They lost the war on drugs

Forums › Politics › They lost the war on drugs

1 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | ... | 45

7393 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3863

Reply # 1525709 4-Apr-2016 11:19

frankv:

Fred99:

... a clinical psychologist ... dealing with individuals who for other reasons had a predisposition (for psychological disorders) and/or subsequently self-medicate and/or were led into living in a sub-culture where drug abuse is rampant, as they didn't "fit" and were ostracised (even if only by their own perception) by "normal" society.

I believe that there's also an element of protest: "I'll do it *because* it's illegal, as way of showing the Man that I'm not totally in his power". The same goes for lots of other anti-social behaviour.

I'm sure you're right. I was an appalling teenager - a parent's nightmare of a rebellious rude uncooperative and anti-establishment (often "automatic" rather than a reasoned reaction) young person. I got through it relatively unscathed due to a lot of luck.

UHD

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 303
Inactive user

Reply # 1525738 4-Apr-2016 12:01

freitasm:
UHD:

freitasm:

networkn: It makes me laugh when I hear people talk about the tax gain from legalizing, when the cost of compliance is about a billion times more.

Do you have a reference? If not, it's not a fact.

A lack of a reference does not mean a statement is not factual.

Unless there is evidence it is just hearsay and rumors, not hard fact.

True but just because he did not provide a reference does not mean his statement is not factual which is what I said. You need to learn to argue effectively and not simply dismiss a point of view because the poster didn't provide you with a scientific paper. respond to the argument, don't dismiss it out of hand. That is a logical fallacy and not something intelligent people ought to engage in.

SaltyNZ

4596 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2089

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 1525739 4-Apr-2016 12:02

Rikkitic:

Anyway, the current system is not working and it is time to try something else.

That's the key issue for me. Our current approach is a failure; why wouldn't we try something different?

iPad Air + iPhone SE + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

MikeAqua

5119 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2086

Reply # 1525807 4-Apr-2016 15:13

6 people support this post

I don't take illegal drugs. I have no interest in dong so.

But ... I don't support prohibition either. Personally I would rather see the whole lot legal, subject to purity standards, taxed, regulated to over 18s.

Yes drugs are harmful. So are sugar (diabetes) and duck fat chips (cardiovascular disease).

Their will still be people who are severely adversely affected by 'drugs' but without all that money going on futile attempts to enforce prohibition, there should be a lot more money available to support people who are vulnerable to addiction rather than prosecuting them.

An effect of legalisation is that it removes a motive for potency. Fast, small and high unit value are the name of the game when dealing in or possessing illicit substances, to reduce the choice of getting caught. The potency motive favours P over cannabis.

Mike

KrazyKid

622 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 164

Reply # 1525815 4-Apr-2016 15:25

4 people support this post

UHD:

freitasm:

networkn: It makes me laugh when I hear people talk about the tax gain from legalizing, when the cost of compliance is about a billion times more.

Do you have a reference? If not, it's not a fact.

A lack of a reference does not mean a statement is not factual.

I haven't read this whole thread but I do remember on Morning Report (RNZ) last week the Police Union Rep (Greg Conway?) saying that Overall Harm would be reduced if made legal because you would be taking income/influence away from the gangs in NZ. Surely this reduced compliance costs as if the gangs aren't as rich, they aren't as attractive, membership is down and they are not committing as many crimes?

Geektastic

11905 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3858

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1525834 4-Apr-2016 15:34

One person supports this post

frankv:

Geektastic:

A lack of a reference does not mean a statement is not factual.

Tell that to the Pope..!

The Pope deals in religion, not fact.

Pretty sure he thinks it's fact though.

Hammerer

1685 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 400

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1525838 4-Apr-2016 15:45

Geektastic:

frankv:

Geektastic:

A lack of a reference does not mean a statement is not factual.

Tell that to the Pope..!

The Pope deals in religion, not fact.

Pretty sure he thinks it's fact though.

Pretty sure he thinks it's truth rather than fact.

SaltyNZ

4596 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2089

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 1525843 4-Apr-2016 15:49

One person supports this post

Hammerer:

Geektastic:

frankv:

Geektastic:

A lack of a reference does not mean a statement is not factual.

Tell that to the Pope..!

The Pope deals in religion, not fact.

Pretty sure he thinks it's fact though.

Pretty sure he thinks it's truth rather than fact.

Pretty sure it's not really relevant to the discussion one way or the other.

iPad Air + iPhone SE + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

Hammerer

1685 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 400

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1525848 4-Apr-2016 16:01

SaltyNZ:

Pretty sure it's not really relevant to the discussion one way or the other.

It is relevant to the context where posters argue to elevate facts over other rhetorical devices. The existence of facts doesn't automatically decide a better solution than other forms of reasoning.

andrew027

1243 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 530

Reply # 1525867 4-Apr-2016 16:31

One person supports this post

paulchinnz: Less than perfect digitisation of original, but redid graph with 0,0:

Don't think there's much misrepresentation of data - starting at 1.5,1.5 just means less blank space on graph. Looks like a nice linear correlation.

I think the original graph is very misleading. With the white space removed cannabis (and some other drugs e.g. ritalin, magic mushrooms) are at the bottom of the personal and social harm axes, therefore appearing almost harmless. In reality, with the axes statring at 0,0, it's easy to see that cannabis's scores of 1.86 (personal) and 1.61 (social) are 68% of the personal harm and 62% of the social harm of crack cocaine - "less harmful" is certainly not the same thing as "almost harmless".

The other thing is that graph is meaningless without some context. How many pages of a medical journal do I need to read to get that? What level of use is required to come up with the scores? Alcohol is one of the worst drugs on the list. Does this mean me having one glass of wine at home with dinner, or is it me putting away 14 beers at the pub and driving afterwards, running over two children walking their family dogs, then beating my wife up when I get home? Nicotine is pretty high on the list too. Is the social harm score about people standing outside the pub on their own on a freezing winter's night because it's illegal to smoke inside, or is it the cost of medical treatment for the 5000 people who die from tobacco-related illness in New Zealand every year?

Kiwifruta

791 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 163

Reply # 1525898 4-Apr-2016 17:14

andrew027:
paulchinnz: Less than perfect digitisation of original, but redid graph with 0,0:

Don't think there's much misrepresentation of data - starting at 1.5,1.5 just means less blank space on graph. Looks like a nice linear correlation.

I think the original graph is very misleading. With the white space removed cannabis (and some other drugs e.g. ritalin, magic mushrooms) are at the bottom of the personal and social harm axes, therefore appearing almost harmless. In reality, with the axes statring at 0,0, it's easy to see that cannabis's scores of 1.86 (personal) and 1.61 (social) are 68% of the personal harm and 62% of the social harm of crack cocaine - "less harmful" is certainly not the same thing as "almost harmless".

The other thing is that graph is meaningless without some context. How many pages of a medical journal do I need to read to get that? What level of use is required to come up with the scores? Alcohol is one of the worst drugs on the list. Does this mean me having one glass of wine at home with dinner, or is it me putting away 14 beers at the pub and driving afterwards, running over two children walking their family dogs, then beating my wife up when I get home? Nicotine is pretty high on the list too. Is the social harm score about people standing outside the pub on their own on a freezing winter's night because it's illegal to smoke inside, or is it the cost of medical treatment for the 5000 people who die from tobacco-related illness in New Zealand every year?

The poster of the graph also provided a link to the study which was published in the British Medical Journal.
292 Medical Professionals in Scotland were surveyed, those professionals provided scores (based on their opinion/experience) of the social and personal harm that the 19 drugs did in relation to addicts only, so excluded casual users.

Here is the link again.

SaltyNZ

4596 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2089

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 1525954 4-Apr-2016 19:17

Hammerer:
SaltyNZ:

Pretty sure it's not really relevant to the discussion one way or the other.

It is relevant to the context where posters argue to elevate facts over other rhetorical devices. The existence of facts doesn't automatically decide a better solution than other forms of reasoning.

Well, then, Jesus' attitude would be to look after them as sick people deserving of our sympathy; 'what you do for the least of these, you do for me' etc. without necessarily advocating one way or the other on the issue of criminality. He turned water into wine at a party; I think we can safely conclude he was not 100% opposed to the sensible consumption of alcohol.

This particular pope, however, does not support decriminalisation. (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/20/pope-francis-dont-legalise-drugs)

iPad Air + iPhone SE + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

andrew027

1243 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 530

Reply # 1526164 5-Apr-2016 08:39

Kiwifruta: The poster of the graph also provided a link to the study which was published in the British Medical Journal.
292 Medical Professionals in Scotland were surveyed, those professionals provided scores (based on their opinion/experience) of the social and personal harm that the 19 drugs did in relation to addicts only, so excluded casual users.

Here is the link again.

So the data relates to Scottish addicts only, which could explain the results. At the risk of succumbing to stereotypes, I would imagine alcohol would be the most commonly used drug in Scotland, the one most likely to be consumed to excess, and the one most likely to have a range of people of all ages and socioeconomic statuses addicted to it, so the cumulative effect of alcoholism would be far greater than that of cannabis use, particularly considering the use of cannabis has decreased in the UK over the last 10+ years [source] and that cannabis is generally considered to be less addictive than many other drugs, including alcohol and nicotine.

In fact, if you look at this graph of the results from the same survey, and take out the obvious "we all know they're really bad" drugs (heroin, crack, crystal meth and cocaine) then the top three "most harmful" drugs are the legal (and therefore most readily available) ones.

So it's a bit of a slippery slope argument, but this could indicate that if cannabis was legalised (or decriminalised) this would lead to increased availability, which would result in increased use, which would see increased net harm in society, and cannabis moves higher up the list.

Rikkitic

Glurp
8243 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3792

Subscriber

Reply # 1526168 5-Apr-2016 08:47

2 people support this post

Those are valid points. I think the question (which has never been answered) is whether overall harm would be greater, less, or simply shifted. For example, would more cannabis users means less alcohol abuse? Would they cause less trouble due to lower levels of violence when stoned? Would depriving organised criminals of income from illegal cannabis benefit society overall? And so forth.

darned typos

I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage

Geektastic

11905 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3858

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1526182 5-Apr-2016 09:17

One person supports this post

Rikkitic:

Those are valid points. I think the question (which has never been answered) is whether overall harm would be greater, less, or simply shifted. For example, would more cannabis users means less alcohol abuse? Would they cause less trouble due to lower levels of violence when stoned? Would depriving organised criminals of income from illegal cannabis benefit society overall? And so forth.

darned typos

Pretty sure that depriving the crims of income would be a good result.

1 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | ... | 45