I'm not sure how other countries have pulled off legalized prostitution, but can you imagine how our government would handle it? All the regulations? Not just standards of health care for the workers, but certification (now you're legit!), positions and services allowed, fees...how would they handle the fees and taxing? Should a beautiful woman be allowed to charge more than a lesser beauty, or would that be discriminatory and unfair?

Our government as the pimp...

I've always been in favor of legalizing prostitution because I think this is the best manner in which to protect prostitutes. I hate the role of a pimp and would like to see these women (and men) able to work with some semblance of safety. The job, of course, is never safe but I would like for prostitutes to have a personal ability to conduct business.

As for the legalization of drugs, I just hate the violence in Latin America. We all know the U.S. goverment funds anti-drug enforcement in Latin America, but it doesnt matter because latin american goverment officials take bribes from the drug dealers anyways.

Just think about this a Mexican drug dealer is featured on Forbes as being one of the wealthiest men in the world. He's a billionaire.

We have to ask ourselves if we will be better or worse as a society if we do these things?

Also, what about affirmative action and pay gap with regards to prostitution?

Will their be just as many men as women?

If men can't make the same money as female prostitutes, will their wealth be redistibuted to us poor males?

After all I would like to see some equality the feminists are always screaming about.

I bet this isn't an area that they would be for equality in.

"Beyond the fact that we need the money, and that consenting adults should be able to sell their bodies if they want to, get them high if they want to, and make wagers if they want to, allowing all of this is a wise idea for bringing the crime rate down:"

Here we go again.

Imagine - we can just eliminate crime. All we have to do is re-define it!

I'm still waiting for anyone to show me how a person willing to break the law to do whatever they want will be magically responsible when they are given free rein.

I'm still waiting for anyone to show me how a person willing to break the law to do whatever they want will be magically responsible when they are given free rein.

Tell me the last time you bought an illegal, unregulated alcohol product? I'm talking moonshine, bathtub gin, green beer, applejack. Do you know anyone who has within the last 6 months? One year? Five years?

What do you think would happen if you made tobacco illegal?

There is the dream "As soon as we make it illegal, it will stop the use." The reality is that you just make a million more criminals.

An example is the 55 speed limit. I used to run on highways that 65 MPH was the standard and the cops just sat and watched for excessive or aggressive driving. Every single one of us in the line of a thousand cars was a criminal. Should we have all been jailed?

This argument again. You're starting to seem almost as obsessed as that Simon guy what posts at Classical Values.

If you legalize and regulate prostitution, you're still going to have an underground of unlicensed prostitutes and their pimps.

If you legalize and tax hard drugs, you're going to see a significant increase in addicts, and the financial ruin that will generate. No, I don't believe that most, many, or even more than a few people can "handle" cocaine or heroin responsibly, and there are large numbers of people who have never used them only because they are illegal. Take away that stigma, and in our judgement-free society there's nothing to stop them becoming junkies.

Finally, there's no way the "social justice" crowd could ever support this - the tax will predominantly impact the poor and indigent. Not that they've been dissuaded from taxing cigarettes at ever higher rates...

An example is the 55 speed limit. I used to run on highways that 65 MPH was the standard and the cops just sat and watched for excessive or aggressive driving. Every single one of us in the line of a thousand cars was a criminal. Should we have all been jailed?

If you were all going 65, you weren't a hazard to each other or the community at large. Now, some bonehead comes along in the passing lane going 120 and loses control of his car, and goes careening into the other cars causing mayhem and death.

This is what the unfettered drug addict is to society. You seem to think that people won't use drugs just because they are now legal. What's to stop them? There are no social stigma any more. There's nothing (outside of saying "nigger" in public, that is) that will get you shamed or shunned. And even at that, most people can't be shamed anyhow.

So we've got a nice orderly society going here. We've already got a bit of a freeloader problem that's enabled by asinine government policies. Let's just introduce an entire new class of freeloaders, this time not even able-bodied, and see what happens.

What could possibly go wrong?

"If you legalize and tax hard drugs, you're going to see a significant increase in addicts, and the financial ruin that will generate. No, I don't believe that most, many, or even more than a few people can "handle" cocaine or heroin responsibly, and there are large numbers of people who have never used them only because they are illegal. Take away that stigma, and in our judgement-free society there's nothing to stop them becoming junkies."

Not so, neither. At least, not in my case.

I was never tempted to try cocaine, because I had heard enough stories about how some people would become so enslaved that they'd snort it until their septums gave way. Plus, it was expensive as all get out, and I never had that much money. Heroin just scares the crap out of me, and meth is evil.

Make any or all of them legal, and I'll sill eschew their use. But I would *love* to be able to buy an ounce of pot for what? A hundred bucks? and be able to take a bong hit or two after dinner and before sex.

And really, the only thing from stopping me from doing that now is that it would affect my work life. Not that the drug would make me ineffective; it does not. But currently, if an employer does not like the scent of my urine I won't be hired, or let go.

It's a plant. I could raise it in my garden window. I see no reason why I should not be able to do so.

"There's every reason to believe that today's drug lords could go legit as quickly and easily as, say, Ernest and Julio Gallo..."

Really? Remember Pablo Escobar? He managed to acquire a fair bit of legitimacy on his way to controlling the Medellin cartel & 80% of the US cocaine market. He was elected to the Colombian House of Representatives in 1982, cultivated a wildly popular Robin Hood image by donating to the poor & the church, and, with a fortune of $ 25 billion, made it to # 7 on Forbes list of the richest people in 1989. That same year, he blew up Avianca Airlines Flight 203. 110 people joined the list of thousands murdered by Escobar & his henchmen, all because one of them was a politician he wanted to get rid of.

Ernest & Julio didn't torture & murder thousands of people to sell their wine, even during Prohibition.

If you legalize and tax hard drugs,....... in our judgement-free society there's nothing to stop them becoming junkies.

Then tell me what law, or what you would suggest, that would end the current situation. Let's say the 25 years to life for possession of one ounce or more of illegal drugs; over a pound -- automatic death penalty.

What do you think the life expectancy of LEO would be? What do you think the prison population would look like?

Just saying no to legalization has the government continuing to spend $19 Billion on a failed policy.

Jim -

The present regime is unsustainable because it is not serious.

I've already stated my conditions for accepting the legalization of hard drugs.

If you kill someone as a result of being under the influence of drugs, or you kill someone in the process of acquiring said drugs, you die.

If you injure someone likewise, you never see life as a free man again.

I would apply these criteria to alcohol as well. You'd see drunk driving disappear instantly after the first conviction.

My opposition to hard drugs does not come from a love of telling people what to do. Nor does it come from a desire or tolerance for a police state.

It comes from the realization that the bulk of people are utterly incapable of managing the usage of drugs. Hell, look how many people fuck up their lives with the relatively benign alcohol?

One of the things a society does is draw lines: "This, and no more". I draw the line at a drug that renders you incapable of functioning well in polite society while using it, and utterly incapable of function at all when you stop.

Demonstrate for me more than one example of a "normal" person who functions well while being a heroin or cocaine user. Because to the best of my knowledge there's no such thing as a social user of either of those drugs.

Just saying no to legalization has the government continuing to spend $19 Billion on a failed policy.

I had to hit this one separately.

How much do you suppose we would have "spent" in terms of lost productivity, rehab, medical care, and death if these substances were legal and their use essentially stigma-free?

You pro-legalization folks seem incapable of predicting the negative outcomes of your desires. Or at least you handwave them.

Your faith in humanity is misplaced. In any given situation, humans can usually be counted on to do the wrong thing.

"I'm still waiting for anyone to show me how a person willing to break the law to do whatever they want will be magically responsible when they are given free rein."

Wow, I didn't realise that we were talking about giving anyone totally "free rein" and allowing them to do whatever they want with no legal repurcussions. So these people will be allowed to murder now? OMG we can't have that!

Or maybe you're being hysterical.

No, Mouse. He's merely expounding on something Rad said last time this came up here. The drug dealers are in it for the easy money. They've done the math, and decided that they'd rather take the large payout at risk of death than toil in a cube farm. Legalization isn't going to make them go legit, they'll just find another racket - just like Capone's minions did.

Back to the topic at hand:

The bulk of the Reasonoids that are talking legalization or "decriminalization" are not just talking about weed. They are ultimately after total repeal of the drug laws on the basis that a free society won't stop them from killing themselves with heroin.

Of course, someone who truly values personal responsibility is going to demand that those using drugs bear the entire burden of their drug use.

We know that this is not going to happen. It is probably a one in a million user of hard drugs that is capable of leading a productive life. The other 999,999 are a burden to the rest of us. I already lose a significant portion of my income every year to care for those who refuse to care for themselves. I don't wish to have another entire class of dependents created that are ultimately going to be much more expensive to care for.

Of course, someone who truly values personal responsibility is going to demand that those using drugs bear the entire burden of their drug use.

Absofuckinlutely. And why would this be a problem for you, Brian? You don't "know" that this is not going to happen. You're so cynical, to have absolutely no faith in humanity. Yes, a lot of people are NOT personally responsible. Those people probably will OD within a year or 2 of legalization. We're well rid of them. Why not let them kill themselves? Saves the rest of us a boatload. And here's another thing: while those idiots who are so irresponsible as to go ahead and fuck themselves up beyond all recognition go ahead and kill themselves, those with even a modicum of common sense are going to say, "shit! I don't want that to be me!" and probably act accordingly. Me, I've been there and done that. Except meth and heroin, because I knew people I went to high school with who died from that shit. Not me, man. Besides that, I always had a job and paid for my shit myself, unlike the myriad coke whores I knew. And I got tired of coke really quick, because I didn't like the way it made me feel. I stopped using it even before I quit the band. And that shit is one of the reasons why I quit. Too much of it does NOT make for a good gig, musically speaking. Granted, it takes some people longer than others to figure that out. Bottom line is the responsible people who can have a toke or 2 once in a while deserve to do just that without being penalized as if they were a career criminal. From whence came the (very) sharp stick up your butt, my friend? o.O

Well, this is just so easy.

Here's an example of responsibility, resulting from a need akin to food and shelter we cannot apparently deny.

And why bring up alcohol again? It is NOT a success story.

Also, if you say the User should bear the responsibility of use, obviously you have forgotten that we do not live in an agrarian society, despite your not having a view of farm animals handy. There is no way for a single person to pay for some things they can do - or fail to do.

Come on. Bring back Belushi, or the countless dead steeped in alcohol.

Short story: responsibility does not mean getting to drug yourself silly, because we have hard evidence already that you won't be responsible any more than the next man, whom we must trust every bit as much by law.

Stupidity causes many injuries and deaths. If pot were legal, the guy might've been using a vaporizer to smoke it.

Uh, William F. Buckley, the famous anarchist, called for this years ago because he was looking at the entire cost in lire, liberty, and lives: the militarization of the police; incarceration of people who would not be criminals otherwise; overall cost of the previous two; and more if I could recall them.

Let's see, not a crime before 1912, but forever a crime afterward. "Imagine - we can just eliminate crime. All we have to do is re-define it!" By that argument, every time you have an alcoholic beverage you're still a criminal, how dare we rescind the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act. Why are you willing to live with the addiction to alcohol? The highway deaths, the DV, the murders, all the crime related to alcohol, why do you put up with it? Reinstate the 18th Amendment now!

Brian, you're putting a hell of a lot more money into it than just caring for the addicts. Addiction treatment would likely be cheaper. As for the cartels, vices are the money pots. Where are they going to go?

A start would be to legalize marijuana, which is often the "overhead" drug for cartels, and see how it goes. One thing at a time.

Here's an exercise for you, because of what you desire comes to pass, it's going to happen:

You are sitting at an intersection and hit hard from behind. The individual seems to be impaired, but the Breathalyzer is negative.

1) What tests are relevent to your situation? Relate your answer to current DUI law for your state.

2) What is the difference in the civil suit (your insurance company isn't taking a loss if at all possible) in establishing liability if the substance turns out to be "legal".

Do make sure you haven't missed establishing a legal definition for impairment.

Remember: if you seperate liability for an incident from the use of the substance which produced the DUI, you establish a "clear" moral position, but it unfortunately fights deterrents. You must claim that impairment detection, such as pulling a person over for weaving their car and applying a standard test for impairment is no deterrent.

The solution obtained by applying law is rarely black or white. I'm asking you to think about the shade of gray stuff you're going to get on you if what you want comes to pass. Yes, current law is intrusive, but you haven't sold me on the idea that widening availability means more safety.

Thanks to Rad for doing the grunt work on this today– I owe you one, dude

Not sure I agree about the prostitution. Some things never seem to work out well in practice, even though in theory it should all be just fine. A young person in the employ of older people who are renting the young person's body to all comers (no pun intended) is one such thing.

I know, I know, victimless transaction. Riiiiiiight.

I doubt you will feel that way when I start suggesting to your naive 18 year old nephew or son that he should move to Los Angeles and work as a model--and ends up pulling 12 hour shifts in a dirty male brothel selling himself to sweaty middle-aged guys.

Decriminalization seems to have worked well in Portugal:

"Evaluating the policy strictly from an empirical perspective, decriminalization has been an unquestionable success, leading to improvements in virtually every relevant category and enabling Portugal to manage drug-related problems (and drug usage rates) far better than most Western nations that continue to treat adult drug consumption as a criminal offense."

Something ate the documentation in my comment above. It comes from Glenn Greenwald, "The success of drug decriminalization in Portugal," _Salon_, March 14.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/14/portugal/

Rad,

The current "scientific" methods were only adopted within my lifetime. Impairment was judged by what the LEO observed before, then during the stop through physical coordination tests. The assumption that you must be impaired because you blew .08 is an arbitrary one, it used to be .12 then .10 now .08. In my state, alcohol is only one of the impairment issues, if you are on any prescription drug and found impaired, its actually implied if you are using any of the Oxy drugs, you are DUI. If you admit to being without sleep, fatigued, there is another charge that will apply. You are impaired either way. Period.

The issue of determining impairment after an accident is a sticky one, for sure. Again, if it is uncovered that any of the above applied, you were impaired at the time.

The legalization of marijuana would make no difference.

Take away that stigma, and in our judgement-free society there's nothing to stop them becoming junkies. - brian

One question? How does a 'judgement free' society stigmatize anything?

2) What is the difference in the civil suit (your insurance company isn't taking a loss if at all possible) in establishing liability if the substance turns out to be "legal".
-radwaste

So when did insurance compaies stop paying for damage done by drunks a alcohol is legal?

Two questions for those of you who are so sure that legalization would produce thousands of new addicts:

1. Was there a big increase in alcoholism after Prohibition ended? (I honestly don't know the answer to this one, but I think I would have heard about it if there was.)

2. Do you, personally, know anyone who now does not use illegal drugs but in your opinion would if they were legal? I sure don't. Everyone I know who has the slightest interest in drugs is already using.

> Do you, personally, know anyone
> who now does not use illegal
> drugs but in your opinion would
> if they were legal? I sure don't.

Wonderful word, "Sure".

As if you'd asked them.

As if they'd answered.

As if they'd told the truth.

As if they *knew* the truth.

As if "thousands of new addicts" were the only standard we had for these policies.

lujlp:

One question? How does a 'judgement free' society stigmatize anything?

It doesn't. That's the problem. There was a time when unwed pregnancy was shameful. Now that there's no shame in it, 30-50% of all children are born to unwed mothers, most with no inkling of who the father is.

Flynne:

Absofuckinlutely. And why would this be a problem for you, Brian? You don't "know" that this is not going to happen. You're so cynical, to have absolutely no faith in humanity. Yes, a lot of people are NOT personally responsible. Those people probably will OD within a year or 2 of legalization. We're well rid of them. Why not let them kill themselves? Saves the rest of us a boatload.

Why is it a problem? Because during the time it takes them to die, they'll be a burden on the already taxed health-care system (every OD is an emergency-room visit and ambulance ride. Opportunity cost.) That and the fact that at some point one of them might try to rob me to get their next fix, and I'll have to kill them. I really don't think they have the right to impose themselves on me in that way.

And I'm not cynical, I'm realistic. Perhaps you should tell me why you have any faith left in humanity?

Bottom line is the responsible people who can have a toke or 2 once in a while deserve to do just that without being penalized as if they were a career criminal. From whence came the (very) sharp stick up your butt, my friend?

No stick here. The REAL bottom line is that there are so few responsible people to begin with, and most of them don't feel the need to use anything stronger than a little whisky or weed. You and I and everyone else in this conversation knows that legalization isn't going to stop with weed. And we also know that the bulk of the people that find themselves attracted to things like meth and heroin are ALREADY fucked up. Why make it easier for them to be a hazard to the rest of us instead of just a burden?

I'm all for reforming the stupid police-state laws. I'm sick of being inconvenienced to keep the shallow end of the gene pool well stocked. Most of the laws have no effect on consumption, like the stupid law that records every time I buy Sudafed.

The problem with drug policy is the same thing as the problem with DUI policy. It's applied at the wrong end. It's never been the job of police to prevent crime. It's supposed to be the threat of being caught and incarcerated that prevents crime.

And if that doesn't work, then maybe what we do is first offense with meth is we give you a pile of meth, put you in a room, and let you tweak until your heart pops.

I don't claim to have all the answers, but my experiences with humans and my understanding of the iron law of unintended consequences leads me to be suspicious of ANY policy proposal that claims to solve so many problems so cleanly.

Oh, and the important difference that nobody seems to get between prohibition and drug policy - prohibition came about because of angry harpies who were tired of their husbands getting drunk. Other than marijuana (which was banned for entirely racist reasons), I don't think there were any drugs outlawed because of some innate fear that someone was going to hell for using them.

Ariel, standards are adopted because people fought the idea that the officer should make the call, and then a bit of hysteria dropped the number. If you have some years on you, you might remember when people didn't go ape at drunk driving - but then millions more people took to the roads, and reportng became nationwide and instantaneous. So things change.

Do you want to be treated differently? Explicit in law is that you may not make exception without evidence.

This is not just about marijuana, and the attractive, unrealistic image of the high-school genius or office worker with high productivity relaxing after work, because legal repercussions will arise, just as they have for alcohol and tobacco. You cannot wave your joint at the problem and make it go away because of a fundamental rule: to interact with society, you must abide by its rules.

Hey, the key to this has been around for ages: show the responsible behavior first, and then petition for relief.

How's that working?

Tobacco has been outlawed in businesses in two counties locally, and although the big-picture reason is that there is no such thing as a "safe cigarette" (moment of silence for the concept "safe joint"), there are piles of butts everywhere demonstrating the inherent irresponsibility of large numbers of smokers. That's the immediate cause.

I read on this blog and others how despicable it is for people to get things without earning them. How have you earned legal drugs beyond the current market?

Our society is far from non-judgmental, it has simply changed as to what you may be judgmental about. Some I agree with, some I do not, and there is the rub.

Ariel -

Our society is not "non-judgmental". It's batshit fucking insane.

It's morally acceptable to have multiple children out of wedlock with multiple fathers and expect other people to pick up the tab.

It's morally unacceptable to question her fitness as a mother.

brian, I dont have a whoke lot of faith in humanity either. But look at it this way, as least the dumbasses and morons will kill themselves off that much quicker

Rad,

The problem is that pseudo-scientific numbers are meaningless. And officers can still and do make the call regarding impairment on scene through coordination tests. As I've explained, impairment is not simply alcohol, prescription drugs and fatigue can be used against you also. I've lived through 11 Presidents, so yes I remember the "there but for the grace of God go I" mentality. MADD has pushed for this "objective" standard, and you will see more of this with the MADD rep in the DOT.

If you toke, drink, or take your medication and drive, you get punished. That won't change. If you toke, drink, or take medication that impairs you at work, your job will be in jeopardy (OK, most business will work with you on the meds, and will offer rehab for the drugs). Still no needed change in the laws.

And, Rad, when you show "responsible" behavior first, the laws don't change, they get worse. Jim Crow is a damn good example, the ones that broke the law got it changed. I consider any laws regarding lying, stealing, or violence outside of self-defense, proper laws. Those after are questionable and certainly modifiable.

Crid,

I take my stance more from pragmatism than anything else. The drug laws and enforcement are high cost in all directions.

Incarceration is a high cost, including in destroyed lives for no more than what happens in a bar every night. And alcohol is by far worse than marijuana for violent behavior.

The corruption and militarization of our police, with escalation of violence rather than deescalation becoming the SOP of police, is a high cost. A very high cost.

A foreign policy directed at paying to build militarized police in other countries is a high cost. We will find the same thing that the USCG found during Prohibition, the Rumrunners will always have the faster ships.

I do agree with the reservations regarding meth, heroin, crank, crack, etc. But those reservations should not apply to marijuana, and I agree that the original state laws are racist in origin. Look at the 1880s or 1890s law against opium dens in California, purely racial.

Democracies experiment, the USA was supposed to be a Grand Experiment, we need to experiment again. And if the experiment fails, and the current drug policies have failed, we need to try a different tack.

And, no, I don't toke. I like hops or Scotch, the later being the drink of the Gods, metaphorically speaking.

And we also know that the bulk of the people that find themselves attracted to things like meth and heroin are ALREADY fucked up. Why make it easier for them to be a hazard to the rest of us instead of just a burden?
- brian

I say give away grade A quailty hardcore drugs for free in massive quanities, and let the degenerates of the world OD

It solve the problem pretty quickly.

As if you'd asked them.

As if they'd answered.

As if they'd told the truth.

As if they *knew* the truth.

As if "thousands of new addicts" were the only standard we had for these policies.

Read my post again, Crid, noting carefully the words "in your opinion." Everyone has some people in their life that they know well enough to have a pretty good idea whether those people are using, and whether they have the desire to do so. Even if they never came out and asked them.

And who said anything about the number of new addicts being the only standard? It's simply the particular point I chose to respond to. It was originally raised in this thread by Brian, in the sixth post. Granted, he didn't actually use the word "thousands", but it was certainly implied.

Brian (May 17, 2009 8:05 PM), exactly.batshit fucking insane is apt. I was considered very liberal socially, always conservative fiscally, economically and militarily, by everyone well into the 90s. But then I got sick of all the stupid shit that has gone on, from abortion uber alles to health morality (I'm so more moral cuz I eat right). I believe in change, but not throwing the baby out with the bathwater then applauding because the tub is clean.

Wonderful word, "Sure".
I'll freely confess that I'm not sure what would happen if any given currently illegal drug were made legal. What I'd like to see is the same honesty from people who oppose drug legalization. I see a lot of bogeyman stories about what would happen up-thread. What I don't see is any evidence.

Axman, thanks for the link. I wasn't aware that Portugal had decriminalized drugs. Here's another one: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html This quote from the article sums it up for me: "Greenwald contended that a major problem with most American drug policy debate is that it's based on 'speculation and fear mongering,' rather than empirical evidence on the effects of more lenient drug policies."

If you're supporting a policy that costs hundreds of thousands of people their freedom, billions of dollars per year, strengthens organized crime, militarizes police forces, destabilizes drug-growing countries and discourages personal responsibility, I'd think you might want to have, you know, actual evidence to support it.

And why bring up alcohol again? It is NOT a success story.
This made my head spin. What's your gauge of success? A perfect world is not one of our options, so my measure of success is whether we're better off with or without prohibition.

Shawn, my brother, where have you been?

Here's a decent truism:

Drugs are bad, the drug laws are worse.

The violations of civil liberties, the militarization of law enforcement, and the innate endemic corruption, etc., IN AND OF THEMSELVES, do far more damage to the structure of society than would occur if every single person in the world did drugs, and then drove.

Also, there are a few comments regarding the identification of drunk drivers by using breathalizer results. Here's the thing. In all but maybe a few areas, the results of the breathalizer alone are not admissible of themselves, the subject must also fail the field sobriety test.

A good application of a field sobriety test would also catch the egregious cases where the driver was under the influence of any other substance (or merely tired). And if the driver passed that field sobriety test, then they probably weren't much of a danger in the first place.

Pretty much *everyone* who really wants to do heroin or cocaine or meth, etc., is already doing it, changing the law would make little or no difference. Legalizing them would likely have a minimal effect. Plus, the reduction of arbitrary law enforcement, etc., would strongly compensate for any overflow.

Most legalization opponents are convinced, beyond all reason, that legalization would axiomatically drive everyone (and their dog, and cat, and rabbit, and ferret) to use the newly legal substance.

There may be a few fence sitters who think it might (once legalized) be worth the effort to give it a try, but, to be truly honest, most people don't use the legality of a product as part of their primary decision process (if they did, the drug laws would have already completely ended all drug use). Making drugs legal isn't likely to significantly increase the usage, unless the general populace were already inclined to do so, anyway. The alleged increase of alcohol usage after prohibition can easily be explained by the argument that many people who drank, underground, if you will, were now counted after the repeal.

Even if you're opposed to the various mind altering substances (including alcohol), the idea that we need some kind of overarching, controlling authority to make us behave is the ultimate renunciation of individual freedom. If you really support the idea that the government has a duty to keep us from using some particularly selected substances, you're basically saying that you consider *all* humans to be nothing more than children, who you must direct and control according to your particular ideology.

Given that, it's equally fair to say that you must also be subjugated to the will of whoever has the most votes, regardless of whatever logic you may choose to marshall for your position.

Shawn, my brother, where have you been?
I'm a lousy typist, so I only post when I think I have something unique to add, the topic is interesting and I have sufficient free time.

As it turned out this time, by the time I finished my post you and others had pretty much made my points anyway. C'est la vie.

Okay, fantasy time.

Imagine a time when all drugs are legal, and all the money we spend on drug wars here and in other countries, is now spent on quality regulation, propaganda to discourage drug use, care of those who use, and treatment of those that finally find it within themselves the desire to quit.

Better yet, how 'bout a special city set up just for users. If they go there, they get the drugs, food, and shelter for free, but they have to go through treatment, the entire time they live there. Those that are hopeless, are off our streets, not stealing or hooking to get the cash they need for their next fix. And those that have potential are given the resources to pull themselves out of the muck.

And the rest of us are given the option to buy their legal drug of choice at the local pharmacy. If the user is capable of working and supporting their habit, they are free to do so. If they get fired, off to Abuse Central they go.

Remember a time when we could buy pseudoephdrine at the grocery store, and ephedra at the health food store?

"There's every reason to believe that today's drug lords could go legit as quickly and easily as, say, Ernest and Julio Gallo, the venerable winemakers who once sold their product to Al Capone."

This is an interesting assertion, considering that the Gallo brothers' operation has always been in California and their official startup wasn't until 1933. The elder brother was then 24. Want to show me some interstate shipping, CA to IL?

-----

From Shawn: "I see a lot of bogeyman stories about what would happen up-thread. What I don't see is any evidence."

Blink, blink. The evidence of American behavior is already present in abundance, where the substances are alcohol and tobacco -- and even Viagra and Ibuprofen.

Here's a short series of sentences illustrating remaining issues - why I said you can't just wave a joint at the problem and have it go away:

The legal production of a product is subject to consumer protection law, and you cannot waive that. This means proper, legally-discoverable studies on health effects.

The companies best setup to distribute a legal drug are the existing drug companies.

The production of one drug legally will not satisfy the users of other drugs. Get pot legalized, the meth, coke and other users won't be impressed.

The legalization of a substance has to include the means of excluding that substance from critical workplaces. I know you don't want an impairment question when the airliner drops out of the sky.

-----

Please note that I am not a big fan of the BATFE or other power-hungry agencies. What I am wary of is the call that legalizing {name substance} will make all that go away and America a better place. So far, that's the more-blatant guesswork.

Again, I agree with Raddy. I'm pretty much ready to try some extreme legalization anyway... At least as a rhetorical position. (Our society has so much momentum in the other direction that it's not a great risk o face... Who will know I'm wrong? )

But I think it's really unlikely that some kinder, gentler direction in human nature will become apparent to us all once drugs are legalized. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be legalized! But let's not pretend the solution will be simple and thorough and have no ironies that we haven't considered yet.

OK, truthfully, mostly what I worry about is that kids will spazz out. Remember the underwear girl from the earlier post? What happens in families like that when teens (presumably) have much greater access to drugs, and even less social pressure against taking them?

Rad brings up a point I asked Simon about, and he never answered, at least not reasonably:

What company in their right mind is going to willingly sell a product that is potentially lethal (like cocaine, heroin) given the litigation climate in the US?

And don't tell me the profits will outweigh the losses. If you think there's gonna be another blanket amnesty after a major payout like the tobacco settlement, you're mad.

What company in their right mind is going to willingly sell a product that is potentially lethal (like KITCHEN KNIVES, GUNS, VIOXX, ASPRIN, HORMONAL BIRTH CONTROL, INSULIN, SUGAR) given the litigation climate in the US?

In theory the tobacco litigation was to pay people who had been lied to about the dangers of smoking - its total bullshit ofcourse, but that is the 'accepted' rational.

People who start smoking these days know the dangers - and choose to ignore them.

Who would sell drug you ask? Every single gas station if they could, the drug companies for sure, Phizer Pharmasutical makes bank off of the cemo drugs used to treat the cancer their cigarrets cause. Why wouldnt they sell opiates?

A day late here, but this morning CNN has an interesting story about Mexican drug cartels moving into American cities... probably the one you live in:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/05/18/mexico.us.cartels/index.html
Their main money maker is marijuana... which should never have been illegal anyway.

lujlp -

Pfizer doesn't sell cigarettes.

And they lost a shitload of money on an APPROVED drug (Vioxx) after they got sued over people getting dead taking it.

They pulled Phenylpropanolamine off the market (it's a decongestant as well as being part of a diet pill combo for its appetite suppressant abilities) because ONE fatso took too many diet pills and her heart popped.

The only reason cigarettes are even still available is because tobacco state senators and representatives have forbidden the FDA from having jurisdiction over nicotine.

Even if we prevent the FDA from banning cocaine and heroin, no company is going to risk selling them without an iron-clad guarantee of immunity.

Oh, and as far as guns go, they had to pass a law granting such an immunity to gun manufacturers because assholes like Spitzer kept trying to sue them out of existence for making a dangerous product.

Unless you are really proposing that we do precisely that, and grant the recreational drug manufacturers blanket immunity from claims arising from usage.

You need to think like a businessman and not a pusher. Litigation risk is one of the big drivers in bringing a new product to market. Especially since the FDA and the courts have agreed that an FDA approval of "safe and effective" does not grant any immunity whatsoever.

Once again, I think it would be prudent to review the Bill of Non-Rights:

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.

Litigation risk is one of the big drivers in bringing a new product to market.

Litigation would NOT even BE a friggin issue if people just exercised some common sense and PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!! It is NOT the government's job to save us from ourselves! That's OUR job. The government's job is to ensure our safety from FOREIGN forces trying to take over the country, and to ensure that those people who break the laws (see above) are punished. And those idiots that don't want to practice common sense and personal repsonsibility? They get what they deserve.

Pot, heroin and cocaine used to be legal. You could buy heroin and cocaine over the counter in apothacaries all over the country back in the day. The BIG pharmaceutical companies, Harry Anslinger and William Randolph Hearst were the biggest proponents of outlawing these substances because the pharma companies KNEW if people were medicating themselves, with things they could grow themselves or purchase cheaply, they wouldn't buy THEIR new and improved (and more costly) painkillers, and Anslinger and Hearst were racists and thought that by outlawing pot they'd get rid of that particular element. You can see how well THAT line of thought worked for them, can't you?
(Sorry for the long post. Well, maybe. o.O)

The legalization of a substance has to include the means of excluding that substance from critical workplaces. I know you don't want an impairment question when the airliner drops out of the sky.

That horse may already be out of the barn. I've heard that the rate of alcoholism among airline pilots is one of the highest of all occupations.

In any case, legalization wouldn't prevent employers from drug-testing, and requiring clean results as a condition of employment.

But I think it's really unlikely that some kinder, gentler direction in human nature will become apparent to us all once drugs are legalized.

That's a strawman. Who has claimed that it will?

There are two categories of problems with drugs:
1. Problems caused by the drugs themselves--impairment, addiction, DWI, etc.
2. Problems caused by the fact that drugs are illegal--high cost (leading to theft by addicts), police corruption and abuse, violence by drug suppliers, etc.

Legalization won't make a dent in Category 1 problems, any more than repealing Prohibition cured alcoholism. And of course it won't end all Category 2 problems--there will always be some violence and police corruption from one source or another. But legalization will remove a major cause of those problems, and reduce them significantly.

because ONE fatso took too many diet pills and her heart popped.

IIRC, it's cause kids were using it to drop weight for athletics and their heads popped. ;-)

Either way -- I have a deviated septum -- and even having surgery to correct it as a teen, I still need sudafed on a regular basis. Now I have to sign my life away to get the sudafed. But for all the new regualtion -- has the meth problem gone away?

I think what a lot of people are forgetting here is that meth, cocaine and heroin are highly addictive. I have seen a lot of my old friends and acquaintances become addicts. Those drugs being illegal didn't prevent us from trying them, but prevented some of us from becoming addicted, because we did not believe in being criminals.

To answer Crid at 7h00, I think that there is a damn good possiblility that I could become addicted to one of the above if they were sold like alcohol. Honestly. And I say that as an almost 40 yo; can you imagine the temptations of a teen or twenty-something?

Growing up in Alaska, marijuana was decriminalized, as it should be. If regular users could grow plants for personal use, the illegal market would take a hit. But I think that something that you guys aren't getting is that the trinity of hard drugs are incredibly destructive to society. This isn't fear-mongering, I have seen it. Give a rat an endless supply of cocaine and it will keep pushing that lever until it is dead. You can't fight such pharmaceuticals with morals, once society tells you that it is okay to do it.

I agree that we should treat many users as medical issues, and not have such draconian punishments for personal use, but the pushers? Fuck them.

No, now they buy their meth from Mexico instead of blowing themselves up in the garage.

I liked it better when they were thinning the herd.

Rex - The point that I've been trying to make for years of having this argument is that legalization WON'T SOLVE ANY of your "Category 2" problems. The corrupt are corrupt. They are drawn to power for the sole purpose of exercising it. Absent drug laws, they will simply find another avenue to the easy money.

Getting rid of crime by redefining it away never works. At least in anything but a bureaucrat's statements.

People keep mentioning Portugal as an example. I don't have the time to read all the literature, but I'd like to know the metric they used to judge success. Was it a decrease in drug usage-related deaths, criminal offenses in the furtherance of procuring drugs, a decline in financial and familial ruin related to drug abuse?

I'd bet against it. I'm betting that the metric they used was number of arrests for possession and use. Which, once you make it legal to own and use drugs magically disappear over night.

We could make the murder rate drop dramatically if we simply refused to charge gang members involved in turf wars. Wouldn't decrease the body count, but our murder statistics would show tremendous improvement.

Litigation would NOT even BE a friggin issue if people just exercised some common sense and PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!! It is NOT the government's job to save us from ourselves! That's OUR job.

Flynne, 52% of the populace of this country just voted for a man who is utterly incapable of leadership. I'd say that common sense is dead. Personal responsibility was murdered long ago.

And court decisions to the contrary aside, the government exists to protect me from my fellow citizens as well. That's why we have laws against theft and vandalism and murder.

But I think that something that you guys aren't getting is that the trinity of hard drugs are incredibly destructive to society.

Most kids who regularly over do booze in college come from American families where booze is taboo and drinking under age is seen as a right of passage. Something that is not observed in the UK or Europe. Smokes have had a bit different history but they are still prevalent in youths (under 18 and illegal) more that adults.

As far as who makes it. Easy the same ass hole who do it now just pay the tax and across the border you go. It will be the same as halting black market cigs from Canada. US made ones at that.

Was it a decrease in drug usage-related deaths, criminal offenses in the furtherance of procuring drugs, a decline in financial and familial ruin related to drug abuse?

Brian, if there was not a decline in at least the last two of these, then that's evidence in favor of your position and against mine. Those are Category 2 problems that I would expect legalization to reduce. (I'd also expect a reduction in usage-related deaths, because legal providers wouldn't cut their product with poisonous impurities, but I'm less certain of that.)

If anyone knows where to find those numbers, please quote them or supply a link.

Vlad asked "Are we so sure that it's the drugs and not their prohibition."

So, you have never seen anyone go ballistic on crack, I take it? Or are you actually suggesting that if we just keep giving them hits then they will mellow out?

Quit comparing meth to pot, all of you.

> Quit comparing meth to pot,
> all of you.

I'd be happy if they'd just quit comparing decriminalization to paradise. When casual users generate no prosecutions, resources are diverted to dealers and their source network. How does this help the weekend toker (/whateverer) get his needs met?

We don't have to legalize ALL drugs, just to stop prohibition against marijuana. We ended prohibition against alcohol and never had to say a word about heroin.

Yes, some of Reason's Hit & Run commenters want to legalize everything. Well so what? We could eliminate the vast majority of the drug war just by letting people grow their own pot. (You could even keep trafficking it illegal - just let people grow their own for chrissake.)

As for the rest of it, let future generations decide that on a drug-by-drug basis. We don't have to decide on all of it right now. We can take a step in the right direction, and then decide that a step further than that is NOT the right direction.

Rex - I'll bet a dozen donuts that none of those factors improved, and it was just the politically expedient one that did. A sop to the stoner vote, if you will.

And it's not poisonous impurities that lead to the bulk of drug deaths - it's overdoses and other basic failings of health (infection, starvation, etc).

I've read stories of people on heroin who simply never bothered to eat until they eventually died. The heroin was more important than food.

If the legalizers' argument stopped with marijuana, I'd say go for it. It's not clinically more harmful than alcohol or tobacco. But the argument ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS extends to ending the "war on drugs" which means cocaine flowing freely on the streets.

And I'm not sure I can be convinced that the outcome is actually positive in that case. From what I've seen, drugs like heroin fundamentally rewire the human brain. And on account of the fact that for the majority of people it makes them less than useful to society (if not a complete drag on it), I don't think legalization is the way to go.

When casual users generate no prosecutions, resources are diverted to dealers and their source network. How does this help the weekend toker (/whateverer) get his needs met?

It doesn't. And it wouldn't touch most of the Category 2 problems I referred to earlier; they're caused by the criminalization of drug suppliers. Unless legalization means legalization of the drug supply (just as the end of Prohibition meant that Gallo and Johnnie Walker could make and sell booze), it will do little good.

it's not poisonous impurities that lead to the bulk of drug deaths - it's overdoses and other basic failings of health (infection, starvation, etc).

Agreed--although I believe that deaths from impurities are sometimes reported as OD deaths. That's why I expect that legalization would lead to a reduction in drug-related deaths, not an end to them.

In California, weed is already approaching de-facto legality. Plenty of people have "prescriptions" and get their weed from hippies at dispensaries, who buy their weed from hippies in Mendo. People who lack prescriptions tend buy their weed from people who get their weed from the same hippies in Northern California. No cartels are enriched by this. People aren't getting stoned and doing dangerous things at any rate different than before as far as I've been able to tell. If this is what decriminalization looks like, I'd say we could use more of it.

You can't fight such pharmaceuticals with morals, once society tells you that it is okay to do it.

The addictive properties of nicotine are comparable to those of heroin. Tobacco is legal. And yet fewer and fewer people are using it each year. Social stigma is a very potent force.

It is probably a one in a million user of hard drugs that is capable of leading a productive life. The other 999,999 are a burden to the rest of us.

To write this statement, one must have led quite a sheltered existence. Drugs aren't like they showed you in After School Special specials. Most people who try drugs - even hard drugs - don't end up as addicts.

Rax Little:

Agreed--although I believe that deaths from impurities are sometimes reported as OD deaths. That's why I expect that legalization would lead to a reduction in drug-related deaths, not an end to them.

I just don't see how that follows. You take away the legal restriction, and you are going to get more users. Period. More users means more overdoses.

Cheezburg:

The addictive properties of nicotine are comparable to those of heroin.

And yet nicotine doesn't have anywhere near the same effect on behavior or cognition that heroin does.

Tobacco is legal. And yet fewer and fewer people are using it each year. Social stigma is a very potent force.

I don't know where you're getting your data, but everything I see says that smoking is not in significant decline. and most of that can probably be attributed to the fact that it is now over 7 bucks a pack here in CT, and even more in other states.

Social stigma is only a potent force for things that stay stigmatized. Consider teen sex, teen pregnancy, and abortion. No longer stigmatized.

What makes you think that the people who are lobbying for drug legalization are going to let drug use stay stigmatized?

To write this statement, one must have led quite a sheltered existence. Drugs aren't like they showed you in After School Special specials. Most people who try drugs - even hard drugs - don't end up as addicts.

You're quite the arrogant one, aren't you? I've never met a productive heroin or cocaine user. They're too flaky to hold down a decent job. I've seen what drugs do to people. It's not funny.

:1s/Rax/Rex

PIMF.

> Unless legalization means
> legalization of the drug supply...

Thanks for (someone) finally saying so out loud. You will probably be called upon to repeat this point later.

> We ended prohibition against
> alcohol and never had to say
> a word about heroin.

It's a continuum: Why would you expect anyone to be content with a new arbitrary metric? A dirty little secret is that opiate addicts, properly supplied, can lead lives of great social and economic productivity.

When all inebrients are flowing freely, why should I, as a responsible middle-aged man, be prevented from buying whatever cholesterol and blood pressure meds I want, without bother of prescription?

You all, referring to the group of prohibitionists, are getting on my fucking nerves!!!

When we try to hold the conversation to legalizing marijuana -- your response is "That is just a stepping stone and everyone will go for the Trifecta." Then when we try to discuss the whole issue of illegal drugs, you turn around and ascribe dire consequences to pot plus the class III drugs.

I really am not for letting heroin, crack, meth and coke out. Stick to pot and deal with one subject and you look at a whole different situation. But just lumping pot with the opiates and saying all will kill you just for thinking about it hearkens back to Reefer Madness stupidity of the 40's and 50's.

Only legalizing pot and allowing it's sale with the same restrictions as you do liquor -- over 21, same time as DUI for alcohol, If you are in certain jobs you have the same restrictions as alcohol -- not for 12 hours before flying, etc.

You tax the crap out of it. If you want to grow your own, then you have to have a tax stamp to prove you're legal -- same as distilling your own liquor or brewing your own beer. Caught in possession without a tax stamp, you're getting a double fine of what the tax stamp is.

If you give/sell pot to kids -- you face the same rules as the parent/hosting rules and all the other "It's your ID" rules.

There would not be any percentage for drug dealers to carry pot if you can get it at your local grocery/liquor store.

Then you can actually focus on the hard stuff.

Oh and here is the real kicker -- just because it is legal at the federal level -- doesn't mean its is legal at the state. That is why you still have "dry" areas (county, city, township) in Ohio, Tenn, Texas and numerous other places. The point being that if you can convince the rest of the like minded people that there's Trouble in River City -- you can stop the sale for your area. Hell, for that matter you can even get your local area as a no-possession zone. But, I'll bet nice Aunt Betty that lives on Drury lane will be hitting the next county, cause she ain't had good shit since Woodstock.

You tax the crap out of it. If you want to grow your own, then you have to have a tax stamp to prove you're legal -- same as distilling your own liquor or brewing your own beer.

You don't pay a tax to brew your own for personal consumption.

As I said - I could go along with MJ legalization. I'm also enough of a realist to know that certain highly vocal segments of the anti-drug-war movement will take that not as a victory and shut the fuck up, but as a stepping stone to the ultimate goal of total legalization.

And as we've seen with abortion, and are about to see with gay marriage, if the federal government really wants something to be legal, the states have fuck-all to say about it.

And as we've seen with abortion...

No, the issue is that the portions of the Right refuse to acknowledge that they lost and try to get back to prohibition.

Mifepristone or RU-486 has pretty much been proven safe and effective as a non-surgical method to terminate a pregnancy. It was licensed in France in 1988. They were (and still are) fighting its use in the U.S.

But I'd like to see the numbers on death's, injuries, and the rest from back-alley abortions prior to and since 1973. I bet if you run them on a map you will see a correlation between the pro-lifer areas that drive out doctors willing to do an abortion and the number of teen pregnancies.

It is not so much that the middle ground really wants more -- we want a moderate solution. It that the other side always pushes back to prohibition. Take a guess what I'm repeating here.

Prohibition has a repeated pattern of failure.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." -- Benjamin Franklin

And as we've seen with abortion, and are about to see with gay marriage, if the federal government really wants something to be legal, the states have fuck-all to say about it.

And as we've seen with medical marijuana, if the federal government wants something to be illegal, the states have about the same amount of say.

> Prohibition has a repeated pattern of failure.

Unbounded inebriation ain't done that much for anybody, either.

Now, tell us the markup by which you made that line go centered.

Unbounded inebriation ain't done that much for anybody, either.

No, but prohibition clearly hasn't prevented unbounded inebriation, so that's a wash.

In two days and over 70 posts, no one has presented any evidence that drug addiction would increase with legalization. (No shortage of assertions, but evidence?) Way up-thread I asked if alcoholism had gone up when Prohibition ended, and no one has claimed it did, much less linked to evidence.

And as we've seen with medical marijuana, if the federal government wants something to be illegal, the states have about the same amount of say.

Raich v. Gonzales.

In two days and over 70 posts, no one has presented any evidence that drug addiction would increase with legalization. (No shortage of assertions, but evidence?)

Ditto. Nobody has shown that drug usage went down, that drug acquisition-related crime had gone down, or that usage and addiction had gone down in the places where legalization had been implemented. The only case I know any evidence of (and my knowledge is scant) is the "needle park" experiment in, I think, Holland. It didn't work out so well.

Turns out if you offer junkies free shit, they'd rather spend all day high than actually be productive. And they magically do just enough to be completely fucking worthless, but not enough to kill themselves.

Mifepristone or RU-486 has pretty much been proven safe and effective as a non-surgical method to terminate a pregnancy. It was licensed in France in 1988. They were (and still are) fighting its use in the U.S.

You think the fact that a statistically significant number of the women who use it bleed to death might have something to do with it?

> No, but prohibition clearly hasn't
> prevented unbounded inebriation

Then what are you bitching about?

The law is a boundary –however permeable– or it ain't. I'd say it is.

I still wanna know how you centered that text.

Crid, when you want to center something do this:
less than sign, the word center, greater than sign, text, less than sign, backslash, greater than sign.

'K?

o.O

Maybe all caps in the tag?

Nope, that didn't work. And it was on my list of standard HTML tags. Sorry, Cridmiester. I tried. o.O

I wonder if it's this HTML tag?

HAH! I did it! Crid, use the word "Blockquote" the way I told you to use the word "Center".

Works every time!

Maybe. o.O

You think the fact that a statistically significant number of the women who use it bleed to death might have something to do with it?

Are you talking about the "Up to 8% of women experienced some type of bleeding for 30 days or more."? How does that equate to "bleed to death"? If it was such a significant threat I'm sure the FDA would have pulled it off the market.
www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/mifepristone/default.htm

And this is yet another example of lies, damned lies, and statistics used to "prove" your point.

The example was to point out that with abortion, only the most left leaning prefer partial birth abortion. I bet the large majority are truly ambivalent if not repulsed by partial birth, but it is still a medical decision. So the rabid pro-lifers go to the extreme of "No abortion ever" and try to heap every restriction on it that they can legally get away with, and hound the poor doctors out of town. The rabid pro-choice say "Any abortion, any time, no questions asked." Those who are in the middle are "Safe, legal and rare." I consider it a choice for the woman (and family).

But locking constantly onto a thought if we give you an inch, you'll want a mile. I'm perfectly happy to keep the opiates illegal. But if you legalize half the market (pot only) and control it -- the rest of the illegal becomes a lot more obvious and you stop incarcerating people for holding a quarter bag and just want to go home and sit around.

Jim - four people died from taking it. It's still available in the US. One person died from Vioxx before it was pulled.

four people died from taking it. It's still available in the US.

Out of how many thousands. This is the "for the children" argument, or "shark attacks are up". Throwing numbers out: You have 250 shark attacks this year up from 200 last year. That is a 20-25% jump depending on how you do the numbers, that is just so horrible. Now do the real math: Call it 35 million people swim in the ocean annually:

• 35 million / 250 = one hundred forty thousand
  
• 35 million / 200 = one hundred seventy-five thousand

So your odds of being attacked went from 1 in 175,000 to 1 in 140,000. Take a guess of the odds of dying on the way to the beach?

Per Reason:[T]his means your one-year odds of dying in a car accident is about one out of 6500. Therefore your lifetime probability (6500 ÷ 78 years life expectancy) of dying in a motor accident are about one in 83.

Just googled it: It comes out to about 1 in 8 million really.
ezinearticles.com/?What-Are-The-Odds-Of-Dying-Of-A-Shark-Attack&id=401812

This is the same reason they took PPA and other drugs off the market. Because the hysterics of being the

500 per 300,000 = 0.00166666667 of adverse affects.
Lets even call it 4 per 100,000 will die
That is 0.04%
---------------------------------------
But it is still off topic, yes, I care about my loved ones, but no one says life is fair.

The prohibitionists are constantly saying if we budge a little, the sky will fall, the world will end and it will be the end of life as we know it.

And it still doesn't answer the question: You believe in prohibition. How is that working out for you? Is it really viable?

Way to miss the point, Jim. Cocaine, Heroin, PPA, Vioxx, and RU-486 all have something in common - they all meet the FDA's standards for "dangerous". Only one of them is still available, and I think you know why.

I didn't say I believe in prohibition. I said I don't believe in legalization. It's been tried, and it does not work - at least not to my definition of "work".

I want a system where if people choose to put others in harm's way with their intoxication they pay a VERY steep penalty. I have not seen any evidence that such penalties are on offer.

You want to replace a failed policy with another failed (or very likely to fail) policy. How is that an improvement? You are the one who seeks change. Te burden of proof rests with you. Merely saying something is no longer a crime does not magically make it less bad for society.

I don't believe in legalization. It's been tried, and it does not work - at least not to my definition of "work".

Alcohol was legalized in 1933. Did that work? If your definition of "work" is eliminating all problems with alcohol, then no, it didn't--but by that standard, nothing will. My definition of "work" is that the Category 2 problems associated with the legalized substance are significantly reduced, while the Category 1 problems are not significantly increased. I wasn't around at the time, but from what I remember of history, alcohol legalization worked pretty well by that standard.

I want a system where if people choose to put others in harm's way with their intoxication they pay a VERY steep penalty. I have not seen any evidence that such penalties are on offer.

There are already laws against taking actions which endanger others, including driving while impaired by any substance including legal ones such as alcohol. No one has suggested removing these as part of drug legalization. If you think that the penalties for such acts should be increased when drugs are legalized, make a case for that; I wouldn't object.

There are already laws against taking actions which endanger others, including driving while impaired by any substance including legal ones such as alcohol. No one has suggested removing these as part of drug legalization. If you think that the penalties for such acts should be increased when drugs are legalized, make a case for that; I wouldn't object.

I've made a case several times for increasing those penalties now and doing away with the liberty-killing checkpoints that have now been extended to checking for seatbelt compliance whilst searching the entire car.

The 4th amendment is dead, and the safety nazis are the ones who killed it. DUI prevention was the foot in the door.