rather than Prohibition fueled a massive increase in the scope and size of organized crime, and facilitated the ensuing corruption of public officials, and when Prohibition ended, the vastly more powerful elements of organized crime then switched to other PROHIBITED activities, like gambling, prostitution, and eventually DRUGS, to replace the income lost from the trafficking of illegal booze after it was legalized.

No one can be that ill-informed of the position and logic of the drug legalization argument -- to misrepresent things to the degree the author has, one must engage in a studied and deliberate form of mendacity. In this sense, he and the rest of the anti-drug Government Complex are the greatest allies organized crime has ever had in terms of maintaining their profitable monopoly on drug trafficking. It makes one wonder if he's on the take, or if he's so addled by being a drug warrior that he gladly does their bidding for free.

The Mexican and South American drug cartels love this guy too.

If I were them, I would send him (and his like minded chair-warming drug warriors) Christmas cards every year.

Okay; this guy is flat out disingenuous:

Legalization advocates usually claim that alcohol prohibition caused organized crime in the United States and its repeal ended the threat. This is widely believed and utterly false. Criminal organizations existed before and after prohibition.

He's floating a straw man so he can knock it down and claim victory. AFAIK, the claim is not that organized crime was created by Prohibition, and ended with its repeal -- as he states in the next sentence, it was there before Prohibition and was there after it -- but rather than Prohibition fueled a massive increase in the scope and size of organized crime, and facilitated the ensuing corruption of public officials, and when Prohibition ended, the vastly more powerful elements of organized crime then switched to other PROHIBITED activities, like gambling, prostitution, and eventually DRUGS, to replace the income lost from the trafficking of illegal booze after it was legalized.

No one can be that ill-informed of the position and logic of the drug legalization argument -- to misrepresent things to the degree the author has, one must engage in a studied and deliberate form of mendacity. In this sense, he and the rest of the anti-drug Government Complex are the greatest allies organized crime has ever had in terms of maintaining their profitable monopoly on drug trafficking. It makes one wonder if he's on the take, or if he's so addled by being a drug warrior that he gladly does their bidding for free.

Can't add a thing to that except...

Actually the police get a cut of the profits in the form of confiscations.

isn't meth made locally?

some is, some isn't.

there are two ways to effectively deal with the drug "problem"

1. decriminalize possession and use by adults, regulate and tax production and sale, heavily penalize destructive actions taken while intoxicated, and free the medical and insurance world from obligation to deal with those who desire to make use of intoxicants of any form.

-or-

2. Intercept shipments of illegal drugs, poison them, and reintroduce them into the pipeline.

nothing else will substantially reduce the criminal aspect of drug use.

I don't think #2 would be all that effective. There's not much difference between hardcore drugs and poison anyway. How do you warn a meth head away from his (potentially) (more) poisonous meth? "Be careful - that stuff might kill you"...

The feds deliberately did that with booze during prohibition. They spiked it with methanol and distributed it just so they could make people sick as a propaganda tool and to make people too scared to drink anything bootleg. And the feds believed the drinkers got what they deserved from breaking the law.

there are two ways to effectively deal with the drug "problem"

1. decriminalize possession and use by adults, regulate and tax production and sale, heavily penalize destructive actions taken while intoxicated, and free the medical and insurance world from obligation to deal with those who desire to make use of intoxicants of any form.

-or-

2. Intercept shipments of illegal drugs, poison them, and reintroduce them into the pipeline.

nothing else will substantially reduce the criminal aspect of drug use.

I don't think #2 would be all that effective. There's not much difference between hardcore drugs and poison anyway. How do you warn a meth head away from his (potentially) (more) poisonous meth? "Be careful - that stuff might kill you"...

The feds deliberately did that with booze during prohibition. They spiked it with methanol and distributed it just so they could make people sick as a propaganda tool and to make people too scared to drink anything bootleg. And the feds believed the drinkers got what they deserved from breaking the law.

Was this approach effective? I'm just questioning how much deterrence there is in making poison (we do, after all, refer to the condition as "intoxicated") more poisonous.

The United States had no illegal drugs until 1914, although local laws existed as early as 1860. If anything can be inferred from this, it's that passing drug laws causes major wars.

The United States had no illegal drugs until 1914, although local laws existed as early as 1860. If anything can be inferred from this, it's that passing drug laws causes major wars.

Drug laws And prohibition are part and parcel of the same progressive movement.

That drug laws have become associated with conservatism is a mistake. Who was the TV preacher that recently came out for decriminalization?

The United States had no illegal drugs until 1914, although local laws existed as early as 1860. ....

I was thinking about this this morning, and it obviously guts the argument that legalization would lead to a massive increase in addiction. Were it so, the 1800s in America would have been rife with massive epidemics of drug addiction, much worse in magnitude to what has been seen since 1914. And yet, the country survived and flourished, without everyone and their dog becoming drug fiends even when drugs were cheap and legal.

The United States had no illegal drugs until 1914, although local laws existed as early as 1860. ....

I was thinking about this this morning, and it obviously guts the argument that legalization would lead to a massive increase in addiction. Were it so, the 1800s in America would have been rife with massive epidemics of drug addiction, much worse in magnitude to what has been seen since 1914. And yet, the country survived and flourished, without everyone and their dog becoming drug fiends even when drugs were cheap and legal.

I've pondered why it took a constitutional amendment to outlaw alcohol, but mere legislation to enable the war on drugs. All I can figure is that it illustrates the ongoing breakdown of protection the founders put in place against whims of government.