Why The USA Must End Drug Prohibition

originally posted by: Insurrectile
Why is this still a matter of debate, did Canada burn down yet?
Always the same with the Boomers...

Canada trials decriminalising coc aine, MDMA and other drugs

I would not look to Canada for inspiration, just as many, if not more daily od's. Also, all they did was decrim, did absolutely nothing else, no extra funds for treatment or rehab..nothing!

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Just to make a point, the only good heroin story you hear about is where the person got clean and survived or thrived.


Unless there's a contingent of people that are functioning heroin addicts for a long period of time I mean.

I realize I'm using an extreme case to highlight the point and there are many arguments and nuance for other drugs.

I'm fairly certain that there are such subcultures amongst the population. Being the person I am allows me to interact with people from a broad range of lifestyles, and to have frank and open discussions with them.

Thing is, these functional users aren't going to come out tomorrow and share that fact. "Hey everybody, we're the heroin people!" Not gonna happen in today's environment, where making such admissions would have strong negative consequences. Still, such subcultures do exist.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Fair enough, ill defer to you then.


Do you know functioning heroin addicts? That being fully self sustaining from their own work?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Sure, I even alluded to as much in your thread here.

Problem being, with some drugs there is absolutely zero benefit to the user.

I think to discuss it seriously it would be on a drug by drug basis.

Well I would disagree to say that it feels good for those users who enjoy it, so there is that, though I see your point. Whiskey is much the same, wouldn't you agree? It feels good to those who enjoy its use, but aside from that there aren't really any noteworthy benefits.

Anyhow, I think it's noteworthy that an overwhelming majority of those who have responded to the OP are in favor of ending the prohibition of cannabis, and, to a slightly lesser extent, hallucinogens. Statesmen, take note!

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Fair enough, ill defer to you then.


Do you know functioning heroin addicts? That being fully self sustaining from their own work?

Yes. Heroin, meth, and coc aine users. I wouldn't call them addicts, since they don't really behave like addicts.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Exactly why it would/should be on a drug per drug basis.


I'm not yet sold on the hard drugs being legal being a universal societal benefit. With the exception of getting the government and cartels out of the black market but that doesn't make it a we the people problem now does it?

a reply to: JinMI

I think whether it's beneficial or not isn't the point. Prohibition is wrong. Therefore it should end, if we wish to administer a just society.

Let people make their own decisions. Punish them for the things that they do that actually bring harm to others, not for what they choose to ingest, even if we think they are wrong to do so.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

It's a good thought that's based in Constitutional principals, granted.


Yet with the plethora and vastness of this countries safety nets, it's a net loss for all of society.


That's why I have a hard time with this topic. On one hand, I'm very liberty minded, on the other, I live in 2023 in the US and all that entails.

a reply to: JinMI

Look at my reply to the argument that irashhaf made on page 1. Ending prohibition removes those powerful incentives that the hypothetical mailman would have for betrayal. You can extrapolate that solution into countless modern social problems, most notably the alienation of the drug culture in general from law enforcement and authority figures.

Would some people still be outlaws? Of course they would. Would some of those outlaws still use drugs? Of course they would. Still, you've removed the most powerful incentive for the average drug user to avoid the authorities in situations where they need the help of those authorities the most. That is literally a game changer. Won't happen overnight, but that wound should heal in time.

It doesn't remove all of the potential leverage that might be used to compel an elected or appointed government official, as revelations of regular drug use might still be a career ending consequence, or cause for revocation of a security clearance(shakes head sadly while briefly reflecting on the excess of secrecy in government), but it does remove some of that potential for leverage.

a reply to: JinMI

I think another important facet of this argument is that we're really doing the working poor a solid by ending prohibition. The wealthy and the government class are mostly immune from these sorts of entanglements, as they can usually bring sufficient countermeasures to bear to render such entanglements toothless.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Look at my reply to the argument that irashhaf made on page 1. Ending prohibition removes those powerful incentives that the hypothetical mailman would have for betrayal. You can extrapolate that solution into countless modern social problems, most notably the alienation of the drug culture in general from law enforcement and authority figures.

Sure, the mailman doing coke on the weekends is a good example. Although I don't think I would consider that an addict. Yet if we were to remove all laws associated with drugs, what other effects would that same mailman find on his daily route? Maybe none, but maybe he has to wander his way through a camp or a facility and be accosted by actual addicts.

Would some people still be outlaws? Of course they would. Would some of those outlaws still use drugs? Of course they would. Still, you've removed the most powerful incentive for the average drug user to avoid the authorities in situations where they need the help of those authorities the most. That is literally a game changer. Won't happen overnight, but that wound should heal in time.

Again, my contention doesn't lie on the user or even addicts side. It falls upon the weight that would be levied against people who don't use based simply on the existing and future safety nets needed.

It doesn't remove all of the potential leverage that might be used to compel an elected or appointed government official, as revelations of regular drug use might still be a career ending consequence, or cause for revocation of a security clearance(shakes head sadly while briefly reflecting on the excess of secrecy in government), but it does remove some of that potential for leverage.

Now this would be an interesting vote! Which reps vote for and against. I'm of the opinion many of govt critters make a comfy living from the existence of not only the safety nets but the governments direct involvement in the black market as well.

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a reply to: JinMI

I think another important facet of this argument is that we're really doing the working poor a solid by ending prohibition. The wealthy and the government class are mostly immune from these sorts of entanglements, as they can usually bring sufficient countermeasures to bear to render such entanglements toothless.

Yes, good point. It would be one less thing for the working poor. Now I think the working poor by definition are largely not addicted to the hard street drugs but that's my opinion. Yet they would still be supplementing with their tax dollars the furthering of social safety nets undoubtedly required to catch all of the actual addicts.

What would the DEA, or other forms of LE do? They will give the most pushback to this idea, because..job security. I think of the prison system too, although I would guess not as many these days go to prison for minor drug charges..I could be wrong though.

originally posted by: vonclod
What would the DEA, or other forms of LE do? They will give the most pushback to this idea, because..job security. I think of the prison system too, although I would guess not as many these days go to prison for minor drug charges..I could be wrong though.

That would be the interesting part of putting it on a ballot.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: vonclod
What would the DEA, or other forms of LE do? They will give the most pushback to this idea, because..job security. I think of the prison system too, although I would guess not as many these days go to prison for minor drug charges..I could be wrong though.

That would be the interesting part of putting it on a ballot.

It certainly would, I'm not sure it's possible, it would take too much balls/guts, a lot of powerful lobby's will fight back. I think it's an issue that needs careful consideration/exploring/planning.

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: Insurrectile
Why is this still a matter of debate, did Canada burn down yet?
Always the same with the Boomers...

Canada trials decriminalising coc aine, MDMA and other drugs

I would not look to Canada for inspiration, just as many, if not more daily od's. Also, all they did was decrim, did absolutely nothing else, no extra funds for treatment or rehab..nothing!

The Canadians took a closer look at Portugal. And I'd look at policies that actually help to fight crime if I had a War on Drugs prop up my police state?

That's way more than nothing, mate. You wont get anywhere, sitting on that position. Waiting for the perfect program.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Addicting = withdrawal symptoms and very difficult to stop using
Habit Forming = anything and everything

Alcohol, tobacco, meth, opiates, coc aine all are addicting

overeating = habit

promiscuity = habit

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Addicting = withdrawal symptoms and very difficult to stop using
Habit Forming = anything and everything

Alcohol, tobacco, meth, opiates, coc aine all are addicting

overeating = habit

promiscuity = habit

Overeating is one of many eating disorders, so psychological.

Promiscuity is one of many sexual dysfunctions/disorders, again psychological.

Many people overlook key differences between a “habit” and an “addiction.” Habits are more behavioral-based where addictions take control of your behavior. Habits may be challenging to break, but often can be stopped without treatment. Addictions typically require treatment and lifestyle changes to manage.

landmarkrecovery.com...#:~:text=Many%20people%20overlook%20key%20differences,and%20lifesty le%20changes%20to%20manage.

According to Live Science, researchers believe many factors lead an individual to abuse drugs, including personality traits, genetics, past drug use and their environment. Factors like media exposure, peer pressure, feeling lonely or bullied and constantly being around drugs and alcohol may predispose someone to addiction.

fherehab.com...

fherehab.com...#:~:text=Typically%2C%20individuals%20with%20risky%20personalities,greater%20ten dency%20toward%20addictive%20behaviors.

It is considered a brain disorder, because it involves functional changes to brain circuits involved in reward, stress, and self-control. Those changes may last a long time after a person has stopped taking drugs. 11. Addiction is a lot like other diseases, such as heart disease.

nida.nih.gov...#:~:text=It%20is%20considered%20a%20brain,diseases%2C%2 0such%20as%20heart%20disease.

originally posted by: Insurrectile

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: Insurrectile
Why is this still a matter of debate, did Canada burn down yet?
Always the same with the Boomers...

Canada trials decriminalising coc aine, MDMA and other drugs

I would not look to Canada for inspiration, just as many, if not more daily od's. Also, all they did was decrim, did absolutely nothing else, no extra funds for treatment or rehab..nothing!

The Canadians took a closer look at Portugal. And I'd look at policies that actually help to fight crime if I had a War on Drugs prop up my police state?

That's way more than nothing, mate. You wont get anywhere, sitting on that position. Waiting for the perfect program.

What program..I live here, and I explained whats wrong. Portugal made a big investment in treatment and rehab, Canada did nothing but let it be a free for all. It's not as pretty as you might think. I'm a former addict too, so I know a bit on the subject.

My point is, if doing this, do it right, not like what Canada is doing.

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Addicting = withdrawal symptoms and very difficult to stop using
Habit Forming = anything and everything

Alcohol, tobacco, meth, opiates, coc aine all are addicting

overeating = habit

promiscuity = habit

Tell that to the bacon lover who died from congestive heart failure.

It's okay though, you can cling to those semantics if you wish. I'm not going to try to disabuse you from them. I merely wished to point them out.

The important point I was trying to make is that substances such as bread, pork, and artificial sweeteners ARE deadly, yet are completely legal, heavily promoted by government agencies, and heavily advertised by their producers. There's a bit of hypocrisy there that needs to be pointed out. Habit forming, addictive, or neither makes little difference in regards to that argument.

They will absolutely kill people if used enough over time. This is the primary argument that justifies drug prohibition. One is promoted, officially sanctioned, and heavily advertised. The other is prohibited, the public is imprisoned for its use and distribution, yet it is imported and distributed for profit by government agencies.

This does not occur in a vacuum. The people see these things, they know of this hypocrisy. It's not a good look, if we want to claim the moral high ground. If we give up that moral high ground for the sake of the status quo, how are we any better than any crappy dictatorship or banana republic? Other than having better resources and superior methods, we're not, not really.