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]

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

No question begging necessary.

You can't answer, so you deny. Typical.

The power to regulate includes the power to prohibit.

You lost that debate on the "Drugs/Gun FR Poll" thread. -- Need a link?

So says the US Supreme Court. Need a link to a court case?

Nope, seeing the USSC has made a ~lot~ of dubious opinions over the years. -- Only you big gov activists would dispute that.

[DungeonMaster]

How do you contract AIDS by smoking pot?

If we were playing chess I realize I just made a move that is very easy to counter. Drugs don't increase the instance of unprotected sex anymore than alcohol. Time for a new strategery.

[54-46 Was My Number]

If a meth user just stayed home and smoked himself to death, I would feel differently. But that isn't how it works.

Precisely: the substances in question are different, as are the people who use them. These substances cause different effects, they effect users differently, etc. Is it any surprise, really, that a one-size-fits-all policy cannot solve this problem?

[tpaine]

We smelled fresh meat. A lot of you old anti-libertarians are getting pretty rancid.

[investigateworld]

The very last sentence gave away the arguement "Full legalization and control"

So what control?

Having observed the WOD, I realize it's plowing the sea so to speak. Just remove all tax payer supplied goodies (welfare, free medical etc), then let the herd thin it's self. May sound cold, but addiction is a self made choice.
Government, if even well intended cannot undo bad choices.

[SoftballMominVA]

Then you and I (and others obviously) have a fundamental disagreement about this issue. You can nitpick at any statement that I bring up, but you will only be preaching to your choir and influencing me not one whit. And vice-versa.

If you will allow me to use a religious reference--I once heard a minister state that there were certain things in his religion that he would die over, fight over and fuss over. To me, this is not an issue I would die for.

[Protagoras]

That does seem to be the case.

I see, so you seem to think it's OK to be puking drunk but not gigglingly high?

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

Ever imbibe any alcoholic beverage of any kind?

I ask to establish your credibility.

[Protagoras]

Ok

[robertpaulsen]

"And .10 is still way too low, except for perhaps a warning ticket. .12 to .15 sounds about right to me"

You make an excellent point here.

The pro-marijuana people on this forum say that a lot of time and money is being wasted on arresting, convicting, and incarcerating 750,000 marijuana users each year. Legalize marijuana and that number is reduced -- I say reduced instead of eliminated because, currently, 30% of marijuana users are underage and would still be arrested if marijuana was legal.

But we arrest double that number, 1.5 million, for DUI's, and I'd guess the bulk of them were under .12. Where's the outrage? Look at all the waste of time and money and resources, and look how easy it would be to simply go back to .12 where it used to be not that long ago.

I mean, assuming the real reason is to make better use of law enforcement, that is.

[Bryan24]

This is insane.

Why is alcohol regulated? Because the use of it will cause you to lose motor function proficiency and slows down cognative skills.

Why is cocaine regulated? Use of it will cause:

anxiety
panic
bloody nose
increased energy
talking rapidly
rapid pulse and respirations
paranoia
confusion
dilated pupils
hallucinations
altered motor activities (tremors, hyperactivity)
stuffiness and runny nose

How about marijuana?

Sleepiness

Difficulty keeping track of time, impaired or reduced short-term memory

Reduced ability to perform tasks requiring concentration and coordination, such as driving a car

Increased heart rate

Potential cardiac dangers for those with preexisting heart disease

Bloodshot eyes

Dry mouth and throat

Decreased social inhibitions

Paranoia, hallucinations

Impaired or reduced short-term memory

Impaired or reduced comprehension

Altered motivation and cognition, making the acquisition of new information difficult

Paranoia

Psychological dependence

Impairments in learning, memory, perception, and judgment - difficulty speaking, listening effectively, thinking, retaining knowledge, problem solving, and forming concepts

Intense anxiety or panic attacks


So why would we want to legalize these drugs? There is NO NEED for cocaine. None. There is no "good" to outweighs it's bad.

I wish some of these people would grow a brain.

[robertpaulsen]

"The power to regulate includes the power to prohibit."
"You lost that debate on the "Drugs/Gun FR Poll" thread"

I didn't realize that the interpretation of the Commerce Clause was done by a FR poll. That sounds too much like "rule of man" vs. "rule of law"

".Nope, seeing the USSC has made a ~lot~ of dubious opinions over the years"

Be that as it may, Marbury v Madison says that the dubious opinion stands. The power to regulate includes the power to prohibit -- no question begging necessary.

[dirtboy]

Alcohol does a lot more than just impact your motor skills - long-term health effects from alcohol abuse kill tens of thousands of people every year. And booze causes a lot of problems with domestic violence.

Pot IMO causes far less harm than alcohol, and it's stupid for the feds to usurp powers to prohibit it - it should be left to the states to decide.

I am not in disagreement with you regarding cocaine or meth or other hard drugs.

[tpaine]

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

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.

Then you and I (and others obviously) have a fundamental disagreement about this issue.

We have a fundamental disagreement about our Constitution.

You can nitpick at any statement that I bring up, but you will only be preaching to your choir and influencing me not one whit. And vice-versa.

Feel free to consider my counters on constitutional issues as a "nitpick", -- but be aware that you are only fooling yourself about your own freedoms.

If you will allow me to use a religious reference--I once heard a minister state that there were certain things in his religion that he would die over, fight over and fuss over. To me, this is not an issue I would die for.

Part of the whole drug issue is that many of your peers are indeed dying over it; -- on the streets & in jail. And our whole republican form of government is being subverted because of it..

[robertpaulsen]

"Just remove all tax payer supplied goodies (welfare, free medical etc), then let the herd thin it's self."

How about we do that first, then legalize drugs? Otherwise, well, it may not get done, right?

[Bryan24]

IMO, the impact on society from alcohol use/abuse is one of the tragic stories in this nation's history.

The cost each year is absolutely staggering.

[Protagoras]

There is no "good" to outweighs it's bad.

Individual liberty and Personal responsibility.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
No Nannystate.

There are more.

[xpertskir]

This is a very difficult question based on both the social and economics effects. I would say that the economic effects would be incredibly beneficial. One cost that the former posts did not consider is the ENORMOUS amount of money the government spends on the "war" on drugs. I want to say that on marijuana alone they spend almost 4 trillion dollars every 5 years(ballpark statistic don't quote me) regardless of how much it is a ton of "wasted" money. So if the government stopped spending this money and instead started receiving tax revenue from the sale of these drugs it would create an incredible surplus of funds.

Now to the social cost. As far as social programs--I do not believe that their cost would increase post legalization. Because I do not think that irresponsible drug use would increase after legalization. In fact I believe that responsible drug use would increase. These "responsible" drug users would not add costs to the state but would subsidize the irresponsible drug users through the tax on the drugs they purchase.


Now for the question, do you legalize all drugs?

Even in The Netherlands they only legalize "soft" drugs. I do not think that it makes sense to say do whatever drugs you want(even though my libertarian leanings want me to say it). I would say keep heroine, cocaine, and their derivatives illegal.

As a person with much experience with this topic I feel confident in my evaluation although I am open to suggestions.

[robertpaulsen]

"I see, so you seem to think it's OK to be puking drunk but not gigglingly high?"

Why, that wasn't your question at all. You asked, "Is alcohol OK because it's legal".

Wow! You ask one question, I answer it honestly, then you turn right around and interpret it totally differently. Gee, I don't know if I can trust responding to your questions.

"Ever imbibe any alcoholic beverage of any kind? I ask to establish your credibility."

Uh-oh. See? Another question from you where you'll just twist my answer.

Credibility? Gee, if I drink then I'm a hypocrite and if I don't I have no credibility. I don't believe you when you say you're simply trying to establish my credibility.

So, sorry. I refuse to answer your question -- no matter how many times you ask it. I simply don't trust you.

[Protagoras]

I am not in disagreement with you regarding cocaine or meth or other hard drugs.

The development and popularization of which were caused by the prohibition of the less harmful ones.

[dirtboy]

The development and popularization of which were caused by the prohibition of the less harmful ones.

I agree entirely there. With pot selling for over $200 an ounce, kids nowadays are often doing harder drugs that are cheaper. I personally would rather kids do weed than meth or ectasy or coke or heroin, if they are going to do drugs. But our federal drug policy has had the opposite effect.