TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Opinion: Legalize and regulate drug use
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Opinion: Legalize and regulate drug use

i was looking around thestar.com and came across this and thought it was an interesting read. i look forward to seeing some of your comments...


---start---
Legalize and regulate drug use

Jun 03, 2009 04:30 AM

DAVID BRATZER
I am a police officer who supports incremental change toward the legalization and regulation of all drugs. This includes marijuana, heroin, cocaine and other substances. I do not condone drug abuse, nor breaking the law. But some laws are counterproductive and in this respect it is time for an honest discussion about Canada's drug laws.

Drug prohibition is an important domestic and foreign policy issue because its effects are so varied and far-reaching. For example, international forces are spending enormous sums of money to destroy the poppy fields of Afghani farmers. Yet destroying some fields only serves to increase the black market value of the remaining crops. This increases the domestic price of heroin, resulting in addicts who break into our cars and homes in order to pay for the exorbitant costs of their daily fix.

Insite, Vancouver's supervised injection site, and various needle exchange programs reduce the harm caused by injection drug use. These programs generate controversy but critics fail to realize they are half measures. Handing out free needles does not address the larger problems caused by drug prohibition. Clients of these facilities still purchase illegal drugs of unknown purity from violent drug dealers at inflated prices. In addition, many addicts pay for their drugs through a combination of petty crime and social assistance money. For those who believe that "funding" drug addiction would send the wrong message, rest assured: you're already paying for it.

Legalization does not mean that a person who commits a violent offence while high on drugs will escape punishment. Offenders who steal or cause harm to others should always face consequences, regardless of whether they are high, drunk or sober. The point is that the unintended consequences of drug prohibition cause far more serious harm than drugs themselves. These consequences include public disorder, backlogged courts, high property crime rates, organized crime and gang violence over control of the drug trade. These costs are not worth an absolute prohibition on drug use in our society.

A better approach would be to treat drug abuse as a public health problem rather than as a criminal justice problem. It is time for medical facilities that cover the full spectrum of harm reduction, including regulated access to heroin and cocaine. Enforcement would not be part of this health-care solution. Officers would be left free to focus on areas that have long been underfunded (youth crime, domestic violence, child pornography and white collar crime come to mind). And keeping non-violent drug addicts out of jail would leave more room for the long-term incarceration of truly dangerous criminals.

Some might view this approach as the wishful thinking of the far left. The truth is that ending drug prohibition is not a left- or right-wing issue. Many conservatives have supported drug policy reform, including an American icon, William F. Buckley Jr. Addressing a panel of lawyers regarding the "war on drugs," he recommended they "proceed to recommend the legalization of the sale of most drugs, except to minors."

While Buckley wanted to permit the sale of "most drugs," that might not be the right approach for Canada. Fortunately, there are a range of options available within a regulatory framework. Each drug has unique properties so it makes sense to regulate each one differently. Perhaps some drugs could be taxed and sold like tobacco and alcohol. Others could be prescribed in maintenance doses by doctors and then consumed by addicts at monitored sites (this is the model used for heroin addicts in Switzerland).

These changes need to be made slowly, with a strong focus on evidence-based policies. But first we need to have this discussion. We need to admit that what we're doing is not working and embrace the concept of legalization, to better serve and protect citizens across Canada.

David Bratzer is a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (www.leap.cc) and a police officer in British Columbia. The opinions expressed in this article are entirely his own. [email protected].
---end---

source: http://www.thestar.com/article/644431

Once you've examined the statistical evidence in relation to the so called "war on drugs" and its effectiveness thus far, there are only two very clear positions one can take: you can either accept the facts as they are or you can look away. It's as simple as that---there is no controversy here.

By accepting the evidence, it becomes painfully clear that the war on drugs is nothing more than a charade, and that it�s actually responsible for creating the conditions which allow and in fact promote drug-related criminal activity to take place--that's not to mention that the only reason these drugs lords are making the sort of money they are is precisely because of this so called 'war on drugs.'

However, as I mentioned, you can certainly take the other side, but you cannot do so under any rational grounds. The majority of arguments in favor of the 'war on drug' can all be broken down to an appeal to emotion or tradition, among other fallacious arguments.

At the end of the day, though, you cannot reasonably argue against the evidence. If you are sceptical, I refer you to read anything by Dr. Ethan Nadelmann and his colleagues. Also Chomsky did a good interview on this topic a couple years ago, and while his views are slightly different from that of Nadelmann, it is still worth a read if you want to understand the ineffectiveness of criminalization from a Chomskyan perspective.

Read it here: http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20020208.htm

Legalizing or regulating drugs can be the most rational thing the government can do. But it's not favourable for a politician to be a person that encourages or solicit drug use. The majority of the population would most likely not vote for that politician.

quote:

Originally posted by Invasionmix Legalizing or regulating drugs can be the most rational thing the government can do. But it's not favourable for a politician to be a person that encourages or solicit drug use. The majority of the population would most likely not vote for that politician.

thats because the general population is brainwashed about the war on drugs.

Legalized and regulated drug use will never happen

"I am a police officer who supports incremental change toward the legalization and regulation of all drugs. This includes marijuana, heroin, cocaine and other substances." -he's got to be kidding. I don't think he knows what he's talking about.

Drugs or Anti-drugs has always been the central moneymaking cash cows for government. Legalizing and regulating drugs will put a huge dent in the pockets of those with vested interest.

Now I'm not talking about the little drug cartels...I'm talking about the Big Pharma companies that payout big to lobbyists and government election campaigns.

Case in point:
Drug production in Afghanistan has had a 40-fold increase since the US led invasion of the country in 2001.

http://bimchat.wordpress.com/2009/0...ords-this-year/

Canada's close relationship to Britain means that her hands are tied. Britain's convenient relationship with the USA only affirms that all drugs shall remain illegal in order to protect thier vested interest in Opium Production for dia-morphine by Big Pharmaceuticals.

British Farmers Recruited to Grow Poppies...click here

Diamorphine is used to relieve the pain caused by heart attack, injury, surgery and cancers. As baby boomers progress towards retirement...the need for such a drug is huge.

Currently the poppies are being produced legally � at undisclosed locations on farms in central and northern England � for processing in Britain by Macfarlan Smith, the Edinburgh-based pharmaceutical division of Johnson Matthey, the FTSE 100 company.

Macfarlan Smith, controls one third of the legitimate global trade in diamorphine, and has been producing it for medical use for more than 100 years. In 2006, farmers cultivated 165,000 hectares of poppies -enough to make more heroin than the world�s addicts use.

Since Afghanistan has doubled its opium production over the past two years, is now producing at record levels and accounts for 93 percent of the world's output. Opium is, of course, a huge cash crop, i'm sure that Afghanistan's opium is being distributed around the world and most assuredly to big pharma which is the only one who stands to gain the most.

If other drugs are legalized, it would only bring down market value and profits...so it stands to reason that legalizing would be Out of the Question!

unless the government can profit from it, they dont really have a motive to change whats in place. it would be interesting to find out drug (if legalized and regulated) vs alcohol vs tobacco use in health risks, deaths, long term effects etc

quote:

Originally posted by jchung52 unless the government can profit from it, they dont really have a motive to change whats in place. it would be interesting to find out drug (if legalized and regulated) vs alcohol vs tobacco use in health risks, deaths, long term effects etc

The government would profit from it.....taxes taxes and more taxes.

Before anything like this could happen the government would need to change the general populations view on the illegal drugs. Its something we won't see in our life time. Maybe our grandchildrens children might see this but we won't.

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced The government would profit from it.....taxes taxes and more taxes. Before anything like this could happen the government would need to change the general populations view on the illegal drugs. Its something we won't see in our life time. Maybe our grandchildrens children might see this but we won't.

Well basically what i meant by it. The costs to change the public's view would be too high and the party wouldn't be in office very long either.

quote:

Originally posted by jchung52 unless the government can profit from it, they dont really have a motive to change whats in place. it would be interesting to find out drug (if legalized and regulated) vs alcohol vs tobacco use in health risks, deaths, long term effects etc

Watch BBC Horizon's "is alcohol more dangerous than ecstasy"

A study over 10 years and 20 types of drugs legal or not.

Out of a rank of 20 (20 being the least lethal and 1 being the most)

E was ranked 18th (2nd least harmful)

Weed was ranked 9th

Alcohol is the 5th most harmless drug and if was new on the market today it would be classified as a A class banned substance

2nd deadliest is coke

and 1st obv. was heroin.




16th was steroids which makes me want to take some...jk...

quote:

Originally posted by Capo di tutti 2nd deadliest is coke

screw you, bbc!

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon screw you, bbc!

the bbc lies.

I've been saying 'legalize' since 1994.

quote:

Originally posted by Capo di tutti Watch BBC Horizon's "is alcohol more dangerous than ecstasy"

this documentary was a joke, the rankings made no sense whatsoever

As much as I'm in favour of this idea...
With all these drugs legalized wouldn't we all be dead in 5 years?

quote:

Originally posted by Miss. S As much as I'm in favour of this idea... With all these drugs legalized wouldn't we all be dead in 5 years?

As much as I am in favour of legalization (NOT "decriminalization", which does virtually nothing to remove the black market), there's an important point which cynics often seem to miss:

Legalization of drugs would be a logistical nightmare. Our society is entrenched so deeply in criminalization, it would take an exceptionally talented team of experts on law, health, media, urban planning, business, psychology, chemistry, and a host of other disciplines, working long hours, in order to pull it off without a major disaster.

Lots of "Dangerous Things" are legal but controlled, and now have books full of regulations and case precedents to cover just about every edge case. For all the 50 years or so we've spent hunting down stoners, we should have been spending that time developing a framework for minimizing the harm of typical drugs on individuals and society. We're literally decades behind, and it takes a long time to come up with all of the answers. For example, here are just a few of the tough questions associated with legalization (I know nobody's going to read this, but whatever):

• Are there age restrictions? How are they enforced, and who is held responsible if minors are found to be high or in possession? Is it OK for minors if it's under the supervision of parents?
  
• What are the rules related to driving and other activities requiring high awareness and reflexes? What are the specific legal limits for drug-related "intoxication", how can they be measured accurately, and what are the penalties? How will they be enforced - for example, will RIDE programs be extended with drug tests? For which drugs?
  
• What happens to the people in prison for major charges? Do we let them out, knowing that many of them are violent criminals who would have ended up in prison anyway? If not, what about petty charges? Where do we draw the line, and how would we avoid millions of lawsuits from the crime syndicates complaining that the decision was unfair?
  
• Are there rules on public use, like there are for public drunkenness or indoor smoking? How outrageous does somebody's behaviour have to be in order to qualify as intoxicated?
  
• What about marketing - can companies advertise to anyone, at any time, through any medium? Can they sponsor public events? Corporate events?
  
• Do they have to broadcast warnings and plaster them all over the packaging? If so, what warnings? What if we don't really know all the long-term side-effects yet?
  
• Can bars sell drugs? Restaurants and caf�s? Supermarkets or pharmacies? Can you get into trouble for serving weed cookies, ecstasy- or meth-laced drinks, or other such concoctions without telling the recipient what's in it?
  
• Does every single drug interaction need to be documented? What happens if somebody dies because they tried some crazy cocktail that nobody had even thought of? How is anybody supposed to keep track of all of it?
  
• On that note, what happens if somebody dies from a documented improper use (say, combining MDMA with Viagra, or going crazy with water and ending up with hyponatremia, or taking way too high a dose)? Can the families sue?
  
• And speaking of dosages, how is the recommended dose determined, and are they allowed to be sold at other dosages?
  
• Will there be price controls? Taxes? Both? What do we do when we hear the inevitable allegations of price gouging, of corporations or the government taking unfair advantages of addicts?

quote:

Originally posted by Miss. S As much as I'm in favour of this idea... With all these drugs legalized wouldn't we all be dead in 5 years?

only if people are irresponsible sketchbags.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut For example, here are just a few of the tough questions associated with legalization (I know nobody's going to read this, but whatever):

funny guy

you bring up a lot of good points but I think everyone has to realize everything in moderatio is key. Yet the ones that don't see that end up paying the price... whateves... nobody is reading this

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon only if people are irresponsible sketchbags.

which is like 75% of people....
lol

quote:

Originally posted by Miss. S which is like 75% of people.... lol

I would say the numbers are probably reversed.

quote:

Originally posted by Miss. S which is like 75% of people.... lol

not really. i think there are more responsible users than irresponsible ones.

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon thats because the general population is brainwashed about the war on drugs.

This is true. Com'on people, if anything this online community can appreciate the affect of the advertising of the 'war on drugs'.

How many people do you know that don't party, that the second you tell them about an e-trip will negatively judge or at the very least feel uncomfortable listening to? But to us, seeing these things [and maybe experiencing them first hand] gives us a perspective that allows us to see drugs for what they are. Sometimes they're fun, sometimes they're dangerous, sometimes they're sketchy, but if we handle ourselves well and don't do anything too stupid, they can be relatively safe.

To those other people, the war on drugs makes all they see about controlled substances is this:

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Are there age restrictions? How are they enforced, and who is held responsible if minors are found to be high or in possession? Is it OK for minors if it's under the supervision of parents? What are the rules related to driving and other activities requiring high awareness and reflexes? What are the specific legal limits for drug-related "intoxication", how can they be measured accurately, and what are the penalties? How will they be enforced - for example, will RIDE programs be extended with drug tests? For which drugs? What happens to the people in prison for major charges? Do we let them out, knowing that many of them are violent criminals who would have ended up in prison anyway? If not, what about petty charges? Where do we draw the line, and how would we avoid millions of lawsuits from the crime syndicates complaining that the decision was unfair? Are there rules on public use, like there are for public drunkenness or indoor smoking? How outrageous does somebody's behaviour have to be in order to qualify as intoxicated? What about marketing - can companies advertise to anyone, at any time, through any medium? Can they sponsor public events? Corporate events? Do they have to broadcast warnings and plaster them all over the packaging? If so, what warnings? What if we don't really know all the long-term side-effects yet? Can bars sell drugs? Restaurants and caf�s? Supermarkets or pharmacies? Can you get into trouble for serving weed cookies, ecstasy- or meth-laced drinks, or other such concoctions without telling the recipient what's in it? Does every single drug interaction need to be documented? What happens if somebody dies because they tried some crazy cocktail that nobody had even thought of? How is anybody supposed to keep track of all of it? On that note, what happens if somebody dies from a documented improper use (say, combining MDMA with Viagra, or going crazy with water and ending up with hyponatremia, or taking way too high a dose)? Can the families sue? And speaking of dosages, how is the recommended dose determined, and are they allowed to be sold at other dosages? Will there be price controls? Taxes? Both? What do we do when we hear the inevitable allegations of price gouging, of corporations or the government taking unfair advantages of addicts? The list goes on and on and on, and if we left just one of them unanswered it could turn into a serious problem.

Alcohol and tobacco are both very dangerous and heavily regulated. Half of your points are answered by how we deal with the those substances currently. Perhaps it sounds like an oversimplification but I have yet to read any argument that effectively differentiates the addictiveness and physical/societal dangers of alcohol and tobacco versus other harder substances.

As far as testings short- and long-term effects and product production, pharmaceutical companies are pretty darn good at this type of thing - it's pretty much what they do. Admittedly long-term testing (beyond info that is currently available) would be a problem. As I understand, after criminalization the testing of many drugs virtually ceased. However using currently available studies on "addicts" and the commissioning of studies given the intent to legalize, I'm very confident we could make educated recommendations and predictions to potential end users (society) about the effects of these substances.

Ultimately, yes - logistical nightmare. But then, anything in government is a logistical nightmare - it's pretty much what they do.

quote:

Originally posted by DeleteFromUsers Alcohol and tobacco are both very dangerous and heavily regulated. Half of your points are answered by how we deal with the those substances currently. Perhaps it sounds like an oversimplification but I have yet to read any argument that effectively differentiates the addictiveness and physical/societal dangers of alcohol and tobacco versus other harder substances.

My thoughts exactly, and I don't think you're oversimplifying. If anything, Digi's points are an over-exaggeration of the implementation process--obviously change won't come overnight, but it's hardly a daunting task. In fact, the only thing making this a "logistical nightmare" is the governments resistance, and unwillingness in creating the necessary conditions for change to occur. Otherwise the process--granted it was permitted to start--is not nearly as difficult as some might suggest it to be.

Change won't come until the people of our generation replace the previous generation in office. So, like, not for another 20-30 years.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.