I'm from Portugal. There's something important missing from the article which might be useful to explain why there were so many people using drugs in Portugal. Before 1975, the country was under a dictatorship and drug use was obviously low. Then there was a revolution and people were free to the outside world's culture. On the years following the revolution, young adults were pretty much amazed by all the things you couldn't see in Portugal before like Coke or rock music or, right!, drugs. I don't know many people with the age of my parents whom didn't try drugs, soft or hard, back then.
This behavior was also common on the generation which was born during the revolution, like my brother. There was more information on the end of the 80s and teens were still trying soft drugs but starting to avoid hard drugs. I can't really explain why this happened but I know bad stories about drugs were all the time on the news. For instance, in my house my father always said: "If you ever try drugs don't ever come back." He never knew about my brother but there was a cousin in the family completely addicted, he died recently.
I'm on my twenties so I'd say I'm from the generation after my brother's. I never tried drugs but all my friends did, no exception. They just aren't addicted, don't know why. It's pretty common for them to carry small dosages of marijuana which are allowed by law but there's one thing they don't know: it's legal, like the article states. It has to be a really small dosage but it's enough for you if you're not addicted. And that's what's funny: I never met anyone who knew it was legal (and I knew it because my brother worked at the courtyard) and everyone still looks at Amsterdam like the holy place for drugs in Europe. It's like a taboo, nobody is supposed to talk about it being legal, and it works I guess.
I am also from Portugal. After reading your post, I was wondering whether we lived in the same country. I suspect I am from a generation younger than yours, which may explain a lot.
According to your rationale, oppressive regimes lead to increased drug abuse. Well, Spain also had a dictatorship for decades. The entire "Eastern Europe" lived under Soviet oppression for decades, too. The USSR didn't have a sexual revolution in the 1960s. I would love to see data that suggests that oppression causes people to go crazy and indulge themselves with drugs once they are "free". I am not saying it's not a possibility, but there's talk, and then there's data...
Almost all my friends in Portugal smoked Marijuana. They were not all that open about it, but everyone knew. By contrast, none of them ever touched cocaine or heroine. They were not stupid. Everyone had seen heroine junkies dragging themselves around town, their lives destroyed beyond repair.
Personally, I think the ones drawn to hard drugs are the weak people who can't deal with reality. Many of them die, but then... perhaps the purpose of their lives is to serve as warnings to others.
I am also from Portugal and I was thinking the same as you... is this the same country I live in? However, I am not from a younger generation. I believe the original post is biased towards his own experience/environment and generalizes a lot and that might explain it...
My small contribution to the discussion: Spain has one of the biggest problems with the youth drug use, I read somewhere that more 20-year people were consuming cocaine than 21-25 combined. I share that generation and I see the same problem here in Portugal.
My experience tells me that things were worst some years ago, I remember lots of people were on hard drugs on my home town, sadly most of them died. Also the big drug ghettos in Lisbon almost disappeared. The thing is Portugal as a peripheric country is in a very peculiar situation and the regulation problem should be seen in that context. It is normal for Portugal to lead drug aprehensions every other year because it's one of the main drug gateways from Africa (Marrocos) and from South America and it's close relationship with Brasil.
But the spirit of the law doesn't convince me at all, there are lots of people living from selling drugs and from the stats like 50% arrested were in the 16-20 years range, mostly everybody consumes marijuana. The problem may not be the law, but the environment around the schools doesn't benefit from this law, this should be somehow compensated.
Nice to meet Portuguese people here! Would you bother to fill your details? Or contact me: jracabadoemgmail.com would be wonderfull to talk to you guys!
> The entire "Eastern Europe" lived under Soviet oppression for decades, too.
Well it's not empirical evidence but Eastern Europe is colloquially known for it's vice in general - not specifically a drug problem, perhaps, but other similar issues.
However I would tend to agree with you it's possibly not a major cause. I suspect there was a sex/drugs revolution in a particular area of society - and this is where the gp's experience comes from.
USSR et al have never needed drugs other than alcohol, which is still abused today in incredible volumes - please look for numbers yourself. Still, plenty of poppy crops were destroyed after 1985. Hemp was and still is popular in the southern parts of the Soviet bloc.
Reading between the lines of your post, I think you're suggesting that the Portugal experience is unique due to recent cultural changes, and we shouldn't try to apply these lessons elsewhere. However,
I know bad stories about drugs were all the time on the news. For instance, in my house my father always said: "If you ever try drugs don't ever come back." He never knew about my brother but there was a cousin in the family completely addicted, he died recently.
I'm on my twenties so I'd say I'm from the generation after my brother's. I never tried drugs but all my friends did, no exception. They just aren't addicted, don't know why.
This sounds very much like a typical experience in America.
I wasn't suggesting not trying it on other countries. I think it's a good move but my post was all about the reasons why drug use was so high 30 years ago.
This behavior was also common on the generation which was born during the revolution, like my brother. There was more information on the end of the 80s and teens were still trying soft drugs but starting to avoid hard drugs.
When heroin had a comeback in the United States in the nineties, my father said, "Of course heroin's coming back. All the people who saw their friends die of it are too old to have any credibility in youth culture."
I'm portuguese (lived there until I left for my PhD a few years ago) and I've always found this system a bit odd. You can own it and use it, but you can't produce it, sell it or distribute it.
Maybe the government believes in the spontaneous generation of drugs?
A couple of quick points, though:
rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty
needles dropped
This isn't directly connected with the decriminalization. There is a program that allows anyone to switch a used needle by a new one (plus a condom, a bottle cap and instructions) for free in any pharmacy/drug store. This program started years before the decriminalization and had a reduction of HIV infections as a goal (hence the condom and the instructions)
One of the main advantages of decriminalization was that is open the doors for a lot more treatments. Before, you had to admit to have committed a crime (with legal consequences) before you could be treated. The decriminalization eliminated these consequences and helped people find the help they needed
>> You can own it and use it, but you can't produce it, sell it or distribute it. Maybe the government believes in the spontaneous generation of drugs?
I am sure the point is for the Govt. to prosecute the producer, not the consumer. This is similar to some countries outlawing 'consumption' of prostitution services, but not offering of such services.
When you learn how many of the women in prostitution are forced into that work by sex traffickers or sheer poverty, it's not hard to understand. The sex 'seller' often isn't the one who gets the money.
The law I was questioning assumes every single prostitute is a victim, including the ones who are not enslaved. It also assumes every single drug seller is not a victim, even the ones who are enslaved.
If the real issue is enslavement, why not just carve out a general exception in criminal law to acts which you are performing against your will? I.e., if you rob a bank because your wife/children are being held hostage, the person holding your wife hostage is criminally liable for that act.
(I'd actually be very surprised if this exception doesn't already exist.)
I think a good way to look at it is that it's not so much about right and wrong or about who's a victim but about average outcomes.
The average outcome of prosecuting a drug user or prostitute is you spent a bunch of government resources processing, trying and incarcerating the person in order to take someone off the streets who's not actually particularly dangerous.
So, why do it?
Drug dealers on the other hand frequently beef over territory, sell bad product that kills people, get into interesting sideline work, etc. And they're very few in number compared to the users. So as far as bang for the buck, it makes sense to prosecute them. Yes, there are exceptions, but you make policy for the average case and hope that your cops and DAs are smart enough to exercise some judgment when warranted.
Hypothetically, suppose it turns out that black drug dealers are far more likely than white drug dealers to be violent criminals [1]. Would you then favor prosecuting drug crimes committed by blacks, but not by whites? Depending on what the numbers work out to be, you will get the same statistical "bang for buck" that you would prosecuting drug sellers but not sex sellers.
[1] Lets give this hypothetical a TV face: take Weeds as the average white drug dealer, and The Wire as the average black drug dealer. Of course, this is only statistics - there are violent white drug dealers and harmless black drug dealers, even in the hypothetical.
I was arguing prosecuting dealers as opposed to users, because it's a massive waste of money to prosecute the latter (not that that stops us from doing it, with 3 million people in jail and growing). Entirely different argument.
Regarding prosecuting black ones instead of white ones.. well we already do that, so I'd say the reality has surpassed both of us. However, as far as what I think should happen, then yes, I would differentiate between gang bangers who own corners, run protection rackets, etc and the dude in high school who sells a little weed to his friends. But as far as consistency in the law, if you're decriminalizing usage and keeping dealing criminal, then you need to apply that consistently when you catch people dealing.
Anecdotally, I think the difference you're perceiving isn't so much black/white as it is weed/hard and suburban/urban.
"Regarding prosecuting black ones instead of white ones.. well we already do that, so I'd say the reality has surpassed both of us."
After this statement, I can't really take you seriously. Do you have any proof beyond this statement?
"However, as far as what I think should happen, then yes, I would differentiate between gang bangers who own corners, run protection rackets, etc and the dude in high school who sells a little weed to his friends. But as far as consistency in the law, if you're decriminalizing usage and keeping dealing criminal, then you need to apply that consistently when you catch people dealing."
If drugs were legalized, most likely, dealing without some sort of license would still be illegal.
A citation ought to have been provided, but for most people interested in this topic the disparities in prosecutions and sentencing are so well known that it might not seem necessary.
"A citation ought to have been provided, but for most people interested in this topic the disparities in prosecutions and sentencing are so well known that it might not seem necessary."
Here is an excerpt:
"Whites are primarily sentenced to prison for violent offenses and white prison admissions for violent offenses grew in the 1990s, while drug sentences actually declined somewhat"
so does this mean that the system is being racist against whites in regards to violent crime?
More African Americans may be getting arrested for drug-related offenses, but there is no mention if they actually interviewed a cross-section of those people to see if they actually committed the crimes.
How do we know that there aren't more African Americans, on average, using more illegal drugs?
Some interesting points from the article:
"The second is more complex: high Black male imprisonment is associated with a rise over time in the proportion of Black children living with mothers who have not graduated from high school; this rise occurs despite an overall rise in Black mothers' education and a positive association between Black male imprisonment and the proportion of children living with mothers who are married college"
So it might not have anything to do with racism. A higher percentage of black families only have a mother..and a father in Prison. I heard stats elsewhere that said that this was the case with something like 75% of black families. Children of these broken families have a much lower chance of becoming successful adults and I would say a higher chance of getting involved with illegal drugs. Racism does still happen, but not nearly as much as you are saying.
> A higher percentage of black families only have a mother..and a father in Prison. I heard stats elsewhere that said that this was the case with something like 75% of black families.
You're really under the impression that black people aren't systematically questioned/harrassed/arrested in proportionally higher numbers than white people?
I mean that's its own whole discussion but I'd say the number of young african american men currently in jail pretty much proves the point.
If you have any black friends, ask them about profiling sometime.
Not really related to the article, but do you have any data on forced prostitution?
It is a common argument, and I don't deny the existence of it, but I never saw any real research on the fact, besides watching this documentary[1], which did not presented much research on the subject in a global basis.
Depends on your definition of "forced", it could run from literal sex slave through "hooked on drugs and unable to fend for self so stuck with pimp" to just plain "has to feed self and has no other options".
And then there's the emotionally abusive / controlling / cult of personality situations where, while the workers are not sex slaves as depicted in cinema (locked up in small dank rooms), they are just as enslaved via cult-like techniques of brainwashing.
Usually that arises after the "has to feed self" situation.
At least, that's what Law & Order SVU has taught me.
If the customers are helping the prostitute feed herself, how is she a victim and how are they harming her? She would be worse off if not for the voluntary transaction.
In fact, the government is actually harming the hungry prostitute by reducing demand for her services by criminalizing the customers.
You can't take the isolated circumstances of 'customer helps prostitute feed herself' and proclaim everything peachy, because the reality of the situation is that it goes beyond individual prostitutes, and involves a global dynamic of human trafficking, sexism, class discrimination, income inequality, media stereotypes, and more.
It's easy to read some article and say, if A then B so therefore C (or not C, whatever, etc.), but if you don't have experience with people who actually suffer through these experiences every day, then you have no basis from which to say "In fact".
I'm trusting the individual prostitute who voluntarily chose to sell sex on the belief that it made him/her better off. I trust his/her experience more than yours.
As for this "unless you have personal experience, you can't comment" argument, I call BS. That is nothing but an attempt to keep outside views out of the debate. Thanks to the powers of logic and reason, humans can draw all sorts of correct conclusions without personal experience. I've never experienced quantum mechanics, the inside of a computer chip, or plate tectonics, yet I can draw all sorts of correct conclusions about them. You are trying to tell me that I can't draw correct conclusions about a slightly different human experience?
Yes. You have absolutely no idea what it's like to grow up in the projects and any attempts to map your life experience onto theirs are completely compromised by your predilection to think, "hey, they could've just tried hard in school and gone to college like I did".
I don't know what it's like to grow up in the projects either, and I don't even have a huge disagreement with you in regards to this particular niche of policy.. but I'm wise enough to know that I'm pretty average, maybe a little bit brighter and harder working but nowhere near special enough to claim I would've made it out of the projects.
I see. By virtue of lacking a certain set of experiences, you conclude that I must be irrational. You apparently believe this because you imagine I said someone should have gone to college (not sure when I said this, but whatever).
Hey, no offense intended, but according to your profile, you're a postdoc at NYU.
That's more than a "slightly different" human experience than giving $20 blowjobs in order to get through to next week. We're talking about something that's entirely alien to your (and my) cushy existences here.
Personally, I had more of a head start by age 5 than anyone in the projects is likely to ever have. I realize this. It's humbling, but it's the truth -- I'm not that special, mostly just lucky.
My point is not about whether, given the facts, you could make accurate conclusions. My point is that no internet article on this subject can give you the facts on which to base an accurate conclusion.
I wouldn't call the drug buyer the "victim", just "harmless in almost all cases". Drug users don't typically commit violent crimes unless they're a junkie in search of a fix (very small minority). Most of the violence, theft and other law breaking comes from the people trying to make a business of it.
Regarding the sex seller being the victim, well, it turns out that many times she is.
Does the findings in this article surprise anyone? No? Good. I'm not a hippy, but let's get over this b.s. "War on Drugs" and begin to use our common sense when dealing with social issues and impeding on natural rights.
While I strongly support your conclusion in this case, I'm infuriated every time I hear a call for a policy change based on "common sense". As far as I can tell, this is just a euphemism for "I am unable to articulate a rational basis for my position", or even "I refuse to let the actual evidence interfere with my position".
Here is my understanding on why decriminalization of drugs is beneficial.
First, legitimate competition from suppliers would drive down costs, forcing high risk/high reward illegal operations from other countries out of the market. How can a Mexican drug cartel compete against grand-ma and her backyard?
Secondly, what is the violent side of drug activitey? Again my understanding is that it's mostly revolved around protecting/hiding illegal production, and moving the drugs to a dealer. If you eliminate that supply chain, that vector of violent activity would be cut off.
Thirdly, why do people use drugs. I see three distinct reasons, recreational, escapism, addiction. The first two can easily lead to the third. The second two could be helped/resolved through rehabilitation programs, or solving the cause to need of escapism. (8-14% unemployment can't be helping). The first case, there isn't much a reason to have otherwise productive members of society be in jail.
I don't believe that drugs are marked as illegal because of fear from pharmacy companies, or from paper/cotton companies. I believe it is that same reaction as prohibition, blue collar laws. Bad stuff can happen, bad stuff does happen, and government officials wish to prevent that from happening, on the immediate time line, without generally considering that the long term effects can be disastrous.
One additional thing. As part of decriminalization and in addition to rehabilitation programs, the government should be watching new recreational drugs entering the market, and doing studies to determine the health risks / benefits of these fringe drugs. I seems that like sniffing glue, kids seem to assume that just because a drug has not been classified as an illegal substance, it somehow isn't dangerous, when the case is really that the government is rather slow to address anything of relevance in a timely fashion. (Except steroid abuse in MLB, and communists)
First, legitimate competition from suppliers would drive down costs, forcing high risk/high reward illegal operations from other countries out of the market. How can a Mexican drug cartel compete against grand-ma and her backyard?
Secondly, what is the violent side of drug activitey? Again my understanding is that it's mostly revolved around protecting/hiding illegal production, and moving the drugs to a dealer. If you eliminate that supply chain, that vector of violent activity would be cut off.
You've got this all mixed up. The violence is the competition. Drug violence is rarely about cartels vs cops -- more often it's cartels vs cartels and dealers vs dealers.
Well, that's perhaps true but the broader point still stands. Legalised drugs companies don't tend to have the same violent tendencies. Glaxo-Smithkline don't tend to have violent gun battles with Bayer over who gets to supply prescription meds to a 'hood.
Also, although that may be the violence most prominent in the US, there's plenty of police/army vs. drug cartel violent crime in other countries.
I don't disagree that legalization would reduce violence. Part of it probably comes from the fact that since what they're doing (on a large scale) is massively illegal, so using violence to compete isn't much of a leap.
Cigarettes are legal, yet there are still criminal gangs making their living out of smuggling and selling cigarettes. Unless drugs are sold without restriction and without tax there will still be a market for illegal drugs. Sure the market will be smaller and less profitable, but that might just make the gangs more violent in defending their turf as they need a larger market share to keep their current profit levels.
> Drug violence is rarely about cartels vs cops -- more often it's cartels vs cartels and dealers vs dealers.
Precisely the point: If the cartels come to intimidate grandma, she calls the police, because her operation is legal and the intimidation is not. The police, because her operation is legal, then go after the cartel and shut them down.
Additionally, contract laws and theft/burglary laws and so on work in grandma's favor, because the legal system is at least potentially on the side of her legal operation. This alone greatly reduces the need for violence.
No, the critical difference is that as things currently stand none of the people involved in the drug trade have any reason to cooperate with the authorities. And really, once alcohol was legalized look at how quickly the mob violence around it disappeared.
Right. Prohibition created the Mafia - before Prohibition they were a bunch of petty Italian thugs, but America's real desire for alcohol made them rich and powerful. Prohibition never works. You'd think a bunch of free marketeers like American conservatives would get that.
Some of the current drugs out there need to stay illegal. Not because they get you high, but because they are toxic.
I do believe, if some form of decriminalization happens, we really need to up the penalty for crimes committed while under the influence. Maybe assume premeditation. I should point out I believe the same thing about alcohol. Killing someone while drunk should be considered premeditated.
A lot of things people ingest are toxic, the trick I feel is making that well known and public knowledge, not necessarily illegal. For example, the surgeon generals warning on the pack of a cigarette, or the chemical warnings on a bottle of bleach, I feel are a better way to approach the problem.
Part of my attitude comes from growing up in New Hampshire. For example, if you are a consenting adult, and you are only harming yourself, then that is your prerogative. Why you don't need to wear a seatbelt if you are over 18, or a motorcycle helmet. The risk you are taking on is not against other people, like drunk driving, but mostly only to your own health.
Now an effective part of that comes down to knowledge, but certain ideas can be ingrained in a society over time. Like put on a seatbelt or be thrown through the windshield like a crash test dummy.
"A lot of things people ingest are toxic, the trick I feel is making that well known and public knowledge, not necessarily illegal. For example, the surgeon generals warning on the pack of a cigarette, or the chemical warnings on a bottle of bleach, I feel are a better way to approach the problem."
This still won't stop people from trying to sue companies that try to sell them something that knowingly harms them. Hell, even fast food restaurant chains have been sued in the US for making someone fat.
My problem is that the same people that want drugs legalized then want the tax payers to pay for an addict to get clean.
Most people aren't born addicted to drugs. You have to make the decision to start taking drugs. I have no problem allowing anyone to have the freedom to put whatever the hell the want into their body as long as it doesn't affect other people. This includes leaching off of the government.
This may seem harsh. But if you take the risk you also need to be prepared for the consequences (good or bad).
If someone is in a traffic accident and ends up with severe physical or mental disabilities because they didn't take basic safety precautions (wearing a helmet or seatbelt), costs are incurred by the rest of society.
Then create a cost for not wearing a helmet. Raise the insurance rates to account for the extra costs. Or give appropriate insurance discounts for wearing a helmet. If you are caught without a helmet and don't have the "helmet-free" insurance, then you get fined, your insurer can drop your policy, and/or your insurance skyrockets.
Killing someone while drunk should be considered premeditated.
This is crazy talk. In some cases it might be true, but the idea of applying such a broad judgment on an entire class of crimes would be a huge injustice.
Severity of punishment is not a good way to reduce the incidence of crime. Do you think someone who's judgment is so impaired that they're ready to drive while drunk is really going to stop and think, hey this is extra illegal, maybe I shouldn't do it? They're already putting their own lives in severe danger, so I doubt it.
The solution is better education, not increased punishment.
The solution is better education, not increased punishment.
Without commenting on the question of a person's criminal liability for drunk driving...
How do you think education will help? Do you really think that today, in 2010, there is anybody who hasn't spent at least an aggregate 24 hours hearing the "don't drink and drive" message?
It seems to me that too often, people attempt to address problems with a knee-jerk "we need more education". But at least here in the USA, I've got to believe that we've all heard the messages about drunk driving, your brain on drugs, AIDS, domestic abuse, etc., ad nauseam. What more education do you want?
There is a difference between being informed and being educated. Someone who has lost a friend or family member due to drunk driving is more educated about the risks than someone who has been informed about the risks from seeing the ubiquitous TV commercials.
I'm not sure exactly how to best go about educating people, or I would be out doing it.
Increasing punishment for drunk driving (combined with lower limits and more random roadside testing) might make people think twice about risking it.
Coming from Sweden where we have relatively high punishments and low legal limits, I was shocked about how cavalier most people I met in the States where about getting in their car after a nights drinking. If you want to lower drunk driving relates deaths you have to change peoples attitudes towards drinking and driving.
If you can't make clear judgement while drunk, such as not driving, then maybe you shouldn't be getting drunk in the first place. Driving is a privilege you kill someone while drunk and you should NEVER be allowed to drive again.
Right, and I believe that educating people about the real risks involved with drunk driving will prevent more of those deaths than punishing people who have already demonstrated the poor judgment in doing that in the first place.
I fully agree with permanently barring someone from driving after they kill someone while drunk driving, but tacking on 'pre-meditated' to the original crime is nonsense.
Why is it nonsense? The person made the decision to drink and drive. Someone is dead or injured and the person causing the pain needs to be punished.
Education doesn't really get us there, people know it is bad and do it anyway. Look at the repeat stats on DUI, suspended licenses don't deter as much as people wished.
Pre-meditation has a specific legal meaning that really doesn't apply to typical drunk driving. Something more along the lines of what you're talking about is the Felony murder rule:
Unfortunately drunk driving is a misdemeanor and doesn't qualify.
Just to clarify, by nonsense I'm referring specifically to the idea of arbitrarily applying legal terms to situations where they aren't valid for punitive purposes. I disagree with harsher punishment as a crime deterrent, but I don't think harsher punishment itself is 'nonsense'.
Killing someone while drunk should be considered premeditated.
Are you suggesting that in 100% of the cases where killing someone (and I assume this includes manslaughter) is premeditated?
Because if you are not, then it should not be considered premeditated. That's dishonest. Simply give the judge some additional window to affect sentencing for a set of crimes committed while intoxicated.
If you want to punish something more strongly because doing so would lead to beneficial behavior from citizens, then by all means do so. But call it what it is, don't hijack other unrelated factors for your own means.
I really don't think its "dishonest". No, I am not say 100% cases of killing someone are premeditated. Accidents happen. Bad things go wrong in worse ways.
That being said, I believe if you knowing impair your ability to make judgements and then kill or injure someone, you made a conscious decision.
Now, if you frame this in some "mandatory minimum" debate, I am definitely not going there. I still believe judges need their leeway, but prosecutors need to charge the crime as something more than a simple "he was drinking and an accident happened".
I have a good friend who was smart enough not to get into the drunk guy's car (leaving a fraternity party) and followed on his own. Thus, he was the first person on the scene after the accident. He wound up being a witness against the driver in a homicide trial.
So at least in the State of New York, you can be tried for manslaughter when your drunk driving results in someone's death.
> Killing someone while drunk should be considered premeditated.
I agree.
> Some of the current drugs out there need to stay illegal. Not because they get you high, but because they are toxic.
OK, I'll replace 'toxic' with 'potentially more addictive and dangerous than weed, alcohol, and nicotine' (Tobacco is damned addictive but it doesn't seem to cause antisocial behaviors.), because otherwise what you said makes no damned sense.
Go back to the late 1800s: People could buy cocaine and opium over-the-counter at drugstores. Laudanum (also called tincture of opium), a common patent medicine, was made from 10% opium and 1% morphine dissolved in alcohol. This, too, was available over-the-counter. America was prosperous, growing, and certainly not universally addicted to drugs.
So, why do you think going back to that regime would be dangerous? What evidence do you have that contradicts my historical analysis?
I was actually talking about the chemical mixes that are actually toxic / poison that are being brewed in trailers in the rural areas or kitchens in apartment complexes. I wasn't writing about addictiveness.
> I was actually talking about the chemical mixes that are actually toxic / poison that are being brewed in trailers in the rural areas or kitchens in apartment complexes. I wasn't writing about addictiveness.
Right. Well, legalization will help that as it is, in fact, illegal for a legitimate company to sell some unknown poison when it is claiming to sell drugs of a given composition and purity. Also, meth labs as we now know them will become economically impossible if it's possible to get meth legally: They are the perfect, absolutely perfect example of the kind of high-risk/high-reward behavior that is only worthwhile if you have gigantic margins subsidized by the DEA and local police.
It won't be beneficial for Mexico. If the US decriminalizes, the cartels will lose revenue streams and will commit more kidnappings to maintain their livelihood. The state will descend further into chaos.
So, if we continue to support the gang's revenue stream, then they will wax wealthy and powerful and continue murdering with impunity. If we eliminate the gangs' revenue stream, they will commit more kidnappings, murder, and further chaos.
Apparently, Mexico is screwed either way. Let's at least screw Mexico in a way which might help someone else.
But without that firehose of ready cash, the cartels will die an unlamented death in short order. The same applies to Colombia. We need to decriminalize.
Then nothing we do will make any difference, and clearly the fact that we might make the cartels kidnap more is not an argument against decriminalization.
The proper argument is the American ideal of personal liberty. Our rights are only supposed to be curtailed in situations where the expression of one's rights negative impacts another. The plant being non-toxic, this does not happen.
An appeal to an undefined "common sense" is unnecessary.
Ethics, the kind deferred to in politics, usually boils down to some vague, undefined but shared (common) something.
The American liberty is also essentially a common American sensibility. Very few of those who defer to it could articulate one of the (usually pretty technical) liberal arguments.
Anyway, my point is that the argument that "marijuana isn't toxic so it should be legal" isn't valid. First, because it is toxic. Also, because it isn't that relevant: there is similarly toxic stuff that is legal.
> I guess everything is toxic to a certain degree, even water is toxic if you swallow enough of it.
Well, I'm talking about normal effects of normal doses.
I didn't see anything in the what you linked to that stated that marijuana was toxic. A lot of "might be" linked "to certain things" but nothing substantive.
More people die each year from OTC painkillers (aspirin, tylenol, advil) than they do in deaths caused by marijuana (0).
I voted you back up from 0. It's true, even though it's not incorrect BECAUSE it's from Cato, it deserves extra scrutiny since the study comes from someone with an agenda.
> when dealing with social issues and impeding on natural rights.
Maybe. I am a firm believer that your rights stop only where my rights start.
I would not be against drug use by other individuals (even if I personally think it is a stupid idea). Unfortunately, drug addicts do their best to make their problems your problems (i.e. they externalise the consequences of their actions).
This is manifested in such things as free health care and constant welfare and unemployment benefits. So, yeah, if you want complete individual freedom, it should be coupled with individual consequences.
I don't support the use of drugs either. But we are living very difficult times and a lot of truly innocent people are suffering. We need to find a better way, but the first step is to have a better understanding of the problem and that is why I think these articles are good. I'm writing this from one of the most violent places in Mexico.
Incarceration rates in the United States today, which are due largely to the anti-drug get-tough policies of the last 30 years, should alarm anyone who believes in the principles of liberty that this nation was founded on, IMO:
If you think the laws themselves are faulty, then argue against their merit. But arguments of the form "if we removed laws, less laws would get broken" have always seemed somewhat vacuous to me.
Edit: Given the downvotes, I'd love to have a discussion with someone who disagrees.
Start with the facts that this is supposed to be a free nation, a republic with representational democracy, putatively making our own laws.
Now consider that a large fraction of the population is in prison for these very crimes, more so than anywhere else in this world.
This should suggest (although not prove) that the government is imposing its own will, overriding the wishes of the people whose right it is to determine the laws (through their representatives).
I'm reminded of the old 55mph speed limit laws. States would be tested by the federal government; if it was found that more than 50% of drivers exceeded 55, the state could lose federal highway funding. It seems to me that if more than half of the drivers exceeded the speed limit, well then, that's pretty much the same thing as having a referendum with a majority of voters saying that the speed limit is too low.
I understand your argument, but I don't think it's correct. In a democracy, there is no theoretical reason why 49% of the population wouldn't end up in jail. I certainly don't think this would be a good thing, but pure, untainted democracy does nothing to prevent it. You say "if more than half of the drivers exceeded the speed limit, well then, that's pretty much the same thing as having a referendum with a majority of voters saying that the speed limit is too low", but that's really a straw man, because nowhere near half of all Americans are in prison.
And in our case, those in prison are not drawn uniformly from the American population. Prisoners are disproportionately from a minority (intended in the "not majority" sense, not in the skin color sense, though I suppose in this case either applies) subculture, and unfortunately, that subculture glorifies many types of criminal behavior, most of which I imagine you wouldn't favor legalizing.
Again, it's perfectly valid to say that drug laws are wrong and here's why, and that if your ideas were implemented, incarceration rates would be much lower, and that this would be a good thing. All I'm disagreeing with is the general notion that saying laws should be abolished simply because doing so would lower crime rates isn't persuasive. I mean, we could get rid of all the laws, and then the incarceration rate would be zero, but something tells me you wouldn't like that.
I'm in favor of sweeping decriminalization (and legalization), but the data in this article -- hand-picked, no doubt, by the Cato Institute -- barely suggest correlation between decriminalization and declining drug use rates and stop way before causation.
The only conclusion you can legitimately draw from this, I think, is that decriminalization doesn't result in all hell breaking loose in at least the short term. Which is great! But I'd like to see a more substantial (and, if possible, more neutral) study.
Is anyone else perplexed that the success metric for decriminalization is reduced drug use?
I'd think reduced crime (esp organized), reduced prison populations, savings in prosecuting housing drug non-criminals, job increases from local production/distribution, and/or tax revenue increases would all be more interesting / relevant metrics.
It sounds like Portugal took the path of "it's still illegal and bad, we're just not gonna punish you for it". Which isn't really decriminalization in my book.
No, that's decriminalization. Leaving the laws on the books but not enforcing them is decriminalization. Taking the laws off the books is legalization. The societal view of whether it's bad or not can't be legislated directly, but it could change as use patterns shift over the years.
I seem to recall hearing that when alcohol was legalized the number of people drinking roughly doubled and the number of alcoholics went up by around 15% (there seems to be a correlation between substance abuse and willingness to break the law, surprise surprise).
I think the system is being overrated both in the article and in your comments. I'm from Portugal (but that doesn't mean I'm an authority on the reality of my country, as I haven't been involved in this kind of situations and didn't experience the system working) but I just think the whole thing just comes down to "you're not punished for having it".
But that doesn't mean that there exist government production sites or distribution stores. So there isn't any advantage for the goverment such as incoming tax money from the drugs or increse in job positions.
Also there is no mistaken belief that the goverment supports the drugs perceived by the youth because actually all the system does is not arresting you, the goverment doesn't provide the availability of drugs.
If the system ends up helping the addicted individuals or not, that is something that I don't know. Though it seems obvious that arresting someone is not the wisest first step for treatment, I end up figuring how does the system reaches the addicts then (I don't think getting help by themselves is something they would do without a great external help).
I'm slowly coming round to this as a good idea - at least to trial. If you have the requisite support (like in Portugal) to go with it and are not just decriminalizing possession alone then it should work well.
The only problem I have is that it might encourage the use of drugs; which is potentially dangerous for people.
Old, but more relevant than your comment. This was not deserving of a down-vote and in fact, I'm glad someone posted this old article, because I have been bookmarking studies and observations on this topic lately for research I am doing.
EDIT: Sorry, that first line was an unnecessary jab. Based on your Karma and interaction, you add a lot of value to the community, so please continue to support that value, not filter it.
It is an interesting issue, and an interesting policy result, and one we should consider adopting here. I am wholeheartedly in favor of reducing government interference in people's personal lives, and I can even consider it hack-worthy insofar as it involves tinkering with legal rather than computer code.
But this particular story is no longer news. Not included are about 10 other HN threads referencing the same article, which you can find by going to google and searching for 'site:news.ycombinator.com drugs portugal'. This gets posted in some fashion every 90 days or so.
I upvoted the comment. This is a "news" site, not a "recycled story" site. There's enough new stuff coming through the firehose that we don't need to start reposting the Internet from a year ago.
Just because it was relevant and interesting a year ago - or ten years ago -
doesn't mean you should be posting and reposting and reposting it on a "news" site. Maybe there should be a golden oldies site where people can post all the "but gee it's new to me" stuff.
This behavior was also common on the generation which was born during the revolution, like my brother. There was more information on the end of the 80s and teens were still trying soft drugs but starting to avoid hard drugs. I can't really explain why this happened but I know bad stories about drugs were all the time on the news. For instance, in my house my father always said: "If you ever try drugs don't ever come back." He never knew about my brother but there was a cousin in the family completely addicted, he died recently.
I'm on my twenties so I'd say I'm from the generation after my brother's. I never tried drugs but all my friends did, no exception. They just aren't addicted, don't know why. It's pretty common for them to carry small dosages of marijuana which are allowed by law but there's one thing they don't know: it's legal, like the article states. It has to be a really small dosage but it's enough for you if you're not addicted. And that's what's funny: I never met anyone who knew it was legal (and I knew it because my brother worked at the courtyard) and everyone still looks at Amsterdam like the holy place for drugs in Europe. It's like a taboo, nobody is supposed to talk about it being legal, and it works I guess.