Another "victimless crime"

[ATM]

...What proof do YOU have that legalization of now-illiicit drugs drives society in a better direction?

There were less negatives before the illegalization. I'm interested in removing some or all of these newly introduced negatives.

Unless you come up with some seriously offsetting positives or attempt some other line of reasoning I may have missed, that is.

 

[rvb]

You've come into the debate after most of us have finished lunch. Proof? Yes. What proof do YOU have that legalization of now-illiicit drugs drives society in a better direction? Show a country where it has worked. To date, no one has done so. Perhaps you'll be the first.

I don't know anything about other country's laws and don't ever really feel "because country X does it" is a good basis for ANY of our laws. So I have no interest in that argument. That wasn't my argument.

I already provided proof legalization of now-illiicit drugs drives society in a better direction. Alcohol was illegal. Lots of gang violence/murder. Murder rate dropped in 1934 along with the ban. (along with problems from bad bootleg booze, etc... all the problems we have w/ H/meth/etc).

Where is proof the status quo is working? In the hospital ERs? In the morgues? YOU prove things are better today than in 1950 before the war on drugs.

And above all else, there is the liberty/safety argument.

Now go ahead and repeat yourself and ask for proof legalization of now-illiicit drugs drives society in a better direction. then I'll point to my post in 322. Then you can ask for proof, and I'll point to 322. we can do it all day....

-rvb

 

[Alpo]

Alcohol was ubiquitous before Prohibition, illicit drugs were not ubiquitous before for the War on Drugs. The 1960's was a period of societal upheaval where drugs (including The Pill) began to see wide-spread usage. The crack cocaine epidemic of the 1980's has no corollary like Pre-Prohibition. At least I can't think of one. Can you?

Alcohol went back to a consumption standard similar to pre-Prohibition once the law changed. I don't have a great deal of confidence that drug use will go back to jazz nightclubs only after legalization of illicit drugs. The exemplar is not a true exemplar even though both types are "drugs".

 

[rvb]

Which, along with a friend who grows tobacco in his back yard is the equivalent of anecdotal evidence on Subaru addicts. Get it?

It is not relevant to the $400 billion per year illicit drug market in any meaningful way.

No, I don't get it. If people could grow weed in their back yard (or buy at gas station) like tobacco, most of the crime (incl murders) associated with current weed distribution/trafficking would go away. That's the relevance to the illicit drug market. People don't kill each other over the opportunity to sell tobacco like they do drugs. Nor since prohibition have folks killed each other over distribution of booze. There is still some bootlegging of smokes and booze to avoid taxes, but those crimes pales in comparison to the crimes related to illegal substances. I still do not understand the Subaru reference at all....

-rvb

 

[rvb]

Alcohol was ubiquitous before Prohibition, illicit drugs were not ubiquitous before for the War on Drugs. The 1960's was a period of societal upheaval where drugs (including The Pill) began to see wide-spread usage. The crack cocaine epidemic of the 1980's has no corollary like Pre-Prohibition. At least I can't think of one. Can you?

seriously? illicit drugs not used until the 60s?

I typed "opium use in united states" in google. This was the first link.
The History of Opium in the United States

"It has been estimated that in San Francisco thirty per cent of the Chinese are addicted to smoking [opium] and that ten per cent of the entire population of Chinatown are habitual 'opium drunkards,'" reads a Scientific American article from 1898. "The drug is smoked as freely as tobacco."
...
Drinking and injecting opium was popular among white men and women at the time

 

[Alpo]

If you limit the conversation to marijuana only, I wouldn't be responding at all. But illicit drugs such as meth, opioids, etc., are just as large as the marijuana market and cause a great degree of harm. As I've said here before, the only solution I have to curtailing drug trafficking is abstinence. Demand drives supply.

 

[Alpo]

seriously? illicit drugs not used until the 60s?

I typed "opium use in united states" in google. This was the first link.
The History of Opium in the United States

Get realistic please. Let's not take a special case and extrapolate. If you do, we'll be talking about the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the East India Trading Company and the Boxer Rebellion.

 

[Woobie]

I attempted to find some equivalency between illicit drug use and legal drug use. Alcohol has been mentioned frequently in this thread, so I reviewed some historic data to view consumption over a multi-decade period. It is clear that, absent the period of Prohibition, alcohol consumption per capita has been what most people would call "stable". It floats within a range, but alcohol consumption in 1890 doesn't appear to be much different than alcohol cosumption in 1990.

Looking at cigarette consumption over an equivalent period yields different results. No one today believes cigarettes are "good for you". The health risks associated with tobacco are not largely debated at this point. But with heavy regulation and taxation, consumption has been on the decline for 4 decades. (Note that the early years on the above chart fail to account for cigar smoking, hand-rolled cigarettes and snuff, which predominated in that market).

You're right about tobacco not being mentioned. I think a consumption tax is a legitimate tax, and even though it is a regressive tax, it is much preferable to the enslavement of income tax, or the government monopoly on land through property tax. Cigarette taxes are consumption taxes. But I digress.

Even though tobacco use, sale, distribution or production has never been illegal, we have been able to reduce consumption through education, consumption taxes, and the deglamorizaton of it. It's a slow process, but I think we can learn some lessons from it.

 

[Alpo]

You're right about tobacco not being mentioned. I think a consumption tax is a legitimate tax, and even though it is a regressive tax, it is much preferable to the enslavement of income tax, or the government monopoly on land through property tax. Cigarette taxes are consumption taxes. But I digress.

Even though tobacco use, sale, distribution or production has never been illegal, we have been able to reduce consumption through education, consumption taxes, and the deglamorizaton of it. It's a slow process, but I think we can learn some lessons from it.

I agree.

 

[ATM]

...I don't have a great deal of confidence that drug use will go back to jazz nightclubs only after legalization of illicit drugs...

We're talking about repealing the cause of some very serious negatives, not something that intended to curb individual drug use but failed in that regard.

Stay on point here.

The war on drugs has proven disastrous for society yet largely missed the goal of impacting individual drug usage.

Let's get rid of the known cause of so much disaster knowing that it's repeal won't impact individual drug usage much, either.

 

[Woobie]

If you limit the conversation to marijuana only, I wouldn't be responding at all. But illicit drugs such as meth, opioids, etc., are just as large as the marijuana market and cause a great degree of harm. As I've said here before, the only solution I have to curtailing drug trafficking is abstinence. Demand drives supply.

Marijuana is illicit....

Demand does influence supply. Show your work where prohibition has curtailed demand.

Abstinence through personal choice always works. Government mandated abstinence has never worked.

 

[ATM]

If you limit the conversation to marijuana only, I wouldn't be responding at all. But illicit drugs such as meth, opioids, etc., are just as large as the marijuana market and cause a great degree of harm. As I've said here before, the only solution I have to curtailing drug trafficking is abstinence. Demand drives supply.

When you support violence to impose your personal choice upon others, supply will necessarily become as violent as it needs to in order to meet the demand which defies your imposition.

 

[Alpo]

We're talking about repealing the cause of some very serious negatives, not something that intended to curb individual drug use but failed in that regard.

Stay on point here.

The war on drugs has proven disastrous for society yet largely missed the goal of impacting individual drug usage.

Let's get rid of the known cause of so much disaster knowing that it's repeal won't impact individual drug usage much, either.

Let's agree that the War on Drugs is a failure. What should it be replaced with? I've given examples. What do you suggest? (Time to provide a solution rather than picking debate point winners and losers .... and I mean that in the nicest way.)

 

[Woobie]

I can tell little kids not to touch the burners on stoves. That's a good thing.

Raiding stove factories and killing hundreds of people, causing and propping up large black market stove distribution networks, sending black market stove dealers to prison and throwing flashbangs into cribs at houses being used to deal stoves is counterproductive, a waste of resources and immoral. Furthermore, it doesn't actually stop kids from putting their hands on burners.

 

[Alpo]

Marijuana is illicit....

Demand does influence supply. Show your work where prohibition has curtailed demand.

Abstinence through personal choice always works. Government mandated abstinence has never worked.

Not in all jurisdictions, as you are aware. Marijuana may represent a successful test case that might translate to other areas. But most people don't see marijuana as any more addictive than alcohol, so it may not translate for the seriously addictive illicit substances.

 

[Alpo]

When you support violence to impose your personal choice upon others, supply will necessarily become as violent as it needs to in order to meet the demand which defies your imposition.

I assume you do not mean "MY" personal choice. Otherwise, I agree.

 

[Alpo]

I can tell little kids not to touch the burners on stoves. That's a good thing.

Raiding stove factories and killing hundreds of people, causing and propping up large black market stove distribution networks, sending black market stove dealers to prison and throwing flashbangs into cribs at houses being used to deal stoves is counterproductive, a waste of resources and immoral. Furthermore, it doesn't actually stop kids from putting their hands on burners.

 

[Woobie]

Let's agree that the War on Drugs is a failure. What should it be replaced with? I've given examples. What do you suggest? (Time to provide a solution rather than picking debate point winners and losers .... and I mean that in the nicest way.)

I think the end of the war is a moral point unto itself, and requires no replacement.

However, something must be done about drugs. And we aren't doing much of anything currently. I mentioned upthread about an opt-in DNR program. This would require a significant commitment from the addict who wishes to receive Narcan. Churches must take a greater role. Phasing in a tax on these drugs will be a component. Also, an overhaul of our current pain management regime on the medicinal front will be crucial. If the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries don't get their act together, this will be very difficult.

 

[Woobie]

I've seen kids do that when they don't like something they can't refute.

 

[Alpo]

Hot stoves. Really?
Reminds me of the old Chinese proverb about a cat who once sits on a hot stove. He will never do so again. Nor will he ever sit on a cold stove.
LOL