A Sea Of Red

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=por ... nalization

In the face of a growing number of deaths and cases of HIV linked to drug abuse, the Portuguese government in 2001 tried a new tack to get a handle on the problem—it decriminalized the use and possession of heroin, cocaine, marijuana, LSD and other illicit street drugs. The theory: focusing on treatment and prevention instead of jailing users would decrease the number of deaths and infections.

Five years later, the number of deaths from street drug overdoses dropped from around 400 to 290 annually, and the number of new HIV cases caused by using dirty needles to inject heroin, cocaine and other illegal substances plummeted from nearly 1,400 in 2000 to about 400 in 2006, according to a report released recently by the Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C, libertarian think tank.

So it's legal to use and possess. Is it still illegal to sell or buy?

Regardless, overdose and the spread of HIV are not the only way drug use affects society.

In the face of a growing number of deaths and cases of HIV linked to drug abuse, the Portuguese government in 2001 tried a new tack to get a handle on the problem—it decriminalized the use and possession of heroin, cocaine, marijuana, LSD and other illicit street drugs. The theory: focusing on treatment and prevention instead of jailing users would decrease the number of deaths and infections.

Right. let's decriminalize possession. After all, it doesn't hurt anyone. It's a private matter between consenting adults, right?

Man facing charges in death of officer

By: GEORGE MATTAR AND MATT COUGHLIN
The Intelligencer
Frank Wallace Budka, 45, was driving under the combined influence of methadone and marijuana at the time of the accident, the county DA said.

Middletown Detective Chris Jones' cuffs were used for the last time Wednesday when one of the fallen officer's squad mates slapped them on the man authorities say caused Jones' death.

Nearly three months after the fatal crash that killed the 11-year veteran, Frank Wallace Budka, 45, of Middletown, was arrested in his Foxwood Manor Apartment about 2:30 p.m. He put up no resistance as Officer Robert Weber, one of Jones' many friends on the force, put the cuffs on Budka before Weber, Detective Jeffry Sproehnle and Sgt. John Michniewicz took him to a waiting police car.

Moments later, as 20 cops and a grieving widow watched, a trembling Budka was charged with homicide by vehicle while DUI, homicide by vehicle, involuntary manslaughter, recklessly endangering another person, DUI, several drug charges and traffic offenses.

http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/local/t ... ficer.html

I'm sure Chris' wife would be thrilled to hear this J/A is getting "treatment" to help him out

Here's a thought... instead of de-criminalizing to focus on treatment, why not keep it criminalized AND focus on treatment?

flamesbball84 wrote:http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=por ... nalization

In the face of a growing number of deaths and cases of HIV linked to drug abuse, the Portuguese government in 2001 tried a new tack to get a handle on the problem—it decriminalized the use and possession of heroin, cocaine, marijuana, LSD and other illicit street drugs. The theory: focusing on treatment and prevention instead of jailing users would decrease the number of deaths and infections.

Five years later, the number of deaths from street drug overdoses dropped from around 400 to 290 annually, and the number of new HIV cases caused by using dirty needles to inject heroin, cocaine and other illegal substances plummeted from nearly 1,400 in 2000 to about 400 in 2006, according to a report released recently by the Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C, libertarian think tank.

I actually tend to side with the decriminalization sentiment. Begin the public flogging...

I think there's an argument to be made for it (check out America's failed experiment with Prohibition), I just don't think it'll work.

I can't imagine any reputable company getting involved in it. Tobacco companies are skewered because its product is harmful. They've been subject to billions of dollars in lawsuits -- who, in their right mind, would subject themselves to potential litigation by making cocaine available to the masses?

(that being said, I am in favor of marijuana for medicinal purposes)

PAmedic wrote:Right. let's decriminalize possession. After all, it doesn't hurt anyone. It's a private matter between consenting adults, right?

I just want consistency. Alcohol is legal. Marijuana is not. There's no logical argument for why that should be. Heroin, LSD, etc. get into a different territory, but from a purely scientific perspective our nation's views on marijuana versus alcohol make no sense whatsoever.

As someone who uses neither, I don't have a dog in the fight. As a citizen, I've seen the results of prohibition and no prohibition. I feel like I prefer the one that doesn't lend itself to organized crime quite so much. But, maybe I'm just being crazy again like in the border checkpoint post.

El Scorcho wrote:As a citizen, I've seen the results of prohibition and no prohibition. I feel like I prefer the one that doesn't lend itself to organized crime quite so much.

I fail to see why any society should or should not institute a law based solely upon who might break it.

I do think you need to separate marijuana use from other drug use when talking about decriminalization. You can't kill yourself by OD'ing on weed (you could, I suppose, but you'd have to smoke like an oil tanker full of pot).

Obviously, if marijuana were decriminalized, you would still punish people who use it and do something like drive while impaired... which brings up the question, is there a credible way to determine how much someone has been smoking, like a wacky-tobaccy version of the blood alcohol test?

I think you would have to use a test which measured level of impairment as opposed to detecting THC in the blood, simply because is lingers so long. Something like a more sophisticated version of the field sobriety tests cops do now.

I'm not necessarily an advocate of decriminilization, but I agree it has some advantages. IMHO marijuana could probably be sold commercially like tobacco and alcohol are now. Drugs like cocaine and heroin are another matter. I think it would probably have to be done by the government.

RagingTireFire wrote:

El Scorcho wrote:As a citizen, I've seen the results of prohibition and no prohibition. I feel like I prefer the one that doesn't lend itself to organized crime quite so much.

I fail to see why any society should or should not institute a law based solely upon who might break it.

What? I don't follow.

Ed Dantes wrote: I can't imagine any reputable company getting involved in it. Tobacco companies are skewered because its product is harmful. They've been subject to billions of dollars in lawsuits -- who, in their right mind, would subject themselves to potential litigation by making cocaine available to the masses?

RJ Reynolds has had the machines in place to start producing marijuana cigarettes the day they go legal since the 80's.

SuperJon wrote:

Ed Dantes wrote: I can't imagine any reputable company getting involved in it. Tobacco companies are skewered because its product is harmful. They've been subject to billions of dollars in lawsuits -- who, in their right mind, would subject themselves to potential litigation by making cocaine available to the masses?

RJ Reynolds has had the machines in place to start producing marijuana cigarettes the day they go legal since the 80's.

And since the 80s, how many billions of dollars has the tobacco industry lost in lawsuits? And while they may have the cigarette machines available... do they have the product to sell (e.g., do they have crops of marijuana plants waiting to be harvested? Or will they have to go to Jerry Garcia's house?)

Besides, MJ will never be legal until congress can find a way to profit from it. They'll slap tariffs and taxes on it to jack the price up (like they are doing with cigarettes) and you'll create a gray market for it (like cigarettes, again).

Still though -- I am not principally against legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes.

Last I heard, they do have crops of it, just not in the United States.

I live ten minutes from the RJR plant. The way I know I'm home half the time is I come over the hill and can smell tobacco. Half of my friends' dad's growing up worked at Reynolds. There's a high school in Winston named after RJR and another one that uses a Camel as a mascot.

Just my opinion, but I get a kick out of how we try to fix a medical and social problem with increased government intervention and punishment. It seems to be doing a great job as drugs continue to cross our border and our prisons continue to be filled with people who don't need hard prison time, but need help. I am not saying I have all the answers, but obviously what we are doing isn't working.

NJLibertyboy wrote:...but obviously what we are doing isn't working.

Exhibit A: Our government. It needs some HELP.

What we are doing is waging a costly drug war, when the most effective way to reduce drug use happens to be the cheapest -- treatment. That takes us back to the original question I asked when this topic was brought up -- why not just focus on treatment of drug addicts?

El Scorcho wrote:

RagingTireFire wrote:

El Scorcho wrote:As a citizen, I've seen the results of prohibition and no prohibition. I feel like I prefer the one that doesn't lend itself to organized crime quite so much.

I fail to see why any society should or should not institute a law based solely upon who might break it.

What? I don't follow.

You were referring to prohibition vs. non-prohibition with the determing factor being which might be more abused by organized crime. If you meant something else, please correct me but that's entirely the wrong reason to not institute a law.

SuperJon wrote:
RJ Reynolds has had the machines in place to start producing marijuana cigarettes the day they go legal since the 80's.

That's an urban legend and you know it.

Ed Dantes wrote:What we are doing is waging a costly drug war, when the most effective way to reduce drug use happens to be the cheapest -- treatment. That takes us back to the original question I asked when this topic was brought up -- why not just focus on treatment of drug addicts?

The treatment approach may be cheaper but it clearly hasn't worked with alcohol. Why then would it work with drugs?

RagingTireFire wrote:You were referring to prohibition vs. non-prohibition with the determing factor being which might be more abused by organized crime. If you meant something else, please correct me but that's entirely the wrong reason to not institute a law.

Yes, you read that in an entirely different fashion than I intended.

What I was trying to say was that prohibition leads to organized crime. Not that existing organized crime leverages it. I'm attempting to make the point that the prohibition of marijuana has lead to the creation and growth of organized crime where it would not otherwise exist, much in the same way it did with the prohibition of alcohol.

That may be exactly what you're saying, but when you said "based on who might break it" I didn't quite follow. For me it doesn't have anything to do with who might break it, but that criminal enterprises are created from it.

RagingTireFire wrote:

Ed Dantes wrote:What we are doing is waging a costly drug war, when the most effective way to reduce drug use happens to be the cheapest -- treatment. That takes us back to the original question I asked when this topic was brought up -- why not just focus on treatment of drug addicts?

The treatment approach may be cheaper but it clearly hasn't worked with alcohol. Why then would it work with drugs?

Society as a whole encourages drinking.

If you want to see what decriminalizing drugs will do to a society, go to a methadone clinic in the morning. It is one of the saddest things you will see. People lined up at 7 a.m. or earlier, just so they can get their bodies under control. I worked with mentally ill, drug addicts for 3 years in Detroit. A chunk of our population that are zombies every day until they get there drug of choice, would be disastrous on our society IMO. When these people burn their bodies out, who will take care of them? We will through out taxes. We already are taking care of the current drug users that have burned themselves out mentally and physically to the point that they cannot work. I can't imagine that number would grow if the drugs were made legal. I don't want to see clinics/government centers that have people lined up to get their heroine/crack/etc. fix. I especially don't want to pay for them to live once they can't function normally on their own. Not to mention the children that will have to be taken care of when mom and/or dad can't even take care of themselves any longer.

flamesbball84 wrote:

RagingTireFire wrote:

Ed Dantes wrote:What we are doing is waging a costly drug war, when the most effective way to reduce drug use happens to be the cheapest -- treatment. That takes us back to the original question I asked when this topic was brought up -- why not just focus on treatment of drug addicts?

The treatment approach may be cheaper but it clearly hasn't worked with alcohol. Why then would it work with drugs?

Society as a whole encourages drinking.

And what is to make us believe that the same won't happen with drugs once they are legal? That's one of the biggest arguments against decriminalization.