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

[investigateworld]

I've spent a lot of time chatting with the Free Trade/Anything for a buck crowd, so I've become a bit colder in my old age.

But I'm still prepared to help those, who through no fault of their own, need public assistance (for a limited time till they develop whatever)

But if the herd gets thinned via willingness to ingest drugs, it will make what's left over easier to pay for.

One thing few are willing to talk about is the whole drug sub culture. In my younger days , I worked U/C and know the mindset. Even if everything was legal, they'd still steal-whore-whatever to get their score. It's part and parcel of the druggie life.

[freepatriot32]

Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here

[robertpaulsen]

"Pot IMO causes far less harm than alcohol"

True, but legalizing pot will have ZERO effect on the existing harm caused by alcohol. All we will be doing is adding to the overall harm.

Now, if you had some study that said that if we legalized pot then alcohol users would switch to pot, well, now you've got my attention. Now you're starting to make sense. Now, maybe we should give this some serious thought.

But that is not the case. And you've admitted this will not happen. And it won't.

So why do you continue to bring up this worthless and time-consuming comparison between the relative harm caused by alcohol vs marijuana?

[jmc813]

The problem with that theory is, hard working tax payers wind up having to support those drugged out individuals who "aren't infringing on others natural rights".

That's because of you "compassionate conservatives" who believe in welfare. Us loserdopians favor cutting off welfare completely. Would you be willing to make that compromise?

[PaxMacian]

"All we will be doing is adding to the overall harm."

This is what we are doing when we continue to wage an unconstitutional
war upon our own citizenry for possessing, protecting or propagating a
gift from God.

[Protagoras]

Gee, I don't know if I can trust responding to your questions.

Nice try. The truth is, you are a afraid of the answer, not the question.

You are a hypocrite. And you always have been. You call for honesty from your opponents but never exhibit it yourself. You use nonsensical statistics and mislead about what others say.

A person who uses a mood altering substance of one kind but constantly rails against a less harmful kind must confront the truth that they have no credibility on the issue. And every logical person who reads the answer has to conclude that. That sinks your leaky boat.

AND THAT, is why you will never answer. That's the truth.

[dirtboy]

True, but legalizing pot will have ZERO effect on the existing harm caused by alcohol.

But, once again, alcohol causes FAR more harm that pot. So why, then, do the feds make it illegal, to the point of incarceration, whereas the much more harmful drug, alcohol, can be sold and used legally?

So why do you continue to bring up this worthless and time-consuming comparison between the relative harm caused by alcohol vs marijuana?

Because it shows what a rank hypocrite you are with your position here. After all, your core concern is the harm illegal drugs cause. Well, you are like Bill Clinton getting after the Serbs while ignoring al Qaeda when it come to pot. If you are so concerned about countering harm, why don't you campaign to bring back Prohibition? And heck, in this day and age, you wouldn't even need a Constitutional amendment. Just have Congress outlaw it.

[Protagoras]

Even if everything was legal, they'd still steal-whore-whatever to get their score. It's part and parcel of the druggie life.

Substantially less stealing and whoring is required to buy a bottle of Ripple for a $1.20.

[investigateworld]

Correct, but I thought we were talking about 'drugs', not something presently legal.

Ironically, many druggies who survive into the middle forties, do end up nursing a bottle of Mad Dog 20 - 20 or one of the other fortified wines.

[robertpaulsen]

"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"

Trust me, I will not quote you.

According to the article above, if you read it, the author quotes the LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) estimate of $69 billion per year. Which is a joke.

Excluding incarceration, the War on (All) Drugs cost the federal government about $13 billion annually and the states about the same. Call it $30 billion per year, total -- about .5% of the budget.

"Because I do not think that irresponsible drug use would increase after legalization. In fact I believe that responsible drug use would increase"

I think both would. I think use would at least double and place a high cost on social services. I also think underage use would increase.

And what is the benefit of legalizing yet another drug?

[robertpaulsen]

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

I learn something every day. Here I thought the opiates were banned in the 1920's, 10 years before the restrictions on marijuana.

[proud_yank]

In a free society shouldn't one be free to be a deviant provided they aren't infringing on anothers natural rights?

IMHO, that is precisely where this becomes an issue. For example, alcohol is legal, and is a substance that can be consumed without the intent to 'get drunk' yet I cannot think of any other substance that cannot be taken in that manner.

Don't have the stats at hand, but alcohol-related fatalities & accidents (drinking & driving, under the influence crimes, etc) do infringe on another's right to 'life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness'.

I'm not saying 'ban alcohol', but for the reason that no other substance can be consumed without the intent of getting high or messed up, I do not support legalization of drugs.

[Bryan24]

This pits personal liberty against personal responsibility.

You may be extremely responsible. But if you take a decision altering drug, which alcohol, cocaine, marijuana and other drugs are, then you will most likely do things that you otherwise would not do, and lose control over functions wyou would normally have under control.

PUBLIC SAFETY demands that these things be regulated. The argument is not to deny you of liberty, it is to exercise responsibility required for public safety.

[robertpaulsen]

"With pot selling for over $200 an ounce, kids nowadays are often doing harder drugs that are cheaper."

True. They're drinking inexpensive, legally regulated, hard-to-get alcohol. Actually, 2:1 over easy to get marijuana.

[Protagoras]

I learn something every day.

There is no evidence to support that opinion.

Here I thought the opiates were banned in the 1920's, 10 years before the restrictions on marijuana.

Like crack cocaine and crystal meth? Like sniffing model airplane glue?

You thought wrong.

[Skywalk]

So basically they turned to providing other services that people wanted that were banned and have no victim (and yes, I know that there are some victims with prostitution, but you can fight sex slavery and have legal prostitution. No slaves at the chicken ranches in Nevada.)

Sounds like the solution is simple. Had the Prohibition not started in the first place and had not other activities like gambling and prostitution been banned--organized crime would never have become the scourge and influence it did become.

[robertpaulsen]

"Us loserdopians favor cutting off welfare completely."

Let's do that first, then talk about legalizing drugs. Even if drugs are never made legal at least we'll then have gained something.

[dirtboy]

They're drinking inexpensive, legally regulated, hard-to-get alcohol. Actually, 2:1 over easy to get marijuana.

Easy to get? Pot's priced out of most kids' budgets nowadays. Which is why a lot are taking cheaper hard drugs instead.

[xpertskir]

These threads are so frustrating to me, every other person on here is quoting a "anti drug" public service message. If you are going to post please bring some "meat"(actual experience with drugs encouraged) to the table instead of propaganda used by the government to dissuade the public form using drugs. I.E. marijuana leads to harder drug use, marijuana will make you run over little girls on bikes, ect. ect. ect.

Similarly I don't think the debate has much to do with what the drugs do or don't do to the user. It is about what a government role is, and what it can allow or disallow its citizens to do.

Now for the economic and social effects, that is certainly an important and interesting offshoot from this argument.

[dirtboy]

And what is the benefit of legalizing yet another drug?

Gee, I dunno, maybe we can take a lot of the law enforcement resources currently used against pot and deploy them against actual hard drugs instead? And free up more prison space for violence offenders? And quit slapping a criminal record on someone using a drug less harmful than the legal drug alcohol?