Drug Prohibition: Still Stupid

[slatfatf]

It amazes me how little traction this thread gets and how the gun threads generate page after page day after day. The low hanging fruit in stopping gun violence, or any violence, is ending the stupid war on drugs. It is the war on drugs, more than any other thing, which contributes to:

1) conflicts between the police and community

2) high incarceration rates for the poor, which disproportionately affects African Americans and Hispanics

3) which then results in dead ending any escape of poverty for those who carry the scarlet letter of a drug conviction

4) gang and turf wars over territory which then catches innocent people in the crossfire

5) the money which drives illegal trafficking in arms which then flood the battlefield in the war on drugs

This, of course, does absolutely nothing to address the aberrations and outliers in gun violence which capture all the headlines, but it would actually save a lot of lives, would result in an improved quality of life for tens of millions of people, would offer a path out of poverty for millions of people who are trapped there, and offer the type of hope that chokes off the feed pump to gang violence. It would not just be "doing something" it would be doing something positive that would benefit all of us, or at least all of us who do not derive power and wealth from continuing this stupid unwinnable war.

I would add to your list:

6) erosion of privacy rights. The drug war has set numerous precedents unfavorable to our rights when it comes to permissible searches, technologies for surveillance and their (lack of) oversight, etc.

7) erosion of property rights. As detailed in the FAIR Act thread.

But the drug war concentrates power in government and provides a profit center for private prisons, law enforcement unions, and other interest groups.

As for the lack of interest, it's hard to get partisan Dems interested in reducing government power, especially when there's a D in the White House and we're talking about devolving that power all the way down to the individual, not just a lower level of government. So that leaves partisan Republicans, who sometimes like reducing government power but can't stand it if someone smokes a joint instead of drinking a shot of liquor.

So if you take away the partisan Dems and partisan Repubs from this place, what are you left with? Me, mostly.

But you said the G-word, so maybe this thread will attract some interest now and maybe people will stop voting for drug warriors. And maybe I'll start reeling in a fish with every cast. Hey, it COULD happen.

Your additions are certainly valid, and while I am doubtful of it happening any time soon, I am hopeful one day that enough people will see the plainly obvious that we can stop this stupid war.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

I just sent in my petition to amend the FL Constitution the other day.

We need this issue in the state constitution as much as we needed pregnant pigs or some of the other foolishness, but it is a way around intransigent Duopoly politicians who just won't give up power any other way. So I did it, though I disagree with it. I hope enough FL voters will do the same to put legal cannabis in our constitution, but we'll still have the even more intransigent problem of the federal government's prohibition.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Europe is not all one country. Portugal is different on this issue. We should emulate their approach.

 

[slatfatf]

I just sent in my petition to amend the FL Constitution the other day.

We need this issue in the state constitution as much as we needed pregnant pigs or some of the other foolishness, but it is a way around intransigent Duopoly politicians who just won't give up power any other way. So I did it, though I disagree with it. I hope enough FL voters will do the same to put legal cannabis in our constitution, but we'll still have the even more intransigent problem of the federal government's prohibition.

Kind of how I felt about how they got our enhanced pre-emption passed, of course it was tossed by a judge later.

 

[slatfatf]

It amazes me how little traction this thread gets and how the gun threads generate page after page day after day. The low hanging fruit in stopping gun violence, or any violence, is ending the stupid war on drugs. It is the war on drugs, more than any other thing, which contributes to:

1) conflicts between the police and community

2) high incarceration rates for the poor, which disproportionately affects African Americans and Hispanics

3) which then results in dead ending any escape of poverty for those who carry the scarlet letter of a drug conviction

4) gang and turf wars over territory which then catches innocent people in the crossfire

5) the money which drives illegal trafficking in arms which then flood the battlefield in the war on drugs

This, of course, does absolutely nothing to address the aberrations and outliers in gun violence which capture all the headlines, but it would actually save a lot of lives, would result in an improved quality of life for tens of millions of people, would offer a path out of poverty for millions of people who are trapped there, and offer the type of hope that chokes off the feed pump to gang violence. It would not just be "doing something" it would be doing something positive that would benefit all of us, or at least all of us who do not derive power and wealth from continuing this stupid unwinnable war.

Because here in Merica we wouldnt think of legalizing something that we cant make some money on. The way the sell pot out west that shit costs double what the same shit costs on the street hence the underground is as strong as it ever was.

Most you could ever hope for is users get a free ride. Dealers are still going to go to jail just like they do in europe. So what do you have then? Near as i can tell free needles for the asking and the junkies dont go to jail. Sounds like San Fran to me

Unachievable utopia

There are lots of legal things that people make money on. I make money writing software. I would suggest that if someone wants to buy or sell drugs, they should be allowed to, just like I am allowed to charge someone for writing software. No jail.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

I'm more of a big government guy than Len on this issue, apparently.

If someone wants to sell drugs, they should at the least have to say what it is they are selling. The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1903 worked then and works now. It is our only drug control law that has ever reduced addiction.

It's very problematic for cannabis. Hand me a bag and I can sniff it and pretty much tell you what it is in terms of variety, potency, how it was grown, how it was cured. Hand me one of the edible products and I have no idea what you have handed me. And even "pretty much" is not an acceptable standard for something like pain killers. I want to know how many milligrams and what the chemical compound is. So is "pretty much" OK for one but not another? It is to me but is something that I can see creating problems in courts.

 

[Raz'r]

in a libertarian paradise, the market would insist that all drugs be labeled.

 

[nannygovtsucks]

Rand Paul owned Chris Christie on this issue tonight, I thought. It's like you believe in the 10th or you don't.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

in a libertarian paradise, the market would insist that all drugs be labeled.

Markets do correct and police some bad business practices quite effectively, more so in the information age since it's harder to escape your reputation.

But we saw what happened.

...Now, the other fact that I think that is so interesting about drug addiction at the turn of the century, as opposed to today is who the addicts were, because they were the exact opposite of who you would think most likely to be an addict today. If I were to ask you in terms of statistical groups who is most likely to be involved with drugs today, you would say a young person, a male, who lives in the city and who may be a minority group member. That is the exact opposite of who was most likely to be addicted to drugs at the turn of the century.

In terms of statistical groups, who was most likely to be addicted to drugs at the turn of the century? A rural living, middle-aged white woman. The use of morphine in medical operations does not explain the much higher incidence of drug addiction among women. What does is the second cause of the high level of addiction at the turn of the century -- the growth and development of what we now call the "patent medicine" industry.

I think some of you, maybe from watching Westerns on TV if nothing else are aware that, again, as late as 1900, in areas, particularly rural areas where medical resources were scarce, it was typical for itinerant salesmen, not themselves doctors, to cruise around the countryside offering potions and elixirs of all sorts advertised in the most flamboyant kinds of terms. "Doctor Smith's Oil, Good for What Ails You", or "Doctor Smith's Oil, Good for Man or Beast."

Well, what the purveyors of these medicines did not tell their purchasers, was that later, when these patent medicines were tested, many of them proved to be up to fifty percent morphine by volume.

Now, what that meant, as I have always thought, was the most significant thing about the high morphine content in patent medicines was it meant they tended to live up to their advertising. Because no matter what is wrong with you, or your beast, you are going to feel a whole lot better after a couple of slugs of an elixir that is fifty percent morphine. So there was this tendency to think "Wow! This stuff works." Down you could go to the general store and get more of it and it could be sold to you directly over the counter....

That's one problem. Another is the sheer temptation to dilute/cut drugs.

If you're going to sell distilled alcohol, you have to put the proof on the label. Alcohol is expensive to produce. Water is not. Greedy people would be tempted to water it down a bit. Maybe not even enough for the consumer to notice, but enough to give a competitive advantage.

Basically, the problem with relying on self-interest to regulate things is that sometimes self-interest encourages bad behavior.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

JEB and Christie: Still Stupid About Prohibition

...

Perhaps cognizant of the fact that most Americans support legalization and that most Republicans support a federalist approach to the issue, Christie tried to soften his hardline stance by claiming "I'm not against medical marijuana." But as Scott Shackford noted last night, Christie opposed his state's medical marijuana law (which was signed by his predecessor), dragged his feet in implementing it, and vetoed legislation designed to ease access for patients younger than 18. As recently as June 2014, Christie called medical marijuana programs "a front for legalization."

Furthermore, as Rand Paul pointed out during the debate, Christie as president would override the medical marijuana law he now claims to support as governor. Federal law makes no distinction between medical and recreational use, and Christie has said he would enforce federal law. Among other things, that means raiding the "alternative treatment centers" that supply marijuana to New Jersey patients, seizing the properties, and prosecuting the people who run the centers for multiple felonies. Given Christie's warning that Coloradans will no longer be able to smoke pot under his administration, his crackdown might even mean arresting patients for possessing a plant that New Jersey recognizes as a medicine but the federal government does not.

Jeb Bush, who unlike Christie says states should be free to set their own marijuana policies, also suggested that he supports access to the drug for bona fide patients. Although he opposed a 2014 Florida ballot initiative that would have legalized medical use, Bush said, he supported a law authorizing the use of low-THC, high-CBD cannabis oil as a "last resort" for patients with epilepsy or cancer. That program, assuming it's implemented, will not help patients with other conditions or patients who need THC for symptom relief. Still, it's telling that pretty much everyone (including former drug czar Bill Bennett) feels compelled to support some kind of access to cannabis-based medicine, a policy that has long been favored by a large majority of Americans.

...

It's good to see them having to run from what they did as Governors at least a little bit.

I'd like to tell JEB that by the time you get to that last resort, you're already using far more dangerous drugs that are legal under federal law. Unfortunately, that's from my list of things I know, but should not.

 

[slatfatf]

I'm more of a big government guy than Len on this issue, apparently.

If someone wants to sell drugs, they should at the least have to say what it is they are selling. The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1903 worked then and works now. It is our only drug control law that has ever reduced addiction.

It's very problematic for cannabis. Hand me a bag and I can sniff it and pretty much tell you what it is in terms of variety, potency, how it was grown, how it was cured. Hand me one of the edible products and I have no idea what you have handed me. And even "pretty much" is not an acceptable standard for something like pain killers. I want to know how many milligrams and what the chemical compound is. So is "pretty much" OK for one but not another? It is to me but is something that I can see creating problems in courts.

I don't disagree. I would be in favor of labeling and regulation along the lines of alcohol and tobacco, at least for the most part. I would like to see violations of taxes on those items, or any recreational drugs, to be simple civil matters and not see folks violently arrested for selling them without the right tax stamp. It is the criminal records that create the trap for people. I only want folks who are violent or thieves to have those types of records. I don't think anyone should get the scarlet letter for selling pot or for selling loose cigs or cigs without the right tax stamp.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Botany: not for politicians, school admins, or cops, apparently

Earlier this school year, a sixth-grader in the gifted-and-talented program at Bedford Middle School in Bedford, Virginia was suspended for one year after an assistant principal found something that looked like a marijuana leaf in his backpack.

The student, the 11-year-old son of two school teachers, had to enroll in the district's alternative education program and be homeschooled. He was evaluated by a psychiatrist for substance abuse problems, and charged with marijuana possession in juvenile court. In the months since September, he's become withdrawn, depressed, and he suffers from panic attacks. He is worried his life is over, according to his mother, and that he will never get into college.

The only problem? The "leaf" found in the student's backpack wasn't what authorities thought it was -- it tested negative for marijuana three separate times.

All of this is laid out in detail by Dan Casey in a column in the Roanoke Times today.

For those who don't know, recreational drug users throw away the leaves or cook with them. They're not the fun part. A quarter pound or so of them might get you high if you could contrive a way to consume that much quickly. So even if it was a pot leaf, it was nothing to fear. Pretty much how I view the whole plant.

But it wasn't. So they're fucking with this kid just because they're ignorant and fearful.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Colorado brings in more revenue from cannabis than from alcohol

They are wrecking drug war myths pretty frequently out there these days.

My take: they could have done this sooner and by a larger margin by LOWERING the taxes. The taxes and regulations are high/stringent enough that a significant black market still exists. If they finished getting rid of it by lowering taxes more they would most likely rake in more tax dollars. It's a funny paradox. A real Laffer.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Bernie Sanders On Marijuana Policies

He supports VT's medical marijuana laws and civil penalties rather than criminal for recreational users. I don't support any penalties for recreational users.

For a guy who is running for President, he seems to have thought very little about the federal role in all this. He has noticed that legal businesses in Colorado are cut off from the banking system by federal laws and thinks that's wrong and should be changed.

Other than that, his response seemed to be "I will get back to you once I have thought about this issue."

Sadly, this makes him far better than any Duopoly candidate except Rand Paul on this issue.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Refugees from federal marijuana policies seeking help for their children

Sure seems to me to violate the iron law of prohibitions.

What is the iron law of Prohibitions? Prohibitions are always enacted by US, to govern the conduct of THEM.

...

a prohibition is absolutely done for when it does what? Comes back and bothers US. If, at any time, in any way, that prohibition comes back and bothers us, we will get rid of it for sure...

We are slowly getting rid of it on a state-by-state basis but the signs of progress at the federal level are few and far between.

 

[Guest]

It amazes me how little traction this thread gets and how the gun threads generate page after page day after day. The low hanging fruit in stopping gun violence, or any violence, is ending the stupid war on drugs. It is the war on drugs, more than any other thing, which contributes to:

1) conflicts between the police and community

2) high incarceration rates for the poor, which disproportionately affects African Americans and Hispanics

3) which then results in dead ending any escape of poverty for those who carry the scarlet letter of a drug conviction

4) gang and turf wars over territory which then catches innocent people in the crossfire

5) the money which drives illegal trafficking in arms which then flood the battlefield in the war on drugs

This, of course, does absolutely nothing to address the aberrations and outliers in gun violence which capture all the headlines, but it would actually save a lot of lives, would result in an improved quality of life for tens of millions of people, would offer a path out of poverty for millions of people who are trapped there, and offer the type of hope that chokes off the feed pump to gang violence. It would not just be "doing something" it would be doing something positive that would benefit all of us, or at least all of us who do not derive power and wealth from continuing this stupid unwinnable war.

10,000% agree. And think of the money not spent on the WoDs that could be used for mental health care to address some of the outliers. Win win all around.

And monkey's will fly out of my ass at any minute now......

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

So are you planning on voting for Bernie or the Libertarian nominee, JBSF?

Because it sure looks like those are going to be the anti-drug war options, assuming Bern can beat Hillary, which might be a stretch. It's pretty clear Rand Paul has no shot, so you won't find a Republican who shares your views on this one.

We'll keep getting more of the same unless/until we start voting differently.

 

[Raz'r]

i'm pretty sure there's no traffic on these threads as most here seem to agree. If we agree, what do we debate? It just becomes a circle jerk. Sorry, not interested.

 

[Happy Jack]

Hey Tom

About your any drug, anyone, anytime outlook.

Any age restriction for possession or purchase?

If no, then you are ok with a 6 year old having access to Krocodil ?

if you do favor an age limit then how have you eliminated the illegal trade?

Second question

How do you feel about people dosing others without their knowledge?

Make drugs legal, easy and cheap won't that make this a more common problem when Rophenol etc are over the counter?

 

[slatfatf]

Hey Tom

About your any drug, anyone, anytime outlook.

Any age restriction for possession or purchase?

If no, then you are ok with a 6 year old having access to Krocodil ?

if you do favor an age limit then how have you eliminated the illegal trade?

Second question

How do you feel about people dosing others without their knowledge?

Make drugs legal, easy and cheap won't that make this a more common problem when Rophenol etc are over the counter?

I suppose your support of the WOD in spite of it creating a bigger and more overbearing govt is only due to it being such a smashing success that our drug problem has been eliminated.