PeakTrader.com

[administrator]

PeakTrader said...

It use to be cool to act or be drunk or high on drugs.

Americans have evolved somewhat.

However, it's still basically a demand problem.

Should we quit the war on speed limits too?

The Japanese know how to win drug wars:

The Japanese in 1954...inaugurated a system of forced hospitalization for chronic drug users. Under this policy, drug users were rounded up in droves, forced to go through cold-turkey withdrawal and placed in work camps for periods ranging from a few months to several years.

This approach to drug users, still in force today, is seen by the Japanese as a humane policy focussed primarily on rehabilitation. By American standards, however, these rehabilitation programs would be seen as very tough.

The Japanese from the very beginning have opted for a cold-turkey drug withdrawal. Thus, every heroin addict identified in Japan is required to enter a hospital or treatment facility, where they go immediately through withdrawal.

Conviction through the criminal justice system is not necessary for commitment. Any addict identified, either through examination by physicians or through urine testing, is committed through an administrative process.

As a result courts are not burdened with heavy caseloads of drug users, drug users are not saddled with criminal records and punishment for drug users is swift and sure.

These policies dramatically and rapidly cut drug use. Within four years of the 1954 amendments, the number of people arrested for violating the Stimulant Control Law dropped from 55,654 to only 271in 1958.

Japan began experiencing serious problems with heroin. By 1961 it is estimated that there were over 40,000 heroin addicts in Japan...tougher penalties against importation and selling, and by imposing a mandatory rehabilitation regime for addicts.

The results of Japan's tough heroin program mirrored those of its successful fight against stimulants. The number of arrests for heroin sale and possession fell from a high in 1962 of 2,139 to only 33 in 1966 and have never risen above 100 since.

Article above from September 24, 1990 Fighting Drugs in Four Countries: Lessons for America?

Drug Legalization: Myths vs. Reality
January 25, 1990

Myth: Current policies are failing to reduce drug use.

Fact: Drug use fell by 37 percent between 1985 and 1988, the last year for which accurate figures are available, from 23 million regular drug users to 14 million.

Myth: Drugs always have been a part of American society and always will be; attempts to prohibit drug use thus are doomed to fail.

Fact: Drugs have not always been part of American society. Most Americans today can remember a time when drugs were not in the workplace or discussed casually on television, and when schools were free of drugs.

Myth: Current policies and proposals under discussion infringe on civil liberties.

Fact: Concerns about civil liberties do and should influence policy toward drug use. But the government has a legitimate role in curbing the use and supply of poisonous substances. The notion that curbing drug use implies America is striding toward a police state is nonsense.

Myth: Drug use is a "victimless crime." Americans have a right to do what they want with their own bodies.

Fact: Drug use is not victimless. Not only do individuals commit crimes under drug influence, but drug users are involved in 10 percent to 15 percent of highway fatalities, are two to three times more likely to be involved in workplace accidents (injuring others as well as themselves), and give birth to 100,000 cocaine addicted infants each year.

Myth: Current policies are too costly, money would be better spent on education, rehabilitation and economic development.

Fact: The U.S. spends less than 3 cents of every federal, state, and local government dollar on criminal justice of all kinds - of which only a tiny fraction goes for drug law enforcement. Even with recent funding increases for drug enforcement, the federal government spends five times as much on agricultural subsidies, four times as much on highway and mass transit subsidies, and three times as much on foreign aid.

-------

PeakTrader said...

It's really a crime problem, which drugs happen to be a component.

------

VangelV said...

It is only a crime because the government makes drugs illegal. Change the laws and most of the crime goes away.

------

PeakTrader said...

VangelV, do you really believe laws stop criminals?

If you want to stop criminals, you capture or kill them.

Making a crime legal doesn't really solve the problem.

---------

Mark J. Perry said...

As Thomas Sowell said, "There are no solutions, only trade offs."

Applying that logic to drugs, we have to compare the trade offs (costs and benefits) of drug prohibition vs. drug legalization.

Based on that comparison, I don't think it's even close; the costs of drug prohibition outweigh the benefits by several orders of magnitude, and the benefits of drug legalization outweigh the costs by several orders of magnitude.

And those orders of magnitude are so obvious and so enormously large, that I don't think the case for drug prohibition, or its advocates, can even be taken seriously. At all. Ever.

---------

PeakTrader said...

"The members of the (drug) commission are so stellar that it will be difficult to ignore this report."

As stellar as Obama (the Nobel laureate) and his economic team, and we've seen the results.

-------

morganovich said...

look at how much good decriminalization did for portugal.

it's clearly the right course.

--------

PeakTrader said...

Morganovich, your jumping to conclusions when the outcomes are still uncertain (treatment rather than decriminalization may be reducing drug use):

5 Years After: Portugal's Drug Decriminalization Policy Shows Positive Results
April 7, 2009

"Instead of being put into prison, addicts are going to treatment centers and they're learning how to control their drug usage or getting off drugs entirely.

Under the Portuguese plan, penalties for people caught dealing and trafficking drugs are unchanged; dealers are still jailed and subjected to fines depending on the crime. But people caught using or possessing small amounts—defined as the amount needed for 10 days of personal use—are brought before what's known as a "Dissuasion Commission," an administrative body created by the 2001 law.

Each three-person commission includes at least one lawyer or judge and one health care or social services worker. The panel has the option of recommending treatment, a small fine, or no sanction.

Peter Reuter, a criminologist at the University of Maryland, College Park, says he's skeptical decriminalization was the sole reason drug use slid in Portugal, noting that another factor, especially among teens, was a global decline in marijuana use."

The decriminalization of drugs in Portugal did not in any way decrease levels of consumption. On the contrary, "the consumption of drugs in Portugal increased by 4.2% - the percentage of people who have experimented with drugs at least once in their lifetime increased from 7.8% in 2001 to 12% in 2007 (IDT-Institute for Drugs and Drug Addiction Portuguese, 2008).

Rates of use of cocaine and amphetamine doubled in Portugal, seizures of cocaine have increased sevenfold between 2001 and 2006, the sixth highest in the world (WDR-World Drug Report, 2009).

In Portugal, since decriminalization has been implemented, the number of homicides related to drugs has increased 40%. "It was the only European country with a significant increase in (drug-related) murders between 2001 and 2006" (WDR, 2009).

Morganovich says: "decriminalization...it's clearly the right course."

I'm sure Obama felt the same way about his economic "stimulus."

Once the toothpaste is out of the tube, it won't be easy to put it back in.

---------

PeakTrader said...

Why don't we raise the speed limit to 75, and when enough people break that law, raise it to 80, then 85, etc.

Some people can handle driving 100 MPH, while others can't. However, as long as they only kill themselves, it's OK.

Rather than legalize drugs to increase demand, then tax it to decrease demand, and use the taxes for something unrelated to drugs, e.g. global warming, we need to spend money on rehabilitation.

A drunk, a heavy drug user, or a four pack a day cigarette smoker should have free access to the best therapy to quit, or at least cut down, for the benefit of themselves and society.

-------

morganovich said...

"Why don't we raise the speed limit to 75, and when enough people break that law, raise it to 80, then 85, etc."

this is an irrelevant argument.

it's totally orthogonal.

there is no speed limit on private property. you can build a track on your land and drive as fast as you want with no license and no insurance.

it is only when using public roads that you face a speed limit.

thus, your argument defeats itself. if drug law were like speed limits, then you could use whatever drugs you wanted so long as you were on private property.

------

PeakTrader said...

I won't use an analogy to make it easy on Morganovich.

I think the data will show:

More people use legal alcohol than all the illegal drugs combined.

More people use legal tobacco than all the illegal drugs combined.

More people use legal drugs than all the illegal drugs combined.

Why add fuel to the fire?

-------

VangelV said...

"Some people can handle driving 100 MPH, while others can't. However, as long as they only kill themselves, it's OK."

Some people can't drive at all at any speed. Do you propose to ban driving? If not let us stop with the silly arguments and focus this debate on the important issue. You own your body. That means that is is up to you to decide what you choose to ingest, not some idiot bureaucrat looking to buy votes.

And no, we are not talking about letting people put others at risk. We already have laws against impaired drivers.

"Rather than legalize drugs to increase demand, then tax it to decrease demand, and use the taxes for something unrelated to drugs, e.g. global warming, we need to spend money on rehabilitation."

Why? It is not the government's business what people do with their own bodies. It should not have the power to use confiscatory taxes on drugs any more than it should have the power to tax income, alcohol, tobacco, or food.