Why is it illegal to get high?

[JFrankA]

Let me preface this with the fact that I don't do any illegal drugs at all. I drink alcohol rarely. I don't smoke, I don't even drink coffee. That being said, here's my question. Sorry for the length.

Okay, there has been several threads dancing around this issue, and it may be a stupid question, but I find it interesting that getting high is illegal. Getting drunk isn't. If you are home drinking and not driving a car or hurting anyone else, even if you an alcoholic, getting drunk is legal.

But what about being in your home, not driving, no hurting anyone else, but smoking pot? or snorting coke? or taking LSD? All illegal. But if done in the privacy of your own home, where no one else is being hurt, why?

I know the dangers of addiction and some drugs cause a more potent effect than others, I also know that different people react in different ways to the same drug, but that's not what I'm talking about.

Let me give my impression as to why drugs become illegal. A person discovers a new drug that causes euphoria. It becomes popular and soon it's discovered that some of the young adults and older teens are taking it when they go out. One person dies from an overdose. Or it's mentioned as part of a rape case. People get up in arms about it, blame the drug for the cause of whatever the tragedy is and suddenly, the government steps in and makes it illegal.

This is the impression I'm getting from our lawmakers. Am I right in this impression or am I missing something here? Is there a more real reason?

 

[Praktik]

If you look at the history of American drug laws particularly, the laws against opium came about when there was much worry of a dreaded "yellow peril", threatening the American Way of Life with their otherness - which included opium dens and the like. Of course, opiates were frequently an ingredient in "magic elixirs" and cure-alls used by sedate, homely wives but it was perhaps the growing use of these by white women which worried their male benefactors as to the long-term threat posed by opium, which came from the Orient primarily...

Looking at marijuana laws, most users were non-white, we're talking early-days jazz musicians and the like. The laws came in when people saw - with horror - that this drug was increasingly used by white people.

For a modern-day example, look at the difference in penalties between powdered cocaine and crack cocaine, the same weight of each substance results in substantially harsher penalties for crack - skewing things against black people (who use crack more) and away from white people (who use powdered cocaine more).

Now this is all of course a generalization and I think to say that all drug laws are borne of racism is a bit of an exaggeration. But it is also wilful denial to say that race didn't play a part in the genesis of the drug laws or that race doesn't continue to play a part in modern day law enforcement strategies vis a vis illegal drugs.

Its also telling that the drugs used mostly by white people, alcohol and tobacco, have remained legal through most of America's history (alcohol prohibition being a temporary example). The example of alcohol prohibition does highlight another driver however, the idea that morality can be legislated.

The 19th century saw a HUGE cultural transformation in America: the rise of the Temperance movement, abolitionism and other christian ideas based on the need to make of America a "better nation" through the legislation of (perceived) morality. The temperance movement was quite deep and widespread and their legacy is one that I think is the other major driver for our current drug-law architecture.

 

[fishbait]

Why is it illegal to get high?

It's not. Virtually all Federal, State, and local laws address sale, transfer, possession, or possession with intent to deliver controlled substances. Driving while impaired is the only law I can think of that addresses the act of getting high.

 

[Elaedith]

Probably largely historical reasons. Alcohol has a long history of use and much is known about its precise short-term and long-term effects, the amount contained in standard drinks, and limits of safe consumption.
That said, having been raised in a country where cannabis was decriminalised, I did note quite a few differences in tendencies towards use of alcohol & cannabis.
Quite a few people do consume alcohol regularly in very moderate quantities, without aiming to get more than very slightly affected. Quite a probably never aim to get what would commonly referred to as 'drunk'. People use alcoholic drinks to complement foods as part of a meal, sometimes consuming only small amounts.
I didn't ever observe anyone who smoked pot actively avoiding consuming enough to get 'high', because it generally seems that the sole purpose is to get high.
In fact it generally seemed that amongst my friends who consumed both alcohol and cannabis, it was much more socially acceptable to get high on huge quantities of cannabis than to get really drunk. This may be due to the fact that excessive alcohol consumption is fatal, whereas there is no evidence as far as I know of this being the case with pot. This seemed to be interpreted to mean, as far as I could make out, that pot is harmless - that the processes underlying cognition, emotion and motivation are things that cannot be damaged.

 

[quarky]

Oppressive government?

 

[htf666]

Could it have something to do with the fact that governments gain revenue off alcohol but not drugs/ Harry

 

[NewtonTrino]

I think it's actually similar to the reason that a lot of people go to church. Silly Meme's get created at some time in the past and the mass consciousness simply doesn't have enough self realization to kick the habit. From a government perspective weed has to be the best things ever created to control the citizenry. No mass of pot smokers is ever going to stage a revolution. This may be one of the reasons it's still illegal actually

 

[JoeEllison]

It is all a conspiracy! I read it in High Times!

 

[richardm]

Could it have something to do with the fact that governments gain revenue off alcohol but not drugs

Yeah maybe, so why was the reaction to ban them rather than to start charging duty?

 

[Beerina]

Lazy drug users do not a powerful economy make. Therefore ban the drugs.

All the rest is just the evolved ethics facade to placate your mental model to induce behavior that alters the above, itself a suspect concept, but a successful meme in and of its own right, gaining reproduction via the "election".



Oh, wait. You guys probably meant the in-game roleplaying rationale. Yeah. It's because it's damaging to your brain.

 

[JFrankA]

It's not. Virtually all Federal, State, and local laws address sale, transfer, possession, or possession with intent to deliver controlled substances. Driving while impaired is the only law I can think of that addresses the act of getting high.

That's a good point. But it is still part of my question. I mean, if a cop comes to my door and I'm holding a bottle of vodka. No problem. But if I'm holding a bag of pot? I hauled off. Other than being illegal, why should I be arrested?

 

[JFrankA]

I think it's actually similar to the reason that a lot of people go to church. Silly Meme's get created at some time in the past and the mass consciousness simply doesn't have enough self realization to kick the habit. From a government perspective weed has to be the best things ever created to control the citizenry. No mass of pot smokers is ever going to stage a revolution. This may be one of the reasons it's still illegal actually

This is what I think also. Especially in the case of pot.

It's certainly not to "protect our children" or "protect our citizens". I mean, anyone can buy a bottle of whipped cream and get high. (Albeit for a short time).

It seems to me that pot has become the poison of politicians as well. It's just so easy for them to say that they are going to protect people and stopping crime by stopping drugs.

 

[latent aaaack]

I think one reason (not that it's valid) is that pot seems to have a more pervasive effect on peoples' mind and perspectives than alchohol. You often hear stories about how starting smoking pot changed someones' world view or behavior or that it became a part of their lifestyle in some way. edit - Carl Sagan for example credits it with making his thinking less rigid and Spock like and making him consider more far out possibilities like life forms in Jupiter's clouds and so on.

There never would be an alcohol version of the movie "Half Baked." With alcohol you get drunk and it feels good and then sober up but with pot there's maybe a longer lasting social and mental effect that various authorities consider more subversive.

 

[latent aaaack]

I mean, anyone can buy a bottle of whipped cream and get high. (Albeit for a short time).

We can? Wow thanks! It better not have one of those "It's illegal to use this product for purposes other than what it's designed for" labels though - I will not stoop to criminality.

 

[billydkid]

Let me preface this with the fact that I don't do any illegal drugs at all. I drink alcohol rarely. I don't smoke, I don't even drink coffee. That being said, here's my question. Sorry for the length.

Okay, there has been several threads dancing around this issue, and it may be a stupid question, but I find it interesting that getting high is illegal. Getting drunk isn't. If you are home drinking and not driving a car or hurting anyone else, even if you an alcoholic, getting drunk is legal.

But what about being in your home, not driving, no hurting anyone else, but smoking pot? or snorting coke? or taking LSD? All illegal. But if done in the privacy of your own home, where no one else is being hurt, why?

I know the dangers of addiction and some drugs cause a more potent effect than others, I also know that different people react in different ways to the same drug, but that's not what I'm talking about.

Let me give my impression as to why drugs become illegal. A person discovers a new drug that causes euphoria. It becomes popular and soon it's discovered that some of the young adults and older teens are taking it when they go out. One person dies from an overdose. Or it's mentioned as part of a rape case. People get up in arms about it, blame the drug for the cause of whatever the tragedy is and suddenly, the government steps in and makes it illegal.

This is the impression I'm getting from our lawmakers. Am I right in this impression or am I missing something here? Is there a more real reason?

There were a lot of motivations that led to criminalization of substances - largely having to do with racism with a healthy dose puritanical hysteria of pleasure for pleasure's sake. I think the more interesting questions are these - Why does the insanity of The War on Drugs with its enumerable casualties and its various costs in both in dollar terms and in terms of the corruption it fosters continue rolling on and on? And why, with the supposed basic premise of the founding of this country being personal liberty and self ownership - do people so willingly accept the premise that it is role of government and society to dictate how we can treat our own bodies. Of course, you have throw in the old "for your own good" kind of thinking and idea that it is the role of society to protect us from ourselves and the argument that if you use drugs and operate heavy machinery you could hurt somebody - kind of thing. Nevermind that the drug war has produced countless tragedies - from mistaken no knock raids where grandmothers get executed by swat teams to people having their lives ruined and having their property taken without ever having been charged or convicted of a crime. Furtmore, the drug war amounts largely to a war on poor, inner city black people who are taking the only way out that they can see. To my mind it is a mass insanity roughly equivalent to the hysteria over witchcraft that once afflicted this country and most of Europe.

 

[Mark6]

I think the more interesting questions are these - Why does the insanity of The War on Drugs with its enumerable casualties and its various costs in both in dollar terms and in terms of the corruption it fosters continue rolling on and on? And why, with the supposed basic premise of the founding of this country being personal liberty and self ownership - do people so willingly accept the premise that it is role of government and society to dictate how we can treat our own bodies.

Mostly because any politician who attempts to decriminalize drugs -- even just marijuana, or even just to lower sentences, -- immediately gets tarred by his next election opponent as "soft on crime", usually with devastating results.

Furtmore, the drug war amounts largely to a war on poor, inner city black people who are taking the only way out that they can see.

Which is part of the answer to your question. People who vote regularly -- white, middle-class people, -- are not exactly friendly to inner city blacks. Especially to male inner city blacks (and black drug dealers are overwhelmingly male).

 

[Mark6]

Its also telling that the drugs used mostly by white people, alcohol and tobacco, have remained legal through most of America's history (alcohol prohibition being a temporary example). The example of alcohol prohibition does highlight another driver however, the idea that morality can be legislated.

There was a racist element to Prohibition also. Temperance movement arose in part as Protestants' reaction to what they perceived as excessive drinking by recent (in 19th Century) Catholic immigrants from Ireland and Italy. And back then, "dagos" WERE considered a different race.

 

[Drudgewire]

Short answer? To piss me off.

 

[Steelmage]

All this reminds me of something RAW had posted on his website:

Kupris, 75 p.s.U.

Whatever the rest of the world needs, I think the U.S. needs more population, not less. I know this sounds kookie, but listen to me a minute -- please --

According to Peter McWilliams the cost of enforcing our laws against victimless or consensual crimes (prostitution, gambling, using forbidden drugs etc.) comes to 450 billion dollars a year. You can easily see that totals over a trillion dollars in less than three years, and it explains why our national debt continues to soar to astronomical heights. As the debt soars, so does our tax bill, to pay usury to the bankers to whom we "owe" this money.

In 9 years, the national debt will increase at least three trillion dollars more, from this factor alone, even if we stopped a lot of other government waste. In 20 years, including inflation, this can rise to another 10 trillion (that is, 10,000,000,000,000)(!!!!!)

I see no hope that this enormous boondoggle will end in the near future. Hell, Bill Clinton is using the whole federal police-state apparatus to keep California doctors from prescribing one forbidden medication to dying people even when the doctors think these suffering people really need it. And Clinton does rank as almost "liberal" comparatively speaking, by contemporary standards, ironic as that sounds.

How the hell are our children and grand-children going to pay enough taxes to continue this War To Enforce Fundamentalist Morality On Everybody? They can't. They never can and never will. The only hope of paying this bill is to have more children, lots more, and lots of lots of grandchildren. So, ladies, get pregnant as often as possible, and, men, impregnate as many women as possible. We need more tax-payers, damn it, or the attempt to enforce Christian Tyranny on all of us, non-Christians included, will bankrupt every person in the country by 2017.

 

[Arthur Denton]

I've never used any drug. Lie. I've never used any not legal drug. Yes, that's more like the truth. I'm terribly addicted to coffee, but it doesn't gets me "high" and I also used to like alcohol a lot more than I do nowadays (you know, I've got sick of the hangover, and since it was forbidden to drive at any alcohol rate in your blood by the breathalizer, I've just stopped it) and twice I've smoked cigars, which is something I regret totally, and I only did it cause I was completely drunk.

That said, my opinion on "its illegal to get high" is that it should be illegal to get high cause if you're using, specially a black market kind of drug, it means that you bought it, and if you bought it, you've paid for it to someone who's breaking the no traffic laws. So, in the end, you're actually paying for the drug making, the bullets, the raping, the stealing, the kidnaping. That's why I do not respect people who do drugs: Most of my friends think it is cute to actually do drugs, and that's a thought I despise. I've been associated with peoples who do drugs at work (I was associated at work with them, they wouldn't use drugs at work) and at school (they would use drugs at school) but that never got me anywhere. I was younger and I saw no problem with that, till the day I started dating with a girl whom I loved but used to **** herself with hemp and coke whenever she got depressed.

That kind of changed my life. And my position. So, yes, I'd arrest you if it was up to me, and yes, I think it is illegal to get high, and yes, I won't smoke cigars if I can avoid it. Makes your mouth stink for decades, pollutes your lungs, and has a really bad taste - even the expensive ones we've bought.