Drug Laws

[Danlikebooks 6]

Argentine courts let narcotics offenders off without penalty

Officials seek new way to fight abuse

Email|Print|Single Page| Text size – + By Monte Reel Washington Post / June 10, 2008

BUENOS AIRES - After getting caught with contraband like ecstasy tablets and marijuana, a few young Argentines have been asked by judges recently to pay an unexpected price for breaking the nation's drug laws: none at all.

That's because separate federal tribunals here have ruled that a law penalizing the personal use of drugs is unconstitutional. Two offenders have been let off the hook in Buenos Aires. And this week another group of judges echoed the ruling after considering the case of a young man arrested with marijuana.

"Criminalization will only apply in cases where the possession of narcotics for personal consumption represents a danger for the public health of others," the judges announced.

The rulings come as Argentina's government is trying to come up with a new way to handle a growing domestic drug abuse problem. In the past few years, the local media has been chronicling the rise of paco, a smokable form of cocaine. It's cheap, highly addictive, and readily accessible, and it has flourished in this city's villas miserias, the shambolic slums that proliferated after the country's economic collapse in 2001.

Some high-level government officials say the current laws penalize only the victims of drug abuse - addicts who need treatment - and take the focus off the true criminals, namely, the traffickers. While a legislative panel works to propose a rewrite of the drug laws with that argument in mind, the judges have chosen not to wait for a new law to be passed.

Those judges are the targets of praise and condemnation from social critics who interpret the ruling as an example of modern enlightenment or an invitation for things to get out of control.

"This criterion fits in well with the laws of more civilized nations," Daniel Sabsay, an Argentine constitutional scholar, told Buenos Aires's Clarin newspaper. "I believe that with this, the sense of a broadening of freedom is respected."

Then there are such critics as Claudio Mate, a former health minister for the province of Buenos Aires, who told reporters the trend threatened to create the "absurdity that we would have more regulations for smokers of tobacco than for consumers of cocaine."

He and others have predicted spiraling rates of drug use, particularly among teenagers.

"Imagine how bad it could be if the state were to renounce even further its punitive power," Roberto Castellano, president of Pro-Life Argentina, said in a news release criticizing legalization efforts.

Those naysayers seem to be swimming against the prevailing tide, however, which has been moving toward a change for several months. This year, Anibal Fernandez, Argentina's highly influential minister of justice, security, and health, publicly denounced Argentina's current drug laws as a "catastrophe."

Fernandez pointed to neighbors Brazil and Uruguay as examples of countries where punishments against consumers have been relaxed without experiencing an upsurge in casual drug use.

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

What do you think?  Should using drugs be less illegal than selling them?  Or should this only apply to some drugs?

I think that using a drug should be at least somewhat legal.  Your not harming anyone but yourself, but if you sell them, then you are harming people.  I've heard that 80% of Americans sent to jail on drug related charges were because of drug users, not pushers.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Danlikebooks

What do you think?  Should using drugs be less illegal than selling them?  Or should this only apply to some drugs?

I think that using a drug should be at least somewhat legal.  Your not harming anyone but yourself, but if you sell them, then you are harming people.  I've heard that 80% of Americans sent to jail on drug related charges were because of drug users, not pushers.quote>

But are they really harming only themselves?  What about the young college student that accidentally mows down a child on a bicycle because he didn't see the child in time to stop?  What about the drug-using parents that are slowing destroying the brains of their children?  Or the victims of violent assault that occurred because the assailant was under the influence of a mind-altering substance?  Or a shop keeper that gets ripped off, and possibly killed, because a couple of teenagers had been taking drugs and then thought it'd be good to rip off a convenience store?  What if a civil engineer popped a few extra pills thinking "it's no big deal" and then missed a critical flaw in the design for a highway overpass?  If the overpass collapsed and word got out why the overpass had failed, I doubt the victim's families would think that the engineer in question "wasn't harming anyone but himself."

[hamsterTK 93]

Yeah.

There are consequences for locking people up though. A non-violent offender becomes a hardened criminal after spending time in a gang-infested prison. An otherwise good father trying to quit smoking weed and be a good parent gets tossed in jail and his family loses his income.

My own opinion is there needs to be leeway in prosecuting drug offenses, not just either decriminalization nor zero-tolerance.

[Easy Bakes 253]

I thought most drug posession charges ( for small amounts) were fines already.

[fukuda 351]

But are they really harming only themselves? What about the young college student that accidentally mows down a child on a bicycle because he didn't see the child in time to stop? What about the drug-using parents that are slowing destroying the brains of their children? Or the victims of violent assault that occurred because the assailant was under the influence of a mind-altering substance? Or a shop keeper that gets ripped off, and possibly killed, because a couple of teenagers had been taking drugs and then thought it'd be good to rip off a convenience store? What if a civil engineer popped a few extra pills thinking "it's no big deal" and then missed a critical flaw in the design for a highway overpass? If the overpass collapsed and word got out why the overpass had failed, I doubt the victim's families would think that the engineer in question "wasn't harming anyone but himself."quote>

There are already charges for all those actions, and there's no implied need to be drugged to do several of those. You can't go and claim collective responsibility for crimes that haven't been commited by the large majority of them.

[krbe 193]

By the same logic we shouldn't sell alcohol either.

[your_adress_here 11]

Originally posted by: krbe By the same logic we shouldn't sell alcohol either.quote>

Exactly.

Marijuana should be legal.

[saltandsauce 0]

in great Britain, drug usage and possesion is illegal however you will probably end up with some pathetic prison sentance or even community service

[edmonton_stinks 5]

Frankly, I think that drug laws that send users to prison are stupid.

A non-violent offender becomes a hardened criminal after spending time in a gang-infested prison.quote>

Exactly. Drug dealers unquestionably need to go to prison. But why should we be prosecuting someone because they have a harmful addiction? What those people really need is help. Rehab makes more sense and it does work, a lot better than prison anyway. Prison is not going to cure people of a drug habit.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

The Argentines have the right to their own laws and their own constitution. From what I can make of the report, possession is not illegal now. They may get a new law that punishes drug sellers, not possessors; which makes sense to me. If there was no one selling the drugs, there would be far less drug use.

Also, if a drug user harms another person under the influence of it, I think it should be prosecuted as if a non-user did it. Whether the user was under influence or not, the user is equally responsible in my opinion.

In short, possession should not be illegal, since it is just yourself. Selling drugs or traficking them should be illegal, since it harms others. If the user harms another person while under the influence of a drug, the person is as responsible as he would be not using it.

Those are my opinions.

[Theirishnintendonerd 13]

In Ireland , There was this case where A drug user carlessley left a syringe in a kids playground. The kid steped on it and the girl got HIV Aids. I think the drug user should have got life inprissonment.

[Muck308 55]

Decisions like this only get made when the respective government finds a way to replace the money that is lost by de-criminalizing. The only reason drugs are illegal in the first place is so they can generate income. It has absolutley nothing to do with people dying or being unhealthy. You don't think your government actually cares about you... do you? Well they do care... about your pocket book. When they find a way to get that income elsewhere... they de-criminalize so they don't have to listen to the public complain about a malajusted system.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: fukuda

But are they really harming only themselves? What about the young college student that accidentally mows down a child on a bicycle because he didn't see the child in time to stop? What about the drug-using parents that are slowing destroying the brains of their children? Or the victims of violent assault that occurred because the assailant was under the influence of a mind-altering substance? Or a shop keeper that gets ripped off, and possibly killed, because a couple of teenagers had been taking drugs and then thought it'd be good to rip off a convenience store? What if a civil engineer popped a few extra pills thinking "it's no big deal" and then missed a critical flaw in the design for a highway overpass? If the overpass collapsed and word got out why the overpass had failed, I doubt the victim's families would think that the engineer in question "wasn't harming anyone but himself."quote>

There are already charges for all those actions, and there's no implied need to be drugged to do several of those. You can't go and claim collective responsibility for crimes that haven't been commited by the large majority of them.quote>

That is true, but I never said anything about the criminality of using drugs.  Rather, the point was that the "you're only harming yourself" thinking isn't necessarily true.  Substance abuse problems have brought harm to those who didn't have the abuse problem.  People can engage in erratic behavior when under the influence of mild-altering substances, and it isn't unheard of for that person to harm someone else when they ordinarily wouldn't.

Originally posted by: Muck308 Decisions like this only get made when the respective government finds a way to replace the money that is lost by de-criminalizing. The only reason drugs are illegal in the first place is so they can generate income. It has absolutley nothing to do with people dying or being unhealthy. You don't think your government actually cares about you... do you? Well they do care... about your pocket book. When they find a way to get that income elsewhere... they de-criminalize so they don't have to listen to the public complain about a malajusted system.quote>

If I may ask, how is this logic supported?  Most people that talk about legalizing XYZ drug base their suggestions on the fact that, if legal, it could be better controlled, and the government could tax it to generate income, rather than spending money trying to remove it from the country.

[Muck308 55]

Oh I agree. My jerkface roommate has been doing coke like crazy lately... We are supposed to be finding a new apartment... but I know he doesn't have any money for it cause he spends it all on yay. He is affecting everything around him by being so careless. 

Hym said...

"If I may ask, how is this logic supported? Most people that talk about legalizing XYZ drug base their suggestions on the fact that, if legal, it could be better controlled, and the government could tax it to generate income, rather than spending money trying to remove it from the country. "

I should have elaborated. Once the amount of income generated by taxing drugs becomes more than the income generated by fining... legalization or de-criminalization occurs. Also... the government doesn't remove any drugs from any country. They flip them just the same as the dealers. They seize it. They sell it. They sieze it again. They sell it again. My point was that the drugs aren't illegal because they hurt people. They are illegal because income is generated through fines. End of story.

[Goin2Chicago 4]

I would say all drugs should be decriminalized for the same reason Argentina is overlooking minor possession charges. The U.S.'s war on drugs is a pathetic waste of the taxpayers money although I'm glad to see some states are taking a stand against the federal government and are legalizing the medical use of cannabis. This is not the best topic to get into with someone who feels so strongly about it like I do. And Hym, after reading your first post, you'd seem like the type who would say it was a drugs fault that someone did something, like say running a 3 year old toddler over while he was riding his little red tricycle, due to the fact he had a controlling substance in his when he wasn't under the influence. So the average person would over look the fact that they only had a trace of something in their system instead of being under the influence which the media tends to do. gosh i rant too much lol.

[ricb 19]

OK, as to hym's point mowing down a child under the influence of an illegal drug is no different from doing the same under the influence of a legal drug, alcohol being the obvious example. As to Muck 308, your roommate could just as well be spending the money on booze, or gambling. Both quite legal in most places. There are consequences, criminal charges for hym's example, and Muck could get a new roommate and kick his deadbeat friend into the street. He might actually be doing the friend a favor. The problem with the war on drugs is it treats the substance as evil, not how it is used. Therefore if you simply possess the substance you must be punished. That is a trap that creates a never ending black hole for tax dollars.

[Duke87 1,070]

My opinion? Legalize it all, but keep reasonable restrictions. Like having it illegal to sell drugs to minors, and to drive under the influence of drugs.

As for the example of the civil engineer who misses the design flaw due to being under the influence of drugs, well, do exactly what you would do if the same thing happened without drugs being involved- hold him liable. Same goes for any such thing. You are still liable for your actions while you're on drugs. So be aware of that before you use them.

[hymewales 13]

Muck308

"Also... the government doesn't remove any drugs from any country. They flip them just the same as the dealers. They seize it. They sell it. They sieze it again. They sell it again."

I don't know what country you live in, but in the U.S., the drugs are destroyed by DEA (by flames); the government does NOT "sell it". Contrary to what you may believe...

Goin2Chicago

"I'm glad to see some states are taking a stand against the federal government and are legalizing the medical use of cannabis."

Just remember that Federal Law trumps state law. And...You can still get fired at any company in CA for failing a drug test the CA Supreme Court recently ruled. This ruling goes directly to Federal Laws overseen by OSHA.

ricb

"Therefore if you simply possess the substance you must be punished." & "That is a trap that creates a never ending black hole for tax dollars."

Those are mostly local and state laws where those are enforced. Federal authorities rarely go after someone for simple possession. So those "tax dollars" you are talking about are being spent by local and state governments. The federal government does subsidize some of these tax dollars; but mostly for drug education.

Duke87

"My opinion? Legalize it all..."

Legalize drugs like Meth which are made in someones basement with who knows what kind of chemicals? Are you crazy?

[Goin2Chicago 4]

thats the sad part about the whole thing, hymewales, about the feds right to disrupt the process. but then again if you get into the discussion of the federal government rights over states, it could go right to slavery where anyone who is same would say slavery (state laws) is bad and therefore lincoln (federal) did the right thing. there are always catch 22's.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: hymewales

Legalize drugs like Meth which are made in someones basement with who knows what kind of chemicals? Are you crazy? quote>

If meth was legal, it wouldn't be getting made by Joe drug dealer in his basement with who knows what, it would be getting made by professionals who know what they're doing and who have a reputation to keep so they won't make it foul.

It's only because it's illegal that it's made like that. If it was legal it could be done much more safely.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Meth and Pot are two differnt things though.Id think we would all agree Meth is much more powerfull drug then pot.

How much pot would you need to smoke to get totaly incapacitated? as compared to meth.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: hymewalesLegalize drugs like Meth which are made in someones basement with who knows what kind of chemicals? Are you crazy?quote>

Especially that. It's kids and poor people who suffer from any kind of "dangerous", wether it's drugs, booze or cars. The more expensive you make any of them, the more likely it is that those without money will accept greater risks to be satisified. And if it's legalised the state could make some money from it instead of wasting them trying to fight it.

[Ratieya455 1]

There is no reasonable argument against taking business away from drug dealers. Think of all the horrible things that were done for booze during prohibition - these things are still done today for drugs. Taking the control away from cartels and giving it to the government could, in theory, drastically reduce crime.

That is my argument for legalization, besides the fact that alcohol abuse is far more destructive and dangerous than marijuana abuse and yet is legal.

[SimRabbit 48]

Legalize it and see how society destroys itself. Just think of the hippies.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

If meth was legal, it wouldn't be getting made by Joe drug dealer in his basement with who knows what, it would be getting made by professionals who know what they're doing and who have a reputation to keep so they won't make it foul.

It's only because it's illegal that it's made like that. If it was legal it could be done much more safely.quote>

Good point. The manufacturers wouldn't want to kill off their customers, so I'm sure it would be safer than a homemade concoction.

Especially that. It's kids and poor people who suffer from any kind of "dangerous", wether it's drugs, booze or cars. The more expensive you make any of them, the more likely it is that those without money will accept greater risks to be satisified. And if it's legalised the state could make some money from it instead of wasting them trying to fight it.quote>

Yes, the state could make a lot of money from high taxes. Also, a high tax might reduce affordability, thereby reducing drug addiction.

Legalize it and see how society destroys itself. Just think of the hippies.quote>

1. All of us would agree that the hippies did not destroy the social structure of the world.

2. How many people would you think would want to be Hippies? I don't think much of the population would become one.

EDIT: My 500^th post!

[Ratieya455 1]

Legalize it and see how society destroys itself. Just think of the hippies.quote>

1. All of us would agree that the hippies did not destroy the social structure of the world.

2. How many people would you think would want to be Hippies? I don't think much of the population would become one.

quote>

Drug use was just one component of the hippie movement. The movement was about challenging the norms of society more than anything.

Drug use is not a causal factor in being a hippie, there are a lot more people that use marijuana than there are hippies. A lot.

[Muck308 55]

To hymewales; Do you work for the DEA? If you do, I apologize. If you don't, and I suspect that is the case... then use your head. Sure most siezures end up being destroyed, but don't forget about crooked cops and agents. There are more than you think. You had better believe that a lot of those drugs end up right back on the street. There's just too much money involved. Sorry for telling you this, but it's true.

[Muck308 55]

Let me provide some evidence so you all don't think I'm talking out of my ass.

"The DEA opened internal investigations of 33 agents between 2003 and 2005, Fine's report states. In 11 of those cases, the agents didn't follow agency guidelines on handling, processing or disposing of the evidence, the report states."

---Taken from

http://www.examiner.com/a-493543~Drug_agents_mishandled_seized_cash__audit_finds.html

This is in reference to seized cash obviously, but what do you think happens to the other evidence. Don't think for a second that 100% of all drugs seized end up at the hands of a flame. This was only for a two year period, and it's not just the DEA who is making busts, and therefore, it's not just the DEA who is making crooked moves. You can't trust just anybody with these positions. I know. I know. It's a shame, but we have always had this problem, and always will. Just the same, people will always find new ways to get high. Have you heard about the latest trend?

1. Take some feces.

2. Put it in a bucket.

3. Let it sit for 3-4 weeks.

4.Simply inhale the fumes.

You're on you're way! I know it's disgusting, but that's life. This problem will never go away, so all you can do is raise your children to understand that, well "drugs are bad, m'kay," and explain to them that getting high all day is the calling card of a selfish loser.

[vistla 3]

It's common knowledge that a certain percentage of law enforcment is going to be criminal. To deny that is naive. It may also be interesting to note that 25 years ago (in the U.S.) a gram of cocain cost about $100.00, on average. The cost for the same amount now is about $25.00. What caused this effect? It's far more difficult to smuggle illicit drugs into the country now than it was in say; the mid-1970's. How then does supply keep up with demand to the extent that the price has dropped out of the bottom? As far as the legallity of drugs; what about 'freedom of choice'? Who has the right to determine what you put into your body? Alcohol and tobacco are both legal. Why not, for example, marijuana? Is it any more, or less detremental to one's health? Furthermore, legaliztion of drugs and prostitution would undermine the economic structure of organized crime. Specifically street level gangs. The homocide rate would probibly drop ten fold.............. Just some food for thought.

[Hahayoudied 3]

I think the drug dealers and makers should be put in jail, and the drug addicts should be put in rehab centers. However, drug addicts who killed or injured someone, should be put in rehab centers, then the jail.

I don't think we should make drugs legal, remember, many drug users need to steal things to earn money for drugs. Also, they tend to commit crimes under influnce of drugs. I think it is better to educate kids about why shouldn't they take drugs.