In many threads I’ve heard comments to the effect that drugs should be decriminalized. What I’m wondering is where are the folks that believe the opposite. For the sake of this particular thread, I’m going to exclude “hard” drugs, eg heroin, crack, etc, and focus strictly on marijuana. Who here believes marijuana should remain illegal?
Well, I certainly don’t, which is why I’m so glad that a Supreme Court judge here in the Frozen North (actually, currently the Humid and Sweltering North) found that the government’s marijuana law is contradictory, discriminatory, and nonsensical, and ruled that they have twelve months to change it or it will be stricken.
Pack the bags, honey! We’re movin’ to Montreal.
And bring along the uh… plants.
Aloe plants that is.
Yeah.
Just for the sake of clarity, are we talking about decriminalisation or legalisation?
Decriminalisation means that marijuana would still be a forbidden substance, but if you get caught with a joint or a couple of plants in the backyard, you’ll just get a spot fine instead of a conviction.
Legalisation means you can light up anywhere you like without fear of fine or arrest (unless, of course, you light up in a designated non-smoking zone).
I’m sure the catchcry of those oppose either move is “For the love of God, won’t someone think of the children?” a la Helen Lovejoy (Simpsons). And they would probably be right, if either Dc or Lg were to come into effect, more cannabis would probably find its way into the hands of children. Mind you, a fair bit of it already makes its way into the hands of children, at least in New Zealand schools.
As for my personal stance on this issue, I’ve never smoked marijuana and I never will, but if other adult-type people want to do it, that’s their business.
Actually, I think if cannibis were legalized, less of it would wind up in the hands of the yunguns. Why? Because if it were legal, it would most likely be subject to the same age restrictions as alcohol and tobacco, and anyone wishing to purchase it would have to show ID to prove they were over 18 or 21, whatever the legal toking age would be in their state. As the situation now stands, any sixth grader with the disposable income can buy just about any illegal drug out there. Criminal drug dealers don’t card.
And your mom thought you were saving your paper route money to buy a new bike.
I’m not familiar enough with the difference between marijuana and “hard” drugs to comment on marijuana specifically (sorry, Tzel), but in general am in favor of drug laws. Unless you agree to allow yourself to be executed the moment you become a danger to and burden on society, society has a legitimate right to prevent you from doing that.
(What I waiting for is for someone to step forward and say that he or she is opposed to the drug laws on libertarian grounds, but supports the mandatory-seatbelt laws.)
agisofia:
Actually, I think current statistics show that minors are currently drinking and smoking in record numbers. Those age restrictions appear to do relatively little to keep those things out of their hands.
Izzy:
Who’s this “society” guy I keep hearing about? Are drug users members of it?
Wow that is a tough test! Even with my wife running this system I would pressed to justify anything I do. Would you apply this criterion to those who set the rules as well?
Even if you think that society can set rules to prevent harm to others and maybe even to users themselves, surely one has to ask whether the rule is working.
I don’t smoke dope myself (though I have) and I personally have a morbid fear of junkies, my guess is that a fair proportion of the problems asociated with drug use are caused by their illegality.
picmr
Surprised you haven’t met him yet. He goes everywhere…
Clarify.
Well, my initial reaction is that society is not a living, breathing, wants-expressing entity. It is a conglomerate of individuals, some of whom are drug users.
Anyway, drug users can only become a “burden on society” to the extent that a) we criminalize behavior that is likely to cause physical harm to only the user (which has the not-so-incidental result of increasing the price of doing it), and b) we require everyone to pay to protect addicts from their own lack of sense or self-control.
Since the OP is restricting the discussion to marijuana only, I can’t think of a class of less harmful people, relatively speaking.
pldennison,
Societal rights applies in a case where any given individual is not likely to be directly harmed by a course of action, but within society as a whole there are likely to be many who will be harmed. Or if as a group, there will be a collective harm done to the populace. Both these apply to allowing unrestricted drug use.
You may well be right about marijuana. I don’t know enough about it specifically, as mentioned. But the OP, in his first two sentences, seemed to suggest a similar attitude about drugs in general, so I figured I’d sneak in a remark about the general topic. Perhaps a marijuana expert will comment. (I think Cecil addressed it somewhere). I would certainly be opposed to outlawing it (or anything else)on “for your own good” grounds.
picmr,
Whether the rule is working is a relative term. It is certainly far from perfect. But I think it is definitely working compared to where we’d be if all drugs were decriminalized.
I would agree with you about a fair proportion of the problems associated with drug use being caused by their illegality. The same also applies to the problems associated with any life of crime.
What’s the deal with your wife?
Oh. Well, I could take one tack and ask what happens if the number of people likely to be unharmed outweighs the “many” who are likely to be harmed.
Instead, I’ll just point out that “society” doesn’t have any rights, only individuals do. At least that’s what the Constitution says.
I was trying to suggest that even if administered by the most sophisicated, intelligent, trustworthy and wise person I know, few if any activites would pass your test.
picmr
pldennison:
Well, if you took that tack (not that you have, but supposing that you had done so) I would ask you to consider the laws that outlaw drunk driving. If there were no such laws it is likely that far less than 50% of the people would be killed by drunk drivers, meaning that the number of those unharmed would outweigh the “many” who are likely to be harmed. Nonetheless we outlaw it anyway. Obviously, if severe enough harm can come to enough people from your actions, it can be outlawed anyway.
It does? Where?
I think there might be some confusion here on the definition of rights. I am reffering to the concept of society, through its elected official passing laws, restricting your private personal behaviour because of the chance that this may ultimate cause harm to the people. Specifically even if there is no identifiable person who will definitely be harmed.
Does she read these boards? If not, it’s a real waste.
Anyway, I’m not sure what test I am proposing that it would be hard for anyone to pass or administer. I am merely giving a rationale for when society has a right to mix into your business. Obviously it depends on the degree of harm that is likely to come about. We force kids to go to school. We don’t force people to go to college. Etc.
Do you have a cite for this? I thought I had read that while smoking was still on the upswing, drinking (and drug use) had actually declined modestly recently. But damned if I can’t find a cite right now.
Your overall point is exactly correct, and I don’t wish to take away from it; I just want to get the facts straight in case my memory is bad on this one.
IzzyR,
Since you state that
Do you believe that anyone, anywhere should be allowed to drive a car? If so, this is a contradiction of your proffessed beliefs since automobiles are dangeourous, and have been shown to cause injury and death when mishandled or improperly maintained. But we do not outlaw automobiles, do we? We regulate their use, yes. The same can be done for drugs.
Similar logic can be applied to bathtubs, swimming pools, hair dryers, ovens, junk food, etc.
Sili
Oh yes, and cigarettes.
**tradesilicon:
I’m not sure how far you would take this. There is a cost/benefit tradeoff in every law that is made. Not every law that society has a right to make is a wise one.
If drugs would be as essential to society as automobiles, I’m sure they would be treated differently than they are now. Similarly, if the dangers of drugs could be as controlled through regulation as the dangers of automobiles (what exactly do have in mind?) I’m sure that would be given more consideration.
So to anwer your question: if a society decided that the benefits of automobiles were not worth the damage that they will inevitably cause, they would be within their rights to outlaw it. But if that is not the feeling, than they are (obviously) not required to do so.
IzzyR
Agreed. I believe that currect drug laws are just that - unwise. Also arbitrary. After all, alcohol can be just as dangerous as most drugs, and we learned our lesson with prohibition. Why can’t we just face the same truths about the drug trade as we did about the gangsters smuggling alcohol?
Now, here is the rub. If it is the damage to society yo are concerened about, why can’t we try to prevent that, and leave the drugs and drug users who don’t cause damage alone?
What do I mean? Simply this - if a pick-pocket epidemic broke out across the country, and the pickers of our pockets were usings scateboards for their approach and getaway, because those work best on crowded streets, would you then advocate the illegalization of scateboards? I would rather put in real penalties for picking pockets, along with jail time for example, or what ever we determine can serve as a deterrent for the act of picking pockets, rather than the act of riding a scateboard. Hope this example makes sence.
Same for drugs and effect on society. It’s not the use of the drug in and of itself we are talking about, but the acts one can commit while under the effect. So let’s concentrate on those acts, rather than the manufacture, purchase and use of the drug.