All Nonviolent Drug Use and Possession Should Be Decriminalized

Tibet's spiritual leader the Dalai Lama isn't down with drugs and alcohol, but does think marijuana can be used "for particular illnesses, this is sometimes deliberately used. So that’s up to the doctor or up to scientists."

About drugs and alcohol, he tells Time: "These kinds of substances are generally considered poison, very bad... The ability to judge reality is something very unique. Our brain is something very special. So if that is damaged, that’s awful. So alcohol and drugs are very bad."

Back in October during a visit to Mexico with the country's former Pres. Vicente Fox, who supports legalizing cannabis for all uses, the Lama said he was cool with medical marijuana. "Otherwise if it’s just an issue of somebody (using the drug to have) a crazy mind, that’s not good," he stated.
http://www.celebstoner.com/news/celebstoner-news/2013/10/16/dalai-lama-marijuana-gives-you-a-crazy-mind/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnQr2AqVpIU

Relax, Clint, I'm not arguing with you, nor do I feel any very strong sentiments about the topic ...

And you are right about the medical/pharmaceutical industries potentially exploiting the hell out of having une carte blanche to manage the whole nasty business.

Yet, people have been getting addicted to things since pre-history ; it is just in our make-up as a species. After all :

Getting messed up is not the answer to life’s big questions. Nor is it a safe recreational past time; and neither is race car driving or juggling grenades… whatever extreme sport adrenaline junkies do these days.

... is a grand question. Part of it is because, since at least the mid-eighteenth century, we are ignoring the "big questions" of Life. Even much of academic philosophy has, since Wittgenstein, even shied away from dealing with existential, phenomenological "problems" and gone about wasting three quarters of a century quibbling about what words we use to talk about 'it' (dressing it up naturally as some very advanced "epistemology" )

Then again, education and religion having been bought out by various hermeneutics on psychological theories (which is another bed of conflict) and the glorious implications for those in the "economy" (does anyone even know what that word means now -- outside of "finance" ? anyway ...), people who are having difficulty with the "big questions" are probably not going to go study philosophy, nor even just go for a walk in the woods - which is studying philosophy too - but, owing to those socio-cultural factors we were talking about before, they are probably going to head down to the pub or off to the crack-house (I may be exaggerating a little ...) In short, escaping the big questions has become about the most readily available option for people to deal with their existential angst. That throws the ball right back into the court of our social organisation - where "consumerism" (even illegal) is "good" and philosophy is considered about as useful as an inflatable dart-board ...

So, why do people get addicted to stuff ? You tell me ...

... it could be that we keep them unaware of other options.

From post https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/open-discussions/114429-all-nonviolent-drug-use-and-possession-should-be-decriminalized?start=10#235774

People keep pointing to Portugal. Whoopty do. We use to have it all legal too. And we thought it was great for years. Until it wasn’t great. Then we get what we have now.

~ Wescli Wardest

What does that have to do with Portugal? Portugal has not legalized drugs. They are illegal. They confiscate illegal drugs. They don't even have medical marijuana.

This is a brief topic on what I was talking about.

https://www.thefix.com/content/decrim-nation-portugal-ten-years-later

Clint no one is saying that drug use is a healthy choice. What we are saying, and as the link you posted corroborates, is that making drug use illegal is even more unhealthy. By focusing on treatment long-term drug use and addiction in Portugal has decreased since decriminalisation.

One of the biggest myths about addiction is that substances have the quality "addictive". They don't. Does anyone here enjoy sex? Well what about sex addicts? Addiction is a psychological state of mind. Some things are more prone to having people addicted to them, but if addiction is a problem put money into treatment instead of enforcement.

Wes wrote: Look, long story short, there is nothing that someone that uses drugs can tell me that will sway me the other direction.

A closed mind is as unhealthy as taking drugs :whistle:

Devil's advocate: I'm not going to listen to anyone who is against taking drugs because they're too emotionally invested in the subject to provide an unbiased opinion.

I don't think any human being has the authority to tell me or anyone else what to do with our own bodies, as long as it doesn't negatively affect those around me. If someone wants to take cocaine once in a while, that isn't a threat to anyone at all. The only dangers that exist in this case are the violent crimes taking place to transfer/deal these drugs illegally, which only exist because they're illegal substances.

If someone eats a lot and gains weight, then has a heart attack, the fault is in the judgment of the individual. We don't make food illegal. If someone plays too much World of Warcraft, then dies from exhaustion after playing the game for days on end, we don't make the game illegal and we don't set mandatory limits on play time. If someone decides to commit a violent crime in order to secure a large business deal involving drugs, then the fault is again in the individual's judgment, and the drugs are not to blame.

I do not believe that a fair defense for the prohibition of drugs exists. The most you can say is "I don't personally like or condone drug use, and so no one should", "I know better than you and you have to be coddled", etc. I do not need an authority figure telling me that they know what's best for me when it comes to harmless recreation. Let people know the dangers of individual substances and then choose for themselves whether or not to use a substance. If you don't trust human beings to make informed decisions, then that should be seen as a personal issue, not one that laws should be based on.

http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/opiates_outlawed.htm

"The first opium law was in San Francisco, an 1875 ordinance that outlawed opium smoking in opium dens. Among other things, it was alleged that Chinese men were seducing white women in opium dens. The measure was primarily directed at the Chinese, by punishing the Chinese custom of smoking opium in dens. Opium was still freely available in other forms. It came during the same period of time that other anti-Chinese laws were passed, such as laws against wearing hair in pigtails, as Chinese men did at the time.

The widespread and plainly fraudulent sale of patent medicines, and other consumer product safety issues, resulted in the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, which established the Food and Drug Administration and gave it the power to regulate foods and drugs. Subsequent acts defined rules on advertising and product content that essentially eliminated the patent medicine industry.

This act did not prohibit opiates and cocaine generally, and these drugs were still easily available by prescription through a doctor. It should be noted that while the dangers of the drugs and the completely unrelated marketing of the drugs were becoming widely recognized, there was no large social movement to have these drugs outlawed, as there was with alcohol."

There was no real "drug-related" crime during this period of time. That is, the opiates and cocaine were not associated with crimes like robberies, murders, violent crime, burglaries, or any of the crime commonly associated with them today. There were addicts, but the addicts weren't criminals and there wasn't any great clamor to have these drugs outlawed, as there was with alcohol. They were recognized as a problem, but not a criminal problem.

These drugs became illegal nationally with the passage of the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914 which, on its face appears to be only a law to place a tax on these drugs. The intent, however, was to make the taxes and terms prohibitive to all non-medical use. That is, anyone who wasn't getting them through a doctor had to pay a tax and get a license. Then the US Government just made the terms of the taxes and licenses impossible to meet. Therefore, when they arrested someone for possession of opiates or cocaine, they didn't arrest them for possession of drugs. They arrested them for possession of drugs without having paid the tax and/or acquired the license. That is, they were arrested for a "tax" violation.

========================

headline reads: NEGRO COCAINE "FIENDS" NEW SOUTHERN MENACE

New York Times, Sunday February 8, 1914

Murder and Insanity Increasing Among Lower Class Because They Have Taken to "Sniffing" Since Being Deprived of Whisky by Prohibition

http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/negro_cocaine_fiends.htm

it seems like a position that im seeing here is: "i dont approve of it so it should be illegal"

similar to why people want to outlaw guns and abortion and gay rights

in general i am bothered by the trend of american citizens deciding that american freedoms should end at the limits of their own personal sense of propriety

to me it says "i dont care about "freedom" i care about MY freedom, and as soon as the limits of what i want to do with my freedom are reached, that is where freedom itself should end"

driving is dangerous but we dont make driving a crime (with exceptions) we make "driving in a dangerous way" a crime

its arguable if speed alone really constitutes danger but you understand my point

it is a statistical reality that damn near everyone who drives, at some point drives in a dangerous way

and often enough, someone gets hurt as a result

im willing to bet that MOST everyone reading this who is over 25 has at some point driven in a dangerous way, and at some point has driven in such a way that it really was little more than good luck that no one got hurt

we understand that driving has a high consequence for abuse and that it has a pretty high incidence of abuse among those who do it

but we target our laws at those who hurt others or damage property, because that is the line we have decided, generally, to be where freedom should end

one can make the argument that "drugs" have no real benefit to the individual or to society

but that is a hollow argument if one would willfully disregard the (many) voices of those who would tell you "drugs have made a positive difference in my life", and write off all such testimonials as nothing more substantial than the selfish lies of drug addicts, hedonists, cowards, and fools

"i dont do drugs, and ive never really done drugs, im not willing to listen to people who have done drugs, (except the ones who say what i want to hear) but i know they arent any good and i know that society is better with them being against the law (with all the things that come along with this) than it would be to allow people to choose for themselves, and having to face the things which come along with this, and no matter what anyone says, i am simply not going to change my mind"

well, ok
theres not really anything to say to that

is there no difference between a government regulated pharmaceutical company, and say some afghan warlord or a mexican cartel don?

if youre into the idea that the corporate elites are the greatest threat to civil society in the world today, then you might prefer Pablo Escobar to Bayer, and theres maybe even something valid in that line of thinking

but on the surface of it, theres a level of regulation that the pharamas could be held to which escobar and the taliban doent have to consider, and pharmas are less likely to send a truck full of explosives into the local police station or murder the presiding judge and D.A. every time someone (significant) gets sent to prison

i can tell you all about the downfalls of drugs - ive done all the good ones and ive seen first hand all pretty much all the stuff ABC wanrs you about - violence, death, prostitution, criminality, the hopelessness and shame that comes of knowing you are strapped in the addiction, and people were temporarily out of their minds on dope, as well as people who's brains were burned out and damaged - rewired you could say - permanently, because of how much dope theyve done
hopelessness and despair ect ect

ive handled the bodies of OD and saved friends from OD more than once, ibve been to several of the programs and ive made some really bad choices under the influence of drugs and IN ORDER TO BE under the influence

i was an active participant in a certain level of the drug world and i understand very well the dangers associated with drug abuse

and not only do i believe that society at large would be better off if we did not treat drug addiction as a criminal issue, but as a medical one

but i also dont see a better alternative to outright legalization

id like to mention also that i am drug free, and i have been drug free for years now
i am happier with my life this way and i am not taking this position because i want to get high

im not interested in going back to a drug lifestyle

but i sincerely believe that society at large would be better off if we did not treat drug addiction as a criminal issue, but as a medical one, and i dont see a better alternative than legalization, and this is why

first, i suspect that simple decriminalization at the user level, will not in any way reduce addiction rates

the "REAL" dangers of addiction will still be there, but the superficial danger of being legally punished will seem even less a deterrent it does currently, and its obviously not enough of a deterrent to prevent society from having a serious drug problem

and going the opposite way obviously isnt working

in fact, from what i can tell, higher criminalization actually makes crime go UP

the existing demand does not change - the heart of the drug trade is the long term addicts and higher penalties do nothing to reduce existing addiction

but, as the stakes increase, the sellers become more ruthless and the users become more desperate, and the divide between those who need help and those who can help becomes larger and more difficult

should alcohol be against the law?

can anyone make a case that alcohol is not every bit as much of a drug as cocaine and heroin?

i mean, other than by saying "because its against the law"

if you review it simply on its medical effects, it is every bit the drug that the others are

i actually think its worse than all of them, until you turn coke into crack, then its worse

and ive pretty much done them all

some of them quite a lot

as far as im concerned, if you drink your dope from a glass or bottle or can, its every bit as much doing dope as shooting it into your arms or smoking in out of a pipe

the delivery is less dramatic, thats the real difference

you can make cases that the specifics of each are different, but that doesnt make one a "real drug" and the other "not a real drug"

heroin is more QUICKLY addictive, but it is not more addictive than alcohol

a strong case can be made that alcohol is in fact more addictive than heroin, and more dangerous as a substance

heroin addiction in and of itself does not have to have serious long term medical consequences - there was a time when morphine was prescribed to "incurable" alcoholics, becaused you cannot abuse alcohol in the long term without serious damage to your body, but opium, as long as you have a steady supply and clean needles (if you use needles) isnt actually that hard on you

meth and cocaine have been demonstrated to impair judgement - but not any more than alcohol, and in my experience not any more often

but many would argue that alcohol, used responsibly, can make life better

they would mention their weddings, and maybe the first date or first intimate moment with the person they married

might talk about nights on the town, going to shows and dancing

or family dinners or any number of events where alcohol helped to have a great time and no one got hurt

would anyone make the case that alcohol should be illegal, no exceptions?