Colette Meiji

Had to laugh at this remark.

Its either worth linking or at least referring to, or else why reference it?

Colette Meiji

Interpol - Drugs Sub-Directorate

This would be the mysterious source

Chantal

I tend to think that sending troops in takes less time than to get legislation passed.

And no, not so sure the US is 'leading' it. Other countries and regions are fighting the drugs trade too, with the means they have. Not as 'copycats' but because drug abuse is playing hell with their economy and public health.

Yes, reducing the attractiveness of the US market would make an impact. Not doubting that. But it isn't going to stop drugs being traded illegally any time soon.

__________________

Decor with a difference
A great new Mediterranean setting
Original, beautiful things for your home
Classy fashion
Contact Ariadne Korda

http://slurl.com/secondlife/Graces/128/198/22

Chantal

I wasn't aiming for funny or myterious. What I meant was that it is a public source that is available... to anybody wanting to find out more. Like you did.

Sure I could have linked to the whole lot, but I quoted parts about the US.

Colette Meiji

whoa - I'd love to see a credible source on this.

I do not think there is any unbiased evidence that supports it.

You would need to prove that
-------------------------------------

• Number of legal users and damage done to/by them.
• PLUS Legal Supply chain and the damage done by it.

is greater than

• Number of illegal users and damage done to/by them.
• PLUS Illegal Supply chain and the damage done by it.
• PLUS Number of Criminals and damage done by them.
• PLUS Amount of Law enforcement and the cost/damage done by them.

---------------------------------------------------
I think there are a lot of people whose OPINION it is that drugs play hell with their public health and economies.

But there is very little comparative collaboration to confirm this.

Merely listing the damage without comparing it to the alternative damage is not establishing anything.

Colette Meiji

For example,

How much worse is it for the health of drug users to be imprisoned?
How much more did the economy lose?

Did we "save" that person's life by arresting them and imprisoning them?

in the US over 50% of all incarcerations are drug related.

Chantal

Various countries do consider the drugs play hell with their public health and economies, and have analysed it in terms of loss of productivity, health costs, cost of law enforcement training and operations, even accidental destruction of 'legal' crops when spraying drug cultivations, etc.

All of that information / analysis may or may not be available as public source. I don't know, and frankly I don't have the time (or energy) to sift out facts and figures I have and check whether they're on the net somewhere. Sorry. I honestly wish I did, or could face it.

Or of course I could be bullshitting.

I can't 'prove' anything beyond what I've seen and heard and read, from a number of sources that I - personally - think are as credible as it gets, although I agree that nothing is ever truly 'unbiased'. Nobody is ever going to get reliable figures from anywhere, on anything much. I'm under no illusions on that. What country doesn't love publishing figures to 'prove' something?

I think legalising drugs would help in the US, yes. I think the effects would have a positive effect on 'comparative damage' there, in time. But not everywhere as some countries are not in a position to create that kind or legislation, nor the regulation it would involve, any time soon. So drugs trafficking will continue to thrive elsewhere, and finance conflicts or just line pockets.

But clearly I'm an ignorant bore who is talking off the top of her head, so I'll leave you all to believe what you want.

Argent Stonecutter

Drug abuse doesn't cause anywhere near as much damage as the crime created by making it illegal. Imagine what the world policy on drugs would be if the "leader of the free world" was Holland instead of the USA.

Stop it, no. Reduce it by a couple of orders of magnitude, yes.

Out of that list, half the items are purely a result of making the drugs illegal, and the illegal nature of drugs makes the others much worse than would be otherwise.

Fade Languish

I really want to contribute a different perspective on this whole drug use, drug trade, crime discussion, but I'm struggling to find a good way of going about it, because it's coming from RL, and I'm not sure how to organise it cohesively or how it would sound, and how much I should share.

You guys have some good points, but from my perspective, the reality is somewhere in between. I'm going to have to sleep on this. It's possible I might not find a way to communicate it. It's also possible I should just keep my mouth shut, I dunno at this point.

Argent Stonecutter

I have RL experience, to... not as a user, but as a person who watched someone he loved drawn into the maelstrom, and who managed to provide the hand that hauled her back out.

Arilynn

I hope you do post, Fade. I have always found your perspective interesting and well articulated. It makes me want to read whatever you have to say, even if it is about music ().

Colette Meiji

this is a really inappropriate comment.

Colette Meiji

This is the key point here. They Considerate it so. It is largely a political decision based on a whole lot of anecdotes.

They are unable to do such considerations in a vacuum, so they approach the problem from the level of illegality and increasing levels of enforcement.

Colette Meiji

There are negatives to either approach-

The real question is which approach leads to more problems.

I think the current approach is more determinant than helpful. I do not see how protecting a relatively small number of people from drug abuse justifies harming such a large number of people.

Chantal

I said: Various countries do consider the drugs play hell with their public health and economies, and have analysed it in terms of loss of productivity, health costs, cost of law enforcement training and operations, even accidental destruction of 'legal' crops when spraying drug cultivations, etc.

I don't consider reports carried out by law enforcement to be 'anecdotes'. They approach the problem from a mass of facts and figures that are the only ones available, but taken from the field.

And how else do you expect law enforcement to act other than on things that are considered illegal? I would love to see more preventive policing, yes, but the idea is to create, and maintain, the rule of law. Without that, you end up in a world that's a lot less pleasant to live in than the US.

Also, you say 'a few people' are harmed by drugs. Facts? Figures? You expect me to quote them, remember? What I have is classified information, but you are clearly basing what you say on something public. Do those facts concern the US only?

My experience comes from going to places like Colombia, Peru, Africa. From a mass of information taken from the field. From people who seize the shipments, who try to disrupt the drug barons. Not the politicians.

Your attitude was utterly and completely disdainful, as though I know fuck all and you are the expert. Yes, you have valuable input. I respect that. But you see it all from a completely personal or at best national perspective - which is fine. My input comes from a wider perspective.

Go outside the 'civilised' world and see what drugs do to people. I still say they should be legalised if it's done properly. Maybe in the US, it could be done properly. It may make a dent in the organised crime networks' profits. For a while.

But drugs are not a problem that is going to go away any time soon even if the US legalises them. I'm not saying that as 'me', I'm saying what experts think, based on anything from undercover work or running controlled deliveries or watching transit routes.

I'm not going to say anything more about this. I am angry at myself for losing my temper but I respect the people I work with. And the reports they bring in - which are far from being 'anecdotes' - are because they're dedicated to making the world safer. From drug barons, organised crime, child abusers, terrorists. They're not politicians. Neither am I.

Edited to add: Sheesh I hate people who say they're going and then don't. And here I am doing it. Shoot me, eh?

Chantal

I should have kept my mouth shut too, for what it's worth.

My idea was to give something of an international pespective. Which doesn't mean that personal experience, or national experience, is wrong or bad. Nor does it mean I believe, blindly, everything that (real) experts say.

It's just highly frustrating to see disdain for one's own field.

I can see the reasoning for legalising drugs in the US, too - and think it could help. Not even sure. But the problem is wider than the US, or even the 'civilised world'. Crime is a thriving industry. Drugs - just one facet of it.

I'm most definitely not posting any more on this subject, nor on anything else related to crime. But good luck if you do.

Argent Stonecutter

In other words, they're including damage caused by "the war on drugs" in their analysis.

Chantal

Dammit I need to get out of here but:

If you have legalised drugs you would still have a public health impact (more users), loss of productivity (perhaps even more if there are more users).

You would need to set up authorised channels (meaning resources). Authorised outlets (resources). It would be necessary to try and stamp out non-authorized / illicit channels (low-quality, or fake drugs = public health issues). So you would still have law enforcement operations. Plus various layers of bureaucracy deciding how to tax drugs, how to define the appropriate quality, etc. etc.

Also, Colombia, Afghanistan, for instance may not want to 'protect' harvests for legal use in the US because they, and most of the rest of the world, wants them wiped out. Another major obstacle to overcome. But they may... if somebody pays them to do it.

And how are the 'legal' producers / shippers / suppliers chosen? Right now, they're all in the hands of the drug barons. Who is going to want to go into growing / shipping 'legal' drugs over there with the barons on their backs? Pay them more, and they'll be attacked. Pay them less, and they'll go back to where the money is.

How are you going to stop the drug barons wiping out 'protected' crops... and if there are not enough of those, or you just say 'bring it in', who is the US going to obtain supplies from? The drug barons?

Or move production to a 'friendly' country. Which the drug barons aren't going to like much. Won't be long before some of them find a good way of wiping those out. Unless they're highly secure. More resources.

I think that - possibly - all this might cost less than the current situation in US prisons (and to be fair, some of the prison population could help productivity if they were back in circulation). But I have no idea on that and I suspect neither do you.

I agree that locking away users doesn't achieve anything. I am not arguing against legalising drugs if it's a viable 'solution' for the US. I'm actually not sure, though, there is a solution that would work globally.

Disagree all you like, but I do think there are some things that people haven't taken into account.

Which is why I was offering information - and not saying anybody was 'wrong'.

Surreal

You've kinda ticked me off with this response. You've just blown off his experience without even knowing what it is.

Being involved with a junkie isn't a unique experience here either and frankly, I don't think it gives anyone a special insight into the political and social larger issues.

I watched one of my younger sister struggle with heroin and eventually was able to help her in her battle to get clean. While it gave me a good view into personal destruction and how that reverberates throughout family and friends, it certainly didn't give me any expertise on how the international drug trade functions.

So how about we wait for Fade's contribution instead of rushing to judgment.

__________________

Vivianne Draper

Prohibition rocked and was really good for the US. Crime rates were lower, rates of alcoholism were lower, and no one drank themselves to death. True story!*















true becuase i say so. i am way too busy to go dig up actual facts

__________________

Argent Stonecutter

If you legalized drigs you would also have a different balance of drugs: the current climate encourages the development of drugs that are more addictive. If you legalized drugs people would be able to get effective treatment including replacement drugs like methadone easier. If you legalized drugs you would reduce the amount of resources spent on stamping out abuse of precursors. Legalizing drugs would simplify the public health and enforcement situation in so many ways that even if you ignore all the direct results of drug related crime you would still come out ahead in the long run. And then you add the direct costs of crime, and the costs of enforcement?

The war on drugs is a cancer.

That doesn't actually happen to be true. The by far overriding reason the producing countries want to wipe out production is because of pressure from the using countries. When Afghanistan was out from under the US thumb there was no outrage against the p[oppy farmers... in fact they were treated as valuable members of society. This wasn't because the Taliban told them to grow poppies, it was because thet Taliban gave them an opportunity to do so.

Market forces. Yes, many of them will be people who are currently operating illegally... they will have to "come in from the cold", but they will.

http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php
http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/fa...t_economic.cfm
http://actionamerica.org/drugs/wodclock.shtml

Surreal

Could you provide some evidence for this assertion, perhaps drawn from the experiences of Portugal's decriminalization or perhaps The Netherland's enforcement policies?

In the US, access to rehab depends on your economic status, not the legality of the drug. Assuming that tax revenues from legal drug sales were earmarked for drug treatment, there is no evidence that it would make treatment more accessible or effective. The only example we have currently is in those places where a percentage of gambling revenues are set aside for gambling addiction treatment and they teach us two things. 1) Governments are loathe to part with any revenue they get their hands on and will find way to avoid doing so. 2) It's a band-aid that doesn't adequately address the problem.

Now before you flip out on me. I favor legalizing some drugs. There are a few I'm very wary of - meth for example, because of the tremendous damage they do. But I think that many overestimate the positive impacts drug legalization would have in terms of the big picture.

Argent Stonecutter

Sure. It's just a matter of market forces in the absence of regulation. Crack and ice out-compete cocaine not just because of the difference in production costs... production costs are a small part of the final cost... but also because they're so much more addictive. In the absence of regulation, there's nothing to counter this... the risk to the dealer of cocaine and crack is the same, so why bother wasting time on the stuff that doesn't keep the customers coming in?

It's MUCH easier to get support and counseling for tobacco and alcohol. It's a completely different kind of cost.

Of course you'll say that has NOTHING to do with the fact that the war on drugs makes it so much more expensive to operate drug counseling and rehab programs than equivalent programs for tobacco and alcohol abuse. The illegal and unregulated nature of the product requires many rehabilitation programs to operate pretty much as prisons, and you can get nicotine (a highly addictive drug) over the counter, but methadone? Not a chance.

Gigs

Methadone is highly addictive as well. It might as well be heroin.

__________________
-
-
"It is the paramount duty of governments and of politicians to secure the wellbeing of the community under the case in the present, and not to run risks overmuch for the future" - JM Keynes

Argent Stonecutter

Nicotine is a highly addictive drug, it might as well be heroin. Why can I walk into a pharmacy and buy a nicotine patch without even showing an ID?