If cocaine was legalized would crime rates drop?

[moustache]

If cocaine was legalized would crime rates drop?



Moustache said:
You have to be joking...You seriously believe that legalization of Cocaine will be less of a drug problem than if it stays illegal?

Osborn F Enready say:
In the sense of less people dying, being imprisoned for addiction, crimes related to addiction, knowledge of the risk of addiction, yes it would be much less a problem.

[Badger]

Quote by: moustache If cocaine was legalized would crime rates drop? Moustache said: You have to be joking...You seriously believe that legalization of Cocaine will be less of a drug problem than if it stays illegal? Osborn F Enready say: In the sense of less people dying, being imprisoned for addiction, crimes related to addiction, knowledge of the risk of addiction, yes it would be much less a problem.

Drug crime only exists because of prohibition. The answer to the question is obviously yes.

[Autolykos]

The crime rate would drop because cocaine possession, sale, and use would no longer be considered a crime. Furthermore, the price of cocaine would drop, thereby making it less likely that people will commit crimes in order to maintain their cocaine addictions.

- Rob

[jose]

Is it OK to sell coke to children?
http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/cocaine.asp

[tman_ndsu08]

Obviously the crime rates would drop.

Jose -

Morals depend on the person. I'd guess that most people say no.

[Jack]

Is it OK to sell coke to children?

No more so than it's now legal to sell them cigarettes or alcohol.

[Osborn F Enready]

Here is a link to a group of dedicated, educated minds discussing and learning from history on this very topic.

There are a VARIETY of reports verifying this very fact.
http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/...es/studies.htm

1930 Report on the enforcement of prohibition laws.
(quote)
Among the significant findings of this report were:

Alcohol use declined during the first two or three years of Prohibition (a trend that had begun before Prohibition started) but rose every year thereafter. There was, in particular, an increase in the use of distilled liquors. There was also evidence of increased alcohol use and addiction among minors.

Enforcement of the laws was disorganized and ineffective, with employee turnover of more than 50% in some years. It seems apparent from reading the report that law enforcement could not have had a significant impact on the illegal distribution of alcohol and even the recommended improvements in enforcement would not have solved the problem.

Corruption was rampant with up to ten percent of the enforcement employees being discharged for cause in any given year.

Drug addiction, crime or disease:
This report was the result of the only major combined study of drug policy made by two of the most important professional societies in the country. Chaired by attorney Rufus King of Washington, D.C.. the committee presented a direct challenge to the tough policies of Federal Bureau of Narcotics Director Harry Anslinger, a philosophical ancestor of the previous "drug czar," William Bennett. The blue-ribbon committee included a senior federal judge and was advised by Indiana University's Alfred Lindesmith, one of the most distinguished addiction scholars in history. The report observed, "Drug addiction is primarily a problem for the physician rather than the policeman, and it should not be necessary for anyone to violate the criminal law solely because he is addicted to drugs." The report concluded that drug addiction was a disease, not a crime, that harsh criminal penalties were destructive, that drug prohibition ought to be reexamined, and that experiments should be conducted with British-style maintenance clinics for narcotic addicts.

Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs:
This is a landmark study, a "must-read", used as a basic textbook at major universities. It presents a comprehensive, fascinating and highly readable overview of the entire drug issue. It is certainly one of the first books which should be read by anyone who wants to know about this subject.

The recommendations in this report included:

Stop emphasizing measures designed to keep drugs away from people.

Stop publicizing the horrors of the "drug menace."

Stop increasing the damage done by drugs.

Stop misclassifying drugs.

Stop viewing the drug problem as primarily a national problem, to be solved on a national scale.

Stop pursuing the goal of stamping out illicit drug use.

Consumers Union recommends the immediate repeal of all federal laws governing the growing, processing, transportation, sale, possession, and use of marijuana.

Consumers Union recommends that each of the fifty states similarly repeal its existing marijuana laws and pass new laws legalizing the cultivation, processing, and orderly marketing of marijuana-subject to appropriate regulations.

Consumers Union recommends that state and federal taxes on marijuana be kept moderate, and that tax proceeds be devoted primarily to drug research, drug education, and other measures specifically designed to minimize the damage done by alcohol, nicotine, marijuana. heroin, and other drugs.

Consumers Union recommends an immediate end to imprisonment as a punishment for marijuana possession and for furnishing marijuana to friends.*

Consumers Union recommends, pending legalization of marijuana, that marijuana possession and sharing be immediately made civil violations rather than criminal acts.

Consumers Union recommends that those now serving prison terms for possession of or sharing marijuana be set free, and that such marijuana offenses be expunged from all legal records.

Report of the Research and Advisory Panel:
This panel, appointed by the state legislature of California to regulate all research on controlled substances, reviewed drug policy and recommended that "the legislature act to redirect this, state away from the present destructive pathways of drug control." The report noted that we had followed a path of prohibition over the last fifty years and concluded that this policy "has been manifestly unsuccessful in that we are now using more and a greater variety of drugs, legal and illegal." In addition, the failure of prohibition has resulted in "societal overreaction (that] has burdened us with ineffectual, inhumane, and expensive treatment, education and enforcement efforts." They recommended a move toward the formulation of "legislation aiming at regulation and decriminalization" and the winding down of the war on drugs.

A wiser course, Ending Drug Prohibition:
The Bar of the City of New York studied the issue of drugs and drug policy for about five years and concluded that the only reasonable way to correct the current problems would be to repeal the Federal laws on these drugs in their entirety and allow the states to develop their own programs, similar to the situation with alcohol.

Report and Reccomendation of the Drug Policy TASK FORCE:
The recommendations are:

Pursue Alternative Models in Establishing Future Drug Policy

Provide Immediate Sentencing Relief and Additional Judicial Discretion in Criminal Prosecution of Drug Cases

Reduce the Harms Associated With Substance Abuse and Drug Prohibition

Concentrate Law Enforcement Resources on Reducing Violent Crime and Prosecution of Violent Criminal Offenders

Reshape the Drug Policy Debate -- Return to Objective Analysis and Realistic Goals

Implement Public Education Campaign on Drug Use and Substance Abuse

Decriminalize Marijuana

Reverse Encroachments on Civil Rights and Restore "Due Process of Law"

Provide Alternative Social and Economic Opportunity for Inner City Youth

End War on Youth and Inner City Communities -- Restore Confidence and Integrity in Government

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Science, facts, history, all show the lessons our ignorant leaders have yet to adopt in order to BETTER our society.

We have had a 156 years of the same corrupt officials, is there any wonder? :rolleyes:

[jose]

Quote by: Isherwood No more so than it's now legal to sell them cigarettes or alcohol.

should there be an age limit on suppling coca cola to kids? you hardly ever see a kid drinking a cup of coffee but coke aims its ads at kids too,
and how many kids on ritalin today will move on to meth

Another thing to note when talking about the differences in the amphetamine-class stimulants is that one of the strange effects of current culture is that particular drugs are demonized in the news, entertainment media, government information, and school curricula. Methamphetamine is particularly demonized, amphetamine somewhat less so, even though amphetamine-related stimulant drugs -- including methylphenidate (Ritalin), amphetamine (Adderall, Dexedrine), & methamphetamine (Desoxyn) -- are commonly prescribed for children from as young as age 3. All three of these can lead to difficult-to-break habits and can become a problem for some people who try them. But the marketing teams of the pharmaceutical companies do what they can to soothe parents' concerns by separating the image of street-speed users from the clean, clinical, healthy use of their products.

[crossfire]

it's largely irrelevant as no country will legalise it. However, if they did they certainly would tax it!

[Milton Bradley]

A couple of my favorite quotes. Please note the authors.


"Prohibition... goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control mans' appetite through legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not even crimes... A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our Government was founded."
-Abraham Lincoln (December 1840)

Opium and morphine are certainly dangerous, habit-forming drugs. But once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual from his own foolishness, no serious objections can be raised against further encroachments. A good case could be made out in favor of the prohibition of alcohol and nicotine. And why limit the government's benevolent providence to the protection of the individual's body only? Is not the harm a man can inflict on his mind and soul even more disastrous than any bodily evils? Why not prevent him from reading bad books and seeing bad plays, from looking at bad paintings and statues and from hearing bad music? The mischief done by bad ideologies, surely, is much more pernicious, both for the individual and for the whole society, than that done by narcotic drugs.

These fears are not merely imaginary specters terrifying secluded doctrinaires. It is a fact that no paternal government, whether ancient or modern, ever shrank from regimenting its subjects' minds, beliefs, and opinions. If one abolishes man's freedom to determine his own consumption, one takes all freedoms away. The naive advocates of government interference with consumption delude themselves when they neglect what they disdainfully call the philosophical aspect of the problem. They unwittingly support the cause of censorship, inquisition, intolerance, and the persecution of dissenters.

-Ludwig von Mises, Austrian-born NYU Professor and free market advocate, 1949


Whenever you hear a policeman, politician, or prosecutor proclaiming zero tolerance for ``drug activities'', remember this well: Fortune 500 transnational corporations, with DEA licenses, manufacture vast quantities of amphetamines and other DEA Schedule 2, 3, 4, and 5 psychoactives, perfectly legally. The drugs are transported around the country, perfectly legally, by the Postal Service, UPS, Federal Express, and other corporate shipping empires. In hospitals, cocaine and morphine (among other infamous drugs of abuse) are standard and legal anesthetic options. The military equips medics with ketamine (a phencyclidine, as is PCP) for use as an emergency general anesthetic in the field. Licensed physicians routinely prescribe many of these drugs - for example, Ritalin (a controlled amphetamine) and Percodan (containing oxycodone, a codeine analogue narcotic) - to children and to adults. Licensed pharmacists routinely dispense these drugs, perfectly legally, from the corner drugstore, and people with prescriptions bring them home and put them in their medicine cabinets, perfectly legally.

In the United States, under 21 USC 841, anyone who engages in these activities without a license ``shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment which may not be less than 10 years or more than life'' in large bulk quantities and ``shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment which may not be less than 5 years and not more than 40 years and if death or serious bodily injury results from the use of such substance shall be not less than 20 years or more than life'' in lesser bulk quantities. These sentences cannot be suspended, converted to probation, or paroled (murder, rape, mutilating assault, and other horrible violent crimes with actual individual victims, can usually be partially or fully suspended, partially or fully converted to probation, or paroled). Multimillion dollar fines can also be imposed, on top of imprisonment.

In Canada, the Narcotic Control Act specifies life imprisonment as the maximum penalty for trafficking and possession for the purpose of trafficking in narcotics (e.g. Percodan) - unless you have a license, in which case it is perfectly legal.

What these laws mean is obvious: have the piece of paper, A-OK, lack the piece of paper, the state will destroy your life. The situation with certain firearms is quite similar, as explored in the Disarmament Agenda. These are the trappings of a vicious, intense police state.

Dr. Daniel Pouzzner from the http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/ website.

[Osborn F Enready]

Crossfire, the government is controlled by the people in this country, and if the people demand it loud enough, they will do it or suffer the prescribed consequences in rule of law according to the Constitution.

In the United States, this movement is taking on a whole new scope.

Recently the Supreme Court ruled that it was ok for national law, to over-ride state laws on medical marijuana use, cultivation and sales. This is a gold plated violation of Constitutional Common Law.

Now the anti-drug, pro-prohibition establishment has given the anti-prohibition side of the debate some solid footing with which to build an un-precedented case. This is being forced into the national eye, and possibly the worlds eyes over the next few years of lawsuits and results of un-constitutional law-enforcement.

In general, a large portion of the overall national population supports the legalization or decriminalization theories, and believe based on historical review and current procedures and statistics it could positively benefit society on all fronts.

[Milton Bradley]

I believe history ( the only real world test ever executed ) should be our guide, and the evidence is clear from that perspective.

[Osborn F Enready]

Milton said:
history ( the only real world test ever executed )

I say:
Something so many people seem to fully ignore, great description and observation Milton.

[Milton Bradley]

Well, it is often hard to recognize the truth when so many forces wish to "revise" the truth to suit thier needs. Even harder when those entities are governments who can fund mass media campaigns..


What would we do without the internet?

[tinybear]

If murder were legalized, would crime rates drop? I'd say yes. What about you?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: tinybear If murder were legalized, would crime rates drop? I'd say yes. What about you?

Obviously.


Any time a crime is taken off of the compilation, the crime rate will drop. I'm sure the original poster neglected to note this seemingly obvious fact. However, that does negate the intened point that prohibition creates more crime than it prevents.


It also helps to illustrate the ridiculous concept that the Feds actually have the authority to impose such nonsense laws on its citizens.

[Osborn F Enready]

Tinybear said:
If murder were legalized, would crime rates drop?

I say:
Ok, first of all, we know that all of society is against murder in OVERWHELMING MAJORITY, do we not? Is it not clear in the Constitution that we CANNOT infringe others rights? So how does murdering someone, which involves violating ALL of their rights, compare to legalizing drugs, which is an attempt to regulate human craving, or self medicine, which is a violation of rights in itself?

Regulating murder, is PROTECTING peoples rights to life from WRONGFUL death.

Regulating drugs, is an attempt to protect people from THEMSELVES, which goes against EVERY SHRED of our Constitutional framers intents.

[Mia]

Quote by: moustache If cocaine was legalized would crime rates drop?

Yes

[Mia]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Tinybear said: If murder were legalized, would crime rates drop? I say: Ok, first of all, we know that all of society is against murder in OVERWHELMING MAJORITY, do we not? Is it not clear in the Constitution that we CANNOT infringe others rights? So how does murdering someone, which involves violating ALL of their rights, compare to legalizing drugs, which is an attempt to regulate human craving, or self medicine, which is a violation of rights in itself? Regulating murder, is PROTECTING peoples rights to life from WRONGFUL death. Regulating drugs, is an attempt to protect people from THEMSELVES, which goes against EVERY SHRED of our Constitutional framers intents.

No - regulating drugs is to keep the pharmacutical companies making the big bucks.

[mr.perfecto]

or because no one wants junkies walking around on the streets.