and so it goes...
I think a common issue some people have is two different things get talked about and are routinely seen as similar.
Decriminalizing and Legalizing.
Now I'm not talking from a technical stand point of their differences, as I'm not quite sure of all the legal definitions. However in general how people view it.
When people hear "legalization" of drugs they're generally thinking of people advocating that all illegal drugs currently are made legal and are mass produced and sold in stores.
When people hear "decriminalizaton" I think it lends more to the thought that having it is not necessarily against the law, but is also no promoting that we start making it legal to sell it.
I think that that clash in thought on the "pro drug" crowd has to be fought first....is the movement going to push so that all drugs of every kind is legal to have, sell, manufacture, and use....or are we seeking to decrimialize the position and use of it but recognize that some drugs should not be approved for production and sell?
Once the movement comes to a general agreement on it its getting that message out.
I think you'll lose a lot of support if its the "everything and every facet legal" route, but I think the second option could legitimately work.
There are some things, like marijuana, that are barely (if that) worse than alcohol with others, like Ecstacy, that could be argued is no worse than your high proof liquors. Relatively minor common physical side effects from mild use, not EXTREMELY addictive. But there are others, like Meth, that simply are both damaging to the body and are highly addictive in short order that fall on the other end of the scale.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
Fortunately these baby steps have already been taken, both on a state level, and internationally, and decrim is being shown not be the harbinger of societal doom and destruction some thought was inevitable.
decrim does address one of the flaws in the system (treating the average user as a criminal); however the overarching and more significant problem is that control was, is, and will continue to be in the hands of a black market without actual full on legalization.
You will find many of those who would be satisfied with just decrim just want to satiate their own habits with limited repercussions, and are not beneficial to the cause at all.
Portugal decriminalized all drug use and possession in 2001. The Cato Institute did a study on it. Here is the report:
Long story short, none of the doomsday scenarios proposed by opponents came true. Portugal has some of the lowest rates of drug-abuse in the EU, especially when compared to other countries with stringent drug laws. There is no evidence whatsoever that drug prohibition accomplishes anything of value.
The direct link to the online non-pdf version of the report is available again (it was available only in pdf for the last few weeks)
Drug Decriminalization in Portugal: Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies | Glenn Greenwald | Cato Institute: White Paper
Last edited by marduc; 08-26-09 at 02:07 PM.
Are you coming to bed?
I can't. This is important.
Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD
If you don't want people knowing where you live then don't insult their state. It's sorta cowardly, don't you think? And I wonder if you've ever been to Arkansas.