Why is there no strong push for reform of drug laws in the United States or indeed most other places? Even the Netherlands merely has decriminalized marijuana, not fully legalized it? Why is it that while more controversial social issues such as abortion or homosexual marriage have seen strong pushes by some politicians, no major Democrat has said anything like “Look folks, pot is less dangerous than tobacco and alcohol, why don’t we just legalize it?”?
It has been happening, state-by-state. The federal government created panels to determine if marijuana was dangerous, then ignored their results. I know Barney Frank wasn’t a fan of the war on drugs. Honestly I don’t understand it myself. The cynical side of me cannot let go of the thought that it has to do with the incredible pressure from the executive arms of government who get to keep the spoils of theft under the broken Fourth Amendment that keep the pressure alive, but even members of the police have been known to say it’s ridiculous.
I just don’t understand it.
It’s a curious thing to be sure.
It’s not limited to the USA though. Canada is still this way that way about it and dope is mostly illegal; the cops have laid off a bit, but it remains a crime. And I am endlessly amazed and fascinated by the number of intelligent and educated people I know who simply turn their brains off around this issue; when it’s raised they say “Drugs are bad, drugs are bad, say no to drugs.” Many of these people are major league boozehounds, I should point out. When I point out, as I always do in a friendly manner, that alcohol is vastly more destructive than pot, the answer is always the same:
- Drugs are bad
- You a pothead or something? (I don’t smoke anything, btw.)
- Drugs are bad
- Think of the children
- Drugs are bad
I’ve never really seen a convincing defense of laws against weed. Ever.
I suspect that there remains a strong cultural and, yes, racial bias against it. (Dope was originally associated with minorities when it was banned.) Alcohol has been A-OK for millennia; dope hasn’t, and so dope occupies a position in the culture booze does not. Booze is advertised as a classy thing (watch a Grey Goose commercial) or a cool thing (any beer commercial) while dope isn’t advertised except, sort of, on the front of gross, run down head shops and on the T-shirts of people who smell like they don’t shower. Alcohol has a big, rich lobby group; weed doesn’t.
And most importantly, marijuana is called a DRUG. Alcohol is not. There’s no logical reason for this; alcohol is a much stronger, more dangerous and more addictive drug, but when people think of dope it goes into the general taxonomy of “drugs,” along with a lot of stuff that is genuinely horrifying. Alcohol is generally excluded, definitionally, from that group. So marijuana gets lumped in with coke, smack, meth and the like, while booze doesn’t. The taxonomy of things matters.
Who says there’s no strong push? I thought the legalization movement was doing pretty well lately.
Didn’t Obama instruct federal law enforcement to view pot offenses as low priority?
Those that care most strongly about liberalizing drug laws don’t vote at nearly the rate as though that care strongly about keeping drug laws tough.
[QUOTE=George Carlin]
Pot will never be legalized - they keep forgetting where they put the petitions.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, it’s basically this -
[QUOTE=RickJay]
Alcohol has been A-OK for millennia; dope hasn’t, and so dope occupies a position in the culture dope does not.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe it will happen eventually - I hope so - but I ain’t holding my breath.
Regards,
Shodan
And, thus, a legislator who puts himself in a position where he could be painted by an opponent as “soft on drugs / soft on crime” will face a strong likelihood of losing his job in the next election, unless he serves an extremely liberal district.
I can make no better comment than what I posted in the latest gun thread:
This is right on the money. “That government is best, which governs least” is an overstatement, but with a core of truth. And that core is at the basis for the principled belief of those who look for limited government. Not no government, not anarchy, not even libertarianism in its pure sense - limited government.
Bureaucrats always want to extend their reach.
Regards,
Shodan
The goal of every politician is to be re-elected. What is the worst thing that one can say about a politician? That they are “weak on crime”. What incentive does a politician have to fight to overturn laws that a majority of people approve of? Unless they get a whole lot of other politicians to go with them on the subject, they’ll be going it alone and opening themselves up to the “weak on crime” accusation. It’s political suicide.
I don’t think we’ll ever see drug laws repealed. What we might see is more modest punishments for violations, but even that depends on the strength of various lobbying groups. Take MADD, for instance. The penalties for DUI have increased substantially, there are mandatory minimum sentences, and the pressure keeps increasing for tougher sentences and standards. If you don’t go along with it, you must be in favor of drunk driving, and who wants to be tagged with that?
Politics has nothing to do with reality and everything to do with expediency. That’s the reality, and that’s why drugs will never be legal in this country.
It’s pity that no political party has run on that platform, it would probably be very popular.
The basic fact is that a vocal minority believes that marijuana constitutes a terrible threat to society, while pretty much everyone understands that nobody needs marijuana to have a happy and productive life. That is why I think the medicalization of marijuana is just a cheap back-door route that will never yield true liberalization of drug policy. If you’re an adult, then you should be able to have a joint just because you feel like it. You shouldn’t have to pretend to be sick and go to a pretend doctor to get a pretend diagnosis.
Originally, yes. Now they’re going after it like gangbusters. Medicinal marijuana, that is.
It’s been decriminalized in CA recently. Possession for person use is a fine. $100 for possession of an ounce or less, and no criminal record. I don’t think it does any politician good to campaign on the issue, but it’s something that can be done without much fanfare by the legislature in many states.
Everyone always wants to extend their reach.
You can’t really say, “If alcohol is legal, why not pot?”
The problem is the argument is weak. People are afraid if we legalize marijuana then they’ll be problems. But we already know, alcohol causes tons of problems. Instead of asking “Why is pot illegal if alcohol isn’t,” we should be saying “Why ISN’T alcohol ILLEGAL since pot is.” Well we know what happened when we tried that.
Don’t forget there was a time when heroine, opium and a host of other drugs WERE legal and we had tons of problems.
I don’t see how having the odd joint in the privacy of your own home is any worse than wine with dinner. But I’ve also see the damage alcohol has done and would not want to add another substance that will add more damage, along the same lines as alcohol.
Cite? 
No but really is there any proof that there were massive problems caused by these drugs being legal? Most of what you can find is garbage from the period about Chinese men luring white women into opium dens.
On the subject of drug reform, why is all the effort devoted to pot? I know pot is probably the least harmful of all drugs on the black market. But of the harder drugs out there (meth, cocaine, heroin), how many addicts are just using to cover up some emotional black holes inside themselves that existed before they used the drugs? Why isn’t addiction treated more as a medical and psychological condition rather than a criminal one?
As of 2011, for the first time a majority of people polled supported legalization of marijuana over prohibition. 50% vs 46%.
A pretty dramatic change from the 60s until a few years ago when the prohibitionists usually had a 30 point margin on the issue. Even 34% of conservatives favor legalization at this point (a group usually associated with tough on drug stances).
As to why it hasn’t been legalized, in part because (as a guess) the attitudes have only drastically changed in the last 10 years or so. Even back in 2000 it was 64-32 in favor of prohibition. Politics hasn’t caught up to public attitudes yet.
Another reason is the fact that politicians tend to be afraid of doing anything controversial, even if it is seen as popular.
Another is that we live in a fairly plutocratic political system, and marijuana really isn’t that important to the plutocrats and power brokers. Things like tax reform matter more to the people who really influence politics.
Of course there will be problems. But legalization will also solve problems created by criminalization. The argument is, legalization results in a net reduction in problems, even when new problems are taken into consideration.
A big part of the problem before cocaine and opiates were restricted was the largely unregulated “patent medicine” market, which sold feel-good remedies to the public consisting of high-proof alcohol and/or cocaine and/or laudanum. Making cocaine and opiates illegal probably did nothing to deter the hard-case addicts but achieved its goal of keeping addictive drugs out of consumer products.