Saturday Audience Participation
Drug war - good or bad? Legalize weed - is it really any worse than alcohol (NO)? Trade-off between freedoms and discouraging/outlawing personal behavior with potential far-reaching destructive consequences? Which should take precedence in constructing a societal value hierarchy? Chicken or the egg concerning drug war and violence?
Does convicting individual citizens for drug possession often act as a means for catching people who are engaging in other, worse criminal acts? Would the individuals involved in drug trafficking engage in parallel criminal behavior if drug use was legalized? Is drug use a motivator of bad behavior or merely a symptom for those who would behave badly regardless? Would drug use be less of a problem if traditional social deterrents, now absent in our "everything goes" culture, were still potent?
51 comments:
I am not a marijuana user, so pardon me if this suggestion is stupid, but why not make it legal to grow your own marijuana on your own property for your own use? I understand you can grow all you can use using special lighting on indoor plants. This avoids the whole issue of advertising, etc. if it were made legal.
Most proponents for weed legalization that I come across are potheads. That in itself is an argument for keeping it illegal.
Trade-off between freedoms and discouraging/outlawing personal behavior with potential far-reaching destructive consequences?
Most "far-reaching destructive consequences" come from prohibition itself. The Mexican state is falling apart because of the drug war, and Afghanistan remains in the 8th century because the Americans keep destroying the only productive drug they produce.
Drug junkies commit crimes only because drugs are so expensive, and they're expensive because their illegal. Drunks don't steal and pawn things to buy beer because all they need to do is to bum a few bucks. In Walter Block's book "Defending the Indefensible" he shows that there are many doctors who are addicted to heroin but since they have a cheap supply, we never hear about them committing crimes for their drug.
One commentator at Alternative Right points out that of the six or seven main side effects of heroin listed on Wikipedia (see the post "Liberty, Equality, Heroin") all but one or two are caused by drugs being illegal. For example, sharing needles may spread AIDs, when syringes could be produced legally very cheap.
Someone might say "With the welfare state, if drug use goes up, we'll have to pay for it." But we also have to pay for drug prohibition in the form of countless bureaucrats at the FBI and DEA, jailing for drug offenders (do you think it's cheaper to keep someone in jail and take care of all of his needs or only certain health care costs when they pop up?), etc.
Drug prohibition is societal madness, and you don't have to be a crazy libertarian to think so.
Drug prohibition is societal madness, and you don't have to be a crazy libertarian to think so.
If you see a once-promising kid become a retarded pothead you might reevaluate this insane statement.
One-year prison sentence for posession. Ten-year sentence for distributing to minors. Death penalty for large-scale trafficking or bringing drugs across the US border.
If you see a once-promising kid become a retarded pothead you might reevaluate this insane statement.
But aren't drugs illegal? How did this happen then?
I don't know if you're aware, but there was a time when all drugs were legal and their were much fewer, if any, potheads. People used to live in these units called "families" and children were financially dependent on "parents," who were able to decide what their kids did.
Death penalty for large-scale trafficking or bringing drugs across the US border.
Death penalty for anyone advocating the death penalty for "crimes" involving only consenting adults. (kidding, but really, what you propose is sick)
If I had my druthers, we'd legalize & tax weed and the hallucinogens. (If I were running for office, I'd leave out the hallucinogens since the public probably wouldn't understand.)
I'd figure out what tax rate would be equivalent to prohibition, meaning what rate would create a black market the size of what we have today. Useful information. Then I would set the tax rate (for starters) at half the Equivalent to Prohibition rate.
I hate the smell of weed and the way it robs people of their ambition, but I don't think its affects are all that bad. I wouldn't legalize smoking it anywhere tobacco is illegal; the "smoking in the boys' room" violations seem to be pretty rare even with all the new crackdowns on tobacco.
As for the other drugs, I'd:
- finish the border fence, make it high and secure, and do constant tunnel searches, and
- go after demand.
we live in a country where millions of kids are being made into amphetamine addicts by their parents and schools, millions of adults are amoral zombies because of antidepressants and the worst drug of all, alcohol, is pefectly legal
how ANYONE in this milieu maintains a position that pot, heroin, coke or meth are a unique evil whose USE needs punished by law is beyond me
alcohol is only legal because of its status as the traditional european intoxicant--if it was invented today it would have been banned immediately. drug were made illegal in the 20th century because of their association with blacks and communism--not because of their ill effects.
kidding, but really, what you propose is sick
Put it onto a perspective: some southeast Asian or Gulf countries have severe penalties for drug offences, and it seems to work.
If you say that we shouldn't emulate them because they are barbaric societies, I'll point to the fact that their anti-immigration and pro-business policies are something you'd probably approve of.
But aren't drugs illegal? How did this happen then?
The so-called war against drugs is waged half-ass. The war against insider trading and cld prn is waged with seriousness, and thus it's effective.
People used to live in these units called "families" and children were financially dependent on "parents," who were able to decide what their kids did.
You're pointing to a problem beyond the scope of this discussion. As it happens, families have their hands tied by certain structural problems of our society, so absent restoring family sovereignty, I support draconian drug-fighting measures.
the punishment for drug use should be in the form of it being an immediate AGGRAVATING FACTOR IN SENTENCING in the form of many many additional years. there is no constitutional basis for regulating the production or consumption of drugs, but if you rob a liquor store and test positive for meth--automatic 25 years added on to your sentence.
pa, how is it the governments job to stop ppl from becoming potheads? whom does it harm besides the couch in their parents basement?
Too many losers with no self control would turn the country into a hell hole like San Francisco.
Low ability folks have to have strong extrinsic forces to motivate them. There are few now. If they were all high, it would be even worse.
Legalizing drugs is a stupid idea when the underclass is already growing.
I would support legalization of drugs if the US had the same demographic profile as Holland or Germany.
But, you can't have legalized drugs when you have such a significant percentage of high-illegitimacy minorities - 13% black and 10% mestizo/indigenous.
If you thought that blacks are lazy and unmotivated now, just wait for legalization...
Someone might say "With the welfare state, if drug use goes up, we'll have to pay for it." But we also have to pay for drug prohibition in the form of countless bureaucrats at the FBI and DEA, jailing for drug offenders (do you think it's cheaper to keep someone in jail and take care of all of his needs or only certain health care costs when they pop up?), etc.
Personally I like idiots locked up even if the only charge they can get to stick is what folks call "minor". If these losers were on the street, they would be breeding more losers.
You guys say you believe in natural selection. Sometimes I wonder. Do not enable losers.
As it happens, families have their hands tied by certain structural problems of our society, so absent restoring family sovereignty, I support draconian drug-fighting measures.
There's still enough family sovereignty for parents to get minors to do whatever they want.
All a parent has to say is
"I legally have to provide you with enough food not to starve, shelter and clothing, so do what I say or you get nothing more than 2,000 calories a day in bread and milk, a closet for a room and one pair of underwear and a shirt until you do what I say. If you think that's 'abuse' have fun in foster care."
Parents still have 100% control over their children, it's just that they've become too weak and feminized to use it.
HBD Talk has the right idea on marijuana legalization. Legalization of pot would be a boon for society as a whole.
- domestic job growth in the production, distribution, and marketing of both weed and hemp
- well suited to be planted on marginal farmland (more efficient use of finite resource)
- less gang warfare as turf becomes less valuable
- fewer opportunities for law enforcement corruption
- fewer demands on law enforcement resources
- fewer prisoners in jail thus less taxpayer expense
- improves balance of trade (fewer imports from Mexico; greater export opportunities)
- decreases the size of the black market thus expanding the tax base
- less illegal immigration (Mexico's economy is constrained by the threat of violence by narcos. Some fear for their lives and flee to the U.S. or Canada (middle & upper class). For others protection money turns a marginal business into a money loser (lower class). Marijuana is the primary source of revenue for the Mexican cartels. Legalizing weed would be a massive blow to them.
PA is also correct that the weed legalization would also should result in more consumption marijuana consumption (lower price, better availability, better quality, no legal risk). As a result more individuals would wind up as worthless potheads (smaller or less productive work force)but this would be a self inflicted wound by the individuals. Of course marijuana taxes should in part be used to fight dependency issues.
Based on the fact that weed was legal for over a century and that organized crime was weakened after the end of Prohibition it seems pretty clear that marijuana legalization would be a net public good.
Besides wouldn't you rather have Altria or RJR take make money in weed than a bunch of murderous Mexican thugs.
"Parents still have 100% control over their children, it's just that they've become too weak and feminized to use it."
70% of kids in some underclass groups are born illegitimate. So yeah, just a mom.
"Parents still have 100% control over their children, it's just that they've become too weak and feminized to use it."
70% of kids in some underclass groups are born illegitimate. So yeah, just a mom.
"(marijuana as a gateway to other drugs) "Analysis of the demographic and social characteristics of a large sample of applicants seeking approval to use marijuana medically in California supports an interpretation of long term non problematic use by many who had first tried it as adolescents, and then either continued to use it or later resumed its use as adults. In general, they have used it at modest levels and in consistent patterns which anecdotally-often assisted their educational achievement, employment performance, and establishment of a more stable life-style. These data suggest that rather than acting as a gateway to other drugs, (which many had also tried), cannabis has been exerting a beneficial influence on most." -
Source: Thomas J O'Connell and Ché B Bou-Matar, "Long term marijuana users seeking medical cannabis in California (2001–2007).
(marijuana and safety) The DEA's Administrative Law Judge, Francis Young concluded: "In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume. For example, eating 10 raw potatoes can result in a toxic response. By comparison, it is physically impossible to eat enough marijuana to induce death. Marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within the supervised routine of medical care."
Really? the DEA guy is for it? Awesome!
I care about this topic because I am the caretaker for my partner's medical marijuana grow. We aren't criminals nor do we have a problem with getting off the couch. My partner has a genetic disease (EDS) that causes chronic pain. (No, not erectile dysfunction)I have taken care of him while on the state's pain management program (pills) and now I care for him with the state's medical marijuana program.
The ability to use this plant as a medicine has given my partner the freedom to GET OFF THE COUCH.
And let's look at those pothead criminals that you all seem to want to hide your Twinkies from.
"Of those charged with marijuana violations, approximately 89 percent, 738,915 Americans were charged with possession only. The remaining 90,710 individuals were charged with "sale/manufacture," a category that includes all cultivation offenses, even those where the marijuana was being grown for personal or medical use."
So the biggest thing we have to fear from these criminals is that they have some and grow some? SCARY!
(marijuana and safety) The DEA's Administrative Law Judge, Francis Young concluded: "In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume. For example, eating 10 raw potatoes can result in a toxic response. By comparison, it is physically impossible to eat enough marijuana to induce death. Marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within the supervised routine of medical care."
Really? the DEA guy is for it? Awesome!
I care about this topic because I am the caretaker for my partner's medical marijuana grow. We aren't criminals nor do we have a problem with getting off the couch. My partner has a genetic disease (EDS) that causes chronic pain. (No, not erectile dysfunction)I have taken care of him while on the state's pain management program (pills) and now I care for him with the state's medical marijuana program.
The ability to use this plant as a medicine has given my partner the freedom to GET OFF THE COUCH.
And let's look at those pothead criminals that you all seem to want to hide your Twinkies from.
"Of those charged with marijuana violations, approximately 89 percent, 738,915 Americans were charged with possession only. The remaining 90,710 individuals were charged with "sale/manufacture," a category that includes all cultivation offenses, even those where the marijuana was being grown for personal or medical use."
So the biggest thing we have to fear from these criminals is that they have some and grow some? SCARY!
Of all the doctors we have seen, not one has ever said one bad word about marijuana, to the contrary, they have ALL recommended it. Why is that? Are you saying they were apt enough to become doctors but too stupid to know that prescribing marijuana would turn us into lazy criminal junkies?
Oh yeah, and guns kill people too
I added a bunch of questions pertinent to the discussion in the comment thread so far.
First, PA et al that characterize marijuana user = retarded pothead - must have a very narrow spectrum of experience. The professional classes are replete with marijuana users that are no less compromised intellectually than social drinkers.
If we think that we live in a society that is best served by allowing its members to freely choose their retirement investments, health care expenditures, etc - why shouldn't they be free to choose regarding marijuana - as they are with alcohol?
It strikes me as odd that any member of the intellectual class that typically advocates personal responsibility and rational choice would be so incongruously paternalistic about drugs.
I don't drink alcohol, or even coffee for that matter. I, and especially the government, do not have the right to tell someone what they can or cannot put into their own body.
The war on drugs has been an absolute failure.
I would have absolutely no problem with the immediate and complete ending of the war on drugs. Give all those DEA agents a chance to go out and get real jobs.
All non-violent drug offenders should be given full pardons, immediately released from incarceration, and paid reparations for their time served. Reparations that should be paid out of the pensions plans of DEA agents.
Turn all drugs into controlled substances. Make it so can't buy it if you're under 18, punishments from driving under the influence and other things that are actually illegal, then place any local sales taxes on the sale of drugs, and be done with it.
I would have no issues whatsoever if someone were to walk into their local Wal-Mart, Target, Kmart, or any other grocery store from sea to shining sea, and walked out with a cartload of Pot, PCP, Heroin, LSD, or any other drug that is now currently illegal.
All the logical arguments are in favor or legalization. Yes, it's hypocritical. Yes, the war on drugs is costly. But what this ignores is reality.
Legalization isn't a problem in a country with an average IQ of 120, but that's not America.
You have no idea what the world is like to an 85 IQ person. Their minds are far too feeble to handle mind-altering drugs.
We couldn't maintain any sense of societal control with the left tail of the curve constantly blazed.
It gives the police an easy excuse to monitor the criminal element. A little paternalism is more important than a lot of hypocrisy.
Since we can not predict the magnitude of various effects of legalization we should let some smaller industrialized country legalize first and then watch for 10 years.
My guess is marijuana will:
- pull more teens down a low ambition, low accomplishment path.
- On the bright side, the lazy failures won't remember what bigger ambitions they once harbored.
- economic growth will slow even more than it has already.
- incidence of lung cancer and other cancers will rise after a couple of decades.
- the incidence of schizophrenia will rise.
- more will move on to cocaine and heroin.
Will legalization of marijuana raise or lower violence?
Will the lower IQ people on marijuana commit more or fewer crimes?
I can see arguments both ways:
- Stoners will be too lazy to commit crimes. Or they'll forget they meant to get up the next day and rob a convenience store.
- Stoners will need to rob to compensate for forgetting to work.
"All non-violent drug offenders should be given full pardons, immediately released from incarceration, and paid reparations for their time served."
Are you high? Plenty of these "non-violent" offenders are plenty violent. The cops just didn't have the evidence to get them on the violent crime. So, the prosecutor pursued the charges he could make stick. While these folks are in there, they aren't committing more crimes, including violent crimes and property crimes.
"- Stoners will be too lazy to commit crimes. Or they'll forget they meant to get up the next day and rob a convenience store.
- Stoners will need to rob to compensate for forgetting to work."
How about - Stoners will forget to use birth control.
Are you high? Plenty of these "non-violent" offenders are plenty violent. The cops just didn't have the evidence to get them on the violent crime. So, the prosecutor pursued the charges he could make stick. While these folks are in there, they aren't committing more crimes, including violent crimes and property crimes.
You're right. When the government can't prove people did anything, it needs the power of made up laws so it can put them in jail anyway. Yup.
Marijuana is already ubiquitous... so we have an idea what our country would look like were it legalized.
It's impossible to square con rants about personal responsiblity with this obsession. Any argument cons make about state's rights or limiting govt based on a preference for freedom sounds ad hoc when one knows that most cons prefer DEA raids in CA on medical marijuana dispensaries to legalization. Cons, admit that you're as malicious and unprincipled as the libs!
FuturePundit: "Since we can not predict the magnitude of various effects of legalization we should let some smaller industrialized country legalize first and then watch for 10 years."
You mean like Holland.
Future Pundit said:
"- incidence of lung cancer and other cancers will rise after a couple of decades."
You might want to look into this one a bit, as it is not founded in fact.
Myth: Marijuana is More Damaging to the Lungs Than Tobacco. Marijuana smokers are at a high risk of developing lung cancer, bronchitis, and emphysema.
Fact: Moderate smoking of marijuana appears to pose minimal danger to the lungs. Like tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke contains a number of irritants and carcinogens. But marijuana users typically smoke much less often than tobacco smokers, and over time, inhale much less smoke. As a result, the risk of serious lung damage should be lower in marijuana smokers. There have been no reports of lung cancer related solely to marijuana, and in a large study presented to the American Thoracic Society in 2006, even heavy users of smoked marijuana were found not to have any increased risk of lung cancer. Unlike heavy tobacco smokers, heavy marijuana smokers exhibit no obstruction of the lung's small airway. That indicates that people will not develop emphysema from smoking marijuana.
Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. “Legalization: Panacea or Pandora’s Box.” New York. (1995): 36.
Turner, Carlton E. The Marijuana Controversy. Rockville: American Council for Drug Education, 1981.
Discussions like this remind me that very few people have any sort of coherent ideological political philosophy.
There are certain topics, like hippies being arrested without cause at protests or this issue, that turn the average "small government conservative" into state boot lickers in the blink of an eye.
It's moments like this that I thank liberals for the fact we have any rights at all because most conservatives don't give a shit about personal rights (excluding libertarians, but there are few of them).
What is the attraction to drugs and alcohol?
I don't get it.
What is the attraction to drugs and alcohol?
The desire to achieve altered states of consciousness, also known as peak experiences, is a human universal.
They can be achieved through drugs or alcohol, and through other means (workouts, prayer, meditation, artistic creativity, music, etc)
A Liberal is a Conservative Who's Been Arrested
The "drug laws are good because it gives the state an excuse to lock up niggers" comments are quite frankly scary. It shows a complete trust in the police that is unfounded.
You can scratch a cop and find a fascist. They will be emboldened by the arbitrary power they hold and will be able to grow it into something that will infringe on you and yours.
The key question is: which drugs are alpha, which are beta and which are omega? We ban all the omega ones, tax the beta ones, and make the alpha male ones mandatory. I’ll get this started...
Alpha: Alcohol (it’s so Don Draper), cigarettes at a jaunty angle, PCP
Beta: Steroids, Coffee (they’re both about supplicating to females, by looking buff or being productive)
Omega: Pot, meth (they’re so prole)
Aloofly masculine,
Sexy Pterodactyl
"Does convicting individual citizens for drug possession often act as a means for catching people who are engaging in other, worse criminal acts?"
Yes, without question. I'm a big believer in Rudy Giuliani's thinking on this - when you get people for small crimes, you prevent big ones. And it's a lot easier to catch people for selling drugs than for committing murder, if for no other reason than that drug sales occur more often.
"Is drug use a motivator of bad behavior or merely a symptom for those who would behave badly regardless?"
Both. I'm not a libertarian, so I don't have a problem with the state guiding the young, as well as weak-minded adults, away from behaviors that are detrimental to both them and to the rest of society.
HBD Talk said "...and Afghanistan remains in the 8th century because the Americans keep destroying the only productive drug they produce."
If you think that Afghanistan wasn't in the 8th century before any Americans showed up there, then you know nothing about Afghanistan.
"Someone might say "With the welfare state, if drug use goes up, we'll have to pay for it." But we also have to pay for drug prohibition in the form of countless bureaucrats..."
How can you be sure that the costs of enforcement outweigh the costs of increased drug use? I'm not sure of that at all. Think of all the medical expenses for young people who would have otherwise been perfectly healthy. Think of all the lost human potential, of all the mooching off relatives and off the state by people who could have otherwise been productive, who could have made something of themselves, maybe could have even experienced what it's like to be active, respected and hopeful.
I've never seen a defense of drug use that wasn't written by half-literate individuals. Of alcoholism - yes, of illegal drugs - never. I think that that by itself is a useful piece of info. The exact breakdown between the the congenitally dim and the chemically-damaged in their ranks is unknown to me, but whatever it is, I believe that their usual writing (and thinking) style is an instance of truth in advertising.
"But aren't drugs illegal? How did this happen then?"
It is never the purpose of laws to eliminate punishable activities. That's impossible to do with murder, with jaywalking or with anything in between. The purpose of laws is to make punishable activities rarer by making them more difficult to accomplish. Drug laws serve their purpose by making drug use rarer than it would have been otherwise.
"...and the worst drug of all, alcohol, is pefectly legal"
Do you really believe that alcohol is the worst drug of all? How can anyone honestly say that? It's pretty bad on some populations, though never as bad as hard drugs. It's not even a problem for most of the rest of humanity.
"Discussions like this remind me that very few people have any sort of coherent ideological political philosophy."
Straw man argument. For some reason you've imagined that the only ideologically-consistent positions are "small government" and "big government".
Big on law and order, small on most other things - how is that not a coherent position? Law and order and defense are completely unlike everything else that modern governments do. The justifications for them are completely different from the justifications for the welfare state. So yes, one can be for one and not the other while being consistent.
Glossy: "I've never seen a defense of drug use that wasn't written by half-literate individuals. Of alcoholism - yes, of illegal drugs - never."
Find a copy of Jacob Sullum's book, "Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use." He offers a literate and, I'd say rather compelling, case for legalizing drugs. His basic argument is that we shouldn't worry about increased use of drugs, but increased abuse, and that most people who will abuse them are probably doing that under the current regime anyway.
I'm surprised no one here has quoted the Godfather's wisdom regarding drugs yet:
"In my city, we'd keep the traffic in the dark people, the colored. They’re animals anyway so let them lose their souls."
Glossy needs to go find a copy of the PBS show "Firing Line", titled "The War on Drugs has failed" or something similar to that. That debate was held over 20 years ago and the conclusions have not changed; if there's any change in the literacy of the advocated for legalization, it's due to the general slide in educational standards.
And at the end of this argument we still have a country with a 1/3 NAM population.
Just wait until the 80 IQ Mestizo/Indigenous anchor baby children start coming of age in 2030 and beyond. They're already going to drag down US standards in education and require far more social services and incarceration than the white population they're replacing... and they won't have the strong work ethic of their original border jumper parents.
Yeah, legalization would do wonders for them...
Marijuana and cancer: Well I can rather quickly find credible-sounding research reports that find a connection.
WELLINGTON, New Zealand, Jan. 29 -- Smoking a single marijuana joint may be as carcinogenic to the lung as 20 tobacco cigarettes, researchers here determined.
Double testicular cancer risk from smoking pot.
Makes sense that a smoke that contains carcinogens would cause cancer.
The Secret of NAM,
Ubiquitous marijuana: So then you are suggesting that the obvious signs of decay in America are due to too much pot smoking? How do you separate the effects of toking from NAM population growth or neocon foreign policy or other things that are going wrong?
Modest proposal on drug legalization: You've got to maintain a minimum yearly income and medical insurance to be able to legally toke.
Like say someone is making $100k per year. They are definitely net taxpayers with rare exceptions. So let them run the risk of becoming lazy. If their income drops below, say, $75k then they've got to stop toking or get arrested.
To underscore my point: We've got too many people who are net drags on society. My main objection to drug legalization is it will produce more parasites, not less.
I do not buy the libertarian argument for legalization. I do not see the libertarians as running a realistic model of human nature. So their conclusions are suspect in my mind.
Saint Louis,
Has Holland really legalized pot in the entire country?
Letting people stupid enough to overuse drugs to their own detriment would be okay if we didn't at once have to also pay for social services to fix what they do to themselves. Would we also be funding university departments in Addiction Studies that would blame us for the drugged up idiots?
No one cares if regular folks get high quietly at home. We wouldn't even know because it would be done privately. But no, there will be drug boutiques and advertisements for such and kids will be exposed etc. It is a losing proposition for a society.
Future Pundit,
Technically pot isn't legal in Holland, but it might as well be. They have a stated and practiced policy of tolerance for personal amounts. Coffeeshops (which don't actually sell coffee, of course) are technically illegal as well yet they are common and conspicuous (several on each block in certain districts of Amsterdam and Utrecht with large signs out front).
Don't get me wrong. I'm not a fanatic; I can see the downsides of legalizing drugs, especially when there are high levels of certain populations. But I think it's debatable whether or not these outweigh the positives.
Also, maybe some problematic populations will be less so if they can just get their fix cheaply and legally and stay home in their drug-induced hazes.
TV is America's drug problem, not reefer.
The War on Drugs is the single most destructive policy in the history of government. Undoing that mistake will take a lot of careful moves and gradual reduction in the punitive measures that have generated a networks of traffickers and a created an industry of law inforcement.
Glossy: “And it's a lot easier to catch people for selling drugs than for committing murder, if for no other reason than that drug sales occur more often.”
Have you stopped to think that drug dealing is the leading cause for murder? Why would gangs kill eachother if there wasn’t this under-ground economy to fight over.
I think we need to distinguish between relatively harmless drugs-- marijuana, mushrooms, LSD, and peyote--and the big three: cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine.
I would favor legalization of the first class of drugs, but not the second. The stimulants and the opiates are simply too addictive and, if you doubt that, then I invite you to try cocaine for yourself.
The total impact of legalization will be mild because, while the drug war certainly carries its own costs, most of the trouble is fueled by the trade in cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin.
The major benefit would be creating a legal and social chasm between the use of hard drugs like marijuana and harder substances. Most young people who do illegal drugs start out with marijuana. A youngster who would ordinarily never think of trying something like cocaine and heroin experiments with marijuana, finds out that the dangers have been hyped, and then begins to suspect the dangers of hard drugs have been exaggerated. Making the situation worse, the same crowd that can get you marijuana will often include people who can get you other substances like cocaine and meth.
Eventually, some of these people find themselves with a real drug abuse problem. Curiosity kills the cat. We need to separate the sale of marijuana and the hallucinogens from the market for hard drugs by legalizing the Mickey Mouse stuff.
Marijuana ruins judgment. All psychedelic drugs do this. No need for prison, just disenfranchise the users. Drug dealers in general should be treated like murderers.
1) People with heavy-duty drug habits cannot hold down jobs. Junkies are not robbing people and begging because drugs are too expensive. Junkies are doing so because they are unemployable.
2) We do not live in a society that allows people to destroy themselves.
3) You will not see the price of drugs go down because product liability laws will discourage law-abiding people from selling. The remaining will be dealt with by the current gangs who will monopolize the industry.
4) Drugs are physical pieces of evidence that can be used to put away a murderer.
Post a Comment