Let's talk about the war on drugs again

[Rhino......................]

It's been a while, and we've got a few more people than we used to have, so I'm curious what people think. I think drugs should be legalized across the board under similar provisions of alcohol: you need to be a certain age, you can only use them in certain locations where you won't harm others, etc. If you're curious why, here's an extraordinarily biased show that articulates it better than I could.

For those of you who are allergic to clicking links, basically I don't want them legalized so we can all go out and have a crazy cocaine picnic, although if someone else wants to, I've got no problem with that. The fact that they are illegal generates profits for gangs, allowing those gangs to thrive and become bigger gangs, ultimately creating more murders, more discrimination, and more drugs. Also, for the record, I had this opinion long before I ever started watching Bullshit. The show just sums it up nicely.

[The Ocean]

They tried a war on alcohol once..... didn't go to well.

[oatmeal fetish....]

Al.so just as an aside, in that P&T video, they go to a place where its legal to grow medicinal marijuana - my parents know the guy who runs it. He came to their wedding (and gave them an ounce as a gift).

[Rhino......................]

I seem to remember a couple people who were totally opposed to the drug legalization thing. Where did they go? :frown:

[oatmeal fetish....]

One was B, wasn't it? Or Flyntz?

[Larry Flyntz]

I don't think it was me. I've never really made up my mind on this issue. I'm definitely for the legalization of marijuana, but I don't know about "harder" drugs. I'm trying to figure out what each side would argue, and they both make sense. One will argue that harder drugs (say heroin, for example) do significant harm to the user, and the government has a legitimate interest in protecting the health and well-being of its people. The other will argue that any sort of drug use affects only the individual, and that the government has no interest in limiting individuals' choice. Also (and more importantly), what Dave already said about crime and what not.

But, I'm not really comfortable with the "let's legalize it because people are going to do it anyway - and more violently, too" argument. It does make sense, and I think it is pretty compelling, but it doesn't leave me feeling like the argument has really been resolved.

[Rhino......................]

But, I'm not really comfortable with the "let's legalize it because people are going to do it anyway - and more violently, too" argument. It does make sense, and I think it is pretty compelling, but it doesn't leave me feeling like the argument has really been resolved.

I just think that the people who really hate drugs and don't want anyone to ever use them don't realize that if there weren't such a big market for illegal drugs, a lot of the things that they don't like about drugs would go away. I don't understand this, "what I don't want to do should be illegal" mentality at all. If they're so worried about people not being able to protect themselves from drugs, why don't they just legalize and regulate them, like they do with every other legal drug? They do with Sudafed now, for fuck's sake.

And if it's just a moral issue, like "Jesus said don't snort heroin," it doesn't belong in our fucking laws.

[Larry Flyntz]

Well, almost all laws are based in some way on morality. Saying that morality has no place in legislation would rob Congress of a job. For instance, environmental protection laws are made in part because of a moral judgment that we should protect the longevity of the Earth. Of course, this could be a sort of "secular" morality. So, I agree with you insofar as you say that "Jesus said so" is not a good enough reason to make laws (I think that is really the only argument against gay marriage, and I completely disagree with it), but morality has to have a place in the legislative process.

I think the idea is that legal drugs have redeeming qualities, so that while they can be abused, with regulation they can be used for good. I don't see how regulating heroin would do any good. It's still heroin. Sure, legalizing it would cure the crime/violence problem, but it still has all the life-altering properties of heroin. Plus, if the government regulated it too heavily, users might be inclined to go for the illegal stuff anyway, thus not really solving anything.

[Rhino......................]

morality has to have a place in the legislative process.

Protecting the environment is practical, because it helps ensure our survival. I was talking about the god-given moral values bullshit this country can't seem to let go of. I understand the need to protect citizens, which is why things like driving under the influence is and should be illegal. What I don't understand is the government saying, "We need to protect you from your own decisions."

I think the idea is that legal drugs have redeeming qualities, so that while they can be abused, with regulation they can be used for good. I don't see how regulating heroin would do any good. It's still heroin.

If this is the government's stance, then why are alcohol and tobacco legal? I'm not saying that I think heroin is a smart decision under any circumstances. I've never tried it, and I have no desire to. If it were legal, I wouldn't be any more tempted to try it. I'm not against things like anti-drug commercials or the D.A.R.E. program at all (although I do think they'd be more effective if they were honest with kids instead of spreading blatant lies, but that's beside the point). I think it's a great idea to educate kids about the dangers of drug abuse, but there's a difference between telling citizens the facts about drugs and mandating whether or not the citizens have the right to use them. The issue is freedom, not whether drugs are good for you or not.

[Shire Le Buff]

I'm all for the idea that as long as you don't pose a risk to someone else, do whatever you want.

Now, I'm far from any sort of expert on drugs, but aren't there plenty of horror stories involving PCP and other related drugs to make you not feel safe around someone who is using said drugs?  

So shouldn't SOME drugs be illegal as they present a threat to people other than the users?

[FAGGOT WATCHIN TRON]

I'm all for the idea that as long as you don't pose a risk to someone else, do whatever you want.

Now, I'm far from any sort of expert on drugs, but aren't there plenty of horror stories involving PCP and other related drugs to make you not feel safe around someone who is using said drugs?  

So shouldn't SOME drugs be illegal as they present a threat to people other than the users?

The problem with that is there are plenty of horror stories about people using/abusing alcohol and causing harm to others, so under that logic alcohol should also be illegal. Also, even though nobody gets high off of cigarettes and goes out and does crazy shit, there is the whole second smoke argument (which I believe is bullshit personally, but whatever) to say that cigarettes are harmful to people other than the smoker as well. Therefore cigarettes should also be illegal. Yet those two things clearly aren't. If you're going to make some drugs with the potential to harm others besides the users illegal, then you should make all drugs with the potential harm others illegal. Or, if you're going to make some of them legal, then you should make all of them legal. That's how I feel about it.

[WWW.SETH.COM]

I'm all for the idea that as long as you don't pose a risk to someone else, do whatever you want.

Now, I'm far from any sort of expert on drugs, but aren't there plenty of horror stories involving PCP and other related drugs to make you not feel safe around someone who is using said drugs?  

So shouldn't SOME drugs be illegal as they present a threat to people other than the users?

I agree, but I think a valid counterpoint would be the fact that you can get drunk and do bad shit to people. The alcoholic who hits his kids, the drunk driver who takes out a family of four when she has too many beers...there are already penalties for that kind of substance induced anti-normative behavior.

Also, Marijuana was not originally banned for it's "medicinal" properties (this might be in that video...I didn't watch it). An old-timey timber baron was worried hemp production would cut in on his paper business or some suck nonsense.

[Rhino......................]

Also, Marijuana was not originally banned for it's "medicinal" properties (this might be in that video...I didn't watch it). An old-timey timber baron was worried hemp production would cut in on his paper business or some suck nonsense.

The timber thing isn't in there, but they do interview a guy who's one of the few surviving members of a government experiment with medicinal marijuana. He says he's been doing it for years to stave off pain from his potentially lethal bone tumors, and the government still hasn't asked him how well it works.

[Shire Le Buff]

I've never heard that timber thing Seth, but that's cool.

Isn't alcohol and depressant and PCP a... something else though?   Also I'm surrounded by people who can drink the appropriate amounts of alcohol ever day without getting sloppy or violent, but I've never heard of PCP doing anything to a person besides making them batshit insane.

[Larry Flyntz]

I think the idea is that legal drugs have redeeming qualities, so that while they can be abused, with regulation they can be used for good. I don't see how regulating heroin would do any good. It's still heroin.

If this is the government's stance, then why are alcohol and tobacco legal?

A very practical (but clearly insufficient) answer is that alcohol and tobacco are steeped in American tradition. Getting sloshed and giving yourself cancer are second and third only to baseball as America's favorite pastimes. Although, now that kids these days seem to think that lame sports like soccer are "more exciting" than baseball, that might be changing.

But anyway, I don't think there is a legitimate reason to have these two "pleasure drugs" be legal and not others.  

As Dave points out, the argument (or at least one of the facets of the argument) is really whether or not we, as citizens under a presumably responsible government, should have the freedom to do whatever we want to ourselves. The problem with drug use is that it is not a purely private endeavor. It is a social activity. Just like those anti-drug videos said, "cool" kids might ask you if you want to smoke crack. Of course, the argument here would be that you would have the freedom to say yes or no. But, regardless of the answer, the argument is that there is the possibility for the spreading of drug use. So, if we don't want junkies creating more junkies, then it seems fair to suggest that the government should be able to intervene. But, the question is how? After all, making heroin illegal hasn't stopped junkies creating more junkies. And as Dave said about himself, people who aren't doing heroin now probably aren't going to start if it is legalized. So, not much would change if we legalized it, it seems. Except for the violence and what not.

So, the argument for legalization seems pretty strong. But, I'm still not completely sold. Just because the government has failed at stopping the spread of hard drugs doesn't necessarily mean that they should all be legalized. I have no idea how else the government could go about the "war on drugs," though.

[Shire Le Buff]

PS - I just started watching Bullshit.   I love this show now.

[Rhino......................]

I have no idea how else the government could go about the "war on drugs," though.

They could, oh gosh I don't know, not wage one?

[Larry Flyntz]

Well, if we reach the conclusion that government has a legitimate interest in halting the spread of dangerous drugs (at least I've reached that conclusion), then they have to do something. Saying "these drugs are bad, and it is bad for their use to spread, but we aren't going to do anything about it" doesn't seem adequate.

[Rhino......................]

Yeah, but the war on drugs and laws against drugs aren't the same thing. The war on drugs has only been around for about 20 years, and they're wasting an awful lot of taxpayer dollars on something that in the long run just brings in a lot more drugs.

[Larry Flyntz]

Isn't the "war on drugs" simply an attempt at aggressive enforcement of the laws against drugs? I don't see how you can have one without the other. I mean, you can have anti-drug laws and turn a blind eye, but again, that doesn't seem adequate.