Decriminalizing Drug Use

[Destroit]

That same trend is going on in mexico right now, that is, essentially we have "prohibition" and their "mafia" (the cartels) are paid by our dollars. There is nothing to buy if we make their product legal here, no one to kill over turf etc. True it wont dry up overnight, and it won't fully go away, but it will be a pale shadow of what it once was.

I might be wrong in this line of reasoning (and in the previous posts) but it seems unlikely to me.

You are completely correct. With no black market...there would be no REASON for the violence. Consumers have the right to choose which places they buy product from.

For instance: I live in Warren right along the border of Detroit. Probably about 85% of my block smokes weed. When it was illegal, you would either have to drive to shady neighborhoods in Detroit to get it (supporting the drug black market) OR buy it off of a dealer from our neighborhood (usually getting yourself ripped off on money and also supporting the black market). The dealer thing was getting out of hand for a minute, they were EVERYWHERE, and every time you spent money at them you know your funds went right into the unsavory activities of the black market through trickle-down. Since they are unprofessional hooligans, they brought fights, the whole "hood" mentality, cops were constantly surveying the area giving us all that Big Brother uneasiness, there was a gun fight in front of my neighbor's house, etc.

Now most everyone on my block is legal medically to smoke, because nearly anyone can be. Everyone is less out to rip people off now. Everyone is happier and seems to have a better overall sense of pride, knowing they aren't going to get their shit raided any second and be made to feel like some giant felon. The drug dealers are ALL gone, except maybe a few who don't want to have to get real jobs. They're getting desperate to the point now where they're just straight LYING about their wares just so they can get a sale. But people still aren't buying it...why buy something off the streets when you can get BETTER for cheaper, legally, safer (you know it wasn't dusted or fucked with), and in a professional store setting?

I don't see the black market being in this neighborhood much longer...that's for DAMN sure.

Store settings also provide more alternatives than just smoking...brownies, cookies, rice crispy treats, COFFEE, tinctures (can be eaten or put on joints/bowl to enhance and help it smoke longer), keef tablets, hash (which used to be impossible to find in MI), you name it. So a varied market to cater to all sorts of people that is regulated, safe, earns us millions of dollars every year, encourages agriculture in Michigan (all hydro you get from these dispensaries are Michigan grown by reputable growers), etc...SOUNDS AWESOME!

Edited July 5, 2011 by Chernobyl

[candyman]

The only problem I have with this is the unconstitutionality of maintaining a standing army on U.S. soil. Substitute "military" with "civil authorities" abiding by Constitutional law, and I'll support it. I hope I'm not missing your point.

Well my Unit is going to be on Civil Defense this year...which is a very misleading name because our unit doesn't fight we just help to coordinate efforts. If something were to happen down there the current units there could call for our help.

We already have US soldiers along the border. All we need is a big incident to spark the need for more troops. Hell, our boys are getting shot at on a regular basis but with the ROE we can't really shoot back...although the incoming fire is still really a joke at this point. The Coast Guard was doing its job well...if military units were created for the specific purpose of hunting down operations I would think that the rate of success would be higher. It is working for our allies so why don't we do it? Hell, the last foreign soldiers I talked to have a tradition of bringing back heads or ears and their own people support it because the see the drug people as evil...we wouldn't go that far although an ear necklace would be interesting.

Most of the major drug trafficking and production is in allied countries or in ones that they control...many are already working on this on a small scale but I think it would be great to crack down and have a widespread effort so they would have nowhere to run to. And I would even go so far as to say that with much of the black market industry wiped out that is would provide a good base to start over and develop new policy.

To tell the truth though I just want an excuse to shoot a few drug dealers at home right in the head...and kill a few other more slowly. I have met them and I know what they have done and when you hurt kids you do not deserve to live.

[Simon Bar Sinister]

I hope you're not going into law enforcement when your hitch is up.

[Class-Punk]

I've never been in favor of having absolutely no restrictions on drug use, but I do think that decriminalization, ending the ridiculous restrictions on the lives of responsible adults, has to happen if we are to have the kind of free and open society intended by this nation's founders.

This + Prostitution. I always clump those two black-markets together, whose harm we support by keeping illegal.

[candyman]

I hope you're not going into law enforcement when your hitch is up.

Oh I wouldn't act on my own...just a suggestion...but I would really love to turn a meth lab into swiss cheese considering those people are not very likely to change their ways...

And no I would be off to make cars "illegal" which is another issue that people seem to forget when talking about stupid laws...

[Troy Spiral (13)]

The other night, my fiance told me that he had just found out that it was illegal to ride a bicycle while drunk. He told me how stupid he thought that law was, reasoning that the only person you could be endangering while riding bike intoxicated is yourself, right? I asked him "What about people who would ride their bike under the influence with their baby strapped in a seat on the back, or what about someone who drunkenly rides their bike into the path of an oncoming car, and that car swerves to miss the person on the bike in the middle of the road and loses control of their vehicle, veers off the road, hits and tree, and injures/kills everyone inside the car?" He said "Oh..." I think the same logic applies to use of drugs. While, in the simplest sense of the concept, a person using drugs is not hurting anyone but themselves, depending on how they react to those drugs, and what they do while under the influence, they could potentially endanger LOTS of innocent people. And most people don't think about those complications.

That said, I don't have an issue with adults doing drugs, that they paid for out of pocket, in the privacy of their own homes, or the homes of someone else who is okay with it. I actually kind of think of that as Darwinism at work. I do, however have an issue with people doing drugs in public places, doing drugs and driving a car, or going to work, doing drugs that they paid for with money from government assistance, selling drugs to minors...just to name a few, because they are putting a lot of people at risk. I am not 100% against decriminalizing at least some drugs, but until someone comes up with detailed legislature addressing all the restrictions that we currently have on cigarettes and alcohol and planning to apply them to drugs, I am certainly not for it.

Though on the other hand, I do think that there are better things that we could be doing with the majority of the money and manpower that is spent on things like drug raids.

A lot of laws I think are "extraneous" in the sense that there are already laws against lets say "reckless endangerment" or "unsafe driving" some laws just seem redundant and/or do not allow judges to take the circumstances into account enough.

[LadyKay]

Yeah overweight/obesity is far bigger "real" problem than drug use. It was actually declared a national epidemic in 99/2000 and childhood obesity an epidemic this year. (Both of which we really have made no headway on, nor does the public see to give much of a shit.)

The thing is is that "innocent" bystanders are not getting killed by someone needed their fat fix. I don't have much to say about this expect that I think drug abuse brings with it its own punishment. No one hooked on drugs is living a happy life. And in the end they most likely end up dead by their own doing.

[Raev]

I'm reminded of this.

[Destroit]

Oh I wouldn't act on my own...just a suggestion...but I would really love to turn a meth lab into swiss cheese considering those people are not very likely to change their ways...

And no I would be off to make cars "illegal" which is another issue that people seem to forget when talking about stupid laws...

Meth doesn't count on my list of substances that should be legal, because it is nearly impossible for meth to be either carried or manufactured without causing harm to others.

The nightmare of a meth lab extends to the neighbors, who may inadvertently become addicted (and there is very little chance of recovery) or be exposed to carcinogenic brain-damaging chemicals.

I was exposed to powdered meth last December from an ex friend who I let get in the car, without realizing he had a new habit. I knew something was "off" about him, and then when I figured it out it was already too late, the shit was wafting through the air. I knew he had it on him...why? Because I started getting lit off of it while I was in the FRONT seat . Then I turn around the the asshole is snorting it off of paper like "it's okay, I do this all the time". Not wanting him to go into a rage, as people on meth are aggressive and delusional, I was like "Okay, well keep it down", swung back around, and dropped him off where I picked him up, leading him to believe we were in Warren (when we were really in Royal Oak, so you can tell how delusional the stuff makes you when you are able to confuse Downtown Royal Oak with 9 Mile and Van Dyke ). And I'm STILL nervous now about my future...obviously I didn't get addicted to it, I figured that wasn't so likely even though it's very possible. I'm worried now about getting creepy cancer when I'm older because of it.

Meth = tha debilz

There is no safe way to possess or manufacture the substance, and so therefore it cannot logically be allowed.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Chernobyl

[torn asunder]

the whole "threat to others/driving under the influence" thing should have no bearing on nthis discussion, imo, because people are already doing it. I don't just mean alcohol, or pot, etc, but anti-anxiety meds, anti-depression meds, uppers (add meds, for example), downers (valium, etc)...

these are all things with warnings on that say "know how this medication affects you before operating a motor vehicle or heavy machinery". if it's good enough for them, why not for coke, or pot, or what-have-you? everyone's metabolism and chemistry is different, so put the onus on the individual to monitor themselves (as it is with current prescription meds) and let people have a choice about what they want to do.

the combination of reclaiming the funding for the ads/promo stuff for the "war on drugs", combined with the hefty taxes one could assign a recreational drug of this nature would go a long way to solving a lot of budget woes.

again, just my opinion...

[Troy Spiral (13)]

The thing is is that "innocent" bystanders are not getting killed by someone needed their fat fix. I don't have much to say about this expect that I think drug abuse brings with it its own punishment. No one hooked on drugs is living a happy life. And in the end they most likely end up dead by their own doing.

I guess I'm not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that both are similar, one just doesn't get the press that the other does.

Hypothetically the idea of laws is to stop harmful behavior, drug use (generally) is described in the same manner, that "I'm just taking this for ME , its only harming ME." The argument is made that the mental/ psychical health (depression / anxiety caused by obesity can cause harmful behaviors, not just to ones self) costs of both obesity and drug use are passed on to others, and being broke/poor/parent less due to mom & dad dying of heart attacks 20 years earlier than they should have (or a cocaine overdose) affects others one way or another.

Not that I'm saying eating a cheeseburger should be criminalized, not at all, just trying to point out that both acts are harmful to others (potentially), even though we don't LIKE that realization, it doesn't make it any less true. Even just me myself with no parents/kids to worry about having to go to the hospital one too many times causes a financial burden on society (one way or another), and the (possible) psychological effects of both drug use and obesity could cause borderline personalities to get worse and do more harm than they might otherwise.

It comes down to a balancing act between personal freedom vs public safety taking into account the REAL effects, not just what we assume to be true and where we fall on that scale of understanding the real issue(s) then once we do (that's a big leap there), were we stand on public safety vs personal freedom.

None of the above is an argument for or against drug use or how to properly "deal" with it, that is just a problem of defining what IS a problem. The whole thing is a lot more complex than people like to think, unfortunately. I wish it wasn't.