So.... can anyone explain why this shoud be illegal?

[Father Time]

People's solution to the very real problem of drug use seems to be to want to make the problem worse. No society has functioned well where drugs were widely available.
My solution is to give every addict the best treatment we can the first time. The second time results in a quick trial and execution. Dealers just get a quick trial and execution.
This worked well for the Chinese after the revolution.

Provably bullshit.

Alcohol is a drug, it's widely available, we've been functioning pretty well for the last 60 years.

 

[Foxfyre]

Drugs, plants, etc, shouldn't be illegal, simply because public-servant-citizens should treat adult non-public-servant-citizens as free adults. People learn to take responsibility by having it. Like with anything, the vast majority of adults learn to deal responsibly with alcohol. The vast majority of adults would do the same with all other substances, which in most cases would likely be to never ingest them; but also any adult may find a responsible exception. The vast majority of physicians deal responsibly with drugs that are illegal to possess by most other citizens. Non-physicians acquire information, and advise from experts, about substances all the time. Physicians have to do that same. There is no reason to believe a non-physician is more or less mature, emotionally stable, responsible or wise, than a physician.

There are avenues for the state to inform citizens how it's ludicrous to blow-out your (pleasure) speakers by taking heroin or crystal meth, and how addictive and debilitating ingesting these drugs are. How likely is it that same small minority of adults would take these drugs whether they were illegal or not? The question is are we going to let our fellow adults be free and responsible.

The law of unintended consequences is when we make drugs illegal, citizens get the message: that someone is telling them they (lesser citizens) can't have what other privileged people can have; that they will not be allowed to decide what they ingest into their own bodies; that they will not be allowed to decide what they will study and investigate; that they are irresponsible; that they are children. Also, making drugs illegal causes costly crime, because no business deals will be protected by law -- thus more cost for security, medical costs of injury, family/state dependency caused by deaths. Then to deal with costly crime, we have to have costly law enforcement and incarceration. All because we aren't willing to let other adults be adults.

Am I saying making all drugs and substances legal for adults would lower drug addiction? Yes, I am. There may be a time where things get worse before they get better. Life costs either way. Better to pay the lower cost, on the side of making people our fellow citizens free responsible adults.

First I want to thank you for a well articulated and rational argument. Such is very rare among the pro-legalization of drugs crowd. And it adds a constructive element to the debate.

While I promise to rethink and re-evaluate my own impressions on this, my own convictions include the following:

1) In our culture, there has ALWAYS been a division between what is appropriate for adults to do and what is appropriate for children to do in everything from sex to work to marriage to risk taking to ability to acquire debt to the right to live independently. And those divisions include use of controlled substances such as tobacco, alcohol, and other drugs. Responsible adults teach their children the difference between these two things and that children cannot do some things that adults can do.

Most adults consider legalization of such things for kids to be tantamount to sanctioning child abuse and neglect.

2) Some of the now controlled substances in our society are highly addictive. A high percentage of those who who use such drugs as crack cocaine, heroin, non-prescription oxycontin or other drugs similar to it, meth, and some others will quickly become physically and/or psychologically dependent on the drug. A much much higher percent become addicted than they do to say alcohol (10% of regular users) or prescription narcotics (10 to 20%). A vast number of Americans do not experiment with such drugs because they are illegal. Make them legal however, and readily accessable at social gatherings, and many who do not experiment now will almost certainly be tempted to do so. It is for that reason that recovering drug addicts are almost universal in their counsel to not legalize drugs that are now illegal.

So it is simply not true that legalization of highly addictive substances reduces the addiction rate.

The statements of the legalizers here are empirically untrue. As we discuss each country in turn, it will be shown that legalization did not work in any of them.

A. Great Britain

With the report of a government commission known as the Brain Committee of 1964, England instituted a policy whereby doctors could prescribe heroin so long as they followed certain treatment criteria.47 Previously in England, doctors could prescribe heroin much like any other opiate (such as morphine). This allowed a few unscrupulous doctors to sell ungodly amounts of heroin to members of the black market.48 Consequently, it was believed that if heroin were offered at medical clinics according to stringent rules and regulations, addicts would come to these clinics to seek treatment and eventually would overcome their habit.

As of 1983, however, England began to phase out these programs of clinically supplied heroin in favor of methadone treatment.49 Why? First, according to the reputable British physician journal Lancet, the number of addicts increased 100% between 1970 and 1980.50 A disproportionate number of these new addicts were between the ages of sixteen and seventeen.51 Second, only twenty percent of all of the addicts in England belonged to the clinical programs.52 At first blush, this fact seems strange - why would addicts choose not to participate in a program wherein they get free methadone? The answer probably lies in the fact that methadone does not produce the high that heroin does. Also, addicts probably did not care for the mandatory treatment and rehabilitation facets of the clinical programs. Whatever the reason, by 1985 England had 80,000 heroin addicts, the vast majority of whom wen not in treatment.53

A third reason why England began to abolish its clinical heroin program was the fact that not only were there few people, in them, but the programs themselves did not work. According to the British Medical Journal, more addicts left the program because of criminal convictions than because of treatment.54 Fourth, even with the clinical programs, heroin addicts had a death rate twenty-six times the average population. Finally, even when the programs were in operation, Scotland Yard had to increase its narcotics division 100% in order to cope with the increased crime rate.56

To summarize, the British experience with decriminalized heroin in the clinical context was a dismal failure. When experts from British Columbia were debating whether to create a similar program, they made the following conclusions that are so important as to deserve to be quoted at length:

While some success is claimed in terms of reducing the incidence of young users, the following findings have also been noted:

1) The British approach has failed to attract a majority of addicts;

2) Many registered addicts continue to turn to illicit sources of

drugs;

3) Many registered addicts do not decrease their dosage over time;

4) Many registered addicts continue to be involved in criminal activity;

5) Many registered addicts are chronically unemployed or do not earn enough to look after themselves;

6) The death rate of registered addicts is much higher than that of the general population and may be higher than that of North American addicts;

7) Since 1960, there has been a dramatic increase in the English addict population;

8) The black market for heroin continues to thrive;

9) Law enforcement appears to remain a necessary, costly and complex control measure.

In view of the above, it is felt that the application of the British approach to British Columbia would present serious dangers.57

B. The Netherlands

Proponents of legalization almost certainly would cite Amsterdam as the drug Mecca of the Western world. Anyone may go into the restaurants in this city and order marijuana and hashish from a menu; further, heroin and cocaine have been decriminalized for all practical purposes. The police simply leave the users alone. Consequently, health officials estimate that Amsterdam has 7,000 addicts, 20% of whom are foreigners.58 These addicts are responsible for 80% of all property crime in the city, thus necessitating that Amsterdam maintain a police presence far greater than those of cities of comparable size in the United States.59

The Dutch have not raised one dollar in tax revenue from drug sales, and drug violators account for 50 percent of the Dutch prison population, a higher proportion than in the United States.60 The Netherlands is the most crime-prone nation in Europe and most drug addicts live on state welfare payments and by committing crimes.61 Nationwide, the number of reported crimes increased to 1.3 million in 1992 from. 812,000 in 1981.62 Faced with public disgust at home over soaring drug related crime and pressure from other European Community countries to strengthen drug laws, Dutch authorities are implementing an aggressive program to reduce drug-linked crimes and disturbances and show new teeth in combatting illegal drug sales.63 Eberhard van der Laan, leader Of the Social Democrats in the Amsterdam City Council says, "People are absolutely fed up with all the troubles caused by drug addicts - car windows broken, noise, whole streets almost given up to the drug problem."64 Legalization advocates claim that marijuana use in Netherlands has not increased since the laws were liberalized, but the number of Amsterdam drug cafes rose from 30 to over 300 in one decade. They also fail to note that daily marijuana use by U.S. youth has declined by 75 percent.65

C. Switzerland

Much like Amsterdam, Switzerland until recently followed a policy of decriminalization. Indeed, a city park in the town of Zurich for many years was allowed to be a haven for drug users - police simply would ignore the problem by claiming that it was better to have all the addicts in one place rather than having them roam throughout the entire city.66 Unsurprisingly, in February of 1992 Switzerland ended this experiment with decriminalization after experiencing an unacceptable increase in use, violence, crime and health costs and consequences.67 Specifically, the number of addicts residing at the park (called Platzspitz) jumped from a few hundred in 1987 to over 20,000, by early 1992.68 Approximately 20% of these addicts were foreigners who came to Zurich to take advantage of the city's lax drug laws.69 In deciding to close the park, city officials cited the increased incidence of crime and prostitution--as Andres Oehler, a municipal spokesperson stated, "it was felt that the situation had got out of control in every sense."70

D. Spain

Since 1983 in Spain, it has been legal to use, but not sell, cocaine and heroin. Recently, however,

Spanish officials have begun a crack-down on drug pushers due to a dramatic increase in the addiction rate.71 Unsurprisingly, Spain and Italy, which also legalized use of cocaine and heroin, have the highest rates of both drug use and overdose of all European countries.72

E. China

Lest we forget the lessons of history, consider that in the late 1800's, opium was legal in China. By 1900, ninety million Chinese were addicted to the drug, and it took fifty years of repressive police measures and rehabilitation to correct the problem.73 Today, opium and other addictive drugs are illegal.74

F. Japan

In the 1950's, Japan was faced with an epidemic of amphetamine use that created half a million addicts. Through socialization and policies aimed at both reducing supply and demand, the number of addicts was decreased to a few thousand within four years.75 A heroin epidemic involving thousands of addicts was dealt with successfully in the 1960's using the same measures. 76

G. Other countries

Throughout recent history, numerous other countries have attempted legalizing or decriminalizing drugs, all meeting with the same harmful results. In Egypt in the 1920's, an unrestricted supply of cocaine and heroin created an epidemic that eventually resulted in the strict prosecution of all addicts.77 In Thailand and Iran, countries that traditionally have had cheap and unrestricted sources of narcotics, the addiction rates have been and continue to be high.78 Finally, the Republic of Singapore had to resort to strict law enforcement and mandatory rehabilitation in order to overcome a heroin epidemic.79

Given the experiences of countries such as Great Britain, Switzerland, The Netherlands, China, Japan, Spain, Egypt, Iran, and Thailand, it is little wonder why countries that traditionally have had lenient drug laws are all moving in the direction of illegalization. Undoubtedly, the danger that drug legalization presents was foremost on the minds of the numerous countries - the United States included - that signed the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 and the Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971. And such danger also is why the International Narcotics Control Board for the United Nations concluded in 1992 that "legalization advocates have not yet presented a sufficiently comprehensive, coherent or viable alternative to the present system of international drug abuse control."80
The Experience of Foreign Countries and Drug Legalization

 

[☭proletarian☭]

People's solution to the very real problem of drug use seems to be to want to make the problem worse. No society has functioned well where drugs were widely available.
My solution is to give every addict the best treatment we can the first time. The second time results in a quick trial and execution. Dealers just get a quick trial and execution.
This worked well for the Chinese after the revolution.

Provably bullshit.

Alcohol is a drug, it's widely available, we've been functioning pretty well for the last 60 years.

Anthropological factoid: every known society in the last 6000 years has had alcohol.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

My best friend's a meth addict...he has lost this wife, kids, job and home...and he still uses.

We've been friends for twenty years.

It started with pot, then powdered coke, then meth...then dealing meth to pay for his habit...then prison...meth again....back to prison...rehab and then he got it back together for a few years...met a great woman, had a great kid...more meth (maybe he was doing it all along)...another arrest...he lost everything...now he's dealing again and talks about 'ending it all' nearly every time I talk to him.

After watching what it's done to him over 20 years, I wouldn't wish a drug addiction on my worst enemy.

YOur best friend probably had other issues that caused his meth issues, most people who smoke pot do not smoke meth. The stigma that was placed on pot has more to do with people continuing on to use other drugs.

That has not been the case in my experience.

Of the pot smokers I know (and knew), all but ONE did not go on to a "harder" drug...usually meth.

Four went to prison, two (married) lost their 3 kids to the state, one was raped, one was found murdered in the woods, one died in a drug induced heart attack at 31 years old, one burned himself up trying to cook up some meth (didn't die but horribly scarred), and the others are still using.

All of them started with just pot.

Only two, the married couple, have quit and stayed quit...so far.

They are trying to help my best friend but he has to be willing to help himself.

I think the statistics on quitting meth without relapse is like 3%.

EDIT - I remembered another who got married and quit without hitting rock bottom...she's been drug free for 10 years.

Methinks you're hanging around the wrong people.

I used to know a lot of people who smoked weed. Sure, a handful were lazy good-for-nothings, but several went to the university and had great grades, and most never had any legal problems at all.

 

[Missourian]

YOur best friend probably had other issues that caused his meth issues, most people who smoke pot do not smoke meth. The stigma that was placed on pot has more to do with people continuing on to use other drugs.

That has not been the case in my experience.

Of the pot smokers I know (and knew), all but ONE did not go on to a "harder" drug...usually meth.

Four went to prison, two (married) lost their 3 kids to the state, one was raped, one was found murdered in the woods, one died in a drug induced heart attack at 31 years old, one burned himself up trying to cook up some meth (didn't die but horribly scarred), and the others are still using.

All of them started with just pot.

Only two, the married couple, have quit and stayed quit...so far.

They are trying to help my best friend but he has to be willing to help himself.

I think the statistics on quitting meth without relapse is like 3%.

EDIT - I remembered another who got married and quit without hitting rock bottom...she's been drug free for 10 years.

Methinks you're hanging around the wrong people.

I used to know a lot of people who smoked weed. Sure, a handful were lazy good-for-nothings, but several went to the university and had great grades, and most never had any legal problems at all.

We definitely all lived on 'the wrong side of the tracks'...but I wouldn't say they were the 'wrong people'.

Not one of them wasn't good people.

Hard to explain if you aren't country.

I couldn't tell you how many friends I have that are convicted felons, but around here being a felon doesn't necessarily preclude someone from being good people.

 

[Contumacious]

'Legal dope,' a pot substitute, raises concern

god almighty.

Hallelujah.

 

[Vanquish]

It'll be interesting to see how this one turns out.