http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/saudi-arabia/saudi-beheads-syrian-for-drug-trafficking-1.1129509

No worries about ‘rehabilitation’ either – and no worries about repeat offending!

Griff
I would not employ a drinker in any high risk job they are still impaired days after drinking. pot smoker as long as not on the job who cares after three hours there is no detectable impairment

F’n bullshit!! The cumulative effects of pot & p are bloody obvious. I wouldn’t hire a known doper, never……

Isn’t it all too often the way

drugs are illegal
why are drugs illegal ?
because they are bad
why are drugs bad ?
because they are illegal
why are drugs illegal?

Except that in all likelihood a society which considers decriminalization isn’t going to wage all out war on the suppliers either even if it remains illegal which would tend to limit the harmful effects of that prohibition. Moreover I see no evidence that a significant risk of increased demand would be likely. Your own citation re Portugal showed very marginal increases in annual prevalence rates (within the margin of error type stuff) as well as decreases. Also the Netherlands has had liberal policies re Cannabis for years with lower usage rates than many other European nations which retain strict prohibition.

Anyway, best call it a day… good debate though I’m sure zero opinions changed.

That is a reductionist fallacy.

No Weihana, it is deductive reasoning. The individual may have had a history of offences and violence, but he did not have form for murder of manslaughter.

Rather than blaming P to fit my narrative, I argue that a refusal to acknowledge that it was P that was the catalyst for the bad individual to kill is to fit a narrative.

That is exactly why decriminalisation is a poor choice – if supply remains illegal and enforced, then you have the effects of prohibition on the supply channel, with effectively none on demand. You therefore risk increased demand which can only be supplied through illicit channels – effectively the govt subsuisidisng gangs,

bhudson (3,103) Says:
January 8th, 2013 at 8:39 pm

@Rex,

Without the addition of P, that individual would likely not have killed Coral that day, if at all at any point in the future.

That is a reductionist fallacy. You are looking for a single cause to fit your narrative. The same could be said of many other drugs, including alcohol. It doesn’t mean the drug is the cause of any tragedy that follows usage, especially given that the vast majority of users (even highly addicted users) do not murder people.

Decriminalization should be used as a pragmatic step towards a regulated market and it should be a stepping stone used to figure out what regulations work best. The most harmful and addictive drugs shouldn’t be sold commercially.

Part of my How Things Change study involved re-reading historian Redmer Yska’s excellent story of Aotearoa Marijuana, New Zealand Green. I’m saving the stats for another fight, but here’s a selection of choice quotes from NZ’s drug war:

“It is impossible to insert any appreciable quantity of drug into chocolates.”

– Police Commissioner W.B. McIlveney in 1926, responding to a story from the Salvation Army’s Brigadier Burton. Burton had heard a tale of a woman found in an Auckland public toilet, insensible after eating chocolates at a garden dance.

more
http://gonzofreakpower.blogspot.co.nz/2013/01/quotes-from-drug-war.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+GonzoFreakpowerBrainsTrust+%28goNZo+Freakpower+Brains+Trust%29

bhudson (3,102) Says:
January 8th, 2013 at 7:55 pm

Weihana,

Perhaps the act that only Portugal is quoted as an example where liberliasation has led to a decrease in usage. No one appears to be saying Portugal and x and y and z. Only Portugal,

Although that may not be the case. At least not according to the statistics these people quote:

http://fullfact.org/factchecks/Portugal_decriminalisation_drugs_effects-3276

Well I did cite the Netherlands as another example where usage is lower than many other European countries despite liberal policies and increases and decreases tend to follow regional trends rather than having anything to do with such policies.

Moreover, if any example is an outlier it would be Singapore for the obvious reason that its system is vastly different to most western nations. Its culture and political system are significantly removed from what is the norm in places like New Zealand and other similar western nations. Portugal on the other hand is far more comparable.

Furthermore, it’s important not to overly simplify the issue, ignoring the complexities to fit with some narrative. Portugal has experienced both decreases and increases in usage. Most importantly these changes are very marginal and hardly the explosive danger that prohibitionists contend would happen if it were tried here. But perhaps the most interesting measure is of teenagers where annual prevalence has indeed fallen.

But aside from usage, and as your link shows, figures for transmission of infectious diseases also shows declines as well as drug-related deaths.

I fail to see why this data should be rejected because it doesn’t fit with the prohibitionist narrative. Indeed at the very least it shows that liberalization is not the extreme idea that it is portrayed as. What is most telling is that this is not an issue that registers high on Portugal’s political radar these days which is a good indicator of how the public feels about it.

Correct, which is why legalisation of supply and possession is better than only decriminalising possession.

@mikey,

I agree – the two choices really should be prohibition or legalisation. Clearly I don’t favour legalisation, but I favour decriminalisation (as I described it above) even less.

I’d also make drug testing compulsory to get the dole.

I do not agree regarding Singapore, but I do agree with that.

Drug testing for benefits would have a huge impact. Right now we pay people to stay home and get wasted. If they had to work it would reduce their drug intake. They would also have less time, or need, to steal from others to fund their habit.

I am all for making drug use legal, but people need to take responsibility for their actions. Right now we have the reverse situation. You can not take drugs, but if you do, we will look after you when you wreck yourself. I want to see that change.

The price Singapore pays for its orderly society is too high. I would rather have a level of disorder than that. Many of their penalties are not befitting a modern civilised society. It is disgusting and barbaric torture.

It’s not really too high a price. I have never felt as safe at night as I have wandering around Singapore, (even in Little India with a blonde girlfriend!) I also felt free there. I bought a beer without harsh sales requirements (and probably less tax than NZ), I walked around a bit drunk – but didn’t harm anyone and stayed out of trouble. I don’t use drugs, and would not even dare to be around them – I’m not stupid.

The place isn’t perfect, but they do law and order pretty well. What exactly is wrong with caning? It’s cheaper than locking people up, it’s effective, and hardly a torture.

Personally I’d legalise drugs, and then punish any crime more severely (and make it a jailable offence to give any drug to someone under 18 or with a known drug addiction.) I’d also make drug testing compulsory to get the dole.

That way people who so wish can get high with their own money, but those who get high and try and rob others would end up in jail for 20 years. Addicts (which I admit we’d have more of if drugs were legal) could be treated through the health system, rather than the courts. Being addicted would no longer be an excuse to let you get away with crimes.