Let's talk about drugs.

Post Reply New Topic

What exactly is 'treatment' for marijuana 'addiction', and why is it so expensive? I have never heard of someone going through rehabilitation for cannabis use alone, cannabis use is often co morbid with other addictions, but that is merely correlative, not causative

I think that any substance that's more addictive than sex should be illegal. Everything else should be allowed.

Hm, some people are in fact addicted to sex

Its a way for courts and rehab clinics to make money. They force you to get rehabilitation if you're caught. A lot of times its in the form of compulsory classes. its really a joke.

Makes me think of some movie involving Dave Chapelle where he goes to rehab for weed and is laughed at my other addicts 'I used to suck dick for coke, what did you do for your pot?!'

My logic is its the most addictive, natural impulse, and anything physically addictive, like heroin, that makes users prefer it over a natural function of the body can't possibly be good. Of course, people with sexual addictions, or any for that matter, that get in the way of normal life should seek counseling or try to resolve it. I think that should be the litmus test for law makers though.

Yah, that was that dude from Full House. lol. His whole comedy routine revolves around that. "I was the uncle on full house, a family comedy show, and I'm saying things like 'f**k' and 'suck duck'"

I think it is interesting that you bring sex into this discussion. Considering certain sexual acts are still (correct me if I'm wrong) illegal in some parts of the United States, I would say that there is in fact prohibition in existence at this very moment against sex. This prohibition is based on similar logic to the prohibition of cannabis. I agree though, Heroin and other opiates or drugs that lead into cascading life failure are certainly not good

Well, that's interesting, because unless Canada runs their program entirely different than other nations, the vast majority of the money goes towards law enforcement:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columb ... ategy.html

"Treasury Board documents show 73 per cent of the $368 million spent on targeting illicit drugs in 2004-2005 went toward law enforcement initiatives.

The remainder was split among treatment (14 per cent), research (seven per cent), prevention (2.6 per cent) and harm-reduction programs (2.6 per cent)."

I somehow doubt that Canada is MORE aggressive than the US or other nations though, and given that you never gave a source for your numbers, there is no reason to trust them. At the same time though, US drug spending also isn't such where they support your claim either: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/pub ... /tbl_1.pdf The vast majority of money is used to stop drugs, not to treat them, and this is even broken down in that file, where we clearly see that over 60% of money is spent stopping the supply of drugs, which means that treatment is significantly less. (and given that this treatment includes research, we don't really know how much is actually just addressing social cost, but we do know that it is even less than the original expectation) So, your original numbers were grandly false, and your current claim is false.

Even further, your case really loses a lot of force when talking about marijuana. Marijuana usage is ridiculously common, and to the point where it is a clear sign of the inefficacy of drug war efforts, I've known a number of users despite not being much of the sort of person for those things. As well, most people thrown in jail for drugs are done so for marijuana in places such as the US, and this is hundreds of thousands of individuals, and what they go through is without question "social cost", and such individuals comprise a very large proportion of the prison system. Finally, marijuana, due to a relative lack of addictive properties and physiological damage is not going to require much medical attention. Given an unquestionable lack of efficacy in fighting marijuana, and the costs of such a battle, I don't really see the point you want. I mean, legalization WOULD without question reduce crime, particularly given that illegal dealers will cease to be effective compared to legal production and farming of the drug.

Given that this single plank is questionable given the kinds of arguments you are using, at the very least your position fails on that ground.

However, because you gave blatantly false numbers on costs "The law enforcement aspect of the matter accounts for only 3% of total government outlays on drug related matters. Treatment is by far the highest cost to the taxpayer.", there is very significant reason to have extreme doubts about the rest of what you have said about the facts.

Even further, it has already been pointed out that alcohol is a very dangerous drug AND that prohibition of it failed, but trying to claim that a drug by drug basis is the proper way to examine the matter, while seemingly avoiding this meticulous view of costs, does not seem appropriate. If there is a general principle on legalization of drugs, then prohibition would surely work as an example to build from.

As such, I still have to push hard on the pro-legalization side of the matter, and I think that I am generally in good company, as a significant number of economic experts on this matter come to the very same conclusion.
http://www.econjournalwatch.org/pdf/Tho ... il2004.pdf

The government is paying for both already. Because the law enforcement costs are not really stopping people from getting high, so the government ends up paying for rehabilitation as well.

@AG

I have given a source for all of my facts. You obviously have made very little effort to interact with my evidence. The stats on US law enforcement are here (I have posted them multiple time), http://www.justice.gov/dea/demand/speak ... -may03.pdf

The costs towards diversion and treatment are not counted as law enforcement costs, since they would need to be paid, regardless of legality.

Also, the study you cited does not really provide anything definitive. Its last paragraph is a massive disclaimer.

'This suggests that economists should continue their research on drug policy, continue to refine their understanding of prohibition in general, drug laws in particular and all suggested reforms, develop alternative reforms, and continue to translate their findings into meaningful recommendations for public policy.'

Only 16% supported legalization (decriminalization only deals with users, not the underground market, since production remains illegal), the study simply cannot conclude what you say it does. which is the only real way to eliminate the organised crime element. Otherwise, what will occur here will be exactly what occurred in Amsterdam; where the suppliers simply switched to production of harder drugs. Legalization also occurs peace meal, in places where liberalization exists, they have, far from becoming free from organized crime, become hubs of it. In particular the low countries which produce 80% of the ecstasy on the US market.

Last edited by 91 on 27 Jan 2011, 12:32 am, edited 4 times in total.

I couldn't have put together a better argument myself. Very nicely done, you pretty much destroyed his entire arguments when it comes to the economical side of drugs.

Honestly, it did not support earlier claims on treatment costs. As well... the entire thing is a propaganda piece and blatantly so. Just the level of rigor is questionable in so many of the findings used.

@AG

I know a good many people here have enjoyed citing alcohol over and over again as if its prohibition contains some kind of truth with relation to the myriad of ever worsening poisons that exist on our streets. So I guess that means I am entitled to use it for evidence also. Put simply, alcohol proves (aside from the evidence I have already put forward) that the economic argument behind drug liberalization is a blatant lie. In 2007 the tax taken from Alcohol was $15.5Bn, the costs of health care, lost productivity, and criminal justice, with alcohol were $185bn (Harwood, H. (2000), Updating Estimates of the Economic Costs of Alcohol Abuse in the United States: Estimates, Update Methods and Data), less than 10% of the cost to society.

Tobacco also does not economically justify the position of the legalization crowd. The United States Government gets around $25bn in taxes from Tobacco, the cost to society is over $200bn (http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/new ... _Chief.pdf).

The Rand corporation thought the economic argument was being so totally misrepresented by the pro-legalization crowd that they published their own report into the underlying bad assumptions of their arguments, (Pacula, R. (2009). Legalizing Marijuana: Issues to Consider Before Reforming California State Law. Accessed at www.rand.org)

The legalization also lowers the price ( Gruber J., Sen, A. & Stabile, M. (2003), “Estimating Price Elasticities When There is Smuggling:
The Sensitivity of Smoking to Price in Canada,” Journal of Health Economics 22(5): 821-84). So there will be more users and therefor a greater social cost.

Yah, if sex was a drug, it would be totally illegal. People kill, fight, and die over it. Heroin and crack addicts often say they prefer the drugs over sex after a while too, and sex often times just becomes a means of obtaining the drugs to them. If unrestrained, though, sex can be really destructive, and if there's something even more addictive than that, that floods the pleasure centers of the brain with multiple times the neurotransmitter activity, it really can't be good. Pot and psychedelics don't mimic dopamine though, and that's why they're not bad drugs in my view. They mimic transmitters that have to do with perception.

Pot definitely should be legalized. I'd like it as an alternative to alcohol, because it doesn't give me a hangover, doesn't make me vomit, has no link to cancer, may possibly treat cancer if in a high enough concentration, and doesn't cause people to become aggressive, loud, obnoxious and violent. That being said though, because of the popularity of alcohol and lower potential for abuse than opiates and strong stimulants, the social costs of it being legal are outweighed by the social costs of it being illegal. Just look at prohibition in the 20's. It looks kind of like the social costs of pot being illegal now. I don't want a return to that era of black market crime and violence, and I want to make sure its decreased further with the legalization of cannabis. The reason its the most popular illicit drug is because most people aren't dumb enough to abuse dangerous drugs like meth, and its also a mild alternative to the nausea that alcohol causes.

link - Scientific American: No connection between marijuana and cancer

link - Science Daily: Marijuana Cuts Tumor in Half[quote]

Last edited by JNathanK on 27 Jan 2011, 2:00 am, edited 2 times in total.

That's from the DEA, why don't you go to a Chevy dealership and ask em what they think about Ford cars?

I will address your other sources and arguments tomorrow, but for now I gotta go to sleep. Nighty night and don't let the government source bed bugs bite.