Legalizing All Drugs

[skepticalbip]

Some cities have may have jobs, but the cost of housing is too high for the people who want to work and live there but cannot afford to. Other cities may have reasonable or even cheap housing but little or no prospect of them getting work. A catch 22 situation for many of those in a low to medium income bracket.

Indeed. But the meth heads, junkies and chronically homeless are incapable of keeping a job and most of them don't want a job anyway.

There are reasons why there are so many turning to drugs. Perhaps it may be a sense of hopelessness related to a perception of lack of opportunities, high cost of housing, etc, that drives drug addiction in the first instance. People are not generally born drug addicts and dropouts. There must be some sort of failure in the system to produce this a degree of social problems.

The main reason that I have seen for people taking drugs is not because of societal problems but because they enjoy the high. And yes, I know quiet a few people with a job, home, and family that enjoy drugs.

 

[DBT]

There are reasons why there are so many turning to drugs. Perhaps it may be a sense of hopelessness related to a perception of lack of opportunities, high cost of housing, etc, that drives drug addiction in the first instance. People are not generally born drug addicts and dropouts. There must be some sort of failure in the system to produce this a degree of social problems.

The main reason that I have seen for people taking drugs is not because of societal problems but because they enjoy the high. And yes, I know quiet a few people with a job, home, and family that enjoy drugs.

It's the point where 'enjoying the high' exceeds the capacity to make rational choices and function 'normally' in society that drug use becomes a problem for both the individual and society.

 

[skepticalbip]

There are reasons why there are so many turning to drugs. Perhaps it may be a sense of hopelessness related to a perception of lack of opportunities, high cost of housing, etc, that drives drug addiction in the first instance. People are not generally born drug addicts and dropouts. There must be some sort of failure in the system to produce this a degree of social problems.

The main reason that I have seen for people taking drugs is not because of societal problems but because they enjoy the high. And yes, I know quiet a few people with a job, home, and family that enjoy drugs.

It's the point where 'enjoying the high' exceeds the capacity to make rational choices and function 'normally' in society that drug use becomes a problem for both the individual and society.

You have shifted from societal problems causing people to take drugs to people taking drugs causing societal problems. I will agree with the second part. The first part is where I disagree.

 

[DBT]

It's the point where 'enjoying the high' exceeds the capacity to make rational choices and function 'normally' in society that drug use becomes a problem for both the individual and society.

You have shifted from societal problems causing people to take drugs to taking drugs causing societal problems. I will agree with the second part. The first part is where I disagree.

Shifted? How are the two elements separate? People are effected by the society in which they live, and contribute to it by the way they respond and cope. The way an individual responds depends on numerous factors, socioeconomic status, life experiences, genetics.....

 

[skepticalbip]

It's the point where 'enjoying the high' exceeds the capacity to make rational choices and function 'normally' in society that drug use becomes a problem for both the individual and society.

You have shifted from societal problems causing people to take drugs to taking drugs causing societal problems. I will agree with the second part. The first part is where I disagree.

Shifted? How are the two elements separate? People are effected by the society in which they live, and contribute to it by the way they respond and cope. The way an individual responds depends on numerous factors, socioeconomic status, life experiences, genetics.....

The elements are separate because one is cause and the other is effect. In the first case you had cause and effect reversed.

 

[DBT]

Shifted? How are the two elements separate? People are effected by the society in which they live, and contribute to it by the way they respond and cope. The way an individual responds depends on numerous factors, socioeconomic status, life experiences, genetics.....

The elements are separate because one is cause and the other is effect. In the first case you had cause and effect reversed.

You choose a starting point based on your assumption of what you think I meant.....which was not actually what I meant.

 

[bilby]

Mayor Pete said during his campaign he wanted to legalize all drugs.


Legal or otherwise society as a whole is harmed by drugs.

Indeed.

Legalize it and from what I know medical costs will rise.

Quite the reverse. Wherever any prohibited drug has been legalized, this has led to a reduction in associated medical costs. That's true of pot in Amsterdam, Heroin in Portugal, and Alcohol in the USA.

We see it with oxy. Legal as all hell, prescribed by doctors.

And with alcohol and tobacco. Legal as hell, available at a wide range of retail outlets. Causes massive social harm, only outweighed by the even greater harm that arises when prohibition is imposed, with the resultant black markets, gang enforcement of contracts (because you can't ring the cops and complain if you get stiffed in a drug deal), and exposure of otherwise law abiding citizens to the criminal classes.

Pot has been legal in Seattle functionally for a long time and heroin has essentially been decriminalized.

Nether of these things is in fact true.

I was walking through a park a block away and passed a young man in his early 20s shooting.

That's terrible. Have you seen any drunks in your parks?

Along with wine and cheap liquor pot has been added to people hanging out on the streets. It is everywhere. You can not walk around downtown Seattle without smelling it.

And yet, the smell is harmless. If we outlawed everything that annoys grumpy old men, everything would be illegal - including your OP.

The next 50-100 years will see how it all plays out.

Having lived through the 60s 70s I had the idea hat it was purely personal choice. Not any more.

Your aging is nobody's problem but your own.

Our first opioid epidemic was in the 19th century. Opium was a traded commodity and was available over the counter in several forms. Opium dens where one could go, pay a fee, rrelax, and smoke opium.

Indeed. And prohibition has done nothing to mitigate any of its harms, nor to significantly reduce its availability, or its popularity.

Making things illegal generally doesn't stop people from doing them, nor from wanting to do them. When the harms chiefly befall the person who chooses the harmful behaviour, it is almost invariably better to make the facts available to the vulnerable, and to provide assistance for those who wish to kick the habit, rather than to criminalize their behaviour, and push them into routine lawbreaking.

The abolishing of prohibition - whether of alcohol or of any other drug - cuts organized crime off at the knees, improves public safety and public health, and is generally good for society. Only a blind fool could imagine that making (or keeping) a drug illegal would reduce its popularity - particularly when the history of American organized crime so amply demonstrates the pernicious effect of prohibition on society, whether the ban is on alcohol, cocaine, heroin, or any other addictive substances.

 

[fromderinside]

Reminds me of the bit in Bad Bad Leroy Brown which reads

Well the two men took to fighting
And when they pulled them off the floor
Leroy looked like a jigsaw puzzle
With a couple of pieces gone

Similar to why Don't mess around with Jim wound up Don't mess around with Slim ....

 

[Tigers!]

Indeed.

Quite the reverse. Wherever any prohibited drug has been legalized, this has led to a reduction in associated medical costs. That's true of pot in Amsterdam, Heroin in Portugal, and Alcohol in the USA.

We see it with oxy. Legal as all hell, prescribed by doctors.

And with alcohol and tobacco. Legal as hell, available at a wide range of retail outlets. Causes massive social harm, only outweighed by the even greater harm that arises when prohibition is imposed, with the resultant black markets, gang enforcement of contracts (because you can't ring the cops and complain if you get stiffed in a drug deal), and exposure of otherwise law abiding citizens to the criminal classes.

Pot has been legal in Seattle functionally for a long time and heroin has essentially been decriminalized.

Nether of these things is in fact true.

I was walking through a park a block away and passed a young man in his early 20s shooting.

That's terrible. Have you seen any drunks in your parks?

Along with wine and cheap liquor pot has been added to people hanging out on the streets. It is everywhere. You can not walk around downtown Seattle without smelling it.

And yet, the smell is harmless. If we outlawed everything that annoys grumpy old men, everything would be illegal - including your OP.

The next 50-100 years will see how it all plays out.

Having lived through the 60s 70s I had the idea hat it was purely personal choice. Not any more.

Your aging is nobody's problem but your own.

Our first opioid epidemic was in the 19th century. Opium was a traded commodity and was available over the counter in several forms. Opium dens where one could go, pay a fee, rrelax, and smoke opium.

Indeed. And prohibition has done nothing to mitigate any of its harms, nor to significantly reduce its availability, or its popularity.

Making things illegal generally doesn't stop people from doing them, nor from wanting to do them. When the harms chiefly befall the person who chooses the harmful behaviour, it is almost invariably better to make the facts available to the vulnerable, and to provide assistance for those who wish to kick the habit, rather than to criminalize their behaviour, and push them into routine lawbreaking.

The abolishing of prohibition - whether of alcohol or of any other drug - cuts organized crime off at the knees, improves public safety and public health, and is generally good for society. Only a blind fool could imagine that making (or keeping) a drug illegal would reduce its popularity - particularly when the history of American organized crime so amply demonstrates the pernicious effect of prohibition on society, whether the ban is on alcohol, cocaine, heroin, or any other addictive substances.

And I wonder why in Australia we seem to be heading towards prohibition of tobacco.

(And yes I am not a smoker but I like a smoko as much as the next fellow)

 

[TSwizzle]

There are reasons why there are so many turning to drugs. Perhaps it may be a sense of hopelessness related to a perception of lack of opportunities, high cost of housing, etc, that drives drug addiction in the first instance.

Perhaps it is an abundance of relatively cheap drugs coupled with a complete lack of law enforcement. But that is neither here nor there. There are masses of people camping on the sidewalk and under freeway bridges etc that need to be moved off the street. Immediately. The problem has been allowed to escalate and is out of control.

 

[bigfield]

And I wonder why in Australia we seem to be heading towards prohibition of tobacco.

I think that we're heading towards prohibition of smoking tobacco in public, rather than prohibition on tobacco altogether. Or put another way, we're heading towards a ban on emitting carcinogenic fumes in public spaces where other people have to breathe.

On the other hand, the plain packaging laws and the taxes are a bit much. I don't care if adults want to use tobacco, so long as they do so without polluting my lungs.

 

[Jarhyn]

And I wonder why in Australia we seem to be heading towards prohibition of tobacco.

I think that we're heading towards prohibition of smoking tobacco in public, rather than prohibition on tobacco altogether. Or put another way, we're heading towards a ban on emitting carcinogenic fumes in public spaces where other people have to breathe.

On the other hand, the plain packaging laws and the taxes are a bit much. I don't care if adults want to use tobacco, so long as they do so without polluting my lungs.

Well, It's to combat the misinformation campaign of the tobacco companies. I am sure the idea is to artificially increase the price of cigarettes high enough that they are burdensome but not quite so high as to drive a large untaxed cigarette black market.

I want adults using tobacco to only do so if they have made informed consent, and I want as few to avoid that as possible. Same with opioids or hard stimulants really.

 

[bilby]

And I wonder why in Australia we seem to be heading towards prohibition of tobacco.

I think that we're heading towards prohibition of smoking tobacco in public, rather than prohibition on tobacco altogether. Or put another way, we're heading towards a ban on emitting carcinogenic fumes in public spaces where other people have to breathe.

On the other hand, the plain packaging laws and the taxes are a bit much. I don't care if adults want to use tobacco, so long as they do so without polluting my lungs.

Well, It's to combat the misinformation campaign of the tobacco companies. I am sure the idea is to artificially increase the price of cigarettes high enough that they are burdensome but not quite so high as to drive a large untaxed cigarette black market.

I want adults using tobacco to only do so if they have made informed consent, and I want as few to avoid that as possible. Same with opioids or hard stimulants really.

I agree with plain packaging rules, for the reasons you give - a choice to smoke shouldn't be made on the basis of attractive packaging (and for the same reason, advertising of cigarettes should also continue to be banned).

I disagree with taxing of addictive drugs (including tobacco) to the point where the tax is burdensome on addicts, however; Such burdens always harm society, whether it is by the formation of a black market, or the driving of addicts to crime, or merely encouraging addicts to neglect their families (for example by choosing to buy cigarettes rather than good food or new clothes for their kids).

If addiction were not concentrated amongst the poorest people, I might take a different view, but it is, so I don't. Smoking isn't so harmful as to justify punishing smokers financially - particularly if they are already struggling to make ends meet.

 

[Jarhyn]

Well, It's to combat the misinformation campaign of the tobacco companies. I am sure the idea is to artificially increase the price of cigarettes high enough that they are burdensome but not quite so high as to drive a large untaxed cigarette black market.

I want adults using tobacco to only do so if they have made informed consent, and I want as few to avoid that as possible. Same with opioids or hard stimulants really.

I agree with plain packaging rules, for the reasons you give - a choice to smoke shouldn't be made on the basis of attractive packaging (and for the same reason, advertising of cigarettes should also continue to be banned).

I disagree with taxing of addictive drugs (including tobacco) to the point where the tax is burdensome on addicts, however; Such burdens always harm society, whether it is by the formation of a black market, or the driving of addicts to crime, or merely encouraging addicts to neglect their families (for example by choosing to buy cigarettes rather than good food or new clothes for their kids).

If addiction were not concentrated amongst the poorest people, I might take a different view, but it is, so I don't. Smoking isn't so harmful as to justify punishing smokers financially - particularly if they are already struggling to make ends meet.

The burden isn't intended to be targeted at addicts. It's targeted at all the people who do not at this time use tobacco, to say "do you really want to waste this much money on this, over your life?" It's not specifically to hurt addicts, but to prevent them from coming into existence in the first place

 

[J842P]

Well, It's to combat the misinformation campaign of the tobacco companies. I am sure the idea is to artificially increase the price of cigarettes high enough that they are burdensome but not quite so high as to drive a large untaxed cigarette black market.

I want adults using tobacco to only do so if they have made informed consent, and I want as few to avoid that as possible. Same with opioids or hard stimulants really.

I agree with plain packaging rules, for the reasons you give - a choice to smoke shouldn't be made on the basis of attractive packaging (and for the same reason, advertising of cigarettes should also continue to be banned).

I disagree with taxing of addictive drugs (including tobacco) to the point where the tax is burdensome on addicts, however; Such burdens always harm society, whether it is by the formation of a black market, or the driving of addicts to crime, or merely encouraging addicts to neglect their families (for example by choosing to buy cigarettes rather than good food or new clothes for their kids).

If addiction were not concentrated amongst the poorest people, I might take a different view, but it is, so I don't. Smoking isn't so harmful as to justify punishing smokers financially - particularly if they are already struggling to make ends meet.

The burden isn't intended to be targeted at addicts. It's targeted at all the people who do not at this time use tobacco, to say "do you really want to waste this much money on this, over your life?" It's not specifically to hurt addicts, but to prevent them from coming into existence in the first place

I doubt that is very effective at all. I mean, I just don't think there is a good sweet spot where you are measurably preventing people from becoming addicted in the first place without severely punishing those already addicted.

It's an empirical question though.

 

[rousseau]

The burden isn't intended to be targeted at addicts. It's targeted at all the people who do not at this time use tobacco, to say "do you really want to waste this much money on this, over your life?" It's not specifically to hurt addicts, but to prevent them from coming into existence in the first place

I doubt that is very effective at all. I mean, I just don't think there is a good sweet spot where you are measurably preventing people from becoming addicted in the first place without severely punishing those already addicted.

It's an empirical question though.

My guess is that most people become smokers long before they'd ever consider rationalizing whether to start the habit. Smoking isn't something that people decide to do, it's something they just end up doing before realizing they can't stop anymore. IOW, smokers don't tend to appreciate the addictive qualities of tobacco until they're addicted.

People who are already informed enough about smoking, and who don't want to smoke, likely don't need any further deterrent from doing so. And so as Bilby mentions, all the high price really does is punish addicts, and maybe, sometimes force them to quit.

 

[bilby]

Well, It's to combat the misinformation campaign of the tobacco companies. I am sure the idea is to artificially increase the price of cigarettes high enough that they are burdensome but not quite so high as to drive a large untaxed cigarette black market.

I want adults using tobacco to only do so if they have made informed consent, and I want as few to avoid that as possible. Same with opioids or hard stimulants really.

I agree with plain packaging rules, for the reasons you give - a choice to smoke shouldn't be made on the basis of attractive packaging (and for the same reason, advertising of cigarettes should also continue to be banned).

I disagree with taxing of addictive drugs (including tobacco) to the point where the tax is burdensome on addicts, however; Such burdens always harm society, whether it is by the formation of a black market, or the driving of addicts to crime, or merely encouraging addicts to neglect their families (for example by choosing to buy cigarettes rather than good food or new clothes for their kids).

If addiction were not concentrated amongst the poorest people, I might take a different view, but it is, so I don't. Smoking isn't so harmful as to justify punishing smokers financially - particularly if they are already struggling to make ends meet.

The burden isn't intended to be targeted at addicts. It's targeted at all the people who do not at this time use tobacco, to say "do you really want to waste this much money on this, over your life?" It's not specifically to hurt addicts, but to prevent them from coming into existence in the first place

I know.

But it does, nonetheless.

Intended consequences are rarely the only consequences of wide-reaching actions.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The burden isn't intended to be targeted at addicts. It's targeted at all the people who do not at this time use tobacco, to say "do you really want to waste this much money on this, over your life?" It's not specifically to hurt addicts, but to prevent them from coming into existence in the first place

I know.

But it does, nonetheless.

Intended consequences are rarely the only consequences of wide-reaching actions.

How about a different tactic: A two-tiered system. Cigarettes from a storefront carry a high tax. Cartons of cigarettes can be ordered from distribution centers at a more reasonable price, but your name and address comes printed on every pack, and possession of a pack that wasn't sold to you is a crime. Minor if it belongs to someone in your household, more substantial if it's someone you simply know, even higher if it's a stranger.

 

[Jarhyn]

The burden isn't intended to be targeted at addicts. It's targeted at all the people who do not at this time use tobacco, to say "do you really want to waste this much money on this, over your life?" It's not specifically to hurt addicts, but to prevent them from coming into existence in the first place

I know.

But it does, nonetheless.

Intended consequences are rarely the only consequences of wide-reaching actions.

How about a different tactic: A two-tiered system. Cigarettes from a storefront carry a high tax. Cartons of cigarettes can be ordered from distribution centers at a more reasonable price, but your name and address comes printed on every pack, and possession of a pack that wasn't sold to you is a crime. Minor if it belongs to someone in your household, more substantial if it's someone you simply know, even higher if it's a stranger.

Or better yet, that cigarettes so sold may only be sold at cost and as generic (so branding and IP are not part of the claimable "cost"), with a tax to support the program and a requirement for participation in exchange for graciously allowing retail sale, which is taxed to the point where margins are low, and sale prices are manipulated to edge out black markets. Then someone qualifies for the generic discount program (for addicts), after a year or three, and they have to attend a free class (paid for with cigarette retail taxes and nominal generic sales taxes) on cessation and public health impacts of smoking.

Here, we get the best of all worlds: cigarette companies are deprived of profits for selling addictive products except to new smokers, there is a fiscal barrier to entry, there is regular information to help people quit, and those who are snagged into it long term don't get hurt financially.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

And we should also get rid of tobacco subsidies.