See the "why can't we disagree" thread for a description of what we're doing here. For this one thread only, you don't debate your personal beliefs -- you debate one side or the other of this issue, according to when your birthday is. If your birthday is on an even-numbered day, you argue in favor of across-the-board drug legalization. If your birthday is on an odd-numbered day, you argue in favor of maintaining our existing drug laws. Support your arguments as well as you can, argue like you mean it, and feel free to find articles and studies to support your position.

This is an exercise in good debating skills, so if some of you have been intimidated by the threads where you're too emotionally invested in the issues to jump into the fray, this might be good practice for you.

Have at it.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Answers

What a bunch of chickens you people are. Sheesh!

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Okay. I'll start. My birthday is on July 18, so I'm pro- legalization. I'm kind of busy so I can't do much here, but perhaps I can jumpstart the rest of you. Many of the drugs that are currently banned under U.S. law are no more dangerous than a variety of other widely available substances. More crimes are committed under the influence of alcohol, a legal drug, than any other drug. Tobacco causes a far greater burden to our health care system than all illegal drugs combined. And inhalants -- most of which are perfectly legal -- are among the most easily misused drugs available. So there is just no rational basis for keeping these items legal while making heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, and marijuana ilegal.

Furthermore, it's downright criminal to stand back and watch our country's infrastructure fall apart while we spend millions of dollars locking people up for simple drug use. Money spent catching, trying, and incarcerating drug criminals is money we will never get back. Heavily taxing all drug sales and using that money to treat the causes of addiction is a much better idea.

More importantly, though, it's just not up to the government to regulate what a consenting adult puts into his or her body. The government is free to punish people who commit crimes whether or not they under the influence of drugs, and that's exactly the approach that should be taken. If someone wants to shoot up in the privacy of their own home, however, that ought to be up to them.

Okay. Your turn. Rip me to shreds, unless your birthday is also on an even-numbered day, in which case feel free to fill in all those gaping holes in my argument.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

I don't debate about anything but books and maybe the superiority of dogs over cats, for the excellent reason of having only bad arguments up my sleeve for all other subjects of discourse. Besides, I have an odd-numbered birthday. You did that on purpose! I must be the hatee of the day.

Example of bad argument: in this capitalist society, we must all be at top functionality at all times, and drugs are bad and keep us from our patriotic duty. The Government has done the research and knows all this information better than the citizens do, and it is the citizens' responsibility to obey the laws, which the government has put into place to protet us. Legalizing drugs will only lead to more usage and any alleged increase in sales tax revenue will not offset the social ills caused by usage. (Yes, I am only offering the reverse of some users' opinions that I've heard.)

See? That's why I'm a wimp.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Fuck, my birthday's on the November 11th. I don't like this game.

Okay, here goes...

It's easy for white middle class folks with secure jobs and an understanding of hope for the future to talk about "consenting adults" and "choice" in our society. However, for those who have worked themselves to the bone and gotten nowhere, who are illegally redlined out of good housing, stuck in underfunded schools and harassed by the cops hard drugs may be their only temporary reprieve. This is *not* the same as the white fratboy who likes to smoke pot or the wealthy raver girl doing ecstacy at some party.

In poor communities, drugs are not seen as a free choice of recreation for the leisure class. Drugs cause serious health problems. Drugs create addictions which lead to crime in these neighborhoods. Drugs cause folks to loose their jobs and neglect their kids. These are real problems that can not be whitewashed over with the callous rhetoric of "choice."

This is precisely why the liberatory movements within the black community oppose drugs, even those movements that also fight police brutality and a racist 'justice' system. This is why the cry for drug legalization comes mainly from the rich suburbs, not from the poorer communities where folks are struggling to get by.

Should police tactics be focused on arresting individuals for minor posession? No. Should we be spending a LOT more money on drug treatment, better housing, and economic opportunity? Yes. Should drugs be legalized so huge corporations can have another way to turn poor people's lives into shareholder profit? Fuck no. Poor communities have a hard enough time making it as it is, without drugs being pushed at them in every 7-11, on every billboard, and in every bus.

There's a reason why after the L.A. riots folks in South Central said they didn't want liquor stores being rebuilt. The community was trying to take care of itself. Folks who would argue for drug legalization show just how out-of-step they are from the realities of poor communities who have real issues to deal with, not just the theoretical idea of "consenting choice" in this mythological world with no power imbalance between individuals and organizations.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Okay, I was born on April 1, so here goes:

Drug abuse does not just affect the user, it affects our entire society. Drug users are vastly more likely to be unemployed and to commit crimes. Drug abuse prevents people from fulfilling their societal responsibilities as workers, volunteers, parents, etc. and places those burdens on the rest of society. Therefore, it is legitimate for the government to legislate the legality of drugs.

Beth compares illegal drugs to legal ones such as cigarettes, alcohol and inhalants. This is not a valid comparison. Cigarettes and alcohol are a longstanding part of our society, and banning them at this point would be impractical, as we learned from the alcohol prohibition in the 1920s. Because there was a widespread sense that alcohol was not truly harmful, the laws banning it were not enforced. The societal attitude towards illegal drugs is not the same as that toward alcohol or tobacco, and the impracticality of banning these substances should not hinder us from protecting our society from less pervasive drugs.

Inhalants are legal because they are useful chemicals when used for their intended purposes. It would not be fair to deny people access to these chemicals because of the potential for abuse. I am not aware of any practical household uses for illegal drugs except for those which are given by prescription for certain medical conditions (such as cocaine and many pain medications).

Making drugs legal would increase the availability of these substances, and would send an implicit message to the American people that the government does not consider these substances dangerous.

The pervasiveness of alcoholism in our society should serve as a warning as to what would happen if drugs were legalized. There is a huge problem of alcohol abuse in the U.S. because alcohol is legal and readily available. But cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine are between ten and one thousand fold more addictive than alcohol. If people were routinely and legally given access to these substances, imagine the magnitude of the addiction problem which could result.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

June 2, so that also puts me on the pro side.

One of the more disconcerting trends I see in current U.S. society is the way citizens are treated more and more like idiots - common items are regarded as dangerous weapons, warning labels are warning us not to do things with items that no one with enough brains to read the warning would ever think of doing, and anything with the potential to be harmful is either heavily regulated or there are strong movements to have the item or activity banned.

I submit that in a society where people are protected from every situation in which it might be harmful for them to make a bad choice, they will become incapable of making good ones.

Recreational drugs should be in the same category as most other recreational tools with potential for harm (alcohol, cigarettes, Tai- bo tapes) - explain the risks, allow adults to purchase them if they choose, and then *hold them responsible* for the results of the misuse. The average adult should be expected and required to spend the time necessary to think through what they are doing.

In addition, non-sanctioned recreational drugs are currently a huge sucking drain on our society, but I don't believe it's due simply to use - it is because the user is by definition breaking the law and as a consequence is more prone to act in other ways that are also illegal in order to hide the activity, and is being put in greater danger because their supply source is coming from the criminal underground. Large quantities of tax payer funds are being spent to try to stop drug manufacter, sales and usage and our justice system is being clogged with cases about it - if it were made legal, the government could exact the same sorts of regulatory oversite they do on other bad-idea-but-legal practices and start collecting taxes on it instead of letting it be a large expenditure out.

I don't know that regular usage would rise all that much from it's current level - if cigarettes were currently illegal, and the average nonsmoker knew as much about the dangers of smoking, I don't think having them suddenly be legal would change their mind. Illegal drugs are not difficult to obtain, so anyone inclined to use them likely is now.

(Ok we need some cons in here!)

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

March 27.

There is a long-standing tradition in our society of passing laws in order to protect the public safety. We require safety belts to be worn. We require motorcyclists to wear helmets.

Mind-altering drugs are a detriment to society. There are proven negative effects to these drugs. Marijuana, while seemingly innocuous compared to cocaine or heroin, leads to lung cancer just as do tobacco cigarettes. It leads to acute and chronic bronchitis, and can result in respiratory cancer. It can even lead to depression, particularly for new users. It is a highly addictive substance. Should an addictive, harmful substance with proven negative effects be permitted to be sold legally on the streets?

We do not allow foods to be sold that could potentially cause someone to be ill; why should we allow this drug to be sold? The fact that lots of people do it does not mean that it should be legalized, any more than the fact that lots of people steal cars means we should legalize grand theft auto.

Are there lots of people in prison on drug charges? Of course there are. Perhaps a better solution than prison would be rehabilitation or detox of some sort. But the solution is not to legalize a harmful drug.

Sources: http://www.drugs.indiana.edu/druginfo/tashkin-marijuana.html http://www.vh.org/Patients/IHB/Psych/Medications/mjade.html

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Marijuana is far less addictive than either alcohol or cigarettes.

I couldn't seek out relevent sites while I was at work yesterday (the climate that surrounds its illegality makes even information gathering on the subject a suspicious activity with possible adverse consequences attached), but The Marijuana Policy Report is a good place to go:

http://www.mpp.org/

One of the points they make that are compelling to me are that Of the 12 million (!) pot-related arrests made since 1970, 88% of those have been for possession, not manufacture or distribution. To me, this means that illegalization is doing little to keep pot away from those who wish to use it, and that use remains high among certain groups in spite of it being illegal. I fail to see what good illegality is doing?

Rather than compare this to grand theft auto ('just because they're doing it is no reason to make it legal'), I think the continuation of pot being illegal is more comparable to still-existing laws against sodomy which, until recently, were still commonly used as excuses to prosecute 'undesireable' groups of people. Pot arrests are far more common within poorer, minority communities in spite of it being a drug that is popular across all classes and races. In a society where racial profiling and harrasment by police forces of those without power to fight back is a problem, pot possession is a very easy way for police to do so (either due to actual possession, or being planted when their harrassment doesn't turn anything else up).

I am still looking for something on the history of its being outlawed - can someone (with an even number birthday - hah!) help me out here? I seem to recall that the roots of its being outlawed were based in fears over the growing popularity of black music and black clubs and what the 'evil darkies' were going to do to the supposedly innocent white youth frequenting them and trying their 'evil weed'.

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2001

Ah... here we go:

http://www.cannabis.com/untoldstory/hemp_5.shtml

Highlights: - the funding of the propagandizing movie "Reefer Madness" was funded by the liquor industry.

- shortly before marijuana was made illegal in 1937, a method of using hemp was developed that would have put it in competition with developing plastic and synthetics industries. Two articles published a year before it was outlawed described the new potential use of hemp as an alternative to plastic as a possible 'billion dollar industry' - the first time any industry was so labeled.

- funding for the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (now the DEA) was cut when Prohibition ended in 1933. The director at that time then began a campaign of fear about marijuana (which was legal, used, and a common crop for the first 162 years of the United States' existence) Among the things he testified before Congress on the matter is this little lovenote:

"Most marijuana smokers are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes."

According to this article, even the use of the word marijuana (a scary Mexican word) is based on the DEA's campaign of fear, as no one in their right mind at that time would have regarded "hemp madnes" as anything but a joke.

I don't see a single compelling reason to continue the outlaw of a substance with such a shakey reason for having been made illegal.

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2001

The idea that poor people will be less victimized by corporate interests if drug sales to the poor are illegalized is a load of hooey. The current drug sellers are "corporate" interests -- albeit pirates operating outside the law -- with an eye only on the bottom line. Current enforcement tactics drive up the price of drugs, draining funds from poor neighborhoods and increasing the crime rate, while imposing the costs of enforcement on you and me, through our taxes. The drug "wholesalers" are in effect subsidized by a government that artificially props up their prices with resources belonging almost exclusively to other persons.

This subsidy creates a frightening moral hazard. The tobacco or legal drug industries are prevented from imposing the societal costs of their products on the tax base by private lawsuits. For example, the tobacco class action suits of the past several years have shifted the cost of smoking-related health care from the non-smoking majority to the tobacco companies and the current customers of tobacco companies. Similar suits have shifted the cost of defective pharmaceuticals at the same time they eliminated demand for the drugs, by publicizing the dangers of such chemicals as Thalidomide and fen-phen.

By virtue of their illegal status, controlled substances are immune from private actions that would prevent cocaine and heroin wholesalers from imposing the health costs of their products on the tax base. That is, the price of heroin and cocaine does not include the cost of treating or supporting the helplessly addicted or those suffering long-term physical impairment as a result of their drug use -- while the price of tobacco arguably does. Under our legal system, the fact that a cocaine or heroin user committed a crime by using the substance operates as an "intervening cause" of damage and insulates the producer and distributor of the drugs from legal liability. In short, the inadvertent drug subsidy of restricting supply solely at the tax payers' expense is compounded by an inadvertent legal protection that is given to the producers and distributors of no other hazardous material.

Finally, the cost of warehousing the users of illegal drugs exceeds the cost of treating them. Whether or not we prefer to see drug users in jail, we cannot deny the clear results of several studies showing that jail costs society substantially more than drug treatment and the costs inflicted on society by allowing addicts to roam free. These cost analyses are so well supported that New York -- saddled with the Rockefeller drug laws, perhaps the most inflexible in the nation -- has recently mandated that whenever possible drug offenders who are not dealers should be referred for treatment and not sentenced to jail time.

To conclude, current drug laws are a proven failure because they subsidize the illegal drug industry, invite entry into the industry by protecting dealers from civil liability, and cost more than other available alternatives that are aimed at restricting drug use. Whether or not you believe a moral society should prohibit the use of mind-altering substances, the current regime is simply not addressing your individual interests or our society's needs.

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2001

Tom and Lynda have both taken an easy way out.

We're talking about drug legalization here, not just legalizing pot, but crack, heroin, pcp, et cetera. We're also not talking simply about 'decriminalizing' the use of drugs. Many progressive community organizations in low-income areas support efforts to reform police, end the SWAT team style raids on housing projects, and stop their brothers and sisters from being thrown in jail for being a victim of the narcotics industry.

However, none of these organizations support "legalization" for damned good reasons.

Legalizing drugs on the grounds of "consenting adults making free choices" is like legalizing selling rancid meat for human consumption. The meat industry would love this because it drives their profits up. But where are they going to sell this stuff? In the gigantic suburban meglomarts, or in the smaller markets in poor towns and inner city neighborhoods? One could say that it's "free choice" to buy the rancid meat (if one ignores the economics involved in so- called "free choice") and if you get sick from it that's your own damned problem.

This example is not hypothetical, by the way. More Americans in the Spanish-American war were killed by Armor's Pork and Beans than by enemy fire.

Obviously we wouldn't want folks dying left and right from botulism in the name of liberterian free market ideology. We respect that society has the right to pass laws to protect itself in the case of spoiled meats. Why do some people not understand that society also has the right to pass laws protecting itself from the ravaging effects hard drugs have had on poor communities?

I'm not saying the current strategy of the drug war is the fairest or most effective. But I don't want to see Adolph Coors and Phillip Morris get a hell of a lot richer because they can put crack in every convenience store.

It's a fallacy to state that because the drug war has not completely erradicated drug use, it has done nothing. One need only to look at the rise in teen drinking and the resultant drunk driving fatalities when the drinking age was lowered to 18 to see that as bad as the drug problem is now, it would be a hell of a lot worse if drugs were legalized.

As far as Tom's point about suing tobacco companies goes, it should be questioned where that money has gone. A good chunk of it went to legal fees. Much of it was absorbed by unrelated government spending. In L.A. the tobacco settlement money that should have gone into creating a better, more accessible health system instead went to cover the cost of a notorious police corruption and brutality scandal.

Let me ask you all a question. Do you trust Big Tobacco so much that you think they should become Big Tobacco, Crack, PCP, and Heroin?

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2001

Those are very good points Dave, but while Big Business may not be the best choice for supplier, they can be held to better quality control standards than organized crime and freelancers. While correcting failure to regulate them properly is a major concern, they CAN be regulated (getting serious about doing so is another discussion). You can't regulate what is illegal. You can't tax what is illegal. You can't develop standards for how illegal substances will be developed or distributed.

But I don't think legal means free market without restrictions, either. Manufactured drugs (as opposed to herbal) would and should be confined to the same rules as currently legal-but-restricted drugs. And it's likely that some of them won't pass the standards we've set for those situations. However - in those cases, manufacture and sales of those items are banned, NOT use. We don't arrest people for usage of a drug the FDA has not approved - we prosecute the supplier for making it available. Illicit narcotics are held to a different standard simply because people find narcotic stimulation to be immoral as well as dangerous. (For ex. a drug that isn't approved because it has side-effects that make you ill without any 'fun stuff' - even if it does do what it's touted to do in terms of treating something else doesn't get the user tossed in prison. It's the 'fun stuff' we object to enough to punish)

These mindaltering drugs should go through the same process other drugs go through, and either legalized or banned *by the same criteria and with the same standards for penalization* as any other manufactured chemical.

Legalization of pot IS an easy path to defend, because it ought to be the first step, and again should be held to the same level of restriction as other herbals, many of which have known potential dangers as well - and no more. Until the standards for sales of herbals are changed, there is no excuse to hold this one apart (and in the process also banning low-narcotic hemp from being produced at a level where it could reduce our dependance on lumber and other less conservation-friendly materials).

Our laws need to be based on consistant practices, not on whether or not Mrs. Grundy approves.

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2001

Oh, I'm not advocating half measures. I say we have to decriminalize the use of every substance and make it freely available to persons over the age of 21. FDA regulation of concentration and purity guarantees that no one is getting contaminated drugs -- just straight, unadulterated heroin, cocaine, you name it. And yes, if Philip Morris wants a piece of the pie, so much the better. The fewer "wildcat" drug distributors, the better. Big players in a new industry not only provide efficiencies of scale to the consumers, they ensure stable targets for government regulation of concentration and purity. It is much easier to enforce compliance by a publicly held corporation than it is to regulate a random group of competing individuals.

David's argument that poor neighborhoods won't or shouldn't support legalization is paternalistic. Poor people are allowed to make any number of equally important and risky decisions, from having children to taking loans, without special regulation. Of course there are individuals who sink themselves hopelessly in debt, but there are also people for whom available credit is the key to getting out of poverty. Yes, people in poor neighborhoods might be more prone to abuse legal drugs than they are today, but let's face it, it's a question of degree -- there's already plenty of drug abuse in those neighborhoods. There is no evidence that legalizing drugs will significantly increase their use. Even if use does increase somewhat, the marginal savings in cost per serving of drugs may well drive down the total resources allocated to drugs in a poor community. The increased supply in a free market conducted in the open means more drugs for less money, a more predictable return on investment, and fewer barriers to treatment.

Let's not forget that some people in these neighborhoods will hold jobs and pay taxes for the first time, as they become employed in retail stores. In addition, fewer total resources of the overall community (including affluent areas) will be wasted on imprisoning people. More people will be free to participate in a larger economy. Family structures may become more stable as more young men stay in the neighborhood instead of being incarcerated.

David's argument that the proceeds from class actions will go to the trial lawyers is a canard. The whole problem with the tobacco settlement is that it came 40 years after we knew tobacco was harming the public, so the internalization of the health costs required reallocation of massive sums. If we start from day one by (i) letting the sun shine on the health effects of drug use and (ii) not protecting the participants in the new drug industry from tort liability, we can force the new market participants to internalize their health costs after a very short time in the market place. The trial lawyers are not profiting from the $5 per pack prices of cigarettes, and they won't profit from the higher future prices of drugs once the health effects are established and some mechanism for drug companies' payment into a common health fund is established.

Of course, this brief overview of a sane future drug policy does not address every wrinkle that will present itself. Issues such as branding, warning labels, and dosage recommendations must wait for another day. It may be that some substances are so harmful that there is no sane dosage -- for example, some inhalants produce almost guaranteed brain damage. I am not so dedicated to the free market to suggest that we wait for the users of such substances to die out. Rather, an evaluation will have to be made as to which substances, like alcohol, have modest health effects, and which should not be sold at all. But those details can be ironed out later. In the meantime, let's open the door to everything and see what happens.

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2001

May 10th. Pro.

Re: David's argument from food poisoning... actually, one of the reasons for drug legalization is that it would allow the government to regulate the trade, so that buyers will know exactly what they're getting. During Prohibition, people died from the consumption of poisonious moonshine; these days, laws keep that from happening. Similarly, drug overdoses can occur when users get adulterated products, or get used to adulterated drugs and then unknowingly take the same amount of the pure stuff. If every gram of a given drug were of the same quality, people would be better able to use it safely and responsibly.

All that really needs to be said, I think, is that every argument currently being used to keep drugs illegal was also used by supporters of Prohibition to ban the sale of alcohol. Prohibition was a dismal failure, and its repeal proved to be a change for the better in practically all respects. The parallel holds.

-- Anonymous, May 20, 2001

I was born on even and odd day, and even if I wasn't I'm still Pope.

So There

All drugs should be legalized, taxed and regulated. That takes ALL the direct crime out of the picture (last I heard 20% of the poeple in American jails were there on purely drug related offences), and allows a standard that will allow users to but unadulterated products while providing enough taxes to allow treatment for those ready to give up.

Some people will kill themselves. Boohoo. They would anyway, probably later than sooner but they wouldn't die from arsenic poisoning. The gangs would be out of cash and much weaker. Takes the problem from primarily poor neighborhoods and allows those who live there a shot at safe living.

law enforcement then can use funds going after REAL criminals. Adults engaing in an act that does not DIRECTLY affect another should be left alone. No more victimless crimes, the whole idea is a crock. Let's prosecute those involved in hurting or endangering others.

There a lot more 'functional' addicts that never commit any crime (other than using drugs) than there are criminal addicts (commiting other crimes). If you have doubts, check the statistics, widely available.

It is debatable if alcholism dropped or increased after Prohibition so arguing that has its shortfalls. In any case my argument still stands because I believe that the Government has no place retricting what a person can do when it DIRECTLY does not affect another.

I think that no one can escape the slippery slope of arguing against drugs while allowing alcohol or cigarettes or anything that is dangerous to a person involved in that activity. If biking in San Francisco becomes too dangerous should we make that illegal? Should sports like football or boxing be banned because the chance of injury is very high? Is addiction the problem here? Then shut down all gambling.

For those of you in favor of keeping drugs illegal then state your WHOLE argument logically and see where it falls. To the bitter end.

Being a Pope is so hard.

-- Anonymous, May 31, 2001

Mal, you’re a pompous idiot.

You’re acting like a very real problem is an exercise in mental masturbation. This isn’t an intellectual exercise; it’s lives and the well being of society. Even the Founding Fathers realized the limitations of what they were trying to do. They allowed slavery and embraced Christianity. They understood the limitations of the world they lived in. We should do the same.

Drugs are a very real problem, saying the problem and the solution is the same is to hide in a nice safe room and say, “not my problem.” No drug is like alcohol or cigarettes. Heroin, Crack, Speed and Pot are much more addictive. Speaking of Pot, I don’t think Mr. And Mrs. Brady are going to like going into their favorite restaurant and get high with their favorite toker from second hand smoke. Doesn’t that shoot your free for all to hell.

A civilized people must keep others from being uncivilized. We can’t allow a high percentage of our society going around as desperate morons. Law enforcement wouldn’t be relieved, but burdened under the extra strain. Any suggestion otherwise is ludicrous.

I disagree with your point that taxing drugs would bring in plenty of revenue to pay for voluntary treatment. Are you including the cost to law enforcement and hospitals for emergency treatment?

What about other drugs that aren’t harmful but untested or approved? Can doctors now prescribe anything that suits them this week? So you would allow doctors to become hacks with no limitations? Maybe we should allow anyone to become doctors then.

And taking your argument to its’ “logical” ends, should we allow suicide for anyone? No treatment, just off themselves? How does that benefit anyone? Many clinical depressives have become cornerstones to our society, but they got help, or were forced to get help. Ask them if they regretted that? Many would say no.

Maybe in the future can we consider drug legalization when we understand the human genome. Then we can really treat those when they are ready. Treatment, even willingly, fails much of the time right now. Many of those would like to have never gotten involved but they are drawn back in over and over again. Keeping drugs illegal at least stems many from getting involved in the first place.

Ultimately your argument falls apart in reality. There is no perfect world.

Stupid Pope

-- Anonymous, June 01, 2001

World Leaders on Dope

And interesting roundup of viewpoints on this, from various world leaders and law enforcement officials, including a few that are strongly right-wing.

-- Anonymous, June 01, 2001

GO DRUGS!!!!!!!!!!!

-- Anonymous, June 06, 2001

hey-o! my birthday is on november 6th, so i guess im in favor. i found this a long time ago and completely agree with it, and find that i couldnt say it better myself: "A legalized life is the only answer. An important point to make first is that drugs would not be legal everywhere. When the amendment passed legalizing alcohol, it didn't make alcohol legal again; it simply gave the power to outlaw alcohol back to the States, which just happens to be the constitutionally correct way of doing things. So, drugs would most likely be legal in some states and not in others. States could even let individual counties or towns make the decision for themselves. One benefit of this is that it's a lot easier to make reform happen at a local level than at a national one, so if you can convince your town of the benefits of legalized drugs, you are more likely to get a response than if you tried to persuade Congress. Also, if you really wanted to be able to do drugs legally, you could simply move. This is a lot easier and safer than taking the risk of doing something illegal and facing years in prison. Either you'd be happy in your new location, or maybe there would be such a large migration into areas that allow drugs, your old home would be forced to make drugs legal just to get people to live in that area!

Getting what you want from the government? How revolutionary! I also have to explain how drugs would be sold. No one wants kids doing drugs (except for kids), so it would only be legal for adults to buy drugs at sanctioned stores with an ID, just like liquor. It would actually be harder for kids to get drugs than it is now. It would still be illegal to drive while high--DUI and DWI laws will apply to drugs. Just like with drinking, you wouldn't be able to go to work or school high. Just try to show up to work after a few shots of tequila- -it ain't gonna cut it with the boss.

You probably wouldn't be able to do drugs in public places, just like you can't walk down the street with a beer. Crime would go down. Right now most drug-related crimes are committed by either users to support their habit or by dealers in disputes that can't be resolved in courts, so they end up killing each other or innocent bystanders. Criminals aren't committing crimes because they are high; they are doing so because the drug is illegal. In our hypothetical future world, however, drugs would be sold in stores with little barriers to entry. Dealers would go out of business and the price of drugs would drop because the supply would not be limited, and because there would be competition between vendors.

Drugs would also be safer for the consumer. Right now, users don't know what's really in the substance they're smoking, snorting, shooting, or popping. If it were legal, drugs would be tested and labeled, letting the user know just what they're getting themselves into.

Taxes would go down. Right now we have nothing to show for the enormous sums heaped at the failed war on drugs; that money is basically wasted. Lower taxes mean Americans would have more control over their own money and lives. It would also lead to more spending and yet another boost to the economy. Politicians would probably also cook up a tax on drugs, which could be used for any number of state programs and would only be paid by the users. In a drug-legalized world, a civil liberty will be returned to the American people. using drugs harms no one other than the user, and this person should have the right to do whatever he or she wants to do with his or her body. Who is the government to say what individuals can do to their bodies?

Another benefit is that the police would have more time to combat violent crimes, the courts would be freer to prosecute them, and expensive and overpopulated prisons would open up.

Last but certainly not least, some drugs, like marijuana, would be used for medicinal purposes. This will benefit many ill people who now have to break the law to stave off pain. Would there be an increase in drug use after drugs became legal? Well, there might be a small blip, but it most likely wouldn't last, and probably wouldn't cause any permanent effects. Plus, with the crime gone, who's to say using drugs is necessarily such a bad thing? In reality, most people that would want to use drugs are probably doing it right now. So, all in all, when you ask, "What if drugs were legal?" I simply respond that our world would be a more prosperous, safer and freer place to live. Also, you have to realize that competing markets would drive costs down, so the price of weed would be lower than it is now. I don't care how bad it is for your body, it's your God-given right as an American to be allowed the pursuit of happiness. "

-- Anonymous, June 28, 2001