6 ms·

I don't understand how a world where making/selling something is a crime but consuming is not could work.

by swah 15y ago

TheAmazingIdiot 15y ago
The idea has very much to do with different viewpoints. Portugal wanted to remove punishments from drug users because they viewed it as a medical problem. However Portugal did not want to make a full legalization for then you end up with drug dens, the situation you try to avoid. The only logical solution is to legalize usage and small possesion as a medical excuse. Then you ban larger possession and dealing.
dvanduzer 15y ago
Guns/suicide.
darklajid 15y ago
As far as I'm informed (read: I cannot back this up with legalese), this is the case in Germany as well, albeit limited to soft stuff/marijuana: - You are not allowed to buy it - You are not allowed to sell it - You can have a small amount of it in your possession, "for personal use" (declared as a maximum amount per substance, so that 'users' aren't in the same category as 'dealers' here)
- justincormack 15y ago
  Also Italy, not only for soft drugs. Europe is very liberal on drugs compared to US or Asia generally.
- l0tics 15y ago
  I hope people realize that what Portugal is doing only puts all drugs in a similar legal category to alcohol during its "prohibition" in the United States. This solves none of the supply side issues and their current laws are surely still contributing to a miserable and violent black market. What we have instead here in the United States (and attempt to force onto other countries) is a view that all use is abuse, regardless of any reasoning, even medicinal use. We can't even grow it for research or non-drug uses because of federal agencies that want to continue this for as long as possible. Today I can buy marijuana at retail stores here in Michigan. There is no violence associated with buying it from people who just grew it in their house and brought it there to sell to me.
- codesuela 15y ago
  it really depends on the state where you get caught. In Berlin you can do blow of a mailbox in front of a police station and you will most likely only suffer only minor consequences [except if there is reason to believe you were or were planning on getting into a car]. Do that in Munich and you will get fined for a massive amount of money (5-10k)
Mz 15y ago
It seems to me that prostitution is de facto largely treated this way in the U.S. In most cases, they don't arrest the johns or pimps but they do arrest the prostitutes. Technically, both are illegal but enforcement has a tendency to be one-sided. From what I gather, proving a pimp has committed a crime is much harder than proving a prostitute has and although the clients are also breaking the law in most U.S. states, they tend to get arrested a great deal less than the prostitutes. (Just what I've read over the years. No source to cite, no stats to back it up. Sorry.)
- TheAmazingIdiot 15y ago
  I've always thought of that as backwards. In most cases, a prostitute is forced to work as slave labor by the controlling pimp. That makes her the victim. Without customers to pull money in (the Johns), she would make no income for her pimp. Once one instead follows the money, we realize that we can starve this trade by punishing the ones who have money (the Johns) and can dissuade prostitutes by making their somewhat forced career choice legal.
  - Mz 15y ago
    Not saying it's right, just that it's done. Routinely. I'm not real political. I haven't studied it too thoroughly, so I am disinclined to make strong recommendations one way or the other. But I'm female and I have some difficulty wrapping my brain around the idea that a man can spend gobs of money on an expensive restaurant and movie and gifts to try to get into my pants but can't legally give me cash up front after asking nicely if I am amenable to such an arrangement. I generally think it would be best if prostitution were decriminalized. I am hesitant to speak to that overly much in public because my views on such topics tend to go over extremely badly with both genders. Also, if I saw compelling data indicating that decriminalization would cause worse problems, I would be inclined to go with "whatever works for the greater good". However, I doubt I will see such data. Most studies are pretty poorly done. I find few of them all that compelling. For the moment, that leaves me with "This makes no sense to me." as a simple personal opinion. Suffice it to say, if your recommendation could be implemented and did not turn out to have unexpected hidden social costs (in terms of causing problems), I would support it. With the proviso that I see no reason to actively try to dissuade prostitutes from making their living that way if they so choose. However, it would make it more feasible for them to change career paths if it were not illegal and I am for that. I have seen some things that indicate that difficulty in transitioning to other (legal) work is one of the things which keeps them trapped. Admitting you are a hooker doesn't exactly look good on a resume.
sunchild 15y ago
What about alcohol? It was once illegal to consume in the United States. During that period, we created a violent "war" that enabled the criminal syndicates. Since lifting the prohibition, those criminal syndicates have moved on to other prohibited substances (e.g., narcotics), while the alcohol industry has thrived, generated tax revenue, and been forced to comply with government regulation in the public interest.
refurb 15y ago
The gov't already does this with off-label promotion of prescription drugs. A doctor is allowed to prescribe whatever they want for a patient, but pharma companies can't promote a drug for a condition that the FDA hasn't approved it for.

I don't understand how a world where making/selling something is a crime but consuming is not could work.

by swah 15y ago

I don't understand how a world where making/selling something is a crime but consuming is not could work.

The idea has very much to do with different viewpoints. Portugal wanted to remove punishments from drug users because they viewed it as a medical problem. However Portugal did not want to make a full legalization for then you end up with drug dens, the situation you try to avoid. The only logical solution is to legalize usage and small possesion as a medical excuse. Then you ban larger possession and dealing.

dvanduzer 15y ago

Guns/suicide.

darklajid 15y ago

As far as I'm informed (read: I cannot back this up with legalese), this is the case in Germany as well, albeit limited to soft stuff/marijuana: - You are not allowed to buy it - You are not allowed to sell it - You can have a small amount of it in your possession, "for personal use" (declared as a maximum amount per substance, so that 'users' aren't in the same category as 'dealers' here)

justincormack 15y ago
Also Italy, not only for soft drugs. Europe is very liberal on drugs compared to US or Asia generally.
l0tics 15y ago
I hope people realize that what Portugal is doing only puts all drugs in a similar legal category to alcohol during its "prohibition" in the United States. This solves none of the supply side issues and their current laws are surely still contributing to a miserable and violent black market. What we have instead here in the United States (and attempt to force onto other countries) is a view that all use is abuse, regardless of any reasoning, even medicinal use. We can't even grow it for research or non-drug uses because of federal agencies that want to continue this for as long as possible. Today I can buy marijuana at retail stores here in Michigan. There is no violence associated with buying it from people who just grew it in their house and brought it there to sell to me.
codesuela 15y ago
it really depends on the state where you get caught. In Berlin you can do blow of a mailbox in front of a police station and you will most likely only suffer only minor consequences [except if there is reason to believe you were or were planning on getting into a car]. Do that in Munich and you will get fined for a massive amount of money (5-10k)

Mz 15y ago

It seems to me that prostitution is de facto largely treated this way in the U.S. In most cases, they don't arrest the johns or pimps but they do arrest the prostitutes. Technically, both are illegal but enforcement has a tendency to be one-sided. From what I gather, proving a pimp has committed a crime is much harder than proving a prostitute has and although the clients are also breaking the law in most U.S. states, they tend to get arrested a great deal less than the prostitutes. (Just what I've read over the years. No source to cite, no stats to back it up. Sorry.)

TheAmazingIdiot 15y ago
I've always thought of that as backwards. In most cases, a prostitute is forced to work as slave labor by the controlling pimp. That makes her the victim. Without customers to pull money in (the Johns), she would make no income for her pimp. Once one instead follows the money, we realize that we can starve this trade by punishing the ones who have money (the Johns) and can dissuade prostitutes by making their somewhat forced career choice legal.
- Mz 15y ago
  Not saying it's right, just that it's done. Routinely. I'm not real political. I haven't studied it too thoroughly, so I am disinclined to make strong recommendations one way or the other. But I'm female and I have some difficulty wrapping my brain around the idea that a man can spend gobs of money on an expensive restaurant and movie and gifts to try to get into my pants but can't legally give me cash up front after asking nicely if I am amenable to such an arrangement. I generally think it would be best if prostitution were decriminalized. I am hesitant to speak to that overly much in public because my views on such topics tend to go over extremely badly with both genders. Also, if I saw compelling data indicating that decriminalization would cause worse problems, I would be inclined to go with "whatever works for the greater good". However, I doubt I will see such data. Most studies are pretty poorly done. I find few of them all that compelling. For the moment, that leaves me with "This makes no sense to me." as a simple personal opinion. Suffice it to say, if your recommendation could be implemented and did not turn out to have unexpected hidden social costs (in terms of causing problems), I would support it. With the proviso that I see no reason to actively try to dissuade prostitutes from making their living that way if they so choose. However, it would make it more feasible for them to change career paths if it were not illegal and I am for that. I have seen some things that indicate that difficulty in transitioning to other (legal) work is one of the things which keeps them trapped. Admitting you are a hooker doesn't exactly look good on a resume.

sunchild 15y ago

What about alcohol? It was once illegal to consume in the United States. During that period, we created a violent "war" that enabled the criminal syndicates. Since lifting the prohibition, those criminal syndicates have moved on to other prohibited substances (e.g., narcotics), while the alcohol industry has thrived, generated tax revenue, and been forced to comply with government regulation in the public interest.

refurb 15y ago

The gov't already does this with off-label promotion of prescription drugs. A doctor is allowed to prescribe whatever they want for a patient, but pharma companies can't promote a drug for a condition that the FDA hasn't approved it for.