A policy idea for discussion

[Craig234]

It may not reduce drug abuse, many drug users do not have to use cars or they just use public transportation, so you are begging the question in asking me to defend a policy that reduces drug abuse, because that is an assumption that I don't think the policy proposition has earned.

Now you're confusing 'significant impact because most drive' with 'but a small percent of people don't', along with ignoring the other areas people would be confronted, and also ignoring the larger issue as I explained above, that it's not about the details of the test.

Hopefully you respond to my question about something like a parenting license, I'd like to gauge what you find acceptable levels of government involvement in our lives to be.

Your parenting license is an interesting idea - you didn't suggest it as it's often discussed, as in 'people have to take classes and jump through hoops to prove they have the right to raise children'. That has long been popularly opposed as excessively intrusive about what is a fundamental human activity (to not quite call it a 'right'). I'm pretty hesitant about being intrusive there, despite the benefits.

But it's an interesting idea about a drug test for parents. My first reaction is favorable towards it, as my quick balancing between intrusion vs. benefit.

 

[dmcowen674]

Your workplace experiences are very different from mine.

Porn is a multi-billion dollar industry

 

[bfdd]

lols, craig you're such an authoritarian. how do you manage to survive without a dear leader to guide you?

 

[dmcowen674]

Darwin333, people don't appreciate liberty.

It's sad.

Liberty does not exist under the new Corporate owned America, where have you've been???

 

[dmcowen674]

A larger decrease in abuse would be something like a parenting license. When the age of sexual consent is reached, drug tests are given every six months, if you are found to have drugs in your system, your parenting license is revoked and your child is given for adoption to those that have licenses.

This effectively would stop everybody from drugs because the state could remove your right to have sex and furthermore, your right to have children.

Adding another License is another fee for Government and Corporations they give the fee collection to.

 

[DaveSimmons]

That's why my OP started out with the point that as a society, unlike a consensus about jailing gays over spreading AIDS, or over getting rid of fast food, society has spoken pretty loudly for a long time as a consensus against drug abuse. So the issues aren't comparable for that reason, but that is the question, and you do need to defend the effects of whichever policy.

Hysteria over drug consumption is a fairly recent historically. You used to be able to buy laudanum along with a Thomspon sub-machine gun from your Sears catalog.

I don't claim to know whether legalizing drugs would increase or decrease their use. I listed many concrete benefits from doing so, along with the philosophical position that using them should be a personal choice.

I'm all in favor of punishing irresponsible use, but your driver's license scenario didn't cover that -- taking away a license from someone who uses drugs only when it's safe doesn't increase public safety.

If you'd argued instead that all cars must be equipped with breathalyzer interlocks to prevent unsafe driving, that I could agree with. Driving while impaired is violating personal responsibility by endangering others.

Similarly, I'd be fine with the idea that people had to take a test at the start of work that tested current intoxication rather than past use. Smoking or drinking on the weekend should be allowed, not when operating heavy machinery or performing brain surgery.

Edit: notice that I've included alcohol in my examples before and now. You are taking the position that prohibition made good sense to protect people from themselves.

 

[Craig234]

Hysteria over drug consumption is a fairly recent historically. You used to be able to buy laudanum along with a Thomspon sub-machine gun from your Sears catalog.

Well, automatic weapons were banned in the 1934 gun control act as I recall.

Hysteria, well, subjective word, but opposition has existed for decades.

For some reason - I mean, you can see how great opiates were for people in the Opium wars.

I don't claim to know whether legalizing drugs would increase or decrease their use.

Me neither, and there are variable like education programs.

I listed many concrete benefits from doing so, along with the philosophical position that using them should be a personal choice.

If my only choices are status quo or legalization, I support legalization of marijuana, and study of legalizing other drugs.

I'm all in favor of punishing irresponsible use, but your driver's license scenario didn't cover that -- taking away a license from someone who uses drugs only when it's safe doesn't increase public safety.

That's not quite right. But tedious to get into.

If you'd argued instead that all cars must be equipped with breathalyzer interlocks to prevent unsafe driving, that I could agree with. Driving while impaired is violating personal responsibility by endangering others.

I have strongly advocated that - some here have disagreed.

Similarly, I'd be fine with the idea that people had to take a test at the start of work that tested current intoxication rather than past use. Smoking or drinking on the weekend should be allowed, not when operating heavy machinery or performing brain surgery.

Edit: notice that I've included alcohol in my examples before and now. You are taking the position that prohibition made good sense to protect people from themselves.

You are not agreeing with the strongly support view of a clear majority for a long time, it seems, for opposition to use.

As for prohibition, I haven't said anything about it - enforcement of that proved a big problem, and created a lot of problems like the criminal networks.

I have no problem with having repealed it.

Would I have supported it if it COULD be enforced? I'm sympathetic to the arguments against alcohol - I've seen it destroy people, it causes countless problems from violence to drunk driving; on the other hand, there are issues of freedom, of enjoying it, of responsible use.

At this point, I strong enforcement against its *abuse* - as noted above, that includes the breathalyzers in all cars, and could include more treatment.

 

[DaveSimmons]

As for prohibition, I haven't said anything about it - enforcement of that proved a big problem, and created a lot of problems like the criminal networks.

I have no problem with having repealed it.

Would I have supported it if it COULD be enforced? I'm sympathetic to the arguments against alcohol - I've seen it destroy people, it causes countless problems from violence to drunk driving; on the other hand, there are issues of freedom, of enjoying it, of responsible use.

At this point, I strong enforcement against its *abuse* - as noted above, that includes the breathalyzers in all cars, and could include more treatment.

Which is close to my position on other drugs. I don't see a real difference between abusing alcohol, Oxycontin or marijuana.

The US started prohibition for marijuana based on racism and marketing of lies about its effects -- this is a biased source (I found it when reading the wiki article on Hearst working to criminalize it) but the quotes are damning for the "reasons" behind criminalizing it:
http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/why-is-marijuana-illegal/

 

[dank69]

...Bottom line: de-criminalization will result in far higher drug abuse rates than eliminating the behavior. ...

Did de-criminalization of alcohol result in far higher alcohol abuse rates?

 

[ichy]

IMO the best way to deal with heroin addicts is the Swiss model. Treat it as a disease and allow addicts to get pharmaceutical grade heroin from government clinics. Hardly a "good" solution, but it puts the dealers out of business, prevents a lot of the nasty illnesses associated with dirty needles and bad drugs and offers at least some encouragement for addicts to seek treatment. We have to be realistic about the crappy rate of success that addiction treatment has though.

 

[momeNt]

Now you're confusing 'significant impact because most drive' with 'but a small percent of people don't', along with ignoring the other areas people would be confronted, and also ignoring the larger issue as I explained above, that it's not about the details of the test.



Your parenting license is an interesting idea - you didn't suggest it as it's often discussed, as in 'people have to take classes and jump through hoops to prove they have the right to raise children'. That has long been popularly opposed as excessively intrusive about what is a fundamental human activity (to not quite call it a 'right'). I'm pretty hesitant about being intrusive there, despite the benefits.

But it's an interesting idea about a drug test for parents. My first reaction is favorable towards it, as my quick balancing between intrusion vs. benefit.

I didn't even realize that there was discussion on something like parenting licenses.

As for your first point, I think it warrants further investigation to see what percentage of drug abusers own vehicles, for all we know, this may just be requiring law abiding citizens to go through needless investigation while the drug addicts sit at home shooting up. But yes, maybe most drug abusers do drive and continually renew their licenses, or enough do that this plan would deter a lot of drug abuse.

Furthermore, you would need a plan to like... investigate people that don't renew their drug test results to see if they are driving on expired drug test results. So a policy like this really does invite a LOT of intrusion by the government, and at first it seems voluntary, but people that do fall behind on getting their drug test may get their doors busted down because they had problems or other issues not relating to drugs that caused them to be delinquent on their test.

 

[momeNt]

Perhaps we all need to watch V for Vendetta again, Craig I think you are the guy on the big screen and a guy like Matt is probably V.

 

[YoungGun21]

That sounds like a terrible idea. How many people have driver's licenses in the US? Let's say 150 million. If we tested every one of those people every six months, that's almost a MILLION people a day getting tested. Imagine how much that would cost the taxpayer and how much of a burden it would be on our economy to lose that much working time.

Legalize it.

Ok when you say "a MILLION people a day" it certainly sounds high, like you intended. Why don't we compare apples to apples though? We would need to know the cost of the current war on drugs and keeping people in prisons on drug related charges, etc. We would need to know the cost of a drug test and how often they were to be tested, etc. You have to compare dollars to dollars here, since that is what this is all about.

My guess is that just about any reasonable solution will cost less than what we are doing now.

 

[dank69]

Ok when you say "a MILLION people a day" it certainly sounds high, like you intended. Why don't we compare apples to apples though? We would need to know the cost of the current war on drugs and keeping people in prisons on drug related charges, etc. We would need to know the cost of a drug test and how often they were to be tested, etc. You have to compare dollars to dollars here, since that is what this is all about.

My guess is that just about any reasonable solution will cost less than what we are doing now.

The only reasonable solution is simple. You don't punish people for shooting shit into their veins. Shooting shit into their veins doesn't hurt anyone but the shooter (maybe. Clean government regulated drugs might not even hurt the shooter). But, if they start committing crimes to support their habit, you bust them for committing those crimes and nothing else. Any argument against this position holds no water.

 

[bfdd]

Liberty does not exist under the new Corporate owned America, where have you've been???

Liberty always exists, wtf are you talking about? It might be harder to get away with, which again is sad, but it still exists. For some of us, "Give me liberty or give me death" still holds some weight.

 

[Craig234]

Did de-criminalization of alcohol result in far higher alcohol abuse rates?

As I understand it, the legalization of alcohol may have led to a decrease in use, ironically. But it's apples and oranges to claim meth and crack would be the same.

 

[dank69]

As I understand it, the legalization of alcohol may have led to a decrease in use, ironically. But it's apples and oranges to claim meth and crack would be the same.

Why, exactly, is it apples and oranges, pray tell?

 

[momeNt]

As I understand it, the legalization of alcohol may have led to a decrease in use, ironically. But it's apples and oranges to claim meth and crack would be the same.

It may, or it may not be. That's the $15 billion question.

 

[Craig234]

The only reasonable solution is simple. You don't punish people for shooting shit into their veins. Shooting shit into their veins doesn't hurt anyone but the shooter (maybe. Clean government regulated drugs might not even hurt the shooter). But, if they start committing crimes to support their habit, you bust them for committing those crimes and nothing else. Any argument against this position holds no water.

That's an ideology. As a practical matter, is it true? Not really. We're not talking about reading Marx or pretending you're a rhinoceros during sex.

These drugs have practical issues that destroy lives and there are impacts.

This is some sort of libertarian-type ideology about pretending 'it's a victimless crime and we should just respect their rights to do it'.

There is something appealing about it - why, it's FREEDOM - ya, right. But there are issues with it both regarding the user and the impact on society.

Now, maybe that is a lot better approach than current policy. But is it better than actually largely eliminating consumption?

This is a question for the legalization people - is drug use defensible as a 'freedom'?

It's one thing to say 'no, it's not, but it's better than the drug war', and another to say 'yes, even if we can get rid of use, we should protect it as a right'.

These drugs are quite harmful. I think there's a good argument for looking at meth and crack and saying 'if we can practically get rid of most to all use, we should'.

I wonder how many people who buy the 'freedom' argument have experience with people who use them, and how many are just 'armchair ideologues'?

 

[chucky2]

So Craig, when you dreamed up this thread, was it because you truly wanted discussion on this, or because you wanted to make an underhanded dig at the drug testing going on in FL and equating your "ideas" to that, so people would shoot your "ideas" down and thus give you a platform to oppose the FL situation?

Just curious....

 

[Craig234]

Why, exactly, is it apples and oranges, pray tell?

There are countless different issues between the drugs, from the effect on users both in terms of addictiveness to harm, to the amount of 'legitimate recreational use', how much they reliably destroy the user and the impact that has on the user, those around them and society, the reason people use the drug - I could go on but the usage issues are quite different for alcohol versus crack and meth.

If we took away all the 'responsible use' of alcohol, and had it affect users like Meth does, the issues for it being legal would change greatly.

It's rather pointless to say 'what happened with alcohol in 1930's is the same for Meth'.

 

[Craig234]

So Craig, when you dreamed up this thread, was it because you truly wanted discussion on this, or because you wanted to make an underhanded dig at the drug testing going on in FL and equating your "ideas" to that, so people would shoot your "ideas" down and thus give you a platform to oppose the FL situation?

Just curious....

What did I say the reason was? This is quite different than the Florida policy.

This is not about the Florida situation, good or bad.

 

[BoberFett]

That's not what Libertarians believe. Libertarians believe that everybody is free to make their own choice, but they also get to live with the consequences of those choices.

Don't expect anything but lies and partisan bullshit from Craig. He's one of the worst people I've ever had the displeasure of running into on an online forum.

 

[momeNt]

That's an ideology. As a practical matter, is it true? Not really. We're not talking about reading Marx or pretending you're a rhinoceros during sex.

These drugs have practical issues that destroy lives and there are impacts.

This is some sort of libertarian-type ideology about pretending 'it's a victimless crime and we should just respect their rights to do it'.

There is something appealing about it - why, it's FREEDOM - ya, right. But there are issues with it both regarding the user and the impact on society.

Now, maybe that is a lot better approach than current policy. But is it better than actually largely eliminating consumption?

This is a question for the legalization people - is drug use defensible as a 'freedom'?

It's one thing to say 'no, it's not, but it's better than the drug war', and another to say 'yes, even if we can get rid of use, we should protect it as a right'.

These drugs are quite harmful. I think there's a good argument for looking at meth and crack and saying 'if we can practically get rid of most to all use, we should'.

I wonder how many people who buy the 'freedom' argument have experience with people who use them, and how many are just 'armchair ideologues'?

So the main error here is you assume that there can be something done to eliminate the use, we have years and years of data that prove that it can't.

As for the libertarian type arguments protecting it as a freedom, many here do believe that it is up to the user to decide what to do with their body. Your error is assuming that drug use automatically harms the freedom of others, because it can lead to DUI, child, and other domestic abuse/negligence. All of those can happen without drugs, and drug abusers who harm the freedom of others may even do so without drugs, so what are you really stopping?

Perhaps we should monitor testosterone as well, because too high of levels is linked to physical aggression, and those people need to be on mandatory estrogen therapy?

There is a lot of begging the question going on here, I bolded the obvious ones.

There is nothing with drugs only things wrong with people.

 

[chucky2]

ok...