Ten Years After Decriminalization, Drug Abuse Down by Half in Portugal

--Kaiser--

Gbear wrote: »

People, by and large, have a problem in assessing any scientific argument. There is very little effort in the education system to promote scientific thought. In fact there's almost a concerted effort to counter critical thinking.

This becomes obvious in a debate that should be about the facts and figures about how the negative effects of drugs have been reduced in Portugal and the Netherlands but the debate never moves past emotive arguments that are utterly irrelevant.

I don't care if somebody has a problem with drugs being legalised, decriminalised or otherwise - they don't have to take them if they don't want to.

What we do know is that most current policies aimed at denying drugs to people have not worked.
-It has lead to the creation of a criminal class, particularly in America where mandatory minimum sentencing has completely screwed over the poor and the black and hispanic communities in particular.
-It's destroying countries like Colombia and is damaging efforts to stabalise Afghanistan, where Al Qaeda are making money from running the drug business.
-It is used as a source of income for scumbags.
-It is failing utterly to impact drug use.
-The cost is terrible, both monetarily and on a human level.

Even ignoring the concept of personal freedom, which I think should be enough on it's own to justify the complete legalisation of ALL drugs or doing anything that doesn't directly affect the rights of other people, there are very clear practical reasons why, if we are to improve society as a whole, we must take incremental steps to make drugs more available and less of a taboo.



Without wanting to be too presumptuous about you personally TSC, I think there's a general idea that pleasure is bad that's pervasive in Irish society.
There's also the sense that people should keep an eye on one another and make sure they're not doing anything "unsavoury".

It stems, of course, from the Catholic church's influence on our history. It's slowly dissipating and I think that given how opinions have already moved forward in the past 50 years towards a more liberal and free society, it's impossible that we won't shake off the last vestiges of tyranny of the moral majority in the coming decades.

Hear, hear.
I especially like the bit in bold

Wattle

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

One at a time, guys, no need to gang up :P



Same reason I have with drink, and that I referred to earlier in this thread.

We are a nation of abusers. Our entire society revolves around the abuse of alcohol to the determent of everything else. Our social lives revolve around working to the weekend where we can then go and get plastered, lose our heads and wake up Monday morning with no memory of the weekend before. Our entire society revolves around not just the acceptance but the demand that everyone should take a mind-altering substance on a regular basis; as a non-drinker, it becomes very easy to feel cut off from society because you don't drink. Ireland has a drink problem; of course, there'll be people who will (and already have) deny this, which is of course a major problem with an individual who is an alcoholic and is a major stumbling block in this debate.

Looking at Ireland's drink problem then, I have no reason to believe that drugs could be used responsibly in this country. We don't use alcohol responsibly, so why should I think we could use other drugs? People offer examples of other countries where programs have worked, but Ireland isn't other countries.
For me, at the very least in the small social circle that is my town, but imo on a larger national scale as well, drink has caused so much pain and suffering and has lead to the destruction of so many lives. I fear if "worse" drugs were put out on the market and made easily available to the majority (as opposed to now where it's only available to those determined enough to find them), it would cause further abuse problems in this country and do even more damage.

I dont drink alcohol but I like a smoke as it relaxes me. My pattern is I'll get enough for a month, smoke it for a month then take another month off before I buy again. I only smoke in the evenings when my day is over and everything that needs to be done is done. Usually I smoke just before bedtime. I find that having a spliff helps me get to sleep quicker. I would not call my use of cannabis abuse in fact I think I'm a pretty responsible user. I'm sure there are loads more like me out there.

Lord TSC

Gbear wrote: »

Without wanting to be too presumptuous about you personally TSC, I think there's a general idea that pleasure is bad that's pervasive in Irish society.

I guess we'll have to disagree here; in my opinion, there's the general ideal of wanting to live for the weekend, and society revolves around the idea of having as much pleasure as possible come the weekend, even if it means throwing away money and potential to a huge extent. But I guess that's just dependant on how we view society.

Wattle wrote: »

I would not call my use of cannabis abuse in fact I think I'm a pretty responsible user. I'm sure there are loads more like me out there.

See, I do get there are responsible users, as much as I can understand there is responsible drinkers who don't go out to get drunk, but just have one or two and that's it. But so do I think that these people (seemingly) make up the minority of users and drinkers...

TheZohanS

Spacedog wrote: »

Wrote that yourself eh?
Let me Google That For You...

www.google.ie/#q="Over+the+past+few+weeks%2C+I've+learned+to+look+past"

Automatic complaint generator...it was fairly obvious...

It gets tiring seeing the same old arguments rehashed and rehashed. The government aren't going to change their policy on drugs for a long, long time. Too many aul biddys that think decriminalising drugs would mean their grandchildren will be running around with syringes hanging out of their arms 24/7.

The only way to decriminalise drugs is through the back door, medicinal purposes.

amacachi

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

See, I do get there are responsible users, as much as I can understand there is responsible drinkers who don't go out to get drunk, but just have one or two and that's it. But so do I think that these people (seemingly) make up the minority of users and drinkers...

Seriously? Think about it for a second, which are you more likely to see or hear about, the people relaxing in their home or the few who do something stupid?

mikom

amacachi wrote: »

Seriously? Think about it for a second, which are you more likely to see or hear about, the people relaxing in their home or the few who do something stupid?

Shur just yesterday the "sun" had a front page headline......." Man has spliff before bedtime, then wakes refreshed for his job as a traffic warden".

Seachmall

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

See, I do get there are responsible users, as much as I can understand there is responsible drinkers who don't go out to get drunk, but just have one or two and that's it. But so do I think that these people (seemingly) make up the minority of users and drinkers...

Given that many, if not most, Irish people drink to some extent or another it's somewhat absurd to imagine responsible drinkers are in the minority.

ScumLord

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

I guess we'll have to disagree here; in my opinion, there's the general ideal of wanting to live for the weekend, and society revolves around the idea of having as much pleasure as possible come the weekend, even if it means throwing away money and potential to a huge extent. But I guess that's just dependant on how we view society.

I just don't think that's true any more, even if there wasn't a economic crisis keeping the pubs bare at the weekends I wouldn't go to them. I'm bored with pubs and hate, hate, hate overcrowded pubs. Only teens and young adults do the binge drinking seasons, and they do it everywhere it's not just an Irish problem we just had the money to burn during the boom. I'd like to see what the normal statistics are like now.

44leto

The question you have to ask, would the consumption of alcohol fall if prohibition was introduced to Ireland. I think it would fall.

During prohibition in America death from cirrhosis fell by 10- 20%, arrests for drunkedness and crime in general also had reduced figures.

But there are other stats that show an increase in alcohol consumption.

ScumLord

44leto wrote: »

The question you have to ask, would the consumption of alcohol fall if prohibition was introduced to Ireland. I think it would fall.

During prohibition in America death from cirrhosis fell by 10- 20%, arrests for drunkedness and crime in general also had reduced figures.

But there are other stats that show an increase in alcohol consumption.

I don't see how crime in general feel, by all accounts crime went up as criminal organisations had money to burn due to the increase in funds from selling illegal drink, organised crime was more or less invented during that time. While alcohol related health issues may have gone down but I'm sure poisoning from poorly made alcohol went up. I'd like to know where your getting these figures because they fly in the face of everything I've heard so far.

ed2hands

Gbear wrote: »

People, by and large, have a problem in assessing any scientific argument. There is very little effort in the education system to promote scientific thought. In fact there's almost a concerted effort to counter critical thinking.

This becomes obvious in a debate that should be about the facts and figures about how the negative effects of drugs have been reduced in Portugal and the Netherlands but the debate never moves past emotive arguments that are utterly irrelevant.

You're more or less implying here that those on the against legalisation side of the debate are stupid. A tad unfair IMO.

there are very clear practical reasons why, if we are to improve society as a whole, we must take incremental steps to make drugs more available and less of a taboo.

Would be most interested to hear these clear practical reasons for why making drugs more available would improve society as a whole.

Seachmall

ed2hands wrote: »

You're more or less implying here that those on the against legalisation side of the debate are stupid. A tad unfair IMO.

Those who are presenting arguments with no evidence and reject the evidence given are being irrational and unreasonable.

Would be most interested to hear these clear practical reasons for why making drugs more available would improve society as a whole.

See Post #1.

44leto

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't see how crime in general feel, by all accounts crime went up as criminal organisations had money to burn due to the increase in funds from selling illegal drink, organised crime was more or less invented during that time. While alcohol related health issues may have gone down but I'm sure poisoning from poorly made alcohol went up. I'd like to know where your getting these figures because they fly in the face of everything I've heard so far.

Its one of those things, there was always a mob in the US from its onset and the Irish were always there. I am sure you seen The Streets of New York. Or heard of the various outlaw cowboy outfits. But during those years crime was sensationalized by the media which gives the overall perception of crime going up.

But crime actually went down. Like here if you were only to read the Evening Herald you would believe you are living in a warzone. Even sometimes I still think I am.

gosuckonalemon

44leto wrote: »

Its one of those things, there was always a mob in the US from its onset and the Irish were always there. I am sure you seen The Streets of New York. Or heard of the various outlaw cowboy outfits. But during those years crime was sensationalized by the media which gives the overall perception of crime going up.

But crime actually went down. Like here if you were only to read the Evening Herald you would believe you are living in a warzone. Even sometimes I still think I am.

Alcohol prohibition did nothing to reduce alcohol consumption.

It just meant organised crime gangs took over the industry and instead of the government earning revenue they wasted the peoples' taxes on trying to fight these gangs.

It also lead to a major growth in the production of home made alcohol which led to hundreds of deaths due to alcohol poisoning.

The monies these gangs raised could then be used to invest in other illegal activities.

So do you still think it worked? Really? Think about it before you answer now.

mikom

44leto wrote: »

I am sure you seen The Streets of New York.

Lol.
I haven't actually.

44leto

mikom wrote: »

Lol.
I haven't actually.

LOL
Sh!t"Gangs of New York".

mikom

44leto wrote: »

LOL
Sh!t"Gangs of New York".

Is that a scat feature?

44leto

gosuckonalemon wrote: »

Alcohol prohibition did nothing to reduce alcohol consumption.

It just meant organised crime gangs took over the industry and instead of the government earning revenue they wasted the peoples' taxes on trying to fight these gangs.

It also lead to a major growth in the production of home made alcohol which led to hundreds of deaths due to alcohol poisoning.

The monies these gangs raised could then be used to invest in other illegal activities.

So do you still think it worked? Really? Think about it before you answer now.

I never said it did, it just showed the world what a dumb idea it was.

It was more a thought experiment, what would happen now if they banned alcohol in Ireland, would consumption go up or down, I "think" it would go down. But that still would not make it a good idea.

I am a staunch believer in the right to get pissed, with a little bit of luck i hope to be exercising that right tonight, well to get a few pints in anyway.

ed2hands

Seachmall wrote: »

Those who are presenting arguments with no evidence and reject the evidence given are being irrational and unreasonable.

Well that cuts both ways. Those who present arguments in favour of full legalisation on the basis of apparent benefits of decriminalisation are in my view also being irrational and unreasonable.

See Post #1.

I had a second look at Post #1 and cannot see any clear practical reasons for why making drugs more available would improve society as a whole. Perhaps you can point out to where they are for me.

Seachmall

ed2hands wrote: »

Well that cuts both ways. Those who present arguments in favour of full legalisation on the basis of apparent benefits of decriminalisation are in my view also being irrational and unreasonable.

Presumably that is why no one has yet presented an argument for full legalisation.

I had a second look at Post #1 and cannot see any clear practical reasons for why making drugs more available would improve society as a whole. Perhaps you can point out to where they are for me.

"“There is no doubt that the phenomenon of addiction is in decline in Portugal,” said Joao Goulao, President of the Institute of Drugs and Drugs Addiction"

ed2hands

Seachmall wrote: »

"“There is no doubt that the phenomenon of addiction is in decline in Portugal,” said Joao Goulao, President of the Institute of Drugs and Drugs Addiction"

This bit you quoted is most definitely not a clear practical reason for why making drugs more available would improve society as a whole.
For the simple and obvious reason that Portugal has not increased the availability of any drugs in any way.

Also, it is not up to us to argue why the laws shouldn't exist (or should but to a lesser extent), reason dictates it's up to those making the positive assertion (that the laws should be in place) that have the Burden of Proof, i.e. you.

I would have thought it is up to you to argue why the laws shouldn't exist on a thread such as this. Just to point out, am in favour of decriminalisation myself but not legalisation.
You mention the burden of proof, but the burden of proof is on you/whoever at the moment to explain how making drugs more available would improve society as a whole.

Seachmall

ed2hands wrote: »

This bit you quoted is most definitely not a clear practical reason for why making drugs more available would improve society as a whole.
For the simple and obvious reason that Portugal has not increased the availability of any drugs in any way.

I must apologise, I thought your comments of "making drugs more available" were simply a reference to decriminalisation/legalisation. I didn't realise you were directly quoting Gbear's use of that phrase.

If "making drugs more available" is in reference to selling them in shops or even advertising them like a typical commodity then I'm not sure if I'd agree with that, like I said I thought it was a reference to decriminalisation.

I would have thought it is up to you to argue why the laws shouldn't exist on a thread such as this.

Suggesting why laws should exist is a positive assertion and as such inherits the burden of proof.

bedrock#1

44leto wrote: »

During prohibition in America death from cirrhosis fell by 10- 20%,

The results aren't conclusive

Several factors, however, cast doubt on the hypothesis that state-level prohibitions caused
the pre-1920 decline in cirrhosis. Although the number of states with prohibition was large,
these states were predominantly rural, low population states. By 1918, thirty-one states had
adopted a prohibition law, but 52.1% of the population lived in wet states, and the distribution of
states that passed prohibition laws before WWI was not random. Of the twenty-six that had
prohibition laws, “fourteen were west of the Mississippi. Eight were south of the Ohio and
Potomac. Two (Maine and New Hampshire) were in northern, rural New England (Merz 1930,
p. 19).” Only two (Michigan and Indiana) were populated, industrial states.

ALCOHOL PROHIBITION AND CIRRHOSIS
Angela K. Dills
Jeffrey A. Miron
Working Paper 9681
http://www.nber.org/papers/w9681

Gbear

ed2hands wrote: »

Would be most interested to hear these clear practical reasons for why making drugs more available would improve society as a whole.

I laid them out in bullet-point format in my post.

Gbear

ed2hands wrote: »

You're more or less implying here that those on the against legalisation side of the debate are stupid. A tad unfair IMO.

Ignorance and stupidity are very different things.

Most people are ignorant about most things, including myself.
The problem arises when people don't bother acknowledging their ignorance and launch into a debate regardless.

There is a problem throughout the globe with people making decisions and holding points of view from positions of ignorance. Whether its believing the emotive, fact-free horse**** of anti-MMR propaganda, moon landing skeptics, the South African stance on HIV or the drugs debate, people stick their heads in the sand and ignore the evidence.

It isn't the ignorance that is the problem in itself. I can be completely ignorant of bridge construction standards and nothing bad happens. The problems arise when I start building bridges.

Mike 1972

Unless Im mistaken Portugal havent actually legalised the sale of drugs so why are people coming out with this nonsense about "making them more widely available"

Gbear

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Unless Im mistaken Portugal havent actually legalised the sale of drugs so why are people coming out with this nonsense about "making them more widely available"

The term I used of "making them more available" was a poorly chosen bit of language..
I also used a more important word in that sentence which was "incrementally".

Liberalisation in general is the key anyway. I believe, from a moral standpoint that you should be damn well able to decide what you can consume and face any consequences but I accept that total legalisation won't happen overnight.

But unless western society takes a dramatic unforeseen turn towards authoritarianism I believe that total legalisation is inevitable eventually.

For the moment, I'd be happy if we take steps similar to Portugal to reduce the damage being caused.

ed2hands

Gbear wrote: »

The problem arises when people don't bother acknowledging their ignorance and launch into a debate regardless.

Ahaha, you've got my number.

There is a problem throughout the globe with people making decisions and holding points of view from positions of ignorance.

That may be true as a general point. Many including myself would argue though, that the worldwide laws forbidding the legal sale of street drugs are in place not because of ignorant decisions, but the total opposite in fact; based a wealth of informed professional research and constant study. Based on the characteristics of drugs and effects of drugs.

...the debate never moves past emotive arguments that are utterly irrelevant.

The arguments you criticise may be emotive. I reckon that's understandable . It doesn't make those arguments utterly irrelevant. I see plenty of emotion coming back from the 'legalise it' side aswell on these threads lately, in the form of contempt and ridicule for those who do not favour legalisation. Eg: "The tyranny of the moral majority" and stuff like that.
So, saying or implying that people on your side of the argument are ignorant of the facts and emotive and the other side are clued in, calm-headed and commonsensical is not exactly accurate in fairness.

The term I used of "making them more available" was a poorly chosen bit of language..

You seem to want to put distance from the statement of wanting to make them more available. However by being in favour of full legalisation, that is exactly what you propose.
Some of your bullet points highlight the problems with strict prohibition very well, but imv they're not clear reasons to legalise so much as decriminalise.

PogMoThoin

ed2hands wrote: »

That may be true as a general point. Many including myself would argue though, that the worldwide laws forbidding the legal sale of street drugs are in place not because of ignorant decisions, but the total opposite in fact; based a wealth of informed professional research and constant study. Based on the characteristics of drugs and effects of drugs.

And what informed professional research and studies would those be? Don't just guess that there are some. This is a debate, that's how it works, you can't just make shít up to suit your argument. You used the word fact, now get some.

Also, when was it ever debated that drugs should be made illegal? We do live in a democracy don't we? Some of us are seeking a debate, and possibly a redirection of policy.

Seachmall

ed2hands wrote: »

That may be true as a general point. Many including myself would argue though, that the worldwide laws forbidding the legal sale of street drugs are in place not because of ignorant decisions, but the total opposite in fact; based a wealth of informed professional research and constant study. Based on the characteristics of drugs and effects of drugs.

"Political leaders and public figures should have the courage to articulate publicly what many of them acknowledge privately: that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that repressive strategies will not solve the drug problem, and that the war on drugs has not, and cannot, be won,"

Instead of punishing users who the report says "do no harm to others," the commission argues that governments should end criminalization of drug use, experiment with legal models that would undermine organized crime syndicates and offer health and treatment services for drug-users in need.

"Vast expenditures on criminalization and repressive measures directed at producers, traffickers and consumers of illegal drugs have clearly failed to effectively curtail supply or consumption," the report added. "Apparent victories in eliminating one source or trafficking organization are negated almost instantly by the emergence of other sources and traffickers."

- Global Committee on reevaluating drug laws.

As most people know the history of cannabis' legal status is full of unscientific, biased and blatantly racist claims.

Do not assume that just because laws are in place that those laws are based on scientific reasoning, they're based on public opinion.