• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Ten Years After Decriminalization, Drug Abuse Down by Half in Portugal

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
No he won't. If Obama didn't do it none of these assholes will. And why is that? It's because our government is no longer in control of this country.
uh Obama had no plan of ending it, he just wanted youth votes. lol@you for falling for it.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,267
3
76
The war on drugs is one of the worst government policies ever to have been created. Not only has it been a catastrophe inside of the US, it has horrible destabilizing spillover effects to other countries. (Afghanistan, Mexico, Colombia, etc)

What's strange about this is that we have a nearly perfect historical comparison in Prohibition. An intoxicant was made illegal, it spawned a vast criminal enterprise, and enforcement was both destructive and ineffective. What did we do with that information? We decided to repeat it x10.

All drugs should be legalized and regulated. All of them. When we survey kids and find it's easier for them to buy schedule 1 drugs than it is to buy a beer... and the whole purpose of criminalizing drugs is to stop people from getting and using them, we have a huge problem.
Finally you have made some sense.
 

Pr0d1gy

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2005
7,776
0
76
uh Obama had no plan of ending it, he just wanted youth votes. lol@you for falling for it.
Of course he planned on ending it. He sent out memos asking federal prosecutors to stop raiding and prosecuting people acting within state laws (i.e. dispensaries and their customers). Of course the DEA directly defied him proving what I said, that our government is no longer in control.

lol @ you for being uneducated.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,267
3
76
A lot of the time, prescription drugs and street drugs are literally the same thing.
So do you look at people that do heroin the same as people that take say OxyContin? I ask because, well, you're right, there is literally no difference between someone that takes heroin and someone that takes Oxy. The exact same chemical process is going on, the same addiction, the same withdrawal, etc ...same with all opiate/opiods.
 

tcG

Golden Member
Jul 31, 2006
1,202
18
81
The war on drugs is one of the worst government policies ever to have been created. Not only has it been a catastrophe inside of the US, it has horrible destabilizing spillover effects to other countries. (Afghanistan, Mexico, Colombia, etc)

What's strange about this is that we have a nearly perfect historical comparison in Prohibition. An intoxicant was made illegal, it spawned a vast criminal enterprise, and enforcement was both destructive and ineffective. What did we do with that information? We decided to repeat it x10.

All drugs should be legalized and regulated. All of them. When we survey kids and find it's easier for them to buy schedule 1 drugs than it is to buy a beer... and the whole purpose of criminalizing drugs is to stop people from getting and using them, we have a huge problem.
*delete*

EDIT: While it is true that there are measurable, practical benefits to legalizing all drugs, I wonder if you would still favor their legalization if the benefits weren't so clear (or even harms), on the basis that it is not the government's proper function to restrict the action, deemed to be self-harming, of free individuals. I think this principle of personal responsibility and freedom is the more fundamental issue when it comes to what the laws should be for drugs or all behaviors that are only self-harmful.

If you argue otherwise - that individuals should be restricted by government from engaging in actions which harm nobody but that individual - then I think you must conclude that alcohol and tobacco too, which are far more harmful than illegal drugs, should be prohibited.

In short, I'm trying to say suppose that the anti-legalization arguments are correct - that legalization would result in more crime, more drug abuse, etc. Would it then make sense to continue prohibition? I think there are arguments that can be made based on principle and freedom rather than mere practical benefit which also support the legalization of all drugs. The same arguments apply to other areas where government protects people from themselves, but I don't think you accept these. My question is if you accept the self-responsibility argument when it comes to drugs, then why not in the other areas?
 
Last edited:

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,999
1
81
So do you look at people that do heroin the same as people that take say OxyContin? I ask because, well, you're right, there is literally no difference between someone that takes heroin and someone that takes Oxy. The exact same chemical process is going on, the same addiction, the same withdrawal, etc ...same with all opiate/opiods.
There's probably a dramatic difference in the time to come up and come down. I'll use antidepressants as the example. Paxil is an SSRI with a half-life around 1 day. Prozac has a half-life of about 1 week. Even though they both have vaguely similar effects, Paxil is a much stronger addiction to break. When it crashes, it crashes fast and it feels horrible. Prozac and its metabolites take such a ridiculously long time to leave your system that you can skip several days worth and not really feel much of a withdrawal. It's a very gradual come down.


In short, I'm trying to say suppose that the anti-legalization arguments are correct - that legalization would result in more crime, more drug abuse, etc. Would it then make sense to continue prohibition?
Yes it would. It would be illegal for the same reason drunk driving is illegal. At some point we draw a line in the sand and don't allow people to do whatever the hell they want. This is why it's very important to get the numbers out there and show that the war does more harm than good. The war on drugs feels like a good cause until you realize it makes the problem worse. I would advocate executing drug addicts if I was absolutely certain it would improve society.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,267
3
76
There's probably a dramatic difference in the time to come up and come down.
The only things that changes it is the RoA. if the same RoA is used the effects are pretty much the same given that the same strengths are used. Of course things like time release matrix's are going to make some last longer, but all things being equal ... Also they have relatively the same withdrawal symptoms.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,267
3
76
What makes you think drugs weren't already in our communities?
This +1. I see a lot if arguments against legalization that only make sense if you completely ignore the reality that drugs are already being used.

If you make drugs legal ...

people will drive on them
kids will be able to get them
people will die from them

guess what ...they already do.
 

Triumph

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,032
13
81
There is WAAYYY too much money in the War on Drugs. And I don't mean from the drugs themselves. Security services, SWAT and "tactical" equipment manufacturers and sellers, training for police officers, surveillance, etc. It's going to take a long time to ween the industry off of this teat. Thankfully, we've seen a lot of states decriminalizing medical marijuana over the last few years, and this is the only way it's going to be done - piece by piece, little by little. Use the slippery slope argument in favor of sanity. Once all or most states decriminalize medical marijuana use, it will be easier to keep the federal government from raiding home grown users. Eventually move on to decriminalizing all marijuana use. At that point decide what to do about cocaine and other imported drugs, as well as the home grown meth labs and prescription drug abuses. I'm not sure what to do about those. But the key is a slow weening of the DEA off of their golden parachute that is the drug war.

*Note that I have not smoked MJ more than once or twice in my life, probably 15 years ago.
 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,701
59
91
No he won't. If Obama didn't do it none of these assholes will. And why is that? It's because our government is no longer in control of this country.
You don't know who GJ is. He'd probably end the war on drugs the same day he got into office.
 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,701
59
91
Of course he planned on ending it. He sent out memos asking federal prosecutors to stop raiding and prosecuting people acting within state laws (i.e. dispensaries and their customers). Of course the DEA directly defied him proving what I said, that our government is no longer in control.

lol @ you for being uneducated.
Totally different situation. GJ would actually reschedule it, take it out of the DEA's hands, and then work to legalize/regulate it. If you followed GJ at all, you'd realize that's been part of his platform for years.

lol @ you for being uneducated AND making assumptions.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
I still think the answer is to flood the market with poisoned drugs that kill the users.

Such would solve the problem quickly.

Illegal behavior has it consequences.
Cuts down the demand quickly by both the results and fear.

No demand; no profit and a good lesson learned
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,999
1
81
I still think the answer is to flood the market with poisoned drugs that kill the users.
I remember people giving me weird looks when I suggested this. I suggest legalizing all drugs and they think I'm crazy. I suggest poisoning existing illegal drugs and they think that's even more crazy. wtf do you people want? If people want safety, make it legal and regulate the shit out of it. If you want users to die, poison the drugs and dig mass graves.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,750
20,152
136
Yeah Shawn, I have no idea why people give you weird looks when you advocate mass murder.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Of course he planned on ending it. He sent out memos asking federal prosecutors to stop raiding and prosecuting people acting within state laws (i.e. dispensaries and their customers). Of course the DEA directly defied him proving what I said, that our government is no longer in control.

lol @ you for being uneducated.
A ploy, seriously Obama had no intentions of pushing for cannabis legalization or decriminalization. He was simply pandering to voters. Once it was no longer an issue, business as usual. Just like the fool talked big about financial reform, then puts GS on his staff lols.
 

Pr0d1gy

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2005
7,776
0
76
Totally different situation. GJ would actually reschedule it, take it out of the DEA's hands, and then work to legalize/regulate it. If you followed GJ at all, you'd realize that's been part of his platform for years.

lol @ you for being uneducated AND making assumptions.
It's not an assumption. Once GJ got into office the people with the real power would show him the video of JFK's head exploding and explain to him that he has to toe the line. That is the world we live in now. I like Ron Paul for the same reason I like a lot of what GJ has to say, but to think they will come into office and change the world at this point is horrificly naive.

Wake up.


A ploy, seriously Obama had no intentions of pushing for cannabis legalization or decriminalization. He was simply pandering to voters. Once it was no longer an issue, business as usual. Just like the fool talked big about financial reform, then puts GS on his staff lols.
*sigh* Once again, do some fucking research. AFTER Obama was voted in he sent out memos asking federal prosecutors and the DEA to leave the medical marijuana issue to the states to resolve as they saw fit. Of course, the powers that really run things told him to fuck off and started raiding dispensaries with even more frequency.
 
Last edited:

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,999
1
81
Yeah Shawn, I have no idea why people give you weird looks when you advocate mass murder.
Isn't that what the government officially advocates? Fairly recently, there was a batch of ecstasy pills contaminated with PMPA, and the Edmonton police refused to say what the contaminated batch looked like. This is absolute 100% proof that the government supports mass murder. They made no attempt to reduce the damage done by this batch.

Russia has a similar approach. Rather than treatment or rehabilitation, they put very extreme punishment on drug related crimes. As a result, the spread of HIV and hepatitis in Russia is extremely high. How do they respond? Fuck those people. We don't care if millions die from HIV. They chose drugs and that's why they should all die.
 

Pr0d1gy

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2005
7,776
0
76
Isn't that what the government officially advocates? Fairly recently, there was a batch of ecstasy pills contaminated with PMPA, and the Edmonton police refused to say what the contaminated batch looked like. This is absolute 100% proof that the government supports mass murder. They made no attempt to reduce the damage done by this batch.

Russia has a similar approach. Rather than treatment or rehabilitation, they put very extreme punishment on drug related crimes. As a result, the spread of HIV and hepatitis in Russia is extremely high. How do they respond? Fuck those people. We don't care if millions die from HIV. They chose drugs and that's why they should all die.
Welcome to the New World Order, eh?
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
It's not an assumption. Once GJ got into office the people with the real power would show him the video of JFK's head exploding and explain to him that he has to toe the line. That is the world we live in now. I like Ron Paul for the same reason I like a lot of what GJ has to say, but to think they will come into office and change the world at this point is horrificly naive.

Wake up.




*sigh* Once again, do some fucking research. AFTER Obama was voted in he sent out memos asking federal prosecutors and the DEA to leave the medical marijuana issue to the states to resolve as they saw fit. Of course, the powers that really run things told him to fuck off and started raiding dispensaries with even more frequency.
Yes there is nothing he could do about it... you're kidding yourself. Seriously. He has all the power in the world to end it, he is choosing not to.
 

Pr0d1gy

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2005
7,776
0
76
Yes there is nothing he could do about it... you're kidding yourself. Seriously. He has all the power in the world to end it, he is choosing not to.
This is obviously going nowhere. If you really think Obama has any power over this you are asleep.
 

berzerker60

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2012
1,233
1
0
This is obviously going nowhere. If you really think Obama has any power over this you are asleep.
The only reason he doesn't is politics. The first black president can't go out any further on a limb fighting for pot dispensaries when he has bigger fish to fry (health care, winding down wars, etc). The DEA and DOJ guys defying him guessed that absolutely correctly - firing them for following the written drug laws would be political suicide for a first-term president, especially with the racial stereotypes at play. It's possible he'll do something later in his second term, but even then it's spending political capital and offering Republicans an easy TOUGH ON CRIME stance for the 2016 election cycle. You don't need a boogie man Illuminati to explain it.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
104,356
18,973
136
Agreed, but we've got a government industry here... people just can't say no to more government. Think of all the jobs that'll be lost. We employ people in this 'war' on Americans. Gotta keep up the good fight and bring home those paychecks.

Don't forget the need to bust down the wrong doors and shoot innocent people.
Shift the current industry to the borders, have them deal with the trafficking.

I suppose the theory is that once it is decriminalized, you will then see less influence of cartels (inability to compete), so eventually, that established industry (DEA) would have to downsize.

How about, instead of eradicating the DEA, the branch becomes our primary border enforcement? Wouldn't this make everyone happy?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY