Harm Reduction: A More Realistic And Viable Drug Policy.

[Wizard777]

Baltimore is having it's share of problems. Most of which are coming from black market drugs funding Gangs that are moving in and taking over. Baltimore City has a lil over 3,000 cops and 60,000 heroin addicts. That's just heroin addicts. You do the math and tell me who's gonna win the War On Drugs in Baltimore. If we continue down this war path Baltimore will get another fort when the Police Department becomes Ft. Apache. Our some what delusional Police Commissioner think he can fight & arrest his way out of the problem. But that's not the only curve he's behind on. His Gang information is also out dated. DMI is no longer a white's only gang. Hasn't been for quite some time. DMI is a home grown gang that started right here in Maryland's prisons. If his intelligence on a local gang is that out dated. I would hate to see how bad his intelligence on out of state gangs is. But Baltimore is uniquely poised to actually solve the problems it faces.

In Baltimore along with our historic forts we also have historic hospitals on the cutting edge of medical technology. The whole concept of Shock Trauma treatment and the golden hour was discovered and pioneered here in Baltimore at the University of Maryland Hospital by Dr. R. Adams Cowley. We also have the historic Johns Hopkins Hospital. That's a teaching hospital where you have older doctors teaching younger doctors. When both of them aren't learning from the patients that come in. We also have Sheppard Pratt which is a psychiatric hospital. All of these are world class hospitals that provide the very best in care. This is why Baltimore is uniquely poised to deal with it's drug problem. You're not going to find a better medical safety net anywhere in the world for a real workable solution to the problem. This one will actually eliminate more problems than it creates. We call it Harm Reduction. Baltimore need to hit the pioneer trail once again.

In Harm Reduction we are looking to reduce the harm that drugs do to users and society. We're not looking to eliminate harm. That's what prohibition is all about it's unrealistic and unattainable goals makes it a miserable failure. By simply seeking to reduce the harm. We create realistic and obtainable goals that can succeed. We've already taken some baby steps in this area and they are producing documented results. We are prescribing NARCAN to heroin users. Our OD death rate has been reduced. It wasn't eliminated. But it was decreased from the level that Prohibition put it at and it can be further reduced with full scale Harm reduction.

Full Scale Harm Reduction involves the legalization of all drugs. It will take Drug manufacturing and sales off the street corners and out of neighborhoods. It will put them in Drug Control Board (DCB) Stores and Clinics. Here the manufacturing and distribution of drugs can be regulated and taxed. We gain the benefits of safer drug manufacturing practices. Such as uniform purity and dosage. The medical professionals at the DCB stores and clinics can provide drug education to users. This much get you high, this much gets you crazy and this much gets you dead. This also puts users in touch with medical professional at the Point of Purchase. For the users that have decided they are addicts and drugs are a problem for them that they need help with. They can also get a referral for drug treatment the same place they get their drugs.

This approach should also help reduce crime. Your hitting these violent gangs in the purse. You're depriving the black market of HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS ANNUALLY. Once the Government regulates and controls the drug market. The money that is derived from drug sales, we can't stop, can now be put to more constructive uses. Like drug education and treatment. Community Recreational Centers that that keep kids minds challenged and occupied with sports and arts. So they don't feel the need to challenge and occupy them with drugs. Harm Reduction can only do more good than harm. Because if it doesn't. What we're doing isn't actually Harm Reduction. We can't eliminate the harm drugs do to people and society. But we can greatly reduce that Harm. That is what Harm Reduction is all about.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

1. Here's a link to the Harm Reduction Coalition

http://www.harmreduction.org/

Thanks for your post!

[Wizard777]

3. Once again, No, Thank You for the link.

If you can do this with a Guinness Stout too. No wonder people think you're a Goddess.

It's great to know I'm not the only one thinking along this line. I debate on a local news opinion board in Baltimore. I've been promoting the whole idea of Harm Reduction there. Others have been promoting LEAP there. Several of us are independently arguing down the prohibitionist. We're looking at Baltimore's problems as a whole. Drugs, gangs, crime, poverty a lack of education, and dwindling resources. So we're kinda designing a custom Harm Reduction Plan for Baltimore to address these problems. That's how we're starting to see this working on a national scale. The federal government setting parameters that states and localities work within. That they can tweak to produce maximum effectiveness. It's the same with drug sales. The drug gangs can tweak to local markets. What works or sells in one place doesn't work or sell everywhere. So we're seeing a set of universal principles that must applied equally everywhere at the federal level. With the states and localities able to tweak everything else outside of that. I would even allow for Dry Counties. But I would require that to be done by referendum with a 2/3 majority vote of the county residents to go dry. This way going dry is sure to be the true will of a true majority in that county. Going dry would only prohibit sales in that county. Not possession or use.

I'm going to check out the link and organization to see if they are on the same page we are or way ahead or even way behind. But it good to know there are others like us out there. Thanks again.

[Wizard777]

5. Great Link to a great organization!

They seem to be more medical and counseling oriented than we are. But drugs are a multifaceted problem. They seem to have that facet nailed down pretty good. We seem to be on the same page in this area. With counseling we've divided this into two area. Users and Addicts. Then those two categories sub-divide into responsible and irresponsible. But users get drug education. Like this much gets you high, this much gets you crazy, and this much gets you dead. A view of the road ahead. After several years of even responsible methamphetamine use. It's perfectly normal to be covered in sores, toothless and impotent. Fun stuff huh? The only person that has a right to say they are an addict is them. When they do declare themselves addicts. They become eligible for treatment and recovery counseling. We showed you how to get high. Now let us show you how to get sober. Still trust us? It's entirely your call. We can help you either way. We even adapt the 12 x 12. Making a decision to turn you life over to the care of God. Becomes made a decision to turn the care of your health to a doctor. But until then, Physician heal thy self.

My group is looking more at the effect legal sales under the principle of Harm Reduction could have on reducing local crime. Currently drug users are outsiders in their own communities. We're looking to give drug users a voice and stake in their communities. Instead of the disenfranchisement they currently get. Historically speaking, if you give people a stake in society. They tend to build that society. Outsiders always attack the city walls and destroy the societies that cannot or will not absorb them. If a society cannot make a place for them in it. They will destroy that society to make a place for themselves where society is unwelcome. That exactly where we are in Baltimore. So we're focusing on the Crime Reduction and Empowerment of The Individual and Community Facet.

[Wizard777]

6. Here are some links to Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LayaGk0TMDc">Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMwszvAgQeg">LEAP Stumps the Drug Czar

This is a good organization too. We have Cops on out board. They join the debates too. Many of them favor Legalization is some form. Since we're looking at the crime fighting aspects of Harm Reduction. It really great to have their input. Many cops are actually great people that would be fun to hangout with.......if we weren't enemies in a stupid paramilitary civil war on drugs. Much like the first civil war this country. We've found some common ground and managed to become friends in spite of this war the government has placed between us. We talk and we talk about real solutions. In doing this we've both managed to make friends of people that would otherwise be enemies. I think this our biggest victory to date. We've made friends with our former enemies. It's not all group hugs. They have some jerks and so do we. But these societal clashes have been reduced to personality clashes. Another victory. We've established communication. We listen to them and they listen to us. We've started to restore function to the dysfunction prohibition has created.

[kenichol]

18. We had a LEAP speaker at our county fair booth

I live in a very conservative, John Birch Right wing community, but we had an amazing experience having a LEAP speaker at our local county fair. I just posted a summary. I think it was an effective way to start a conversation...and hopefully end this insanity.
I just need to learn to keep my stomach from churning and stay centered all the time. Great spiritual challenge!

[kristopher]

2. How are marijuana and alcohol going to be handled?

Are we going to move the use of alcohol into this program with its tie to the medical community; are we going to move marijuana into a legalized category like alcohol that is free of a connection to the medical community; or are we going to continue to irrationally discriminate against marijuana users?

[Wizard777]

4. No. Full scale Harm Reduction requires legalization of all street drug.

From marijuana to heroin. The DEA schedules would still be in force. But they would ONLY apply to medical uses. The States regulate accepted medical practices. The DEA would begin to regulate accepted medical substances. In that regard they would become an enforcement arm of the FDA. They would also still be fighting illegal drug sales and uses outside of the licensed and regulated Stores and Clinic.

We're looking to borrow from alcohol control. Like selling the drugs through an Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Type store. We call them Drug Control Board (DCB) stores or clinics. Alcohol and tobacco would be left to their current control systems. As for marijuana regulation. I would put an age restriction on it of 18. I would also allow self determined Company policies on use or being under the influence. I would also subject users to public intoxication & disorderly (PID) laws to address disturbances that may be created. So drug users as a whole will have three major concerns associate with their use of drugs. That OD, ID & PID. Over Dose, IDentification, and Public Intoxication & Disorderly. Harm reduction will take us back to an america where you are entitled to all the freedom and liberty you can responsibly handle.

[kristopher]

7. I don't see how this accomplishes very much.

The drugs will be sold through a DCB.

The DEA schedules would still be in place, but they would only apply to medical uses.

The DEA would now police ALL drugs as an an enforcement arm of the FDA.

Non-DCB sales and one presumes possession resulting from such sales are illegal.

So how is that different from now in terms of reducing the prohibition on recreational drug use?

Since this entire "fix" revolves around medical use and not recreational use, I see nothing changing; the recreational market will still exist and will still be serviced by an illegal underground, unregulated, untaxed industry.

[Wizard777]

8. It changes a lot. By creating a legal source to purchase from.

Sales from a DCB Store or clinic would be legal. So would possession and use of drugs purchased from DCB stores. Drugs bought off a street corner are still illegal. This part of the crime reduction aspects of Harm Reduction. Taking the profits and customer base away from the black market. The typically 1,000% mark up from production to street sale creates and funds a lot of crime. Cocaine can be made for pennies per pound. Yet it sells for 80.00 - 100.00 per gram on the street. This causes property crimes when users steal to fund their overly inflated drug habit. Disputes over those overly inflated drugs cause crimes against the person like assault and murder. So the DCB Stores and clinic cuts them out of the equation. So if you continue to buy off the corner. You're going to go to jail. You're going to go for a long time in a legal system with no sympathy. You're no longer caught between a rock and a hard place. You're just straight up funding crime. If you buy your drugs from a DCB Store or clinic. As long as you are using responsibly. Jail is not a concern.You have nothing to fear from law enforcement over your legal purchases and uses.

To a certain degree the DEA is already an enforcement arm of the FDA. The FDA Approves drugs for medical uses. The DEA enforces the laws concerning them. The FDA approved the drugs that killed Michael Jackson. But the DEA is going after the doctors that illegally prescribed them to Michael causing his death.

Actually the fix is NOT in medical use. The fix is only in destroying the black market. It seem like your one of the people that say, I don't understand how we use Harm Reduction to force people to quit getting high? NOPE! That's not how it works. The very first thing you have to understand about Harm Reduction is Freedom of Choice. The decision to use drug is a decision that everyone will make regardless of it's legal standings. Even if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice. So it's inescapable. What Harm Reduction does is quit punishing people for disagreeing with the government. Recreational use will still exist. The difference is instead of going to a seedy part of town to buy your crack off a street corner. You're going to go to a DCB store in your neighborhood to buy the crack. You don't have to have a phony medical excuse to get the crack. As long as you are an adult. Basically you can smoke crack if you want to. You have to pay the natural consequences. We're basically repealing the man made consequences.

Also Marijuana I treat more like the herb it is than a drug. But like tobacco it would be an herb with an age restriction on it.

Will Harm Reduction wipe the black market entirely? No, it won't. Just like with the repeal of alcohol prohibition. There are still bootleggers out there making moonshine. But it is an infinitesimally small niche market compared to the over all legal market of alcohol. So I anticipate the same with the repeal of drug prohibition. Infinitesimally small niche markets in the back woods. Which is far better than having it on a street corner challenging residents for control of the community.

[kristopher]

9. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I said nothing even remotely like "It seem like your one of the people that say, I don't understand how we use Harm Reduction to force people to quit getting high?"

What I said was in accordance with what you wrote; that this program moves drugs now used for recreational purposes from the status as an illegal item to possess to a status that makes them legal if medically prescribed. Now you are saying (I think) that the criteria for getting a prescription is just the desire to use the drug recreationally?

I don't believe it. That does nothing but make a mockery of the tie to the medical community. Based on your portrayal, you seem to think drugs are limited to "a seedy part of town to buy your crack off a street corner." Meth, cocaine, heroin, X, crack and pot are not problems limited to the inner city poor, nor are the 'retail outlets' of the distribution systems presently in place solely located on those "seedy parts of town".

I'm all for removing the legal sanction associated with recreational drug use, but this program as you describe it doesn't seem to be a comprehensive proposal, instead it seems like a reaction to the specific set of circumstances related to inner city gangs.

ANY program that decriminalizes drugs is going to cut the financial legs out from under the gangs, but based on what you wrote I see this approach being less successful that one might think. Aside from what I wrote before, the total emphasis on treating urban drug addicts would seem to offer the opportunity to "buy low" in the clinics and then "sell high" in the suburbs and small towns. That is a lot more than a niche market.

My feeling is that the shortcomings are a result of the problem seeking to be solved. An idea aimed at inner city drug use is conceptualized around a limited view of the problem that may or may not scale up to a national solution. I don't think it does in this case. A better approach, IMO, is to start with removing all restrictions on marijuana. That is the source of 80% of illegal drug profits, it is the most socially acceptable of the illegal drugs and it offers the largest potential tax resource.

As to the other drugs they don't need a special program to deal with them, just give doctors the ability to prescribe them for addiction and define addiction fairly loosely.

Establishing a new bureaucracy around state stores as points of distribution is not required if you do that. There is no need to duplicate legal distribution systems already in place. Control access to marijuana like you do alcohol, all the rest through physicians and don't hamstring the physicians.

ABOLISH the DEA and retask all law enforcement away from drugs.

[Wizard777]

10. I disagree. They should be sold over the counter for recreational use.

Getting a doctor involved with your addiction can be part of treatment. That is not recreational use. Even with hundreds of millions pouring in from Billions in legal drug sales. Treatment will be reserved for those who voluntarily admit they have a problem and need help with that problem. I would not waste a single treatment space with someone that doesn't want to be there. At best you can give them drug education.

The reason I say that is you don't seem to be able to seperate recreational use from medical use from treatment. The only difference with recreational use is that instead of buying it off a street corner or going to your buddies house. You buy it from a DCB Store or Clinic. No prescription. I would not want to create a system that is prohibitive. That's how the Marijuana Tax Stamp Act worked or actually didn't work. Marijauna was legal as long as you had the stamp. You just couldn't get the stamp. That all the prescription would be. A Marijuana tax stamp you can't get and a prohibition in a system that is misrepresenting it's self as legalization. I also would not want it to be a treatment trap. Treatment should be reserved for people who voluntarily declare themselves addicts in need of help. Everyone else is just a user. You seem to be more focused on the medical aspects. We're focused on the crime reduction aspects. The main goal in that is take the customers and profits from unlicensed and unregulated black market sales. They don't need a prescription to get off the corner. They shouldn't need a prescription to get it from a DCB Store or Clinic. If you do not attack the crime and violence of black market distribution. You don't have real Harm Reduction. You will lose more lives to black market violence than the drug themselves. I think on of my God childrens expressed that best when he asked me. If drugs are so dangerous why are are teh people my age being killed by bullets instead of drugs? You seem to looking to save the 200 or less addicts in Baltimore that die from OD. That's great! But we're looking to save the 300 people, some of which are addicts but not all, that are killed by Black Market violence. We will not accept a compromise on this. It's not a matter of you can save the OD's or you can save the homicides. But you can't save both. Bull Shit! We can save both. I would be highly and extremely opposed to any medical agenda that reduces or prevents the ability to attack the black market sales. Because at that point what you are practicing is not Harm Reduction. You are not minimizing the harm to users or society. You're only reducing the number of people that can be helped by harm reduction.

[kristopher]

11. You[re just kind of making this up as you go along, aren't you?

This is your first post, read it then the last one.

"...Baltimore is uniquely poised to actually solve the problems it faces.

In Baltimore along with our historic forts we also have historic hospitals on the cutting edge of medical technology. The whole concept of Shock Trauma treatment and the golden hour was discovered and pioneered here in Baltimore at the University of Maryland Hospital by Dr. R. Adams Cowley. We also have the historic Johns Hopkins Hospital. That's a teaching hospital where you have older doctors teaching younger doctors. When both of them aren't learning from the patients that come in. We also have Sheppard Pratt which is a psychiatric hospital. All of these are world class hospitals that provide the very best in care. This is why Baltimore is uniquely poised to deal with it's drug problem. You're not going to find a better medical safety net anywhere in the world for a real workable solution to the problem. This one will actually eliminate more problems than it creates. We call it Harm Reduction. Baltimore need to hit the pioneer trail once again.

In Harm Reduction we are looking to reduce the harm that drugs do to users and society. We're not looking to eliminate harm. That's what prohibition is all about it's unrealistic and unattainable goals makes it a miserable failure. By simply seeking to reduce the harm. We create realistic and obtainable goals that can succeed. We've already taken some baby steps in this area and they are producing documented results. We are prescribing NARCAN to heroin users. Our OD death rate has been reduced. It wasn't eliminated. But it was decreased from the level that Prohibition put it at and it can be further reduced with full scale Harm reduction.

Full Scale Harm Reduction involves the legalization of all drugs. It will take Drug manufacturing and sales off the street corners and out of neighborhoods. It will put them in Drug Control Board (DCB) Stores and Clinics. Here the manufacturing and distribution of drugs can be regulated and taxed. We gain the benefits of safer drug manufacturing practices. Such as uniform purity and dosage. The medical professionals at the DCB stores and clinics can provide drug education to users. This much get you high, this much gets you crazy and this much gets you dead. This also puts users in touch with medical professional at the Point of Purchase. For the users that have decided they are addicts and drugs are a problem for them that they need help with. They can also get a referral for drug treatment the same place they get their drugs."

I think our goals are exactly the same, I just think you are making it way too complicated by trying to create a redundant distribution system. There are lots of clinics staffed by competent medical professionals serving all communities right now, we don't need to create special "store" to stigmatize anyone and everyone that walks through the door.

[Wizard777]

12. Not really. Because first of all I want the medical and recreational uses of drugs to be distinct

and clear. I don't want drug users sitting in a general practitioners office deluding themselves into thinking their use is not a problem. They come up with a BS excuse and their doctor gives them "medicine" for it. BS! You just want to get high and you're taking dope to accomplish that. Go break your arm and then your dope is "medicine." "Medicine" comes from the doctors office. Dope comes from a DCB store or clinic. There are medical uses for alcohol. But we don't make drunks get it from a doctor. So why should we do that with drugs? Also General practitioners don't want drug users sitting in their office. I've known many heroin addicts that get on methadone. Their general practitioner can treat their addiction with methadone also. But they usually refuse to do that. They refer them to a methadone clinic instead. But if the person develops a medical condition in which the methadone is not only used for addiction management but pain management as well. THEN some doctors will take over prescribing the methadone. Others that STILL don't want to will supplement their methadone clinic referral with a Pain management clinic referral. So the redundancy already exists with both methadone and Pain management clinics. The DCB store and clinic will merely expand their product line.

I am a retired security professional. So allow me to explain what you do not understand about redundancies. Redundancy is not always a waste of resources. Many protections are based on redundancies. These redundancies form fail safes. A blast box is nothing more than a reinforced box with a series of redundant vents. If some one is going to blow up because they have to see a doctor before they get their drugs. I don't want to turn every General Practitioners office into a blast box. I would much rather have a specialized location designed to specifically deal with these problem as they present themselves. I don't want a child or an adult sitting in a doctors office hearing mother fuck this and mother fuck that. I'm sick give me my "medicine" NOW you slimy cunt bitch. I don't want doctors offices to have to have a cop at the door to deal with that. I don't want to create a resource wasting redundancy of having otherwise healthy people have to see a doctor before they can buy an ounce of weed or an eight ball of crack. I also don't want people walking into pharmacies to find that they can't get their pain medication because the recreational users have bought out the entire supply. Full Scale Harm reduction will require a specialized distribution system that is separate from the medical system. This is a protection to the medical system. They already have enough security concerns as it is. They really don't need Harm Reduction adding to them. It's not really overly complicated. It's just really that simple.

[kristopher]

13. "I am a retired security professional."

It shows; you are just making shit up as you go along. Frankly, you and your mindset are more a part of the problem than of the solution; so frankly still, I don't give a fuck what YOU want. Your "idea" sucks and the justifications are totally a product of your biases.

[Wizard777]

14. Please explain the difference between creating something that does not yet exist and making shit up

I'm sorry but doctors being the panacea that law enforcement wasn't is no less of a pipe dream doomed to fail. Harm reduction has been around for along time we use it frequently in security. It's more commonly called baby proofing or idiot proofing. But it's none the less Harm Reduction. Take a bullet proof vest for example. That too utilizes Harm Reduction. It doesn't eliminate the harm a bullet can do to you. It just greatly reduces the harm some bullets can do to you. You're still going to get hurt. But getting hurt is much better than getting killed. My security centric mindset may be much better at resolving the problems caused by drug uses and abuse than your medical mindset. When some one comes into the doctors office with a gun to rob it of money drugs or both. What does that doctor propose be done? Come out and give the guy counseling? Screw that! What I'm gonna do to that guy is the direct opposite of harm reduction, fatality maximization, and there isn't any doctor going to be able to fix it. The medical aspects works into our plans and are a big part of it. But it's by no means the whole of Harm Reduction. Just as the doctors are going to have to take a back seat to the security wonks. Us security wonks have to back seat to the political wonks. They are the only ones that have that true all encompassing control both security wonks and doctor try to achieve in the practice of our arts. Like I said it doesn't have to be either or. Harm reduction can encompass both medical and security aspects. The medical aspect without security aspects is nothing more than a loose cannon in need of securing. Enter the security wonks. We would rather secure that loose cannon BEFORE it starts firing. Not after. Drugs present a multifaceted problems so there is no singular solution. I'm looking to merge many sciences under the Harm Reduction banner. Medicine is just one. There's also sociology, criminology, computer sciences etc. That's one of the reasons I'm calling the shit I'm looking to "make up" or create "Full Scale Harm Reduction." The sciences that will form Full Scale Harm Reduction puts an end to the eternal argument of the Us vs. Them Paradox and begins the WE Paradigm. It's really that simple.

[kristopher]

15. One last example of your confusion

Then I'm leaving you to your leather and lace...

You wrote: "When some one comes into the doctors office with a gun to rob it of money drugs or both. What does that doctor propose be done?"

If we make drugs readily available to those with addictions there is no reason for the gun or the robbery. The addict just asks for and receives the substance needed. We are not going to start passing out cocaine, heroine, crack, PCP and meth to anyone that wants it at "state stores" or anywhere else. We can, however, deal humanly with addicts wherever they are located - be it inner city Baltimore or Boozer Square in Columbia SC.

Legalize marijuana and regulate its sale like alcohol, take the other drugs out of the criminal justice system and deal with them as the medical/social problem they are.

Fare thee well.

[Wizard777]

16. I have to say we agree on general terms and goals. We just differ on how to achieve them.

I'm just looking at this in a much broader scope than you are. As for the robbery scenario. I hate to burst your bubble. But drug users are not the only criminals out there. There are perfectly sober criminals that would be more than happy to rob a clinic if the pay off was big enough. I'm not confused at all. Even though I am looking at this in a very broad and logistical way. But I'm really not over complicating the issue. As far as the DCB Stores or clinics go. Marijuana and hash I would sell through DCB stores. Cocaine, heroin and other harder drugs I would distribute through DCB Clinics. Actually heroin may become a moot point because many heroin users have switched to Oxycontin. This is mainly because Oxycontin is pharmaceutical heroin. But it has a uniform purity and dosage you don't get with heroin. I really understand the importance of the medical aspect at the individual level. But that's only half of the goal. The other part of the goal that I'm looking at is reducing the harm drug use and abuse does to society. It's the societal applications of Harm Reduction that I'm talking about is whats confusing you.

At 77 years old I've been smoking pot for 68 years now. Theres not drug I haven't done. In my years and travels through this world. I've done drugs you've probably never heard of. I've been to the Middle East and done Gilead. I've done peyote with Native American Shaman. I've been to Africa and snorted marijuana trichomes with Zulu Warriors. I've licked bufrotin exuding toads. I've even done one of the most powerful hallucinogenic in existence. That's Cobra Venom. If you don't get the dilution exact. You die. I can actually remember the days when at 13 years old I could walk past a cop smoking a joint and he would even blink more or less give it a second tough. I'm one of the original groovy gurus of legalization. But one day it occurred to me. What if the government actually says, Okay we'll try it your way. It's all legal. Now what? :wow: Uuuuuuuuuuh, party on dude? Well now we have a much better answer to that question. It's Harm Reduction. I'm look at the realities of reshaping the legal structure and how the police enforce that new more tolerant system. I'm look at the realities of restoring Constitutional protections lost or compromised in the treasonous and treacherous War on Drugs. I'm not only looking at reducing the harm drug use and abuse causes users but also non users. Like I've told my God Children that use. You can't expect people to respect your right to use if you don't respect their right to not use. It's this mutual respect that forms the foundation of the WE solution of Full Scale Harm Reduction.

In our parting agreement to disagree. I really have to Thank You for taking the time to challenge my beliefs, concepts and Philosophies. I've been at this for so long. I'm at the point where I appreciate that a whole hell of a lot more than I resent it. I totally understand where you're coming from and I absolutely agree, in a large part, with you and your approach on the individual level. Our only real disagreement is the DCB stores and clinics. My reasons for them are entirely societal. They will address the compelling government interests that SCOTUS will use to invalidate individual protections. Like I said I'm looking at this from every possible angle. As a security professional I don't like or tolerate surprises. But as a Security Professional. I also agree that all protections begin at the individual level. Every chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. So I really appreciate the work that has been done by other Harm Reduction groups on the personal protection level. As a retired Executive Bodyguard and leader of an elite team. I REALLY understand that concept. To the point I used to put my life on the line for it every day. Especially the day I put myself between a bullet and a client. I truly believe that harm reduction will require less people to assume that risk. To the point I would put my life on the line for my beliefs, concepts and philosophies of Harm Reduction if need be. Because in my former profession. People could die by MY mistakes. I really and truly appreciate you challenging my beliefs, concepts and philosophies of Harm Reduction. So once again, Thank You.

:applause: :yourock: :applause:

[Taitertots]

17. A major part of the harm is the 60,000 addicts

Drug addiction in itself is bad enough to warrant prohibition.


"Harm Reduction can only do more good than harm. Because if it doesn't. What we're doing isn't actually Harm Reduction"
What I'm advocating can't fail, and if it does than it wasn't want I was advocating.

[Mike K]

19. Do you actually believe that prohibition -

- can effectively reduce drug addiction?

Do you believe that prohibition can reduce availability of recreational drugs?

If so, please explain the reasoning behind those conclusions.

[Taitertots]

20. Yes, it can and does

I've been where Marijuana was legal (Amsterdam) and it was clearly more available. I've been to dry counties and alcohol was significantly harder to get. Prohibition quite obviously reduces the availability of narcotics. I'd like you to explain to me how making something readily available is going to reduce availability.

Does prohibition effectively reduce drug addiction? Yes. Drug addiction rates were higher before the prohibition of narcotics.

[duhneece]

21. Countries with legalization, de facto or de jure

have lower rates of drug use & abuse. Switzerland's legalization of heroin has increased the age of the average heroin user (fewer young people are starting).

[earthriders]

22. Well.....

I’m always blown away by the lack of practical thinking when it comes to drug policy, or at least the legalization of marijuana.

The new drug czar will tell you his entire position on legal marijuana is based on the fact that most of the heroin addict has ever met started with pot. Well....I would bet that every single heroin addict actually started on alcohol, that is a ridiculous and super ignorant approach. You cannot make an rational argument for keeping marijuana illegal and alcohol legal, the number of deaths attributed to alcohol are enormous.

05% of all deaths from diseases of the circulatory system
15% of all deaths from diseases of the respiratory system
30% of all deaths from accidents caused by fire and flames
30% of all accidental drownings
30% of all suicides
40% of all deaths due to accidental falls
45% of all deaths in automobile accidents
60% of all homicides are attributed to alcohol

and that doesn’t include the domestic violence, the thousands and thousands of people, including too many children living in fear of a chronically drunk relative on a daily basis, all the unwanted pregnancies, rape, etc. generated by alcohol.


Death from marijuana use statistically doesn’t exist.

But, just like during alcohol prohibition there is violence and death associated with marijuana use, but related to having to buy in dangerous locations and situations.

Legalizing marijuana would put most if not all drug dealers out of business, by commercial growers, distributors and retailers. (when was the last time you bought some bootlegged beer or whiskey???)

And the last point would be the income that would come from legalization, tax revenue on marijuana would be staggering, production estimated at 35 billion dollars annually, it is bigger than the next two crops combined. Tax revenue combined with savings from not having to prosecute and imprison pot smokers is estimated at roughly 15 billion dollars generated or saved in one year. I believe that number would be far higher, studies only considered marijuana grown in the us, mexican production alone dwarfs us production and we buy most of it.

Ask any drug counselor and they will tell you that the largest negative impact that marijuana users encounter come from the fact that its illegal. Paying fines, going to jail, losing their kids etc...