A ceasefire in the war on drugs

posted at 5:01 pm on January 6, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

It’s a conversation which seem to keep coming up year after year. Has the “war on drugs” been a complete bust? (If you’ll pardon the pun.) After more than forty years it seems like an increasing chorus of voices are calling for a new approach to a problem where we just don’t seem to be making much progress. But now the Wall Street Journal is getting in on the act, asking, “Have we lost the war on drugs?”

President Richard Nixon declared a “war on drugs” in 1971. The expectation then was that drug trafficking in the United States could be greatly reduced in a short time through federal policing—and yet the war on drugs continues to this day. The cost has been large in terms of lives, money and the well-being of many Americans, especially the poor and less educated. By most accounts, the gains from the war have been modest at best…

The decriminalization of both drug use and the drug market won’t be attained easily, as there is powerful opposition to each of them. The disastrous effects of the American war on drugs are becoming more apparent, however, not only in the U.S. but beyond its borders. Former Mexican President Felipe Calderon has suggested “market solutions” as one alternative to the problem. Perhaps the combined efforts of leaders in different countries can succeed in making a big enough push toward finally ending this long, enormously destructive policy experiment.

It’s a rather clinical, emotionless analysis if you read the entire thing, but perhaps that’s the best approach if we’re to have a serious discussion about it. The entire concept of drug legalization – or, at a minimum, decriminalization – seems to be a study in mixed emotions for conservatives. And that may explain, at least in part, why there doesn’t seem to be much movement in either direction on this. On the one hand, the normal libertarian, “keep the government out of my business” tendencies of many Republicans seem like they should find the concept of decriminalization appealing. Further, the idea of the individual accepting personal responsibility for the consequences of their choices rather than having the nanny state dictate their actions certainly sounds like a natural fit for conservatives. And finally, the cost to federal and state budgets for fighting this war – well described in the WSJ editorial – looks like an appetizing potential target for cost cutters.

But there are obviously factors which make this a difficult proposal to sell on the starboard side of the aisle, and perhaps the first – and biggest – is purely ideological. For too many conservatives, it seems as if one of the chief arguments against decriminalization is that it’s something that liberals want, and thus it must, by definition, be a bad idea. Further, there’s that whole “pot smoking hippie” thing. The idea of doing anything to make them happier will drive away Republicans in droves, unfortunately.

And are the arguments I laid out above all that salable among 21st century conservatives? Not all Republicans are small “L” libertarian by nature, particularly those who self identify as social or national defense conservatives. And when it comes to personal responsibility, the counter-argument can quickly be made that those who choose to engage in drug abuse never really face those consequences because societal safety nets not only catch them when they fall, but spread the cost of their rescue out among the rest of us. As to the cost savings, well… that one would be pretty hard to argue with, at least in terms of the raw bills for enforcement and incarceration.

Still, it seems to me that this war has been a losing proposition for some time now and has long since passed the point of being unaffordable. If the regular readers of the Wall Street Journal begin absorbing and considering this message, maybe we can find a way to start climbing out of this hole we’ve dug for ourselves. But in the end, I agree with the basic premise… the war on drugs has been a bust.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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 2 3 4

Supply and demand? The cost of complying with regulations, licensing, insurance…

tdarrington on January 6, 2013 at 6:35 PM

There is a supply shortage?

How is it regulated and what is the cost to the single product (pot) provider?

How much is the license?
How many ounces (at about 400. per) would have to be sold to cover it?

What insurgence..regular business liability?

Mimzey on January 6, 2013 at 6:42 PM

Is there any real evidence that legalizing drugs leads to a long term massive increase in drug abuse? This claims seems absurd. Regarding these car breathalyzers, do you also support federal regulations limiting the engine performance of cars? We wouldn’t want cars to go over 55 on the highway, right? Why not just make it so no car can go over 5mph?

aryeung on January 6, 2013 at 6:24 PM

Strawman again.

Use. Common Sense is when something is legal law abiding people use it when they will not use it if it is illegal. All laws depend on changing behavior to one extent or another. We justify them based on that.

Abuse I have not made any argument based on abuse. I believe that if you made pot legal it would lead to more use of hard drugs but not what I am arguing.

My point is you can not make Pot legal unless you take away the DL from users of Pot. There is no effective test for how high on Pot you are just whether you used it in the last week or so. So if you want to argue for a MJ license instead of a Drivers License go for it. But driving is not the only intoxication law. Those laws are valid so making it legal will require a lot of new laws and restrictions on MJ License holders.

Steveangell on January 6, 2013 at 6:42 PM

Prices of drugs by country.

Notice Portugal which has legal consumption of drugs is
Portugal $7.3 per gram
United States with moderately harsh penalty for consumption and distribution
United States $20 per ounce
United Arab Emirates who kill distributors.
United Arab Emirates$110.0 per gram

the end of the list…
Brazil$0.3 per gram
Kenya$0.2 per gram
Nigeria$0.2 per gram
Guatemala$0.2 per gram
South Africa$0.1 per gram
India$0.08 per gram

The price will go as low as the market will bear obviously. Lower risks will equate to lower prices.

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 6:46 PM

Decriminalization did not lead to a massive increase in use of drugs in this country,,,

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 6:37 PM

Is portugal the newest flavor?

Why not use China with opium, or Britain with heroin, or the Netherlands as an example?

Great Britain experimented with controlled distribution of heroin between 1959 and 1968. According to the British Medical Journal, the number of heroin addicts doubled every sixteen months and the increase in addicts was accompanied by an increase in criminal activity as well.

By the time Japan invaded China during World War II, between 20 and 40 million Chinese, 10 percent of the entire population, were estimated to be addicted to opium. For British-controlled Hong Kong, the estimate is closer to 30 percent.

Egypt allowed unrestricted trade of cocaine and heroin in the 1920s. An epidemic of addiction resulted. This started in 1916, cocaine first being sold non-medically and shortly afterwards heroin. The total number of addicts in Egypt at the end of the 1920′s has been estimated to half a million. Taking into consideration that the total population of Egypt at that time was about 14 million, the extent of the problem may be realized.

sharrukin on January 6, 2013 at 6:47 PM

You are extraordinarily stupid, aren’t you?
Obama is still arresting people for “legal” pot use and distribution. Why? Because it is not legal, the state has just taken a position that it would not assist the federal government in catching and prosecuting drug crimes. Also note, what part of medical costs are extremely high for everything in this nation have you missed? Take away the doctor and the cost would be somewhat lower. But their suppliers are still at risk, as is the license of the doctor.

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 6:41 PM

Oh Please..please don’t criticize me…your negative opinion will ruin my self esteem! (yer funny).

So, if I’m understanding your position correctly, you seem to be implying that enough medical pot outlets are being shut down by the fed, and this is what is driving the price up to…(oddly enough, the same price as street pot) Is that your claim?
If so, then before the feds started shutting down all the medical pot outlets, the price was really really low??
Is that your claim?

Mimzey on January 6, 2013 at 6:49 PM

sharrukin on January 6, 2013 at 6:47 PM

We have been through these arguments already. You are obviously an extremist on this issue.

The countries used the drugs to make the workers more compliant and dependent on the state. It was not legalized so much as the government being pushers.

Do not let facts get in your way, be as progressive liberal as you need to be. Tell me the effects on rats force fed thousands of times the normal human exposure level ofthe stuff too please!

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 6:52 PM

Decriminalization did not lead to a massive increase in use of drugs in this country,,,

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 6:37 PM

If the statistics are not being compiled, because it is no longer a crime, how are the comparative numbers being gathered?

It used to be a violation to spit on the streets…now its not, so people are no longer spitting on the streets.
SCIENCE!

Mimzey on January 6, 2013 at 6:53 PM

We have been through these arguments already. You are obviously an extremist on this issue.

I call it realism.

The countries used the drugs to make the workers more compliant and dependent on the state. It was not legalized so much as the government being pushers.

Well, now that you put it that way, I have to agree.

Obama and the Democrats would NEVER do such a thing now would they? /sarcasm

Do not let facts get in your way…

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 6:52 PM

What in my post isn’t factual?

sharrukin on January 6, 2013 at 6:55 PM

Tell me the effects on rats force fed thousands of times the normal human exposure level ofthe stuff too please!

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 6:52 PM

Rats don’t drive.
Rats also don’t pilot planes nor operate machinery.

Mimzey on January 6, 2013 at 6:56 PM

Mimzey on January 6, 2013 at 6:49 PM

The same reason criminals sell it for inflated prices is the reason. Because the risk to their livelihoods is great. If you are a doctor, you can lose your license when the federal government puts you in jail. If you are a producer and seller of the product, you can lose your entire home/office and any other things you use in the business of producing/selling to the feds and go to prison to boot. Are you going to sell that risk cheap?

I guess I am not sure how much effort I should put here to get the point across.

The guy with dozens of condoms filled with cocaine in his stomach/intestines did not risk his life for a few pennies.

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 6:56 PM

The Government found it could fund parts of the programs they wanted by drug money. How else does this stuff disappear and no body knows nutt’in. Do you honestly think for a moment the Fast & Furious mess doesn’t have Federal finger prints all over it?

mixplix on January 6, 2013 at 6:57 PM

Rats don’t drive.
Rats also don’t pilot planes nor operate machinery.

Mimzey on January 6, 2013 at 6:56 PM

As progressive left as yours and his arguments here are, I figured I would put out there the same method that the progressives use to make things illegal. You are just as credible as the scientist that does things like I described.

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 6:57 PM

What in my post isn’t factual?

sharrukin on January 6, 2013 at 6:55 PM

It is all the missing information. Like, the drugs were distributed directly by the government in lieu of a paycheck. You make it seems as if the population’s were just begging for the substances, when in fact it was being force fed down the throats of the people.

It would be like arguing that Americans became addicted to cheese on their own, but when you look back, it was because it was what the government was handing out, so it was what the people ate!

Why do eat crappy corn sweetener? Preference or because of government interference?

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 7:00 PM

Another social issue where progressives are closer to the libertarian ideal than conservtives.

rickyricardo on January 6, 2013 at 7:02 PM

The same reason criminals sell it for inflated prices is the reason. Because the risk to their livelihoods is great. If you are a doctor, you can lose your license when the federal government puts you in jail. If you are a producer and seller of the product, you can lose your entire home/office and any other things you use in the business of producing/selling to the feds and go to prison to boot. Are you going to sell that risk cheap?

The guy with dozens of condoms filled with cocaine in his stomach/intestines did not risk his life for a few pennies.

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 6:56 PM

That whole post seems to be a non sequitur.
It may have more substance if you could cite some of these harsh punishments that the medical pot houses have suffered.
I know you must have a data base for these, otherwise, what are you basing your claims on?
Can you share some of these cases and resultant punishments?
Thanks.

Mimzey on January 6, 2013 at 7:04 PM

It is all the missing information. Like, the drugs were distributed directly by the government in lieu of a paycheck. You make it seems as if the population’s were just begging for the substances, when in fact it was being force fed down the throats of the people.

So evil opium gangs were running around making those poor Chinese workers take drugs? Egyptian police were forcing cocaine and heroin on the poor Egyptian workers?

Are you serious?

It would be like arguing that Americans became addicted to cheese on their own, but when you look back, it was because it was what the government was handing out, so it was what the people ate!

Why do eat crappy corn sweetener? Preference or because of government interference?

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 7:00 PM

This doesn’t really help your argument. It looks like it would be a wonderful tool to keep the people in line and happy.

A modern day bread and circuses.

sharrukin on January 6, 2013 at 7:05 PM

Why do eat crappy corn sweetener? Preference or because of government interference?

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 7:00 PM

Huh?
That said, do you know how many thousands of times the normal amounts those rats were force fed to arrive at that? “science”?

Mimzey on January 6, 2013 at 7:08 PM

That whole post seems to be a non sequitur.
It may have more substance if you could cite some of these harsh punishments that the medical pot houses have suffered.
I know you must have a data base for these, otherwise, what are you basing your claims on?
Can you share some of these cases and resultant punishments?
Thanks.

Mimzey on January 6, 2013 at 7:04 PM

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obamas-war-on-pot-20120216

A complete and utterly stupid person said what?

You really are that freaking disgustingly stupid? Considering that you are among the Obama haters and the drug haters, how on earth could you have missed this?

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 7:10 PM

Another social issue where progressives are closer to the libertarian ideal than conservtives.

rickyricardo on January 6, 2013 at 7:02 PM

The libertarian ideal is like stateless communism…impossible to bring to reality, and thus you will need a special class of leaders to guide the uninformed to the coming Utopian state.

sharrukin on January 6, 2013 at 7:10 PM

Huh?
That said, do you know how many thousands of times the normal amounts those rats were force fed to arrive at that? “science”?

Mimzey on January 6, 2013 at 7:08 PM

Actually I do. The fact that you do not is the problem.

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 7:12 PM

As progressive left as yours and his arguments here are, I figured I would put out there the same method that the progressives use to make things illegal. You are just as credible as the scientist that does things like I described.

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 6:57 PM

You’re not succeeding.
In fact you may want to change the subject a bit…..but just a bit.
Cheese and corn are quite a leap imo.

Mimzey on January 6, 2013 at 7:13 PM

Actually I do. The fact that you do not is the problem.

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 7:12 PM

How much corn syrup were those rats fed to arrive at the bogus conclusions?

Mimzey on January 6, 2013 at 7:15 PM

So evil opium gangs were running around making those poor Chinese workers take drugs? Egyptian police were forcing cocaine and heroin on the poor Egyptian workers?

Are you serious?

sharrukin on January 6, 2013 at 7:05 PM

I have not studied those arguments, but I will put conjecture that there were secondary reasons for the increase in use. I noticed you gave up your precious British/India argument though…

As for the illegal drug use in China, 10%? The United States of America registers between 8.9% and 16% depending on the studies. That is under prohibition.

Just something to consider…

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 7:21 PM

A complete and utterly stupid person said what?

You really are that freaking disgustingly stupid? Considering that you are among the Obama haters and the drug haters, how on earth could you have missed this?

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 7:10 PM

So why hasn’t the price gone up?

According to RS, the first few years were not problem with the administration and “medical” pot.

My nephew worked in a “medical” pot outlet in the Bay Area.
The price was always as high as street pot.
Why hasn’t it gone up?
In the last year a hundred drug joints have been shut down? Out of how many thousands? How many of those that were shut down were bogus drug running front operations? The whiny article didn’t say.

But again, were the prices cheaper for 3 out of the 4 years? I don’t think so.

Mimzey on January 6, 2013 at 7:23 PM

How much corn syrup were those rats fed to arrive at the bogus conclusions?

Mimzey on January 6, 2013 at 7:15 PM

Wow, you really are stupid, aren’t you?

I was talking about drugs and chemicals the progressive left demonize using false science.

For corn syrup, I was arguing that the government manipulation of the price of sugar makes it prohibitively expensive for many uses, and thus ends up with us using far more corn syrup rather than real sugar for sweeteners.

But if you just look at usage, and not the entire picture you might come to the conclusion that Americans prefer corn syrup over sugar.

Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics…

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 7:24 PM

I noticed you gave up your precious British/India argument though…

What British-India argument?

As for the illegal drug use in China, 10%? The United States of America registers between 8.9% and 16% depending on the studies. That is under prohibition.

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 7:21 PM

Addicted to drugs isn’t the same thing as having used drugs. What does your 8.9% and 16% mean? What drugs? Are you talking about a single use in the last year, or actual addicts?

sharrukin on January 6, 2013 at 7:25 PM

Tenth Amendment. Feds should only be involved with interstate interdiction, if that.

ConservativeLA on January 6, 2013 at 7:27 PM

So why hasn’t the price gone up?

According to RS, the first few years were not problem with the administration and “medical” pot.

My nephew worked in a “medical” pot outlet in the Bay Area.
The price was always as high as street pot.
Why hasn’t it gone up?
In the last year a hundred drug joints have been shut down? Out of how many thousands? How many of those that were shut down were bogus drug running front operations? The whiny article didn’t say.

But again, were the prices cheaper for 3 out of the 4 years? I don’t think so.

Mimzey on January 6, 2013 at 7:23 PM

Do I look like I have every bit of information that is produced in the world to give you answers to every tiny thing?

The reason that medical marijuana is expensive is two things. First is that it is MEDICAL, medical is expensive in the USA because of government interference in the market. Second, there is a risk to those who distribute the product in that their business and personal belongings as well as freedom are at risk for doing so. As for the tiny market price adjustments over the years, I do not have any clue at all, I am looking macro.

I am guessing that you do not value your personal belongings and freedom that if you were doing something, you would charge according to the risk presented to those things. I will look you up in the future for a loan perhaps, I am sure you would totally be willing to give me a .000000000001% 30 year loan for a massive amount, because you would never imagine the future risk of inflation or my failure to pay, right?

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 7:29 PM

Let ‘em legalize drugs. Only I want a rider on the law that says if you present a credible and immediate danger to me or my family while you’re expanding your consciousness, I get to blow your socks off. All the coroner’s inquest has to show is that you were under the influence of ……….. and your heirs can suck empty air.

GarandFan on January 6, 2013 at 7:29 PM

A complete and utterly stupid person said what?

You really are that freaking disgustingly stupid?

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 7:10 PM

Like AngryIED, Honda, and getalife all rolled into one happy package.

Bishop on January 6, 2013 at 7:31 PM

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 7:24 PM

Why are you so angry? Its almost like you have a “thing” about drugs…like an alcoholic (I’ve heard that is addicting too)..raging when someone suggests it may be a problem for them.
Calm down..you’re safe here…it’s just a discussion forum.

Mimzey on January 6, 2013 at 7:32 PM

Common Sense is when something is legal law abiding people use it when they will not use it if it is illegal. All laws depend on changing behavior to one extent or another.
Steveangell on January 6, 2013 at 6:42 PM

Or maybe people will live their lives as they see fit and the only real question is which parts of society does the majority push underground.

Resolute on January 6, 2013 at 7:33 PM

Let ‘em legalize drugs. Only I want a rider on the law…

GarandFan on January 6, 2013 at 7:29 PM

There’s also the problem of paying for their welfare when they can’t hold a job, their drugs which they will buy with EBT cards/food stamps, and their medical problems which will also be paid for with other peoples money.

Get rid of the welfare state and let them pay the consequences themselves, and the legalization argument might make a little more sense.

sharrukin on January 6, 2013 at 7:34 PM

First is that it is MEDICAL, medical is expensive in the USA because of government interference in the market. Second, there is a risk to those who distribute the product in that their business and personal belongings as well as freedom are at risk for doing so. As for the tiny market price adjustments over the years, I do not have any clue at all, I am looking macro.

I am guessing that you do not value your personal belongings and freedom that if you were doing something, you would charge according to the risk presented to those things. I will look you up in the future for a loan perhaps, I am sure you would totally be willing to give me a .000000000001% 30 year loan for a massive amount, because you would never imagine the future risk of inflation or my failure to pay, right?

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 7:29 PM

The price is high because it’s medical??
Seriously??
I didn’t know that pot has gone through the FDA approval process.
When did this take place?

The rest of your post…it’s a doozie.

Mimzey on January 6, 2013 at 7:36 PM

Notice Portugal which has legal consumption of drugs is
Portugal $7.3 per gram
United States with moderately harsh penalty for consumption and distribution
United States $20 per ounce
United Arab Emirates who kill distributors.
United Arab Emirates$110.0 per gram

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 6:46 PM

Do you remember there are 28 grams to the oz? (If this is a mistake, no problem, but it needed pointing out.)

GWB on January 6, 2013 at 7:37 PM

Why are you so angry? Its almost like you have a “thing” about drugs…like an alcoholic (I’ve heard that is addicting too)..raging when someone suggests it may be a problem for them.
Calm down..you’re safe here…it’s just a discussion forum.

Mimzey on January 6, 2013 at 7:32 PM

It would be a discussion if you were not a propagandist on the subject.

I do have a problem with Drugs, my father died of an overdose of a prescribed drug. I have never once experimented with any drugs that are illicit and even abstain from most prescription drugs to the extent that I can.

Seems like my problem though would be the kind that is opposite of what you might imagine.

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 7:38 PM

Do you remember there are 28 grams to the oz? (If this is a mistake, no problem, but it needed pointing out.)

GWB on January 6, 2013 at 7:37 PM

I did not notice they had different units, thanks.

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 7:39 PM

The price is high because it’s medical??
Seriously??
I didn’t know that pot has gone through the FDA approval process.
When did this take place?

The rest of your post…it’s a doozie.

Mimzey on January 6, 2013 at 7:36 PM

It is prescribed medically, so, yes it is medical, hence the medical marijuana descriptor. Are you always this blind?

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 7:40 PM

the only real question is which parts of society does the majority push underground.

Resolute on January 6, 2013 at 7:33 PM

What parts are being pushed underground??
Hell..even NAMBLA has a website. Practically every oddity or perversion has a lawyer on call and a “march in support of..” group at the ready.

Mimzey on January 6, 2013 at 7:44 PM

I have no trouble ending the drug war if we do two things. First, no rehab treatment paid for by taxpayers. They inflicted the problem on themselves and have no right to expect the taxpayer to bail them out of their stupidity. That should include alcohol as well. Second, no welfare payments for anyone with a drug or booze addiction. That includes all varieties, including SSI.

The drug war has proven to be a serious problem for the country. DEA is nearly as incompetent as BATFE, and about as malicious. Time to end it and regulate and tax sales as we do with alcohol.

Quartermaster on January 6, 2013 at 7:45 PM

It is prescribed medically, so, yes it is medical, hence the medical marijuana descriptor. Are you always this blind?

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 7:40 PM

You’re dodging.
The reason the price of actual medical drugs is high is because of the FDA validation and safety process…not just because someone calls something “medical”.
Do you agree with this assessment?

Mimzey on January 6, 2013 at 7:46 PM

I am not for legalizing drugs. Hard drugs were made illegal as a reaction to the increased destruction of the American family almost 100 years ago. Bayer had developed and named Heroin as a cure for Morpheme addiction; a lot of it due to the Civil War use for amputations and serious wounds. It worked, people became addicted to big H instead.

Decriminalization is another issue. The Brits in a documentary from about 20 years ago indicated that Britain used medical treatment for addicts, shifted to our drug war methods, and when that failed, went back to treatment. They still believe that addict drug maintenance and medical treatment stabilizes the family, allows the addict to hold a job to support himself and decreases the need to find new drug customers to find funds to support their habit. What was not said was that their prisons are not full of low level drug traffickers/users. They stated that their experience was that within 5 years the addict was either off drugs or dead.

I believe we should set standards where treatment is used and actual drug traffickers punished severely. I would actually like to see execution of traffickers for the slow deaths of US citizens, but I doubt that would ever happen.

amr on January 6, 2013 at 8:00 PM

Mimzey on January 6, 2013 at 7:46 PM

No I do not.
The reason they are expensive is because someone can sue the manufacturer or producer for hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars in some cases. A single plaintiff can hit the lotto for their families.

The cost to create the drugs and get them through the FDA makes the first few years of its production expensive in order to recoup costs of engineering/design/capital costs and so forth and to pay for the failed drugs engineering and design as well. But in the end, what keeps them expensive is the litigation risks. Hence why an aspirin administered at a hospital costs dollars rather than pennies.

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 8:05 PM

The reason they are expensive is because someone can sue the manufacturer or producer for hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars in some cases.

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 8:05 PM

Then what company is going to manufacture meth?

sharrukin on January 6, 2013 at 8:12 PM

Then what company is going to manufacture meth?

sharrukin on January 6, 2013 at 8:12 PM

One that charges appropriately to the risk and actually understands the risk. Like all companies from those that make tooth picks to those that fly passengers around the country and world to those that are getting ready to shuttle people to outer space.

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 8:13 PM

One that charges appropriately to the risk and actually understands the risk. Like all companies from those that make tooth picks to those that fly passengers around the country and world to those that are getting ready to shuttle people to outer space.

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 8:13 PM

And how could they do that cheaper than the mafia could?

sharrukin on January 6, 2013 at 8:16 PM

And how could they do that cheaper than the mafia could?

sharrukin on January 6, 2013 at 8:16 PM

Because, juries likely would not find liability against them since they will not be prescribing it as a cure to anything and hopefully not trying to hide the negative effects of the substance. Truth in advertising goes a long ways in absolving liability. These things have been produced for decades and have a track record to fall back on as far as potential health effects are concerned. The new drug just recently released by pharma on the other hand has a small group of volunteers to look at for determining risk and the FDA approval does not absolve them of the risk that something bad might happen in the future. Of course, there will be risk, but no where near as much as having your house, car confiscated and you being thrown behind bars, so it will be lower risk.

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 8:21 PM

Because, juries likely would not find liability against them since they will not be prescribing it as a cure to anything and hopefully not trying to hide the negative effects of the substance.

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 8:21 PM

Yeah, I am sure thats just what would happen! /s

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/55/Deathcigs1.jpg/150px-Deathcigs1.jpg

If Death Cigarettes aren’t enough, then I suspect nothing will be.

sharrukin on January 6, 2013 at 8:32 PM

No I do not.
The reason they are expensive is because someone can sue the manufacturer or producer for hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars in some cases. A single plaintiff can hit the lotto for their families.

The cost to create the drugs and get them through the FDA makes the first few years of its production expensive in order to recoup costs of engineering/design/capital costs and so forth and to pay for the failed drugs engineering and design as well. But in the end, what keeps them expensive is the litigation risks. Hence why an aspirin administered at a hospital costs dollars rather than pennies.

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 8:05 PM

You missed my point..or are dodging again.

Did the FDA apply the same process to pot that it does for other drugs?

If no official agency has deemed a product safe and effective for public use, who do you sue?
Pot..being a natural product that any doofus can produce, has no manufacturing entity. Who do you sue in a carefully arranged LLC?

Mimzey on January 6, 2013 at 8:36 PM

If Death Cigarettes aren’t enough, then I suspect nothing will be.

sharrukin on January 6, 2013 at 8:32 PM

That is a risk, and yet they are in business selling cigarettes at less than $5 per pack of 20ish… That is after multiple dollars of taxes added.

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 8:37 PM

Mimzey on January 6, 2013 at 8:36 PM

Not dodging at all. You are just blind to anything that hurts your world view.

Like I said, the reason is two fold… medical liability and risk of government taking your assets and putting you behind bars.

What a freaking moron you are.

As a medical item, the risk is actually increased, the risk of being put behind bars might be somewhat lower than street pot sales. It apparently evens out in the minds of the sellers.

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 8:39 PM

Pot Driving is just as dangerous as DUI but far harder to test for.

Steveangell on January 6, 2013 at 5:34 PM

Not condoning driving while stoned, but I have never seen any empirical evidence/studies that prove that is Fact.

Can you kindly provide us with some credible and multi-sourced cites proving your assertion that stoned drivers are equally as dangerous as drunk drivers?

Del Dolemonte on January 6, 2013 at 8:42 PM

That is a risk, and yet they are in business selling cigarettes at less than $5 per pack of 20ish… That is after multiple dollars of taxes added.

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 8:37 PM

You’re dodging the point. The mafia can make meth cheaper than any legal company if that company will be facing lawsuits for every dead or injured methhead.

sharrukin on January 6, 2013 at 8:43 PM

…all the politicians are on drugs!…who cares?

KOOLAID2 on January 6, 2013 at 8:45 PM

Another social issue where progressives are closer to the libertarian ideal than conservtives.

rickyricardo on January 6, 2013 at 7:02 PM

Er, no. The social cons are being nanny-staters. Again.

I’ve warned you before about not thinking before you post.

John the Libertarian on January 6, 2013 at 8:47 PM

Can you kindly provide us with some credible and multi-sourced cites proving your assertion that stoned drivers are equally as dangerous as drunk drivers?

Del Dolemonte on January 6, 2013 at 8:42 PM

Yes, those sources would be his arse.

John the Libertarian on January 6, 2013 at 8:48 PM

Blow into your breath analyzer or car won’t start. You can not do that with Pot. That is the problem.

Now come on everyone knows the purpose of Pot is to get high just like alcohol. We all know we do stupid things when high on Pot or Alcohol. So of course it is not safe to smoke pot and drive high. But how do you test for that?

That is the real problem with legal pot.

Steveangell on January 6, 2013 at 5:59 PM

Doesn’t your first statement that I bolded make an admission that stoned driving is nowhere near as dangerous as drunk driving? If stoned driving is so dangerous why aren’t there pot detection devices also?

As for the second statement of yours that I bolded, a dear friend of my family, in his late 70′s, gained nearly a full extra year of life due to medical marijuana, which was legal in the state he lived in.

H

Del Dolemonte on January 6, 2013 at 8:49 PM

You’re dodging the point. The mafia can make meth cheaper than any legal company if that company will be facing lawsuits for every dead or injured methhead.

sharrukin on January 6, 2013 at 8:43 PM

You two are sock puppets? Same freaking lunatic arguments and lack of vision. Myopic idiots the pair of you. I would be surprised if you had two brain cells between the both of you to spare.

NO THEY CANNOT MAKE IT CHEAPER THAN A LEGAL COMPANY. A legal company will have assets that are tailored to make the product as efficiently as possible. What they will not do is sell it CHEAP, because they are risking their lives you moron! A company also will not sell it cheap, as they will have to sell it at a value that equals risk, cost and some level of profit. That number will likely be less than the criminals sell it for. Even if it is not cheaper, users will either make their own, since it is legal now or buy the similarly priced product from a reputable producer that they have confidence knows what they are doing.

You make no sense in your argument here, you might want to stick to other topics.

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 8:53 PM

The libertarian ideal is like stateless communism…impossible to bring to reality, and thus you will need a special class of leaders to guide the uninformed to the coming Utopian state.

sharrukin on January 6, 2013 at 7:10 PM

Wow. You’re knocking a theoretical ideal because of its implausibility? Would that social cons’ ideal be everyone live perfectly under the principles of Jesus Christ and never sin? You’re really going to hoist yourself on that petard?

I’m sorry libertarians freak you out so much. I realize freedom is a scary notion.

John the Libertarian on January 6, 2013 at 8:55 PM

unlike alcohol there is no test for whether you are buzzed with pot or not. Only one that test whether you used it in the last week or so.

Steveangell on January 6, 2013 at 6:06 PM

Yes there is, it’s called a “blood test”. But most cops only use that as the second resort, using first their own powers of observation.

And at least two medical marijuana states, Nevada and Ohio, also now have even better marijuana testing, and have established limits for the amount of THC (the active ingredient in pot) that breaks the threshold for “stoned driving”. It’s a limit of 2 nanograms of THC per milliliter.

Pennsylvania’s health department has a 5-nanogram guideline that can be introduced in driving violation cases, and a dozen medical marijuana states, including Illinois, Arizona, and Rhode Island, have zero-tolerance policies.

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2012/11/15/with-pot-legal-police-focus-on-new-issue-stoned-driving/

One major distinction between drunk driving and stoned driving that you totally ignore because it doesn’t fit your agenda? Alcohol stays in the bloodstream many many times longer than the THC in Marijuana does, especially in the first 24 hours. Most of the THC is gone in 3 hours or less.

Del Dolemonte on January 6, 2013 at 8:59 PM

Not dodging at all. You are just blind to anything that hurts your world view.

Like I said, the reason is two fold… medical liability and risk of government taking your assets and putting you behind bars.

What a freaking moron you are.

As a medical item, the risk is actually increased, the risk of being put behind bars might be somewhat lower than street pot sales. It apparently evens out in the minds of the sellers.

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 8:39 PM

I think you’re projecting. At least it seems so to me.

Who hold the “medical liability” when there is no manufacturing entity nor FDA seal of approval?

So you still seem to be claiming that in the last 3 years…before any fed crackdown, prices were lower than they are now?

My point is that you claims are bullshit. The prices are high for the same reason that any other product has a price level…it’s based on what the market will bear.

If that is true, the argument of the pro leaglizers, that legalizing it will lower the prices and therefore remove the incentive for brutality, is in fact, crap.

Mimzey on January 6, 2013 at 8:59 PM

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 8:53 PM

I don’t know why you are so emotional and hysterical over this, but I see no reason to continue this with you frothing and screaming like a twelve year who’s just been told she has to do her homework.

sharrukin on January 6, 2013 at 9:00 PM

Who hold the “medical liability” when there is no manufacturing entity nor FDA seal of approval?

So you still seem to be claiming that in the last 3 years…before any fed crackdown, prices were lower than they are now?

My point is that you claims are bullshit. The prices are high for the same reason that any other product has a price level…it’s based on what the market will bear.

If that is true, the argument of the pro leaglizers, that legalizing it will lower the prices and therefore remove the incentive for brutality, is in fact, crap.

Mimzey on January 6, 2013 at 8:59 PM

The liability would be all along the route, from the grower to the final distribution point moron.

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 9:03 PM

I don’t know why you are so emotional and hysterical over this, but I see no reason to continue this with you frothing and screaming like a twelve year who’s just been told she has to do her homework.

sharrukin on January 6, 2013 at 9:00 PM

That is your perception, you should lay off the shrooms man.

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 9:04 PM

I don’t know why you are so emotional and hysterical over this, but I see no reason to continue this with you frothing and screaming like a twelve year who’s just been told she has to do her homework.

sharrukin on January 6, 2013 at 9:00 PM

Continue what? Your misinformation and propaganda campaign that has no ability to do anything but look stupid?

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 9:05 PM

The libertarian ideal is like stateless communism…impossible to bring to reality, and thus you will need a special class of leaders to guide the uninformed to the coming Utopian state.

sharrukin on January 6, 2013 at 7:10 PM

Wow. You’re knocking a theoretical ideal because of its implausibility?

Yes. A system of politics should be possible or what exactly is the point?

Would that social cons’ ideal be everyone live perfectly under the principles of Jesus Christ and never sin?

Not a Christian, but it has to do with a moral order that influences politics, not a system of governance.

I’m sorry libertarians freak you out so much. I realize freedom is a scary notion.

John the Libertarian on January 6, 2013 at 8:55 PM

Any Utopian sect is dangerous because they will tend to blame the lack of achievement on external factors and act to remove those factors in service to their sect. The Kulaks were eliminated by the communists for this very reason. When ideology becomes a religion it becomes very dangerous. Religion is seen as a moral guide, while ideology is seen as something achievable on earth. This is why Islam is so dangerous because it is essentially both.

sharrukin on January 6, 2013 at 9:06 PM

Del Dolemonte on January 6, 2013 at 8:59 PM

A blood test?
A cop can draw blood during a traffic stop??

What is the point of the 3 hour THC bit?
How much THC does this apply to?

Mimzey on January 6, 2013 at 9:16 PM

The liability would be all along the route, from the grower to the final distribution point moron.

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 9:03 PM

Only in your mind.
How would this “liability chain” be enforced?
When a product is mass produced, with all product looking the same, with no way of marking it to a single producer, how is liability proven in a court of law?

Mimzey on January 6, 2013 at 9:21 PM

Only in your mind.
How would this “liability chain” be enforced?
When a product is mass produced, with all product looking the same, with no way of marking it to a single producer, how is liability proven in a court of law?

Mimzey on January 6, 2013 at 9:21 PM

Myopic moron you are. Not even a remotely tiny bit of self preservation?

Same way they do it for tobacco, beef, eggs, milk, and so forth. Same way they trace it back to a farm in Mexico when the tomatoes have some disease attached to them. Same way they trace it back to the egg farm when they have a disease attached to them. Same way they trace it back to the farm when a chemical is found in the lettuce.

You are part of this world? You are not some computer generated program that is ignorant of everything in the real world are you? You certainly do not seem to understand any actual part of the real world.

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 9:26 PM

Yeah. Go ahead, dummys.

Legalize drugs.

And pray double what you pray now that your children don’t get completely addicted to any so-called ‘legalized drugs’ before they even get their first real job much less at any other time in their life.

Or your brother(s).

Or your sister(s).

Or your mother.

Or your father.

Or your dearest friend(s).

There is a very significant number of people who don’t do drugs simply because they’re against the law and those people have grown up and out of their childish ways. They consciously obey the law now. They consciously take their responsibilities a lot more serious now.

But, you know, Americans throwing in the towel and giving in to the crooks and giving in to the malingerers is exactly what America is all about nowadays isn’t it.

The US Government legalizing drugs is tacit permission to go right ahead and dig in and help yourself because drugs aren’t as bad as everyone used to say they are. Right? Because, obviously, if drugs were actually terribly awful to ingest as always previously claimed, then the government wouldn’t ever legalize them for general public consumption in a million years – right?

So go ahead and cut off your nose to spite your face.

That’s what all the other real smart people do.

Plus, the government will save a tax buck or two.

Wow! What are we waiting for!?

Yeah. Go ahead, dummys.

SD Tom on January 6, 2013 at 9:31 PM

P.S.-

Jazz Shaw is a grade-A idiot.

/

SD Tom on January 6, 2013 at 9:34 PM

Same way they do it for tobacco, beef, eggs, milk, and so forth. Same way they trace it back to a farm in Mexico when the tomatoes have some disease attached to them. Same way they trace it back to the egg farm when they have a disease attached to them. Same way they trace it back to the farm when a chemical is found in the lettuce.
astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 9:26 PM

Delusional.
All of those products are regulated and tagged with regulations, identifying batch numbers, shifts, and places of origins.
None of this is true for pot.

Mimzey on January 6, 2013 at 9:35 PM

Is portugal the newest flavor?

Why not use China with opium, or Britain with heroin, or the Netherlands as an example?

Great Britain experimented with controlled distribution of heroin between 1959 and 1968. According to the British Medical Journal, the number of heroin addicts doubled every sixteen months and the increase in addicts was accompanied by an increase in criminal activity as well.

By the time Japan invaded China during World War II, between 20 and 40 million Chinese, 10 percent of the entire population, were estimated to be addicted to opium. For British-controlled Hong Kong, the estimate is closer to 30 percent.

Egypt allowed unrestricted trade of cocaine and heroin in the 1920s. An epidemic of addiction resulted. This started in 1916, cocaine first being sold non-medically and shortly afterwards heroin. The total number of addicts in Egypt at the end of the 1920′s has been estimated to half a million. Taking into consideration that the total population of Egypt at that time was about 14 million, the extent of the problem may be realized.

sharrukin on January 6, 2013 at 6:47 PM

Yes, Portugal is the latest flavor. What they don’t tell you is that drug use is NOT LEGAL. It’s been decriminalized, and the amount of use is down because instead of incarcerating the abusers they are FORCING THEM INTO TREATMENT. Hardly the libertarian approach for those who rail against the nanny-staters trying to control everyone’s behavior.

JannyMae on January 6, 2013 at 9:38 PM

Imagine if law enforcement could spend their time focused on theft and violence instead of pathetic junkies.

commodore on January 6, 2013 at 5:20 PM

How do you think the vast majority of those “pathetic junkies” get their drugs so they can fix in the first place, Einstein?

/aye carumba!

SD Tom on January 6, 2013 at 9:41 PM

SD Tom on January 6, 2013 at 9:31 PM

Happened to several family members at one time or another. We survived. The law did not prevent any of them from consuming things from pot to ecstasy and cocaine. Did not prevent the sellers from selling, did not stop the consumer from consuming.

What the law did do is make it more expensive, more deadly and violent, and caused one family member who ran away from home to be made into a mule through threats to her by gang members who eventually raped her anyways and left her for dead along the road in Mexico where they took her.

Lets hope your family members are not kidnapped, raped, stabbed and left along the side of the road for dead because it is more important for you to protect them from something you cannot protect them from any more than you can protect them from a car accident.

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 9:42 PM

How do you think the vast majority of those “pathetic junkies” get their drugs so they can fix in the first place, Einstein?

/aye carumba!

SD Tom on January 6, 2013 at 9:41 PM

The vast majority do so because the illegality makes the drugs expensive to acquire. The cost of getting illegal drugs drives a push to more dangerous versions that have worse side effects.

But hey, the evidence shows that millions of men behind bars is a total success!

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 9:44 PM

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 9:42 PM

Appeal to Emotion.

Mimzey on January 6, 2013 at 9:45 PM

Prices of drugs by country.

United States $20 per ounce

The price will go as low as the market will bear obviously. Lower risks will equate to lower prices.

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 6:46 PM

$300 to $400 oz for high quality in most states according to
http://www.priceofweed.com/

Don’t smoke it myself but I have heard this $400 oz price for a few years now. I know some Gov agencies use the $20 oz… but that has got to be from the 60s-70s. Pot prices has been like gas prices, up, up ,up in jumps.

If they legalize and allow home growing of the weed the price will drop to $1 lb… And the weed can be treated at different stages in it’s growth and during storage in ways that will make it more potent.

Lastly, will hash be legal too. Hash oil can just about make you brain dead for an hour or so at a time. It’s like smoking a whole joint in one hit so far as THC content goes.

RalphyBoy on January 6, 2013 at 9:45 PM

Appeal to Emotion.

Mimzey on January 6, 2013 at 9:45 PM

Fight fire with fire. Sorry, you did not notice his appeal to emotion because? Oh, because it supports YOUR side of the argument.

Good to know that you are an honest broker here!

LOL!!!!

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 9:46 PM

Yes, Portugal is the latest flavor. What they don’t tell you is that drug use is NOT LEGAL. It’s been decriminalized, and the amount of use is down because instead of incarcerating the abusers they are FORCING THEM INTO TREATMENT. Hardly the libertarian approach for those who rail against the nanny-staters trying to control everyone’s behavior.

JannyMae on January 6, 2013 at 9:38 PM

I know, and in a few years the results of the Portugal experiment will become known, and they will hastily move on to the wonderful example of (fill in the blank) just as they moved on from the other failed experiments. It’s a never ending game with them because they don’t want to face the harsh reality.

sharrukin on January 6, 2013 at 9:48 PM

The vast majority do so because the illegality makes the drugs expensive to acquire. The cost of getting illegal drugs drives a push to more dangerous versions that have worse side effects.

But hey, the evidence shows that millions of men behind bars is a total success!

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 9:44 PM

Drugs are cheap..unless you’re a chronic and hopeless addict…in which case you most likely could not hold a job…in which case you would most likely turn to crime for money.
Anyone who just wants a buzz on the weekend can easily afford it…or do without. Unless it’s a strong compulsion.

Mimzey on January 6, 2013 at 9:49 PM

RalphyBoy on January 6, 2013 at 9:45 PM

Just pulling numbers from a website. I hoped it was accurate. That makes more sense. A relative in law is an avid smoker, and a quarter bag, I always though quarter pound, guess ounce was like 25 dollars ten years ago according to him and 50 a few years back when I last spoke to him. I thought the $20 was for 1 gram as it showed in all the other countries, but I guess not.

As for what would be legal, that is up to the citizens as a whole. Drug laws should be local or at widest level, state.

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 9:50 PM

Sorry, you did not notice his appeal to emotion because? Oh, because it supports YOUR side of the argument.

Good to know that you are an honest broker here!

LOL!!!!

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 9:46 PM

Who’s appeal to emotion? I may have missed a post, but I was responding to you.

Again..what is the vested interest in the drug thing that has you so angry and desperate to make a case for the harmlessness of drugs?

Mimzey on January 6, 2013 at 9:52 PM

Drugs are cheap..unless you’re a chronic and hopeless addict…in which case you most likely could not hold a job…in which case you would most likely turn to crime for money.
Anyone who just wants a buzz on the weekend can easily afford it…or do without. Unless it’s a strong compulsion.

Mimzey on January 6, 2013 at 9:49 PM

Yeah, I know, decades ago cocaine was ONLY $100 a gram. Totally cheap. Of course, I would not know actual costs, I am not a user… Do you have personal experience here?

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 9:52 PM

Drug laws should be local or at widest level, state.

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 9:50 PM

….so now you support drug laws.
Make up your mind.

Mimzey on January 6, 2013 at 9:53 PM

Who’s appeal to emotion? I may have missed a post, but I was responding to you.

Again..what is the vested interest in the drug thing that has you so angry and desperate to make a case for the harmlessness of drugs?

Mimzey on January 6, 2013 at 9:52 PM

I already told you my vested interest is opposite of what you would think… I told you that already.

Then again, the post I responded to that you responded to was the appeal to emotion one. I just responded in kind.

What is your vested interest? You an addict that must be prevented from getting to your addiction by government? Your father beat you because he was a pot head/heroin addict? Your life experiences harmed because someone close to you did not have personal responsibility?

Mayor Bloomburg is an ally to you! If people cannot stop themselves, government must step in.

Why exactly are you posting on a conservative web site? Contrarian voice?

You obviously do not understand business, the free market, freedom or liberty, so what exactly makes your voice here valuable?

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 9:56 PM

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 9:42 PM

You’re a useless idiot.

You don’t know sh*t from shinola. But you stayed at a Holiday Inn last night. amiright? Yeah. I am.

You just want your fix without the risk.

Your drug addled mind has left you as little more than a basket case.

SD Tom on January 6, 2013 at 9:57 PM

… Do you have personal experience here?

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 9:52 PM

Yes I do.
Your friends were paying way too much.

Mimzey on January 6, 2013 at 9:57 PM

What is your vested interest? You an addict that must be prevented from getting to your addiction by government? Your father beat you because he was a pot head/heroin addict? Your life experiences harmed because someone close to you did not have personal responsibility?

Mayor Bloomburg is an ally to you! If people cannot stop themselves, government must step in.

Why exactly are you posting on a conservative web site? Contrarian voice?

You obviously do not understand business, the free market, freedom or liberty, so what exactly makes your voice here valuable?

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 9:56 PM

No. None of that.
My vested interest is in objective reality.
I just don’t care for bullshit or bullshitters.

….you’re babbling.

Mimzey on January 6, 2013 at 9:59 PM

SD Tom on January 6, 2013 at 9:57 PM

No, I work in places where I am drug tested regularly. I have never even experimented with illicit drugs so much as once in my life.

I argued above that companies should remain totally free to discriminate against drug users.

Your sad little plea about what if it happened to your family member has an inverse argument. The drug laws in this nation and others makes the drug trade violent and deadly to many people. People who otherwise were totally innocent. A person choosing to take a drug on the other hand is anything BUT innocent in that act.

The solution is to make the little boy in his home a victim of drug use as a drug dealer does a drive by shooting.

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 10:01 PM

….you’re babbling.

Mimzey on January 6, 2013 at 9:59 PM

That would be you. Down to just one brain cell?

So, when the cost of stopping someone from doing drugs is the murder of innocents, you are willing to make that trade. Good to know.

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 10:03 PM

A person choosing to take a drug on the other hand is anything BUT innocent in that act.

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 10:01 PM

Are you arguing with yourself?

Mimzey on January 6, 2013 at 10:05 PM

So, when the cost of stopping someone from doing drugs is the murder of innocents, you are willing to make that trade. Good to know.

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 10:03 PM

So pot smokers and dealers are murdering a lot of innocent people?

A person choosing to take a drug on the other hand is anything BUT innocent in that act.

astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 10:01 PM

Mimzey on January 6, 2013 at 10:12 PM

We have a drug abuser in the White House so why wouldn’t there be a hands off approach to drugs in this administration?
Drugs are not good for anyone under any circumstance!
Period and End of story.

Delsa on January 6, 2013 at 10:26 PM

As a veteran of law enforcement that has seen far too much damage caused by drugs let me just take this time to straighten people out here.

1. There was and there is no war on drugs. In war I get to shoot the enemy on sight. I never got to shoot a drug pusher or trafficker. I had to arrest them. then they worked their way through a screwed up system working against itself. Had I got to just shoot them off the street corners, the drug use would be down significantly!

2.Which means the politicians who started this mess were lying to you to gain power over you and steal your tax money since the beginning. They were never serious about controlling drug use. Heck half of them WERE drug users, as are many lawyers and judges during their lifetimes. So it’s been a joke since the start.

3. Why won’t the “war” work? Because it isn’t a criminal issue, but a societal issue and we do not raise kids to understand the need to be good citizens, which includes not destroying themselves or others for a high. We hold no one accountable or responsible for their drug use. In fact, we find them entertaining. (Look at Charlie Sheen and Lohan for examples)

That said, let me point out a thing or two. First, drug legalization is wrong at many levels. The “lies” told to us about stopping drugs pale in comparison to the lies told to us that legalizing drugs will solve crime and break the banks of the traffickers.

Nothing would be farther from the truth. It flies in the face of culture and economics. I have written many times about how legalizing drugs will resemble peeling an onion. At first it smells nice but as you get farther into it, it begins to stink.

In Europe many of the open drug communities are now pushing the dopers away because of the HUGE negative impact they have. (really? Nobody thought having heroin addicts stumbling around their town was a bad idea? Freaking Europeans…I swear. Dumber than a bag of bagels.)

For example, if a drug trafficker is making millions sneaking the stuff in on the black market, what incentive does he have to pay taxes? Would you? So now he is going to be Al Capone.

If a drug dealer slinging crack on the corner is now legal, do you think he’ll stop throwing shots with is 9mm to run off the competition and instead hire a lawyer for territory infringement? Seriously?

Second, once legal it has to be regulated. Once regulated it has to be administered…enter the FDA. Once regulated and administered it is subject to legal claims. “I didn’t get high enough off your meth, Merkel! I want to sue.” “Oh your drug made me mentally imbalanced, I want to sue.” “It killed Kennny! We all want to sue!”

Lastly, as my Captain once said to me, “The reason I don’t support the legalization of drugs by a government is simple. When my ten year old comes to me and says he wants to smoke dope or shoot up and I say it is a bad thing, what do I say when he tells me ‘well the President says it is okay!’?”

So to summarize. 1. bad guys will still be bad guys, just tax evaders. And they will still kill each other over the money. 2. people will still be dangerous to society as users and as criminals supporting their now legal habit (crackheads can’t hold a job. Are you going to pay them SSI to fund their habit? No, okay then they’ll break into your house and rob you.) 3. People will still die. 4. We lose a very effective deterrent in the argument.

Outside of that, its a fine idea.

If you like smoking dope.

archer52 on January 6, 2013 at 10:43 PM

1. There was and there is no war on drugs. In war I get to shoot the enemy on sight. I never got to shoot a drug pusher or trafficker. I had to arrest them. then they worked their way through a screwed up system working against itself. Had I got to just shoot them off the street corners, the drug use would be down significantly!

In the post-apocalyptic world of “Ashes”, the ultra-right nation formed by the Rebels (against the old US government) made it very clear what drugs were illegal, and unlicensed pharmacists could be shot by anyone from a Specforces operative to a private citizen without any consequence. And God help you if you were caught dealing drugs to a Rebel minor. If you were LUCKY you ‘just’ got blown away on the spot.

A funny thing happened…they didn’t have a “war on drugs”. Because they fought like they meant it and WON.

BTW, thank you for your front-line experience and your irrefutable points. The quote from your Captain gave me cold chills. The thought of MY kid someday saying that to ME is nightmare fuel, and reason enough to oppose the cowards all by itself!

MelonCollie on January 6, 2013 at 11:01 PM

My point is you can not make Pot legal unless you take away the DL from users of Pot. There is no effective test for how high on Pot you are just whether you used it in the last week or so. So if you want to argue for a MJ license instead of a Drivers License go for it. But driving is not the only intoxication law. Those laws are valid so making it legal will require a lot of new laws and restrictions on MJ License holders.
Steveangell on January 6, 2013 at 6:42 PM

Lack of testing is a strawman. The reason there are no tests for determining the highness of a suspect is because there was never a demand for it. By the nature of our laws that make it next to impossible to do research, how could we come up with tests? But there are tests that can determine how recently pot has been handled by the user. Cops have been using this method to determine DUI in Germany since the late 1990s.

Trust science to come up with ways to test for highness once pot is decriminalized.

AH_C on January 6, 2013 at 11:25 PM

For too many conservatives, it seems as if one of the chief arguments against decriminalization is that it’s something that liberals want, and thus it must, by definition, be a bad idea. Further, there’s that whole “pot smoking hippie” thing. The idea of doing anything to make them happier will drive away Republicans in droves, unfortunately.

Unfortunately, this is very true. If anyone on our side makes this argument they should turn in their Conservative membership card, because they are no different from liberal nanny-staters.

rndmusrnm on January 6, 2013 at 11:29 PM

Why would a business want to make less money from their meth line? Wouldn’t they charge whatever the market will bear?

Are you suggesting subsidized meth?

sharrukin on January 6, 2013 at 5:52 PM

And without barriers to entry into the marketplace, what exactly do you think is going to happen to supply?

JohnGalt23 on January 7, 2013 at 12:14 AM

Nothing would be farther from the truth. It flies in the face of culture and economics.

archer52 on January 6, 2013 at 10:43 PM

Something tells me you know jack shiite about economics.

So, why don’t you tell us, how much of the street price of heroin reflects the risk premium of those in the distribution chain?

JohnGalt23 on January 7, 2013 at 12:18 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4