Drug War Policy for Democrats

[Mudcat]

Taking drugs is egregious and irrational.

I don't disagree with you, but you have any idea just what the war on drugs cost the American people? This year alone it has already cost over a whopping $2,000,000,000 (that's two billion, in case you got lost in the zeroes) and the year isn't even a month old yet.

Last year, we spent 23.8 Billion dollars on the war on drugs, at least some of which did not go where it was intended (embezzled, most likely) and the war has been less than effective.

All this for a program that hasn't shown many (if any) positive results. Don't you think that it at least needs to be addressed?

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

It's made jobs, right? All those enforcers, justices, jails, advertisers?

 

[Mudcat]

It's made jobs, right? All those enforcers, justices, jails, advertisers?

Sigh, wish there was a sarcasm detector emote here.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Well, mine was kinda sarcasm too, in a 'think of the children!!' sort of way...

 

[Triterope]

So we shouldn't deal with this problem because we also have other problems?

Actually, yes. That's the political process is: deciding how best to use limited time and resouces.

If we are worried about making our cities safer, and focusing on real crimes, than this should be the first issue on our list.

Really? The number one cause of crime is the criminalization of marijuana? Not poor schools, or gang activity, or lack of economic opportunity? Give me a break.

if we are serious about dealing with our debt and wasteful spending problems, than this should be the first issue on our list.

From what I've seen, tolerance of marijuana causes more wasteful government spending than eliminating your "drug war" bogeyman would prevent. In my small apartment building alone, I can personally introduce you to $50,000 a year of public assistance going to people whose only hardship is they can't get the bong out of their mouths long enough to get a damn job. Able-bodied people in their 30s who haven't had a job in a decade, have no food in their refigerator, no service for their TV or cell phone, and no toys or books for their children, whom they let roam around unsupervised all day, but they've always got a big ol' bag of weed. How much "wasteful spending" does that ultimately cause?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of an honest accounting of what the criminalization of marijuana is costing our society. But let's count both sides of the ledger here.

All of the issues you listed are definitely problems that we should continue to work on, but none of them will ever be solved in any of our lifetimes. It would be idiotic to ignore fixing problems that we can actually fix right now

This is just another blanket statement from you that legal marijuana has magical powers to fix a laundry list of societal ills. I'd love to hear how this is supposed to work, but personally I see no reason to believe that a world with legal marijuana would be much different than the one we live in now. I think mostly the same people would use it, it would cost about the same, and the same ancillary societal problems would exist. And I certainly see no evidence that places where it is legal for vague "medicinal" purposes are transforming for the better.

 

[elbe]

Actually, yes. That's the political process is: deciding how best to use limited time and resouces.

I think you have a higher opinion of our legislature than most people do.

 

[WildCat]

Really? The number one cause of crime is the criminalization of marijuana? Not poor schools, or gang activity, or lack of economic opportunity? Give me a break.

How do you think those gangs make all their money? If you support the drug war, you are supporting street gangs making gobs of money off of drug sales and all the violence associated with that.

And I certainly see no evidence that places where it is legal for vague "medicinal" purposes are transforming for the better.

So long as it's illegal, the problems will remain. And it's still illegal even in medical marijuana states, the supply all comes from the black market which is controlled by criminal gangs.

 

[elbe]

In general I'm in favor of legalization (though I hold reservations about harder drugs) but I get the impression that many proponents think that if it's legal they'd have free reign and not realizing that companies are still perfectly capable of making testing and being "clean" a condition of employment.

 

[HoverBoarder]

Actually, yes. That's the political process is: deciding how best to use limited time and resouces.

So best not to waste them than.

Really? The number one cause of crime is the criminalization of marijuana? Not poor schools, or gang activity, or lack of economic opportunity? Give me a break.

Where do you think gang's get their money from?

From what I've seen, tolerance of marijuana causes more wasteful government spending than eliminating your "drug war" bogeyman would prevent. In my small apartment building alone, I can personally introduce you to $50,000 a year of public assistance going to people whose only hardship is they can't get the bong out of their mouths long enough to get a damn job. Able-bodied people in their 30s who haven't had a job in a decade, have no food in their refigerator, no service for their TV or cell phone, and no toys or books for their children, whom they let roam around unsupervised all day, but they've always got a big ol' bag of weed. How much "wasteful spending" does that ultimately cause?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of an honest accounting of what the criminalization of marijuana is costing our society. But let's count both sides of the ledger here.

Fair enough, I am not one to say that there is no harm from marijuana or other drugs, but there is a LOT more harm being done to all of us by having it illegal.

It is a problem that is creating enormous repercussions that we all have to deal with.

This is just another blanket statement from you that legal marijuana has magical powers to fix a laundry list of societal ills. I'd love to hear how this is supposed to work, but personally I see no reason to believe that a world with legal marijuana would be much different than the one we live in now. I think mostly the same people would use it, it would cost about the same, and the same ancillary societal problems would exist. And I certainly see no evidence that places where it is legal for vague "medicinal" purposes are transforming for the better.

The difference is the money tax payers have to fork out to fight it, the social costs from our failed fight, and where the proceeds from selling it go.

 

[Halfcentaur]

From what I've seen, tolerance of marijuana causes more wasteful government spending than eliminating your "drug war" bogeyman would prevent. In my small apartment building alone, I can personally introduce you to $50,000 a year of public assistance going to people whose only hardship is they can't get the bong out of their mouths long enough to get a damn job. Able-bodied people in their 30s who haven't had a job in a decade, have no food in their refigerator, no service for their TV or cell phone, and no toys or books for their children, whom they let roam around unsupervised all day, but they've always got a big ol' bag of weed. How much "wasteful spending" does that ultimately cause?

I can't believe you're even suggesting these people would not be living this way if not for cannabis.

 

[Democracy Simulator]

Taking drugs is egregious and irrational.

Well, some people have had good times on drugs. Shocking isn't it? On that basis, they are quite rational in taking them.

For those who make the irrational choice to take drugs, I would say that it is my right to be irrational, if it harms no-one else. Do you disagree with that?

 

[Robrob]

For those who make the irrational choice to take drugs, I would say that it is my right to be irrational, if it harms no-one else. Do you disagree with that?

I would say it is my right to drive 100 mph in a school zone, if it harms no-one else. Do you disagree with that?

 

[Democracy Simulator]

In terms of the 'harm' argument, there are two types of harm (to a society of individuals), associated with the 'drug problem':

The first is the harm associated with taking drugs. (Which is in itself contestable, i.e. good times on drugs argument).

The second is the harm associated with prohibition.

In order to justify prohibition in terms of harm reduction, (i.e. if that were your only criteria on assessing the worthiness of prohibition) it would seem that the amount of harm associated with taking drugs would have to be decreased by prohibition, by more than the amount of 'new harm' that the policy of prohibition itself brings, otherwise the policy is irrational. It is also worth noting that any harms associated with drug taking that are caused by prohibition (i.e. financing drug dealers), can only be used as an argument against prohibition.

Now, this is a difficult question to assess, with a multiplicity of factors, but I would suggest that the harm minimization effects of prohibition are dwarfed by the harm brought about by prohibition. Those harms are well documented, e.g. the flourishing of violent drug gangs, the curtailment of civil liberty, the criminalization and incarceration of a large portion of society, the economic expense of maintaining the policy, etc.

Even if the harm question was open and undecidable, there would be no reason to enact prohibition by default, unless you assume the ridiculous proposition that all behavior should be prohibited, until a compelling argument why it shouldn't be is presented.

Prohibition is irrational, unless, the reasons given for it, are not the real reasons that it has been enacted, in which case it may be a rational expression of authoritarian tendencies, i.e. prohibition is a fraud committed by authoritarians on the general populace to further special interests.

 

[Democracy Simulator]

I would say it is my right to drive 100 mph in a school zone, if it harms no-one else. Do you disagree with that?

No, if you knew beforehand that it was not possible to harm someone by doing so and that this was not reasonably contestable. I would advise against it, as you might have some personal risk (unless you also somehow knew that was also impossible). In this fantasy world where you know that driving at 100 m.p.h. through school zones is safe, why do they have school zones?

It is quite easy to responsibly take drugs, especially if they are legal, quite difficult to responsibly drive at 100 m.p.h. in a school zone, in the real world, whether or not such driving is prohibited.

 

[case#46cw39]

I see no reason to believe that a world with legal marijuana would be much different than the one we live in now. I think mostly the same people would use it, it would cost about the same, and the same ancillary societal problems would exist. .

And so it should be illegal for everyone? Spoken like a true tyrant.

Why don't you apply those same standards to alcohol that kills 85,000 a year directly, 10,000 on roads and causes alcohol dementia? This is costing our society billions.

DEATHS BY YEAR (2007)
Alcohol = 85,000 (where's your famous tears and call for war on alco-deale*rs?)
Tobacco = 435,000 (where's your famous tears and call for war on tobacco-de*alers?)
Marijuanna = 0 (Yet here you cry like a baby, just like they programmed you to LOL)
http://drugwarfacts.*org/cms/?q*=node/30

Alcohol is a factor in the following:* 73% of all felonies * 73% of child beating cases * 41% of rape cases * 80% of wife battering cases * 72% of stabbings * 83% of homicides.

So, where are your famous tears and whining now about societal costs? Why don't you get a war going on alcohol? Because it's all a fraud run by drunkin hypocrites who in fact couldn't care less about all that destruction and cost of alcohol.

Enough with the pathetic reefer madness propaganda.

It isn't going to work anymore.

The kids know.

85,000 die a year from alcohol.

 

[magellan]

I knew a guy who OD'd on weed. He ate a bunch of homemade popcorn and fell asleep on my couch.

I provided him a blanket and made him pancakes the next morning, which he enjoyed.

Anyways, could you provide statistics for people who die from weed?

I know of 2 girls and a dog:
Rachel Hoffman, Shelley Hilliard (http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/201201061012/METRO01/201060375)

The dog: http://reason.com/archives/2010/05/11/a-drug-raid-goes-viral

 

[PitPat]

Our state will be voting on an initiative in November to legalize marijuana and sell it at state-run stores (assuming the legislature doesn't pass it first, which is unlikely) -- taxed at 25% on wholesale and retail sales. Early polling indicates a narrow plurality favoring it.

I'll be really interested to see what lengths the president/feds would go to to thwart it, if it passes.

 

[Mudcat]

I'll be really interested to see what lengths the president/feds would go to to thwart it, if it passes.

No where, it's only a matter of time before it passes (possibly on a national level) and they know it.

Also I can't help but notice the portion about it being taxed. Certainly pokes holes in one of the more well-known myths about weed (that the only reason why it is illegal is because it can't be taxed on).

 

[case#46cw39]

So what needs to be done in order for this to become a serious political issue that politicians will take the desires of their constituents seriously on?


Economic studies?

Commercials?

Lobbyists?

Legal action?


This is an issue that nearly the vast majority of the country thinks needs to be corrected, but less than 1% of politicians are willing to even talk about. It is a serious issue that is costing us lives and money by ignoring, but nothing is being done in Washington about it.

How can we make our politicians adhere to the will of the people that they were elected to serve?

NORML Responds to Similar Question:
"The war on cannabis is not a government conspiracy against poor people or minorities. Cannabis Prohibition goes into its 75th year because well under 1% of cannabis consumers are involved in their own liberation.

You're incorrect that NORML will never be successful as 14 states have decriminalized cannabis and 16 states have 'medicalized' cannabis; when NORML was founded in 1970 9% of the US supported legalization, today it is 50%.

Medical patients in states like CA and CO are standing in line and buying cannabis products, hash and edibles.

Sounds like progress to NORML, with much more to come as anti-prohibitionism regarding cannabis spreads wider and farther in America.

If New York Times statistics guru Nate Silver's estimates are correct, at the current rate of reform, 60% of the US public will want cannabis legalized by 2021.

What is needed to legalize cannabis is not negativity or being a Doubting Thomas, instead, it is to better organize current cannabis consumers to become politically visible stakeholders to their elected policymakers. This means that cannabis consumers have to come out of their smoky closets.]"

http://blog.norml.org/2011/12/29/20...events-that-shaped-marijuana-policy/#comments

 

[HoverBoarder]

I know of 2 girls and a dog:
Rachel Hoffman, Shelley Hilliard (http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/201201061012/METRO01/201060375)

The dog: http://reason.com/archives/2010/05/11/a-drug-raid-goes-viral

None of those cases were people who overdosed or died from weed. One of the cases was a dog shot in a drug raid, and the other two were from fights over drug busts.

All of which would not happen if we were to make the sound fiscal and social choice to legalize the drug.

Like I said, I personally do not smoke marijuana, but I am tired of my tax dollars being wasted, and my city being made less safe from a policy that just makes things worse off.