A safer society? Legalize drugs

The Boston Globe ^ | June 6, 2006 | Bill Fried

[LowCountryJoe]

Meanwhile, politicians puff sanctimoniously about ``cleaning the streets" and ``ridding the projects of drug dealers

[tpaine]

SoftballMominVA wrote:

I did read the article--every single word. I strongly believe that drug use is just another symptom of a society looking for a quick and easy fix to what is going on in their lives.

Society took the "quick and easy fix" by criminalizing & prohibiting drugs beginning a hundred years ago. Prohibitions don't work.

Regulating access to drugs, just as we reasonably regulate booze, is the best we can do in a free republic.
Prohibitions are the the worse thing we can do ~against ~ our republic; they violate due process of law.

This whole thread started with a question of whether or not illegal drugs should be legalized and controlled by the government. I disagree with this premise.

'Bold' erroneous premise. Drugs were not "illegal" till government prohibitions. I disagree that prohibition is legal/constitutional.

I believe that the overwhelming majority of Americans do not use illegal substances daily, weekly or even monthly. Therefore, if the majority does not use illegal drugs, then this action is not normal or mainstream.
By legalizing illegal drugs, the government puts a stamp of approval on the use of these drugs.

By criminalizing and prohibiting drugs, the government in effect put a 'stamp of approval' on a black market in these drugs.

Rather than play word games, you would be a stronger debater by focusing on the issue, not personal questions or twisting my use of the word "drug" to mean all types of medications, illegal substances, alcohol and tobacco.

The ~issue~ is socalled "illegal" substances and the word games used to justify prohibitions on them.

The issue is legalization of drugs such as marijuana, heroin, cocaine and whatever else is the drug of the month. Do you support legalizing, controlling, and/or decriminalizing what drugs are now considered illegal?

I support the US Constitution, which does not empower any level of government to prohibit life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
Making & enforcing prohibitions [on drugs,- or any type of property ] violate due process. -- Reasonable regulations do not.

[Protagoras]

They are all "reasonably regulated" -- in that mecca of organized crime, Las Vegas.

You are living in the past.

Any "legitimate business interests" to be found in Las Vegas?

Most. In fact, many cities have higher crime rates and more "illegitimate" businesses.

[DungeonMaster]

More drugs = more AIDS.

[Diamond]

Do we legalize all drugs? Do they get regulated by the feds? Are there going to be strength and purity standards? If there are going to be strength and purity standards, won't another black market open making stronger drugs?

Great questions. And how about age limits? If there is an age limit then there is a black market for illegal drugs.

Cordially,

[robertpaulsen]

"And third, alcohol causes far more harm than all other drugs combined, except perhaps health problems from cigarettes. But yet you don't seem willing to discuss it here."

What does alcohol and cigarettes have to do with the discussion about illegal recreational drugs? Unless you're saying that their use would decrease if we legalized drugs.

Is that what you're saying?

[Protagoras]

More drugs = more AIDS.

More anal sex = more AIDS.

More needle sharing = more AIDS.

How do you contract AIDS by smoking pot?

[tpaine]

You're using it in a word game to establish that government in the USA can prohibit recreational drugs "legally".

No word game necessary. The government may legally (ie., constitutionally) prohibit any drug, recreational or not. And they have.

Pitiful.. - You 'beg that question' instead of proving your point. -- Where do you find a delegated 'power to prohibit' in the Constitution? [see the 10th]

[robertpaulsen]

"Where do you find a delegated 'power to prohibit' in the Constitution? [see the 10th]"

No question begging necessary. The power to regulate includes the power to prohibit. So says the US Supreme Court. Need a link to a court case?

[dirtboy]

What does alcohol and cigarettes have to do with the discussion about illegal recreational drugs?

Why, examining the rationale for making illegal drugs illegal. Namely, that they cause harm - the point you are making in justifying them being illegal.

But booze causes far more harm than pot.

Unless you're saying that their use would decrease if we legalized drugs.

No, but you are saying that keeping illegal drugs illegal decreases their use. And they should be illegal because they are harmful. Using that logic, you should also be calling for alcohol to be illegal, because it causes a lot of harm and making it illegal would decrease use and therefore harm.

[Protagoras]

What does alcohol and cigarettes have to do with the discussion about illegal recreational drugs?

You can run but you cannot hide.

Is alcohol OK because it's legal?

BTW, you ever use alcohol?

[tpaine]

If instead they were all reasonably regulated, organized crime would have had to compete with legitimate business interests. -- And freedom would have won.

They are all "reasonably regulated" -- in that mecca of organized crime, Las Vegas.

Yes bobby, they are, and millions of people visit Vegas freely, making you prohibitionists look like 'Mecca' loving zealots.

Any "legitimate business interests" to be found in Las Vegas?

There you go again, bob, showing us your moral absolutism. Would you 'ban' Vegas?
Does Congress have such a power?

[A CA Guy]

I don't know that prohibition of alcohol didn't work. I think you had less cases of drinking and new alcoholics during such a time.

A prohibition by it's very nature will cause less use of something.

Let's say there is a prohibition of the color RED.
I bet if there were fines attached that there would be almost no Red around in public during such prohibition times.

I'm not saying anything regarding the merits of a prohibition past or present in this post, but do want to point out logic to you that when there is a prohibition on an activity, that activity will happen less often.

(Simple example) There is a prohibition regarding non-students on high school campuses.
There are in many cases fences and perhaps even a guard or two at schools to enforce the laws.
Well, to some extent that works, but some non-students still try to get in.
That is the simple nature of criminally, just as we have outside drug dealers trying to get their illegal stuff to our lands.
The prohibition on illegal drugs from especially other countries to here does have some success, for without it you would be flooded with stuff. With it the flow is reduced.

[SaveTheChief]

Now you did it. You made all the libertarians pee their pants.

[RobRoy]

>>Another example of normalizing deviancy<<

You could look at it that way. I don't. I see it as legalizing stupid behavior. The cost of making some things illegal (like alcohol) have been devastating to our culture. Just imagine, what on earth would all the cops do if drugs were a fraction of their current cost and taxed to boot.

Really play this forward and think about the ramifications, both positive and negative of keeping drugs illegal, and making them controlled like alcohol.

[robertpaulsen]

"Namely, that they (illegal drugs) cause harm"

Set up the strawman and ....

"But booze causes far more harm than pot."

.... knock it down.

Illegal drugs are prohibited for a number of reasons, harm being only one.

"but you are saying that keeping illegal drugs illegal decreases their use."

Yes I am. Are you saying that illegal drug use would not increase if they were made legal? Why do you even question my point when you agree with it?

"Using that logic, you should also be calling for alcohol to be illegal, because it causes a lot of harm ..."

Again, that's not the logic being used. If it was, all chemotherapy drugs would be illegal because they're extremely dangerous and harmful.

"... and making it illegal would decrease use and therefore harm."

That's true, it would. But we tried that once and it didn't work. Why should we do that again? Isn't that the definition of insanity -- repeating exactly the same thing and expecting a different result?

[Badray]

During daylight hours, there are lots more sober drivers than drunk ones, for sure.

Now, look at the numbers from 10 PM to 3 AM and the numbers are reversed. Not all are drunk, but most have probably been drinking. I say that based solely on causual observation. Drive around any city or town during the evening hours and take note of where the cars are parked.

Churches, shopping centers, car dealers, dry cleaners, you name it, their lots are empty. Now check the bar, tavern, saloon, and restaurant parking lots. If alcohol, per se, was as bad as the drinking nazis claim, we'd all be dead because 'impairment starts with the first drink'.

I am not disagreeing at all with your point that booze leads to more deaths than pot. You are right. I'm just pointing out that booze isn't as bad as some claim either. And .10 is still way too low, except for perhaps a warning ticket. .12 to .15 sounds about right to me and I hate checkpoints too.

[54-46 Was My Number]

If instead they were all reasonably regulated, organized crime would have had to compete with legitimate business interests. -- And freedom would have won.

I was discussing a very specific case, my friend: a case in which the legalization of a certain drug may have prevented this Eddie from becoming a bum. I am of the opinion that drug legalization would play no part in the "bummification" of a large number of dangerous drug users---they'd be bums regardless. Thus, the issue is moot, unless you want to consider a different case.

[dirtboy]

Illegal drugs are prohibited for a number of reasons, harm being only one.

That's the main reason you are citing here.

If it was, all chemotherapy drugs would be illegal because they're extremely dangerous and harmful.

Wrong. Chemotherapy drugs are used because the alternative, dying of cancer, is worse. Talk about strawmen.

That's true, it would. But we tried that once and it didn't work. Why should we do that again? Isn't that the definition of insanity -- repeating exactly the same thing and expecting a different result?

Funny, that is exactly what folks here are saying about the war on drugs. But you maintain a double standard.

[robertpaulsen]

"Is alcohol OK because it's legal?"

That does seem to be the case.

Although teens admit that illegal marijuana is easier for them to obtain than alcohol, teens use alcohol 2:1 over marijuana. They get the message loud and clear that alcohol is not so bad.

"BTW, you ever use alcohol?"

Yes, I had a cut on my finger once, and the alcohol cleaned that right up. Why do you ask?

[dirtboy]

I'm just pointing out that booze isn't as bad as some claim either.

I raise the issue of booze for two reasons - one to question why pot is illegal when booze is not, and the second to discuss the concept of a risk threshhold for making an activity illegal. You have said you believe the risk threshhold for DUI should be .12 to .15. Do you think, then, that there should also be certain risk threshholds for hard drugs, such as the fact that drugs such as meth are fast tracks to some very serious problems, both for users and those around them?

My position overall is that the feds should not be in the business of regulating pot and it should be decriminalized. But I don't think legalization is a good idea for hard drugs such as meth because of the risk threshhold - not just for the users, but others around them. If a meth user just stayed home and smoked himself to death, I would feel differently. But that isn't how it works.