Hey, let's not give the Nanny Bloombergs of the world an idea...

Some time in the future, the blog Goddess sits behind bars:

Cellmate: Whatcha in for?
Goddess: Possession.
Cellmate: Bummer.
Goddes: Of table salt!
Cellmate: (moves to the door) Jailer! you need to move me! She's a crazy woman! I can't share a cell with a salt dealer! they're all stone-cold killers!

On the other hand, you could land a recurring role on Justified as a member of the Salt Mafia trying to pressure Boyd Crowder to carry your goods...

I see some absurdity. Okay. Here's some more:

2020: Since all drugs are totally legal, they are not in schools, cars, buses or aircraft, since all the users are wholly responsible persons.

And all the drug dealers went to work at WalMart.

After all, that's what happened when alcohol, a drug, was legalized. No one dies, no one is arrested for alcohol abuse, no one commits a crime while intoxicated.

Utopia is so SO CLOSE!

Utopia is so SO CLOSE!

Posted by: Radwaste at October 24, 2013 2:39 PM

Don't get me started on anti-meth laws bub. Oh, they've supposedly stopped local meth labs. How many work hours lost and expenses to get the required prescription for an item that I could buy off the shelf at 14 years old? Now at 36 I need a doctor's permission (ultimately the state), possession limits and an ID check.

One big difference is that sugar is sugar for the most part and salt is salt. From what I have heard, many of he illegal drugs come in different strengths, etc.

What I am getting is say the governement was to legalize drugs, in most cases they aren't going to be selling the strongest stuff so there is still a place for the gangs, mafia, street dealer -- that spot is selling the
"better" stuff. Or maybe it is cheaper - like cigs from the reservation (no state tax). So you still haven't solved the problem.

Now I keep getting this image of a foodie buying salt and some one coming up to him..psst. Buddy, you don't want that...I know some one who can get you some pink Himalayan salt for the same price.

2020: Since all drugs are totally legal, they are not in schools, cars, buses or aircraft, since all the users are wholly responsible persons. -- Radwaste at October 24, 2013 2:39 PM

2020: All drug dealers are locked up and no one is using any illegal drugs. The War on Drugs is won.

Utopia is upon us.

The problem with regulating human behavior is that it simply does not work. If it did then the twenty-first amendment wouldn't exist.

Reagan declared the 'War on Drugs,' on October 14, 1982[1]. Since then we have had numerous unconstitutional laws passed against the 4th, random property seizures against the 5th, laws that violate the 1st, and even a case that violates the 3rd[2] about quartering troops.

So tell me how great all this shit is helping the average American have liberty?

[1] -- www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43552.html#ixzz2ihGm8HPV
[2]randazza.wordpress.com/2013/07/04/third-amendment-case-in-nevada/

in most cases they aren't going to be selling the strongest stuff

The medical marijuana shops in CA sell the potent strains.

I'm not convinced, that, "of course", violence will go away if heroin, pot, cocaine, amphetamines, etc are legalized. Burglaries and theft might decrease if legalized.

But around here, one marijuana dispensary was robbed three times in a month -- once at gunpoint. People are getting stabbed at legal medical marijuana grows and such.

Didn't LA voters recently choose to drastically limit dispensaries because of safety problems?

"The government doesn't have a right to tell you what you can and cannot put in your body."

Apart from a fundamental problem with the concept - "government" doesn't have "rights", it has powers - yes, they do.

Government was given these powers by the will of the people. It is why you can be arrested for driving drunk, for appearing in public under the influence, etc., and if you will recall, that is my major point in demanding reason from those who just want to get high, screw everybody else, hee-hee we have weed: right now, the only way multiple critical industries can keep some drugs out of the workplace is their illegality. There are no field tests for many substances.

I find it less than wonderful that you brought up alcohol as an example. You are completely fine with its costing over 15,000 direct deaths per year, and its contribution to countless cases of spousal abuse and personal injury in every venue of life so YOU can buy wine.

Yes, I note that it's a bigger problem here than in Europe.

By the way, this is complete bullshit: "The problem with regulating human behavior is that it simply does not work."

Of course it does. Go the hell outside and look at the street. Consider traffic laws, probate court procedure and HAZMAT laws. It is why you have money in the bank, why you have elecricity in the house and can step outside without being assaulted - usually. Civilization is the collective agreement to abide by a set of rules!

I have a misanthropic fantasy of some uber-wealthy individual deciding to solve the problem by flooding the country with free heroin. Given away on every street corner, free samples with every welfare check, piled up on a table at the quick-shop. Let the addicts Darwin themselves. Then the rest of us can get on with our lives.

Radwaste - Prohibition does not work. That's the point. Alcohol prohibition was a bust in the 1920s - turning everyone into criminals - as the drug war is today (although drugs are not as possible). Also, since we raised the drinking age to 21, we have also spurred a whole binge drinking culture in the 18-21 set. Stupid.

catherine - thank you for helping make my point, and then some.

Prohibition is an example of a regulation that did not work. I consider the idea evil at best, because the Constitution is a set of rules by which government is to operate, not the public.

Oh, wait - there we go - another set of rules by which we operate!

But: just as governmental malfeasance is real, AND it can be shown to exist when government is allowed to operate outside the Constitution, or by an arbitrary reading of it, we can show that attempting to justify ourselves out of a clear link, cause/effect, between the proliferation of a drug and the deaths it causes is simply applying the Two Wrongs fallacy, among others.

If you want a drug legalized, just make your case and show that the benefit outweighs the costs. Define all your terms. BE ready to show its impact on all walks of life.

But I suggest you not use alcohol as your example.

Apart from a fundamental problem with the concept - "government" doesn't have "rights", it has powers - yes, they do. -- Radwaste at October 25, 2013 4:45 AM

Let's go with this argument:

Where does the government derive it's powers? Because if you read the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So you, me, Amy, and every single person is a sovereign individual with our rights and liberties that we have just by being a relatively competent human being. We (as in you, me, Amy and the founding fathers) have delegated some of our natural born rights to the federal government to exercise for us. The enumerated powers[1] we have delegated are limited. None of those included what an individual citizen could ingest.

That is the reason the Eighteenth Amendment[2] was passed. The simple reason was that the federal government didn't have a right to prohibit what drug you wanted to ingest. Then after the Eighteenth Amendment failed Congress finally passed the Twenty-First Amendment[3]. But why did they need the 18th in the first place?

So then you move forward in time. Reagan declared the "War on Drugs." The only reason that he could do it is via the blatant abuse of the Interstate Commerce Clause because of Wickard v. Filburn[4].

There is no real Constitutional way to prohibit what you can ingest without an amendment. The SCOTUS decision fucked up a bunch of things.

[1] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers
[2] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
[3].en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-first_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
[4] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Of course it does. Go the hell outside and look at the street. Consider traffic laws, probate court procedure and HAZMAT laws. It is why you have money in the bank, why you have elecricity in the house and can step outside without being assaulted - usually. Civilization is the collective agreement to abide by a set of rules! -- Radwaste at October 25, 2013 4:45 AM

You are conflating civilization and legal. So if you had 25 co-workers that left work tonight and went home. Ten of them drink alcohol, four do nothing, five smoke pot, two do heroin, and three abuse prescription drugs. They come in and do the job tomorrow what do you care? Now if an alcohol and a pot smoker get caught potentially doing something to someone else (driving, vandalism, whatever) then they should be punished by the law. But going home and getting blown out of your mind should not be illegal. How does getting blown out of your mind at home affect civilization?

"They come in and do the job tomorrow what do you care? Now if an alcohol and a pot smoker get caught potentially doing something to someone else (driving, vandalism, whatever) then they should be punished by the law. But going home and getting blown out of your mind should not be illegal. How does getting blown out of your mind at home affect civilization?"

Jim, of course I am "conflating civilization with legal"! That's what societies DO to maintain order: they recognize that most people see that order increases their quality of life first-hand, that increases in technology and the division of labor makes it important to protect people from influences beyond their control, and then, for a small set of the population, FORCE is required to PREVENT them from preying on people.

You might want to think about the definition and limitations of the term "legal". Here's a shocker: most people in my experience have NO IDEA what a crime is. You can see that in their commentary about major-crime coverage, like the OJ or Zimmerman trials.
But "legal", as a threshold, is merely the point at which force can be summoned by the collective to establish order.

About the quote above:
A tremendous number of jobs today put the worker and her surroundings at great risk. You might think that the semi driver herself is the only person whose impairment might affect. What of the town poisoned by her load of chemicals spilled at that railroad crossing?

There are two points I've made before that you're forgetting:
1) Safety programs are only successful when prevention is attained, because some disasters cannot be called back for a "do over!", and firing someone, or fining them, does not undo injuries and deaths.
2) For many drugs, there are no impairment tests which can legally be applied at the workplace. Employers now count on "trace" for disciplinary actions, including reassignment, mandatory assignment to drug programs and termination.

California medical marijuana law, as I have been told, includes a prohibition from operating dangerous equipment, which is reasonable because the degree and duration of impairment has not been determined. You've taken the position that can be interpreted that the crane operator can do acid at home and then report to work. I know you don't want to be near such a person.

Jim, of course I am "conflating civilization with legal"! That's what societies DO to maintain order: they recognize that most people see that order increases their quality of life first-hand, that increases in technology and the division of labor makes it important to protect people from influences beyond their control, and then, for a small set of the population, FORCE is required to PREVENT them from preying on people. -- Radwaste at October 26, 2013 6:19 AM

There is a difference between civilization and legal. And that difference is based upon what I am doing does not infringe on what anyone else is doing. If I want to play music at level 10 at 3:00 AM with headphones and I'm willing to lose my hearing I have a right to do that. If infringe on your right to quiet at 3:00 AM by using normal speakers that is a different story.

Your concept is that the government has the legal right to tell you what you can do. It does not. What if the government said you must go to a specific church every Sunday? What about if they told you that you couldn't go to church? How about if the government dictated your diet? How about your doctor and health insurance.

This is the same idea.

There are two points I've made before that you're forgetting: 1) Safety programs are only successful when prevention is attained, because some disasters cannot be called back for a "do over!", and firing someone, or fining them, does not undo injuries and deaths. 2) For many drugs, there are no impairment tests which can legally be applied at the workplace. Employers now count on "trace" for disciplinary actions, including reassignment, mandatory assignment to drug programs and termination.

You are saying that making drugs illegal stops the damage caused by impaired people doing stuff while impaired? So a person impaired by legally prescribed drugs is never going to do damage?

This is the same argument about firearms. Let's make all guns illegal. Then there will never be another shooting like Sandy Hook. So it will stop the shooter from killing his mother, stealing her guns, and going into a school firing.

It is not the gun, or the drugs. It is the person using them. If they are not responsible you cannot really stop them.

Jim, and Amy:

You speak of responsibility, and you demonstrate it yourself, here at least. Why is it that you do not recognize that drug users DO NOT behave responsibly?

What about a cocaine or mushroom user leads you to think they will observe a regulation on the seperation of fissile materials, the packaging limits of HAZMAT, or limits on time behind the wheel of the semi behind your compact car?

There's a pretty easy standard to meet: if the employee lied about drug use on her employment forms and in the yearly training/required read&sign, it's pretty simple to figure out she WILL lie about meeting the requirements for daily inspection of a waste tank. After all, someone else will do that check next week. We can leave the tank unchecked for that long, who will know? The taxpayer? They don't know anything about this process.

Jim, you mentioned guns. Guess what? At work, they have a simple test for possession of a gun. (And of course, I could point out the awful consequences of government banning guns, which are NOT true of any drug ban, but I digress.)

What test do they have for impairment from psilocybin?

Have you seen the Wikipedia article? Here's a good thing to know: "A 2005 survey conducted in the United Kingdom found that almost a quarter of those who had used psilocybin mushrooms in the past year had experienced a panic attack."

How would you explain your policy of allowing drug use to the victims of an industrial accident?

Again, here's the key: Be practical. Show the ROI on legalization of the drug you advocate. Give industry a way to exclude it from the workplace.

If all you're going to do is snicker at your friends how "cool" you are, well, then - that's all you're going to do.

You repeated the argument from the previous post.

But you are still conflating legal and culture.

What do you think of the Muslim who stamps on opium poppies everyday and then condemns the user of alcohol as an infidel?

What about a cocaine or mushroom user leads you to think they will observe a regulation on the separation of fissile materials, the packaging limits of HAZMAT, or limits on time behind the wheel of the semi behind your compact car?

If your facility doesn't have a two "man" rule or something similar I would question your security/checkoff system anyway. Way back when, I had an SCI security clearance. They were one of the hardest clearances to get. Even then, before we could open a vault (office spaces), we needed two people to open that area. Then we still had to have the security police on the line to turn off the alarm.

As I said above: You are saying that making drugs illegal stops the damage caused by impaired people doing stuff while impaired? So a person impaired by legally prescribed drugs is never going to do damage?

What about the people who aren't using drugs? The truck driver who has a partner he "dropped off" before making the delivery. There are many drivers that will run fourteen hours when they are legally limited to ten hours.

What stops anyone from being weak, lazy, ignorant, stupid or otherwise negligent even without the use of drugs or alcohol?

Equating drug use and incompetence does not recognize reality.