Taking the Fun Out of Pot

[Fried Egg]

Originally Posted by Peter Graham

Nonsense. It is straight cause and effect. If you steal to buy drugs, then drug taking and theft are utterly bound up together. But for the former, you wouldn't need to do the latter. Therefore, the former is the direct cause of crime, meaning that the proposition "drug taking is a cause of crime" is a perfectly sound one.

It is neither a necessary connection that someone who takes drugs will steal to fund their habit nor is it a necessary connection that someone who steals is doing so to fund a drug habit. Therefore to claim that they are "utterly bound up together" is false.

Anyway, as I have touched upon earlier in this thread, many of the social problems associtaed with drug use (including theft) are precisely because of their illegality. That is not to say that all these problems would miraculously disappear if they were legalised but one must be careful not to employ the evidence of the problems of drug prohibition as justification for their continued prohibition.

Do you accept that if you are a drug addict (as opposed to a user), there is a greater chance that you will end up committing crime? Or do you propose that in a group of 100 heroin addicts (no "e" in heroin, by the way), the incidence of criminality would be no higher than in a control group of 100 people who are not addicts?

See if you can spot the flaw in this reasoning:

A group of 100 black people will have a higher incidence of criminals than a control group of 100 people. Therefore, being black is a cause of crime.

The point I am making is that correlation does not prove causation. Black people are more likely to grow up in deprived neighbourhoods leading to a greater incidence of crime.

[Vladd67]

I personally think that drug addicts are pathetic victims of their own weaknesses and need help that is why laws against drug abuse and dealing exist to protect society. Now it would seem some people in this thread are in denial and appear to be trying to convince themselves and others but mainly themselves that this poison is harmless I hope this is just some form of juvenial rebellion and not for more serious reasons. I personally believe that the recreational use of drugs* is wrong, I fully believe however if there is a need then cannabis can be taken for medical reasons.

Originally Posted by Wybren

Uh huh, riiiight. Well good luck with that logic mate.

I'm buying out of this now before I say something I may regret.

I'm with Wybren I am leaving this thread as it will only spiral out of control.



*By drugs I do not include tobacco or alcohol as they are a seperate problem.

[Fried Egg]

Originally Posted by Vladd67

I personally believe that the recreational use of drugs* is wrong...

This raises another question: Should laws impose morality? Many people would say that infidelity is wrong but does that mean it should be a criminal offense?

[Peter Graham]

It is a stated aim of prohibition to drive up the price of the drug in order that it become prohibitively expensive.

That might be true, but I don't necessarily accept that prohibition and illegality are the same. Possession of certain drugs is illegal because successive governments believe (rightly or wrongly) that this is the best thing to do. Their decision is no doubt prompted by a variety of social, vote-winning and other reasons, but I'm not sure that it's tenable to argue that ecstasy (for example) was only made illegal so as to push up the price.

Assuming that prohibition has had at least some success at restricting the supply, then we can say that legalising it would bring the price down meaning that fewer addicts would need to resort to crime to fund their addiction.

We can't say that at all. Illegal drugs are not subject to tax and duty. Legalised ones would be. The price of alcohol has risen steadily to the point where it is much cheaper to buy booze on the black market than legally.

And would it even make that much difference if you were right? Let us take our career smackhead with a five bag a day habit. Assuming he buys his smack in bulk as soon as he gets his dole money, he can probably afford just about two days worth of gear. Even if the price were halved because of decriminalisation, he can still only afford four days worth. How does he feed his habit until the next cheque arrives?

It is interesting that you cite figures on relating crime to drug taking because I have also seen similiar figures associating alcohol with crime. Yet I'm sure you would wish to dissassociate yourself from such an association, demonstrating that commiting crimes is not an innevitable result of drinking alcohol. Is there not an analogy to be made there?[/

You are absolutely right about there being an analogy to be made. And no, I wouldn't want to dissassociate alcohol use from crime. Far from it. Whereas drug addciction leads to theft, excessive alcohol use leads to violence. On the same basis as previously discussed, I'd say that alcohol features in well over 70% of violent crime. But that is more of a reason for banning alcohol than it is for decriminalising drugs. Two wrongs don't make a right and all that.

Regards,

Peter

[Peter Graham]

I think the issue here is that some of you are misunderstanding the meaning of the phrase 'victimless crime'

It is simply a term used to describe certain type of crimes, crimes where the person committing the crime is also the victim of their own act. This isn't to say that the use of drugs wont have negative effects, but that the act of the taking the drugs is a choice made by the user, a choice that doesn't directly harm anyone but the user.

If I have made a semantic error and am misunderstanding the phrase "victimless crime", does that really negate the rest of my arguments? This isn't a discussion about the interpretation of one phrase - it's a discussion about whether drug taking causes crime. And it does.

In my opinion this a unjust law and should be changed, how far will our state go in its attempts to force me to live what it deems to be a healthy existence?

Fine - but in order to hold your opinion, you are deliberately choosing to ignore the bigger picture. This goes way beyond whether you should be allowed to have a spliff.

I was under the impression that laws were there to protect us, not for our unquestioned obedience.

It's not an opt-out system. Laws are supposed to reflect the collective view. Everyone can point at a law that they don't like, but that isn't the point.


Regards,

Peter

[Peter Graham]

See if you can spot the flaw in this reasoning:

A group of 100 black people will have a higher incidence of criminals than a control group of 100 people. Therefore, being black is a cause of crime.

The point I am making is that correlation does not prove causation. Black people are more likely to grow up in deprived neighbourhoods leading to a greater incidence of crime.

Bad analogy, old chap. Last time I checked, skin colour wasn't something you could choose. I'm not sure that too many people have been born with raging heroin habits, and even if they have heroin dependency inherited from their mother, I'm not sure how many one day old babies can score a bag of smack or prepare it for usage.

Regards,

Peter

[Fried Egg]

Peter Graham

That might be true, but I don't necessarily accept that prohibition and illegality are the same. Possession of certain drugs is illegal because successive governments believe (rightly or wrongly) that this is the best thing to do. Their decision is no doubt prompted by a variety of social, vote-winning and other reasons. I'm not sure that it's tenable to argue that ecstasy (for example) was only made illegal so as to push up the price.

That's not quite what I meant. It was prohibited in order to try and stop people taking it. But the police believe that by restricting the supply, they can drive up the price.

We can't say that at all. Illegal drugs are not subject to tax and duty. Legalised ones would be. The price of alcohol has risen steadily to the point where it is much cheaper to buy booze on the black market than legally.

I guess this is all highly speculative because it is hard to say exactly how much the price has been inflated due to prohibition and exactly how much it would be taxed. I guess a real lesson here (learned from alcohol) is; tax it but don't tax it too much.

There is another difference between the black market for alcohol and other drugs: the supply of alcohol on the black market is imported from other legal and regulated markets. The black market arises as a result of the huge tax differential. Such a choice would not arise if the UK unilaterally legalised heroin. The choice would be between a legal and regulated product that was in measured doses and devoid of toxic impurities and the illegal, unregulated product with all the risks that entails.

To put it another way; I can get any branded alcoholic beverage that I can buy legally on the black market but for cheaper. It's not like I have to choose between that and some moonshine that somebody's distilled in their kitchen sink.

And would it even make that much difference if you were right. let us take our career smackhead with a five bag a day habit. Assuming he buys his smack in bulk as soon as he gets his dole money, he can probably afford jsut about two days worth of gear. Even if the price were halved because of decriminalisation, he can still only afford four days worth. How does he feed his habit until the next cheque arrives?

Assuming the net price came down, marginal users would no longer have to steal to fund their habit. Some still might, but it would reduce their numbers (the precise extent of which would depend on the actual extent to which the price fell).

You are absolutely right about there being an analogy to be made. And no, I wouldn't want to dissassociate alcohol use from crime. Far from it. Whereas drug addciction leads to theft, excessive alcohol use leads to violence. On the same basis as previously discussed, I'd say that alcohol features in well over 70% of violent crime. But that is more of a reason for banning alcohol than it is for decriminalising drugs. Two wrongs don't make a right and all that.

70% of violent crime may be committed by people who have consumed alcohol, but I would imagine that 70% of people who consume alcohol do so without going on to commit violent crime. Yes, that figure was plucked out of the air but I think that it is probably a good estimate and makes a good case for not making alcohol illegal.

Bad analogy, old chap. Last time I checked, skin colour wasn't something you could choose. I'm not sure that too many people have been born with raging heroin habits, and even if they have heroin dependency inherited from their mother, I'm not sure how many one day old babies can score a bag of smack or prepare it for usage.

I think you have missed the point of my analogy. It is not being black that leads to committing crime. It is growing up in a deprived neighbourhood. The point of my analogy was to show an example of a correlation which few would argue implied a causation. In this sense, it makes a good analogy.

[Moonbat]

but in order to hold your opinion, you are deliberately choosing to ignore the bigger picture.

The bigger picture being? That drugs are bad? That taking drugs causes crime? That the state has a right to tell me what I can or cannot put into my own blood stream on the grounds that they are protecting me from the ravages of drugs?

I personally think that drug addicts are pathetic victims of their own weaknesses and need help that is why laws against drug abuse and dealing exist to protect society.

I have the same thoughts about Religious people, but I would be be surprised if they outlawed religion.

[Peter Graham]

I guess this is all highly speculative because it is hard to say exactly how much the price has been inflated due to prohibition and exactly how much it would be taxed. I guess a real lesson here (learned from alcohol) is; tax it but don't tax it too much.

So, we legalise smack, somehow ensure that the government can get a pure supply from somewhere, tax it lightly and then sell it a reasonable price to every addict who fancies popping down to Boots to buy it? OK - it's a coherent argument as far as it goes, but we've got a few more questions to answer before we've solved the drugs problem:-

1. Given that your average bag of smack is usually only about 40-50% pure, we need to ensure that we either let addicts know that they are getting pure stuff so that they take less and don't OD, or we bulk it up ourselves. Of course, given that smack is produced by zealots in highly unstable regions, we're going to have to purity test what we buy in before we can flog it on in any event, otherwise addicts will be able to sue Boots for giving them a wrong dose. Whether or not you like prescription medication or approve of the drug companies, it has all been through very expensive and very drawn out testing processes before being marketed for sale. A lot of that may be questionable, but the cost certainly isn't in any doubt.

2. Assuming that we are not regulating consumption (some addicts are obliged to take their methadone in the chemists shop), can we morally infringe rights by doing something to make sure that addicts don't just take more and more in search of that increasingly elusive high? Heroin tolerance builds up over time as I'm sure you know, so many people will increase intake. That's the nature of the beast. So, how do we stop them thieving when they run out of money to buy their legal doses? Give them more for free? We have to, don't we - can't stop them taking it, because we mustn't offend their rights to poison themselves, after all.

3. It is a precondition of receiving Jobseekers Allowance that an individual is available for work. By and large, drug addicts don't and can't work. Even if they are not hanging around in dodgy alleyways waiting for the man, twenty six dollars in their hand, they will still spend most of their day either taking drugs, looking to obtain more drugs or being under the influence of those drugs. So they aren't available for work. So do we stick the poor lambs on incapacity benefit, or do we just pay them to be addicts? Because if we don't pay them, they won't even be able to afford the competitively priced and high quality gear which we are knocking out to them and they'll have go out thieving again.

4. Depending on age, Incapacity and JSA pays about £50-£70 per week. The rates need to be increased for junkies, so they can afford life's other necessities, like food and rent. So we need to have a normal rate and a higher, "addict" rate, presumably only payable if an individual gives a solemn undertaking to spend the money solely on drugs and to ensure that they are not available to make any sort of contribution to society? We'll need to police that - we wouldn't want drunks and glassbacks abusing the system, after all!

5. So where does all of this cash we're going to need come from? Presumably, we increase income tax in order to subsidise state-sanctioned heroin dependency for anyone who wants it.

6. Incidentally, do we allow foreign junkies to come here and enjoy our liberal regime? We'd certainly have to let European ones in.

Assuming the net price came down, marginal users would no longer have to steal to fund their habit.

You can have "marginal users" of cannabis, pills and booze, because these things aren't overly physically or psychologically addictive. You cannot have marginal heroin or crack cocaine use in anything other than a handful of cases. For 99% of us, the choice is between being clean, on your way to becoming an addict, or an addict.

70% of violent crime may be committed by people who have consumed alcohol, but I would imagine that 70% of people who consume alcohol do so without going on to commit violent crime.

I'm sure it's higher even that that, but we're on to the whole "marginal use" thing again. If you were driven to consume three bottles of claret a day and were on the dole because you were pissed the whole time, how would you pay for it?

I think you have missed the point of my analogy. It is not being black that leads to committing crime. It is growing up in a deprived neighbourhood.

Hang on. I thought this was all about personal choice and the right to poison oneself? Are you actually in favour of keeping people away from drugs?

Regards

Peter

[Peter Graham]

The bigger picture being? That drugs are bad? That taking drugs causes crime? That the state has a right to tell me what I can or cannot put into my own blood stream on the grounds that they are protecting me from the ravages of drugs?

1. Not inherently

2. Yes. Some crimes are a direct result of particular kinds of drug (ab)use.

3. No. Like I have said, taking drugs is not illegal. Therefore the State does not claim a right to tell you want you can or can't sniff/inject/smoke/burn up on bits of tinfoil.

The bigger picture is that drug addiction is a blight that causes misery, deprivation, illness, social exclusion and death. You can try and divorce the substance from the effects (just like the NRA try to do with guns and gun crime), but the simple fact is that the substance does not exist in a vacuum. Moral statements about your right to poison yourself are fine and laudable as far as they go, but they just don't go very far.

Regards,

Peter

[Fried Egg]

Peter Graham

Undoubtedly there are a variety of practical issues and problems that need to be addressed before it should be legalised. I am not going to deny that but neither do I intend to set out here how they can be addressed. I am merely trying to make the case, in principle, that it should be legalised.

There is one source of confusion that I do want to clear up however:

Hang on. I thought this was all about personal choice and the right to poison oneself? Are you actually in favour of keeping people away from drugs?

I started off by responding to this comment you made (in post #73):

Do you accept that if you are a drug addict (as opposed to a user), there is a greater chance that you will end up committing crime? Or do you propose that in a group of 100 heroin addicts (no "e" in heroin, by the way), the incidence of criminality would be no higher than in a control group of 100 people who are not addicts?

The implication being that, statistically speaking, if you are a drug addict you are more likely to to commit other crimes than someone picked at random from the general population.

While this may be true, it is only evidence of correlation, not causation. To illustrate this I pointed out that, statistically speaking, if you are black you are more likely to commit crime than someone picked at random from the general population.

You then commented that this is not a good analogy because people don't choose their ethnic origin. Your comment would only be valid if it were true that being black caused one to lead a life of crime. Then the point that they didn't choose to be black would be relevent. However, since most would accept that being black and committing crime is merely correlation and not evidence of one causing the other, my analogy stands.

Perhaps it is mere correlation that drug addiction and crime appear linked? i.e. they are both made likely being from a deprived social background.

[Ursa major]

Originally Posted by Moonbat

I think the issue here is that some of you are misunderstanding the meaning of the phrase 'victimless crime'

It is simply a term used to describe certain type of crimes, crimes where the person committing the crime is also the victim of their own act. This isn't to say that the use of drugs wont have negative effects, but that the act of the taking the drugs is a choice made by the user, a choice that doesn't directly harm anyone but the user.

I don't think that we are misunderstanding the term at all. The term is merely spin, an attempt to suggest that an activity is socially benign. It isn't benign at all (even if you accept that some individual instances of the activity could be seen to be).

Originally Posted by Moonbat

This is a crime becuase the state deems that it is bad for me to take drugs and so has banned me from putting them into my own body. In my opinion this a unjust law and should be changed, how far will our state go in its attempts to force me to live what it deems to be a healthy existence?

You are entitled to your opinion - there is nothing that says opinions have to be true or have any relevance to reality - but to expect the state to legalise something for you when the consequences to the state (and us) will be adverse and where there is inadequate benefit to the state (and us) in return is being somewhat selfish.

We can all see the social ills that result from at least one legal drug - alcohol - which, due to its long history and widespread use, is just about impossible to ban. It would be stupid to increase the social burden (by legalising other addictive substances) for what is simply a pleasure (at best) for some.

Originally Posted by Moonbat

I was under the impression that laws were there to protect us, not for our unquestioned obedience. How far will the state go in its quest to remove anything deemed 'bad' from our lives, will they ban rollercoasters (for the thrill of fear) or horror movies? Will they ban unhealthy foods until the only thing left to eat is a tasteless gruel? It's amazing, there is no law agaisnt forcing children to be brainwashed for an hour every sunday in a church (indoctrinating them with values that we know to be inaccurate or just plain mad), yet as a responsible adult I am not at liberty to inject myself with a pain killer?

Laws are there for all sorts of reasons. Protecting society is one. Where the line is drawn is a matter of debate. Perhaps you could explain a benefit to us (beyond saving money on policing) that might balance the downsides.

[Ursa major]

Originally Posted by Fried Egg

Yeah, that's the argument for "social contract" theory but it doesn't stand up. A contract has to be voluntarilly entered into in the first place. Assumed acceptance merely by existing is hardly valid. Basically, the state gets to impose laws as it sees fit simply because it can and has the power.

I wasn't debating the philosophy of government - I'm not a philosopher, in case you hadn't noticed - merely how it works in practice.

Originally Posted by Fried Egg

Personally, I believe in a moral imperative to defy unjust laws. Laws that punish individuals for activities that do not harm others are unjust. If I take heroin go out and drive a car and kill somebody I should be prosecuted, not because I have taken heroin, because I have caused harm. If, on the other hand, I take it in a responsible way in my own living room and cause no harm to others, why should I be prosecuted?

If a person drives a car while under the influence of a drug, that person is increasing the chances of having an accident. While prosecuting that person after the accident might meet your requirements of a sensible (and just) law, I'd prefer it if the chances of having the accident in the first place were reduced, so that the victim doesn't have to die.

[Wiggum]

I've read through most of this thread.

I'm a middle class guy, who owns a house with my fiance.

In the course of my life I've slung hash, taken peyote and smoked more than one rock.

I don't do any of that at this point (I still do love a couple cocktails), but legality really has no issue within the idea of a user.

We.Simply.Don't.Care.

Make it legal if it might benefit something, because the behavior is going to happen regardless.

[Peter Graham]

Undoubtedly there are a variety of practical issues and problems that need to be addressed before it should be legalised. I am not going to deny that but neither do I intend to set out here how they can be addressed. I am merely trying to make the case, in principle, that it should be legalised.

With respect, that is a cop out. If you want to legalise drugs, you have to show how it might work in practice. Otherwise you haven't made a case, you've just made a statement.

The implication being that, statistically speaking, if you are a drug addict you are more likely to to commit other crimes than someone picked at random from the general population.

Absolutely. That was the point I was making. I will differentiate "drug user" from "drug addict", but when it comes to smack and crack, the one usually becomes the other in any event.

While this may be true, it is only evidence of correlation, not causation.

No. I don't think this is right. I have given you a criminal (a drug addicted thief), a motive (a craving for drugs), a driver (a lack of money to support a habit) and a logical outcome (steal to get the money to buy the drugs). That is not just correllation - it is a clear chain of causation. It goes way beyond co-incidence.

Perhaps it is mere correlation that drug addiction and crime appear linked? i.e. they are both made likely being from a deprived social background.

Perhaps - but it isn't as likely as my theory, is it?

Regards,

Peter