Replies

But I believe legitimizing drug use will make it widespread, and with it widespread ruin of lives, families, and eventually the nation itself, until we become such a weakened body that we have no defense against whatever ailment (i.e. invading force, communism, islam, etc.) gets to us first.

And on what basis do you found that belief that tens of millions of people who have no interest in doing drugs right now will suddenly decide that they do, and ruin their lives as a result? People hardly want to smoke tobacco anymore, and yet you still believe that tens of millions of them want to do cocaine, heroin, pot, and LSD if only it were legal?

It's easier for high school students to get pot and other illegal drugs than it is for them to get alcohol or tobacco right now, today. Illegality is not stifling supply - anyone who wants to do these drugs right now can obtain them easily with a couple of inquiries in the right places.

But yet you still believe that legalization will lead to an explosion in drug abuse.

I just don't get it.

Have you considered that if the hard-core addicts wasted away and died under a bridge at the age of 25 in a drug-induced stupor, instead of limping along to the age of 50 or taking half a dozen people with them on the freeway in a legal alcohol-induced stupor, that our nation would be the stronger for it?

Here in New Hampshire, package liquor is imported by a state agency and sold only in state-run stores. Advertising of distilled spirits is legally constrained. Suppose the same arrangement was made for other kinds of drugs besides alcohol, instead of the free-for-all which you fear?

And on what basis do you found that belief that tens of millions of people who have no interest in doing drugs right now will suddenly decide that they do, and ruin their lives as a result?

"Suddenly"? No, I didn't say "suddenly".

I'm arguing that law has a restraining effect that goes beyond the fear of punishment, insofar as it reflects and reinforces public opinion. This is why I dislike federal laws even when they're constitutional. The "punishment effect" might be the same whether the law is local or federal, but the "non-punishment effect" is clearly greater when the law is made by a smaller group of people - because the smaller group is more obviously making the law to govern themselves, having decided for themselves that they themselves need it. - As opposed to some distant congress of rulers making decisions about "what's good for the masses."

It's my opinion - which I came to after reading the founders - that this is not only the most just way for free people to govern themselves, but also the best way for free people to retain their freedom. It's not perfect, and liberty may from time to time be a casualty. But mistakes can be corrected with this system, as the people learn from their mistakes.

And isn't this what made the United States such a unique nation? - Each state can test out its own ideas, and so learn from one another's experiments, adopting others' good ideas and avoiding their mistakes. (After all, haven't we discussed here the Netherlands, Mexico, etc. to see what works and what doesn't?) But I digress.

Look at divorce. We've seen the laws change radically in recent decades, and we've seen the incidence skyrocket behind it. Is one the horse and the other the cart? Do the laws affect public opinion, and thus encourage (or at least no longer discourage) divorce? Or was it public opinion that prompted a change in the laws?

The fact is that small groups agitated for a change in the laws (starting in California, big surprise), and that public opinion about marriage and divorce followed, to be followed in turn by an increase in divorce. (And no, that didn't happen "suddenly" either.)

People hardly want to smoke tobacco anymore...

That's a good point. That's not because tobacco is any less enjoyable or addictive, is it? Isn't it because public opinion has been changed? And what brought about that change?

Here in New Hampshire...

I didn't know that - and am surprised, since your state is often touted as "the free state". But of course it's up to you folks to create the community you want. I'm a Texan, so I have no say in what you do up there. If your policies work out well, I'll suggest we adopt them down here. That's one reason why I wish the Raich decision had gone the other way: We would all have been able to watch California to see whether legalized pot were a good or a bad idea, instead of trying to predict from imperfect data and theoretical conjecture.

All I'm doing here is trying to distill from imperfect data some principles we can use to make a wise decision.

Wrong argument.

The laws against some drugs have merit in discerning some drugs become addictive very quickly, such that the person who becomes addictive lacks sufficient time to perceive and make unimpeded decisions not to consume or fall under their influence.

There is also a societal cost in decriminalizing some addictive drugs which statistically gives merit to controlling their availability.