Why The USA Must End Drug Prohibition

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

Which would be on you, who's still formulating projections to leave another projectile.

I'll never waste any time, time is wasting me at this point. May the day have a great you as well!

originally posted by: EternalShadow

Those examples are not strawmen but the eventual outcome of short sighted "do goodery".

Short sighted do goodery? Short sighted do goodery?!?

How about a century's worth of imprisoning people for lifestyle decisions? A pointless, generational conflict. Millions imprisoned. Millions of families destroyed. Millions alienated from their institutions of government and communities. A conflict that persists to this day, despite nearly a century's worth of our government making war against its own people. Hell, all of those efforts have only made the problem worse as far as I can tell.

How's that for your short sighted do goodery? It sure hasn't solved the problem. Perhaps it was a bit, uh, short sighted.

a reply to: CoyoteAngels
That's what I thought.

E N O U G H ! ! !

Talking about each other is NEVER on topic? You see that? We are free to discuss the views of others, and hopefully discuss our own views. That is the nature of a discussion. This back and forth sniping has to stop. Additional posts along this line will be more sternly actioned.

It is fine to passionately disagree, just don't make it personal. Go forth, have fun, discuss.

Be well

9.27.2023 BREAKING

FYI:

Decriminalizing Drug Possession Not Linked to Higher Overdose Death Rates in Oregon or Washington

Source: nyulangone.org...

In other words, people who don't go to jail for possessing drugs are not more likely to die from drug overdoses. That makes cents!

I feel like this is a very long thread for legalizing pot in all states.

I didn’t read it all however, opiates, bennys, meth, heroin, coc aine…..no…should not be legal.
Look at San Fran as an example of everywhere having the same problem but larger because of open access to drugs.

However, the Netherlands has it right for hash and pot.

a reply to: carewemust

Interesting article. Thanks for sharing.

Imagine that: drugs decriminalized and all the kids didn't suddenly run out and try it and overdose...

A little more from the article:
nyulangone.org...

Decriminalization advocates assert that laws like those passed in Oregon and Washington will result in increased calls for help by people experiencing or witnessing an overdose and reduce incarceration, which itself is associated with fatal overdose. Critics, meanwhile, argue that decriminalizing the possession of small amounts of drugs might increase drug use and subsequent fatal overdose. This research found no evidence to support either outcome in the first year after the policy change.

“Our analysis suggests that state decriminalization policies do not lead to increases in overdose deaths,” said Corey Davis, JD, MSPH, adjunct assistant professor in the Department of Population Health at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, a member of the Center for Opioid Epidemiology and Policy, and the study’s senior investigator.

Another study published by Davis and colleagues last month found that the Oregon and Washington decriminalization policies dramatically reduced arrests for drug possession and did not lead to increased arrests for violent crimes.(emphasis mine-badcabbie) “These two studies show that drug decriminalization measures in Oregon and Washington reduced arrests and did not increase overdose deaths. Taken together, these findings signal reduced harm to people who use drugs and possibly their communities as well,” said Davis.

No dramatic increase or decrease in drug use, or overdose at least. I'd imagine there will be a gradual decline in use over time, because many of these pasttimes are still disgusting ones, in my opinion. Regardless, it's nice to see less criminal penalties for this type of behavior.

I wanted to write a general reply to this thread, and start it by reaffirming my agreement with those replying here who say that hard drug use is a scourge on humanity. I agree. It is mostly an unhealthy practice. I would have to struggle to come up with good things that have come from heroin, fentanyl, coc aine, crack coc aine, and/or methamphetamine use.

Doesn't matter. Prohibition is unjust, and as such should be ended.

How else do you solve the problem? Truly, there are not enough prisons to hold all of the drug users in existence. If that slow form of genocide isn't spicy enough for you, consider the horror of harsher measures than that that you might be thinking to suggest as you read this. No amount of justification will ever make that right. Whether it's kidnapping, imprisonment, or murder you propose, it will always be wrong to abuse people for their lifestyle decisions.

The use of these drugs is popular. Is it a majority of the population? I doubt it. A healthy minority surely, however. Do we then make them all outcasts, felons, prisoners to be executed, because they ingested and possessed some ill advised poisons for the sake of having some fun? Seems like a bad idea to me.

Maybe offer to help them. Maybe remove the powerful incentives for cartels to engage in drug trafficking. Maybe government should stop engaging in the same sort of trafficking with their clandestine activities. Maybe have more honest discussions and promote actual awareness instead of propaganda. None of these things seem like bad ideas to me.

Maybe just let them do their thing, and some of them might die from it, and that would be sad, I agree. As sad as that might be, I think harsh penalties and long prison sentences are worse.

Prison is generally considered to be bad for people. A small fraction of those incarcerated do reform. Like two percent last time I checked. Most come out of that cell more likely to commit worse crimes and become incarcerated again. Is this what we really want for the kids that partied a little harder than we would have liked? It's not what I want for them, and it's not what you should want either.

originally posted by: EternalShadow

Why doesn't the military allow drug use? Gee, I wonder.

This assertion is incorrect.

See US military pilot error during various Gulf Wars due to "go pill" usage, wherein such "go pills" were provided courtesy of Uncle Sam and use of such pills was reportedly encouraged by superiors. Might have even been ordered. Either way, that actually happened, according to media reporting at the time.

Pilots admitted to this. Guys that our military spent millions training, who operated hundred-million dollar pieces of military equipment.

This is just the occurrence we know about.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

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

Show me the Article:Section:Clause in the Constitution that delegates to the federal government the power/authority to legislate in any way with respect to anything even remotely resembling 'controlled substances'.

Otherwise, they have NONE - and agin, this is precisely why Prohibition is an irrefutable example that they simply do not have this power.

Any support whatsoever for any federal law regulating 'controlled substances' is support for an unConstitutional power usurped by the federal government, so you have zero standing to challenge any other unConstitutional Law, including laws violating the 2nd amendment.

Like abortion, this is a power reserved to the States, but should still be limited bye each State's Constitution.

You can't have it both ways.

Well said, thank you for adding your thoughts here. It is an issue which doesn't get the public discussion it deserves. Sadly it apparently was not allowed to hit the ATS front page, though it should have appeared at least in the "hot topics" section once the post count got high enough.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

What are the benefits for regular Americans? I only ask because I do not do drugs nor have any plans to in the future. I will be asked and tasked with helping to support the potential side effects of narcotic use.
Will there be a victim recovery fund to help protect potential victims of narcotic use? I know you believe it to be a victimless crime; but there will be emotional, physical and financial victims assuredly.
Are there any societal benefits? I see only harm to society, a society that relies on a network of blue collar workers to keep the lights on and food on the table

originally posted by: onthedownlow
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

What are the benefits for regular Americans? I only ask because I do not do drugs nor have any plans to in the future. I will be asked and tasked with helping to support the potential side effects of narcotic use.
Will there be a victim recovery fund to help protect potential victims of narcotic use? I know you believe it to be a victimless crime; but there will be emotional, physical and financial victims assuredly.
Are there any societal benefits? I see only harm to society, a society that relies on a network of blue collar workers to keep the lights on and food on the table

Less people imprisoned unjustly.

More meaningful application of law enforcement.

Less of those blue collar workers that society relies upon having their lives ruined for being caught with some coke or meth in their pocket when they're out on the weekend and have an unexpected encounter with law enforcement despite not breaking any laws. This translates into reduced costs for the application of force that law enforcement and criminal justice administration requires.

An end to the trauma caused to the victims of that application of force. An end to the division in society that this creates.

An end to organized professional criminal activity that thrives on prohibition.

An end to the economic dynamic that enriches those who profit greatly from drug prohibition(cartels, the CIA, God only knows what other clandestine government agencies).

An end to the hypocrisy of the government's practice of illegally trafficking drugs while simultaneously imprisoning people for the use or possession of those same drugs.

A reduction in the number of mechanisms by which elected and appointed officials are compromised.

A reduction in the incentives to commit crimes to support drug use, due to reduced costs and risks to those drug users who might otherwise compromise their ethics to buy more drugs.

An end to the socialization with the criminal element that a drug user would necessarily be required to engage in at present for the sake of acquiring drugs.

A reduction in the social division and pitting of one social faction against the other that this nation endures at present due to the social division created by drug prohibition.

An end to a nation making war against its own people for what substances they choose to ingest.

Better music.

There are more I'd guess, but these are the benefits that come to mind off the top of my head.

Missing pieces...

It's hard to make a case AGAINST ending the prohibition of cannabis. This wonderful plant, with thousands of industrial uses, hundreds of medicinal uses, is practically harmless and has been shown to have numerous health benefits to its consumption.

Practically impossible to OD on cannabis. I think you might technically manage it, with a high enough dosage of concentrates, but it is generally considered to be such an unlikely scenario as to be nearly impossible to do even that.

Taking a look at the National Organization For The Reform Of Marijuana Laws, NORML's website, there are some interesting figures that they have to report as to what states have passed laws pertaining to the use of cannabis.

norml.org...
norml.org...
norml.org...
norml.org...
norml.org...

According to NORML's reporting:
27 states have decriminalized cannabis. It looks like that list is incomplete, so this number is actually probably higher than 27.

At least 24 states have legalized cannabis. This list may also be incomplete, so this number might also be higher.

More than 100 localities nationwide have decriminalized cannabis within their municipality or county.

It appears as though EVERY state in the union has legalized cannabis for some form of medical use. In a half dozen or so states, only a special low THC content form of cannabis is allowed.

As far as I know, at the federal level, cannabis is still a schedule 1 substance. It is listed in the same category as heroin, meth, and coc aine. Simple possession is a federal crime (felony) and would preclude one from ever being able to seek any number of jobs.

Why is this plant still prohibited? I can think of trillion$ of reason$, but beyond that, no good reason.

originally posted by: vance
I cycle the highways and byways of America. I have to be aware of distracted drivers on a regular basis. Can't see a problem worrying about the slow motor skills of Marijuana and the like 😁

If you like kidding yourself, you're entitled to believe that. Most of the people I see on the road in my metro area that appear to be driving under the influence appear to be under the influence of alcohol and/or pharmaceuticals, neither of which are prohibited. If marijuana is involved, it's only in combination with one or more other intoxicating substances 95+% of the time would be my guess. Some research has supported the notion that marijuana users are just as safe as sober drivers.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

If that was the Case , and you Happened to have a 13 Year Old Son or Daughter that Partook in Certain Mind Altering Substances you Happen to be Unaware of , and that Could Possibly put their Young Unexperienced Lives in Danger , Would You Personally Feel the Same as you Profess Here > ? Go Ahead , Answer TRUTHFULLY ! ........

Anyhow, while it wouldn't change my opinion on what needs to happen with regards to this important social problem and the policy changes that should be made to solve it, prohibited or not wouldn't change the advice I would give to my young people.

Make sure those young ones know their history. The history of Opium dens in the east and the old west. The history of the failed prohibition movement in the early twentieth century west.The fact that prohibition failed doesn't make their condemnation invalid.

For that matter, I'd guess you might not have to look so far back in history to find stories of people behaving badly with alcohol. Most people have some family or friends who struggle with alcohol, or have struggled with it in the past. If you don't have those though, history is full of examples.

The same is true of other dangerous intoxicating substances. The truth about the risks involved is the best preparation you can offer, in my opinion. The truth mind you, not propaganda. This is true whether these substances are prohibited or not.

Missing pieces...The government problem.

How many drug users in government, gaming the system?

This is a challenging post. We can define the problems, but the solutions are not so straightforward.

The demons created by prohibition. Ending prohibition heals this in time.

What it doesn't do is solve the problem of how you eliminate drug use from the government class altogether.

If you can wave a magic wand and eliminate drug use in government completely, then you have literally achieved fascism within the government class. That which does not fit has been cut away, leaving only the straight and narrow.

Objectively that is what you could ideally achieve, if you could attain that ideal. Of course, those opposed to such ideology would be disaffected by such an achievement. That reality makes the likelihood of achieving such an ideal highly unlikely, at least not without very drastic measures.

Such a solution would literally be brutal, highly repugnant, likely involve much loss of life and liberty to many who do not deserve it, and if achieved would still leave a large number of disaffected non-government-class. Genocide is necessary to deal with these, or mass imprisonment and "re-education" at the least.

Subjectively it is easy to see that this seems wrong, not to mention hypocritical considering the caffeine, sugar, tobacco, and alcohol users get a pass under color of law. On the other hand, those working in the offices of government should not be impaired while on the job. That also seems wrong.

In counterpoint to that notion, the government class should have the right to be secure in their persons against search and seizure, just as the non-government class should be. What they do on their own time should be theirs to choose.

In counterpoint to that notion, it is not unreasonable to expect some of the government class to exercise such discipline as to be unencumbered by the physical and mental side effects that might be caused by the regular use or addiction to some drugs.

The counterpoint to that notion is that it is a slippery slope. That standard could be anywhere from serious withdrawal symptoms or such dependency as to seriously impair one's workplace performance, to the ingestion of a cup of coffee or a cigarette crossing the line.

I would recommend that it be approached in a similar way to that which alcohol use is handled. Allowed provided it doesn't affect workplace performance, and then addressed as such if it does bleed over into the workplace.

I can only view these problems as an outsider, and I admit that I don't have all the answers. What we have won't do though, and there will always be some sympathetic to drug users. Again, it seems as though only ending prohibition fixes this, as far as I can tell.

Attempting to crack down and eliminate it all won't work, and ultimately continues and intensifies the major social problem that prohibition is: a nation (unconstitutionally) making war on its population over lifestyle decisions.

All the fentanyl overdoses. We wouldn't see anywhere near the mortality level if users were able to obtain a standard dosage of a known quantity.

As far as I know, most fentanyl in circulation is in the form of pills disguised as some other pharmaceutical. A user obtaining some would have to carefully test what they had scored to determine the quantity. That's just not how heroin/fentanyl users roll.

Most will not take the time, as they would be anxious to consume what they had purchased, due to the strong cravings and the scarcity and expense of their drugs of choice.

I wouldn't say that a standard dosage that was easy to quantify would eliminate OD's altogether, but it would reduce OD deaths by at least 50% I'd speculate. Probably 90% or more. Another problem that ending drug prohibition would solve...

Rescheduling Cannabis from a schedule 1 substance to a schedule 3 substance gives the Democrats a win, in my opinion. It makes them look good. It was the right thing to do, and way past time in implementation.

Republicans, this could have been your win.