[ghporter]

The worst kind of crime I can imagine a pot head committing is shoplifting Ding Dongs. Meth users, crack users, heroin users, on the other hand, have a very powerful motivation do to ANYTHING they think necessary to get their next hit, and are often motivated to commit some pretty heinous acts just to get a few buck for the next rock/bag/whatever.

Further, using these three very addictive drugs tends to very negatively affect the user's health. I saw a very interesting progression of photos once; a young woman who got hooked on meth was portrayed in her mug shots. She went from a nice looking young woman to a wizened hag in a matter of two years. With something like two dozen arrests and numerous convictions for assault, armed robbery, prostitution, and other not-so-nice acts. Who pays for her (and her fellow addicts') health care? Me and you. I for one don't want to subsidize someone else's health care when their health problems are their own doing.

[Doofy]

There ya go Glenn.

[ghporter]

Amy's a cover girl compared to the unfortunate woman whose pictures I saw in school. Really, really, Amy looks almost healthy there, compared to the "how is this person still breathing?" and "what do you mean she's in her 30s? She's gotta be 65 at least!" in the last photo.

[Doofy]

Yeah, I saw those pics. Blonde chick, yes?
Couldn't find 'em but Winehouse was the next best bet.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Meth users become tolerant to the amount they're using and must elevate their usage for the same "high". A high can last 6-12 hours. When are they productive, when they're all hopped up? In an effort to legalize drugs other than marijuana, wouldn't the burden of proof be on you that you can hit meth and crack and still lead a productive life? The first aspect of meth and crack that comes to mind is how wildly, physically addictive it is. Getting it becomes more important than getting anything else. This is what leads to crime. Let's legalize the selling of neurotoxins? rat poison? I'm guessing this is why people who think those of us who advocate the legalization of marijuana are out of our friggin' minds. Too many do not distinguish between something that grows from the ground naturally and something you must craft from various household chemicals.

The Office of National Drug Control Policy determined that every dollar spent on treatment resulted in a $7.46 reduction in lost productivity and crime-related spending. This estimate does not include the costs of providing medical care.

Marijuana on the other hand is not physically addictive and does not lead to the degree of crime you see from meth or crack. There are substantial differences between meth, crack, and marijuana.

Uh, rat poison is legal...

I agree that meth and pot are two completely different stories. Meth is certainly much more dangerous for the user, and much more addictive. But again, so what? People should be allowed to do whatever they want to their own bodies.

But clearly the problem here is not caused by the legality of meth. Meth is illegal, and yet people still use it and it still causes problems. Why? What are the root causes of the societal issues surrounding meth use? Why do people use meth in the first place? How do we address the issue of people choosing to use meth? This is currently not something that we're trying to do, instead we're just demonizing the users and throwing them in jail. That's not productive and it's not helping.

Legalizing meth doesn't make any problems worse. Instead it frees up tons and tons of resources to address the other problems.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by moonmonkey 

In the short term LSD is very dangerous, a standard dose of Heroin, cocaine or amphetamines will not make you go mad (it make make you curl into a ball or act like a fool), if LSD is doing it job right, it will drive you temporally insane which in my opinion is a much worse place to be.

On a personal level, yes, LSD can do some really bad things to your mind. But if we're talking danger to society, speed freaks are much worse in my experience.

[subego]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

What are the root causes of the societal issues surrounding meth use?

I honestly think problem number one is, in the words of Sam Kinison...

Because you took our pot away!

Give us our pot back!

AUGGHH! AUGGGHH!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Uh, rat poison is legal...

Not sold for the express intent of human consumption. Egadz. I had to say this?

I agree that meth and pot are two completely different stories. Meth is certainly much more dangerous for the user, and much more addictive. But again, so what? People should be allowed to do whatever they want to their own bodies.

Well... you might feel this way, but you'd be hard-pressed to gain any kind of public support. I think what the majority of us are expressing is confusion over why something less harmful than both cigarettes and alcohol is illegal, not why Liquid Plumr® should be sold as a beverage.

But clearly the problem here is not caused by the legality of meth. Meth is illegal, and yet people still use it and it still causes problems. Why? What are the root causes of the societal issues surrounding meth use? Why do people use meth in the first place? How do we address the issue of people choosing to use meth? This is currently not something that we're trying to do, instead we're just demonizing the users and throwing them in jail. That's not productive and it's not helping.

Meth is a drug that affects the central nervous system causing severe cases of irritability, insomnia, confusion and paranoia. Too often, these side effects cause problems for more than just the user, but become a detriment to society. Their physical addiction can cause desperation leading to a wealth of various crimes to attain it. No one is "demonizing" meth users, we're removing them from the possibility of hurting those who are not using meth.

Legalizing meth doesn't make any problems worse. Instead it frees up tons and tons of resources to address the other problems.

Like what, people hanging themselves?

[red rocket]

I am in favour of everybody getting high as much and as frequently as possible, it broadens the mind.

That said, I do understand perfectly why governments would not want that.

This is a war. Compromise is undesirable for both sides.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Not sold for the express intent of human consumption. Egadz. I had to say this?

That's ridiculous. Who cares whether or not is says 'EAT THIS!!!!' in big red letters on the packaging. Any idiot can walk into a store and buy rat poison.

Well... you might feel this way, but you'd be hard-pressed to gain any kind of public support. I think what the majority of us are expressing is confusion over why something less harmful than both cigarettes and alcohol is illegal, not why Liquid Plumr® should be sold as a beverage.

Meth is a drug that affects the central nervous system causing severe cases of irritability, insomnia, confusion and paranoia. Too often, these side effects cause problems for more than just the user, but become a detriment to society. Their physical addiction can cause desperation leading to a wealth of various crimes to attain it. No one is "demonizing" meth users, we're removing them from the possibility of hurting those who are not using meth.

The fact that people make it illegally, sell it illegally, buy it illegally, and use it illegally pretty much negates any argument you've got. Nothing that is currently being done is 'removing them from the possibility of hurting those who are not using meth', nothing. If the status quo isn't actually accomplishing what you want it to, then why are you defending it so vigorously?

Like what, people hanging themselves?

Like I said, people should be free to do whatever they want to themselves.

[Shaddim]

I agree with that. Suicide, assisted and unassisted, should be legalized.

If a person wants to go, they should be able to do so without interference. Whatever a person wants to do with themselves is fair game.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

The worst kind of crime I can imagine a pot head committing is shoplifting Ding Dongs. Meth users, crack users, heroin users, on the other hand, have a very powerful motivation do to ANYTHING they think necessary to get their next hit, and are often motivated to commit some pretty heinous acts just to get a few buck for the next rock/bag/whatever.

Further, using these three very addictive drugs tends to very negatively affect the user's health. I saw a very interesting progression of photos once; a young woman who got hooked on meth was portrayed in her mug shots. She went from a nice looking young woman to a wizened hag in a matter of two years. With something like two dozen arrests and numerous convictions for assault, armed robbery, prostitution, and other not-so-nice acts. Who pays for her (and her fellow addicts') health care? Me and you. I for one don't want to subsidize someone else's health care when their health problems are their own doing.

Are you talking about this girl?

[Buckaroo]

Or this one:




This is with 10 years use.

[Apple Repair]

sure, why not. i'd be fun to watch.
it's pretty boring these days.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

That's ridiculous. Who cares whether or not is says 'EAT THIS!!!!' in big red letters on the packaging. Any idiot can walk into a store and buy rat poison.

So... it's already legal. What exactly are you arguing for? It would take a much more profound kind of idiot to advocate the selling of it for human consumption IMO. Even a firecracker has "DO NOT PLACE IN MOUTH" stamped on it. Apparently, there is enough of a problem with idiots that we don't need to exacerbate stupidity by legalizing a complex brew of rat poison and neurotoxins for human consumption.

The fact that people make it illegally, sell it illegally, buy it illegally, and use it illegally pretty much negates any argument you've got. Nothing that is currently being done is 'removing them from the possibility of hurting those who are not using meth', nothing. If the status quo isn't actually accomplishing what you want it to, then why are you defending it so vigorously?

Vigorously? I'm defending common sense and a notion that actually has a fighting chance. What you're defending is a pipe dream. (pun intended)

I guess it depends on your measure of "accomplishment". As of latest data I can find, approximately 2.8% of young adults have used meth compared to 32.9% using alcohol and over 13% using marijuana. Comparatively speaking, I'd say the availability/use of meth is still exponentially less prevalent than the others. Status quo or not, most are not arguing for que sara sara society, but why something less harmful than current, legal substances is illegal.

Like I said, people should be free to do whatever they want to themselves.

Right and as long as arguments are unable to discern sanity from insanity, you'll get more of what we've got on all counts. You think your view is going to change the status quo?

Good luck.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

The fact that people make it illegally, sell it illegally, buy it illegally, and use it illegally pretty much negates any argument you've got.

So was alcohol during the prohibition, so what? This fact doesn't make any argument for or against it, it's just a statement of fact (in most states).
There's a reason the majority here separates pot from hard drugs: they are not one and the same, do not have comparable effects or are similarly addicting. We are not advocating that drugs like meth or heroine should be legalized (although I do think that the mere use of these drugs should not be punished), we're making an argument for legalizing marijuana here.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Are you talking about this girl?

Are we sure that that's actually anything to do with drugs and not a "this is what living in NYC will do to you" kind of thing?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

So was alcohol during the prohibition, so what? This fact doesn't make any argument for or against it, it's just a statement of fact (in most states).
There's a reason the majority here separates pot from hard drugs: they are not one and the same, do not have comparable effects or are similarly addicting. We are not advocating that drugs like meth or heroine should be legalized (although I do think that the mere use of these drugs should not be punished), we're making an argument for legalizing marijuana here.

What? This whole thread is about legalizing hard drugs. Do I think hard drugs are worse for you than marijuana? Yes. Do I think that people should be discouraged from doing hard drugs more than they should be from doing marijuana? Yes. But as you apparently agree with, I don't think that people should be punished for doing hard drugs. What would be necessary in order to accomplish that? Legalization. (No, decriminalization would not be sufficient to meet that goal.)

If hard drugs were legal they could be sold in mandated packaging with warning labels just like everything else. If hard drugs were legal it would be easier and safer for users and potential users to talk to people about it. If hard drugs were legal nothing would necessarily change for the worse, and there are a number of things that would very likely improve.

As I've said before, I'd be all in favor of throwing the book at anyone who commits a crime while on drugs. But if someone just keeps to themself, doesn't hurt anyone, and happens to shoot up on a regular basis, why should that be a crime? And how would the situation be any worse than it is today?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

What? This whole thread is about legalizing hard drugs.

That's what the title says.
In the initial post, it is said `all recreational substances* which are currently illegal' to which a bunch of people, myself included, said that they are in favor of legalizing marijuana (which is currently illegal), but not hard(er) drugs.

* I don't think all drugs are `recreational substances' in the true sense of the word, though.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

But as you apparently agree with, I don't think that people should be punished for doing hard drugs. What would be necessary in order to accomplish that? Legalization. (No, decriminalization would not be sufficient to meet that goal.)

Just because you decriminalize the addiction doesn't mean, you have to legalize the substance. Hard, highly addictive drugs, are often a fertilizer for many crimes (drug-related crimes). From that perspective, a state-sanctioned sale of hard drugs would be no different than the open sale of dynamite or other explosives: it would actively involve itself in endangering other citizens. That is, in my opinion, unacceptable.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Just because you decriminalize the addiction doesn't mean, you have to legalize the substance. Hard, highly addictive drugs, are often a fertilizer for many crimes (drug-related crimes). From that perspective, a state-sanctioned sale of hard drugs would be no different than the open sale of dynamite or other explosives: it would actively involve itself in endangering other citizens. That is, in my opinion, unacceptable.

So what you're saying is that anything with which someone might hurt someone else should be illegal or at least regulated? Should we have to be licensed to buy cleaning supplies with which you might poison someone, or create an explosive with, or even create some sort of drug with? Do you agree that cough medicine should be a controlled substance because some people might use it to create 'dangerous drugs'?

And where do you draw the line when it comes to drugs? Is LSD safe? Hallucinogens can easily lead to someone hurting themselves or others. Should mushrooms and peyote continue to be illegal or are they ok?

And yet again, what about people who do hard drugs and don't commit crimes? Or are you saying that it's impossible and that anyone who smokes crystal is by necessity going to end up killing someone?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

So what you're saying is that anything with which someone might hurt someone else should be illegal or at least regulated?

Please don't put words into my mouth that have nothing to do with what I've said.

Chemicals, cleaning solutions and stuff like nutmeg have primary uses other than getting high. Hard drugs do not, their only use is to make people high.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Do you agree that cough medicine should be a controlled substance because some people might use it to create 'dangerous drugs'?

Cough medicine that's famous with junkies already is a controlled substance here for which you need a doctor's prescription.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

And where do you draw the line when it comes to drugs? Is LSD safe? Hallucinogens can easily lead to someone hurting themselves or others. Should mushrooms and peyote continue to be illegal or are they ok?

The line I've drawn in the beginning was quite clear: marijuana and others.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

And yet again, what about people who do hard drugs and don't commit crimes? Or are you saying that it's impossible and that anyone who smokes crystal is by necessity going to end up killing someone?

Again, please don't put words into my mouth. Sure, it's possible that you'll only end up killing yourself with that stuff and not hurt anyone else. There are plenty of rich people who can actually afford their cocaine or heroine. But that doesn't mean that it's true most of the time. Hard drugs kill people, families and damage society.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Sure, it's possible that you'll only end up killing yourself with that stuff and not hurt anyone else. There are plenty of rich people who can actually afford their cocaine or heroine. But that doesn't mean that it's true most of the time. Hard drugs kill people, families and damage society.

In that regard, it seems to me that much more effort should be spent at the root of the problem, rather than the result of the problem. Punishing junkies is not going to stop the drug lords in central and south America from manufacturing and selling the drugs. It makes a lot more sense to put a stop to the creation and distribution than stopping some junkie from using heroin in the park. I mean, the junkie is screwing up his own life and that's pathetic, but stopping the supply seems to be a better long-term solution.

Well, that and changing our attitude about life in general. Society has gotten increasingly self-serving and selfish over the past several decades. If people learned the importance of taking care of themselves and working to make their lives better, I'm pretty sure we'd have less of a problem.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Please don't put words into my mouth that have nothing to do with what I've said.

They have everything to do with what you've said. You've said that hard drugs should be illegal because they are a 'fertilizer' for crime. So simply because they might possibly result in criminal activity they should be illegal.

Chemicals, cleaning solutions and stuff like nutmeg have primary uses other than getting high. Hard drugs do not, their only use is to make people high.

It's the same argument as with guns. Amazingly, I'm in favor of guns as well. And some of those hard drugs are made from those self-same chemicals and cleaning solutions. So if you allow people to buy those, you're essentially allowing them to buy drugs.

Cough medicine that's famous with junkies already is a controlled substance here for which you need a doctor's prescription.

And here you're limited in the quantity of certain over the counter drugs that you can buy because it's possible to made hard drugs from them. People's access to medicine is being restricted because a small subset of people might misuse that medicine.

The line I've drawn in the beginning was quite clear: marijuana and others.

Quite clear and quite arbitrary. Your problem with so-called hard drugs is that their primary purpose is to get people high. But isn't that the primary purpose of marijuana?

Again, please don't put words into my mouth. Sure, it's possible that you'll only end up killing yourself with that stuff and not hurt anyone else. There are plenty of rich people who can actually afford their cocaine or heroine. But that doesn't mean that it's true most of the time. Hard drugs kill people, families and damage society.

So the current system favors the rich and punishes the poor. Great! We should totally keep it! Hard drugs kill people: this is unfortunate, but who am I to tell someone that they can't ruin their own life? Hard drugs kill families: not sure exactly what you mean here. Sure, meth labs can kill families, but I'm all in favor of keeping those illegal and ensuring that the production of these drugs is done as safely as possible. As for damaging society, by making things legal, clean, and as safe as possible we can minimize the damage that is completely unavoidable if we keep things illegal, unsafe, and at the fringes.

I have no problem with trying to move hard drug users onto safer substances. I have no problem with cracking down harshly on people who commit crimes while on drugs. I have no problem with doing everything we can to minimize the damaging effects of drugs on society. I do have a problem with the apparently false supposition that prohibiting these substances is, in any way, shape, or form, doing any good.

[spacefreak]

I don't want the government involved in the marijuana industry in areas such as production, distribution, or taxation. If they want to regulate, that's fine.

I'd rather see it become legal to grow your own marijuana plants for personal use. The only thing local, state, and federal governments should be concerned with is some regulation and ensuring the best possible roadside test. If some dude crashes his car into another, we have to be able to ascertain - on the spot via a breathalyzer-type instrument - whether the driver(s) involved were drunk on weed.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Not only should they NOT legalize any illegal drugs, they need to increase the fines and penalties for using all of them. Ten days in jail minimum for using even Marajuana (or however you spell it) for the first time.

In fact I believe all employers should be required to do regular spot testing to make sure employees are not using.

Absolute rubbish. I'd guess you're okay with jailing more than half the population of America then?

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Maflynn 

My take on this on hard drugs and pot is that I've seen them destroy people's lives. Another point is that I don't my children thinking that because its legal, the stuff is ok to play with. For instance, here in Massachusetts they basically legalized pot by changing it from criminal to a civil infraction and most police have said they'll not even enforce that. So much so, I saw someone walking down the street smoking a joint as plain as could be.

I don't want my children trying that stuff and by legalizing it, (or the hard stuff) it gives it an air of respectability or rather an appearance that its not harmful. I want more reasons for them not to touch the stuff, not less.

While I'm sure people will come out of the wood work here and tell me that pot is not harmful, I've seen first hand the affects of it, either it being a gateway drug or by people doing the stuff and having issues (like motivation, drive, focus, short term memory etc). I'm sure there's plenty of people who smoke it and are very successful but I think there are health issues and problems for people who do drugs as a general rule and those successful folks are more of the exception

Pot is a "gateway drug" only due to it's illegality.

Allow people like me to grow it in their backyards and you'll see the pot dealing business start to dry up overnight. It's easier than tomatoes to grow, which is why the government would NEVER be able to tax and control it.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Legalize everything, it will sort itself out.

Hear hear!

People get f**ked up on any drug they want now, the only difference is that we won't clog our judicial system with victimless 'criminals.'

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Hear hear!

People get f**ked up on any drug they want now, the only difference is that we won't clog our judicial system with victimless 'criminals.'

People busted for meth aren't busted because they're lighting up on the street corner. (generally) They're busted because they stole a car to take it to the corner to buy a rock. They are busted for victimizing someone else and are caught with meth on them.

I say legalize marijuana because it cannot be demonstrated to be any more a detriment to society than the currently legal substances and because you don't want someone interested in marijuana seeking their services from one who may be selling a brew of neurotoxins.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

And yet again, what about people who do hard drugs and don't commit crimes? Or are you saying that it's impossible and that anyone who smokes crystal is by necessity going to end up killing someone?

I love an argument that goes right to homicide. The answer to your question is "yes". People who smoke crystal will, by necessity end up killing someone.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Quite clear and quite arbitrary. Your problem with so-called hard drugs is that their primary purpose is to get people high. But isn't that the primary purpose of marijuana?

I think it would be difficult to classify a drug that affects the central nervous system causing severe cases of irritability, insomnia, confusion and paranoia as a muscle relaxant. In most cases, it is no problem at all to clearly differentiate marijuana from other drugs.

It's the same argument as with guns. Amazingly, I'm in favor of guns as well. And some of those hard drugs are made from those self-same chemicals and cleaning solutions. So if you allow people to buy those, you're essentially allowing them to buy drugs.

Right... so it's already legal to buy those substances. Next?

And here you're limited in the quantity of certain over the counter drugs that you can buy because it's possible to made hard drugs from them. People's access to medicine is being restricted because a small subset of people might misuse that medicine.

The medicine is still available for purchase however. You're considered suspicious when you're buying 4 lbs of SUDAFED®.

I have no problem with trying to move hard drug users onto safer substances. I have no problem with cracking down harshly on people who commit crimes while on drugs. I have no problem with doing everything we can to minimize the damaging effects of drugs on society. I do have a problem with the apparently false supposition that prohibiting these substances is, in any way, shape, or form, doing any good.

I've already given usage statistics. The "harder" drugs (like meth made from everyday chemicals) are still exponentially less available than marijuana. I think it has something to do with public opinion/education on the drug as well as measures taken against it from law enforcement. I'd like to keep it as illegal, taboo, and criminal as possible.

[subego]

ebuddy and nonhuman...

It seems to me that with the particular hard drugs that lead to paranoid violence while under the influence (meth, crack, PCP, etc.), that there may be some sort of sweet spot for users that lies between "harsh criminal punishment" and "free-for-all".

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by subego 

ebuddy and nonhuman...

It seems to me that with the particular hard drugs that lead to paranoid violence while under the influence (meth, crack, PCP, etc.), that there may be some sort of sweet spot for users that lies between "harsh criminal punishment" and "free-for-all".

I agree. The last thing I want to see is rampant meth usage across the country. I don't have kids, but I do have a niece and a god-daughter, so I do think about how kids are affected by these things and what's best for them. I would rather buy pot for them myself, than see them doing crack or crystal or anything like that (obviously neither scenario is desirable...). Despite this fairly recent development (they're both about 1 year old), my general position on drugs hasn't changed. I really do believe that legalization, not just of pot, but of other drugs as well, will reduce the availability of them on the street to kids and adults.

Adults are and should be free to make their own decisions and face the consequences of those decisions whatever they may be. Kids, however, generally aren't actually capable of making good, informed decisions no matter how intelligent or well educated they are. Their brains are still developing, they just don't have the same faculties as adults, which also puts them at greater risk of long term detrimental effect from drug use. As cliché and ridiculous as it is, drug policy should be aimed protecting children. You keep kids off drugs, and given a generation you'll have kept adults off drugs. The best way to keep kids off drugs is to keep them away from drugs. The current system fails to do that, and drugs run rampant through schools, and not just public schools (ecstasy, acid, coke, crack, any drug you might want was readily available at both the Catholic high school and private college that I went to). Legalization and regulation will, as with alcohol, be more effective than the 'war on drugs' at keeping drugs away from kids and schools.

If we can provide a safe, legal environment for adults to obtain and use drugs, we can do a better job of controlling the way those drugs enter and affect society, and therefore we can do a better job of keeping those drugs away from kids where they will do the most harm in both the short and long term.

[subego]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

If we can provide a safe, legal environment for adults to obtain and use drugs, we can do a better job of controlling the way those drugs enter and affect society, and therefore we can do a better job of keeping those drugs away from kids where they will do the most harm in both the short and long term.

As is often the case, we essentially agree, so I'd be very interested in your thoughts on nuts and bolts policy. IOW, how would we regulate something like meth so it doesn't become a free-for-all? As you pointed out with your school experiences, it's kind of a free-for-all now.

With something like meth it seems to me the key policy goal should be to get people off of it*. This makes me think that placing it in more of a grey area (decriminalization?) might be the way to go.


* This is a pretty intrusive policy goal IMO, so it's not one I suggest lightly.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by subego 

As is often the case, we essentially agree, so I'd be very interested in your thoughts on nuts and bolts policy. IOW, how would we regulate something like meth so it doesn't become a free-for-all? As you pointed out with your school experiences, it's kind of a free-for-all now.

With something like meth it seems to me the key policy goal should be to get people off of it*. This makes me think that placing it in more of a grey area (decriminalization?) might be the way to go.


* This is a pretty intrusive policy goal IMO, so it's not one I suggest lightly.

I somewhat agree with your policy goal there in that it would definitely be for the better to get people off of it, but as you say it's a bit intrusive. I think I would probably lean more towards, as I mentioned before, providing a safe, healthy (inasmuch as you can do meth healthily, anyway) environment for current addicts while working towards preventing the creation of new addicts. Providing help, where requested (or mandated for criminals, perhaps), to get off of the drugs would probably be a good idea, I would tend to think that in an environment less hostile towards drugs and drug users it would be easier for addicts to find and ask for the help they need.

Sadly I haven't really put all that much though into actual policy ideas for dealing with drugs (now if you want to talk about Social Security and/or health care reform... ), perhaps I should do so...

[Luvtitty]

I believe that drugs like Marijuana should be legalized since it should be a personal choice to do it or not. Strict laws could be enforced to control the population with the use of Marijuana since it gives of the high effect. Etc, Caught "high" while at work places or just basically laws that would still put the society's structure in order. Marijuana is just like tobacco or alcohol, its basically the same thing, it is absolutely a pretty unhealthy habit but marijuana does not cause anything that bad that would be illegal to be influenced with marijuana or to posses with marijuana. in fact, it should be legal just like tobacco or alcohol, plus from a ridiculously amount of personal experience, drinking is more disastrous than getting stoned. I have almost accidentally have myself killed when I am influenced with alcohol, but that does not stop me from drinking. marijuana gives the person relaxation, which is a pretty good thing I'd say.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

ebuddy and nonhuman...

It seems to me that with the particular hard drugs that lead to paranoid violence while under the influence (meth, crack, PCP, etc.), that there may be some sort of sweet spot for users that lies between "harsh criminal punishment" and "free-for-all".

As far as law enforcement reaction to meth, status quo or harder is my preference. Judging from the woman pictured above with 10 mug shots in 10 years, it seems we've already got a penalty somewhere between "harsh criminal punishment" and "free-for-all".

More public education via meth prevention programs, advertisements, aggressive community action, and reasonable restrictions on the sale of the ingredients used to make it has had a profound effect in what was referred to as "an extreme decline" in incidents involving labs, 8th grade usage down over half, and 10-12th grade usage down as well in Arizona for example. Similar efforts have produced even more profound efforts in Montana.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

As far as law enforcement reaction to meth, status quo or harder is my preference. Judging from the woman pictured above with 10 mug shots in 10 years, it seems we've already got a penalty somewhere between "harsh criminal punishment" and "free-for-all".

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here, but I think it would be entirely reasonable for anyone who commits a crime while high (only? especially? more than once) to not be released back into the public until they've broken their addiction. Of course that would mean that we'd need to actually do something to address the problem of drugs being available in prison. Until we can do something about that, it's pointless to even talk about trying to get people off drugs.

The main problem here, however, is that we're simultaneously spending too much and too little on prisons. There simply isn't enough money in prison budgets to possibly hope for prison to engender any worthwhile results in the vast majority of prisoners while, at the same time, we're throwing money away by imprisoning people either for crimes that shouldn't be crimes, shouldn't justify imprisonment, or shouldn't be sentanced as harshly as they are. As usual with political problems, if we just applied some basic logic to the issue we could make progress in one area simply by virtue of making progress in another (by reducing the number of people in prison for ridiculous things like marijuana possession we reduce the amount of money being wasted by the prison system and free up money to be used to address more serious problems).

More public education via meth prevention programs, advertisements, aggressive community action, and reasonable restrictions on the sale of the ingredients used to make it has had a profound effect in what was referred to as "an extreme decline" in incidents involving labs, 8th grade usage down over half, and 10-12th grade usage down as well in Arizona for example. Similar efforts have produced even more profound efforts in Montana.

Besides the 'resonable restrictions on the sale of the ingredients' (which I disagree with only because I'm unsure if we'd agree on what is and is not reasonable, but otherwise would be perfectly willing to support), I'm in total agreement with you here. The fact that there even is a meth usage rate in 8th grade is appalling.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here

I meant only that you can't really say it's currently "harsh criminal punishment" when they've been available for apprehension 10 separate times in a 10 year span. You likewise can't say it's "a free for all" because they've been apprehended 10 times in 10 years. So... it must be somewhere in the middle.

I think it would be entirely reasonable for anyone who commits a crime while high (only? especially? more than once) to not be released back into the public until they've broken their addiction. Of course that would mean that we'd need to actually do something to address the problem of drugs being available in prison. Until we can do something about that, it's pointless to even talk about trying to get people off drugs.

I would suggest that we first tighten the belt on illegal immigration. It seems we're pretty closed to aligned on the idea of holding addicts convicted of another crime at least until they've broken addiction.

The main problem here, however, is that we're simultaneously spending too much and too little on prisons. There simply isn't enough money in prison budgets to possibly hope for prison to engender any worthwhile results in the vast majority of prisoners while, at the same time, we're throwing money away by imprisoning people either for crimes that shouldn't be crimes, shouldn't justify imprisonment, or shouldn't be sentanced as harshly as they are. As usual with political problems, if we just applied some basic logic to the issue we could make progress in one area simply by virtue of making progress in another (by reducing the number of people in prison for ridiculous things like marijuana possession we reduce the amount of money being wasted by the prison system and free up money to be used to address more serious problems).

If I recall, most of these folks are found in possession of meth while getting caught for something else and have earned a reserved slab. As far as the expense of prison, meth addicts don't eat much, particularly when they're detoxing. I agree with your assessment on marijuana entirely. Where we may disagree is what constitutes the "more serious problem" to address with the freed up funds. I maintain one of them would be a concerted effort towards prevention and against production, distribution, and usage of meth.

Besides the 'resonable restrictions on the sale of the ingredients' (which I disagree with only because I'm unsure if we'd agree on what is and is not reasonable, but otherwise would be perfectly willing to support), I'm in total agreement with you here. The fact that there even is a meth usage rate in 8th grade is appalling.

Agreed. I'm not so sure it's difficult to agree on what constitutes a reasonable restriction on the ingredients for meth.

[nonhuman]

Illegal immigration: yet another area where we're throwing money down a bottomless pit without any hope of ever solving the 'problem'. Also another area where I think legalization is the best route.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

As far as law enforcement reaction to meth, status quo or harder is my preference. Judging from the woman pictured above with 10 mug shots in 10 years, it seems we've already got a penalty somewhere between "harsh criminal punishment" and "free-for-all".

To be fair, this is a much less strident statement than meth should be kept as illegal and criminal as possible, which was the comment I was responding to.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

More public education via meth prevention programs, advertisements, aggressive community action, and reasonable restrictions on the sale of the ingredients...

What am I missing here?

These sound like great ideas that have proven effects... but when did things public education and advertisements become law enforcement solutions?

Maybe you didn't mean them that way, but then I'd still be looking for evidence that law enforcement is effective enough as is to warrant more.

The progression of pictures is, if anything, evidence to me that law enforcement is a dead alley WRT this issue, and the policy that focuses on treatment rather than punishment is the way to go.

[subego]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I somewhat agree with your policy goal there in that it would definitely be for the better to get people off of it, but as you say it's a bit intrusive. I think I would probably lean more towards, as I mentioned before, providing a safe, healthy (inasmuch as you can do meth healthily, anyway) environment for current addicts while working towards preventing the creation of new addicts. Providing help, where requested (or mandated for criminals, perhaps), to get off of the drugs would probably be a good idea, I would tend to think that in an environment less hostile towards drugs and drug users it would be easier for addicts to find and ask for the help they need.

Again, I'm essentially in agreement, especially with your final point.

I would also imagine, that while we share the same philosophical distaste for intrusive policy, we'd be more willing to pull the trigger on it if getting people off the drug was solely a question of getting them off the drug (which can be done with almost 100% effectiveness), rather than dealing with the underlying issues that got them on it in the first place (which is iffy).

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Illegal immigration: yet another area where we're throwing money down a bottomless pit without any hope of ever solving the 'problem'. Also another area where I think legalization is the best route.

Dammit! DAMMIT!

There's nothing more boring than someone I agree with all the time!

[nonhuman]

So sorry to disappoint.

[- - e r i k - -]

This thread inspired this poll. Get voting!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

To be fair, this is a much less strident statement than meth should be kept as illegal and criminal as possible, which was the comment I was responding to.

Status quo or harder. It was later agreed that a person found to be on meth, having been jailed for a crime should kick the habit prior to being released which I thought was some distance from; "people should be free to do whatever they want to themselves." Holding someone in prison until they kick meth addiction can be weeks, months, even years depending on amount of damage. This would generally be "harder" criminal punishment than what currently seems to be somewhere between "harsh" and "free-for-all". i.e. You may have read too much into possible.

What am I missing here?

Nothing at all. No one claimed law enforcement alone was the answer. What spawned the conversation was the surplus of funds from not jailing marijuana users and using them on more serious problems. I maintained that meth programs might be good use of those funds. Interestingly, you asked for ideas, then challenged the only one who has offered any. *to be fair, I guess you didn't ask for mine.

Correction, nonhuman did offer that we should provide meth users a safe place to use it. Everyone knows it's a riot to use meth in front of a bunch of law enforcement personnel dressed in white lab coats with night-sticks and leg clamps in case the party gets a little crazy.

These sound like great ideas that have proven effects... but when did things public education and advertisements become law enforcement solutions?

See above. Non-enforcement in one area may allow for more city funds for other areas. Public education and advertisements cost a lot of money. This requires a level of commitment that might be difficult to sustain without more sensible legislation regarding a "non-problem" such as marijuana. I don't recall the last meth PSA, but I've seen enough marijuana PSAs to make your head spin.

Maybe you didn't mean them that way, but then I'd still be looking for evidence that law enforcement is effective enough as is to warrant more.

You may not accept the evidence I've already provided in the form of usage numbers. This is a combination of factors and I believe law enforcement is an element of the solution. You can't see how a kid gets caught up with meth users, gets jailed and decides the whole scene is not for him? You'd rather abandon the law enforcement piece as failed entirely?

The progression of pictures is, if anything, evidence to me that law enforcement is a dead alley WRT this issue, and the policy that focuses on treatment rather than punishment is the way to go.

Interesting. I saw the progression of pictures as an illustration of how controlling and dangerous the substance is to people.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You may have read too much into possible.

This is possible.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Nothing at all. No one claimed law enforcement alone was the answer. What spawned the conversation was the surplus of funds from not jailing marijuana users and using them on more serious problems. I maintained that meth programs might be good use of those funds. Interestingly, you asked for ideas, then challenged the only one who has offered any. *to be fair, I guess you didn't ask for mine.

I came into the conversation a little late and missed that this tangent was specifically a discussion of what to do with money freed up by legalizing the MJ. Likewise, I really was asking nonhuman for his ideas, as it's sort of creepy how often I agree with him.

FWIW, when nonhuman and myself make a new country, we're inviting you to be in on it. When we say "cabinet of rivals", that's not empty talk.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You may not accept the evidence I've already provided in the form of usage numbers. This is a combination of factors and I believe law enforcement is an element of the solution. You can't see how a kid gets caught up with meth users, gets jailed and decides the whole scene is not for him? You'd rather abandon the law enforcement piece as failed entirely?

Do you mean jail or prison? You said jail, but status quo or harder implies prison.