Illegal drugs

[SteveS]

rlrose328 - you posted what seems to me to be a spin-off of the above idea about harm & crime which I'd like to talk about:

If you feel that you don't want drugs made illegal because you don't feel you have the right to say what someone can or can't put into their body because it's not your business. but what about the driver who drank too much (allowed... it's HIS life) who then drives and kills someone? That then IS damaging to someone else. Or the heroin addict who kills to get money to buy his drugs? Or gets high and then goes on a rampage? (I know, dramatic, but I'm making a point...)

In every case you described here the person has committed acts beyond the drug usage that are damaging to other people.  Is drinking until you are incapable of driving a car wrong?  No.  Is attempting to drive your car when you are incapable wrong?  Yes.  Is using heroin wrong?  No.  Is killing other people to take their money wrong?  Yes.  Is getting high wrong?  No.  Is "going on a rampage" ( - loved this one) wrong?  Yes.

I'm sure you see my trend...

I fully support letting people make their own choices but when their choices cause ME problems, then I no longer support it. Like cigarettes... I'm a former smoker. I'm also asthmatic. When I'm around cigarette smoke, my lungs close up and I cannot breathe. I'd like cigarettes banned from all public places. A smoke-free area is the default... I shouldn't have to NOT go somewhere because smokers are there.

I agree with you about the smoking --- if you are inhaling second-hand smoke this is not a voluntary choice you are making, especially if its in a place you realistically need to be, or have a right to be.

About banning smoking in "all public places" ... I basically agree, so long as we limit our meaning of "public place" to "public place".  I.e. a place owned by the public.  Is a bar a public place?  No - it is a privately owned place that is open to the public.  How should we deal with bars, then?  I say let the market figure it out.  There are a great deal of non-smoker in the world, and I would think opening a smoke-free bar could be a great move.  Likewise, I think somebody operating a "smokers-allowed" bar would be a good way for people who want to smoke to be able to do so.  How can anybody complain?  "I have to go to that particular bar!!!!  But they smoke there!!!"  Does this seem reasonable?

I have no problem with letting individual establishments determine their own smoking policy.

[Justice]

Everyone seems to have misunderstood the GHB argument:
1) I have proven you don't have to harm someone to commit a crime.
2) I was simultaneously demonstrating that free access to illegal drugs can have unintended benefits for criminals.
I was not arguing that slipping someone GHB was legitimate drug use.

[SteveS]

Justice - I think I understand your argument.  My point was I think mine was either misunderstood or interpreted too narrowly - I agree that you don't have to actually harm somebody to commit a crime, intent is enough.  But you do have to intend to harm somebody else to commit a crime - taking GHB yourself of your own "free will", so to speak, is not a crime in my view.  Ergo - the drugs themselves, and usage of the drugs by an individual, is not what I would call criminal.

Can free access to currently illegal drugs have benefits for criminals?  Of course.  So can access to currently legal drugs, guns, nuclear weapons, biological agents, the media, vehicles, food, water, etc.  Should we ban access to all these things because a criminal could misuse them?  Or should we instead focus on the actual crime: the usage of the criminal in question - the actions of the criminal.

Making the drugs legal would, in no way, make it legal for somebody to use the drugs to harm another individual's rights.  This would still be illegal - and rightly so.

[rlrose328]

In every case you described here the person has committed acts beyond the drug usage that are damaging to other people.  Is drinking until you are incapable of driving a car wrong?  No.  Is attempting to drive your car when you are incapable wrong?  Yes.  Is using heroin wrong?  No.  Is killing other people to take their money wrong?  Yes.  Is getting high wrong?  No.  Is "going on a rampage" ( - loved this one) wrong?  Yes.

I'm sure you see my trend...

I can see that... I agree... I think.  Ugh.  I've been brainwashed for so long that drugs are bad, drugs are wrong, drugs are illegal that it's hard to wrap my brain around it being okay.  It's NOT okay for me.  I know when I did illegal substances many years ago, I didn't LIKE myself, I did things that were irresponsible and somewhat beyond my control and I know that from friends I was with at the time as well.  But I also know that we would have done ANYTHING to get the substances, though they were illegal.  They were plentiful and available.

So does it come down to this:  We are incapable of truly controlling the flow of drugs in this country and how people behave when they are intoxicated or high, so we might as well make drugs legal.  True or false... or other?

If so, I don't think that's a good enough reason to make them legal.  Some laws are made to protect us from our own impulses and I don't think that's wrong.  Just because I'm in control of my own impulses doesn't mean there aren't another 99 who aren't and need some type of laws to protect them from themselves.

Why have speed limits?  I can drive just as safely at 100 mph as I can at 60 and if I kill someone in the process, well, I was just being irresponsible.  Isn't a car driven too fast as dangerous as a drug being taken to excess?

Is it just the "excess" part that's the problem?

I agree with you about the smoking --- if you are inhaling second-hand smoke this is not a voluntary choice you are making, especially if its in a place you realistically need to be, or have a right to be.

About banning smoking in "all public places" ... I basically agree, so long as we limit our meaning of "public place" to "public place".  I.e. a place owned by the public.  Is a bar a public place?  No - it is a privately owned place that is open to the public.  How should we deal with bars, then?  I say let the market figure it out.  There are a great deal of non-smoker in the world, and I would think opening a smoke-free bar could be a great move.  Likewise, I think somebody operating a "smokers-allowed" bar would be a good way for people who want to smoke to be able to do so.  How can anybody complain?  "I have to go to that particular bar!!!!  But they smoke there!!!"  Does this seem reasonable?

I have no problem with letting individual establishments determine their own smoking policy.

I had that problem when there was a ballot on the bill to ban smoking in bars a few years back.  The ads were of waitresses saying they had developed lung issues by working in the bar and customers saying they had problems smoking because of smoke.  From MY POV, I say... get a job elsewhere and go drink elsewhere.  You don't HAVE to be there.  If that's the only place you can get a job, you've got other more important issues.

But if I carry on that argument to restaurants, then I, as a non-smoker, would have no restaurants to visit because they ALL allowed smoking before it was banned.  Why do businesses listen to the smokers over non-smokers?  There are more of us, but the smokers have the tobacco companies to fight for them.  All we have is ourselves... it's like being an atheist all over again.

Crap, I'm rambling again.  

[SteveS]

So does it come down to this: We are incapable of truly controlling the flow of drugs in this country and how people behave when they are intoxicated or high, so we might as well make drugs legal. True or false... or other?

Well - I certainly think that if our only reason for legalization is a practical problem of control, this would be a bad reason.  So I'd go with "other".

If so, I don't think that's a good enough reason to make them legal. Some laws are made to protect us from our own impulses and I don't think that's wrong. Just because I'm in control of my own impulses doesn't mean there aren't another 99 who aren't and need some type of laws to protect them from themselves.

I see your point of view, but again, this comes down to how we view the role of societies and individuals.  I certainly don't feel that I want, or need, a society to "protect me from myself".  So - I would disagree with this sentiment.  I'm probably in the solid minority on this point - but oh well  :wink:  

Why have speed limits? I can drive just as safely at 100 mph as I can at 60 and if I kill someone in the process, well, I was just being irresponsible. Isn't a car driven too fast as dangerous as a drug being taken to excess?

A tad confusing --- if you kill someone at 60 or 100, but in either case if you were just being irresponsible, then isn't being irresponsible the problem - not the speed?  What if I irresponsibly fiddle with my radio, taking my eyes off the road, for 20 seconds straight and run somebody down - even though I was only going 15 mph?

If you can drive safely at 100 mph, who would I be to stop you?  As long as we all agree on what is safe - I think this is more important that just arbitrarily drawing a line in the sand: 55 mph is safe, 56 mph is not.  This seems ridiculous to me.

About the restaurant/bar business --- I have no idea why they would seem to listen to the smokers more.  Presumably because people who smoke would not patronize places that banned it, but non-smokers keep going anyway.  If the non-smokers created a real market pressure by refusing to patronize places where smokers co-mingled with the non-smokers perhaps things would make more sense.  Or maybe they don't mind the smoking as much as they let on?  Beats me.

About the waitress - in my perfect world a smoking establishment would have to disclose that any workers would be working in a smoking environment.  Why take that job if I'm afraid of the health affects of second-hand smoke?  If I'm a smoker anyway - what's to worry about?  Waitress on!

One final comment on the personal drug perspective - as pjkeeley identified, this issue is not really germane to public policy.  The reasons you list are all excellent reasons to not take drugs, and good reasons to talk/educate others about why they should consider not doing drugs - I just don't think it fits the bill for outlawing or banning the drugs.  Again - this comes down to how I see the role of society.

[donkeyhoty]

Everyone seems to have misunderstood the GHB argument:
1) I have proven you don't have to harm someone to commit a crime.
2) I was simultaneously demonstrating that free access to illegal drugs can have unintended benefits for criminals.
I was not arguing that slipping someone GHB was legitimate drug use.

As SteveS said, intent is the key for ciminal actions.  That's why there are different classes of crimes such as murder, e.g. first degree, second degree, manslaughter.  Thinking about committing a crime or possessing an object that you can committ a crime with, e.g. a gun, is not a crime.  You don't have to harm someone to commit a crime, yes, but you do have to have begin the process in the case you mentioned.  Just possessing GHB does not hurt anyone else, and as SteveS said using it for personal enjoyment also does not hurt anyone else.


I don't see your point about "free" access to illegal drugs.  Alcohol is a legal drug and it's much easier to get than GHB, and works almost as well.
Ambien is a legal drug, and can have very dangerous side-effects.  

The legality of a substance is irrelevant.  It is much easier to get legal drugs, or objects, and commit crimes than illegal substances.  Also, the illegality of substances brings in a criminal element.  It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.  It's the same thing that happened with alcohol prohibition during the 1920s.  You make something illegal, and nefarious characters come to control and profit from it(ignoring the nefarious characters that control legal businesses).

Legalization or, more likely, decriminalization removes the criminal element from the equation.  If it's not illegal, or as profitable, for people to sell drugs, or as expensive or dangerous to buy them, there is less reason to commit other crimes, such as murder or stealing to continue the process.

The mafias(italian and others) came to power in this country by controlling illicit practices such as alchohol, gambling, prostitution, and drugs.  When alchol prohibition was repealed the mob quickly lost control of that industry.  Gambling is still linked to organized crime, but not Las Vegas.  As gambling became more mainstream and acceptable the real gangsters(big business) came in and took over.  Prohibition of things like alchohol, drugs, prostitution and gambling has caused more crime than it's prevented.

55 mph is safe, 56 mph is not

The fuel crisis back in the day made 55 the speed limit.  So, 55mph is about as arbitrary as an arbitrary speed limit can get.

[Justice]

It sounds paternalistic to pass laws to protect people from their own poor judgment, but ultimately those laws protect <i>us</i>. There is maybe 1 person out of 1,000 who can safely drive at 100 mph. But there are 500 out of 1,000 who <i>believe</i> they can do so. Who is going to protect us from the other 499?

I really don't like the comparison to gun control, because I think the common view that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is incredibly naive. Just last week, a <b>dog</b> shot a man with a rifle!

You can argue that if they really want to kill someone, you can still do it with a knife or a razor blade. But you have to have a lot more fortitude, and you'd be taking bigger risk. Attacking someone with a knife, you can easily lose control of the situation. With a handgun, even an incompetent person can execute a murder.

Why am I not allowed to wire my house with mines and explosives to protect my property? Why can't I own weapons-grade uranium? Why shouldn't I be allowed to purchase ballistic missiles? Clearly, the government has a right to control the destructive power available to an individual. You draw the line at nuclear missiles. Maybe I want to draw the line at automatic weapons.

If you are for legalizing drugs, are you including prescription drugs? Will everyone be deciding on their own medication when they get sick? I have a headache - maybe some morphine will help. I have VD - let me give myself an antibiotic. Uncontrolled drugs could potentially cause a public health crisis. For example, over-use of antibiotics could lead to the development of drug-resistant bacteria.

[Bella]

If prescription drugs are legalized, that doesn't mean that people will nix the doctor (except for the very special idiots). Besides, if morphine were legal (as in OTC), that would just make it  more expensive (and thus harder) to get. There would be marketing costs, the government would be able to tax it, etc.

Just because drugs are illegal, it doesn't make them impossible to get... it just makes the circumstances more dangerous. If you want to do some illegal drugs, it's very possible to make some calls, find people who know people, and get them... it's just not the safest thing to do.

Let's use alcohol as an example again. You can't drink in public (unless it's a bar or otherwise designated area), you can't drive with it, etc. Yes, people break the law (as they do with all laws), but it's taxed and maintained. There are rules. Let's say cocaine were legalized. People couldn't drive under the influence, they couldn't do it in public... all of the same rules.

Both alcohol and cocaine are determental to one's health. They are both addicting. They both impair judgement. Why is booze okay and blow is not? Some people use one or the other socially and some people use one or the other habitually.

[donkeyhoty]

Justice, your argument about home protection and prescription drugs are both flawed and simplistic.

First, prescription drugs, such as antibiotics, are already overprescribed.  And they are legal, to an extent, meaning anyone with the correct prescrips can get them, regardless of whether their doctor prescribed them on the up-and-up.  Medicinal and recreational drugs are not comparable, despite the numbers of people that'd like to use pot(or coke, or morphine) medicinally.  
This debate about legalization involves currently illicit substances that would be used in the same way people use cigarettes and alcohol(mostly alcohol).  In essence why alcohol and not pot?  And, if you support legal alcohol and not pot, why?

Regarding home protection, you can't mine your yard because it's absurd.  It's as absurd as asking why you can't shoot someone that walks into your yard.  Shooting someone in self-defence is not the same as just shooting someone who enters your home.  There's a vast chasm between weapons for personal protection and weapons meant to cause indiscriminate harm.  I hope you were trying to be absurd, but who knows.

Also, I don't know what you're comparing to gun contol.  I don't recall anyone comparing drug prohibition and gun control, but maybe I missed it.

[ryanvc76]

Here in Germany I can drive 150mph on the way to a party, drink in public all over town, and when the night is over take a taxi home.  Although it is not "legal" here, I can easily get something to smoke if I so choose and I can easily smoke it in a park or wherever with friends, without getting arrested.  Life goes on and everyone is okay.  Now granted, the roads and vehicles here are better designed for the higher speeds.  Also, people grow up with a different view on alcohol.  Beer is legal at 16 already, so their is no need to act a fool when you turn 21.  They let you learn your limits with alcohol well before you're allowed to drive.  

Don't take this as a "Germany is better than the USA" statement - each has a list of pros and cons.  Afterall, blasphemy is still illegal here according to the law books.

Bottom line:  If you don't forbid everything, people aren't as attracted to it - the "forbidden fruit" element is removed.

We shouldn't underestimate the populations ability to protect themseleves.  What ever happened to survival of the fittest?  Sometimes you need to let the really stupid ones weed themselves out.

[Justice]

Once you create a new human right - "everyone should be able to put whatever they want in their body" - you don't get to turn around and say cocaine is a recreational drug, but not GHB. Every drug becomes free game. You will be putting the chemical equivalent of land mines and rocket launchers in the hands of anyone who wants one.

There is no basic human right to have access to drugs for the same reason there is no basic human right to have access to military-grade weapons. Is it paternalistic to decide which drugs are safe and which are not? Maybe. But it is the same process we use to determine which weapons are suitable for the general public and which are reserved for the military.

What is simplistic in this discussion is the naive belief that you can open Pandora's box and then control every demon that comes out of it. Alcohol is a dangerous drug, but it is also a food with a history older than god. Cocaine, tobacco and morphine are not food products, they are strictly drugs. The government has a right and a duty to control all chemical substances which are dangerous on both an individual and social level.

[Bella]

I believe people DO use GHB as a recreational drug, right? The bad part is slipping a drug of any kind to someone without their knowledge.

I honestly don't think that legalizing drugs is opening pandora's box. Honestly, I could get any drug I wanted (although I may have to wait a week, depending on what I wanted). I'm sure I'm not the only one, either. But, I don't do drugs. I'm not perfect. I drink, I may take ecstacy a couple times a year or a xanax... Nothing regularly or in excess and I'm responsible and safe each time. It has nothing to do with the government. It has to do with common sense. I've TRIED many (addicting ones, even). I don't know why I'm not addicted... maybe I don't have an addictive personality, maybe they just didn't appeal to me, maybe I actively don't want to be an addict... I dunno. I think your fears that all hell would break loose are a little unfounded...

Plus, just because the government deems them "legal", people still have some sort of say. For example, you can still drug-test your employee's (or babysitter, or children...).

I just remembered a conversation I was having a few weeks ago about olympic contestants using steroids. I don't remember the specifics, but there are some CRAZY things out there... new things... things that aren't even testable yet. It all depends on how much money they have. My friends and I agreed that they should just legalize it. Except for the money issue (some can afford the performance-enhancing drugs that others can't), it would provide a more level playing field... and they all do it anyways! If they want to destroy their bodies, let them do it.

[SteveS]

Justice - suffice it to say that I don't find planting land-mines all over your yard to be a reasonable course of action.  Nor would I find putting cocaine, GHB, and reefers into a bowl and offering kids their choice of candy or drugs on Halloween to be reasonable either.

When you argue against the drugs, or the guns for that matter, you always go on to propose some over-the-top, irresponsible, unreasonable behavior and then attempt to categorize "decriminalization" with this ridiculous behavior.  I can't say that argument has much affect on my opinion - ridiculous, irresponsible behavior is wrong no matter what you are doing it with.

A dog shot a man with a rifle:  how did the dog come upon the loaded rifle?  That was presumably laying about such that anyone (or anything, like a dog) who stumbled upon it could accidentally fire it?  In others words - making guns legal leads you to believe it is perfectly acceptable to load your weapons and leave them laying all around the place such that even your dog might walk across the weapon and discharge it?

I think these arguments you supply suffer deeply from the infamous "rights without responsibilities".  Just because people would have a right to own firearms and drugs (and landmines, or whatever) doesn't mean that these rights would come free of any and all responsibilities.  Put responsibility back into the equation and I think you'll see how the argument for legalization makes a whole lot more sense.  In the case of guns, yes, they are dangerous - so you have a responsibility to store and keep them in a condition that they will not accidentally harm an undeserving person.  Same would go for drugs --- leaving the Drano out for baby to eat would be no different then leaving the cocaine out for baby to eat.

I also find the implied faith in the government troubling: landmines, nukes, and missile are so dangerous nobody can safely possess them - so we'll give them to the government and let them do with them as they see fit?  What magical force makes the people in the government better judges as to the usage of powerful weapons than the people who are not in the government?  The only difference between a person firing a missile and a government doing so is that we've sanctified the government's ability to use aggression to further its own interests - but why have we done this, when we don't sanctify the right of the individual to so?  Have you been satisfied that human governments, historically, have only used their powerful weapons in justified cases?  That they've only used aggression against unjust, dangerous persons?  That they've respected the rights of individuals and only employed their weapons and armed forces to further those rights and "better" society?

Obviously - I don't think so.  :wink:

[donkeyhoty]

And to expand upon what SteveS said (or am I continuing SteveS' comment)...

Justice, the point about guns and land mines compared to drugs is not comparing apples and oranges, it's comparing apples and igneous rock.

In re: Pandora's Box, this is the same sort of argument applied to abortion, and it's still flimsy.  The people that are going to rape someone by using GHB are the same whether GHB is legal or not.  The only increase may come from people that currently use alcohol for the purpose of rape.  If GHB were legal they'd probably switch over to it.  

Although I don't agree with total leaglization I'll take up the case of other "hard" drugs.  Legalization will not create a whole new class of addicts and criminals.  Theoretically, it would be much easier to get treatment for addiction under legalization because money would be spent on treatment centers rather than wasting it on interdiction, prosecutions, and prison(not to mention more insurance companies would pay for it). The people that want to do a drug will do it regardless of the legality of the substance.  

Theoretically(in popular, not scientific, vernacular) there would be a brief increase in use of all "drugs" following legalization, such as happened after Prohibition was repealed(celebratory revelry, as opposed to off-for-the-weekend revelry), with levels returning to "normal" soon after.

And Bella, yes, some people use GHB for recreational purposes.  A few drops is essentially equivalent to 6 beers.

I also find the implied faith in the government troubling: landmines, nukes, and missile are so dangerous nobody can safely possess them - so we'll give them to the government and let them do with them as they see fit? What magical force makes the people in the government better judges as to the usage of powerful weapons than the people who are not in the government? The only difference between a person firing a missile and a government doing so is that we've sanctified the government's ability to use aggression to further its own interests - but why have we done this, when we don't sanctify the right of the individual to so? Have you been satisfied that human governments, historically, have only used their powerful weapons in justified cases? That they've only used aggression against unjust, dangerous persons? That they've respected the rights of individuals and only employed their weapons and armed forces to further those rights and "better" society?

Who do you think you are, John Locke? :wink:

[Bella]

Well put, SteveS and Donkeyhoty! I forgot about how much money the government currently wastes on the war on drugs (while CA is broke and they are raising tuition prices by the semester to cover their butts) and all of the people sitting in jail because they were caught using drugs... What a waste.

Geez, a few drops of GHB is the same as 6 beers?! Now I know never to try it... I think that would kill me.