Non Sequitur. “Good Idea” and “Should Be Government Policy” are not synonyms.
Wow. I never expected such a pedantic answer to my questions.
Well, Ravenman, I’ll give a more complete answer.
Do you have reason to think that legalization would lead to increased drug use and increased social problems? I don’t think it would, for a number of reasons. One, crime associated with the drug trade would be greatly reduced. Two, people will be more likely to get the medical help they need for the medical problem of addiction if we weren’t demonizing them and imprisoning them. Three, we’ve already seen that prohibition didn’t reduce alcohol consumption. Do you have any evidence that backs up your opinion that legalization would cause the problems you suggest?
There’s a big difference between promoting a behavior and locking people up when they don’t do it. I imagine you don’t support making unsafe sex illegal. The government could still promote a drug-free lifestyle and offer financial incentives by heavy taxation of drugs. They do this with cigarettes and alcohol already. Why wouldn’t it work with pot or cocaine?
Even if we could prove that legalization has a net negative effect, you still have to show that it’s sufficiently catastrophic that we should remove personal freedom to stop it.
If all drugs are illegal, production supply switches towards potent, cheaply and easily made drugs. If meth and plain amphetamine are both legal, use will tend towards the latter. Just like alcohol prohibition:
You’re talking about problems with meth/crack and concluding that all drug use should be illegal? Read my posts above; there are many drugs which are physically safe and non-addictive. They have a low incidence of dangers, in many cases, much lower than alcohol.
Well, I have no idea whether drug use and social problems would increase, but I see no reason why it would decrease. I would guess it would probably stay roughly the same, which, in my book, negates the whole case for legalization. Second, I don’t buyt that legalization would increase treatment. I rather doubt that it would have any effect at all, but really, we’re just arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Third, we’re not dealing with alcohol. I don’t think recreational use of, say, LSD has any commonality with the use of alcohol, whereas it could be argued that the use of pot has more in common with alcohol use. Simply crying “prohibition didn’t work!” does not cover the bases for legalizing all drugs.
Well, I appreciate that there any many people who have principled objections to government banning such-and-such because “it’s bad for you.” If that’s something you feel strongly about, fine, whatever floats your boat. But I do not buy into that argument for one second. I have no qualms whatsoever with the ethical proposition of government limiting “freedom” by banning drugs, prostitution, air pollution, inhaling of paint, driving snowmobiles in National Parks, or dangerous weapons. I take each these propositions on a case by case basis, but I do believe that government can ban certain behaviors and still remain fundamentally just.
I am truly curious about what pro-legalization folks think about the availability of prescription drugs. If we legalize cocaine, LSD, pot, E, ketamine, heroin, and whathaveyou, is there a rationale for keeping therapudic drugs behind the pharmacy counter? Also, for those who have advocated that “cut off health care” position, I’d love to hear from you on the hospitals question.
When you take this sort of unprincipled* position, you remove the matter from the realm of argument. I can no more usefully respond to this statement than I can respond usefully to “LALALALA I Can’t Hear You”.
*Not an insult, simply an technical description of a declaration that the ethical dimension of the question is irrelevant.
How so? If you agree that use remains roughly the same, then the advantages of legal access are a)pure, controlled known doses leading to lesser overdoses and toxicity, b)proper education & effective information that doesn’t have to warp its message to justify total abstinence, c)lower prices, in some cases much lower. d)police don’t have to arrest 800,000+ people a year e)no more incarceration for non-violent drug-related activities f)even if you grant $20 in billion in health costs, you save over $50 billion in all WoD related activiities per year g)development of safer drugs, derived or independent from the currently crude offerings, h)no more aerial spraying and disturbing of farming communities in countries like Afghanistan and Colombia, i)cut off the link from terrorism. I haven’t heard of Philip Morris or Anheuser-Busch funneling funds towards Al-Qaeda.
What??? We’re talking about empirical observations. Either total number of people seeking treatment will go up, go down or stay the same, in gross, and for individual drugs. Very much observable parameters unlike angels on a pin, who still remain undetectable as of today, unless my information is outdated.
Agreed. By the same token, bringing up crank and crack does not justify banning all drugs.
No. Doing away with the restrictive system does not mean the govt. cannot regulate. Insurance companies can offer to pay only for prescribed medications. Policies can be offered which cover non-prescribed medications. Indeed, many people right now order non-prescribed, non-FDA-approved from overseas. There’s nothing preventing a doctor from requiring the patients comply with their recommended treatments. Even today, people buy painkillers and all sorts of prescription drugs on the black market without getting caught. As long as people trust their doctors, and doctors are competent and forthcoming, I don’t see anything unworkable.
I understand that. (And just because I don’t share your principles doesn’t mean I don’t have my own; my principles say that a government that has the consent of the governed has an obligation to protect its citizens from infringments on their rights AND to protect people from harmful substances or behavior. I fully understand your use of the term “unprincipled,” and take no offense. But if you want to get technical about my posts, you should have easily recognized the implicit premise in my first post in this thread; the one that you declared a non sequitur.)
Back to the heart of the matter, in my previous message, I struggled with how to state my view that we probably don’t share enough of the same principles to have a very productive debate, but I couldn’t figure out how to phrase it appropriately, so I cut out those lines. I’m more than content to have us agree to disagree on drug legalization, but I asked my questions as a matter of curiousity.
Which I’m still curious about. (hint, hint)
Wow. Well, if abject failure doesn’t convince you, I don’t see what possibly could.
As indicated, there are a great number of schedule I drugs which aren’t. That is very low on the list of reasons. I believe, “fun” is what the DEA looks for when deciding what to schedule. Look at it this way: a toxic organic solvent is one of the top legal drugs of abuse in America. You are allowed to grow poison in your backyard with nary a peep from anyone, but a pot plant will get you busted. Safer alternatives really do exist, if you actually believe this is what the government cares about.
More studies need to be done on the dissociatives which may cause some brain damage, though the jury is still out. In any case, this one has been covered by several of us. To reiterate my own contribution, regulation guarantees a black or gray market of some sort. The more you restrict access, the more there will be diversion from legal sources or outright synthesis. Humans have consistently shown nothing if not a willingness to get fucked up. Prior to the last century, we did alright with it, too. It is a mystery why we continue prohibition. No stated reason jives with human behavior, historical trends, or the realities of the situation.
A very enlightening discussion. Thanks to all of you.
I’ve refrained from actually being a part of this debate because I know my position is one based mostly on emotion, having been a former drug user. I am leery not just of the so called drug culture, which could be explained as a response to their being illegal in the first place, but more so of the detrimental effect many of these drugs have on people, both the users and those around them. But, the same things could be said of alcohol and tobaco.
The one post that interested me the most was concerning the 18th Amendment that SteveMB brought up. Why did it take a change to the Constitution for Prohibition and yet the War On Drugs seems to be the same type of thing yet enacted without such a change?
Any way one looks at these questions and problems, it seems there isn’t much that is purely black or white.
How does that work when the two are mutually exclusive (as in the present case, given the various civil liberties erosions driven by the Drug War)?
I don’t think anyone has a right to use drugs. If there are any rights that have been infringed, then the courts should have something to say about that. Complaining about the loss of liberties that were never protected by the Constitution does not constitute a loss of civil rights.
I thought it was obvious that I was referring to [URL=www.cato.org/realaudio/drugwar/papers/duke.html]the erosion of traditional protections[/A] against search and seizure, confiscation of property without due process, etc. Since it evidently was not, I now state it explicitly.
You mean those changes in search and seizure laws which have been upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court?
Well as long as you got health insurance drugs pretty much are already leagal.
You the shy type? We got a pill for that.
You the nervous type? We got a pill for that.
Your kid a little to hyperactive? We got a pill for that. (Because god forbid you should whip his or her ass. :rolleyes: )
Have trouble sleeping? Eh, you get the point.
Yeah, sure, man, why the fuck not? cough Are you going to eat that?
No, SHAKES, the fun ones.