Interesting Reading On The Drug War

[otterinbham 0]

You guys know me as a pretty strict Libertarian at this point (Wait. Is that an oxymoron?). So read this in comment. I would be interested in the various perspectives to this essay, one that I happen to agree with. And, no, I don't keep a hash pipe or a bong around, nor do I partake.

"The Drug War knows no bounds. The Tenth Amendment clearly limits the federal government to powers that are specifically listed in the Constitution:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

But yet, national laws, including those that are definitively prohibited by the Tenth Amendment, are continually held to be superior to state and local laws; all to the detriment of your personal liberty.

The fact is that you have a right to do what you want with your own body. Self-medication, for example, is a right protected by the Ninth Amendment. More importantly, though, there is nothing listed in the constitution giving the federal government the power to prohibit people from using drugs or medicine.

Therefore, the federal government has no right to violate local drug laws or force you to change your personal choice. Doing so is in direct violation of both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. But, the Constitution be damned - that’s what the politicians are telling us!

In Murray Rothbard’s book, For a New Liberty, you can see the inherent problem with the drug war – it simply gives the federal government power over you in ways that no free person should want:

Propagandize against cigarettes [or marijuana] as much as you want, but leave the individual free to run his own life. Otherwise, we may as well outlaw all sorts of possible carcinogenic agents – including tight shoes, improperly fitting false teeth, excessive exposure to the sun, as well as excessive intake of ice cream, eggs, and butter which might lead to heart disease. And, if such prohibitions prove unenforceable, again the logic is to place people in cages so that they will receive the proper amount of sun, the correct diet, properly fitting shoes, and so on.

Once the government is given the power to limit the liberty of one group of people, it then has the power to limit the liberty of others – including you. If you approve of the government interfering with people’s rights to use whatever drugs they want, then you approve of politicians being able to decide what’s good for you as well. There is no stopping point once the government has the power to determine what is good or bad for you to put in your own body.

Thus, the drug war is based on a repugnant assertion: that you do not have ownership over your own body; that you don’t have the right to decide what you’ll do with your body, with your property and with your life. The position of the drug warriors is that you should be in jail if you decide to do something with your body that they don’t approve of.

This is an abomination of everything that America is supposed to stand for. As long as this country continues the drug war, you are not free. At their root, then, those that force the drug war on you are enemies to your freedom.

In this ongoing drug war, you are always treated as a suspect and your neighborhood is much less safe. You are searched at airports and your bank accounts are spied on. While drug users who are no physical threat to anyone but themselves are put in jail, the prisons become more and more overcrowded, resulting in the early release of violent criminals on a regular basis. If you love your freedom and you want your city to be safer, this psychotic war on drugs must be ended – now.

Understandably, many Americans are afraid that ending the drug war will result in countless drug addicts, including children. In reality, though, that’s just what we have now! On top of it, we generally don’t even consider the people who are addicted to federally-approved drugs to be drug addicts. What’s going to be different – can our nation’s addiction to drugs get any worse?

According to a 2004 CDC report, almost one-half of Americans use at least one prescription drug. It should be obvious, then, that the drug war has done nothing to reduce Americans’ addiction to drugs – it’s simply controlled which drugs people use, and who can make a profit from them. It’s doubtful that legalizing all drugs could make things any worse, but even if it does, then so be it.

People will always do plenty of things that are bad for them, and there’s no reason to put them in prison for it. Think about the things you do that are bad for your own health – should the government outlaw those too?

People eat too much fast food and they forget to floss every day. They watch too much TV and they don’t count their calories. And, guess what? People swallow, snort, shoot and smoke drugs that are both legal and illegal – and it’s not going to stop. A free society just wouldn’t force you, under the threat of punishment, to be “good” to yourself all the time. That was the job of your parents - unless, of course, you want the feds to be your new “daddy.”

In all seriousness, though, if we are ever going to have a nation that respects the Bill of Rights, of which the Ninth and Tenth Amendments may be the most important, the DEA and the entire drug war must be eliminated.

If not, what’s going to be next? Orwellian telescreens in our homes and a state-mandated morning exercise routine? That would most assuredly keep the cost down on the coming national healthcare system."

[channonc 466]

Otter, this is definitely an interesting article, and it brings up a few good points. Here's my thoughts on the "War on Drugs."

First, I would be ok with legalizing most any drug you can think of as long as 2 things happen. One, there must be an accurate test to show what you are on and how much you have taken for public safety issues, such as driving. I don't want someone high on cocaine to be able to crash into me or one of my family-- something like a blood alcohol test but for drugs would have to be available to local law enforcement. Second, this stuff must be taxed to high heaven, much like conventional cigarettes. If those things happen, and there are certain perameters like age limits, licenses (much like liquor licenses) for establishments who want to sell this stuff, then hey, I am all for it. There would also need to be huge fines for people who illegally sold this stuff, and fines for driving while high, that sort of thing. I think the way we are going after drugs puts way too much pressure on law enforcement to solve a problem, that will never be solved while going after it in this manner. While forcing this stuff to go "underground," I think we are doing more damage.

This is one of the problems I have with the ever increasing smoking bans. I must admit that while I am a non-smoker, it is nice that our county and now in the District, we have smoking bans on almost every bar and restaurant. However, I now see that many states are taking this sort of thing to the extreme--- banning smoking in your home, your car, etc. The public smoking ban has now opened the door for the government to start enforcing these rules in your own home--- and I have major problems with that.

I believe it is a waste of time for the government to try to police everyone's lives. Unless there is a public safety issue--- and for that I am ok with rules and parameters, the government should not be in the business to tell people how to live their lives.

[otterinbham 0]

Otter, this is definitely an interesting article, and it brings up a few good points. Here's my thoughts on the "War on Drugs."

First, I would be ok with legalizing most any drug you can think of as long as 2 things happen. One, there must be an accurate test to show what you are on and how much you have taken for public safety issues, such as driving. I don't want someone high on cocaine to be able to crash into me or one of my family-- something like a blood alcohol test but for drugs would have to be available to local law enforcement. Second, this stuff must be taxed to high heaven, much like conventional cigarettes. If those things happen, and there are certain perameters like age limits, licenses (much like liquor licenses) for establishments who want to sell this stuff, then hey, I am all for it. There would also need to be huge fines for people who illegally sold this stuff, and fines for driving while high, that sort of thing. I think the way we are going after drugs puts way too much pressure on law enforcement to solve a problem, that will never be solved while going after it in this manner. While forcing this stuff to go "underground," I think we are doing more damage.

This is one of the problems I have with the ever increasing smoking bans. I must admit that while I am a non-smoker, it is nice that our county and now in the District, we have smoking bans on almost every bar and restaurant. However, I now see that many states are taking this sort of thing to the extreme--- banning smoking in your home, your car, etc. The public smoking ban has now opened the door for the government to start enforcing these rules in your own home--- and I have major problems with that.

I believe it is a waste of time for the government to try to police everyone's lives. Unless there is a public safety issue--- and for that I am ok with rules and parameters, the government should not be in the business to tell people how to live their lives.

See, I think that is a totally reasonable set of suggestions. If you carefully limit how it is sold, much like alcohol and cigarettes, you actually can do a much better job of keeping it away from minors than people can today. What's more, an entire category of crime vanishes into thin air almost overnight.

I think the crux of this article is this: It's just not the government's cotton-picking business what you do with your own body. I've never understood the War On Drugs and the toll it takes on individual civil liberties.

[Ranger12 46]

I am against it because of a public safety concern. Like channoc pointed out, there would need to be some way to test it the same way a breatherlizer test is given at the scene. If it could be properly monitored, then I might be okay with it.

I have heard some wonder why marijuana is illegal and alcohol is legal? My guess would be maybe because marijuana impairs you much quicker then alcohol can. Some of you that may have "experimented" should be able to verify if that is true or not.

As far as it being made legal as prescription only, I have no problem with that at all. If it helps ease the pain by somebody with a terminal illness or helps them keep an appetite, then I don't see why that should be kept from them.

[otterinbham 0]

I am against it because of a public safety concern. Like channoc pointed out, there would need to be some way to test it the same way a breatherlizer test is given at the scene. If it could be properly monitored, then I might be okay with it.

I have heard some wonder why marijuana is illegal and alcohol is legal? My guess would be maybe because marijuana impairs you much quicker then alcohol can. Some of you that may have "experimented" should be able to verify if that is true or not.

As far as it being made legal as prescription only, I have no problem with that at all. If it helps ease the pain by somebody with a terminal illness or helps them keep an appetite, then I don't see why that should be kept from them.

I think that's a valid point. At the same time, regulating sale rather than banning it outright, you actually have far more opportunity to regulate consumption than today. After all, anybody who wants to buy a bag of pot can do it, even if you're 14.

The thrust of this argument is, basically, is it the government's business at all? If people use drugs in the privacy of their own homes, how is it any different than alcohol? So if you don't like the government being the Nanny State, then the War On Drugs should be seen as a disquieting affront to people's individual choices.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

I don't partake nor do I intend to. I believe the war on drugs is about who controls the flow into the US and who profits. What high taxes will accomplish is a black market for the drugs. People will produce their own and manufacturing for black market sales will increase. On a positive note, the court system will be less clogged with drug cases and less revenue will result from the DEA, ATF, state, federal and local law enforcement. The IRS will get busier as those who operate in the black market will refuse to claim income from drug sales. I think money spent on the "War on Drugs" is a waste of taxpayer dollars that must be stopped. Only banks and corporations profit from laundering drug money. Pot isn't like alcohol. When was the last time you heard in the headlines, "Man beat wife, man was stone"? You won't either. Marijuana is a tranquilizer not a depressant like alcohol. It doesn't kill brain cells, it only retards them (but some cells may die do to inactivity, resulting in a burn-out). Alcohol, heroin and cocaine all kill brain cells.

Anytime I can get the federal government to back the ____ off, I wish to do so.

[Tiger Al 0]

As a recovering cocaine addict I have mixed feelings on this.

I have no problem with marijuana being as legal as alcohol, along with all of the rights and responsibilities that go with it. (Amsterdam was interesting!) Like channon, before this could happen, someone has to come up with an apparatus that could be used in the field to accurately measure sobriety.

My problem comes with the more addictive, personally devastating drugs like cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, LSD, etc. These drugs are so addictive and instantaneously fatal that I'd be somewhat concerned about having them readily available in a pharmacy or convenience store. In my recovery I had a few times where lack of availability was all that kept me from using again. Also, with access to virtually unlimited, relatively cheap supplies, the chance of people overdosing would go up. So, with these drugs, someone will need to make a convincing argument.

[aumd03 2]

You guys know me as a pretty strict Libertarian at this point (Wait. Is that an oxymoron?). So read this in comment. I would be interested in the various perspectives to this essay, one that I happen to agree with. And, no, I don't keep a hash pipe or a bong around, nor do I partake.

"The Drug War knows no bounds. The Tenth Amendment clearly limits the federal government to powers that are specifically listed in the Constitution:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

But yet, national laws, including those that are definitively prohibited by the Tenth Amendment, are continually held to be superior to state and local laws; all to the detriment of your personal liberty.

The fact is that you have a right to do what you want with your own body. Self-medication, for example, is a right protected by the Ninth Amendment. More importantly, though, there is nothing listed in the constitution giving the federal government the power to prohibit people from using drugs or medicine.

Therefore, the federal government has no right to violate local drug laws or force you to change your personal choice. Doing so is in direct violation of both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. But, the Constitution be damned - that’s what the politicians are telling us!

In Murray Rothbard’s book, For a New Liberty, you can see the inherent problem with the drug war – it simply gives the federal government power over you in ways that no free person should want:

Propagandize against cigarettes [or marijuana] as much as you want, but leave the individual free to run his own life. Otherwise, we may as well outlaw all sorts of possible carcinogenic agents – including tight shoes, improperly fitting false teeth, excessive exposure to the sun, as well as excessive intake of ice cream, eggs, and butter which might lead to heart disease. And, if such prohibitions prove unenforceable, again the logic is to place people in cages so that they will receive the proper amount of sun, the correct diet, properly fitting shoes, and so on.

Once the government is given the power to limit the liberty of one group of people, it then has the power to limit the liberty of others – including you. If you approve of the government interfering with people’s rights to use whatever drugs they want, then you approve of politicians being able to decide what’s good for you as well. There is no stopping point once the government has the power to determine what is good or bad for you to put in your own body.

Thus, the drug war is based on a repugnant assertion: that you do not have ownership over your own body; that you don’t have the right to decide what you’ll do with your body, with your property and with your life. The position of the drug warriors is that you should be in jail if you decide to do something with your body that they don’t approve of.

This is an abomination of everything that America is supposed to stand for. As long as this country continues the drug war, you are not free. At their root, then, those that force the drug war on you are enemies to your freedom.

In this ongoing drug war, you are always treated as a suspect and your neighborhood is much less safe. You are searched at airports and your bank accounts are spied on. While drug users who are no physical threat to anyone but themselves are put in jail, the prisons become more and more overcrowded, resulting in the early release of violent criminals on a regular basis. If you love your freedom and you want your city to be safer, this psychotic war on drugs must be ended – now.

Understandably, many Americans are afraid that ending the drug war will result in countless drug addicts, including children. In reality, though, that’s just what we have now! On top of it, we generally don’t even consider the people who are addicted to federally-approved drugs to be drug addicts. What’s going to be different – can our nation’s addiction to drugs get any worse?

According to a 2004 CDC report, almost one-half of Americans use at least one prescription drug. It should be obvious, then, that the drug war has done nothing to reduce Americans’ addiction to drugs – it’s simply controlled which drugs people use, and who can make a profit from them. It’s doubtful that legalizing all drugs could make things any worse, but even if it does, then so be it.

People will always do plenty of things that are bad for them, and there’s no reason to put them in prison for it. Think about the things you do that are bad for your own health – should the government outlaw those too?

People eat too much fast food and they forget to floss every day. They watch too much TV and they don’t count their calories. And, guess what? People swallow, snort, shoot and smoke drugs that are both legal and illegal – and it’s not going to stop. A free society just wouldn’t force you, under the threat of punishment, to be “good” to yourself all the time. That was the job of your parents - unless, of course, you want the feds to be your new “daddy.”

In all seriousness, though, if we are ever going to have a nation that respects the Bill of Rights, of which the Ninth and Tenth Amendments may be the most important, the DEA and the entire drug war must be eliminated.

If not, what’s going to be next? Orwellian telescreens in our homes and a state-mandated morning exercise routine? That would most assuredly keep the cost down on the coming national healthcare system."

Otter, Did I remember you saying that you thought healthcare was a right? If it was someone else I apologize. The only problem i see with this is the health care costs associated with the ills people inflict upon themselves. Hepatitis and HIV would be on the rise. Both of these are expensive drugs to treat due to their chronicity. Not to mention adverse effects on children. Until you've seen a baby shaking from Heroin withdrawal, its much easier to say that drugs should be legal. If I had my way, alcohol and tobacco would be illegal as well, just because I see all the health problems. But I realize that is very idealistic and it will never happen. But we would open up a new bag of worms. If you want to make drugs legal, I don't mind, just don't make me pay to take care of them. I somehow have a feeling, they wouldn't have the money to take care of themselves.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

If you want to make drugs legal, I don't mind, just don't make me pay to take care of them. I somehow have a feeling, they wouldn't have the money to take care of themselves.

That's my take. Dopeheads can snort, puff, or inject as much as they want; I shouldn't be handed their hospital or treatment bill. Keep them off the highways, too.

[otterinbham 0]

Otter, Did I remember you saying that you thought healthcare was a right? If it was someone else I apologize. The only problem i see with this is the health care costs associated with the ills people inflict upon themselves. Hepatitis and HIV would be on the rise. Both of these are expensive drugs to treat due to their chronicity. Not to mention adverse effects on children. Until you've seen a baby shaking from Heroin withdrawal, its much easier to say that drugs should be legal. If I had my way, alcohol and tobacco would be illegal as well, just because I see all the health problems. But I realize that is very idealistic and it will never happen. But we would open up a new bag of worms. If you want to make drugs legal, I don't mind, just don't make me pay to take care of them. I somehow have a feeling, they wouldn't have the money to take care of themselves.

No. I don't believe healthcare is a right. I think if you use drugs, you should be prepared to face the medical consequences on your own, just the same as if you drink too much, eat french fries daily, and don't exercise. Keep them off the roads, and keep them off medicare, and I'm fine with it.

Your post really illustrates the crux of the entire problem. The government is getting more and more into the health of Americans, which means the government can justify telling you how to live your life. And that's what bothers me.

Need another example? Seatbelt laws. Obviously, seatbelts should be required in every car. Parents should be required to ensure their children are wearing seatbelts. I don't even back out of the driveway without my seatbelt on, and I won't allow anybody to ride in the car with me if their seatbelts are not fastened. That being said, it's not the government's business whether or not I'm wearing a seatbelt. But because we're on a slippery slope, the government can make us do more and more things that are ostensibly good for us, but really not the government's business at all. After all, there have been a couple of towns that have attempted to ban smoking tobacco anywhere in the city limits, even in the homes of its citizens (I wish I had kept the articles, so don't ask for a reference).

However, if you really support freedom, then you should support lifting the stifling laws that really affect us all. For example, in the mid-80s, it became legal for the state to seize a persons property if drugs were found on the premises, regardless of whether or not that person was convicted of a crime.

Need another example? In the mid-90s, a landscaper from Cleveland tried to pay cash for his plane ticket to Houston, where he goes on his semi-annual buying trips. Well, that sent up a red flag to the DEA, who took him in for interrogation, confiscated $20,000 of his money, and never returned. Where's the due process?

In fact, cash is rapidly becoming illegal in our economy because of the drug laws. If you deposit more than $10,000 in cash in your checking account in a day, you have to fill out a form explaining where you go the money. See how quickly this spirals into madness? Yet we don't have enough people to secure our borders or guard against the legitimate threat of terrorism on our own soil.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

As a recovering cocaine addict I have mixed feelings on this.

I have no problem with marijuana being as legal as alcohol, along with all of the rights and responsibilities that go with it. (Amsterdam was interesting!) Like channon, before this could happen, someone has to come up with an apparatus that could be used in the field to accurately measure sobriety.

My problem comes with the more addictive, personally devastating drugs like cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, LSD, etc. These drugs are so addictive and instantaneously fatal that I'd be somewhat concerned about having them readily available in a pharmacy or convenience store. In my recovery I had a few times where lack of availability was all that kept me from using again. Also, with access to virtually unlimited, relatively cheap supplies, the chance of people overdosing would go up. So, with these drugs, someone will need to make a convincing argument.

Sweat glands and/or perspiration can be used to detect concentrations of metabolites.

[aumd03 2]

As a recovering cocaine addict I have mixed feelings on this.

I have no problem with marijuana being as legal as alcohol, along with all of the rights and responsibilities that go with it. (Amsterdam was interesting!) Like channon, before this could happen, someone has to come up with an apparatus that could be used in the field to accurately measure sobriety.

My problem comes with the more addictive, personally devastating drugs like cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, LSD, etc. These drugs are so addictive and instantaneously fatal that I'd be somewhat concerned about having them readily available in a pharmacy or convenience store. In my recovery I had a few times where lack of availability was all that kept me from using again. Also, with access to virtually unlimited, relatively cheap supplies, the chance of people overdosing would go up. So, with these drugs, someone will need to make a convincing argument.

Sweat glands and/or perspiration can be used to detect concentrations of metabolites.

For a short time. To be exrected in sweat, concentrations typically have to be quite high. And not all drugs would be detected. It would be quite expensive and most tests are simply screening tests. They would require confirmation. Even our hospital urine drug screens are just screens and require confirmatory tests. Sometimes it takes 2 or 3 days to get a confirmation. By the time you try to get a repeat for certain drugs, the drug has cleared itself.

[CCTAU 3,334]

I would only propose one change. That would be to legalize marijuana. Empty the jails of anyone who is there solely for selling or using it. Grow it just as tobacco is grown. Regulate it just as tobacco AND alcohol is regulated. And treat it as alcohol is regarding under the influence. Since there is no way to regulate how high you are, ANY use of marijuana and subsequent failing of a sobriety field test would result in a DWI. There is no data to support that the use of marijuana is any more dangerous that alcohol. As a matter of fact, you cannot smoke yourself to death on marijuana.

Any drug that can cause you death from using should never be legalized. Cocaine or ecstacy, for instance. All money received in taxes on the LEGAL marijuana should re re-invested in treatment centers for ALL drug addicts. Studies have proven that treatment is more successful, and compared to today’s spending, cheaper than our current war on drugs..

[DKW 86 7,431]

If you want to make drugs legal, I don't mind, just don't make me pay to take care of them. I somehow have a feeling, they wouldn't have the money to take care of themselves.

That's my take. Dopeheads can snort, puff, or inject as much as they want; I shouldn't be handed their hospital or treatment bill. Keep them off the highways, too.

TIS and I are very close to agreement here. otter, as close as we are politically, I have to disagree with you in reality. I have worked at a rescue mission. Say whatever you want, marijuana is a gateway drug. (period.) It almost always leads to other far more serious drugs.

As for medical costs, there would never be enough money to treat these folks like some would demand they be treated. Psychological and medical treatment would be insanely high and some folks would always demand more and better, no matter what. There are wait lines for mediocre treatment centers now that go sometimes years in some communities. You think the govt is a mess now, wait until you give them scads more money and watch Walter Reed turn into 24/7 reality for millions more. No one realy cares about the health care of soldiers and sailors, we really arent humans to many in this country. If we really respected our veterans, we would never have allowed them to get the poor medical care they get now. It is very poor and that would be the exact level of care for the drug doers with a "drug tax to pay for the medical problems" system. We would never get ahead of the need ever and we would eventually have to raise taxes on those of us that do work and contribute to society.

From the rescue mission side, let me say that there is no end to what folks will put into their own bodies. Drugs, fruits, vegetables, metallic objects, etc. I can tell you about the night in the emergency room for a guy and his banana if you want.

You want to make the drugs legal and regulated? I am all for that on a intellectual level. In reality, you might as well just flush 5-10% of the population down the crapper. if America was all educated and acted in a manor that was truly in their own best interest I could see otter's plan working. They arent and dont. I have seen it first hand. I have seen college grads flush their entire lives, families, careers, possessions down the crapper in three months after experimenting with cocaine at the office party. (True story.)

You know drugs arent like food. When you get over abusing them, you arent going back to healthy. The effects of drug abuse last a lifetime. You can have a college degree, yet after drug abuse be so badly wrecked that you can only function on a minimum wage level. The physical and mental carnage from drugs is NOT REVERSEABLE!

"But we can treat them" said the tree hugging libbie! There is a law of diminishing returns with drugees. They are so damaged it is like rebuilding a wrecked car but not having all the pieces to use to put all back together again. It may LOOK like a car until you need it to go to work.

I have seen families destroyed by drugs. I have seen employers affected by drugs. I have seen lives destroyed by drugs. Home boy here wont ever do any. I hated dealing with my painkillers during my recent back surgery. The slope is very slippery and drugs kick @ss and take names on everyone they deal with. They can ruin anyone and those around them too.

So what do we do? IMHO: Shoot to kill.

Shoot a drug dealer, get a pardon. Beat a drug doer up and leave him on the street. That will shake him up and be the tough love that they need. All the namby pamby warm and fuzzy feelings that you want to have with those that are caught in Drug's snare all fade away as you hold a d-ting junky and watch them throw their guts up for days on end just to see them RUN back to it as soon as they get enough cash for the next hit. I have personally watched a mother reject her own kids for her drug problem. I have seen it and I do not ever want to see it again. You think she was hurt? You should have seen the trauma her LSD addiction in Moulton , AL did to her kids.

Naw, color me Dirty Harry. Shoot the bastards that are selling the junk. Shoot the bastards. Shoot the bastards. Shoot the bastards.

Shoot to kill them.

Legalizing drugs? Are you stoned? If you are, see you at the rescue mission. The most intelligent end up there too.

[Tiger Al 0]

I would only propose one change. That would be to legalize marijuana. Empty the jails of anyone who is there solely for selling or using it. Grow it just as tobacco is grown. Regulate it just as tobacco AND alcohol is regulated. And treat it as alcohol is regarding under the influence. Since there is no way to regulate how high you are, ANY use of marijuana and subsequent failing of a sobriety field test would result in a DWI. There is no data to support that the use of marijuana is any more dangerous that alcohol. As a matter of fact, you cannot smoke yourself to death on marijuana.

Any drug that can cause you death from using should never be legalized. Cocaine or ecstacy, for instance. All money received in taxes on the LEGAL marijuana should re re-invested in treatment centers for ALL drug addicts. Studies have proven that treatment is more successful, and compared to today’s spending, cheaper than our current war on drugs..

I think you and I have something we finally agree on.

[aumd03 2]

I would only propose one change. That would be to legalize marijuana. Empty the jails of anyone who is there solely for selling or using it. Grow it just as tobacco is grown. Regulate it just as tobacco AND alcohol is regulated. And treat it as alcohol is regarding under the influence. Since there is no way to regulate how high you are, ANY use of marijuana and subsequent failing of a sobriety field test would result in a DWI. There is no data to support that the use of marijuana is any more dangerous that alcohol. As a matter of fact, you cannot smoke yourself to death on marijuana.

Any drug that can cause you death from using should never be legalized. Cocaine or ecstacy, for instance. All money received in taxes on the LEGAL marijuana should re re-invested in treatment centers for ALL drug addicts. Studies have proven that treatment is more successful, and compared to today’s spending, cheaper than our current war on drugs..

I disagree. There are a few cases written up in medical literature in which the cause of death is suspected to be marijuana. I'll give you it is much harder, and even some of these cases may be due to cutting agents.

I had a case in which a young man died after smoking marijuana. It was the only thing that ever came back positive on his toxicology screen. He had severe bradycardia (slow heart rate) that caused his brain to not get enough oxygen. He was not eligible for organ donation because of his drug history. Interestingly enough, this patients family thought he was under a voodoo curse and asked to bring in a witch doctor to remove the curse. It was kind of odd watching this odd lady work in this high tech ICU. Of course, he didn't improve and he was taken off life support a few days later.

[otterinbham 0]

If you want to make drugs legal, I don't mind, just don't make me pay to take care of them. I somehow have a feeling, they wouldn't have the money to take care of themselves.

That's my take. Dopeheads can snort, puff, or inject as much as they want; I shouldn't be handed their hospital or treatment bill. Keep them off the highways, too.

TIS and I are very close to agreement here. otter, as close as we are politically, I have to disagree with you in reality. I have worked at a rescue mission. Say whatever you want, marijuana is a gateway drug. (period.) It almost always leads to other far more serious drugs.

As for medical costs, there would never be enough money to treat these folks like some would demand they be treated. Psychological and medical treatment would be insanely high and some folks would always demand more and better, no matter what. There are wait lines for mediocre treatment centers now that go sometimes years in some communities. You think the govt is a mess now, wait until you give them scads more money and watch Walter Reed turn into 24/7 reality for millions more. No one realy cares about the health care of soldiers and sailors, we really arent humans to many in this country. If we really respected our veterans, we would never have allowed them to get the poor medical care they get now. It is very poor and that would be the exact level of care for the drug doers with a "drug tax to pay for the medical problems" system. We would never get ahead of the need ever and we would eventually have to raise taxes on those of us that do work and contribute to society.

From the rescue mission side, let me say that there is no end to what folks will put into their own bodies. Drugs, fruits, vegetables, metallic objects, etc. I can tell you about the night in the emergency room for a guy and his banana if you want.

You want to make the drugs legal and regulated? I am all for that on a intellectual level. In reality, you might as well just flush 5-10% of the population down the crapper. if America was all educated and acted in a manor that was truly in their own best interest I could see otter's plan working. They arent and dont. I have seen it first hand. I have seen college grads flush their entire lives, families, careers, possessions down the crapper in three months after experimenting with cocaine at the office party. (True story.)

You know drugs arent like food. When you get over abusing them, you arent going back to healthy. The effects of drug abuse last a lifetime. You can have a college degree, yet after drug abuse be so badly wrecked that you can only function on a minimum wage level. The physical and mental carnage from drugs is NOT REVERSEABLE!

"But we can treat them" said the tree hugging libbie! There is a law of diminishing returns with drugees. They are so damaged it is like rebuilding a wrecked car but not having all the pieces to use to put all back together again. It may LOOK like a car until you need it to go to work.

I have seen families destroyed by drugs. I have seen employers affected by drugs. I have seen lives destroyed by drugs. Home boy here wont ever do any. I hated dealing with my painkillers during my recent back surgery. The slope is very slippery and drugs kick @ss and take names on everyone they deal with. They can ruin anyone and those around them too.

So what do we do? IMHO: Shoot to kill.

Shoot a drug dealer, get a pardon. Beat a drug doer up and leave him on the street. That will shake him up and be the tough love that they need. All the namby pamby warm and fuzzy feelings that you want to have with those that are caught in Drug's snare all fade away as you hold a d-ting junky and watch them throw their guts up for days on end just to see them RUN back to it as soon as they get enough cash for the next hit. I have personally watched a mother reject her own kids for her drug problem. I have seen it and I do not ever want to see it again. You think she was hurt? You should have seen the trauma her LSD addiction in Moulton , AL did to her kids.

Naw, color me Dirty Harry. Shoot the bastards that are selling the junk. Shoot the bastards. Shoot the bastards. Shoot the bastards.

Shoot to kill them.

Legalizing drugs? Are you stoned? If you are, see you at the rescue mission. The most intelligent end up there too.

LOL...I don't do them. However, I think the war on drugs has had a corrosive effect on civil liberties in our country. And I feel that regulating the distribution channels will actually do more to offset the consequences of drug use in this country than what we're doing today.

However, good points, and well taken.

[otterinbham 0]

I would only propose one change. That would be to legalize marijuana. Empty the jails of anyone who is there solely for selling or using it. Grow it just as tobacco is grown. Regulate it just as tobacco AND alcohol is regulated. And treat it as alcohol is regarding under the influence. Since there is no way to regulate how high you are, ANY use of marijuana and subsequent failing of a sobriety field test would result in a DWI. There is no data to support that the use of marijuana is any more dangerous that alcohol. As a matter of fact, you cannot smoke yourself to death on marijuana.

Any drug that can cause you death from using should never be legalized. Cocaine or ecstacy, for instance. All money received in taxes on the LEGAL marijuana should re re-invested in treatment centers for ALL drug addicts. Studies have proven that treatment is more successful, and compared to today’s spending, cheaper than our current war on drugs..

I disagree. There are a few cases written up in medical literature in which the cause of death is suspected to be marijuana. I'll give you it is much harder, and even some of these cases may be due to cutting agents.

I had a case in which a young man died after smoking marijuana. It was the only thing that ever came back positive on his toxicology screen. He had severe bradycardia (slow heart rate) that caused his brain to not get enough oxygen. He was not eligible for organ donation because of his drug history. Interestingly enough, this patients family thought he was under a voodoo curse and asked to bring in a witch doctor to remove the curse. It was kind of odd watching this odd lady work in this high tech ICU. Of course, he didn't improve and he was taken off life support a few days later.

That's interesting stuff, and I defer to your superior medical knowledge in that area. However, if we're talking about toxicity of a substance to select people, then we'd have to ban everything from shellfish to wheat gluten.

What I'm interested in exploring here is the the overall costs of society of the Drug Wars as opposed to Decriminalization or even Legalization. Have the overall costs of illegal narcotics (crime, enforcements, civil liberties) outweighed the costs of Legalized drugs? And where does a supposedly free society draw the line of what its citizens can and cannot do?

This really dovetails into the nice morality debate we had last week. What's moral for some is not for others. While I don't do drugs (although I admit to smoking in my teenaged years, like 60-70% of the population) and won't do them in the future, my instincts are to allow it.

[CCTAU 3,334]

I would only propose one change. That would be to legalize marijuana. Empty the jails of anyone who is there solely for selling or using it. Grow it just as tobacco is grown. Regulate it just as tobacco AND alcohol is regulated. And treat it as alcohol is regarding under the influence. Since there is no way to regulate how high you are, ANY use of marijuana and subsequent failing of a sobriety field test would result in a DWI. There is no data to support that the use of marijuana is any more dangerous that alcohol. As a matter of fact, you cannot smoke yourself to death on marijuana.

Any drug that can cause you death from using should never be legalized. Cocaine or ecstacy, for instance. All money received in taxes on the LEGAL marijuana should re re-invested in treatment centers for ALL drug addicts. Studies have proven that treatment is more successful, and compared to today’s spending, cheaper than our current war on drugs..

I disagree. There are a few cases written up in medical literature in which the cause of death is suspected to be marijuana. I'll give you it is much harder, and even some of these cases may be due to cutting agents.

I had a case in which a young man died after smoking marijuana. It was the only thing that ever came back positive on his toxicology screen. He had severe bradycardia (slow heart rate) that caused his brain to not get enough oxygen. He was not eligible for organ donation because of his drug history. Interestingly enough, this patients family thought he was under a voodoo curse and asked to bring in a witch doctor to remove the curse. It was kind of odd watching this odd lady work in this high tech ICU. Of course, he didn't improve and he was taken off life support a few days later.

You can drink yourself to death on water too. The "few" cases you mention are anomolies that cannot be be blamed solely on the marijuana. (suspect is not fact). If the stuff is grown legally, it won't have to be cut.

I get so tired of hearing that "marijuana is a gateway drug" to counteract the legalizing of it. EVERTHING is a gateway drug to the weak-minded. I know people who have smoked the hooch all their life and have never tried anything stronger. Hell, these same folks are running some of your fortune 1000 companies. But our prisons are so full of marijuana offenders that they are letting rapist go early. So the few that move on to bigger drugs probably would have moved on anyway. We are so busy saving the few, that we are compromising the safety of the public from more serious offenders. I know that from visiting the rescue missions and knowing others that have been affected by this really hits home. But what about the trade off? What about the prisons that are full of potheads and the violent ones get set free early.

Keep in mind, I only propose this for marijuana. Nothing else (except hemp, but that is a different topic). And do not forget the rehab money that will come from the tax on pot. This will do more for those families being torn apart from drugs than any amount of jail time could.

[aumd03 2]

I would only propose one change. That would be to legalize marijuana. Empty the jails of anyone who is there solely for selling or using it. Grow it just as tobacco is grown. Regulate it just as tobacco AND alcohol is regulated. And treat it as alcohol is regarding under the influence. Since there is no way to regulate how high you are, ANY use of marijuana and subsequent failing of a sobriety field test would result in a DWI. There is no data to support that the use of marijuana is any more dangerous that alcohol. As a matter of fact, you cannot smoke yourself to death on marijuana.

Any drug that can cause you death from using should never be legalized. Cocaine or ecstacy, for instance. All money received in taxes on the LEGAL marijuana should re re-invested in treatment centers for ALL drug addicts. Studies have proven that treatment is more successful, and compared to today’s spending, cheaper than our current war on drugs..

I disagree. There are a few cases written up in medical literature in which the cause of death is suspected to be marijuana. I'll give you it is much harder, and even some of these cases may be due to cutting agents.

I had a case in which a young man died after smoking marijuana. It was the only thing that ever came back positive on his toxicology screen. He had severe bradycardia (slow heart rate) that caused his brain to not get enough oxygen. He was not eligible for organ donation because of his drug history. Interestingly enough, this patients family thought he was under a voodoo curse and asked to bring in a witch doctor to remove the curse. It was kind of odd watching this odd lady work in this high tech ICU. Of course, he didn't improve and he was taken off life support a few days later.

That's interesting stuff, and I defer to your superior medical knowledge in that area. However, if we're talking about toxicity of a substance to select people, then we'd have to ban everything from shellfish to wheat gluten.

What I'm interested in exploring here is the the overall costs of society of the Drug Wars as opposed to Decriminalization or even Legalization. Have the overall costs of illegal narcotics (crime, enforcements, civil liberties) outweighed the costs of Legalized drugs? And where does a supposedly free society draw the line of what its citizens can and cannot do?

This really dovetails into the nice morality debate we had last week. What's moral for some is not for others. While I don't do drugs (although I admit to smoking in my teenaged years, like 60-70% of the population) and won't do them in the future, my instincts are to allow it.

This is a little different than an allergy that an epi-pen will cure.

But I do agree. Its not killing people left and right. But some of that may be due to limited usage. There are studies suggesting that marijuana is more harmful to the lungs than tobacco smoke. This may be due to its unfiltered use.

I keep saying maybe or suspected, because you never want to accept something as doctrine, especially when its not that well studied and there isn't volumes of data. As long as we allow cigarette smoking, i'm not sure we have a leg to stand on by banning marijuana use based on health effects.

As for driving, I think i'd rather have someone high than someone drunk. Most people are a little paranoid when high and don't have the motor delay that makes being drunk so dangerous.

[quietfan 233]

I’m not a lawyer and therefore no expert on the 9th & 10th amendment arguments, but it seems to me that there will always be something of a conflict between the restrictions on federal powers outlined in those amendments vs. the elastic clause of Article 1, Sec 8 that gives Congress the power “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution …all other powers vested by this Constitution.”

I’ve never read, but would be interested in, a comparison of the constitutional attitudes on firearm possession vs. alcohol prohibition. Seems like on the one hand, the inclusion of the 2nd amendment implied that prior to it, Congress may have had the power to ban firearms through simple legislation. On the other hand, the necessity of the 18th amendment (alcohol prohibition) seems to imply Congress did not have such power to ban alcohol in the original document. I’m not sure why the two issues are/were treated differently. Seems like Congress either had the power to prohibit both guns and alcohol in the original document, or else it had the power to ban neither. The two amendments seem to take opposing views as far as implied federal powers are concerned.

So I’d say the Constitution is somewhat ambiguous on how much prohibitive authority the Feds have over drugs. Personally, I’m a very strong libertarian when it comes to having the state encroach on the private lives of individuals—I don’t think it’s any of the government’s business whether one has or uses firearms, alcohol, other drugs, pornography, etc. in the privacy of one’s home, as long as you am not hurting anyone else and only involve other consenting adults in the use. In public, we have an obligation to be responsible, not endanger others, and not place undue burden on the framework of civil order.

When it comes to the healthcare issue, the line between public expense vs. personal liberty will always be debatable. Alcohol use puts a tremendous strain on the healthcare system, but no one seriously expects us to go back to Prohibition after our failed experiment in the 1920’s-30’s. We could also probably save lots of money on healthcare if we reduced the speed limit to 45 on all highways, but no one takes that idea seriously. Emergency rooms around this country spend huge $$’s every year treating gunshot wounds, but I doubt anyone on this board (including myself) would suggest repealing the 2nd amendment for monetary reasons. My point is simply that banning drugs out of concern for healthcare costs is not automatically justifiable.

What I do know is that we are spending tremendous sums of money combating illegal drugs while simultaneously creating a hugely profitable niche for powerful criminal organizations. I’m not sure that the presumed healthcare costs from legalization would be any greater than the money already spent on a failing “drug war”.

On another issue brought up by DKW:

I question whether marijuana deserves its label as a “gateway” drug. I’d wager that just as many hard drug users started out on alcohol as on pot, so why do we never hear booze condemned as a “gateway” drug?. And the vast majority of recreational pot users that do not turn to harder drugs is rarely mentioned. [For that matter, how many simple pot users experimented with alcohol first?] In my opinion, the only “gateway” difference between pot and alcohol is simply that once someone crosses the line into illegal pot use, it gives them more access to and less concern about experimenting with other illegal substances. Obviously, this step over the line into the dark side of illegality would not exist if pot were not illegal.

[aumd03 2]

I’m not a lawyer and therefore no expert on the 9th & 10th amendment arguments, but it seems to me that there will always be something of a conflict between the restrictions on federal powers outlined in those amendments vs. the elastic clause of Article 1, Sec 8 that gives Congress the power “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution …all other powers vested by this Constitution.”

I’ve never read, but would be interested in, a comparison of the constitutional attitudes on firearm possession vs. alcohol prohibition. Seems like on the one hand, the inclusion of the 2nd amendment implied that prior to it, Congress may have had the power to ban firearms through simple legislation. On the other hand, the necessity of the 18th amendment (alcohol prohibition) seems to imply Congress did not have such power to ban alcohol in the original document. I’m not sure why the two issues are/were treated differently. Seems like Congress either had the power to prohibit both guns and alcohol in the original document, or else it had the power to ban neither. The two amendments seem to take opposing views as far as implied federal powers are concerned.

So I’d say the Constitution is somewhat ambiguous on how much prohibitive authority the Feds have over drugs. Personally, I’m a very strong libertarian when it comes to having the state encroach on the private lives of individuals—I don’t think it’s any of the government’s business whether one has or uses firearms, alcohol, other drugs, pornography, etc. in the privacy of one’s home, as long as you am not hurting anyone else and only involve other consenting adults in the use. In public, we have an obligation to be responsible, not endanger others, and not place undue burden on the framework of civil order.

When it comes to the healthcare issue, the line between public expense vs. personal liberty will always be debatable. Alcohol use puts a tremendous strain on the healthcare system, but no one seriously expects us to go back to Prohibition after our failed experiment in the 1920’s-30’s. We could also probably save lots of money on healthcare if we reduced the speed limit to 45 on all highways, but no one takes that idea seriously. Emergency rooms around this country spend huge $$’s every year treating gunshot wounds, but I doubt anyone on this board (including myself) would suggest repealing the 2nd amendment for monetary reasons. My point is simply that banning drugs out of concern for healthcare costs is not automatically justifiable.

What I do know is that we are spending tremendous sums of money combating illegal drugs while simultaneously creating a hugely profitable niche for powerful criminal organizations. I’m not sure that the presumed healthcare costs from legalization would be any greater than the money already spent on a failing “drug war”.

On another issue brought up by DKW:

I question whether marijuana deserves its label as a “gateway” drug. I’d wager that just as many hard drug users started out on alcohol as on pot, so why do we never hear booze condemned as a “gateway” drug?. And the vast majority of recreational pot users that do not turn to harder drugs is rarely mentioned. [For that matter, how many simple pot users experimented with alcohol first?] In my opinion, the only “gateway” difference between pot and alcohol is simply that once someone crosses the line into illegal pot use, it gives them more access to and less concern about experimenting with other illegal substances. Obviously, this step over the line into the dark side of illegality would not exist if pot were not illegal.

I agree that alcohol is a gateway drug, and I would say even more so with cigarettes. I've rarely met someone with more serious drug problems that didn't smoke. In fact, many treatment facilities use cigarettes as a reward since they tend to have a stronger craving. Many psych wards do the same thing, as cigarettes have a calming effect on many mental patients.

As for medical care. The problem is, gun violence has serious legal consequences. I think auto accidents are viewed more as just that, accidents. Drug use wouldn't have hte legal consequences that gun violence does if made legal. You would see skyrocketing costs, much in the same way EtOH and tobacco cost us now.