But Drugs are Bad!

Yes. But here's why making them illegal is not the solution to that problem: It doesn't work, not even a little bit.

PEOPLE CAN GET HEROIN IN PRISON!

So, even people who who have been convicted of selling heroin, locked up, surrounded by armed guards CAN STILL GET HEROIN.

Clearly, drug prohibition does not keep people from using drugs.

So let's spend one tenth of the money we spend on breaking in to (sometimes innocent) people's houses in the middle of the night on education and rehab clinics, and call it a day.

Also, want to eliminate way more gun violence than an assault weapons ban? Legalize heroin.

> But Drugs are Bad!

Ever know a junky? Ever have to count on them for anything? Y'know, clarity, or something like that?

Drugs are bad. Illegality has problems too, but I can see what they were thinking when they made drugs illegal.

>Illegality has problems too,

Yes. It has problems. The largest one is that it doesn't work. At all. Even the most unreliable junky seems to be able to get heroin whenever he wants. So maybe we should try another approach to solving the problem of drug abuse. Which I absolutely concede is a problem.

By coincidence, the banner ad is for "Airborne", the patent medicine fined for falsely advertising its product.

Clinky: please provide evidence that raising the accessibility of any substance or service leads to less use. Please demonstrate the consistency between national health care policy and the idea that a responsible public will use good judgment in self- medicating.

Two more: show that regulated heroin would be so available that the bad guys actually quit; show that those same bad guys are NOT made richer by your idea.

All you have to do, for any drug, is show the return on investment. This requires a bit more than wishful assertion, though. For instance, if you use alcohol as your example, note the 17,000-or-so direct deaths annually, explain how that's a good price to pay and so forth. I suggest that the public will yell, "not me!" in such a case, so you can probably slip it by them. Heroin's much less serious than alcohol, isn't it?

There was a problem. The solution was seen to be a law, then more laws as people circumvented existing law. Yes, there are bad laws, but you must show the problem is not as big as the legal burden to get somewhere.

The underlying problem here is the mentality that we have developed over time: Government is the solution to any possible problem. Pass a law, that'll fix it!

People make bad choices. Sometimes, through no fault of their own, shit happens. To see this process at its clearest, look for any law named after a specific person: somehow, people think that a legislative vote can change fate. It just ain't so.

Really, we desperately, urgently need to put a lid on lawmaking. Set a maximum number of laws, or pages, or words, or something. Currently, there is no way that anyone can have any idea of what is legal and what is not.

My favorite proposal is to limit the total size of laws applying to individuals to the size of a thick novel (think: James Michener), this written in plain english. If the legislator want to pass a new law, they first have to delete an old one.

Heroin was legal in this country until 1914. It was sold over the counter, and by mail from the Sears Roebuck catalog. The problem was, a certain percentage of the population became addicts, so it was thought that if the drug became a crime, the problem would end. The addicts remained, only now they were also criminals. The severe laws raised the price dramatically, and dealers made more money loading the drug with contaminants.

Drug addiction is a problem, but I fail to see how making addicts into criminals does anything more than create another, worse, problem.

This country has tried both legalization and criminalization. Which works better?

this benign substance is heavily and appropriately regulated

Yes, barriers to entry. Except there's a problem with that.

Those heavy and appropriate regulations? you think the street thugs and cartels will give them a second thought? what's that? no you say? so they'll be able to sell a less expensive product and be able to compete in the market place?

And because possession would no longer be a crime, and the right of first sale would be in effect, the government could not stop those sales, and would have to come in an put a tax stamp on the legitimate sales and make illegal sales of the item that don't carry a tax stamp.

How's that working out for cigarettes?

Can't we reach some kind of compromise? Frankly, I think there's too goddamn much government involved in the marketing of chewing gum; the only thing that keeps me from wholeheartedly endorsing the legalization of heroin (and most other recreational drugs) is the thought of how badly governments would screw it all up.

In a world where a city shuts down a kid's hot dog cart because it might compete with restaurants, I think "expecting the worst" is not pessimism, but simple realism.

I won't try to say that drug addiction is not a problem. However, we can see from the "war on drugs" how effective making drugs illegal has been (You know what they say about doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result is right?). We now are locking up addicts, and the public is supporting them in prisons where they still can have access to the illegal substances. This does not solve, or even begin to address the issue. On the other side of that as many people have pointed out all we as a nation did was hand over control of distribution and prices to the cartels. I am all for personal freedoms. It is common sense knowledge that these substances are dangerous and addictive. If someone makes the CHOICE to do so against all the overwhelming information telling them not to then let stupid people be stupid. I am just saying I could deal with less stupid people in the world and i detest addicts. Its an individual choice to engage in bad behaviors that you know could have bad consequences. Shortened life span and death are side affects of addiction. We need less addicts. Leave them to their own devices its what they want anyway!

TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT. Period.
The regulations are a problem. The cost of the regulations are a problem. The lack of effectiveness of the regulations...
Get the Hell out of our lives! When are these Dumb asses going to get the point that prohibition does not work. Making drugs and guns available is not going to turn reasonable people into drug addicts and murderers. Those already exist and will gain access to whatever they want regardless of their situation...even if they are incarcerated.
For the State, and for our citizenry to approve, to fight to control our lives under the guise of protecting us from each other and ourselves has gotten completely out of hand. If we as a nation do not stop this, we will soon be living George Orwell's nightmare of "1984".

How would you feel about a child being offered a pack of gum--attractively packaged and half price-- containing one part per 1,000 of energy boosting strychnine and no government body charged with preventing this?

The strychnine is still regulated - even if the chewing gum isn't.

Slightly off-topic: Thomas Hicks won the 1904 Olympic marathon fueled by a combination of raw egg whites, brandy, and strychnine. He collapsed after crossing the finish line and it took four doctors to revive him.

==============================

How's that working out for cigarettes?

Right

The violence in our streets perpetrated by the cigarette cartels is getting out of hand.

Children in Third World countries are being enslaved to work in cigarette factories.

Get real. While more than a few criminals has gotten rich selling bootleg cigarettes and there can be some violence associated with it, bootlegging otherwise legal items resembles more the pirate DVD/CD industry than the heroin trade.

> However, we can see from the "war on drugs"
> how effective making drugs illegal has been

[In] China, millions of Chinese addicts gave up with only minimal help: Mao Tse-Tung's credible offer to shoot them if they did not. There is thus no question that Mao was the greatest drug-addiction therapist in history.

I discovered in the prison in which I worked that 67% of heroin addicts had been imprisoned before they ever took heroin. Since only one in 20 crimes in Britain leads to a conviction, and since most first-time prisoners have been convicted 10 times before they are ever imprisoned, it is safe to assume that most heroin addicts were confirmed and habitual criminals before they ever took heroin. In other words, whatever caused them to commit crimes in all probability caused them also to take heroin: perhaps an adversarial stance to the world caused by the emotional, spiritual, cultural and intellectual vacuity of their lives. [Ibid., emphasis Cridmo]

OK, listen, I understand that drug laws and drug law enforcement are all fucked up, and the consequences are literally global.

Grey Ghost makes a good comment, as he/she has done before:

> Can't we reach some kind of compromise?

A guiding principle of mine is that government cannot do intimacy. Almost everything that brings warmth and stability and success in your life will have been given to you by someone nearby who loves you very much. These things include discipline, patience, validation, and more kinds of financial support than you can imagine... And pay close attention to that last one, because when you try to give these things to people through government, you'll fail.

And those're the things that weak-spirited people need to kick drugs.

So in GG's spirit of compromise, I propose:

• Broad decriminalization

• Readily available treatment AT COST.

Now that pot is on its way to full legalization, and all the bureaucracy and cost to society that accompanies that, let's start in on other drugs! Yay.
I'm actually in favor of decriminalization of pot. Not legalization. I'm not in favor of anything that channels more money to the government at the expense of the people. The government needs to be starved off its addiction to our earnings. Full stop. Government revenue is the only reason that pot is being legalized by the way. Just so you know. It's not because it's the right thing to do, or that the government cares about you and your needs, or that the government thinks the War on Drugs is "bad." Just wait until some fool gets between the government and its brand new stream of revenue; then we'll see a war. There will be a lot of casualties. Regrettably, none of them will be politicians.

Anyway, legalizing heroin in order to take the power away from "street thugs and international cartels"? Grow up. They'll still have power only now it will be legal. Crony capitalists acting in concert with the government to provide an obviously dangerous and destructive substance to people. And, of course, being street thugs and international cartels, they will find a way to cheat the idiots in the government while they kill the "consumer" with their product. Legally.

I know it's amusing to make clever intellectual arguments in favor of unexpected goals but how many people have to die in the process?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal

Radwaste,

What about Portugal? In 2001, Portugal decriminalized many drugs. It's been 12 years and drug use hasn't increased astronomically. Yes, studies show a moderate increase, but that could reflect the number of people who lied about their use when drugs were illegal.

From what I understand, here in America, the return on investment of keeping drugs underground hasn't been good at all. The price to keep them illegal has climbed, while addiction and use have stayed the same. There's a reliable source that charts the relationship between the two that I'll have to find and link.

"Government revenue is the only reason that pot is being legalized by the way. Just so you know."

Huh? Then why was it made illegal in the first place?

http://m.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/10/chart-says-war-drugs-isnt-working/57913/

"Chart says War on Drugs isn't working"

I say make heroin legal, and just about every other drug legal, to buy over the counter. Put a 21 age or prescription restriction on it for under 21. Tax it the same way you tax alcohol.

And the manufacturers are required to use a portion of their profits to setup and fund rehab facilities. The government would be limited to regulation of quality and potency, etc. That is pretty much how the tobacco companies are now; SCHIP funding and the excise taxes.

Another change that has happened is that over the years the drugs such as Naltrexone, Naloxone, Flumazenil and many other anti-narcotics are now available.

All you have to do, for any drug, is show the return on investment. This requires a bit more than wishful assertion, though. For instance, if you use alcohol as your example, note the 17,000-or-so direct deaths annually, explain how that's a good price to pay and so forth. I suggest that the public will yell, "not me!" in such a case, so you can probably slip it by them. Heroin's much less serious than alcohol, isn't it? -- Radwaste at March 15, 2013 3:54 AM

Hospital-acquired infection (HAI):

In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated roughly 1.7 million hospital-associated infections, from all types of microorganisms, including bacteria, combined, cause or contribute to 99,000 deaths each year.

So alcohol deaths are a serious threat, but HAI shouldn't be addressed? Why isn't HAI a on your radar? Which is more regulated hospitals or alcohol?

Somebody once suggested that the best way to fight these addictions might be to legalize, but only make it available from the DMV.

If I had to go to the DMV to buy soda, or flowers, or anything that wasn't a necessity, I'd pass.

:)

For Crid from Dalrymple:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/7_2_a1.html

I find it rather amusing that many people will give up their ID due to federal law to buy sudafed for a cold but cry about ID requirements to vote in elections. Here in Oregon they made sudafed require a prescription. That at least tripled the price to the customer, increased costs to doctors, manufacturers, pharmacies etc. and meth is still available in the state. The dealers just get it from out of state (likely Mexico). Fewer local meth labs though, so yay or something. It just costs me $50+ for a legal prescription of cold medicine, unless I want to drive across the border into Washington state, its often quicker and cheaper to do so.

Sio, it's worse than that. We had a diabetic cat. She needed insulin. That required a scrip (ok with that). What I didn't know until I got to the pharmacy was that the pharmacists are required BY LAW (I think federal) to get all sorts of information from me before they sell me the syringes (I suppose the reasoning is that I might be giving them to drug addicts instead of using them for my cat... because its a winning proposition to shell out $135 for insulin to then sell syringes illicitly or something).

Anyway, I was floored. It wasn't the medicine that was the problem, but Fido-sized needles. It would be easier to steal them from a hospital than to get them from the pharmacy with a valid prescription!