Slashdot Mirror
Time To Discuss Drug Prohibition?
gplus writes "December 5th was the 75th anniversary of the end of alcohol prohibition in the US. The Wall Street Journal has an op-ed which argues that now may be the time to discuss our war on drugs and the drug prohibition currently in place. The article argues that the harm caused by the banned substance must be balanced against the harms caused by the prohibition. As to why Americans in 1933 finally voted to end prohibition, while we barely even discuss it: 'Most Americans in 1933 could recall a time before prohibition, which tempered their fears. But few Americans now can recall the decades when the illicit drugs of today were sold and consumed legally. If they could, a post-prohibition future might prove less alarming.'"
SMOKE
Let's just bring back alcohol prohibition.
The war on drugs makes a lot of money for a lot people on both sides of the law.
When the majority of the population can be convicted of a crime at one time or another, then it's proveable that the action is not sufficiently damaging to be a crime. Those RIAA bastards are profiting immorally and should be disbarred! Oh wait, we're onto drugs now? In that case, I maintain my statement.
Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
I'll start off with this. I do not use any illegal drugs and have not for the past 5 years. The only illegal drug that I have ever used is marijuana.
I am completely in favor of decriminalizing marijuana and LSD use. I am in favor of using diamorphine(Heroin) for emergency pain relief like they do in europe.
I'm not quite ready to support decriminalizing cocaine, and I am strongly opposed to legalizing methamphetamine.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I'm straight edge. I don't smoke, nor even drink at all, or consume any other substances. (Unless caffeine in Coca-Cola counts.) But, if other people want to consume these substances and fuck their own lives up, hey, be my guest. As long as they don't tread on my right to live a comfortable life. Even if drugs were legalized, it still doesn't mean their carry-on effects, such as murder, drink-driving, et cetera, are legal. And at least it means that if those drugs are available through government programs, it'll be taking away some of that money that drug lords are supposedly making, and pump billions more dollars back into the government. Well, that's my 2 cents worth anyway. I'm sure someone will disagree with me. :P
Copyright is specified in the Constitution. Drugs? Not so much. Why should drug prohibition require nothing more than a law when alcohol prohibition required a constitutional amendment? Oh, and the original excuses for banning drugs: black folks on cocaine or mexicans smoking marijuana might rape your white daughter.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
No, how about we let it be decided at the STATE LEVEL? Let the individual states decide their own drug laws, not the federal government.
Seriously. Laws used to have "sunset clauses" that would cancel the law a few years after it was enacted unless it was voted otherwise. I understand that some New Deal era laws that are detrimental, like some subsidies, are still in existance because they were not given sunset clauses a few senators threaten to filibuster their repeal. Bringing this sort of policy back to laws would probably do wonders in convincing congresspeople into considering new possibilities.
Nuclear engineers build weapons. Civil engineers build targets.
If alcohol prohibition required an amendment to the constitution then how was the gov't suddenly able to prohibit another substance w/o changing the constitution?
Wouldn't it be ironic if you could legally go out and get your cocaine fix, but had to get a prescription for some medication that you thought you needed? :)
Like any good salesman, a drug dealer will try to convert a marijuana user to use other drugs that turn a better profit. The good old upsell. Legalising marijuana would break that chain.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Given that alcohol is already legal and is more dangerous than at least the most common recreational drugs, It would make sense to at least legalise other recreational drugs that are on par or less harmful than it (marijuana being the most obvious candidate).
"Hard" drugs like Cocaine should probably remain illegal - it is impossible (or prohibitively difficult, at least) to "use them responsibly" and their health effects are much more marked.
Permitting broad autonomy to people in cases where there is not a clear and strong societal interest otherwise makes sense - broad restrictions on recreational drugs don't have arguments that meet the bar we should be holding up.
(I am not a libertarian, by the way)
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
While we're discussing prohibition, it's worth pointing out that it's always been a tool for expanding government beyond its constitutional powers.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
When Obama takes office, I think that makes 3 US presidents in a row that have (at least off the record, but perhaps on tape) admitted to using or been caught using illegal recreational drugs. It does seem to make the laws hard to defend morally.
Think Deeply.
I'm all for legalizing anything one might put in their body using the orifice of their choice. Two things though:
1. I'm still for draconian penalties for anybody who sells heavy dope like heroin or methamphetamine to a minor. Anything crap like that should be heavily regulated in it's sale and taxed heavily but intelligently. The taxes should be just high enough that the bootleg bathtub stuff doesn't look good. Tax evaders can share cells with ones selling dope to kids.
2. Being under the influence should be a crime enhancer rather than an exonerator: "Your honor! It was the crystal meth that made me go crazy with that axe!"
"Fine. I hereby double your sentence for axe craziness"
Ditto for crimes committed for the purpose of obtaining drugs though they should be much more pure and affordable being regulated and with mafias mostly out of the picture. Cheaper pure drugs and delivery devices mean that dopers will be able to hold down jobs and so-forth a bit longer before skid-rowing themselves. And who knows? Dopers with dead end McJobs may have enough brain cells remaining to hold them indefinitely.....just like the alcoholics.
This is only meant to accomplish two things. We don't pack the prisons full of non-violent recreational users and small time sellers and we remove the biggest profit center of organized crime. I don't deny that out-in-the-open drug use won't make apparent new out-in-the-open social problems. I suspect that conspicuously not coddling people who mess themselves up may be be the best deterrent to "having all you can eat".
Replace drugs with sugar or fat and ask yourself the same question.
Potato chips create more health care costs than any drug ever has.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
There are a lot of individuals out there in human land that are feeling a lot of pain and turn to drugs (legal or illegal) as well as alcohol to mask their feelings... if only for a time.
It is as if a cosmic force is increasing the pressure on everyone and that time seems to be flying by when in the old days it seemed to pass at a slower rate. Today it is excruciating and tomorrow perhaps more so. When and where can it end... surely not in more drugs.
Escaping to drugs only seems to work for the issues causing the escape are still there the next day... however the pain is becoming so great in today's world that those whom you never believe would use drugs are now turning to them.
Unfortunately I do not know of a solution. But, it does break my heart to see those I love do so. A friend who is a beautiful blond, 20 years old and has the world by the tail was just prescribed Lithium as a way of coping with her emotional issues. Lithium is a poison to the body... what are the pharmaceutical companies and doctors thinking?
In my mind I compare it to the days of sunscreen. Before sunscreen the sun provided us with a source of vitamin D synthesis and then the doctors said the sun caused cancer and so we now use sunscreen. Now the skin cancer is at a unprecedented rate even using the sunscreen. Go figure?
It is as if there is some correlated relationship between Beliefs and Emotions. It is becoming more murky knowing what to believe in and what not to believe.
And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make
There was MASSIVE marijuana smoking during the late 1960s/early 1970s with few problems. It was typical to attend concerts where the smoke was a thick fog and security/cops didn't bother anyone about it.
I did plenty of drugs back then, smoked like a freight train, and was around a large peer group that did likewise. I haven't smoked in many years for legal reasons, but strongly favor legalization. Alcohol is a vastly worse social drug in every way, especially with regard to making users aggressive.
IMO we'd be much better off with weed as an alternative social lubricant.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Don't you know that drugs fund terrorism? That every puff of weed kills 5 innocent victims? And I'm talking about the white ones, not those scary looking foreign victims from the middle east.
I mean, just look at this government ad! How do argue with logic like "It's a fact because it's true"?
Suck on that, dope fiends!
I came here for a good argument
And then you bring in universal health care.
Are you happy about having your pocket picked to rehabilitate those who've turned themselves into potted plants of the sort that they smoke?
Well, we're already dealing with effects of TWOD in the healthcare system: addicts who can't get treatment, people shot/stabbed/etc. in the related turf wars, and so forth. I doubt these people are covered under your friendly neighborhood HMO. These people cost the healthcare system since they a) don't pay for ER visits and/or b) use the ER as a primary healthcare service.
Something tells me we could take the money we spend on enforcement and easily pick up the rehab costs for the few people who are addicts. And we would see a large decrease in related crime that would directly contribute to a reduction in ER visits and thus costs that you and I have to bear right now.
-- Fugacity: Confusing chemists since 1908
Most of heroin's dangers are more a consequence of its prohibition than the drug's distinctive properties.
The data on this subject does a whole lot more than suggest that if people take certain drugs then they become addicted. In this manner, whatever addiction is is irrelevant, the results are damaging and very real. I watched drugs coupled with the stupidity it brings result in a number of poor judgments in my own life as well as several dozen of my friends. Far away from that part of my life now, I am glad that someone somewhere had enough of a moral compass in Government to make certain drugs illegal.
For stuff like antibiotics, allowing random people to decide what they can take when they want has a definite negative effect on the society at large.
It's a big enough problem getting patients to comply with complete antibiotics regimens as it is. Giving everyone the ability to just pop a few for a couple days when they cut themselves or have the flu or whatever is a recipe for massive, widespread increases in resistant bacteria.
I live in California. A few years back, the voters passed the medicinal marijuana act, opening the gateways for use by cancer patients. Pot is *almost* decriminalized now.
I say *almost* because my pot dealers (plural) have been a pot dealers all their lives. Only difference now is they got a doctor to give them a pot prescription for "nerves" and instead of having to go through the old network of pot growers, they can pick up a few OZ's from any number of dispensaries here in the bay area. Sells their OZ's off as 8ths for 2x what you paid, and make a nice profit.
Then there is the supplier side. There is no regulation on where a club gets its pot. A few years back, we had a sheriff shot when he stumbled upon a pot farm on Mt Uhminum being run by mexican gangsters. Even though they couldn't find a direct connection to the clubs, many people suspected that that is where the weed was heading.
Did I mention ALOT of the marijuana dispensaries look more like a club or a coffee shop and less like a pharmacy?
Prohibition repeal needs to happen. We waste way to much money on the drug war. Not that i'm complaining about the lack of regulation with the medical marijuana situation in California as it works to my advantage. I am never more than 15 minutes away from multiple suppliers. This is pot I'm talking about though, a drug thought to be fairly benign by a majority consensus.
My fear though is that all forms of lawmakers, city, county, state and fed have all been riding the fail truck for a while now. I could see them doing something like selling out to a special interest drug lord and making laws that on the surface seem like they benefit us, but really only benefit the drug lord.
Some things need to be regulated, others don't. Weed should have no more regulation than beer or tobacco.
Even though the purpose of end drug prohibition would be to un-fuck things, given the track record of our politicians they're going to figure out a way to sneak a fucking in there, somehow.
If they have the optional power to do something specified, what kind of power do they have to do something that isn't specified?
By a straight reading of the content of the Constitution, no such power at all. Through constant incremental encroachment by degrees over the last 150-odd years, they've established themselves as having authority to do just about anything they like, constitution (particularly the 10th Amendment) be damned. Welcome to the frustration of libertarianism.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
When you look at it rationally, not economically, selfishly, or sociologically, it's pretty simple. Legalize what doesn't really hurt you, weed and shrooms for example, have standards for quality and purity. Keep tight controls on coke, heroin and the like, since they have legitimate uses. Illegalize meth, put harsh sentences on the people who cook it. It's basicly the same as prostitution, if you regulate it, it won't harm society.
If you aren't angry, you aren't paying attention.
Yeah. Say, what is it again they say about people who don't learn from history? I think it might apply here.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
if something like marijuana would legalized, the taxes collected on that would be staggeringly huge
if you want to argue profit (for the government), you argue for legalization
sure there are entrenched interests, but there is no larger entrenched interest than the taxman
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Prohibition helped getting the mob going too, just like how drugs are helping gangs.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
The per capita consumption of alcohol before Prohibition was 2.6 gallons in 1910. A gallon of that would be whiskey and the rest beer - potent stuff, too. Those numbers were cut by half in 1934. Apparent per capita ethanol consumption for the United States, 1850 The change which came with Prohibition have endured. We have never returned to pre-WWI levels of consumption. We tend to favor lighter beers and wines over 200 proof Kentucky Bourbon.
hemp is one of the world's super-plants... making it illegal should be considered a crime against humanity.
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=abneijJWRys
To discuss the war on drugs.
From a libertarian standpoint, what right does the Government have to tell people what to do with their own body? This debate is as much about the power of government as it is about the morality of drug use.
However, there are some angles to the issue which never seem to be discussed:
I think the reason why the opponents of the War on Drugs failed is that they never discussed it in terms that ordinary average Americans could relate. They discussed it in terms of dollars, but federal law enforcement spending is truly minuscule compared to things like social security and defense. They talked about it in terms of prison population, when the average person thought simply, "well, I just won't use drugs and won't go to prison..." Instead, they should have framed the debate in terms of individual rights.
That's what the gay movement did, and look where they are now. It seems that Americans don't want the government to mandate morality, and the gay movement capitalized on that. The reason why the War on Drugs lasted so long was because its opponents never pushed the civil rights aspect of it.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
don't forget those Chinese immigrants getting high in their opium dens--as opposed to upstanding white folks who only use opium & alcohol (always a smart combination) tinctures.
really, i have yet to see any empirical evidence to back up the idea that before drug prohibition we had more drug-caused social issues than today. in fact, all the studies i've read about seem to point to the exact opposite. consider these points:
you don't have to be a drug-users or even like drug users to be against drug prohibition. it serves everyone's best interest for the government to adopt a sane/rational drug policy.
Without doing research, my guess is ...
Well the 18th Amend was passed in 1919, before the New Deal. Back then the Commerce Clause (the part of the Con' saying the Feds have the right to regulate interstate commerce) was interpreted pretty narrowly. If your business stayed within state lines, the Feds had to butt out.
Then FDR came along. FDR didn't give a damn about the Constitution and forced the Supreme Court to change their view on the Commerce Clause (FDR threatened to pack the court). Otherwise all this New Deal stuff (wage controls, price controls, etc.) would (and did) fail the Constitutionality test.
From then on, the Commerce Clause has been broadly interpreted to control ANYTHING that remotely touches on the idea of interstate commerce. Whether or not your individual action is inter-state, if the industry it would be placed in is interstate (and what isn't?), it is fair game.
So, I would assume the issue is what Democrats like to call the "Living Constitution" meaning that the Constitution doesn't mean what it meant when it was written/ratified, but what 5 Justices think it means today (president be damned). Like Lewis Carroll's Humpty-Dumpty, words mean only what he says they mean.
Conservatives refer to these people as "Activist Judges", and in stead believe that the way to change the Constitution is via Amendments (last one passed during Clinton). In short, the Constitution is a social contract and means what it meant when written/ratified.
In addition, states/cities can't make their own drug policy because the Fed has tied grants ($$$) to the enforcement of the drug laws (via the Con's Tax & Spend power). So, if the states don't play along, their budget crashes.
BTW, The Commerce Clause is why US motorways are referred to as Interstates. Aiding Interstate Commerce gave the Feds the power to set up the system of roads, versus state highways.
"The Consumer Union's Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs", 1972, Consumer's Union
I usually detest peoples' hyped up assertions such as the title of this post, but in this case I think it's almost subdued in comparison to the facts of the matter.
Due in large part to the contents of this book, marijuana was almost legalized ... during the *Nixon* administration. Yes, that's when us long hairs were making a lot of noise about many things, including drugs. But we had very little power then. It wasn't us who was attempting to change the law.
Reading this book is like finding out that the tin foil hat crowd was right all along. This story is a conspiracy theory that happens to be true. This book provides the evidence, with references. It is an even handed historical recounting. It's hard for some people to believe it's even handed because the conclusion and its supporting evidence are so drastically lop sided.
The summary is that the war on drug users started as and continues to be conducted for the economic benefit of the drug manufacturers and sellers that can guarantee sufficient tax income to the government. And more recently for the direct benefit of the government since they can now seize any property belonging to anyone they care to arrest.
I was a substance abuse counselor for 3.5 years, and addiction remained one of my main interests through my PhD and beyond. The worst bodily harm comes from two drugs that are both legal: tobacco and alcohol. The worst withdrawals come from these two, plus another legal drug (or class thereof), benzodiazapines (valium family). I would rather a person use any drug, legal or illegal, other than these 3. Withdrawal from tobacco won't kill you, but the other two can.
The bottom line is the URL for the book. If you care about this subject, no matter what side of any part of the argument, you really should read this book in order to learn how things came to be the way they are. It is one of the best, but certainly not the only, example of psyops (psychological operations) perpetrated by the US government on its own citizens. That's not hyperbole -- I studied that subject too.
It's available in its entirety at: http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/LIBRARY/studies/cu/cumenu.htm
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
Millions of dollars not wasted on the government hunting down plants. Millions of dollars not wasted on people locked up in jail. Millions of lives not wasted locked up in jail. Dangerous drug cartels no longer holding countries like Mexico hostage. I'd say there would be plenty of benefits.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
As the article makes clear, illegal drug enforcement invokes a heavy cost to lives, law enforcement, and foreign governments.
I would suggest using this repeal to also damage our foes. Afghanistan warlords, Columbian cartels, Mexican gangs, and local dealers all benefit enormously from keeping drugs illegal. Cutting these groups off from one of their primary sources of funds could be a major benefit.
People will make mistakes in their lives and will sometimes turn to drugs when they should not. Destroying their life does not serve society half as well as rebuilding it could. Taxes on such drugs could easily pay for all the outreach and counseling programs you might want.
Marijuana, in particular is one of the silliest things to make illegal.
1) We are forced to make exceptions for folks that need it as a 'best treatment'.
2) It isn't as dangerous as alcohol.
3) It is trivial to grow just about anywhere.
4) We have lost all the other uses of hemp fiber (paper, rope, etc)
Tax it like hell but allow it all and put the money into proper tracking of who is using it. That's my vote. I too have worry about making really hard drugs legal, but if you make it traceable, and still allow employers to bar folks failing drug tests. I see much less harm than we find in the current destructive cycles that wastes billions annually while enriching the part of society we should be trying to weaken.
need to be legal. Drug war does absolutely nothing to prevent people from getting them who really want it. Complete waste of my money.
I'll start off with this: I've used most drugs at least once and marijuana and quite a bit (used to work at a head shop), though now I'm straight edge for reasons that have nothing to do with my drug use.
I agree wholeheartedly with just one caveat, lets substitute Psilocibin mushrooms (magic mushrooms) for LSD. It provides the same basic effect (there's nothing that happens on labratory made hallucenogens that doesn't happen on 'shrooms) but it is natural and controllable.
When using 'shrooms you always know they are pharmacologically safe (relatively speaking) but LSD, even if it was legalized, is too unstable to be used widely, IMHO.
I've known more than a few people who took too much acid and experienced permanent brain damage. With shrooms I have not seen any long term physiological problems.
so..."don't take the brown acid"
and for the love of God...legalize marijuana
Thank you Dave Raggett
Either you are a troll or you expect people to take your assertion that druggies tend to rape peoples daughters as fact, then you go on to base the rest of your fantasy on that flawed assertion.
i'm claiming that, like alcohol prohibition, drug prohibition caused far more social problems than it solved.
yes, opiates are physiologically addicted, and there were no doubt people who abused opiates and were addicted to opiates even back then. but when it is cheap, legal, and widely available, opiate dependence does not cause major social problems. this is demonstrated by the success of opiate maintenance programs in turning individuals with formerly problematic drug problems into productive & healthy members of society.
and just because opiate use was associated with upper-class lifestyles doesn't mean it can't be relatively cheap. the point is, prior to the Harrison Act people didn't go broke trying to support their opiate habits. heck, if you wanted to you could just grow your own poppies and make poppy tea yourself.
in fact, many well known figures in history were opiate users. for instance Benjamin Franklin and Edgar Allen Poe are both known to have been (recreational) opium users. that's not to say that narcotics with high abuse-potential shouldn't be regulated. in fact, if it were legal and regulated like alcohol and tobacco are, it'd probably cut back on all those unfortunate chippers who accidentally OD because they didn't know how strong their new batch of heroin was.
understand that for something like methampethamine, the costs of legalization far outweighs prohibition
but something like marijuana, or lsd, or mushrooms: the costs of prohibition are far greater. these drugs should be legal
familiarize yourself what something like methampetamine does to a person and their brain and their family and their job
once you understand that, you understand that all drugs are not the same, and shoul dnot be treated the same legally
case-by-case is the wisest approach
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Well, I am not in the US, and I consume marijuana in a regular basis.
It's very popular as a drug, by consumers and by non-consumers that think that stoners are no-future junkies.
Reading stuff like this makes me fear penalties for carrying or using marijuana will be increased.
Personally, I started smoking after my digestive system broke because of a medical error (without even an apology from them, and we can't afford a good lawyer, so I have to live with it).
Many in my family used to smoke as well, so I was convinced (after much resistance from me, since I don't smoke normal tobacco, and I thought it'd be a "bad thing" since I lived "healthy" without alcohol or tobacco). It was one of the best choices I had, one year ago.
Not troubled so much by pain, I started to develop my abilities further, started to make better and deeper social life (my mood became less violent, which helped at work and with friends), and met a lot of stoner people who are really nice. Unfortunately since my stomach is broken I tend to vomit at times when I am stoned, but well, happens if I do exercise too or I have too much heat. Aside from bad aftertaste and sore throat it's not a big deal (it's like once per month or so anyway)
Judging from my other family members who have been smoking for ages, they are really healthy as well. Some of my stoner friends only say "I lose a lot of time stoned" as a defect. I haven't known anyone that has died under effects of pot, either directly by overdose or indirectly (like driving and crashing, like alcohol, that is legal but it leads to heavy poisoning, violence in some cases, and shame in other cases).
You know, it kind of hurts me to see statistics like "54% of american parents are extremely worried their kids do marijuana". I don't know if it has side effect as a kid, I started well into adulthood, but my grandpa has been smoking his entire life, and he hasn't either started doing other drugs, nor he was ever violent, or has faced health issues (although he smokes a lot of regular tobacco too, so his voice is all cracked).
It would be nice if I could consume this medicine legally. It's not like law is going to be harsh to me, since it's just a small fine in my country, but I really fear "what if laws get more severe?".
Annoyed with the situation on his block in San Francisco, a techie has created Adam's Block, which has an HD camera pointed at a drug dealer corner. You can watch the deals go down. Try expanding the left window to full screen; the HD detail is there.
There's an attached blog and audit trail, and people are logging SFPD cars as they go by.
Fans of the site are waiting for an arrest. Hasn't happened yet.
It's streamed out via Justin.tv, so there's enough bandwidth for Slashdot users to watch.
The Onion ran one of their parody news articles a few years back concerning drugs. IIRC, the headline was "Drugs now legal if user is gainfully employed." I think that really cuts to the heart of the matter. What we should be most concerned about is people contributing in a positive manner to society. The negative effects to society in relation to drug use mostly revolve around crimes committed to acquire the drugs; the violent actions some people commit once under the influence of drugs; and harm done to children/teenagers who start drugs while their bodies and minds are still developing.
If people did drugs in the privacy of their own home, went to work everyday and played their part in the overall good of society, and you had to be 18 or 21 (like cigarettes and booze in the USA) to legally do drugs, these main concerns would go away.
Some people will never be able to wrap their minds around this concept. They've been raised with the "drugs==bad" mentality and can't see what goes on everyday around them. We already allow this with certain drugs. Alcohol, make no mistake about it, is a drug. It is one of the worst drugs around. Not to generalize (because there are "happy drunks"), but it makes people mean, and makes them do and say things they wouldn't otherwise. It is very addictive, especially to those genetically pre-disposed to alcoholism. It incapacitates users to a point that many other drugs don't. And the long-term health effects are among the worst of all drugs out there. But, for whatever reason, partaking in this drug is socially acceptable if you are 21 or older in the USA (other ages, usually younger in other countries). And then we have nicotine, the active ingredient in cigarettes, cigars and other tobacco products. This is an extremely addictive drug, so much so that many heroin addicts find it easier to kick smack than to give up smoking.
And then we have "controlled substances," of which doctors write out legitimate prescriptions by the the millions every day. Oxycontin is known in some circles as "hillbilly heroin," because the effects are similar, and it is the closest equivalent that can be found in rural areas. Other opioid medications like Vicodin are equally addictive, and when it comes time to quit them, the user might has well have been taking heroin. The withdrawals of any opiate or opioid or all the same: a hellish process that makes user either want to get a fix ASAP, or just die. Yet these drugs are legal.
I've gotten off-track a little bit, but for whatever reason, there's three drugs that are very much legal if you are the right age, or have the right doctor. Why are they legal when marijuana is less intoxicating than alcohol, and smoking it at worst provides the same risk for cancer as cigarettes? (I think weed is less likely to cause cancer because it is not pumped full of extra chemicals, like the tobacco companies do to keep their users hooked.) A habitual marijuana user will certainly feel "bummed" if they run out, but they won't go through withdrawals that are potentially deadly, as in the case of alcohol or opiates. And a pothead can quit with just willpower; as the commercials for many stop-smoking-aids, willpower is not enough to kick the cigarette habit.
We tolerate alcohol, tobacco and addictive prescription medications, as long as their users are otherwise productive members of society. I can only see at as a great hypocrisy that other drugs are not afforded the same opportunity--especially when we are talking about something as innocuous as marijuana. Drop all the drug laws now. If people let the drugs turn themselves into criminals, there are other laws to take care of that. Just like laws that take care of drunk drivers, people that steal cigarettes, or people that forge fake prescriptions. If consenting adults want to do these things in the privacy of their own home, and keep them out of the reach of their children, and stay on the right side of the law, there is no reason they shouldn't be allowed too.
As to why they are not allowed to, there are a lot of reasons why the dope dealers and the lawmakers don't want it to change; there's plenty of posts above mine that state these reasons in an insightful manner.
:q!
This past Election Day, the people of Massachusetts just voted 2:1 to decriminalize possession of up to 1 ounce of marijuana (over 50 typical joints). If caught with that much pot, the "criminal" is issued a ticket, about equivalent to a ticket for an open container of beer, that can be mailed in with a $100 fine without even a court appearance.
Every day that goes by without Massachusetts falling into chaos or bedlam will prove how stupid pot prohibition is. Something like 50% of America's over 1 million imprisoned criminals committed nonviolent drug crimes, and about 850,000 people are arrested for pot every year. Instead of spending an average of $30,000 per year per prisoner, we could be collecting income and sales taxes from the people growing, distributing and consuming it. Probably could be a top agriculture export for this country. And with an entire state running OK mostly post-prohibition, the counterexample in favor of sanity should be undeniable.
--
make install -not war
Our family knows two girls who blew their brains getting high on nutmeg. In the summer, our street is littered with mulberries - some of them green (hallucinogenic when consumed green). Marijuana grows on the police station lawn. But if they find it in *your* lawn, you could get arrested (or they can just swipe your car on "suspicion" of drug dealing). Teenagers in Hawaii get high (and sometimes die) licking poisonous frogs. Native Americans get high on mushrooms. Bolivians grow coca and make tea. The tiny amounts of cocaine in coca tea are harmless and actually healthful and no more addictive than caffeine.
What do all these drugs have in common? They are all natural substances which cannot reasonably be controlled without obliterating worldwide an entire family of plants, fungi, or amphibians.
While these plants and animals can be and are abused, they are no more dangerous than alcohol or tobacco. The real drug problems come when enterprising dealers with no conscience refine natural intoxicants, or create synthetic ones. Coca is refined into cocaine. Tobacco - addicting enough in pipe and cigar form, is made into cigarettes - far more addicting (and awful smelling to non-smokers). Wine and beer are refined into spirits and Grain Alcohol. Poppies are refined into heroine. PCP and LSD are far more dangerous than nutmeg.
So, I a not a libertarian, but I support any movement to stop the ridiculous attempts to wipe out useful plants and animals - because of some idiots trying for a Darwin award.
IMO, a sane "war on drugs" would target chem labs where the truly dangerous drugs are made or refined. At least then, the people they arrest would actually have to do something illegal - as opposed to not putting enough (toxic and environmentally bad) broad leaf killer on the lawn.
it'd probably cut back on all those unfortunate chippers who accidentally OD because they didn't know how strong their new batch of heroin was
This is a very important point. There are only two ways to unintentionally die of a heroin overdose: 1) you underestimate the purity, or 2) your dealer has cut the heroin with benzodiazepines. Both of these are direct results of the war on drugs, and deaths from these two causes would be reduced almost to nothing if heroin were legalized, as its purity and dosage would be properly labeled, and impurities would not exist (either because of government regulation or market competition, depending on where you stand in the statist-libertarian ideological spectrum). There is a third cause - mixing with alcohol - but most heroin addicts only turn to alcohol when they don't the money for heroin (or, as much heroin as they'd like), and if heroin were legal, it would be very cheap, and there'd be no reason for anyone to substitute alcohol (a substance much more dangerous and debilitating than heroin) for heroin.
(source)
No, fool. The side effects of drug use are detrimental to the user most of the time, and seldom to others. But when drugs are made illegal, the price skyrockets and now the drug users have to steal to buy the drugs they used to get with regular paychecks. I have seen common estimates that drugs cost 100 times what they would if unregulated.
Illegal drugs also require more cops and prisons which all cost a lot of money, simultaneously turning taxpayers into prisoners, a nice double whammy on the economy. Then there is all the corruption that goes with it.
Yes, fool, most of the current problems with drugs stem entirely from the laws themselves, not the drugs.
Think what would happen if drugs were unregulated:
All those wars funded by drug income would vanish almost overnight.
500,000 prisoners would become taxpayers again.
Hundreds of thousands of cops and prison guards would have to find real employment.
Crimes to make money for drugs would disappear.
And on the negative side, some people would die from cheap drugs. But I bet more people die now from shoddy quality for which there is no recourse, whereas with drugs unregulated, they could be sued for bad quality.
Anyone who supports the War on Some Drugs is an ignoramus with his head buried in the sand.
Infuriate left and right
One thing that has been annoying me to no end lately is several incidents in Japan of college kids getting busted with marijuana.
Now the media is calling it an "outbreak" and a "scourge" and bemoaning the morals of the young people, blah blah blah. They trot out so-called experts who talk about "Marijana Psychological Disorder." It's Reefer Madness all over again, and absolutely no one is open to discussing it in a rational manner. Forget the fact that these kids weren't hurting anyone or anything. Forget the fact that most of the rest of the world looks the other way on college pot use. And how about the fact that this country drinks itself to sleep every night? Bunch of hypocrites.
first off, i never said IV heroin use was the same as ingesting opium orally. however, since you've brought it up, it should be noted that whether you smoke, insufflate, or ingest orally, the pharmacological mechanism of an opioid is the same. certain opiates like morphine and diacetylmorphine (heroin) are not suited to oral ingestion as they have very low oral bioavailability (somewhere around 10%, i think), but others like oxycodone, hydrocodone, and codeine do have high oral bioavailability.
really, aside from the initial rush (which lasts for 2-3 minutes max), injecting morphine/heroin/oxycodone/fentanyl feels exactly the same as if you ate it. however, it's more economical to inject morphine and heroin. and in my personal experience, most of the pill poppers who think that they're being smart by avoiding needles but have $200/day habits are not any better off than the heroin addicts with $200/day habits. of course, with IV use there are certain hygienic precautions you need to take. re-using needles and sharing needles are always bad. but aside from that, a lot of doctors who are closet IV morphine addicts are no worse off than pill poppers.
in regards to Benjamin Franklin, i wasn't being disingenuous, but thanks for the accusation anyway. if you look up Poor Richard's Almanac (here's a digital copy) you'll find lots of references to laudanum (opium & alcohol tincture), including as an ingredient to all sorts of home-made remedies as well as, interestingly enough, a bill or invoice sent to the Franklin estate including charges for "opium pills" and laudanum--and quite a lot of it. so perhaps he did use it recreationally or perhaps he didn't. but it's clear that Franklin was a regular user of opium at least as early as 1769 (the date of that bill), and was a proponent of opium use.
and if you want more sources that support Benjamin Franklin being a regular opium user:
Specific quote regarding the dangers of overdose in acclimatised users:
There is no upper limit to the amount of tolerance that can occur in a heavy user. Several studies done in the 1920s gave users doses of 1,600â"1,800 mg of heroin, and no adverse effects were reported. Even for a non-user, the LD50 can be placed above 350 mg though some sources give a figure of between 75 and 375 mg for a 75 kg person.[30]
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
which is why useful (and accurate) information needs to be disseminated by drug education programs rather than scare-tactics. it's not just mixing heroin and alcohol that's bad. mixing alcohol with almost any kind of a downer is extremely dangerous. but when educators give young people false impressions of the health risks related to various behaviors, exaggerating certain dangers while playing down others, teenagers become more poorly equipped to make sound judgments regarding drug use.
and then there are things like "ecstasy overdoses" that should never happen. MDMA itself is a relatively safe drug. even the former director NIDA admits that MDMA is safer than a lot of prescription drugs. but each year teenagers die from ingesting PMA that's sold to them as ecstasy. if MDMA use were legal and regulated, this sort of thing would not be happening.
For countries with the political courage to try treating drug use as a social and medical problem, instead of as a legal one, the jury is in. It works. Switzerland has had prescription heroin for a decade on an experimental basis. They just voted to make the law permanent. Nothing chic about heroin in Switzerland. Just a bunch of old losers. Addiction rate is going down. Most hold crappy jobs. Opoids don't completely incapacitate a person -- as many on pain meds know. (They are hard on the gut) The Netherlands have also had progressive policies. There is of course a downside (particularly as people from countries with prohibition come in and cause problems), but in the balance the Dutch are okay with the openness. The great thing about relegating drugs to the medical sphere is that the cool factor evaporates. And the financial incentive dissipates.
Prohibition uses sovereign power to create artificial scarcity increasing price and creating an underworld. Get this crap in the sunshine. Give it to the people who want it for cheap and they will mainly fill low paying jobs -- with some exceptions.
Handle it in the private sector. You can test for drug use for security clearances and operator licenses etc. We need people to push brooms and flip burgers.
"Dude, here's a spliff, now take this broom and sawdust and clean the warehouse. And by the way if you want a better life the clinic is open and the NA meeting is down the street."
The exception is of course with creative people. They can do fine with drugs if they don't go overboard. Code poets, jazz men and artists will use. But they also get clean, too. Up to them I say. This puritanical nanny stuff is for the birds.
Interestingly, I read that Cisco systems decided to scratch their testing policies. Too many good people came up dirty. True or not I do not know. And perhaps the status has changed. Comments?
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
I am willing to bet that people pay more to house and prosecute numberless drug users/sellers than it would cost to provide social services to help them cope when their usage becomes a detriment to sustaining themselves in the context of their other decisions. Not everyone has the same responsibilities. If you have a wife and kids and a mortgage and a bunch of bills it hurts you more to be an addict. If you live in a cheap apartment and live off your investments, what's the difference if you chose to live your life stoned out of your mind.
Legal marijuana:
Eliminate, what, 800,000 people or so arrested each year for marijuana-related offenses, thus reducing the costs assocated in processing & housing them.
Fewer lawyers to deal with the now-reasonable amount of court action. Obvious benefit.
Prisons are no longer overcrowded, thus no longer requiring more prisons to be built, thus saving money.
Prisons are no longer overcrowded, no longer requiring people to be released early who shouldn't be.
Fewer law enforcement personnel needed to conduct now-reasonable-size 'war on (other) drugs', thus saving tax money.
Tax money from now-legal marijuana sales (budget is balanced, free healthcare and a Wii for all).
Less alcohol abuse now that Marijuana is legal, fewer drunk-driving accidents (Marijuana is less-impairing than alcohol), thus saving thousands of lives per year.
Nothing standing in the way of Hemp production except the Cotton industry (who would be the biggest beneficiaries of switching over appropriate products to Hemp, go figure). More Hemp can now be grown with less water and pesticides than the Cotton crops replaced, thus saving money and the environment. Still can't get high off of Hemp, which isn't the same as Marijuana, dumbasses learn this the hardway by trying to smoke it to avoid the 'sin taxes' of the now-legal Marijuana.
Snack food industry profits increase 25-fold in the first 9 months after legalization of Marijuana. Frito-Lay stock is up 5200%. Combination packs of Cheetos and a Joint second biggest-selling item in history of United States. Taco Bell stock up 9200%. Biggest-selling item in history of U.S. is the 'Fatties and a Skinny' combo from Taco Bell, consisting of 3 bean burritos and a joint.
Following the success of legal marijuana nationwide, prostition becomes legal 5 years later, after the next round of elections. Las Vegas becomes bigger than ever, while Reno disincorporates as noone is willing to travel there anymore. Legalization of gamling comes in on the hells of legalized prostitution, and the Native American tribes expand their casino experience into the rest of the country, but come up against the Italian Mafia, and a new Mob War ensues, leaving Chicago and New York littered with the scalped bodies of Italian Mafia members everywhere, within their circled Cadillacs and SUVs.
Oh yeah, taxes off sales of marijuana accessories pay for new space program which gets humanity off Earth just in time to avoid being wiped out by asteroid the size of Texas.
The modern man is required to live as the following Be born Go to School Get job Consume shit Get married Consume more shit Invest in something Retire Die Anything that deviates from ruthless pursuit of the above is frowned upon or banned.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
How many people drink bathtub gin anymore? Moonshine? Rotgut? When alcohol prohibition was lifted in 1933, people went back to "the good stuff." I guarantee that if certain controlled substances were legal you'd see certain very unsafe and insane substitutes become a whole lot less popular.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
I think at the center of this whole issue is the question of whether we want to face up to the problem or not.
There is no doubt that drug use is a problem, or at least causes problems; but research clearly shows that there are several drugs that are less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco. Still, the overwhelming majority of people are able to live a productive life, even while enjoying alcohol or using tobacco regularly, and the reality is that it is perfectly possible to use several other drugs in a responsible way - it is a simple matter of learning how to handle it. Information campaigns and teaching about it in schools should do the trick.
As it is now, people are being kept in a state of permanent hysteria about it - and I can't see why, really. There are certain factors that contribute, like the far too influential religious conservatives, to whom anything that might look like Wild Wantonness - such as feeling happy, relaxing and enjoying yourself - is a Sin. As I think it is becoming clear to most, there isn't any rational argument in favour of the kind of prohibition we have now in most countries, so all we are left with is the irrational fear of those we allow into power, one way or the other; but should be really let fear make the decisions for us? Isn't that what got into the Iraq mess, just to whip that old, dead horse once more?
There are many benefits to changing the way this is handled: enormous savings on unnecessary policing and jailing people, just to mention one. The increased tax revenue from putting a tax on the now legal drugs, as well as income tax from the now legal drug traders. Alcohol consumption may even fall, because mixing alcohol with eg. cannabis will probably not appeal to most people - and of course, while drunk drivers are likely to drive too fast, a person under the influence of cannabis is much more likely to drive too slowly, thus reducing the likelyhood of fatal accidents.
In fact, the only people that would suffer a serious blow from the legalisation and regulation of drugs, are the ones that now benefit the most from it being illegal. As always it is a question of following the money.
You mean, like, alcohol and tobacco? Or can ANYONE give me a single good reason why those two are not the business of the FDA (like every other drug) but rather deserve to be lumped with firearms (didn't know you could get addicted to guns).
Maybe to give those two some kind of constitutional sanctity. Like they're covered in the 2nd together with firearms or something.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
There's nothing to discuss. Drug prohibition has nothing to do with the dangers of the prohibited drugs as classified by experts. If it had something to do with that, either tobacco and alcohol would have to be prohibited or XTC, LSD, marijuana and a lot of other drugs that cause less harm than tobacco and alcohol, would have to be legalised.
Drug prohibition is not based on any rational argument, so there's nothing to discuss. Drug prohibition laws as they are now are based on superstition, religion, arrogance, hate, misplaced autority, stupidity and a lot of money. In short: FUD. Good luck trying to discuss about that.
0x or or snor perron?!
but you wonder how many lives it would save
None. Death is the debt all men owe. You get only one life and one death. The life can be spent once only, the death can be deferred, but the life cannot be "saved" and the death cannot be prevented.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
and the passage of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970.
Prior to this, drugs were subject to transfer taxes, but were not actually illegal if the taxes were paid. Of course, the taxes were so high compared to the value of the drugs that nobody ever paid them, making the drugs "effectively" illegal. But the lawmakers up to that point realized that they didn't actually have the power to BAN drugs without a constitutional amendment, so they went with a tax-based approach.
The controlled Substances Act changed all that. A new "superagency" called the DEA was created from parts of several different agencies, and was given the (unconstitutional) ability to ban whatever substances it saw fit by bureaucratic fiat.
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
"Most Americans in 1933 could recall a time before prohibition, which tempered their fears..."
I'd have to say this statement is patently false.
Most Americans in 1933 could recall a time before Prohibition, which made it terrifying.
Some people perhaps believe that the Temperance movement was just a bunch of stern-faced moralists who 'got off' on the idea of circumscribing peoples' freedoms or just enjoyed being repressive.
Hardly.
The pre-Prohibition world was poisoned by alcohol. The pervasive use of spirits was destroying society from the bottom up. Remember, there were no 'minimum drinking age's in those times; in some communities it was not uncommon to see 8- and 9-year-olds passed out like winos in alleys. Largely a male problem, it inspired mostly women to try to do SOMETHING to stop their sons, brothers, husbands, and fathers from killing themselves slowly.
So while we all chuckle at how naive the 'Prohibitionists' were, we generally do so from a position of total ignorance at HOW BAD the problem really was before 1920. Further, most people today are in almost complete ignorance at the very necessary post-Prohibition compromises that probably would have been impossible to emplace without Prohibition in the first place.
One might draw a parallel to today's 'legalize pot' crusaders, who may have been unsuccessful partly because they likewise trivialize and mischaracterize the very real concerns expressed by mainstream adults on the other side of the issue.
For my own point of view, I personally don't have any problem with broad legalization of a wide range of narcotics - people, as self-aware adults, should have the freedom to destroy themselves if they want. Simultaneously, however, I'd like to see DRACONIAN, brutal penalties for dealing to children or for being cognitively impaired in situations where your condition could harm others, like driving.*
* I'd say that this should be far worse than today's drunk-driving laws, and should equally apply to alcohol.
-Styopa