Drugs: Legalise or Prohibit?

[Bill Mattocks]

Only out of context. Part of the fundamental contract between the US Government and "we the people" is that our freedom of action and choice is only supposed to be restricted when there's a clear danger.

The clear danger being to society - the clear danger to the person taking the drug is irrelevant (although it will become relevant when we become a socialist nation for the purposes of medical care).

If something is x dangerous and legal, then making something that's x-1 dangerous illegal flies in the face of that basic precept.

Negative. If X is dangerous and legal, and X-1 is dangerous and illegal, it illustrates that perhaps X should also be illegal, not that X-1 should be made legal although also dangerous.

Making the point that X does more damage to society as an argument that therefore X-1 should be legal as well is poor logic. If the argument is on the basis of danger to the person (which marijuana proponents insist it is), then arguing that more dangerous things are legal is simply arguing that the more dangerous things should be illegal too.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

And that's exactly what makes this so funny. The traditional conservative position is actually liberal, calling for sustained government intervention into our personal lives. And the traditional liberal position is for less government intervention.

There isn't the contra position that you think there is. The traditional conservative approach to the drug issue isn't based on a desire to restrict human behavior vis-a-vis their own bodies, but to restrict human behavior vis-a-vis the damage it does to society, which conservatives strive always (and sometimes wrongly) to maintain and protect.

The net result is the same - drugs being restricted - this I grant you. But the motivation is the key here to understanding why conservatives behave in what you might otherwise consider to be contra conservative behavior.

"You're telling me what I can and cannot put in my body, d00d!" No, young man. I am telling you that society won't permit the destruction your choices may cause to our society.

This is a tightrope; in many cases, activity that conservatives believe is destructive to society is also protected behavior; for example freedom of speech. However, this is why we have the foundations of civil liberties; they protect us from our own 'best judgment' at times. Recreational marijuana-smoking is not protected behavior.

The conservatives who are anti-government are actually being consistent when support legalization. Makes sense to me, particularly if one leans libertarian.

It is a libertarian stance, but it is not a conservative stance. Those who claim the mantle of conservatism and are pro-drug legalization are not being conservative in this area. The conservative ideal of a weak central government and strong state governments does not mean we do not believe in regulation appropriate to the protection of society and our way of life. That is entirely a libertarian approach. It may seem similar, but it's not. Conservatives want smaller government and fewer regulations on areas they do not see as being destructive to society (rightly or wrongly). Libertarians want less government in all areas, period. This is key.

I understand that many conservatives have libertarian views in some areas, as do I. However, the core principle of conservativism is that of conservation, meaning preservation. We do not wish to upend the rule of law, but to restore the balance between the federal government and the states to that designed by the founders (Jeffersonian, rather than Hamiltonian).

 

[Tez3]

The clear danger being to society - the clear danger to the person taking the drug is irrelevant (although it will become relevant when we become a socialist nation for the purposes of medical care).............
.

I think that may depend on whether it's intended to treat drug addicts or throw them into prison. As in Portugal throwing addicts into prison is going to cost you anyway for their upkeep plus treatment so it may be cheaper in the long run to put them into rehab, you will end up paying one way or another. If only one out of three addicts stays clean it will save money, you'd have all three to pay for in prison. It's not much of a choice though whether you have socialised care or not.
If you legalise drug taking you still pay for in policing the inevitable damage caused as with the damage alcohol causes ie driving under the influence causing accidents etc. Addicts without money are still going to commit crimes to get the drugs they need even if they are from legal sources unless of course it's intended to give drugs away! Alcoholics without money steal legal alcohol off the shelves of shops, the crime figures are unlikely to actually decrease. Unless you have free drugs you will always have a black market undercutting the legal sources and therefore drug dealers.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Like cell phones with texting?

That's a good example. Many states in the USA are moving towards bans on 'distracted driving', which is a catch-all that includes talking on cell phones and texting whilst driving.

There is no widespread organized opposition to these moves; they are generally popular if not highly supported by the populace. Most see the need or at least accept the notion that people who text whilst driving are a bloody menace, even if they do it themselves from time to time (whilst insisting that they, alone, are capable of doing so safely, unlike those other idiots).

And I do not hear anyone claiming that the government is 'telling them what to do with their bodies' by not allowing them to text whilst driving. I do not hear the complaints that the restrictive hand of government is once again intruding on the right of people to do as they wish.

Why do we not hear those complaints, as we do with marijuana pro-legalization groups?

The reason is simple; the act of texting whist driving is indefensible when viewed as a danger and menace to society. The risks are clear and easily seen; we've all been behind a car that was weaving dangerously, only to pass and find that the driver had a cell phone balanced on the wheel or they were staring down into their laps and typing furiously away.

Marijuana, in my view, is the same, and can be seen through the same lens. The government is not trying to tell people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies, nor is it intruding on the rights of people to do as they wish. It is acting in accordance with its role of protecting society from a clear and present danger.

The issue, the actual argument, that can be made is whether or not the risk and danger to society exists and is sufficient to justify government action (I believe it is). Some proponents of marijuana law reform argue that it is not. However, more often, the arguments raised are not logical.

They focus on the right of the government to regulate what people put into their own bodies, they insist that their personal freedoms are being violated. They ignore the fact that the restrictions are not based on that at all. This makes a lot of noise, but it doesn't make any sense. If pot-smoking should be legal on that basis, then texting whilst driving should be legal on the same basis. No one is arguing that texting whilst driving should be made legal - hence the argument is worthless.

If I should ever become convinced that marijuana legalization represented no danger to society, but only to the health of the individual, then I would change my position with regard to it. My concern is that of a true conservative; for society. People are free, in my estimation, to do whatever they like that pleases themselves; so long as it does not pose a risk, threat, or danger to my society and my way of life.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Addicts without money are still going to commit crimes to get the drugs they need even if they are from legal sources unless of course it's intended to give drugs away! Alcoholics without money steal legal alcohol off the shelves of shops, the crime figures are unlikely to actually decrease. Unless you have free drugs you will always have a black market undercutting the legal sources and therefore drug dealers.

+1 and QFT.

And consider this - that those who claim marijuana is non-addicting whilst they themselves are users are not giving it up. In fact, they will make the same claim that every cigarette smoker and alcoholic does; that they can quit anytime they wish.

Yet they continue to smoke their pot, even though it is illegal (for most or many), even though they know that the source of their drug comes through channels that most likely involve criminal organizations that murder innocent people and funnel money to terrorist organizations that kill our own soldiers and citizens. They'll angrily justify this by insisting that *their* pot comes from domestic sources (and they know this how?) and that *they* are not responsible for the evil that men do since if the drug were legal, all that violence would magically go away in a puff of smoke; all demonstrably untrue, but they cling to these fictions.

That is the mark of a person who cannot give up their drug of choice. I don't criticize them for being addicted; I was once a cigarette smoker, and I am cheerfully addicted to caffeine to this day. However, the hypocrisy that marks the marijuana smoker with regard to the addictive qualities of the drug do not lead me to believe their argument. If it's not addictive, sir or madam, quit smoking it until it becomes legal, please. Can't do that? Well, Q.E.D. I guess it's addictive, then.

 

[Carol]

Cannabis dependence is documented in the DSM-IV

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

Substance dependence

Main article: Substance dependence
According to the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), substance dependence is defined as:
"When an individual persists in use of alcohol or other drugs despite problems related to use of the substance, substance dependence may be diagnosed. Compulsive and repetitive use may result in tolerance to the effect of the drug and withdrawal symptoms when use is reduced or stopped. This, along with Substance Abuse are considered Substance Use Disorders...." [6] Substance dependence can be diagnosed with physiological dependence, evidence of tolerance or withdrawal, or without physiological dependence.
DSM-IV substance dependencies:

• 303.90 Alcohol dependence
• 304.00 Opioid dependence
• 304.10 Sedative, hypnotic, or anxiolytic dependence (including benzodiazepine dependence and barbiturate dependence)
• 304.20 Cocaine dependence
• 304.30 Cannabis dependence
• 304.40 Amphetamine dependence (or amphetamine-like)
• 304.50 Hallucinogen dependence
• 304.60 Inhalant dependence
• 304.80 Polysubstance dependence
• 304.90 Phencyclidine (or phencyclidine-like) dependence
• 304.90 Other (or unknown) substance dependence
• 305.10 Nicotine dependence

 

[Tez3]

If the laws that make certain drugs illegal are repealed what do people think would happen?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

If the laws that make certain drugs illegal are repealed what do people think would happen?

I think we are seeing that now, to some extent. In California, medical marijuana has become a backdoor legalization, such that anyone can claim 'chronic pain' and receive a doctor's prescription to buy it. Medical marijuana dispensaries have sprouted up (pardon the pun) everywhere.

The positive:

* Revenue for the state. California currently collects about 18 million per year from tax on medical marijuana.

* Smokers no longer have to risk arrest or prosecution to buy the drug.

The negative:

* Growers are being robbed now that their operations are open and available instead of hidden away.

* Dispensaries are being robbed, and customers coming and going have been robbed as well.

* Marijuana is still sold on the street by drug dealers in the traditional manner; most of them also sell other drugs that do not have a medical exemption (crack, cocaine, heroin, etc).

* Drug smugglers still commit great acts of violence on both sides of the US borders.

* Drug cartels are still rich and powerful.

* Drug money still gets sent to terrorist organizations.

* Drug users, dealers, and distributors in California still risk federal arrest and prosecution. It should be noted that the current administration under President Obama has been ordered to cease such operations, but this is not law; this is selective enforcement. Given a change in policy or president, the feds could quickly go back to raiding and shutting down pot dispensaries.

What we have not yet seen, but I anticipate, is rampant black-market dealing between states that have legal marijuana use and those that do not. This will cause the same kind of problems that cigarettes and booze do now, since various states have various levels of taxation on the same products. End result - states that do not want marijuana to be legal now have to fight not only the traditional drug smugglers, but also the influx of drugs from neighboring states where it is legal. Kind of like living next door to a crack house. It's not your house or under your control, but you still end up with a lot of the problems.

And of course, as many have noted, those who currently steal and commit other crimes to purchase illegal marijuana will continue to do so to purchase legal marijuana; this type of crime will not be abated.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

Negative. If X is dangerous and legal, and X-1 is dangerous and illegal, it illustrates that perhaps X should also be illegal, not that X-1 should be made legal although also dangerous.

Making the point that X does more damage to society as an argument that therefore X-1 should be legal as well is poor logic. If the argument is on the basis of danger to the person (which marijuana proponents insist it is), then arguing that more dangerous things are legal is simply arguing that the more dangerous things should be illegal too.

You're adding emotion and ethical value to a logical proposition. From a standpoint of pure logic, either approach is reasonable (legalizing the less dangerous, or banning the more dangerous). Which choice you select is by nature based on personal values, ethics and emotional reasoning.

Which is the problem with the debate entire, from my perspective. Nobody's looking at data and reaching a reasonable conclusion based on analysis of facts. Hell, the politics of the matter has made it so there's no uncompromised data to look at.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

You're adding emotion and ethical value to a logical proposition. From a standpoint of pure logic, either approach is reasonable (legalizing the less dangerous, or banning the more dangerous). Which choice you select is by nature based on personal values, ethics and emotional reasoning.

Which is the problem with the debate entire, from my perspective. Nobody's looking at data and reaching a reasonable conclusion based on analysis of facts. Hell, the politics of the matter has made it so there's no uncompromised data to look at.

I disagree. My approach to the question posed is purely logical.

Look, when you argue that a substance - any substance - should be legal because it is less dangerous than another substance which is legal, you must use the parameters given; the parameters in this case are the 'dangerous' aspect. It is illogical to say one poison is less poisonous than another poison, so you should take the less dangerous poison. The correct and only logical answer is you should take neither of them.

You can argue the question on several points, but this is a poor one. You cannot win with this argument, because it is based on flawed logic.

You could re-frame the question, though. Let me help you.

You could argue from the point of view of society's acceptance of risk in pursuit of pleasure. In other words, society accepts a level of risk in order to enjoy alcohol (and tobacco, etc, etc), so it would be logical to argue that society should accept a lower risk (if such it is) to allow citizens to pursue enjoyment from marijuana. That's a logical argument - even if I don't agree with it, at least that's a discussion we can actually have.

You could also argue from the point of view that individual liberties outweigh the threat to society, using again alcohol as an example. It seems that personal alcohol consumption required a constitutional amendment to be restricted on the federal level (and to be repealed as well). So since there is no constitutional amendment banning the recreational use of marijuana, one can argue that it is an issue of civil liberties that are being trampled. I don't care for that one either, but again, at least it is logical and can be argued.

I will admit when someone comes at me with a logical argument and I simply disagree with the conclusion. But when someone presents an illogical argument, we can't have a discussion about it, because it isn't an argument. One might as well argue that marijuana should be legal because squirrel fish toy truck. Makes no sense either, and can't be argued either way because it is NOT A VALID ARGUMENT.

The argument that dope should be legal because it is less dangerous than booze isn't an argument. It's not logical and doesn't stand up to the basic demands of logic. So I reject it completely. It's just distracting noise.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

I am against legalization, but reading the last two comments makes me wonder about comparisons..
Couldnt you make the argument that car accidents are more dangerous then Pot and therefore cars should be outlawed, as ridiculous as it sounds..
or perhaps a better argument would be that football is also dangerous to society because of the damage done to our youth and therefor for the betterment of our society we should ban that? I love football btw, this would crush me lol...

I mean dont we have quite a few activities that are undertaken by many in our society that are in fact dangerous to society in general, but we still allow that danger for the sake of the individual having the freedom to enjoy it?
like say... off road recreational vehicles... I love riding quads, and thousands of peopel ride motorcycles, quads, buggies etc.. but isnt it in fact bad for the environment, and our society? but we allow it for the individuals to enjoy that?
I think the same can be said of hundreds of things..
I am convinced that cigarettes are not legal for the individual to enjoy the freedom of using, but rather for the taxes that they bring in, but that might be another conversation..

not really trying to debate this either, just trying to wrap my head around the different sides of the argument, and it seems Bill has a pretty damn good feel for the argument.

 

[ballen0351]

What we have not yet seen, but I anticipate, is rampant black-market dealing between states that have legal marijuana use and those that do not. .

Thats already going on now. We seize large shipments of marijuana from UPS and Fed EX. People fly out to Cali package up several pounds of Marijuana and fed ex it back to their house in other states. Got 25 pounds of it last week from the Fed Ex distribution center just in 1 box. It was sent from San Fran.

 

[Steve]

are those of you arguing that mj is bad for society also in favor of reinstating prohibition? Just want to knoif you are consistent.

 

[Sukerkin]

An interesting question that had occurred to me too, Steve, and a nice 'perspective' post from Lucky just prior also.

Once more I want to compliment all contributors for putting their points forward, especially those who have made me ponder my own views and opinions - take a bow ladies and gents.

 

[granfire]

Thats already going on now. We seize large shipments of marijuana from UPS and Fed EX. People fly out to Cali package up several pounds of Marijuana and fed ex it back to their house in other states. Got 25 pounds of it last week from the Fed Ex distribution center just in 1 box. It was sent from San Fran.

But that is going on anyhow. Can't really hang it on the legality of MJ in Cali. 25 pounds is above the legal limit even there.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

I disagree. My approach to the question posed is purely logical.

I have to respectfully disagree. You present your argument compellingly and you're obviously intelligent, but you're adding value. Let's break it down

A logical fallacy is something that, if converted to a math formula or computer program, wouldn't work.

Say y = the threshold for danger at which a substance should be banned
Say the danger level of alcohol is a and that of marijuana is b
Our society seems to think that a < y
If evidence suggests (and I'm not saying it definitively does) that b < a ....

The statement that b > y would crash a program or get you an F on the math test.

That's logic. Logic further suggests that the simplest solution is to change the value of y if you want to ban marijuana.

You can fix this logical conundrum in one of three ways:

1. Lower the value of y until y < b, effectively banning alcohol as well as marijuana.
2. Legalize marijuana so that the formula works as is.
3. Demonstrate (and there's evidence to support this) that b > a.

All three of these work just fine from the standpoint of logic. They fix the problem in the equation or program.

Which option you choose is a value judgment. It may even be a value judgment based on logical conclusions drawn from another equation. But it's disingenuous to dismiss opinions contrary to your own as logical fallacies when your actual concerns are based on your personal values.

In this case, if I'm reading you right, your personal value places safety above the ability to choose vices for yourself. Anybody who feels that way would naturally choose options 1 or 3 above. But again, that's a value judgment based on what you think is important. Somebody who values that freedom above the safety of a more controlled society would choose option 2.

 

[Steve]

Exactly. Added to the above post is that, by definition, if you legalize marijuana you are removing the criminal element from the equation. Prohibition created a "drug war" that, even though it was a relatively brief period of time, gave rise to legendary drug lords like Al Capone whose impact on our culture is profound.

Once prohibition was repealed, and since, bootlegging of alcohol is practically unheard of to the point that now, many people enjoy home brewing or winemaking as a hobby. There is absolutely no cultural stigma or negative association attached to the responsible and legal enjoyment of alcohol, even though the abuse of alcohol can be extremely damaging to society.

As I said before, the "damage to society" is largely a direct result of the prohibition, not a function of the product that is prohibited. It's pretty convenient that we have such a blatant and clear example of it in our own country's relatively short history.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

I have to respectfully disagree. You present your argument compellingly and you're obviously intelligent, but you're adding value. Let's break it down

A logical fallacy is something that, if converted to a math formula or computer program, wouldn't work.

Say y = the threshold for danger at which a substance should be banned
Say the danger level of alcohol is a and that of marijuana is b
Our society seems to think that a < y
If evidence suggests (and I'm not saying it definitively does) that b < a ....

The statement that b > y would crash a program or get you an F on the math test.

That's logic. Logic further suggests that the simplest solution is to change the value of y if you want to ban marijuana.

You can fix this logical conundrum in one of three ways:

1. Lower the value of y until y < b, effectively banning alcohol as well as marijuana.
2. Legalize marijuana so that the formula works as is.
3. Demonstrate (and there's evidence to support this) that b > a.

All three of these work just fine from the standpoint of logic. They fix the problem in the equation or program.

Which option you choose is a value judgment. It may even be a value judgment based on logical conclusions drawn from another equation. But it's disingenuous to dismiss opinions contrary to your own as logical fallacies when your actual concerns are based on your personal values.

In this case, if I'm reading you right, your personal value places safety above the ability to choose vices for yourself. Anybody who feels that way would naturally choose options 1 or 3 above. But again, that's a value judgment based on what you think is important. Somebody who values that freedom above the safety of a more controlled society would choose option 2.

You are kind of saying the same thing I was saying but in a totally different way, I think its an assumption though..

we are basically saying that society is allowing for some forms of danger to itself to allow the individual personal freedoms.

therefore if that level of danger it allows is measurable, and quantifiable then anything that would allow less danger should be legalized and anything allowing more should be illegal.

I think what Bill was saying is that if an item has any harm on society at all then it is in fact bad and should not be legalized, and that by simply saying that another thing that is already legal is legal is not a logic reason for allowing something that while not causing as much stnad alone harm as the legal one will indeed cause harm, and add to the overall harm being done.

the hard part I think is to pinpoint what level we as a society are ok with allowing a cartain amount of harm done to it. I see alot of things that seem to cause alot of harm to our society yet are legal, unfortunately more people are fine with it then are not fine with it.

Up to this point in our history our society has not been fine with the dangers that Marijuana poses to our society. As our society changes, erodes or evolves depending on who you talk to, its very possible and some might say probably that marijuana is legalized..
who knows eventually many more things might be made legal that today are looked at as wrong or even evil.
Personally I think our country is headed the wrong way with many things, I think we got carried away with righting wrongs, and have gone to far and allowed to much leeway just because we have so many people apologetic of our past. Will it right itself? I dont know

 

[Bill Mattocks]

In this case, if I'm reading you right, your personal value places safety above the ability to choose vices for yourself.

I actually wasn't discussing my personal choices in my exposition of the illogic of the argument. I appreciate your analysis, but I still feel that the original argument advanced does not place a threshold value on what is and is not acceptable to society. It simply advances the argument that since alcohol is dangerous and is legal, then marijuana (less dangerous as asserted in the argument) should also be legal. That in and of itself is an incomplete argument. It does not present the boundary conditions you specified, which does indeed turn it into a logical argument. The only logical solution to the originally-presented argument is that alcohol should also be illegal, if 'danger' is the key value.

If you are asking my personal opinion, it's less complex. I don't care if people choose to damage their own bodies or not (until I am forced to pay for it, which is a different argument entirely), but I do care that they inflict damage on society. I place the safety of society above the rights of the individual in cases where I believe that the potential for society damage is sufficiently great. Of course, I understand that this is a value judgment on my part; if my assessment of the danger presented to society by marijuana use is wrong, then my conclusion is flawed. That's how opinions are...

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Exactly. Added to the above post is that, by definition, if you legalize marijuana you are removing the criminal element from the equation. Prohibition created a "drug war" that, even though it was a relatively brief period of time, gave rise to legendary drug lords like Al Capone whose impact on our culture is profound.

I still disagree with your assertion that legalizing marijuana will "remove the criminal element from the equation." The drug dealers will still exist; they'll still sell marijuana if they can undercut commercial prices for legal marijuana. They'll also sell the other drugs that remain illicit. They will not go away. The violence that surrounds the distribution of drugs will not go away. They are linked. So long as there are ANY banned substances imported in large quantities from outside the USA, we're going to experience this sort of crime. So no, legalization won't fix the criminal problem. It will only change the equation for the end-user and legal side of the distribution chain.

Once prohibition was repealed, and since, bootlegging of alcohol is practically unheard of to the point that now, many people enjoy home brewing or winemaking as a hobby. There is absolutely no cultural stigma or negative association attached to the responsible and legal enjoyment of alcohol, even though the abuse of alcohol can be extremely damaging to society.

That is correct. It is also correct that the bootleggers exacerbated and gave more power to organized crime, and organized crime still exists - and now imports drugs and human beings instead of booze. One might well say that the violence of Al Capone is gone; but yet we still have the gang warfare over distribution of other illicit items which the gangs took to after giving up booze. So the repealing of Prohibition didn't fix the gang problem, it only deprived them of a source of income.

As I said before, the "damage to society" is largely a direct result of the prohibition, not a function of the product that is prohibited. It's pretty convenient that we have such a blatant and clear example of it in our own country's relatively short history.

I disagree with that as well. You keep saying it, but you don't provide any evidence that this is the case. The pot-smoker who steals to buy pot will still steal to buy legal pot. In what way has this changed? The drug user who destroys their family will still do so; in what way will this change?

The same can be said of alcohol and the damage it inflicts on society. A DUI driver is a DUI driver; it hardly matters if their booze was legal or illegal before they poured it into themselves, does it? Legalizing booze did not stop the damage to society that booze represented. Neither will legalizing drugs such as marijuana.