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.
“Hypocrite. “
You know, I am not interested in indulging in a name calling contest. You think recreational drug abuse is benign. I don’t. There is no reason to get nasty.
I don’t happen to think there is really such a thing as a “l’il bit” of recreational drug abuse. I just don’t. Go ahead and pretend people drop a micro dram of acid or snort a grain of Coke. I know it doesn’t happen.
Whereas normally people have 1, 2, maybe three drinks. This is reality.
Right, being personally drunk is basically legal unless you have dependents there or whatever. I know. Public drunkenness is basically not. I know.
One or two or three drinks most certainly can get you “high.” Certainly a similar amount of pot won’t turn you into a raving lunatic. And you could never die from to much pot, unless you were in an airtight room without oxygen, I guess. Alchohol poisoning is always a possibility.
Oh, wait, is your problem that the doses for illegal drugs are too strong? Yell you what, were alchohol still illegal we probably wouldn’t be drinking Bud Light or winecoolers. Were amphetamines legal like they used to be, they’d come up with their own version of Zima.
“have you ever known anyone to do that? I have not.”
Yes. Maybe your whole support of prohibition stems from not getting out enough.
“most people who had a drink today, did not get drunk.”
You can’t be this naive. You are aware, aren’t you, that during Prohibition consumption of alchohol went up? Why? If you’re going to risk getting busted at a speakeasy for drinking you better damnable well make it worth your while!
Also, most? What about alchoholics? They exist. Probably 100% of those who drank today got drunk. And how many crashed their car, robbed a house to get their next fix, raped your daughter, or whatever else it is you’re supposedly preventing users of big, bad drugs like pot from doing?
“There is no drug that people use, besides alchohol, that they don’t use for the express purpose of getting stoned.”
I suppose alchohol is used in cooking. Nevermind pot brownies for now. It is possible some people actually drink their favorite drinks because they like the taste, like they say. Or for heart health, as they’ve been ordered. Or because they are social robots and do what other people have programmed them to do, without thinking.
But come on. The point of drinking is to get drunk, or tight or high or whatever euphamism you prefer. All you’re talking about is a matter of degree. Might I submit that a majority if people could learn how to use al the big, bad drugs at least as well as alchohol are they given millenia to develop customs in the bright light of day, beyond the reach of SWAT teams and “assault” rifles?
That’s a pretty low bar, by the way, considering how destructive is alchohol to the family, to society, and to life.
“I don’t happen to think there is really such a thing as a ‘l’il bit’ of recreational drug abuse. I just don’t.”
Then you are ill informed, or maybe irrational. Although you did use the term “abuse,” so I guess by definition you’re right. But let’s pretend you said use. What is with this midifier “recreational,” anyway? I see its general purpose, though ot begs the question what is alchohol use, if not recreational? Palliative? Workmanlike? Dutybound?
Please tell me at least you recognize the possibility of a little bit of “recreational” pot use? Or do children really leap out closed window’s after a single puff?
“I don’t happen to think there is really such a thing as a ‘l’il bit’ of recreational drug abuse. I just don’t.”
Then you are ill informed, or maybe irrational. Although you did use the term “abuse,” so I guess by definition you’re right. But let’s pretend you said use. What is with this midifier “recreational,” anyway? I see its general purpose, though it begs the question what is alchohol use, if not recreational? Palliative? Workmanlike? Dutybound?
Please tell me at least you recognize the possibility of a little bit of “recreational” pot use? Or do children really leap out closed windows after a single puff?
Drug War mythology.
Prove your claim.
Your claim came first - your proof can come first.
Nonsense. I've known many people who have smoked a little pot and remained more together than many sober people I know.
You can cite all the personal exceptions you wish, I too have known hundreds of dopers and the only one who ever excused it besides the desire to get high, was she “liked the taste” )which in itself was BS.
Who said anything about not wanting to get high? The question is: is it in the nature of drugs other than alcohol that they always be used to the point of losing judgment? The answer is no - although they sometimes are so used.
My point is the motivation to get high, alone, is enough to make drugs abusive, dangerous, and thus illegal, by law and by logic.
No logic there - many people are motivated to get drunk to the point of losing judgment, while other drugs can be and are used short of that point.
We tried banning alcohol, it didn’t work.
Banning drugs isn't working either.
You know, I am not interested in indulging in a name calling contest.
You established yourself as a hypocrite by claiming concern about people "becoming very serious threats to others" but ignoring the fact that at least some of the drugs you want to ban don't increase violence while the drug you want to keep legal does.
You think recreational drug abuse is benign.
Provide an exact quotation where I said that.
I don’t happen to think there is really such a thing as a “l’il bit” of recreational drug abuse. I just don’t.
You're wrong - I've seen it done with coke and with pot.
Whereas normally people have 1, 2, maybe three drinks. This is reality.
People getting drunk happens all the time. This is also reality.
being personally drunk is basically legal unless you have dependents there or whatever. I know.
So you know your previous claim that "Drunkenness is basically against the law" is garbage. Good. What have you done to advance the cause of banning drunkenness to prvent very serious threats to others? (Posts to FR count.)
You cannot believe your lying eyes, according to JustSayNoToNannies. You must, instead, believe a (clearly flawed) government report.
Believe what you want - but no one person's, or two people's, personal experiences are either randomized or controlled for confounding factors like pre-existing psychiatric conditions.
Ok, I give, you win
You know, you like to sound all scientific and s**t, but when it comes down to it, you are a petulant child. I would have taken a different approach. I would have defended my position, then I would have said, "Your turn."
It's not my forte to compile and/or dive into stats, but I will get around to it tomorrow, provided I have time. Not important enough for me to bother with tonight.
You may certainly have the last word, TC, I don’t enjoy your histrionics or mischaracterizations of what I say. It is not helpful and I don’t deserve it. I have made my positions clear. If you don’t like them, that is your business.
You may certainly have the last word, JSNNN, I don’t enjoy your histrionics or mischaracterizations of what I say. It is not helpful and I don’t deserve it. I have made my positions clear. If you don’t like them, that is your business.
Now you're making statistical claims (which is progress of a sort); let's see the statistical evidence.
Well?
defend crack and meth use
Nobody's doing that - you're hallucinating.
I assert that crack and meth users are far and away more dangerous and unpredictable than alcohol users. You say that they are not. Around these parts, that's called 'defending'.
You're still hallucinating - I don't 'defend' battery by saying it's less bad than torture.
Drug War mythology.
Prove your claim.
Your claim came first - your proof can come first.
You know, you like to sound all scientific and s**t, but when it comes down to it, you are a petulant child.
<snicker>
I would have taken a different approach. I would have defended my position, then I would have said, "Your turn."
And yet after making the first claim, you didn't.
It's not my forte to compile and/or dive into stats, but I will get around to it tomorrow, provided I have time. Not important enough for me to bother with tonight.
That you consider supporting your claims "not important" is duly noted.
Here's something to consider (a tip of the hat to FReeper Ken H):
"So we had 400,000 opium addicts in 1880, many of whom were addicted Civil War veterans. The population of the US in 1880 was around 50M. That works out to an addiction rate of 0.8% in 1880. Now, in 1900 the addiction rate to either opium or cocaine was 0.5%.
"So in 1880 there were 0.8% addicted to opium vs 0.5% to either opium or cocaine in 1900. The DEA is telling us that addiction declined substantially between 1880 and 1900, despite these drugs being legal."
Nonsense. I've known many people who have smoked a little pot and remained more together than many sober people I know.
You can cite all the personal exceptions you wish, I too have known hundreds of dopers and the only one who ever excused it besides the desire to get high, was she “liked the taste” )which in itself was BS.
Who said anything about not wanting to get high? The question is: is it in the nature of drugs other than alcohol that they always be used to the point of losing judgment? The answer is no - although they sometimes are so used.
My point is the motivation to get high, alone, is enough to make drugs abusive, dangerous, and thus illegal, by law and by logic.
No logic there - many people are motivated to get drunk to the point of losing judgment, while other drugs can be and are used short of that point.
We tried banning alcohol, it didn’t work.
Banning drugs isn't working either.
Ok, I give, you win
Always glad to welcome a convert!
LOL! You remain a petulant child. Perhaps you can make your lower lip quiver a little?
I was actually going to spend a few moments and do this, but now I will delay. I am curious to see what level of immaturity you can rise to.
Self-centered, immature people often miss sarcasm directed at them.
I don't know you, but your attitude and demeanor indicates to me that you have some very serious personal issues.
I would encourage you to work on those.
These two are real pips, huh? :)
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.