Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP)

[djAdvocate]

these guys are more radical on this issue than i am.
they are more libertarian.
and i suspect, they are more RIGHT:

[djAdvocate]

he says it over and over:

the police has no business protecting us from OURSELVES.  that is between us, our families, our churches, and our health care professionals.  it is none of the state's g_ddamn business.  he is spot on about that.

he has tons of facts to go along with the argument to point out the logical inconsistency of the Drug War.

[EVT1]

Libertarians are what the tea party started out influenced by- and it was a good thing until the hardcore right infected it and took it over.

[djAdvocate]

if you don't have time for the video, here is their central premise:

Why Legalize Drugs?

We believe that drug prohibition is the true cause of much of the social and personal  damage that has historically been attributed to drug use. It is prohibition that makes these drugs so valuable –  while giving criminals a monopoly over their supply. Driven by the huge profits from this monopoly, criminal gangs bribe and kill each other, law enforcers, and children. Their trade is unregulated and they are, therefore, beyond our control.

History has shown that drug prohibition reduces neither use nor abuse. After a rapist is arrested, there are fewer rapes. After a drug dealer is arrested, however, neither the supply nor the demand for drugs is seriously changed. The arrest merely creates a job opening for an endless stream of drug entrepreneurs who will take huge risks for the sake of the enormous profits created by prohibition. Prohibition costs taxpayers tens of billions of dollars every year, yet 40 years and some 40 million arrests later, drugs are cheaper, more potent and far more widely used than at the beginning of this futile crusade.

We believe that by eliminating prohibition of all drugs for adults and establishing appropriate regulation and standards for distribution and use, law enforcement could  focus  more on crimes of violence, such as rape, aggravated assault, child abuse and murder, making our communities much safer. We believe that sending parents to prison for non-violent personal drug use destroys families. We believe that in a regulated and controlled environment, drugs will be safer for adult use and less accessible to our children. And we believe that by placing drug abuse in the hands of medical professionals instead of the criminal justice system, we will reduce rates of addiction and overdose deaths.

[djAdvocate]

listening to this guy reminds me of how far we are from anything resembling a coherent and rational argument on our drug policy in the US.  it is all driven by paranoia and ignorance rather than reason and facts.  makes me wonder how many OTHER social problems we are burying under a sea of nonsense.

[Deleted]

if drugs were to become legalized, would the use increase?

i realize it is not hard to obtain them now, but there is a significant cost

if you legalize, will the cost go down? 

and in turn, would that increase their usage?

and is this for ALL drugs....from marijuana to heroin? from oxycodone to meth?

where is the line drawn....or is it?

[mmhmm]

Apr 15, 2013 12:35:38 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

he says it over and over:

the police has no business protecting us from OURSELVES.  that is between us, our families, our churches, and our health care professionals.  it is none of the state's g_ddamn business.  he is spot on about that.

he has tons of facts to go along with the argument to point out the logical inconsistency of the Drug War.

I'm completely in agreement with him, dj.  It's not so much that it's none of the state's business, as I see it.  I don't care if it's their business, or not.  It's more that it's not doing one darned bit of good and it's costing far, far too much money.

[mmhmm]

Apr 15, 2013 12:58:04 GMT -5 @gdgyva said:

if drugs were to become legalized, would the use increase?

i realize it is not hard to obtain them now, but there is a significant cost

if you legalize, will the cost go down? 

and in turn, would that increase their usage?

and is this for ALL drugs....from marijuana to heroin? from oxycodone to meth?

where is the line drawn....or is it?

It would seem to me, gdgy, if it was legalized the cost could be controlled.  As to increasing usage:  Would you start using drugs if they were legal?  I wouldn't.  I don't think most people who don't use would.  If we wanted to use, we'd have found what we wanted and a way to get it.  To me, the line is drawn at children's usage.  If the drugs are well controlled, we've got a better chance at curbing that.

[Deleted]

mmhmm

how many dont try skydiving because of cost? or diving? or race car driving?

same thing....

if you have a very limited income.....you probably never tried knowing that the financial aspect would be an issue

if the costs come down as you say.....some will try it because they can now afford it

i wouldnt...you wouldnt....but others will

there are thrill seekers who would be willing to try because cost is lower

[djAdvocate]

Apr 15, 2013 12:58:04 GMT -5 @gdgyva said:

if drugs were to become legalized, would the use increase?

probably.  but ask yourself: would you buy more drugs?  i MIGHT, honestly.

i realize it is not hard to obtain them now, but there is a significant cost

if you legalize, will the cost go down?

absolutely.

and in turn, would that increase their usage?

possibly.  but cost is not the only factor in use.

and is this for ALL drugs....from marijuana to heroin? from oxycodone to meth?

where is the line drawn....or is it?

i am pretty sure that these guys would erase the line rather than redraw it.  as i said before, this is a MORE radical position than i have ever suggested.  but i think it is arguable that it is more defensible, as well.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 15, 2013 13:05:03 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Apr 15, 2013 12:58:04 GMT -5 @gdgyva said:

if drugs were to become legalized, would the use increase?

i realize it is not hard to obtain them now, but there is a significant cost

if you legalize, will the cost go down? 

and in turn, would that increase their usage?

and is this for ALL drugs....from marijuana to heroin? from oxycodone to meth?

where is the line drawn....or is it?

It would seem to me, gdgy, if it was legalized the cost could be controlled.  As to increasing usage:  Would you start using drugs if they were legal?  I wouldn't.  I don't think most people who don't use would.  If we wanted to use, we'd have found what we wanted and a way to get it.  To me, the line is drawn at children's usage.  If the drugs are well controlled, we've got a better chance at curbing that.

that is actually a really powerful argument.  i have been told MANY times by kids that they have a far harder time scoring for beer than pot.  i remember that being the case for us, as well, growing up.

[djAdvocate]

he makes a very good point in the video about cigarettes- and hear me out because it is NOT the standard argument.

in the last 10 years, smoking among adults is down 50%.  why?  did we ban cigarettes?  (don't say yes.  we didn't).  did we make it illegal to purchase and use them?  did we decrease their availability?  none of the above.  we did TWO things:

1) we increased regulations
2) we increased the social stigma and acceptability of smoking.

THOSE are ways to control personal use.  they don't involve prohibition.  we could do the same thing with pot.

[mmhmm]

Precisely, dj.  It seems to me we've been going about this in the wrong way.

[fairlycrazy23]

Apr 15, 2013 13:30:43 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Apr 15, 2013 13:05:03 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

It would seem to me, gdgy, if it was legalized the cost could be controlled.  As to increasing usage:  Would you start using drugs if they were legal?  I wouldn't.  I don't think most people who don't use would.  If we wanted to use, we'd have found what we wanted and a way to get it.  To me, the line is drawn at children's usage.  If the drugs are well controlled, we've got a better chance at curbing that.

that is actually a really powerful argument.  i have been told MANY times by kids that they have a far harder time scoring for beer than pot.  i remember that being the case for us, as well, growing up.

and you don't see liquor store owners killing each other,or performing drive by shootings.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 15, 2013 13:39:00 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

Apr 15, 2013 13:30:43 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

that is actually a really powerful argument.  i have been told MANY times by kids that they have a far harder time scoring for beer than pot.  i remember that being the case for us, as well, growing up.

and you don't see liquor store owners killing each other,or performing drive by shootings.

precisely.  there are no "turf wars" when the turf amounts to getting a permit from City Hall.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 15, 2013 13:37:01 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Precisely, dj.  It seems to me we've been going about this in the wrong way.

i think one of the most effective campaigns against smoking were the ones that compared the image of smoking to the reality of it.  they juxtaposed images of glamor with being hooked up to an O2 respirator.  they justaposed images of health men smoking with a guy hooked up to a drip feed in a cancer ward.  all the while using the industry buzz words.  it was a very powerful campaign, that basically consisted of "reality checking" those who CHOOSE to use drugs (tobacco, in this case).  the same could be done for other drugs, showing some dorito eating stoner showing up for work and getting fired, or some heroin junkee ending up in an emergency ward.  stuff that actually happens- not the myths and nonsense.

[Deleted]

Apr 15, 2013 12:58:04 GMT -5 @gdgyva said:

if drugs were to become legalized, would the use increase?

i realize it is not hard to obtain them now, but there is a significant cost

if you legalize, will the cost go down? 

and in turn, would that increase their usage?

and is this for ALL drugs....from marijuana to heroin? from oxycodone to meth?

where is the line drawn....or is it?

I'll answer this from my perspective...and my perspective alone as I can't speak for what others would do in the situation above.

1) I think a temporary spike in use would happen but fall off because of the "I can do it now  (novelty) factor!"

2) Cost will go down as more legal suppliers start making product...but could go up because of bureaucracy that the government deems "necessary".

3) See #1 - Even if it were legalized tomorrow, I have no desire at this point in my life to get into drugs. Those days are long behind me as I've tried plenty but never been one to want to continue doing them.

4) Not sure where to draw the line actually.

[Deleted]

Apr 15, 2013 13:34:57 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

he makes a very good point in the video about cigarettes- and hear me out because it is NOT the standard argument.

in the last 10 years, smoking among adults is down 50%.  why?  did we ban cigarettes?  (don't say yes.  we didn't).  did we make it illegal to purchase and use them?  did we decrease their availability?  none of the above.  we did TWO things:

1) we increased regulations
2) we increased the social stigma and acceptability of smoking.

THOSE are ways to control personal use.  they don't involve prohibition.  we could do the same thing with pot.

we increased the cost 

taxes are way up on cigarettes

when i smoked, i paid 2-3 pack at most

now it is 5-7 dollars a pack in most places

that made a HUGE difference in number of smokers

[Phoenix84]

On one hand, I agree that legalizing drugs would cause the cartels to lose influence and possibly go out of business.  Which would decrease the violence associated with that.  And I can see the argument of drug addiction being a medical issue and not a criminal justice issue.

On the other hand, this stuff is inherantly addicting.  And we want as few people as possible using them.  The drugs destroy lives and tear apart famlies.  They also cause crime.  Junkies looking for a score will do whatever it takes to get money for more drugs, including mugging and robbing people.  So, will drug use go up or down?  I don't know, but I do think some people will associate "legal" with "safe." 

[rockon]

    Send DJ to Washington quick!
This one change would stop more gun violence than any other single action! Now we are actually talking effective legislation.

[rockon]

   One small detail though... This would work well as long as the "victims" are not subsidized by our government to buy their drug of choice, paid to complete rehabilitation, reimbursed for counseling, offered free medical care and actually had to deal with the people at the local level for the consequences of their actions.

[zibazinski]

If you legalize it, tax the shit out of it and use that money to get rid of the deficit. Just don't spend that money as well. I seriously don't care if dumb shits kill themselves with drugs.

[EVT1]

Not to mention this stuff used to be legal before the big freak out.

[Deleted]

so no one cares if meth amphetamine is legalized?

heroin?

what about rohypnol?

what about ketamine?

those are the two "popular" date rape drugs

legalizing and taxing pot is one thing....not even sure i am good with that one

but the rest.....dont think so

and especially if the costs for the products go down where more "thrill seekers" can try them out

[EVT1]

I could care less really.  I'm with Ron Paul on this one- I didn't avoid using heroin because it was illegal.  And Meth- as horrifying as it is- is still worse being illegal.  Shit- cancel the drug war and put 10% of it into treatment.  I'd rather give that a shot since what we do now is a complete waste of money- nothing but a freaking jobs program for cops and a huge customer list for the private prisons.  That's who needs to be watched- a corporation that stands to profit by increased incarceration.  I have more respect for drug lords than those assholes.

Speaking of prohibitions- I'd add a good point I heard- I didn't refrain from banging the cat because it was illegal either.  So much for the gay slippery slope argument.

[Deleted]

do the ladies on the board care if rohypnol is legalized?

i realize our "drug war" is a losing fight.....but it doesnt have to be

closing our borders....and i mean closing them, would help the drug war immensely

then we just have to find and eradicate our domestic producers

if no product...the drug war disappears

or as close as possible to ending

[djAdvocate]

Apr 15, 2013 14:19:04 GMT -5 @gdgyva said:

Apr 15, 2013 13:34:57 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

he makes a very good point in the video about cigarettes- and hear me out because it is NOT the standard argument.

in the last 10 years, smoking among adults is down 50%.  why?  did we ban cigarettes?  (don't say yes.  we didn't).  did we make it illegal to purchase and use them?  did we decrease their availability?  none of the above.  we did TWO things:

1) we increased regulations
2) we increased the social stigma and acceptability of smoking.

THOSE are ways to control personal use.  they don't involve prohibition.  we could do the same thing with pot.

we increased the cost 

taxes are way up on cigarettes

when i smoked, i paid 2-3 pack at most

now it is 5-7 dollars a pack in most places

that made a HUGE difference in number of smokers

addicts are generally not very price sensitive. 

[djAdvocate]

Apr 15, 2013 14:37:55 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

On one hand, I agree that legalizing drugs would cause the cartels to lose influence and possibly go out of business.  Which would decrease the violence associated with that.  And I can see the argument of drug addiction being a medical issue and not a criminal justice issue.

On the other hand, this stuff is inherantly addicting. 

what "stuff"?  not all drugs are addictive.  the addictive potential of pot, mushrooms, and many other drugs is basically nil.  habitual use only, no withdrawals.  the legal drugs, however, are indeed highly addictive.

And we want as few people as possible using them.  The drugs destroy lives and tear apart famlies.  

just out of curiosity, why is this any of the STATES business?  and if you think it IS the state's business, then why not mandating annual marriage counceling?  how about sending kids to government Summer camps so they can practice flag worshipping ,and unquestioning submission to authority?  how far are you willing to take this idea of family coherence at the hand of our wonderful government?

They also cause crime.  Junkies looking for a score will do whatever it takes to get money for more drugs, including mugging and robbing people.  So, will drug use go up or down?  I don't know, but I do think some people will associate "legal" with "safe." 

i know that people rob cigarettes and steal money to get them, but do you really see that as a "problem of concern"?

[djAdvocate]

Apr 15, 2013 16:26:22 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Not to mention this stuff used to be legal before the big freak out.

indeed

[djAdvocate]

Apr 15, 2013 16:47:06 GMT -5 @gdgyva said:

so no one cares if meth amphetamine is legalized?

heroin?

what about rohypnol?

what about ketamine?

those are the two "popular" date rape drugs

legalizing and taxing pot is one thing....not even sure i am good with that one

but the rest.....dont think so

and especially if the costs for the products go down where more "thrill seekers" can try them out

why should the government be in the business of preventing "thrill seeking"?
should they also ban Hang Gliding, Rock Climbing and Parachuting?