Failed prohibition

Generally an unmoderated forum for discussion of pretty much any topic. The focus however, is usually politics.
User avatar
Vrede too
Superstar Cultmaster
Posts: 15973
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:46 am
Location: Hendersonvile, NC

Failed prohibition

Unread post by Vrede too » Fri Oct 12, 2018 12:16 pm

New FBI Report: Every 20 seconds, someone is arrested for a drug law violation in the U.S.

According to the FBI’s latest Uniform Crime Report, released today, law enforcement agencies in the U.S. made 1.63 million arrests for drug law violations in 2017, a 3.83% increase over the previous year. More than 85% of these arrests – over 1.4 million – were simply for drug possession.

This means that every 20 seconds, someone is arrested for a drug law violation in the U.S. The consequences a single arrest can be devastating – adversely impacting not just someone’s freedom but also their job, their home, their health and their family.

While states that have legalized marijuana have seen a steep decline in marijuana arrests, overall marijuana arrests increased 0.98% to 659,700 in 2017, up from 653,249 in 2016 – demonstrating the urgency of legalizing marijuana in more U.S. states and at the federal level.

Worse yet, arrests for other drugs increased at an even steeper rate than marijuana arrests, rising from 1,572,579 in 2016 to 1,632,921 in 2017. Drug criminalization continues to be a major driver of mass incarceration and mass criminalization in the U.S., with an egregiously disproportionate impact on communities of color. Black people comprise just 13% of the U.S. population, and use drugs at similar rates as other groups, but they comprised more than 27% of those arrested for drug law violations in 2017.

Drug criminalization has also fueled mass detentions and deportations. For non-citizens, including legal permanent residents – many of whom have been in the U.S. for decades and have jobs and families – possession of any amount of any drug (except first-time possession of less than 30 grams of marijuana) can trigger automatic detention and deportation, often without the possibility of return.

The increase in overall drug possession arrests comes at a time when there’s an emerging public, political, and scientific consensus that otherwise-law-abiding people should not be arrested, let alone locked away behind bars, simply for possessing a drug. In recent years, the United Nations, World Health Organization, the International Red Cross, the NAACP, the Movement for Black Lives and several other national and international organizations have called for the repeal of laws that criminalize drug use and possession.

As detailed in a recent Drug Policy Alliance report, several countries have successful experience with ending criminal penalties for drug use and possession, including Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, and most notably Portugal.

In 2001, Portugal enacted one of the most extensive drug law reforms in the world when it decriminalized low-level possession and use of all illegal drugs. Today in Portugal, no one is arrested or incarcerated for drug possession, many more people are receiving treatment, and addiction, HIV/AIDS and drug overdose deaths have drastically decreased.

Drug decriminalization has recently emerged as a mainstream political issue in Canada, where two of the three main parties, including Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party, added drug decriminalization to their official campaign platforms earlier this year. Canada’s joined by a growing list of countries – which already includes France, Georgia, Ghana, Ireland, and Norway – where moves have been made at senior levels of government to pave the way for decriminalizing personal use of drugs....

Criminalizing drug use has devastated families and communities across the U.S., while exacerbating the overdose crisis by prioritizing punishment over public health. Today’s sobering data in a reminder that despite some steps in the right direction, we still have a long way to go in the decades-long struggle to end the war on drugs.
Providing a Safe Space to Use Drugs Can Help End the Overdose Crisis

72,000 lives were lost to accidental overdose in the U.S. in 2017— more than in car accidents or due to gun violence, and more Americans than in the entire Vietnam War. That’s 72,000 lives that often ended alone and without help. But it does not have to be this way.

Supervised consumption sites (SCS) – also called safe injection facilities or drug consumption rooms – invite people into a community of care by providing a space for people to consume pre-obtained drugs in a controlled setting, under the supervision of trained staff, and with access to sterile injecting equipment.

They are safe, monitored facilities where participants are also offered health care, counseling, and referrals to health and social services, including drug treatment. Not a single overdose fatality has occurred at any operating SCS and the research shows they also reduce overall overdose mortality rates. Having supervision also means that an overdose resulting from unknowingly consuming fentanyl—where death can occur in a matter of minutes and long-before emergency help can arrive—can be reversed immediately on site.

Rod J. Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General of the United States, threatened states that are moving forward with this life saving strategy in an op-ed last month, despite their proven record of saving and improving lives.

This is not a new concept. SCS have been in operation since the 1980s and there are now 120 authorized sites operating in ten countries – but none in the U.S. Canada has made remarkable progress, growing from two authorized sites to more than 30 in just the past two years, largely in response to the current overdose crisis.

The evidence is abundantly clear. Nearly four decades of scientific research across three continents has confirmed that SCS prevent fatal overdose, increase the number of people entering treatment, reduce the risk of infectious disease, minimize neighborhood disorder like public injecting or improperly discarded syringes, and save public resources – all without any increase in drug use or drug-related crime.

The federal government’s threat to thwart these efforts is as old as the drug war itself. Identical threats were used to try to stifle sterile syringe programs and access to medical marijuana – policies that now have widespread support and an abundance of evidence of their effectiveness. Hindsight has proved that the federal government was on the wrong side of both history and science, but we are still paying for their attempted blockages and delays.

HIV and Hepatitis C incidences are surging as a result of increased injection drug use in jurisdictions like Indiana and Kentucky that took their cue from the federal government and refused to offer sterile syringes. Research shows that annual opioid overdose mortality rates are 25% higher in states that do not have access to medical marijuana. Earlier embrace of these critical interventions would have dramatically altered the course of this overdose crisis and saved countless lives.

The DOJ’s aggressive stance follows significant momentum toward the opening of SCS in cities and states across the nation, including California, which became the first state legislature to pass a bill approving such sites – the bill is now on the Governor’s desk.

Thanks to years of persistent advocacy by the Drug Policy Alliance, community-based groups, faith leaders, and public health authorities, numerous cities are on the verge of opening the first SCS in the U.S., including Seattle, Ithaca, Philadelphia, New York City, and San Francisco. Legislation to authorize SCS has also been introduced in Colorado, Maryland, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, and Vermont.

By opposing SCS, the DOJ is back on the hamster wheel. But we cannot afford to continue going around and around—not while we have nearly 200 people a day dying wholly preventable deaths. Cities and states must “just say no” to federal attempts to block this critical live-saving intervention.

The overdose crisis did not have to happen—the focus on enforcement and incarceration meant that we did not have the public health infrastructure in place to adequately address increasing rates of drug use and keep people safe. The current crisis is a political one. When we let the DOJ’s ideology trump evidence, and prioritize punishment over preserving life, the result is thousands of preventable deaths. It is time to get off the hamster wheel.
It really is time to stop being nice about stupidity.

User avatar
Leo Lyons
Ensign
Posts: 1555
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:14 am

Re: Failed prohibition

Unread post by Leo Lyons » Fri Oct 12, 2018 8:48 pm

ImageImageImage

"Supervised consumption sites (SCS) – also called safe injection facilities or drug consumption rooms – invite people into a community of care by providing a space for people to consume pre-obtained drugs in a controlled setting, under the supervision of trained staff, and with access to sterile injecting equipment.
They are safe, monitored facilities where participants are also offered health care, counseling, and referrals to health and social services, including drug treatment."

...and who pays for this? The tooth drug fairy?

"72,000 lives were lost to accidental overdose in the U.S. in 2017— more than in car accidents or due to gun violence, and more Americans than in the entire Vietnam War. That’s 72,000 lives that often ended alone and without help. But it does not have to be this way."
So...who's being blamed for those 72,000 deaths? The government? DEA? The same tooth fairy that's going to pay for treatment for survivors of their own stupidity? Correct; it does not have to be this way. People are supposed to have capability of determining outcome of their own choices.

billy.pilgrim
Captain
Posts: 5214
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 1:44 pm

Re: Failed prohibition

Unread post by billy.pilgrim » Sat Oct 13, 2018 9:31 am

Leo Lyons wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 8:48 pm
ImageImageImage

"Supervised consumption sites (SCS) – also called safe injection facilities or drug consumption rooms – invite people into a community of care by providing a space for people to consume pre-obtained drugs in a controlled setting, under the supervision of trained staff, and with access to sterile injecting equipment.
They are safe, monitored facilities where participants are also offered health care, counseling, and referrals to health and social services, including drug treatment."

...and who pays for this? The tooth drug fairy?

"72,000 lives were lost to accidental overdose in the U.S. in 2017— more than in car accidents or due to gun violence, and more Americans than in the entire Vietnam War. That’s 72,000 lives that often ended alone and without help. But it does not have to be this way."
So...who's being blamed for those 72,000 deaths? The government? DEA? The same tooth fairy that's going to pay for treatment for survivors of their own stupidity? Correct; it does not have to be this way. People are supposed to have capability of determining outcome of their own choices.
Payment comes from a small percentage of the savings from law enforcement and incarceration associated with this law that doesn't work and is applied discriminately.

The deaths are a mixed bag. Sure the user is at fault, but many would not have happened but for the law that doesn't work and is applied discriminately.

Not to mention - these laws fuel a monster of domestic and international cartel, gang and other mob type activity that would simply disappear along with all the demand on the taxpayer for money to fight laws that don't work and are applied discriminately.

Or you could continue to make irrelevant comments that have nothing to do with solving a huge problem.



.
George Carlin said “The owners know the truth. It’s called the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.”

User avatar
O Really
Captain
Posts: 9876
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: Failed prohibition

Unread post by O Really » Sat Oct 13, 2018 9:50 am

" People are supposed to have capability of determining outcome of their own choices."

That would also be an argument for decriminalization, wouldn't it?

But since it's Leo, it sounds a lot like "ignore the problem, do nothing, let 'em die."

User avatar
Leo Lyons
Ensign
Posts: 1555
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:14 am

Re: Failed prohibition

Unread post by Leo Lyons » Sat Oct 13, 2018 10:54 am

billy.pilgrim wrote:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 9:31 am
Not to mention - these laws fuel a monster of domestic and international cartel, gang and other mob type activity that would simply disappear
So if drug prohibition were lifted, "gang and other mob type activity would simply disappear?" What planet are you living on, billy? Surely, you have enough knowledge about you to know that prices on legal drugs would still be too prohibitive for the average drug user to purchase?
Let's take a look: Guns are legal, yet the black market for guns is a striving business; on the individual and organized levels. Marijuana is legal in many states, as is the by-products of marijuana used for medicinal purposes; yet, look at the prices. (I bought a 1oz. bottle of hemp oil that cost me $75; a waste of money). Cigarettes and alcohol are legal in every state; yet many states have taxed them so heavily, that a flourishing black market smuggles tons of each into states like here in New York. Although still high in cost, they can be bought at cheaper prices than at a store.
Flooding the market is not the answer. If insecticides and various pest control products that harm the environment and kill beneficial insects and animals can be banned, so can drugs that kill people; but people and money in high places will never let that happen.


along with all the demand on the taxpayer for money to fight laws that don't work and are applied indiscriminately.
Again, you're wrong. The argument against using taxpayer money to eliminate drugs is a smoke screen from the ones who use drugs and can afford to buy them; but see how far you'd get if they're asked to donate to the cause this thread addresses. As for the "indiscrimination", unfortunately, there are crooked cops who are paid to protect those very types of people.

Or you could continue to make irrelevant comments that have nothing to do with solving a huge problem.
The huge problem can be solved. Get rid of the shit, and 72,000 people a year won't die from overdosing. The liberal camp screams about controlling or outright banning guns because of the numbers of gun deaths; yet on the flip side, they're screaming to make available deadly substances that will affect people for the rest of their lives, from the fetus stage to adulthood. That is just so fu*ked up.

With that in mind, think about " all the demand on the taxpayer for money to fight" drug addiction. Either way, fighting drugs or their deadly effects is costing the taxpayer. Now, how are my comments "irrelevant?"

User avatar
Leo Lyons
Ensign
Posts: 1555
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:14 am

Re: Failed prohibition

Unread post by Leo Lyons » Sat Oct 13, 2018 11:00 am

O Really wrote:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 9:50 am
"People are supposed to have capability of determining outcome of their own choices."

That would also be an argument for decriminalization, wouldn't it?
There is no legitimate argument for decriminalization of stupid life choices.

But since it's Leo, it sounds a lot like "ignore the problem, do nothing, let 'em die."
Not quite.

billy.pilgrim
Captain
Posts: 5214
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 1:44 pm

Re: Failed prohibition

Unread post by billy.pilgrim » Sat Oct 13, 2018 11:32 am

Leo Lyons wrote:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 10:54 am
billy.pilgrim wrote:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 9:31 am
Not to mention - these laws fuel a monster of domestic and international cartel, gang and other mob type activity that would simply disappear
So if drug prohibition were lifted, "gang and other mob type activity would simply disappear?" What planet are you living on, billy? Surely, you have enough knowledge about you to know that prices on legal drugs would still be too prohibitive for the average drug user to purchase?
Let's take a look: Guns are legal, yet the black market for guns is a striving business; on the individual and organized levels. Marijuana is legal in many states, as is the by-products of marijuana used for medicinal purposes; yet, look at the prices. (I bought a 1oz. bottle of hemp oil that cost me $75; a waste of money). Cigarettes and alcohol are legal in every state; yet many states have taxed them so heavily, that a flourishing black market smuggles tons of each into states like here in New York. Although still high in cost, they can be bought at cheaper prices than at a store.
Flooding the market is not the answer. If insecticides and various pest control products that harm the environment and kill beneficial insects and animals can be banned, so can drugs that kill people; but people and money in high places will never let that happen.


along with all the demand on the taxpayer for money to fight laws that don't work and are applied indiscriminately.
Again, you're wrong. The argument against using taxpayer money to eliminate drugs is a smoke screen from the ones who use drugs and can afford to buy them; but see how far you'd get if they're asked to donate to the cause this thread addresses. As for the "indiscrimination", unfortunately, there are crooked cops who are paid to protect those very types of people.

Or you could continue to make irrelevant comments that have nothing to do with solving a huge problem.
The huge problem can be solved. Get rid of the shit, and 72,000 people a year won't die from overdosing. The liberal camp screams about controlling or outright banning guns because of the numbers of gun deaths; yet on the flip side, they're screaming to make available deadly substances that will affect people for the rest of their lives, from the fetus stage to adulthood. That is just so fu*ked up.

With that in mind, think about " all the demand on the taxpayer for money to fight" drug addiction. Either way, fighting drugs or their deadly effects is costing the taxpayer. Now, how are my comments "irrelevant?"

Strawmen down, problem and facts ignored
George Carlin said “The owners know the truth. It’s called the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.”

User avatar
O Really
Captain
Posts: 9876
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: Failed prohibition

Unread post by O Really » Sat Oct 13, 2018 11:47 am

Leo Lyons wrote:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 11:00 am


There is no legitimate argument for decriminalization of stupid life choices.
Really? Most stupid life choices already are not criminal. Just ask your ex-wife. Badaboom.

User avatar
Leo Lyons
Ensign
Posts: 1555
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:14 am

Re: Failed prohibition

Unread post by Leo Lyons » Sat Oct 13, 2018 12:07 pm

billy.pilgrim wrote:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 11:32 am
Strawmen down, problem and facts ignored
Of course. It's the Liberal stance when the REAL facts are presented.
"Again, you're wrong. The argument against using taxpayer money to eliminate drugs is a smoke screen from the ones who use drugs and can afford to buy them"

User avatar
Leo Lyons
Ensign
Posts: 1555
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:14 am

Re: Failed prohibition

Unread post by Leo Lyons » Sat Oct 13, 2018 12:14 pm

O Really wrote:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 11:47 am
Leo Lyons wrote:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 11:00 am
There is no legitimate argument for decriminalization of stupid life choices.
Really? Most stupid life choices already are not criminal. Just ask your ex-wife. Badaboom.
Thanks for admitting that drug use is criminal; and we weren't discussing other life choices.
I have no ex-wife. Badaboom. The best I can recall from older posts, you're the one with an ex-wife; what's your story? Badaboom.
(Is that the best rebuttal you could muster; throw in an insult towards my supposed personal life? Emulate Vrede much?)

User avatar
Vrede too
Superstar Cultmaster
Posts: 15973
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:46 am
Location: Hendersonvile, NC

Re: Failed prohibition

Unread post by Vrede too » Sat Oct 13, 2018 2:07 pm

An enthusiastic participant in and financial beneficiary of the utterly failed, decades-long drug prohibition asking, “who pays for this?” is a scream.

Yes, wasting massive resources on a rotten, ineffective strategy does make the drug warriors partially responsible for the OD deaths. Man-up and own it.

An enthusiastic participant in the repression of victimless behavior saying, “People are supposed to have capability of determining outcome of their own choices,” is a scream.

Funny, I’m unaware of the national and international cartels and the thousands of violent deaths caused by the relatively small black markets for guns and cigs. Also, the black market for guns is largely a result of WEAK regulation in gun happy states.

True, the utterly failed, decades-long drug prohibition has created massive corruption among LEOs. Thanks for mentioning it.

No one has said that ending drug prohibition will end ODs. Your straw man lies when you’re floundering are adorable. However, as shown in my OP, more rational nations have reduced ODs with decriminalization and harm reduction strategies. Your rejection of science and proof is a symptom of your addiction to a failed strategy.

No one in power is seriously proposing “outright banning guns” and it would be unconstitutional, anyhow. Your straw man lies when you’re floundering are adorable. However, more rational nations have drastically reduced gun deaths with strict regulation, and any decriminalized drugs will OBVIOUSLY be regulated.

“make available deadly substances that will affect people for the rest of their lives, from the fetus stage to adulthood.” - They already are, dufus. Your lifelong efforts have been impotent and pointless. What we’re discussing is reducing the damage YOU have added to the problem.

You haven’t presented any “REAL facts”. You’ve just screeched your self-serving opinion in response to the REAL, documented facts presented in my OP.

Maybe O Really does have an ex-wife, but I don't remember his ever saying so. Are you drunk this early? Anyhow, you cowered and deflected from his point that, "Most stupid life choices ... are not" criminalized. Logic much?

“Emulate Vrede much?” - That’s why O Really named me the Superstar Cultmaster. 8-) :thumbsup:
Last edited by Vrede too on Sat Oct 13, 2018 2:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It really is time to stop being nice about stupidity.

User avatar
Leo Lyons
Ensign
Posts: 1555
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:14 am

Re: Failed prohibition

Unread post by Leo Lyons » Sat Oct 13, 2018 2:42 pm

Vrede too wrote:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 2:07 pm
“Emulate Vrede much?” - That’s why O Really named me the Superstar Cultmaster.
Yaeh, I know. I expressed my awe in that fact before. Forgive me for ever doubting you; or your awesomeness.
Needless to say, O Really doesn't emulate you to that degree; you own that all yourself. 8-) :thumbsup:

User avatar
O Really
Captain
Posts: 9876
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: Failed prohibition

Unread post by O Really » Sat Oct 13, 2018 4:09 pm

Leo Lyons wrote:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 12:14 pm

(Is that the best rebuttal you could muster; throw in an insult towards my supposed personal life? Emulate Vrede much?)
[/color]
[/quote]

Sorry, I thought you were the one who enjoys humour at the expense of others. My bad.

User avatar
Vrede too
Superstar Cultmaster
Posts: 15973
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:46 am
Location: Hendersonvile, NC

Re: Failed prohibition

Unread post by Vrede too » Sat Oct 13, 2018 4:20 pm

O Really wrote:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 4:09 pm
Sorry, I thought you were the one who enjoys humour at the expense of others. My bad.
It takes a pretty delicate ego to get offended by mention of a theoretical and as it turns out nonexistent ex-wife.
It really is time to stop being nice about stupidity.

User avatar
Leo Lyons
Ensign
Posts: 1555
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:14 am

Re: Failed prohibition

Unread post by Leo Lyons » Sat Oct 13, 2018 4:26 pm

O Really wrote:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 4:09 pm
Sorry, I thought you were the one who enjoys humour at the expense of others. My bad.
Meaning that my 'humor' hurts YOUR feelings? My bad. :(

User avatar
Leo Lyons
Ensign
Posts: 1555
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:14 am

Re: Failed prohibition

Unread post by Leo Lyons » Sat Oct 13, 2018 4:30 pm

Vrede too wrote:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 4:20 pm
O Really wrote:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 4:09 pm
Sorry, I thought you were the one who enjoys humour at the expense of others. My bad.
It takes a pretty delicate ego to get offended by mention of a theoretical and as it turns out nonexistent ex-wife.
Umm...no, I wasn't offended; surprised, but not offended. It takes a pretty narcissistic ego to assume another's thoughts, "Mr. Superstar." :lol:

User avatar
O Really
Captain
Posts: 9876
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: Failed prohibition

Unread post by O Really » Sat Oct 13, 2018 5:18 pm

Leo Lyons wrote:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 12:14 pm
The best I can recall from older posts, you're the one with an ex-wife; what's your story? Badaboom.
O Really may have mentioned an "original Lady O" but she's a former, not an ex-wife. And she was definitely not a "stupid life choice."

User avatar
Leo Lyons
Ensign
Posts: 1555
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:14 am

Re: Failed prohibition

Unread post by Leo Lyons » Sat Oct 13, 2018 8:15 pm

O Really wrote:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 5:18 pm
Leo Lyons wrote:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 12:14 pm
The best I can recall from older posts, you're the one with an ex-wife; what's your story? Badaboom.
O Really may have mentioned an "original Lady O" but she's a former, not an ex-wife. And she was definitely not a "stupid life choice."
As is in my case; former, not ex.
Sorry O Really, I only recalled the fact, not the circumstances. As for "a stupid life choice", I suppose we each would have to deal with that decision.
Thanks for setting the record straight, but I believe you should consider yourself 'owned'.

User avatar
Leo Lyons
Ensign
Posts: 1555
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:14 am

Re: Failed prohibition

Unread post by Leo Lyons » Sat Oct 13, 2018 8:40 pm

Although O Really hasn't been adamantly vocal as billy and Vrede in this (and some other threads), except to criticize my wording in some posts, I want to ask the three of you a direct question:

Let's assume for a moment that the drug war is just that; a drug war--no winners, no losers.

Considering ONLY the outcome of drug use---the addiction, overdose deaths, babies born addicted to drugs...what is the advantage in legalizing drugs, and why on earth would ANY OF YOU want to see addictive drugs legalized?


Have any of you ever seen a scene similar to this? I have. Do ANY OF YOU believe that because the
'war on drugs' is an ongoing, one-sided battle, that battle caused this?

Image
(East Liverpool, OH)

User avatar
O Really
Captain
Posts: 9876
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: Failed prohibition

Unread post by O Really » Sat Oct 13, 2018 9:11 pm

Leo Lyons wrote:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 8:40 pm

Considering ONLY the outcome of drug use---the addiction, overdose deaths, babies born addicted to drugs...what is the advantage in legalizing drugs, and why on earth would ANY OF YOU want to see addictive drugs legalized?[/size][/color]
I'll have a go. First, I support de-criminalizing use of drugs, not legalizing. There's a difference. I support keeping restrictions on purchase and distribution of those products considered "controlled substances." But as billy.p has clearly stated numerous times, illegality creates a black market - always has, always will. And that creates criminal enterprises involving a lot of money. Criminal enterprises involving a lot of money get people killed.
An addictive user has a medical/health problem. If the use is criminalized, the user likely won't get help - and if I'm not mistaken it's even illegal for a health professional to help a user without turning him/her in. If you want to address the root problem of addiction and whatever leads to it, you won't be able to by treating it as a crime.

Just like the NRA slogan - when drugs are outlawed, only outlaws will have drugs. In fact, the best argument for not having severe restrictions on possession/sale of various firearms is the creation of a gun-running black market without much reduction in the availability of guns.

Same principle applies to controlled substances. If it's illegal, you can't control it at all, and you can't address root causes of addiction.

Post Reply