Voices
in
Japan

have your say

Would legalizing drugs such as marijuana, cocaine and heroin drive the crime out of the business?

28 Comments

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

28 Comments
Login to comment

If gov't controls the prices and quantity so that the drugs are cheaper than on the street, criminals will leave the business. If gov't officials can be bribed to limit supply or keep prices at a high enough level, they won't. If heroin use is treated as a disease and the users treated as being sick rather than as criminals, crime is taken out of the business.

Tax evasion is something gov'ts take seriously and if these drugs are taxed, it might become unprofitable for criminals to deal with them.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

Well, it is likely to drive criminal elements out of supply, like it does with alcohol. So, yes.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

It should, but it depends on how it's managed. Regulation would be a good thing though, for quality control. N. America has a huge fentanyl crisis on its hands right now where people are dying left, right and center due to drugs tainted with fentanyl.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Yes

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Yes

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The truth in a nut shell is that drugs produce purchase related crimes, drug induced crime, and black market crimes. So to the extent that legalizing drugs would make them cheaper it would create many new addicts and the incidence of purchase-related crime and drug-related crime would increase. History proves that if there were any regulations or taxes of any sort placed upon the legalized drugs, the black market crime would continue. History also proves that if you place a tariff on imported drugs be it legal or illegal black markets will continue to flourish unabated. Thus legalizing drugs not only does not decrease criminal behavior, it almost certainly would spur its increase.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

to the extent that legalizing drugs would make them cheaper it would create many new addicts and the incidence of purchase-related crime and drug-related crime would increase.

Portugal decriminalized all drugs, and saw a drop in addictions, and a drop in drug-related crime.

History proves that if there were any regulations or taxes of any sort placed upon the legalized drugs, the black market crime would continue.

There are taxes and regulations on alcohol, and the black market around alcohol is pretty much non-existent.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Tricky. It's an odd question. What's the goal? Reducing crime, or reducing drug use?

Government ought not be seen to be saying "yeah sure kids go on and take some cocaine, it's all good", even if doing so might result in less crime. But Government can't be seen to be condoning harmful activities, even if it would ultimately reduce drug use too (question mark).

The message government sends on this is important. They might take actions to reduce crime such as legalization, but if so at the same time the message that only losers get into drugs ought be promoted ever more vigorously. Legalizing without that sends the wrong message.

So remember kids, only losers take drugs for recreational purposes. Winners do other things for recreation, m'kay. (With apologies to recreational drug users)

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

Strangerland:

Some experts in Portugal say that decriminalization has not worked. That is wasn't a blessing and did not help. Unfortunately since decriminalization in Portugal there has been an increase in every single drug like cannabis, cocaine and even in HIV. Drugs are still illegal in Portugal and dealers and trafficker are still sent to jail. There are always two sides to a story.

In Qatar black market of alcohol has increased 40 percent and black market of alcohol flourishes in countries like Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Brunei and India. There are also other countries in Africa, Middle East and South Asia. So black market of alcohol does exist especially in countries that prohibit for religious reason.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Most of it. Which is a good thing.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Government ought not be seen to be saying "yeah sure kids go on and take some cocaine, it's all good", even if doing so might result in less crime.

The government already does this with alcohol. It's the same as preaching abstinence as a form of birth control. You will still have an element of the population that is going to do it anyways. The focus should be on harm reduction, not pushing a moral belief.

So remember kids, only losers take drugs for recreational purposes.

So people who drink alcohol are losers? Alcohol is just another drug that happens to have a different legal status.

Some experts in Portugal say that decriminalization has not worked.

There's always going to be someone. But the overwhelming opinion is that it's been very successful, and the numbers back up that opinion.

Unfortunately since decriminalization in Portugal there has been an increase in every single drug like cannabis, cocaine and even in HIV.

I've only ever read differently. From a report after 14 years of decriminalization:

the proportion of the population that reports having used drugs at some point saw an initial increase after decriminalization, but then a decline

And:

Drug use has declined overall among the 15- to 24-year-old population, those most at risk of initiating drug use

And:

There has also been a decline in the percentage of the population who have ever used a drug and then continue to do so

Regarding HIV rates:

HIV infection rates among injecting drug users have been reduced at a steady pace, and has become a more manageable problem in the context of other countries with high rates

Link: https://mic.com/articles/110344/14-years-after-portugal-decriminalized-all-drugs-here-s-what-s-happening

In Qatar black market of alcohol has increased 40 percent and black market of alcohol flourishes in countries like Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Brunei and India. There are also other countries in Africa, Middle East and South Asia. So black market of alcohol does exist especially in countries that prohibit for religious reason.

Exactly. And in countries where it's legal? Little to no black market. When was last time someone tried to sell you a some whiskey on a back street in Roppongi?

6 ( +9 / -3 )

The government already does this with alcohol.

So people who drink alcohol are losers? Alcohol is just another drug that happens to have a different legal status.

Well no. A certain level of alcohol consumption is regarded as socially acceptable, if not the norm. (Excessive levels of consumption to the extent that it ruins your everyday life is not.)

But doing any degree of cocaine (for example) is not socially acceptable. This is just the way it is.

And only losers do drugs, anyway. I don't personally care if people do dumb stuff to themselves, people are free to behave like losers if they so choose. But I don't want the government taking actions that send wrong messages. So if government were to legalize drugs, they had better be sure to get the message right.

It's the same as preaching abstinence as a form of birth control. You will still have an element of the population that is going to do it anyways.

I don't follow. There are other obvious ways to have birth control, and people engaging in reproductive activities is normal, none of us would be here without it.

Doing drugs like cocaine are a completely different thing.

The focus should be on harm reduction

That's why it's important for government to not send wrong messages. Just legalizing doesn't ensure this.

-11 ( +0 / -11 )

But doing any degree of cocaine (for example) is not socially acceptable. This is just the way it is.

Because cocaine is illegal.

I've actually known many people who used it. I never did, because I have a naturally addictive personality so I never wanted to try it. But many people can do it once or twice a year without any problems. And for some people, a single drink of alcohol can set them off, and push them into a downward spiral.

The only difference between the two is the legal status.

And only losers do drugs

Again, alcohol is a drug. Many people who are not losers drink. Many people who do drugs are not losers as well.

I don't follow. There are other obvious ways to have birth control, and people engaging in reproductive activities is normal, none of us would be here without it.

But the best way to prevent STDs is to not have sex. You cannot get them if you are not having sex. And only having sex for the purpose of reproduction, and never at any time, would prevent accidental pregnancies, and prevent STDs from spreading. Yet, even though we all know this, people still have sex, purely for pleasure. Preaching abstinence simply does not work, because people enjoy good feeling that comes from having sex. For that matter, it's the same as alcohol - everyone knows it's better for you to not drink. And yet so many people do. Same thing happens with drugs. You can preach non-use, but there will always be a portion of the population that uses. Better to do risk management, than to preach a course of action that doesn't work.

And finally, you always preach having no government regulation on markets, yet suddenly when it comes to this market, you are preaching government prohibition. It seems that you are inconsistent with your beliefs.

That's why it's important for government to not send wrong messages. Just legalizing doesn't ensure this.

Of course not. But the money saved from not policing drugs and from not prosecuting drug users can be diverted directly to education and rehabilitation.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

It has everywhere else so, yes.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Because cocaine is illegal.

And the death and destruction that prohibition has wreaked. Great for arms manufacturers, though!

only losers do drugs

The L word. How fascionable this season!

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Strangerland,

You claim that alcohol and cocaine are both drugs and the only difference is the legal status. So why do you think they came to have different legal status? (I can't take your word for that claim either, I'm afraid.)

And finally, you always preach having no government regulation on markets, yet suddenly when it comes to this market, you are preaching government prohibition. It seems that you are inconsistent with your beliefs.

I'm not preaching prohibition, I'm preaching government not sending the wrong messages. Just as I don't think the government should send out messages to kids that it's fine to have sex without condoms, nor do I think the government should be sending out messages that doing hard drugs like cocaine is fine.

I don't think the government should be telling people "don't walk on escalators" because that it just stupid, but for serious issues like preventing sexual disease / unplanned pregnancies / taking hard drugs, I don't have any issue with government sending clear messages. The messaging is my point. Legalization alone would send the wrong message, to me. Legalization wouldn't concern me if (for example) the legal products then had to be labelled with "YOU ARE A PATHETIC LOSER IF YOU TAKE DRUGS", just like "SMOKING KILLS" is required on cigarette packs in some places.

(Again, with apologies to recreational drug users.)

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

You claim that alcohol and cocaine are both drugs and the only difference is the legal status. So why do you think they came to have different legal status? (I can't take your word for that claim either, I'm afraid.)

Mostly political reasons: http://www.attn.com/stories/1825/how-cocaine-became-illegal-and-whats-happening-now

I'm not preaching prohibition, I'm preaching government not sending the wrong messages. Just as I don't think the government should send out messages to kids that it's fine to have sex without condoms, nor do I think the government should be sending out messages that doing hard drugs like cocaine is fine.

The exact same things were likely said when alcohol was prohibited. And whether you like it or not, alcohol is also a hard drug. http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/addiction/news/20101101/alcohol-more-harmful-than-crack-or-heroin

There is no reason to tell kids that doing hard drugs is 'fine'. That's where the education side of it comes into play. Legalize the drugs, and then educate the populace as to why it's better not to do it. And finally provide rehabilitation to those that do. Something we should be doing with alcohol as well.

the legal products then had to be labelled with "YOU ARE A PATHETIC LOSER IF YOU TAKE DRUGS", just like "SMOKING KILLS" is required on cigarette packs in some places.

I agree, although your emotional message is pretty ridiculous. Something more along the lines of 'Cocaine is an addictive drug with serious side effects', and links to websites with information about the physical harm it causes, as well as links to rehabilitation support would be much better than the emotional message you have posted.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Mostly.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nope, Criminals will find a way to still make a living, at most you can shift the type of crime.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

And whether you like it or not, alcohol is also a hard drug.

So virtually everyone is a hard drug users. You got me there.

Now we are sure to be able to tell people that hard drugs are legal and educated them against their use.

Not inspired with confidence, to be honest.

Legalize the drugs, and then educate the populace

You see this is my original point. The question posed is focused on legalization, as if that is all that ought be done.

I agree, although your emotional message is pretty ridiculous.

It wasn't emotional, it was just in CAPS like the way it is done with SMOKING KILLS. I believe that "peer pressure" is probably the most effective tool in preventing drug use. Smoking used to be cool. Now it isn't. So let it too be common sense that only pathetic losers do drugs in an attempt to enjoy themselves. I've got far better things to do myself. Each to his own of course.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

So virtually everyone is a hard drug users.

Exactly. Most people don't want to agree to this, because it goes against years of indoctrination, where the war on drugs has not only said that drugs are bad, but that people who do drugs are bad people, while at the same time being able to legally buy and do alcohol. People who never questioned that subconsciously resolve this dichotomy by coming to believe there is a difference. They've also been told that if you do drugs, even once, you will put your life into a downward spiral from which there is no return. But the truth is, there have been millions and millions of recreational hard-drug users, from all walks of life, who do them occasionally and have no problems. The real problem comes if/when the person gets caught - this demonizing of something that humans have been doing since the dawn of time (intoxicating themselves) - by arresting, imprisoning, and shaming them, essentially destroys any potential they have for the rest of their life, as society doesn't permit them to be one of the 'normal' anymore.

You see this is my original point. The question posed is focused on legalization, as if that is all that ought be done.

I don't think the question implicitly refuses education, it's just not mentioned. That's where the discussion on the question is good.

It wasn't emotional, it was just in CAPS like the way it is done with SMOKING KILLS.

The caps isn't why I called it emotional. 'Smoking kills' is a factual statement. 'You are a pathetic loser if you do drugs' contains no facts, it's a purely opinion based statement, with nothing factual, educational, nor health based about it. Therefore I called it emotional, as it's born of one's emotions towards those who choose to intoxicate themselves, rather than providing factual information.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Fxgai- read some literature. Social, political and yes racial pressures in the case of marijuana all have lead to cycles of criminalization and decriminalization of certain substances. Read up on some of the losers who partook of Vin Mariani https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vin_Mariani.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I can only say in the case of marijuana - it messes with your short term memory.

And for another thing it messes with your short term memory.

And your short term memory too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

basically it would be the largest criminal organization take over from illegal criminal organizations and pocket the profits.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

basically it would be the largest criminal organization take over from illegal criminal organizations and pocket the profits.

If by 'largest criminal organization' you mean government, then yeah. But much better that than organized crime and the black market that exists now.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Would legalizing drugs such as marijuana, cocaine and heroin drive the crime out of the business?.....

For Japan's Shinto-Buddhist cultural identity this question doesn't arise. It is not by accident a zero tolerance drug policy exists and is punitively enforced by the Health, Labour, and Welfare Ministry. The electorate will except nothing less. No drugs, no drink driving, no guns, and woe betide if you stray from the straight and narrow, there will be little or no sympathy from society and the judiciary will lock you up and throw away the key.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Government has no rightful authority to regulate any drug. That they do in fact legislate what substances one may ingest speaks to the Governments unjust use and application of their authority.

With that said...there will always be crime.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Here is a good Reality Check by Ben Swann on Marijuana medical use:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkAkFBtntGw

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites