Legalizing Drugs as Solution to Crime?

I think by "half the junk," Chandos meant the non-addictive, non-violence-related kind of drugs, like Marijuana. I agree that hard drugs - like crack, meth, cocaine and heroine - should absolutely still be illegal. In fact, I wish Marijuana could be legalized and regulated so that drug enforcement agencies would be freed up to devote more time, money and effort into going after criminals that actually need going after. There's no such thing as a pot junkie. Also, Chandos is right about the prisons, too - a very large chunk of our prison populations is due to mandatory minimums for marijuana offenses, often first-time offenses. These people should be fined at worst and sent on their way, not thrown in with actual criminals.

 

I'm not so sure about marijuana being non-addictive. I have a relative who is overcoming pot addiction right now. Granted, we never had any of the stuff he smoked tested, so theoretically it COULD have been laced with something, but according to the doctor overseeing his rehab, if you smoke pot daily (which he apparently did) you can become addicted. It's not AS addictive as cocaine, and most casual users don't smoke frequnetly enough to become addicted, but it is possible.

 

That is a habitual addiction though, not a chemical addiction. A person can become addicted to a lot of things if they do them every day. I know workout fanatics who go nuts if they don't hit the gym every morning; and there are also WoW fanatics who play 40 hours per week. They don't, however, become so desperate to get their next workout/WoW fix that they lose all sense of right and wrong to get it, becoming willing to lie, cheat, steal or endanger others to get it*. Neither do pot heads, because marijuana use doesn't cause dependency like hard drugs do. Junkies become so desperate to get their next fix (because the chemicals have altered their body chemistry to the point where their brain is telling them the will DIE without it) that they lose their humanity. Pot heads just become lazy and enjoy the high so much they want to do it every day and lose their judgment and ability to prioritize responsibility (i.e., go to work vs. stay home and get high? Gettin' high sounds soooo much cooler).

* And if they do, that's due to an emotional problem, not the workouts / Wow / pot. They don't work that way.

EDIT @ Tal,

I hear what you're saying, but I've read quite a few studies myself that say the opposite. It's no myth. I've been researching this issue for years. I'm not arguing that smoking pot is harmless, but I am arguing that it doesn't hold a candle to hard drugs, and that if smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol are legal - both of which are far more physically harmful and addictive than Marijuana - then pot should be legalized, taxed and regulated as well. Maybe later when I'm not at work I'll dig something up. Until then we'll just have to disagree.

 

Well, at the risk of going off-topic, research indicates pot can be addictive. Here is one link. As Aldeth says, not as bad as "harder" drugs, but there are issues nonetheless. Not to mention fat build-up around the brain, and high tar content. As a further aside, pot has been known to be laced with crystal meth, and meth is the last thing you want to be using.

Anyway, interesting thread. And to think it all started because Silvery mis-read an article.

On topic:

I tend to side with most of the N. American posters here - someone invades your home, and you should be allowed to take whatever steps are needed to protect your property.

 

DR - But regardless of whether it's a chemical or habitual addiction, if it lands you in rehab and you cannot stop on your own, does it matter?

 

@ Aldeth,

IMO, yes. You play World of Warcraft once, you can stop, no harm done. You take heroine once, you CAN'T stop, or you become physically ill from the cravings. That's the difference. Habitual addictions are developed over a long period of time. Chemical addictions are developed quite quickly, and are far more difficult to undo.

I'm not saying that pot is not 100% chemically addicting; I'm sure it can be a little, tiny bit (from the chemical THC), and moreso if you have a natural sensitivity to THC. But no one has ever over-dosed on pot. No one has ever smoked it once and become "addicted" in the true sense. Someone may do it once and decide they like it so much they want to do it every day, but they aren't addicts.

EDIT

Tal,

I read your informative link. And you're right, there are plenty of studies out there probably written by pro-marijuana folk and skewed accordingly. But there are just as many out there written by anti-drug zealots who don't know what they're talking about or who've concluded beforehand that pot is bad and are operating on that thesis to begin with. I've read them all. I'm not denying that there's still some debate out there. But I've found more credible articles and studies over the years that support my position than not (which is how I came to my position, as I used to believe, like most people, that pot is a hard drug). Respectfully, I disagree with you.

 

That denial is a common human trait doesn't invalidate anything I've said. There is also an order of magnitude more affirmative research on nicotine addiction than there is on pot.

 

Tal, please don't patronize me by repeatedly telling me to read your link - I did, twice. I noticed immediately that it contained no sources, cited no scientific studies, was posted on a free internet information hub, was authored by someone who didn't state their academic credentials (who the hell is Howard Guy?), and was disputed by several of the article's commentators. I also don't appreciate being dismissed as clearly not convincable, especially when you're providing evidence that's hardly ironclad (considering you've criticized people for doing exactly that in the global warming threads, I'm surprised at you. If Nog posted a source-free "fact sheet" disputing global warming, you'd eat him alive).

I don't wish to discuss this further, either (at least not in this topic). Just treat me with the same respect you'd want for yourself.

 

Tal, clearly you're the insulted one. I have not dismissed you, and I am completely open to being convinced otherwise. The fact is you've provided weak evidence and repeatedly insisted that I keep reading it over and over. Stop projecting. If I told you you were wrong about global warming because my local global warming expert whom I couldn't cite directly and one anonymous internet "fact sheet" page said you were, you'd remain skeptical of my position, I would hope (in fact, I would hope you'd kick my ass for it - rhetorically speaking, of course). I'm not telling you you're wrong. I'm just saying the case you've made today isn't enough to change my mind. Stop telling me I'm acting like a Stone Deaf here, when that's exactly what you're doing. I never said you made him up, either.

I would be happy to be proven wrong on this or any subject. All I was saying is that, to date, I have yet to see substantial, non-biased proof that I'm completely wrong (I'm sure I'm at least slightly wrong - I usually am). Show me that, and I'd love to read it. What you showed today was weak - deal with it. Please, by all means, let's start a new thread where we can examine this credibly - I'd love that. If I'm wrong I'll shout it to the rooftops and tattoo your name on my ass. As for what I've "indicated," don't put words in my mouth. You dismissed my evidence as "written by pot-heads" without knowing my background, experience or the studies I've read. If anyone is showing enormous bias and "stone-deaf" qualities here, it's you.

 

I just heard on the radio this morning that one fellow did some research that said that chronic, abusive use of marijuana can actually cause nausea and a few other things -- the exact symptoms that the stuff is used for in smaller doses for alieviation purposes. I thought that was odd. Sorry I have no source for it, though, it was the radio.

I've talked to doctors (admittedly not experts in M, but medical professionals nonetheless) and asked them if it is really true that prescription drugs do not give the same painkilling effect for cancer patients as M does. They said there is no evidence that M is better than the pharmaceuticals they prescribe.

I see no redeeming feature in M. Unlike the presently legal smokable plant tobacco, M impairs your ability to operate motor vehicles and think clearly. Of course, alcohol does the same thing as M, so why not forbid that? We all know how that social policy went.

The problem is that we cannot legislate morality at this scale. Jails filled with low level potheads while serial rapists walk free is not the kind of society I want. However, I don't want a bunch of loopy stoners wandering our streets either. There is no really good fix for this sort of thing.

I would have us go back to some elements of the good old days wherein we had some societal cohesion -- people knew each other and the unofficial societal sanctions carried some weight. Today we preach and preach to our kids that they have rights up the wazoo and not to care what other people think and they have taken that lesson a little too much to heart -- they think that getting stoned is their right and society be buggered. I know that a lot of society 100 years ago was repressive but there has to be some way to reach an acceptable balance because this is not the utopia that was intended by expanding "freedoms".

But that's hardly a fix because it's vague and unrealistic to boot. But I can dream. As it stands, legalize it or not, criminal slime will find ways to screw over their law-abiding brethren.

 

Wow! There's so much here to respond to. I tried to read everything posted but if I miss anything my apologies in advance.

We have plenty of addictive drugs that are legal: Tobacco is probably the worst, since it does so much internal damage to your body so quickly. The short term damage can be reversed, but the long term damage, like lung cancer, can take you. Anything from Coors Light to Jack Daniels is a drug as well. It's effects tend to be more long term damage - liver, kidneys, blood vessels, etc.

Tal - Once upon a time in America we had prohibition, which led to a huge crime spree. The black market created by temprance laws actually created crime:

I would like for you to understand that the Comprehensive Drug Laws, passed by Nixon's adminstration, and how they have evolved into what they are today:

We have a failed "comprehensive" drug policy. If the description of insanity is performing the same action over and over again, and expecting a different result, then our "War on Drugs" certainly qualifies.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States

 

I'm a big law and order guy myself, but I've always been torn over this issue. I'm not convinced that marijuana is any worse then alcohol. Abuse either one of them and it will kill you. I'm also not 100% convinced that using either one of them in moderation will cause any harm. However, it is the harder drugs that I'm worried about and therefore I'm concerned about the slippery slope. What creates a "meth head"?