freonbale
Legend
Stop telling me I'm awesome. I already know.
Posts: 19,595
|
Post by freonbale on Apr 23, 2024 19:42:50 GMT
Chicken and egg problem. Which came first? Historically, and I mean going back to ancient history, drug abuse has been a known human problem. So the question you are asking, is if the existing problem is made worse by criminalization. I don't know. I cannot even imagine the data needed to definitely say yes or no. Do you? Freon I think criminalization has definitely made things worse.
Prohibition was a good example of that. Was alcohol abuse a problem? Sure. Did Prohibition make it better or worse? I think you can make that case that it made it worse over the long run:
We find that alcohol consumption fell sharply at the beginning of Prohibition, to approximately 30 percent of its pre-Prohibition level. During the next several years, however, alcohol consumption increased sharply, to about 60-70 percent of its pre-Prohibition level. ( Source)
Putting people in jail for possession is not addressing addiction; it makes it worse (drugs are smuggled into prisons/jails). That's why diversion programs and drug courts have been created to send people into rehabilitation programs instead of jailing them for possession.
Regarding impurities, MDMA (ecstasy) would be a good one to look at. Prior to 1985, it was legal and used for therapeutic purposes. After 1985 - when it became a Schedule 1 drug (along with heroin and marijuana) - you see more and more impurities in the drug people were buying on the street.
Overall, our drug schedules are completely out of whack and don't make a lot of sense. For example, cocaine is a schedule 2 drug meaning it has a legitimate medical use (as an anesthetic). But marijuana is schedule 1 - the same schedule as heroin. Same with MDMA and other hallucinogenics which more and more studies are finding have medical benefits, especially treating PTSD. These drugs are definitely not more dangerous than cocaine. Not as dangerous as heroin, especially in a pure, unadulterated form.
The whole regulatory structure of drugs and the criminalization of drug use needs a complete overhaul.
Implied in your response is that 'criminalization' is just one thing, and I strongly disagree with that point of view. It's not IF we should criminalize or not, but how, that matters. In your first example, you have to look at the alcohol problem prior to Prohibition. It was rampant and chronic, with whole areas of cities that were effectively violent slums. Prohibition was tied to the women's suffrage movement, and it was conservative women, religiously driven, to clean up the streets and make American cities safer. But they went too far, and did not plan on how enforcement would take place. As a result, we saw all the problems. Yet in the end, alcohol WAS still criminalized to a degree, we have rules around it, they make sense, and most people are satisfied with the balance of freedoms vs problems. We just need to do the same with the other drugs. Freon
|
|
freonbale
Legend
Stop telling me I'm awesome. I already know.
Posts: 19,595
|
Post by freonbale on Apr 23, 2024 19:44:13 GMT
Chicken and egg problem. Which came first? Historically, and I mean going back to ancient history, drug abuse has been a known human problem. So the question you are asking, is if the existing problem is made worse by criminalization. I don't know. I cannot even imagine the data needed to definitely say yes or no. Do you? Freon The egg came first. Obviously, but as a metaphor, my point was made. Freon
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 23, 2024 20:04:38 GMT
What would you recommend? Something based on reality.
Marijuana does not belong in the same schedule as heroin. For starters, it has legitimate medical uses. And as a recreational drug, it also doesn't belong there either.
Same with many hallucinogenics. LSD, psilocybin, mescaline, peyote, etc. all have legitimate medical uses. Obviously some regulation is necessary for those (if you've ever seen anyone on a bad trip, you know).
And can you really criminalize doing a drug (psilocybin) that you can walk out into a pasture and find under a cow pattie?
Canada legalized pot and downtown Toronto is a mess right now. Those two facts may or may not be correlated.
|
|
freonbale
Legend
Stop telling me I'm awesome. I already know.
Posts: 19,595
|
Post by freonbale on Apr 23, 2024 20:37:49 GMT
What would you recommend? Something based on reality.
Marijuana does not belong in the same schedule as heroin. For starters, it has legitimate medical uses. And as a recreational drug, it also doesn't belong there either.
Same with many hallucinogenics. LSD, psilocybin, mescaline, peyote, etc. all have legitimate medical uses. Obviously some regulation is necessary for those (if you've ever seen anyone on a bad trip, you know).
And can you really criminalize doing a drug (psilocybin) that you can walk out into a pasture and find under a cow pattie?
I would contest the 'legitimate medical uses' argument. For that to truly be the case, extensive rigorous studies would have to be conducted over a reasonably long period of time, and this has simply not occurred. What studies that do exist, are akin to the tobacco industry studying the effects of smoking; Biased, often with an agenda, and not conducted in any rigorous fashion. I'm all for reality-based policies, but lets get that reality first. On a separate note, however, totally agree that THC is classified incorrectly, and is more a function of hyper-conservatives of the 60s defying the hippie generation, than anything else. Now, it's just a tradition, with zero basis in reality. I would not say THC has been truly studied medically, however. I just don't think it is equivalent to Heroin, PCP, etc. (and for the record, Peyote IS mescaline) Freon
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 8,013
|
Post by demos on Apr 23, 2024 21:01:20 GMT
Implied in your response is that 'criminalization' is just one thing, and I strongly disagree with that point of view. It's not IF we should criminalize or not, but how, that matters. In your first example, you have to look at the alcohol problem prior to Prohibition. It was rampant and chronic, with whole areas of cities that were effectively violent slums. Prohibition was tied to the women's suffrage movement, and it was conservative women, religiously driven, to clean up the streets and make American cities safer. But they went too far, and did not plan on how enforcement would take place. As a result, we saw all the problems. Yet in the end, alcohol WAS still criminalized to a degree, we have rules around it, they make sense, and most people are satisfied with the balance of freedoms vs problems. We just need to do the same with the other drugs. Freon Possessing alcohol is not criminalized, unless you're a minor (who weren't really the targets of Prohibition). Manufacture of alcohol is regulated, but not illegal unless you're setting up an unregulated still somewhere (which has been illegal since the founding of this country - see the Whiskey Rebellion). Driving under the influence is. Public intoxication is also. But those laws aren't specific to alcohol.
So, we've criminalized the manufacture, selling, and possession of lots of drugs. That hasn't improved things, just as it didn't during Prohibition.
We need a wholesale review of our drug policies that is more realistic and less reactionary. Diversion and drug courts were a good step. Decriminalization of possession is a good idea. Regulating the sell and use of certain drugs (the hallucinogenics mentioned earlier) also a good idea. Rescheduling drugs should be something that we do also (again, marijuana in the same schedule as heroin - really?).
I don't think every drug should be legalized. But what we have now is a bad system that has produced bad outcomes.
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 8,013
|
Post by demos on Apr 23, 2024 21:08:21 GMT
I would contest the 'legitimate medical uses' argument. For that to truly be the case, extensive rigorous studies would have to be conducted over a reasonably long period of time, and this has simply not occurred. What studies that do exist, are akin to the tobacco industry studying the effects of smoking; Biased, often with an agenda, and not conducted in any rigorous fashion. How about FDA approved studies?
But I don't do hallucinogens. Seen that go bad; no thanks.
Don't drink much anymore either.
|
|
freonbale
Legend
Stop telling me I'm awesome. I already know.
Posts: 19,595
|
Post by freonbale on Apr 23, 2024 22:01:20 GMT
Implied in your response is that 'criminalization' is just one thing, and I strongly disagree with that point of view. It's not IF we should criminalize or not, but how, that matters. In your first example, you have to look at the alcohol problem prior to Prohibition. It was rampant and chronic, with whole areas of cities that were effectively violent slums. Prohibition was tied to the women's suffrage movement, and it was conservative women, religiously driven, to clean up the streets and make American cities safer. But they went too far, and did not plan on how enforcement would take place. As a result, we saw all the problems. Yet in the end, alcohol WAS still criminalized to a degree, we have rules around it, they make sense, and most people are satisfied with the balance of freedoms vs problems. We just need to do the same with the other drugs. Freon Possessing alcohol is not criminalized, unless you're a minor (who weren't really the targets of Prohibition). Manufacture of alcohol is regulated, but not illegal unless you're setting up an unregulated still somewhere (which has been illegal since the founding of this country - see the Whiskey Rebellion). Driving under the influence is. Public intoxication is also. But those laws aren't specific to alcohol.
So, we've criminalized the manufacture, selling, and possession of lots of drugs. That hasn't improved things, just as it didn't during Prohibition.
We need a wholesale review of our drug policies that is more realistic and less reactionary. Diversion and drug courts were a good step. Decriminalization of possession is a good idea. Regulating the sell and use of certain drugs (the hallucinogenics mentioned earlier) also a good idea. Rescheduling drugs should be something that we do also (again, marijuana in the same schedule as heroin - really?).
I don't think every drug should be legalized. But what we have now is a bad system that has produced bad outcomes.
Manufacture. Check. Resell. Check. Possession. Check. What about location? What about specific laws tied to driving? I don't think you've fully listed the quantity of laws tied around alcohol alone. It's huge. And then you say that all those laws have NOT improved things? Again, I disagree. Like it or not, we have drugs, and they WILL be abused. Yet we cannot, and should not, get rid of them. Instead, we have to learn to live with them, and for that, we have all those laws and rules. And as I said, for alcohol, I think most people would agree there is a nice balance between the freedom to use it, vs the restrictions on its use. If alcohol is a framework which most would say works, then it is logical to conclude that it is possible for other unique frameworks to equally work for other drugs. We just need to find them. Freon
|
|
freonbale
Legend
Stop telling me I'm awesome. I already know.
Posts: 19,595
|
Post by freonbale on Apr 23, 2024 22:07:10 GMT
I would contest the 'legitimate medical uses' argument. For that to truly be the case, extensive rigorous studies would have to be conducted over a reasonably long period of time, and this has simply not occurred. What studies that do exist, are akin to the tobacco industry studying the effects of smoking; Biased, often with an agenda, and not conducted in any rigorous fashion. How about FDA approved studies?
But I don't do hallucinogens. Seen that go bad; no thanks.
Don't drink much anymore either.
I'm including the MASSIVELY underfunded FDA studies. We need more. We cannot make good decisions, without good data. That's funny that Peyote cactus is listed separate from its psychoactive drug, Mescaline. Are Mushrooms listed separately from Psilocybin? Marijuana, from delta-9-THC? Poppies from Cocaine? I could go on. I drink. Not excessively, but on semi-regular basis, but getting drunk is not something I enjoy in any way. Never had a cigarette, but enjoy an occasional cigar. Explored THC in college, but then grew up, lol. I would try a hallucinogen, it seems like a fascinating experience, but the opportunity has never presented itself. Freon
|
|
|
Post by runswithscissors on Apr 24, 2024 1:35:06 GMT
Over regulation of a drug (alcohol) is what created organized crime in the US. They had it made for thirteen years or so. A real life example of this type of over regulation exists here in TN. Apparently there is a state law that says ALL persons purchasing alcohol must provide a "valid" ID proving your age. I keep my drivers license in the glove box of my car along with my insurance and registration cards. The only ID I carry in my wallet is my old military ID. It even has my thumb prints on the back of it. But it expired in January 81 (the point I was no longer in the inactive reserve). I use this ID to vote with here. But because it's "expired" I can't use it to buy beer. The first time I was confronted on this, I thought it was the damn dumbest thing I'd ever heard...I even said to the clerk "yeah, but that doesn't change how old I am." I now go a little more than a mile down the road to VA to buy beer. They don't even ask for an ID. I've thought of challenging this TN thing as being a violation of the constitutional amendment about equal protection under the law but probably won't. The thought of having to actually deal with such stupidity for any length of time makes me ass drag. Back in the day, my younger brother went to the sound pier to buy some beer. He was underage. My older brother said "I've got to see this!" They came back with my older brother shaking his head. Someone asked, "did they let him?" My older brother said "hell yea and they took his check!" I think he was 14. He always worked and yes, he has a checking account. That's impressive to have a checking account at 14. Hell, I bet trump didn't have one until he was 15. If your brother has sexually assaulted dozens of women, ran a fake university and a fake charity, paid money to keep porn stars and nude models from revealing bad things about him, and surrounded himself with dipshits and fascist clowns, he could run for president on the Republican ticket. They'd love him. Especially if he looked like a raccoon eyed idiot and acted like a juvenile minded moron and was a pathological liar. What a missed chance. Give him a call if he wants to be a sleaze.
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 8,013
|
Post by demos on Apr 24, 2024 15:57:47 GMT
What about them? That's a regulation. Like other blue laws, such as selling on Sunday or not selling liquor after 10pm during the week.
I mentioned them. DUI isn't specifically about alcohol. Also mentioned public intoxication, which isn't specific to alcohol either. What does not selling on Sunday actually improve, aside from reducing the overhead for liquor stores (who oppose changing that law)? Does driving 15-20 miles to a liquor make things better? Not sure it does. What does the 3 tier system in Texas improve? Nothing.
Rules and regulations are fine, but the original question was about overregulation. Which clearly is the case with a number of drugs and criminalization of possession (you're not helping addicts by putting them in jail). There's still a lot of overregulation in the world of alcohol too. Most blue laws are completely irrelevant now and were reactionary laws to begin with. Some of the regulations are about protecting certain interests. For example, in Texas, we have a three tiered system: wholesalers, distributors and retailers. If you're a wholesalers, you can't be a distributor, etc. Well, that hurts craft brewers, who have had to fight to try and reform those laws so they can distribute their beers to stores. These changes have generally been opposed by wholesalers and their lobby, who represent the big brands: Bud, Miller, Coors.
Another example: Texas didn't start allowing alcohol delivery to homes from retailers until COVID hit. Very reasonable policy change. Why did it take a pandemic to change that? Because it was seen as a challenge to the 3-tier system.
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 8,013
|
Post by demos on Apr 24, 2024 16:01:41 GMT
I'm including the MASSIVELY underfunded FDA studies. We need more. We cannot make good decisions, without good data. That's funny that Peyote cactus is listed separate from its psychoactive drug, Mescaline. Are Mushrooms listed separately from Psilocybin? Marijuana, from delta-9-THC? Poppies from Cocaine? I could go on. I drink. Not excessively, but on semi-regular basis, but getting drunk is not something I enjoy in any way. Never had a cigarette, but enjoy an occasional cigar. Explored THC in college, but then grew up, lol. I would try a hallucinogen, it seems like a fascinating experience, but the opportunity has never presented itself.Freon Someone I work with has used ketamine under the supervision of a psychologist. Says it was very relaxing.
I've just seen people on bad trips from mushrooms, not something I would want to experience.
Like the guys on meth who came by a buddies house in college one weekend. They had been up for 3 days straight. They didn't look too great either.
|
|
freonbale
Legend
Stop telling me I'm awesome. I already know.
Posts: 19,595
|
Post by freonbale on Apr 24, 2024 16:02:09 GMT
What about them? That's a regulation. Like other blue laws, such as selling on Sunday or not selling liquor after 10pm during the week.
I mentioned them. DUI isn't specifically about alcohol. Also mentioned public intoxication, which isn't specific to alcohol either. What does not selling on Sunday actually improve, aside from reducing the overhead for liquor stores (who oppose changing that law)? Does driving 15-20 miles to a liquor make things better? Not sure it does. What does the 3 tier system in Texas improve? Nothing.
Rules and regulations are fine, but the original question was about overregulation. Which clearly is the case with a number of drugs and criminalization of possession (you're not helping addicts by putting them in jail). There's still a lot of overregulation in the world of alcohol too. Most blue laws are completely irrelevant now and were reactionary laws to begin with. Some of the regulations are about protecting certain interests. For example, in Texas, we have a three tiered system: wholesalers, distributors and retailers. If you're a wholesalers, you can't be a distributor, etc. Well, that hurts craft brewers, who have had to fight to try and reform those laws so they can distribute their beers to stores. These changes have generally been opposed by wholesalers and their lobby, who represent the big brands: Bud, Miller, Coors.
Your views sound libertarian, with respect to drugs. That's not a criticism, just an observation. Who decides what 'over' regulation is? We have processes for removing laws and rules, and ultimately, and imo, these legal boundaries are locally decided. In that sense, I don't really see a problem. Now on a national level, it's a whole other picture, and I definitely agree things need to get fine-tuned, but that said, in terms of use, what we have now is adequate. Freon
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 8,013
|
Post by demos on Apr 24, 2024 16:14:15 GMT
Your views sound libertarian, with respect to drugs. That's not a criticism, just an observation. I am pretty libertarian on this issue. Many moons ago I was even more libertarian on this issue: against all prohibition and for complete legalization. But I read, try to stay up on the topic, and my views on all this have evolved. Ultimately, its elected officials and voters. And in some cases that leads to some funny and ridiculous situations.
Growing up, Tyler, TX was known as the wettest dry town. It was legally dry. You couldn't by beer or liquor in the county; you had to drive to the next county. But you could become a member of a "private club" for $1 and get drunk at the restaurant or club.
Texas has also long had a patchwork of wet and dry counties. And the wet counties work against liquor elections in the dry counties, because they benefit from the tax revenue they derive from people driving from the dry county to buy booze. The town of Kilgore straddles the county line between Rusk and Gregg Counties. And you can tell where the line is because all of sudden liquor store after liquor store.
A lot of this doesn't make much sense.
|
|
freonbale
Legend
Stop telling me I'm awesome. I already know.
Posts: 19,595
|
Post by freonbale on Apr 24, 2024 16:32:25 GMT
Your views sound libertarian, with respect to drugs. That's not a criticism, just an observation. I am pretty libertarian on this issue. Many moons ago I was even more libertarian on this issue: against all prohibition and for complete legalization. But I read, try to stay up on the topic, and my views on all this have evolved. Ultimately, its elected officials and voters. And in some cases that leads to some funny and ridiculous situations.
Growing up, Tyler, TX was known as the wettest dry town. It was legally dry. You couldn't by beer or liquor in the county; you had to drive to the next county. But you could become a member of a "private club" for $1 and get drunk at the restaurant or club.
Texas has also long had a patchwork of wet and dry counties. And the wet counties work against liquor elections in the dry counties, because they benefit from the tax revenue they derive from people driving from the dry county to buy booze. The town of Kilgore straddles the county line between Rusk and Gregg Counties. And you can tell where the line is because all of sudden liquor store after liquor store.
A lot of this doesn't make much sense.
Hearing your examples, I see that I am totally biased by my Cali experience. We have curfews on bars and clubs, but I am unrestricted from buying alcohol from gas stations, supermarkets, liquor stores, costco, and on and on. And no restrictions on when I can buy, or how much I can buy. Put simply, no one even talks about it here. We have tons of other problems, so not saying Cali is all perfect, but on this one, I'm satisfied where it is. I would be interested to see the data on crime statistics and alcohol laws. From your anecdotal stories, the more restrictions, the more people find ways around them. And I KNOW you're a reader. It's why conversing with you is the most challenging, and the most rewarding, of most in here. Freon
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 8,013
|
Post by demos on Apr 24, 2024 16:50:44 GMT
Hearing your examples, I see that I am totally biased by my Cali experience. We have curfews on bars and clubs, but I am unrestricted from buying alcohol from gas stations, supermarkets, liquor stores, costco, and on and on. And no restrictions on when I can buy, or how much I can buy. Put simply, no one even talks about it here. We have tons of other problems, so not saying Cali is all perfect, but on this one, I'm satisfied where it is. I would be interested to see the data on crime statistics and alcohol laws. From your anecdotal stories, the more restrictions, the more people find ways around them. And I KNOW you're a reader. It's why conversing with you is the most challenging, and the most rewarding, of most in here. Freon Yeah, it's an antiquated and convoluted regulatory system here. Better than some other states, which are surprisingly even more convoluted.
More and more counties are going wet (counties and cities want that tax revenue), but before that, drunk driving was a serious issue - at least anecdotally based on reports and knowing people who were doing it - because people were driving to liquor stores in another county and then driving back home.
Now I live in a place where I can walk to the store and get beer or malt liquor. And I could also walk to the closest liquor store if I wanted to.
|
|
freonbale
Legend
Stop telling me I'm awesome. I already know.
Posts: 19,595
|
Post by freonbale on Apr 24, 2024 17:00:20 GMT
Hearing your examples, I see that I am totally biased by my Cali experience. We have curfews on bars and clubs, but I am unrestricted from buying alcohol from gas stations, supermarkets, liquor stores, costco, and on and on. And no restrictions on when I can buy, or how much I can buy. Put simply, no one even talks about it here. We have tons of other problems, so not saying Cali is all perfect, but on this one, I'm satisfied where it is. I would be interested to see the data on crime statistics and alcohol laws. From your anecdotal stories, the more restrictions, the more people find ways around them. And I KNOW you're a reader. It's why conversing with you is the most challenging, and the most rewarding, of most in here. Freon Yeah, it's an antiquated and convoluted regulatory system here. Better than some other states, which are surprisingly even more convoluted.
More and more counties are going wet (counties and cities want that tax revenue), but before that, drunk driving was a serious issue - at least anecdotally based on reports and knowing people who were doing it - because people were driving to liquor stores in another county and then driving back home.
Now I live in a place where I can walk to the store and get beer or malt liquor. And I could also walk to the closest liquor store if I wanted to.
It's sort of bizarre to me, that in this day and age, some Americans are still so restricted with respect to alcohol. Freon
|
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 23,193
|
Post by petep on Apr 24, 2024 17:29:52 GMT
Yeah, it's an antiquated and convoluted regulatory system here. Better than some other states, which are surprisingly even more convoluted.
More and more counties are going wet (counties and cities want that tax revenue), but before that, drunk driving was a serious issue - at least anecdotally based on reports and knowing people who were doing it - because people were driving to liquor stores in another county and then driving back home.
Now I live in a place where I can walk to the store and get beer or malt liquor. And I could also walk to the closest liquor store if I wanted to.
It's sort of bizarre to me, that in this day and age, some Americans are still so restricted with respect to alcohol. Freon It’s often a follow the money issue. For example in Rhode Island you can only buy beer wine and liquor at a liquor store. But only one person can own one liquor store. You can’t own multiple liquor stores. Or a corporation can’t own many. No multichain outlet can get a liquor license Why. Because the distributors have a massive lobby effort with politicians because they don’t want liquor store owners having more purchasing power. So they give to politicians and politicians enact legislation to benefit who gives them money.
|
|
freonbale
Legend
Stop telling me I'm awesome. I already know.
Posts: 19,595
|
Post by freonbale on Apr 24, 2024 17:34:00 GMT
It's sort of bizarre to me, that in this day and age, some Americans are still so restricted with respect to alcohol. Freon It’s often a follow the money issue. For example in Rhode Island you can only buy beer wine and liquor at a liquor store. But only one person can own one liquor store. You can’t own multiple liquor stores. Or a corporation can’t own many. No multichain outlet can get a liquor license Why. Because the distributors have a massive lobby effort with politicians because they don’t want liquor store owners having more purchasing power. So they give to politicians and politicians enact legislation to benefit who gives them money. So would you support a national policy on alcohol distribution and sales? If yes, which state's model would you go with? Freon
|
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 23,193
|
Post by petep on Apr 24, 2024 17:40:58 GMT
It’s often a follow the money issue. For example in Rhode Island you can only buy beer wine and liquor at a liquor store. But only one person can own one liquor store. You can’t own multiple liquor stores. Or a corporation can’t own many. No multichain outlet can get a liquor license Why. Because the distributors have a massive lobby effort with politicians because they don’t want liquor store owners having more purchasing power. So they give to politicians and politicians enact legislation to benefit who gives them money. So would you support a national policy on alcohol distribution and sales? If yes, which state's model would you go with? Freon No. I’d leave it to the states. I do like California and Floridas model. Very similar and very free market to a degree. As a side there was a case Haronian vs state of ri and he lost the case. He wanted multiple liquor stores and he lost. During the case he did find a bomb under his car. Well he didn’t. The car would not start and the mechanic found it.
|
|
freonbale
Legend
Stop telling me I'm awesome. I already know.
Posts: 19,595
|
Post by freonbale on Apr 24, 2024 17:43:22 GMT
So would you support a national policy on alcohol distribution and sales? If yes, which state's model would you go with? Freon No. I’d leave it to the states. I do like California and Floridas model. Very similar and very free market to a degree. As a side there was a case Haronian vs state of ri and he lost the case. He wanted multiple liquor stores and he lost. During the case he did find a bomb under his car. Well he didn’t. The car would not start and the mechanic found it. The lust for money makes people do terrible things. Not saying I'd get rid of it, but it brings out a side of people I'd rather not see. Freon
|
|