Is there anything good about narcotic prohibitions?

I didn't really think you were Tusko. Only a madman or a drug producer would do that. And that is the trouble. Shifting the drug trade from illicit to licit hands will clear up a number of obvious problem. But it may well introduce problems that are contained to an extent by it being illicit. And I see immense difficulty in trying to wrest control of the industry from the drug barons.It seems difficult to to decide where to draw the line as regarding state intervention to supply drugs. You don't have to be a hopeless addict to commit crime to feed your habit. Anybody who buys illicit drugs commits crime in doing so - crime is there at the beginning and one could probably draw a straight line graph: increase in seriousness of the crime vs. desire for the drug. At which point does one describe the person as an addict though? I'm sure any definitions are largely arbitary ones.Neither does one have to be a hopeless addict to catch HIV, the first share could do it.If a free drug scheme were started to offset the very worst of what the drugs scene produces in terms of human misery and crime then there might be some merit in it. But it probably won't affect overall drug related crime and other related downsides all that much. It is only by taking over the task of drug supply to a large degree that you can hope to put a serious dent in this issue. And there seems to me to be no practical way of doing this. Not without the potential for causing a larger problem than already exists

Well when we can see how many problems are produced by its illicitness, including the manufacture of new and worse chemicals, I'm not sure why trying the other way should be so worrisome.Your argument was used against those arguing against prohibition. It was ended, and now it is just personal problems, rather than criminal ones. Thus precedent seems to counter your worries. Once you make it legal, they are no longer drug barons. That's what happened after prohibition. The violence and graft associated with that industry went away, and previously "criminal" men went on to do good things. That is unfair if the law itself is in question. People having homosexual or interracial sex were at one time commiting a crime, that does not mean you can connect any following criminal behavior to that specific "first" act. HIV is a health issue and does not impact whether drugs should be lawful or not. But it should be noted that drug laws make it more likely users will take risks to get high. I'm sorry, but how many alcohol selling related mob turf wars have happened since prohibition ended?

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

i think i quite agree. we would reenfranchise a whole section of the population by legalizing. even just pot. and since it would no longer be a crime, it would (hopefully) eliminate the periphery crimes associated like gang wars. how many drug companies participate in drive bys? (i might be mistaken considering.)besides. taxes, specialized marketing, restrictions on use (dwi still counts. it's not like we're supporting free-reign here) would all lead to an improvement in society. then people who are responsible and say toke up once a month at home not around children and then watch a crazy movie to relax are not criminals but those who go out, get high, drive, go shit nuts on people are. (yes, i'm aware that potheads don't tend to go shit nuts. just go with it.)

Yep, and I do believe with the legalization of some lighter drugs, there will be less of a market for harder drugs. Most things like crack and crank came as a result of illegality, as drug dealers sought ways of making a product that is cheaper than natural products and less likely to get caught during production. They'd switch it out to those originally looking to get something else and create a new population for the replacement drug.One might add the purity control standards could end many problems related to illegal production.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

The manufacture of "new/worse" chemicals is enabled soley by a market that it willing to buy them. The illegal makers have the benefit of not being restricted by long, expensive drug trials*, nor are they restrictions by levels of danger and addictiveness to producing products far 'superior' in hit to those that the legal authorities can produce. A slow moving, legislation encumbered government against a swift nimble and ruthless drug baron?* how on earth does a government, who on the one hand puts in place severe barriers for the introduction of even minor medicines introduce addictive, dangerous medicines which will need to be available at the will of the person who needs them. You cannot restrict a person who desires drugs or he will simply go where the source is. I pointed out in a post a littel back that that drug barons aren't simply going to sit buy and let their business be taken over. There are any number of practical problems associated with the theory of legalising drugs. The crims have any number of ways to strike back.Note that there are two extremes of legalisation. Cheap/free drugs to a limited number of hard addicts - which will form the minority of all drug consumers. The effect on the drug barons will be minimal. And the reduction in drug related crime will be minimal. Or you make cheap/free drugs available to anyone who wants them. This can be expected to grow the market as it removes the effect on price impediment restricting consumer use. See too my post a little back on the business aspect of things. Assuming your talking about taking over the business - cheap drugs for all - then you have to have a way of producing them. Where does one get to set up such a programme so quickly as to catch the baron napping? Where do you get your raw materials? Their business is massively profitable and they can afford to lower price. Let them compete on price and quality to force the government lower and lower and the numbers taking drugs to increase and increase until such time as the public has no stomach for it anymore?How long do you think such a policy would survive if drug use was to rise in by 15% in the first year of operation. Not long into year 2 I'd warrant.Tinkering around at the edges will only give the barons time to respond. You've got to go all out on this one. Would a government invent, off its own bat, a product like crack cocaine in order to ensure they stay ahead of a competitor who is busy trying to come up with the best. I doubt it.Remember millions are quite content to pay todays prices and to risk todays threats. Are the governments 'advantages' as powerful as they seem. Lowering the price and ease of access seem counterproductive to me Prohibition may seem to set some precedent but there are a number of factors today which mean it is a poor one - not least that the data is very old.Alcohol was legal and in widespread use. Then the government banned it. Their action made it more difficult and expensive to obtain the drug in question. The action in question here would make it easier and cheaper to obtain the drug. Increasing consumption is a dead cert. Are there not serious moral problems with deliberately encouraging people to take up drug use and expose them to highly addicitive and damaging substances. Remember it must be freely available and cheap - otherwise folk who want it will get it by traditional means.Both alcohol and cigarettes where in open, free use before they came under control - different thingThe drugs themselves are different. The hook of things like coke and herion and ectasy as phenonomally different than alcohol. Like comparing a bicycle to a motorcycle. Similar - not the same.The drugs industry is huge and worldwide. Unless the action was taken simultaneously by all the big consumers action in one market will not cripple the barons. And they need to be crippled quickly and world wide before they can think of ways to respond. And that, my dear Holmes, would be a pipe dream.There is little that can be done with drink to enhance its properties. Alchol is alcohol and pissed is what you get. What counter attack was open to the mob?Drugs? That's a different kettle of fish. Like I say, imagine the concoctions that could be thought up by an industry needing to protect its market share. An industry with no legal or moral constraint. Pharmaceutical Armageddon beckons

From what I understand the drive for the new drugs is not that there is a willing market for a new drug, but rather that drug producers need new ways to supply demand that will be cheap and avoid capture.It is easier to chemically manufacture than grow, both for cost and likelihood of getting caught. And once one is manufacturing it is an imperative to improve cost, speed, and addictive properties. This can be seen in "dry" times when a temporarily successful series of busts for marijuana shifted interest to heroine, then cocaine, then crack.The attempt to crush on thing, often has the habit of producing many worse things that attempt to fill the void. I am not for socialized rec drugs, except for the heavily addicted as part of a program of recovery. This does not seem to conflict with normal restrictions on new medicinal products.It seems much of your post assumes I am arguing for Jar's program of gov't run drug programs, I am not. Perhaps that will take care of some of the disconnect. I know, they will become legitimate businessmen or move into something else entirely. That's what happened after prohibition. Lifting sanctions is exactly equivalent to lifting prohibition, so the analogy contains no problems. As far as Jar or Pars's suggestion I do not see it creating an issue of more people wanting it (to any significant degree). If someone handed me a vial of crack for free, and it was suddenly legal to take it, it is quite certain I will still not take it. Well if I remember right marijuana, cocaine, and heroine (or some precursor) existed freely until they came under control. It is true they were not as widely used as alcohol and cigarettes but then that doesn't help your argument that freedom to take it will make it popular. I don't understand why they must be crippled. Once it is not illegal, they can try and be producers for profit in a legal sense (businessmen) or subcontractors to the gov't (and make still more profit). What did the mob do after prohibition? Those that wanted to stay in the criminal racket turned to other controlled substances. That's my point. I don't understand, are you claiming that if made legal, you would lose your ability to not take whatever these companies make? Why would that be hard for other people?And just to let you know, there are plenty of people who do not like hard alcohol and refuse it though it is on the market.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

i quite agree.but then what place does logic have in the drug war. clearly the only mind-altering substance that should be permitted is wafers and grape juice. i'm honestly more afraid of those 'in the spirit' than pot heads.

And it this which I suspect would happen if governments attempted to crush the drug cartels. A different type of crushing perhaps, but the same effect. I'm not that familiar with the drugs industry but just don't think that such a wealthy and ruthless business can be just brushed aside. They have proved remarkably tenacious thus far. Guerilla tactics have been shown to rout giants. David and Goliath and all that...ps: how is the control of drugs doing in Amsterdam. When I lived there a few years back (in Haarlem in fact) even the crappiest bicycle was locked with with fort knox like impregnability for fear of the junks who proved expert in converting them into hard drugs It does. SorryNevertheless, you seem here on in to drift into Jar territory.... Me neither. But the dealers aren't much interested in you. They are interested in the type that is susceptable and making it cheaper and more freely available is a sure fire way to increase take up. When I was a lad, there was a park on the wrong side of town where you coudl score some hash between 6-7pm every day of the year. There were hard drugs around but for the uninitiated blow was about it. Then one of our number discovered magic mushrooms and for a couple of years thereafter we ate mushies every late summer....oh the innocence.I dropped by that park after years of absence a few years ago. Dealers hanging in the exact same place in the park. Over loped one of the gofers "whatcha looking for" " A quarter of blow" I replied "Blow - nah we don't do that" he sneered - "tabs (acid/speed), Horse (H), more (coke), pillos (ecstasy) - wadya want?". Same place, same age - different drugs had come to rule. Blow has become a chaser. See iano then arriving at that park now...Price, availability, hit - that is the bait. All you have to do is get the hook in. We live in a world of the drug culture where the dog in the street is aware that drugs purport to provide solutions to the stresses and strains of life. And that they are not prohibitively expensive or difficult to get. The average underpriveliged person during the Great Depression had not this option.If I dragged out 1920-50's data against ToE here I would be lynched. Shame on you Holmes... I admire your brainstorming skills. Good angle. However the cost of producing these goods in FDA approved facilities with the super-expense that goes into making pharmaceuticals (one white powder looks the same as the next and the measures taken just to ensure that Paracetemol is printed on the right pill...) would make your head spin). Its a point I've overlooked. The cost of producing these drugs under regulated conditions, with all the security involved right down the line would be phenomenal. Assuming we are assuming something other than verrrrry limited distribution. Which doesn't affect the drug barons one jot. This is a longstanding, multi-billion $, worldwide industry Holmes not some relatively localised, short lived social experiment...

quote:

---

The G7 Financial Action Task Force has estimated that the annual sales of cocaine, heroin and cannabis alone amount to $120 billion in the USA and Europe

---

Given the consequences worldwide if the proposed experiment went wrong, we need some stronger evidence before moving on it. Look what happened when the cigarette companies felt the slow down - they moved to new markets where there was no such regulation. Is that a solution - shift the problem from ones own back door? Whatever happened to "do unto others" Imagine the internal resistance people have to taking drugs ranges from 0-100 with 100 being the highest resistance possible. The current situation results in a certain amount of people taking drugs. It will be that someone who scores at 20 doesn't take drugs because for all their susceptibility: ignorance, hopelessness, curiousity, risk taking, rebelliousness, youth, need to conform, poverty etc., they simply happen to live in a society where drugs just aren't done. They come across them not. Drugs have not penetrated into the general framework of their lives so as to reach that person. Call it the protection of the herd. Similarily, you will get someone who will score 70% who ends up taking drugs: they are at a party and the girl they are chatting up is snorting, offers...and in order not to blow their chances (because for all their internal resistance to drugs they have a low resistance to the one night stand)...they snort.Its not about making them legal - legal is not the issue. It is about making them more available and making them cheaper. Anything that increases these attributes of a drug (as pointed out above in my own experience) will make them more widely consumed.If you are still arguing Jars case then that is my response. If not, then I see your point at the point you made it above.This message has been edited by iano, 02-Feb-2006 12:36 AMThis message has been edited by iano, 02-Feb-2006 02:18 AM

Agreed, the potheads around here are contributing to the community I live in and are generally just mellow, happy people. On the flipside the God-junkies roam around yelling at people, trying to make people hateful for this world and life and actively try to shut down the community I live in.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Cool, Haarlem seems to be a great town and I'm thinking of moving there at some point. In fact me and my gf almost lived there, but A'dam is closer to school. Where'd you live and what did you think of it?As to your question the control of drugs seems to be the same as ever, though they are now (under the new govt) becoming more like the US, and the only change is an increase in violence among the drug gangs. Bikes must still be locked tight, though police are now looking into ways to fight it.Having a bike stolen because one hasn't locked it, is nothing close to living in fear that you'll be knifed or gunned down in the street by desperate criminals and drug gangs.There has also been a decrease in personal freedom enforced by the gov't. That is something junkies and other drug users do not engage in. Yeah, but that alone does not mean there will be some massive increase. How many will take the hook? I've been surrounded by available sources of drugs pretty much my entire adult life, and I certainly am now... It has never seemed attractive to me. I think most people just aren't that interested, especially in hard drugs. If a wide choice was legally available, many would probably just grow their own natural drugs rather than buy them or something harder. That is a very false analogy. People getting high on all sorts of substances to relieve stress of life has existed long before modern times. We haven't "learned more" such that people's reactions to the temptations are qualitatively or quantitatively different, in the same way that scientists researching the TOE in the 20s have q&q different data than scientists today. Well I agree somewhat with this point which is why I don't believe Jar's plan is feasible, but I should make it clear that if society agrees to pay for it then no matter the cost it will still undercut competitors in a market, and in any case the cost means nothing to the "barons" who agree to become contractors.Most of these guys are about business. They won't shoot up people when they can make money without the hassle doing it a different way. I'm still not getting the vast consequences. The money is being made right now regardless, and indeed the profits are inflated due to its illegality. You can't argue about what its like under a system where something is legal, by appealing to facts directly related to its current illegality.All I can see for consequences is that the policing agencies can spend their time dealing directly with problems of violence, people can live more freely with less surveillance and greater choices, and those that might have problems can go get medical help rather than worrying about criminal issues and so cost the system more. That's my line. Someone taking drugs aren't transgressing against us, yet we choose to transgress against them in case maybe at some point in the future they could. And we also transgress against people wholly unrelated to those taking drugs, in order to better get at those taking drugs.I wouldn't want someone busting in on my good times, and I would not want to bust in on theirs. Well I'm sort of devil's advocating Jar's position, simply because I don't see the effects of it being as dire as you suggest. I agree that the financial cost will end up being high, and for me prohibitive, but not the societal "toll". I do understand your argument that more will try it if it is freely available, but I don't believe that that amount will be very great... not enough to argue for prohibition or against Jar's proposal.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Sorry if this is a bit rushed... I might be able to write more later.I agree with you about the difficulty of defining an addict. Can you think of an example of when its necessary to be able to identify someone as an "addict" of a substance or behaviour? I'm not sure its necessary.I think its important to identify people who feel their lives are governed by an addiction and try to help them - whatever the addiction is.Clearly a poor person who for one reason or another is spending $150 a day on an illegal drug is going to probably be forced to resort to crime to fund themselves. I think that as holmes pointed out in his response, a lot of drug related crime is as a result of the prohibition on illegal drugs - so as with your example of "taking on the druglords", I don't think there's a problem. If there aren't the massive (illegal) profits to be made from a substance any more, then it simply isn't going to be worth their while any more. They don't peddle drugs for any other reason than the profit it can bring them.

I lived in Haarlem for about 4 years most of it about a stones throw x 2 from the central square. I found it a lovely place. Quieter than Amsterdam of course with no big city feel. Very safe and relaxed - Amsterdam awoke the kind of eye-in-the-back-of-your-head feel that London brought forth in me - and its only when you leave it behind that you become really aware of how much you lived that way. It's much more pleasant without it. You'll know that Haarlem has the same olde-worlde layout as per Amsterdam but in Haarlem I found the ambience set in more as there wasn't so much bustle and city stuff going on to distract. Beaufiful buildings, interesting side streets, big enough not to get to the end of it quickly but small enough that you can get a feel for it as being your domainThere is plenty of stuff going on however - its not sleepy by any means, although if it is wild nightlife you are looking for then it probably isn't the place for you. If moving there I would stay close to the centre so that you are more likely to be involved with the activity than if you were on the outskirts where you would have to employ more intent to do things. Amsterdam is only a short drive away so you can have just about the best of both worlds if you likeIts a very clean, well organised place and the tone is set at the high rather than middle or lower class. People are polite and friendly but have a bit of the reserve that comes with there being money in the air. You'd find that service in shops and restaurants for instance, would be professional and courteous if a little standoffish. That's how I remember it anyway. The beach at Zaandvoort is only a short drive away meaning again that you are more likely to avail of it and there are all kinds of outdoor activities close by. The countryside (in so far as Holland has one) is very much more at your doorstep tooI've lived in Utrecht, Amersfoort and Hoek van Holland. If I was ever going back - Haarlem is the place I would go

Yeah, we've been there often enough to know this about Haarlem. Obviously we pass through it going to or from Zandvoort and sometimes would stop there for dinner. Its proximity to both Amsterdam and Zandvoort makes it particularly appealing. Heheheh... depends on your scene. It has some excellent sex theaters, not as big as in amsterdam but some have more class and better action. Spent some very fun nights there. Thanks, this is more the kind of info I was looking for. Its hard to gauge what everyday life is like there... the people and tone... without living in a place for a while.Given that you did live here extensively, and to bring this back on topic, didn't you find the greater freedom regarding drugs something better than living where drug laws are in full force?You mentioned the eye-in-the-back-of-your-head-feel, and I always get that more in places where there is a drug war (or now terror war) and authorities are pitted against the general population for "our" protection.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Personally, no I didn't. I wasn't a Christian then but had left my dope smoking days largely behind by the time I arrived there. There was a kind of awe at the freedom of availabilty and the fact you could just spark up whenever you felt. Had I still been a toker I would have felt like I'd landed in heaven (note the small 'h'). There were a couple of reasons why I feel it as a negative however.Mates would arrive from Ireland on visits from time to time and there is a little vignette here of what I feel would happen on a larger scale:Out walking through Haarlem or Amsterdam they would dissappear into every hash joint along the way to leaf through the menus. Undoubtably, this had to do with the rather limited type -availabilty in Ireland - they were like kids in a sweet shop. The dope available is much more potent in Holland and they'd spend the week stoned out of their faces and stuffing baggies in their baggage for the trip home. Point being, I saw no impediment to them moving up a gear into the wacky tobaccy territory - that the blow was mind bending was considered a plus. All that had occurred was that it was made available to them. Had they lived there, they would not have gone back to Irish quality hash. This is how you increment up the scale. Like any good trap, it rachets in only one direction - tighterDuring such a visit and strolling through Amsterdam, some bloke pops out of an alleyway "psst...wanna buy some acid?" At this stage my mate wouldn't have had access to acid - mushrooms being about as close as he would have gotten. "Yeah sure" he say and bought 50 guilders worth. Later on he found out they were wonky - no effect. Out of nowhere, availability was the key. Legalising it has to mean increased availability.During one stage of my time in Holland, I got real low in myself. Blow however was completely a thing of the past - I had gone through a fair amount of life change, from waster to degree to professional job holder. A different era of my life. Had I been in Ireland 'blow' would have been as much a thing of the past assuming I was as long out of the loop of easy availibility and friends smoking. Passing by a coffee shop in this state of mind, I just turned and went in and bought, with shaking hands, a ready rolled. I needed relief and in the spur of the moment that was what I chose. Had there been no coffee shop then I wouldn't have gone in. Availability.Many years earlier, a distant mate once brought back some kind of oily opiate from India and we had a few months of smoking this. It was really headbanging stuff. I was in a band at the time and on Fridays after the gig we used to have parties in our apartment. Folk would pile in and we would exhort them not to take more that 2 pulls from a joint of this stuff - such was its effect. They didn't know what the hell it was - neither did we really. But it was as popular as hell. Everybody was offering silly money for some. When it ran out, there was a very real tug of missing it. At one point in the flush times, a girlfriend of mine stuck the foil of this stuff into the carpet, irritated as she was at my being goofed out yet again. In pulling it back off, a patch of carpet down by the side of a chair got clogged with some of it. Months later I suddenly remembered the event and with great care and much anticipation I snipped the precious pile from the carpet and smoked it - not at all minding the plastic fibre taste in my mouth. I suspected that I couldn't have taken this stuff long term - but the originator of it seemed to have acclimatised okay with longer exposure no doubt I would have. Availability ratchets you upIts not science Holmes. I was a doper though and part of the reason why I am so sure that availability/price means more uptake is from the experiences I have witnessed in me and those around me who smoked.There are all kinds of reasons why folk turn to drugs but before they do and when it is underground, they have at least some hurdles to negotiate before they can get to them. This acts as an impediement. I can see absolutely no reason why legalising - which increases availability could be expected not to increase usage.Can you?This message has been edited by iano, 03-Feb-2006 12:33 AM

Yes.First, let me say I enjoyed your anecdotes. I've seen the same phenomena in many different settings, where people removed from a constraining atmosphere--legal, societal, moral--respond with a binge of sex, drugs, or violence they could not indulge at home. Christian sailors were notorious in earlier centuries in Polynesia and Asia for the first of these, and Americans in general are for the other two throughout the world now. Similarly, while I delayed my own university years for more than a decade after high school, I recall how delighted some of my college-attending friends were to discover a preacher's daughter on campus: the potential was explosive.You have not described human behavior in a setting where drugs are decriminalized and access is routine--you have described a sudden decompression with the predictable effects noted above.Humans--and many animals--have sought out consciousness-changing substances for as far back as we can see. Even hummingbirds(!) have been observed visiting intoxicating flowers and then sitting quietly for hours afterwards--visiting not often, but regularly. Cats do it, porpoises do it--you might as well try to legislate sexlessness.The most "primitive" religions we have observed are based on the use of hallucinogenic plants, some--like the ayahuasca of South American--quite ingenious, requiring a blend of multiple plants which have no efficacy taken alone. The experience is accepted, integrated into the social context, and not associated with social pathologies.Mushrooms, cacti, seeds; eaten, smoked, snorted, snuffed...the list is endless. Some scholars suggest that the roots of ALL religions can be found in the otherwordly awe created by consciousness-changing materials.Criminalization of this victim-less conduct has exacted a horrible toll on nonviolent, harmless folks. There are states in the U.S. where you will be sentenced to more years in prison for selling your neighbor a joint than for raping her; there are nations where you will be executed for the former and slapped on the wrist for the latter.Despite draconian laws, the pursuit of altered consciousness continues. Recent studies show that U.S. teens are indulging in prescription pharmaceuticals--especially synthetic opiates--at increasing rates with deadly effect. Also, each year high school and middle school students, stymied by the "War on Drugs" interdiction of relatively harmless recreational drugs, e.g., marijuana and mushrooms, turn to more dangerous materials such as datura and brugmansia (which grow throughout the U.S.), some of the most powerful and dangerous pscyoactive plants known: deaths and near-death comas are the all-too -frequent result. A natural exploration is being channeled into increasingly dangerous outlets.Prohibition not only doesn't work, it also funds criminal networks with an interest in escalating the purchasers indulgence in addictive drugs, while exposing the customer to violent felons and other predators. It denies society an important source of tax revenue and hands it to a criminal-run black market economy instead: the War On Drugs is funding its own nemesis.You might have a better argument if you could marshal any real evidence that prohibition works: but you can't--because it doesn't.In the meantime, hundreds of thousands of lives are destroyed by governments that pursue policies in the name of a greater good, a good those policies not only do not serve but actually erode.Young lives destroyed by prison sentences, violent criminal cartels funded by the self-defeating economics of prohibtion, the stigmatizing of a natural exploration of consciousness our kind has pursued for millenia: I can see no reason to pretend that this failed policy should be continued.Prohibition repeats the same failure over and over, expecting a different result each time, and that is insane.

---

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------
What I refuse to accept is your insistence that your beliefs about your beliefs constitute evidence in support of your beliefs.