Replies

>>Very few marijuana users go on to use heroin. <<

Guess again. http://www.hon.ch/News/HSN/511376.html

>>You have yet to support your claim that many people are undeterred from heroin use by its inherent risks but are deterred by legal penalties.<<

That's not part of my argument. I don't know why you are singling out heroin, but my point doesn't require users to go straigth to smack.

>>but the increased use due to not imprisoning them would be minor and well worth the savings in tax dollars and/or prison space.<<

You want to try and support this with some authority? Are you telling me that if drug users are not jailed, their continued drug use will be "minor?"

>>What's the difference between "illicit use" and "abuse"? I don't see your point here.<<

My point is that while one can abuse alcohol, another person can utilize the product without abuse. Illicit drug use, by definition, is abuse. I can drink a beer because I'm thirsty, or drink a glass of wine with dinner because I like the taste. If I snort up, I'm doing it strictly for a high.

>>the abuse-to-use ratio is much higher for alcohol<<

It doesn't matter whether it is much higher; it is nowhere near 100%, as it is for drugs.

>>I'd love to see evidence that intoxicating use of alcohol is a minority use; my observation is the opposite.<<

I've never been drunk in my life. Hell, never had a "beer buzz." Never had a hangover, nothing. I have a 6 pack of beer at the bottom of my fridge, a bottle of Jack Daniels in my pantry, and a bottle of Vermouth on my cabinet. I know a lot of people that have the same, and I know a hell of a lot more people that drink but have rarely, if ever, been intoxicated.

And anyway, it doesn't matter. Its not 100%. Its nowhere near, even if it is a majority. Drug use, by definition, can never be less than 100%.

[from your link] about 13.5 percent of early marijuana users later tried heroin or other opioids

And about a quarter of those who try heroin get hooked; 13.5%/4 = 3.4%, so my statement was correct.

I don't know why you are singling out heroin,

Because the more dangerous the drug, the less deterrence illegality poses relative to inherent risks, so the less likely it is that legalization will lead to increased use.

but my point doesn't require users to go straigth to smack.

What is your point?

Are you telling me that if drug users are not jailed, their continued drug use will be "minor?"

A year or two taken out of their drug-using lifespan is indeed proportionally minor.

Illicit drug use, by definition, is abuse.

Only under the bizarre definition that any mental alteration means "abuse" ... that the guy who drinks two beers and feels more relaxed has "abused" alcohol.

It doesn't matter whether it is much higher

Sure it does: as I said, if hair spray abuse was as great a problem as alcohol abuse is, arguing that abuse-only substances should be banned but hair spray should not would be as feeble as your alcohol argument is.

Its not 100%. Its nowhere near, even if it is a majority. Drug use, by definition, can never be less than 100%.

The difference between 100% and (say) 60% abuse is far to thin a reed on which to hang legality versus illegality.

"According to the Straits Times [1995], Singapore is treating 7,700 addicts (up from 5,700 in 1990). Assuming improbably, that these are the only ones, Singapore still has an addiction rate 12% higher than the U.S."

--http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/50/098.html

[Malaysia]"The National Drug Agency (ADK) has, through its efforts, registered more than 300,000 addicts in its drug fight. However, just like the iceberg, the numbers are only what is seen above the surface. Some local studies have suggested there are an estimated three to four addicts who are not registered with the ADK for every one that is."

--thestar.com.my/health/story.asp?file=/2005/4/17/health/10678978&sec=health

"Iran has executed more than 10,000 narcotics traffickers in the last decade;"

--www.payvand.com/news/04/mar/1012.htm

"Iran has the highest proportion of heroin addicts in the world and a growing Aids problem."

--news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/this_world/3791889.stm

"There were an estimated 980,000 hardcore heroin addicts in the United States in 1999, 50 percent more than the estimated 630,000 hardcore addicts in 1992." [980,000 is about 0.33% of the population]

--www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs07/794/heroin.htm

"The number of addicts in the Netherlands has been stable - at 25,000 - for many years." [That's about 0.17% of the population, figures from 1999]

--http://www.minjust.nl:8080/a_beleid/fact/cfact7.htm.

Is it fair to say that there is a positive correlation between harsher drug laws and higher rates of heroin addiction?