US & World Drug Policies

[What Exit?]

Has the criminalization of Drugs been a bad idea?
Is there a better way to enforce the laws?
Should they decriminalize some drug usage?
Should they legalize and tax some or all drugs?
Can you support your position?

I'm going to sound Libertarian/Fiscal Conservative in my views.

This is not an area the government needs to interfere with and it has ruined far more young lives prosecuting drug use and trafficking than the drugs themselves have. Fiscally we waste a huge amount of money annually on drug enforcement and imprisoning those convicted. Instead we could legalize and tax drugs the way we tax cigarettes and liquor. This would be a huge boost in money as we stop wasting money is a “war” we are not winning and pull in a huge new revenue resource that I think we could use for education and rehab and still have plenty left over for other areas. I would hope more medical care.

It would also lead to the decrease in gangs and related violence. It would go further and remove the cash from those destroying Mexico and other Latin American countries. It would also remove one of the two primary funding sources for terrorism, particularly in Afghanistan. Legalizing drugs would make for a better world in my opinion.

What say yee?
Jim

[Giles]

The War on Drugs has been like Prohibition -- but worse in many ways, including the international effects on countries like Colombia and Afghanistan. Legalising drugs, and taxing them like alcohol and tobacco are taxed, would be the best solution.

[ivan astikov]

If I thought the authorities actually gave a crap about the health of drug addicts, I might appreciate their efforts at prohibition, but all they are doing is damage control, because they haven't got the balls or the imagination to change tack. IMO.

[What Exit?]

The War on Drugs has been like Prohibition -- but worse in many ways, including the international effects on countries like Colombia and Afghanistan. Legalising drugs, and taxing them like alcohol and tobacco are taxed, would be the best solution.

We seem to agree across the board.

If I thought the authorities actually gave a crap about the health of drug addicts, I might appreciate their efforts at prohibition, but all they are doing is damage control, because they haven't got the balls or the imagination to change tack. IMO.

Could you expand, what kind of tack should they take?

How is England doing it these days, I though they relax many of the laws or at least enforcement in the 90s. Is that true? Did it change?

[vison]

No argument from here, What Exit.

But I doubt that any of these sensible things are going to happen real soon.

[ivan astikov]

Could you expand, what kind of tack should they take?

I'd like to see them attempt to commercialise pot use, a la Amsterdam, at least.

How is England doing it these days, I though they relax many of the laws or at least enforcement in the 90s. Is that true? Did it change?

Although even the likes of my dad do not see cannabis as a major problem, and people from all walks of life use it, it has just been upped in classification in an attempt to clamp down on "dangerous skunk" strains. I'd like to see a bit more research into how dangerous it is, because in my experience, all it makes me want to do is crash out to Tangerine Dream.

[What Exit?]

I picked a good day to start this: Obama nominated Seattle police chief Gil Kerlikowske to be the "drug policy director" or Drug Czar. The position was demoted from the cabinet level hopefully signaling the end of the foolish rhetoric "War on Drugs"

Kerlikowske’s stepson was actually in trouble with the law for drug problems.

[Dragon]

Just so the happy drivers, hopped up drivers, drunk drivers, teen drivers, old drivers, reckless drivers, drivers without helmets, without 5 point harness, drivers with three 50% of fault accidents are on the improved end of the improved detection and improved punishment enabled by the increase in funds it provides.... YMMV

[Chimera]

To me it all comes down to the very Human power to delude ourselves.

We have a problem, we only look at the surface of it.
We make a law.
We believe that since we've outlawed something, the problem will stop.
The problem gets worse due to unintended consequences of the law.
We make harsher laws.
Things get worse.
We throw away our freedoms because it is now a full blown "crisis" and it can only be resolved by still harsher laws.

We never solve the real problem.
Which wasn't what the law was about.
The "problem" was only a symptom of something else.

[danceswithcats]

Can't say I disagree with any points made. The gummint would be better off with tax revenue from legal sales than continuing to pour money into interdiction, prosecution, and incarceration, considering it's a 'war' which cannot be won.

[jali]

I agree with the sentiments here.

Those who have invested in the privatization of our prisons are the ones who profit the most in this alleged war on drugs. Arresting he lowest level drug guys on the street makes the least impact on drugs in America, but since they serve to fill these for-profit prisons, with the double bonus of padding conviction records, I don't see any changes in the near future.

I don't smoke weed, not because I'm a good kid, but because I get paranoid and it's not worth it to me. I stopped once I got to college since it didn't make sense, but I've signed petitions for the legalization of marijuana since I don't see anything wrong with weed.

Most legal prescription drugs have a laundry list of side effects. The side effects I've seen with weed: the munchies.

[Alien Crouton]

Disclaimer: whee, I'm drunk!

1) Has the criminalization of Drugs been a bad idea?
Almost certainly the criminalization of SOME drugs has been a bad idea.

2) Is there a better way to enforce the laws?
Undoubtedly. Incarcerating users does nothing. If you're going to prohibit drugs, then you need to provide treatement and go after dealers.

3) Should they decriminalize some drug usage?
I see no harm in fully decriminalizing pot and psychedelics. Doctors should be free to prescribe heroin as a painkiller and addiction maintenance drug. OTOH... cocaine and meth... I've taken these, and seen the effects on people who are addicted to it... I can't see that access to these drugs helps any person, and it is damaging to society as a whole.

4) Should they legalize and tax some or all drugs?
I always chafe a bit when I hear someone who wants to sound progressive saying "Legalize it... and tax it!" How about legalize it, and don't tax it? If some substance like tobacco creates a public health burden, yes, legalize it. But don't just legalize it under the premise that anything that isn't mandatory is taxable. Fuck that.

5) Can you support your position?
I don't believe I need to support the position that law-abiding adults in a free society should enjoy unfettered cognitive liberty, which includes the power to choose and control their own cognitive state. Tell me why we shouldn't have this right.

[What Exit?]

4) Should they legalize and tax some or all drugs?
I always chafe a bit when I hear someone who wants to sound progressive saying "Legalize it... and tax it!" How about legalize it, and don't tax it? If some substance like tobacco creates a public health burden, yes, legalize it. But don't just legalize it under the premise that anything that isn't mandatory is taxable. Fuck that.

How do you feel about a non-progressive that hates to restrict rights in cases like this but likes finding an easy revenue source?
What is wrong with taxes, it would pay for rehab and hopefully other programs.

[Alien Crouton]

[quote=What Exit?]

4) Should they legalize and tax some or all drugs?
I always chafe a bit when I hear someone who wants to sound progressive saying "Legalize it... and tax it!" How about legalize it, and don't tax it? If some substance like tobacco creates a public health burden, yes, legalize it. But don't just legalize it under the premise that anything that isn't mandatory is taxable. Fuck that.

How do you feel about a non-progressive that hates to restrict rights in cases like this but likes finding an easy revenue source?
What is wrong with taxes, it would pay for rehab and hopefully other programs.[/quote:39irdvc3]
I could live with taxes on drugs that create a very obvious public health burden (i.e. coke, meth, alcohol, possibly heroin). On drugs that aren't a public health threat, no. Why should society tax pot if pot doesn't tax society?

[What Exit?]

[quote=Alien Crouton][quote="What Exit?":vbf8c9dp]

4) Should they legalize and tax some or all drugs?
I always chafe a bit when I hear someone who wants to sound progressive saying "Legalize it... and tax it!" How about legalize it, and don't tax it? If some substance like tobacco creates a public health burden, yes, legalize it. But don't just legalize it under the premise that anything that isn't mandatory is taxable. Fuck that.

How do you feel about a non-progressive that hates to restrict rights in cases like this but likes finding an easy revenue source?
What is wrong with taxes, it would pay for rehab and hopefully other programs.[/quote:vbf8c9dp]
I could live with taxes on drugs that create a very obvious public health burden (i.e. coke, meth, alcohol, possibly heroin). On drugs that aren't a public health threat, no. Why should society tax pot if pot doesn't tax society?[/quote:vbf8c9dp]
Mainly because it is one of the easiest ways to sell legalization of pot. Secondly as we need taxes, if pot was legal it could be grown cheaply in the US and even with taxes would end up cheaper than what people pay now. Finally, we already have a long established tradition of taxing such luxury type items and 'sin' type items.

[Alien Crouton]

How do you feel about a non-progressive that hates to restrict rights in cases like this but likes finding an easy revenue source?
What is wrong with taxes, it would pay for rehab and hopefully other programs.

I could live with taxes on drugs that create a very obvious public health burden (i.e. coke, meth, alcohol, possibly heroin). On drugs that aren't a public health threat, no. Why should society tax pot if pot doesn't tax society?[/quote]
Mainly because it is one of the easiest ways to sell legalization of pot. Secondly as we need taxes, if pot was legal it could be grown cheaply in the US and even with taxes would end up cheaper than what people pay now. Finally, we already have a long established tradition of taxing such luxury type items and 'sin' type items.[/quote]
Your arguments boil down to:
(a) It's easy
(b) We've always done it that way
(c) People would pay it because it would be cheaper than the alternative.

I don't agree that these are ever valid reasons for any tax. I also don't see how a pot tax would provide returns like other taxes do. Growing pot is incredibly easy compared to moonshining. Most consumers could produce an amount sufficient for personal use even if all they have is a closet. And I don't want the DEA doing regular closet checks to make sure people don't have more than one plant. Philip Morris might have a mass grow operation for the few people who can't grow their own smoke, but I don't see that number being enough to add up to any significant tax revenue. Well, that tiny revenue might pay for the tiny amount of people who require hospitalizaiton for pot, I guess.

[OtakuLoki]

How do you feel about a non-progressive that hates to restrict rights in cases like this but likes finding an easy revenue source?
What is wrong with taxes, it would pay for rehab and hopefully other programs.

The problem I have is that no matter the promises, sin taxes eventually end up going to the general fund, and not being earmarked for specific purposes:

Legalized lotteries were supposed to go to fund education. And now we cut general funding of education because of the monies from the lottery. End result: Legislatures have more money for their pet projects. Gambling addiction funding has been slim, nothing like what was promised, and the programs funded are nearly impossible for addicts to find.

Tobacco sin taxes were supposed to have the purpose of reducing tobacco use. Now the state is going on and on about how it's unfair for those smokers to stop smoking, because they were counting on that money to keep the budget balanced. Even though they keep jumping the tax up by huge amounts.

Tobacco settlement monies were sold as paying back local gov't for health care costs - but were used for damned near anything else. Governments used the bonus monies from that glut period to establish programs, policies and projects they can't sustain without that glut.

In short, if you want to tax various things, go ahead - but don't sell the tax as doing any more than going to the general fund. Because that's where it will end up. There will never be a dedicated, targeted tax that doesn't end up in the general funding.

[tirial]

I'd agree with you partly - make it legal, tax it to cover the costs of irresponsible users, and then make offenses commited under the influence be punished a lot more severely than otherwise - e.g. getting so drunk/stoned that you are out of control enough to commit a crime is an offense in its own right. Getting someone else into that condition should also be a crime. My main reason for supporting legalisation is hospice and long term sick care, where some of the most effective painkillers are illegal. If the government made it legal to own and use for medical reasons I probably would not support further legalisation.

Regarding tax since the long term effects of several of these drugs aren't known, research into them would be needed and that takes government money, so extra tax revenue is needed. Why should everyone else pay it when the users who will benefit can be taxed at source?

[What Exit?]

I don't agree that these are ever valid reasons for any tax. I also don't see how a pot tax would provide returns like other taxes do. Growing pot is incredibly easy compared to moonshining. Most consumers could produce an amount sufficient for personal use even if all they have is a closet. And I don't want the DEA doing regular closet checks to make sure people don't have more than one plant. Philip Morris might have a mass grow operation for the few people who can't grow their own smoke, but I don't see that number being enough to add up to any significant tax revenue. Well, that tiny revenue might pay for the tiny amount of people who require hospitalizaiton for pot, I guess.

Damn good point. Many people would grow their own. But I think there would be a fair market for better stuff that would be sold retail and could be taxed. I think that adds to the appeal. Grow your own in your garden or buy potentially better or at least easier commercial product. I think you would be surprised by the numbers that would not grow their own.

The problem I have is that no matter the promises, sin taxes eventually end up going to the general fund, and not being earmarked for specific purposes:

Legalized lotteries were supposed to go to fund education. And now we cut general funding of education because of the monies from the lottery. End result: Legislatures have more money for their pet projects. Gambling addiction funding has been slim, nothing like what was promised, and the programs funded are nearly impossible for addicts to find.
...
In short, if you want to tax various things, go ahead - but don't sell the tax as doing any more than going to the general fund. Because that's where it will end up. There will never be a dedicated, targeted tax that doesn't end up in the general funding.

Good point, keep it honest and just admit the taxes will help the general fund.

[danceswithcats]

The problem I have is that no matter the promises, sin taxes eventually end up going to the general fund, and not being earmarked for specific purposes:

Legalized lotteries were supposed to go to fund education. And now we cut general funding of education because of the monies from the lottery. End result: Legislatures have more money for their pet projects. Gambling addiction funding has been slim, nothing like what was promised, and the programs funded are nearly impossible for addicts to find.
...
In short, if you want to tax various things, go ahead - but don't sell the tax as doing any more than going to the general fund. Because that's where it will end up. There will never be a dedicated, targeted tax that doesn't end up in the general funding.

Good point, keep it honest and just admit the taxes will help the general fund.

Politicians being honest? That's harder to find, the higher up the food chain one ventures.

[ivan astikov]

Damn good point. Many people would grow their own. But I think there would be a fair market for better stuff that would be sold retail and could be taxed. I think that adds to the appeal. Grow your own in your garden or buy potentially better or at least easier commercial product. I think you would be surprised by the numbers that would not grow their own.

I agree, and reckon that the majority of people wouldn't have the patience to "grow their own". How much more difficult is it to brew your own beer or wine, but the option never seemed to dent the public's demand for an instant supply of the stuff?

[The Original An Gadaí]

Head Shops here are coming under fire from parents, shit-stirrers as they sell legal alternatives to popular recreational drugs such as ecstasy and cocaine. In recent weeks, due to a number of reasons, partially bad press, Head Shops in the Republic and Northern Ireland have come under fire. In Derry City, the proprietor of one of these stores was shot, although he survived. In Dublin, in the past week, two Head Shops have been burnt down. There have been two confirmed fatalities related to the use of Head Shop wares in this country. In one instance, a guy ate magic mushrooms and committed suicide, leading to their sale being banned. The issue of alcohol's place in many suicides was not really discussed at the time. In recent months Head Shops have been apparently very, very, popular, to the point where they are taking business away from illegal vendors. It is looking increasingly likely that Head Shops will be curtailed. Ill-informed scaremongery has impugned on the right of individuals to run legal, legitimate businesses. The revenue of these outfits is of course taxed, so even on that basis, they are better than their illegal alternative.

[What Exit?]

Head shops were usually fun and interesting places. but they disappeared here long ago. It wasn't smart when they were closed down here and I think it would be dumb for them to close them in Ireland.

[The Original An Gadaí]

But did head shops there typically carry legal highs? AFAIK they only started selling actual chemicals in recent years. Before that, they mainly sold Ché Guevara lighters and bongs.

[What Exit?]

The old shops did not legally sell much but papers, bongs, lighters and etc. Though often they had a back room for other purchases from one of the employees. They were often combined with record or book shops. Posters and stuff were very common. I don't remember if they even had whippits (Nitrous Oxide).