Doesn't matter. Drugs have a pretty cool upside to others' lives.

Fact is that this entire debate comes down to you having absolutely zero ability to understand anything different from what you like or dislike and that you are literally advocating for compulsion and violence to bring your preferences to a society. It hasn't worked, no matter how you or Dalrymple want to spin it, and it's not going to work; all it's doing is systemically destroying families, overcrowding American prisons and driving America further into debt oblivion.

All in the name of fulfilling your own personal preferences. Who suffers from "intense and tedious self-absorption" again?

Speaking of drugs and upsides:

http://www.thefix.com/content/steve-jobs-think-different-and-lsd-9143

Key quote: Jobs said, "Doing LSD was one of the two or three most important things I have done in my life."

"One of the most striking characteristics of drug-takers is their intense and tedious self-absorption; and their journeys into inner space are generally forays into inner vacuums."

Holy fucking judgey. If the goal is to come off like a self-righteous prick, you could substitute drug-taker with anything.
"One of the most striking characteristics of WebDip forum posters is their intense and tedious self-absorption; and their journeys into inner space are generally forays into inner vacuums."

And what the hell is a drug-taker? I've had 3 cups of coffee and two pills of advil today. Does that make a self absorbed drug-taker? Are you talking about Johnny Two-Joints who plays Smash Bros until the wee hours of the morning or Junkie McDeadinaditch who's been a hopeless slave to his addictions for the past 30 years.

Your gross generalizations demask your anti-drug argumetns for what they really are. Judgemental arrogance of other people's recreational choices. You probably don't take anyone with a tattoo or piercing seriously either because, to you, "the downside greatly outweighs the upside."

Also, +1 ckroberts with the Michael Bay analogy.

Also, also. Not that it really shows anything of worth but there's an interesting correlation between IQ and drug use in this article:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201010/why-intelligent-people-use-more-drugs

Redhouse, to clarify this: You are saying that drugs are generally bad for people, so we should outlaw them, correct? Leaving aside the enormous philosophical problems with that, there are tons of bad things in people's lives. What I'd like to see is an argument, any sort of solid evidence, that drug use is so particularly terrible that all the awful, awful side effects of prohibition are worth it. Anecdotes and personal opinion aren't enough.

Let me put it another way: aside from the legal dangers each of these might or not might include, would you rather grow up in a family in which the parents used marijuana every night, got drunk every night, or committed frequent infidelities against the wishes of the other spouse? My answer is obvious.

@PE: "all it's doing is systemically destroying families, overcrowding American prisons and driving America further into debt oblivion."
With all due respect, and I mean that when I say it: I'm sorry, that's the American part of the problem. Dutch prisons aren't overpopulated, we're not driven into debt due to drugs and our families aren't destroyed due to drug enforcement. I don't know enough about the other side of the pond to judge the situation there.


"Key quote: Jobs said, "Doing LSD was one of the two or three most important things I have done in my life.""

LSD is an interesting drug. It could be on the list of allowed drugs. It did miracles for Jim Morrison's music as well, which I love, and it's not very high in the table I sent (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_%28mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence%29.svg)

Also, I'm typing this from an Apple computer. Credits to Steve.

@Yonni,
"Are you talking about Johnny Two-Joints who plays Smash Bros until the wee hours of the morning or Junkie McDeadinaditch who's been a hopeless slave to his addictions for the past 30 years."
Both. I guess? Primarily that second guy?

"Leaving aside the enormous philosophical problems with that, there are tons of bad things in people's lives."
I'm not too concerned about philosophy (see earlier post).

Now wait just a minute.

You're in the Netherlands, which has a better drug policy than almost the whole world (although admittedly that gets us into tallest-building-in-Topeka territory but whatever), and you're saying the American example isn't as important, all the while arguing for strict drug laws?

But, Redhouse, do you not see the problem with that? Painting all of it with a single paint stroke is ignorant, either deliberately or not.

Here is what I am hearing: "Sorry, the American examples of enormous prison populations, corruption, racial disparities in law enforcement, harmful impacts on medical care, and police militarization don't really apply to this discussion. Now, like I said, I favor an American-style drug policy."

@ckroberts: I've never said anything about strictness, I've not said the American example isn't important (I've just said it's just not my country and I don't know a lot about it) and I like this quote on the difference between American and European politics: "American politicians will turn any practical discussion into an ideological one, European politicians do the exact opposite". I think you should be practical and not fill up your prisons with one particular crime. Rather have people pay fines or something.

@Yonni
I just categorized LSD as a drug I would potentially like to see removed from the list of forbidden drugs list. Not at all single-paint-stroking this issue, sorry.

WOOOOOOOWWWWWWWW

@ckroberts:

" Now, like I said, I favor an American-style drug policy."

Hell no!!!!! Where did I say that? Go wash your mouth with green soap I don't want to have anything to do with the American anti-drugs policy!!!!!!!

I just explained WHY!!! remember??? demand versus supply side?

I can't access the .svg link you posted before but, other than liking the music created by a Heroin addict, what differentiates your opinion of LSD than other drugs?

OK, so, then, you would not criminalize drug usage, just drug sellers? How is that going to work? What about people who grow their own marijuana or opium? And if drugs are so bad, then of course users will be poor, so ho will they pay their fines?

To clarify, I think prohibition of drugs and alcohol have demonstrated that outlawing drugs on the basis that recreational use is inherently harmful and thus should be illegal means that a vicious, overly-strict American-style approach is the likeliest outcome.

Whatever you want to call it, it sounds like what you are calling for will have similar results to what has happened in America. But maybe you can clarify! Explain, beyond tedious self-absorption, what it is that is so bad about drug use that would demand its outlaw, and give us an idea of what your drug policy would like beyond 'go after the supply side.'

What difference does it realistically make to 'go after the supply side' and not after the 'demand side' here? I've never heard of an industry that functions without both. As long as you're demonizing and criminalizing either side of it, you're still demonizing and criminalizing the industry. It sounds from a practical standpoint like a distinction without a difference.

Gentlemen,

Just a couple of points that I want to address:

Re: svg.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_abuse It's the picture on the top right, maybe you can see it when embedded in HTML? (Don't know)

Re: Morrison. As I understood it he used both LSD and heroin, at the point in my thinking where I'm now, I'd probably support legalizing the former and keeping the other one illegal.

Re: And if drugs are so bad, then of course users will be poor, so ho will they pay their fines?
I dunno, how do I pay for my fines? Have an income?

"Whatever you want to call it, it sounds like what you are calling for will have similar results to what has happened in America. But maybe you can clarify! Explain, beyond tedious self-absorption, what it is that is so bad about drug use that would demand its outlaw"
-I believe there is a consensus in the medical community that a lot of recreational drugs are dangerous to the human body and the proper functioning of the brain, with all costs to society related to both these things.

"What difference does it realistically make to 'go after the supply side' and not after the 'demand side' here? I've never heard of an industry that functions without both. As long as you're demonizing and criminalizing either side of it, you're still demonizing and criminalizing the industry. It sounds from a practical standpoint like a distinction without a difference."
-It would involving spreading crop-killers over South American coca-farmers' terrains and raiding XTC labs, but not sending people to prison who are caught with a joint. Treat that pretty much like you'd treat speeding. Is that so bad, to have a diversified approach to the problem? On the axis between "liberalize all drugs" and "ban all drugs" and the axis "attack only the demand side - attack both sides - attack only the supply side" I can be anywhere I want, right?

And where is Putin when I need him?

Yup, I can see the picture via the wiki page. So would you support the legalisation of cannabis and ecstasy too? It seems supported by your logic for legalizing LSD:
a) This marginally scientific study suggests that it's less harmful than other drugs
b) Great musicians have used them

I'm saying, basically, that I reject two approaches:

The first is the sort of die-hard "ban all drugs" approach. I find it short-sighted.
The second is the libertarian "legalize all drugs" approach. Although coming from people I generally hold to be more intelligent than those supporting the first approach, I frankly find it equally short-sighted.

I believe in a very diversified approach:
1. Attack the supply and not the demand side
2. Attack the drugs that are simply "feel-good" drugs that damage others, but also those that damage yourself a lot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HarmCausedByDrugsTable.jpg)
3. Regulate alcohol, despite its place in the table, for the reasons Dalrymple points out
4. Make an exception for LSD

Redhourse, that a succinct summary of your opinions but they seem, forgive me, completely pulled out of your ass.

This is a completely ambiguous graph that was created by polling 'drug-harm experts.' I have no idea what that means.

Let me tell you how Putin would rip us a new one now.
He would look at data which clearly demonstrates the harm of the drugs in question. He would argue that the harm to society as whole far outweighs whatever right 'responsible drug users' might have to access the drugs.

Those are valid arguments because they aren't arbitrary based on god knows what.

He would also then talk about the alcohol he likes which sort of throws the whole thing out the window but never mind that.

People in the USA today use drugs even though America's stupid drug laws mean it could ruin their lives and possibly send them to jail forever. I'm not sure how "attacking the supply side" is going to stop people from taking drugs.

So your system means people will still take drugs, but some people will be caught and punished for it, apparently financially (?), unless they are drug dealers, in which case they will go to jail (?). This will have two impacts while, again, not actually stopping drug use. First, the poor and weak will be disproportionately harmed under this system, because even if your fines are proportional to income, such fines will hurt the poor more, and the powerful will find ways to get out of/around it. Second, it will reduce respect for the law, because something that people want to do anyway and continue to do will be illegal, even though it harms no one else.

"-It would involving spreading crop-killers over South American coca-farmers' terrains and raiding XTC labs, but not sending people to prison who are caught with a joint. Treat that pretty much like you'd treat speeding. Is that so bad, to have a diversified approach to the problem? On the axis between "liberalize all drugs" and "ban all drugs" and the axis "attack only the demand side - attack both sides - attack only the supply side" I can be anywhere I want, right?"

You can be wherever you want, but that doesn't mean you get to force that on someone else... and sorry if that basically invalidates the side you're on, if your side requires forcing it on someone else. Well, I'm not sorry, really, but you get the drift.

And wait. What? You're talking about... destroying the property of people in other countries as part of this? What the fuck? No. I don't even understand where you're coming from here.

I get that you don't like the philosophical aspect of politics... but seriously, how exactly do you decide a policy without having a philosophy? There's no such thing as pragmatism for its own sake, because you ultimately need some goal for which you're aiming before you can decide whether such an action is acceptably pragmatic or not. You're essentially arguing about the policies with the goal in mind. The problem is that no one else in the thread so far has your goal in mind, and you haven't actually backed that goal in mind up with anything that would make anyone buy into your goal in mind. The end result is that this entire discussion is essentially talking past one another, because you, much like the author of the link you posted, are talking about policy with the philosophy behind it assumed to be settled, when in fact, as this thread has clearly demonstrated, it is not at all settled.

Alright.

The argument to combat drugs in the first place is because you're indirectly, but effectively, combatting drug-related crimes, such as theft. Why is theft so common among junkies? Here's why: several of these drugs are extremely addictive and also neuro-toxic, they cloud your decision making and you need to take more and more of the drug (that's what an addiction does) so you need the money to get the drug, but your capacities to make money are reduced by the drug itself (you did drugs yesterday, you feel screwed up in the morning, don't go to work, get fired, now you have two problems).

There's other stuff specific for different drugs. Many bankers are known to use cocaine, which makes them take risks with normal people's savings. http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-09-12/wall_street/30155606_1_addiction-cocaine-drug-and-alcohol
It could very well have contributed to the crisis.

Heroin is often injected and people who use heroin in groups, start - again because their judgment is clouded - to overlook the risks involved in exchanging needles, which is what they often do.

These harms indeed "outweigh" whatever rights 'responsible drug users' might have.

Then there's the question why I would restrict my approach to supply side and not extend it to demand. The reason of that is many people who get caught, are just having a little innocent fun. Trying out stuff. I'm not interested in seeing my prisons filled with young students who are in a phase of their lives where trying out stuff is very much "what they do", which is why I target what I believe to be the more dangerous side in this: the vendors and producers.

The exception for LSD then, well, I believe Jim Morrison was inspired by LSD and if I'm not mistaken the name of his band, "The Doors", was a reference to the poet Blake who used the line "if the doors to perception are cleansed, anything would appear to man as it is, infinite" (I don't remember the exact wording) an The Doors tried to "open" this door with LSD. Frankly, I didn't think they did a bad job, but it wasn't LSD that finally killed Morrison, but heroine.

Then there's the exception for alcohol, I don't think it's feasible to ban it. If it would be, I would be all down for it. Particularly the many cases of domestic violence and car accidents that occur under the influence of alcohol is still way too high. But it's one of the vices I believe we have to learn with in our society because it's so widespread. Drugs is another matter. (Dalrymple, I believe, argues this well.)

Finally, there is the question of freedom and objective that President Eden addresses. "You can be wherever you want, but that doesn't mean you get to force that on someone else... and sorry if that basically invalidates the side you're on, if your side requires forcing it on someone else. Well, I'm not sorry, really, but you get the drift."

This is not the way I interpret a free society. I believe that with a free society comes plane simple freedom, but much more than that, the freedom to define exactly what is meant by freedom. One of the characteristics of Dutch society, for example, is extremely restricted gun-ownership. Now I immediately admit (being a large proponent of this restriction and in fact not finding it to go far enough) that in that sense, I restrict people's freedom. However, the risk of walking on the street and getting into some kind of armed dispute could get me killed. I don't have a lot of freedom after that, do I? So freedom is obviously a limited, restricted thing. In a democracy, the people decide together exactly which freedoms are most worthy of pursuit, and which freedoms come at too high a price for the collective.

I aspire, just as much as PE or Yonni, or anybody else does, for my society to be truly free, but I don't believe that getting high is one of the valuable freedoms that I cherish if I set it off against the downsides of it I mentioned above, downsides which could also target me. The bankers so collectively screwing up during the crisis, to some extent to the cocaine culture in the banking sector (they need to be awake all the time, because they have so much work and cocaine effectively gives you a boost, I don't make this stuff up), is what loaded a large debt onto Dutch tax payers' shoulders, since we had to save some of our banks from collapsing. I don't want my bankers on drugs. I don't want my neighbor on heroine and I don't want my bus driver on vodka, but I don't see how I'm restricting any of them in their real freedom in demanding that.

Does that answer your question?

So basically:

1. Things that cloud judgment should be banned because they could possibly but don't necessarily or even in most cases lead to crimes occurring. The scant hypotheticals you dream up which aren't the story for the majority of actual drug use are sufficient evidence to override reality, because all that matters is the occasional anecdote that supports your position.
2. You make a completely and utterly arbitrary exception for LSD that is literally based only on one user's experience with it.
3. You make an exception for alcohol because it is "widespread," because obviously use of marijuana, heroin and cocaine are comparatively very rare. This also does not jive with reality, but then nothing else to this point has been based in reality, why start now?
4. You believe in freedom, except where you don't, and you don't believe in freedom for things you don't like, because that's not freedom as you interpret it, and that's all that freedom really is, just what you want. You further go on to say that democracy determines freedom, which essentially means that freedom = what the majority likes, which doesn't match with any actual definition of freedom in reality, but like I said, we're 0/4 on dealing with reality, why start now?

For someone who claims to be adequately imaginative without drugs, you sure have a rather unimaginative mind when it comes to deriving solutions to "problems" associated with freedom that don't involve the violent coercive power of the state.

So yeah, this basically boils down to "People are only free to do the things I approve." COMPELLING ARGUMENT, SIR.

What?!?
"1. Things that cloud judgment should be banned because they could possibly but don't necessarily or even in most cases lead to crimes occurring."
You're the one accusing me of being out of touch with reality? "The majority of drug users don't commit drug-related crimes, so why ban it?" Are we really doing this? I went to see some friends on the other side of town last night, and I drove 70 kph where 50 kph (30 mph) are allowed (within the city). News flash: that never goes wrong. Another news flash: I have a lot of friends who drive these speeds in our city and it never goes wrong either. But should we lower the speeding limit? Hell no. Would I feel restrained in my freedoms if a police officer pulls me over? Hell neither :-) 99.9% of people exceeding the speeding limits don't cause accidents, but that's not a valid argument against either raising or abolishing the speed limit, because the .1% who do, inflict much greater damage when they do. The advantage of being a little faster are outweighed by the disadvantage of the gravity of car accidents.

"2. You make a completely and utterly arbitrary exception for LSD that is literally based only on one user's experience with it."
Two users' experiences, Morrison and Jobs, keep up will you? And it's not the point. The point is that we have some experiences with all drugs, and LSD seems to be a rather innocent one and I know of multiple people who appear to make a not unsubstantiated claim that it stimulated their creativity. The point is not about LSD in particular, but about drugs in general: if somebody can build a reasonable case for a drug having some beneficial effects without the downsides being disastrous (for cocaine and heroin it's the opposite) I don't see why we should ban the stuff. I find this fact-based case by case decision on drugs, erring toward the "allowing" rather than the "banning" side in case of doubt a much healthier approach than your "freedom freedom freedom" approach to the issue. But I *do* want to take these experiences and statistics into account, you would never do that, because they hurt your nonsense-principled stance on the issue.
"3. You make an exception for alcohol because it is "widespread," because obviously use of marijuana, heroin and cocaine are comparatively very rare. This also does not jive with reality, but then nothing else to this point has been based in reality, why start now?"
This is pathetic. I'm a scientist, I'm very interested in facts, psychological and crime reports, the chemical nature of these substances and how that relates to their effect, and I've got a couple of experiences with drugs under my belt, so I'm sorry, this "being out of touch with reality" is nonsense PE, and you know it.
Here you find the reports of the Center for Disease Control
http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/alcoholdrug/
On the spread of alcohol and mariujana in your country. I believe the CDC goes for an authority in this area and we can trust what they have to say right? Or are your government's agencies as much out of touch as I am? Because they seem to support my point that alcohol use is much, much more widespread than marijuana use.

"4. You believe in freedom, except where you don't, and you don't believe in freedom for things you don't like, because that's not freedom as you interpret it, and that's all that freedom really is, just what you want. You further go on to say that democracy determines freedom, which essentially means that freedom = what the majority likes, which doesn't match with any actual definition of freedom in reality, but like I said, we're 0/4 on dealing with reality, why start now?"

You're such an intelligent person PE, and you pretend that all arguments I used deploring drug use are somehow fantasy arguments. News flash: they're not.

People getting hurt in car accidents because the driver was drunk are *very real.*
Bankers taking unacceptable risks with our money because they use cocaine are *very real.*
The spread of AIDS due to heroin users exchanging needles is very *very real*.
And the manipulation of marijuana sold in the Netherlands causing it to become more and more addictive and powerful, because it became a target for this kind of manipulation once it was legalized, is also *very real.*

So no, what I have to say very much deals with reality, the reality of the downsides of drugs, it's a reality we all know you don't like, but it's very much there. You don't need to trust me on this, go on the internet, or read newspapers, and you can find out for yourself.

I'm all for decriminalisation, if drug users can agree to paying out of their own pocket instead of out of Medicaid or whatever government-funded plan they have, when they suffer drug-related injury. Why should I pay out of my pocket to help someone who chose to take drugs out of their own volition and are now sick because of it?

"I'm all for decriminalisation, if drug users can agree to paying out of their own pocket instead of out of Medicaid or whatever government-funded plan they have, when they suffer drug-related injury. "

This is the argument that makes me most terrified of government-run healthcare.

How so semck?

It is anathema to freedom. Once somebody else has to pay for the consequences of your poor choices, they start to have the right to tell you not to make them. And even if that's debateable, they certainly start to _feel_ that they have the right.

It's already a common argument used in defense of seat belt laws -- which admittedly are but a pinprick. As more health care becomes government sponsored, there will likely be larger-scale attacks on the freedom to eat what you want, to smoke, to live how you want in all kinds of arguably unhealthy ways, to engage in risky activities, etc.

Not to say all these will succeed, but some will, and the dialog will be an enduring part of the political discourse going forward.