Don't deal here!

[Jammrock]

BTW, Jamm, I do not use any substance that is illegal in the US.

Didn't think you did, just cracking a joke. It's a little American humor which I'm sure has been used around here before.

The Opium Wars were bad business. Studied them a little in some of my world history classes. Many, including me and my unprofessional opinion, believe opium addiction was a major catalyst that led to the total destabilization of the Imperial Chinese government and all that implies.

The destabilization began by the Opium Wars caused rebellion, civil wars and revolutions for about a century (if you start at the first Opium War), right up to the point that one Mr. Mao Zedong kicked the bucket. If I remember correctly the Qing Dynasty was replaced by a democratic state that never really could control China. That lasted until WW2 when Japan raped, very literally, China. After that Mao took power and China became a secluded Communist state. Good for stabilization, bad for person freedom. The loss of Chinese life from the first Opium War to the end of Mao's reign is somewhere in the tens to hundreds of million of people.

Now, how big of a roll Opium addiction played in this can be debated. Part of the destabilization was caused by Imperial China's inability to keep out foreign invaders (Imperial Britain mostly), who not only were forcing opium trade, but foreign religion, politics and ideals on the Chinese people, but without the opium addiction and profits from it Britain may not have had such a vested interest in China in the first place.

The opium trade by itself was importing an estimated 1400 tons of opium per year to China by 1839, which was when the first war started. By 1885 Chinese were consuming an estimated 39,000 tons of opium per year with an estimated 27% of adult males addicted (see second link). That's a huge chunk of your working/fighting population lost to addiction. I've seen estimates higher than that though.

Found this on Google Books that may be a good read on the subject. I have not read it myself so no idea what it contains.

http://books.google.com/books?id=8LOkbOxyNYwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=opium+wars+percent+china+addicted&source=bl&ots=QmfPj6YdRW&sig=N8kgNDaQIbjeTlcM7lwfFAUZ_Kk&hl=en&ei=X_fWS63bFpLI8wSD2IGFBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

This is a nice link too:

http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/opi010.htm

Anyway, medical mary jane I'm not vehemently opposed to, though still opposed. I think CA's implementation of the law is completely worthless. Since it is a substance that can only be legally obtained by prescription it should be controlled like a prescription and accessible only via a pharmacy like all the other prescription drugs. Not whatever corner store feels like buying a license and growing pot. The heavier stuff...no, not ever, for any reason.

[TransformX]

If it's me that you're asking, I'd leave Cannabis and at least most derivatives alone. That would save huge amounts of money which will be divided between effective alcohol control and the rest of the narcotics.
So yes, the money will go from one pocket to another, though I believe it will serve its purpose much better, will serve society much better and will help the economy flurish by dealing with the real problems - alcohol abuse and more dangerous drugs.

[Umfriend]

I'd have to investigate the opium wars before being ready to take a position on that argument (although having a sovereign acting as pusher does seem to be an inappropriate example).

And no, it's not that I want to draw a line, it's just being pragmatic. Current laws cost huge amounts of money and lives. If I can save most of that by compromising I would not neccessarily have a problem with that.

Are you ready to compromise or would you rather uphold the current costly (in terms of money, lives/health and adverse effects on society) status quo?

BTW, Jamm, I do not use any substance that is illegal in the US.

[VJ]

OK, so how about we keep heroin illicit and free extacy, MJ and coke?

So now YOU are drawing a line at some specific drug?

This means that if you feel it is necessary to draw a line at heroin, it must mean that you also consider there should be a line somewhere at least... TransformX and I have our line "more strict", but just this statement of you seems to indicate that we did manage to convince you that full freedom is not a good solution.

As to where the line should be, I doubt we'll agree as Jammrock states...

[Jammrock]

I postulate that there is a greater chance of a MURCer spontaneously teleporting to the opposite end of the universe than change their position on a political or religious topic. We are a group of some seriously hard headed folks

And my position is that Umf is full of something that is making him see little blue people and seriously needs to get off it or share with everyone else. China, the Opium Wars, and the subsequent downfall of Imperialist China should be enough of a historical example of why mass drug addiction and free drug trade (forced or otherwise) is a bad idea and that the whole argument should be moot. But that's just my position and we all know how likely that is to change.

I'm sure Umf will follow-up with a stunning counter about how Opium had little to nothing to do with the fall of the Chinese Empire or that there are no parallels to the modern political landscape. At which point I would counter with several examples, and Umf would counter with more, and then someone would jump in and provide backup to one of our arguments and then Brian would be teleported to Urukakalak, which is about 10 light-years from the restaurant at the end of the universe, and the debate would finally end with Brian disrupting the beating of the great dead horse of Promnobunobu.

And no I don't do drugs, I am this weird au naturel.

[TransformX]

LOL, all legal substances and I would not be surprised if they were more dangerous than most drugs. I wonder how many people fo to India and Thai to get to drugs, not many from here but then I thought people came to the Netherlands for such experiments. We have few deaths here.

OK, so how about we keep heroin illicit and free extacy, MJ and coke?

I couldn't care less about Cannabis and most derivatives, they aren't half as bad as alcohol, easier and quicker to grow than to produce alcohol etc. I don't really know cocaine all that much, so I can't really judge it. As for Heroin, Crack and some of the other drugs out there like the hallucination crap (datura etc), make it 100% illegal. Simple as that. Why? Because I don't want people with that crap in their blood flow driving or in some cases even walking down my street.

[Umfriend]

LOL, all legal substances and I would not be surprised if they were more dangerous than most drugs. I wonder how many people fo to India and Thai to get to drugs, not many from here but then I thought people came to the Netherlands for such experiments. We have few deaths here.

OK, so how about we keep heroin illicit and free extacy, MJ and coke?

[TransformX]

Why 10 times as much? Because I know how and why most of my friends started smoking and consuming alcohol. I know how many people go to India and Thailand to try all kinds of mind altering drugs and mushrooms. I know all too well that many others who can't afford it, would love having a go at it here.
Things that kids did here so far and ended with a few deaths:
1. Lately - air conditioner gas
2. Glue
3. Eraser fluid thinner
And more than probably some other volatile materials of that sort. If those kids would have legal, risk-free access to the 'real' shit, do you really think they'd hesitate? Do you have any idea how many youngsters wait for their 18th birthday to get their first (legal) drink? Do you know how many kids in the states forge their ID so they can consume alcohol?
If we have it your way, we'll have them doing Heroin with the same ease. If you compare alcohol consumption and Heroin consumption, you'll notice a funny thing: the percentage of heroin addicts is much larger than that of alcoholics. So if Heroin becomes legal, 10 times as many addicts is a very very cautious figure.

[Umfriend]

First, the simple notion that most heroin deaths (and why are we focussing on possibly the most dangerous drug only?) are pure heroin OD cases is debatable.
Second, given that a lot of risks associated with drug use are pretty short-term, it is likely that many users would be cautious (as opposed to tobacco and alcohol from which it is very hard to die instantly). White-market operations would be beneficial to users excerting caution.
Third, we disgree on alcohol then. I wonder whether you'd be in favor of dosing simple food which, when used in abundance and it is more so every day, causes health problems and early death.
Forthly, serving alcohol below 16 is punishable here. I'm not saying it does not occur but where it does, businesses are closed down. Businesses that would be profitable even if they served as intended. The cost to the business owner is high therefore as its intended customers can easilly get product elsewhere whereas in the trade of illicit drugs all users will seek and find illicit suppliers. Far better to have cheap and realtively easy supply by people who have some morals and business incentive than to restrict trade to people without scrupoules.
Fifth, as many people do not try cigarettes and alcohol, with low short-term risks, I am not convinced that many non-users would start trying riskier drugs. People of 18 and older are less inclined already to experiment.
Finally, a black market exists. It will be far harder to find customers in a black market if there is a white one. 10 times as many addicts I'll take with a grain of salt, where is your support for that notion? In the US alone, direct cost of the war on drugs exceeds 30 bln per annum (and that, apparantly excludes the imprisonment of some 400,000 people, many of those for a victimless crime).

Anyway, I'll be working, won't be around for some time. But keep it coming.

[TransformX]

As VJ said, people OD because they're looking for their first experience (usually the strongest) after their body got used to a certain drug, so they increase the dosage.

I do advocate a ban on alcohol. If it wasn't needed for religious use, I think there'd be a ban on it in many countries by now.

Selling and serving alcohol to teens under 18 years of age is illegal in Israel and many other countries, yet many establishments do so against the law, taking all the assoaciated risks. That pretty much drops the ground under Umfriend's claim.

If drugs are legal, like beer and cigarettes, many people who otherwise wouldn't dare of trying them, will. It's a simple matter of curiosity. Satisfying your curiosity with something illegal and of dubious quality at best is hard, expensive and risky. Satisfying your curiosity with something legal, of controlled quality is fun!

Like for any other controlled substance, a black market will form and crime will thrive, only in this scenario, you'll have 10 times as many addicts, 10 times as many people who don't contribute to the economy and 10 times as many people who cost the tax payer with wellfare and health bills.

[VJ]

- As I said, there would be no limit on dosage so no revertion to illegality.
- True, and some die due to freely available coughing-sirup.
- As it is now, the question is whether that would increase substantially. Will someone acknowledge that there are millions of users who function well?
- True, drugs are a bad thing. Do you advocate a ban on alcohol? Any idea what havoc that would cause?
- Perhaps. Then again, at least we would avoid health issues due to bad product.
- Again, I would not regulate doses. Just the dosage of standardised product by no one would stop you from taking two pills or whatever.

The cough sirop is true, but it is a far less addictive product than the drugs... So precentage wise this will always be a much lower number.
By not regulating the dose, you are steering people towards OD: the reason people OD is because a result of frequent use is that they need a higher dose to get the same result. Consequently, I doubt your health argument holds water.
I agree that there are users that function well, but for every one person that functions well, I'm equally sure there are dozens that don't.

[Brian Ellis]

There are millions of users who function in society.

They may "function", but are they doing so on all 4 cylinders? I submit that many, if not most, of them have only 3 or fewer cylinders working. This applies equally to tobacco and alcohol. Alcohol metabolism is very complex and even a glass of wine with your evening meal will leave toxins that will affect your performance the following day, even if your BAC is quasi-zero. Smoking (even second hand) affects the natural cardiac pacemaking for quite long periods and this can have an effect on your performance, as well. Harder drugs will have even more effect.

[Belwarrior]

I'm a bit late in posting this but that guy and his wife got it easy.

Here in singapore, they both would have been sentenced to death by hanging. its not humane but still a necessary harsh deterrent.

see the link below for the limit of drugs you could have on yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Singapore

[Umfriend]

While I agree on principle, you are overlooking a lot of side effects:
- (some) people will want higher dosages, as TransformX suggests, thus going back to illegality and crime
- some people will want to try other even more dangerous drugs
- some people will not work properly in society anymore, loosing their jobs and thus without the means to support their addiction
- alcohol is easy to come by, and see what damages it does to personal lives
- larger group suffering health problems related to the drugs themselves (see tobacco and alcohol)
- ...
And even simpler: how can you regulate the doses people buy if you want to have it available to people? The only way seems prescriptions, but who would then write them? And even that is not failsafe.
It is a nice thought exercise, but I feel it is just opening a big can of worms...

- As I said, there would be no limit on dosage so no revertion to illegality.
- True, and some die due to freely available coughing-sirup.
- As it is now, the question is whether that would increase substantially. Will someone acknowledge that there are millions of users who function well?
- True, drugs are a bad thing. Do you advocate a ban on alcohol? Any idea what havoc that would cause?
- Perhaps. Then again, at least we would avoid health issues due to bad product.
- Again, I would not regulate doses. Just the dosage of standardised product by no one would stop you from taking two pills or whatever.

A can of worms? Try the war on drugs. Try the hold drug-cartels have on society in the Netherlands, the US, Mexico, Columbia, south-east Asia and Afghanistan for starters.

[VJ]

While I agree on principle, you are overlooking a lot of side effects:
- (some) people will want higher dosages, as TransformX suggests, thus going back to illegality and crime
- some people will want to try other even more dangerous drugs
- some people will not work properly in society anymore, loosing their jobs and thus without the means to support their addiction
- alcohol is easy to come by, and see what damages it does to personal lives
- larger group suffering health problems related to the drugs themselves (see tobacco and alcohol)
- ...
And even simpler: how can you regulate the doses people buy if you want to have it available to people? The only way seems prescriptions, but who would then write them? And even that is not failsafe.
It is a nice thought exercise, but I feel it is just opening a big can of worms...