Time To Discuss Drug Prohibition? 1367
gplus writes "December 5th was the 75th anniversary of the end of alcohol prohibition in the US. The Wall Street Journal has an op-ed which argues that now may be the time to discuss our war on drugs and the drug prohibition currently in place. The article argues that the harm caused by the banned substance must be balanced against the harms caused by the prohibition. As to why Americans in 1933 finally voted to end prohibition, while we barely even discuss it: 'Most Americans in 1933 could recall a time before prohibition, which tempered their fears. But few Americans now can recall the decades when the illicit drugs of today were sold and consumed legally. If they could, a post-prohibition future might prove less alarming.'"
I wouldn't hold my breath (Score:5, Insightful)
The war on drugs makes a lot of money for a lot people on both sides of the law.
Yes it's time. (Score:5, Insightful)
When the majority of the population can be convicted of a crime at one time or another, then it's proveable that the action is not sufficiently damaging to be a crime. Those RIAA bastards are profiting immorally and should be disbarred! Oh wait, we're onto drugs now? In that case, I maintain my statement.
Re:I wouldn't hold my breath (Score:5, Insightful)
As a taxpayer, I disagree.
Swinging between prohibition and tolerance (Score:1, Insightful)
Every 20 years or so for the past several hundred years, societies swing between prohibition and tolerance. One generation tries hard to outlaw substances, then the next generation tries hard to legalize it. In the 80's it was the war on drugs. In this decade it's legalizing dope. It's nonstop back and forth, back and forth.
Re:Dear God Yes (Score:2, Insightful)
Copyright is specified in the Constitution. Drugs? Not so much. Why should drug prohibition require nothing more than a law when alcohol prohibition required a constitutional amendment? Oh, and the original excuses for banning drugs: black folks on cocaine or mexicans smoking marijuana might rape your white daughter.
How about ending the need for prescriptions, too? (Score:3, Insightful)
Wouldn't it be ironic if you could legally go out and get your cocaine fix, but had to get a prescription for some medication that you thought you needed? :)
Re:I wouldn't hold my breath (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I wouldn't hold my breath (Score:1, Insightful)
allot of police districts get most if not all their funding from seized drug money because there are laws in place that allow them to take a portion of the seized money to their by fund said activities.
Re:No, how about... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I wouldn't hold my breath (Score:5, Insightful)
As a taxpayer, you're not one of the "a lot people on both sides of the law". Doesn't mean they don't exist, or that they don't have an enormous vested interest in keeping drugs illegal.
Think of it like the broken window fallacy [wikipedia.org]. It's a fallacy that smashing a shopkeeper's window is doing a good thing for the economy, but it's not a fallacy to suggest that there are some people who would benefit from smashing the window.
Elimitate upselling (Score:2, Insightful)
Like any good salesman, a drug dealer will try to convert a marijuana user to use other drugs that turn a better profit. The good old upsell. Legalising marijuana would break that chain.
Reconsideration sounds prudent.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that alcohol is already legal and is more dangerous than at least the most common recreational drugs, It would make sense to at least legalise other recreational drugs that are on par or less harmful than it (marijuana being the most obvious candidate).
"Hard" drugs like Cocaine should probably remain illegal - it is impossible (or prohibitively difficult, at least) to "use them responsibly" and their health effects are much more marked.
Permitting broad autonomy to people in cases where there is not a clear and strong societal interest otherwise makes sense - broad restrictions on recreational drugs don't have arguments that meet the bar we should be holding up.
(I am not a libertarian, by the way)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Elimitate upselling (Score:5, Insightful)
I admit that I'm not particularly knowledgeable about drug culture, but I always had the distinct impression that the people you bought marijuana from were not the type of people who would be selling other drugs. It's a fairly distinct culture where marijuana is generally sourced from a network of friends, not some dealer on the street corner who isn't going to risk his hide for something as unprofitable and unaddictive as marijuana.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Say you legalize everything (Score:5, Insightful)
Replace drugs with sugar or fat and ask yourself the same question.
Potato chips create more health care costs than any drug ever has.
Re:Say you legalize everything (Score:5, Insightful)
There was MASSIVE marijuana smoking during the late 1960s/early 1970s with few problems. It was typical to attend concerts where the smoke was a thick fog and security/cops didn't bother anyone about it.
I did plenty of drugs back then, smoked like a freight train, and was around a large peer group that did likewise. I haven't smoked in many years for legal reasons, but strongly favor legalization. Alcohol is a vastly worse social drug in every way, especially with regard to making users aggressive.
IMO we'd be much better off with weed as an alternative social lubricant.
Re:I wouldn't hold my breath (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I wouldn't hold my breath (Score:3, Insightful)
The war on drugs makes a lot of money for a lot people on both sides of the law.
Indeed it does. Here's an interesting Web site...
www.NoJailForPot.com [nojailforpot.com]
Re:Yes and No... (Score:5, Insightful)
And as a non-drug user, I agree. There are many things that I personally would not do, but I would not ever dare insist that no one else be allowed to do them (obvious exceptions like drunken driving and serial killing not included).
The "war on drugs" is nothing more than a pissing contest of moralities. That, and it is a "cure" far worse than the disease it was meant to counter.
Re:Elimitate upselling (Score:4, Insightful)
Like any good salesman, a drug dealer will try to convert a marijuana user to use other drugs that turn a better profit.
This is not the way it works. As a rule, pot users are not interested in converting to stronger drugs, any more than corporate cokeheads are jonesing for a big bongload. You've been fooled into believing the propaganda spread by the gov't, dea, law enforcement. You are forgiven.
Re:Say you legalize everything (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you happy about having your pocket picked to rehabilitate those who've turned themselves into potted plants of the sort that they smoke?
Well, we're already dealing with effects of TWOD in the healthcare system: addicts who can't get treatment, people shot/stabbed/etc. in the related turf wars, and so forth. I doubt these people are covered under your friendly neighborhood HMO. These people cost the healthcare system since they a) don't pay for ER visits and/or b) use the ER as a primary healthcare service.
Something tells me we could take the money we spend on enforcement and easily pick up the rehab costs for the few people who are addicts. And we would see a large decrease in related crime that would directly contribute to a reduction in ER visits and thus costs that you and I have to bear right now.
Re:I wouldn't hold my breath (Score:5, Insightful)
More profit than not, I'd say.
Bad idea for some drugs (Score:5, Insightful)
For stuff like antibiotics, allowing random people to decide what they can take when they want has a definite negative effect on the society at large.
It's a big enough problem getting patients to comply with complete antibiotics regimens as it is. Giving everyone the ability to just pop a few for a couple days when they cut themselves or have the flu or whatever is a recipe for massive, widespread increases in resistant bacteria.
Re:Elimitate upselling (Score:5, Insightful)
I like to believe that a lot of marijuana users, like myself, are mostly uninterested in hard drugs. I agree with your statement that it's not that bad, I've had far worse experiences with alcohol or over the counter medication.
I agree that it should be legalized, because really, if I want to hang out at my house and get high, that is my business and it's not like me doing that is putting the safety of the general populous at risk. I'm not out on the roads driving drunk, I'm not picking fights with people in bars, where is the harm in smoking a bowl or two and playing some video games, or listening to music, or watching a movie? There are far more productive things that the law could be doing for its people than locking up those of us who like to toke up.
Not to mention the additional waves that drug prohibition creates when it bleeds over into drug testing for jobs that really shouldn't require it. This causes people to not only be viewed as criminals for something that is incredibly common and harmless, but it uses the employer and the power of capital as just another long arm of the law.
Re:Last 3 presidents (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Elimitate upselling (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Pain (Score:3, Insightful)
In my mind I compare it to the days of sunscreen. Before sunscreen the sun provided us with a source of vitamin D synthesis and then the doctors said the sun caused cancer and so we now use sunscreen. Now the skin cancer is at a unprecedented rate even using the sunscreen. Go figure?
So you failed science and modern history? Hint: showing your ankles in public used to be an arrestable offense.
Re:Dear God Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
If they have the optional power to do something specified, what kind of power do they have to do something that isn't specified?
By a straight reading of the content of the Constitution, no such power at all. Through constant incremental encroachment by degrees over the last 150-odd years, they've established themselves as having authority to do just about anything they like, constitution (particularly the 10th Amendment) be damned. Welcome to the frustration of libertarianism.
Doesn't seem that complicated. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Reconsideration sounds prudent.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Well if it's true that the older forms were less dangerous, then the answer is to regulate the different forms in different ways so as to encourage users to go for the safer stuff, much like hard alcohol tends to be much more heavily regulated and taxed than wine and beer.
In any case, I agree with your overall point that the really dangerous drugs should be treated differently and it shouldn't just be a blanket acceptance of everything. But the long drug prohibition has demonized many of these substances such that their reputation far exceeds their reality, so we need to be careful with what we "know" about them.
Re:Swinging between prohibition and tolerance (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah. Say, what is it again they say about people who don't learn from history? I think it might apply here.
Re:I wouldn't hold my breath (Score:5, Insightful)
all of which can also be said of legal drugs such as alcohol.
Re:Pain (Score:3, Insightful)
wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
if something like marijuana would legalized, the taxes collected on that would be staggeringly huge
if you want to argue profit (for the government), you argue for legalization
sure there are entrenched interests, but there is no larger entrenched interest than the taxman
Re:Or better yet (Score:3, Insightful)
Someone moderated that troll, but I don't see the issue with banning both alcohol and tobacco, either you are consistent and try to save the peoples health and minds and don't spend society resources on their illness thanks to those drogs, or you decide that people should be free to do whatever they want even if it's risky and they may be badly informed of said risks and let all drugs lose.
Personally I don't know which alternative I think is better. I use to believe that they would never let a drug free which released plenty of dopamine in your brain because, well, it would be a drug, even if alcohol do so to but probably at a higher risk. Flawed logic?
Re:I wouldn't hold my breath (Score:5, Insightful)
All the criminalization seems to do is increase the incentive for providing expensive, weak, drugs cut with all sorts of bad chemicals to people who are prepared to pay almost any price for them. I've stopped using myself, but I'd say decriminalize just so I can get help from some form of controlled institution for my friends before they O.D. without having to worry about getting them arrested.
Re:I wouldn't hold my breath (Score:5, Insightful)
And you don't speak about the fact that banning drugs has not made them go away. All those problems you list are problems we have right now. How, exactly, has throwing people in jail, ruining their lives (even more), funded gangs (through drug-sale profits), and generally walking all over the constitution actually achieved your goal of reducing the harm drugs cause?
Legalizing would not change most of those things, except one important one: the drug cartels (a source of much violence) go out of business overnight.
Tool for expanding organised crime too (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing is as simple as it seems (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I wouldn't hold my breath (Score:5, Insightful)
To some extent, yes.
And sugar.
And Diet Coke.
And Krispy Kreme donuts.
You have to draw the line somewhere; I'm not sure it's correctly drawn right now.
Re:I wouldn't hold my breath (Score:5, Insightful)
And these things don't happen now, because of the War on (Some) Drugs?
At least one of the reasons for repealing this prohibition is that it is ineffectual. Drugs are as prevalent as they would be without it. There's just more crime and corruption to go along with them.
The time has always been right... (Score:5, Insightful)
To discuss the war on drugs.
From a libertarian standpoint, what right does the Government have to tell people what to do with their own body? This debate is as much about the power of government as it is about the morality of drug use.
However, there are some angles to the issue which never seem to be discussed:
I think the reason why the opponents of the War on Drugs failed is that they never discussed it in terms that ordinary average Americans could relate. They discussed it in terms of dollars, but federal law enforcement spending is truly minuscule compared to things like social security and defense. They talked about it in terms of prison population, when the average person thought simply, "well, I just won't use drugs and won't go to prison..." Instead, they should have framed the debate in terms of individual rights.
That's what the gay movement did, and look where they are now. It seems that Americans don't want the government to mandate morality, and the gay movement capitalized on that. The reason why the War on Drugs lasted so long was because its opponents never pushed the civil rights aspect of it.
Re:I wouldn't hold my breath (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll agree that there's a profit motive.
But you don't speak about the abyss of drug addiction, the income-sapping expense, the parents of kids that forget parenting while doing drugs, the accidents on the freeway, the madness of things like meth addiction and its incredible debilitating affects on the body.
So it's a good thing we have drug prohibition because without it these things would be rampant? Oh wait....
You have failed to show how things would be worse if you could buy a 'teen of meth for $40 from the Walgreen's vs. being able to buy a 'teen of meth from Joe the Biker at the bar for $80. It's not like prohibition has kept drugs away from people. I know of no one who wants drugs who can't find them.
Re:Reconsideration sounds prudent.. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you're wrong that banning things never work
I don't mean to imply that's globally true -- just that we have good evidence on the banning of drugs. The fact that it's still a problem after all these years (and billions of dollars, and thousands of lives ruined, etc) is solid data we should be using. It says what we have been doing has not worked, and we need to try something else.
Also, comparing victimless crimes to proper criminal/victim crimes like murder is pretty disingenuous.
close down the markets as much as possible
That's my point: you can't when DEMAND is still present. Economics tells us Supply will generally rise to meet Demand. We can only change the total market by reducing demand, and that has nothing to do with our current supply-side efforts.
If a drug is addictive enough that people will rob or murder to get it, it doesn't matter so much what kind of source they get it from
More to the point: if they will find a source no matter what, we should make sure that source does NOT involve violence. That means some form of legal distribution, as black markets seem to always lead to violence eventually. Why pay money to throw cops at the problem when all it does is start a war between cops and gangs?
Re:Elimitate upselling (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of my friends are very much the type that love smoking weed but are entirely uninterested in heroin or coke. I recently had a very good friend overdose on the former, and while that was entirely horrible, it did give me some perspective on the drug laws in our country. People die of alcohol poisoning. People die from shooting up too much or snorting bad coke. Terrible, horrible things, but I have never once heard anything like, "Yeah, man, they found his body this morning. Guess he just smoked too much weed last night."
Re:I take a Libertarian POV. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Regulation smarter than Prohibition (Score:3, Insightful)
1. I'm still for draconian penalties for anybody who sells heavy dope like heroin or methamphetamine to a minor. Anything crap like that should be heavily regulated in it's sale and taxed heavily but intelligently. The taxes should be just high enough that the bootleg bathtub stuff doesn't look good. Tax evaders can share cells with ones selling dope to kids.
If it were legalized, drugs would be cheaper because there is far less risk/travel involved. This would put the cartels out of business. Sure, kids can still figure out ways to buy cigarettes if they are under 18, but it's MUCH easier to get a bag of weed because it's all underground. Some store clerk will have to risk his job just like he would today selling cigarettes or alcohol to minors.
2. Being under the influence should be a crime enhancer rather than an exonerator: "Your honor! It was the crystal meth that made me go crazy with that axe!"
"Fine. I hereby double your sentence for axe craziness"
Well, then it seems that you aren't for legalizing other drugs. Why would meth be treated differently than alcohol? And why would the sentence be increased for doing something legal?
Ditto for crimes committed for the purpose of obtaining drugs though they should be much more pure and affordable being regulated and with mafias mostly out of the picture.
No, a crime is a crime. Just like a crime "ontheinternet" shouldn't be treated any differently. Say you rob a bank, you are charged with robbery, not robbery for the purpose of X.
Cheaper pure drugs and delivery devices mean that dopers will be able to hold down jobs and so-forth a bit longer before skid-rowing themselves.
You are still stigmatizing drugs.
And who knows? Dopers with dead end McJobs may have enough brain cells remaining to hold them indefinitely.....just like the alcoholics.
Remember, it's people like that that help maintain your carefree no hassle style of life. Someone has to do it, you don't need to be a dick.
This is only meant to accomplish two things. We don't pack the prisons full of non-violent recreational users and small time sellers and we remove the biggest profit center of organized crime. I don't deny that out-in-the-open drug use won't make apparent new out-in-the-open social problems. I suspect that conspicuously not coddling people who mess themselves up may be be the best deterrent to "having all you can eat".
I do agree with this though.
Re:Bad idea for some drugs (Score:2, Insightful)
allowing random people to decide what they can take when they want has a definite negative effect on the society at large
But are prescription controls the best way to combat drug resistance?
There are two potential causes of harm:
1. You could take an antibiotic when you don't really need, thereby hastening drug resistance.
2. You could fail to take an antibiotic when you really need it, and thereby suffer or die from the bacterial infection.
Prescription laws may help with 1), but they may harm via 2) due to people failing to get antibiotics they need due to the cost of getting a prescription. Prescription laws for antibiotics would only be justified if the harm of 1) outweighed the harm of 2). How do you know that the harm of 1) outweighs the harm of 2)?
In any case, the drug resistance argument applies only to antibiotics. We could eliminate prescriptions on all other drugs without worrying about increasing drug resistance.
Base repeal on both costs and policies (Score:2, Insightful)
I would suggest using this repeal to also damage our foes. Afghanistan warlords, Columbian cartels, Mexican gangs, and local dealers all benefit enormously from keeping drugs illegal. Cutting these groups off from one of their primary sources of funds could be a major benefit.
People will make mistakes in their lives and will sometimes turn to drugs when they should not. Destroying their life does not serve society half as well as rebuilding it could. Taxes on such drugs could easily pay for all the outreach and counseling programs you might want.
Marijuana, in particular is one of the silliest things to make illegal.
1) We are forced to make exceptions for folks that need it as a 'best treatment'.
2) It isn't as dangerous as alcohol.
3) It is trivial to grow just about anywhere.
4) We have lost all the other uses of hemp fiber (paper, rope, etc)
Tax it like hell but allow it all and put the money into proper tracking of who is using it. That's my vote. I too have worry about making really hard drugs legal, but if you make it traceable, and still allow employers to bar folks failing drug tests. I see much less harm than we find in the current destructive cycles that wastes billions annually while enriching the part of society we should be trying to weaken.
Yes, ALL of them (Score:4, Insightful)
need to be legal. Drug war does absolutely nothing to prevent people from getting them who really want it. Complete waste of my money.
Re:I wouldn't hold my breath (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:SMOKE (Score:5, Insightful)
PS George Zimmer [wikipedia.org], of Men's Warehouse fame, is one millionaire with the time and money to fight these laws.
Re:SMOKE (Score:5, Insightful)
None of that has anything to do with drug use, you are attempting to show causation where there is merely correlation.
But then again I'm sure you didn't read the article, which implies and outright states in some ways, that a lot of the problems associated with drug use are caused by its prohibition.
Re:I wouldn't hold my breath (Score:2, Insightful)
Now I'm not so sure, the "war on drugs" generates a weird tension in American society which is incredibly creative, from William Burroughs and Jimi Hendrix/Grateful Dead to rap and trance.
I love the Dutch and all, and I'm deeply sympathetic to the poor bastards whose lives have been f*d by farcical drug sentences. But I'm awed by the power unleashed by this dark side/light side battle.
Re:Dear God Yes (Score:3, Insightful)
Either you are a troll or you expect people to take your assertion that druggies tend to rape peoples daughters as fact, then you go on to base the rest of your fantasy on that flawed assertion.
Re:Bad idea for some drugs (Score:2, Insightful)
When was the last time your doctor actually took a culture of an infection before prescribing an antibiotic... The doctors themselfs are doing _no_ better then 'random people'.
Re:Reconsideration sounds prudent.. (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see much of a mismatch, but I'll rephrase so as to include the world "should" if that makes it feel like more of an appropriate reply to you.
Your health choices are not yours alone, society has a stake as well. They should be willing to look at the consequences of your health choices because they have an interest in your health and how you relate to others in society. If you never had to interact with another member of society, nor was your labour part of society's labour, in short, if you were going to be locked inside of a box for the rest of your life, then they could say that what mind-altering drugs you take are truly none of their business. That is not, however, the case - you are a member of society, you will interact with others with their own interests (some legally protected), you will affect the status of society, and so society/the state's obligation to serve the public good comes into play. Society should recognise a default of autonomy - that when a strong argument is lacking that a type of behaviour is harmful enough to warrant prohibition or control, people are happiest when they may live their life as they choose. The strong argument, to me, is that when a substance is hazardous enough that it cannot reasonably be used in moderation and when its abuse has a broad societal impact, it should be strongly considered for prohibition. Some substances pass this bar, some do not. Society should protect its interests, which includes broad autonomy with structured exceptions for its people, public health, keeping violence and crime down, etc.
I'm not sure if this is exactly what you're asking for. I hope it is.
Re:Dear God Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
i'm claiming that, like alcohol prohibition, drug prohibition caused far more social problems than it solved.
yes, opiates are physiologically addicted, and there were no doubt people who abused opiates and were addicted to opiates even back then. but when it is cheap, legal, and widely available, opiate dependence does not cause major social problems. this is demonstrated by the success of opiate maintenance programs in turning individuals with formerly problematic drug problems into productive & healthy members of society.
and just because opiate use was associated with upper-class lifestyles doesn't mean it can't be relatively cheap. the point is, prior to the Harrison Act people didn't go broke trying to support their opiate habits. heck, if you wanted to you could just grow your own poppies and make poppy tea yourself.
in fact, many well known figures in history were opiate users. for instance Benjamin Franklin and Edgar Allen Poe are both known to have been (recreational) opium users. that's not to say that narcotics with high abuse-potential shouldn't be regulated. in fact, if it were legal and regulated like alcohol and tobacco are, it'd probably cut back on all those unfortunate chippers who accidentally OD because they didn't know how strong their new batch of heroin was.
you understand the balance (Score:3, Insightful)
understand that for something like methampethamine, the costs of legalization far outweighs prohibition
but something like marijuana, or lsd, or mushrooms: the costs of prohibition are far greater. these drugs should be legal
familiarize yourself what something like methampetamine does to a person and their brain and their family and their job
once you understand that, you understand that all drugs are not the same, and shoul dnot be treated the same legally
case-by-case is the wisest approach
Re:Or better yet (Score:3, Insightful)
That is the hypocrisy, and perhaps evidence of corruption, that specific drugs are legal and others are not, based not on logical arguments as to safety but rather hypocritical and irrational fabrications.
Perhaps the people in charge of making and upholding these laws happen to prefer the drugs that are still legal and would like to keep it that way?
Just wanted to share a story (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, I am not in the US, and I consume marijuana in a regular basis.
It's very popular as a drug, by consumers and by non-consumers that think that stoners are no-future junkies.
Reading stuff like this makes me fear penalties for carrying or using marijuana will be increased.
Personally, I started smoking after my digestive system broke because of a medical error (without even an apology from them, and we can't afford a good lawyer, so I have to live with it).
Many in my family used to smoke as well, so I was convinced (after much resistance from me, since I don't smoke normal tobacco, and I thought it'd be a "bad thing" since I lived "healthy" without alcohol or tobacco). It was one of the best choices I had, one year ago.
Not troubled so much by pain, I started to develop my abilities further, started to make better and deeper social life (my mood became less violent, which helped at work and with friends), and met a lot of stoner people who are really nice. Unfortunately since my stomach is broken I tend to vomit at times when I am stoned, but well, happens if I do exercise too or I have too much heat. Aside from bad aftertaste and sore throat it's not a big deal (it's like once per month or so anyway)
Judging from my other family members who have been smoking for ages, they are really healthy as well. Some of my stoner friends only say "I lose a lot of time stoned" as a defect. I haven't known anyone that has died under effects of pot, either directly by overdose or indirectly (like driving and crashing, like alcohol, that is legal but it leads to heavy poisoning, violence in some cases, and shame in other cases).
You know, it kind of hurts me to see statistics like "54% of american parents are extremely worried their kids do marijuana". I don't know if it has side effect as a kid, I started well into adulthood, but my grandpa has been smoking his entire life, and he hasn't either started doing other drugs, nor he was ever violent, or has faced health issues (although he smokes a lot of regular tobacco too, so his voice is all cracked).
It would be nice if I could consume this medicine legally. It's not like law is going to be harsh to me, since it's just a small fine in my country, but I really fear "what if laws get more severe?".
Re:I wouldn't hold my breath (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you seriously think that there is some vast pool of people that would suddenly choose to become drug addicts if only it were legal?
Every one of the people that inclined to become a substance abuser already is.
Re:I wouldn't hold my breath (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think the typical US citizen understands how powerful and pervasive the cartels are in Central and South America. They don't just murder people, their influence destabilizes democratic governments, destroys economies, and basically stands in the way of social progress that would benefit everyone the Americas.
Re:Or better yet (Score:5, Insightful)
You'd save lots of lives. Directly and indirectly. As an ER doc, I see drug use of all types in all peoples. Alcohol is far and away the most "dangerous" of them all. However, banning it won't stop it's use (as we've found out). Banning other drugs doesn't stop their use (as we've found out). Keeping a drug illegal certainly limits the drug's use as many people do not want to pay to potential legal / social cost of getting caught. But many folks will, so you put the drug underground and let the Nasty People who live there (drug cartels, Mafia and just the rampant bottom end of humanity) profit off it.
I really doubt that the US is ready to go there. Too many boogie men in that basement. It is much easier to paper up the problem, stick the police on it and hide your head in the sand.
Re:I wouldn't hold my breath (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you seriously think that drug use wouldn't balloon if it was made legal?
I think it would balloon initially and then return to a homeostatic point, once the novelty wore off. There's a reason people say: "Ugh, I can't party like I did in college anymore." The novelty wears off, that's why most Dutch aren't pot heads even though they could be if they so chose.
The Onion got it right (Score:5, Insightful)
The Onion ran one of their parody news articles a few years back concerning drugs. IIRC, the headline was "Drugs now legal if user is gainfully employed." I think that really cuts to the heart of the matter. What we should be most concerned about is people contributing in a positive manner to society. The negative effects to society in relation to drug use mostly revolve around crimes committed to acquire the drugs; the violent actions some people commit once under the influence of drugs; and harm done to children/teenagers who start drugs while their bodies and minds are still developing.
If people did drugs in the privacy of their own home, went to work everyday and played their part in the overall good of society, and you had to be 18 or 21 (like cigarettes and booze in the USA) to legally do drugs, these main concerns would go away.
Some people will never be able to wrap their minds around this concept. They've been raised with the "drugs==bad" mentality and can't see what goes on everyday around them. We already allow this with certain drugs. Alcohol, make no mistake about it, is a drug. It is one of the worst drugs around. Not to generalize (because there are "happy drunks"), but it makes people mean, and makes them do and say things they wouldn't otherwise. It is very addictive, especially to those genetically pre-disposed to alcoholism. It incapacitates users to a point that many other drugs don't. And the long-term health effects are among the worst of all drugs out there. But, for whatever reason, partaking in this drug is socially acceptable if you are 21 or older in the USA (other ages, usually younger in other countries). And then we have nicotine, the active ingredient in cigarettes, cigars and other tobacco products. This is an extremely addictive drug, so much so that many heroin addicts find it easier to kick smack than to give up smoking.
And then we have "controlled substances," of which doctors write out legitimate prescriptions by the the millions every day. Oxycontin is known in some circles as "hillbilly heroin," because the effects are similar, and it is the closest equivalent that can be found in rural areas. Other opioid medications like Vicodin are equally addictive, and when it comes time to quit them, the user might has well have been taking heroin. The withdrawals of any opiate or opioid or all the same: a hellish process that makes user either want to get a fix ASAP, or just die. Yet these drugs are legal.
I've gotten off-track a little bit, but for whatever reason, there's three drugs that are very much legal if you are the right age, or have the right doctor. Why are they legal when marijuana is less intoxicating than alcohol, and smoking it at worst provides the same risk for cancer as cigarettes? (I think weed is less likely to cause cancer because it is not pumped full of extra chemicals, like the tobacco companies do to keep their users hooked.) A habitual marijuana user will certainly feel "bummed" if they run out, but they won't go through withdrawals that are potentially deadly, as in the case of alcohol or opiates. And a pothead can quit with just willpower; as the commercials for many stop-smoking-aids, willpower is not enough to kick the cigarette habit.
We tolerate alcohol, tobacco and addictive prescription medications, as long as their users are otherwise productive members of society. I can only see at as a great hypocrisy that other drugs are not afforded the same opportunity--especially when we are talking about something as innocuous as marijuana. Drop all the drug laws now. If people let the drugs turn themselves into criminals, there are other laws to take care of that. Just like laws that take care of drunk drivers, people that steal cigarettes, or people that forge fake prescriptions. If consenting adults want to do these things in the privacy of their own home, and keep them out of the reach of their children, and stay on the right side of the law, there is no reason they shouldn't be allowed too.
As to why they are not allowed to, there are a lot of reasons why the dope dealers and the lawmakers don't want it to change; there's plenty of posts above mine that state these reasons in an insightful manner.
Re:I wouldn't hold my breath (Score:5, Insightful)
Those people if they were given the chance to live, to go to school outside of a warzone, would be spending money, going to school (creating jobs for teachers and universities), and contributing to this economy. We haven't even considered the approximately 1 million nonviolent drug offenders that we spend 20k-40k / year to keep imprisoned.
We all know war is profitable for some few and devastating for most. The War on Drugs is no exception. The question is whether or not there are those who have a vested interest in continuing The War, but whether or not we can put a stop to it.
Re:Elimitate upselling (Score:5, Insightful)
Like any good salesman, a drug dealer will try to convert a marijuana user to use other drugs that turn a better profit. The good old upsell. Legalising marijuana would break that chain.
Bullshit. You've never bought any drugs at all, have you. Drug dealers aren't like a pharmacy with a big closet full of everything from weed to heroin. Drug dealers generally specialize in one drug, and occasionally get another one now and again. They don't have a product line that facilitates "upsell". Furthermore, I've never met a pot dealer who ever sold any of the so-called "hard drugs". Occasionally, they'd get some acid, or maybe some Ecstasy. No drug dealer has ever tried give me the hard sell on anything. You clearly got your drug education from the DEA and Nancy Reagan.
Re:I wouldn't hold my breath (Score:5, Insightful)
You have to draw the line somewhere; I'm not sure it's correctly drawn right now.
Do you have to draw the line somewhere? Does the government actually have to step in and say, it's all right to put these substances in your body, but not those?
I disagree. I think it is not necessary. More importantly, I think the government has no right to tell us what we are and are not allowed to take into our own bodies.
Re:SMOKE (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you ever considered it possible that much of the harm that came to that neighborhood was from the very illegality of the drugs and the black market that prohibition enables rather than from anything inherent in the drugs themselves? Drug addition certainly has a devastating effect on its own, but I argue that prohibition has made the effects worse rather than effectively stopping the trafficking, sale, and consumption of the drugs it seeks to eliminate.
Massachusetts Just Decriminalized Marijuana (Score:5, Insightful)
This past Election Day, the people of Massachusetts just voted 2:1 to decriminalize possession of up to 1 ounce of marijuana [amherstbulletin.com] (over 50 typical joints). If caught with that much pot, the "criminal" is issued a ticket, about equivalent to a ticket for an open container of beer, that can be mailed in with a $100 fine without even a court appearance.
Every day that goes by without Massachusetts falling into chaos or bedlam will prove how stupid pot prohibition is. Something like 50% of America's over 1 million imprisoned criminals committed nonviolent drug crimes, and about 850,000 people are arrested for pot every year. Instead of spending an average of $30,000 per year per prisoner, we could be collecting income and sales taxes from the people growing, distributing and consuming it. Probably could be a top agriculture export for this country. And with an entire state running OK mostly post-prohibition, the counterexample in favor of sanity should be undeniable.
Natural vs Artificial Drugs (Score:4, Insightful)
Our family knows two girls who blew their brains getting high on nutmeg. In the summer, our street is littered with mulberries - some of them green (hallucinogenic when consumed green). Marijuana grows on the police station lawn. But if they find it in *your* lawn, you could get arrested (or they can just swipe your car on "suspicion" of drug dealing). Teenagers in Hawaii get high (and sometimes die) licking poisonous frogs. Native Americans get high on mushrooms. Bolivians grow coca and make tea. The tiny amounts of cocaine in coca tea are harmless and actually healthful and no more addictive than caffeine.
What do all these drugs have in common? They are all natural substances which cannot reasonably be controlled without obliterating worldwide an entire family of plants, fungi, or amphibians.
While these plants and animals can be and are abused, they are no more dangerous than alcohol or tobacco. The real drug problems come when enterprising dealers with no conscience refine natural intoxicants, or create synthetic ones. Coca is refined into cocaine. Tobacco - addicting enough in pipe and cigar form, is made into cigarettes - far more addicting (and awful smelling to non-smokers). Wine and beer are refined into spirits and Grain Alcohol. Poppies are refined into heroine. PCP and LSD are far more dangerous than nutmeg.
So, I a not a libertarian, but I support any movement to stop the ridiculous attempts to wipe out useful plants and animals - because of some idiots trying for a Darwin award.
IMO, a sane "war on drugs" would target chem labs where the truly dangerous drugs are made or refined. At least then, the people they arrest would actually have to do something illegal - as opposed to not putting enough (toxic and environmentally bad) broad leaf killer on the lawn.
Re:SMOKE (Score:5, Insightful)
No 13 year olds are going to be whoring themselves out if crack were legal market price. It'd be a couple quarters for a rock... Now a lot of 13 year olds would die of heart attacks....but that's a different story.
Re:SMOKE (Score:3, Insightful)
blah blah blah Draconian measures blah blah blah exterminating 20 million Americans blah blah blah open the death camps and lite up the ovens.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Dear God Yes (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a very important point. There are only two ways to unintentionally die of a heroin overdose: 1) you underestimate the purity, or 2) your dealer has cut the heroin with benzodiazepines. Both of these are direct results of the war on drugs, and deaths from these two causes would be reduced almost to nothing if heroin were legalized, as its purity and dosage would be properly labeled, and impurities would not exist (either because of government regulation or market competition, depending on where you stand in the statist-libertarian ideological spectrum). There is a third cause - mixing with alcohol - but most heroin addicts only turn to alcohol when they don't the money for heroin (or, as much heroin as they'd like), and if heroin were legal, it would be very cheap, and there'd be no reason for anyone to substitute alcohol (a substance much more dangerous and debilitating than heroin) for heroin.
(source) [blogspot.com]
Re:I wouldn't hold my breath (Score:3, Insightful)
He's talking about addiction. People who are addicted to alcohol have the same problems as people who are addicted to pot, heroin, meth, etc. Horrible behavior, bad life choices, dumping too much income into recreational chemicals and the like.
A guy smoking a joint every night does the same amount of damage to society as when I pop open a Sapporo and read slashdot...
I don't smoke pot, I don't like it, I never have. Even if it wasn't illegal, I wouldn't smoke it. I don't support the legalization, however... I don't want to see the term "addict" confused with "casual user" of anything. Alcohol isn't to blame. Meth isn't to blame. Cocaine isn't to blame. Marijuana isn't to blame. The blame lies on the individual who chooses to abuse their chemical of choice.
Re:SMOKE (Score:2, Insightful)
You, sir, are a greater threat to American culture than any drug king-pin or foreign terrorist ever was.
Re:I wouldn't hold my breath (Score:2, Insightful)
Previous lists of winners vs. losers in the drug war here seem to ignore the one most important sentence from TFA:
Anti-prohibition voters "saw what most Americans still fail to see today: That a failed drug prohibition can cause greater harm than the drug it was intended to banish."
It is impossible, at this point in time, to judge the true harm of most illegal drugs, because you can't even be sure of their true composition, nor the true list of upstream market profiteers. Unregulated drug markets, including all existing drug black-markets, are free to put anything they want in their products, and get those ingredients from anywhere, and still label them "pure" or "home grown". Who is going to call them out for false advertising? We can't even catch China putting poison in our toothpaste and dog food! How are we going to catch the black market poison profiteers?
How many cases of drug related impairment, addiction, or deaths can be blamed on the common practice of "cutting", or "diluting" pure/concentrated (transport friendly) drugs with dangerous chemicals -- even known poisons? There is also the problem of dose-fixing, where the first dose is always intended to be addictive, and subsequent doses are dealt carefully, to maintain that addiction. What ad-hoc drug experiment case study here can claim that their study materials were not tainted, and that the dose was measured correctly, with 100% certainty? I know there are some pre-med/bio-chem students here who might raise their hands, but the vast majority of Americans know nothing of what they ingest, including in those rare cases when the FDA enforces proper labeling.
The only valid way for government to ever deal with a moral question is to study it, then regulate it, and tax the hell out of it. All other moral legislation is unethical -- government can only ever properly deal in ethical questions, and can never ethically deal in moral interpretations.
This is part of the reason for the Constitutional guarantee of the separation between Church and State. My Church has a different definition of "religious experience" and "prayer aid" than yours. Keep your damned moralizing legislation out of my personal religion.
Re:Dear God Yes (Score:3, Insightful)
No, fool. The side effects of drug use are detrimental to the user most of the time, and seldom to others. But when drugs are made illegal, the price skyrockets and now the drug users have to steal to buy the drugs they used to get with regular paychecks. I have seen common estimates that drugs cost 100 times what they would if unregulated.
Illegal drugs also require more cops and prisons which all cost a lot of money, simultaneously turning taxpayers into prisoners, a nice double whammy on the economy. Then there is all the corruption that goes with it.
Yes, fool, most of the current problems with drugs stem entirely from the laws themselves, not the drugs.
Think what would happen if drugs were unregulated:
All those wars funded by drug income would vanish almost overnight.
500,000 prisoners would become taxpayers again.
Hundreds of thousands of cops and prison guards would have to find real employment.
Crimes to make money for drugs would disappear.
And on the negative side, some people would die from cheap drugs. But I bet more people die now from shoddy quality for which there is no recourse, whereas with drugs unregulated, they could be sued for bad quality.
Anyone who supports the War on Some Drugs is an ignoramus with his head buried in the sand.
Re:Or better yet (Score:5, Insightful)
Looking at it from a more cynical point of view, the federal government has built a cathedral of sorts on the war on drugs with a tremendous budget. There are thousands of federal, state and local government jobs with millions upon billions of dollars invested in this misguided war. Those persons will clutch at that budget as firmly as they can since their own livelihood depends on drug prohibition.
Alcohol is definitely the most dangerous drug in use in the US right now, having more deaths directly attributed to its use than all illegal drugs combined. We as a country have previously established that it is impossible to eliminate alcohol entirely and instead moved to strict controls and high taxation. I can only hope that in the future we make that same move with drugs since decriminalizing it is the first step to bringing help to the addicts who need it most.
Decriminalization would mitigate a lot of drug-related social issues(prostitution, gang violence, illegal weapons trade) and heavy taxation would allow drug users to support the social and medical costs of the abusers.
Re:SMOKE (Score:2, Insightful)
I think Chris Rock put it best... What about the good side of crack? For $2.99 you could buy yourself a brand new sofa and a stereo system...
Think about that for a second. And watch shows like intervention. Anyone who still thinks that drug-related problems are caused by their prohibition is an idiot.
Speaking of Freedom of Speech, Expression, etc. Are you really Free when you do hard drugs? Or are the drugs the ones in control?
Re:I wouldn't hold my breath (Score:5, Insightful)
Does the government actually have to step in and say, it's all right to put these substances in your body, but not those?
In some cases, yes. As mentioned elsewhere antibiotics should be controlled in order to prevent widespread drug-resistant strains.
Re:SMOKE (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who still thinks that drug-related problems are cured by their prohibition is an idiot.
I think that is equally, if not more, true then the way you put it. Drug abuse is a problem that the people on both sides of the legalization debate wish would just go away. It won't. The abuse of intoxicating substances will be with us until the end of time. Until people realize there is no magic cure-all to the problem of abuse, we won't have a sane drug policy in this country. Prohibition or legalization are answers to an entirely different question, but defiantly not the question of abuse.
Re:Dear God Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Specific quote regarding the dangers of overdose in acclimatised users:
There is no upper limit to the amount of tolerance that can occur in a heavy user. Several studies done in the 1920s gave users doses of 1,600â"1,800 mg of heroin, and no adverse effects were reported. Even for a non-user, the LD50 can be placed above 350 mg though some sources give a figure of between 75 and 375 mg for a 75 kg person.[30]
Re:Dear God Yes (Score:4, Insightful)
which is why useful (and accurate) information needs to be disseminated by drug education programs rather than scare-tactics. it's not just mixing heroin and alcohol that's bad. mixing alcohol with almost any kind of a downer is extremely dangerous. but when educators give young people false impressions of the health risks related to various behaviors, exaggerating certain dangers while playing down others, teenagers become more poorly equipped to make sound judgments regarding drug use.
and then there are things like "ecstasy overdoses" that should never happen. MDMA itself is a relatively safe drug. even the former director NIDA admits that MDMA is safer than a lot of prescription drugs. but each year teenagers die from ingesting PMA [wikipedia.org] that's sold to them as ecstasy. if MDMA use were legal and regulated, this sort of thing would not be happening.
Re:I wouldn't hold my breath (Score:5, Insightful)
It'd suck for you, but society shouldn't be designed to placate and protect people with addictive personalities. Either you control yourself or you die. Either is a positive outcome for society.
Not positive for you, however. This is why we hope you can train yourself to do the former.
But if you can't, well... You will go extinct. And that's not a bad thing, in the long run.
I'm sorry, but it's true.
Re:No, how about... (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems to me that if we leave it up to states, things in say, California would improve, but Texas might continue to build prisons and continue to put non-violent pot smokers in them.
Your biases are showing.
But seriously, that sort of legal diversity would probably be a good thing. If you don't like your state's laws, you can always move to another state. With laws passed at federal level on the other hand force the views of whoever happens to have the 51% majority this week on *everyone*.
In a way, this is basic statistics. With more samples, you make it more likely that you will get mostly "average" results with a few outliers. With only one sample (i.e. the federal level), there is a much larger risk that the one sample will be an outlier. (Insurance companies take advantage of exactly this property.)
(You could in theory move to another country but that is harder than moving to another state. Visas, citizenship, maybe different culture, maybe different language, etc.)
Re:SMOKE (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree - I will also add that there are currently more legal addicts than illegal.
I know of quite a number of people who are addicted to prescription pain medication and have been for years. 15 minutes before "time" for their pill and they get all panicky trying to find the thing (if they do not take it one time they will experience "pain" - I've yet to find a pain pill that works that way). Many of them take the same, and more, pills as so called "drug addicts" that would be put in jail because they do not have a doctors script. I have realities who had knee surgery (torn ACL - a real injury) and 15 years later are on regular high strength drugs. Heck, I have relatives who are trying to "get off" those pills and have been going to a methadone clinic for over two years now (uh huh - they really are wanting to get off).
As far as I can tell is that most of the legal addicts can still function in society despite their addiction - though a number will do things any addict does when the supply starts to stop (say, for instance, a cousins mother decided to quit paying for the methadone clinic and suddenly, in an totally unexplained and unrelated incidence, the exact amount of money needed for the clinic "disappeared" from her purse and he disappears during those same days he used to go - of course those are totally unrelated incidences).
I would also add that the number of people that wanted my fathers higher dosage of hydrocodone given to him after his bypass surgery were an absolute shock to us. Even worse were the people who just picked on up out of his hand when the noted what he had (they had a prescription, but for a lesser does and were "hurting" that day).
As of right now the main thing separating legal vs illegal addicts is the ability to maintain a steady job while addicted or have enough money to fund any doctor out there. The illegals can not control the addiction enough for a part time job and enough to pay the slightly greater cost of the legal market for them.
Re:SMOKE (Score:3, Insightful)
What I posted is, however, the general response you'll get from the man on the street. He thinks that because the government's been telling him that for so long that he's come to believe it. He doesn't consider whether it could be true or not because he's never heard a dissenting voice and it's never occurred to him to think about it for himself.
Re:SMOKE (Score:5, Insightful)
a couple years ago I read a story about kids in the midwest getting high by strangling themselves.
Seriously, the human race will always find a way to get high. Always.
Re:I wouldn't hold my breath (Score:5, Insightful)
Now I'm not positive about marajuana, but as for Coke, Heroine and Meth; a single use is usually all it takes to become an addict.
This is a widespread belief, but there is absolutely no evidence that it's true. None. Zero.
If you ask any cop, he will tell you that there is no such thing as a casual coke/heroine/meth user, only addicts. Once you do it, you don't stop.
Asking a cop for unbiased information about drugs is like asking Bill Gates for unbiased information about Linux.
Now there are RARE cases of people who only do it a few times, but they are RARE.
[[citation needed]] And I'm talking peer-reviewed medical studies, not DEA or DARE propaganda.
Please don't confuse recreational drugs with brain-rewriting poison.
I think you're the only one doing that here.
Re:SMOKE (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyone who thinks, or thought at any point, that drug-related problems are caused EXCLUSIVELY by the prohibition of drugs is, in fact, an idiot.
The argument is that we're doing more damage prohibiting than we would allowing the behavior (supply and demand says it will happen anyway) to continue to occur, above-board.
Re:SMOKE (Score:5, Insightful)
Legalize everything and supply and demand will take care of that problem for you. With a wide choice of alternatives at competitive prices, meth's popularity would dwindle, if only because of the health consequences.
Crowley had it right. Drugs are basically food. (Score:1, Insightful)
2. Man has the right to eat what he will: to drink what he will: to dwell where he will: to move as he will on the face of the earth.
3. Man has the right to think what he will: to speak what he will: to write what he will: to draw, paint, carve, etch, mould, build as he will: to dress as he will.
4. Man has the right to love as he will.
5. Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights.
The Swiss experiment worked (Score:5, Insightful)
For countries with the political courage to try treating drug use as a social and medical problem, instead of as a legal one, the jury is in. It works. Switzerland has had prescription heroin for a decade on an experimental basis. They just voted to make the law permanent. Nothing chic about heroin in Switzerland. Just a bunch of old losers. Addiction rate is going down. Most hold crappy jobs. Opoids don't completely incapacitate a person -- as many on pain meds know. (They are hard on the gut) The Netherlands have also had progressive policies. There is of course a downside (particularly as people from countries with prohibition come in and cause problems), but in the balance the Dutch are okay with the openness. The great thing about relegating drugs to the medical sphere is that the cool factor evaporates. And the financial incentive dissipates.
Prohibition uses sovereign power to create artificial scarcity increasing price and creating an underworld. Get this crap in the sunshine. Give it to the people who want it for cheap and they will mainly fill low paying jobs -- with some exceptions.
Handle it in the private sector. You can test for drug use for security clearances and operator licenses etc. We need people to push brooms and flip burgers.
"Dude, here's a spliff, now take this broom and sawdust and clean the warehouse. And by the way if you want a better life the clinic is open and the NA meeting is down the street."
The exception is of course with creative people. They can do fine with drugs if they don't go overboard. Code poets, jazz men and artists will use. But they also get clean, too. Up to them I say. This puritanical nanny stuff is for the birds.
Interestingly, I read that Cisco systems decided to scratch their testing policies. Too many good people came up dirty. True or not I do not know. And perhaps the status has changed. Comments?
Re:If you do, you've gotta PAY . . .. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I take a Libertarian POV. (Score:1, Insightful)
"(Unless caffeine in Coca-Cola counts.)"
I think a substance described as psychoactive which also causes your body to uprate dopamine receptors to handle the increased "buzz" caffeine gives your neuro transmitters, and which has noticable and well documented withdrawl effects, does count.
You are *NOT* straight edge.
(Filter error: You can type more than that for your comment. Filter error: You can type more than that for your comment. Filter error: You can type more than that for your comment. Filter error: You can type more than that for your comment. -- God damnit, Rob Malda, fix your website)
the scenario (Score:3, Insightful)
Legal marijuana:
Eliminate, what, 800,000 people or so arrested each year for marijuana-related offenses, thus reducing the costs assocated in processing & housing them.
Fewer lawyers to deal with the now-reasonable amount of court action. Obvious benefit.
Prisons are no longer overcrowded, thus no longer requiring more prisons to be built, thus saving money.
Prisons are no longer overcrowded, no longer requiring people to be released early who shouldn't be.
Fewer law enforcement personnel needed to conduct now-reasonable-size 'war on (other) drugs', thus saving tax money.
Tax money from now-legal marijuana sales (budget is balanced, free healthcare and a Wii for all).
Less alcohol abuse now that Marijuana is legal, fewer drunk-driving accidents (Marijuana is less-impairing than alcohol), thus saving thousands of lives per year.
Nothing standing in the way of Hemp production except the Cotton industry (who would be the biggest beneficiaries of switching over appropriate products to Hemp, go figure). More Hemp can now be grown with less water and pesticides than the Cotton crops replaced, thus saving money and the environment. Still can't get high off of Hemp, which isn't the same as Marijuana, dumbasses learn this the hardway by trying to smoke it to avoid the 'sin taxes' of the now-legal Marijuana.
Snack food industry profits increase 25-fold in the first 9 months after legalization of Marijuana. Frito-Lay stock is up 5200%. Combination packs of Cheetos and a Joint second biggest-selling item in history of United States. Taco Bell stock up 9200%. Biggest-selling item in history of U.S. is the 'Fatties and a Skinny' combo from Taco Bell, consisting of 3 bean burritos and a joint.
Following the success of legal marijuana nationwide, prostition becomes legal 5 years later, after the next round of elections. Las Vegas becomes bigger than ever, while Reno disincorporates as noone is willing to travel there anymore. Legalization of gamling comes in on the hells of legalized prostitution, and the Native American tribes expand their casino experience into the rest of the country, but come up against the Italian Mafia, and a new Mob War ensues, leaving Chicago and New York littered with the scalped bodies of Italian Mafia members everywhere, within their circled Cadillacs and SUVs.
Oh yeah, taxes off sales of marijuana accessories pay for new space program which gets humanity off Earth just in time to avoid being wiped out by asteroid the size of Texas.
Think about this: (Score:5, Insightful)
How many people drink bathtub gin anymore? Moonshine? Rotgut? When alcohol prohibition was lifted in 1933, people went back to "the good stuff." I guarantee that if certain controlled substances were legal you'd see certain very unsafe and insane substitutes become a whole lot less popular.
Re:SMOKE (Score:5, Insightful)
I think Chris Rock put it best... What about the good side of crack? For $2.99 you could buy yourself a brand new sofa and a stereo system...
Think about that for a second. And watch shows like intervention. Anyone who still thinks that drug-related problems are caused by their prohibition is an idiot.
Speaking of Freedom of Speech, Expression, etc. Are you really Free when you do hard drugs? Or are the drugs the ones in control?
Except those of us who lead successful, even famous, lives and do all kinds of recreational drugs on a regular basis. No addiction, no overdosing, no problem.
It's much more common than you think, we just hide it because we fear the damage to our lives the LAWS will cause. If we speak out and say "Hey, it's no worse than smoking, or drinking!", we'll likely lose our reputations, assets, families, hell even our freedom.
You know at least 5 people who smoke marijuana on a regular basis and you don't even know it.
You know at least 10 people that have tried or have wanted to try a "harder" drug.
The point is, it's hidden all around you already. You live in that world, and you can't deny it and longer. I function just fine doing what I do, because I'm not stupid about it. You will have addicts either way, so you might as well not pay to house me in prison as well, using your tax dollars that could be going to your children's education, or even fixing that annoying pothole in your street.
Responsibility (Score:3, Insightful)
I think at the center of this whole issue is the question of whether we want to face up to the problem or not.
There is no doubt that drug use is a problem, or at least causes problems; but research clearly shows that there are several drugs that are less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco. Still, the overwhelming majority of people are able to live a productive life, even while enjoying alcohol or using tobacco regularly, and the reality is that it is perfectly possible to use several other drugs in a responsible way - it is a simple matter of learning how to handle it. Information campaigns and teaching about it in schools should do the trick.
As it is now, people are being kept in a state of permanent hysteria about it - and I can't see why, really. There are certain factors that contribute, like the far too influential religious conservatives, to whom anything that might look like Wild Wantonness - such as feeling happy, relaxing and enjoying yourself - is a Sin. As I think it is becoming clear to most, there isn't any rational argument in favour of the kind of prohibition we have now in most countries, so all we are left with is the irrational fear of those we allow into power, one way or the other; but should be really let fear make the decisions for us? Isn't that what got into the Iraq mess, just to whip that old, dead horse once more?
There are many benefits to changing the way this is handled: enormous savings on unnecessary policing and jailing people, just to mention one. The increased tax revenue from putting a tax on the now legal drugs, as well as income tax from the now legal drug traders. Alcohol consumption may even fall, because mixing alcohol with eg. cannabis will probably not appeal to most people - and of course, while drunk drivers are likely to drive too fast, a person under the influence of cannabis is much more likely to drive too slowly, thus reducing the likelyhood of fatal accidents.
In fact, the only people that would suffer a serious blow from the legalisation and regulation of drugs, are the ones that now benefit the most from it being illegal. As always it is a question of following the money.
Re:I wouldn't hold my breath (Score:1, Insightful)
In some cases, yes. As mentioned elsewhere antibiotics should be controlled in order to prevent widespread drug-resistant strains.
Ah, good point. But surely this doesn't apply to marijuana - or, for that matter, to LSD (which isn't even addictive, only psychoactive), opium, morphine, heroine, cocaine, crack, ecstasy, or whatever else have you...
Re:Tax Stamps (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean, like, alcohol and tobacco? Or can ANYONE give me a single good reason why those two are not the business of the FDA (like every other drug) but rather deserve to be lumped with firearms (didn't know you could get addicted to guns).
Maybe to give those two some kind of constitutional sanctity. Like they're covered in the 2nd together with firearms or something.
Re:I wouldn't hold my breath (Score:2, Insightful)
Now I'm not positive about marajuana, but as for Coke, Heroine and Meth; a single use is usually all it takes to become an addict.
Mork calling Orson! Mork calling Orson! Come in Orson! You really really need to stop listening the propaganda peddled by the anti-drugs lobby. To state that a single dose is 'usually all it takes to become an addict' is both factually incorrect and at worse simply disingenuous. If we're going to have debate about this then can we please leave all the usual knee-jerk crap at the front-door.
Re:SMOKE (Score:2, Insightful)
Thats an awesome post!
I wouldn't completely agree that nicotine
provides no real pleasurable gain
When I used to smoke I certainly found it to have a significant pleasurable gain, even before I became addicted.
Another good comparison between these drugs and soft illegal drugs is their contribution to crime. Illegal drugs contribute to crime a lot more legal drugs (obviously ignoring the crime of taking/possessing the drug) and the reasons for this are obvious. When buying illegal drugs you involve yourself in a crime circle. You become addicted, you need to get more, because of your addiction you cant hold down a job, and you have to make money through crime.
If the state sells drugs legally then the dealers are automatically out of business. The large amount of taxes that will be charged on the drug will go to the health service and deal with the possible health problems created by the drug, you know who all the users are, and you know how much they are taking.
Re:SMOKE (Score:1, Insightful)
This is why you rig your basement with bombs, so that when the police enter without a legal search warrant obtained from a judge (as required by the Constitution), then you get set off the bomb and teach all who are watching a lesson: Don't Ignore the Supreme Law.
Back to drugs:
I don't care what anyone does in the privacy of their own home. To paraphrase Jefferson, whether my neighbors shoot-up or drink one drug, many drugs, or no drugs matters not to me. It does not harm my body, my property, nor my rights. Therefore my neighbor, in the privacy of his own home, can do whatever he wants.
In other words, we should treat all drugs the same way we treat alcohol. You can drink yourself dead if that's what you want to do, but if you leave your home then you'll be restricted (arrested for drunkenly conduct or DUI).
Re:SMOKE (Score:5, Insightful)
I've seen all kinds of people on that show hooked on pain killers and other legal drugs, are you saying we are idiots for not adding them to the list of banned substances?
Bonus points if you can tell me how the joint I smoked last night affected your life or anyone around you, and why I deserve to be punished for that but the people at the bar don't.
It's funny when the ignorant start calling out the idiots.
Re:I wouldn't hold my breath (Score:2, Insightful)
...there is no such thing as a casual coke/heroine/meth user, only addicts. Once you do it, you don't stop.
It's saying a great deal when I can describe a phrase as "the most ill-informed and biased statement I have ever read on Slashdot."
Every person that seeks prescription pain medication is a casual heroin user. Every kid with an aderol 'scrip is a casual meth user.
I can't even count the number of casual coke users I've met. Powdered cocaine is a social drug driven largely by availability.
The sum of all problems (Score:1, Insightful)
I know people who do hard drugs (Cocaine, mostly), and I know a lot of people (actually, most of the people I know) who do illegal drugs in general (smoking dope, mostly). The only ones who ever had any issues due to their drugs were those who got caught.
The bad side of drugs are indeed mostly due to prohibition. Prohibition causes
Would making drugs legal solve all problems? No, of course not. Would it create new problems? Probably. Would the sum of all problems be lower? Most definitely.
Re:SMOKE (Score:2, Insightful)
So let me get this straight. You are advocating the murder of largely innocent people (believe it or not) because some wingnut who decided pot was illegal ordered you arrested? You have fucked up morals. Go read about Dr. King. You start with civil disobedience. The country is not so far gone yet that it doesn't work.
When it becomes clear (as in more than to just conspiracy theorists) that people are being murdered or 'disapeared' because of drug use (and no, the guy with a bad acid trip or using the black tar heroin that started shooting at police DOES NOT COUNT) then you can come to me speaking of starting a second civil war.
People like you are way to similar to the real terrorists. You have your idea, want it to be reality, and will kill anyone you perceive will hold you back. Meanwhile you cause harm to befall those with a similar idea to you even if it IS a reasonable idea.
In short, you are harming the cause and are part of the problem.
Re:I wouldn't hold my breath (Score:4, Insightful)
Making them easily available means that they are [...] not especially cool in any way
I think that's it. I can't imagine anyone here (in Amsterdam) nudging someone else, whispering "look what I got here" and surreptitiously showing a joint. The someone else would just shrug, wondering what the big deal was. There's no excitement, no sense of doing something "bad". Someone doing cannabis is not cool or a rebel, just a pothead.
I'm reminded of a story (don't know if it actually happened) of a university where the students made a sport of crashing the central computer system. Instead of draconian measures to reprimand the evil-doers the staff just installed a program called "crash" that did exactly what it promised: it crashed the computer. That took the challenge out of it, and there were no more crashes. Taking the "hey, look at me" out of something takes away a lot of the attraction.
Re:SMOKE (Score:1, Insightful)
And they make you feel like a criminal when you legitimately have a cold and need some of the pseudoephedrine because the other cold medicine isn't working. just give me the damn pseudoephedrine so i can breath, before i decide to jump the counter and strangle you for it! (ok that part probably makes me look like an addict and doesn't help my cause)
</rant>
Re:SMOKE (Score:5, Insightful)
>Think about that for a second. And watch shows like intervention. Anyone who still thinks that drug-related problems are caused by their prohibition is an idiot.
Counter argument: alcohol and tobacco. Of two drugs to have legal, these two are among the most dangerous and addictive there are. While many people die from their use, they have almost none of the problems that we associate with the 'hard' drugs. There are no gangs fighting turf wars over alcohol, and almost nobody killing themselves with dirty alcohol.
Some people can't handle any drugs, and some people can shoot heroin on the weekends and never have any kind of problem. Hell, most of the people I know who have tried meth have never had any trouble with it, besides legal troubles. Anyone looking at the costs associated with drugs has to admit that the cost of prohibition is far greater than their cost if they were legal.
Re:SMOKE (Score:3, Insightful)
All drug-related problems? No. We'll still have stupid people who want the drugs, and that's never going to change, whether it's legal or illegal. Some drug-related problems? Hell yes prohibition is causing that.
Prohibition is what has puts criminals in charge of the supply (leading to a wide variety of problems, everywhere from flying bullets to lack of quality control).
It's also causing us to spend public funds on the totally useless activity of arresting people involved with drugs for drugs. When someone gets arrested because of a marijuana plant in someone's back yard, society has just expended resources for the sole purpose of harming itself. We could be using those cops to go after people who harm other people, instead of using them to go after the innocent.
Re:SMOKE (Score:3, Insightful)
A recent study [abc.net.au] by a Australian university claims that intensive use of marijuana reduces brain size up to 20% (that's missing neurons).
I have to post as AC because most modders dislike this opinions (drug addition problems) and rate them as flamebait.
You don't HAVE to post a AC, you just did because you don't have the courage to stand up for your convictions.
A quick read of the article you linked to pointed out some problems with the "study":
1) The person conducting the study is "Professor Jon Currie [who] is the director of addiction medicine at St Vincent's Hospital in Melbourne". A professor of "addiction medicine" who wants people to stop doing drugs can hardly be considered an unbiased researcher.
2) The study size was only 15 which is considered way too small. Also, I doubt the sample was randomly selected, so most likely there is some selection bias going on. Did the people studied only include White people? Were any Black, Asian or Hispanics also studied? If not then the sample is definitely suffering from selection bias.
3) It does not sound like any MRIs were taken on those being studied before the study began. Without measuring the brains of those studied beforehand how can you state without a doubt that those studied had suffered from any brain shrinkage at all? Maybe those selected had shrunken brains before the study began and their brain sizes did not change very much if at all during the period in question.
4) If there was brain shrinkage how can you say it was due to cannabis? Did the 15 people studied also drink alcohol? Smoked tobacco products? Did cocaine? Did crystal meth? Did LSD? Did ecstasy? Abused prescription drugs? The article does not mention MRIs being taking on a non-drug-using control group either.
5) And last but not least, we have Slashdot mantra #1: CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION! This study may provide some correlation but that is about it. You cannot say there is any causation until similar studies show similar correlations. Even then if the supporting studies use small samples suffering from selection bias and no control groups then they would be just as useless as this study seems to be.
You should study a little statistics and examine these kinds of issues before you validate any studies that try to use statistics to "prove" anything...