Don't deal here!

[Umfriend]

Also, another thing about 'legalised' drugs:
if drugs are cheap, easy to obtain and legal, more people will be inclined to try them, thus you'll have more drug addicts. Drug addicts tend to lay 'wasted' instead of producing, that means they don't work, pay taxes etc. You can dig around and read about Israel's economy. We have a legal drug called religion here, in which nearly a hundred thousand (100,000) people sit around and do nothing other than studying Torah all day long. They cost the tax payer nearly a BILLION new israeli shekels / year. How's that for a strain on the economy?
Are you still so inclined to let everyone have a go on cheap, high quality hard drugs, you know, for shits and giggles?

I hear you and am aware of that "problem". Having said that, I think there are quite a few differences, to name some:
1. I've never heard of a "normal" governement (so aside from e.g. communist or nazi-germany) to disincentivy religion wheras many governments have already had programs directed at tobacco, alcohol and drugs.
2. The drug you speak of is actually costly to the users as they lack education and typically have lowly jobs, if any.
3. I've never heard of parents indoctrinating their children willingly to use drugs as opposed to accept religion.

I don't know what the shekel trades at so 1 bln means nothing to me but I'll assume it is a lot. I submit that drugs would at least add to the treasury wheras religion in Israel does not (speculation though).

Finally, the statement that drug addict tend to lay wasted is beside the mark. There are millions of users who function in society.

[Umfriend]

Umf, you say drugs should be legal in controlled quantities. I call that total and utter BS.
1. People who need/want higher quantities will find means to get them and thus will be considered criminals all over again.
2. People who will assist such people will become drug dealers.
3. Those who obtain more than they 'ought' to get could easily OD.

Bottom line, you're okay with people OD.

edit: Just to be clear about it, the same (other than OD) applies to most anything that is in controlled quantities, hence the term: black market.

Almost. I believe distribution should be controlled similar to cigarettes and alcohol albeit more strict, not quantities. So:
1. Higher quantities would still be legal. There remains the issue of course of distribution to those who should not get it (kids), see 2.
2. There may be parties willing to sell to kids to but as most people could get it legally, the volume to be sold illegally will be small and far less attractive. Furthermore, it'll be far easier to chase those who operate on the fringes of society. The legal market would be a profitable one and operators crossing the line would loose their license. For the huge part of the market, having a legal operation creates a huge advantage so losing a license would be costly.
3. I can't remember ever having hear about someone wanting to OD aside from attempting suicide, for which other means are available already (trains as an example). Most ODs come from bad modes of operation which can be linked to, let's say, less than ideal circumstances in which one needs to administer the drug. Moreover, without control, many ODs are a consequence of bad product.

The idea is simple: even if you feel drug use is a bad thing, you know it'll happen. Legalising it yields control to society which has tremendous benefits:
a. Less to no crime by users
b. Taxes
c. Far less health problems due to bad product and/or means of administiring.
d. No criminal groups making shitloads of money.

[TransformX]

Also, another thing about 'legalised' drugs:
if drugs are cheap, easy to obtain and legal, more people will be inclined to try them, thus you'll have more drug addicts. Drug addicts tend to lay 'wasted' instead of producing, that means they don't work, pay taxes etc. You can dig around and read about Israel's economy. We have a legal drug called religion here, in which nearly a hundred thousand (100,000) people sit around and do nothing other than studying Torah all day long. They cost the tax payer nearly a BILLION new israeli shekels / year. How's that for a strain on the economy?
Are you still so inclined to let everyone have a go on cheap, high quality hard drugs, you know, for shits and giggles?

[TransformX]

That is not what I have said. Please don't quote me when arguing with whatever someone else, apparantly, has argued.

Umf, you say drugs should be legal in controlled quantities. I call that total and utter BS.
1. People who need/want higher quantities will find means to get them and thus will be considered criminals all over again.
2. People who will assist such people will become drug dealers.
3. Those who obtain more than they 'ought' to get could easily OD.

Bottom line, you're okay with people OD.

edit: Just to be clear about it, the same (other than OD) applies to most anything that is in controlled quantities, hence the term: black market.

[KRSESQ]

The problem is that he was theoretically able to get official clean syringes/needles and LEGAL drugs for weaning but, to do so, he would have had to go into a rehab centre run by do-gooders (?) who would have the rest of his life mortgaged, whether he kicked the habit or not. This requires a strong will to accept their terms; the paradox is that addicts are not generally noted to have strong wills, which is why these centres didn't work well and most inmates were thrown out in quick time, as they broke the rules and obtained the stuff elswhere, because the weaning doses were too small to stop the acute physical pain.

For me, the people who ran these centres were worse than the dealers, because they charged the earth (from future earnings) for board and lodgings AND deprived the addicts of their needs. It was a money-making racket, sanctioned by the state (subsidies for running costs). This was acknowledged as a failure and they all closed down after a couple of years. They had better success in the cantonal prison, where they dedicated a wing to addicts, who were under strict medical control, unfortunately with an inglorious degree of recidivism (about 70%, IIRC).

This sounds quite a bit different from the London and Vancouver experiments in giving addicts free fixes of heroin in a medically supervised environment to a) eliminate the need for them to commit crimes to get money for their fix, b) get them away from the criminal elements they needed to associate with to get their fix, and c) get them the counselling they need to eventually get clean.

Early indications are that the success rate is significantly higher than methadone treatment (which many addicts don't respond to) and the program is, ironically, cheaper to administer than methadone treatment.

The London experiment.

The Vancouver experiment.

Kevin

[Umfriend]

That's not my position and you know it, no?

[Brian Ellis]

Nothing in that I find to be an argument against my case.

Maybe because you haven't got a case other than offering any substance like a kilo of sugar in the supermarket?

[Umfriend]

Nothing in that I find to be an argument against my case.

[Brian Ellis]

The problem is that he was theoretically able to get official clean syringes/needles and LEGAL drugs for weaning but, to do so, he would have had to go into a rehab centre run by do-gooders (?) who would have the rest of his life mortgaged, whether he kicked the habit or not. This requires a strong will to accept their terms; the paradox is that addicts are not generally noted to have strong wills, which is why these centres didn't work well and most inmates were thrown out in quick time, as they broke the rules and obtained the stuff elswhere, because the weaning doses were too small to stop the acute physical pain.

For me, the people who ran these centres were worse than the dealers, because they charged the earth (from future earnings) for board and lodgings AND deprived the addicts of their needs. It was a money-making racket, sanctioned by the state (subsidies for running costs). This was acknowledged as a failure and they all closed down after a couple of years. They had better success in the cantonal prison, where they dedicated a wing to addicts, who were under strict medical control, unfortunately with an inglorious degree of recidivism (about 70%, IIRC).

[Umfriend]

Ah, dZeus beat me to it. I'm with dZ, and that means a lot!

[Umfriend]

Actually, the "legalization" of cannabis in the Netherlands is a disaster. Shops may have limited stock and sell freely (to 18+). But the rest of the supply chain is illegal and punishable. Hence, high prices and a criminal crew making shitloads of money without any control on production.

Sure, there will be people that can't deal with it. There are such now. Goes for many things in life. But the bigger picture is that there are milions of people who are limited in their freedom, that billions of euros end up with really bad people who victimise anyone who is an obstruction to them, the our law enforcements spend billions on the WoD wheras health/FDA type control would be beneficial to the public and far cheaper.

[dZeus]

I'm not debating that there are people that can work and be productive even despite an addiction (maybe even thanks to the addiction), but my guess is that more people would not be able to handle it responsibly.
A stupid comparison: if everybody would drive responsibly, there would be no need for speed cameras, or many of the road legislation governments would find different ways to finance budget deficits

Well, I must admit it is an interesting point... but the legalization of cannabis in the Netherlands was (and still is) not without its problems...
But I do agree that providing a more non-illegal means for people to get their drugs would tend to decrease criminality. But I'm just weary of the side effects it would bring along (more addicts?), which is why it is such a difficult matter.

here, I corrected it for you.

Oh, and cannabis is not legalized in the Netherlands. I think it should be though. The current situation is rather mad where criminal organizations make lots of money on the production/supply side, and costs a lot of money for law enforcement to crack down on them while sales/consumption, while illegal, is tolerated. Legalizing it probably would get rid of most of the issues of the current implementation of the policy. Though it be best if it was only allowed to be sold to inhabitants of the Netherlands, to prevent drug tourism in the border areas.

[VJ]

Oh, come on! Millions of users in the US who function in challenging high-demanding functions. Millions of users who kicked the habit just cause they grew over it. How many users, pray tell me, fell of the wagon that could have been prevented had drug abuse not been illegal (and therefore tremendously costly) and stigmatised. Sure, it should be discouraged as smoking and alcohol-abuse is (that is actually my position, thanks for the support!).

I'm not debating that there are people that can work and be productive even despite an addiction (maybe even thanks to the addiction), but my guess is that more people would not be able to handle it responsibly.
A stupid comparison: if everybody would drive responsibly, there would be no need for speed cameras, or many of the road legislation

And then, my question remains unanswered. What would be the consumer-price of these substances if their production and sale were supervised but legal and how many people would not choose to become criminal, solely to support a habit?

Well, I must admit it is an interesting point... but the legalization of cannabis in the Netherlands was (and still is) not without its problems...
But I do agree that providing a more non-illegal means for people to get their drugs would tend to decrease criminality. But I'm just weary of the side effects it would bring along (more addicts?), which is why it is such a difficult matter. It is not a decision one country should make, as this would bring in drug tourism etc.

[Umfriend]

He might have been a human being if he could simply have gotten a fix at a buck or 2. He might not have been occupied with worry over his next fix either. He might not have had to use a dirty needle. Is it your position that the experiences with heroin addicts would be similar had it been a legal substance?

[Brian Ellis]

Cigarettes are just as bad as Heroin.
Nicotine is a very very addictive drug, which would be banned today if it came out now.

It is slowly going that way, not by legislation but by stigmatising smokers and restricting where they can practise their habit. Results:
- large decrease in the number of smokers in all countries where such restrictions are in place
- reduction of tax revenues
- improvement in public health (slow, may take 20-30 years for full effect)
- tobacco companies diversifying

However, if you had ever had anything to do with a heroin addict, you would know damn well that comparing him/her with a tobacco addict is ridiculous. I used to smoke 60+/day but gave it up cold turkey, as have millions of others. OK, I was a bear with a sore head for 2-3 weeks, but nothing compared to heroin withdrawal, the sheer agony of which is what causes addicts to turn to any means to get their fix. I saw my ex-employee when he could not get a dose; he was hardly a human being. Methadone did not help much. He kept asking for his job back and I said he could have it when he was clean and he tried, oh, how he tried, going to all lengths, but he could not do it. Eventually, a dirty needle did it for him; his general condition was so poor (malnutrition, diverse infections, in a special hostel that was so overloaded with desperate cases) that he succumbed in about 6 months from diagnosis (this was about 30 years ago). In two years, he had gone from being a first-class electronics technician doing a good job for me, via a total wreck, into the grave. Quel gaspillage d'une vie The only good thing is that he managed to keep away from the police. Never, ever, try to tell me that nicotine is socially the same as heroin (and I hate to think how much he had cost the collectivity over the last year of his life: at least enough to match my salary + bonuses as CEO over 5-10 years).