Should Drugs be Legalized?
This is clearly a complex social issue, made more so by the Mexican border control matter now at hand.
Just about everyone concerned about the direction of our society would like this to go away, or at least stay out the sight of polite society. Meanwhile polite society's children join right in; the poor even more so.
The Parade of Horribles
Drug criminals flourish.
Now, we have Barbarians at the Gate of the
Do We Want to Fight a War on Drugs?
There is no evidence of this being an issue which is taken seriously in
Since this is an international phenomenon involving wealthy, casually interested populations as well as banana republics and lawless places, the idea of doing anything more than impeding flows is unrealistic.
But where would be today if, like prohibition, drugs were legal and controlled? By the word, controlled, I am referring to how liquor today is still sold out of state stores in several places.
What is your view?
Alcohol prohibition caused the same problems--crime, violence, corruption, trampling of civil liberties, and widespread disrespect for the laws.
And yet, as one of our researchers discovered 15 years ago, alcohol prohibition was repealed for one basic reason---in order to bring in revenue to government at all levels. That was during the last depression.
Regrettably, "drug" prohibition (which doesn't include the two deadliest drugs, alcohol and tobacco!) is so institutionalized that the voices of sanity calling for legalization remain utterly marginalized. Well, we live in a police state, don't we?
I'm taking the Obama bumper sticker off my car and make a vow to never again vote for someone who would put me in jail for smoking hemp. If that means I vote Libertarian from now on, then so be it. This witch hunt has to end!!
March 27, 2009 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's easy for a politician or political party ,that has little chance of gaining any sort of power, to say they would legalize marijuana. Obama never gave you the slightest hint that he would legalize ganja so go ahead and slap on that other sticker, because I doubt that your chosen party would be any more effective on the War on Drugs.
March 28, 2009 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
See the next comment regarding public opinion---as measured in elections, the only polls which really matter---and drug repression.
You doubt anyone will be effective in opposing the war on drugs--yet advocates for medical marijuana got more support for their reform, than Clinton did in California in 1996, or Bush did in Montana in 2004, or Obama in Michigan in 2008.
Historically, the role of minor parties is to advocate those reforms which the professional politicians are too chicken to support. Most of the New Deal reforms were first advocated by the Socialist Party. Alcohol prohibition itself was first promoted by the Prohibition party. Other examples abound. That is how the system works, and can justify wandering in the minor party wilderness.
As for President Obama, no I did not expect him to accept repeal---at this point. Yet why should I further support him if his policy is put me or my brothers and sisters in jail? If you read his first book, you know he smoked herb himself. If he truly considers that action was criminal and morally depraved, then whatever he smoked was wasted on him. I think he, like a lot of politicians, knows the laws are stupid but doesn't yet see the public ready for repeal. And he is right, regarding full legalization. BUT that only means, we must act to build that support.
And the precedent of the last Depression, when Liquor Prohibition was repealed for revenue needs, must be reiterated. They're going to need Cannabis sooner rather than later, because the Summers-Geithner recipe isn't likely to succeed.
March 28, 2009 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
And by the way, Hemp is not the same as Marijuana. Look it up.
March 28, 2009 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
YOU look it up. Hemp is cannabis. In fact, linguistically, the English words hemp and canvas BOTH derive from the Greco-Latin root kannabis.
"Marijuana" did not enter the lexicon until the 1920's and 1930's. Previously, the cannabis which was smoked was called "Indian hemp." The first reefer madness campaign, documented by Dale Gieringer of California NORML, was launched by California newspapers in the early 20th century, against Sikh immigrants (miscalled "Hindoos" by the newspapers) who were alleged to commit depravities under the influence of Indian hemp.
Marijuana then is a neologism, not a plant, nor a "drug"--and why don't you try to define "drug" while you're at it?
We're talking about law and the legal status of hemp. Here is what the GOVERNMENT said in 1942 when it asked farmers to grow 30,000 acres of hemp in Minnesota: "THE HEMP PLANT contains the drug marihuana. Any farmer planning to grow hemp must comply with certain regulations of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. . ." Then the government issued to the hemp farmers a stamp which was labeled: "Producer of Marihuana."
DEA continues to obstruct low-THC hemp cultivation because to them, HEMP is MARIJUANA. Get them to change their minds and then get back to me about how hemp is something other than "marijuana."
It doesn't pay to bandy words with me.
March 28, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Furthermore, the public is ready for decreasing and not increasing penalties, at least for cannabis.
In the 2008 election, the marijuana decriminalization ballot measure in Massachusetts got more votes than Obama-Biden. In Michigan, the medical marijuana ballot measure got more votes than Obama-Biden. In fact, medical marijuana swept the state of Michigan, winning in every single one of its 83 counties.
Usually, politicians can count votes. But they are so paranoid about annoying the narcotics bureaucracy and the police unions that they STILL won't speak out against prohibition. A Minnesota congressman said, ninety years ago: "Of all the cowards, no other is so cowardly as the average politician."
This is one reform which cannot happen until the people who are most affected stand up for themselves---just as gays and lesbians did 30 years ago.
March 27, 2009 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
And it should be pointed out that there is no such thing as a war on drugs. It is a war on people, and it is pursued by state terror against the citizenry. You are a suspect by definition. I heard a statement today that 85% of employers require applicants to submit to drug testing before being hired. That's worse than communism. We NEED more Libertarians---and if they dropped their Ayn Rand crap and just campaigned to end the drug witch hunt, their political fortunes would dramatically improve.
March 27, 2009 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
When what you are doing isn't working, it's prudent to evaluate if you should keep doing it. "The Drug War" has done little to remove drug use from our society. What it has done is incentivize criminal behavior. We need to start implementing policies that remove the incentive to commit drug crimes.
March 28, 2009 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Border towns such as El Paso are downplaying the hysteria. But of course we should get smart about recreational drugs. Some are dangerous, like cocaine and heroin, both with lethal dose capability. Might be best to encourage the mild versions of each, coca leaf for cocaine, and smoked opium instead of injected heroin.
Pot is of course the safest drug there is, with no toxic dose and no strong correlation with health problems of any kind.
March 28, 2009 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is partly where the legalization movement falls into disrepute. I definitely agree that marijuana needs to be legalized, as alchohol was in the past. It isn't extra-ordinarily dangerous and there is reasonable widespread acceptance of its use. However, keeping many other hard core drugs illegal is still prudent for public health reasons. Cocaine, heroin, meth amphetamines, etc are all highly addictive and destructive. Please, stop conflating the two or permitting that to be done.
Remember, the Opium Wars in China were fought because the Chinese wanted to halt the import of opium into their country, which was destroying their society.
March 28, 2009 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
You fail to clearly differentiate from the bad effects that are resultant from ingesting these chemicals, and the bad effects that are resultant from prohibiting their use, and this is why your argument fails.
Few proponents of ending all drug prohibitions base their arguments upon the relative safety or propriety in the ingestion of theses chemicals. Addiction is a negative thing, yet prohibition is what makes addiction a monster. Prohibition creates intermittent supply, and grossly inflated street prices. The destructive nature of drugs is often greatly enhanced from the interdiction of chemicals used for clean, efficient manufacturing of end-user product. When the US stopped allowing ether exports to Columbia, because it was being used to create cocaine base, the cartels simply began to use gasoline instead of ether. The government, through its affirmative action, is responsible for poisoning its citizens who choose to ingest drugs.
The prohibition of drugs has empowered criminal cartels, and is the reason for the state of violence in Mexico presently. Manufacturers of drugs are not going to care about how the waste from their process gets disposed. It is prohibition that causes environmental poisoning. Interdiction of imported drugs, creates a need to over manufacture them. When the drug's main precursor is plant matter, this causes unnecessary usage of arable land, which would be better utilised from other crops.
The prohibition on drugs is the cause for most negative effects of drug use.
March 28, 2009 2:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
But alcohol is addictive and clearly kills more people annually than all the illegal drugs combined so why should they remain illegal when they don't really cause much harm? After all, it isn't as though they would be more widespread and available if legal. With the exception of heroin, anyone can find any of these drugs in any community in the US with ease. Heroin is a bit harder to find if you don't live in a heavily drug infested neighborhood, but it is becoming more and more ubiquitous.
March 28, 2009 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pharmaceuticals are legal and regulated. My understanding is that some of them can help some people touch God. There is still abuse.
I am for legalization of maryjane. Even though I have not touched the stuff in forty years.
I never really liked it. But I met a lot of people who did.
March 28, 2009 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amsterdam reeks. Needle park with canals. That's one result. There must be some middle ground solution.
March 28, 2009 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amsterdam is not the entirety of Netherlands, and it does not reek, either, last time I was there, in fall of 2008. The cafes are nice.
But it is a case of not really legal, merely allowed. This is different from legitimate business, usually called decriminalization.
March 28, 2009 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mean to say decriminalization is not sufficient, full legitimization is the only useful comparison.
March 28, 2009 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tom Wright makes an important point. Back in the 1970's, reform advocates fell into the trap of accepting decriminalization instead of repeal of prohibition. This disconnected the natural constituency for reform, the people who smoke pot, from the issue, by creating a false sense of security. It removed a lot of the risk and harm which had begun to happen to young people with rich and powerful parents. Those parents had begun, in some cases, to listen to their offsprings' complaints about the injustice of it all. Thus, the Schaefer Commission under Nixon was a first step--but stopped short of endorsing repeal. At that point, it would have made sense to push harder for repeal, but everyone settled for "half a loaf" of reform. To the tokers, it was no big deal---naturally they expected the hysteria to subside and repeal would follow soon.
But the narcotics establishment had no intention of going away. The past 30 years have been spent institutionalizing the totalitarian war on drugs---with the ubiquitous obscenity of drug testing as one of the linchpins. The narcs will never accept legalization even by vote of the people or of Congress, and their immense power is focused on preventing reform. They do NOT want to end drug trafficking or addiction,because to do so would put them out of work!
So decriminalization took the heat off the bourgeois tokers, leaving most arrest and prosecution for possession and use to be directed at the underclass--racial minorities and white poor/working class people.
Along with the narcotics suppression police and prison apparatus, there has also evolved an enormous "treatment" industry, primarily a racket. When they get through with their clients, they have augmented the ranks of prohibition hard-liners with all these dopey ex-addicts---the ones who could find plenty of drugs to abuse, despite their illegality, but who want to deny anyone else the right to legally and intelligently USE, not ABUSE, the substance of their choice. This legion of brainwashed ignoramuses now presents a further obstacle to reform. I do not object to actual help and effective treatment for drug addicts---I've known a lot of people in need of such help (again--DESPITE the draconian laws, they still fed their habits!) Well, as someone else says here, prohibition "incentivizes" drug trafficking. And repeal would make treatment both more accessible and more likely, with the stigma of illegality and the fear of arrest taken out of the equation.
Finally, I sum it up: "To put the gangs out of business, take the business out of the gangs."
March 28, 2009 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Worth adding here that it's really hard to address addiction when the act is illegal. Much easier to deal with alcoholism (not that that is easy) and tobacco by making them uncool unpleasant, generally unwelcome. Thus the campaign against teen driving while influenced is fairly successful, and tobacco is permanently evicted from public spaces.
It is way harder for underage to buy alcohol than pot. The legal market crowds out the black market for alcohol, so if we really care about young people wasting time being stoned we need to fully legitimize adult use of pot.
More available pot will likely reduce other drug use, not increase it. The "gateway" trope is purely due to the illegal supply links.
March 28, 2009 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just so, Tom.
March 28, 2009 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've noticed that many on the Left want to legalize marijuana and they always go on at length about why it would be a great idea, but are very flippant about the drawbacks and effort it would require to get this done.
March 28, 2009 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
"many on the Left" also want to legalize same-sex marriage. And for that matter, many indisputably "on the Right" want to legalize cannabis, and leave marriage restricted. Like Congressman Ron Paul, for example.
This is hardly a left-right type of issue. It is a personal freedom versus police state issue.
Drawbacks? drawbacks? I suppose if keeping 870,000 people a year out of jail is a drawback; if ending the violence connected with illicit trafficking is a drawback; if allowing sick and dying people to make use of a natural therapeutically useful herb is a drawback; if regulating the commerce and reaping the revenue from sale of a popular, non-toxic euphoriant is a drawback; if the creation of whole new industries in producing fiber, food, and paper products is a drawback; if restoring personal liberty and reducing the commando-style police terror deployed against otherwise law-abiding citizens is a drawback; if rehabilitating the Bill of Rights is a drawback . . . oh---you think that's being "flippant," huh? Chill out, dude.
March 28, 2009 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
To clarify: I chose same-sex marriage as an example of another "kultur krieg" kind of issue which politicians are confronted with---not that I don't also think it a reform whose time has come. The old "left-right" dichotomy (labor v. capital) doesn't seem relevant to issues like prohibition and gay/lesbian rights.
March 28, 2009 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amusing, a flippant comment that accuses others of flippancy.
Few, if any of the TPM members who are familiar with my posts, would consider me to be on the "Left", yet I advocate a complete end to all prohibitions against adult usage of any damn chemical which they desire to put into their bodies.
You charge others with being flippant about the drawbacks to this, yet did not even offer up one example. Almost every drawback to ending drug prohibition is greatly enhanced by prohibition, not the other way around, and the loss of personal liberty far outweighs them.
What are you? Some kind of Nanny State Righty?
March 28, 2009 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
How would this be handled by healthcare services? What would be the impact?
March 28, 2009 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kali, i submit that if drug abuse and addiction were perceived as a health problem, instead of criminal acts, and the exorbitant sums of money presently spent on the "Drug War", were redirected towards comprehensive health coverage for all Americans, it would result in less problems from drug abuse and addiction in America, leaving a substantial sum left over to aid in other areas of health care.
March 28, 2009 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
At one point in my life I was a union rep and it was at a time when the industry I worked for began using drug testing as a punitive measure in an attempt to fire workers who had greater protections and benefits than new-hires. Concurrently, management was pushing up profit, which also enhanced their stock options, by doing very little maintenance. “Accidents” that were really just breakdowns do to low maintenance “justified” firing someone who had smoked a week before but still had residue in their system. Many quit smoking and partied on coke on the weekends because it would be out of their system much quicker and they could more quickly pass a drug test.
A test like that which is available for alcohol which can be applied to a benchmark for whether a person is stoned “right now” would help if marijuana is to be legalized.
March 28, 2009 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just wondering....
And I'm fairly certain there will be lots of snark and flame throwing, but I'm going to go ahead and put it out there. Has nothing to do with ideology or judgement, just interested in serious responses:
How do you believe our lives are impacted (yours or others) by the ability to obtain alcohol or other drugs (aside from medical needs for pain, et al.) and....
How does alcohol/drugs (again aside from medical, etc.) benefit our lives/society? If so, how?
We can debate in the abstract about the merits of legalizing/decriminalizing marijuana and/or other drugs for personal use under the guise of concerns about drain on public resources and/or reducing criminal actions ad nauseum; but, doesn't it really come down to individual's own interests and how each believes their lives would be impacted?
But, self centered as each of us are (it's the nature of human's psyche) there is always a ripple effect on others for our choices.
March 28, 2009 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Surely an important debate, and if the goal is harm reduction, libertarian arguments are not persuasive. But legalization would mean huge harm reduction in most cases, if the harm is such things as loss of employment, family destruction, disrupted education, and so on.
Since it is a given that even in stern anti-drug societies, Iran for example, they show up anyway, harm reduction requires acknowledgment of their existence and use. One can't administer aid or seek advice about illegal activity. It stays in the closet, since it risks losing your college funding, among other enormities.
There is probably more social damage done by TV, in the aggregate, than by the handful of lost cases, the hopelessly addicted. Addiction rates for all illegal drugs are lower than for alcohol, much less tobacco.
March 28, 2009 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
First off I would like to echo what you said Tom...great question Aunt Sam!!!
I would maybe like to debate if the libertarian argument is or is not a persuasive one vis-a-vis harm reduction. I think if all drugs were legalized, and their distribution within society was controlled like alcohol or tobacco, there would probably be less people doing them than are doing them now...especially young people. I think it is safe to say that MOST powerful drugs, maybe some of the most powerful ones known to mankind, can be found in each and everyone's medicine cabinets. Now I am not making the case that those drugs should be made illegal, I am just saying the root cause of our drug 'problem' isn't due to the 'illegal' drugs.
March 28, 2009 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
And yet, no one replied to:
How does the usage of alcohol/drugs (again aside from medical, etc.) benefit our lives?
Without bringing in other substances, i.e. nicotine, prescription drugs (abuse), just the legal ability and results of being able to legally obtain alcohol and currently illegal drugs.
Of course, one could state how alcohol has personally benefited each and their family, friends. Or, how being able to legally obtain and 'enjoy' currently illegal drugs would equate to personal positive benefits for them and theirs (not addressing government ripple effects or fear of being prosecuted for illegal substances).
Tom and Libertine - While I have serious issues with the current laws (varies state to state) somewhere in these debates the individual's always debate in abstract.
And, of course, there is always the core issue of living in a democracy.
Do you support the premise that if the majority of the people want to legalize, put it on a ballot (state by state)? Either way it goes, the populace who voted would live with the benefits and/or consequences of their vote.
March 28, 2009 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does there need to be a tangible 'personal benefit' Aunt Sam? There are many activities that people do just for the enjoyment. I am not saying that by either decriminalizing or legalizing these drugs that their consumption should be actively promoted as beneficial...even though drugs like cannabis have tangible medicinal benefits. For example I have ingested many different drugs over the years, both legal and illicit, but I have never taken, for example again, either heroin or methamphetamines. I have had easy access to them over the years and if made legal I would not be any more predisposed to ingest them. I guess my round about post is do we really need to show that there is a 'benefit' to end prohibition of them. The benefit to society, in less incarcerations and crime, saving taxpayer money, and cutting down on easy street access to these drugs are all benefits...maybe not to any individual per se but to a community of individuals, the citizens. If you legalize them they will actually be less readily available, since their distribution can be more tightly controlled, than they are now by being 'illegal'.
And as far as putting it to a ballot...last November both Massachusetts and Michigan residents voted to decriminalize and allow the use of medical marijuana respectively. But if it is to be put to a ballot I hope the debate is an honest one...if it is the citizens will see the folly of our drug policies. Prohibition of 'drugs' is what is making drugs a problem in our society and around the world.
March 28, 2009 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does there need to be a tangible 'personal benefit'? The query/interest is focused on my comment earlier that people usually base their decisions on personal impact.
The ballot issue was about, as you stated, medicinal marijuana. Apples to Oranges.
In short, is the usage of alcohol/drugs (again, not for medical taken in prescribed manner - not abused) beneficial to the individual/society?
March 28, 2009 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
What are the benefits from alcohol or other mood-altering or mind-and-sense-enhancing substances? That is an interesting question, and could be asked of any thing we ingest or of any activity and behavior people engage in. In fact, it should be asked.
And it has been asked and answered through out history. Many religions have employed these substances as a method of experiencing some kind of spiritual effect which is interpreted as divine--for instance, I understand that the Christian church uses alcohol as a sacrament. Now, religion is not necessarily a benefit. Perhaps it is rarely beneficial. You could Google the topic and find lots of eloquence on both sides---the prohibitionists and the libertines.
Some people use these things for inebriation, for seeking euphoriant effect, for stimulus and stamina (coca in South American mountains, or coffee in our own society.) For escape, or for introspection. For fun, or for therapy.
What you get out of it depends on the drug, the set, and the setting. It is different for everyone, although some pharmacological properties are generally predictable---alcohol will kill people with cirrhosis of the liver, tobacco with lung cancer, and opiates with the risk of overdose. Cannabis of course will give you the munchies.
Fundamentally, the question you ask needs to be rephrased as a question about how to distinguish between use and abuse. Again, there are generalizations but no rule which can apply to everybody. So society must devise some rational guidelines, like the limits on alcoholic consumption and driving. But the strictures against cannabis are not rational and have never been justifiable.
So let these theoretical questions take a back seat to the real life issue that almost a million Americans a year are arrested for cannabis (872,721 in 2007, the most recent figures.)
WHAT GOOD DOES THAT DO???
March 28, 2009 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
'Fundamentally, the question you ask needs to be rephrased as a question about how to distinguish between use and abuse.'
No, I asked the question I meant to ask. Again, combining medicinal and 'recreational' only muddies the waters of the intended discourse.
It wasn't theoretical, but reality based. It wasn't about percieved benefits, but actual benefits realized by the usage. To not discuss all the facts about the processes and paths that lead to the end result, rarely yields the best decisions.
For example, it's not as simplistic as limiting the discussion to 'the real life issue that almost a million Americans a year are arrested for cannabis'. An important factor of the equation perhaps, but to not realitistically acknowledge and consider all the elements of the equation, well....
WHAT GOOD DOES THAT DO???
March 28, 2009 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well then, who gets to be appointed inquisitor to decide whether tangible benefits accrue from ANY activity you undertake? Why not let people make their own personal decisions about what benefits or does not benefit themselves?
Don't you believe that people CAN govern themselves? That is supposed to be the premise of our society. Apparently you want to exchange that original premise for another notion that no one can ever do anything because it might have a deleterious effect on someone else or on the "general society." Well, that's absurd.
We have laws to define when one person's behavior and actions criminally infringe on other people's rights. Those laws are always a balancing act, and therefore we have courts to adjudicate disputes.
Either you should accept that people DO have sufficiently compelling motives, whether "tangible" or not, to consume any of the various psychotropic substances, or you should try to remold human nature so that humans would not seek the effects of these substances. Good luck with that.
Anyway, I gave lots of specific examples of perceived benefits---weren't they tangible enough for you? Isn't a cup of coffee to get the day started a sort of tangible benefit? Isn't a beer at a ballgame a tangible benefit? Wasn't Jimi Hendrix's musical inspiration from psychedelics a tangible benefit?
NOW you asked your question the way you wanted to; you rejected my helpful clarification of the issue which bothers you (societal costs from abuse rather than use), so I will in turn ask you:
WHAT TANGIBLE BENEFIT DOES ANYONE GET FROM ARRESTING 872,721 AMERICANS FOR CANNABIS IN ONE RECENT YEAR?
And I will answer it---there is tangible benefit to police, to lawyers, to "treatment" providers, to court personnel, to jailers and prison guards, and to politicians who use "drugs" as a scapegoat to keep from addressing real socio-economic problems, and to the alcoholic-beverage industry which doesn't want competition from cannabis.
March 28, 2009 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well I still would like it to be clarified if it a tangible benefit needs to be shown? Medicinal, relaxation, spirituality uses jump to mind.
Why is the issue of ballot measures for medicinal marijuana an apples and oranges? Just using it as an example of how our citizens are deciding, in a correct way imho, that our existing drug policies are wrong. You were the one who brought up ballot measures...so I gave some examples. Even if you want to dismiss Michigan passing the medicinal marijuana ballot initiative as not germane how about the voters of Massachusetts and other states which have decriminalized it? Doesn't change my opinion that I have no problem letting the voters decide...it'll be a good way to educate people on the regressive nature of our current drug laws. Not only do they not have the desired effect they actually promote the use of the drugs they seek to prohibit.
March 28, 2009 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know many who agree that medicinal marijuana,which has proved beneficial for chemo patients, glaucoma etc. should be legal.
Yet, they are staunchly opposed to legalization of drugs for recreational usage. So, to them - it is apples/oranges.
Need v. Want perhaps?
March 28, 2009 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, Aunt Sam, I point to Massachusetts which just joined a growing list of states which have decriminalized it...for no other reason than for recreational use. In fact the CT legislature, in the not too distant future, looks like they will vote to decriminalize it too. And the driving force pushing the move to decriminalize it in CT is the waste of taxpayer money involved in prosecuting and incarcerating users of a victimless crime. And in many cities, Seattle jumps to mind, the voters weighed in and said enforcing marijuana laws should be law enforcement's lowest priority in their city. I think you are underestimating the public support for repeal of drug laws, at least when it comes to marijuana. And I think ballot initiatives will be helpful to counter the misinformation being used by the proponents of the 'War on Drugs'. Our heavily medicated country, pharmaceutically medicated that is, needs an honest and open debate about how counterproductive and hypocritical our drug prohibition efforts are.
March 28, 2009 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
*inhales deeply*
Thanks Libertine!
Has anyone noticed how we went from a country that used pharma drugs occasionally into a country that uses pharma everyday and for the rest of our lives?
Would that more pharmaceuticals become recreational and occasional use.
:(
March 28, 2009 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The way we prescribe pharmaceutical drugs is alarming bwak. What really concerns me is the way very powerful drugs are prescribed for kids with ADD and ADHD. Back when I was a kid in the 60's hyperactivity was considered a child 'going through a phase'. No one was heavily sedated to settle them down...in fact if someone tried to do that to a child they'd probably face criminal charges. Now it seems like we are indoctrinating children into a drug culture at very young ages...
But the problem goes way beyond what we, as a society, have decided is the best way to control hyper children. And ever notice all the disclaimers with the pharmaceuticals? There is a new drug out on the market for rheumatoid arthritis which has the disclaimer that it may cause cancer!!!! Excuse me? Cancer? You'll fix my arthritis but I might get cancer because of it? Thanks but no thanks, just pass me the joint...that'll work just fine for me.
March 28, 2009 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's only natural.
Yes, and I do know the difference, they wanted to put my kid on those drugs. We got a slick little questionnaire from her school that had "BIG PHARMA" written all over it. We declined. Turned out her problem was epilepsy. I shudder to think what those drugs could have done.
She has to take drugs everyday, and hates it. In one way it's easy to keep her off drugs. Because she's already on a pretty heavy duty one. Not that I'd rather deal with something innocuous like Hemp.
Did you try the omelette?
=D
March 28, 2009 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, epileptic? I'm sorry to hear that. But with the proper meds it can be controlled.
As a society we have become lazy in raising our children. Maybe not in your case specifically but in general. Back when I was a kid, my dad worked and my mom was at home to raise the children. I am not saying that women should stay at home and raise their kids if they really want to work, it is their right to work. But in many cases they have no choice, to make ends meet, but to work. In today's world where both spouses often need to work parents seem to be looking for more and more help raising their children. I think the over-prescription of sedatives to help control 'problem' children is a symptom of that societal disease. Of course Pharma is going be right there in the forefront because as a corporations they will never miss the opportunity to make a buck. There are monetary incentives given to doctors by Pharma whenever one of their drugs is prescribed...the whole system seems to be pushing drugs on people regardless of whether they're needed or not.
Yeah I had some of the omelet...very yummy. Thanks bwak. Did you use my secret recipe with that certain ingredient? It seems the more of the omelet I ate the hungrier I became...
=D
March 28, 2009 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yez, she's been seizure free for a while. That is what I mean, though. People like her need medication everyday because they have real problems. Is depression an everyday problem that requires daily meds? I think not. Shyness? I don't think so. Hyperactive children? Um, no! Old men that want to keep it up? nuh uh, although they might argue differently.
=D
As for raising kids, I was quite fortunate in that by freelancing I was able to split my hours as needed to be able to be there when she got home from school and be able to do things like be a reading buddy, and take her to ballet and karate--while working 60 hours a week. I did pay for that, later. It was worth it. I was "in between" the mommy wars. It was kind of odd, really.
I have more recipes if you ever want them. I still have the windows open and people were barbequing earlier. Yay spring! Hemp chicken wings.
Might be good.
=D
March 28, 2009 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am very happy to hear her illness is under control. 8-)
I think we do agree on the point on the main point of our back and forth bwak. You were lucky that you were able to set your schedule so you could have maximum involvement in your daughter's life. But not everybody is so lucky or interested. But I think we are mutually preaching to the choir.
Speaking of choir this whole discussion reminds me of this song and video...where is the future (that they promised us)?
Yeah it was a nice day...I love Spring, its arrival means Winter is over. As I have become older I have learned to truly hate the New England Winters. Keep those recipes coming!!!
=D
March 29, 2009 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re: the future we were expecting - though this comment's getting pretty far onto the right side of the page, I thought you might be interested in this song (with someone's home-brewed video) by Todd Rundgren:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrZRYzZsOOs
March 29, 2009 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The comments keep on heading further to the right but fortunately not correspondingly in the views expressed. ;-)
Nice video and song, I like Rundgren padre...the sound reminds me of Alan Parsons Project. Good stuff...
March 30, 2009 1:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
in my professional career thus far, I've met plenty of white-collar white married dude rich professionals who toke up. You know, exactly the same kind of constituency that one needs to support a change in laws, and often the last bastion against change to fall. I can say this as I don't partake myself -- don't care for the stuff, prefer a good old gin and tonic.
but why don't they speak up? Because breaking the law is for the lower dirty classes (and wall street bankers--but I will talk about "cruel and unusual punishment" for these types on my own time). Basically, they're embarrassed.
We have to make it okay, socially, to smoke pot openly.
maybe the solution could have something to do with pointing out how much MONEY is made, and by whom, when it comes to throwing the potheads in jail.
March 28, 2009 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to echo some of what Tom Wright has said.
My own view is that drug policy is so complex because it involves several very distinct issues:
- drug policy as public health policy. Unless there is an accepted view on how to deal with drugs as a phenomenon in the context of public health, it will be difficult to address.
- drug policy as a matter of public safety. If you are unable to effectively separate drugs into classes (pot vs crack), they will be always lumped together
- drug policy as a moral view. Addition, even if harmless, is going to be a tough thing to accept for religious communities of most kinds and it can be easily turned into a major "values" crusade.
- drug policy as a matter of economics. In other words - do we actually create more harm to more people by restricting drug use.
The problem in our society is that it is difficult to explain, understand and discuss an issue that is emotionally charged and only presented in catchy headlines on cable TV (AIG bonuses!!).
So I think when these major issues are addressed as a whole, then the government or advocacy group can create a campaign to market some kind of change to the public.
March 28, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I, personally, do not imbibe drugs or alcohol or tobacco, which is the most addictive substance known to science, but I know the problem is complex in our society, partly because we don't have culturally sanctioned 'best practices' in the use of drugs in moderation. Consequently, there use exists in the shadow world of forbidden indulgence, which makes them decadent and alluring.
When I was in my teens I lived in the Dominican Republic. There were no underage drinking laws, if you were tall enough to stand up to the bar they would sell you anything. None of my Dominican friends had issues or problems with drinking. They would nurse a Cuba Libre or a bottle of beer for a couple of hours. They never had more than a couple of drinks in an evening, strictly in a social context. I'm talking about 14,15,16 years olds. The Americans, on the other hand, would get blitzed every time they went out. Enough was only when they were passed out, myself included. My nickname in those days was El Boracho.
My Dominican friends had never had any sort of prohibition associated with drinking. For them it was not forbidden fruit. There was no romance about it. But for the American kids, to get our hands on legal booze was like sailors on liberty. We were unconstrained.
My point here is this, some drugs, such as Cannabis, Coca, Mushrooms, Ibogaine, Kava-kava, the Kykeon of Eleusis, have been used in various societies, some of them all over the world, for thousands of years without much public comment or complaint. Nobody ever made an issue of of Coca leaves until quite recently, in Europe and America. Likewise, Cannabis has been used from Casa Blanca to Kathmandu without there being any controversy whatsoever until Americans kicked up a fuss starting in the 20th century. French intellectuals used to smoke Hashish without French civilization unraveling. It never USED to be a problem.
We now have two historical examples of what happens when a product for which there is an unending demand is made illegal. In both case the result has been the same. How did the Mafia get control of Cuba? Rum running. How did organized crime get hold of Mexico, Panama, Columbia, Afganistan?
The problems related to drug consumption are cultural in nature. Therefore, abuse and addiction are mental health issues. It's BEHAVIOR we should be talking about, not the constituents of one's blood stream. The problem is one of Behavior, not of Experience. We need to constrain and punish bad behavior. Period.
We know that sugar is bad for us. Yet nobody is suggesting prohibition of sugar. Can you imagine the illegal profits to be garnered from chocolate if somehow we could ban the consumption of sugar?
Or white flour? People would be holding secret cake eating ceremonies, and duncan donuts would fetch a pretty price down a dark alley.
This world is simply too absurd to live in, as Jack Crabbe, once said.
March 28, 2009 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you obviously know what you are talking about. an honest man, and an informed one. Bravo!
March 28, 2009 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
We'd be a whole helluva lot better off is where we'd be.
But we don't need to fully legalize drugs. Just decriminalize the use and possession of reasonable amounts of currently illegal drugs and have he government monopolize, regulate and tax the sale and distribution of the stuff. Unfortunately, there are two industries that don't want things to change. They are the illegal drug industry and the ant-drug, law enforcement industry.
We also have a massive case of hypocrisy in our society to deal with given that we all know and understand how widespread the use of drugs is, particularly weed and cocaine. Few Americans over the age of 20 have not at least tried these things. The foolish charade that we are engaged in is really extraordinary. I'm not in any way an advocate for the widespread and easy use of any drugs. I think it is harmful to people's ability to live their lives fully. However, it is counterproductive to continue to treat the use of drugs as criminal behavior since it quite clearly doesn't, can't and won't work.
March 28, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are many who oppose either decriminalization or legalization of cannabis because it is a so-called 'gateway drug'. I beg to differ. Right now the 'gateway drugs' are all the 'legal' ones, nicotine, caffeine, alcohol and prescription drugs...and in fact all of those drugs, save maybe caffeine, are more dangerous to the body than cannabis. The main criticisms of cannabis is its negative effect on short term memory, the allegedly minimally heightened risk for developing schizophrenia and now reports that it might heighten the risk for testicular cancer in men. Consumption of cannabis poses far less risks/dangers than a whole host of drugs available on the market, many of which can be obtained over the counter.
Like I mentioned earlier the real gateway drugs exist and the worst of those drugs are alcohol and prescription drugs...which can be found in bountiful supply in nearly every household in America. Another culprit is a lack of honest discussion of the risks of drug use between adults and teenage children. We get slick ad campaigns to 'just say no' and 'this is your brain, this is your brain on drugs...' (and as I like to say mockingly 'this is your brain with a side of toast and bacon'), which are ineffective because those campaigns aren't truthful. Once a person ingests cannabis none of the alleged 'bad things' that are said will happen do happen. That discredits, in the young person's mind, anything said about the risks of drug use and actually promotes it. So we have a 'prohibition culture' in place which drives demand, higher profits and increased use.
The irony in all of this is that a bag of heroin, which can easily kill a person, can be purchased on the street for as little as $5, doctors prescribe powerful, and potentially lethal if misused, pain killers like Oxycontin like they're candy, while 1/8th of an ounce of cannabis, a very small amount that on its own poses no serious health risks, is $60-$100 depending on the strain and potency.
Please tell me what is wrong with this picture?
March 28, 2009 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
And may I add the completely ineffective campaign for the prohibition of certain drugs is wasting countless billions of dollars of taxpayer money, helping to destabilize governments like, for example, Mexico and Afghanistan, and just makes the trafficking of 'illegal' drugs that much more financially lucrative for organized crime syndicates across the globe.
March 28, 2009 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is an interesting chart which compares the effects of many of the commonly used drugs...
March 28, 2009 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
To fix link...this one actually works, lol
March 28, 2009 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of regulated, taxed and controlled drugs, how about big pharma and their smorgasbord of drugs for all occasions? How is that working out?
Altered states of consciousness are a defense against the corrupt natural order. Legalize or criminalize (I am in the former camp) but we must fix and understand our natural state with compassion in order to counter the menace of addiction.
March 28, 2009 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which drugs? Would there be no limits at all other than perhaps chronological age?
Do you mean "recreational drugs"?
I think we'd see a major collapse in some subcultures followed by invasion of those territories by newly legal entrepreneurs (some of whom would have been in the subculture already).
The allure of the illicit would decrease while the allure of the effects would be a stronger draw to law abiding folks.
Tax revenues would go up, probably more than needed for ordinary policing. The ATF would merge with the DEA as the DAFT (heh) as a law enforcement arm in association with the FDA and FSA.
Street prices would crash and the probably slowly ramp up in a distributed fashion, and the FDA would have a lot of work to do to track the safety and efficacy of various permutations and production methods.
Would only large companies be able to hold production licenses? Or would "moonshine" be allowed as with Homebrew or Microbreweries?
It's easy to believe that the work ethic would be severely impacted.
Would it be a States Rights thing, getting the Feds out of intrastate commerce?
March 28, 2009 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
As far as I am concerned, the "War on Drugs" has been a complete and total disaster. The prisons are full of people who did something equivalent to having a couple of drinks and we've wasted more money than we can imagine.
I don't think we even need to be concerned about whether there is a positive benefit of the drug to society. The point is, if we could stop it, it would have been stopped by now. We can't. It's time to admit that, legalize marijuana, create a whole new industry around it, and tax the crap out of it.
I don't know what the statistics are, but I'd be willing to bet that legalization would cause no more problems for society than alcohol and cigarettes cause. Those who don't abuse alcohol, in all likelihood, will not abuse marijuana. Those who do, might. Who cares which it is. I have an occasional glass of wine, a cocktail from time to time, and if marijuana were legalized, I would smoke it...same mellow feeling, no calories...gotta love it.
March 28, 2009 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The calories come when you get the munchies.
March 28, 2009 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah the munchies are kinda problematic in that regard, lol.
March 28, 2009 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously it's been too long...for got about that! hahaha!
March 29, 2009 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
And just for the record...my record;
Nicotine - constantly
Caffeine - constantly
Cannabis - often-weekly
Psychotropic Mushrooms/LSD - infrequently-quarterly
I completely avoid the following;
Heroin
Meth
Cocaine
Alcohol
All pharmaceutical sedatives, pain medications and stimulants
There is one I would like to add to the 'avoid' list, nicotine, mainly because of the negative effects on my health but also the high cost. But that will be BY FAR the toughest one for me to stop using...the easiest would be cannabis, having given it up for a 13 year period in the past with no physical cravings to use it.
March 29, 2009 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I might be in love.
=D
March 29, 2009 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well right now I am spoken for bwak...I am married to the store I own and operate. I would like to end that relationship and just remain friends. Hopefully in the near future... ;-)
=D
March 29, 2009 1:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are a couple of entries related to this. One of the reasons I think legalization is the best route is this:
__
Lived in Switzerland for 6 years, Basel. During that time they began a policy of providing drugs (nearly the whole spectrum, but cannot recall the restrictions), if addicts also took the substitute intended to gradually wean them off the real thing. At the same time they were on social assistance.
This kind of thing feels good and right to many well-meaning people. But I doubt many have experienced it first hand.
My wife and I both worked in the same company, took trams to work or walked and did not need a car due to the transportation system(another story to be told). We found the city and all that was Switzerland a wonderful experience ... except the drug situation - which was halted there and in most other European countries (CH is not in the EU).
The city spent a lot of money keeping it beautiful, quaint, faithful to its 400 years of heritage, and friendly to tourists and their families.
Once the drug program was in full swing, many locations in the city were established or converted for the purpose of drug dispensing and, naturally became hangouts.
In six months the city on both sides of the Rhine were flooded with these people, needles were everywhere, they were lying in the streets, scaring just about everyone directly or indirectly, crime went through the roof and more illegal drugs flooded into Basel. They darn near destroyed the place.
The Swiss being the Swiss who have a purely democratic, referendum-based voting system, stopped it. But it took them years to restore the city and its reputation.
For what it is worth
March 31, 2009 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink