This is the biggest thing, IMO. Legalising drugs isn't about getting control of distrubution and profits, it's more about changing societies view on drugs. We need to stop treating these people as addicts that need to be swept under the rug. We need to treat them as they are - human beings with a disease/illness for which they need help.
How can they turn to us for help if we chuck them in prison for their problem and don't help them?
edit; wasn't suggesting that you didn't think this - I think the majority of people in my country (UK) don't think of addiction as an illness/disease that we need to help with. They just want to turn a blind eye...
The only way I see this changing is when it financially makes sense. Taking Colorado as a model, the UK could get in the region of £400million a year in tax benefits from the legalisation of cannabis alone.
Drug related crime is estimated to cost the country £14 billion annually.
Do you know where I can find some numbers on this? It's something I've always wondered. We're told by the media that 90% of heroin addicts are on the street stealing to maintain their habit - but I wouldn't be surprised if 90% of heroin addicts appear to have these "normal" lives.
Office for national statistics are nice. They're robust about what does or doesn't count, and how they count, and where you need to be cautious with the numbers. http://www.ons.gov.uk/
The other place might be Public Health Outcomes: http://www.phoutcomes.info/
EG http://fingertips.phe.org.uk/profile-group/mental-health
And finally NICE tend to have excellent referencing.
Noodle around here to find the NICE guidance. http://pathways.nice.org.uk/pathways/drug-misuse
This is a pretty ridiculous comparison
Also, his more recent take on (US) attitude towards treating heroin addicts[1].
The ending paragraph of [1] works as a great TL;DR:
"Society is fixed, biology is mutable. People have tried everything to fix drug abuse. Being harsh and sending drug users to jail. Being nice and sending them to nice treatment centers that focus on rehabilitation. Old timey religion where fire-and-brimstone preachers talk about how Jesus wants them to stay off drugs. Flaky New Age religion where counselors tell you about how drug abuse is keeping you from your true self. Government programs. University programs. Private programs. Giving people money. Fining people money. Being unusually nice. Being unusually mean. More social support. Less social support. This school of therapy. That school of therapy. What works is just giving people a chemical to saturate the brain receptor directly. We know it works. The studies show it works. And we’re still collectively beating our heads against the wall of finding a social solution."
[0] - http://lesswrong.com/lw/2as/diseased_thinking_dissolving_que...
[1] - http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/02/02/practically-a-book-revi...
Suggest someone attend substance abusers' anonymous meetings for the rest of their lives, and no one bats an eye. Suggest that someone kick their drug habit by taking another drug, just once, and people lose their freakin' minds.
From:
So would I probably.
Rats living freely in their natural habit - probably different story
Nobody suggests testing the financial services industry for performance-enhancing drugs, for example.
We've all got problems, but for some reason whenever I mess up on my taxes or something, I'm to blame, but if someone else robs a liquor store when being addicted to heroin, "the needle made me do it, mumble ... mumble ..." is an acceptable excuse.
No, it's not. Going with your flawed example: having an addiction to heroin should be a socially acceptable problem, or at least one that doesn't land an addict in prison in and of itself. Helping those amongst us who are addicted helps to prevent desperate crimes.
But if you go beat someone up or crash your car while drunk, you're charged with those crimes, whether committed due to your addiction or not. But outside of actual crimes committed against others in society, just being in possession of alcohol or being an addict isn't illegal. Additionally, there are resources for people who want to improve their dealings with alcohol or work out the issues that are causing their problems with it. They can make use of these resources without fear of being arrested because mere possession and use isn't a crime.
I don't claim that habitual use of opiates or amphetamines or whatever is a positive thing but putting someone at risk of criminal penalties and prison because of something that is (at worst) very unhealthy is sort of preposterous when you think about it that way.
That doesn't mean we ought to turn a blind eye to crimes committed under the influence or in search of one's dose but at a minimum, possession and use ought not to be criminal offenses.
In your example, you can turn to the government (or someone else) for help with your taxes. There is no stigma (or law) that makes it difficult for you. That's not the case for a drug addict. It's a lot harder to get help.
I also didn't say that addicts should not be held accountable for their actions. Of course they should.
(...unless you're tring to evade tax...)
If someone does heroin and gets hooked, they get a treatment program.
What is the difference? Why, according to you, should I be punished, while the person on heroin should get all these treatment options opened up to them?
Where is my "parked my car in the wrong place" rehab program?
I didn't say you should be punished for doing your taxes badly.
Your parking example is terrible. If you get a parking fine then you must have ignored a sign or not seen it. It's entirely possible there was no sign and you legitimately didn't realised you parked somewhere you shouldn't. There are appeals processes for exactly this. There are rules and regulation on conditions required to fine someone for parking.
I don't understand how you can compare this to a drug problem.
Someone should get help for a drug problem because it is exactly that - a problem they need help with.
Again, why, according to you, are doing illegal drugs treated as a problem that people need to be helped with, yet other illegal behaviour is the responsibility of the individual? Or aren't you saying that, and in that case, what are you saying?
Legalization itself is partly a moral issue, as the state doesn't really have any business telling me what to eat or smoke or inject, or for that matter what plants I grow on my property for personal use. Coupled with drug treatment programs it is also a practical issue: the cost of treating an addict is lower than the cost to the government of keeping him in the justice system for most of his life, lower than the cost to society of keeping him on the margins for most of his life. It's also cheaper solely from a health perspective. It's good policy because it saves money so you don't have to pay so much in taxes and parking tickets in the first place.
So there's your answer: we don't have treatment programs for people who can't figure out where to park, or how to pay their taxes, because those are dumb ideas with low ROI.
Both [legalisation/treatment-based approach to drug addition and fining drivers parking in the wrong place] are about reduction of harm on society and the individual, and effectiveness of that treatment.
The driver addicted to "parking my car in the wrong place", is not potentially going to die if he suddenly can't park inconsiderately, so a gradual reduction strategy of "parking with just one wheel across the pavement", then progressing to "staying just a few minutes over the allotted parking time" is not required.
The rehab program is the fine.
Giving an addict a criminal record and stuffing him in jail with violent criminals isn't going to steer him in the right direction at all. Rehab might. Plus, it's cheaper than jail anyways!
Taxing drugs would more than pay for any social programme needed to support users. At the moment, general taxation is used to incarcerate users which could be better used elsewhere.
Reality is there are many people who do not trust the medical companies and their "medicine", and are looking for alternative, natural remedies. Misuse is also a big problem, because when there is no legal source, there is no way to assure what you are getting is good, aside from experimenting and finding people who know their shit on this subject, and it can be difficult to look beyond the stigma of society.
This is very much a problem in countries where cannabis is illegal. People buy too much, use too much, because they have no idea or control when they are going to access more. Been through that process. Nobody is denying cannabis is not addictive, it is, very.
But putting it in the hands of people who know what it does, how it does and in what amounts you should use it, this will help people who have no idea to control their medicinal use better.
Of course there is recreational use, abusive use, but this is also partly because we have no real discussion going on in the public about this. Why? Because it's illegal to discuss even, and can immediately label you as a "drug user".
Same goes for different medicine from the nature also, mushrooms, ayahuasca, iboga and so on. If these were understood, studied and regulated, we would have real medicine to heal people with, not just things created by humans which are produced just to keep people addicted and hooked on the bill of medical cost.
Many medical companies know exactly this, and this why I feel many laws are kept in place to prevent natural use, it's just to protect the immoral practice of selling sickness to people.
Just make everything legal already, and have people who have experience working with these medicines act as healers in the process. This is already happening also, but it is not discussed on a public level, as it is illegal and can cause stigma and fear, but I hope more and more people will do it so we can have a real alternative to the current system again in place.
Can I get a source on that? It flies in the face of conventional wisdom.
ill source this from myself. both are false statements.
420 blz it
We live within societies where the way we control substances creates a huge social and financial cost.
We'd be better off legalising every drug and creating a social framework within which these drugs can be taxed, consumed safely, and users supported.
Case in point is the legalisation of cannabis which I hope is a stepping stone to legalisation of all recreational drugs.