Could a President Obama decriminalize Mary Jane? It would be a nice offset to the other damage that he’s going to do (though I wouldn’t use it even if it was legal — I had more than enough in college). And it’s not like he doesn’t (or at least didn’t at one time) have a personal interest in the issue.
But I doubt that he would want to expend the political capital on a fight with Congress over it, so I suspect that this insane war on (some) drugs will continue unabated.
Fight with Congress?
Don’t you mean a fight with the social conservative republicans?
Are you so stupid and uninformed as to be unaware that there are social conservative Democrats, who have to worry about their seats two years from now?
jack, jack, dumfuk jack. Fighting with “social conservative Republicans” is something Obama would like to do. It boosts his cred among his legions, which, honestly, what with Rick Warren and backing off taxing the F out of “the rich” and waiting for victory to bug out of Iraq, he really needs to do. (Not with you, of course — you haven’t enough functioning brain cells to realize how like a cheap whore you’ve been used and thrown away, but with more reflective and thoughtful Obama men.)
It’s the fighting with non-metrosexual Democrats that would damage him and the party enormously by revealing the fissure between the twentysomething doping hooking up give peace a chance yahoos and the lunch bucket union over 50 crowd, who have little patience with those who think it’s all cool if their teenagers smoke a J behind the bleachers at school to relax between physics and Western Civ.
What you said, Carl — but — are there still any schools that teach Western Civ?
I suppose some still have it, to point out how totally evil it is.
Man, what I wouldn’t give for a politician who would have the stones to say “I cannot support a program that does much evil and not a lick of good.”
But that sort of honesty gets you killed, most places.
Do they still teach physics and Western Civ in high school?
Do they still teach in high school?
It’s not even a social conservative issue. It’s a “maintain mainstream legitimacy” issue. Even politicians who don’t personally believe in the war on drugs or the illegality of some drugs have supported the war on drugs just the same. Hypocrisy is vastly easier than adherence to principle, especially when you’re in a position of power that protects you from the laws that apply to the proletariat.
The number of politicians who vote pro war on drugs and who are current active users of illicit drugs is most decidedly non-zero, at every level of government.
I can’t side with you on this. The experience I have had with several family menbers on my wife’s side, and through other personal contacts tells me nothing but the fact that legalizing drugs would be a horrible thing. To open that world wide to whomever would guarantee a massive problem. Much more massive than the current one. Meth, Cocaine and its derivatives, LSD, and so on. Not casual use drugs at all, and they destroy people routinely.
removing federal restrictions won’t decriminalize weed, it will only stop wasting federal funds on prosecuting weed. I don’t like federal drug crimes for anything but transnational trafficking, and in fact all federal laws outlawing all drugs should be revoked, not because I’m a hyperlibertarian, but because the communities, and states can take care of themselves.
Other than transnational trafficking.
Valens, the argument against drug laws isn’t that “LSD is a healthy recreational hobby”, but rather a twofold argument that (a) the drug laws do nothing to reduce the rate at which drugs are used in society (this is empirically true), and (b) that criminalizing the practice does much harm and no good. The Drug War directly funds Al Qeada and the Colombian Civil War, plus gang activities the world over. And that’s to say nothing of the civil rights violations that are enacted on US citizens every day in the name of the drug war.
We’re not suggesting you can buy snack at CVS for $2.99 and no further checks, but rather for sensible laws that limit harm rather than cause harm. The current laws cause harm.
I sympathize with Valens, but: a great deal of available evidence indicates that alcohol is in general much more destructive than either marijuana, LSD, Ecstacy, or heroin. It is very sad that some people have extreme problems with addiction, but the existance of such unfortunates is little affected by the drug criminalization. Continuing to waste taxpayer dollars with the War on Some Drugs (in the late Robert Anton Wilson’s memorable phrase), as well as the wholesale civil rights violations that accompany it, is lunacy of the highest order. I generally dislike appeals to authority, but it is worth noting that some of the most notable supporters of drug legalization have been associated with the right – William F. Buckley and Milton Friedman to name two.
Hmmmm.
*shrug* drugs used to be legal but the conditions that arose from extensive drug use by the public in turn gave rise to criminalization of those very same drugs.
Now me I believe that everyone should be allowed to go to Hell in their own personal way. The ultimate in liberty you might say where people can pick the vice that’ll eventually kill them.
But it should be clear that legalizing drugs will result in a lot of people dying. Because I really don’t have that high an expectation of self-restraint by people. And the idea that legalizing drugs will somehow make the gangs and terrorists disappear doesn’t make much sense to me.
But it should be clear that legalizing drugs will result in a lot of people dying. Because I really don’t have that high an expectation of self-restraint by people.
Imprisonment is another source of mortality. Increased mortality from a somewhat greater consumption of drugs has to be balanced against a 30% to 50% reduction of prison populations. And a drug addict earns more and can take better care of themselves working a job than rotting in prison.
And the idea that legalizing drugs will somehow make the gangs and terrorists disappear doesn’t make much sense to me.
Where are they going to get the money from? These groups are powerful because they can exploit a huge black market in drugs. Plus, I think drugs and illegal immigration are the primary sources of funding for smugglers these days. Deal successfully with those two sources and you significant reduce the smuggling industry.
Not to mention that if you tax it, you could pay off the national debt in a couple of years….
Now me I believe that everyone should be allowed to go to Hell in their own personal way. The ultimate in liberty you might say where people can pick the vice that’ll eventually kill them.
One of my nieces is addicted to drugs (IIRC, it’s crystal meth). She has already abandoned 3 children (2 with serious health issues) and just had a fourth child. If her drug use only damaged herself then it wouldn’t be so bad. Unfortunately, others are being damaged by her use of drugs.
Prohibition didn’t work for alcohol and it isn’t working against drugs. The “War on Drugs” is a dismal failure. Still, to suggest that drug users are only hurting themselves is inaccurate.
I know how to pitch the argument.
Everyone is afraid of drugs and drugs users because they hurt the user and everyone else around them.
Despite the War on Drugs, there are drugs and drug users all around us — many closer than you think.
So, lets give the drug users a place to safely and lawfully use drugs — so we can keep an eye on them. That way we can keep them safe and everyone else not using drugs safe and away from them.
In other words, look at Amsterdam and how they do it. You can’t just sit out on the street or stroll through a park smoking a joint. They want you either in your house or at a coffee house where they know all the drugs are going to be and where all the users are sitting around high. That seems like a much more sane approach than to sit around chattering one’s nails between their teeth going, “oh me, oh my, them drugs are gonna be the ruin of us all”.
> Still, to suggest that drug users are only hurting themselves is inaccurate.
No one is suggesting that. We’re pointing out that the war on drugs doesn’t stop drug users from hurting themselves (that is, there are no benefits) and the war on drugs has inherent costs. We can’t do anything about the effects of drugs on users, but we can do something about the effects of the war on drugs.
We still have drunks but the Budweiser and Miller gangs don’t shoot it out, bribe police and public officials, and aren’t filling our jails.
I have no problem with legalizing drugs as long as the users assume the risks and take responsibility for their actions.
No government (read: My Tax Dollars) to support the people who abuse drugs and lose jobs, their health, etc.
[b]cthulhu[/b] said:
[i]a great deal of available evidence indicates that alcohol is in general much more destructive than either marijuana, LSD, Ecstacy, or heroin.[/i].
I can by mary-jane, but I have never seen or heard any evidence that alcohol is more destructive than LSD, Ecstacy, or heroin. Please present some of this ‘evidence’.
We still have drunks but the Budweiser and Miller gangs don’t shoot it out, bribe police and public officials, and aren’t filling our jails.
That’s true for the moment but things could change. Just as smugglers are carrying cigarettes from low tax states into high tax states, the same thing may well happen as legislatures increase “sin taxes” on beer to raise revenue (under the guise of public health, of course).
At the same time, alcohol is involved in a high percentage of all auto fatal accidents (it used to be 50% but I think it’s a bit lower today) every year.
Like I said before, the War on Drugs is a dismal failure. However, the consequences of legalizing drugs are likely to be pretty harsh. Alcohol is legal but there are still millions of alcoholics. They kill thousands of people each year in accidents, give birth to kids with fetal-alcohol syndrome, and tend to die younger than non-alcoholics. Will the number of drug addicts increase if drugs are legalized (or decriminalized)? At this point, I don’t think anyone knows for sure.
Marijuana smokers kill millions every year and must be hunted down in their pathetic caves and exterminated before they can further harm our great nation, a nation founded on the profits derived tobacco and alcohol, as well it should be.
Anyone who was around NC when legalizing liquor by the drink was being debated, recognizes many of the anti-drug statements here. I remember it well.
Freer access to alcohol (drugs) will cause social pandemonium. Dropout rates, pregnancy rates and divorce rates will skyrocket.
Legalizing alcohol (drugs) will lead MANY more people to be addicted. Crime rates will grow out of proportion to population.
And on, and on, and on. Well, to make a long story short, liquor by the drink was finally legalized, and all the doom and gloom never came true. I think if some legalization of drugs was approved, with a distribution and taxation system like there is for liquor, it would save millions upon millions of dollars.
Legalization, Taxation, Education.
Tom W asks for some sources to my claim that “a great deal of available evidence indicates that alcohol is in general much more destructive than either marijuana, LSD, Ecstacy, or heroin.”
Whenever dealing with controlled substances with which the Powers that Be (aka The Man, to strike the proper ’60s tone) proscribe proper experimentation, finding reliable information can be difficult. One of the best resources is <A Primer on Drug Action by Robert M. Julien, M.D., Ph.D. Another excellent resource is Buzzed: The Straight Facts About the Most Used and Abused Drugs from Alcohol to Ecstasy, by several professors at the Duke University Medical Center. If you’d like some first-hand experience and the touch of a professional author, the late Robert Anton Wilson’s Sex and Drugs: A Journey Beyond Limits is highly recommended. You might also check out http://www.erowid.org and http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com for reasonably unbiased information. The terrible effects of alcohol addiction are well-documented, as is the difficulty of breaking the addiction. I’ll leave those references as an exercise to the student :-/.