Versus War on Drugs Debate versusdebates

[chnt]

please watch

 

 

wont let me tag this thread... trying to tag "war on drugs" and "debate"

Edited April 5, 2012 by chnt

[Arsea]

Was it ever a war or more of a hostile takeover of resources.

Arsea

[chnt]

i made a post on another forum based on this vid and feel like posting it here, so here it is:

if i could be bothered debunking every single argument the prohibitionist made i would, but i dont have the time or motivation for that...

a few things i will say though.

they argued that many more people die from alcohol and tobacco because they are legal.

how about, alcohol and tobacco are way more harmful than most of the illegal drugs, and of the illegal drugs that are equally or more harmful, this is due to the fact that they are illegal and unregulated therefore are usually impure and the impurities are what causes them to be so devastatingly harmful. looking at it from this perspective one could say that it is more important to legalise/regulate the most dangerous illegal drugs.

they argued that legalising drugs would create a capitalist free for all and that of course if you legalise then consumption will go way up, just look at alcohol and tobacco

firstly, why are alcohol and tobacco so commonly used? is it perhaps because they are so socially accepted and in many cases socially encouraged? look at how these substances have been marketed through history, through popular culture and media, they have been very carefully marketed to be cool and in and these factors are continually perpetuated through popular culture and media, smoking is inherently cool, drinking is normal to the point of non-drinking is not normal and non-drinking is bad. advertising for tobacco is obviously not legal any more, but regardless its cool factor is still perpetuated through popular culture and media, alcohol advertising is abundant, and this has a powerful influence on the masses. children are influenced from a young age and the cycle continues generation after generation. one could write a book on the ideas in this paragraph alone.

secondly, this capitalist free for all angle they are perpetuating is bullshit...

through correct regulation this would not occur, you dont walk down the street and see billboards advertising codeine, tramadol, oxycodone, morphine, diazepam, temazepam, alprazolam, etc etc etc, they are regulated. this is a completely unrelated factor, if this capitalist free for all did happen, it is a separate issue, it is not the fault of drug legalisation/regulation but the fault of once again bullshit governmental laws and regulations or lack of that allow this shit to happen, and allow marketing to be perpetuated through popular culture and media, i could even imagine the government allowing this to happen so they can re-criminalise drugs in the event that they were legalised/regulated.

thirdly, as for consumption increasing if drugs were legalised/regulated, the most important thing is always harm minimisation, with this in mind, an increase in consumption would not be a factor, because consumption does not mean abuse, as both sides of the argument agreed, they even said that something like 5% of users have a problem. it's the drug's impurity that causes its harm in cases like heroin, legalising/regulating heroin would result in a huge reduction in harm even if consumption went up.

there are many other important factors to consider here... another is the perpetuated cycle. legalisation/regulation would end these harmful perpetuated cycles. they argued that legalisation/regulation would vastly increase consumption and that people would naturally go for the strongest possible substances... once again we need to consider harm minimisation, and in this context we need to look at the long term, and the perpetuated cycles of generations.

in the event of legalisation/regulation, it is true that some people would seek out the strongest possible substances, these people are more than likely always going to be current drug abusers, especially abusers of the hardest drugs. through education and through legalisation/regulation, there will be a shift in behaviour, younger generations will seek out safer substances, and will be encouraged to do so, further increasing harm minimisation and decreasing use of the hardest substances. the way it is currently, many young people do turn to drugs for what ever reason and there are many reasons... most choose cannabis, through the current model, the way people get cannabis exposes them to harder drugs like impure heroin and impure meth, this would not happen under legalisation/regulation which further reinforces my previous statement.

eventually the older generations will die, and use of such substances as crack cocaine will be rare or non-existent, use of cannabis may go up, but regardless harm minimisation will be at its highest, an increase in cannabis use may also lead to a decrease in alcohol use which will also increase harm minimisation. if regulation of media/popular culture became "better" this would also decrease tobacco consumption though with the current model, an increase in cannabis could also lead to an increase in tobacco use, this is not the fault of cannabis but the fault of other factors.

what is harm minimisation?

harm minimisation does not mean a reduction in consumption, consumption is not a factor of harm minimisation. harm minimisation means a goal of reducing the negative effects of drug culture to a minimum, this means reducing crime, reducing negative health effects and reducing the cost to society and the environment.

the current model causes the opposite of what is needed, which is harm minimisation.

the cost to the environment is huge and devastating, the cost to individual health and health care is huge and devastating, the result on crime is huge and devastating, i cant really be bothered going into the why for all of these things... but i will copy paste something i wrote on another forum pertaining to the environmental costs

"the WOD is a huge environmental problem, the WOD is in my view the most important world issue, with all the different elements to it, it is devastating in so many ways, you could write a book about everything it causes, from environmental to health to economical to what ever... the list goes on. with environmental it works in 2 basic ways, drugs being illegal creates a black market that produces drugs with no care for the environment, polluting it with chemicals, destroying many forests and much more... law enforcement that targets these drugs rape the land with mass burnings of crops, not to mention that of the drugs produced a large amount gets seized by police, this huge inefficiency is icing to the cake of environmental concerns among other things... the other side to this is that with the current drug laws and social views on drugs, hemp cannot be mass produced, hemp is probably the most sustainable plant on the planet and could be immensely beneficial for the environment in many many ways, ending the war on drugs would not only put an end to the devastating environmental effects but also immensely help the environment with a mass hemp industry."

i've pretty much lost interest now...

[LokStok]

it's the drug's impurity that causes its harm in cases like heroin.

 

what are you basing this statement on?

[qualia]

firstly, why are alcohol and tobacco so commonly used?

i'd say in addition to your points its because they're legal. and for a low of people the legal avenue is the only/preferred way of getting ones load on. but that i guess could relate to the socially acceptable angle as well. oh and i see adverts for nurofen plus all the time.

[chnt]

what are you basing this statement on?

 

check out switzerland.

but that statement was not a complete one. much of a certain drugs harm comes from it's impurity, not all, there are many abusers of pure opiates such as codeine, but the risks associated with the pharmas is far lower in some ways, not all...

taking opiates as an example, heroin being the illegal opiate and the likes of codeine, tramadol and oxycondone being the regulated and pure ones, heroin users are exposed to many physical harms that aren't associated with the others, including hepatitis, hiv, infection that can lead to gangrene... the risks that are associated with the others are dependence and chronic use can have a detrimental effect on things like the liver/kidneys, though this is the same as with heroin. much of the harm done by prescription opiates and other prescription drugs such as benzos can be explained by overprescription and other forms of malpractice by doctors (which is a separate issue but further contributes to the drug culture at large). the negative effects of the regulated opiates are usually as a result of chronic use where as with impure heroin, the negative effects can be immediate.

another good example is "ecstasy" which in an ideal world is pure mdma at a known dose, though in this world it could be any one or a number of substances (which are basically always substandard and more harmful) at any dose, cut with potentially extremely dangerous chemicals, the result means that while "ecstasy" ideally is a relatively safe drug, in reality it can cause many needless health problems.

it is true that the likes of nurofen and panadol are advertised, whether or not this should be allowed to happen... these drugs are classed as relatively safe and hence have less regulation on them to the point where one can buy these in supermarkets. once again this is a separate issue and this is the fault of media, big business and the power and influence of both, and the lack of regulation by the government, the same can be said for alcohol companies and alcohol advertising.

[LokStok]

yeah sure, the risks of problems due to impurities are higher with heroin users than users of prescription drugs, I agree. But if those users are cooking up prescription drugs to inject, which is very common, then there are a whole raft of other dangers and health risks associated with that as well.

And i agree that that the foreign agents that are used to cut with heroin are a factor in the harm that heroin causes, but not that its the main one. Ironically enough, all the people who ive known over the years who have lost their lives to smack, have been killed by heroin that has not been cut enough (too pure).

Apart from OD'ing I still believe that most harm comes to heroin users from the total dedication to it that a full blown addiction demands, at the expense of every other human need & requirement. ie health, food, hygiene etc. Just total fucking tunnel vision.

Anyway, at the end of the day I pretty much agree with what you wrote, just not that.

And i will at some time find the time to watch the rest of the posted debate. (2 hours ten mins, sheesh!)

[chnt]

another angle to spin on this is that ending prohibition and creating this new form of regulation, would change both sides of the current equation.

at the moment there are 2 main classes of drugs, legal and illegal, sub-classes of each are alcohol & tobacco, medicine (script, non-script) and other (inc. caffeine, coffee, energy drinks, legal RC's, food additives, etc) and for illegal, stimulants, psychedelics, etc and terms like hard and soft drugs, this is still a limited view but the whole thing has become a giant convoluted mess... the new model would not only break down arbitrary and biased distinctions, but would raise aware, education and support while breaking down stigmas and fears, promoting openness and acceptance of drug use.

with current heroin use, unknown factors such as purity and potency along with poor OHS lead to much physical and mental damage, especially considering the erratic dosages and chemical exposures. a chronic user may be used to a lower dose and the pure dose is too strong in combination with chronic use and abuse resulting in an OD

with a new model, current users would be given pure heroin and a clean method of administration, whether that means sterile needles and bottled liquid doses, tablet form, vapourising equipment, what ever. in conjunction with this they'd be encouraged to choose a safer option of admin., with continual improvement in mind, they would also be encouraged to choose some sort of rehabilitation or therapy program.

non-users and newer generations will be educated on safer alternatives to drugs that have a high potential for dependence and abuse should they choose to seek drugs at some point in their lives. as time goes on needle use goes down, spread of infection is contained, usage decreases, but more importantly abuse of the "harder" drugs decreases.

higher education would lead to higher instances of informed and applied judgement which would reduce prescriptions and abuse of pharma medicine, and alcohol culture will be diffused with safer alternatives encouraged.

in the short term certain factors may negatively increase, but through continual improvement the gradient will slowly decrease over time.

creating an ideal new model would remove the dichotomy of and change both the illegal and legal drugs and their associated cultures, this would encompass the points you raised and result in harm minimisation.

edit: spelling

Edited April 9, 2012 by chnt

[SunChaser]

they argued that many more people die from alcohol and tobacco because they are legal.

 

Alcohol and tobacco are the most popular drugs in western society and that’s why there so commonly used, it has nothing to do with whether there legal or not. Even if you legalized all curently illegal drugs and made alcohol and tobacco illegal, they would still continue to be the most popular drugs in western society and there for still create the most harm.

I thought the prohibition of alcohol in america in the 1920’s would have made this fact clear. In reality making a drug illegal has very little impact on the amount of people in society who use that drug. The evidence for this can be seen by the fact that Holland has one of the lowest rates of cannabis use in europe.

Peace

Edited April 9, 2012 by jabez