Just Decriminalize It Already

[bcc_1_2]

That article you quoted says that it's the mexican and colombian cartels who are operating in honduras.  It doesn't say anything about these "honduran drug gangs" that you speak of. 

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2012/08/09/honduras-gangs-extort-homeowners/
I'm not going to post a bunch of  articles. You can find them on google, fox news, msnbc, cnn, etc. It is complicated and involves both the domestic gangs and those coming in and working with them (turf wars, etc). Honduras is the murder capital of the world. And its not the mexicans doing all (or most) of the shootings. I'm just saying as politely as possible when it comes to Honduras you are just not educated on it. The gangs are bad and their big revenues (granted not their only way of making money) comes from drugs.
Yes as you note it is a complicated situation... poverty, politics, etc but the elephant in the room is drugs. I'm not going to sugarcoat my knowledge  on venezuela for example. I understand enough about the political climate to know american gringos should probably steer clear (which is all i needed to know). But when it comes to murders Honduras takes the cake. You can never overlook poverty. But taking the revenue from drugs away could make the gangs manageable. It doesn't solve the problem. It just helps drastically.

[fathertime]

Well bcc, some of your arguments seem like a stretch to me.   I mean I don’t follow that our extended families are now at greater risk of kidnapping then they would be if drugs were made legal here in the USA.  In addition, if I had to make a choice I would rather keep my family members safe here vs S. America, but I don’t think that is the choice we are making in this situation. 

The reason the drug trade has moved to Honduras more is because of the Mexican government crack down. If we take the revenue stream away we are changing the lives of millions in Mexico & Central America. That could lead to a day where anyone related to a gringo isn't a possible kidnap victim. Which to me is more important than not stopping a teen that got their hands on drugs and made a poor decision.

A bad decision is not just a ‘bad decision’ without some real consequences, like driving while stoned and occasionally this leads to running over a child, wife, or husband.

I’m ok with marijuana being legal if the laws changed in a real way and were enforced but is that really going to happen?  I’m still convinced that we would get a lot more drivers that are a hazard on the road and that is the biggest problem for me. If somebody were eating pizza’s and giggling and nothing else happened that is just fine with me. People should have as much freedom as possible.   

Fathertime!     

[bcc_1_2]

A bad decision is not just a ‘bad decision’ without some real consequences, like driving while stoned and occasionally this leads to running over a child, wife, or husband.

     

From all the studies I've seen texting and driving is as bad or worse than driving under the influence (of drugs/alcohol). While illegal the law doesn't stop any of the young people from doing it. I'm confident in saying that... no high schoolers that text and drive care that it is illegal. Just sayin... So I think you have a real false sense of security FT. The chances seem to be a lot higher of getting run down by some ditzy teenage girl who is texting.
And I just have to make one point very clear. And this is not a stretch... it is the reality on the ground. If my wife was from TEG or SAP we would have to move her family. I am being 100% serious. The chance of kidnap for having a family member married to a gringo is just too great. They'll kill for $100 bucks. That makes these family members great targets.... because they think they can make a quick 5k.
Colombia isn't this bad. But I do not think it is out of the realm of possibility in the future.

[fathertime]

From all the studies I've seen texting and driving is as bad or worse than driving under the influence (of drugs/alcohol). While illegal the law doesn't stop any of the young people from doing it. I'm confident in saying that... no high schoolers that text and drive care that it is illegal. Just sayin... So I think you have a real false sense of security FT. The chances seem to be a lot higher of getting run down by some ditzy teenage girl who is texting.
And I just have to make one point very clear. And this is not a stretch... it is the reality on the ground. If my wife was from TEG or SAP we would have to move her family. I am being 100% serious. The chance of kidnap for having a family member married to a gringo is just too great. They'll kill for $100 bucks. That makes these family members great targets.... because they think they can make a quick 5k.
Colombia isn't this bad. But I do not think it is out of the realm of possibility in the future.

Well bcc of course texting while driving is another hazard and so is driving while looking at a hot babe in a short skirt,  but we are not talking about these hazards right now. 

I don’t feel like I have a false sense of security, I realize at any moment someone I care about can be dead in an instant.  That being the case, I don’t want any additional hazardous situations on the road.  I’m convinced that there will be more stoned drivers on the road if mj. Is legal and I don’t want more hazards.  A very stiff penalty for driving stoned that was actually enforced might make convince me to relent.

I realize there has to be a balance between risk and living life/personal choice, and I like personal freedom, but are the people in our society really going to be responsible enough with their decisions about driving when stoned?  I and I imagine many others believe that many people will not, and that would put people I care about at risk.     

Fathertime!

[bcc_1_2]

And my agrument is that they are already driving stoned. If you don't like that then take action. If teens knew they'd lose their license for two years and pay a $1000 fine they probably wouldn't text. That's a reasonable deterent because they HAVE to drive in many parts of the US. But you can't legislate what people actually do in their own homes. And that is what I see as the major difference.
 

[fathertime]

And my agrument is that they are already driving stoned. If you don't like that then take action. If teens knew they'd lose their license for two years and pay a $1000 fine they probably wouldn't text. That's a reasonable deterent because they HAVE to drive in many parts of the US. But you can't legislate what people actually do in their own homes. And that is what I see as the major difference.

Well undoubtedly there are plenty of drivers that are driving while intoxicated and I would be all for stiffer penalties for these drivers, and for texting too.  I don’t think legalizing marijuana would do anything but exacerbate the problem.  I guess sometimes all that can be done is to mitigate the problem as best as possible.   

I don’t know why you say that it can’t be legislated what people do in their own homes.  I think you must have misspoke because there are lots of things americans can’t do in their own homes and rightfully so I might add.  In terms of drugs, it would not be a problem if people didn’t put others at risk, but one day our cars will be computerized and drive themselves and when that day comes, this marijuana discussion (If it is still an issue)will have a lot more legs and closer to a no-brainer as far as I’m concerned. 

Fathertime! 

[htown]

And I just have to make one point very clear. And this is not a stretch... it is the reality on the ground. If my wife was from TEG or SAP we would have to move her family. I am being 100% serious. The chance of kidnap for having a family member married to a gringo is just too great. They'll kill for $100 bucks. That makes these family members great targets.... because they think they can make a quick 5k.
Colombia isn't this bad. But I do not think it is out of the realm of possibility in the future.

I don't think it's really that crucial dude.  Your wife marrying a gringo isn't as major as you think it is.

  I have quite a few honduran friends who live here and send money home to their family in sps and tegu every week.  One of them happens to be a super hot  chick who's married to a rich doctor.  She has pictures on her fb where it's obvious she's doing well financially and most of her fb friends live in sps.  She hasn't told me that her family members have had to run and hide for their lives.

[bcc_1_2]

.   

I don’t know why you say that it can’t be legislated what people do in their own homes.

You have no idea how many meth labs we got out here. I'm just talking realistically.

[htown]

Actually pot is already extremely easy to find and buy and I haven't heard about alot of people having car wrecks due to being high on marijuana.  I know and have known ALOT of potheads and I can't recall one instance where someone wrecked their car because of being high on pot.  If anyone wants to look up the stats I bet the number of pot related car wrecks is pretty low.

[fathertime]

Actually pot is already extremely easy to find and buy and I haven't heard about alot of people having car wrecks due to being high on marijuana.  I know and have known ALOT of potheads and I can't recall one instance where someone wrecked their car because of being high on pot.  If anyone wants to look up the stats I bet the number of pot related car wrecks is pretty low.

Well I have always assumed that marijuana would impact driving.  I looked up the most recent study which seems to state that it does, but it is not as clearcut as I assumed it was.  I’m familiar with how I was affected when younger and if it were me, I would be affected, I understand that marijuana is much more potent than 25 years ago as well, but maybe others are not affected.  My impression is it does slow coordination/reflexes which can’t be anything but a negative in terms of driving.  In college I did have a friend from North of San Fransisco, who rolled his Honda in a single car crash while high, he survived with some scars. I have other friends who drove constantly while high without an issue.

[size=78%]http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/10/news/la-heb-marijuana-car-crashes-20120210[/size][size=78%][/size]  [size=78%][/size]

Fathertime!

[V_Man]

Portual legalised drugs and the usage went down. This included hard drugs. Particularly with young people. The reasons are difficult to prove conclusively but the thinking is that 1. once it was legal it wasn't particularly cool for young people and 2. people were more receptive to listening to the health problems with these drugs.

In Amsterdam the drugs are not technically legal it is just that there is a policy to turn a blind eye. Drug use by locals went down and stayed down. Drug use by tourists from countries where these drugs are illegal went up.

There have been a few other studies and this trend is repeated. Overall and over time, drug usage goes down.

What it means is that people are not criminalised for using drugs and harming their own health. Which you can guarantee they will continue to do regardless of what laws are in palce. More reasorces are then avilable to fight battles that we actually have a chance of winning.

[htown]

Portual legalised drugs and the usage went down. This included hard drugs. Particularly with young people. The reasons are difficult to prove conclusively but the thinking is that 1. once it was legal it wasn't particularly cool for young people and 2. people were more receptive to listening to the health problems with these drugs.

In Amsterdam the drugs are not technically legal it is just that there is a policy to turn a blind eye. Drug use by locals went down and stayed down. Drug use by tourists from countries where these drugs are illegal went up.

There have been a few other studies and this trend is repeated. Overall and over time, drug usage goes down.

What it means is that people are not criminalised for using drugs and harming their own health. Which you can guarantee they will continue to do regardless of what laws are in palce. More reasorces are then avilable to fight battles that we actually have a chance of winning.

What do you think about that Ray??


Usage rates go DOWN.


We can regulate it and TAX it  like we do alcohol and tobacco.


We save BILLIONS in the criminal justice system.  More resources can go toward fighting real crimes.


Focus more resources on treatment and educating people on the dangers of drug use.


Ray?  Ray?  Where you at Ray???   

[V_Man]

50 years of prohibition has seen been an unmitigated failure. It simply can not be denied.
We have to accept that these drugs are never going to disappear if we are ever going to make progress. There is never going to be a quick fix.

Let's just be clear that legalising these drugs is about doing less harm.
It is about
1. Acknowledging that prohibition does more harm than the drugs themselves
2. Taking a public health approach rather than criminalising people that make stupid choices and damage themselves.
3.  and taking a long term approach.

If this was a public health issue we would be criminalising Big Macs long before we criminalised weed.

Instead we can take the approach we take with tobacco. Tax it, regulate it and educate people on the heath consequences of their choices.

It is not even about freedom. It is just taking a path that leads to less harm for more people.

As fathertime points out we would be better off spending one tenth of the money we spend on prohibition on combating people that take drugs and then operate machinery where they can hurt someone ELSE. Just like we do with alcohol.

[benjio]

What about venezuela and brazil?  Two of the most dangerous murderous countries.  I don't think their high murder andcrime rates can be blamed on drug trafficking.

From my personal experience in Rio and Sao Paulo, drug trafficking is exactly what most violent crime can be attributed to. There are no major cartels operating in Brazil (perhaps the Russians to an extent...they are everywhere). The logistics of running a multinational criminal organization of that magnitude could never survive the scrutiny of the Brazilian Government's Bureaucracy. Favelas however, are controlled by smaller more localized gangs that make their living off selling drugs that usually originate in Colombia. Every single inch of the border Brazil shares with Colombia is dense rain forrest. For those that know the terrain and are willing to take the risk it's probably one of the easiest borders to smuggle illegal contraband through on Earth (and by easiest I'm referring to the lack of law enforcement...nothing easy about treading through a jungle). BG might disagree...this is just from what I've seen.
 

Btw i happen to be in a honduran restaurant right now as I type this on my phone.  Damn I freaking love these hondureñas!!

As usual I'm in full agreement. Hondureñas (at least the ones I know in Houston) are gorgeous women. HTown, you should visit a little dive bar called the Velvet Melvin on Richmond. 3 of the 5 bartenders there are VERY attractive Hondureñas. And they all have a heavy hand...if that's the type of thing you're into. 

[bcc_1_2]

You don't have to tell me. I'm married to one.

[braziliangirl]

From my personal experience in Rio and Sao Paulo, drug trafficking is exactly what most violent crime can be attributed to. There are no major cartels operating in Brazil (perhaps the Russians to an extent...they are everywhere). The logistics of running a multinational criminal organization of that magnitude could never survive the scrutiny of the Brazilian Government's Bureaucracy. Favelas however, are controlled by smaller more localized gangs that make their living off selling drugs that usually originate in Colombia. Every single inch of the border Brazil shares with Colombia is dense rain forrest. For those that know the terrain and are willing to take the risk it's probably one of the easiest borders to smuggle illegal contraband through on Earth (and by easiest I'm referring to the lack of law enforcement...nothing easy about treading through a jungle). BG might disagree...this is just from what I've seen.

[size=78%]I agree a great part of violence here can be attribute to drug trafficking. It's basically what finances organized crime. Just watch Tropa de Elite. Guys in the police say it's pretty accurate. [/size]

[size=78%]About the borders, I have been very close to Colombia and Venezuela and I work with Amazon satellite imagery. I agree that in most points it's very hard to have any control, even over air planes, let alone small boats in all the many tributaries of the Amazon river.[/size]

[Fuzzyone]

  I think one of the biggest problems is the misinformation that is flying around out there. Does anyone here really think our jails is full of poor drug addicts who have done nothing but got caught with a small amount of drugs? Most of these guys got caught breaking into peoples houses, beating their spouses and a ton of other crimes. Most of them were under the influence of drugs.


   Most of the dealers have found out that when they get arrested all they have to say is they are addicts and they will get half the time they would have got other wise. So would I like to see drugs legal? You have to be nuts, it has not worked any where so what are we going to do different?

[htown]

. So would I like to see drugs legal? You have to be nuts, it has not worked any where so what are we going to do different?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/

Fuzzywuzzy you're just flat out wrong.

[fathertime]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/

Fuzzywuzzy you're just flat out wrong.

Hi htown, this study made me go hmmmmm.  I want to point out a rather serious flaw in the way the results of this study are interpreted. If they can’t be explained, I have no ideal how they could ever make the conclusion that drug use is down by 50%. 

Here is the flaw…   They estimated that 100k people had serious drug problems in the 90’s, and now currently 40K people are seeking treatment.  Well the flaw is, how many people are drug users that are not in treatment?  Since drug use is no longer a crime, there would be no court ordered treatment.  There could be a million people using drugs and since they are not in treatment, they are not counted at all.

Now I really don’t care very much if people are using drugs in their homes and only harming or enjoying themselves.  For this study to be accurate those people do need to be counted and going off of how many people are in a treatment center isn’t going to be a proper measure.  Do you see my point?

Fathertime!

[Stevieboy]

Hi htown, this study made me go hmmmmm.  I want to point out a rather serious flaw in the way the results of this study are interpreted. If they can’t be explained, I have no ideal how they could ever make the conclusion that drug use is down by 50%. 

Here is the flaw…   They estimated that 100k people had serious drug problems in the 90’s, and now currently 40K people are seeking treatment.  Well the flaw is, how many people are drug users that are not in treatment?  Since drug use is no longer a crime, there would be no court ordered treatment.  There could be a million people using drugs and since they are not in treatment, they are not counted at all.

Now I really don’t care very much if people are using drugs in their homes and only harming or enjoying themselves.  For this study to be accurate those people do need to be counted and going off of how many people are in a treatment center isn’t going to be a proper measure.  Do you see my point?

Fathertime!

True that. I see this argument soo stupid. The stats are obviously bias. There's no logic to say making narcotics a commodity is good for the nation. Of course the stats from Amsterdam are going to be in their favor, they're protecting their way of living; tourism. I could go on forever of family members I have and friends they have, and neighbors they have that have sucked up medicaid for drug addiction medication, not to mention social security because drug addiction is considered a DISABILITY. And these people will receive disability checks forever till they die. And trust me, drug addicts can live and leech till very old ages. And, ya'll think taxing drugs improves the economy, with more people legally buying dope? Hey, don't get me wrong,  I could probably go see a live band and smoke a doobie without the cops hassling me. But, I know people dont know when to say when.  Just calling em as I know em.
   

[Ray]

 
Sorry I missed much of the discussion, but my daughter was visiting from out of town.
 
Some of the posters are speaking strictly of legalization of marijuana, which I am not really interested in debating because for all practical purposes, pot is legal in California. The feds are still enforcing the federal laws against trafficking and cultivating, but the "medical" marijuana law has made local enforcement practically zero in California.
　
However, the OP, V_Man, and others are advocating legalization of ALL banned drugs. That is just pure nonsense IMHO.
　
bcc’s main reason to legalize, tax, and regulate all illegal drugs is based on the damage done to local folks that are being terrorized by gangs in other countries. I just don’t see his logic. Does he really think that if all of the illegal substances became readily and legally available here, then those foreign drug lords/gangs would suddenly give up their criminal ways and become model citizens?
　
The drug lords/smugglers/gangs are mostly ruthless murdering thugs and punks, and they will always be on the wrong side of the law. Taking away some of the value of engaging in drug smuggling will only drive them to other profitable crimes like kidnapping for ransom, gun and human smuggling, piracy, or whatever suits their fancy. These folks ARE NOT going to give up their criminal ways until they are dead and buried like Pablo Escobar down in Colombia.
　
And V_Mans main reason for legalizing all illegal drugs seems to be because people are going to do it anyway, so we might as well just make it legal and tax it.
　
That attitude I find particularly stupid and cowardly. Using that same logic, we should also legalize and tax child prostitution, shoplifting, robbery, and a whole host of other crimes simply because the perpetrators are going to do it anyway, right? Baloney I say!
　
And all this nonsense about drug use naturally declining because it is now legal is just that…nonsense! I don’t care how the Netherlands, Portugal, or any other country handles their drug problems.
　
Before I would consider supporting legalization of any banned substances, I would look at the benefit to society. Decriminalizing crystal meth, heroin, crack cocaine, etc, is NOT going be a benefit to society, no matter how you try to spin it..
　
Instead of simply caving in to the selfish desires/weaknesses of substance abusers, how about showing a little backbone and telling them to shove their stupid drugs up their butts?
　
Personally, I will NEVER support legalizing harmful drugs so dopers can get high whenever they wish. Let them move to Portugal if they don’t like our laws!
　
Ray

[Fuzzyone]

  Well horetown check out this


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12/10/portugal-decriminalisation-drugs-britain_n_2270789.html


  You pretty much can go any where on the web and find support for one side or the other. By the way yes you are wrong but oh well!

[htown]

Hi htown, this study made me go hmmmmm.  I want to point out a rather serious flaw in the way the results of this study are interpreted. If they can’t be explained, I have no ideal how they could ever make the conclusion that drug use is down by 50%. 

Here is the flaw…   They estimated that 100k people had serious drug problems in the 90’s, and now currently 40K people are seeking treatment.  Well the flaw is, how many people are drug users that are not in treatment?  Since drug use is no longer a crime, there would be no court ordered treatment.  There could be a million people using drugs and since they are not in treatment, they are not counted at all.

Now I really don’t care very much if people are using drugs in their homes and only harming or enjoying themselves.  For this study to be accurate those people do need to be counted and going off of how many people are in a treatment center isn’t going to be a proper measure.  Do you see my point?

Fathertime!

If those receiving treatment is used as the statistic for counting people with a drug problem then yes the drug problem in portugal has decreased.  Now the question becomes when does drug "usage" become a drug "problem"?


How does one end up receiving treatment in a system where drugs are legal?  One way is to voluntarily seek treatment.  Or when one commits a drug-related crime such as public use, drug-related assault, drug-related robbery or theft, or drug-related sex crime and treatment is then court ordered.  Outside of these avenues to end up in treatment maybe one's drug usage hasn't yet become a big enough problem to one's self or the community to warrant being counted in any statistic.


Can we restructure our current policy of prohibition to a policy of regulation, similar to the way we regulate alcohol?


I totally get your logic fathertime.  I'm all for personal freedom but I don't want one person's drug habit to put my safety in jeapordy.  I say let individuals decide what they want to put into their own body but come down hard on them when they do it irresponsibly and it brings harm to others.  That's what we already do with alcohol and it seems to be working good enough.  I'd actually like to see the alcohol sellers not be able to advertise all over tv the way they do now.

[Fuzzyone]

If those receiving treatment is used as the statistic for counting people with a drug problem then yes the drug problem in portugal has decreased.  Now the question becomes when does drug "usage" become a drug "problem"?


How does one end up receiving treatment in a system where drugs are legal?  One way is to voluntarily seek treatment.  Or when one commits a drug-related crime such as public use, drug-related assault, drug-related robbery or theft, or drug-related sex crime and treatment is then court ordered.  Outside of these avenues to end up in treatment maybe one's drug usage hasn't yet become a big enough problem to one's self or the community to warrant being counted in any statistic.


Can we restructure our current policy of prohibition to a policy of regulation, similar to the way we regulate alcohol?


I totally get your logic fathertime.  I'm all for personal freedom but I don't want one person's drug habit to put my safety in jeapordy.  I say let individuals decide what they want to put into their own body but come down hard on them when they do it irresponsibly and it brings harm to others.  That's what we already do with alcohol and it seems to be working good enough.  I'd actually like to see the alcohol sellers not be able to advertise all over tv the way they do now.

   Yea that is a good ideal we just let the idiots make their minds up on their own. If you see  the people we have in jail in this area now I think you would change your mind in a hurry. Once they are let out if there is something they can screw up they do it in a hurry and end up back in jail. Mind you a vast majority of these crimes are not drugs. It is when they are on them.


   Try reading the papers a little more often on alcohol deaths, I saw a entire family killed, a college student who made trips overseas to help the poor, I saw a mother kill her kids ect ect.... no it really is not working very well and yes there are in jail where they belong. So you wish just to pile on the misery


    The question I want to ask you is this...... about 10 years after we wave the magic wand and let anyone use drugs as their personnel freedom who will pay for their health care.... liver, kidney, heart transplants they will need after destroying their system with drugs? I sure in the hell will not want my taxes to pay for it.

[Bob_S]

I say let individuals decide what they want to put into their own body but come down hard on them when they do it irresponsibly and it brings harm to others.

That sounds good in theory.  The only problem is that social libertarianism is generally only acceptable when combined with economic libertarianism.  And right now, the U.S. along with most other industrialized nations are social welfare states, very very far from any economic libertarianism.  What it comes down to is, why should I labor to produce goods and services if the product of my labor (my paycheck) gets confiscated to subsidize someone who wants to stay stoned all day to the point where they are unemployable and would starve without the largesse of the welfare state?

If it were to be fully legalized, I would want to see two things:
1. Regulate it like any public indecency.  You can do what you want but at home indoors out of the sight of the public or minors;
2. Absolutely no public benefits for users.  Drug test all welfare or unemployment benefit recipients.