The Wall

[BananaStand]

No I'm not suggesting that at all, pretty much every policy change has some kind of impact and consequences, often unforeseen. What I do think is that the usage increasing effect of legalization is probably exaggerated, with Portugal and Holland being good evidence for that. In Portugal after legalization all drug use is down several percentage points, drug related crime and deaths are down, rate of HIV infections is down etc.

I feel like the Portugal situation is somewhat misleading. First of all, they didn't legalize drugs. They decriminalized possession and use. Kind of a big difference. They still enforce the border, and if someone tries to drive over it with 10 kilos of coke in the trunk, they're seriously fucked. It also mentioned in the article that somewhere along the way they implemented a mandatory minimum income. It's silly to think that's not one of, if not THE, major driver here. Decrease poverty, decrease crime. Sociology 101.

If they were legalized, there would be incentive to develop less harmful alternatives.

Addicts don't seek out less intense highs.

Of course this in some cases warranted, but I would personally no more want my airline pilot to be drunk than stoned or on acid.

Ok. If the pilot makes an error, pretty much any error, he'll be immediately tested for traces of illicit substances in his system...including alcohol. So I'm not seeing your point.

I just see very limited downsides and quite a few upsides with legalizing everything.....no massive prison populations to maintain and rejected from society etc. etc. I'm a believer.

Again, you're confusing legalization, and decriminalization. If drug use is decriminalized, we still have to do things to prevent drugs from coming in to this country. We'll still have to police and prosecute the producers, traffickers, and distributors of drugs. The "massive prison population" you refer to is a myth.

In America's federal prison, there are 247 people incarcerated for drug use/possession. Yes, just 247, out of a country of 320 million!!! Drug users in state prisons are a larger population, 46,000. But that's still just 3.5% of the total inmates in the state prison systems. Hardly an epidemic.

I also suspect that a good portion of those populations are extreme cases. For example, a heroin user gets busted, slapped on the wrist, and sent home. Two weeks later, he's busted again, sent to detox/rehab, and sent home. Then a short time later, he gets busted again.....eventually there comes a point where a judge might lock someone up for their own good.

[CoccoBill]

I feel like the Portugal situation is somewhat misleading. First of all, they didn't legalize drugs. They decriminalized possession and use. Kind of a big difference. They still enforce the border, and if someone tries to drive over it with 10 kilos of coke in the trunk, they're seriously fucked. It also mentioned in the article that somewhere along the way they implemented a mandatory minimum income. It's silly to think that's not one of, if not THE, major driver here. Decrease poverty, decrease crime. Sociology 101.

I would say that legalization and decriminalization are exactly the same thing. You're of course completely right in saying that the legalization only applies to possession and personal use, not distribution. The minimum income program most likely has also had an impact, but I see no reason to think it would be the only or even the biggest reason for the change in stats.

Addicts don't seek out less intense highs.

Maybe not, but I think even addicts would prefer a safer or less addictive high. Or maybe just that there's not too much rat poison in their meth.

Ok. If the pilot makes an error, pretty much any error, he'll be immediately tested for traces of illicit substances in his system...including alcohol. So I'm not seeing your point.

Are pilots regularly tested for alcohol metabolites in their system? After the error it's kinda late, at least from a passenger's point of view.

Again, you're confusing legalization, and decriminalization. If drug use is decriminalized, we still have to do things to prevent drugs from coming in to this country. We'll still have to police and prosecute the producers, traffickers, and distributors of drugs. The "massive prison population" you refer to is a myth.

Again, no I didn't. How many drug traffickers do you think would be interested in the business if anyone could buy meth legally?

In America's federal prison, there are 247 people incarcerated for drug use/possession. Yes, just 247, out of a country of 320 million!!! Drug users in state prisons are a larger population, 46,000. But that's still just 3.5% of the total inmates in the state prison systems. Hardly an epidemic.

How the hell is drug use even a felony? Anyway, 51.8% of federal prison inmates and 15.7% of state inmates are there for drug offenses. I would call that an epidemic, and one that can be mitigated.

[BananaStand]

I would say that legalization and decriminalization are exactly the same thing.

You would be wrong.

Are pilots regularly tested for alcohol metabolites in their system? After the error it's kinda late, at least from a passenger's point of view.

I actually don't know what specific procedures are in place to test pilots for alcohol, but there are 21,000 flights a day, just domestically, in America, and crashes almost never happen. So I suspect whatever they're doing, is working. Also, don't confuse "error" with "catastrophe"

My company operates on airports, and we drug/alcohol test people for 'errors' all the time. Many of which are trivial 'mistakes' that any sober person could easily make. Maybe you're driving one of those conveyor belts carts that they use to load baggage into an airplane. Maybe you're in a hurry, don't line it up properly, and scuff the paint on a plane. That's actually a huge deal. Also, our managers are trained in something called "reasonable suspicion", which basically says we can test anyone who merely *looks* like there's a problem. I suspect that the procedures for pilots are even more rigorous.

Again, no I didn't. How many drug traffickers do you think would be interested in the business if anyone could buy meth legally?

I highly recommend you look a little deeper into the difference between 'legal', and 'decriminalized'. You CAN'T buy meth legally in Portugal, or anywhere in the world. If you get caught possessing it, you're still in trouble, just not alot of trouble. If you get caught selling it, you're still in trouble, alot of trouble.

Anyway, 51.8% of federal prison inmates and 15.7% of state inmates are there for drug offenses. I would call that an epidemic, and one that can be mitigated.

You're confusing the numbers. What specific drug offenses make up the numbers you've cited? Other than the 247 people the feds locked up for possession, all the rest of that 51.8% is there for manufacture, trafficking, distribution, and sales. Those things would still be illegal if drugs were decriminalized. Those people would still be in jail.

Your reference above to "buy meth legally" suggests to me that you're envisioning a world where you can walk into the 7-11, and pick up some milk, some bread, a pack of gum, and a vial of meth. That is most definitely NOT what's happening in Portugal, or anywhere in the world. If you're suggesting that would be a "good thing", I think you're out of your mind.

[CoccoBill]

I actually don't know what specific procedures are in place to test pilots for alcohol, but there are 21,000 flights a day, just domestically, in America, and crashes almost never happen. So I suspect whatever they're doing, is working. Also, don't confuse "error" with "catastrophe"

Well that's all besides the point anyway, which was that I personally don't make a big distinction on substances based on their legal status, but rather their effects. The only major objective property differentiating alcohol from hard drugs is its legal status. We've waged a war on drugs for decades, and it can be argued things have gotten exponentially worse because of it.

I highly recommend you look a little deeper into the difference between 'legal', and 'decriminalized'. You CAN'T buy meth legally in Portugal, or anywhere in the world. If you get caught possessing it, you're still in trouble, just not alot of trouble. If you get caught selling it, you're still in trouble, alot of trouble.

I used Portugal as an example to show the possibilities of relaxing drug laws. You can buy several drugs that are illegal in one place legally in another, nowadays even in the US. If drugs were legal, sold by government sanctioned parties, taxed and monitored, purity and safety measured etc. things could be quite a lot better in pretty much every conceivable sense. The only argument against it are either moral or based on a fear of everyone and their mom suddenly starting shooting dope if it ever were made legal. Obviously that's such a controversial idea that no politician would every touch it with a stick. Hell, if I were in politics, I probably wouldn't either.

Your reference above to "buy meth legally" suggests to me that you're envisioning a world where you can walk into the 7-11, and pick up some milk, some bread, a pack of gum, and a vial of meth. That is most definitely NOT what's happening in Portugal, or anywhere in the world. If you're suggesting that would be a "good thing", I think you're out of your mind.

How would it be worse than now? Or even, how would it be worse? How many current meth addicts do you think are struggling with finding a supplier? Would you pick up meth if it were legal? How many people that have never tried meth (or any other hard drug) you know that would?

[BananaStand]

The only major objective property differentiating alcohol from hard drugs is its legal status.

I'm shocked that you believe that. Heroin is addictive immediately, alcoholism develops over a longer period of time. You can have a few drinks and still function like a normal human being. One hit of heroin and you become a vegetable. No single drink will destroy your liver, but every shot of heroin risks a life threatening overdose. The 'but it's the same as alcohol' argument has been pretty well debunked.

You can buy several drugs that are illegal in one place legally in another

Where exactly is there a legal retail market for cocaine, heroin, or meth?

If drugs were legal, sold by government sanctioned parties, taxed and monitored, purity and safety measured etc. things could be quite a lot better in pretty much every conceivable sense.

Huh? When has the government ever proven that it has the ability to run an industry? You're talking about creating a mega-bureaucracy of government regulations regarding street drugs. Can you demonstrate what that would cost, and how tax revenues on drugs would pay for that? What if the price goes up so much that it's just easier for junkies to get "black market drugs". What's stopping the cartels from continuing to ship their product up here, and distribute it at a price that under-cuts the legal retail market?

Or, forget the black market for a minute. What if the surge in prices suppresses demand? Now you'll have legit businesses failing because of gov't regulations.

How many people that have never tried meth (or any other hard drug) you know that would?

You're assuming that a motivation to buy is completely organic. It's not. There's a thing called advertising, and it works. It convinces people that they want or need things that they didn't think they wanted or needed before seeing the advertisement.

[CoccoBill]

I'm shocked that you believe that. Heroin is addictive immediately, alcoholism develops over a longer period of time. You can have a few drinks and still function like a normal human being. One hit of heroin and you become a vegetable. No single drink will destroy your liver, but every shot of heroin risks a life threatening overdose. The 'but it's the same as alcohol' argument has been pretty well debunked.

Your opinion without any factual basis does not constitute a debunk. How much is a hit or a shot of heroin? What is a life threatening overdose? How many days of continuous use creates serious physical withdrawal symptoms?

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Addictive_Properties

Where exactly is there a legal retail market for cocaine, heroin, or meth?

Did someone say there was?

Huh? When has the government ever proven that it has the ability to run an industry? You're talking about creating a mega-bureaucracy of government regulations regarding street drugs. Can you demonstrate what that would cost, and how tax revenues on drugs would pay for that? What if the price goes up so much that it's just easier for junkies to get "black market drugs". What's stopping the cartels from continuing to ship their product up here, and distribute it at a price that under-cuts the legal retail market?

Or, forget the black market for a minute. What if the surge in prices suppresses demand? Now you'll have legit businesses failing because of gov't regulations.

Governments all around the world have been doing this for a century with legal drugs, alcohol, tobacco etc.

You're assuming that a motivation to buy is completely organic. It's not. There's a thing called advertising, and it works. It convinces people that they want or need things that they didn't think they wanted or needed before seeing the advertisement.

Oh so if someone started advertising meth, then you'd start?

[BananaStand]

Your opinion without any factual basis does not constitute a debunk.

It's not my opinion. And the factual basis is that there are millions, if not billions, of people in the world who enjoy alcohol without a problem. Do you know any 'social heroin users'? Any "casual crack heads" out there?

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Addictive_Properties

Thanks

Of the people who sample a particular substance, what portion will become physiologically or psychologically dependent on the drug for some period of time? Heroin and methamphetamine are the most addictive by this measure. Cocaine, pentobarbital (a fast-acting sedative), nicotine and alcohol are next

Heroin, cocaine, and meth are all more addictive than alcohol.

In a large, nationally representative sample of US adults, the cumulative probability of transition to dependence was highest for nicotine users, followed by cocaine users, alcohol users and, lastly, cannabis users. - See more at: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Addi....Ul73dGrm.dpuf

Again, cocaine > alcohol. This particular study only focused on those four drugs. Heroin and meth were not evaluated, but can you guess where they might rank on this list?

Findings: MCDA [multicriteria decision analysis] modelling showed that heroin, crack cocaine, and methamphetamine were the most harmful drugs to individuals

That quote goes on to say that alcohol is the most harmful drug overall, because it ranks high in harm caused to others. That's a bit of a loaded stat in my opinion. If coke were more prevalent, there would probably be more people driving cars while on coke. The illegal status of hard drugs tends to lead them to be consumed in private, which obviously diminishes the harm they might cause to others.

However, if you could buy meth at a convenience store, or swing into applebees for a burger and a line of coke, I suspect the data would be different.

Did someone say there was?

Isn't that what you've been touting? That drugs are "legal" in some places, and those places don't have problems.

Governments all around the world have been doing this for a century with legal drugs, alcohol, tobacco etc.

Yeah....and how's that going? I live in a state that holds a monopoly on liquor sales. If you want booze, you buy it from the state. Businesses and private citizens both must buy their vodka from the gov't. Profits from that business fund just 1% of the state's total revenue. https://www.nh.gov/transparentnh/whe...ey-comes-from/

That's also just part of the story. It only shows money coming in from alcohol use. It doesn't show money going out. Surely there are more traffic patrols needed. Hospitals must be seeing more patients. On and on...you already know all the downsides to alcohol use.

So it's not clear that legalizing alcohol, and strictly controlling the market, has done any good for the government. So how can you say...

If drugs were legal, sold by government sanctioned parties, taxed and monitored, purity and safety measured etc. things could be quite a lot better in pretty much every conceivable sense.

I've just demonstrated how doing that adds very little, if any economic benefit to the government. What you're saying there is a nice dream, but it's just not the reality.

Oh so if someone started advertising meth, then you'd start?

Someone would. Do you really think advertising doesn't work?