Drug Policy

[brewer]

Isn't Portugal doing the experiment of decriminalization? How's it working for them?

[The Grand Nudger]

Hmmm so? Why should I respect or even allow people's personal choices? Am I supposed to allow any personal choice, specially when it requires my tax money?

Are you serious? One of the best reasons to legalize drugs is that it's a trillion (yes, trillion) dollar industry that isn't already being taxed, and you're worried about your own tax money? You're a moron.

Perhaps, on par or part and parcel, is that an un-taxed market is an unregulated market.  The consumers of these products do not have adequate protections or expectations in place.  That puts both the industry (and our government) in with the likes of bathtub gin and backalley abortions.  The market, the attendant crimes, the malfeasance and negligence in manufacturing -only- exist because of our prohibition. GJ, puritan dipshits.

[Napoléon]

Isn't Portugal doing the experiment of decriminalization? How's it working for them?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal

Thorough studies on how the various efforts have been implemented were not conducted. Thus, a causal effect between strategy efforts and these developments cannot be firmly established.[11] There are, however, statistical indicators that suggest the following correlations between the drug strategy and the following developments, from July 2001 up to 2007:

• Increased uptake of treatment.[11]
  
  
• Reduction in new HIV diagnoses amongst drug users by 17%[17]
  
  
• Reduction in drug related deaths, although this reduction has decreased in later years. The number of drug related deaths is now almost on the same level as before the Drug strategy was implemented.[11][17] However, this may be accounted for by improvement in measurement practices, which includes a doubling of toxicological autopsies now being performed, meaning that more drugs related deaths are likely to be recorded.[18]
  
  
• Reported lifetime use of "all illicit drugs" increased from 7.8% to 12%, lifetime use of cannabis increased from 7.6% to 11.7%, cocaine use more than doubled, from 0.9% to 1.9%, ecstasy nearly doubled from 0.7% to 1.3%, and heroin increased from 0.7% to 1.1%[17] It has been proposed that this effect may have been related to the candor of interviewees, who may have been inclined to answer more truthfully due to a reduction in the stigma associated with drug use.[18] However, during the same period, the use of heroin and cannabis also increased in Spain and Italy, where drugs for personal use was decriminalised many years earlier than in Portugal [18][19] while the use of Cannabis and heroin decreased in the rest of Western Europe.[20][21]
  
  
• Drug use among adolescents (13-15 yrs) and "problematic" users declined.[18]
  
  
• Drug-related criminal justice workloads decreased.[18]
  
  
• Decreased street value of most illicit drugs, some significantly.[18]
  

[Dystopia]

Isn't Portugal doing the experiment of decriminalization? How's it working for them?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal

Thorough studies on how the various efforts have been implemented were not conducted. Thus, a causal effect between strategy efforts and these developments cannot be firmly established.[11] There are, however, statistical indicators that suggest the following correlations between the drug strategy and the following developments, from July 2001 up to 2007:

• Increased uptake of treatment.[11]
  
  
• Reduction in new HIV diagnoses amongst drug users by 17%[17]
  
  
• Reduction in drug related deaths, although this reduction has decreased in later years. The number of drug related deaths is now almost on the same level as before the Drug strategy was implemented.[11][17] However, this may be accounted for by improvement in measurement practices, which includes a doubling of toxicological autopsies now being performed, meaning that more drugs related deaths are likely to be recorded.[18]
  
  
• Reported lifetime use of "all illicit drugs" increased from 7.8% to 12%, lifetime use of cannabis increased from 7.6% to 11.7%, cocaine use more than doubled, from 0.9% to 1.9%, ecstasy nearly doubled from 0.7% to 1.3%, and heroin increased from 0.7% to 1.1%[17] It has been proposed that this effect may have been related to the candor of interviewees, who may have been inclined to answer more truthfully due to a reduction in the stigma associated with drug use.[18] However, during the same period, the use of heroin and cannabis also increased in Spain and Italy, where drugs for personal use was decriminalised many years earlier than in Portugal [18][19] while the use of Cannabis and heroin decreased in the rest of Western Europe.[20][21]
  
  
• Drug use among adolescents (13-15 yrs) and "problematic" users declined.[18]
  
  
• Drug-related criminal justice workloads decreased.[18]
  
  
• Decreased street value of most illicit drugs, some significantly.[18]
  

I think you may be misunderstanding my point - I never said drug use should be criminalized, or that drug users should me marginalized, I simply said that I don't agree with the government directly selling drugs to people, at least because of how much it costs to produce heavier drugs. You are arguing with me as if I was against decriminalization, which I'm not - BTW, Portugal simply decriminalized, a measure I support, we didn't legalize selling it to the public. What makes you think being against direct selling means I support criminalization and prohibition?

The only questions I asked was how we would provide, sell and regulate the market if the government directly produced drugs, and if the government would import/manufacture the drugs itself and then sell it to the people. I'm not arguing for prohibition, that's a no-brainer. If you want to smoke or consume any drug, do it.

[The Grand Nudger]

If it costed alot to manufacture drugs it wouldn't be such a lucrative market for people who little to no capital with which to start a business.  I could get into dealing for 200 bucks.  It's cost me a bit more to pursue a legitimate business.  I dont disagree with you that the government shouldn;t be manufacturing or selling crack, buit I think there are better explanations for why it;s a bad idea than cost.  If -that's- why we're not doing it.......lol, we're sillier than we thought.

[Dystopia]

If it costed alot to manufacture drugs it wouldn't be such a lucrative market for people who little to no capital with which to start a business.  I could get into dealing for 200 bucks.  It's cost me a bit more to pursue a legitimate business.  I dont disagree with you that the government shouldn;t be manufacturing or selling crack, buit I think there are better explanations for why it;s a bad idea than cost.  If -that's- why we're not doing it.......lol, we're sillier than we thought.

Because the final price is even higher to compensate for all the costs of production - Not to mention most people who are inside the process of producing and commercializing drugs don't really pay taxes - You know the government taxes cigarettes, right? Now imagine the government taxing heavy drugs - Considering that those taxes on "dangerous" products go up the more dangerous it is.

[The Grand Nudger]

What final price?  I grow weed, you give me money, I give you weed.  The final price for me, the grower, is determined long before you, as the consumer, gets the product.  You'll pay more than that final price before I give you the product.  Rinse and repeat with any product. I have considered that those people don't pay taxes. They should. They'd be in a similar position as tobacco growers. We still grow that acre by acre on the side of the road, you know. Ya aint gotta be rich to grow tobacco, I promise you. Assuming abusive taxation (which already exists) it's -still- not particularly expensive to manufacture drugs. That gap makes it ludicrously profitable, but taxation wouldn't suddenly make it unprofitable, or even bar entry. Take a look at states that have legalized marijuana. I offer this example because the price of entry into the market -is- high. Immensely so. That cost, however, isn't in the equipment, infrastructure, or inputs. You still put a seed in the ground, water it, and trim it like it was a hedgerow. The labor, the major cost, is the same. It is further -imposition- on part of our government that makes it so. They must spend a great deal of capital to acquire the permit. Is that the sort of thing you might have in mind? Decriminalize, but price most out of the industry?

The taxes don't currently go up relative to the danger of a product, you realize? I suppose we could change that too, while we legalize drugs...but it would be a harder sell(particularly in that there are already "legitimate" industries which would gladly throw lobbyists at this one until it's a bleeding pulp).

[Napoléon]

I think you may be misunderstanding my point

I don't even know what you're doing to be honest. Are you responding to the post you quoted or my earlier points? You don't even seem to be able to make a coherent point yourself and you seem to have drastically changed your tune.

Case and point:

Why should I respect or even allow people's personal choices? Am I supposed to allow any personal choice, specially when it requires my tax money?

If you want to smoke or consume any drug, do it.

Make up your damn mind.

You are arguing with me as if I was against decriminalization, which I'm not

Certainly sounded like it.

BTW, Portugal simply decriminalized, a measure I support, we didn't legalize selling it to the public. What makes you think being against direct selling means I support criminalization and prohibition?

You keep going on with this straw man like people have insinuated we expect the government to start selling drugs.

The only questions I asked was how we would provide, sell and regulate the market if the government directly produced drugs, and if the government would import/manufacture the drugs itself and then sell it to the people.

Who here ever once mentioned the government manufacturing and selling drugs? What thread have you been reading?

[Dystopia]

Then you are arguing with me for the wrong reasons - Sorry. I never said we should prohibit drugs. Asking why I should respect people's choices does not mean I want to make it illegal.

[Napoléon]

Then you are arguing with me for the wrong reasons - Sorry. I never said we should prohibit drugs. Asking why I should respect people's choices does not mean I want to make it illegal.

I really don't get you. From the outset you seemed to assume that legalization automatically meant governments would be responsible for the manufacturing and production of drugs. Then you questioned pretty much all the reasoning behind legalizing drugs and having regulation, making it appear as though you were against both. I really don't know what your points are and at this point I'm beyond caring.