I'm not talking about marijuana, I am talking about the hard-core drugs like Meth, Crack, etc. I am against drug usage but I have a question. What do you all think that proper punishment should be for abusers and dealers? (EDIT: I am meaning the ones that commit crimes while on the drugs or the ones that commit crimes to get the drugs. And should the dealers be just as accountable because they provided them with the drug?)
I recently watched a documentary about meth, and the officials in Thailand have simply killed off many of the users.
I personally know quite a few meth addicts here in the U.S. that, after serving their sentence for being "busted", have returned to drug abuse. Obviously, rehab and prison isn't working.
According to the website ncvc.org, 81% of crimes are drug-related. What, in your opinion, is the best solution for punishment and what can our authority figures do to get things under control?
I don't think you get what decriminalization means as opposed to legalization.
Decriminalization is that you won't get arrested for possessing. Legalization is making both consumption and production legal. Even if legalization where to happen, there would be extensive regulation. DO you really want me to get into how alcohol is not freely available as you think? I live in DC, where the bars close at 2AM, 2:30AM on the weekends, you can't buy liquor after 10PM or on Sundays and you can only buy take home beer until midnight, and you are carded most any bar, club, or even supermarkets and only *easily* available to those over 21. You must be like SO? Well the SO is that when I used to live in Japan, you could buy alcohol 24/7/365 from convenience stores, supermarkets, and they never card unless you're going to a very posh club, or you look like you're under 18 and public drinking is perfectly legal. Other countries don't take the puritan approach to drinking, and they have less binge drinking habits as a result.
Under ANY scenario your worries are exaggerated. Under decriminalization anyone caught selling above minor possession level amounts would be subject to prosecution. Under legalization anyone caught selling to minors would face harsh penalties. So you're poking at straw-man argument.
I've had friends who have kicked heroin habit and are happy productive members of society. Putting them in jail would have just ruined their lives further.
Drugs are not a force we can control in the sense of eliminate, no matter how much our society has pushed upon us that they are "bad". There has never been a drug free society in the history of humanity and we were the only ones dumb enough to try.
You watched a documentary film on Thailand? They probably chose the most sensational footage. Why do you think there would even be a drug problem in Thailand in the first place? I don't know maybe it has to do with prevalence of poverty, widespread prostitution and child prostitution as means of survival.
It is immoral to try to tell other people the substances they can or cannot choose to use. It is only your concern if it affects you (and actually most drug use *does not* affect other people)
You think people don't sell crack to children now? Scholarly I think it's been shown that under catch-all prohibition there is more access to harder drugs when one is looking for drugs like marijuana, than there would be under legalization, where you wouldn't have to talk to suspect individuals to get softer drugs.
I think people do not understand the extent of drug usage in society. A lot of people have tried drugs in this country. Most of them did not dabble with very dangerous drugs, but they are demonized anyway.
"It is immoral to try to tell other people the substances they can or cannot choose to use. It is only your concern if it affects you (and actually most drug use *does not* affect other people)"
If 81% of crimes really are drug related, how are they not affecting other people? If someone sells crack to a child, how is that not affecting others? Furthermore, if they are stealing from you, how is that not affecting you?
I think you are missing my point. I should've worded this differently. I am not necessarily talking about the drug usage being punished, I am talking about the drug-related crimes. Sorry that I see drug usage as such a bad thing, but it is so sad what it can do to people.
I think you still have a lot of complex things confused. Most drug-related "crimes" are non-violent and don't even involve robbery.
A lot of people are sitting in jail for simply possessing drugs for a personal use and that includes for marijuana.
You have to specify if you mean violent crime and crimes against property. And prohibition causes what you're talking about just as much as the drugs themselves. There was *huge* amount of crime when alcohol was illegal.
I'm just surprised to see people who are more toward free-thinking not have thought much beyond government propaganda that was infused throughout our culture for the past few decades. I'm not saying that certain drugs aren't addictive or dangerous, just that even the most free-thinking of people bought the DEA created propaganda hook, line, and sinker.
Nice post Rocio. Yes looking at other countries is a necessary process in trying to establish better policies. I was not aware Japan was so open about alcohol distribution, on the other hand, Japanese citizens are a much subdued group when it comes to social behaviours. Where I'm living now bars stop serving at 1AM and the only liquor store in town closes at 6-7pm. We have one local brewerey, but they close at 5. I miss Florida where bars closed at 4am and last call was 1/2 h before closing, and youth were allowed in bars, if not allowed to drink, as long as they were accompanied. Not that any sane teen didn't hate their parents for dragging them there. In English Canada, 95% of liquor sales are by the government and provide a substantial tax basis. Problem is, once a government's revenue comes from sales, it becomes impossible to further discuss policies, as everything would reduce government revenue.
I also think that decriminalisation makes more sense than 'legalisation'. Such a policy would encourage people to grow weed in their own back yard, with nearly no investment, and would much reduce the market for harder drugs.
Drug laws need to be based on scientific advice about how dangerous the drug is to the user and society as a whole. Recently the UK Government openly expressed how it would continue to ignore scientific advice on drugs.
The Government's stance on drugs are have made it very clear that this a moral issue and not a health issue. However, are the morals at the heart of this issue shared by everyone, and are they secular?
Make the states along the Mexican border independent drug-friendly states, raise fences between them and the rest of the USA, and deport every drug offender there. It'd be a good idea to deport religious zealots too, they'll either rehabilitate addicts or get shot. As an added benefit, it'd create a nice buffer zone to contain illegal immigration from Latin America, if you're paranoid about it.
I think the "war on drugs" is BS. As long a people want to use drugs, there will be someone to supply it to them. Simple economics, supply and demand. Throwing someone in jail for selling or using drugs isn't gonna fix the problem because as soon as they get out, they have to go back into the same environment that they left. I don't think there is a simply answer, or any answer to fix our problem, but jail obviously isn't working.
I'm personally in favor of legalizing them all, but that will never happen with how much money is involved on both sides. To me it all boils down to survival of the fittest, either your going to overdose and kill yourself or you're not. There should be programs in place to help people if they want it, if not, that's their choice. That my friends is true freedom. Portugal has decriminalized all drugs, so far it's been a good thing from the news I've seen and read.