Drugs: A moral decision, a matter of choice, or a national health risk?

[The Grand Nudger]

I allow the plants to do the rest through their own chemical processes.

I have a similar philosophy. I let the plant do the brunt of the chemical warfare work. They're better at it than I am, they have alot more practice. The also have less mercy - sometimes I just can't bring myself to kill those cute little hornworms.

[Dystopia]

I think marijuana/weed should be legal and available, like alcohol and cigarettes (and cigars, all kind of tobacco products) - Because of the reasons you mentioned - I see it as a personal choice - If it's moral or not, that's up to the concrete individual, one could do drugs and believe it is immoral.

I'm against legalization of hard drugs by the reasons you listed and some more, but I'm also against sending addicts to jail - The act of consumption per se is not harmful to anyone else - We should put dealers in jail instead and incentive people to not to heavy dangerous and extremely addicting drugs. Anyone who thinks all drugs should be legal never had to dealt with a homeless junkie begging for money - In fact if all heavy drugs were legal, they would be so expensive because of taxes that traffic would continue. Not that heavy drugs are the only ones doing this, lots of homeless people like asking me for cigs and it's extremely annoying.

I think mandatory rehab is a fair sentence, despite my skepticism towards forced, coercive rehabilitation procedures, but I don't see any more solutions for now.

Possession shouldn't be illegal either, IMO, as long as it's not enough to legally assume you're selling.

Drugs are all of those 3 aspects you mentioned, it depends on the case, and each case is a case.

[The Grand Nudger]

In fact if all heavy drugs were legal, they would be so expensive because of taxes that traffic would continue.

Doubtful, just judging by cigarettes. Costs the manufacturer approx $6 per carton (most of that is the box....second behind that the filters, and then operations - the actual drug itself is pennies), costs the consumer in excess of $50 a carton (approx $42 of that being various state and federal taxes). I think you would agree that this is an obscene tax rate. Nevertheless, it is still within the means of the poorest of the poor (and increasingly, their vice, not the vice of affluence). As I mentioned, there is smuggling of cigs (and the numbers above explain why) but you'll be hard pressed to find examples of that trade taking on the demeanor and garb of smuggling those products currently on our list of illicit substances. People smuggle t-shirts as well, for perspective. In the case of cigarettes, any incentive for a criminal organization to really dive in is soaked up by our government (which could be argued to be the criminals in this case). The same would be true of any drug regulated in a similar manner - no matter how "hard" or "heavy" the drug is (keep in mind, alcohol shares a dubious distinction with few other drugs in that detox can actually kill the addict...so a drugs "heaviness" is a shady concept to begin with, particularly as a justification for criminalization set against the availability of alcohol). Perhaps some cartel wannabe -would- get the notion to enter into the business...but his competition would be federal and state governments, not some other criminal organization.

The reason that manufacturing of trafficking of prohibited substances is so lucrative is that there's literally -no- competition, and no one skimming your till. That's really all there is to it. Let people compete in an open arena with all available support and you're going to see margins drop further, while a higher quality product is delivered - and as a result cartels will be crushed by "legitimate business". Trafficking won't be an issue so much as embezzling and corporate tax fraud. All of this assumes our system and situation...may be different where you are. Any cigarette cartels overrunning your neighboring countries governments over there?

[Dystopia]

The reason that manufacturing of trafficking of prohibited substances is so lucrative is that there's literally -no- competition, and no one skimming your till. That's really all there is to it. Let people compete in an open arena with all available support and you're going to see margins drop further, while a higher quality product is delivered - and as a result cartels will be crushed by "legitimate business". Trafficking won't be an issue so much as embezzling and corporate tax fraud. All of this assumes our system and situation...may be different where you are. Any cigarette cartels overrunning your neighboring countries governments over there?

Not any cartel that I'm aware of, but buying smuggled cigarettes has become quite common, as well as switching to rollies, natural leaf tobacco and pipes because they are less expensive...

I don't know what the price of cigarettes is in America, but here in Portugal a pack of Marlboros costs 4.50€ and it has been rising constantly over the years, I remember when I was a teen and started it costed 2.80€.

The problem here is that you're comparing different substances - In the case pointed I think heavier drugs like cocaine or heroin would most certainly be expensive by various reasons - Either to not incentive people to consume them, since they can ruin your life easily if you're not careful (and by ruining I mean worse effects that the ones cigs bring), or because the quality of those drugs and the feeling you get when you're high are so good that you got to pay for it - If you go to a dealer, you'll find out that heroin is probably the most expensive drug, and the cheapest is weed - Not that I tried heroin, but it's generally the case - I don't think shops would do any different, specially considering heroin is very addicting, there's no reason to not rise prices - When it comes to addictive products, there's a tendency of continuous demand even if the price goes up, so it's pretty smart to raise taxes there - Even if it is somehow unethical.

[The Grand Nudger]

Not any cartel that I'm aware of, but buying smuggled cigarettes has become quite common, as well as switching to rollies, natural leaf tobacco and pipes because they are less expensive...

How many days have gone by since the last cigarette related drive by shooting?

The problem here is that you're comparing different substances

The substances are different sure, but not in any way important to my position. Heroin is a processed agricultural commodity. So is whiskey, so are cigarettes.

In the case pointed I think heavier drugs like cocaine or heroin would most certainly be expensive by various reasons - Either to not incentive people to consume them, since they can ruin your life easily if you're not careful (and by ruining I mean worse effects that the ones cigs bring)

You think that smokes or alcohol can't "ruin your life easily if you're not careful". The medical establishment might have a word or two to say against that notion. But so what if we did tax the shit out of it and skyrocket the price (over what, btw...I bet it costs less to grow poppies in afghanistan than it does to grow corn or tobacco in the states - in fact...I'm sure of it. If they were taxed at similar rates the H would likely be cheaper than my Reds). Seen any seizure med shootings? I haven't, and that shit -is expensive-.

, or because the quality of those drugs and the feeling you get when you're high are so good that you got to pay for it -

And you'll find that a nice bottle of wine is something you;'re just gonna have to pay out the ass for as well. Vino based drive-bys?

If you go to a dealer, you'll find out that heroin is probably the most expensive drug, and the cheapest is weed - Not that I tried heroin, but it's generally the case -

It;s more difficult to smuggle H - and the penalties are often more severe. That said, I bet it's alot cheaper where you are - being closer to the major sources of supply. I can get -incredible- bud from a kid 20 miles from me growing on his windowsill - it's gonna be cheaper, of course - but if he had poppies growing there instead.....

I don't think shops would do any different, specially considering heroin is very addicting, there's no reason to not rise prices - When it comes to addictive products, there's a tendency of continuous demand even if the price goes up, so it's pretty smart to raise taxes there - Even if it is somehow unethical.

You keep prices low on a product that any competitor can resell for a very simple reason - so that your customer buys it from you, and not the other guy.

Look, anything that's worth money is going to be worth smuggling - to someone. Bootleg cds, knockoff jeans, whatever. The issue is that only when we have this particular confluence of value and prohibitionism does that translate into mexican cartels outgunning their governments. Of kids in the streets with Glocks protecting a market that we've -helped them- to corner. The misery attendant to all of this is -largely- but not -completely- a product of that situation. These folks aren't interested in product quality. They don't have to be. They aren't interested in customer safety, they don't have to be. Addiction wouldn't go away if we legalized and regulated these products. The demand for them wouldn't decrease, their effect on the people who use them wouldn't change - but all of that is occurring now - in our current system.....the only thing that would be harmed is the ability of criminal enterprises to profit from it, and the misery explicitly caused by a lack of adequate regulation.

[Dystopia]

How many days have gone by since the last cigarette related drive by shooting?

That basically never happens, so?

The substances are different sure, but not in any way important to my position. Heroin is a processed agricultural commodity. So is whiskey, so are cigarettes.

But it is relevant to mine. I don't care much about the origin, as long as it's reliable

You think that smokes or alcohol can't "ruin your life easily if you're not careful". The medical establishment might have a word or two to say against that notion. But so what if we did tax the shit out of it and skyrocket the price (over what, btw...I bet it costs less to grow poppies in afghanistan than it does to grow corn or tobacco in the states - in fact...I'm sure of it. If they were taxed at similar rates the H would likely be cheaper than my Reds). Seen any seizure med shootings? I haven't, and that shit -is expensive-.

For sure, but alcohol won't get you hooked on your second or third glass of beer (and I know a former heroin addict to speak about this, anything more than one shot to the vein is enough to get you into it), it can be consumed moderately, and that's what most people do - Cigarettes won't kill you as quickly and painfully as heroin, and they won't give you the same horrid withdrawal symptoms, it's apples and oranges

And you'll find that a nice bottle of wine is something you;'re just gonna have to pay out the ass for as well. Vino based drive-bys?

No, but there's cheaper alcohol out there, a glass of beer would satisfy the addict, or a glass of cheap whine, instead of buying a top notch bottle of wine - I don't think they'd do the same with heroin - In fact it would probably be state regulated, and heavily.

It;s more difficult to smuggle H - and the penalties are often more severe. That said, I bet it's alot cheaper where you are - being closer to the major sources of supply. I can get -incredible- bud from a kid 20 miles from me growing on his windowsill - it's gonna be cheaper, of course - but if he had poppies growing there instead.....

From my inferior knowledge, I can say 30€ is the price for a little of cocaine or heroin, enough for maybe one strong shot, but I dunno, if you're getting top quality drugs, then probably you'll pay more, different dealers make different prices, you'll find some selling cheap weed full of chemicals and others who cultivate it in backyards and sell it straight away, at a higher price.

You keep prices low on a product that any competitor can resell for a very simple reason - so that your customer buys it from you, and not the other guy.

This would probably not be an option, but a state imposition. If the state decides that the cigarettes tax is going to be higher, that means sellers have to raise the price to keep their share, that's what happens - If cigs are already taxed so heavily, I don't want to imagine the case of heroin, any tax applied to hazardous products would be in, and heavily...

Look, anything that's worth money is going to be worth smuggling - to someone. Bootleg cds, knockoff jeans, whatever. The issue is that only when we have this particular confluence of value and prohibitionism does that translate into mexican cartels outgunning their governments. Of kids in the streets with Glocks protecting a market that we've -helped them- to corner.

I'm not a fan of prohibitionism, but I've grown to accept the fact complete liberty is unachievable for the sake of security and human dignity.

[The Grand Nudger]

That basically never happens, so?

So the fact that there may be a reason for people to smuggle a substance isn't interchangeable with a reason to engage in violent organized crime.

But it is relevant to mine. I don't care much about the origin, as long as it's reliable

Which regulation can achieve, while prohibition cannot.

For sure, but alcohol won't get you hooked on your second or third glass of beer (and I know a former heroin addict to speak about this, anything more than one shot to the vein is enough to get you into it), it can be consumed moderately, and that's what most people do - Cigarettes won't kill you as quickly and painfully as heroin, and they won't give you the same horrid withdrawal symptoms, it's apples and oranges

I'd like to take a death toll from H and H related this and thats, and then a similar death toll from smoking and drinking and related this and thats. If you had to place money on it, which number do you think will be bigger?

No, but there's cheaper alcohol out there, a glass of beer would satisfy the addict, or a glass of cheap whine, instead of buying a top notch bottle of wine - I don't think they'd do the same with heroin - In fact it would probably be state regulated, and heavily.

-and there are cheaper forms of every expensive drug. I could argue against heavy handed regulations all day long, but -as a compromise...if I have to take heavy handed regulation and state profiteering in order to get rid of prohibitionism and all the nastiness that flows from that - then ok. Sign me up.

From my inferior knowledge, I can say 30€ is the price for a little of cocaine or heroin, enough for maybe one strong shot, but I dunno, if you're getting top quality drugs, then probably you'll pay more, different dealers make different prices, you'll find some selling cheap weed full of chemicals and others who cultivate it in backyards and sell it straight away, at a higher price.

You have no way of knowing that you're getting "top quality" drugs. There is no certifying agency or regulations concerning grades or quality. All you know is that you paid more. That's it. That really good weed that fucked you right up "grown without chemicals" just might have been laced with Raid, or fertilized by the grower pissing in buckets.

[quote]
This would probably not be an option, but a state imposition. If the state decides that the cigarettes tax is going to be higher, that means sellers have to raise the price to keep their share, that's what happens - If cigs are already taxed so heavily, I don't want to imagine the case of heroin, any tax applied to hazardous products would be in, and heavily...

-and yet not every store either sells smokes...or sells them for the same price. Taxes are the floor, sure, but I've already signed on to that.

I'm not a fan of prohibitionism, but I've grown to accept the fact complete liberty is unachievable for the sake of security and human dignity.

Sure, but since we're not talking about "complete liberty" whatever that means to you....I don't know what insight this statement can offer. Did I say that anyone could buy and use H? That you can get cranked up at breakfast before hopping onto the pavement miller at your job? No, and hopefully, no sane person would suggest that.

[ShaMan]

Damn! Are you all still on about this?

[The Grand Nudger]

Stop hogging the smoke cochise. Puff puff - pass.

[Dystopia]

Which regulation can achieve, while prohibition cannot.

Independently of the origin, a very dangerous substance will most likely kill you, even if the quality is good and it is 100% natural.
[/quote]

I'd like to take a death toll from H and H related this and thats, and then a similar death toll from smoking and drinking and related this and thats. If you had to place money on it, which number do you think will be bigger?

Probably smoking and drinking - But there are far more people smoking and drinking than doing heroin - Because it's not socially acceptable.

-and there are cheaper forms of every expensive drug. I could argue against heavy handed regulations all day long, but -as a compromise...if I have to take heavy handed regulation and state profiteering in order to get rid of prohibitionism and all the nastiness that flows from that - then ok. Sign me up.

The only cheaper form would be to buy less quantity.

You have no way of knowing that you're getting "top quality" drugs. There is no certifying agency or regulations concerning grades or quality. All you know is that you paid more. That's it. That really good weed that fucked you right up "grown without chemicals" just might have been laced with Raid, or fertilized by the grower pissing in buckets.

I agree, but how much can I trust "certifying agencies"? I can trust them as much as I trust tobacco companies and the chemicals they put into my cigs.

-and yet not every store either sells smokes...or sells them for the same price. Taxes are the floor, sure, but I've already signed on to that.

Not over here, there's an universal cig price that varies according to the brand, you don't get to pick your price - Sadly.
[/quote]

Sure, but since we're not talking about "complete liberty" whatever that means to you....I don't know what insight this statement can offer. Did I say that anyone could buy and use H? That you can get cranked up at breakfast before hopping onto the pavement miller at your job? No, and hopefully, no sane person would suggest that.

I'll tell you this - If drug legalization could drastically reduce criminality related to drugs, then I'd sign up - But if the prices do indeed go up and people continue to traffic, I don't see much point. The case for smuggling cigarettes - They are indeed cheaper - If cigarette taxes suddenly fired up and got really high, a lot of people would switch to illegal cigs - Heck even my mother suggested she would buy smuggled cigs if she had the chance.