Pot in America

[Taem]

“Most countries take the point of view that drugs are detrimental to society and must therefore be outlawed, even when such policies fail to eliminate drug use.”

Quote from wikipedia on why drugs are outlawed.

Within the last several years, I have discussed this very subject with a wide variety of people, both intellectual and humble. The quick and dirty consensus from almost everyone is that the current laws in America on drugs simply do not make any sense, and that relaxing these laws would benefit America by lowering crime and reducing the cost of incarcerating drug offenders. On a personal level, I’m not entirely sure why drugs are illegal in America at all.

So this touches off on quite a number of caveats and questions in general. I have a lot of points to make and I'm sure each of these points could spawn its own topic, so I'll try and be brief in each section to leave room for debate.

#1) CONSTITUTION

What Constitutional amendment does using drugs violate? If anything, I’d think quite the opposite, that the founders of our great nation assumed that in this land of freedom, we had some liberties.

For information on the War on Drugs, read this link. However, I found this article written up by Paul Hager to be quite enlightening.

#1A) Alcohol, tobacco, and nicotine:
These are all legal drugs assuming your of age. Tobacco, and nicotine, while highly addictive, I can see why they are legal not only because the effects are very short term, but negligible on the senses unlike ‘illegal’ drugs. But alcohol does not fit into this category, so you have a serious contradiction of interests here with how the legal system works in regards to illegal drugs; or better put, how can alcohol be legal while other drugs such as marijuana are not?
#1B) Alternatives:
There should be consistency in the system – either drugs should be legal or illegal, or perhaps only certain drugs should be illegal based on the danger they pose to a society if people abuse it. How about the speed limit on cars? Supposedly, it is illegal to drive over the posted legal speed limit, yet people do it all the time. They get a ticked citation for it. How about a method like this for drugs to keep people out of prisons and generate income?

#2) DANGERS

As brought up in Paul Hagers article, the danger drugs present to us (to society) can make them a liability to every person walking the streets. So how do you control something like that? This of course has to be a huge reason for keeping the ban on drugs prevalent, however I think the solution to this problem is obvious! DUI’s for driving under the influence, safety check points, breathalyzers that can detect multiple drugs… Oh wait, all of these already exist! :rollseyes:

#2A) Addiction:
One facet I haven’t touched on with legalizing drugs is the addiction factor to be considered that is inherent with the abuse of substances (and I’m sure some could argue video games and gambling quantify also). Drug addiction can be a life altering experience, ruining a families wellbeing for generations to come. But if people used drugs legally and recreationally, would the propensity to abuse the substance for the feeling of “breaking the law” still apply? How about some real world models: the Netherlands takes an interesting approach. Read the part about, “Implications of international law” for a possible reason America feels the need to be part of this War on Drugs. Seems the Netherlands has less of a problem than other countries do:

In the Netherlands 9.7% of young adults (aged 15–24) consume soft drugs once a month, comparable to the level in Italy (10.9%) and Germany (9.9%) and less than in the UK (15.8%) and Spain (16.4%), but higher than in, for example, Sweden (3%), Finland or Greece. Dutch rates of drug use are lower than U.S. rates in every category. The monthly prevalence of drugs other than cannabis among young people (15-24) was 4% in 2004, that was above the average (3%) of 15 compared countries in EU. However, seemingly few transcend to becoming problem drug users (0.3%), well below the average (0.52%) of the same compared countries.

#2B) Disease:
Of course with drug usage, disease transmittal goes up. For example, in prisons, those who share needles are 5.1% more likely to have AIDS than someone in prison who does not.
#2C) Change:
History tells us that in America, unless drug policies are enforced, people naturally choose to abuse substances leading to… well I’m not entirely sure, but in the 1920's and 1960's, America felt threatened enough by it to enact certain laws to forbid drugs! In a society of freedoms however, this should be a choice of the individual, however the country sees this as a threat to its way of life whenever a drug movement occurs. So if drugs were to be made legal, they would have to be treated similar to how I said in #1B: Alternatives.

#3) MONEY

I believe America could save lots of money by changing their policy on drugs and I state my reasoning below:

#3A) Incarceration:
The facts don’t lie! “253,300 for drug offenses” out of 1,296,700 inmates for state prisons. That’s 19.53% non-violent drug offenders. If drugs were legal, how much money could that save? Well on that link it shows how much each prisoner costs to feed and board, so you do the math! Besides this, I have heard that when an inmate goes to prison, this often causes them to become criminals if they weren't before, and better criminals if they were already. I'll have to scour the net to fact check this however.
#3B) Taxes:
Should the US government decide to make certain drugs legal and then apply a special tax to each sale thereof, the amount of income they could make as opposed to fighting this War on Drugs is staggering. One side of the coin creates costs, the other creates income… There are so many links to "cigarette tax" its ridiculous, so please don't ask me to post a link. Besides, everyone in America already knows cigarettes are taxed exorbitantly.

#4) WHAT ELSE?

So, if drugs were illegal for being bad for oneself (the ones which are legal suffer huge fines levied against them, i.e. tobacco), then why is skydiving, base jumping, and other obviously dangerous stunts legal?!? If we’re talking about personal well being and addiction, there is no other reason to be doing those things recreationally except for an adrenaline high; these people are adrenaline junkies, except for these people risking their lives, its legal. I don’t get it.

#SOLUTION#

It is in my opinion that if the powers that be decided to allow only naturally grown drugs for recreational use, banning chemically made or refined drugs of any sort, then this would:

*) stop a huge majority of drug trafficking (and consequently violence)
*) save a ton of money (on inmates, DEA)
*) earn a ton of money (taxes, if not direct sales of product)
*) reduce drug abuse (see my example of Netherlands/Amsterdam)

The laws for DUI’s would be the same for all drugs. Breathalyzers could be adjusted for THC (see my example above). Not much would have to change, and with the current laws for alcohol being the model for the rest of the recreational drugs, there would be no new drug movement similar to the 1920’s or the 1960’s so an social uprising would not be problematic.

[MISTAKE]
Fines for possessing chemically altered or refined drugs would have to be steep as a deep deterrent, such as an automatic 10-year prison sentence for possession or sales of if proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Why do I say this? Because I believe some drugs are simply too dangerous for people to use without a prescription, especially chemically altered and refined drugs (i.e. crystal methamphetamine, heroine - originally from the opium plant, LSD, etc). That's the way I'd change the system if I had my way.
[/MISTAKE]

EDIT#2-MISTAKE: My bad. My bed time is 11:00-P.M., but I was writing this post at 1:30-A.M. and I guess I deleted part of my post and kept another part I meant to delete - ideas just flowing through my head. I actually started this document a few days ago and was trying to tidy it up and post it last night. Anyways, what I meant believe it or not - and I think you'll find this fits in better with everything I have been saying in this entire post - is that in my opinion, chemically altered and refined drugs should be monitored for potential backlash in society because of the danger they pose to others in regards to the potency and addictive quality they cause, and that people who abuse substances (any) continually to the determent of society or those around them should be cited, like a speeding ticket, and if enough of these build up, drug counseling and if that does not work, then prison time. Somehow, the part about monitoring chemically refined drugs got totally screwed up in that last part of my post and needed to be corrected.

EDIT: And one more final note; I'd like to point out that I personally don't use any drugs and only consume roughly four to six alcoholic beverages in a year so changing the laws on drugs would not benefit me personally, however I feel the pros outweigh the cons drastically in terms of everything I already said above (less prisoners = more money + less violence; that's one good equation).

[ShadowHM]

Fines for possessing chemically altered or refined drugs would have to be steep as a deep deterrent, such as an automatic 10-year prison sentence for possession or sales of if proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Why do I say this? Because I believe some drugs are simply too dangerous for people to use without a prescription, especially chemically altered and refined drugs (i.e. crystal methamphetamine, heroine - originally from the opium plant, LSD, etc). That's the way I'd change the system if I had my way.

I was with you until right there.

So most drugs are just fine but you have decided there are still a few we should keep illegal? And your decision, of course, is so logical that we all are going to buy into it? :rolleyes: Just how does that differ from Prohibition, where the evils of that demon drink were so dangerous that we had to ban possession and use?

[Delc]

Fines for possessing chemically altered or refined drugs would have to be steep as a deep deterrent, such as an automatic 10-year prison sentence for possession or sales of if proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Why do I say this? Because I believe some drugs are simply too dangerous for people to use without a prescription, especially chemically altered and refined drugs (i.e. crystal methamphetamine, heroine - originally from the opium plant, LSD, etc). That's the way I'd change the system if I had my way.

But thats where we already are, except you remove a small handful of drugs from the list of evil ones.

Look at something like crystal meth. Its bad, it messes people up. However, since its illegal to make, the ones making it are people who failed high school chemistry, so they poison the neighbors with the fumes, dispose of a variety of harmful chemicals in inappropriate ways, and in a lot of cases blow up or burn down their house/trailer/apartment. There needs to be a way to reduce the collateral damage.

[Taem]

I was with you until right there.

So most drugs are just fine but you have decided there are still a few we should keep illegal? And your decision, of course, is so logical that we all are going to buy into it? :rolleyes: Just how does that differ from Prohibition, where the evils of that demon drink were so dangerous that we had to ban possession and use?

My bad. My bed time is 11:00-P.M., but I was writing this post at 1:30-A.M. and I guess I deleted part of my post and kept another part I meant to delete. Whatever, I'll go in and edit it. Anyways, what I was trying to say was more along the lines that, in my opinion, chemically altered and refined drugs should be monitored for potential backlash in society because of the danger they pose to others in regards to the potency and addictive quality they cause, and that people who abuse substances (any) continually to the determent of society or those around them should be cited, like a speeding ticket, and if enough of these build up, drug counseling and if that does not work, then prison time. Somehow, the part about monitoring chemically refined drugs got totally screwed up in that last part of my post, but when you can barely keep your eyes open and just want to finish hammering out your idea to a post, well that's when stuff like this happens, lol.

[Taem]

But thats where we already are, except you remove a small handful of drugs from the list of evil ones.

Look at something like crystal meth. Its bad, it messes people up. However, since its illegal to make, the ones making it are people who failed high school chemistry, so they poison the neighbors with the fumes, dispose of a variety of harmful chemicals in inappropriate ways, and in a lot of cases blow up or burn down their house/trailer/apartment. There needs to be a way to reduce the collateral damage.

I totally agree with what you are saying. I incorrectly kept part of my post I meant to delete, which of course is the part everyone is commenting on, so please check out my revision. As to what you are saying, I have mixed feelings on this. Like I said in my edit, I think chemically refined drugs need to be monitored so the government can step in and potentially stop them completely if they prove to be too disruptive to society as a whole. But on the other hand, if everything seems to go smoothly, then the government can set up regulations to make sure there is no to less collateral damage, and that legitimate businesses (who pay taxes) instead of violent, underground mafia enforcers run the drug market.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Interesting post. One small nit.

What Constitutional amendment does using drugs violate?

What part of the Constitution or its Amendments does murder violate?

The Constitution gives the framework of how we govern ourselves. The details are left for us to work out within that framework. The drug issue is a detail which the Constitution does not address.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

...in my opinion, chemically altered and refined drugs should be monitored for potential backlash in society because of the danger they pose to others in regards to the potency and addictive quality they cause, and that people who abuse substances (any) continually to the determent of society or those around them should be cited, like a speeding ticket, and if enough of these build up, drug counseling and if that does not work, then prison time.

Ok, what does detriment to society mean? Is it a sluggard who doesn't work and smokes hash in mom's basement?

I'd say if you get high, or drunk and break stuff they you are liable for breaking stuff if that stuff doesn't belong to you. If you become intoxicated with whatever your drug of choice is and become a hazard or a nuisance, then you will get arrested for becoming a nuisance or a hazard. The drugs are probably the root cause, however, legal or illegal, addiction still happens and stupidity still happens. You won't legislate it away.

Here is how I look at it. Wood alcohol (HEET for example) is not a controlled substance, and a 10 year old can walk into a store and legally buy it. If they drink it they will get drunk, and then probably go blind, and maybe die. This is what psychoactive drugs in general do to people, and the euphoria they feel is usually their brains in some level of trauma. Next time you walk through the grocery store look at all the items on the shelves that have the potential to kill you, and ask yourself why you don't consume them.

Anyone with the motivation is able to make crystal meth with simple ingredients you can mostly still find in grocery and hardware stores. Around here, they've started putting Sudafed behind the counter so that people don't go buy industrial quantities off the shelf. But, that said, many plants and fungi are also psychoactive, so anyone who is motivated can cultivate their own drug gardens. What about huffing, and airplane glue or paint fumes?

Is risky behavior with chemicals any different than risky behavior with extreme sports, or riding a motorcycle without a helmet? I don't know, but maybe these risks are natures way of cleansing stupidity from the gene pool. It is sad when people die by their own stupidity, but again, I'm not sure you can legislate it away.

[kandrathe]

I totally agree with what you are saying. I incorrectly kept part of my post I meant to delete, which of course is the part everyone is commenting on, so please check out my revision. As to what you are saying, I have mixed feelings on this. Like I said in my edit, I think chemically refined drugs need to be monitored so the government can step in and potentially stop them completely if they prove to be too disruptive to society as a whole. But on the other hand, if everything seems to go smoothly, then the government can set up regulations to make sure there is no to less collateral damage, and that legitimate businesses (who pay taxes) instead of violent, underground mafia enforcers run the drug market.

Can this be done without big brother government watching over your shoulder? Monitored how? Regulated how? And, here we go again with the slippery slope to the "WAR ON DRUGS". Why do you think they are any answer to this problem? Government is a necessary evil, and the less evil we have the better off we will be. So... If we can figure out how to do this as a society without wielding the force of government, then we will be wealthier and more free.

[--Pete]

Hi,

So... If we can figure out how to do this as a society without wielding the force of government, then we will be wealthier and more free.

This sentence implies that society and government are two different (and even opposing) things. Since we live in a representative democracy, the theory, at least, is that government is the institution established by society to accomplish what is needed for the general welfare. We, as a group, recognize that sometimes we, as individuals, need to be forced to actions beneficial to society but against our individual interest.

That being said, much of the function of modern government is a throwback to the period when government and religion were tightly intertwined or even the same. Under those circumstances, the government is not just the guardian of the common good, but the dictator of common morality. Based on that historical antecedent, many of our laws are there not to protect us from enemies domestic and foreign, nor to protect us from each other, but to protect us from ourselves.

Such are the drug laws, which in their moralistic attempt to protect us from ourselves have swung wide the gates of attacks on us from enemies foreign (the drug cartels) and domestic (the local drug dealers, their gangs, and their turf wars).

Legalized drugs will need control. Control of how the drugs are made, where they are made, and how they are distributed. And these controls will have to come from the government at some level.

To me, it is not a question of how big the government is but what the government does. As long as it protects my freedoms, then I will support, both with my ballot and my wallet, as much government as is necessary. But if it capriciously interferes with those freedoms, then a single person is too much government.

--Pete

[Zingydex]

It is sad when people die by their own stupidity ....

Therein lies the problem. It's not people dying by their own stupidity, which can only improve the human species. It's the tendancy of these stupid people to take non-stupid people down with them. Every accident/incident caused by someone being drunk/high/on the phone/whatever that kills/injures more than just THAT one person is an example. The more opportunities/excuses you give people to be stupid, the more innocents get caught in the crossfire.

[Delc]

Therein lies the problem. It's not people dying by their own stupidity, which can only improve the human species. It's the tendancy of these stupid people to take non-stupid people down with them. Every accident/incident caused by someone being drunk/high/on the phone/whatever that kills/injures more than just THAT one person is an example. The more opportunities/excuses you give people to be stupid, the more innocents get caught in the crossfire.

And what about the people dieing as a result of the war on drugs? Do they not count for anything?

[--Pete]

Hi,

It's the tendancy of these stupid people to take non-stupid people down with them.

You posted this as a reply to a partial sentence from kandrathe. The whole sentence was, "It is sad when people die by their own stupidity, but again, I'm not sure you can legislate it away." The critical part isn't that stupidity kills both stupid and non-stupid people, for that is a trivially true fact. The critical part is that legislation isn't the answer.

Again, what you say would be true if legalizing drugs actually increased drug usage. Since the opposite has been the case where drug restrictions were reduced, then your argument becomes one *for* legalizing drugs. Legal drugs gives less users gives less opportunities for the stupid to kill the smart.

What you said in your last post is mostly true. But one phrase is ironically wrong:

. . . the more innocents get caught in the crossfire.

Figuratively? Maybe. Literally? I suspect that a lot more people get killed in the crossfire of gang turf wars over the distribution of drugs now than they would if drugs were legalized. I don't know, but it seems that a lot of the alcohol related violence of prohibition went away when it was repealed. Maybe we could learn something from that -- if we have an open mind.

So far, you have completely failed to make your case. I suspect it is because your case is false. But, if you wish to continue arguing, please at least find something to argue which is both factual and pertinent. What you're spouting may go over in a Sunday sermon, confirming people's prejudices, but when you bring it out of the church, be prepared for honest, critical, open-minded, analysis and disagreement. Check your facts. Oh, and also check your spelling.

-Pete

[ShadowHM]

if its already legal then why do you need a liscense to buy it?

Driving a car is legal. Why do you need a licence to do so? There is quite a distance between 'legal' and 'unregulated'. Unfortunately, there is no distance at all between 'illegal' and 'unregulated'.

[kandrathe]

if its already legal then why do you need a license to buy it?

Actually, licensing, or taxing it would be the fairest way to distribute any social burden for having it "legal". This is the justification for gas taxes, and license tabs. The money is supposed to be used to pay for road upkeep.

[Jester]

Actually, licensing, or taxing it would be the fairest way to distribute any social burden for having it "legal". This is the justification for gas taxes, and license tabs. The money is supposed to be used to pay for road upkeep.

First, you'd probably want to demonstrate that there actually *is* a social burden from having it "legal". Seems pretty obvious to me - there's a large burden from having it illegal, and there sure isn't any income stream to help mitigate it.

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

So, I maintain that legalizing the manufacture of drugs will make the public safer, even if it doesn't make the public completely safe.

If we wish to make the public completely safe, we can put them each in their own coffin. <_<

Legalize dope, and tax it, like booze, and get/make a good stoned driving test like the one for booze.

That's my hope.

And of course, I quit smoking, so the odds of me smoking pot are most likely zero.

Ironic, sez I. Something I hoped would happen, may happen, but I get no joy from it, other than to see the cops and feds spend their time more productively.

Occhi

[--Pete]

Hi,

If we wish to make the public completely safe, we can put them each in their own coffin. <_<

Yeah, until an archeologist comes along and digs them up. Then they get poked and prodded for science. Even death is no refuge from needles. ;)

--Pete

[ShadowHM]

And of course, I quit smoking, so the odds of me smoking pot are most likely zero.

Ironic, sez I. Something I hoped would happen, may happen, but I get no joy from it...

You could always try hash brownies. :P

[Occhidiangela]

You could always try hash brownies. :P

Nah, seems a way to ruin a perfectly good confection. Plus, I tend to sip a glass of scotch, or Irish whiskey, when I have a brownie.

Some things need not be mixed:

Example 1: I like steak. I like cake. I don't think I'll make any steakcake any time soon. :blink:

Example 2: I like that fleshy carnal manwoman thing. I like fixing my car. I don't mix the two activities.

Occhi

[Jester]

Example 1: I like steak. I like cake. I don't think I'll make any steakcake any time soon. :blink:

What, you're not a fan of beefcake? Why am I not surprised...

-Jester