A policy idea for discussion

[Craig234]

This is not something I'm advocating. It's something I think might be helpful for some people to help clarify their views, when they discuss it.

We as a society have largely agreed drug use of drugs now illegal is bad (especially apart from marijuana).

Those who advocate for legalization base it more on opposing the cost of an ineffective drug war, billions of dollars going to drug cartels, than on advocating use.

So, what if we had a policy that getting a driver's license required a drug test, to be repeated, say, every six months?

And add in anywhere we can legally require one - government benefits, release from jail - as many people as possible under the constitution.

Testing positive could be a crime, resulting in mandatory rehabilitation for a first offense, and incarceration for additional.

For the sake of argument, say this would result in reducing illegal drug use to a small fraction of current levels; same for cost of drug war and drug cartel funding.

This a 'best of both worlds' policy, attempting to eliminate the costs of both the drug war and the costs of drug abuse.

While Libertarians, who think everyone would rationally choose not to use drugs if the law just let them decide, won't like it, everyone else is a possible supporter.

How would people argue for or against this?

A few possible arguments against:

- It's 'just un-American', and seems 'invasive', and that outweighs the benefits.

- You think drug use is a good idea

- You object to the government doing almost anything, whatever the benefit

This isn't so much about any detailed objection questioning what can be tested and such, but the larger issues.

Support or oppose this, and why?

 

[Spikesoldier]

the whole point about decriminalization is that we DONT put people in prisons for substance use and waste shitloads of money keeping watch and supplying their needs.

decriminalization would bottom out drug prices as production is now unhampered by enforcement. think of it craig, you wont have to cash in too many food stamps or go to the ATM to EFT your EBT to get your crack or heroin fix.

lower prices = less money going OUT of the country to cartels etc.

darwinism will explain how those who can cheaply and freely have access to addictive poisons will exclude themselves from the future gene pool. might actually be pretty clean when all those without a brain off themselves.

 

[Craig234]

the whole point about decriminalization is that we DONT put people in prisons for substance use and waste shitloads of money keeping watch and supplying their needs.

decriminalization would bottom out drug prices as production is now unhampered by enforcement. think of it craig, you wont have to cash in too many food stamps or go to the ATM to EFT your EBT to get your crack or heroin fix.

lower prices = less money going OUT of the country to cartels etc.

darwinism will explain how those who can cheaply and freely have access to addictive poisons will exclude themselves from the future gene pool. might actually be pretty clean when all those without a brain off themselves.

Decriminalization would continue whatever levels of use, which society has opposed, which have their own costs.

'Social Darwinism' is moral scumbaggery not deserving any response.

This proposal is a 'best of both worlds' proposal, eliminating drug war costs and drug abuse costs (meant for OP, edited).

 

[Darwin333]

I say we expand your idea to cholesterol, caffeine, nicotine, etc... Pretty much anything that is bad for you. Obesity is a much costlier problem for the US Government then illegal drug use is. Ooops, you ate 4 more cheeseburgers then allowed so off to rehab you go. Go within 50 feet of an ice cream shop and you are in violation of your probation, off to jail you go.

 

[Craig234]

I say we expand your idea to cholesterol, caffeine, nicotine, etc... Pretty much anything that is bad for you. Obesity is a much costlier problem for the US Government then illegal drug use is. Ooops, you ate 4 more cheeseburgers then allowed so off to rehab you go. Go within 50 feet of an ice cream shop and you are in violation of your probation, off to jail you go.

Slippery slope fallacy. I oppose speed limits, because then they'll apply to walking.

 

[schneiderguy]

So, what if we had a policy that getting a driver's license required a drug test, to be repeated, say, every six months?

And add in anywhere we can legally require one - government benefits, release from jail - as many people as possible under the constitution.

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.

 

[woolfe9999]

I might accept the concept of a yearly drug test for renewal of the driver's license, IF all the drugs were de-criminalized. I cannot abide the idea of making testing positive a crime. Not only do I dislike the government criminalizing what is essentially victimless behavior, but all you're doing is incarcerating more users and fewer traffickers. That is morally backwards since to the extent that there really are victimizers, it is more the traffickers than the users. We don't need to fill up our prisons with more drug users.

I guess I won't go into any details about the impossibility of implementing this, owing to different drugs having varying half-lifes and how easy it would be to game a yearly or semi-annual drug test. Hint: pot users would have it a lot worse than cocaine users under this system.

 

[soccerballtux]

does anyone have hard numbers on how much money leaves the country in exchange for illegal drugs? I can't believe it's really all THAT much money.

 

[soccerballtux]

They ban the drugs because it makes people happy with little.
In general these drugs are destabilizing forces to the economy. Especially cocain and the harder substances. Weed chills you out too much and you become complacent, and don't have to go buy stuff to combat your depression.

 

[matt0611]

Slippery slope fallacy. I oppose speed limits, because then they'll apply to walking.

Not really. Checking your cholesterol or weight or blood pressure or whatever is not that far down on the slope from "drug testing". It opens up a whole new can of worms of more government involvement and control in our lives.

I'm completely against the drug war, its ineffective, wasteful, immoral, destroys neighborhoods, destroys families, anti-poor, anti-minority, gets people killed, and anti-freedom.

I'm totally against government checking my blood just to receive IDs.
And what about the people who don't care and just do it anyway and not receive license. So now we have to check every american right? For their own good right?
Just turn us into a police state where every action is approved by our overlords.

I'm really surprised you would be supportive of this craig.

 

[Darwin333]

Decriminalization would continue whatever levels of use, which society has opposed, which have their own costs.

Society seems to be getting a lot looser on that "opposition". Furthermore, I would argue that most of that opposition is due to government propaganda.

'Social Darwinism' is moral scumbaggery not deserving any response.

So the .gov should protect the people from every bad decision they might make that only effects that person? As I stated in my previous post, you should be advocating food laws first as that has a far higher cost both monetarily and socially.

This proposal is a 'best of both worlds' proposal, eliminating drug war costs and drug abuse costs (meant for OP, edited).

Eliminates drug war costs? How much do you reckon it will cost to administer all of those drug tests? How much do you reckon it will cost for all of those incarcerations? How much tax revenue and increased use of social services do you reckon tons of people losing their license will cost? How about the administration of it?

You just vastly increased the cost of the "war on drugs" and the dopeheads will continue to find ways to cheat the tests and continue getting high. The price of drugs might increase and with it the profit and with that the violence involved in their trade.

Sorry bud but your idea sucks.

 

[Darwin333]

Slippery slope fallacy. I oppose speed limits, because then they'll apply to walking.

Bullshit. It is on the exact same level and most of them are actually drugs.

We ARE talking about what a persons consumes that has the potential to harm/cost society as a whole correct? Well, the food we eat harms/costs our society far more than the illegal drugs. It isn't the "slippery slope" argument it is the exact same argument as you are making.

 

[cubby1223]

Too many drug tests produce false positives.

Too many drug tests can be manipulated with other chemicals to produce false negatives (see steroid testing).

 

[cubby1223]

I'm really surprised you would be supportive of this craig.

Use of illegal drugs takes money away from poor people and give it to rich people.

Testing for illegal drugs takes money away from rich people and gives jobs to the working class.

Why are you surprised?

 

[Fern]

I don't see the point.

What costs are we reducing or eliminating?

That for police?

But then we're increasing costs for testing, the courts and jail/prison time. And rehab ain't free either. And as Wolfe points, this places it all on the backs of users (and I would argue everyone else since we'd all be subject to testing etc)

Bad idea IMO.

Fern

 

[DaveSimmons]

Why not just increase DUI penalties?

It's driving under the influence that's dangerous, not whether someone has used drugs sometime within the last month.

I support decriminalizing most (possibly even all) drugs, to reduce enforcement and incarceration costs, reduce funding to drug dealers and cartels, increase revenue from taxing sales, and keeping production jobs in America.

I also support harsh penalties for anyone who endangers others by abusing drugs, including alcohol and prescription drugs. Rush Limbaugh driving while high on Oxycontin was at least as dangerous as someone high on marijuana doing the same. Mandatory rehab seems like the right response to a first offense, then locking up the habitual offenders.

 

[Argo]

While Libertarians, who think everyone would rationally choose not to use drugs if the law just let them decide, won't like it, everyone else is a possible supporter.

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.

 

[dmcowen674]

We as a society have largely agreed drug use of drugs now illegal is bad (especially apart from marijuana).

Those who advocate for legalization base it more on opposing the cost of an ineffective drug war, billions of dollars going to drug cartels, than on advocating use.

So, what if we had a policy that getting a driver's license required a drug test, to be repeated, say, every six months?

And add in anywhere we can legally require one - government benefits, release from jail - as many people as possible under the constitution.

Testing positive could be a crime, resulting in mandatory rehabilitation for a first offense, and incarceration for additional.

For the sake of argument, say this would result in reducing illegal drug use to a small fraction of current levels; same for cost of drug war and drug cartel funding.

This a 'best of both worlds' policy, attempting to eliminate the costs of both the drug war and the costs of drug abuse.

While Libertarians, who think everyone would rationally choose not to use drugs if the law just let them decide, won't like it, everyone else is a possible supporter.

How would people argue for or against this?

A few possible arguments against:

- It's 'just un-American', and seems 'invasive', and that outweighs the benefits.

- You think drug use is a good idea

- You object to the government doing almost anything, whatever the benefit

This isn't so much about any detailed objection questioning what can be tested and such, but the larger issues.

Support or oppose this, and why?

Anything that affects performance and safety should be made a crime, add Tobacco and Alcohol to the list as well as masturbation, pulling on your wang and running a bullet on your clit affects safety on the job too by releasing a powerful drug called endorphin.

 

[IronWing]

Anything that affects performance and safety should be made a crime, add Tobacco and Alcohol to the list as well as masturbation, pulling on your wang and running a bullet on your clit affects safety on the job too by releasing a powerful drug called endorphin.

Your workplace experiences are very different from mine.

 

[Craig234]

"This is not something I'm advocating."

First statement in the post.

"I'm really surprised you would be supportive of this craig. "

There is nothing I can say to prevent this sort of response. I haven't taken a position.

 

[Craig234]

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.

I exaggerate the point to make a point, Libertarians are notorious for dismissing the consequences of the policies they advocate. Disaster? It's ok, it's their choice.

 

[momeNt]

Drugs is very far down the list of unhealthy decisions that Americans make, you are better off spending your time trying to devise penalties for watching TV to discourage inactivity and excessive sitting, as well as cheeseburger and doughnut meters to discourage general fat-assedness.

An idea like this is just too intrusive in our lives.

We need to move away from trying to legislate behavior and decisions that people should be free to make on their own.

But if you are going to discuss it, might as well start with the obesity, more people are afflicted with that than they are addicted to illicit drugs.

 

[Craig234]

Why not just increase DUI penalties?

Because that doesn't accomplish the same benefits.

I support decriminalizing most (possibly even all) drugs, to reduce enforcement and incarceration costs, reduce funding to drug dealers and cartels, increase revenue from taxing sales, and keeping production jobs in America.

I also support harsh penalties for anyone who endangers others by abusing drugs, including alcohol and prescription drugs. Rush Limbaugh driving while high on Oxycontin was at least as dangerous as someone high on marijuana doing the same. Mandatory rehab seems like the right response to a first offense, then locking up the habitual offenders.

Another vote for supporting the use of drugs (not driving), in effect.

 

[momeNt]

I exaggerate the point to make a point, Libertarians are notorious for dismissing the consequences of the policies they advocate. Disaster? It's ok, it's their choice.

WTF craig! If you want to have a useful and thoughtful discussion, the idea isn't to be inflammatory towards those that might oppose it, you are inviting a useless argument with statements like that, and if you seek to exclude them from the discussion, you want a circle jerk without any debate or discussion.

 

[Craig234]

Drugs is very far down the list of unhealthy decisions that Americans make, you are better off spending your time trying to devise penalties for watching TV to discourage inactivity and excessive sitting, as well as cheeseburger and doughnut meters to discourage general fat-assedness.

An idea like this is just too intrusive in our lives.

We need to move away from trying to legislate behavior and decisions that people should be free to make on their own.

But if you are going to discuss it, might as well start with the obesity, more people are afflicted with that than they are addicted to illicit drugs.

Another vote in favor of the use of drugs, in effect.