Jeff Harrell: “You WANT me on that bong! You NEED me on that bong…!”*
****
(h/t Bill; see also, Ace, Jawa, Mark Kleinman, JunkYard Blog)
And of course, this, this, this, this, and this.
****
update: Rusty weighs in with an argument I largely agree with (I don’t, however, believe that “drugs are bad,” necessarily—I had plenty of great times in my younger days getting stoned after work, listening to Gilbert O’Sullivan and playing Madden football)—though I’ll concede that some people use them badly. And marijuana? Not bad. Sorry. It just ain’t.
Not to mention that without it, it’s likely we wouldn’t have pudding cups, Cup’O’Noodles, or peanut butter and jelly mixed together in one convenient jar.
****
update 2: Does my post fall into the “‘let’s legalize drugs because they’re not that bad, and fuck moral responsibility, let the fuckers burn’ position”? Because if so, please accept my apology.
I can only say in my defense that I’ve been brainwashed by all the personal responsibility and individual liberties bullshit I was taught growing up.
I blame Hollywood and THE LEFT.
****
update 3: In addition to being brainwashed, I’m also evidently an idiot. Which, while that may be true, doesn’t answer the libertarian question: why should I have to learn from your mistakes?
Yeah, I don’t know what happened to Harrell in that post. Bill’s got him dead to rights.
Harrell went off the rails with that post (especially the title) but I can see why he’s pissed about Tierney’s piece.
Tierney has obviously never known any herdcore tweakers. Nor does he live anywhere near places like Riverside or San Brenardino Counties here in California, where meth is becoming a problem of epic proportions.
I’d reccomend the Mark Kleiman piece that Bill linked as a sensible debunking of Tierney’s BS.
By the way, Kleiman’s post can be found here.
Sean —
It’s in my post. Been there since the post was born.
Oh yeah. That’s the good stuff.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh…
If ever there was a better argument against Marijuana use, I haven’t found it.
Oh, wait, I thought you said Gilbert and Sullivan……
SeanM
Nor does he live anywhere near places like Riverside or San Brenardino Counties here in California, where meth is becoming a problem of epic proportions.
Uh…we’ve already arrived. A good 30% of the police reports I see everyday are drug related and I’d say 80-90% of the labs I see attached are positive for meth. Hell, it’s a novelty to see heroin! Meth overtook crack quite a bit ago.
And meth less harmful than alcohol?? Good lord.
just
Good Lord.
Oops, sorry Jeff.
Eh, Harrell’s post didn’t bother me. Like I always say, pot should be legal, but not drugs.
He’s dead right about meth, and anyone who thinks it should be legal is being a blockheaded ideologue at the expense of reality.
Anyway, I think it’s ridiculous to even discuss decriminalizing meth and other hard drugs; that shit isn’t going to happen in our lifetimes, and I hope not our kids’, either. Legalizing pot is an entirely different issue, IMHO; I think Jeff H is wrong about pot being such a bad thing, though. It’s bad when kids do it, just like it is when kids smoke cigarettes and drink alchohol. They have shitty judgement, and any of that can be a “gateway” drug or make them do stupider shit than they already do.
But an ADULT smoking weed? What’s the worst thing that happens–too much bad TV-watching, excessive junk food eating, temporary laziness? It’s not like stoners want to go drive around town bar-hopping and getting into fights, after all. Legalize it, regulate it, make the age limit 25, and it won’t be in the hands of kids like it is now. Kids can get weed at school now; they can’t buy booze from their friends.
Sometimes I just wonder about people who live in New York and California- they don’t seem to live on the same planet that the rest of us do.
Personally, I think the marijuana argument is significantly overblown – I smoked quite a bit of ganga in my younger days and I still was an A student and good athlete. It also was not a gateway drug for me, as I never moved into anything hardcore- I just had more sense. To me, pot was never any worse then alcohol- in fact, people smoking pot are generally more manageable then people who have been drinking liquor. So I think you can make a legitimate (though not particularly compelling) argument that pot will not necessarily ruin your life.
But I about fell out of my chair when I read the argument that meth isn’t bad for you. My understanding is its made of draino and sudafed- that combination, smoked, cannot possibly be good for you- its also (from what I understand) pretty damn addictive.
Cocaine is bad for you. Its possible to snort it once and bit the big one. Its also highly addictive and ridiculously expensive. Same with crack and heroin. I can’t imagine arguing that those drugs have any possible merit =x
Cocaine is bad for you. Its possible to snort it once and bit the big one. Its also highly addictive and ridiculously expensive.
Partially right, mostly wrong, situationally wrong and just plain wrong.
Eh, Harrell’s post didn’t bother me.
Even the part where he talked about beating the shit out of Tierney? And said everyone that does drugs should die a horrible death?
The number of functional white-collar drug users I know and have known would blow the minds of most drug abstainers. Yeah, you really do need to be an adult to control yourself around such substances, and yeah, an addiction can take over an otherwise rational mind and destroy lives.
But from what I’ve seen, that’s the exception, not the rule. The sentence I just wrote absolutely flies in the face of 100% of the conventional wisdom about drug use, yet it’s entirely true.
Actually, heroin is, like, $4 a bag these days and is 80% pure, as opposed to $30 a bag in the 70s, and 5-10% pure (source: “Bullshit”). The War on Drugs hasn’t really done much on that account.
And I knew plenty of coke heads in college who went on to very normal, productive lives.
Incidentally, amphetamines have certain positive uses, as do canned whipped toppings and cold medicines that clear your nose of that stuffy feeling.
The point being that what is bad is the behavior, not the drug, and that we have laws regulating the behavior.
Sure, legitimization, the dangers of drugs, the overreach of drug laws, all good.
But can we all take a minute for that poor, little latchkey kid at home listening to “Alone Again Naturally.”
I don’t know about you, but I’m hitting the Paypal button right now to get that little fella a bag of Pop Rocks.
…and maybe a Stretch Armstrong….poor little bastard (sniffle)
Oh good, Bill’s here to enlighten me.
Ok doc, what are the redeeming qualities of cocaine (since its apparenly only partially bad), is it not possible to die from doing one line, I’d love to know how its not highly addictive and finally, I suppose its possible that coke prices have dropped drastically since the days when I had it offered to me but perhaps you and I have a different definition of “ridiculously expensive”.
Also, would it be possible to actually, you know, expound on your snark, rather than just let it sit there and fester.
“Moral” Heh. Drugs are not about morality (imho), they’re about common sense and restraint.
People take it for the redeeming qualities Matt. You know, the fun part that’s the whole purpose behind taking drugs in the first place.
And doing one line can kill a person with a heart problem, but then, so can riding a roller coaster. Which, really, a person with heart problems should know better than to take a substance which makes your heart work a massive overtime shift.
But I agree entirely with:
Drugs are not about morality (imho), they’re about common sense and restraint.
Geez, Beck, Matt has already claimed that cocaine, crack, and heroin have, apparently, no redeeming qualities. That’s good enough for me.
Matt – I’ve never heard that powder cocaine is all that addictive. If we’re going on anecdotes here (and everyone seems to be) I’ve known lots of people that tried cocaine a couple times and never did it again. Hell, I’ve known lots of people that tried cocaine, loved it, did it for years, and then just quit cold turkey but ended up in rehab for alcohol. Crack, on the other hand, is supposed to be highly addictive, but I’ve got no second-hand anecdotes about that, so for all I know it might be as harmless as coco-puffs.
“My understanding is its made of draino and sudafed- that combination, smoked, cannot possibly be good for you- its also (from what I understand) pretty damn addictive.”
That’s a pretty good argument for legalization. So are anecdotes and statistics about just how toxic the labs are when they’re busted. If the drug was legal, it would be made by a reputable company in a real lab with high quality ingredients.
Ok doc, what are the redeeming qualities of cocaine (since its apparenly only partially bad),
It can get you high as a kite – aka give you a euphoric sense of happiness and increased energy”, it’s an anesthetic, improves social ability, and can give you wood the size of a pine tree. Bad? High blood pressure, withdrawal feelings of anxiety and nervousness, tachardyia, damage to dopamine receptors (with extended use) and all kinds of other things when taken in extremely toxic doses and frequencies.
Thus, “partially bad,” partially good.
is it not possible to die from doing one line
Sure, just as I’m sure a hospitalized grandma with advanced heart arrythmia could keel over by taking ephedra. The implication of death via “one line” is hype. Is it possible that you could find someone that had a special condition that would kick in with “one line” of cocaine? Sure. Is that incidence statistically significant? No. And it had better be a MONSTER line.
I’d love to know how its not highly addictive and finally,
Cocaine is considered an addictive substance, but its addictive properties vary highly from person to person, mostly because the mechanism of addiction is much more psychological (association with feelings of happiness and euphoria) than something like, say, heroin. Thus, the impression that people will be naturally addicted to cocaine isn’t quite a nuanced perception, in at least the fact that a boatload of people do cocaine with absolutely no tendency towards addiction. Thus, “situationally wrong.”
I suppose its possible that coke prices have dropped drastically since the days when I had it offered to me
I dunno, I’m not up on coke prices, but I seem to recall that an 8-ball of coke could be had for less money than a night buying drinks out on the town in Miami.
Drugs are not about morality (imho), they’re about common sense and restraint.
Agreed. But demonizing them can overlook the fact that, responsibly used, a lot of adults can enjoy them without winding up like a PSA.
As Beck just wrote:
The number of functional white-collar drug users I know and have known would blow the minds of most drug abstainers. Yeah, you really do need to be an adult to control yourself around such substances, and yeah, an addiction can take over an otherwise rational mind and destroy lives.
But from what I’ve seen, that’s the exception, not the rule. The sentence I just wrote absolutely flies in the face of 100% of the conventional wisdom about drug use, yet it’s entirely true.
Let’s not lose sight of the fact that the most penalized drugs due to Rockefeller are hallucinogens, which are less harmful than cigarettes. Or at least the ones I knew of, you know, back when I might have known about such things from, you know, what friends told me and stuff. For what reason are mushrooms illegal? Oh wait, I know, cause they’re fun. Silly me.
I think one can make a moral argument against using cocaine, at least, because of what it has done to South America.
OTOH, it’s sort of weird that you can use Prozac and Valium and a slew of other drugs to feel good—but not marijuana.
Oh, and I should note the same moral argument above applies to ending the War on Drugs.
functional white-collar drug users
The guy who is widely considered the father of modern surgery (his name escapes me) was an IV morphine addict for 45 years—and no one ever knew. The public didn’t find out until 20 years after his death, as his will specified his diary be sealed until that time.
The Age of Google is a wonderful time to be alive. His name was Dr. William Halsted.
There’s a whole website on the phenomenon.
I think people that argue, as Harrell does, that drugs “destroyed” people, are missing the point. Drugs don’t destroy people, people destroy people (hey, if it’s true for guns…). If you’re lying around getting stoned all the time, you’d probably be lying around all the time whether you were stoned or not.
Come on, aren’t conservatives supposed to be all about personal responsibility? Blame the person, not the substance the person chooses to ingest.
Damn. Is the linker broken? Or am I doing something wrong?
I feel like I just committed a crime against the Internet.
Yeah, the link think seems to be broken. Accepts <, but not [. I fixed it for you.
Legalizing drugs is just not a cause I’m willing to get behind (you know, for the sake of “freedom.”) Personally, I’ve known the “drugs fucked me for life” types (and the babies of drug addicts), not the “functional user” variety. I’ve known the “my mom was a drug addict when I as born” type – and they are basically ruined for life.
The mess in Columbia is not due to drugs, it’s due to prohibition. Legitimize it and tax it and spend 2% of the money on rehab and, poof, it’s better than it is now.
Word “consider” as in …..this
I think it was PJ O’Rourke who said “Crack: they finally came up with a drug that’s actually as bad as they always said drugs are.”
Carin: the only drugs that have ruined the lives of people I know are tobacco and alcohol and it is more than a few of each. Name one person you know who’s life has been ruined by a hallucinogen. In NY, that’s 25 for one hit. Talk about ruining someone’s life.
Word “idea” as in here’s one, grab it
Carin – Lots of babies get fucked up by mothers who drink, or abuse prescription drugs, or (to hear my wife tell it) eat fatty fish in the third trimester. Yet all those things are legal.
Think of the (unborn) children isn’t a good argument for depriving people of freedom, no matter the context.
I once put a loaded gun to my head and pulled the trigger because I seriously doubted those silly stories about how this could hurt me. Because I’m a libertarian.
No, a libertarian would probably educate himself about the practical dangers of guns, and thus also avoid authoring such an idiotic metaphor.
Actually, a libertarian will have done his homework and realized that the likelihood of dying from putting a loaded gun to his head is too great to chance pulling the trigger (unless it’s his desire to blow his head off, in which case it’s the perfect tool); and that same libertarian would look at the thousands of years of pot usage, the number of deaths attributable to it, and decide whether or not it’s worth the risk for him.
What he doesn’t need is to have one person’s bad experiences with it turned into a law that denies him the opportunity to act as an adult and make his own decision.
Oops. Bill and I crossposted. I was responding to “me’s” comment.
You need to keep in mind, if you are looking at drug use from the outside, all you see are the worst cases. You only see the people who have totally fucked up. People who do drugs responsibly and maintain productive lives, do so in secret because drugs are illegal.
Cocaine in my experience was in terms of physical addiction somewhere between alcohol and caffeine. Easier to kick than booze, and way easier than cigarettes.
And while crank has surely fucked up some lives, I went to an engineering school in the late 70’s and a couple of chemistry students used to cook up a batch of crystal meth for finals and mid-terms in the frat house kitchen. Nobody got addicted or went nuts that I know of.
It’s about like gambling, most people can do it in moderation if they want to, but a few can’t handle it. The responsible ones are just more invisible.
me – Key word in that sentence was have. Which basically sums up libertarian philosophy.
Yeah, it’s just like gambling so let legaize it only in Vegas, Atlantic city and indian reservations. But please NIMBY.
You people who think legalizing hard drugs will actually solve social ills or will increase the net good in the U.S. need to stop smoking your latest issue of High Times and drop into the real world.
ADDICTOPHOBE!
The “should we legalize hard drugs” question is more complicated–yet somehow less interesting–than the question of marijuana. Because, as others have said many times, it appears that heavy use of pot is less harmful for many than heavy use of alcohol.
And, of course, there is the fact that people who are stoned tend to snack and nap, as opposed to getting behind the wheel of a car.
People who are passively fucked up appear to be less destructive than people who are fucked up and aggressive.
Am I missing something here?
(t/w: built. Which doesn’t have anything to do with my point, but thank you.)
If what I’ve heard is correct, being stoned tends to make one *more* careful behind the wheel, rather than less careful, as alcohol does.
The problem a lot of people seem to have with the idea of legalization is that they see the current problems and automatically assume they will get ten times worse with legalization. Why is that? Are there tens of millions of people just hoping that someday meth or crack will be legal so they can go out and destroy their heads without risk of imprisonment? Psh!
As it is now, you have the problems created by the “problem” as well as the problems created by the “solution”, which is no real solution at all if you look at historical drug usage rates. The war on drugs has not materially affected the availability of illegal drugs. But you do have a whole helluvalot more statist intervention into what used to be private and personal decisions.
And perhaps that is the real point?
Well, I didn’t think we were limiting the discussion to hallucinogens (comment way up there about no one dying from ‘em.) I just can’t get all “ra ra let’s legalize drugs”, because personally I really don’t care for some of the nasty stuff out there. I grew up around pot – my mom smoked it a lot when I was young. Did she beat me when she was high? No, but to say that she was a good mother (when high) would be stretching it a bit. I have seen the recreational drug user who held a job and kept most of their shit together. I’ve also seen people who are total wrecks because of it.
I see the point (Bill Buckley has been writing about this for years)- I get it. I just can’t jump on this train. But, you know- Go Team.
Desert Cat
Legalize hard drugs and it will get worse. Guaranteed. Mostly because this society has drifted into the “if its legal it must be ok and fuck you to tell me otherwise” kind of baseline morality.
Come sit with me for a few weeks and look at the police reports that come across my desk. Ya think legalization will keep the tweeker couple with the filthy mobile home from stopping neglecting their kids with the rotten teeth and open sores? Ya think legalization will stop the entrepenuer meth cooker from whipping yet a few more batches at cut rate prices in his garage..and yeah if you want a little piece of his 15 y/o stepdaughters ass, just pony up a few more $$?
Hard drugs are NOT victimless crimes. Period. And all those “white collar users” (drugs or alcohol)..they usually crash and burn…
F*ck, I was married to one for 16 years. He “functioned”.. PUBLICALLY pretty well for about 12…but what the f*ck do you think was going on in private? That you don’t see? That only comes to a head when they finally crash, burn and take their families with them?
Sure, there is a lot to be said of personal responsibility, but are we seriously discussing here making the government and corporations ENABLERS of addiction?
Jaysus… I certainly have no problems with discussing the illconsidered “wisdom” of classifying pot with heroin (but the idiot who states that driving under the influence of pot is “better” than alcohol such just STFU) BUT what the hell is the dismissal of seriousness of hard drugs???
“Ya think legalization will keep the tweeker couple with the filthy mobile home from stopping neglecting their kids with the rotten teeth and open sores? Ya think legalization will stop the entrepenuer meth cooker from whipping yet a few more batches at cut rate prices in his garage.”
I don’t think anything will stop that and that is the point. Being illegal obviously isn’t working.
What legalization would help is the people who get mugged by crackheads needing more money. It would help the innocents gunned down in drivebys and turf wars. It would free up jail space and police time for more serious offenders.
Alcohol prohibition didn’t work, it just created a steady income for criminals. Drug prohibition is doing the same thing. When is the last time you heard of somebody getting mugged by a wino?
Darleen, I think it’s interesting that you place alcohol and drugs together when you discuss “white collar users.”
(t/w: Ten. Presumably, as in “Tanqueray Ten.”)
B Moe
When is the last time you heard of somebody getting mugged by a wino?
Geez, what kind of town do you live in that people don’t die or get maimed from drunk drivers?
Merlot is NOT meth. Wine and beer are not always consumed in order fall over drunk, but tweeking? Any meth users out there that use it EXCEPT to leave this world for lost hours of time?
AND please don’t try and teach me about jail and drug addicts. In CA addicts don’t go to jail, even if drugs are still illegal. There are THREE drug diversion/rehab programs—PC1000(Diversion) PC1210.1 (Proposition 36) and Drug Court. Let me tell you what keeping hard drugs illegal does..it gives the judicial system a legal lever to get these addicts into court supervised programs. If the government itself is MAKING money by supplying drugs, just what incentive to getting people off ‘em?
Attila Girl, maybe I wasn’t as clear as I could be. There are so-called “functioning alcoholics” in the workforce. When a person is an alcoholic they are little different than a drug addict. The life revolves around the drug alcohol. This is not the same a sitting in a fine restaurant and enjoying a nice Chablis with dinner. The alcoholic will drink anything for the high.
Darleen – All this bad shit you bring up is happening while drugs are illegal. It just isn’t working. At what point do you give up on a plan of action that just makes things worse?
Legalize hard drugs and it will get worse. Guaranteed. Mostly because this
society has drifted into the “if its legal it must be ok and fuck you to
tell me otherwise” kind of baseline morality.
Right. And that would be the explanation for why everyone smokes cigarettes, and everyone drinks to excess. It’s legal, so why not?
Funny how that’s not the case, isn’t it?
You cannot “guarantee” something like that in the absence of evidence that it would be so.
I’m not necessarily in favor of legalizing meth and crack and the like. But I can certainly see the merit in the argument that making these substances safer (as in more chemically pure), legal, and available through legally sanctioned but strictly regulated outlets, would go a long way toward reducing the harms that you cite. (Plus I think a lot more people would stay away from that crap if pot were legal and abundant.)
It’s the idea that some people see it as a *good thing* that millions of sovereign American citizens are being closely monitored in court supervised programs that gives me the heebies.
Turing word: perform. The drug war has not performed up to expectations. Time to try something different.
Guess what? Everyday someone boosts stuff from your local Target, someone else punches the ignition on a car and drives away, and yet someone else steals checks from a mailbox and starts passing them.
Wow. I guess stealing keeps going on even though it’s illegal. Using the logic above, time to declare laws against it as failures and try something else.
Those are crimes against other people’s property. Last time I checked, my body was still my own property, to take care of or neglect as I chose.
Though I am aware that the nanny-staters would love for the government to take even that away.
I’m afraid I find the anecdotes about how “many” people are handling illegal drugs just fine and like adults more than a little … incredulous.
In my time practicing law, I’ve seen the many varied scenarios in which such peoples’ supposedly together lives fly off the rim in shreds like a truck tire on the shoulder of the road.
I don’t buy it.
Darleen,
1) the “being mugged by a wino” example was meant to point you to the fact that illegal drugs bring secondary crimes into the picture. So drunk driving is not a counter-example, because it’s part of the original problem, rather than a secondary problem resulting from the expensiveness of street drugs. B Moe was trying to point out that if street drugs were not illegal, they would not bring with them a whole raft of other criminal activities that people embark on to support their habits.
The person who said this was *not* trying to make alcohol sound harmless.
2) If the government itself is MAKING money by supplying drugs, just what incentive to getting people off ‘em?
The idea of the government supplying drugs to addicts is usually proposed with the hard, dangerous drugs (heroin, crack, meth), and is not generally brought up as a money-making opportunity. The notion is that drugs would either be regulated for purity/strength, or they would be sold at cost to keep the junkies from also becoming (other types of) criminals.
3) As far as incentives are concerned, I think there are people who are very anxious about the notion that at present asset-forfeiture laws create plenty of incentive for corrupt local officials to “find” drugs on just about anyone’s property. If they plant weed in my backyard, they get my house. Do you see how this aspect of the War on Drugs appears very dangerous?
4) I think another problem here is that people see the story of Prohibition as a cautionary tale. They wonder whether perhaps we’re making things worse instead of better, just like we did in the 20s.
5) Your use of the stealing analogy leads me to believe you feel that the government needs to make a “statement” by continuing to make drugs illegal. But private property is a fundamental right, and not-stealing is a deep part of the Judeo-Christian code: it’s in the Ten Commandments. I don’t think your analogy holds.
6) If there are “functioning alcoholics” in the workforce, don’t you think there might be functioning potheads as well? As for the drugs/glass of wine analogy, I do know people who will have tiny amounts of dope now and then–not to get stoned per se, but to relax a little, just like I’m doing when I have a bloody Mary on an airplane.
I just have some grave concerns over whether we as a society are drawing the line in a logical place, and whether we are meeting any of our objectives (presumably fewer people on drugs of any kind, and/or zero people on hard drugs, and/or less street crime because of hard drugs).
[turing: “effect.” ‘Nuff said.]
Robin, are you talking about pot, or harder stuff? And, again–alcoholics’ lives sometimes unravel in pretty dramatic fashion, too.
Running through this thread—and the other posts involved—I keep seeing the “I’ve seen ruined lives” meme.
And, yet, as these lives were ruined, nothing was done.
Somehow, I suspect that nothing was done because the alternative was to call the cops and get someone busted—and, Libertarian or no—we all know that involving the government generally makes things worse. (Actually, there’s near uniformity that getting the government involved in acute conditions is bad, but some diversity of opinion on involvement with chronic conditions).
So we see the various, “I’ve seen ruined lives” because neither the speaker, nor anyone else who knew, wanted to call the cops. How can this be an argument against legalization? If calling the cops was such a bad idea that you did nothing, wouldn’t another alternative presumably be better?
To answer Bill’s question from hours ago…
Nope, that didn’t bother me either, because he was ranting, which is a thing that happens on blogs (as you know). I just didn’t take it that literally. I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure, based on having read his site many times before, that he wouldn’t really just go beat the shit out of the guy, or wish a horrible death on everyone who uses drugs.
Nope, that didn’t bother me either, because he was ranting, which is a thing that happens on blogs (as you know). I just didn’t take it that literally.
Oh, he was just ranting. Well, ok then.
I’m sorry Beth, pissy blogger “ranting” does not forgive all discourse. I have to wonder why those defending Harrell aren’t quite as forgiving with the daily Kos.
You people are missing my point: we cooked meth in my frat house in college. We used it to stay awake studying for finals.
Nobody got hooked.
Nobody went nuts.
Nobody abused their family.
So nobody went to jail.
Nobody needed a lawyer.
Nobody made the news.
In other words nobody heard about it.
I have also used meth to stay awake on construction jobs when I was trying to be a musician at night and work all day. See above for results. I finally decided sleep was better.
I call that learning from others’ experiences (mistakes or not). But I agree that…
We really need to legalize this tomorrow so we can start to see the reduction in highway deaths, healthcare costs and juvenile users.
While we’re at it let’s do away with the precription system altogether, right?
Go to the doctor and he tells you his recommendation of what you need to go pick off the shelf of your local WalMart.
No need for pharmisists controlling access to medications because as someone who can assess the dangers of every controlled substance, I should be able to determine myself what chemicals I can ingest.
When these chemicals are leaglized I’m sure there will be a rush of people headed to their doctors asking, “Hey doc, I’m planning on shooting heroin into my penis tomorrow for the first time, can you do a complete physical workup to make sure I’m in no danger and reccomend the proper numbers of CCs I need to inject to get a really good high.”
nanny stater? Me?? Cat, I’d like to bitchslap you and I’m NOT ranting. And f*ck the “my body” snivel…keerist, what a 7th grader excuse. You live within a family/community/state/nation, not on a desert island and that makes what YOU do when it effects others making it their business. When you’ve been tweeking for 48 hrs straight and your preschoolers wander out the front door to play on the railroad tracks and get killed then its MY business.
Atilla Girl
You’re one of the few with reasoned arguments about alternatives without the risible “logic” of “if the law is not working GET RID OF THE LAW”
I’ve been posting specifically about meth NOT pot, or hallucinegens. I would like a good hard look at rationally rescheduling some of these drugs. Pot is NOT meth by any means. Crack is not the same as powder cocaine. Addiction is a BRAIN thing.
But far be it for me to put words in Jeff Harrell’s mouth, but he has posited before that once a person is addicted, their freedom of choice has been taken away. THAT is what he rails about vis a vis drugs. Not as a “nanny stater” but as the ultimate proponent of individual FREEDOM.
You live within a family/community/state/nation….
…with a bunch of people who are unable to tell those four things apart.
The thing I really HATE about my side of the legal question (I want to stop the wasteful war on drugs) is they (Bill in particular)start looking like a bunch of potheads trying to make their drug habit cheaper. Now I don’t know, don’t care if Bill does drugs or not. But once he started to get into his stupid bitch fight about what is worse I just got angry.
Then how about this, let’s criminalize tobacco, booze and caffiene? Make a federal department of bad things you shouldn’t do to your body adn outlaw them. Didn’t think you would like that suggestion.
Fact is, there are enough voting druggies to change the law, so you need to change the mind of the non-users, and Bill you just aren’t doing it, thanks for nothing.
Getting a little emotional, are we?
I’ve always said that “it’s for the children” could be used to excuse just about any statist intrusive measures taken.
But you were making a false comparison between stealing from Target and toking on a joint. If some additional crime is committed after toking (or whatever), then that crime should be the issue, not the joint. For example, drinking is ok. Driving drunk and causing an accident is not. Having a sixpack of beer is ok. Beating your wife while drunk on your sixpack is not ok. Having a couple of glasses of wine is ok. Drinking an entire bottle, plus a half-dozen mixed drinks so you’re too hung over to get up and take care of your preschoolers who wander out the front door to play on the railroad tracks and get killed is not ok. See?
You seem to be conflating drug use with other crimes that may or may not be committed while using the drug. Those crimes are the problem. But it takes a nanny-stater to jump in and restrict other people’s freedoms who are *not* committing crimes.
How soon before Big Mac’s are contraband because they contribute to the overall increased healthcosts of the family/community/state/nation? People eat them, and then they get FAT! And then they can’t take proper care of themselves or their children, and then we all pay!
It’s the *same* train of logic, however absurd it may sound. But that’s my point.
Yes, but I didn’t have to. No government legislation was involved.
EVERYTHING NOT MANDITORY IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN
If I were a news or blogging junkie and, through inattention allowed my kid to wander out and be killed on the traintracks, would you advocate the banning of news or blogging?
DDavis —
I don’t follow your logic. Legalizing doesn’t mean we can’t put restrictions on age. Similarly, legalization would actually focus regulatory agencies on the composition (in terms of purity, etc.) of the substance.
As someone else pointed out, making the leap from legalization to the assumption that such would lead to widescale misuse and societal ruin ignores the fact that no such thing has not happened with other legalized mind-altering substances, like alcohol or model glue, or aerosal dessert sprays.
Not to mention in countries where it’s already quasi-legal to smoke grass.
The thing I really HATE about my side of the legal question (I want to stop the wasteful war on drugs) is they (Bill in particular)start looking like a bunch of potheads trying to make their drug habit cheaper. Now I don’t know, don’t care if Bill does drugs or not. But once he started to get into his stupid bitch fight about what is worse I just got angry.
…
Fact is, there are enough voting druggies to change the law, so you need to change the mind of the non-users, and Bill you just aren’t doing it, thanks for nothing.
I don’t DO drugs.
Always hated pot, couldn’t stand it.
You idiot.
Jeff G.,
What real effect does an age retiction have? How well has the age restriction worked for booze and tobacco?
In fact we have an age restriction right now on drugs. No one of any age is allow to use them. How well has that worked?
Fact is lowering the age limit on drugs will increase the use. Period. And all the ills that go along with it will increase as well.
And I’m making the argument that legailization will lead to the downfall of the U.S. or the human race. I’m saying legalization would not lead to a net benefit of society in the U.S.
Healthcare costs go up more, more people killed on the highways, more use from juveniles.
Ooops, I meant to say, “I’m NOT making the argument…”
Huh?
Net benefit of society? Since when did we become a socialist country? We’re about individual liberty here. And so long as I don’t hurt you, what business is it of yours what I put into my body? Again, as others have pointed out, if it’s health costs you’re worried about, ban Playstation and Big Macs. Ban cigarettes and automobiles that go over 65 MPH.
And besides, we’re spending billions upon billions of dollars now making criminals out of recreational drug users, and to do what? Prevent having to spend money on health care?
How absurd. If we’re going to spend the money anyway, why not err on the side of freedom and personal responsibility, and on the side of controlling state power?
Darleen – Glad my suggestion about getting rid of laws that don’t work was “risible.” Was the 21st amendment risible? All the laws you claim also aren’t working at least don’t cause more problems than they solve. Making it illegal for adults to consume substances for their own amusement illegal creates a black market for that substance that leads to corruption, violence, unsafe product, and innumerable other negative ancilary effects.
The only argument you have against making meth legal is that addiction to it ruins lives, and if it’s legal more people will try it, become addicted, and have their lives ruined. But we simply don’t know if that’s true! Find me a study that shows that alcoholism went up significantly after repeal of prohibition, and maybe I’ll start listening to you. I just don’t buy it that everyone’s going to run out and try meth when it’s legal. I’m certainly not going to. Are you?
Robin – This is the problem with anecdotes. You think everyone on drugs eventually ruins their life. But you’re a lawyer, so I assume that your clients are generally people who’s lives aren’t going well. The population of drug users you see is therefore only those who ruined their lives.
The drug users who are doing fine are generally not going to need a lawyer, and if they do, I doubt their going to just advertise their illegal activities unless its pertinent.
I’m speculating wildly about your practice and experience here, you could be a trademark attorney for all I know, so please tell me to shut up if I’m off base.
How well has the age restriction worked for booze and tobacco?
Better than the one on pot. Recent surveys of teens find that weed is significantly easier to obtain than alcohol.
Why? Because there are legal channels for booze for those above the drinking age. As a result there is a much more limited illicit market. Kids have to steal it or bribe a responsible adult to buy it for them. That makes it a little tougher to obtain. Do you know of any street corners downtown where you can drive up and get the liquor or tobacco of your choice from some shady character hanging around?
Fact is lowering the age limit on drugs will increase the use. Period. And all the ills that go along with it will increase as well.
“Fact. Period.” Is this like Darleen’s “guarantee”? Sorry, I don’t buy that as a fact. It is a hypothesis. We do have history as a guide though. When Prohibition was reversed there was, in fact, a net benefit to society. And the world did not come to an end.
DDavis:
“Fact is lowering the age limit on drugs will increase the use. Period.”
And you of course have imperical data and evidence to back that assertion up.
Bill, I said I didn’t know if you did or didn’t. But way to make allies. Maybe I should just drop this as an issue and let the war on drugs go on, why should I care?
Desert Cat is right, history is our best guide, and Prohibition was an outright failure. I told Darleen that if she could prove that Prohibition lowered alcoholism and alcohol related deaths I might be swayed, then I decided to just go look for myself.
“An examination of death rates does reveal a dramatic drop in deaths due to alcoholism and cirrhosis, but the drop occurred during World War I, before enforcement of Prohibition. The death rate from alcoholism bottomed out just before the enforcement of Prohibition and then returned to pre-World War I levels. That was probably the result of increased consumption during Prohibition and the consumption of more potent and poisonous alcoholic beverages. The death rate from alcoholism and cirrhosis also declined rather dramatically in Denmark, Ireland, and Great Britain during World War I, but rates in those countries continued to fall during the 1920s (in the absence of prohibition) when rates in the United States were either rising or stable.”
From a CATO paper. You can dismiss it, I know those CATO guys are probably just extreme lefty freedom junkies, but I don’t think you should. Prohibition was a failure at every level, not just the ancillary effects of an illicit market. The similarities to our current war on drugs are too striking to ignore.
Actually my solution to health care costs is to ban government financed health payments. I mean we’re not a socialist country, right?
If I want health insurance I’ll pay for it for myself but I don’t want one single cent of my tax dollars going to Medicare or Medicaid. That way if you do so much crack that you need hospitalization and can’t afford it, good then, screw you it was your personal choice.
So, if you can point me to a road-side test a trooper can give to see if your too high to drive under some sort of defined legal standard and can gaurntee me that my cash doesn’t go to pay for others drug related medical bills then sign me up for legalization.
To all those that said “Prove that usage would go up if drugs were legalized”, come one, get real.
That’s plain stupid, seriously I mean stupid.
You are going to lower the cost, make it easily available, de-stigmatize it and quality control it and you actually make the argument there is a chance usage would stay the same or go down? Give me a frig’en break.
I don’t think anyone is claiming usage won’t go up. I said it won’t go up significantly. Certainly not enough to outweigh the benefits of legalization.
Acohol usage barely went down during prohibition, and again barely rose after repeal, when it suddenly cost less, was more easily available, destigmatized, and higher quality. Call people names all you want, we’ve got the history on our side.
I find it heartening that the pro-drug war types are getting so shrill and emotional. I think they’re getting desperate and realize they lose the argument when it’s based on facts and logical rationalization. Perhaps we’re nearing a breakthrough on legalization.
Ironically, during prohibition, marijuana cigarettes were very popular, and were often passed out for free in speak easies when alcohol was unavailable.
I think the point some of us were trying to make is that pot will be less readily available if it’s regulated. Now, anyone can get it irrespective of his/her age.
Ironically, during prohibition, marijuana cigarettes were very popular, and were often passed out for free in speak easies when alcohol was unavailable.
Substitution. Which very likely explains the cocaine “epidemic” after the crackdown on marijuana in the late 70’s and 80’s, and the meth “epidemic” of recent years. Anyone who has taken Economics 101 understands how substitution occurs in the marketplace. And it is also a good part of the reason why drug prices don’t seem to change much over the long run.
Of course the problem is, the drugs being substituted have gotten progressively more dangerous.
Attila
I see not a darned thing wrong with decriminalization or regulation of pot. I have never argued differently.
But the Tierney crap and some of the other stuff in the comments seems to indicate a “heigh ho, drug laws got to go” attitude. Cat seems to have a reading comp problem because I never equated petty theft to meth, but used it to illustrate the risible “logic” of the “let’s legalize all drugs because the laws a’gin ‘em don’t work!” just as laws against petty theft “don’t work” either..there’s always someone still trying it.
When someone’s behavior egregiously affects the well-being of another, we look to the law to “make whole.” The drug problem of this country is NOT an either/or position. It’s not one of criminalize everything or legalize everything but to realistically, rationally look at drugs and find a balanced approach that while providing for people’s individual freedoms to be stupid, also provides safety mechanisms to others who may be affected by such stupidities.
Caffeine, pot, nicotine and the active ingredient in chocolate are all drugs that have fairly mild effects on people. They are not the same as meth or crack. Let’s quite conflating them all. It’s back to the cost/benefit thing as we do with all legislation.
An addict in the middle of their addiction is not free to make choices. The drug makes their choices. And many times it is others that pay the price. I just wish the “let’s legalize” crowd would acknowlege the price of what they propose.
Darleen – You argue that we can’t get rid of drug laws just because they don’t work by comparing drug laws to laws against property crimes, but you never acknowledge that the two sets of laws fail to work in very different ways. Laws against petty theft don’t create a black market for petty theft. They don’t make petty theft more dangerous for innocent bystanders. They don’t even make petty theft more dangerous for theives. It’s not a good metaphor.
Then you argue that addicts can’t control their actions. That’s not relevant at all. We currently have addicts who can’t control their actions. After legalization we’d have addicts who can’t control their actions. You assume that we’d have many more addicts after legalization, but that’s just an assumption based on nothing other than your feeling that, “this society has drifted into [a] kind of baseline morality.” It didn’t happen when Prohibition was repealed, it won’t happen when their is widespread drug legalization.
You’re arguing from personal experience, anecdote, and emotion while ignoring historical fact.
Geez Matt
I’m SO impressed that you think my call for RANKING drugs and revisiting laws based on cost/benefit is a call for THE DRUG CZAR STORMTROOPERS TO KICK DOWN YOUR DOOR AND PRY THE CUP OF COFFEE FROM YOU HANDS.
Why don’t you show me all those great, productive and well adjusted tweekers, eh?
Why don’t you show me all those great, productive and well adjusted tweekers, eh?
How can he? Those people are by definition lawbreakers. So the ones who are great, productive, and well adjusted tweekers don’t like to advertise the fact.
Darleen – I’m arguing respectfully, you keep mistating everything I say and screaming at me.
I’ve said nothing about coffee, drug czars, stormtroopers, I’m not trying to impress (just convince), and I’m not basing my argument on our right to freedom (although that right is very real and important). Society would gain a net benefit from full legalization. Everything we know from history and economics makes this evident. Your only argument is that legalization of meth would create a great mob of violent, child abusing tweekers who don’t currently exist. You’re just plain wrong.
So keep screaming, keep misrepresenting your opponents, keep not responding to logical questions, and keep losing these arguments.
Jeez….this topic is so depressing I’m gonna roll a fat one and get a shot of tequila-then I’m going to put the top down on the Corvette, take a drive and see if I can do some serious damage.
The fact is…after smokin’ pot for over 30 years the biggest problem that I have personally observed is the munchies ,and….oh never mind-I forgot what I was going to say.
I’ve seen plenty of people turn into total spastics due to everything from 3% beer to speedballs. But I know a bunch of recreational coke users, and to the most part they’ve got it under control (given that coke costs about $8 a gramâ€â€no shitâ€â€where I live, that must mean something). As for pot, it’s just like beer. Get stoned all the time and you’re going to have lifestyle issues, just like if you turn up to work every morning still smashed from last night’s binge. I don’t do pot, or any other illicit drug, but that just ‘cos a) I don’t like inhaling smoke and b) I find I can get effects I’m looking for with alcohol c) stoners are, if anything, more boring to be around than sloppy drunks d) I am somewhat chary of the short-term memory effects.
And as per Jeff (Goldstein not Harrell), the particular handbasket in which people wish to travel to hell is NONE OF MY GODDAMN BUSINESS. If they try to steal my DVD player in order to feed their habit, I’ll cheerfully cut them in half with a load of single-aught buck, but other than that, it would take a breakthrough in electron microscopy to see the size of the shit that I give.
Actually my solution to health care costs is to ban government financed health payments. I mean we’re not a socialist country, right?
If I want health insurance I’ll pay for it for myself but I don’t want one single cent of my tax dollars going to Medicare or Medicaid. That way if you do so much crack that you need hospitalization and can’t afford it, good then, screw you it was your personal choice.
See *now* we’re having a converstion. That idea is pointed in the right direction. Or simply not covering treatment for conditions that are directly related to drug abuse. And if private insurers want to hike the rates for users sky high, and make passing a drug test a condition for continuing at the “non-user” rate, I have no problem with that either. It puts it back in the realm of personal responsibility. And no reason employers shouldn’t continue mandating a “drug free workplace” via testing if they so choose. And sports associations, etc. etc.
To all those that said “Prove that usage would go up if drugs were legalizedâ€Â, come one, get real.
That’s plain stupid, seriously I mean stupid.
You are going to lower the cost, make it easily available, de-stigmatize it and quality control it and you actually make the argument there is a chance usage would stay the same or go down?
Certainly. Except for the de-stigmatization. No reason not to keep the heat on the stigma. I don’t think too many people who are seriously arguing for legalization are suggesting that it would happen in a vacuum. Pot usage might go up, at least temporarily. But as I asked above, does anyone really think there are tens of thousands of people waiting in the wings for meth to be legalized so they can go ruin their head?
Cigarettes are still legal. But smokers are far fewer now than they were twenty years ago. Why? Stigma. Education. Laws that don’t outlaw smoking, but push it out to the fringes. Social drinking has also declined. Witness the passing of the once-ubiquitous “three martini lunch”.
I don’t remotely have all the answers to what else would need to change *together with* whatever form legalization might take. Nor am I necessarily in favor of legalizing certain hard drugs as I stated previously in this thread, which Darleen (*ahem* reading comprehension *ahem*) apparently missed. But at least we can have a conversation about this topic, rather than just having one side try to shout down the other.
TW: “effort” Yeah, it’s an effort.
The drug problem of this country is NOT an either/or position. It’s not one of criminalize everything or legalize everything but to realistically, rationally look at drugs and find a balanced approach that while providing for people’s individual freedoms to be stupid, also provides safety mechanisms to others who may be affected by such stupidities.
Perhaps it would surprise you to hear that, taken alone, I agree with this particular statement of yours. It is likely in the details that we find disagreement. That’s why the conversation is worthwhile.
Matt, you said…
“Acohol usage barely went down during prohibition, and again barely rose after repeal, when it suddenly cost less, was more easily available, destigmatized, and higher quality. Call people names all you want, we’ve got the history on our side.”
Right, history is on your side for alcohol but you cannot coorelate the usage trends of alcohol before, during and after prohibition to what would happen to usage if drugs were legalized.
So rather than use the closest historical parallel we’ve got as a guide we’re just going to go with whatever gut feeling you and Darleen have?
Alcohol is an addictive drug that was once illegal. We’re arguing about addictive drugs that are right now illegal. You’re seriously saying that the two don’t coorelate?!
Imagine everyone currently in prison for using pot *in such a way as to end up in prison* was released tomorow. Would this have a net positive or negative effect on society? How would the next election go?
Why would we release everyone in prison? They broke the law as it was at the time.
I’d love to spend some of the money we spend feeding drug users on a few other things I think are important. Like, I dunno: protecting our ports and catching murderers.
How would the next election go?
Are you freakin’ serious, here? You’re recommending that we keep people locked up so they won’t vote?
That’s exactly what I’m saying.
The usage history of a totally socially acceptable drug (alcohol) that was (mostly) legal up until 1920 then made illegal for about 13 years then made legal again cannot be extrapolated to predict the usage patterns of drugs that have been illegal for as long as anyone has a personal memory and are of dubious social acceptibility.
Again once dugs are de-stigmatized, quality controlled and cheap usage will go up.
And the argument that cigarettes are stigmatized doesn’t hold water. They are stigmatized in as much as they stink and people don’t want to be exposed to the stink in public. The stigmatization is attached to public consumption. So the only stigmatization that would be attached to drugs are people will demand pot and heroin free restaurants sports stadiums.