|
Full Battle Rattle posted:What is decriminalization, exactly? From what little I've read possession is still a crime, but usually reduced to a misdemeanor offense, i.e. still a crime, and possession of large amounts and growing it is still punished harshly. Why isn't 'decriminalization' a misnomer? Well decriminalization is basically anything is the right direction. A good example of sustainable high level decriminalization is in the Netherlands but especially in the southern US where people still get real jail time and criminal records for possession anything to lessen enforcement would be good.
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 01:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 13:49 |
|
|
Decriminalization is usually some kind of equivalent to speeding offenses. You go to court, you pay a fine, you usually are allowed to mail in your payment even. If you get enough violations in a certain period there can be greater consequences such as being required to take a traffic course. Continued offenses after that could result in even greater consequences, etc. Ideally, it gives leeway, especially for casual users and a way for the state to notice if someone is a habitual user and get them treatment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 01:32
|
|
|
There is an amount of possession (usually an ounce or under, in Maine it's 2.5 ounces) that is a civil penalty. Over that amount and off to the big house.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 01:42
|
|
|
The court came back today saying that they aren't going to reclassify marijuana: http://www.komonews.com/news/national/Court-rejects-bid-to-have-marijuana-reclassified-187978981.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 03:03
|
|
|
Lacrosse posted:The court came back today saying that they aren't going to reclassify marijuana: http://www.komonews.com/news/national/Court-rejects-bid-to-have-marijuana-reclassified-187978981.html drat - does anyone have the court opinion? I'd like to read it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 03:08
|
|
|
Is there any legitimate reason not to reclassify cannabis into Schedule II, or is it purely political?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 03:29
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:What is decriminalization, exactly? From what little I've read possession is still a crime, but usually reduced to a misdemeanor offense, i.e. still a crime, and possession of large amounts and growing it is still punished harshly. Why isn't 'decriminalization' a misnomer? quote:There is much confusion in the literature and public debate about the terms decriminalisation, depenalisation, legalisation and regulation. Universally accepted definitions do not exist and interpretations frequently vary even within the same language. Well known law philosopher Douglas Husak argues that: quote:The concept of decriminalization is itself straightforward... decriminalization means simply that the use (and possesion for use) of that drug should not be a criminal offence. http://books.google.com.au/books?id...epage&q&f=false KingEup fucked around with this message at 03:33 on Jan 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 03:31
|
|
|
Lacrosse posted:The court came back today saying that they aren't going to reclassify marijuana: http://www.komonews.com/news/national/Court-rejects-bid-to-have-marijuana-reclassified-187978981.html Sounds like they dismissed it on a variety of technicalities. A bit of a Catch 22 - hey! There's no studies showing marijuana has any medical benefits! Could that be because it is in illicit drug, possession of which can get you in big trouble? Nah!
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 03:31
|
|
|
redshirt posted:Sounds like they dismissed it on a variety of technicalities. A bit of a Catch 22 - hey! There's no studies showing marijuana has any medical benefits! There are studies. quote:To date, a large number of controlled clinical trials have been done evaluating the therapeutic ap- plications of cannabis and cannabis-based preparations. http://www.cannabis-med.org/data/pdf/en_2010_01_special.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 03:35
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Is there any legitimate reason not to reclassify cannabis into Schedule II, or is it purely political? The drug or other substances have a high potential for abuse The drug or other substances have currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, or currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence. Does that sound like marijuana to you? High potential for abuse and severe dependence don't sound like weed to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 04:05
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Schedule II criteria: Sounds a lot closer than the schedule it's currently in? I'm just asking if there's any non-political reason why cannabis is not being rescheduled.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 04:21
|
|
|
Chitin posted:Decriminalization is a no-brainer, but the importance of full drug legalization really can't be overstated; most of the arguments for marijuana legalization can be applied to the drug war as a whole, with the added bonus that the current drug culture is dangerous to addicts in many ways that it simply is not to marijuana users. Overdoses happen because people don't know the potency of their product, and things like vein calcification happen because injection drugs get cut with horribly dangerous things. Nobody is prevented or dissuaded from using meth or heroin because they're illegal, but they'll certainly die because they are, and as a society we suffer the consequences associated with the illegal drug trade. This is DARE logic - all drugs are equally bad, mmkay? The cop in the fifth grade classroom starts with "scary needle drugs will destroy your life," and argues that weed is obviously just as awful. You're flipping it around, starting with, "weed is basically harmless," and following the same chain of logic. It doesn't work in either case. Extremely physically addictive drugs like opiates and nicotine are fundamentally different from marijuana. Most people can try marijuana and put it back down without too many problems; in fact, a big chunk of the boomer generation and every generation since has done just that. Very few tobacco smokers can do it, and very few opiate addicts can do it. Legalization increases access, which increases experimentation. There's a fundamental difference here. Drugs which can cause psychosis are fundamentally different from marijuana. If somebody has way too much weed, they're going to need to have a nap. If somebody uses meth to stay up for a week straight, there's a good chance they'll become violent. Legalization increases access and decreases price, which increases the number of people who will start out with "just a little help staying awake" and end up in a straitjacket. There's a fundamental difference here. The current drug-war system is so fundamentally screwed up that full legalization might very well be an improvement. It does fix certain problems, like you mentioned. That doesn't mean it's the best solution, and it's nothing more than fantasy to say that all drug-related harms come solely from the illegal drug trade.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 04:50
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:Drugs which can cause psychosis are fundamentally different from marijuana. If somebody has way too much weed, they're going to need to have a nap. Nap time. Yea there are a few drugs which are currently illegal which when taken too much make me want to go lie down. LSD and shrooms being a notably addition to pot, though I know that for some people this is different. While I don't think that things like meth and heroin should be freely available in your corner market, I really do think that the way we deal with addicts as a society is completely broken and maybe de-criminalization of all drugs isn't the exact route to take we really need to look at what we can do to help these people. Probably getting off topic here, but I think addiction itself is a symptom of a broken society that doesn't provide things that people need so they turn to drugs instead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 05:22
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:Extremely physically addictive drugs like opiates and nicotine are fundamentally different from marijuana. Most people can try marijuana and put it back down without too many problems; in fact, a big chunk of the boomer generation and every generation since has done just that. Very few tobacco smokers can do it, and very few opiate addicts can do it. Legalization increases access Some drugs certainly have a higher 'capture ratio' (the proportion of drug users who keep using after they try a drug), but the notion that only a few smokers and opioid addicts can ever stop is demonstrably wrong. Most people with a drug addiction, including smokers, eventually stop: quote:Most drug abusers who had started using drugs by their early 20s appeared to gradually achieve remission. Spontaneous remission was the rule rather than the exception. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1446707/pdf/11441739.pdf/ quote:addiction, as defined by the DSM-IV criteria for substance dependence, peaks in adolescence and early adulthood, but, in the majority of cases, has resolved permanently, without clinical intervention, by the late twenties or early thirties (Anthony and Heltzer 1991; Compton et al. 2007; Kessler et al. 2005a; 2005b; Stinson et al. 2005; Warner et al. 1995).2 Addicts tend to “mature out” as the responsibilities and opportunities that characterize adult life increase. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3378040/ quote:Drugs which can cause psychosis are fundamentally different from marijuana. If somebody has way too much weed, they're going to need to have a nap. If somebody uses meth to stay up for a week straight, there's a good chance they'll become violent. Legalization increases access and decreases price, which increases the number of people who will start out with "just a little help staying awake" and end up in a straitjacket. There's a fundamental difference here. Caffeine can cause psychosis. There is also very little evidence of a positive relationship between amphetamine use and violent crime: quote:amphetamine users were no more likely to commit violent offences than amphetamine non-users, even when considering the frequency of amphetamine use. This supports and extends the findings of Smith and Rodwell (2009), who also found no association between amphetamine use and violent crime. This provides further evidence against a relationship between amphetamine use and violence. http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/421-440/tandi437.html KingEup fucked around with this message at 06:38 on Jan 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 06:35
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:This is DARE logic - all drugs are equally bad, mmkay? The cop in the fifth grade classroom starts with "scary needle drugs will destroy your life," and argues that weed is obviously just as awful. You're flipping it around, starting with, "weed is basically harmless," and following the same chain of logic. It doesn't work in either case. The bottom line is there is literally nothing you can do to keep people from doing drugs. It is impossible. Legal or not, people will get their hands on whatever drug they want. So why not legalize them all, and use the tax revenue and law enforcement savings to go towards education and treatment programs? You would save a ton of lives, effectively wipe out the cartels overnight, and make some money on top of it. That's the basic argument for legalization of all drugs. Sure, it would be better if we could somehow keep people from doing these dangerous drugs in the first place, but how would we do that? I think the massive failure of the drug war indicates that keeping people from doing drugs isn't possible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 14:35
|
|
|
Butt Soup Barnes posted:The bottom line is there is literally nothing you can do to keep people from doing drugs. It is impossible. Legal or not, people will get their hands on whatever drug they want. Exactly. People currently buy their drugs from criminals, and are made criminals for doing so. They then die from using their criminal drugs because criminals don't give a poo poo about purity and quality control. On top of that, those criminals run around murdering each other and civilians over who gets to be the top drug criminal. If you legalize all drugs (even the scary ones) and turn production over to Pharma, the following advantages occur: [*]The FDA can impose strict standards of quality and dosage on drug production. [*]More research is possible, allowing actual medical professionals to determine safe doses. [*]The criminal producers of drugs no longer have a source of profit. Since there's not really any other business that can support an army of violent assholes (CIAs already booked up kids), the cartels fall apart and are easier to sweep up. [*]Revenue raised from sales of drugs is now in the hands of the government (rather than criminals) and can be used for the public good. [*]Drug abusers, no longer defined as criminals, feel less shame and fear and might be more willing to seek help with their addictions. [*]Those who don't want help will at least have safe, clean environments in which to use. Think heroin bars where everyone can order a new, sterile syringe and a comfy chair. This would immediately cut back on the spread of HIV and other IV diseases. Such places would have good security to prevent the kind of violent freakouts that happen when people start doing drugs in alleyways and such.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 15:51
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Sounds a lot closer than the schedule it's currently in? If somehow the DEA agreed to reschedule marijuana, and decided to be receptive to facts for the first time ever, marijuana would end up in schedule V. The way the controlled substances act is worded, schedule II is the baseline for comparing the abuse potential of all other substances. Schedule I drugs are totally forbidden, but schedule II drugs are listed as having "high potential for abuse". Schedule III is defined as being worse than schedule II, and schedule IV is worse than schedule III etc. The problem is that "potential for abuse" is a catchall bullshit phrase that lets the DEA define things however they want. If you look at the actual results of using marijuana, the risks compared to even the schedule V drugs are miniscule. You can gently caress up your body pretty bad if you chug a couple bottles of robitussin DAC (schedule V, codeine), if you take that much you'll probably die. If you massively overdose on pot brownies, you'll get a stomachache, puke, then pass out for like 12 hours. Marijuana is safer than all of the currently scheduled drugs. Going through some legal hoops to reclassify it as a non life-destroying substance (but still evil and bad  ) is unnecessarily authoritarian.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 16:30
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:This is DARE logic - all drugs are equally bad, mmkay? The cop in the fifth grade classroom starts with "scary needle drugs will destroy your life," and argues that weed is obviously just as awful. You're flipping it around, starting with, "weed is basically harmless," and following the same chain of logic. It doesn't work in either case. Heroin and cigarettes are roughly equivalent in terms of risk of physical dependency (I believe cigarettes are actually slightly worse). Somehow, you don't hear about a lot of people committing crimes to get their next cigarette fix, even though the price per unit is fairly similar. Just like cigarettes, people start for a variety of reasons, some a lot more innocuous than you might think - plenty of people started on pain pills after a minor surgery, couldn't stop, and found that heroin was about 1/10th the price of an Oxy. There isn't any reason to treat these people like criminals - they may not have made the best choices, but they aren't ultimately harming anyone but themselves. Furthermore, the long-term harm of cigarettes are much, much worse; without harmful cutting agents, a person can use heroin their whole lives without suffering anything physically other than mild bone density loss. All of this is to say that the primary harms from drug use come from the illegality of the market, not the substance itself. Can heroin ruin your life? Absolutely. Could it ruin your life even in a legal, well-regulated market? Hell yes. In such a market, are people nearly as likely to overdose, suffer serious health consequences, or find themselves a member of the criminal class? No. And we have no reason to believe that prohibition cuts down on use - access is probably a great deal easier in an unregulated market, especially in neighborhoods where these sorts of drugs are likely to be an issue. If you want to spend money combating drugs, you spend it on making treatment available to everyone that wants it, and making sure those that aren't yet ready are safe - as the saying goes, "you can't get clean if you're dead." Spending it on prohibition drives markets underground, destroys lives, makes treatment more difficult, makes criminals out of ordinary people, destabilizes entire communities needlessly, and turns the police force against the people. And those are just the domestic effects - it gets worse when you start looking at the effects of the drug war on poor communities in developing nations. The argument against prohibition isn't "drugs are harmless," although that certainly helps with the weed debate, the argument is "prohibition is harmful."
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 17:34
|
|
|
The thing that kills me about this particular rabbit hole is opiates used to be legal and easy to get and it was a goddamned mess. It's not like this hasn't been tried.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 17:40
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:The thing that kills me about this particular rabbit hole is opiates used to be legal and easy to get and it was a goddamned mess. It's not like this hasn't been tried. Were they ever fully regulated and were treatment programs widely available?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 17:44
|
|
|
And now they're illegal and easy to get and it's a goddamn mess. I'm well aware of the history of opiates - substance abuse overall was a much bigger part of the culture at the time. I think the danger of opium dens reopening all over Chinatown and morphine parties seeing a resurgence on the Upper East Side is a bit overstated, and if it did happen it would still be better than people shooting on the street.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 17:44
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:The thing that kills me about this particular rabbit hole is opiates used to be legal and easy to get and it was a goddamned mess. It's not like this hasn't been tried. That was a time when information was not freely available to people and by extension, addicts or abusers. While it might not be a great idea to completely legalize Heroin, its legalization will in time decrease the stigma surrounding it and make it markedly easier for addicts to seek help. As usual it also takes money out of the mob's/gang's/cartel's hands.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 17:51
|
|
|
Right - we're talking about a period of time when, towards the beginning of the era, it was believed that you could only get addicted to opium if you ate it (because addiction is an appetite), and towards the end heroin was introduced as a non-addictive way to get people off of morphine. It was not exactly a great time for addiction treatment. Edit: it's worth noting that, in the modern era, anywhere where efforts have moved from an enforcement strategy to a treatment strategy have been wildly successful. Portugal is a good example. Chitin fucked around with this message at 17:57 on Jan 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 17:55
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:The thing that kills me about this particular rabbit hole is opiates used to be legal and easy to get and it was a goddamned mess. It's not like this hasn't been tried. What was the mess exactly? Are there any sources describing addiction rates far above today's from the 1890s, or any evidence from that period of the kind of epidemic of murder associated with the drug trade today?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 18:18
|
|
|
Chitin posted:Edit: it's worth noting that, in the modern era, anywhere where efforts have moved from an enforcement strategy to a treatment strategy have been wildly successful. Portugal is a good example. Same goes for Danish trials of state-run heroin dispensaries http://sciencenordic.com/heroin-clinics-improve-addicts-lives . The shift from enforcement over legalization to treatment isn't just a moral issue, it is very much a practical issue. I'm hoping Denmark goes further in this direction, but unfortunately many of our politicians seem to have forgotten that gang-related violence somehow mysteriously spiked, when the police were ordered to strike down on the illegal-but-largely-ignored sale of weed. One question I never see pop up in these debates, is what happens to the people serving time in prison for possession. I feel a moral imperative to free every one of them and give them financial and social support to reintegrate into society, but since that won't ever happen in this reality - will they just be left to serve out their time?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 18:23
|
|
|
Azram Legion posted:Same goes for Danish trials of state-run heroin dispensaries http://sciencenordic.com/heroin-clinics-improve-addicts-lives . The shift from enforcement over legalization to treatment isn't just a moral issue, it is very much a practical issue. I'm hoping Denmark goes further in this direction, but unfortunately many of our politicians seem to have forgotten that gang-related violence somehow mysteriously spiked, when the police were ordered to strike down on the illegal-but-largely-ignored sale of weed. My understanding is yes, they still broke a law. I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of sentences shortened and probation granted, though, what with the overcrowding.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 18:28
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:What was the mess exactly? Are there any sources describing addiction rates far above today's from the 1890s, or any evidence from that period of the kind of epidemic of murder associated with the drug trade today? Well, not that I disagree with you, but there was an Opium War.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 18:32
|
|
|
That DICK! posted:Well, not that I disagree with you, but there was an Opium War. There still is! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 18:34
|
|
|
That DICK! posted:Well, not that I disagree with you, but there was an Opium War. What does that have to do with the domestic legalization? As long as we assume no one is going to invade the US to force more permissive laws on opiates, it's not really relevant to anything. So Delta-Wye, what exactly was this "mess" last time we tried opiate legalization and how is it worse than the situation today?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
LeftistMuslimObama posted:[*]Those who don't want help will at least have safe, clean environments in which to use. Think heroin bars where everyone can order a new, sterile syringe and a comfy chair. This would immediately cut back on the spread of HIV and other IV diseases. Such places would have good security to prevent the kind of violent freakouts that happen when people start doing drugs in alleyways and such. See, this is where I become a hypocrite because gently caress. Heroin. No matter what anyone ever says about drug legalization that I agree with, I've seen people (ok only 2 people) I know totally ruin their lives with this poo poo, and I somehow don't believe all the benefits would outweigh the fact that we would probably have more people turning themselves into drug zombies for life if it was legal. With everything I've seen about it in my lifetime, Heroin is pure evil distilled into powder form. It should never be on order in a coffee shop. How many thousands (more) would we lose to becoming slaves to a substance? For me the benefits just wouldn't be worth it. It would feel so morally wrong to see this go into effect.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 18:54
|
|
|
breaklaw posted:See, this is where I become a hypocrite because gently caress. Heroin. No matter what anyone ever says about drug legalization that I agree with, I've seen people (ok only 2 people) I know totally ruin their lives with this poo poo, and I somehow don't believe all the benefits would outweigh the fact that we would probably have more people turning themselves into drug zombies for life if it was legal. Who are these people who are prevented from any sort of drug addiction by prohibition? Except for suburban teenagers and pot/alcohol, I have pretty much never seen somebody not use a drug because they couldn't find someone to sell it to them. You've also thrown in some other weird exaggerations ("evil"? really?) that seem to suggest that you're just arguing out of emotion. Most people that use heroin stop, usually before any major medical consequences set in. And there are notable historical examples of people who were able to manage opiate dependencies with a clean, stable supply. What prohibition does do is make sure that users have to purchase adulterated drugs at an entirely unreasonable markup, interact with criminals for the privilege of doing so, probably end up in prison and/or with a criminal record themselves, get cut off from employment, have any financial resources drained, and so on and so on. Making addicts' lives miserable is quite possibly the worst way to encourage them to kick said addiction. I'm all for generous treatment programs, having pharmacies keep records of how much opiates you are buying (and probably even required counseling sessions if consumed above a certain rate), education programs, and so on, but where is the evidence that outright prohibition does anything to deal with addiction rates?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 19:18
|
|
|
breaklaw posted:See, this is where I become a hypocrite because gently caress. Heroin. No matter what anyone ever says about drug legalization that I agree with, I've seen people (ok only 2 people) I know totally ruin their lives with this poo poo, and I somehow don't believe all the benefits would outweigh the fact that we would probably have more people turning themselves into drug zombies for life if it was legal. Those people destroyed their lives with it despite it being illegal and were denied even the chance of help because of it's illegality
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 19:18
|
|
|
breaklaw posted:See, this is where I become a hypocrite because gently caress. Heroin. No matter what anyone ever says about drug legalization that I agree with, I've seen people (ok only 2 people) I know totally ruin their lives with this poo poo, and I somehow don't believe all the benefits would outweigh the fact that we would probably have more people turning themselves into drug zombies for life if it was legal. We have very compelling modern and historical evidence that this is not true. There is a good chance that under a legal framework where drugs were safe and available without committing a crime and there was easy access to good treatment, your friends' lives would not be ruined. For some further perspective, alcohol is habit forming and a great deal more dangerous than heroin both to the user and to the people around them (some people do get violent on heroin, but nothing as compared to alcohol). Many people do ruin their lives with alcohol, but while doing so they won't be killed with adulterated product, overdose because they drank a can of Everclear when they thought they were drinking a can of Coors Light, or become felons due to their possession of a substance on which they are physically dependent. Thus they are likely to live long enough to seek treatment, are likely to retain their employment, and are likely to be able to find work in the future due to not carrying a felony record.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 20:57
|
|
|
breaklaw posted:With everything I've seen about it in my lifetime, Heroin is pure evil distilled into powder form. And yet giving heroin addicts free heroin actually improves their lives: http://worldradio.ch/wrs/news/video/switzerland-embraces-heroin-assisted-treatment.shtml?12825
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 22:38
|
|
|
Chitin posted:We have very compelling modern and historical evidence that this is not true. There is a good chance that under a legal framework where drugs were safe and available without committing a crime and there was easy access to good treatment, your friends' lives would not be ruined. My friends lives are hosed because they used heroin and got addicted. The legality of the drug has nothing to do with its effects on the body. That chemical drastically changes a person in many ways. I'm saying that I'm afraid that if it were legal more people would try it and become addicted, and the part of your quote I bolded I simply don't believe. You must have never been around for the before and after of heroin usage to say something like that. I'm sure there are functioning heroin addicts out there, but the substance is simply too dangerous to be made legal and freely available. This is the part where I'm a hypocrite because with weed I will say "people will do it anyway, legal or not" but with Heroin I hope very much that the onerous process of scoring smack and the legal risks involved keeps some people from ever trying it. As far as treatment, I'm all for that, but the real treatment program is don't ever loving use heroin ever. Treatment is for trying to save people that have already fallen overboard from drowning. I'm saying I don't want the gaurd rail taken down and have that many more people falling overboard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 22:46
|
|
|
breaklaw posted:I'm saying that I'm afraid that if it were legal more people would try it and become addicted Just because a substance should be legalized doesn't mean it should be sold without regulation in your corner supermarket.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 22:48
|
|
|
breaklaw posted:The legality of the drug has nothing to do with its effects on the body. The legality of the heroin they buy most certainly changes the effect it has on their bodies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 22:51
|
|
|
Why do we assume that more people are going to use it if it's no longer illegal? I have an awfully hard time believing that heroin has highly elastic demand.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 22:54
|
|
|
breaklaw posted:As far as treatment, I'm all for that, but the real treatment program is don't ever loving use heroin ever. Treatment is for trying to save people that have already fallen overboard from drowning. I'm saying I don't want the gaurd rail taken down and have that many more people falling overboard. That guard rail is also what prevents people who've fallen overboard from getting back on the boat, you know.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 22:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 13:49 |
|
|
breaklaw posted:My friends lives are hosed because they used heroin and got addicted. The legality of the drug has nothing to do with its effects on the body. That chemical drastically changes a person in many ways. I'm saying that I'm afraid that if it were legal more people would try it and become addicted, and the part of your quote I bolded I simply don't believe. You must have never been around for the before and after of heroin usage to say something like that. I'm sorry, but why are you even trying to defend your argument here? You've acknowledged that it is hypocritical, as well as based on entirely anecdotal evidence, claims to certain knowledge about why your friends' lives are hosed up (as in, heroin being the only factor), and a profoundly misguided belief in the efficacy of drug-laws to prevent people from getting drugs. Is there a point to continuing it? If you can show us studies that indicate that more people are willing to try heroin because it is no longer illegal - despite the fact that information on the dangers is more widely available now than ever before - then maybe you can start to argue what you seem to be arguing. You'd still have a long way to go, to argue that prohibition is in any way a viable and desirable strategy, but considering you haven't taken the first step towards that goal, and in fact took an important step away from it, I'm not sure what the point is. Edit: Twiin posted:That guard rail is also what prevents people who've fallen overboard from getting back on the boat, you know.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 23:06
|
|