A Maggie's Scientific Opinion Poll: Legalization of Recreational Drugs

I think it is a horrible idea. I don't want people roaming the streets, driving, going to work while high on heroin, meth or any other illegal drug. Do you?

By legalizing these drugs, we are in essence saying they are fine for you to use and no big deal. But it is a very huge deal.

In addition, what about access to these drugs by infants, children and teens? If they are legal to have in your home and use, they will also be available to children who don't understand the dangers and consequences.

#1 KJB on 2013-03-06 13:39 (Reply)

Mostly, legalise much the same way as alcohol. Keep away from work, driving, etc.

#2 John A on 2013-03-06 13:44 (Reply)

But John, that's the whole problem, about a third of the country will be running around, driving, flying jets, running dangerous machinery, etc.. & yeah, the people in every factory or mechanized company, that get hurt by their co-workers while on H or smoking pot, or mixing several things together, will be insurmountable, in my thoughts.. I feel that what WE NEED is healthy boundaries in the area of harder drugs & those who get 'addicted' to grass.. I know people like that & they ARE rotting their bodies & robbing their children of having good parents, while their livers get sicker & sicker.. My opinion from life experience is; most addicts that I've known, tend to get more dangerous health as they tend to use more & more of everything &, more different types of things, mixed together in their bloodstream.. Not to mention their kids being exposed to all of this... then they're problems truly do increase..& I agree with all of what Gina said too.

#2.1 SARAHMAX on 2013-03-07 12:59 (Reply)

I think it is a horrible idea. I don't want people roaming the streets, driving, going to work while playing with chainsaws or any other power tool. Do you?

By legalizing these tools, we are in essence saying they are fine for you to use and no big deal. But it is a very huge deal.

In addition, what about access to these chainsaws by infants, children and teens? If they are legal to have in your home and use, they will also be available to children who don't understand the dangers and consequences.

#3 anon on 2013-03-06 14:00 (Reply)

NICE reply #3 ...

I say legalize all of it, and restrict it the way we do alcohol - which is just as potent a drug for life-wrecking as most of the illegal stuff anyways. I never get people who make a "huge" distinction between the substances... sincerely, stop and look at them.

Next, consider the benefit to society if we remove an entire, gigantic source of criminality from our books. The reduction in prison populations. The cuts in funding for criminal enterprise. The increased tax revenues for the government to blow.

Will some people abuse it? OF COURSE. Thats called "freedom" ... they are free to spend their days drunk out of their minds already though. I suspect there would be a 3-5 year period of heightened "incidents" after legalization and then its going to become like any other mildly dangerous vice.

#4 Matt on 2013-03-06 14:12 (Reply)

Ditto.

#4.1 Bird Dog on 2013-03-06 14:17 (Reply)

indeed. Nothing should be illegal that doesn't do acute harm.

So you want to take heroin? Go ahead. But if you do so and then crash your car into someone, face the consequences.
Your work performance suffers as a consequence? Don't expect to get unemployment benefits, just as with any job you lose where you're solely responsible.

You want to run around naked? Fine with me, but don't try to sue anyone if you catch a cold or burn your butt sitting on a hot park bench.
If you get raped, that's another story. The rapist will NOT have the ability to claim "you were asking for it" as his defense, even if I think you look darn good.

etc. etc.

#4.2 J.T. Wenting on 2013-03-06 14:26 (Reply)

Yes there would be heightened incidences of accidents, more ruined kids in schools, hospitals, & on & on & on.. I'd add; & psycho moms throwing their infants off of the overpasss..... Of course "we've had a failure of personal ethics on a mass scale".
#36 lonetown on) Lord help us NOT TO make our nation worse off than it already is?!? REALLY

#4.3 SARAHMAX on 2013-03-07 13:21 (Reply)

I vacillate on legalization.

UPSIDE: end (mostly) the war on drugs; reduce militarization of cops (as if!); reduce prison population (Yay! They're on the street now!); become a more libertarian society with more freedom.

DOWNSIDE: kill/hopelessly addict thousands of people and foist them on society; absorb the social and fiscal impact of that; risk encounters with mentally impaired people (think drivers of cars, cabs, trains, etc); turn loose the DEA cops and their derivative coplets to ply their trade on the next evil thing--guns? immigrants? tax evaders?

So far, the theoretical desirability of the libertarian philosophy hasn't outweighed the practical problems I foresee.

TC

#5 Leatherneck on 2013-03-06 14:47 (Reply)

sorry, I lost you at "foist them on society". Of course, challenging that premise is much more difficult than decriminalizing drugs - but perhaps there's a connection?

#5.1 Jeff Allen on 2013-03-06 15:15 (Reply)

The damage that heroin, meth, crack, cocaine do to the body is real, demonstrable and unavoidable. The crack epidemic in the nineties destroyed many black neighborhoods in Chicago. Thousands of babies were born addicted to crack. (I took care of them.) For other children, it led to their abuse and neglect by addicted mothers, their removal from situations of abuse,followed by incarceration in the foster care system, and decreased cognitive functioning that will never be regained.

The idea that decriminalization will lead to an end to the black market is a utopian fantasy. There will always be a black market to create new addicts, undersell the government suppliers, get around government restrictions. There's a black market for cigarettes in many northeast cities because taxes have increased the cost of a a pack to $10.

#5.2 Gina on 2013-03-06 17:01 (Reply)

What good did criminilizing it do?

#5.2.1 The B on 2013-03-06 17:53 (Reply)

Actually, heroin is pretty benign in its effects although it is constipating and the pharmacological effect requires increasing doses. Both it and morphine do allow functional activity. Cocaine is more harmful and makes people excited and paranoid, a bad combination. Meth is poison.

#5.2.2 Mike K (Link) on 2013-03-07 11:06 (Reply)

Throw in prescription drugs (remove the requirement for prescription) and I think you've got a great policy.

The only downside is that the free market will make the drugs "better," in whatever dimension better might be, such as stronger or longer lasting.

I think Matt is correct.

#6 Mike (Link) on 2013-03-06 15:07 (Reply)

We are either free, or we are not. Uncle Sam and his wife, Anti Fun, have become oppressive nannies that embarrass the kids who founded this nation.

#7 FreeDumb on 2013-03-06 15:28 (Reply)

Out here we legalized marijuana based on the argument that prohibition didn't work and drug laws don't either. Those same politicians are voting today to put a prohibition on guns. And we're worried about potheads not thinking clearly.

#8 Colorado on 2013-03-06 15:29 (Reply)

Exactly. And in NYC you can order a pizza to go, but you can't get a bottle of soda with it. Once they got the boot on the throat we lost our liberty.

#8.1 Charles Curran on 2013-03-06 16:00 (Reply)

“The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog.” – GK Chesterton, 1935

#9 Pajak on 2013-03-06 15:31 (Reply)

G.K. Chesterton is one of the most overlooked and least recognized intellectuals of the 20th Century.

I agree with him and Matt. We need to dismantle this notion and the practical application of nanny-stat-ism.

#9.1 Kevin on 2013-03-06 15:48 (Reply)

I think you have a faulty understanding of "cause and effect." No doubt you were educated by people who brag a lot about "critical thinking."

#9.1.1 Gina on 2013-03-06 18:24 (Reply)

Got to go with Chesteron.

#9.2 Texan99 (Link) on 2013-03-06 15:54 (Reply)

Or rather, Chesterton.

#9.2.1 Texan99 (Link) on 2013-03-06 15:55 (Reply)

ok, but what about Chesteron?

#9.2.1.1 buddy larsen on 2013-03-07 00:30 (Reply)

The Chesterton that Pajak quoted.

#9.2.1.1.1 Texan99 (Link) on 2013-03-07 11:30 (Reply)

My opinion is, that it is not just "people living in a haze for a few hours." Were that true, I could side with legalization.

Reality is that people who use the recreational drugs listed are more violent, more paranoid, more crazy, and have far lower inhibitions than the average unimpaired person.

Thus are far more criminal in their behavior. Criminal in the sense of what they DO (rape, fight, steal, vandalize. . .) and criminal in what they DON'T do (neglect vulnerables in their care, turn of the gas on the stove, remember to put the pool cover on. . .)

Some people are crazy or stupid without trying. I forgive them. But I deny you the right to make yourself crazy or stupid. You live in a world with other people in it.

#10 Marie on 2013-03-06 15:56 (Reply)

Two points on legalization of all drugs:

1) The Economist believes the number of addicts for all drugs will increase about 5 times if they are legalized.

2) I believe the medical problems associated with current drugs (Meth, Cocaine, Heroin) will be temporary because the pharmaceutical industry will develop better euphorics over the next 20 years.

A 5 times increase in the number of drug users is certainly worth thinking about. Does this justify the war on drugs (and commensurate police powers) and mass incarceration for what is essentially a victim-less crime? It may or may not be worth it. I can tell you as someone who does not do drugs at all, that the hassles associated with the drug war whenever I return from international travel definitely make me in favor of legalization.

Another thing to consider is that drug users commit crimes to pay for their drugs, which are expensive because they must be purchased on the black market. Legalization will make drugs cheaper (Opiates are pennies per pill) and, thus, reduce much of the crime associated with drug use.

It is also worth considering the history of drug prohibition. With the exception of the Harrison Act of 1914, none of the drug laws were implemented due to concerns over the medical consequences of drug abuse. Indeed, many drugs, such as Cocaine and Marijuana, were banned even when the medical complications of these drugs were either not known or considered inconsequential. Instead, they were banned for ideological reasons rather than legitimate medical concerns.

Based on these arguments, I tend to be in favor of ending drug prohibition.

#11 Abelard Lindsey on 2013-03-06 16:19 (Reply)

In principal I do agree with legalizing, or at least decriminalizing possession. However, I do want accountability the criminal conduct that goes hand-in-hand with some of these drugs. Our prison system will still have a revolving door for meth (and other drug) addicts who commit theft, vandalism, and assault in the name of their addiction. If, as a society, we don't hold the persons accountable, excusing their action due to their drug use, then will be no further along in promoting freedom than we are now.

Chesterton AND Belloc for the win!

#12 amanda on 2013-03-06 16:23 (Reply)

Visit The ChesterBelloc Mandate...

#12.1 Pajak on 2013-03-06 16:59 (Reply)

So if you are in favor of legalizing drugs as bad as crack and heroin would you legalize all prescription drugs as well, i.e. make them available over the counter? If not, why not? I would really like to hear the answer.

#13 GoneWithTheWind on 2013-03-06 16:28 (Reply)

There is a difference between recreational drugs and medical pharmaceuticals (well, except for morphine).

#13.1 The B on 2013-03-06 17:42 (Reply)

Is there?

#13.1.1 Texan99 (Link) on 2013-03-06 18:34 (Reply)

But that's not an answer it is an evasion of the question. I say why not make prescription drugs available over the counter. what the hell if we are going to allow/encourage people to take drugs that will kill them and harm society why not allow others to have access to drugs that will help them? In the 3rd world countries you can walk into a pharmacy with the money and walk out with the drugs no prescription needed. Are we less qualified then them to make those decisions?

#13.1.2 GoneWithTheWind on 2013-03-06 19:24 (Reply)

There are two reasons (well, reasons that make any kind of sense, as opposed to the doctors who want to keep getting paid for acting as gatekeepers) some drugs are on prescription.

(a) Like the illegal drugs, someone might use them for fun and get hurt;

(b) In the case of things like antibiotics, if people use them for the wrong reason, or use too much, resistant strains of germs are created, until eventually the antibiotic stops being useful and we all have to change to new, less safe kinds.

I'm a firm believer in letting evolution take its course (at least in adults) on problem (a). But I'm not as sure that type (b) drugs should not stay on prescription (though I'd certainly downgrade the severity of the law to something like copyright violation, since the results of the "crime" are similar).

#13.2 jdgalt on 2013-03-06 20:49 (Reply)

Reason #2 doesn't make sense except in a kind of pseudo scientific way. Today in most 3rd world countries people can buy these antibiotics over the counter. Secondly farmers and ranchers use antibiotics by the barrelful, you can even buy it for your pets and gold fish at your local pet store. How could anyone believe that forcing Americans to pay for a doctor visit then pay an inflated price at the pharmacy is "protecting" the purity of the "bugs" out there. It seems to me to be illogical that our country would somehow decide it is OK to make drugs like crack readily available where their only purpose is to cause health, social and criminal problems for the user while at the same time not allowing drugs that save lives to be at least as freely available.

#13.2.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2013-03-07 10:25 (Reply)

Never understood, when I lived in Berkeley many years ago, why they both wanted to ban smoking tobacco and legalize smoking pot. Good example of folks with too much intelligence and too little common sense.

Every day I see dozens of decrepit "homeless" folks outside my downtown office building (in the midst of the financial district) talking to themselves, yelling, screaming, urinating, defecating, and sometimes insulting and assaulting passers-by. We have had people attacked and one person knifed by these folks (fortunately, no fatalities--yet), and spend a lot of money on security guards and restricted access procedures. I would bet a lot of these people either burned their brains out on drugs, or are high on drugs, or both. And now nothing can be done about them, although they clearly are a menace to society. So yes, drug use has huge consequences.

There were a lot of folks like that in Berkeley too. But back then it hadn't spread to the rest of the country. Now it has, and the street outside my office is just as bad, if not worse, than I remember Telegraph Avenue in the Seventies.

#14 Jim on 2013-03-06 16:28 (Reply)

Yeah, and what do you do when you have someone high on meth throwing a baby off a pedestrian overpass into the freeway--the mother was not around, she was also off trying to score some drugs. Or a similarly psychotic meth-head who walks up to a school teacher at a bus stop and stabs her to death. Both incidents that have happened in my community within the past couple of years.

The attitude in a number of countries in Asia is to execute drug dealers, on the grounds they are selling poison. Am not in favor of the death penalty (for the same reason I don't like abortion, only God has the right to take a life), but most of me agrees with the Asian approach.

#15 Jim on 2013-03-06 16:37 (Reply)

the government would necessarily get involved in regulating safety, purity etc. on what possible grounds could you regulate cold medicine and cigarettes and not street heroin?

that the government should regulate heroin, meth, cocaine and other dangerous narcotics is repugnant to me.

weed, in spite of also being a Sked I drug, is not in the same class as the above, this could be decriminalized from federal law, and the states allowed to determine what is or isn't an MJ offense.

#16 wirraway on 2013-03-06 16:51 (Reply)

I'm agin'it. I'm indifferent to marijuana, but think alcohol is a sufficient mind altering substance, don't know why we need all the others.

If we had a society that put an emphasis on virtue, self control, responsibility and valued transcendent religions that would help reinforce these qualities this question would be largely irrelevant. But in our decadent, self aggrandizing, irresponsible culture, this would just worsen our problems.

#17 phil g on 2013-03-06 16:52 (Reply)

I'm very wary of arguments to outlaw something because we already have something else and "we don't need it."

#17.1 Texan99 (Link) on 2013-03-06 18:42 (Reply)

I'm very wary of arguments that claim that because A is legal and B is kind of sort of like A in the very narrowest sense therefore B should be legal as well.

#17.1.1 phil g on 2013-03-06 18:57 (Reply)

I agree. There may be good reasons to continue to outlaw many drugs. I just don't think anyone's intuition about whether "we" need them is a helpful approach. Adults should decide for themselves what they need.

#17.1.1.1 Texan99 (Link) on 2013-03-07 11:33 (Reply)

This is not just about 'adults' assumed to mean adults of a certain age with the maturity to make reasonable cost benefit analysis...increased availability and the tacit approval of life destroying drugs by the US Government will have a huge impact on children and teenagers as well as young adults.

#17.1.1.1.1 phil g on 2013-03-07 11:42 (Reply)

That's what I mean by a better approach than deciding whether the drugs are needed. I don't necessarily agree than some drugs are too dangerous to be unregulated, even though I'm queasy about how it's handled. But I'm more inclined to focus on the danger than a perception of the absence of need.

#17.1.1.1.1.1 Texan99 (Link) on 2013-03-07 19:50 (Reply)

Hey Phil, read the third chapter of 2 Timothy.

#17.2 brobro on 2013-03-06 19:37 (Reply)

Just some more thoughts on this. If the argument is that we should be 'free' then shouldn't these things also be free of laws and prohibition:

1) Practicing medicine/surgery without a license

2) Practicing law without a degree / passing the bar

3) No driver's licenses necessary anymore...can legislate my freedom to drive when and where I want!

4) Hunting and fishing licenses...I should be free to kill whatever I want, in whatever quantity I want, all year round

5) Unlicensed dentistry and orthodontia!

These are just a few things that are limited legally, and we all agree these are good things for society. I say the same is true for drugs. Wouldn't removing the laws surrounding these things also reduce costs and give us more freedoms???

#18 KJB on 2013-03-06 17:03 (Reply)

Ok, let's have a discussion about legalization of drugs.

What will be the net result of legalization of common drugs? Is it decriminalizing recreational use? Taxation? Is it winning the "war on drugs" by creating a rational market for drugs thus defeating drug cartels?

Decriminalizing is a major talking point for those who advocate for legalization. After all, they argue, do we penalize people for drinking alcohol? A person should be allowed to destroy themselves in their own special way goes the argument and government should just step back and get out of the way.

Fine - get government out of the way. Allow the "Free Market" to set prices and availability. Do we really want to turn this over to the criminal cartels who currently provide 90% of the recreational drugs to the US? Do we really think that this will somehow limit supply or demand? Do we think that the small producer is somehow going to be able to survive against the onslaught on criminal gangs? Do we think that there will be the equivalent of ABC stores for those drugs that have high narcotic or psychotropic properties?

Let's assume that this fantasy of "Free Market" forces prevails and recreational drugs become easily available. Free Markets force organic or non-organic growth of companies to increase revenue and/or profit. Do we honestly believe that the cartels will just roll over and allow Archer Daniels Midland to take over the business and trade?

No - that ain't gonna happen and you know it. All we will be doing is feeding already large criminal enterprises and creating even larger criminal enterprises who would eventually purchase as many politicians they need to create favorable environments for their business. GM does it, why not the Zeta cartel?

Ah,but there is revenue to be gained by taxation the argument goes. As much as $20 billion in California alone!! That solves budget issues by adding a stable revenue stream based on sin tax. Well, we all know how that works - eventually, much like tobacco products, taxation starts to feed on itself - a nickel bag eventually becomes a dime bag which eventually becomes a $20 bag, yada, yada, yada. The net result is that you never actually realize the billions in sin taxes you originally project.

And then there are the social costs. Do we just let people go to hell in a hand basket and not provide emergency, or for that matter, any services? Just let them kill themselves in a frenzied ecstatic overdose? How about the increase in drivers who utilize recreational drugs - what's the cost to the average consumer when the insurance rates creep up into the stratosphere?

TB makes this comment - "Just don't make the argument that "It's bad for people." That will not fly, because driving is dangerous too. So is mountain-climbing.

I think I made the argument against - care to comment?

#19 Tom Francis on 2013-03-06 17:25 (Reply)

TF:

You are overlooking the reality that these things are all readily available now. In 35 minutes, I could get you anything you wanted - Ecstasy, heroin, meth, coke, pot - without even needing to get out of my car. Drive-up service, if you will. Street-side.

People who are determined to destroy their lives will do so, or try to, regardless of legality.

You assume that, with decriminalization, there would be a vast new market for this crap. I doubt it.

#19.1 The B on 2013-03-06 17:48 (Reply)

The argument that there is no difference between alcohol and the psychotropic drugs deliberately ignores the fact that the vast majority of people who drink alcohol do so with a meal, or in a social gathering with the specific intention to enjoy but to not get drunk.
Only college students and alcoholics drink to get drunk. But people who smoke grass etc etc do so with the specific intention of getting high, stoned, whatever, i.e., to intentionally alter the mental to state to one of less consciousness, the physical state to one of less control.

The damage that heroin, meth, crack, cocaine do to the body is real, demonstrable and unavoidable. The crack epidemic in the nineties destroyed many black neighborhoods in Chicago. Thousands of babies were born addicted to crack. (I took care of them.) For other children, it led to their abuse and neglect by addicted mothers, their removal from situations of abuse,followed by incarceration in the foster care system, and decreased cognitive functioning that will never be regained.

The idea that decriminalization will lead to an end to the black market is a utopian fantasy. There will always be a black market to create new addicts, undersell the government suppliers, get around government restrictions. There's a black market for cigarettes in many northeast cities because taxes have increased the cost of a a pack to $10.

#19.2 Gina on 2013-03-06 17:59 (Reply)

I'm not sure about this. I've known a lot of people to get in trouble with alcohol, but no one who got in trouble with marijuana, which normally is consumed in a friendly social atmosphere and doesn't incapacitate anyone or make them clumsy or belligerent.

#19.2.1 Texan99 (Link) on 2013-03-06 18:40 (Reply)

If by trouble you ignore the affects on soul and mind and the amount of wasted potential from the sloth that marijuana can induce.

Yep, no problems here.

#19.2.1.1 phil g on 2013-03-07 06:53 (Reply)

That's how my husband looks at it. I'm not sure I agree, from observing users, but it's a valid concern. The fact remains that the undeniable effects of alcohol I've observed are incomparably greater, yet we let people work them out for themselves, mostly, unless they completely lose control of their lives.

#19.2.1.1.1 Texan99 (Link) on 2013-03-07 11:37 (Reply)

Which is why I'm somewhat ambivalent about fed marijuana laws and think it might be better to allow states to set their own which will allow us to judge results.

#19.2.1.1.1.1 phil g on 2013-03-07 11:53 (Reply)

I'm with Tom, here for several reasons:
1. Heroin is dirt cheap where I live; legalization will probably increase the cost ( You don't seriously believe that this Obama crowd is going to ignore the revenue possibilities of taxing rec drugs, do you?). With increased overhead, won't this lead to more burglaries and violent crime as the majority of the users find it more difficult to afford it?
2. PCP. You ain't seen violent behavior until you've seen someone on this shit. Spend a few hours at your local ER, and you'll witness the extreme violence of these people. There will be cops accompanying the "free" individual, so ask why he (Usually a male) came to their attention; likely there was an act of violence. Yup, strapped to a gurney (For everyone's safety), with the mesh bag over their head, the injected "cocktail" to calm the madness . . . One fellow I heard about stood up with the gurney strapped to his back and began wreaking havoc in the ER, until 8 intrepid people were able to tackle him.
3. Watch the early moments of life of a crack newborn. Some will argue that this is similar to the situation of a newborn alcoholic, but will legalizing drugs decrease the prevalence of these births?
4. Our state, Connecticut, is overloaded with people seeking care for self-induced harm, and it is crippling the assistance we can be reimbursed for at our primary medical practice for needy and deserving people. We have strict rules about prescribing opioids at our practice (Contracts, urine screens, referral to pain managers for chronic pain), and yet, the flood of drug-seekers never ends. Do we really want to end the requirement for screening and prescriptions for these meds?

Like "conservatism", libertarianism comes in 21 flavors, but this is one area that I would not like to leave up to the people.

#19.3 Steve in CT on 2013-03-28 10:11 (Reply)

Off the top of my head, my gut reaction is to still prohibit it. I think we've become a nation of undisciplined yahoos who can't hear the warnings from their own bodies and those people surrounding them, so I"m not sure opening up that vein of sin is a good idea. Re: legalising, in Amsterdam, they ended up gauging the potency of the marijuana available in the "coffee shops" and they recently removed the most potent as patrons were becoming belligerent and acting psychotic. They have also recently made small amounts of pot available to residents only cutting into the tourist trade. I think. The coffee shops were fighting it quite a bit, so I don't know the final outcome. Finally, on a related note, I ran across this article which made me wonder if pot smoking will be illegal in schools or not. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2012/1212/Why-Amsterdam-is-banning-marijuana-use-in-schools

#20 Sheryl B. on 2013-03-06 17:46 (Reply)

To all of you folks in favor of the continued prohibition:

Have you all not noticed that every one of the drugs mentioned are widely available right now?

Have you not noticed that the growing police state has destroyed literally every vestige of the Bill of Rights?

Have you not noticed that the current incarnation of prohibition has created the very drug cartels you fear and bemoan?

Have you not noticed that youth/gang related violence has grown exponentially under the so called "war on drugs" at the same time the fedgov spends billions to eradicate those drugs?

#21 Kevin on 2013-03-06 17:49 (Reply)

have you not grasped the difference between causation and correlation?

I posit that shooting up heroin is an inherently, objectively wrong, in the same way that murder is a objectively wrong (i.e., malum in se) but not in the way that hunting out of season is (malum prohibitum). for the government to acquiesce to stupid ass conduct because control measures aren't sufficient is a stupid ass, morally bankrupt idea.

you think this is a police state? really?

you think this is a police state?

the USoA isn't a police state. Vichy france was a police state. Laos is a police state; east germany was a police state. the chiComs live in a police state.

"destroyed literally vestige of the Bill of Rights"?

you can't possibly be serious, in that statement or even as a justification for unrestricted narcotics use.

I worry about the conservative movement because of mindless hyperbole like this.

#21.1 wirraway on 2013-03-06 18:37 (Reply)

Hyperbole?

go read this:
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2013/03/07/chicago-swat-raid-gone-terribly-wrong/

It is merely one of thousands of examples of the growing police state (there, I said it again), albeit not quite as bad as some of the places you cite, but it is a far cry from the Founder's Republic.

I suspect that you will not be able to understand my assertion until you are on the receiving end of their lawless tactics. It is not fun! I know this from personal experience.

#21.1.1 Kevin on 2013-03-07 10:20 (Reply)

I'm not the kind of people society expects the cops to beat the crap out of administer a certain level of street justice.

re your link. from the story:

QUOTE:

Lead plaintiffs Charlene and Samuel Holly sued Chicago, police Officer Patrick Kinney and eight John Does in Federal Court, on their own behalves and for their children and children.

that means the cops and city are being sued by the victims. in a police state, SAVAK, the Gestapo, Stasi, MSS ... they don't get sued and they don't pay out damage awards for violation of civil rights.

in the Founder's Republic you could have a confession beaten out of you, and, gods forbid, if you were the wrong color, you had no rights at all.

#21.1.1.1 wirraway on 2013-03-07 11:29 (Reply)

This is mostly incoherent:

Have you all not noticed that every one of the drugs mentioned are widely available right now?

Not nearly as available as they would be if they were legal.

Have you not noticed that the growing police state has destroyed literally every vestige of the Bill of Rights?

That growing police state is a result of the increasing decadence of our failing culture including: increase in violent immigrants, collapse of black culture and communities and would certainly increase with more drugged up people.

Have you not noticed that the current incarnation of prohibition has created the very drug cartels you fear and bemoan?

Prohibition is not the direct cause. The nature of these products are evil and is the root of this evil and many other social ills.

Have you not noticed that youth/gang related violence has grown exponentially under the so called "war on drugs" at the same time the fedgov spends billions to eradicate those drugs?

Youth/gang problem would only increase with the increased availability of soul and mind destroying drugs. The youth/gang related violence is largely a function of failed black culture and increased Mexican, Russian, South American, Middle Eastern immigration. Very little to no gang issues from traditional German, British, Italian, Scandinavian American culture.

#21.2 phil g on 2013-03-06 18:51 (Reply)

You have cut through the fog and put your finger right on the problem. Until we solve the problem our foolish immigration policy has created we cannto solve the drug and gang problem.

#21.2.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2013-03-07 10:34 (Reply)

we also need a poll on recreational murder, since government control measures have failed, murder-for-hire business is up, and unwarranted, Bill o' Rights busting penal code interference with my gods-given right to slaughter my unruly neighbors is really pissing me and the rest of the libertarians off big time.

#22 wirraway on 2013-03-06 18:41 (Reply)

Last I heard, suicide is not illegal. Immoral perhaps, not illegal.

#22.1 Bird Dog on 2013-03-06 19:06 (Reply)

assisting a suicide is a crime. either murder or attempted murder.

a suicide cannot be convicted of a crime. a failed attempt, while not criminal misconduct, will get one a series of psychiatric holds in the jail part of a hospital while treatment options are evaluated. because, you know, society thinks trying to kill oneself is somehow just wrong.

a person who dies by his own decision may be supremely moral, as the Bible itself declares and medal of honor citations abound. since we cannot know the mental state of a successful suicide at the time of the act, its not possible to say whether the suicide was immoral, its certainly not possible to say whether it was a sin.

#22.1.1 wirraway on 2013-03-06 20:26 (Reply)

Lots of folks do things every day that put themselves at risk, and in danger of becoming a burden on society, yet there is no movement to ban or make their choices illegal.

I'm speaking of course of leisure activities such as bungy jumping, skydiving, rock climbing, car racing, back country skiing, motorcycle racing, etc...

All of them are life threatening, all of them cause numerous injuries every year, and some deaths.

All legal, most you don't even need a license for.

What makes drugs worse?

#23 mitchel44 on 2013-03-06 19:08 (Reply)

mountain climbing is a morally neutral act. murder is objectively wrong. both are, in their own way, dangerous. for the sake of your friends and family, including minor dependents, I hope you agree with that.

in your moral universe, is paying a narco-gang for heroin that may or may not be cut with even more dangerous substances and which is known to create dependence, as well as enabling the gang's criminal misconduct more of a morally neutral albeit dangerous act like mountain climbing or an immoral one like murder?

#23.1 wirraway on 2013-03-06 20:17 (Reply)

First, the US Constitution does not empower Congress to ban anything. They clearly believed that a constitutional amendment was necessary to grant the power to outlaw alcohol, and that without such the Congress had no power. The federal laws against recreational drug use are usurpation.

Second, I do not have the right to a drug-free next-door-neighbor. The act of taking any drug is not directly injurious to any other person. "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." And because the government is our delegated agent, and not an independent moral agency, drug prohibition is not a legitimate sphere of government. The argument that a person on drugs might do these things is not a rebuttal to this, because we can always punish them for what they do while high, just as we punish drunks for drunk driving. People can use newspapers to spread lies, lies that often lead to the untimely deaths of people; but the papers remain legal.

Third, the argument that we would be opening a legal market to criminal gangs is absurd. Did the mafia continue to control the liquor trade when Prohibition ended? Hardly. The market for recreational drugs is controlled by outlaws because the market has been outlawed; they cannot resolve their disputes in a lawful manner, they have nothing to lose by selling to minors, and have a substantial interest in the corruption of our law enforcement establishment.

Fourth, making drugs illegal creates a barrier to addicts who seek help, because in seeking help they must at some point reveal their conduct and expose themselves to the risk of prosecution (and perhaps reprisal by their suppliers). Sure the government can promise not to prosecute such people, but if you believe such promises I have a bridge for sale.

Fifth, it is simply not possible that the as-yet-unproven societal costs of increased legal drug use will outweigh the most-certainly-proven costs of prohibition. Hundreds of thousands of law enforcement personnel are occupied with prohibiting drugs who could be enforcing laws that are not in such great controversy, such as the laws against murder, rape, robbery, burglary, etc.

#24 John on 2013-03-06 19:12 (Reply)

QUOTE:

First, the US Constitution does not empower Congress to ban anything.

sure it does. no constitutionally guaranteed right is absolute. if you doubt this, or think you have a first amendment right to produce child pornography, try it. raise the defense "the US Constitution does not empower Congress to ban child porn."

since this destroys your entire argument, there's not point going on.

but I will anyway, because, why not.

"making drugs illegal creates a barrier to addicts who seek help", that's just counterfactual. illegal drugs are already illegal, hence the phrase "illegal drugs". states would infinitely prefer to divert first offenders into drug rehab programs than convict them and these programs exist in, as a guess, every county in the USofA. moreover, addicts don't need contact with the courts to get treatment, there are hundreds of thousands of programs, both private and public, and treatment facilities don't peach on their own clients.

but sometimes hitting bottom in a criminal prosecution (which will rarely be for only possession or being under the influence) is the only way addicts will find id.

#24.1 wirraway on 2013-03-06 19:59 (Reply)

I'm naturally attracted to John's approach, though I confess a worry about some drugs, which strike me as almost as dangerous as outright poison. While I expect most people to navigate the hazards of drugs like alcohol and pot, I was pretty horrified in my 20s to see how great a percentage of cocaine users got in trouble fast. It's true that almost all of them realized their error and got back out of trouble without having to be shot down in the street to prevent their becoming a menace to society, but it was scary.

#24.2 Texan99 (Link) on 2013-03-07 11:43 (Reply)

As a long term clean ex addict who went pretty well full gamut of the pharmacopia, I shudder at the thought of legalizing and making available these soul destroying chemicals. I would equate it to the end of America as a top tier nation.
We're already in an economic squeeze and segments of the population are being marginalized by our economic woes and the death of blue collar opportunity. Dope Mart on every corner is a nice oblivion for the losers in life's lottery.
Equating the squeeze on some liberties with the criminalization of harmful substances is the kind of thinking that will always keep libertarianism a non starter in the political process.
Granted, the drugs will be cleaner with Uncle Sugar the pusher so opiate overdoses will increase; stimulant psychosis will be achieved quicker. How about angel dust, do we make that legal? Inhalants?
I have to think that most of those who advocate this insanity have never been part of the wretched drug culture and seen its horrors. If you think you can live a normal, unaffected life amidst 5 times as many addicts as now (as one poster quoted "the Economist") you're more delusional than the crackhead on the corner.

#25 bill on 2013-03-06 19:24 (Reply)

Thanks for starting a good debate, with intelligent commentry from both sides!

/quote
Just don't make the argument that "It's bad for people." That will not fly, because driving is dangerous too. So is mountain-climbing.
/unquote

I think that this is comparing completly different things. Driving has the purpose of getting from A to B. It is regulated, but legal. Mountain climbing is recreational. There are codes of conduct that responsible climbers follow, such as passing on your plans and timings and listening to warnings. These two activities are unrelated to each other or to drugs.

How do we classify drugs?

Each drug should clearly be treated individually. I am not involved in drug classification, but some relevant questions include the following.

What is the effect on the user over a few hours of recreational use? (Benchmark against sobriety and alcoholic intoxiation.)

What is the expected effect on the user over a few months of regular recreational use? (Benchmark against sobriety and alcoholic intoxiation. The idea is to measure the longer term effects, such as physical and mental damage.)

What is the "addiction rate" (some measure like number of doses of measure x before N% of a representative population sample show signs of "addiction", under a reasonable measure. This is a spectrum and will include "craving" up to "need")

In balance with the above, how does the consumption method affect surrounding people? (Passive effects of smoking a substance, health issues in using needles in unsterile environments etc... Are psychotic effects induced?)

What is the prevelance rate today? (Widespread social acceptance is an indicator of the ability of society to handle the drug.) Demographic segmentation should be used in this analysis.

What is the price sensitivity? (If the price of whisky halved how many more people would drink a bottle a day? If the price of whisky doubled how many people would still drink a bottle of whisky a day?)

At what price can the drug be supplied legally and safely through regulated channels? Does this undercut the profit margins of selling this drug illegally today? To what extent will this profit drop so as to make it unworthwhile to deal illegally?

What penalties exist for supplying any subsititute drugs available on the black market?

I think that a systematic approach like this to each individual drug makes sense. If you want to lobby for legalisation, prepare such a dossier and hand it over to your representatives.

I think that using a similar analysis (on the back of an envelope) Alcohol and Tobacco clearly pass in the western world. Ultra-addictive, destructive and permanently stupifying chemicals like Heroin, Crack etc. should never be regulated for sale by any government anywhere.

#26 Paddy on 2013-03-06 19:37 (Reply)

50 comments in one day? What does that tell you?

#27 LP on 2013-03-06 20:14 (Reply)

I appreciate the points of view presented so far, but I haven't seen an answer yet to one of the basic questions regarding use of "recreational" substances:

What is it that compels an otherwise healthy, intelligent person to start using, especially if the substance is addictive or habit forming?

I am asking this in all seriousness because I have no idea why someone would risk their health, their bank account, or their relationship with humanity to start down this path (as a user). Any insights?

#28 Frank's Dad on 2013-03-06 21:51 (Reply)

There's certainly at least a few reasons/causes for experimenting with dangerous mind/life altering substances:

1. pure curiosity
2. peer/social pressure
3. spiritual emptiness from various possible causes:
- troubled family life, missing or rejection by a parent
- feelings of despair, depression
- lack of positive role model, no exposure to transformational religious influence...this to me is a sad reality for a lot of kids. They are never introduced to something that could bring joy and fulfillment into their lives. It is a door never opened or even shown to them.

#28.1 phil g on 2013-03-07 07:03 (Reply)

I don't think it's that mysterious. Mind-altering drugs are fun, and people underestimate the risks, especially if they haven't seen anyone else get in trouble over them. Why have people been drinking heavily for thousands of years?

#28.2 Texan99 (Link) on 2013-03-07 19:57 (Reply)

My father, the doctor, and I discussed this topic more than once.

He had two Godparents when he was a child. They were both dead by time he reached his teens. Drug overdose.

Most illegal drugs are illegal for that reason. The fatality rate was difficult to deal with.

Perhaps we can handle it these days, but I think if we try this, we should try it on 4 states. A large one, two mediums and a small. North, South, East and West. Two Blue, Two Red. After 8 years we will see what the real results are and then we can make an informed decision.

We experiment on rats, why not people?

And if it is too cruel and inhumane to experiment on people in this way, then why are we even talking of making illegal drugs legal?

#29 tyree on 2013-03-06 22:06 (Reply)

If you are going to legalize "drugs", then please also include in that law the drug I use--insulin.

I take the same kind day in and out--for life--so I don't need a prescription. Why make me get a $100 doctor appointment every three months just to refill my prescription?

If you say my drug should be supervised by a doctor to be sure it is correctly taken, then you can ask no more than that of me for your (recreational) drugs--that they be legalized but prescribed so they can be supervised by medical personnel.

Both can be dangerous if taken wrongly.
So how about it? Insulin Clinics with no prescription needed.

Drug companies go bust but you think they had that coming, right? An acceptable level of collateral damage so you get your drugs legalized?

#30 skm on 2013-03-06 22:23 (Reply)

These are a bit dated, but address some of the issues raised by legalization in other countries:

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/debate/myths/myths4.htm

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/if-marijuana-is-legal-will-addiction-rise/

Like others here, I am torn. On the one hand, it might be worth it to try legalization if it might break the back of organized crime and the gangs' activities in the drug trade (yeah, right, they will just become legal vendors and advertise and hype their products disgustingly in the name of First Amendment rights)

On the other hand, I find recreational drugs disgusting, don't use them, despise stoners, and have raised my kids to pity but avoid drug users. Life can be godawful, painful, stressful, but making oneself dumb, and zoned out, just makes one a fool. I'm biased because of tragedy. Too many friends from my youth and acquaintances since then have died or ruined their own or their families' lives because of the exacerbating effect the drugs had on the weaknesses of their characters.

Also, I worked in my youth with crack babies in NYC, and in a child welfare agency where we tried to rehabilitate tiny children whose drug addicted mothers had pimped them to feed their (the mothers') drug habits. I worked with kids taken away from parents who preferred to shoot up together to looking after them or feeding them. I also saw drug addicted babies going thru withdrawal in the hsopital when I worked as a hospital chaplain, because their suburban white mothers were (unbeknownst to anyone on the outside) supporting drug habits while to all outside appearances quite functional and law-abiding. I know a family where the kids have to live with the grandparents because both parents keep relapsing back to their drug habit. For a while the mom was working normally, then moved thousands of miles away with a new man to work in a legal marijuana clinic.

Obviously drugs per se aren't the problem, weak or troubled or plain rotten people are. But my concern as a former youth minister is with the effect on parents, given what bad parenting so many kids are getting these days anyway. Somehow, I think it's precisely the "new" kinds of families that will be most vulnerable to greater drug use should drugs be legalized and made cheaper. Who, me, a nanny?

In addition, legal or not, drugs will continue to play a significant role in the vicious trades of human trafficking and the coercion of young kids into prostitution (runaways, troubled kids, immigrants, or kidnapped alike, their exploiters almost invariably use drugs to keep them tethered).

I don't know what's the answer for society as a whole. I just tell my kids and used to tell my youth groups "use drugs and I'll kill you". THus far, it's worked on my kids, and I hope that the more nuanced discussions with youth groups had SOME impact...It probably has to be like abortion or gambling in the end: legal to lessen the horrors of crime when its illegal, but speak out against it loud and clear when it's legal. I think St. Paul put it pretty well here, and especially like his point about setting a good example by abstaining from behaviors that might not do harm to oneself, so that they do not lead others astray:

From I Corinthians 10: 23 “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive. 24 No one should seek their own good, but the good of others.

25 Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26 for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”[f]

27 If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. 29 I am referring to the other person’s conscience, not yours. For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience? 30 If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?

31 So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. 32 Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— 33 even as I try to please everyone in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.

#31 retriever on 2013-03-06 22:27 (Reply)

Legalization is not the simple answer. Cigarettes are now heavily regulated as they should be. Alcohol of course continues to be a major source of police work and graft. So it will and should be with all forms of drugs from pot to LSD. Each will need to be treated differently and no doubt we will get it wrong but anything will be an improvement over the nonsense we now have. Note that last year more people died from overdoses of legal heroin than smack. So legalization is not a solution. But we need to begin engagement with the natiional bender that has been going on for a half century and begin weaning Anericans back to a palatable reality.

#32 jonathan rubinstein on 2013-03-06 22:36 (Reply)

Interesting stuff in the 56 comments to the moment.

I think if we are to consider decriminalization, we have to first consider the status quo,– what is wrong with the status quo as well as what is right with it. If there is really nothing wrong with the way things are now, then why change?

Also, no matter what the public-policy prescription we have in mind, it has already been tried somewhere in the world in some variation. So we need to look at those cases, and if we want to claim our results will be different we must explain why that would be so.

I'll tackle the latter one first: Holland has made personal possession and use of "soft" drugs a misdemeanor rather than a criminal offense, and there is a policy of non-enforcement. So while cultivation, distribution, sale, and possession is still technically illegal, in practice it is tolerated for "small amounts". The results haven't been all sweetness and light, because the Netherlands has become a drug-tourism destination and has brought troublemakers from abroad who upset the neighborhoods of the "coffee shops" with loutish behavior and criminal activity.
Portugal has decriminalized personal possession of drugs – trafficking is still criminal, but possession and use is dealt with by a special court where a panel of jurists, psychologists, and social workers look at the individual drug offender's personal situation and then impose a "treatment" plan rather than a punishment.
In the 12 years since the changes, the number of addicts treated by the health system for addiction has halved, and the rate of drug use in Portugal has dropped. Also, the number of overdoses and the rate of diseases that are often associated with drug use, such as STDs gone down even more than the drop in drug usage rates.

So what is wrong with the the way things are now? We've had a similar issue 80 years ago, when the sale, distribution, and consumption of intoxicating beverages was banned in the USA. The proponents of the ban promised various effects:
H.L. Mencken said:believed the opposite to be true:[1]

QUOTE:

Five years of Prohibition have had, at least, this one benign effect: they have completely disposed of all the favorite arguments of the Prohibitionists. None of the great boons and usufructs that were to follow the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment has come to pass. There is not less drunkenness in the Republic, but more. There is not less crime, but more. There is not less insanity, but more. The cost of government is not smaller, but vastly greater. Respect for law has not increased, but diminished.

One big issue is that having a popular substance banned from legal sale invites gangsterism.
One big issue is the number of people imprisoned for felonies that did not involve any injury to anyone else's person or property -- in what way is it making society safer to keep them locked up? And does that benefit exceed the cost to their families, and the cost to society to have so many children growing up without fathers?
One big issue is that the law is seen to be applied unequally. Sons of successful people get wrist-slaps when they are arrested at all, diverted into treatment programs and pled down to non-felonies, and young adults from bad neighborhoods are given "mandatory" minimum sentences and carry a flony conviction that hinders their employment success throughout life.

#33 Douglas2 on 2013-03-06 23:22 (Reply)

There is not less drunkenness in the Republic, but more

Mencken was wrong in this respect. There is far less drinking and drunkenness now and during prohibition than earlier.

#33.1 ErisGuy on 2013-03-07 05:28 (Reply)

Anyone inhaling marijuana smoke, voluntarily or INvoluntarily, is affected. I do NOT want my mental state changed by someone near me smoking the stuff and I can't get away from them.

#34 Norm on 2013-03-07 04:19 (Reply)

It's bad for people.

By people, I will assume you mean the meth addict. OK, I won’t make the argument that using meth is bad for the meth addict.

Or did you mean by people, well, [i]people.

It is most certainly bad for everyone else, too, however. The alcoholic who crashes into a school[/i] bus; the meth addict who rapes children; etc.

But we can dismiss all external effects, too. In that case can be please legalize pseudoephedrine, antibiotics, and indeed all medicines. Because as marijuana shows, there is no real difference between medicine and illegal drug except words.

If the state cannot use personal effects (it’s bad for people) or external effects (it’s bad for people) to justify preventing me from my own antibiotic or marijuana or pseudoephedrine therapy, then all these drugs should be legal as easily obtainable as soda and tobacco. And we all know how liberals feel about that.

#35 ErisGuy on 2013-03-07 06:20 (Reply)

I think one point has been missed and that is the impact the "war on drugs" has had on the creation of new drugs.

Crack was invented because its a cheaper high. Designer drugs exist to avoid prosecution. Crystal meth, also a cheap high.

Actually, it may not be the "war on drugs" but rather a failure of personal ethics on a mass scale.

#36 lonetown on 2013-03-07 06:29 (Reply)

I recommend social experimentation. We should experiment with reducing the war on crime. With providing low cost but competing clinics where addicts could get the drug along with counseling and professional help.

Different states can try different things. Many will fail, some will need to be revised. Good ideas and institutions will spread, failures will be corrected and hopefully not repeated.

I consider myself a libertarian, but it is more of the Hayekian, social evolution type and NOT the Platonic ideal of freedom type.

#37 Roger (Link) on 2013-03-07 09:19 (Reply)

Just a few historical stories. After the Boxer Rebellion, the English forced the Chinese to increase their use of opium which served two purposes. One to increase the trade income for England and two, to destroy their culture and make them more amenable to being controlled by England. Move forward into modern day Tibet. Chinese invade and conquer but are unable to subdue Tibet. The Chinese set up drug dens with easy access to drugs and easy women for the youth of Tibet, thus making them more amenable to being controlled by China.
Now what was the goal of the USSR during the cold war? Similar route of drugs to the youth of the USA and a corruption of our society. Sounds as though our enemies are winning.
One more thing. We got obama/pelosi with just stupid voters. Can you image what we will elect with stoned and stupid voters?

#38 J on 2013-03-07 09:40 (Reply)

Yep, much of the current demize of our culture starting in the 60's can be traced back to Soviet influence. The evil empire was very successful with this initiative.

#38.1 phil g on 2013-03-07 10:56 (Reply)

The Roosevelt family (FDR) made their first family fortune shipping opium into China under the cover of the British flag. And I think most are familiar with the Kennedy clan producing and selling liquor during prohibition. It does seem that politicians and drug law are contrary to our better interests. Politicians recognize a problem and always have a solution that is beneficial to themselves when solving the problem. And that is acquiring more power. Few understand the cyclical nature of drug use through generations of people. The gay 90's (not gay as understood today) had a generation that was as fond of drugs as the users of the hip 60's. It is not surprising that this generation was at the wheel during the depression just as the boomers are at the wheel today. Nothing changes...only the names. Poverty will cure drug use just as it did then. A failing government can not support itself much less drug users.

#38.2 indyjonesouthere on 2013-03-07 12:00 (Reply)

My father made a days wages one lucky day during the depression. He stood shoulder deep in the ocean on a private beach on the land owned by a well known politician in Marblehead. Ma. unloading Joseph kennedy's scotch from a small boat moving the liquor from a frieghter anchored just offshore. The Mafia was doing the dirty work but it was kennedy's scotch. The Mafia and Kennedy were good friends back then.

#38.2.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2013-03-07 17:33 (Reply)

Well said, that we should first ask whether there is anything wrong with with the status quo. Because there certainly is.

So let me see....we have addled druggies molesting and stabbing people, and moms on meth throwing babies off overpasses, so we'd better not legalize because we'll have addled druggies molesting and stabbing and meth moms throwing babies off overpasses.

#39 Khornet on 2013-03-07 11:00 (Reply)

I feel compelled to comment on the remarkable fact that a large number of people have been vigorously debating a hot button issue for almost 100 comments, and every comment, regardless of position advocated, has been sometimes pointed, but always civil. If the rest of the country could sustain conversations like this, we would be a lot better off.

Pray continue.

#40 Nashville Beat on 2013-03-07 22:29 (Reply)

Wow - watch how this is being argued one-sidedly at one of the former institutes of higher learning that America used to be able to be proud of, and might perhaps encourage their yung'n to enroll in, in this case, Bowdoin... this may be worth its own thread... The new book, Against Autonomy: Justifying Coercive Paternalism, by Assistant Professor of Philosophy Sarah Conly, has been described as “novel,” “illuminating” and “provocative” in the New York Review of Books. The New York Times reaffirms that Conly’s book brings “serious philosophical discussion” to the debate on autonomy versus paternalism. Conly’s argument is particularly relevant in light of the uproar over Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s ban on large sodas in New York City. Watch Associate Professor of Philosophy Larry Simon interview Conly about her book and why she thinks paternalism is a reasonable government response to some of our bad decisions.

#41 Pajak on 2013-03-08 11:38 (Reply)

Mine is based on the personal experience.

Grew up in southern Russia, where the stereotype [correctly] identifies the biggest problem to be drinking, but being close to Asia it had (has) a drug problem as well.

Sidenote, there may have been laws against minors drinking alcohol, but those were not enforced. Anyway the post is really about adults and only partially about drinking.

As a child I had two close relatives. One occasionally abused alcohol (went into drinking spree), the other - pot.

Who was worse?

The alcoholic would drink for a few days, but one could always tell, when the person was drunk, and what was to be expected of that state. There was also no problem with the person when sober. The family fights happened only on drinking days.

The pot smoker, would smoke occasionally as well. Probably with the same frequency as the alcoholic. While you could tell immediately afterwards, the obvious physical tell tale signs wore off within a day or so. Unfortunately, because the stuff stays in the system (brain tissue) for up two weeks, it was family fights EVERY DAY. I can count on one hand the days when the person did not cause conflict in the family. It was hell.

Furthermore, while one couldn't tell from day to day, overtime one saw the intellectual decline and the toll the pot had taken on the pot smoker. Don't get me wrong, alcoholic paid the price in health also, but decline in capacity for rational thinking, short temper, bursts of anger became much much more pronounced in the former.

They say pot doesn't hurt anyone, it doesn't make a difference. For a child who lived with with an occasionally drunk relative and a pot smoking one who was in a "war mode" every day the difference was significant. It did end up tearing my family apart.

One may be tempted to write this off just on this specific individual. However, my childhood friends who had a misfortune to have pot smokers in their families had the same exact issues. Some worse, some better.

This is not to insult anyone, but when someone says, 'it doesn't hurt anyone, it's harmless, i ', this is exactly what my pot smoking relative had said as well. It is simply not true.

#42 Russo on 2013-03-08 17:22 (Reply)

I don't want my mind altered involuntarily by being forced to inhale second hand marijuana smoke in places where I can't avoid it.

#43 Norm on 2013-03-13 06:41 (Reply)

Wait....we have crackheads hanging around clinics stabbing and molesting people, and Meth moms tossing babies off overpasses, so we'd better not legalize drugs or we'll have...crackheads hanging around clinics molesting and stabbing people and Meth moms tossing babies off overpasses.

#44 Khornet on 2013-03-13 12:13 (Reply)

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Wednesday, March 6. 2013

A Maggie's Scientific Opinion Poll: Legalization of Recreational Drugs