https://www.liquidpoker.net/


LP international Poland    Contact            Users: 470 Active, 0 Logged in - Time: 13:59

Prohibition Makes Drug Dealers Richer - NPR

New to LiquidPoker? Register here for free!
Forum Index > General
 1 
  2 
  3 
  4 
  5 
  6 
  > 
  Last 
  All 
k2o4   United States. Apr 14 2011 00:31. Posts 4803

NPR’s Planet Money: Prohibition Makes Drug Dealers Richer, Increases Crime, Barely Reduces Use

Click here to Listen - NPR Radio (Skip to 3:10)

This is a great listen but I gotta address one thing that came up in the show. An economist they interview claims that legalizing drugs is a trade off between reducing crime and increased addiction. But that's a false dichotomy, a logical fallacy.

Legalization is just as likely to decrease addiction as raise it... if addicts no longer have to fear legal trouble because of their illness (self inflicted but an illness none the less) and can be treated as patients rather than criminals, I think it will help improve treatment results. People often think of drug addiction as the result of some super addictive substance. That's the story we've been fed, that this scary drug will steal our soul and ruin our lives if we so much as take it 1 time, but it's not true. There's a whole list of things that contribute to addiction, from the drug's potency to your genetic predispositions to the room you use the drug in. We like to have 1 thing to blame, it keeps things simple, but it's not accurate. The environment around us (social attitudes, peer groups, access to treatment, etc), contributes greatly to addiction, and legalization would change the environment by switching our countries focus away from viewing drug use as a criminal problem and instead to seeing it as a medical problem.

For one second, please imagine prohibiting... masturbation ........ it just wouldn't work, would it? We human's like to alter our state of consciousness, just like we enjoy sex and food, and you can't get us to stop. We will always attempt to alter our state of consciousness whether it be by smoking a cigarette, drinking a beer, meditating, dreaming, yoga, skydiving, sex, or any other drugs, and how we want to do it should be our choice.

In all of our communities there is a small population that will always use drugs no matter how illegal you make them. I have a theory that this drug using population won't grow so much, even if legalization happens. Why? Because the one's who aren't using crack right now mostly just don't want to use it. I know if crack was made legal tomorrow I sure wouldn't go out and buy it just because it was suddenly legal. I've no desire to buy it. I don't think there's a rush of new customers to the freshly built corner drug store. Any increase in use would be by current consumers who then have easier access. But increased use by regular customers doesn't mean an increase in addiction. If the liquor store has a sale and you buy more than you normally would, do you automatically become an alcoholic? No (for the majority of us at least). Alcohol is addictive and you can die from the withdrawal symptoms, yet increased use by a regular consumer doesn't cause addiction.

I'd rather that the current crack consumers be allowed to buy it without endangering their lives and mine by funding criminals and increasing crime, that instead of drug dealers getting all the money most of it goes to legitimate business owners and some of it goes to tax revenue, which should be set aside to fund treatment of drug abuse, health care and national parks. Let the drug purchasers fund the drug treatment. Isn't that better than the current system where our tax dollars pay for a little bit of treatment and a whole lot of wasted policing? And might not the treatment programs be better funded if the billions we poured into persecuting citizens of our country for altering their state of consciousness in a manner of their own choosing (aka putting whatever the fuck they want to put into their own damn body) were instead put into treatment programs? And wouldn't the farming industries in our country be boosted if they were allowed to grow the drugs here? And wouldn't families be left better off because they no longer face the situation of being denied financial aid when trying to send their kid to college, all due to a drug charge from when their kid got caught with some weed? That's the other problem with his argument - he acts as if the only benefit of legalization is a decrease in crime.

I can't say for sure that legalization would decrease addiction, but I think there's a chance that it could. What I can say for sure is that prohibition sure as hell isn't working and under its rein new drugs like meth have appeared, addicting more people. 40 years of a drug war and things are just as bad as ever, yet we continue with the same strategy. Isn't it insane to continue to do the same thing yet hope for a different result?

Facebook Twitter
InnovativeYogis.comLast edit: 14/04/2011 00:57

Baalim   Mexico. Apr 14 2011 03:35. Posts 34246

no it doesnt make drug dealers richer... it makes drug dealers... period.


Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Stroggoz   New Zealand. Apr 14 2011 04:14. Posts 5291

unfortunately a larger % of the population need to realize the effects of drug legalization before anything can be done about it. The only way this can be done is by making cool tv shows like the wire.

One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings 

Etherone   Canada. Apr 14 2011 04:32. Posts 753


  On April 14 2011 02:35 Baal wrote:
no it doesnt make drug dealers richer... it makes drug dealers... period.




pretty much that.
I'd like to add that if prohibition on these drugs didn't exist, corporations would be "richer" than the current drug dealers.

edit: also did you just compare smoking to sex and food, those are biological imperatives, how is that even remotely an argument? seriously wtf

im sympathetic to the cause, but really you don't need strawmen and slogans to do it.

EDIT2: I hope you were high when you wrote that

 Last edit: 14/04/2011 04:50

kingpowa   France. Apr 14 2011 05:20. Posts 1525

The main argument of money going to drug dealer instead of legitimate business or government is in my opinion not a good argument (edit : I first wrote valid, but it is, just that imo it's not pertinent). You could say the same for weapons or every prohibited thing.
It's not only an economics matter (ethics, health...) but to stay on this one, I would be more interested in the following : if you legalize drug (obviously you would have to consider various types of drugs), the money that government would earn by taxing it, would it be bigger than the one it would have to spend on heath care due to effects of those drugs ?

For example, even if tobacco is highly taxed, health care due to use does still cost more which (the main reason Finland plans on forbidding tobacco within 30 years).
It could be way different for cannabis. I'm not against some kind of legalization, I'm just wondering. And I like the idea of "Let the drug purchasers fund the drug treatment.", just that you have to evaluate the cost of it which can be huge.

sorry for shitty english.Last edit: 14/04/2011 05:22

Jhyun88   United States. Apr 14 2011 05:21. Posts 1383

I read the title "drug" and immediately knew who the poster was.


kingpowa   France. Apr 14 2011 05:23. Posts 1525


  On April 14 2011 04:21 Jhyun88 wrote:
I read the title "drug" and immediately knew who the poster was.


It was a tough guess, gg

sorry for shitty english. 

Gumster   Sweden. Apr 14 2011 07:21. Posts 2290


  On April 14 2011 04:20 kingpowa wrote:
The main argument of money going to drug dealer instead of legitimate business or government is in my opinion not a good argument (edit : I first wrote valid, but it is, just that imo it's not pertinent). You could say the same for weapons or every prohibited thing.
It's not only an economics matter (ethics, health...) but to stay on this one, I would be more interested in the following : if you legalize drug (obviously you would have to consider various types of drugs), the money that government would earn by taxing it, would it be bigger than the one it would have to spend on heath care due to effects of those drugs ?

For example, even if tobacco is highly taxed, health care due to use does still cost more which (the main reason Finland plans on forbidding tobacco within 30 years).
It could be way different for cannabis. I'm not against some kind of legalization, I'm just wondering. And I like the idea of "Let the drug purchasers fund the drug treatment.", just that you have to evaluate the cost of it which can be huge.



healthcare costs? LOL do you know how much drug enforcement laws cost to uphold? them popo's and jails aint free, there's a lot of money to be saved here

Do not push the river, it will flow by itself. - Polish proverb 

D_smart_S   Bulgaria. Apr 14 2011 07:39. Posts 688

I think anyone with half brain realizes that all or most drugs should be legalized and controlled strictly with age criteria and so on. The War on Drugs is like the brother of the War on Terror. Creates many problems and government gladly comes and saves the day spending gazzilion of dollars with 0 effect and many people are in jail for victimless crimes and people are like "oh thanks God the drugs are illegal and we can live in peace". LOL And what the fuck is a victimless crime?!? Fucked up laws!

Zep: When I said I feel obligated to troll, it was a figure of speechLast edit: 14/04/2011 07:40

kingpowa   France. Apr 14 2011 08:57. Posts 1525


  On April 14 2011 06:21 Gumster wrote:
Show nested quote +



healthcare costs? LOL do you know how much drug enforcement laws cost to uphold? them popo's and jails aint free, there's a lot of money to be saved here

true, it has to be considered. But no, I do not know how much drug enforcement laws cost to uphold. do you ?

sorry for shitty english. 

Chewits   United Kingdom. Apr 14 2011 09:15. Posts 2539

After watching The Wire, my whole perspective on drugs has completely changed.

I am a degen. Do not believe in any of my advice. 

exalted   United States. Apr 14 2011 11:18. Posts 2918


  On April 14 2011 04:21 Jhyun88 wrote:
I read the title "drug" and immediately knew who the poster was.



hahaha my thoughts exactly. I opened this thread and was like...damn, this sounds a lot like that k2o...what's his username again? *scrolls up* ah, yeah, k2o4, and yeah! he did make this thread!

exalted from teamliquid :o 

palak   United States. Apr 14 2011 12:57. Posts 4601

well i'm gonna go ahead and be the devils advocate again


  On April 13 2011 23:31 k2o4 wrote:
NPR’s Planet Money: Prohibition Makes Drug Dealers Richer, Increases Crime, Barely Reduces Use

Click here to Listen - NPR Radio (Skip to 3:10)

This is a great listen but I gotta address one thing that came up in the show. An economist they interview claims that legalizing drugs is a trade off between reducing crime and increased addiction. But that's a false dichotomy, a logical fallacy.

Legalization is just as likely to decrease addiction as raise it... if addicts no longer have to fear legal trouble because of their illness (self inflicted but an illness none the less)


if a person voluntarily goes to a rehab clinic for any illegal substance abuse addiction they are free of any crimes of use pre treatment.

Also look at addiction rates of heroin for example (cuz i can't find other drugs at the moment/to lazy to really look for the rates)
For example rough estimate of opiate addicts in the 1890s was 313k...will use 1900 population of 76212368...amounts to about .5% of the population abusing opiates. Today the abuse rate is higher due mainly to the easy of getting prescription opiates like oxycotin. But if you take the actual mainly illegal substance which has been pursued, heroin, then addiction rates have likely dropped as today there are only 800k addicts in the US (roughly http://www.heroinaddiction.com/heroin_hist.html) 800k out of 308mil makes for .26%. Plus evidence that the majority of new opiate addicts now-a-days get their drugs or start abusing drugs through the semi-legal channel of prescription medication abuse further adds to the evidence that availability of the drugs increases the addiction rate.

There are benefits to legalization though, more accurate education will change drug habits, better control, etc, etc, etc.


 
and can be treated as patients rather than criminals, I think it will help improve treatment results.


probably, but the again if ppl knew they could legally go to a clinic anytime they want then there would also be good results, also if full legalization does increases users then the increased success rate is moot.



  People often think of drug addiction as the result of some super addictive substance. That's the story we've been fed, that this scary drug will steal our soul and ruin our lives if we so much as take it 1 time, but it's not true. There's a whole list of things that contribute to addiction, from the drug's potency to your genetic predispositions to the room you use the drug in. We like to have 1 thing to blame, it keeps things simple, but it's not accurate. The environment around us (social attitudes, peer groups, access to treatment, etc), contributes greatly to addiction, and legalization would change the environment by switching our countries focus away from viewing drug use as a criminal problem and instead to seeing it as a medical problem.


environment has an effect sure but you can't just in one broad stroke say that the chemical itself is not addicting...crystal meth, heroin, etc are all very addicting.


 
For one second, please imagine prohibiting... masturbation ........ it just wouldn't work, would it? We human's like to alter our state of consciousness, just like we enjoy sex and food, and you can't get us to stop. We will always attempt to alter our state of consciousness whether it be by smoking a cigarette, drinking a beer, meditating, dreaming, yoga, skydiving, sex, or any other drugs, and how we want to do it should be our choice.


this obv has laws and such that need to be put in place...driving limits, age limits, public intoxication, etc.


 
In all of our communities there is a small population that will always use drugs no matter how illegal you make them. I have a theory that this drug using population won't grow so much, even if legalization happens. Why? Because the one's who aren't using crack right now mostly just don't want to use it. I know if crack was made legal tomorrow I sure wouldn't go out and buy it just because it was suddenly legal. I've no desire to buy it. I don't think there's a rush of new customers to the freshly built corner drug store. Any increase in use would be by current consumers who then have easier access.


there would be an increase also due to experimentation that leads to addiction.

  But increased use by regular customers doesn't mean an increase in addiction. If the liquor store has a sale and you buy more than you normally would, do you automatically become an alcoholic? No (for the majority of us at least). Alcohol is addictive and you can die from the withdrawal symptoms, yet increased use by a regular consumer doesn't cause addiction.


yes it does...that's what addiction is, the body gets used to it physically so it starts needing it more and more. Also all the most addicting drugs are illegal ( http://www.troubleblog.com/addiction/...perties-commonly-abused-drugs-0408560 )


 
I'd rather that the current crack consumers be allowed to buy it without endangering their lives and mine by funding criminals and increasing crime, that instead of drug dealers getting all the money most of it goes to legitimate business owners and some of it goes to tax revenue, which should be set aside to fund treatment of drug abuse, health care and national parks. Let the drug purchasers fund the drug treatment. Isn't that better than the current system where our tax dollars pay for a little bit of treatment and a whole lot of wasted policing? And might not the treatment programs be better funded if the billions we poured into persecuting citizens of our country for altering their state of consciousness in a manner of their own choosing (aka putting whatever the fuck they want to put into their own damn body) were instead put into treatment programs? And wouldn't the farming industries in our country be boosted if they were allowed to grow the drugs here? And wouldn't families be left better off because they no longer face the situation of being denied financial aid when trying to send their kid to college, all due to a drug charge from when their kid got caught with some weed? That's the other problem with his argument - he acts as if the only benefit of legalization is a decrease in crime.


agreed


 
I can't say for sure that legalization would decrease addiction, but I think there's a chance that it could. What I can say for sure is that prohibition sure as hell isn't working and under its rein new drugs like meth have appeared, addicting more people. 40 years of a drug war and things are just as bad as ever, yet we continue with the same strategy. Isn't it insane to continue to do the same thing yet hope for a different result?


Actually crystal meth was initially a legal prescription drug in the 50s and people started becoming made at homes more and more often in the 60s. It wasn't made illegal til 1983 and by that time it's use, availability, and growth were already expanding quickly ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine#History )

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."-Einstein and I agree which is why I support more of a Portuguese approach of decriminalization of drugs which had led to a decrease in use, infectious diseases, etc. ( http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html ). Sure pot can be legalized once laws like driving intoxication levels are worked out, but for harder drugs legalization is a bit iffy. Decriminalization is a good compromise though. Drugs are still harder to come by then if they were legalized, drug education is more proper, there is less of a stigma and a better environment for the drug use, and people caught with a small amount are usually not sent to jail. The panel idea of 1 lawyer, 1 judge, 1 md deciding punishment for each person is fucking genius.



  On April 14 2011 07:57 kingpowa wrote:
Show nested quote +


true, it has to be considered. But no, I do not know how much drug enforcement laws cost to uphold. do you ?



cost 44.1 bil, estimated savings 76 bil ( http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate...nstein-insanity-and-the-war-on-drugs/ )


dont tap the glass...im about ready to take a fucking hammer to the aquariumLast edit: 14/04/2011 15:37

sawseech   Canada. Apr 14 2011 15:30. Posts 3182

control for dying and jail and getting ur life shit on by the system plz

lets go fucking mental la la la la lets go fucking mental lets go fucking mental lala la la 

sawseech   Canada. Apr 14 2011 15:31. Posts 3182

i mean, cmon, ur fucking smarter than that, right?

lets go fucking mental la la la la lets go fucking mental lets go fucking mental lala la la 

k2o4   United States. Apr 14 2011 16:24. Posts 4803


  On April 14 2011 03:32 Etherone wrote:
edit: also did you just compare smoking to sex and food, those are biological imperatives, how is that even remotely an argument? seriously wtf

im sympathetic to the cause, but really you don't need strawmen and slogans to do it.

EDIT2: I hope you were high when you wrote that



I compared it to sex and food cause sex, food and drugs are all what we in the psychology world call "primary reinforcers" because these are things that motivate all living beings. You're right, sex and food are both biological needs that are required for survival. I'm not saying using drugs is a biological imperative. And drugs are a primary reinforcer because they alter our state of consciousness, and that's the key. We all make efforts to alter our state of consciousness and pleasurable alterations are reinforcing to our behavior. The point I'm trying to make is that drugs, which alter our state of consciousness in a pleasurable way, are something that will always be sought by the human population, and to try and restrict people from having something that they strongly desire will always fail.

I didn't realize I did a strawman - can you point it out to me? It wasn't intentional.

Also, which slogans are you referring too?

And yeah, I was high when I wrote it, hehe =)

InnovativeYogis.com 

k2o4   United States. Apr 14 2011 16:25. Posts 4803


  On April 14 2011 07:57 kingpowa wrote:
Show nested quote +


true, it has to be considered. But no, I do not know how much drug enforcement laws cost to uphold. do you ?



http://www.drugsense.org/cms/wodclock

15 billion by the federal govt for 2010, 25 billion including the states. Wasteddddddddddddd money.

InnovativeYogis.com 

k2o4   United States. Apr 14 2011 16:31. Posts 4803


  On April 14 2011 14:30 sawseech wrote:
control for dying and jail and getting ur life shit on by the system plz



sorry, I totally can't figure out your point =( Not ignoring ya, just dunno how to reply cause I'm not sure what you mean

InnovativeYogis.com 

Bejamin1   Canada. Apr 14 2011 16:38. Posts 7042

Seems like a random time to post this. It's long since been old news. Everyone educated about the matter knows the War on Drugs has been a massive failure since the day it began.

I mean really this whole posting could be summed up with simple economics.
1. There is a significant demand for drugs
2. If you make drugs illegal you strongly limit the supply available
3. Price goes up because the high demand product is somewhat difficult to obtain

Heck. You could probably solve USA's debt crisis with the revenue stream that would come from legalizing these drugs and selling through through a government office as controlled substances at a reasonable price.

Sorry dude he Jason Bourned me. -Johnny Drama 

k2o4   United States. Apr 14 2011 16:56. Posts 4803


  On April 14 2011 11:57 palak wrote:
well i'm gonna go ahead and be the devils advocate again


hehe glad you're here, it helps to have two sides represented.


 
if a person voluntarily goes to a rehab clinic for any illegal substance abuse addiction they are free of any crimes of use pre treatment.

Also look at addiction rates of heroin for example (cuz i can't find other drugs at the moment/to lazy to really look for the rates)
For example rough estimate of opiate addicts in the 1890s was 313k...will use 1900 population of 76212368...amounts to about .5% of the population abusing opiates. Today the abuse rate is higher due mainly to the easy of getting prescription opiates like oxycotin. But if you take the actual mainly illegal substance which has been pursued, heroin, then addiction rates have likely dropped as today there are only 800k addicts in the US (roughly http://www.heroinaddiction.com/heroin_hist.html) 800k out of 308mil makes for .26%. Plus evidence that the majority of new opiate addicts now-a-days get their drugs or start abusing drugs through the semi-legal channel of prescription medication abuse further adds to the evidence that availability of the drugs increases the addiction rate.

There are benefits to legalization though, more accurate education will change drug habits, better control, etc, etc, etc.



I see your point. But we're stuck in a world of overall hypotheticals, because we don't know for sure if the benefits will outweigh the negatives. I do agree that some people will become addicted due to increased access. But I think most of those people are ones who were predisposed to it in the first place. And if we set the system up to better help them, by funding treatment rather than persecution, I think it evens out. I also think that it's important to remember the 3 things that are involved in any drug effect - the drug, the set and the setting.

Drug means the potency, type, etc. Set means the person - their mental state, their genetic predispositions, etc. Setting means the environment, who you do the drug with, where you do it, societal views of the drug, etc. Right now we totally focus on the drug part of it and neglect the other 2 aspects. These things explain why 1 person can do heroine on a regular basis and live a successful, unaddicted life, while another person takes 1 hit and becomes a junkie. When you look at successful drug users you realize that the set and setting are the keys to why they aren't homeless addicts. Their set allows them to choose their drug wisely and smartly control the dose. Their setting gives them support to do it in a positive way.

Let's use alcohol as an example because that's the drug most people have tried and will be able to relate to. First you take the potency - a shot of quervo or everclear. Depending on which type of alcohol you choose, you will have a different effect. Now the set - this will contribute to which type of alcohol you choose and how much you use. Plus it refers to your mental state - are you drinking to escape, to blow off steam, cause you're depressed, cause you're angry, or cause you're celebrating, cause you're connecting with people. What's your motivation behind drinking, what's your mental state? These things matter. I know that if I'm angry before I start drinking I'm often an angry drunk, but if I'm drinking to celebrate I lean towards being a happy guy. Lastly look at the setting - are you drinking at home with just you and your lover, at a bar with a crowd of strangers, in a stadium at a football game, at a work party, etc. The attitude of the people around you will effect the potency and amount you take as well as your mood.

I think that legalizing and improving treatment availability and overall drug education will do a lot more to decrease addiction than restricting access and criminalizing people. And when I say legalize I don't mean just put it on the shelf in the grocery store for any human being to buy. Of course there are regulations and we should look at each drug individually to determine how much regulation needs to be in place. But if we switch the culture to one where people believe in responsible drug use then I think the amount of addiction will go down.

Palak, an interesting book for you to read would be "Drug, Set and Setting" which talks about work with successful heroine users - people who use heroine on a regular basis and are living productive, successful lives as upstanding citizens. I'm not saying every person can do or should do that - we're all different. But I think every person should have the freedom to make that choice for themselves.


  But increased use by regular customers doesn't mean an increase in addiction. If the liquor store has a sale and you buy more than you normally would, do you automatically become an alcoholic? No (for the majority of us at least). Alcohol is addictive and you can die from the withdrawal symptoms, yet increased use by a regular consumer doesn't cause addiction.


yes it does...that's what addiction is, the body gets used to it physically so it starts needing it more and more. Also all the most addicting drugs are illegal ( http://www.troubleblog.com/addiction/...perties-commonly-abused-drugs-0408560 )

I agree that tolerance builds up, but tolerance isn't automatically addiction. And I agree that some people will become addicted. My point is that just because you have increased access to a drug, and even if you make use of that access, it doesn't mean automatic addiction. If it did I'd be an alcoholic.

Gotta run but I wanna say that I agree with you about some of the portugal stuff. I think they've made some great strides and shown some good systems to set up. I still don't like decriminalization because you don't get rid of the drug dealers.

InnovativeYogis.com 

 
 1 
  2 
  3 
  4 
  5 
  6 
  > 
  Last 
  All 



Poker Streams

















Copyright © 2024. LiquidPoker.net All Rights Reserved
Contact Advertise Sitemap