Posted on 05/12/2014 8:12:34 AM PDT by mgist
MAY 12, 2014 Legalize ALL Drugs, Not Just Cannabis
IMAGE: L’Aubade, Pablo Picassso
I was entertaining a customer in our cannabis vapour lounge (420 Session) a couple days ago. We had the usual chit chat and banter about pot–what kind I like, what kind of vaporizers are best, you know, the usual. Then the War on Drugs came up, and after taking a hit from his bong, the customer (who I suppose I assumed was more open-minded, as he was a university student, studying political science hanging out in a vape lounge, consuming cannabis) said “Weed should be decriminalized, but nothing else.”
I told him I disagree. I told him I think ALL substances should be legal, not just decriminalized, and not just the helpful/harmless ones like cannabis, psilocybin, and LSD.
“Even HEROIN?!” he questioned incredulously, whispering the “heroin” part because he didn’t want anyone to overhear the taboo word.
“Especially heroin,” I replied.
That’s when the conversation turned into a one-sided debate, (at least from my perspective it was one-sided; I shoot down prohibitionists as easily as fish in a barrel). He was armed with the typical prohibitionist rhetoric: What about cartel violence and criminal element? Why should I care about a junkie?! WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?!?!
First, it’s important to understand and accept that even though most drugs are illegal right now, people still do them. Making something illegal does not make it magically go away. Some users hold down regular jobs, and get up and go to work every morning. They drive on our roads, and stand behind us in line while we are waiting for our coffee. They may even be telling you what to do all day while you are at work, or teaching your children in school. They may be running one of the largest cities in North America.
Drug use is not only reserved for the seedy, underground dealings that after-school specials from the Reagan-era would have you believe. We need to accept that drug users live among us already, and accommodate our reality. Here are 5 good reasons to consider legalizing all drugs:
Drug use is a public health issue, not a criminal one. The end users are the easiest targets for police, with most suffering from serious physical and mental health issues. It’s easy to understand that dirty needles spread diseases; well that’s only part of it. Drug users also typically fail to seek out traditional health care for anything, because of the negative stigma attached to their drug use—they are afraid of being reported or turned in, and suffer alone instead. Without places like inSite, the safe-injection facility in Vancouver, users have no means to exchange dirty needles for clean ones, or educate themselves, or reach out for help when they are ready. Instead of providing them the resources they need to help themselves, we brand them criminals and force them to sort out their issues while incarcerated in a tiny cell. How is that rehabilitating them? How is that helping? Why is compassion reserved only for the sick and dying in hospitals? Ending prohibition will help these people get help and lead productive, responsible lives.
Drug use is a victimless crime, but the drug trade isn’t. Cartel and gang violence is on the rise because they have something to fight over. There are many civilian casualties in this war, and the cartels are winning, by getting help from places you wouldn’t expect. Between 2000 and 2012, The Sinaloa cartel had made a special arrangement with the US government that allowed them to smuggle billions of dollars of drugs into the US in exchange for information about rival cartels. Meanwhile, over 77000 people have died since Mexico started its War on Drugs. The authorities have all either been corrupted or intimidated by the cartels. As a result since 2012, vigilante groups made up of civilians are rising up and forming their own militias. So you have cartels fighting each other, the government, the people, and anyone who gets caught in between. This war spills into US and even Canada, because the drugs come from the cartels to our local black markets causing unneeded violence within our communities as well. Ending the prohibition will cut these cartels off at the knees, and will help stem some of the violence.
Drug prohibition gives children easier access to dangerous drugs; the children are more likely to overdose because of it. When was the last time you saw a drug dealer ask someone for their ID? The only thing a drug dealer requires is that their customer has money. Plus, dealers aren’t really concerned with the dosage; they want to sell as much as they can. They aren’t concerned with quality (which will also vary from dose to dose) unless telling you its better will guarantee their sale. Your children are not given a sterilized setting, with single-use needles and nurses available to administer and educate about the medication. Content also may vary from dosage to dosage—one may think they are purchasing a certain drug, when in fact they are purchasing a much cheaper substitute that has been cut with toxic chemicals and made in someone’s bathtub (do some reading on krokodil). In a clinical setting, opiates are rebranded as pain relievers and prescribed as Demerol to help women in labor. Amphetamines are rebranded as stimulants and prescribed as Adderall to help your kids focus. While there is no doubt that prescription pill use can lead to overuse, at least we aren’t concerned about consistency from pill to pill because it is regulated. Ending prohibition will mean there will be restricted access to children and some quality and quantity control. Drug prohibition is the new form of slavery.
Non-whites are disproportionately targeted for drug arrests, even though whites are just as likely to be in possession of, or using drugs. Mandatory minimums are imposed on crack cocaine and methamphetamine offenses, and are designed to target Blacks and Hispanics respectively. Young men and women throughout the US and Canada are locked up for non-violent drug offenses, and are officially entered into the system. The best part about getting into the system is that you are in the system for life, even after you leave prison. In the US, inmates don’t have right to vote, which means while they are incarcerated and disenfranchised, they don’t have a voice. In most states, disenfranchisement doesn’t end until after probation is complete (if it ever does). After leaving, they have to submit to regular monitoring and drug-testing (which is a huge industry in itself), and are given conditions, which for some are impossible to follow. How are these people expected to find a job they always have to say they are a felon on every application? If (and when) they fail (because the system was designed for them to), they have to start the process all over again. Some prisons are even profiting off having bodies in their beds (luckily none here in Canada anymore, but plenty in the US) and throw money at lobbying the government for stiffer sentencing and mandatory minimums to help keep them there. Prison guards make more than school teachers. Ending prohibition will give the disenfranchised a voice, and a better opportunity to lead a productive and independent life.
Drug prohibition inhibits the police from investigating violent crimes. There is no financial incentive for police to investigate murders and rapes—they don’t receive a reward, their department doesn’t get any larger, no extra jobs are created. It infringes on the art of the investigation—the romantic idea of what I think police work is—dusting fingerprints, finding clues, asking questions, getting the bad guy, that sort of thing.
In drug raids, all they need to do is knock down the door with a battering ram, no romance necessary. When crimes happen to people in the drug trade, police dismiss their case as “another drug deal gone wrong” without doing a full investigation. Look at what happened with the Waltham St. Murders in Boston in 2011 —if the police had taken the triple homicide seriously, perhaps the Boston Marathon Bombing could have been prevented. Ending prohibition will help police focus on violent criminals like rapists, pedophiles and murderers.
The drug war has been an expensive experiment costing well over a trillion dollars so far. It’s time to truly concede defeat.
I disagree... heroin, which I have never tried (I have actually taken no illegal drug before in my life, thanks, and I live in NC, and have never been to Colorado :)), is a relatively safe drug when administered in a controlled setting, if the product is only cut with safe fillers. It’s the closet and street addicts who have serious problems with the stuff, as in overdosing.
My take on the legalization of all the drugs, is go for it. Let survival of the fittest sort things out. I might would lose family members, even, but in the end, you will refine the gene poll to those who are either unaffected by taking the drugs, or those who can apply their reason and will to resisting the temptations that lead to addiction.
Our society is already leaning so far left due to the need to take care of those in our population who would naturally thinned themselves out in earlier times. A belief in God used to help folks moderate their behaviours, but as Government and the Left have pushed religion out of the public consciousness, the daredevils run free, along with free access to food and medical care whether it be in or out of prison. Given that is cheaper to deal with them out of prison, let’em go.
It’s either this or go all the way other way. Caught with drugs, and convicted, you die, no matter your age. Period.
China virtually eliminated Opium in their own country during the early communist era, by implementing that same policy: you’re caught with Opium, you die, simple as that. Cleared up their drug problem overnight.
But the in the middle prohibitionist stance only keeps drug trafficking, and all the branch underworld elements that stem from it, as workable and manageable problems for cartels and dealers to overcome. It also feeds the public fear necessary to continue the militarization of our civilian police force, further intrusions on our property rights, and lots of dumb people getting free stuff who will never change.
I thought it interesting when some kids in Colorado, were caught with MJ in school, it was big news, oh no what a disaster the new law is.
However there was no back story, how many kids where caught with MJ prior to the new law, I suspect there were many.
With illegal drugs part of the destruction is not the drugs themselves but the crimes addicts commit to get the drugs, the anxiety they feel about missing the next fix, the time they spend chasing the drug, the criminal record that makes it hard to find employment.
I don’t think it is easier for kids to get Heroin because it is illegal.
Those who sell heroin don’t care, and it’s just as illegal to sell to kids and to adults. In fact, the illegality makes it much more likely that a minor is actually doing the selling.
Legalizing Heroin won't change any of that, the junkies will still be doing all the same things.
As far as "survival of the fittest" and thinning the herd, why would that happen, legalization won't be limited to those currently using, as though when these die off, it is over.
“Anyone caught selling drugs ….shot within a week…..drugs would disappear fast”
They have public executions in many Asian countries for dealing. Those countries are still flush with drugs. Why? Because you can make more money in one year than most people will ever make in a lifetime.
Some poor people will always risk death to be rich. When you take a dealer down, there are dozens of people who are already waiting to take their place.
The more you battle it with force, the higher the profit (and corruption) goes. The only thing that changes is how much the dealers make and how much the junkies will have to steal to get their fix.
Eventually the profit goes so high that entire nations become bought by drug cartels. Think of the power gangsters gained during alcohol prohibition and multiply the profits by several thousand.
“T. Jefferson drafted our Constitution on Cannabis!”
Interesting statement - got proof?
That didn’t explain anything, Heroin being legal and advertised and sold openly, won’t make it harder for kids to get Heroin.
“In 1880 there were no drug laws in America and no serious drug problems. How bright do you really need to be to figure that one out??”
Wherein varmintman got the War On Drugs right between the eyes - good shoootin’!
Madison and Hamilton drafted the Constitution.
Sigh.
The irony is that if we were a moral and religious people, laws governing an individual’s peaceful behavior would not be necessary. But the left seeks to destroy all semblance of the moral guidelines of Christian society while facilitating the vilest of debaucheries The crime that results justifies greater control of the populace by government.
they want no age limit either
Drug laws were not created to regulate “individual’s peaceful behavior”.
“”The first modern law for the regulating of drugs was the Pharmacy Act 1868 in the United Kingdom. There had been previous moves to establish the medical and pharmaceutical professions as separate, self-regulating bodies, but the General Medical Council, established in 1863, unsuccessfully attempted to assert control over drug distribution. The Act set controls on the distribution of poisons and drugs. Poisons could only be sold if the purchaser was known to the seller or to an intermediary known to both, and drugs, including opium and all preparations of opium or of poppies, had to be sold in containers with the seller’s name and address. Despite the reservation of opium to professional control, general sales did continue to a limited extent, with mixtures with less than 1 per cent opium being unregulated.
After the legislation passed, the death rate caused by opium immediately fell from 6.4 per million population in 1868 to 4.5 in 1869. Deaths among children under five dropped from 20.5 per million population between 1863 and 1867, to 12.7 per million in 1871, and further declined to between 6 and 7 per million in the 1880s.””
Makes them easier to get and sell to a younger and younger crowd; damaging their lives.
The "war on drugs" leads to
It is that final item which some would use as a pretext to eviscerate the second amendment, which is the link pin of the entire bill of rights. Consider the following from the former head of U.S. Customs and Border Protection under the Bush administration no less:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/17/weapons-ban-urged-to-rein-in-mexican-drug-war/
The former head of U.S. Customs and Border Protection called Monday for the U.S. to reinstitute the ban on assault weapons and take other measures to rein in the war between Mexico and its drug cartels, saying the violence has the potential to bring down legitimate rule in that country.Former CBP Commissioner Robert C. Bonner also called for the United States to more aggressively investigate U.S. gun sellers and tighten security along its side of the border, describing the situation as "critical" to the safety of people in both countries, whether they live near the border or not.
Mexico, for its part, needs to reduce official corruption and organize its forces along the lines the U.S. does, such as a specialized border patrol and a customs agency with a broader mandate than monitoring trade, Mr. Bonner said in an exchange of e-mails.
"Border security is especially important to breaking the power and influence of the Mexican-based trafficking organizations," Mr. Bonner said. "Despite vigorous efforts by both governments, huge volumes of illegal drugs still cross from Mexico..."
The problem here clearly is not guns and it is clearly a problem of economics. The drugs one of these idiots would use in a day under rational circumstances would cost a dollar; that would simply present no scope for crime or criminals. Under present circumstances that dollar's worth of drugs is costing the user $300 a day and since that guy is dealing with a 10% fence, he's having to commit $3000 worth of crime to buy that dollar's worth of drugs. In other words, a dollar's worth of chemicals has been converted into $3000 worth of crime, times the number of those idiots out there, times 365 days per year, all through the magic of stupid laws. No nation on Earth could afford that forever.
A rational set of drug laws would:
Do all of that, and the drug problem and 70% of all urban crime will vanish within two years. That would be an optimal solution; but you could simply legalize it all and still be vastly better off than we are now. Once again, 150 Years ago, there were no drug laws in America and there were no overwhelming drug problems. How bright do you really need to be to figure that one out?
Just the opposite is happening here in CO since legalization.
MORE underage kids are getting marijuana.
Yes, there would be junkies. However, at least the junkies would be getting quality product, and we wouldn’t have to scoop them up off the streets for the morgue nearly as often... instead there could be injection clinics, clean needles and good product for a fair price (instead of a street dealer’s price). This would at least curtail the spread of AIDS through junky circles, and it would be less enticing for dealers to deal directly with children, since their income for the same product would not do nearly as much for them. The simple fact is, they love kids, but their real market is still adults. Probably by orders of magnitude.
Large scale increase in use would still happen, but for a small instance of time. Remember, yes, first time use will grow overnight, but then as people get thinned from herd, it will start to go down to a stable point, where that will just be the accepted portion of society that does that sort of thing, enjoys it, and won’t die from it. Only economic ups and downs or real world calamity would have any noticeable impact on usage from that point on.
Ie., freedom is dangerous. Living in a land of free people is also dangerous, both in terms of dangers from our own freedom, and other people’s freedom as well. But I’d rather live dangerous, than under government oppression of anything. What the constitution was written for, was to regulate the interaction between free people and between their government.
It’s what many people have forgotten... freedom can suck on the local scene at times, but do you love freedom more, or security more. And everyone knows what Ben Franklin said about that particular argument.
People only think of freedom in terms of their niche in life. But taking a person’s right to do something dangerous is not what the constitution was written for. It was written to prevent you from impacting someone else’s life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness when you do something dangerous or institute policies in government, or face consequences. We’ve gotten away from that over the years, for the children, as it were.
True freedom is letting people kill themselves if they want, like euthanasia. But even the “freedom lovers” among even this small chasm in the internet on this very thread, will readily strip people of their rights in a heart beat for their own good, or for the sake of safety of their own children.
It’s quite an interesting oxymoron to watch in action. I like many of the beliefs of the people of FR, but in a lot of cases, I still sense many of the same whose values I look up too, will take another man’s freedom in a second if he thought he or his own could be harmed.
In the end, America will pay for this attitude with her freedom. Eventually we will be just as socialistic and nanny stated as every one else, complete with jack booted thugs keeping the prison gates. Our only way out is really space travel, where the human population disperses so far and wide, that no one man or government can control all of us.
None of that is realistic, legalization doesn’t mean government run “injection clinics”, it just means junkies and pushers won’t have to look over their shoulders, instead it will be legal and marketed and advertised.
Junkies will still be junkies, still using old needles and trading and cutting and selling product to each other.
There also is no fixed number of junkies frozen in place and time, that will “get thinned from herd”, there is an endless supply of future junkies and immigrants, and even future ways for drug labs to alter, create new, and find new ways to use drugs and consume drugs once they are legal.
Free Market forces will create a whole new world of drugs and ways to use them in one’s life.
The drug war is one of the biggest drivers of political corruption in our country. That’s why the bigges opponents of ending the phony ‘war on drugs’ are politicians and drug cartels. I suspect we’ll find plenty of supporters of the drug war on this thread though.
Where did I say “government run injection clinics”. I believe in capitalism. You need to pay for that which you use, IMO. As long as someone can do it legitimately for less cost than a dealer, it should be a money making transaction for a business.
The junky culture you are speaking of is a direct result of severe government penalties for being found with it (though not death, but 3 hots and a cot). Everything that is made illegal by the government, establishes a new underground, untaxable, unregulated, unsafe nightmare land where you can get what you want at a high price.
I didn’t say either that the junky population would be fixed, but it would be a lot more fixed than it is now, and most of it would be in the light of law, which will inherently both reduce the users safety and freedom risks. Heck even home clean kits would be better than what we have now.
Sounds like you continue to justify the position that your freedom to do things you like are OK, but another man’s solution to the happiness equation should not be allowed, because no matter how improbable, there is the possibility it could affect you or someone you love, somewhere down the line of time.
Sounds just like the gun grabbers!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.