I used to support the laws. But I don’t know if I ever understood them. I certainly don’t understand them now.
Drugs are often dangerous. That is why they are illegal. Most people don’t have a problem with that. But why is simple possession illegal? And as I understand it, this is pretty universal, internationally as well.
I assume it’s basically to protect us, from ourselves as it were. But do laws usually work that way?
A person can attempt to kill themselves without prosecution. You can cut up your arm with a razor blade. Or amputate your limb. Granted those things might get you a psychiatric hold. But you have to admit they’re still technically legal.
You can use a kitchen knife to harm yourself, but it also has a lot of other non-harmful uses. People who take possession of a kitchen knife aren’t generally doing so for purposes of self-harm.
But the argument is that all recreational drug use is harmful, and that nobody ever takes possession of drugs for harmless reasons. Or at the least, for the lower schedules, non-harmful usage is possible, but requires specialized skills that the vast majority don’t possess.
One can of course dispute the premise that drug use is always harmful, but given that premise, the rest follows.
The government still believes it can legislate vice. Drugs are illegal for the same reason as gambling, prostitution and porn are illegal. The modern blossoming if the porn industry owes just as much to the lack of enforcement from the Clinton administration as it does to the internet.
The government has in the past made all kinds of sex between consenting adults illegal. Fornication was illegal in Georgia until 2002. It’s probably still illegal elsewhere. States are trying to reinstitute sodomy laws.
We spend billions of dollars a year fighting vice, and not helping people that need treatment, not helping people who are sex slaves. We’ve recently made it super difficult for sex workers to use online tools claiming that we’re helping those who have been trafficked, but we’ve really made sex work more dangerous.
The obvious reason is to attempt to choke off demand, so that supply shrinks. And of course, the aspect of trying to save people from themselves - some people always think they know what’s best for others, and when enough of them do they get laws passed to restrict other people’s behavior ‘for their own good’.
Personally, I think you should be able to do with your body as you see fit. One of the reasons I oppose government provided health care is because once the government is paying your health care bills it opens the door to the government regulating your choices to minimize their costs.
So one of the arguments against drug possession is that drugs are not good for you, and that means you may need more medical services as a result, that everyone else has to pay for.
Mind you, the same argument can be used to force people to exercise, or to stop them from drinking, or becoming obese, or engaging in risky activities. Once we accept the notion that ‘society’ has a say in how you manage your own body, you’ve lost the right to your own personal autonomy.
Also, if you believe that people have a right to put whatever drug into their body that they choose, I assume you support abolishing the FDA, or at least turning into an advisory-only body. Because it’s the FDA that keeps you from taking most available drugs.
In that it has never been made legal, yes. The government doesn’t enforce the laws that make porn illegal, but the Bush II administration was going to, until something happened to distract them in September of 2001.
The same laws that busted Larry Flint, Adam & Eve, and every other indecency case in the 70s and 80s are still laws, and an Attorney General could decide to enforce them.
Illegal drugs are (usually) addictive. I’m not sure if hashish is addictive, for instance, but the ones people usually focus on – cocaine, heroin – are addictive. (I am not counting alcohol in this category, because while many people are alcoholics, most people who drink alcohol are able to control their drinking, and don’t drink so much that they suffer long-term health effects.)
I can keep a sharp steak knife in my kitchen without changing my behavior. Furthermore the knife can be used for … cutting steak, and numerous other non-harmful activities. On the other hand, I cannot consume heroin without changing my behavior. In fact, it could change my behavior so much I’m rendered homeless (because I lost my job, or spent all my money on drugs, or did something illegal while high…) and have to share needles with two other drug addicts so we can split a single $20 dose (all we could raise that night) so we don’t have to suffer agony before going to bed… every night. (That’s one of the side effects of heroin addiction. It’s not just about getting high.) It’s no surprise many drug addicts turn to crime to fuel their habits.
I wouldn’t accept making such drugs legal unless people can be forced into a treatment program. (That takes away someone’s freedom, but so does putting someone in prison for using cocaine or heroin, and this would take away freedom from less people.) Now if only they could find a treatment program that consistently works…
Organized crime groups split bribes to police (“graft”) into two categories. Clean graft, and dirty graft. Clean graft gets crooked cops to look the other way so no one interferes with a prostitution ring, or gambling ring. Dirty graft gets crooked cops to look the other way so they will ignore drug sales, murder for hire, and so forth. Dirty graft costs less and can be used to bribe a higher number of cops (though I assume most police officers will not accept bribes). Why is clean graft so cheap? Because police (and society in general) don’t really care about gambling and prostitution (involving consenting adults). The cops are basically just getting compensation for having lower arrest figures. Meanwhile society treats murder and drug addiction very seriously.
Does nobody know of the existence of private windows? (I know they’re not perfect, but…)
Alcohol use is too widespread, and too deeply embedded in our culture, to make it practical to outlaw. Other drugs aren’t. That’s the difference.
We are currently taking baby steps towards legalizing marijuana, which was (essentially) outlawed in the 1930s. We could outlaw it, because not nearly so many people used the stuff.
Eventually, it appears that it will be legal. Some people will be harmed by this - it will be abused, some people will drive stoned and get into accidents, etc. On the plus side, everybody else will have a new way to get high.
I doubt if we will ever go the same route with the harder drugs like opiates and cocaine, because the cost-benefit analysis is different.
There are a lot of things that I can’t own, but professionals in the field can. The ostensible reason is that these things are dangerous in the hands of untrained people. The real reason is so that somebody can make money. Or maybe instead of “real reason” I should say “main reason.”
For instance, the Orkin guy can buy much stronger anti-spider chemicals than I can purchase. I have a sneaking feeling that my plumber can buy stronger drain cleaners.
If you look at the legislative history of most things you will find somebody behind it who will profit.
Non-drug example: At some point my state decided that you can’t get a replacement eyeglass/contact lens if your prescription is more than a year old. So you lose a contact, you call the optician, who says, “Oh, you need an examination.” I had the same prescription for 40 years but if I needed a replacement more than a year after my last exam, had to get another exam. Supposedly this is to ensure the health of my eyes. Fine, but why am I not in charge of that? Who benefits financially: The eye doctors.
Also, plenty of users steal to support their drug habit. Alcoholics simply move their tastes downmarket or, if already at the bottom of the market, shoplift.
I think that is Shodan’s point. We already have a big social cost with legal alcohol. However, it is so imbedded in our culture that it is impractical to outlaw it (indeed we tried once).
This usually comes up in any debate about drug legalization, but I don’t see the rational connection of “Well, since alcohol is legal, it follows that we must therefore legalize everything else.”
I think it has more to do with money and power of manufacturers than culture. Tobacco kills more people than any other drug and it is not exactly onerous to live as a nonsmoker anymore.
And tobacco brings a lot less joy than marijuana which is still mostly illegal and has (to my knowledge) ever killed anyone.
The question in the cost benefit analysis that I think is most critical is “How many more people would use this substance (cocaine, heroin, meth, whatever) if it was legal?” If its a really big number then maybe it would be better to leave such drugs illegal. If it’s a small number I believe it would be better to legalize them and remove the manufacturing from drug cartels. My guess is that it’s probably a small number of people who are deterred by the illegality of these substances, but it’s just a guess based on personal observations, not rigorous scientific studies.
Probably true, but the comparison to alcohol is not just legal vs. illegal. Alcohol is a major part of the cultures of most societies, which is both why it is not illegal and why making it illegal doesn’t and didn’t reduce use very much. No doubt marijuana use will go up if and when it is legalized, but the overall effects of using marijuana are minor, so it won’t make as much difference as legalizing, say, heroin. Even if legalizing heroin caused heroin use to go up much less than for marijuana. So it is not just how many more would use it, but how bad the effects would be on those who do. Which is why ISTM that we can reasonably legalize marijuana, but that is different from legalizing all drugs.
