But if you look at the DEA statements that it makes to Congress you’ll see that they are essentially promoting the same lies. So it is our word agaisnt theirs… now what?
Here is a little tidbit about a truly free society: in a free society, one can do ANYTHING as long as it does not interfere with the rights of others. Period. This being the case, drugs, prostitution, voluntary euthanasia, and so on, should be legal.
What I have to wonder about is why Congress is dumb enough to buy the DEA’s lies. The bottom line is: why are our lawmakers so cowed by the DEA’s power that they won’t challenge them? Is it something like J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI? What is, fundamentally, at the root of keeping such a wasteful, meaningless agency in business and giving it so much power? The regime of antidrug laws being the foundation of this power. Cui bono? (That question means “To whose benefit?” and has nothing to do with Irish rock stars.)
Will someone please cite this “fact” that marijuana is not addictive? I’ve heard stories of people getting hooked to simple things like aspirin or cough syrup, and yet a drug such as marijuana which would most likely be more enjoyable is the perfect non-addictive drug. So they say.
I wish I lived in your happy land. Anyway, my rights are infringed when I’m run down by some pothead who thought one bowl wasn’t enough to impair his driving abilities. And before people start nitpicking about how “We’ll keep driving under the influence illegal!” just remember that DUI convictions aren’t the most effective thing in the world. I cite:
%9 of the people studied were repeat offenders. Now, if marijuana is legalized, that means (due to the ease of aquiring) there would be a lot more people with this drug. Hence that %9 becomes a greater number. And remember, this is just in Tennessee- imagine the number of vehicular homicides in the major urban areas.
My second cite is from the Master Himself.
Ergo, even stoners who can tell the difference between being stoned and not are a risk behind the wheel of any sort of car. You also have the problem of drug tests. With alcohol, drug tests are as easy as breathing into the tube, and if you’re sober, off you go. With marijuana, they’ll need a blood/urine sample to confirm the THC levels in your blood, and those sorts of tests take longer/cost more.
I think it’s more that the general public has been so sold on the idea that drugs are the cause of all evil in our society that it would be political suicide for a politician to be seen to be less than rabidly ant-drug.
(Wow, that’s a long sentence.)
I agree with Sua that pot would be too cheap for the evil big companies to make a profit on. They make a profit on all kinds of weeds. Just head to the supermarket and look at the herbal tea section. Boxes and boxes of weeds, packed in little bags, sold for a huge mark-up. People could easily go out to the backyard, pick some chamomile, dry it, and get much better herbal tea for free. But they don’t.
Now, the question becomes, since so many people are in favor of decriminalization, why does it remain illegal? Conspiracy theories miss the point. Yes, there is a constituency for decriminalization. But it is not a large constituency, and more importantly, it is not a motivated and passionate constituency.
If you were a legislator, you might get a few votes from your principled stand on decriminalization. But you would also lose votes. And the people who are against decriminalization feel much more strongly about it. Sure, if you live in certain districts the stand might not cause a problem. But the vast majority of legislators live in districts with a lot of anti-drug feeling. Doesn’t matter that logically criminalization of pot doesn’t make sense. A legislator has to be willing to alienate a large faction, in order to win over an uncertain number of other voters.
Once a certain critical point is reached, suddenly the will to change the laws will be there, and everyone will be puzzled as to why we even had the law in the first place. But changing the status quo requires…well…action. Leaving things alone requires no risks. Hmmmm…risk. Or no risk. Risk, or no risk. Hmmmm…
It really doesn’t matter that, in an ideal situation, it would be up to the advocates of criminalization to prove that criminalization should stay. The fact is that we have the laws now, and it will require an effort to change the laws. Inertia and all that. And appeals to libertarian ideals aren’t going to be that helpful, since the majority of voters aren’t libertarians.
Make that “wouldn’t be too cheap.”
PS…I know people who grow their own tobacco, for ceremonial use. It isn’t hard, anyone could do it. It’s just that to grow a lot requires, well, a lot of effort. Division of labor, specialization, etc.
**
Except that, generally speaking, someone who is seriously baked is much more aware and “themselves” than someone who is even moderately drunk. If I’m stoned to the point where I can’t stand up, and I “need” to go somewhere, I still have enough sense to know I’m in no shape to drive. OTOH, if you’ve ever tried to take the keys away from someone who’s been drinking, you know it can often require physical restraint.
As for the cost issue, the millions (billions?) saved in not putting marijuana users in jail would far outweigh the cost of the police testing.
Back to the OP, I’m with Mandos. My right to ingest narcotics, so long as I don’t harm non-consenting others, is as inalienable and self-evident as my right to free speech. And anyone who claims to be in favor of “smaller government”, but even questions the “need” for legalizing narcotics, is a hypocrite.
On testing, there are impairment tests available which directly measure a persons ability to operate any machine, cars included. No matter the cause of the impairment. Fail a field sobriety test and you won’t be allowad to drive. Simple and effective. And if there were a market, better ones (impairment tests) would be developed.
Lack of sleep causes more accidents than any other impairment.
Drug laws are laws against sin, not harm.
Peace,
mangeorge
Otherwise, no society can claim that they are free, so no argument from me. It’s about having tolerant views of others, even if it isn’t the sort of thing for oneself. Penn, from Penn & Teller was arguing this point with drugs on the Bill Maher show a while back ago. Penn, who has stated he has never touched any drug, including never even taken a sip from alcohol, I believe, emphasized the point well, that adults should have that right in a nation that claims it is free, otherwise, they shouldn’t be claiming they are.
John
What about MDMA? Pretty harmless if you take the right stuff, moderate dosages and drink water.
Why was it made illegal?
What were the political factors that could have contributed to the illegalization of MDMA?
Does MDMA draw a parallel with marijuana, or is it on a different line of debate?
Personal responsibility has been acknowldged as a force for legalization of marijuana. Does society, in turn, hold a responsibility to protect you from yourself?
Could it have been “grandfathered in” like tobacco and alcohol?
Could the difficulty of MDMA manufacture contribute to its ability to be taxed, and such a factor for legalizing it?
And now for the levity. Jon Stewart said of the subject, “The problem with legalizing pot is that if you did, PEOPLE WOULD SMOKE IT!”
The structure for legallization is already in place. All the states have to do, if they* so choose, is add “and marijuana” to their liquor laws.
I wonder how many people would abandon alchohol if they could smoke pot.
I sure would. I hate hangovers.
*The People of the state.
Peace,
mangeorge
Nope, the problem is that marijuana, for most of us, is purely recreational. Now, if that bothers you, take a half-step back and figure for a second why booze is legal.
I’ll need a lawyer to help me along with the line of bullshit–I mean logic–but it comes down to this: alcohol is accepted for ceremonial reasons, and because it is so deeply embedded in our culture that it cannot reasonably be taken away. That, and we tried it before and made a shitload of criminals filthy rich when we did try to take it away.
But reefer? Hell, no. It’s recreational, and be us all damned to Hell if we’re allowed to enjoy ourselves chemically without recrimination.
Be comfortable with busting the law wide open to have your fun. And ask yourselves why we need laws for such things, and why your kids can dabble in dope with the same dealers who distribute fake X and methamphetamines and heroin. And if you never met that dealer when you were buying reefer, well, you never met that guy’s boss, did you?
The gateway to drug abuse, and the expensive maze that is created to lead you out of it, is through your dealer. Have you ever met an ABC store employee that gives a flying fuck about you? Then why not make him sell it? At least he or she is willing to enforce the law. I, currently, am not.
Oh, but I’m not a dealer, either, so quit e-mailing me.
This tendency rears its ugly head in quite a few of our laws, not just drug laws. The American government has a lot of trouble accepting the possibility that something can be less than ideal and yet still should not be illegal. There is a sickeningly great number of laws that exist purely on moral grounds rather than on rational grounds. And since what is or is not moral differs among individuals, it should never be used as grounds for a law. So in summary, Yes, you are right, it should be legal.
It can be psychologicaly addictive but then again, what can’t? Preople are bound to be addictid to anything that gives them pleasure. Marijuana does not cause withdrawal symptoms.
What are the facts regarding this position? Seems reasonable.
So, under that logic, anything that isn’t essential ought to be outlawed?
I’m sorry, but my approach to the law is exactly the opposite. I believe that people ought to be free to do anything they want, provided that it doesn’t harm anyone else. “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” and all that.
I think that the primary reason for the continuation of America’s insane drug policy is that the victims of it are “someone else”. According to a report by The Sentencing Project, in the US, blacks (who account for, IIRC, 14% of the population) account for 13% of monthly drug users, but 74% of those who are sentenced to prison for drug possession. I’d bet the statistics correspond even more closely to income. Basically, the victims of the War on Drugs are the politically powerless.
And just as a minor nitpick, it’s actually the Boston Beer Company that Sua is giving his money to.
Unfortunately, I don’t think the federal government would ever allow a state to legalize it. While the state could, the federal government would still make it illegal as a federal stature. We already have a county in Northern CA, that legalized up to 25 marijuana plants for private cultivation and use. The feds still say it is in violation of federal statures. Remember when the speed limit was 55, and the federal government said it would cut out millions in state aid to any that made their speed limits more than that? That would be another thing they could hit the state with. If a state did legalize it, and the federal government pulls this kind of crappola; then, I wish the governor and many of those residing in that state would threaten not to pay their federal taxes for that year, or even succeed from the union. See if that might give them a change of venue. “We the people” doesn’t seem to pertain to the states on what rights they want for themselves when the federal government wants things their way.
John
I agree! Marijuana prohibition, when the facts are on the table, can not be justified. Substance prohibition is about social conditioning and control, an excuse to violate the rights and liberties of citizens, it’s about protecting the profits of various industries ie fabrics and pharma., it’s about crimalising existing trends of recreational substance use amungst minorities, it’s about funding for police and lawenforcement agencies, and it’s about diversion and distraction.
While people are wasting their energy worrying about their teenagers having a toke, they are not paying due attention the the big picture. In America and Australia we have a wealth distribution that is insane. The top 10% or 20% of our populations control about 80% of capital. What this ensures is an ineffective democracy, how can you imagine your welfare is of any concern to a politician being showered with gifts (another word for bribe) and wined and dinned by corporate big-wigs all year round, and is then payed a fortune for all that hard work? Fact is class divide, capitalist ideology and pulling the wool of your eyes are all related to prohibition. I am not talking about a conspirscy but rather a social and economic system that rewards all the characterists the educated, decent, working majority find abhorent. Greed, selfishness, deciet, disloyalty, competion instead of coperation, agressive individualism, economic rationalism or fundamentalism, improper materialism. All these things are in opposition to democracy and indicative of Capitalism.
Forget your governments patriotic, divide and rule propoganda. Look for the real story, look to the only truely indipendent organisations, non-profit organisations who oppose and pressure the Government. Your local international socialist organisation or Greenpeace have moral political incentives to write the truth in order to change the world for the better. Sky News, being produced and payed for by the Capitalist minority who benefit massively from the perpetuation of the current world order, would be cuting their own throat to expose the debased and anti-social workings of pressent and previous ruling classes or capitalist minorities.