Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Time to end the war on drugs?

posted at 12:20 pm on December 5, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view

Seventy-five years ago today, the nation amended the Constitution to end Prohibition after a disastrous experiment in banning alcohol.  Ethan Nadelmann uses the event to ask Americans whether the time has come to end its decades-long experiment in banning other drugs and allow citizens to make their own decisions on intoxicants.  The appearance of this column at the Wall Street Journal shows how mainstream it has become to question the war on drugs:

The Americans who voted in 1933 to repeal prohibition differed greatly in their reasons for overturning the system. But almost all agreed that the evils of failed suppression far outweighed the evils of alcohol consumption.

The change from just 15 years earlier, when most Americans saw alcohol as the root of the problem and voted to ban it, was dramatic. Prohibition’s failure to create an Alcohol Free Society sank in quickly. Booze flowed as readily as before, but now it was illicit, filling criminal coffers at taxpayer expense.

Some opponents of prohibition pointed to Al Capone and increasing crime, violence and corruption. Others were troubled by the labeling of tens of millions of Americans as criminals, overflowing prisons, and the consequent broadening of disrespect for the law. Americans were disquieted by dangerous expansions of federal police powers, encroachments on individual liberties, increasing government expenditure devoted to enforcing the prohibition laws, and the billions in forgone tax revenues. And still others were disturbed by the specter of so many citizens blinded, paralyzed and killed by poisonous moonshine and industrial alcohol.

Supporters of prohibition blamed the consumers, and some went so far as to argue that those who violated the laws deserved whatever ills befell them. But by 1933, most Americans blamed prohibition itself.

When repeal came, it was not just with the support of those with a taste for alcohol, but also those who disliked and even hated it but could no longer ignore the dreadful consequences of a failed prohibition. They saw what most Americans still fail to see today: That a failed drug prohibition can cause greater harm than the drug it was intended to banish.

Do most Americans fail to see that?  I’m not sure, and the fact that the question has become mainstream speaks to a dawning realization of that reality.  Thirty years ago, talk of legalization remained on the fringe of American politics, mostly among drug users (with obvious interests in that direction) and libertarians.  Reason Magazine would have been the most mainstream publication in those years to even make the argument, and perhaps the Village Voice.  Otherwise, the thought of legalizing recreational drugs was thought politically insane.

No one doubts the destructive nature of most of the substances banned now, except for marijuana, where serious debate exists.  Cocaine and heroin are deeply and physically addictive and deadly, as are most controlled or banned substances.  But should people be left to their own devices and government stay out of the way of their behavior, only intervening when their behavior affects others?  Where would that line get drawn, anyway?

Clearly, what we have been doing hasn’t worked.  At the margins, it impacts behavior, but overall, Americans still create a huge demand that gets fulfilled by criminal enterprises.  That is no different than what Prohibition created, and the effects have been the same: rampant violence, large wealth transfers to organized crime, dilution of law-enforcement efforts, exploding prison populations, and so on.

One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.  Under that definition, the American idea of a war on drugs is as politically insane as it gets.  Succeeding administrations and Congresses led by both parties keep assuring us that they will turn the corner on the war on drugs, but nothing changes except for the names and the faces.  We have enabled a powerful central government and organized crime to limit our freedoms in every direction as a result of this policy.  We could at least roll back both by returning to the more rational policy on drugs that the US had before prohibition fever hit a century ago.


Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8

Drugs alter the mind, and you are no longer you. You are thereby a loser.

Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 4:04 PM

So anything that alters your state of mind makes you a loser. And to think, some people think conservatives are intolerant.

MarkTheGreat on December 5, 2008 at 5:08 PM

You people really need to lighten up. Based on the topic of your postings it seems to me that you should be able to figure out how to calm down…

sayabule1 on December 5, 2008 at 5:08 PM

Murder is also against the law, even though that was someone’s liberty and pursuit of happiness…there are limits to this.

Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 3:55 PM

Murder also affects the rights of someone else. Though I’m not surprised you have trouble with that concept.

MarkTheGreat on December 5, 2008 at 5:09 PM

Sorry, but your listing of crystal meth as some kind of equivalent to a joint or a beer proves you don’t have the slightest idea of what you’re talking about.

Django on December 5, 2008 at 5:06 PM

True, but the same is true of people who try to equate coffee and pot.

Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 5:09 PM

Because the FDA’s purpose is to regulate companies in order to protect us from unscrupulous people selling us things that aren’t what they claim or don’t do what they claim. This ia a perfectly legitimate function.

TallDave on December 5, 2008 at 3:10 PM

It’s also a function that can be handled a lot better by a private organization.

MarkTheGreat on December 5, 2008 at 5:10 PM

Django on December 5, 2008 at 5:06 PM

Never used meth, never drank beer, never smoked a joint…but I have seen beer drinkers, I have seen meth adicts, I have seen pot heads, and I would trust my life to be a passenger with a heavy coffee drinker, than a casual beer drinker, or casual pot smoker, or casual meth user, if they just took some.
And if a gun were at my head, I would take a beer drinker over pot and meth.

Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 5:10 PM

You people really need to lighten up. Based on the topic of your postings it seems to me that you should be able to figure out how to calm down…

sayabule1 on December 5, 2008 at 5:08 PM

Try not insulting everyone when you first enter the conversation. Ignorant or not, it’s annoying.

Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 5:10 PM

You agree because you have conservative in your name, haha…that was the second poster in this thread that put us in the same boat. Could it be that people are too high to read?

Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 5:07 PM

…or too drunk. Or jittery from caffeine. Or maybe they need a smoke.

MadisonConservative on December 5, 2008 at 5:11 PM

True, but the same is true of people who try to equate coffee and pot.

Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 5:09 PM

The point is not that pot and coffee are the same. The point is that benign effects from pot are not something insidious and destructive merely because they are associated with pot.

Django on December 5, 2008 at 5:12 PM

You people really need to lighten up. Based on the topic of your postings it seems to me that you should be able to figure out how to calm down…

sayabule1 on December 5, 2008 at 5:08 PM

You, someone I’ve never seen on this site before, need to learn the meaning of not being insulting with the few posts you make.

MadisonConservative on December 5, 2008 at 5:12 PM

This is already true in China. The Bible is banned. But far from enabling crime lords, filling this demand is being met by missionaries giving them away for free.

Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 3:34 PM

Just goes to show you how much good dropping the price of product that is demand does.

MarkTheGreat on December 5, 2008 at 5:14 PM

Easy there Esthier, we are on the same side. I already apologized. If you need a separate apology than I am sorry to you also…

sayabule1 on December 5, 2008 at 5:14 PM

Anyone else here notice how Mr don’t insult me thinks that the world revolves around him?

wise_man on December 5, 2008 at 5:14 PM

|| And to think, some people think conservatives are intolerant.

Piss on them. Change parties. You DONT have to align yourself with nanny-staters

Im anti-cigarette legislation, as well. I dont drink (if you read up) and therefore no longer go to bars, but feel that a private business owner ought to be able to decide what LEGAL activities occur within the confines of their establishment.

If you dont work in a bar that allows smoking, dont work there- go find another job waiting tables or serving drinks. Thats called “freedom of choice”.

Im also a democrat, living in MN, where the legislation here was pushed through by Democrats. I not only called that Rep, I called Betty McCollum and complained to her. And I called the city of St. Paul.

I may not be a Dem much longer but I wont be a Republican either — not when it’s a party full of people that seem to ALSO think they that know whats better for me, than I do.

your_worst_enemy on December 5, 2008 at 5:15 PM

Insulting? Never posted before? Is this a high school chat room or Hotair.com. I might have logged on to the wrong site…

sayabule1 on December 5, 2008 at 5:15 PM

MarkTheGreat on December 5, 2008 at 5:09 PM

Nope, don’t have a problem. You seem to think that your behaviors and actions doesn’t effect people around you. You want to be a loser, fine, be a loser. But in the mean time you should be isolated as the loser that you are…you should be fired, you should lose your kids, etc. Because you do those around you harm, and effect their rights and liberty with your abuse of yours.

Should you go to prison? no. You are in your own prison, no walls are necessary.

Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 5:15 PM

The purpose of the law is to prevent people from becoming losers? And some people claim that only liberals want to use govt to perfect society.

MarkTheGreat on December 5, 2008 at 5:17 PM

The point is not that pot and coffee are the same. The point is that benign effects from pot are not something insidious and destructive merely because they are associated with pot.

Django on December 5, 2008 at 5:12 PM

Sorry, no, I didn’t mean you. I meant the poster who claimed road rage is caused by coffee, but I did a poor job of articulating that. It wasn’t so much that coffee was compared to pot but that coffee was made to be just as dangerous as any other drug.

Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 5:17 PM

Hey “Conservative Voice,” if being stupid were a crime, you would be serving a life sentence…

sayabule1 on December 5, 2008 at 5:17 PM

casual meth user

That’s as big an oxymoron as Senate Intelligence.

thomasaur on December 5, 2008 at 5:18 PM

Anyone else here notice how Mr don’t insult me thinks that the world revolves around him?

wise_man on December 5, 2008 at 5:14 PM

I notice that 90% of your posts are addressing or referring to me, often the only posts in a thread where you don’t even discuss the topic at hand.

I’m not interested in your obsession for McCain critics. Look elsewhere.

MadisonConservative on December 5, 2008 at 5:18 PM

Just goes to show you how much good dropping the price of product that is demand does.

MarkTheGreat on December 5, 2008 at 5:14 PM

I’m not sure I follow you.

Easy there Esthier, we are on the same side. I already apologized. If you need a separate apology than I am sorry to you also…

sayabule1 on December 5, 2008 at 5:14 PM

I appreciate it. We’re fine then.

Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 5:19 PM

sayabule1 on December 5, 2008 at 5:17 PM

wow, that was clever, did it take all afternoon to come up with that one? /sarc

Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 5:19 PM

Nope, don’t have a problem. You seem to think that your behaviors and actions doesn’t effect people around you.

So you think that anything that affects people can be outlawed by govt.

Where does it stop? Might as well throw away the constitution.

MarkTheGreat on December 5, 2008 at 5:20 PM

You really can’t compare the two equally, but even still, abuse of either can be a serious problem.

Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 5:02 PM

Both drugs affect the central nervous system, so why can’t they be compared equally?

Sheerq on December 5, 2008 at 5:21 PM

Dear “conservative voice”: I thought my comment was fitting in view of your prohibitionist nonsense…

sayabule1 on December 5, 2008 at 5:22 PM

Both drugs affect the central nervous system, so why can’t they be compared equally?

Sheerq on December 5, 2008 at 5:21 PM

Because their effects aren’t equal.

Would you compare fireworks to the atom bomb just because they both explode?

Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 5:23 PM

@Conservative Voice,

Fired? I love that.

I work in IT — 1/2 of the people I work with are potheads, 1/3 of them are high at work. Regularly. Esthier already alluded to high pot use in the IT job sector.

My neighbor, across the street — hes in IT — he smokes.

The tech who handled your last support call to your ISP was probably high too, you dumb twit.

Save your self-rightous crap for another thread.

your_worst_enemy on December 5, 2008 at 5:23 PM

Yup. World still revolves around him.

wise_man on December 5, 2008 at 5:23 PM

Cocaine and heroin are deeply and physically addictive and deadly, as are most controlled or banned substances. But should people be left to their own devices

I suppose then that free hard drugs would be one answer to un-managed expansion of liberal voting.

Could create a Morlock-Eloy political era.

Speakup on December 5, 2008 at 5:25 PM

MarkTheGreat on December 5, 2008 at 5:20 PM

Good question. Like I said, I lean libertarian. Was even convinced that maybe the drug war was a bad thing. But then too many people whose single issue was drug laws didn’t see the harm with drug use, and that is when I realized it would be better to keep it illegal. Because, it will make it harder to remove kids from unhealthy homes, harder to fire…drug use will go up, and made cool to increase sells. That is why I am against making it legal.
With regards to pot, I am against the government not allowing hemp to be grown for paper and rope and such. But kids should be taken from an alcoholic and from a pot head…guess which home is harder to take kids from?

Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 5:25 PM

I meant the poster who claimed road rage is caused by coffee, but I did a poor job of articulating that. It wasn’t so much that coffee was compared to pot but that coffee was made to be just as dangerous as any other drug.

Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 5:17 PM

You mean me, but you must polish your reading comprehension skills. I said some cases of road rage are probably caused by overly stimulated coffee drinkers. If I had a million dollars I would bet on it.

Sheerq on December 5, 2008 at 5:25 PM

wise_man on December 5, 2008 at 5:23 PM

Okay, 91% of your posts. My mistake.

MadisonConservative on December 5, 2008 at 5:26 PM

your_worst_enemy on December 5, 2008 at 5:23 PM

the irony, being called a dumb twit by a pot head.

Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 5:27 PM

Because their effects aren’t equal.

Would you compare fireworks to the atom bomb just because they both explode?

Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 5:23 PM

Really now, how are we determining equality of effects? And who decides which effects are better and which are worse? And to whom?

Sheerq on December 5, 2008 at 5:28 PM

||But kids should be taken from an alcoholic and from a pot head ..

why do you feel that kids should be taken away from a parent that smokes pot? Im honestly curious what you base that on? Youre still back on page 3 of the comments here where someone astutely pointed out that you wrongly equate use with abuse.

||which home is harder to take kids from?

and why do you think that is? Could it be because the negative affects on the kids is harder to distinguish in some cases? Isnt that a gimme? Since abuse and use arent synonymous, at least for those of us that think.

your_worst_enemy on December 5, 2008 at 5:29 PM

I work in IT — 1/2 of the people I work with are potheads, 1/3 of them are high at work. Regularly. Esthier already alluded to high pot use in the IT job sector.

My neighbor, across the street — hes in IT — he smokes.

The tech who handled your last support call to your ISP was probably high too, you dumb twit.

Save your self-rightous crap for another thread.

your_worst_enemy on December 5, 2008 at 5:23 PM

Funny. I work in the IT sector in one of the most pot-friendly cities in America, and that’s not the case.

MadisonConservative on December 5, 2008 at 5:29 PM

Never used meth, never drank beer, never smoked a joint…but I have seen beer drinkers, I have seen meth adicts, I have seen pot heads, and I would trust my life to be a passenger with a heavy coffee drinker, than a casual beer drinker, or casual pot smoker, or casual meth user, if they just took some.
And if a gun were at my head, I would take a beer drinker over pot and meth.

Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 5:10 PM

No one is asking you to be driven around town by a drunk, a pothead or meth addict. And, again, including meth users in the same group as an average drinker or pot smoker is an absurd and false comparison.

I think I understand your frustration with the “whatever man” and “if it feels good, do it” mentality associated with the left on various issues including drugs, but, whether you like it or not, millions of people have chosen to use alcohol and marijuana for thousands of years with no ill effects. If some people abuse such substances that speaks to their own problems. Some people abuse food and wind up weighing 800 pounds. That doesn’t mean we need to throw people in jail for eating an extra large pizza by themselves.

Django on December 5, 2008 at 5:30 PM

||| being called a dumb twit by a pot head.

is that the best you can do? Honestly? Because I think that I have the right to sit in my livingroom and smoke a joint now and again (Notice the qualifier, which BTW, was omitted earlier) I’m a pot-head?

Hahahahaha, thats funny. I’ll own that title from now on, and think of you as I do it.

your_worst_enemy on December 5, 2008 at 5:32 PM

your_worst_enemy on December 5, 2008 at 5:29 PM

Sorry, if you are high, then logic and reason is beyond your ability.

If you can not see the harm with parents being potheads or alcoholic to the kids, then really there is nothing that I can say that will convince you otherwise.

Really you are no different than Obama thinking its ok to kill a kid because the intent was to abort it. Nothing could be said to Obama to convince him how radical and even evil that is.

Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 5:33 PM

Conservative Voice, do you also consider terminal cancer patients who use marijuana for relief from nausea associated with chemotherapy to be losers too? Or how bout the sufferers of neuropathic pain from multiple sclerosis?

We talk about The cost of healthcare in this country, do you think it is right force a patient to pay $4000 a year for antiemetics when they can grow a safe cheap alternative right in their window or under a grow light?

Ciannaky on December 5, 2008 at 5:36 PM

Django on December 5, 2008 at 5:30 PM

Where have I said that we need to throw people in jail for being a pot head or an alcoholic?

And including meth users to pot and drinking is not absurd. Because these people who want to end the war on drugs are focused on their drug of choice…weed, and forget the harder drugs like meth.

Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 5:36 PM

||If you can not see the harm with parents being potheads or alcoholic to the kids

I asked a very specific question, regarding pot, not alcohol. That you cant answer it, speaks volumes about what authority you have on the subject.

Case closed.

your_worst_enemy on December 5, 2008 at 5:39 PM

If you can not see the harm with parents being potheads or alcoholic to the kids, then really there is nothing that I can say that will convince you otherwise.

There’s a huge difference between being an alcoholic or a pothead and having the occasional nightcap or joint. If you make love to your wife are you a sex fiend? We aren’t talking about addicts who can’t function. We are talking about understanding pot’s affect and being able to smoke it while still living a productive life. Your constant invocation of children and addiction is meaningless.

justfinethanks on December 5, 2008 at 5:40 PM

Ciannaky on December 5, 2008 at 5:36 PM

My guess is that most pot smokers for “medical use” use it because they found the ultimate loop hole. But in any case, for argument sake, lets agree that all doctors are writing prescriptions because they have the health of the patient in mind. I am not against using narcotics for health reasons. In the case where there is a legitimate health reason, and the person wouldn’t normally use pot, but do so only because the doctor prescribed it, then no, I don’t consider them to be losers, and I have sympathy for them.

Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 5:40 PM

PS: I’m actually off to (OMG) pay some bills, and then (OMG) go to work, so I wont be able to pipe (yes thats a pun) for a while, but I do want to applaud anyone, regardless of their political beliefs, for taking a stand against one of the dumbest set of laws we have on the books.

signing off,

pothead.

your_worst_enemy on December 5, 2008 at 5:41 PM

pipe (yes thats a pun) in for a while

your_worst_enemy on December 5, 2008 at 5:43 PM

CV,
You still struggle with distinguishing between the behavior or consenting adults to trash their own bodies in whichever way they choose and children.

Squid Shark on December 5, 2008 at 5:43 PM

Really now, how are we determining equality of effects? And who decides which effects are better and which are worse? And to whom?

Sheerq on December 5, 2008 at 5:28 PM

I don’t feel like playing the question game. I asked you whether or not you feel that those two should be equated and got no response.

Funny. I work in the IT sector in one of the most pot-friendly cities in America, and that’s not the case.

MadisonConservative on December 5, 2008 at 5:29 PM

I wonder why that is. Then again, I also wonder why the opposite would be true.

You mean me, but you must polish your reading comprehension skills. I said some cases of road rage are probably caused by overly stimulated coffee drinkers. If I had a million dollars I would bet on it.

Sheerq on December 5, 2008 at 5:25 PM

No, you asked how many cases of road rage had to do with coffee, which the implication that it is more than most would imagine, constituting a possible threat to our highways.

It was ridiculous hyperbole.

Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 5:43 PM

No, you asked how many cases of road rage had to do with coffee, which the implication that it is more than most would imagine, constituting a possible threat to our highways.

It was ridiculous hyperbole.

Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 5:43 PM

Caffine is also bad for public health.

Why are we talking about road rage. It is a crime to drive your car while under chemical intoxication, legal or other wise. No chemical test is needed to determine this intoxication, this would still be illegal if drugs were legalized.

Squid Shark on December 5, 2008 at 5:46 PM

justfinethanks on December 5, 2008 at 5:40 PM

I am seeing a lot of back lash because I dare call people losers for using drugs…sorry man, when you light up you are a loser. Doesn’t mean I think you are all bad. But to the degree you use is to the degree you are a loser. You want to be a casual loser, than fine…chances are you won’t get caught…and chances are your kids won’t see that its ok to smoke weed. And you are probably responsible enough to not drive or work under the influence…great, while driving and working you aren’t a loser…feel better?

Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 5:46 PM

My guess is that most pot smokers for “medical use” use it because they found the ultimate loop hole.

Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 5:40 PM

No offense, sincerely, but this really hurts all your arguments.

Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 5:46 PM

Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 5:27 PM

I wonder if you have ever seen computer programming languages? My boyfriend smokes pot, and sits down and does some of the most amazing web ads or database programming that I’ve ever seen! He does it legally too, with a Rx. He used to get major headaches, because of how intensive it is, so I can’t imagine you would have a problem with his self-medicating. He pays his bills on time, and doesn’t abuse it, so who are you to tell him it’s “dumb”?

Califemme on December 5, 2008 at 5:47 PM

Sorry, if you are high, then logic and reason is beyond your ability.

If you can not see the harm with parents being potheads or alcoholic to the kids, then really there is nothing that I can say that will convince you otherwise.

Really you are no different than Obama thinking its ok to kill a kid because the intent was to abort it. Nothing could be said to Obama to convince him how radical and even evil that is.

Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 5:33 PM

Where have I said that we need to throw people in jail for being a pot head or an alcoholic?

And including meth users to pot and drinking is not absurd. Because these people who want to end the war on drugs are focused on their drug of choice…weed, and forget the harder drugs like meth.

Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 5:36 PM

For someone who claims to be sober you’re having a very hard time with reading comprehension and basic logic. You truly have no idea what the heck you’re talking about.

Even though you have zero experience with the topic at hand, you are arrogant enough in your ignorance to call other people names based on experiences and substances you are totally ignorant about.

You appear to be the type of “God speaks to me personally” nanny state Republican that has just about killed the Republican Party. Good work.

Django on December 5, 2008 at 5:47 PM

Squid Shark on December 5, 2008 at 5:43 PM

No, you want to trash your body, by all means you are free to do so, you seem to want to remove all negative consequences from your choices.
Remove welfare, and allow kid to be taken away and employers to fire…then I am right there with you. But you want it both ways.

Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 5:48 PM

No offense, sincerely, but this really hurts all your arguments.

Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 5:46 PM

I agree. Voice, it’s evident you hate drugs. That’s fine, but it doesn’t provide a rational argument in favor of the war on drugs.

MadisonConservative on December 5, 2008 at 5:48 PM

I don’t have time to read through this whole thread, so I apologize if this ground has all ready been plowed, but I agree with the theory that if pot was legal, the demand for harder drugs (even alcohol) would drop significantly.

This would not only make the border easier and safer to secure, but would free-up room in our prisons.

captconrad on December 5, 2008 at 5:48 PM

Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 5:46 PM

how so?

Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 5:49 PM

Caffine is also bad for public health.

Not necessarily. It makes one more productive, more active and can even lead to a decrease in weight.

And it’s an effective pain reliever.

Why are we talking about road rage. It is a crime to drive your car while under chemical intoxication, legal or other wise. No chemical test is needed to determine this intoxication, this would still be illegal if drugs were legalized.

Squid Shark on December 5, 2008 at 5:46 PM

I didn’t bring up road rage. I was merely responding to the idea that coffee is somehow dangerous.

And, no, I still don’t see how we’d test to make sure someone isn’t driving while high. Currently we use urine tests, which aren’t effective and only prove that the person was at one point around the drug.

Sobriety tests don’t test for reduced reaction times.

Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 5:49 PM

Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 5:40 PM

Well my friend who recently passed from Lymphoma – who couldn’t keep soup down – would certainly disagree with your “loophole” theory. And as long as people like you keep advocating keeping mj listed as an illicit substance “because some kid might abuse it” people are truly suffering and dying in excruciating pain.

Ciannaky on December 5, 2008 at 5:50 PM

Django on December 5, 2008 at 5:47 PM

haha, because I have religious beliefs and standards that automatically makes me a religious zealot in your book, because I dare challenge your God, drugs.

Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 5:51 PM

Ciannaky on December 5, 2008 at 5:50 PM

I never said all, I said most. Sorry to hear about your friend.

Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 5:51 PM

No, you want to trash your body, by all means you are free to do so, you seem to want to remove all negative consequences from your choices.
Remove welfare, and allow kid to be taken away and employers to fire…then I am right there with you. But you want it both ways.

Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 5:48 PM

How do I want it both ways?
If employers want to fire people that is their business. If drugs are endangering your children, they need to go someplace safe.

If I toke up once and a while after a long day at work, go crazy.

You want to force the last guy into rehab, you are being inconsistent.

Squid Shark on December 5, 2008 at 5:51 PM

And you are probably responsible enough to not drive or work under the influence…great, while driving and working you aren’t a loser…feel better?

Well, considering I haven’t smoked weed since my wife became pregnant (my daughter is now 3), that doesn’t really make me feel better, because I’m thinking about other people’s rights. It’s fine if you think weed smokers are losers, that’s great, that’s fine. We aren’t discussing whether or not weed smokers are losers. In fact, just for the hell of it, let’s say that weed smokers are the biggest goddamn losers on the planet. How does that logically lead to “let’s ban weed.” How can you make loserdom illegal? Should we send the cops to Star Trek conventions and round every last one of them up for being such worthless losers?

“Are weed smokers losers?” and “Should weed be made illegal?” are two completely different questions, and you keep thinking that they are the same. Saying yes to the first question doesn’t mean you should say yes to the second.

justfinethanks on December 5, 2008 at 5:53 PM

Califemme on December 5, 2008 at 5:47 PM

sorry to hear about his headaches.

Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 5:53 PM

how so?

Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 5:49 PM

Because it paints you as someone who simply hates drugs and who thinks everyone who supports this just wants to get high, even if that’s not how you really feel, and paints all your future arguments in that light and makes your opposition to legalization appear superficial.

The truth is that there are plenty of reasons people will take pot for medical reasons. I’m personally opposed to giving cancer patients anything to smoke, but that’s a secondary issue.

Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 5:53 PM

And, no, I still don’t see how we’d test to make sure someone isn’t driving while high. Currently we use urine tests, which aren’t effective and only prove that the person was at one point around the drug.

Sobriety tests don’t test for reduced reaction times.

Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 5:49 PM

In Florida you dont have to have any test to be arrested for DWI and DUI. Officers use the same methods as always, field sobriety test, nystagmus test, check for odor of alcohol, signs of disorientation and paranoia, bloodshot eyes.

Squid Shark on December 5, 2008 at 5:54 PM

Should we send the cops to Star Trek conventions and round every last one of them up for being such worthless losers?

Solid

Squid Shark on December 5, 2008 at 5:55 PM

Squid Shark on December 5, 2008 at 5:51 PM

no, if you read my posts, I have said the opposite. I do not want to force people in rehab, rather I want kids removed, and that if they want their kids they need to sober up. I think the judge should encourage rehab, but I disagree with it being mandatory.

Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 5:55 PM

I never said all, I said most. Sorry to hear about your friend.

Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 5:51 PM

I understand and thanks for your condolences, what I am saying is as long as these substances remain illegal we can’t attempt to study them and their effectiveness in treating illnesses, pain and side the effects from drug therapies even though they show great promises.

Ciannaky on December 5, 2008 at 5:55 PM

haha, because I have religious beliefs and standards that automatically makes me a religious zealot in your book, because I dare challenge your God, drugs.

Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 5:51 PM

Alrighty, I see I’ve been wasting my time talking to this person. That’s okay; it happens often enough on the internet.

The only God you have is yourself, as evidenced by your arrogant contempt for people who’ve seen more of life than you obviously have. Good luck with that when God ultimately holds you to account for it.

Django on December 5, 2008 at 5:56 PM

Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 5:53 PM

But in that same post I said if the case was legitimate, then I would be ok with it.

Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 5:56 PM

The truth is that there are plenty of reasons people will take pot for medical reasons. I’m personally opposed to giving cancer patients anything to smoke, but that’s a secondary issue.

Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 5:53 PM

If you are smoking to ease the pain of a terminal patient, whats the issue. My Grandmother died of lung cancer, she smoked until the day before she died, it made her happy, who was I to tell her to die cranky and pissed off in a nic fit.

Squid Shark on December 5, 2008 at 5:56 PM

But in that same post I said if the case was legitimate, then I would be ok with it.

Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 5:56 PM

…while dismissing the majority of those cases as “loopholes for potheads” without any evidence.

MadisonConservative on December 5, 2008 at 5:57 PM

Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 5:55 PM

I only want their kids removed if it is placing them in danger, just as I would remove them from a house where their ancoholic mom is beating the. and I have read your posts, you want to kill dealers but coddle users.

Riight.

Squid Shark on December 5, 2008 at 5:58 PM

justfinethanks on December 5, 2008 at 5:53 PM

I would be ok with weed being legal, if we remove the safety nets like you have to be sober to get welfare, keep your kids etc.
Where I became convinced that it should remain illegal is too many single issue libertarians that I have talked to could not see how using drugs makes one a loser.
Glad to hear you have been sober this long.

Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 6:01 PM

Squid Shark on December 5, 2008 at 5:58 PM

didn’t say kill dealers, I said top imprison them. Kill the drug lords, not the dealers.

Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 6:02 PM

MadisonConservative on December 5, 2008 at 5:57 PM

true, and fully admit that is my opinion, and could very well be wrong in this one area.

Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 6:03 PM

got to go guys, surfs up

Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 6:04 PM

surfs up

Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 6:04 PM

And he claims WE’RE potheads.

j/k

MadisonConservative on December 5, 2008 at 6:06 PM

got to go guys, surfs up

Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 6:04 PM

Watch out for all the beer drinking losers sure to be in the way of your holy recreation.

Django on December 5, 2008 at 6:07 PM

I would be ok with weed being legal, if we remove the safety nets like you have to be sober to get welfare, keep your kids etc.

Well, its good to see you at least have some leeway on the issue. I suppose addicts staying on welfare is a legitimate concern.

Glad to hear you have been sober this long.

Honestly, I believe its possible to be a good parent and still enjoy a joint now and again, just like it’s possible to be a good parent and have a night out drinking occasionally. I just don’t do it because I think it would be irresponsible to do anything that might risk me losing my job or getting arrested, now that I have to take care of my daughter.

justfinethanks on December 5, 2008 at 6:11 PM

How much you wanna bet CV is an adrenaline junkie!?!?!

Ciannaky on December 5, 2008 at 6:15 PM

“Weed will get you through times without money better then money will get you through times without weed”

Freewheelin’ Frank

DeweyWins on December 5, 2008 at 6:18 PM

But in that same post I said if the case was legitimate, then I would be ok with it.

Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 5:56 PM

True. But, people will mostly pick up on the first part. Fortunately here, it’s just a few people who have been reading almost everything you’ve said, so that’s less likely. I’m just adding this for future reference.

signs of disorientation and paranoia, bloodshot eyes.

Squid Shark on December 5, 2008 at 5:54 PM

I would hope that’s not enough to haul someone away. I have blood sugar issues and can easily look disoriented even when I’m completely sober. Obviously, being pulled over by cops can make one paranoid, and blood shot eyes can be benign as well.

If you are smoking to ease the pain of a terminal patient, whats the issue. My Grandmother died of lung cancer, she smoked until the day before she died, it made her happy, who was I to tell her to die cranky and pissed off in a nic fit.

Squid Shark on December 5, 2008 at 5:56 PM

I’m not saying don’t. I’m only saying that it’s not the best method.

Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 6:19 PM

I suppose addicts staying on welfare is a legitimate concern.

Certainly.

Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 6:21 PM

Time to end the war on drugs? No.

I don’t see how one can even compare Prohibition with laws which criminalize drug use. Yes, many people abuse alcohol and end up alcoholics but many more enjoy a drink or two and are perfectly fine. Try that with, say, heroin.

As a parent, I do not want drugs like heroin and crystal meth legalized and thus easily accessible and socially acceptable.

Buy Danish on December 5, 2008 at 6:30 PM

Would you compare fireworks to the atom bomb just because they both explode?

Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 5:23 PM

That analogy is out of whack too.

I consider MJ to fall between caffeine and alcohol. Unlike caffeine, MJ alters perception, but unlike alcohol, MJ isn’t toxic.

FloatingRock on December 5, 2008 at 6:32 PM

Yup. World still revolves around him.

wise_man on December 5, 2008 at 5:23 PM

So, do you have anything useful to contribute to this thread or are you just going to continue your post election trolling maneuvers?

FloatingRock on December 5, 2008 at 6:34 PM

That analogy is out of whack too.

That was my point.

I consider MJ to fall between caffeine and alcohol. Unlike caffeine, MJ alters perception, but unlike alcohol, MJ isn’t toxic.

FloatingRock on December 5, 2008 at 6:32 PM

Well, smoke is still toxic and likely does similar damage to the lungs that alcohol does to the liver.

Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 6:39 PM

Why is it that the collectivists running our government think we’re unable to be accountable for practically any aspect of our lives – yet now they’re OK with us being able to use illicit substances?

With that said, I’ve always been against the foolish war on drugs. We need to legalize cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and even marijuana, because the drug trade is leading to violent crime, improper and dangerous drug use, exploitation of minors, street dealer price gouging and various other actual vices. These drugs can then be taxed, like alcohol and cigarettes are, and that can stimulate the economy. Also, if drugs are legalized, it is easier for records to be kept on who is buying and using the drugs.

Sign of the Dollar on December 5, 2008 at 6:41 PM

Legalize illegal drugs?. OK let’s review. What’s the argument against gun control? When holding guns becomes illegal, most people will obey the law, and the only armed citizens will be the criminal fraction preying on the 90% obeying the law. What happened when we “legalized” premarital sex. Gee, EVERYBODY decided to indulge themselves. When there is a standard in place, a large majority upholds it. If you take the illegal drugs standard down, EVERYBODY will be indulging in drugs. Drug libertarians assume that the only users will be the druggies already abusing drugs. I say, ship all the libertarians and their children to Amsterdam, and let them explain 10 years later how well their kids are doing with that free choice on drug use. It’s already too hard to raise children in this permissive culture.

Mark30339 on December 5, 2008 at 6:43 PM

Well, smoke is still toxic and likely does similar damage to the lungs that alcohol does to the liver.

Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 6:39 PM

True. There was a study recently that found MJ may reduce the occurrence of lung cancer in people who also smoke tobacco, but smoke of any type can still cause other lung related diseases. However, MJ can also be vaporized or consumed.

However, if you drink too much alcohol too fast, it kills you. If you smoke or otherwise consume too much MJ too fast, even massive quantities, you simply fall asleep.

FloatingRock on December 5, 2008 at 6:48 PM

I see the sense, but again, would you deny unemployment benefits to alcohols, as well as other benefits? Would you deny them to obese people who live on McDonald’s? Would you deny them to smokers?

MadisonConservative on December 5, 2008 at 2:12 PM

I would deny them to anyone whose actions in taking things that are provably bad for them are voluntary. So, a “huffer” would be off my list, but a person who nearly suffered near asphyxiation due to a heater malfunction would be on the list.

My point is that as long as we are going libertarian, we might as well go a bit further along that path and let those who have the choice pay for the consequences of that choice. Since drugs affect far more than just the person who takes them (it is not a “victimless crime”), I would require the drug dealers to contribute to a “superfund” to clean up the messes their products would cause.

Ed has never had a kid on drugs. I have. I think I understand the true cost of a drug-enabling culture far better than him. I’m unalterably opposed to his position with respect to legalization. As I’ve pointed out to him before, I pray that he never comes to understand the pain that drugs inflicted on my family.

unclesmrgol on December 5, 2008 at 6:50 PM

I could understand, perhaps, some type of legalization for marijuana…but the first thought that popped into my head on reading this was, “We’re banning trans-fats and bonfires in some cities, but we are going to allow cocaine and methamphetamine?”
Have we lost our minds?
I’m leaning toward an affirmative answer on that one.

Cindy of TX on December 5, 2008 at 7:04 PM

What happened when we “legalized” premarital sex. Gee, EVERYBODY decided to indulge themselves.

Mark30339 on December 5, 2008 at 6:43 PM

Premarital sex didn’t occur until it was “legalized”? On what planet was this?

When there is a standard in place, a large majority upholds it. If you take the illegal drugs standard down, EVERYBODY will be indulging in drugs. Drug libertarians assume that the only users will be the druggies already abusing drugs.

Mark30339 on December 5, 2008 at 6:43 PM

100 years ago, every drug you could think of was legal in the US and “everybody” was not taking drugs.

Django on December 5, 2008 at 7:15 PM

Hemp.

It’s a homegrown jobs program, and a massive tax windfell.

How can the government resist?

profitsbeard on December 5, 2008 at 7:31 PM

If you want to continue the war on drugs then there are two things you must reconcile as a Conservative:

1. How do you pay for the hundreds of billions of dollars it takes to fight an unwinnable war?

2. As a Conservative, you must believe in your fellow man and woman’s individual right to succeed or fail based on their choices, motivation and effort (or lack thereof). That being the case, if you still want to continue a war on drugs then you must admit that you are a Conservative that believes in a program that goes against a core principal of being a Conservative.

If you can reconcile these two things then I fully support your perspective.

Good luck with that.

watson007 on December 5, 2008 at 7:39 PM

I was merely responding to the idea that coffee is somehow dangerous.

Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 5:49 PM

The point is that coffee is relatively benign, and so is pot. Show me any real study that correlates pot smoking with crime (other than use of the drug itself.)

Sheerq on December 5, 2008 at 7:42 PM

make it legal, zone its use like licenses for bars in certain sections of the city, make it illegal in public, let it be legal in your home.

Strengthen industry testing so that employer can take action iof they deem it needed.

get the gov out of my life and repeal the damn seatbelt laws also.

unseen on December 5, 2008 at 8:03 PM

Comment pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8


You must be logged in to post a comment.