What does the U.S. Republican party stand for?

[Ian]

Overwhelmingly, the harm done by addicts to others involves robbery of some sort to provide money for the next expensive fix. Decriminalising drugs and thus removing criminal profiteers, plus intelligent government regulation, would keep the cost to a tiny fraction of its current price, obviating the constant pressure for petty crime.

Not entirely clear. Drug addiction contributes to crime in two ways: one is by introducing a cost that may be paid for through robbery, yes, but the other is by keeping people from being gainfully employed. The latter effect would be no different if the drugs were legal. Drugs that make people unemployable might cause them to turn to crime even if the drugs were legal.

Frankly, I suspect the latter effect is stronger than the former. There are plenty of employed illegal drug users, and they don't generally seem to turn to crime to supplement their legal incomes just because they have drug expenses.

I'm pretty sure that crimes committed to support a habit would go down a lot, particularly if the legal drugs were very cheap in comparison. However, there may be a societal problem if there was a major increase in people who cannot be bothered to do any serious, productive work. In addition, the health issue is still a big unknown; some health problems may disappear, but if there is a large increase in drug use across the board, others may emerge.

However, this is all fantasy land, particularly in the US. In the current political climate, there is absolutely zero chance of this happening in the near future.

I wouldn't say zero chance as far as marijuana is concerned. It won't happen nationally, but some states may start to legalize it to some degree in the forseeable future. Four months ago California voters voted down Proposition 19, but only by less than an 8% margin. That's the closest the issue has come in ages. And mid-term voters are typically older and more conservative. Expect to see similar issues on ballots across various states over the next few election cycles.

[JimC]

Overwhelmingly, the harm done by addicts to others involves robbery of some sort to provide money for the next expensive fix. Decriminalising drugs and thus removing criminal profiteers, plus intelligent government regulation, would keep the cost to a tiny fraction of its current price, obviating the constant pressure for petty crime.

Not entirely clear. Drug addiction contributes to crime in two ways: one is by introducing a cost that may be paid for through robbery, yes, but the other is by keeping people from being gainfully employed. The latter effect would be no different if the drugs were legal. Drugs that make people unemployable might cause them to turn to crime even if the drugs were legal.

Frankly, I suspect the latter effect is stronger than the former. There are plenty of employed illegal drug users, and they don't generally seem to turn to crime to supplement their legal incomes just because they have drug expenses.

I'm pretty sure that crimes committed to support a habit would go down a lot, particularly if the legal drugs were very cheap in comparison. However, there may be a societal problem if there was a major increase in people who cannot be bothered to do any serious, productive work. In addition, the health issue is still a big unknown; some health problems may disappear, but if there is a large increase in drug use across the board, others may emerge.

However, this is all fantasy land, particularly in the US. In the current political climate, there is absolutely zero chance of this happening in the near future.

I wouldn't say zero chance as far as marijuana is concerned. It won't happen nationally, but some states may start to legalize it to some degree in the forseeable future. Four months ago California voters voted down Proposition 19, but only by less than an 8% margin. That's the closest the issue has come in ages. And mid-term voters are typically older and more conservative. Expect to see similar issues on ballots across various states over the next few election cycles.

Decriminalising it would make at least some difference. Not so much in reducing "junky type" robberies, but by reducing the prison population, and cutting away 1 strand of the connection between drug taking and organised crime.

[Tero]

tea party republicans

[Seth]

Seth weote:

...So, you can shoot up as much as you like, as often as you like, but as long as you're using any drugs, you CANNOT leave the facility and go harm others...

I pulled this bit out of the rest of the hyperbole, because it is particularly illogical. Overwhelmingly, the harm done by addicts to others involves robbery of some sort to provide money for the next expensive fix. Decriminalising drugs and thus removing criminal profiteers, plus intelligent government regulation, would keep the cost to a tiny fraction of its current price, obviating the constant pressure for petty crime.

Of course, there are other problems, such as motor vehicle accidents caused by drug inytoxication, but they can be addressed by current laws, with increased penalties if deemed necessary.

I prefer the humane Darwinian solution to drug addiction.

[Seth]

Overwhelmingly, the harm done by addicts to others involves robbery of some sort to provide money for the next expensive fix. Decriminalising drugs and thus removing criminal profiteers, plus intelligent government regulation, would keep the cost to a tiny fraction of its current price, obviating the constant pressure for petty crime.

Not entirely clear. Drug addiction contributes to crime in two ways: one is by introducing a cost that may be paid for through robbery, yes, but the other is by keeping people from being gainfully employed. The latter effect would be no different if the drugs were legal. Drugs that make people unemployable might cause them to turn to crime even if the drugs were legal.

Frankly, I suspect the latter effect is stronger than the former. There are plenty of employed illegal drug users, and they don't generally seem to turn to crime to supplement their legal incomes just because they have drug expenses.

They do when they get fired and their savings run out...

[Seth]

Overwhelmingly, the harm done by addicts to others involves robbery of some sort to provide money for the next expensive fix. Decriminalising drugs and thus removing criminal profiteers, plus intelligent government regulation, would keep the cost to a tiny fraction of its current price, obviating the constant pressure for petty crime.

Not entirely clear. Drug addiction contributes to crime in two ways: one is by introducing a cost that may be paid for through robbery, yes, but the other is by keeping people from being gainfully employed. The latter effect would be no different if the drugs were legal. Drugs that make people unemployable might cause them to turn to crime even if the drugs were legal.

Frankly, I suspect the latter effect is stronger than the former. There are plenty of employed illegal drug users, and they don't generally seem to turn to crime to supplement their legal incomes just because they have drug expenses.

I'm pretty sure that crimes committed to support a habit would go down a lot, particularly if the legal drugs were very cheap in comparison. However, there may be a societal problem if there was a major increase in people who cannot be bothered to do any serious, productive work. In addition, the health issue is still a big unknown; some health problems may disappear, but if there is a large increase in drug use across the board, others may emerge.

That's exactly what's happening in Denmark. More and more slackers are going on the dole so they can spend their lives getting stoned. That's what happens when you combine the dependent-class socialist mentality with cheap and widely available drugs.