Alright, maybe in a strict logical sense it doesn’t follow, but I think it will be hard to argue both “We should legalize X because it isn’t very dangerous” and “We need to legalize Y because it is extremely dangerous” at the same time. And if I have to pick, I would prefer that we legalize the things where criminalization does the most harm.
One good reason to change the laws about weed regardless is that we’re pretty successful at getting junior school kids the, ‘all drugs are bad’, message. Including cops to scare them, and signed oaths etc.
And they somewhat buy into the ‘slippery slope’ argument that any drug will end with you selling your sister to get crack, sooner or later. They believe that’s all a possible reality right up until they smoke their first joint. Then they realize what a crock of shit they’ve been sold.
In fact, I think we’d all be happy not to have that thinking destroyed entirely, simply because weed is being lumped in with meth and oxy in the ‘all drugs are evil’ school.
How is it not self evident that the laws regarding weed need to be changed, and the cost saving of not prosecuting and pursuing potheads, should be shifted to the fight against something worthier, like meth or crack?
Yes both decriminalization and legalization can of course look very different depending on how you design them. The goals should however be simple to agree on:
- Taking control away from criminal networks
- Reducing harm from drug use
- Reducing drug use
I think that anyone who isn’t a criminal drug dealer or producer could agree with that. Since we all want to achieve that, we should check to see which methods that seem to get those results. So far I have found it neigh impossible to get any credible evidence that repressive policies produce this result within an acceptably democratic framework (draconian laws in authoritarian states may get the best results but that’s not an option to most people).
On the other hand, the more “controversial” methods of legalization and decriminalization seems to actually get the results we want. So in my mind, that makes us morally responsible to pursue the route of harm reduction rather than the more “uncontroversial” utopia of a drug free society as a result of repression.
I also see more and more people line up on the side of harm reduction, serious and prominent people like professor David Nutt along with other medical professionals, as well as statesmen like Kofi Annan and the former presidents/prime ministers of Switzerland, Brazil, Colombia, Greece and Mexico. These are not silly pot heads, quacks or fringe politicians, so it is hard to dismiss them. I’m starting to think that this might be a huge ignorance, causing massive harm, that needs fighting.
No it isn’t ignorance, the powers that be and a large amount of the public revile and despise drugs and drug users, ESPECIALLY hard drugs and users/addicts.
They know very well the laws are causing massive harm and they like it that way, anything to hurt those people. It is totally intentional.
I call bullshit on that. The majority of politicians I know are good people, and the majority of them support the current repressive laws. I’m sure there are psychopaths, fanatics and monsters who get off on the idea that “disgusting sinners” are suffering, but to claim that they would make up the majority of any group that isn’t a fringe sect is preposterous.
In my experience politicians support policies because they believe they are good policies (and they are often wrong, ie: ignorant), not because they are bad people.
They think drug users/addicts are scum, and deserve what they get. I don’t think they are monsters or bad people, I just think they don’t care about drug users or addicts and the culture supports that.
Not that long ago the majority of Americans thought interracial marriage should be illegal and gays should be in prison.
All the politicians I have spoken to on the issue who support repressive legislation do it because they are convinced it is the right and good thing to do. They do not believe/realise that the policies they think are protecting people are in fact hurting them. I have the same goal as them, I just don’t think that the method they are supporting is working.
I mean really, the massive majority of people do support these policies. What seems most likely, that they believe that the policies are helping, or they intentionally want to cause harm to others and waste our collective resources?
I’m not seeing what this has to do with any point you’re trying to make.
They supported it because they thought it was the just and right thing to do, just like drug prohibition. People can think things are just and right that actually aren’t.
They think it is helping society as a whole by discouraging drug use, harm to drug users and addicts is acceptable collateral damage because they are viewed as sub-human.
Were the laws enacted only to sadistically and purposely harm drug users, no they weren’t. But the harm the laws cause to them is viewed as acceptable and deserved, as drug use and addiction is viewed as so horrible anything that seems to fight it is justified.
I’m sure there are people who hold those views, but none that I have spoken with:
- Consider drug users as “sub-human”
- Think that the laws are hurting people (they believe that drugs and criminals hurt people, and the laws are minimising the damage)
I think the portrait that you are painting only applies to a small minority, and nothing will be gained by trying to paint the majority with the same brush.
They think it is acceptable and good to lock people in cages for years because they have a desire to alter their mental state with chemicals, because they possess drugs for personal use. How do they NOT see drug users as sub-human?
You wouldn’t support doing that to a person unless you had a low opinion of them.
On this very board in drug threads the opinion that drug users and addicts are scum and stupid enough to bring down prison sentences on themselves is common, and the posters here are pretty enlightened on the harm drug prohibition does compared to the general public. I think potential harm to drug users and addicts is pretty far from most people’s priorities.
I agree that this should be a source of cognitive dissonance for most people, but it is not realistic to think that a majority of people consider drug users sub-human. I think it is ok to lock up murderers, thiefs and rapists, but I don’t think a person is sub-human because he murdered, stole or raped.
To consider any social group “sub-human” is an extremist view in any modern democracy.
My assumption is that the majority of people wants what is good for the majority of people, they just can’t agree on what is. My political opponents aren’t evil, they have reasons for believing what they do. They may not be logical reasons or based on facts, but to them they are convincing enough right now.
If I want them to come round to my way of thinking, I am not helping my chances by demonizing or insulting them. A small minority surely fit the description you give, but they aren’t going to change their mind anyway so no point in caring too much about them.
I’m not demonizing anyone, I’m giving a realistic accounting of the opinions I’ve seen. I hate it when people do this but I saw in another thread you are from Sweden, what you say might be true of Sweden but it isn’t true of the general public in say the USA. The opinion that addicts should be shot is not rare, more than one person has said in conversation the solution to the drug problem is to line junkies up against a wall and shoot them all, problem solved.
Here are news stories from the state I used to live in where workers getting clean syringes to addicts were arrested.
Why would anyone argue that way?
That’s just a rebuttal to the claim that those drugs are illegal because they’re dangerous. The people that think all drugs should be legal don’t think that way because they think all drugs are safe, they’re clearly not. They think it’s a personal freedom issue (I think?)
The people that do think it’s a health issue probably wouldn’t want harder drugs to be legal anyway.
From a personal freedom perspective, it makes sense to legalise drugs that aren’t dangerous. From a health perspective, it makes sense to legalise drugs that ARE dangerous.
In a way you helped me prove my point to myself. It clearly makes the argumentation confusing when you mix the two perspectives. I will try to find a way to formulate it comprehensively:
I think that weed should be legal because it is a question of personal freedom. If I can drink alcohol, which is much more dangerous and unhealthy, I should be free to smoke weed.
I think that heroin should be legal because the fact that it isn’t is causing massive harm to both individuals and society.
I think it is perfectly logical to hold both those views. I am for both personal freedom and harm reduction.
But if I have to chose, I think harm reduction trumps personal freedom in this case. Basically I think that legalising heroin would do more good than legalising weed. Of course, it would be hard to imagine a scenario where heroin was legal and weed wasn’t. On the other hand achieving a legalisation of weed is most likely a lot easier.
Have you ever met a heroin addict??
Same number that would flip their ID out to pick up a six pack of beer at the same time, and add some cheetos to the order.
Why wouldn’t a pothead worry about IDing themselves if it was legal, it would then be about like picking up beer and cheetos at that point.
Yes… what is your point?
Also, most weed would probably not be bought by pot heads, just as most beer isn’t bought by alcoholics. Most weed would probably be bought by regular people who prefer a joint to a 6-pack. I mean who are we kidding, the millions of people that use other recreational drugs than alcohol aren’t fiends.