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

[Know your rights]

And what is the benefit of legalizing yet another drug?

Lessening the enrichment of criminals, with all the ills that enrichment entails, and respecting individual liberty.

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

Excellant points and another clear descripton of the failure of the WOD. But the moralistic arrogant "saints" just will not even tolerate discussion and exploration of alternatives...so good luck.

I have NEVER seen a real discussion of alternatives on this site. The rational people bring up arguments and ideas and the WOD zealots just react hysterically. And that is exactly how it is in the real world. As long as people defend WOD emotionally and moralistically (never mind the hypocrsiy about alcohol and ciggies) there will always be more drug problems than just the druggie's problems.

[Know your rights]

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

Correct, but I thought we were talking about 'drugs',

Alcohol is a drug.

not something presently legal.

Any drug will be cheaper if it's legal, and thus require substantially less stealing and whoring.

[Badray]

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.

But for some people, one drink is enough to put them over the legal limit and make them subject to arrest even if getting drunk was not their intent. Claiming that wasn't their intent will not work as a defense.

[PaxMacian]

"You obviously believe it is your religious right to do drugs.

It is undoubtedly a natural right to determine the substance from which we are made. It is obvious that God would grant us the right to partake of an herb which he made, saw was good, and gave to man. It should not be necessary to quote scripture, as I have, to point out the hypocrisy of those that would stand in judgment.

"No use arguing with you. Good day."

You have presented no argument beyond the puritan witch hunter's interpretation of the words translated as 'sober' in the Bible.

Matthew 11:18-19
For John came neither eating nor drinking,
and they say,
'He has a demon.'
The Son of Man came eating and drinking,
and they say,
'Here is a glutton and a drunkard,
a friend of tax collectors and "sinners."
' But wisdom is proved right by her actions."

"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?" --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia, 1782.

[investigateworld]

Having spent some time in the drug culture (while on the county payroll even) the one thing overlooked in these arguments is the 'mindset' of the users.
Here's a fer instance. In the UK, a registered addict could go to a 'chemist' and get the fixings of heroin or his opiate of choice. Yet the black-market price for heroin was the same as the USA.
Because of the mindset of dopers (something to the effect of illegal is better) there will always be a huge black market for drugs ... pricing won't have much to do with it.

My personal feelings? Remove all controls on street drugs, do away with the safety net paid for by taxpayers (everything, food - housing - medical - support) But also recognize that when someone offers dope to a family member as a life threatening assault. In other words, give dope to my kid or grandkids, they die. The drug culture require fresh blood all the time.

[Badray]

What do you think the constitution did, remove all laws and restrictions on the citizens of this country?

Would you mind explaining what you mean by that?

[robertpaulsen]

"Lessening the enrichment of criminals"

I bet you would have said the same thing about alcohol during Prohibition. Legalize wine and we'll lessen the enrichment of criminals. Think that would have happened?

Hell, we legalized all alcohol and the criminals are still rich, aren't they? Not selling alcohol, no.

No, MrLeRoy, the criminals will stay rich. That's what they do. There's nothing to be gained in that area.

[robertpaulsen]

Yes, those who go to jail or prison would represent an expense. But very few do. And those that do are mostly dealers or traffickers.

I'm talking about the average marijuana user getting arrested and the costs associated with putting them through the system vs. the average DUI arrestee.

I'm betting we, as a society, could save more law enforcement and criminal justice system time and money by raising the BAC to .12 than by decriminalizing marijuana for users.

Just a thought.

[robertpaulsen]

"Less and less so as time goes on ... "

Yeah, come to think of it I do see those numbers going down in just about every Soros paid-for, NORMAL- sponsored, and Drug Policy Alliance-written push-poll that has come out recently.

Hmmmmm. And you say that's probably because "there's no good reason for pot to be illegal". Yeah, probably, huh?

[tpaine]

Paulsen claims:

The power to regulate includes the power to prohibit -- no question begging necessary.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Millions of words have been written to rebut that totally unsupported begging question. -- Some of them here at FR.

-- Words you cannot refute:

FR Poll Thread: Does the Interstate Commerce Clause authorize prohibition of drugs and firearms? Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1515174/posts


The power to regulate v. the power to prohibit
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1419654/posts


>>>>>>>>> Crickets <<<<<<<<<<

[robertpaulsen]

I believe proud_yank's point was that he placed recreational drugs in a different category because, unlike alcohol users, drug users do drugs with the intent of getting high or messed up.

Yes, an alcohol user may have a glass of wine with their meal and end up exceeding some arbitrary .08 or .06 BAC, but they didn't have that drink with the intent to get drunk. The person who injects heroin or snorts cocaine does so for a totally different reason.

[robertpaulsen]

"and another clear descripton of the failure of the WOD"

I went back and read it again and saw no description, clear or otherwise, of any failure of the WOD. To me, he was describing a failure of society, the neighborhood, and the local cops. Who's in charge?

Let me ask you. Do you agree with his statement that if "pot and cocaine were legalized the Bloods, Crips, FolkNation, MS13, etc would dry up for lack of funds"? Do you believe that?

[robertpaulsen]

Damn, I had some awe-inspiring posts in that second link. Shut down the debate, they were so good. Here's a bonus:

Chief Justice Taft, at the outset of Brooks v. U S, 267 U.S. 432 (1925), stated the general proposition that ''Congress can certainly regulate interstate commerce to the extent of forbidding and punishing the use of such commerce as an agency to promote immorality, dishonesty, or the spread of any evil or harm to the people of other States from the State of origin.''

[tpaine]

paulsen preaches:

-- unlike alcohol users, drug users do drugs with the intent of getting high or messed up.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



The puritanical impulse is a deep one. We all have it. It is founded in the fear that other people's freedom of action is a threat to our own safety, our own sanctity.
It is the impulse to make the other fellow toe the mark. The puritan knows that his own motives are good, but he does not trust yours.
By regulating every detail of everyone else's life, he believes he can prevent crime before it happens. This is so much neater and safer than waiting to punish actual crimes after the fact.



THE GREAT DIVIDE [puritan v agrarian republicans]
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1638794/posts

[tpaine]

Self touting rob:

Damn, I had some awe-inspiring posts in that second link. Shut down the debate, they were so good.

Here's a fine example of your technique:

Everywhere I went, I felt I'd already been there. It was like following an invisible man. The smell of dried blood, dirty bare footprints circling each other, that aroma of old sweat like fried chicken, the feel of a floor still warm from the fight the night before. I was always just one step behind Tyler..."
"His name is Robert Paulsen. His name is Robert Paulsen. His ..."
"Welcome back, sir. How have you been?"

Here's a bonus:

Chief Justice Taft, at the outset of Brooks v. U S, 267 U.S. 432 (1925), stated the general proposition that ''Congress can certainly regulate interstate commerce to the extent of forbidding and punishing the use of such commerce as an agency to promote immorality, dishonesty, or the spread of any evil or harm to the people of other States from the State of origin.''

Without context, that quote makes Taft sound like a raving loony about "immorality" and "evil". -- A bit like Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott.

[Badray]

I'm not so sure that I could argue either with or against that, but the financial costs are only one part of the cost. Liberty is the other and I tend to take the side of liberty.

[Badray]

I know that, but in practice and theory, he's wrong.

Whether it is a glass of wine to relax or someone getting s***faced drunk or stoned, the intent is to affect your mood and / or perception of reality.

I don't do (other) drugs -- now or ever -- so I don't know what effects they produce, but from what I've read people use them to get high or to mellow out. Sounds pretty much the same to me as my liquid drugs.

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

Yes...there would still be criminals and some gangs, but yes, they would not have the money and power that illegal drug trafficking gives them now.

[LowCountryJoe]

You're looking at around 5% of the population smoking marijuana and another 1-2% doing hard drugs. That ain't "normal" behavior.

What percentage of people in America spend time on Free Republic kicking around the political and social issues of the day? Is this "normal" behavior?