ZOT: How Do We End The War On Drugs?

about.com ^ | Andrew Somers

[LeGrande]

I take it from your lack of replies that you agree that you do not have a good grasp of history, and that you were wrong about the pilgrims not knowing about opiates.

Also you agree that you are wrong on your stances on alchohol and drugs. Alchohol is a terrible drug and any rational person would make it illegal when compared to almost any other drug. Your stance is simply blatant hypocrisy.

You can run but you will just die tired : ) You can't hide from me either.

[robertpaulsen]

"In the meantime, take the $$ we currently spend building prisons for nonviolent offenders, and spend it on anti-drug education instead."

You realize, of course, that this does absolutely nothing to reduce the size of government. All it does is take money from one program and spend it on another.

I guess big government is OK as long as it is your big government.

[CSM]

"Even in your example, people drive from a "dry" town to purchase their alcohol then drive home with it."

Are you trying to say that we don't have dry towns or dry counties in this country? If not, are you saying that people in those towns and counties don't drive to other areas to purchase alcohol? Or are you in agreement with the example?

[robertpaulsen]

"Of course, I have the opinion that most laws passed and enforced are not in the best interest of society, rather they are about revenue generation."

My opinion is that most laws are passed because the people look to the government to "do something" about a problem. Passing additional laws is their solution.

[robertpaulsen]

Why do I have to keep repeating myself? And why do you keep putting words in my mouth -- this is the second time. Once more, and that's it.

Pay attention. I never said anything about "the pilgrims not knowing about opiates". Ever. Got it?

I said that opiates were never part of the American culture. People did not sit around the Thanksgiving table "chasing the dragon".

Alcohol and tobacco have always been part of our culture. They are legal products. I could give a FF how "dangerous" they are compared to other drugs -- that is not how we decide what drugs are legal and what drugs are not.

[robertpaulsen]

I acknowledge the fact that we have dry towns/counties. I stated that some people in "dry" towns/counties drive to "wet" towns/counties to purchase alcohol and bring it back home.

I gave this as an example of what would happen, on a much larger scale, if some states legalized drugs and others didn't.

[CSM]

"I gave this as an example of what would happen, on a much larger scale, if some states legalized drugs and others didn't."

And what negative aspect does this carry? Why is it acceptable to allow for State's rights regarding one substance and not another? Should we restrict Americans from traveling to countries that allow the used of drugs? That would ensure that no American would be exposed to any drug that is illegal in the US.

[Johnny_Cipher]

Then why are you on this thread?

Because posting to a Smokey Backroom thread is not necessarily one of those "third rails."

[CSM]

"My opinion is that most laws are passed because the people look to the government to "do something" about a problem. Passing additional laws is their solution."

I will ask you the same question I posed to _Jim. Who gets to define the "problem"? Are we planning to live under the tyranny of the majority? By that token, we would have to say that zero tolerance laws make sense because they took care of a "problem". We would have to say that abortion laws are OK, because they took care of a "problem". Should we just blindly support laws, because people expect the government to "do something" to take care of a "problem".

[robertpaulsen]

I was stating my opinion that most laws are passed in order to show the public that the politicians are "doing something about the problem". I never said I agreed with it -- actually, I disagree with that approach.

I wish more politicians had the cojones to say that the problem isn't theirs to fix.

[robertpaulsen]

And what negative aspect does this carry?

It wasn't meant to convey any aspect.

It was meant to point out that leaving the drug decision to the states would not be the same as leaving the alcohol decision the the states. Alcohol is legal in every state. I doubt that drugs would be.

It foolish for some people to say, "Leave the decision to the states" as though that solves some kind of problem. It doesn't. We would end up with the "dry town" "wet town" scenario on a much larger scale.

Actually, I can see the eventuality of an even larger WOD, as each "dry" state requests the federal government for border assistance.

[CSM]

"I wish more politicians had the cojones to say that the problem isn't theirs to fix."

We are on the same page on this one, thanks for the clarification.

[LeGrande]

Lets see if I understand you correctly.

Alcohol and tobacco are fine because they have been part of the American culture since the pilgrims. The pilgrims were drunk smokers so it is fine for all of us to be drunk smokers. If the Pilgrims had been high on crack cocaine, then crack would be fine according to your reasoning.

How dangerous drugs are, or aren't, doesn't matter in the least to you. All that matters is what the law says.

So I guess if the law gets changed to decriminalize a few more drugs then you won't have a problem with that will you? Since you can't objectively state why one drug should be preferred over another.

[CSM]

"Actually, I can see the eventuality of an even larger WOD, as each "dry" state requests the federal government for border assistance."

I don't think this would be a wise use of the fed. government. If a state decided to remain "dry" then they should be required to fund the actions necessary themselves. If the cost of keeping it dry becomes to heavy, they would be required to change their policies. If the citizens of that state feel it is worth the additional cost to remain "dry" then they should fund it themselves.

[robertpaulsen]

"If a state decided to remain "dry" then they should be required to fund the actions necessary themselves."

Somehow, the existing law would have to be changed to turn the drug decision over to the states. A "dry" state will not vote for change unless it can get some protection -- if not, why even vote to support it?

My guess is that turning over the drug decision to the states would require a constitutional amendment. Bear in mind that the 21st amendment not only repealed the 18th, it also authorized each state to make their own laws regarding alcohol.

[CSM]

If an ammendment is necessary to grant control to the states over the decision, where is the ammendment that seized this control? The argument has always been the interpretation of the wonderful "commerce clause", a more accurate interpretation is all that is necessary, not an ammendment.

[robertpaulsen]

Chemotherapy drugs are very dangerous. They can, and do, kill people. Should they be banned?

"Since you can't objectively state why one drug should be preferred over another.

Sure I can. How about this:

"21 USCS Section 811. Authority and criteria for classification of substances.

c) Factors determinative of control or removal from schedules. In making any finding under subsection (a) of this section or under subsection (b) of section 202 [21 USCS Section 812(b)], the Attorney General shall consider the following factors with respect to each drug or other substance proposed to be controlled or removed from the schedules:

(1) Its actual or relative potential for abuse.
(2) Scientific evidence of its pharmacological effect, if known.
(3) The state of current scientific knowledge regarding the drug or other substance.
(4) Its history and current pattern of abuse.
(5) The scope, duration, and significance of abuse.
(6) What, if any, risk there is to the public health.
(7) Its psychic or physiological dependence liability.
(8) Whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a substance already controlled under this title.

Pretty darn objective, huh? I can live with it. Can you, or would you like to offer some changes?

[GLDNGUN]

I don't think I've ever seen a post more devoid of logic and reasoning, and based in mere personal opinion (in the form of your loaded questions) than yours.

And I don't think I've ever seen a post with such a pathetic excuse for a non-response. The problem with my questions is not that they are devoid of logic and reasoning, but that are full of too much logic and reasoning for you to handle. Don't worry, I expected as much from someone pushing the for legalization and free supply of narcotics.

[_Jim]

Five posts earlier, you cite Willam F. Buckley as pro-legalization

Five (?) posts earlier I quoted WFB as desiring the scaffold (and, presumably, a rope). What exactly did your brain tell you your eyes saw?

[GLDNGUN]

Utopia is not an option. And I have no intention of becoming embroiled in a flame war with you over the same old tired nonsense. UTOPIA? LOL Of course not! I am trying to keep the country from getting flushed down the toilet. Forget your UTOPIA! And YOU are the one who brought up "the same old tired nonsense". Keep brining it up and you will continue to get banged over the head with common sense.