Drug Legalization - Page 8 - Political Forum

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · #71 (**permalink**) 08-10-2007, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bradgriff

True, that's the key, not letting people who can be harmed by drugs (addicts and alchoholics) get ahold of them. But the there is the other 90% of the population that can use drugs recreationaly, drugs like alchohol, and whetever, and not be permanently damaged. If the drugs are legal, people will get them. If they are illlegal, addicts will still get them. I don't see how you can prevent initial access to drugs as long as there are smugglers, dealers, and Columbia, Afghanistan, etc.....

What you want sounds great Du Bois....but......

Also, I've been a drug counselor for about 7 years now, I don't know everything but I've had a long time to think about this one.

It's simple: the harder you make something to access, the less people will do it. I used to like downloading music. Then they had a big lawsuit against college students downloading music. I never did that shit again. The more moral, legal and economic barriers you put in front of something, the less people are going to bother going through those hurdles. They will find something else to do instead.

Also, what's this 90% recreational drug use? Source?

WEB

Scribbler1 · #72 (**permalink**) 08-10-2007, 07:52 PM

I would say the opposite can be true as well. The more inaccessible you make drugs the more some people will WANT them, or at the very least their curiosity will be stronger. It would be "the forbidden fruit" in this sense.

If you couple that with the EXTREMELY strong economic desire for pushers of addictive drugs to talk young people into trying said drugs, and ultimately hooking them, you have a bad combination which only legalization will prevent.

Bradgriff · #73 (**permalink**) 08-10-2007, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

The more moral, legal and economic barriers you put in front of something, the less people are going to bother going through those hurdles. They will find something else to do instead.

I like what you're saying Du Bois, I really do. The sooner you get in between drugs and your loved ones the better thier chances by the time they get to me in recovery. But will those prohibitive laws really be effective, historically they have not stopped the intial use of drugs and alchohol

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

Also, what's this 90% recreational drug use? Source?

Dr Jerome Lackner PhD, Addicton specialist
The Big Blue Book-Alchoholics Annonymous

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · #74 (**permalink**) 08-10-2007, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scribbler1

I would say the opposite can be true as well. The more inaccessible you make drugs the more some people will WANT them, or at the very least their curiosity will be stronger. It would be "the forbidden fruit" in this sense.

If you couple that with the EXTREMELY strong economic desire for pushers of addictive drugs to talk young people into trying said drugs, and ultimately hooking them, you have a bad combination which only legalization will prevent.

I disagree. The current strategy towards drugs is the most effective way to prevent drugs. Attack drugs:

Legally: It is illegal and you can go to jail if you get caught with them, also it disrupts the supplies of drugs into this country, which also makes them more expensive, also you cannot advertise for them so many people don't know where to get them

Morally: Society opposes drugs, parents do, schools do, celebrities do, it's not the forbidden fruit now, now it's just evil and for losers

You legalize it and you bring down the entire war on drugs, including the parts that don't deal with guns and raids. Instead of most people having no idea where to get drugs, I see ads for it on TV and I pass by drugs while walking around in the grocery store. I have advertisements on TV enticing me to do drugs, celebrities telling me it will make people like me, I can easily get them at the grocery store while I'm doing my shopping and since they are so readily available now I think it is ok to do drugs.

Legalizing drugs turns the situation from preventing drug use to encouraging it.

WEB

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · #75 (**permalink**) 08-10-2007, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bradgriff

I like what you're saying Du Bois, I really do. The sooner you get in between drugs and your loved ones the better thier chances by the time they get to me in recovery. But will those prohibitive laws really be effective, historically they have not stopped the intial use of drugs and alchohol

I don't agree. In terms of social science you are making an error. You casually talk about how you know that prevention doesn't work. You seem to have overlooked the fact that if prevention succeeded nothing happens, and there is nothing to be observed, so how can you say it failed? The fact that there is no drug use is a success. To say that prevention fails you would have to prove that every time someone did not do drugs, drug prevention had no role in that outcome. Quite an enormous task which your cavalier statement shows no indication of having undertaken.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bradgriff

Dr Jerome Lackner PhD, Addicton specialist
The Big Blue Book-Alchoholics Annonymous

OK, I confirmed your statistic.

WEB

Bradgriff · #76 (**permalink**) 08-10-2007, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodog

Then surely you know more then anyone else that if drugs were sold at Wal Mart then more people would do it.

The Doctors I work with don't agree. And I very respectfully don't agree either. I believe that access is not a critical factor in the disease of addiction....only because you can't stop the supply. Du Bois seems confident that you could restrict access enough so to keep people from becomming addicts. I love the idea, maybe I'm jaded though. Last week The police found one of my guys who showed promise floating in the river belly down with a hypodermic needle still in his arm. You think I don't want to prevent that? With realities like that going on this WalMart question has no volume for me.

Bradgriff · #77 (**permalink**) 08-10-2007, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

I don't agree. In terms of social science you are making an error. You casually talk about how you know that prevention doesn't work. You seem to have overlooked the fact that if prevention succeeded nothing happens, and there is nothing to be observed, so how can you say it failed? The fact that there is no drug use is a success. To say that prevention fails you would have to prove that every time someone did not do drugs, drug prevention has no role. Quite an enormous task which your cavalier statement shows no evidence of having undertaken.

An example of prevention that didn't work:

The Volstead Act

dahermit · #78 (**permalink**) 08-10-2007, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Now we just got an entire society hooked on drugs and spend all their time getting high instead of working, and blowing their money on cocaine and heroin when they could have used it on something productive.

Society loses.

Also, since we have now legalized something creating a CHEMICAL ADDICTION AMONG PEOPLE, we can look forward to a rise in crime when people can no longer pay for their drugs and have to start committing crimes in order to afford them.

After 30 or so years of pouring money down the war on drugs rat hole, is not the above what we have now?
The efforts to control drugs has been a failure at this point with no indication that laws against drugs are working.

A real solution would be to take a large amount of drugs off the street, poison it, put it back into circulation. Those that did not die, would stop using. Anticipating screams of outrage at the suggestion, why should innocent people die because drugers are invading homes looking for money to buy drugs?

If you cannot stomach that solution, have drug addicts register as addicts and then give them free drugs paid for with the funds that have been put into the "war on drugs". Dealers would disappear (no profit to be made), drug dealing would be un-glorified, druggies would eventually die from overdoses and other related causes.

In any event, what we are doing now is not working.

Bradgriff · #79 (**permalink**) 08-10-2007, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dahermit

Take a large amount of drugs off the street, poison it, put it back into circulation. Those that did not die, would stop using.
If you cannot stomach that solution, have drug addicts register
druggies would eventually die from overdoses and other related causes.
In any event, what we are doing now is not working.

What about the 30% of addicts who can be rehabilitated to live productive lives, that's my success rate as a drug counselor....just forget about them right? and poison them all, what makes you think they won't all die if you're poisoning them. That makes you an advocate of murder....take your jackboots off and breath a little.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · #80 (**permalink**) 08-10-2007, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bradgriff

An example of prevention that didn't work:

The Volstead Act

An example of prevention that did work:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...al_legislation

Sorry, I couldn't find a link that listed every other law in the United States beside Prohibition.

I will concede that you are correct in less than 1% of laws and that I am right the other 99% of the time.

WEB