Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
13,000 is a very small number compared to the 7 million we currently have in all corrections. Well under 1%. It is one state, but it was also the state most widely known for imprisoning people for drug possession and the largest corrections system of any state.
It would probably make more sense to calculate the 13,000 as a percent of the prison population which would equal about 9.4% but I understand what you are saying, and I'm not trying to argue with you, all I ever said is that it varies by state. My guess is that the % in Nevada is quite high but they aren't very transparent so I doubt if I will ever find out.
Why did opiates surge in use in the last 20 years? Use in the US like doubled or tripled. It was because of availability. Prior, it was not as easy to obtain them. But in recent years, it was easy for people to get them, and to get them in a semi-legal manner through prescriptions. This spike tells me that the legality and availability of a drug have very significant impacts on the amount used. The war on drugs really does limit the quantity of drugs consumed.
Next, look at PCP. Why did it have such a high usage rate early on? The drug obviously came with severe side effects, but it must have been pretty fun to use if usage took off with PCP and it didn't with other drugs like datura, which is both trippy and dangerous like PCP, didn't. However, usage today is very minimal, why? I think partly because enough info has gotten out about the damaging effects of it really are, but mainly because clearly superior substitutes, ketamine and more recently methoxetamine (still legal BTW) emerged. This tells me that people will choose the least harmful drug in a drug class (stimulants, dissasociatives...) if they have the choice.
And no the 21st birthday thing isn't trivial. Maybe millions didn't get wasted for their 21st, but a significant number of millions did. I believe some people have a tendency to 'go hard or go home' so to speak. So there are a significant number of people who would choose meth over other stimulants because they are going to party hard and get ****ed up, even though the rational/ utility maximizing person (which libertarians assume everyone is) would not do such a thing.
So no, I am not in favor of full legalization. I think the better solution would be to legalize the safest and best (least damaging, addicting...) drugs within each category, while keeping the other drugs decriminalized for use, but still illegal for sale, so sellers of these still somewhat illegal drugs would still go to prison like they do today.
It would bet that if they just lifted the ban on every substance, you would have a lot more issues and addicts and overdoses and permanent brain damage than if they picked and chose which drugs to have legal and which ones to keep a seal on.
Why did opiates surge in use in the last 20 years? Use in the US like doubled or tripled. It was because of availability. Prior, it was not as easy to obtain them. But in recent years, it was easy for people to get them, and to get them in a semi-legal manner through prescriptions. This spike tells me that the legality and availability of a drug have very significant impacts on the amount used. The war on drugs really does limit the quantity of drugs consumed.
Next, look at PCP. Why did it have such a high usage rate early on? The drug obviously came with severe side effects, but it must have been pretty fun to use if usage took off with PCP and it didn't with other drugs like datura, which is both trippy and dangerous like PCP, didn't. However, usage today is very minimal, why? I think partly because enough info has gotten out about the damaging effects of it really are, but mainly because clearly superior substitutes, ketamine and more recently methoxetamine (still legal BTW) emerged. This tells me that people will choose the least harmful drug in a drug class (stimulants, dissasociatives...) if they have the choice.
And no the 21st birthday thing isn't trivial. Maybe millions didn't get wasted for their 21st, but a significant number of millions did. I believe some people have a tendency to 'go hard or go home' so to speak. So there are a significant number of people who would choose meth over other stimulants because they are going to party hard and get ****ed up, even though the rational/ utility maximizing person (which libertarians assume everyone is) would not do such a thing.
So no, I am not in favor of full legalization. I think the better solution would be to legalize the safest and best (least damaging, addicting...) drugs within each category, while keeping the other drugs decriminalized for use, but still illegal for sale, so sellers of these still somewhat illegal drugs would still go to prison like they do today.
It would bet that if they just lifted the ban on every substance, you would have a lot more issues and addicts and overdoses and permanent brain damage than if they picked and chose which drugs to have legal and which ones to keep a seal on.
I don't think anyone is advocating selling heroin over the counter at 7-11. Decriminalization simply means that personal possession of drugs would no longer be a criminal offense. It seems that the rate of addiction has remained the same for decades no matter what we do, so we may have to just accept the fact that a fairly static percent of the population will always be addicted and quit trying to get everyone sober and focus on harm reduction. The war on drug affects neither the amount of drugs available, nor the number of addicted people- I can post studies proving that all day that rely upon real data, not anecdotal observation.
"As you can see, while the blue illicit drug addiction rate line has remained relatively steady at about 1.3 percent, the green line for drug control spending has skyrocketed. The increased spending did not correlate to lower addiction rates. "Drug use and abuse exists on a spectrum and as a society we must accept that some portion of the population will be addicted to drugs even if we don’t like it," Groff says" A Chart That Says the War on Drugs Isn't Working - The Wire "only 10-15% of illicit heroin and 30% of illicit cocaine is intercepted. Drug traffickers have profits of at least 300%, so 75% of drug shipments would have to be intercepted before traffickers profits are hurt. This conclusion echoes the comments of the former President of Peru, Alberto Fujimori, commenting on his country's and the U.S.'s efforts to reduce the supply of coca leafs, said that the War on Drugs had failed, despite the huge amounts of money spent on interdiction, claiming that in the years 1980 to 1990, coca production actually increased 10 fold". https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...-the-war-drugs
I don't think picking and choosing which drugs to decriminalize would accomplish anything, addicts will still use their drug of choice. And we need to get educated about drugs and how they 'really' affect people rather than relying upon scare stories about the behavior of addicts Everything You've Heard About Crack And Meth Is Wrong - Forbes
No matter what approach we take I think it will require us to be less stingy with mental health services, I think a large number of people with a serious drug or alcohol addiction have co-occurring mental illness.
If it made sense to sell currently illegal drugs over the counter at a 7-11 they should be available to anyone with the money. The only exceptions would be the same as selling alcohol and tobacco to children.
If it made sense to sell currently illegal drugs over the counter at a 7-11 they should be available to anyone with the money. The only exceptions would be the same as selling alcohol and tobacco to children.
I said that I do NOT think that drugs should be sold over the counter- so I'm not sure what your point is?
There's no way I'd go with blanket decriminalization. Maybe Portugal's plan with it has worked ok, but I know that a lot of people from the Netherlands say the halfway mark of decriminalization was worse than either keeping them illegal or legalizing them.
With decriminalization, all you do is eliminate the prison issue. The bad mixtures/falsely advertised drug problem (I thought I was getting MDMA but I got this other crap instead) is still there, the price issue is still there, the cartel/gang violence and issues are still there... What does pricing have to do with it? Because drugs are so expensive, people IV or snort things to get a greater high with less drug. There's quicker onset with injecting, but the primary reason I see is to cut down on costs. And snorting, smoking, or IVing something is always more dangerous than eating it.
I support full legalization of certain chemicals, that is you can purchase them over the counter if you are of the correct age (and preferably if you have passed a test which would be required in order for buyers to know safe doses and the effects and such).
Your articles, and peoples focus mainly is on the hardcore addicts. I don't think the hardcore addicts are going to change much, its the marginal users, first time users, and recreational users that are important, because they make up much more of the population.
And the drug of choice isn't so set in stone. I think peoples choices would be pretty malleable given the options presented.
There's no way I'd go with blanket decriminalization. Maybe Portugal's plan with it has worked ok, but I know that a lot of people from the Netherlands say the halfway mark of decriminalization was worse than either keeping them illegal or legalizing them.
With decriminalization, all you do is eliminate the prison issue. The bad mixtures/falsely advertised drug problem (I thought I was getting MDMA but I got this other crap instead) is still there, the price issue is still there, the cartel/gang violence and issues are still there... What does pricing have to do with it? Because drugs are so expensive, people IV or snort things to get a greater high with less drug. There's quicker onset with injecting, but the primary reason I see is to cut down on costs. And snorting, smoking, or IVing something is always more dangerous than eating it.
I support full legalization of certain chemicals, that is you can purchase them over the counter if you are of the correct age (and preferably if you have passed a test which would be required in order for buyers to know safe doses and the effects and such).
Your articles, and peoples focus mainly is on the hardcore addicts. I don't think the hardcore addicts are going to change much, its the marginal users, first time users, and recreational users that are important, because they make up much more of the population.
And the drug of choice isn't so set in stone. I think peoples choices would be pretty malleable given the options presented.
I can't really comment because I have no idea what you mean by "certain chemicals". But if Portugal's data is valid, they have reduced drug abuse by 50%, and that is with harsh penalties- 4-12 years for trafficking and up to 25 years for trafficking as part of a drug cartel or conspiracy. Their policy has been described as "Decriminalize everything, from cannabis to crack. But -- and this is the crucial next step -- let's spend all the money we currently spend on arresting drug users, trying drug users, imprisoning drug users, and just put all that money to reconnect drug addicts with society. To give them a purpose in life."
"In June 1620, a new papal bull went into effect in New Spain, declaring that excommunication would await any Christian who accepted any of a long list of prohibited entheogens from a native, and that worse punishment awaited any native found dealing such drugs to anyone. It was the first anti-drug law in the New World.
The pope finally found a way to eliminate his competition in New Spain. The global drug war had begun."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Communicating The Excommunicated
