Yay, someone talks sense about drugs!!

[looseliam]

We can't catch all the speeders. Should we raise speed limits?

I'm sure there are quite a few people that haven't done drugs because of inaccessibility.

The image the pops into my mind is the 19 y/o who gets dumped and feels like shit. He decides to go to the H-Bar to feel better. Where, for a cheap price, he get a clean needle and a fix.

I think certain drugs should still be criminalised. The fact being that with certain substances, it it extremely difficult (not impossible) to control one's addiction.

 

[looseliam]

I understand it is a poor analogy. But alas, it's the one I came up with.

If someone wishes to do drugs, I'm quite sure the fact that they are illegal is irrelevant.

When I smoke a cigarette, and go back into work, it doesn't affect my ability to work. But if I go out and roll a spliff, most certainly I would not be able to produce the same quality work.

I look at criminalisation as a means to control the proliferation of drugs. Not the current use or supply. Nothing can really be done about the latter two, I think.

I find it a bit difficult to explain. In my head, like many things, it makes sense.

If I may, I'd like make another analogy to somewhat explain my thought process: laws keep the honest people honest. Are there things that are illegal you would do were it not for laws? And back to the speeding: would you drive 100MPH all the time if you knew it would result in no penalty?

or something

edit

I just think there are certain people who stay away from drugs because of the possible consequences and societal ramifications.

 

[looseliam]

And that went through my head as I was writing the sentence.

I think that falls under 'socially unacceptable', though not illegal.

However, if I come to work with cigarettes on my breath, I doubt I'd get the same reaction if I showed up with scotch on my breath.

 

[looseliam]

And I'm sure it will continue.

But by and large I find that by making drugs unavailable at your local pharmacist of gas station, less people are addicted than if the substances were readily available.

 

[_AJ_]

Shooting galleries are a good thing not only is it safer for users but they would also have councilors who can provide help and get them off of being dependent on the drugs which is a good thing

its not about saying its ok its about making these people safer and also the general public due to there being less needles around

its the same as sharps containers in public toilets they help to keep people safe because we know that users will use public toilets to shoot up and they can safely dispose of there needles

 

[secondmonkey]

I think we can all agree that "drugs are bad" for various reasons. But that in no way means they should be illegal. Lots of things are bad - cheeseburgers, rap music, survivor, those god damn farty mufflers, rain, cigarettes, myspace, the internet in general, gay people to many straights, cough syrup, walmart, cheap beer....I could go on all night. Where do we draw the line? What makes some bad things illegal and others perfectly acceptable? The real truth is that most drugs are illegal based on facts that have been proven untrue or politically incorrect today.

And no, I don't think we should just be handing any drug out willy nilly to everyone who wants it, but sending people to overcrowded prisons just 'cause they had a little weed in their pocket is stupid and nothing else. It isn't solving any problems and it's making our crowded prison systems all that much worse.

 

[looseliam]

Ahh, it seems I may have missed the point of your original post, Adidas. Sorry.

Should we spend so much trying to fight 'the war on drugs'? Nope.
SHould people have a safe and clean place to shoot up? I don't see why not.
Should those places provide the substances? No.
Should someone be put in jail for using illicit substances? No.

 

[NineOfClubs]

I think we can all agree that "drugs are bad" for various reasons. But that in no way means they should be illegal. Lots of things are bad - cheeseburgers, rap music, survivor, those god damn farty mufflers, rain, cigarettes, myspace, the internet in general, gay people to many straights, cough syrup, walmart, cheap beer....I could go on all night. Where do we draw the line? What makes some bad things illegal and others perfectly acceptable? The real truth is that most drugs are illegal based on facts that have been proven untrue or politically incorrect today.

And no, I don't think we should just be handing any drug out willy nilly to everyone who wants it, but sending people to overcrowded prisons just 'cause they had a little weed in their pocket is stupid and nothing else. It isn't solving any problems and it's making our crowded prison systems all that much worse.

Secondmonkey, I second that!

Very well put, and I hope more voters and politicians come round to this view..

 

[Joshua_me]

Shooting galleries are a good thing

Hmm, I frequented a 'shooting gallery' back in the 90's, but I think that
was an entirely different thing.

 

[Joe King Jay]

This issue affects so many people; it’s not just a simple matter of refocusing and going after the big criminals.

Looking at it from a law perspective, people with an ice cream habit are just as big of a legal problem because they signify a demand for illegal substances.

Look at the problem with pot; many people think it’s harmless, but fail to see what goes on behind the scenes.

Look at a few of the known problems connected to pot before it gets into the joint of an innocent user:

-The violence associated over drug battles, which most people tend to ignore. The winner of these battles then supplies people’s dealers with drugs, which they later purchase. Is wilful blindness now acceptable?
-The illegal grow-ops that STEAL electricity from companies, which drive hydro costs to go up. The hydro companies do not eat the cost of stolen hydro, we do as consumers. Is that fair?
-The other thefts that go along with supporting pot.

These are but a few of the many problems related to pot before ANY users/dealers get it (Unless you grow your own ).

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10427906
I hope (probably wasted hope) that the politicians might just begin to see some sense about the idiocy and hypocracy that is behind our current drug laws.

I don’t think the politicians are to blame here. A major problem pertaining to drug laws is where does one draw the legal line between casual user, heavy user, dealer or supplier? This is still an on going battle fought one case at a time.

To quote Lacy Thornburg

“You can't accept recreational drug use and expect to control the drug problem"

I could not agree more. This is because there is a vicious circle around the two. They depend on each other.

The law right now sees drugs not as a moral one, but a legal battle. The courts can not have wilful blindness to some elicit drug classes and there uses. It has to be an all or nothing with the way drugs cases/sentences are legally processed right now; otherwise it would bring the justice system into disrepute.

The ramifications to such an amendment to law would have innumerable problems in the courts and our ability to fight the war on drugs.

The real problem with drugs is the constantly high demand.

If legislation changes and amends law dealings with illegal substances a new problem would rise up. The police would be told to redeploy their labours to target the suppliers, dealers and criminal activities associated with such drugs. This would lead to more expensive investigations because criminals at the top of their pyramid are not stupid. Trying to catch these people is next to impossible because they displace blame from themselves onto the people at the bottom of the pyramid. The police are then right back where they started anyways. Trying to get the people at the top involves lengthy and costly investigations, which often prove fruitless. This is because the person at the top are usually not associated with the drugs anymore just the money. Proving a correlation between the two is not that easy to prove in court. The sentences given to these people is a small irritant noting more, not a deterrent. It ends up being a bigger waste of time and money going after these guys. The police have to work from a budget and know this, which is why they usually don’t pursue such endeavours. They have no choice but to go after the smaller fish or chase their tails.

Which still leaves:

The original problem.

The original demand.

Criminal activity continues because the demand and money is so excessive in this open market. Criminals do not care about jail sentences, it is not a deterrent. They care about money generated from drug sales. Criminals will continue to supply the drugs because of this endless demand, which = endless $$$. And there in lies the problem. You can not allow demand and not supply. The justice system does not work like that. That is why there is an all or nothing approach to the war on drugs.

I think the RSA is being naïve in there thinking about this issue. Redirecting our resources to focus more on the organized criminal networks and less on the average Joe is not going to solve anything. The police are already trying that. The problem is too big to focus on any one group of people. I think from a law point of view it still makes more sense continuing to focus on everyone and continuing to make all forms of recreation drug use illegal.

 

[Finn]

Prescription drugs aside, when was the last time you heard someone say, my life was a mess until I started using?

 

[looseliam]

"SHould people have a safe and clean place to shoot up? I don't see why not."

Wow that must be one of the most naive things I have ever heard relating to drugs. Somewhat reminiscent of a drug addict I once knew. He is of course dead now.

I don't see the harm in providing counselling and clean needles.

And this coming from a former user. Or, should I say, recovering addict.

 

[secondmonkey]

The illegal grow-ops that STEAL electricity from companies, which drive hydro costs to go up. The hydro companies do not eat the cost of stolen hydro, we do as consumers. Is that fair?

This is only vaguely true. Most pot growers pay for their electricity like everybody else. It is, quite often, the electric bill that leads to their arrest. The rest of the weed is grown outside under the sun. Stealing electricity is extremely rare, and has little or no effect on your or my electric bill. And, as Adidasluvr pointed out, the only reason someone might steal electricity is because growing pot is illegal. So the law just causes more crime.

 

[frankfrank]

It's great to finally hear somebody talking sensibly about drugs for a change. Though I may not completely agree with everything (for example shooting galleries for the hard drugs), it makes much more sense than the official U.S. government policy to completely vilify and talk about NOTHING BUT POT. The U.S. drug "control" policy is perfectly tailor-made for creating the largest possible demand for hard drugs, AND for assuring that their buddies in the private-prison business continue getting the massive contracts to warehouse so many inmates. I can't remember even what decade I last saw or heard a public service announcement about heroin or LSD, for example, but I heard another "generic anti-drug" ad (which also specifically mentions "smoking a blunt") just TODAY. There are many instances of people becoming dangerous, whether from misbehavior or falling asleep or whatever, after using legal prescription drugs. I don't believe the proponents that say that NOBODY HAS EVER DIED from using pot - I'd have to think there's been some rare heart attacks or something - but pot is certainly much less a menace than alcohol. Drunk driving is the most dangerous thing that "is commonly done by many people."

 

[Joe King Jay]

This is only vaguely true. Most pot growers pay for their electricity like everybody else. It is, quite often, the electric bill that leads to their arrest. The rest of the weed is grown outside under the sun. Stealing electricity is extremely rare, and has little or no effect on your or my electric bill. And, as Adidasluvr pointed out, the only reason someone might steal electricity is because growing pot is illegal. So the law just causes more crime.

My point is not vaguely true, it is true.

From what I’ve learned and been shown in school (law then advanced investigations and enforcement) proves otherwise. My courses were all taught by professors that were lawyers, cops, ex-cops, or private investigators. I’m not saying they (or I) know all, but they have a vast scope of first hand knowledge in this matter. Not the limited stuff you see on the news. All the studies and personal experiences of these individuals proved the opposite of what you said. These guys are/were on the front line dealing with these issues, not in some suit.

Most big marihuana growers do not pay for their electricity. They don’t pay for it because they are more likely to get caught using this method. Getting caught during the growing stage of cannabis is the worst thing that could happen to a grower. The person would lose the house, the stalk, equipment, and face criminal charges. The worst part of it though is the monetary lose. They would lose their whole investment. Criminals are not stupid.

It is, quite often, the electric bill that leads to their arrest.

How is that possible? There our privacy laws enacted that prevent hydro companies from disclosing personal information. A high hydro bill is not reasonable grounds that allow one to get a warrant to make an arrest.

It is, quite often, the electric bill that leads to their arrest.

Why would they pay for hydro which would sky rocket their hydro bill, which would cause them to get caught?

Cops get tips all the time from hydro companies about certain houses that have extremely high hydro spikes. Even though they have privacy laws against this, believe me they still get tips anyways. Hydro companies publicly say they don’t pass on such information because of this privacy act, but only say so to cover their asses legally. My teachers have gotten many tips off the record. If you think I’m making this up, I tell you I’m not. The tip off is still not reasonable grounds to get a warrant to search a believed grow-op house though. The cops still have to conduct the investigation to get the legal grounds, but the tip offs help narrow the field done. Hydro companies have nothing to lose by disclosing such information off the record, because the police still need to go through the legal channels to get the warrant anyways.

That is how people who pay for their hydro get caught. It’s not the hydro bill that leads to the arrest, it’s the investigation conducted. Those are the type of grow-ops that usually make it into the paper. Criminals know this. That is why they steal the hydro by passing the power meters (most common method). Yes, you are right some people do pay for their hydro that grow pot, but they are usually small time guys, not the big growers. One of the points in the article was about going after the big crime networks, not the little guys.

Cops haven’t even scratched the surface when it comes to dealing with the number of illegal grow-ops. One problem that the police face is that they will never know the real number of actual grow-ops that exist. Another problem is the amount of legal avenues that have to be satisfied to a judge in order for them to grant the warrant. A real problem with grow-ops is that the person stealing and rewiring the hydro are not electricians. Can you see the danger in this? There are numerous grow-ops that get burned to the ground because of faulty wiring. Many are discovered by the fire department. People have lost lives because of this.

What you read in the paper I’ve learned is vastly different from what is actually going on behind the scenes. It only scratches the surface.

My original argument was not about marijuana, but combating drugs as a whole. I just used marijuana as an example to show the dangers associated to such a “harmless” drug. I haven't listed all the danger associated to pot, only some. I don't think it is a harmless drug. The law looks at it the same way. I still think it’s all or nothing with the war on drugs. The war on drugs is global. The long term damage of legalizing marijuana to me is far too dangerous and sends out a bad message. It doesn’t solve the problem if we legalize, it only moves it. I don’t think the States would appreciate that .


So the law just causes more crime

That type of logic is unreasonable. Have you studied law at all?

 

[Joe King Jay]

And these are all problems simply because pot is illegal. Do these problems happen in the Netherlands??

Tell me about the violent gan battles in and around amsterdam over pot?

Tell me about the illegal grow-op stealing electricity there?

In other words we have a society that has taken those brave steps you de-cry and they have proven that your hypothesis is null.

Legalise the growing and supply of pot. Tax it. And then in fifty years time some families can win multi-million dollar payouts from the marijuana companies for the harm that was caused through advertising glorification of pot users.

The reason I made that point was because marijuana is not as harmless as people think it is. Those problems I listed are only a few of the criminal problems we are facing, there are too many to list. There is also health, social, cultural, political etc. problems associated to marijuana that we still have to dissolve. The Government has to figure out how to solve these problems before it can amend the law.

The Netherlands has not solved all the problems concerning marijuana like you think it has. The Netherlands still has drug problems, they are just different then ours. That does not mean things are better over there.

Why are you and Secondmonkey only focusing on pot?

The point of the article you brought up was about illegal drug laws, not legalizing marijuana. My original argument was not about legalizing marijuana, but the war on drugs as a whole. Marijuana was only one example in my argument. The war on drugs is on all drugs, not just marijuana.

In other words we have a society that has taken those brave steps you de-cry and they have proven that your hypothesis is null.

What brave steps did I run down?

Did you read my whole reply, or stop at the marijuana part and then take it out of context?
Those things I mentioned are happening HERE right now, even as I type this. It’s not my hypothesis. Those are REAL facts.

The war on drugs I’m talking about is not the war on marijuana. Do you think marijuana is legal in the Netherlands?

Drugs have far reaching consequence besides the criminal element. Re-read this post by OneBoyceVoice:

as someone who is actually from the netherlands i can tell you that the decriminalization of pot and hash hasnt been without problems………………………………………the culture and reasons for drug use are so different that it is dangerous to draw one dimensional comparisons between what is happening in the netherlands and what might happen in the us if some drugs were decriminalized.

His post gives you just a few of the countless problems that arise when dealing with drugs. It’s not just a legal problem.

Here’s an interesting article I found as well. There are many more like this too.

Prior to the 1976 drug policy, the content of joints in Holland were similar to those smoked elsewhere in Europe. THC (delta-nine-tetrahydrocannabinol), the component that provides the high, was three to five percent. Nederwiet, the now-popular Dutch-grown cannabis, is far more potent, with a THC that can rise to up to 20 percent, providing a quicker, more enduring high than yesteryear's joint.
A leading British expert on the effects of cannabis on users, Dr. Heather Ashton, of the University of Newcastle's School of Neurosciences, found that more and more of the elevated-level THC cannabis was required to get a high as smokers developed a tolerance to the high THC-level joints. THC, which does not dissolve in water, is absorbed by human fatty tissues and remains there longer than either nicotine or alcohol. Thus, the THC effects remain with the heavy user far longer than he might think, causing a decline in short-term memory, diminished ability to learn and decreased motor skills. Regular users of the high content THC Nederwiet are developing a dependency on this "soft" drug, Ashton has found.
Dutch professionals working with the abusers of "soft" drugs have found that young people, especially those lighting up with the high THC cannabis, may become chronically passive, spending days smoking joint after joint, unable to find direction in their lives.
Even though the coffee shops are prohibited from selling to minors, cannabis use among Holland's 14- and 15-year-old high-school students rose sharply between 1984 and 1996. Back in 1984, four percent of these teenagers surveyed said they had tried cannabis once. By 1996, 28 percent of boys and 21 percent of girls admitted to smoking up. Addicts (registered cannabis users being treated) increased by 25 percent in 1997. At the same time only a three-percent rise in the numbers of people looking for help with alcohol-related problems was recorded.
Twenty odd years ago, the Netherlands was comparatively free of international drug-trafficking criminals. Today, Holland has become an illegal drug producing and distributing giant, a devastating threat not only to the Netherlands but across Europe. Of the amphetamines seized in France in 1996, 68.5 percent originated in the Netherlands as well as some 80 percent of the ecstasy tablets seized. In 1988, almost 40 synthetic drug-producing sites were found in the Netherlands.
And Nederwiet, most of which is illegally produced, is also wending its illegal way to the Netherlands' neighbouring countries. Holland's soft-drug yearly sales are estimated at some $3 billion.
In the 1970s, proponents of the liberalized policy said that the coffee-shop soft-drug environment would save users from the clutches of drug peddlers and stop them from falling into hard drugs. Critics however, argue that this policy tells kids it's perfectly okay to smoke cannabis and provides an easy stepping stone to the use of synthetic drugs like ecstasy. They question the mentality brought about by soft-drug legalization and the generally tolerant attitude towards drug use which followed, and worry that this may endanger the Netherlands as well as its European neighbours.
Heroin addiction, virtually unknown in the Netherlands prior to the policy change, has escalated, with the number of addicts estimated by the Netherlands' Institute of Mental Health (called the Trimbos Institute) to be 25,000. An estimated 12,000 addicts are being treated in methadone-maintenance programs.
While there may be no psychological step up from cannabis smoking to heroin, and not all pot smokers progress to hard drugs, more than 90 percent of heroin addicts treated at De Hoop (The Hope) drug rehabilitation centre in Dordrecht, Holland, were habitual grass users before moving on to heroin.
Despite legislation which forbade the sale of hard drugs in coffee shops, they were being sold there. So, five years ago the government clamped down, reducing the number of shops and the amount of cannabis products sold to an individual user, from 30 grams to five.
Holland's tolerant drug laws were aimed at preventing drug users from getting caught up in an illegal drug environment. But the escalation in the use of coke, ecstasy, speed and heroin in that country questions the efficacy of its government's drug policy. As a result, twenty six years after liberalization, drug laws in the Netherlands are still being debated and observers are left wondering if the longed-for benefits of legalization were just wishful thinking.

You do know The Netherlands is a signatory to the United Nations drug convention. As well, it has drug control commitments associated with the Treaty of the European Union and the Schengen Agreement relating to border controls. In the opinion of the Dutch government, the obligations arising from these accords preclude outright legalization of cannabis or indeed any other drug referred to in the treaties.

Things in the Netherlands are not a perfect as you would make believe. Drugs are still a problem there as well. The Netherlands are only facing different challenges concerning drugs. They have not bet the war on drugs. The war on drugs is global. That is why I think legalization of drugs is an all or nothing approach; otherwise, it would bring the justice system into disrepute. Then what would we be left with? We have to make a stand somewhere on this issue. Right now, it’s all or nothing.

 

[Joe King Jay]

Real facts. But betrayed by your basic stance.

My brain is mush right now, can you explain this better please.

 

[Joe King Jay]

Go back to why the laws were enacted. The laws are discriminatory against certain harmful drugs and not others.

Why can we afford to leave some drugs legal (alcohol, cigarettes) despite the massive cost to society?

Whilst according to you we must fix all the other problems associated with other drugs before changing any laws? (acutally, no, you just want to wage war on drugs).

Do you know why those laws were enacted?

Or are you going to tell me your hypothesis about why those laws were enacted?

You can only speculate. You’re biased in your views.

I never said our Government is absolutely right on this issue either. They have to work with what they got right now. That is what my arguements have been about.

You are to narrow focused. Think about all the ramifications that would happen in our society if the current Controlled Drugs And Substance Act was amended. I’m not going to point every one of them out to you. The Government would have to deal with those issues and still face alcohol and cigarette issues on top of that. I'm not saying that the Government is right/wrong with this approach either. They have to look at the long term. The Government has to come up with strategies to combat the problems that could arise. That is not a simple task.

The laws are discriminatory against certain harmful drugs and not others.

Sorry, but unless you give me a specific example I can’t really say to much on this issue.

Drugs are generally more dangers than either alcohol or cigarettes. Numerous studies have proven this. They also have more immediate psychosomatic effects. Do cigarettes or alcohol make you see things that are not there?

I’m not waging any war on drugs. The Government is. I did not make those laws. I am not the Government. I simple stated my opinion from the facts given and from what I’ve learned. The law sees it as an all or nothing right now.

Do you think the Government should just change the law and not think of the branching effects? That would be completely irresponsible and unfair to society.

 

[Joe King Jay]

I'm pleased that you have decided on absolutely zero evidence that I can only speculate and am biased. Which further betrays your fixed state of mind on the issue.

The knife cuts both ways too.

My mind is not fixed on this issue, like you seem to think it is. You have not convinced me that the current laws are biased / discriminating concerning illegal drugs. My being unconvinced by your arguments does not equal a fixed state of mind.

I'm not even in Canada/US. And I have studied the history of anti-drug legislation - across multiple cultures/countries.

I always thought you were educated on this matter, I never thought you weren’t. You still haven’t answered my original question though.

Do you know why those laws were enacted?

Unless you tell me why those laws were enacted, I can only assume you are speculating. You have not told me why you think they have been enacted. All you have said is that they discriminate. You appear to have a highly invested interest in this matter, no? All your arguments have been about how the Government is discriminating and hypocritical on this matter. What conclusion am I to draw from your own words? You haven’t backed it up yet/ told me how they are discriminating. I might have missed where you explained yourself. If so, re-post please.

The how is what I’m wondering. I need some facts, not just your word. I need to see what you’re basing your arguments from.

Are you saying drug laws in general discriminate? A specific drug law? And how so?

Strange, the epidemiological evidence shows the reverse.

Far far more deaths every year from cigarettes causing lung cancer and other illnesses (respiratory & other malginancies).

Far far more deaths every year from alcohol related deaths; cirrhosis, motor vehicle accidents, alcohol related violence & accidents.

You and I are talking about two different things here. I should have been clearer in my explanation, which caused you to misinterpret what I meant. I assumed you could read my mind .

My point was that drugs are generally more dangerous to take than either alcohol or cigarettes. You never know what you’re taking when you ingest a drug. Even, if it’s the exact same drug. The cut, concentration, and ingredients could be different, even though it’s the exact same drug. Because there are no regulations when it comes to producing illegal drugs, it’s like sticking your hand in a bag of snakes. The other danger with drugs is that people make false presumption that all drugs exert the same effects, which is not true. So, when you look at all of the illegal drugs and their different effects, length of high, unknowns (cut, concentration, etc), and production methods, they are more dangerous to take than either alcohol or cigarettes. When you take alcohol or cigarettes, you have a better idea of what you’re getting into. Drugs are unpredictable. Cigarettes/alcohol does not mess with the psyche the same immediate way illegal drugs do. One bad cigarette; you cough, one bad beer; you puke, one bad injection-you die. I’m not saying alcohol or cigarettes won’t kill, or don’t kill more people either, but its illegal drugs unpredictability that makes them so deadly. I was never basing my original point on which one sequentially kills more people. That is why in my next two sentences from that post I said:

They also have more immediate psychosomatic effects. Do cigarettes or alcohol make you see things that are not there?

This was in that same train of thought as the above.

Isn’t the point of taking drugs to get high?

I think the Government sees drugs the same way. I think that is one of the many reasons why they continue to make those drugs illegal. They’re unpredictable: dangerous. I’m only saying that there is an unpredictability factor with drugs, which does not apply as much to cigarettes or alcohol. The majority of people can consume alcohol responsibly. The same can also be said for some drugs. But isn’t the point of taking drugs to get high? I’ve never known someone who bought marijuana and said “ I hope to smoke this and not get high.” or “ I hope to snort this and feel absolutely nothing” or “ I hope to pop this and see nothing” When you look at drugs from this point of view and from their unpredictable nature, I can see the logic in the Governments decision. It’s that unpredictable high factor that is one of reasons too. I definitely do not think that is the only reason, but one of them behind their decision.

Does that make the Government right to assume the above? I don’t think I wrote it did. I do not think that sort of pre-caution by the Government means it is being one-sided. I think it is being more cautious because of illegal drugs unpredictable nature. How is changing the law going to make them anymore predictable? I also don’t feel that this is the only deciding factor weighing in on their decision against amending the drug laws. That answer alone is way to one dimensional. Saying the Government is being discriminatory against the current drug laws is also to one dimensional of an answer for me. Can you give me specific examples in the current law were it is acting like this please?

Similar lack of efficacy is observed in other countries pursuing similar policies (War on Drugs). In 1994, 28.5% of Canadians reported having consumed illicit drugs in their life; by 2004, that figure had risen to 45%. 73% of the $368 million spent by the Canadian government on targeting illicit drugs in 2004-2005 went toward law enforcement rather than treatment, prevention or harm reduction.

There is little correlation between the use of drugs and crime, except in so far as the possession and cultivation of drugs are crimes.

They are already fighting the war and apparently not doing so well. This means they have to perform it from a different angle, right? Now, maybe this different angle is approaching drugs laws with a different mentality.

Amending the current drug laws?

They can not simply amen the drug laws without a wave affect. Would you not agree? The Government knows that all their current problems are not going to simply disappear because those laws are amended. Those ripples can not be ignored.

This is another major problem with the “War on Drugs”. This was one of points OneBoyceVoice and I were talking about before. That is why I said:

Do you think the Government should just change the law and not think of the branching effects? That would be completely irresponsible and unfair to society.

In my last post, and something to that effect in all of my other posts.

I really think the Government views the “War on Drugs” like this:

What would happen if we reformed the budget and put more funding into treatment/prevent? What would happen if we assigned more of the budget to policing and preventative measures? Would the police need to re-design their combating drug strategies? Would we then have to look at these strategies to stay on budget? Do they now need to hire more police to complete these strategies? How are they going to treat people if/when they become addicts? How are hospitals going to treat addicts? What hospitals are we going to give more funding to as a result of this? Should we tell hospitals to treat addicts the same as always? Are we going to supply those addicts with methadone for free? ETC….???

These are but a small sample of the things the Government needs to look into. These factors will effect there decision in and if the law is to be amended or they could simply change their “War on Drugs” approach and try something new. It takes time to find out this type of information. Just because the Government has not come to a ruling fast enough for ones personal tastes is inconsequential. Ones lack of patience is not the Governments problem when it comes to a matter of this magnitude. There verdict will affect everyone. The finally decision can not be a black or white decision. It is probably going to be grey. I think the Government thinks there are two many things effected by this law for it to change anytime soon. They have to figure out realistic strategies in dealing with these dilemmas before they change the law.

I think the Government also views the “War on Drugs” like this:

A common argument heard in support of the War on Drugs is that the war is not something that can be "won" or "lost." This argument states that the War on Drugs is much similar to our medical efforts to end human disease--both have technically "failed" to an extent, however, very few people will argue that we should end all our funding of medical research on the basis that it hasn't 100% succeeded in curing illness. This argument implies that while there are negative effects from the War on Drugs, the alternate, legalization, would lead to an even worse state in society.

Is this the right or the wrong way? Who’s to say? It all comes down to your individual belief system about the Government. Do you think the Government is acting in society’s best interest or not? I would not even argue this point over with my best friend. It’s gets way to messy.

 

[Joe King Jay]

Start here Kamekateka.This was the point historically for which many western societies enacted anti-drug laws. They enacted them at the behest of white men who owned liquor and tobacco companies who felt their incomes were threatened by the importation of other drugs. The rationale was invented in order to write the laws and the research has largely been framed from that perspective.

Thanks for re-posting that. I missed that post!

I was hopping you were going to bring this point up. Do you think the reason behind those laws is still the same now?

I don't think it is. I think you have to look at the current situation and apply those laws. I'm not saying history is not important here. I think the original reason behind those laws no longer applies to our current times.

How many times has a law started only to amend years later because new information.