Every one that I admire is wrong about the drug war. And I mean every one. The Libertarians I hang around with try to pretend that drugs aren't all that bad. The usual drug that is called not bad is Marijuana. Marijuana is not bad, it--and by inference other drugs--ought to be legalized.

The Rightists I know and admire tend to over-exaggerate the consequences of drug use. Drugs are not only not bad, they are really really bad.

The Leftists I know seem to be a mixed bag on this. Some of them mimmicking the Libertarian position, others of them mimmicking the Rightist position. Only, instead of spending my money on jail cells for stupid drug users they want to spend my money on rehab for stupid drug users. And on needles. And on publicly funded medical marijuana. And on rehab, again.....

The worst arguments I hear are the back and forth medical statistics. This drug is less risky than tobacco. Users of that drug may experience sudden heart failure. Blah blah blah.

Let me tell you where I stand. Drugs are bad, mmmkay. The biggest problem with drugs are not their long-term effects, but their near term effects. That is, people do things under the influence of drugs that they normally wouldn't do. I have a problem with that.

But, just because drugs are bad does not mean that they should be illegal. Stupid things that harm others ought to be illegal, not stupid things that harm yourself. And if the worst bads associated with drugs are when you do stupid things to others, then, well, we already have laws to cover those.

DUI, child abuse, etc.--all presently illegal, and rightly so.

The most common bads associated with drug use are not illegal nor should they be. Work absenteeism, poor relationship skills, and the most common one--stupid judgement in sexual relations--are all rightfully legal.

Oh, man, I was so wasted that I totally don't remember what happened with that chick from the rave last night.....

If you knock some strange chick up in a moment of ecstasy inspired passion, it's your problem. I don't want to send you to jail, I don't want to send you to rehab, I'm not going to say that what you are doing is okay- it's not okay. It's just not my problem.

If you get AIDS because you're a geek and playing catcher is the only way you can afford your next hit, I'm sorry, really really sorry, but how is that my or the government's problem.

Yeah, call me heartless. Life is a bitch. And so is personal responsibility.

Drug use is bad. The only thing worse than letting people take drugs, that I can think of, is forcing people to do the right thing and not take drugs.

A slave is not good or bad because his actions are not his choice. People can only be moral when they choose to do the right thing, and a system of government that forces people to be good ceases to be the serveant of the people and instead becomes their master.

I am for the legalization of drugs not because I am for drug use, but because I am for moral government.

-------------

Bsure to read fellow Jawa author See-Dub's rejoinder to Rusty Shackleford in his post The Libertarian Case for Drug Control

--------------

Originally, I was going to let this post by See Dub who is a welcome addition here at My Pet Jawa, pass. As Ace says in his post, "But as Kurt Vonnegut said, arguing against anti-drug laws is like arguing against glaciers. Pointless. There will always be glaciers." So, why argue?

We had argued this one before, if you don't recall. I understand his sentiment and admire where he is coming from. We'll just have to disagree on this one.

See Dub links to this rant by Jeff at The Shape of Days. A+ rant. I agree that drugs are bad. Really bad. I would use most of those same 'sailor words' if I was talking to a loved one who was on, say, Meth. And if it were my kids, I might just 'drag them out into the streets and beat some sense into them'. That's a figure of speach, by the way. I just don't believe it is the moral responsibility of the taxpayer to intervene in my family's affairs.

But the real reason I chose to sit down with this one is that Ace, Bill from INDC and Jeff Goldstein link See Dubs post. I admire Ace, Bill and Jeff, and understand that we share much of the same audience so I just wanted to clarify to readers that Rusty's opinion of the drug war is different than See Dubs.
-------
UPDATE: Check the links below for further debate. Thanks to The Unabrewer, who I do admire, for this:

Libertarian attitude = Glenn Reynolds
Libertine attitude = Andrew Sullivan

The truth is, though, that if you ever get together with a bunch of Libertarians--I mean, the kind that actually belong to the party or are part of the larger libertarian think tank network--these guys invariably give the libertine argument for legalization rather than the libertarian one. I actually almost ran for Congress as a Libertarian. When I called the state chair he was so excited to know that there was some one else in the state interested in 'the Libertarian lifestyle'.

Libertarian lifestyle? I'm afraid that many who don't take political philosophy seriously, decide therr political ideology based on something like the following:

I like drugs, but not guns: I'm a Democrat.
I like drugs and guns: I'm a Libertarian.
I don't like drugs, but I like guns: I'm a Republican.

I know that's sad, but my experience has been that it is largely true.

Another Update: Welcome Instapundit reader. Thanks to Michael Totten sitting in at the Puppy Blender for the link. [super-secret-insider note to Totten: We're even steven man. But, and I mean this from the bottom of my heart, MORE HOT PROTEST BABES PLEASE! ]

Posted by: Rusty at 02:33 PM | Comments (100) | Add Comment
Post contains 1003 words, total size 7 kb.

1 Yeah, but what's your position on bestiality? Llamas, excluded, of course.

Posted by: Editor at August 10, 2005 02:52 PM (adpJH)

2 The bottom line is, shouldn't governments be obligated to outlaw things which can be harmful to its citizenry?

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at August 10, 2005 03:06 PM (x+5JB)

3 Not in my mind. A free people must, by definition, be free to do harmful things.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 10, 2005 03:09 PM (JQjhA)

4 Ask any cop or judge or social worker and they will tell you that there is an absolute link between drug use and criminal behavior. So, isn't it concievable that legalizing drugs (beyond alcohol) would come with an increase in criminal behavior? Or do you think that drug use would stay at its present levels?

Posted by: Defense Guy at August 10, 2005 03:15 PM (jPCiN)

5 No, I think drug use would rise--unfortunately. But most of the serious criminal behaviors associated with drug use have to do with their price. Their price is high because of the drug war. People need money to support their habits. Circular problem. But my stance on the drug war is not one built on cost-benefit analysis, which is how most pro or anti drug-war arguments are built. I believe it is a matter of personal liberty.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 10, 2005 03:22 PM (JQjhA)

6 "...shouldn't governments be obligated to outlaw things which can be harmful to its citizenry?" THIS is the base idea from which fast food gets banned for being fattening and promoting obesity. And that "can" really stretches. Premarital sex, or sex without protection "can be harmful to [people]" via STDs, etc... So the Government needs to ban, crack down on, and prevent premarital sex? Is AIDS not as bad as a coke habit? Worse, better, difficult comparison? Oh, here's a brilliant one. Unprotected sex from behind (avoiding the "a" word) is particularly likely to transmit STDs. So we should really ban this form of behavior. How well do you see that going over? Also, how far a step is it from the government banning bad things; to the government mandating good things. A couple hours of exercise a week in half hour increments is good for you (duh). A government that mandates and enforces exercise from its citizenry because lack of exercise is bad for you would be obscenely stupid. People must take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. The alternatives are a nanny state that cares for you and dictates what you can and cannot do from cradle to grave; or a government that cherry picks some things as "bad enough to ban" and others that are not. Now the 3rd option (some banned, some aren't) relates to what we have now; but the line isn't well defined. The target of "too bad to allow" keeps moving on every issue, and the bans get arbitrary and foolish. Unless you have a very clear, very specific line you want drawn, I doubt you want to promote society going down this road. The line you've drawn in your initial statement bans fast food, smoking, drinking, premarital sex, bungee jumping, parachuting, etc. as "can be harmful" (adding easily avoidable, not required, and identifiable as harmful; as those are the requirements to try to get a law codified). Oh shoot, I completely forgot about mental anguish (hence not just physical harm, but mental harm as well). I mean, if we're promoting "wellness" in the citizenry we'll need to care for their mental and spiritual well being too, no? But I'll save that for later. This post is too long as is.

Posted by: GekkoBear at August 10, 2005 03:27 PM (X0NX1)

7 Harmful drugs are the same as cancer, smallpox, polio, etc: Get rid of them anyway you can.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 10, 2005 03:30 PM (CBNGy)

8 Oh wait a minute. Alcohol is potentially harmful. We should ban it. Ooops didn't we try that already.

Posted by: Howie at August 10, 2005 03:42 PM (D3+20)

9 Hmm...I'll clarify my own position on this later tonight. Rusty, would you prefer a new post or an update to this one? PS I'm very much for effective, mandatory treatment for drug users. It's pretty hard to get clean in prison. Fortunately that's mostly what we're doing.

Posted by: See-Dubya at August 10, 2005 04:17 PM (fUAK4)

10 I believe it is a matter of personal liberty. This really is the meat of the issue, but if the personal liberties of everyone else must be diminished to unacceptable levels so that an individual can maximize his, this is not a fair trade off. If the government in Amsterdam does not give its heroin junkies enough dope, they will commit crimes to get it. I won't even get into the issues of what it could do to the productivity of the country as a whole and how that can affect our personal liberties in the long run.

Posted by: Defense Guy at August 10, 2005 04:32 PM (jPCiN)

11 Governments should only ban things that causes citizens to harm other citizens. Since most hard drugs causes the user to turn to crime to get them, then they should be banned. Using mary jane while driving should be, and I think most states, is banned.

Posted by: Butch at August 10, 2005 04:33 PM (Gqhi9)

12 I have been witness to the evil of Methamphetamine. I rejoice in every arrest, every lab bust, every conviction. It is cheap and even if made non-illegal, which is marginally different from being legal, it will be evil. Meth destroys humanity. Meth users should lose everything and everyone around them, and be isolated to remote islands with no hope for return. Meth producers should be shot on site.

Posted by: kstumpf at August 10, 2005 05:12 PM (Kv4B9)

13 Butch: that's the same sort of vagueness that would allow the government to disarm citizens, with the reason that "guns" harm other citizens. no thanks.

Posted by: dave at August 10, 2005 05:38 PM (DO6vD)

14 Hmmm... does all this mean your pro-choice?

Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at August 11, 2005 02:22 AM (REz6/)

15 "The Libertarians I hang around with try to pretend that drugs aren't all that bad. The usual drug that is called not bad is Marijuana. Marijuana is not bad, it--and by inference other drugs--ought to be legalized." Sounds like you don't know any libertarians, only libertines. Many libertarians hold the same view you do--i.e., legalize it, but when you do I'm still not touching it.

Posted by: The Unabrewer at August 11, 2005 08:26 AM (IsoyY)

16 Very good distinction, Unabrewer. One that I am aware of. But, seriously, if you've ever been to a Libertarian event you'll meet a whole lot of libertines. Prof, No. But that is because abortion is wrong because it kills a child. Homicide is not a valid choice under any libertarian definition. Unless you believe a baby in the womb is just an appendage of a woman--like a mole-then there is no moral justification for it. The real disagreement is the point at which a fetus becomes 'human' and the epistemology of 'life'.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 11, 2005 10:50 AM (JQjhA)

17 Good argument about legalizing drugs from a liberty point of view. However, however tough it is to get drugs legalized, how much tougher do you think it will be to pass the laws that put the cost of the consequences on the actor instead of on society? Crazy sex is already okay. You win, so to speak, there. AIDS funding is never going to be sufficient--ask the advocates--no matter how much it is. And you can talk, if you wish, about putting the costs of AIDS on actors, but you'll have a hard time, a really hard time, getting the costs off you and other taxpayers and on to the actors. Compared to that, or to rehab, getting drugs legalized is going to be a slam dunk. Not that it's easy, but telling people, you pissed in it, you drink it, is NOT going to happen.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at August 11, 2005 01:12 PM (tuope)

18 Unabrewer is right, and Rusty, your answer was unsatisfying. The first sentence of your post was "Every one that I admire is wrong about the drug war. And I mean every one." Could it really be true that you don't know or admire any libertarians that aren't libertines? Well, you know one now!

Posted by: Obi-Wan at August 11, 2005 01:27 PM (XB4NN)

19 While I agree with your viewpoint, as a nation, we and our governments are as addicted to the drug war as the addicts are to their drugs. Many police departments would lose much of their federal funding and half to layoff significant numbers of officers. The war on drugs is an employment program for thousands of Americans with no other saleable skills.

Posted by: Timothy at August 11, 2005 01:30 PM (H+TEN)

20 I have a really novel theory about drugs. People take pain relievers to relieve pain. Who knew? Addiction or Self Medication? Heroin Genetic Discrimination A test for PTSD

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 01:32 PM (PRJ2z)

21 Drug prohibition is Republican Socialism. A price support mechanism for criminals. Any one learn anything from alcohol prohibition? Any one at all? Tell me what the #1 date rape drug in America is? I'll give you a clue. It is legal.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 01:35 PM (PRJ2z)

22 Dr Rusty -- If, by "like," you mean "am opposed to laws prohibiting use of" then I agree with your characterization of the Dem, Libertarian, and Rep, points of view. The reason I say this is, I have actually *never* used any illegal drugs (and I'm in my late 30's), but I'm still against laws prohibiting use thereof.

Posted by: Me at August 11, 2005 01:37 PM (BL/U4)

23 I want a calling from the some resident Llama: is it an Instalanche whene some rental punk brings the funk? I stand athawart the Sitemeter and say "NAY!" (how's that..."athwart"...) You owe me a dollar.

Posted by: TC-LeatherPenguin at August 11, 2005 01:39 PM (kiH79)

24 And good sweet Jeebus must be crying, for these new colors, just, like, teh suck. You twirp adjunct.

Posted by: TC-LeatherPenguin at August 11, 2005 01:41 PM (kiH79)

25 Fatwa this!

Posted by: TC-LeatherPenguin at August 11, 2005 01:45 PM (kiH79)

26 If people take pain relievers to relieve pain then the way to reduce the consequences of drug use is to relieve the people's fookin pain. How hard can it be? Almost every thing most people believe about drugs including the site owner is rank superstition. Drug use does not respond well to the usual enticements (i.e. demand is inelastic) because people in pain do not like giving up their pain relievers. Of course this directly contradicts the voodoo theory of addiction: drugs are the devil's spawn and they cause addiction. They get an evil hold on some people (why not all people - well you know - some people are more moral than others) and do not let go. I call this the Stupid Design theory of addiction. Wait, wasn't this what people of another era used to say about alcohol. Talk about recycling. Well, never mind.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 01:49 PM (PRJ2z)

27 Shouldn't the government be obligated to outlaw things which can be helpful to its citizenry? Like pain relievers for instance? Aspirin is the direct cause of 500 to 1,000 American deaths a year. Yet children can buy it. It is an outrage.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 01:57 PM (PRJ2z)

28 The one part of the problem that you are neglecting to address is that drugs are physiologically addictive, whereas other self-harming behavior is not. And things that are physiologically addictive are not a matter of choice-they are a matter of physical obligation. You are right; I don't care if someone else doesn't feel like getting up and going to work (i.e. doesn't choose to get up and go to work). But it would be different if something removed that individual's choice to get up and go to work (sickness, mental illness, physical incapacity, drug addiction). I, for instance, would be opposed to allowing the physically and mentally handicapped to starve to death simply because they don't choose to go to work. Libertarians may feel differently. So without choice, your libertarian hands off approach doesn't work. And yes, we have a tough time defining 'choice' (i.e. do people really 'choose' to eat to much? Should fast food be illegal? Alcohol?). On the margins, its tough to really define 'choice.' But outside of the margins, its not. If a healthy kid doesn't go to work and claims its because he doesn't want to, I'm comfortable accusing him of 'choice' and not being willing to fund his lifestyle 'choice.' At the other end, a heroin addict's 'choice' has been taken away from him. One way to stop this from happening is to just really really try to convince people not to try (and become addicted to) heroin, and then sell it anyway. Another way is to make heroin illegal. And our (my) society would be better without a whole lot of individuals addicted to heroin than with them. Steve

Posted by: Steve at August 11, 2005 02:09 PM (R+XcO)

29 You know meth is given to military pilots to enhance their performance. I would revel in seeing those guys busted like the common criminals they are. Besides prescribing the stuff interferes with the black market. See the recent Supreme Court decision in the Raich case for further details.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 02:13 PM (PRJ2z)

30 Ask any cop or judge or social worker and they will tell you that there is an absolute link between drug use and criminal behavior. They are probably right that there is a correlation between drug use and criminal behavior. However, and repeat after me whenever you feel these regulatory urges coming on - "correlation is not causation." Any number of things could be causing the correlation, and I doubt very much that it is the psychotropic effects of whatever these people are ingesting. It could be that criminals have a lot of contact with the black market where drugs are sold. If this is a factor, then outlawing drugs actually contributes to their use by criminals. Dr. Shackleford, I think your average libertarian doesn't really believe drugs are harmless in all cases. Rather, they look at the drugs that society manages to tolerate (alcohol and tobacco), and conclude that many of your softer drugs, at least (pot being Exhibit A) are far less harmful than these.

Posted by: R C Dean at August 11, 2005 02:18 PM (ifq/U)

31 Steve, Physiological addiction is not a problem. Detox fixes that. The problem is that even after detox some people return to their drug habit. My theory: detox does not fix the pain. Only fixing the pain eliminates the desire for drugs. Well I guess Steve has brought us back to another devil theory of drugs. i.e. addicts are out of control. BTW Steve did you know that according to Dr. Lonnie Shavelson 70% of female heroin addicts were sexually abused as children? Perhaps instead of a war on drugs we need a war on child abuse? What are the odds of that?

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 02:20 PM (PRJ2z)

32 I was with the article right up to here: "If you knock some strange chick up in a moment of ecstasy inspired passion, it's your problem. I don't want to send you to jail, I don't want to send you to rehab, I'm not going to say that what you are doing is okay- it's not okay. It's just not my problem." I think it is your problem, my problem, everybody's problem. It's just not a problem that should be solved via coercive taxation and the legal system. This is the essential distinction between the libertarian who believes in voluntary solutions to societal problems and the atomistic radical individualist who doesn't, in practice, acknowledge that society exists and it solves problems whether or not the government gets involved. Government shouldn't get involved because government solutions to the problem have been demonstrated (over many years and many destroyed lives) to be very bad for this class of problems. We need experimentation and innovation to find better solutions, not a regression to some primeval state which never worked in the first place.

Posted by: TM Lutas at August 11, 2005 02:20 PM (z/jms)

33 "But as Kurt Vonnegut said, arguing against anti-drug laws is like arguing against glaciers. Pointless. There will always be glaciers." So, why argue?" There will always be murders...so why have anti-murder laws? Bad argument there, Kurt, and an extremely poor rationale for drug legalization. Really the argument comes down to this: Personal liberty is a good thing and we should have lots of it. But with liberty comes responsibility. Drug use makes it impossible to exercise that responsibility. Thus, drug use should be illegal. Alcohol as the counter-argument? Alcohol is a weak drug (as available for purchase, anyways), and overconsumption can be punishable by law in several different ways. Other weak drugs are legal as well. Caffeine, nicotine. Nearly every narcotic drug by comparison gives its effects in a single dose. So no, there's really no good argument for drug legalization.

Posted by: Mike M at August 11, 2005 02:21 PM (vtiE6)

34 According to the US Justice Department the only drug that is known to be correlated with criminal behavior is - TADA - alcohol. We are going after the wrong drug! Ha Ha Ha. Drugs and Violence. Let me quote: “The stereotype is of the drug-crazed criminal,” said Robert Nash Parker, the lead investigator on the project. “The reality is something quite different.” Parker, a professor of sociology, conducted a comprehensive review of the scientific literature on drugs, alcohol and violence. He said a survey of crime victims showed that more than one fourth of the assailants in violent crimes were reported by the victims to be under the influence of alcohol while fewer than 10 percent were under the influence of an illegal drug. The Presley Center study found that in cases of homicide, alcohol is “overwhelmingly” the drug most frequently mentioned.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 02:36 PM (PRJ2z)

35 !!Rock n Roll!! There is a good argument for drug legalization! This joints for you Mike M!

Posted by: gijoe at August 11, 2005 02:37 PM (aja61)

36 Great post, you nailed it. Thanks for sharing. And thanks again for the Saddam torture post. That's a classic.

Posted by: TallDave at August 11, 2005 02:37 PM (+zD27)

37 I actually agree with Rusty 100% on this issue. If someone wants to get drunk in their own home, that's legal. So why isn't it legal to get stoned in your own home? It is already well established in law that a person who commits a crime while under the influence of alcohol or other substance is still responsible for the crime (unless it can be shown that the person took that intoxicant without their knowledge or permission). This is not to say that I think drugs are safe, or a good idea. I personally have never used drugs and don't intend to. But for me to decide that another person should be jailed for the mere act of ingesting cocaine is immoral, because it infringes on their individual liberty. Their ingestion of cocaine, in and of itself, harms only them. Whether I approve or not is irrelevant. Legalization of drugs in the U.S. would, overnight, destroy the black market industry in trafficking them, and a good amount of the associated organized crime would vaporize. Drugs would become cheaper, and their quality would be consistent and reliable. Purity and potency uncertainties only add to the risks of using drugs. Someone taking cocaine cannot be totally certain whether it's been cut with LSD (which alters the nature of the trip and makes it more dangerous), or baby powder (which alters its potency and makes taking a predictable dose impossible, thus making overdose more likely), or whatever. People should have the free choice to engage in this sort of vice, and the quality of the product should be reliable. I like margaritas, and I drink socially on occasion. I know that the alcohol I buy is exactly what it claims to be and will not contain wood alcohol, antifreeze, or any other contaminant that might increase the risk to my health. Drugs should have the same classification in our culture.

Posted by: Anne Haight at August 11, 2005 02:40 PM (Xi2ZE)

38 I have one question. Can anybody point me to 1 instance in the history of man where a prohibition has worked and has not created a criminal underground to take advantage of it. Just one. Why is it we keep doing what hasnt worked in 30 years expecting a different outcome. Spend the money instead for treatment on demand. The ones that dont want treatment...well Darwin will prevail and if the drugs are available no one will get hurt except the one responsible for taking the drugs. By the by I'm a somewhat conservative republican.

Posted by: GC at August 11, 2005 02:43 PM (oer0z)

39 Mike M. Alcohol weak drug? If a new drug it would be a schedule II narcotic and only available to doctors in emergency cases where no other alternative can be found. Such as antifreeze poisoning. Too much booze can render you unable to stand or walk this is called alcohol poisoning. And yes you can die from it. What usually happens is you are so passed out that you don't notice that you jsut thew up and you breath stomach acid into your lungs and drown in your own vomit. Pretty good stuff huh. Weak drug my ass it's the best and most powerful. Inject you a few ccs of everclear and then come nd tell me it's weak. Heck just kill a pint of old crow that shojld do it and if it don't you my friend are an alcoholic. Nothing liek some drunk acting like booze is water.

Posted by: Howie at August 11, 2005 02:44 PM (D3+20)

40 Mike M, There really is no good argument for alcohol legalization. Or aspirin legalization for that matter. Drugs Kill. M'Kay? Some kill more than others. BTW There really is no good argument for food legalization. You eat too much it can kill you. Not to mention choking deaths. Food needs to be administered only under a doctor's supervision. Ever see a food addict? Truly disgusting. In fact all nutrients should be administereed by IV under a doctors supervision. Let us eliminate those needless deaths. Especially of children.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 02:48 PM (PRJ2z)

41 hmmm...i see one problem with your position, Dr. Shackleford. Meth labs? could it possibly become so cheap that that make-your-own equivalenced the legal market version? Meth labs poison their immediate environment, poison the kids of the lab owners or renters, poison the firemen or policemen called in to clean up, poison the neighbors. will you be able to get a "brewer's license" for making some quantity of meth for your own personal family consumption? will there be meth lab inspectors that insure that you are making it safely?

Posted by: matoko kusanagi at August 11, 2005 02:58 PM (JREvR)

42 GC, Only 30 years? National heroin prohibition has been in effect since 1914. Over 90 years. I guess we have not had enough experience with heroin prohibition to draw any conclusions. Except that the penalties are still not stiff enough. Pot prohibition has been in effect since 1937 (with a short hiatus during WW2 - hemp rope and twine don't you know). I guess we have not had enough experience with pot prohibition to draw any conclusions. Except that the penalties are still not stiff enough.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 03:02 PM (PRJ2z)

43 matoko, We used to know what the answer to meth labs was. The answer in the days when meth was legal were called drug stores. Ever hear of them? In those days no one ever heard of meth labs. I wonder why? Capitalism may have had something to do with it. You know. Price and availability.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 03:06 PM (PRJ2z)

44 This thread is just great. Superstition abounds. Blaming drugs for the evils of drug prohibition. Nothing new. We used to blame alcohol for the evils of alcohol prohibition. Watch an episode of the "Untouchables" to get the flavor. People are just as dumb as they ever were. Which is confirmation of Einstein's famoous dictum: The most abundant element in the universe is stupidity.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 03:11 PM (PRJ2z)

45 The best written work I ever read about drugs and the law was written by Gorge Jonas for Saturday Night Magazine in the early nineties. He basically made the very honest argument that drug use would rise if we legalised them and that this rise in use would increase costs to society in terms of more individuals battling addiction BUT that this price is well worth paying if you look at what we get in return in terms of personal responsibility, freedom from the state and the elimination of THE MAJOR SOURCE of REVENUE for criminals. We would be better off both individually and collectively if we decriminalised drugs and regulated them through fines and civil court proceedings as opposed to criminal courts. Let the tort system deal with the issues drug use creates. Unfortunately the DEA is a terrible vested interest and many Republican politicians are addicted to the power that the fear of drugs creates in parents. It is so easy to play the demagog when the voters reward you so.

Posted by: Northern Oberver at August 11, 2005 03:13 PM (L0dY/)

46 WRT Meth... It's nasty stuff, but there's one thing that people don't consider. If high-grade cocaine and amphetamine were available at the drug store for a reasonable price (as they once were) who in hell would do Meth? Meth was invented as a result of the drug war. It would not EXIST if cleaner, better quality recreational drugs were legal. Using it as an example of why we should spend our LE and judicial resources on the "drug war" is truly missing the point.

Posted by: Barry at August 11, 2005 03:17 PM (lxp2D)

47 BTW any one know why cocaine was made illegal? There were lots of scare stories in newspapers about cocainized black men raping white women. In a word - racism. Pot - that was all about cheap Mexican labor. Opiates? cheap Chinese labor. Oh yeah - taking advantage of whie women under the influence. Drug War History

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 03:19 PM (PRJ2z)

48 Drugs do not cause addiction (they can cause habituation). Chronic pain causes chronic drug use.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 03:24 PM (PRJ2z)

49 "Ask any cop or judge or social worker and they will tell you that there is an absolute link between drug use and criminal behavior." If drug use is a criminal act the link between drug use and criminal behaviour is 100%. If drug use is not a criminal act then drug use related crime would fall by 100%. Meantime, if you drive under the influence, abuse your children or rip off corner stores to support your habit I say, "Bring back the lash!" Ahh, the lash.

Posted by: Flea at August 11, 2005 03:27 PM (/D/GV)

50 There is one ironclad rule about drugs. Kind of a Gresham's Law. The harder the enforcement the harder the drugs. And the more direct the administration methods. People inject heroin because it is too expensive to eat or snort.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 03:28 PM (PRJ2z)

51 I don't think anyone has a good answer to the question of how much government interference in personal behaviour is acceptable. Drugs are destructive to the individual and society, but individuals have a right to be self-destructive. Some feel the carryover into harming society gives government to responsibility to become involved. Others disagree and have good arguments to support their disagreement. Such arguments, pro and con, are heard even in the issue of seatbelts and none have been conclusively superior to the others. One argument does support a measure of government regulation and that is that children, none of whom are always under their parents control, make bad decisions that can be very harmful. One such decision is to become addicted to drugs; a result that can easily last a lifetime.

Posted by: willis at August 11, 2005 03:31 PM (qJ2gx)

52 From 1920 to 1933 there was a direct correlation between alcohol and criminal behavior. Since 1933 that correlation has been somewhat attenuated. I wonder why? Must be a change in diet or the water.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 03:34 PM (PRJ2z)

53 willis, Drugs are destructive only if you believe that people relieving their pain chemically is destructive. So do you favor outlawing aspirin which kills 500 to 1,000 Americans every year and can be bought over the counter by children? BTW Bayer Heroin was for 20 years an over the counter drug. How did America survive? Tincture of cannabis was in the pharmacopia for hundreds of years until 1937. Why didn't it destroy the country? Especially since there was nothing to prevent individuals from growing their own. During the age of sail governments sometimes passed laws making people grow hemp. How did humanity survive it?

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 03:41 PM (PRJ2z)

54 Oh, here comes the meth meme:here at last is the one true evil drug that will drag society down the toilet. Every ten years or so the professional drug warriors tout a new one: heroin in the fifties. pot and LSD in the sixties, cocaine in the seventies, crack in the eighties, and ecstasy in the nineties. Tobacco all the time. They even tried to stir up an early meth scare circa 1991; remember "ice"? The propoganda piles up and suddenly everyone thinks they have a new idea. No wonder nose rings are so popular.

Posted by: Brett at August 11, 2005 04:15 PM (Iymzh)

55 M. Simon: You talk so much, and persuade so little. How about producing some statistical evidence that "people only take drugs to relieve their pain," or abandon that monotonous assertion. Perhaps your definition of "pain" extends to "the agony of having to get out of bed and face the day working at a dead-end job because you chose not to learn marketable skills," in which I could see your point but am not persuaded. Did anyone claim that the presence of hemp would destroy humanity? Where did that straw man come from? While I personally support drug deregulation if coupled with the Left's abandonment of taxpayer funding of universal health care, you are starting to persuade me to reconsider. The worst side effect of whatever it is you're taking appears to be the loss of ability (if ever you had it) to construct rational, persuasive arguments in support of an easy-to-defend thesis.

Posted by: Jonathan at August 11, 2005 04:48 PM (OWbi0)

56 I thought the Dutch had already tried this. All it has done is made the situation worse. Now they're backtracking. Making All drugs legal, there is nothing to stop them from being used on the corner across from the neighbourhood school. Or in your next door neighbours house. The abuse of alcohol in this country is already a big problem, lets make drugs as easily accessable from the nearest convenient store. So what will folks be arrested for when abusing driving, DUI for alcohol, will the charges for driving under the influence of drugs be the same? Our society is abusive enough as it, let's not make it any easier for the pie holes to abuse it any faster or easier. You're talking about sliding down the toilet quicker than we're already going.

Posted by: quark2 at August 11, 2005 04:48 PM (hvepP)

57 The real problem for society with drug abuse/use is the problem that comes along with any other self-destructive behaviour: the direct costs to our over-coddling society. Put it another way, I will support the legalization of drugs right after you remove soceity's subsidization of the consequences of drug use (and other stupid or silly behaviour), meaning: Get rid of Medicare! No more welfare! No subsidized housing! Seriously, since I'm sure that libertarians are also against these programs, all they have to do is eliminate them and I will be with them 100% on the drug thing. The problem with our quasi-socialist society is that the gov't has a financial stake in your health and well being, which leads to even more stupid government over-reach, all in the name of protecting their "investment" in your carcass - the war on tobacco, helmet and seatbelt laws etc.

Posted by: holdfast at August 11, 2005 05:15 PM (jvO9O)

58 GC said: Why is it we keep doing what hasnt worked in 30 years expecting a different outcome. I believe that is, in fact, the popular definition of "stupid".

Posted by: Anne Haight at August 11, 2005 06:04 PM (Xi2ZE)

59 I'm agnostic on the drug legalisation/keep them illegal debate. I will say from personal experience that few law enforcement officers like the way the system, is set up now. Between the horrible waste of time involved in messing with small time users and the massive amount of money that is available for corrupting police, prosecutors and judges, all we know is that what we're doing isn't working. In the Dept I retired from, about the only way to get arrested for 'recreational' amounts was if we just wanted to pile another charge on someone because (s)he was an asshole. Other than that, if the bosses needed more dope busts, we'd make more dope busts. If, instead, they wanted us to crack down on red light runners, okay, fine. We did what kept the bosses off our asses, the bosses did what kept the County Commisioners and newspapers off theirs. I'd like to point out, though, that the most effective drug treatment programs out there have exactly the same success rate as do the self-help groups, Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous. The self-help groups cost the taxpayer nothing. Me? I have no answers. I just wish I were smart enough to be like the people on both sides of this argumant and who are absolutely sure that I were the one who is right.

Posted by: Peter at August 11, 2005 06:32 PM (ywZa8)

60 And is alchohol a drug? Everybody must believe in something and I believe I'll have another drink.

Posted by: blackminorca at August 11, 2005 07:31 PM (ywZa8)

61 What is it about you super geniuses that makes you so darn dumb!? You libertarians are just like socialists really, in as much as you think your marvellous theories combined with your massive intellects can find the answers to everything, regardless of the evidence of your eyes. In the name of Liberty(tm) and Freedom(tm) you would deny the most basic freedoms to people and communities everywhere - to affect the nature of the towns and cities they live in. Do you think that every-Mom and every-Pop will feel free and liberated when criminal scum are selling drugs to the every-Kids on every street corner in every-Town without fear of sanction. (not to mention all the porn and other miseries you'd inflict on us, our fraught struggling families and our delicate and vulnerable kids. You'd sell us into slavery just as sure as the Commies would). Genuinely smart conservatives know we live in an imperfect world; there are no perfect answers; there are no flawless political theories; and real freedom and liberty are a constant balancing act between the freedom of people acting as individuals to control their lives and the freedom of groups of people to influence their communities. If drugs become accepted and assimilated into our lives and cultures then the people in their humble wisdom, via their representatives, can vote to make them legal or not on a case-by-case basis. Many communities may be reaching this point as regards Marijuana, and indeed the case could well be made that the Federal Gov't should butt out and leave this all to the states (even here in Australia from whence I write). But I think the grand Libertarian Theory-Of-Everything can safely be chucked in the trash can marked 'failed political theories of the 20th Century'.

Posted by: Kip Watson at August 11, 2005 09:31 PM (rqQ22)

62 I don't think anyone has a good answer to the question of how much government interference in personal behaviour is acceptable. Drugs are destructive to the individual and society, but individuals have a right to be self-destructive. I think you just answered you own assertion. "Individuals have a right to be self-destructive," and--and this is big, folks, so don't miss it--their problem is not my problem. They're the ones responsible, right? Leave it up to them. With regard to drug-related crime, it is almost all related to the problem of getting drugs in the first place--stealing, fencing, even an occasional murder is the result. After all, drugs are heinously expensive (being illegal and all). What, on the other hand, is the violence caused by using drugs? If you're speaking of alcohol, the damage is vast. But if you're speaking of heroin, well--you can have a well-behaved heroin addict working in your store, helping customers and all, and never know it. As long as he gets his hit today (to prevent the awful consequences of withdrawal) he'll be perfectly fine. One the third hand (?--I've lost count) what about the chronic pain patient who can't get the drugs he needs because his doctors are all scared spitless of the DEA and won't prescribe? Well, they suffer needlessly. And those fortunate few who do get the meds they need for chronic pain are incredibly grateful. As long as they take them as prescribed there will be no problems at all, although if a patient makes a mistake and does not refill his meds when due, he may discover that he is indeed physically dependent on them. But that's a small price to pay. Believe me. I'm that patient. The drug war creates crime unecessarily due to the high price of illegal substances, and people will steal and sometimes kill to get them. It also artificially inflates the price of the product, further spurring crime. The drug war makes it difficult, if not impossible, for a chronic pain paatient to get what he needs. And what good does it do? Next to nothing. Ending the drug war, on the other hand, ends the artificially high prices caused by the war and therefore ends the crime. Period. And perhaps more importantly, doctors are free to prescribe whatever they think is appropriate for their patients, DEA be hanged.

Posted by: Obi-Wan at August 11, 2005 10:02 PM (XB4NN)

63 Um, your position IS the libertarian position. Unfortunately, the Libertarian Party has been overtaken by druggies, pacifists, libertines, and hedonists. But you shouldn't confuse the two. Your position is exactly libertarian.

Posted by: Mike Rentner at August 11, 2005 10:08 PM (ru0sP)

64 What is it about you super geniuses that makes you so darn dumb!? You libertarians are just like socialists really, in as much as you think your marvellous theories combined with your massive intellects can find the answers to everything, regardless of the evidence of your eyes. To quote Heinlein, "the human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." You can forget all other labels--this summarizes it all. We libertarians fall into the latter category. And we're not nearly as arrogant as you seem to think. And it's the evidence of our eyes that convinces us, day by day, of the validity of our professions.

Posted by: Obi-Wan at August 11, 2005 10:13 PM (XB4NN)

65 In order for government to be "moral" it must stand by to allow people to become addicted, because during those first stages of addiction, they are still able to satisfy the libertarian ideal? You have a problem with the government intervening to stop a 23-year-old mother from taking meth once a week so long as she can keep changing her baby's diapers?

Posted by: Daryl Herbert at August 11, 2005 11:23 PM (4BysG)

66 Fair go, American mates! I have a serious problem with people wanting to use my community, family, friends and neighbours as a petri dish for their delightful new scientific theory of society, freedom, life and everything. Haven't we had enough decades of that arrogant and irresponsible form of government? It's particularly galling because, with your close association with conservatives, you know that old-fashioned out-dated, trial-and-error, muddle-through conservatism produces vastly superior outcomes, but it just isn't gosh-darned 'elegant' enough for you! (isn't that right?) I've seen the effect of hard drugs on friends and loved ones. I'm old enough to have known a time when law enforcement was much stricter. Your theories sound enchanting, that's the most hateful thing of all. God protect us from yet another great sounding but viciously destructive socio-political theory.

Posted by: Kip Watson at August 11, 2005 11:46 PM (rqQ22)

67 Daryl Herbert, What if there is no such thing as addiction? What if it is just people in pain taking pain relievers? Addiction or Self Medication? The idea of "addiction" is superstition.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 11:48 PM (X4/+i)

68 In this new world of legalized drugs, who do you see as the manufacturers? Who will take on the responsibility of producing a product that meets government standards for safety? Oh, you say there won't be standards? Then mark off 'safer' drugs as an argument for legalization. What will the cost of drugs be when you factor in liability insurance for the manufacturer? No liabilty, you say? I've got a million hungry lawyers that beg to differ. Sounds like criminal elements and Joe down the street likely will remain the major producers of drugs. So much for putting the drug cartels out of work. Buy them at the local 7-Eleven? Another million lawyers waiting to pin liability on anyone selling a dangerous product. So much for putting the drug dealers out of business. With all recreational drugs now legal, what about the FDA and prescription drugs? Why should there be laws requiring prescriptions? If those laws stay in place, just classify your miracle cure as a recreational drug and you are in business. Just need a slick commercial and a Swiss Bank account and you are set. Welcome to the wild wild west of medical quackery, brought to you courtesy of drug legalization. As others in this thread have stated, as long as we are a nanny state, personal responsibilty when it comes to drugs is a myth. So much for your drug use only being your problem. I don't believe for a second that our current system is perfect, or even good. I am open to debate. I would appreciate those suggesting this major change provide a bit more substantive arguments that look a bit more deeply at just how society would change if drug legalization occurs.

Posted by: FRNM at August 11, 2005 11:54 PM (Pkcb7)

69 Kip, The idea of "addiction" is superstition. Heroin Genetic Discrimination It is you "drugs cause addiction" folks who are doing the ugly experiment. Think logically. What would you expect to happen if the problem was your keeping people in pain from their pain relievers? Most people who try drugs do not get "addicted". How does your theory of drugs explain that?

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 11:59 PM (X4/+i)

70 FRNM, I'm with you. Nothing can be done. We will need to keep the criminal subsidy (prohibition) in place forever. We just need to accept the 2,000 innocents a year killed in turf wars. I also note that legalizing alcohol in 1933 is a complete failure. How To Put an End to Drug Users

Posted by: M. Simon at August 12, 2005 12:10 AM (X4/+i)

71 Kip, I don't know what it is about super geniuses. I do know that folks like you are in thrall to a superstition: "drugs cause addiction". OK. So tell me about food addicts, sex addicts, exercise addicts, gambling addicts, etc. Genetic Discrimination Big Mac - heroin attack

Posted by: M. Simon at August 12, 2005 12:16 AM (X4/+i)

72 As it happens this debate is going on in my home state of Victoria (Australia) right now. As best I can tell the argument goes like this. "Our kids should have the right to experiment with 'party' drugs, because they tell us it's fun and to deny our precious darlings the right to any indulgence would be grossly unsophisticated, besides we like the odd snort ourselves, anyway the percentage of them who are harmed by drugs is way under half, and we can afford expensive rehab for those few anyway, and the worst thing of all would be for our kids to get criminal records (yeek, how lower class). Apparently there are 'other' kids in 'other' suburbs who don't know how to handle hard drugs, but we don't move in those circles, and we could hardly draft laws on the basis of what's best for people of that sort or we might find ourselves back in the stone age, or the 1950s (whichever came first). "Some neaderthals also seem to think it would lead to an increase in criminal activity, but they don't seem to understand the pure logic that when nothing is illegal, no crime can take place, hence abolishing these laws would be a significant step towards a completely crime free society." - signed, a bunch of rich lawyers and academics.

Posted by: Kip Watson at August 12, 2005 12:25 AM (rqQ22)

73 holdfast, What if drug use is not self destructive behavior? What if it is just a matter of people in pain taking pain relievers? Cannabinoids - the Key to many Pains? Capitalism, Pain and the War on Drugs PTSD Pot Alcohol & Substance Abuse Aftermath Police and PTSD The Pain Enforcement Administration

Posted by: M. Simon at August 12, 2005 12:29 AM (X4/+i)

74 kip, So tell me: what causes addiction? Without an answer to that question trying to solve the problem is impossible. When I design an object without the knowledge of what causes stress failue, I rarely get the design right. It is too heavy or too light. So how can you control the drug problem without knowledge of what the real problem is? What I see is similar to how the Black Plague was dealt with in the Middle Ages. People in masks going around trying to scare off the problem. Voodoo. We have used the "drugs cause addiction" model to formulate policy for over 100 years. We are not meeting with any significant success. Perhaps the model is wrong. If it is chronic pain that causes chronic drug use then it is the prohibitionist who is the criminal.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 12, 2005 12:40 AM (X4/+i)

75 I can accept (from the modest amount I've read), that your Federal Gov't has greatly overstepped its powers as regards drug enforcement (and a great many other things by many accounts), and I do think doctors should be left more or less unmolested to prescribe as they see fit without fear of criminal prosecution (except in the most extreme cases, eg. where someone has died) - loss of license would be punishment enough for most unethical behaviour. But when you start playing with semantics, comparing Big Mac 'addiction' to Heroin addiction, and trying to define real problems away - problems that are not just words, that are heart-breaking and disgusting realities I have seen with my own eyes - well, sorry to say it, it makes you sound like a socialist. They play these kind of word games all the time you know, I'm long past being fooled by them. When a word doesn't exist - eg. it gets debased or defined away - the problem doesn't go away. You just make us invent another term to describe it and we end up on the same merrygoround the PC-word-ists have been annoying us with these last 30+ years.

Posted by: Kip Watson at August 12, 2005 12:50 AM (rqQ22)

76 Jonathan, You ask for evidence. I have presented links to articles which have many links to the evidence. The evidence is not statistical. It is medical. This kind of trauma coupled with that kind of genetics causes the implantation of pain/fear memories which are relieved by drug use. I can tell you the main organ in the brain involved: the amygdala. I can tell you that the CB1 receptor is part of it. I can tell you about endorphin receptors. I can link the various "kinds" of addiction to the same brain chemical pathways. I can tell you how to predict who is susceptable to long term addiction problems. I can tell you how to predict who will "get over it". I can tell you why 20% of the folks returning from Iraq will have long term PTSD problems. I can tell you why for 80% the problem will be short lived. I can even show (in a general way) why 5% of those with long term problems will "get over it" every year without intervention. I can even show why "drug rehhab" as currently practiced is just for show. Much better than statistical evidence. However, as is evidenced by your comment you have read none of it. I'm sorry, under those circumstances, there is nothing I can do to help.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 12, 2005 01:00 AM (X4/+i)

77 Kip Watson, Have you read the "Big Mac" article? I show how food, sex, exercise, and heroin fill the endorphin receptors. In other words I have a unified theory of addiction. I'd like to see some rational counter claim instead of just an exclamation: "it can't possibly be so". However, that is exactly what superstition is. The substitution of belief for evidence. I have evidence. What have you got?

Posted by: M. Simon at August 12, 2005 01:09 AM (X4/+i)

78 Kip, I am not redefining addiction. I'm dealing with specific organs, chemicals, and receptors. i.e. science. I have showed you my science. Please show me yours.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 12, 2005 01:17 AM (X4/+i)

79 I have shown in my articles that PTSD is the #1 cause of what is commonly refered to as "addiction". i.e. people with severe pain/fear memories take drugs for relief. So far the only counter to that assertion is the "drugs cause addiction" model. Of the two models which is the more predictive? If dugs cause addiction why doesn't every one who tries drugs get addicted? My model answers that question. The "drugs cause addiction" model can't answer that question except to talk about "addictive personalities". What is an addictive personality? What traits do such personalities have in common? The "drugs cause addiction" folks have no answer to that question. I know. I have asked professionals in the field. Lots of them. However, I'm willing to be educated. Tell me what is an "addictive personality" and what traits such personalities have in common. And please. I do not want a theory that explains 50%, I want one that explains 100% as my theory does. In the general population 20% have a genetic makeup that makes them susceptable to long term PTSD. Of that 20% about 1/2 get sufficient trauma to get a PTSD problem. Of vets returning from Iraq it seems that 100% of that 20% are getting sufficiently traumatized to cause long term problems. This is not just academic for me. I want to understand the problem so we can deal with it. I want to look in the right direction so we can advance the science and either ease the pain or find a cure. Read "Aftermath" and "Police and PTSD". That will give you a handle on causes. Read "Addiction or Self Medication?", "Heroin", and "Genetic Discrimination" for some of the science. Read "Big Mac...." for the unified theory of addiction.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 12, 2005 01:44 AM (X4/+i)

80 So much of the problem is moralized. It is not a moral problem in the way that is commonly understood. It isnot about lack of self control except in the most extreme sense. If you were in a lot of pain and found something that gave you relief, how much self control would you have in relation to that something. In general, not a lot.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 12, 2005 01:58 AM (X4/+i)

81 Goodness me, Mr Simon, you really are the proof of the pudding! - You dismiss the wisdom of generations of conservatives (going right back the Opium War) as 'superstition' because it doesn't jibe with the half omelette of scrambled facts you currently have on your plate. I must say, think that in itself proves the arrogance of those who believe they have pure scientific theory behind them. And isn't making major policy decisions based on a few medical trials or scientific theories exactly the 'petri dish' situation I described earlier? - You present as momentous the obvious fact that many people are drawn into hard drug addiction from emotional or physical pain, as if that somehow makes the hell of addiction acceptable, or not even a problem. Difficult though such pain is, hard drug addiction in the medium or long term will do nothing but make things infinitely worse. (although I will say that the unwillingness of many doctors to prescribe strong narcotics when warranted by severe pain is without doubt a contributing factor in some cases of addiction and does need to be addressed.) - You hold fast to the belief that a tubby fellow who can't lay off tasty burgers is the exact twin of a tortured being whose life and soul are evaporating due to the horrible effects of hard drugs, simply because doctors can detect the same brain chemicals in both individuals. As if the plain truth, that stands before us in pain and beyond our means to help, is suddenly eclipsed by a few readings on a computer printout that may or may not mean anything at all. Not wishing to be personal, I wonder if you are someone with the beginnings of a drug problem and one heck of a case of denial - if so, please open your eyes, sir, what awaits you is simply not worth it. If not, you really are the living proof that only someone as smart as you clearly are could be so dumb!

Posted by: Kip Watson at August 12, 2005 02:00 AM (rqQ22)

82 Quark, It is true the liberal Dutch have a problem. 17% of the Dutch folk have tried drugs in their lifetime. In America we are doing much better. Only 40% of Americans have tried drugs. We have been trying to explain it to the Dutch for years. They just don't get it.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 12, 2005 02:10 AM (X4/+i)

83 Kip, There was a lot of "evidence" during the black plague that men in masks could ward off the plague. Every body believed that. Well enough to get them to pay people in masks to walk the streets. So far you have presented no science. I have. I have said that the endorphin receptor is the common thread between food, exercise, sex, and heroin addictions. You can actually falsify my data. Is that endorphin connection valid? So far all I have seen from you is: "everybody knows", "it is common knowledge", and "history shows". That is what we call in science: superstition. Where is your science? What are the connections? What are the receptors? Where are they located? What is the genetics? What are the chemicals involved? How did the systems evolve? What are their origins? As we look deeper into the science those questions can be answered. Will "history shows" fill in any of those blanks? What history shows is that the desire for drugs is pretty inelastic (i.e. even high penalties do not deter core users). Can you explain that? I can. I can explain it by science - no moral theory required. My lack of a moral theory of drug use offends a lot of people. I think it is a medical question. Many seem to prefer it as a moral question. To each his own I guess.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 12, 2005 02:32 AM (X4/+i)

84 "I have a serious problem with people wanting to use my community, family, friends and neighbours as a petri dish for their delightful new scientific theory of society, freedom, life and everything." - Kip Watson Hrmm. I kinda have a serious problem with people wanting to use my community, gamily, friends, and neighbors in their less-than-delightfully-old and never ending quest to prove that if you make something illegal, stamp your footsies and wish REAL HARD - you can really really make prohibiton work *this* time. Really you can. Haven't we had enough decades of that arrogant and irresponsible form of government?

Posted by: Ironbear at August 12, 2005 07:14 AM (zR442)

85 back to meth...the only way other drugs will supplant it is if they are cheaper. government subsidized cocaine prices? people will make their own if there is a profit. and you still have to deal with the whole grow-your-own, make-your-own cottage industry if controlled substances are legalized. i don't see a problem with grow-your-own cocoa or marijuana, but make-your-own meth is scary.

Posted by: matoko kusanagi at August 12, 2005 10:24 AM (gNc4O)

86 Why are drugs illegal in the US? Is it because they alter the mind, and can influence one to make poor decisions? No. That cannot be it. Alcohol is legal. Is it because of the social cost? No. That cannot be it. Alcohol and tobacco are legal. Is it because drugs are harmful to one's body? No, that cannot be it. Alchol and tobacco are legal. Can it be because of 'addiction'? No, that cannot be it. Alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine are legal. If you claim that drugs are illegal because of any of the reasons I've outlined, you should be crusading against alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine as well. I haven seen no evidence of that in this thread. If none of the reasons I've presented are 'the reason', what is?

Posted by: p-dawg at August 12, 2005 10:39 AM (deU1G)

87 Matoko: Please inform me of the make-your-own cottage alcohol industry. Alcohol is far more cheaply and safely made in the home than meth is. Yet, there isn't a large black market in alcohol. Why not?

Posted by: p-dawg at August 12, 2005 10:43 AM (deU1G)

88 I won't even bother trying to respond to any specific comments posted above - not that I wouldn't like to, but there are too many to keep track of. So, you'll just have to be content with my own take on drug legalization... which is as follows: It seems to me that America's drug war is at least as much about our cultural hang-ups over drugs as anything else. Several people here have commented on the absurdity of drug prohibition while alcohol is legal. Well, you can chalk that up entirely to a cultural/historical accident. Alcohol as a recreational drug has been part of the human experience since basically the dawn of mankind, and with the exception of Prohibition has generally been accepted as such by Western civilization, in spite of its well-documented legion of attendant social and medical ills.* Marijuana and other rec drugs, on the other hand, are relative Johnny-come-latelies to the rec drug scene, and have therefore proven much easier for drug warriors to demonize, even though they may or may not actually be more harmful than alcohol - hence the aforementioned cultural hang-ups. The same hang-ups, of course, work against any effort to legalize these drugs, even for medical purposes such as with marijuana. Even if it became generally accepted tomorrow that marijuana has legitimate medical purposes, that would likely not be enough to satisfy most cultural conservatives who simply cannot get past their hang-ups about the "wacky weed". Most would presumably favor promoting medical alternatives to cannabis instead, or at the very least alternative methods of ingesting the active ingredients in cannabis other than rolling it up as a joint and smoking it. Of course none of this even covers the larger Puritan, anti-hedonistic streak of American culture that isn't even that comfortable with the idea of legal alcohol**, much less a whole smorgasbord of legal rec drugs made generally available (not to mention stuff like legalized sodomy, pornography, gambling etc. which are already here but beyond the scope of this discussion). The upshot of all this is quite simple: The day mainstream American culture gets over its hang-ups about drugs that are presently illegal is the day when drug prohibition is doomed - and not a day sooner. *Indeed, I might point out that alcohol, and only alcohol, has its American legal status enshrined in nothing less than the U.S. Constitution itself, specifically the 21st Amendment which repealed Prohibition and explicitly makes alcohol regulation the purview of the states. **Believe it or not, the Women's Christian Temperance Movement and other like-minded organizations do still exist in the U.S. today. There's even a minor political party called the Prohibition Party that not only wants to bring back alcohol prohibition but extend it to tobacco, gambling and such.

Posted by: Joshua at August 12, 2005 12:44 PM (5Xc3J)

89 Hmmmmm! Mention drugs and 89 responses. Is this somehow reflective on our bloggers. Matoko: We have meth labs all over the rivers down here. The popular way is on houseboats. Keep them moving no smell. The law comes dump evidence overboard. Apparently, they buy sudafed a cold medicine over the counter at Wal-Mart. Just send in several people and all go to different registers during busy hours. I used to have a liquid fertizer tank containing ammonium nitrate at the end of one of my pastures. The sheriff told me they caught teenagers stealing it one night and confessed that they were making crystal meth with it. I never knew it was missing. Interesting what you can learn on the Jawa Report.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 12, 2005 10:12 PM (CBNGy)

90 I'm against restrictions on all drugs, including prescription meds. I'm in my early twenties and have never done drugs or even been offered any (sheltered upbringing...) but I was treated like some sort of slimy gutter junkie when I was practically dying of wisdom-tooth pain and tried to get my second vicodin prescription filled. It was terribly humiliating. I'm an adult, and fully capable of making my own decisions. Neither my government nor my pharmacist has to save me from myself.

Posted by: Sarah Brabazon-Biggar at August 13, 2005 01:42 AM (7OhrX)

91 M. Simon: Are you saying cocaine causes black men to rape white women but doesn't cause white men to rape black women. Ha, Ha. Just gets crazier and crazier around here. Sarah two last names: When you are 40 and have children you will change your mind. I use the drug alcohol. As everyone knows I am living proof that it affects your ability to spell.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 13, 2005 07:53 AM (8MCDk)

92 "When you are 40 and have children you will change your mind." What, you mean when dementia sets in? Sure. Maybe I'll also become firmly convinced that I'm a duck.

Posted by: Sarah Brabazon-Biggar at August 13, 2005 09:30 AM (7OhrX)

93 Anne> I actually agree with Rusty 100% on this issue. If someone wants to get drunk in their own home, that's legal. So why isn't it legal to get stoned in your own home? > ... Anne> Legalization of drugs in the U.S. would, overnight, destroy the black market industry in trafficking them, and a good amount of the associated organized crime would vaporize. Drugs would become cheaper, and their quality would be consistent and reliable. If you read Anne's post and did NOT IMMEDIATELY SEE the problem. then YOU are part of the problem. The problem of idiots who do not think. Let me spell it out for the simpleminded. Legalizing pot has no effect whatsoever on the sale of harder drugs, the ones that do much more serious damage. Those gunshots that wake you up at 2 A.M.? Those shots aren't being fired by two cancer patients fighting over the last hit of 'medical' pot in the city, you moron! And yet, idiot after idiot denounces the 'evil' of drug laws, while slyly talking only about the bad effects of pot, which are far less serious than most drugs. Show some honesty and tell us about how wonderful it would be to legalize the wonderful aspects of crack, you charlatins! If you only want pot legalized, 90% of the arguments against drug laws are off limits to you, including violence, swelling jail populations, and all those other clever little tricks where you blame the laws for the actions of the lawbreakers. Got it?

Posted by: Ryan Waxx at August 13, 2005 11:24 PM (mcKoW)

94 Ryan Waxx, About 70% of female heroin users were sexually molested as children. Give you a clue? Drugs are a symptom. So if as seems likely only people in extreme pain take pain killers (and cocaine IS a pain killer) then what is the problem? Heroin

Posted by: M. Simon at August 14, 2005 06:35 AM (9CsiD)

95 I'm 60, have children, and have changed my mind. I used to believe in just pot legalization. Now I believe in legalizing all drugs and disbanding the DEA. Perhaps they could put the effort into counter terrorism say. Or tracking down pedophiles. Why pedophiles get probation

Posted by: M. Simon at August 14, 2005 06:42 AM (9CsiD)

96 greyrooster, I didn't say that. Newspapers around 1910 said that. It is the usual moral panic bit. The next crack epidemic could be rock 'n roll. No wait, that has already been done to death. Did you know meth use was in decline well before the latest round of scare stories?

Posted by: M. Simon at August 14, 2005 06:56 AM (9CsiD)

97 Sarah two names. If you allow or advocate the using of hard drugs around your children you will be a duck. Leader of a flock that runs around quacking all day.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 14, 2005 10:40 AM (CBNGy)

98 Lots of good info on this subject. It's Sunday. I'm in my own home. I will now indulge in my favorite drug. A beer on the porch with some friends. I know its against the law. I just can't help myself.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 14, 2005 10:52 AM (CBNGy)

99 M. Simon, OK, I'll bite. If a fixed fraction of humanity gets more relief from their pain with illegal drugs than the rest of us, how come 40% of Americans have tried them but only 17% of Dutch?

Posted by: Jeremy at August 14, 2005 02:41 PM (uGQet)

100 Because being a consummate liar is a necessary prerequisite to getting a job at a poll company?

Posted by: Ryan Waxx at August 15, 2005 06:08 AM (taayn)

Hide Comments | Add Comment