George Will on drug legalization

[Mursilis]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...rm-than-good/2012/04/04/gIQANg46vS_story.html

I think he's been critical of the War on Drugs before, but interesting that he continues to beat the drum on this topic. It's definitely time for a serious policy debate on the issue. Criminalization seems to have resulted in far more harms than benefits.

 

[fskimospy]

What I haven't been able to wrap my head around with the War on Drugs is that we have such ample historical precedent. While of course no two time periods are alike, Prohibition had a whole hell of a lot in common with the War on Drugs and everyone agrees it was a miserable failure.

I don't get how our culture can simultaneously accept that fact while pushing for a continuation of the War on Drugs.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

George Will on marijuana legalization from five months ago:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/barney-f...ill-over-marijuana-legalization-on-this-week/

 

[GoPackGo]

Follow the money.

 

[Saint Nick]

This topic has been beaten to death all over the internet, all over the world. The simple fact is that it won't change any time soon. There is far too much GOVERNMENT money wrapped up in the business of eradicating drugs, that they can't just stop doing it. Too many people would be out of their jobs.

It's just the way it is, and the way it shall continue.

 

[fskimospy]

George Will on marijuana legalization from five months ago:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/barney-f...ill-over-marijuana-legalization-on-this-week/

Oh, to be clear, George Will is an atrocious hack. He's one of the most consistently wrong pundits that exists out there today. That being said, I'm happy to see a voice on the right coming out for drug legalization. It seems like a place where both liberals and conservatives can come together and recognize the failure of our policy.

 

[Mursilis]

What I haven't been able to wrap my head around with the War on Drugs is that we have such ample historical precedent. While of course no two time periods are alike, Prohibition had a whole hell of a lot in common with the War on Drugs and everyone agrees it was a miserable failure.

I don't get how our culture can simultaneously accept that fact while pushing for a continuation of the War on Drugs.

What can I say, people are stupid. I get why the socially-conservative right may be against legalization, but why are so many on the left (outside the fringes)? The same people who will chant "My body, my choice!!" at a pro-choice rally should be applying the exact same principle to drug use.

 

[fskimospy]

What can I say, people are stupid. I get why the socially-conservative right may be against legalization, but why are so many on the left (outside the fringes)? The same people who will chant "My body, my choice!!" at a pro-choice rally should be applying the exact same principle to drug use.

I attribute it to a shockingly effective propaganda campaign by the government over the last 40 years or so.

 

[Mursilis]

I attribute it to a shockingly effective propaganda campaign by the government over the last 40 years or so.

Can't be that effective - neither of us seems to be buying it.

 

[Moonbeam]

So long as it's the poor and underprivileged that go to jail over drugs nothing will be done. As long as folk like me can use them, and I do not, there will be no impetus for change. When the children of politicians and politicians themselves start serving live terms, we will see change. Nobody gives a shit at all what happens to the nobodies at the bottom. No politician will risk a vote by taking a principled stand. We are a hideous people and it reflects in our laws.

 

[fskimospy]

Can't be that effective - neither of us seems to be buying it.

Well you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

I still say if you ask people what the effects of weed, meth, crack, heroin, etc are you will get a laundry list of incredibly awful and mostly inaccurate things, and I think a lot of those wrong ideas came from the government. It's sad.

 

[Thump553]

This topic has been beaten to death all over the internet, all over the world. The simple fact is that it won't change any time soon. There is far too much GOVERNMENT money wrapped up in the business of eradicating drugs, that they can't just stop doing it. Too many people would be out of their jobs.

It's just the way it is, and the way it shall continue.

QFT. Especially with our forfeiture laws paying for so many peoples jobs.

 

[Mursilis]

Well you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

I still say if you ask people what the effects of weed, meth, crack, heroin, etc are you will get a laundry list of incredibly awful and mostly inaccurate things, and I think a lot of those wrong ideas came from the government. It's sad.

I have no personal experience with anything stronger than alcohol, but enough people I've known have tried pot without any appearance of long-term damage that I'll buy it's no worse than, say, tobacco, and apparently not as addictive. As for meth, crack, and heroin, I've read enough accounts by former addicts to believe that some of these harder drugs can seriously mess you up.

 

[Moonbeam]

If we assume for a moment that drug addiction is bad, a scrambled egg is your brain on drugs, then we have only so many options. We can punish then so they stop doing what hurts them, we can try to fix the cause of why they want to hurt themselves, or simply let them kill themselves. We could flog or execute folk who use drugs, the deterrent effect which leads to some very clever and very dangerous criminals, similar to locking them up in criminal university PhD programs like we find in prison, all very expensive to maintain, or try to treat them for a disease we all have and don't know we have, the self hate that causes self abuse and a need to escape deep emotional pain in the solace of mental oblivion, extremely expensive and something we need too, or we can just let them kill themselves and maybe make some weekly runs to the dump to keep the bodies from stinking up the streets. And since the first option will ultimately cost a fortune and destroy society in the process, my guess that's the reason we like that option over the rest. There is no better way for delusional self haters to destroy themselves than punishing others.

Personally, if I were running things, I would opt for prison too, but one in which you could work for drugs and use as much as you can earn. Capitalism at its finest. It wouldn't take long and the addictive gene would disappear from society, eh?

 

[fskimospy]

I have no personal experience with anything stronger than alcohol, but enough people I've known have tried pot without any appearance of long-term damage that I'll buy it's no worse than, say, tobacco, and apparently not as addictive. As for meth, crack, and heroin, I've read enough accounts by former addicts to believe that some of these harder drugs can seriously mess you up.

I know people who have used meth, smoked crack, used heroin, and almost every other drug imaginable. If you spend time in the military you meet a lot of people who do a lot of drugs. (at least in the Navy)

While it is true that all of those drugs can have very harmful effects on your health if used to excess, their harmful effects are nowhere near as widespread, they are not as addictive as you are led to believe, and frequently nowhere near as extreme as the government would have you believe.

My argument is not that meth isn't bad for you or that it isn't addictive, etc, it's that the government has made it appear far worse than it is, which exerts a disproportionate influence on people's willingness to ban it.

 

[bfdd]

All drugs should be OTC

 

[Saint Nick]

I know people who have used meth, smoked crack, used heroin, and almost every other drug imaginable. If you spend time in the military you meet a lot of people who do a lot of drugs. (at least in the Navy)

While it is true that all of those drugs can have very harmful effects on your health if used to excess, their harmful effects are nowhere near as widespread, they are not as addictive as you are led to believe, and frequently nowhere near as extreme as the government would have you believe.

My argument is not that meth isn't bad for you or that it isn't addictive, etc, it's that the government has made it appear far worse than it is, which exerts a disproportionate influence on people's willingness to ban it.

Eek I don't think meth is really good in any way...given the chemicals used to manufacture it. Also, I didn't think those in the military could use considering they were randomly drug tested?

 

[crashtestdummy]

What can I say, people are stupid. I get why the socially-conservative right may be against legalization, but why are so many on the left (outside the fringes)? The same people who will chant "My body, my choice!!" at a pro-choice rally should be applying the exact same principle to drug use.

The only excuse I can give is that for addictive drugs it is no longer a choice once you've started. This certainly doesn't apply to marijuana, LSD or many other drugs, though. There is no good reason to continue banning marijuana. It really makes no sense. My home state has reduced minor possession to a small fine, and the world has not ended.

The fundamental mistake of the drug war, in my opinion, is to assume that jail time is sufficient to dissuade use. It isn't. Recidivism after jail time is very high, and made worse by the fact that they have a permanent felony record (making it harder to reintegrate into society).

 

[fskimospy]

Eek I don't think meth is really good in any way...given the chemicals used to manufacture it. Also, I didn't think those in the military could use considering they were randomly drug tested?

I'm not saying meth is good. I think you can easily make a case for why no one should ever use it and do so completely honestly. I do not believe the campaigns against it are honest however.

People in the military are in fact randomly (and frequently!) drug tested, but the types of drugs that it detects and the length of time that various drugs stay in your system have a big effect on what can be detected and what isn't. People still use plenty of drugs in the military, rest assured.

 

[Kadarin]

If we assume for a moment that drug addiction is bad, a scrambled egg is your brain on drugs, then we have only so many options. We can punish then so they stop doing what hurts them, we can try to fix the cause of why they want to hurt themselves, or simply let them kill themselves. We could flog or execute folk who use drugs, the deterrent effect which leads to some very clever and very dangerous criminals, similar to locking them up in criminal university PhD programs like we find in prison, all very expensive to maintain, or try to treat them for a disease we all have and don't know we have, the self hate that causes self abuse and a need to escape deep emotional pain in the solace of mental oblivion, extremely expensive and something we need too, or we can just let them kill themselves and maybe make some weekly runs to the dump to keep the bodies from stinking up the streets. And since the first option will ultimately cost a fortune and destroy society in the process, my guess that's the reason we like that option over the rest. There is no better way for delusional self haters to destroy themselves than punishing others.

Personally, if I were running things, I would opt for prison too, but one in which you could work for drugs and use as much as you can earn. Capitalism at its finest. It wouldn't take long and the addictive gene would disappear from society, eh?

All this because "drug use" is clearly synonymous with "drug abuse", which in turn is synonymous with "drug addiction".

 

[shira]

The bottom-line point is that in America there are plenty of self-destructive behaviors allowed under the law that are MORE self-destructive than the consumption of many illegal drugs.

So the principle is clear: it's not sufficient to argue that a behavior is self-destructive to justify banning the behavior.

 

[cybrsage]

To convince people to legalize something that is already illegal, using "some legal things are worse" is not a good argument. It effectively says that since some bad things are legal, we should legalize other bad things. That is a poor argument and explains one of the reasons why so many are still against legalization.

The arguments have to be about the illegal item, not about other things.

 

[Mursilis]

To convince people to legalize something that is already illegal, using "some legal things are worse" is not a good argument. It effectively says that since some bad things are legal, we should legalize other bad things. That is a poor argument and explains one of the reasons why so many are still against legalization.

The arguments have to be about the illegal item, not about other things.

How about "You have no right to prevent me from doing stupid things which only harm myself"? Does that work for you?

 

[Saint Nick]

This topic has been beaten to death all over the internet, all over the world. The simple fact is that it won't change any time soon. There is far too much GOVERNMENT money wrapped up in the business of eradicating drugs, that they can't just stop doing it. Too many people would be out of their jobs.

It's just the way it is, and the way it shall continue.

QFT. Especially with our forfeiture laws paying for so many peoples jobs.

Wanted to add an opinion to the thread. I would bet that if the government did not have this money wrapped up in it, they wouldn't have a problem changing the law. It's just that all of a sudden changing a law so that it goes from extremely illegal to legal, screws up what is in place.

To legalize drug use, the government would need to clean up their bureaucracy. Lessen the staff of the DEA/FBI/CIA. Lots of people in prison would need to be let go. What happens to those with prior drug charges?

It's just a big mess for the government to flip the switch.

 

[woolfe9999]

The failure of drug prohibition is so obvious I can't see how anyone can argue otherwise. All drugs should be de-criminalized at the federal level as a start, and leave the decision to the states.