Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Middle Class For A Change | Main | In the Hot Room tonight... 8:15pm Eastern / 5:15pm Pacific »

Thursday, July 09, 2009

Legalize It - Part 1

Legalize it, all of it.

Let me make very clear that I do not advocate most drug use; I think that using some drugs is generally bad. I have never used “recreational” drugs in my life, ever. I think our society would be better off if many drugs didn’t exist; but they do, and there is a demand for them, so they continue to be manufactured and sold.

Prohibiting and controlling drugs does not stop some people from having the desire for them, that is unlikely to go away; as long as these desires exists there will be a demand and market for them, and some folks will be willing to meet that demand, whether it's legal or not.

Self-Ownership

Do you believe that you own yourself? If you truly own yourself, then you are free to keep yourself as fit or as fat as you want. If you truly own yourself, then you are free to put into your body what you want, be it apples or marijuana.

The principle here is self-ownership; you own and are in charge of yourself. Because of this, you are responsible for yourself (provided that you have the mental capacity to be) and are free to make good or bad choices, provided that those choices don’t violate the liberties of other people. Using harmful drugs is generally a bad choice in my opinion, but it is one that you have the right to make as it harms yourself directly, just like eating too much fatty food or listening to your Ipod at full volume all day.

Obviously, there are social consequences of using drugs and the possibility of becoming addicted; you may be ostracized from friends and relatives, if you have people financially depended on you they may be negatively affected. There will be indirect effects on people from your actions no matter what you do, these cannot necessarily be controlled or measured, that’s why the focus is on the actions you can control; your own.

Legalize Marijuana

It’s harder for the general public to hear the message of “legalize ALL drugs”, it’s not something that is often heard, therefore I will focus on the legalization of marijuana, though the arguments for it’s legalization will apply to other drugs like heroin, cocaine, meth etc.

Though is has been shown that there are medicinal benefits to marijuana, the reason for it’s legalization is still based on the principle of self-ownership, but I will look at some of the common arguments for and against it, while still holding the self-ownership principle as the main reason for why it should be legalized.

Decriminalization of Marijuana in Canada

Think of the waste that goes into policing drug users. 30,000 people in Canada charged ever year. That means that every one of those people were dealt with by police, then entered into the system, paid fines, court dates, etc. The amount of bureaucracy needed to deal with this is staggering. Now, all of those people have criminal records. They will have a harder time getting a job, crossing borders, finding suitable housing, etc., all because they choose to put something into their body. That is not good for them or good for the rest of society as they may end up drawing on welfare or other socialized programs becasue of the lack of opportunities a criminal record may bring them.

So the point comes up, then why do them? As a non-marijuana user I cannot answer that, other to say that people have been suing this substance for many years, and it's illegal nature has not dettered many of them or halted the drug trade. To some folks the risk is worth it.

Every April 20 at the Legislature here in Winnipeg, you will find thousands of people lighting a blunt in open protest of the illegality of marijuana, yet there aren’t swarms of police coming down to break it up. Yet they will spend time going after people in their homes, on the street, etc. Why this inconsistency? Even the police realize that possessing marijuana is not a serious enough offense to warrant shutting down this peaceful protest. This seems like an inconsistent, hypocritical position.

The problem isn’t the police, it is the law, and the beaurocrats that make the law.

The Government are Drug Dealers

Speaking of hypocritical positions, even though growing, possessing and distributing marijuana is illegal, the Canadian government continues to do it to this day.

Health Canada looking for marijuana grower

Government pot is grown in an abandoned mine in Flin Flon, Manitoba, and used for medicinal marijuana. The use of marijuana for medicinal purposes has been well established, and Health Canada recognizes and approves its use.

Health Canada - Medical Use of Marihuana

Health Canada grants access to marihuana for medical use to those who are suffering from grave and debilitating illnesses.

Yet, you aren’t allowed to grow your own medicine if you so choose, the government has to do it for you and give you a piece of paper that allows you to have it. Why is the goverment in the medicine business? Is there Province of Manitoba brand ibuprophen? No one else is allowed to provide this approved medicine, only the government.

This is another government monopoly like Manitoba Lotteries and MPI, making the bearuocracy larger, demanding tax money to grow pot.

I wonder how someone who is against the legalization of marjiana would feel knowing that they are paying to grow and distribute it.

Prohibition

What would happen if pot was legalized? We can look at history to find out. In the early 1900’s alcohol manufacturing, distribution and possession was made illegal all over North America.

Prohibition_in_the_United_States

Prohibition_in_Canada

When something is outlawed, it creates a black market for that product or service. When something is in the black market it inherently becomes more dangerous because it needs to be under the radar of law enforcement. It becomes the product of gangs and organized crime, and prices get very high, and violent crime surrounds it. This is what happened with alcohol prohibition; people didn’t stop drinking, they just had to do it underground. Once alcohol prohibition ended, so did the violence and crime surrounding it’s manufacture and distribution. Do we currently see turf wars or gang crime with alcohol distribution? No, it went away when prohibition went away. The same thing would happen if the prohibition against marijuana was ended.

Let’s look at this realistically. If marijuana wasn’t prohibited, how would people get it? Likely the same way people get alcohol and tobacco; large companies will grow and sell it and you can buy it at the corner store. Plus, you will have companies selling “home growing kits” so you can grow your own. You won’t need to buy it on the street under threat of arrest and the prices would be lower because there will be a large, safe supply and legal ways of obtaining it.

If people could choose between a drug store or a thug on the street, where would they be likely to go to buy marijuana?

Arguments Against Legalization

If murder wasn’t on the books as being illegal, would people murder each other? Laws don’t dictate behavior, marijuana is illegal right now yet people still use it, the law doesn’t stop that. If it was legalized, people who were going to do it will still do it, and people who weren’t going to do it won’t. There is a taboo in doing something illegal, and once that taboo is gone, then a small part of the thrill is gone.

In September 2007, the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse reported that marijuana use in teens have gone up (opens PDF).

(marijuana use)use is reported by 17 per cent of students in grades 7 to 9, about 29 per cent of 15- to 17-year-olds, and almost half of 18- to 19-year-olds

Would arresting 50% of Canadian teens do them any good? How would that help them in life? It won't stop them from using the drug, just put them into the legal system and make it harder to move forward with a productive life.

Let’s look at a place where pot is less restricted, Amsterdam and some of Australia. The usage of marijuana in those areas is actually lower than that of the U.S.

Marijuana Prohibition Has Not Curtailed Marijuana Use by Adolescents

This report shows that the prohibition of marijuana in the United States has not curtailed adolescent marijuana use.

                 United States   The Netherlands

Total Population      31.1 [a]           28.5 [b] 
Young Adults          47.3 [c]           45.5 [d] 
Older Teens           38.2 [e]           29.5 [f] 
Younger Teens         13.5 [g]            7.2 [h]

To say that legalizing marijuana would lead to an increase in use is not what the evidence shows.

In March 2009,the Cato Institute put out a report about the success of drug decriminalization in Portugal.

Evaluating the policy strictly from an empirical perspective, decriminalization has been an unquestionable success, leading to improvements in virtually every relevant category and enabling Portugal to manage drug-related problems (and drug usage rates) far better than most Western nations that continue to treat adult drug consumption as a criminal offense.

You can see the policy forum and presentation of this report at the Cato Institute website.

Also, to call marijuana a “gateway” drug is misleading. Using marijuana does not mean that you will then use, cocaine, heroin or other harmful drugs. It is most of then the first one that people will use because it is the most common and least expensive. Calling marijuana a gateway drug is like calling beer a gateway drink that means you will start misusing alcohol and more potent drinks, it is not necessarily true. Most people first encounter beer, it is less expensive than harder drinks so it is naturally what would be encountered first.

As for sending “conflicting messages” to young people, I say, let them make up their own mind. The message we can send is that some things are good for you, some things are bad, you choose which you’d like to do. In fact, I wouldn’t call marijuana “bad”, no more than I would call having a beer “bad”. I’m going to teach my children to choose for themselves, no conflicting message there.

The argument that marijuana is harmful doesn’t stand up either. Yes, it can cause some harm to the body, but if we were to outlaw things that were harmful then perhaps we should be outlawing salt, butter, etc. By this reasoning, anything harmful to an individual should be prohibited. Well, then here are a few other things that should be banned then.

If we truly own ourselves, then we are the ones that choose what we can and can’t put into our bodies. If we choose to harm ourselves with drugs, or salt, or getting fat, then that is also our choice.

I welcome any comments or corrections.

Please keep comments on topic and cordial. Insults and ad hominems may result in deleted posts.

Posted by Freedom Manitoba on July 9, 2009 in Marijuana reform | Permalink

Comments

@ Shane

// In their way teenagers are dumber than grade-schoolers, and they are certainly more reckless.//

Do you understand what consent is and what it constitutes? Nice of you to put them into one big collective. The government thinks they can consent, that's why the "age of consent" is 16, and was 14 until last year.

//And there is no compelling reason to break this law.//

Perhaps for you. During alcohol prohibition, would you have had a beer?

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-09 7:27:23 PM

"Shane!! how many people die because alcohol poisoning?"

In the United States, about 50 per year. About the same number as are killed by lightning. Wow. What a menace.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-09 7:29:38 PM

50. would that be more or less than 0? So alcohol - kill. cannabis - no kill. Shane stupid?

Posted by: howard roark | 2009-07-09 7:31:58 PM

"I get a weird sense of pleasure picturing Shane sitting at his computer frantically writing paragraph upon paragraph of the same lop sided garbage that he has been spewing for months."

You see all sorts of weird things when you hang out in a marijuana fog, especially if you take a hit or two yourself. This is proof of what, exactly?

"He is not in control and cant stop this behavior while his children and wife are being ignored."

Well, no. I just type 100 words a minute, so it doesn't take me nearly as long to post a message as a hunt-and-peck thumb-texter like yourself.

"I think this is an addiction for Shane and that he is blogging irresponsibly while his family suffers. I think we need to out law blogging because it bad for Shanes kids."

Don't think, Roark; makes my dick itch. Concentrate on finding some actual proof if you want my support and that of others. As long as you just splatter indecipherable crap on a page and then finish up with an upraised middle finger, your only reaction will be scorn and disgust.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-09 7:33:32 PM

"Do you understand what consent is and what it constitutes?"

INFORMED PERMISSION. Do teenagers understand fully the potential consequences of the choice before them?

"Nice of you to put them into one big collective."

It's called demographics. Don't give me the "don't pigeonhole" crap; trends analysis is a legitimate part of statistics and policy-making.

"The government thinks they can consent, that's why the "age of consent" is 16, and was 14 until last year."

The government maintained such idiotically low ages for political reasons, not biological ones; specifically, to avoid criminalizing thousands of hormonal teenagers. If teenagers are adults at 16, why is the age of majority 18 in most of Canada, 19 in B.C., and 21 in the United States?

"Perhaps for you. During alcohol prohibition, would you have had a beer?"

No. I don't need beer; certainly not enough to bankroll the likes of Al Capone for it. But then, I guess I'm not as selfish as some people. And selfishness is one thing most marijuana smokers seem to have in spades.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-09 7:37:53 PM

@ Shane //"And thus your ignorant bias is revealed."

How so?//

By having this very clichéd, once dimensional idea of a marijuana user. It is inaccurate, and ignorant to the "reality" that you base your views on. The reality is that marijuana users are the everyday people you have in your life, more than you probably even know about.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-09 7:38:30 PM

"50. would that be more or less than 0? So alcohol - kill. cannabis - no kill. Shane stupid?"

According to ZP's source, some deaths HAVE been attributed to marijuana. Oh, and how much more common is alcohol use than marijuana use? Much more, you say? You know, that if one calculates only from the total number of people killed, conventional bombs are more dangerous than nuclear bombs?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-09 7:39:52 PM

"An excellent argument for the death penalty. Are you sure you want to pursue this argument that jail is the wrong place for offenders? Doing nothing is not an option, so that leaves only one alternative."

If you are being honest, you should acknowlege that re-instituting the death penalty is more unlikely a possibility in Canada than just about any other and can't really be taken seriously at present. Even less so for a crime like drug use, which isn't really comparable to murder or rape.

In reality, both the status quo (ie: spending taxpayer's dollars to keep large numbers of people in cages in order to protect them from their own choices) or, conversely, "doing nothing" (ie: not using legal sanctions to legislate morality) actually are serious options.

I say if people are dumb enough to want to fry their brains, there is no real point in wasting public resources to stop them. There are enough crimes with actual victims to worry about.

Posted by: Ben Hicks | 2009-07-09 7:42:00 PM

@ Shane //how many people die because alcohol poisoning?"

In the United States, about 50 per year. About the same number as are killed by lightning. Wow. What a menace.//

Please provide a reference, because that is incorrect.

//And selfishness is one thing most marijuana smokers seem to have in spades.//

Do you know most marijuana users?

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-09 7:43:53 PM

"By having this very clichéd, once dimensional idea of a marijuana user. It is inaccurate."

Baby boomers were the first demographic to use marijuana in numbers, and statistics show that many of them are carrying their habit into retirement with them. A great many of the pro-pot crowd on this very blog is 50 and over, like Marc Emery himself. It's also strongly correlated with high-school-age or college-age rebel types, and college dorms especially reek from constant marijuana use. I know; I've been there.

"The reality is that marijuana users are the everyday people you have in your life, more than you probably even know about."

Marijuana USERS, or people who tried it once or twice in their youth and haven't touched it since? Most of the marijuana smokers I've known in my life have done pretty marginally career-wise, and all have been grossly inferior to me in intellect, emotional maturity, and sense of duty. I realize I'm being anecdotal here, but so were you.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-09 7:45:32 PM

@ Ben Hicks //I say if people are dumb enough to want to fry their brains, there is no real point in wasting public resources to stop them. There are enough crimes with actual victims to worry about.//

Yep, this.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-09 7:47:37 PM

//Then what you really have a problem with is the welfare state. If someone eats too much fatty food, it costs you money.// - Scott

I've stated that unequivocally already.

It's a fact of the reality we live in. Canada is a socialist country. Period. You're not going to change that by legalizing drugs. What you are going to do, with said legalization, is increase the costs on the rest of us.

I'll say it again; I don't really give a damn who smokes what provided that it doesn't have a negative impact on taxpayers. Unless and until you, Emery and the rest of the moderators here at the Shotgun understand that very simple premise, you're not staying true to the libertarian ethic. You're nothing more than one-hit wonders...

Simplified: You're putting the cart before the horse, you look like an ass and until you get it sorted out, the "libertarian" movement won't gain the ground that we need it to gain.

Posted by: Richard Evans | 2009-07-09 7:48:51 PM

@ Shane //Most of the marijuana smokers I've known in my life have done pretty marginally career-wise, and all have been grossly inferior to me in intellect, emotional maturity, and sense of duty.//

And thusly your confirmation bias is working properly.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-09 7:48:55 PM

Actually Scot I was referring to many of those who suddenly appear to post comments while they remain absent on other posts that are about the most basic freedom and liberty.

We live in a society without freedom of speech, of the press, of religion (for Christians at least), freedom of association or private property rights (re: numerous HRC decisions). Add increasing smoking bans even in your own vehicle, but this should come under private property rights. We remain burdened with a useless money drain called the gun registry and people die waiting for essential health care, and you and others see this as a priority. Otherwise the posts concerning legalising drugs on this blog would not be so numerous. It is rather like trying to construct a house beginning with the roof instead of the foundation.

Posted by: Alain | 2009-07-09 7:51:10 PM

@ Richard //What you are going to do, with said legalization, is increase the costs on the rest of us.//

I understand that concern, and I don't think it is based on facts. In countries with less prohibition, there is actually less useage and better public health.

I cited it in the original article, take a look ata recent report by the Cato Institute about the success of decrim in Portugal

http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=5887

//You're putting the cart before the horse//

In the meantime I would like to see less harm come to people and less crime in the street that is a result of the black market drug trade.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-09 7:52:38 PM

"If you are being honest, you should acknowlege that re-instituting the death penalty is more unlikely a possibility in Canada than just about any other and can't really be taken seriously at present."

It won't take much of what's going on in our streets to alter that perception, Ben. The United States outlawed the death penalty, too, only to reinstate it a few years later. I'll grant you it's a non-starter in Quebec, but they're still stuck in the 1960s. In any case, I didn't say a return to capital punishment was likely; only that you were removing the alternatives to it.

"In reality, both the status quo (ie: spending taxpayer's dollars to keep large numbers of people in cages in order to protect them from their own choices) or, conversely, "doing nothing" (ie: not using legal sanctions to legislate morality) actually are serious options."

All law is based on morality, Ben; it certainly isn't based on philosophy. And since we don't currently lock up ordinary users (or even most marijuana growers) anyway, this statement is an empty one. The very fact that it has taken this long for Emery to face serious jail time (in another country) shows just how little drug production and use are punished in this country. Of course, you know what happens when you do nothing--nothing happens.

"I say if people are dumb enough to want to fry their brains, there is no real point in wasting public resources to stop them. There are enough crimes with actual victims to worry about."

Well then, you can shoulder the burden for their care or their incarceration when they actually commit crimes to feed their habit, alone. Any crime committed by a drug addict against your people or goods will go uninvestigated. All medical care for drug addicts will be stopped, and all welfare cut off. If we shouldn't waste money stopping them, we shouldn't waste it supporting them, either.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-09 7:56:03 PM

"And thusly your confirmation bias is working properly."

Since you've never known any of the dopers I've known, you're not in a position to say, are you? Oops, I forgot--you're not interested in facts. You're more a universal principles kind of guy.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-09 7:57:23 PM

Don't think, Roark; makes my dick itch. Concentrate on finding some actual proof if you want my support and that of others.

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHA. Thats cute Shane. Making it sound like you would look at this issue objectivly. You will never change your mind. We know where you stand because you spend your whole life on this blog. GO SPEND TIME WITH YOUR KIDS!

Posted by: howard roark | 2009-07-09 8:02:14 PM

"I understand that concern, and I don't think it is based on facts. In countries with less prohibition, there is actually less useage and better public health."

And also different cultures, more homogeneous populations, higher property crime rates, and extortionate taxation levels. There's no proof that what works there will also work here. Their health system, for instance, works best with dense, highly urbanized populations, which they have, and we don't.

"In the meantime I would like to see less harm come to people and less crime in the street that is a result of the black market drug trade."

Why should what you would like to see be a priority for us? Who's being biased now?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-09 8:03:31 PM

"No need to back it up. It was offered as a statement of belief, not a statement of fact, so I don't have to prove anything. Hint: It's the words "I believe you" that were the tip-off."

WOW!!! I knew it! You dont base your beliefs on data.

Posted by: howard roark | 2009-07-09 8:05:56 PM

//I understand that concern, and I don't think it is based on facts. In countries with less prohibition, there is actually less useage and better public health.// - Scott

Did you miss that whole part where the folks in the Netherlands pay ~30% more taxes than we do all the while having a 2-tear health care system and the geographic area of newfie-fucking-land? The numbers were put out by the OEC-fucking-D! Whether you believe them or not is completely fucking irrelevant. They are what they are.

You want to talk about Portugal? They pay 15% more tax than we do. How's about you start citing countries that pay less tax than us? If you're argument is so friggin' strong, that shouldn't be a hard thing to do...

Posted by: Richard Evans | 2009-07-09 8:06:56 PM


Roark: "He is not in control and cant stop this behavior while his children and wife are being ignored."

Shane: "Well, no. I just type 100 words a minute, so it doesn't take me nearly as long to post a message as a hunt-and-peck thumb-texter like yourself."

Muffin, this is called denial. You are trivializing your problem. Its pretty common among addicts. YOU HAVE BEEN BLOGGING YOUR VEIW ABOUT THE GOVERNMENTS NEED TO BABYSIT ADULTS FOR DAYS. MY MISTAKE, MONTHS.
When your kids grow up to be drug addicts because their dad was too busy to spend time with them, don't blame the drug pushers. You can turn the noose on yourself buddy because it will be your fault.

Posted by: howard roark | 2009-07-09 8:15:56 PM

"Of course, you know what happens when you do nothing--nothing happens."

Sometimes stopping things from "happening" isn't the worst thing. For instance, when you are digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole, doing nothing is perferable to digging yourself in ever deeper.

Right now the things that are "happening" make matters worse and not better. The drug war finaces criminal organizations around the world, which restabalizes cities and regions at home and abroad.

Add the loss of public resourses that are spent chasing drug criminals that could be spent chasing rapists and murders.

Add the fact that we still pay tax dollars for drug treatment, medical care, welfare, etc, etc... because prohibition has done nothing to reduce the supply or consumption of drugs.

I think we should stop digging.

Posted by: Ben Hicks | 2009-07-09 8:30:21 PM

"Muffin, this is called denial. You are trivializing your problem."

Oh, a psychoanalyst now, too, are we? A psychoanalyst who splatters his writing with all caps and exclamation points and writes, all things considered, like a nerd-in-locker stuffer who dropped out in ninth grade.

"YOU HAVE BEEN BLOGGING YOUR VEIW ABOUT THE GOVERNMENTS NEED TO BABYSIT ADULTS FOR DAYS. MY MISTAKE, MONTHS."

Exactly what is a "veiw"? And whatever it may say on your birth certificate, you're not an adult. Your screeching diatribes and constant flames make that plain.

"When your kids grow up to be drug addicts because their dad was too busy to spend time with them, don't blame the drug pushers. You can turn the noose on yourself buddy because it will be your fault."

Will you be one of the dealers? If so, you can start saving for your funeral now.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-09 8:34:04 PM


"Oh, a psychoanalyst now, too, are we? A psychoanalyst who splatters his writing with all caps and exclamation points and writes, all things considered, like a nerd-in-locker stuffer who dropped out in ninth grade"
Nope

"Will you be one of the dealers? If so, you can start saving for your funeral now"
Nope

Posted by: howard roark | 2009-07-09 8:41:02 PM

"Sometimes stopping things from "happening" isn't the worst thing."

I'm sorry; is this supposed to be an argument?

"For instance, when you are digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole, doing nothing is perferable to digging yourself in ever deeper."

Drug use among young people is dropping in the United States, but rising in Canada. Canada, not the U.S., finds itself under fire from the U.N. for being the Pacific Rim's leading supplier of synthetic drugs like ecstasy. Yet you cite the U.S. model as a failure. Has it ever occurred to you that Canadians, with their perpetual identity crisis and their pathological compulsion to do whatever the Americans aren't, are doing the digging?

"Right now the things that are "happening" make matters worse and not better. The drug war finaces criminal organizations around the world, which restabalizes cities and regions at home and abroad."

I'm sorry; was that sentence supposed to make sense? Apart from the fact that you're arguing that the whole world is wrong and you are right, you have just said that the drug war stabilizes cities and regions at home and abroad. Or was that supposed to read "destabilizes"?

"Add the loss of public resourses that are spent chasing drug criminals that could be spent chasing rapists and murders."

As critics of the American incarceration rate so dolefully moan, the U.S. is pretty good at catching crooks no matter what their type. Only a quarter of people in U.S. prisons are there for drug-related offences.

"Add the fact that we still pay tax dollars for drug treatment, medical care, welfare, etc, etc... because prohibition has done nothing to reduce the supply or consumption of drugs."

Since "prohibition" has never not existed during the entire post-1960s drug culture, Ben, you have no way--none--of knowing if this is true or not. Your beliefs stem from an assumption that anything would be better than what we have. That is the entire nexus of your argument. But you have not proved that, either. Drug use in the States is dropping among the young. But you call this success a failure, because you don't know what else to call it.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-09 8:44:37 PM

//Add the fact that we still pay tax dollars for drug treatment, medical care, welfare, etc, etc...// - Ben

Given that removal of prohibition will only increase those costs, Ben, how is that beneficial?

Wait... Lemmie guess... You think that the bureaucrats within the enforcement agencies will just give up their budgets (no longer needed on prohibition enforcement) so that the state could reallocate it towards welfare, health-care, soup kitchens, state-run housing, rehab and misc harm reduction programs? If that's the case, you have absolutely zero understanding of the nature of the state...

Posted by: Richard Evans | 2009-07-09 8:44:57 PM

We pay more taxes keeping people locked up, hiring police and bureaucrats to chase down a plant then we would if the War on certain drugs ended.

Legal pharmaceutical drugs are more dangerous and addictive than most of the illegal ones. Oh but a corporation is making profit off the patent. That's right, that's how the world works.

Posted by: Mike | 2009-07-09 8:59:29 PM

@ Shane //Since you've never known any of the dopers I've known, you're not in a position to say, are you?//

I don't need to; you've described them for me in one big collective.

Do you know what confirmation bias is?

"a tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and to irrationally avoid information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

//Why should what you would like to see be a priority for us?//

Well, this was my article :)

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-09 9:00:03 PM

Cut the conspiracy-theory crap, Mike; that is so 1990s.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-09 9:01:53 PM

@ Richard
//How's about you start citing countries that pay less tax than us? //

You are correlating countries with less drug prohibition with having more taxes, when there is no apparent causation present. Perhaps they have higher taxes for some other reason, you are making assumptions.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-09 9:02:16 PM

@ Ben Hicks
//Add the loss of public resourses that are spent chasing drug criminals that could be spent chasing rapists and murders.

Add the fact that we still pay tax dollars for drug treatment, medical care, welfare, etc, etc... because prohibition has done nothing to reduce the supply or consumption of drugs.
//

Yep...

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-09 9:03:55 PM

I have 3 all grown and 4 grandchildren. They have great careers and have very happy lives. Now that is all you get Shane. It would be irresponsible for me to give information on the people i love to a man who throws around the idea of murder.

Posted by: howard roark | 2009-07-09 9:04:22 PM

Shane:

'Or was that supposed to read "destabilizes"?'

Yes. Apologies.

"Drug use in the States is dropping among the young. But you call this success a failure, because you don't know what else to call it."

That's swell and all, but meanwhile whole swaths of Mexico have been turned into ungovernable war zones because drug cartels are swiming in black market cash (courtesy of their government created monopolies) to the point where they hold more power in their communities than the mexican police. I'm no expert, but that seems counterintuitve for a country less than keen about Mexicans illegally migrating on-mass across their southern border.

Richard:

"If that's the case, you have absolutely zero understanding of the nature of the state.."

Well, fortunately I have you to enlighten me on why that exact scenario is unworkable.

Posted by: Ben Hicks | 2009-07-09 9:04:56 PM

"I don't need to; you've described them for me in one big collective."

It's a collective of about a half-dozen people, actually. Do try to be less formulaic in your approach, and kibosh the buzzwords intended to arouse righteous indignation. They may bloat you with self-importance like a mating gamecock, but they don't prove a thing.

"Do you know what confirmation bias is?"

I do. What do you think your repeated harping on "one big collective" proves with respect to that? Or your shouldering aside previously unknown and unconsidered facts as piddling details for experts to handle, while you refuse to alter your general course?

"[Why should what you would like to see be a priority for us?] Well, this was my article."

I'm sorry; is that a reason? Am I supposed to simply acquiesce to everything you say simply because you were the first to put pen to paper? Perhaps you should look up "fallacy."

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-09 9:07:46 PM

@ Shane
//Drug use among young people is dropping in the United States//

Not true.
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/druguse/


//Only a quarter of people in U.S. prisons are there for drug-related offences.//

1.8 million arrested every year in the U.S., 1.5 of that for simple possesion

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/enforce.htm#arrests

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-09 9:10:25 PM

@ Richard
//Given that removal of prohibition will only increase those costs,//

You again assume that there would be more useage with less prohibition, and the evidence doesn't support that.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-09 9:12:01 PM

"That's swell and all, but meanwhile whole swaths of Mexico have been turned into ungovernable war zones because drug cartels are swiming in black market cash (courtesy of their government created monopolies) to the point where they hold more power in their communities than the mexican police."

Mexico's real problem is corruption. As I said before, in a country where cops moonlight in death squads and kidnapping gangs, law enforcement is bound to be a bit dysfunctional. Crime on that scale cannot exist without tolerance from the government. Nor can it persist for more than a generation or so; the people will eventually get sick of it and take steps, if no one else does.

"I'm no expert, but that seems counterintuitve for a country less than keen about Mexicans illegally migrating on-mass across their southern border."

The phrase is "en masse." And presumably those Mexicans fleeing the bloodbath are those who want to build a better life in a land that reaps the benefits of taking law and order seriously.

"Well, fortunately I have you to enlighten me on why that exact scenario is unworkable."

Because all tax-gathering bodies have as their unwritten motto the first of the Ferengi Laws of Acquisition: "Once you have their money...you never give it back."

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-09 9:13:39 PM

I've had to delete several posts that were dealing with personal attacks and info. Please keep it cordial and have adult discussion.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-09 9:13:39 PM

Scott, i doesn't matter what evidence suggests or what data shows, or what has been proven; these guys will twist everything to fit their fascist views. you have written a great article and i commend you for trying.
Shane has suggested that there has been no information provided by pro potters that has swayed his stance.

Posted by: howard roark | 2009-07-09 9:18:45 PM

@ howard // these guys will twist everything to fit their fascist views. //

Sabut true. I used to feel the way they did, until the evidence of both the harm of prohibition and the benefit of the free market changed my position.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-09 9:21:39 PM

"Mexico's real problem is corruption.... And presumably those Mexicans fleeing the bloodbath are those who want to build a better life in a land that reaps the benefits of taking law and order seriously."

Bingo. So Mexicans want to live under a system of law and order, which they don't have in Mexico because of rampant corruption. This is pretty predictable when you have a booming drug monopoly supplying large ammounts of wealth to oragnized crime (who are able to influence judges and police and the like) in a very poor country.

One way to help would be to bankrupt organized crime, and give the rule of law a fighting chance. By destroying their monopolies. By ending prohibition.

Why not? Oh I forgot. More dumb teenagers will get high if we go and do that. And protecting idiots from themselves takes priority over saving truly INNOCENT lives in other countries. Gotcha.

Posted by: Ben Hicks | 2009-07-09 9:34:30 PM

"You again assume that there would be more useage with less prohibition, and the evidence doesn't support that."

Yes it does. According to estimates alcohol consumption in the United States dropped by between a third to half, arrests for alcohol-related incidents dropped by half, and cirrhosis deaths dropped by half. Also, the violence during Prohibition was greatly sensationalized and the "public enemy era" was largely the result of the Depression, not Prohibition.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-09 9:45:26 PM

"Shane has suggested that there has been no information provided by pro potters that has swayed his stance."

Could that be because so many of them are like you, who favour drive-by smears and calling names to rational debate? You are supposed to be my elder. If this is the role model your generation provides, no wonder our youth has lost its way.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-09 9:46:50 PM

//Yes it does.//

Show me, since the evidence I cited shows that it doesn't.

//According to estimates alcohol consumption in the United States dropped by between a third to half//

1. Provide a reference
2. We're talking about marjiuana, I don't know if it would be the same as with alcohol

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-09 9:48:54 PM

Excuse me Shane. What kind of role model are you encouraging people to be murdered. If you could take that back then maybe we could get somewhere.

Posted by: howard roark | 2009-07-09 9:59:18 PM

"[Drug use among young people is dropping in the United States.] Not true."

Well, according to this, this, and this, it is true. Your data are seven years old.

"1.8 million arrested every year in the U.S., 1.5 of that for simple possesion."

And every arrest results in a prison sentence, does it? According to this, drug offences are not only not the primary reason for incarceration, but not even the single largest reason--and their contribution to the total has dropped by two percent since 1995.

Honestly, Scott, there are gun-grabbers and violence-against-women harridans who use statistics less deceptively than this. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-09 10:00:50 PM

"Excuse me Shane. What kind of role model are you encouraging people to be murdered."

I'm not encouraging anyone to get murdered, Roark. I don't buy drugs from criminals. Look to those you defend, and possibly yourself, for those who bankroll murder for, of all things, to get high.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-09 10:03:27 PM

"Show me, since the evidence I cited shows that it doesn't."

Evidence gathered in other countries with different cultures and socioeconomic dynamics. I want American proof, or Canadian proof.

"Provide a reference."

Done.

"We're talking about marjiuana, I don't know if it would be the same as with alcohol."

Most likely, since contrary to what the pro-pot crowd likes to believe, most people are law-abiding and have no wish to risk arrest over something as generally unnecessary as getting tanked (or stoned). In any case, the argument that reducing availability increases consumption defies both logic and arithmetic.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-09 10:10:23 PM

Shane can you argue that there is a market for marijuana? So how can the answer be hang them, or get tougher on crime? It will never go away. You cant even keep marijuana out of prisons so how are you going to keep them off the streets?
I defend ending prohibition to end violence. You have 2 choices:
1. Have people use cannabis in an atmospher or gangs and violence.
2. Have people use cannabis in an atmospher of peace and freedom.

Posted by: howard roark | 2009-07-09 10:13:31 PM

« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next »

The comments to this entry are closed.