# Is the UK surrendering in the "War on Drugs"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 29, 2001, 11:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-uk-surrendering-in-the-war-on-drugs/95902 "2001-11-29T11:49:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Hazel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e56c9b/32.png) [@Hazel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hazel)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2001, 11:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-uk-surrendering-in-the-war-on-drugs/95902/41 "2001-12-04T11:55:35Z")
[quote] _NaSultainne said_ **Take a look at the statistics regarding alcohol abuse on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and tell me again why we should make other destructive substances widely available?** [quote] NaSultainne, marijuana is _already_ widely available. Anyone who wants it can get it. Please tell us why the government should ruin people’s lives by jailing them, seizing their property, etc. for growing, possessing, or persuing happines with this substance. Please tell us why violent criminals should be parolled early to make room in the prisons for pot smokers who’ve rec’d mandetory minimum sentences. Please tell us why any of our overstretched police and court resources should be used to go after people for growing, selling, or using marijuana. ---
**Author:** ![Hazel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e56c9b/32.png) [@Hazel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hazel)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2001, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-uk-surrendering-in-the-war-on-drugs/95902/42 "2001-12-04T12:13:14Z")
> [@](#): > > _NaSultainne said_ > **Violence cannot be the only requirement for any law. Theft, bribery, extortion all result in jail time without resort to violence.** It’s not violence that should be the only requirement for a law – it’s _harm to another person._ Crimes of violence _and_ theft, bribery, and extortion should all be illegal. So should acting with reckless disregard to the probability of harm to another, which covers driving while impaired, reckless driving while not impaired, improper disposal of toxic waste, etc. What should _not_ be against the law are actions that harm only the people doing them, or that cause no harm to anyone, even those doing them. Outlawing such actions on the grounds that some people consider them immoral or improper is not only an excersize in futility, but also an injustice to the people who wish to engage in them. Whatever I’m doing, if it causes no harm to anyone but myself, it ain’t nobody’s business but my own. ---
**Author:** ![Hazel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e56c9b/32.png) [@Hazel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hazel)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2001, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-uk-surrendering-in-the-war-on-drugs/95902/43 "2001-12-04T12:41:10Z")
> [@](#): > > _NaSultaine_ > **This is a free country as long as your actions do not negatively impact upon my freedoms. That’s why we regulate, restrict, prohibit and in every other way minimize the ability of one to harm another. And penalize it when all else fails. Freedom is not absolute. Come up with a better argument.** I think it should be up to you to explain how you are harmed by me sitting quietly at home eating a hash brownie. Please don’t bring up anything you theorize my drug use might lead to. Anything might lead to anything. I see no justification for outlawing things on the basis of what they might lead to. If I’m just sitting quietly in my own living room, eating a brownie, how does that harm anyone other then me? For that matter, if I invite a few friends over, and we sit around my living room smoking dope, so long as we’re quiet, how does that harm my neighbors? Let’s say I buy a half pound of marijuana for my party, thus spending more then I can afford. I sell a few ounces to each of my guests (legal adults all), thus recouping my expenses. This makes me what? A dealer? A kingpin? But again, how are our actions harming anyone but ourselves? ---
**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:** [December 4, 2001, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-uk-surrendering-in-the-war-on-drugs/95902/44 "2001-12-04T22:41:09Z")
A few ounces each? Now that’s a party! ---
**Author:** ![NaSultainne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8797f3/32.png) [@NaSultainne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NaSultainne)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2001, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-uk-surrendering-in-the-war-on-drugs/95902/45 "2001-12-05T03:52:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MEBuckner \* > > 1. We have certain chemicals which demonstrably pose a risk to human life and health if consumed. \<\<_snip_\>\> These chemicals are not illegal. \<\<_snip_\>\> We have certain other chemicals, which do not appear to pose any greater risk to human health or of causing anti-social behavior than the first group. Possession of this group is a crime and production of them is a severe crime.\<\<_snip_\>\>This is what I mean by hypocrisy. Maybe “wild inconsistency” would be better.\<\<_snip_\>\> Okay, I can deal with this definition. For the sake of argument, I’m going to add aspirin and codeine to this discussion. Let’s continue: > [@](#): > > 1. Your rights do indeed “extend to the tip of my nose”. This is precisely why no one’s rights should extend to what chemicals another adult chooses to ingest. \<\<_snip_\>\> Okay, here’s where the legal distinction with aspirin and codeine come in. Both are potent painkillers, one legal, one a controlled substance. I don’t make this a completely accurate analogy to alcohol and marijuana because not all alcohol has been shown to have beneficial properties, and marijuana even less so. I use them to illustrate that we do in fact have ‘wildly inconsistent’ laws which seem to invoke little of the vociferous discontent of the marijuana legalization proponents. > [@](#): > > 1. Violence is not the only proper rationale for making something illegal. Harm to others is the proper rationale to for making something illegal. Other people may be harmed by violence, by fraud, or by negligence. Harm to others includes infringing upon their rights, including their right to property. Harm to one’s self is also of concern to the larger society as a whole. See the differences in access to aspirin and codeine for an example. > [@](#): > > 1. All criminalized vices tend to be associated with violent crime, beyond merely the act of indulging in whatever vice has been criminalized.\<\<_snip_\>\> Again, we don’t change our laws because _some_ people will flout them. This would be chaos and anarchy, defined. > [@](#): > > 1. Criminalizing the use of some mind-altering chemicals thus results in both large numbers of people being jailed for actions which do no harm to other people–\<\<_snip_\>\> Again, you’re arguing that laws create criminals with criminals being innocent of any responsibility. I take for granted people who wind up in jail usually know that’s a possibility _before_ they participate in a given behavior. > [@](#): > > 1. Although the actions of private corporations and the actions of government are separate matters, private corporations do follow the government’s lead in how they treat the different classes of mind-altering chemicals. Almost all employers treat the use of legal mind-altering chemicals as a problem only as it directly affects the employee’s ability to do his or her job. Most corporations do not care if their employees use legal substances after work hours. Many corporations do have policies of testing for the use of illegal substances, even if done at times and places that do not affect the employees ability to do his or her job. If those chemicals were de-criminalized, corporations could continue to have policies of intruding into their employees private lives beyond what is needed to insure that the employees do their jobs properly, but it is clear that right now the government is actively encouraging private corporations to maintain such policies. Finally, the point is that the “war on drugs”, waged by the government and, with government encouragement, by private employers, has adverse effects on both civil liberties (with respect to the state) _and privacy_ (with respect to both the state and to private employers). I left this entire section in, not to disagree with you, but to a large extent to actually agree. I’d add a given employer accessing credit reports, insurance records, etc., as falling in this category. Yes, I do agree there are exceptions to the ‘providing a sample’ requirement, but those involve public safety positions, not the majority of workplace jobs. I guess the argument comes down to this: absent some benefit to the individual, I believe marijuana will remain illegal for the time being. Perhaps if studies conclusively prove a medicinal benefit for those in chronic pain or terminally ill, that will open the door to looser regulations. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2001, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-uk-surrendering-in-the-war-on-drugs/95902/46 "2001-12-05T03:52:37Z")
B. Gardner wrote: > [@](#): > > And don’t give me the “benefit to society” BS either. If you want to use that then ban twinkies and Hagen Daz - obesity dwarfs drug use as a burden on society. You can have my Twinkie when you pry it from my cold, dead hands! ---
**Author:** ![NaSultainne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8797f3/32.png) [@NaSultainne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NaSultainne)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2001, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-uk-surrendering-in-the-war-on-drugs/95902/47 "2001-12-05T04:13:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by B. Gardner \* > Attempts to “legislate morality” that lack extremely widespread support or a clear benefit to society are ultimately doomed to failure as they are entirely dependent on the government’s ability and/or willingness to coerce the individual into obeying. Never make a rule you cannot enforce. This sounds all high minded, but in actuality there are many laws on the books that are enforced, although _imperfectly_. Do you advocate legalizing all criminal behavior because _some_ people ignore them? This is the weakest possible argument. Your position that because the law is regularly ignored the law must be flawed is a flawed analysis. I would argue that we haven’t seriously addressed the demand issue in order to reduce usage of marijuana. Statistics tend to bear me out on this. Prohibition failed because in large part it wasn’t effetively addressing demand and the widespread lawbreaking was all but accepted. > [@](#): > > Why should I come up with a “better” argument when this is an excellent one? The legality of some drugs versus others is completely arbitrary and dependent on personal values that are irrespective of the so called “costs to society.” The long term effects of the over consumption of ice cream will kill more Americans this year than all illegal drug use combined (read the most recent Rand report on the issue). You’re making the call that the laws are arbitrary. You’re really saying laws are made…just because? Perhaps the justification is weak or faulty, that doesn’t equate to arbitrary. Yes, obesity will cause many deaths. However, perhaps we should address obesity in _addition_ to illegal substances, not abandon both causes. > [@](#): > > We could have sent an entire generation of Americans to college for what we have uselessly spent trying to get them not to smoke pot. Prohibition DOES NOT WORK and as I’ve said before, one of the basic definitions of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. Woulda, coulda, shoulda. How much money did we spend putting Timothy McVeigh through a lengthy trial and appeals? Something upwards of $100 million? And he was just one man! Perhaps we should streamline our prosecution to eliminate this massive overexpenditure and then send that same generation to grad school. Phooey. Your waste of government money against my waste of government money any day. If you’ve read much on Prohibition, you know that it was largely ignored by the average Joe. (I suppose you’d say like marijuana today). As has been noted many times, you can’t eliminate supply and expect demand to dry up. Analysis of the Prohibition era would indicate demand wasn’t aggressively addressed. Perhaps the end result would have been different? Who can say. ---
**Author:** ![NaSultainne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8797f3/32.png) [@NaSultainne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NaSultainne)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2001, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-uk-surrendering-in-the-war-on-drugs/95902/48 "2001-12-05T04:26:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Hazel \* > NaSultainne, marijuana is _already_ widely available. Anyone who wants it can get it. Please tell us why the government should ruin people’s lives by jailing them, seizing their property, etc. for growing, possessing, or persuing happines with this substance. Please tell us why violent criminals should be parolled early to make room in the prisons for pot smokers who’ve rec’d mandetory minimum sentences. Please tell us why any of our overstretched police and court resources should be used to go after people for growing, selling, or using marijuana. **Hazel** , I’m most certainly not advocating that the government ruin _anyone’s_ life. I do think anyone who knowingly violates the law has made that decision on his own and is therefore responsible. Tell _me_ why that shouldn’t be so? Mandatory sentences for personal possession are wrong, wrong, wrong. Dealing is another story, but again, mandatory life sentences are much too extreme, I’ll grant you. I have to admit I’m somewhat bemused by your repeated use of ‘happiness’ as justification for breaking laws. This is a substance which a 2-to-1 majority thinks should remain illegal. I’m _inclined_ to believe it should be legalized with major restrictions. But I don’t _strongly_ advocate it because I worry about the consequences of taking that step and I’m not completely convinced that it is the right step. ---
**Author:** ![NaSultainne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8797f3/32.png) [@NaSultainne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NaSultainne)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2001, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-uk-surrendering-in-the-war-on-drugs/95902/49 "2001-12-05T04:37:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Hazel \* > It’s not violence that should be the only requirement for a law – it’s _harm to another person._ Crimes of violence _and_ theft, bribery, and extortion should all be illegal. So should acting with reckless disregard to the probability of harm to another, which covers driving while impaired, reckless driving while not impaired, improper disposal of toxic waste, etc. Nope, I can’t agree here. No man is an island, as you know. Your actions may have unintended consequences which are my concern. If you check out the statistics on drug-related crime, addiction-related services and resulting costs to society, it’s clear that more than just the individual is to be considered. > [@](#): > > What should _not_ be against the law are actions that harm only the people doing them, or that cause no harm to anyone, even those doing them. Outlawing such actions on the grounds that some people consider them immoral or improper is not only an excersize in futility, but also an injustice to the people who wish to engage in them. Whatever I’m doing, if it causes no harm to anyone but myself, it ain’t nobody’s business but my own. Hmmm. First, please don’t bring morality into this. I didn’t argue this position. It’s a major copout. Morality must include your behavior and its impact on those around you from _their point of view_. For anyone to deny that is to advocate a self-indulgence that borders on reckless disregard for others’ rights and freedoms. Second, since the whole debate centers on whether, in fact, marijuana does cause harm to others, that’s the real issue. A large majority of Americans continue to believe so, apparently, as the polls indicate they don’t want legalization of marijuana. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2001, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-uk-surrendering-in-the-war-on-drugs/95902/50 "2001-12-05T04:40:21Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > 1. Criminalizing the use of some mind-altering chemicals thus results in both large numbers of people being jailed for actions which do no harm to other people–\<\<_snip_\>\> > > Again, you’re arguing that laws create criminals with criminals being innocent of any responsibility. I take for granted people who wind up in jail usually know that’s a possibility _before_ they participate in a given behavior. If the majority takes it upon itself to criminalize people wearing purple clothing, I can be a good little citizen and not wear purple clothing, but I’m still going to think it’s an absurd law, and just saying “Well, it’s against the law!” is not going to convince me that imprisoning purple-clothing-wearers is _just_. To be sure, the arguments for the criminalization of adults ingesting this or that mind-altering chemical are better than those for criminalizing purple clothing, but I’m still not convinced–in fact, I find myself becoming increasingly _un_convinced as time goes on–that such laws are practically or philosophically justifiable. ---
**Author:** ![NaSultainne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8797f3/32.png) [@NaSultainne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NaSultainne)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2001, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-uk-surrendering-in-the-war-on-drugs/95902/51 "2001-12-05T04:49:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Hazel \* > I think it should be up to you to explain how you are harmed by me sitting quietly at home eating a hash brownie. Please don’t bring up anything you theorize my drug use might lead to. Anything might lead to anything. I see no justification for outlawing things on the basis of what they might lead to. If I’m just sitting quietly in my own living room, eating a brownie, how does that harm anyone other then me? For that matter, if I invite a few friends over, and we sit around my living room smoking dope, so long as we’re quiet, how does that harm my neighbors? Let’s say I buy a half pound of marijuana for my party, thus spending more then I can afford. I sell a few ounces to each of my guests (legal adults all), thus recouping my expenses. This makes me what? A dealer? A kingpin? But again, how are our actions harming anyone but ourselves? Okay, now you’re arguing something with some teeth in it. I am not harmed directly by you partaking of anything in the quiet of your home. However, regardless of whether you want me to, I will bring up ‘what you might do’. That’s when the law takes issue, with any activity, isn’t it? Your car sitting in the driveway is no threat to my safety. When you get behind the wheel and engage the transmission, it becomes a potentiality. Same with all regulated and restricted activity. That’s why you can drink till you’re blind, sloppy drunk in your own home, but get behind the wheel and you’ve already broken the law in most places. Now, what you’re really advocating is that the same laws applicable to alcohol apply to marijuana. But as the law currently stands, and a majority of Americans are not inclined to change it, the onus is on you to make the case. Bear in mind I’m not hostile to the cause, even if it seems so from my various posts in this thread, but I am highly skeptical about the arguments so far presented. I don’t find them persuasive, and it seems the majority agrees with me at this time. Might I suggest that proponents of marijuana legalization would be more successful if they were inclined to suggest restrictions comparable to other controlled substances such as codeine, valium, etc.? ---
**Author:** ![NaSultainne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8797f3/32.png) [@NaSultainne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NaSultainne)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2001, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-uk-surrendering-in-the-war-on-drugs/95902/52 "2001-12-05T05:05:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MEBuckner \* > If the majority takes it upon itself to criminalize people wearing purple clothing, I can be a good little citizen and not wear purple clothing, but I’m still going to think it’s an absurd law, and just saying “Well, it’s against the law!” is not going to convince me that imprisoning purple-clothing-wearers is _just_. To be sure, the arguments for the criminalization of adults ingesting this or that mind-altering chemical are better than those for criminalizing purple clothing, but I’m still not convinced–in fact, I find myself becoming increasingly _un_convinced as time goes on–that such laws are practically or philosophically justifiable. I agree with you more than you know. The suggestion that the majority change the law to suit the minority is patently absurd, however. The platform on which to argue for change must be persuasive and incontrovertible. That doesn’t seem to be the case with marijuana. At least _I’m_ not convinced. There’s an increasing tendency in the last few years to redefine our freedoms in what I consider an offensive and dangerous manner. The idea that morality is subjective and self-defined, that society exists only to accommodate personal preferences with no reciprocation, that judgment should never be made about anything because it’s intrinsically flawed. These are not arguments that are persuasive to many. There must be balance between personal rights and public responsibility. If proponents of marijuana legalization can meet that balance in their argument, they’ll be successful in their cause. If not, I’d venture a guess that things will continue as they are, more or less. I won’t pretend I think that is automatically a good thing. ---
**Author:** ![Smoker4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/85e7bf/32.png) [@Smoker4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smoker4)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2001, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-uk-surrendering-in-the-war-on-drugs/95902/53 "2001-12-05T06:02:48Z")
> [@](#): > > Nope, I can’t agree here. No man is an island, as you know. Your actions may have unintended consequences which are my concern. If you check out the statistics on drug-related crime, addiction-related services and resulting costs to society, it’s clear that more than just the individual is to be considered. How can you possibly justify this attitude? You honestly expect us to believe that it’s right to prosecute and convict someone for an action that “may” have “unintended consequences?” You preach on and on about individual responsibility, but then you deny that any can exist with respect to drugs without making us all a ward of the State. I turn the argument on you, then: what ever happened to simple, individual responsibility? Do we need the government to ban all infringing and non-infringing uses of an item because some people lack the individual responsibility to use it properly? How is this different from repealing a law because some lack the responsibility to follow it? Methinks you have a double standard when it comes to the good of society, with a bias towards governmental coercion to solve the world’s problems. > [@](#): > > Now, what you’re really advocating is that the same laws applicable to alcohol apply to marijuana. But as the law currently stands, and a majority of Americans are not inclined to change it, the onus is on you to make the case. Bear in mind I’m not hostile to the cause, even if it seems so from my various posts in this thread, but I am highly skeptical about the arguments so far presented. I don’t find them persuasive, and it seems the majority agrees with me at this time. On the contrary, I think it’s the role of the Supreme Court to overturn these laws. What we have is a tyranny of the majority that denies an inherent right to utter, non-infringing use of drugs. It is a fault of Constitutional interpretation that we are not inherently free to damage or please ourselves in our own homes when it is utterly non-infringing. > [@](#): > > I agree with you more than you know. The suggestion that the majority change the law to suit the minority is patently absurd, however. The platform on which to argue for change must be persuasive and incontrovertible. That doesn’t seem to be the case with marijuana. At least I’m not convinced. The minority has _rights_, and if the right to harm ourselves in a non-infringing manner in our own homes is not among them, then nothing is. The matter here is not that the law should be changed, but that it is _a priori_ invalid. Would you honestly believe a law that bans purple shirts to be constitutional? How is it different from a law that bans all uses of marijuana (even possession)? > [@](#): > > There’s an increasing tendency in the last few years to redefine our freedoms in what I consider an offensive and dangerous manner. On the contrary, I think the dangerous tendency in recent years is to expect the government to be the ward of responsibility. And it shows in your post, where you equate “government” with “society.” Government is only the coercive arm of society. It can only act to restrain vice, not create virtue. Actual virtue in society can only be achieved through personal responsibility–instilled through genuine efforts in our communities and families, not writing down edicts on pieces of paper and creating Federal programs. ---
**Author:** ![Hazel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e56c9b/32.png) [@Hazel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hazel)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2001, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-uk-surrendering-in-the-war-on-drugs/95902/54 "2001-12-05T06:11:47Z")
NaSultainne, I cannot see the relevance of public opinion polls. For one thing, a pollster can get pretty much any result he wants, by the way he phrases the questions. For another, however many people really want to keep marijuana illegal, we don’t know what’s behind this stance. Is it that they believe the exagerated claims of the substance’s harmfulness? Is it that they think _anything_ bad or harmful should be outlawed, including alcohol, tobacco, and high fat foods? Is it because they believe smoking dope is against God’s law? In other words, even if we believe the polls are accurate (and I don’t give them much credence), we still don’t know what sort of (quite possibly often really silly) reasons people have for wanting to continue the prohibtion. But the real point is, marijuana prohibition is unjust and unjustifiable. This remains the case, no matter what the public wants. The prohibition causes far more harm then the substance does. This remains the case, no matter what the public wants. Re restrictions, I don’t think anyone is suggesting that we not have some. I’d be fine with laws that taxed and restricted marijuana to exactly the same extent that alcohol is taxed and restricted. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2001, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-uk-surrendering-in-the-war-on-drugs/95902/55 "2001-12-05T06:28:21Z")
Smoker4 wrote: > [@](#): > > It is a fault of Constitutional interpretation that we are not inherently free to damage or please ourselves in our own homes when it is utterly non-infringing. I hate to be the bearer of bad news here, but no part of the Constitution – not even the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment taken together – has **ever** been interpreted as giving us an inalienable right to “damage or please ourselves in our own homes when it is utterly non-infringing”. Even before the Constitution was drafted, the States had laws forbidding various consensual sexual practices (for example), and the Framers of the Constitution were careful not to step on the toes of what is still referred to as the States’ “police power.” ---
**Author:** ![NaSultainne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8797f3/32.png) [@NaSultainne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NaSultainne)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2001, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-uk-surrendering-in-the-war-on-drugs/95902/56 "2001-12-05T06:51:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Smoker4 \* > How can you possibly justify this attitude? You honestly expect us to believe that it’s right to prosecute and convict someone for an action that “may” have “unintended consequences?” I think there’s a balance between rights and freedoms and I have yet to see anyone address that sufficiently. Those who advocate legalization poo-poo those “unintended consequences” with a casual wave of the hand. Stake your position on responsibility and let’s see how it fares then. > [@](#): > > You preach on and on about individual responsibility, but then you deny that any can exist with respect to drugs without making us all a ward of the State. No, God no! I’ll have to choose my words more carefully than I have been. I explicitly don’t want anyone to be the ward of the State. At the same time it does indeed happen, doesn’t it? No, I simply want those who advocate legalization to recognize that marijuana usage can have those damned frisky “unintended consequences”, one of which is dependence on the State. Again, everybody demands their _rights_ in strident tones, with no recognition of _responsibility_ in tandem. > [@](#): > > I turn the argument on you, then: what ever happened to simple, individual responsibility? Do we need the government to ban all infringing and non-infringing uses of an item because some people lack the individual responsibility to use it properly? How is this different from repealing a law because some lack the responsibility to follow it? Do we? Excellent question. It’d be a better question if the answer hadn’t already been given. The onus on you is to prove the change is necessary and prudent. > [@](#): > > Methinks you have a double standard when it comes to the good of society, with a bias towards governmental coercion to solve the world’s problems. No, not coercion. Persuasion. Discouragement. Perhaps it would make more sense to you if I said that I’d be much happier if the government was taking as little of my money as possible in taxes. _Very_ little. So, every program for which the government has to increase funding because of alcohol abuse, drug abuse, every other sort of illegal activity, means less of the money I work damn hard for stays in my pocket. So I have a natural inclination to want anyone who seeks access to potentially harmful substances to make the case for their rights versus mine. I suspect that’s the basis for the majority of people in this country. If marijuana has no _benefit_ other than a mild intoxication, I’m reluctant to make it freely available which will result in a certain percentage of “unintended consequences”. > [@](#): > > On the contrary, I think it’s the role of the Supreme Court to overturn these laws. What we have is a tyranny of the majority that denies an inherent right to utter, non-infringing use of drugs. It is a fault of Constitutional interpretation that we are not inherently free to damage or please ourselves in our own homes when it is utterly non-infringing. And this makes you right and the Supreme Court wrong? Well, sorry, that dog won’t hunt. > [@](#): > > The minority has _rights_, and if the right to harm ourselves in a non-infringing manner in our own homes is not among them, then nothing is. Oh boy. Look. As long as you keep arguing that point on its own, you’ll never convince anyone who wasn’t already sympathetic to begin with. > [@](#): > > The matter here is not that the law should be changed, but that it is _a priori_ invalid. Again, make the case that marijuana has been treated legally in a unique and consistently unlawful manner by existing statues and caselaw. > [@](#): > > Would you honestly believe a law that bans purple shirts to be constitutional? How is it different from a law that bans all uses of marijuana (even possession)? Correct me if I’m wrong, but possession of a set of burglar’s tools is also illegal. Possession of all sorts of things is illegal. If the mood was prevalent to change the law, it’d get changed. People don’t agree with you. These arguments won’t convince them. They don’t convince me. > [@](#): > > On the contrary, I think the dangerous tendency in recent years is to expect the government to be the ward of responsibility. And it shows in your post, where you equate “government” with “society.” Government is only the coercive arm of society. It can only act to restrain vice, not create virtue. Actual virtue in society can only be achieved through personal responsibility–instilled through genuine efforts in our communities and families, not writing down edicts on pieces of paper and creating Federal programs. No, I don’t want the government to be the _ward_ of responsibility. I want it to be the _bastion_ of responsibility, the arbiter of society’s values and anyone who wants change has to convince a plurality of the populace. Virtue is not created in a vacuum, that’s true. But licentiousness, immorality and irresponsibility are also waiting in the word ‘freedom’. As I mentioned to **MEBuckner** , tempered with responsibility it’s a marvelous liberation for all. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2001, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-uk-surrendering-in-the-war-on-drugs/95902/57 "2001-12-05T07:00:19Z")
> [@](#): > > No, not coercion. Persuasion. Discouragement. Yes, coercion. At least with respect to currently illegal drugs, you favor keeping in place a policy of state coercion; i.e., depriving people of their liberty or their property or both, or at the very least forcing them to undergo medical or psychological treatment under the threat of depriving them of their liberty, their property, or both. ---
**Author:** ![NaSultainne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8797f3/32.png) [@NaSultainne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NaSultainne)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2001, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-uk-surrendering-in-the-war-on-drugs/95902/58 "2001-12-05T07:02:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Hazel \* > NaSultainne, I cannot see the relevance of public opinion polls. For one thing, a pollster can get pretty much any result he wants, by the way he phrases the questions. For another, however many people really want to keep marijuana illegal, we don’t know what’s behind this stance. Is it that they believe the exagerated claims of the substance’s harmfulness? Is it that they think _anything_ bad or harmful should be outlawed, including alcohol, tobacco, and high fat foods? Is it because they believe smoking dope is against God’s law? In other words, even if we believe the polls are accurate (and I don’t give them much credence), we still don’t know what sort of (quite possibly often really silly) reasons people have for wanting to continue the prohibtion. Yes, all poll results should be taken with a grain of salt, that’s true. It’s possible that something more than 1/3 of the country wants marijuana legalized. I have no other evidence to support that, but I’ll accept the argument. That being the case, that number, however many they may be, will have to work through their representative government to effect any change. The Supreme Court is not going to decide this issue in favor of legalization. > [@](#): > > But the real point is, marijuana prohibition is unjust and unjustifiable. This remains the case, no matter what the public wants. The prohibition causes far more harm then the substance does. This remains the case, no matter what the public wants. This is where you lose the argument. Does society have no rights? Do individual rights always supercede the rights of the greater society? I can’t disagree more. To tell the country at large that all the freedoms are individual and the responsibilities for poor choices are collective, well, let me be the first to tell you no one will buy into that. > [@](#): > > Re restrictions, I don’t think anyone is suggesting that we not have some. I’d be fine with laws that taxed and restricted marijuana to exactly the same extent that alcohol is taxed and restricted. And this is the more effective tack, in my opinion. If marijuana was a controlled substance like codeine rather than alcohol, perhaps that’d be more palatable to the public at large. I prefer codeine to alcohol as a comparison because the problems with alcohol are serious and substantial. Codeine abuse is much less of a problem due to the limited access. ---
**Author:** ![NaSultainne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8797f3/32.png) [@NaSultainne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NaSultainne)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2001, 7:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-uk-surrendering-in-the-war-on-drugs/95902/59 "2001-12-05T07:12:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MEBuckner \* > Yes, coercion. At least with respect to currently illegal drugs, you favor keeping in place a policy of state coercion; i.e., depriving people of their liberty or their property or both, or at the very least forcing them to undergo medical or psychological treatment under the threat of depriving them of their liberty, their property, or both. You’re using this to indicate government abuse of the populace. I wouldn’t take it that way, as every law would thus be viewed in like manner. If the only step government can take to prevent a given behavior is to use force, the populace would be within rights to rebel. I would define coercion as force used against lawful activity on the part of the citizenry. If you choose to use it in the most literal sense, fine, but it’s a charge than can be levelled against many laws on the books. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2001, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-uk-surrendering-in-the-war-on-drugs/95902/60 "2001-12-05T07:36:24Z")
Coercion is a “charge” which can be levelled against _every_ law on the books. Of course, it is to be hoped that the majority of the citizens will obey the laws of their own free will, and in fact if they do not do so, the state will collapse in short order, but the fact remains that all laws are ultimately backed by force or the threat thereof. This is what makes them “laws” rather than “unsigned editorials” or “pastoral homilies” or “position papers” or “MEBuckner’s personal opinions”. Personally, I have no problem with society using coercion against those who would murder (or kill in a fit of passion or out of negligence), maim, rape, kidnap, assault, rob, steal, or defraud. (I’ve probably left some things out of that list, but you get the idea.) We don’t try to “persuade” or “discourage” criminals; we send men or women with guns to apprehend them. Describing a policy of making a certain behavior a criminal offense as one of “persuasion” or “discouragement” but not “coercion” strikes me as being downright Orwellian. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-uk-surrendering-in-the-war-on-drugs/95902.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-uk-surrendering-in-the-war-on-drugs/95902.md?page=4)