| Pages:
1
2 |
Dave
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6005
Registered: 11-5-2002
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Bajabus
Abuse is the problem.......not use.
|
Yep. Certainly wouldn't have one without the other.
A question: When does pot use become abuse? I know people who get stupid after one toke.
Most overused word of my youth: ".ear"
|
|
|
Bajabus
Senior Nomad
Posts: 892
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: Elias Calles B.C.S. or NC USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: My friends..it's good.
|
|
Substance abuse:
Defined as: A destructive pattern of substance use leading to clinically significant (social, occupational, medical) impairment or distress, as
manifested by 3 or more of the following in the same 12 month period:
Symptoms:
Need for significant increased amounts of the substance to achieve intoxification, or significant diminished effect with continued use of the same
amount of the substance.
The individual suffers withdrawal symptoms within several hours to a few days after a reduction in the amount of the substance taken over a prolonged
period of time:
sweating
hand/body tremors
nausea or vomiting
agitation
insomnia
anxiety
hallucinations or illusions
seizures
The individual takes the substance to relieve or avoid the withdrawal symptoms.
The individual tries to cut down or quit taking the substance, but can't.
A great deal of time is spent in activities necessary to obtain the substance and/or to recover from its effects.
The substance is often taken in larger amounts or over a longer period of time than was intended.
The individual continues to take the substance despite knowing that it's having a significant or worsening impact on their psychological/physical
condition. (e.g., drinking, knowing that their ulcer condition is being worsened)
Important social, occupational, or recreational activities are given up or reduced because of substance use.
PS: a pot smoker may get stupid while high but at least he does not become the ornery, combative, boisterious, obnoxious fool that most drunks are.
"Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked of such a thing."
Dwight David Eisenhower
|
|
|
Dave
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6005
Registered: 11-5-2002
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Bajabus
When speaking of anti social behavior, how can you compare pot smoking with murder? Are you saying that an individual that choses to to use pot in
the privacy of their own home or out camping is engaged in anti social behavior?
|
The first question:
No, I wasn't equating pot smoking with murder. You could substitute any offense in the equation. Jaywalking for instance. My point was that penalties
ARE a deterrent IF those penalties are uniformly applied.
The second question:
Yes. If society determines (through enactment of law) that a particular behavior is unlawful then by definition it is antisocial.
Your statistics regarding the U.S. vs the Netherlands are misleading. For a moment let's forget about what could possibly happen and compare apples to
apples. Both the U.S. and Holland legalize the use of alcohol. Is the abuse rate the same per percentage of populace? How about the U.S. vs Ireland?
Or Russia?
Bottom line:
If you can convince me that the roads will be as safe and the workplace as productive by legalizing pot then I'll support your position.
By the way, your above definition more correctly applies to addiction. You can ABUSE any substance without it being repetitive behavior.
|
|
|
Dave
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6005
Registered: 11-5-2002
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Bajabus
PS: a pot smoker may get stupid while high but at least he does not become the ornery, combative, boisterious, obnoxious fool that most drunks are.
|
I guess the point I was trying to make was "stupid" behind the wheel can be just as deadly as dead drunk. At least with alcohol,depending on body
weight and other factors, one could have one or perhaps two and still operate a vehicle safely. I don't think one could safely say the same about pot.
I'm not a prude. If society wants to legalize then fine. I just don't see how that would save us anything other than incarceration expense. And THAT
would be replaced by other expenses like: Lost productivity, insurance costs etc. Look at what years of legalized alcohol and tobacco use has cost us.
Now we want to add another drug to the list?
|
|
|
Bajabus
Senior Nomad
Posts: 892
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: Elias Calles B.C.S. or NC USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: My friends..it's good.
|
|
Dave let me respectfully address your points
[?No, I wasn't equating pot smoking with murder. You could substitute any offense in the equation. Jaywalking for instance. My point was that
penalties ARE a deterrent IF those penalties are uniformly applied.? ]
Point taken however, the penalties will never be a deterrent when the law becomes unenforceable, and we all know that the existing laws are NOT
uniformly applied and that a great disparity exists between those that have the financial means to stay out of jail and those who don?t.
[? Yes. If society determines (through enactment of law) that a particular behavior is unlawful then by definition it is antisocial.?]
websters definition of antisocial:
hostile or harmful to organized society; especially : being or marked by behavior deviating sharply from the social norm
According to statistics, depending on geographic region, the number of regular users (at least 20 days out of the past month) is anywhere from about
6% to 10 % with the west coast being the highest (no pun intended). Even if you take a conservative 7% that?s almost 20 million people in the USA
alone that are regular users or as you state antisocial individuals that deserve to be incarcerated. By the way that number is climbing every year
regardless of prohibition . Compare that with 21% of the population that admits to binge drinking on a regular basis and it seems to me then that law
has no basis as a deterrent to anti social behavior when it comes to drug abuse.
[?Your statistics regarding the U.S. vs the Netherlands are misleading. For a moment let's forget about what could possibly happen and compare apples
to apples. Both the U.S. and Holland legalize the use of alcohol. Is the abuse rate the same per percentage of populace? How about the U.S. vs
Ireland? Or Russia??]
Actually the abuse rate of alcohol in most of Europe is less than the USA and in most European countries the legal drinking age is 16. I am not
mixing apples and oranges I am comparing marijuana use in a country where it is decriminalized to one where it is not, as a percentage of population,
seems like a fair comparison to me and hardly misleading. Russia and Ireland show correspondingly higher illicit drug use of all types along with
alcohol. Cultural differences are at play there and no real prevention programs are being funded to any great extent by their govt?s.
The figures show that a repressive drug policy, as implemented in the U.S., does not necessarily reduce drugs use. A Dutch study said. "(Ease of)
availability is not a determining factor for the use of drugs in a country.
[?Bottom line:
If you can convince me that the roads will be as safe and the workplace as productive by legalizing pot then I'll support your position.?]
Of the 8 million people arrested for driving under the influence of an illicit drug almost 80 % admit to also driving under the influence of alcohol.
These people are habitual offenders and the laws on the books deserve to be strictly enforced against them. It?s not legal to drive while impaired
and I am certainly not advocating legalizing driving under the influence. My point is that the mere possession of marijuana for private use should be
decriminalized and the focus should be a policy of harm prevention and education.
[?By the way, your above definition more correctly applies to addiction. You can ABUSE any substance without it being repetitive behavior.?]
Websters defines substance abuse as:
Function: noun
Date: 1982
: excessive use of a drug (as alcohol, narcotics, or cocaine) : use of a drug without medical justification.
[?I guess the point I was trying to make was "stupid" behind the wheel can be just as deadly as dead drunk. At least with alcohol,depending on body
weight and other factors, one could have one or perhaps two and still operate a vehicle safely. I don't think one could safely say the same about
pot.?]
Again I respect your right to a personal opinion, but that?s all it is, a personal opinion. Personal opinions can be a constructive part of a debate
but real conclusions and points can only be made by presenting facts. Then and only then can both sides of an issue be weighed in an informative
manner.
[?I'm not a prude. If society wants to legalize then fine. I just don't see how that would save us anything other than incarceration expense. And THAT
would be replaced by other expenses like: Lost productivity, insurance costs etc. Look at what years of legalized alcohol and tobacco use has cost us.
Now we want to add another drug to the list??]
I would put forth the notion that much more than incarceration expenses would be saved and putting that money towards education and prevention would
more than offset a vague feeling that productivity would go down and that insurance costs would go up. In the beginning of this thread I presented
figures from our own govt. on the cost of our present approach. Can you point me to any studies that reinforce your ?feeling?.
The bottom line for me is that my little town and many other towns in Baja are being overrun by drug related crime and that they have NO PREVENTION OR
EDUCATION program in place. Millions of American dollars are being used to prop up Mexico?s corrupt military and police for a vague feel good
delusional war on drugs. If the politicians really want to make inroads then they are beating around the wrong bush.
"Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked of such a thing."
Dwight David Eisenhower
|
|
|
Dave
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6005
Registered: 11-5-2002
Member Is Offline
|
|
The difficulty in providing facts vs "feelings" in advocating our positions is that you and I are debating "what ifs". You point to the Netherlands
and their relaxed position and then make a "best guess" as to what would happen here. As I pointed out and as you no doubt confirmed, the alcohol
addiction/abuse rate percentage is lower there than here. This is something we KNOW. Any speculation about what would happen if we legalized is purely
that... speculation. A "feeling".
My position is equally speculative. That strict enforcement and mandatory/sentencing would decrease drug usage. We KNOW that in the short run,such a
policy would result in more arrests more convictions more felons more costs. Would that translate into decreased usage? Well, from a strictly economic
standpoint the higher the cost the less attractive a product becomes. What would be your threshold? A year in Jail,five, or a five minute date in a
cell with Bubba?
The one thing we agree upon is that the U.S. effort to combat illegal drug use is a dismal failure. I maintain it is because,like a failed parent who
continually THREATENS a child with discipline,we don't MEAN what we SAY. Do illegal drugs...go to jail. As long as we slap the hand of the
recreational user, drugs will continue to pour over our borders, drug cartels will continue to operate in Mexico and kids in your neck of the woods
will get hooked on the crumbs. Just my "feeling" of course.
|
|
|
Bajabus
Senior Nomad
Posts: 892
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: Elias Calles B.C.S. or NC USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: My friends..it's good.
|
|
Ok, I think I see where you are coming from. You are advocating further criminalization, zero tolerance and mandatory sentencing as a way to achieve
the goal of decreased drug use. I can prove to you that it won?t work right there in the USA.
The nations TOUGHEST drug laws are the notorious Rockefeller laws enacted in 1973.
Anyone convicted of selling 2 ounces or possessing 4 ounces of cocaine or heroin, an A-1 felony, has to serve at least 15 years in prison before being
eligible for parole. People convicted of possessing half an ounce of narcotics, or of any sale at all ? B felonies ? can get up to 25 years in prison.
There are roughly 21,000 people now serving drug sentences in New York state prisons, constituting about a third of the state's inmate population.
Though studies show that most drug users and drug sellers are white, 94 percent of New York's drug inmates are black and Latino. A study of illicit
drug use among persons 12 or older by race ethnicity for the years 2000 -2001 from the US Dept of Health Office of Applied Studies puts the white
black % more or less equal at about 7%.
So does this approach work? NO statistically speaking, as a percentage, illicit drug use in NY is almost 7% right around the national average. I mean
I suppose you could get stricter and just shoot the 7% of the population that uses and that would solve the problem.
John Dunne a former Republican state senator who sponsored New York's draconian drug laws almost 30 years ago, in TV ads that ran before this years
election had this to say "In 1973, I sponsored the Rockefeller drug laws, which have been a well-documented failure,". Dunne goes on to urge Gov.
George Pataki to ease the laws and redirect resources from prison to rehabilitation.
In New York state, first-time, nonviolent drug offenders routinely receive higher sentences than rapists and murderers. Robert Chambers, the so-called
preppie murderer, was given five to 15 years for killing Jennifer Levin in 1988. Joel Steinberg, who beat his 6-year-old daughter Lisa to death in
1987, was sentenced to eight to 25 years. Yet last year Darryl Best, a 46-year-old father of four with no criminal history, was locked up in maximum
security for 15 years to life after he signed for a Fed-Ex package delivered to his uncle's house that turned out to contain cocaine.
Dave, stricter enforcement & mandatory sentencing do not decrease drug usage and the 30 year experiment with Rockefeller laws proves it beyond a
shadow of a doubt. This approach is perpetrating a massive racial injustice against Hispanic and blacks while doing absolutely nothing to curb the
use of illicit drugs. Nothing, ZERO Building more jails and incarcerating more people is not the way to deal with a serious health issue. My
feeling, while speculative is backed by hard facts that bear me out. Your feeling while also speculative is not backed up by any facts, quite the
contrary, the facts right here in the USA point to ?a well-documented failure? with your feeling.
So where do we go from here??..stay the course??..keep our heads in the sand, or are we courageous enough to try something different?
"Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked of such a thing."
Dwight David Eisenhower
|
|
|
Bajabus
Senior Nomad
Posts: 892
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: Elias Calles B.C.S. or NC USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: My friends..it's good.
|
|
Opps sorry about the double post, I edited this one out.
And no I am not high and that is not why it happened.
[Edited on 9-12-2002 by Bajabus]
"Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked of such a thing."
Dwight David Eisenhower
|
|
|
Dave
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6005
Registered: 11-5-2002
Member Is Offline
|
|
Max, your example of New York's get tough policy is far removed from where I'm comming from. It's the recreational user who flaunts the law and drives
the market. And I'm not advocating extreme sentences. Just whatever it takes to scare the S**t out of Joe College, mom and pop or a young executive on
the fast track to fame and fortune. Fact is, I'm in favor of giving the dealers and cartels a pass because they are simply offering a product no one
should be buying. Forget about the big fish. Lock up a few of the high profile little fish and the big fish will starve.
Or this could have another effect. One that you would approve of. If the users I'm targeting (ones that vote or who's parents vote) have enough, maybe
they will vote to legalize.:-)
|
|
|
Bajabus
Senior Nomad
Posts: 892
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: Elias Calles B.C.S. or NC USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: My friends..it's good.
|
|
Dave, First off I have to say that it has been very rewarding and stimulating exchanging thoughts on the subject with you and others here. How
refreshing to not have it degrade into a bunch of accusations and name calling. This is a serious problem that really has a profound impact on Baja
and it's relations with the USA. I admire the calm intelligent way you go about presenting your view. I just wanted to get that out there.
Now, how many do you think need to be slapped with jail sentences before you think it will have an effect. I mean if 7% are using that's about 20
million people. Lets say that you incarcerate 25% of that number at a cost of $60,000 per year to the US taxpayer. You are looking at a bill of
about 300 billion dollars a year to the taxpayer and when these individuals got out what would happen, back to square one I would imagine. The plan
looks good on paper but I don't think it a very practical solution. Are you willing to spend that kind of money and not even address this as a health
care issue. Thats about 100 times what the USA spends on a state and federal level in the war on drugs.
"Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked of such a thing."
Dwight David Eisenhower
|
|
|
Dave
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6005
Registered: 11-5-2002
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Bajabus
Now, how many do you think need to be slapped with jail sentences before you think it will have an effect. |
Far less than the 25% figure you threw out. All it would take is a few well- publicized cases over an extended period. Look at MADD and their efforts
to change the mindset about drinking and driving. The designated driver has become popular NOT because it's the right thing to do but because judges
are meting out stiff sentences. The threat of REAL penalties and public humiliation works.
I would love to support your position but I think the U.S. isn't sophisticated enough to travel that road. Most of our recreational drug users are
spoiled brats and would only temper their behavior if forced to do so. That's why I think education is a waste of time and money.
|
|
|
Stephanie Jackter
Senior Nomad
Posts: 566
Registered: 11-3-2002
Location: Arizona
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Bajabus
Dave, First off I have to say that it has been very rewarding and stimulating exchanging thoughts on the subject with you and others here. How
refreshing to not have it degrade into a bunch of accusations and name calling.
AMEN!!!!, Brother Bajabus!!!! Every time I've read a post on this thread, I've thought how nice it is not to have a bunch of clowns trying to
sabotage the free exchange of interesting ideas. I don't totally agree with either of you, but am fascinated by the dialogue. Party on,
guys....-Stephanie |
|
|
|
Bajabus
Senior Nomad
Posts: 892
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: Elias Calles B.C.S. or NC USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: My friends..it's good.
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Dave
| Quote: | Originally posted by Bajabus
Look at MADD and their efforts to change the mindset about drinking and driving. The designated driver has become popular NOT because it's the right
thing to do but because judges are meting out stiff sentences. The threat of REAL penalties and public humiliation works.
|
But Dave this is another myth that the facts just don't bear out. Madd has done nothing to reduce drunk driving nor has stiff sentencing:
According to data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in 2000 America experienced the largest percentage increase in
alcohol-related traffic deaths on record. 17,380 people were killed in alcohol-related crashes - an average of one every half-hour. These deaths
constituted approximately 41 percent of the 41,945 total traffic fatalities.
In 2001, 17,448 people were killed in crashes involving alcohol, representing 41 percent of the 42,116 people killed in all traffic crashes (no change
from the 41% killed in 2000). (New Fatality Analysis Reporting System, FARS, NHTSA 2002)
The threat of real penalties and public humiliation has done nothing to help the problem. How can you point to this and say it works......I just
don't see it and I research this stuff quite a bit.
|
"Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked of such a thing."
Dwight David Eisenhower
|
|
|
reefrocket
Nomad
Posts: 224
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: Idaho
Member Is Offline
|
|
No answers here. Just hours ago watch a program on tv (unknown channel) directed by Woody Harroldson(sp) a supporter of legalization. It covered the
50's to now and all the laws that were passed then rescinded mostly just because of politics and the absolutely staggering amounts
of money wasted. Oregon had statistics from before they legalized and after and as I recall there was negligible differance in usage but the cost of
incarceration was gone and the dollars were there for other ways of dealing with the ABUSERS. But thats all gone now!
I also want to comment on the way you both (bus & dave) have conducted yourselves on the subject. My hat is off to you both.
|
|
|
Bajabus
Senior Nomad
Posts: 892
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: Elias Calles B.C.S. or NC USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: My friends..it's good.
|
|
Hey RR, I wish I would have caught that show. I have satellite internet but no TV.......sigh. It's probably a good thing or I'd be a real zombie
and never get anything done. Do you perchance remember the name of the program? Thanks for the tip of the hat by the way. I have been exchanging
posts with everyone for so many years it sure would be nice to meet you all in person. So far I've only met elgatoloco, bajabarb, drdrip and jeans.
"Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked of such a thing."
Dwight David Eisenhower
|
|
|
Dave
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6005
Registered: 11-5-2002
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: |
But Dave this is another myth that the facts just don't bear out. Madd has done nothing to reduce drunk driving nor has stiff sentencing:
The threat of real penalties and public humiliation has done nothing to help the problem. How can you point to this and say it works......I just
don't see it and I research this stuff quite a bit.
|
Yes the rate jumped in 01 but the median age rate has been steadily declining. Young irresponsible males make up the overwhelming majority of alcohol
related accidents/fatalities and until recently,MADD's efforts have focused on an older more responsive populace. That's why designated driver is
heard more at middle aged c-cktail parties than college bars.
If you want hard facts that tough laws and strict sentencing guidelines work look no further than Maine. It has the lowest intoxication level and zero
tolerance for repeat offenders. Consequently it has the lowest percentage of alcohol related accidents of the fifty states. MUCH lower.
In any case both our proposals have zero chance of becoming policy. Mine because Jebb Bush and like minded middle/upper class American parents don't
want their kids going to jail and yours because Jebb Bush and like minded American parents kid's don't.
I think what really irks me is that there is a whole segment of our society that has no respect for the law because of their position and knowing they
won't be punished - and another segment that plays by the same rules...and are.
[Edited on 12-10-2002 by Dave]
|
|
|
Bajabus
Senior Nomad
Posts: 892
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: Elias Calles B.C.S. or NC USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: My friends..it's good.
|
|
Dave thats a great study and I applaud Maine for it's tough stance. Drunk driving is a reprehensible crime and repeat offenders deserve what they
have coming to them. I have tried to find conviction statistics by race for dwi in Maine but have not found any so far. Lets hope the law is being
applied fairly.
I also agree with your final paragraph regarding the disparity.
The problem is that drunk driving is a violent crime committed by an individual against another that almost always results in third party deaths and
injuries. Most if not all of the violence associated with drugs is over the control/distribution of an enormously profitable commodity or the crimes
committed by addicts in order to obtain illicit drugs. As long as the present approach is in place I do not feel that stricter/harsher sentencing is
ever going to stop that. If you drink responsibly you should be left alone without govt interference; the same should be true with drugs, especially
soft drugs. If you break the law and act irresponsibly/antisocial then they should throw the book at you.
"Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked of such a thing."
Dwight David Eisenhower
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
