Fight Cigarettes But Legalize Drugs?
So, if I understand the argument, the government should cease its wasteful prohibition of drugs, allowing any and all so inclined to consume any and all substances, all of which will be regulated and taxed for the purpose of reducing their consumption.
But if these advocates for legalization remain true to libertarian principles, shouldn’t they argue against any government role at all in the production and consumption of drugs? And if drugs are decriminalized, shouldn’t free markets dictate how they are sold and to whom? With government prohibitions — and, presumably, any social stigma — removed, shouldn’t drug producers be allowed, even encouraged, to strive for an increase in their market shares through advertisement of their products?
But if one is willing, as are Fleming and Gray, to depart from such an unadulterated libertarian position and admit that drug use ought to be discouraged, what then is the government’s proper role in the discouraging? I am not unsympathetic to libertarian arguments, whether they pertain to drugs or anything else, but if those arguments fly in the face of common sense and experience, the prudent man pauses to reflect. And here in California, experience has brought many to just such a reflection.
In 2000, California voters passed what was known as Proposition 36, more formally known as the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act, which gave nonviolent drug offenders the option of enrolling in treatment rather than going to jail. But a study conducted in 2007 found that less than half of those sentenced under Proposition 36 completed a treatment program, and that more than a quarter of them failed to show up for treatment at all. To those who understand the manipulativeness and self-absorption of the typical drug addict, Proposition 36 has turned out to be the farce most knew it would be before it passed.
Put simply, without the threat of jail time, drug users will merely use each successive arrest and empty promise of treatment as a free pass. Without accountability there is no hope of reform.
But for all the inefficiencies and even horrors that have attended the drug war — and I acknowledge there have been many — there remains a compelling philosophical argument for keeping drugs illegal, one that cannot be negated by any appeals to pragmatism or libertarian “freedom.” If we allow that people should be free to use drugs, are we not acquiescing to some uncertain number of them becoming addicted to those drugs? Can a man then be said to be truly free if he has allowed himself to become enslaved to his addiction? And are we to stand idly by and observe as our fellow citizens become thus enslaved?
Or do we rather have an obligation, as Edmund Burke said, to place “moral chains” on our appetites? “Society cannot exist,” Burke wrote, “unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”
I am not so very old, but I am old enough to remember when taking drugs was considered shameful. Someday soon the only habit freighted with such a stigma will be smoking cigarettes. This is not progress.
A police officer who has read Burke? We need more like you friend. If I grant that “we…need to place ‘moral chains’ on our appetites”, then is it ethical for the Federal or State Government to do it? The Constitution is a contract entered into on our behalf by our ancestors. I don’t recall any part of it which grants authority to manage our moral lives. Once you grant it that power, you may become a greater slave than any druggie. The State government has the authority to forbid us murdering each other. Should it have the authority to keep us from murdering ourselves, based upon the State’s consequent role as moral arbiter? Such authority enslaves the common man.
True words, clever words, but the “war on drugs” seems to be lost, not just in the USA, but globally. Police can’t win it, treatment, councelling, anti-drug-propaganda don’t seem to help much either.
It’s time to end the taxpayer wasted money used to fight the unwinable ‘war on drugs’. Drugs should be legalized so that companies can patent them and sell them either by prescription or otc. I’m sick and tired of gangs violence, terrorism and government abuse of power via the ‘war on drugs’. If only the President, House, and Senate could exercise a modicum of common sense. But I aint holding my breath, seeing as these idiots passed a bill that is going to ban the incandescent light bulb in favor of government mandated CFL mercury vapor filled ones.
The war on drugs is lost.
A MUST read for everyone is
Red Cocaine
it is this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Red-Cocaine-Drugging-America-West/dp/1899798048
We got to the point when an immediate legalization of all substances is the only way to stop the corruption of our Government
Later when we put drugs under the same level of control tobacco and alcohol is:
we will design a policy towards more prohibition.
lets cut loses and act fast
The wisdom in regulating mind-altering drugs should be self-evident in their mind-altering nature. It makes them inherently dangerous to more than just the user.
I find it impossible to believe that a civilization that stones cigarette smokers while advocating hard drug use can morally support decisions involved in deciding which drugs are legal, to what age groups, and how we deal with the ramifications. And, having dealt with illegal drug abusers in my family, I also know it’s unrealistic to simply legalize all addictive drugs. We look to the FDA to tell us which foods have no health value, so who’s going to determine which drugs have value or not? Pot abuse is not benign, as all counter-culture supporters would have everyone believe. We are in the process of outlawing nicotine, so what would be the logic in legalizing pot? Don’t give me the crap that it’s not addictive, I deal with a family member now wasting his life away because he’s perfectly content to surivive during the day and get stoned at night. So, all of these “illegal” drugs the LA Times and others want to legalize have the same, or in most cases profoundly more addictive substances than the cigarettes the LA TImes and others are damning at the same time. So, who decides which drugs are legal and which are not? IF we just give up the war on drugs, who’s going to deal with the addicts and the crimes they commit? I’m not going to, I want all dealers in prison. So, who’s it gonna be? Don’t just tell me to live and let live, because addicts don’t live that way. They inflict their addictions into others’ lives by committing crimes against those that choose not to live a life clouded by drugs. I see so much bad, and so many lives destroyed by drugs, and the only reason I see to legalize them is the credo “we can’t win”.
Pathetic.
I personally fight a war on drugs every single day by trying to keep the child I’m responsible for on a track to a happy, fulfilling life. I do that a lot by pointing out how unfulfilling life can be for an addict. In this case, it’s her brother who she adores. He’s a dishwasher now. And, probably always will be. He could have gone to college, he could be making music, he could be doing a lot of things. But, he’d prefer to smoke a joint at the end of the day and just forget he ever had those options.
That’s what you all who want to surrender are offering teh next generation.
Quite frankly, I’d prefer their worst habit be smoking cigarettes.
What’s the definition of insanity…doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome?
think out of the box a little bit. It’s all about values and excess. Water is poisonous too if you drink too much.
Moonage:
in the mid 90s a friend went to a corporate party at Micromedia when it went public
the owner of a the company was rolling joints fro every one and of course smoked it himself
so it is not drugs – it is so MUCH MORE that will determine the way your life will take
may be the best way to help a kid would be to demonstrate some intellect to him?
tobacco is much more addictive the anything else. We all know it. And it kills more then any other preventable causes of death.
Peole need sometimes to get out of reality: they drink booze and get addicted to it and their brain cells die
Cannabis also gives you ephoria but is it not addictive
The fact that some punk is a dishwasher just proves that his guardians were idiots.
Can we really stand by and watch fellow men be enslaved by the comfort of modern plumbing and air conditioning?
I think the article displays a pretty typical LEO attitude, that believes that social stigma and government prohibition should always go hand in hand. I find that scary.. putting freedom in quotations does not reassure me.
If we allow that people should be free to use drugs, are we not acquiescing to some uncertain number of them becoming addicted to those drugs?
Yes, now tell me what is wrong with that?
Can a man then be said to be truly free if he has allowed himself to become enslaved to his addiction?
He became enslaved by his own free will. He should be completely free to do this. No one FORCED him to become an addict.
And are we to stand idly by and observe as our fellow citizens become thus enslaved?
Not necessarily, but using FORCE to prevent them from making their own decisions is decidedly NOT FREE. This is worse than doing nothing.
“The wisdom in regulating mind-altering drugs should be self-evident in their mind-altering nature. It makes them inherently dangerous to more than just the user.”
If it were inherently dangerous to others, I wouldn’t have to ask you to explain how. How is it inherently dangerous to others?
“We look to the FDA to tell us which foods have no health value”
YOU may look to the government to keep yourself safe, but I don’t. Ever hear of Vioxx?
“who’s going to determine which drugs have value or not?”
The user that’s who.
“I deal with a family member now wasting his life away because he’s perfectly content to surivive during the day and get stoned at night.”
Sounds like he made a free will decision you simply don’t agree with. The fact that he is perfectly content tells me a lot. He’s happy with his decisions. In this case, it is you that have the problem, not him.
“They inflict their addictions into others’ lives by committing crimes against those that choose not to live a life clouded by drugs.”
We already have laws against the crimes that they commit. The reason they commit the crime is irrelevant. By your logic we should ban cars, because they kill people. Also, part of the reason they commit crimes is because the activity they are trying to take part in voluntarily is illegal. How many crimes are committed to further a drinking or smoking habit?
Part of the purpose of legislation is to reinforce existing social stigmas. Example: incest. Your average person probably isn’t seriously considering dating their cousin, and it isn’t primarily because it is against the law, but because of the stigma attached to it apart from the existing law. The law only reinforces the stigma and acts as a deterrent, and ultimately inflicts a consequence if the stigma is ignored.
I think the same applies to drugs. Most people are responsible adults and would not put their well-being in jeopardy for the sake of a temporary high. For them the, “That’s a stupid waste of time” social stigma is enough to restrain them, but given the right circumstances, like some life changing event that causes depression, the social stigma alone may not be adequate to deter them from experimenting. This is where the law works to deter and ultimately punish.
Sean: Regarding your point about crimes committed to support a drinking or smoking habit: crimes are committed all the time by people who are addicted to cigarettes or alcohol, but can’t afford to pay for their habit. The argument that legalizing recreational drugs would somehow “cure” the drug-related crime problem is weak, because drugs would still cost money to purchase whether you do it in an alley or at your local pharmacy. Legalization would only make the production, distribution, and purchase of the drugs legal. I suppose that would mean less people in jail, ultimately.
Why do you believe that attempts to stigmatize cigarettes were successful in making that consumption shameful, but you don’t believe similar efforts will also make drug consumption shameful? I’m all for strongly discouraging drug use, but does it really need to be done with police, guns, and jail?
Drug consumption is considered shameful, and I think this was accomplished aside from intentional efforts to stigmatize the practice. Seeing a drug addict in action, or hearing about what happens to people who are addicted to alcohol is a very effective deterrent. Considering the addictive qualities of drugs and the potential for overdose, I would say heroin (for example) is considerably more dangerous then smoking so a stronger stigma is needed. What better way to add stigma and discourage drug use than to make it against the law?
On smoking, if it is the health threat governments claim, they have to ban it. Right now most people who smoke do so at home where there are small children, sick children, pregnant women, old people, infirm people, in short millions of people put at “risk.” The smoking bans are not even half a loaf. All government does by banning smoking in public places is roll back freedom. They don’t have the police resources to enforce the ban depending instead on an undeputized posse of snitches, one citizen spying on another, as in the old Soviet Union. It’s a nuisance sure, but in interest of freedom, they should always provide ventilated space for the smokers.
If they ban it, they will lose a vast source of income, and enough people will still want to smoke who will be supplied by criminals, as they are supplied now in jurisdictions where the legal price has gone the roof due to exaggerated taxes. These taxes hit poor people mostly. For some smoking is the only pleasure they get in life. Heaven forbid that poor people get some pleasure out of life.
I grew up in Canada where in winter there are only slits on windows for air and both parents smoked and then so did I. My mom, bless her, lived to 84. How did that happen? And how come I’m still here 100 per cent healthy thank you having smoked for more than 50 years, and enjoy it? To me a cigarette is rapidly becoming a symbol of freedom from oppressive government and that’s not a good thing.
The question is: who do we trust more?
Do we (1) trust the people with liberty, messy as that may be, or (2) trust Government, with all its coercive power, to tell us what’s good for us?
I vote (1).
But wait: ice cream poses health risks as well (High in fat! High in sugar! Strokes! Myocardial infarctions! Diabetes! Billions in health care costs!); should Government ban it? The trans-fat ban already is in force, in New York. Now the city is requiring calorie labels on all foods served in restaurants. But, it’s for our own good.
I LOVE BIG BROTHER
I LOVE BIG BROTHER
I LOVE BIG BROTHER
I LOVE BIG BROTHER
My goodness, whatever could have gotten into me. I’ll eat my high-fiber synthesized protein wafers. And I’ll like it!
- T
A mistake is being made by some here bundling all illicit drugs into one category as if they would all be regulated in the same way.
Some few distinctions have been offered:
1. Is it mind altering?
All of the drugs people enjoy are mind altering from caffeine and cigarettes to LSD or opiates so any distinction there is necessarily on a sliding scale. A tab of acid is certainly more mind altering than a cigarette but there is an awful lot of space in the middle filled by other drugs. Alcohol and marijuana are both mind altering in different ways, but given similar levels of intoxication (sharing a joint or a bottle or two of wine) it is quite difficult to say which is more mind altering.
2. Is it addictive?
If the standard is physical addiction this would eliminate cigarettes and alcohol, and leave in many illicit drugs. If the standard includes psychological addiction then virtually any pleasurable act would become illegal. And again here there is a sliding scale on how addictive different drugs are.
3. Can one remain a functional/productive member of society while remaining a casual user?
For almost all drugs the answer to this is yes. If you become a heavy user of most drugs (even the legal ones) you tend to become less productive.
As with currently legal drugs regulations on currently illicit drugs would differ for different drugs. The actual societal cost of full legalization should be weighed against regulation and prohibition. As it stands now our drug laws are nonsensical. In most parts of the country marijuana is more tightly controlled than heavy opiates and that is remarkably stupid. As a result of this poorly thought out drug policy it is easier for inner city 12 year olds to buy illicit drugs than cigarettes or alcohol and gangs are made much more profitable and correspondingly more dangerous. This is where the real problem lies. The dangerous crime problem associated with illicit drugs is not the junkie or alcoholic that steals your car stereo for his next fix, it is the people they buy from. The alcoholic buys from a store that is taxed and is generally a benefit to the community whereas the junkie is forced to buy from people that are not taxed and are often a blight on the community. Send them both to the convenience store or pharmacy and the life of the user improves, the community improves, and taxes spent on incarcerating people who are doing no harm to anyone but themselves are saved*.
* This assumes close to a zero sum game on increased sin tax revenue and new treatment programs.
Can someone tell me how the War on Drugs and Prohibition are different? I mean other than the fact that booze was much more popular and in general use before Prohibition than drugs were before the WoD began? They both turned relatively harmless people into virtual criminals while making real criminals disgustingly rich. They both cost the taxpayer huge amounts of money with only mixed results. And their supporters both predicted the fall of the Republic if people were allowed to partake. Yet when Prohibition was repealed, no such disaster occurred. Why do we think that backing off on drugs will turn out differently?
I’m not agreeing or disagreeing – just asking.
The purveyors and sellers of drugs are those who bear the guilt for which they are condemned. Legitimate prescription drugs intended to aid and comfort the ill are not in the same category. The users of both who abuse and become addicts are victims .
To say we should stop fighting the drug trade , the production and the degeneracy created by such evil is absolutely wrong. To say we should surrender to evil and immoral vice is totally against the will of man. Mans inclination is to resist evil and fight those practices which claim human life , dignity and freewill.
If a person thinks the the drug culture will vanish if we simply stop resisting is badly informed.
If we this country fails to defeat this horrible evil and submits , we will be irretrievably destroyed. What then will hold hell in abeyance?
In my youth I was a full-fledged minimal-government Objectivist, and back then I would have rejected any idea that voluntarily selling, buying, or using drugs could be criminal. Pushing sixty, and having witnessed the crack cocaine-fueled crime epidemic of the late seventies and eighties, and reading of young women being effectively enslaved into prostitution through forced drug addiction, I see those views as oversimplified and naïve. Reality is usually more complicated than our theories about it, and as far as I am concerned real-world outcomes trump theories every time.
Few of us ever worry about being murdered, robbed or assaulted by pot-smokers or drunks, but crack cocaine, heroin, PCP, etc. are another matter entirely. When a drug is so powerfully addicting that the cravings and pains of withdrawal can override normal human consideration and restraint – or so mind-distorting as to render a person non-functional or violent – its users predictably turn to crime to get the money they need, creating a danger to the people around them. Certainly not every user, and not all the time, but commonly enough to affect the general level of safety in the community.
“Rights” purists might well say that until the addict actually tries to harm someone, it would be wrong to restrain him (or the dealer) in any way, and I suppose in some ideal world this approach works perfectly well. In the real world of imperfect information, easy victims, and manpower-limited police forces, it’s typical for a criminal to succeed with multiple, often escalating crimes before getting caught, if he gets caught at all. It seems pretty clear to me that allowing the sale or use of drugs so addictive that they regularly lead to criminal predation jeopardizes the most basic rights and safety of all of us, and that the presumptive right to sell or imbibe any particular substance must have lesser weight.
We are biochemical beings, and refusing to look at the possible worst-case implications in an age when ever more potent addictive drugs are being created is dangerously stupid. It’s perfectly possible that one day a drug will be invented so powerfully addicting that a single dose would create withdrawal symptoms that are deadly. The possibilities (indeed, inevitability) of its use for enslavement are obvious. And in a perfectly unregulated drug market, such a thing would be the holy grail of products for any ruthless sociopath, of which there are always at least a few.
The problem then is how and where to draw the line between drugs that pose a threat to the safety of the community and those that are mainly harmful to the individual taking them. Personally, I place pot on the OK side of that line, and crack cocaine well to the outlaw side (and I would insist that the user is just as much at fault as the dealer). But such judgments are always a matter of degree, subject to evidence and experience, and open to honest disagreement by reasonable people.
If I was dictator, all drug laws would be repealed in their entirety. If the users can get all they want, in pure form and dirt cheap,
the results will be spectacular but short-lived. Be an increase in funerals for a while but the ugliness would be self-correcting.
Harsh of me? Of course. But the fact remains that prohibition destroys temperance. Even that scrufulous damnyankee Abraham Lincoln could see that. And Fr James Martin of Baltimore has pointed out how alcohol prohibion increased alcoholism for some decades.
And no, I would N-O-T tax alcohol, or tobacco or any of the other substances. Those who are opposed to chemical dependency may not profit from same.
WR Jonas, I’m not saying we should give up, I’m questioning the mechanisms we use to carry the fight. I claim that all evidence shows you cannot eliminate the drug trade, you can merely drive it further underground. Given that, why not respect individual liberty, and pursue other options for controlling the vice – less cohersive, less violent options?
There is a simple fact, which perfectly fits the libertarian ethos: you can’t protect people from themselves. The number of Americans jailed for drugs (sometimes only marijuana) consumption and trade is alarming, and should be a concern for every responsible citizen. One may not agree with everything Thomas Szaz says, but his position on drugs is the soundest I’ve ever encountered.
(I’m not the Steve from the previous post)
So the argument is we can’t win the war on drugs so we should just stop. Well then why not legalize murder? After all cops can only react after it’s been done most of the time and we’ll never stop it.
Also for those we claim that we just need to make illegal drugs legal and everything will be fine also forget to mention the trend of abusing legal drugs like Oxycontin. Could people demand they have a right to these drugs for recreation if other drugs are legal? I don’t claim to have the answer but I do know that the view of simply making illegal drugs legal will not be a magic bullet that makes all the crime go away.
“crimes are committed all the time by people who are addicted to cigarettes or alcohol, but can’t afford to pay for their habit.”
Stop taxing it so much.
“The argument that legalizing recreational drugs would somehow “cure” the drug-related crime problem is weak, because drugs would still cost money to purchase”
Never said it would be a “cure.” Of course they would cost money, but much less then they cost now.
Come on now. Everyone knows that cigarettes damage your lungs but marijuana is MEDICINE. You know, it’s GOOD for you.
Nobody is claiming legalizing drugs is a “magic bullet.”
But it will get rid of the underground street trade and the violence associated with it. It will decriminalize the majority of users. Certainly there will be an increased risk of addiction, but compared to what we have now is it a better or worse alternative.
If other producing countries follow suit, you’ll see a decrease of narco-terror in places like Columbia and Mexico. Illegitimate producers would be legitimized, regulated, and taxed, increasing the economy of those countries.
Murder violates the rights of another, the person being murdered.
A person using a drug, any drug, doesn’t violate the rights of anyone, unless they choose to commit some crime while on the drug. Whether that is alcohol, pot, coke, or acid, the act of violating someone else’s rights, or putting others in danger is what is punishable.
This is something that ought to be seriously studied, and cautiously approached. Personally, I would put pot on the same level as alcohol, and regulate and tax it the same way.
To say we should surrender to evil and immoral vice is totally against the will of man.
So I suppose next you’ll say we should make adultery illegal again.
Enslavement of some to the will of other men is evil as well. So how do you justify using the power of the government to enforce your notion of what is good and proper on those that don’t agree with you?
It’s funny, I used to bring up the ironic scenario discussed in this article involving cigarettes vs. drugs years ago, when the first really petty-minded restrictions on smokers started coming into force. I am not referring to separate areas, or no smoking in offices, shops, etc (I can understand that), but things like the sneering stares and snide comments when one indulges in a legal substance in an outdoor space, or in their own home…
People looked at me like I had two heads.
Fast forward to now, and walk down the street. The smell of dope is everywhere in public places. People get high wherever they choose, with impunity. No one bats an eye. In fact, its use is being “normalized”. Soon it will be taxed. Why?
Because we are being indoctrinated to think this way. Society has to have a whipping boy; in the past, it was drug users. Now it is tobacco users. The reason; because a population that chooses to blank out reality with drugs when it is not working itself to death to pay exorbitant taxes is easy to control. Keep it stupified with drugs, trash TV, and a consumption mentality and you can take away its freedoms by stealth. Think frog in a pot of boiling water… Think of the population of the USSR being kept docile and quiet through alcoholism; vodka, not Marx or religion, became the opiate of the masses. Here in the West, it will be drugs…
I used to be ambivalent about soft drug use. Until I watched someone I loved and wanted to marry transform from an occasional joint smoker into someone who lit up upon waking, before work, after work, before going out, etc, etc, etc… The personality change was remarkable. Someone I thought cared about me deeply turned into a cold, manipulative, emotionally vacant shell, who cared about nothing but herself. Eventually it became obvious to her I was unhappy with this state of affairs, and out I went with yesterday’s trash…
Think of this mindset occurring on a national scale. Look around and it is visible everywhere; it is creating a population that cares for nothing other than its own immediate needs. Which the nanny state is only too happy to provide, for the small price of a little more of your freedom…
Better a free-thinking tobacco user, than a drug-addled slave…
it is never so obvious as in a conversation about the legalization of drugs that the intellectual diseases of ideological blindness and rationalized vanity afflict “libertarians” as much as marxist-leninists, maoists, anarchists, or islamists. anyone can see with his own the degredation of other aspects of the culture and social norms that no one would want regulated by government either – and yet, how are we to correct rampant sexualization, sneering corrosive bitchery, cultural levelling, and sheer stupidity? clearly the 1st amendment prevents meaningful regulation. anyone who thinks legalizing drugs will end the black market lacks imagination: colombian farmers will always be able to work or be coerced to work for little enough money that pushers can reduce the price below what commercially produced cocaine according FDA-regulated standards will require. you guys are not nearly as economically, philosophically, or morally savvy as you think you are, probably because you’re so hard up to appear like apostles of liberty that you forget wisdom consists in moderation of all things, not the lopsided investment in FREEEEEDOM!!!!!!! that you think it does. go back to school, morons. you have plenty of freedom, and you are not at risk.
Government has so screwed up the tobacco industry it’s a crying shame. Their goals are as much to drain the pockets of smokers with unfair excise taxes than to minimize juvenile cigarette use. People subject to unfair taxation will find alternate means of achieving products. In this case it’s the Indian reservation cigarette sales that popped up throughout the states and on the internet. Government’s stupidity and lack of foresight have caused reduced monies from cigarette taxes. Long time cigarette smokers are unfairly punished. Their elected officials need to be punished too. Smokers should unite and send a message to its local and state leaders to stop the malicious taxation and to allow people to smoke in designated areas or else find themselves looking for a new job.
The problem with cigarettes is that the smoke is discharged in such a way that it is either extremely unpleasant or dangerous to those who chose not to smoke. Now someone will say that studies do not confirm this but when I inhale secondary smoke I have asthma. So it is not safe. As to the health effects, that is the smokers problem and not the governments.
On legalizing drugs. This should be done now, immediately. I have worked in a public hospital and have seen the results of our failed policy on drugs. People are sick with AIDS and hepatitis C as a consequence of bad medications and bad works. The percent of people using drugs is the same now as it was before restriction was imposed in 1913. The cost to the taxpayer is enormous and the economic system that is providing illegal drugs is fueling gangs and other undesirable elements. If we eliminated the “war on drugs” then we could likely pay for health insurance for all. In addition, if we completely elimiated the drug restricitons then you would substantially reduce the need for your doctor. Think of the ability to go to a drug store and get a powerfull pain medication for your headache or back problem rather than make an appointment for 2 to 4 weeks from now, wait in the office for 1 to 4 hours, beg the doctor for the medication and then go through all the other hoops to get the drug. It really does not make sense in a free society. The system is in place in other countries that seem to be able to function without big government.
As to Dan. No dan, we are not free. FDR said that he had at least left us with freedom of religion when questioned about his attack on our fellow citizens. That is really the only freedom you have left. If we eliminated all the regulations and other restrictions imposed on us by our great government we would reduce taxes, improved our standing in the world, and many other aspects of our well being would improve. If we left everyone alone the terrorist would like back away as well.
“crimes are committed all the time by people who are addicted to cigarettes or alcohol, but can’t afford to pay for their habit.”
Lower the taxes and the crime will drop.
“The argument that legalizing recreational drugs would somehow “cure” the drug-related crime problem is weak, because drugs would still cost money to purchase”
I never said it would “cure” the crime problem. See above comment.
David:
you are so right!
Check this book ou
Red Cocaine
i am in correspondence with the author. He is not advocating legalization, but he is very much frustrated because of the total failure of drug policies
The book gives a REAL unbelievable impact of illegal drug trade, including enormous corruption on federal level and not just that
Author had several times testified in Senate and Congress
“No dan, we are not free.”
Yes – we are free. What you are observing are not political and moral shackles but the vicissitudes of history. Our country cannot be reduced to an intellectual contract, such as you understand it; it is also a country with a history, just as it was – a mostly English history, thank god – at the time of the war of independence. And our presence and activities in other parts of the world has little to do with the Islamist/SVR/CCP terrorism – it more has to do with the fact that they’re a bunch of raging assholes with governments that ought to be cannabilzed using their own methods. Learn to read, jackass.
kabud –
See? even douglass doesn’t advocate legalization.
i repeat: the purpose of the drug trade – beyond enrichment of assholes – is to demoralize, distract, stupidify, and apparently stir up “libertarians” to annoy the rest of us with their petty preoccupations. legalizing it would probably deprive us of the last group – although how can we be sure they wouldn’t be similarly hysterical about FDA regulations and enforcement regimes resulting from those? – but they would surely increase the others. If you don’t believe that you are truly morally stupid.
Perhaps it’s worth reminding readers in a discussion like this of the definition of the word “fool” as was the case Shakespeare’s time: a fool is not someone intellectually stupid, but morally stupid.
And there you find yourselves, libertarians: a gaggle of fucking fools. Congratulations.
Insanity seems to run rampant on this post hand in hand with the declarations of moral imperative that keeps us tied to our current policies.
You don’t offer solutions only commentary on why your value system is better (or justified)then someone elses. You have to dispassionately and objectively decide which is worse the illness or the cure. And in this case the cure exacerbates the illness (IMHO).
dan:
man if i could only be of liberty to tell you why Douglas is so frustrated. Unfortunately i did not have a courage to ask Joe on the subject of legalization because i think that he and i know that i:
we are totally utterly lost any trust to the rulers of this country,
Even more: Joe thinks that even grass root movements may not work because of a profound brainwash effects.
It is so much worse then we can even imagine.
I suppose some people need the government to tell them it’s not OK to murder people, and that wearing your seatbelt is a good idea. Next they’ll be asking how many squares of toilet paper is appropriate, at what time they should get up to go to work, and how often to pray.
the purpose of the drug trade – beyond enrichment of assholes – is to demoralize, distract, stupidify, and apparently stir up “libertarians” to annoy the rest of us with their petty preoccupations.
And here I thought the purpose of any trade was providing a product for which there is demand. You really need a history lesson of this country, re drug laws, in order to realize how silly you sound.
Whether you agree with a law or not, laws beyond protecting ones rights, are all about control and the restriction of liberty.
i look at legalization totally NOT from the point of personal freedom
i dont think it is a good time now to theoretize on the subject because we are at war and we are losing it fast
from what i learned and can see-
legalization of all substances MUST BE MANDATED IMMEDIATELY
not because it is a freedom to use but because there is no other choice at this point
Was it all legal before 1913?
very well, lets go to that point.
Moral subversion by drugs is only possible because they are illegal.
If drugs will get under control in pharmacies without any advertisement and promotion and with appropriate social stigmatization that we as citizens will attach to them:
it will work so much better then the failed policy of war on drugs
After this initial step we will be watching carefully what is happening and design a better policies of partial or full prohibition or not
http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/08/17/drugWarVictims.html
’nuff said
Drug War Victims
’nuff said
I just can’t get past the irony. In the apartment complex where my mother lives, there is an activist couple trying to ban all cigarette smoking on the premises because of it’s negative health effects. They, however, smoke “medicinal” marijuana. Inhaling any kind of smoke–tobacco, marijuana, forest fire, etc–is bad for the lungs. But somehow because marijuana is a drug people should be more free to use it?
Anneke:
may i tell you something and it comes from experience and reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana#Health_issues
that totally corresponds to experience
u r wrong
if u smoke pot – you need one drag, may be two for a day. Well, may be a joint if you are so much into it.
Also tobacco smell stays on the fabric, carpet, walls, in the car.
When someone smokes even lots of pot, not 1 drag-
smell usually disappears in an hour completely
When you read studies you may notice that there are several positive effects cannabis has
Tobaco has none
But to tell u the truth i dont consider pot a drug at all.
It is something very close to cofein in respect to the intensity of its effect on human body
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/addictiv.htm
If we’re claiming moral philosophers in aid of our arguments then I see your Burke and raise you John Stuart Mill: “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant.” One can argue the penumbras of such a prescription, but its central truth can hardly be gainsaid. To the extent that drug use imposes a cost on society at large rather than simply the individual drug user, the law has a rightful part to play in the matter. But that cost had better be real, salient and mitigable before it becomes a valid focus of legislation. The second hand smoke issue has been a farrago of statistical jiggery-pokery and bad faith special pleading. That smoking tobacco is profoundly harmful to the smoker is uncontroversial. That it causes harm to bystanders is also uncontroversial, but it should not be. The wholesale abandonment of the scientific and epidemiological method in the demonisation of ‘second hand smoke’ is just a harbinger of the Red/Green totalitarians’ desire to control our existence. For some reason ‘slippery slope’ arguments are always derided as a fault in reason. That one thing does not NECESSARILY follow from another is used as a cosh against those who point out its practical inevitability. Not content with banning smoking in pubs in the UK, the Puritan zealots have now set their sights on restricting alcohol consumption. There’s no reason a priori why one should lead to the other, but one would have to be more than routinely naive to fail to predict it.
If quoting J. S. Mill isn’t enough, then maybe a couple of bons mots from that eternal scourge of Puritanism and Tartuffery, H. L. Mencken, will do:
“Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”
and
“When A annoys or injures B on the pretense of saving or improving X, A is a scoundrel.”
P.S. just to head off the inevitable: I have never smoked a cigarette in my life; I think it is a filthy and disgusting habit and if by some act of God every smoker in the world decided tomorrow to give up his or her addiction I would be more than happy – as long as the decision was not coloured by the threat of Puritan bigotry and coercion.
Enslavement of some to the will of other men is evil as well. So how do you justify using the power of the government to enforce your notion of what is good and proper on those that don’t agree with you?
The libertarian view of if leave each other alone will be fine. Again what about drugs that right now you can only get with a doctor’s prescription. These drugs are legal but there is a thriving black market trade in them. Wouldn’t people demand access to them too once the other drugs are legal. If you don’t think they will then you don’t know addicts. One area for sure were it will make things worse is on our medical system which will see a spike in addicts. The irony of libertarians defending drug use and addicts is that they are the totally opposite of the libertarian ideal of letting everyone do want they want as long as it doesn’t brother anyone. Addicts want they want and they don’t care who they have to walk over to get it. In my view crack, meth, herion and drugs like that should never be legalized because of the effect they have on us all no just the people who use them.
you got it wrong. marijuana does not equal drugs. marijuana is not heroine. the whole fuss is about marijuana’s legalization not meth. we got soft drug, we got hard drug.
we live on basis of liberty. humans are ought to be able to choose good or bad otherwise we are coded machines! as long as one’s decisions does not hurt others (smoking a joint in your own room when u can afford it without compromising your family’s finances) why should there be a need for govt to be the big daddy of all the children? we are adults, we are responsible, we dont need some1 to look after us… and if there are idiots out there who are junkies, they are and will be and have always been that way despite what the system does, no basis to compare them to 100 million people who have used marijuana at some point in their lives
I see lots of straw man arguments in a lot of these posts (making an analogy between incest and heroin – sheesh).
There are two decent comparisons. One is cigarettes, and the other is booze.
There are plenty of people who smoke. Is there chance of dying of cancer higher? Yes. Do we allow them to anyway? Yes. While there are some states starting to try to charge for the extra burden on health care, no state does more than just restrict consumption by place, age, etc.
Booze is another thing many people “do” on a daily basis – whether it be a beer at the bar or a glass of wine with dinner or a scotch to relax after work. Sure, there are people who are alcoholics, but not since prohibition was repealed have we said you can’t drink. Any why do people drink? Well, to get high for an hour or two (per drink).
So, what’s the big deal if you smoke pot? People do it to get high for a few hours. Many people (myself included) do it on a daily basis after work. I have a successful career in IT, my house is paid for, and the only debt I owe is what I put on my credit card in the last 30 days to get airline miles. Do other people become potaholics? Sure, but that shouldn’t mean nobody else gets to enjoy it. Do I have a higher likelihood of getting cancer. Sure, but don’t discriminate more against me for a bowl a day than the guy who smokes a pack a day.
I think many of the arguments for legalization are weak (We can tax it!, yeah, that’s the ticket!). In a 3 trillion dollar debt load, whatever taxes you can generate will be tiny. We lost the war on drugs. Well, that’s sort of a medium sized argument. It’s true we spend a lot of money on it, and put people who aren’t actually hurting other people in a place where you put people who enjoy hurting other people.
If you put me in jail for smoking pot, you would lose a productive member of society (who would be costing taxes rather than paying them), my wife would, effectively, become a single mom, and two “A” students would lose a dad (and probably some points off their GPA).
By the way, you can ditch the “putting them at risk” argument away. Don’t make me laugh. If I lived int a state where I was doing 5 years in the joint for a joint, I wouldn’t, but I live in California. It isn’t Amsterdam, but … Well let me put it this way. One reason why prop 36 is ineffective may have something to do with a “medical marijuana” prop that guts it.
By the way, if the Republicans want to pick up a lot of votes, just change the party platform to decriminalizing. You have no idea how many people smoke pot because it is forced underground, but there are a lot of them who stick with the dems for this reason.