Posted on 01/08/2013 10:59:00 AM PST by Kaslin
Forty-odd (exceedingly odd, I might add) years ago, who would have envisioned a national war against drugs? Nobody took drugs -- nobody you knew, nobody but jazz musicians and funny foreign folk. Then, after a while, it came to seem that everybody did. Drugs became a new front in the war on an old social culture that was taking hard licks aplenty in those days.
I still don't understand why people take drugs. Can't they just pour themselves a nice shot of bourbon? On the other hand, as Gary S. Becker and Kevin M. Murphy argue, in a lucid piece for the Wall Street Journal's Review section, prison populations have quintupled since 1980, in large degree thanks to laws meant to decrease drug usage by prohibiting it; 50,000 Mexicans may have died since 2006 in their country's war against traffickers, and addiction has probably increased.
Becker, a Nobel laureate in economics, and Murphy, a University of Chicago colleague, argue for putting decriminalization of drugs on the table for national consideration. The federal war on drugs, which commenced in 1971, was supposed to discourage use by punishing the sale and consumption of drugs. It hasn't worked quite that way.
"[T]he harder governments push the fight," the two argue, "the higher drug prices become to compensate the greater risks. That leads to larger profits for traffickers who avoid being punished." It can likewise lead "dealers to respond with higher levels of violence and corruption." In the meantime, Becker and Murphy point out, various states have decriminalized marijuana use or softened enforcement of existing prohibitions. Barely two months ago, voters in Colorado and Washington made their own jurisdictions hospitable to the friendly consumption of a joint.
The two economists say full decriminalization of drugs would, among other things, "lower drug prices, reduce the role of criminals in producing and selling drugs, improve many inner-city neighborhoods, [and] encourage more minority students in the U.S. to finish high school." To the Journal's question, "Have we lost the war on drugs?" 89.8 percent of readers replied, "Yes."
One isn't deeply surprised to hear it. National tides seem presently to be running in favor of abortion and gay marriage -- two more elements of the culture wars that began, contemporaneously, with the battle for the right to puff pot. Swimming against powerful tides is no politician's idea of a participatory sport. Conceivably, armed with practical (i.e., $$$$$$) reasons for decriminalizing drugs, advocates of such a policy course will prevail. We can then sit around wondering what all the fuss was about.
What it was about -- you had to have been there to remember now -- was the defense of cultural inhibitions. Sounds awful, doesn't it?
As the counterculture saw things, inhibitions -- voluntary, self-imposed restraints -- dammed up self-expression, self-realization. They dammed up a lot more than that, in truth: much of it in serious need of restraint and prevention.
The old pre-1960s culture assigned a higher role to the head than to the heart. Veneration of instincts risked the overthrow of social guardrails that inhibited bad, harmful and anti-social impulses. The drug culture that began in the '60s elevated to general popularity various practices, modes, devices, and so forth that moved instinct -- bad or good, who cared? -- to the top of the scale of values. There was a recklessness about the enterprise -- do whatever turns you on, man! -- incompatible with sober thought: which was fine with an era that had had it, frankly, with sober thought.
Drugs are very much a part of our time and culture, which is why the war on drugs looks more and more like a losing proposition. The point compellingly advanced by Becker and Murphy may win out over the next decade. If so, the drug gangs may disappear, the prisons disgorge tens of thousands. Will things in general be as good as they might have been had the culture walked a different path 40 years ago -- the path of civilized "inhibition"? Ah. We get down here to brass tacks.
Again, people will abuse ANY drug. They’ll abuse things that aren’t even drugs (paint thinner, freon, etc.).
It is a fool’s errand to attempt to stop people from engaging in destructive behavior. 1) because you won’t stop them (that’s why we’re talking about the failed WO(S)D, and 2) because it only gives government a reason to continually expand. Many of the losses of our civil liberties are directly attributable to the failed WO(S)D. Search and seizure, asset forfeiture, etc.
Alcohol IS used for “getting stoned”, it’s just a matter of degrees. Does a casual marijuana user seek to get more stoned than an alcohol user? Doubtful. Alcohol is the #1 drug of choice and it’s also the most abused.
I know many marijuana users and you couldn’t tell if they were stoned any more than if your mother had a glass of wine with dinner.
But this is just arguing the merits and pitfalls of one particular drug over the other and that’s just an exercise. The real question is how much intrusion into our lives we’re willing to tolerate?
The WOD is already there. To slam it for pot is, period, the new wave of liberalism.
Of all the unintended consequences of the drug war, that it makes “conservatives” look away from that question is among the worst. Moreso because they refuse to even acknowlege it happens. Questions about the Constitution return answers about the drugs.
Given that you have personalized the attack on every single poster who disagrees with you by accusing each and every one of being a doper, I believe that you have lost, not just this thread, but perhaps all of FR and maybe even the whole internet.
What part of "Okay, give up and THEN watch what happens! did you not understand.
Oh, so in addition to reading comprension problems you have hallucinations - the text "Okay, give up and THEN watch what happens!" was nowhere in this thread until you asked that surreal question.
China, 1840-1912. Case in point.
There is no reason to suppose that China's experience would be replicated here:
“Genetic factors account for about half of the likelihood that an individual will develop addiction. Environmental factors interact with the person’s biology and affect the extent to which genetic factors exert their influence. Resiliencies the individual acquires (through parenting or later life experiences) can affect the extent to which genetic predispositions lead to the behavioral and other manifestations of addiction. Culture also plays a role in how addiction becomes actualized in persons with biological vulnerabilities to the development of addiction.”
- American Society of Addiction Medicine, http://www.asam.org/research-treatment/definition-of-addiction
Also note that opium and other drugs were legal in the USA until at least the late 19th century, and we did not see anywhere near China's problems.
Agreed on both counts.
Nonsense. I've known many people who have smoked a little pot and remained more together than many sober people I know.
Oh please If you don’t know, or won’t admit, the big gap in motivation then that says it all.
None of your posts in this particular chain said anything about a "big gap in motivation;" my observations remain sufficient to refute your claim that "drugs by nature, are abusive."
If you're now moving the goalposts to an argument that pot is by nature demotivational, then you're still wrong: I've known many people who have smoked pot and remained more motivated than many sober people I know.
According to the FBI, two out of three murder cases are cleared; in contrast, the number for drug sales is assuredly no more than two out of three-thousand.
What is your point?
As the link explains, "cleared" is basically FBI-ese for solved; my point is that the war on murder is going orders of magnitude better than the war on drugs.
OK, so most murders are solved with convictions. Most drug sales charges are not.
Does that mean sales of recreational drugs should be legal?
It means that one can consitently say that the war on drugs has been lost while the war on murder has not.
I don’t think, standing alone, that it’s a good reason to stop prosecuting drug dealing.
Not standing alone - but in conjunction with the facts that drugs violate nobody's rights and that the war on drugs has done demonstrable harms.
The WOD is already there. To slam it for pot is, period, the new wave of liberalism.
Did he say the WOD isn't there? "To slam it for pot" - what does that even mean? Junkie author William Burrroughs produced text more comprehensible than yours.
I have, at least with respect to pot and coke. Glad I could educate you on this matter.
And note that to know anyone to have used a drug and remained rational, you first have to know that they've used a drug - but drug users have obvious reasons to not let that be known.
Which is how they used the drug alcohol when that drug was illegal; illegality increases the relative incentive to ingest greatly influencing amounts as versus lightly influencing amounts.
So you agree with the politicians who think that only the police and the military should have access to gunpowder?
Illegal drugs and guns aren’t even in the same discussion.
YOU made them part of the same discussion discussion when YOU called for "laws against those chemicals that destroy a person worse than alcohol" which gunpowder unquestionably is.
That's what happens when you choose your 'principles' to fit your predetermined conclusions.
“I have, at least with respect to pot and coke. Glad I could educate you on this matter. “
So you have used pot and Coke, and not been made less rational while under their influence?
“Alcohol IS used for “getting stoned”, it’s just a matter of degrees”
I really disagree with this. It CAN be, but it is not usually. I know many who drink beer with their chips, have wine with their dinner, or have a cocktail or two while waiting for dinner, etc.
None of them are stoned, not by my definition. And I have sure seen a lot of people drink like this at this point of my life. I’d loan them money. I’d let them drive my car. I’d let them babysit my kids. I’d let them work behind my counter. I’d send them on an important errand. I’d ask advice about important matters. All after they’ve had alcohol in situations like the above.
Would NOT if they just smoked a bowl, snorted a line, dropped a tab, shot some meth, what have you. No way.
That’s the difference, to me. A drink or two and you are still sober. A line or two and you are not.
I have, at least with respect to pot and coke. Glad I could educate you on this matter.
So you have used pot and Coke,
Your question was whether I've known people who have.
and not been made less rational while under their influence?
You're moving the goalposts; your question was about "staying rational" not remaining maximally rational. When I'm a little tired I'm less rational yet I stay rational.
“They’ll abuse things that aren’t even drugs (paint thinner, freon, etc.).”
I know. But paint thinner and freon have good positive purpose beyond getting high. For that matter we’ll snort glue, and jump off cliffs. Well I don’t want to ban glue or cliffs. They have a good and separate purpose.
“Recreational” drugs don’t, and have the added and serious edge of treating us to irrational, benumbed, confused, agitated, or even hallucinating people who become very serious threats to others while high. Also their inhibitions are lowered. Usually they think they are handling things just fine. We can all see differently, though, and unlike Libertarians I don’t want to wait until a rape or a theft or an assault or an accident happens and then prosecute. I don’t believe we have a right to make ourselves insane, even temporarily.
"Of all psychoactive substances, alcohol is the only one whose consumption has been shown to commonly increase aggression. [...] Marijuana and opiates temporarily inhibit violent behavior"
- "Psychoactive Substances and Violence", Department of Justice National Criminal Justice Reference Service
“”Of all psychoactive substances, alcohol is the only one whose consumption has been shown to commonly increase aggression. [...] Marijuana and opiates temporarily inhibit violent behavior”
- “Psychoactive Substances and Violence”, Department of Justice National Criminal Justice Reference Service “
Agreed, WHEN TAKEN TO EXCESS.
My mom is no more aggressive after she has two glasses of wine at lunch. My son is no more aggressive after his two beers at the football game.
And this is normal consumption. The norm is not excessive consumption.
I am all for banning excessive consumption of alcohol. Basically, it is banned already. Drunkenness is basically against the law.
They don’t come into your house to see if you’re drunk - they need probable cause just like if they wanted to come in to your house to see if you are abusing someone or killing someone or have stolen merchandise. But drunkenness is (publicly) illegal, and rightly so.
Some city statutes no doubt vary, but drunk in public is generally a crime.
Sorry. I don't care what government agency spouted this nonsense, but it doesn't jive with my experience. Meth heads and crack heads are some of the most unpredictable, violent people I have ever known, and I was in the crack world as a user for a long time. Duringa brief jail stint, I met a fellow who was in the jail open-air yard, but unlike us, he was in double shackles and leg chains. I asked why. He said, and he doesn't remember a thing of it (because he had been awake nonstop for 8 days on meth), but they accused him of killing his girlfriend in cold blood, in a car, with one .44 slug to the temple. While he was driving. In front of her 5 year old daughter. Because he suddenly imagined she was a cop trying to bust him.
I have a million more stories like that. i don't have those sort of stories about alcohol.
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.