|
Post by bixaorellana on Aug 26, 2010 23:41:40 GMT
Split from: No+country+for+old+men%3FLegalize it! IMO the only solution. Then it can even be taxed. Win/win situation ;D Even though I keep hearing intelligent people say this would work, I cannot make myself accept that. Also, recreational drugs can't be legalized overnight, as how could purity and quality be overseen? How would they be packaged and recommended dosages assigned? What would happen to all the drugs still out on the street, if drugs were legalized tomorrow? Wouldn't street drugs still be in demand for their designer aspects or purported extra strength? That would keep criminal factions going a little bit, but we can't believe that drying up drug traffic would make them all look for straight jobs. (which would increase the present unemployment problems, in any event)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2010 6:54:07 GMT
Well, there is some sort of quality control for hashish and marijuana in the Netherlands, since it is legally for sale in the coffee shops. Since they sell about a dozen varieties, I doubt if many people see any reason to use a parallel illegal market with no guarantees, but I really don't know much about it.
I do know that even in the repressive countries, there is normally an NGO that sets up shop at major rock festivals and raves with a testing laboratory so that people can find out if the pills they bought are really what they hope they are.
|
|
|
Post by imec on Aug 28, 2010 17:56:57 GMT
Split from: No+country+for+old+men%3FLegalize it! IMO the only solution. Then it can even be taxed. Win/win situation ;D Even though I keep hearing intelligent people say this would work, I cannot make myself accept that. Also, recreational drugs can't be legalized overnight, as how could purity and quality be overseen? How would they be packaged and recommended dosages assigned? What would happen to all the drugs still out on the street, if drugs were legalized tomorrow? Wouldn't street drugs still be in demand for their designer aspects or purported extra strength? That would keep criminal factions going a little bit, but we can't believe that drying up drug traffic would make them all look for straight jobs. (which would increase the present unemployment problems, in any event) So, keep it illegal? Thereby keeping prices high (leading to petty crime to pay for them), quality and strength unknown, illegal sellers and producers rich, public coffers empty, jails full... This idiotic experiment failed long ago. Legalize and manage it - the only reasonable answer.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Aug 28, 2010 18:07:11 GMT
But isn't legalizing it giving tacit approval?
For the moment, I say set aside the question of marijuana and hashish and only talk about the problem of hard drugs.
I'll re-phrase what I said above -- if recreational drugs were legalized tomorrow, everything now on the street would be immediately be legal. What then -- vendor's licenses?
|
|
|
Post by imec on Aug 28, 2010 18:09:34 GMT
if recreational drugs were legalized tomorrow, everything now on the street would be immediately be legal. What then -- vendor's licenses? Is moonshine legal?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2010 20:06:42 GMT
I'll re-phrase what I said above -- if recreational drugs were legalized tomorrow, everything now on the street would be immediately be legal. What then -- vendor's licenses? Many US states (and countries like Sweden) have state liquor stores which are the only place that you can buy those items. It would not be difficult to set up the same sort of thing for the least dangerous drugs (marijuana, hashish...). Without giving the idea too much thought since I am not an expert, I would prefer things like heroin to be available only through an official medical office. Items like crack and some of the other nasty stuff could be banned, but there probably would not be any demand if people could get decent quality cocaine.
|
|
|
Post by fumobici on Aug 28, 2010 20:17:47 GMT
I think it's a generational thing and the polling data reinforce this view. People past a certain age having been exposed for so long with the publicly uncontested and unrebutted flood of ideological malarkey underpinning the God approved and flag draped War on Drugs are largely literally incapable of unlearning all that and looking at the problem unburdened by the decades of unrelenting indoctrination they've undergone. Young people are demonstrably less apt to have been exposed to and bought the hysterical scare disinformation and are therefore more open to more practical approaches than repeating the errors of the past and expecting different outcomes. Plotting out the demographic trendlines, as the older population brought up on lurid anti-drug propaganda is gradually replaced by a younger demographic more open to new ideas and approaches, it seems inevitable that the old paradigm where the big winners are organized criminal syndicates and the multi-billion dollar prison/incarceration industry will be replaced with more rationally based approaches.
There are obviously potential downsides to ending the criminal black markets and mass incarcerations that leave entire communities exposed to criminal violence and stripped of their sons and fathers to fill the insatiable maw of the prison industry but those downsides will pale in comparison to the downsides of the status quo that exist but people have become so enured to that they really can't even see them any longer. New approaches won't and needn't be perfect or answer every possible concern- there will obviously still be huge problems whatever policy direction is followed-, they only need to be better than the broken status quo and that's a low bar indeed for those alternative approaches to clear.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2010 20:51:14 GMT
No later than last week, the French minister of health, Roselyne Bachelot, a very traditional right wing doctor came out in favor of clean "shooting galleries" of the type that 6 other European countries already have. She was immediately slapped down by the prime minister who said that the possiblity was out of the question at the present time. However, long ago when the French civil partnership law for same sex couples was being voted with a leftist government, she was the one and only rightist parliamentarian who not only voted in favor of it but defended the idea passionately during the debates. Since those days, the right wing has admitted that they really fucked up on that subject since about 90% of the public now supports it. And for this same reason, after saying that the idea was out of the question, the prime minister immediately back pedaled and said that a new "commision" would be studying the idea this autumn. The "shooting galleries" with clean needles and proper medical assistance have been a major success in countries like Switzerland, Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands. The staff is quite successful at helping those who want it to get off drugs and get into the appropriate programs. I think that a lot of the opponents of selling or using drugs officially forget that all of the extra money not put into repression can be put into prevention.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Aug 29, 2010 3:40:06 GMT
This was not meant to be a polarizing discussion, rather a version of the kinds of conversations which will probably be taking place in various places around the world in the near future. As pointed out in #7, it's already being proposed in France by the minister of health.
As also pointed out in #7, the idea of legalization is a great deal easier to accept when there are real examples of its positive effects when combined with social programs aimed at helping people who want to get off drugs.
When the idea is finally put to a vote, there will be lots of people like me -- those who almost automatically vote a liberal ticket, but who balk at the idea of legalizing drugs. Those of you are convinced that legalization would not only defuse the criminal traffickers but would also cut down on drug abuse need to be able to convince those of us who are so far unable to feature it.
And I don't see that it's the older and/or the flag-draped people who are firmly against the idea, Fumobici. For one thing, "older" would have to be pretty old, as the whole generation who mocked the myth of one marijuana cigarette leading to the heroin-filled gutter is now in its sixties. Further, in my own experience, it's often conservative-leaning people in their forties and fifties who are for legalization.
I also don't understand your comment about potential downsides to ending the criminal black markets and mass incarcerations. What would those downsides be?
As I said before, I am having trouble accepting the idea. That's not the same thing as being completely opposed to it. Keep in mind that I'm someone who is willing to be convinced. However, simply saying that it's a good idea without citing examples or solid theories as to why won't convince me, so far less someone who is dogmatically opposed to legalization.
|
|
|
Post by bjd on Aug 29, 2010 5:52:41 GMT
I think you are being literal-minded about Fumobici's downsides again, Bixa. We really need a sarcasm emoticon on here.
I think that for many people, the idea of, for example "shooting galleries" makes us think, hey, we are going to support people's drug habits. But indeed, it would certainly be safer for public health, and cheaper for the social security system, if drug users were in a controlled situation, rather than sharing needles in dirty places. Fewer overdoses, fewer AIDS and hepatitis infections.
Maybe too, the idea of rebellion which I'm sure is part of starting to take drugs, would seem less thrilling to young potential users if it looked as though they were going to the doctor. Imagine Kurt Cobain, Keith Richard, Amy Winehouse and others like them as health consumers instead of romantic (in the 19th c sense) rebels!
Once again, there are differences between the States and Europe. There are prisons here, but no private prison industry. There is no "War on Drugs", the way it is promoted in the States. And, what Bixa said was the same thing I thought of re Fumobici's post -- any "generational" thing would mean people in their 80s or 90s.
Another thought -- the upside for many places would be cleaner cities. I am thinking specifically of Vancouver. I have never been there, but it is considered a great city in a beautiful location, with a whole section of downtown totally off-putting because it is full of junkies and beggars. I have met any number of people -- both older and younger -- who were shocked at the sight.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Aug 29, 2010 7:09:48 GMT
Oh. Uh. Yeah. I guess I was in "serious business" mode and it went right over my head. Your mention of Vancouver made me think of the tv series "The Wire". A police district commander takes it upon himself to create "free zones" for the drug trade in Baltimore. This has the effect of cleaning up the neighborhoods where the trade formerly held sway and making them safer. The kind of reasoning and examples you present, Bjd, along with those Kerouac cited above, are what will be needed to get the public to at least consider a new approach to this out-of-control problem. Whereas I can't agree with Fumobici's depiction of a population convinced by anti-drug propaganda, I do think that many people buy into the "war on drugs" as something protecting us from evil rather than the boondoggle it really is.
|
|
|
Post by hwinpp on Aug 31, 2010 9:50:40 GMT
Drugs could be 'standardized', then sold in pharmacies. I don't see a big problem in pushing it into clean channels.
Look at what it's doing to the producing countries, they suffer too. They'd get fair prices for crops that have been criminalized for the last 50 years when it's been their traditional cash crop for centuries.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Aug 31, 2010 16:50:56 GMT
It's a double whammy, I would think, about criminalizing the crops. Besides cutting off a means of livelihood for farmers, aren't many of those crops used for accepted pharmaceuticals? Drugs could be 'standardized', then sold in pharmacies. ... Look at what it's doing to the producing countries, they suffer too. They'd get fair prices for crops that have been criminalized for the last 50 years when it's been their traditional cash crop for centuries. I can't speak on this subject with much authority, but a debate has been raging for decades over herbal supplements in the US. Those who would like to see them elevated to their rightful status as beneficial, controllable treatments point to Germany as the ideal model.* I believe Commission E no longer exists, but has been replaced by something similar. * ... in 1995 in Germany some 7 percent of prescription drugs covered by German health insurance were herbal preparations and in 462 monographs covering 360 herbs the German Commission E (equivalent to our FDA) had sorted the herbs into two groups: positive (expected to be safe and useful) and negative (expected to pose safety risks or to have no therapeutic effect). ... In some countries, such as Germany, concentrated herbal extracts are produced under strict "good manufacturing practices" and are available only by prescription,b whereas in the United State, sourcing, manufacturing practices, purity and potency vary widely, and herbals are primarily sold over the counter and through various types of health practitioners. In recent independent tests, only a minority of herbal and nutracentrical products tested were found to be satisfactory. ... ... some of the most potent prescription medications in the world pharmacopoeia, namely, digitalis, morphine and opium, are derived from plants. That herbs have medicinal actions is recognized worldwide; indeed, they are referred to as phytomedicines (phyto = plant) in Germany. source
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2010 17:40:45 GMT
Actually, France is sort of going in the opposite direction. After years of tolerating herbals as a valid alternative treatment, now a lot of negative publicity is given to all of the items that show no medicinal benefits whatsoever. This has become more important due to all of the crap sold over the internet.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Aug 31, 2010 17:53:29 GMT
Well, as far as I know, Germany does not merely tolerate the over-the-counter stuff such as that sold in the US in wildly varying qualities. Rather, the herbal remedies there have to be tested for efficacy and side effects, conform to standards, etc. I also believe that such remedies are routinely prescribed by doctors in lieu of "regular" pharmaceuticals.
|
|
|
Post by bjd on Aug 31, 2010 18:12:46 GMT
In trying to save money on social security reimbursements, France has also stopped reimbursing various "real" medicines that have been shown to have no effect whatsoever. Of course, there was an outcry by pharmacists and those who think people should be able to take all the medecines they want, especially for specifically French ailments such as "heavy legs" and "crise de foie", which means a liver complaint, usually said after pigging out on too much rich food.
Sorry, that was a bit of a threadjack.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Aug 31, 2010 18:33:05 GMT
Not really a threadjack, Bjd, as it shows how legitimate outlets can be considered "drug dealers" as well. It also leads back to the reasons that people sometimes cite for consuming drugs. Let's remember that coffee, wine, cigarettes, tranquilizers and other common substances are also drugs. "I need coffee to wake up in the morning." or "A glass of wine relaxes me.", etc. A side effect of legalizing and standardizing the current illegal drugs could lead to more universal questioning about dependence on currently legal substances. Which would mean a subject for Port & Starboard in the future ~~ "Taking away my morning cuppa: nanny state or responsible governance?"
|
|
|
Post by fumobici on Aug 31, 2010 18:34:20 GMT
Well, as far as I know, Germany does not merely tolerate the over-the-counter stuff such as that sold in the US in wildly varying qualities. Rather, the herbal remedies there have to be tested for efficacy and side effects, conform to standards, etc. I also believe that such remedies are routinely prescribed by doctors in lieu of "regular" pharmaceuticals. I'm not sure how the supply of herbals could be controlled in the way that synthetics could as they will always be available to anyone who wants to grow them unless one wants to compile a huge list of plants that cannot be bought, grown or sold which would surely be a bureaucratic and enforcement nightmare. That said, the testing of herbals for safety and efficacy seems a good idea, what I wonder is who is expected to pay for that testing? I doubt any private entity could rationalize the cost when anyone could market the product. If the Germans are spending public money to test herbals for efficacy and safety, that would be valuable service not only to Germans but people worldwide.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2010 19:50:10 GMT
The placebo effect has proven to be extremely effective with a lot of these items. Perhaps the governments should promote some of the cheaper ones as cure-alls.
|
|
|
Post by hwinpp on Sept 1, 2010 8:14:27 GMT
I have no idea about herbal remedies but I do know they are controlled from certain concentrations on up.
My sister uses them and swears by them, me, I'm a skeptic.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2010 8:56:09 GMT
Going back to illegal drugs, is Cambodia still the "Wild West" in terms of just about anything goes, HW? In my previous trips, it was still possible to openly order a "happy pizza" with special oregano (never dared to try it myself), but do people still do such things now?
|
|
|
Post by hwinpp on Sept 2, 2010 10:25:04 GMT
It still is, a bit toned down. Though Happy, Extatic, Rainbow Pizza are all still around. In Sihanoukville they did close down the 'Happy Hippie' very recently, it was getting too overt Altho' altogether I'd say the easy going times are slowly coming to an end. And they've even started arresting local farmers relaxing a bit after a hard day in the fields... I think it has to do with all the hard stuff coming over from Thailand, Crystal Meth and Ice in particular.
|
|
|
Post by hwinpp on Sept 2, 2010 10:27:39 GMT
Oh, and weed disappeared from the markets already before I came. I mean weed for cooking, not buds for smoking ;D
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Sept 5, 2010 17:11:55 GMT
I'm not sure how the supply of herbals could be controlled in the way that synthetics could as they will always be available to anyone who wants to grow them ... The point about the herbals in Germany is that the strength, dosages, etc. are standardized so that they can be prescribed as medicine. That does not preclude people growing any of the herbs that were never illegal anyway and using them in home remedies. If illegal drugs were to be legalized, a system of standardizing them in order to sell them would have to be instituted, as HW points out in reply #11.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Sept 14, 2010 15:36:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cristina on Oct 12, 2010 1:42:51 GMT
I thank my lucky stars every day that my mother turned down thalidomide for her awful morning sickness when she was pregnant with me. It was still widely prescribed in Spain during that time. On a weird but sentimental note, I have the purse she threw up in every day for many months...its clean, no worries...but I treasure it for her resolve not to take any medications while pregnant. Back to more recreational drugs, there are several states with medical marijuana propositions on the ballot for November, including my own state of Arizona. I ran across this video today concerning California's Prop 19. I have no idea who the makers are, but I found the video amusing...particularly the children rushing from school to get their pot fix. Personally, I am in favor of general legalization of marijuana, for many reasons. But legalization of marijuana as a prescription medicinal drug should be a given...and not subjected to an election vote. Many prescription drugs can be abused. I'm not exactly sure how medicinal marijuana is any different than a pain killer.
|
|
|
Post by cristina on Oct 12, 2010 2:25:34 GMT
Postscript: I spoke with my mother tonight about the Thalidomide era and she brought up Dr Frances Kelsey's name immediately. 50 years later, my Mom had no trouble remembering the name of a woman who had such a huge impact in the US. Even if many younger people have no idea.
She was, incidentally, happy to hear that she is still alive and living not far from her.
|
|
|
Post by fumobici on Oct 12, 2010 3:06:36 GMT
Back to more recreational drugs, there are several states with medical marijuana propositions on the ballot for November, including my own state of Arizona. I ran across this video today concerning California's Prop 19. I have no idea who the makers are, but I found the video amusing...particularly the children rushing from school to get their pot fix. Personally, I am in favor of general legalization of marijuana, for many reasons. But legalization of marijuana as a prescription medicinal drug should be a given...and not subjected to an election vote. Many prescription drugs can be abused. I'm not exactly sure how medicinal marijuana is any different than a pain killer. I think clearly the rationale for opposition to reforming cannabis laws from many quarters is simply that after telling people for 70 years how smoking pot will make you jump off the roof, make your daughter sleep with black men and have you doing heroin before the month's end, the people who told- and to a lesser degree even those who believed- those lies cannot be seen to adjust their views to reality without dire consequences to their credibility and/or their egos. So much money and political capital has been invested selling all the usual lies that admitting having done so was a mistake is unthinkable. Better to keep being obstinately if spectacularly wrong than to admit even obvious error at this point.
|
|
|
Post by myrt on Nov 1, 2010 8:09:10 GMT
Just been reading the BBC news and saw this. I thought I'd add it to this thread www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11660210Strikes me that it comes under the 'tell me something I don't know' or 'bleeding obvious' heading......... People have been using plants or substances to get off their faces for millennia......no one can legislate to stop it, nor should they IMO. And the double standard inherent in the acceptance of alcohol and tobacco but the criminalisation of other drugs is shocking. Leave people alone to get on with what ever floats their boat but do try and protect them from the illegal chemists, sharks, dealers and lowlife who prey on them. That's my opinion anyway..
|
|
|
Post by cheerypeabrain on Nov 7, 2010 19:29:50 GMT
Until recently I had always thought that some recreational use was reasonably OK as long as people knew what they were doing..just not for me.
However this year we found out that our son has taken drugs to excess for years. We hadn't a clue! we thought that he might be smoking a bit of 'wacky-backy' as so many young people do...(he's now 28). On NYE he took a cocktail of drugs that almost killed him (including the, then legal, MCAT). He was so ill that we had to rush him to hospital, luckily for him (and us) 'the system' kicked in and he's been receiving treatment ever since.
He's been 'clean' now for 10 months, has changed sooo much...before he was a sickly, pale underweight boy...now he's a strapping healthy man. It has scarred him emotionally, probably shortened his life and I don't know if he will ever be 100% well. Nobody forced him to take the drugs, and thank goodness he stayed away from heroin and crack cocaine. He tells me that he started taking drugs at 16 years old with friends...how come I didn't know? he hid it really, really well.
As a family we are all coping, altho we're all rather damaged by the experience...I've aged 10 years (if not 20)...but I wish that I'd realised what was happening from the start...he's still in therapy, dropped out of University (bad environment for him) and hasn't had any more psychotic attacks...but we will always worry that he'll slip into it again.
I don't think that we can make taking drugs illegal, but I wish that the people who supply the damned stuff could be persuaded not to.
|
|