let's legalize drugs.

[SW85]

you must be an Obama supporter. He wanted to legalized weed also.

check out this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQr9ezr8UeA

I didn't necessarily say I wanted it legalized (actually I'm indifferent to it, which is why I said it could be legalized "for all I care"). I only meant to point out that the drug war focuses on a wide variety of drugs that are frequently more harmful than marijuana.

The drug that causes more death and human misery than any other is legal.

Has it occurred to you that it causes more death and human misery because it's legal?

 

[PLC1]

I didn't necessarily say I wanted it legalized (actually I'm indifferent to it, which is why I said it could be legalized "for all I care"). I only meant to point out that the drug war focuses on a wide variety of drugs that are frequently more harmful than marijuana.



Has it occurred to you that it causes more death and human misery because it's legal?

That thought has occurred to me.

The next thought that occurred was that outlawing drugs doesn't work, maybe it doesn't really matter whether tobacco is legal or not. Addicts will still get their fixes.

and the next was: If outlawing drugs doesn't work, maybe we need to try some other way to discourage their use. It could be done. There are only about half as many tobacco users now, for example, as there were 40 or so years ago.

I wonder what the root causes of the pandemic of drug addiction in this country might be? I don't know the answer to that one, do you?

 

[SW85]

The next thought that occurred was that outlawing drugs doesn't work, maybe it doesn't really matter whether tobacco is legal or not.

Sure, but this only logically follows if you believe the purpose of the war on drugs is to completely eradicate drug use. While that would be nice, no one seriously expects it. They only expect to discourage the vast majority of people from using them, to keep them out of the domain of accepted/acceptable public behaviors.

and the next was: If outlawing drugs doesn't work, maybe we need to try some other way to discourage their use. It could be done. There are only about half as many tobacco users now, for example, as there were 40 or so years ago.

It should be noted, though, that cigarettes also exist in vastly different social conditions than they did in 40 years ago, when it was (a) more socially acceptable to use them, and (b) not extremely expensive.

Assuming you're one of the dwindling numbers of people who can afford a prodigious smoking habit these days, you are likely to be treated as a social pariah if you smoke in public. I believe there was a scene in a Sopranos episode to that effect, where even the mild-mannered therapist went off her rocker in harrassing a smoker in a public restaurant.

In other words, the decrease in smoking has been accompanied by, if it is not a direct result of, reduced social acceptance of the behavior paired with legal sanctions of it.

I wonder what the root causes of the pandemic of drug addiction in this country might be? I don't know the answer to that one, do you?

Well, it's hardly a pandemic in the sense that drug use is not an infectious disease, but I imagine it's a consequence of the same things that breed other anti-social behaviors (poverty, coming from a broken home, mental illness, etc.).

 

[PLC1]

Sure, but this only logically follows if you believe the purpose of the war on drugs is to completely eradicate drug use. While that would be nice, no one seriously expects it. They only expect to discourage the vast majority of people from using them, to keep them out of the domain of accepted/acceptable public behaviors.

If you believe that the war on drugs has as its objective the complete eradication of drugs, then, of course it is doomed to failure. The thing is, if the war on drugs is supposed to limit their use, it is still a failure, as the US has a higher incidence of drug abuse than do nations that are not waging a "war on drugs."

It should be noted, though, that cigarettes also exist in vastly different social conditions than they did in 40 years ago, when it was (a) more socially acceptable to use them, and (b) not extremely expensive.

Assuming you're one of the dwindling numbers of people who can afford a prodigious smoking habit these days, you are likely to be treated as a social pariah if you smoke in public. I believe there was a scene in a Sopranos episode to that effect, where even the mild-mannered therapist went off her rocker in harrassing a smoker in a public restaurant.

In other words, the decrease in smoking has been accompanied by, if it is not a direct result of, reduced social acceptance of the behavior paired with legal sanctions of it.

The decrease in smoking is probably mostly because of the reduced social acceptance, along with the realization that smoking causes some pretty awful diseases, some of them fatal.

Emphasyma must be a particularly horrible way to die, don't you think?

Given what we know about nicotine today, the fact that so many are unable to quit smoking is a testament to its addictive properties.

Well, it's hardly a pandemic in the sense that drug use is not an infectious disease, but I imagine it's a consequence of the same things that breed other anti-social behaviors (poverty, coming from a broken home, mental illness, etc.).

It is not an infectious disease in the usual sense, no. My use of the word "pandemic" really was to illustrate just how pervasive drug abuse is. I'm not so sure that poverty, broken homes, and mental illness is the whole answer, either, as addiction exists at all levels in our society. Drug addiction is not just a curse of the lower classes.

Add up cocaine in its various forms, heroin, methamphetamine, addictive prescription drugs, and you describe a large percentage of our population. Add alcoholism, and the percentage grows even larger. Add non addictive drugs like pot, and you have even more users, if not addicts. Add tobacco, and it is likely that around half of the adult population is using something.

 

[SW85]

If you believe that the war on drugs has as its objective the complete eradication of drugs, then, of course it is doomed to failure. The thing is, if the war on drugs is supposed to limit their use, it is still a failure, as the US has a higher incidence of drug abuse than do nations that are not waging a "war on drugs."

It's only a failure if you think the purpose of anti-drug laws is to suppress rates of drug use in America compared to other nations.

I'm not so sure that poverty, broken homes, and mental illness is the whole answer, either, as addiction exists at all levels in our society. Drug addiction is not just a curse of the lower classes.

I'll say again: if you regard drug use as an anti-social behavior, it probably follows logically from the circumstances that breed other anti-social behaviors. Which is why those populations (again, the mentally ill for example) are overrepresented in rates of drug use -- and other anti-social behaviors.

 

[PLC1]

It's only a failure if you think the purpose of anti-drug laws is to suppress rates of drug use in America compared to other nations.

Since we have no way of knowing just what the rate of drug addiction in the US would be without the war on drugs, the next best measure is to compare rates here with those abroad, especially in places where decriminalization has already taken place. Using that measure, the war on drugs is a dismal failure.

I'll say again: if you regard drug use as an anti-social behavior, it probably follows logically from the circumstances that breed other anti-social behaviors. Which is why those populations (again, the mentally ill for example) are overrepresented in rates of drug use -- and other anti-social behaviors.

Is drug abuse caused by mental illness, is mental illness caused by drug abuse, or are both caused by some third factor? Either way, the mentally ill are bound to be overrepresented in rates of drug use.

If drug abuse = mental illness, then half of the country is mentally ill.

 

[SW85]

Since we have no way of knowing just what the rate of drug addiction in the US would be without the war on drugs, the next best measure is to compare rates here with those abroad, especially in places where decriminalization has already taken place. Using that measure, the war on drugs is a dismal failure.

It's a flawed measure, though. The Netherlands is not the US; Australia is not the US; Germany is not the US; etc. etc. etc.

They exist in different social circumstances that render comparison, at the least, extremely difficult.

Is drug abuse caused by mental illness, is mental illness caused by drug abuse

Both. Many drugs are schizophregenic (including marijuana, one of the reasons it's banned). Many people who are mentally ill self-medicate with drugs.

I'm only pointing out that drug use is an anti-social behavior and so cannot be divorced in its analysis from other anti-social behaviors or their causes. The statistics don't explain everything, nor can they be expected to.

 

[PLC1]

It's a flawed measure, though. The Netherlands is not the US; Australia is not the US; Germany is not the US; etc. etc. etc.

They exist in different social circumstances that render comparison, at the least, extremely difficult.



Both. Many drugs are schizophregenic (including marijuana, one of the reasons it's banned). Many people who are mentally ill self-medicate with drugs.

I'm only pointing out that drug use is an anti-social behavior and so cannot be divorced in its analysis from other anti-social behaviors or their causes. The statistics don't explain everything, nor can they be expected to.

Is our high incidence of drug addiction, then, due to a high incidence of anti social behavior?

Why would there be more anti social behavior here than in the rest of the world?