SENATE BILL: End the Global War on Drugs Resolution (Passed)

[Sbane]

Wait, you oppose making Marijuana legal, X?

Also, I don't know if denouncing this treaty would be consistent with our drug policies. Decriminalization does not mean we do not still have a war on drugs going on. Only the war against Marijuana has been ended.

[Sbane]

Decriminalizing drugs leads to a higher crime rate? Because prohibition works really great, right guys?

[Sbane]

There will be no repealing of common sense legislation that ensures those who need help aren't thrown into jail while I am Senator! You guys want users to be put into jail? There is a difference between decriminalization and legalization. I suggest you guys understand the difference.

[Sbane]

There will be no repealing of common sense legislation that ensures those who need help aren't thrown into jail while I am Senator! You guys want users to be put into jail? There is a difference between decriminalization and legalization. I suggest you guys understand the difference.

Senator Sbane, with all due respect, you cannot simply order the Senate not to pass laws you don't like.  That's what votes are for, to decide matters like this.  However, there may or may not be a vote on this for quite some time.  We owe it to The People to take the time to have a full and complete debate of issues as important as this bill rather than rushing to a vote.

I will do my best to block any attempt to recriminalize drugs. Anything less would not be representing the wishes of my constituents in the Pacific.

Also no hard drugs have been legalized. While I may not be able to order this Senate what to do, I do think I can tell you guys to at least educate yourself on the differences between decriminalization and legalization. Anyone pushing hard drugs is still a criminal. Anyone using those drugs is not. I don't think putting them in jail helps them. If you want to create more programs to help them, I am open to that, but I will oppose any attempts to put them in jail. Addiction is a disease. Let's treat it like that.

[Sbane]

How hard is it for people to realize that most "users" are not "addicts"?

Yeah this is true as well. If we consider magic mushrooms to be a hard drug, it would be very hard for someone to actually get addicted to it. Mainlining heroin might be a different matter. Of course, most opiate addicts don't start there.

[Sbane]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Guys, please read. That is all I ask.

[Sbane]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Guys, please read. That is all I ask.

Decriminalized is defined as "cease by legislation to treat (something) as illegal."  I can read just fine; I strongly believe that the possession and use of all forms of cocaine should be illegal.

And what consequence will that hold for users?

Decriminalization is the middle step between it being illegal and legal. We don't have any stores that sell cocaine, unlike Marijuana which is completely legal and there are likely stores in Atlasia selling it. Decriminalization is the status of Marijuana in many states. It means that users are not jailed for using it, but it is not available in stores and dealers are still prosecuted. That is the status of hard drugs in Atlasia.

And for your reference, these are the states that have decriminalized Marijuana. Are you seriously arguing these states have legalized it? Only Washington and Colorado have done so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decriminalization_of_non-medical_cannabis_in_the_United_States

[Sbane]

What sort of penalties would you impose?

[Sbane]

What sort of penalties would you impose?

The Rehabilitation and Reasonable Penalties Act of 2013, which I introduced this morning, covers that pretty throughly.  I'd be happy to hear your thoughts on it, Senator.

I have a huge problem with the lack of definition of intent to sell. I am afraid there will be a correlation between being accused of having intent to sell and melanin content. Just like in real life....

I could only support this for things like meth and opiates, perhaps cocaine. I don't think I can extend this to MDMA, hallucinogens, khat, HGH, Ephedrine, synthetic cannabinoids or Marinol (!!!!). Things like MDMA and LSD should actually be legalized so that they can be manufactured in proper laboratories into pure products.

Synthetic cannabinoids and Marinol should actually be legalized immediately. I will submit a bill doing so immediately.

[Sbane]

Personally, I like the merits of X's bill, but I agree with Sbane that it can be improved.  I think we should require police to provide evidence that someone is intending to sell a drug.  X and I have been talking privately about how we can best prevent police brutality and unlawful arrests.

Police already have to provide evidence before you can be arrested on drug charges. You can't just be arrested and searched for no reason or if the police officer simply "suspects it" and cannot provide more, like undercover evidence or anonymous tips. Even if you are, whatever evidence they gather against you will be thrown out if it is an illegal arrest. I don't know what the constitution says in Atlasia, but in the US, we do have 5th and 14th amendment protections.

What I am concerned about is how "intent to sell" will be enforced.

[Sbane]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm

[Sbane]

I am willing to keep an open mind, but you guys who want to fight drugs really need to keep things in perspective. We already allow some very horrible drugs like Alcohol and Tobacco in society because we feel that the consequences of banning them will be greater than the harm they are causing themselves and society. I know you guys are only trying to do what you feel is right, and want to protect people, but a drug war has negative externalities. If we won't fight alcohol due to that, then why should we fight against cocaine?

[Sbane]

I am willing to keep an open mind, but you guys who want to fight drugs really need to keep things in perspective. We already allow some very horrible drugs like Alcohol and Tobacco in society because we feel that the consequences of banning them will be greater than the harm they are causing themselves and society. I know you guys are only trying to do what you feel is right, and want to protect people, but a drug war has negative externalities. If we won't fight alcohol due to that, then why should we fight against cocaine?

To answer your question, Senator, I will need to turn to RL for a moment.  I would argue that a ban on nicotine (although this could change within the next 20-30 years, probably not though), marijuana, and especially alcohol would be fundamentally less effective than legalizing the drugs, but for simplicity's sake I'll stick to those three for now.  I could probably be persuaded that this is also the case with some other drugs.  The reason for this is that, for better or worse, those drugs have not been truly stigmatized the way that drugs like cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin have been.  Most cultures in America generally view drinking alcohol, rightly or wrongly, as a relatively mild vice, if that (alcoholism is another story, but that is specifically drinking to excess, most Americans wouldn't argue that there is no safe way to drink alcohol).  Additionally, even members cultures whose members aren't supposed to drink (usually religions), would not say that they wouldn't be friends with someone or could never respect someone purely because he/she has a couple of drinks every now and then.  The situation is, for better or worse, fundamentally different with alcohol and that is ignoring the most important difference (drugs like cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine are far more addictive than alcohol and cannot be safely used). 

The situation with marijuana is similar, but with two key differences.  The first is that it is far less dangerous than alcohol (it is not addictive and far less damaging to an individual's health).  The second is that for quite a few generations of older Americans, it is still very stigmatized in a way that it is not for younger generations.  This will change and the ban will become less and less effective overtime and it will eventually become less stigmatized and legal in most of the U.S., for better or worse.  It is inevitable, but the shift won't be complete until several generations die out.  Given the inevitability of the situation, a ban makes less and less sense with each passing day (legalize and tax the holy hell out of it, I say). 

The situation with nicotine is a bit more complex.  It was never stigmatized during much of the country's history and then was sort of where alcohol is now for quite a while.  It also has strong support in the South for economic reasons and that is probably the main reason that the Christian right never went on a crusade against it.  Additionally, because it was not really stigmatized at all for so much of the country's history, powerful interest groups and corporations have emerged to lobby for pro-nicotine policies.  While the trend is towards greater stigmatization, the historical lack of stigmatization of nicotine, the economic stake that one of the core constituencies of the Christian right has in tobacco-farming, the power and wealth of the tobacco industry and its allies, and the fact that it is still not stigmatized the way cocaine, heroin, meth, etc have been all make it very unlikely that a ban on nicotine use would be any more effective than prohibition.  Even LSD wasn't illegal, IIRC, until folks started using it in the 60s and it created such a backlash/became so stigmatized that it was banned.  Even for LSD, which is infinitely less stigmatized than cocaine, there was still a gigantic backlash compared to how the public currently views nicotine, let alone alcohol. 

However, drugs like cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin, have been (for better or worse) stigmatized to the point that a ban can work.  They are considered horrible things with no redeeming value whatsoever by most cultures in America (and by most Americans).  Despite Senator Napoleon's claims to the contrary, pretty much everyone agrees that there is no safe way to use the three aforementioned drugs.  Rightly or wrongly, society's general consensus is clearly that they are all far more directly dangerous than alcohol.  Additionally, they are infinitely more addictive than alcohol, this is simply a fact.  Insisting that alcohol is more addictive than cocaine is like insisting that 2+2=5: you can shout it until you've got no air left in your lungs, but that won't make it true.  Anyway, because the stigmatization has long existed in just about every culture in America for so long (among Americans), how dangerous and addictive the drugs are, etc, criminalizing drugs like cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, etc is still be more effective than de-criminalizing them.  It isn't a perfect solution, but I highly doubt that there is one.  Instead, we have to pick the best (or least bad) option, that's just the hand humanity has been dealt regarding this issue.  Thoughts?

The argument you are making is that even if these drugs are not that much more dangerous than alcohol, they are already stigmatized so the ban can work, so let's do it. That is a horrible, horrible argument, you do realize that, don't you? It is completely unconvincing.

Meth and Heroin are more addictive than alcohol. Crack probably is too. Cocaine on the other hand, and other opiates are probably about at the same level. The more I think about it, the more I like where the law is right now. We don't sell this stuff in stores, but we don't crack down on it and in the process ruin lives, usually in poorer communities.

Your argument may actually work in real life, because the government has convinced the idiotic populace that these drugs are oh so much more dangerous than alcohol. I think I can buy that when it comes to sticking heroin in your veins or smoking meth, but most other drugs just are not dangerous when compared to alcohol, and not more addictive either. In Atlasia, we have a more educated and less ignorant populace, thus we can actually pass drug laws based on logic and reason and not get punished for it. I will still keep an open mind, but I think Governor Scott's approach of focusing on making sure we are getting help to those who are dealing with addiction, whatever the substance or habit it may be (could even be porn), is a better approach than militarizing our society.

Here is a nifty chart:

[Sbane]

Please provide evidence that cocaine is far more addictive and dangerous than alcohol. The evidence that I have seen shows that it is a bit more addictive, but not really more dangerous at all. Many sources are saying it is less dangerous. Feel free to prove me wrong. Heroin and Meth do seem to be clearly more addictive and dangerous, but even then we have to examine what is the correct policy to deal with who do become addicted.

The argument that I got from you is that since society accepts the use of nicotine and alcohol, it would not make sense to make them illegal. But since Cocaine has been stigmatized by society, it makes sense to make it illegal? I don't think any rational policy making would take into account what drug is stigmatized by society or not but rather if the detrimental effects of its use in society outweighs the damage caused to people by the drug war. And it's not just users being put in jail, but just take a look at the level of violence in American cities. 90% of that is attributable to the drug war. If we institute policies that bring that back, there is a very high bar of risk that has to be met. Whether or not something is stigmatized by society does not even close to cutting it. It's not even worth discussing.

If you feel like I am misconstruing your argument, feel free to restate it. First of all, if you are arguing that Cocaine is much more dangerous and addictive than alcohol, you need to prove it. Second of all, if you concede that Cocaine is a bit more addictive and causes about the same level of harm to users, you will not convince me by saying that since Cocaine is stigmatized and it would be easier to ban it, that we should actually go ahead and do it.

[Sbane]

Aye.

The debate going on is about a bill that isn't even being debated right now. We can continue the conversation when that comes to the floor.

[Sbane]

Hagrid, from that graph it looks like Alcohol currently has more OD deaths than Cocaine. And as you admit, it doesn't take into the cumulative effects of binge drinking over a long period of time.

As for addiction, there are two things about that study I should point out. First of all, cocaine and crack cocaine (including injectable formulations) are included in that study. Of course a smokeable version of a drug will be more addictive (smoking Marijuana is more addictive than eating it, for example). If people were injecting alcohol, we would see higher addiction there as well. In addition, it is not at all unreasonable to assume that those who are using Cocaine in our current atmosphere are much more prone to addiction than others. That would tend to increase the rate of addiction with Cocaine use as well.

In the end I feel that the responsibility of government is to provide accurate education to citizens, including the risks of different types of formulations, but leave it up to adults to make decisions for themselves. They need to take personal responsibility for themselves and use drugs responsibly.

You think that trying to take drugs off the street is actually working. That is completely delusional thinking (saying this with as much respect as possible). All it accomplishes is pushing up the price of the drug. Sure, you intercept a lot of it, but the more you step up enforcement and increase interception, the more drugs will be produced and sold at a higher price. Demand does not go down with that policy,since it is highly inelastic, and criminals will find a way to supply it to them at a higher price. The only way we will ever be successful is by lowering demand.

[Sbane]

I may be missing something, but alcohol is blue and cocaine is purple. Wouldn’t that put the overdose deaths higher for cocaine?

I think you are reading it wrong. The total number of OD's is 25 out of 100,000 people for all drugs involved. And the portion of the OD's of each drug is being shown by each color, so there are more OD's due to alcohol than Cocaine (but it doesn't indicate the rate for either drug). I mean, the way you are interpreting the chart would mean that Cannabis, LSD , Mescaline and Mushrooms are causing the most OD's, which is completely ridiculous. And yes, that does mean that most OD's are due to improper use of prescription drugs. That does happen too often.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree with you when you say we need to be providing accurate education, but it seems like the sentiment in this chamber is that programs like DARE don’t work. If you ask me, these programs are worthwhile. On top of DARE, we should seriously consider putting money into a better media campaign. I’ve seen some terrible shock commercials against cigarette smoking, and I’ll tell ya—they’re pretty effective. Throwing people in jail isn’t enough. We need to show people what these drugs can do.

DARE is only ineffective if it lies to kids. DARE actively lies to kids currently. It tells them that Marijuana increases the risk of a heart attack four times. Now, this may be technically true, but so does running a mile! So should kids not run a mile anymore? Is DARE being aimed towards 80 year olds with heart problems? So why are they misinforming kids? And once kids figure out that they were lied to about Marijuana, wouldn't they think they were lied to about harder drugs as well? And in this case, I think we have to be honest that snorting Cocaine just isn't as bad as smoking crack. And we can't pretend that snorting coke once is going to addict you to it because that is just not true. Crack is much more addictive though, and we should try and restrict the use of that formulation.

Completely agree with you about the Cigarette ads though. That is the approach we should take, and that is not the approach you or Senator X are proposing. As you probably know, smoking cigarettes is perfectly legal, yet usage has gone way down due to the media campaign against it. That is what we need with harder drugs, not making them some forbidden fruit for young people to desire. Unfortunately, you and other drug warriors completely disregard human psychology.

But I think you’re overestimating things a bit, and I can’t help but feel like it was to your detriment that you brought up this point—it wasn’t on my radar before, and I think it actually helps my argument. Dealers won’t lose clients if the prices are ridiculous. But I don’t think it’s outside the realm of possibility that existing buyers will make more infrequent purchases in their attempts to make less cocaine go further. Also, the higher prices will deter first time users like teenagers, and that’s what we really want here.

No, you don't seem to fully understand economic theory. If prices are high, people will look for substitution products that are cheaper. Thus, someone doing coke who can't afford it, will look to crack cocaine! Someone who can't afford to just smoke opium, will want to inject heroin! The rules of economics don't stop when dealing with drugs. They are just as relevant when talking about the price of bread as it is when talking about the price of drugs, and what sort of substitution products may be used.

Also, as Napoleon pointed out, higher prices don't deter new users. They get it for free the first few times. Then they buy it when they are hooked and will pay whatever price is asked. Or they will go for the substitution products like crack which will get them more bang for their buck.

[Sbane]

Aye