Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (8141)	12/30/2005 1:43:20 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541281

who is going to pay for the medical effects and problems of the now-legal drugs? Who pays for them now? Why would it be any different later?

To: KLP who wrote (8141)	12/30/2005 1:44:26 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541281

Decriminalizing or legalizing drugs will not make all the problems with drugs go away. People will still use, some of them will still become addicts, some of them will still steal to get the money to support the addiction. On the other hand I don't have any reason to think these problems would be much worse. I think the theft to support the habit might be lower if drugs are legal because the prices might come down. Also there would be less violence between sellers of drugs competing for turf and sellers and buyers disputing payment, and there would be a large savings from all the costs of waging the "war on drugs" and locking people up on drug charges. Tim

To: KLP who wrote (8141)	12/30/2005 2:04:53 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541281

Rape and murder? I believe those crimes are much more likely to be connected to alcohol use- that said, I'm not really much in favor of the prohibition of alcohol either. Why? Because it just doesn't work, and its banning caused more problems than its use does. Same with drugs. If people will rob for them, they'll need to rob a lot LESS won't they? Maybe they'll do what the bums do- and beg for their money. At any rate, less cost certainly supports less stealing- don't you think? "The role of alcohol in crime victimization About 1 million violent crimes occurred in 2002 in which victims perceived the offender to have been drinking at the time of the offense. Among those victims who provided information about the offender's use of alcohol, about 30% of the victimizations involved an offender who had been drinking. Two-thirds of victims who suffered violence by an intimate (a current or former spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend) reported that alcohol had been a factor. Among spouse victims, 3 out of 4 incidents were reported to have involved an offender who had been drinking. By contrast, an estimated 31% of stranger victimizations where the victim could determine the absence or presence of alcohol were perceived to be alcohol-related. For about 1 in 5 violent victimizations involving perceived alcohol use by the offender, victims also reported they believed the offender to have been using drugs as well. " ojp.usdoj.gov So if it's 30% of victimizations that include alcohol, then only 1/5th of that 30%, or 6%, include "perceived" drug use. And I would suggest to you that perceived drug use on the part of an aggressor is probably a lot harder to determine than alchol use, since you can smell alcohol so strongly on people who have been drinking. I say decriminalize, and treat the people who want help. Right now it's hard to get a treatment program- it can be a long wait. And let's be honest- most people who use "drugs" use pot- and that's a silly drug to be illegal since it's no more, and quite possibly less, dangerous to society than alcohol is. I think the government ought to be taxing pot- there's quite a large revenue streal there, and the sooner we wake up to that, the better. You can pay with treatment programs using the taxes from pot.

To: KLP who wrote (8141)	12/30/2005 6:34:52 PM
From: TigerPaw	Respond to of 541281

Or will they keep stealing and killing to get the money for them? If drugs were legal they would be a lot cheaper, so this group of addicts would have to steal less. TP

To: KLP who wrote (8141)	12/31/2005 8:58:34 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541281

Until the 1960's most drugs were legally obtainable in the UK. Not as conveniently as in the Victorian era, when Victoria herself took frequent laudanum (opium) and the jar of cocaine on Holmes' mantelpiece was disreputable but no worse, but still legal. Heroin, for example, could be obtained by prescription. Drugs-related crime was far, far less than now they are all illegal. Off the top of my head, I can think of several reasons. - drugs could be obtained without the huge markups of smugglers, greatly lowering costs and hence one need for crime - quality was assured which cut health risks - without the need for secrecy, needles etc can be openly acquired and not shared, cutting the risk of disease spreading (as needle exchanges do now) - here, at least, it's the taxpayer who picks up the tab for the health effects, so no loss there - the amounts prescribed were known and regulated - those wanting to come off drugs would not have had to keep their habit a secret, and would obviously already have a knowledgeable medical advisor to assist them - the legal market had no motive for expansion since it was not run for profit - the taking, possession etc were not in themselves criminal acts; thus also otherwise law-abiding people would not be encouraged to view the law as irrelevant - those wanting drugs would not need to come into contact with criminals, and would not have been funding them - without the incentive of a desperate market with no other recourse, the criminal supply infrastructure basically hardly evolved Add to this the savings for the criminal justice system, not having to watch for/pursue/try/imprison so many suppliers (not to mention the addicts!), and maybe even some profits for the state (official licenses to produce & supply? taxes? franchises?) and it looks worth trying again... Let's face it, the current method blatantly is not working.