Different take on the Drug Issue

[justicebuilder]

One thing I don't see discussed much here is drug policy...

Now, I have been in tons of discussions on this issue on other boards, and they basically devolve very quickly into ignorant and/or hysterical rantings on both sides. Thus I'm interested to see if looking at things from this angle might help to shape debate.

When I run for president in 2012 (the first year I'm eligible, barring a constitutional amendment) a big part of my platform will be the following:


The United States should have a universal, federal standard for classifying recreational intoxicants based on scientific measures of toxicity, dependency and impacts of long-term heavy use.


This sounds reasonable enough (at least to me.) Unfortunately the result of such a standard would be hard - VERY hard - to fit into the prevailing consensus on what a sound drug policy would look like.

So, my question is, if we accept that there should be an objective standard, would it be preferable to err on the side of permissiveness in order to preserve the legality of recreational drugs that are not particularly safe but which are an integral part of our culture (alcohol, tobacco) or would we be better off with a very strict standard that would preserve the illegality of recreational drugs currently outlawed?

I appreciate everyone's thoughts on this matter.

jb

[Terwilliger]

1. you may wish to re-structure the question

but I see what you're saying. If alcohol and tobacco are so bad yet so legal, why the fuck shouldn't everything else be legal?

[justicebuilder]

5. Thanks for at least addressing the question, Terwilliger

It looks like my attempt to prevent a rant-fest is going to fail, though. However, why do you think the question needs to be restructured? It seems a natural enough question.

Your position is that we should have a permissive standard. Why do you feel that way? What would be the effects of the more permissive standard, and how/why would they be preferable to a stricter standard.

[Terwilliger]

22. the question was wordy and not clear

Hypocrisy reigns. Alcohol and tobacco should BOTH be Schedule I drugs...not available for any reason. Yet they're both huge industries.

My point was, they should apply things equally and make the "standard" reality based. In terms of permissivity, the 4th and 10th amendments should apply to all drugs, which means there should be no laws that restrict personal use of anything.

[Robin Hood]

2. The war on drugs is not really about drugs.

But rather a war on a culture of AMerican people, predominantly liberal. The war on drugs was invented by Nixon because he hated the hippies and wanted to take their voting rights away, or just lock them up for good. It was truly escalated by Reagan, especially when Nancy was getting all of that heat for spending way too much tax payer money on pearls dresses and shoes.

Shortly after her scandal began, her "just say no" campaign began, and Reagan ramped up the failed drug war full throttle.

Clinton was too much of a moron to gut it.

[mitchum]

8. also an attempt to disenfranchise African -American voters

[Sirius_on]

9. Didnt Clinton suppose it?

EDIT: I meant support it.

[Robin Hood]

10. Yes he did.

Despite the fact that he did inhale.

[RobinA]

11. In Fairness to Nixon,

his programs provided A LOT more and better funded rehab than anything out there today or previous to him. Nixon gets a bum rap on this.

[Terwilliger]

26. Nixon is the purveyor of the War on Drugs

fuck him

He oversaw the implementation of the Controlled Substances Act, and commissioned a study on marijuana that he threw away because he didn't like the results. Fuck tricky Dick.

[Iris]

33. yes. F-k him.

Why couldn't effective rehab. programs be provided without:

a. Putting a 19 year old black man in jail with hardened criminals for having a few ounces too much pot

and/or

b. Creating a system that allows a 35 year old man caught distributing cocaine to get out of a conviction with a probationary slap on the wrist which allows him to move to another city and sell cars?

I have personally known families who have been through both.

[RobinA]

47. I'm Not Suggesting

that Nixon be voted ACLU Member of the Decade on drugs, I'm simply saying it should be remembered that Nixon was not the worst the drug war has to offer. There was a large push for rehab under his program that hasn't been seen since. And that push has been disintegrating ever since.

Historical perspective. Politicians since Nixon, including Dems, have been much harsher than Nixon. Current thinking being what it is, Dems get to skate on this issue because everybody has been convinced that drugs are the scourge of the universe. I'd like to see some of these candidates confronted with the fact that their voting record on drugs makes Nixon look like a liberal. I'm not saying Nixon was good, I'm saying that currently it appears that Repubs AND Dems are worse. I'd like this addressed publically, and painting Nixon as the worst thing in the War on Drugs isn't going to get that accomplished.

[Heddi]

3. prohibition only increases

demand on the black market.

demand on the black market only increases the criminal elements that will be the ones who have a hold on said market.

Look at Marijuana--it's illegal. That's why there's sellers on street corners.

If you were able to buy a pack of joints at 7-11, there wouldn't be drug dealers selling MJ on the street corners. Why? Because there's no need to.

Alcohol and cigarettes are legal, and there are no street-corner Booze pushers.

Look at what alcohol prohibition did for the US--increased crime rates, increased murder rates, introduction of large-scale organized crime that dealt SPECIFICALLY with the import and distribution of illegal booze.

When prohibition was repealed, murder & crime rates went to their pre-prohibition numbers, but the mafia stayed.

Things are only 'illegal' when their use or possession is punished.

I feel we spend far too much time locking up non-violent drug offenders. Too much money. Too many resources. Over 80% of prisoners are incarcerated for non-violent drug offenses.

that is not the way to go.

I am a firm believer that we, as a society of free people, have the right to ingest, partake, eat, swallow, shoot, or snort anything we wish. It's our bodies. We're allowed to get tattoos, to smoke until our lungs fall out, and to drink ourselves into alcoholic posioning.

Legalize ALL Drugs. Treat addicts who are addicted. Treat addiction as the disease it is and NOT as the crime that it isn't.

We already have a strict standard of what is and isn't legally ingestable/buyable/possessable. Too strict, IMO. And it's doing nothing but ripping families apart, ruining lives, and making the pockets of politicians and CEO's of for-profit prisons get fatter

(all the while, decreasing the number of eligible voters by locking them all (mostly black males) up for stupid, meaningless non-crimes)

[justicebuilder]

7. Nice Rant

At least you answered the question in the end. However, you state something that is flatly false - there is currently no objective standard, strict or otherwise, for which recreational drugs are allowed and which are prohibited. The main reason for this is marijuana - there is virtually no standard that you could create that would lead to the prohibition of cannabis but not the prohibition of virtually everything, including chocolate, nutmeg, cheese sandwiches, etc.

I appreciate your belief - obviously a strong one - that a more permissive standard is preferable to a stricter one. This is the conclusion I reach as well. Whether that standard would be no standard at all or if certain drugs (such as refined cocaine powder and heroin - unnecessarily dangerous versions of relatively safe drugs) would be controlled is one of the issues I'm interested in discussing.

jb

[Heddi]

14. I just don't see how they could say

THIS form of cocaine is okay, but THIS form isn't.

i'd rather everything be availble than have draconian laws from the 1930's that still refer to MJ as 'devil weed' be the basis for everything that is basically prohibited in our country.

I know there are 'designer' drugs on the streets today that are just plain dangerous. They're generally all synthetic drugs that are (relatively) easy to manufacture and distribute.

These drugs ARE dangerous, and I really don't consider them to be "drugs"---they're more "ingestable poisons" to me...

But that being said--I'm afraid that if we put a standard that such-and-such modified drugs are NOT legal, then Marijuana will STILL be illegal because people will cite things like hydroponics, cross-breeding, etc, to point out that (supposedly) MJ today is more potent, has higher levels of THC, etc, and create a ban based on that.

And I guess I didn't clarify myself earlier----I consider Tobacco and Alcohol to be "recreational drugs" as much as I consider MJ, hash, ecstacy, etc, to be "recreational drugs"---sorry for the miswording.

I think the 'War on Some Drugs" has done nothing but BAD BAD BAD for our country. The WOD is doing nothing but providing a constant supply of (mostly) under-educated, minority, males who are prime picking as prison labour.

People don't NOT do drugs because of the WOD. People don't DO drugs SOLELY because they're legal. Sure--if we were to legalize EVERYTHING tomorrow, there would be an initial rash of OD's, and people who've never gotten high in their life going totally bonkers on killer weed. But after the "newness" wears off, the people who did drugs while they were illegal will still do drugs. The people who didn't do them when they were illegal will most likely not pick up a habit.

[justicebuilder]

17. I don't think I've made myself clear

When I talk about a universal, scientific standard, I mean exactly what I said - scientific measures of a drug's toxicity, dependency, and long-term effects.

I am not advocating convoluted standards like whether something is "modified" (again, you're outlawing cheese sandwiches here). I am saying that one way of doing things (not the way I recommend, but rational) if you have a drug with an LD50 under a certain amount, then the drug is controlled. If it leads to long-term psychological damage, it's controlled. If it causes severe dependency, it's controlled. If it causes cancer at a high rate, it's controlled.

Anyway, I was really hoping to engage people who are AGAINST full decriminalization. I'd like to know what standard they think should be used to classify drugs as controlled.

jb

[Heddi]

18. oh! Sorry about that

just a mis-communication :)

I wonder with the suggestion you made, whether alot of frequently Rx'ed LEGAL drugs would have to be re-evaluated (Xanax has a high chem. dependency rate, for example)

When you say "controlled"---do you mean Available, but only under Dr's order & supervision, or "controlled" as it is now, which is basically "unavailable under any circumstances, even for medical research"

[Mairead]

21. Make it all legal, standardise it, and label it

Anyone who wants to fry their brain down to the size of a peanut...okay. Too bad, but okay. Just like someone bungee jumping with too long a cord.

As a socialist, I believe that as a group we have obligations to one another as individuals. We have the obligation as a society to give our individual members a full range of choices so that they have real alternatives to despairing self-destruction, and to give them full and honest information about the choices so that they have real alternatives to ignorant self-destruction. After that, it's up to them and we mustn't interfere with their choices.

[bunnyhop]

4. We need to be real easy AND real strict

We should legalize all recreational drug use EXCEPT for DWI. DWIs are killers amd maimers and anyone who drives a car while under influence of a drug should do serious can-time and lose their driver's license forever. I'd love to see this view become popular because both bush and cheney have convictions for DWI. Nearly all repugs do.

[justicebuilder]

6. I'm ambivalent about DUI/DWI actually

My belief is that driving standards generally should be stricter. I've never seen any sound evidence presented that increased DWI arrests or stiffer DWI penalties correspond with improved highway safety.

The trouble is that you're dealing with one cause of bad driving (intoxication) when there are many, many causes. If you throw a huge number of resources at a small part of the problem, you have fewer resources to throw at the rest of the problem.

By far the biggest cause of fatal crashes is bad drivers. Sounds ridiculous to state it that way, but a large percentage of people involved in fatal crashes have previously been involved in either fatal or near-fatal crashes.

In my opinion, people who have a history of severe accidents, reckless driving, etc. should be prevented from driving. This would cost MUCH less than stricter DWI laws and would save a lot more lives.

It would also convert a few drunken right-wingers to the cause of public transportation.

jb

edited - number/amount (grammar)

[reprobate]

13. jb, let me make a suggestion to you.

Spend one week riding right seat in any highway patrol car, or any police car that works accidents. After one week I believe that you will change you mind. While I don't have hard statistics, I do have a lot of personal experience working accidents, and I say that a very large portion (I won't say majority, but close) of bodily injury and fatal accidents involve DUI/DWI. And in most cases it's the innocent who are injured or killed. The drunks in most cases walk away, and usually are the ones who wind up involved in multiple events.

No, increased enforcement of DUI/DWI will not stop all accidents, but it will stop an awefull lot of them. And each represents a lot of pain or death for innocent people. Then all we'd have to do is keep them from driving drunk in the future, because I've seen too many of them driving again, and offending again, with licenses that have been suspended or revoked.

Just my $0.02.

[justicebuilder]

15. At the risk of offending you

Let me point out that this is an emotional, not a rational, appeal. I am well aware that a large percentage of people believe that DWI laws save lives. However, I have never seen ANY evidence (and, as you admit, nor have you) that this is the case.

Stricter DWI laws might make you feel better. But would they save lives? A better question - would strict DWI punishments save MORE lives than a stricter standard for drivers generally?

You fail to recognize, or simply ignore, the fact that if we revoked the licenses of people the first time they were involved in a fatal or near-fatal crash, it would prevent both the drunks AND the sober bad drivers from repeating the experience.

jb

[Heddi]

19. not necessarily

you say : if we revoked the licenses of people the first time they were involved in a fatal or near-fatal crash, it would prevent both the drunks AND the sober bad drivers from repeating the experience

Many people who are habitual DUI and DWI offenders have had their licenses suspended for long periods of time and yet continue to drive (which is illegal) and continue to drive drunk (which is also illegal).

A lady I worked with a few years ago was hit head-on by a drunk driver. It was his 15th DUI-related accident in 2 years.

He had no insurance (Because he didn't have a license). He didn't have plates (Because he didn't have a license). His license had been suspended for 3 or 4 years at the time of the accident.

Because it wasn't a fatal accident, they could only issue him ANOTHER DUI, suspend his license for an additional six months, give him a ticket for driving w/o license, plates, insurance......

She got NOTHING. Car Totaled. Medical Bills. Got nothing, and the guy got nothing either. No Jail. No nothing.

Revoking licenses on first offense is a great idea, but it does little to solve the problem.

People who are habitual drunk drivers (which an alarming number of them are) will drive regardless of the status of their license or the amt. of alcohol in their system.

Something more 'stringent' needs to be done. I don't know if jailing them is the thing, but certainly allowing someone to get 15 DUI-related ACCIDENTS (not just being pulled over--but ACCIDENTS) in the period of 24 months is...outrageous!

[justicebuilder]

28. You're missing the point, though

It's the accidents, not the drinking, that should have had this guy's license revoked. If you continue to drive with a revoked license you should go to jail for reckless endangerment. And your assertion that many drunks will continue to drive without a license is no doubt true - however, that's true of everyone whose license gets revoked. People with revoked licenses are extremely likely to drive anyway, regardless of the reason for the revocation.

I have a friend who's been in several stone-cold-sober near-fatal accidents. She's a TERRIBLE driver. She drives too fast, doesn't pay attention, and is consistently sleep deprived behind the wheel. She should not be on the road. But because she is sober, she has never even had her licence suspended (that I know of.) One day, I am confident she will kill someone, perhaps herself. One could argue (though, like any argument based on anecdotal evidence, this would have to be verified) that our preoccupation with DUI/DWI enforcement prevents us from dealing with the real issue of dangerous driving generally.

I have another friend, incidentally, who is in fact a drunk. "Alcoholism" is a word that's been diluted such that it has almost no meaning, but this guy is an alcoholic by any standard. He of course drives drunk all the time. However, he is actually an above-average driver. I wish he wouldn't drive drunk, but if I had a choice between being in a car with him driving drunk and in a car with my other friend driving sober, I would prefer him every time.

This is not to discount the fact, which is no doubt true, that drunks are, on average, much worse drivers than sober people. However, it does illustrate that there is a more direct way of dealing with the problem than trying to legislate based on a statistical probability that someone will be a bad driver - we could just revoke the licenses of people who ARE bad drivers.

jb

[ProfessorGAC]

20. You Haven't Seen The Data, Because. . .

. . .it doesn't exist. MADD was caught (check Lexis/Nexis it was in all the papers) fudging the data back in 2001.

The actual numbers of DUI deaths dropped by the EXACT SAME PROPORTION as did all traffic deaths per accident, mostly due to airbags & crumple zones. IOW, the DUI laws actually accomplished nothing that making cars safer did not.

Also, it turned out that before the downward shift to BAE from 0.1% to 0.08%, over 90% of people had BAE's of over 0.125. Well, low and behold, the same is true today. So lowering the BAE law didn't prevent the real problem drunk driver from being a real problem.

(BTW: All my data is taken directly from NHTSA database through SAUS subscription.)

You're right. It's a highly emotional issue, but the facts are that most accidents are caused by conditions, poor driving judgment, or defective equipment, and the rate of fatality in those cases is statistically identical to those involving DUI.

I feel terrible for anyone who loses someone to a drunk driver, but i have had two friends killed in traffic accidents and drinking had NOTHING to do with either. Just bad timing, i guess.

Some people just don't want to believe, that despite their passion, the solutions are not as obvious as they would like them to be. The entire organization of MADD, is a perfect example.
The Professor

[msmcghee]

36. Your post is misleading.

Since 1982, the number of traffic fatalities where alcohol was involved, as a percentage of all traffic fatalities, has ranged from 60% to 40%. That is a significant number no matter how you parse the data to support your dislike of DWI laws - which your post so vividly shows.

That's a remarkable statistic. That means that drunks are responsible for about half of all the deaths on our highways.

The other factor that you fail to mention - is that it is societies' job to minimize death and injuries from preventable causes. We spend tax money to do this. Policy that tries to minimize deaths due to drunk driving - that address half of all fatalities - is obviously money well spent. Although some people - who have probably recieved one or more DWI's in the past and therefore hate our "oppressive" DWI laws - would have us reduce our attention to the source of half of all traffic fatalities. In 2002 alone that amounted to about 18,000 deaths - about six times the number of people killed by terrorists in the WTC in 2001. And this goes on every year.

I believe anyone who drives a vehicle with a license suspended for DWI should get a minimum of one year in jail. Period.

And then you try to justify your irrationality by saying it is reducing funds for other prevention policies.

As I say, people believe what they want to believe, what feels good to them - they only use their brains to justify it.

[justicebuilder]

44. Which part of the post are you objecting to?

You don't identify the statement you believe is misleading. In fact, you seem to be responding to an assertion no one has made - namely that drunks aren't responsible for a lot of traffic fatalities.

The question that was actually asked (and which you have not addressed) is whether stricter DUI/DWI laws are an effective way of dealing with the problem.

Do you have evidence that they are, or are you just using your brain to justify a position you have taken because it's emotionally appealing to you?

jb

[msmcghee]

51. His assertion that . .

. . IOW, the DUI laws actually accomplished nothing that making cars safer did not.

This is a convoluted statement but implies that DUI laws are useless because simply making cars safer will save as many or more lives.

I'm sure the families and spouses of those 18,000 people who will be killed from drunk drivers that year will be comforted to know that safer cars saved another 18,000 potential victims from a gory death.

His basic premise is that DUI laws are onerous and don't make people safer. People who drive drunk are one of the best examples of selfish irresponibility in a free society. It is an act that a person does that they could easily avoid. Not being allowed to drive drunk is one of the least onerous impositions that we could make on someone - yet drunk driving is an act that puts others in the most obvious, statistically-proven, immediate danger of injury and death. We don't say they can't drink and get shit-faced if they want. They just can't drive when they are that way.

Any sane person who objectively tries to balance these "rights" can only come to the conclusion that stricter enforcement of drunk driving laws and greater penalties for those who break them are a no-brainer for society. The only people I know who disagree are freepers who hate government and who lack any form of social conscience.

People who drive drunk are basically immature idiots who believe that driving is a game that either they or the cops are going to win - and who confuse true freedom with the freedom to maim and kill others for their own selfish pleasures. Perhaps a few years in jail won't cure them - but at least they can't drive in there.

[Mairead]

27. "If we revoked the licences {of} drunks"

"You fail to recognize, or simply ignore, the fact that if we revoked the licenses of people the first time they were involved in a fatal or near-fatal crash, it would prevent both the drunks AND the sober bad drivers from repeating the experience."

Sorry, no, it wouldn't. I was once rear-ended by a drunk. The impact snapped the hinges on my seat, knocked me unconscious, and shot my car across an intersection and into a field narrowly missing a half-dozen pedestrians on the way. I woke up lying on my back, thoroughly confused, with worried faces peering into my accordioned car. I couldn't imagine what had happened.

The fuzz arrived to find the driver peering under the hood of his car, trying to understand why it wouldn't run. He was more or less completely uninjured, had no licence (it had been revoked long ago for drink-driving), and had no idea that he'd hit anyone. It was 2.30 on a Saturday afternoon.

Fortunately I wasn't injured either apart from a bit of whiplash--I'd my seatbelt well-fastened. And I've thanked the Goddess many times since that I'd left the kids at home that day...sitting in the demolished back seat, they would all have been killed.

Taking away a drunk's licence only assures that they'll drink-drive. They're in the grip of a complex problem that strips them of good sense. What we need is a system that doesn't depend on them exhibiting the good sense they no longer have.

[bunnyhop]

52. Of course DUI is just part of the problem

But the original thread concerned drugs so that's why i talked about DUI. If the issue is stopping highway crashes then we should also go after speeders and red light runners and those idiots that drive while talking on a cell phone. In fact we need a law that anyone who drives recklessly and causes a fatal crash should do at least 5 years in prison. Laura Bush is lucky that law didn't exist in 1963.

[mdmc]

12. Lets err on the side of freedom

Criminalize negative social behavior. Increase the quality of life penalties for those who abuse drugs and harm society. Use the profits from the former black market for treatment on demand and to enforce criminal law.

[justicebuilder]

16. Too much jargon

What are you advocating?

jb

[Mairead]

23. Are you being unintentionally confrontational?

I thought it was very clear: criminalise harm to others, not harm to self. Apart from that, let folk do what they like.

[justicebuilder]

29. No, I'm being intentionally confrontational

You read the words "Criminalize negative social behavior" and decided that meant "Criminalize harm to others." However, if you think that the first "clearly" means the second you are interpreting the sentence very narrowly. I was hoping to get a clarification from the original poster; instead I got your interpretation, filtered through your own set of assumptions.

"Negative social behavior" could mean spitting on the sidewalk or eating with your fingers. If the poster meant what you said, he/she could have said it.

Anyway, sorry this thread was a bit of a flop. We got an interesting (if abortive) discussion of DUI/DWI out of it, but apparently those people on this board who do not favor drug legalization are not interested in discussing the reasons why. That's disappointing given the amount of money and lives that are being expended in their name.

jb

[Terwilliger]

30. sorry jb

Dems don't support drug-law reform...it's a losing issue! :eyes:

[justicebuilder]

32. Yeah but what about in 2012? n/t

[Terwilliger]

35. what about it?

Dems wont change their opinions unless forced to do so from the outside (or, if Kucinich wins)

[justicebuilder]

45. Should have added a smiley

I was pretty much kidding. Though you never can tell what will happen in politics in 8 years. In 1992 an attempt at universal health care almost killed the Democratic party. Now it seems more like a wining issue.

jb

[Terwilliger]

46. people are still having problems with UHC

just because you hear a lot of rhetoric from Dem candidates who want to look leftist, doesn't mean UHC will happen anytime soon

Actually, the most promising actions with drug-law reform are those laws being modified throughout the world. Canada being the latest to nearly legalize marijuana, the US isolation on the subject might be the biggest motivation for policy change here.

[porphyrian]

41. Correction

You mean that the Democratic party doesn't support drug-law reform. I see a number of Democrats here who do, and I am one of them. While it may not win an election today, it certainly is a viable topic to consider once elected.

[Terwilliger]

43. I think I said that

I didn't mean individual Dems....I meant the party. Somehow, I think the only person who would EVER do anything about the drug laws is Kucinich or some other progressive.

Clinton was the worst perpetrator of the War on (some) Drugs.

[porphyrian]

49. You just said "Dems."

I wanted to clarify that, since you didn't. Not everybody in the party agrees with the official stance of the party, and those who disagree are not necessarily an "outside" force.

[mdmc]

50. Legalize - right to pursue happiness

CRIMINALIZE behavior that is anti social. Okay to drink, not okay to drive drunk. Okay to smoke pot, not okay to steal to support habit.

[Nikia]

24. I'm for legalyzing drugs

I believe that the right to use recreational substances is part of the right to privacy. I do have some hesitations on some drugs though. Perhaps, legalize marijuana and decriminalize the rest. The legal drug alcohol has the potential to very dangerous. A number of people die from ingesting too much alcohol in one sitting. Others die from long term health problems. Many people become addicted to it. If there must be drug laws, I suppose that we should set alcohol as the minimum legal standard. Anything that is more toxic and addictive than alcohol would be illegal. Marijuana would be legal under that standard and possibly others (I haven't had personal experience with other drugs).

[TahitiNut]

25. A 'standard' presumes a contextual value system.

While we argue about medical 'standards' (of toxicity, etc.), what we're contemplating are legal standards. While maintaining a 'fair market' (ensured by regulations on access and honesty) might argue for labeling and warnings stemming from such medical 'standards,' I'm of the opinion that laws penalizing (including criminalizing) informed and consentual behavior are illiberal -- are not justified in a liberal society.

Thus, my 'standards' (within a liberal value system that protects individual behavior that's merely detestible or self-destructive) preclude the criminalization or oppressive taxation of behavior that's merely harmful to one's self or behavior that's solely between consenting adults. Just as "blue laws" are illiberal (autocratic), so are laws prohibiting or taxing honestly marketed substances.

When we choose to outlaw behavior that doesn't materially harm the 'body politic' we've opened the autocratic floodgates. Such overreaching use of governmental powers prey upon minorities by definition (which is why alcohol use is constrained less than tobacco use which in turn is constrained less than marijuana use and so on) -- a predation that's antithetical to sustaining democratic freedoms where the rights of the few must be protected by the many.

[justicebuilder]

31. I agree, but there is a problem

The majority of the U.S. electorate favors drug prohibition. As long as this prevails, and there is no constitutional amendment protecting medical freedom, and no jurisprudence connecting drug posession with the fourth or 10th amendment, we will continue to have some form of drug prohibition, AS WE SHOULD in a democratic society if the people favor it.

You and I might believe in the supremacy of individual liberty over the right of the state to regulate self-destructive behavior, but unfortunately at this point in history, in this country, we are in the minority. I personally believe in the supremacy of democracy over my own opinions, however deeply held.

What I'm saying is, if we are going to have prohibition, shouldn't it be based on objective standards instead of being assigned arbitrarily? Also, isn't this argument more likely to be accepted in the current climate than the unpopular idea of drug legalization?

jb

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

37. The lie of "objectivity"

You write: "What I'm saying is, if we are going to have prohibition, shouldn't it be based on objective standards instead of being assigned arbitrarily?"

Choosing which standards could in fact be called "objective" (and which ones are not) would be "arbitrary." When it comes to enforcement of any law, all of that process is in fact arbitrary. It's just a matter, as you've indicated, as to what arbitrary principles we're inclined to agree with. When it comes to drug laws, I find TahitiNut's post convincing, but only because he's defined it within a set of parameters I define as important.

[TahitiNut]

42. By my 'standards', I reject the premise.

You say "if we are going to have prohibition, ..." but finesse the question of degree. I assert that, by 'standards' derived from the values of liberalism, that degree should be zero. (I try to reserve the word "should" to only those instances where the value system is clear.)

The question of proportionality is pervasive in governance and law enforcement. For example, the purported health 'dangers' of ETS (second-hand/environmental tobacco smoke) are of such a degree that little or no prohibition is called for beyond that of exhaust fumes, smokestack effluence, fatty foods, or a plethora of other 'dangers'/risks that people willingly expose themselves to every day. Alternatively, a principle of proportionality would insist that all such equivalent 'dangers'/risks are equally penalized (by taxation or regulation). It is, however, in the admixture of majoritarian and democratic processes that those 'dangers' favored (irrationally, of course) by greater numbers of the electorate are afforded the least regulation. Thus, the 'objective' proportionality is not corrrelated to science, but to (political) opinion.

Consider other 'crimes.' Are the penalties 'proportional' to anything other than political opinion? Is a 20-year sentence for possession of crack cocaine worth 4-5 manslaughters? Sentencing provisons are a study in battling measures of porportionality. Do we sentence proportional to the degree of harm? Or to the degree of rehabilitation required? No. They are but "windage" to a proportionality of political opinion which is based variously on self-interest, bigotry, greed, ethics, religious belief, and the array of infuences on human thinking.

Absent the elimination of the proportionality of political opinion, no solely objectivist proportionality can prevail. Without reliance on political opinion, there is no democracy. Thus, the 'cure' is (arguably) worse than the disease. As always, the key to democracy's success lies in the electorate's refusal to victimize a minority in its midst -- in its steadfast commitment to protect the rights and liberties of the merely detestible -- and its degree of empowerment of and reliance on torts vs. police state governance for the redress of compensible harms.

All this, of course, IMHO. YMMV :silly:

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

34. The only glaring problem I see is the one you've indicated

is that you don't do away with limiting a blackmarket on drugs (though I'm not sure it's one of your goals). Under you "objective" criteria, some hydoponic marijuana may be kept illegal (whatever the standard for THC is). This, it seems to me, would simply drive that particular weed underground (and drive the prices up--damn you).

Your official statement could be utilized for a more prohibitory policy than for a more liberal one:

The United States should have a universal, federal standard for classifying recreational intoxicants based on scientific measures of toxicity, dependency and impacts of long-term heavy use.

By this measure alone, alcohol's POENTIAL should render it illegal. As should tobacco, cocaine, heroine, ephedra . . . . Isn't it really about amount consumed coupled with toxicity? Look at alcohol poisoning deaths each year. Ephedra-induced heart attacks, ecstacy- induced heat exhaution and death, marijuana-induced gastro-intestinal explosions (o.k., I made that up, but marijuana combined with Krispy Kremes and Sun Chips could be deadly).

I think the fact remains: drug policies are arbitrary. Any law you make will find its exception.

[justicebuilder]

38. I'm not sure I understand

Toxicity is easily measured, once you establish the effective dose. Cannabis is non-toxic, so it could never be outlawed on the basis of toxicity. You'd have an easier time killing yourself with water than with smoked cannabis.

That's the main reason, I imagine, that there is no objective standard for drug scheduling, because there is no standard you could invent that would outlaw cannabis. It's non-toxic, the side effects are mild, and the long-term effects are not pronounced (though obviously they have not been well-studied.)

Indeed, I have to say I like a recent anti-marijuana ad that I saw, where there is a guy who smokes weed all the time and still lives with his parents. I'm not sure it'll catch on, since the real purpose of the ads is to make people continue to believe that the drug war is a good thing, and "Marijuana Linked to Sitting Around Getting High" is not the sort of headline that sends people running to call thier congressperson to get tougher drug laws enacted.

jb

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

40. I didn't read closely enough, sorry.

You're absolutely correct. My bad.

[maxanne]

39. how can you standardize

illegal drugs that aren't standard?

Somebody working in a meth lab isn't going to make the same stuff as the guy in the next town. Same thing with heroin, or Ecstasy - it's not a standardized recipe. Marijuana potency is going to vary from place to place - though I don't think that's as serious. With alcohol we know that 100 proof is just that. When you have a prescription for Xanax or Oxycontin - you know what that is, too. When you're buying crack from the guy in the park - you don't have the faintest idea.

I think drugs should be legalized - we spend way too much money as a society on "fighting" the war on drugs. We're subsidizing too many lives in prison - and prison should not be the preferred method of substance abuse treatment. Most people do not want to do heroin - and that wouldn't change if it were legal.

[TahitiNut]

53. There're "standards" and there're "requirements".

One can establish standards without (successfully) requiring (by some kind of enforcement) that products (or ideologies) meet those standards, are labeled according to the standards, or are even truthful in such labeling or other representation.

That's my 140 proof opinion. :silly:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

48. Why would it be hard since guidelines for prescriptions already

exist on prescription REGULATED drugs? It seems to me that if one looks at other drugs that are currently legal but available by prescription, such measures and guidelines already exist.