[Axo1ot1]

Seriously. The more I think about it the more huge gaping problems I see with it. Why are we spending all this money on something so counter productive. Am I wrong? I've never actually heard a rational argument in favor of the drug war.

[simonjames]

Nope - IMO the war on drugs is a waste of money. Better spent on real education programs and not on stupid abstinence messages

[MacGorilla]

Yes, it is a waste of time. There has to be another way.

[nvaughan3]

Originally posted by simonjames:
Nope - IMO the war on drugs is a waste of money. Better spent on real education programs and not on stupid abstinence messages

University of Houston social sciences professor Bruce Gay did a study analyzing the effectivenes of the popular (and expensive) DARE program. His conclusion?


"There is very little compelling evidence to suggest that the primary goal of the DARE program is being reached at a statistically significant level...the DARE program was unable to encourage its own participants, while in the program, to prevent or reduce drug abuse."
"

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
University of Houston social sciences professor Bruce Gay did a study analyzing the effectivenes of the popular (and expensive) DARE program.

Yeah, but some cop needing to compensate for something gets to drive a really "cool" car!

[Lerkfish]

Agreed. The problem is that demand will never go away. When you make it harder and riskier to transport drugs, it requires more and more dangerous people to get into the business, which actually makes a worse problem.

Compare to the 60's, where it was just stoned out hippies dealing drugs...it was more democratic, the flow and accessability was more spread out, and it was more unlikely that organized crime or druglords could have any power at all. Drugs could still be considered a hazard if misused, but the price was low enough and the people dealt with harmless enough that it was not the horrendous problem it is now.

It's like a garden hose: as long as the sprinkler is going, with several smaller jets, its basically harmless. But once you start clamping down, you increase the pressure, and then the only outlet is much more powerful and dangerous.

Couple that with once the transport becomes riskier and more dangerous, its in the best interests of the gangs and criminals to make more and more addictive and dangerous combinations of drugs, raise the prices and force the users into lives of crime themselves faster to support their habits.

Overall, society loses. It was the same problem with Prohibition. Prohibition was the best thing for organized crime and the Kennedys ever, but the worst thing for drunks.

[spacefreak]

I'd like to see the 'war on drugs' consolidated under the Homeland Security Dept. with the goal of locking down our borders.

So many polls show that a majority of Americans want tighter border security. I just don't see what the holdup is.

[DBursey]

I agree with Lerkfish and others. The use of intoxicants is such a deeply ingrained human vice (hey; even certain animal species enjoy imbibery); demand is more or less constant and consistent through successive generations. Since humans are quite obviously motivated by economics as well as the desire to imbibe, there will always be a supply to meet demand. Measures taken to thwart this supply will always and evermore be met with countermeasures to re-establish said supply.

Drug use cannot be successfully prohibited in a free society. Moreover, it is not proper for governments to pick and choose arbitrarily and without clear medical sanction which substances should or should not be made legally available. The best recourse IMO would be for society to come to terms with drug use, to attempt to regulate and moderate it, and to appropriate control of supply and distribution from the hands of criminal organizations.

By these means the war will end, and the education can begin.

[BRussell]

I'll defend it.


Sure some people use illegal drugs. Just as all of our laws are broken sometimes by some people. Rape is a huge problem. I bet it occurs as often as illegal drug use. Should we stop the "war on rape?"

Sure, it's victimless, unlike rape. I have no problem with people sitting in their homes killing themselves. I do have a problem with people allowed to profit from selling the stuff, though.

The vast vast majority of drugs that are used are the legal ones. The vast vast majority of death and health problems are caused by our legal drugs. It's not even close. Tobacco has been the number one cause of death, of all causes of death, in the US for years. Alcohol is up there too. The illegal drugs aren't even on the radar.

I see no reason why giving other drugs the same status as the legal ones wouldn't lead to a sharp increase in the problems associated with those new drugs.

[nvaughan3]

Sure some people use illegal drugs. Just as all of our laws are broken sometimes by some people. Rape is a huge problem. I bet it occurs as often as illegal drug use. Should we stop the "war on rape?"

Ignoring the assocation...what if the "war on rape" not only was hugely unsuccessful but caused way more problems than it stopped?

[MacGorilla]

Lets try these steps and see what happens.

1. Increase funding for anti-drug education on all levels.
2. People who are arrested for using drugs get forced rehabilitation. You stay locked up until you are clean. If you get out and screw up back in you go, etc.
3. Deploy the Army on the border with Mexico. Beef up and equip the Border Patrol.
4. Stop giving money to any gov't that doesn't actively go after drug growers and smugglers.

Just an idea.

[Logic]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
Lets try these steps and see what happens.

1. Increase funding for anti-drug education on all levels.
2. People who are arrested for using drugs get forced rehabilitation. You stay locked up until you are clean. If you get out and screw up back in you go, etc.
3. Deploy the Army on the border with Mexico. Beef up and equip the Border Patrol.
4. Stop giving money to any gov't that doesn't actively go after drug growers and smugglers.

Just an idea.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
Ignoring the assocation...what if the "war on rape" not only was hugely unsuccessful but caused way more problems than it stopped?

I'd argue that the war on rape is hugely unsuccessful. It's one of those crimes in which most incidents occur without anyone being punished.

Is the war on drugs really that unsuccessful? I don't know. I argued that there is a massive difference between the use of the legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco and the illegal drugs. It seems like it is pretty successful. How many people use legal drugs vs. the illegal ones? It must be 20 to 1 if not more.

What kinds of problems are you talking about that it could cause? People being imprisoned?

[Sven G]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Agreed. The problem is that demand will never go away. When you make it harder and riskier to transport drugs, it requires more and more dangerous people to get into the business, which actually makes a worse problem.

Compare to the 60's, where it was just stoned out hippies dealing drugs...it was more democratic, the flow and accessability was more spread out, and it was more unlikely that organized crime or druglords could have any power at all. Drugs could still be considered a hazard if misused, but the price was low enough and the people dealt with harmless enough that it was not the horrendous problem it is now.

It's like a garden hose: as long as the sprinkler is going, with several smaller jets, its basically harmless. But once you start clamping down, you increase the pressure, and then the only outlet is much more powerful and dangerous.

Couple that with once the transport becomes riskier and more dangerous, its in the best interests of the gangs and criminals to make more and more addictive and dangerous combinations of drugs, raise the prices and force the users into lives of crime themselves faster to support their habits.

Overall, society loses. It was the same problem with Prohibition. Prohibition was the best thing for organized crime and the Kennedys ever, but the worst thing for drunks.

Of course, one easily overlooked "feature" of the drugs "business" is the very fact that it indeed is a business: i.e., basically dependent on the very same financial system that the various states (and mafias, if it isn't too heretical to add this) more or less use to exploit almost anything on this Earth...

P.S.: No (concentrated-power-driven) finance - no drugs (forced abuse)! Maybe, it's really that simple...

[vmarks]

Between the US Drug Czar wanting to take away drug user's right to vote

and Federal and local law enforcement and other believe the War on Drugs cannot be won

not to mention the loss of freedom as a casualty in the fight:

Salient comments from the Fed:
I was involved as an expert witness in the Donald Carlson case, which was on 60 Minutes. In that case, a multi-agency task force, outfitted in high-tech guerrilla gear, crashed into the home of a Fortune 500 executive and shot him down in his own living room on the basis of the word of an uncorroborated informant. Nobody was penalized for it. In fact, the people who did it were eventually promoted.

Civil forfeiture is a blantant assault on the 4th Amendment, but it's one of the ways the drug war is fought. Accuse the property of the crime, not the owner, and take the property since property has no rights. It's one of the problems with the Drug War. Cases like the situation above are intolerable, yet they happen- and the government seizes the property of the person killed anyway.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by DBursey:
I agree with Lerkfish and others. The use of intoxicants is such a deeply ingrained human vice (hey; even certain animal species enjoy imbibery); demand is more or less constant and consistent through successive generations. Since humans are quite obviously motivated by economics as well as the desire to imbibe, there will always be a supply to meet demand. Measures taken to thwart this supply will always and evermore be met with countermeasures to re-establish said supply.

By these means the war will end, and the education can begin.

I'm a casual user and I wouldn't vote for legalization unless there was some program in schools to educate people about the truth about usage and effects. End the myths about being a gateway drug, come clean on the natural urge to alter consciousness. Quit the patronizing attitudes from the government and churches.

I'll trot out my two favorite facts on drug use:

1) Every society in the history of mankind (except one) has developed some chemical or other way to alter their consciousness. The exception? Eskimos, and only because they couldn't grow anything. Hey, even animals get sloshed.

2) Cigarette smoking in this country has been cut nearly in half over the last twenty-five years. How? Education. And that's without putting one single smoker in jail. Here are the actual statistics about smoking use.

Say all you want about those hokey TV ads and warning labels. Education works.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
2) Cigarette smoking in this country has been cut nearly in half over the last twenty-five years. How? Education. And that's without putting one single smoker in jail. Here are the actual statistics about smoking use.

Say all you want about those hokey TV ads and warning labels. Education works.

I'm not sure that education has done all that. I believe regulation has played a very large role - all the regulation of advertising, the taxes, the limiting of smoking to certain places, etc.

And still, a whole lot more people smoke cigarettes than use cocaine, for example.

[vmarks]

What I really like are the Truth ads.
Not because I like the ads themselves, but because I see them as a market solution to the problem. Let the cig companies run their ads (although they can't anymore) and let Truth run their competing ads, and let the people in the country decide for themselves what they'll do to their bodies, with the information from both sides of the spectrum.

There are plenty of things people do that aren't necessarily healthy, and aren't even appropriate for polite discussion.

If it isn't hurting you, then it ain't nobody's business if they do.

[nvaughan3]

Originally posted by vmarks:
What I really like are the Truth ads.
Not because I like the ads themselves, but because I see them as a market solution to the problem. Let the cig companies run their ads (although they can't anymore) and let Truth run their competing ads, and let the people in the country decide for themselves what they'll do to their bodies, with the information from both sides of the spectrum.

There are plenty of things people do that aren't necessarily healthy, and aren't even appropriate for polite discussion.

If it isn't hurting you, then it ain't nobody's business if they do.

The ironic things about those ads, of course, are that the foundation that produces them was funded by tobacco companies. And the ads they ran directly contradicted the settlement agreement which contained an anti-villification clause.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
Lets try these steps and see what happens.

1. Increase funding for anti-drug education on all levels.
2. People who are arrested for using drugs get forced rehabilitation. You stay locked up until you are clean. If you get out and screw up back in you go, etc.
3. Deploy the Army on the border with Mexico. Beef up and equip the Border Patrol.
4. Stop giving money to any gov't that doesn't actively go after drug growers and smugglers.

Just an idea.

Well-intended, but I respectfully disagree. IMO, there is no governmental solution to this "problem" (I put quotes around "problem" because the problem of illegal drug use is often overstated, and many of the related problems are a result of the drug war itself). No amount of governmental activity - be it prevention or education or rehabilitation - has ever worked and never will work. It will only serve to create another self-perpetuating, self-serving, and costly bureaucracy. This has been demonstrated time and time again, yet we persist in thinking that there must be a governmental solution. There isn't. We just need to learn to accept this.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
The ironic things about those ads, of course, are that the foundation that produces them was funded by tobacco companies. And the ads they ran directly contradicted the settlement agreement which contained an anti-villification clause.

I know, I know- it's an artificial market-solution- the hands behind the puppets are the same hands-

but ideally, it's better to put the information out publicly, rather than use legislation or judiciary as a club.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by vmarks:
[...] but ideally, it's better to put the information out publicly, rather than use legislation or judiciary as a club.

... Actually, here we really tend to agree among libertarians and Libertarians!

[yakkiebah]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
I'm a casual user and I wouldn't vote for legalization unless there was some program in schools to educate people about the truth about usage and effects. End the myths about being a gateway drug, come clean on the natural urge to alter consciousness. Quit the patronizing attitudes from the government and churches.

I'll trot out my two favorite facts on drug use:

1) Every society in the history of mankind (except one) has developed some chemical or other way to alter their consciousness. The exception? Eskimos, and only because they couldn't grow anything. Hey, even animals get sloshed.

2) Cigarette smoking in this country has been cut nearly in half over the last twenty-five years. How? Education. And that's without putting one single smoker in jail. Here are the actual statistics about smoking use.

Say all you want about those hokey TV ads and warning labels. Education works.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I'm not sure that education has done all that. I believe regulation has played a very large role - all the regulation of advertising, the taxes, the limiting of smoking to certain places, etc.

And still, a whole lot more people smoke cigarettes than use cocaine, for example.

Education was a major part of it though. I guess we'll never have exact numbers on which of those were more influential.

Not to be disagreeable but reasons you state have come about because we learned about the effects of smoking on our health. The overwhelming trend in medicine in the last 25 years has been an emphasis on prevention. Research into the effects of smoking (and second-hand smoke) have just been translated into all the areas you mention.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that smoking has been drastically reduced since 1974 and(even more so since 1948!). All that without a 'war' on smoking or sending a single smoker to jail.

Would you disagree that education as well as the other reasons you state would be more effective than our current 'war on drugs"?

(edited to add that 2nd paragraph)

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
Ignoring the assocation...what if the "war on rape" not only was hugely unsuccessful but caused way more problems than it stopped?

It is largely unsuccessful.

Rape is an instinct.... in order for the human race to survive, men had to impregnate multiple women... since women often died during labor... to increase the population, there had to be lots of love.

It's how the human race survived.

It's also a trait shared by most male animals.

Since it's completely biological (though some can't control their urges)... it can't be stopped.

Originally posted by vmarks:
What I really like are the Truth ads.
Not because I like the ads themselves, but because I see them as a market solution to the problem. Let the cig companies run their ads (although they can't anymore) and let Truth run their competing ads, and let the people in the country decide for themselves what they'll do to their bodies, with the information from both sides of the spectrum.

There are plenty of things people do that aren't necessarily healthy, and aren't even appropriate for polite discussion.

If it isn't hurting you, then it ain't nobody's business if they do.

Heard there is some debate on if they will continue. They are borderline defermation of character at times, hinting at specific CEO's. Not sure if there are any grounds for lawsuits though.

I like the adds. Funny.

[Logic]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Well-intended, but I respectfully disagree. IMO, there is no governmental solution to this "problem" (I put quotes around "problem" because the problem of illegal drug use is often overstated, and many of the related problems are a result of the drug war itself).

Please.....

Have you ever worked at a rehab center? I highly doubt it if you put out a statement like that. Yes, the war on drugs isn't going as well as it should. But does that necessarily mean that we should end it? What about changing it and modifying after the experience we got from it. I'm all for putting more money in education and such instead of putting the victims(users) in jail. But at the same time I think the people who sell drugs should be put in jail, and that for a long time. Do you think dealers will quit selling drugs at schools just because all of a sudden drugs are legal? Should we legalize some drugs but not all?

Stop this nonsense.........

[nvaughan3]

Since it's completely biological (though some can't control their urges)... it can't be stopped.

I stopped bothering wasting my time proving myself with empirical data in the other drug thread after you proved yourself unable to rationally debate, but rape is not "spreading seeds". It is about power, not sex.

[dencamp]

Not to further derail the thread by debating a totally loony analogy, but care to clarify this frightening sentence?

"Rape is an instinct.... in order for the human race to survive, men had to impregnate multiple women... since women often died during labor... to increase the population, there had to be lots of love.

Rape? is an instinct?

And also, a poor word choice at the end of that sentence.

[Axo1ot1]

Anyone know how much the U.S. spends on the drug war annually? Last I checked it was in excess of $20 billion. Divert that money to a war on poverty and see how much drug use dries up. Support of the drug war is foolish and shortsighted.

It's not good for anyone. Drug addiction is a disease but it's treated like a crime. How would you like to get locked up for 5 years because you broke your leg playing soccer? Either way we have thousands of non violent drug offenders being put into the prison system who basically have to become hardened criminals to survive their sentences with their anal sphincter intact. Then they come out no less addicted and keep screwing up.

One of the major tactics employed by states in the drug war is criminalizing the possetion and sale of paraphanalia. So now people who smoke pot have only the option of smoking it in joints or spliffs. This is bad because smoking with a water pipe, bong, hooka or vaporizer is significantly better for your health. So the states are actually hurting public health with this approach.

If drugs were legal it would be legal to produce and distribute them, but they would be taxed, giving the govt. a lot of income to spend on things like education and public rehab clinics. Also you wouldn't have jet-boats full of coke and heavily armed mercenaries cruising around in the gulf of Mexico.

I don't think legalization will happen any time soon, but I think that at least decriminalizing having small ammounts of drugs and taxing their sale is a good approach.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by Axo1ot1:

I don't think legalization will happen any time soon, but I think that at least decriminalizing having small ammounts of drugs and taxing their sale is a good approach.

Maybe not here but it's happening all around us. The first steps toward decriminlization have already started in Canada, the UK, in some other EU countries.

You can only hope that as their success becomes apparent that we're wise enough to take notice.

[yakkiebah]

Originally posted by Logic:
Please.....

Have you ever worked at a rehab center? I highly doubt it if you put out a statement like that. Yes, the war on drugs isn't going as well as it should. But does that necessarily mean that we should end it? What about changing it and modifying after the experience we got from it. I'm all for putting more money in education and such instead of putting the victims(users) in jail. But at the same time I think the people who sell drugs should be put in jail, and that for a long time. Do you think dealers will quit selling drugs at schools just because all of a sudden drugs are legal? Should we legalize some drugs but not all?

Stop this nonsense.........

you see any people selling alcohol at schools?

MASTURBATION MAKES YOU BLIND!

and yes education, no propaganda, in an objective and a medical way. people will only laugh and shake their heads at those hystirical anti-drug campaigns. let people decide for themself what they want to consume or not.

i don't smoke because i don't think it's worth it, same goes for any other drug. i drink once a week at most, have smoked pot in the past, also once a week for 2 years.

people do not consume more pot overhere compared to other countries(actually less then the US or France, both with very anti-drug policies) even though i can get it very easy. pot causes the least problems to health or addiction compared to any other drug(incl alcohol)

loads of studies support this. but i don't think you'll read them anyway.

so yeah stop this nonsence...

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by yakkiebah:
MASTURBATION MAKES YOU BLIND!

I couldn't read that because it's too blurry...

[Lerkfish]

I'm speaking from a practical perspective.

Arguably one of the most repressive and controlled country in recent memory was the now dissassembled Soviet Union. Yet, they had a drug problem. In fact, it was the smuggling of drugs that contributed to the rise in power of the so-called Soviet Mafia.
You are never going to eliminate demand, and when you attempt to squash supply you only empower the organized and dangerous drug cartels and increase their income. I wish it were not so, but it is so.

Drugs are bad for you, a waste of your time, money and life. I'm not avocating drug use, nor am I saying it in and of itself is not harmful to society to some degree. What I am saying is that like overuse of an antibiotic, you manage to kill off all but the most hardy, resistant, and dangerous bacteria, who then thrive because their competition has been eliminated, and you have a worse situation than when you started.

It's better to work on eliminating demand. Even though that's harder and less sexy as a campaign slogan, that's the only way you'll ever be rid of drugs. Because if there's a demand, supply will occur.

[nvaughan3]

It's better to work on eliminating demand. Even though that's harder and less sexy as a campaign slogan, that's the only way you'll ever be rid of drugs. Because if there's a demand, supply will occur.

That's notably the way this country is trying to get rid of tobacco.

[Logic]

Originally posted by yakkiebah:
you see any people selling alcohol at schools?

MASTURBATION MAKES YOU BLIND!

and yes education, no propaganda, in an objective and a medical way. people will only laugh and shake their heads at those hystirical anti-drug campaigns. let people decide for themself what they want to consume or not.

i don't smoke because i don't think it's worth it, same goes for any other drug. i drink once a week at most, have smoked pot in the past, also once a week for 2 years.

people do not consume more pot overhere compared to other countries(actually less then the US or France, both with very anti-drug policies) even though i can get it very easy. pot causes the least problems to health or addiction compared to any other drug(incl alcohol)

loads of studies support this. but i don't think you'll read them anyway.

so yeah stop this nonsence...

Actually I've seen alcohol being sold both in Icelandic schools and Swedish.

And for your masturbation theory: It is untrue. I still have perfect vision after being without my fiancee for two weeks (I know, too much information)

If you read my post you would have seen that I don't want smoking pot being criminal in the sense that you should be put in jail, but I want the dealers to be in jail. And I'm also not sure that it is easier to get pot in the Netherlands just because it is decriminalized. I think most who are interested could get their pot within 30min. Be it in the Netherlands or on Iceland.

And yes, THC causes the least physiological addiction of all the drugs(legal or illegal), but the healthrisks are just as detrimental as in any other drug. They are just different. But I guess you won't read that, just as you said I won't read the studies that say that the problems caused by THC are far less than in any other drug.

So chill out, have a joint, do whatever you want. I don't care.

But as I said before I would fully support changing and modifying the WoD. I think education about the effects of smoking pot should be discussed, and also the propaganda should be put to sleep. On both sides.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Logic:
Please.....

Have you ever worked at a rehab center? I highly doubt it if you put out a statement like that. Yes, the war on drugs isn't going as well as it should. But does that necessarily mean that we should end it? What about changing it and modifying after the experience we got from it. I'm all for putting more money in education and such instead of putting the victims(users) in jail. But at the same time I think the people who sell drugs should be put in jail, and that for a long time. Do you think dealers will quit selling drugs at schools just because all of a sudden drugs are legal? Should we legalize some drugs but not all?

Stop this nonsense.........

We're speaking from different perspectives and for that reason I'm sounding more extreme than I should. My point, which I should have made more clearly, is not that government can't play a role, but that no matter what the government does, be it preventative or educational or rehabilitative, people will still use and abuse the stuff! This has been proven time and time again. The notion that the government can prevent or cure drug use in general is foolish, and even if one assumes that governmental efforts diminish drug-related problems, the associated costs of our current policies (both social and economic) are vastly out of proportion to the risks. Our policies are driven by hysteria rather than good sense.

The U.S. is different from Iceland. Managing drug-related problems in a country of 300 million is different from managing them on an island with a population of less than 300,000 (no disrespect intended - just stating the obvious). I live in a country in which vast amounts of resources are spent on (and a great deal of corruption results from) an utterly failed policy. You may have worked at a rehab center in Iceland, but you haven't worked in the legal system in the U.S., or seen a loved one die in intractable pain because drug hysteria prevented them from getting adequate painkillers or even smoke some pot. Current policy does more harm than good, for about a dozen reasons that I don't feel like reiterating. Therefore, given a choice of extremes, I would choose legalization over the current approach.

This doesn't mean that I'm in favor of allowing heroin dealers in the schools, or that I wouldn't support rehabilitation of people who actually want help. I would support limited, sensible regulations and even rehab to the extent that they were actually effective. But we have to abandon the foolish notion that the government can prevent drug use or abuse in general, unless, of course, we want to live in a police state. With our current laws, we are dangerously close to that point.

So, you and I probably don't disagree that much. If decriminalization would work better than legalization, and we could institute a genuinely effective rehab system, fine. My point is a larger one: that no matter what it does, the government cannot prevent drug use or abuse in general, and it is largely self-defeating to try.

[yakkiebah]

Originally posted by Logic:
Actually I've seen alcohol being sold both in Icelandic schools and Swedish.

And for your masturbation theory: It is untrue. I still have perfect vision after being without my fiancee for two weeks (I know, too much information)

If you read my post you would have seen that I don't want smoking pot being criminal in the sense that you should be put in jail, but I want the dealers to be in jail. And I'm also not sure that it is easier to get pot in the Netherlands just because it is decriminalized. I think most who are interested could get their pot within 30min. Be it in the Netherlands or on Iceland.

read it but the difference is i can get it in a shop. i don't need to meet up with criminals. lessens the change of getting intouch with the wrong people and/or worse drugs.

And yes, THC causes the least physiological addiction of all the drugs(legal or illegal), but the healthrisks are just as detrimental as in any other drug. They are just different. But I guess you won't read that, just as you said I won't read the studies that say that the problems caused by THC are far less than in any other drug.

yes those same studies include the risks. so i have read them and know about them. you can get lung cancer(if you smoke it) or develop psychological problems like a psychosis. still the chances are the same with alcohol(not the lung cancer but the psychological problems ) .
but the person must be sensitive for this problem. a bit like people who can get an epileptic attack in a certain situation while others don't.

[Logic]

Originally posted by zigzag:
.... snipped for brevity......

So, you and I probably don't disagree that much. If decriminalization would work better than legalization, and we could institute a genuinely effective rehab system, fine. My point is a larger one: that no matter what it does, the government cannot prevent drug use or abuse in general, and it is largely self-defeating to try.

After reading your post I agree, we don't disagree all that much. From my perspective(on the island) I've always found the US WoD as an extreme of how this problem should be handled. I also agree that the decriminalization approach should be considered, but only with THC substances. And something like that with the harder drugs. But I am for various reasons strongly against legalization.

And even if Iceland is small we have the same problems as all of the civilized world. We only get it on a smaller scale. I've seen what it does to a person that can't get any useful painkillers because of substance abuse. It is not a pretty sight. The place I worked wasn't the normal rehab center that most would imagine. It was the only rehab on the island that takes in murderers, rapists, mentally ill, or "the best of the best". I also realised after working at the hospital that these persons were just like us, from all classess, from all IQ levels. When I started working there I always thought "users" were something like my friends in Sweden. That is persons who would end up in jail for idiotic felonies. That was one of the things that changed.

But to keep this short, I think we are both thinking somewhat alike even if the solutions we like the most may be different.

[Logic]

Originally posted by yakkiebah:
read it but the difference is i can get it in a shop. i don't need to meet up with criminals. lessens the change of getting intouch with the wrong people and/or worse drugs.

yes those same studies include the risks. so i have read them and know about them. you can get lung cancer(if you smoke it) or develop psychological problems like a psychosis. still the chances are the same with alcohol(not the lung cancer but the psychological problems ) .
but the person must be sensitive for this problem. a bit like people who can get an epileptic attack in a certain situation while others don't.

OK, perhaps it lessens the chance that you meet the wrong people. I'll accept that. But still I don't have to meet any criminals, and I guess the same goes for most potheads, when getting my stuff. Well technically they are criminals but I think you know what I mean.

The phychosis is probably the least detrimental illness you can get from THC abuse. And it is more likely to develope a phychological illness when smoking THC than drinking alcohol. I'll try to dig something up tonight when I go to the lab. And it is not neccessary to be sensitive for these diseases, but if you are you are more likelly to develope a disease.

But I think, as I said to zigzag that we probably ain't all that far apart in our views.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
I stopped bothering wasting my time proving myself with empirical data in the other drug thread after you proved yourself unable to rationally debate, but rape is not "spreading seeds". It is about power, not sex.

Rape *can* be about power... but normally isn't. It's about relieving sexual urges. How many rapists who pled guilty told the judge "I wanted to show her I was stronger"... and how many said "I couldn't control myself?"

The whole "power" thing was thought up in the 70's to get women to speak out about rape. It was/is a rally cry.

Sex is sex. The urge, is not about power, but about relieving yourself.

This has been shown in almost every animal that reproduces sexually.

Males raping women is common.

It's a disease in which a man can't control or relieve his sexual urges in a correct manner.

Same with adultery... the other crime that is said to be about "power". Clinton didn't have sex with Monica to show Hilary that he is "powerful"... he just saw a young peace of @ss in his office, and happened to have a cigar in his desk... the rest is history.

Control... yes.
Power... rarely.

Power to control.... yes
Controlling power... not really.

[MacManMikeOSX]

The US government is too controlling our civil rights have been degraded to a point of no return. I'm thinking of going to Canada, Australia or my ancestral homeland of Russia.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:

It's a disease in which a man can't control or relieve his sexual urges in a correct manner.

Say wha?

A disease? Does that mean there's a 12-step program for it?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Education was a major part of it though. I guess we'll never have exact numbers on which of those were more influential.

Not to be disagreeable but reasons you state have come about because we learned about the effects of smoking on our health. The overwhelming trend in medicine in the last 25 years has been an emphasis on prevention. Research into the effects of smoking (and second-hand smoke) have just been translated into all the areas you mention.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that smoking has been drastically reduced since 1974 and(even more so since 1948!). All that without a 'war' on smoking or sending a single smoker to jail.

Would you disagree that education as well as the other reasons you state would be more effective than our current 'war on drugs"?

(edited to add that 2nd paragraph)

I know a little bit about the health behavior change field, and there's a lot of frustration about the lack of effectiveness of education and information and other voluntary types of programs. They just don't seem to work. What seems to work is regulation and other more direct behavioral controls, like laws. I read a case study on the use of bicycle helmets, and that was a good example of this phenomenon. For years, they had information campaigns, and recommendations, but for years no one wore helmets. Then they started passing ordinances and giving out tickets, and then the percentage of people wearing the helmets rose dramatically. You have to change people's payoffs and incentives - information and education just doesn't seem to do it.

That's a very anti-libertarian finding, and it's very sad in some ways, but it seems to be the state of the field right now. Maybe they're just not doing the education/information campaigns correctly.

In fact, "education" often backfires - sometimes programs against drug use seems to actually increase drug use.


No I don't agree that education alone would be better than the laws we currently have. I think more people would use, more people would abuse, and more people would get sick and die due to drug use. Just like more people get sick and die due to tobacco and alcohol today.

[Axo1ot1]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Say wha?

A disease? Does that mean there's a 12-step program for it?

Yes there is.

[finboy]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
Lets try these steps and see what happens.

1. Increase funding for anti-drug education on all levels.
2. People who are arrested for using drugs get forced rehabilitation. You stay locked up until you are clean. If you get out and screw up back in you go, etc.
3. Deploy the Army on the border with Mexico. Beef up and equip the Border Patrol.
4. Stop giving money to any gov't that doesn't actively go after drug growers and smugglers.

Just an idea.

Sounds good to me, too.

The real problems of drugs are the infrastructure that they create, plus the burden on society that they produce. Sure, I don't mind people sitting at home frying their brains, but when they drive a truck that way or take up valuable emergency services because they've OD'd (perhaps again) I get a little angry. Plus, as with alcohol and tobacco to some extent, someone has to pay to support the pathological users when they've almost checked out.

The "drug culture" harms people who have no way to escape it -- look at any inner city and you'll see the effects. The temptation to enter the "drug culture" dampens incentives to do other things, and the spillovers from the criminal situation harm poor folks disproportionately.

It's all about economics, fortunately. Behavior can be controlled through incentives in most cases. We still don't provide the proper "incentives" for people to disassociate themselves from drugs and their "connection" to illicit sources. When we do (via higher costs of some kind, there used to be a lot of social pressure on this) the drug jones will diminish for most users. There is a great deal of hope for collapsing the casual drug market causing drugs to lose their economies of scale (lower cost through higher volumes, and network advantages) and collapse the system. Sure, there will always be the hard core addicts, but I think the most hopeful solutions include a recognition of this.

For instance, does random drug testing of employees and a no-use policy change peoples' behavior? Sure, because employers still bother to do it. Most employers now include some kind of intervention in the process, recognizing what I'm talking about above.

Border security is a large issue, and I get tired of hearing people talk about just giving up. Very frustrating.

[finboy]

Originally posted by BRussell:

In fact, "education" often backfires - sometimes programs against drug use seems to actually increase drug use.

I can attest to that. When I was about 9 or so, I had a teacher spend months and months teaching us about every kind of drug, how it was used, and where it was manufactured, etc. Some of the folks in my class (small town) later used that knowledge to great "advantage", carrying it through to high school and college. It expanded their vision of the world, knowing that stuff existed and what the side-effects were (at least according to the research that we read in class).

EDIT: By the way, those folks are still, almost to a person, a bunch of losers.

[finboy]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Rape *can* be about power... but normally isn't.

At one point in my life, every woman in my circle of friends had been raped as adults. So yes, it appears to be common. The overwhelming majority of those cases, if not all, were about power (with abusive lovers, or strangers in some cases). The "rape is about power" line isn't some feminist conspiracy -- it's a fact. Believe me, if I could fault feministas on this, I'd be glad to.

Where the water has been muddied is with the infinitesimal percentage of "date rapes" where women decide after the fact that they didn't really want to consent. That's still a man's burden (what are you doing boinking anyone who's that unsure or who's that flakey, either one?), but perhaps the political-correctness wave has made it worse by classifying all sex as rape (at the extreme).

Still, I can't accept that rape isn't about power.

[BRussell]

Yeah, this is what I was thinking of:

President Bush's top drug policy adviser says the government's anti-drug ads largely are being ignored by teens, and a survey finds no evidence the multimillion-dollar campaign is discouraging drug use, The New York Timeshas reported.

The survey, conducted by the private research firm Westat and the University of Pennsylvania, actually charted an increase in drug use among some teen-agers who saw the television ads. But it noted that further analysis was necessary before the ads could be directly tied to the increase.

[yakkiebah]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Yeah, this is what I was thinking of:

i thought you were talking about education not working?

[zigzag]

macvillage specializes in outlandish, inaccurate statements (e.g. "most pot is laced"), but on this question I think his statements have some (with the emphasis on some ) merit, although I would articulate the issue differently.

If rape was only about power/control and not at all about sex, it wouldn't involve sex in the first place. Men would just entrap/restrain their victims and order them around. It's fundamentally a sexual act, and I think it's self-defeating and euphemistic to say otherwise. I remember and understand why this became the fashion, and I'm sympathetic to it - rape was not being taken as seriously as it should have been, and feminism was ascendant, so the violence/misogynism aspects became emphasized - but that doesn't mean that it can't also have a sexual aspect. It might not be good sex, but it is at least partly about male sexual impulses. Even women are known to fantasize about it. That doesn't excuse the actual act of rape, it's just another aspect of a complex subject.

People seem to find it necessary to define things as either/or, when they can easily be some of each. Life is complex, and different cases have different characteristics. We don't have to reduce the whole subject to either/or.