Drug Legalization

[stebo0728]

Ok so I wanted to open up this topic for discussion, see where you guys stood. Drug legalization. A few questions to ask.

1) Should we legalize drugs?
2) If yes, which ones?
3) If yes, should they be levied an excise tax?
4) If yes, should they be FDA regulated?
5) If yes, surgeon general warnings?

Then there are other issues to discuss. Whats the consensus there?

[IBCoupe]

1. Yes.
2. I haven't heard a compelling arguments against legalizing any of them.
3. Let the states determine that.
4. Yes. The D part of the abbreviation is what makes it clear to me.
5. Yes. The free availability of information is absolutely fundamental to a functioning free market.

[Crazyirish]

1) Yes
2) Marijuana is the only drug I have no reservations about.
3) Absolutely
4) Absolutely
5) Absolutely

[AppleBonker]

I could retype the exact same thing IBC did, or I could just say I agree with him. This could save considerable amounts of money, and actually generate revenue from the taxing of said items.

[seang]

I like the idea of marijuana decriminalization, but not frenzied liberation.

[audtatious]

Does this mean they could move cough syrup back to the counter and stop limiting the number of spray paint cans an individual can buy at WalMart?

[AZhitman]

I could retype the exact same thing IBC did, or I could just say I agree with him. This could save considerable amounts of money, and actually generate revenue from the taxing of said items.

Ditto here.

OMGWTFtehconservativeoldguyhaslosthismindHAXXXXXX!!!

[IBCoupe]

Alternatively, Greg, it could just be that:

<- Isn't as liberal as he's made out to be.

[stebo0728]

Question 2 requires some extra consideration. I can see IB's post regarding this as if it were already posted. What about the cost to society for allowing the use of the drugs. Right? I dunno is that an appropriate question to ask? I think so, I would argue that maryjane has no more societal cost associated with it than alchohol or tobacco, and perhaps even less when you remove the frivolous law enforcement actions wasted on this sector of the war on drugs. However, when you get into harder stuff, coke, herroine, or meth, maybe it makes sense to keep those banned. But then is it really governments role to impose such bans? Does hard line law enforcement tactics pose a better fight against drugs than an educational/treatment based plan?

Aud, I have to agree, its ludicrous that rules have to be structured to assume the worst from people. The cough syrup thing went through a bit of progression. I remember first only being able to purchase 2 items at once, but they were still available from the shelf. The register system actually would not allow more than 2 of these categorical items to be rung up on one go. Well I guess people started just buying 2 at a time 50 times or something, so they started checking age as if it were beer or wine. Then finally they placed the items back behind the pharmacy counter. Plans like this really only make things a bit more difficult for someone, they dont STOP them, and it assumes that anyone coming into the store is obviously purchasing these items for nefarious reasons. Ive hated this sort of mentality from the start. For gosh sakes, people meet their needs any way they can, if you stop selling paint then people huff modeling glue, if you stop selling that, they start filling garbage bags with propane or butane and huff that (funny story so guys in Atlanta here were doing that and some douche decided to light a cigarette, wasnt pretty for the little b*stards)

[stebo0728]

Alternatively, Greg, it could just be that:

<- Isn't as liberal as he's made out to be.

Ive often theorized that you dont even hold some of the positions you argue here, but argue them just to be contrary, to have fun, and to make people think.

[AppleBonker]

However, when you get into harder stuff, coke, herroine, or meth, maybe it makes sense to keep those banned. But then is it really governments role to impose such bans? Does hard line law enforcement tactics pose a better fight against drugs than an educational/treatment based plan?

Personally, I don't much care if all the harder stuff is legalized (or even just decriminalized). Same as driving while drunk, there should be laws against doing it in situations that put other people at risk. But that shouldn't increase the cost to society all that much. As far as education and treatment go, I'm of the mindset to say tough cookies to those folks. You wont ever catch me shooting up or snorting blow or dropping acid. In the interest of self preservation it just wont happen. My only request for people that want to spin out of control and OD is to not take others with them. Same as I get mad at people who off themselves by stepping in front of a train - it slows down the commuters. But I'm a d!ck. So maybe those people will just take care of themselves? Problem solved?

[IBCoupe]

You're right in that there are societal costs, but I wonder how those costs are actually felt. My roommate has tried to convince me that meth is especially dangerous - that there's no way to take it without being a danger to society.

But that doesn't convince me that meth should be outlawed. If you're drunk when you shoot someone, do we decide that you shouldn't be allowed to be drunk? No, we decide that you shouldn't be allowed to shoot someone. We can get at the crime without going after the mind-altering substance. And if drug addicts are more likely to commit crimes, then the system will adjust accordingly, as for every crime committed is an additional charge.

And as to what I believe: every single argument I make is something I believe in. But when I make the arguments I make, I'm making them in response to things you guys say. There are numerous other conflicting arguments that I also believe in that I don't make. It's easy for me to agree with people; the challenge is in finding enough complexity in an issue to come to a disagreement.

[IBCoupe]

Upon re-reading that second paragraph that I just posted, I feel I should add:

Greg & Stebo, before you bring up hate crime legislation, let me remind you that hate crime charges can only be brought in addition to existing criminal charges, based on the mental state of the accused at the time of the crime. Something similar could be done with drugs - additional charges for the commission of crimes while under the influence of drugs.

In the same way that we don't criminalize racism in and of itself, we don't have to criminalize drug use when it isn't compounded by any additional crime.

[stebo0728]

I can understand your room-mates position. I have never been directly affected by meth, but I have known some people who have, people who never touched the stuff, yet suffered greatly because a loved one did. They were stole from, lost the loved one in some cases, had to watch the loved one suffer, had to help them with legal and rehab costs. But with all that pointed out, is that really societal costs, or just family/friend circle costs? Id didnt really create a huge burden on the whole community, just on the family affected. But then you get into cases where home brew meth labs explode from mishandling of the chemicals, entire appartment units destroyed, we even had a "rolling" meth lab busted here close to where I work, it never blew up, but they were cooking meth in an old modified school bus, that could have been pretty ugly if something went wrong, say on a crowded bridge, or perhaps even in a tunnel situation. There is certainly alot more at play with meth than with pot, no way to deny that, but still I guess it begs the question of whether said things are really supposed to be regulated by the government.

[Crazyirish]

...hate crime charges can only be brought in addition to existing criminal charges, based on the mental state of the accused at the time of the crime. Something similar could be done with drugs - additional charges for the commission of crimes while under the influence of drugs.

In the same way that we don't criminalize racism in and of itself, we don't have to criminalize drug use when it isn't compounded by any additional crime.

^I like this. I like this a lot.

As to some of the "harder" drugs, I might point out that it is probably impossible to manufacture many of them and pass FDA requirements. I can't imagine an FDA approved meth lab, can you?

Also, I find it difficult to believe that public support could be garnered for legalizing the "harder" drugs. Legalizing/Decriminalizing marijuana by itself is much more likely to happen than if you attempt to throw some schedule I & II narcotics in the mix as well. I think we would be better off trying to cause some slow change with a medium to high success rate than a radical change with little or no chance of success.

[AppleBonker]

Crazy, I agree on the likelihood of this stuff passing. I'm merely speaking from an idealistic standpoint. The general public would not accept my opinion on a lot of things. I am fully aware of this.

[Crazyirish]

Crazy, I agree on the likelihood of this stuff passing. I'm merely speaking from an idealistic standpoint. The general public would not accept my opinion on a lot of things. I am fully aware of this.

Well in that case....
In an ideal world, no, the governement shouldn't regulate what we are allowed to put into our bodies. But hell, in an ideal world no one would need drugs

[stebo0728]

Crazy, I agree on the likelihood of this stuff passing. I'm merely speaking from an idealistic standpoint. The general public would not accept my opinion on a lot of things. I am fully aware of this.

Well in that case....
In an ideal world, no, the governement shouldn't regulate what we are allowed to put into our bodies. But hell, in an ideal world no one would need drugs

No one needs drugs now, at least not recreational drugs.

[IBCoupe]

I think he meant to say, in an ideal world, there wouldn't be a market for the stuff. Not "need" in the most literal sense of the word.

I could be wrong about that.

[AZhitman]

Alternatively, Greg, it could just be that:

<- Isn't as liberal as he's made out to be.

Don't flatter yourself. I actually didn't have your view of me in mind when I typed that.

[IBCoupe]

I didn't think you did. I thought you had NICO's view of me in mind, as in, the crazy old conservative guy would never agree with me.

Of course, I could have been just as wrong.

[AZhitman]

Personally, I don't much care if all the harder stuff is legalized (or even just decriminalized). Same as driving while drunk, there should be laws against doing it in situations that put other people at risk. But that shouldn't increase the cost to society all that much. As far as education and treatment go, I'm of the mindset to say tough cookies to those folks. You wont ever catch me shooting up or snorting blow or dropping acid. In the interest of self preservation it just wont happen. My only request for people that want to spin out of control and OD is to not take others with them. Same as I get mad at people who off themselves by stepping in front of a train - it slows down the commuters. But I'm a d!ck. So maybe those people will just take care of themselves? Problem solved?

Couldn't have said it better myself. I've lived 40 years without trying ANYTHING but THC, and that experience was lame. If I can manage without, so can you. If you can't, then I'm sorry, please step off the big spinning ball and leave more resources for the rest of us.

As far as I'm concerned, OD's are nature's way of weeding out the people who don't value life and shouldn't be breathing my good air to begin with.

I like the idea of increasing the penalties for any crime if under the influence, same as if a robbery gets ratcheted up if the robber brandishes a gun or just slips a note.

As far as the "costs" incurred by legalization, I don't see any real negative ones. The economy will shift and adjust. Some folks will be out of work (DEA?) but they can reallocate to other positions (oversight / inspection of cocaine lab?).

Sadly, our politicians are too scred to even propose such a thing. Even ol' Hopey McChangenstein is too much of a puss to carry his party's "legalization" goal to the Hill for consideration.

[AZhitman]

I didn't think you did. I thought you had NICO's view of me in mind, as in, the crazy old conservative guy would never agree with me.

Of course, I could have been just as wrong.

Yep.

You're far from being perceived as a libtard. Sorry. In fact, you're not even a good liberal. Hate to burst your bubble - it's a compliment.

[AppleBonker]

As far as I'm concerned, OD's are nature's way of weeding out the people who don't value life and shouldn't be breathing my good air to begin with.

Just needed to be quoted. 1000x this.

[stebo0728]

Ever seen the video of the animals in Africa that gather around the tree that drops fruit, and the fruit is fermented by the time they get there, and they all eat it and start getting drunk from it, then the predators swoop in and have easy pickin's. Funny stuff.

[wingFeather]

This will not save/generate money as suggested. The toll on our healthcare system would be tremendous.

[AZhitman]

This will not save/generate money as suggested. The toll on our healthcare system would be tremendous.

Why?

Do you think MORE people will use / consume formerly-illicit substances?

I don't - In fact, I think there's VERY FEW people who WANT to use drugs, but don't because they're afraid of going to jail.

It WILL generate money. I'm working on the early stages of drafting oversight and monitoring rules for the licensure of medicinal marijuana dispensaries (in anticipation of it passing here in AZ). The early estimate on revenue for license fees ALONE is pretty impressive.

[stebo0728]

Ill further some of that argument. Lets think for a minute about some of the reasons that there is a healthcare drain at all now. For one, no one knows exactly what they are actually consuming, what the contents are, what the dosage is, so surely OD's are pretty common. Now imagine a system where someone can know exactly what they are consuming (with exception of contaminant tolerance levels of course) and can know what doseage they are taking. Recommendations for proper doseages can be published, and for the most part people can follow these. Sure OD's will still occur, but I would postulate the level of OD's will lower once the supply is regulated, and education of the substances increases. Secondly, how many people now participate in drug use BECAUSE its illegal? I would wager that the amount of people added to the system upon legalization would balance out the people taken out of the system because its just no fun anymore now that its allowed. Are people still going to steal to buy? Sure, they do that now, but I would imagine a better market value can be established than the current black market value that exists now, making the items more affordable. Will people still be stupid and take too much, the wrong mix, or black market stuff that may be more readily available? Sure, but that happens now, so what has changed?

[IBCoupe]

The medical marijuana thing is really interesting. I was hearing about a comparison between California's and Arizona's and New Jersey's statute. The more strictly states regulate marijuana dispenseries, the more trouble they run into with federal officials, because the stricter they get about what marijuana dispenseries can't do, the more it looks like they legally condone what is still a federal crime for what the State says dispenseries can do.

[AZhitman]

...but, as we've learned, the Feds don't care to enforce the law in AZ, so we're all good.