YOU solve America's Drug Problem

[Blahness]

YOU solve America's "Drug Problem"!

For the past few decades, many attempts at stopping drug trades have been attempted, most failing.

So, if you had full control of the government*, what would you do to stop the drug problems, assuming you'd even want to?

*(Within reasonable bounds, aka no enslaving the druggies, mass-murdering the druggies, etc.)

I'll tell you my own ideas later.

 

[Azael]

Easy. Legalise and tax it. Let people enjoy the freedom they should have. Trying to stop people from doing drugs is like trying to stop the expansion of the universe. Aint going to happen.

The government might as well make some money out of the drug users, instead of wasting tremendous ammounts of money on harassing people that do nothing more wrong than those that drink alcohole or smoke cigarettes.

 

[Plastic Photon]

The problem with the drugs (excluding those already legal) are that they are illegal. No surprise that I wake up everyother morning to read somewhere in the chronicle about Mexican officers found dead in a river, oil drum, abandon warehouse, etc along the US/Mexican border. Or US officers, civlians, etc...

Simple as this: making the drugs illegal and sending guys with guns to hunt down those with the illegal drugs is going to cause a problem.

 

[rachmaninoff]

People do not have a freedom or right to enjoy illicit drugs, as long as tax money goes to support their health care. Taxing those same drugs won't come close to paying for this.

Why do you think cigarettes are a fundamental right? How does the right of a smoker to enjoy a small 'high' on nicotine outweight the economic damages caused by thousands of middle-aged people dying of emphyshema? Social rights like health care are a doubled-edged sword. If the government is obligated to pay for health care, then it logically has the right to enforce laws to protect public health. Hence laws on dangerous drugs, minimum age laws for cigarettes and alcohol, helmet laws, infectious disease quarantine laws, etc.

The current annual budget of the DEA is around $2 billion (wikipedia). http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/406901_4" in the Am. J. of Health estimates the 1984 annual health cost of smoking to be $53.7 billion. Drug enforcement is cheap and at least somewhat effective. Health care costs are cripplingly expensive.

Slightly off topic, the epidemic of preventible type-2 diabetes was the front-page headline of the New York Times on Monday: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/09/n...eases, Conditions, and Health Topics/Diabetes

 

[Azael]

well legalising softer drugs like mdma or cannabis wouldn't make much of a impact on health care. No where near the strain alcohole and tobacco puts on it.

But I agree people need to take responsibility for there actions. If you get lung cancer and its proven its from cigarettes "tough luck, next patient please". I am not that fond of paying for other peoples stupidity, nor do I want people to pay for my possible stupidities.

If this takes the thread to much offtopic just ignore to reply. But where do you draw the line. Fatty foods probably cost the state more then anything nowdays.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

well legalising softer drugs like mdma or cannabis wouldn't make much of a impact on health care. No where near the strain alcohole and tobacco puts on it.
But I agree people need to take responsibility for there actions. If you get lung cancer and its proven its from cigarettes "tough luck, next patient please". I am not that fond of paying for other peoples stupidity, nor do I want people to pay for my possible stupidities.
If this takes the thread to much offtopic just ignore to reply. But where do you draw the line. Fatty foods probably cost the state more then anything nowdays.

MDMA is a soft drug in your opinion?! I know that street X isn't MDMA but they illegalized MDMA for a reason didn't they?

I agree on cannabis though. I don't really see the point in it being illegal.

 

[Azael]

MDMA is a soft drug in your opinion?! I know that street X isn't MDMA but they illegalized MDMA for a reason didn't they?
I agree on cannabis though. I don't really see the point in it being illegal.

I can't claim to be a expert or anything but I have yet to se any real evidence(not that I have looked that hard) that pure MDMA is very dangerous. Most of the first studies done on it seemed to be biased to make it look bad with tremendous od's ect. I might very well be wrong. But I wouldn't consider it half as bad as meth. Atleast MDMA doesn't make people paranoid or dangerous so I wouldn't consider MDMA users a danger to society like a PCP user or amphetamine addict. Seems to be a hard drug to get addicted to as well since apperently it won't work if you take it several days in a row. So if people want to use it instead of alcohole when clubbing I don't se a reason why not. Alcohol is probably the number one cause for violent crimes.

Usualy I have a very hard time figuring out the reason why some things become illegal most idiotic was the schedualing of steroids in the 80's(or was it in the 90's).

But this is getting the thread severly of topic. So let's get back to the original posters question(I mod at a fairly large board so I know how anoying this can be:yuck: ).

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'm looking around since I'm not really sure myself. I have a friend who told me all about MDMA once because he had researched it before doing it himself. I don't remember much of what he told me but I was pretty sure that there are severe side effects that come with abuse.
So far Wiki says that the long term effects seem rather inconclusive but emedicine seems to think otherwise.
http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic927.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDMA#Long-term_effects


And really we're supposed to derail the threads in GD. It's been mandated by Evo.

 

[Pengwuino]

So, if you had full control of the government*, what would you do to stop the drug problems, assuming you'd even want to?

*(Within reasonable bounds, aka no enslaving the druggies, mass-murdering the druggies, etc.)

Catch 22.

Only way to stop it is to pretty much go nuts. The idea that you need to legalize drugs is silly. Why not legalize murder? You can't stop people from doing it so might as well make it legal. Stealing? Legalize it. Public sex? Legalize it. Driving drunk? Legalize it. It's your right to drive drunk and have sex in public too!

What kind of logic is that? This topic has been done to death before with very little supportive arguments for legalization of even the softest drugs.

 

[Azael]

Catch 22.
Only way to stop it is to pretty much go nuts. The idea that you need to legalize drugs is silly. Why not legalize murder? You can't stop people from doing it so might as well make it legal. Stealing? Legalize it. Public sex? Legalize it. Driving drunk? Legalize it. It's your right to drive drunk and have sex in public too!
What kind of logic is that? This topic has been done to death before with very little supportive arguments for legalization of even the softest drugs.

what is the logic behind having soft drugs illegal? who does a pot smoker or clubber hurt? A equaly convincing case can probably be made to ban fast food, or mountain climbing, or any dangerous sport. Who does a pot smoker hurt so bad that he must be put in jail?

 

[Azael]

Im not one to fall for myths that easily. Look at holland they haven't had a problem since legalising cannabis. The heavier drug use has accutaly been lowered.

Driving if high should offcourse be as illegal as driving while drunk. But just because people drive when high doesn't mean it should be illegal to be high. Or do you suggest alcohole should be illegal because some people can't handle it?

 

[mattmns]

Eating fast food impairs your judgment? Fast food gives you audio and visual hallucinations? Man where have you been eating at?

I am fine with people smoking weed at their house, it is when they drive high that I have a problem.

 

[Pengwuino]

Hell I'd be the first to sign a ban for alcohol. Ever talk to some idiots when they're drunk? What pisses me off the most is that they think its not fair when you yell at them for something they can't remember doing because they were piss drunk. Idiots. I hate people. I want people banned.

oops starting to go off there...

Well do a search and I am sure I made the same case back in this other big ol drug thread... probably PW&A thread... this'll just be a repeat of that thread.

 

[mattmns]

Driving if high should offcourse be as illegal as driving while drunk. But just because people drive when high doesn't mean it should be illegal to be high. Or do you suggest alcohole should be illegal because some people can't handle it?

It will be impossible to make alcohol illegal in the US, but I bet if alcohol was illegal drinking and driving would be way down.

 

[Azael]

Hell I'd be the first to sign a ban for alcohol. Ever talk to some idiots when they're drunk? What pisses me off the most is that they think its not fair when you yell at them for something they can't remember doing because they were piss drunk. Idiots. I hate people. I want people banned.

But isn't it kind of ****ty to ban something for everyone since you personaly don't like it? I hate alcohole and what it does to people, but I consider them mature enough to decide for themself if they should drink or not.

oops starting to go off there...

Well do a search and I am sure I made the same case back in this other big ol drug thread... probably PW&A thread... this'll just be a repeat of that thread.

Il do that, sounds like interesting reading. Is the thread name "PW&A"?

Eating fast food impairs your judgment? Fast food gives you audio and visual hallucinations? Man where have you been eating at?

I am fine with people smoking weed at their house, it is when they drive high that I have a problem.

Well eating fast food makes you fat, clutters up the healtcare, parents that buy fast food teach kids poor habits and they get fat, bullied ect ect ect. I am obviously exagerating in the same manner as soft drug opponents. You could probably make a case to make drinking water illegal because some idiots have drunk themself to death.
Basicly there is always people that can't handle stuff. But I don't se the point in restricting something just because a small minority can't handle it. Il rather live in a free society than in a society where my freedom is totaly restricted so I can't "hurt myself".

I agree though people that drive when stoned, drunk or under the influence of anything else should be jailed.

 

[Pengwuino]

But isn't it kind of ****ty to ban something for everyone since you personaly don't like it? I hate alcohole and what it does to people, but I consider them mature enough to decide for themself if they should drink or not.

People do it all the time, it's been done to death. Just take some time to sit down and think to yourself "What can't I do simply because someone else in another state or in another time period doesn't want me to do it". The list goes on and on. That is how societies work, some things must indeed be restricted. I personally want an M-240 machine gun but hey, I can't have it and although its hard to accept, I must realize that unless we want to live in chaos, some things must be sacrificed.

Damn i want that machine gun...

Il do that, sounds like interesting reading. Is the thread name "PW&A"?

I meant its probably in the politics and world affairs sub-forum (oops, that & should be betwen W and P). It's pretty much the same arguments here and same responses and probalby will mirror the future of this thread.

 

[Azael]

the nature of all these debates. Same **** repeated a million times and no one ever changes oppinion but yet we all keep on cause its fun :)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The reasons for drug and alcohol abuse are social, psychological, and even physiological. IMO this is not a problem that laws can solve, so in principle I oppose all drug laws; obviously with some exceptions in the case of minors, and due to other practical considerations.

Drug use predates our very existence as humans. Drug use in animals is common - kitty on catnip, for example - so fighting drugs seems to me a bit like fighting the ocean tides. Until we understand why and can affect the reasons that people desire drugs, nothing will change except perhaps that drug problems will be used as an excuse to eliminate our Constitutional right to privacy - a far more important issue AFAIC.

Has anyone read the short story by Hemmingway...? I don't remember the name but it was a conversation between a young and a middle aged man, about an old alcoholic gent, with all sitting around in a bar.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Note that hard core drug users and alcoholics are fully aware that they are killing themselves. What good will laws do when one is knowingly committing suicide anyway.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Hell I'd be the first to sign a ban for alcohol.

I don't like you any more Pengwuino!

 

[Azael]

The reasons for drug and alcohol abuse are social, psychological, and even physiological. IMO this is not a problem that laws can solve, so in principle I oppose all drug laws; obviously with some exceptions in the case of minors, and due to other practical considerations.
Drug use predates our very existence as humans. Drug use in animals is common - kitty on catnip, for example - so fighting drugs seems to me a bit like fighting the ocean tides. Until we understand why and can affect the reasons that people desire drugs, nothing will change except perhaps that drug problems will be used as an excuse to eliminate our Constitutional right to privacy - a far more important issue AFAIC.
Has anyone read the short story by Hemmingway...? I don't remember the name but it was a conversation between a young and a middle aged man, about an old alcoholic gent, with all sitting around in a bar.

I would also want to raise the question on why drug use is even a undesirable behavior. Why is it seen as a problem we need to fix. I have seen first hand the suffering it brings upon some people. But in those people the drug use is most often a symptom of a illness not a cause so without they drug they would be equaly miserable in some other way.

Im afraid I have never heard of that Hemmingway story but if you remember the name be sure to post it.

Note that hard core drug users and alcoholics are fully aware that they are killing themselves. What good will laws do when one is knowingly committing suicide anyway.

Exactly. Those that can handle it are punished and those that can't do it anyway and doesn't give a damn.

 

[Blahness]

If the government's going to stop drugs, they need to make it so it's both

A: Not easy to acquire, and
B: Not profitable to produce.

Huge "drug taxes" would solve problem B, and since problem B is solved, problem A will go with it, since most people sell it for profit.

Discuss?

 

[rachmaninoff]

The reasons for drug and alcohol abuse are social, psychological, and even physiological. IMO this is not a problem that laws can solve, so in principle I oppose all drug laws; obviously with some exceptions in the case of minors, and due to other practical considerations.

Drug use predates our very existence as humans. Drug use in animals is common - kitty on catnip, for example - so fighting drugs seems to me a bit like fighting the ocean tides. Until we understand why and can affect the reasons that people desire drugs, nothing will change except perhaps that drug problems will be used as an excuse to eliminate our Constitutional right to privacy - a far more important issue AFAIC.

Has anyone read the short story by Hemmingway...? I don't remember the name but it was a conversation between a young and a middle aged man, about an old alcoholic gent, with all sitting around in a bar.

I don't understand this reasoning. AFAIK there's no significant way the federal government can effect change in the social and psychological roots; their various programs and such only go so far. But there is a great benefit in attacking the symptoms of the problems - the drugs - even with partial success. Obviously, the health care savings. And a reduction in drug-related crime. I don't really see how privacy is involved here - wiretaps on drug dealers involve court orders, the illegal NSA stuff isn't used for this.

 

[Gale]

wouldn't a black market for drugs just be created if drug taxes got out of control? thus gov't regulations of the drugs would be obsolete and we're back to where we began.

how about we make selling drugs illegal, but growing or producing your own, and using/sharing it legal? now there's no profit to be made from drugs, because everyone is capable of producing their own, and bartering with a neighbor.

 

[scott1]

How I would solve is get tougher on the durg dealers espically the people who make.I would try send in the Army to the counties where they gorw them shoot the people who grow(I know the countries that there won't like it but if there not going to anything about we will).Then I would get some government scientist to make a virus that attacks the plants(FDA apporve)then realse it and into the countries so that there drugs supply whould go down.Then try find as many drug smuggling rings as possible and have undercover agents go in and try to find out who's smuggling durgs so that's less durg smugglers.Then I would make all the durgies go join the milltary and go to Iraq.

 

[Homer Simpson]

BAN ALCOHOL ?!?!? WTF ??!?

Alcohol (and responsible drug use for that matter) for many people is a harmless and infact helpful addition to their quality of lives and sanity! Just because some people don’t enjoy a few beers in the sun at the cottage doesn’t mean it should be banned. Just because I don’t like super thrash metal music does not mean it should be banned. Come on people! Live and let LIVE! If everyone banned everything they did not like or thought was bad for society then I likely would not be allowed to take a dump.

Impaired Driving of course deserves harsh punishment. In Ontario, one blow over the limit and there goes your license for a year and your insurance rates through the roof. And that’s at .08%. That’s F-all for many people. That should be deterrant enough.

 

[Averagesupernova]

I don't think anyone here has mentioned what actually goes on in a drug addicts mind. The incredible need to get the drug (some) at any cost. In the part of the U.S. that I live meth (crank) is a HUGE problem. Not necessarily the crime caused by the manufacture of the stuff but the lives of the users that it ruins. Some posters here mention that just because someone ELSE cannot handle drugs should not mean they are made illegal. I don't buy that. Other people using drugs have huge consequences on my insurance and the safety of my neighborhood. The only way I see to end the problems caused by drugs are to get people to not want to use them. What I think needs to be done is to leave the druggies behind. Forget them. Sink or swim. You want to take a chance on dying in the street? Fine. No counseling, no nothing. So while we're at it, make them legal. No medical care covered by insurance for anything drug related other than liability like in an auto accident. Motivated to not use drugs yet? That's ok. Use all you like. I'll be smiling when your death improves the gene pool.

 

[Plastic Photon]

Such a major cop out to post a pic of a random car crash.

7 years ago a man down the street had an incident. He had an incident with the SWAT team here in Houston. The incident started when he drew grafitti in the street depicting his neighbor in an inappropriate fashion. The neighbor told him to stop, he became violent.

The SWAT team was called when he waved a rifle at police officers who showed up at his door, then he fired the first shots. The SWAT team came and opened fire on him. I heard the shots from down the street. I was 12 at the time and did not make much of it until I saw the rucuss outside.

The SWAT team shot the man dead in his tracks as he stormed out of his house while shooting his rifle.

That was crazy. And he was sober too. I can do it too.

 

[Azael]

I don't think anyone here has mentioned what actually goes on in a drug addicts mind.

We would have to settle in some way the % of users of certain drugs that become addicted to even begin to discuss addicts.

Some posters here mention that just because someone ELSE cannot handle drugs should not mean they are made illegal. I don't buy that. Other people using drugs have huge consequences on my insurance and the safety of my neighborhood.

Only the most hardcore users of heavy drugs start to comit crime to get there hands on more drugs. I would rather speculate that non drug related crimes are higher among drug users simply because its those kind of people that can get ahold of drugs in the first place. Not that drugs in any huge extent make them do the crimes(I recognise the fact that many drugs can increase agression, but for most normal people this shouldn't be a problem, just like most people can handle alcohole).
Maby some stoned pot smokers might get the idea to rob a candy store

The only way I see to end the problems caused by drugs are to get people to not want to use them. What I think needs to be done is to leave the druggies behind. Forget them. Sink or swim. You want to take a chance on dying in the street? Fine. No counseling, no nothing. So while we're at it, make them legal. No medical care covered by insurance for anything drug related other than liability like in an auto accident. Motivated to not use drugs yet? That's ok. Use all you like. I'll be smiling when your death improves the gene pool.

Well you can't prevent privatly owned companies from having rehab or counseling programs. Also keep in mind that most of the serious drug addicts has had problems before they started using drugs and will have even if they stop. If it wasnt drugs they would find something else to abuse and ultimately needs some kind of counseling. But I would be fine with that general idea.

But once again where do you draw the line? How much does obesity cost people? Do you want to pay because people don't have discipline enough to control what they show into there mouths? How much does smoking cost society? How much doest automobile accidents cost society because of all the unfit drivers?

Legalising would prevent many problems, first of all it would get all the dirty drugs of the streets. It would also disable a lot of organised crime syndicates because there number one cash cow would be gone.

 

[Azael]

I find it funny that we live in a society where prescription drug use is totaly out of controll. Yet most snear at drugs users while they munch down a few valium followed by some paxil and zoloft just to be able to relax.
We put a lot of our kids on amphetamines, yet adults that uses it because they want to are junkies.

 

[Anttech]

People do not have a freedom or right to enjoy illicit drugs, as long as tax money goes to support their health care. Taxing those same drugs won't come close to paying for this.

Why do you think cigarettes are a fundamental right? How does the right of a smoker to enjoy a small 'high' on nicotine outweight the economic damages caused by thousands of middle-aged people dying of emphyshema? Social rights like health care are a doubled-edged sword. If the government is obligated to pay for health care, then it logically has the right to enforce laws to protect public health. Hence laws on dangerous drugs, minimum age laws for cigarettes and alcohol, helmet laws, infectious disease quarantine laws, etc.

The current annual budget of the DEA is around $2 billion (wikipedia). http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/406901_4" in the Am. J. of Health estimates the 1984 annual health cost of smoking to be $53.7 billion. Drug enforcement is cheap and at least somewhat effective. Health care costs are cripplingly expensive.

Slightly off topic, the epidemic of preventible type-2 diabetes was the front-page headline of the New York Times on Monday: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/09/n...eases, Conditions, and Health Topics/Diabetes

Why would you need the tax money need to go to health? You already pay health insurance, so If you are a drug user your premium would probably go up... its the same as banning fast cars, because the road tax you pay isn't going to health in case you crash... If you legalise drug use, or decriminalise it (for softer drugs like in NL) you will not find that consumption goes up, what you will find is that Police resources are freed up to tackle other more serious crimes... Which in turn will decrease the amount of money tax payers have to pay to the state police.

 

[Azael]

I don't know how trustworthy this site is when it has a very clear agenda. But I guess they haven't pulled the numbers out of there ass. War on drugs is not cheap by any stretch of the imagination.

http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm

 

[ray b]

the war mind set is very good at making a bad situation worse
why not give peace a chance

Alcohol ban was tried and failed but the mob made out very very well

danger would be less with pure drugs as would health effects
but too many cops and others would need to find real work

btw penguin fill out some forms and pay some fees and get a class3 fed gun dealer license and you can have your machine gun

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't understand this reasoning. AFAIK there's no significant way the federal government can effect change in the social and psychological roots; their various programs and such only go so far.

Education and treatment might help, but maybe that's the point. It's not the Federal Government's job to solve all problems. In fact this is supposed to be a state and not a federal issue...another example of how the Constitution takes a beating.

But there is a great benefit in attacking the symptoms of the problems - the drugs - even with partial success.

Really, can you show where this has worked and not only made the problem worse? Drug addicts are already victims. Victimizing them further all but gaurantees that we make lifetime criminals out of them; for one by creating an arrest record, and next by forcing them underground and into a dangerous black market.

Obviously, the health care savings. And a reduction in drug-related crime.

Drug related crimes result mainly from the drug laws. Have you checked the cost of prisons lately?

I don't really see how privacy is involved here - wiretaps on drug dealers involve court orders, the illegal NSA stuff isn't used for this.

The day that I had to pee in a bottle in order to get a job, I felt violated. AFAIC, when I leave the job, the boss has nothing to say about how I choose to live; and he is certainly not entitled to my pee; though I thought to offer something from the rear, at the time! Obviously certain jobs carry public safety concerns, and these issues must be carefully considered, but in principle I see this as a violation of privacy - illegal search, which makes it a federal issue. So in this sense it is part of the entire picture. Next, the same applies for alcohol. Did you know that some employers now test for booze as well...and cigarettes? How about fat next? And should we have to pass a cholesterol test? How about heart disease; don't want to hire one of those guys... And get the DNA tests and make sure this guy isn't liekly to cost us a fortune in medical insurance... Get the idea? And did you hear about the incident in Illinois in which the cops went to a womans house, and right in front of her children, arrested and hauled her off for smoking cigarettes in front of the kids - child endangerment? The law that made this possible was repealed, but for a long time now I have watched in horror as basics concepts of privacy go up in smoke.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

...though it would be an interesting twist on Dawinism if the day comes when only genetically superior people are desirable for hire.