Besides it being illegal...

[disciple2011]

I'm just going to leave this here
Ten Years After Decriminalization, Drug Abuse Down by Half in Portugal - Forbes

And I will leave this here.

Mixed Results For Portugal's Great Drug Experiment : NPR

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Now now children, we started out civil, let's keep it that way.


Looking at the studies The Nihilist and Disciple2011 posted - what's odd about Portugal is that they legalized all illicit drugs, both the soft and the hard. Despite that, the number of drug addicts they're treating went down from around 100,000 to 40,000.

However, the number of people saying they use drugs has gone up by 40-50%. Worryingly, deaths from dug-related causes - including murder - have gone up too.

It's surprisingly hard to get the exact number of deaths too. This source (Drugwarfacts.org) says the number of drug-related deaths in Portugal went down from 400 in 1999 to 290 in 2006 ... but it also says that the number of drug-related deaths went up to 341 in 2007. Another source (wfad.se) says the number of drug-related murders in Portugal went up by 40%.

So legalizing drugs did decrease the amount of addicts ... but that might be because more of them were in the morgue than in rehab.

Sorry, I seems to have a thing for statistics.

 

[talkerfly]

That makes sense. If pot does it for you then why move on. If it sort of does but your personality wants 'something more' then onward you go.

Correlation implies a relationship.

I won't deny that some people can handle pot, alcohol and maybe even crank or meth. The problem is a certain percentage will move on from marijuana to these harder ones and they will become addicts with all the nastyness to themselves and society that entails. Maybe the right response to that is, 'too bad for them, that's not my problem'. Maybe the right response is to outlaw drugs. I don't know.

The other side of the coin is drug cartels that kill people, especially south of the US border. Would legalizing marijuana so Merck or Novartis get your drug money make it all better? I'm sure Merck and Novartis would be happy if that happened.

What do you mean, would it be better? Obviously! Do Merck or Novartis murder people all the time? Fail to file a tax return every single year? Use up lots of space in the prison system? Lace their drugs with other drugs without telling you?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

More stastic-y stuff:

According to this report (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ondcp/Fact_Sheets/portugal_fact_sheet_8-25-10.pdfDrug Decriminalization in Portugal: Challenges and Limitations) many of the studies in Portugal fail to mention that the number of drug-related deaths were decreasing before drugs were legalized.

So I guess legalizing drugs didn't have that much affect on the number of overdoses after all.

 

[Living in the Light]

Notedstrangeperson said: "So legalizing drugs did decrease the amount of addicts ... but that might be because more of them were in the morgue than in rehab."

I agree that the longevity rate for addicts is low. I will still stick with my earlier post that to attain higher consciousness, one must eliminate addictions.

 

[athenken]

Notedstrangeperson said: "So legalizing drugs did decrease the amount of addicts ... but that might be because more of them were in the morgue than in rehab."

I agree that the longevity rate for addicts is low. I will still stick with my earlier post that to attain higher consciousness, one must eliminate addictions.

Hey, I thought attaining a higher consciousness was the reason people smoked pot. Am I wrong in that assessment?

 

[Living in the Light]

Hey, I thought attaining a higher consciousness was the reason people smoked pot. Am I wrong in that assessment?

Perhaps that may be the reason for a small minority, but I believe the majority use it for carnal pleasure. How many people do you know who smoke pot then pray?

 

[athenken]

Perhaps that may be the reason for a small minority, but I believe the majority use it for carnal pleasure. How many people do you know who smoke pot then pray?

In all honesty? My brother-in-law. He will light up every now and then when hanging out with some of the men from his church. He says it opens up the conversation.

For me, though, I have never touched the stuff. Beer loosens the tongue just fine.

 

[keith99]

And I will leave this here.

Mixed Results For Portugal's Great Drug Experiment : NPR

Oh no, I must be the antiChrist.

The argument over drug policy and drug abuse in this country has become an argument of two entrenched parties. On the one hand, you have people who are arguing against decriminalization and legalization. These people will say: If we decriminalize drugs, we'll have havoc in the streets, people behind the wheel getting high, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria.

Every dog I've ever had got on just fine with cats, at least with his cats.

God have mercy on anyone who hurt either Joey's or Wheatlie's cat in their presence. Either one would kill to protect his cat.

 

[keith99]

Perhaps that may be the reason for a small minority, but I believe the majority use it for carnal pleasure. How many people do you know who smoke pot then pray?

Excluding praying for more pot or that they make it to Jack in the Box before 2, none.

And technically most who use pot could eb called doing it for carnal pleasure, but the way that term has drifted in the last several decades I'd say it is misleading. I'd say just pleasure or relaxation would carry a more accurate connotation.

 

[Jade Margery]

Some things about the Portugal articles:

One of the numbers cited by those who see Portugal's policies as detrimental is that reported drug use is up almost fifty percent. I would like to know more about this statistic, because there is a big difference between 'reported' drug use and actual drug use. I imagine that when the drug use was illegal, many people hid their use of them and getting an accurate statistic would be difficult.

I think it's also possible that when they became legal to use, people who hadn't tried them before took advantage of the opportunity to do it legally, raising the number of reported users, but that doesn't mean that the number of problem users or hard core addicts is on the rise. If a person who smokes three joints a day and one who smokes one or two a month are both counted as 'users', then that data doesn't tell us anything about how many people are abusing the drugs.

Another thing is that Portugal hasn't actually made drugs themselves legal--they have made having possession of an illicit drug no longer illegal. Big difference. The drugs are still illegal and so is selling or transporting them, but letting the police ignore the small fish petty users lets them do a better job of catching the kingpins and distributors.

That is very different from having legal drugs that are regulated, taxed, and FDA inspected in the same way that cigarettes and alcohol are. One of the many reasons illicit drugs are dangerous is because they can be cut or treated with substances to make them go farther that can have unintended consequences on the users.


I think that Portugal is keeping drugs illegal in the best way it can--going after the bigger criminals and focusing on recovery instead of punishment for the average user--but it's still a far cry from what people are advocating for marijuana here in America, which would be legalization like any other drug you can get from a store.

 

[keith99]

Some things about the Portugal articles:

One of the numbers cited by those who see Portugal's policies as detrimental is that reported drug use is up almost fifty percent. I would like to know more about this statistic, because there is a big difference between 'reported' drug use and actual drug use. I imagine that when the drug use was illegal, many people hid their use of them and getting an accurate statistic would be difficult.

I think it's also possible that when they became legal to use, people who hadn't tried them before took advantage of the opportunity to do it legally, raising the number of reported users, but that doesn't mean that the number of problem users or hard core addicts is on the rise. If a person who smokes three joints a day and one who smokes one or two a month are both counted as 'users', then that data doesn't tell us anything about how many people are abusing the drugs.

Another thing is that Portugal hasn't actually made drugs themselves legal--they have made having possession of an illicit drug no longer illegal. Big difference. The drugs are still illegal and so is selling or transporting them, but letting the police ignore the small fish petty users lets them do a better job of catching the kingpins and distributors.

That is very different from having legal drugs that are regulated, taxed, and FDA inspected in the same way that cigarettes and alcohol are. One of the many reasons illicit drugs are dangerous is because they can be cut or treated with substances to make them go farther that can have unintended consequences on the users.


I think that Portugal is keeping drugs illegal in the best way it can--going after the bigger criminals and focusing on recovery instead of punishment for the average user--but it's still a far cry from what people are advocating for marijuana here in America, which would be legalization like any other drug you can get from a store.

Yea, comparing number from when people ahd a very very strong incentive to deny use with numbers when no such incentive exists is tricky.

The link which is in a post quoted in one of my posts about 5 before this one says that repeat use, what could be called abuse is up slightly.

Up or down slightly is something a reasonable person would not hang an argument on. Other things than the policy can easily account for that. The current economic situation seems to me to be more than enough to account for a slight rise.

One argument brought up in the link is that some claim the counciling and detox efforts provided could account for any decrease and that decriminalization should not be credited with any improvement. That seems to me to be very disingenous. Decriminalizatin is a needed step to make intervention programs viable.

The closely related point made by a Portugese official is a much better statement, that one should not look at their results and think that simple decriminalizion without the accompanying programs should not be assumed to generate similar results.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I think government officials are aware of all of the scientific evidence that it's no more dangerous than alcohol.

When it comes to legalization, there's some tricky details they have to figure out.

There's some complicated legal matters involved if they just instantly wipe out all of the marijuana laws off the books.

-They have to go through the entire national list of all items seized in marijuana related raids, and find a way to return the items or provide replacement items.

-They have to go through every prison record and find people who are there for strictly marijuana related charges and release them. (And provide some sort of compensation for time lost)

I think they know they messed up, but don't have the resources to fix it...so, they just pay a few Dr's for hire every year to say it's harmful so they can ignore the problem.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

One of the numbers cited by those who see Portugal's policies as detrimental is that reported drug use is up almost fifty percent. I would like to know more about this statistic, because there is a big difference between 'reported' drug use and actual drug use. I imagine that when the drug use was illegal, many people hid their use of them and getting an accurate statistic would be difficult.

The stat that says drug use is up by 40-50% came from a link Disciple2011 posted: Mixed Results For Portugal's Great Drug Experiment. One of the people, Mr. O'Brien, also mentioned that the number of drug users reported wasn't necessarily the number of drug users there arctually are - people aren't always honest.

Here's a few more number from that link, if you fancy doing a bit of crunching

Mr. O'BRIEN: That's right. I mean, in the first few years that these reforms took place in July 2001, drug seizures in Portugal went up almost 500 percent. Within seven years of the reforms, drug users in treatment in Portugal has gone up 63 percent. At the same time, you've got the number of problematic drug users in decline.

In the mid-to-late '90s, at the peak of the panic over Portugal's drug problem, it was estimated that about 1 percent of the Portuguese population was a problematic drug user, was hooked on heroin or some other drug, as you said. And today, that number has fallen by about 50 percent, while the population of Portugal has gone up about 10 percent.

[...]

Mr. O'BRIEN: Correct. And this is self-reporting. So you know, we're trusting people to tell us the truth. In Portugal - lifetime - people reporting drug use over any course of their lifetime has gone up somewhat significantly over the last decade, from about 7.8 percent to 12 percent. Now, the people who are reporting drug use in the last year in Portugal has gone up at a smaller - much smaller, 3.4 percent to 3.7 percent.
​

Another thing is that Portugal hasn't actually made drugs themselves legal--they have made having possession of an illicit drug no longer illegal. Big difference. The drugs are still illegal and so is selling or transporting them, but letting the police ignore the small fish petty users lets them do a better job of catching the kingpins and distributors.

I've had a (very) quick look and I've not completely sure what the international drug trade in Portugal is actually like. Some of the sources say they haven't seen much difference in trading since the reform:

CONAN: I was just going to ask, that politicians feared, did Lisbon become a mecca for people who fly there on vacation to get high?

Mr. O'BRIEN: Well, there are certainly people who've likely gone there over the last 10 years, nine years and experimented. But as someone who's traveled to Portugal in the last 10 years, I didn't notice the difference when I was there, you know. I didn't see drug tourism, you know, happening in the streets. So in general, no. That fear was not borne out.

[From the "Mixed Results" article above]​

Indeed, the reduction in problematic drug users and reduction in burden of drug offenders on the criminal justice system were in direct contrast to those trends observed in neighbouring Spain and Italy. Moreover, there are no signs of mass expansion of the drug market in Portugal. This is in contrast with apparent market expansions in neighbouring Spain."

Drugwarfacts.org - Portugal​

​

So it seems the reforms didn't decrease drug trafficking in Portugal. But on the plus side, there wasn't much on an increase either.

 

[Jade Margery]

I think government officials are aware of all of the scientific evidence that it's no more dangerous than alcohol.

When it comes to legalization, there's some tricky details they have to figure out.

There's some complicated legal matters involved if they just instantly wipe out all of the marijuana laws off the books.

-They have to go through the entire national list of all items seized in marijuana related raids, and find a way to return the items or provide replacement items.

-They have to go through every prison record and find people who are there for strictly marijuana related charges and release them. (And provide some sort of compensation for time lost)

I think they know they messed up, but don't have the resources to fix it...so, they just pay a few Dr's for hire every year to say it's harmful so they can ignore the problem.

No actually, they wouldn't.

For the same reason that you can't be prosecuted for a law created after you perform the action that becomes illegal, making something legal does not un-prosecute those who broke the law when it was illegal. Although they may need to free people who are in prison on marijuana charges (and going through their records is as easy as checking a database) they would not be required to compensate them for time spent in prison or return any lawfully confiscated goods which have likely been destroyed anyway.

 

[acropolis]

I think government officials are aware of all of the scientific evidence that it's no more dangerous than alcohol.

When it comes to legalization, there's some tricky details they have to figure out.

There's some complicated legal matters involved if they just instantly wipe out all of the marijuana laws off the books.

-They have to go through the entire national list of all items seized in marijuana related raids, and find a way to return the items or provide replacement items.

-They have to go through every prison record and find people who are there for strictly marijuana related charges and release them. (And provide some sort of compensation for time lost)

I think they know they messed up, but don't have the resources to fix it...so, they just pay a few Dr's for hire every year to say it's harmful so they can ignore the problem.

Releasing everyone charged for a crime related to marijuana would be easy to do and would save the government millions per year, most likely tens of millions, since the average cost per year of a single prisoner is something like $45k/yr. They don't actually need to compensate anyone for anything so it could be as simple as releasing them along with whatever evidence seized as a part of the investigations.

Drug policy in the US has virtually nothing to do with health risks or danger to the public. In marijuana's case the original reasons for making it illegal are simple racism, and the continuing battle against it can probably be chalked up to bureaucratic inertia and the prevailing negative public opinion of pot. The latter is annoying as heck. I don't understand why so many people are willing to waste tens of millions of dollars just to prevent people from entertaining themselves in a low-risk way simply because it involves a drug. What a tremendous waste of money of life.

 

[fuji]

Releasing everyone charged for a crime related to marijuana would be easy to do and would save the government millions per year, most likely tens of millions, since the average cost per year of a single prisoner is something like $45k/yr.

You forgot to mention all the people making tons of money off the prohibition of marijuana who don't want it to become legal.

- Drug dealers and gangs get a highly profitable black market (monetary benefit)
- Drug enforcement officers get job security (monetary benefit)
- Private prison corporations get more prisoners (more prisoners = more money) (monetary benefit)
- Private prison corporations get more free/hired-out labor (chain gangs etc) (monetary benefit)
- Drug testing agencies have a market for drug testing (monetary benefit)
- Alcohol and tobacco keep their legal drug duopoly (monetary benefit)
- Pharmaceutical companies don’t have an all natural, organic, cheap, unpatentable, grow-your-own competitor (monetary benefit)

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

(Sorry about the huge comment and boring numbers )


Just from an individual's point of view, would you make more money if drugs were legal or illegal?

• When it comes to illegal drugs, especially very profitable ones (cocaine in the 1980s for example) only the guys at the very top earned alot - around $500,000 a year, tax-free. Crystal meth dealers make even more, $800,000+ also tax-free.
• The average dealer however maker very little money from drugs, very little. Even with - the majority of the money goes to the guys at the top. The actual dealers themselves make only $3.30 and have a whopping 1-in-4 of being killed.
• Alternatively you could cut out the middle-man and grow pot yourself. In some places in the USA it's perfectly legal to grow cannabis, but even buying the all the equipment can cost up to $13,000. Your potential profit? Around $4,200 a month (or $50,400 a year) - before taxes.

So ... you'd make a lot more (and be a hell of a lot safer) legally growing and dealing with soft drugs like cannabis, instead of illegally dealing hard drugs like cocaine. You'd be taking a lot of money away from the guys at the top too, since you don't rely on them.

But the actual profit still isn't that great. It's just not worth it.

----------------------------------

From the government's point of view, would legalizing drugs be more or less expensive than keeping them illegal?

• One economics professor at Harvard estimated that taxing cannabis would give the US economy $6.7 billion and save $44.1 billion in law enforcement.
• The "war on drugs" cost the USA roughly $15 billion in 2010. So it looks like legalizing them would save them an awful lot of money.
• In places like Amsterdam where cannabis is legal, it adds 400 million euros (or $526,360,106+) to the national treasury a year.

Obviously there are a lot of differences between the Dutch and US economies, but legalizing cannabis may not give them quite as much money as they hoped.

 

[disciple2011]

Why on earth should pot be considered bad if it's used for entertainment? Why, for that matter, should any form of entertainment that carried minimal risks be considered bad?

Well if that is your assertion then people abusing prescription drugs like oxycodone should be OK.

Opium should be allowed as well on that same thought.

Logic would dictate that all drugs would be then fine and dandy to use for fun.

But who is going to pay for their medical costs when the body breaks down from it?

Is it not bad enough we have to pay for the over eater, the chain smoker and the dipsomaniac?

Do we really want to add to the burden we all pay in higher healthcare costs just for monkeys to get high?

No, unless they pay their own way I don't want them adding to the damage already caused. No man is an island. And when you come to your senses and realise then I will be on your side.

Until then I am not.

 

[Jade Margery]

Well if that is your assertion then people abusing prescription drugs like oxycodone should be OK.

Opium should be allowed as well on that same thought.

Logic would dictate that all drugs would be then fine and dandy to use for fun.

Pot is not like other drugs, and pot is what we are specifically discussing here. Compared to even legal drugs such as tobacco and alcohol, pot is very low risk. Even the dangers of tar inhalation can be canceled out by using a vaporizer or minimized with a hookah. That basically leaves hurting yourself as the only health danger, which is very unlikely unless you get behind the wheel of a car. Again, there is no argument you could use against legalizing pot that could not also be used against legalizing alcohol or legalizing cigarettes.

Other drugs are not in the same league and would have to be considered separately. Chrystal meth, for instance, presents a very real danger to other people. Other drugs can cause people to act more violently. Pot actually tends to make people act -less- violently.

But who is going to pay for their medical costs when the body breaks down from it?

Probably they are. Most recreational pot users have jobs and health insurance, surprise surprise. Those who don't probably wouldn't whether they were smoking pot or not. But I doubt their health costs are going to be significantly higher for doing so.

Is it not bad enough we have to pay for the over eater, the chain smoker and the dipsomaniac?

Hey yeah, what if there was some way to make sure that people who were using these substances the most were also contributing more to paying for the health care of those who do? Perhaps if we slightly raised the prices on drugs and alcohol and fast, fatty foods and used that extra money (let's call it a 'tax') to pay for health costs related to their use while simultaneously discouraging users with higher prices for their vices?

In other words, 'we' aren't paying for the chain smoker or the dipsomaniac, the chain smoker and the dipsomaniac are in the inflated costs of their bad habits. You know who doesn't currently pay for their own health choices? People who partake of substances that aren't taxed. Like, say, marijuana. What could we possibly do to fix that?

Bonus points: We are already paying way more to support people in prison for no-victim crimes (and in prison, also paying for their health care) and to 'fight the war on drugs' in courtrooms fees, lawyers, police raids, and emergency care due to drug-related gang violence. Do you really think only supplying emergency care to people accidentally hurting themselves would be more expensive than all of that already is?

Do we really want to add to the burden we all pay in higher healthcare costs just for monkeys to get high?

I do not support legal weed for monkeys. I just want to put that on the record.

No, unless they pay their own way I don't want them adding to the damage already caused. No man is an island. And when you come to your senses and realise then I will be on your side.

Until then I am not.

None of what you said made sense beyond a gut 'but why should I have to paaaayyy' reaction. If you actually thought things through, you'd already be on our side. Literally every one of your objections is actually a reason FOR making weed legal, not against.