Does this mean we're going to start back up with the idea that all we have to do to produce Utopia by eliminating crime is to make everything legal?

So, using that 'argument', where's the utopia that was supposed to be created by prohibition, huh?

You know, that fantasy world where simply making something illegal instantly fixes all of the worlds problems.

Two isolated neurons in a petri dish are more than capable of discerning that the drug war is an abysmal failure.

Try looking at LEAP (law enforcement against prohibition). These are people who are / were at the front lines of the drug war, and they KNOW it isn't working.

Drug laws have not magically caused people to stop using drugs. Oh, there may be some who don't use drugs because of the legal issues, but they're not likely to be the ones who would have been a problem, anyway.

Without prohibition, we have drug users, some of whom cause ancillary issues, like stealing to support a habit, and so forth.

With prohibition, we still have that, plus a black market, corrupt enforcement and political officials, and the additional crime and violence associated with the black market.

Go ahead, tell us all how prohibition has really improved the situation. I'm sure the two young ladies mentioned in Amy's post would be happy to know they died for it.

Personally, I don't really think it's all that good for people to use recreational drugs, but prohibition is like sinking the aircraft carrier to kill the rats.

And as for the argued effects of drug use (impairment, some users stealing, etc.), we already have laws regarding all of those behaviours.

Get the law out of the consensual behaviour of adults, period.

Enforce the existing laws that are in place to handle the cases where someones actions directly cause actual harm to another.

Quit giving the government (and their enforcement arms) the power to come after you for whatever suits their fancy.

Yes, that means that some people will do something you don't like. Get over it.

Does this mean we're going to start back up with the idea that all we have to do to produce Utopia by eliminating crime is to make everything legal? -- Radwaste at January 12, 2012 11:53 PM

Your argument fails from the prior experiment. The 18th Amendment to U.S. Constitution prohibited alcohol on January 16, 1920. They repealed it with the 21st Amendment on December 5, 1933.

When you can explain why it shouldn't have been repealed, and how effective it was, I might actually listen to your arguments for prohibiting other drugs.

Jim, I think Raddy was employing a little sarcasm there. Prohibition itself shouldn't have been implemented in the first place. Because, as we all know, prohibition did not have the desired effect, or outcome, that the government was seeking. And I say that as a descendent of a long line of moonshiners. Oh, and horsethieves. I'm a descendent of those too.

(PS - Amy, how about driving to work with a pirate? Which I would gladly do!)

Saw that one, Amy, but I didn't think he was half as cute as Johnny Depp as Capt. Jack! (On that note, I didn't really like the song that Jim posted, only because I can't stand the sanctimonious Michael Bolton. I know him, and I know too much about him to ever take him seriously anymore, even though that particular song seems to be very tongue-in-cheek. I couldn't watch it all the way to the end. I just don't like the guy. He's not much of a man, IMNSHO, after what he did to his first wife, and after all she did for him. Egomaniac doesn't even begin to describe him.)

We all know Clinton and Obama smoked grass, Bush snorted a few pounds of coke, and they all pressed harder on the war against drugs. Coming up on 20 years of hypocrisy.

Jim P:

When you can explain why it shouldn't have been repealed, and how effective it was, I might actually listen to your arguments for prohibiting other drugs.

Define the context of "effective".

Because for some values of effective, Prohibition was roaringly effective.

For other values, it was very ineffective. These are the ones that Hollywood has popularized for the most part.

It boosted the underground economy massively. It enabled criminals to make huge amounts of money and expand their influence. It launched invasive government, and supported the growth and breath of government at a critical inflection point.

It also resulted in huge drops in arrests for a lot of petty crimes. You ought to try and find some of the Women's Temperance Movement's publications on how Prohibition was Working Wonderfully. They wrote a few I've seen years ago, and they were chock-full of good things as a result.

It all depends how you define "effective". Most people presume that everybody else defines it as they want. It's also usable as a straw man. But Prohibition didn't create Organized Crime - the Speakeasies were supplied by previously established crime families.

Consumption of alcohol? Dropped _massively_. Is that your "effective"? Cause if so, Prohibition worked.

I once saw a series of maps in the late 80s. The first had the site of police reports for burglary, strong-armed robberies, muggings, and fights. Those were bubbled in red, and smoothed. Then overlaid was a map of the liquor stores in green. Almost perfect circles, with some deviation based on the streets around them. Where there were more, the bubble was larger, where they were spread out, the bubbles were smaller, and almost perfectly centered on the green dot.

How's that for "effective?"

Prohibition was effective in a lot of ways, good and bad. Depending on your viewpoint, you can make the case that it was smashingly effective.

The same argument needs to be examined in the current "Drug Prohibition". Crime rates keep dropping and dropping. One reason is because the petty criminals keep getting tossed in jail on drug charges. I had some things stolen from my garage once. When they recovered them, the burglar was offered a 10 year plea deal on the drugs he had. (Detective: We gave him a drug test. The tech said "Yes". "Yes to what?" Just, yes. Everything was positive.") He's listed under the "non-violent drug offender" because his *plea deal* was only for the drugs. This despite his arrest being very violent, and he'd been robbing for months - ever since his release from prison.

So if you want to make a case for "effective", it can be done. Quite simply.

My suggestion is to base it on the Principle of Liberty, if you want to argue against Drug Prohibition, and not get sidetracked to "effective". By what right does the Government regulate what _You Do_? It's a stronger argument.

Edit to the above: I once saw a series of maps in the late 80s.

^ for Washington D.C.

Prediction? Not in our lifetime.

Did you see the other day the Mexican government has tallied almost 50,000 drug war deaths in the last 5 years? It was page 8 news.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-16518267

Here's another dope fiend that should be put away...

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/82169791/

Tim and Jim P. = Straw Men.

What you are arguing is not my point at all. I did not say what you have.

I am consistent on this issue. If you propose legalizing a drug (pick one), you MUST show the following:

1) How to establish consumer protection.

2) How to establish objective abuse detection for critical occupations.

Spare me arguments about alcohol and tobacco. If you use these, you admit these two things:

a) That tens of thousands of annual deaths are an acceptable price to pay so that people may drug themselves;

b) That the position of the law influences the participation rate for the activity.

"b" is, of course, true anyway.

If you really want to blame somebody for a drug-related death, just look for the users, who ignore risks and eschew anything in the legal process because, well, it's time to get high.

That's exactly what homeopaths do: support the very industry which harms them.

1) How to establish consumer protection.

Here is The Constitution of These United States. Please show me where consumer protection is listed in there? If you can I will make it a point to send you a leather bound copy of it.

2) How to establish objective abuse detection for critical occupations.

The day you can define the objective standards for the efficacy and abuse for Prozac, Adderall, Viagra, Synthroid, Neurontin and any host of other drugs among everyone who takes them, I'll agree to them.

And I am not going to spare you the argument for alcohol. Years ago the standard for DUI was how you were driving. The police would see you weaving, driving slow, speeding, etc and then stop and arrest you as needed. The penalties were fairly light. Then you get to the late 70's and 80's. They establish the .10 standard. The majority of the .10 DUI's were supplemental to common mistakes (turn signal, running a yellow, other minor infractions.) But they generally aren't accidents and death. Then you get to now. They lowered the limit to .08 beginning in 2000. The rate of DUI convictions has gone up. But the change in DUI deaths and reasons is up for debate. What if they left the original laws and had just made the penalties harder?

If you really want to blame somebody for a drug-related death, just look for the users, who ignore risks and eschew anything in the legal process because, well, it's time to get high.

And then also look at the number of criminals with firearms and firearm deaths. Illinois has no concealed carry and D.C. effectively has none. Have there been no gun deaths in either location from concealed weapons? What about New Jersey with a one gun a month law?

You can say prohibition works. But the criminals will ignore the laws regardless.

Rad, we all ready agree to a

Other wise the FDA would never approve anything, alcohol would be illegal, and so would things like coffe and 5hr energy drinks

As for 1 and 2, for things like weed, we could do product control the same way we do corn, or wheat. For things like heroin and cocaine, we can go back to the way they did it when heroin and cocanie were perfectly legal and update as neccessary to progrmas simmilar to morphine ond oxy.

As for "How to establish objective abuse detection for critical occupations."

Please explain the processes currenly in place for legal narcotics and I'll et back to you

Rad,

Nope, not straw men.

You opened this discussion with an appeal to the fallacy of the false dilemma. As a result, the onus is upon you to make the case that prohibition (sucessfully) somehow provides a working solution to your bullet points.

To point (1):

What specific consumer protection is currently in place for tobacco and alcohol? Mostly things like simple quality control, and no (presumably) dangerous adulterating additives. Seems to me that a similar approach can be provided for pot, at least, and arguably for other drugs as well (and bear in mind that consumer protection for 'legitimate' drugs can be less than ideal or even missing in action, as well).

To point (2):

Let's frame the argument to address what it is that should actually be addressed, which is having some mechanism to detect when some person, for whatever reason, is physically or mentally unable to perform the specific tasks involved.

The particular adulterant, in and of itself, isn't really the issue here.

In your (perhaps not entirely hypothetical) case (given your industry), do you test your critical workers with a physical impairment test, or do you simply 'punt' and assume that certain substances are (for whatever reason) more affective than others?

Do you test for sleep deprivation, or allergy medicine, or narcotic painkillers?

Do you test for too much (or too little) caffeine?

Simply put, are you really trying to vet out anyone who (for whatever reason) is physically or mentally incapable of safely performing their task, or are you just preferentially targeting a group because you disagree with their recreational choices?

What, in the end, is more important?

That they can demonstrate that they're capable of safely doing the job they're assigned to, or whatever it was they did to relax the night before, whether it affects their performance or not?

And, in any case, even if pot (etc) were decriminalized (or even legalized), nothing in that fact would prevent a private employer from requiring drug tests, etc., for employment (hell, some companies even do that with tobacco now).

And...

All of that said, you still have not provided any evidence that the existence (and preferential enforcement) of prohibition does actually cause events to meet your bullet point criteria (and the answer is ... it doesn't ).

Prohibition doesn't stop drug use.

Most drug testing is focused on marijuana, which, whatever you may think of it, is far less harmful than the other illegal drugs (and is arguably less harmful than alcohol as well). Most of the really bad drugs don't test out as easily, and their metabolites decay much faster.

I'll say it again, for the cheap seats:

Prohibition does nothing, at all, to actually address the issue of drug use.

There are two (and only two) scenarios here:

You have drug use (and the subset of users who cause real problems) or,

You have drug use (and the subset of users who cause real problems) PLUS the problems caused by prohibition.

I'm not arguing that drug use is, on an overall basis, harmless.

I'm arguing that prohibition does not actually address the harmful aspects of drug use (at all), and in addition, does vastly more harm to society than the drug use itself does (see civil forfeiture, fourth amendment violations, people killed by being forced into sting operations, etc.).

When it comes right down to it, there are two schools of thought for the way that laws should be formed and applied:

There is the one that offers the most freedom (laws in place to protect others, but no nanny state bullshit).

Then there is the other that offers the most control, always for some 'special' group of people (laws in place to try and dictate the behaviour of individuals, with the aim of 'keeping them in line').

I favor the more freedom approach. It's the one that lets us keep our humanity.

Geez. See if you can find what you've done here.

Right now, the law requires that a person working in a critical occupation - such as those on SRS's Personnel Reliability Program - disclose when they are prescibed any medication. During this period, their duties WILL be curtailed; they are subject to termination for failure to report their situation. I think you might agree that the handling of fissile material warrants extreme care.

An employer that does NOT do this is at risk from Federal intervention for not protecting the process and the public, from the stockholders for raising their loss risk, and/or from the employees and the public in the form of civil liability suits, because an impaired worker kills her co-workers first. Insurance does not bring back the dead or undo a chemical or radioactive release.

In the case of legal drugs, like alcohol, objective testing is also present as a second line of defense for the critical occupation. Testing can be ordered "for cause", such as the observation by a Shift Manager that a person is impaired.

So there is no question that legal means are in place to protect the public from deadly processes.

Now, take the case where an unknown substance was ingested. You still have the Shift Manager at the bomb plant checking his guy out before work - but after the guy acts stupid, then what? No objective testing, no protection, no penalty for the worker who decided to party through the weekend.

"Hey, it's legal."

I'm leaving the Constitutional question about consumer protection alone as bullshit, because there's not a fool here who won't sue over a bad can of soup making them sick - and case law fully supports such an action.