The Shotgun Blog

« Canadians question Harper Conservatives' drug strategy | Main | Attention Greens: Liz Is Selling You Out »

Saturday, October 04, 2008

Marijuana legalization and crime

The best argument against the war on drugs is that through criminalizing the sale of drugs and significantly increasing their price through prohibition it contributes significantly to the funding of organized crime.

We know that organized crime is involved in the sale of drugs, we know that it's an extremely lucrative trade, and we know that the profits involved raise the stakes in a world in which the remedy to disagreements involves violence more often as those stakes go up.

In responding to comments on this post, though, a question occurred to me: is this argument a fair one to use in the intellectual discussion of marijuana legalization specifically?

Marijuana is different from most drugs in one very important way: it's easy and cheap to produce in a usable form. You don't need a complex network to come up with large quantities of pot; the ease of production makes it a poor candidate for the funding of organized crime. While it's easy to see that marijuana prohibition is responsible for, for instance, children being involved in its distribution network, (do adults buy beer from teenagers?) its contribution to the funding of gangs, guns and violence is harder to pin down.

This doesn't mean that marijuana's prohibition doesn't have real effects (such as the aforementioned inclusion of children in drug sales) that could be almost immediately remedied with legalization, but it does mean that those of us who see self-ownership and a right to do with our bodies as we will as reason enough to legalize need to dig a bit deeper when it comes to a really strong argument against outlawing cannabis.

What should be clear, though, is that any move to make it harder for individuals to cultivate their own marijuana (cough-mandatory minimums-cough) will only increase its potential to act as a source of revenue for violent criminals.

Whether or not we believe in ending the prohibition of cannabis or other drugs, we ought to stand together to oppose any measure that would put more power and money into the hands of real criminals.

Posted by Janet Neilson on October 4, 2008 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e20105353a0230970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Marijuana legalization and crime:

Comments

Janet,

"the ease of production makes it a poor candidate for the funding of organized crime.... its contribution to the funding of gangs, guns and violence is harder to pin down."

Huh? Five seconds with google is all it takes to pin it down. Viz: http://www.asianpacificpost.com/portal2/ff8080811548063f0115482401d00003_Asian_Gangs_move_grow_ops.do.html

We came close to legalizing pot a few years ago ( http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/marijuana/grow_operations.html ). If Paul Martin had been in less of a rush to push Jean Cretien out of office, we just might have got it. Pity.

Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-10-04 10:11:24 PM

Marijuana contributes to crime in numerous ways, but only because it is sold by the same people that sell hard drugs (and is a nice source of easy income for them).

The main argument against marijuana is its supposed status as a "gateway drug" for young people. But if marijuana wasn't being sold by crack dealers, it wouldn't be a gateway drug. There would be no reason for the slightly wayward 15-year-old kid who wants to get high once in a while to be hanging out with crack dealers, and therefore, no reason for him to start using crack.

Mandatory minimum sentences for small-scale growers will give hardened criminals an even stronger monopoly over this naturally growing herb.

Posted by: Jeremy Maddock | 2008-10-05 12:05:36 AM

Here is why they wish to keep it illegal and denigrate people who use it.

It's a true story. Told by me, just over 5 minute long. See my blog for more true short stories of a lifetime soaring pilot who has never been impaired on marijuana and has come up with unique insights and inventions.............
http://www.archive.org/details/AnEmailCanChangeTheWorld

For the the innovation in glider repair that I came up with listen to this about 12 minutes (i'm all exited playing with this new thing):
http://www.archive.org/details/APilotsTale_70

I'm tired of being marginalized by cops and politicians, and all the rest who think that they are so friggin good because they drink scotch, who break the law routinely and get away with murder while they harass me for my peaceful life.

See "I trusted the RCMP" or wait till I record it and see how they can harass a man who turns in a double murderer.

You read my original science "Do Humans Have a political gene?" and see why they wish to keep a dictatorship of the religious bovine right intact.

You bet if the Mormons can raise young women for the specific purpose of multiple marriages to breed as if they were a herd of dairy cattle because they claim the right under their belief system, I have the right to market these natural products to consenting adults.

We believe that this is part of the normal course of nature and I as scientist has as much right to believe in my science as these Mormons do their creed. See Institutionalized Idiocy.

The surveillance is now off me, because their is nothing that they can do except grant me the same rights as the Mormons to believe what I wish.

On my website I read a page from the manual of a Sport 167 hang glider (the disclaimer) Next I go right into how it was in my experience. I've seldom flown with have a smoke before I fly and have doing so successfully for nearly 3 decades, out surviving many pilots who never toked at all.

I drove for 40 years and retired an UNBLEMISHED proffessional license. Currently medical marijuana users hold University teaching positions.

I am tired of the lies, no more BS from the religious idiots, muzzle the stupid idiots who continuously regurgitate the lies, because that is the Law, please.

You can see by my writing that I've been right on more major issues than Steven Harper, has, so why is all right for his kind to oppress me?

Posted by: budoracle | 2008-10-05 12:37:05 AM

"...You can see by my writing that I've been right on more major issues than Steven Harper, has, so why is all right for his kind to oppress me?..." sayeth Budoracle

Big diggerenece vetween you and Steven Harper is-

1_ he doesn't get wrecked on pot every day for the last 40 years like you do

2_ he never tried to sell pot on the street in broad daylight wearing a clown hat of fake marijuana buds, and then offered pot to uniformed policemen & then get arrested like you did

3_ we elected him to do our work he didn't show up announced giving orders and establising unsolicited priorities like you do

outside of these facts, you & Steven Harper are equal

Posted by: 419 | 2008-10-05 1:44:19 AM

419, you're Ad Hominem attack on Budoracle fails to make a solid point. Harper (so far as we know) is not a pothead, and he hasn't made any major mistakes yet in governing the country. But that doesn't necessarily mean that marijuana should be illegal, or that pot smokers cannot successfully hold elected office.

Posted by: Jeremy Maddock | 2008-10-05 2:22:41 AM

Hi there One-short-of-reason. why is it that when I click on your handle, you don't exist?

The truth is that my words are the reason that you exist, so it is kind of nice that I can conjure you up as easily as I could access the forces of Stellar fusion in real time when I used to hang glide.

I sure hope your buddy comes on, so that I get stereo feedback monitoring that I'm used to.

Or did his mom make him go to bed earlier than usual. Or has his doctor finally discovered his prescription error? Or is he busy doing some midnight godsucking?

From me will come no more respect for any of my oppressors until I have equal rights to be protected from the hatefully religious, the moronically right-wing.

When my PM doesn't market religious fairy tales from the office, I'll not advertise what I believe so publicly. He has the right as I do to believe what he wishes, but not on my behalf.

If I were PM, then it would be OK to promote what I think personally? From the Office. Perhaps wear my bud hat?

No friggin way does he get to oppress me by encouraging dangerous religious fanatics through conjuring up fear of my personal lifestyle. Until I am actually breaking any laws the state has no right to control what state of mind I wish to enjoy, nor how I wish to access that state of mind.

I don't know why the most daft have to rule, always? Why do we say that Harper is a great leader when he would have goose stepped behing georgy moron into Iraq.

Here's a guy that used a plagiarized speech to mouth the words of foreign war mongers in our parliament in hopes of supporting their war crimes with our military.

I stood on the border and tried to warn the world of the coming disaster as I now try to contribute here. You are idiots if you think that this general lawlessness that we are experiencing is not tied to the huge crime boost of prohibition. Mrs. Eileen Mohan, these guys are not fighting over girlfriends (they have as many hotties as money will buy), no these guys are about power and money. That whole foundation is built on Prohibition as it was before.

If you talk to me of a Prohibition on handguns, you will be facing a gun toting and using punk more often. A law like that will only make guns more lucrative to sell, because gun laws don't deter crooks from getting guns for crime.

No I like my medicine even if 409 doesn't like the fact that I do. Sorry 409, but they haven't come for me yet. My phone doesn't sound funny anymore and I am as free from tyranny as is Winston Blackmore, of Bountiful, god bless his hen pecked soul!

I'm tired of the lunatic fringe who are encouraged to hate by the government.

The fact is that no one has ever proven anyone to be imp[aired on marijuana yet, but people are getting criminal records because a few TASER happy goons have been taught some Vodo invented by Wayne Jeffries. Another unsupervised unaccountable god figure like that wonder boy Coroner, Dr. Smith, who invented shaken baby syndrome.

I can't imagine why people are so gullible and incredibly stupid. Where else would the money for crime come from?

I extrapolated the figures of Pot sales in Canada right near the beginning of my blog and sent them to Stockwell Day. I conservatively estimate, that Canadians spend 100 million on pot alone per week.

Someone is making money on this and reinvesting it in other more lucrative criminal ventures every chance they get. And people here feel its something else causing the crime.

Sorry, but I'm not that stupid.

Posted by: budoracle | 2008-10-05 2:56:52 AM

...I'll toke to that!

Now, how do you control your stink, err sweet smell from invading my hotel room/home/car next to yours?

So, budoracle, my question to you is then, where do we draw the line on what is legal for society to have?

I mean, LSD is natural too, and so what if my kids sniff glue.

Posted by: tomax7 | 2008-10-05 8:49:28 AM

1) I never used or support any drugs
major country produce it is in Afganestan, Vietnam, Cuba

all matter of faked war in Afganstan to produce drugs as you can see England and price charlse's two son visited the Afganstan to pay their more than trillion dollar debt by sell the durgs as ship of price charlse was arrested by police in US water with so many drugs on it and use
word 'muslim' to blame they must stop for 8 years in afganestan while those 8 years and 100 billion can be used in built afganstan all over again
England never like pakstan or Afgan become good they only tired to use them to pay their country money in any shape 8 years war in afganestan while they could take those taleban whitin a year
look at life of price charlse and so many women and sex and drugs and all marrying that Camela who is older than him becuase he and camela who was married woman while has affair with price charlse is both are in druge probably solution cut the druge and sell it illegla and it automaricly cut all black children arrest by sell it and cut the crime rate and cut teh gun as well
all is related to Mr. blair and bush and all guns and all republican or new conservative pary
how old no moral woman like camela able to destroy Diana who married virgin to the point she also has affiar in last year of her life and then she Dian planed to marry muslims while those muslim also not real good men too but at least Diana look for better relgion to help her soul
and how come that french doctor stop Dian's car he may that doctor enter any injection of alchol to driver of Diana or may dian like to marry muslim and why price charlse divorce her with 20 million with not enough security to put her in danger media papratzi can able to destroy her life and bring news to price charlse to knwo what she is doing to stalking her and also diana did nogt like mine and repulbican war and noticed all faked english crime under table of kingdom and also Camela divorced on 1995 and diana died in 1997 may related of she camela hated Diana and she hated dian's two sons now going to afgan and sell drugs to destroy diana and her sons for plan of camela again to gain her children come up again who knows and why CIA and all world police can not stop the drugs and if drugs must open with what limit is realy margina is illegla hten must stop the cigar and stop the alchol who is worst then margina

you must stop alchol before stop marijina drugs or etc for brain damage and addiction which is bad and open crime as the result nad all faked story of Muslim are bad is only made plan to made money under table and help criminal and youth crime come up nad gun and republican and conservative by cut tax from rich not help poor come up at all in capitalism world

2)if people with mental health can use some drugs for reduce their addiction still is drugs too but may more safe becuase of pressure in the system by exces of drink alchol and use of druge and excess of phone call or cell phone and etc all still is addiction or excess of gambling as the result of loosing alot in life and business damage and debt and happines are not get by wrong way but in right way as rich people are not happy people using all druge and sex and alcohol still becuase not have moral right brain to be happy

3) look at media and HRC and how German Kathy sheidla of excess of hate agaisn muslim and she may get money and donaiton from jewish as she helped and got money from republican and conservativ party to say all world problms is Muslim fault and hrc are not doing any thing and hwo owner of golbal and mail and so many ohter jewisih media and german racist and catholic irish and spanish are behind this matter and gays or supermodle politician like HILLARY weston are behind all cut the tax as well and all adultry movie in corner who hate muslim who cover their body in opposit with them and how link of
Mark styne with Isreal medai editor tried to look muslim bad and hide real news and all ezra levan to like to destriy hrc to able to say anything theylike against muslim and prophet mohamad in faulst gossip like solman rushdi supported by england still and jewish is also link with racsit german and racist cathloci irish and spanish and
to destroy all muslim fate while they are in use of durgs adn aske taleban to produced to made money

4) when hitler german christian guy killed jewish it was Palestain who helped and let jewish immigrante to their country and later it was Iran who helped jewish they jewish bought the land and stay and live there next those zionist tried to steal more land and ask for sepraton and control the world nd use US army to do so and while it was Iran who has mutlicuture of turkish arab and kord in iran heloed weapen went to Russia and destroy all army of hitler was iran helped jewish and palstna helped jewish not two countrie is under attack is these two countreis not german and not england or USA we were wonder\
sate of Isreal is fine but country is Palsten like country is canada but quebec is province
seperation is not alwasy solution that jewish look for and stop war in palstein right wing in Isrela is also conservative party while left wings in Isreal are not support zionist

solution : fix all world economic and stop the war and made law practially able to follow reduce poor and increase tax to more rich and cut tax from middle class people and try to be happy nd follow laws and morality right and cut all illegla culture and alchol and addiction and pressure to people
real problmes in hte world is how to live secure less crime more money or minimum money for all peopel to live and real paspport to go anywher with no bother and bring poor higher and let rich made more money but happy money rich are should supported too to made money but they must pay taxes
stop all addiction and mental health in drugs as Austrila and england and europe are facing destroy humna sole there inseated give them job to do and small money to work let media say the truth and freedom go with border not bother above said illegal do not blame Muslim for your faults

blame problems to extermist in any relgion and country and poltician and criminal not to normal people to pay price for this

Posted by: shiny | 2008-10-05 9:01:11 AM

1) I never used or support any drugs
major country produce it is in Afganestan, Vietnam, Cuba

blame problems to extermist in any relgion and country and poltician and criminal not to normal people to pay price for this

Posted by: shiny | 2008-10-05 9:01:12 AM

Jeremy,

1. Marijuana does not contribute to crime. That’s a mistake many people make, anthropomorphizing a mindless object (e.g., “guns kill people”). It is against the law, and those who buy and sell are criminals, but the drug itself is blameless.\

2. You seem, like most pot advocates, to draw a line between marijuana and narcotics. However, the same arguments used to legalize marijuana can be applied to hard drugs. And there is still no reason for the “wayward 15-year-old” to do crack, just because he’s in the room with a man who sells it.

3. So you’re saying that tougher penalties against small-time car thieves would give professional chop shops a monopoly? It might, but on the other hand there would be fewer auto thefts. To argue that fewer criminals would result in increased crime is idiotic.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-10-05 10:00:06 AM

At it again, huh, BudO? Overwhelming the servers with long-assed posts of brainless and self-aggrandizing babble. You do know, of course, that anecdotal evidence is not given the same weight as scientifically gathered evidence? But then, you always did have trouble accepting the notion that you might be less than omniscient and that your slightest passing whim might not have the force of universal law.

1. Yup, hit the ground running. Only you know the truth; your writing and videographer’s skills are first-class; visit your site and be wise. How do you expect to be a leader of men if you can’t even stop admiring yourself in the mirror?

2. You marginalized yourself, BudO. No one did that to you. Bitter much? Of course, these days it’s getting harder to find a boomer who isn’t.

3. More “truth” from you?

4. Ditto.

5. They can’t. Shame on our government for not taking action against polygamists. But it is illegal. And anyway A is not proof of B.

6. You are not a scientist, even if you have scientific training, because you do not use the scientific method and I frankly doubt you even know what it is.

7. The surveillance is now off you because you have already been charged.

8. More anecdotal crap.

9. That might explain why universities have turned into fortresses of academic repression. They’re staffed by dope-addled, bitter old boomers like you.

10. Sorry, that would violate Section 2 of the Charter.

11. You have been right about nothing, including Harper’s name, which is “Stephen.”

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-10-05 10:12:02 AM

BudO wrote: “Hi there One-short-of-reason. why is it that when I click on your handle, you don't exist?” et al…

1. Either you’re a poser or you have pickled more of your brain than even I suspected. “Access the forces of stellar fusion in real time when I used to hang glide”?! PLEASE tell me you’ll be defending yourself at your trial. You’ll be on a bus to Riverview before the day is out.

2. Hearing voices now?

3. Yes, being a drug-pimper is so much better than going to Church.

4. You already don’t respect anyone but you, BudO. The reputation you have with yourself is unsurpassed.

5. It’s not what the PM believes; it’s what the people who elect him believe.

6. You will never be PM. Only in Vancouver or Nelson would you even have a ghost’s shot at city council and now even that looks doubtful.

7. You are already breaking the law by accessing that state of mind in the way you wish, BudO. You weren’t very clear-headed when you wrote that, were you? And when was the last time Harper said anything about religion?

8. Who wins, rules. Your beef is with the people, the “bovines,” the “idiots” you would rule on city council. Must suck.

9. Martin Luther King plagiarized speeches, too. Next.

10. More likely you stood on a soapbox on some dingy streetcorner wearing your magic Bud Hat.

11. That’s just because you’re a baby boomer. You’ve never learned the habit of simple obedience. The easiest way to get you to do something is to tell you not to do it. You have the brain of a ten-year-old.

12., 13. “Your phone doesn’t sound funny anymore.” Speaking of the lunatic fringe…

14. Such proof of impairment is widespread, BudO, but you’ll never accept it, because you filter out everything that doesn’t fit into your little stoner’s world.

15. Where else would the money for crime come from? From people like you, who buy their products. D-uh…

16. I don’t accept evidence from biased sources. Certainly those whose “telephones don’t sound funny anymore.”

17. Yes. It is people who give money to criminals who cause the crime. People who think that a minor wrinkle in their lifestyle is worth all the blood and havoc. People who have never matured emotionally past the age of ten or so. People like yourself.

18. On the contrary—you’re not that SMART.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-10-05 10:27:55 AM

You were stoned when you wrote that, weren't you, Shiny?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-10-05 10:28:22 AM

Actually, Tomax, LSD is a synthetic drug and does not occur naturally. Numerous other hallucinogens do, however, so your point, while wrong in one technical specific, is still valid.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-10-05 10:29:32 AM

A cursory glance at this thread shows what drugs do to people - it makes them stupid.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-10-05 10:46:15 AM

Actually, Tomax, LSD is a synthetic drug and does not occur naturally.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 5-Oct-08 10:29:32 AM

Actually it does in ergot fungus.

Posted by: The Stig | 2008-10-05 10:50:40 AM

Actually, Stig, only the lysergic acid component comes from the ergot fungus. LSD, lysergic acid diethylamide, is synthesized in the laboratory.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-10-05 10:57:37 AM

P.S. Let's keep the recipes for synthetic drugs on the QT lest some of these stoners decide to try cooking up. Another neighbourhood fire we don't need.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-10-05 10:58:20 AM

It's a tragedy to see so much intelligence wasted on drugs. Maybe some time clearing garbage by a highway in the dead of winter will smarten you people up. The state isn't degrading you - you're degrading yourselves and allowing the state to exploit you. Have fun, losers.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-10-05 11:09:01 AM

Ho, ho, ho all the mindless nameless morons here regurgitating the pap of bovines.

Not a single one of you idiots has the courage to name yourself as being behind these posts of idiocy.

When someone says something anonymously it means nothing, since these aren't even your words.

It is too bad you have no original thoughts because all we have is propaganda flung by unidentifiable morons. You overvalue your nothingness

Posted by: budoracle | 2008-10-05 12:04:42 PM

"It's a tragedy to see so much intelligence wasted on drugs."

ZP,

I agree wholeheartedly.
I assume you are carrying this message to our various levels of government who profit heavily on the miseries of others.

Posted by: Canadian Observer | 2008-10-05 12:20:54 PM

Marijuana smokers are the brightest Canadians. Rather than lead an existence only in insults and denigration, Marijuana smokers are positive and proud of our accomplishments and share them in good humor.

http://www.archive.org/details/AnEmailCanChangeTheWorld

http://www.archive.org/details/Sport167HangGliderManualPage1

http://www.archive.org/details/APilotsTale_70

They are also of the type that are brave enough to stand behind their principles with there true identity.

These other long winded dolts have nothing to a, not even an identity to stand behind their drivel

Here is some more of me, a real live, intelligent, creative lifelong toker whose entire existencs isn't spent denigrating others.

Chew on this you slander dogs:

http://www.archive.org/details/45CaliberPoliticsOnAMexicanBeach_247

http://www.archive.org/details/IUsedToOwnAGermanWhiner

http://www.archive.org/details/LoveUnleashed

http://www.archive.org/details/HeWhoBitesLastStrikesHome

http://www.archive.org/details/CrowsOnCrack_438

These are the creative gifts and true accounts of a normal Canadian who is being harassed by the likes of these word goons who have no identity.

Government encouraged hate mongers

Posted by: budoracle | 2008-10-05 12:41:01 PM

This is about the natural evolution of the laws that govern us to reflect what we see in the real world.

There is no valid reason to keep in place laws that were invented by proven racists for whose laws we are currently apologizing and which at every level give us social disorder and corruption.

See how far up the corruption it goes by listening to my detailed MP3 podcast (about 5 min) of the aftermath of the Mayerthorpe Tragedy.
http://www.archive.org/details/AnEmailCanChangeTheWorld

This is documented organized crime which has been allowed to be perpetrated by the highest officials of the governm,ent in their official capacity.

The fact of it is, that when I caught them at it my perception was enhanced because I was smoking a joint of good pot as I mention.

Also in this 2 min podcast you will see what kind of mental state of awareness is required t9o fly a hang glider and realize that I usually smoked a doobie befor flying to ENHANCE MY PERCEPTION.
http://www.archive.org/details/Sport167HangGliderManualPage1

Here's how I moved the sport forward with a unique innovation which I perceived after inhaling my favorite substance.
http://www.archive.org/details/APilotsTale_70

You bet I'm proud to be a lifelong intelligent toker, who is an asset to the community and is well liked by neighbors.

I'm tired of thidiots and morons getting a leg up by the government to discrimiinate against me.

So just enjoy my happy self promotions to counter the government lies.

The brightest most creative least violent , most self aware people I know all smoke marijuana.

I don't enjoy the company of self righteous religious morons who wish to control others.

Go to my blog for more short stories and podcasts. They are my ammunition in this world of machine gun deceit.

When some one has the guts to turn in a double murderer see I trusted the RCMP, they are an asset to the community. Although the guy who was murdered did so to try to keep cocaine dealing out of the back of his cab. It was directly due to that his killer came to Justice but that still hasn't ket cocaine dealing out of any community and has left two children without their father.

Another Prohibition success story? and with my help too. I truly regret helping!

Let's face it I am the model for future citizens, have given up my serious addictions, to gasoline, consumerism, and am a gentle concerned for my neighbors type of guy.

When I see the crap that drives others to pollute and waste and consume, and my low impact on my surroundings , there is no guilt about what bI do. The laws are illegal and dangerous to our society. They are causing untold misery and death and these morons feel a sense of entitlement to an approach that works contrary to its stated goals.

Have fun laughing at my stories!

Prohibition is only here to keep these idiots hyped up so that votes can be churned from the bovines by talentless politicians making fraudulent statements about our crime issues.

Posted by: budoracle | 2008-10-05 2:08:14 PM

Let's face it I am the model for future citizens, have given up my serious addictions, to gasoline, consumerism, and am a gentle concerned for my neighbors type of guy.
Posted by: budoracle | 5-Oct-08 2:08:14 PM

What a citizen! What a guy! What a prick.

Posted by: The Stig | 2008-10-05 2:30:41 PM

SD was first synthesized on November 16, 1938 by Swiss chemist Albert Hofmann at the Sandoz Laboratories in Basel, Switzerland, as part of a large research program searching for medically useful ergot alkaloid derivatives.[5] Ergot is a fungus that, by infecting cereal grains used for making rye breads, causes ergotism. After Dr. Hofmann succeeded in synthesizing ergobasine (which became the preeminent uterotonic), he began working on other amide derivatives of lysergic acid. LSD (lysergic acid diethylamide) is one of the major drugs making up the hallucinogen class of drugs.[6] Lysergic acid diethylamide, the 25th lysergic acid derivative Hofmann synthesised (hence the name LSD-25) was developed initially as a probable analeptic, a circulatory and respiratory stimulant, based on its structural similarity to another known analeptic, nikethamide (nicotinic acid diethylamide). However, no extraordinary benefits of the compound were identified during animal tests (though laboratory notes briefly mention that the animals became "restless" under its effects), and its study was discontinued.[7] Its psychedelic properties were unknown until 5 years later, when Hofmann, acting on what he has called a "peculiar presentiment," returned to work on the chemical.[7]

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

...if you read this far, i rest my case.

;-)

So it is synthetic? Like wow man, isn't anything sacred anymore?

Cool.

Posted by: tomax7 | 2008-10-05 8:34:54 PM

BudO wrote: "Ho, ho, ho all the mindless nameless morons here regurgitating the pap of bovines.

Not a single one of you idiots has the courage to name yourself as being behind these posts of idiocy.

When someone says something anonymously it means nothing, since these aren't even your words.

It is too bad you have no original thoughts because all we have is propaganda flung by unidentifiable morons. You overvalue your nothingness "

Excuse me, I sign my real name to my posts, unlike you. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. That's the trouble with far-Left moonbats, BudO--they don't hold themselves to the same standards they try to hold others to.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-10-05 11:37:13 PM

Canadian Observer wrote: "I agree wholeheartedly.
I assume you are carrying this message to our various levels of government who profit heavily on the miseries of others."

I thought one of the arguments most commonly advanced by the anti-prohibition crowd was how much the "war on drugs" was COSTING the government. Now it turns out they're profiting from it--or are they? Which is it?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-10-05 11:40:03 PM

Tomax wrote: "So it is synthetic? Like wow man, isn't anything sacred anymore?"

Take heart, Tomax. If you insist on all-natural hallucinations, there's always peyote and, if you're good at recognizing fungi, psychedelic mushrooms, along with numerous others.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-10-05 11:41:47 PM

Man, this guy BudO is full of it. I mean, he is REALLY full of it. All he does throughout his mile-long posts is talk about himself, himself, himself. I thought Marc Emery was a piece of work, but this guy's messiniac delusions surpass Emery's in every respect. Of course, if he had any meaningful support, maybe he wouldn't feel the need to be such a one-man operation.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-10-05 11:44:45 PM

Sorry, that should read "messianic" delusions.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-10-05 11:47:33 PM

Is the state my servant or my master?

The government has no more right to tell a free person what substance they may put in their own bodies than the government has right to tell them what ideas they may put in their heads.

That's the Thomas Jefferson argument.

Moral righteousness drives the war on drugs, alcohol and tobacco.

Ergo, the most powerful argument is to hold the righteous to their own moral standards.

The Parable of The Fall tells us everything we need to know to beat the righteous at their own game. It is the prohibitionist who is immoral.

The universal lesson is well understood: the forbidden fruit always tastes sweeter.

Understanding that wisdom tells us where all the supernatural power of allurement attributed to substances politicians label as drugs comes from.

The more subliminal and powerful moral is that lying to your charges unleashes powerful serpents.

The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is based on political lies devoid of science.

Jefferson tells us that too....

"Were the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now. Thus in France the emetic was once forbidden as a medicine, and the potato as an article of food. Government is just as infallible,[sic] too, when it fixes systems in physics. Galileo was sent to the Inquisition for affirming that the earth was a sphere.... It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." --Thomas Jefferson-- Notes On Virginia

Posted by: Chris Buors | 2008-10-05 11:57:07 PM

Shane,

"1. Marijuana does not contribute to crime. That’s a mistake many people make, anthropomorphizing a mindless object (e.g., “guns kill people”). It is against the law, and those who buy and sell are criminals, but the drug itself is blameless."

You're quite right... marijuana does not contribute to crime. Laws against marijuana contribute to crime.

"2. You seem, like most pot advocates, to draw a line between marijuana and narcotics. However, the same arguments used to legalize marijuana can be applied to hard drugs. And there is still no reason for the “wayward 15-year-old” to do crack, just because he’s in the room with a man who sells it."

I don't think that simple possession of any drug (without evidence of intent to traffic) should be criminalized. However, I do draw a distinction between dangerous chemical drugs (like heroine, crack cocaine, crystal meth, etc.) and naturally growing substances like marijuana. I believe that marijuana should be completely legalized (for adults) because:

a.) Negative health effects are more comparable to alcohol and tobacco than hard drugs. Potential for physical addiction is much lower than that of alcohol and tobacco.
b.) Individuals have a right to self-ownership of their bodies, and of naturally growing herbs and plants (which many would say are a gift from God).
c.) Marijuana laws are ineffective and expensive to enforce.
d.) Applying sales tax to marijuana purchases would generate additional government revenue.

Also, whether you admit it or not, frequently being in the same room with someone who sells crack will greatly increase one's likelihood of using it. Teenagers in particular are likely to imitate the behaviour of the people they spend time around. Also, hard drug dealers frequently mix addictive drugs (like cocaine) with marijuana, in order to get their customers hooked.

"3. So you’re saying that tougher penalties against small-time car thieves would give professional chop shops a monopoly? It might, but on the other hand there would be fewer auto thefts. To argue that fewer criminals would result in increased crime is idiotic."

Your analogy is meaningless. Smoking marijuana is in no way similar stealing a car. I think most rational individuals would agree.

The bottom line is this: millions of individuals enjoy smoking marijuana from time to time. You can either plunge all of these individuals into the criminal sphere, or disassociate this relatively innocent and completely victimless activity from dangerous criminal elements.

Posted by: Jeremy Maddock | 2008-10-06 3:12:48 AM

Here is some food for thought.

1) What is the difference between a vice and a crime?

2) Just how wise is it to criminalize vice?

3) Who proved the theory of addiction holds water?

4) Is soft and hard drugs a periodic table reality or a moral judgment?

5) Isn't "dangerous drug" a political designation rather than a periodic table reality?

6) What business is it of yours what medicines I chose to use for whatever it is that ails me?

7) Doesn't having a criminal record destroy a lot more lives than drugs themselves do?

8) Don't people have a natural right to own drugs as a property?

9) Doesn't Genesis 1:29 give all the plants of planet Earth to individuals rather than the state or medicine?

10) Don't we really need a separation of state and medicine to get at the truth?

11) Isn't prohibiting a free person from using whatever drugs he wants immoral?

Posted by: Chris Buors | 2008-10-06 7:08:17 AM

How about we apply the four cardinal virtues of St. Thomas Aquinas to drug prohibition?

Temperance, Prudence, Justice and Fortitude are those virtues and drug prohibition doesn't measure up to a single one.

Temperance and prohibition are irreconcilable. Is it prudent to put people in cages because you don't like the medicines they use?

Is it just to turn vices into crimes?

Do prohibitionists have the fortitude to deal with the truth about drugs?

Like I said, Drug prohibition does not measure up to single virtue and is therefore immoral.

The Parable of The Fall and the Four Cardinal virtues ought to be considered by the prohibitionists.

Lastly, St. Peter will not be asking who broke the law, who were the aggressors will determine who goes to hell or not.

Drug prohibitionists will burn in hell for their immoral support against our natural right to self-medicate....it's as simple as that.

Posted by: Chris Buors | 2008-10-06 7:15:18 AM

Let's talk about the Seven Deadly Sins.

Vainglory.... isn't wanting your way so badly that you would willingly harm them a deadly sin?

Like wanting to live in a drug free world so badly that you would harm drug users with a criminal record the very defintion of vainglory?

Lust and glutton.. Lusting for pleasure drugs and being glutton about it leads to spiritual death.... isn't spiritual death really what addiction is all about?

Sloth.... Isn't drug prohibition a short cut to a 1000 years sin free existence on Earth that is said will bring about the Second Coming?

What can I say?

Looks like drug prohibitionists violate every one of the Seven Deadly sins.... see you all in hell.

Posted by: Chris Buors | 2008-10-06 7:23:28 AM

Chris,

1. Both. Democracy means you choose your leader. It also means you then allow yourself to be led. If you’re unhappy with the leadership, change leaders.

2. Unless social harm can be proven in the production, distribution, or consumption of that substance.

3. Thomas Jefferson also favoured slavery and the abolition of all cities. Are those next on your agenda?

4. So?

5. Don’t have a problem with that.

6. Spoken like a true anarchist.

7. Only to rebellious twits.

8. There’s nothing supernatural about a weed. Your need to anthropomorphize a herb tells me you’re not dealing from a solid rhetorical base.

9. There is nothing deceptive about current marijuana laws. Stoners have demonstrated a remarkable capacity of self-deception, however. They see themselves as peaceful and compassionate while they finance gang wars and property crime.

10. The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is based on the experience of the Opium Wars and Civil War veterans hooked on morphine and laudanum. I have never seen a single pro-legalization advocate refer to these national disasters, not once. Most of them probably don’t even know, because they’re too lazy and one-sided to do any serious research.

11., 12. Galileo was sent to the Inquisition for teaching the Copernican model of the Solar System. All educated people in the Age of Discovery knew the world was round; they also knew it was 40,000 kilometres in circumference. As an interesting aside, it just so happens that Columbus thought the world was only 24,000 kilometres around and that once past South America, it would only be a short voyage to the East Indies. Columbus was wrong, his critics were right, and he did not discover America at all.

You call this proof?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-10-06 8:29:07 AM

Jeremy,

1. No, people willing to break those laws contribute to crime. There is no pressing reason to break them other than simple hedonism.

2. What you think is of no importance whatever. Don’t feel singled out; it doesn’t matter what I think either. It only matters what I can PROVE. As for your reasons for legalizing weed:

a) Negative health effects combine the worst of both tobacco and alcohol, without any of the benefits (except perhaps for certain medical benefits currently supported by anecdotal evidence only). It is proven that marijuana affects short-term memory and cognitive skills, sometimes for weeks after the high is gone. If you want an admittedly anecdotal but nonetheless convincing argument against marijuana use on mental capacity grounds, read BudOracle’s posts.

b) No, they don’t, if their method of exercising those rights affects the rights of others. This is the real catching-point for a lot of pro-pot types: They just can’t get over the fact that it isn’t always about them.

c) Then why is pot use down among American youth?

d) No, it wouldn’t, because how can you realistically tax something you can grow in your own basement? It would be like taxing dandelions. The experience with tobacco shows that if you impose onerous taxes on even a legal product, people will resort to smuggled goods.

If I found myself in the room with someone using crack, it would only be the one time. I’d have the cops there in a flash. And your point that dealers frequently lace joints with harder drugs constitutes an excellent argument for NOT buying drugs, not legalizing them.

3. Smoking dope is similar to stealing a car in that both currently constitute criminal behaviour. And the analogy is completely legitimate inasmuch as we are talking about market forces on industries, not on the moral veracity of those industries. Again, what you think does not matter.

4. The bottom line is this: Millions of people are okay with blood for pot, because they are that selfish, they are that egotistical, they are that hedonistic. They are also that hypocritical, inasmuch as those who favour blood for pot are among the most outspoken critics of blood for oil.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-10-06 8:41:14 AM

Chris wrote: “Here is some food for thought.”

1. One is a transgression against morality and the other is a transgression against society.

2. It depends on whether the vice has a measurable harm on society.

3. Irrelevant, since marijuana is not physically addicting. Psychological dependence is well documented, however.

4. Irrelevant. The issue is whether the good done by legalization would exceed the harm. That's not true so long as dope remains illegal in the U.S., for reasons discussed at length elsewhere.

5. No.

6. Hedonism is a character flaw, not a disease.

7. So maybe you should think about that before doing drugs.

8. No.

9. Didn’t Genesis also forbid the fruit of the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge?

10. No. Most of the untruths are coming from the pro-pot camp at this point.

11. No.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-10-06 8:49:22 AM

Chris,

1. How about we don’t.

2. It measures up to all four in the case of drug ABUSE.

3. Prohibition is enforced temperance. Not only are they reconcilable, they’re mutually inclusive. Is it prudent to use powerful psychotropics without a prescription because you like the high? In that case they’re not being used as medicines.

4. Yes, if the vice harms society.

5. Must of us already have. We don’t use them unless we need them.

6. Yes, it does, and no, it isn’t. Repeating a falsehood over and over won’t make it true.

7. The reality of the Opium Wars ought to be considered by anti-prohibitionists.

8. St. Peter will also have some pointed questions for those who intentionally lined the pockets of pimps, murderers, and thieves rather than live a life of prudence, temperance, fortitude, and justice.

9. I have actually read the Bible, Chris, and I don’t recall anything but contempt for those who were even habitually drunk, let alone stoned. In fact, God smote the sons of Aaron for entering the Tent while in a drunken state, against His orders. In light of this, and the fact that I don’t finance criminals, it is safe to say that my place in Heaven is at least as secure as yours.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-10-06 8:59:56 AM

Chris wrote: “Let's talk about the Seven Deadly Sins.”

Okay.

1. Yes, so please tell me why you sponsor blood for pot.

2. A criminal record that denies you certain secular opportunities does not constitute spiritual harm.

3. So why do you lust for them, then? I don’t.

4. Anyone who knows a habitual stoner will gain new insights into the meaning of “sloth.”

5. Apparently, nothing with any insight.

6. Classic projection. The violations are not ours, but yours. You are lazy, hedonistic, envious of your non-criminal neighbours, gluttonous for drugs, unjustly angry, and lustful of psychotropic pleasures. You’ve got one foot in the burner already, Chris. I advise you to pull it out before the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse ride you into the dust.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-10-06 9:05:26 AM

Chris Bours argues like a rat up against an exterminator coming at him with a hammer
the pot laws will not change in your lifetime , you know it

Posted by: 419 | 2008-10-06 9:25:01 AM

"... see you all in hell...."
doth say Mr Bours

ya, save us a chair you big crybaby

Posted by: 419 | 2008-10-06 9:28:09 AM

"...The brightest most creative least violent , most self aware people I know all smoke marijuana...."
.............................................................doth say Budoracle

and drunks think
other drunks
are brilliant
conversationalists

Posted by: 419 | 2008-10-06 9:35:19 AM

Shane:

I want to take issue with a couple of things you've been saying. First, you keep citing the decrease in marijuana use by teens in the U.S. as evidence that our laws are working. At first glance that may seem like a reasonable argument, but if you step back and look at the big picture it doesn't hold water.

Throughout the Western world, per capita marijuana use goes up and down irrespective of the laws in a given country or region within a country. When marijuana use first took off in the U.S. possession of even the smallest amount was a felony. People were sometimes going to prison for decades for possession of a joint, yet per capita use shot through the roof. It grew and it grew until 1979. By then, the party had started to wear on Americans. It was time for it to be over. The "hippy movement" had run its course. People were seeing how much misery drugs were causing. Popular culture that had fed the fire in the growth of drug use was changing its tune, and drug use started to wane. Marijuana use in particular started going down right away and that trend continued until the early 1990's.

In the early 1990's per capita marijuana use started rising again and did so for several years. It is important to note that the laws did not become less severe during that time. In fact politicians were tripping over themselves trying to pass more and more "tough on drugs" legislation. The number of arrests shot up in the 1990's as did the number of people incarcerated for drug offenses. But per capita marijuana use still climbed.

There really isn't any evidence that these laws have much impact on per capita marijuana use. We have states that have decriminalized marijuana and states with fairly harsh marijuana and per capita use isn't really higher in states that have decriminalized on average than it is on states with harsher laws. We're tougher on marijuana in the U.S. than most other Western nations yet we tend to have among the highest or often the highest per capita marijuana use numbers in the world. Clearly the laws just don't matter that much in the per capita use equation. Per capita use numbers rise and fall with the popular tide regardless of the laws a country, or a state, has in effect.

You also said that realistically the government won't be able to tax marijuana. I agree that if they set the taxes too high it would encourage a black market, but there will be a lot of room for taxes before that occurs. If we legalize the production of marijuana, farmers will grow it on a grand scale using modern agricultural methods and that will drive production costs through the floor. There would be very little grown indoors under artificial light. Most would be grown outdoors. Premium product grown indoors today would be grown in row after row of greenhouses using artificial light only as a supplement if at all. The risk of prison will be gone, as will the risk of losing all or most of a grower's product in a government seizure. All of this will make marijuana incredibly cheap to bring to market compared to today's standards. All that will be left to keep retail prices anywhere close to where they are today are taxes and excises and regulatory costs.

Marijuana isn't that expensive at all when you look at the per use cost. Lower potency product like all the Mexican pot we see in my area is dirt cheap. The fancy stuff is a lot more expensive but it takes less of it to achieve the desired effect. Places like these "coffeeshops" in the Netherlands and these "medical marijuana dispensaries" in states like California actually do gangbusters business even though their prices are high. I think people go to these places because they would rather deal with them than street dealers and they like the variety these places offer.

If it was completely legal and licensed shops were selling product produced by regulated producers, I think people would be even more likely to buy product from these shops than from the streets. That way they know for instance that they aren't getting product sprayed with pesticides not fit for human consumption only days before harvest. This product will be safer than what they could get on the street, and of course they'll also like these shops because they'll like being able to select from a wide variety of product in different price ranges.

Again, it is of course possible for the government to tax something so much that they encourage a black market. But if we are smart about the way we go about this we can avoid that. The black market for marijuana wouldn't be any more significant than the black market for moonshine whiskey or home-brewed beer or homemade wine.

Would many people just grow their own? Medical users in places like California can grow their own, but so many buy from the dispensaries instead, paying sometimes as much as $30 a gram. Why do that if they could grow it at home? Most pot smokers don't smoke enough to justify the all the time and effort and expense required to set up and operate a home growing operation. I bet most won't mess with it. Others might do it once or twice, like many will try their hand at home brewing, but they'll find it to be not worth the trouble and they'll go back to buying it from licensed retailers where they can choose from a wide variety of quality product at fairly reasonable prices. If we don't just go crazy with taxes and make it even more expensive to consumers than black market marijuana is today, there won't be much of a black market and most people won't grow their own.

Posted by: Bill G | 2008-10-06 11:35:07 AM

Bill,

1., 2., 3. What you’ve failed to prove is whether, in those periods that marijuana use increased, whether it would have increased FURTHER had the laws not been in place. Crime also has its ups and downs, and it has as much to do with demographics as with the toughness of the laws. That doesn’t mean we throw away our laws against crime. And here is an inescapable fact: People who are in prison are not elsewhere at the same time committing crimes. The true issues are cost and justice, not whether locking crooks up works.

4. Stop talking like a lawyer. You’re attacking the evidence, not denying the actual idea, which is the age-old ploy of the guilty. And has it occurred to you that there might be specific demographics reasons for high marijuana use in the United States, such as the fact that it is the world’s most affluent country? Most of the world is too busy just trying to survive to even think about getting stoned at parties. The U.S. also has one of the highest murder rates, but that is also for demographic reasons and not due to the availability of firearms. That said, there’s no reason to tolerate murder, and there’s no reason to tolerate the irresponsible abuse of dangerous drugs, either.

5. Actually, marijuana grown outdoors is inferior to that grown indoors. The yields are lower. The probability of pest infestation is greater. You’d only be able to grow one or two crops a year because you need about sixteen hours of light a day to provide optimum conditions, and you only get that during the summer. You can’t grow outdoors at all in the winter. While growing outdoors reduces costs, it also reduces yield. For the casual user who treats marijuana like he treats his tomato plants, that’s not much of an issue. It’s a death knell for commercial growers. Also, all pot plants are not created equal. Those producing the best drug strains require different cultivation techniques than those apt to produce the best fibre. In 1900, only two square miles of hemp was under cultivation in the entire United States, because it was cheaper to import Manila hemp (not true hemp) from the Philippines.

6. Considering that marijuana is at least as “sinful” as alcohol, tobacco, and gasoline, you can expect its price to at least double if it’s legalized. Do you have any idea what the price difference between American cigarettes and booze and their Canadian counterparts is? The BATF is far from unemployed these days.

7. The same is true of firearms. Yet many of those who condemn drug prohibition are forceful advocates of gun prohibition, as if it could magically work for one and not the other. Of course, firearms have legitimate uses, being bona fide tools, whereas marijuana, for most people, is just something to get stoned on.

8. Have you ever known the government to be smart about any taxation policy?

9. If it’s legalized, they’ll be able to grow it in their vegetable patch. Once harvested, it keeps indefinitely, so a good-sized grow would last you all year. Of course that’s not much help to city folk, who are pretty much at the mercy of the farmers. Besides which, you’ve discussed only the financial aspect of drug prohibition here. You haven’t dealt at all with the social problems the drug causes. You can’t treat it the same as alcohol and tobacco no matter how hard you try, because alcohol in small quantities is actually beneficial and tobacco, while certainly not good for you, is not a mood alterer. Marijuana combines the worst of both worlds and messes with your thinking cap besides. Sorry, but the cons outweigh the pros on this one.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-10-06 11:56:28 AM

Fact Check:
Fair enough - I should have specified that in places where growing marijuana - even just enough for personal use - it has far less potential to fund than, say, heroine or cocaine, which need to be processed.
That said, I wouldn't feel uncomfortable arguing that organized crime is as involved in Canada as it is because the drug is persecuted so much more heavily in the US.

Posted by: Janet | 2008-10-06 12:23:58 PM

>>I thought one of the arguments most commonly advanced by the anti-prohibition crowd was how much the "war on drugs" was COSTING the government. Now it turns out they're profiting from it--or are they? Which is it?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 5-Oct-08 11:40:03 PM<<

Actually, my problem in this specific instance is how much the war on drugs costs PEOPLE, not the government. It's a giant black hole for tax dollars that isn't making a real dent in the problem (if you consider it to be one) of drug use and has caused scores of other problems.

You could argue, though, that politicians "profit" from the war on drugs in the same way that they "profit" from socialized medicine or other programs - pour more taxpayer money into it, or just promise to, and be rewarded with an increased chance of being elected.

Posted by: Janet | 2008-10-06 12:35:22 PM

Janet wrote: "That said, I wouldn't feel uncomfortable arguing that organized crime is as involved in Canada as it is because the drug is persecuted so much more heavily in the US."

So you're saying that drug prohibition actually does drive producers to friendlier climes? Isn't that exactly what it's supposed to do?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-10-06 12:46:39 PM

Shane

1) So the state is your master? It can't be both at once.

Then everything else you believe follows from the fact that liberty scares you.

Just because you want to be a medical serf, does that mean everybody should be?

1) Canada is not a democracy, we are a Confederation. We democratically elect our leaders and that's it for democracy here.

We are supposed to have a limited government.

2) Social harm? Who gets to decide what that is?
For instance the criminalizing of vice does a lot more social harm than good in the opinion of libertarians.

"That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.

His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right." --John Stuart Mill--

Mill does not seem to have "social harm" in the proper use of the law notion he laid out.

I'm sure Karl Marx would tell you the state has right to save us from social harm.

3) Thomas Jefferson fought against slavery all his political life. Quote where he was for abolition of cities because I have never seen that. You are making it up.

4)The church and state are supposed be separate here in Canada is the so.

5) Prohibitionist fail to live up to their own moral standards and are know as hypocrites.
Hypocrisy breeds disrespect for the law.

6)That's Anarcho-capitalist!

7)A resort to name calling because you can not deal with the argument.

8) My base is solid alright, but you don't seem to want to deal with the moral lessons of the Parable because your morals don't measure up.
In short, you're no different than the Christian Crusaders, The Spanish Inquisitors or the Nazi's who all had the law on their side too.

Those with that kind of mote in their eye never see their own evil, but evil you are.

9) That the law prevents people from using cannabis is just as deceptive as the law stopping people from drinking during the 30s. The law does not accomplish it's stated purpose. The law most certainly is a total deception to those who believe legal mean right. See the Christian Crusaders, The Spanish Inquisition and the Nazi who justified everything they did with the law too, just like you.... they deceived themselves because the law was on their side and that made what they all did not only right but moral too.

Their moral compasses were askew just like yours.

"...rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our own will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." --Thomas Jefferson--

That Jefferson sure knew what he was taking about eh?

The drug laws are all the tyrants will.

10)the Opium Wars and Civil War veterans hooked on morphine and laudanum viewpoint is no different than all those who see evil in drugs when they look at Vancouver today.

The evil is in the law that creates the social construct.

All people have free will so they can't be hooked on anything unless they chose to hook themselves on whatever it is they chose to habituate themselves to.

The Opium Narcotic Act of 1908 was designed to rid Canada of the "coolies" that did the back breaking work of building Canada's railroads.

The opium smoking Yellow man outworked the whiskey drinking White man..... That is what outlawing the ceremonial and ritual drugs of the Asian cultures was all about.

11) It's is called reasoned argument not proof.

http://mises.org/humanaction/chap27sec6.asp

Ludwig von Mises argues...

The problems involved in direct government interference with consumption are not catallactic problems. They go far beyond the scope of catallactics and concern the fundamental issues of human life and social organization. If it is true that government derives its authority from God and is entrusted by Providence to act as the guardian of the ignorant and stupid populace, then it is certainly its task to regiment every aspect of the subject's conduct. The God-sent ruler knows better what is good for his wards than they do themselves. It is his duty to guard them against the harm they would inflict upon themselves if left alone.

Self-styled "realistic" people fail to recognize the immense importance of the principles implied. They contend that they do not want to deal with the matter from what, they say, is a philosophic and academic point of view. Their approach is, they argue, exclusively guided by practical considerations. It is a fact, they say, that some people harm themselves and their innocent families by consuming narcotic drugs. Only doctrinaires could be so dogmatic as to object to the government's regulation of the drug traffic. Its beneficent effects cannot be contested.

However, the case is not so simple as that. Opium and morphine are certainly dangerous, habit-forming drugs. But once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual against his own foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments. A good case could be made out in favor of the prohibition of alcohol and nicotine. And why limit the government's benevolent providence to the protection of the individual's [p. 734] body only? Is not the harm a man can inflict on his mind and soul even more disastrous than any bodily evils? Why not prevent him from reading bad books and seeing bad plays, from looking at bad paintings and statues and from hearing bad music? The mischief done by bad ideologies, surely, is much more pernicious, both for the individual and for the whole society, than that done by narcotic drugs.

Posted by: Chris Buors | 2008-10-06 12:57:19 PM

And Janet, since we've never tried legalizing marijuana within our lifetimes, how do we know whether we're making a dent or not? If car theft is endemic in an area, for instance, in spite of the law, is the proper response to repeal the law against stealing cars? There have been enough bungled attempts at legalization to show that any such approach is risky at best. And let's face it--this is one law that's easy not to break.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-10-06 1:02:48 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

The Shotgun Blog

Saturday, October 04, 2008

Marijuana legalization and crime

TrackBack

Comments