Drug legalisation

I've seen a lot of people here advocating the legalisation of presently prohibited substances, some merely for cannabis, others extend this to the so-called "harder" drugs. I'm one of the undecided, I have serious reservations about legalisation but I admit that I am not as informed on the positions as I'd like to be. So I have some questions.

I apologise if any of these questions have been asked before.

Would legalisation mean a general liberalisation of the rules regarding all drugs?

Would this not lead to pharmaceutical companies reverting to their pre-FDA ways?

Will there continue to be regulation of medical drugs if just any one can manufacture recreational pharmaceuticals and market them with no oversight?

Couldn't the pharma companies market their anti-cancer drugs as recreational to avoid the huge costs of licencing ($100,000,000's)?

Will their be any regulations on recreational drug manufacture, say to maintain purity or prevent harmful additives/contaminants?

Edited for spelling

One of the problems Americans face now is that thanks largely to the corrupt Orrin Hatch, substances such as nandrolone, androstenedione, and ephedra are eseentially unregulated in any way.

"Since DSHEA became law, substances as varied as paint stripper, bat shit, toad venom, and lamb placenta have all been imported from overseas, bottled up---often by people with no scientific or health backgrounds---and marketed as dietary supplements to unsuspecting American consumers. Many supplements have been tainted with salmonella, arsenic, lead, pesticides, unapproved foreign prescription drugs, as well as garden-variety carcinogens. And despite their New-Age health aura, a significant portion of these "natural supplements" are stimulants, depressants, and other mood-enhancers that some medical experts believe would be classified as drugs if they were synthetic. A surprising number of these products are addictive. "

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0109.mencimer2.html

but your argument can also be used in reverse. An illegal market in recreational drugs invariably produces a product that is much more dangerous than the drug would be in a legal market. Chemicals are "cut" into an illegal recreational drug to increase the weight, to bolster the already artificially inflated price (due to the black market status) of the drug.

The examples given of ephedra, etc. are exactly right. Though most people who are injured by ephedra are not hurt or killed because of "cutting" chemicals. People are hurt or killed by ephedra because they are ignorant of the deletrious effects of ephedra. Does this mean ephedra should be more regulated? I don't think so. Does it mean that each individual is responsible for what he/she puts in his own body? Legalizers tend to think so. This is where the War on Drugs shows itself to be not a war against drugs, but a war against Personal Freedoms.

The depressing thing is that one cannot trust Phillip Morris to be any more ethical than John Gotti in the distribution and preparation...

"People are hurt or killed by ephedra because they are ignorant of the deletrious effects of ephedra. Does this mean ephedra should be more regulated? I don't think so."
I would tend to disagree...I think a warning label is definitely a must, with perhaps age restrictions on purchase...ultimately I would like to have the scientific communirty make the judgement as to whether this ought to be a prescription item or not, and not a right wing lunatic in the pay of the supplement packaging crowd.

"I think a warning label is definitely a must, with perhaps age restrictions on purchase".
absolutely.

"the scientific community make the judgement as to whether this ought to be a prescription item or not"
As an advocate of decriminalization/legalization, I can't concede this point. This because I attempt to stay consistent with my opposition to in any way drive the drug market underground, where a mountain is made out of a molehill. I'd say that if you want to regulate ephedra a good start would be to demand that professional sports leagues test for it, if people test positive - they are kicked out of the league. That way you don't have to regulate it, but you completely dissuade its usage. I think it's naive to suggest that those who take ephedra are not aware of its risks. Furthermore, I don't believe that ephedra has any redeemable medical value that it would be prescribable for ("Yeah, uh, doc - I need to take 2 seconds off of my 40 yard dash"). This makes ephedra an excellent test of what a legalized recreational drug would look like in our society.

I think these are interesting points you raise that elucidate the intricacies of drug policy, though I may have gotten off the track.

"I'd say that if you want to regulate ephedra a good start would be to demand that professional sports leagues test for it, if people test positive - they are kicked out of the league."
I think there are much better ways to START the process....let's have a moratorium on sales and let those marketing ephedra approach the FDA, precisely as they would for any other drug so that tests would be made for its safety and effects.

Testing athletes would make it seem to the public that it HAD conferred some benefit...which is far from clear AND the effect you want to avoid.

was that there is no medical reason to use ephedra. Some distinction has to be made betweeen what are the medical drugs and what are recreational drugs.

And as for the "making it seem to the public that HAD conferred some benefit", you sound like a Just-Say-No'er. The whole point is to open up an honest dialogue with the public about drugs. Why shouldn't the public know that all these athletes are taking EVERYTHING and are benefitting massively from it, why should honesty be an "effect you want to avoid?"

"Ephedrine and its chemically related cousin, pseudoephedrine, however, are used for legitimate medical purposes, especially for treating colds and other breathing disorders. Ever felt like you were breathing rapidly or that you had just consumed too much caffeine after taking some over the counter cold preparation? Chances are, that was the ephedrine-like compound kicking in."

http://www.womenshealth.org/a/ephedrine_diet_pills.htm

"Medical Uses: Due to its effects on respiration, ephedrine has long been used as an ingredient in over-the-counter cold, allergy, and asthma products."
http://www.doitnow.org/pages/528.html

"And as for the "making it seem to the public that HAD conferred some benefit", you sound like a Just-Say-No'er."
Gee, I don';t think all substances should be avaiable to the public, and that society certainly does have a right to ban or limit access to some drugs for recreational use...especially those which are dangerous.

another outstanding Benchley idea

Remain mute, evidently.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

was that there is no medical reason to use ephedra. Some distinction has to be made betweeen what are the medical drugs and what are recreational drugs.

And as for the "making it seem to the public that HAD conferred some benefit", you sound like a Just-Say-No'er. The whole point is to open up an honest dialogue with the public about drugs. Why shouldn't the public know that all these athletes are taking EVERYTHING and are benefitting massively from it, why should honesty be an "effect you want to avoid?"

seem to deal with over the counter drugs vs prescription drugs.

I haven't read a convincing argument to treat marijuna any different than cigarettes, alcohol, or laxatives.

the proposals discussed by NORML regarding marijuana address only small scale personal use...they seem not to have considered the possibility of large scale gowing or commercial packaging...

"Would legalisation mean a general liberalisation of the rules regarding all drugs?"

No or Yes or Maybe. Some advocate just medical marijuana, this would be what you might call the conservative decriminalizers. Some advocate a gradual decrimilization of merely MJ, these would be more moderate conservative decriminalizers. Some advocate a gradual decriminalization, beginning with MJ but moving on to more "hard" drugs". These would be a more progressive strain of what you might call legalizers. And some advocate a complete decriminalization of all drugs immediately. These would be members of a very progressive branch of legalizers indeed.

"Would this not lead to pharmaceutical companies reverting to their pre-FDA ways?"

One possible argument against the possibility of pharmaceutical companies reverting to pre-FDA ways, due to legalization of drugs, is no, not anymore than beer or cigarettes have caused a Pharm. Company retrogression.

"Will their continue to be regulation of medical drugs if just any one can manufacture recreational pharmaceuticals and market them with no oversight?"

To legalize would mean to remove the regulations from certain currently prohibited recreational intoxicants. This will not affect the medical drug market any more than beer or cigarettes affects the medical drug market. What's more, however, is that the black market of recreational drugs, and the corrupting power of this black market, will be destroyed.

"Couldn't the pharma companies market their anti-cancer drugs as recreational to avoid the huge costs of licencing ($100,000,000's)?"

They most certainly could. Pharma companies could also take anti-cancer therapy and market it as an herbal supplement at GNC, but they don't. This last question is a most excellent point. Clearly the role of the FDA is pivotal in this debate, and certainly a reshifting of the drug laws would, by proxy, alter the FDA's role. Whatever the role of the FDA in this debate, we should all agree that the DEA is not the answer, and that perhaps the FDA is a better organization to deal with the recreational drugs than the draconian DEA is.

A possible issued raised with medical marijuana is that some people believe that it would need FDA approval and testing to be sold as a medical drug. At a pro marijuana event I attended, Ed Rosenthal said that this is a fallacy. All drugs that were in common usuage and condsidered to be safe and useful before a certain date, did not have to go through testing for FDA approval. Marijuana was used in a great deal of medicines early in the twentieth century and considered to be safe, useful medicine. If marijuana were legalized, I don't know if it would be sold both as medicine at a pharmacy and as a recreational drug like alcohol and cigarettes. People can use it for recreation or medicine and many people use it as both because marijuana is good for treating a number of ailments.

Digitalis was a heart remedy in folklore, but pharmaceutical companies still needed FDA approval before they could market it...

"Marijuana was used in a great deal of medicines early in the twentieth century and considered to be safe, useful medicine."
As was cocaine...hell, coca-cola used to contain cocaine.

I think we should legalize cocaine while we're at it. :-)

It is the apex of hypocrisy that the FDA and federal government will approve drugs that CLEARLY have potential for adverse reactions, but will not let marijuana be considered for legal use by those it would benefit. Anyone who watches television can not help but notice the long disclaimers that follow drug advertisements: "Side effects may include, but are not limited to: vomiting, skin lesions, loss of bowel control, uncontrolled eyebrow tics, headache, nausea, dry mouth, and homicidal tendencies." I know this list is absurd, but damn, the advertisements are nearly that bad. The possible side effects are often worse than the conditions the drug treats. I believe the ban on marijuana is about money, pure and simple.

Should an adult have the right to eat, smoke, snort, or otherwise ingest any chemical or other substance they wish to?

It's a simple question. In a free society or one that aspires to be, the State has no right to arrest an adult because of what s/he eats.

what a simplistic statement.

"Should an adult have the right to eat, smoke, snort, or otherwise ingest any chemical or other substance they wish to?"
In a word, no.

"In a free society or one that aspires to be, the State has no right to arrest an adult because of what s/he eats."
Jeffrey Dahmer?

MY Chicken McNuggets; but is that all you have to say about the substantive question? If so, you may be excused. (yes, your astute observation of the obvious is duly noted...now run along and let the adults talk here)

mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man." Mat 15:11

What's coming out of AWOL's mouth is a much greater threat to "We the People" than what drugs might go into the mouth of a few of the People.

in the Good Book.

Actually, the two questions are the opposite sides of a coin, and which side we decide to look at is always the question.

Question 1: In a free society or one that aspires to be, should an adult have the right to eat, smoke, snort, or otherwise ingest any chemical or other substance they wish to?"

Question 2: In a democratic society or one that aspires to be, should one person have the right to exploit another by inducing him/her to eat, smoke, snort, or otherwise ingest any chemical or other substance that the first person, in the interests of the first person, wishes the second person to eat, smoke, snort or otherwise ingest, contrary to the interests of the second person?

Question 1 addresses individual freedom. Question 2 addresses exploitation.

Question 1 addresses the right of the individual to do as s/he pleases. Question 2 addresses the right of the individual not to be harmed by other people doing as they please.

Answering Question 1 "yes" without addressing the issues that Question 2 addresses produces something that many of us would not call "freedom" in any but the most abstract sense, since a person who has been addicted to drugs (or offered employment opportunity other than working in unsafe conditions for a wage that does not enable them to purchase medical care, for instance) doesn't actually have any choices, and surely when there are no choices there isn't really any freedom.


Approaching issues from the Question 1 perspective while ignoring the Question 2 perspective makes one a right-wing libertarian, not a democrat.

Of course, once Question 2 is raised, the answer to "should drugs be legalized" probably can't be "no, we should punish people who use them". That amounts to punishing the victim of the exploitation, and that isn't a very democratic thing to do.


And of course, implicit in Question 1 is the proviso "unless the state has some compelling interest in restricting what individuals eat, smoke, snort, or otherwise ingest", since ALL rights in a society are subject to limitation where there is justification for limiting their exercise. Shouting fire, swinging fists, etc.

Public health and safety are very good reasons for limiting the exercise of rights. But the state also has to show that the limits it wants to impose will -- or at least that it is reasonable to expect that they will -- enhance public health and safety.

And that's where a ban on selling laetrile to cure cancer (the ban should be on the activity of the exploiter, not of the exploited, certainly) passes the test, but a ban on possessing narcotics fails it miserably.

Banning narcotics use does not enhance public health and safety, and very arguably diminishes it. It doesn't even appear to have the slightest effect on consumption rates, for starters; and it causes a whole new set of harms of its own. My opinion, therefore, after being one of the undecided for quite a while, is that this is an activity that the state does not have justification for prohibiting.

That doesn't mean that I have all the answers as to *how* drugs should be decriminalized, but there has to be a beginning. Even little things like the publicly-operated safe injection site that just opened in Vancouver, in addition to the existing needle-exchange programs and the like, are small steps toward reducing the harm caused by both the drug use and the prohibition on it.

.

but I would reframe Question 2. Absent force or fraud, then your Question 2 is not relevant. If there is force or fraud, then my Question 2 applies:

My Question 2: In a free society, should one person have the right to exploit another by inducing him/her, through force or fraud, to eat, smoke, snort, or otherwise ingest any chemical or other substance....

Absent force, fraud, or incompetence, it is up to the second person to determine his/her own best interests, not you, nor the government.

"Absent force, fraud, or incompetence, it is up to the second person to determine his/her own best interests, not you, nor the government."

That certainly rules out, just for starters, pretty much all labour legislation. Whoosh go minimum wages, employment health and safety standards, collective bargaining, anti-discrimination legislation -- out the window.

Whoosh goes anything designed to protect the vulnerable from exploitation by the powerful, in situations where the only choice available to the vulnerable is "take it or leave it". Take the job that pays a dollar an hour and requires you to work underground and breathe coal dust all day -- or go on welfare, if we happen to like the idea of paying you any.

I kind of suspect that this is not the Democratic Party's platform.

Although it does sound amazingly like right-wing "libertarianism".

The romanticization of drug addiction as a personal lifestyle choice is disingenuous in most cases, and the result of what can really only be wilful stupidity in the others. People with choices about what to do with their lives are really very unlikely to choose "sitting around in a crumbling rat-infested building injecting potentially deadly substances into my veins with an implement quite possibly contaminated by some deadly disease, being unable to hold employment or obtain an education, engaging in dangerous behaviours in order to obtain the means to acquire the substance, being chronically malnourished and sick and dying an early death". Really.

As long as there are people who don't have better choices than that available to them (and of course, as long as human nature is what it is and nobody thinks/foresees that this is what the choice in question actually is) there will be people who will exploit them by offering them that "choice" and reaping the profits. Just as there will always be people eager to pay other people a dollar an hour for working underground and breathing coal dust all day, if society permits them to do that and provides the people in question with no other, better options.

As I said, this doesn't mean that we must prosecute the people who make that "choice", any more than we would prosecute people who "chose" to work for a dollar an hour.

Ultimately, the goal must be to make better choices available. That doesn't mean that we must tolerate those who exploit people who don't have those better choices. In fact, permitting such exploitation is commonly regarded as one way of ensuring that the better choices are *not* available: viz. the minimum wage (which I suspect that our friend may not be too fond of either).


"Absent force, fraud, or incompetence, it is up to the second person to determine his/her own best interests, not you, nor the government."

Of course, I didn't say that it was up to me, or up to the government, to limit the choices that individuals may make.

It is up to the society in question to do that, subject to what rules the society has imposed on itself for determining how and when it may be done.

.

"That certainly rules out, just for starters, pretty much all labour legislation. Whoosh go minimum wages, employment health and safety standards, collective bargaining, anti-discrimination legislation -- out the window."

That's a bit of an stretch from my point. It depends on how narrowly you want to define "force" and "fraud," I guess. But regardless, I don't see how it would impact collective bargaining? I can also make a case for health and safety standards and anti-discrimination legislation.

I will concede that I am indeed not a big fan of minimum wage laws -- since I have actually studied economics -- at least when they are raised too high. Our current minimum wage law is a reasonable floor.

"Of course, I didn't say that it was up to me, or up to the government, to limit the choices that individuals may make.

It is up to the society in question to do that, subject to what rules the society has imposed on itself for determining how and when it may be done."

And how is society going to impose its collective judgment other than through the government? Sorry if that makes me a bit nervous.

"It depends on how narrowly you want to define 'force' and 'fraud,' I guess. But regardless, I don't see how it would impact collective bargaining?"

Collective bargaining schemes depend on the mandatory application of the collectively bargained terms of employment to all employees, even those who would rather work for $1 an hour.


Not quite consistent with that credo of yours:

"Absent force, fraud, or incompetence, it is up to the second person to determine his/her own best interests, not you, nor the government."

At least, not so far as I can see.


"I can also make a case for health and safety standards and anti-discrimination legislation."

And I'd love to see you do it while not violating that credo.

If I determine that it is in my own best interests to spend 12 hours a day underground breathing coal for $1 an hour, who are you to say nay? If an employer can find people in group "x" (people of colour, women -- and why not children?) willing to work for half the wage demanded by people in group "y" -- people who determine that it is in their own best interests to take those jobs at those wages -- who are you to say the employer must pay people in both groups the same wage, and that people may not determine what terms of employment they are willing to accept for their own selves?


"I will concede that I am indeed not a big fan of minimum wage laws -- since I have actually studied economics -- at least when they are raised too high. Our current minimum wage law is a reasonable floor."

Congratulations. So have quite a few other people, including myself, who disagree with your conclusions.

But I do like this. "A reasonable floor". That would be ... in your opinion? You wouldn't be wanting to prevent people from doing what they determine to be in their own best interests, wouldya now?


The uselessness of that Question 2 of yours for actually producing a society in which individuals enjoy the conditions in which they have actual choices in respect of which to exercise their freedoms --

"In a free society, should one person have the right to exploit another by inducing him/her, through force or fraud, to eat, smoke, snort, or otherwise ingest any chemical or other substance...."

... becomes rapidly apparent, doesn't it?

What I find entertaining is the obvious arbitrariness of the exceptions to your rule that you are so willing to entertain.

Exactly who is it, in reality, who is, in the words of Valarauko, "ready to inflict uncounted violence on people for <doing> something you don't like?"

I mean, your exceptions look arbitrary, until we prod them a bit and find the common thread. You admit of exceptions to your libertarian rule in situations where your perception is that it is in your interests, or at least not contrary to your interests, to do so.

Me, I prefer a somewhat more defensible basis for weighing the options. In a society, a group of people each of whose welfare depends to a considerable extent on the common welfare and the welfare of its other individual members, I'll stick with my questions:

Question 1: In a free society or one that aspires to be, should an adult have the right to do anything s/he wishes to do?

Question 2: In a democratic society or one that aspires to be, should one person have the right to exploit another by inducing him/her to do anything that the first person, in the interests of the first person, wishes the second person to do, contrary to the interests of the second person?

(The term "exploit" does imply an imbalance of power, where the alternatives available to the person being exploited are so limited that the person makes "choices" that the society regards as extremely unlikely to be made by a person acting in his/her own interests if a less unpleasant way of meeting the need for which the "choice" is made existed.)

They aren't the only questions that will have to be asked in every situation in which individual rights and freedoms are in issue, of course (for instance, a minimum wage may indeed be a "reasonable floor" for reasons having to do with the general welfare, and other than the prevention of the exploitation of individuals), but they work pretty well in those they do apply to.


me: "Of course, I didn't say that it was up to me, or up to the government, to limit the choices that individuals may make.

It is up to the society in question to do that, subject to what rules the society has imposed on itself for determining how and when it may be done."

you: "And how is society going to impose its collective judgment other than through the government? Sorry if that makes me a bit nervous."

And how would you cut your lawn other than with a lawn mower? Would you refer to the lawn mower as having exercised its judgment in respect of how to mow the lawn?


I am unceasingly amused at those who proclaim their form of government the bestest in the whole wide world, and then do not acknowledge that the role of that government is to govern. Either you believe that your founders & framers had some purpose in mind when they established that form of government and you agree with that purpose (and I'm not referring to some purpose you might snatch out of the air or off a libertarian website, I'm referring to their purpose), or you really can't believe, or say, that it is the bestest in the whole wide world, it seems to me.

.

"Collective bargaining schemes depend on the mandatory application of the collectively bargained terms of employment to all employees, even those who would rather work for $1 an hour."

Well, that's only making a case for allowing employees to "opt-out" of the collectively bargained terms of employment. That doesn't invalidate the concept of collective bargaining for the majority of employees who choose to so bargain.

"If I determine that it is in my own best interests to spend 12 hours a day underground breathing coal for $1 an hour, who are you to say nay? If an employer can find people in group "x" (people of colour, women -- and why not children?) willing to work for half the wage demanded by people in group "y" -- people who determine that it is in their own best interests to take those jobs at those wages -- who are you to say the employer must pay people in both groups the same wage, and that people may not determine what terms of employment they are willing to accept for their own selves?"

Well, except for the part about children, I agree. I see no reason not to allow anyone making an informed choice to make that choice, absent fraud, force, or incompetence.

"Congratulations. So have quite a few other people, including myself, who disagree with your conclusions.

But I do like this. 'A reasonable floor'. That would be ... in your opinion? You wouldn't be wanting to prevent people from doing what they determine to be in their own best interests, wouldya now?"

Oh, well, there you go again, you caught me being pragmatic. Do I advocate a minimum wage law? No. Do I spend time protesting the existing federal law? Not really. It is low enough that it is minimally applicable in most of the country. I spend my time protesting things that frustrate me more.

"What I find entertaining is the obvious arbitrariness of the exceptions to your rule that you are so willing to entertain.

<snip>

I mean, your exceptions look arbitrary, until we prod them a bit and find the common thread. You admit of exceptions to your libertarian rule in situations where your perception is that it is in your interests, or at least not contrary to your interests, to do so."

I wasn't exactly discussing my positions in the last message -- with the exception of my comment on minimum wage laws. I was playing a bit of devil's advocate in pointing out that my stated Question 2 was subject to interpretation based on your definition of force and fraud.

If we're discussing my personal political views, I'm a rather unapologetic libertarian Democrat. You can call me a Jeffersonian Democrat or a classic liberal, if you prefer. You may not like having me, but most Republicans don't exactly look kindly on pro-choice, pro-gay, anti-War-on-Drugs positions, so you're stuck with me as one of your own.

"And how would you cut your lawn other than with a lawn mower? Would you refer to the lawn mower as having exercised its judgment in respect of how to mow the lawn?"

Very clever analogy, but analogies have their limits. Because its parts of made up of human beings, the government is a bit more self-aware than a lawn mower.

"I am unceasingly amused at those who proclaim their form of government the bestest in the whole wide world, and then do not acknowledge that the role of that government is to govern. Either you believe that your founders & framers had some purpose in mind when they established that form of government and you agree with that purpose (and I'm not referring to some purpose you might snatch out of the air or off a libertarian website, I'm referring to their purpose), or you really can't believe, or say, that it is the bestest in the whole wide world, it seems to me."

Hmm. Where did I say ours was the "bestest?" I do think it is a good system, in principle.

I believe our founders did have a purpose in mind, and I believe they would be disappointed in the post-Civil War concentration of power in the federal government. The plan was for a federal government with delegated powers in limited areas. The states were to remain the vehicle for most day-to-day governing. Congress should not be telling the states and local school districts how to run their classrooms. Congress should not be criminalizing conduct that is purely local in scope. Congress should deal with national defense, regulation of interstate and international commerce, regulation of patents and intellectual property, etc.

One real world example of why we need a limited federal government: Our local school district will probably have to abandon block class scheduling to meet the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act. I resent that interference. Congress is a singularly inappropriate forum in which to make local decisions regarding education. The fact that teachers, students, and parents here like it isn't good enough. The mandate flows down from Congress to the General Assembly in Columbus, OH down to southern Ohio: You must teach these things on this time table and administer these tests.

Are you ready to inflict uncounted violence on people(directly or via DEA agents) for ingesting something you don't like?

Obviously pre-Drug War society was uncivilised.

And you have a near-hysterical view of laws and their enforcement....

I'm waiting.

"Are you ready to inflict uncounted violence on people
(directly or via DEA agents) for ingesting something you don't like?"

Was there something that someone here had said that suggested that s/he was willing to do such a thing?

I tend to think that even those who do support the criminalization of drug possession have reasons for that position that really just don't amount to wanting to prevent people from doing something, and punish them for doing something, that they "don't like".

Don't you?

.

Is it moral to persecute someone for the mere possession of a substance (except in the extreme case of WMD)?

I'll add emphasis to your words to assist you:

"Are you ready to inflict uncounted violence on people(directly or via DEA agents)
for ingesting something you don't like?"

Since NO ONE had suggested that s/he wished to do ANYTHING to ANYONE "for ingesting something <s/he doesn't> like", your question was not properly directed to anyone here, including Benchley.

When Benchley implied that he would approve of prohibiting the ingestion of human body parts, did you think that his was proposal was based on the fact that he "didn't like" human body parts?


And now, here you go again:

"Is it moral to persecute someone for the mere possession of a substance
(except in the extreme case of WMD)?"

(Oh look, another practitioner of the fine art of "my exceptions are good, yours are bad".)

Are you familiar with the concept of begging the question?

You ask whether it is "moral" to persecute someone for drug possession ... and yet I have yet to see YOUR demonstration that the criminalization of drug possession = "persecution".

Keep in mind that I am opposed to the criminalization of narcotics. I'm just capable of arguing my own position without incessangly misrepresenting someone else's.

Is it "persecution" to prohibit the ingestion of human body parts, and punish those who do it? How 'bout if the body parts belonged to someone who was already dead, and in whose death the ingestor had played no part?

Are there possibly actual reasons, do you think, from time to time, for prohibiting the doing of things that someone, somewhere, is inevitably to argue "hurt no one else"?

Is it actually possible, really, for people who are members of a society to do much of anything that affects no one but themselves?

No, you are not hearing me say that this means that the society may therefore prohibit or punish anything and anyone it might take a dislike to. What you are hearing me say is that your position is simplistic and denies human reality, and your characterization of the opposing position is ... inaccurate.


Do you think that it is possible for people of good will to disagree occasionally? Do you think that people with the same information and good will could disagree sometimes, even?

If you start from the assumption that you are speaking to a person of good will who disagrees with you, what might be a good tactic if you wanted to persuade him/her to your position? Might you present that person with information that s/he might not know? Might you present that person with a way of looking at the information that s/he already has (e.g. applying commonly held values to solve the presenting problem in a way that meets both people's aims reasonably well) that s/he might not have considered?

Responding to your interlocutor by putting questions to him/her that have nothing to do with what s/he has said, and that are based on a mischaracterization of what s/he did say, just doesn't look, to me, like it is useful for achieving one of those solutions that meet the aims of informed people of good will who find themselves in disagreement on a policy. Nope.

.

"Is it "persecution" to prohibit the ingestion of human body parts, and punish those who do it? How 'bout if the body parts belonged to someone who was already dead, and in whose death the ingestor had played no part?"

If and when I agree that upon my death my body parts become your personal property (or are sold), and you then choose to consume that property, bon appetite.

And yes, there is a very big difference between possessing a block of cocaine and possing, say, a nuclear bomb. A Fat Boy being detonated (even if it goes off, say, in Sahara) is still bound to kill innocents (by pollution). See A. Saharov's research on this.

"Are you ready to inflict uncounted violence on people(directly or via DEA agents) for ingesting something you don't like?"

How often is the DEA involved in the prosecution of individual drug users?

What's the difference? There's still violence performed, paid by your money, by a .gov enforcer, no?

"There's still violence performed, paid by your money, by a .gov enforcer, no?"

Careful! You're sounding like a propertarian!

I don't really care about taxes much - but when my money is used to pay for the WoD, I think I as the payer am at least partially responsible.

Do the pro-legalisation side want to end "prescriptions"?

What I mean is: Do they want to be able to go into a pharmacists (or other retail outlet) and buy whatever drug they wish to take (as happens in India currently)?

If not, wouldn't this relegate the "war on drugs" to a war on people hooked on prescription medication?

If you do wish to end the tyranny of prescriptions, how would you limit the impact on community health of freely available antibiotics, anaesthetics and other drugs that require considerable expertise in prescription and administration?

Also, would the liberalisation of prescriptions (ie abolition) lead to an increase in the number of unlicenced physicians, especially in poorer communities?

"Do the pro-legalisation side want to end 'prescriptions'?"

Not necessarily. Most of those against the WOD merely want to have currently illegal drugs such as marijuana available on the same terms as other herbs and dietary supplements. As such, a drug couldn't be marketed as preventing or treating any disease, but could be sold.

You do have some diehard libertarians who want to privatize the FDA and leave the business of certifying drugs to (perhaps competing) private entities. The only legal requirement would be accurate disclosure. But the diehard libertarians are a minority within the anti-WOD community.

"Most of those against the WOD merely want to have currently illegal drugs such as marijuana available on the same terms as other herbs and dietary supplements."

Can kids buy vitamins, herbs and dietary supplements legally in the US?

What protections for children would be put in place?

Are they really advocating being able to buy currently illegal substances inthe same manner as one would buy oregano?

The reason I'm asking all these questions is that I work in medical research and the healthcare/medical implications of legalisation interest me. The problem I've encountered here and other online venues is that when I ask these kinds of questions I get labelled as "the man"... which is most definately not what I'm about.

"Are they really advocating being able to buy currently illegal substances inthe same manner as one would buy oregano?"

I probably overstated things a bit. At a minimum, most proposals would treat MJ and other harder drugs like tobacco, requiring that one be an adult to purchase them. But, like tobacco and non-pharmaceutical substances, they would not be subject to FDA regulation unless marketed as a treatment of something. I've also seen proposals with more restricted access, particularly for the "harder" drugs.

"But, like tobacco and non-pharmaceutical substances, they would not be subject to FDA regulation unless marketed as a treatment of something."

With all the damage it has done, and the cost to society, is alcohol or tobacco really the ideal things to emulate?

This really puzzles me?

"With all the damage it has done, and the cost to society, is alcohol or tobacco really the ideal things to emulate?"

History has shown that we don't really have the option to get rid of these things. We can either deal with the damage caused by a substance, or we can compound our troubles by adding the evils of prohibition into the mix and dealing with both.

Wouldn't you really be exchanging the devil you know for the devil you don't.

There is no real way to predict the outcome of liberalisation.

Sure there is, LibLabUk, but then not everyone's mind is hampered by nearly a life-time of corrupt governmental propaganda as the purer-than-thou crowds' are. But once you're able to cut through the lies and self-serving rhetoric of those who benefit the most from prohibition, you'll soon find yourself receptive and even in agreement with some of the plans and programs devised by those who've been studying the best ways to implement freedom. The most cogent fact of drug control laws is that they simply did not exist until about a century ago. There was no rampant prohibition-fueled crime waves prior to the enactment of the various criminal statutes, no crack-active right wing rants against, and no families torn assunder because some drugcop or pissy social worker gets the breadwinner arrested. Cannabis had an honored place at the apothocary, along with cocaine and Bayer Co. heroin. Most plans I see, successfully address most, if not all, of the objections perpetually raised by the anti-drug contingent. The most contentious is the idea that use and abuse will increase to epidemic proportions once restrictions are lifted; but ask yourself this: 'would you, or anyone you know, start using crack, or smack, or methamphetamine once those restrictions are gone?' Since these substances are essentially available in any town in America even right now, doesn't it make more sense to assume that those who don't now, won't later?

There are many things far worse than letting a citizen decide what his or her intoxicant will be. For starters, there is prohibition itself, which has been a cancer on society from day one. From the utter corruption of law enforcement and government writ large, to the deterioration of our urban and rural areas, to the subjugation of our civil liberties to the will of one dishonest regime after another. Do you really like having Junior in charge of your consumption habits? How bout those slack jaws with the badges and guns? The bottom line, LibLabuk, is that prohibition makes drug abuse look like a walk in the park amongst the daffodils. Stop listening to the phonies who happen to be on top, for now, and who control 'official' information- instead start researching for yourself what the facts are. To that end, here are two links:

Nytimes.com, Drug Policy Forum
Mapinc.org

Good luck. -SJ

the battle before us is a fight against those who have a "lifetime of corrupt governmental propaganda" fueling their opinion. People need to get educated on this matter for things to ever change. Will they ever seek this information out for themselves, absolutely not.

Thank-you- Yeah, it seems like an uphill fight, but things do seem to be moving in our favor. Conservative politics is beginning to lose it's lustre here with the general population--- that, and promising events in Canada, which should serve as an example to fearful citizens in the States, point to real opportunities to get the message to more receptive audiences. Boosh has got to be sent packing first, of course.

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0305&article=030510

A snippet:
As the drug war escalated in the 1980s, mandatory minimum sentencing and other Draconian penalties boosted our prison population to unprecedented levels. With more than 2 million people behind bars (there are only 8 million prisoners in the entire world), the United States—with one-twenty-second of the world's population—has one-quarter of the planet's prisoners. We operate the largest penal system in the world, and approximately one quarter of all our prisoners (nearly half a million people) are there for nonviolent drug offenses—that's more drug prisoners than the entire European Union incarcerates for all offenses combined, and the EU has over 90 million more citizens than the United States. Put another way, the United States now has more nonviolent drug prisoners alone than we had in our entire prison population in 1980.

If the drug war were evaluated like most other government programs, we would have tried different strategies long ago. But our current policy seems to follow its own unique budgetary logic. A slight decline in drug use is used as evidence that our drug war is finally starting to work and therefore we should ramp up the funding. But a rise in drug use becomes proof that we are not doing enough to fight drugs and must therefore redouble our efforts and really ramp up the funding. Under this unsustainable dynamic, funding and incarceration rates can only ratchet upward. When Nixon won reelection in 1972, the annual federal drug war budget was approximately $100 million. Now it is approaching $20 billion. Our legislators have been paralyzed by the doctrine of "if at first you don't succeed, escalate."

My question to you is: How does making drugs illegal prevent drug use? Personally, I could get any drug I wanted within a week, but I have no interest in snorting coke or injecting heroine. I know he ill effects. Have any of you said "I'd like to try coke, but its illegal so I can't"? Making drugs illegal just creates the black market and wastes our law enforcements time. If drugs were made legal and regulated by the goverment they would be safer and be taken out of the drug dealers hands. Thats why drug dealers don't sell cigs or beer. During prohibition the government gave the criminals a market with huge demand. I understand that all drugs being legal is very drastic. Right now we should work on legalizing marijuana.

"Thats why drug dealers don't sell cigs or beer."

They do in the UK. The same people dealing drugs are dealing smuggled alcohol and tobacco.

If the government tax drugs, then there will always be a market for the untaxed product because it would be cheaper. If they don't tax drugs, then who will pay for the treatment costs incurred?

I personally favour the decriminalisation of pot for personal use.. making criminals out of smalltime users makes no sense. However, I wouldn't want to see legalisation without considerable analysis of the risks to health and safety and without the legislation and technology to deal with dug use by drivers etc.

"They do in the UK. The same people dealing drugs are dealing smuggled alcohol and tobacco."
- I've never heard or seen a drug dealer sell either in the US, but I do know the Native Americans sell cheap tobacco. You have a point, but I think for most people its much easier to just drive to a local store and get a pack of cigs than drive to a reservation.

"If the government tax drugs, then there will always be a market for the untaxed product because it would be cheaper. If they don't tax drugs, then who will pay for the treatment costs incurred?"
- Heres another idea. The drug dealers turn themselves into businesses and they no longer work underground. This keeps their business out in the open and cuts down on the violence. If a drug dealer is wronged they can take the case to court or call the police. The way it is now they have to solve problems in a violence manner. With this senario the government can still put taxes on the drugs. Also, remember now that we have stopped fighting the war on drugs we have the money we used to spend on that.

"However, I wouldn't want to see legalisation without considerable analysis of the risks to health and safety"
- Does this mean we should analyze the health risks of all the foods that come out? America has a huge problem with obesity, but the foods that cause this problem are not illegal. Obviously drugs are not safe, but what is? Riding a bike on the road is incredibly dangerous, same with driving.

"dug use by drivers"
- Just like people consuming alcohol, people using drugs should not drive. You ever wonder why the cops just dont wait outside the bars and breathalize everyone that walks out? Thats a whole different discussion.

Its nice have this debate, lets keep it rollin.

"Does this mean we should analyze the health risks of all the foods that come out? America has a huge problem with obesity, but the foods that cause this problem are not illegal."

That's not a good analogy. We do test pharmaceuticals for safety, and explicitly warn people of their side effects, interactions and contraindications. I think that that is the bare minimum that should be done for narcotics before legalisation.

"Obviously drugs are not safe, but what is? Riding a bike on the road is incredibly dangerous, same with driving."

With both of those things we attempt to remove as much risk from the situation as possible. Car safety is constantly being improved, in regards to pedestrian and occupant wellbeing. Cyclists wear helmets, high visibility clothing and often have their own cycle lanes. Just because other activities we routinely take part in are carry risk, does not mean we can just disregard risk altogether. A big part of analysing health and safety is developing an understanding of the risks involved so as to educate the public.

"I've never heard or seen a drug dealer sell either in the US, but I do know the Native Americans sell cheap tobacco. You have a point, but I think for most people its much easier to just drive to a local store and get a pack of cigs than drive to a reservation."

Go into most pubs in my area and you'll find someone either selling or will know who will sell tax-free tobacco or alcohol. The problem is serious, as these "bootleggers" use violence to force shopkeepers and landlords to buy their product. And when you're talking about saving upwards of £2 on 20 fags, people will go out of their way to purchase from the bootleggers.

"If the government tax drugs, then there will always be a market for the untaxed product because it would be cheaper."
- You are right. There will be a market dealing the untaxed product. This happens in every industry(i.e. CDs, electronics, clothes, etc.), but the legit side still stays in business and prospers. I don't see why this would be any different with drugs.

(quote)
If the government tax drugs, then there will always be a market for the untaxed product because it would be cheaper. If they don't tax drugs, then who will pay for the treatment costs incurred?
(end quote)

That way the fines collected could be used to offset the costs to society (drug treatment, courts costs, etc.)

This would also have the effect of lowering the cost of the drugs since the risks would be greatly reduced for those selling, and might also have the effect of reducing crime associated with addiction.