What you all think of decriminalizing drugs?

[Seamanbeast]

I've tried just about every drug and lost friends to drugs. It's a difficult subject to try and tackle with legality. We should all be responsible for our own bodies after adulthood, so why should the government try to curtail what I do with my body? At the same time, drugs can lead to literal destruction of societies, ie; China and opium. Whichever solution, I don't think half measures work, you need to either go full on freedom and legalize it all, or go full on China style and execute people who do it. It should be up to a particular society to decide which one.

[z4v4]

There are numerous reasons why weed is a gateway drug. Some of the reasons are that socially based and some of them are distribution based.

On the social side, people that regularly consume weed have had their connotation that drugs are dangerous removed. In addition within a social circle of drug use many people have tried other substances and promote those substances. There are many times that different drugs are given away for others to try within a social circle. This does not exist, for some reason, in circles that consume alcohol. I've rarely showed up to have a beer at someone's house and have them offer me *******. I have showed up to someones house where people are smoking weed and had them offer me ******* on numerous occassions, however.

On the distribution side drug dealers dont usually only carry one type of drug. They carry numerous and ask you if you want other substances. When you go into liquor stores they dont try to sell you heroine. They only sell liquor.


One could make the argument that Colorado/California are large scale experiments to determine if the distribution model will impact weeds status as a gateway drug. I personal do not feel it will impact the status as there will always be social factors that always come into play.


In the end the people that go from drinking beer to shooting up heroine probably factor around 0% of the heroine population base. The people that follow a path from smoking weed to shooting up heroine probably makes up close to 100% of the user base. This is my personal opinion but its also evident in 100% of my personal experience with drug users. My experience doesnt make a conclusive statement about weed being a gateway drug but then again our personal experiences are relevant.

You sound like a product of DARE from back in the day. They did more harm than good because once someone got high on weed, they thought they were being bull****ted about every drug.

Anyway, you're talking about other stuff. Yes, people who do illegal drugs will have access to other illegal drugs. That doesn't mean they will consume it just because they use weed. Once weed is federally made legal, it will be viewed like booze is viewed today.

[z4v4]

Why is it liberal vegan ******* think they’re superior to the rest of the world but also deny being liberal vegan *******s? This sort of identity crisis must be painful to go through daily.

I think I'm superior to the rest of the world? Where did you get that, son? Don't mistake commensurate pride and confidence for hubris.

[z4v4]

People mean a lot of different things when they say gateway drug. It's kind of a dumb word to use because it implies drug use is a linear progression from A to B. It often is, but it's not the drugs that define the path, it's the people and the drug market.

This.

[Phil9]

Legalize small usage [Let people make their own decision, even if it kills them]. Regulate and/or continue to criminalize mass distribution. Stop worrying about the guy who has a small amount of ******* that he is gonna blow up his nose before hitting the club and worry about the guy out there selling pounds of it on the street instead. Increase funding for rehabilitation and group therapy.


War on Drugs as it is has been an abysmal failure. The only thing it has really done is changed the drugs that people have preferred since the government worried more about weed, *******, heroin, etc while letting Big Pharm run amok and putting in people's minds that they were ok just because they are legal to prescribe. Now we have an opioid epidemic.

[Phil9]

I drank alcohol long before I ever tried weed. You’ll probably find tons of other teenagers and those in their early 20s did the same.

[Johnez]

Nobody should ever do heroin but legalize it, make it safe, tax it and use those taxes to directly spend on rehabilitation centers.

If someone uses it 'responsibly', meaning they harm nobody but themselves, fine. Anyone who uses it and operates heavy machinery, plays with firearms or is otherwise reckless - cut off their balls (figuratively), but lock them away for years at the minimum. Very harsh sentences for people who abuse it in a way that puts other people at risk.

The second paragraph will never happen. Not even figuratively lol.

Rehab centers are rife with scammy ineffective bullschit programs. Expect that to get worse.

Lots of people using responsibly=customers for the manufacturers and traffickers.

[Scarrdbutsmartr]

You sound like a product of DARE from back in the day. They did more harm than good because once someone got high on weed, they thought they were being bull****ted about every drug.

Yea.... my support of legalization definitely aligns with the zero tolerance "Dare" ideology taught back in the day....

[navid93]

Conservatives: I want freedom!!

Also conservatives:

[Scarrdbutsmartr]

Conservatives: I want freedom!!

Also conservatives:

Really? Two can play this game so I will add some whatabaoutism for you......

Liberals: "We support individual liberties and hate big companies! My body my choice!!!!!!!!"

Also Liberals - FORCE PEOPLE TO WEAR A MASK...FORCE VACCINATIONS...BIG SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES SHOULD BAN CONSERVATIVES!!!!!!!! REEEEE...

[navid93]

Really? Two can play this game so I will add some whatabaoutism for you......

Liberals: "We support individual liberties and hate big companies! My body my choice!!!!!!!!"

Also Liberals - FORCE PEOPLE TO WEAR A MASK...FORCE VACCINATIONS...BIG SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES SHOULD BAN CONSERVATIVES!!!!!!!! REEEEE...

Thanks for admitting it’s whataboutism

When have liberals ever claimed to be the group of small government and freedom? They regularly say security is just as important as freedom and the collective well being is more important the the individuals rights.

Conservatives constantly say they want the government out of people’s lives and for people to have the freedom to make their own choices. Cool, then let me drop acid.

[Jayarbie]

They should definitely decriminalize MJ.

For the harder drugs, at least keep the "distribution" laws.

Correct. Decriminalize possession and use for everything. What someone puts in their own body should never be a crime. You can still consider manufacture and distribution criminal for some of the harder, most addictive drugs. Others (MJ, MDMA, psilocybin, etc.) are closer to medicine than poison and should be descheduled altogether.

[Jayarbie]

MJ is a terminus for most users, not a 'gateway'. I know plenty of people fine with weed who would never touch anything harder. In my youth, I was in college, I partook on occasion, I would never touch heroine or meth.

How does using weed cause someone to move on to harder substances, again?

Do you know of anyone who experimented with weed who did not first try alcohol?

Your flood gates theory, how has that panned out in countries that actually did legalize or decriminalize drugs? Has that ever worked out as you so boldly claim here? If not (and it's not), why are you so wrong in other countries but expect to be right in this case here with your theories?

Correct. In CO, heroin use declined significantly when weed was legalized. It turns out that weed is a substitute, not a gateway.

[Jayarbie]

I'm on the other side of things, but I've seen this plenty of times. Work as a cop and just on random calls for service I'll have random people come up to me, "Hey is Officer so and so still working? They arrested me for XYZ one time, saved my life. Turned my life around after that." Stuff like that. It's not a weekly thing but probably once a month. Have had people I've arrested and talk to write letters and share family pics of them being clean and happy and stuff. Sometimes it's the wakeup call people need, forced sobriety or court mandated treatment, idk but it definitely happens.

When people's lives disintegrate to the point where they are robbing or stealing to support their habit or even driving blitzed regularly to where they need a "wake up call", they will be arrested anyway because those things should not be decriminalized.

[ImBunky]

When people's lives disintegrate to the point where they are robbing or stealing to support their habit or even driving blitzed regularly to where they need a "wake up call", they will be arrested anyway because those things should not be decriminalized.

Yeah right, like police ever mess with smash and grabs. And so what if someone kills someone blitzed before they get caught or as a repeat offender.

[Mr Beer]

Prescription drugs are just as much of a 'gateway' to heroin than weed, if not more so.

[Scarrdbutsmartr]

Thanks for admitting it’s whataboutism

When have liberals ever claimed to be the group of small government and freedom? They regularly say security is just as important as freedom and the collective well being is more important the the individuals rights.

Conservatives constantly say they want the government out of people’s lives and for people to have the freedom to make their own choices. Cool, then let me drop acid.

I never stated that liberals claimed to support small government. I stated they claimed to support some individual freedoms. Examples - "my body, my choice", gender identity, sexual orientation, etc....

...and yes both sides are hypocrites to some extent. I just think its short sighted to tee up on conservatives while both parties are just as guilty. To only take shots at conservatives, is to ignore the hypocrisy from the liberals....and we all risk being political hacks if we take that road (myself included).

[OPGenesis]

There's a difference between legalizing and "decriminalizing"

The problem is the people that are addicted are going to find it regardless of the penalties associated being caught with it. It can be a year in jail, or the death penalty people that are already addicted are going to get it and they don't care about the consequences of getting caught. Throwing them in jail is wasted tax dollars.

If heroin was legal I still have absolutely no desire to try the stuff because I know how much it can ruin someones life. I've spent enough time dealing with people of other addictions (MTM clinic for 4 years) so it doesn't interest me at all, and maybe if the drugs were decriminalized, cops can spend more time going after actual criminals instead of druggies minding their own business in stupor under the overpass.

Alright, lets square definitions up lol. I forgot, we're dealing with the English language. Probably one of the worst human languages is human history.

Any reasonable person is going to define decriminalize as this:

de·crim·i·nal·ize
/dēˈkrimənəlīz/
Learn to pronounce
verb
verb: decriminalize; 3rd person present: decriminalizes; past tense: decriminalized; past participle: decriminalized; gerund or present participle: decriminalizing; verb: decriminalise; 3rd person present: decriminalises; past tense: decriminalised; past participle: decriminalised; gerund or present participle: decriminalising
stop treating (something) as illegal or as a criminal offense.
"a battle to decriminalize drugs"
Translate decriminalize to
Use over time for: decriminalize

So, when we say decriminalize we mean the ceasing of treating something as illegal or as a criminal offense.

But, in the English language we have contradictory definitions, as always.

Decriminalize can also mean:

Decriminalize x means it would remain illegal, but the legal system would not prosecute a person for possession under a specified amount.

The definition above obviously doesn't mean what decriminalize is supposed to mean, because a certain amount of drug X would still be illegal. You haven't decriminalized anything - just a certain degree of it.

Now with the semantics.

Legalize:

Legalize x is the process of removing all legal prohibitions against it.

vs.

Decriminalize - stop treating (something) as illegal or as a criminal offense.

If you want to split hairs I guess you can make a totally differentiation by emphasizing the world all. I assume for some, they see the decriminalizing of a particular behavior on a spectrum.

Any reasonable person would obviously interpret it as the behavior wouldn't be criminal anymore.

[Seatard]

If you want to split hairs I guess you can make a totally differentiation by emphasizing the world all.

I don't think it's splitting hairs.

Legalizing is often interpreted as making it available for sale at Walmart.

Decriminalizing as you won't be arrested for drugs you buy on the black market.

And I'm saying this as a reasonable person who likes drugs.

[katya422]

The war on drugs has been a miserable failure, serving only to enrich drug dealers and those who profit from "enforcement". Time to try something different.

Last I knew decriminalization was working well for Portugal.

^^^
These.

There's a difference between legalizing and "decriminalizing"

The problem is the people that are addicted are going to find it regardless of the penalties associated being caught with it. It can be a year in jail, or the death penalty people that are already addicted are going to get it and they don't care about the consequences of getting caught. Throwing them in jail is wasted tax dollars.

True. Prosecuting users doesn't really disrupt the market.

Probably should be decriminalised, taxed and the money used to run programs to help users. Bonus side effect, decimate organised crime because currently they get ~$150 billion every year from US citizens. That's a vast income stream that simply can't be replaced.

This is one of the reasons I'm for decriminalization.

Correct. Decriminalize possession and use for everything. What someone puts in their own body should never be a crime. You can still consider manufacture and distribution criminal for some of the harder, most addictive drugs. Others (MJ, MDMA, psilocybin, etc.) are closer to medicine than poison and should be descheduled altogether.

^^^
More like that. Alcohol and MJ available retail w/ID + age restrictions.

Harder drugs available at specialized dispensaries; dirt cheap, pharma grade, and safe from being laced with bad stuff that kills people.

You want to kill the black market by offering a product that is much cheaper and much better.

BUT every time someone wants to come in and use (could be a bar/party type scene, doesn't have to be 4 walls and a cot) they have to sign a release and go through a verbal confirmation process:

"My name is ---- -------- and I am freely choosing to buy and use X. I was offered the option of entering a treatment program to reduce or stop my usage of X and I refuse the offer of treatment.

I understand that negative effects on my health up to and including death are possible and I am choosing to use X with full knowledge of the potential consequences and accept all responsibility for my choice."

Could possibly use kiosks with a video camera to record their statement.

No "to go" orders, you use on the premises.

Every individual has to give recognition that they are making a conscious choice at the door, no "peer pressure" except whatever someone may use to get another person to come inside.

I'm even capable of being a bit devious for a good cause and could see an operation to intentionally contaminate street drugs with ingredients that make people feel ill or have less of a good time to get things moving.

[navid93]

Alright, lets square definitions up lol. I forgot, we're dealing with the English language. Probably one of the worst human languages is human history.

Any reasonable person is going to define decriminalize as this:

de·crim·i·nal·ize
/dēˈkrimənəlīz/
Learn to pronounce
verb
verb: decriminalize; 3rd person present: decriminalizes; past tense: decriminalized; past participle: decriminalized; gerund or present participle: decriminalizing; verb: decriminalise; 3rd person present: decriminalises; past tense: decriminalised; past participle: decriminalised; gerund or present participle: decriminalising
stop treating (something) as illegal or as a criminal offense.
"a battle to decriminalize drugs"
Translate decriminalize to
Use over time for: decriminalize

So, when we say decriminalize we mean the ceasing of treating something as illegal or as a criminal offense.

But, in the English language we have contradictory definitions, as always.

Decriminalize can also mean:

Decriminalize x means it would remain illegal, but the legal system would not prosecute a person for possession under a specified amount.

The definition above obviously doesn't mean what decriminalize is supposed to mean, because a certain amount of drug X would still be illegal. You haven't decriminalized anything - just a certain degree of it.

Now with the semantics.

Legalize:

Legalize x is the process of removing all legal prohibitions against it.

vs.

Decriminalize - stop treating (something) as illegal or as a criminal offense.

If you want to split hairs I guess you can make a totally differentiation by emphasizing the world all. I assume for some, they see the decriminalizing of a particular behavior on a spectrum.

Any reasonable person would obviously interpret it as the behavior wouldn't be criminal anymore.

You’re acting as if decriminalization is telling people it’s ok to do drugs, implying you have no idea what the word means. It’s not just semantics.

People who sell drugs will still go to prison. People who do drugs will still be fined by the government. You’re not allowed to do drugs.

The only difference is instead of going to prison it’s treated like a speeding ticket, you get fined about $200 instead of jail time

[Johnez]

True. Prosecuting users doesn't really disrupt the market.

The war on drugs as it is now is definitely useless, I'll give you that, however users are the market. Letting it free flow just ensures there is a market.

Harder drugs available at specialized dispensaries; dirt cheap, pharma grade, and safe from being laced with bad stuff that kills people.

Specialized dispensaries, pharma grade, and cheap? Pick any two...

You want to kill the black market by offering a product that is much cheaper and much better.

How will this kill the black market? You will end up with a group of users no longer afraid of being nabbed by cops, which I agree is fine, however that does not guarantee the black market will die. This chit comes from or goes through Mexico and China. They can and will win the price war. Where do you think dispensaries are getting a large amount of their product currently? LOL if you think cartels aren't making HUGE bank right now. Just lol.

BUT every time someone wants to come in and use (could be a bar/party type scene, doesn't have to be 4 walls and a cot) they have to sign a release and go through a verbal confirmation process:

"My name is ---- -------- and I am freely choosing to buy and use X. I was offered the option of entering a treatment program to reduce or stop my usage of X and I refuse the offer of treatment.

I understand that negative effects on my health up to and including death are possible and I am choosing to use X with full knowledge of the potential consequences and accept all responsibility for my choice."

Could possibly use kiosks with a video camera to record their statement.

No "to go" orders, you use on the premises.

Every individual has to give recognition that they are making a conscious choice at the door, no "peer pressure" except whatever someone may use to get another person to come inside.

I'm even capable of being a bit devious for a good cause and could see an operation to intentionally contaminate street drugs with ingredients that make people feel ill or have less of a good time to get things moving.

More unsustainable bureaucracy.

Decriminalization is fine on the surface. Clear the corrections system of these noncriminals, totally get it. If you want to go this way though, this requires an enormous effort on all points of entry tho. Otherwise cartels will be strengthened further and there will be more illicit drugs on the street.

[z4v4]

Specialized dispensaries, pharma grade, and cheap? Pick any two...

Pharma and cheap. This chit doesn't come from Mars.

How will this kill the black market? You will end up with a group of users no longer afraid of being nabbed by cops, which I agree is fine, however that does not guarantee the black market will die. This chit comes from or goes through Mexico and China. They can and will win the price war. Where do you think dispensaries are getting a large amount of their product currently? LOL if you think cartels aren't making HUGE bank right now. Just lol.

It takes time. When was the last time you bought illicit booze?

More unsustainable bureaucracy.

Decriminalization is fine on the surface. Clear the corrections system of these noncriminals, totally get it. If you want to go this way though, this requires an enormous effort on all points of entry tho. Otherwise cartels will be strengthened further and there will be more illicit drugs on the street.

So what do you suggest? Do you think the status quo is working?

[SmillironS]

Pharma and cheap. This chit doesn't come from Mars.


It takes time. When was the last time you bought illicit booze?



So what do you suggest? Do you think the status quo is working?

Just agreed with this entire z4 post... that’s enough internet for today

[wincel]

Ban all drugs and alcohol. Death penalty for all druggies.

Ezclap.

srs answer: idk I am for separate drug courts and mandatory rehab rather than jail time for using...dealers can suck a d tho

[Johnez]

Pharma and cheap. This chit doesn't come from Mars.

You see this happening?

It takes time. When was the last time you bought illicit booze?

Walmart gonna sell this or what? Lol.

So what do you suggest? Do you think the status quo is working?

The answer is in the post you quoted. Massive border/port of entry enforcement.

[Latinowarrior3]

All drugs should be banned. Smoking weed is the same as smoking crack *******. Except crack ******* makes you feel awesome for a few minutes while weed makes you an idiot for 5 hours. Alcohol should be banned too. Drunk driving, fights, and other irrational behavior can be tied to alcohol.

[ApeXXXPredator]

They will never do it.

[Bodhy]

I'm also skeptical for any movement or change as well, for those aforementioned reasons. There's no political motivation for reform or change. Primarily, due to three factors: A lack of public awareness, political motivations and government motivations. A politician will gauge his rhetoric by what he thinks the public wants to hear. The uninformed public will see red upon hearing a politician is going to go easy on hardened criminals. If you reform the drug laws in any way which might be effective, your political opponents will shame you and distort the proposed reform into this scenario where crime will increase under your policy. The ignorant public will agree with that image and support the politician who goes hard on criminals.

There's also a sizeable financial incentive from the prison industrial complex to make harsher laws and build private prisons. The government funds prisons based on a few factors like time served, severity of crime and total prisoner number. They then try and turn a profit through being more efficient than the government and it's not through any means which seems to rehabilitate the prisoner and ensure lack of recidivism, like higher education or healthcare programs government run prisons have, or simulating a IRL working day by using them as indentured servants. This is a major conflict of interest and the prisons turn a higher profit by imprisoning more people, and the politicians secure a comfy job and more campaign funding.

This isn't all too dissimilar to the problem I've been arguing exists at the core of the modern day political right, GOP and Trumpism. It's the very epitome of a vicious cycle: The political elite who created the war on drugs profit massively on the very fact of its ineffectiveness when we allow these systems.

There's even evidence of politicians accepting bribes to fill as many places in private prisons as possible: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal

[OPGenesis]

You’re acting as if decriminalization is telling people it’s ok to do drugs, implying you have no idea what the word means. It’s not just semantics.

People who sell drugs will still go to prison. People who do drugs will still be fined by the government. You’re not allowed to do drugs.

The only difference is instead of going to prison it’s treated like a speeding ticket, you get fined about $200 instead of jail time

You’re obviously dumb as fuk, and make up your own definitions, but keep repeating yourself by all means.