aisebon
V2.5: Shorter, snappier and scented
Read the first post, or at least the summary!
Contents:
1: Are drugs bad?
2: Is use increasing?
3: A case study and a little history
4: What are the costs of the drug war?
5: What positive things have drugs done, and what can they do?
6: Summary
The mantra that “drugs are bad” overlooks one thing: we consume drugs, in various forms, every day. Aspirin, prescription painkillers, antihistamines, anti-inflammatories, caffeine, psychiatric medicine, antibiotics, chocolate, hormonal contraceptives...the list goes on. These are all drugs, they all alter your body and/or mind’s functioning and all have side effects which can, when too much is taken, be fatal. There is no exception: there is always a limit.
Even in 1500s, Hohenheim said "All things are poison and nothing is without poison; only the dose makes a thing not a poison".
But of course, we’re talking about recreational drugs. Drugs you don’t need (not that you need aspirin, contraceptives, nootropics or allergy controllers to survive).
Which is where we hit our first obstacle. “If we don’t need it, we shouldn’t do it”. Well, what you’re doing right now is not necessary for physical or mental functioning or well-being. A good chunk of your waking day is probably spent doing things that do not keep you alive or healthy- but you do them anyway. You enjoy them.
So we run to our next refuge- they are dangerous.
Well...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6474053.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6429239.stm
Alcohol and tobacco are much worse in terms of damage to society, the individual and addiction chances than many of the other drugs we consider dangerous and evil: marijuana, LSD, inhalants (including solvents), ecstasy - and alcohol is worse than amphetamines.
http://www.procon.org/AddictChart.htm
Three doctors rated the addictiveness of caffeine, cocaine, marijuana, heroin, alcohol and nicotine. Results varied, but what was proven unanimously was that alcohol is more addictive than marijuana- two said it was worse than cocaine. One even said alcohol was worse than heroin in terms of addiction. All said caffeine was more addictive than marijuana. CAFFEINE.
Oh, and...
http://tinyurl.com/yp6h5v
The most dangerous drug in toxicity? Heroin. Followed quickly by alcohol. Notice how some of our favourite drugs have a very low safety rating, whilst LSD, psilocybin and marijuana require you to take upwards of 1000 doses to reach the wonderful world of LD-50.
So, whilst drugs are “dangerous”- they’re not nearly as dangerous as you’ve been led to think.
But it’s a complete lie if I were to say that drug use poses no dangers, and that the drug educators have been lying non-stop. Drugs can be fatal if used improperly- but that’s just is- improperly. What about responsible use?
Well, apparently there’s enough responsible users for something called the Responsible Drug User’s Oath to exist
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=The Responsible Drug User's Oath
We have websites devoted to giving information and advice on drugs– often getting up to 55,000 hits per day.
http://www.dextroverse.org/
http://www.erowid.org/
http://www.ecstasydata.org/
http://www.dancesafe.org/
Even such a sensationalised drug such as ecstasy has 2 huge sites devoted to giving advice on how to us drugs responsibly.
http://tinyurl.com/2unjkn
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4230985.stm
http://tinyurl.com/23u4b3
Turns out that with self control, you can use heroin responsibly and now allow it to become a habit. In fact, many of these users were holding high-end jobs and a family, all while using heroin every now and then. For an average of 7 years each. Only 7% of the 126 studied described their health as “bad or very bad”.
Some users agree too.
http://nepenthes.lycaeum.org/Drugs/Opiates/safe.and.fun.html
So, you do have to wonder: if it’s possible to use even the most dangerous drugs without having detrimental effects on your health, wellbeing or personal development- then why are drugs illegal?
(#1) http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/druguse/
(#2) http://www.dare.uk.com/Pages/Static/UKDrugTrends.aspx
Trends from the mid 90s to recently (2003- though I can’t find any real things for anything more recently, but please post it if you can!) suggest that, when push comes to shove, drug use is on the increase. At quite an alarming rate- despite year-upon-year increases in budget. Even the UK form of D.A.R.E admits it.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2925972.ece
Looks like cocaine, amphetamine and cannabis use are increasing. Particularly in the UK, who are major fighter in the drug war.
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/policy/budget.html
Look at the link above- every publication demands and receives an increase in drug control budget. But what effect has it had? Mixed results, apparently. Some studies from link #1 suggest its falling- though the rate of reduction is certainly reducing.
http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/drugsalcohol/drugsalcohol86.htm
Proof, right from the horses mouth. The current young generation (16-24) has used more drugs than the working population of the UK as a whole (16-59). Not only is there a higher use in the previous year AND month- but also more younger people have used drugs at least once than considerably older people. That’s right: more people who’ve lived a shorter life have actually done drugs compared to those who’ve been around for half a century.
And what have these people had, that people born pre-1960 haven’t? The drug war.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article3061121.ece
It’s not as if all the police are all that happy with enforcing such a poorly-thought out policy, either.
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/thenethe.htm
http://www.csdp.org/ads/dutch2.htm
http://tinyurl.com/2ps3qy
Cliché? You betcha. But The Netherlands is a great example of how drug policy can be effectively implemented to create a safe haven for drugs. Even with police that tolerate marijuana to the point where it’s practically legal- the rate of marijuana use is less than half of the US. They have:
- Lower overall drug use
- Lower hard drug use in particular
- Drug addiction is no different- some studies suggest it is lower
http://leap.cc/Publications/End_Prohibition_NOW_07-04-18.pdf
Page 12:
Looks like a country where they've (practically) legalised a few soft drugs has had a huge effect on soft drug use and hard drug use.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/ille-e/presentation-e/keizer-e.htm
There has been no notable increase in drug use, addiction and there is no evidence that the drug policy has caused any increase in an illegal drug trade- at any point since the introduction of the liberal Dutch drug laws. To quote from the article:
And fact is, even illegal drugs are here to stay. They've been used in all sorts of ways in all cultures, ranging from alcohol and tobacco to opium, marijuana and mushrooms. It's been like that THROUGHOUT history. It seems that it's almost natural for a society to involve a fairly high (no pun intended) number of people who want to alter their body and mind with drugs. So what politicians are doing is just waging a war on...human nature?
http://www.geocities.com/responsibleuse/Need.html
The above link is a great example of how drug use is so prevalent- how altering consciousness seems to be common, even from childhood.
What are the costs of the drug war?
We’ve already established that it’s highly likely the drug use will decrease if drugs are legalised. The whole taboo issue comes into play- you want what you can’t have. Drugs illegal? Use is bound to spike. But make them available, and use- including use amongst teenagers, the issue most often brought up (and rightly so) with drug legalisation- will decrease. It’s just not as rebellious- and kids won’t harm themselves with these drugs just to rebel.
http://leap.cc/Publications/End_Prohibition_NOW_07-04-18.pdf
Not to mention, of course, that if drugs were legal- we’d have age restrictions. And personally, I trust a major high-street chain not to sell drugs to children more than a drug dealer. Oddly enough, drug dealers don’t check for IDs.
Fact is, a lot of kids actually GET alcohol from their parents, since they can’t get away with looking 18/21/whatever.
http://www.harpers.co.uk/news/4921/Parents-urged-not-to-supply-th.ehtml
And the use of currently illegal drugs is low compared to alcohol, that few teenagers will even have parents who have these drugs, let alone parents who’ll let their kids have some too. So their access to these drugs will be much more restricted than it is now. You’ll always have fake ID’s and getting older friends to buy them for you- but I’d rather have them doing that than buying from a shady dealer, wouldn’t you agree?
This taboo on drugs, whilst making them alluring and possibly setting up teenagers for habits which it’s best if they just don’t have, also has an even more unpleasant effect.
Information on drugs is few and far between. The idea that drug users just do drugs and never research them is very poorly thought out- but the fact that they’re illegal is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you knew nothing about drugs, but wanted to do them- where would you start? Obviously, you can’t trust government sites. The only advice they’ll give you is “DON’T DO THEM, EVAR”.
But the point is: where do drug users get their information? Obviously, the government won’t educate people about responsible use. So when people DO want to do drugs, it can have disastrous consequences
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leah_Betts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Wood
You hear you must drink water and keep hydrated on ecstasy– but what you don’t realise is that you can also have TOO much water.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2641369.ece
More proof that a more liberal policy of drugs will increase safe usage? In the Netherlands, literally 9 times out 10 it’s a tourist that’s behind misusing a drug. A tourist who’s probably only come to the country to get high- never having done research and being brought up in a country which gave access to the information necessary FOR such research. And the citizens of the Netherlands? Well, they don’t use drugs all that often- and when they do, this clearly shows they usually do it safety. In fact, those who live in the Netherlands often comment on how conservative people are in their personal lives.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6563051.stm
But the users aren’t the only ones put at risk by this war. In many countries, the quickest route to fortune is the illegal drugs trade. Gangs promise people riches, in exchange for a little service. We all hear about the people who swallow condoms filled with heroin- but what about before the drugs are even exported? In Mexico, in 2006, 2000 people were murdered in drug-related gang feuds and police shootouts. That’s one country, in one year: who knows what the death toll is worldwide?
But enough emphatic arguments. As effective as they are- the simplest way to show the cost in a way that hits you directly is simply the amount it takes from your pocket, per year.
http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm
$49 billion is what this war is costing America per year.
What could $49 billion do? That is the question. The extra funding for police, or education- or whatever. But $49 billion is a huge amount to be freed- you have to admit. Considering a patrol officer costs $50,000 per year in salary- you can pay for the salaries of 980,000 patrol officers by legalising drugs. Or teachers? Well, they cost roughly the same per year as a salary. So per year, you could pay for the salaries of 490,000 high school teachers and 490,000 patrol officers.
But that’s just the beginning. That $49 billion doesn’t include costs to the justice system, prison costs and also treatment for addicts (we’ve already established legalisation is unlikely to increase use- let alone addiction rates).
Also, from the same site (drugsense.org):
So, the costs of the drug war are that possession of drugs becomes a felony: simply having a drug on your person apparently makes you a danger to others, and you must be arrested. No doubt a waste of time and money when more than 750,000 people go through it per year, just for marijuana. 25% of the prison population could be freed- reducing the issue of mass overcrowding.
Not to mention, allowing police, judicial and prison funds to be diverted to criminals who actually DID harm somebody- say, murderers? Rapists?
And now we move onto other economic issues. Indirect economic costs- and costs to the user.
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/economi.htm
And
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e0/Drugs-PriceMarkUp2.jpg
From production to street level– the value of drugs inflates by around 2500% (322/13 * 100 = 2477%), or by 25 times.
So with this in mind- you’d soon realise that drugs will free-fall in price. This will set a lot of alarm bells off, I can tell- but think of it another way. Those who do get addicted will have to pay much less for the drugs than they did before. What’s the main societal problem with addicts? Oh yes- stealing to pay for their habits. Not only have we established that the war on drugs has increased gang crime- but also that it’s indirectly increasing the damage addicts do to society.
Even with all these savings, those who are so inclined might even realise that we could tax the drugs. And even then, it’ll still be cheaper than it is now. And we’ve earlier established that drugs will safer and more reliably dosed too.
It’s obvious that people will stay away from the illegal drugs trade- again illustrating the point that gangs will lose out if we legalise drugs.
One final cost is a slightly more philosophical one. The cost of our freedom.
Everybody has the right to do what they want with their body. It's theirs, and provided they don't harm others in the process- what rational argument is there against them doing what they want to it?
Naturally, you can argue that drugs harm others- but this again is an argument of chance. They may harm others, but they may not. The user is responsible for themselves, even when intoxicated, and are responsible for any harm they do to others. And besides- there are few cases where somebody has actually harmed someone whilst on drugs, who didn’t have a previous psychological disturbance. The main example of a drug which causes uncharacteristic violence is...uh...alcohol.
Well, as if removing the horrifying situation we have now isn’t benefit enough– some people were asking what the actual benefits- as opposed to the relative ones. Naturally, my eyes roll.
Medical use is one of the main arguments for legalisation: the illegality of such drugs reduces the research into their possible benefits– and the research that is and has been conducted is often ignored- again, because of the illegality.
Medical use of drugs ranges from simple things such as relieving pain (1) to actually halting or even reversing cancer- whilst also relieving the symptoms (2)
(1) http://www.annieappleseedproject.org/maraidnerpai.html
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f01/web3/roth.html
http://tinyurl.com/35d2l9
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opiates
(2) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7098340.stm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Support/marijuana
http://www.forbes.com/health/feeds/hscout/2007/04/17/hscout603764.html
But this is just the tip of the iceberg. Research into these drugs is restricted due to their illegality, and the little that is conducted is often ignored by the government. Despite the huge benefits offered.
Psychedelic psychotherapy has historically proven extremely effective in helping people with alcoholicism and post traumatic stress disorder- but access to LSD, psilocybin and MDMA (the frequently used drugs in therapy) is denied.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychedelic_psychotherapy
http://www.eleusis.us/entheogen-enhanced-psychotherapy/entheogenic-psychotherapy.php
LSD and magic mushrooms have been proven useful in helping cluster headaches- at sub-psychoactive doses. There is, again, no response to this by the US government.
http://www.erowid.org/plants/mushrooms/mushrooms_medical1.shtml
Again, mushrooms have been proven to be extremely effective at helping the unfortunate–reducing prison return rate from 60% to 25%. They have also been shown to catalyse religious experiences.
http://www.erowid.org/culture/characters/leary_timothy/leary_timothy_concord_prison1.shtml
http://www.erowid.org/plants/mushrooms/mushrooms_journal2.shtml
Despite beliefs otherwise, legalising drugs WON’T make everyone suddenly take them. Drugs were legal for thousands of years within culture before the 1970s and no society collapsed because of it. And in the 1800s, Britain actually went to war with a country over it not supplying opium. And to me, it seems to be the most sensible option we have. Even if usage stays the same, legalising drugs is worth it just to stop the damage the drug war is causing.
Discuss:
How effective you think our drugs policy is;
Whether we should revamp our drugs policy;
Or even go as far as decriminalising or legalising all drugs?
Read the first post, or at least the summary!
Contents:
1: Are drugs bad?
2: Is use increasing?
3: A case study and a little history
4: What are the costs of the drug war?
5: What positive things have drugs done, and what can they do?
6: Summary
Are drugs “bad”?
The mantra that “drugs are bad” overlooks one thing: we consume drugs, in various forms, every day. Aspirin, prescription painkillers, antihistamines, anti-inflammatories, caffeine, psychiatric medicine, antibiotics, chocolate, hormonal contraceptives...the list goes on. These are all drugs, they all alter your body and/or mind’s functioning and all have side effects which can, when too much is taken, be fatal. There is no exception: there is always a limit.
Even in 1500s, Hohenheim said "All things are poison and nothing is without poison; only the dose makes a thing not a poison".
But of course, we’re talking about recreational drugs. Drugs you don’t need (not that you need aspirin, contraceptives, nootropics or allergy controllers to survive).
Which is where we hit our first obstacle. “If we don’t need it, we shouldn’t do it”. Well, what you’re doing right now is not necessary for physical or mental functioning or well-being. A good chunk of your waking day is probably spent doing things that do not keep you alive or healthy- but you do them anyway. You enjoy them.
So we run to our next refuge- they are dangerous.
Well...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6474053.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6429239.stm
Alcohol and tobacco are much worse in terms of damage to society, the individual and addiction chances than many of the other drugs we consider dangerous and evil: marijuana, LSD, inhalants (including solvents), ecstasy - and alcohol is worse than amphetamines.
http://www.procon.org/AddictChart.htm
Three doctors rated the addictiveness of caffeine, cocaine, marijuana, heroin, alcohol and nicotine. Results varied, but what was proven unanimously was that alcohol is more addictive than marijuana- two said it was worse than cocaine. One even said alcohol was worse than heroin in terms of addiction. All said caffeine was more addictive than marijuana. CAFFEINE.
Oh, and...
http://tinyurl.com/yp6h5v
The most dangerous drug in toxicity? Heroin. Followed quickly by alcohol. Notice how some of our favourite drugs have a very low safety rating, whilst LSD, psilocybin and marijuana require you to take upwards of 1000 doses to reach the wonderful world of LD-50.
So, whilst drugs are “dangerous”- they’re not nearly as dangerous as you’ve been led to think.
But it’s a complete lie if I were to say that drug use poses no dangers, and that the drug educators have been lying non-stop. Drugs can be fatal if used improperly- but that’s just is- improperly. What about responsible use?
Well, apparently there’s enough responsible users for something called the Responsible Drug User’s Oath to exist
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=The Responsible Drug User's Oath
We have websites devoted to giving information and advice on drugs– often getting up to 55,000 hits per day.
http://www.dextroverse.org/
http://www.erowid.org/
http://www.ecstasydata.org/
http://www.dancesafe.org/
Even such a sensationalised drug such as ecstasy has 2 huge sites devoted to giving advice on how to us drugs responsibly.
http://tinyurl.com/2unjkn
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4230985.stm
http://tinyurl.com/23u4b3
Turns out that with self control, you can use heroin responsibly and now allow it to become a habit. In fact, many of these users were holding high-end jobs and a family, all while using heroin every now and then. For an average of 7 years each. Only 7% of the 126 studied described their health as “bad or very bad”.
Some users agree too.
http://nepenthes.lycaeum.org/Drugs/Opiates/safe.and.fun.html
So, you do have to wonder: if it’s possible to use even the most dangerous drugs without having detrimental effects on your health, wellbeing or personal development- then why are drugs illegal?
Is “dangerous” drug use increasing?
(#1) http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/druguse/
(#2) http://www.dare.uk.com/Pages/Static/UKDrugTrends.aspx
Trends from the mid 90s to recently (2003- though I can’t find any real things for anything more recently, but please post it if you can!) suggest that, when push comes to shove, drug use is on the increase. At quite an alarming rate- despite year-upon-year increases in budget. Even the UK form of D.A.R.E admits it.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2925972.ece
Looks like cocaine, amphetamine and cannabis use are increasing. Particularly in the UK, who are major fighter in the drug war.
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/policy/budget.html
Look at the link above- every publication demands and receives an increase in drug control budget. But what effect has it had? Mixed results, apparently. Some studies from link #1 suggest its falling- though the rate of reduction is certainly reducing.
http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/drugsalcohol/drugsalcohol86.htm
Proof, right from the horses mouth. The current young generation (16-24) has used more drugs than the working population of the UK as a whole (16-59). Not only is there a higher use in the previous year AND month- but also more younger people have used drugs at least once than considerably older people. That’s right: more people who’ve lived a shorter life have actually done drugs compared to those who’ve been around for half a century.
And what have these people had, that people born pre-1960 haven’t? The drug war.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article3061121.ece
It’s not as if all the police are all that happy with enforcing such a poorly-thought out policy, either.
Quote:
The number of drug users has increased dramatically. Drug-related crime has soared equally sharply as a direct consequence of the illegality of some drugs. The vast profits from illegal trading have supported a massive rise in organised crime
….
If policy on drugs is in the future to be pragmatic not moralistic, driven by ethics not dogma, then the current prohibitionist stance will have to be swept away as both unworkable and immoral. Such a strategy leads inevitably to the legalisation and regulation of all drugs."
….
If policy on drugs is in the future to be pragmatic not moralistic, driven by ethics not dogma, then the current prohibitionist stance will have to be swept away as both unworkable and immoral. Such a strategy leads inevitably to the legalisation and regulation of all drugs."
A case study and a little history
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/thenethe.htm
http://www.csdp.org/ads/dutch2.htm
http://tinyurl.com/2ps3qy
Cliché? You betcha. But The Netherlands is a great example of how drug policy can be effectively implemented to create a safe haven for drugs. Even with police that tolerate marijuana to the point where it’s practically legal- the rate of marijuana use is less than half of the US. They have:
- Lower overall drug use
- Lower hard drug use in particular
- Drug addiction is no different- some studies suggest it is lower
http://leap.cc/Publications/End_Prohibition_NOW_07-04-18.pdf
Page 12:
Quote:
Since they separate soft drug purchases allowing them to be bought in coffee shops, users don’t have to buy their marijuana from criminal dealers who would rather sell them hard drugs. The result is the per capita use of hard drugs, heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, etc. is one-forth what is in the U.S.
Looks like a country where they've (practically) legalised a few soft drugs has had a huge effect on soft drug use and hard drug use.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/ille-e/presentation-e/keizer-e.htm
There has been no notable increase in drug use, addiction and there is no evidence that the drug policy has caused any increase in an illegal drug trade- at any point since the introduction of the liberal Dutch drug laws. To quote from the article:
Quote:
Finally, at the practical and policy levels there is a growing awareness that the existing collection of tools, which is dominated to a large extent by the international drug treaties, is inadequate for the purpose of making the drug problem truly manageable.
And fact is, even illegal drugs are here to stay. They've been used in all sorts of ways in all cultures, ranging from alcohol and tobacco to opium, marijuana and mushrooms. It's been like that THROUGHOUT history. It seems that it's almost natural for a society to involve a fairly high (no pun intended) number of people who want to alter their body and mind with drugs. So what politicians are doing is just waging a war on...human nature?
http://www.geocities.com/responsibleuse/Need.html
The above link is a great example of how drug use is so prevalent- how altering consciousness seems to be common, even from childhood.
What are the costs of the drug war?
We’ve already established that it’s highly likely the drug use will decrease if drugs are legalised. The whole taboo issue comes into play- you want what you can’t have. Drugs illegal? Use is bound to spike. But make them available, and use- including use amongst teenagers, the issue most often brought up (and rightly so) with drug legalisation- will decrease. It’s just not as rebellious- and kids won’t harm themselves with these drugs just to rebel.
http://leap.cc/Publications/End_Prohibition_NOW_07-04-18.pdf
”page 12”
The researchers couldn’t square this fact in their minds so they went to Amsterdam and spoke with The Nertherlands’ drug czar, who happens to be the Minister of Health, because in Amsterdam they treat drug use as a health problem rather than as a crime problem. When the Minister was asked “How can this be?” he answered very sensibly, “Well, I think what we have done in Holland, is we have managed to make pot boring.” Young people are not likely to act out by doing things they believe are boring. Children in the Netherlands know that when they reach the age of 18 they can go to a coffee shop and get all the marijuana they want. What this means is they don’t start using drugs at the tender age of fourteen, which is the entry-level age for drug use in the United States.”
Not to mention, of course, that if drugs were legal- we’d have age restrictions. And personally, I trust a major high-street chain not to sell drugs to children more than a drug dealer. Oddly enough, drug dealers don’t check for IDs.
Fact is, a lot of kids actually GET alcohol from their parents, since they can’t get away with looking 18/21/whatever.
http://www.harpers.co.uk/news/4921/Parents-urged-not-to-supply-th.ehtml
And the use of currently illegal drugs is low compared to alcohol, that few teenagers will even have parents who have these drugs, let alone parents who’ll let their kids have some too. So their access to these drugs will be much more restricted than it is now. You’ll always have fake ID’s and getting older friends to buy them for you- but I’d rather have them doing that than buying from a shady dealer, wouldn’t you agree?
This taboo on drugs, whilst making them alluring and possibly setting up teenagers for habits which it’s best if they just don’t have, also has an even more unpleasant effect.
Information on drugs is few and far between. The idea that drug users just do drugs and never research them is very poorly thought out- but the fact that they’re illegal is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you knew nothing about drugs, but wanted to do them- where would you start? Obviously, you can’t trust government sites. The only advice they’ll give you is “DON’T DO THEM, EVAR”.
But the point is: where do drug users get their information? Obviously, the government won’t educate people about responsible use. So when people DO want to do drugs, it can have disastrous consequences
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leah_Betts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Wood
You hear you must drink water and keep hydrated on ecstasy– but what you don’t realise is that you can also have TOO much water.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2641369.ece
Quote:
“Ambulance call-outs (related to magic mushroom use in the Netherlands) rose from 70 in 2005 to 128 last year, with nine out of ten cases involving tourists.”
More proof that a more liberal policy of drugs will increase safe usage? In the Netherlands, literally 9 times out 10 it’s a tourist that’s behind misusing a drug. A tourist who’s probably only come to the country to get high- never having done research and being brought up in a country which gave access to the information necessary FOR such research. And the citizens of the Netherlands? Well, they don’t use drugs all that often- and when they do, this clearly shows they usually do it safety. In fact, those who live in the Netherlands often comment on how conservative people are in their personal lives.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6563051.stm
But the users aren’t the only ones put at risk by this war. In many countries, the quickest route to fortune is the illegal drugs trade. Gangs promise people riches, in exchange for a little service. We all hear about the people who swallow condoms filled with heroin- but what about before the drugs are even exported? In Mexico, in 2006, 2000 people were murdered in drug-related gang feuds and police shootouts. That’s one country, in one year: who knows what the death toll is worldwide?
But enough emphatic arguments. As effective as they are- the simplest way to show the cost in a way that hits you directly is simply the amount it takes from your pocket, per year.
http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm
$49 billion is what this war is costing America per year.
What could $49 billion do? That is the question. The extra funding for police, or education- or whatever. But $49 billion is a huge amount to be freed- you have to admit. Considering a patrol officer costs $50,000 per year in salary- you can pay for the salaries of 980,000 patrol officers by legalising drugs. Or teachers? Well, they cost roughly the same per year as a salary. So per year, you could pay for the salaries of 490,000 high school teachers and 490,000 patrol officers.
But that’s just the beginning. That $49 billion doesn’t include costs to the justice system, prison costs and also treatment for addicts (we’ve already established legalisation is unlikely to increase use- let alone addiction rates).
Also, from the same site (drugsense.org):
Quote:
Police arrested an estimated 786,545 persons for marijuana violations in 2005, The total is the highest ever recorded by the FBI, and comprised 42.6 percent of all drug arrests in the United States.
....
About 25 per cent (of prison inmates) are sentenced for drug law violations.
....
Arrests for drug law violations in 2007 are expected to exceed the 1,678,192 arrests of 2003.
Someone is arrested every 20 seconds.
....
About 25 per cent (of prison inmates) are sentenced for drug law violations.
....
Arrests for drug law violations in 2007 are expected to exceed the 1,678,192 arrests of 2003.
Someone is arrested every 20 seconds.
So, the costs of the drug war are that possession of drugs becomes a felony: simply having a drug on your person apparently makes you a danger to others, and you must be arrested. No doubt a waste of time and money when more than 750,000 people go through it per year, just for marijuana. 25% of the prison population could be freed- reducing the issue of mass overcrowding.
Not to mention, allowing police, judicial and prison funds to be diverted to criminals who actually DID harm somebody- say, murderers? Rapists?
And now we move onto other economic issues. Indirect economic costs- and costs to the user.
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/economi.htm
Quote:
According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, "[T]he value of the global illicit drug market for the year 2003 was estimated at US$13 bn [billion] at the production level, at $94 bn at the wholesale level (taking seizures into account), and at US$322bn based on retail prices and taking seizures and other losses into account. This indicates that despite seizures and losses, the value of the drugs increase substantially as they move from producer to consumer."
And
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e0/Drugs-PriceMarkUp2.jpg
From production to street level– the value of drugs inflates by around 2500% (322/13 * 100 = 2477%), or by 25 times.
So with this in mind- you’d soon realise that drugs will free-fall in price. This will set a lot of alarm bells off, I can tell- but think of it another way. Those who do get addicted will have to pay much less for the drugs than they did before. What’s the main societal problem with addicts? Oh yes- stealing to pay for their habits. Not only have we established that the war on drugs has increased gang crime- but also that it’s indirectly increasing the damage addicts do to society.
Even with all these savings, those who are so inclined might even realise that we could tax the drugs. And even then, it’ll still be cheaper than it is now. And we’ve earlier established that drugs will safer and more reliably dosed too.
It’s obvious that people will stay away from the illegal drugs trade- again illustrating the point that gangs will lose out if we legalise drugs.
One final cost is a slightly more philosophical one. The cost of our freedom.
Everybody has the right to do what they want with their body. It's theirs, and provided they don't harm others in the process- what rational argument is there against them doing what they want to it?
Naturally, you can argue that drugs harm others- but this again is an argument of chance. They may harm others, but they may not. The user is responsible for themselves, even when intoxicated, and are responsible for any harm they do to others. And besides- there are few cases where somebody has actually harmed someone whilst on drugs, who didn’t have a previous psychological disturbance. The main example of a drug which causes uncharacteristic violence is...uh...alcohol.
What are the benefits of legalising drugs?
Well, as if removing the horrifying situation we have now isn’t benefit enough– some people were asking what the actual benefits- as opposed to the relative ones. Naturally, my eyes roll.
Medical use is one of the main arguments for legalisation: the illegality of such drugs reduces the research into their possible benefits– and the research that is and has been conducted is often ignored- again, because of the illegality.
Medical use of drugs ranges from simple things such as relieving pain (1) to actually halting or even reversing cancer- whilst also relieving the symptoms (2)
(1) http://www.annieappleseedproject.org/maraidnerpai.html
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f01/web3/roth.html
http://tinyurl.com/35d2l9
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opiates
(2) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7098340.stm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Support/marijuana
http://www.forbes.com/health/feeds/hscout/2007/04/17/hscout603764.html
But this is just the tip of the iceberg. Research into these drugs is restricted due to their illegality, and the little that is conducted is often ignored by the government. Despite the huge benefits offered.
Psychedelic psychotherapy has historically proven extremely effective in helping people with alcoholicism and post traumatic stress disorder- but access to LSD, psilocybin and MDMA (the frequently used drugs in therapy) is denied.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychedelic_psychotherapy
http://www.eleusis.us/entheogen-enhanced-psychotherapy/entheogenic-psychotherapy.php
LSD and magic mushrooms have been proven useful in helping cluster headaches- at sub-psychoactive doses. There is, again, no response to this by the US government.
http://www.erowid.org/plants/mushrooms/mushrooms_medical1.shtml
Again, mushrooms have been proven to be extremely effective at helping the unfortunate–reducing prison return rate from 60% to 25%. They have also been shown to catalyse religious experiences.
http://www.erowid.org/culture/characters/leary_timothy/leary_timothy_concord_prison1.shtml
http://www.erowid.org/plants/mushrooms/mushrooms_journal2.shtml
In summary-
Despite beliefs otherwise, legalising drugs WON’T make everyone suddenly take them. Drugs were legal for thousands of years within culture before the 1970s and no society collapsed because of it. And in the 1800s, Britain actually went to war with a country over it not supplying opium. And to me, it seems to be the most sensible option we have. Even if usage stays the same, legalising drugs is worth it just to stop the damage the drug war is causing.
The drug war is costing billions a year, and has yet to show any sign of succeeding
Drugs have existed for millennia without causing damage to society- why do we think it will now?
Drug use is likely to DECREASE upon decriminalisation
Drug use amongst children is almost certain to decrease upon decriminalisation
The dangers of drug use are certain to decrease upon decriminalisation
It is a person's right to do whatever they wish to themselves provided they don't harm others in the process- and it's perfectly possible for them to do this
Many illegal drugs have a huge potential for medical benefit- but their illegality makes research into this difficult- and the government will halt any attempt for these drugs to be available to those in need because of the war on drugs.
There are no reasons to keep drugs illegal, and yet somehow we still cling to this one policy which makes no progress and has no use- other than setting up a façade of concern for public health
Drugs have existed for millennia without causing damage to society- why do we think it will now?
Drug use is likely to DECREASE upon decriminalisation
Drug use amongst children is almost certain to decrease upon decriminalisation
The dangers of drug use are certain to decrease upon decriminalisation
It is a person's right to do whatever they wish to themselves provided they don't harm others in the process- and it's perfectly possible for them to do this
Many illegal drugs have a huge potential for medical benefit- but their illegality makes research into this difficult- and the government will halt any attempt for these drugs to be available to those in need because of the war on drugs.
There are no reasons to keep drugs illegal, and yet somehow we still cling to this one policy which makes no progress and has no use- other than setting up a façade of concern for public health
Discuss:
How effective you think our drugs policy is;
Whether we should revamp our drugs policy;
Or even go as far as decriminalising or legalising all drugs?
