"Malum Prohibitum"

[williatw]

Furthermore the illegal nature of drug trafficking all but guarantees violence.

Then why are you defending it? You do realize that when cannabis is decriminalized another drug just takes its place? There's along line of drugs waiting for the public.

Who's defending it? The violence is a function of its illegality/unregulated nature. Legalize and regulate it you will eliminate most of the violence just like ending Prohibition ended most of the violence. Johnny Walker and Jack Daniels companies don't have violent shootouts between them. Who says another drug will take its place? Based on what? Pot has been the primary drug of choice for users for decades, legal regulated pot (much lower THC content fewer noxious contaminates) would likely remain such.

Too, I don't think you've looked at the numbers for the "war on drugs". The Feds spend $25B on enforcement, and $9B on intervention, treatment and rehab.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/the-nat ... highlights
However, the vast majority of the funds spent on rehab and treatment are State funds.
Now contrast these numbers with the number I gave the link for above that says illicit drug use costs the nation $582B/year. Obviously, the problem is much bigger than you think, and the solution is certainly not more Libertarian ways.

Yes the larger figure is the societal cost of illegal drug trafficking and the war on drugs. To say nothing of the harm feeding that much money to violent illegal cartels does. Just as thoroughly as the Capone era mobsters used their profits to fuel murder and political corruption on an unprecedented scale. The inflated drug prices, the cost in lives and resources both fighting it and from the people using it. Legalize and strictly regulate and treat drug abuse/addiction as the medical problems they self-evidently are. Legalizing is isn't the same as society saying it is okay to use, no one is saying you shouldn't continue education as to the dangers of drug use, social censure against drug use would bare far more fruit at lower cost than arresting/conviction jailing 800K people a year does. It just wouldn’t be as viscerally satisfying to someone who wants to see those no good pot smoking hippies get their deserved punishment; cost monetary or otherwise be damned.

[GIThruster]

The violence is a function of its illegality/unregulated nature. Legalize and regulate it you will eliminate most of the violence just like ending Prohibition ended most of the violence.

There will always be a certain element who want access to what is illegal. Exstacy. Meth. Krokodil. So you honestly believe we should legalize all these things?

Yes the larger figure is the societal cost of illegal drug trafficking and the war on drugs. To say nothing of the harm feeding that much money to violent illegal cartels does. Just as thoroughly as the Capone era mobsters used their profits to fuel murder and political corruption on an unprecedented scale.

No. If you want to use the statistics at least read them so you know what they're speaking about. The larger number is money lost through things like employee absence due to kids getting high when they should be at work, or refusing to work at all, like simon. It does not reflect kids getting high when they should be at school, especially when mommy and daddy are paying. The real losses from drug use are far higher.

[williatw]

The violence is a function of its illegality/unregulated nature. Legalize and regulate it you will eliminate most of the violence just like ending Prohibition ended most of the violence.

There will always be a certain element who want access to what is illegal. Exstacy. Meth. Krokodil. So you honestly believe we should legalize all these things?

But pot is overwhelmingly the majority of our illegal drug problem, always has been. Let's tame that horse first. Let's deprive illegal cartels of a huge percentage of their market. Let's eliminate the majority of the motive for street gang violence and the majority of the ill-gotten gains that funds them. And let us do something about the insane increase in THC content, almost 20X times in 4 decades, legal and regulated should take care of that, and eliminate whatever else illegal supplier "juice" the pot with.

Yes the larger figure is the societal cost of illegal drug trafficking and the war on drugs. To say nothing of the harm feeding that much money to violent illegal cartels does. Just as thoroughly as the Capone era mobsters used their profits to fuel murder and political corruption on an unprecedented scale.

If you want to use the statistics at least read them so you know what they're speaking about. The larger number is money lost through things like employee absence due to kids getting high when they should be at work, or refusing to work at all, like simon.

In other words a large percentage of the societal cost, not including money sucked out of our economy and into the hands of evil criminal cartels. I wonder how many of the costs you mentioned would be reduced by .74% legal pot vs 13.0% illegal brew with god only knows what all contaminates or deliberate "juicing" to increase addiction.

[ladajo]

And let us do something about the insane increase in THC content, almost 20X times in 4 decades

Do you really think that this is because dealers did it to get more customers?

Are you really that niave? If so, I think that you need to do some research on the biological and psychochemistry involved in getting high.

If you are not that niave, then why really do you think THC content has been going up and up?

I am getting the feeling that you are arguing based purely in some unfounded suppositions motivated by Hollywood History lessons.

Roll out some real foundations please. Show us that you know what you are talking about. So far all you have offered is supposition and opinion.

Drug users are seeking to escape personal responsibility and reality because they think life is too hard. At least that is the entry argument, until the chemistry takes over and they stop thinking for themselves. Of course, we as a society help them along by provided a subsidized existence so they can survive without contributing to the system. The technical term is "zombie".

[MSimon]

Re: krokodial

It is made with among other things - paint thinner and gasoline - the obvious answer is to make them controlled substances. Evidently controlling codeine isn't enough.

Like most stories about drug panics—the Great Bath Salts Riots of 2012 come to mind—the reporting on the ostensibly “flesh-eating” krokodil generally contains an ounce of truth and pounds of utter nonsense. Yes, krokodil is here, and yes, it is very bad for you. No, it isn’t everywhere. No, it doesn’t turn users into the walking dead. It poses no immediate danger to your children, unless they are prone to headaches caused by bombastic headlines. And while claims that krokodil is spreading rapidly throughout the U.S. might be excellent clickbait, they do not stand up to serious scrutiny.

Krokodil, or desomorphine, is a cheap heroin substitute. You get it by mixing codeine with paint thinner, gasoline, and several other toxic ingredients. The drug first popped up in Eastern Europe early last decade, and appears to be relatively popular in Russia. Krokodil is unquestionably bad for your health: Regular users can expect to live an average of just a couple years after they start taking the drug, and that short lifespan will be plagued by painful sores and skin ulcers, internal vein and tissue damage, and organ failure.

This is harrowing stuff. But it’s nothing that Americans need to worry about. As far as I can tell, there has been one doctor-verified case of krokodil poisoning in the United States. This case was documented by two St. Louis physicians in an upcoming article for the American Journal of Medicine; the doctors report treating a drug user suffering from blisters and necrotic ulcers after injecting homemade krokodil for a two-month period. (The man, a daily heroin user for two years, had turned to krokodil because it was cheaper than heroin.)

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/1 ... kodil.html

[ladajo]

Maybe you should try some and let us know if it is an issue or not.

[hanelyp]

Maybe you should try some and let us know if it is an issue or not.

I'm not sure from the context if that is sarcasm or vitriol.

[ladajo]

Maybe a little of both. Probably more sarcasm than vitriole though

[MSimon]

It not even clear that the WOD is responsible for our staying at your "2%" figure,

It is actually 1.3%

Before opium/heroin prohibition opiate use was 1.3% of the population. After 100 years of prohibition opiate use is at 1.3% of the population.

What ever else drug use costs us, enforcing Prohibition is costing us a lot of money for zero results.

From a comment:

Happened to read in the columnist in our local paper -the Fact that in 1910 1.3% of the population in US were Drug addicts -in 1970 ~1.3% -and in 2005 ~1.3%. We're looking at a constituent minority -not some plague.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... comment-35

I came across the source of this a while back. Sorry I don't have a proper link.

I found it:

Near the end of 1914 we created our first federal law prohibiting a drug . Before that, when all drugs were available to everyone regar dless of their age, the government told us that 1.3% of the population was addicted. 16 Our leaders couldn’t accept that so they started making many drugs illegal. Fifty-six years later, in 1970, when we were getting ready to start a “war on drugs,” our government told us 1.3% of the population was addicted to drugs. 17 They couldn’t accept that, so they started a “drug war.” Into the fifth decade of this raging drug war, today our government tells us 1.3% of the population is addicted to drugs. 18 That is the only statistic that has not changed in a hundred years.

http://www.leap.cc/wp-content/uploads/2 ... -War-1.pdf

Links to the studies in the bibliography. BTW the paper I quoted from was done by Jack A. Cole - State Police Lieutenant - Undercover Officer

If the police (at least some of them) are throwing in the towel it will not last much longer. My guess is that it will end about 5 to 10 years after the end of Federal cannabis prohibition. The country is in an anti-prohibition mood. I blame alcohol.

[MSimon]

BTW "Undercover Office" is an American euphemism for what is called in other countries Secret Police.

Kinda sounds like Soviet Russia when you put it that way.

[MSimon]

Jack Cole (from the link above) says:

If Current Drug Policy actually worked, seven things should have happened:

1.Drug supply should decrease
2.Drug purity should decrease
3.Drug prices should then increase and therefore:
4.Drug use should decrease
5.Drug overdose deaths should decrease
6.Drug Prohibition murders should decrease
7.Drug violation arrests should decrease

In each case, the exact opposite happens.

Spending more money on policies that don't work or actually make things worse is supposed to be a Democrat speciality. In fact we have a one party, two faction state. And what is the state of the State? Only government can save us.

Lies all the way down.

[MSimon]

More Cole:

I learned very early while working undercover that if a uniformed police officer arrested someone in our neighborhood for rape or robbery, the number of rapes and robberies went down. We got the bad guy. But when I arrested a person for selling drugs the number of drugs sales didn’t change at all. I was simply creating a “job opening” for hundreds of people more than willing to accept the risk of arrest for what they perceived as an obscenely high income.

The harder the war is fought the more profitable the trade becomes. Seems self defeating. As currently constituted the police and the traffickers are symbiotes. Neither could do nearly as well as the without the other. The police keep prces up (as well as they can) and the traffickers give police targets for arrest. For practical purposes an unlimited pool to fish in.

I would like to point out that before the drug war, in 1963, our police were credited with solving 91% of the murders in the US. Today they solve 61%. 20 What happened? Did police suddenly become incompetent?

The 100,000 police, judges, and prosecutors, and supporters at Law Enforcement Against Prohibition believe that today police spend so much time and energy chasing nonviolent drug offenders that we no longer have enough staff to protect people from violent predators, from child molesters, from those things that should really count.

And you guys (some of you) think that is an improvement?

[Diogenes]

It not even clear that the WOD is responsible for our staying at your "2%" figure,

It is actually 1.3%

Before opium/heroin prohibition opiate use was 1.3% of the population. After 100 years of prohibition opiate use is at 1.3% of the population.

What ever else drug use costs us, enforcing Prohibition is costing us a lot of money for zero results.

And you NEVER address my argument that it requires the expenditure of energy to maintain a static position against an applied force.


It would appear that you believe in anti-gravity, at least as regards drug encroachment into the population.

[Diogenes]

Jack Cole (from the link above) says:

If Current Drug Policy actually worked, seven things should have happened:

1.Drug supply should decrease
2.Drug purity should decrease
3.Drug prices should then increase and therefore:
4.Drug use should decrease
5.Drug overdose deaths should decrease
6.Drug Prohibition murders should decrease
7.Drug violation arrests should decrease

In each case, the exact opposite happens.

Spending more money on policies that don't work or actually make things worse is supposed to be a Democrat speciality. In fact we have a one party, two faction state. And what is the state of the State? Only government can save us.

Lies all the way down.

Jack Cole is a fool. All of those claims are assumptions based on a false understanding of the forces at work. Someone who understands how to bias a transistor knows that an equilibrium can be reached at any value of quiescent point desired.


Current flow will be whatever you chose to bias it at, but it will NOT be zero.


The nation CHOOSES to allow 1.3 % addiction because we cannot stomach the methodology required to make it lower. ~1.3% is the compromise position we have decided to tolerate.

[ladajo]

I am not sure that the 1.3% is a good number. I think it does not reflect actual usage rates for opium. One of the alarming trends is the abuse increases in medical opiates (opiate or derivative based prescription drugs).

The number of past year heroin users increased between 2007 (373,000) and 2012 (669,000).

So assuming that our population has not essentially doubled from 2007 to 2012, herion usage is on the rise, and 1.3% can not be correct.

If you want to look at just Heroin, see figure 2.4 on page 17. Since 2002 (10 years) Heroin use (past month) has doubled, 166,000 to 335,000 for ages 12 and up.
Now you need to add in non-medical use of prescription drugs (opiates), and that adds another 2.6% (see figure 2.1, page 14) of total population, and is rising. This rise is primarily attributed to ease of access. Non-medical use is also the top mixer choice for pot users.

In 2012, the illicit drug categories with the largest number of past year initiates were
marijuana use (2.4 million) and nonmedical use of pain relievers (1.9 million). These
estimates were similar to the numbers in 2011. However, the number of marijuana initiates
increased between 2007 (2.1 million) and 2012 (2.4 million).

http://www.samhsa.gov/data/NSDUH/2012Su ... Index.aspx
These quotes are from the 2012 National Findings front matter summary.

It is easy to focus on herion needle addicts, but opiate abuse is a much broader problem. Part of the misinformation campaign by the pro-drug crowd is to obfuscate and isolate abuse issues into unrelated independence. This way they can try to argue that it is a small problem and no worries, nothing has changed...

Well, I disagree. And so do the dead bodies that are piling up. You know, the ones that Simon claims don't exist.