Your addiction is killing my grandmother's country...

[Testiculese]

No, people dying because of other people's recreation does not mean little. There's just nothing that the people can do about it. It's all up to the government. As soon as the government stops profiting from the drug war, the problems that your grandmother's country is having will disappear, or at the least, drastically reduced. (There's always something...)

[shaktazuki]

Didn't you learn about prohibition? People aren't being murdered anymore so I can buy a six pack, right?

Here, I digress. I believe we have inherited spin about prohibition. As a matter of fact if you factor in child and spousal abuses, child and adult rapes, alcohol-fueled murders and vehicular manslaughter, which probably wouldn't happen except for the perpetrator's ingestion of a 6-pack, we can say your six pack leaves a lot of human wreckage behind you. But hey, who am I to say your high is less important than its societal costs?

Recreational drug use - legal or otherwise - ain't a good thing, folks. It may or may not be the case that the problems associated with killing the addicts and their suppliers (or locking them up, whatever) is worse than the problem it is addressing.

What does it say about someone that their chief pleasure in life is to take leave of their senses?

[Kilarin]

Recreational drug use - legal or otherwise - ain't a good thing, folks.

I agree 100%. I just don't want to legislate against it.

Or, let me be more clear. I don't want the government to tell you what you can and can't put into your body. Not their place. However, I DO want the government to start prosecuting people who commit crimes "under the influence" as if they had been done by cold blooded choice. You MADE the choice to impair your judgment. Freely. No fair later claiming "Sorry, I was high/drunk"

[Nightshade]

Indeed. I think that should be the case...

Kill someone while you're drunk =

THE DEATH PENALTY

[Testiculese]

Where do you get \"recreational use\" = \"chief pleasure in life\"? How disastrously inaccurate, and a complete troll.

[shaktazuki]

Where do you get "recreational use" = "chief pleasure in life"? How disastrously inaccurate, and a complete troll.

I would call for a reference to where I said that, but I already know - as you do - I never did; that makes you the troll, BTW, FTW!

[Octopus]

pwnd

[Tunnelcat]

Here's an interesting historical time line about drugs, recreational drug use and the outlawing of drugs and why. Note the beginning of the 1800's and the use of cannabis by black slaves in the U.S.

http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showth ... from=71125

Edit: Also this has information on more recent laws after the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 was overturned in the U.S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_hist ... ted_States

[Testiculese]

Recreational drug use - legal or otherwise - ain't a good thing, folks. It may or may not be the case that the problems associated with killing the addicts and their suppliers (or locking them up, whatever) is worse than the problem it is addressing.

What does it say about someone that their chief pleasure in life is to take leave of their senses?

Octopus, you have to actually be good at something before you can call that on someone else. You also have to be right...

[Foil]

Zing!

I'd say that round goes to Testi.

[Gooberman]

It went to Testi on a technicality, but I was hoping the below quote wouldn't just get dodged, by Testi or anyone else in the pro-legalization crowd. (italics mine)

I believe we have inherited spin about prohibition. As a matter of fact if you factor in child and spousal abuses, child and adult rapes, alcohol-fueled murders and vehicular manslaughter, which probably wouldn't happen except for the perpetrator's ingestion of a 6-pack, we can say your six pack leaves a lot of human wreckage behind you.

I'm not trying to be crass, I could make some arguments. But this isnt an issue I've much studied.

[Kilarin]

(italics mine)

The alcohol related deaths through Vehicular manslaughter are horrific, but by no means its worst affect on society.

I do not drink. I actively promote an alcohol free lifestyle. But I'm still opposed to prohibition.

There are two sides of this issue that can be attacked. You can make it illegal for someone to partake of alcohol, and then try to enforce that rule. This almost never works.

OR, you can SERIOUSLY enforce the law against those who get drunk, and then commit crimes. THIS has a reasonable chance of success. All it requires is that no jury or judge EVER takes "Sorry, I was drunk", as an excusing factor in a crime.

You make your choice when you willfully decide to impair your judgment. Any crimes committed after that point were committed BY that free will choice. Voluntary impairment is NOT an excuse. It's actually an aggravating circumstance. Like a man who deliberately cuts his own break lines and then drives down the road and kills someone. It's not an accident, it's murder.

[Gooberman]

Yes, I agree(d) with what you wrote.

I was more curious if the pro-legalization crowd conceeds the point that legalization has nothing to do with, (for lack of more time to think of a better phrase), \"making the world a safer place.\"

[Testiculese]

Didn't dodge it. Didn't really relate it to the current discussion.

Legalization would definitely help making the world a safer place. (Criminalizing has everything to do with NOT making the world a safer place.) Legalized, the availability wouldn't be restricted, the price would be cheaper, the gangs and drug lords that run it now would be drastically reduced. The list goes on.

Stuff happens, whether things are illegal or not. Someone's always going to drink/snort/inject/smoke too much and do some damage. Laws cannot prevent anything. Legalizing or criminalizing won't save anybody from general human stupidity.

What Kilarin briefly touches upon should be the basis of our judicial system. Blanket laws do not work. They are profitable for the criminal judges and police districts, but they in no way are effective in the slightest. Cash cow only. Punishments should be metered on a general basis, and add-ons for additional behavior. Run a stop sign and hurt someone? Penalty X (if negligent). If you run a stop sign and hurt someone while drunk, Penalty X + Y (+ Z, A1, A2..knowing our system) would apply, if the person was liable. (Just because you are drunk doesn't mean you were at fault)

[Kilarin]

I was more curious if the pro-legalization crowd conceeds the point that legalization has nothing to do with, (for lack of more time to think of a better phrase), "making the world a safer place"

ah, yes, sorry! I see your point. And it's a good one.

This article is about how modern day (1994) prohibition drastically improved life in Barrow Alaska.
http://www.libertymagazine.org/article/ ... /581/1/91/

A quote from the article about the results of the prohibition:

Crime dropped 70 percent. Alcohol-related emergency room visits dropped from 118 per month to 23 per month in the first 30 days of prohibition. Requests for police services dropped almost 80 percent.

School attendance increased and regulated. Children enthused over better home lives, for parents who once neglected them for the bottle now invested in providing and in family togetherness. Doctors and nurses began to treat real illnesses and not merely alcohol-related conditions. Public arenas, once cluttered with inebriates, regained their tranquility. Traditional values and cultural activism resurged.

The article defends the concept of prohibition based on the good it could do. I disagree with it's stance. BUT, you can NOT argue with the numbers. Eliminating alcohol greatly improved the quality of life in this community.

Of course, the case is difficult to generalize. It is VERY difficult (virtually impossible) to really eliminate alcohol in less remote communities. And most communities don't have as severe an alcohol problem as this one did.

But it does seem obvious to me that, while I object on practical and ethical grounds to prohibition, if we really could eliminate alcohol consumption, we would loose little and gain much.

But it is a fantasy conjecture. The practical experience of prohibition in the USA, and the modern war on drugs, shows that criminalizing drugs doesn't prevent their consumption and actually increases many of the related problems.

[Foil]

I'm still working out my view on this subject; I'm not really convinced by either side at this point.

Part of what gets me is that I'm hearing logic like, "Let 'em get drunk/high, just penalize them if they hit something or hurt someone."

In principle, I understand the arguments. Getting away from trying to legislate people's lives and focusing on enforcing punishment is generally a good thing, especially if it cuts down on criminal activity.

But as a new father, it bothers me somewhat when the argument is extended to the point that "all actions are okay, until they hurt someone".

Say there are two drivers one night, driving down my street. Both are startled by a tree in the road and swerve. The first guy is sloshed, hits the tree and crashes his car into the ditch... the other guy is sober, swerves right, and crashes his car into my house. Is the first guy okay to be driving drunk off his a**, and the second guy is wrong, because of the way they happened to swerve?

Every single moron out there who is driving when they clearly shouldn't, believes that they'll be okay. Should we consider the 'lucky' ones who haven't hurt anyone to be in the right?

Testi and Kilarin, I agree with you somewhat on this subject, but I have to take some issue with this point:

Laws cannot prevent anything.

You're right that law can't ultimately prevent anything, but in some cases (i.e. the current example of drunk/high driving) law can certainly help reduce the odds of it happening.

I moved to Colorado a couple of years ago, and my understanding is that it's now legal for people to have a small amount of marijuana in their posession here in Denver; and I can appreciate the reasons for that.

However, when you start arguing that it should be legal for people to do anything while under the influence (let 'em drive, prosecute 'em if they hurt somebody), even if you have a perfect conviction rate, you're increasing the odds that they'll hurt someone.

[Kilarin]

"all actions are okay, until they hurt someone".

No no! That's NOT what I meant to say! Sorry! I was unclear on two different levels.

Level 1: I believe that MANY actions are WRONG, but are not the governments job to legislate against. Alcohol is certainly in this category for me. It is by no means OK, just shouldn't be illegal.

Level 2: I am 100% in favor of arresting and punishing ANYONE caught OPERATING heavy machinery while under the influence. You don't have to wait until they hurt someone. As soon as they start driving, they have stepped over the bounds. Making DUI illegal makes PERFECT sense. The government has a legitimate interest, not only when you hurt someone else, but whenever your actions can be shown to seriously endanger someone else.

[shaktazuki]

Recreational drug use - legal or otherwise - ain't a good thing, folks. It may or may not be the case that the problems associated with killing the addicts and their suppliers (or locking them up, whatever) is worse than the problem it is addressing.

What does it say about someone that their chief pleasure in life is to take leave of their senses?

Octopus, you have to actually be good at something before you can call that on someone else. You also have to be right...

Doesn't say what you wish it did say. I'd say Doc Ock is still right, and you're still a troll.

Hey, look what I can do, same as Nut here:

Octopus, you have to actually be good at something before you can call that on someone else. You also have to be right...

Even Nut here agrees!

[shaktazuki]

The practical experience of prohibition in the USA, and the modern war on drugs, shows that criminalizing drugs doesn't prevent their consumption and actually increases many of the related problems.

That would be the "spin about prohibition" that I was referring to. I don't think it's supportable historically - IE, in the numbers - even if it is the culturally mandated view.

[Kilarin]

That would be the "spin about prohibition" that I was referring to. I don't think it's supportable historically - IE, in the numbers

Could you provide some references? I'd be very interested in seeing them. thanks!

[shaktazuki]

That would be the "spin about prohibition" that I was referring to. I don't think it's supportable historically - IE, in the numbers

Could you provide some references? I'd be very interested in seeing them. thanks!

I cannot provide numbers to support your position, no, and I've learned around here that to suggest I do so means you're a troll. Do you have numbers to support your position?

To clarify further: the one "numbers" citation we have is evidence against your position, cited on page 2 of this thread, by you. Yet, without supporting evidence, you claim that the opposite occurred when prohibition was national. You bear the burden of proof on that claim, which claim I think is mere spin.

[Kilarin]

I cannot provide numbers to support your position, no, and I've learned around here that to suggest I do so means you're a troll.

It wasn't meant as an attack. I honestly wanted to see some references if you had them. If making drugs illegal doesn't actually encourage the growth of criminal organizations, then that has an affect on the debate. (it doesn't settle it, but it certainly has an affect)

Just because I'm involved in a discussion where I don't entirely agree with you, doesn't mean I'm trying to be hostile. I enjoy discussions, and I LEARN from them. I usually ask questions because I'm interested in the answers.

the one "numbers" citation we have is evidence against your position, cited on page 2 of this thread, by you. Yet, without supporting evidence, you claim that the opposite occurred when prohibition was national. You bear the burden of proof on that claim, which claim I think is mere spin.

As I stated before, the problem with attempting to generalize from the Barrow Alaska case is it's very special circumstances. Most specifically, the fact that it is small and geographically isolated. This made it possible to actually stop the flow of alcohol.

On a nation wide level, this has not worked. During prohibition, people still wanted alcohol, so high profits were to be made in the black market. But smuggling large quantities of alcohol required a large and more organized criminal structure than previously existed. Thus the Mafia and organized crime developed and flourished.

A list of fairly random sources:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... ootlegging
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1596.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mafia_ ... rohibition
http://www.anairhoads.org/criminaljusti ... rime.shtml

http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/volstead-act/
The National Archives link above has the following to say:

Enforcing Prohibition proved to be extremely difficult. The illegal production and distribution of liquor, or bootlegging, became rampant, and the national government did not have the means or desire to try to enforce every border, lake, river, and speakeasy in America. In fact, by 1925 in New York City alone there were anywhere from 30,000 to 100,000 speakeasy clubs. The demand for alcohol was outweighing (and out-winning) the demand for sobriety. People found clever ways to evade Prohibition agents. They carried hip flasks, hollowed canes, false books, and the like. While Prohibition assisted the poor factory workers who could not afford liquor, all in all, neither federal nor local authorities would commit the resources necessary to enforce the Volstead Act. For example, the state of Maryland refused to pass any enforcement issue. Prohibition made life in America more violent, with open rebellion against the law and organized crime.

The statistics quoted in the below links indicate that crime increased significantly during prohibition:
http://www.albany.edu/~wm731882/organiz ... final.html
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1017&full=1

I'm not certain where albany.edu got their numbers from, but the cato institute sites their sources quite well. I recommend the cato link for perusal.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761 ... ition.html
Encarta, however, has the following very interesting quote:

Statistics show that Prohibition reduced the annual per capita consumption from 9.8 liters (2.6 gallons) of absolute alcohol during the period before state laws were effective (1906-1910) to 3.7 liters (0.97 gallons) after Prohibition (1934). Moreover, no striking statistical evidence of a crime wave during the 1920s exists, although the crime rate did rise.

Which I find a bit baffling since they also say:

Beginning in the late 19th century, some members of the Mafia immigrated to the United States. They soon became entrenched in American organized crime, especially in the 1920s during Prohibition.

So Encarta seems to back up your position that it's all "spin" that prohibition increased crime. But that seems to clash with the hard numbers that the cato institute was able to present, or the position by the National Archives, or even their own position in different places. It also seems to clash with common sense. Legal alcohol is clearly and obviously a cause of individual crime. But when illegal, it seems inevitable that it would encourage massive organized crime as well as individual crime.

We see the same in the war on drugs. Drugs are bad, no doubt, but the war on drugs clearly has created a large organization of criminals. Large enough to be almost running several countries.

So, after a casual look at the numbers, I'm still leaning on my original stance. IF you could completely eliminate alcohol or drugs from society, the benefits would be large and obvious. But I've seen no evidence that you CAN eliminate them, and attempting to eliminate them creates a black market that encourages crime. I've never purchased illegal drugs in my life, but I bet I could find some in less than 24 hours if I wanted to. I see the effects of drug abuse far more frequently than I would like. And our prisons are FULL of criminals locked up for possession of illegal substances. What I read doesn't seem to indicate any difference during prohibition.

[shaktazuki]

Here are some claims, unfortunately without numbers, that I find relevant to this discussion.

http://www.1timothy4-13.com/files/facts/prohibfail.html

I acknowledge that without numbers, these claims must be taken sceptically. However, perhaps with your greater investigative resources, you might succeed where I have failed.

[Kilarin]

Here are some claims, unfortunately without numbers, that I find relevant to this discussion.

Very interesting statistics! I wish he had cited his sources. I couldn't find any references to them other than a few quotations of the same article. Some of them seem very questionable on the surface.

The U.S. Bureau of the Census homicide numbers seem to directly contradict his crime statistics. But then the homicide rate is only a portion of overall crime. ALSO, I find it interesting that the homicide SLOPE doesn't seem to show much of an increase from 1910 to 1933, but the incredible dip after 1933 still seems significant.

http://mises.org/books/prohibition.pdf
This online book, "The Economics Of Prohibition" has some fascinating stuff regarding Prohibition and Crime starting at page 113. The author points out that during prohibition, lesser crimes decrease while more serious crimes increase. Also, that the court systems get overloaded and the conviction rate for all crimes goes down.

Pyle's numbers are interesting. They at least point out places where I'd really love to have some substantiated numbers. I'd LOVE to see some real statistics on whether prohibition reduced family violence. I don't think anyone really kept very reliable records of that kind of crime back then though. Also, if the information is correct that while the gallons of alcohol consumed was reduced during prohibition, the actual alcoholic content per gallon increased, then I wouldn't expect family violence, Cirrhosis of the liver, or many other alcohol related problems to reduce much.

perhaps with your greater investigative resources

Just stayed up too late. Past midnight now. I've got to get some sleep, and go back to work tomorrow. So, no more time for research from me for a while.

[Spidey]

I like those stats on that religious page, heh of course drunkenness is going to decline under prohibition. As far as the other statistics, well again of course…domestic violence is going to decline, and such things as health issues. The question is: Is the resulting increase in organized crime and the more violent crimes worth the tradeoff?

And, was prohibition around long enough to even affect cirrhosis?

And I would sure like the people who advocate keeping recreational drugs illegal, please tell me a good method to reduce the desire to intoxicate oneself? (thus actually reducing the demand, so the stupid war on drugs could make sense)

[Foil]

And I would sure like the people who advocate keeping recreational drugs illegal, please tell me a good method to reduce the desire to intoxicate oneself?

I'm not necessarily advocating keeping such drugs completely illegal; as I said earlier, I'm still working out my view on this, as it's a subject I admittedly don't know much about.

You're right, I don't know of any reliable method of reducing desire/habit. However, the one point I see for keeping them illegal is prevention. Less drugs available means less people will get addicted to them or develop usage habits, or even develop a taste for them (thus reducing demand). Now don't misunderstand me; I know that some will still try them, but less will do so.

[Sergeant Thorne]

And I would sure like the people who advocate keeping recreational drugs illegal, please tell me a good method to reduce the desire to intoxicate oneself? (thus actually reducing the demand, so the stupid war on drugs could make sense)

It's not truly an inherent desire, which is something I think ought to be said. I mean, you speak of it as something that could be considered normal unless the cause could be dealt with... how about not getting started down that road in the first place as a means to prevent desiring to intoxicate oneself? Drug use is not a natural result of wanting to escape certain aspect of reality, it's a result of using drugs.

Is drug use really the rightful exercise of liberty that they would make it, or is it an abuse of freedom?

[Spidey]

What’s an inherent desire…food, shelter, love…pleasure? I don’t think the knowledge that drugs can be pleasurable will ever be put back in the bottle.

A question…why do you think there are a lot less alcoholics (per capita) in Italy, than in other places?

[Foil]

I don’t think the knowledge that drugs can be pleasurable will ever be put back in the bottle.

Of course not.

But don't you think desire to use is increased by people trying it, especially if it becomes habit/addiction?

Thus the benefit of prevention.

[Spidey]

The answer is in the answer to my above question.

[Foil]

And that would be? (Seriously, I'm interested to know; I'd rather not play answer games.)

[Spidey]

Fair enuf…

Italy is very enlightened on such matters, and they understand human nature very well. In Italy they don’t creat the taboo aspect of alcohol, therefore drastically reducing the abuse of the drug in adults.

If you really want a child to try something, make it forbidden…it works every time.

I think you have to fess up to the fact that reducing the desire to take drugs, thru the reduction of supply is a miserable failure. And like that military guy is famous for saying….we tried it your way…

[Foil]

...reducing the desire to take drugs, thru the reduction of supply is a miserable failure.

Sure, but I'm not arguing that.

What I'm not convinced of is your apparent conclusion that there is no link between availability and desire/addiction/habit.

Yes, I know that most go out searching. But there are also those who are introduced to drugs simply because friends or peers have it around.

I'll agree that fighting drug abuse by way of reducing availability isn't the best way to go about it. However, the claim that it is 'completely ineffective' just sounds like propaganda.

[Spidey]

“apparent conclusion that there is no link between availability and desire/addiction/habit.”

I never concluded any such thing.

'completely ineffective'

I never said that either…

And once more, as you have a bad habit of doing, you avoided my main point.

[Foil]

Huh? Didn't you say the following?

...the fact that reducing the desire to take drugs, thru the reduction of supply is a miserable failure.

I take that at face value, as a statement that reducing supply doesn't reduce desire. That's not what you meant?

(And since you said I'm apparently missing your main point, do tell.)

[Nightshade]

As an epilogue:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne ... gangs.html

Juarez used to be my home town as a little kid...now it's come to this.

[Will Robinson]

As someone who grew up in El Paso and used to walk freely and safely across the bridge into Juarez in the evenings to enjoy the restaurants and bars I'd like to address the sentiment in the title that says my country's addiction is ruining your grandmothers country.

I think that is the wrong way to think about it.

Your grandmothers country is so corrupt that it is killing itself in a rush to sell the drugs that have always been consumed here in America.

It wasn't always such a dangerous place but the drugs were always crossing the border.... so what has changed in Mexico is the complete corruption of the government that used to keep the rats hiding in the shadows now allows them to run the place!