"Legalization would take drug control out government's incompetent hands and place it with churches, medical professionals, coaches, friends and families."

Who are doing such a bang-up job now that billions of dollars go to the drug suppliers, and we consider it obvious and somehow acceptable that any Hollywood set has cocaine on it.

"Legalization." Please, someone: explain this process. I've been asking here for at least a year what you mean by this.

And in your cost-benefit analysis, still not offered by the excerpt here except as a rosy-glassed suggestion, include how a) drug cartels switch to legal trade, and b) you get law enforcement compliance with the Constitution back.

In the legal process. That's what you MUST do, and it's not just me saying that. Don't address me, describe the process: referenda, new law including consumer protection, limits, the definition of the new boundaries, and so forth. That's the responsible thing to do. You can't just go, "Whoa, dude, just don't bust me for my ozz."

Go ahead.

Radwaste, why should anyone listen to anything you have to say (or instructions you have to give) on this subject? You haven't been able to provide one single benefit or good associated with our criminalization scheme, and you're a giant hypocrite when it comes to the value of legal process. Laws you don't like (like the new health care act) are bad and should be repealed; laws you do like (like locking people up even if they aren't hurting anyone) get justified with a bunch of pomposity about how everyone HAS to follow the law just because it's the law.

Legalization means repealing the laws that criminalize certain substances. As always, it is the person in FAVOR of government power has the burden of showing why those laws are good. Since you obviously support them, show us the cost-benefit analysis that demonstrates why they're such a good idea for our society.

you must realize that most of the drug laws on the books are the result of rent seeking and to protect the legal drug cartels. (big pharma, the hospitals, the insurance industry, and the physicians industry) There are at least a dozen drugs that were either not illegal when I was a child, available without a Dr's prescription, or can be bought legally without a a prescription from almost any apothecary in Europe, that now carry significant jail time for either possession or distribution. This is not about saving people from lethal drugs. It is about control and controlling your dollars by making you go to a Dr to get something to keep you from being miserable that should be readily available over the counter and has been in the past. Of course now that sufficient numbers of both children and adults in our society have been royally brainwashed through DARE that drugs are "bad" I don't see much hope of reversing the trend and actually allowing adults to make adult decisions.

How 'bout this?

Consenting adults (defined as those 18 and over) can put anything in their bodies they want. It's freely available. No consumer protection. Anybody who sells someone bad stuff goes to prison for attempted murder -- same as someone who tries to poison someone.

No nonviolent drug users are prosecuted in any way unless they run afoul of anything following. This frees up space in the criminal justice and prison systems for those who need to be locked up to protect society.

Anyone selling drugs without a prescription to minors gets hard time.

Anyone who commits violence to get drugs or money for drugs (which would be unnecessary to do anyway under legalization) does hard time.

Anyone who harms or threatens to harm others while under the influence (like DUI) does hard time on the FIRST offense.

Anyone who continues to engage in gang activity or rackets to feed the drug trade (or for any other purpose) does hard time. I expect that this activity, however, would be greatly undercut with legalization.

Government diverts a fraction of the money now spent on putting druggies away, to comprehensive rehab programs, and supplies needed drugs as part of treatment under a supervised detox program, to those wishing to kick the habit. These programs are universally publicized and readily available through hospitals and clinics, subsidized by the government for those who can't afford. They are mandatory for minors who use. We can still keep our youth programs to teach about the harm drugs can do. If someone, getting these messages, decides to use upon attaining majority, it's their problem, not ours, and we should leave them alone to abuse themselves.

Of course, I am not naive enough to think that government wouldn't try to tax the heck out of legal drugs, as they do tobacco and alcohol, but this should be kept at a minimum to avoid the re-development of black markets in the products.

All this is just a framework. Neither I nor anyone else have all the details; they can be worked out as we go.

This kind of comprehensive decriminalization is what the libertarian message ought to be pushing.

"No nonviolent drug users are prosecuted in any way unless they run afoul of anything following. This frees up space in the criminal justice and prison systems for those who need to be locked up to protect society.

Anyone selling drugs without a prescription to minors gets hard time.

Anyone who commits violence to get drugs or money for drugs (which would be unnecessary to do anyway under legalization) does hard time.

Anyone who harms or threatens to harm others while under the influence (like DUI) does hard time on the FIRST offense."

I don't like rigid prescriptions for punishment regardless of harm caused. Some of these inflexible suggestions will run afoul of our current constitutional rights. I for one don't want to live in a police state, (even one where drugs are legal). I see no reason if drugs are legalized not to treat them much the same as we now do drunk driving or driving under the influence of prescription drugs. Do you really want to live in a country where the legal system is so unjust that if a parent, or another minor sells or gives a kid Ritalin from someone else's prescription, they do prison time but if a doctor prescribes it, it in hunky dory? As far as committing crimes to get money to buy drugs, I don't want to examine the motives of a burglar. or someone sticking a gun in my face too closely. Robbery is robbery. If your motive is to get money to buy candy or concert tickets it should be punished no less or no more harshly than money to buy drugs.

"Anyone who commits violence to get drugs or money for drugs (which would be unnecessary to do anyway under legalization) does hard time."

So you're saying that all the drug users will suddenly also become productive, wage-earning members of society and will be able to afford their drug habits? And drugs will be cheaper once the government starts taxing them?

Drug abusers CAN NOT earn enough money to support their habits because they're too high on drugs to keep a job. Legalizing drugs will NOT suddenly turn abusers into recreational users. They will still need money to support their habits, meaning we will still deal with the associated crimes like robbery and prostitution as well as a black market of cheaper home-brewed, non-taxed, drugs.

I'm sympathetic to the legalization of drugs but the argument that legalizing them suddenly means we don't have drug related crime is nonsense. And I have a hard time equating beer with meth. It's like saying Tylenol is the same as oxycontin b/c they are both pain pills.

My issue is that I am prone to allergic reactions. I can't go to the pharmacy while my eyes are swelling shut and buy an epi-pen (epinephrine) to stop the reaction. I would first need to see a doctor to prescribe the medication. Nor, can I buy the steroids (prednisone) for the six weeks after a reaction that the doctor prescribes. I could pay Wal-greens sixty dollars so a nurse can type my symptoms into a computer (which I could do myself) so she can legally write me the exact prescription that I could have walked to the pharmacist and told him I needed.

So yeah, I'm all for the legalization of marijuana, but I'd also like to be trusted enough to be able to buy the medication that would save my life.

"Do you really want to live in a country where the legal system is so unjust that if a parent, or another minor sells or gives a kid Ritalin from someone else's prescription, they do prison time but if a doctor prescribes it, it in hunky dory?"

Presumably, that Dr would have the due diligence to 1) make sure the kid isn't taking anything else that would interact with the prescribed meds and 2) make sure the kid wasn't allergic and 3) make sure the kid actually needed them (I forget the actual number, but the majority of women who buy OTC meds for a yeast infection actually have something that's not a yeast infection. if we can't get THAT right, why would self-diagnosing ADD be any different?)

You can die form mixing meds decently easily. I imagine being able to buy to buy what you wanted yourself, would increase that number. I'm not usually the sort who wants laws to protect people from their own ignorance, and I'd really like to be able to buy vicodin for my cramps and migraines without the trip to the dr that necesitates convincing her I'm not a drug-seeker, but I just don't agree with the pie-in-the-sky scenario most people for legalizing drugs spout. The cartels aren't going anywhere. Legalizing them will not stop the violence. And who would manufacture them? I can't see bayer proudly announcing they are the new maker of crack. And yes, a lot of users would still commit crimes to get the money to buy them.

"Government diverts a fraction of the money now spent on putting druggies away, to comprehensive rehab programs"

If we're going to legalize it, I should get to keep my money, not let the government simply spend it elsewhere. Period. If you're an adult who can choose what to use, you don't need others paying for your rehab for your adult choices.

"Presumably, that Dr would have the due diligence to 1) make sure the kid isn't taking anything else that would interact with the prescribed meds and 2) make sure the kid wasn't allergic and 3) make sure the kid actually needed them (I forget the actual number, but the majority of women who buy OTC meds for a yeast infection actually have something that's not a yeast infection. if we can't get THAT right, why would self-diagnosing ADD be any different?)"

Yes, that is the argument that the prescription drug cartels use to restrict the easy access to things that they benefit financially from controlling. However, my point was in response to the assertion that we should have instant jail time for giving/selling any kind of drugs to a minor and pointing out that this situation would be covered as well. However if the reason that we required a prescription for everything was to prevent drug interactions, then NSIADs such as aspirin, Tylenol,etc would and should also qualify because they kill several thousand people a year, all on their own with no drug interactions required.

So, CB, no plan?

Of course not. Yell at me. I've already said, in earlier threads, what has to happen to produce consumer-grade drugs and keep them out of the workplace; pointed out that some drugs will still be excluded; pointed out the added burden to employers, for whom employee behavior is a safety risk; I've also clearly lined out the difference between the un-Constitutional behavior of police and the irresponsibility of the lay citizen.

It should be obvious that current public behavior doesn't in any way support the assorted assertions that responsible behavior will magically appear upon "legalization" (in quotes because nobody seems to want to say what that is).

You want your drugs; I get that. Now, all you have to do is say how you'll get them. And, as you'll note (if you can read the words of others better than you are at fabricating new meanings for mine), there's no magic about that.

For a law to be repealed or modified, the law says the case must be made by the advocate of the change. That's you.

You have a comprehension problem, CB, and a big one. It is the legal system you have to impress, not me.

One more time: have at it!

By the way - just as with drunk driving, part of the legalization of alcohol, often touted as a success to be emulated, punishing the offender does NOT restore the victim.

Just remember that.

""By the way - just as with drunk driving, part of the legalization of alcohol, often touted as a success to be emulated, punishing the offender does NOT restore the victim.

Just remember that."

That is true in the entire field of criminal law, but it is not a good argument for a police state where we try and prevent as much crime as possible through preemptive lawmaking against victimless crimes in the hope to also cut down on the collateral damage from the inevitable human irresponsibility. There is no perfect solution but our current drinking laws are a vast improvement over prohibition which did nothing to cut down on drinking, had a high death rate from home production of a poorly quality controlled product, and ate up most of the crime fighting resources in most of the major cities of the US.

"Consenting adults (defined as those 18 and over) can put anything in their bodies they want."

No. You do not get to culture super bugs in your body with fistfuls of antibiotics every time you get a sniffle and then pass that shit to everyone you come in contact with.

"By the way - just as with drunk driving, part of the legalization of alcohol, often touted as a success to be emulated, punishing the offender does NOT restore the victim."

What the fuck kind of strawmanning is this. really. Legalizing alcohol has nothing at all to do with "restoring victims of drunk driving" and no one says it does. it has to do with de-funding organized crime, and it did that. The Mafia had to move into.....HEROIN!

Right now we are spending billions in the DEA budget to provide price supports to the cartels. We are funding them. We are funding the distribution of drugs, not curtailing it.

David Harsanyi makes asome pretty good points about this, importantly, there isn't, and won't ever be political will to change this:
from the Post

Isabel, I've agreed with about 99% of your comments...but while marijuana and other drugs remain illegal (and are supporting and funding Mexican drug cartels and other terrorists)it is NOT a victimless crime, not by a long shot.

I would agree with it being victimless if it were legal, but with the crap we are reading about - about Arizona ranchers being shot and killed, and boarder patrol agents being beheaded....not a victimless crime by a long shot. Any one who purchases drugs while they are still illegal should remember that.

I am for legalization, btw.

Jim is on the money.

And do you know who is against Prop 19 in California? People who grow pot illegally here. Because this is untaxed, under the table, unregulated - with hardly any market competition - income. These are the guys that voted for Obama or support liberal policies.

To those Humbolt Hippies, I kindly invite you to go fuck yourselves.

To all small business entrepreneurs, this is your chance. Napa has wineries and wine tasting ...Move into Humbolt, Sonoma and Marin Counties and produce pot and offer tastings. Make some money and create wealth - drive those two-bit anti-capitalist, smelly turds out of business - along with the Mexican drug cartels.

Miron's argument is really well-constructed and in line with other great radicals like William Buckley and Milton Friedman. I haven't seen pro-Prohibitions take on points like his and refute them logically. Their replies skip the issues presented and resort to emotional appeals to fear. Very unconvincing.

I'm voting yes on Prop 19 because this issue needs to be pushed onto the national stage. The de facto legalization of medical marijuana has shown that repealing the Prohibition will not lead to social disaster, but rather the pot industry can be put into an orderly business model not much different the liquor business.

Jacob Sullum's "Saying Yes" is a great read on the subject. If you're a liberal, check out Ethan Nadelman's point of view. Liberal, libertarian, or conservative, the strongest arguments come out on the side of repeal.

The cartels aren't going anywhere. Legalizing them will not stop the violence.

Tell me the last time you saw various mafia/ organized crime/ cartels have a St. Valentine's day massacre over alcohol?

And who would manufacture them? I can't see bayer proudly announcing they are the new maker of crack.

The same pharma companies that make your generic Tylenol (Acetaminophen), aspirin, etc. Maybe the same companies that sell tobacco.

And yes, a lot of users would still commit crimes to get the money to buy them.

Other than outliers (those that are so far down they can't beg for the $5-$10 and have additional issues) that commit a violent crime to buy a bottle of booze are an insignificant blip on the radar. What would happen if you could walk into the local "liquor" store and buy crack at the a fixed price?

In addition, if you go to S. Korea -- you can buy codeine, and other drugs OTC in the pharmacies. No scrip need.

Here's what I don't understand. It took only 14 years (from the passage of the Volstead Act in 1919 to its repeal in 1933) for alcohol prohibition to be recognized as a dismal failure and done away with. Drug prohibition is just as much of a failure, and moreover the same kind of failure, causing the same social ills (gang violence, police corruption, etc.). Yet drug prohibition has persisted for. . . I don't know how long; 50 years or more for marijuana and the opiates. Why? Are we that much stupider than our grandparents were?

Radwaste...do you really need "legalization" defined? I'm pretty sure that it means exactly what it sounds like, which is "making something legal". I hate to be the guy who says "duh"...but there it is. Now, you assert that people will not behave responsibly if "drugs" are legalized. (That is in quotes because there are quite a few products that fall into that category which have a wide array of differing effects and behavioral influences.) But lets take a look at the circumstances as they are right now.

Are all drug users violent? (I'm not including dealers in this hypothesis) The obvious answer is a resounding no. Even a cursory look at users shows that most of them are incarcerated for possession of narcotics, not some violent criminal activity. Do some users commit crimes to support their continued use of drugs? Yes. Do all of them? Again, obviously not. And lets be frank here, how many people in the 60s were not smoking weed? And of all those who were, aren't most all of them that are alive today productive citizens, parents, grandparents, and otherwise in control of their lives? So why is this fairly harmless plant banned from use? Obviously the person who smokes it and drives should be treated like a drunk driver, but other than that and other similarly irresponsible behavior which is immitatable by people who use existing legal products, where is the problem?

You say you can't picture companies producing these drugs...but before they were made illegal you could order most of them from a damn sears catalog. Bottom line, if it is legal to produce and to sell and will turn a profit, yes, companies will produce them in abundance, this is another one of those "duh" circumstances. If existing corporations do not, new ones will spring up to fill the gap and make a profit. Its nothing but stupid to think otherwise.

And in this case Radwaste, the laws in question need only be struck down by the court ruling that said laws are unconstitutional. As previously pointed out, the ban on alcohol required a constitutional ammendment, the ban on drugs never passed constitutional muster, but that issue was simply ignored. But you do make a valid point, the case can and should be made by the advocates of change, and yes, that would include myself.

But the case has already been made. Can you name me one single benefit to continuing this futile and inneffectual use of tax payer dollars?

It's also the case that major pharmaceutical companies make products that are derived from cocaine and opium that are used by doctors countless times every single day; Dilaudid is basically heroin, and cocaine compounds are used as topical anesthetics.

"Radwaste...do you really need "legalization" defined?"

No. You do.

That's because the law itself is nothing but a set of definitions: this is a crime, that is not. Definitions, when they are adopted early in the argument, aid advocacy groups and opponents in defining the steps needed to determine what that law should be and will be.

I see a lot of people wholly mistaken about some aspect of law daily, and I'm not even a lawyer: they think they've "seen the evidence" when they were not on the jury and not in court; they make up things about handgun possession law; they do not even understand the basic definition of crime, preferring instead their own inexpert opinion. No wonder there is so much discontent about the law - and that's even before the unintended consequences are tallied.

If you wish to produce and market a legal product on the street in America today, you must satisfy agencies like the USDA, FDA and ICC. You must have inspections of your production facilities to demonstrate your product. Did you know the BATFE even has final approval authority on the labeling of alcoholic beverages? (Probably not.) When shipping, the DOT will investigate your cargo for compliance with transport law.

And this is all because the public demands consumer protections. Can you name a product exempt from this - in a nation so intent on this that right here, Amy has noted the Consumer Product Safety Commission's excesses in protecting our children from eating the brake parts on dirt bikes and Hello Kitty hand-me-downs?

Name the substance you wish to abuse, and then describe how to test for it at Three Mile Island and Southwest Airlines. That process also has to conform to laws.

Laws interlock. That's not me talking - that's something you can demonstrate to yourself.

Radwaste you've said alot without arguing any point whatsoever.

Consumer protection is one of the frequently argued reasons to legalize "drugs", because people will do them whether they're legal or not, and in great numbers. Legalizing said substances will allow their safety regulation. (Incidentally, I am familiar with alcohol distribution and testing rules, but that is a whooooooole separate discussion)

So, with that settled, can you counter the aforementioned arguments? Can you give me a sound argument not to make these illegal substances legal?

We're in agreement about their current hazard to health due to their poor and unregulated production and distribution.
We're also both well aware of the constitutional problems with infringing upon the right of adults to decide for themselves what to do with their bodies.
We're also both aware of the financial cost of attempting to enforce these laws, and its obvious futility.

The arguments in favor of legalization abound.

I do not know if you're aware of just why some of these substances were made illegal in the first place, if you're not, I won't bore you, the information is out there, do a quick google on the history of drug prohibition, some of it is pretty damn sleazy.

So...lets hear your side, what purpose is there to maintaining the status quo? How do you counter the stated arguments?

Radwaste's arguments about this issue are quite clever if his intent is to avoid arguing for his convictions, which are that the criminalization of drugs is the better approach for our society.

His approach enables him to avoid the main issue – whether or not legalization plus harm reduction represents a better way to deal with the problems associated with drugs than our current police state and cartel-enabling criminalization approach – by throwing up lots of solvable but problematic details as the real concerns. It's the resistance of the technocratic incumbent.

Regardless, I haven't seen any fundamental arguments from Radwaste that he is right.

"Regardless, I haven't seen any fundamental arguments from Radwaste that he is right."

You won't - I've been trying to get one out of him for several threads on this subject now. His position is fundamentally unwinnable, so he's desperately trying to ignore anything that points out how irrational he's being.

It's also funny to note the situational nature his deep affection for US legal process. His sole argument in favor of criminalizing drugs is that they are against the law. (O mighty government in its wisdom!) But you should see him whine about laws he doesn't personally like, like the Affordable Health Care Act.

Anyone who says we should follow every law, simply because it is a law, is an evil piece of shit who would have happily supported the Fugitive Slave Act, thrown women in jail for taking birth control, etc. And that's just US laws - wonder how they feel about Uganda's death penalty for homosexual conduct?

CB, et al, you're just inventing things again.

What I have done is outline for you all what you have to do, in the legal system, to get what you want.

You can make all the excuses you want; you can claim whatever you want about what I have said here - but you will be working through the legal system to get whatever substance you want "legalized". I've put that in quotes because it's not clear that you understand that it's not just a matter of taking a pencil and crossing out a line or two you don't like in one book.

At no time, have I insisted that a law be followed simply because it is a law. What I have said is that people who break the law, as opposed to using the system to change it, are simply irresponsible.
You might be different. You might have yourself arrested, like the great Civil Rights leaders around the globe, for your cause. You might be an activist in state and Federal court. I don't think so, because you're not in the news, and you're not taking, say, cocaine, and describing the process you'd use to obtain legal use nationwide.

Which is odd. Isn't that what you want?

You want something, you have to show why it's a good idea. The guys who put the existing laws in place made their case and got those laws passed, however much you think they suck, and that's how the system works.

Yell about me some more. I notice that no one is addressing the first specific item. Pick one drug. Make your case. Pick another one. Make your case. Regardless of what you want, that's what you have to do. What, no crystal meth? Heroin? LSD? How, again, do you keep these out of the pilot's seat?

--------

Now to illustrate plain dishonesty:

"It's also funny to note the situational nature his deep affection for US legal process."

False. I have no "affection" for this process. You are attempting to lie about my position to minimize it. What I am doing is repeating something you cannot escape: you must use that process to modify existing law - or, you simply do not have "legalization".

"His sole argument in favor of criminalizing drugs is that they are against the law."

False. I am not arguing for such a thing, because they are already illegal. If you fail at so basic an observation, no wonder you cannot observe other matters of logic or practicality. Another practical observation is much simpler: if "responsible" behavior would follow "legalization", just who would engage in said behavior, seeing as current drug users are lawbreakers?

Again: it is clear that some drugs MUST be excluded from some workplaces. Current liability laws make employers pay for the misdeeds of their employees. Are you going to change that, or introduce a practical means of testing for your favored substance?

"(O mighty government in its wisdom!)"

Your term, not mine. Laws follow, not lead, an issue. Current protests are the third round of commentary on the drugs-in-America issue. First was a problem, however hyped; second was the legislation and initial enforcement; now, we look at the results and wonder, "What next?". You've been beaten to the punch by people who had a point of view opposite yours, that's all. Perhaps they were active while you were doing, er, something else. That's why those people get to smoke tobacco and drink, and you don't get to use the drug(s) you want. Their cases were made. You are the supplicant now. You have to make yours.

"But you should see him whine about laws he doesn't personally like, like the Affordable Health Care Act."

Another classy jab (not). You'll notice that I am not advocating law-breaking. Apparently, on the drug issue, you're completely OK with that.

-----

I am not arguing that law enforcement, much less the legislative process, is angelic or even particularly correct. Don't lie about me and say that I am. I am not agitating for more drugs to be legal. I protest the policies which burden the innocent at a distance from the crime. This consists of more effective controls, not a blanket statement calling for some Utopian state where pure drugs magically appear on demand.

The bottom line: you, the supplicant, must provide the solution, not just objections to current drug policy, however it is deranged.

By the way - "more effective controls" is NOT the same as "more controls".

----

I know people personally who are suffering from nicotine and alcohol addiction, and I have friends who have died in misery after they made the choice to partake of those legally available substances.

Now, here's a question firmly attached to the entire question of what the purpose of public policy might be:

Is that what you want for your friends?

That's what legal availability provides. Some of your friends can't make the right choice. Some of them can't know they have a vulnerability to addictive properties of some substance. When you let them make the choice - to use a completely unnecessary substance - you're going to watch the result.

So, when you talk about drugs - hopefully, you'll start talking about a specific one soon - just be ready for that. Hand your best friend that drug and stand back. You'll be doing her a favor, having handed her the right to choose. Right?

But the result won't be just about you.

Is that what you want for your friends?

People abuse alcohol, but we don't deny alcohol to all because of it. That didn't work and drug prohibition didn't work.

I know, Amy, but that's both an illustration of what doesn't work AND the regulatory environment which must attend the legal marketing of anything more.

For alcohol, the campaigns to reduce use are more effective than a law - which, as we see here, are seen by some as for other people. Usage campaigns make the issue more personal and apply more continuous social pressure than a law can.

Tobacco's a better example of how ridiculous the law is than alcohol. States which regulated, taxed and subsidized tobacco production were then allowed to stand aside in the Great Tobacco Lawsuits. And this for a substance RJ Reynolds now says is not safe in any amount.

Marijuana
Cocaine
Heroin
PCP
Methamphetamine
LSD

There's no argument that their effects are different. There's no argument about the abuse of prescription drugs, either, which actually pose a bigger safety problem to industry - nobody wants to miss work and be thought of as a slacker, so they show up loopy.

But to pass a measure, you have to show the complete picture, that's all.