War on Drugs

[DagoMaino]

--I don't think anyone should go to war sober.. dadum tssh..

I'm curious to know your thoughts on this interview. Outside of the stereotypical musician, "I wanna smoke, whatever"... Do you think this guy's logic sound?

Any insight into how legalization has affected Colorado and Washington now that we are almost a year into it?

An old interview but interesting nontheless...

Invalid Link Removed

Thoughts?

 

[DagoMaino]

How do you see the responsibility of family/community vs. prison/judicial system?

 

[jmattbassplaya]

Sounds good to me.

 

[Gorn]

This is a complicated subject and there's no easy solutions.

But, the plain and simple truth is that deeming a substance illegal doesn't prevent people from doing it. It never has and it never will.

 

[BassChuck]

He makes some great points. The first time I listened I thought, 'well here's a police officer who just wants to make his job easier'. But the whole argument makes sense... and who wants to make life harder for police officers?

 

[spade2you]

He makes some great points. The first time I listened I thought, 'well here's a police officer who just wants to make his job easier'. But the whole argument makes sense... and who wants to make life harder for police officers?

TB is generally very anti-law enforcement. How convenient that we now want to make their lives easier.

 

[fishtx]

dope is for dopes...

 

[Gorn]

Dopes who do dope were dopes to begin with.

 

[skychief]

-
I'm curious to know your thoughts on this interview. Outside of the stereotypical musician, "I wanna smoke, whatever"... Do you think this guy's logic sound?

I think to summarize/condense the 15 minute-long interview into 3 words, it would be;

Prohibition Doesn't Work.

This is not a novel idea. The thing thats unusual with this interview is its coming from the mouth of a retired Police captain.

Eventually, the states will form their own laws regarding drug usage. The Federal Laws will be dropped or not enforced. And eventually, the Feds will wise up and recognise the potential for tax revenues and jobs from the sale/trade of legalised drugs.

The question is how long will it take for this to happen.

 

[DagoMaino]

I know that my experience may be a minority, but the things that I have tried were all done in a thoughtful, responsible way in a controlled environment... alcohol aside (which is probably the most dangerous of the chemicals that I have tried).

My perspective will probably always be that irresponsible people will do irresponsible things irresponsibly... and the fact that it is illegal is not deterring people from doing it. I know more people that don't partake because of a job or a relationship than because it is illegal.

It certainly seems like a valid way to shift money into health education and away from a judicial system that is pretty broken.

Some may argue that it will be expensive to regulate, but I must say that the mark up on marijuana is pretty high (pun) that if dealers can make it profitable with many workarounds to not getting caught then our state governments should at least break even with legitimate methods (not our federal, cause nothing is so profitable that our federal government couldn't find a way to fail).

Many people that I have talked to would rather buy their pot for a 20% higher price legally. Pot is pretty cheap for most responsible people with jobs... much cheaper than alcohol (cause responsible people aren't downing a liter of Taaka every night). There should be some room for some pretty good education revenue for the state.

 

[socialleper]

My observation is that if a product is in high enough demand and affordable enough, no amount of legal penalties will prevent its sale or use. The legal dangers of buying pot and heroine are pretty much the same, since they are in the same classification of drugs, but marijuana is more commonly used, not because of fears of increased legal repercussions, but its viewed to be a "harder" drug. When alcohol was illegal in the 1920 it was still extremely easy to make, sell and drink even though it was a violation of federal law. Prohibition did little more than make criminals out of people that were fine the day before it started, and the day after it ended.
By the same token, prostitution is illegal in most countries, but has survived for thousands of years despite legal and societal hurdles. Its always been frowned upon, and yet always present.
The truth is that there are going to be people that do something, and people that aren't, regardless of how illegal it is. Therefore only a fool would think that laws actually prevent behaviors like these, when in fact these sort of laws are merely punitive fines or punishments for the violation of the social norms held dear by the portion of a society that writes laws. There is no moral argument since it is a victimless crime.
At this point, I think anyone would have a hard time making the argument that the economic costs to enforce current drug laws are less than the costs from not having those laws, seeing how as most people that are going to do drugs are doing them anyway.

 

[stevetx19]

interesting stat he throws out there about the homicide rate during prohibition; i'm not going to do the research, but i'd be curious to compare the homicide rates during prohibition to the drunk driving/vehicular manslaughter rates during non-prohibition times.

I think enforcing drug laws is more of a drain on society than some drugs - i'd be ok with legalizing anything that grows naturally.
Meth and/or other hard drugs? I've yet to hear a convincing argument that legalizing it would produce a situation any better than what we have now.

 

[DagoMaino]

"Regulating" meth and heroine to publicly safe levels would by pretty much require them to remain outlawed. Some chemicals are ONLY dangerous... others are dangerous only when they are abused. People typically don't abuse chemicals unless they are willing to abuse themselves.

If people are willing to abuse themselves then nothing is going to stop them until they find a way to deal with the root of the problem (ie. self-loathing, lack of self-efficacy, depression...) If they were not drugging themselves to death they would likely be doing something else destructive (food, alcohol, violence)... Self destruction cannot be policed.

 

[bassinplace]

^ But it can be taxed and regulated. Along with prostitiution. Why not create some revenue while reducing crime and expenditures? Makes sense to me. People are going to do this stuff regardless.

 

[Bloodhammer]

 

[Bassist4Eris]

The bottom line for me is the concept of bodily autonomy. You own your own body. If you don't have that, you don't have the most basic of freedoms. Whether or not the drug war is winnable or not is, to me, irrelevant.

If you live in a society that tells you what you can and cannot do with your own body, you do not live in a free society.

If you believe the government should have the right to make these decisions for you, you do not want to live in a free society.

Me, I want to live in a free society. Maybe someday I will, but I doubt it. Too many people around me are scared of such a concept.

 

[michael_atw]

^ But it can be taxed and regulated. Along with prostitiution. Why not create some revenue while reducing crime and expenditures? Makes sense to me. People are going to do this stuff regardless.

Like hits, for example. Wanna put a hit out on your wife? Pay a tax to the government and do as you please.

Less crime, since it's no longer illegal.

 

[MatticusMania]

I see the strawman cometh.

 

[michael_atw]

If you live in a society that tells you what you can and cannot do with your own body, you do not live in a free society.

If you believe the government should have the right to make these decisions for you, you do not want to live in a free society.

Me, I want to live in a free society. Maybe someday I will, but I doubt it. Too many people around me are scared of such a concept.

Is your name Kirby? Because you live in a Dream Land.

 

[michael_atw]

The War on Drugs failed because of a myriad of reasons. It still fails.

It failed the people it attempted to protect - the families. Families have been destroyed by the millions because someone was imprisoned for years for smoking a plant.

It failed financially.

It was often based on racist reasons ('Reefer Madness', anyone? The crack epidemic in the 80's was another example) or had racial implications that were lopsided.

There really has been next to nothing beneficial from 30 years of it. And nowadays, private enterprises increasingly bar people with felonies from even being gainfully employed. A turned-around felon has a computer application tell him he can't even work at a convenience store because he smoked a plant.

However, once you get past some of the 'low-level' drugs, there is more gray area.

Someone above mentioned "natural" drugs. Opiates are natural. I don't want any opiates or opiate derivatives to be legal. My grandmother was driven off a cliff by doctors when she was pumped full of morphine.

Unfortunately, the topic is too political to discuss in depth on here.