Posted on 03/26/2011 12:31:16 AM PDT by neverdem
Not everyone who drinks and does drugs becomes addicted.
“A line has been drawn. Why can’t alcohol be enough?”
People will be people, I guess.
“This is about what kind of society you want your children to grow up in.”
I think you’re kidding yourself here. They’re going to grow up with this stuff in the world one way or the other. The debate is whether we want to keep pretending that prohibition works, instead of making the problem worse.
“I believe those who do drugs will do them regardless, and some are even attracted to the forbidden.”
Great point. One of the reasons teenagers are so vulnerable to drugs is because of their rebellious tendencies, which are perfectly natural. By making drugs tabboo, we’ve created a drug counterculture which appeals to those rebellious instincts. Aren’t we kind of laying a snare that way?
“Now, can anyone think of a more recent example of a country where society is trending downwards while laws and regulations are proliferating to ridiculous nannystate levels?”
Why, merry ole England, of course!
Interestingly enough, the author fails to mention that drug posession is legal in Mehico.
Ahem.
“I don’t think that that can be equated with “advancing the drug culture,” if that’s what you’re implying.”
Of course it can’t. Drug cultures usually exist at the fringes of society, but what popularizes them is the prohibition of drugs. Can you think of one example where outlawing a drug actually reduced its usage in the long-run?
Strangely a similar thread caused me to sign on to FR back in '98.
You’ve probably got a point about the political aspects, especially nationally. State by state is a bit different, since there are many states where a significant majority come down in favor or reforming the laws. Also, as the younger generations replace the older in the electorate, the numbers keep growing. We might want to get ahead of the curve.
“if the WOD was truly a war, then it’s been one spectacular failure, because drugs are still just easy to get.”
Yup, I could make a phone call and have most any quantity of pot delivered to my door within an hour. I can’t get prescription drugs that easily!
“It is quite easy to win the war if it was fought correctly.”
Maybe you could enlighten the rest of us as to how the war could be easily one?
“Would like to know just one thing: why is marijuana smoke less harmful to the lungs than tobacco smoke?”
It’s not. Especially since people smoke it unfiltered and take deeper drags and hold it longer, it can actually be more harmful. However, most marijuana users don’t smoke 10-40 joints a day, unlike tobacco addicts.
“I would ask what drugs would become legal under the No More War on Drugs Regime? and how?”
Well, I’d say marijuana is a no-brainer, it should be at least as legal as alcohol. As for the rest, well, we allow nearly identical drugs to most of the others, with a prescription, right now. For example, oxycontin is one of the most powerful opiates invented, it’s worse than heroin or morphine in pretty much every way, but it’s easy enough to find a doctor to give you some of that.
I don’t have all the answers to what the best policy would be, but I do know that the current policy is an abject failure, so it can’t hurt to consider reforming it. Until we start considering honestly the other options, we’re stuck with total prohibition “because the Feds says so”.
“Would imports be allowed?”
That’s an interesting question. Probably not, since there are very thorny treaty issues, thanks mostly to the lobbying of the anti-drug warriors in the US. Since we brought about those treaties, they won’t be changed or jettisoned until we change our stance. We’ve already got a thriving drug manufacturing industry here at home though, and if it were legalized, it would surely expand to fill a lot of our demand.
I’ve observed it before, and I’ll probably point it out again: the only bright line I can find between psychoactive substances which are legal and those which are illegal (flat out, or without a prescription) is that those which are legal — caffeine, alcohol and nicotine — were popular and generally accepted in Europe at the time of the American Founding, while those which are illegal — marijuana, cocaine, opiates, ibogaine, psilocybin, . . . — weren’t.
Rational policy would look at the harms likely to be caused by increased use and weight them against the harms caused by the prohibition policy, on a case-by-case basis. I suspect a few drugs (methamphetamine, possibly cocaine, maybe LSD) would stay illegal by that standard, while the rest would be better treated the way we treat alcohol and tobacco: regulated, taxed, and their excessive use treated as a health issue, rather than a criminal matter.
Gram-for-gram, marijuana smoke is probably as bad for the lungs as tobacco smoke, maybe more so. The problem is, that's not a fair basis for comparison: the reasonable basis is exposure of a typical user (one might even also consider a heavy user and a casual use -- the last in the case of tobacco being those who have a cigar after dinner on special occasions, or marijuana the user who has the odd joint at a party, but doesn't typically buy the stuff). The typical tobacco user smokes one or more cigarettes per day, while the typical marijuana user will smoke a two or three joints a week. A heavy user of tobacco might go through ten to 20 cigarettes in a day, while a heavy marijuana user might smoke one, two, maybe three joints a day.
Even conceding for argument sake that marijuana smoke is twice as bad for the lungs on an per-gram basis as tobacco smoke, comparing the exposure a typical habit creates leaves tobacco smokers more at risk of adverse health consequences.
Also, while pot-heads might not want to quit, they don't get withdrawal symptoms when they do, so smoking cessation is much easier for them than for tobacco users.
Drugs weren’t much of a problem until the government began its crusade against them. When you use the word ‘simplistic’ you need to stand in front of a mirror.
So, the WosDs is like communism? It hasn’t worked because the right people haven’t been in charge of it yet? LOL
Ad hominem is always a loser and never an argument.
Yeah, that one too! LOL
Say, old timer, those were some wild west days weren't they? ;^)
There were some pretty serious and drawn out debates too.
One thing is for sure. It’s an unmitigated failure on the level of Vietnam. Lots of $$$ down the tube. And lots of murders of dogs by overzealous agents breaking down doors to look for marijuana.
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.