Drug Legalization

Great Debates
41

The drug war will not end. This isn’t because drugs are bad. I think most of the world is over that kick. It isn’t because drug users are bad. We all, if not personally tried, know someone who has. Granted, I’ve met some people who took drugs over the edge, but I’ve met people who have taken religion over the edge too. Guess which one was having the better time?

Still, the drug war cannot end. What you’re looking at are government-funded Luddites(metaphor here). We’re talking a huge job market change. All the losers at the DEA would need to perform some actual service besides stopping free enterprise (i.e.-selling a product to people that want to buy it). Secondly, we’d have to admit that crime doesn’t justify the expenditure in law enforcement. We’d be eliminating a large portion of legal offenders and the courts and jails would have a better time of it. The worst part would be that police officers would need to find a new excuse for excessive speed traps (as opposed to patrolling neighboorhoods and such to keep true criminals away) than “It gives us a means to assess the driver, smell pot smoke, etc.” Only in America, land of the free, can you be punished before you actually did anything.

Besides putting an entire government agency out of work, how else are they supposed to steal money if not by busting wealthy drug dealers or confiscating their weapons?

…uh, I’ve completely lost where I was going with this.

42

That’s a silly argument. Cars have a useful purpose beyond drunk driving. So drunk driving should be outlawed, but not driving altogether.

Sunspace asks «if decriminalization of these drugs is so popular, and has been popular for at least a generation, why has it not occurred?»

I think the answer is, in part, that drug legalization is not that popular. Many people still believe that drugs should be illegal and drug dealers sent to prison. (Remember that opinions on the internet in general and the SDMB in particular are not an unbiased sample of the USA population). 40% of the people voting said no to California Proposition 36, which stated that non-violent drug offenders would receive probation and court-supervised treatment services. Drug legalization would presumably have many more opponents.

From GALLUP POLL TOPICS: Illegal Drugs:


Do you think the use of marijuana should be made legal, or not?

[BASED ON -- 505 -- NATIONAL ADULTS IN FORM A; ± 7 PCT. PTS.]
                    Yes, legal    No, illegal  No opinion
2000 Aug 29-Sep 5      31            64           5

Do you think the possession of small amounts of marijuana
should or should not be treated as a criminal offense?
[BASED ON -- 507 -- NATIONAL ADULTS IN FORM B; ± 7 PCT. PTS.]
                      Yes, treated as a      No, not treated      No
                      criminal offense        as a criminal    opinion
                                                 offense
2000 Aug 29-Sep 5            51                    47             2

aynrandlover, I don’t see how your argument holds. Following that line of reasoning, the 21st amendment to the US constitution (the amendment that put an end to prohibition) would never have passed. I believe, as I mentioned above, that the reason many of these drug laws are still in existence is because they have a support of a large segment of the US population.
(edited to prevent a large text block forcing horizontal scrolling)

[Edited by Arnold Winkelried on 11-20-2000 at 12:19 PM]

43

Well, these numbers are rather close, but the polling info is still moot. If the past two weeks have taught us anything, it’s that there are plenty of other factors besides popular opinion and rationality that dictate political policy.

44

To answer a previous poster, yes, the government has analyzed the costs/benefits of tobacco, and it turns out that smoking yields a net profit to the governemnt> The answer stems from the fact that smokers die around 13 years earlier than non-smokers, so the govt. saves 13 years of SS, Medicaid, etc. Rather cynical, but perhaps cigarette smoking OUGHT to be encouraged !

45

jumblemind, sorry it took me so long to get back to the board.

You are refering to “marijuana maintenance” to get off other drugs or alcohol. Lots of people have tried it over the years. In my experience, if you are a real alcoholic, you should stay away from any substance that “affects you from the neck up.” I have not seen a case in 10 years where an alcoholic who smoked pot instead of drinking didn’t go back to drinking and the hard stuff eventually. Maybe I just don’t know enough people. For me, all drugs that affect my perception (including pot), I avoid, because it would be too easy to start down the justification road, which will kill me (it’s only pot, it’s only beer, it’s only speed, it’s only LSD, it’s only …).

Frankly, just because I don’t agree with it doesn’t mean it doesn’t work. My perspective is that of someone in recovery who WANTS to be sober. If I was a junkie who just didn’t want to do heroin, I might just smoke pot ('though I can’t imagine weed would do anything for me at that point!).

Oh and pohjonen, loved your poem :rolleyes: .

46

**

Except that opium had been used in China since at least the 10th Century. “Opium was well known in Chinese antiquity. One 10th Century poem celebrates how the opium poppy can be made into a ‘drink fit for Buddah.’” There was already some demand for opium before the British arrived.

Marc

47

From the DEA website I find that they have collected over 593 million dollars since 1986. I was unclear about whether or not this was estimated street value of the drugs confisated or dollars seized in addition to drugs. Either way it lends itself to two different arguments for legalization.

  1. We’re obviously not getting anywhere. Drugs are here to stay. The only reason to keep them illegal is to allow fascist laws to be passed (extreme there, yes, I know).
  2. There are so few drug users that it does not warrant a nationwide act to fight it. So far, in the fourteen years, the DEA has not succeeded in stopping drug use. This is because there are more small-scale operations than large ones, which do not lend themselves to getting caught.

I agree with 1 more than 2. I think the number of drug users is much larger than could ever be caught. Anti-drug campaigns do little to stop kids from using it because when they know someone who uses drugs or experiments themselves they find it is not the evil thing they were told. Not suprisingly, I’m sure.

“If we change just one kid…” This is, by far, the worst excuse I’ve ever heard for continuing a failed agenda. If IBM only made on good computer, or if Intel only made one good processor, or if grocery stores only had one stocked item that wasn’t rotten, none of these companies could stay in business. And yet our tax dollars provide funding for just such a program.

I don’t feel that all drug use is good, per say, but I do not feel it is the threat it is made out to be.

Arnold, I also find your logic a bit twisted. So often I find people fall back to “majority rules” stances on a wide variety of topics, and I can only think of Miller’s The Crucible. The smallest minority is not the fag, or the kike, or whoever, it is the individual. In a time where minorities are starting to be treated, finally, as equals, we find the old standby still in effect. Drug users are a minority who feel that their pleasure is not something that can, or should, be regulated. For a feel of what the minority of the individual is like, perhaps we should all reread George Orwell’s 1984.

As well, drug use is mainly a no-fault crime; i.e.-it is a crime in and of itself, not because of its consequences. Owning a knife is not a crime; murder is. Lying is not a crime; lying under oath is. Drug use is a crime, the end. Drug users are punished before they commit a crime against another person. This seems to be a terrible miscarriage of justice, regardless of whether or not “the majority opinion” feels drug use is a bad thing in itself.

Anyway…

48

aynrandlover, I suppose I should have been more clear. I am not saying that I’m in favour of the criminalization of drug use! I’m saying that the reason it’s still legal in the USA, IMHO, is partly because the majority of the population in this country favours laws that make drug use a crime. One can argue on the justness of laws reflecting the will of the majority or the will of a select minority, but that’s a different discussion altogether.

I personally support the repeal of drug laws and think that a better policy would be to encourage educational efforts to prevent addiction.

49

Puddlegum-

If drugs were legalized, there would be far less demand for crack and heroin. Some people would still use them, but most folks would use far less addicting, less refined forms of the drugs, such as cocaine (trouble enough in itseld), laudnum, or even crude opium or coca-leaf tea.

A major reason for the use of highly refined drugs, such as crack, is that they take up less space and are easier to smuggle. Or carry in your pocket if you’re selling on the streed.

If cocaine were legal, crack, in all probability, would not have been invented. There would have been no need, as it would not have been necessary to create a form of cocaine that could be carried and sold by the dose in highly compact form.

And yes, I do think that most people would learn to use drugs in a controlled fashion. As the situation stands, only a minority of people who use drugs become hard core addicts. The emergency room horror stories we hear are a minority of addicts. If you work in an emergency room you’re not seeing the broad spectrum, you’re only seeing the worst-case scenario. You’re seeing what can happen, not what usually does.

Also, the desparation factor would be removed. You’d probably be less inclined to use a drug daily (I’m thinking of pot here) if you knew that you could walk to the corner store and get it. You wouldn’t constantly be looking to score, wouldn’t constantly be scoring, and therefore wouldn’t always have it in the house available to smoke.

50

i tend to think that the War on Drugs has caused more users than prevented. All this “just say no” and D.A.R.E. only peakes the interests of kids. if you want to deter them, leave ignorant, in the dark, oh wait i wouldn’t want to give them any ideas. I have never heard of it being a factor in the decision to buy, sell, or use. There’s always “i don’t want to get caught”, so everyone’s just a little more careful. The War on Drugs is a overfunded program which just looks good on plenty of politicians resumes when they’re trying to get elected: “i’ve supported the War on Drugs, and under me we will continue to fight and win!”, or some such blither.

Marijuana might get fully legalized in our lifetimes, if that prop in alaska had passed, i would have said definitely. And having spent time in alaska, i think there’s a good chance i will pass within the next ten years. Possibly something like that here in new mexico. The only reason why Gov. Gary Johnson spoke out here for the legalization of marijuana is that he knows that about 80% (my own best guess) of the population smokes. At least over fifty percent.

Total legalization? Very doubtful. Besides, isn’t half the fun getting it? If you could go up to your local convienience store and grab you a 12 pack, a pack of smokes, an ounce of pot, and a little ten bag of coke, where would the fun be in that?

and my two final thoughts are that a) drugs haven’t been legalized because dopers don’t have the money to pay off their congressperson and their vote (they spent it all on drugs!) and b) as far as polls go, no one ever asked me.

51

Where’s the fun in 1 to 5 in the state pen(along with possibilty of being some bad mans girlfriend), a felony conviction on your record that will disqualify you from many jobs, and the loss of voting rights(?) and status in the community?

52

When I was a teenager it was far easier to get pot than alcohol. Alcohol required finding someone who was 21 (which seemed ancient to me back then) to go get it for me from the closest liquor store, which was 6 miles away. There was one bootlegger in my town, but he was pretty picky about who he would sell to and lived in one of the worst parts of town. I personally knew about a half-dozen people who would sell me pot, though, most within walking distance. I had access to harder drugs as well, but I had no interest in them.

I think legalization and control of the drug market would drastically reduce the accessibility of these drugs to children and teenagers.

53

I agree with Badtz Maru on this. When I was nineteen or twenty, I scored from sixteen and seventeen year olds on more than one occasion. (I hung with a crowd that ranged in age from sixteen to thirty)Legalization would definitely make it harder for the kiddies to get.

Oh, by the way, MGibson, thanks for the link. Very interesting info.

54

Thea- interesting comments about crack vs. cocaine- I assume you are referring to podwer form. The “invention” of crack was not because of a need for a portable form of the drug- a bindle of blow is perfectly concealable damn near anywhere. The high from smoking crack is very different from snorting powdered cocaine, and that;s why people smoke it. Crack is merely the TV dinner version of what we used to call freebase. The ability to “rock it up” yourself was once highly prized; now, someone else does it for you and you just light up.

And the idea that people would “learn” to use hard drugs wisely is ridiculous. There is no such thing as a recreational heroin user. Addictive drugs create addicts. The scenes in emergency rooms may not be representative of all addicts’ situations. Most of them won’t go to a hospital, or their friends won’t take them, for fear of arrest.

55

"Also, the desparation factor would be removed. You’d probably be less inclined to use a drug daily (I’m thinking of pot here) if you knew that you could walk to the corner store and get it. You wouldn’t constantly be looking to score, wouldn’t constantly be scoring, and therefore wouldn’t always have it in the house available to smoke. "

You are joking, right? It is the drug itself that makes you jones for more, not the fact that it’s illegal! If I do a bunch of coke, I will be jonesing for more, whether there is more in the next room, the corner store or the dealer’s house. This is idiotic nonsense.

56

No problem. I think the Chinese use the Opium War as a bit of propaganda against the evils of western nations. The British would never have forced the opium issue if there wasn’t already a demand for it. Not that I think their actions were right.

Likewise I don’t blame Colombian drug cartels for the drug problems in the US. They may be murderers, thieves, and all around dirt bags but they didn’t create a demand for drugs.

Marc

57

One of the founders of Johns Hopkins was a morphine addict. No matter what he did he couldn’t shake his habit. He led a fairly productive life as a medical doctor. Forgive me for not having his name right off the top of my head. But it is in a book I own somewhere around here.

Marc

58

EJsGirl, I understand your personal perspective on this issue. Do you agree, then, that all current policies are well-founded and should continue? You represent a minority, in my view, especially if we were to narrow down the drug argument to marijuana. In your opinion, do you feel the problems of a minority warrant the lowest-common-denominator approach currently employed?

59

Actually, I have never expressed an opinion on the current US drug policies. I have merely been pointing out that some of the arguments for one side or the other are weak and/or based on possibly incorrect information.

Having said that, I believe that the current laws that relate to crack cocaine are exceedingly harsh and are specifically targeted at minority users, while penalties for powder cocaine are extremely light in comparison and targeted at mostly white users. The penalty in CA for a little marijuana is the same as for a fuckin’ kilo, so why get caught with a small amount? This situation favors the major drug dealer and unfairly impacts the smaller seller or personal user.

I could go on, but you get the point. Most of these laws are poorly written and unequally enforced, but I never got caught so I haven’t felt the need to get all riled up about them.

So, does that mean I favor legalization? Not necessarily. I believe that the current situation is messed up, but I’m not sure unlimited access to all drugs is any kind of answer. Must it be an all-or-nothing question? And ok, in a pinch, you can have pot…

60

Oh and Marc, thanks for the reminder about the guy at Johns Hopkins.

Many a doctor has harbored a quiet opiate addiction over the years. In fact, the group with a high rate of perscription drug addiction is health care providers. Once you’re hooked, it’s a bitch to keep your hand out of the giant, open cookie jar.

I’ve never said addicts couldn’t function: I actually functioned quite well for a long time. With an occaisional legal or medical assist, lots of addicts could sail along forever if they could survive the physical stuff.