HRC: We can't legalize, there's too much money in it.

I don't support the war on drugs as it is. But I will take a shot at why someone might (other than the "there's money in enforcement"/"we want to hamper constitutional rights" aspects) from mostly a devil's advocate position. (I'll be referring to alcohol prohibition as "Prohibition")

1. We are well aware of the costs of Prohibition in the form of increased mob violence. We probably downplay any of the benefits of Prohibition. We also downplay the negative consequences of Prohibition's repeal, from DUI deaths to an increase in sexual assaults, regular assaults and other crimes.

2. Alcohol is a less dangerous, less addictive drug than most of the stuff that we currently have illegal with the exception of marijuana. Thus, there's a arguably a greater need to prohibit most of the drugs that we do than there was for alcohol.

The trouble is there is little guarantee that people who get hooked on non-marijuana drugs would use the stuff without hurting others.

If crack were $1 a hit and as available wherever you could buy cigarettes, it's pretty likely that more people would become addicted to the point of being non-functional and turn to crime to support their habit.

I think its interesting the way you state the above post. Because in the great abortion, one of the reasons for having abortion legal is not to far off from some of the comments you have made in the above post.

And it would be irresponsible to set such a price point. It would also be silly to think that, simply because it was legal, that this is the way drugs like crack would be dispensed. Marijuana, perhaps, but crack no.

Legalization doesn't mean that the law allows for stupid or irresponsible distribution.

That's a contrived, stacked, worst-case-scenario argument.

If mj, or any of the list of banned drugs were to be legalized, in my opinion it would be heavily regulated just like alcohol is in the country. It was also be a financial win for the government because it would create a new revenue stream.

Irresponsible on whose part?

The companies that sell crack?

If the good is legal, then the market would set the price for crack, right?

With crack being illegal, I believe you can buy crack (obviously with no personal experience) for $5 to $10.

The fact that crack is illegal is a big factor in why the price is that high.

But even if the price remained in the $5 range, it doesn't really change the underlying point.

It might be an exaggeration that crack would be available "wherever you could buy cigarettes." It may not be.

Whatever the actual distribution network, it would be more widely available than it is currently.

Let's say crack was available, but only with a prescription.

You would still run into most of the problems you have today with a crack black market. Legalization wouldn't change much.

That isn't really even a good argument for abortion, but one really isn't necessary since, for all intents and purposes, abortion is legal.

It would seem that, in both instances, the sensible foundation for making both legal is one of privacy. There are just some things in which the government shouldn't meddle.

In the case of drugs, just as it is for alcohol, there should be consequences for bad or criminal behavior which has resulted from their use. The idea that there'd be a significant increase in incidents related to drug consumption is pulled right out of the "Reefer Madness" mindset.

^While marijuana is no more harmful AFAIK than alcohol and probably less, it's pretty clear that a lot of other crimes are tied to the use of harder drugs and the higher level of addiction to them.

A fair amount of prostitution, robberies, burglaries and assaults are directly linked to people needing drugs and doing whatever it will take to get them.

And while I suppose that there might be a good amount of law-abiding heroin and crack users, it seems self-evident that the increased availability of such drugs will also lead to the increased abuse of such drugs and an increase in the users who commit crimes to stay on those drugs.

You're right.

Keep it illegal. There's little reason to step away from the abysmal failure that is American drug prohibition. Why give it a try when the current status quo can keep funneling mountains of cash to vicious criminals (both at home and abroad) and the decaying and often corrupt enforcement infrastructure.

Then again, it is the American way not to learn from past mistakes.

Nicotine is about as addictive as heroin. Cigarettes are getting more and more expensive.

How many people turn to crime to support their addiction to nicotine?

If the number is high, that is an argument for making tobacco illegal. If the number is low, it indicates that your scenario is a bit too heavy on the "scare factor" side.

I agree. Unfortunately, the reality of the matter is that it will take some significant change in both Congress and the White House before the the ban is ever removed.

Indian reservations love all the taxes on cigarettes. It helps them because a lot of people end up purchasing cigarettes from them since they aren't taxed there.

One big difference is that it is completely normal to be a pack-a-day smoker and still be able to mentally and physically hold down a job. Or at least, until you get hit with all the lung, heart and other diseases that smoking causes.

While, as I said, it's possible to be addicted to crack and heroin and still be fully functional, fully contributing members of society, those people are presumably the exception and not the rule.

Shades of reefer madness. Drugs don't make people turn to crime; the high price and illegality of drugs do, especially on the large scale. The homeless who aren't on drugs don't turn to crime to eat, because food is cheap.

While marijuana does not have the effects shown in "Reefer Madness," harder drugs are far more addictive and behavior-altering.

As I said, some drugs are relatively cheap. If I'm not mistaken, a dime bag of crack=$10.

The problem is that when most people get on drugs like that, they lose the will, if not the ability, to hold down a conventional job and continue their habit.

I'd imagine there are plenty of people who are homeless who do turn to crime because they can't afford food, cheap as it is.

Keeping it illegal also keeps the disincentive to seek help strong. Those people, who are out there buying it, "on the cheap" as you say, aren't going to risk exposure to possible prosecution and incarceration because they fear that's just what will happen if they come forward.

Prohibition defines the criminal behavior, then enables it.

No one is claiming that drug prohibition as it currently is done doesn't have all the problems you've said it does.

All I'm saying is that drug legalization comes with its own set of problems, one of which would likely be the increase in the number of addicts and the crimes perpetrated by those addicts.

That may not be enough reason to keep drugs illegal, but it's at least a reason.

Some people, undoubtedly, who are on drugs say to themselves, "I should get help but I am not going to because I might get arrested."

But there are also plenty of people who do not get on drugs in the first place because they are illegal. The illegality either means that the drugs are not readily available, too expensive/dangerous to physically get the drugs, too risky in that they are worried about being prosecuted for possessing drugs, or possess too much of a stigma.

Making drugs legal unquestionably would mean more people would get on drugs in the first place.

Among those people who are already on drugs, I would think that at least some of them would say to themselves, "I need to kick this because I don't want to get arrested." or "I need to kick this because I don't want to get arrested again."

Whether that sort of incentive to seek help is greater than whatever disincentive to seek help because of illegality no one could say for sure. At a guess, I would say that the illegality of drugs overall gives a greater incentive to seek help.

1. Addicts probably generally know that if they go to a rehab center they aren't going to face prosecution or incarceration. At least, I have never heard of a rehab center that calls the cops on its clients. I suppose that some addicts may incorrectly develop that as a rationalization, but who knows?

2. Most big cities let first and second offenders go to drug school. In other words, it's because the illegality of drugs that many people are put in a place where they might potentially get help. Naturally, you can lead a horse to water but not make them drink, so many people who go to rehab because of court orders don't follow through or relapse. But the percentage of addicts who don't seek help because of the stigma of drugs being illegal or because they irrationally fear being arrested is almost certainly lower than the percentage of addicts who get help because they have been arrested and who wouldn't have otherwise.

College students?

Eh. I've known some functional methheads in my time. Waitresses, mostly. They had no problem balancing their addiction with their jobs, since they knew one was supporting the other. Their only problem was keeping their finances in line, since meth wasn't cheap, and paying the rent wasn't nearly as tempting as getting high. If the cost of drugs dropped considerably, they'd have an even easier time getting by.

I don't know if that's a common occurrence, but I've known a couple of heroin enthusiasts who were able to do the same. I'm not sure that's a good point to argue in this instance. I do believe that drug addiction can be debilitating, and I'd wager that the ones who are non-functioning outnumber the ones who're able to subsist.

No, they don't know that. Social workers will tell you that the threat of prosecution is a palpable concern for people who've drawn that lot.

It's their mindset. While they'll risk a run-in with the law for a "high", because in their minds it's worth the reward, they have no incentive to get help. It's a "steak or stick" choice. "Help" is part of the system, and to the majority of addicts and abusers, there's very little to differentiate the "help" from the hoosegow. Going for counseling or treatment means that they're going to be poked, prodded and, more than likely, lectured to.

The assumption that they "know" that they won't be apprehended etc, is incorrect.

But if it were legal, we'd be overrun by crazed negro reefer addicts looking to steal cars and plow white furrow.

I know it's true, 'cause I saw it in a film from the 1930s.

I don't avoid crack, meth and heroin because they're illegal. I avoid them because they're addictive and destructive.

If I wanted a legal, addictive, destructive drug I'd just smoke cigarettes.

Not in every town. My son's Criminal Justice teachers (cops themselves) basically have bigger fish to fry. Unless they smell it, or come across it during a vehicle search by chance, they don't have time to deal with it - it's just not cost effective.

Sure enough, the crime reports + stats bear this out. Weed is a tiny fraction of the bigger crime picture.

I was referring specifically to the priorities of drug enforcement.

If you go back, even into the 90s, you'll see that pot tracks highest in arrests and successful prosecution (not to mention lengthy sentences).

But is she smarter than Jamey?

Ah, so you're saying she *does* understand, McLuhan. That would make her smarter than you.

I never realized it was a verb.

Portugal's example does not bear out your supposition. The culture is not so different there that their results are meaningless.

Tobacco is harder for minors to get than pot. So much for that.

Certainly at first. But long-term, that's not necessarily the case.

Portugal could say for sure, and has: the disincentive is greater.

The first sentence is entirely unsubstantiated. And when we're talking about addicts, any rationalization to keep using is going to be a lot stronger than it seems on the surface.

Evidence? Specifically, evidence that contradicts the statistics from Portugal?

For me, I have a problem with the "war in drugs" for a couple of reasons. First it does nothing to reduce the use of drugs by those who choose to use. Second it is yet another method for big governmen to try and control us.

Our freedoms and liberties are being chipped away piece by piece while the populace sits quietly allowing it.

As I alluded to earlier, their culture, crime rates and demographics are very different than ours, certainly enough that the results there are not predictive.

It should also be pointed out that Portugal didn't legalize drugs, which is what we have been talking about so far in this thread.

Rather, they "decriminalized" drugs, which means that the possession of drugs is still illegal and fineable. The trafficking of drugs is also illegal.

This may seem like a distinction without a difference, but in fact it is an important difference.

For instance, to the extent that there is a deterrent effect to people seeking help because of drugs being illegal, one would think that some of that deterrent would still exist with drugs being illegal (if not likely to result in incarceration).

1. I don't know that tobacco is harder for minors to get than pot. Tobacco is sold pretty prominently and minors can either use adults to buy their cigs for them, or just hope to get a friendly or indifferent clerk. Not everyone knows where to find a person who deals pot or is willing to deal with them.

2. Even assuming for argument's sake that tobacco is harder for minors to get than pot, it has little to nothing to do with the point I was making.

Clearly, some people do get drugs, alcohol, tobacco and do not care that those things are illegal.

Clearly, there are other people who do not get those things when they are illegal for them because the illegality sets up the aforementioned barriers to getting them.

With tobacco being illegal for minors to get, it doesn't really have any relevance that it is easier to get or harder to get for them than an other illegal substance.

Putting aside the decriminalization/legalization difference for the moment, I don't know anything about Portugal's experience that measured the incentive to seek help among its addicts prior to and after decriminalization.

They can measure the number of people who used to go into treatment before decriminalization and the number of people who went after.

I doubt that they have studied why there has been an increase.

It could be because there's an increase in usage. It could be because there's additional funding.

I'm looking at Glenn Greenwald's paper for the Cato Institute, which is here:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/greenwald_whitepaper.pdf

In my quick skim of it I don't see anything that establishes measures the incentive for self-help versus the fear of criminalization there. There's Greenwald's speculation, but nothing concrete.

Granted, everything I'm saying is based on speculation rather than some study of all addicts or my personal experience.

But it's no secret that in a lot of big cities, we have effectively decriminalized possession of small amounts of drugs. People still get arrested for possession of those small amounts, but the prosecutions effectively get dropped after a point. I personally have watched/participated in preliminary hearings where people who possessed small amounts of drugs got the cases against them dismissed because of this unwritten policy.

I suppose it's possible that in America people could legitimately fear they would be prosecuted if they seek rehab, but this fear would be easily dealt with. Any social worker they approach would tell them the truth.

It's far more likely IMO that anyone citing this as a reason to not seek treatment would just come up with some other reason if they were assured that they wouldn't be prosecuted.

There aren't going to be any meaningful hard statistics on the reasons people do or don't seek treatment.

However, it goes without saying that thousands upon thousands of people are assigned to diversion programs because drugs are illegal.