The Economist says (again) to legalize drugs.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

Most are drinkers. 64% of people in the US drink. A big part of the reason is that it is readily available, cheap and legal.

Smoking is, fortunately, on the decline. About 25% of the US smokes.

It seems like your second statement points out some flawed logic in the first.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 2,400]

>It seems like your second statement points out some flawed logic in the first.

?? Dirt is very cheap, legal to eat and readily available. The fact that people do not eat it does not "prove" that people don't look at cost, legality and availability when it comes to food.

[TomAiello 25]

>??

In your first statement, you implied that the ready availability of alcohol contributed to high rates of use. In your second statement you noted that the usage rate of tobacco appeared to be falling. Since tobacco is just as readily available as alcohol, this appears to contradict the second part of your first statement.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 2,400]

>Since tobacco is just as readily available as alcohol, this appears to
>contradict the second part of your first statement.

I argue that availability, legality and price are very significant factors. I do not argue that they are the only factors.

Again, I'd be willing to bet that you don't eat dirt, although it is cheap, available and legal. I suspect there are other factors in your decision-making process that result in you eating other things.

However, when it comes to food items that _are_ part of your diet, I suspect that availability, legality and price DO enter into your decisions on what to eat.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

I argue that availability, legality and price are very significant factors.

Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by "a big part". Is "a big part" a significant factor or a determining factor?

It appeared that you were painting availability as the determining factor is wide spread alcohol consumption. When you went on to point out that despite the same factor (availability), tobacco consumption was declining, it seemed illogical to me.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 2,400]

>It appeared that you were painting availability as the determining
>factor is wide spread alcohol consumption.

Not at all. It is one of the bigger factor but not the only factor. During Prohibition, for example, when alcohol availability was limited (by law) consumption went down dramatically but did not end.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Most are drinkers. 64% of people in the US drink.

Is this information available somewhere? I wonder who they included into those 64% - like everyone who tasted any kind of alcohol once?

Quote

A big part of the reason is that it is readily available, cheap and legal.
Smoking is, fortunately, on the decline. About 25% of the US smokes.

I would attribute it more to the society tolerance to drinking, and it being a widely accepted social thing. The decline in smoking IMHO should be attributed for changing the society attitude toward smoking and smokers. At least, the number of smokers declines not because the cigarettes became illegal, or significantly more expensive.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[FreeflyChile 0]

Quote

Quote

Most are drinkers. 64% of people in the US drink.

Is this information available somewhere? I wonder who they included into those 64% - like everyone who tasted any kind of alcohol once?

Quote

A big part of the reason is that it is readily available, cheap and legal.
Smoking is, fortunately, on the decline. About 25% of the US smokes.

I would attribute it more to the society tolerance to drinking, and it being a widely accepted social thing. The decline in smoking IMHO should be attributed for changing the society attitude toward smoking and smokers. At least, the number of smokers declines not because the cigarettes became illegal, or significantly more expensive.

I think there's a lot of truth to this, but I think legality has *something* to do with it... in Chicago you can no longer smoke in bars. I know several folks who were 'social' smokers that no longer smoke because the only time they did it was in a bar, which is no longer allowed. So there, something becoming illegal resulted in the decline in the number of smokers (if only by a handful).

[nanook 1]

You said :

Quote

Argumentum ad Populum - a classical fallacy of relevance.

Now you say:

Quote

"Argumentum ad Populum?" Appeal to the People?

You call my logic messed up? Are you reading what you are typing?

Quote

Before bandying about terms with which you are not familiar, look them up. Throw in Ignoratio Elenchi for good measure

I cut and pasted your terms. I even kept the format of your post. This is on you.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

It appeared that you were painting availability as the determining factor is wide spread alcohol consumption. When you went on to point out that despite the same factor (availability), tobacco consumption was declining, it seemed illogical to me.

It seems to me that the availability of tobacco has been reduced somewhat over the years. It is just a tiny bit less available than alcohol since you at least have to ask a cashier for cigarettes rather than being able to simply put them in your cart - here in CA anyway. (Yeah, I know that's not a huge difference, but it is a slight deterrent.) And tobacco is generally available in less places than alcohol. (Most restaurants offer alcohol but not tobacco.)

I don't know how much that contributes to the decline in tobacco consumption, but it's probably a small factor. Along with the reduction in places where one can legally smoke, the broad advertising campaign to reduce smoking (along with tobacco companies now being heavily regulated about advertising their products), and the general turn of society to be largely anti-smoking.

If most of the currently illegal recreational drugs were made legal, I think that similar factors would keep them from becoming much more widespread than they already are.

[nanook 1]

Quote

Having extensive personal experience with most of the substances being discussed, I can say with great confidence that you're mistaken about the relative dangers and effects of alcohol being less than "hard drugs." Alcohol is the hardest drug. Until one comes to terms with that fact, "the larger social and psychological factor" cannot even be understood; it certainly cannot be accurately taken into account

We seem to have similar experiences. It ended differently for us though. I claim the same amount of confidence on my argument also. I agree that alcohol is the largest problem now. It will more than likely still be the largest problem with legalization of drugs. It will more than likely assist in a greater drug problem with legalization.
There was a study done in Great Britian and it indeed showed that alcohol was more dangerous than some drugs:
http://health.howstuffworks.com/drug-ranking.htm

But alcohol was not at the top. It was fifth. There are more links at the bottom of that page to click on.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Having extensive personal experience with most of the substances being discussed, I can say with great confidence that you're mistaken about the relative dangers and effects of alcohol being less than "hard drugs." Alcohol is the hardest drug. Until one comes to terms with that fact, "the larger social and psychological factor" cannot even be understood; it certainly cannot be accurately taken into account

We seem to have similar experiences. It ended differently for us though. I claim the same amount of confidence on my argument also. I agree that alcohol is the largest problem now. It will more than likely still be the largest problem with legalization of drugs. It will more than likely assist in a greater drug problem with legalization.
There was a study done in Great Britian and it indeed showed that alcohol was more dangerous than some drugs:
http://health.howstuffworks.com/drug-ranking.htm

But alcohol was not at the top. It was fifth. There are more links at the bottom of that page to click on.

I don't typically use HowStuffWorks for information about drugs. I think you'll find Here is a page you might find interesting.

Since the vast majority of drug related problems are due to the prohibition of drugs, rather than the drugs themselves, it is unlikely that ending that prohibition would exacerbate society's drug related problems. The opposite is much more likely to be true.

Have you considered comparing the USA's drug problems with those of another developed western nation with less strict drug laws in order to see how they compare (e.g. Netherlands)?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Shotgun 1]

Another interesting article regarding drug (cocaine) use/legalization. I recall reading the actual report they are referring to, and just want to point out that they included all forms of cocaine. And the majority of people in the "compulsive or dysfunctional" group were those who used it IV or smoked it. (And almost all of the people who used it IV or smoked it were in the "compulsive or dysfunctional" group.)

Also, I am in no way condoning the use of cocaine; I just question the way it is currently presented by the proponents of the "war on drugs."

Quote

Source: Alcoholism & Drug Abuse Weekly; 4/3/95, Vol. 7 Issue 14, p5, 1p

Abstract: Highlights the report of the World Health Organization's international Cocaine Project. David Lewis as one of the report's authors; Absence of proof for labeling cocaine as a demon drug; Gravity of cocaine addiction; Physiological effects of cocaine; Misconceptions in the field of drug addiction.

THE WHO'S INCONVENIENT FACTS ABOUT 'DEMON COKE'

David Lewis, M.D., director of the Brown University Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies, says he has no desire to be the next Joycelyn Elders. But a report on cocaine use, which he helped develop for the World Health Organization (WHO), is destined to be wildly unpopular among drug legalization opponents.

Issued with little fanfare (and even less press) in Geneva, Switzerland last month, the report of the WHO's international Cocaine Project focuses on one central theme: The demonization of cocaine use is not supported by the facts. The vast majority of cocaine users do not become addicted or even habitual users, the WHO says, and cocaine use proves to be a relatively minor problem in most nations.

To say the least, the WHO report will come as a shock to anyone familiar with the United States' "War on Drugs" rhetoric.

I caught up with Lewis just before he fled the country a few weeks ago. (Actually, he was on his way to a conference and vacation in Italy.) He agreed to discuss the report, despite saying that the former Surgeon General's experience proves drug legalization and decriminalization are subjects "you can't talk about."

"My own personal views are moderate," said Lewis, who coordinated the North American piece of the report billed as the largest cocaine study ever. "But the study may be viewed as perverse because it does not universally condemn cocaine use."

Not by a long shot. According to the WHO's research:

* Few experts describe cocaine use as invariably harmful to health: "Cocaine-related problems are widely perceived to be more common and more severe for intensive, high-dose users and very rare and much less severe for occasional, low-dose users."
* Occasional use of cocaine is the most common pattern, and occasional users generally experience few problems related to their use.
* Compulsive or dysfunctional use -- where users' lives become totally focused on drug use -- is described as "uncommon." So-called "intensive" use -- where users take drugs regularly but maintain a degree of control over their lives -- is more prevalent.
* In most countries, cocaine is not the drug associated with the greatest problems.
* In many settings, education and prevention programs do not dispel myths about cocaine use but rather sensationalize, perpetuating stereotypes and misinformation.

For an academic researcher like Lewis, one of the most compelling aspects of this nation's drug problem is "the fear of public debate about what drugs do." Policymakers tend to view drugs in black-and-white terms, but as the WHO study illustrates, even use of the "worst" drug is a grayer issue than commonly is acknowledged.

Lewis stresses that "cocaine can be a terribly dangerous drug," and he does not support legalization of narcotics. But he says the WHO report is "a call for the United States to recognize that there is no such thing as a demon drug ... and to look at alternatives to the current policy."

Prevention and education experts need to take a long, hard look at the way they address use of cocaine and other narcotics. The popular message -- Lewis compares it to saying that "anyone who drinks will go to hell" -- flies in the face of the reality that millions of people use illicit drugs with few, if any, negative consequences, according to the WHO.

"There is no indication that cocaine is a drug that automatically leads to loss of control," says Lewis. "We have a very hard time with illegal drugs because we tend to condemn any use at all. `Try and Die' is the message from U.S. drug policy."

Overcoming this denial would be a good first step for the field. "The closer [prevention programs] come to real facts, the more effective they will be," Lewis says.

Recognizing the true nature of the cocaine epidemic also would allow addiction field experts to influence the coming debate on drug legalization and decriminalization, rather than be overwhelmed by it. For his part, Lewis foresees major drug policy changes in the next few years.

"[Society] will get fed up with using incarceration to treat addiction," he predicts. "There will be a gradual shift to treatment and prevention, and less criminal justice attention to drug possession, and maybe drug sales."

~~~~~~~~

By Bob Curley

[Capt.Slog 0]

Quote

You said :

Quote

Argumentum ad Populum - a classical fallacy of relevance.

Now you say:

Quote

"Argumentum ad Populum?" Appeal to the People?

You call my logic messed up? Are you reading what you are typing?

Quote

Before bandying about terms with which you are not familiar, look them up. Throw in Ignoratio Elenchi for good measure

I cut and pasted your terms. I even kept the format of your post. This is on you.

His 2 statements are not inconsistent with each other. Your response makes no sense.

[nanook 1]

Quote

Since the vast majority of drug related problems are due to the prohibition of drugs, rather than the drugs themselves, it is unlikely that ending that prohibition would exacerbate society's drug related problems. The opposite is much more likely to be true.

Even though the "how stuff works" can't really be good for argument, the source it quotes I believe, is legitimate.

Your link takes in account of both deaths per user and deaths per abuser. It will always put alcohol first. But I believe that it is too simple to use.

the Lancelet report takes three different areas in account: Physical harm the drug does to the body, Dependence and potential for abuse, and ill effects on society.

Your link only takes in the account of death. My argument is not what kills the most. We both already know Alcohol does. My argument is the increase availability of the hard drugs will cause much larger increase of abuse and social impact than is present.

Quote

Have you considered comparing the USA's drug problems with those of another developed western nation with less strict drug laws in order to see how they compare (e.g. Netherlands)?

Yes I have. A lot of the support I posted uses both Netherlands and Switzerland. Netherlands is closing down their coffee shops more and more and switzerland :

Over the same period in 1993 and 1994, two people’s initiatives were presented with opposite objectives. The first initiative called for a strict, abstinence-oriented drug policy (“Youth Without Drugs”),([12]) and the second proposed the legalization of drug use (“DroLeg”).([13]) The federal government and Parliament found both initiatives too extreme and recommended their rejection. On September 28, 1997, Swiss voters rejected the initiative “Youth Without Drugs” with a majority of over 70%. On November 29, 1998, Swiss voters rejected the “DroLeg” initiative with a majority of over 74%. By rejecting both initiatives, the Swiss population showed its massive support for the Confederation’s more measured approach to drug policy.

Between the time that these popular initiatives were launched and subsequently voted down, some major events influenced the evolution of Swiss drug policy. In 1994, the violence occurring on the “open drug scenes,” from Letten to Zurich, made headlines in the international media. Certain government parties (Socialist, Christian Democrat and Radical) clamoured for decriminalization of drug use, increased access to heroin assisted treatment, stronger prevention measures and stiffer sentences for drug traffickers.([14]) The open drug scene in Zurich was shut down in 1995, resulting in new co-operation between the Federal Council, canton representatives and the city of Zurich. A joint task force, called the Drug Delegation, was established. This unusual co-operation made it possible to implement measures that would never have got off the ground under more traditional circumstances: the creation of prison spaces in Zurich for drug traffickers, the adoption of emergency federal measures allowing for more drug addicts to participate in heroin assisted treatment and the creation of centres for the treatment of hard core users.([15]) Today the “open drug scenes” are a thing of the past.


From this site: http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/Com-e/ille-e/library-e/collin1-e.htm

Switzerland may have a better drug program that than ours, but they did not legalize to get there. It always got voted down. In the past, their relaxations had led to problems.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[nanook 1]

Yeah, I know. I read his post wrong.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Your link takes in account of both deaths per user and deaths per abuser. It will always put alcohol first. But I believe that it is too simple to use.

the Lancelet report takes three different areas in account: Physical harm the drug does to the body, Dependence and potential for abuse, and ill effects on society

You are aware that alcohol can cause many health risks that aren't fatal, right? Alcohol is also just as addictive (often more) as most recreational drugs, right? In other words, it has as much or more potential for abuse as/than recreational drugs that are currently illegal. Alcohol is still the worst (excepting tobacco).

Quote

Your link only takes in the account of death. My argument is not what kills the most. We both already know Alcohol does. My argument is the increase availability of the hard drugs will cause much larger increase of abuse and social impact than is present.

Unfortunately, you've failed to support your argument with evidence.

Quote

Quote

Have you considered comparing the USA's drug problems with those of another developed western nation with less strict drug laws in order to see how they compare (e.g. Netherlands)?

Yes I have. A lot of the support I posted uses both Netherlands and Switzerland. Netherlands is closing down their coffee shops more and more and switzerland :
…

You seem to have missed the point of such a comparison. For example, the Netherlands has less stringent drug laws than the US has, yet drug abuse is worse in the US. That doesn't offer evidence that prohibition is the best way to prevent drug abuse.

Likewise, I think you'll find that, generally, countries that have lower minimum drinking ages than the US also tend to have lower rates of alcohol abuse.

Our current state of knowledge seems to indicate that the best way to prevent drug and alcohol abuse is through education (with facts, not the bogus propaganda that governments and non-government entities, e.g. Partnership For a Drug Free America, currently, and in relatively recent history, provide in the US) and harm reduction. Prohibition does not work.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[nanook 1]

Quote

Unfortunately, you've failed to support your argument with evidence.

I have shown you at least five different abstracts for support. I have shown you links that make good arguments about social impact, greater addiction rates, youth perception, apparent legitimacy that legalization will bring and health decline and increased crime rates. All of them smaller arguments that are part of my central argument against legalization.
But, you haven't supported your argument that legalization works.

Quote

That doesn't offer evidence that prohibition is the best way to prevent drug abuse.

It offers evidence that their relaxing of laws didn't work. This is my principle argument. All those countries are against trafficking. They are not legalizing drugs; possession may not get you into any trouble, but trafficking is dealt with seriously.

Quote

Likewise, I think you'll find that, generally, countries that have lower minimum drinking ages than the US also tend to have lower rates of alcohol abuse

Lets see some support here. Because, I am finding articles that say this is wrong.

http://www.higheredcenter.org/services/assistance/faq/are-there-fewer-alcohol-related-problems-countries-where-youth-are-allowed-d

http://www.ncjrs.org/html/ojjdp/compendium/2001/9902NCPC_PIRE.pdf

http://student-health-issues.suite101.com/article.cfm/student_substance_abuse



***Our current state of knowledge seems to indicate that the best way to prevent drug and alcohol abuse is through education (with facts, not the bogus propaganda that governments and non-government entities, e.g. Partnership For a Drug Free America, currently, and in relatively recent history, provide in the US)


I agree. And, a lot of gov studies show this also. I've given you the NIDA site to check out.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Unfortunately, you've failed to support your argument with evidence.

I have shown you at least five different abstracts for support. I have shown you links that make good arguments about social impact, greater addiction rates, youth perception, apparent legitimacy that legalization will bring and health decline and increased crime rates. All of them smaller arguments that are part of my central argument against legalization.

The articles you previously posted (before your HowStuffWorks link) were extremely weak in terms of relevance and support for your argument.

Quote

But, you haven't supported your argument that legalization works.

Actually, my argument has largely been that alcohol is worse than commonly used illegal drugs. Of course, when that is taken into consideration, the decrease in alcohol related crime since the repeal of Prohibition supports an argument that legalization works. Comparisons of drug abuse rates in the US and countries that have less stringent drug laws also supports such an argument.

Quote

Quote

That doesn't offer evidence that prohibition is the best way to prevent drug abuse.

It offers evidence that their relaxing of laws didn't work.

I haven't seen you cite any sources that provide such evidence. I did see you try to use a country that didn't legalize drugs as evidence that legalization is ineffective, but I didn't give it much credence, since your conclusion didn't logically follow from the information.

Quote

This is my principle argument.

Right. And, that argument is still largely unsubstantiated.

Quote

All those countries are against trafficking. They are not legalizing drugs; possession may not get you into any trouble, but trafficking is dealt with seriously.

That does not provide evidence that legalization is ineffective.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Shotgun 1]

From the article you posted, it seems that they found alcohol to be #5 based on "physical harm to the person using the drug," "the drug's potential for abuse and/or dependence," and "the drug's ill effects on society." Behind only heroin, cocaine, barbiturates, and methadone. Cannabis is #11 on that list, behind even tobacco.

I think that the U.S. should do a similar study and reclassify our controlled substances, and seriously consider legalizing or decriminalizing anything found to be less harmful than alcohol. Marijuana absolutely should be legalized or at least significantly decriminalized. I think it sends a pretty bad message when people see for themselves that marijuana is (overall) less harmful than the legal drug alcohol, and yet here it is, a Schedule I drug alongside heroin and above cocaine (a Schedule II). And, as ubiquitous as it is, that's a lot of people who may be receiving that message, and who therefore may be thinking all of our drug laws are a joke.

So I don't know about legalizing all drugs, but I do think we are in serious need of revising the Controlled Substances Act. We need to disseminate _accurate_ information regarding drugs (including alcohol), and we need to keep people out of jail who don't belong there.

(And just a note: When I say "legalize," I, of course, do not mean without regulation.)

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

It offers evidence that their relaxing of laws didn't work. This is my principle argument.

What you meant by "didn't work"? Are you referring to the amount of drug-related crime for obtaining drugs? For delivering drugs? For selling drugs? Or are you just referring to the number of drug users?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[pchapman 261]

Nanook's links to usdoj.gov/dea pages (among others) was certainly interesting and those pages listed many useful bits of evidence.

Still, the overall logic in those gov't pages is pretty sloppy.

They tend to mix marijuana in with heroin, not really distinguishing between the two in societal harm. (They might as well talk about legalizing marijuana, heroin, and torturing puppies, if they want to lump enough things together so that everyone would be against their legalization.)

Or on a page about how Europe's laws aren't the answer for the US, they have one paragraph about how one study showed increased in violent crime in industrialized nations other than the US. That was presumably in support of the notion that European laws are laxer on drugs. But in the next paragraph, they state how European laws vary -- some countries have very liberal laws, others have strict laws. Given that second paragraph, the first paragraph shows no effect of drug laws on violent crime. It's just an ad hominem attack -- Europeans are bad, so we shouldn't do what (some of them) do.