home

Should Cocaine Be Available at Your Corner Drug Store?

A British writer makes the case for legalizing cocaine.

Anyone disagree? The war on drugs has been an abysmal failure.

< Puerto Rico to Hold Primary Instead of Caucuses June 1 | FL And MI Front And Center >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    As a native-born (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by facta non verba on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:12:22 AM EST
    Colombian, I can hope that illicit drugs be legalized and their effects treated as medical problem and not a criminal one.

    Colombia's problems are in many ways beyond our control. As long as the profits of such a large and nefarious enterprise, then we in Colombia will always be combating them. I am pleased, however, that Uribe seems on the verge of finishing off the FARC. They are down to 8,000 under arms down from 30,000 at the start of his government in 2002. As for Chavez, Correa and Ortega, they are a menace. Chavez has an 47% approval rating. Uribe, after the raid in Ecuador, hit 87% (before the raid, he was hovering in the high 60% range).

    I am a progressive. Chavez has done good things but he is not adherent of democratic principles. Why he chose Bolivar as an idol is hard to comprehend. Bolivar was a tyrant. He ruled by the sword which is why he was asked to leave Bogota in 1830 and told to head into exile. How Venezuela expects to feed itself now that they have closed the border is beyond me. That's his problem now. But Colombia, nor should the US, tolerate any one who gives refuge to the FARC. We will see how things play. But Colombia is no rush to war despite Venezuela's seeming desire for one. Who wants war? 44 million Colombians are tired of it.

    Are those my only choices? (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by BDB on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:12:38 AM EST
    Because while I do agree the War on Drugs has been a failure (it's a health problem more than an LE problem), I do not think the answer is to stock my local drugstore with cocaine.  Marijuana, maybe.

    Agree... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:23:55 AM EST
    ...especially because I live in Baltimore. Evil drug.

    Parent
    Drugs aren't evil....people are.... (none / 0) (#102)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:48:15 AM EST
    The indigenous tribes of South America used coca for centuries....it wasn't evil.

    Parent
    People are evil? (none / 0) (#107)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:58:26 AM EST
    Are you invoking the "guns aren't evil, people are" argument in favor of cocaine? But I agree that I shouldn't have used a morally loaded term, but I was being colloquial. Cocaine and its derivatives are highly addictive substances and drug addicts are not evil, they are addicted.

    Parent
    Of course drug addicts aren't evil..... (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:15:00 AM EST
    People can take drugs and do evil things, people can be stone-cold sober and do evil things...that's what I meant.  Cocaine is a substance, it isn't good or evil...it just is.

    Not everybody who does a line becomes hopelessly addicted, you know that right?  Just as not everyone who takes a shot of Jack becomes an alcoholic.  It has more to do with the person than the drug, some of us are more susceptible to addiction than others.

    Bottom line, just because a substance can be highly addictive is no reason to criminalize and prohibit it's use.  That is tyranny...plain and simple.

    Parent

    I just disagree.... (none / 0) (#114)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:40:11 AM EST
    ...I think it is up to society to come up with a consensus on these things and I believe we have to look at what is really happening in our streets. I can tell you that legalized coke in my city would be a total disaster....too much potential for abuse.Too many vulnerable people whose lives would be put at risk.  I do think that the criminalization of drugs has contributed to the profitability of drug trafficking, but my feeling is that we have to work more on combating addiction, and then we can consider the idea of de-criminalizing drugs in a more reasonable fashion.

    Parent
    So basically you support.... (none / 0) (#116)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:54:32 AM EST
    the tyranny of the majority over the liberty of the individual.  Tyranny in the name of benevolence is still tyranny.

    Thank you for advocating for my arrest...I really appreciate that.

    Parent

    I think she probably advocates for you (none / 0) (#131)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:41:48 AM EST
    to not break the law and not put yourself in the position to get arrested. At least that's what I would advocate for.

    Parent
    Can't do it brother.... (none / 0) (#141)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:09:45 PM EST
    what kind of piker would I be if I let others dictate how I live?

    Best I can do is be careful.  It's the American way...don't be honest, be sneaky.

    Parent

    Not a great comparison (none / 0) (#117)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:57:19 AM EST
    The difference between Coca and Cocaine is similar to the difference between Opium and Heroin, its pretty freaking big.

    Parent
    Having 2 milion people in prison doesn't (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by halstoon on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:00:29 AM EST
    seem to make one bit of difference in the profits of the cartels, so maybe legalization should be tried. Marijuana should absolutely be legal. Heroin I would hedge on, and hallucinogens, while I personally know their lack of harm, are too scary to the proletariat.

    Start with marijuana, stop locking up addicts, and add drugs on a set schedule to give society time to adjust.

    There's also this approach to crack neighborhoods instead of imprisoning another generation.

    Why doesn't the fact that 1 in 9 AA males between the ages of 20-34 resides in custody anger more people, if you look at rates of drug use there is no discernible variation by race, and yet incarceration is overwhelmingly black, and massively hispanic, (heck if you look at the search rates on New York subways that was just released, itd be a high-profit low risk job if you're a white woman or an Asian of either gender to traffic drugs).

    Parent
    It is appalling, and the next president should (none / 0) (#147)
    by halstoon on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:40:10 PM EST
    throw their full influence behind changing that fact.

    At least both Democrats have said they will address the disparities between crack and cocaine sentences.

    That story from the WSJ was encouraging in the fact that in that approach the community is called on to participate in the rehabilitation of those given a chance to avoid prison.

    It is also sad that people like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity don't understand how churches like Obama's Trinity UCC actually are beneficial in their focus on the "black experience and value system."

    Just more evidence of the wide racial divide that still exists in this country, no matter how close Sen. Obama comes to being president.

    Parent

    Let's try Marijuana first.... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by jerry on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:08:46 AM EST
    When the speed limit was 55, most people drove 75.  Then the speed limit was raised back up to 65 against fears that people would now drive 85.  What happened?  Most people still drive 75.

    I agree the war on drugs is a failure, and I agree that society is better off with certain drugs legalized, taxed, and regulated and other drugs kept illegal.

    I have the sense that once people have broken the law by smoking pot, it makes it that much easier for people to break the law by using other illegal drugs.  Make pot legal, and use of illegal drugs may actual decrease.

    I think we should legalize pot and see what happens in five years.

    great program, HClinton says it takes a village. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by thereyougo on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:53:54 AM EST
    I'm sick that prisons and schools are draining the taxpayer coffers that could go to those without health insurance.

    Money diverted to deal with a problem that has to be dealt with in a different way that appears to have little success, judging from the penal population.

    I always wondered why the countries who grow this stuff don't have the same problems we do. I mean they're poor nations, yet, they can't sell the stuff in their own country? Or am I wrong about this.

    Parent

    it should also be mentioned (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:26:07 AM EST
    that the US now has the largest prison population on the planet.  NOT the largest based on a percentage of population. BUT THE LARGEST.  EVEN LARGER THAN CHINA.
    many of those people are non violent drug offenders.
    that should scare the crap out of any freedom loving person.


    Parent
    They sell it in their countries as well... (none / 0) (#44)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:22:28 AM EST
    it just sells for a lot more here.  Like any other commodity, it finds its way to the market where the demand and price are the highest.

    Parent
    great program, HClinton says it takes a village. (none / 0) (#12)
    by thereyougo on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:55:21 AM EST
    I'm sick that prisons and schools are draining the taxpayer coffers that could go to those without health insurance.

    Money diverted to deal with a problem that has to be dealt with in a different way that appears to have little success, judging from the penal population.

    I always wondered why the countries who grow this stuff don't have the same problems we do. I mean they're poor nations, yet, they can't sell the stuff in their own country? Or am I wrong about this.

    Parent

    apologies....... (none / 0) (#14)
    by thereyougo on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:47:44 AM EST
    double posts and words missing, please Jeaalyn  delete these 2 impostors!

    Imust be tired.

    Parent

    that's a rather simplistic (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by cpinva on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:22:08 AM EST
    question. define your terms first. if, by cocaine, you mean what passes on the street, then i'd have to say no. if you're referring to pharmeceutical quality cocaine, that's another issue entirely.

    what most people (including politicians and police) fail to recognize is that most of the physical harm associated with cocaine isn't from the cocaine, it's from the various and sundry items used to cut it. try sniffing talcum powder and see how it feels.

    assume that the average street cocaine is only running 20% pure. what is that other 80% making up the weight? you probably don't want to know. think: the jungle, upton sinclair's expose' of the meat packing industry. hotdogs anyone?

    the same is true for heroin, or pretty much any other alkaloid sold loose; 80% of what your sniffing/injecting isn't the drug, it's filler. don't take my word for it, do your own research.

    practically anything, if abused, will cause harm. however, there is scant medical evidence to suggest that the use of pure drugs, even long-term, is as harmful to the individual and society as the war on drugs has been.

    make it legal, clean it up, take the money saved on police and jails and divert it to rehab programs.

    Excellent point (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by miked on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:20:00 AM EST
    That I don't see being brought up very often - as an R&D engineer in the pharmaceutical industry, I must spend about 80% of my day ensuring the purity and quality of the stuff we produce. Most people would probably be surprised by the fanatical degree of caution we have when producing prescription drugs. I have personally discarded hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of product on even the slightest suspicion that it was accidentally adulterated.

    One of the most heinous side effects of the drug war is the fact that millions of people are putting deadly poisons and impurities into their bodies without the slightest idea of how dangerous they are. Sometimes its alot worse than talcum powder.

    Legalization would take all the money out of it and practically snuff out illicit production immediately. Even with high taxes, no basement lab is going to compete effectively with Pfizer or Novartis.

    No way that snorting cocaine is good for you but you would definitely be alot better off with stuff manufactured by Big Pharma! Everyone likes to demonize us but we sure know how to manufacture drugs.

    Parent

    That you do sir..... (none / 0) (#46)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:24:48 AM EST
    I've enjoyed your Adderal and Provigil as concentration aides, and your painkillers kick ass when the teeth act up.

    I like to beat up on big pharma...but you guys do make some good stuff:)

    Parent

    Well thanks! (none / 0) (#98)
    by miked on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:35:58 AM EST
    It's always nice to have some appreciation!

    And regarding painkillers - another good example of a legalization benefit. We are able to formulate painkillers to be a bit less addictive than natural opium but still provide the desired effects. Also, the natural opium substances are often replaced with similar synthetics so that we can guarantee better consistency and dosing control.

    Most likely the formulations guys could achieve similar safety improvements with other drugs. Because of the pre-existing mentality prevalent in our industry, I think we'd be alot better on that account than tobacco companies.

    Parent

    Do your thing....... (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:50:44 AM EST
    but I would say I would like to have the option to buy the real thing too, as manufactured by mother nature:)

    I didn't like cocaine, but I am curious to try chewing on some coca leaves.  I wish I could go to an herbalist and buy some:)

    Parent

    But Mother Nature.... (none / 0) (#119)
    by miked on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:57:49 AM EST
    ...would never get all the paperwork right! She'd get creamed in an FDA audit! <G>

    Parent
    That's the great thing about mother nature.... (none / 0) (#163)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:06:29 PM EST
    she don't need no stinkin' paperwork:)

    Parent
    Why are drugs illegal in the first place? (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by bernarda on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:21:42 AM EST
    Before WWI, all drugs were legal. Alcohol was the big supposed public health problem though. For a short history.

    http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=Lrd5xtyfjFw

    Virginia farmers can grow the poison tobacco, but Columbian or Afghan farmers can't grow cocaine and opium, at least in theory.

    Whenever I hear a politician or a law enforcement person talk about enforcing the war on drugs, I assume that they are making money from the traffic. They want drugs to be illegal because they are making too much money off of them.

    every time a drug has been made illegal (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Kathy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:34:18 AM EST
    it's because a certain "unsavory" element of society has become associated with it.  

    That being said, the UK's heroin addict registration system works because they have the dole.  Without this important safety net, their addicts would be on the street.

    People use Holland as an example for decriminalizing some drugs, but if you have ever taken an overnight flight to Amsterdam and walked around the city during the early hours of the morning, you'll see people laid out in the street.  Making drugs legal does not make them free.  The ensuing crime comes along with it.  Theft is a huge problem.

    What people also fail to discuss when they talk about legalization is how many women and children are preyed upon by pimps and other predators who use drugs to control them.  I worked with sex workers many years back, and every single one of them had a drug problem controlled by their pimp and every single one of them had absolutely no free will because of it.

    Parent

    But, that wasn't the drugs (none / 0) (#178)
    by splashy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:45:32 AM EST
    It was the tendency to be addicted that led to that. If the drugs were legal, they could get help without fear of prison.

    I come from a family of alcoholics, but aren't one myself. It's a chemistry problem for people, not a moral or criminal problem. It has to be treated, not punished.

    Parent

    Back in the 70's a professor I had (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:27:52 AM EST
    told us that there are two Businesses in the Illegal Drug Market, the Business of Selling them and the Business of Combating them.  Both businesses make $$ Billions $$

    Precisely which drugs (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by tomangell on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:44:54 AM EST
    do folks think become safer when their production and distribution are turned over to violent criminal cartels and gangs?  Precisely which drugs do you think people should be sent to jail for putting into their own bodies?

    The War on Drugs needs to be ended altogether.  We will only be able to begin solving drug abuse and addiction problems once we get rid of the black market and are able to bring things to the surface level so we can survey the situation and respond accordingly with appropriate resources.

    Legalize them all (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by libertarian soldier on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:09:40 AM EST
    And control them as alcohol or nicotine are regulated.  The War on Drugs has been such an abysmal failure for so long and at such cost that I am convinced legalization would be better because I don't see how it could be worse.

    No. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:51:18 AM EST
    Speaking in general here.
    The problem with legalizing drugs is that some of them are so addictive and so damaging, society has a vested interest in keeping people from using them.
    Meth is one example.
    What's the answer? I don't know.

    Can't you see... (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:09:27 AM EST
    that prohibition does not, and can not, stop anybody from using drugs.

    Gimme an hour I'll get you any drug you want.

    Believe it or not I know people who are able to use cocaine responsibly.  And I know people who became addicted and made a mess of their lives.  That's freedom baby....messy but glorious.  

    Parent

    Are you sure prohibition doesn't (none / 0) (#40)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:15:02 AM EST
    lessen the amount of drugs available?!
    I'm not just talking about cocaine.. what about meth?

    I think decriminalization makes sense, but I favor the strongest penalties for those who give drugs to children.  Here's my compromise: decriminalize drug use for a broad range of drugs, but only for adults:
    institute the death penalty for those who deal to people under age X, to be determined.

    Parent

    I think.... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:28:40 AM EST
    the market dictates what drugs are available, prohibition basically has no effect on the quantity of drugs available to users.

    It's anecdotal, but I run in illegal substance taking circles and nobody is unable to get what they want.  Take reefer for example, I read about a major reefer ring get busted every month or so, and I never have a problem scoring.

    Parent

    effect on the quantity of drugs (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:34:33 AM EST
    heres another little secret of the drug wars.
    they (cops) DO NOT WANT to make it unavailable.  they want it out there to justify their budgets and use it for property seizures and kickbacks.
    yes kickbacks.  
    another "benefit" of having cops in the family is that I know, for a fact, that cops are nearly always cut into the profits of local dealer.  
    said dealers usually only get busted when they dont come through or do something else they dont like.
    it is as corrupt a system as has ever existed in this country.


    Parent
    I hear that bro....n/t (none / 0) (#59)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:44:04 AM EST
    being a cynic here! do you think the (none / 0) (#95)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:28:41 AM EST
    drug companies push these laws forward for monetary reasons? i do!

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#126)
    by miked on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:14:12 AM EST
    Drug companies have no way of making profits on illegal drugs. Legalize them and we'll make a fortune, just like on OTC medications.

    Profit margins are better on patented prescription stuff, but manufacturing OTC products (like I assume recreational drugs would be if they were legalized) is quite profitable too and with alot less headaches.

    Parent

    ok, makes sense! thanks (none / 0) (#151)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:52:35 PM EST
    Nothing new (none / 0) (#123)
    by miked on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:05:49 AM EST
    Same stuff that happened during Prohibition. You'd think we'd have learned our lesson from that.

    My grandpa did some stuff back in the 20's that was, er, not entirely legal at the time. He stayed best friends with one of the precinct captains from Paterson NJ until they were both over 90. It was a lifelong friendship. I'd say half of his old friends were cops, the rest wiseguys.

    There was big money in it because of Prohibition. And lo and behold, once prohibition ended grandpa found something else to do and did not attempt to compete with Seagram's.

    Parent

    Was he called Honey Fitz? (none / 0) (#159)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:44:02 PM EST
    lol

    Parent
    yes (none / 0) (#43)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:20:16 AM EST
    I am sure it does not.
    I can, within a day, get you any drug you want any place in this country.


    Parent
    That is a non-answer. (none / 0) (#45)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:23:43 AM EST
    what do you mean its a non answer (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:29:58 AM EST
    you asked if it lessens the amount available.  I can tell you, based non only on personal experience but as I mentioned earlier that I have three cops in my family who LOVE the drug war and talk about it like the windfall that it is to them, that it does not.
    the underworld component makes it available in places that it would never be if it was legal and regulated.  they talk about this too.
    if you are really concerned about the availabiltiy to children, legalization and regulation is definitely the way to go.

    Parent
    I hope you realize that (none / 0) (#181)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:47:56 AM EST
    law enforcement officers sometimes read TalkLeft, even comment on it. Be careful what you say. I highly recommend you not admit to anything unlawful.

    Parent
    That WFB's position (none / 0) (#120)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:00:03 AM EST
    Interesting position, and one I would seriously consider, strangely its also the late William F. Buckley's position on the issue, literally to the letter, did you read him on this or just arrive at the same point.

    Parent
    yes (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:00:26 AM EST
    it should.  it is already available at the corner.
    the dirty little secret of the drug war is that anyone who wants to do drugs does drugs.
    they should be regulated and taxed.
    but it wont happen.  I have three cops in my family.
    the stupid drug war has been a windfall for local police departments as they seize assets to buy their toys.
    wont happen.

    Legalize it (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:27:47 AM EST
    One of the most dangerous, most addictive drugs around (alcohol) is legal and even tauted as a health food!  Every single argument made above about not legalizing coke could be made about alcohol.

    Yes, legalize.  Take the money out of the prison and law enforcement systems and put it all in treatment, education programs.  I suspect the cost would be lower.

    Gavin Newsom tried this is San Francisco. (none / 0) (#65)
    by tek on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:49:46 AM EST
    That city is such a mess now that the business people are threatening to bolt and take their businesses elsewhere.

    Parent
    Maybe not the corner drug store... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by BrandingIron on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:39:38 AM EST
    But the same place people buy cigarettes and alcohol, with the same rules applied (maybe use the alcoholic age restriction standard for cocaine).  Think of the amount of taxes the states and the Feds could rake in on that stuff, and instead of wasting money warring with our South Americans about it, the trade agreement would allow for even MORE money to be raked in.

    But I suppose then that the DEA (maybe change it to the Drug Regulation Agency) would be pretty bored, then....

    Don't get me started on the DEA.... (none / 0) (#76)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:56:55 AM EST
    as far as I'm concerned the DEA should be labelled a terrorist organization.

    I have personally been terrorized by a big black van full of them for the heinous crime of trying to score a nickel bag of funk.  Had the guns drawn on me and was sexually molested...the whole 9 tyrannical yards.

    Parent

    I (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by tek on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:48:24 AM EST
    lived through the hippie drug culture in the sixties and saw first hand the effects of drugs on people, even marijuana which is supposed to be benign and non-habit forming.  I really wish the left would back off from this drug talk.  If anybody doesn't realize it by now, this is one of the things that propelled Bush into office.  Soccer Moms are scared to death of this sort of thing.  When liberal media start touting legalizing dangerous drugs, average people flee the Democratic Party.

    When you look at all the celebrities in rehab, it's hard to say those knee-jerk reactions aren't somewhat justified.  Could there be anything sadder than Britney Spears?

    I hate to burst your balloon (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:51:08 AM EST
    but most of the people, at least the politicians, who are openly talking about this, are either republicans or libertarians.


    Parent
    Well that's what's wierd (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by miked on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:21:40 AM EST
    What I don't understand is, the pro-legalization sentiment is at least as strong if not stronger on the conservative/libertarian side, yet the whole topic remains politically radioactive. I don't get it.

    The most pernicious political sources of the "war on drugs" were probably Nixon and Reagan, but it isn't like many Democrats have pushed back on it. Clinton didn't do anything to tone it down at all. Bush's justice department has gone off the deep end with harassing doctors over painkillers, but the trends were all pointing that way already.

    And the crack vs. cocaine sentencing disparity - one of the major figures behind THAT was Charlie Rangel! What gives?

    Parent

    As you can see from the thread... (none / 0) (#132)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:51:32 AM EST
    a lot of people are under the impression that if drugs were legally available everybody's kid would be hopelessly addicted to something.  Never mind the fact that if theeir kids wanna do drugs they are readily available, though illegal.

    It's moronic, but it works, and politicians don't give a rat's arse about freedom or even sound policy...they just wanna win elections.  So they campaign on saving your kid from the "horrors" of drugs...and tyranny ensues.

    Parent

    Agreed (none / 0) (#84)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:06:00 AM EST
    Democrats are very much the "nanny party".

    Parent
    Yes they are.... (none / 0) (#89)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:14:46 AM EST
    the nanny party.

    Boy I wish we had a viable freedom party.

    Parent

    I wish (none / 0) (#121)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:01:47 AM EST
    Its a bit annoying I honestly thought we were pretty close to socially libertarian, except for on this issue (censorship ala Hill and Tipper Gore is also an exception).

    Parent
    Drugs were illegal in the 60's.... (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:54:48 AM EST
    so your precious prohibition did what exactly?

    Parent
    btw (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:00:04 AM EST
    I lived through the hippie drug culture also.
    and I brought quite a different set of ideas away from it than you apparently did.
    even if most of my friends from then grew up to be republicans, I did not.
    I still think it was a golden age.  and the best years of my life.


    Parent
    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by scarshapedstar on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:52:22 AM EST
    I lived through the hippie drug culture in the sixties and saw first hand the effects of drugs on people

    Ooh! Drugs! We can't have that, now.

    Are you aware that most members of my generation are prescribed an amphetamine to keep them awake during class? It's called Adderall. Look it up.

    Thank god they aren't touching drugs, though.

    Parent

    The corps need a cut (none / 0) (#124)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:07:00 AM EST
    I don't wnat ot sound paranoid but I think at least for Marijuana its quite clear that Drugs are okay as long as the corporations can get a cut, I'd bet if Homegrowing pot, wasn't viable and instead it had to be grown like Tobacco, it would be completely legal.

    Parent
    There's a law on Tobacco? (none / 0) (#129)
    by miked on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:26:14 AM EST
    You mean its illegal for you to grow Tobacco in your back yard?

    No - the corporations can do it so efficiently that it isn't worth the hassle. If marijuana were legal the corporations would quickly figure out how to make money on it.

    I imagine the TV commercials would be interesting.

    Parent

    I have a black thumb.... (none / 0) (#133)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:54:31 AM EST
    I can't get a cactus to grow.  I'd gladly pay a corporation to grow my reefer for me.  I doubt I'm alone.  Americans, if nothing else, are a lazy sort:)

    Parent
    Lazy? Must be the pot. ;-) (none / 0) (#134)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:56:42 AM EST
    Touche.... (none / 0) (#142)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:13:45 PM EST
    I don't bake my own cookies for the munchies either...those are store bought too.  Don't churn my own butter either:)

    Parent
    and what does Britany Spears (none / 0) (#70)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:51:53 AM EST
    have to do with anything but addiction to stardom?


    Parent
    Sometimes the moral thing isn't popular (none / 0) (#122)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:04:24 AM EST
    Honestly, I think ending the drug war might be well worth sacrificing the presidency, its like How Johnson lost us the South with Civil Rights, on some issues morality must trump political expedience (see: Why we must prevent Partial Birth Abortion Bans, or why we should push Gay Marriage or at the very least Civil Unions-- its not popular but its right).

    Parent
    well, i think there needs to be some (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:08:50 AM EST
    kind of regulation, but the war on drugs has failed. i just watched traffic again the other night. as someone who had to work at making sure my step father had enough medication for pain, i can assure you it is frustrating. the persecution of doctors who work with those in chronic pain just sets my teeth on edge.

    more and more and more regulation and no real success! that's what i see. it isn't working.

    Laws must jive with the will of the people.... (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:33:51 AM EST
    or else they are doomed to failure.

    The basic fact the prohibitionists refuse to acknowledge is that people like to get high...always have always will.  And as long as people wanna get high, people will be growing and refining drugs.  This is the reality we must face.  

    Colombia could have all the high paying jobs in the world and they're still gonna grow coca...because people want it.  The only way to stop them from growing coca is to end demand for it....good luck with that pipe dream.

    Intensity is the thing. (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by corn on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:35:42 AM EST
    In London a couple of years ago a bar was selling liquor that you inhaled.  Vaporized it somehow.  Apparently one shot made you unable to walk.

    My point is that when thinking about legalizing drugs it's useful to consider the impact of watering them down.  Putting a little cocaine back in Coca-Cola, mild marijuana cigarettes, etc would be great.  If you had to drink two quarts of fluid to get into troublesome amounts of heroine it might not be too bad.  This is how it is with alcohol now.  

    There would still be some black market demand for stronger stuff, but that would wipe out most of it.

    that's right cocaine was in cola! (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:46:33 AM EST
    like i said, consider the history. the thing is it isn't working. i used to buy allergy medication at sam's in bulk in order not to keep running to the drug store each week. it was also less expensive that way. now it is behind the pharmacy. why? another regulation because someone abuses it. it just seems to me there are more and more regulations all the time and very few successes.

    Parent
    I call it Kindergarten justice...... (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:56:33 AM EST
    back in kindergarten, if one kid started eating the crayons the teacher took away all the crayons.

    You'd think as adults we would have matured a little, but no.  A certain percentage of drug users become addicts and cause some problems so the whole country gets their freedom taken away.  It's retarded.

    Parent

    i find myself agreeing with you a lot (none / 0) (#150)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:51:41 PM EST
    these days. have a nice one!

    Parent
    You too hellothere..... (none / 0) (#152)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:56:03 PM EST
    but I'd keep that to yourself if I was you:)

    Parent
    smile! (none / 0) (#153)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:08:13 PM EST
    No (none / 0) (#164)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:16:41 PM EST
    This is how it is with alcohol now

    4.5 oz of 80 proof anything will do the job nicely, at say 1.5 oz per shot.

    A 12 oz bottle of 6% beer is about .7 oz of alcohol, or two bottles equal 1 shot of Stoly.

    The issue becomes how fast you consume, and how fast your liver can burn off the effects.

    Parent

    I disagree; but you knew that. (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:01:15 AM EST


    oculus, what do you disagree with (none / 0) (#91)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:19:01 AM EST
    and how do you feel about the drug war? all of us have different experiences. it is a difficult topic at best.

    Parent
    I disagree with the idea of legalizing (none / 0) (#172)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:30:44 PM EST
    cocaine.  Also heroin and meth.  

    Parent
    Methamphetamine Is Legal (none / 0) (#173)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:44:20 PM EST
    It is a prescription drug. Not over the counter though.

    Parent
    ok, i can see that. (none / 0) (#176)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:01:24 PM EST
    i guess my area of concern has been more with the laws. for example harrassing doctors who are working with the patients in chronic pain. or those who are first time users or not that involved in the process ie an end user! the laws in new york in my mind have always been way over the top. thanks

    Parent
    CA has much more liberal laws on (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:53:23 PM EST
    MJ.  However, MJ is still a Schedule I substance under federal law.  

    Parent
    mixed feelings (none / 0) (#4)
    by Nordic on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:17:42 AM EST
    I think cocaine is simply an evil drug.  Bad karma all around.  I've seen the lives of people I've known very well simply destroyed by cocaine.  

    It's probably the only drug I think should be illegal.  Of those drugs considered "recreational" anyway.  I mean, morphine, for example, should probably be prescription-only!

    I really don't have an answer (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by badger on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:41:20 AM EST
    but ... I'm not sure if what you say is true. I know people who have used cocaine (along with about anything else you can ingest) and simply grew out of it. I know people who have destroyed their lives with alcohol, or in combination with ritalin, Prozac, Paxil and their predecessors. I know people who have been strictly sober and have still destroyed their lives.

    And a lot of lives have been destroyed not directly by a particular substance, but by the way the legal system treats the substance.

    Before I'd decide one way or the other, I'd want to know whether as a society we're worse off with the current system, or would be worse of with legalization, because as you note, the current system provides plenty of room to destroy lives.

    It would seem there has to be some way to arrive at at least some tentative conclusion, either based on historical data (prior to the late 1930s) or the experience of countries which have gone the legalization route (I believe Portugal is one).

    I think most of us have only anecdotes, not evidence.

    Parent

    You think coke is bad ... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Meteor Blades on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:23:04 AM EST
    ...try meth.

    Parent
    MeteorBlades, Well there's crystal meth, (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:53:45 AM EST
    and then there's "peanut butter crank" - low grade, beige toned stuff that has too much moisture content to cut into a decent snortable powder. BTW, crank - essentially the same outcome but speedier.

    In my experience, the effect of either is largely dependent on the neurochemistry and the life-circumstances of the individual user. I knew people in service industries who abused and became non-productive (but enviably skinny); while others, in grad school, used it judiciously as a study aid, to focus and sustain concentration.

    In brief, the meth 'high' wasn't much different than coke, but cheaper and longer-acting.

    As for the long term consequences of many of these illegal substances; remember the impending generation of "crack babies" Ronald Regan dreamed up to perpetrate the War on Drugs?

    Well, it turned out the so-called crack babies were relatively unaffected compared to babies born with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.

    A number of my associates came out the other end as tenured academics, albeit in the arts.

    Re. drug legalization in general, do like the Dutch.

    Parent

    I have (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:19:01 AM EST
    over my long life I would say there is probably not a drug in circulation that I have not tried.  many more than once.
    and I somehow continue to be a taxpaying citizen never addicted to anything.  even tobacco, which by the way I have used once a week or twice a month for most of my life.
    a previous poster is absolutely correct.  it should be a question of counseling and addiction treatment.
    not a bunch of nanny state "we know what is good for you" crap.

    Parent
    I think you hit on the real answer (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Neal on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:03:03 AM EST
    different people are affected differently by different drugs. There are many more people addicted to sugar and suffer the health risks of it. Let's treat them all the same and help people that need help with what they need help with and leave those that don't need help alone.

    Parent
    well (none / 0) (#85)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:07:30 AM EST
    I do have a serious problem with chocolate.
    but in spite of the protests of my pants I do not think it should be illegal.

    Parent
    Not (none / 0) (#67)
    by tek on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:51:00 AM EST
    thanks.

    Parent
    well regulation is indeed needed. (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:21:15 AM EST
    but it just irritates me to see doctors afraid to prescribe pain medication to those who truly need it . it would appear this system is broken. the new york state drug laws would be a good example.

    Parent
    Morphine IS prescription only. (none / 0) (#50)
    by BrandingIron on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:29:03 AM EST
    You didn't think that morphine was illegal/not available by prescription, did you?  I'm on a daily low-dose of morphine.

    Parent
    Old (none / 0) (#108)
    by scarshapedstar on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:58:46 AM EST
    Yeah, yeah, yeah.

    Look, the fact that I don't use cocaine has nothing to do with the fact that it's illegal. I know people who use it and I could get some if I wanted. But I don't. I know people who've had their lives screwed up and those who haven't. I want no part of it regardless of Johnny Law's views on the matter.

    It's that simple. And if anyone feels that the long arm of the law is the only think keeping them away from all-consuming addiction, they should seek medical assistance.

    Parent

    ... and available as a Slushy flavor (none / 0) (#13)
    by roy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:06:59 AM EST
    Cocaine is incredibly bad for you, but if you choose to do bad things to yourself it's nobody else's business.  It also indirectly hurts those who care about you, but it's perverse to put people in prison because their families would miss them if they were gone.

    I find that I agree with you (none / 0) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:37:00 AM EST
    and if everything wasn't Sooooooo llegal more consideration could and would be given to the study and education about those not so healthy for you illegal drugs.  And the people doing those not so healthy for you drugs wouldn't in some social aspect be "getting away with something", they would be simply choosing to hurt themselves.

    Parent
    Look at tobacco.... (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:42:56 AM EST
    always been legal, always been highly addictive, and it's use is on the decline because of education.

    We didn't have to throw anybody in jail, tear any families apart...we let people use it legally while spreading the word that the cancer sticks will kill ya.  

    Looks like a good model for other drugs to me.

    Parent

    As a smoker who has tried a lot of things (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by halstoon on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:43:19 PM EST
    I can say that cigarettes are the most gripping, addictive thing I ever did. They are also infinitely more likely to kill you than a drug like marijuana.

    Cocaine is not good, but it is easier to walk away from than a cigarette.

    Ever noticed how everybody in rehab still smokes? It's just that ingrained in us smokers.

    Parent

    I love me some tobacco..... (none / 0) (#154)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:13:08 PM EST
    Imagine the uber-black market that would flourish if the man ever prohibited tobacco.

    We'd be one nation under the mob.

    Parent

    Oh, Jeezus. The murder rate would (none / 0) (#156)
    by halstoon on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:20:44 PM EST
    skyrocket. You'd see old grannies and gramps creepin' in the hood to get a fix alongside all the other junkies.

    It'd be chaos. Anarchy would reign. They just thought Al Capone was bad. The cigarette mafia would be ruthless.

    ;o)

    Good point!

    Parent

    The drug war has not worked (none / 0) (#15)
    by KLCarten on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:29:16 AM EST
    I have mixed feelings on this.  On one hand if the govt regulates it like prescrition drugs. Use the money for education and medical help. I think that might help kids not try it, its not taboo anymore.  Frankly, whats the fun in doing something thats legal. I always feel it that if people have facts it tends on helping make smarter decisions. I had a health class in the 80s that discussed sex ed and drug. I will be honest the drug ed scared me to death.  On the other hand will the govt be able to keep the drugs off the street and not make it profitable.

    On a personal side, I am disabled and in constant pain.  I have to take painkillers and it hard to deal with it. I have to go thru a semi-consuling with the pain management.  I have no problems with that, I worry if I have to drive and get pulled over.  I worry about having my medicine in the car with me.  Its all discussed in my pain management.  I dont know if all are like this, but I am glad that my doctor trys to make ever effort for patients.  I guess if the govt regulates the stronger pain killers, then they can regulate some of the lesser harsh drugs.  Especially if they do consuling and help lines.
    Its late so I hope that this makes sense and isnt rambling.

    I would like to remind some people (none / 0) (#17)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:28:50 AM EST
    that Cocaine and Morphine and cannabidiol are already part of the medical therapies being used today legally.

    Oui. (none / 0) (#52)
    by BrandingIron on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:32:05 AM EST
    Though through my own experience I've never heard of cocaine therapy.  I'm on morphine therapy.  And the cannabis pills are waaay to expensive/don't get covered by my insurance.

    Parent
    They use cocaine as a numbing agent (none / 0) (#113)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:35:45 AM EST
    in some dental surgery procedures.

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#143)
    by scarshapedstar on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:22:27 PM EST
    That was one of cocaine's original uses, before they hit it with the ban stick.

    Parent
    its still in the formulary (none / 0) (#167)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:19:08 PM EST
    I say no (none / 0) (#18)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:54:18 AM EST
    legalize drugs? then you have to supply government funded rehab for those who get addicted to the legalized drugs(something I think should already be supplied for alcoholics and caffeine/nicotine addicts).

    Or, Or we could just fund church programs to counsel addicts out of being addicts.  If everyone had enough church in em no one would ever want to use drugs in the first place....right Mr. Bush?

    Heh? (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:59:30 AM EST
    you said

    then you have to supply government funded rehab for those who get addicted to the legalized drugs(something I think should already be supplied for alcoholics and caffeine/nicotine addicts).

    Problem is we already supply goverment funded rehab for those addicted to illegal drugs.  That don't even count the Billions used to
    keep them in prisons and jails.

    Parent

    yes (none / 0) (#21)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:21:39 AM EST
    This prohibition nonsense will end eventually. One day I hope the US grow up and it's citizens be and be treated at grow ups. There are a lot of drugs that are legal, and are addictive to some including alcohol, tobacco, caffein, many prescription drugs, etc. The fact that we pick some drugs, and especially some like cannabis that are far less dangerous and addictive than many we allow is quite embarrassing. Cocaine like its very close cousin caffein can be quite addictive, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal.

    These and other drugs can certainly be regulated and even made prescription only to try to get some control. And like oxycontin and others, you could have some sort of fines or other minor results if you're using it without a prescription. We should treat addictions to these substances as what they are, addictions.

    And besides, think of the money we'll save by emptying the prisons and by the taxes we can collect on the trade of drugs.

    Another take from The Wire's writers (none / 0) (#25)
    by A little night musing on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:47:13 AM EST
    Jeralyn, pardon if you've already written about this and I've missed it, but have you seen the article in Time? (I learned about it from Pandagon).

    I wonder what you think about their jury nullification idea. A stopgap at best, I think.

    I was once on a jury hearing a drug posession with intent to sell case. Every single member of that Manhattan jury held rather strong opinions against the Rockefeller drug laws - we mentioned them in voir dire, and were seated anyway after being reminded by the judge that sentencing was not our  job - but we voted to convict, in the end. I know that we deliberated for a lot longer than we really needed to (the evidence was fairly clear) because we were all aware of the likely consequences of conviction and didn't want to make that decision in a hurry or without due examination of the evidence. But somehow jury nullification never entered our discussion.

    I have to see the cost and futility of the War on (Some Classes of People Who Use Some) Drugs in my neighborhood and the neighborhood where I teach every day, and also realize that the cost of that "War" is part of what holds the State of NY back from being able to invest in the education of my (public college) students, and I have to say it's time to admit that this is a failed policy unless its purpose is to contribute to the destruction of neighborhoods and families and to divert public funds from other needs.

    The solution is simple. (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:51:54 AM EST
    Just tell all addicts to register and then give them all the drugs they want while, at the same time, push rehab for those that want it.

    For those who sell them illegally, 5 years or so on the first conviction, death for the second.

    Spend the money saved on education and health care.

    That those with addictive personalities will probably die an early death is a given, but think of it as gene pool improvement.

    BTW - I would grandfather tobacco into the same category. It is the most dangerous drug of all.

    Booze I would leave alone because you simply would face too much resistance from the public.

    death, really? (none / 0) (#27)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:04:25 AM EST
    So I get caught selling one marijuana cigarette. Then get out of jail and get caught selling another marijuana cigarette and you think for that second conviction, I should be put to death. Did I mention I was selling them to my dying grandmother who was relieved of pain by those? But death for me is reasonable.

    Parent
    Read the comment (none / 0) (#157)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:25:24 PM EST
    just reguister her as an addict and she can have all she needs, free.

    The point is to get rid of the crime associated with drugs, and the new addictions...

    Parent

    you had me clapping for you till (none / 0) (#99)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:37:20 AM EST
    the gene pool improvement comment. look there are many recovering addicts in our society. you might be amazed at just how many there are. i do agree that the number recovering is low compared to the ones still out there, but with programs instead of instant jail, the recovery numbers could increase.

    i remember my poor grandmother who loved pargaric(right word i think). she had a lot of pain and really loved the stuff. there was never a more religeous lady than her, but she was an addict without even knowing it.

    Parent

    Put it down to my new Vista (none / 0) (#158)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:40:33 PM EST
    software making me a meanie..

    And note that I also call for rehab and education.

    The fact is that some people are more addictive than others. If you are going to give people all the drugs they want to elimnate the criminal sanctions and reduce the crimes associated with distribution you just must accept that some people will just OD and, depending on the drug, that will kill them. Fast in the case of heroin, years in the case of tobacco.

    And if you try to control the OD's by controlling the amount, you are right back to supporting the root cause of crime associated with drugs.

    And addiction has nothing to do with religion.

    BTW - Paragoric is a opium based drug that was prescribed in the past to treat diarreha, although I would guess in a large enough dose it would also be a pain killer.


    Parent

    i have been in recovery for a lonnnnng time. (none / 0) (#166)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:11:46 PM EST
    yes, it is sad. the number i hear that will last in recovery is one in ten or there abouts. you are absolutely correct, religeon and addiction are two separate things. addiction from my understanding is both physical and emotional. there are those who can just stop and those who can't. more's the pity.

    there is an argument for regulation of drugs. i think the way it being done and the punishment doesn't work and often ruins lives.

    Parent

    Anytime you deny (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:21:06 PM EST
    people something they want, someone will step in and  provide it for a price.

    Parent
    Um, NO! (none / 0) (#32)
    by goldberry on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:54:31 AM EST
    I'm all for being able to buy a pack of Ganja at the local CVS but cocaine works through a completely different neurotransmitter pathway than marijuana, can cause permanent changes in brain cell structure and can cause life long addiction that is much more serious than nicotine.

    Just because it would be legal doesn't mean it would be good for you.

    Television in excess is bad for you... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:06:02 AM EST
    Internet usage in excess is bad for you.  Over eating is bad for you.  20 dollar NY State scratch-off lottery tikets (aka scrath-crack) is devastating to your wallet.

    Should the nanny state forbid these things as well?

    I know I'm a freedom extremist, but I sincerely believe you have the inalienable right to do yourself harm if it floats your boat.

    Parent

    this is exactly right (none / 0) (#38)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:12:55 AM EST
    and should apply to opiates as well.
    if a free man wishes to spend his life sitting in a room staring at his shoes, he should be allowed to do that.


    Parent
    or woman (none / 0) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:13:20 AM EST
    NO (none / 0) (#55)
    by MMW on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:38:57 AM EST
    And who's to blame when this free man's delusions causes harm to someone else? What about the children that get caught up in crack houses, because their parents are addicts?

    Responsible society and civilization means making responsible choices. Our choices teach us who we are. This is like the argument made by Rumsfeld - that freedom is messy - as a reason for the lawlessness in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein.

    Give addicts mental health choices (automatic commitment) - instead of jail, but legalization - NO.

    Parent

    The world is full of bad parents.... (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:46:47 AM EST
    I don't see your point.

    You can have a cokehead for a parent whether it's legal or not.  

    Parent

    Erm (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by BrandingIron on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:50:50 AM EST
    What about the children that get caught up in crack houses, because their parents are addicts?

    But there are already children caught up in crack (and meth) houses because their parents are addicted.  Are you kidding?

    Give addicts mental health choices (automatic commitment) - instead of jail, but legalization - NO.

    And I'm sorry, but "automatic committment" doesn't exactly sound like a choice.  The hypothetical kids (who are actually very real and exist in our "responsible society") that you speak of would end up someone else's burden no matter what you do, whether you forcibly commit their parents or jail them.  

    The sad reality is that there are going to be stupid people who make stupid choices.  Stupid people breeding and then taking drugs create bad situations all around, and legalization of drugs isn't going to change that...but it wouldn't necessarily make it any worse.  Using the current system overburdens the prison system, but the negatives to the current system far outweighs the negatives of a system where an otherwise perfectly responsible individual would NOT have to be sentenced to years in jail for the mere -possession- of a small amount of marijuana or cocaine.

    Parent

    if you take away the illegal aspect (none / 0) (#60)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:45:37 AM EST
    you take all the money out of the system and 90% of the problems will go away with the hundreds of billions that is being pumped into an underground economy every MONTH.
    all the problems you talk about already exist.  in spades.
    the illegality of drugs has done nothing to solve them, and if fact I would say it has made them universally worse.
    there is a tendency, particularly in liberals I am sorry to say, to always want to tell me what is good for me or someone else or keep me from harming myself.
    it bugs me.

    Parent
    Liberals??? (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by BrandingIron on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:54:50 AM EST
    Uh...are you sure?  All of the liberals around here want drugs legalized.  It's the conservatives who want to keep up with the War on Drugs.

    Parent
    there are some pretty smart people here (none / 0) (#75)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:56:14 AM EST
    I have had this discussion on many sites and the reaction was not so sensible.
    and yes.  liberals are almost always the ones who love the nanny state.
    I wish it was not so but it is.


    Parent
    that's because it's a criminal defense site (none / 0) (#182)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:49:46 AM EST
    Credit where credit is due please (smile)

    Parent
    I think legalizing drugs (none / 0) (#160)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:51:55 PM EST
    is a libertarin thing.

    The Leftv wants no smoking tobacco any place.

    Parent

    90% of the problems will go away? (none / 0) (#77)
    by MMW on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:58:42 AM EST
    Has this happened with alcohol? You still have drunk drivers, drunk and abusive individuals. There are still resources being employed to prevent drunk driving. They still go to jail. Again resources being used.

    Just because something brings in taxes doesn't mean that the problems go away. I understand that it may pay for some of the expenses incurred, but it doesn't prevent the harm to others. Who pays for that harm? Who takes responsibility?

    It can even be argued that cigarettes and alcohol cause more harm to the individual than to others. How many people would literally kill for a cigarette? Or a drink? Or prostitute themselves for either? These are different scales. And it's not about telling you how to live your life, but your rights should end where it harms another's rights. Hard drugs are more likely to cause such problems.

    Parent

    sounds to me like (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:02:11 AM EST
    you would make tobacco and alcohol illegal if you could.
    which sort of makes my point.

    Parent
    Beware the benevolent dictator...n/t (none / 0) (#83)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:05:47 AM EST
    NO I would not make cigarettes and alcohol illegal (none / 0) (#88)
    by MMW on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:13:11 AM EST
    I am drawing a difference between the fact that hard drugs may cause you to harm others when you need it. Alcohol and tobacco do not cause you to harm others out of need for them.

    Parent
    Beg to differ.... (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:18:57 AM EST
    alcohol addiction can cause you to harm others.  Gambling addiction can cause you to harm others.  Frankly I don't see what can be done about it that doesn't make things worse.

    We have laws against causing physical harm to others, and laws against endangering the welfare of children.  IMO, they are sufficient, and we don't to criminalize substances.  It is not fair to the millions of responsible drug users among us.

    Parent

    ok, there needs to be some regulation (none / 0) (#100)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:40:28 AM EST
    and enforcement. but you would agree that the way it is being done now doesn't work, right? i mean people in constant pain along with doctors are being harrassed. people with little or no dealings in drugs are thrown right into prison often and their lives are ruined. we are throwing people into prison, building more prisons, and the problem just gets worse. right?

    Parent
    So?? (none / 0) (#161)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:54:54 PM EST
    The most addictive drug around is tobacco.

    And it is a silent killer that causes harm before the users know it.

    Parent

    Has there been a Valentine's Day.... (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:59:10 AM EST
    massacre since the repeal of alcohol prohibition?

    Sure, the problems with addiction and driving under the influence (that we have now, under prohibition, btw)won't go away, but the violence and corruption associated with the drug trade will.  And maybe we won't lead the league in prison population...another positive.  And I'd be that much more free to pursue life, liberty, and happiness...another big plus.

    Parent

    Erm (none / 0) (#69)
    by BrandingIron on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:51:49 AM EST
    What about the children that get caught up in crack houses, because their parents are addicts?

    But there are already children caught up in crack (and meth) houses because their parents are addicted.  Are you kidding?

    Give addicts mental health choices (automatic commitment) - instead of jail, but legalization - NO.

    And I'm sorry, but "automatic committment" doesn't exactly sound like a choice.  The hypothetical kids (who are actually very real and exist in our "responsible society") that you speak of would end up someone else's burden no matter what you do, whether you forcibly commit their parents or jail them.  

    The sad reality is that there are going to be stupid people who make stupid choices.  Stupid people breeding and then taking drugs create bad situations all around, and legalization of drugs isn't going to change that...but it wouldn't necessarily make it any worse.  Using the current system overburdens the prison system, but the negatives to the current system far outweigh the negatives of a system where an otherwise perfectly responsible individual would NOT have to be sentenced to years in jail for the mere -possession- of a small amount of marijuana or cocaine.

    Parent

    Aspirin kills more people (none / 0) (#140)
    by lilybart on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:06:33 PM EST
    than all illegal drug use.

    How can something be illegal when I can grow it in my backyard? No processing, just a week. Crazy.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#162)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:58:02 PM EST
    asprin does not kill more people that illegal drug use. Such arguments merely stoke the fires of thise who support the status quo.

    Parent
    True But Aspirin Is Close Behind (none / 0) (#170)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:01:32 PM EST
    Death by:

    Illicit drug use: 17,000

    Aspirin and its cousins: 7,600

    Of course those numbers are low compared to, let's say tobacco or alcohol use.

    Parent

    And let's not forget the # 1 cause of death..... (none / 0) (#171)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:18:04 PM EST
    which is, of course, birth.

    Parent
    big macs are not "good for you" (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:11:06 AM EST
    hair dye is not good for you. smoking or drinking is not good for you.
    we do not need you to tell us what is not "good for us".

    mom

    Parent

    This is apples and oranges (none / 0) (#57)
    by MMW on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:42:40 AM EST
    Big Macs and hair dye do not induce the same kind of response. Who has killed for hair dye or a big mac?

    Parent
    they kill for it (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:46:05 AM EST
    because it is illegal and expensive.

    Parent
    Supply and demand (none / 0) (#86)
    by MMW on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:08:33 AM EST
    NO. It becomes a regulated product. It becomes the new oil. It doesn't flood the market because profits will need to be maintained.

    Who's going to be allowed to produce meth? - just an example.

    High school kids? Pharmaceutical companies? How about cocaine or crack? Do poor farmers get to grow it? Who becomes the supplier? Do we all grow or make whatever we want? Will it need to be patented? Will there be pharmaceutical, funded, university research into better and more addictive varieties or new products? Can it be advertized on television, or in internet pop-ups?

    Can you be fired for using on the job? What threshold determines whether you are incapacitated and a danger to others?


    Parent

    what a bunch of straw men all lined up (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:20:06 AM EST
    lets take them one at a time:
    -the new oil?
    actually drugs like coke and meth are some of the last thing this country makes.
    -produce meth
    I am willing to concede that meth is rather a special substance.  and should probably be considered separately.  not to say it should not be decriminalized - but its different.
    -High school kids?
    do the make or buy alcohol or tobacco?
    -Pharmaceutical companies
    why not?
    -Who becomes the supplier
    in CA they have dealt with this fairly efficiently
    see california
    -Do we all grow or make whatever we want
    abso-freakin-lutely
    -Will it need to be patented
    possibly.  I am sure X would have been patented if possible
    -Can it be advertized on television
    are tobacco and alcohol?
    -Can you be fired for using on the job
    can you be fired for drinking on the job.
    or smoking, for that matter.

    this is the paniced wail of the nanny state in its death troes.
    and as much fun as this has been I actaully have to go to work now.

    Parent

    You obviously do not know the definition of a (none / 0) (#105)
    by MMW on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:54:54 AM EST
    Strawman.

    Everything I listed are things that must be dealt with if drugs are to be made legal.

    None of what you responded addresses anything I've said. Try again when you get back.


    Parent

    Yes But (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:21:52 AM EST
    There will be  much less destructive things to deal with if drugs were made legal.

    Put the money where it belongs, education and rehab which is also education. Take it out of the hands of those profiting from criminalization.

    Parent

    Let's simplify..... (none / 0) (#109)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:01:44 AM EST
    I'll be smoking a spliff tonight, and I might take a hallucinogen tomorrow night at the Levon Helm show.  What right do you and the state have to stop me?

    Parent
    Hair Dye???!! (none / 0) (#115)
    by KLCarten on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:52:53 AM EST
    OMG, dont tell me this, I cant live without this!!  :-))

    Parent
    The state knows.... (none / 0) (#118)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:57:29 AM EST
    better than you what you can and can't live without.

    Submit or be jailed.

    Parent

    Of course it should..... (none / 0) (#34)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:03:06 AM EST
    provided the drug store owner is willing to sell it, and a user is willing to buy it, there is no reason for the govt. to interfere in that private transaction.  Mankind has always had issues with drug addiction, always will....prohibition solves nothing, and in fact causes greater harm.

    While we're at it, let's get rid of the moronic "permission slip" prescription policy.  I know when I'm in pain, I shouldn't have to see a doctor to get a permission slip to buy a pain killer.  I'm not in kindergarten.

    When considering a change in policy... (none / 0) (#64)
    by mike in dc on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:49:41 AM EST
    ...I think we have to answer the following:
    1. what is the problem which the change in policy is intended to alleviate?
    2. how effective is the change in policy likely to be at doing so?
    3. what are possible or likely unintended consequences of the change in policy?
    4. what are the most effective ways to mitigate those consequences?

    I'm assuming the change in policy is intended to alleviate the criminal justice and socioeconomic problems created by the illicit drug/gang subculture and the law enforcement "war" upon it.

    On the one hand, legalizing marijuana and cocaine would cut heavily into the economic underpinnings of organized crime and street gangs, and would give us a very clear picture of who is buying drugs and how frequently.  On the other hand, gang culture may be so entrenched in society by now that the violence associated thereto may continue, and they may seek alternative means to continue bringing in income, probably through other illicit and anti-social activities(theft, burglary, armed robbery, sale of still-banned narcotics, etc).
    Even so, it is likely that incarceration rates would decline, which would benefit both the state government budgets and the communities which would get their young men back.
    Another issue is, can you have legalization on the one hand, and effective rehabilitation and education/prevention programs on the other?  Obviously the tax proceeds from drug sales would have to go towards rehab, prevention, and local infrastructure such as public schools, public works and police and fire departments.
    It's not entirely unlikely that there could be an initial spike in drug use, in which case it might take a while to reduce usage again.

    If it were part of a "clean up the neighborhood" effort, that might work very well.  Of course, when neighborhoods do improve, property values rise, and rents along with it.  Without some form of freeze in rent levels(or temporary subsidy), a lot of people could be forced to re-locate to areas with lower property values(i.e., back into an economically depressed community).

    Generally, the idea of making (more) neurochemically addictive substances legally available to the public makes me uneasy, but if it's the only thing that could get us off the track we're on, I'd reluctantly support it.

    Legalize Them All (none / 0) (#79)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:01:50 AM EST
    And get rid of the idiotic age limits like there is for alcohol. There will be less deaths from coming of age binges . Prohibitions only make these items more desirable.
    Education and rehab are muuuuuuch cheaper and more effective than  criminalization. Drug use would certainly go down if they were legal.

    i also find a review of history when (none / 0) (#82)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:04:38 AM EST
    cocaine was legal to be quite interesting. the number of users would blow your mind.

    gee you know i'd like to see the (none / 0) (#94)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:24:28 AM EST
    economy in the usa built up. that's rather important too. the idea of building up other countries sounds good but with the exception of japan and germany, how well has that worked anywhere else. we are also running out of money.

    There was a story at the BBC website (none / 0) (#110)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:12:36 AM EST
    maybe a Lancet study, about a year ago. It listed drugs from most to least harmful. Ciggies and alcohol were among the worst. Heroin's not good either. Cocaine is dangerous too.

    The problem is always to separate the drug from the consequences of its illegality. I know cocaine is bad for you but being shot so someone can buy more is bad for me. And the latter involves making the drug illegal.

    Better the money spent in the War on Drugs be spent on the science of addiction, so that people who are hooked can get off and stay off.

    I can think easily of only one objection ... (none / 0) (#130)
    by chemoelectric on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:27:19 AM EST
    ... which is that ready availability of legalized drugs (generally, not cocaine in particular) may provide another temptation and means for suicide.

    (By sheer genealogical luck, the obits for my great grandfather are on-line, and, as you can see, he did the deed in 1911 with morphine tablets.)

    My dad basically did the deed.... (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:01:30 PM EST
    with vodka...what's the difference?

    Call me crazy, but I think we have the unalienable right to commit suicide too.  Our life is our gift, to use or squander as we see fit.

    Parent

    I also believe in a right to die (none / 0) (#139)
    by lilybart on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:04:04 PM EST
    I was horrifed when someone I know fell down his steps and ended up a Quadrapalegic. Not for the obvious reasons so much, but because if it happened to me I might want to die, but how could I without help?

    Scary

    Parent

    Heroin yes. (none / 0) (#138)
    by lilybart on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:02:24 PM EST
    But would anyone really commit suicide with cocaine?

    And it is not possible to kill yourself with pot. Unless you set your bed on fire and then went to sleep!

    Parent

    MJ Is A Killer (none / 0) (#145)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:31:54 PM EST
    Do you think that someone could survive having one ton of weed dropped on them from a height of let's say 10 feet.

    Also if someone had a small amount of weed forced down their throat, they would surely suffocate.

    Parent

    That just made me giggle (none / 0) (#179)
    by splashy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:05:57 AM EST
    Black humor!

    Parent
    As the 18th amendment was an utter failure.. (none / 0) (#135)
    by Adept Havelock on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:57:09 AM EST
    Legalize, Regulate, and above all else tax it.

    If someone wants to kill themselves slowly with narcotics (or quickly with a .44 for that matter), I don't see it as my business or the states to stop them.

    We proved prohibition doesn't work in the 1920's-1930's.  Why are we continuing the same mistake with the eternal and unwinnable "War On Drugs"?

    The unwinnable WOD. And the unwinnable (none / 0) (#144)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:27:45 PM EST
    WO theft, WO rape, WO murder, WO assault, WO white collar crime, WO truency, WO driving w/o a license, WO voting w/o being registered, WO having your car meet emission regulations, WO pimping your kids out, WO driving on the correct side of the freeway, WO crimes against others because of their gender, race or sexual preference, WO gun ownership, WO ...


    All I would say.... (none / 0) (#146)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:39:18 PM EST
    is there are unwinnable wars worth fighting, and winnable wars not worth fighting, and double vice-versa.

    This war?...you know how I feel.

    Parent

    Oh I do indeed, and not w/o good reasons. (none / 0) (#149)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:50:34 PM EST
    My point is the lameness of the "the War On (insert personal pet peeve here) is failing, therefor it should be ended." argument.

    Parent
    Point taken..... (none / 0) (#155)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:19:26 PM EST
    Failure by itself is not a good reason to quit something.

    Lack of sound reasoning?  Now that's a good reason.

    Parent

    its a false argument (none / 0) (#165)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:47:49 PM EST
    the war on drugs not only "does not work" it makes things much worse.
    in fact you could argue that the drug war is a business built ON the drug industry.  NOT built to stop or even to really interfere with it.


    Parent
    Hardly. (none / 0) (#169)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:37:14 PM EST
    There is, and has been for a long time, a pronounced "war" on speeding, for example.

    Yet despite the entire "business" built ON stopping speeding - radars, traffic censuses, add'l cops, add'l cop cars, cop helicopters, etc., - that "war" is a complete and utter failure because people continue to speed every day.

    The "enforcement industry" is just as successful in stopping speeding (or theft, murder, truancy, etc., etc.) as they are stopping the drug trade.

    Therefor, by your logic, all law enforcement efforts, ie., LE "wars," should be abandoned immediately because they are all similarly unsuccessful, and maybe all similarly designed to be that way.

    Or maybe only the LE "wars" that are your personal pet peeve?

    Parent

    the point you intentionally missed (none / 0) (#174)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:04:12 PM EST
    is that the war on speeding has not made speeding worse.

    Parent
    doing illegal drugs that is attractive to people, but there is no attractive thrill in driving faster than is legal, or stealing something, etc., you might want to think again.

    If that's not your point, well, it must be your intentional obfuscation of your point was very successful.

    Parent

    Too many people don't get addiction (none / 0) (#177)
    by splashy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:29:22 AM EST
    And how the addictive personality will always find SOMETHING to be addicted to. Not to mention the rebellious personality finding something to rebel against.

    I don't understand why the rest of us have to be so restricted because some people can't handle their addictions. Besides, they are far less likely to seek help if they think they will be jailed for it.

    It's a medical problem, and criminalizing it just ruins families and the future lives of people. Especially if they don't have the money to fight convictions.

    There is also the fact that by having it criminalized you bring otherwise law abiding citizens in contact with some really nasty folks that just want money any way they can get it. They teach the basic drug addict all kinds of bad behaviors that wouldn't be so attractive if the drugs were legal and regulated as alcohol and cigarettes are.