Krokodil (flesh eating heroin substitute)

[RJM62]

No Joy, just to clarify...

I often agree with you, although I think you're a wee bit dogmatic and strident in your positions. But on this issue... I've just seen too much drug-related suffering, despite a century of the approach you advocate, to believe it's anything but a colossal failure that has exacerbated the very problem it sought to address.

Strengthening and toughening a failed approach isn't the answer, in my opinion. Getting the cops and the DEA out of the system altogether and allowing a more enlightened, compassionate approach would be much better. I would feel better with doctors and pharmacists running the show. Done properly, such a system could actually reduce drug abuse.

Let's suppose, for example, that as a provision of obtaining a weekly or monthly prescription for a fix (consisting of sequential doses to be dispensed daily), an addict were required to consult with a CASAC. The decision would still be the addict's, but at least they would have to have contact with someone who specializes in getting people off drugs. Maybe most would decline the opportunity, but surely some would accept it.

In the meantime, even for those who decline treatment, at least what they'd be using would be known-quality, unadulterated, uncontaminated product. They also wouldn't have to whore themselves or commit violent crimes to obtain their fixes because the actual cost of most drugs of abuse are trivial once the inflation due to illegality is removed from the equation.

What you advocate is more of the same approach that's failed for a whole century. Please explain to me why a more intensified application of a failed policy should work any better than it has for the past hundred years, because every previous attempt to toughen up the Harrison Act has resulted in a new period of prosperity for the illegal drug industry.

Thanks.

-Rich

 

[No Joy]

I think you're a wee bit dogmatic and strident in your positions. But on this issue...

This isn't the spin zone.

I think your posts are dishonest dogmatic and strident rhetoric.

I've just seen too much drug-related suffering, despite a century of the approach you advocate, to believe it's anything but a colossal failure that has exacerbated the very problem it sought to address.

Quite the contrary. It's been too long where there has only been a token effort to fight drug abuse. I've seen too many people destroy their lives because illicit drugs are so readily available and so widely accepted/tolerated. As I pointed out most of the war on drugs is rhetoric, rather than action. I've seen too many hurt and killed because the government and politicians are largely only making a token effort to fight drug abuse. Many in law enforcement and other government positions; do illicit drugs and/or skim and/or otherwise have a vested interest in drug running and drug dealing.

Quite often police and politicians know the activities of drug dealers, drug addicts, pimps and prostitutes; yet they do little to stop the activity. Quite the contrary; police and politicians are often quite hostile toward people that complain about the problems that the illicit activity cause.

The incident that I mentioned that cops were admittedly doing cocaine that they had skimmed off of drug mules; happened about 30 years ago.

Similar stuff still goes on. A police officer was busted for using an auto sales business as a front for drug running.

Officer among 11 charged with marijuana trafficking conspiracy
http://www.americanownews.com/story...s-among-11-charged-with-marijuana-trafficking

Decorated cop indicted on drug trafficking charges
http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/decorated-cop-indicted-on-drug-trafficking-charges

Corrections officer accused in drug smuggling to resign
http://www.toledoblade.com/Courts/2...icer-accused-in-drug-smuggling-to-resign.html

Police officer accused of smuggling drugs into St. Clair County jail
http://www.kmov.com/news/crime/Police-officer-accused-of-bringing-drugs-into-jail-213610811.html

Livingston County, NY Sheriff Deputy Arrested for Smuggling Drugs into Jail
http://www.copblock.org/27830/livin...eputy-arrested-for-smuggling-drugs-into-jail/

Four Texas police officers arrested in cocaine smuggling probe
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/14/nation/la-na-nn-texas-police-cocaine-20121214

Strengthening and toughening a failed approach isn't the answer, in my opinion. Getting the cops and the DEA out of the system altogether

The fact is for the most part the government hasn't taken a hard stance against drugs. It's only made a token effort. It's often part of the problem.

The war on drugs is largely empty rhetoric.

There used to not be laws against drugs. The reason many drugs were made illegal, is many of them were very detrimental to society.

Perhaps you're too young or too burned out to remember when legal amphetamines caused a lot of problems in the transportation industry.

Even after amphetamines were made illegal for general use by the general public. The US military would sometimes make amphetamines available and suggest using "go pills". Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the friendly fire incident in Afghanistan that "go pills" (amphetamines) may have been a contributing factor?

compassionate approach would be much better. I would feel better with doctors and pharmacists running the show. Done properly, such a system could actually reduce drug abuse.

Obamacare and some of what you propose is contrary to the compassionate approach. It would be nice if doctors would start practicing medicine, instead of politics. Doctors oftain refuse to abide by the Hippocratic oath, because of governmental rules and laws. The field of medicine is largely a fraud in many respects.

It's ironic that we are ever increasing restrictions on medications to people that legitimately need them. Yet we are decriminalizing and downgrading the criminalization of many illicit drugs.

Let's suppose, for example, that as a provision of obtaining a weekly or monthly prescription for a fix (consisting of sequential doses to be dispensed daily),

The problem is the same approach is being used for people that legitimately need legitimate drugs. These policies are bankrupting, torturing and murdering people that have legitimate needs for legitimate drugs.

How come priority is being given to get drug addicts their fix, but not to get non-drug addicts the drugs they need for life and humane existence?

It amazes me how society is so willing to deny pain medication to people like burn patients, and people dying of cancer. Yet eager to get drug addicts their fix. I think it is because drug addicts have a louder voice in the community and more lobbyists. It amounts to greed.

In the meantime, even for those who decline treatment, at least what they'd be using would be known-quality, unadulterated, uncontaminated product.

I think that's one of the better arguments for legalizing illicit drugs. However the quasilegal marijuana dispensaries, hardly meet FDA standards. It's far from known quality, unadulterated and uncontaminated products.

And don't assume just because drugs are legal that they are always a known quality, unadulterated and uncontaminated.

Generics, often have substandard quality and inconsistencies that render different effectiveness and risks.

Counterfeits are also a problem with more expensive and more restrictive drugs. Viagra, narcotics, antibiotics, and chemotherapy drugs have been dispensed by pharmacies.

I was alarmed when I read the label of an over-the-counter cold medicine that I had bought, "manufactured in Mexico". I prefer American-made drugs, not drugs made from a country that is famed for corruption and illicit drugs.

They also wouldn't have to whore themselves or commit violent crimes to obtain their fixes because the actual cost of most drugs of abuse are trivial once the inflation due to illegality is removed from the equation.

That's a false assumption on your part. I've known people that would sell themselves or commit violent crimes for a few cigarettes or a beer.

You're also assuming that legalizing illicit drugs would significantly lower the price. Prices of drugs wouldn't necessarily go down with legalization. Regulations, taxes and legal liability (lawsuits) might substantially contribute to the costs.

Even where drugs are available cheaply, it's not always a Shangri-La. Cheap drugs have been readily available in Somalia, yet they're not a model of peace and prosperity.

What you advocate is more of the same approach that's failed for a whole century. Please explain to me why a more intensified application of a failed policy should work any better than it has for the past hundred years, because every previous attempt to toughen up the Harrison Act has resulted in a new period of prosperity for the illegal drug industry.

Again your assertions are dishonest, whether it be your have poor comprehension or your intent is to deliberately mislead.

There never has been a truly honest attempt to be hard on illicit drugs in this country. There are too many crooked politicians and crooked cops. The war on drugs is largely rhetoric, the reality is much different.

You seem to be more of a rhetoric person, then a reality person.

 

[RJM62]

This isn't the spin zone.

I think your posts are dishonest dogmatic and strident rhetoric.


Quite the contrary. It's been too long where there has only been a token effort to fight drug abuse. I've seen too many people destroy their lives because illicit drugs are so readily available and so widely accepted/tolerated. As I pointed out most of the war on drugs is rhetoric, rather than action. I've seen too many hurt and killed because the government and politicians are largely only making a token effort to fight drug abuse. Many in law enforcement and other government positions; do illicit drugs and/or skim and/or otherwise have a vested interest in drug running and drug dealing.

Quite often police and politicians know the activities of drug dealers, drug addicts, pimps and prostitutes; yet they do little to stop the activity. Quite the contrary; police and politicians are often quite hostile toward people that complain about the problems that the illicit activity cause.

The incident that I mentioned that cops were admittedly doing cocaine that they had skimmed off of drug mules; happened about 30 years ago.

Similar stuff still goes on. A police officer was busted for using an auto sales business as a front for drug running.

Officer among 11 charged with marijuana trafficking conspiracy
http://www.americanownews.com/story...s-among-11-charged-with-marijuana-trafficking

Decorated cop indicted on drug trafficking charges
http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/decorated-cop-indicted-on-drug-trafficking-charges

Corrections officer accused in drug smuggling to resign
http://www.toledoblade.com/Courts/2...icer-accused-in-drug-smuggling-to-resign.html

Police officer accused of smuggling drugs into St. Clair County jail
http://www.kmov.com/news/crime/Police-officer-accused-of-bringing-drugs-into-jail-213610811.html

Livingston County, NY Sheriff Deputy Arrested for Smuggling Drugs into Jail
http://www.copblock.org/27830/livin...eputy-arrested-for-smuggling-drugs-into-jail/

Four Texas police officers arrested in cocaine smuggling probe
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/14/nation/la-na-nn-texas-police-cocaine-20121214


The fact is for the most part the government hasn't taken a hard stance against drugs. It's only made a token effort. It's often part of the problem.

The war on drugs is largely empty rhetoric.

There used to not be laws against drugs. The reason many drugs were made illegal, is many of them were very detrimental to society.

Perhaps you're too young or too burned out to remember when legal amphetamines caused a lot of problems in the transportation industry.

Even after amphetamines were made illegal for general use by the general public. The US military would sometimes make amphetamines available and suggest using "go pills". Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the friendly fire incident in Afghanistan that "go pills" (amphetamines) may have been a contributing factor?

Obamacare and some of what you propose is contrary to the compassionate approach. It would be nice if doctors would start practicing medicine, instead of politics. Doctors oftain refuse to abide by the Hippocratic oath, because of governmental rules and laws. The field of medicine is largely a fraud in many respects.

It's ironic that we are ever increasing restrictions on medications to people that legitimately need them. Yet we are decriminalizing and downgrading the criminalization of many illicit drugs.


The problem is the same approach is being used for people that legitimately need legitimate drugs. These policies are bankrupting, torturing and murdering people that have legitimate needs for legitimate drugs.

How come priority is being given to get drug addicts their fix, but not to get non-drug addicts the drugs they need for life and humane existence?

It amazes me how society is so willing to deny pain medication to people like burn patients, and people dying of cancer. Yet eager to get drug addicts their fix. I think it is because drug addicts have a louder voice in the community and more lobbyists. It amounts to greed.


I think that's one of the better arguments for legalizing illicit drugs. However the quasilegal marijuana dispensaries, hardly meet FDA standards. It's far from known quality, unadulterated and uncontaminated products.

And don't assume just because drugs are legal that they are always a known quality, unadulterated and uncontaminated.

Generics, often have substandard quality and inconsistencies that render different effectiveness and risks.

Counterfeits are also a problem with more expensive and more restrictive drugs. Viagra, narcotics, antibiotics, and chemotherapy drugs have been dispensed by pharmacies.

I was alarmed when I read the label of an over-the-counter cold medicine that I had bought, "manufactured in Mexico". I prefer American-made drugs, not drugs made from a country that is famed for corruption and illicit drugs.


That's a false assumption on your part. I've known people that would sell themselves or commit violent crimes for a few cigarettes or a beer.

You're also assuming that legalizing illicit drugs would significantly lower the price. Prices of drugs wouldn't necessarily go down with legalization. Regulations, taxes and legal liability (lawsuits) might substantially contribute to the costs.

Even where drugs are available cheaply, it's not always a Shangri-La. Cheap drugs have been readily available in Somalia, yet they're not a model of peace and prosperity.


Again your assertions are dishonest, whether it be your have poor comprehension or your intent is to deliberately mislead.

There never has been a truly honest attempt to be hard on illicit drugs in this country. There are too many crooked politicians and crooked cops. The war on drugs is largely rhetoric, the reality is much different.

You seem to be more of a rhetoric person, then a reality person.

Well, thank you. I haven't been accused of being "too young" in many years.

As for the "burned out" part, I'll admit that having to meander through piles of sanctimonious diatribe that lacks any factual evidence to back it up, while simultaneously being accused of being dishonest and spewing rhetoric, kinda grates on me these days. But it's no biggie.

Regarding personal use of drugs and the like, well, let's see. I have a glass of wine with dinner most evenings. No beer or hard liquor anymore. It plays havoc with the blood sugar. I did try marihuana about 35 years ago. I didn't care for it. It mainly just made me dizzy, so I didn't try it again. Oh, and there was that Vicodin tablet I took a few years back after my gall bladder surgery. I didn't care much for that, either. It made me loopy. I decided I'd rather deal with the pain.

Now that that's out of the way...

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there are about 1.6 Million Americans in prison or or parole or probation for drug charges at any given time. That's roughly 3 - 4 percent of the young adult age group that's most likely to do illegal drugs. Unfortunately, the following supporting links aren't available right now because of the phony federal shutdown, but here they are, anyway:

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p11.pdf
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p12ac.pdf
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ppus11.pdf
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ppus11.pdf

I probably have those documents stored away somewhere, but I'm frankly too lazy to look for them. They'll be available again online soon enough, though.

Those numbers don't count people who were arrested for other drug-related crimes, which are tabulated separately. Estimates for the percentage of people whose drug use contributed to their commission of non-drug crimes vary widely, but according to the Almanac of Policy Issues,

"Data collected from male arrestees in 1998 in 35 cities showed that the percentage testing positive for any drug ranged from 42.5 percent in Anchorage, Alaska, to 78.7 percent in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Female arrestees testing positive ranged from 33.3 percent in Laredo, Texas, to 82.1 percent in New York, New York." ( http://www.policyalmanac.org/crime/archive/drug_related_crime.shtml )

Given these numbers, I have to say that your assertion that law enforcement pays only token attention to enforcing drug laws doesn't ring true for me at all. It seems pretty clear to me that the great majority of people in prison or under supervision have histories of drug use that either directly or indirectly resulted in their arrests. That, to me, doesn't testify to the success of our enforcement-driven drug policies.

Which again begs the question: If the prohibition approach to drug policy is such a wonderful idea as you suggest, then why are our per-capita incarceration levels so much higher -- as much 500 percent higher, in fact -- than nations with less draconian drug policies?

You accuse me of spewing rhetoric, and yet you still can't provide any evidence to refute my assertion that our punishment-based drug policies are a failure. You ignore the empirical evidence the the whole drug enforcement industry has been counterproductive from a public policy perspective, and then you accuse me of not being a "reality person."

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]You suggest that lack of enforcement is to blame. So how many people do we need to lock up to please you? When we incarcerate 1,500 of every 100,000 of our citizens instead of the current ~725, will that be enough? How about 2,000? Or 3,000? How many people would you like to lock up before we can declare success?

And why is it a success to lock someone up, anyway? I consider it a failure every time a young person needs to be incarcerated. It may be necessary, but it's still a failure. And yet the tougher enforcement you crave, in its most basic sense, equates to locking more people up. How many failures do you think it'll take before you're satisfied that they cumulatively equal success?

Meh. You know, I really don't care enough about your answers to take this any farther. I believe in observable reality, and the observable reality is that a century of drug prohibition has only resulted in our incarcerating the highest percentage of our young citizens of any nation in the history of humankind. You seem to think that's a good thing. I believe otherwise.

Have a great day.

-Rich

[/FONT]

 

[weilke]

I didn't know there were rocks that big to live under.

The folks who have their doors kicked in and their dogs shot based on anonymous tips or misread addresses probably won't agree that it is 'only rhetoric'.
Pilots who get stopped at gunpoint for random searches probably won't agree that it is 'only rhetoric'.
and on and on

 

[ClimbnSink]

So the gov doing more anti drug stuff would stop gov workers from dealing(the now even more lucrative drugs) how?

Similar stuff still goes on. A police officer was busted for using an auto sales business as a front for drug running.

Officer among 11 charged with marijuana trafficking conspiracy
http://www.americanownews.com/story...s-among-11-charged-with-marijuana-trafficking

Decorated cop indicted on drug trafficking charges
http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/decorated-cop-indicted-on-drug-trafficking-charges

Corrections officer accused in drug smuggling to resign
http://www.toledoblade.com/Courts/2...icer-accused-in-drug-smuggling-to-resign.html

Police officer accused of smuggling drugs into St. Clair County jail
http://www.kmov.com/news/crime/Police-officer-accused-of-bringing-drugs-into-jail-213610811.html

Livingston County, NY Sheriff Deputy Arrested for Smuggling Drugs into Jail
http://www.copblock.org/27830/livin...eputy-arrested-for-smuggling-drugs-into-jail/

Four Texas police officers arrested in cocaine smuggling probe
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/14/nation/la-na-nn-texas-police-cocaine-20121214

 

[steingar]

And as a physician I know there are certain substances that just have no medical usage. I see no rational reason that because people want to get high, stoned, go on chemically altered trips the medical community should be party to it.

People legally use all sorts of things on and in their bodies that have no medical usage. Doesn't make any of them illegal. Many are pretty bloody unsightly, though.

I also think that the belief that by legalizing these substances will put the drug cartels out of business, and stop the violence is somewhat naïve. The people that are involved in these enterprises will just find other illegal ways to continue to make their money, and inflict their violent ways on society.

Perhaps, but it would make it much more difficult for them to wield the sort of socially destabilizing influence they now enjoy.

Lastly, what I have seen with the federal government calling pain the 5th vital sign, and promoting pain management to the point that they basically told patients that if your doctor did not adequately treat your pain they were committing malpractice, thus leading to the high volumes of narcotic prescribing and then the government seeing this was not good and swing the pendulum to the point that doctors are now afraid they will lose their license if they prescribe narcotics, tells me that the government does not have the intellect to legalize these substances, and stand by their decisions.

I do call the government smart enough to tax the stuff, which is good enough for me.

So I do not see the legalization of these substances as solving anything, and in fact may just cause a whole new set of new problems.

Unintended consequences, yeah I got it. You base assumption is the unintended consequences will be far worse than the situation we have currently. I would counter that they cannot be, since the situation we have currently has resulted in the loss of freedoms and America's slide toward becoming a Police state. Nothing is worse than that.

 

[Skylane81E]

Token enforcement?

That's a good one!

Some estimates put the annual count of SWAT raids at 40,000 a year, every tiny local PD I know of around here has a working drug task force, large portions of Law Enforcement budgets come from drug seizures (how often do you see a DARE or other cop car with "donated by your local drug dealer" written on it?) etc.

The war on drugs is big business for the police

 

[douglas393]

People legally use all sorts of things on and in their bodies that have no medical usage. Doesn't make any of them illegal. Many are pretty bloody unsightly, though.

He was specifically talking about health care professionals controlling this and this is what I was commenting on. So your criticism of my statement is misplaced. If you want to legalize it fine. Make them OTC just like cigarettes and alcohol, and go get stoned. However, I do not see the rationale behind saying we want to legalize it, make the doctors and health care professional prescribe it, and when crap hits the fan and people get hurt because they do stupid things with stupid things that make them stupid or kill them its the doctor's fault.

Perhaps, but it would make it much more difficult for them to wield the sort of socially destabilizing influence they now enjoy.

Not too sure that the drug cartels and their like is going to cause the downfall of society as we know it except in possible some localities where the organized society was not that good to begin with. If it does then the society as we know it was not too strong to begin with. In any case, these people that work in these enterprises will always find some way to do there thing, and if it is not drugs it will be something else. I am not sure by exchanging some other commodity or activity it will make it any more difficult. History sort of suggests that this is the case.

I do call the government smart enough to tax the stuff, which is good enough for me.

What this has to do with my comment. I do not know. Taxing has absolutely nothing to do with regulating the sale. It has everything to do wih profitting off the sale. Though I must admit taxing seems to be the one thing that this government of ours seems to excel in.

Unintended consequences, yeah I got it. You base assumption is the unintended consequences will be far worse than the situation we have currently. I would counter that they cannot be, since the situation we have currently has resulted in the loss of freedoms and America's slide toward becoming a Police state. Nothing is worse than that.

This is the first I have heard that cause of the United Socialists State of America is the result of crack whores, heroin junkies, dead heads, and the sort. I thought the so called war on terrorism was the cause. I guess I was mistaken.

 

[weilke]

He was specifically talking about health care professionals controlling this and this is what I was commenting on. So your criticism of my statement is misplaced. If you want to legalize it fine. Make them OTC just like cigarettes and alcohol, and go get stoned. However, I do not see the rationale behind saying we want to legalize it, make the doctors and health care professional prescribe it, and when crap hits the fan and people get hurt because they do stupid things with stupid things that make them stupid or kill them its the doctor's fault.

Hey, 90% of the 'pain management' racket in FL is already doing this .

I dont think anyone is itching to get even more addicts into their offices or pharmacies, but as the 'medical marijuana' scam in California has demonstrated, medical professionals are not above getting involved in getting people stoned or high if there is a legal buck to be made.

Not too sure that the drug cartels and their like is going to cause the downfall of society as we know it except in possible some localities where the organized society was not that good to begin with. If it does then the society as we know it was not too strong to begin with.

We dont need the cartels, the goverment is doing the downfalling thing just fine, using the fear of the cartels as a tool.

In any case, these people that work in these enterprises will always find some way to do there thing, and if it is not drugs it will be something else. I am not sure by exchanging some other commodity or activity it will make it any more difficult. History sort of suggests that this is the case.

Drugs are the single most profitable commodity for the cartels to import. Sure, if there is no money to be made in drugs, they may get into hydrophonic lettuce and cut flowers. I doubt it though.

What this has to do with my comment. I do not know. Taxing has absolutely nothing to do with regulating the sale. It has everything to do wih profitting off the sale. Though I must admit taxing seems to be the one thing that this government of ours seems to excel in.

Just look at Colorado. They had a new weed taxing authority stood up within days of the law being passed. Former cop runs the thing.

 

[steingar]

He was specifically talking about health care professionals controlling this and this is what I was commenting on. So your criticism of my statement is misplaced. If you want to legalize it fine. Make them OTC just like cigarettes and alcohol, and go get stoned. However, I do not see the rationale behind saying we want to legalize it, make the doctors and health care professional prescribe it, and when crap hits the fan and people get hurt because they do stupid things with stupid things that make them stupid or kill them its the doctor's fault.

While I understand your point and don't even disagree I would mention that some degree of medical involvement could prevent some people from going off the deep end with this stuff.

Not too sure that the drug cartels and their like is going to cause the downfall of society as we know it except in possible some localities where the organized society was not that good to begin with.

Ever been to Mexico? It was a nice and very safe place until los narcos started killing everybody. Medellin was also a killing ground until they finally departed, now its pretty nice. los narcos have destabilized democracies throughout Central America. The societies were just fine (albeit poor). But there isn't much a poorly funded government can do against a rich criminal cartel that can easily outgun it.

In any case, these people that work in these enterprises will always find some way to do there thing, and if it is not drugs it will be something else. I am not sure by exchanging some other commodity or activity it will make it any more difficult. History sort of suggests that this is the case.

There were no rich cartels before the drugs, how can you be so certain there will be after? The US is where the money comes from. Take that away what have they got?

This is the first I have heard that cause of the United Socialists State of America is the result of crack whores, heroin junkies, dead heads, and the sort. I thought the so called war on terrorism was the cause. I guess I was mistaken.

The War on Drugs has decimated the 4th Amendment, you are no longer safe from warrantless search and seizure in your own home. They have also created a militaristic police culture that has driven a wedge between the police and those they're supposed to be serving. We are also spending tens of billions of dollars on this enterprise every year, and incarcerate more people than any other nation on Earth both in raw numbers and per capita. Despite all this illegal drugs are widely available throughout the country.

If you really want to continue this state of affairs you must have your head in the sand.

 

[douglas393]

While I understand your point and don't even disagree I would mention that some degree of medical involvement could prevent some people from going off the deep end with this stuff.

Why? If they want to use this crap then let them use it. If they want help after they have truly screwed the pooch then the can get it through Obamacare.

Ever been to Mexico? It was a nice and very safe place until los narcos started killing everybody. Medellin was also a killing ground until they finally departed, now its pretty nice. los narcos have destabilized democracies throughout Central America. The societies were just fine (albeit poor). But there isn't much a poorly funded government can do against a rich criminal cartel that can easily outgun it.

Thus my point about locales where the government was not too good to start off with.

There were no rich cartels before the drugs, how can you be so certain there will be after? The US is where the money comes from. Take that away what have they got?

Not sure which millenium or century you are referring to. Drugs have been around since before...well a long time ago. Take away drugs, and I am confident they will find some other way to terrorize people and support their lifestyle.

The War on Drugs has decimated the 4th Amendment, you are no longer safe from warrantless search and seizure in your own home. They have also created a militaristic police culture that has driven a wedge between the police and those they're supposed to be serving. We are also spending tens of billions of dollars on this enterprise every year, and incarcerate more people than any other nation on Earth both in raw numbers and per capita. Despite all this illegal drugs are widely available throughout the country.

If you really want to continue this state of affairs you must have your head in the sand.

The war on drugs started long before the decimation of the 4th amendment. I see the militarization of the American police culture as a direct result of the terrorist attacks on the US and not the drug problem. Using your logic, think of how much money could be saved if we just abolished all laws and legalized everything and every behavior. Because it cost money to fight something does not mean we should not fight it.

 

[steingar]

Why? If they want to use this crap then let them use it. If they want help after they have truly screwed the pooch then the can get it through Obamacare.

Can't argue the logic.

Thus my point about locales where the government was not too good to start off with.

Ever been to Mexico? I wouldn't describe the government as being a model of democracy, but it was far from the kleptocracy found in many third world states.

Not sure which millenium or century you are referring to. Drugs have been around since before...well a long time ago. Take away drugs, and I am confident they will find some other way to terrorize people and support their lifestyle.

I'm not. They only got the way they are because of the insane amount of money they could make purveying narcotics. No other contraband makes money like that. I've read that they purchase jets, fly their drugs to Africa and abandon them (the jets, that is) and take the drugs overland to Europe. That's money.

The war on drugs started long before the decimation of the 4th amendment. I see the militarization of the American police culture as a direct result of the terrorist attacks on the US and not the drug problem. Using your logic, think of how much money could be saved if we just abolished all laws and legalized everything and every behavior. Because it cost money to fight something does not mean we should not fight it.

It was the War on Drugs that caused the militarization of the cartels, which in turn caused the militarization of the US police. The terrorism business is little more than a distraction at the local level, heck even DHS has been suborned into the interdiction effort as has the CBP.

We should fight the battles we can win.

 

[ClimbnSink]

The war on drugs started long before the decimation of the 4th amendment. I see the militarization of the American police culture as a direct result of the terrorist attacks on the US and not the drug problem.

That is flat out wrong, the police becoming an occupying army is pre 9/11 terror excuse. That was all done in the name of the war on plants.

 

[RJM62]

The war on drugs started long before the decimation of the 4th amendment. I see the militarization of the American police culture as a direct result of the terrorist attacks on the US and not the drug problem. Using your logic, think of how much money could be saved if we just abolished all laws and legalized everything and every behavior. Because it cost money to fight something does not mean we should not fight it.

Ignoring the straw man for the time being...

The militarization of drug enforcement was already well underway by the 1930's. The Federal Narcotics Bureau was established in 1930, in my opinion, in anticipation of the repeal of prohibition in 1933. All those revenuers would need something to do once booze became legal again.

In any case, the FNB grew quietly, but steadily, infiltrating organized crime and engaging in both open and covert anti-drug operations both in the United States and overseas (especially in Asia). Agents of the FBN even served in Vietnam, using allegations of narcotics production by North Vietnamese entities to justify apprehension of civilians in the south.

Closer to home, when I was a kid growing up in Brooklyn in the 1960s, large-scale raids by what would come to be known as SWAT teams were not uncommon. Neither were lockdowns of high schools while police performed unconstitutional locker searches.

Ironically, I became, for a time, part of that militarization, when I was in the Coast Guard. It actually was during that time that this straight-laced all-American boy began to wonder if we were doing more harm than good. It was believed that we only interdicted about five percent of incoming marihuana shipments; but for traffickers, even a five percent chance of a shipment being intercepted dramatically raised the stakes -- along with the street prices of the drugs.

It wasn't losing the product that they cared about. A pound of weed out of, say, Columbia or Venezuela only cost about $4.00 - $7.00 wholesale back then, and sold to dealers in the U.S. for between $150.00 - $175.00. So there was plenty of room for breakage built in to the markup.

The concern, rather, was that hired boat crews, confronted by armed commandos attached to a destroyer-class vessel with cannons and machine guns trained on them, might suddenly be moved to talk -- especially since no one in the U.S. government gave a damn about the boat crews, anyway. They wanted the kingpins, and would negotiate generously with the boat crews in return for good information.

Nonetheless, even though it was estimated that we interdicted only about five percent of the weed, and even less of the cocaine, the fact that we were out there at all resulted in tremendous price inflation (due to risk), which in turn created the potential for enormous profits. Someone with $10,000 and access to a very small fishing boat could easily turn $250,000 in profit on a single shipment, even after salaries and expenses were accounted for. With a bigger boat, profits of more than a million bucks could be made on a single voyage and a $35,000 investment. And that was just for weed. Cocaine was even more profitable.

So yeah, I totally get and agree with Michael's point regarding the harmful effects of drug enforcement on civil rights. But that's only a tiny part of my reason for opposing our punishment-based drug policies. I consider that the government, like all governments, will always seek to increase its power over the people; and if it's not drugs that they use as an excuse, it'll be something else -- even if they have to invent that "something else."

Rather, my reasons for opposing our prohibition-based system, as I have said over and over again, is that IT SIMPLY DOESN'T WORK!

It really is that simple. It doesn't work. It doesn't reduce drug use. It doesn't reduce drug-related crime and disease, but rather increases them. It doesn't help provide treatment opportunities, but rather siphons off funds that could be used for treatment into the law enforcement and criminal justice bureaucracies. It simply does not work. Practically any civilized nation in the world has a better grasp of that simple fact than we do, and yet we refuse to learn from them.

-Rich

 

[No Joy]

So the gov doing more anti drug stuff would stop gov workers from dealing(the now even more lucrative drugs) how?

Are you joking or delusional?

My point is the so-called war on drugs, is largely a joke. LE, politicians and other government officials are part of the problem. Many of them have a conflict of interest because they are drug addicts and/or unethically prosper from drug activity. Much of "the war on drugs" is only a token effort. Much of the resources is squandered and misdirected.

You suggest that lack of enforcement is to blame. So how many people do we need to lock up to please you?

You're using the number of people locked up, much like politicians used body counts in Vietnam to bolster their agenda.

The war on drugs is being fought foolishly much like the Vietnam war was. Many soldiers and commanders did their job brilliantly, however the politics dictated policies that pretty much guaranteed failure.

There are some neighborhoods that it's hard to walk through or drive through without being approached by drug addicts or prostitutes.

It's ridiculous that we illegally lock up people for drug abuse that have legitimate prescriptions and legitimate needs for drugs, yet so much illicit illegal drug use, drug dealing, drug running, drug manufacturing goes unaddressed. Part of the reason the drug war is failing is that it is largely, reckless, indiscriminate, incompetent, corrupt and derelict.

I didn't know there were rocks that big to live under.

I don't know what rock you live under. Drugs and prostitution are still major problems despite the so-called war on drugs.

LE incompetence is not evidence that the war on drugs should be ended. Instead the system needs to be purged. Incompetent, derelict and corrupt LEOs, politicians and other government officials need to be purged from the system. The war on drugs is failing largely because because it is largely incompetent, derelict and corrupt.

I do call the government smart enough to tax the stuff, which is good enough for me.

Drugs largely spiraled out of control, because governments and businesses promoted them for profit.

Colonialism of the Orientals, the opium trade was used to pseudo-enslave people by getting them addicted. Taxes was part of the motive.

Even in the US opium and cocaine was used by the government and big business to get people addicted to pseudo-enslave workers. Drugs largely were legal. When the public started to realize that workers were being exploited and that drugs were causing problems; there was a movement to try to restrict drug use.

Illicit drugs are largely responsible for human trafficking. Some of the victims are just children that have been coerced or abducted.

Token enforcement?

That's a good one!

Some estimates put the annual count of SWAT raids at 40,000 a year, every tiny local PD I know of around here has a working drug task force, large portions of Law Enforcement budgets come from drug seizures (how often do you see a DARE or other cop car with "donated by your local drug dealer" written on it?) etc.

The war on drugs is big business for the police

I don't doubt that Dare does some good through education and awareness. I don't doubt that most confiscations are well-founded.

However the Dare program, confiscations and the war on drugs is tainted by dereliction, corruption, and incompetence.

Quite a bit of property that is confiscated by police is theft. Property is often confiscated on erroneous grounds. Often there isn't a legitimate effort to return legitimate property to legitimate owners.

I don't doubt that they the Dare program does a lot of good, however it's impossible for me to disregard the harm and corruption. One of the Dare figureheads that I personally know, is a slanderer, sociopath and fraud. I don't know if the officer does illicit drugs. Like most officers, the officer is addicted to power and uses that power to hurt people and break the law. The officer is a bigoted bully, then lies and falsify evidence.

It's hard to take a Dare program seriously, that does a lot of posturing, yet largely ignores the serious drug problems in the community and within the government itself (including the police department).

I don't know of any truly honest LEO or politician in the greater Cincinnati area.

The problem with the war on drugs is it is big business for police and other government officials over and under the table.

We need an army of Serpico clones.

 

[weilke]

I don't know what rock you live under. Drugs and prostitution are still major problems despite the so-called war on drugs.

Prostitution is another item that is only a problem because it is illegal. I spent the first 28 years of my life in a jurisdiction where prostitution was legal (being a pimp otoh was illegal). The girls paid income tax, the brothels paid sales-tax and had a liquor license, the girls made good money and took their monthly trip to the health department for a checkup. It was a business no different from the strip-club business in the US. Not exactly reputable, but just something that was part of any major city.

LE incompetence is not evidence that the war on drugs should be ended. Instead the system needs to be purged. Incompetent, derelict and corrupt LEOs, politicians and other government officials need to be purged from the system. The war on drugs is failing largely because because it is largely incompetent, derelict and corrupt.

While working in my home-office today, I have 'Prohibition' a three part documentary by Ken Burns running in the background.
Everything you stated in the above paragraph reflects the attitude of Mabel Walker Willebrand, the assistant attorney general for prohibition under Harding and Hoover.
Right now I am on episode 3, coming up to the writing of the 21st amendment. Back then, they eventually smarted up. We have some way to go on the prohibition of plants.

 

[poadeleted21]

LE incompetence is not evidence that the war on drugs should be ended. Instead the system needs to be purged. Incompetent, derelict and corrupt LEOs, politicians and other government officials need to be purged from the system. The war on drugs is failing largely because because it is largely incompetent, derelict and corrupt.

You have to have those qualities to get past HR.

Drugs largely spiraled out of control, because governments and businesses promoted them for profit.

And they will as long as it's profitable.

I don't know of any truly honest LEO or politician in the greater Cincinnati area.

Like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, a "truly honest LEO or politician" are warm and fuzzy characters, but they don't exist in real life.

We need an army of Serpico clones.

I agree, that's why your position is far fetched. The system and people you wish for are fantasy. I admire your ideology, but Mr. Rogers clones aren't going to be filling up the slots at the local PD academy anytime soon.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Are you joking or delusional?

What is delusional is the idea of cleaning up the countries police forces and making gov't more efficient so the war on feeling good can successfully be cranked up. How you going to crack the thin blue line? You going to go Dorner on crooked cops? Good luck great noble warrior of justice.

 

[douglas393]

Ignoring the straw man for the time being...


-Rich

I do not think its a straw man argument. Your point in changing the classification of an activity from illegal to legal is that making it illegal has not stopped the activity from occurring. What makes illegal drugs so different that it should be legalized because a very small minority of the population chooses not to follow the laws.

 

[No Joy]

Prostitution is another item that is only a problem because it is illegal....

Drugs contributed to pseudo-slavery and prostitution long before drugs/prostitution were made illegal or there was any significant attempt to enforce laws against drugs/prostitution. Governments and businesses encouraged opium and cocaine use to increase worker output, get workers addicted to force them into pseudo-slavery and prostitution.

 

[weilke]

Drugs contributed to pseudo-slavery and prostitution long before drugs/prostitution were made illegal or there was any significant attempt to enforce laws against drugs/prostitution. Governments and businesses encouraged opium and cocaine use to increase worker output, get workers addicted to force them into pseudo-slavery and prostitution.

And your point is ?

If you could support a cocaine habit with a regular job, there would be no need to engage in prostitution for most of the girls.

Interestingly, for prostitution, having it available by legal means raises prices, it doesn't lower them.

 

[No Joy]

And your point is ?

My point is that your claim is a lie that prostitution and drug abuse is only a problem because it is illegal.

The fact is prostitution and drug abuse was a problem long before they became illegal.

Now you're using more deflection and straw arguments.

 

[RJM62]

I do not think its a straw man argument. Your point in changing the classification of an activity from illegal to legal is that making it illegal has not stopped the activity from occurring. What makes illegal drugs so different that it should be legalized because a very small minority of the population chooses not to follow the laws.

Firstly, because it is a very personal activity that would be of very little consequence to anyone except the drug user were it not for the prohibition. The prohibition is the direct cause of the consequences to non-users, such as mugging victims, people infected with diseases by prostitutes who acquired infections sharing needles, and hospitals who wind up treating addicts who overdose or become ill from bad batches of stuff manufactured in unregulated, unsanitary labs. Take away the prohibition and provide a safe, regulated source, and the secondary consequences to non-users and society at large go away.

Secondly, because not every problematic activity responds well to the same approach. It's like... for example, bacterial diseases. Some respond well to one antibiotic, but are resistant to another. Knowingly insisting on using the ineffective one, even knowing that it's ineffective, would be foolish. The same is true for social problems. This is why I brought up the straw man point.

Thirdly, because we have empirical evidence of both the ineffective of our approach, and the relative effectiveness of other approaches used in other countries. Not all countries have decriminalized drug use, but no other democracy relies on the threat of prison as a primary intervention.

Fourthly, because it establishes the presence of Big Brother as an unwanted partner in the doctor / patient relationship. If a doctor is willing to prescribe narcotics for addiction maintenance because it will enable the patient to live a more-or-less normal life, then it's none of Big Brother's business.

Incidentally, the one area in which I wholeheartedly agree with No Joy is with regard to compassionate use of narcotics to treat pain. I've known terminal patients with a foot already in the grave who couldn't get adequate morphine doses because of concern about long-term addiction. How bizarre is that?

Fifthly, because no one has been able to point to any reasonably likely consequence to trying a non-punishment-based approach. The only objections I hear are based on personal philosophy, which is fine, but ultimately is no more relevant than Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" solution. Show me why my idea is dangerous, not just why you don't happen to like it. Take a look at Portugal's experience for some real-world, empirical data, and then explain why it couldn't work here.

Sixthly, because drug addiction is a disease. How many other diseases respond well to threats of incarceration?

Those are a few of the practical differences. There are other differences that make drug policy unique, but they fall more into my own philosophical beliefs, Michael's privacy and freedom concerns, Gary's militarization concerns, and so forth.

-Rich

 

[douglas393]

Firstly, because it is a very personal activity that would be of very little consequence to anyone except the drug user were it not for the prohibition. The prohibition is the direct cause of the consequences to non-users, such as mugging victims, people infected with diseases by prostitutes who acquired infections sharing needles, and hospitals who wind up treating addicts who overdose or become ill from bad batches of stuff manufactured in unregulated, unsanitary labs. Take away the prohibition and provide a safe, regulated source, and the secondary consequences to non-users and society at large go away.

For the most part you are right that drug use is a very personal activity, but the same can be said about alcoholism and making that legal has not stopped the consequences both physical, mental, and legal with this drug. I personally think it is quite naive to think that by making these drugs legal that it is going to be a panacea and the ill effects are going to magically disappear. I also think the number of addicts will actually go up, and the societal cost may increase.

Secondly, because not every problematic activity responds well to the same approach. It's like... for example, bacterial diseases. Some respond well to one antibiotic, but are resistant to another. Knowingly insisting on using the ineffective one, even knowing that it's ineffective, would be foolish. The same is true for social problems. This is why I brought up the straw man point.

The analogy does not work for me. Bacterial response to antibiotics is something that you can experimentally show, and is based on clear biochemical processes. Social problems are multifactorial and though may have some of their basis on preexisting biochemical process, in all liklihood are more related to nurture than nature. As far as the present way not working, I am not sure that is fully correct. Yes there are drug addicts, and illicit drug use in this country, but it is like saying speed limits should be abolished because people speed. In fact, I would say there are more people that speed than use illegal drugs in this country, but I do not hear you saying we should abolish those laws either. (I know strawman). However, you are using proof that the present laws on drugs do not work because there are people using those drugs, and therefore the laws need to be abolished is no different. There is a large number of people who do not use these drugs, because they are illegal who would use them if they were legal. So your solution to the problem of drug use is just to say its not a problem. To me that does not solve the issue, it just ignores it.

Thirdly, because we have empirical evidence of both the ineffective of our approach, and the relative effectiveness of other approaches used in other countries. Not all countries have decriminalized drug use, but no other democracy relies on the threat of prison as a primary intervention.

I have no problem with changing primary intervention to treatment. I just do not think legalizing the substance and treating it like its alcohol is the answer. I think instead of legalizing it and saying you want to use whatever your poison of choice you want to use is fine and we will do nothing to stop you but do everything to make that drug available to you. We should keep it illegal, and provide treatment to get people off this crap.

Fourthly, because it establishes the presence of Big Brother as an unwanted partner in the doctor / patient relationship. If a doctor is willing to prescribe narcotics for addiction maintenance because it will enable the patient to live a more-or-less normal life, then it's none of Big Brother's business.

Nothing a doctor does or says in 2013 is not under the direct observation of Big Brother. Like I said before, you want to legalize the stuff, fine, legalize it, but then make it like alcohol or cigarettes. To legalize it, and then force health practioners to manage this is well not something I think any physician will want to do. Prescribing narcotics for appropriate reasons is hard enough to do in this country without putting your license and career at risk. These are recreational drugs, and thus you want to legalize it then make it recreational, and keep the doctors out of it. What other recreational things need you to see a doctor to obtain(and this is not analogous to medical examinations to do activities). A doctors job is not entertainment, it is to provide health care. The governments like controlling and destroying physicians almost as much as they like collecting taxes.

Incidentally, the one area in which I wholeheartedly agree with No Joy is with regard to compassionate use of narcotics to treat pain. I've known terminal patients with a foot already in the grave who couldn't get adequate morphine doses because of concern about long-term addiction. How bizarre is that?

Why limit it to terminal patients. What is wrong with prescribing appropriate pain medications (narcotic and nonnarcotic) to patients with nonterminal painful conditions. How is being dependent(addiction is a psychological term that is incorrect in this context) on narcotics for pain control, any different than needing insulin for diabetes, antihypertensives for blood pressure management, etc. The difference is that we treat pain and narcotics as a different issue because the symptoms are subjective for the most part. This is a problem, and I think it is unconciousable what we put pain patients and their providers through.

Fifthly, because no one has been able to point to any reasonably likely consequence to trying a non-punishment-based approach. The only objections I hear are based on personal philosophy, which is fine, but ultimately is no more relevant than Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" solution. Show me why my idea is dangerous, not just why you don't happen to like it. Take a look at Portugal's experience for some real-world, empirical data, and then explain why it couldn't work here.

If your approach does not work, which is possible if not very likely, it will be impossible to reverse the trend. Do I think the present way of handling is the best we could do. No. But I think legalizing all drugs is opening a pandora's box and will be worse. I think a treatment based rehabilitation based approach is better, unless you think being addicted to heroin, cocaine, PCP, LSD, GHB, quaaludes, etc is something that should be tolerated and supported by society.

Sixthly, because drug addiction is a disease. How many other diseases respond well to threats of incarceration?

So is pedophilia, serial killings, rape, etc. They are all mental illnesses as is drug addiction. Yes it is a disease, but in many ways it is a disease of choice. People choose to use drugs, and become addicted. Yet whereas the first few mental illnesses are treated by incarceration and because someone is hurt by the actions of these sick individuals none of us have a problem throwing them in jail and throwing away the keys, because drug addiction in itself does not actively harm others though passively it does we want to treat it differently. Do I think this is wrong? No. Like I said before I have no problems with changing the paradigm on how we treat drug addicts, I just do not think we should just legalize it with out any consequences.

Those are a few of the practical differences. There are other differences that make drug policy unique, but they fall more into my own philosophical beliefs, Michael's privacy and freedom concerns, Gary's militarization concerns, and so forth.

You want to eliminate crime, bring back freedom, and end the militarization of America. Simple. Use a Saudi Arabian type of punishment for crime. For rape, killing, etc. Public torture followed by beheading. For less violent crimes, chop of hands, when no hands left chop off head. Simple non jury trials with fast single appeals, and swift justice. Personally, I prefer what we have now.

 

[RJM62]

Nothing a doctor does or says in 2013 is not under the direct observation of Big Brother. Like I said before, you want to legalize the stuff, fine, legalize it, but then make it like alcohol or cigarettes. To legalize it, and then force health practioners to manage this is well not something I think any physician will want to do.

I'm not advocating forcing anyone to do anything. If you don't want to prescribe for addiction maintenance, then don't. If you're comfortable doing it, then do. If you're okay with titration with a view toward cessation, and the patient's okay with that, then so much the better.

Why limit it to terminal patients. What is wrong with prescribing appropriate pain medications (narcotic and nonnarcotic) to patients with nonterminal painful conditions. How is being dependent(addiction is a psychological term that is incorrect in this context) on narcotics for pain control, any different than needing insulin for diabetes, antihypertensives for blood pressure management, etc. The difference is that we treat pain and narcotics as a different issue because the symptoms are subjective for the most part. This is a problem, and I think it is unconciousable what we put pain patients and their providers through.

I agree. It should be between doctor and patient. If addiction is preferable to intractable pain, then so be it.

If your approach does not work, which is possible if not very likely, it will be impossible to reverse the trend. Do I think the present way of handling is the best we could do. No. But I think legalizing all drugs is opening a pandora's box and will be worse. I think a treatment based rehabilitation based approach is better, unless you think being addicted to heroin, cocaine, PCP, LSD, GHB, quaaludes, etc is something that should be tolerated and supported by society.

Laws are made and repealed every day. No law is impossible to reverse.

So is pedophilia, serial killings, rape, etc. They are all mental illnesses as is drug addiction.

In those cases, harm to others is a direct consequence of the behavior. In the case of drugs, harm to others is primarily a consequence of the prohibition. Additionally, I never proposed legalizing bad acts committed by addicts.

You want to eliminate crime, bring back freedom, and end the militarization of America. Simple. Use a Saudi Arabian type of punishment for crime. For rape, killing, etc. Public torture followed by beheading. For less violent crimes, chop of hands, when no hands left chop off head. Simple non jury trials with fast single appeals, and swift justice. Personally, I prefer what we have now.

Reductio ad absurdum, sir.

-Rich

 

[Sac Arrow]

Holy crap. I never would have guessed flesh eating drugs would have triggered this discourse.

Rock on, gentlemen.

 

[RJM62]

Holy crap. I never would have guessed flesh eating drugs would have triggered this discourse.

Rock on, gentlemen.

What's amazing is that it's still not in SZ.

-Rich

 

[Sac Arrow]

What's amazing is that it's still not in SZ.

-Rich

I'm glad it's not. I don't do SZ.

 

[weilke]

My point is that your claim is a lie that prostitution and drug abuse is only a problem because it is illegal.

The fact is prostitution and drug abuse was a problem long before they became illegal.

Neither of them are illegal in all jurisdictions. Where they are legal, they are not the 'problem' they represent in the US at this time. An opiate addict on a methadone program has no incentive to engage in criminal activity. The buzz keeps coming in little paper cups, the only way to risk it continuing is to pee dirty. Sure, they have problems, but their problems are behavioral and medical, not issues with the criminal justice system.

Same with the working girls. You still have violence, rip-offs associated with legal prostitution, but those problems can be addressed by the police. If the girls dont have to worry about arrest themselves, they can call the cops if someone threatens or robs them.

I worked with drug addicts and the working girls were my customers. Not sure how you can state that my experience is 'a lie'.

 

[weilke]

What's amazing is that it's still not in SZ.

-Rich

So far nobody has gone on a political bend with this. Why should it be in the SZ ?

 

[douglas393]

I'm not advocating forcing anyone to do anything. If you don't want to prescribe for addiction maintenance, then don't. If you're comfortable doing it, then do. If you're okay with titration with a view toward cessation, and the patient's okay with that, then so much the better.

What you call addiction management, many will call recreational use of drugs. Why should doctors prescribe these substances that are being utilized for recreational purposes, when that is not what they do. Addiction management entails a lot more than giving patients their fix. It involves a process of safely weaning the patient from their addiction and treating the physiological, and psychological consequences of their addiction. This is not what you are proposing. What you are proposing is for doctors to become legal drug dealers, and for that you do not need a medical degree. What you want is no different than alcohol or cigarette sales, and then I submit it should be treated the same.

I agree. It should be between doctor and patient. If addiction is preferable to intractable pain, then so be it.

What this is is not addiction. It is pain management and the use of these medications for what they were designed for. The people that are honestly using these medications for pain may be dependent on the medication but they are not addicted or abusing the medication. They ar not taking these medications to get high, or stoned. They are taking these medications to treat pain. To equate what they are doing with the typical heroin abuser or crack addict is misunderstanding the issue. Addicts use this stuff to get high. Patients take these medications to treat pain. Two totally different things. The former is unindicated, uncontrolled abuse, the second is indicated use.

Laws are made and repealed every day. No law is impossible to reverse.

True, but the issue as both you and I know is more than just passing and repealing laws.

In those cases, harm to others is a direct consequence of the behavior. In the case of drugs, harm to others is primarily a consequence of the prohibition. Additionally, I never proposed legalizing bad acts committed by addicts.

I am not too sure that it is primarily a consequence of prohibition or a consequence of use. If some one is high all the time, would you think any one is going to higher them. Or do you also propose providing them with money and housing so they can continue there abuse of these substances without any responsibility. I think this is why I have a problem with the whole legalization issue. It has to do with personal responsibility and respect. Two things in this country that may be disappearing faster than the rights provided by the 4th ammendment.

Reductio ad absurdum, sir.

Agreed sir, Agreed. And it was meant to be.

 

[weilke]

What you call addiction management, many will call recreational use of drugs. Why should doctors prescribe these substances that are being utilized for recreational purposes, when that is not what they do. Addiction management entails a lot more than giving patients their fix. It involves a process of safely weaning the patient from their addiction and treating the physiological, and psychological consequences of their addiction. This is not what you are proposing. What you are proposing is for doctors to become legal drug dealers, and for that you do not need a medical degree. What you want is no different than alcohol or cigarette sales, and then I submit it should be treated the same.

You or I wont do that. Plenty of docs and PAs who would gladly make that buck.

There are physicians willing to certify that weed is a legit treatment for anything from ingrown toenails to asthma, why do you think it will be a problem to find folks willing to prescribe for recreational addicts ?

I actually dont believe that the recreational drugs should be part of the medical system. Have DEA issue a category for recreational dispensary. $720 every three years and you are in business. No prescription necessary. You want it, you have your addict-card, you are good to buy. The states can define the qualifications required to hand out recreational drugs, tax the sales to pay for the societal consequences of the habit etc.

 

[No Joy]

Where they are legal, they are not the 'problem' they represent in the US at this time.

Again your assertions dishonest. There are many places in many times that prostitution and drugs were legal, and they haven't been the panacea that you assert.

Sure you might be able to cherry pick a few locations and a few time frames that weren't too bad, but there still were significant problems. And there's many places it's much worse than it is in the US.

Khat is legal in Somalia, hardly a panacea.
Prostitution is legal in Ethiopia, hardly a panacea.

 

[Alexb2000]

My .02

If air was illegal would you still breath? Sure.

If you were hungry and food was illegal, would you still eat? Sure.

If you were in some form of chronic pain and there was a cure but it was illegal would you still take it? Sure.

Drugs are a way to deal with pain, they serve a basic human need and that will always trump law.

If we could accept that we can start to treat addiction as a medical problem vs. a criminal one and move forward.

 

[weilke]

Again your assertions dishonest. There are many places in many times that prostitution and drugs were legal, and they haven't been the panacea that you assert.

Sure you might be able to cherry pick a few locations and a few time frames that weren't too bad, but there still were significant problems. And there's many places it's much worse than it is in the US.

Khat is legal in Somalia, hardly a panacea.
Prostitution is legal in Ethiopia, hardly a panacea.

Lol, talk about picking and choosing.

Nevada, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany, Turkey, Greece, Hungary, France, Portugal, Spain and a dozen others have legal prostitution. No shortage of hookers, but they dont clog up the judicial system (unless they have other issues, like lack of legal status).

 

[No Joy]

Lol, talk about picking and choosing.

Nevada, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany, Turkey, Greece, Hungary, France, Portugal, Spain and a dozen others have legal prostitution. No shortage of hookers, but they dont clog up the judicial system (unless they have other issues, like lack of legal status).

So you think those activities often aren't harmful to society unless they are in jail?

What are you an anarchist? If you judge how good a society is only based on prison populations, then do away with all the laws. See what a wonderful panacea that is. As I suggested earlier, go to countries that have little law or little enforcement. Like Somalia.

In case you didn't notice the examples that I chose didn't have anything to do with their incarceration statistics. Several of your cherry picked examples, are a lot worse off than the US. Several of your cherry picked examples prostitution is significantly detrimental to society.

 

[No Joy]

Drugs are a way to deal with pain, they serve a basic human need and that will always trump law.

Not all drug use is the same. There is a big moral difference between different types of drug use. Unfortunately many people are very ignorant and indiscriminate with their agendas.

There is a big difference between:

1. Using drugs legitimately medically; to legitimately treat a medical condition (like pain).
2. Maintaining an addiction.
3. Using drugs recreationally to get high.

 

[weilke]

So you think those activities often aren't harmful to society unless they are in jail?

Yeah, I dont think that legal prostitution offered in a brothel or someones apartment or hotel room is harmful to society.

Personally not my thing, but so is getting drunk or high. There are guys who are into all these things. An intersection near my house has liquor stores on all four corners, so far nobody has dragged me into any of them and forced me to buy anything. Same thing with drugs or brothels.

What are you an anarchist? If you judge how good a society is only based on prison populations, then do away with all the laws. See what a wonderful panacea that is. As I suggested earlier, go to countries that have little law or little enforcement. Like Somalia.

Great straw-man argument.

You dont have to be an anarchist to realize that sending out decoy officers to snag hookers is a giant waste of resources without any benefit to society.

In case you didn't notice the examples that I chose didn't have anything to do with their incarceration statistics. Several of your cherry picked examples, are a lot worse off than the US. Several of your cherry picked examples prostitution is significantly detrimental to society.

No country on my list incarcerates more people than the US.

Doesn't mean it is a trouble-free ride. All those countries have some problems with prostitution, mostly revolving around the trafficking of underage girls from eastern europe. But they can go out and arrest the pimps, not the girls. And as the girls have little to fear from the vice cops, they can act as witnesses in the cases against the traffickers.

 

[RJM62]

You or I wont do that. Plenty of docs and PAs who would gladly make that buck.

There are physicians willing to certify that weed is a legit treatment for anything from ingrown toenails to asthma, why do you think it will be a problem to find folks willing to prescribe for recreational addicts ?

I actually dont believe that the recreational drugs should be part of the medical system. Have DEA issue a category for recreational dispensary. $720 every three years and you are in business. No prescription necessary. You want it, you have your addict-card, you are good to buy. The states can define the qualifications required to hand out recreational drugs, tax the sales to pay for the societal consequences of the habit etc.

That's not a horrible idea. I'd prefer that doctors and/or CASACs be in the loop somewhere because I'd prefer that there be encouragement to quit as part of the deal. But I could live with your proposal. It would address the prohibition-based secondary consequences.

Also, addiction is a funny thing. Sometimes knowing that the object of addition is still available can relieve enough anxiety to make it possible for the addict to quit. I know people who could only quit smoking by having a full, sealed pack of cigarettes in a drawer somewhere, "just in case."

-Rich

 

[RJM62]

What this is is not addiction. It is pain management and the use of these medications for what they were designed for. The people that are honestly using these medications for pain may be dependent on the medication but they are not addicted or abusing the medication. They ar not taking these medications to get high, or stoned. They are taking these medications to treat pain. To equate what they are doing with the typical heroin abuser or crack addict is misunderstanding the issue. Addicts use this stuff to get high. Patients take these medications to treat pain. Two totally different things. The former is unindicated, uncontrolled abuse, the second is indicated use.

There's more than one kind of pain, Douglas.

-Rich