When recreational drugs are legal...
- Thread starter Bill Mattocks
- Start date
Tgace
Grandmaster
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/debate/myths/myths6.htm
If they say...
The lessons of Prohibition can be used to analyze the present policies,
prohibition in illicit drugs.
Then you say...
Whereas there was not a moral consensus for Prohibition U.S. citizens
overwhelmingly are in favor of the the continued illegalization of illicit
drugs. [Robert E. Peterson, "Stop Legalization of Illegal Drugs;" Drug Awareness
Information Newsletter, July 1988].
During Prohibition, only the sale, and not the use, of alcohol was illegal.
Today, both sale and use of illicit drugs are illegal. Consequently, present
drug policies can target users whereas Prohibition laws could not. [David L.
Teasley, "Drug legalization and the 'lessons' of Prohibition," Contemporary Drug
Problems, Spring 1992].
During Prohibition, there was much tension between federal and state alcohol
policy. Today, 48 states have signed the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, and
the federal and state governments work in concert. [David Teasley, citation
above].
During Prohibition, criminal sanctions were not extreme - a first-time
bootlegger could receive a $1,000 fine or six months in prison. Today, fines for
first-time cocaine or heroin trafficking are up to $1 million and prison
sentences go as high as 20 years. [David Teasley, citation above).
During Prohibition, the U.S. was a "dry" country in a "wet" international
community. Today, almost all countries are in agreement that drugs should be
illegal, as witnessed by the fact that 80 countries signed the 1988 Convention
Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. [David
Teasley, citation above].
The political administration responsible for enforcing Prohibition was small,
underfunded, and unprofessional. In contrast, the current drug control program
is run by over a dozen agencies coordinated by the Office of National Drug
Control Policy. [David Teasley, citation above].
If they say...
Prohibition caused more harm than good.
Then you say...
During Prohibition, alcohol use declined significantly [David Teasley,
citation above].
During Prohibition, incidence of cirrhosis of the liver decreased by 35%.
[Charles Krauthammer, "Legalize? No, Deglamorize," The Washington Post, May 20,
1988].
During Prohibition, the suicide rate decreased 50%. [Robert Stutman, "Reasons
Not to Legalize Drugs," Drug Awareness Information Newsletter].
During Prohibition, the incidence of alcohol-related arrests also declined by
50% [Robert L. DuPont, "The Case Against Legalizing Drugs," Drug Awareness
Information Newsletter].
Contrary to popular opinion, the crime rate did not markedly increase during
prohibition. What did increase was the homicide rate (not the same as the
overall crime rate) among African-Americans. And African-Americans had little to
do with alcohol trafficking. [David Teasley, citation above].
Mark Kleiman admits that the U.S. experience with Prohibition is one of the
strongest arguments in favor of the continued illegalization of illicit drugs.
[Letter from John C. Lawn to Joseph E. DiGenova, Drug Enforcement
Administration, June 3, 1988].
If they say...
The lessons of Prohibition can be used to analyze the present policies,
prohibition in illicit drugs.
Then you say...
Whereas there was not a moral consensus for Prohibition U.S. citizens
overwhelmingly are in favor of the the continued illegalization of illicit
drugs. [Robert E. Peterson, "Stop Legalization of Illegal Drugs;" Drug Awareness
Information Newsletter, July 1988].
During Prohibition, only the sale, and not the use, of alcohol was illegal.
Today, both sale and use of illicit drugs are illegal. Consequently, present
drug policies can target users whereas Prohibition laws could not. [David L.
Teasley, "Drug legalization and the 'lessons' of Prohibition," Contemporary Drug
Problems, Spring 1992].
During Prohibition, there was much tension between federal and state alcohol
policy. Today, 48 states have signed the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, and
the federal and state governments work in concert. [David Teasley, citation
above].
During Prohibition, criminal sanctions were not extreme - a first-time
bootlegger could receive a $1,000 fine or six months in prison. Today, fines for
first-time cocaine or heroin trafficking are up to $1 million and prison
sentences go as high as 20 years. [David Teasley, citation above).
During Prohibition, the U.S. was a "dry" country in a "wet" international
community. Today, almost all countries are in agreement that drugs should be
illegal, as witnessed by the fact that 80 countries signed the 1988 Convention
Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. [David
Teasley, citation above].
The political administration responsible for enforcing Prohibition was small,
underfunded, and unprofessional. In contrast, the current drug control program
is run by over a dozen agencies coordinated by the Office of National Drug
Control Policy. [David Teasley, citation above].
If they say...
Prohibition caused more harm than good.
Then you say...
During Prohibition, alcohol use declined significantly [David Teasley,
citation above].
During Prohibition, incidence of cirrhosis of the liver decreased by 35%.
[Charles Krauthammer, "Legalize? No, Deglamorize," The Washington Post, May 20,
1988].
During Prohibition, the suicide rate decreased 50%. [Robert Stutman, "Reasons
Not to Legalize Drugs," Drug Awareness Information Newsletter].
During Prohibition, the incidence of alcohol-related arrests also declined by
50% [Robert L. DuPont, "The Case Against Legalizing Drugs," Drug Awareness
Information Newsletter].
Contrary to popular opinion, the crime rate did not markedly increase during
prohibition. What did increase was the homicide rate (not the same as the
overall crime rate) among African-Americans. And African-Americans had little to
do with alcohol trafficking. [David Teasley, citation above].
Mark Kleiman admits that the U.S. experience with Prohibition is one of the
strongest arguments in favor of the continued illegalization of illicit drugs.
[Letter from John C. Lawn to Joseph E. DiGenova, Drug Enforcement
Administration, June 3, 1988].
Steve
Mostly Harmless
Marijuana waSnt always illegal and in spite of being banned, it remains popular.
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
Tgace
Grandmaster
Tgace
Grandmaster
For all intents and purposes it has ALWAYS been illegal for anybody living today.
Tgace
Grandmaster
THE TOUGH PRACTICAL QUESTIONS REGARDING LEGALIZATION
In their 1993 report the INCB asked these tough practical questions regarding implementation of drug legalization:
17(a) What drugs would be legalized (cannabis, cocaine, crack (the free-base form of cocaine), heroin, hallucinogens, ecstasy? According to what criteria would they be legalized and who would determine those criteria?
(b) What potency levels would be permitted (5 per cent, 10 per cent or 14 per cent tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content of cannabis; Burmese No. 3 grade, Mexican black tar or China white heroin)?
( c) Since legalization would entail the removal of prescription requirements for psychoactive pharmaceuticals, what would be done to control the adverse consequences of their non-medical use? How would the marketing of such new drugs be dealt with? Would they be permitted without even a qualifying period and evaluation? What would happen with designer drugs?
(d) Would production and manufacture be limited? If so, how would be limits be enforced (e.g. limited to home production for personal use or to cottage industries or to major enterprises)?
(e) What market restrictions would there be? Would the private sector or the public sector or both be involved? How would price, purity and potency levels be established and regulated? Would advertising be permitted? If so, what drug would be advertised and by whom?
(f) Where would such drugs be sold (e.g. over the counter, through the mail, vending machines or restaurants)? Would the sale of such drugs be limited to dependent abusers? If so, how many and from which cities or countries? What about experimenters and those not yet granted dependent status?
(g) Would there be age limits for the use of legalized drugs and, if so, for which ones (e.g. access to cannabis at age 16, to cocaine at age 18 and to heroin at age 21)? Would there be restrictions on use because of impairment of function (e.g. restrictions on use by transport, defence, nuclear power and other workers)?
(h) For any restrictions found necessary or desirable, what agency would enforce the law, what penalties and sanctions would be established for violations and how would the risks of corruption and continued illicit traffic be dealt with? INCB Report 1993
The legalizers have yet to effectively answer these questions.
In their 1993 report the INCB asked these tough practical questions regarding implementation of drug legalization:
17(a) What drugs would be legalized (cannabis, cocaine, crack (the free-base form of cocaine), heroin, hallucinogens, ecstasy? According to what criteria would they be legalized and who would determine those criteria?
(b) What potency levels would be permitted (5 per cent, 10 per cent or 14 per cent tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content of cannabis; Burmese No. 3 grade, Mexican black tar or China white heroin)?
( c) Since legalization would entail the removal of prescription requirements for psychoactive pharmaceuticals, what would be done to control the adverse consequences of their non-medical use? How would the marketing of such new drugs be dealt with? Would they be permitted without even a qualifying period and evaluation? What would happen with designer drugs?
(d) Would production and manufacture be limited? If so, how would be limits be enforced (e.g. limited to home production for personal use or to cottage industries or to major enterprises)?
(e) What market restrictions would there be? Would the private sector or the public sector or both be involved? How would price, purity and potency levels be established and regulated? Would advertising be permitted? If so, what drug would be advertised and by whom?
(f) Where would such drugs be sold (e.g. over the counter, through the mail, vending machines or restaurants)? Would the sale of such drugs be limited to dependent abusers? If so, how many and from which cities or countries? What about experimenters and those not yet granted dependent status?
(g) Would there be age limits for the use of legalized drugs and, if so, for which ones (e.g. access to cannabis at age 16, to cocaine at age 18 and to heroin at age 21)? Would there be restrictions on use because of impairment of function (e.g. restrictions on use by transport, defence, nuclear power and other workers)?
(h) For any restrictions found necessary or desirable, what agency would enforce the law, what penalties and sanctions would be established for violations and how would the risks of corruption and continued illicit traffic be dealt with? INCB Report 1993
The legalizers have yet to effectively answer these questions.
Last edited:
Tgace
Grandmaster
One makes criminals out of people doing a once legal (recently)activity...the other rewards people who have been breaking the law all along.
Last edited:
"Spice"?
Like in;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_(novel)
"Recreational Drugs"
is this like;
"Recreational Drinking"?
Drug Abuse: Gives you Drain Bamage
Like in;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_(novel)
"Recreational Drugs"
is this like;
"Recreational Drinking"?
Drug Abuse: Gives you Drain Bamage
That's a fallacy. The length of time it was banned shouldn't matter when we're basically talking about repealing prohibition. The philosophy behind it and the facts about it's use are what matters, IMO.
This is an interesting source arguing for the prohibition of drugs, but notice how almost all of the citations are coming from organizations that favor the prohibition of drugs. It's definitely a biased opinion....aka revisionist history.
Tgace
Grandmaster
This is nothing like prohibition. And prohibition as a meme is tossed out with a TV/Movie understanding of the era.
Tgace
Grandmaster
LOL..and all the other people here (and their sources) are not??? LOL!
How about you address the facts presented?
The "Tough Questions" still stand.
In the Descent of Man, Charles Darwin describes the Irish as being one of the lowest forms of humans in existence. According to Darwin, the Irish were more degenerate then the Chinese, lazier then the blacks, and stupider then the French.
Now, imagine if the overarching Imperial government of the time decided to ban alcohol for the good of the stupid, lazy, degenerate Irish? It would be an obvious case of hypocrisy right? How could Englishmen, who definitely love their pints, tell a group of neighbors that they can't enjoy them?
In the United States, we had something similar to that happen. In African American culture, marijuana use has always been more prevalent. From reconstruction to modern times, black people enjoyed "the fruits of hemp" readily. When the US decided to prohibit marijuana sales and use, it's use had fallen out fashion with many whites, never mind the fact that our Founding Fathers grew it and smoked up.
The end result was that a hated minority was unfairly targeted and it was hypocritical. So much so that when the anti-marijuana propaganda started to appear, the image of a negro smoking a joint and raping white women was used to terrify the public. Never mind the fact that lots of white people smoked marijuana just a generation before.
I think we need to understand that racial politics played a huge role in marijuana prohibition and alcohol legalization. We need to realize that racial divisions were used by the government as a wedge to achieve a desired goal, which actually was designed to put the hemp industry out of business. It's a historical example of racial politics and government corruption, IMO.
Tgace
Grandmaster
Im sensing a theme here Maka.
Don't like cops using their personal experience in this "conversation"..disqualify their opinion as biased.
Don't like a source..disqualify it as biased. And forgive this (I dont intend it as a personal attack)..but doing a post search on you and I see you use MANY sources by biased people (namely your 911 stuff).
Either this is a "conversation" or it's a peer reviewed panel where everyones opinions and sources have to be vetted.
I don't have the time for the latter.
Don't like cops using their personal experience in this "conversation"..disqualify their opinion as biased.
Don't like a source..disqualify it as biased. And forgive this (I dont intend it as a personal attack)..but doing a post search on you and I see you use MANY sources by biased people (namely your 911 stuff).
Either this is a "conversation" or it's a peer reviewed panel where everyones opinions and sources have to be vetted.
I don't have the time for the latter.
Yes, the sources that already address the "tough questions" are better and more unbiased. Many of these sources are actually coming from the government, who officially support a policy of prohibition. All of those "tough questions" are contradicted by the government's own studies.
I'm just pointing out some problems in the sources. That's all. That should be part of a good conversation, should it not?
Yeah, and 9/11. Don't get me started. Terrorism, drugs, drug wars, terror wars, and government corruption, it's all related. My bias after 9/11 is that I pretty much believe the opposite of what the government tells me unless I can go out and experience it myself.
Last edited:
Steve
Mostly Harmless
And yet weed remains extremely popular. the point remains that any strategies with the aim of reducing the abuse and misuse of alcohol are directly applicable to most other controlled substances, particularly weed. That the idea of prohibition of alcohol seems silly to most everyone is pretty telling. cognitive dissonance at its finest.
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
However the reasons for not banning alcohol are economic, no government that derives so much money from taxing alcohol is going to ban it. Perhaps if you saw the mess, violence and sheer disgustingness of our streets at night you would change your mind about banning alcohol or at very least making illegal to drink so much people are mindless! You certainly wouldn't want the carnage on your town's/city's streets.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5WjqoLfQjo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2wmvdxzJpU&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBVQRYjWEFk&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTHfSKJpseo&feature=relmfu there's plenty more in this series from all round the UK and it's not as though we keep it to ourselves http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...dents-Saloufest-returns-round-debauchery.html
zDom
Senior Master
Not only are those sources providing canned answers ("If they say X, you say Y" :eyeroll: to argue against legalization biased, they have a vested interest in keeping those substances illegal. And that's what this is really about: money. It is what the criminalization of pot has always been about.
I could flood this thread with the side effects of legal drugs produced by pharmaceutical companies which have serious health consequences for their users or of alcohol or of nicotine, but none of it matters, does it? Booze is legal; pot is not.
How does 100 years of pot being illegal in this country trump THOUSANDS of years of mankind being able to eat any plant they decide to cultivate? Or hundreds of years of Native Americans using it as part of their religion? It doesn't matter, does it? White man "owns" this land now and has decided marijuana is illegal and if it's illegal it MUST be BAD.
It was stated early in this thread that opponents will never be convinced. I think we have seen that demonstrated over the last 20+ pages. I predicted regurgitated argument and that's what we see.
Opponents feel justified in their recreational drugs of choice being legal (or your choice to not indulge in any) and will cling to any argument that enables them to remain self righteousness.
But it is a travesty in a nation that brags about being the bastion of freedom to continue to take a hardline against pot users. It remains a clear case of tyranny of the majority. Cling to a sense of moral superiority, but I want you to remember this discussion every time you hear the final lines of the Star Spangled Banner and cheer to some politician's rhetoric about living in the land of the free.
Meanwhile I will continue to comply with the law of the land, but I will also continue to feel morally and intellectually superior to those of you who simply will not acknowledge that today's drug laws are arbitrary, obsolete, unjust and hypocritical.
Tonight I will drink margaritas and smoke a bowl of pipe tobacco. I already slammed down a pot of coffee.
I could flood this thread with the side effects of legal drugs produced by pharmaceutical companies which have serious health consequences for their users or of alcohol or of nicotine, but none of it matters, does it? Booze is legal; pot is not.
How does 100 years of pot being illegal in this country trump THOUSANDS of years of mankind being able to eat any plant they decide to cultivate? Or hundreds of years of Native Americans using it as part of their religion? It doesn't matter, does it? White man "owns" this land now and has decided marijuana is illegal and if it's illegal it MUST be BAD.
It was stated early in this thread that opponents will never be convinced. I think we have seen that demonstrated over the last 20+ pages. I predicted regurgitated argument and that's what we see.
Opponents feel justified in their recreational drugs of choice being legal (or your choice to not indulge in any) and will cling to any argument that enables them to remain self righteousness.
But it is a travesty in a nation that brags about being the bastion of freedom to continue to take a hardline against pot users. It remains a clear case of tyranny of the majority. Cling to a sense of moral superiority, but I want you to remember this discussion every time you hear the final lines of the Star Spangled Banner and cheer to some politician's rhetoric about living in the land of the free.
Meanwhile I will continue to comply with the law of the land, but I will also continue to feel morally and intellectually superior to those of you who simply will not acknowledge that today's drug laws are arbitrary, obsolete, unjust and hypocritical.
Tonight I will drink margaritas and smoke a bowl of pipe tobacco. I already slammed down a pot of coffee.
I think most of us have said we don't care what you ingest, if you are peaceful and don't harm anyone, there's no problem, BUT what of those who aren't peaceful and do harm others?
So, exactly what are we supposed to legalise? All drugs? Who do we allow to use, everyone or just adults? As shown by what is happening here, if people can't handle, and btw it's a lot of people not just a few, alcohol how are we to believe that by legalising all drugs we won't end up with an even worse situation? Tell us how legalising everything makes things better oh superior one.
So, exactly what are we supposed to legalise? All drugs? Who do we allow to use, everyone or just adults? As shown by what is happening here, if people can't handle, and btw it's a lot of people not just a few, alcohol how are we to believe that by legalising all drugs we won't end up with an even worse situation? Tell us how legalising everything makes things better oh superior one.
Similar threads
