Brihard said:
Not a lot of people in Canada are getting jail time for simple possession, and when they do it's not very much. What I HAVE seen on a number of occcasions is where possession for the purpose of trafficking charges will get knocked down to simple possession on a plea deal. I caught one guy with a quarter ounce of crack in two big chunks, wrapped in a single baggie. He'd gotten it that way for the cook, and was dealing it. Known drug dealer. Crown made a plea deal and he ate the straight possession charge rather than push PPT to trial. This happens a lot due to an overburdened court system. But we are not like some places in the states where police are gung ho to lay charges in simple possession cases. It happens, yes, but usually when it's one more charge to lay on top of an overnight festival of stupidity that ends in the back of a cop car, or where a possession charge is a means to control a prolific offender for the next little while. Typically the courts are not very punitive on simple possession. If I arrest a guy for beating his wife, *and* he has cocaine in his pocket, yes I'll lay the bonus charge. But usually
I have never and never will concede that things that I don't believe should be illegal should remain illegal, just to make it easier for the police to put them away for the other things that they can't prove. I hear this argument from law enforcement a lot, and quite frankly, it is very face-palm worthy. "Well if possession wasn't a crime, we couldn't put the known traffickers away when we know they are trafficking but can't prove it!" Not that I think drug trafficking should be illegal either, but that argument for possession laws will never get support from me. We might as well make wearing shoes illegal, and then when the cops know someone is up to no good but can't prove it, they can just charge him for wearing shoes instead.
Brihard said:
Ballz- you neatly skipped entirely the relevant point I made that these are not substances that would be allowed for marketing and consumption outside of clinical settings anyway. We would no more allow these to be sold uncontrolled than we would allow the bulk import of melamine-laced milk from China. The concept of legalizaton of 'hard'/synthetic drugs is a paper fiction that fails any real analysis. Decriminalize personal use possession, absolutely. Take a public health approach to users. But don't let up on those who are trafficking this deadly, toxic, addictive stuff, and deliberately getting people hooked on it. We don't need to allow or tolerate the illicit market in hard drugs just because it's a constant uphill battle.
I am not skipping that. That is the problem I am speaking of. That we cannot fathom a world without the government trying (and failing) to solve these problems despite the fact that the government caused them. The government is the *reason* that "those who are trafficking this deadly, toxic, addictive stuff, and deliberately getting people hooked on it" actually have a successful business model.... in a free market, they wouldn't stand a chance.
Legalize it and then see how long that business model holds up... "I can go to this store front and buy marijuana or cocaine from a reputable person whom has a track record of selling clean products that nobody OD's on... or I can go buy it around the corner from that guy with his hood up that people bought from last week and now they're dead and he is up on legit charges of fraud / negligence causing death as is now plastered all over the news."
We
*created* the illicit market and as long as we think we're going to stop people from doing drugs through the use of violent coercion, we'll continue to have one.
Narcotics have been around since ancient times. Only in recent times has the government been so involved in stopping it, and more money and resources are now spent on fighting it than ever before.... However, more people die today from overdose than ever before.... Now I know correlation doesn't always mean causation, but come on.... there is a very clear logical path from narcotics being made illegal to what we have now where we have some of the most toxic substances to ever exist in the hands of some of the worst people finding victims around every corner.
Brihard said:
There was mention earlier of Portugal by ballz. Portugal is a good example of how to do things. They have decriminalized possession, but not legalized it. A whole host of sanctions can be applied depending on what fits the circumstances. Professional licensed can be revoked, other court ordered conditions can be imposed, treatment cn be mandated... But it's not punitive in intent, it's intended to make recreational drug use suck, and to route addicts to appropriate care. Note that trafficking is still completely criminalized and is prosecuted.
Portugal is a good example of a step in the right direction, but a few more steps would help.
ModlrMike said:
This is the only point of your rebuttal that I will concede. I think it is an incredible waste of manpower and money to incarcerate folks for possession. Lock up the dealers. Yes, it's more work, but it's a better use of tax dollars IMHO as it ultimately benefits a greater number of people. The knock on effect might be a rise in the price of drugs, but that is equally one of the problems. If one accepts that cheap drugs + accessibility = increased use, then the reverse must be true as well.
In closing, I'm prepared to consider that perhaps greater use might not be a result of legalization, however I still think that we would see more fatal overdoses among those that serially overdose on prescription meds.
I think we would see a lot less.... I think you'd see an end to drugs being laced with other drugs, which seems to be the fentanyl issue... and I think you'd see an end of taking something like cocaine and turning it into crack, which was always a huge issue... and I think you'd see the end of things like meth labs where people are trying to create methamphetamines from chemicals under the kitchen sink due to how expensive cocaine is (it's expensive because its a black market).
In other words, while increased price of cocaine may mean less cocaine use... for those addicted, it doesn't mean using methamphetamines less, it just means finding cheaper substitutes or committing crimes to get the money, or both....
