You can't support the Netherlands approach to hard drugs while decrying the US Prohibition of alcohol. The US prohibition of alcohol was LESS STRICT than Dutch drug laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States

In the Netherlands, drug use is illegal. Hard drugs are actively prohibited. As far as I can tell, alcohol consumption was never criminalized in the US, only the manufacture, trafficking, and sale. In practice, the level of enforcement is about the same. They're both "prohibition", not "regulation".

"You think its legal to traffic alcohol just because alcohol is made legal?" It certainly is for some people, or else you wouldn't find it in grocery stores and gas stations. It's certainly not comparable to the Dutch treatment of hard drugs, where _nobody_ can traffic it.

Any adult can purchase cigarettes. To purchase controlled firearms you need a background check and fingerprints, etc. Which of those models would be used for Heroin?

anger is something i am quick to as a result of my PTSD unfortunately, particularly on subjects i am passionate about. Therapy is a long ongoin process =)
apologies all around for my curt manner.

now, to the dialogue at hand.

well firstly those statistics, since you've conceded them to be mere presuppositions, are exactly that: presuppositions. There arent any real statistics that i could produce to rebut it, however, if we use alcohol consumption and prohibition as a model, one could expect as much as a 30% increase in heroin use with its legalization, which is to say, not much at all. the idea of everyone and their mom suddenly hopping on the heroin train is a ridiculous fantasy at best.

while you may be right about the lifelong heroin user, i dont have to speculate about long term alcohol abusers maintaining healthy lives. that being said, this defense (if youre using it as one) is a moot point unless you support alcohol prohibition as well.

putting away traffickers in the netherlands would be the same in the states were drugs regulated and controlled. again, alcohol is the model for this. You think its legal to traffic alcohol just because alcohol is made legal? nope, you'll still get canned for that. follow the model. sticking with heroin, were it to be made legal its not something you'd pick up at your local grocery store. if the government regulates and controls it, firstly you will have fewer overdoses because the potency will be precisely known and consistent (the same as alcohol). Overdoses from heroin (among other things) is largely due to unexpected higher than "normal" street potency's. The same thing occurred during prohibition with alcohol poisoning. Potency would be known in the same way alcohol content (proofs) and tar and nicotine content in cigarettes (labeled right on the packs and cartons).

Now, not anyone can purchase cigarettes or alcohol or a gun for that matter. precisely because of regulation and control. in the same way, not everyone should be able to purchase marijuana, heroin, or whatever your poison is. regulated and controlled.

now i flatly rejected your hypothetical position because it was absurd (much like my brain synapse one was). you and i could draw up all sorts of imaginative what-ifs but theyre not gonna serve any purpose other than drawing up a good laugh.

you know, i also believe personal freedoms end where harm to others begin. but this certainly doesnt support your prohibition stance at all. Looking at it another way, you have the right to drink as little or as much alcohol as you want. but if you get too drunk and drive (and get caught) you'll get arrested. so while you still have that freedom to drink alcohol, that same freedom does not infringe on my freedom to press charges should you become too intoxicated and harm me. i know that sounds a bit convoluted, im not as articulate as i'd like to be right now but you catch my drift ya?

in closing, every piece of your defense doesnt hold an ounce of water when held up to the model of prohibition of the 20's, it's "side effects", and it's eventual outcome.

sorry again for being so curt earlier. therapy for my condition takes a good while =)

No, I don't mean the assault weapons ban. Firearm regulation has a long history in the United States, and Bazookas are still heavily regulated federally and often banned locally. They are "Destructive Devices" under Title 2:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_II_weapons

By heavily regulating or banning these weapons it has made it harder for bank robbers to acquire them.

The 95% and 5% numbers were hypothetical, as should have been clear. I imagine those numbers are approximately right, though. Huge amounts of Americans drink alcohol occasionally and never run in to a problem with it. I'm skeptical that there are many active, long term heroin users who are maintaining healthy lives. If you have contrary statistics on that I'm curious to see them.

Amsterdam has similar laws to Portugal. I actually don't know why you'd bring that up as it is contrary to what you've been arguing and supportive of what I've been saying. While the Netherlands has a "non-enforcement" policy for illegal drugs such as marijuana, they come down hard against hard drugs like the ones I am arguing should be illegal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands
Drug usage and imprisonment in the Netherlands is not really exceptional compared to the rest of Europe. "The rate of imprisonment for drug crimes is about the same as in Sweden, which has a zero tolerance policy for drug crimes."

Anyway, I agree with you that drug law in the Netherlands is quite reasonable, and I'm glad that you agree that it is "pretty goddamn close" to being a silver bullet. They emphasize treating addicts rather than putting them in prison, but still put drug traffickers in prison for a long time. None-the-less, any drug use in unambiguously illegal.

I take it by your rejection of my hypothetical situation that you believe that any drug use, even if clearly expected to be harmful to other people, should be legal. You are very strongly libertarian. But I believe that personal freedom ends where harm to others begins.

Also, you come across as very hostile for some reason. What are you trying to get out of this dialogue, exactly? I personally am pleased to see contrary opinions and re-evaluate the beliefs I hold.

Thank you so much,How is The Netherlands? I bet is beautiful!

In reply to this comment by paul4dirt:
*promote

Liberals don't like this Dr. Cosby as much:


We Cannot Blame the White People any Longer

By Dr. William Henry 'Bill' Cosby, Jr., Ed.D.

They're standing on the corner and they can't speak English.

I can't even talk the way these people talk:

"Why you ain't,
Where you is,
What he drive,
Where he stay,
Where he work,
Who you be...".

And I blamed the kid until I heard the mother talk.

And then I heard the father talk.

Everybody knows it's important to speak English except these knuckleheads. You can't be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth.

In fact you will never get any kind of job making a decent living.

People marched and were hit in the face with rocks to get an Education, and now we've got these knuckleheads walking around.

The lower economic people are not holding up their end in this deal.

These people are not parenting. They are buying things for kids.

$500 sneakers for what?

And they won't spend $200 for "Hooked on Phonics."

I am talking about these people who cry when their son is standing there in an orange suit.

Where were you when he was 2?

Where were you when he was 12?

Where were you when he was 18, and how come you didn't know that he had a pistol?

And where is the father? Or who is his father?

People putting their clothes on backward. Isn't that a sign of something gone wrong?

People with their hats on backward, pants down around the crack, isn't that a sign of something?

Isn't it a sign of something when she has her dress all the way up and got all type of needles (piercings) going through her body?

What part of Africa did this come from?

We are not Africans. Those people are not Africans; they don't know a thing about Africa.

I say this all of the time — it would be like white people saying they are European-American — that is totally stupid.

I was born here, and so were my parents and grand parents and, very likely my great grandparents. I don't have any connection to Africa, no more than white Americans have to Germany, Scotland, England, Ireland, or the Netherlands.

The same applies to 99 percent of all the black Americans as regards to Africa — so stop, already!

With names like Shaniqua, Taliqua and Mohammed and all of that crap...and all of them are in jail.

Brown or black versus the Board of Education is no longer the white person's problem.

We have got to take the neighborhood back.

People used to be ashamed.

Today a woman has eight children with eight different 'husbands' — or men or whatever you call them now.

We have millionaire football players who cannot read.

We have million-dollar basketball players who can't write two paragraphs. We, as black folks, have to do a better job.

Someone working at Wal-Mart with seven kids, you are hurting us.

We have to start holding each other to a higher standard....

>> ^sanderbos:

Can someone speak to the validity of this video? I am amazed by it, but don't understand it.
I never heard the ground would keep moving after a quake completed (but living in the Netherlands means I know nothing of earth-quakes)? I also wouldn't think that with the amazing forces at work below the surface, on the surface it would manifest at points where one kind of man made street would meet another kind of man made street (why is the movement among the seams of the pavement, instead of just a new crack at a random point in the street)?


Because the seams are the weakest parts. I haven't seen it firsthand, but there are other videos out there of the same phenomena. I wouldn't be surprised if most of the video was taken on the Tokyo Bay Landfill.

Can someone speak to the validity of this video? I am amazed by it, but don't understand it.
I never heard the ground would keep moving after a quake completed (but living in the Netherlands means I know nothing of earth-quakes)? I also wouldn't think that with the amazing forces at work below the surface, on the surface it would manifest at points where one kind of man made street would meet another kind of man made street (why is the movement among the seams of the pavement, instead of just a new crack at a random point in the street)?

>> ^radx:

Haha, the last one is epic if it really was on the tele.


In the Netherlands, I think, but yes it was. http://videosift.com/video/Cunning-Lingo-ist

>> ^curiousity:

>> ^MaxWilder:
^ The proper course to take is full LEGALIZATION.
Regulated, but fully legal sale and possession of all drugs is the only way to break the back of these cartels. It will also solve the prison overcrowding issue and provide a nice tax income for local governments who are currently being squeezed to death.
Anybody who is still against the legalization of recreational drugs is simply ignorant or idiotic.

Hear hear, but I do have an issue with saying that anyone against legalization is ignorant or idiotic. Although this rhetoric is very common these days, it simply kills conversation that might occur with people who are open to discussing different sides of this issue.
Of the people that I feel may change their mind or at least be truly open, I have most often run into an emotional argument against full legalization. This emotional argument is usually based on personally knowing someone brought low by drugs or fear of what would happen. For someone having a loved one/associate/etc who was hurt by drugs, you can sympathize with them and bring up the point that legalization will open the doors for support services and remove some social stigma from seeking help before they hit bottom or kill themselves (accident or purposefully.) The general fears can be talked out and likened to other things in life which are fearful... because really this is the fear of the unknown. The Netherlands has lower adult and teen marijuana use despite its lax laws on it, and if I remember correctly, one of officials made the comment about this stat, "We have succeeded in making marijuana boring." It's a standard of desire, things forbidden are simply tantalizing.


That's pretty much what I mean by ignorant. It's not meant as an insult, just a lack of knowledge. They don't know the truth about how people react to substances being legal or illegal. Legalization will allow addicts to more easily admit they have a problem and seek help. Legalization will make substances less attractive to people who are turned on by flaunting the law.

Of course there are also idiots who have heard all of this and still think drugs should be illegal because "they are dangerous." For them it is fully intended to be an insult.

>> ^MaxWilder:

^ The proper course to take is full LEGALIZATION.
Regulated, but fully legal sale and possession of all drugs is the only way to break the back of these cartels. It will also solve the prison overcrowding issue and provide a nice tax income for local governments who are currently being squeezed to death.
Anybody who is still against the legalization of recreational drugs is simply ignorant or idiotic.


Hear hear, but I do have an issue with saying that anyone against legalization is ignorant or idiotic. Although this rhetoric is very common these days, it simply kills conversation that might occur with people who are open to discussing different sides of this issue.

Of the people that I feel may change their mind or at least be truly open, I have most often run into an emotional argument against full legalization. This emotional argument is usually based on personally knowing someone brought low by drugs or fear of what would happen. For someone having a loved one/associate/etc who was hurt by drugs, you can sympathize with them and bring up the point that legalization will open the doors for support services and remove some social stigma from seeking help before they hit bottom or kill themselves (accident or purposefully.) The general fears can be talked out and likened to other things in life which are fearful... because really this is the fear of the unknown. The Netherlands has lower adult and teen marijuana use despite its lax laws on it, and if I remember correctly, one of officials made the comment about this stat, "We have succeeded in making marijuana boring." It's a standard of desire, things forbidden are simply tantalizing.

>> ^ravioli:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Taint" title="member since August 2nd, 2009" class="profilelink">Taint : I was also expecting them in the list. No one in their right mind messes with Big Pharma!


Good call. That's #7. His citation of grapes as the #2 crop points at an 8th group profiting that he didn't mention - the alcohol companies. Clearly they stand to keep profiting more if less "alternate" substances are available, eh?

Love the Netherlands call-out. "We made it boring."

Ha!

*talks and the tangent on *waronterror?

Fixed and thanks. We will use Netherlands'!

In reply to this comment by jonny:
Neither can I, but google translator can: "There is no such video."

*dead

>> ^bareboards2:

I think this is dead again, ant. I can't read Hungarian....

I should clarify that in the Netherlands you can't just apply for free heroin, you need to be a registered addict in one of the cities that runs these clinics. These people can get small accommodation and go to rooms where they can use their drugs.

This has helped in a multitude of ways. The addicts no longer need to resort to begging/stealing to fund their drug habit, so thefts have gone down substantially. Also because these addicts don't need their whole day struggling to get their next fix, and they can use it in calm places, this has led to a lot of addicts calming down, thinking about there problems, and applying for treatment and rehab.

Many of these people have reintegrated into society and even found some jobs. It's been so successful that we had to close a few treatments centers in Utrecht because there weren't enough addicts anymore.

Yeah, but if they legalize marijuana more people will do it, but that doesn't matter, that's a GOOOD thing!!


And anyway, if America legalized heroin I think the exact opposite would happen compared to the Netherlands - I mean did you guys watch the Black Friday opening morning clips?! That's the true face of America, baby and that shit wasn't even free!

This is bullshit

40-50 people dying a year of MDMA? Lies:
http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/dll/jhmdusscmarch19.htm

"Not only are MDMA related cases a small percentage of all drug-related emergency room visits, but a large percentage of MDMA cases are not life-threatening. In a recent study conducted by the physicians in the Emergency Department of Bellevue, (Rella, Int J Med Toxicol 2000; 3(5): 28) regional hospital ecstasy cases phoned into the New York City poison control center were analyzed. There were 191 cases reported during the years 1993 to 1999 inclusive. This is a rate of fewer than thirty cases per year. 139 cases (73%) were mild and experienced minor or no toxicity. The most commonly reported symptoms were increased heart rate (22%), agitation (19%), and nausea and vomiting (12%). In these seven years, only one ecstasy-related death was reported, which was due to hyperthermia, or overheating. Ecstasy is simply not the "killer drug" the media would like us to believe."

Just 8% contained MDMA, WTF? I find that very hard to believe. In the Netherlands levels have been monitored for years and in the worst year only 50% contained MDMA.

Also CCP, I think this guy means mCCP