« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Exposing The Myths Used To Support the Legalization of Marijuana

By: runner12 (Diary)  |  April 27th, 2011 at 11:57 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Let me begin by saying that here are many things that I can agree with (l)ibertarians on. I wholeheartedly support  shrinking and/or eliminating large government bureaucracies like the Department of Education and the EPA. I also support returning power to the states and limiting the ever-encroaching power of the Federal government. I would argue that many conservatives share much in common with the “small l” libertarians.

Where the water becomes muddy is when some Libertarians (large L) begin to spout off ideas that have little to do with conservatism or for that matter civilized government. The legalization of marijuana and/or other illegal drugs is one such idea. This idea can be quite a centerpiece of Libertarian thought for some people and results in them being largely ballyhooed as a “fringe” group. Those who support legalization frequently repeat the same misleading arguments over and over again to support their viewpoints on legalizing drugs. Below are several common myths used to support the legalization of marijuana and/or other illicit drugs and the some data and statistics that contradict them.

Myth #1: Countries like the Netherlands that have a more open approach to marijuana have less drug use than the United States. We should adopt their approach.

Fact: While it is true that the U.S. has an increased number of drug users than the Netherlands, it is a bit like comparing apples to oranges. Especially if you consider that one U.S. state called New York is both larger and more populous than the entire country of the Netherlands . Given the higher population of the U.S. compared to the Netherlands, it should not come to anyone’s surprise that the drug statistics will be higher.

I might also add that since the adoption of the a more liberal approach by the Netherlands, their heroine addiction rate has tripled. It is also questionable as to whether the Netherlands’ choice to classify marijuana as a “soft drug” is entirely based on solid reasoning. In 2008, 4.7 million out of 7 million people in the U.S. who were 12 years and older and classified as abusing and/or addicted to an illicit drug where marijuana users. In 2009, the leading drug of dependence and/or abuse in the U.S. among those 12 years and older was marijuana, ranked above cocaine and heroin (Figure 7.2). It appears that marijuana is not quite the “harmless” drug that some would like to think it is.

Myth # 2: Drug use does not hurt anyone else, only the person who uses it.

Fact: This is “sounds” like a good argument, but in reality is utterly false. According to The NSDUH (National Survey On Drug Use And Health) Report in 2005, adults who were arrested within the past year for serious crimes were more likely to have used an illicit drug in the past year than those who were not arrested for serious crimes (60.1 percent to 13.6). Of those who had been arrested for a serious crime, 46% had used marijuana within the past year, compared to the 10% who were not arrested for serious crimes (For more statistics on how marijuana specifically affects youth criminal behaviors go here).

Myth #4: Alcohol Is Worse Than Marijuana

Fact: Typically the argument from the pro-legalization crowd is that people are less impaired under the influence of marijuana when driving than when drunk. This is is only a half-truth. Marijuana use still causes significant impairment. The difference is in the way it impairs driving function. According to the above cited study, alcohol is more detrimental to complex tasks that require conscious control, while marijuana is more detrimental to highly automatic driving functions.

Another problem with this specific pro-legalization argument is that the “research” used to support their claim that marijuana does not impair driving fails to take into consideration the method used to measure the presence of marijuana. Their “research” often measures marijuana use by crashed drivers by looking for an inactive metabolite of THC in blood or urine that is present days after smoking marijuana and indicates that marijuana was used in the past. The surveys that directly measure TCH in the blood (that establish more recent use of the drug) indicates that individuals who use marijuana are 3-7 times more likely to have been responsible for their crash than drivers who do not use the drug.

Myth # 5: The War on Drugs is a complete failure and our approach needs a complete overhaul.

Fact: While there is always room for improvement in the War on Drugs, the above myth is not backed by any data. In fact, when you look at the data the War on Drugs appears to be successful for the most part. Over the last twenty years overall drug use has decreased in the United States by one-third. That is 9.5 million less people using drugs. Cocaine use has decrease by 70% over the last 15 years. While we still have significant drug problem in this country, we have made progress in the right direction.

Another criticism of the War on Drugs is that the focus is too much on the criminalization of drugs and not enough on the treatment aspect. The truth is that one-half of one percent of people who use marijuana are incarcerated. The Michigan Department of Corrections just finished a study that found only 15 out of the 7,000 inmates had been incarcerated for first time drug possession charges. The reality is that very few people are incarcerated for drug possession only.

There does need to be a more coordinated effort between the criminal justice system and treatment facilities, but it is not as if there are no attempts at treatment over incarceration. In fact, there are now drug treatment courts that handle drug addicted offenders and provide supervision and treatment. These special courts appear to be working. Those individuals who go through the programs only have a 2-20% chance of being a repeat offender compared to the 50% number of those who do not go through the program.

The cost of the War on Drugs is also used as an argument for legalization. While it does cost federal dollars to combat drugs in this country, the statistics that the pro-legalization crowd uses can be misleading. In 2004, the federal budget to combat drugs was 11.7 billion. Fifty-eight percent of the budget went to treatment, thirty-nine percent to prevention, and three percent to enforcement. If you compare that to the 160 billion dollars that drug abuse cost taxpayers in 2000 (it was likely higher in 2004), 11.7 billion is but a small amount to combat the problem.

Drug abuse is a serious problems in this country. We always need to be open to new ideas in the areas of education, prevention, and treatment. However, legalization of these destructive substances is not the road we need to go down in this country. Rather our goal should be to build upon the successes of the drug treatment courts and help people get the treatment they need, while continuing to protect the public from the associated crime drug use brings.

Tags:

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • aesthete

    To be frank, this is more a stream-of-consciousness rebuttal of various points made by pro-legalization persons selected at random, than a comprehensive look at the issue. It assumes that the WoD is costless, addresses none of the legal and Constitutional problems with the WoD and the means used to prosecute, and assumes a position that very few in the anti-WoD camp would hold (i.e., complete legalization of sale, ownership, and manufacture of currently illegal drugs with no regulation). Nevertheless, I will address some of the points made here.

    1) One data point says very little about causal and correlative relationships. (I’ll cut you some slack here since many anti-WoD folk are a little too willing to do the exact same thing.) I’ll also point out that Portugal, which has decriminalized all of its “hard” and “soft” drugs to a much greater extent than the Netherlands, has both one of the lowest drug usage rates in the EU and has had no change in trends since the implementation of this policy 9 years ago. I’ll not play dueling single data points, however, and get right to it: if your source (not linked) for claiming a tripling of the heroin addiction rate is Larry Collins, you should probably know that his stats and sources are highly suspect. Official estimates and those made by other orgs are much lower than Collins’ estimate. Worse, Collins’ estimates are entirely unsourced, and he hasn’t revealed where he got the data (if from anywhere at all). Essentially he has said, “I know it’s tripled: trust me” without providing any proof for his claims. Regardless, there is no physiological link between cannabis smoking and heroin use, and the correlation is statistically significant but also weak.

    2) It’s a factually true claim — drug use, in and of itself, hurts no one. The claim you are attempting to address is whether or not drug use contributes to crime in some fashion. The answer to this question is much too complex and ambiguous for a comment on a blog to give justice to it, but the answer is that a) it depends on the drug, and the crime in question, b) it depends on how the drug was used and with what frequency, and c) there is a lot of back and forth among the experts on this one. (I’m not just talking about the ones that are for-against the drug war, here; there is a good deal of discussion within both the pro- and anti- camps regarding this point.) I will note that correlation is hardly causation (stats 101), especially when you are talking about a plant that has been used by anywhere from a third to half of the population (marijuana). Clearly, of that third to half, only a small fraction commits crimes — and of that small fraction, I am certain that you could find plenty of much stronger correlations than +.5, if you wanted to. (I would expect a higher correlation for urban living and violent crime, alcohol use and violent crime, or playing basketball > 3 times a week and crime.)

    3) What Dio said.

    4) I don’t really have a problem with this one — it’s fairly obvious that many things, even simple tasks like talking to a friend, impair driving. I would be surprised if MJ and other drugs (pharmaceutical and illegal alike) did *not* impair it. I’ll point out that the vast majority of anti-WoD people and pols support laws similar to what we have for drunk driving for marijuana. (Also, the argument generally made is that alcohol is far more likely to be the aggravating factor in incidences of domestic abuse and violent crime, rather than MJ use. That is true, but misleading if you think that MJ = all drugs, which is untrue.)

    5) This reduction has nothing to do with the War on Drugs. Drug use against youth has increased the last 5 of 6 years; the rest is attributable to our older population and the general reduction in crime rates in the 90s. Drug use and the factors that lead to it require multivariate analysis, and those analyses that have been done in the US and the UK (the two countries with the most extreme policy on drugs) see no correlation between various points of escalation in the war on drugs (the 1987 “Drug-Free America Act, ) and a reduction in usage. In point of fact, the WoD has been going on since the 70s, and during that time there have been both upticks and downticks that seem to be related to other factors exogenous to federal drug policy. I will note that countries that are similar to ours (Canada, New Zealand, Australia) have similar statistics when adjusted for ethnicity, despite having much more lenient laws on the books than ours (and despite moving towards liberalizing their laws while we were toughening ours).

    • aesthete

      You’re one of my favorite people on RS, so it’s anything but. The issues I point out are not unique to your diary: it is common practice among supporters of the drug war, including those who should know better, to assert a cost or a counterfactual without proof, to not factor the costs of enforcement, opportunity costs, etc, to refuse to run proper multivariate analyses, to not engage in “best practices” when conducting regressions (admittedly, few drug warriors can be bothered to run regressions), to separate correlation from causation, etc. It’s just horrible logic all around, which makes sense given that support for the WoD was traditionally a progressive stance and part of the progressive movement in the early 20th century. (Prior to the federalization of the issue, states had their own policy which criminalized drug use to varying degrees; IIRC only 2 states had completely legal regimes while others had shades of decriminalization, criminalization and a clutch had militarization policies that foreshadowed to what we see today.)

      • runner12

        It is not personal at all. I am sorry I did not link the tripled statistic, but it was not from Larry Collins.

        Also, I have not looked thoroughly into Portugal’s policy, but I will now that you mentioned it..

        Also, would you mind citing some of the studies you claimed exist? I think it is always helpful to the conversation when people can follow links and do research on their own.

        Sorry about the missed numbers, this was the first diary I wrote on a Mac and it was unforgiving. Couple that with a serious cold and my brain was not exactly 100% when I edited it.

        As to the state issue, this may be one of the more solid arguments, but it also has some flaws. The Netherlands has become a huge portal for drug trafficking, another reason why they are re-evaluating their policy. If a state were to legalize marijuana in some way, what would stop that state from experiencing the same fate as the Dutch? These are important issues to look at.

        • aesthete

          for Portugal whose results have been made available for public consumption has been the CATO study. The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) is also an excellent source for general data on drug use and trends. The Centrum voor drugsonderzoek (CEDRO) is a Dutch source that focuses on Amsterdam and the Netherlands.

          Regarding the Netherlands, there is no paradigm-shifting debate outside of a few fringe Christian political groups. There is broad support for the Netherlands’ and Amsterdam policy among its populace, its politicians, and its public health establishment. Drug re-criminalization holds about the same cachet there as sodomy re-criminalization does here. Claims about it being the drug trafficking center of Europe are highly exaggerated: no one has been able to post reliable data confirming this stat, and drug use trends in France and Germany (the countries closest to the Netherlands) have not changed appreciably as a result of the change in the Netherlands’ policy.

          The Netherlands is far from being a major drug-using country: on the contrary, cannabis use among youth has dropped, and cannabis use among adults as a percentage of the population is well south of many of the Euro countries like France and Denmark. (See this map; data from EMCDDA study done in ’08. Note the low cannabis use for Portugal, as well.) That is in no way proof that its drug policy “works” (one would need to define that term, and then conduct more scientific inquiry), but it certainly rebuts claims that drug legalization/de facto decriminalization regimes appreciably increase the rates of addiction within a country.

          Regarding the state argument, well yeah! :) That doesn’t mean that it is the wrong way to go: just like a state having RTW laws or a high minimum wage affects its economy and the economy of other states, so too differing drug policy will have consequences for other states. Nevertheless, the fed’s current involvement is un-Constitutional, and supporters of the fed’s current role would need a Constitutional amendment similar to the 19 Am to make it Constitutional. Federalism isn’t an old hat to be discarded at a whim and we must be consistent in its application. We cannot claim to be against ObamaCare because it is un-Constitutional while in the same breath defending a blatantly un-Constitutional power grab in the form of the drug war. By default, the issue should remain the purview of the states as the Founders intended; barring an amendment, that is the Constitutional course of action.

        • Doc Holliday

          showing there is a market for sure. They are basically tired of Britons going over, smoking pot, drinking up a storm, and making arses of themselves. The funny thing is, they do the same thing in Spain.

          The Dutch have no plans to curb marijuana consumption by their own people, and why should they? they spend pennies to the dollar compared to our drug war, and they have fewer drug users.

          btw, I completely stand against your comments on heroin. The Dutch have not legalized heroin at all, they have only given addicts a place to shoot up and given them an alternative through methadone clinics, with clean needles.

          Now what I just said might sound awful, but I have spent time in Amsterdam and the Netherlands. The Dutch chose to give the addicts a few parks, but they don’t allow them to go anywhere else. You leave Amsterdam, and you are in a 19th century world of fishing and wooden shoes. You leave someplace in America with a Stuckeys and an Arby’s, and you end up in another place with a Stuckeys and an Arby’s.

    • rightwingmom52

      Are you saying that drug use in and of itself hurts no one? If you are, I couldn’t disagree more. Regardless of the war on drugs or statistics or costs or anything else, all addicts start with that first taste, and their addiction often leads to broken homes or worse. Anybody who has ever had a friend or family member addicted to drugs will most likely tell you they started with pot. Additionally, even the “harmless” potheads I know find it difficult to keep gainful employment. Once they end up taking public assistance, it most definitely hurts me the taxpayer. There’s no doubt it hurts their families. I don’t have any links for my position – just first-hand experience. A book written from a dad’s viewpoint, Beautiful Boy, explains in depth how his son’s drug use, which started with pot, hurt their family and others.

      • aesthete

        Indirect harm is much more difficult to quantify, isolate, and correct for as an economic problem — and quite frankly, I’m inclined to believe that drug and alcohol abuse and their problems mostly stem from deeper problems, such as a broken family or self-destructive tendencies. Short of full-on re-education/brainwashing (and I have qualms with gummint successfully using and institutionalizing either), there truly isn’t a good or easy way to resolve these deeper issues. I don’t think there really is a way for government to approach these issues in an attempt to fundamentally change behaviors that will not result in enormous tragedy. (When I mention full-on re-education, I’m not kidding: short of acts of God, I haven’t seen results more dramatic than those that I’ve seen from full withdrawal from the rest of the world and immersion into another; convents and some Buddhist temples have an amazing ability to change such behaviors.)

        Anecdotally, I have worked at a mental hospital (part time to pay for school), and the church that I am actively involved in caters to recovered alcoholics and drug users (and ministers to those groups). In my experience, alcohol is worse than pot and some of the other “soft” drugs; I have never heard of anyone raping, beating, or killing someone else while under the influence of the more common “soft” drugs, while I have seen such from alcoholics and users of some of the harder drugs. Almost all cases where drug use was a problem, however, were cases where there’s something within a person that’s just broken, whether because of family/environment or just because of bad apple syndrome. Those deeper issues change at the ultra-local and family levels, not at any level of government that would be recognizable to a westerner. Families and churches are limited by what they can do to deal with the issue by the presence of such punitive drug laws, IMO; what kind of parent wants to send his kid to jail for 5 years for his using pot?

    • Doc Holliday

      unless I am way off base, I believe the book showed that the biggest factor in crime changes is population changes/fertility. Politicians get skewered or lauded for increasing or reducing crime, but there is very little they do that actually makes the difference.

      btw, how is the War on Drugs working for Mexico? People don’t want to say what those in the know already know, the reason Mexico is on fire is that the Colombians stamped out (most of) the drug lords and made the gangs move North.

      • aesthete

        It’s entertaining, and it’s great that it’s done so much to popularize the subject of economics, but I definitely wouldn’t take everything in it as gospel truth. Levitt and Dubner are right in their general point regarding crime (it’s sort of like the economy in that sense), but policy definitely does affect crime rates, just not by as much as people commonly believe. The move away from very low sentencing and therapy by local, city and state governments in the late 80s/early 90s was effective, for example.

        What’s happening in Mexico was what was happening in the Caribbean before that. We quashed the drug trade up there after crushing it in Mexico; now we’re trying to do it in both regions and finding that the profitability and graft involved with the black market in drugs, in conjunction with dysfunctional Latin American governments, are making for a very bloody and unstable situation. Illegal drugs are simply too profitable, the incentives too great, demand too high and the supply too abundant for them not to get to market. The only question is how, not if, they will get to the market, and whether they’ll get to a legal or black market.

        • Doc Holliday

          I have more than a few Eco courses in college under my belt. I just referenced it about crime statistics. Actually I don’t totally agree with you on the drug trade. Latin American countries have always blames Los Yanquis for their problems. The fact is, Colombia did severe damage to the cartels and they moved to safer ground.

          Of course their is a demand problem, the illegality of marijuana drives the price up to the moon. If it were not prohibited the price would plummet and criminals would move to other things. When was the last time someone was shot for selling gum on the wrong corner?

          • aesthete

            and there is a need for Latin American countries to reform their institutions rather than blame the Great Satan for all — no doubt about that. There are other things going on: after all, Costa Rica is secure and prosperous, and still helps the US with its drug policy. With that said, there’s enormous pressure from our government towards select LA countries (Panama, Colombia, Mexico, Venezuela, etc) to get tough on drug lords, and this has largely been the driver of Mexico’s civil war.

          • Doc Holliday

            I bet I have spent more time there than you have, and I have seen the corruption. Although in my day, if was more graft than plata o plomo

          • aesthete

            you’ve spent more time there than I have, my friend, but that’s just a function of my having lived in Panama for quite a while and my current close proximity to Mexico. Regardless, I think that we can both agree that Mexico is highly corrupt and rife with problems, and that current US policy on drugs is exacerbating these problems.

          • Doc Holliday

            but I don’t take my friends on for no good reason, so i have that going for me, which is nice.

  • Paul

    That is the root of all this evil so to speak as Marijuana clearly shouldn’t be classified as a Schedule 1 drug.
    This puts marijuana on the same level as Heroin. This classification states that there is no medically accepted use. That means research is difficult due to this harsh classification. How many reports have you heard of rating heroin as a better pain relief agent than oxycotin? None to my knowledge.
    But there are hundreds of Doctors who report that marijuana does help their patients in a variety of situations.
    If the classification was changed to a level II or III physicians could prescribe this product for their patients as they and the patient agree. Why should countless patients suffer through these symptoms or take other medications with other side effects known to be more harmful than marijuana? Or those patients that use this drug regardless of the legal status.
    Because of a 1939 law pushed by Hearse who feared his investments in forests for pulp manufacture would be threatened by hemp. If he only knew of the EPA his investments may have differed!

    • runner12

      called Marinol that is a synthetic of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana. It is in pill form and is being used to treat nausea in chemotherapy patients. So medical marijuana already exists and is approved by the FDA.

      More research will need to be done and doubtless they will find a way to extract some medicines from the plant. But it will not be in a smoked or inhaled delivery system. Mainly because it is a poor way to deliver medicine and anytime you smoke something you damage your lungs.

  • Pingback: Carletta Snaples

  • Pingback: Newton Taulman

  • Pingback: Carletta Snaples

  • Pingback: Morris Nocon

  • Pingback: Auto Forum

  • Pingback: SEO Services Australia

  • Pingback: Welcome to My Blog

  • Pingback: Reverse Number Lookup

  • Pingback: Investment Opportunities

  • Pingback: darmowa strona z randkami

  • Pingback: τοποθετήσεις μαρμάρων

  • Pingback: odszukaj milosc swego zycia

  • Pingback: darmowy serwis randkowy

  • Pingback: najlepsza randka

  • Pingback: najlepsza randka

  • Pingback: steel strapping

  • Pingback: super randka

  • Pingback: distilling equipment

  • Pingback: vasche

  • Pingback: Epping

  • Pingback: Sneak A Peek At These Guys

  • Pingback: this hyperlink

  • Pingback: Sneak A Peek Here

  • Pingback: web design barrow

  • Pingback: Karaoke on sale

  • Pingback: madam lux

  • Pingback: desain interior rumah

  • Pingback: online jobs uk

  • Pingback: biaya bangun rumah

  • Pingback: Ezra Neisler

  • Pingback: Wilmer Ammirati

  • Pingback: Cory Doro

  • Pingback: Store Fixture Installers

  • Pingback: http://wwww.loansandbadcredit.org

  • Pingback: Will Brincks

  • Pingback: Will Brincks

  • Pingback: aloe vera side effects

  • Pingback: Kip Auer

  • Pingback: aloe vera juice for hair

  • Pingback: cv

  • Pingback: Coretta Barlow

  • Pingback: cv wzór

  • Pingback: Jesse Trigueiro

  • Pingback: Jesse Trigueiro

  • Pingback: Sidney Chandsawangbh

  • Pingback: sofy rozkładane

  • Pingback: John Markin

  • Pingback: John Markin

  • Pingback: distilling wine

  • Pingback: Finding a job

  • Pingback: John Markin

  • Pingback: Factory Automation Project

  • Pingback: Auto Forum

  • Pingback: Teichfolie

  • Pingback: kids bikes

  • Pingback: Investment House

  • Pingback: Welcome to My Blog

  • Pingback: wielu ludzi w jednym miejscu

  • Diogenes314

    Actually it should be #1

    #1 Drug policy should be a state and not a federal matter.

    And on #5, frankly, cost benefit analysis from an organization that gets paid to prosecute drug users is suspect at best, especially without footnotes, citations or links to back up their claims.

  • gekster

    yeah, right. idiot.

  • Diogenes314

    In the year 2000, drug abuse cost American society an estimated $160 billion. More important were the concrete losses that are imperfectly symbolized by those billions of dollars

  • gekster

    You feel you don’t have to provide none.
    And yet you have the cajones to ask someone else to.
    Example in point. Michelle Backstab.
    Why do you have the right to ask for backup and links when you don’t feel the need to provide the same when asked of you.
    Why do you have the right to ask of someone something that you yourself won’t provide when asked.
    The response I made was to the idiocy of you actually asking for backup and links.

    Idiot.

    No, wait, double idiot.

  • gekster
  • Aaron Gardner
  • gekster

    I just find it ironic.

  • Diogenes314

    Link? Proof?

    And I actually did link to the Federal governments own budget.

    Nevermind, you aren’t worth the bother either.

  • Diogenes314

    Well if tweedledumb is here, obviously tweedledumber will need to start nipping my ankles as well.

    Since you have nothing to add to the actual subject, you’re dismissed.

  • gekster

    IDIOT. ;0
    No credability IDIOT at that :0

  • gekster

    Oh, wait. YOU don’t have to provide links to what YOU claim.
    Idiot.

  • Doc Holliday

    I don’t lie, and I try to be right.

    1) this is a totally scientifically bogus argument. Of course there are more people in the USA than the Netherlands, you base comparisons on per capita statistics. The fact is the USA has more drug users per capita, and more marijuana users, despite the prohibition and drug war. http://www.ukcia.org/research/DutchPolicyAndCrimeStatistics.php

    2) you call out libertarians here but only through your big government views that people are nothing more than statistics. Libertarians SUPPORT laws that punish those who use drugs and hurt others. You are making the mistake of viewing people as numbers, you are telling a guy you don’t know that he will hurt others if he smokes marijuana, marijuana he could have grown himself, on his own land and used in the privacy of his own home.

    4) alcohol is worse than marijuana for alcoholics. to an alcoholic, booze is the devil, it will kill him and destroy his family. Comparisons are not very fruitful because many don’t have the alcoholic’s disease. And trust me, you don’t want to have it or know anyone that does. I think marijuana supporters can make a fair argument that the two drugs are at least comparable, no one has shown that alcohol is significantly less dangerous. I think the key point is if someone is in control, they are not likely to hurt another after using marijuana or alcohol. But if you look into the affects of alcohol abuse, there will be nothing you see other than the worst of the worst.

    5) I just don’t agree with your statistics. People are arrested every minute for minor marijuana offenses. In fact the FBI statistics show that a marijuana consumer is arrested every 38 seconds. http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3400

    Maybe many of them don’t serve hard time, but how much money is spent on this scheme? And let me ask you something else about the War on Drugs? Why is it that legal beer is harder to get in a high school than prohibited marijuana?

    http://www.dailypilot.com/news/tn-dpt-0430-drinking-20110429,0,1456600.story

    here a poor boy was given pot and booze, the booze killed him

    http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Two-held-in-death-by-booze-poisoning-1356779.php

    http://www.teendrugabuse.us/teen_drug_use.html

    Also, the fastest growing drug among the young is prescription medicine. something more controlled than booze or pot.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-06-12-teens-pharm-drugs_x.htm

    and the last refutation of your drug war claim; how ’bout teen pot use being higher than cigarette use?

    http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsid.2160/news_detail.asp

    whatever happened to “smoking in the boys room”? BTW, I wish not one used booze or drugs. Of course I wish there were no wars of murders either.

  • gekster

    Asking for links and providing none when asked of you.
    Moronic idiot might be more apropriat, but I don’t want to insult morons.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Everyone’s going to quit the namecalling now. Don’t make me ban anyone.

  • gekster

    No more from me.
    Even if he won’t admit it, I think he gets the message.

  • Diogenes314

    Just curious if that’s frowned upon here or acceptable.

  • gekster

    Just provide links when asked of you, as you have asked of this person.

    Mmmmkaaayyy

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    As the shop teacher said on South Park, quit screwing around.

  • aesthete

    50% of all those in federal prisons are in there for non-violent drug charges (i.e., either possession, distribution, or growing) — ~27% of those in state plus federal prisons are in there for non-violent drug charges.

    The Michigan link is extremely misleading, btw: first of all, most cases of possession in jail are in there for second-time possession. These cases make up the majority of those put in the slammer for drug offenses. Secondly, most drug convictions end up in federal prisons. Third, it’s MI — let’s see how those stats look in CA, AZ, or states with a strong Hispanic presence. I’ll also note that it is extremely common to see possession with intention to distribute instead of mere possession in many cases, depending on quantity, where a person was found with drugs, etc., and in these cases many were simply attempting to use, not deal.

  • runner12

    I never meant in any way to say that alcohol is not a serious drug, it is a devastating one. If you inferred that from my diary, I think you misread it. Let me clarify, my point was that marijuana is every bit as dangerous as alcohol.

    Also, I am sorry you disagree with the statistics, but they are what they are. I also never meant to infer that there is not a serious drug problem in this country. In fact, my closing paragraph stated as much. But we cannot honestly say there has been NO success in the War on Drugs.

    I am not trying to change your mind, you seem to have it already set. But I do want to point out that there are legitimate statistics that support our current policy on marijuana.

  • Doc Holliday

    many states assume possession with intent to sale if someone has anything over a very small amount. If that is not prosecution out of control I don’t know what is. It is like how the IRS makes waitresses pay for tips they did not get based on some bureaucratic algorithm that shows what she “should” have received in tips.

  • runner12

    drug treatment courts, where users who are addicted are sent for treatment. Is this not a step in the right direction? To help those who are simply addicted?

    Also, how can you determine if someone with marijuana has it on them for personal use or for intent to distribute? Because they say so? I am fairly certain that the intent to distribute charge is validated by other evidence, not just by the presence of marijuana.

    Aesthete, could you cite your first statistic please?

  • Doc Holliday

    I take your views as what they are, closely held. I do think I did a decent job of supporting my statements with links and facts, and like I said, I will offer more if anyone wants to read them. I also think marijuana and alcohol are equally dangerous, alcohol is not dangerous to all, but to some, it is a death sentence. I have seen it up close, too close if you know what I mean.

    My mind is only set on the reality of the situation. I think our police are already haggard, they need us to lift a bit of the burden. We don’t need to arrest pot smokers who are not hurting others or causing a nuisance, it is the same deal we made over booze many years ago. Like Republicans say about medicare, if we don’t have the money, we don’t have the money. Few people cower in their homes worrying about pot smokers, they worry about violent criminals. I think violent criminals should be punished and put away for as long as possible.

    I think our biggest difference is the libertarian view versus the social conservative view. To a social conservative, allowing marijuana into the community is a recipe for social decadence. To the libertarian, marijuana is already in the community, and our police should spend their resources stopping violent offenders, not people that choose as adults to get stoned.

    I do understand and appreciate your perspective. If I had my will, all drugs would not exist. But my love of freedom is so great that I can’t abide bureaucrats telling grown men how to live. A man has to make his own way, if he hurts no one else, the government must leave him alone. To me this is Gospel, it is as true as the Old Testament.

  • Diogenes314

    Actually the only criteria required in determining ‘intent’ is quantity. Basically if one is caught with a certain amount they are considered guilty of being a drug dealer unless they can prove they are merely a user. But when vast sums of money are involved, you can’t really expect the government to bother with such niceties as Constitutional rights.

  • aesthete

    From the Bureau of Justice Statistics (a branch of the DoJ), 50.7% of sentenced prisoners in federal prisons are there for drug offenses: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/p09.pdf

    This was from 2009 and growth rates for incarceration of drug offenses are tremendous.

  • Doc Holliday

    the laws are clear, and intent to distribute is based solely on quantity, and in most jurisdictions the quantity is quite small.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    a certain quantity and above. They don’t have to accept the presumption.

  • Doc Holliday
  • Doc Holliday

    I say that to myself as much as I say it to you. I littered my response with links, but it did no good at all. I even said this upthread, people believe what they want to believe, there is no room for persuasive dialogue.

  • runner12

    out that indeed state incarceration rates decrease for drug related offenses decreased, but federal rates went up.

    However, I could not find how the study defined drug related offenses. Was it just for use? Or was it for distribution and selling. The study does not specify.

    I am no lawyer, but I do not think you get to go to the federal pen for smoking a little weed.

  • runner12

    social conservatives and Libertarians, it is a difference between how Conservatives and Libertarians view government.

    Conservatives believe there is a place for the Federal government, but in a limited role. They believe in order to have a civilized society, rules and laws must exist as long as the State does not become an uncontrollable force tyrannizing the People. Libertarians are to the right of that and take it further. Liberals are statists and think that the government will cure all ills.

    Listen, there is no doubt that the DEA has been bit by the bureaucracy bug, few agencies have escaped that menace. But the answer is not to throw everything out, but to scale it back into its proper role.

    We won’t ever agree on this, but I appreciate the dialogue, it is always good to have disagreement now and then. It is what separates us from the Statists.

  • Diogenes314

    You do if they find enough in your possession to divine your ‘intent’.

    Either way, if pot sales are opened up to the free market, the sales and distribution crimes go away, and the money spent on law enforcement, prosecution and incarceration is replaced with money gained by tax revenues.

    We still care about the deficit here, right?

    And none of this addresses whether it is any business of the Federal government to begin with.

  • aesthete

    As noted, however, intent to distribute is highly elastic, and generally people who were just users get “intent to distribute” slapped onto their sentences. The amount of drugs considered the threshold for “possession” is very, very low. Very few of those in prison are drug kingpins: most are dopes who used and got caught, or who use socially. From a 1998 DoJ report, we find that 58% of those in prison for drug offenses have no history of violence or high-level drug activity (linky). This figure has only increased with the Bush admin’s even harder line on drugs than Clinton’s, and with Obama’s continuation of Bush policies. That’s a big chunk, and even among those with prior history of violence, this violence often has nothing to do with later drug use.

    Q: If gun ownership were criminalized (currently around 39-50% of households own at least one gun), and more than 1 of 2 “criminal” gun owners being sent to prison for 5-10 years for “trafficking” were ordinary guys who just weren’t smart enough to hide their guns, would you have the same reaction? For that matter, doesn’t the rarity of gun-related violence and accidents relative to our population of gun owners tell us that responsibility is the norm when it comes to gun ownership? Why is the same logic not applied to drug use, which half of our population admits to having engaged in at some point in the past?

  • Diogenes314

    Conservatives believe there is a place for the Federal government, but in a limited role. They believe in order to have a civilized society, rules and laws must exist as long as the State does not become an uncontrollable force tyrannizing the People.

    I would submit that what should decide are the limits of the Constitution. And I see nothing in there that would give the central government the authority to dictate drug policy to the states, any more than it would allow them to tell the states how to manage the Health Care or educational systems.

  • runner12

    have to have on your person for it to be a federal crime is around 50 kilos, which is around 110 pounds.

    Any common sense person could determine from that amount in someone’s car that it was most certainly not for personal use and that the person was dealing.

    Remember that all of those in federal prison were tried by a jury of their peers and found guilty.

  • powertothepeople

    no more than illegal sales of cigarettes, booze, etc. Make growing and selling weed legal today, and the black market floods just as fast. Smugglers do not lose one moment in their business, revenue from legit sales will make little difference as most growers will not submit their crops to taxes or permits and will simply chance the fines when and if they are caught, most will seek the black market dealers as to avoid the taxes that raised their cost, so very little is gained. It is a dream world to think that legalizing weed benefits anyone but the dope head.

  • aesthete

    is the same as the DoE or the Dept of Urban Development: nil. As a conservative, you don’t have to like it but you should have enough respect for the Constitutional norms to abide by them even when you think that the federal government should have a role in drug prevention.

  • runner12

    the difference is that I believe that that the Constitution does allow for federal policy on drugs.

    This is where we disagree.

  • runner12

    under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to have a federal drug policy.

    That being said, the Feds have never come in and gone after the state for differing drug policies. California recently had a ballot initiative regarding marijuana use and the People voted it down. Not once did the Feds jump in and try to stop it or weigh in on it.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    you do agree that the federal government has the power to control imports from foreign territory and interstate commerce, of course?

    And while I disagree with Wickard v Filburn on crops grown for personal consumption as “affecting” said commerce, do you think there is any argument for federal involvement re drug laws based on any other provision? National security?

    I think the argument is very weak myself for any federal involvement not pertaining to imports and actual interstate.

    As a 14 year criminal defense veteran, and democrat in the 90s, I hated it when Clinton and the Dems tried to show their toughness by federalizing drug laws to make up for their obvious weakness on crime and war. It helped me make more legal fees, but then that is one of the things I hate most about the m,ajority of my fellow trial lawyers.

    I went corporate in 2001!

  • runner12

    paper, which did cite a report. Unfortunately, the did not link the original report so I will have to do some digging to discover if those statistics were simply pulled to make a point by the author of the paper.

    I will ask again, don’t you think that the drug treatment courts are a good idea? Is that not shifting the focus from criminalization to treatment? This is a huge step in the right direction, in my opinion. It is also a ,ouch better solution then just simply loosening our drug policy.

  • aesthete

    And what consistent argument can be made to justify that belief that does not also require believing that the Constitution allows ObamaCare, smoking bans, SS, Medicare, Medicaid, etc? This isn’t a matter of idle conjecture: it’s a matter of Constitutional principle. If it’s not stated or implied in a Constitutional power, then per the 9th and 10th Ams, it is the duty of the state or the people, respectively. Banning alcohol required an amendment (the 19th one, to be precise). What makes drugs so special that they don’t require similar considerations? (This is without getting into the grievous violations of the 4th that are “no knock” raids, and other procedures used in the WoD which violate the Bill of Rights on a daily basis.)

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    essentially now support decriminalization or even legalization for most drugs, I think it is a close call. Yes, the feds do have constitutional power obviously with respect to foreign importation of drugs and interstate commerce, at least. And yes, many more people would be drug users and have their lives ruined if they were legal at least in the short to medium term. more later

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    quantity, but the jury is not required to convict merely because they conclude that one is in possession of a certain quantity. They are allowed to conclude (its called a presumption in the law) based solely on quantity. But most drug laws are not what is called “strict liability” crimes that do not require proof of intent. In fact, what we are discussing are crimes in which an essential element is intent! Hope you appreciate getting for free what most folks pay upwards of $200/hour for when DeVine Law expounds. smile

  • aesthete

    includes both amount and context. The most common way to append a “trafficking” crime is to find a person with marijuana at a friend’s house or in a friend’s car — from there it gets easy.

    BTW, other crimes tried by a jury of one’s peers include:

    White crime against blacks in the Jim Crow South

    Union violence in low-class neighborhoods

    Frivolous lawsuits against McDonalds

    OJ Simpson’s murder trial

    A jury of one’s peers is better than nothing, but no panacea. I know at least two people who have been convicted on drug trafficking charges who had no intention of doing anything of the kind.

  • ceili_dancer

    If it was legal, that would be the only amount I could get at Costco. :)

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    You’re doing it wrong.

  • aesthete

    It says what the Sentencing Project report says that it says. I couldn’t find the source online, but it’s not a misquote.

    Drug treatment courts and a therapeutic/public health approach are a step in the right direction IMO, but mostly because they are less coercive than prison sentences and a militarized police. I also favor having laws on the books for operating a vehicle while under the influence and having a legal paradigm for soft drugs similar to what we have for alcohol. I favor all reforms to be done at the state level, however; the federal government has no place interloping in state affairs.

  • aesthete

    for cannabis due to having to pay for the upkeep of veritable gang armies. It’s even higher for others. If you think that profit + tax (even if it were a 100% tax) + regulation in a legal market would even approach this level of markup, you’re kidding yourself. Legalization is no panacea, but it certainly would impact sellers if regulated sale was legalized along with buying.

  • runner12

    justice. We have laws and if you break them you get arrested and tried before a jury of their peers and given legal representation.

    People are flawed and therefore juries do not get it right all of the time. My point is that these people who are in the federal pen were not simply using drugs in the confines of their own homes, they were selling and distributing.

  • Diogenes314

    who actually doesn’t support legalization. Nor do I oppose it. What I propose is simply getting the Federal government away from spending money we don’t have on matters that Constitutionally aren’t in it’s mandate. And of course, I oppose the sloppy thinking and borderline hypocrisy of those who claim to be for limited government-except when they want the Nanny State to impose a particular agenda.

    For the record, when the pro-legalization proposition came up on the last ballot here in Kali, I left that part blank. Just like I did when the ‘protection of marriage’ proposition came out. Of course on that one, when the courts decided to overturn the will of the voters, I voted to amend the state Constitution.

    And would have done the same if the pot initiative had passed and the courts or Imperial Fed had tried to countermand it.

    I try to be a consistent ‘libertine’, you know.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • aesthete

    That is what they were *indicted* with; in many cases it does not reflect the reality of the situation.

    I also must ask: who cares if they were “distributing”, if it was a completely voluntary transaction? (Assuming no violence or property crimes, of course.) Both of the participants in said transaction have freedom of choice; why the emphasis on the seller?

  • Diogenes314
  • runner12

    warrant or probable cause, than this is wrong and needs to be stopped. There is a legal way to fight the War on Drugs and we must adhere to those laws.

    But I advocate reform in those areas, not legalization. Also, we have great freedom in this country, but we are not an anarchist government. One’s individual freedom ends when it has a negative impact on others.
    That is why we have laws against drunk driving,

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    My part-time girlfriend is a pretty liberal Democrat. She fell for me when I first moved to Atlanta in June 2001 when I was still a Democrat (former county party chair etc). I have been having a lot of success in persuading her in many areas by throwing the tolerance card back at her, and I think one of the things that many libertarians need to do is be more tolerant of those that disagree on social issues and admit that most of these issues have good arguments on both sides.

    agree?

  • runner12

    sold to minors. Seems like the Netherlands approach would not be acceptable to you if you think drug running should be legal.

    That is still a crime in that country.

    Please read my comment again regarding the justice system. Not all juries make the right decisions, but it is the best system compared to other countries. There are multiple ways to redress wrongs made in convictions.

  • aesthete

    Law enforcement shows up unannounced and does not present the owner of the property being raided a warrant justifying the intrusion.

    Anarchy is in no way my goal: Constitutional governance is. State governments can do all that you propose (within their own state constitutions, of course), but the federal government is bound to its explicit and implied powers in the absence of an amendment. I would still like to see a Constitutional case for the WoD that is logical and which does not contradict conservative thought on the Constitution in other areas.

  • Diogenes314

    So either we abolish anything that offends you personally (at the national level at that) or we are endorsing anarchy?

    As far as…

    One

  • aesthete

    sale to minors, rather than sale? I support that. It is self-evident that this goal would be better served if we had established, legal vendors and producers who could be regulated and investigated to a degree that is impossible in the black market. It is currently much easier for a high-school age kid to get ahold of pot than alcohol — the drug dealers have no incentive to limit their target audience if they’ll get thrown in the slammer regardless of whether they sell to minors or to adults?

    You are correct that the status quo on sale in the Netherlands is not acceptable to me.

  • aesthete

    The rest? Not so much, particularly since a) there is no compelling national security argument that would not apply to other dangerous substances and activities, and b) an amendment was needed to ban alcohol.

  • Diogenes314

    Which is precisely why on the two initiatives I mentioned, I took no side except for that of the electorate.

    Of course that’s why anti-abortion types think I eat babies and pro-abortion ones think I murder women in back alleys.

    As far as tolerance- one thing I like to point out is the intolerance of those who rail against the intolerance of those with diverging viewpoints.

    Generally it just pisses people off-but when dealing with honest thinkers it sometimes is effective.

  • powertothepeople

    and are not exclusive to the “drug war.” Nor is it only feds that are using the technique.

    BUT, either you are not familiar with no knocks and what they are, or your experience (not necessarily personal experience) with that type of invasion was one that was done illegally. A no knock entrance has nothing to do with cops of any branch just busting in your door, a no knock is a warrant where the cops have met the burden of proof for a search warrant but have also convinced a judge that by announcing themselves first as cops, officers would be in danger. So they are then allowed to execute a lawful search warrant without first yelling COPS OPEN UP. They still have to be in full obvious uniform, they still usually yell cops once they are in, the difference is the element of surprise. But there is no violation of anyone persons rights with a no knock, the constitution only requires a warrant lawfully obtained, not an announcement of who is about to bust in your door. No different than a warrant allowing a cop to enter a building without you being there.

    Now, if their is abuse within the parameters of the no knock, that is a separate issue and one that must be handled on a case by case basis. But the use of no knocks is not unconstitutional in any way and most people really have no clue what a no knock is.

  • powertothepeople

    depending on area, search warrants must be signed or do not have to be signed, owner of property must be given a copy or not, but owner has a right to see it. But no where in the constitution does it say that owners have a right to see it prior to the intrusion, only that one must be obtained. And if an area requires owner sig or refusal to sign, the same would apply to a no knock. But it would only have to be done when the situation is safe and under control. I do not know of an area that requires an owner being served the warrant prior to the search so whether it is a knock and announce search or a no knock is immaterial.

  • aesthete

    and is how they have been sold. You are correct that they preceded the Drug War (IIRC, they started up in the 40s in an attempt to aid cops with hostage situations). These raids have been expanded: so much so, that they have been used to bust up simple possession, and possession/low-level dealing — neither one being a situation in which police are in peril.

    However, the main point I wanted to get at is that they are un-Constitutional in the case of most of the 40,000+ raids conducted per year. “Knock and announce” has been a common law principle undergirding the language “unreasonable searches and seizures”, i.e., it has always been one of a few requirements for a search to be “reasonable”.

    Let me explain the rationale: it is self-evident that for a citizen (and at this point, he is a suspect, not a criminal) to know whether the government is allowed to search his house/apartment, he must know that due process has been followed. He must also know that these strange men who have invaded his home are police, rather than vagabonds or murderers who intend to do away with his family or possessions if he is to be held liable for the death of a police officer in his attempt at self-defense. Both actions are made impossible by a no-knock raid: the citizen has no knowledge of a warrant or proper channels to register his discontent, and (in the case of some raids where the word “Police” is obfuscated, difficult to see, or missed in the heat of the moment) is unable to tell the difference between a legitimate agent of the state, and a criminal.

    If a citizen does not know where he and the agents of the state stand, as is the case when a warrant is secreted from a judge and the police land unannounced, rule of law is but a farce, and the line between the state and a band of roving ruffians is blurred.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    in that milieu? I don’t. Another question: Wouldn’t you agree that the definition of what is conservative as per the federal govt is much more broad at the state and local level? And that certainly marriage and life (pre-Roe) have long been the province of states, so I don’t quite understand why you would not vote on state measures.

    more later

  • runner12

    I meant negative as in injury or death, not someone who makes you angry or irritates you.

    Most everyone on this site is a proponent of limited government. Where conservatives and Libertarians differ is how much of a limited government.

    I believe, as did our Founding Fathers, that there is a role for centralized government, but a limited one. I do not support the illegality of illicit drugs because I want people to think like me or do as I please. I support it because I see drugs as a national threat from within. One that will decay and destroy our country.

    I see at as no different than our military protecting us from foreign invaders, thus I view it as a right granted to the Federal government. Have there been abuses? I have no doubt. But that is what the Constitution is for. To hold the Feds in check while they protect this country.

    Do you think the states can protect the country from the floods of drugs that come in from foreign countries? Many of which the sales of go to finance terrorism, gun running, and human trafficking.
    Our border states cannot even keep illegal immigrants out of our country, much less drug runners.

  • aesthete

    If so, why? It attempts to alleviate indirect negative injury caused by illness, just as the Drug War attempts to alleviate indirect injury resulting from drug use. Virtually anything can be justified under an argument of indirect harms — in the case of drug use, the vast majority of users (>95%) do not commit violent or property crimes while under the influence or to pay for their habit. The correlation between drug use and crime is weaker than other correlations, and there is no proof as to a causal connection. The states have the means to handle their own internal affairs, and the federal government has a mechanism by which to make prosecution of the drug war one of its functions (namely, the amendment process). I fail to see how the WoD is Constitutional or practical, and how the rationale for it is any different than the rationale for any leftist program (i.e., counterfactuals positing a tsunami of indirect harms resulting from a lack of vigour on the part of government).

  • Diogenes314

    I meant negative as in injury or death, not someone who makes you angry or irritates you.

    Of course, you can always segue into bogus arguments about legalization equating to drunk driving or red herrings about efforts to let consenting adults live their lives implying giving drugs to children.

    The bottom line is you are either for limited government and cutting spending-or you’re in favor of the above except when it goes against your personal agenda. Personally I favor school vouchers. Defanging the NEA and public employee unions in general. Eliminating zoning laws that drive up the cost of housing. Abolishing anti-tobacco laws (and cutting tobacco taxes), easing restrictions on concealed carry permits, and allowing bars to stay open 24 hours if they wish. And obviously, getting rid of the ATF.

    I wouldn’t want the federal government imposing any of my agenda on the states, though. Even ones as retarded and annoying as Kali.

  • powertothepeople

    not the same. Drugs are against the law, sickness is not. Not sure how you think one belief compares to the health care nonsense.

    And I hate to tell you Aesthete, you are not the only interpretation of the constitution. One can believe the constitution grants the fed government the ability to fight drug dealing, smuggling, import, and use without believing the government has the right to mandate insurance. You are stretching things to make your point and it is not working.

    And I posted a link on another post that showed the opposite of what you are saying about “95%” of people do not commit violent crimes or property crimes while under the influence. You can not assert that claim with any proven study, but there are plenty of studies to show well over 30% of people incarcerated admit to being under the influence of drugs when they broke the law and or test positive for illicit drugs after committing a crime. To argue people are not inclined to do things they would not normally do while under the influence is absurd and to claim that drugs use and addiction do not drive people to commit crimes to feed the need is just as absurd and is not backed in fact.

  • aesthete

    is not the only one, but in this case it is the correct one. There is no way in which one can read the enumerated powers expressed therein and come to the conclusion that the War on Drugs is one of them (or an implied power deriving from those enumerated powers). If you want to make an argument that it is, knock yourself out. (Check out Raich v Gonzales, if you want to look at some really awful case law on that subject.)

    So ObamaCare should have just made being sick illegal, then, and thus become Constitutional? Legality is what a piece of parchment says it is, and has no bearing on right and wrong. The standard used by runner12 was significant indirect harm, not legality. By that standard, a national health plan is perfectly Constitutional. If your standard is legality, then whatever is passed by Congress is legal or illegal. Drugs were (un-Constitutionally) made illegal at the Constitutional level with a scribbling in the Progressive Era; they can be made legal again with just as much scribbling.

    The 30% stat (if accurate) tells us the percentage of criminals who self-report their level of intoxication/influence of illegal drugs; the 95% stat is the percentage of druggies who are otherwise law-abiding and non-violent. Clearly, drug use is not a societal problem for that 95% — only for a portion of the other 5%. To reduce violent and property crime to one cause is absurd, and removes choice from the equation. Clearly, drug use does not make one a super-criminal: not even close. I would posit that if 95% percent of people who have tried drugs at some point could refrain from violence, drugs aren’t society-destroying. Banning them is like banning short dresses because X% of rapists cite them as their reason for raping some poor girl.

  • aesthete
  • powertothepeople

    you are correct there, but until they are, enforcement is necessary and constitutional.

    And just as many brilliant constitutional experts say you are wrong in your interpretation, probably more than say you are right. But regardless of all that, you comparing someones belief that the constitution does allow for enforcement of drug law by the feds as being anywhere close to being the same as the HC fiasco is absurd. You can word it anyway you want, and the two do not compare.

    And again, your numbers are not backed in fact aesthete. Show me one study that shows 95% of people who use dope do not break the law while under the influence or because they need to be under the influence. And 30% are who admit it. Lets be real, the number of people arrested while under the influence of a controlled substance is probably much higher. Without cause to check their blood or urine, those numbers rely heavily on honesty, something most criminals lack.

    And to argue that dope has not been a pestilence on society, has caused extreme devastation, has caused entire communities to erode, is absurd. I could care less if the exception to the rule person is able to use dope without affecting themselves and or others, the normal rule applies.

  • Diogenes314

    I’m actually a pretty repressive libertine. My position is that if society is serious about ‘defending marriage’ it will start with outlawing no fault divorce and move on to criminalizing and prosecuting adultery. Adam and Steve pretending to be ‘married’ and some idiot judge pretending to ‘respect’ that relationship isn’t an attack on marriage, the government’s transformation of a sacrament into a unilaterally cancelable contract is.

    As far as abortion, I’d definitely vote in favor of informed consent, protection of minors and limiting access. When it comes on the ballot here in the People’s Republic of Kali. Or when I move back to America.

    Of course, I would oppose the federal government dictating either policy to the states.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    from others, hence the need to defend against that attack. As you probably know, I am a lawyer and did a lot of divorces. At times the threat of criminal prosecution for adultery was used as a bargaining chip. But it was never done. It was much like the sodomy laws. I think it is actually good to have some laws like those that are not prosecuted but that serve as a statement of the society’s standards. Moreover, what I mainly object to in the gay rights area is that society in no way endorse sex outside traditional marriage which is why I could only support a civil union law if it allowed any two adults and did not require “proof” of orientation or consummation.