Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
What’s Your General Rule on Drug Prohibition?
Let me be very upfront here: I’m one of those radicals who thinks we should legalize all drugs. I’m not just in favor of marijuana legalization, but also the “hard stuff”: heroin, cocaine, LSD, and just about anything else you can think of. If you’re one of those weirdos who wants to put mescaline in your eggnog, I don’t think there should be a law against it.
We’ve had several awesome discussions recently here on drug prohibition. However, one thing that seems to be lacking, among prohibition advocates is a general principle. So to any of you prohibitionists, I’m issuing a challenge. I’m willing to listen to any prohibition standard you’re willing to propose. What I’d like to hear is a general rule on what the government should and shouldn’t prohibit, but I’m going to add a sticking point: you must apply it across the board to drugs, prescription medications, tobacco, and alcohol.
There it is. Prohibitionists are able to come up with all kinds of arguments, but I’ve yet to hear one that couldn’t also reasonably be applied to alcohol. But, I could be wrong (it happens… occasionally), so let’s hear it: What’s your general rule?
Published in Culture, Domestic Policy, Law
No. Who are the “druggies” in this thread?
Those who are willing to put in any good (or non-bad) word for drugs the DEA considers evil?
I have admitted to some illegal drug use on this thread – albeit of the least “druggie” kind imaginable, having to do with the hassles of getting prescriptions filled in a timely manner rather than getting “high”. Nonetheless, in some eyes, this would make me a “druggie”. I’m OK with that. People can judge me that way if they like – it adds to the absurdity.
Uh, given that I just gave you the definition, I have absolutely no way of knowing who meets that criteria. Though I’m happy to acknowledge that since I included alcohol in the list of things that employers could test for, I would qualify as a druggie.
So who are the “anarcho-capitalist druggies in this thread”?
I’m sorry, is the person who called most of Ricochet membership “anti-gay” taking offense at the phrase anarcho-capitalist druggie? I’ve already defined the term druggie, so an anarcho-capitalist druggie is someone that believes that government is always evil and would have to ascertain their employers drug use policy before accepting a job offer. Again, I have no idea who in this thread meets either criteria.
How did using that turn of phrase help illuminate the issues raised in this thread?
Well, it was a nice thread while it lasted…
Of course this is possible, and quite likely.
Anarcho-capitalism may not (probably wouldn’t) lead to the most libertarian answer in all cases. It would depend on how much people were willing to pay for laws vs how much other people were willing to pay to not have that law. What is almost certain is it would lead to much more libertarian laws than we have now.
You’ll likely have enclaves with outlawed drugs, but they’ll be limited in their influence on neighboring enclaves.
The bar is at liberty to bar any substance it likes from its property. In particular, forbidding smoked drugs in a place where people congregate may be attractive to bar owners because the smoke produced is a nuisance to the other customers.
Some people like a smoky atmosphere in bars. Others don’t. Were bars at liberty to choose on the matter of permitting smoking, there’s a decent chance bars of both types would be widely available. Alas, states tend to mandate it be all one way or all the other.
I really don’t get why the topic of drug legalization always devolves into one side accusing the other of being libertine, cop hating drug addicts. There are many legitimate arguments on both sides of this topic and it says nothing good about the ricochet membership that they so quickly stoop to such sophomoric debating tactics.
It really has taken a turn for the worse…
I don’t think anyone’s actually made accusations like that.
When A2 referred to anarcho capitalist druggies I assumed he was talking about Fred. Fred’s certainly a proponent of anarchocapitalism, and I took druggies to mean someone who is supportive of drug legalization (not someone who uses drugs).
Apropos of nothing…
During Prohibition, alcohol could be purchased if one had a doctor’s prescription.
As such, marijuana law in California (a state which is well-known for the ease of acquiring marijuana legally) is nearly identical to how alcohol was regulated during Prohibition.
The classification criteria set out in the Controlled Substances Act is pretty insane, in that it does not take into account the potential harm of consuming a substance without medical supervision, but rather gauges the “likelihood for abuse” of the substance, and the definition of “abuse” is not really made clear.
Furthermore, exceptions are made for substances which do meet the criteria of the Controlled Substances Act (such as alcohol and tobacco) merely because the cost of enforcement is too high.
So, this is my general rule: The Controlled Substances Act is hopelessly flawed and should be replaced.
If the voting public in the United States believes that it’s necessary for the FDA to classify pharmaceuticals into categories of legality, then it behooves Congress to redraft the Controlled Substances Act so that a) it takes harm into account, and b) it provides a logical and reasonable explanation of the difference between “abuse” of a controlled substance and “recreational use” of substances like alcohol and tobacco.
Basically, if the law was more consistent, it wouldn’t be quite so bad.
I’m ready to unfollow this thread but the new “improvements” won’t let me for some reason. :(
Fred did no such thing.
He called three public figures (none of whom are Ricochet members) “anti-gay.” Now, you may think that Fred’s characterization of those men was mistaken, or unfair, or mendacious, but it’s quite different than using that language to describe other members. Fred responded substantively on that thread and he and MJ rather patched things up, as I recall.
Just to clarify, which turn of phrase are you asking about? “Anti-gay” or “Anarcho-capitalist druggie”? I’m happy to acknowledge that my use of the phrase “Anarcho-capitalist druggie” didn’t illuminate any issues, but it was intended as a light-hearted comment along the lines of RINO Squish. I did not think Fred has such thin skin, but I will take the lesson to heart, but on balance, I don’t think Fred is a serious thinker on issues like drug legalization and borders, so I don’t really care.
It’s all a bit hazy…but I may have been called an alcoholic for having a glass of wine or two every night for dinner…but I’m not exactly sure because I was drunk at the time.
Brian, If you choose to see that I called YOU an alcoholic by saying this, then maybe you really do have a problem. At least a psychological one. Most people (not all) who drink every day are alcoholics. It’s an addiction.
Oh, for goodness sake I was making a darn joke – a somewhat self-deprecating one at that – in hopes of getting everyone to lighten up. Yeesh!
Excessive alcohol consumption is known to kill about 88,000 people in the United States each year, but a study released by the CDC and The Lewin Group shows that it has a huge impact on our wallets as well.
The cost of excessive alcohol consumption in the United States reached $223.5 billion in 2006 or about $1.90 per drink. Almost three-quarters of these costs were due to binge drinking. Binge drinking is defined as consuming four or more alcoholic beverages per occasion for women or five or more drinks per occasion for men, and is the most common form of excessive alcohol consumption in the United States.
That’s from the CDC
Many studies here cited comparing alcohol stats to marijuana stats. It’s not even close, my friends.
http://archive.saferchoice.org/content/view/24/53/
It wasn’t that funny, but then again I haven’t smoked my nightly joint yet – with dinner of course.
Brian,
I am simply objecting to something a lot of people are doing on this thread, including you. Taking outliers and stereotypes of stoners and using that to represent all of weed-dom and ignoring the vast problems with alcohol, and pretending there aren’t alcohol addicts and bums and ne’er-do-wells by the millions. So you haven’t ever met someone who smokes weed on a daily basis who has any intelligence, good -or bad for you, whatever. I’m telling you that that is not fair, because most marijuana smokers smoke only occasionally (just like most drinkers), and you probably don’t even know who they are but I bet you encounter them everyday.
Hey don’t get me wrong, there are some great alcoholics out there! Especially the writers. Something about Scotch…
I smoked pot a few times when I was young. Luckily, I didn’t like it. It made me hungry and paranoid. “Partying” meant sitting around in somebody’s parents’ basement, snarfing Little Debbies and thinking “Everyone here thinks I’m fat.”
Maybe I missed it on this thread, but I’ve often heard it suggested that if we decriminalized various drugs, we could take the money we saved on enforcement and put it toward the kind of public health awareness campaigns that have made an appreciable dent in cigarette smoking?
Someone asked whether pregnant women would be allowed to take drugs: are pregnant women allowed to smoke cigarettes? Drink alcohol? Skydive?
Ones personal preference of intoxicant has very little to do with wether drugs should be legal on principle.
Aren’t you doing the exact same thing? Comparing the worst case scenario regarding alcohol with the typical pothead? Yes, some people screw up their lives and even kill people while drunk, but the overwhelming majority of drinkers do not. I accept that that’s also true of marijuana, but it is quite clearly not true of meth, crack, heroin, etc.
That’s my general principle: If a reasonable person can use it responsibly, it should be legal, otherwise not.
The problem is that libertarians reject the “reasonable person” standard.
They are allowed in the sense that they’re not arrested for it. My own mother, while she quit smoking and drinking during pregnancy, engaged in a sport rather similar to skydiving while pregnant. No one arrested her.
Your family and friends – and doctor – can tell you these behaviors aren’t allowed. And many women listen. Some don’t. With respect to smokers, I believe that those who can’t quit during pregnancy are advised to switch to nicotine gum.
Then let me be crystal clear – I do know several people who I understand smoke weed recreationally. Some of them are nice people. A few I would characterize as lethargic and not terribly goal oriented. I do have a friend who is running his own business who used to be a recreational smoker but not sure if he still partakes.
Re: my comment that you’ve embellished – I was deliberately referring to those I’ve personally encountered who smoke daily – not recreationally – that, if you look again at the quote of mine you selected, I actually said, did not impress…
“me with his or her intellect, powers of perception or ability to contribute something worthwhile to society.”
That’s different than your characterization of what I said.
Re: The claim about ignoring the problems with alcohol – I don’t think I’ve ignored them at all. In fact, I put them front and center when I asked if those proposing universal legalization of marijuana are prepared to accept even more traffic deaths if marijuana is as widely available as alcoholic beverages. I don’t think anyone responded except to claim that it was a well known fact that marijuana was much safer than alcohol. When I asked for studies – I was told to look them up. When I stated that for the statement that ‘marijuana is less dangerous’ to be true that the identical conditions of widespread availability for marijuana had to be on a par with alcohol for any claim to be substantiated. That comment was conveniently ignored.
Regarding my own alcohol consumption – because somehow I feel the need to tell you – I’m lucky if I have a beer once a week but it’s more often one every couple of weeks. As for wine – I’ll typically have a glass with dinner maybe twice a week – unless I’m entertaining friends or relatives where I may imbibe a bit more. As for Scotch, I probably have a tumbler once a month and it takes me the better part of the evening to sip it. I usually receive a bottle of single-malt every Christmas that typically has Scotch in it by the following Christmas.
Any references I make to overly consuming Scotch is done for comic effect to deliberately play into the stereotype that writers drink. While some on Ricochet naturally assume that I must drink to excess even when I don’t make any allusions to drinking at all. Fascinating.
Because I’m a single dad caring for a special needs son (who has a history of elopement and occasional aggressive behavior) I must be at my best and sober at all times. I’ve never been addicted to alcohol or any other drug – even caffeine. It’s just not in my nature.
Good night and take care.
As to this argument about those who abuse drugs must already be losers – I had a very close friend in high school – 4.0 student, accomplished musician, brilliant mind for politics, science, languages and philosophy – could have easily been accepted to any top ten university in the country. After graduation he smoked weed virtually everyday. Two years later he moved to the East Bay and began dealing cocaine and speed and God knows what else – I know this because I had another friend of mine who was a county sheriff’s deputy in the same area who said that he was a well-known dealer to the police. I really don’t know if he’s still alive or not but the last time I spoke to him was probably thirty years ago when he visited me in Los Angeles and confided to me that he might have contracted AIDS. I’ve lost touch with him since. But before he left, he told me that he admired me for the life I had been leading and that I seemed to really have my act together. I think there was a reason he made it a point to tell me that.
A) That explanation would hold more water if Rob Long didn’t proceed on the next flagship podcast to effectively call any Catholics who agreed with the Pope “Anti-Gay”; and
B) I will go back and read the thread, but I recall Fred’s defense basically being his use of the phrase was approved by his editor so it wasn’t really his sole call. I do recall an unsubstantiated reference that he didn’t use the term “anti-gay” lightly. But I don’t recall any actual argument to support that claim, but Fred is fond is putting the burden of proof on people that disagree with him.
FWIW, I don’t mind being called anti-gay, I’ve been called much worse. But then again, I don’t mind being called names. I outgrew that around the age of 12.
For the record, I just returned from a going away party for a colleague where, over the course of 3 hours, I consumed more than 5 beers.
So, feel free to call me an alcoholic if that makes you feel better. As I just said, I don’t mind being called names.