Drug legalization trial-run

[tyme]

Who would object to a 5-year suspension of drug laws?

Until we do that, we can only speculate about the effects of drug legalization. Speculation is a bad basis for public policy, but the default public policy regarding ownership and use of anything should be to keep it legal. Right now we don't know the consequences of that default policy.

We shouldn't ban things when we don't know if the ban does any good. Drug laws have been passed based on anecdotes and hysteria, with little consideration of facts and historical evidence. The drug war is taking an enormous monetary and social toll on America, and yet we continue fighting it without a clear understanding of the alternative. We're conducting the drug war with no peacetime frame of reference.

Even if drug legalization turns out to be substantially worse than the status quo, we can re-ban only the problematic drugs -- with an amendment, hopefully -- and most of the pro- and anti-legalization interest groups will then shut up. Everyone wins.

 

[Cowled_Wolfe]

It sounds like it'd be an interesting experiment. Even though I'm personally against drugs, I'd give a five-year suspention a try because it might at least move more growing operations out of Columbia and into the US, plus it would likely lower prices... Both of which mean fewer dollars going to shady cartels and organizations.

Cheers,
Wolfe... (Smoking is for jerky. )

 

[Odd-Job]

That would be an interesting experiment.A drug cop told me one time,"most drug users left unchecked usually end up dead,either from drug use or something related and the same for dealers".

 

[pipoman]

I think it would be more plausable to decriminalize/legalize in one state, say Nevada, then study the results. This of coarse is out of the question because of federal drug laws stripping the states of the ability to legislate for themselves. We may need to study the effects of legalization in Mexico...a few months ago I read a story about a proposal to allow small quanities in Mexico.

 

[Marko Kloos]

People tend to ignore the results of similar experiments in other countries when those results do not conform with expectations.

The Netherlands have legalized soft drugs a long time ago, and the overall experience has been very positive, but if you're dead set against legalization, you can always claim that it wouldn't work here because they're a different society. Conversely, if there were examples of legalization gone bad, the same folks would waste no time pointing it out and saying, "See? Legalization doesn't work."

It's a shame that the same people who rightfully criticize such arguments from gun grabbers can turn around and adopt those same arguments when it comes to drugs.

 

[Redworm]

As much as I'm against Prohibition II (for sheer principle in addition to it being the cause of many civil liberties disappearing) I think this would not be a wise idea. A five year suspension of marijuana laws would be understandable but all drugs? Any major pharmaceutical company would be hard pressed to get a safe, reliable substitute for many of the narcotics and other hard drugs in question within five years.

Start with marijuana, go from there. Not sure five years would be nearly enough, however.

 

[Jamie Young]

Who would object to a 5-year suspension of drug laws?

I think this should be done with marijuana.

I still think there is a difference between growing marijuana and having a meth lab, so I wouldn't suspend ALL restrictions on drug use.


Does anyone have statistics on which drug/drugs are the highest offenders?

 

[Robert J McElwain]

This would not be an experiment. Canada, Great Britain and several other European countries are quietly doing variations of this now. Obviously, our vaunted administration in DC is not happy about it, but it sure beats continuing our present blind course.

Bob

 

[Marko Kloos]

I used to think it was a blind course, but I am not so sure anymore. I think the people pushing for the WoD know exactly what they are doing. There are too many livelihoods and too many taxpayer dollars at stake. The WoD is big business, it's a near-universal adapter for expansion of government power, and it gives the politicos a chance to cloak all this in the mantle of righteousness. With all these factors combined, we'll still be fighting the WoD in fifty years, and our civil rights will keep taking it in the pants.

 

[Jamie Young]

Has it ever occured to anyone, that the reason we WON'T close the borders is because we might actually stop the drug flow into this Country? We'd atleast severely disrupt it.

 

[Ausserordeutlich]

I'm of the opinion that the only people REALLY interested in legalizing drugs are drug users.

 

[silicon wolverine]

Actually no. If we legalized drugs, TAXED and regulated thier use, think about how much revenue we could generate simply from that. Saying that only users are interested is a blatant sterotype. Im for legalization of soft drugs and ive never touched the stuff.

SW

 

[Robert J McElwain]

......and it gives the politicos a chance to cloak all this in the mantle of righteousness. With all these factors combined, we'll still be fighting the WoD in fifty years, and our civil rights will keep taking it in the pants....

Exactly. And we've already been fighting it for several decades under various campaign titles. We're spending a fortune in tax dollars and we're losing the war.

Bob

 

[Robert J McElwain]

I'm of the opinion that the only people REALLY interested in legalizing drugs are drug users.

I'm 65 years old and I've never used an illegal drug in my life, and don't intend to. I want the drugs legalized and taxed like hell rather than pi$$ing my tax dollars away keeping some kid who smoked a joint in jail.

Bob

 

[dev_null]

Two main factors here, IMHO: money and emotion. Money in terms of the sheer number of people who would have to find other employment; emotion when some politician's kid ODs and the politico goes on a crusade.

Personally, I'm against all laws on "victimless crimes."

For an interesting take on all this, read Peter McWilliams, "Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do."

 

[mthalo]

A five year suspension of marijuana laws would be understandable but all drugs?

I'm both in favor of marijauna legalization, and the legalization (with some controls) of most other drugs.

It's a little know fact that heroin is one of the safest substances in terms of physical damage to the body. The fact that heroin addicts are in such bad shape is more a result of its illegal status. Impure product of unknown strength, dirty needles, malnutrition and the like are the primary reasons for the physical destruction it causes. Legalization might even save some of them. Doctors in the U.K. can prescribe it in order to maintain an addiction, allowing some addicts the chance to live a relatively normal life.

I've known several hard core drug addicts over the years, some are now dead, some are now clean. None of them were ever deterred by the fact that drugs are illegal.

 

[dfaugh]

After many years of "waffling" on this issue, I have to say I lean towards the legalization of most/many drugs. Besides saving a fortune (in taxpayer money) for the WoD, they could tax them just as they do alcohol and tobacco (which are really as much "drugs" as many of the illegal substances). Save us "non-users" a few bucks in taxes. They'd be safer (and probably cheaper, even with the tax), and would solve some of the attendant health problems (like the spread of AIDS from dirty needles). We've spent YEARS trying to stop people from using these drugs, and I can't see that there has been ANY progress. Supply and Demand. If people WANT to use these drugs, they will. We've actually just supported alot of criminal activity, by making them illegal.

 

[johnsonrlp]

This of coarse is out of the question because of federal drug laws stripping the states of the ability to legislate for themselves.

^Bad, bad precedent.

I'm of the opinion that the only people REALLY interested in legalizing drugs are drug users.

Sure That aplies to everything of course. Only women want women to vote Only alcoholics wanted the first prohibition to end

I'm of the opinion that anyone should be able to do what ever they want until they hurt somebody else. And victimless crimes have a victim, the guy who doesn't hurt anybody and gets thrown in jail, and the public who pays to keep him there.

 

[Renfield]

I'm of the opinion that the only people REALLY interested in legalizing drugs are drug users

I don't use drugs but I remember that the 1989 assault rifle ban was passed with the help of the war on drugs..Geo.H Bush said the drug dealers were better armed than our police. Remember ? the 1994 Crime Law was passed in large part because of the war on drugs too

if you don't see the correlation I feel sorry for you

 

[Eghad]

I'm of the opinion that the only people REALLY interested in legalizing drugs are drug users.

nada... only drink a beer every month or two and no illegal drugs

We need to look at the decriminalization of marijuana and take a good look at the war on drugs. Gangs and drug cartels are making a fortune. As long as there is $$$ in drugs you will have these vermin selling it. Drugs are like a currency to make a lot of $$$ quickly. All we have to do is look at the history of prohibition and see who profitted from it.