Is the UK surrendering in the "War on Drugs"?

[Smoker4]

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.

But if this is about the consequences of drug use, then the consequences themselves deserve punishment. How is that at all dodging “responsibility?” Your own cites don’t justify the assertion that drug use necessitates those “unintended consequences” in all cases, just that there is a certain correlation.

Furthermore, you act as though these consequences go unpunished in the absence of drug laws. Drug use is as relevant to its consequences as guns are to murder–and as has been so aptly stated, “guns don’t kill people, people do.”

This is, of course, unless you can establish a direct causal link between using a given drug–marijuana, in particular–and serious “unintended consequences.”

No, I simply want those who advocate legalization to recognize that marijuana usage can have those damned frisky “unintended consequences”,

Or that certain activities are correlated with it. You’ve made much ado about these “unintended consequences,” but you’ve done a poor job of demonstrating that they are, indeed, consequences and not mere correlations.

On the other hand, Nobel Economist Milton Friedman has much to say on the unintended Economic consequences of illegality (see: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/friedm1.htm).

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.

First off, I think this “war” is based on taste and not on prudence–so asking for necessity is a bit like asking for the “necessity” of chocolate versus vanilla ice cream (http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/basicfax.htm#q1).

I think you have a little too much faith in the “majority” as the primary decision-maker in this nation. By design, we are a Republic, and a federal one at that–so an overriding question is, “which majority?” To whom am I to address my complaints?

If we ask the majority in California, one might wonder what happened to those “unintended consequences” when medical marijuana was considered.

And on what basis do you claim that the majority has decided upon these laws based on the very facts you present, or would wish to see debated in this thread? Your facts are relevant to a general debate on the merits or demerits of drugs, but they are not necessarily relevant to actual public opinion.

My ability to convince “the majority,” which is neither a homogeneous nor particularly well-informed mass, is irrelevant in this forum–and I think your constant reliance on this “onus” statement is a clever way of dodging a principled debate.

Again, make the case that marijuana has been treated legally in a unique and consistently unlawful manner by existing statues and caselaw

When I’m paid $75/hour to do so, sure.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but possession of a set of burglar’s tools is also illegal.

I can’t answer definitively, but I suspect you’re wrong. See: Appendix B: Legal Issues, for at least a spurious look at the matter.

No, I don’t want the government to be the ward of responsibility. I want it to be the bastion of responsibility

Eh, ok. “ward” and “bastion” being pretty similar in this context, you apparently want it to be a ward in a more semantically soothing way.

But licentiousness, immorality and irresponsibility are also waiting in the word ‘freedom’.

I think you’re missing the point–underlying this idea seems to be the notion that if government isn’t regulating us, then nothing is. Government is not the only bastion of responsibility.

Drugs are not the “cause” of problems; they are clearly the “effect”. A person who abuses drugs and fails in life has clearly been failed. This is not always the case, but I believe in the power of community and family enough to think that they play a substantial role in developing society–and fixing it when it breaks.

The free market doesn’t end with the stock market, nor does laissez-faire government, for that matter–and as someone who believes in both, I know that there is an incentive in individuals to succeed and to fix society when it breaks. And as Friedman notes, the government is currently exaggerating the problems of drug use–thus destroying the ability of people to instill societal responsibility by creating detrimental incentives.

[NaSultainne]

MEBuckner, using the term coercion, in my mind, indicates the control, even subjugation of society through governmental force . This leaves me with the impression that society is a victim of uncontrolled governmental excess and thus incapable of overt, effective restraint. While I don’t view it in such terms, if you’re truly equating the actions in the so-called ‘Drug War’ with a coercive State, I’ll cede the point as linguistic differences.

[MEBuckner]

I’m simply making the point that laws by their nature involve the inherent coercive power of the state. (And having that inherent coercive power is what differentiates the state from other institutions.) Making something a criminal offense is thus never an action which can be described simply as “persuasion” or “discouragement”.

[NaSultainne]

*Originally posted by Smoker4 *
This is, of course, unless you can establish a direct causal link between using a given drug–marijuana, in particular–and serious “unintended consequences.”

I don’t have to. The default position in the country at the moment is in support of my position, reluctant though it is. If marijauna could be demonstrated to have beneficial properties, it would be legal in a moment. That’s why the best course is to encourage medicinal trials which may provide such evidence. All I have to say is that because marijuana can and does impose costs on society, the argument to legalize must overcome that argument. We restrict many substances that have actual proven health benefits every day, and as marijuana doesn’t, it hasn’t merited the same consideration.

You’ve made much ado about these “unintended consequences,” but you’ve done a poor job of demonstrating that they are, indeed, consequences and not mere correlations. On the other hand, Nobel Economist Milton Friedman has much to say on the unintended Economic consequences of illegality (see: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/friedm1.htm).

I see. The two cites I posted, both governmental agencies, lack credibility? Granted, causation rather than correlation can be difficult to establish and quantify. I can’t say for sure that the incidence of drug-related issues is the reason for laws banning various drugs and their use. My supposition, and please, let’s be rational, is that our successive governments, Republican and Democrat, have reached a consistent decision that the status quo is correct. Yes, I’m inclined to support our government, not the least because we are the government and free to change it at regular intervals. If the evidence supports your view, the message is decidedly not getting out. And may I ask, if society elects a government, knowing the economic costs related to maintaining a ban on illegal substances, would you then suspend your continued arguments?

By design, we are a Republic, and a federal one at that–so an overriding question is, “which majority?” To whom am I to address my complaints?

As the Congress makes law, it makes sense to address the issue through election of politicians favorable to your position.

My ability to convince “the majority,” which is neither a homogeneous nor particularly well-informed mass, is irrelevant in this forum–and I think your constant reliance on this “onus” statement is a clever way of dodging a principled debate.

First, your dismissal of the majority is wasted breath. I’m not offended, but the vehemence of your statements is wearing you out much faster than me. Regardless of the intelligence of the average Joe, you have to deal with them. A majority of some group will give you the position you want. A majority of Congress, a majority of the various lower courts leading to a majority of the Supreme Court. You have to deal with them.

I think you’re missing the point–underlying this idea seems to be the notion that if government isn’t regulating us, then nothing is. Government is not the only bastion of responsibility.

True. But it is the expression of the will of the governed.

Drugs are not the “cause” of problems; they are clearly the “effect”. A person who abuses drugs and fails in life has clearly been failed. This is not always the case, but I believe in the power of community and family enough to think that they play a substantial role in developing society–and fixing it when it breaks.

I applaud your sentiment and faith. I wish I were as optimistic as you that family and community can fix such problems. It seems to be one of the ongoing struggles, and drugs alone are neither the sole cause nor result.

The free market doesn’t end with the stock market, nor does laissez-faire government, for that matter–and as someone who believes in both, I know that there is an incentive in individuals to succeed and to fix society when it breaks. And as Friedman notes, the government is currently exaggerating the problems of drug use–thus destroying the ability of people to instill societal responsibility by creating detrimental incentives.

I’m surprised. You argue that societal responsibility can be instilled by action and interaction with the negative consequences of drug use? This is quite a novel suggestion, at least to me. Dearly I would wish it so. Here’s where I think it falters: it is more my impression that any lack in society is expected, no demanded to be compensated and replaced by governmental support. Government is developing into a cradle to grave babysitter. Take a look at the European governments for a glimpse of what I’m talking about. Extended maternity benefits, unlimited welfare, generous pensions, etc. You can see why I’m leary that family or community is indeed likely to handle individual failures.

Finally, believe it or not, I’m sympathetic to the legalization position as a whole. I am not swayed by many of the arguments used to advance that position. To convince the majority in this country that marijuana should be legalized outright is probably shooting for the moon. To convince the majority in this country that responsible citizens who wish to use marijuana recognize that some will be irresponsible, and to address how best to minimize the resulting harm, and I use that term in the broadest possible sense, is most likely to gain support and ultimately success in the end.

[NaSultainne]

Okay MEBuckner, now I get it. Just to clarify, I meant to describe anti-drug programs such as DARE, advertising, teen programs, etc., as governmental means of ‘persuasion’ or ‘discouragement’.

[MEBuckner]

Well, see, while I may object to the specifics of this or that program–the truth is always better than sensationalism, for both moral and practical reasons–I have no objection in principle to educational programs, public advertising programs, required warning labels, and so on. Tobacco use is not illegal (although it is restricted by law when it comes to minors) but there has been a strenuous campaign of persuasion and discouragement with respect to its use, and the incidence of tobacco use has greatly declined in our society. Given that the health hazards of tobacco use have been pretty clearly shown, such programs strike me as wise public policy and their success is a good thing. But we still don’t put adults in jail if they choose to smoke cigarettes, however foolish we may regard their actions to be.

[NaSultainne]

You’re right MEBuckner. So, the object with marijuana is to learn from the mistakes and costs associated with other products, cigarettes and alcohol being the two examples I believe you posted way back when, and minimize those. That makes for a win-win situation. If we’ve been all over the map just to arrive at this seemingly simple answer, phew. Maybe I’m just slow, after all. Coulda sworn the OP, which concerned the British stance just giving in to marijuana use with no restrictions of any kind, and urging the U.S. to swiftly follow suit. Perhaps I’m more on the pro- side than even I thought.

[Hazel]

NaSultainne, in one of your posts, you seemed to be saying that you don’t want marijuana decriminalized (or that you don’t want marijana and hard drugs decriminalized?) because you don’t think that you, a taxpayer, should have to foot the bill for the resultant costs.

Huh? What resulting costs would those be? Surely we’d save money by ending either the war on marijuana or the whole war on all currently outlawed drugs?

The war on drugs is sucking up a lot of tax dollars. If we ended the war, we could shift as much as necessary of the money now used for arresting and jailing people into spending on treatment programs.

The war on drugs using up a lot of the resources of our criminal justice system: not only money, but also police time, court time, prison space, etc. If we ended the war, the police and courts would be able to put more time, money, and effort into going after real criminals (the ones who do actual harm to people other then themselves). They would be able to pay more attention to real crime without the distraction of the futile war on drugs.

Ending the war on drugs should free up enough prison space to allow us to make violent criminals serve their whole sentences.

[Hazel]

NaSultaine, I’m beginning to get the impression that you think decisions about what recreational substances to consume should be made collectively rather then individually. Marijuana, hard drugs, alcohol, tobacco, etc. If the vote is for legality, any adult can partake. If the vote is for illegallity, anyone caught partaking liable to arrest, trial, and imprisonment. Because the majority thinks “it’s bad”. Even if the banning of some relatively harmless substance flies in the face of rationality and common sence. Even if, at the time the vote on a given substance was taken, most of the voters had never tried it, and had no accurate information about it.

And once the vote is taken, the results are set in stone. New data can’t be considered. A better informed population can’t revisit the issue.

Seems to me, if we were deciding the matter today, no one in his right mind would put marijuana in the same legal catagory as hard drugs. But that’s how the law catagorized it years ago, and now, no one in our govt wants to admit that a mistake was made. In fact, they seem to be very determined to keep pot illegal – look at the Feds’ reation to the attempts, in a number of states, to allow medical use.

(Parenthetically, do you really doubt that marijuana does help cancer patients on chemotherapy control nausea? That is does help glaucoma patients? Do you really think we need more evidence?)

I’m not sure what’s behind the officials’ stance. Are they afraid that decriminalizing marijuana would somehow threaten the continued existance of laws vs. hard drugs? Are they afraid that someone will accuse them of being “soft on crime”? Are they being lobbied intensively by a frightened liquor industry?