Thursday, December 17, 2009
Political Mayhem Thursday: Legalization of Narcotics
We may not be talking about narcotics legalization now, but we will soon-- there is a good chance that California and some other states may soon consider legalizing marijuana possession and use beyond "medical marijuana."
As I made clear in my lecture last week, I am not a proponent of legalization (because of the social costs of broader use), but I do understand that there are principled arguments for it.
Is legalization of narcotics a good idea? If so, which drugs should be legalized-- for example, marijuana but not cocaine?
As I made clear in my lecture last week, I am not a proponent of legalization (because of the social costs of broader use), but I do understand that there are principled arguments for it.
Is legalization of narcotics a good idea? If so, which drugs should be legalized-- for example, marijuana but not cocaine?
Comments:
<< Home
Legalization seems to be the only option for some drugs, if the government wants to maintain any kind of control over their use and distribution. Some drugs, like heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, PCP, LSD, etc., cannot be easily manufactured by the average person, thus there is a principled argument for continuing to control them through law enforcement and interdiction efforts. Other drugs, on the other hand, such as marijuana or psychedelic mushrooms, are easily manufactured in almost any environment, and in fact grow wild in many places. They are impossible to control (much like the production of alcohol in the 1920s), thus the only viable option for effective regulation is to legalize their use and regulate their manufacture and distribution.
Some will argue that these drugs will still be manufactured at home, which is correct (much like liquor is still distilled by some and beer and wine are made by many) but for the most part, the vast majority of users will choose to purchase their drugs through the easily available channels of commerce rather than go through the hassle of doing it themselves. 5000+ years of trying have proven to us that we can never sate society's desire for consciousness-altering substances, so it makes sense to do the responsible thing and provide a safe, legal, controllable atmosphere in which to purchase them.
Some will make the argument that drugs like marijuana are gateway drugs, and this is partially correct. One reason for this is that you have to buy them from a drug dealer. Providing consumers with the ability to purchase marijuana legally will eliminate the temptation to purchase other drugs, as well as limit their availability to the common user. Another point to consider is that while most "hard" drug users started with marijuana, the vast majority of people who try or use marijuana rarely go on to use harder substances. Thus, the concern that legalization will lead to harder drug use is largely refuted by the data.
Finally, there is of course the argument that legalization of marijuana will cut off the main source of revenue of the Mexican drug cartels, thus reducing their power and influence in the black market. This is perhaps the best argument for legalization aside from revenue, as the drug wars continue to escalate and the violence seen on the border continues largely unabated.
Finally, there are very few if any arguments one can make for the continued prohibition of marijuana that cannot also be applied to marijuana. The fact is that we as a society have determined that alcohol is a substance we are willing to live with being legal, and it's high time we did the same with marijuana (pun intended).
Some will argue that these drugs will still be manufactured at home, which is correct (much like liquor is still distilled by some and beer and wine are made by many) but for the most part, the vast majority of users will choose to purchase their drugs through the easily available channels of commerce rather than go through the hassle of doing it themselves. 5000+ years of trying have proven to us that we can never sate society's desire for consciousness-altering substances, so it makes sense to do the responsible thing and provide a safe, legal, controllable atmosphere in which to purchase them.
Some will make the argument that drugs like marijuana are gateway drugs, and this is partially correct. One reason for this is that you have to buy them from a drug dealer. Providing consumers with the ability to purchase marijuana legally will eliminate the temptation to purchase other drugs, as well as limit their availability to the common user. Another point to consider is that while most "hard" drug users started with marijuana, the vast majority of people who try or use marijuana rarely go on to use harder substances. Thus, the concern that legalization will lead to harder drug use is largely refuted by the data.
Finally, there is of course the argument that legalization of marijuana will cut off the main source of revenue of the Mexican drug cartels, thus reducing their power and influence in the black market. This is perhaps the best argument for legalization aside from revenue, as the drug wars continue to escalate and the violence seen on the border continues largely unabated.
Finally, there are very few if any arguments one can make for the continued prohibition of marijuana that cannot also be applied to marijuana. The fact is that we as a society have determined that alcohol is a substance we are willing to live with being legal, and it's high time we did the same with marijuana (pun intended).
Why is alcohol legal, but narcotics not? Is it somehow less addictive, dangerous or destructive? No. You can keep criminal and civil penalties for dangerous and destructive use, but legalize production, possession and responsible use, just like we do with alcohol.
I dispute that legalization leads to broader use. I'm not going to start using heroin just because it's legal. Same for marijuana. Even if it were legal tomorrow, I'm not going to start using it because I don't want to. Conversely, if alcohol were prohibited, I'd probably still drink.
I dispute that legalization leads to broader use. I'm not going to start using heroin just because it's legal. Same for marijuana. Even if it were legal tomorrow, I'm not going to start using it because I don't want to. Conversely, if alcohol were prohibited, I'd probably still drink.
I'd much prefer some level of decriminalization to legalization or the current scheme. The distinction is that decriminalization doesn't de-list drugs or make them legal, but decreases penalties for simple possession. I'm not an alarmist, but common sense tells us that legalizing any drug, from weed on up, will greatly increase its use. Medical marijuana? OK. New studies to reevaluate the real dangers of marijuana? OK. But leave the hard stuff out of consideration. The libertine idea that legalizing drugs will somehow reduce their use or social destructiveness is a college know-it-all hippie fallacy. "Hey man, if we didn't have so many crimes, you know, there wouldn't be so much crime. You've got to read this book my prof gave me. Lets go get baked before English Lit."
Some folks make the argument that legalizing drugs brings them out of the shadows and back alleys and decreases ancillary crimes, but this has not been the case in the jurisdictions that have tried it. When the Netherlands decriminalized marijuana, of course it saw an precipitous drop in the possession crimes that no longer existed or became less of a priority. But the Dutch also saw an almost immediate rise in other drug related crimes, such as smuggling and personal violence. And now they're now crawfishing on the whole idea because allowing more of a few "minor" narcotics created an environment conducive to the sale and consumption of other, "harder" drugs. I've been in some fairly shady situations, but the only place I've ever been offered heroin was on the street near the Anne Frank Museum in Amsterdam.
Lane- Narcotics aren't more addictive or more destructive than alcohol? Have you ever been to an opium den? Bunch of sad old cowboys and prospectors and Johnny Depp languishing away, not going to work. But seriously, are you serious? Alcohol addictions are largely a function of genetics, but narcotic addictions aren't so discriminating. If you meant to say that just marijuana was less destructive, that's one thing, but narcotics in general are one of the most destructive forces in modern society. Drugs are bad, m'kay? And just because YOU won't use hard drugs if they become legal doesn't mean that others won't as well. Based on the stats from drug treatment programs and the teen drug use surveys, outlawing drugs is probably the only meaningful deterrent to their use, imperfect as it is.
Some folks make the argument that legalizing drugs brings them out of the shadows and back alleys and decreases ancillary crimes, but this has not been the case in the jurisdictions that have tried it. When the Netherlands decriminalized marijuana, of course it saw an precipitous drop in the possession crimes that no longer existed or became less of a priority. But the Dutch also saw an almost immediate rise in other drug related crimes, such as smuggling and personal violence. And now they're now crawfishing on the whole idea because allowing more of a few "minor" narcotics created an environment conducive to the sale and consumption of other, "harder" drugs. I've been in some fairly shady situations, but the only place I've ever been offered heroin was on the street near the Anne Frank Museum in Amsterdam.
Lane- Narcotics aren't more addictive or more destructive than alcohol? Have you ever been to an opium den? Bunch of sad old cowboys and prospectors and Johnny Depp languishing away, not going to work. But seriously, are you serious? Alcohol addictions are largely a function of genetics, but narcotic addictions aren't so discriminating. If you meant to say that just marijuana was less destructive, that's one thing, but narcotics in general are one of the most destructive forces in modern society. Drugs are bad, m'kay? And just because YOU won't use hard drugs if they become legal doesn't mean that others won't as well. Based on the stats from drug treatment programs and the teen drug use surveys, outlawing drugs is probably the only meaningful deterrent to their use, imperfect as it is.
The problem with common sense is that it is neither common nor sensical. No study has ever concluded a measurable rise in drug use based on changes in legal status, only changes in use due to socialization. Despite the legal status of tobacco, anti-smoking ads have done more to reduce smoking than taxes or laws combined.
Harm reduction efforts work best in nations like Switzerland, where those providing such services can operate transparently and above the law. I would rather we have some sort of methadone management program to provide relief to addicts than imprison them and funnel more money to corrupt criminal gangs that manage the black market.
I'd like to see the studies you mention on Amsterdam, since the data I viewed concluded the opposite - decriminalization of marijuana decreased ancillary crimes, including street dealing of marijuana, because of the ease and convenience of the drug in public shops.
Crime associated with drugs will always exist. The same as crime related to alcohol, anger or gambling. Or just crime itself. I do not mark a distinction between narcotics and alcohol for their destructive power. Both can cause debilitating physical dependencies and ruin lives. The relative rates are irrelevant. The effect is the same for those affected - and the legal status of alcohol and narcotics doesn't change that. People that want to do drugs already do.
Legalization would only increase use if it suddenly became socially acceptable to use the drug. I argue that marijuana is already socialized into our culture. The example of tobacco, however, shows that harm reduction is a far better deterrent than education and enforcement.
Harm reduction efforts work best in nations like Switzerland, where those providing such services can operate transparently and above the law. I would rather we have some sort of methadone management program to provide relief to addicts than imprison them and funnel more money to corrupt criminal gangs that manage the black market.
I'd like to see the studies you mention on Amsterdam, since the data I viewed concluded the opposite - decriminalization of marijuana decreased ancillary crimes, including street dealing of marijuana, because of the ease and convenience of the drug in public shops.
Crime associated with drugs will always exist. The same as crime related to alcohol, anger or gambling. Or just crime itself. I do not mark a distinction between narcotics and alcohol for their destructive power. Both can cause debilitating physical dependencies and ruin lives. The relative rates are irrelevant. The effect is the same for those affected - and the legal status of alcohol and narcotics doesn't change that. People that want to do drugs already do.
Legalization would only increase use if it suddenly became socially acceptable to use the drug. I argue that marijuana is already socialized into our culture. The example of tobacco, however, shows that harm reduction is a far better deterrent than education and enforcement.
The other big consideration that perhaps I failed to emphasize is that the production of marijuana in the United States is a multibillion dollar industry. Right now, that money lies completely beyond the reach of the United States government, and in the hands of drug dealers, often funding the violence of the Mexican cartels. The bottom line is that someone is going to make a ton of money off of the sale of marijuana in the United States; we can either let the cartels continue to profit or we can let the government take control and get a piece of that pie. Attempts to control demand have been futile; it's time to tackle the supply.
Lane- Your assertion is absurd. Marijuana use in the Netherlands certainly did increase, even if largely due to tourism, and I will try to lay hands on the studies to this affect. If I read Dutch, the first place I'd look is the minutes of the legislature, where the Dutch have been seriously debating repeal of their marijuana decriminalization laws. As it stands, my sources are the news media. Moreover, street dealing is not an ancillary crime, it was and still is the crime itself, which the Netherlands did cut down by legitimizing the sale of marijuana, mushrooms, etc. The ancillary crimes are the muggings, the thefts, the smuggling, and the sale of harder and still illicit drugs. These crimes absolutely did go up, and I'll likewise try to lay hands on those studies. Again, it's all over the news every time this issue comes up.
And how can you say that the "relative rates" of social destruction are irrelevant? Equating social destructiveness, even between illicit drugs like marijuana and heroin or cocaine, is like equating the destructiveness of a cherry bomb to dynamite.
On social acceptance, is legal status not a contributing factor to social acceptance? You're telling me that people avoid selling coke solely because it's not a nice thing to do, and not because you can got to prison for it? Marijuana may have wide social acceptance now, but other narcotics simply do not. Just look at the tone of our drug movies. Scarface, Blow, and Trainspotting are a far cry from Harold and Kumar, Supertroopers, or Pineapple Express.
Harm Reduction? Methadone treatment as a deterrent? That's ex post facto. How could a drug user's logic be, "The gov't will help me get off of smack, so I might as well not even start." Treatment might reduce the number of current users, but it does nothing to discourage new users. And if you want to talk ads, just google "drug ads" and "parody" to see how seriously they're taken. The best deterrent effect of education programs like DARE or even ad campaigns is when they emphasize illegality and life consequences.
And how can you say that the "relative rates" of social destruction are irrelevant? Equating social destructiveness, even between illicit drugs like marijuana and heroin or cocaine, is like equating the destructiveness of a cherry bomb to dynamite.
On social acceptance, is legal status not a contributing factor to social acceptance? You're telling me that people avoid selling coke solely because it's not a nice thing to do, and not because you can got to prison for it? Marijuana may have wide social acceptance now, but other narcotics simply do not. Just look at the tone of our drug movies. Scarface, Blow, and Trainspotting are a far cry from Harold and Kumar, Supertroopers, or Pineapple Express.
Harm Reduction? Methadone treatment as a deterrent? That's ex post facto. How could a drug user's logic be, "The gov't will help me get off of smack, so I might as well not even start." Treatment might reduce the number of current users, but it does nothing to discourage new users. And if you want to talk ads, just google "drug ads" and "parody" to see how seriously they're taken. The best deterrent effect of education programs like DARE or even ad campaigns is when they emphasize illegality and life consequences.
The Netherlands is currently in the midst of a wider political battle than their lax drug laws (though, to be honest, their stance on marijuana isn't all that different from many European countries). Fears of immigration from non-EU and majoriy-Muslim countries is driving xenophobia and ultra-right-wing politics in many of these countries, which brings with it other political options. The "debate," as it were, isn't over the wisdom of drug policy but rather social morality.
The sale of "harder" drugs (itself a problematic description) is not crime about which a drug policy bent on harm reduction should concern itself; the violent crimes are. You'll notice that the difference between the crimes you cited (muggings, thefts) are different in nature to the violent drug crime experienced in a much more strict environment (murder, kidnapping, arson, etc.) like the United States.
Where drug business can be conducted relatively above-board, the necessity and motive of black markets and their attendant exploitation by criminal organizations is lessened. Risk versus reward: why engage in high-risk business when you can get the same reward (money) from lower-risk activities?
The reason why I say it is irrelevant whether alcohol or narcotics or cocaine or whatever is "more dangerous" to society is that the societal impact of alcohol abuse is not somehow lessened by the fact that heroin abuse is bad too. Someone whose life is ruined by a drunk driver is the same as someone whose life is ruined by a stoned or high driver. The deleterious effect of criminal behavior is the same, in moral and legal dimensions. Are opiates more physically addicting and debilitating than alcohol? Yes, but surprisingly enough, caffeine is just as physically addicting! The withdrawal symptoms happen to be less severe, however, so caffeine is seen as a "safer" drug despite the fact that one can overdose and die on it with ease, as long as it is abused.
Drug abuse and misuse is going to happen whether it is heroin, paint thinner, alcohol or marijuana. There are real dangers associated with this behavior. Then again, there's real danger associated with skydiving, or unprotected sex, or bear hunting... yet these activities remain legal why? Dangerousness is not the metric we use when determining criminality.
People avoid selling cocaine for a single reason: they don't want to sell cocaine. No one just falls into the "job" of being a coke dealer. It's not like you wake up one day and say, "you know what I want to do today? Sell coke!" People that want to sell cocaine generally do, and people that sell cocaine want to do so. Same with people that do it.
I challenge you to find me a response to a poll of any sort from anyone, I don't care how dubious the source, where someone actually answers, "I would do marijuana, but it is currently illegal." If someone wants to use drugs, they do. They may lie about it to their families, friends and bosses, but drugs are available, affordable, and accessible to anyone that wants them for a minimum of effort. Placing them on display at 7/11 isn't going to change the relative amounts of supply, just the purity, price and publicity of their purchase and consumption.
I promise you that illegality and life consequences deters no one from using drugs. I prosecute people every day that are well-informed of the psychological, social and physical effects of drugs, and their repeated run-ins with the legal system have taught them that there are indeed long-term legal consequences to their use. Yet they continue to use drugs: why? Many of the drugs contain no addictive chemicals; their use is entirely voluntary. Some of them even lead normal lives in jobs ranging from graduate professor all the way down to fry cook, except for their drug use. They do it because they want to, and for no other reason.
The sale of "harder" drugs (itself a problematic description) is not crime about which a drug policy bent on harm reduction should concern itself; the violent crimes are. You'll notice that the difference between the crimes you cited (muggings, thefts) are different in nature to the violent drug crime experienced in a much more strict environment (murder, kidnapping, arson, etc.) like the United States.
Where drug business can be conducted relatively above-board, the necessity and motive of black markets and their attendant exploitation by criminal organizations is lessened. Risk versus reward: why engage in high-risk business when you can get the same reward (money) from lower-risk activities?
The reason why I say it is irrelevant whether alcohol or narcotics or cocaine or whatever is "more dangerous" to society is that the societal impact of alcohol abuse is not somehow lessened by the fact that heroin abuse is bad too. Someone whose life is ruined by a drunk driver is the same as someone whose life is ruined by a stoned or high driver. The deleterious effect of criminal behavior is the same, in moral and legal dimensions. Are opiates more physically addicting and debilitating than alcohol? Yes, but surprisingly enough, caffeine is just as physically addicting! The withdrawal symptoms happen to be less severe, however, so caffeine is seen as a "safer" drug despite the fact that one can overdose and die on it with ease, as long as it is abused.
Drug abuse and misuse is going to happen whether it is heroin, paint thinner, alcohol or marijuana. There are real dangers associated with this behavior. Then again, there's real danger associated with skydiving, or unprotected sex, or bear hunting... yet these activities remain legal why? Dangerousness is not the metric we use when determining criminality.
People avoid selling cocaine for a single reason: they don't want to sell cocaine. No one just falls into the "job" of being a coke dealer. It's not like you wake up one day and say, "you know what I want to do today? Sell coke!" People that want to sell cocaine generally do, and people that sell cocaine want to do so. Same with people that do it.
I challenge you to find me a response to a poll of any sort from anyone, I don't care how dubious the source, where someone actually answers, "I would do marijuana, but it is currently illegal." If someone wants to use drugs, they do. They may lie about it to their families, friends and bosses, but drugs are available, affordable, and accessible to anyone that wants them for a minimum of effort. Placing them on display at 7/11 isn't going to change the relative amounts of supply, just the purity, price and publicity of their purchase and consumption.
I promise you that illegality and life consequences deters no one from using drugs. I prosecute people every day that are well-informed of the psychological, social and physical effects of drugs, and their repeated run-ins with the legal system have taught them that there are indeed long-term legal consequences to their use. Yet they continue to use drugs: why? Many of the drugs contain no addictive chemicals; their use is entirely voluntary. Some of them even lead normal lives in jobs ranging from graduate professor all the way down to fry cook, except for their drug use. They do it because they want to, and for no other reason.
You can legalize marijuana but you still need to come up with a way to then 'legally' sell it, collect taxes on the product, ensure quality control and enact all the appropriate laws to cover the legal sale and use of the substance. Can you text while inhaling?
ON NPR this week there was a piece about the medical marijuna distribution in California. In LA there are laws (rules) as to how many places are authorized to sell. The appropriate record keeping and the like, but not all clinics were created equal in terms of the quality of the product, etc. They are unable to get a handle on this. And there are many more places 'selling' than authorized under the law.
Does this mean that ConAgra, Dow, Amercian Tobacco will be in the business of producing and selling the marijuana to the proper standards as Budweiser, Coors, Heineken, do beer or the manufactureres of alcohol do. Perhaps you will go to the ABC store equivalent to purchase?
ON NPR this week there was a piece about the medical marijuna distribution in California. In LA there are laws (rules) as to how many places are authorized to sell. The appropriate record keeping and the like, but not all clinics were created equal in terms of the quality of the product, etc. They are unable to get a handle on this. And there are many more places 'selling' than authorized under the law.
Does this mean that ConAgra, Dow, Amercian Tobacco will be in the business of producing and selling the marijuana to the proper standards as Budweiser, Coors, Heineken, do beer or the manufactureres of alcohol do. Perhaps you will go to the ABC store equivalent to purchase?
"Despite the legal status of tobacco, anti-smoking ads have done more to reduce smoking than taxes or laws combined."
Not in my house. Those ads just remind me that smoking is cool and totally sweet, and make me want to smoke more.
Smoke 'em if you got 'em.
And we shouldn't legalize drugs because hippies do drugs, and we should give police as many excuses as possible to harass and arrest hippies.
Not in my house. Those ads just remind me that smoking is cool and totally sweet, and make me want to smoke more.
Smoke 'em if you got 'em.
And we shouldn't legalize drugs because hippies do drugs, and we should give police as many excuses as possible to harass and arrest hippies.
# posted by 
: 2:54 PM
: 2:54 PM
Lane- For real?! I'm sorry the xenophobe Dutch are in such a pickle, but how is that relevant to their drug policy? Are they discriminating against Persian hash? To your other point, of course as a prosecutor the defendants you see aren't going to paint a picture of deterrence based on illegality. Dude, they're a self-selected subset of ONLY non-deterred people. Since your last comment I've spoken with at least three people--very straight laced law students--who said they'd try weed if it were legal. I also know regular pot smokers who say they'd try other drugs, like ecstasy or mushrooms, if those drugs were legal. Maybe common sense has some cache after all.
And a final thought on relative consequences--the deleterious effects of alcohol and narcotics beside addiction are simply not the same. How many booze dealers are gunned down in the street for their stash or money? Even counting liquor store robberies, the number is low compared to drug related crimes.
And a final thought on relative consequences--the deleterious effects of alcohol and narcotics beside addiction are simply not the same. How many booze dealers are gunned down in the street for their stash or money? Even counting liquor store robberies, the number is low compared to drug related crimes.
Jesse -- booze runners were gunned down in the street during Prohibition, because black markets breed violence and crime. When we repealed prohibition, that stopped. That wasn't a coincidence.
RRL, die hard capitalist libertarian also use drugs. And while I support harassment of these people, I support their right to be high when I revoke their probation with my evil socialist power. Truce?
RRL, die hard capitalist libertarian also use drugs. And while I support harassment of these people, I support their right to be high when I revoke their probation with my evil socialist power. Truce?
Lane- No, booze runners were gunned down in the street during Prohibition because the outrageous amounts of money exchange made murder a viable business strategy. In that way, yes, black markets breed violence. But the prohibition gunmen weren't alcoholics, they were competitors. The ancillary effects of selling highly addictive, highly lucrative drugs aren't going to go away just because they're legal. Again, marijuana is a different story, but it doesn't seem like you'd stop there.
Jesse, the drug dealers gunning each other down (generally) aren't users either. They're gangsters fighting over turf.
As for intoxicated people doing stupid or violent things, yes, one of the symptoms of intoxication is a lessened sense of inhibition... no matter whether someone is drunk, high, zoned out, tripping, or whatever. Intoxicated is intoxicated, however one gets there.
As for intoxicated people doing stupid or violent things, yes, one of the symptoms of intoxication is a lessened sense of inhibition... no matter whether someone is drunk, high, zoned out, tripping, or whatever. Intoxicated is intoxicated, however one gets there.
IPLaw - you are right - this is way to serious. Why haven't the hippies chimed in today! After reading these posts, my mind needs a little altering.
I happen to know that Detroit was a major point of entry for illegal booze during prohibition. That little place called Canada, spitting distance from our shore. They use to 'run the rum' across Lake St. Clair to Grosse Pointe and in the winter, back in the day, the lake and the Detroit River use to freeze over and they would drive cars across the ice to deliver the goods. I have not read many accounts fo gun battles related to this 'rum running'. Apparently we weer more civilized in the Detroit area than they were in Chicago
I happen to know that Detroit was a major point of entry for illegal booze during prohibition. That little place called Canada, spitting distance from our shore. They use to 'run the rum' across Lake St. Clair to Grosse Pointe and in the winter, back in the day, the lake and the Detroit River use to freeze over and they would drive cars across the ice to deliver the goods. I have not read many accounts fo gun battles related to this 'rum running'. Apparently we weer more civilized in the Detroit area than they were in Chicago
I agree with IPLawguy, everyone needs to calm down. Have a little fun. It is almost Christmas after all.
As for Lane's proposed truce: nope, no chance, not a prayer, NEVER! My capitalist libertarian friends smoke doobies rolled in $100 bills, because they are productive, contributing members of society, and therefore deserve a break every now and again.
Hippies deserve no such break...
As for Lane's proposed truce: nope, no chance, not a prayer, NEVER! My capitalist libertarian friends smoke doobies rolled in $100 bills, because they are productive, contributing members of society, and therefore deserve a break every now and again.
Hippies deserve no such break...
# posted by : 4:52 PM
: 4:52 PM
Today the role of RRL will be played by Jesse Davis.
Seriously, RRL calling for calm? What is the Razor coming to?!
Seriously, RRL calling for calm? What is the Razor coming to?!
# posted by : 5:48 PM
: 5:48 PM
Alright, I'm a relative hippie; I'm in.
A) Pot is not a gateway drug because it's pot; it's a gateway drug because when you smoke it and realize that it's really fun, and not a big deal, you think, "wow...this is so fun, and not a big deal, and IT'S illegal...maybe all those other illegal drugs aren't so bad either!" If it were legal, no gateway drug. I'm all for it. And it's fun.
B) I think ecstasy, LSD, shrooms...that sounds good...should all be legal. They expand the mind, and make people happy, and don't encourage dangerous behavior. Coke and Meth and all those other scary ones seem kind of sketchy. Keep them illegal.
Will more people smoke pot if it's legal? Maybe...is that horrible? Naw...so many people smoke now, whether they admit to it or not, I feel like people have their limits and will keep them. It's not an addictive drug (as alcohol and tobacco are), so let it be...
A) Pot is not a gateway drug because it's pot; it's a gateway drug because when you smoke it and realize that it's really fun, and not a big deal, you think, "wow...this is so fun, and not a big deal, and IT'S illegal...maybe all those other illegal drugs aren't so bad either!" If it were legal, no gateway drug. I'm all for it. And it's fun.
B) I think ecstasy, LSD, shrooms...that sounds good...should all be legal. They expand the mind, and make people happy, and don't encourage dangerous behavior. Coke and Meth and all those other scary ones seem kind of sketchy. Keep them illegal.
Will more people smoke pot if it's legal? Maybe...is that horrible? Naw...so many people smoke now, whether they admit to it or not, I feel like people have their limits and will keep them. It's not an addictive drug (as alcohol and tobacco are), so let it be...
# posted by : 7:44 PM
: 7:44 PM
I'm calm. Ask the Prof... my attitude fluctuates between bucolic and lackadaisical, for all my faux-ranting persona.
That aside, Christine, to answer your dilemma: yes, drugs would have to be sold at specially-licensed stores, much like liquor is currently handled (in most states). We already do this with most controlled substances... we just require a prescription before handing them out.
There is no principled reason (lookin' at you, final Anon) that we consider alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, LSD, etc. any different. I recall very well the Prof's drug education class where we put together reports on different drugs. The difference comes in how we've been taught to think about them. Yes, the effects of a comparatively small amount of PCP are different than a similar ratio of alcohol (I mention PCP because it was my assigned drug), and PCP doesn't sound pleasant at all, but my point is that if I crash into someone while DWI-PCP, are they any more injured than if I were DWI-whiskey?
No.
The drugs in and of themselves are not what is bad. People will ruin their lives with drink, sex, gambling, hobbies, video games, Internet porn, law school blogs, etc., if the underlying problem is their dissatisfaction with life. They will look to escape their troubles in whatever is most convenient and numbing to them.
Drug legalization makes sense from a legal, economic and philosophical standpoint. Prohibiting drugs criminalizes chemicals, rather than criminalizing human behavior related to the use and abuse of those chemicals.
That aside, Christine, to answer your dilemma: yes, drugs would have to be sold at specially-licensed stores, much like liquor is currently handled (in most states). We already do this with most controlled substances... we just require a prescription before handing them out.
There is no principled reason (lookin' at you, final Anon) that we consider alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, LSD, etc. any different. I recall very well the Prof's drug education class where we put together reports on different drugs. The difference comes in how we've been taught to think about them. Yes, the effects of a comparatively small amount of PCP are different than a similar ratio of alcohol (I mention PCP because it was my assigned drug), and PCP doesn't sound pleasant at all, but my point is that if I crash into someone while DWI-PCP, are they any more injured than if I were DWI-whiskey?
No.
The drugs in and of themselves are not what is bad. People will ruin their lives with drink, sex, gambling, hobbies, video games, Internet porn, law school blogs, etc., if the underlying problem is their dissatisfaction with life. They will look to escape their troubles in whatever is most convenient and numbing to them.
Drug legalization makes sense from a legal, economic and philosophical standpoint. Prohibiting drugs criminalizes chemicals, rather than criminalizing human behavior related to the use and abuse of those chemicals.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM_vLk1I6G4. Also, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJEw3A_QO9o&feature=related
Again Lane, you are an idiot. To attempt to compare PCP and alcohol is beyond absurd. You narrowly defined example of DUI-PCP is absurd. Have you ever seen a person on PCP? A drunk guy may cause problems for cops from having one too many alcoholic beverages, but the guy on PCP can get shot 15 times and not feel it while he attempts to kill the arresting officer in a homicidal rage. Yep, you are right; they are different. And meth and heroin are really not different. I mean, addicts will tell you that it only took one time using it to become hooked with the uncontrollable addiction. Oh, and meth is made from raw chemicals that causes extreme paranoia. In one instance, a father in New Mexico cut his daughters head off on the side of the road because he needed to let the demons out. Yep, again you are right, they are different.
I can understand your principled reasons for wanting to legalize marijuana, but come out of lala land on the other drugs. Justin, my hat goes off to you on providing some reason and common sense.
I can understand your principled reasons for wanting to legalize marijuana, but come out of lala land on the other drugs. Justin, my hat goes off to you on providing some reason and common sense.
# posted by : 10:06 PM
: 10:06 PM
Lane, Septimus, I'm with you. I thought I could stay away--because I always say the same thing on this topic--but the hippie challenge brought me in.
I see the drug issue as an issue of (life), liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (Read "Slouching Towards Gomorrah" for a great chapter on marijuana use, and for the exploration of the life-liberty-pursuit of happiness theme).
If I can't put what I want to into my own body, how is that liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Now, of course there should be limits. Yes, punish drunk driving or stoned driving or whatever; murder is murder, whether you're high when you commit it or not. The limits of legality, in my mind, are at the point where the drug hurts someone else, which may need to be based in science (as I think the effect of second-hand smoke finally was).
The gray area I still struggle with is the area of drugs that are super-dangerous, that have a negative effect that immediately begins to affect the people around the user. In principle, I really believe people should be able to do heroin or anything they want, legally; but, the issue is really one of how much do we want to protect people from themselves? From harming themselves, and potentially harming others?
I don't know the answer to that question. It extends beyond drug use: it extends to eating (and producing) unhealthy food; it even, in my mind, extends to gun possession, whose only purpose is to kill. Unlike pot or heroin, whose purpose ostensibly is to give pleasure.
So for those of you who are so keen to hold onto your right to own a gun, which kills people: how is that different from the right to put whatever I want into my own body--which I would argue is less --or at best, equally--likely to kill?
I see the drug issue as an issue of (life), liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (Read "Slouching Towards Gomorrah" for a great chapter on marijuana use, and for the exploration of the life-liberty-pursuit of happiness theme).
If I can't put what I want to into my own body, how is that liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Now, of course there should be limits. Yes, punish drunk driving or stoned driving or whatever; murder is murder, whether you're high when you commit it or not. The limits of legality, in my mind, are at the point where the drug hurts someone else, which may need to be based in science (as I think the effect of second-hand smoke finally was).
The gray area I still struggle with is the area of drugs that are super-dangerous, that have a negative effect that immediately begins to affect the people around the user. In principle, I really believe people should be able to do heroin or anything they want, legally; but, the issue is really one of how much do we want to protect people from themselves? From harming themselves, and potentially harming others?
I don't know the answer to that question. It extends beyond drug use: it extends to eating (and producing) unhealthy food; it even, in my mind, extends to gun possession, whose only purpose is to kill. Unlike pot or heroin, whose purpose ostensibly is to give pleasure.
So for those of you who are so keen to hold onto your right to own a gun, which kills people: how is that different from the right to put whatever I want into my own body--which I would argue is less --or at best, equally--likely to kill?
# posted by : 10:35 PM
: 10:35 PM
So because people do bad things on certain drugs is good enough to outlaw them? PCP and meth are easily abused and people on them can be very dangerous... but both examples you cite happened while the drugs are already illegal, so I fail to see how (again, maybe this is just my idiot logic here and not uncritically-accepted "common sense") your argument that they should remain illegal to avoid people doing bad things on drugs helps? Prohibition drives the sale and use of these drugs underground. Legalization/decriminalization/regulation, on the other hand, does a better job of keeping them out of the hands of people illicitly than all the enforcement in the world.
After all, meth can be easily manufactured (and I mean easily) from materials one can buy at Wal-Mart. My local pharmacy makes me buy allergy medication by the tablet, but people still make meth. Determined people will get their hands on drugs, even if they are illegal. Continuing to criminalize the drugs themselves is one of those nice political moves people applaud but does absolutely nothing to curb either supply or demand.
Go ask an alcoholic or ex-smoker about addictions and they'll tell you the same thing. So will compulsive gamblers. People can get "hooked" and addicted to just about anything. Criminalizing the thing is blaming something without agency for the ethical failings of people.
Legalizing/decriminalizing drugs doesn't mean I want all of them available for recreational use and purchase (though I think some drugs like marijuana should be), but by criminalizing simple possession we're attacking the wrong end of the problem. Law enforcement resources (including my time) would be better spent going after criminals rather than prosecuting possessors, at least if we want to do anything about crime. All I'm saying is the "well gosh drugs are bad mmkay?" argument for criminalization doesn't make sense.
After all, meth can be easily manufactured (and I mean easily) from materials one can buy at Wal-Mart. My local pharmacy makes me buy allergy medication by the tablet, but people still make meth. Determined people will get their hands on drugs, even if they are illegal. Continuing to criminalize the drugs themselves is one of those nice political moves people applaud but does absolutely nothing to curb either supply or demand.
Go ask an alcoholic or ex-smoker about addictions and they'll tell you the same thing. So will compulsive gamblers. People can get "hooked" and addicted to just about anything. Criminalizing the thing is blaming something without agency for the ethical failings of people.
Legalizing/decriminalizing drugs doesn't mean I want all of them available for recreational use and purchase (though I think some drugs like marijuana should be), but by criminalizing simple possession we're attacking the wrong end of the problem. Law enforcement resources (including my time) would be better spent going after criminals rather than prosecuting possessors, at least if we want to do anything about crime. All I'm saying is the "well gosh drugs are bad mmkay?" argument for criminalization doesn't make sense.
Swissgirl, the country from your moniker has a good idea toward heroin and heroin addicts: provide them their fix in government-run facilities where they can be given treatment, rehabilitation, and the therapy necessary to get off heroin for good.
This is a good resource.
This is a good resource.
I'm addicted to Farmville and that is just a game on Facebook. Marijuana might be more fun - for a while.
As for the way to 'legally' sell - LA apparently didn't get the message on the medical marijuana front and should be the poster child for everything that can go wrong - will go wrong.
As for the way to 'legally' sell - LA apparently didn't get the message on the medical marijuana front and should be the poster child for everything that can go wrong - will go wrong.
I CANNOT BELIEVE YOU PEOPLE. YOU ARE SERIOUSLY DISCUSSING DRUG POLICY?!? WE ALL KNOW THAT, AS GOOD AMERICAN CONSERVATIVES, DRUGS SHOULD BE DELEGATED TO HIPPIES, WHO SHOULD THEN BE EFFECTIVELY NUKED.
IT'S IN THE CONSTITUTION, PEOPLE!
Post a Comment
IT'S IN THE CONSTITUTION, PEOPLE!
# posted by : 9:22 AM
: 9:22 AM << Home
