fafalone Posted January 23, 2004 Author Share Posted January 23, 2004 "Police harassment like prosecuting people for possessing illegal drugs? You mean the police arrest people who do things that are illegal? WHEN DID THIS HAPPEN?" Way to completely ignore the fact that people who need help are not getting it because of fear. Fear, through all of history, has never been an effective long-term strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 fafalone said in post # :Comparing a drug like tobacco with extremely little psychoactive effect that has been traditionally used by a large number of people since the begginning of the country is not a valid point in arguing against prohibition of drugs that are associated with psychoactive effects, starting with alcohol. I think we can agree that tobacco has less 'positive' effect. Given that, don't you think people getting addicted (physically, psychologically, emotionally) to something which has MORE effect is MORE likely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 fafalone said in post # :"Police harassment like prosecuting people for possessing illegal drugs? You mean the police arrest people who do things that are illegal? WHEN DID THIS HAPPEN?" Way to completely ignore the fact that people who need help are not getting it because of fear. Fear, through all of history, has never been an effective long-term strategy. I agree that people shouldn't be prosocuted if they come forward for detox, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 23, 2004 Author Share Posted January 23, 2004 That's a logically *valid* argument. It is not a SOUND (and hence wrong) argument because thats simply not what the evidence suggests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 fafalone said in post # :"I don't care how much it costs, I'm not in favour of legalising a dangerous drug." This is exactly what is wrong with drug policy. You simply don't see that education, harm reducation, and legalization is the best way we know of to REDUCE DRUG ABUSE. Legalization -Reduces deaths from overdose -Eliminates the illicit market run by violent criminals -Enables more people to seek help for addiction Basically you're saying you don't care if it costs more, creates more addicts, raises the misuse levels, leads to more violence, and causes more death, so long as we continue to hopelessly arrest everyone involved with drugs in the world. Education does sweet FA. That's been REPEATED AND REPEATED AND REPEATED. I haven't seen the evidence for reducing deaths from overdose. And you're strawmanning again; I support the rehabilitation of drug users. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 23, 2004 Author Share Posted January 23, 2004 fafalone said in post # : FACT: To reduce cocaine use by 1%, it would take 4.3 times as much money by enforcement of drug laws over money spent for treatment programs. Source: Rydell, C.P. & Everingham, S.S., Controlling Cocaine, Prepared for the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the United States Army (Santa Monica, CA: Drug Policy Research Center, RAND Corporation, 1994), p. 36. You completely missed the point of this one... read it more carefully. To reduce cocaine use by 1%, it takes 4.3 times the amount of money by using law enforcement INSTEAD OF treatment programs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 fafalone said in post # :That's a logically *valid* argument. It is not a SOUND (and hence wrong) argument because thats simply not what the evidence suggests. ...link. Also, I don't see how legalising drugs per se reduces the addict rate (don't strawman over the 'they'll get help!!!' issue, because I've already said I support that) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 23, 2004 Author Share Posted January 23, 2004 MrL_JaKiri said in post # : I haven't seen the evidence for reducing deaths from overdose. You're telling me you need evidence less people would die if their friends could walk into the corner store and buy the antidote for opiates (that itself is not abused because it is not psychoactive)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 fafalone said in post # :fafalone said in post # : FACT: To reduce cocaine use by 1%, it would take 4.3 times as much money by enforcement of drug laws over money spent for treatment programs. Source: Rydell, C.P. & Everingham, S.S., Controlling Cocaine, Prepared for the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the United States Army (Santa Monica, CA: Drug Policy Research Center, RAND Corporation, 1994), p. 36. You completely missed the point of this one... read it more carefully. To reduce cocaine use by 1%, it takes 4.3 times the amount of money by using law enforcement INSTEAD OF treatment programs. I KNOW THAT'S WHAT IT MEANT YOU NUMPTY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 23, 2004 Author Share Posted January 23, 2004 MrL_JaKiri said in post # : ...link. Also, I don't see how legalising drugs per se reduces the addict rate (don't strawman over the 'they'll get help!!!' issue, because I've already said I support that) But theres no way to have addiction treatment programs without the cops finding out who's going to them and going after them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 fafalone said in post # :You're telling me you need evidence less people would die if their friends could walk into the corner store and buy the antidote for opiates (that itself is not abused because it is not psychoactive)? You seem to need evidence for every axiomic statement of mine, it's fairly hypocritical of you to deny it of me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 23, 2004 Author Share Posted January 23, 2004 MrL_JaKiri said in post # : I KNOW THAT'S WHAT IT MEANT YOU NUMPTY. Yet you still think prohibition is the best way to go? It costs more and is less effective and reducing use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 fafalone said in post # :But theres no way to have addiction treatment programs without the cops finding out who's going to them and going after them. Under the current system of law, yes. However, I'm NOT SUPPORTING THE CURRENT SYSTEM OF LAW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 23, 2004 Author Share Posted January 23, 2004 MrL_JaKiri said in post # : You seem to need evidence for every axiomic statement of mine, it's fairly hypocritical of you to deny it of me. You have provided no scientific evidence at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 fafalone said in post # :Yet you still think prohibition is the best way to go? It costs more and is less effective and reducing use. I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave a minute ago (that you quoted) on THIS VERY SUBJECT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 23, 2004 Author Share Posted January 23, 2004 A study of heroin maintenance in Switzerland for the World Health Organization concluded: The health of participants improved. Illicit cocaine and heroin use declined greatly. Housing situation improved and stabilized- most importantly there were no longer any more homeless participants. Fitness for work improved considerably, those with permanent employment more than doubled from 14% to 32%. The number of unemployed fell by half (from 44% to 20%) A third of the patients that were on welfare, left the welfare rolls. But, others went on to welfare to compensate for their lost income from sales of drugs. Income from illegal and semi-legal activities decreased significantly, from 69% of participants to 10%. The number of offenders and offenses decreased by about 60% during the first 6 months of treatment. The retention rate was average for treatment programs. 89% over 6 months, and 69% over 18 months. More than half of the dropouts did so to switch to another form of treatment. 83 of the participants did so to switch to an abstinence-based treatment, and it is expected that this number will grow as the duration of individual treatment increases. There were no overdoses from drugs prescribed by the program. Source: Robert Ali, et al, Report of the External Panel on the Evaluation of the Swiss Scientific Studies of Medically Prescribed Narcotics to Drug Addicts (New York, NY: The World Health Organization, April 1999). This is what happened when heroin was made freely available to those who wanted it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 fafalone said in post # :You have provided no scientific evidence at all. I've linked to evidence (for instance) that cocaine is dangerous, that there is a significant death rate (especially for first time users) connected with ecstacy (that may have been on a parallel discussion on another forum though), whilst you've, on the whole, brought up irrelevencies and misrepresented or mispresented statistics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 23, 2004 Author Share Posted January 23, 2004 You provided evidence to support that it is dangerous, but no evidence that contradicts my statement that legalization, harm reducation, and education reduces that danger more than prohibition. A significant death rate for first time users? Last time I checked, a handfull of cases reported by the BBC is not even close to a 1% rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 fafalone said in post # :A study of heroin maintenance in Switzerland for the World Health Organization concluded: The health of participants improved. Illicit cocaine and heroin use declined greatly. Housing situation improved and stabilized- most importantly there were no longer any more homeless participants. Fitness for work improved considerably, those with permanent employment more than doubled from 14% to 32%. The number of unemployed fell by half (from 44% to 20%) A third of the patients that were on welfare, left the welfare rolls. But, others went on to welfare to compensate for their lost income from sales of drugs. Income from illegal and semi-legal activities decreased significantly, from 69% of participants to 10%. The number of offenders and offenses decreased by about 60% during the first 6 months of treatment. The retention rate was average for treatment programs. 89% over 6 months, and 69% over 18 months. More than half of the dropouts did so to switch to another form of treatment. 83 of the participants did so to switch to an abstinence-based treatment, and it is expected that this number will grow as the duration of individual treatment increases. There were no overdoses from drugs prescribed by the program. Source: Robert Ali, et al, Report of the External Panel on the Evaluation of the Swiss Scientific Studies of Medically Prescribed Narcotics to Drug Addicts (New York, NY: The World Health Organization, April 1999). This is what happened when heroin was made freely available to those who wanted it. I'd say almost all of that was fairly obvious. 'People won't use illicit heroin if they can get it for free'. I don't really know what to say to that kind of statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 23, 2004 Author Share Posted January 23, 2004 I don't know what to say when you're so blind you can't see that every one of those lines supports my position and refutes yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 fafalone said in post # :You provided evidence to support that it is dangerous, but no evidence that contradicts my statement that legalization, harm reducation, and education reduces that danger more than prohibition. A significant death rate for first time users? Last time I checked, a handfull of cases reported by the BBC is not even close to a 1% rate. Estimates vary between 1/10,000 and 1/2,000. It may be 'low', but 172 people died last year in the UK alone from ecstacy, and it's likely that they'd still be alive if they hadn't taken the drug. I do not condone the legalisation of something that is generally being pushed for legalisation because the people who use it illegally don't want to have to bother with the law. And you're STILL STRAWMANNING. MY POSITION ISN'T THE SAME AS THE US (or UK) GOVERNMENT; REALISE THIS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 fafalone said in post # :I don't know what to say when you're so blind you can't see that every one of those lines supports my position and refutes yours. Your position has become 'give everyone free herion' has it? Given that those statistics would probably be ghosted if the people concerned were on a course of methadone, I don't see how it distinguishes between our positions at all. Oh, and people's money problems disappearing because their most expensive outlay has been made free? There's a shock! Pay my rent for me each month and I'll have more money too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 23, 2004 Author Share Posted January 23, 2004 I support legalization because it benefits SOCIETY AND PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO USE DRUGS NO MATTER HOW MUCH THE GOVERNMENT TRIES TO SCARE IT OUT OF THEM. SCARE TACTICS DO NOT WORK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 23, 2004 Author Share Posted January 23, 2004 Treatment programs that are free are alot more effective.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 fafalone said in post # :Treatment programs that are free are alot more effective.... Given I live in a country with nationalised health care, I'd think that would be a given for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now