Land of the free

[Pho King]

Hey boo. Thanks for muddying the issue. You do know there is a difference between federal and state prisons?

From Wikipedia:


Your 50.7 number under Drugs are probably using the post office to mail drugs, drug smuggling into the country, or doing drugs on federal property (this is separate from the military who has their own prisons).

Boo does not spend a lot of time considering his arguments. He just feels them out.

[kellyb]

Lets think about all the variables that just might indicate that remedies to issues there are likely to work here:

1. Are the drug problems the same? ARe there similar numbers of users? Are they using the same drugs (like meth and crack and cocaine)?
2. Does the enormous population difference bring with it special problems?
3. Will the resource expenditures be the same here as in Portugal? IE-can we afford this solution.
4. Are the crimes committed by drug dealers rather equal across the countries?

The list is endless.

There was a study performed in Denmark about traffic and controlled chaos. In one city all traffic control devices were removed. As it turns out-in that city-traffic flowed much the way it does in a roller rink- controlled, due to the drivers themselves. It works. There.

The Portuguese evidence isn't perfect by a long shot when it comes to extrapolation, but it's the only evidence we've got.

The Denmark thing is interesting, but I don't know where you're going there.

[Pho King]

The Portuguese evidence isn't perfect by a long shot when it comes to extrapolation, but it's the only evidence we've got.

The Denmark thing is interesting, but I don't know where you're going there.

Do you think a similar study in, say, Los Angeles, would produce similar results?

[Zordar]

By 1923 it was and stayed higher than in 1918. So, if anything, a slight overall increase compared to pre-prohibition.

With all respect, kellyb, you are missing a few key points.

Your claim stands only if your pre-Prohibition data comes exclusively from 1918 -- a year where the sale of alcohol was already MAJORLY discouraged, due to the war. It was considered "unpatriotic" to drink, since alcohol was associated with Germans and grain was needed for the war effort. Countless regulatory hassles were put in place for brewers and retailers, greatly reducing consumption before it was finally banned outright... ironically after the armistice was signed, by the Wartime Prohibition Act.

In 1910 and 1915, before the U.S. joined the war and all the silliness, drinking rates were much higher.

[kellyb]

Do you think a similar study in, say, Los Angeles, would produce similar results?

Of course.

Would you start smoking crack if crack were decriminalized?

[Zordar]

Would you start smoking crack if crack were decriminalized?

You know it.

I can't wait for the law to change so I can start smoking crack!

[kellyb]

With all respect, kellyb, you are missing a few key points.

Your claim stands only if your pre-Prohibition data comes exclusively from 1918 -- a year where the sale of alcohol was already MAJORLY discouraged, due to the war. It was considered "unpatriotic" to drink, since alcohol was associated with Germans and grain was needed for the war effort. Countless regulatory hassles were put in place for brewers and retailers, greatly reducing consumption before it was finally banned outright... ironically after the armistice was signed, by the Wartime Prohibition Act.

In 1910 and 1915, before the U.S. joined the war and all the silliness, drinking rates were much higher.

I see your point, but I think the anti-drinking "propaganda" push probably would have existed without the war. And yes, that's effective. (see: smoking)

Maybe we can agree that overall, after a couple of years, prohibition had little if any effect on overall consumption. (whether there was a slight increase or decrease we can disagree on, but since we're talking about really small numbers here, it's irrelevant.)

[Zordar]

I see your point, but I think the anti-drinking "propaganda" push probably would have existed without the war. And yes, that's effective. (see: smoking)

Oh, definitely. They'd been around since the 1840s, but it wasn't until a combination of Civil War/immigration fallout (which creates a lot of drunks, apparently?) that they started getting any traction. The propaganda had been around for ages, but they used the war to their full advantage!

Maybe we can agree that overall, after a couple of years, prohibition had little if any effect on overall consumption. (whether there was a slight increase or decrease we can disagree on, but since we're talking about really small numbers here, it's irrelevant.)

I actually agree with that (from the data I've read, anyway). I don't even have a problem with the possibility that people were drinking more. It just makes me crazy when I hear somebody say "Prohibition actually made people drink more" with certainty, because of the lack of any hard evidence.

[Pho King]

Of course.

Would you start smoking crack if crack were decriminalized?

No. Would crack users stop engaging in assault, strong arm robbery, theft, murder, prostitution if there was no penalty for possession of crack?

[DngrMse]

The Portuguese evidence isn't perfect by a long shot when it comes to extrapolation, but it's the only evidence we've got.

The Denmark thing is interesting, but I don't know where you're going there.

I don't think other countries experiences with legalizing the consumption of banned substances should matter. I don't care what happens, or happened in Portugal, or Holland, or any other country. I care about the Constitution from which all laws in the U.S. are ultimately derived from. If it took a constitutional amendment to ban the production, sale, and consumption of alcohol, then the same procedures should be required to ban any other substance. If drugs are so very, very bad, then lining up a majority of the states behind a constitutional amendment shouldn't be a problem, right?

[kellyb]

No. Would crack users stop engaging in assault, strong arm robbery, theft, murder, prostitution if there was no penalty for possession of crack?

Some of it, probably, if rehab was offered instead of imprisonment for the possession charges. They'd be able to be employed more easily without a criminal record, too, reducing their need to steal money to feed their addiction.

[Pho King]

Some of it, probably, if rehab was offered instead of imprisonment for the possession charges. They'd be able to be employed more easily without a criminal record, too, reducing their need to steal money to feed their addiction.

rehab typically is offered several times before a prison sentence is imposed. So, for these individuals- what makes you think the decriminalization would change their behavior, when prior attempts at rehab coupled with the threat of imprisonment did nothing to stop them? Why not just continue on? What you are saying might work with some people- but most drug users and abusers never end up in prison. We are talking about the worst of an already sorry lot.

[Going Postal]

Some of it, probably, if rehab was offered instead of imprisonment for the possession charges. They'd be able to be employed more easily without a criminal record, too, reducing their need to steal money to feed their addiction.

Do you know anything about crack?

Effects:

*If a person has used within the past hour his or her pupils will be huge and glassy. This goes along with symptoms that can occur anytime along which may include; sweating, drastic weight loss, sensitivity to light and sound, very hyper and does not sleep followed by exhaustion, not eating then eating like crazy, sexual dysfunction, extreme sexual fantasy but cannot follow through, dramatic mood changes, extreme self confidence that you know will never happen, anger, depression, paranoid, suicide thinking, unable to hold a job, intense arguing, very chatty, financial and legal problems, not paying bills, no food in the house, highly skilled at covering up the where’s, the who’s, and the what’s, denies and lies. He or she may have burns on mouth or hands from smoking crack and unable to control urination or bowel movements. Sometimes there are allergic reactions to crack cocaine or the additives in street drugs, menstrual cycle problems, malnutrition, and infections in the brain. If you think they are using they are.

Cost: $20 per dose/hit
Time under the effects: 10 minutes.

They steal, strong arm robbery, prostitution, etc to get the money because there is no way they can do a normal job with normal pay to feed the habit.

[BooRadley]

from your link: "The Portuguese criminal justice system is no longer overcrowded with drug users. According to the Institute of Drug and Drug Dependence, the number of people arrested for criminal offences related to drugs plummeted from 14,000 to an average of 5,000-5,500 per year." How do they make such a leap? And what the fuck does Portugal have to do with us? We are totally different populations.

What exactly is it about the populations of Portugal and the United States that leads you to this feeling?

I've already deconstructed the statistic you really so heavily on.
Its not my fault if you cling to the ideas you create from the statistics like a child with a teddy bear.

Calm down, sissy. Just because you've been beaten up doesn't mean you have to cry. Just screaming out that you don't feel good about changing the law isn't a "deconstruction" of anything.

You know what they say about statistics as a science? Figures don't lie, but liars can figger."

Cute. Now, do you have anything of substance to offer?

Lets think about all the variables that just might indicate that remedies to issues there are likely to work here:

1. Are the drug problems the same? ARe there similar numbers of users? Are they using the same drugs (like meth and crack and cocaine)?
2. Does the enormous population difference bring with it special problems?
3. Will the resource expenditures be the same here as in Portugal? IE-can we afford this solution.
4. Are the crimes committed by drug dealers rather equal across the countries?

The list is endless.

So, do you have any statistics to back up your feeling that decriminalizing drugs wouldn't change anything?

Any evidence at all? I know the idea frightens you, but do you have any rational basis for it?

There was a study performed in Denmark about traffic and controlled chaos. In one city all traffic control devices were removed. As it turns out-in that city-traffic flowed much the way it does in a roller rink- controlled, due to the drivers themselves. It works. There.

Red herring. Kind of typical, but yes, it probably would. I saw that happen in the beltway a few years ago. A massive power fault killed all the traffic lights in one part of the beltway, and they stayed down for two days, and for two days it was joyful driving to work. Not a good statistical sample, but you have no evidence to couter it. Just your fear of a lack of controls on public behaviour, which is what you're whole tantrum is about.

Boo does not spend a lot of time considering his arguments. He just feels them out.

Hahaha. Says the guy in the middle of a hysterical breakdown in fear of a lack of formal controls on the evil poor people.

No. Would crack users stop engaging in assault, strong arm robbery, theft, murder, prostitution if there was no penalty for possession of crack?

Most likely. He wouldn't need to if the market for cocaine weren't so dangerous, the prices would drop considerably. Cocoa isn't that expensive. The price problem is law enforcement.

I don't think other countries experiences with legalizing the consumption of banned substances should matter. I don't care what happens, or happened in Portugal, or Holland, or any other country. I care about the Constitution from which all laws in the U.S. are ultimately derived from. If it took a constitutional amendment to ban the production, sale, and consumption of alcohol, then the same procedures should be required to ban any other substance. If drugs are so very, very bad, then lining up a majority of the states behind a constitutional amendment shouldn't be a problem, right?

But those countries allow people to be freer, and their freedom to choose for themselves is the basis of their improvement in social stability. It's true for all people: More freedom creates a better society, although people like Phool are scared to death of the idea, and will always be there to fight it.

[kellyb]

They steal, strong arm robbery, prostitution, etc to get the money because there is no way they can do a normal job with normal pay to feed the habit.

Sometimes. There are some functional crack smokers, too, though.

[optimus]

Off Topic: Where do you get LSD? Anyone know?

[kellyb]

Off Topic: Where do you get LSD? Anyone know?

Drug dealers.

[Going Postal]

Sometimes. There are some functional crack smokers, too, though.

Rockers and trust fund babies.

[optimus]

Drug dealers.

Do they really deal LSD? Seems like they would just stick to the basics.

[Going Postal]

Do they really deal LSD? Seems like they would just stick to the basics.

Try the college drug dealers.