Let's talk about drugs.

Post Reply New Topic

Look, Cannabis is already pretty cheap. If the price dropped, I can't see the amount of users increasing dramatically. I can see users growing for themselves and thus not distributing to random people for profit to buy more from overseas or other provinces/states. This could actually decrease the amount of users, which would probably make you happy, no?

The Netherlands follows a policy of separating the market for illicit drugs. Cannabis is primarily purchased through coffee shops. Coffee shops offer no or few possibilities for purchasing illicit drugs other than cannabis. Thus The Netherlands achieve a separation of the soft drug market from the hard drugs market - and separation of the 'acceptable risk' drug user from the 'unacceptable risk' drug user.

That is something I have always thought of. Many cannabis dealers also dabble in other things thus will show their 'wares' or will be able to find particular drugs for their 'clients'. If users could simply grow for themselves, or buy from 'coffee shops', it definitely would create a separation

^^^^

One has empty prisons when crime is flourishing also. When a state is a center of hard drug production (the majority of the world's ecstasy is produced there) and human trafficking (they have been repeatedly singled by just about every international institution for this), one has no excuse for having empty prisons.

As to the drug use stats, they are remarkably misleading. For one, the socio-economic situations in both countries are radically different; so you are comparing apples to oranges. When decriminalization did occur within within Holland the numbers of drug users increased dramatically. Cannabis use doubled and heroin use more than tripled. Also the drug use policy within the Netherlands is not uniform. Cannabis cafe's are restricted to only 27% of the country (most local areas specifically forbid them and some that allow them are seeking to move them to the border regions so that the drug tourists will stop bothering them) and outside of Holland, drug enforcement is more rigid and conservative. The population within that 27% when compared to the statistics in the United States uses more drugs than the average person in the United States (the DEA did this and it is in the report) so the statistic simply does not hold.

Even in the regions that are more conservative, though, its not like they're any more strict than the laws in the US. I don't believe that kids who get caught smoking pot should be barred from financial aide permanently their whole life. That was just a clever way for the Clinton Administration to cut social spending. Btw, sex offenders have no restriction on them from getting status. Its because it wasn't ever a public safety issue at all, only a money issue. I don't think smoking a plant should give you a permanent blemish on your criminal record either, especially considering the fact we've had three presidents that have smoked it. If they would have been caught and charged, they wouldn't have had the positions they held. Its very hypocritical.

@AG

Thankyou for admitting that decriminalization and liberalization of drug laws has little effect on crime. Where I cannot support what you are saying is in relation to legalization. The main difference between legalization of drugs and alcohol is that alcohol is but one vice, albeit with a massive market. When prohibition ended, the organised crime gangs were forced to changed to less profitable enterprises. There is little doubt however, that the most profitable elements of the drug trade is quite a bit different to that of alcohol. Should one drug be legalized (and I do not support this for an instant), then it has been shown in practice that the drug producers merely switch. In Holland in particular, the switch was quite aggressive and quick to ecstasy. As we have reduced access to Quaaludes, producers shifted their efforts to other drugs. So unless you are in favor of total legalization of everything, your argument runs out of steam. If you are, then the full social costs (which I have shown would be higher) all would have to be absorbed. So basically I would just have to plainly disagree with you in relation to full legalization.

^ I disagree with that. There are plenty of crimes committed by people out of their mind on alcohol, and that's legal.

I have read some arguments from economists that the tax benefits from legalized cannabis would be marginal. I am an obvious supporter of legalization but what I would rather see is less cannabis users, and those users being people who grow it for themselves and maintain it in the privacy of their own home- the way it should be, IMO. I never walk the streets puffing on a doobie, I never tell people in person I smoke on occasion- it should be something that people are allowed to do in their own 'castle' at their own discretion. I mean, passion flower is a mild psychedelic that grows wild and has more harmful ingredients in it then Cannabis. Some people harvest this flower and drink it in a tea-like mixture, and the whole culture of passion flower use is almost entirely unknown to most people. I suspect that given enough time after legalization the same thing could happen with Cannabis.