Let's talk about drugs.

Post Reply New Topic

@Aceofspades

I have given you 8 sources that show the link between cannabis use and memory impairment. I only put down 6 of the studies that show the link, there are more. Stating that I need to discuss how the link exists is, as I have already stated, invoking infinite regress, the evidence that it does is there, one needs no explanation in order to accept it. I consider the matter settled.

As to the link between the development of schizophrenia and cannabis use, there appears to be a trigger link. This link has been confirmed by multiple studies. However, recent research has weakened this link. Now you and I interpret this message very differently. You seem to be looking for a reason to continue, whereas I see my mind, memory and health to be something with which not to gamble. However, like with all of the discussion, the social, legal and health costs all seem to be overcome by the innate desire of some users to get high. Do not make the mistake of thinking that this is much more than cognitive dissonance and that I the law or society ought to therefor support your decision.

The point is irrelevant. Tobacco is harmful. Alcohol is harmful. Food from McDonald's is harmful. I oppose having the nanny state ban everything that could be harmful. People have the right to make their own decisions, and you have to accept that sometimes people will make poor choices. It is still their decision to make.

Aside from the rights-based argument against such ridiculous nanny-state legislation, there is also the simple pragmatic argument. Prohibition is a failure. The facts are overwhelmingly against you on that. The associated violence and the drug cartels are a direct result of prohibition, and on a practical level there are simply no benefits to drug prohibition.

Alright so I guess it's not exactly how you've interpreted the numbers, but how you just interpret it by principle. I guess that's something we're simply not gonna see eye to eye on, so that's settled. For the record though, I'm not selectively seeing what I wanna see. That's actually what I was suspecting when it came to you, but my hunches were wrong and it seems like we simply have different worldviews. You still haven't addressed my points, so I really don't care about it anymore.

The fact that smoking itself is bad is enough for me to watch myself. Hell, even if there's a 5% chance of schizophrenia I'm still willing to gamble on that. But I haven't seen any study so far proving the link between schizophrenia and weed other than faulty attributions, causation reversals, and claims without any neurochemical/biochemical evidence. However, smoking weed before you're 18 is definitely real sketchy and I have no doubts about that triggering mental illness though more research has to be done to prove that link as well.

@ Vigilans: I agree, but that myth about legal things harder to get is BS and seems either perpetrated by pro-pot BS that's just as biased as the anti-pot BS, or faulty attribution when it comes to booze. Booze is harder to get if you're under the legal age because bottles aren't as compact as packs or baggies.

@ Orwell: Irrelevant or not, we have different worldviews so that simple fact alone means we interpret things completely differently. I think it's absolutely ridiculous that he has double standards when it comes to booze and weed, but whatever I've said what I had to say and I'm never gonna see it from his point of view so it's settled.

In any case I think legalization would put a real dent in organized crime, and if responsible Cannabis culture was allowed to surface, would show that there are actually ways to enjoy marijuana responsibly. Instead of it being some kind of high school tradition of bad kids, the real truth would be revealed. I am part of a responsible and underground culture. I only smoke 3 or 4 times a month. I don't drink at all. Who is 91 to say that it matters whether him and society support what I do? 91 you mention that you don't want to mess with your brain but, alcohol is proven to cause Aphasia and psychosis, so keep the blinders on, I don't care, but don't try to act like you're somehow above us with this 'cognitive deficit' presumption

@ Orwell

The costs of the enforcement of criminalization are actually a good deal lower. 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. The libertarian argument completely falls apart, since those who favor legalization, tend also to favor treatment plans. This is a bad idea for two reasons. 1) with deterance gone, the costs of treat mean go up since there are more addicts. 2) the single largest source of people for treatment programs is the court system and those who come through it, have a higher chance of successfully quitting than volunteer entries, so we would have to find these new addicts, since we cannot arrest them and they would be volunteers and therefor would be repeat visitors to treatment. The libertarian issue is that the individual user certainly gets a benefit, society just gets the bill.

Now back to the cartels. Legal zones do nothing to breakup these entities. In all areas
where possession has been decriminalized, cartels and producers have used these zones
as safe havens. The low countries are a prime example of this. Where drug production is rife and the criminals are still there, they are just given a measure of legal protection. They centralize their efforts in these areas, they do not vacate and they use them as footholds from which to conduct their business in areas where prohibition continues. Unlike with the repeal of alcohol prohibition, the legalization of drugs cannot be universal across the market, since the drug trade is a global effort and each drug is considered separately under law. So legalization would do next to nothing to overcome the organized crime aspect.

Last edited by 91 on 25 Jan 2011, 8:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

@ Vigilans: Yeah I'm not even gonna bother arguing with him anymore. His worldview is his worldview, and I've said everything I had to. I don't think he's being disingenuous, but his interpretation is really skewed and that's not something I can really address.

Edit: If he wants to refute my points, then the discussion can continue. But if it's gonna be a source war, then I'm not down for that if it's just gonna be one after the other without refuting the previous ones.

You are wrong on this point, and that's all there is to it. All I have to do is cite Prohibition of alcohol.


False. There is not expected to be a significant increase in number of addicts.


In the Swiss experiment with heroin legalization, drugs were given out in a specified facility with treatment available in the same place, so that's not an issue if we follow the same model for legalizing hard drugs. As for pot, it will likely end up being in a similar situation to tobacco and alcohol.


Legalize pot across the entire US. That's more than big enough of a zone to kill the drug cartels. If pot were legal in both the US and Mexico, then the cartels would be out of business entirely.

Your objection here is foolish, as it does not arise from an actual problem with legalizing drugs, but rather with having inconsistent laws in geographically adjoining territories.

@ Orwell

Sorry but you are wrong on most of your points. The cost of drug enforcement if 11bn per year, the social cost is around 160bn per year. Americans spend around 65bn per year on drugs so even if the inflated illegal price were continued, which it would not, then even a high proportion of taxation would not cover an estimated doubling or tripling in usage that occours from an end to the criminalization. Your numbers simply do not add up.

Your heroin strategy, you are right, was tried in Switzerland, led to 20,000 addicts congregating in one place and the utter destruction of the entire area. The needle park was the definition of an utter failure of policy. Also they found that as they handed out free heroin, two thirds of them additionally took up cocaine. Switzerland has around 30,000 addicts (hard drugs only) out of a population of only 7,000,000. The number of cannabis users in Switzerland went from 6% to nearly 25% by the mid nineties. As they relaxed the laws consumption went up. And Switzerland is the supposed 'gold standard' of legalization.

As to the legalization of cannabis. This would not have a huge impact on the cartels (in Amsterdam they simply switched to the production of harder drugs) since they would have legal protection. In the low countries the legalization of cannabis led the Amsterdam to become the ecstasy capital of the world (80% ceased in the US is produced there). Unlike alcohol there are so many different types of drugs, you simply cannot get rid of the organized crime in this area without aggressive policing.

91, quoting the "social cost" is massively dishonest, and I refuse to believe you are actually stupid enough not to realize that.


Are we living on different planets? Or are you only thinking of the initial half-attempt they made in the early 90s? Since then, Switzerland has become a shining example for the benefits of drug legalization. Addiction rates and crime both dropped.


If you think the loss of billions of dollars of revenue would "not have a huge impact," then something is wrong with your basic reasoning skills.


So legalize everything; they no longer have any niche at all.


This claim doesn't even make sense at all. How do the cartels have legal protection?

THERE'S SUCH A SOCIAL COST BECAUSE THEY ARE ILLEGAL


sorry for shouting . but really...

91, try to think for a second, why did the alcohol prohibition fail so absurdly? What can we learn about it?

We can give him all the facts he wants, but he's gonna have to change the way he interprets em to truly understand their significance.

The social costs have a baring on the increase in costs that occur due to legalization. Considering it is the tax pagers who foot the bill it directly impacts the libertarian argument for legalization.

As to Switzerland. There are 30,000 addicts, thats around 1:200 is an addict of hard drugs, today. In the United States the statistics have not been that bad since 1880 when there were 400,000 hard drug addicts in the US, twice as many per capita as there are today. Some shining example.

The number of people who support total legalization is tiny, not even in Amsterdam is that the case.

Alcohol prohibition failed yes, but it was only one item. Drugs are a raft of items, legalization really cannot work, for the reasons I have outlined.

The legal protection aspect relates to my statements on legal safe havens. There is a reason why traffickers of drugs and people prefer Amsterdam to Stockholm.

Actually, the typical libertarian probably isn't going to advocate having much, if any, of the bill footed by taxpayers. That's kind of the point of libertarianism.

I really should not even have to explain why your attempt to cite the social cost is a load of BS. I mean, either you are just incredibly dishonest, in which case no good-faith debate is possible, or you really are that stupid, in which case any attempt to communicate with you is wasted.


That doesn't change the fact that my position is correct, though. "Any man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one already."


Alcohol is a drug. There is no fundamental difference in kind between alcohol and pot. Even if you oppose legalization of hard drugs, to pretend that pot on its own is not the exact same situation that we had during alcohol Prohibition is just burying your head in the sand.

@Orwell

The typical libertarian drug addict still stumbles into hospital. The typical libertarian drug addict is unlikely to be able to afford his/her own treatment. I have no interest in paying my tax dollars towards footing the bill for something that they claim to be a right, especially when it is an unnecessary one, far less necessary than health care or public order.

Yes, I am dishonest and stupid because I support drugs remaining illegal and I think they have a societal cost. Some argument.

I have already explained the fundamental difference between cannabis and alcohol. While a person who drinks may get drunk, altering his/her mental state, that alteration is the primary motivation of cannabis use.

Most people who drink, do it to get drunk... There is no distinction

No, you are dishonest and/or stupid based on the argument you put forward to advance your case. If it were simply a matter of you believing that government's proper role extended to these kinds of issues, well, I would disagree with you. But it's not just that; your arguments are complete garbage.