David Farrer links to this story, about a call from a Scottish lawyer to legalise not just cannabis, but all drugs.
A LEADING Scottish criminal lawyer yesterday called for the legalisation of all drugs.
Donald Findlay QC said legalising narcotics such as heroin, cocaine and cannabis was the only way to “break the link” between users and dealers.
The advocate also attacked politicians and the Scottish Executive for failing to get to grips with the problem of drug abuse, accusing them of fostering a “tough on crime” image rather than looking for radical solutions.
However, politicians last night hit back at Mr Findlay, describing him as “irresponsible”.
The Executive also denied Mr Findlay’s claims, pointing to a raft of recent policies to tackle drug abuse.
Mr Findlay, who last week attacked the Executive’s policy on crime, said: “Drugs is a huge issue and there is no question that what drugs do to families and communities is the biggest problem that we have had in recent years, and it is a problem that politicians just will not tackle.
“Since the mid-1980s we have had drug offences. It is now more than 20 years on and the problem is continuing to grow.
“From the law’s point of view, there has to be much more effort to break the cycle, and I really think we should be having a proper look at legalising drugs. You have got to try something to get people away from the dealers.”
Mr Findlay said simply decriminalising cannabis did not go far enough.
Alas, there’s no chance of Findlay QC winning this argument in the near future in Scotland, because, as David notes, Mr Michael McSomeone has said that this would “send the wrong message”. There was, Mr McSomeone added, “a clear need for a consensus”, by which he meant everyone agreeing with him.
I also believe that there is a clear need for a consensus, by which I mean everyone agreeing with Findlay QC and with me. This would send the right message, namely (and with thanks to P. J. O’Rourke for saying something along these lines on a Cato tape I once listened to): (a) do what you want with what’s yours, and (b) accept the consequences.
I’ve long thought this. The issue is the responsibility of buyer to inform seller of what substance is being traded and what its effects are.
Yes I know – caveat emptor / buyer beware – but some clarity on what selling any drug (alcohol, coffee, cocaine…) entails would help us all.
Oh yeah. Legalizing all drugs and leaving the remaining problems to be dealt with as medical issues WOULD send a message, several of them, in fact:
1. We can recognize a lost cause and a dead end when we see it, and turn around before total disaster.
2. We’re not hypocrites; we really DO have the best interests of the society at heart.
3. The inmates AREN’T running the asylum; there is some adult supervision, after all.
4. Government doesn’t have the right to interfere in your life as long as you aren’t hurting or aggressing against anyone else. This doesn’t mean government endorses your choices, or that they are right; only that they are YOURS, right or wrong, and that your public servants respect that and know their place.
I wonder: Why is it so hard for politicians — especially the heirs of the centuries-old British or American traditions of liberty — to approach this question in this way?
We Yanks faced facts and left VetNam, finally. The violent death throes of the Drug War only postpone the inevitable, sensible conclusion: “Peace with Honor.” Unfortunately, the longer it takes to get to that “peace” the less “honor” to be had for those who obstruct our progress.
I’m unequivocally for never having made drugs illegal in the first place. Making thing legal once they’ve been illegal for several generations is a much more difficult proposition. Oh, I’m still for it, but I don’t think our society (either of our societies) has the heart for it.
People learn (well, some do) not to become hopeless burnouts by the example of other hopeless burnouts. We’d have to build such a generation of examples from scratch. Sacrifice a big chunk of the legalization generation to it, probably, and the anti-legalization folks would stand on the sidelines yelling, “I told you so!”
mark: what you’re talking about is a trading standards issue and, I agree, it’s an important one. Sometimes our grannies got hooked on laudanum in the 19C because they didn’t know were taking it. Patent medicine ingredients were seldom properly labeled. In the absence of US Department of Agriculture Grade A China White Heroin labels (the non-libertarian solution), I suppose a market for independent, privately funded testing and certification laboratories would arise.
This is one of those issues where it’s easy to make the pro-liberty arguement from several angles. The legal (government prohibition drives prices up, increasing criminal incentives), the moral (my life, my body, my choice), the pragmatic (the Drug War isn’t working, and to the degree it may, it certainly won’t do it efficiently unless you adopt fascist tactics), the economic (imagine the undiscovered growth potential in a mind-altering chemical free market, as well as the commercial R&D possibilities). Not to mention that is truely weighs in on personal responsibility, which appeals to conservatives in the US.
“Public health” and “people are too stupid” are the most common responses to this line of thought. Ugh.
I’m for legalising all drugs. However, whether or not drugs are actually made legal, what has to stop is the extremely punitive nature of the war on drugs. Quite simply, we need to stop locking people up in enormous numbers simply for drug possession and/or drug use. We need to stop using the US military to fight the drug war. We need to reverse the tremendous dilution of people’s rights to privacy, due process and the like that have occurred as a consequence of the war on drugs. While the liberty argument is very important, I am willing to ignore it for a while in return for a simple practical acknowledgement that it is time to try something else because the status quo is an utter catastrophe.
Disappointing though not predictable that the MSPs chorused “You can’t do that!”
But:
1) they did not add “Think of the children!” (perhaps they will start when they get desperate, though)
2) it’s encouraging that more people are speaking out, and, it seems to me on purely anecdotal evidence, that opinion is slowly shifting our way. A lot of people seem to think everyone will die if drugs are legalised, until I explain that there will be fewer overdoses, less chance of fatal impurities and an end to the crime encouraged by prohibition. Maybe these MSPs should ask themselves why most violent drugs dealers – I guess – wouldn’t want drugs decriminalised?
It amazes me that anyone who demands that habit forming “drugs” be legalised thinks that they are being libertarian.
Habit forming Drugs make people dependent – they enslave people with chemical and mental binds. This gives the people who sell the drugs massive power over the individuals who have become ensnared in a drug habit. Especially when it reaches the stage where the person is so drug dependent that they can no longer work for a living… and so turn to theft, prostitution, whatever etc.., to make money to buy more drugs etc etc…
Legalising drugs does not change any of these facts and actually makes things worse by giving the sellers of these drugs more legitimacy… and who will be targeted – the children! The younger they are caught the easier it is to make addicts of them.
And – you dont think the number of addicts and associated crimes will go up???? hahahaha … where do you think the new “legal” addicts will get the money to pay for the drug habits when they are kicked out of their jobs?
Also any idea that dealers and that sleazy side of things will disappear is ludicrous – people will jump at any place they can make easy sales… if legitimacy occurs then the kiddie market goes exponential… because the younger they’re caught the easier they become hooked… the more people hooked the greater the sales…it also will become another way kids can rebel against their parents except with new LEGAL backing!
If you want a nation with a large slave population in it – then legalising more drugs is one sure way to go about it!
Something else you are forgetting is what about new drugs that come on the market? With new genetic and chemical knowledge will come a whole new generation of “exciting” things to destroy and enslave people with… and they will arrive with increasing speed (no pun intended 🙂 what happens to your children, your family, and the community you live in then if all dangerous drugs are legal?
Will this keep more people out of prison???? like hell it will – there will be new laws brought in about who can do what and where, ad nauseum… nver mind the taxes that will be “needed” to pay for everything.
For added pleasure – drug use gives you another way to kill yourself unexpectedly when your body finds that what you swallowed, injected, smoked etc… has suddenly stopped it working!- Whoopee a new freedom???!
Seriously -the more drugs you “legalise” the more you condemn everyone to the misery that ensues! There is little Liberty that I can see anywhere in that.
The only liberty gained by legalisation is the freedom to say you’re free to do it, because once you’re hooked you’re freedoms are all f*cked!
Hello little druggy-wuggy + Bye bye liberty!
The first question that anyone should ask of anyone in a position of power calling for the legalising of habit forming drugs is: What do they gain from this and what do we lose?….
Well they hope to gain publicity, power and money- whereas we would ultimately lose money in exchange for the gain of a quick high +a russian roulette flipside chance of throwing our lives and our families lives away… that is a very stupid business deal to enter into.
Ok enough said – End of rant 🙂
“Habit forming Drugs make people dependent – they enslave people with chemical and mental binds. This gives the people who sell the drugs massive power over the individuals who have become ensnared in a drug habit. Especially when it reaches the stage where the person is so drug dependent that they can no longer work for a living… and so turn to theft, prostitution, whatever etc.., to make money to buy more drugs etc etc… ”
Thanks for telling me this. I am now aware that if I take a potentially addictive drug, I may become “enslaved” by it. Having gained this knowledge and thus been informed, my choice to start taking this drug, and hence risk addiction is a purely voluntary one, and hence my liberty remains intact. Ooopps what happenned to your argument?
Joe – With all due respect, do you really think The War on Drugs protects children from drug use? Would it not be easier to protect children if the sellers of drugs were licensed, had hours and sold openly where granny could see who was going in and out?
What amazes me is how the politicians, usually so anxious to rape our pocket books for taxes, can’t see that the economic effect of prohibition is EXACTLY the same as the economic effect of a tax. Both raise prices. Taxing drugs in an amount equivalent to the welfare cost of prohibition and saving the money spent on the fruitless “War” would provide politicians with revenues beyond their dreams of avarice.
In the meantime, I can score whatever I want whenever I want within…oh…half an hour. Some “War”. The authorities should just surrender unconditionally.
People steal to buy drugs because they are expensive. They are expensive because of the huge protection rackets and gangsterism and smuggling that goes on to get them from A to B. If legal, there is no reason they should be more expensive than cigarettes, even allowing for a government that would tax drugs and ‘ringfence’ some of the revenue to provide NHS treatment for people who abused drugs (‘drugs misuse’ in the current jargon, which sounds to me like using drugs to make wallpaper glue or for something else other than their intended purpose).
Drugs would be cheaper for users and the problem of drugs would be cheaper for the taxpayer (health, crime, customs, policing…). I do not see that it would cost more in economic or social terms than alcoholism.
PS Joe, the libertarian position on drugs is ‘high on the agenda’ not so much because of ideological purity as because it is our contention that removing prohibition would make our world a safer place for everyone, users and people living in ‘rough areas’ alike. In many urban areas, most crime is committed to pay the exorbitant black-market rate for impure drugs. And impure drugs in unknown doses kill far more readily than known doses.
The best way for the state to control drugs, which it will always want to do, is to have them out in the open and not drive them underground. Yes, we’ll complain about taxation and regulation, but most of the good work will have been done by legalisation.
Libertarianism is based on voluntary contractual relations between people, and not on libertinism. The libertarian position is not that of the mass of people wearing ‘dope not war’ t-shirts.
Richard -ahhh cry liberty and let loose the dogs of logic!- its a sad shame that they are but sad smokey drug dogs whose lazy hazy logic lies in semantics and not reality. So slavery is liberty when chosen “freely” yessssss sure! Admittedly if legalised for a while you will feel the heady rush of freedom of your drug induced reality… if you are lucky you wont notice what is going on in reality. Or you can always pretend – that will remain your liberty.
Of course the backswing of your libertarian “victory” – Legalising that choice- would impose all the extrapolated results on the rest of us, thereby removing our choice to live our lives free of it – removing our liberty. How very kind, how very libertarian of you 🙂
The one big fact about making a choice to take drugs is that by doing so you knowingly make the choice to inflict any and all results upon the rest of us! Your little liberty threatens to erode some of our main liberties including the rights to a happy life free from fear! When people start to feel the effects of an increased drug culture how long do you reckon it would take the government to start introducing new restrictions on liberty?
Large scale drug freedoms at this point in time will produce results that are ultimately anti-libertarian.
But I suppose if you use them freely enough you eventually wont care anyway!
Note: Maybe I didn’t quite make it clear that by enslaved I meant not only to the drug itself but also to the providers of the drug, be that an individual, group, or government… Feel free to choose your slaver of choice 🙂
Theodopoulos- consider alchohol – does the licencing of it reduce sales? Does it even reduce illegal sales? Nope… children are a ready market for all forms of drugs sales… they are dying to enter the “adult” world. And peer pressure makes them so damn stupid!
There is no real war on drugs… to have a real war on drugs you would attack the production and sales network on all levels. This is not and has never been implemented. What is happening is a low level containment proceedure. For a full scale drugs war the government would need to operate a form of internment for a time. Clean up the addicts, destroy the gang systems and kill the chain of supply and demand. There is not the political will to do that. Not while enough people “desire” their drugs… and anyway – a full scale drugs war is not necessary – the government only has to do enough to show that they are doing something-provided usage doesn’t get out of control. A partial success suits them both ways – the people who like it get it – the people who don’t like it see that something is being done to stop it. Everybody’s happy (ish).
Ian – No matter how low the price is brought down because the drugs are habit forming and produce side effects serious enough to stop a person leading a productive life… what happens when they lose their job- where does the money come from to provide their drug supply or rehabilitation? Then what happens with the introduction of new different drugs?
Illegal production and distribution will not go away with legalisation – it will change and more than likely increase because of the larger market! If suppliers can buy new cheap legal drugs do you seriously think they will stop cutting them to produce a greater return on their sales or coming up with new products to entice the user? We are not talking honest businessmen here! Again with this the children are in the firing line because they will be still be buying it illegally – nothing changes for them -their situation is made more complex and more dangerous.
I know that legalising drugs is high on many libertarians agenda’s – it sounds great “letting them out in the open” instead of “driving them underground”- but the underground will remain because of the childrens market etc…- I truly think libertarians who agree with drug legalisation are making the biggest of all mistakes. Drug sales are not an ordinary market force. The addiction problem takes away choice by stealth…and the child protection problem creates an automatic underground that isnt going away! Legalisation will increase addict levels and a country with too high an addict level will eventually introduce ways to remove that problem. And the methods used will not be libertarian.
Ok my friend… First of all, I don’t see why the Government should have the right to put me in prison because I smoke marijuana and by the same way destroying a part of my life(hard to get a good job after, etc…) It’s a moral quesion, it’s just not the business of the government, or anyone else!
Also, we will be able to control the quality of the drugs, and that mean we can save A LOT of lifes… But that is just a detail…
Also, if it’s controlled by the government(in this case it’s acceptable, in my opinion), I doubt they will make drug pubs… In fact it will be the contrary… If we could decide specific place where those drug can be bought, we can also offer informations etc…
What is the worse, to be dependent from the government or from gangsters?
Our culture is already a drug culture, didn’t you notice it? Just watch Holliwood movies! Or, if youre not too old, remember when you where at school…
”Your little liberty threatens to erode some of our main liberties including the rights to a happy life free from fear”
You don’t even understand what libertarian stand for… A true libertarian will never speak about ”the right to a happy life free from fear” as a liberty… This is a ”positive liberty”, something that have nothing to do with true liberty and that is a creation of the left. Liberty is the possibility to do anything you want with your properties as long as you don’t damage the properties of the others. Specific liberties are negative… exemple:
The liberty of not being hurted
The liberty of not being killed
The liberty of not being stealed
The liberty of not being opressed
The liberty of not being controlled
There is no liberty of ”living an happy live”. If don’t have have the possibility to be happy, that doesn’t mean you aren’t free, it just mean you don’t have that possibility… Liberty only touch human affair… If someone force you not to do something you want even if it’s not really of is concern, your liberties aren’t respected. If you can’t live an happy live because you use drugs, you still have your liberties… Another exemple… we can’t say someone isn’t free because he is handicaped, exept if it’s the fault of someone else… But if he did it himself in the forest, we just can’t say is liberties have been violated.
I’m no economist, but let’s say crack is $10/rock. If it goes to $20/rock, will crack addicts really give it up? Or, will they just bust ass/arse to make that extra money, most likely via crime. One of the underlying concepts of legalization is that the price will go down. What if it doesn’t in the case of specific drugs like crack? What if, like the Saudis with OPEC, drug providers are able to keep the price high, but not so high that alternative sources of energy become profitable? As far as I know, coca requires a certain type of climate, and I haven’t heard of anyone in the U.S. being arrested for trying to grow coca. So, does that mean the guvments would need to then step in and establish coca plantations in Colombia or similar places?
Ghaleon- There is a trade off in liberty for any action that you choose that affects others- a necessary give and take- to make liberties effective. At some point that give asked for is too much for society to accept- so laws are created and enforced. It is sad that what should be a simple pleasure should get such a harsh legal reaction… I have not made the laws as they stand… but I can see the necessity of such laws at this point in history.
Legalising drugs does make for some better quality drugs , but it does not make all drugs better quality nor does it guarantee the quality of whatever fashionable new cutting edge drug you fancy buying or are “given” . Lives would be saved – but more lives would be lost.
Yes our culture contains a drug culture – making it a worse drug culture – does not make it a better culture.
With regard to Liberty – you say:
” If you can’t live an happy live because you use drugs, you still have your liberties… ”
… Have you? Not only have you affected your life detrimentally but this in turn has a destructive effect on the lives and property of your friends and family, tax payer etc…
…once this happens it has crossed the line of your stated: “Liberty is the possibility to do anything you want with your properties as long as you don’t damage the properties of the others.”
Sadly current drug culture damages other people and their property who are not involved in that culture, due in part to the very nature of the drugs used… changing legislation will not change the nature of the drugs.
Unpopular and illiberal response coming up …
The legalisation of drugs SHOULD happen, but only when the potential personal is lower than at present. How to achieve that? Well, sorry you crackheads, but the answer is more self-esteem among the masses – we have to marry, stay married and bring our kids up right. Whole people from unbroken, loving homes are less prone to self-destruction and to the urban chic of a crappy drug lifestyle.
In short, out with the 1960’s and all its works. Hey, that’s cool
Joe… “consider alchohol – does the licencing of it reduce sales? Does it even reduce illegal sales? Nope… children are a ready market for all forms of drugs sales”
From personal experience, it was easier at 14 to buy hash than beer; the people in the beer shop asked for id some of the time; the greasy-haired guy under the bridge wouldn’t even have thought about it.
Also, if you advocate a continuing “war on drugs”, what winning strategy do you propose? How do you propose to force me, a tax-paying peaceful citizen, to stop smoking weed? And furthermore, by what right?
You *may* have a case in contesting the wisdom of legalizing crack for instance, but tbh, for the majority of drugs the evidence is that they cause far less trouble in society when we don’t go to war against them. Witness Switzerland, Holland, even the UK before the US decided the “british method” of prescribing heroin (which is making a comeback btw.. thank god) was a bad idea & pressured the UK government to give it up…. Numbers of addicts went up massively after prescriptions stopped, as addicts had to pay for their habit, & one of the best ways wast to be a dealer & recruit new users.
Joe – I’m glad that you credit me with logic, and yes, I do believe that slavery, when freely chosen, is not really slavery. Moreover, your points are empirically untenable – there are several highly addictive drugs available on the market, tobacco, alcohol and caffeine (the later is especially underestimated in popular opinion but is very addictive) but we would be straining the use of the word “slave” to call regular consumers of such substances slaves to their producers. They freely choose to take them, they freely accept the consequences of this descision.
Secondly, is it a mere coincidence that the fact that these things are legal goes hand in hand with the fact that there are many cures and treatments for their addiction available? Would the AA exist if the UK had lived under a prohibition for as long as we have had the war on drugs? Would we be able to choose between nicotene patches, gum, special cylinders to hold, counciling from various sources etc. if cigarettes were illegal? It is a fact observed frequently by opponents of the war on drugs that it is precisely BECAUSE various drugs are illegal that we know so little about them and there effects when compared to legal drugs, and hence so little about how to treat those that use them when compared to legal drugs. It is, then, a distinct and realistic possibility that legalisation of drugs will produce flourishing of solutions and treatments for addiction just as we have seen for nicotene.
As for unlibertarian consequences: You mentioned prostitution, which isn’t unlibertarian. You also mentioned crimes against person and property, which are unlibertarian, but I would like to know whether crimes perpetrated by people in order to fund their alcohol, caffiene and tobacco use are really as high as those seeking to fund, say, heroine use. I doubt it.
A_t, “The greasy haired guy under the bridge” makes money selling what is available and what there is a market for. When new drugs become fashionable that is what he will be selling.
With regard to a “War on drugs” – that is just a media terminology and has no basis in reality. What has been going on is a legal “holding action” which only requires as much action to maintain reasonable law and order as possible, this allows some drugs through to keep those who insist on using them happy.
There is no easy alternative option. Legalising it increases the problems: A real Drugs War could easily be twisted into becoming a Civil War. I dont plan to force you to stop smoking weed… if you do it in your own space and it doesn’t impact on the rest of us… that is your choice 🙂
Switzerland and Holland both still have great problems with their drug cultures… witness a couple of years ago the “retaking” of the “drug” Parks in Switzerland and the ever increasing “alternative” legislation that strangely enough impacts on the “coffee shops” in Holland. They continue to experiment but still find the problems haven’t gone away. These two countries may have slightly more relaxed attitude at this time but they use the same legal holding system that most countries use. Drugs there are basically still illegal.
As you note with the prescriptions issue: dealers make use of any available niche to enhance their sales… legislation might change their business practice – it wont remove it.
The main problem is the addiction to a product that ends up being destructive to more than just the user… While the addictive and destructive qualities remain, legalisation will eventually result in greater restrictive legislation.., or worse – a real drugs war!
Follow any major processed addictive drug back through history and see what happened in different cultures: Firstly freedom of use, then abuse and misery, then legislation and occasionally war!!! I can’t recall any case where it has gone back to total freedom of use, but from history I can see what always follows.
It’s not how I’d like it – that’s just how it is.
Richard, apologies for slightly taking the piss, but it was late last night when I wrote it and …. well, its not just that I disagree with your logic, its that your logic seeks to place a catch 22 situation on me that annoyed me- that in order to be free you have to enter into something that takes away your freedom!
I still disagree with your logic…For example -This sentence: “They freely choose to take them, they freely accept the consequences of this descision.” That seems so fair and logical how can I disagree… except that I know that when we are young we never expect to have to deal with the consequences of our long term actions. We feel invulnerable and can’t imagine it ever happening to us. No addict I ever met conciously made the choice to become an addict… they all feel they have been trapped and victimised by the incremental addiction.
I agree with them – it is a hidden trap – and some protection from such a trap that is being sold to the foolish and unwary by greedy others is necessary.
As for medical studies… I agree that the medical situation is stupid and that more studies are definitely required regardless of legalisation – and we end up back trying to find the money for the studies… if we sell drugs to get the money to pay for studying them we increase the drug problem which will need more studies… another catch 22.
But as for comparing different addictive drugs… its a bit of a ruse as the drugs produce different end results – its not comparing like with like. Each drug has to be dealt with on its own merits.
Although with regard to alchohol… there is increasing media publication of the negative effects here in the UK … if alcohol abuse continues to climb, how long do you reckon before some bright spark tries to bring in more legislation for that as well?
As for prostitution – whether it is libertarian or not I suppose depends on whether you have a pimp or work freelance!
Joe, just a quick response, ‘cos work’s hectic, but:
“I know that when we are young we never expect to have to deal with the consequences of our long term actions. We feel invulnerable and can’t imagine it ever happening to us.”
…so would you legislate against say, throwing a good education away to drop out of university? Could make a huge difference to your future life that; much more than a few spliffs, or even casual use of heroin.
At whichever age people are deemed adults, they should be allowed to make their own choices. The possible consequences of these choices should be made as clear as possible, in an honest and believable fashion (which will never happen whilst drug taking is treated as a *moral* issue), and beyond that, well… it’s up to the individual. Plenty of things are addictive, from sex to mountain climbing, and some perfectly legal activities can be very harmful to your health (see mountain climbing; i’ve seen far lives lost to this than drugs). Why should drugs be singled out for illegality amongst all the dangerous choices adult humans can make?
A_t, drugs need to be dealt with on an individual basis because each drug has a different effect on not only the individual user but often on the wider community who have no immediate connection to the initial user.
It is the resultant exponential destructive qualities associated with addictive drug use that require special consideration… for it can and does destroy families and communities. One problem with legalising it is that many people assume that it has never been legalised, and that makes them think that legalising it will solve the problems: They don’t realise that these drugs often started off with no restraints and ended up being legislated against because of the problems they inherantly bring with them. They weren’t legislated against on a whim but because of the realities of the situations they had caused prior to the legislation.
Most addictive drugs and pursuits don’t require any legislation because they don’t result in the excessive problems for the wider community that drug use causes.
Its the same logic for why the general public are not allowed to store things like plutonium in their garage. It boils down to this: Things that cause problems for the wider community get legislated against because peoples own selfish interests tend to override respect for others persons and property.
Age of Maturity is irrelevent because drug use is inevitably targeted at those below the age of Maturity. Get them young and you have a customer for life!
The problems drug use brings in its wake is not a moral issue… it is the age old problem of: How to limit damage to person and property caused by the excessively selfish liberties of others!
That’s a basic liberty problem – not a moral issue any more than liberty itself isl.
For the time being “Containment by use of specific legislation” is the best idea that any government has come up with. The other options are worse and less libertarian!
The people in power who call for legalisation are not out to help libertarians… they are only looking for support to further their own ambitions! The ones who understand the realities realise that if it is legalised – it will only remain that way until increased misery in the wider community demands that new laws be introduced. Which because of the increased scale of the drug problem will quite probably will be tougher than the previous laws.
In that way legalisation at this time will ultimately be a backward step.
Me…I’m addicted to caffeine…oh yeah…and food…I mean…I *need* food….oh…and water…I’m addicted to that too…and *gasp* I’m addicted to air, too.
Hmmm…and now that I think about it…my daughter’s smile gives me a pretty good high.
Joe,
I won’t claim to know the same addicts that you do, but I do know three addicts, and they can whine all they want but there is no way in Hell that they didn’t know what they were getting into. One of these guys is a MENSA member and has a Masters in Marketing. He’s not dumb…he knew the consequences, he decided…and now he’s living the “dream.”
They tried alcohol prohibition here in the US. Can you believe that they even ammended our CONSTITUTION with it? (The insanity of that still buggers me to this day.) Anyway, prohibition failed abysmally. But, the good news is…they repealed it! Distilled alcohol is of course a processed…and addictive drug. Early in the history of the US, there was almost a war because of taxation on Whiskey. Go figure. 😉
You’re correct that “The War on Drugs” is only being half-fought. We could turn it into a true hot-war, but the long-term loss of liberty would probably be even worse. How would one define victory in such a war? Also, I don’t know if you’re very familiar with the laws on asset forfeiture and seizure here in the US, but many of them are to the point of absurdity. ie. In the special case of narcotics, property can be seized even when there is no *conviction*…which seems to deny that “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” clause of the 5th Ammendment.
While I’ll admit that the thought of legalizing all drugs gives me a little bit of the willies…at a rational level, I’m willing to give it a try. A_t made a previous comment about not getting carded to get hash…there is a lot of wisdom in this, I think. And on the tangent, of course children like to rebel from the parents, et al…but that does *not* mean that all of them will turn to addictive drugs in order to do so.
Joe
I am a smoker and I knew dam well that smoking was bad for me and hard to quit when I started smoking. I chose to do it anyway. While that choice maybe was not the best one I could have made, it was a choice and it was my choice. It is a choice every day when I light up a smoke or put a chew in my mouth. The idea that I am some how a victim of the owner of the owner of the store that sold me my first pack of smokes when I was 13 is silly. People have to take responsability for their choices.
Being a smoker has not made me lose jobs or go on welfare. While some drugs have more serious effects on peoples ability to hold a job, there are lots of functional alcoholics, pot smokers, coke addicts, and other drug users. That dose not mean I recomend people use these drugs or for that matter that I think every one should start smoking or chewing, but it dose mean that you should keep your nose out of other peoples business.
Nate, as I said before – its the “It’ll never happen to me trap” that catches people out – and that most often happens when they are young. They all think “I wont get caught”… and before they realise it they’re slave to the need. Then it’s lost jobs, families destroyed…etc etc…
I know well about prohibition… and it was an idiotic idea. But one of the things I’m trying to point out is that more liberties will ultimately be lost than gained if all drugs get legalised at this time in history.
Of course if drugs got legalised not all children would get involved… but enough would get hurt to cause a backlash of new tougher anti drug laws!!
That’s one reason why anti drug laws were introduced in the first place when drug use was originally legal.
Steph, your last sentence is the very reason that drug laws exist….
… ” it dose mean that you should keep your nose out of other peoples business”…
Drug addicts force their problems on other people… by doing so they make it other peoples business and so the other people gang up and make laws to prevent those addiction caused problems from getting out of control.
I wish it wasn’t like that – but that’s the way it is.
That’s the reality of it.
Because of the war on drugs I am not able to get the most reliable way of being free from pain in my left eye (and prolonging the viability of my cornea). I cannot get special dispensation because my eye condition is not as high profile enough to warrant it. Fact is, the war on drugs is affecting my right to choose, my health and my well-being.
I believe all drugs should be legalised (well documented in my book Statism Sucks! Ver. 2.0). The war on drugs is failure and hurts more than it helps. The addicts still get their stuff, the mob still makes money and the rest of us suffer from overzealous law enforcement. The crime problem is the direct effect of the war on drugs.
People have a right to put whatever they want to put into their body. They do not have a right to expect the rest of us to pay for it. It is a question of responsability. If someone becomes an addict (of anything) and commits a crime, but their arse and put them in prison. Don’t make law-abiding citizens suffer the loss of freedom because a percentage of the populace has no self-control. Yes, that means I would love to see a return of opium dens and the like.
It is possible to have a pack of cigarettes and notget addicted, ditto cocaine, snorted heroin, pot et al.
Another point, I would much rather deal with a stoner than some a-hole caffeine addict cranky becuase he can’t get his first cup of joe in the morning.
Why should the masses suffer because some losers have no self-control?
Legalise all drugs now. Let the people decide what is good for them, not some nanny state.
I hope every anti-drug (esp pot) zealot spends the last of their days in tremendous pain with the knowledge that a bit of cannabis every day would make their life easier.
Joe, “They don’t realise that these drugs often started off with no restraints and ended up being legislated against because of the problems they inherantly bring with them.”
mmmm… but if you look at your history, moral hysteria (with a racist flavour in the case of both cannabis & heroin respectively), and powerful lobbies’ business interests, along with a good dose of po-faced puritanism had as much to do with the legislation as any genuine dangers.
Since then, because of the sudden introduction of *morality* into the equation, it’s not been possible to asess the problems brought on by illegality against those which come with legality, because whenever you try & bring it up, someone’s always there to go “but what about the kids?”, “sending out the wrong message” or something similar.
You could (and liberals do) argue exactly the same case against gun ownership.. in fact, much better; if guns are around, kids could get hold of them, & not only could they harm their own foolish asses, but many other people’s. Do you agree with this line of reasoning? Think that guns should be illegal?
As I said before, I’m slightly uneasy about the idea of legalizing some drugs; crack for a start, as crack users seem to be near-universally scary (but maybe that’s just the ones i notice!)…but I reckon things are likely to be less bad than they are at present. My girlfriend narrowly avoided getting mugged by 3 crackheads the other morning, and i genuinely feel legalization’s worth a shot.
“Drug addicts force their problems on other people… by doing so they make it other peoples business and so the other people gang up and make laws to prevent those addiction caused problems from getting out of control.”
*SOME* addicts do… correct. But if they do it in a way which is intrusive, eg. burgling someone’s house, robbing a shop, harassing passers-by etc., there are normal laws to deal with that. I see no need to legislate on people’s personal lives, and actions which don’t have to affect anyone else; it’s a slippery slope, and seriously harms young people’s respect for the more sensible laws.
oh… PS
“…make laws to prevent those addiction caused problems from getting out of control.”
…and aren’t they just *so* effective… lucky those laws’re there to keep things under control, eh? Imagine that, otherwise i’d have to be worried some f**ing junkie might break into my flat while i’m out. Might have to check carefully round my street as i walked home, see if anyone dodgy’s hanging around. Man… thank god for those laws, keeping us all safe.
yep… you’re right; no need to reassess the situation. The present approach is so effective, i reckon all we need to do is throw even more money at it.
& Andrew 🙂 good post!
A_t, You and Andrew misunderstand my argument…My argument isnt in favour of anti-drug legislation or any nanny state… I am all for people doing what they want as long as they dont mess with others liberties. The anti drugs laws are an unsatisfactory mess that needs sorting – but legalising all drugs wont sort the mess out, because it doesn’t deal with the problems… it totally ignores the reality… and makes the assumption that legalisation hasn’t already been tried – but it has – and it was the reason we’re now stuck with the damn laws!
Until someone comes up with a way to stop the “addiction” side-effect of the drugs – legalisation will only result in more laws not less laws. Morals have little or nothing to do with it. When an addict hurts a person and their family or their property – the victim’s morals are not the problem!
There are other ways that might help deal with the drug problems… for example: Funny you should mention guns because… If the population were allowed to arm themselves with guns and allowed to shoot the addicts who were in the process of robbing them and hunt down and shoot the dealers who sold to their kids – without fear of any legal reprisals! Then maybe the bleeding hearts and pro-drug people would quickly find ways to deal with the addiction side-effects and strict anti drug laws wouldn’t be necessary 🙂
I’m with Andrew. The fact that because of the war on drugs, people are not permitted the full range of pain relief medically possible, and that AIDS and chemotherapy patients are unable to use cannabis to allow them to feel better and get their apetites back, and similar is quite simply a moral outrage.
Michael, the denial of such drugs as medication is not a result of a “War on Drugs”; its the result of badly thought out legislation.
That legislation could easily be changed – and to my best recollection it is under consideration but the required “medical studies” still have to be completed. The downside of Cannabis as a painkiller is that it has longterm side-effects… the people that are really holding up change are LAWYERS… because guess who will have their noses in the trough the minute somebody decides to sue the medical world because their medical cannabis use has caused them other problems.
So is it a moral outrage that people are in pain because they don’t get these drugs… that depends on the individual case. Some cases are outrageous others aren’t. But beware – moral outrage cuts both ways… If you use the moral outrage case in pro-drug legalisation arguments… you must accept the moral arguments in anti-drug legalisation arguments…. if you start weighing up the moral pro’s and con’s you soon find that the “anti’s” have one hell of a lot more to get morally outraged about. Denying that will only make your argument look like total hypocrisy, which would be a shame as it has validity.
If you can get hold of sufficient supplies of whatever drug you are addicted to then the only problem is what damage the drug is doing to you.
For instance, many dealers are addicts and they seem to manage a business/fill in welfare claims/dodge the cops etc. It is only when you cannot meet the finanncial costs of your habit that the huge social problems occur.
The state makes billions of dollars by keeping most drugs illegal. To legalize drugs would mean dismantling a huge bureaucracy and giving up billions in fines and confiscations. Local, state, and federal police are loathe to do this. It would greatly reduce their power and importance since most crime would dry up. The effect it would have on the prison industry would be devastating also. A great deal of people miss the point about drug legalization. It’s about money and a lot of government bureaucrats and government contractors are getting wealthy by keeping the status quo; with fear and ignorance their greatest weapons.