A policy idea for discussion

[Craig234]

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.

No, that's the error, your claiming that the decades of a drug war 'prove we can't'.

They don't. They prove pretty well that the *approach that has been tried* has left a lot of drug use - not that another approach couldn't do better.

The approach in this thread might well do better; that's to discuss, and your assertion does nothing to show it wouldn't. Perhaps something else.

You might have said 'the government can't do anything about racism, the century after slavery was ended proves that'. But then civil rights leaders and JFK tried new things. And whaddya know, racism was greatly reduced in the nation, after a nasty period of conflict.

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?

No, I'm not assuming that; I'm questioning how defensible the use of meth is as a 'freedom'. I know knee-jerk libertarian types rush to say they are for it.

However, I'm also suggesting I think the impact on society is broader than you seem to think. That's part of that 'ideology' issue that wants to simplify it.

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?

That's a slippery slope type argument. What are the practicalities, the cons versus the benefits, the importance of rights violated of that? Whole different issue.

Now, if there are people with histories of violence who are determined to be a danger to society, and mandatory estrogen was determined to be an effective and safe treatment for them, perhaps there is room for considering it - at least as a voluntary alternative to jail or condition for parole. But it's a different issue.

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.

There was no begging the question in your bolded statements. They were conditional statements.

Begging the question: What are the objections to implementing this policy that would eliminated drug use?

Conditional question: If this policy would eliminate drug use, are there any reasons not to do it?

Your last statement sounded like unhelpful ideology. What did it add to the discussion on the policies?

 

[bfdd]

I have a question Craig, are you pro abortion? How about tattoos and piercings? Cosmetic surgery? Gender re-assignment?

 

[dank69]

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'.

All issues, save for addiction, can be directly and logically traced to the fact that these drugs are illegal, and would instantly disappear if all drugs were made legal. If you would like to start listing some side effects that you do not think would be eliminated by legalizing all drugs, I'll be happy to show you the logic. Remember though, addiction doesn't count! Just about anything can be addictive, that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be used by responsible people.

Now, of course you are going straight to meth and crack as your examples, and I would expect nothing less. However, if you take a short minute to really think about these drugs, you will see how legalizing all drugs will actually help reduce their use. For instance, who primarily uses these drugs? Of course you know it is the poor. Now, why do they use these drugs? This is the point I don't think you have considered: they can't afford better, more pure drugs. If all drugs were legalized, even poor people could afford recreational amounts of pure, good quality drugs. At that point, only the most masochistic people would ever even consider meth.

 

[momeNt]

No, that's the error, your claiming that the decades of a drug war 'prove we can't'.

They don't. They prove pretty well that the *approach that has been tried* has left a lot of drug use - not that another approach couldn't do better.

The approach in this thread might well do better; that's to discuss, and your assertion does nothing to show it wouldn't. Perhaps something else.

You might have said 'the government can't do anything about racism, the century after slavery was ended proves that'. But then civil rights leaders and JFK tried new things. And whaddya know, racism was greatly reduced in the nation, after a nasty period of conflict.



No, I'm not assuming that; I'm questioning how defensible the use of meth is as a 'freedom'. I know knee-jerk libertarian types rush to say they are for it.

However, I'm also suggesting I think the impact on society is broader than you seem to think. That's part of that 'ideology' issue that wants to simplify it.



That's a slippery slope type argument. What are the practicalities, the cons versus the benefits, the importance of rights violated of that? Whole different issue.

Now, if there are people with histories of violence who are determined to be a danger to society, and mandatory estrogen was determined to be an effective and safe treatment for them, perhaps there is room for considering it - at least as a voluntary alternative to jail or condition for parole. But it's a different issue.



There was no begging the question in your bolded statements. They were conditional statements.

Begging the question: What are the objections to implementing this policy that would eliminated drug use?

Conditional question: If this policy would eliminate drug use, are there any reasons not to do it?

Your last statement sounded like unhelpful ideology. What did it add to the discussion on the policies?

Ah, I think I get what your saying now, that the drugs we currently consider illegal, are not important rights to have, so to protect their use is protecting needless freedoms. Ideologues would rush to say that no freedom is needless, and rational types are willing to consider the validity of each freedom to fine tune a better society.

Maybe a better approach is putting something in our water that would make all illegal drugs inert, drug use would evaporate rapidly, just don't tell anybody you are doing it, so people won't realize they are having a freedom taken away. Anything short of will just outrage people because they are having a freedom removed from them with their knowledge. So the key here is to do it without people knowing.

Sounds like a scary place to live in though to be honest.

 

[dank69]

...
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?

I would argue that eliminating consumption could actually be a bad thing. Legalizing drugs would create countless new jobs, enough to put all people with war-on-drugs government jobs into private sector jobs and then some. And, just for you, think of all the new government jobs that will be created to regulate all the new drug companies!

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'?

Absolutely, drug use is defensible as a 'freedom.'

 

[BoberFett]

Craig, are you pro-life or pro-choice? Does a woman have a right to do what she chooses with her own body? Does abortion affect society or not? Are you a hypocrite?

 

[DaveSimmons]

I'm still not seeing why we need prohibition for marijuana but not alcohol.

Also, as dank69 points out, there's no reason to believe that people would buy crack and meth if cheap, safe, legal marijuana was available at the grocery store.

 

[bfdd]

I'm still not seeing why we need prohibition for marijuana but not alcohol.

Also, as dank69 points out, there's no reason to believe that people would buy crack and meth if cheap, safe, legal marijuana was available at the grocery store.

who cares if they would anyways?

also, someone just asked me if I got a new job interview and it required a drug test, would I clean up my game, what if they continued to drug test me. I'd abide by the rules, I've done it before for 3+ yrs. Why should I be exempt from the employers standard of employment just because of my personal choices?

 

[Darwin333]

Actually, if you assume that a vote for criminalizing sodomy would reduce the rate of it occurring and the spread of AIDS - and I'm not - you're right.

And I would make that case. I'd argue in favor of my vote for supporting the spread of AIDS, on the grounds that the issues of freedom involved outweigh the harm.

And that's the proper basis for that vote - not denying that my vote would have that effect, if it would.

Whats your point? I have never argued that drug use would go down because it was decriminalized. I HAVE argued about other good effects that decriminalization would have but never that drug use would actually go down. I have heard arguments that drug use won't necessarily go up very much should it be legalized but that isn't something I have personally researched.

And there's that Libertarian ideology that 'disaster is ok if the people didn't make a good choice'. Who cares about the FACT that sex drives people to make bad choices? We can just blame the victim and say 'doesn't matter, their fault'. I strongly disagree with that morality.

You strongly disagree with the "morality" that people are responsible for their own choices? Sorry buddy, I will never agree with you on this. It is not societies fault or my fault or your fault that the dipshit down the street decided not to wear a condom.

I believe:

A person has the ability to vastly mitigate the dangers of sex by having sex in a responsible manor. Those who CHOOSE not to have no one to blame but themselves. They should be free to make that choice and they should be held responsible/accountable for the choice they make.

A person has the ability to vastly mitigate the dangers of using drugs by using them in a responsible manor. They should be free to make that choice and they should be held responsible/accountable for the choice they make.

A person has the ability to vastly improve their health by eating properly and exercising. They should be free to make that choice and they should be held responsible/accountable for the choice they make.

Yes, correct again, it's not JUST saying 'legalize it, but I can not eat there', it's understanding the practical impact, and choosing which you prefer.

Again, there is a case to be made for 'freedom of choice outweighing the benefits of not having the effects of having it for sale' - but it's that, not 'who cares'.

I don't believe there is any case to be made whatsoever. This nation was founded on the principle of personal freedom. I might agree that there is a case to be made concerning how people are held accountable for their actions but that is not what you are arguing.

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.

Wasn't that long ago that there was a "consensus" among the people concerning gay rights, heck in many states there still is. There was once a consensus among a significant (if not majority) of the population that people could be property. A consensus among the people is not a valid reason to remove peoples freedom. Its sort of like the how the 1st amendment isn't there to protect popular speech (or speech agreed upon by the majority of the people) it is to protect the unpopular speech.

In my opinion your line of thinking brings us back to those days. When you are no longer free to make your own choices, even if they are self destructive, your life really isn't your own to live anymore.

And let's face one thing, by the way, in your example, the laws against sodomy had nothing to do with AIDS, passed long before AIDS existed, just as a reminder.

But I'm ok discussing the issue with the AIDS tradeoff, now that it is an issue.

And lets face another thing while we are at it, by the way, laws against drugs like marijuana had nothing to do with the health affects of using it or any of the other reasons you might argue that it should remain illegal.

 

[piasabird]

I saw an article on drug screening pointing to a cost of about $50 for drug screening. When I was in the Army I hated the drug screenings they did, because they kicked a lot of good hardworking guys out simply for one failed drug test.

 

[Darwin333]

I'm not saying all supporters of 'personal choice' do leave out the consequences; I was referring to the ideological Libertarians who in my opinion generally do.

I am not a libertarian but I believe you are, for the most part, incorrect in your assumption that they leave out the consequences. Most libertarians I have spoken to think that people should be free to accept those consequences if they so choose.

While I think libertarians have a lot of good ideas and lot of really wacky ones, I think your attack on them is unfounded and without merit. It goes without saying that if one believes a person should be free to smoke crack that they are also responsible for the consequences of smoking crack. I have even seen topics here by people I assume are libertarian (or at least lean that way) arguing that real world data from other countries implies that drug use and the effects of drug use could actually decrease or at the very least not increase after it is decriminalized. Many even put forth an argument that "societal impact" can be further mitigated as well after it is decriminalized.

I don't think this is a topic about drug use, or the consequences of, at this point. It is simply a thread to bash libertarians.

 

[JD50]

Lolcraig, those in favor of legalizing drugs, are in favor of doing drugs. Craig is in favor of legalizing gay marriage, so Craig is in favor of getting it up the ass from a guy.

 

[Darwin333]

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 OP advocated having drugs in your system (failing a drug test) a criminal offense. That means vastly more people would be put in jail because as it is now you have to be caught WITH drugs to be arrested. The majority of drug users are at least semi-responsible and don't get caught with drugs on them because they do them in the comfort of their own homes. My company has had dozens of employees fail drug tests who had no history of drug arrests. Under the OPs "plan", those people would not only have lost their jobs but would also have committed a crime by having drugs in their system.

We would need to build a massive amount of new jails to house all of these new non-violent offenders. History has shown that people won't stop using drugs simply because the law says they have to.

 

[bfdd]

Darwin, because people crave liberty. They get it confused every now and then, but more than anything people want to live their life by their own rules.

 

[Darwin333]

Lolcraig, those in favor of legalizing drugs, are in favor of doing drugs. Craig is in favor of legalizing gay marriage, so Craig is in favor of getting it up the ass from a guy.

Why do you care what Craig does or does not want "up his ass"? Perhaps, even if just subconsciously, you would like to assist Craig by giving him what you presume he wishes to get?

Its ok bud, I am not one to judge people for their lifestyle choices but might I suggest that your future attempts at courting Craig be done by PM. Thanks in advance.

 

[Craig234]

The OP advocated having drugs in your system (failing a drug test) a criminal offense. That means vastly more people would be put in jail because as it is now you have to be caught WITH drugs to be arrested. The majority of drug users are at least semi-responsible and don't get caught with drugs on them because they do them in the comfort of their own homes. My company has had dozens of employees fail drug tests who had no history of drug arrests. Under the OPs "plan", those people would not only have lost their jobs but would also have committed a crime by having drugs in their system.

We would need to build a massive amount of new jails to house all of these new non-violent offenders. History has shown that people won't stop using drugs simply because the law says they have to.

You have some false/baseless conclusions there.

First, there are alternatives to the criminal approach, but let's go with it.

Second, that approach had mandatory rehab for first offenses.

Third, there's a difference between people quitting 'because the law says so' and because they'll actually get caught or have a price to pay they don't want to.

You talk about 'drug users who behave responsibly'; can I send you for a trip to spend some time in a Mexican city with multiple murders a day, and you can tell me how responsible they are as they pay for the criminal organizations who are terrorizing the country?

If we can get consumption down, we'll actually see a great decrease in the law enforcement activity and number of people imprisoned.

 

[Craig234]

I am not a libertarian but I believe you are, for the most part, incorrect in your assumption that they leave out the consequences. Most libertarians I have spoken to think that people should be free to accept those consequences if they so choose.

Yes, they all say that as a sort of dogmatic dogma, a mantra or chant.

And I think they minimize the consequences.

That means all kinds of things, from simply not caring about the consequences as they should, to denying the severity of the consequences when they can, to defending the consequences as 'not a problem' in exchange for that wonderful crumb of liberty they're claiming it offers.

They also generally have a very high level of naivete. We're all familiar with attacking communists for naivete about human nature that prevents their nice goals from going well, but Libertarians have the same problem. They don't understand all kinds of reasons things work ok, and so they just throw them out for simplicity.

They're the kind of people Mencken was talking about when he said there are always solutions, simple neat and wrong.

Government regulations against widespread pollution or unsafe products by multi-billion dollar corporations are replaced, for example, by each person 'just suing'.

What happens when 'tort reform' takes effect and prevents that, as the powerful corporations use their power to prevent it, well, 'oops, they didn't expect that'.

When people find all these lawsuits completely impractical and the only REAL effect of the policy is a great increase in pollution and unsafe products.

That's a consequence they minimize.

While I think libertarians have a lot of good ideas and lot of really wacky ones, I think your attack on them is unfounded and without merit. It goes without saying that if one believes a person should be free to smoke crack that they are also responsible for the consequences of smoking crack. I have even seen topics here by people I assume are libertarian (or at least lean that way) arguing that real world data from other countries implies that drug use and the effects of drug use could actually decrease or at the very least not increase after it is decriminalized. Many even put forth an argument that "societal impact" can be further mitigated as well after it is decriminalized.

I don't think this is a topic about drug use, or the consequences of, at this point. It is simply a thread to bash libertarians.

Well, you're wrong on pretty much everything. except the arguments about decriminlization, which I have discussed already. It still leaves more use.

But decriminalization is a valid alternative to discuss.

Your opinion sounds based on you falling for some of the same things as Libertarians, so no surprise your defense of them.

Let's address your concern, starting with you not mentioning Libertarians again; if no one does, I won't need to.

 

[JD50]

Why do you care what Craig does or does not want "up his ass"? Perhaps, even if just subconsciously, you would like to assist Craig by giving him what you presume he wishes to get?

Its ok bud, I am not one to judge people for their lifestyle choices but might I suggest that your future attempts at courting Craig be done by PM. Thanks in advance.

Uhh... I was pointing the flaw in his logic...

 

[Carmen813]

I don't think we need to do anything to further the stigma that exists about those who use drugs or have substance use disorders Craig.

 

[bfdd]

Craig, sounds more like irresponsible policies(Drug War) of our government are leading to crime in Mexico. I mean if we legalized here, we'd spur industry and create wealth LEGALLY and those criminals would just disappear. Maybe not quietly, but they'll disappear. Way to blame the people for choosing to live their lives how they so please, instead of the government who is really to blame because it's trying to control how people are choosing to live their lives. Pathetic Craig, fucking pathetic.

Carmen, a bullshit stigma? I smoke cannabis EVERY DAY. I'm a "drug" user. I believe EVERY SINGLE FUCKING PERSON IN THE WORLD is a "drug" user. Be their drug exercise or anything. It's absolutely pathetic the positions Craig is taking and the only reason he's taking them is because he's such a hypocritical authoritarian. Craig, I hope you realize you suck donkey cock at logic and critical thinking.

 

[Craig234]

I don't think we need to do anything to further the stigma that exists about those who use drugs or have substance use disorders Craig.

I don't see how this policy 'increases the stigma' over already having the drugs be serious crimes. Using crack and meth are already stigmatized.

 

[bfdd]

as they should be Craig, they're fucking retarded things to do to yourself. that doesn't mean they should be illegal.