The journey from there to here

(Author's Note: the meat of this article would have appeared as a comment rather than a separate article, but the author of the original post has an unfortunate history of deleting comments of which they don't approve, so I'd rather not take that chance).

I caught a glimpse of an article on "The Early Show" about a "choking game", but it wasn't until I read a JU article about it that I understood the whole deal. Apparently an Idaho boy died while playing a "choking game", hanging himself with the intent of passing out to achieve a "high".

In the wake of this tragedy, all we can do is inform and warn. And that is appropriate. We cannot confiscate the tools children would use for this type of behaviour, because, quite frankly, the tools could be virtually anything.

The lesson we can, and should learn from this is that people who wish to get high will find a means to do so. Whether it's an ingestion of nutmeg, a choking game, huffing, or any other number of ways to use legal substances to achieve a desired effect, people will do it. And, in some cases, as has been repeatedly proven, they will turn to illicit agents to obtain what they desire.

The drug trade is an industry whose annual "take" rivals that of retail giants such as Wal-Mart. It can't do that without a massive workforce and massive financial means. And it won't be stopped by passage of increasingly stringent regulation or incarceration of end users for lengthy prison sentences. It can, in fact, be better controlled if its usage is highly regulated and prices set low enough to remove profitability from black market dealers.

The death of this Idaho boy, as with any death, is very tragic. But there are lessons that we can learn from it that can benefit us as a society. One of those lessons is the fact that we cannot continue our course of simply outlawing every behaviour or activity we deem inappropriate. We must pursue a far more reasonable course of educating and informing the public. An educated populace is far less likely to act stupidly.


Comments
on Jul 28, 2005

The lesson we can, and should learn from this is that people who wish to get high will find a means to do so. Whether it's an ingestion of nutmeg, a choking game, huffing, or any other number of ways to use legal substances to achieve a desired effect, people will do it. And, in some cases, as has been repeatedly proven, they will turn to illicit agents to obtain what they desire.

Not to pour salt on your fire here Gid, but you missed the point, field goal and TD.  It has nothing to do with Drug laws.  for if they were removed tomorrow, this would still happen.

Why? 2 reasons.

One, it would still be denied to  minors

two The parents should still decide who gets stoned and who does not.

In the case of one, I dont think you are going to argue that minors should be given unrestricted access to all adult products.  I know your philosophy too well.  And in the case of 2, Parents are still going to deny access to their children.  Does that mean they will not get them?  hell no!  Who gets illegal drugs most of all now?  kids.

Changing the drug laws is not going to change this.  because parents will still deny it, as will society.

on Jul 28, 2005
You're right in that it wouldn't be changed in THIS case, nor should it. But neither could the senseless death have been presented by unreasonable, overreaching legislation. And the latter was my point.
on Jul 28, 2005

You're right in that it wouldn't be changed in THIS case, nor should it. But neither could the senseless death have been presented by unreasonable, overreaching legislation. And the latter was my point.

I agree with your point as stated here.  Life is a risk, and no amount of laws can remove all risk.  part of the magnitude of risk is the degree of maturity and stupity of individuals.  And you cant legislate that.

on Jul 28, 2005
" It can, in fact, be better controlled if its usage is highly regulated and prices set low enough to remove profitability from black market dealers."




It's, sorry, asinine to think that South American drug lords would start paying millions in taxes and overhead to run legitimately when they could just continue to undercut American, legal, drug dealers. The cost of running a legitimate drug business would be so high, illegal drug dealers would be able to provide drugs at a fraction of the cost.

Why do we still have bootleggers, Gid? Why are bootleg cigarettes a billion dollar industry around the world? They are legal. Do less people die of cancer because cigarettes are legal? Do fewer kids smoke because they are legal? Do we have fewer alcoholics now than we would if booze were illegal?

So, instead of stopping illegal drugs, you'd simply legitimize the use of drugs, while leaving the dangerous illegal drug trade in place. Drugs would be more plentiful, more socially acceptable, and easier to get into the hands of kids. The people who do things illegally today, would thwart the regulation and still do them illegally tomorrow.

After all, the risk is much greater now, and they are still willing to take it. You offer them poor competition, and a world in which their wares are even more socially acceptable and validated by the government.
on Jul 28, 2005
Hell, there's nothing illegal about owning a copy of Windows, but people still risk jail and enormous fines to bootleg $50 copies. It would be no different with drugs. A huge percent of of software running around the world is illegal counterfeits. Why do people opt to buy illegal copies when legal copies are there?

Laws wouldn't stop people who didn't want to bother with all the draconian regulations, because those same laws don't stop them now. You'd just legitimize the drug use of the part of the population who did it legally.
on Jul 31, 2005

Baker,

Bootleg alcohol is not a hugely profitable industry, sorry. As for cigarettes, the ONLY reason "bootleg" cigarettes make the rounds is because the taxes are so insanely high that they can be sold on the black market profitably. And, frankly, I know of noone who has been able to purchase truly "bootleg" cigarettes, so when you state it's a billion dollar industry, I have to question that.

My point was (and is) that you can make all the laws you want, people will still find a way to get high. And, honestly, if their use doesn't lead to abusing another person, then it's only themselves they are hurting. If it DOES lead to abusing another person, we need to address the abuse, not the drug use. Just as we shouldn't ban guns because of the potential for misuse, we shouldn't ban drugs because the same potential exists. Anyway, it's more than a little hypocritical in a nation where advertisers are selling sleep aids (downers), diet pills (often containing uppers), and practically INVENTING diseases to sell more licit drugs (restless leg syndrome? Come on, who's buying THAT shit?).  Why do we grant legitimate status to people to dope themselves up as long as they have a prescription, then frown on drug use that achieves the same effect? Justify it all you want, but it doesn't add up.

on Jul 31, 2005
Do you really think that the regulation put on drug use won't be as draconian as what we have now with cigarettes? Think of how our drug industry works at present. Sure, we don't have a bootleg cigarette epidemic, but it is a huge industry that the government has whole task forces to address.

How much worse would it be when people can sell crack much, much more competitively illegally? Why do cities in Nevada that make prostitution illegal still have rampant illegal prostitution? Because people would rather pay $20 for a hummer on the street than drive 20 miles to pay $200.

I don't think this is something that needs much thought. It is basic economics. I don't think the American drug industry can compete with the drug trade we have now, especially if it will be burdened with the kind of regulation it would take to make it "safe".

The illegal drug tade isn't going to be scared to break laws that they are already breaking, even if you add a few more to it. Legalizing drugs would do a lot, though, to destroy the stigma that prevents many people from using drugs. So, you have more drug users, and nothing much to direct them to legitimate trade.
on Aug 02, 2005
Why do cities in Nevada that make prostitution illegal still have rampant illegal prostitution?


Actually, the cities in Nevada that have RAMPANT illegal prostitution are those where prostitution is ILLEGAL; not the ones where it is legal (in Vegas, for instance, it is illegal). It's pretty well controlled in communities where it's legal; I can attest to this by virtue of having LIVED in one such city.
on Aug 02, 2005
Heh, that's my point though. Of course you don't have a problem with illegal prostitution if it isn't illegal. Access to legal prostitution doesn't destroy illegal prostitution, it just gives it competition. The reason it is rampant in other areas isn't because it is illegal, it is because it is cheap and less bound by ordinance. YOu can't be saying that the law takes it easier on them in Vegas than it does in the legal areas.

My point was that people will go where economics leads them, not to the most safe, or secure, or legal route. The idea that drug companies, bound by strict regulation, taxes, and high costs could compete in price with a guy making meth in his kitchen defies what we know about economics.

The crack houses and crime-ridden projects won't change. People who refuse to pay taxes and don't mind breaking the law won't be any more impressed by legalization than someone who prefers a $20 dollar BJ will pay $100 for it from a legal source.

Like legal abortion, it will just mean more people will do it, and the only ones doing it more safely will be those that can pay, i.e. the wealthy, who don't have any such trouble, anyway.