"...the impossibility of winning the “war” against theft, burglary, robbery, and fraud has never been used as an argument that these categories of crime should be abandoned."
(From Don't Legalize Drugs, http://www.city-journal.org/html/7_2_a1.html)
(From Don't Legalize Drugs, http://www.city-journal.org/html/7_2_a1.html)
I don't have a strong opinion about this, I'm just saying it's more complicated than victimless crime, war that cannot be won, etc. For each such talking point there's a counter-point. What will actually happen once you legalize a given substance I don't know.
The article I linked to has a lot of arguments against legalization, which, judging by the comments, the commenters didn't bother to skim through.
It's a long article, and it contains ungrounded assertions like this -
"Addiction to, or regular use of, most currently prohibited drugs cannot affect only the person who takes them—and not his spouse, children, neighbors, or employers."
This is ... well it's just wrong. Many people regularly use alcohol in moderation, there's no reason to think that regular, moderate use of cannabis and various other currently illegal drugs would be any worse when alcohol has one of the worst harm and addiction profiles of any drug.
So I'm not convinced I want to take the time to answer it, as it's not really honest.
--edit-- I've read more of it now, it's full of preconceptions and assertions like this one, no grounding in facts. It's not a good set of objections.
This argument always seems a bit silly to me.
Perhaps these people oppose legalization in part because they don't want more drugs to be as common and socially acceptable as alcohol and all the evils that come with it, and simply regard alcohol and tobacco use as a largely lost cause. This argument is common and it always frames the issue as if the person is 100% pro-alcohol.
Fact 1 - lots of people, maybe even most people in the western world, use alcohol to varying degrees and have jobs and families that are not falling apart due to their drug use.
Fact 2 - many currently illegal drugs are less severe in their acute effects than alcohol, are less severe in their chronic effects than alcohol and are less addictive than alcohol.
Combined, these torpedo the point stated in the article, but not your point. The only way to address your concerns there is with studies of what happens in places like Amsterdam and Colorado.
Personally I would argue that even if legalising drugs makes some things worse (more users, more addicts), applying the cost of the drug war to mitigating the harms instead of amplifying them is a win regardless.
Our work puts dozens, if not thousands of people out of work. When driverless vehicles are finalized, that work will put millions of people out of a job.
Is it a crime? No. But it sure very negatively impacts people. Why not illegalize implementation of automation?
On a very basic level, illegalizing things because they 'negatively impact people' would bring capitalism to a grinding halt.
'Drug use goes hand in hand with theft'
Do you know how ignorant that sounds? Caffeine and alcohol are drugs, do they go hand in hand with theft? Is everyone legally smoking weed in Colorado a thief too?
'Once you're addicted to drugs, you have to steal to pay for that habit.'
Not all drugs are addictive. Most are less addictive than alcohol, nearly all are less addictive than tobacco. The vast majority of drug users are not addicts. In any sensible country those people who do get addicted would receive help and maintenance doses of their drug and wouldn't need to turn to crime. See Switzerland and their heroin programs.
'It's hardly a victimless crime.'
It's exactly a victimless crime. If someone steals stuff to support a habit THAT is the crime with the victim. Not drug use. FFS.
'Caffeine and alcohol are drugs' - yes, alcohol comes hand in hand with theft and other crimes.
'It's exactly a victimless crime' - it's victimless short term, but if it's hard drugs addict, there will be victims sooner or later. They will do nasty things just to get next dose.
And I support claim that war on drugs is wrong, and you can't win it (for economical reasons). But usage should be controllable.
My issues with the parent comment are not that addicts never steal, it's the ignorance of lumping all drug use into the same category and then saying 'drugs' make you steal.
It's the same in the UK - addicts of one sort or another do disproportionately make up the crime figures. However the proportion of drug users who are addicts is small and the proportion of addicts that steal is small so saying that drugs and theft go hand in hand is just plain wrong.
>> yes, alcohol comes hand in hand with theft and other crimes.
Again, a tiny proportion of drinkers may cause a problem, this is not the same as saying they go hand in hand, implying anyone who has a drink is going to get addicted and steal stuff to support their habit.
>> it's victimless short term, but if it's hard drugs addict, there will be victims sooner or later. They will do nasty things just to get next dose.
Firstly, we're now talking about a subset of drugs, rather than trying to tar all drug users as thieves. Secondly, in a situation where the government treats heroin as a health issue this doesn't occur. Switzerland basically killed this stuff and proved that heroin addicts could lead quite a normal life if they knew where the next dose was coming from - a government clinic in this case. And there's nothing like a queue of old junkies outside a medical facility to put the youth off heroin.
OT but your parent was down-voted for what I would say was a totally reasonable and constructive comment. I guess you didn't do it because you can't down-vote those that reply to you, right? I wish people would keep the down-voting for situations where a comment is offensive / destructive / mean, instead of something they disagree with. Anyways, I'm going to up-vote to counter it.
Probably we have different view on who is a drug addict. Hard drugs addicts (like heroin, ketamin, etc) have very large criminality involvement, because those drugs make them fall very fast.
>> Again, a tiny proportion of drinkers may cause a problem
Maybe small proportion of drinkers, but huge proportion of _drunk_ people cause problems. More than half domestic murders are caused by alcohol in Russia. Whole villiages die out because if alcohol, you can hear sometimes in some village there's no one who can work, because all men became total drunks. I think magical removing of alcohol would be single most positive thing crime-wise you can do in Russia. But of course it's impossible.
>> Switzerland basically killed this stuff and proved that heroin addicts could lead quite a normal life if they knew where the next dose was coming from - a government clinic in this case.
Yes, that's what I was talking about - using should be controllable. Special clinics etc. But Switzerland experience can be hard to reproduce elsewhere, this country just has different social structure. So it should be applied carefully.
Maybe we have. One of the reasons I was hacked off at the first comment on this was that it's not even talking about addicts - "drug use goes hand in hand with theft". This is just not true.
>> Hard drugs addicts (like heroin, ketamin, etc) have very large criminality involvement, because those drugs make them fall very fast.
I've never heard of anyone stealing to support their Ketamine habit either!?! K causes various bladder problems, and while it does seem to be a little addictive isn't really very high up the scale I don't think.
>> Maybe small proportion of drinkers, but huge proportion of _drunk_ people cause problems.
I will defer to your knowledge. I know we have problems with alcohol in the UK but I get the impression Russia is more familiar with this problem! I agree actually, that decreasing use of alcohol in our societies would probably be a really positive thing. And that it would be next to impossible. Perhaps if everyone had access to some cannabis they might not bother so much? (I'm only half-kidding there).
In general I don't think addiction is a good thing, and I don't think anyone should be encouraged to take drugs of any sort, let alone the really nasty ones. I'm very pro-legalisation but that doesn't mean I want to hide the damage drugs do to people and to society.
I just think it's way off-mark to say "all drug users are thieves" !!
Yes, the inference only goes in that direction...
That's a succinct way of summing it up :)
This would likely not be the case if cocaine cost about the same, or even ten times as much as sugar. The high price of drugs is a direct result of laws against their production and distribution. I expect addicts stealing to support their habits would be much less of an issue with legal drugs, even if there were moderately high taxes on them to offset the costs of treating addicts.
I agree that war on drugs can't be won because of economical reasons, though.
The cost to society would be far less.
You most certainly don't.
How much does generic-brand sugar cost? A dollar per kilo? Two?
Cocaine should cost about that, definitely less than ten times that, if it was manufactured at scale by corporations in a competitive market, and one didn't need to compensate everyone in the distribution network for the risk of being arrested or killed.
Your stereotypical addict on the streets should be able to get as much as they "need" from panhandling for an hour a week. A tragedy, but a contained one.
Instead, they need twenty bucks for the next dose, precisely because of the war on drugs. Think about that.
Not at all.
Of course, you could just get a job that pays enough to support your habit? Software Engineering works for me, for example, and has allowed me to maintain a twenty year heroin habit, almost.
I'm guessing a GBP 80 (1/16 oz) per day habit could drop to around GBP 10-15 (not really sure about purity, but assuming adulterated to 10% would mean 0.1g street Heroin is equivalent to one of these pills, so that would be the equivalent of 10g or over 1/4 oz which would be GBP 160 probably)
We seem to be getting a lot of stuff wrong in this area....
Consider a alternate example. Say you downloaded a few megabytes of data. In this case, the bytes were produced by actions involving a child being abused, but it would've been possible to produce them with a photorealistic CGI application.
Always a tough question :)
>> Say you buy a drug that comes from a cartel that uses kidnapping, rape, and murder to hold their power. It is possible for the drug to have been produced safely, but it wasn't in this case and you are feeding the market.
There are indeed lots of moral questions here. As someone who tends to buy things that are free-range, organic, fair trade etc. I fully agree that one cannot divorce the action of purchase from the background process. This is one (of many) reasons I'm not going to be buying any cocaine or heroin any time soon.
The argument put forward above is that stopping the war on drugs just because we can't win is equivalent to stopping the 'war' on (for example) burglary. Burglary by its very nature, in the commission of the act itself, creates victims. People whose house was broken into and whose stuff is gone. Drug taking does not create these victims in the act of taking drugs itself.
So I would argue that yes, the government preventing the drug from being created and sold openly is very relevant - it is the government regulations that support the extremely lucrative black market as well as the consumers. The cartels, the violence, they could not exist without our laws propping them up.
This is where the comparison with Burglary really breaks down - legalising burglary leads to a world where there is no deterrent to breaking in to someone's house and taking their stuff. A worse world, I hope you'll agree.
Legalising cocaine, for example, would make most of those horrible side-effects go away at the expense of (probably) increased drug-related healthcare costs in the developed world. I think that's a better place to be.
>> What happens if, given a safe production option, those purchasing it do not do their due diligence in checking the source.
What happens with, say, coffee? Some people choose ethical brands. One hopes that there are minimum standards of human rights applied to workers on any product coming in to the country (no slave labour, no blood-diamonds...), and AFAICT there are no coffee cartels using kidnap, rape or murder to protect their hold on the coffee market.
I do agree that stopping the war on X differs greatly when X is something that deserves stopping in and of itself compared to when X is not inherently harmful, but closely tied to things that are (though I do think that different people will classify certain actions into other groups, for example some people will say some drugs are so bad that they deserve to be stopped in and of themselves).
They will indeed. And to them I say "good luck with that!"
I agree with the sentiment there, nobody should be encouraging the use of heroin, for example. But we've tried banning it and it hasn't actually helped all that much. I think it's time to admit that's failed and investigate what we can do, with a close eye on the evidential and scientific basis of our actions, to reduce harm as much as possible.
Stamping our feet and threatening people hasn't made them stop. Lets find the best way we can to keep more people from getting there, to keep the harms to them as minimal as possible, and to make society better for the rest of us while we're at it.
Part of the problem isn't even the bans, but the money being made off of the war that leads to things like prisons lobbying for three strike rules and other horrendous laws.
The thing that winds me up the most is the prevalent attitude of kneejerk banning of anything of everything, damn the consequences and fuck the evidence.