Jump to content

      



























Photo

Evolution of Victoria's downtown drug dealing hotspots


  • Please log in to reply
106 replies to this topic

#41 Caramia

Caramia
  • Member
  • 3,835 posts

Posted 14 March 2009 - 07:51 PM

I agree wholeheartedly!
Nowadays most people die of a sort of creeping common sense, and discover when it is too late that the only things one never regrets are one's mistakes.
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900), The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891

#42 Sue Woods

Sue Woods
  • Member
  • 621 posts

Posted 14 March 2009 - 10:35 PM

It was good to end prohibition on alcohol, and it would be good to end drug prohibition, too.


An organization called LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) is made up of current and former police/judges who support drug regulation rather than prohibition. Membership spans into Canada as well.

Well worth a read at www.leap.cc

#43 Ms. B. Havin

Ms. B. Havin
  • Member
  • 5,052 posts

Posted 14 March 2009 - 10:48 PM

How does decriminalization work when it comes to really icky poisons you can cook up in your kitchen, using cold meds and Drano or whatever (i.e., crystal meth), which have a really really bad effect on your brain and your body? Does legalization of drugs like heroin and cocaine (crack cocaine, too?) somehow trickle down to affect how people use narcotics like meth? And how does decriminalization/ legalization deal with the social effects - i.e., that those addicted to meth or crack can't hold down jobs, carry out effective parenting, or function in typically "normal" ways?

It's just a question. I'm not sure where I stand on this, frankly, so I'm asking. It just seems to me that there are drugs that are evil in a whole other dimension, and that it's kind of mistaken to compare them to alcohol (*). If I enjoy a beer or a glass of wine with my dinner, that's just not the same thing as doing something weird with cough meds and drain cleaner. The intention or purpose is hugely different - and decriminalization doesn't address that part of the equation at all.

Does libertarianism have anything to say about purpose/ intention, or is it all left to the individual? What about the intentions/ purposes of youth? I'm all in favor of letting young people enjoy a glass of wine or beer with a meal, but I'd be dead-set against letting my kid try meth or crack.

At what point is it ok for a young person to say that s/he wants to try that? Why would s/he want to try that? Does meth go with fish or with red meat? With pasta, or with ...? The "guidelines" for drugs like that are so foreign to me, I just don't know how to think about them concretely. Legalization is like an abstraction - in the abstract, it's all well and good. But what about concretely, in this or in that specific instance? At what point is it ok to disable yourself as a functioning member of society?

(*) Edit: I'm comparing them to alcohol because that's what the anti-prohibition argument does (that prohibiting alcohol didn't work, which is why prohibiting drugs doesn't, either).
When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

#44 sebberry

sebberry

    Resident Housekeeper

  • Moderator
  • 21,502 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 14 March 2009 - 11:27 PM

Libertarians advocate decriminalizing the buying, selling, and use of drugs amongst adults.

Drug users would become no more of a problem than alcohol users are now, and those that committed criminal acts could be dealt with on the basis of their crimes. Drug quality would improve as legitimate retailers sought quality product from wholesalers, bringing an end to users dying from adulterated intoxicants. After all, where's the profit in killing your customers? Police would be more free to pursue rapists, murderers, and thieves, as they would no longer have to waste time punishing people who are just trying to feel good (or normal!). The violence that surrounds the drug trade would evaporate.

It was good to end prohibition on alcohol, and it would be good to end drug prohibition, too.


I'm all for supporting the fundamental idea that people should have a right to take a substance that alters their state of being, however ending prohibition of many of the street drugs will likely not help with much. Here's why:

Drug users would become no more of a problem than alcohol users are now


While many people can handle alcohol socially and in moderation without it having a negative impact (other than a hangover after a night of really good fun) on their daily lives, there ARE people who cannot handle it. Alcoholics, drunk drivers, men who turn violent after drinking and beat their wives, etc... all demonstrate that there is still a downside to the end of alcohol prohibition.

Now in a Libertarian's perfect world, people would be free to sell, purchase and consume a wide variety of mind altering substances. If the effects on the human body and mind of said substances were similar to alcohol, we'd likely see a rise in the number of alcohol-like societal problems as the number of decriminalized drugs increases. Unfortunately the effects of these drugs are much more severe than those of casual alchol use.

It is rare for people to become addicted to alcohol after getting drunk a few times. If anything, most people wake up the next morning and vow to never drink another drop. With street drugs, strong addiction and dependency often develops after just one use.

Due to the strong dependencies one develops for harder drugs, it is reasonable to assume that people will take much more aggressive steps to procure such drugs than they would with alcohol. We would likely see property crimes such as theft continue or even increase as users seek ways to fund their use as addiction becomes more widespread.

There would probably be an increase in separations and divorce as individuals pursue their addiction (we already see this with alcohol), employment termination due to poor work quality/attendance will increase and the list goes on.

I don't feel that ending prohibition of street or party drugs will solve any drug related problems. Perhaps it will take dealers off the street corner and give us a slightly increased sense of security while walking around downtown at night, but it will likely shift the problems from being mainly a homeless and street youth issue to a more middle-class domestic/suburban one as access to the drugs becomes easier and easier.

#45 Sue Woods

Sue Woods
  • Member
  • 621 posts

Posted 15 March 2009 - 12:04 AM

Now in a Libertarian's perfect world, people would be free to sell, purchase and consume a wide variety of mind altering substances.


The idea to end drug prohibition does not mean that drugs will take an acceptable mainstream role like alcohol is to our society. It is for the purpose of treating drugs as a treatment and recovery issue (medical/detox etc) rather then a criminal issue (courts/police/jail).

No one I've ever heard talk about decriminalization (ending prohibition) is pro-drugs and it would still be treated as a very serious anti-social and life-threatening issue.

There would not be stores selling heroin or crack - we would still be educating our children aganist drugs - but the money and police resources would not be used for what is presently a (failing) revolving door criminal system. The money spent would be better applied to building treatment centers - and for public education. The loser would be the drug dealers -not our children who now are at the mercy of the underground.

Plus there would be an increased ability to help addicts get into treatent if the whole ugly mess is brought into the daylight, controlled, monitored, in a humane and accountable way but by no means by a pro-drug approach.

The people who talk about this are seriously concerned about the decay caused by drugs on personal lives and our city streets. They are by no means "advocates" for drug use. Quite the opposite to my knowledge.

#46 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 15 March 2009 - 07:36 AM

It's just a question. I'm not sure where I stand on this, frankly, so I'm asking. It just seems to me that there are drugs that are evil in a whole other dimension, and that it's kind of mistaken to compare them to alcohol (*). If I enjoy a beer or a glass of wine with my dinner, that's just not the same thing as doing something weird with cough meds and drain cleaner. The intention or purpose is hugely different - and decriminalization doesn't address that part of the equation at all.


I think there were some pretty weird drinks made during prohibition that were every bit as bad for you as meth or crack. If you legalize (and therefore cheapen) the good stuff, the market for the rot gutt dries up.

#47 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 15 March 2009 - 07:44 AM

I don't feel that ending prohibition of street or party drugs will solve any drug related problems. Perhaps it will take dealers off the street corner and give us a slightly increased sense of security while walking around downtown at night, but it will likely shift the problems from being mainly a homeless and street youth issue to a more middle-class domestic/suburban one as access to the drugs becomes easier and easier.


Decriminalizing drugs would allow the drug economy to be taxed for the damage it does society, rather than just enriching criminals, not to mention it would save a lot of money in enforcement.

I think many of the homeless and street youth come from situations one would describe as "middle-class domestic/suburban". Because they are illegal, drugs are readily available at all your suburban schools because criminals don't care who they sell to. Legalization wouldn't make the problem of kids trying drugs go away, but it would probably moderate it because there would be fewer criminal purveyors.

#48 Ms. B. Havin

Ms. B. Havin
  • Member
  • 5,052 posts

Posted 15 March 2009 - 09:08 PM

^ I hope you're right that quality would improve if drugs were legalized, although I'm not swayed that any Prohibition rot-gut was on par with meth.

Here's a story: I recently spoke to someone who told me that in the late 80s/early 90s when he was at a local private high school in the suburbs, many of his buddies were doing heroin. Now, he said, they (i.e., the kids at school now - EDITED) are doing meth. So he thought that heroin should be legalized because it's not as dangerous as meth. Wow, I said, when I was in high school (~15 years before his day), my friends smoked pot and hash, and we drank, but no one at my "normal" high school did heroin. That was for losers.

So, 10 to 20 years later the kids in "good schools" from "good homes" are doing heroin, ...and now they're doing meth? In the suburbs? At private prep schools?

What happened?

It's not just the legality or illegality of the drug(s), there's something FUBAR in the culture.

That said, I'm open to discussing legalization and/or decriminalization.
When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

#49 D.L.

D.L.
  • Member
  • 7,786 posts

Posted 16 March 2009 - 07:43 AM

there's something FUBAR in the culture.

bang on there Ms. B.

#50 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,786 posts

Posted 16 March 2009 - 07:48 AM

^ Good schools in good suburbs was most likely the culprit. I grew up in a wealthy suburb and went to good school and drug use was out of hand including heroin and cocaine.

IMO this was caused by the lack of any community social structure. Parents went and worked an hour away in the city. There was no need for most of the kids to work as their parents gave them very large allowances (and cars). There was absolutely no volunteer aspect of childhood for kids.

I think that a lot can be solved by making kids get to school on their own (so yes you have to live close to the school), set an example by walking or taking transit, refrain from allowances so that they have to get a job, as the kid grows up spend time volunteering together and finally spend time with them after work etc...

#51 Caramia

Caramia
  • Member
  • 3,835 posts

Posted 16 March 2009 - 09:32 AM

Doesn't hurt that meth is as cheap as candy.
Nowadays most people die of a sort of creeping common sense, and discover when it is too late that the only things one never regrets are one's mistakes.
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900), The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891

#52 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 16,310 posts

Posted 16 March 2009 - 09:39 AM

Which comes back to the same question that's been asked here before. We wouldn't walk past a man slashing at himself with a razor, so why do we hide behind anti-prohibition rhetoric when talking about a destructive drug like meth or crack with no safe consumption level?

#53 yodsaker

yodsaker
  • Member
  • 1,280 posts

Posted 16 March 2009 - 09:45 AM

^ Good schools in good suburbs was most likely the culprit. I grew up in a wealthy suburb and went to good school and drug use was out of hand including heroin and cocaine.

IMO this was caused by the lack of any community social structure. Parents went and worked an hour away in the city. There was no need for most of the kids to work as their parents gave them very large allowances (and cars). There was absolutely no volunteer aspect of childhood for kids.

I think that a lot can be solved by making kids get to school on their own (so yes you have to live close to the school), set an example by walking or taking transit, refrain from allowances so that they have to get a job, as the kid grows up spend time volunteering together and finally spend time with them after work etc...



When I was a hippie in the 60s the biggest stoners, the ones who went on to really serious drugs, were pretty much all from upper-middle class homes, Uplands equivalent. Two good friends, both from the toniest parts of Montreal, OD'ed fatally. Two others, 100% crazy, had parents who were wealthy psychiatrists with waterfront home etc.
All of them seemed to lack parenting, empathy and any values apart from money and material things.

#54 ZGsta

ZGsta
  • Member
  • 573 posts

Posted 16 March 2009 - 10:25 AM

I think we should just do nothing. I like keeping downtown as crappy as possible because it's so easy to avoid. Let the homeless, freaks and druggies have downtown. We'll keep the rest.


I agree with this. It doesn't matter if we let things keep getting worse for the addicts and such downtown since we have that great Invisible Wall that prevents them from getting out of downtown to break into houses in other municipalities when they get desperate.
Oh wait...

#55 Caramia

Caramia
  • Member
  • 3,835 posts

Posted 16 March 2009 - 10:25 AM

haha
:P
Nowadays most people die of a sort of creeping common sense, and discover when it is too late that the only things one never regrets are one's mistakes.
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900), The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891

#56 Pyroteknik

Pyroteknik
  • Member
  • 92 posts

Posted 16 March 2009 - 11:30 AM

What we need is a good stolen property fence sting operation. Some police set up an electronic fix-it repair shop and buy back the stuff cheap all the while taking high-resolution video of the people selling stolen property. Maybe pay a little more than the run of the mill chop shop to generate business.

After a while, the most prolific thieves will be identified and they'll recover more stolen property than by random success as occurs otherwise. Such a sting will generate evidence so compelling, even Victoira's prosecutors will deign to devote court resources to putting the prolific thieves and drug addicts in jail for a while.


I agree as far as jailing prolific B&E offenders, but where are we going to find room in jail for these people when we're about to send small time marijuana users/growers to jail for one plant!? What's with these new mandatory minimums being introduced by the Harper government, Bill C-15?

Allow access to the substances they are addicted to through government controlled outlets. This will reduce the demand on the illicit drug trade and reduce crime and violence. Drugs don't cause most of the violence and crime we are seeing, it is the desperation of the users and territorial control by the distributors that causes this violence. It will never go away unless you take the distribution from the gangs and control it through legal means. Why are we so afraid to move in this direction? It cannot be any worse than what we've been doing. Our current drug laws are a harmful and destructive failure, and an assault on our freedom of consciousness.

#57 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 16 March 2009 - 12:14 PM

Which comes back to the same question that's been asked here before. We wouldn't walk past a man slashing at himself with a razor, so why do we hide behind anti-prohibition rhetoric when talking about a destructive drug like meth or crack with no safe consumption level?


Well, just like its not legal to sell lots of alcohol for human consumption, it shouldn't be legal to sell vile poisonous drugs like crack and meth. However, if informed consenting adults are willing to shell out for coke or pharmacy grade speed, then they should be allowed to. By "shell out", I mean pay via sin tax for the costs of those who end up abusing these drugs, and by "informed" I mean as much drastic warnings about the dangers of addictive behaviour as possible. I think if you did this, the "market" for crystal meth and crack would be reduced to the truly desperate, and I doubt you would find kids trying it, any more than kids now try moonshine.

I walk past people smoking all the time, and it is far more addictive, and probably more destructive, than a lot of drugs you could imagine legalizing.

Maybe I'm highly idealizing things, but given that I had some kind entrepreneurs asking me to buy rock outside of the police station while I walked home Saturday night, I don't think prohibition is reducing access. (Unless these were just really lazy undercover cops).

#58 Ms. B. Havin

Ms. B. Havin
  • Member
  • 5,052 posts

Posted 16 March 2009 - 02:17 PM

Well, just like its not legal to sell lots of alcohol for human consumption, ...


It isn't legal? I thought it was - I can buy a couple of cases of Scotch at the liquor store, enough to kill me if I drink every bottle in one sitting, can't I?

@ Pyroteknik: What's this: "...send small time marijuana users/growers to jail for one plant!?" When did this happen? Seriously? Is this in the works or something? That would be a ridiculous turn. It's not the law (in BC??) right now/ yet, is it? I thought small amounts of marijuana for personal use was quasi-legal (decriminalized)?
When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

#59 Ms. B. Havin

Ms. B. Havin
  • Member
  • 5,052 posts

Posted 16 March 2009 - 02:19 PM

PS: In some ways, the argument for legalization is like demanding that the government become the capo in the distribution of drugs. That sort of undercuts the libertarian argument just a tad, doesn't it? It puts the onus of force and coercion back into the government's camp.
When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

#60 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 16 March 2009 - 02:47 PM

It isn't legal? I thought it was - I can buy a couple of cases of Scotch at the liquor store, enough to kill me if I drink every bottle in one sitting, can't I?


Ha ha! I meant that there are many types of alcohol that are illegal. While I assume you could kill yourself with a case of scotch (I don't know you very well), a glass of scotch a day is probably the least of your worries. Whereas during prohibition some of the alcohol being sold was very harmful to your health even in moderation (http://en.wikipedia....i/Fusel_alcohol).

By analogy, coke and speed are no doubt disruptive and habit forming, but if properly prepared won't eat your body the way crystal meth or crack will.

You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users