Marijuana legalization?

[CliffSchaffer]

IzzyR wrote:

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.

Then you probably wouldn’t be familiar with the fact that the drug laws weren’t based on the reasons you have assumed. It’s nice that you want to make up excuses why we have these laws, but those weren’t the real reasons for the laws. See http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/white1.htm for a short history of the marijuana 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.

So, in order to keep someone from being a burden on society, we throw them in prison for a good long stretch? How is that solving anything? It seems to me that just creates the situation you are trying to avoid.

But, if that is your concern, then alcohol is the only drug of any real consequence. It causes far more damage to society than all the illegal drugs combined. Always has, always will. That doesn’t mean that alcohol prohibition was a good idea.

(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.)

How about someone who says that they are opposed to the drug laws because 1) they were absolute lunacy from the very beginning; and 2) there isn’t a shred of credible evidence to support the notion that these laws are a good idea.

See http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm for a good history of the laws.

[pldennison]

Izzy:

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.

Good heavens . . . if that’s your definition of rights, I quit.

quote:

Instead, I’ll just point out that “society” doesn’t have any rights, only individuals do. At least that’s what the Constitution says.

It does? Where?

I’m afraid I have to throw your question back at you. Where in the Constitution are the rights of society defined and protected? There are references to the rights of “the people,” but those are legally understood to refer to discrete individuals, not “society.” All other rights references are to individuals. There is nothing in there about “societal rights.”

If drugs would be as essential to society as automobiles, I’m sure they would be treated differently than they are now.

Arguably, they are as essential. Certainly a great many people go through a great deal of trouble to obtain them.

manhattan: Actually, I don’t have a cite handy, but I’ll see what I can find.

[CliffSchaffer]

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.

I must have definitely missed something in Poli Sci. Where are “societal rights” covered in the US Constitution? Or is that something you just made up?

You may well be right about marijuana. I don’t know enough about it specifically, as mentioned.

Then you would be wise to do some reading before you speak too much on the subject. See http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer for a few references on the subject.

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.

As holder of the world’s largest online library on drug policy, I can tell you that there is no evidence that mj smokers are any threat to anyone but themselves. See the URL above for numerous references.

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.

And you just admitted that you didn’t know the difference between marijuana and hard drugs. If you have such a low level of knowledge on the subject, how would you know whether we would be better off under any system?

I would agree with you about a fair proportion of the problems associated with drug use being caused by their illegality.

Yes. We didn’t have most of these problems before drugs were made illegal.

The same also applies to the problems associated with any life of crime.

No, it doesn’t.

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.

Once again, if that is your concern, alcohol does far more damage to “society” than all the illegal drugs combined. That doesn’t mean alcohol prohibition was a good idea. You will note that we currently don’t try to outlaw alcohol generally in order to solve problems like drunk driving. We tried it and it was a disaster.

quote:

Instead, I’ll just point out that “society” doesn’t have any rights, only individuals do. At least that’s what the Constitution says.

It does? Where?

The Bill of Rights. “Society” is not mentioned.

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.

So same question. Where in our legal system is “society” mentioned? If that is your line of reasoning, then surely you must be in favor of criminal penalties on alcohol.

Anyway, I’m not sure what test I am proposing that it would be hard for anyone to pass or administer.

How about simply coming up with someone who was injured, or an explanation of how “society” is injured, because another person smoked pot in their home?

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.

Well, nice try, but “society” has no specified right to be safe from everyone being lazy and thus being a burden on the rest of us, whatever the cause for their being lazy is. And, of course, that line of reasoning didn’t have anything to do with the drug laws. I know you probably thought it sounded like a reasonable explanation, but it is just something you made up with no actual basis in the reality of these laws.

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.

So when, in the history of these laws, did anyone ever do any actual cost/benefit analysis? When they did it, what were the results?

If drugs would be as essential to society as automobiles, I’m sure they would be treated differently than they are now.

Apparently, they are more essential, because they have been around much longer and are used much more widely and commonly than even automobiles. Some addiction experts think the drive to alter consciousness is inborn in the human. Think it over while you have your morning coffee.

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.

They can, but that hasn’t been given any consideration by the US Federal Government. In fact, they make a concerted effort to deep-six any and all research which might point to a better system. President Nixon’s US National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse is a good example. You can find it under http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer under Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy.

[IzzyR]

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?

(This point was also made by CliffSchaffer).

There is alot of truth to this. But alcohol is so entrenched in our culture that the Prohibition failed. Fortunately, drugs have never approached that level of widespread use.

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.

Problem is the issue of addiction. Once people are addicted to drugs there’s very little that can be done to change their behaviour. Our current drug laws are imperfect but they keep many people from heading down that step-by-step path to distruction.

CliffSchaffer,

Then you probably wouldn’t be familiar with the fact that the drug laws weren’t based on the reasons you have assumed. It’s nice that you want to make up excuses why we have these laws, but those weren’t the real reasons for the laws. See http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/white1.htm for a short history of the marijuana laws.

Why in the world would I be interested in the history of the drug laws? I care about whether they are justified or not. Other posters have at least succeded in addressing these issues. What you are bringing up is silliness. (Besides, you’re link didn’t work).

How about someone who says that they are opposed to the drug laws because 1) they were absolute lunacy from the very beginning; and 2) there isn’t a shred of credible evidence to support the notion that these laws are a good idea.

Oh.

pldennison,

Where in the Constitution are the rights of society defined and protected? There are references to the rights of “the people,” but those are legally understood to refer to discrete individuals, not “society.” All other rights references are to individuals. There is nothing in there about “societal rights.”

What I am endeavoring to communicate to you is that I am not using rights in a constitutional sense. I’m not suggesting that, in the absence of drug laws, I could sue to have my contitutionaly protected “societal right” to have all drugs banned. But the government does have the authority to pass such laws, if warrented. Frankly, I’m still not sure what you are trying to make of this.

[pldennison]

Izzy:

What I am endeavoring to communicate to you is that I am not using rights in a constitutional sense . . . But the government does have the authority to pass such laws, if warrented. Frankly, I’m still not sure what you are trying to make of this.

I want to make sure I state this carefully: Are you claiming that the government has the authority to pass laws beyond the scope specifically outlined in the Constitution, to the detriment of the rights outlined in the Constitution, if enough people think it is a good idea?

Problem is the issue of addiction. Once people are addicted to drugs there’s very little that can be done to change their behaviour.

Really? Huh. Are you sure? Do you know any addicts or former addicts?

[IzzyR]

pldennison

Are you claiming that the government has the authority to pass laws beyond the scope specifically outlined in the Constitution, to the detriment of the rights outlined in the Constitution, if enough people think it is a good idea?

No. The constitution does not limit the government to only pass laws that specificly benefit individuals. Therefore such (societal benefit) laws are not beyond the scope of the constitution.

Really, I must ask you, if you continue in this vein, to spell out your thoughts on exactly what category of laws that are beyond the scope of the constitution do drug laws fit into. Give some other examples.

Really? Huh. Are you sure? Do you know any addicts or former addicts?

Yes. Yes. No.

[pldennison]

No. The constitution does not limit the government to only pass laws that specificly benefit individuals. Therefore such (societal benefit) laws are not beyond the scope of the constitution.

At this point I have to pause and ask if you have ever taken and received a passing grade in a civics or politics class. I’m not interested in who laws benefit. I’m interested in laws that restrict individual rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution for the benefit of this nebulous being, “society .”

Really, I must ask you, if you continue in this vein, to spell out your thoughts on exactly what category of laws that are beyond the scope of the constitution do drug laws fit into. Give some other examples.

Let’s start with asset and property seizure and forfeiture laws and go from there.

quote:

Really? Huh. Are you sure? Do you know any addicts or former addicts?

Yes. Yes. No.

Wow. So you don’t know any addicts or former addicts, but you know that their behavior cannot be changed. James Randi has a $1 million check for you, my Psychic Friend.

Hey, did anybody else read the recent report outlining potential benefits from acupuncture treatment in treating cocaine addicts? We’d better 86 it–Izzy says you can’t change addicts’ behavior.

[IzzyR]

pldennison

At this point I have to pause and ask if you have ever taken and received a passing grade in a civics or politics class. I’m not interested in who laws benefit. I’m interested in laws that restrict individual rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution for the benefit of this nebulous being, “society .”

At this point I have to pause and ask you if you have some sort of mental block regarding this issue. There is no constitutional right to take drugs in this country.

Let’s start with asset and property seizure and forfeiture laws and go from there.

No, let’s start with what category and go from there.

Wow. So you don’t know any addicts or former addicts, but you know that their behavior cannot be changed. James Randi has a $1 million check for you, my Psychic Friend.

Actually, someone who bases his opinion on his own experience and that of his friends is the foolish one.

Hey, did anybody else read the recent report outlining potential benefits from acupuncture treatment in treating cocaine addicts? We’d better 86 it–Izzy says you can’t change addicts’ behavior.

What I actually said is “there’s very little that can be done to change their behaviour”. This is true. I suspect that you know as much yourself.

[IzzyR]

No response.

Well anyway, I’m off for the weekend. The floor is yours.

[Utopia]

Once people are addicted to drugs there’s very little that can be done to change their behaviour.

Izzy: Do you have any evidence, personal or otherwise, to back up this statement? Since you’ve effectively eliminated personal experience the question really is : What studies confirm the “fact” that “very little that can be done to change” the the behavior of drug addicts?

Why is drug addiction even an issue in a marijuana thread? Marijuana has no physically addictive properties.
Granted, it does have some psychologically addictive properties. But so does eating chocolate, driving fast and many other potentially dangerous legal activities.

Is this some sort of attempt at the gateway argument?

[pldennison]

At this point I have to pause and ask you if you have some sort of mental block regarding this issue. There is no constitutional right to take drugs in this country.

1. Rights are not granted by the Constitution, they are protected.
2. Amendment IX: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
   Amendment x: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

If you want to maintain that laws banning drug use among adults are Constitutional, that’s your prerogative. I, however, disagree.

quote:

Let’s start with asset and property seizure and forfeiture laws and go from there.

No, let’s start with what category and go from there.

Uh . . . the category of asset and property seizure laws? Do you need it with illustrations?

Let’s put it this way. Amendment IV states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

And yet the War on Drugs (or, to borrow Lib’s phrase, The War on Americans I Mean Drugs) has resulted in several laws which allow for warrantless searches (“Gee, do you smell marijuana? I sure do.”), and which provide for the confiscation of property suspected of being used in a drug transaction.

Like the landlord in Cleveland whose house was boarded up and taken away from him because a tenant was using drugs:

"The owner of the first house boarded up in Elyria because of drugs wishes authorities had contacted him first.
Michael R. Miller of Elyria and his wife, Lee, own the house on Gateway Blvd. that was partially boarded up and padlocked by the Lorain County Prosecutor’s Office and sheriff’s deputies Thursday. They were named in a restraining order authorizing the action.

Terry L. Burks was a tenant in the house along with his wife, Ruth Burks, and their two children. Terry Burks was arrested on Wednesday and charged with two counts of drug trafficking, according to Elyria police Detective Scott Ashley. Burks posted bond after his arraignment Thursday.
‘If I had a clue, he wouldn’t be living there,’ Michael Miller said. ‘If I had gotten a complaint from neighbors, I would have run him out of there.’

He said if he had known about drug sales or what authorities were planning to do, he would have evicted the family under a provision in the lease that prohibits illegal activities on the property."

Or the woman whose car, registered in her name, was confiscated and auctioned off because her husband, unbeknownst to her, was picking up his drugs while driving it.

Heck, don’t take my word for it. Read about them yourself at

http://www.fear.org/

and

http://www.libertyproject.org/index.cfm

Is that a good enough start?

Actually, someone who bases his opinion on his own experience and that of his friends is the foolish one.

Yes, making them up out of whole cloth with no knowledge of the particulars serves one much better, doesn’t it? That way, you don’t have to defend them.

What I actually said is “there’s very little that can be done to change their behaviour”. This is true. I suspect that you know as much yourself.

I know no such thing.

[Tominator2]

The Bill of Rights. “Society” is not mentioned.

The 10th Amendment states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Which would certainly indicate that governmental bodies can have “powers”. I leave it to others to worry the difference between powers and rights.

[pldennison]

Utopia:

Why is drug addiction even an issue in a marijuana thread? Marijuana has no physically addictive properties.
Granted, it does have some psychologically addictive properties. But so does eating chocolate, driving fast and many other potentially dangerous legal activities.

And, speaking of using “marijuana” and “driving” in the same paragraph:

Cannabis may make you a safer driver
Jonathon Carr-Brown
08/13/2000
Sunday Times - London

. . . Ministers are set to be embarrassed by government-funded research which shows that driving under the influence of drugs makes motorists more cautious and has a limited impact on their risk of crashing.

. . .

In the study, conducted by the Transport Research Laboratory, grade A cannabis specially imported from America was given to 15 regular users. The doped- up drivers were then put through four weeks of tests on driving simulators to gauge reaction times and awareness.

. . .

Instead of proving that drug-taking while driving increased the risk of accidents, researchers found that the mellowing effects of cannabis made drivers more cautious and so less likely to drive dangerously.

Although the cannabis affected reaction time in regular users, its effects appear to be substantially less dangerous than fatigue or drinking. Research by the Australian Drugs Foundation found that cannabis was the only drug tested that decreased the relative risk of having an accident.

[Utopia]

Who here believes marijuana should remain illegal?

I have yet to hear a reasonable, coherent argument for the criminalization of cannabis. I highly doubt this will ever change given the history of the Draconian drugs laws, the relative “harmfulness” of marijuana and the lack of any valid studies confirming any “problems” it has caused.

I would love to hear a well written piece on why marijuana should bee illegal …

… so I could tear it apart.

[Tzel]

Indeed, that was what I was digging for when I posted this thread, but I am beginning to suspect there really does not exist a cogent argument for keeping marijuana illegal. Oh well, we all love the status quo, don’t we?

[Liberal]

I leave it to others to worry [about] the difference between powers and rights.

Powers are an attribute of might; rights are an attribute of property. Powers can be used either to usurp or to defend rights, i.e., to steal or protect property. Once upon a time, we would have assumed that, in the context of the U. S. Constitution, they would have been used for defense.

[matt_mcl]

Lib: Is voting a right conferred by property? What do I have to own in order to have the right to vote? Being $600 in debt and expecting a federal election in the next year, this is very important to me.

[mangeorge]

I think the only way to find out what effect legalization would have would be to test it. Put a moratorium on the federal mj law for 5 years or so and let the states deal with it. The states could simply add the word “marijuana” to the existing alchohol laws. Or keep it illegal, depending on the voting public. What we have now sure isn’t working.
One benefit I see for legal mj is that a significant number of people who use less benign drugs (esp. alchohol) will instead use mj. Myself, for example.
Peace,
mangeorge

[mangeorge]

Does anyone know why impairment testing isn’t accepted as a more valid alternative to urine testing? For safety issues, I mean?
Peace,
mangeorge

[waterj2]

(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.)

OK. Regardless of the methods by which ownership was obtained, the government does in fact own and operate the roads and highways of this country. I see mandatory seatbelt laws as a perfectly fine condition upon which the permission of the people to use the roads is granted. In a libertarian context, the entity that owns and operates the roads would be wise to adopt a similar measure.

Prohibiting people from using marijuana is needlessly meddling in the affairs of peaceful, honest people. There is no justification for doing so.