Political Crossfire Forums

[perdidochas]

Norrin Radd wrote: perdidochas wrote: brian bennett wrote:
bottom lines:

it costs three times as much to try to stop people from using drugs than the cost of said use,

and,

alcohol all by itself still costs more than the costs of both drug abuse and the pricetag for the drug war.

Alcohol also has about 6 times the number of users that illicit drugs have. I'm not saying that alcohol doesn't cause major problems, or that drugs shouldn't be legalized, those are different issues. My point, that you chose to ignore is that the primary reason for the increased cost of alcohol problems is the bigger user base of alcohol. It's a simple concept. More alcohol users than illicit drug users. If alcohol is equally bad to illict drugs, we would expect the cost of alcohol abuse to be greater than the cost of drug abuse.

I'm honestly agnostic on drug legalization, it really doesn't matter to me if legalization occurs or not. Some problems will be resolved by drug legalization (the drug war costs), but drug usage (including alcohol) does cost society.

Question: Did I read your link correctly? Do you conclude that in 2002, the "true cost" of drug use is $40 billion?

Let's assume that is true. Let's also assume that the cost of alcohol abuse is $148 billion (do you have a better figure?).

$148 billion for 51% of the population is the cost of alcohol abuse.
$40 billion for 8% of the population is the cost of drug (ab)use.

Any problem with that comparison? If so, it shows that alcohol, per capita, isn't as much of a problem as illicit drugs.


As I've said, I don't doubt at all that alcohol has a greater cost to society. However, half of the population consumes alcohol every year. Of course something that 140 million people consume is going to cost more to society than something that 22.4 million people consume. It's common sense.

You are right, to an extent, but I was wondering, if only 8% of Americans do illegal drugs, what is the percentage of teens that do illegal drugs?

I already showed that prescription drug abuse has tripled in teens since 1992, so what is the total percentage of teens who use illegal drugs, and/or who abuse prescription drugs?

Also, do you know what percentage of teens have bought, or been offered drugs on school grounds?

Common sense says the drug war is a complete failure when the easiest place to buy drugs is any public school.

Well, according to the fastats link above (see one of my earlier posts), its 12–13 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2
16–17 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.8
18–25 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.2
26-34 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5
35 years and over. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6

I'm neutral on the drug war. It doesn't affect me much. If it ends, I'm fine. If it keeps up, I'm fine. The drug war is one set of problems. Drug legalization would cause another set.

[Norrin Radd]

perdidochas wrote: Norrin Radd wrote: perdidochas wrote: brian bennett wrote:
bottom lines:

it costs three times as much to try to stop people from using drugs than the cost of said use,

and,

alcohol all by itself still costs more than the costs of both drug abuse and the pricetag for the drug war.

Alcohol also has about 6 times the number of users that illicit drugs have. I'm not saying that alcohol doesn't cause major problems, or that drugs shouldn't be legalized, those are different issues. My point, that you chose to ignore is that the primary reason for the increased cost of alcohol problems is the bigger user base of alcohol. It's a simple concept. More alcohol users than illicit drug users. If alcohol is equally bad to illict drugs, we would expect the cost of alcohol abuse to be greater than the cost of drug abuse.

I'm honestly agnostic on drug legalization, it really doesn't matter to me if legalization occurs or not. Some problems will be resolved by drug legalization (the drug war costs), but drug usage (including alcohol) does cost society.

Question: Did I read your link correctly? Do you conclude that in 2002, the "true cost" of drug use is $40 billion?

Let's assume that is true. Let's also assume that the cost of alcohol abuse is $148 billion (do you have a better figure?).

$148 billion for 51% of the population is the cost of alcohol abuse.
$40 billion for 8% of the population is the cost of drug (ab)use.

Any problem with that comparison? If so, it shows that alcohol, per capita, isn't as much of a problem as illicit drugs.


As I've said, I don't doubt at all that alcohol has a greater cost to society. However, half of the population consumes alcohol every year. Of course something that 140 million people consume is going to cost more to society than something that 22.4 million people consume. It's common sense.

You are right, to an extent, but I was wondering, if only 8% of Americans do illegal drugs, what is the percentage of teens that do illegal drugs?

I already showed that prescription drug abuse has tripled in teens since 1992, so what is the total percentage of teens who use illegal drugs, and/or who abuse prescription drugs?

Also, do you know what percentage of teens have bought, or been offered drugs on school grounds?

Common sense says the drug war is a complete failure when the easiest place to buy drugs is any public school.

Well, according to the fastats link above (see one of my earlier posts), its 12–13 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2
16–17 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.8
18–25 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.2
26-34 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5
35 years and over. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6

I'm neutral on the drug war. It doesn't affect me much. If it ends, I'm fine. If it keeps up, I'm fine. The drug war is one set of problems. Drug legalization would cause another set.

At least it would stop masked police officers from kicking in doors in the middle of the night and shooting innocent Americans at the wrong address.

At least it would stop tainted supplies from killing people like happened recently with the tainted heroin. At least maybe schools would not be the easiest place to buy drugs, at least we won't be spending 30,000 a year to take drug addicts and turn them into bitter, hardened convicts.

[brian bennett]

perdidochas wrote: brian bennett wrote:
bottom lines:

it costs three times as much to try to stop people from using drugs than the cost of said use,

and,

alcohol all by itself still costs more than the costs of both drug abuse and the pricetag for the drug war.

Alcohol also has about 6 times the number of users that illicit drugs have. I'm not saying that alcohol doesn't cause major problems, or that drugs shouldn't be legalized, those are different issues. My point, that you chose to ignore is that the primary reason for the increased cost of alcohol problems is the bigger user base of alcohol. It's a simple concept. More alcohol users than illicit drug users. If alcohol is equally bad to illict drugs, we would expect the cost of alcohol abuse to be greater than the cost of drug abuse.

i haven't ignored anything. i give in-depth responses to each new aspect you introduce. you keep moving the goal posts. that being said, here's something else you need to factor into the equation: most of the people using the other drugs are also using alcohol. in addition, alcohol is not "equally bad" -- it is actually much worse than most of the illegal drugs.

substituting the use of other drugs will actually help reduce the overall costs of drug abuse by lowering the costs associated currently with alcohol abuse.

perdidochas wrote:
I'm honestly agnostic on drug legalization, it really doesn't matter to me if legalization occurs or not. Some problems will be resolved by drug legalization (the drug war costs), but drug usage (including alcohol) does cost society.

Question: Did I read your link correctly? Do you conclude that in 2002, the "true cost" of drug use is $40 billion?


i conclude no such thing. what i conclude is that the numbers produced by the government for those cost elements which can be best described as the costs of drug abuse (rather than drug war) add up to about $44 billion.

two of the elements (premature death and health care costs) alone add up to $40.5 billion -- or 90.5 percent of the total costs of drug abuse. those numbers cannot simply be assumed to represent the "true costs" as well over 90% of all drug induced deaths are due to accidental overdose, and much of the health care costs are due to diseases spread through shared needles.

consequently, if one were looking to deduce a "true cost" of drug use, the premature death and health care cost figues would have to be reduced accordingly.


perdidochas wrote:
Let's assume that is true. Let's also assume that the cost of alcohol abuse is $148 billion (do you have a better figure?).

that was the number for 1992. but there is no official government estimate since then. strange, eh? they seem focused only on making estimates of the costs of using drugs other than alcohol.

perdidochas wrote:
$148 billion for 51% of the population is the cost of alcohol abuse.
$40 billion for 8% of the population is the cost of drug (ab)use.

Any problem with that comparison? If so, it shows that alcohol, per capita, isn't as much of a problem as illicit drugs.


yes, there is a problem. actually, there are several, but the most pertinent one is that the figure $148 billion is from 1992 whereas the $40 billion figure is from 2002. and as i explained, even $40 billion is an overestimate of the "true cost" of the use of other drugs since it could be largely avoided by ensuring the purity and dosage of the drugs and by the users practicing better hygiene.

if you really wanted to create a better scale for comparison, you would have to update the alcohol number -- but how? you need the measures of mayhem (death, arrests, disease rates, etc) to make a coherent guess.

but, all other things being equal, perhaps the ratio of costs has remained constant. that is, if the alcohol costs were nearly double the costs of all other drug use combined (including the vast majority of said cost which is actually caused by drug war) in 1992, we could assume that the ratio still holds true.

note: i do this only as an academic exercise, so don't get silly.

so, for 1992:

alcohol $148 billion

all others $97.7 billion

so the alcohol cost is 51% higher than the other drugs costs

and in 2002:

the total for all other drugs is $188 billion, that would generate an estimated alcohol cost of $284 billion (51% higher than the all other drugs cost)

now, since the costs attributed to other drugs is mostly the costs of drug war, the figure gets reduced to $44 billion.

but, not so fast, given that most of that $44 billion is actually other largely avoidable costs (accidental overdose and bad hygiene) the "true cost" is much lower, and those costs can legitimately be attributed to the cost of drug war -- as the people wouldn't be OD'ing at anywhere near the level they currently do.

so making all these various assumptions only leaves a small number as the "true cost" of drug abuse. perhaps as low as $10 or $15 billion per year (likely even less).

but let's be generous and say that the "true cost" is $20 billion. that's less than 10 percent of the alcohol cost.

hell, call it $28 billion and an even 10 percent. alcohol still costs way more than all other drugs combined.

and, i'm sorry but you really don't have a good foundation for estimating the per capita costs for the other drugs - simply because those numbers are almost guaranteed to be an underestimate.

but for grins, let's pretend they are entirely accurate. here's the latest national survey on drug use and health: http://www.drugabusestatistics.samhsa.gov/nsduh/2k4nsduh/2k4Results/apph.htm

which says there were 35.1 million past year users of illicit drugs and 155.5 million past year users of alcohol.

so, there were a mere 4.4 times as many alcohol users as all other drugs users. and they "cost" over 10 times as much as the users of other drugs -- way over.

even if we say that the drug user costs were as high as $40 billion, the "cost" per past year user works out to $1,114. for alcohol it works out to $1,827 per user.


perdidochas wrote:
As I've said, I don't doubt at all that alcohol has a greater cost to society. However, half of the population consumes alcohol every year. Of course something that 140 million people consume is going to cost more to society than something that 22.4 million people consume. It's common sense.

sorry, but that is hardly "common sense." here's why: what if 140 million people drink water, but 22.4 million drink wine -- which is going to "cost" more to society? it's a ridiculous assumption and there are a great variety of factors that must be evaluated that common sense does not address.

compounding the problem is that nothing our government tells us about drug use can be taken at face value -- i hope you can see that from this little exchange.

clearly, much much more than common sense is required to comprehend this stuff. indeed, "common sense" dictates that one investigate the whys and wherefores behind the numbers and then apply some academic rigor to them. suddenly, everything looks much different than what "common sense" might lead one to (erroneously) conclude.

[Norrin Radd]

Great post BB.

Truly well written. I just wanted you to know I appreciate the time that went into writing that.

[lovebush]

brian bennett wrote: [q
Quote:
"A study prepared by The Lewin Group for the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism estimated the total economic cost of alcohol and drug abuse to be $245.7 billion for 1992. Of this cost, $97.7 billion* was due to drug abuse."


the score would be:

alcohol - $148 billion

all illegal drugs combined - $97.7 billion

alcohol is always conveniently ignored.


and this doesn't give you pause? the drug we have legalized, is by far the most costly. I think legalizing pot would free up $ to pursue more harmful drugs.

[lovebush]

Norrin Radd wrote: All I can say is it is amazing how well propaganda has fooled the sheeple. It is sad the American people allow others to tell them what to think, instead of actually doing some simple research and reflecting on this issue.

I know a lot of cops and have talked with many of them about drugs and alcohol. While almost all of these cops are as brainwashed as the typical American regarding the dangers of drug use, they at least admit that alcohol causes way more problems than all illegal drugs combined. Now, some people will say this is because of the percentage of drinkers compared to the percentage of drug users and this is a factor, however, no drug causes more violence, more child abuse, more spousal abuse, more pain and suffering than alcohol causes.

The war on drugs has made EVERY SINGLE PROBLEM ASSOCIATED WITH DRUG USE WORSE.

I have made this statement several times at this forum and even the sheeple will not deny it is true.

Anyone care to disagree?

Anyone?

Stupid people make me want to puke.

start puking! I disagree.

[Norrin Radd]

lovebush wrote: Norrin Radd wrote: All I can say is it is amazing how well propaganda has fooled the sheeple. It is sad the American people allow others to tell them what to think, instead of actually doing some simple research and reflecting on this issue.

I know a lot of cops and have talked with many of them about drugs and alcohol. While almost all of these cops are as brainwashed as the typical American regarding the dangers of drug use, they at least admit that alcohol causes way more problems than all illegal drugs combined. Now, some people will say this is because of the percentage of drinkers compared to the percentage of drug users and this is a factor, however, no drug causes more violence, more child abuse, more spousal abuse, more pain and suffering than alcohol causes.

The war on drugs has made EVERY SINGLE PROBLEM ASSOCIATED WITH DRUG USE WORSE.

I have made this statement several times at this forum and even the sheeple will not deny it is true.

Anyone care to disagree?

Anyone?

Stupid people make me want to puke.

start puking! I disagree.

You are free to disagree, but what do you base your opinions on?

I base mine on hundreds of hours of research, hundreds of hours of reflecting, discussion and of course personal experiences.

No matter how much time I have spent on this issue does not make me right, but it does help in understanding some of the propganda that has been told to us by the government/establishment.

Back in the 1930's, the Reefer Madness campaign told the people that smoking one joint would lead the user to violence, rape and murder.

WHy were such lies made up about marijuana?

Has the "establishment" lied about any other drugs?

Do you support the war on drugs?

If no, do you have any ideas for replacing the war on drugs?

If drugs were legalized, what do you think would be the worst case scenario?

[brian bennett]

Norrin Radd wrote: Great post BB.

Truly well written. I just wanted you to know I appreciate the time that went into writing that.

thanks norrin!

[brian bennett]

lovebush wrote: brian bennett wrote: [q
Quote:
"A study prepared by The Lewin Group for the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism estimated the total economic cost of alcohol and drug abuse to be $245.7 billion for 1992. Of this cost, $97.7 billion* was due to drug abuse."


the score would be:

alcohol - $148 billion

all illegal drugs combined - $97.7 billion

alcohol is always conveniently ignored.


and this doesn't give you pause? the drug we have legalized, is by far the most costly. I think legalizing pot would free up $ to pursue more harmful drugs.

alcohol is the most harmful drug -- so are you suggesting that we legalize pot and chase after alcohol?

you aren't putting much thought into the situation are you?

[lovebush]

Norrin Radd wrote: lovebush wrote: Norrin Radd wrote: All I can say is it is amazing how well propaganda has fooled the sheeple. It is sad the American people allow others to tell them what to think, instead of actually doing some simple research and reflecting on this issue.

I know a lot of cops and have talked with many of them about drugs and alcohol. While almost all of these cops are as brainwashed as the typical American regarding the dangers of drug use, they at least admit that alcohol causes way more problems than all illegal drugs combined. Now, some people will say this is because of the percentage of drinkers compared to the percentage of drug users and this is a factor, however, no drug causes more violence, more child abuse, more spousal abuse, more pain and suffering than alcohol causes.

The war on drugs has made EVERY SINGLE PROBLEM ASSOCIATED WITH DRUG USE WORSE.

I have made this statement several times at this forum and even the sheeple will not deny it is true.

Anyone care to disagree?

Anyone?

Stupid people make me want to puke.

start puking! I disagree.

You are free to disagree, but what do you base your opinions on?

I base mine on hundreds of hours of research, hundreds of hours of reflecting, discussion and of course personal experiences.

No matter how much time I have spent on this issue does not make me right, but it does help in understanding some of the propganda that has been told to us by the government/establishment.

Back in the 1930's, the Reefer Madness campaign told the people that smoking one joint would lead the user to violence, rape and murder.

WHy were such lies made up about marijuana?

Has the "establishment" lied about any other drugs?

Do you support the war on drugs?

If no, do you have any ideas for replacing the war on drugs?

If drugs were legalized, what do you think would be the worst case scenario?


Well lets see what Ive learned from what I thought might be an interesting public policy discussion.
1) You've spent hours researching the topic. Hmm, sounds like someone I might learn something from :think: .
2) while you research you dismiss anything that doesn't support your preconceived position as "propaganda". :-|
3) those like myself who disagree with you are, stupid sheeple, that make you want to puke.
4) I can hardly contain my enthusiasm for continuing a discus ion with you :bnghd: .

You might consider what your purpose is when you enter into a debate. If its to demean people and chase them away so you can feel superior, and pretend that you've made a cogent argument. You've got this thing down. If you hope to see if your position can hold up to the scrutiny of others, perhaps winning some to join your position, or maybe even having your mind changed. then you might consider treating those in the discussion, with less contempt.
If the legalization movement is ever going to get anywhere, you've got to work on your spokespeople. A great example Ive recently seen was a public hearing to allow a medicinal pot store to operate from a crtain location in Sanfransisco. On one side of the debate were well dressed business people and concerned parents who didn't want the store there. On the other side of the debate, well lets just say they didn't dress for the occasion, or shave, and I suspect some didn't even shower. Who do you suppose won?? in one of the most liberal Cities in the country.

[Norrin Radd]

lovebush wrote:

Well lets see what Ive learned from what I thought might be an interesting public policy discussion.
1) You've spent hours researching the topic. Hmm, sounds like someone I might learn something from :think: .
2) while you research you dismiss anything that doesn't support your preconceived position as "propaganda". :-|
3) those like myself who disagree with you are, stupid sheeple, that make you want to puke.
4) I can hardly contain my enthusiasm for continuing a discus ion with you :bnghd: .

You might consider what your purpose is when you enter into a debate. If its to demean people and chase them away so you can feel superior, and pretend that you've made a cogent argument. You've got this thing down. If you hope to see if your position can hold up to the scrutiny of others, perhaps winning some to join your position, or maybe even having your mind changed. then you might consider treating those in the discussion, with less contempt.
If the legalization movement is ever going to get anywhere, you've got to work on your spokespeople. A great example Ive recently seen was a public hearing to allow a medicinal pot store to operate from a crtain location in Sanfransisco. On one side of the debate were well dressed business people and concerned parents who didn't want the store there. On the other side of the debate, well lets just say they didn't dress for the occasion, or shave, and I suspect some didn't even shower. Who do you suppose won?? in one of the most liberal Cities in the country.

If I offended you, I apologise, but I have been debating this topic for years and I get very frustrated by people who are not willing to do a lick of research on the issue.

It seems most people form their opinion from personal experiences and from propaganda from the government and media.

Ever see this piece.......?

http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/

Again I apologise for being rude, as I said, I have been debating this issue for years and most people are not as courteous as you.

[lovebush]

Norrin Radd wrote: [
Ever see this piece.......?

http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/

Again I apologise for being rude, as I said, I have been debating this issue for years and most people are not as courteous as you.


Apology accepted. You might consider that the vast majority of those who disagree with you, wont even be interested in hearing you out. they are the ones who currently have what they want and aren't interested in changing anything. An assumption is made (right or wrong) that anyone advocating your position ,is merely an addict, hoping to make getting high easier and cheaper. Have you ever heard a smoker, deny the evidence that smoking is harmful to your health? Consider the arguments they make.... now honestly look at your approach and see if there is any similarity.
lets be clear about our terms, propaganda is not by definition untrue. it is meant to sway ones opinion in a certain direction. I could describe the link you gave me as prolegalisation propaganda, and I would be right. that's not to say that I believe the things stated are untrue.
Can we do more than speculate on what might happen with legalization? We are talking about the lives of millions of people. should you be surprised that there are not alot of people in a big rush to make a change that could destroy thousands of people and ruin the lives of millions of those that love them.
Ill get back to your questions now but I cant remember what they were, See what meth will do to you :bang:

[Sukoi]

lovebush wrote: If the legalization movement is ever going to get anywhere, you've got to work on your spokespeople.

We are getting somewhere; keep an eye on Nevada and Colorado this November and we've got some great people speaking for our side. Meet the speakers from LEAP.

[lovebush]

Norrin Radd wrote:

Quote: The war on drugs has made EVERY SINGLE PROBLEM ASSOCIATED WITH DRUG USE WORSE.

I have made this statement several times at this forum and even the sheeple will not deny it is true.


this is a very broad statement that encompases things that might be true and Im interested in hearing you make a case for them. but I very much doubt it can be completely supported. untill I hear more Im inclined to consider it for what it is, an unsubstsiated assertion on your part. because it is such a broad assertion, and the assertion is yours, that puts a huge burden of proff on you to support it. Im just an unedducated junky. but Im willing to bet that I could find some factor that you couldnt prove and since your asertion requires proof for"every single problem" I feel safe to disagree with your statement.


Quote:
You are free to disagree, but what do you base your opinions on?

my own experience, what Ive seen some reading and a brother who is a police officer and the first Drug Recognition Expert to be able to train other officers in the state. He knows a little about drugs. (yes if youre wondering , family gatherings were always interesting while I was using)

Quote:
Back in the 1930's, the Reefer Madness campaign told the people that smoking one joint would lead the user to violence, rape and murder.

WHy were such lies made up about marijuana?


Im not totaly aware of what went on here, but one facter might have been a causation falicy(I dont know if I said that right). they look at the group of people smokig weed and say wow there is lots of bad thing happening around this group of people.(not the least of wich was a disdain for the American Gov) so they say "it must be the pot" to say they "lied" is not the same as saying something they said turned out to not be true. surly you have made assertions that turned out to be wrong. your intent was not to mislead, you were simply wrong.

Quote: Has the "establishment" lied about any other drugs?

dont know that they did or if they are.


Quote: Do you support the war on drugs?

In part, it wouldnt take much to convince me to support decriminalisation of pot. I highly doubt you will convince me to legalise everything across the board.


Quote: If no, do you have any ideas for replacing the war on drugs?

no but as I have stated earlyer. If we legalised pot, it might alow more focus and $ to fight more harmful drugs.

If drugs were legalized, what do you think would be the worst case scenario?

this has a different answer for each drug, some might even be positive effects(only speculation) if those who want to escape reallity for a period of time chose pot because it was legal, instead of some of the more harmful drugs or alcohol, I could see a possible benifit.

If meth were legalised. wow lots of dangerous people running the steets, people incuding kids stoking out all over the place. kids being neglected by tweeked parents. Even when I was using I thought about what would happen if it was legalised. quite often the only reson I came down was because my suply was interupted, lack of sleep does permenant damage to the brain.

befor you say these things already happen. remember there are people who believe in obaying the laws of the land. while at the same time might not have the best judjment. these people might never try meth or these drugs because they wont break the law. no law no restraint.

more later Ive got to spend some time with the family.

[Norrin Radd]

lovebush wrote: Norrin Radd wrote: [
Ever see this piece.......?

http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/

Again I apologise for being rude, as I said, I have been debating this issue for years and most people are not as courteous as you.


Apology accepted. You might consider that the vast majority of those who disagree with you, wont even be interested in hearing you out. they are the ones who currently have what they want and aren't interested in changing anything. An assumption is made (right or wrong) that anyone advocating your position ,is merely an addict, hoping to make getting high easier and cheaper. Have you ever heard a smoker, deny the evidence that smoking is harmful to your health? Consider the arguments they make.... now honestly look at your approach and see if there is any similarity.
lets be clear about our terms, propaganda is not by definition untrue. it is meant to sway ones opinion in a certain direction. I could describe the link you gave me as prolegalisation propaganda, and I would be right. that's not to say that I believe the things stated are untrue.
Can we do more than speculate on what might happen with legalization? We are talking about the lives of millions of people. should you be surprised that there are not alot of people in a big rush to make a change that could destroy thousands of people and ruin the lives of millions of those that love them.
Ill get back to your questions now but I cant remember what they were, See what meth will do to you :bang:

People who fear legalization are not looking at the big picture.

First of all, most drugs are readily available now, with public schools being one of the easiest places to purchase drugs.

Student reports of availability of drugs
Percent of high school seniors reporting they could obtain drugs fairly easily or very easily, 2004

Marijuana 85.8 %
Amphetamines 55.4
Cocaine 47.8
Barbiturate 46.3
Crack 39.2
LSD 33.1
Tranquilizers 30.1
Heroin 29.6
Crystal methamphetamine 26.7
PCP 24.2
Amyl/butyl nitrites 20.0
Source: Press release: Overall teen drug use continues gradual decline; but use of inhalants rises, University of Michigan News and Information Services, December 21, 2004. (Acrobat file 457.5KB)

In 2003, 29% of all students in grades 9 through 12 reported someone had offered, sold, or given them an illegal drug on school property. This was an increase from 1993 when 24% of such students reported that illegal drugs were available to them on school property.

Between 1993 and 2003, males and females reported that illegal drugs were made available to them on school property increased. Males were more likely than females to report that drugs were offered, sold, or given to them on school property. In 2003, 32% of males and 25% of females reported availability of drugs.

Source: BJS jointly with the U.S. Department of Education, Indicators of School Crime and Safety, 2004, NCJ 205290, November 2004.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/du.htm

Second of all, people seem to fear that if drugs are legalized that everyone will be rushing out to buy them. If this were true, then why do only 50% of the American people drink? I believe that if drugs were legalized drug use would rise significantly at first, but then quickly level off at a rate not significantly higher than the current rate. Of course this is just speculation, but even if drug use did go up significantly, many other problems would be alleviated, which in my opinion, is an acceptable tradeoff.

Third, the war on drugs has made almost all the problems associated with drug use worse. The high cost of drugs leads people to theft, prostitution, as well as depression, loss of jobs, child abuse, spousal abuse and a host of other problems like gang violence. Putting people in prison for drugs turns them into bitter hardened criminals who have trouble getting and keeping jobs after they are paroled, thus often times they return to crime in order to survive. The war on drugs is funding criminals who place little to no value on human life, creates impure products which can lead to death by impurities and overdose, forces people to go to drug dealers and immerse themselves in the drug culture, thus leading to trying harder drugs and criminal activity.

We are spending apprx. 50 billion a year on the war on drugs, yet there has not been a single positive accomplishment from this war. The govenrment can't even keep drugs out of our schools and prisons, yet some people think that the war on drugs is worth supporting????????

In closing I will add that the cost to liberty from the war on drugs has been severe. No-knock drug raids, illegal searches and asset forfeiture laws are but a few of the ways that our liberties have been infringed all in the name of the war on drugs.

EDIT: When looking at goverment figures it is often times important to look at how they are presented.

For instance, in the example above, you will see the government reports that "In 2003, 29% of all students in grades 9 through 12 reported someone had offered, sold, or given them an illegal drug on school property."

Now, this statistic is for grades 9 through 12, but what do you think the figure is just for 12th graders?

The government is very good at presenting statisitcs in a way that furthers their agenda. While some people would use these statistics to show why we need to continue the war on drugs, in my opinion they prove the failure of the war on drugs and show how futile it is to even try to stop drugs.

[brian bennett]

Norrin Radd wrote: The government is very good at presenting statisitcs in a way that furthers their agenda. While some people would use these statistics to show why we need to continue the war on drugs, in my opinion they prove the failure of the war on drugs and show how futile it is to even try to stop drugs.

and you, sir, are doing a great job at getting to the bottom of it all and trying to make it easy for other people to see past the hysteria of the government's claims. the key things to remember when considering the claims are: "what are they not telling us?" and "how does this fit into the big picture?"

getting people to actually pay attention, however, is the hard part.

[lovebush]

[quote="Norrin Radd"][

Quote: Second of all, people seem to fear that if drugs are legalized that everyone will be rushing out to buy them. If this were true, then why do only 50% of the American people drink? I believe that if drugs were legalized drug use would rise significantly at first, but then quickly level off at a rate not significantly higher than the current rate. Of course this is just speculation, but even if drug use did go up significantly, many other problems would be alleviated, which in my opinion, is an acceptable tradeoff.


Only50%drink! :shock: Alcohol is not nearly as addicting as meth or crack. I bet the # of people who have had a drink, or even been drunk, is much higher. for me I was an avid drinker. I drank to get drunk at least 3or4 times a week. at 27 I tried meth for the first time. I lost all interest in booze that day! the effects of meth were so overwhelmingly preferable to getting drunk. I was sure I could control it better also, but that didn't turn out to be true. So when you say 50% drink my mind says if meth were legal, the # of kids that would try it would be huge. I have a teen daughter. Her and her friends think its just great to drink mountain dew or those energy drinks and get all wound up. (I try to discourage it) the very thought of meth being legal and readily available for cheap. makes me cringe.
Another factor is marketing, until recently booze has not been advertised on TV but now it is. the power of marketing is well known. especially when they target teens. how long before you see the ads for the latest more powerful amphetamine. Or amphetamine /viagra combo "Not only Will your erection last 4 hours, You will to!"



Quote: We are spending apprx. 50 billion a year on the war on drugs, yet there has not been a single positive accomplishment from this war. The govenrment can't even keep drugs out of our schools and prisons, yet some people think that the war on drugs is worth supporting????????

I am fairly certain that if meth had been legal I would have done far more permanent damage to myself or possibly stoked out and died. So Im sure you will understand when I strongly disagree with the no positive accomplishment. When I was quiting, a strong motivator for me was remembering how I suffered when I couldn't get the drug. "sick and tired of being sick and tired" the drug busts, the rip offs were all motivators for me to get clean.
the fact that inspite of the drug war ,drugs still being used and available, to me speaks to their very addictive nature. legalizing means more people trying them , means more people addicted.


Quote: Third, the war on drugs has made almost all the problems associated with drug use worse. The high cost of drugs leads people to theft, prostitution, as well as depression, loss of jobs, child abuse, spousal abuse and a host of other problems like gang violence. Putting people in prison for drugs turns them into bitter hardened criminals who have trouble getting and keeping jobs after they are paroled, thus often times they return to crime in order to survive. The war on drugs is funding criminals who place little to no value on human life, creates impure products which can lead to death by impurities and overdose, forces people to go to drug dealers and immerse themselves in the drug culture, thus leading to trying harder drugs and criminal activity.


this is another place where I would point out that its difficult to speak of all drugs at once. If we were speaking about pot alone, then I would agree with most of this. When people smoke a bowl, that's it, their on the couch with their dr.pepper and ten moon pies and as the song goes"sit back in the glorious expectation of a genuine junk food high" most people stop after a good munchee kicks in. there not lookin for a fight they dont want to go out driving(in most cases) and if they smoke more the end up catatonic ,and are even less likely to hurt anyone. But as with alcohol there is a tendency with crack & meth to think wow this is a great high, so a little more will make it even better! when drugs are expensive and harder to get, some (not all) people will pace themselves. If I had a steady supply of cheap meth I did far more and deteriorated far quicker. As I stated earlier, sometimes the only reason I slept was because my supply was cut of. people who are very high are dangerous. they abuse their spouces and kids and can be very violent.

Quote: The government is very good at presenting statisitcs in a way that furthers their agenda. While some people would use these statistics to show why we need to continue the war on drugs, in my opinion they prove the failure of the war on drugs and show how futile it is to even try to stop drugs.

in any debate stats are always suspect they can be manipulated and made to support most positions.

Again I would say that if we were arguing about just marijuana, I think you would have me on your side. But when you lump in all drugs together. You have a long way to go.

the biggest obstacle I think being, the # of people (kids) who wont try drugs only because they are illegal.

[Norrin Radd]

[quote="lovebush"] Norrin Radd wrote: [

Quote: Second of all, people seem to fear that if drugs are legalized that everyone will be rushing out to buy them. If this were true, then why do only 50% of the American people drink? I believe that if drugs were legalized drug use would rise significantly at first, but then quickly level off at a rate not significantly higher than the current rate. Of course this is just speculation, but even if drug use did go up significantly, many other problems would be alleviated, which in my opinion, is an acceptable tradeoff.


Only50%drink! :shock: Alcohol is not nearly as addicting as meth or crack. I bet the # of people who have had a drink, or even been drunk, is much higher. for me I was an avid drinker. I drank to get drunk at least 3or4 times a week. at 27 I tried meth for the first time. I lost all interest in booze that day! the effects of meth were so overwhelmingly preferable to getting drunk. I was sure I could control it better also, but that didn't turn out to be true. So when you say 50% drink my mind says if meth were legal, the # of kids that would try it would be huge. I have a teen daughter. Her and her friends think its just great to drink mountain dew or those energy drinks and get all wound up. (I try to discourage it) the very thought of meth being legal and readily available for cheap. makes me cringe.
Another factor is marketing, until recently booze has not been advertised on TV but now it is. the power of marketing is well known. especially when they target teens. how long before you see the ads for the latest more powerful amphetamine. Or amphetamine /viagra combo "Not only Will your erection last 4 hours, You will to!"



Quote: We are spending apprx. 50 billion a year on the war on drugs, yet there has not been a single positive accomplishment from this war. The govenrment can't even keep drugs out of our schools and prisons, yet some people think that the war on drugs is worth supporting????????

I am fairly certain that if meth had been legal I would have done far more permanent damage to myself or possibly stoked out and died. So Im sure you will understand when I strongly disagree with the no positive accomplishment. When I was quiting, a strong motivator for me was remembering how I suffered when I couldn't get the drug. "sick and tired of being sick and tired" the drug busts, the rip offs were all motivators for me to get clean.
the fact that inspite of the drug war ,drugs still being used and available, to me speaks to their very addictive nature. legalizing means more people trying them , means more people addicted.


Quote: Third, the war on drugs has made almost all the problems associated with drug use worse. The high cost of drugs leads people to theft, prostitution, as well as depression, loss of jobs, child abuse, spousal abuse and a host of other problems like gang violence. Putting people in prison for drugs turns them into bitter hardened criminals who have trouble getting and keeping jobs after they are paroled, thus often times they return to crime in order to survive. The war on drugs is funding criminals who place little to no value on human life, creates impure products which can lead to death by impurities and overdose, forces people to go to drug dealers and immerse themselves in the drug culture, thus leading to trying harder drugs and criminal activity.


this is another place where I would point out that its difficult to speak of all drugs at once. If we were speaking about pot alone, then I would agree with most of this. When people smoke a bowl, that's it, their on the couch with their dr.pepper and ten moon pies and as the song goes"sit back in the glorious expectation of a genuine junk food high" most people stop after a good munchee kicks in. there not lookin for a fight they dont want to go out driving(in most cases) and if they smoke more the end up catatonic ,and are even less likely to hurt anyone. But as with alcohol there is a tendency with crack & meth to think wow this is a great high, so a little more will make it even better! when drugs are expensive and harder to get, some (not all) people will pace themselves. If I had a steady supply of cheap meth I did far more and deteriorated far quicker. As I stated earlier, sometimes the only reason I slept was because my supply was cut of. people who are very high are dangerous. they abuse their spouces and kids and can be very violent.

Quote: The government is very good at presenting statisitcs in a way that furthers their agenda. While some people would use these statistics to show why we need to continue the war on drugs, in my opinion they prove the failure of the war on drugs and show how futile it is to even try to stop drugs.

in any debate stats are always suspect they can be manipulated and made to support most positions.

Again I would say that if we were arguing about just marijuana, I think you would have me on your side. But when you lump in all drugs together. You have a long way to go.

the biggest obstacle I think being, the # of people (kids) who wont try drugs only because they are illegal.

I was using the figure that someone else pisted for the number of Americans who drink. I actuallt don't know the figure, so I did a quick search. I see estimates from 63% to 86%.

Sorry about that, I am usually much more careful with stats.

Now, here is another stat concerning alcohol........

Reuters story/

Abuse of alcohol kills roughly 100,000 Americans a year, the third-leading cause of preventable deaths after smoking and physical inactivity. Binge drinking accounted for roughly half those 100,000 deaths, Naimi said.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0101-04.htm

According the the CDC,

In 2001, excessive alcohol use was responsible for approximately 75,000 preventable deaths

The stat above has limitations which are explained at the link.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5337a2.htm

JAMA claims........

Results The leading causes of death in 2000 were tobacco (435 000 deaths; 18.1% of total US deaths), poor diet and physical inactivity (400 000 deaths; 16.6%), and alcohol consumption (85 000 deaths; 3.5%). Other actual causes of death were microbial agents (75 000), toxic agents (55 000), motor vehicle crashes (43 000), incidents involving firearms (29 000), sexual behaviors (20 000), and illicit use of drugs (17 000).

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/291/10/1238

NOw, if you look at the above statisitcs, you will see that over 25 times as many people die from tobacco compared to illicit drug use.

Over 4 times as many people die from alcohol as compared to deaths from illicit drug use.

Should we ban alcohol and tobacco?

If no, why not? They kill way more people than all illegal drugs combined.

[lovebush]

Norrin Radd wrote: [

Results The leading causes of death in 2000 were tobacco (435 000 deaths; 18.1% of total US deaths), poor diet and physical inactivity (400 000 deaths; 16.6%), and alcohol consumption (85 000 deaths; 3.5%). Other actual causes of death were microbial agents (75 000), toxic agents (55 000), motor vehicle crashes (43 000), incidents involving firearms (29 000), sexual behaviors (20 000), and illicit use of drugs (17 000).

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/291/10/1238

NOw, if you look at the above statisitcs, you will see that over 25 times as many people die from tobacco compared to illicit drug use.

Over 4 times as many people die from alcohol as compared to deaths from illicit drug use.

Should we ban alcohol and tobacco?

If no, why not? They kill way more people than all illegal drugs combined.


this really cuts to the core of the argument. this was touched on earlier. the # of people who drink alcohol and smoke is far higher than all illicit drugs combined. So here we have leading causes of death and misery in our society being two addictive substances that are legal and readily available. Why would we want to add meth or crack to the list?

[Sukoi]

lovebush wrote: Norrin Radd wrote: [

Results The leading causes of death in 2000 were tobacco (435 000 deaths; 18.1% of total US deaths), poor diet and physical inactivity (400 000 deaths; 16.6%), and alcohol consumption (85 000 deaths; 3.5%). Other actual causes of death were microbial agents (75 000), toxic agents (55 000), motor vehicle crashes (43 000), incidents involving firearms (29 000), sexual behaviors (20 000), and illicit use of drugs (17 000).

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/291/10/1238

NOw, if you look at the above statisitcs, you will see that over 25 times as many people die from tobacco compared to illicit drug use.

Over 4 times as many people die from alcohol as compared to deaths from illicit drug use.

Should we ban alcohol and tobacco?

If no, why not? They kill way more people than all illegal drugs combined.


this really cuts to the core of the argument. this was touched on earlier. the # of people who drink alcohol and smoke is far higher than all illicit drugs combined. So here we have leading causes of death and misery in our society being two addictive substances that are legal and readily available. Why would we want to add meth or crack to the list?

Actually, what cuts to "the core of the whole arguement" is the question in the original post: Quote: Does congress have the constitutional power to tell the citizens of the United States that they cannot posses drugs for their own personal use? And the answer is a resounding NO, THEY DO NOT!!!

But to add to your question, why would we want cars on the road that are less safe than Mercede's and Volvo's? I mean, those Chevy's and Ford's kill thousands every year, so why should we allow those vehicles that are proven to be less safe? Perhaps the people can decide for themselves when it comes to substances as well as vehicles eh? What's wrong with that?