Time to end the war on drugs?
posted at 12:20 pm on December 5, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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: « Previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 Next »
Redundant repetition.
29Victor on December 5, 2008 at 8:11 PM
My greatest concern about the War on Drugs is the degree to which it alienates and criminalizes tens of millions of Americans who would otherwise be law abiding citizens. This is particularly true of young people, who are prone to experiment with lifestyle and substances, and then move on.
But if you are one of the large percent of experimenters, you can no longer consider the police your friend. You can no longer respect the law, because you are breaking it. And you certainly lose respect for our society because it just threw your friend in jail for something that you personally don’t regard as a ‘real’ crime.
This pushes people into the arms of those who maliciously oppose our nation, our laws, our traditions, and our culture.
I believe that the WOD has contributed substantially to an erosion of American values. We now have three Presidents in sequence who violated the drug laws. It’s time to end the WOD and look at alternatives.
DaMav on December 5, 2008 at 8:11 PM
That’s one imaginative retort. The libertarian response would be for drug opponents to hire private security and bear the cost themselves for shielding their children.
Since legal and illegal drugs are currently plentiful parents have to rely primarily on instilling judgment in their kids, because law enforcement usually only gets involved once it is too late.
dedalus on December 5, 2008 at 8:18 PM
You’re absolutely right. What we need is a nice restrictive culture bolstered by government controls. Then parents don’t have to worry about doing their job, because the state does it for them! Free choice is the scourge of the nation.
MadisonConservative on December 5, 2008 at 8:22 PM
Iran, Iraq, Afganistan, Pakistan, Egypt, and the beat goes on.
Onager on December 5, 2008 at 8:35 PM
If the seatbelt laws are repealed and you get in an accident, shouldn’t we be able to deny you medical treatment on the logic that you were too dumb to wear an available and proven safety device? Call it a ‘Darwin clause’.
Dark-Star on December 5, 2008 at 8:39 PM
MadisonConservative on December 5, 2008 at 8:22 PM
This is one of the arguments that almost sold me to thinking we should not engage in the war on drugs. Believe me I am not thrilled with the idea of a nanny state, I detest seat belt laws or speed laws, helmet laws etc. I detest the government even forcing kids have to be in school. That said, I have had foster kids whose mom did drugs. The environment was unsafe. Not only were their needs not met, because when you are stoned, you don’t think about feeding your kid or where they are playing, but the mom had a lot of druggie guy friends who were rather dangerous for little girls or boys, stay over. This is why I am against legalizing drugs.
DaMav on December 5, 2008 at 8:11 PM
Substitute drug use with petty theft, and see how your argument holds up.
Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 8:40 PM
man, its a sad day when pot heads take over Hotair
“well alcohol is bad, and its legal, so we should legalize pot”
…. i guess one bad thing deserves another… the difference is I’ve met plenty of hard working alcoholics, but majority of the potheads i know are lazy and rarely bathe… but hey maybe its coincidence /
“use and abuse is not synonymous” well, unfortunately most the cases it is. most poeple dont know how to stop at 1 or 2 drinks, esp “social drinkers” , we would have “social tokers”
also, what about gateway drunks? all my friend who “only smoked pot” in highschool , almost everyone has done harder drugs, be it meth to coke, to just zanbars , they will lace this “gov” weed with all sorts of shit
Donut on December 5, 2008 at 8:41 PM
I agree with all of this. However, if the item in question was alcohol instead of drugs, would you feel that we should bring back prohibition?
And on the flip side, I would assume you can’t list any drug-using parents who never endangered their kids with their drug use. That’s because you never hear about them. You only hear of the tragedies. I know from personal experience of drug-using parents who brought up well-adjusted children with no problems.
What you need to take into account is that if it weren’t one destructive behavior, it would likely be another. Maybe it would be prescription drugs, which are legal. Maybe it would be sexual proclivity. Maybe they’re reckless drivers. There are many behaviors. Just as guns don’t kill people, people do, so then do drugs not cause problems, people do. For every alcoholic who ruined their lives and the lives of others, I’ll give you a half a dozen who drink and it doesn’t affect their lives negatively. It’s about abuse, period. If they are going to screw up their lives, they’ll find a way.
MadisonConservative on December 5, 2008 at 8:56 PM
To answer point 1, same could be said about the war on terror.
As to point 2, that is a libertarian core believe, not necessarily a conservative core belief. Conservatives have 3 legs, fiscal, social, and military. They generally see laws as moral laws, such as abortion, murder, robbery, etc. And they are concerned that by making something legal you are by default making it acceptable.
Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 8:58 PM
Your observations don’t square with reality. Every study I’ve ever heard of indicates otherwise. Alcoholism impacts peoples work efficiency far more than chronic MJ use, this is because alcohol is a debilitating drug, especially during withdrawal and MJ is not.
As far as the bathing is concerned, that’s ridiculous. You’re probably thinking of hippies or something.
FloatingRock on December 5, 2008 at 8:59 PM
So the studies you read don’t jive with Donut’s RL experience?
Wow, who should I believe…
Dark-Star on December 5, 2008 at 9:00 PM
My guess would be whoever says what you want to hear.
MadisonConservative on December 5, 2008 at 9:02 PM
That’s greatly oversimplified.
FloatingRock on December 5, 2008 at 9:03 PM
Perceptive and well put. Hadn’t thought it through in that way but it does concur with the lives of many of the people I’ve met.
dedalus on December 5, 2008 at 9:06 PM
MadisonConservative on December 5, 2008 at 8:56 PM
Actually that was the reason why we had the prohibition. People felt alcohol was damaging to the family and the community at large. And you know, they were right.
Now that alcohol is legal, we have more sexuality in our ads, harder liquor being sold as fun and cool, we have made it socially acceptable to get wasted with alcohol, as long as you aren’t an “alcoholic”, and even then we took away personal responsibility and called it a disease that people are born with.
When I hear libertarians say…if people want to destroy themselves its their right…I agree, but within a few breaths they then say a joint here and there is no big deal. And that is where I pause, because I know it won’t be long with legalizing drugs that we will see heroin or some other hard drug sold as cool.
Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 9:09 PM
It’s not just HotAir, it’s all of America. Remember that next time you’re walking down the street. We’re everywhere. We park your cars and fix your computers. We run multi-national corporations and invent the future. We guard you while you sleep.
FloatingRock on December 5, 2008 at 9:12 PM
We have more sexuality in our ads the we did during prohibition because we have a saturation of advertising. I do think our culture, especially the Internet, would be soaked in sexual content regardless of liquor’s legality.
Would people stop at a few joints or would everyone stampede into heroin? My guess is that they already do stop since a lot of potheads have easy access to harder drugs but have seen them destroy the lives of their friends.
Not everyone is self-destructive. The number of cigarette smokers has steadily declined since the 1970’s. Somethings can be legal but avoided by people with good judgment.
dedalus on December 5, 2008 at 9:18 PM
So you’re in favor of bringing back prohibition?
MadisonConservative on December 5, 2008 at 9:20 PM
If you want another good example…think about the joke cliche about people who get into online games, like World of Warcraft, Everquest, Second Life, etc…and completely abandon other parts of their lives.
They’re paying for the privilege, spurning friends and family, forgetting work, and focus only on people who partake in the same activity. Destructive, and plenty of horror stories to go around.
Meanwhile, plenty of people play without problem. There are such things as addictive personalities. Some people are chronic spenders, and compulsively buy or collect things. How many people out there spend their sleeping hours up watching internet porn?
Drugs? Just one more thing.
MadisonConservative on December 5, 2008 at 9:25 PM
well, of like the 8 pot heads i know off the top of my head, none of them have jobs or girlfriends, all are really really smart but almost fail out of college due to laziness and wanting to only smoke pot all day.
as opposed to the Alcoholics, they are all assholes but they all have jobs and work hard, be it usually unskilled labor but what ever.
but then there are the normal pot heads who only occasionally drink or smoke, (which most of you prob identify with , but people who dont like pot point at the hot-topic stoner ) they act normal but ussually spiral down into stoner street and drop out/loose job
Donut on December 5, 2008 at 9:28 PM
Well usually real life, on-the-ground experience trumps any amount of studies by any number of ‘experts’. Show me some of that for your viewpoint and I’ll consider it much more valid.
Dark-Star on December 5, 2008 at 9:34 PM
So you take the experience of some random stranger over the internet rather than a study which probably involved dozens or maybe even hundreds of people with their own experiences?
That’s your prerogative.
MadisonConservative on December 5, 2008 at 9:36 PM
link to study or it didnt happen :)
Donut on December 5, 2008 at 9:39 PM
MadisonConservative on December 5, 2008 at 9:20 PM
Yes I would be for the prohibition, even though the libertarian inside of me is screaming… it has not been an easy decision, and one I continually wrestle with. Generally I am a don’t tread on me conservative ( ie a libertarian ) but I see it effecting society at large, not just the person who wants a wild ride. I do agree that the current method of the war on drugs does not work. We should make it the law that if you use, you can’t collect welfare, promote fatherhood ( gang members more often than not lack a father, so use the gang leader as their father ). Make it if you abuse alcohol or drugs ( its redundant ) that business can fire you, that you may lose your kids, or license ( if you drive under the influence ) etc, then I would feel more comfortable with legalizing drugs.
MadisonConservative on December 5, 2008 at 9:25 PM
Or spends too much time on Hot Air ;) I am guilty of this sin, as well as playing too much world of warcraft…its my drug, and recognize that I am a loser for it.
Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 9:43 PM
I’d agree. Odd how “modern” psychiartry isn’t so much concerned with keeping people off drugs as on the right mix. Some folks are taking several pills, one for each flavor of neurosis.
I’ve known more people to get in trouble with prescription meds than from smoking pot.
dedalus on December 5, 2008 at 9:48 PM
Aha! We have a raiding addict!
If you’re in favor of bringing back prohibition, then we’re simply at an impasse. I will merely point out that prohibition was a complete and utter failure, proved that outlawing a controlled substance just makes things worse, and that doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is insanity.
With all respect. ;)
MadisonConservative on December 5, 2008 at 9:50 PM
Do you have any kids or a job? What’s your real name so that we can ostracize you?
I was addicted to Asheron’s Call for a few months several years ago until I realized how much time I was wasting and quit.
FloatingRock on December 5, 2008 at 9:50 PM
So then you wouldn’t mind providing a copy of this almighty study, Mr.Madison?
Dark-Star on December 5, 2008 at 9:51 PM
I wouldn’t say you’re a loser for it. Both are far more intellectually stimulating that vegetating in front of a TV. Smoking pot while working on hobbies is better still.
FloatingRock on December 5, 2008 at 9:53 PM
I’m not referencing any particular study. You dismissed a study you hadn’t looked at in favor of the personal experience of a stranger on the internet. Yes?
MadisonConservative on December 5, 2008 at 9:55 PM
MadisonConservative on December 5, 2008 at 9:50 PM
But there is still a prohibition, you have to be 21 or older. And some have argued, quite compellingly I might add, that we should lower the drinking age to zero, because alcohol is a rite of passage, so teenagers tend to break all kinds of laws to drink, and parents thrown in prison because they host drink parties for their teenagers.
Would you be in favor of no drinking age? Or does anything go? Where do you draw the line? Because regulating legal drugs is no different than making them out right illegal, other than you make it easier and more acceptable.
Conservative Voice on December 5, 2008 at 10:00 PM
Donut provided his experience. You haven’t provided anything but snotty remarks and references to a mysterios ’study’. And when I ask to see it you come up with a lame-ass excuse to ‘not referencing any particular study’.
So reference one already.
Produce one of these magical studies, accept you’ve been pwned and button it, or just get lost.
Dark-Star on December 5, 2008 at 10:01 PM
I’m the one that brought it up, but to be honest I don’t feel inclined to do your research for you because I know for a fact that I’m right. I think it qualifies as common knowledge, at least to a reasonable extent. If you are of a differing opinion, IMO the onus is on you to demonstrate the voracity of your argument.
Alcohol is a debilitating drug. MJ smokers show up to work on time per the average and don’t call in sick with hangovers. They don’t cause accidents at work because they don’t get the shakes and their reflexes aren’t diminished. In every measurable way, MJ is less debilitating that Alcohol. It’s a fact.
FloatingRock on December 5, 2008 at 10:02 PM
Hit a nerve, I see. It’s okay. You go on believing only those sources that say what you want to hear.
MadisonConservative on December 5, 2008 at 10:04 PM
Of course! If you know you’re right, that automatically excuses you from producing any evidence to support your position. How silly of me.
Translation: Not only are you too lazy to produce one of these mystical, almighty studies, you aren’t even bothering to provide me with so much as a starting point so I can go and find them. Assuming they exist.
Wasn’t talking to you, kindly MYOB.
Dark-Star on December 5, 2008 at 10:10 PM
Eventually economics will result in the legalized possession of drugs. enfotrcing current laws is expensive, anf just look how eager agencies are to confiscate money, cars and houses used in drug dealing. Taxing drugs is where we’re heading.
Nostradamus on December 5, 2008 at 10:15 PM
Oh. I figured when you quoted this in the post:
…that you were addressing me. Oh, wait, you were. Now you’re just being a jerk, like you appear to specialize in doing.
MadisonConservative on December 5, 2008 at 10:16 PM
Make it if you abuse alcohol or drugs ( its redundant ) that business can fire you, Businesses CAN fire you if your job performance warrants it or if you fail a drug test that you may lose your kids You CAN lose your kids if you do not properly care for them, or license ( if you drive under the influence )Obviously, you CAN etc, then I would feel more comfortable with legalizing drugs.
hillbillyjim on December 5, 2008 at 10:20 PM
I’m not going to spend my Friday night spending hours parsing through thousands of internet search results looking for studies I’ve read over the past 20 years, though I have spent the last 10 minutes or so making an attempt.
However, by your standards of “evidence”, in the meantime I’ll point out that one of my best friends was an alcoholic and drug addict in his youth. He’s been dry for over a decade, although I don’t remember how long it was exactly. He even quit tobacco and caffeine in recent years.
He says that he was into speed, coke, MJ, alcohol and probably a few others I don’t recall, but I don’t think he was ever into any opiates.
He says that alcohol was the worst. It really effed up his life, the other stuff was just the icing on the cake.
So there, by your standard, that’s proof! In the mean time, why don’t you spend your Friday night looking for some science to back up your argument while I do the same. Propaganda from the DEA doesn’t count, just as I’m avoiding linking to studies by NORML.
FloatingRock on December 5, 2008 at 10:22 PM
Right now I’ve queried on +Marijuana +alcohol +study +work +absence +science
Have at it and enjoy.
FloatingRock on December 5, 2008 at 10:26 PM
.
I’ve done all I can to instill good judgment in my college kid, but I can’t undo all the cynical, self-absorbed fatalism cultivated by his peers from middle school on and by this modern American culture. He doesn’t do drugs because: 1) he doesn’t want to go to jail, 2) he knows he won’t get a job if he flunks a drug screen, and 3) he’s doing just fine with alcohol (which isn’t on the drug screen). It’s not because he’s so impressed with the example I set.
Mark30339 on December 5, 2008 at 10:28 PM
Drug use actually has decreased during the Bush years….
jimmy the notable on December 5, 2008 at 10:38 PM
If you want private talk, go up to the top of the page and hit the “private room” button. Then just two can go into the “private room”, for limited posts.
Otherwise, the posts are public.
right2bright on December 5, 2008 at 10:39 PM
I hear you and know where you are coming from. I have two very young kids. I worry not just about drugs but all the social pressures from peers. I recall being a teen a few decades ago and know that some of my friends didn’t make it to their 40th birthday alive or able to care for themselves.
Still, I’d rather use churches and private organizations against drugs and other issues of personal virtue.
Realistically, I don’t think pot will be legalized and sold by the government. However, I’d like to see it decriminalized and not have non-violent drug offenders in prison. That’s more from a tax dollar standpoint than anything else.
dedalus on December 5, 2008 at 10:52 PM
.
Look MC, if you’re in the accounting program at UW, then I commend you. I majored in accounting there, then got a law degree, then got out of town. I thought the accounting program was far more challenging than the law. But Madison has too many under-utilized, highly intelligent, cynical people that think sarcasm and distortion is the way to deal with those who deign to hold a different view. After you pass the CPA exam, hold a steady job, and parent children for 20 years, maybe you’ll see things differently.
Mark30339 on December 5, 2008 at 11:00 PM
Alright, it’s 8:00 my time and I haven’t found any studies posted online yet. I’ve seen them in the past on more than one occasion, and I always read studies in the news about MJ, but I’m on my third beer and am not in the mood to continue this pursuit. Now, if I had smoked some MJ instead, I probably would have found something by now and won the day, but oh well. That’s the way it goes; alcohol dims the mind as well as the body.
FloatingRock on December 5, 2008 at 11:05 PM
Sending non-violent, otherwise law-abiding citizens to prison for drug offenses has the effect of increasing costs for new prisons and more staff, overcrowding in prisons, early release for hard-core criminals and diverting law enforcement resources from more productive work, while sending otherwise productive people to what is effectively Criminal University.
The resultant damage to people, families, and communities doesn’t seem worth the costs since the demonstrable benefits are so few and vaguely defined.
In addition to this, the prohibition of drugs has had the exact same effect on the criminal underworld as alcohol prohibition, except fortunately for us and unfortunately for Mexico, Colombia, etc., the Capones this time are mostly overseas.
These new “Capones” are far and away worse than the original, as in some countries their scope of power and influence rivals that of their governments and legitimate armies, and the almost unlimited money resources corrupts these governments and armies. This is not helping our immigration problems either, to put it mildly.
Yes, it’s high time for a re-think.
hillbillyjim on December 5, 2008 at 11:07 PM
…so few and so vaguely defined.
hillbillyjim on December 5, 2008 at 11:12 PM
I’m not a proponent of legalization of all drugs, I am however for the decriminalization and reclassification of many narcotics. While the desire to protect the public from substance abuse is a noble goal it is unrealistic and in many cases counterproductive.
The current classifications render substances with medicinal value beyond study; marijuana – which never should have been classified as a schedule 1 substance – cannot even be tested for efficacy in controlling many legitimate health issues.
Would you also ban the current crop of analgesics due to the propensity for abuse? Because it is more likely your children are raiding your medicine cabinet than hooking up with the local pusher.
Face facts; abuse will occur in spite of prohibition and will continue even after decriminalization, but our inability to develop a sound drug policy based on scientific fact rather than histrionics and rhetoric is causing otherwise good people to suffer and in some cases die horrible deaths.
Ciannaky on December 5, 2008 at 11:17 PM
Been a cop for 20 years.
Seen what horrific damage drugs does to individuals and how entire families are destroyed by drugs, includng something as “benign” as Marijuana, which isn’t so ‘benign’ anymore since it has been cross-bred and cultivated with specific intent to make it a supremely intoxicating plant compared to what it was only just 20 years ago.
Legalizing or relaxing drug laws even one iota is what is truly INSANE. It’s even more preposterous than the Illegal Immigrant shamnesty we’ve been through so far.
Drugs have never been a ‘legal’ commodity in America to the degree alcohol was before prohibition. Drugs have never been a part of religious ceremony such as alcoholic wine has been either. Thus, the reason for the repeal of prohibition went beyond just criminal enterprises being built on prohibition. The only time drugs are or ever were legal is when they’re prescription, or when they’re so new that the Government hasn’t reviewed and outlawed them yet.
Way back when America was much younger, and much more innocent, opium was legal for a time, as was cocaine, and even marijuana. It didn’t take long to see the utter destruction that resulted from addiction to those drugs. Even Crystal Methamphetamine was legal for a short time.
In my opinion, it is reprehensible, supremely irresponsible, and utterly bereft of sanity and common sense for HotAir bloggers to suggest relaxing laws on illicit drugs.
I am thoroughly disgusted by it, ED. I sincerely thought you were more intelligent than that. You should be ashamed.
FlatFoot on December 5, 2008 at 11:20 PM
I’m late to this discussion and must admit I have not read the entire history of comments.
So, I have a question.
Me and my siblings all went through high school in the 70’s. At that point studies said at least 70% of high school students had used pot, half of those regularly. Significant numbers also had tried and used regularly coke (I don’t remember numbers for coke.)
So, my question is: Are not those same people now the 40 and 50 year old backbone of society with unemployment rates hovering around 6%?
I only have antidotal evidence from personal knowledge, but every single person I knew back then fell into the 70% and every single one of them are pretty much a normal distribution of the working, parents, some divorced, some with issues, most not. All I still know now fall into the 50% actually paying income taxes.
Of course I was lucky enough to be in the suburbs where youthful mistakes and experimenting did not usually turn into 3 strike prison terms and extensive future kill wrap sheets for drug use.
Today, it seems like we have criminalized the mistakes and expermentation of youth (male youth gets extra downward pressure) to the point where we reward the Vorgon Prison Guard personality and give them jobs jailing the risktaking imaginative creators types. The lucky ones get construction and fabrication jobs building prisions.
How many generations until we breed ourselves into only the meek followers and sadistic prison guards dominated stock necessary to accept socialism and communism?
Opps, we are already there. Nevermind, I need a drink!
Unquiet on December 5, 2008 at 11:25 PM
Well, if what you say is true with pot illegal, I’d say you just made a good case for not legalizing it.
JannyMae on December 5, 2008 at 11:26 PM
Thanks for your resume. I’m so impressed. You win. Even though you never actually claimed you disagree with what I said.
MadisonConservative on December 5, 2008 at 11:33 PM
Funny how my irresponsible high school friends from the 1970’s (mostly) turned into responsible parents.
dedalus on December 5, 2008 at 11:34 PM
What, that MJ users are just like anybody else?
FloatingRock on December 5, 2008 at 11:36 PM
This is an essay I posted in January, so please excuse the length. On this issue, i must respectfully disagree.
Since I retired from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in 1995 and went into teaching and writing, I have been pretty much removed from the drug enforcement scene. Once in a while, I see some of my old DEA colleagues in California at retirements and funerals, but a lot of my old friends are spread out across the country. The so-called War on Drugs (a misnomer in my view) has been largely overshadowed by the War on Terror-which is very real. However, the drug scene is still out there. I remember when I began my career in 1970, I hoped that by the time I retired, our efforts would cause drug use to decline to a manageable level. I, of course, was wrong. Not only are drugs still prevalent, but the drug legalization advocates are still out there. They say that in a free society, people should be allowed to put whatever they want in their bodies. They also say that enforcement has neither reduced the supply nor the demand. They say by keeping it illegal, the price remains higher and more lucrative for the traffickers. Many feel that DEA should be abolished. In their view, drug use would actually decline if made legal. Occasionally, I get asked about my views on legalization. My basic response is that legalization advocates should answer a few questions.
First of all, which drugs would they legalize? Would they legalize only “soft” drugs like marijuana, hash and LSD while keeping heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine illegal? Or would they legalize all drugs? Unless they are willing to legalize all drugs, there would still be a need for enforcement.
Second, would the advocates of legalization put age limits on who could use drugs? Would it be 21, 18, 12? Unless there are virtually no limits as to age, there would still be need for enforcement. That means that virtual infants and toddlers could be given drugs by an adult.
Third, if drugs were legalized, who would be authorized to provide them? Pharmacists, doctors, pharmaceutical companies? Who would supervise their commerce? The government? Perhaps we would have government sites that would dispense drugs.
Once that issue was settled, how would the traffickers and dealers react? Would they just be grateful for being decriminalized and go away to pursue honorable and legal jobs? Or would they try to compete underground by lowering their prices, offering a better product-or would they resort to violence and intimidation against the newly-established drug providers. Remember, we are talking about criminals here. Contrary to the claims of many that people in prison for drug crimes are non-violent, that is a disengenuous argument. Most drug organizations do use violence as a part of their business. Think of traffickers world-wide and the carnage they have brought to places like Colombia, Mexico and Sicily. These people will continue to be criminals one way or another.
You may think the above scenarios I listed are ridiculous, but this is the situation we would face if we decided to eliminate drug laws. When I was stationed in Italy in the 1980s, I had an occasion to go to Paris on a case. Also there on the same case was a British Customs Agent. One evening, while we were checking out the various libraries in Paris, I asked him about the British experiment in dispensing legal heroin to registered addicts (since discontinued). He explained to me that the practice had been an abject failure and was stopped because it only managed to triple the addict population.
I mention the UK because many people here like to point to Europe as the example to emulate. “Why don’t we do like the Dutch do?”, they ask. I had a few occasions to go to Holland and work with the Dutch drug cops. If you have not been to Amsterdam, I highly recommend a visit. Then you will see the effect that a liberalized policy has had on that society. Amsterdam is a magnet for druggies from all over the world. But then again, we are talking about a society that thinks that child porn is a minor issue.
I also worked with the Swiss cops in Zurich on numerous occasions and had a chance to see the infamous “Needle Park” where addicts could freely shoot heroin, putting a blight on an otherwise beautiful city. Not surprisingly, the town also became a magnet for drug users from elsewhere. If you don’t like the immigration picture in the US now,see what it’s like if we legalize drugs. We will be inundated with drug-users who will flock here-and not to find jobs.
I personally don’t demand that people be put in jail for simple possession or use. DEA has never been involved in enforcing and prosecuting that level of drug offense. Most jurisdictions recognize that we have too few resources to devote to this level of the drug world. However, there should be no apologizing for incarcerating traffickers and dealers. Their actions are a scourge on our society.
Yet, many say that all the enforcement of the past 4 decades has not shown results. Well, I answer yes and no. Had it not been for enforcement, we might have sunk under the weight of our drug problems years ago. Yes, the level of drug abuse has not really declined. However, if that is a reason to eliminate drug laws, then why not get rid of laws against murder, robbery, rape and so on? Our murder rates continue at a disgraceful number every year. We continue to enforce these laws because it is the right and moral thing for a civilized nation to do. In reality, what is needed is a three-pronged approach; enforcement, education and rehabilitation. While enforcement has not been entirely a success, either have education and rehabilitation either.
Much of the public is not aware that to legalize drugs would abrogate international treaties that we and virtually every civilized nation have signed to prohibit cultivation, production and traffic of illicit drugs. Indeed, the US, through the State Department, DEA, Customs and other agencies have led the way in encouraging other nations to crack down on the traffic. If we give up, who will bother to carry on?
I am as much a proponent of limited government control over our lives as anyone. Keep in mind that we have not employed truly draconian measures against drug traffickers since we are a democratic society. Yet, at a certain point, a society has the right and the responsibility to avoid becoming a cesspool that will adversely affect the lives of everyone. Legalization advocates who had a chance to see a crack house or (heroin) shooting gallery might not be so convinced that we should tolerate their existence. In the final analysis, if we were to legalize drugs, government would have to,in one way or another, involve itself in the providing of drugs to its people. If my government were involved in any way in providing drugs to my children, I would cease allegiance to that government.
gary fouse
DEA retired
fousesquawk
gary fouse on December 5, 2008 at 11:44 PM
I’ve read that the most potent MJ was available back in the 20’s, actually, and sold by Smith-Klein. Which is besides the fact that people can only smoke so much without falling asleep, so the potency is largely a factor of the quantity that needs to be smoked to achieve the desired affect, not the desired affect itself. And the primary driving factor behind the increase in potency over the years has been to minimize the volume of smuggled product, which brings us back to the black market and the prohibition that creates it. So it’s the WOD itself that is chiefly responsible for the increased potency in recent history.
FloatingRock on December 5, 2008 at 11:52 PM
Every time I’ve watched a domestic dispute call on “Cops”, it seems that alcohol is involved. I don’t ever, ever recall Marijuana being a factor. But then, I’m not a fan of the show and don’t watch it on a regular basis because I’ve long felt that it desensitizes viewers to the value of 4th amendment rights.
FloatingRock on December 6, 2008 at 12:07 AM
Then what is the point of sending trillions of dollars to stem a predicament that hasn’t been defeated by our efforts to date?
So keep doing what we are doing and expect better results even though 6+ decades have proven the systematic failure and has been a major contribution to our fiscal downfall?
Thanks for making the point of your opponents; How many people have to die in the line of duty to defeat this monster and how much money will it cost to maintain the status quo?
Ciannaky on December 6, 2008 at 12:15 AM
Your answer to point number one would seem to imply that there has been no measurable progress on the war on terror. Considering that we have had no terror attacks on US soil in the past 7 years and that terrorists are much harder to find in many parts of the middle-East since our involvement there, I would say that measurable progress has been made in the war on terror.
Conversely, our jails continue to fill with criminals convicted of drug crimes with no stem in the flow of these criminals or the willing foreign suppliers of drugs. Zero.
So, I can’t accept your analogy.
Libertarian is a party affiliation as well as a philosophical belief system. Conservatism is a belief system with no party (certainly not modern Republicans). Conservatism borrows from Libertarianism philosophy some of which I quoted above in point 2. All of this is a fancy way of saying that, if you’re a Conservative and you don’t believe that point number two describes the core of Conservatism then I would challenge your definition of Conservative philosophy.
BTW, alcohol, which is a drug, is legal. Is that drug moral to you or do you believe we should just ban it as well. If so, I’m done replying to you. I know your kind and am certain you are a fascist masquerading as a Conservative.
watson007 on December 6, 2008 at 12:25 AM
Ciannaki,
You have taken a couple of my comments, cut them out away from their context and then refuted them. Why don’t you go back and read the entire paragraph that contains them.
I called for a three-pronged approach- enforcement, education and treatment.
Another point; People who traffick in drugs belong in jail. I don’t call for users to be sent to jail-but traffickers-yes. The “drug offenders” who are in federal prisons are not there for using drugs. They are there for trafficking in drugs.
gary fouse on December 6, 2008 at 1:13 AM
That’s great. More of the same, that aught to do the trick.
FloatingRock on December 6, 2008 at 1:21 AM
I think I’d probably say go ahead and legalize marijuana.
Might as well legalize it the same as alcohol, 18 or 21 years old +
Then Americans can grow Hemp, a plant with a variety of uses, including biofuel feedstock, paper etc..
SaintOlaf on December 6, 2008 at 1:34 AM
By now it is quite obvious drugs are not going away no matter what we do. The approach that is showing some benefits with regards to tobacco is showing us the way to go. Make it legal but also make it a crime if your addiction gets in other people’s faces.
Oh, wait, it already is illegal to get your addiction into my face. So we don’t have to do anything but legalize it, tax it, and regulate its quality.
Then we can stop this damn fool ever escalating War on
Drugser The American People by people with ever larger weapons on both sides of the fight with the good people of America caught “monkey in the middle.”{^_^}
herself on December 6, 2008 at 2:06 AM
Everyone here is focused on Marijuana. What about cocaine, heroin, ecstasy, meth and various other drugs? I think the dangers from these drugs are continuously understated in the drive to legalize marijuana and that people are being deliberately obtuse in order to support their other causes.
Kat_Mo on December 6, 2008 at 2:08 AM
I used to be really hard core on drug users; personal experience and reading changed my mind.
The drug laws were initially instantiated for tax purposes; that’s how something technically unconstitutional was able to get pushed through.
Second, I found to my surprise that many incredibly successful people I knew (including several multi-millionaires), were periodic drug users, which flew in the face of everything I’d been led to believe.
Third, I began to read a little more about some of the drugs in question. MDMA or ecstasy was legal for 60 years before it became popular in the dance scene; therapists used it with great results in counseling sessions, (especially with shell shock, marital strife), it’s non-addictive and there’s really no known lethal dose; so called deaths occur when people overheat or it’s spiked. Marijuana/hemp was widely used as rope; also no known direct fatalities. Speed was used for a long time and widely marketed in diet pills; it was prescribed heavily for a while, and I know friends whose parents took it (and lost a lot of weight, I might add).
I think some drugs are in a class of their own; heroin, cocaine, crack and meth are extraordinarily addictive/ destructive, with little or no known benefits (except for the opiate family of which cocaine belongs; you could argue morphine et al are helpful). You don’t have to decriminalise all drugs.
I read the book “Drug Crazy”, and when I started it I was pretty stubborn about how I felt, but it was the thing that convinced me my draconian view might be off. If some people chose a relatively safe drug for their use, they were gainfully employed with no felonies, why shouldn’t they be allowed to use them, as long as it doesn’t interfere with me? I’ve tried to be a live and let live person and realised if someone walked into my work and had smoked weed the night before, why should I care, unless it affected me? A 2007 British study by The Lancet said that alcohol was the 5th most dangerous drug, behind the likes of cocaine and heroin and tobacco was 9th, ahead of drugs like LSD and MDMA. They decided that the drug classification system In the UK was to some degree ‘arbitrary’, from a strict risk point of view.
Statistics show a lot of Americans have tried drugs, but the overwhelming majority of them don’t progress to being heroin addicts (I really do believe some people have addictive personalities). If someone could buy weed, lets say, at a government store that was taxed and they had to have a permit (similar to a concealed permit) in order to buy it, then you’re cutting off organised crime, getting tax revenue, and the people who take the drug will be assured its safe. Sounds like the potential for a workable situation.
I might add I’m not a pot head or drug user; to be honest, the sickly sweet smell of marijuana makes me nauseous. I am someone who has been negatively affected by the fallout from the war on drugs, however.
I have a nervous stomach, and during a really stressful period I had trouble keeping food down. I lost almost 20 lbs in a matter of weeks. My husband (boyfriend at the time) suggested I ask about paregoric (sp?). He said his mom would give it to them when he and his sister had bad stomachs (just a small amount, mixed in water), and it immediately helped and they could keep food down.
So I called the nurse at my doctor’s office and asked about it. The nurse acted as if I had asked her for a heroin injection or something just utterly awful. “We don’t prescribe THAT type of medicine here!” and I got a lecture.
Turns out that paregoric is an opiate derivative and that’s why her panties were in a bunch. So it was okay for me to have sudden weight loss, hurt my teeth, nearly lose my job and be malnourished and sick all the time rather than take peragoric syrup with water.
Instead they prescribed something that made me incredibly sleepy and didn’t really work, only took the edge off the nervous stomach. I finally worked through the items that were causing me so much stress, but not before I had some embarrassing situations that adversely affected my employment. One, the most humiliating, happened when I felt sick and was on my way to the loo. I didn’t make it and vomited in the hall on the carpet. Unfortunately the hall looked over the lobby atrium and several people saw. It was terrible.
Even if you want to argue that things like MDMA or speed should be controlled, scientists should at least be allowed to do research, (difficult depending on the drug classification) and things like paregoric, which was used regularly by parents with great success for decades, shouldn’t be vilified, guilty by association.
It’s true drugs can be dangerous, some more than others, but is there a middle ground? Is it smart that someone who grows a handful of pot plants gets hard time with murderers and kidnappers?
I’m sorry this post is a bit lengthy, but I was pretty keen on throwing drug users away for life at one point and as I had a change of heart, I wanted to share some of my thoughts.
linlithgow on December 6, 2008 at 4:09 AM
Legalize all drugs. It’ll speed up evolution and bankrupt the cartels.
manfriend on December 6, 2008 at 5:07 AM
Of all the ‘institutions’ in our society the only one I would ever call “racist” and “fascist” is the WOT.
An unmitigated disaster.
It’s a medical issue, like cigarette smoking. Treat it as such.
mylegsareswollen on December 6, 2008 at 7:18 AM
Six hundred some odd comments. One can always count on Hot Air for the best red meat.
Having just skimmed the last page I did find this…
You make some valid points, but the vast majority of people in my “That Seventies Show” circle went on to become successful, productive members of society. In a wide spectrum of fields. Tradesmen. Legal professionals, including a few law enforcement, types. Medical, governmental, managerial.
And they all bathe at least once a month. Whether they need it or not.
My quick take on the overall thread.
I would make all drugs legal.
With major provisos.
IMO, if somebody wants to snort rat poison in the privacy of their own homes. So be it.
Of course, if they commit a robbery to get money for their ratpoison, the go to jail.
If they injure a person while under the influence of ratpoison, they go to jail.
(no, “but i was on ratpoison and didn’t know what i was doing” excuse.)
Kill somebody while RPed. Go to death row.
Man has been discovering new ways of altering his mental state ever since that first cave man found out the berries he had stashed in that now water filled hollow stump had changed to a juice that made him feel “different”.
Same with the new plants he ate.
Or the smoke produced by the new fuel for the fire.
All attempts to change the encoding is doomed to failure because it depends on changing basic human nature.
Now, all that being said, I know the dangers drug and alcohol pose. I’ve seen lives ruined by both.
I’m of the belief that if you toke up at an AC/DC concert, or you have a coupla beers, or cocktails after work , you probably don’t have a problem.
Now, if you’re smoking an ounce a day, or drinking a fifth of whiskey for breakfast, or indulging in whatever someone has concocted in their bathroom, you do have a problem.
But it’s a medical problem, not a legal one.
I’ll leave the ramifications for law enforcement to another time.
And as most of us grow older, we exchange an elective recreation, for a prescribed medication.
soundingboard on December 6, 2008 at 7:26 AM
I say hand out drugs by the bucket to any one who wants to
do drugs. You are always going to have drug abuse.You can
make herion legal and Iam not going to do it.The war on drugs is bull S***.Cops dont care about your kids.They would be out of a job if they dident have the war on drugs.No more murders,robberys so junkes can get the fix they need.Give it to tham.And tell them to get some help.I was a drunk for years no one could tell me to stop drinking.I dennis made that dissension to stop.And thats what the drug abusers need to and have to do for them self.
Denniscat on December 6, 2008 at 7:42 AM
Well, there was this.
And this
You guys do a mostly thankless job, and BTW thank you for doing it. But do you really need the BS WoD? On top of everything else you’re dealing with these days?
I just think LE resources should be directed towards other areas, like Homeland Security.
soundingboard on December 6, 2008 at 8:18 AM
I believe Ohio has state owned liquor stores.
Does that count.
And I’m pretty sure the majority of methadone clinics are gov’t sponsored.
soundingboard on December 6, 2008 at 8:30 AM
And staring at the Wendy’s drive thru menu for 30 minutes.
soundingboard on December 6, 2008 at 8:47 AM
And the answer is education. Not incarceration.
People are clueless on numerous subjects.
Trying to fix that problem with gov’t intervention is greasing the already slippery slope to nanny-statism.
soundingboard on December 6, 2008 at 9:02 AM
Not me. I used to be a drug dealer. In a state approved location. It was called a bar-room.
soundingboard on December 6, 2008 at 9:26 AM
I’m sure the loss of government funds given to your department specifically to fight drugs (in a battle that could never be won) is coloring your opinion the most.
Noneya on December 6, 2008 at 9:56 AM
Sarcasm – it’s what’s for breakfast!
MC, I suppose there are lots of different issues related to, especially, the legalization of marijuana, but I never get past step one, which is what prompted Ed’s piece in the first place: someone explain why alcohol should be legal and widely accepted, and marijuana should be banned.
No one ever has, to my satisfaction. Buckley advocated famously, logically and eloquently, as always, for the legalization of pot. He was also a smoker, so he argued out of self-interest, which is the best kind of argument.
To your point, if a State Nanny is what we want, then why can I go into the local Jewel Food Store and buy a bottle of whiskey that will kill me if I drink it? It is, quite literally, poisonous. (Although – have you tried the Woodford Reserve Bourbon? Oh, it is soooo smoooooooth. Velvet.)
Jaibones on December 6, 2008 at 10:10 AM
Please make meth legal so that I can buy freaking Sudafed again without having to go through the pharmacist, give my ID, sign my life away, etc.!
mrsmwp on December 6, 2008 at 10:33 AM
That’s absolutely right. We could eliminate rule breakers by eliminating rules. Why haven’t we tried this? Let’s make heroin and cocain legal. I mean why not? It worked with alcohol. We legalized alcohol and now there are no problems associated with it’s use. No abuse. No one dies because others are drunk, do they?
After legalizing drugs we could let all the drug dealers out of prison and save ourselves tons of money.
Listen….. what about robbery and murder? If we legalized it …. hmmm. WAIT I’ve got a great idea. What about income tax evasion? There’s a victemless crime if ever there was one. Why put some poor sot in jail for tax evasion?
Keep thinking… this could open up all sorts of possibilities for America’s future.
Ernest on December 6, 2008 at 11:44 AM
Simple questions to determine if the war on drugs is working.
If drugs were legal would more people use them or less?
If drugs were legal would more people come to work intoxicated or less?
If drugs were legal would more soldiers use them or less?
Since we know millions more would use it the same way millions more used alcohol after it was legalized the war on drugs is prevailing. It isn’t perfect and could be improved, corruption needs to be weeded out but it is working in keeping the number of users and dealers down.
The kings of legalized drugs bring us this today. I am shocked to read that organized crime is a main reason for the crack down.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081206/D94T8T200.html
The make it legal crowd are kind of like the professors shouting for universal health care from their ivory towers of socialism where they never face the prospect of being fired unless they say woman are less capable then men. Legalized drugs would negatively affect minority and poor white communities. It isn’t cool seeing gangs of pot/crack/coke heads standing on the corners preying on grandma.
sjramos on December 6, 2008 at 11:51 AM
I could see legalizing pot, even coca leaves to chew. Just about anything you can grow in your garden and smoke or chew unprocessed, you should be able to do. How about a law that you can grow your own but not buy or sell it? Probably unworkable, but I’d like something along those lines. Grow your own shouldn’t be illegal. It’s terrible that it is.
Paul-Cincy on December 6, 2008 at 12:30 PM
If drug laws are repealed and you get in an accident, shouldn’t we be able to deny you treatment on the logic you were too stupid to operate the machinery sober?
dugan on December 6, 2008 at 12:40 PM
the reason they do that is because the price of drugs is so high because of the illegality.
drug laws are a 20th century phenomenon, just as prohibition, which was a miserable failure, as are drug laws…it empowers the drug lords and gangs.
right4life on December 6, 2008 at 12:51 PM
Those advocating legalization have not thought their argument through. A few questions:
1. Would ALL drugs be legal to ALL people of ALL ages? Probably not so illegal drug use hence illegal supplies would continue.
2. Would those manufacturing and selling these drugs be held to the same standards of liability of “legitimate” pharmaceutical companies? If so, they would be sued out of business for the harm they would cause, if not, that is not equal treatment under the law to the other drug makers.
3. Legalizing drugs removes the social stigma and kids would tend to be more likely to use them.
4. The criminal element would still continue to sell drugs (perhaps even more dangerous versions) perhaps undercutting the retail price. This would happen because most legalization advocates talk about the benefits of “taxing” drug sales. That is fine but it makes them more expensive hence a black market would continue.
5. Who would sell them? CVS? Walgreens? Most mainstream outlets would not want the stigma of selling this crap.
6. There is actually ZERO political momentum towards legalizing drugs of all kinds. There is SOME toward legalizing pot, but that would still leave a huge array of other drugs that would still be provided by a criminal enterprise.
7. Most people that are for legalization don’t have kids or family members whose lives have been destroyed by drugs. It is not the “victimless crime” the libertarians claim. It affects the community, the family the employers, virtually anybody and everybody the user is in contact with. Sometimes the results are deadly.
echosyst on December 6, 2008 at 1:32 PM
Oh lawdy YES ….. drug laws are the problem…. not the drug addicts.
keeping drugs away from our youth is the problem… not the maimed bodies from car accidents…
LETS HEAR IT FOR DRUG USE….. YEAH.
ONE MORE TIME….. YEAH.
Ernest on December 6, 2008 at 1:36 PM
I suppose you could argue that the illegal production of moonshine continues, or that people make more than the legal amount of beer in their home without acquriing the proper liscense. But it’s such a tiny problem, it’s not even really an issue.
Only if they lie or mislead about the effects of said drugs. With full disclosure, I don’t see what the issue is.
Obama will be our third president in row who admitted to drug use in his youth. 39 percent of teens admit to at least trying weed. I doubt there is much social stigma left. The country certainly didn’t care if Bush or Obama tried a little coke or weed.
Do you buy booze from your local moonshiner because it isn’t taxed? Or do you only buy beer and wine from proper retailers?
When businesses weigh “social stigma” against profits, profits usually win. Why do you think you can buy girlie mags from your liquor store? Do you think they like the “stigma”? Or is it that they like the money they make more?
No one is saying that legalization will totally kill crime. Just seriously cripple it. The number of Mexican and Columbian drug lords will drop dramatically.
The same can be said with alchohol. Besides, the illegality of drugs certainly didn’t prevent those people from ruining their lives. The fact of the matter is that if you want to be a screw up, you will find a way.
justfinethanks on December 6, 2008 at 2:12 PM
Yeah, it seems improper for the state to be involved in something that grows naturally on private property, is consumed by the owner and doesn’t infringe on the rights of the neighbors.
dedalus on December 6, 2008 at 2:45 PM
Wow, lots of good arguments, I can’t decide this issue.
Dollayo on December 6, 2008 at 2:59 PM
I’m not sure if anyone has pointed this out yet, but there is an error in the article.
Cocaine is not now, nor has it ever been, physically addictive.
Psychologically? Sure, but not physically.
Even Wikipedia, the bastion of truth and correctness, has it wrong. Most people cannot differentiate between a physical and a psychological addiction. One surefire way to tell though is that cocaine users do not suffer physical withdrawal effects when use has ceased. Depression? Lethargy? Yep. But those are not physical effects.
Go here for more info:
http://www.emedicinehealth.com/cocaine_abuse/article_em.htm
butta86 on December 6, 2008 at 3:42 PM
As a chemically dependent person (booze) who graduated from Hazelton 6 years ago and remain sober today, I can tell you that pot is NOT a drug that is either harmless or recreational. THC is absorbed into the brain and is not dissolved in water. It therefore builds up in the brain and causes the “stoner reaction”. They have tested this on monkeys and have cut open their brains after they died.
If you want to kid yourself, fine but you really should consult some experts and these guys are the best in the world!
sabbott on December 6, 2008 at 3:48 PM
THC being oil soluble doesn’t change the fact that it’s relatively harmless.
FloatingRock on December 6, 2008 at 4:03 PM
They’re the best scientists in the world?
FloatingRock on December 6, 2008 at 4:03 PM
sjramos on December 6, 2008 at 11:51 AM
right4life on December 6, 2008 at 12:51 PM
I love that response. Right4life is essentially saying that a drug user’s harrassment of grandma is justified by the high cost of drugs based on the fact that they’re illegal.
The ends justifies the means. Hell it’s not the drug user’s fault. Nope. He’s just a poor misguided addict afflicted by the pressures of our society.
Sorry Right4life, I’m on Grandma’s side not the drug addict’s. He probably can’t afford it because by “using” he has rendered himself unemployable.
Ernest on December 6, 2008 at 4:07 PM
I have believed federal prohibition only exacerbates the problem for many years. It should be a state or even a local matter.
gbear on December 6, 2008 at 4:08 PM
…Because they cut open monkey brains to find, OMG, THC there? Something that most scientists have known for many decades?
FloatingRock on December 6, 2008 at 4:08 PM
No, he’s not saying that at all. He’s saying that there wouldn’t be drug dealers on street corners in the first place if it wasn’t for prohibition. But you must have already known that, and lacking any reasoned response, had to build a straw man instead.
FloatingRock on December 6, 2008 at 4:10 PM
Making it illegal raises the cost and makes it more likely grandma will be mugged. Also, grandma is more likely to encounter gang violence due to turf battles over who sells where. Grandma could be better protected by a police force that had more resources committed to stopping violent crime and wasn’t busting people for smoking pot.
dedalus on December 6, 2008 at 4:29 PM
Grandma got run over by a crack head
Walking home from our house Christmas Eve…
profitsbeard on December 6, 2008 at 4:54 PM
I’ll go for legalization with only one condition. You hurt or attack me or any member of my family while expanding your mind, I get to waste your sorry ass.
Nothing more than a coroner’s inquest. No lawsuits. No ‘wrongful death’ bullshit.
You get to have your fun, I get to protect my family. I call that a win-win.
GarandFan on December 6, 2008 at 5:30 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 Next »