Sunday May 27, 2012

Order by Time Order by Popularity

68 Comments

Login to comment

  • 0

    some14some

    Ofcourse not, you can not separate crime from (ANY) business, atleast in Japan !

  • 0

    telecasterplayer

    you can with marijuana, that's just an herb. folks can just grow it. but that stuff that requires laboratories to produce, that's problematic.

  • 0

    my2sense

    Opening bit to Layer Cake covered this one and I agreed....

  • 0

    ppayne

    No, but why don't you make all minor possession a $5000-25000 fine instead of jail time? I mean come on, putting people away for several years is ridiculous. The state could use the money instead, make them pay $$$ (or ¥¥¥).

  • 0

    combinibento

    LOL. If it was legal there would be no "crime" to drive out of business. So the answer is No. Is this one of the logic questions found on the GRE, LSAT, etc.?

  • 0

    Zenny11

    Even if made legal, there will still be associated crime by people selling without sticking to the laws, permission, etc.

  • 0

    Mittsu

    Would certainly reduce the criminal element - like cigarettes and alcohol, there will always be some peripheral crime (smuggling, excise tax avoidance etc).

  • 0

    Junnama

    Obviously so...

    On the bright side the whole "paranoia phase" would then just be acid-induced instead of genuine fear of getting caught, so that's an additional benefit.

  • 0

    timorborder

    No, because the institution of the law by its very nature is reactive rather than proactive. As such, even if certain substances were covered by new laws, there is always the possibility that other substances (beyond the scope of such legislation - illegal) could be developed. If a demand for such substances existed, organized crime would get involved.

  • 0

    preluder

    well... wouldn't legalizing drugs just turned the crime INTO a legal business? I bet drug dealers would just sell the stuff cheaper then the would be stores that sells them.

  • 0

    Disillusioned

    Would legalizing drugs drive the crime out of the business?

    A pretty broad question. If it means a general legalization of every illegal or controlled substance on the planet then it would only serve to increase criminal activity because it would be total anarchy all over the planet. There would also have to be a disbanding and locking up of all the criminal groups like the Yaks, Mafia, Triads, bikers and associates, which would only contribute to an already overflowing penal system. - However, if the question is more localized, there are many cities around the world that have successfully controlled drugs through zero tolerance, severe penalties and complete vigilance from their police forces and local councils. I can't see that happening in Japan any time soon, therefor, my answer is, NO!

  • 0

    Monkeyz

    I don't think so. There's still illegal trade in legal drugs and kids buy cigarettes and alcohol illegally.

  • 0

    Kronos

    No, it would not. Also I believe the question is broad and not specific to Japan.

  • 0

    virnok

    I think it would increase crime, drug producers would be able to make more money and would be able to attempt to spread their market more efficiently with it being legalized so they would actually be able to use advertising, such as the crack addicted clam. Which would help fund their other motives that much quicker.

    On the people who use the drugs, a lot of robberies and muggings etc. are by people who are so addicted to their drug of choice they can't work but need money for drugs. If drugs were legalized it would tempt more people to use them, causing more people to lose their jobs due to inability to function. This includes marijuana, I've worked with guys that "go out to their car" when they come back in they don't do any work, then they get fired. Which in turn would increase crimes I listed.

  • 0

    randomenigma

    I bet drug dealers would just sell the stuff cheaper then the would be stores that sells them.

    Sounds like a successful situation to me, isn't this how capitalism is supposed to work?

  • 0

    2020hindsight

    Of course it would drive the crime out of the business. The high price of drugs only exists because of the risk to supply them. Eliminate the risk and you eliminate the high prices and hence the high profit. Also drug related violence like in Mexico would disappear. In turn governments can make money by taxing it. Makes complete sense.

  • 0

    maxtheitpro

    timorborder said: "As such, even if certain substances were covered by new laws, there is always the possibility that other substances (beyond the scope of such legislation - illegal) could be developed. If a demand for such substances existed, organized crime would get involved."

    You have it all wrong dude. I don't think people want to use anything else besides good herbs like cannabis (marijuana, hemp), shrooms, peyote, etc. However, I truly believe that MDMA (real Ecstacy) could be made safely and cleanly and this would most likely prevent 95% of users from trying other harder drugs. Heck cannabis/hashish, opium, the coca plant and others have been around for centuries so society seems happy with them. It's just that someone made them illegal and demonized them when they should've educated the masses and provide safe products like you get when you buy cigarettes and booze from the corner store.

  • 0

    maxtheitpro

    BTW, legalizing drugs would defintely drive crime down. Case in point: alcohol & cigarettes. Case closed!

  • 0

    dolphingirl

    maxtheitpro: nice post! I agree!

  • 0

    my2sense

    Always remember that one day all this drug monkey business will be legal. They won't leave it to people like me... not when they finally figure out how much money is to be made - not millions, ----ing billions. Recreational Drugs PLC - giving the people what they want... Good times today, Stupor tomorrow. But this is now, so until prohibition ends make hay whilst the sun shines.

    -XXXX, Layer Cake

  • 0

    TheRat

    However, if the question is more localized, there are many cities around the world that have successfully controlled drugs through zero tolerance, severe penalties and complete vigilance from their police forces and local councils.

    REALLY? Where are these cities? Columbia has gotten to the point of pulling out all of the cocaine plants by hand, have the army working 24/7 and yet the amount of drugs has gone sky high and so has the acreage for the poppies. Anyhow, the only problem with legalizing drugs is that you have a lot of useless drug addicts who can not hold a job and then end up robbing people even to buy the now cheaper and easier to get drugs. The only way is to do far more education. It has to be on billboards, endless commercials, and endless lectures in the schools. A new subculture of sorts of getting people healthy. And why they are at it, off of the fatty foods, sodium, corn syrup and things conservative.

  • 0

    Icewind007

    Of course it wouldn't. By nature, crime tends toward high income, low output. When legalized, it will be highly taxed both ways, in deep competition, and would be too much for it to be worthy of doing for criminals.

    They will simply find something else and make a new base of operations. And there is a lot more than drugs that can make a quick income and is illegal.

  • 0

    bdiego

    Yes, but so would legalizing murder. That said, if you're asking about organized crime then that's also true to a degree. But there's a big difference between legalizing say marijuana versus crack cocaine, heroin, etc.. Even legalizing opium would be a disaster let alone heroin.

  • 0

    bdiego

    maxtheit you do know that opium literally killed millions of people and set back Chinese civilization for decades? Not surprised based on your other ridiculous comments. You should at least educate yourself here.

  • 0

    hokkaidogirl

    Of course not. The 'medical marajuana' shops get broken into all the time and that is legalized.

  • 0

    grafton

    Decriminalise cannabis perhaps, but legalise no. We all know what would happen once government got involved, high tax and rubbish product after making it less unhealthy. I would be quite happy to see an automatic death penalty for dealers of hard drugs and extremely long sentences for dealers of soft drugs. Not because the drugs in them selves are that dangerous to the individual taking them, but because of the disabling knock on effect they have on society as a whole. There will of course always be some junky type criminals out there, but removing the drugs we currently have on the streets would reduce crime enormously. And we all do pay a price for the drugs that are out there now, insurance premium, police, extra security and what ever else adds up to a lot of money we just wouldn’t need to spend if the threat of crime was reduced.

  • 0

    Valmain

    Assuming that this question means that all substances that are currently illegal will be legalized, then yes. Legalization in itself is not enough and regulation would have to follow (for synthetics, at least). Like the US was supposed to have learned from prohibition in the early 20th century, making something illegal doesn't make people stop wanting it. When prohibition was repealed, gangs started to lose huge amounts of money and creed that they made from the sale of illegal booze.

    This would mean that these substances can be produced cheaper, more reliably and in a more sustainable manner than they currently are. Sure, it would be possible to still produce these yourself, but when was the last time any of us whipped up some aspirin pills at home? Or bought them from a shady street vendor? They are sold cheaply at stores, so we buy them. Just like would happen with the "drugs" in question here. I don't think that the "DIY at home means there would be no market" idea holds any water. We could all make alcohol and tobacco in our homes, and I'm sure a number of us do (I love homemade Umeshu), but you don't hear the alcohol and tobacco industries complaining about how this practice hurts their profits.

  • 0

    Damien15

    Not all drugs, but just decriminalizing cannabis would drive the drug dealing business to halt. I don't think synthetic drugs should be legalized. But a plant, a gift from god, should bot be classified as same as checmical mixtured humans came up with. I think most dealers survive because of cannabis sales. If it's legalized, they won't be able to survive, selling hard drugs. They won't be able to push dangerous chemicals to youngsters, who came to get cannabis. Remove cannabis from criminals product list by legalizing it, and I'm sure this will reduce the crime.

  • 0

    unrested

    before i answer this i would want to know how bad alcohol abuse and the amount of alcoholics there are in japan. the people of this country are worked to the bone and to the point of self annihalation for the workplace. i am all for drugs and liberal has as heck but honestly i worry about it being abused in this country more so just due to the stress levels being absolutely through the roof due to overwork.

  • 0

    skipbeat

    What kind of society would say drug is good for you? The answer would be legalizing drugs will not drive crime out of the business. It will only benefit the criminals who are selling the drugs. Society will go back to the Stone Age because everyone brain would be fried.

  • 0

    Valmain

    What kind of society would say drug is good for you? The answer would be legalizing drugs will not drive crime out of the business. It will only benefit the criminals who are selling the drugs. Society will go back to the Stone Age because everyone brain would be fried.

    This makes no sense. If the drugs they sell are legal, then the people who sell them are no criminals, are they?

    Many societies say that "drugs" are good for you. Lots of evidence supports the use of medical cannabis for pain relief, appetite stimulation, nausea suppression, PTSD, and many other things. LSD and MDMA have many uses in therapy and counseling. Ibogaine and Ayahuasca are being used right now in many places to treat people with serious drug addictions (yes, "drugs" are used to get people off of drugs). Cannabis, Igogaine and Ayahuasca especially have been used for centuries by shamans to treat a wide variety of ailments. They have a proven track record.

    Nothing personal, but your generalization and gullibility regarding the dangers of drugs are huge problems that hold back advancement in the helpful use of these substances. You think that people are all weak-minded and society will fall in shambles if these substances are allowed, but most people do have self-control and if you arm them with knowledge they will practice responsible use. Alcohol is widely available, but not everyone in society is a raging alcoholic.

  • 0

    manfromamerica

    have been used for centuries by shamans

    ahhh, trust the shamans... riiiiight. Keep drugs criminal, and leave it for the hippies.

  • 0

    taiko666

    Of course it would drive crime out of the business. Prohibition of alcohol in the USA was a disaster for everyone except organised criminal gangs. The drugs trade is a massive source of revenue for the world's criminals, terrorists and even rogue states. Legalise, and control the production and distrubition of, drugs, and that revenue would disappear. Not only that, drug users would not have to make the acquaintance of criminals in order to obtain drugs, which means a further reduction of criminality. And since the qualitity of the drugs would be assured, people wouldn't die due to ingesting fake or tainted drugs.

    The hypocritical nature of the anti-legalising argument is so obvious, it almost renders the debate ludicrous. Alcohol and tobacco are two widely available, controlled and taxed recreational drugs, out of the hands of criminal entrepreneurs. Governments make large sums of money from the production and sale of these recreational drugs. Why shouldn't other drugs, some of which are less harmful than alcohol, some of which are more harmful, be treated the same way?

    If people want to injest harmful drugs, that's their choice, and they will always find ways to obtain their fix. Criminalising drugs has not worked, it's simply driven these people into the criminal underworld, and provided the criminal underworld with a massive and seemingly never-ending bonanza.

  • 0

    Valmain

    ahhh, trust the shamans... riiiiight. Keep drugs criminal, and leave it for the hippies.

    Really? Badmouthing shamans? That's a bit low. I would trust a shaman, with thousands of years of knowledge and experience passed down through generations, before I would trust a jockey in a labcoat whose research is paid for by corporations. Science does not always know best.

    You also bring up another great aspect of the drug war: the social division. Despite what you might think, illegal substances are consumed by more than hippies and minorities. I know people in their 70s and 80s who smoke cannabis because they claim there is no better medicine. Plenty of average Joe (or Taro) tax-paying hard-working people enjoy expanding their mind in their own way.

  • 0

    skipbeat

    You think that people are all weak-minded and society will fall in shambles if these substances are allowed, but most people do have self-control and if you arm them with knowledge they will practice responsible use. Alcohol is widely available, but not everyone in society is a raging alcoholic.

    People have weakness and drug are addicted. I don't believe in Shamans as a way of treatment. People drink alcohol to forget their problems. People drink wine with food.

    The commercial that says "this is your brain and this is your brain on drug." @http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nl5gBJGnaXs

    Realistically, legalizing drugs is not going to drive crime out of business. The criminals will look for other stimulus to sell. The pharmaceutical companies will be the ones getting rich.

  • 0

    Valmain

    The commercial that says "this is your brain and this is your brain on drug." @http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nl5gBJGnaXs

    Wow. You just quoted me baseless early-90s US anti-drug propaganda? In one swift move, you have nulled your entire argument. Quote me some real research or data, then maybe you can redeem any semblance of a rebuttal.

    Whether you believe in Shamans or not strikes me as irrelevant. Those substances are being used to treat addicts and people with mental disorders. This isn't the tooth fairy. Whether you believe or not, there are testimonials and data to back it up.

    Take a look: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/0603/features/peru.html http://www.ibeginagain.org/ http://www.biopark.org/peru/ayaheal.html http://www.ibogaine-therapy.net/

    Realistically, legalizing drugs is not going to drive crime out of business. The criminals will look for other stimulus to sell. The pharmaceutical companies will be the ones getting rich.

    Are you arguing with yourself? I believe "the business" in question is sales of drugs. As you just stated, legalizing drugs would mean that pharmaceutical companies would profit, not illegal dealers. Admittedly, those companies are only a step or two above drug dealers, but at least it's a legit business.

    Need some actual proof? http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/05/19/drug-dealers%E2%80%99-nightmare-legal-pot/

  • 0

    manfromamerica

    Badmouthing shamans? That's a bit low.

    Really?? How is that?

    I know people in their 70s and 80s who smoke cannabis because they claim there is no better medicine.

    suuuuuure.... that's the reason for "medical marijuana". Get out of S.F. for a real perspective.

  • 0

    skipbeat

    You can have all the data and proof, but can you explain the miracle of pray.

    My point was that if drugs are legit, the criminals will find other substance to sell. The cycle goes on.

  • 0

    Valmain

    but can you explain the miracle of pray.

    Sure can't. You've got a solid argument there.

    My point was that if drugs are legit, the criminals will find other substance to sell. The cycle goes on.

    That's not the question that's being asked. The question is worded to state "drive the crime out of the business," the business I can only assume to be selling illegal drugs.

  • 0

    Valmain

    Really?? How is that?

    To me it's on about the same level as flipping off a monk. Just makes you seem barbaric.

    suuuuuure.... that's the reason for "medical marijuana". Get out of S.F. for a real perspective.

    It is one of the reasons. Research has shown that cannabis does has the effects I mentioned. Why else do you think they make tablets from it like Marinol?? Are there people who want to smoke it for pleasure and don't really need it medically? Absolutely. Why is that so bad?

    Why on earth would you assume that I live in SF? I have never lived in San Francisco. I don't even live in the states (those people I referred to earlier live in red states, FYI). Don't try to generalize people based on their opinions, it doesn't make you sound any smarter. Anyways, almost a third of all US states have medical cannabis laws. To think that people who use cannabis are limited to the Bay Area is a misconception. A few states even have proposed legislation to fully legalize and tax cannabis.

  • 0

    porter

    Yes, it would bring crime down. But it would also cut public spending budgets allocated to fight the war on drugs. That is why its not going to be legalized anytime soon.

  • 0

    Venetian

    It would bring certain drug related crimes down, such as dealing, possession and manufacturing, purely because these will no longer be activities that people can be legally prosecuted for, but other crimes will rise; date rape, crack heads going bonkers and attacking people, etc.

    Basically, there will be less crime figures on the supply side, and more on the consumption side.

  • 0

    Valmain

    Basically, there will be less crime figures on the supply side, and more on the consumption side.

    It does make sense to think so, but his hasn't been the case so far with countries that have legalized drugs. Portugal, Nederlands, and Czech Republic have extremely liberal drug policies and don't have any of these problems. They actually have lower rates of drug abuse than countries that still practice prohibition. This is probably because of the lack of stigmata that accompanies having a drug problem so people can seek help easier.

  • 0

    nandakandamanda

    I don't understand the title exactly. Is drugs already a business, with which crime has got too mixed up? Should (the?) crime be driven out of it? Would that leave the business for some to make lots of money?

    If it has not been said in the replies already, I would think that legalizing drugs would more likely drive the business out of the crime. With no business for the criminal, he may turn his attention elsewhere.

  • 0

    Davin

    If drugs are not a business, then why is the C.I.A smuggling and selling them? That is how they get their cash for operations not approved by the Government! I know, I sound like a nut saying that, but it is true!

  • 0

    tclh

    This is an obvious question. If drug is legalised then the one who sell it, is not a criminal. Therefore criminals are out of business because now they are selling legal things. And for sure this move will make those drugs much much cheaper , so cheap that former criminals won't be interesting in selling them. On the other hand, governments just have to spend money to educate people to stay far away from drugs ,the same way they do it tabaco. This is just talk anyway.

  • 0

    NuckinFutz

    My god how funny would millions of stoned Japanese people during a holiday like O-Bon or Golden Week be?

  • 0

    Sarge

    No.

  • 0

    manfromamerica

    hey, listen to the shamans... shhhhh.... they're speaking.

    Let the hippies keep the drugs, keep it criminal.

  • 0

    grafton

    I have never read so many naïve posts on one thread before. Alcohol and cigarettes are legal but are both drugs and in the case of cigarettes there is currently a world wide drive to reduce smoking because of the harm that it is said to do. Nicotine is extremely addictive but on the other hand it does not disable the user from being an active member of society. They can still function, which is more than can be said for heroin and cocaine users. Most illegal drugs have a gradual disabling effect reaching the point where the user can no longer work to earn the money to buy his or her drug of choice, at which point they can only turn to crime to support their continued use and do so. Manufacturers, smugglers and dealers are only criminals because the system has made drugs illegal but they do also use extreme methods to protect their business, like killing other dealers and anybody else that gets in the way.

    The happy hippy dope smoker is a thing of the long gone past; the granny smoking for medical reasons is a tiny minority. Drugs used to cure or aid in treatments of one kind or another are administered by professionals who know how much to use and when not to use. Which is the reason we need a doctor to prescribe most drugs.

    This child like reason that we can legalise and then educate is fantastic, we are talking about the human race here, they are for the most part cretins. Haven’t most governments been trying to educate them against drugs for years and getting nowhere? Why would the drugs being legal make any difference?

    We all (I think) agree that cannabis is not as dangerous as nicotine, but how many of you know many long term users? They have become self deluding and useless, they operate at a very low level, nice people maybe. I have many, many friends that I have known for many years and I love them dearly, but they are useless do nothing dope heads. Unless they are in bands and then they do accomplish something. Think about it, would you want you doctor, bus or train driver out of his head on dope? Not that it would happen because they would forget to go to work.

    In the past heroin addicts where said to have a monkey on their back and in a sense that is true, and it is that monkey that turns them into criminals, it is that monkey that demands and demands and legal or illegal that demand will still be made. Legalising drugs will not change the nature of the drug nor will it change the nature of people. Drugs are a cancer in society however they find their way into that society and it is simplistic nonsense to imagine we can hide from the crimes of drugs by legalisation.

    Somebody above by the way needs to look up what “stigmata” really means.

  • 0

    dolphingirl

    'Why would the drugs being legal make any difference?'--Exactly! Would people suddenly think, 'Great! Heroin is finally legal! I've been dying to try it!!'

  • 0

    Venlo

    OK people, you make me bust out the Economist article on the benefits of legalizing drugs for the third time over the years in the Japan Today forum. Please make an effort to refute the article, because every time this article is posted, the conversation ends.

    Bottom line, it's a discussion killer.

    No-one has yet been able to argue against the logic of this article. PLEASE TRY PEOPLE, before this discussion gets thrown into the anals of cyberspace again...

    The Economist Magazine, one of the top international weekly business & news magazines in the world, (one of my favorites too, for many years) devoted their cover to the issue of drugs. Here is what they had to say in their March 3, 2009 issue.

    "The Economist continues to believe that the least bad policy is to legalise drugs. “Least bad” does not mean good. Legalisation, though clearly better for producer countries, would bring (different) risks to consumer countries. As we outline below, many vulnerable drug-takers would suffer. But in our view, more would gain." They go on to say many more interesting things. Check it out. "The failure of the drug war has led a few of its braver generals, especially from Europe and Latin America, to suggest shifting the focus from locking up people to public health and “harm reduction” And more... "There are two main reasons for arguing that prohibition should be scrapped all the same. The first is one of liberal principle. Although some illegal drugs are extremely dangerous to some people, most are not especially harmful. (Tobacco is more addictive than virtually all of them.) Most consumers of illegal drugs, including cocaine and even heroin, take them only occasionally. They do so because they derive enjoyment from them (as they do from whisky or a Marlboro Light). It is not the state’s job to stop them from doing so. What about addiction? That is partly covered by this first argument, as the harm involved is primarily visited upon the user. But addiction can also inflict misery on the families and especially the children of any addict, and involves wider social costs. That is why discouraging and treating addiction should be the priority for drug policy. Hence the second argument: legalisation offers the opportunity to deal with addiction properly. By providing honest information about the health risks of different drugs, and pricing them accordingly, governments could steer consumers towards the least harmful ones. Prohibition has failed to prevent the proliferation of designer drugs, dreamed up in laboratories. Legalisation might encourage legitimate drug companies to try to improve the stuff that people take. The resources gained from tax and saved on repression would allow governments to guarantee treatment to addicts—a way of making legalisation more politically palatable. The success of developed countries in stopping people smoking tobacco, which is similarly subject to tax and regulation, provides grounds for hope."

    Comments please.

  • 0

    grafton

    The drug problem will not change just because the drugs become legal, and yes with social acceptance more will try the harder drugs and though social acceptance will mean (perhaps) better management of the users there will be an increase in users, the good being negated by the bad.

    As for this nonsense idea that growing a legal crop with add some benefit to the third world, get real, don’t you think that the third world is already in deep trouble producing cash crops to pay off IMF loans, are you really suggesting they get yet another cash crop that will give nothing to the people but use up more food producing land to produce yet another luxury product for rich counties?

    The Economist reasoning is utopian because it reasons that people and governments are good and will fall in line to the betterment of society, but that is never going to happen. Government by its very nature can never get something like this right, they simply will not provide the health care needed, just as we are seeing with cigarettes. Where is the health care commiserate to the levels of tobacco taxation, where are the programmes designed to get people off smoking? The money should be there but isn’t. As for handing over new drug manufacturing to pharmaceutical companies, wow! That sounds like someone has already been sampling the products, trust the pharmaceutical companies to do the right thing? Do you do so now, because not many people do.

    We have already seen most counties stop tobacco advertising because people are gullible enough to believe what they see and start smoking, in other words governments don’t trust people to know what is safe and what isn’t. But now we are to reason that even though the people were a bit thick when it came to tobacco they will suddenly get smart when it comes to heroin and cocaine?

    What every body seems to forget is that we are not talking about the well educated here, we are talking about those at the bottom of the heap who are not going to get all this wonderful education about drugs, primarily the same group that currently makes up the bulk of the perpetrators of drug related crime in our cites. For them nothing will change. This is utopian in the same way that we could argue that communism would be wonderful for all, in theory yes it would, the only problem is that when you add people to communism it all goes terribly wrong. Sorry, but people simply cannot be trusted to do the right thing.

  • 0

    grafton

    Venlo at 11:42 PM JST - 21st May

    “Bottom line, it's a discussion killer.”

    No, bottom line is that it is nonsense.

  • 0

    zurcronium

    of course legalization is the right thing to do. It takes the crime cartels out of the business entirely. Only the criminals and the uninformed want the current situation to continue.

  • 0

    stevecpfc

    Some drigs should be legal like ecstacy and dope. Heroin and cocaine for example are too potent and addictive.

    But, i think education should be provided regarding the use of deugs whether leaglised or not. Ignorance = death.

  • 0

    tclh

    The question is about criminal and business involved in legalised(or not) drugs.

  • 0

    Venlo

    Grafton; why would you say "nonsense?"

    In order to enlighten you, let us take the situation in the US as an example...

    After decades of the deepening drug war, U.S. surveys show that illicit drug use by American youth has increased year on year. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration admits that hard drugs are just as available, less expensive, and more pure than ever. Hard drug abuse and addiction among the urban poor remain widespread. HIV/AIDS continues to spread most rapidly via injection drug users; meanwhile, the needle exchanges that help stem its spread in every other modern nation remain criminalized in the U.S. A growing number of judges — including several high-level federal judges appointed by Republicans — have gone so far as to refuse to apply drug laws that have grown so Draconian they breach all bounds of fairness.

    Opinion polls now show a majority of Americans do not believe the war on drugs can be won. More and more are voicing their opposition and seeking alternatives to punitive prohibition. The drug policy reform movement in the U.S. has grown larger and more diverse, attracting support from the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, the American Public Health Association, the American Society of Criminology, and other professional groups. Not all of these groups support decriminalizing & legalizing drugs, but all of them support a shift away from drug war toward the harm-reducing public health approaches pioneered in the Netherlands.

    A key aspect of Dutch drug policy is the notion of market separation. By classifying drugs according to the risks posed and then pursuing policies that serve to isolate each market, it is felt that users of soft drugs are less likely to come into contact with users of hard drugs. Thus, the theory goes, users of soft drugs are less likely to try hard drugs. Possession of small amounts of cannabis for personal use has been decriminalized in the Netherlands. The sale of cannabis is technically an offence under the Opium Act, but prosecutorial guidelines provide that proceedings will only be instituted in certain situations. An operator or owner of a coffee shop (which is not permitted to sell alcohol) will avoid prosecution if he/she meets the following criteria:

    * no more than 5 grams per person may be sold in any one transaction;
* no hard drugs may be sold;
* drugs may not be advertised;
* the coffee shop must not cause any nuisance;
* no drugs can be sold to minors (under age 18), nor may minors enter the premises; and
* the municipality has not ordered the establishment closed.

    Separating the markets by allowing people to purchase soft drugs in a setting where they are not exposed to the criminal subculture surrounding hard drugs is intended to create a social barrier that prevents people experimenting with drugs like heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine, drugs deemed an “unacceptable risk.” Decriminalization of the possession of soft drugs for personal use and the toleration of sales in controlled circumstances has not resulted in a worryingly high level of consumption among young people. The extent and nature of the use of soft drugs does not differ from the pattern in other Western countries. As for hard drugs, the number of addicts in the Netherlands is low compared with the rest of Europe and considerably lower than that in France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain and Switzerland. Dutch rates of drug use are lower than U.S. rates in every category.

    For tclh; "the question is about criminal & business involved in legalised(or not)drugs."

    The answer is in the "Economist" article;

    Crime would have no place in an environment where drugs would be legal. It would be taxed & regulated just like the other drugs, TOBACCO & ALCOHOL.

  • 0

    sfjp330

    An initiative to legalize marijuana and allow it to be sold and taxed will appear on the November California ballot, triggering what will probably be a much-watched campaign that once again puts California on the forefront of the nation's debate over whether to soften drug laws.

    If marijuana is legalized in California, will the cartels then be able to import it into the state legally? Like tequila. Then wouldn't California just be the gateway to the rest of the U.S. for marijuana trafficking? Essentially, bring the cartels exporting business from Mexico up into "legal" California. Since its still illegal in the rest of the lower 47 the cartels will have a inside state from which to run their illegal business. Just because they can't make their high returns in California doesn't mean they won't make those huge incomes in the other states. It just means it might be a little easier now because they won't have the hassle of the California/Mexico border. That means that you can have a territory war in California to see which cartel owns the California import/export trade. I support the legalization but I'm curious about the whole logistics of legalization just for one state. It sounds great on paper but what about all the little details and responsibility that comes with legalization?

  • 0

    shreeree

    People don't do drugs because they are illegal, they do drugs because of how it makes them feel and than they do it because they are addicted. But if you legalize it those that sell it would have to pay taxes and they probably could arrest more of them for tax evasion since they can't seem to do the job for job trafficing. The mafia for years traffic drugs among other things but most of them were brought up on Blue Collar charges.

  • 0

    Valmain

    grafton:

    Somebody above by the way needs to look up what “stigmata” really means.

    stigmata, plural of stigma:

    a mark of disgrace or infamy; a stain or reproach, as on one's reputation.

    Anything else in my post that you don't understand?

    What every body seems to forget is that we are not talking about the well educated here, we are talking about those at the bottom of the heap who are not going to get all this wonderful education about drugs, primarily the same group that currently makes up the bulk of the perpetrators of drug related crime in our cites. For them nothing will change.

    So, what would it hurt to legalize drugs, then? This is my point about the stigma, people can seek out help without fear of prosecution. Alcoholics today are a sad lot, victims who need to cure their "disease." But when drug addicts come forward it's harder because their ball and chain is an illegal one. If these substances are legal, these people can get help easier and cycled back into society.

    Think about it, would you want you doctor, bus or train driver out of his head on dope? Not that it would happen because they would forget to go to work.

    This logic always makes me laugh. Alcohol is legal, but when was the last time your doctor reeked of booze when you visited? People have self control and understand that being intoxicated while working is not acceptable. Honestly, common sense. Sounds like you need to start keeping some better friends. Maybe your friends don't have enough self control to use drugs and operate in society, but I think most people do. Francis Crick - discovered the DNA double helix structure...while on LSD. Many amazing artists and writers use substances to enhance their work. Or just to relax. It's a personal freedom more than anything. If I were to contemplate the universe in my home on a Saturday, that doesn't mess with your plans, correct?

  • 0

    dolphingirl

    It seems that the biggest worry is that if all drugs were legal then lots of people would start using them, become addicted and become useless to society. Wouldn't then the people who a) either were smart enough not to try the harder drugs and b) those who have a non-addictive type personality be the ones to run society & reproduce and then wouldn't society eventually rid itself of the kinds of people who are more likely to become addicts? Just a thought...

  • 0

    nisegaijin

    Of course it will! How many criminal organizations are selling beer in the US now? None! Quite different than prohibition times, isn't it?

    One more thing. Drugs will be much higher quality and probably a lot less harmful. Think how messed up coffee would be if it was illegal. Companies would openly compete to make their products better. We would probably see a different type of diet "coke" or heroin light.

  • 0

    RomeoRamenII

    Instead of legalizing this poison, every government in the world should stiffen the penalties for all illegal drugs. Dope fiends and pushers alike should all be put to death for possessing or using illegal drugs. It would send a strong message: pay the ultimate price for using/possessing illegal drugs.

    Problem solved.

  • 0

    nisegaijin

    ^^Or people will try to protect their privacy and freedom and start killing police officers and law makers on the spot.

  • 0

    snowgirl

    Valmain - you have made the most intelligent and logical arguments in the entire forum. I wish more people could understand the world from this perspective, instead of fascist people like the above, RomeoRamenll, who clearly does not believe in individual freedom, and maninamerica who hasn't the smarts to make his own arguments, instead mocking a tradition of many that he knows nothing about.

  • 0

    PeaceWarrior

    Dope fiends and pushers alike should all be put to death for possessing or using illegal drugs.

    What an amazing statement! You must surely be on something that heightens your emotions to deliver such an exalted statement! Such panacea might also be distorting your reality.

    Off with your head? Naaah , I didn't think so!

  • 0

    HonestDictator

    One thing people have to keep in mind about hard drugs, is it makes people irrational, and they may act in irrational ways. Lets say drugs like crack were legalized. 1 thing is for sure, you'd have to isolate that person in a PADDED room by themselves after they take the drug, as well as make sure there is nothing, and I mean NOTHING in that room that they can use to hurt themsevles. They may even bite their own skin open etc depending on how crazy their "trip" is and the fact their nervous system is so whacked out they can't feel pain and couldn't tell if they were hurting themselves or not.

    This would require a lot of financing for facilities and rooms as well as personell that would need to be hired to look after those who decide to use hard drugs if they were legalised. Many of them would be poor in the first few months due to the cost of the "legalised" drug as well the additional costs for them to run the facility and pay the personell. And should they desire rehab? More $$$ to be spent. So lets say it were legalised, then the alternative would be for the crime organizations to sell it at a cheaper price. Because I can guarantee you that the taxpayers would most certainly not want to cover the costs for the addicts.

    I agree with Dolphingirl to an extent, legalising it would weed out those who are use useless to society, but what if the majority of society becomes useless? IMO an entire country could fail and destroy itself if a large enough majority of the working class got doped up. Some of them may have children, families, etc that would still undergo issues if hard drugs were legalised. More money spent on drugs and not on taking care of their family.

Back to top

Login to leave a comment

OR

Follow us

Facebook
Twitter

More in Have Your Say

View all

View all