Replies

I find it comforting that the only justifications trotted out for banning some drugs but not others arrives in the form of easily refuted analogies.

Why is the speed limit 30mph in some places and 100mph in others? Because of the risk one poses to others depending on the road conditions.

Why is alcohol legal but marijuana and cocaine are illegal? It's certainly not because of any risk to others. And it is certainly not in proportion to the magnitude of harm to the self. Are you in favor of seat belt laws?

I can predict that your response will refer to some sort of correlation between illegal drugs and violent and/or economic crime (i.e., real crime). Besides reminding you that using the fruits of prohibition to justify continued prohibition is a circular argument, I might also remind you that the American tradition is not to punish people based on crimes that they might commit. If a junkie or crackhead robs or steals, punish them for robbing and/or stealing.

There is no need to make being a junkie or crackhead a crime in and of itself. And there is certainly no need to criminalize responsible marijuana smokers, as there was never a need to criminalize responsible alcohol drinkers, based on the presumption that some people might act irresponsibly while using those substances.

Have you ever noticed that we didn't have a drug problem before the War on Drugs? It might have something to do with market forces pushing the supply towards extremely potent products that are more easily concealed and have a higher profit density.

Nixon, the mastermind of the WoD, was an advocate of methadone treatment for heroin addicts. Even he recognized that opiate dependency, once entered, was far more effectively treated as a medical issue than as a criminal justice issue.

Marijuana was very nearly decriminalized at the federal level in the late 70's (until Stroup screwed up on a personal level). We have not learned anything new about marijuana in the past thirty years, yet policy has shifted from tolerance to crusade. Why is that? Is there any rational basis for it?

I think the answer has something to do with people that hate freedom. Many people do, but they won't admit it to themselves. They truly believe they are serving the interests of freedom by locking adults in cages, for nothing more than choosing to ingest the incorrect plant or chemical compound. The rationale is that, after all, drugs steal your mind and enslave it, so we are serving freedom by caging you and presumably preventing access to your plant or chemical of choice, freeing you from your TRUE captor. (In effect, this has a dubious level of success.)

Let's see, which situation do I enjoy more freedom in? One in which I have entered into a pitiful condition by willfully ingesting a dependency-forming substance; or in a socially funded jail cell or mandatory treatment, with my possessions and bank accounts stolen, my student aid revoked, my housing rescinded, my children removed, and with a permanent criminal record, on an offenders list, and perhaps no right to vote to change the injustice I've received?

To address the inevitable personal attacks, I make no secret of the fact that I imbibe in certain substances for recreational, medical and/or spiritual reasons. There is no reason to mention which substances, because there is no moral distinction between them, only artificial distinctions based on a superficial technical understanding of each and a heavy helping of general paranoia - and indignation toward anyone who would be so audacious as to temporarily alter their experience of life, and value this experience enough to place it above obeying the laws of man.

Life's short. Face it - ruining others' lives because they choose to experience it in a different fashion than you is indefensible. When someone has threatened or harmed you, they have wronged you. When you feel that someone *may* threaten or harm you based on nothing more than the way they conduct themselves, that is called paranoia. Seek help.

Or better yet, educate yourself. Sometimes the only way to understand your fellow man is to walk a mile in his shoes. But only do this if you are prepared for the revelation that you will receive. It may be staggering in its profundity, or it may be staggering in its triviality. To make this suggestion requires some amount of chutzpah, but think about it; a bunch of virgins regulating sex would be the height of absurdity, but we think nothing of taking this absurd approach when it comes to defining drug policy.

Isn't that odd?

One of your many mistakes is in thinking that I don't understand you. I fully understand your ability to walk away from people, past people, or over people, because you feel no obligation to do otherwise. Indeed, I understand your ability to watch people die from idiocy "because idiots deserve to die". I don't think it makes for a decent human being, but I understand it. Its a smugness that is born of arrogance.

I've lived long enough to meet many, many people just like you. To care not and to be hampered not is their utopia. Damn the rest.

Drug laws are not arbitrary. They are set by a majority who find that certain behavior brings an unacceptable level of evil in the destruction and death of human life. My analogies are dead on. A society with social norms is not a de facto police state. The ability to draw a distinction between heroin and coffee is not a sign of hypocrisy, it is a sign of higher intelligence.

Your inability to light up a crack pipe anytime, anyplace you like, is not my constitutional emergency. I'm certainly not going to squander credibility for actual Constitutional issues on it.

Now, go read your "High Times" and plot to win back your Constitutional right to kill brain cells (hmmm...I wonder if that is in play here?). I'll be concentrating on Constitutional matters that don't revolve around self-destruction.

I reread your post to which my 206 was a reply. I was overly harsh. You threw a nasty jab or two at me, but I
reacted too harshly. By and large you were making a reasoned argument, and I should have responded the same.

Another lesson for me, never post at 1AM when recovering from surgery. It appears to make me grumpy. My apology to you.

In many respects I would say you are wrong about legalization. In some respects I would agree. In any respect, I think legalization would create a nightmare as it relates to policing drug (medicinal and recreational) quality, testing, and effectiveness. There are many drugs which are quite lethal (Tylenol) if taken in not necessarily large doses. Are you going to legalize some drugs, but not others, for over the counter sales?

You stated that before the WOD we had no drug problem. This is simply wrong. Morphine and opium had been heavily abused for over a hundred years. Of course, alcohol was a larger factor as well. But one of the reasons it lacked the enforcement was that there simply weren't that many medicinal drugs available. The growth of a real pharmaceutical science and the need to protect it from moving back to snake oil is the largest reason to regulate.

You might like to see marijuana or cocaine legal, but will the manufacturer be immune from lawsuits? The class actions against BIG CRACK would be interesting to follow. But what would you do about the plethora of designer over the counter drugs that would hit the market. Would you make a headache pill that works instantly, but kills your liver illegal?

You make a big mistake by insulting those who disagree with you as simple minded, freedom hating, puritans. I've been thinking about this for 20 years, and I've never been sold on the quick fix idea of legalization.