The route is, I recognize how and where people get cocaine their first time, and the second time, and why they keep coming back.
Regulation and education has been very successful at driving tobacco use down. Prohibition has driven cocaine use up, marijuana use up, etc.
Regulation of alcohol has been a failure, because it's marketed and glamourized by the industry. It's a legalization as opposed to a regulation. It's much more similar to the black market for drugs. The dealers push it like the alcohol industry does.
I don't believe that prohibition increases use. That doesn't make much sense to me. Do you have any evidence to back that up? Similarly, I believe that prohibition of tobacco would reduce use of tobacco. I'm not saying it should be made illegal--there are several aspects to that argument--but I do believe prohibition combined with enforcement would reduce use.
andyt
CKA Uber
Posts: 33492
Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 11:11 am
With booze, prohibition reduced the volume of booze consumed. But more people switched to hard liquor and got drunker and were of course drinking moonshine, both of which isn't good for your health. Ie the many law abiding people stopped drinking, but the hard core drinkers, of whom there were many, actually got worse. Also, volume started creeping back up towards the end of prohibition, so if it had been left in place it might have had no effect at all at some point.
I don't think prohibition increases use, but it sure increases risk. But I also don't buy the OTI/FOG argument that legalization would unleash a horde of potential rabid marijuana addicts who are just waiting for the day it becomes legal so they get like totally wastoid like every night and part of every day.(Bonus points to who knows where that last bit comes from.)
Do you see mean the gangs or the users. To say users will switch from pot to heroin is just crazy talk - sorry but that's what it is. And so the gangs can try all they want to market heroin, it won't increase heroin consumption. In Portugal, hard drug use declined with decrim.
The survey found 28% of Dutch teens smoked marijuana as compared with 41% of American teens, and 23% of American teens had experimented with other illicit drugs as compared with only 6% of European teens. ... When asked about the disparity, Kevin Zeese of Common Sense for Drug Policy pointed to the lure of the forbidden as a major factor. "It is worth pointing out that the Dutch, when they made marijuana available for purchase, said one reason they were doing so was to 'make marijuana boring,'" Zeese told DRCNet.
"Our approach, making marijuana a forbidden fruit where the primary educators on the topic are DARE police officers, has the opposite effect. We make marijuana a magnet for the natural rebellious period of the teen years," Zeese explained. "The laws are easy to break, highlighted in ads and schools, the schools lie about the dangers of marijuana and police are the messengers -- that all adds up to a recipe for encouraging, rather than discouraging teen use. Then, our failure to separate the marijuana market from other illegal drug markets makes it natural to purchase other drugs from the high school dealer."
The evidence shows that liberal drug policies decrease usage. There is no evidence in favour of prohibition reducing usage, crime, or harm. Anywhere.
Zipperfish
CKA Uber
Posts: 21663
Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 2:08 pm
andyt andyt:
I don't think prohibition increases use, but it sure increases risk.
yes, I'd agree with that.
Zipperfish
CKA Uber
Posts: 21663
Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 3:00 pm
Curtman Curtman:
The evidence shows that liberal drug policies decrease usage. There is no evidence in favour of prohibition reducing usage, crime, or harm. Anywhere.
I guess the problme I have with this is it seems to fly in the face of what I thought was fairly commonly accepted deterrence theory. Indeed, if deterrence doesn't work, does that mena that throwing away gun control laws in Canada would reduce gun homicides? Does it mean that legalizing shoploifting would result in a drop in that crime? If we no longer enforced speeding, would people slow down? Or conversely, did banning leaded gas result in an increase in its illicit use?
If deterrence doesn't work, it kind of calls into play the entire point of laws and enforcement. Like that old adage that laws are useless because good people will abide them without having to have them written down, and bad people will break the law anyway.
Do you not believe deterrence theory in general, or just as it pertains to drug use?
2Cdo
CKA Uber
Posts: 11907
Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 4:10 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Do you not believe deterrence theory in general, or just as it pertains to drug use?
You do realise who you're questioning.
I'll go with the second part of your question.
Curtman
Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 7:28 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
I guess the problme I have with this is it seems to fly in the face of what I thought was fairly commonly accepted deterrence theory.
It does fly in the face of what is fairly commonly accepted deterrence theory! That is the message.
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Indeed, if deterrence doesn't work, does that mena that throwing away gun control laws in Canada would reduce gun homicides? Does it mean that legalizing shoploifting would result in a drop in that crime? If we no longer enforced speeding, would people slow down? Or conversely, did banning leaded gas result in an increase in its illicit use?
If deterrence doesn't work, it kind of calls into play the entire point of laws and enforcement. Like that old adage that laws are useless because good people will abide them without having to have them written down, and bad people will break the law anyway.
Do you not believe deterrence theory in general, or just as it pertains to drug use?
homicide victim, shoplifting victim, speeding fatality victim, lung cancer from leaded gas victim, etc.. The idea of using cops and jails to deal with health problems, mental or otherwise is dangerous and ineffective and costly and harmful.
Is the drug user a victim of the dealer? He chose that for himself. He's a willing participant. He has access to the drug now, and he would if it were legal. The most important difference is he doesn't see himself as a victim of anything. He has no guilt about breaking that law. The law has no business telling him what to do to himself. He has no moral problem with breaking that law, because he's only potentially hurting himself. The idea of using the law as a deterrent in this situation is stupid. The kind of person who resents the law telling them what to do to themselves, is likely to break that law. The law is there to protect society, not the individual from himself.
If we focus on education, and if we had some way (for example: taxation) to regulate the market instead of letting cartels set their own prices, and we could direct problem users to treatment, we would do a much better job at managing the problem.
That's pretty much how I feel about deterrence theory in general as it pertains to drug law.
But I've now finished a hellish week of work, and I've had several beers so it might be a bit rambley.
A group of five bipartisan lawmakers have introduced legislation to make New Hampshire the third state to legalize and regulate the adult use of marijuana.
House Bill 492 legalizes the possession of up to an ounce or less of marijuana and the private cultivation of a limited number of marijuana plants for adults 21 years of age and older. HB 492 would also allow for licensed commercial cultivation and sale of marijuana. Full text of this measure can be read here.
Polling conducted in January of 2013 by Public Policy Polling reported that 53% of New Hampshire voters support changing state law to regulate and tax marijuana similarly to alcohol, only 37% were opposed.
Including New Hampshire, there is now a total of six states considering legislation to fully legalize marijuana. It is imperative that your elected officials hear from you in support of this measure. If you live in one of the six states (Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont) considering the legalization of marijuana for all adults, you can click on the appropriate link below and go directly to your state’s action alert. You can also click here to see if your state is considering any legislation pertaining to marijuana law reform.
Spillover from Mexico's violent drug war is prompting the Harper government and the Canadian military to become more involved in helping defend the tiny, Central American country of Belize.
A series of internal reports, obtained by The Canadian Press under the access to information law, show the government has quietly increased co-operation with the Commonwealth nation, formerly known as British Honduras.
Canada is providing non-lethal equipment for security services and helping with strategic planning and the training of soldiers.
The documents, all dated from the spring of last year, describe the situation in Belize as deteriorating in the face of ultra-violent drug cartels that are battling not only Mexican and U.S. law enforcement, but each other as well
"Belize is of growing importance to the Canadian government due to the increasingly precarious security situation in Central America, particularly along the Belize-Mexico border," said a March 23, 2012, briefing note prepared for Defence Minister Peter MacKay.
"Following increasing success to counter transnational criminal organizations in Mexico, these organizations have advanced into Belize, bringing with them violence and public insecurity."
Chris Alexander, the parliamentary secretary to the minister of defence, said today that he wasn't aware of any "new forms of engagement" but that Canada had "an agenda of partnership with many countries."
"You can count on Canada to continue working with its partners throughout the Americas to continue to come to terms with that problem, prevent drugs from coming into Canada but also prevent these groups from destabilizing regimes," he said.
The long coastline, coral inlets and dark, gnarled jungles have been a mecca for tourists over the years, but also perfect cover for cocaine smugglers in fast boats coming up from Colombia.
The increasing cartel focus on Belize prompted U.S. President Barack Obama added the country to the so-called "black list" of countries considered major drug-producing states or transit nations for narcotics.
Pressure on police Both the internal Defence Department reports and U.S. experts on the drug war in Central America say the small Caribbean Sea nation has become an important thoroughfare for South American drug cartels.
"Many of the countries in Central America and the Caribbean are facing increasing worries and in some cases documented pressure on their law enforcement and justice systems from transnational organized crime groups," said Shannon O'Neil, an adjunct fellow for Latin American studies at the U.S.-based Council on Foreign Relations.
"All of these countries will benefit from strengthening their law enforcement institutions — police, courts, and the like — in the face of these threats."
Eric Olson, associate director of Latin American programs at the Washington-based Wilson Centre, agreed and said the success of anti-drug operations in both the U.S. and Mexico has been overplayed.
To some extent, the shift in drug routes has almost as much to do with cartels battling each other and smugglers looking for easier laneways than with better law enforcement, he said.
"The Belizean security forces are over-matched when it comes to the kind of firepower and capacity that the traffickers have," Olson said.
Help with defence review The coast guard in that country should be a priority for modernization, given the way smuggling patterns have unfolded, he added.
Engagement in the Americas has been an evolving economic and security priority for the Harper government, said defence officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss the matter publicly.
The country's minister of defence requested help from Canada when conducting a strategic defence review in 2011 involving the country's more than 1,050 military, coast guard and national police forces, say the internal documents.
Canada's special forces recently delivered a batch of military equipment, including binoculars, combat clothing, helmets, boots, gloves and other gear.
saturn_656
CKA Super Elite
Posts: 7684
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:35 pm
I think helping Belize is a wonderful thing.
Curtman
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:48 pm
Right.. Binoculars and boots are going to do that.
Prohibition feeds the cartels and the only thing we can do to help Belize with this, is end the war on drugs.
saturn_656
CKA Super Elite
Posts: 7684
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:53 pm
Curtman Curtman:
Right.. Binoculars and boots are going to do that.
Prohibition feeds the cartels and the only thing we can do to help Belize with this, is end the war on drugs.
Would air strikes help? I'm all for bombing the shit out of their operations.
The survey found 28% of Dutch teens smoked marijuana as compared with 41% of American teens, and 23% of American teens had experimented with other illicit drugs as compared with only 6% of European teens. ... When asked about the disparity, Kevin Zeese of Common Sense for Drug Policy pointed to the lure of the forbidden as a major factor. "It is worth pointing out that the Dutch, when they made marijuana available for purchase, said one reason they were doing so was to 'make marijuana boring,'" Zeese told DRCNet.
"Our approach, making marijuana a forbidden fruit where the primary educators on the topic are DARE police officers, has the opposite effect. We make marijuana a magnet for the natural rebellious period of the teen years," Zeese explained. "The laws are easy to break, highlighted in ads and schools, the schools lie about the dangers of marijuana and police are the messengers -- that all adds up to a recipe for encouraging, rather than discouraging teen use. Then, our failure to separate the marijuana market from other illegal drug markets makes it natural to purchase other drugs from the high school dealer."
The evidence shows that liberal drug policies decrease usage. There is no evidence in favour of prohibition reducing usage, crime, or harm. Anywhere.
Interesting. I mean this seriously when I say that this effect might contribute to lower levels of gun violence in places that have liberal gun laws.
Curtman
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:00 pm
The war on drugs is a war on people. Escalation of the violence won't help any more than the other failed attempts at prohibition. It will just make more money for makers of anti aircraft missiles. The drugs will still be available, and survival of the fittest will bring the most evil people in the world to even greater amounts of power.
Curtman
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:06 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Curtman Curtman:
The evidence shows that liberal drug policies decrease usage. There is no evidence in favour of prohibition reducing usage, crime, or harm. Anywhere.
Interesting. I mean this seriously when I say that this effect might contribute to lower levels of gun violence in places that have liberal gun laws.
You are arguing against regulation of guns, I'm arguing for regulation of drugs. Prohibition of guns isn't even considered a viable option. Regulation of drugs has never been attempted until very recently.
CKA Uber 
CKA Moderator 
