Let's Have A War On Moronic Policy, Already
Yale law prof Steven B. Duke has a terrific piece in the WSJ about raising billions in tax dollars and ending the vast swath of violence in Mexico by instituting a wiser drug policy -- one suggesting we've finally learned something from Prohibition:
What we can and should do is eliminate the black market for the drugs by regulating and taxing them as we do our two most harmful recreational drugs, tobacco and alcohol.Marijuana presents the strongest case for this approach. According to some estimates, marijuana comprises about 70% of the illegal product distributed by the Mexican cartels. Marijuana will grow anywhere. If the threat of criminal prosecution and forfeitures did not deter American marijuana farmers, America's entire supply of that drug would be home-grown. If we taxed the marijuana agribusiness at rates similar to that for tobacco and alcohol, we would raise about $10 billion in taxes per year and would save another $10 billion we now spend on law enforcement and imprisoning marijuana users and distributors.
Even with popular support, legalizing and regulating the distribution of marijuana in the U.S. would be neither easy nor quick. While imposing its prohibitionist will on the rest of the world for nearly a century, the U.S. has created a network of treaties and international agreements requiring drug prohibition. Those agreements would have to be revised. A sensible intermediate step would be to decriminalize the possession and use of marijuana and to exercise benign neglect of American marijuana growers. Doing both would puncture the market for imports from Mexico and elsewhere and would eliminate much of the profit that fuels the internecine warfare in Mexico.
After we reap the rewards from decriminalizing marijuana, we should move on to hard drugs. This will encounter strong resistance. Marijuana is a relatively safe drug. No one has ever died from a marijuana overdose nor has anyone gone on a violent rampage as a result of a marijuana high. Cocaine, heroin and amphetamines, on the other hand, can be highly addictive and harmful, both physically and psychologically. But prohibition makes those dangers worse, unleashing on vulnerable users chemicals of unknown content and potency, and deterring addicts from seeking help with their dependency. There is burgeoning recognition, in the U.S. and elsewhere, that the health benefits and the myriad social and economic advantages of substituting regulation of hard drugs for their prohibition deserves serious consideration.
A most impressive experiment has been underway in Portugal since 2001, when that country decriminalized the possession and personal use of all psychotropic drugs. According to a study just published by the Cato Institute, "judged by virtually every metric," the Portuguese decriminalization "has been a resounding success." Contrary to the prognostications of prohibitionists, the numbers of Portuguese drug users has not increased since decriminalization. Indeed, the percentage of the population who has ever used these drugs is lower in Portugal than virtually anywhere else in the European Union and is far below the percentage of users in the U.S.. One explanation for this startling fact is that decriminalization has both freed up funds for drug treatment and, by lifting the threat of criminal charges, encouraged drug abusers to seek that treatment.
We can try to deal with the Mexican murderers as we first dealt with Al Capone and his minions, or we can apply the lessons we learned from alcohol prohibition and finish dismantling the destructive prohibition experiment. We should begin by decriminalizing marijuana now.
And the one thing that was missing from this otherwise excellent piece? Commenter David Elmore brings it up over at the WSJ:
Steven Duke's column on the necessity of legalizing drugs is spot-on - outside of its glaring omission of the primary reason for legalizing drugs: human beings have a natural right as rational animals to ingest anything they wish.All of us who do or did drugs (as I did as a youth) know that you can acquire any drug any time, usually within minutes or hours of the desire. The only thing that ever changes is price, which, like all commodities, depends upon availability and demand. Each and every American knows somebody in his or her circle of friends who sells at least small amounts of drugs - whether that American may be cognizant of that fact or not.
But it is underground and it is lethal to many, as Mr. Duke says. Let's bring it above-ground to the light of day and stop burying police officers and others below ground in a futile attempt at regulating human behavior.I commend the WSJ for having the courage to bring this subject up in a major, public way. Now, let's start talking rationally.
Wasn't ending this prohibition the highest entry on Obama's pre-election website where people could vote for what they wanted most?
Norman at May 11, 2009 1:14 AM
> human beings have a natural
> right as rational animals
> to ingest anything they wish.
First of all, I'm starting the think "wish" is one of those words –like simply and simple– that warns us that someone's saying something stupid.
(Computer people do this all the time.... Programmers who live in cinderblock basements, guys who haven't read a novel since sixth grade or looked a girl in the eye since seventh grade, will write programs that ask "Do you wish to save a file?" Nobody asks why they do that. Nobody ever complains.)
Secondly, it's only a "natural right" if the natural consequences don't interfere with other people. Once drugs cause you to start fucking things up for other people, those people have a right to insist on better behavior. It often happens quickly.
Thirdly, decriminalization will free law enforcement to concentrate resources on bigger dealers. I'm not sure it will help the average stoner safely get his tastes satisfied.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at May 11, 2009 1:35 AM
You sure you want a war on moronic policy?
If history is any gudie then declaring war will only cuase the moronic policy problem to grow larger and larger
lujlp at May 11, 2009 5:15 AM
Don't we have a big enough problem with alcohol already? Do we need to legalize another substance that will due damage to people and families?
Alcohol costs how many billions in lost productivity? Destroys how many families?
We have how much underage drinking and driving under the influence leading to accidents? We want to add another substance that people can abuse?
David M. at May 11, 2009 6:28 AM
David, do remember the lure of forbidden fruit. Under prohibition, the number of bars (speakeasies) doubled.
Bradley13 at May 11, 2009 6:35 AM
Yeah, but at the same time...
There is always going to be *something* that is illegal, and that something is always going to create gang wars.
So if you make drugs legal, the gangs will just move on to child prostitution, or certain types of weapons, or whatever.
NicoleK at May 11, 2009 6:47 AM
I'm not sure that I agree that the harder drugs should be made legal, but I don't think that marijuana ever should have been made illegal in the first place. It has proven medicinal value and no chance of overdose. As pointed out in the article, it doesn't cause violent rampages.
David M, who says marijuana ruins families? You?
Regulate it strictly. Don't let people consume it in public. Tax it heavily. DUI and DWI are the same whether you're drunk, high on weed, or high on Oxycontin. (I'd be in favor of increasing DWI penalties, whether or not certain substances are legal.)
ahw at May 11, 2009 7:31 AM
NicoleK's argument is a strong point in favor of bringing back the concept of shaming. If something is technically legal, but is considered to be shameful by the majority, then it will have the same allure of illicitness to those who enjoy going against the mores of the culture, without sending them into even darker pits of depravity to get their rebellious high.
WayneB at May 11, 2009 7:37 AM
I'm all for legalizing marijuana, but I wouldn't count on taxing it. Americans love to garden, and marijuana is a beautiful and easy to grow plant. A year after it being legal, they'll be selling it down at the Home Depot next to the basil and tomatoes.
They should legalize marijuana and double the munchies tax.
Eric at May 11, 2009 7:55 AM
NicoleK,
"So if you make drugs legal, the gangs will just move on to child prostitution, or certain types of weapons, or whatever."
Is your argument that legal marijuana will serve as a gateway allowing gangs to to engage in child prostitution where the gangs otherwise would not? Or is your argument that if we legalize marijuana today, we will eventually watch 9 year olds get sold streetside by gangs?
I don't see the connection, frankly. I suspect that if there was a lucrative market for child prostitution, and we could not otherwise prevent the sale of children, illegal gangs would be engaging in that activity right now.
Spartee at May 11, 2009 10:23 AM
"Do we need to legalize another substance that will due damage to people and families?"
I don't really care if people make stupid choices. I care more about whether they have the freedom to make choices in the first place.
Pirate Jo at May 11, 2009 10:50 AM
So if you make drugs legal, the gangs will just move on to child prostitution, or certain types of weapons, or whatever.
Posted by: NicoleK at May 11, 2009 6:47 AM
Won't somebody think of the children! Oh, someone please think of the children!
Sio at May 11, 2009 11:44 AM
Wow, Again?
Every so often some educated type spouts off about how legalising pot will solve all of our financial/violent crime problems. this one goes so far as to claim it might be a good idea to legalise harder drugs. I am not afraid to say the idea of crack, meth and PCP legal scare the shit out of me. I have personal experience with the two former and have seen the latter turn good people into drooling idiots.
But lets start with legalising pot. The argument that Alcohol and tobaco being legal already as reason to legalise doesn't hold water. They are bad yes, so lets add one more that is bad. Again as I have stated before it is not a stepping stone drug for everyone but for some it is. It does rob you of your motivation and it does impare you. Again personal experience.
Taking care of our debt is a joke. Someone mentioned earlier that there are a lot of gardeners out there. Growing good pot is rather easy. Harder than say tomatoes but easier than fuschia. It grows well in dry climates, wet climates, heat. I don't know about cold never tried it.
As much as I don't like the idea of legalization of pot, I don't think it would alter the world. I do believe it will do more harm than good though.
As for other drugs, chemicals as we referred to them. or those of you who are in large cities or any where in So. Cal. go to a inner city park. Let me give you a tour.
See those guys pan handling over there in the dirty clothse with shit of some kind crusted around there mouths, those would be the crack heads.
The skinny guys on the park bench with scabs up and down there arms that they continuely pick at, who are tryng to sale you the old car stereo in the paper bag as they look a hundred ways at once. Meth.
The guys in the shaded corner drool hanging down, eyes glazed over, trying to preach to you but you can't understand a word he says. PCP.
The guy being violently ill, soaked in sweat but just got up long enough to snatch some kids bike or old ladies purse. Heroin.
The good news is that those that can scatter when the cops show up. The others go to jail. So maybe those that only have these parks as recreation for there kids can use them.
Now don't think that legalization is going to improve any ones life, much more like it will create a few more desolute souls such as these. I've seen too much of it. From someone that was once part of the drug sub culture it is a horrible idea to legalize hard drugs and at least a bad one to legalize pot.
Just my opinion of course.
pvm at May 11, 2009 11:51 AM
Crid: "Secondly, it's only a "natural right" if the natural consequences don't interfere with other people. Once drugs cause you to start fucking things up for other people, those people have a right to insist on better behavior. It often happens quickly."
People screw things up for other people in a million ways every day. Driving without paying attention, buying giant homes they can't afford, forwarding obvious adware to friends email accounts, drinking too much and picking a fight, becoming addicted to prescription painkillers and calling in sick for a month, falling asleep with the kettle on and burning down the apartment block....
Nothing special about recreational drugs in that regard so, while I don't disagree entirely with your point, I'm not sure I see why this is a special case?
scott at May 11, 2009 12:29 PM
One question for the 'weed is a gateway' crowd.
Dont most stones start with alcohol? Most of the stoners in my high school did
lujlp at May 11, 2009 1:17 PM
One other thing, why do those who hate the nanny state make an acception for drug laws?
lujlp at May 11, 2009 1:19 PM
"One other thing, why do those who hate the nanny state make an acception for drug laws?"
Because it's not intrusive if it doesn't affect me personally, right? Right? Anyone...?
scott at May 11, 2009 1:29 PM
lujlp:
why do those who hate the nanny state make an acception for drug laws?
- - - - - - - - -
For the same reason we make exceptions for seatbelts, cigarettes, and prostitution.
Because when there is clear, likely injury to self and society, it's no longer a "nanny state" issue.
Uncomfortable with the notion of people actually caring about each other in a society that's way above subsistence level?
OK, I'll put it in the childish/selfish terms of certain immature libertarians:
Society has invested in people, and therefore wants to protect its investment.
... nobody has mentioned a lower age limit for hard-drug consumption - so that we can at least be certain that anyone using that stuff has enough life experience to really know what they are doing to themselves.
Ben-David at May 11, 2009 1:36 PM
We have absolutely draconian drug laws. And yet people still do them. The money made in the illegal drug trade funds incredible violence and terrorism. While contributing to our amazingly high incarceration rate. In contrast, only harmless hippies get money when someone buys weed in a dispensary in California. I know drugs are bad m'kay. But the war on drugs is an epic fail and has done more to undermine our civil liberties than anything else, even the post-9/11 ratcheting up of the surveillance state. It's high time we end the madness and legalize it all. If we must take baby steps, start with weed.
Cheezburg at May 11, 2009 1:44 PM
Once again, we're forgetting our history when it comes to the weed. Look up Harry Anslinger, William Randolph Hearst, and the DuPonts. Find the connection? Yes, that's right, they were all instrumental in getting pot to be declared illegal in the first place! It didn't used to be illegal. Neither was cocaine nor heroin. And I still have a copy of the old Montgomery Ward/Sears catalog that my great-grandmother had, that has a page full of glass syringes in lovely wooden boxes for sale, $18.00, some of them, with packets of needles, circa 1920. Also, while we're at it, we could check on a few European countries where there are legal heroin clinics, and were pot is still sold legally. There isn't a big panic about it all. It's one solution to the problems they were having with people over-dosing in the streets. Now they have a relatively safe place to go. Are those proud of their addiction? Probably not, but at least they have a safe place to go, and they don't have to steal from people to feed their habit. And that also doesn't mean they don't get counseling in those places, because they do. And maybe some are able to quit, or at least modify their intake. Now, back in the day, when I was a stoner, I also had a sense of (wait for it...here it comes...) personal responsibility!! Meaning, yes I got stoned. BUT, I also always had a job of one sort or another. I supported myself and I paid my bills; I never ripped anyone off to support my pot "habit". I never drove while I was stoned, either, because I drove too s l o w. And there was always someone else who was willing to give me a ride, if I asked. And chipped in for gas! I did use cocaine for a little while, in the 80s, when I was with the band(s), but soon figured out it fucked me up more than I wanted to be, so I quit. (I'm one of those people who prefers a glass of wine or a couple of tokes to a line or 2 of cocaine. I just don't like the shit.) Granted, some people didn't quit, and the let the drug control them, as opposed to controlling themselves when they were using. But in a lot of instances, once the illegality of it is gone, the notoriety will be too, and people will either use it as a matter of course, or they won't. But I don't think that everyone who ever had a drink or a toke will all of a sudden turn into a raving coke- or meth-head. I could be wrong, but I just don't see that happening with the vast majority of people. I know more than a few who use recreationally, and they're fine. They can have a conversation without going off on a tangent. They hold jobs. They pay their bills. They take care of business. Why would that all of a sudden change if pot were made legal? o.O
Flynne at May 11, 2009 1:45 PM
Ben-David says: "For the same reason we make exceptions for seatbelts, cigarettes, and prostitution. Because when there is clear, likely injury to self and society, it's no longer a "nanny state" issue."
Shouldn't the principle applied here be to enact the least instrusive, least freedom constraining approach available that achieves the policy goal? There are lots of steps between no contstraints whatsoever and the legislated ban that exists now.
scott at May 11, 2009 1:58 PM
it's only a "natural right" if the natural consequences don't interfere with other people.
Fortunately, nobody advocates the legalization of crimes that are sometimes motivated by drugs, such as theft.
I'm not convinced that crime is a natural consequence of drug use. If cocaine always resulted in theft, then sure, ban it. But it doesn't.
Pseudonym at May 11, 2009 2:33 PM
"Society has invested in people, and therefore wants to protect its investment."
You know how to invest in a company, right? You purchase an ownership share of it. People investing in others, that sounds like people purchasing ownership of them. I don't think it's childish, selfish, or immature to find the idea of ownership of other people (or its converse) sickening. This has nothing to do with caring for others. You are talking about financial obligations.
If something that presents a clear, likely injury to self ought to be illegal, wouldn't that cover an awful lot of sports?
Not sure what you mean when you speak of a clear, likely injury to society - if that means everyone other than me, then you must mean 'other people.' If you are going to suggest that my activities present a clear, likely injury to someone else, you should be able to identify who those people are and specify in what way I am likely to injure them. And that burden does fall upon you. It's not up to me to sit here and say why smoking pot doesn't hurt anyone else. If you want to throw me in jail for doing it, it's up to YOU to say who I am hurting by doing so, and in what way.
But then, I know this will shock you, I don't think we should have seatbelt laws, or that prostitution should be illegal. Seatbelt laws shouldn't be laws, they should be conditions placed upon insureds by insurance companies. (If you get in an accident and aren't wearing a seatbelt, any damage awards are reduced by 50%, or something.) Let them duke it out, I don't want to see the kind of fundraising by our government that takes place in the name of seatbelt fines.
Pirate Jo at May 11, 2009 3:15 PM
> I'm not sure I see why this is
> a special case?
Because bad consequences are so indisputably likely. We don't wait for drunk drivers to kill schoolchildren before throwing them in prison any more, do we? You gotta problem with that?
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at May 11, 2009 4:32 PM
"We don't wait for drunk drivers to kill schoolchildren before throwing them in prison any more, do we?"
Drunk *drivers* Crid - not people who buy or sell alcohol.
Pirate Jo at May 11, 2009 4:56 PM
Again, as I said last month:
The side that says all illegal drugs should remain illegal can never explain why the Twenty-first Amendment exists. The simple answer:
If it did, the War ond drugs wouldn't be pissing $19 billion per year down a rat hole
Jim P. at May 11, 2009 5:02 PM
Spartee... I think you misunderstood my point.
My point isn't that we shouldn't legalize pot (I think we should). My point is that there will always be a black market for *something*, and so there will always be gang crime. I don't think legalizing pot will cut back on gang crime. At the most there will be a temporary lull while the criminals figure out what new thing they're going to sell. There will always be a market for something illegal.
NicoleK at May 11, 2009 5:45 PM
And once again, it will boil down to the "rights" of the few who are more or less allowed to inflict their unrefuted views and impose their so-called morality upon the "rights" of the many. Because there are some irresponsible people, the fear of what they "might" do is used to justify imposing on those of the majority who would just opt to get high on their own time, rather than impose their irresponsibility on the rest of society. Yes, yes, you can't count on everyone to be personally responsible and do what's right all the time. Nor can you count on the few who would get behind the wheel when "slightly tipsy" but not "drunk" to NOT get in an accident. It's a catch-22 and let's all err on the side of caution because the self-righteous and self-appointed "investors in society" have the "right" to decide things for those who actually ARE responsible, as well as those who are not. Swell. It's a load of horseshit and I ain't buyin' it. This whole thing reminds me of that one lady who said to me, shortly after the election, "Oooh, everything is going to be fine now!" after I said I wouldn't "drink the kool-aid". "Drink the kool-aid!" she said, "it's hope-flavored!"
No thanks. Not this little black duck.
(Can someone please tell me, what the fuck ever happened to common sense? Is the vast majority of the population really that stupid, that it needs protection from itself? o.O )
Flynne at May 11, 2009 6:19 PM
And just for shits and giggles, let's revisit the "Bill of Non-rights", shall we?
(Oh c'mon, humour me!)
Bill of Non-Rights
We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid any more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior and secure the blessings of debt free liberty to ourselves and our great great-great grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some
common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other liberal bedwetters.
We hold these truths to be self-evident: That a whole lot of people were confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim that they
require a Bill of Non Rights.
* ARTICLE I -- You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV or any form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.
* ARTICLE II -- You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means the freedom for everyone, not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but the world is full of
idiots and probably always will be.
* ARTICLE III -- You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful. Do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.
* ARTICLE IV -- You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generations of professional couch potatoes who achieve
nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.
* ARTICLE V -- You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice but, from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in government run health care.
* ARTICLE VI -- You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim or kill someone,
don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.
* ARTICLE VII -- You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat or coerce away the money, goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen TV or a life of leisure.
* ARTICLE VIII -- You don't have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience.
We hate oppressive governments and won't lift a finger to stop you from going to fight, if you'd like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform
and a funny hat.
* ARTICLE IX -- You don't have the right to a job. All of us sure want all of you to have one, and will gladly help you in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of
the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.
* ARTICLE X -- You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to pursue happiness -- which by the way, is a lot easier if you are
unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.
Love you all, anyway. Thanks and good night.
o.O
Flynne at May 11, 2009 6:33 PM
Look, it's really simple.
How many people are there who drink alcohol that abuse it to the point where they are a net drain on society, or a hazard to it byvirtue of their behavior?
Compare and contrast that with users of cocaine, crack, meth, and heroin.
If I could believe that the heroin user wouldn't be a useless lump of shit collecting welfare and robbing people to fulfill his habit, I might go along with the broad legalization argument. But we both know that is not the case. The bulk of alcohol consumers are NOT raging drunkards. The bulk of alcohol consumers do not drive drunk. The bulk of alcohol abusers aren't robbing little old ladies to get a bottle of Mad Dog 20/20.
I don't care if the shit's a dollar a shot - your typical heroin user is NOT gonna be holding down a job, and don't try to get me to accept that cheap heroin means he can panhandle to get his fix - I don't want to see any more fucking panhandlers.
So I'll make you a little deal. We change the penalties a little bit. You injure someone as a result of your being impaired on a substance, be it alcohol, heroin, or prescription drugs, you go to jail for 25 years, no parole. You kill someone as a result of your impairment, you forfeit your life.
No appeals. You kill someone with your car because you're drunk, you die. You kill someone to get your next fix of heroin, you die.
You believe that there is such a thing as a responsible narcotic user. I believe that such a creature is so rare that a comparison with unicorns that fart skittles is apt.
I think you know the answer to that. Society has become so prosperous and safe that we let the stupid and useless live long and unproductive lives instead of putting them to work slopping hogs or building fences. Our society no longer has a use for stupids, but we never quite convinced ourselves that maybe it would be a good idea to talk the stupids out of reproducing further.
brian at May 11, 2009 8:03 PM
The legalization debate you're about to enter into has been ongoing in British Columbia for many years now. Why? Because there's a product called "BC Bud" that is high-intensity marijuana that has become a major part of the underground economy here.
In fact, the Economist magazine said that as per the definition of organized crime (2 or more people engaged in an activity deemed to be criminal by the authorities) BC has the largest amount of organized crime in the world.
If you Google for: Vancouver gang violence you'll see numerous entries about the large drug war that has been occurring here for a long time.
Mostly because of all the violence, many here have been calling for legalization of marijuana too. They also assured us that it will end the violence tomorrow.
Maybe. But I can never forget a fellow who called into a talk radio station here a while ago. He described himself as a recovered drug addict who had been deeply involved in the drug trade for some time. He asked a simple question: "If drugs were to be legalized tomorrow, what do you think those drug dealers would then do?"
He went on to point out that drugs would only be legalized for adults. So the criminals would very deliberately and actively target school age children, building up a loyal (and very hooked) customer base in order to keep the profits rolling in.
Food for thought, folks.
Robert W. (Vancouver, BC) at May 11, 2009 9:54 PM
I'm with brian, Also with hard drugs, I say give them away for free, you go down to the state run clini take all the drug you want and we'll put you in a 9x9x9 room with a metal bunk 5 feet off the ground, an expsosed radiator and an extra large toilet until you come down of your high, OD, of manage to kill or drown yourself
lujlp at May 12, 2009 5:26 AM
Legalizing drugs won't end the violence tomorrow. That's just silly talk. What will shrink the violence is when violent organizations are undersold by Wal-Mart. There's lots of money in illegal drugs so the parasite organizations are large; take away that money and those organizations shrink.
In fact, legalization will increase the body count in the short term when every foolish person out there goes on a binge and ruins their life. This will be a very sad time, but it will be less sad than decades more of state-sponsored oppression.
Pseudonym at May 12, 2009 6:35 AM
He went on to point out that drugs would only be legalized for adults. So the criminals would very deliberately and actively target school age children, building up a loyal (and very hooked) customer base in order to keep the profits rolling in.
When I was growing up, it was easier for me to get pot than it was to get beer. Granted PA's restrictions helped, but...
Yes, there are going to be guys that sell to kids -- at a 500% markup from what they can go into the same store. Is this any different than finding some bum and saying here's $20 can you get me some beer and a bottle of booze for yourself.
If the kid is going to try it, they will find a way regardless of the restrictions you put in their way.
Jim P. at May 12, 2009 7:03 AM
David M, who says marijuana ruins families? You
Posted by: ahw at May 11, 2009 7:31 AM
________________
Yeah! I just see all kind of hard working functional pot smoking families.
David M. at May 12, 2009 8:18 AM
"Do we need to legalize another substance that will due damage to people and families?"
I don't really care if people make stupid choices. I care more about whether they have the freedom to make choices in the first place.
Posted by: Pirate Jo at May 11, 2009 10:50 AM
--------
Like alcohol this will ultimately effect children.
Do you care about that?
David M. at May 12, 2009 8:23 AM
I don't want my generation to leave a legacy of "we legalized pot" to my children.
David M. at May 12, 2009 8:42 AM
Why not make alocohol illegal againt then? And tobacco, coffe is bad for you in high doses as well especially french pressed,
What about refined sugar? There are more diebectic and obese in this country then drug addicts.
What about artifical sweetners? Lab test show rats feed enough aspetrine develop tumors.
Cars put out a lot of smog which has all sorts of bad health effects, lets out law those to.
Some people eat to much, better outlaw food as well.
Tell me dave where does it end?
lujlp at May 12, 2009 8:51 AM
David said: "Yeah! I just see all kind of hard working functional pot smoking families."
Given your prejudices David, if I were a friend of yours and I smoked pot at home with my wife, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't tell you about it. Because I know you'd get all judgemental. So what you don't see isn't proof of anything at all.
scott at May 12, 2009 8:52 AM
Crid said: "Because bad consequences are so indisputably likely. We don't wait for drunk drivers to kill schoolchildren before throwing them in prison any more, do we? You gotta problem with that?"
Well, I'd say first that you are making an assertion about likelihood that you cannot support in any way with objective fact.
Second, I'd point out that there's a big difference between criminalizing drunk driving and criminalizing alcohol. If you can't see the difference, we're going to need to have a much longer conversation than I'd hoped.
Third, nice tugging at the heartstrings by invoking the poor poor children. And, no I don't have a problem with placing conditions on the use of consumer goods. People with pools need to have fences around them. We didn't ban pools.
scott at May 12, 2009 8:57 AM
David, my family earns over a 6-digit income, we live in a nice neighborhood, we don't have criminal records, I manage a small office, and my husband has about 80 employees. We're expecting a baby at the end of the year, and we will send that child to a private school when the time comes. I pay my bills and don't have debt, but guess what? I smoke pot on occasion (no, not right now. This is called self discipline.) I'd appreciate it if self-righteous people who have no idea what they're talking about would stay out of people's personal lives.
"Like alcohol this will ultimately effect children.
Do you care about that?"
More than idiots interefering in people's personal lives for "their own good?" More than people who can't mind their own fucking business calling CPS on parents for disciplining their children? More than stupid people who can't think of themselves who continue to breed?
ahw at May 12, 2009 9:01 AM
"stupid people who can't thing FOR themselves..." is what a I meant.
If you don't like weed, don't smoke it. Don't allow it in your home.
No one is advocating selling pot to children.
And give me real examples of how someone else consuming marijuana in their own home affects you or your children.
ahw at May 12, 2009 9:19 AM
> Third, nice tugging at the
> heartstrings by invoking the
> poor poor children.
Why is it children can't be mentioned on this blog without commenters crying foul? Would you have felt better if the drunk driver of my scenario had taken out a minivan full of firm-thighed, menstruating, otherwise-grown-up college cheerleaders?
My point is that drugs are something for which society isn't always inclined to wait for the harm to go down.
Also, I want someone to answer the point about decrim.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at May 12, 2009 9:41 AM
"Why is it children can't be mentioned on this blog without commenters crying foul? Would you have felt better if the drunk driver of my scenario had taken out a minivan full of firm-thighed, menstruating, otherwise-grown-up college cheerleaders?"
Would be a nice change of pace to be honest, but a red herring is still a red herring.
What point about decrim?
scott at May 12, 2009 10:02 AM
You need to do ALL the reading again.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at May 12, 2009 10:25 AM
Why is it children can't be mentioned on this blog without commenters crying foul?
Because it's an appeal to emotion, not an appeal to reason. Example:
Don't you care about the children whose lives are ruined by the erosion of civil liberties in our country? Do you laugh at the plight of the child, watching his father taken away by men with guns, as a solitary tear drips down his face? Do you want now-single mothers to have to explain to their children that the scary mask-wearing police took away da-da because he needed medicine that he wasn't allowed to have? Do you want children to grow up fearing authority or thanking those who volunteer for public service? I, for one, reject the boot on the child's face approach to drug law.
An appeal to reason, on the other hand, might attempt to quantify the costs and benefits of each approach.
Pseudonym at May 12, 2009 12:05 PM
David, my family earns over a 6-digit income, we live in a nice neighborhood, we don't have criminal records, I manage a small office, and my husband has about 80 employees. We're expecting a baby at the end of the year, and we will send that child to a private school when the time comes. I pay my bills and don't have debt, but guess what? I smoke pot on occasion (no, not right now. This is called self discipline.) I'd appreciate it if self-righteous people who have no idea what they're talking about would stay out of people's personal lives.
-------
We already have alcohol and tobacco that cost billions of dollars in lost productivity and medical costs respectively. Do we need another substance that has detrimental effects to be legalized?
David M. at May 12, 2009 12:21 PM
David said: "Yeah! I just see all kind of hard working functional pot smoking families."
Given your prejudices David, if I were a friend of yours and I smoked pot at home with my wife, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't tell you about it. Because I know you'd get all judgemental. So what you don't see isn't proof of anything at all.
Posted by: scott at May 12, 2009 8:52 AM
-----------------------
Scott, you sound awfully defensive.
Also, according to your arguement I could never get a good sample of people because of being judgemental.
So with that thinking, why do people take polls on anything that another person might consider judgemental because according to you no one would tell the truth?
David M. at May 12, 2009 12:28 PM
David: "why do people take polls on anything that another person might consider judgemental because according to you no one would tell the truth?"
Pollsters aren't supposed to be judgemental. In fact, if a question is leading, or a sample is biased, or the sample size is too small, or the methodology is otherwise unreliable, the poll results should not be accepted as valid.
So that's a nice lesson about polling for you. But you didn't actually poll anyone, did you? You just asserted what you happen to believe and suggested it was based on some sort of fact, didn't you? Which it wasn't, was it?
Thought so.
scott at May 12, 2009 1:36 PM
Crid: "You need to do ALL the reading again."
Actually, I don't.
Btw, it didn't go unnoticed that of the three points I flagged in my post above, you only chose to respond to the invocation of the children. I must assume you don't dispute the other two points...
scott at May 12, 2009 2:19 PM
> Because it's an appeal to emotion,
> not an appeal to reason.
Well, y'know, when you've got your priorities in order, it's not like anyone can take advantage.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at May 12, 2009 2:39 PM
David M, you still haven't told me how an adult consuming marijuana in their own home is detrimental to you or your children, or society, for that matter.
We already have laws regarding DWI, DUI, and public intoxication that would apply no matter what the intoxicating substance is.
ahw at May 12, 2009 2:41 PM
Well, here's the schizophrenia already. You break the law now, but promise that responsibility will be the norm if that stuff is legalized. Hmm. Don't think so. Not demonstrated.
I had a long post prepared, but I think you've seen most of it before - so let me ask simple questions:
Given that the horrible toll of alcohol and tobacco is well documented, can you name for me a drug that is safer than either of them?
What number of dead is worth your cheap high?
Radwaste at May 12, 2009 5:07 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/05/11/lets_have_a_war_1.html#comment-1648084">comment from David M."Yeah! I just see all kind of hard working functional pot smoking families."
I know two guys who are at the tops of their respective fields (in top universities, in research, highly productive -- one has a resume about 70 pages long, and the other invented a medical device that saves lives) and both smoke pot. To say they are "functional" isn't even the half of it.
P.S. The one with the 70-page resume doesn't drink at all.
Amy Alkon at May 12, 2009 5:33 PM
People shouldn't prioritize emotion over reason when considering government policies that put a boot in a child's face.
This is a profound question that applies to every freedom. How many dead is too many to justify keeping our freedom from unlawful search and seizure? Many have died for our various freedoms already; has it been too many?
It's also a deceptive question. Everybody dies, so every "life that is saved" is really just prolonged for some amount of time. Prolonging someone's life for 50 years is valuable, but not infinitely; a policy's impact can be quantified by estimating years saved (or cost) times people affected.
To get back to the original question, though, it's not "What number of dead is worth your cheap high," it's "Which policy (prohibition or decriminalization) will create a smaller pile of bodies?"
Consider too that fewer deaths is not necessarily best. See: _The Humanoids_ by Jack Williamson.
What gives society the right to ban things that have detrimental effects? What is the limit on things that society should be able to ban?
Pseudonym at May 12, 2009 5:49 PM
Given that the horrible toll of alcohol and tobacco is well documented, can you name for me a drug that is safer than either of them?
-radwaste
Oddly, and funnily enouogh, marijuana is.
And as I asked before what about sugar? They put that shit in everything, how much do you suppose obisity and diebetes costs in comparison to alcohol?
lujlp at May 12, 2009 6:38 PM
Marijuana?
You must be smoking it right now. Put a filter on it and see what you get. And the sugar is a "two wrongs" fallacy.
Pseudonym, you're rationalizing your very society into irrelevance. Not only does "society" have that right, it regularly gives Congress hell for not protecting it. Just as you will for anything you buy that's legal that turns out to be harmful. Does anyone here have a functional memory? What happened to all those people who could not read the warning on the side of every pack of cigarettes?
Hey, just shout, "I want my drugs!" It'll show the same amount of thought.
Amy, that's anecdotal. Count the number of pros versus the number of losers. You know, use data.
Radwaste at May 13, 2009 2:05 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/05/11/lets_have_a_war_1.html#comment-1648115">comment from RadwasteAmy, that's anecdotal. Count the number of pros versus the number of losers. You know, use data.
The request, I believe, was for anecdotal evidence. There are plenty of "losers" who do lots of things, but you shouldn't get to stop me from drinking if you're a drunk. And so on.
Amy Alkon at May 13, 2009 2:08 AM
I want society to be less relevant than it is now, true. I want more freedom for everyone, and I want laws to resemble our culture's social contract.
You've asserted that "society" has the right to do whatever it wants in the name of safety. I disagree: human rights and civil rights trump all. Society and individuals have the ability to violate our rights (obviously) but it is not right for them to do so. That's why we call them "rights".
Establishing truth in labeling requirements and providing a venue (the courts) for their enforcement is a legitimate role of government. People who claimed that they didn't know cigarettes are harmful (after the warning appeared) are being deceitful.
Actually, I don't smoke, drink or chew, but I endorse your right to so do.
Pseudonym at May 13, 2009 6:26 AM
Yeah! I just see all kind of hard working functional pot smoking families.
I've known of several, one of which works for a very large university running the HR department. Just like alcohol, some people will become hooked, but most won't. Quit playing nanny state, please?
Julie at May 14, 2009 9:34 AM
Leave a comment