Safe injection sites

[Weird Harold]

I think if it were legal...for one, we'd at least eliminate the drug dealers, or at least make them minimal. We'd be able to regulate it, say treat it the same as alcohol. More addicts may be willing to step forwards for treatment, without fear of prosecution. Eliminate a major source of income for gangs. And, of course, add jobs to the country.

You were doing good until you got to that last sentence: "And, of course, add jobs to the country."

Just what jobs would legalizing drugs add to the country? Would they offset the LOSS of jobs in the drug enforcment and gang activity divisions of every law enforcement agency?

Just the elimination of the DEA would be a noticeable rise in the unemployment rate.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I think I agree with most of the people here whan I say that drugs ought to be legal but controlled, the way alcohol, which is also a recreational drug, is controlled. There are many reasons for this, such as taxing drug company profits, charging sales tax on the drugs, much less crime, fewer jails, less crowding in courts, and many other benefits.

At the same time, there is something called "tough love." When you make it easier and safer for people to continue using drugs, you give them less incentive to quit. Maybe it would be better to try to persuade the users to quit, rather than helping them continue their self destruction.

I wonder if drug dealers would be allowed around these safe injection sites. After all, if you are going to allow people to come to this place to shoot up, it stands to reason you will also need to make it safer and easier for them to acquire the stuff to shoot up.

 

[cloudy]

At the same time, there is something called "tough love." When you make it easier and safer for people to continue using drugs, you give them less incentive to quit. Maybe it would be better to try to persuade the users to quit, rather than helping them continue their self destruction.

yeah, good luck with that. That's what's gotten us where we are now: sky-high crime rates, overcrowded jails and prisons...yeah, that's working really well for us.



Those that are going to use are going to use, whether or not it's illegal, or sometimes if they even have to steal to buy what they want. Making it legal would not only cut the dealers out of the loop, but would make the drugs purchased safer for those using, and cheaper, reducing crime all around.

'course, we can keep doing it your way, and watch the "success" of the DEA keep on.

 

[The_Fractal_King]

Those that are going to use are going to use, whether or not it's illegal, or sometimes if they even have to steal to buy what they want. Making it legal would not only cut the dealers out of the loop, but would make the drugs purchased safer for those using, and cheaper, reducing crime all around.

'course, we can keep doing it your way, and watch the "success" of the DEA keep on.

If the government was responsible for supplying drugs wouldn't that cause tax payers to pay Columbian drug lords so other people can destroy themselves?

 

[rgraham666]

If the government was responsible for supplying drugs wouldn't that cause tax payers to pay Columbian drug lords so other people can destroy themselves?

Um. She didn't say the government would supply it. She said the government would make it legal, that is rescind the laws currently extant.

The government doesn't pay Scottish distillers or German brewers. They won't be paying Columbian drug lords either.

 

[cloudy]

If the government was responsible for supplying drugs wouldn't that cause tax payers to pay Columbian drug lords so other people can destroy themselves?

Please show me where I said the government should "supply drugs."

 

[fifty5]

I really wanted something in between options one and two: better than not and it offers the chance to improve the situation. Statistically, "seem to work" may be true, but I doubt that's universal - some will almost certainly take it the wrong way.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

You were doing good until you got to that last sentence: "And, of course, add jobs to the country."

Just what jobs would legalizing drugs add to the country? Would they offset the LOSS of jobs in the drug enforcment and gang activity divisions of every law enforcement agency?

Just the elimination of the DEA would be a noticeable rise in the unemployment rate.

This argument is a variant of the "broken window fallacy."

The parable describes a shopkeeper whose window is broken by a little boy. Everyone sympathizes with the man whose window was broken, but pretty soon they start to suggest that the broken window makes work for the glazier, who will then buy bread, benefiting the baker, who will then buy shoes, benefiting the cobbler, etc. Finally, the onlookers conclude that the little boy was not guilty of vandalism; instead he was a public benefactor, creating economic benefits for everyone in town.

The fallacy of the onlookers' argument is that they considered only the positive benefits of purchasing a new window, but they ignored the cost to the shopkeeper. As the shopkeeper was forced to spend his money on a new window, he obviously could not have spent it on something else. For example, the shopkeeper may have spent the money on bread and shoes for himself, but now cannot so enrich the baker and cobbler because he must fix his window. Thus, the child did not bring any net benefit to the town. Instead, he made the town poorer by at least the value of one window, if not more.

Society is poorer because all those addicts and all those cops, prosecutors, judges, etc. persecuting them could be doing something productive instead of something destructive. Our society is the poorer by at least the value of all their lost productive capacity, if not more. Certainly more.

 

[The_Fractal_King]

Please show me where I said the government should "supply drugs."

Without dealers who is supplying the drugs and why would they not have the same practices as the ones there are now? I guess I just assumed you meant the government would be directly involved that you really meant.

 

[cloudy]

Without dealers who is supplying the drugs and why would they not have the same practices as the ones there are now? I guess I just assumed you meant the government would be directly involved that you really meant.

Does the government supply alcohol? How 'bout tobacco?

No? Well, then I guess that the same industry that grew up around those things would also develop for other drugs.

It's dangerous to assume, especially when you're reading things into others' posts that aren't there.

 

[The_Fractal_King]

Does the government supply alcohol? How 'bout tobacco?

No? Well, then I guess that the same industry that grew up around those things would also develop for other drugs.

Did those industries really improve quality, improve safety and reduce price?

It's dangerous to assume, especially when you're reading things into others' posts that aren't there.

Guess I just got lucky this time. I seem unscathed.

 

[cloudy]

Did those industries really improve quality, improve safety and reduce price?

yes, they have. Do your research - not many die from bad moonshine anymore, nor are courts tied up with it's makers.

Added bonus: we got NASCAR out of the deal.

Guess I just got lucky this time. I seem unscathed.

Possibly....as long as you don't mind appearing to be ignorant, you're good to go.

 

[The_Fractal_King]

yes, they have.

Well then, that answers that.

Thank you.

Do your research

I prefer things that are slightly more fun and personally relevant. Probably better ways to spend my time, though.

Added bonus: we got NASCAR out of the deal.

Hopefully we'll get something like PCP fueled extreme-boxing this time. More fun to watch.

Possibly....as long as you don't mind appearing to be ignorant, you're good to go.

Quite. Skin's not even broken.

Not taking the time to research the safety and pricing practices of the alchohol and tobacco industry would hardly make me ignorant. Neither would making an inaccurate assessment of your post.

Foolish perhaps. But that I'm more than happy to live with.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Why are illegal drugs expensive? Only because they are illegal. Up to 99 percent of the price is a "risk premium;" the actual cost to product the product is not that much, and would be even lower with unpersecuted commercial farming of coca, opium and weed (that name for the latter is suggestive of just how cheap it would be). Odds are a heroin addict or cocaine user could supply a habit for $10/day or less, even if the government taxed the crap out of it.

Would more people take drugs? What prevented me from taking heroin in my drug years was needles; I would probably try it just out of curiousity via some non-needle ingestion method if it were legal, but I like things that make me go fast, not fall asleep, so I wouldn't become an addict.

I can say that with some confidence and self-knowledge. Back in the late '70s early '80s everyone in my cohort was doing coke. It's a pernicious drug, because it goes right to the brain's pleasure center and stimulates it, but it only lasts 15-20 minutes, and all you can think about is doing more. At the end of a binge the come-down is ferocious psychologically. I know a number of people who got in trouble with it (I don't mean legally). It was socially toxic, too - I remember parties where some cliques had coke and those who didn't wanted in. Eventually I and most of my peers gave it up because it was just too hard, too much of a roller coaster.

In experiments with rats allowed unlimited amounts of either heroin or coke, the heroin rats will discover a certain level of use and go on being rats, stoned but sustainably doing all the rat things like eat, sleep, fuck. The coke rats stop doing rat things, and take coke until they die.

Anyway, prohibition never prevented me and my cohorts from accumulating all that experience; it did mean that we didn't really understand what it was all about until we learned by experience. As Liar said just because something's legal doesn't mean it's socially acceptable. Social pressure, economic pressure and health concerns could go a long way to limit the extent of private tragedies under legalization, and meanwhile we would be spared the social tragedies we experience under prohibition.

 

[Boxlicker101]

You were doing good until you got to that last sentence: "And, of course, add jobs to the country."

Just what jobs would legalizing drugs add to the country? Would they offset the LOSS of jobs in the drug enforcment and gang activity divisions of every law enforcement agency?

Just the elimination of the DEA would be a noticeable rise in the unemployment rate.

There wouldn't be all that much reduction in the police forces. Instead of gang activity and drug dealers, they would be investigating burglaries and car thefts and other crimes. These are felonies and cause a lot of grief, but the cops don't have time for them because they are too busy or preoccupied with drug crimes.

The only people who would be unemployed in any number would be prison guards because half the people in prison would be released. Of course, even there, other criminals would start actually serving their sentences instead of being cut lose because of overcrowding.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Why are illegal drugs expensive? Only because they are illegal. Up to 99 percent of the price is a "risk premium;" the actual cost to product the product is not that much, and would be even lower with unpersecuted commercial farming of coca, opium and weed (that name for the latter is suggestive of just how cheap it would be). Odds are a heroin addict or cocaine user could supply a habit for $10/day or less, even if the government taxed the crap out of it.

Would more people take drugs? What prevented me from taking heroin in my drug years was needles; I would probably try it just out of curiousity via some non-needle ingestion method if it were legal, but I like things that make me go fast, not fall asleep, so I wouldn't become an addict.

I can say that with some confidence and self-knowledge. Back in the late '70s early '80s everyone in my cohort was doing coke. It's a pernicious drug, because it goes right to the brain's pleasure center and stimulates it, but it only lasts 15-20 minutes, and all you can think about is doing more. At the end of a binge the come-down is ferocious psychologically. I know a number of people who got in trouble with it (I don't mean legally). It was socially toxic, too - I remember parties where some cliques had coke and those who didn't wanted in. Eventually I and most of my peers gave it up because it was just too hard, too much of a roller coaster.

In experiments with rats allowed unlimited amounts of either heroin or coke, the heroin rats will discover a certain level of use and go on being rats, stoned but sustainably doing all the rat things like eat, sleep, fuck. The coke rats stop doing rat things, and take coke until they die.

Anyway, prohibition never prevented me and my cohorts from accumulating all that experience; it did mean that we didn't really understand what it was all about until we learned by experience. As Liar said just because something's legal doesn't mean it's socially acceptable. Social pressure, economic pressure and health concerns could go a long way to limit the extent of private tragedies under legalization, and meanwhile we would be spared the social tragedies we experience under prohibition.

There might be a few more drug addicts, but they mostly wouldn't be so much of a problem because they would continue to function. They wouldn't have to steal or rob or be prostitutes to feed their habit. The end of prohibition didn't all of a sudden produce more alcoholics.

I agree that drug addiction would not be a socially acceptable thing, any more than being a drunk is now.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

There wouldn't be all that much reduction in the police forces. Instead of gang activity and drug dealers, they would be investigating burglaries and car thefts and other crimes. These are felonies and cause a lot of grief, but the cops don't have time for them because they are too busy or preoccupied with drug crimes.

The only people who would be unemployed in any number would be prison guards because half the people in prison would be released. Of course, even there, other criminals would start actually serving their sentences instead of being cut lose because of overcrowding.

A signifigant proportion of all crimes of property are committed because of drugs being expensive. Many violent crimes are committed because drugs are illegal, which generates huge profits for sellers due to the risk premium, combined with the fact that drug-capitalists can't resolve disputes according to the Uniform Commercial Code. IOW, legalize drugs and a hefty chunk of all the crime goes away.

This is such a fucking no-brainer, it makes me furious every time I think of it. Ignorant populations! Don't you know that the politicians and criminal justice prohibitionists are lying to you? Craven baby boomers - you know better than any what bullshit it all is - yet you pusilanimous pukes do nothing to stop it. Bah - I can't talk about it anymore.

 

[Liar]

If the government was responsible for supplying drugs wouldn't that cause tax payers to pay Columbian drug lords so other people can destroy themselves?

Why are there drug lords?

There are drug lords because drugs are illegal. If it was legal and regulated, eveyone from Pfizer to Coca Cola would be able to compete them out of the market with their hands tied.

 

[colddiesel]

legal heroin.

It is worth noting that many so called "illegal" drugs are grown legally for the legitimate drugs market. Thousands of acres of opium poppies are grown every year in Tasmania, Australias smallest state. They are grown with fairly minimal supervision and are processed by an American Fortune 500 company to make medical heroin and morphine. All very efficient, no criminals involved.

 

[where]

If the government was responsible for supplying drugs wouldn't that cause tax payers to pay Columbian drug lords so other people can destroy themselves?

Um. She didn't say the government would supply it. She said the government would make it legal, that is rescind the laws currently extant.

The government doesn't pay Scottish distillers or German brewers. They won't be paying Columbian drug lords either.

Without dealers who is supplying the drugs and why would they not have the same practices as the ones there are now? I guess I just assumed you meant the government would be directly involved that you really meant.

Does the government supply alcohol? How 'bout tobacco?

No? Well, then I guess that the same industry that grew up around those things would also develop for other drugs.

Why are there drug lords?

There are drug lords because drugs are illegal. If it was legal and regulated, eveyone from Pfizer to Coca Cola would be able to compete them out of the market with their hands tied.

The thing is, if you wanted to decriminalise hard drugs with the least harm, then you would have to have the government as the supplier. If it were in the hands of private companies they would be obliged by their shareholders to increase their markets to remain profitable.

If you don't cut the commercial drug dealers, legal or otherwise, out of the equation, then numbers of addicts will inevitably rise. Whilst they may no longer be criminals and not have to engage in crime to feed their habits you will still get social problems. The example of alcohol is a good one.

Alcohol abuse, in the uk at least, is responsible for serious amounts of crime and also is a huge burden on the state in terms of police and health resources. Money which could be better spent elsewhere.

I'm all for decriminalising hard drugs but with the gov't controlling the supply, thus reducing the numbers of new addicts coming up and removing the share from the illegal dealers who will no doubt remain, but in a smaller capacity.

OK... I'm off to be frivolous somewhere now!

 

[Weird Harold]

If it were in the hands of private companies they would be obliged by their shareholders to increase their markets to remain profitable.

How would this differ from the pharmaceutical companies advertising erectile disfunction and astha/allergy relief drugs all day long?

The thing is that recreational drugs are generally very cheap to manufacture even in the small quantities that can be managed in kitchen labs. Turn them over to the big pharamceutical companies, where the economy of scale can go to work, and even with punitive tax levels thepharmaceutical companies would be able to satisfiy both their stockholders and the drug users.

Government should be no more involved in recreational drugs than they are in theraputic drugs -- i.e. regulating the quality and collecting the taxes.

 

[where]

How would this differ from the pharmaceutical companies advertising erectile disfunction and astha/allergy relief drugs all day long?

The thing is that recreational drugs are generally very cheap to manufacture even in the small quantities that can be managed in kitchen labs. Turn them over to the big pharamceutical companies, where the economy of scale can go to work, and even with punitive tax levels thepharmaceutical companies would be able to satisfiy both their stockholders and the drug users.

Government should be no more involved in recreational drugs than they are in theraputic drugs -- i.e. regulating the quality and collecting the taxes.

Well in the uk a lot of drugs are distributed via the state, but if you had companies legally selling heroin they need to increase their markets to make a profit. Drugs for sexual disfunction is a good case in point. Drug companies make profits by pathologising everything they can.

BUT hayfever and viagra don't cause huge social problems either..

 

[Weird Harold]

BUT hayfever and viagra don't cause huge social problems either..

But that's just the point about legalization: When Marijuana, Cocaine, Opium, Heroin and Morphine were legal and ingredients in everything from patent medicines to soft drinks they were NOT huge social problems -- or at least no more of a social problem that public drunkenness is now.

Nearly all of the "social problems" caused by recreational drugs is the direct result of them being banned rather than the effect of the drugs themselves.

Drugs like PCP, Meth, Crack only became "recreational drugs" because Marijuana, Opium, Heroin and Morhpine were banned and they weren't (at the time they entered the market.)

Every drug that gets banned starts the search by casual thrill seekers for something new that hasn't been banned yet and the unscrupulous criminals who provide illegal drugs dig up some new poison or animal tranquilizer -- and eventually add one more drug to the list to start the cycle over.

It's no accident that all of the really dangerous drugs -- as far as making the user a danger to others, like PCP -- have appeared since we began making drugs illegal in batches and bunches.

 

[The_Fractal_King]

But that's just the point about legalization: When Marijuana, Cocaine, Opium, Heroin and Morphine were legal and ingredients in everything from patent medicines to soft drinks they were NOT huge social problems -- or at least no more of a social problem that public drunkenness is now.

Nearly all of the "social problems" caused by recreational drugs is the direct result of them being banned rather than the effect of the drugs themselves.

Drugs like PCP, Meth, Crack only became "recreational drugs" because Marijuana, Opium, Heroin and Morhpine were banned and they weren't (at the time they entered the market.)

Every drug that gets banned starts the search by casual thrill seekers for something new that hasn't been banned yet and the unscrupulous criminals who provide illegal drugs dig up some new poison or animal tranquilizer -- and eventually add one more drug to the list to start the cycle over.

It's no accident that all of the really dangerous drugs -- as far as making the user a danger to others, like PCP -- have appeared since we began making drugs illegal in batches and bunches.

That doesn't change the existance of current drugs that pose a danger. The government should at least take some responsibility about those.

 

[Liar]

I'm all for decriminalising hard drugs but with the gov't controlling the supply, thus reducing the numbers of new addicts coming up and removing the share from the illegal dealers who will no doubt remain, but in a smaller capacity.

Problem is, if you control a lucrative market too much, a black market is likely to emerge.