[Amsra]

Wrote a piece on that subject here

[Dragon-RD]

I like this site Amsra it makes for a good read.

[Loampounder]

I will jump past the half-baked facts and into your main idea. Marijuana, in California, just takes a small fee to possess and use it legally (the fee being a doctor's recommendation). It's more legal here than in any other American state. But the drug cartels are raking in the money, only this time in the safety and comfort of their "stores". Legalizing drugs just gives the cartels a safer way to make money. Nothing about legalizing it addresses the problems you mentioned. If we cannot address these problems when the stuff is illegal, we can do even less when it is legal.

[Hatto]

I always considered the main advantage of legalizing drugs that it prevents people getting into the spiral of crime. Once people decided that its ok to do illegal things and started working with people who do it gets easier and easier to do even more illegal things. Of course moral is eroding these days so it is an argumentation that is built on sand, somewhat, but if it helps a few people I consider it a good thing. Besides alcohol is legal and the crime/violence related to that outnumbers drugs by a huge margin I'd say. And just like the prohibition didn't solve the alcohol issues it doesn't work for drugs either.

Besides, why do you care about giving the cartels a legal way to make money? I know they are the bad guys, but probably a huge amount of companies we deal with in various countries are. Outside the world we live things are not that easy to distinguish. And, come to that, I kind of think that one reason why international crime is not fought harder against is that if you remove all the money from drugs, prostitution, arms deals and whatnot the banks will probably collapse...

[Amsra]

Originally Posted by Loampounder

I will jump past the half-baked facts and into your main idea. Marijuana, in California, just takes a small fee to possess and use it legally (the fee being a doctor's recommendation). It's more legal here than in any other American state. But the drug cartels are raking in the money, only this time in the safety and comfort of their "stores". Legalizing drugs just gives the cartels a safer way to make money. Nothing about legalizing it addresses the problems you mentioned. If we cannot address these problems when the stuff is illegal, we can do even less when it is legal.

It does address the fact that legalization would take the illegal out of the growing and distribution out of it, even in CA the law is very vague on where exactly all this "medical" pot is supposed to come from. Which allows the cartels to still be making large amounts of money that do nothing for our tax base or economy. And honestly if the cartels can transition to a legal, regulated and taxed market.... more power to em. It would help immensely to reduce the undeclared war we have going on our southern border. It would become a legal business and generally in a legal market, people don't get killed.

Did you miss my reference to to Portugal? By legalizing everything , they went from one of the worst countries in the EU in terms of actual drug abuse to one of the best. i even linked a Time article, surprised you missed that......

Half baked facts? I'd be happy to argue those point by point, with references, if you'd like to take them one at a time as opposed to condemning them all at once. It is an opinion blog, so I don't feel I need to cross reference every little thing. But I do have to do research , I have a lot of links backing my ideas.

back at ya Loam... debate me here or better yet on Fugumble

[Amsra]

Originally Posted by Dragon-RD

I like this site Amsra it makes for a good read.

Thanks! Fugumble is just starting out, we need more readers

tell your friends

[Loampounder]

Originally Posted by Amsra

And honestly if the cartels can transition to a legal, regulated and taxed market.... more power to em.

Well, there goes part of your argument. When I have more time I will put up more details, here and on Fugumble.

[MagicNumbers]

I think Amsra has got you on the facts Loam.

[perfect]

Going to have to learn how to spell "legalised" first.

/me ducks

[MagicNumbers]

Originally Posted by perfect

Going to have to learn how to spell "legalised" first.

/me ducks

Ha! You and you're silli sphelling

Edit: Oh and Zed's are perfectly fine in Canada.

[Loampounder]

Originally Posted by Amsra

It does address the fact that legalization would take the illegal out of the growing and distribution out of it, even in CA the law is very vague on where exactly all this "medical" pot is supposed to come from.

The law in California is specific - it allows a person or healthcare provider to grow it for personal use. The actually says "cultivate". The fact that some people set up "collectives" to give the drug out for a small "membership fee" is just people skating around the law. The city of Los Angeles has been fighting with this issue for years, but the city council is so inept that they cannot do anything.

[Loampounder]

Originally Posted by Amsra

Did you miss my reference to to Portugal? By legalizing everything , they went from one of the worst countries in the EU in terms of actual drug abuse to one of the best. i even linked a Time article, surprised you missed that......

Portugal has NOT legalized (or legalised for the continentally impaired); they have decriminalized the offenses associated with possession/use of illicit drugs. Basically, they reworked how they deal with the issue by replacing jail time with therapy and consulting with a social worker. No trafficking of drugs is allowed in Portugal. Even the Times article says that therapy is for those "found guilty of possessing small amounts of drugs".

Portugal does not have "some sort of control over the market", at least no different than they did before the decriminalization. The only thing that has changed is how to treat the users. The country still cracks down on the distributors and the sellers, but that is backed by a soft-handed approach to the people who use.

Portugal's aim? To reduce drug use! Why else would they haul people into court to determine guilt or innocence and, if the latter, arrange therapy focused on treatment to end the drug use? The point of Portugal's change in laws is the exact opposite of your blog article.

Portugal is making progress, in that drug use when from high to low (compared to other EU countries). It's surprising that the Times article relies on data from the Cato Institute, since it's well know what the Cato institute's goals are. I am glad things are improving for Portugal, and we can discuss the effectiveness of treatment versus imprisonment if you want, but obviously Portugal has not legalized drug use.

[Loampounder]

National security - You mention that the cartels could get anything across the border, hence you want to take down the cartels by legalizing drugs (correct?). I agree that there is an enforcement problem along the border, but this is political and the problem would be there if the cartels were in business or not. In fact, your plan would reduce the security on the border by eliminating the war on drugs. By ending this war, you would remove a major funding source and major cause for police enforcement along the border.

Mexico is such a poor country that many people down there will transport people or items across the border illegally in exchange for money. There is a large human trafficking problem there now. At best, the war on drugs is unrelated to your topic; at worse you would remove enforcement and exacerbate the problem.

Cartels and taxes

Which leads to the import of drugs. With a more porous border (remember you want to remove funding for border security by removing war on drugs funding) and taxes put into place, do you think drug cartels would pay import taxes on their products? They are breaking the law now in order to make money, so why would they give up money to pay taxes? In the short term, rather than go out of business, the cartels would thrive because they have the product (and the distribution system) and no one else does. The California example with marijuana fits here.

Legalizing drugs will not effect much outside of the US (except for a huge loss in economic aid for some countries). Drug cartels in Mexico, Columbia, Afghanistan, etc. would thrive because those countries would have less backing by the US and they have a competitive market to get into. Drug growers in third world countries would not start forming unions or learn the import/export business. Cartels negotiate with guns. The idea that growers can get a fairer price on the open market is a pipe dream considering what lengths the cartels all ready do to control these people.

[Amsra]

Originally Posted by MagicNumbers

Ha! You and you're silli sphelling

Edit: Oh and Zed's are perfectly fine in Canada.

Drat! My spell checker must be Canadian then

[Amsra]

Originally Posted by Loampounder

The law in California is specific - it allows a person or healthcare provider to grow it for personal use. The actually says "cultivate". The fact that some people set up "collectives" to give the drug out for a small "membership fee" is just people skating around the law. The city of Los Angeles has been fighting with this issue for years, but the city council is so inept that they cannot do anything.

My point is that it is not really regulated at all under current law. And there is still a huge underground market in CA despite how easy it is to get that "doctors note".

Given that people are going to use it for recreation as opposed to medical use regardless, why shouldn't we control drugs in the same way as alcohol? The so-called War on Drugs has been a huge failure and waste of money. Why shouldn't we, the taxpayers get some of that back with taxes on it?

As it stands in CA right now, only the city of Oakland is making any money off pot. Why should the state not make money as a whole? CA has a huge deficit to deal with.....


my 2cp

[Loampounder]

Taxes - Dealers are all ready selling drugs illegally without taxes, so I see no reason why they would start paying taxes (i.e. take money from their own pocketbook), but assuming the market can get past this, taxes on drugs will not address any state's budget problems. With the common acceptance of cigarette (in general), California raises about $3B in revenue from cigarette taxes. Most of this goes to anti-smoking campaigns, some healthcare, and children's programs. The state's deficit is about $20B. There is no way a tax on drugs is a "way to balance the budget".

I remember when the state lotteries were sold as revenue enhancements. They turned out to be a drop in the bucket. The idea of "use drug taxes to fill the budget" is too vague and unsupported to be meaningful.

You did not mention it, but some groups suggest taxing to raise revenue to add to the state's coffers and then using drug tax to fund recovery programs. They evidently want to count the funds twice.

Also, there has been a lot of talk of healthcare recently, and the costs to our society. All ready we are having a problem with the cost of smoking being paid by non-smokers, and the country is trying to reduce the use of tobacco to improve the health of the citizens. Legalizing drugs will just add another healthcare expense by people who "choose" to use them. The people who are more likely to use drugs are less likely to have healthcare coverage. Beyond healthcare, there will be an additional demand for addiction recovery, which I doubt private citizens will pay. For the sake of personal choice, you are adding additional social costs.

And back to the budget, using sin taxes for needed revenue make no sense. Reduced use (which we want to reduce society costs like healthcare or addition services) leads to reduced revenue. Depending on that revenue requires that use of the "sin" to remain constant or to increase.

[Loampounder]

I would rather have all drugs legal and have to go to a State store to get them. It's regulated then, as it is now any kid can get drugs from the underground market. Eliminate the underground market and you will see less kids using at an early age.

This quote is actually funny. Since the drug is illegal now and the underground market is there, how would legalizing it eliminate the underground market? Cigarettes cannot be purchased by anyone under 18, but underage smoking is very common.

[Amsra]

Originally Posted by Loampounder

Portugal has NOT legalized (or legalised for the continentally impaired); they have decriminalized the offenses associated with possession/use of illicit drugs. Basically, they reworked how they deal with the issue by replacing jail time with therapy and consulting with a social worker. No trafficking of drugs is allowed in Portugal. Even the Times article says that therapy is for those "found guilty of possessing small amounts of drugs".

Portugal does not have "some sort of control over the market", at least no different than they did before the decriminalization. The only thing that has changed is how to treat the users. The country still cracks down on the distributors and the sellers, but that is backed by a soft-handed approach to the people who use.

Portugal's aim? To reduce drug use! Why else would they haul people into court to determine guilt or innocence and, if the latter, arrange therapy focused on treatment to end the drug use? The point of Portugal's change in laws is the exact opposite of your blog article.

Portugal is making progress, in that drug use when from high to low (compared to other EU countries). It's surprising that the Times article relies on data from the Cato Institute, since it's well know what the Cato institute's goals are. I am glad things are improving for Portugal, and we can discuss the effectiveness of treatment versus imprisonment if you want, but obviously Portugal has not legalized drug use.

point to Loam....


Very good point but I think the point I was making is still valid. What I was emphasizing in that reference was the oft brought up cry, "Omg, drug use will shoot thru the roof". It obviously didn't happen in Portugal, or in Amsterdam. I know that drugs in the Netherlands are technically illegal, but tolerated and decriminalized in general as long as you only do them in your own home or the appropriate cafe. They did not have a huge spike in drug use either.....

[Loampounder]

Originally Posted by Amsra

My point is that it is not really regulated at all under current law. And there is still a huge underground market in CA despite how easy it is to get that "doctors note".

Given that people are going to use it for recreation as opposed to medical use regardless, why shouldn't we control drugs in the same way as alcohol? The so-called War on Drugs has been a huge failure and waste of money. Why shouldn't we, the taxpayers get some of that back with taxes on it?

As it stands in CA right now, only the city of Oakland is making any money off pot. Why should the state not make money as a whole? CA has a huge deficit to deal with.....

Marijuana IS regulated under current law. Enforcement is another issue.

Controlling drugs the same way as alcohol legitimizes their use and increases abuse. There was over 13,000 drunk driving deaths in 2008. The CDC reports there are about 79,000 deaths each year due to "excessive alcohol use".

As for the war on drugs being a failure and a waste of money, you have failed to show anything like that. Details given by the NIBA show illicit drug use is declining. Even Portugal still has their war on drugs. Frankly, I'm glad we are not Mexico or Columbia and the "war on drugs" just might be the investment we need to maintain our society. Care to show facts otherwise?

[Loampounder]

Originally Posted by Amsra

point to Loam....


Very good point but I think the point I was making is still valid. What I was emphasizing in that reference was the oft brought up cry, "Omg, drug use will shoot thru the roof". It obviously didn't happen in Portugal, or in Amsterdam. I know that drugs in the Netherlands are technically illegal, but tolerated and decriminalized in general as long as you only do them in your own home or the appropriate cafe. They did not have a huge spike in drug use either.....

Since this point is far from what you are suggesting, it is not valid at all. Portugal is taking a different tack to decrease use. You want to legalize and put them in stores, thus making them de facto "accepted" in society. Nothing you have said or used examples from says downplays the idea that if you make it much more accessible by putting it in stores that it will not be used more. Heck, Amsterdam is KNOWN for drug use and still has controls on sale and use, especially in "coffeehouses".