|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| We should take steps to end the prohibition of heroin and cocaine |
| I agree - end prohibition as soon as humanly possible |
|
76% |
[ 20 ] |
| I disagree - we should continue the war on drugs |
|
23% |
[ 6 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 26 |
|
| Author |
Message |
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 5:53 pm Post subject: Prohibition |
 |
|
We all know the arguments (I certainly hope so - immediate acquaintance with the issues is obligatory if not and the internet has some outstanding resources) but the more potent moral arguments in favor of ending prohibition (of heroin and cocaine chiefly) are:
* prohibition drives the price of opium up to hundreds of times what it would sell were we to end prohibition. This is an outstanding source of wealth to terrorists groups like Al Quaeda and organized crime. Whether you're Osama Bin Laden, Kaiser Soze or Al Capone, the chances are you're rich due to prohibition.
* The War on Drugs is an endless war, costing humanity billions of dollars per year to fight ($69bn in the USA alone). The idea of a war is to crush an enemy, yet the War on Drugs has resulted in more heroin, more coke, now on the streets than ever before.
* Law enforcement follows the priorities we set, and we currently divert attention from catching dangerous individuals like murderers and rapists to catching drug users, who aren't really doing anyone any harm other than themselves. This creates a shortage of law enforcement officers in every country where there is a black market drug trade AND overpopulous prisons. At least one third of all Americans have broken US prohibition laws at least once. The law enforcement effort that currently goes into trying to catch those Americans is effort that isn�t being used to catch murderers, thieves, and, yes, terrorists. We know that prohibition funds crime. We�ve known it ever since alcohol prohibition nurtured the expansion of the mafia.
If you support prohibition, you support terrorism and do not yearn to see crime in western countries fall by at least 80%. Most of law enforcement actually prefers the relatively easy job of busting heroin users to the more dangerous job of tracking down terrorists and serial killers; politicians want to keep the easily-used election rhetoric of the drug war. If you have a decent bone in your body, you will already support an end to the prohibition of marijuana, coca, and opium in the same way that we ended the prohibition of alcohol and tobacco. If you did not before, you should now. BJWD reports that antiprohibitionism is unopposed on my beloved Current Events forum. I'd be very interested to see how many anonymous votes support for prohibition gets, so please vote. I will not include a "no opinion" option because it is logically superfluous - only the opinions of opinion-holding agents are relevant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| When its easier to get heroin than condoms in US jails you know you've lost the war on drugs. Anyone who thinks the war on drugs has been anything but a total loss and waste of money is a putz. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| There are too many vested interests in keeping drugs illegal. Many powerful people profit enormously from them. I think it will be very difficult to legalise them, for that reason alone. But I'm in agreement with Spinoza. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hey. Far be it from me.
Shoot up to your heart's content... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mnhnhyouh
Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Location: The Middle Kingdom
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:50 pm Post subject: Re: Prohibition |
|
|
| SPINOZA wrote: |
| This is an outstanding source of wealth to terrorists groups like Al Quaeda and organized crime. Whether you're Osama Bin Laden, Kaiser Soze or Al Capone, the chances are you're rich due to prohibition. |
I strongly agree with your main thesis, but this is just plain wrong. During the Taliban's time running Afghanistan there were virtually no poppies growing. Well there were, in the Northern Alliance controlled section. Those are the guys the U.S. funded to oust the Taliban.
Now they are in power, the poppy fields are again growing flat out over much of the country.
Note, I find little that the Taliban did that I can support.
h |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moldy Rutabaga
Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Location: Ansan, Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I support the war on dangerous drugs---wait, let me add my provisions:
a. I don't classify marijuana as a dangerous drug. Legalize it.
b. The war as it's being fought is being lost. I believe the tactics should be changed to public education, early intervention, and interdiction instead of criminal records and meddling in the countries that produce it.
Now that I've added all these exceptions, which way should I vote?
Ken:> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
strongly agree with your main thesis, but this is just plain wrong. During the Taliban's time running Afghanistan there were virtually no poppies growing. Well there were, in the Northern Alliance controlled section. Those are the guys the U.S. funded to oust the Taliban.
Now they are in power, the poppy fields are again growing flat out over much of the country.
Note, I find little that the Taliban did that I can support.
h |
Thats not entirely true. The Taliban were actively involved in the Opium trade until the US told them in the late 90's to stop. This was considered to be a requirment that when combined with others would lead to the US recognizing the Taliban as a legitimate government.
After the Taliban got out of the trade and the tribes to the north started doing it. It should be pointed out that those tribes in the North were funded and supported by the CIA. The CIA knowingly allowed these groups to sell opium mostly because Bush I and Clinton cut funding to the groups. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Moldy Rutabaga wrote: |
I support the war on dangerous drugs---wait, let me add my provisions:
a. I don't classify marijuana as a dangerous drug. Legalize it.
b. The war as it's being fought is being lost. I believe the tactics should be changed to public education, early intervention, and interdiction instead of criminal records and meddling in the countries that produce it.
Now that I've added all these exceptions, which way should I vote?
Ken:> |
You should vote that you do not support prohibition.
Better public knowledge about dangerous drugs would lead to more people trying them, and this, combined with illegality, would add to the problem. Better public knowledge about drugs should accompany state provision of them in some capacity. There is an argument that state provision would eliminate the possibility of first-time trying, since one would have to be demonstrably an addict to qualify for state provision. Drug dealing overwhelmingly caters to addicts and not first-time triers, thus, because drugs would be state-provided and very cheap (or even free), there seems no obvious incentive for a black market a potential first-time trier can purchase from.
Drugs' actual potential for physical harm is insufficient justification for prohibition anyway, given that drugs' potential to kill is heightened by the possibility of inattention/delay due to criminal repercussions (I have scienitific justification for this, but do not wish to bore the reader), and also given that health problems associated with fast food, alcohol and tobacco make health issues with heroin look minimal (and remember that because heroin is illegal, all health problems observable are problems with heroin's prohibition; personal neglect due to addiction and black market expense). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 10:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Marijuana Top U.S. Cash Crop, Policy Analyst Says
By David Alexander
Tue Dec 19, 8:44 AM ET
WASHINGTON, Dec 18 (Reuters Life!) - U.S. growers produce nearly $35 billion worth of marijuana annually, making the illegal drug the country's largest cash crop, bigger than corn and wheat combined, an advocate of medical marijuana use said in a study released on Monday 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061219/od_nm/usa_marijuana1_dc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 12:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Hey. Far be it from me.
Shoot up to your heart's content... |
Well one argument against prohibition is that there'd be less incentive to get people hooked on it (depending on how it was dispensed, and by whom) because it would no longer be so expensive and the profit margins would therefore be reduced immmensely. So it would be less lucrative to start giving it to your friends for free, until they were hooked, and then start peddling it to them for a nice price.
One example of how its price is a big incentive to get others hooked is as follows:
At Kings Cross Railway in London, pimps loiter about waiting for young girls (and sometimes lads) to get off the trains. Often they have just run away from home. They befriend the youngster...and at some point offer them heroin for free. After a short time, the youngster becomes hooked. The pimp then reveals themselves for who they are and explain that they now need to pay for it. How the hell can they afford to pay for this stuff? By prostituting themselves, of course. And so the pimp is able to exploit them in this way. Sadly, that's a common scenario.
If the stuff was legal, there would be no incentive to use this method of coercion and control, because the price wouldn't be so incredibly inflated.
So in theory, a lack of prohibition would take away the incentive to recruit users. However, there is the danger that making it legal would encourage other people to use it. But I suspect the cons of prohibition still outway the pros. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 12:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Tax the product to pay for junkies' rehab.
It would be a lot better sense than spending the money we are now on trying to squash a popular product.
There'll still be problems with under-age abuse, as I doubt even the SPIN Doctor here is going to advocate 12-year-olds being allowed to snort coke or 14-year-olds to shoot up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 12:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| SPINOZA wrote: |
[ There is an argument that state provision would eliminate the possibility of first-time trying, since one would have to be demonstrably an addict to qualify for state provision. Drug dealing overwhelmingly caters to addicts and not first-time triers, thus, because drugs would be state-provided and very cheap (or even free), there seems no obvious incentive for a black market a potential first-time trier can purchase from.
|
Yes, this is actually what I'd like to see. I don't think it would be a good idea to let it be sold legally. But once people could show they were hooked, they'd be allowed to get it cheaply and legally from government agencies. Then hopefully, as your arguments states, there'd be much less incentive for black marketeers.
Also, if it was dispensed by regulated bodies, it would be a hell of a lot safer, as the quality would be carefully checked. This would mean no (or almost no) fatalities. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 5:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Tax the product to pay for junkies' rehab. |
Very interesting you should raise this.
This is a fact (if anyone has any evidence in opposition to this, ie evidence from other countries, please post it): Through taxation, in Britain, smokers make a major contribution (over 7 billion GBP) to the economic health of the nation, far in excess of the cost (estimated to be 1.5 billion GBP) of treating smoking-related diseases on the National Health Service. These are 2002 stats. This makes no mention of the costs of policing, were tobacco to be prohibited. This is why smoking - despite killing 10,000 per day (yes, per day) worldwide - is tolerated. Evidently, it is commonly agreed that economic health takes precedence over individuals' physical health. Any prohibitionist argument on health grounds appears to fail via this remarkably simple analogy with tobacco.
Hopefully, one day in the future, someone will argue the following on message board....
| Quote: |
| "the legality of heroin and cocaine is tolerated because the economic advantages of legalization are far in excess of the costs caused by drug-related deaths and individuals' own health....and were the drugs to be prohibited strictly again, like in the past, the economic disadvantage to society would far outweigh the good, if any at all, that came from prohibition. Frankly, if one wishes to destroy one's life with drugs or cigs or booze, it's best for all concerned to just let them get on with it.". |
And there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that if the entire world took up heroin-use tomorrow it'd eventually, after prolonged use, result in 10k deaths per day. BTW, I focus largely on heroin prohibition, because heroin is a substance I know a great deal about. I only support the legalization of cocaine - whose capacity to cause physical dependence is in constant dispute - because I cannot justify why coke should not be legal if H is. Coke is a much more mysterious substance than heroin and the case for its decriminalization is less clear-cut. If there are any coke experts on my beloved Daves who can offer formidable arguments against coke prohibition, please get with it and start posting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mnhnhyouh
Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Location: The Middle Kingdom
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 6:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
While extended heroin use is not dangerous, if done with clean equipment, cocaine use does often lead to psychosis....
h |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 6:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
Marijuana Top U.S. Cash Crop, Policy Analyst Says
By David Alexander
Tue Dec 19, 8:44 AM ET
WASHINGTON, Dec 18 (Reuters Life!) - U.S. growers produce nearly $35 billion worth of marijuana annually, making the illegal drug the country's largest cash crop, bigger than corn and wheat combined, an advocate of medical marijuana use said in a study released on Monday
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061219/od_nm/usa_marijuana1_dc |
I'm not sure stuff like this is of much use, IGTG.
The value of marijuana is falsely exaggerated because it's illegal and its value, plus popularity, soars.
These stats tell us nothing whatsoever. Avoid. Imagine if a God-like creature came down from heaven and declared oil illegal tomorrow. Now compare today's oil value to the imaginary one of tomorrow. People really, really want oil....thus they'll get it, regardless of this god-like creature's verdict and regardless of the penalties. Humans will impoverish themselves for electricity and petrol. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
