Measuring the effectiveness of drug policy

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3069
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Measuring the effectiveness of drug policy

Postby Qaanol » Sun Feb 02, 2014 9:00 pm UTC

This is essentially a two-pronged topic: What should the goals of drug policy be, and just as importantly, how can we compare the efficacy of different policies in achieving those goals?

To get things started, suppose a country (or state) is about to change from one drug policy to another. Let’s say, from prohibition to a comprehensive approach that legalizes non-addictive drugs and treats addiction as a healthcare problem. How can that country measure whether the new strategy is superior to the old one?
wee free kings

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6860
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Measuring the effectiveness of drug policy

Postby ucim » Sun Feb 02, 2014 9:26 pm UTC

Qaanol wrote:How can that country measure whether the new strategy is superior to the old one?
It depends. Mainly the issue with something controversial like drug policy is to actually identify just what the problem is that the policy is attempting to solve. Very often the stated problem is just a way to convince people to adopt a policy, whose actual motives are quite different. So it's important to go through a series of "why?"s, like a five year old, until the actual issue(s) are found. Here's an example (not necessarily one I agree with, but it will serve as an illustration).

We gotta prohibit drugs.
--> Why?
'cause kids are getting high.
--> What's wrong with that?
They're not doing their homework.
--> Why is that bad?
Because they're doing bad in grammar and stuff from school.
--> Because of drugs?
Yeah. (Dubious, but play along)
--> So, the problem is that kids are doing badly in school, and the solution is to ban drugs. Right?
Right.

Well, we've identified the problem, and it is something we can actually measure (to some degree). So we implement the new policy, and check to see how students do on standardized tests before and after. Of course, this depends on "all things being equal", which they never are, but that's a start.

More to the point, once we've identified the problem, we can look at other solutions, such as better teachers, better textbooks, more classroom time, different homework, banning television, disabling the internet, cops in schools, etc. "But that doesn't stop kids from using drugs!" Well, that wasn't the actual problem, was it?

Identifying the problem is the essential first step to a solution, and also it's essential to measuring the actual effectiveness of the solution against the actual problem.

Actually.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: Measuring the effectiveness of drug policy

Postby Ormurinn » Sun Feb 02, 2014 10:13 pm UTC

I used to be strongly in favour of liberalised drug policies in my country. I've since done a 180.

In the U.K, U.S and I assume other western countries too, drug enforcement is a proxy for enforcement of other crimes which are much more difficult to prove and police. Its become both legally and politically very difficult to apprehend and prosecute gang-based crimes and violence by urban youth.

That's where drug policy comes in - drug law enforcement provides a way for police to target individuals they know to be engaged in difficult to prove criminal activity with an easy to prove crime with a custodial sentence. In this way large numbers of criminals are kept off the streets without the obligatory legal blowback on the police and without the exorbitant public cost of trials for the stuff they should actually be in for.

Any consideration of drug policy has to take into account this symbiosis. If you take away a cheap to prove means of taking criminals off the street, without reforming the rest of the justice system, you're going to end up with more violent crime than you would otherwise.
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3069
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: Measuring the effectiveness of drug policy

Postby Qaanol » Sun Feb 02, 2014 10:46 pm UTC

Ormurinn, am I understanding correctly that your position is “Reducing violent crime and gang activity is one of the primary goals of drug policy”?
wee free kings

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6860
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Measuring the effectiveness of drug policy

Postby ucim » Sun Feb 02, 2014 11:04 pm UTC

Ormurinn wrote:...drug law enforcement provides a way for police to target individuals they know to be engaged in difficult to prove criminal activity...
So the problem is it's hard to jail the perps for their actual crimes, and the solution is to criminalize an associated, harmless activity. If this is considered acceptable, then you simply compare the number of people you "know" did it, that you put behind bars. Simple.

The hard part of course is figuring out who it is that you "know" did it. Should we just take the cop's word for it? That kind of defeats the whole point of a criminal justice system. Should we have a court trial for the crime you hoped you could prosecute? That kind of defeats the whole point of the drug thing.

You could also measure the number of robberies and other associated crimes that are reported, before and after. If this policy reduces the number of assaults and robberies and such, then politicians can deem it a success. However, this is not the original goal (of prosecuting criminals) but rather, an associated benefit (of lower crime, and thus, fewer criminals to prosecute!)

This also ignores any undesirable side effects of such a policy, and that has to be weighed in to whether or not the policy, as a whole, is a good policy, even given its objective success in the areas being measured. The simple reduction of freedom of law-abiding citizens to get high would be one such side effect, and lost freedoms eventually add up to a police state. I bring it up as another illustration of how important it is to decide just what it is you hope to achieve... this includes "at what cost".

You also need to look at long term effects, because if the reason for the correlation between drugs and crime is simply the fact that drugs were illegal for a long time and this fact, in and of itself, has created a criminal drug culture, then by not giving liberalized drug policies (which might have been badly implemented) a chance to separate the drug activity from the criminal activity, you end up with a false positive.

And then we go back to the original issue - what was the problem that the liberal drug policy had been intended to solve? (for example... that it created a criminal culture around otherwise harmless drug use). Examine the liberal policy in effect to see if it does, in fact, attempt to address this problem. (It easily might not, because of its implementation). If not, then the failure of the policy is not the fault of the policy, it's the fault of the politics.

So compare the two problems... the original (my hypothetical) problem that drug use is tied to criminal behavior simply because of its illegality, and the second problem, which is simply that criminal activity is hard to prove. The successful implementation of the second policy is likely to be the cause of the first problem.

And this is the problem with measuring the "effectiveness" of drug policy.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Measuring the effectiveness of drug policy

Postby BattleMoose » Sun Feb 02, 2014 11:20 pm UTC

Qaanol wrote:This is essentially a two-pronged topic: What should the goals of drug policy be,


1. Reduce the amount of drug abuse
2. Limit the negative health impacts from drug use
3. Reduce drug related crimes
4. Reduce the number of people incarcerated for drug related crimes

Some of these things may be difficult to measure, lack of a proper control for example but of the top of my head I am fairly satisfied that these should be the goals. We can look at other countries experiences as they implemented different drug policies. But for the most part all that can really be done is to compare the changes within the same country as policy changes, again, a lack of a control is a problem. Unless experiment state by state?

And drugs should be treated differently, they are not all the same. It may be in best interest of society to legalise marijuana but not heroine and a whole world of grey in between.

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3069
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: Measuring the effectiveness of drug policy

Postby Qaanol » Sun Feb 02, 2014 11:59 pm UTC

ucim wrote:And this is the problem with measuring the "effectiveness" of drug policy.

For the sake of discussion, let’s assume we have two countries that are similar in all respects except for drug policy. These countries keep lots of statistics, which we can compare. What sorts of statistics should we be looking for if we want to decide which country’s drug laws produce superior outcomes?

And yes, this involves a value judgment about what constitutes a “superior outcome”. But it is a judgment about outcomes rather than policies. We can judge the policies by comparing the statistics of the two countries. So the questions at hand are, what counts as a superior outcome, and how do we measure it?

BattleMoose wrote:1. Reduce the amount of drug abuse
2. Limit the negative health impacts from drug use
3. Reduce drug related crimes
4. Reduce the number of people incarcerated for drug related crimes

I’m not quite sure what some of these mean. Are you making a distinction between drug use and drug abuse? If so, I’d like to hear what you count as drug abuse, and how we can measure it.

#2 doesn’t quite make sense to me. The way it is worded sounds like overall health outcomes don’t matter as long as the negative health impacts from drug use are limited. For example, suppose a drug has substantial health benefits, but also has a side effect that harms a small fraction of the people who take it. A country that eliminated that drug entirely would have none of its negative health impacts (the side effects) but also none of its much greater health benefits.

For #3, again, are you solely concerned about the crimes that are labeled “drug-related”, or is it actually the overall crime rates that matter? If it is actually drug-related crimes you want to reduce, I’d like to hear what you are counting as a drug-related crime.

Is #4 distinct from #3?

BattleMoose wrote:Some of these things may be difficult to measure, lack of a proper control for example but of the top of my head I am fairly satisfied that these should be the goals. We can look at other countries experiences as they implemented different drug policies. But for the most part all that can really be done is to compare the changes within the same country as policy changes, again, a lack of a control is a problem. Unless experiment state by state?

And drugs should be treated differently, they are not all the same. It may be in best interest of society to legalise marijuana but not heroine and a whole world of grey in between.

Right, what I am asking is, if we had all the data we could possibly want, if we had countries that differed only in drug policy and we could see what the results are in each, how would we decide which country had the best results?
wee free kings

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Measuring the effectiveness of drug policy

Postby BattleMoose » Mon Feb 03, 2014 12:20 am UTC

Qaanol wrote:Are you making a distinction between drug use and drug abuse?


Absolutely. Its the difference between sharing a few glasses of wine on an evening with your significant other and going on a weekend bender every other weekend. (Alcohol is also a drug.) And a large amount of grey in between. How to measure is tricky, I would look at the number of people that go to or have been coerced into rehabilitation programmes but that certainly wouldn't tell the full story. Number of repeat offenders and the number of people who should go but have never been.

#2 doesn’t quite make sense to me. The way it is worded sounds like overall health outcomes don’t matter as long as the negative health impacts from drug use are limited. For example, suppose a drug has substantial health benefits, but also has a side effect that harms a small fraction of the people who take it. A country that eliminated that drug entirely would have none of its negative health impacts (the side effects) but also none of its much greater health benefits.


I am quite comfortable with a goal of drug policy should be to limit negative health impacts, but that doesn't mean that all negative health impacts need to be eliminated.
If people are taking drugs for health reasons let them, that should be for individuals and their doctors to decide. Most medicinal drugs have negative side effects. The number of liver transplants required for alcohol abuse for example, is something that we can measure and try to reduce as an example.

For #3, again, are you solely concerned about the crimes that are labeled “drug-related”, or is it actually the overall crime rates that matter? If it is actually drug-related crimes you want to reduce, I’d like to hear what you are counting as a drug-related crime.


I am not concerned about the label. I am concerned about crimes actually related to drugs. One of the biggest issues with illegal drugs is that it creates a market for gangs to make money, a lot of money. And they fight with each other for that market share, usually breaking very many violent crimes while doing so. Its these crimes we should primarily be trying to reduce.

Is #4 distinct from #3?


It is. Just because a crime has been committed, it doesn't mean incarceration is the best policy. Especially with drug abuse, rehabilitation might be much more appropriate and beneficial.

If you send a young person to a prison, you are introducing him to a world of criminality and introducing him to a huge market of potential "employers" and experience. Its much easier for that person to then partake successfully or unsuccessfully in a life of crime as it were. This is strongly reinforced with how difficult it is to become legally employed after being incarcerated. Incarceration should only be reserved for those who are truly dangerous.

Right, what I am asking is, if we had all the data we could possibly want, if we had countries that differed only in drug policy and we could see what the results are in each, how would we decide which country had the best results?


I would look at violent crime (killings) and rates of incarceration. A good drug policy should have less of both. All else being equal, the signal should be within just those two things of which we do regularly have good data on. Murders have the highest rate of reporting as far as crimes go. I would also look at deaths due to drug overdoses, again, well reported.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6860
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Measuring the effectiveness of drug policy

Postby ucim » Mon Feb 03, 2014 1:52 am UTC

Qaanol wrote:For the sake of discussion, let’s assume we have two countries that are similar in all respects except for drug policy. These countries keep lots of statistics, which we can compare. What sorts of statistics should we be looking for if we want to decide which country’s drug laws produce superior outcomes?

And yes, this involves a value judgment about what constitutes a “superior outcome”. But it is a judgment about outcomes rather than policies. We can judge the policies by comparing the statistics of the two countries. So the questions at hand are, what counts as a superior outcome, and how do we measure it?
(emphasis mine)

That's key.

First, it's not really a judgment about outcomes, it's a judgment about a subset of outcomes - that subset which has been identified earlier when the goals of the drug policy were set forth. Either you limit it to drug-related stuff, or you look at "the complete society". If the former, then you neglect the negative effects of a particular policy. If the latter, you end up having to measure everything, and assign appropriate weights to things like loss of freedoms, to lower court costs, to higher insurance premiums, to the value of individual lives (and whether Black lives are more or less valuable than Jewish lives, or Gay lives). That becomes very politicized.

So... first you have to actually make that judgment about what constitutes a superior outcome. You have to address, honestly and fairly, just what the problem is that you want to solve. If there is no problem, then there should be no change in policy.

I also think that {whatever} policy should be restricted to {whatever}. Don't use drug policy to control immigration; don't use educational policy to control employment, don't use tax policy to deal with home ownership...
Spoiler:
I may actually have to re-think that; while I agree with myself in general, I do think that tax policies that encourage home ownership might contribute to the stability of the country by giving people more of a stake in their neighborhood, and that's a good outcome. I also wish I could nest spoilers ("on the other hand...")
As to drug policy, I'd first identify the problems (in no particular order) as follows:
  1. The mere fact that a drug is illegal causes a black market, and fosters organized crime, (which is a Bad Thing).
  2. The mere fact that a popular drug is illegal gives power to the police against the populace. (This is also a Bad Thing).
  3. The mere fact that a drug is illegal stigmatizes its use, even if the drug is otherwise harmless. (This is a Bad Thing because it reduces our freedoms).
  4. Some drugs, recreational or otherwise, have harmful pharmacology that the average user is unaware of, and thus cannot make an informed judgment about. (This is a Bad Thing, and protecting people from this is a proper role of government.)
  5. Some drugs have pharmacology that in itself leads to violence against others. (This is certainly a Bad Thing, and protecting innocent bystanders from this is a proper role of government.)
  6. The illegal drug trade is huge and untaxed. (As a non-user, I'd just as soon they tax drugs than tax me. :) )
  7. The illegal drug trade is international, and destabilizing. (This is a Very Bad Thing!)
  8. Children are easily drawn into recreational drugs (and alcohol and tobacco), leading to lifetime addictions that cost us money, and rob them of the quality of their lives. (I target children because they are not yet ready to make these kinds of decisions about their own lives)
  9. Some drugs (i.e. tobacco) are addictive, giving an advantage to powerful commercial interests, against relatively powerless individuals. (Note - my primary objection to tobacco use is the stench that smokers cause, which infuses everything nearby and lasts for days. If a smoker wants to injure themselves with nicotine, that's their choice.)
  10. Some drugs, if abused, leave the user a non-productive member of society, and a ward of the state. (This is a Bad Thing).
  11. The health costs of drugs are passed on to us one way or another.
  12. Illegal drugs are not of known, reliable, standard dosages, and often contain harmful filler material. Legal versions could be regulated but illegal ones cannot.
  13. Drug enforcement is expensive, and takes money from other legitimate police activities.

Some of these are of course related, and some of them work against each other, as would their solutions. But we first have to sift through a list like this honestly and identify which of these problems we want to address, and which of them we'd tolerate a worsening of in order to address the others.

Only then does it make sense to try to figure out how we can tell if we succeeded.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7594
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Measuring the effectiveness of drug policy

Postby Zamfir » Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:33 am UTC

In the U.K, U.S and I assume other western countries too, drug enforcement is a proxy for enforcement of other crimes which are much more difficult to prove and police. Its become both legally and politically very difficult to apprehend and prosecute gang-based crimes and violence by urban youth.

That's where drug policy comes in - drug law enforcement provides a way for police to target individuals they know to be engaged in difficult to prove criminal activity with an easy to prove crime with a custodial sentence. In this way large numbers of criminals are kept off the streets without the obligatory legal blowback on the police and without the exorbitant public cost of trials for the stuff they should actually be in for.


In that case, wouldn't it be easier to just ban trials and the need for evidence, at least for the wrong kinds of people?

User avatar
firechicago
Posts: 621
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 12:27 pm UTC
Location: One time, I put a snowglobe in the microwave and pushed "Hot Dog"

Re: Measuring the effectiveness of drug policy

Postby firechicago » Mon Feb 03, 2014 1:33 pm UTC

Ormurinn wrote:That's where drug policy comes in - drug law enforcement provides a way for police to target individuals they know to be engaged in difficult to prove criminal activity with an easy to prove crime with a custodial sentence. In this way large numbers of criminals are kept off the streets without the obligatory legal blowback on the police and without the exorbitant public cost of trials for the stuff they should actually be in for.

Any consideration of drug policy has to take into account this symbiosis. If you take away a cheap to prove means of taking criminals off the street, without reforming the rest of the justice system, you're going to end up with more violent crime than you would otherwise.


So, we have a group of people who may have committed violent crimes, but we can't prove that they did so. So instead we invent a whole class of new offenses entirely for the purpose of arbitrary and capricious enforcement against those who we suspect of these violent crimes. The explicit goal is to make sure that police and prosecutors have the ability to indict and convict anyone they suspect of serious crimes without having to provide even a scintilla of evidence that those crimes have been committed. (And incidentally we also end up imprisoning many thousands of people who have never been suspected of any violent crimes.)

This is not an argument which is consistent with ideas like the rule of law. Indeed, it sounds very much like the workings of a totaliatarian state with a thin veneer of legality.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Measuring the effectiveness of drug policy

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:13 pm UTC

Qaanol wrote:This is essentially a two-pronged topic: What should the goals of drug policy be, and just as importantly, how can we compare the efficacy of different policies in achieving those goals?

To get things started, suppose a country (or state) is about to change from one drug policy to another. Let’s say, from prohibition to a comprehensive approach that legalizes non-addictive drugs and treats addiction as a healthcare problem. How can that country measure whether the new strategy is superior to the old one?


Well, it depends on your goal. But if your goal is to stamp out drug use, and your last three presidents used drugs, maybe your policy has failed.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6860
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Measuring the effectiveness of drug policy

Postby ucim » Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:34 pm UTC

firechicago wrote:This is not an argument which is consistent with ideas like the rule of law. Indeed, it sounds very much like the workings of a totaliatarian state with a thin veneer of legality.
Correct. But at least the goal was clearly and honestly stated. This allows a discussion of what the best methods of achieving that goal might be, and makes clear the disparity between the goal and the proposed method. A politician intent on passing a law would instead come up with some other, bogus goal to which his law would apply, and pretend that that was the reason the law should be passed. Attempts to measure the success of the law would thus be muddled, and his actual benefit would be a side-effect.

Tyndmyr wrote:But if your goal is to stamp out drug use, and your last three presidents used drugs, maybe your policy has failed.
Or, maybe the actual desired effect is different from the stated goal, and measuring success is pointless.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11128
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: Measuring the effectiveness of drug policy

Postby Yakk » Mon Feb 03, 2014 4:38 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:In that case, wouldn't it be easier to just ban trials and the need for evidence, at least for the wrong kinds of people?
Except, how do you determine who are the wrong kind of people?

You cannot use race, as people complain if you criminalize entire races. Class similarly has a problem, because in a normative democracy entire classes of poor people have political power.

Instead, you set up a proxy. You create a somewhat lucrative, low-barrier to entry, illegal enterprise (drugs), and dangle it in front of young members of the poorer classes who have ambition but few tools to exploit it. They fall for the bait, and you can now justify arresting 1/3 of the repressed racial demographic mostly for drug crimes!

For someone whose goal is to put away "the wrong kind of people" (members of repressed, poor classes and races), this is a win-win. You get a huge prison population (which you can privatize, funneling money into your politicians pockets and to crony capitalists). Instead of instituting racial and class discrimination, you can have anti-criminal discrimination that happens to bias heavily towards the class and race you want to discriminate against.

By making sure your enforcement is selective, we can ensure that the "better class" of people (who live more of their lives indoors) can get away with the same kind of crimes. We can have massively worse punishments for basically the same substances (for example, crack vs cocaine) to ensure that if the 'better class' do get caught, they don't get punished as much. While some will whine that the poor and visible minorities do no more drugs than the rich and primary ethnicity, they get arrested 10x times or more as often, you can just ignore it, because this policy is no longer about stopping drugs.

It is about arresting the "wrong kind of people".

(Please note, there is sarcasm in the above).
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10498
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Measuring the effectiveness of drug policy

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Feb 03, 2014 5:07 pm UTC

Isn't cognitive dissonance amazing?

Most will tell you that it's better to let 99 murderers go free than imprison one innocent, but if you were to show them the maths that, say, 400 more murders were to occur before we could sort out which of the 100 were the 99, they might sing a different tune. Also depends on the type of crime too, and of course who the victims would be.
Last edited by CorruptUser on Mon Feb 03, 2014 5:15 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: Measuring the effectiveness of drug policy

Postby nitePhyyre » Mon Feb 03, 2014 5:08 pm UTC

Ormurinn wrote:I used to be strongly in favour of liberalised drug policies in my country. I've since done a 180.

In the U.K, U.S and I assume other western countries too, drug enforcement is a proxy for enforcement of other crimes which are much more difficult to prove and police. Its become both legally and politically very difficult to apprehend and prosecute gang-based crimes and violence by urban youth.

That's where drug policy comes in - drug law enforcement provides a way for police to target individuals they know to be engaged in difficult to prove criminal activity with an easy to prove crime with a custodial sentence. In this way large numbers of criminals are kept off the streets without the obligatory legal blowback on the police and without the exorbitant public cost of trials for the stuff they should actually be in for.

Any consideration of drug policy has to take into account this symbiosis. If you take away a cheap to prove means of taking criminals off the street, without reforming the rest of the justice system, you're going to end up with more violent crime than you would otherwise.
Anti-drug policy is good because it makes it easy for us to lock up the blacks without them having done anything.

Guys, obvious troll is obvious. Stop feeding the trolls!

Two of the primary statistics I would look at is number of drug related deaths/hospitalizations and crime committed by people under the influence/addicted.
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

User avatar
untitled
Posts: 39
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:23 pm UTC

Re: Measuring the effectiveness of drug policy

Postby untitled » Tue Feb 04, 2014 1:16 am UTC

Qaanol wrote:how can we compare the efficacy of different policies


I am an inveterate proponent of robust regression but in this case analysis of variance might also work.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10268
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Measuring the effectiveness of drug policy

Postby addams » Mon Feb 17, 2014 5:32 am UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:
Ormurinn wrote:I used to be strongly in favour of liberalised drug policies in my country. I've since done a 180.

In the U.K, U.S and I assume other western countries too, drug enforcement is a proxy for enforcement of other crimes which are much more difficult to prove and police. Its become both legally and politically very difficult to apprehend and prosecute gang-based crimes and violence by urban youth.

That's where drug policy comes in - drug law enforcement provides a way for police to target individuals they know to be engaged in difficult to prove criminal activity with an easy to prove crime with a custodial sentence. In this way large numbers of criminals are kept off the streets without the obligatory legal blowback on the police and without the exorbitant public cost of trials for the stuff they should actually be in for.

Any consideration of drug policy has to take into account this symbiosis. If you take away a cheap to prove means of taking criminals off the street, without reforming the rest of the justice system, you're going to end up with more violent crime than you would otherwise.
Anti-drug policy is good because it makes it easy for us to lock up the blacks without them having done anything.

Guys, obvious troll is obvious. Stop feeding the trolls!

Two of the primary statistics I would look at is number of drug related deaths/hospitalizations and crime committed by people under the influence/addicted.

Sane drug policies inside a Public Health System can meet many of your stated goals.

The Quoted Post may very well be a Troll.
That is Happening.

If it is beyond the scope of this Thread; Then ok.
If not; An accusation is enough to destroy or very nearly destroy a person's life..

In the US today, that is true.
An accusation of drugs can cost a person their home.

The Law was changed in the 80's, I believe.
What that Law left as open loop-holes for both
the innocent and the guilty were snugged up by the Pat Act.

Drug use?
Drug abuse?

The people are being abused by both Law Enforcement and Each Other.
I think it would be nice for our people to have someone to turn to.

Sane drug policies would be nice.
Don't fix the drug policies the US has.

Start over.
From the beginning.
Or;
Find some Nation that does a reasonably good job
and copy off their policy papers.

Plagiarism? Yes. Maybe.
"Imitation is a sincere form of flattery."

This nation does have problems.
The people are not doing well.

The policies we have in place at the moment are causing great harm.
Yes! The Policies are causing more harm than the drugs.

Yes. I know what I wrote.
And; That is considering Meth, too.

That stuff is taking such a toil on our Nation.
It is not like old fashioned drugs. It is worse.

Make Cocaine legal, cheap and easy to get.
I never thought I would want that. But; I do.

I have never seen a comparison study.
I saw people fuck up their lives with Cocaine.

Most unfucked themselves.
Meth seems to have a more difficult unfucking process.

Did people get stupider?
Or; Does the combination of an overwhelmingly corse and violent culture
With a drug that is often poorly made and causes physical brain damage….

Is that combination the recipe for Happy People?
The People do not trust each other.

The People do not trust the Police.
They don't have the right to ask for Medical Help.

Who the Hell can they turn to??
The People will be content and sometimes even Happy when public policies make sense!

People being People, there will always be complainers.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests