The Wall

[BananaStand]

Your opinion without any factual basis does not constitute a debunk.

It's not my opinion. And the factual basis is that there are millions, if not billions, of people in the world who enjoy alcohol without a problem. Do you know any 'social heroin users'? Any "casual crack heads" out there?

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Addictive_Properties

Thanks

Of the people who sample a particular substance, what portion will become physiologically or psychologically dependent on the drug for some period of time? Heroin and methamphetamine are the most addictive by this measure. Cocaine, pentobarbital (a fast-acting sedative), nicotine and alcohol are next

Heroin, cocaine, and meth are all more addictive than alcohol.

In a large, nationally representative sample of US adults, the cumulative probability of transition to dependence was highest for nicotine users, followed by cocaine users, alcohol users and, lastly, cannabis users. - See more at: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Addi....Ul73dGrm.dpuf

Again, cocaine > alcohol. This particular study only focused on those four drugs. Heroin and meth were not evaluated, but can you guess where they might rank on this list?

Findings: MCDA [multicriteria decision analysis] modelling showed that heroin, crack cocaine, and methamphetamine were the most harmful drugs to individuals

That quote goes on to say that alcohol is the most harmful drug overall, because it ranks high in harm caused to others. That's a bit of a loaded stat in my opinion. If coke were more prevalent, there would probably be more people driving cars while on coke. The illegal status of hard drugs tends to lead them to be consumed in private, which obviously diminishes the harm they might cause to others.

However, if you could buy meth at a convenience store, or swing into applebees for a burger and a line of coke, I suspect the data would be different.

Did someone say there was?

Isn't that what you've been touting? That drugs are "legal" in some places, and those places don't have problems.

Governments all around the world have been doing this for a century with legal drugs, alcohol, tobacco etc.

Yeah....and how's that going? I live in a state that holds a monopoly on liquor sales. If you want booze, you buy it from the state. Businesses and private citizens both must buy their vodka from the gov't. Profits from that business fund just 1% of the state's total revenue. https://www.nh.gov/transparentnh/whe...ey-comes-from/

That's also just part of the story. It only shows money coming in from alcohol use. It doesn't show money going out. Surely there are more traffic patrols needed. Hospitals must be seeing more patients. On and on...you already know all the downsides to alcohol use.

So it's not clear that legalizing alcohol, and strictly controlling the market, has done any good for the government. So how can you say...

If drugs were legal, sold by government sanctioned parties, taxed and monitored, purity and safety measured etc. things could be quite a lot better in pretty much every conceivable sense.

I've just demonstrated how doing that adds very little, if any economic benefit to the government. What you're saying there is a nice dream, but it's just not the reality.

Oh so if someone started advertising meth, then you'd start?

Someone would. Do you really think advertising doesn't work?

[CoccoBill]

It's not my opinion. And the factual basis is that there are millions, if not billions, of people in the world who enjoy alcohol without a problem. Do you know any 'social heroin users'? Any "casual crack heads" out there?

Please show me proof that

"Heroin is addictive immediately"
"One hit of heroin and you become a vegetable"

I'm familiar with the risks and harms of heroin, probably quite a lot better than you, having lost a close family member to it. I also know far too many people with serious alcohol problems. By odds alone, I'd bet that one of the doctors that have been treating you in your lifetime have abused opiates.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/819223

Thanks

You're welcome.

Heroin, cocaine, and meth are all more addictive than alcohol.

In some sense yes, but as you can see from the chart, they have relatively similar overall addictive qualities.

Again, cocaine > alcohol.

Ok, I prefer alcohol.

That quote goes on to say that alcohol is the most harmful drug overall, because it ranks high in harm caused to others. That's a bit of a loaded stat in my opinion. If coke were more prevalent, there would probably be more people driving cars while on coke. The illegal status of hard drugs tends to lead them to be consumed in private, which obviously diminishes the harm they might cause to others.

I would think it's the most meaningful stat. What anyone does without harming others should be their own business.

Isn't that what you've been touting? That drugs are "legal" in some places, and those places don't have problems.

That is much closer to what I've been "touting", yes. I've never said that those places don't have problems though, just that they've had less problems than before they were "legal".

Yeah....and how's that going? I live in a state that holds a monopoly on liquor sales. If you want booze, you buy it from the state. Businesses and private citizens both must buy their vodka from the gov't. Profits from that business fund just 1% of the state's total revenue. https://www.nh.gov/transparentnh/whe...ey-comes-from/

I think the 1% of the total budget in gains is much better than 0%.

That's also just part of the story. It only shows money coming in from alcohol use. It doesn't show money going out. Surely there are more traffic patrols needed. Hospitals must be seeing more patients. On and on...you already know all the downsides to alcohol use.

Where I live alcohol and tobacco are taxed heavily. Government holds a sales monopoly for alcohol over 4.7%. Both tobacco and alcohol provide according to studies a net income for the government, a rather significant one too. And this in a country with single payer universal healthcare. For the society as a whole they are most likely a net loss, but a lot of the burden falls to private companies who have to deal with absences from work due to illness etc. Yet, these costs are there regardless of the legal status of the substances, I think it's much preferable to have at the minimum some tax income to compensate.

I've just demonstrated how doing that adds very little, if any economic benefit to the government. What you're saying there is a nice dream, but it's just not the reality.

Um nope, don't think so.

Someone would. Do you really think advertising doesn't work?

How many? Think of all the people who've never done drugs, how many of them really are only stopped by legislation? How many out of a hundred? 50? 10? 0.0001? Then think again about the possibility of a complete dismantling of the illegal drug trade. How many lives would that be worth?

[BananaStand]

I'm familiar with the risks and harms of heroin, probably quite a lot better than you, having lost a close family member to it. I also know far too many people with serious alcohol problems.

So what % of heroin users that you know, have died? What % of alcohol users? If you know 'far too many', I'm guessing they must have a better life expectancy.

In some sense yes, but as you can see from the chart, they have relatively similar overall addictive qualities.

The chart looks a little subjective to me, but scroll down, there's another chart that ranks drugs by harmful-ness. Once again hard drugs > alcohol.

I would think it's the most meaningful stat. What anyone does without harming others should be their own business.

Even if they have no control over it? You don't perceive addicts as 'victims'? At least to some degree?

I think the 1% of the total budget in gains is much better than 0%.

Not necessarily. If it costs you more in health care, traffic enforcement, etc, and the NET gain is negative....then I would prefer to leave it at 0%

For the society as a whole they are most likely a net loss,

So why would you seek to increase that loss by legalizing more substances?

but a lot of the burden falls to private companies who have to deal with absences from work due to illness etc.

Why does it matter where the burden falls? It's still a burden. And companies will deal with that by raising prices, or by lowering their costs (wages). Who does that fall on?

How many? Think of all the people who've never done drugs, how many of them really are only stopped by legislation?

Alot probably. Impossible to count obviously. But you're being especially glib. I'm sure you're smarter than this, so I'm not sure why you keep beating this drum. There are LOTS of ways drug use could permeate a culture if it were more widely available, and the risks associated with its use were diminished.

[CoccoBill]

So what % of heroin users that you know, have died? What % of alcohol users? If you know 'far too many', I'm guessing they must have a better life expectancy.

May I just ask how these are relevant to anything? Is death the only harm that should be considered? And even if it was, does alcohol kill? Does cannabis?

The chart looks a little subjective to me, but scroll down, there's another chart that ranks drugs by harmful-ness. Once again hard drugs > alcohol.

Thank you for telling me what's in the link I posted. Let's assume for a second that your red herring about there existing some substances more harmful than alcohol has any bearing on this discussion. Compare on that table the harmfulness of alcohol to "hard drugs". Then compare the harmfulness of alcohol to cannabis, LSD, and ecstasy. Which pair are more closely related?

The point isn't what's harmful and what's not, even though tobacco and alcohol undeniably are among the most harmful. The point is that all of these substances are already available to everyone interested in them. It's about what we're going to do about it. So far we've tried fighting it with everything we got and failed miserably.

Even if they have no control over it? You don't perceive addicts as 'victims'? At least to some degree?

They are victims in a sense in many cases, sure. So what?

Not necessarily. If it costs you more in health care, traffic enforcement, etc, and the NET gain is negative....then I would prefer to leave it at 0%

If then else. Obviously. If you have facts to prove that this is the case always, sure, the argument would not stand. I don't believe that's the case though.

So why would you seek to increase that loss by legalizing more substances?

There would first have to be an increase, and as we've discussed already many times over, there are far more moving parts in this than that. Among other things this: http://www.drugsense.org/cms/wodclock

Why does it matter where the burden falls? It's still a burden. And companies will deal with that by raising prices, or by lowering their costs (wages). Who does that fall on?

The burden would be far far worse if there wasn't any tax income from alcohol and tobacco, and the whole cost would fall on the society. I would even say the situation would be unsustainable.

Alot probably. Impossible to count obviously. But you're being especially glib. I'm sure you're smarter than this, so I'm not sure why you keep beating this drum. There are LOTS of ways drug use could permeate a culture if it were more widely available, and the risks associated with its use were diminished.

All evidence we have suggests legalizing drugs will not increase and likely will decrease consumption. All evidence we have also suggests criminalizing drugs increases drug consumption and brings a myriad of other problems.

I don't see how that's glib. There isn't even anything too controversial about the data. You're just basing your objections on abstract fear, somewhat faulty preconceptions and morals. There's no scientific, physical, biological or chemical property that differentiates illegal drugs from legal drugs and intoxicants. Many illegal drugs are less harmful than their legal counterparts. Many legal drugs are as addictive and harmful as illegal ones. Many legal drugs can be and are used recreationally. Many illegal drugs, such as cannabis, lsd, ketamine and ecstasy have promising medical uses. The only real difference is an arbitrary legal status.

[BananaStand]

The point isn't what's harmful and what's not, even though tobacco and alcohol undeniably are among the most harmful. The point is that all of these substances are already available to everyone interested in them. It's about what we're going to do about it. So far we've tried fighting it with everything we got and failed miserably.

Bolded is monumentally false. "everything we got" would include securing the southern border, over which tons and tons and tons of illicit drugs come into the country. It's like if someone broke into your car every single night. You tried calling the cops, you tried using an alarm, you tried security cameras in your driveway, and many other measures. You can't say you're given it "everything you got" until you try locking your car door at night.

They are victims in a sense in many cases, sure. So what?

So who's job is it to seek justice for that victimization? Who's job is it to protect others from becoming victims?

If then else. Obviously. If you have facts to prove that this is the case always, sure, the argument would not stand. I don't believe that's the case though.

Now I'm confused. You said....

For the society as a whole they are most likely a net loss,

There would first have to be an increase, and as we've discussed already many times over, there are far more moving parts in this than that. Among other things this: http://www.drugsense.org/cms/wodclock

Nice link...the fact remains that less than 5% of prison inmates, less than 0.1% at the federal level, are in jail just for possessing drugs. The idea that massive expenditures in the war on drugs would disappear if they were legalized has no basis in reality.

The burden would be far far worse if there wasn't any tax income from alcohol and tobacco, and the whole cost would fall on the society. I would even say the situation would be unsustainable.

Ok, but there is tax income from alcohol and tobacco. That doesn't mean we have to apply that standard to every substance there is. If we agree that the net effect is negative, and a burden......why do you support adding ANOTHER burden? If it's your position that it's possible for a burden to become so large it's unsustainable....why would you move toward that?

All evidence we have suggests legalizing drugs will not increase and likely will decrease consumption. All evidence we have also suggests criminalizing drugs increases drug consumption and brings a myriad of other problems.

Fake news!!
Alcohol consumption dropped almost 30 percent at the onset of prohibition. Illegality was a deterrent.
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/op...a-success.html

There's no scientific, physical, biological or chemical property that differentiates illegal drugs from legal drugs and intoxicants.

Except for addictive-ness and higher risk of overdose.

Many illegal drugs are less harmful than their legal counterparts. Many legal drugs are as addictive and harmful as illegal ones. Many legal drugs can be and are used recreationally.

You'll get no argument from me there. I believe the entire psychiatric community are just legalized drug dealers. If that's a problem, we should fix it. We shouldn't just say "fuck it, make everything legal then". You're driving in the wrong direction.

[CoccoBill]

Bolded is monumentally false. "everything we got" would include securing the southern border, over which tons and tons and tons of illicit drugs come into the country. It's like if someone broke into your car every single night. You tried calling the cops, you tried using an alarm, you tried security cameras in your driveway, and many other measures. You can't say you're given it "everything you got" until you try locking your car door at night.

...since a locked car has never been broken into? Building a wall would probably hinder drug trafficking by land from the south, but do nothing about any other direction, nor drugs coming by air, sea, tunnels or manufactured locally. If you think a wall would solve the problem, or even make a significant dent, it's you who's delusional. As long as there's demand there's going to be supply. It's practically impossible to even keep prisons drug free, how on earth do you think it's possible to do for an entire huge country?

So who's job is it to seek justice for that victimization? Who's job is it to protect others from becoming victims?

There's a massive correlation with drug abuse and social status. Diverting some of that drug war money to welfare, medical and rehabilitation would imo be the best way to help the victims.

Nice link...the fact remains that less than 5% of prison inmates, less than 0.1% at the federal level, are in jail just for possessing drugs. The idea that massive expenditures in the war on drugs would disappear if they were legalized has no basis in reality.

As has been said many times already, this isn't just about possession charges but all drug related crime. How big is the black market for alcohol in the United States? How many deaths per year by competing alcohol gangs? How about during alcohol prohibition times?

Ok, but there is tax income from alcohol and tobacco. That doesn't mean we have to apply that standard to every substance there is. If we agree that the net effect is negative, and a burden......why do you support adding ANOTHER burden? If it's your position that it's possible for a burden to become so large it's unsustainable....why would you move toward that?

That's exactly the point, without taxation alcohol and tobacco would be an enormous financial burden now. By lifting the prohibition on alcohol and starting controlled distribution and taxing of it the problem has been alleviated tremendously. Same can be done for all of the rest.

Fake news!!
Alcohol consumption dropped almost 30 percent at the onset of prohibition. Illegality was a deterrent.
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/op...a-success.html

Right. What about after the onset.

"By the greatest majority of indicators, the biggest drops in alcohol consumption and alcohol problems actually came before national prohibition went into effect. Those drops continued for about the first two years of Prohibition and then alcohol consumption began to rise. By 1926, most of the problems were worse than they had been before Prohibition went into effect and there were a number of new problems -- such as a drinking epidemic among children -- that had not been there before."

http://www.druglibrary.org/prohibitionresults1.htm

Except for addictive-ness and higher risk of overdose.

As already evidenced by the stats you've also been quoting, alcohol for example is right up there with the big boys in addictiveness, as are a lot of prescription drugs. Overdoses then?

"Prescription drug abuse causes the largest percentage of deaths from drug overdosing. Of the 22,400 drug overdose deaths in the US in 2005, opioid painkillers were the most commonly found drug, accounting for 38.2% of these deaths."

http://www.drugfreeworld.org/drugfac...tatistics.html

You'll get no argument from me there. I believe the entire psychiatric community are just legalized drug dealers. If that's a problem, we should fix it. We shouldn't just say "fuck it, make everything legal then". You're driving in the wrong direction.

I hope you'll realize that's a purely emotional response based on fear and morality, not on facts. I used to be passionately against drugs and all for ever harsher measures too.

[BananaStand]

If you think a wall would solve the problem, or even make a significant dent, it's you who's delusional

One of us is definitely delusional. And you're the one who *imagined* that I would support a wall. You do the math.

There's a massive correlation with drug abuse and social status. Diverting some of that drug war money to welfare, medical and rehabilitation would imo be the best way to help the victims.

I would bet a lung that the vast majority of junkies in the USA are already on welfare.

As has been said many times already, this isn't just about possession charges but all drug related crime. How big is the black market for alcohol in the United States? How many deaths per year by competing alcohol gangs? How about during alcohol prohibition times?

That's a false narrative. Organized crime, and it's associated violence, was heavily on the rise prior to prohibition. Alcohol just gave them something to do. If alcohol were kept legal, they would have wreaked havoc through stolen goods, prostitution, or gambling.

Right. What about after the onset.

You mean AFTER a black market had time to develop, and the ways to access it had spread through word of mouth (it's not like they could text each other, or post on craigslist, back then).....yeah, ok, it went up. That's kinda my point. It went down when everyone thought it was gone, and illegal, and had no access to it. As that changed, usage went up. So, what do you think will happen if they started selling 8-balls at Trader Joe's?

As already evidenced by the stats you've also been quoting, alcohol for example is right up there with the big boys in addictiveness, as are a lot of prescription drugs. Overdoses then?

You're making my point for me again. Prescription drugs are legal, but tightly controlled. The government decides who can sell them and who can't. Sales are heavily regulated, and taxed, exactly the way you're proposing we do for other hard drugs.

Yet there is STILL a black market for those substances. There are STILL people going to jail. There is STILL violence. People are STILL getting addicted and abusing the drug. Open any newspaper and you'll find talk about the opioid epidemic, or the opioid crisis in America. That's a drug that is exactly as legal as you're suggesting coke and heroin should be. And it's going poorly.