- This topic has 1 reply, 9 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
We tried prohibition in the United States back in the 1920’s, and not only did it not work, but it made millions for the gangs, and the government lost billions in revenue.
Could Costa Rica simply sell the drugs it confiscates at a cheap price, or better yet just give it away at seguro social locations.
What could happen?
The drug cartels cannot compete with free, and simply go away to other countries. I might be oversimplifying it, but why not have a referendum, or at least a national discussion.
I think someone mentioned that Chinchilla talked about it, but was dissuaded by an American envoy.
So far, leaving things as is, is obviously not working out for Costa Rica. But it is for certain people, and not all of them the drug cartels.
Alcohol is worse than Marihuana for example, and it is not prohibited. I think it is not the damage it can do to people that concerns lawmakers. I think it might be a kind of mafia thing, cartels paying governments to keep it illegal, and they share the business. Would that make sense ?
Costa Rica certainly could confiscate and then sell or give away the illegal drugs it seizes, but to do so would be to encourage substance dependence. And that increased drug dependence would have secondary costs to the health care system and to the economy in diminished productivity. The government could do the same with alcohol, but I’m not convinced that such policies would be in the broader public interest.
Decriminalizing possession and use of modest amounts of otherwise illegal drugs would save enormous costs to the government and thus free up resources to address larger problems.
[quote=”DavidCMurray”]Costa Rica certainly could confiscate and then sell or give away the illegal drugs it seizes, but to do so would be to encourage substance dependence. And that increased drug dependence would have secondary costs to the health care system and to the economy in diminished productivity. The government could do the same with alcohol, but I’m not convinced that such policies would be in the broader public interest.
Decriminalizing possession and use of modest amounts of otherwise illegal drugs would save enormous costs to the government and thus free up resources to address larger problems.[/quote]
What about food (sugar-) addiction ? Bad nutrition ? A lot of processed food is known to cause health problems. How much money do governments spend on diabetes, cancer, heart problems ? Unfortunately, it is not of peoples interest to get healthy and have normal weight.
People who want to use drugs use them anyway, legal or illegal. When drugs are illegal they are expensive. It is hardly possible to make the required amount of money in a legal manner. So what ? Legal drugs, lower prices, maybe a few more people in the hospitals, but much less in the jails.
I think people should be free to chose if they want to use drugs or not. They just should not expect others to pay for their health problems caused by their chosen live style. People have to learn again to be responsible for their own bad decisions. A social society is a good thing, as long as people are held responsible for their actions.
Maybe my former post sounds weird, but let me explain it this way.
I am signed up with CCSS and I only pay a fraction of what I would pay in Germany. The service at the CCSS hospitals is not like in Germany, I hate to stand in line in order to make an appointment and I would hate to be in a hospital bed in a public hospital (been there twice). Nor do I want to pay a helluva money at a private clinic. So, what can I do in order to minimize the possibility to go there ? I do not use drugs, not smoke, hardly drink alcohol (one beer or 2 per month…), eat healthy etc. I know I still could get sick or have an accident, but I don´t have to force myself to get sick by using unhealthy substances.And no, my life is not any more boring than other peoples lifes.
Great question. It appears Portugal and The Netherlands have found solutions to their drug issues. Crimes in both countries have vastly dropped, and, free drug counselling is available in both countries. Let’s be clear, it is not a war against drugs, it is a war against the people. Drugs have been around since the beginning of creation, and will continue to be around, long after the human species has departed! In addition, the war against drugs, was initiated on a racial basis, starting with the slaves and cocaine, then, marijuana and the mexicans; see “The Emporer Wears No Cloths.”
Equating drug dependence with addiction to sugar or food in general is so misguided that I don’t even know where to begin. Before I retired, I was, by profession, a mental health and chemical dependency counselor. I know the human costs, even with “just” marijuana.
Let me explain a bit, with information that almost no one talks about. When a baby girl is born, all the eggs she will ever have are already present on the ovaries. Ova are surrounded by fatty tissue. THC clings to fatty tissue and can damage eggs. Damage an egg by smoking marijuana as a teenager and that could be the egg that is fertilized when you are 25. The result? Miscarriage. Birth defects – including autism. Do we teach that? No. Why not? God only knows. Perhaps because teenagers aren’t going to listen? Because it takes thinking about future implications for your behavior? I can tell you that I used to explain it to the teens I worked with – all male. One of them then called his pregnant girlfriend and had her go for an amnio. The baby was fine but he asked her not to smoke mj anymore. And, yes, as with cigarette smoking, mj smoking during pregnancy can also damage the fetus.
This is a complex issue. More education is required and so is more therapy for people who use any sort of drug. Will people continue to use? Yes. And they will continue to die.
[quote=”VictoriaLST”]Equating drug dependence with addiction to sugar or food in general is so misguided that I don’t even know where to begin. Before I retired, I was, by profession, a mental health and chemical dependency counselor. I know the human costs, even with “just” marijuana.
Let me explain a bit, with information that almost no one talks about. When a baby girl is born, all the eggs she will ever have are already present on the ovaries. Ova are surrounded by fatty tissue. THC clings to fatty tissue and can damage eggs. Damage an egg by smoking marijuana as a teenager and that could be the egg that is fertilized when you are 25. The result? Miscarriage. Birth defects – including autism. Do we teach that? No. Why not? God only knows. Perhaps because teenagers aren’t going to listen? Because it takes thinking about future implications for your behavior? I can tell you that I used to explain it to the teens I worked with – all male. One of them then called his pregnant girlfriend and had her go for an amnio. The baby was fine but he asked her not to smoke mj anymore. And, yes, as with cigarette smoking, mj smoking during pregnancy can also damage the fetus.
This is a complex issue. More education is required and so is more therapy for people who use any sort of drug. Will people continue to use? Yes. And they will continue to die.[/quote]
Hi Victoria
half of the teenagers in Tilaran (and maybe in total Costa Rica) are smoking pod, even it is prohibited. As I said, those who want to use drugs do it anyhow, they don’t ask for permits, they just pay more $$. How about alcoholic women ? Smoking women ? How about their babies ?Smoking? Low birth weight and other complications. Drinking? Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS) with huge ramifications. Both happen with [i]current[/i] use. Marijuana causes problems when the drug hasn’t been used for years. Big difference.
david, i’m not sure free drugs are going to encourage drug use. if all the heroin in the world were free, i still wouldn’t use it. same for cocaine, meth, crack, pcp, ecstasy, mdma, lsd, opium, and hash. and people who are inclined to use these sustances will do so regardless of cost or risk or whether they are legal or not. and i totally agree with elinder that sugar addiction is damn near as deadly — just look at all the fat people we are now a drain on health systems around the world for the problems caused by their poor diet choices — heart disease, diabetes, stroke, and cancer (yes, those things are all related to sugar consumption!). they should outlaw Coke! or tax it so heavily that nobody can afford to drink it as they did in NYC when they slapped cigarettes with a hefty tax making a pack of ciggies more than $13.00 a pack.
maravilla, I wouldn’t use any of the substances you named either, but if they became more available and less expensive, others likely would. And there would be no benefit to anyone. Who, after all, ever benefitted from using cocaine? And who suffered?
I liken this situation to the one I witnessed while I was in the Navy. There, cigarettes were sold tax-free (about $.10 per pack ashore and $.05 on shipboard). Practically everyone smoked. In a different population (civilians), every time cigarette taxes go up, smoking goes down a little.
Elizabeth and maravilla, I think bringing sugar addiction or other unhealthy lifestyle behaviors into the discussion clouds the issue. You’re absolutely right that those and many other choices have negative effects on health, but that fact alone does not argue convincingly in favor of making (now) illegal drugs legal. If that logic held up, then we might as well discard seatbelt laws. After all, not using seatbelts is just one more unhealthy behavior.
And you cannot assume that those who might come new to the world of substance dependence would abandon some otherwise unhealthy behavior when they took up drugs. I hazard to say that the incidence of hypertension, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, inactivity, etc are as high or higher among substance abusers as compared to the general population.
How many more unhealthy behaviors do we need?
The subject and the question was if legalizing drugs would be cheaper for Costa Rica (and other countries I suppose).
I will answer with a question : Other (legal) bad substances (alcohol, smoke, sugar and other bad food .. causing diabetes, cancer, heart problems, overweight etc. etc.) are causing huge costs for the countries health systems, so why are they legal ?
Where is the limit of “substance A is more damaging than substance B” ???? The number of autistic babies born by pod smokers ? Or the number of smokers who die from lung cancer ? Or people killed by drunk drivers or alcoholics killed by cirrhosis ? Or fat people killed by diabetes and heart attacks (after years of expensive treatment) ???
[quote=”elindermuller”]The subject and the question was if legalizing drugs would be cheaper for Costa Rica (and other countries I suppose).
I will answer with a question : Other (legal) bad substances (alcohol, smoke, sugar and other bad food .. causing diabetes, cancer, heart problems, overweight etc. etc.) are causing huge costs for the countries health systems, so why are they legal ?
Where is the limit of “substance A is more damaging than substance B” ???? The number of autistic babies born by pod smokers ? Or the number of smokers who die from lung cancer ? Or people killed by drunk drivers or alcoholics killed by cirrhosis ? Or fat people killed by diabetes and heart attacks (after years of expensive treatment) ???[/quote]
Good points Elin.
Again, is it cheaper to give that poor addict free drugs so that he won’t attack a citizen or tourist for the cash to buy the drugs, or will legalizing the drugs put the dealers out of “work” and they in turn will attack the citizens?
Another question is why doesn’t the US government just buy the whole crop of drugs from the cartel, and give it away for free. If it’s cheaper, and it saves money for the state, that would be the benefit. After all, the main market seems to be the United States.
Has any country done a cost analysis on the subject of legalization?Perhaps certain people in governments won’t get their cut of the narco traffic profits…. if drugs are legalized.8)
[quote=”DavidCMurray”]Costa Rica certainly could confiscate and then sell or give away the illegal drugs it seizes, but to do so would be to encourage substance dependence. [/quote]
In response to selling or giving away the drugs that are confiscated the answer would have to be a resounding NO.
As for substance dependence and at the risk of giving away some of my life that might be best not revealed. My experience around the drug scene for more than 40 years is that marijuana is not the gateway to the harder drugs except for a very low percentage who have an addictive personality who would probably become users of hard drugs with or without any experience with marijuana.
A nephew of mine became addicted to heroin without ever having smoked pot while many others in my extended family were pot smokers who never used harder drugs.[quote=”DavidCMurray”]And that increased drug dependence would have secondary costs to the health care system and to the economy in diminished productivity. [/quote]
During my time in construction as a line worker, supervisor and business owner I have seen men who, while working under the influence of pot were the most meticulous and productive of those who worked with and under me. There have also been a few who simply overdid their smoking, could not function and did not last more than a day on the job.
[quote=”DavidCMurray”]The government could do the same with alcohol, but I’m not convinced that such policies would be in the broader public interest. [/quote]
I do not recall any worker who came to the job drunk who could function well enough to keep their job.
[quote=”DavidCMurray”]Decriminalizing possession and use of modest amounts of otherwise illegal drugs would save enormous costs to the government and thus free up resources to address larger problems. [/quote]
Decriminalizing and legalizing the use of marijuana is one thing. Doing the same for any of the harder drugs such as uppers (speed, etc), or any of the opiates should never happen.
The savings to the legal system in legalizing marijuana is immense in the cost of adjudication, confinement and the black mark on the future of those convicted.
The ability of the government to tax marijuana could be a good source of income. The experiments in Colorado and Washington will be a good example of what could come out of the legalization of marijuana.I completely agree with Waggoner on all points. I’d also like to add that Hemp is a Super plant that has a thousand other uses besides getting you high, and it’s really a shame that governments have made it illegal for this reason.
Only a few of the many reasons why cannabis should be researched more without prejudice in the links below..http://m.medicaljane.com/cannabis-the-foundation-of-health/
http://www.squidoo.com/hemp-oil-cancer-cure
http://www.naturalnews.com/035759_cannabis_juicing_health.html
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
