Legalization of drugs

[rodent]

..

[Bluedevil]

I posted this on another thread on the same topic. But, I was skeptical too at first, however after I watched this video of Milton Friedman I changed my mind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Se_TJzB9-z0

[BuddyRey]

Check out NORML

http://www.norml.org/

I've been for legalization for a very long time, but I guess I can understand why it would scare people. I know it used to scare me.

[Gee]

Friedman was awesome... He spoke out on the drug war, the Fed, free markets, and all sorts of things for decades. Just like RP.

[DjLoTi]

MPP, LEAP, www.cannabisnews.com

[Bradley in DC]

MPP is libertarian-led. DPA's DC office is libertarian-led.

For the record, Dr. Paul believes this is a state issue.

[V-rod]

Dr. Paul just believes in de-criminalizing drugs. Which causes the huge surge in the prison system.

[austin356]

All I really care about is legalizing them on a federal level. I mean I would prefer that states and locals legalize, but to tell the truth we have bigger things to worry about, and plus, once the feds legalize it, then it would be a domino effect over the period of 10 years or so. Once TN legalizes, then GA, AL, KY, MS, AR, NC all then have really no choice but to, since they would be losing serious tax revenue to TN.

End the federal war on drugs and pardon all those who have been locked up in federal prison for drug crimes, that have not committed a violent crime.


GOOD NEWS!

Marc Emery, the "Prince of Pot" and most influential person, no contest, in the Cannabis Culture, has endorsed Ron Paul, and is extremely active in saying America MUST elect RP. He has millions of followers.

[AgentSmith]

Marc Emery posts here and is quite a smart fellow.

[kaligula]

that started with the Harrison Act that gave the Federal government the authority to federally regulate narcotics(all of which have been upheld by the Supreme Court), superceding any state laws.

Unless you amend the consitution or somehow manage to pipe pot smoke in through the ventillation system at the Supreme Court so that they suddenly decided access to narcotics is a 14th amendment issue, the issue of drug legalization with one swipe of a magic wand is nonsense. The state I live in, North Carolina just outlawed alcohol inhalers for god sakes.

The most you would get out of ending the federal prohibition is probably a third to half the states legalizing marijuana for medicinal use only.

[mikelovesgod]

Truly legalizing drugs would bring back many of the problems, but 10-fold, to where they are now. Does anyone realize all the side-effects legalization would "accomplish"?

-New policing of under-age kids
-Rampant violent drugs that cocaine and crack are known for
-Increased medical and social bills to society
-Policing of all jobs where one would be tested for drug use on entry

All the things it would cure would increase. Sure you wouldn't have as many "drug-dealers" on the corner, but criminals would find a way to sell some drug which is illegal which is stronger, but you would have increased burglary, murder, rape, violent crimes in general, broken families, and job policing. Look at the history of this country when they allowed heroin and cocaine. It didn't work out too well.

For reference look up "Needle Park" the failed experiment of legal drugs in Germany. Also look up the legalization of drugs by Alaska and their repeal by vote 15 years later from all the side effects. Look up the Netherlands increase in medical and criminal behavior from such legalization.

Sure the "war" isn't working, but I think it has more to do with corruption than concept. Medicine that stops death is 14% of the GDP and fails more than it works. Should be abolish that as well? Those that are forgetful of history are doomed to repeat it.

[SeanEdwards]

Truly legalizing drugs would bring back many of the problems, but 10-fold, to where they are now. Does anyone realize all the side-effects legalization would "accomplish"?

-New policing of under-age kids
-Rampant violent drugs that cocaine and crack are known for
-Increased medical and social bills to society
-Policing of all jobs where one would be tested for drug use on entry


You should listen to Milton Friedman:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Se_TJzB9-z0

[mikelovesgod]

You should read the reply to Milton Friedman. His logic is impeccably bad and one-sided without giving you history of how drug legalization solves one problem and creates 3 more and even more legislation to the ordinary citizen who would have to go through screenings on a daily basis.

http://www.sarnia.com/GROUPS/ANTIDRUG/argument/myths.html

[austin356]

Truly legalizing drugs would bring back many of the problems, but 10-fold, to where they are now. Does anyone realize all the side-effects legalization would "accomplish"?

-New policing of under-age kids
-Rampant violent drugs that cocaine and crack are known for
-Increased medical and social bills to society
-Policing of all jobs where one would be tested for drug use on entry

All the things it would cure would increase. Sure you wouldn't have as many "drug-dealers" on the corner, but criminals would find a way to sell some drug which is illegal which is stronger, but you would have increased burglary, murder, rape, violent crimes in general, broken families, and job policing. Look at the history of this country when they allowed heroin and cocaine. It didn't work out too well.

For reference look up "Needle Park" the failed experiment of legal drugs in Germany. Also look up the legalization of drugs by Alaska and their repeal by vote 15 years later from all the side effects. Look up the Netherlands increase in medical and criminal behavior from such legalization.

Sure the "war" isn't working, but I think it has more to do with corruption than concept. Medicine that stops death is 14% of the GDP and fails more than it works. Should be abolish that as well? Those that are forgetful of history are doomed to repeat it.



There are real bad effects, but how could they ever be worse than the 000's of thousands of murders that have been a result of prohibition? How could they ever be worse than the millions of children who dont have a father in the household because they are serving time for drugs?

Which is worse; A child w/ zero father, and is in committing armed robberies by the time he is 15? Or, A child with a father who smokes pot out on their apartment's balcony? Or even a father who snorts some lines in the bathroom?

This is just a small narrow aspect, but this war has destroyed families, just as the war on poverty did, and those ramifications are much much much worse than the actual problems they set out to fix.

A family without a father is usually spineless and Godless (hasty generalization). The war has taken unfortunate trends already present w/ such and exacerbated them. Just look at the different in the black community from the 50s to now, even inspite of all the good social progress made during that time period.

[mikelovesgod]

This is a philosophical explanation from experience from a doctor explaining areas that he worked in that had legalized drugs and overly cheap alcohol. It's interspersed with the philosophical underpinnings of law and society. This doctor's view cannot be undermined easily because of his vast experience:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/7_2_a1.html

[mikelovesgod]

There are real bad effects, but how could they ever be worse than the 000's of thousands of murders that have been a result of prohibition? How could they ever be worse than the millions of children who dont have a father in the household because they are serving time for drugs?

Ok, I did a lot of research on this. A lot... Look at the murders pre-prohibition, and increased suicide by 50% in one year, violent crime went up tremendously, incidental death, etc.. The prohibition card actually favors prohibiting the sale of drugs if you study all the effects in the aggregate. I'm not for prohibition, but the rates of violent crimes are increased with alcohol and the repeal of prohibition increased violent crime.

60% of all crime today is done under the influence of drugs and alcohol. Do you want to increase that # and make a society in which it's impossible to function without worrying about the guy on crack next to you at 2pm instead of the drunk at 2am? I lived in Belize in 2000 teaching high school to the under-privileged, I saw the effects of rampant drugs.


Which is worse; A child w/ zero father, and is in committing armed robberies by the time he is 15? Or, A child with a father who smokes pot out on their apartment's balcony? Or even a father who snorts some lines in the bathroom?

Or a father who becomes violent from drugs, abuses his children and wife (increased violence is a fact by use of drugs), more fatherless homes in cases where the parents use drugs, and greater parental instability? Look at the rates of broken homes and the use of drugs and alcohol. It might shock you. Lower and cheapen drugs and the demand will rise. Take away the social stigma of it and cheapen the product and then look at countries like the Netherlands. Look up the experiment called "Needle Park" in Zurich. It destroyed the area to have legal drugs. Look at the high rate of opium addicts post Civil War and its effects on society and family life.

Secondly, you forget the psychology of the drug user which looks for pleasure. It makes us inherently selfish and it's link to parental instincts disappearing in such families is a statistical fact.


This is just a small narrow aspect, but this war has destroyed families, just as the war on poverty did, and those ramifications are much much much worse than the actual problems they set out to fix.

But there are other wars such as wars against violence, wars against death, wars against family abuse. Should we forget those because they aren't working? Should we shut down hospitals because people die? The difference between the war on poverty and one on societal damaging drugs are much different. A poor man isn't likely to be in a car and a threat to others health, but a drug addict is. I don't fear the poor man killing my wife, but if the rate of drug use increases so does the rate of vehicle fatalities.

[austin356]

Mike, you really are not going to garner much support for continuation or escalation of the war on here. It will only serve as a divisive topic.

Its too late to go point by point, but I will just say its neither the governments responsibility nor obligation to protect me from myself. If I make bad choices and infringe on someone else's rights then I have to suffer the consequences.

God and the Bible teach proportional punishment, and locking someone up in prison alongside murders and rapists, for smoking something that used to grow on the side of the roads back in the 30s, without any reasonable doubt, violates that teaching.


But, if prohibition is such a big deal and has to be continued, then GET AN AMENDMENT!!

[SeanEdwards]

You should read the reply to Milton Friedman. His logic is impeccably bad and one-sided without giving you history of how drug legalization solves one problem and creates 3 more and even more legislation to the ordinary citizen who would have to go through screenings on a daily basis.

http://www.sarnia.com/GROUPS/ANTIDRUG/argument/myths.html

I don't find the arguments in your link compelling at all, certainly nothing to match Nobel Laureate Friedman's analysis. I prefer Friedmans focus on the principal of individual liberty and freedom that this country was founded on. The drug war is another total disaster for the American people. Our prisons are overflowing. The land of the free has more people in cages than any other country on Earth. Drugs are widely available everywhere and drug related crime causes thousands of deaths. Most of that crime is due to the prohibition.

Whatever. If Milton and Ron Paul can't change your opinion then I doubt anything I can say will either.

[literatim]

I can see it all ready, TV commercials for Heroine similar to commercials for those diet pills.

"We will send you a single month supply for free! How can we do this? We are so sure you will like it that you will come back to us for all your Heroine needs!"

[kaligula]

Truly legalizing drugs would bring back many of the problems, but 10-fold, to where they are now. Does anyone realize all the side-effects legalization would "accomplish"?

-New policing of under-age kids
-Rampant violent drugs that cocaine and crack are known for
-Increased medical and social bills to society
-Policing of all jobs where one would be tested for drug use on entry

All the things it would cure would increase. Sure you wouldn't have as many "drug-dealers" on the corner, but criminals would find a way to sell some drug which is illegal which is stronger, but you would have increased burglary, murder, rape, violent crimes in general, broken families, and job policing. Look at the history of this country when they allowed heroin and cocaine. It didn't work out too well.

For reference look up "Needle Park" the failed experiment of legal drugs in Germany. Also look up the legalization of drugs by Alaska and their repeal by vote 15 years later from all the side effects. Look up the Netherlands increase in medical and criminal behavior from such legalization.

Sure the "war" isn't working, but I think it has more to do with corruption than concept. Medicine that stops death is 14% of the GDP and fails more than it works. Should be abolish that as well? Those that are forgetful of history are doomed to repeat it.


There must be alternative history I'm unaware of because my understanding of US history informs me that alcohol, not narcotics, was always the target of the moralist prohibitionists. There was never any significant moral movement to prohibit narcotics in the US before 1914.

And the Harrison Act had nothing to do with a moral outcry but was the result of our near east expansionism into the Philippines and the consequence of having to deal with the Opium Trade Wars that were a major point of contention up down the far and near east. The arguments for passing the Harrison Act centered around complying with the Hague Convention of 1912, the first international opium agreement, which we were a part of, and which was devised to resolve these opium problems and trade issues in the far east.

Almost immediately after it was passed, the unintended consequences were railed against as obvious and irrational. The Harrison Act actually was supposed to replace the former system with a system that had orderly marketing of opium, morphine, heroin, end other drugs-in small quantities over the counter, and in larger Quantities on a physician's prescription. However, Law Enforcement arrested physicians who were prescribing to addicts almost immediately and it created a de facto Prohibition. A mere 4 years after, we had our first congressional hearing to address the alarming black market that had arisen. Rather than recommending that the Harrison Act be interpreted as originally intended, it recommended stricter law enforcement to deal with the Black Market. And it's been that way ever since.

It should be noted that in the history of the US, alcohol has always been the drug of choice. WW I was the catalyst needed for the moralists to finally get their alcohol prohibition, in no small part due to the hysteria of keeping our young men safe and sober from the German brewmasters. Sure, total alcohol consumption went down, but those consuming were then comsuming more potent forms of alcohol..namely moonshine and bootleg liquor.

Because alcohol--and not narcotics--has always been the drug of choice for Americans, what was tolerated for narcotics in terms of irrational prohibition simply could not be tolerated for alcohol in terms of a system that promoted crime,corruption, dangerous alternatives, and disrespect for the law. Even the hardcore moralists admitted it was a disaster.

With the ending of alcohol prohibition, people switched back to beer from moonshine. You don't see "moonshine" dealers corrupting the street corners, corrupting the children. In fact, with a safer legal alternative, moonshine can be legitimately enforced by law enforcement.

So imagine if we would have just kept the intended interpretation of the Harrison Act, would we have ever seen "crack" cocaine, speedballs, Meth, etc. No, of course not. If a person could get a safer legal alternative, what would happen to the more potent forms of these drugs...they would more or less become obsolete and could be actually enforced by law enforcement just like dangerous variants of moonshine are now.

The very fact that the US has maintained and extended Drug Prohibition--when it wilted almost immediately from alcohol prohibition--makes a mockery of the argument that ending federal prohibition and extending legal alternative at the state level would give rise to an unprecedented level of crazed drug addicts, engulfing the US in chaos is just plain absurd. It's DEA propaganda. Crazed "crackheads" is straight out of the Reefer Madness playbook.

[angrydragon]

Ok, I did a lot of research on this. A lot...

Share this research with us.