# A way to work around federal drug laws? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 4, 2003, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-way-to-work-around-federal-drug-laws/205616 "2003-10-04T22:59:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Yookeroo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yookeroo/32/323_2.png) [@Yookeroo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yookeroo)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2003, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-way-to-work-around-federal-drug-laws/205616/21 "2003-10-07T06:27:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Joel \* > \*\*I have no knowledge firsthand, or otherwise, about Marijuana VS alcohol, so I can’t give an informed opinion. Also, something that makes it hard for me to make a judgment on Marijuana is that, I bet that (and yes, this is just a guess on my part) a lot of people who are against legalizing it, see nothing wrong with frequenting bars and stocking your fridge with beer or wine, or whatever, and it does bug me about the double standard of, getting drunk is OK, getting high isn’t. > So, I can’t on the one hand, say that legal alcohol is OK, but pot, if, like people claim, which is only as bad, or even slightly better, should be illegal. \*\* Pot is probably a lot more than “slightly better” than alcohol. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Joel \* > \*\*On the other hand, I have no problem saying that the other, hard core drugs should be legal, because they are far worse than alcohol. \*\* Are they “far worse” than alcohol? I’m not so sure of that. There probably aren’t too many drugs that are as prone to abuse as alcohol. ---
**Author:** ![neutron\_star](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/51bf81/32.png) [@neutron\_star](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/neutron_star)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2003, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-way-to-work-around-federal-drug-laws/205616/22 "2003-10-07T14:53:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Joel \* > **I’ve heard that Holland, that because of their lax drug laws, is strewn with junkies.** So wait - decriminalizing marijuana somehow increases the usage of hard drugs that are still illegal in Holland? Neither do I follow that logic, nor do I see how what is apparently an article about travel, devoid of statistics of any kind, supports this assertion. [Drug usage rates in the Netherlands](http://www.emcdda.org/multimedia/publications/national_reports/NRnetherlands_2000.PDF) (PDF). According to the charts on page 24, 0.3% of persons 12 and older tried heroin in their lifetime. Rates in the united states [aren’t quite so low](http://www.health.org/govpubs/RPo919/): > [@](#): > > Data from the 1996 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA) conservatively show that there were approximately 2.4 million persons who used heroin at least once in their lifetime and approximately 455 thousand people who used heroin at least once in the past year.8 To partially account for underestimation by the NHSDA due to underreporting and undercoverage, an adjustment based on counts of arrests and treatment data resulted in estimates of 2.9 million lifetime users and 663 thousand past year users. 2.9 million lifetime users would make over 1% of the population. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2003, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-way-to-work-around-federal-drug-laws/205616/23 "2003-10-10T05:50:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mangetout \* > \*\*double jeopardy doesn’t prevent you from being arrested/tried for further instances of the same or simlar crimes. \*\* The idea would be that a person would pay the $.01 cent fine for _every_ violation of marijuana laws. > [@](#): > > The Feds can prosecute you for the same act because they are a different sovereign. It would not be considered double jeopardy. They often do that when they don’t like the result of a state trial. The cops of Rodney King fame were prosecuted later by the Feds for “infringing on his civil rights”. Do you have a cite for that? IIRC, the cops were charged under the argument that it was somehow a “different” act. Joel > [@](#): > > Victimless? No man (or woman) is an island. What we do affects other people. If drugs were legalized, or decriminalized, the amount of users would go up, and that would affect a lot more people than just the user. Being affected and being victimized are two completely different things. “The loss of one diminishes us all” so I’m a murder victim? I don’t think so. > [@](#): > > I’ve heard that Holland, that because of their lax drug laws, is strewn with junkies. And… what? Are they causing problems? Or are you saying that drugs should be illegal so that we don’t have to look at unpleasent sights? ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2003, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-way-to-work-around-federal-drug-laws/205616/24 "2003-10-10T08:13:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Joel \* > **So, we’d be better off with more drug users?** We’d be better off with safer drugs and less drug-related crime. > [@](#): > > **With alcohol you have to drink a certain amount before getting drunk. With LSD, cocaine, heroin, and so on it affects you instantly. Of course, as far as pot is concerned, I don’t know if that’s the case, or, if like alcohol, you can smoke a certain amount, and still be sober.** You’re affected to a certain extent depending on the amount you consume - which is really true of all drugs. The only difference is the amount. You might get a buzz (i.e. slight intoxication) from one drink, but you wouldn’t be falling down drunk. Likewise, after one hit of pot you might not be “sober”, but you probably aren’t significantly impaired either. You may be able to take an SAT or safely operate machinery after one drink or one hit. ---
**Author:** ![Fillepe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/898d66/32.png) [@Fillepe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fillepe)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2003, 9:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-way-to-work-around-federal-drug-laws/205616/25 "2003-10-10T09:45:42Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by_ \*\* Mr2001\*\* > We’d be better off with safer drugs and less drug-related crime. Ain’t that the truth, here in New Zealand we have a rapidly growing meth-amphetamine problem. _Partly_ this has come about through gangs selling cannibis that offer discounted meth when someone comes in to buy a “foil” of cannibis. If cannibis were sold legally in cafe’s or similar establishments then this link to hard drugs would not have come about. Not to mention the extra revenue that legalising marijuana would generate from taxes. I will also mention that this would provide a form of quality control and the ability to regulate the strength. As for America I can never see any form of drug being legalised, what I do think needs to be changed is the penalties for possesion and sale of marijuana. To think that someone could go to jail for 20 years just for possesing an ounce of cannibis. Punishments like the above are ruining lives over just having a puff. In New Zealand you might get a year or so at the most. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-way-to-work-around-federal-drug-laws/205616.md?page=1)