IGX

I didn't know this:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/20 ... -portugal/

On July 1, 2001, a nationwide law in Portugal took effect that decriminalized all drugs, including cocaine and heroin. Under the new legal framework, all drugs were "decriminalized," not "legalized." Thus, drug possession for personal use and drug usage itself are still legally prohibited, but violations of those prohibitions are deemed to be exclusively administrative violations and are removed completely from the criminal realm. Drug trafficking continues to be prosecuted as a criminal offense.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080

Not as "free" as the Forbes article implies. But probably much better than what the US does.

Just another one of Ron Paul's "crazy" and "dangerous" ideas.

"Legalization" does carry an administrative burden that de-criminalization does not. I know a number of Humbolt and BC growers are very much supportive of de-criminalization of Pot because the overhead of avoiding LE is much more known and acceptable than competing with a phillip morris in the marketplace.

Here's an odd mix, Switzerland:

http://www.newser.com/story/44009/swiss ... tions.html

Doctor supervised heroin injections are legal, but they don't want to legalize pot. I think 60 Minutes covered this a long time ago, it opened my eyes to the idea that decriminalizing a drug is not a government endorsement of a drug or an approval of drug use. If you don't accept that you can never get out of prohibition.

What's the point of decriminalizing it? Making it legal or "not illegal" doesn't do a thing to stop junkies from abusing. All it does it cut down on the expenses of pursuing and prosecuting druggies. It's not like a crack addict is going to stop sucking dicks for a hit just because the cops turn a blind eye to it.

Kraj 2.0 wrote:What's the point of decriminalizing it? Making it legal or "not illegal" doesn't do a thing to stop junkies from abusing. All it does it cut down on the expenses of pursuing and prosecuting druggies. It's not like a crack addict is going to stop sucking dicks for a hit just because the cops turn a blind eye to it.

Well obviously you're wrong.

kreator wrote:

Kraj 2.0 wrote:What's the point of decriminalizing it? Making it legal or "not illegal" doesn't do a thing to stop junkies from abusing. All it does it cut down on the expenses of pursuing and prosecuting druggies. It's not like a crack addict is going to stop sucking dicks for a hit just because the cops turn a blind eye to it.

Well obviously you're wrong.

How do you figure?

Portuguese metrics.

Kraj 2.0 wrote:

kreator wrote:

Kraj 2.0 wrote:What's the point of decriminalizing it? Making it legal or "not illegal" doesn't do a thing to stop junkies from abusing. All it does it cut down on the expenses of pursuing and prosecuting druggies. It's not like a crack addict is going to stop sucking dicks for a hit just because the cops turn a blind eye to it.

Well obviously you're wrong.

How do you figure?

Did you read the article?

Kraj 2.0 wrote:

kreator wrote:

Kraj 2.0 wrote:What's the point of decriminalizing it? Making it legal or "not illegal" doesn't do a thing to stop junkies from abusing. All it does it cut down on the expenses of pursuing and prosecuting druggies. It's not like a crack addict is going to stop sucking dicks for a hit just because the cops turn a blind eye to it.

Well obviously you're wrong.

How do you figure?

You take the money out of enforcement and incarceration and put it into treatment.

It's more than that. Drugs like cocaine are very inexpensive to manufacture. But, with criminalization, you create legal and supply control points which drive the cost up. As the cost goes up, the addict on the street becomes financially pressured, and finds themselves doing things they would not do if their supply cost some nominal maintenance fee.

Fat Cat wrote:It's more than that. Drugs like cocaine are very inexpensive to manufacture. But, with criminalization, you create legal and supply control points which drive the cost up. As the cost goes up, the addict on the street becomes financially pressured, and finds themselves doing things they would not do if their supply cost some nominal maintenance fee.

Yup, the overlap between robberies and drug addiction is pretty high. As seen here:
http://www.umsl.edu/~keelr/180/drgcrime.html

No fucking shit.... didn't work for liquor in the US and it's not working for dope either.

“This development can not only be attributed to decriminalisation but to a confluence of treatment and risk reduction policies.”

The people who can handle the shit should be left in peace. The folks who don't want the shit should be left in peace. The folks who can't handle the shit need help.

Long over due.

Yeah, it's also one of Ron Paul's "Crazy Ideas". Nothing sadder than an idea that arrives before its time.

The article doesn't load for me so no, I didn't read it.

The whole "take money from LE and put it into treatment" idea could work, theoretically, but I don't really think there's much helping a junky unless they truly want to get off it, and even so I don't really agree with my tax money being used to help people stupid enough to get addicted to drugs. Maybe I'm insensitive to their plight but I've gone my whole life without ever even trying drugs or tobacco, and I have maybe 2-3 alcoholic drinks a year. I know that no good comes from that shit and I steer clear of it. If I can do it then I expect everyone else to have equal resolve. All the treatment centers and tax money in the world can't fix stupid. If you let yourself get hooked on the shit then you deserve whatever's coming to you.

Fat Cat wrote:It's more than that. Drugs like cocaine are very inexpensive to manufacture. But, with criminalization, you create legal and supply control points which drive the cost up. As the cost goes up, the addict on the street becomes financially pressured, and finds themselves doing things they would not do if their supply cost some nominal maintenance fee.

Exactly. Addiction is a terrible problem but with prohibition, you create a monster, a criminal subculture. Think about how many problems go away if a heroin habit cost ten bucks a day at Walgrens. I really don't think you wind up with more addicts by making it convenient. Really a potential addict is going to run into a substance to abuse one way or another. But I have to believe it will be easier for them to straighten out when the time comes if they don't have the baggage of criminality working against them as well as the addiction itself. You want to make any predictions on this kid putting together a clean sober life if he should come to his senses one day?

Fat Cat wrote:It's more than that. Drugs like cocaine are very inexpensive to manufacture. But, with criminalization, you create legal and supply control points which drive the cost up. As the cost goes up, the addict on the street becomes financially pressured, and finds themselves doing things they would not do if their supply cost some nominal maintenance fee.

Also, OD's are less likely because Big Pharma can produce drugs with predictable dosage.

To be fair, he does look like fun.

Gene wrote:The people who can handle the shit should be left in peace.

Exactly! I know lots of high functioning crack and heroin addicts - I say legalize that stuff, and let's get more of 'em!

The junkies themselves are mostly harmless. Where the real violence lies in the drug trade is in control over the supply channels, both for participants in the distribution, and the LEO who get in their way.

Businesses whose products are legal settle their differences with lawyers, ones with illegal products have to use physical violence.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:"Legalization" does carry an administrative burden that de-criminalization does not. I know a number of Humbolt and BC growers are very much supportive of de-criminalization of Pot because the overhead of avoiding LE is much more known and acceptable than competing with a phillip morris in the marketplace.

Someone I know from Vancouver Island made the case to me that the current status quo in BC allows people at the bottom of the social rungs to be entrepreneurial with pot growing/selling as a way of raking together enough cash to go legit, open non-drug businesses, and join the middle class, an opportunity that would be denied them if big business moved into the pot biz.

Fat Cat wrote:It's more than that. Drugs like cocaine are very inexpensive to manufacture. But, with criminalization, you create legal and supply control points which drive the cost up. As the cost goes up, the addict on the street becomes financially pressured, and finds themselves doing things they would not do if their supply cost some nominal maintenance fee.

As opposed to something that's legal that the government can make $$$ from taxing and regulating?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... juana.html

be interesting to follow, especially since hamsterdam is putting more restrictions on their weed.

Re: Copenhagen & marijuana legalization debate:

This, he argued, would leave the revenues, which are estimated at £200m, in the control of the city's notorious biker gangs

If use & possession are decriminalized, but growth & sale continue to be prosecuted, the Black Market continues.
...sort of like what happens in much of the US today.

One of my training partners is Junky. He's 25, opiate addict from age 15. Now is on daily Doc RX'ed dose of Suboxone (better than methadone he tells me). He's employed in weird data management niche of the legal profession and makes just under 6 figures. Oh yeah...he pulls 675 raw, benches close to 4 and squats in high 500's with knee wraps.