I think I have a unique perspective for looking at drug laws because to-date, I have never taken an illegal drug. I was offered marijuana in high school, but they caught me off guard, so I declined. Oh, yes, and I have been drinking alcohol (in moderation) since I was a child. (But I don’t know if that last item would even technically qualify as an illegal drug.)
Anyways, here is my idea for a new drug law: (1) all “soft” drugs, like marijuana, should be perfectly legal across the board. (2)Hard drugs like heroin and cocaine should be legal to simply possess for personal use, but illegal to sell. And I think the laws against them should be just regulated by the FDA like any other drug you need a prescription for. For example, if you sell penicillin without a prescription or license to sell it, what are the penalties now? These I believe should be the same penalties for selling controlled substances now. Another idea I have: if you sell hard drugs and they cause harm, you should be prosecuted only in civil court (i.e., a lawsuit), not in criminal court.
Well, those are my ideas. What do you all think of them? Please give me any input you think appropriate, including your own opinions. And please please do not tell of any present illegal activities you may be involved in with drugs or provide a link to any illegal website. Thank you .
Personally, I’ve never touched any controlled substance either, and when I mention my “wild” ideas about legalization people seem to automatically assume I must be a pot head.
As a libertarian, I think ultimately all controlled substances should be legalized. Of course, my ideal world is different from what is actually obtainable within the foreseeable future; I think going immediately to allowing heroine for “personal use” without some sort of transition plan is going to cause massive upheaval. So, I’d start with a plan that is a bit more palatable to society at large, see how it goes, then slowly start to phase in
I think the most likely starting scenario for legalization, which is still rather unlikely, is that marijuana is legalized and controlled in a manner similar to tobacco and alcohol. I think requiring the user to be 18 or 21 is within reason, and it would allow the government to create tax it and ensure it is safe, much as they do with cigarettes. Further, they can establish laws similar to those for alcohol, such that driving under the influence of marijuana is punished similarly.
After that’s in effect for 5 years or so, then I think they can give consideration to starting to legalize the next tier of drugs, perhaps hallucinogens like LSD and mushrooms.
All that said, I don’t really see what’s a whole lot different about your proposal that is new to the legalization debate. Maybe I missed something?
Oh, no on the contrary. I think my ideas are on the whole the same as most other people who believe drugs should be legalized. I just wanted to see what other people think. Also, I forgot to mention as you said, marijuana should not be legal before age 18 (or 21) and of course, driving under the influence of any drug should still be illegal.
I can see that you put thought into this, Jim, so I will respond in kind. One of the problems is determining what “soft” drugs are. If you mean only marijuana, then say only marijuana should be completely legal. Would you control it even by age, or should five year olds be allowed to do bong hits? I would think you mean that there should be some control. If not, how would it be sold or regulated? I agree that it should be decriminalized, that is that it should be no more than a simple and small fine for possession of an amount for personal usage. OTOH, I could also see some places in which it is legal to buy and consume marijuana to adults. This would allow the FDA to make sure that the marijuana that is being sold is actually pure marijuana.
As to cocaine and heroin, I don’t see any benefit to making these drugs available in any way. Powdered cocaine was in common usage when I was much younger and many people seemed to think that it was harmless and even healthy. ISTR that some people who would never use “drugs” touted the benefits of cocaine. We now know about addiction potential and overdose. Also, you have the problem of people who will crystallize it and make crack. I have never heard anyone actually gain from using crack rock. Heroin has the same problem. There are way more addicts than recreational users.
There are many more things that people use such as extacy and LSD that would have to be evaluated to determine if they would be called soft or hard. For example, people die from X, but should the person that sold to a willing user be sued in court for selling to someone who died? If so, why? There is always the chance of death when you use it.
LSD, AFAIK, there is not much of a chance of overdose, but should that be a “soft” drug?
Then we get to things like glue sniffing and abusing prescription drugs.
Anyway, I see a lot of problems without much gain to society in general. I am with you on marijuana usage not resulting in jail time. (Except for Service Members, of course.)
I feel about drug laws much the way I do about seat belt laws.
Make anyone who wants to ignore them sign a “waiver of liability”. This means that (using seat belts as an example) that if you decide you do not wish to use a seat belt, and are injured, or cause injury through that choice, then YOU and you alone are responsible for all costs resulting from that choice. Your medical bills, your loss of income and such are all up to you to pay. People who die from such choices lose their estate to the courts. People who die with out any estatehave their belongings sold and are buried in a pauper’s grave.
Now apply this to drugs. You want to smoke dope - you get a license to do so. It involves a short (3 hour) course telling you what you are signing and the known scientific facts about such activity. It also tells you about the law and your personal responsibility. No driving, under any form of intoxication. You are resposible for your children and dependants. You will be held responsible for any damage or legal (civil) consquenses of you activities while high. Essentially, if you want to enjoy smoking dope, you have to do so with a sense of social responsibility.
“Heavier” drugs require a more robust training and licensing schedule, plus a bond (up to several thousand dollars) to cover costs. If a millionaire wants to spend his days zonked out on heroin… go for it… he can afford it…
These are just some thoughts and are boviously full of holes…
BTW I haven’t used drugs for more than a decade and July 2 was my 1 yr anniversary of sobriety.
Laws against drugs are created by legislatures and enforced by police and the DEA. The FDA basically evaluates and approves or denies medical drugs and has some control over their marketing. If the drugs aren’t prescribed, the FDA hasn’t got much to do with it - it would be like herbal treatments (no pun intended) which aren’t evaluated by the FDA because they are not subject to its standard of testing.
The FDA doesn’t really do this either. If there were reports of problems with a product it might get involved in testing, but this is more of a situation that companies handle individually (although they must comply with manufacturing standards). You won’t see the agency randomly testing Tylenol capsules and you wouldn’t see purity tests for marijuana. You’d need to expand the FDA or make a new agency to deal with that.
I agree that “soft” drugs and hallucinogens should be legal for adults, but enforcing that distinction logically might be tough. And I think testing impaired drivers for some of these things might be tricky as well.
But that doesn’t remove the main problem of a system where drugs are illegal, that they provide a HUGE money making cash-cow for organised criminals. The fact is the production and distrubution of hard drugs is making unbelivable amounts of money for some of the most unpleasant people (and destabilising entire countries). Why not cut it out at stroke by treating these drugs as what they are pharmacutical products, albeit very dangerous ones.
Though I do adovacate making some kind of disctinction between “hard” and “soft” drugs, even in a legal system. I think “soft” drugs should be treated no differently to cigarettes, but “hard” drugs need to be very strongly regulated and controlled (but within a medical framework).
Thats the thing, no country is able properly de-criminalize drugs without breaking international laws that date back to the time of the League of Nations. Hence you have alot “turning a blind eye” systems like that in Holland, which seem like a bad idea to me. it just incourages law-breaking by saying “we have this law, but we choose not to enforce it”.
Is there a reliable way to measure the level of intoxication of someone who’s smoked marijuana? Unlike alcohol, it can be detected in the blood/urine long after the effects are gone (up to a month).
I fear that’s going to be a major obstacle for legalization until a method is perfected, and as far as I know nobody’s clamoring to do so. (And personal anecdotes notwithstanding, I don’t think “I drive better when I’m stoned!” is going to satisfy the legal requirement.)
If hard drugs are “very strongly regulated,” then you’re not going to get rid of the illegal market. Criminals will sell drugs to anyone who has the money. I don’t know exactly what regulations you have in mind, but if they’re at all strict (e.g., requiring medical necessity, doctor approval, etc.), then many of the people currently buying drugs illegally will continue to do so, either because they don’t qualify for the legal drugs, or they find the illegal market more convenient.
The reguation would govern who distributes them, and how, and where (I would not want a “smack and crack” section of my local liquor store, but I’d have no problem with a “grass” section). It would not regulate who gets them.
The one thing I’m not understanding is what the basic explanation of what the underlying principle for this law would be.
Ok, making pot legal, I understand. But why is use of “hard” drugs okay, but selling them is not? If there’s nothing wrong with using cocaine, why is buying cocaine unacceptable?
Finally, the FDA regulates drugs for safety. How can the FDA regulate a drug for safety if the drug is inherently unsafe and there’s no possibility to ban it?
They should still do so, its a very important task to judge the saftey of drugs.
Where the law should change is that, while its perfectly OK for the FDA to point out that take a particular drug is INCREDIBLY dangerous, it serves NO purpose to ban people from taking it. If people are informed of the dangers of a drug and take it anyway, thats there problem.
We’ve done this before in seat belt threads, but I’ll bite.
You are a healthy and fit 25 year old. You sign the waiver. You get into an accident, leaving you in a vegetative state. Your medical insurance runs out. Who is gonna pay the $20 million to keep you alive for the next 40 years? Right now, everyone else’s taxes do.
Don’t get me wrong as I agree in principle what you are suggesting.
Getting back to the OP. What about any harm you cause to someone else as a result of your self-medication? Who pays? Fines? Jail? What?
But is there any evidence that drug abuse will increase if its legalized ? Additionally the the seat belt analogy rapidly breaks down, the fact is yeah seat belt laws are an imposition, but really not very much of one. Is there a multi-billion dollar industry in illegal, dangerous, seat belt free cars ? Are we spending billions policy non seat belt wearers are we. Are we putting huge swathes of our population in prison, for refusing to wear seat belts ? Are our neighbouring countries being destablished and suffering incredible crime waves, to satisify our demand for illegal seat belts?
You do. Why should that be any different to damage you do when you self medicate yourself with 12 beers and start a bar fight ?
It’s to discourage people from getting crooked in the way they sell it. I guess it’s similar to levdrakon’s comments about the tobacco companies - the product is fine, the dealer is bad. I’ve heard people make this argument before about legalizing marijuana, but it’s never practical. I’ve been told, for example, that if it were legal, people would grow it in their own back yards and the drug companies would never get a piece. Like everybody will decide to buy heat lamps and potting soil and practice gardening and things when they could drive to the supermarket and get their drugs there instead.
True. I guess what people are suggesting here is that the FDA treat these drugs like food - where more safety work happens - because this is not the way drugs are dealt with. As far as pharmaceuticals go, if nobody’s making claims about what the drug does for patients, the FDA isn’t involved.
.