Slashdot Mirror

Isn't that pretty much exactly what broke prohibition? People just refused to obey the law because it wasn't just. (And they wanted liquor.)

I keep waiting for the government to start seeing sense. I mean, it was only 200-some years ago that we threw off a tyrannical government that wasn't interested in representing us.

Prohibition is broken? That must be news to the prohibitionists.

Its also rather interesting that a state is testing its powers against the federal government by downright defying a federal law, I wonder how that's going to turn out.

It will fail miserably. If you live in California and this law passes, do NOT file sales-tax on marijuana sales. You will essentially confessing to committing a federal crime, and federal law overrides state law by the supremacy clause of the constitution. If you trust the Obama administration to not prosecute, you might want to think again after reading his drug policy:

"Keeping drugs illegal reduces their availability and lessens willingness to use them. This Administration firmly opposes the legalization of marijuana or any other illicit drug. Legalizing drugs would increase accessibility and encourage promotion and acceptance of use. Diagnostic, laboratory, clinical and epidemiological studies clearly indicate that marijuana use is associated with dependence, respiratory and mental illness, poor motor performance, and cognitive impairment, among other negative effects, and legalization would only exacerbate these problems."

There is his 2010 stance on drug legalization. He firmly opposes it.

Right? You shouldn't feel safe. Not because of the "criminals" but because of the reason why there are so many "criminals." Have a joint on you? You're a criminal. Do you know how many people are in jail because of simple drug-related offenses? Be afraid. http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/crime/index.html Look at that. 25% of federal inmates are in there for drug possession. I bet you a good amount of these people wouldn't rob you at gunpoint. Good luck, America!

My point was to say your post appeared to have the argument we aren't winning this battle so lets allow it because it would be easier and cheaper at this point. One has to worry if such response were the case then at what point do we have to apply that with other laws.

The line I typically draw is that laws should cover harm to others and harm to society, and should go no further. Laws against burglary, murder, etc. are clear cases of preventing harm to others. Laws against using drugs that cause people to become dangerous addicts (meth, PCP, etc.) fall squarely on the good side of the line as well.

Laws about less harmful substances like pot, alcohol, and tobacco should be only as restrictive as is necessary to prevent the harm. For example, laws against smoking where others are forced to breathe the air, laws against driving drunk, laws against smoking on public beaches resulting from decades of litter problems by jerks who don't care, etc. fall squarely on the good side of the line because they are designed to limit behavior that causes harm to others.

Laws banning the substances altogether fall squarely on the other side of that line, as mere possession of any substance without using it cannot cause harm (unless you're talking about something radioactive or poisonous without proper containment) and these substances are not dangerous enough when used to warrant such restrictive laws. Even laws against the use of such substances within the privacy of your own home, assuming you don't have kids in your home, are unreasonably restrictive; the injury to others and to society can be better mitigated in other ways.

However, marijuana doesn't fit such a profile and has only gained I feel because so many people are now wanting it and combine some states are allowing "medical" marijuana.

Marijuana use was out of control long before medical marijuana came into play. Here are some stats on the popularity of marijuana. Notice that the numbers for young people were dropping until the early 90s, then started climbing again. The numbers for older people followed along a few years afterwards as those people got older and "aged up" into higher categories. Any effects of medical marijuana legislation (passed in 1996) should have started showing up after 1996, or at a minimum, should have started rising much faster, but in fact, the largest jump in youth use occurred before 1996. An effect cannot predate a cause, to the best of my knowledge. If anything, this suggests that perhaps the reverse is true---that laws to allow medical marijuana use stemmed from a resurgence in and growing acceptance of pot use.

More to the point, in people age 25-34, almost half have admitted using marijuana at some point in their lives. This has been true fairly consistently in every measurement beginning in the 1970s and continuing every 3 years up to the present. What's interesting about this is that people over 35 show lower lifetime pot use even after enough time has gone by for those people to "age up" into the next bracket, which basically suggests that people over 35 like to pretend that they never used marijuana because of social stigmas and/or because they have kids and don't want their kids to know that they smoked pot. Either way, it's a rather fascinating pile of statistics when you really start to think about it. :-)

How many people exist that are too immature and not evolved enough to have the sense not to swallow the entire content?

This is called natural selection -- those unfit to preserve their existence will remove themselves from the gene pool. It's not pretty, but it's logical and it's part of nature...

Who pays to clean up that mess? I can understand moderation - but our newspapers are littered with stories of people who don't do moderation.

What mess? If you mean who cleans up the dead people who overdose -- well we have that problem EVEN WITH drug prohibition -- people commit suicide all the time and people kill each other all the time.

If you mean who cleans up for the stupid actions people take when they're under the influence of drugs -- THEY do. If you go out and assault someone, YOU pay for the consequences by spending time in jail and likely being fined. If you happen to be under the influence of a drug while you do that, YOU STILL should pay the same cost.

Which is cheaper - the army surrounding the bottle, or paying to have a support net to catch the stupid when they fall?

I think cleaning up after the actions of irresponsible drug users is much cheaper (we have to clean up for their actions ANYWAYS). The war on drugs cost almost $14 BILLION DOLLARS in 2009.

Furthermore, if you look at countries that have very relaxed drug policies, you'll notice that they have much fewer drug addicts. Why is this? Because the forbidden fruit is much more tempting... Many countries in Europe have no enforced legal drinking age, and they have much less problems with excessive youth drinking than the United States does. In fact, most of the marijuana smokers in Amsterdam are tourists; the native residents don't even smoke that much marijuana!

http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/09budget/index.html
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Controversies/1098894305.html

until you show me that coke is going to result in such things, your argument doesn't hold.

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/crime/index.html

Past year illicit drug users were also about 16 times more likely than nonusers to report being arrested and booked for larceny or theft;

The US Drug Czar is required by law to lie.

"Responsibilities. --The Director-- [...]

(12) shall ensure that no Federal funds appropriated to the Office of National Drug Control Policy shall be expended for any study or contract relating to the legalization (for a medical use or any other use) of a substance listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812) and take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of a substance (in any form) that--

      1. is listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812); and
      2. has not been approved for use for medical purposes by the Food and Drug Administration;"

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/about/98reauthorization.html

Picked from http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2007/10/09/theDrugCzarIsRequiredByLaw.html

Maybe with the last 2 presidents having done drugs, and with more of the population using drugs, it just doesn't matter that much any more?

Here are a few sources grabbed randomely
from Google.

These aren't checked thoroughly, but they do include two government sources, a respected newspaper, and some guy who wrote a book. Is it true? I don't know, but there does seem to be some belief that this can be an issue.

Vast majority huh? I'd ask you to back that up,

Well, let's see. For Marijuana alone, 57% of adults aged 19-28 admit to having used it at some point in their lives . I think that it's safe to say that the vast majority of those people have not harmed another human being due to their drug use - if it were otherwise society would have completely collapsed by now.

but we both know when arguing pro-drugs you have to use the words "vast" and "majority" to sound persuasive, like the "vast majority" who are pro-drugs really need an argument anyway. Maybe the "itty-bitty minority" might need the argument though so we'll be that much closer to a drug utopia. Although why you all feel drugs are so needed that evolution forgot to include them in your design is a complete mystery.

You should slow down and read what people have written before responding. I never claimed that the "vast majority" of people were pro-drugs and I didn't even claim that drugs were needed.

Hummm, let see, I have no skills so I can make minimum wage at Circuit City or I can make $10000 per month selling crack. What will I do? Can you say no-brainer?

Try 10,000/year. I lack direct experence... but from what i've observed and read... drug dealers don't really make that much in the way of money, probally onpar with a part time job. The only difference is this is undisclosed income, so someone can be on disability, wellfare, or be a student and suppliment their income with dealing of drugs.

According to this site crack's value is pretty low, between 3.50 and 10.00 per 1/10th gram in 1998 depending on city and other factors. Given this street price includes profit... one would have to sell to 5.5 people every day @ $5.00 per 1/10th gram to gross about $10,000. To quote StrongBad, "This isn't a good prize".

I could be naive in such matters. I couldn't find 5.5 people to sell crack to, hell, I don't know anyone who smokes crack. Nor would I want to. It's rather illegal, adictive, distructive, and the sort of thing that puts you into prison.

You would be better off selling macrame coathangers.

There is no national security problem. Look here http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/d rugfact/american_users_spend/table2.html Just with those drugs, cocaine and heroin, there are an estimated 300+ tons of the stuff coming into this country annually, and it would be easier to teach my mom to do a sed substitution than a WMD substitution for the cargo.

But there is no profit in that!

Well, unless your on this list: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_exp_dol_fi g

OK. Now about people just walking into this country. There are 5 million people illegally living in the US, source: http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/aboutus/statistic s/illegalalien/#Table1 They are even talking about making illegal immigrants being illegal! Gasp.

Point of fact. "Meth orphans" refers to methamphetamine which is a highly addictive stimulant and not methadone which is used in the treatment of narcotic withdrawal and dependency.

It is still very, very addictive and the gateway to other hard drugs like crack and heroin with just one "hit". Do you really think the US needs a nation of drug addicts? Look at the disaster marijuana created in the Netherlands. Soft marijuana laws have created crack and heroin junkies everywhere, large amounts of prostitution, the spread of HIV and an epidemic of robberies. And it causes thousands of cases of lung cancer every year worldwide. Get the facts before making a suggestion that would enslave our children to this menace.

If everyone who sincerely believes that it is their right to ignore copyright law stood up and proudly shouted "look at me, I'm going to share whatever I damn well please" then no one could be imprisoned because it would be impossible to afford to do so.

It should be obvious that this is flawed logic. You're assuming that you can either enforce the law on everyone or enforce the law on no one. It can be shown from experience that this assumption is false.

Look at the war on drugs: if they were to enforce the law on everyone who had broken it... it would be impossible. Something like 40% of the population would have to be arrested (stats). Yet, huge numbers of people are still sent to jail for doing so every year. It's selective enforcement: Only a very, very small portion of the offenders are ever caught, and the whole thing ends up being a farcical waste of everyone's time.

So, just because a large portion of the population does something it doesn't mean that people won't be imprisoned for it.

Let me see if I get this straight. You commented that ) Drugs are expensive because they are illegal... suggesting crack, crystal meth, and marijuana are expensive? No, only some drugs are illegal. Even though name brand green beans are $0.50-0.88 per can, some people will still buy the cheaper generic ones for a variety of reasons. So cocaine gets cheaper, so does crack, and there's still a market for it.

) Several studies have shown that when junkies get their fix consistently, they are perfectly able to maintain their jobs and responsibilities.

I cannot stand it when people say "several studies" and give no source whatsoever. Anyone can say those two words, and it adds an element of believability in the same way saying Benjamin Franklin once said it, or whispering it. For every study, there is an equal and opposite study. My experience in the volunteer work I've done in the past for the Star of Home shelter in Houston is that once people are on drugs, it is extremely difficult to get them off of them, and they "need" more and more. At first they can afford them, but the increased need for them eventually causes them to lose everything, or overdose. Quite a few of the people I spent time with lost their jobs because they were no longer able to function at work, given their increased need for the high associated with the addictive drug of choice... needing it during their working hours eventually. So maybe I should write and publish a "study" disproving the studies you paraphrased, but did not give any reference to.

If even 10% of the money that we currently spend on fighting the drug war were directed towards drug treatment, we could greatly reduce the drug problems we face right now.

Currently, in the war on drugs, 20% of federal dollars are spent on treatment, leaving the other two thirds to be spent on prevention. The Office of National Drug Control Policy FY 2003 Executive Summary shows that the federal budget increase for 2003 was $461MM. That's just an increase. The total was almost $19BB. Care to make any summaries as to how that money could have been spent instead? Let's look at how you suggest (rather how Peter McWilliams, whose only qualifications are as an author, suggests) we could spend the war on drugs money elsewhere...

Pay off the national debt in less than ten years.

Anyone who has an understanding of federal bonds and the majority of their use would never suggest we pay off the national debt. Most of those bonds are held by American taxpayers, and typically for retirement funds. Would you like to see more people forced into an already overbought and unstable stock market instead? In the realm of risk analysis, people closer to retirement need investments that less risky, and t-bonds/t-bills are near the top of that list.

Reduce personal income taxes by more than 75 percent. With 41% of federal income spent on social security and medicare, and an additional 18% spent on the US military, I challenge you to show me the math in 100-41-18=75.

Allow the Pentagon to purchase 23 wrenches, 16 office chairs, and 243 paper clips.

What? Oh, probably the story of the $600 hammer again. That hammer never existed.

Send every man, woman, and child in the United States a check for $2,000 each year

Erm... watch the clock tick and let me know when it reaches the $580 billion dollars you get when you give 280 million people a check for $2000.

Pay everyone's doctor, dentist, phone, and utility bills, as well as pay for gasoline and repair of every car in the United States.

While my numbers may not represent everyone in the US, I think I'm prob

• The drug's actual or relative potential for abuse
• Scientific evidence of its pharmacological effect, if known
• The state of current scientific knowledge regarding the drug
• Its history and current pattern of abuse
• The scope, duration, and significance of abuse
• What, if any, risk there is to the public health
• The drug's psychic or physiological dependence liability
• Whether the drug is an immediate precursor of a substance already controlled under the CSA. 21 USC 811(c)

• Here's were I found it referenced: Marijuana rescheduling denied (pdf)

For the third year running, the White House is placing an anti-drug ad. If that's not a "political issue ad", I don't know what is.

Because he's an idiot

That's a very short sighted statement. Rush was prescribed Oxycontin for post-operative pain. Learn more about Oxycontin. Notice, it does not appear that anybody has kept statistics on what percentage of patients prescribed Oxycontin by doctors went on to become addicts. However, the marketers of this product (oxycontin is not a new drug, it's a different form of delivery for a synthetic opiate) have been criticized for over aggressive marketing to physicians (who really ought not to be swayed by marketing, but they're human too).

The bottom line? You too may someday be prescribed an opiate, get "used to it" and then find yourself begging for a "script" or seeking out a corrupt doctor who will "cash your script".

Don't forget: "Pride comes before a fall".

So, treat these drugs with the caution they deserve. Don't take them unless you absolutely have to. Start at the lowest dose possible. Always follow prescribed dosing, etc...

Of course you would never become an addict. You don't write code with bugs in it either. :)

go pills are not crank.

According to the US government, one of the meanings of "crank" is amphetamine. Since "go pills" are dexedrine, and dexedrine is an amphetamine, I think that "go pills are crank" is a logically true statemnt.

if the government says it, it must be true!

And then there is good ol' pulp fiction (not the movie, but actual pulp fiction)

Time out. Did anyone notice that EPIC's press release does not include the URL of the offending site? I went back a few levels and found their link to Freevibe.com. But a strange thing happened -- I went to Freevibe, and it did not try to place any cookies on me, and did not have any links to Doubleclick. Just to be sure, I sent an automated spider to index their site, and doing GREPs for doubleclick or cookie turned up Zero hits.

SHS Network Operations Center (SN533-ORG) shs-ops@SHS.NET
Social & Health Services, Ltd.
11426 Rockville Pike, Suite 100
Rockville, MD 20852

SHS is apparently one of the numerous "Beltway Bandits" -- subcontractors in the DC area who do federal outsourcing. Freevibe is part of the Anti-Drug Media Campaign -- "hey kids, this KEWL web site says don't do drugs!" It's certainly ineffective, uses sloppy DHTML, and is a waste of money, but I don't see it violating any privacy laws.

As I understand it, the Office participated in an ad network to market its site. If you searched Altavista for "grow pot" , a Doubleclick banner would be served for the Drug Control office Web site and, of course, you'd be cookied (unless you filter). The paranoia is that the cookie potentially represents a personally identifiable piece of information that is understandable disconcerting if you believe the government is using the cookie to surreptitiously track you personally and determine what other sites you are visiting.

But "cookie" does not automatically equal "privacy invasion". I consider it to be a disservice to the education of the Web public for Jason Catlett (Junkbusters.Com), Mark Rotenberg (EPIC, and even Richard Smith (his expose' here) to contribute to this hysteria. I think it makes for good sensationalism to further the advocacy for electronic privacy. The Whitehouse's withering before the criticism is disappointing but understandable considering that any defense would have only powered the conspiracy theory. But in terms of the threat to privacy this represents, I think it only extends the broad and irrational fear of an incredibly useful and pervasive Web technology.

If you think I'm wrong, email me or post here so I can exercise the debate. I consider myself a pragmatic privacy advocate and am willing to listen to logic.

The press release raises the specter of people being busted because they went to the ONDCP web site for information on how to "grow pot".

Who in their right mind would go to the ONDCP or other federal web site for tips on growing pot?

I actually went there (http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/) and tried it, but didn't find any information. In fact, there is simply nothing on this site that reading would mark you as a "black hat". This isn't some government conspiracy -- at best it is a half baked attempt to characterize an anti-drug market segment. Any conspirator with half a brain would plant pages at independent ISPS under assumed names.

The doubleclick ads are gone, so perhaps they were removed. If the doubleclick cookies were there, it was wrong of ONDCP to put them there; however, banging the police state drum is way overstating the case.

These guys have a bee in their bonnet over the P3P thing. Fair enough, but FUD is a reprehensible tactic for opposing it.

Wednesday morning, an 11 year old boy called in to a local morning radio show. He was talking about how easy it was for him to get drugs: he knew exactly who he needed to go to in his school in order to get drugs. The hosts asked him if it was that easy for him to get a gun, and he said that it was; he was sure he knew right who to go to in order to get a gun.

We spend $17.1 billion a year trying to keep drugs away from kids. And look at the result. What happens when we declare a War On Guns?

Prohibition didn't stop this. So what do we do?