• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does pot legalization stop the war on drugs?

Lutherf said:
Pot is a whole lot different than prohibition. Marijuana is a weed. Absolutely anybody can grow the stuff. It requires little to no special equipment or expertise to get a functional product. Trying to tax such a product will only be just so effective ESPECIALLY in a place like southern California which will have a 12 month growing season.
Click to expand...

Marijuana is a weed and it does grow wild, but only the truly desperate smoke the wild stuff. There's not much THC in it and it will burn your throat out. That's why the pot growing by the roadsides of Kansas is safe from depredation. People can make their own wine and beer too, but most prefer to buy it.
s
 
Lutherf said:
Well...

California seizes $30 million in black market cannabis from illegal pot shops - Los Angeles Times



So if the state doesn't get their cut of the proceeds then it goes after "illegal" distributors. The good news is that those raids and fines aren't a "war on drugs" because....well, because...

Hmm, maybe legalization hasn't really fixed anything. Maybe all it did was cut the state government in on the trade.
Click to expand...

You raise a good point.

I have long said that legalization of pot must be done carefully, because of all the illegal drugs, pot is pretty much the only one that any person can grow, pretty much anywhere.

That makes the rules become both important and irrelevant. If any person can grow his own, the state has little ability to regulate.

As the California experience shows, they wrote the rules poorly. Florida has also written the rules poorly. Maybe the only exception is Colorado.
 
Felis Leo said:
"Legalize it so that it can be taxed and regulated" we were told. Well what if people do not want to pay more for those taxes and regulations in order to have their highs? Back to square one, I suppose.
Click to expand...

The very best real life demonstration of the harmful effects of prohibition was our own experience with the Volstead Act. The cause and effect relationship between prohibition and black market forces is very real, and extends to a variety of consumer products, and extends to tax schemes imposed by government.

Marijuana is different because it does not need to be brewed or produced in a laboratory.

Prohibition harms society in many ways. To pretend otherwise is foolishness.
 
bearpoker said:
Marijuana is a weed and it does grow wild, but only the truly desperate smoke the wild stuff. There's not much THC in it and it will burn your throat out. That's why the pot growing by the roadsides of Kansas is safe from depredation. People can make their own wine and beer too, but most prefer to buy it.
s
Click to expand...

Note that Lutherf isn't even trying to cite a source for his claimed knowledge. He's just saying things that, if true, would back up his criticism of CA/legalization.
 
Lutherf said:
Well...

California seizes $30 million in black market cannabis from illegal pot shops - Los Angeles Times



So if the state doesn't get their cut of the proceeds then it goes after "illegal" distributors. The good news is that those raids and fines aren't a "war on drugs" because....well, because...

Hmm, maybe legalization hasn't really fixed anything. Maybe all it did was cut the state government in on the trade.
Click to expand...


Legalization absolutely destroys the black market. Charging prohibition prices absolutely causes it to thrive. The major failure of government, in your country AND mine, is that they put greed ahead of everything else.

But, they had conservatives to convince, sooo…. ;)

You really want to kill the black market, put a 6% profit margin cap on pot (same profit margin as your automakers get). You'll be enjoying zero pot related crime, and I'll be enjoying a nickel bag that costs a nickel.
 
bearpoker said:
I expect price is a factor that will keep bootlegged pot on the market for a while. It's not a reason to stop the trend toward legalization. Unless you think that repealing prohibition was a failure too.
Click to expand...

If pot is to be made legal, then Congress needs to get away from endless do nothing hearings and repeal that portion of the drug laws. Until that happens, all the states are doing is voting to violate the law. I'm not opposed to legal pot, but let's do it right.
 
OlNate said:
Legalization absolutely destroys the black market. Charging prohibition prices absolutely causes it to thrive. The major failure of government, in your country AND mine, is that they put greed ahead of everything else.

But, they had conservatives to convince, sooo…. ;)

You really want to kill the black market, put a 6% profit margin cap on pot (same profit margin as your automakers get). You'll be enjoying zero pot related crime, and I'll be enjoying a nickel bag that costs a nickel.
Click to expand...

So you want to put price controls on the sale of pot? Have you thought that plan through? How much money would enforcement cost? How would you even go about enforcing such a law?
 
Lutherf said:
So you want to put price controls on the sale of pot? Have you thought that plan through? How much money would enforcement cost? How would you even go about enforcing such a law?
Click to expand...

Not sure, I'm not the one responsible for making these laws. I'm just giving you the obvious answer to your question. As long as pot is sold legally at such a high margin, there will be room for a black market. The lower they drop the price, the more the black market will shrink. You need to decide what's more important.

Of course, another option, that I know will cause you to immediately poop your pants, is to make it a government controlled and/or owned industry. Let the government run it (or 3rd party it out), and set maximum prices. Under this scenario, it becomes income, not expense, for the country.

Two things will ensure the black market:

1) Price
2) Quality

If the black market can beat legal pot on either of these fronts, it will thrive. If the legal market can produce as good, or better, product, at a price that makes it not worth the risk to produce it illegally, you have destroyed the black market. That's the only way this gets done, and I think they lied to all of us when they told us it would happen, without making this a key part of their strategy.

I'm frustrated with it too.
 
OlNate said:
Not sure, I'm not the one responsible for making these laws. I'm just giving you the obvious answer to your question. As long as pot is sold legally at such a high margin, there will be room for a black market. The lower they drop the price, the more the black market will shrink. You need to decide what's more important.

Of course, another option, that I know will cause you to immediately poop your pants, is to make it a government controlled and/or owned industry. Let the government run it (or 3rd party it out), and set maximum prices. Under this scenario, it becomes income, not expense, for the country.

Two things will ensure the black market:

1) Price
2) Quality

If the black market can beat legal pot on either of these fronts, it will thrive. If the legal market can produce as good, or better, product, at a price that makes it not worth the risk to produce it illegally, you have destroyed the black market. That's the only way this gets done, and I think they lied to all of us when they told us it would happen, without making this a key part of their strategy.

I'm frustrated with it too.
Click to expand...

I've got a better idea and I've voiced it before. If the possession of pot and cultivation of pot, up to a certain limit, were decriminalized we could solve a lot of these issues. Keep the sale of pot as an illegal activity. In fact, make the sale of even small amounts of pot a high level felony. But when you do that you also decriminalize the possession of even large amounts of pot and the cultivation of up to a dozen plants for personal use. Anyone can grow more pot than they will ever need and they can GIVE AWAY as much as they want. They simply can't lawfully sell their product. Maybe the law would also make distribution to kids a criminal act. Driving under the influence of pot would be illegal. Crimes committed while under the influence of pot would have enhanced penalties. Possession of other illegal drugs while also in possession of pot would have enhanced penalties but possession of 20 pounds of pot, by itself, would not constitute a criminal act.

You want to get rid of the black market for pot? Get rid of the profit motive.
 
Lutherf said:
I've got a better idea and I've voiced it before. If the possession of pot and cultivation of pot, up to a certain limit, were decriminalized we could solve a lot of these issues. Keep the sale of pot as an illegal activity. In fact, make the sale of even small amounts of pot a high level felony. But when you do that you also decriminalize the possession of even large amounts of pot and the cultivation of up to a dozen plants for personal use. Anyone can grow more pot than they will ever need and they can GIVE AWAY as much as they want. They simply can't lawfully sell their product. Maybe the law would also make distribution to kids a criminal act. Driving under the influence of pot would be illegal. Crimes committed while under the influence of pot would have enhanced penalties. Possession of other illegal drugs while also in possession of pot would have enhanced penalties but possession of 20 pounds of pot, by itself, would not constitute a criminal act.

You want to get rid of the black market for pot? Get rid of the profit motive.
Click to expand...

I mean, it's definitely one way to go, but then you get into other problems. Pot needs to generate money for the same reason tobacco and alcohol do - there are societal costs that come along with their enjoyment. Prior to legalization, that came entirely out of your pocket. But in a legal industry, the industry can pay for itself, not just in the sales tax, but also in the tax paying jobs it creates.

Nah, bud, I'm not a fan of decriminalization. Given that most people can't / won't grow, you still have a black market, and none of the perks of legalization. Seems a step back to me.

It remains all about price. :)
 
Lutherf said:
I've got a better idea and I've voiced it before. If the possession of pot and cultivation of pot, up to a certain limit, were decriminalized we could solve a lot of these issues. Keep the sale of pot as an illegal activity. In fact, make the sale of even small amounts of pot a high level felony. But when you do that you also decriminalize the possession of even large amounts of pot and the cultivation of up to a dozen plants for personal use. Anyone can grow more pot than they will ever need and they can GIVE AWAY as much as they want. They simply can't lawfully sell their product. Maybe the law would also make distribution to kids a criminal act. Driving under the influence of pot would be illegal. Crimes committed while under the influence of pot would have enhanced penalties. Possession of other illegal drugs while also in possession of pot would have enhanced penalties but possession of 20 pounds of pot, by itself, would not constitute a criminal act.

You want to get rid of the black market for pot? Get rid of the profit motive.
Click to expand...

I've never understood that thinking at all. You have a market based transaction - a willing seller providing a willing buyer a product at an agreed upon price. If the police happen upon that transaction, one is a serious felon, jailed for YEARS, while the cop says to the other - "Thanks, have a nice day." :confused:

And what "issues" are we solving? Pot is a very safe intoxicant, 100 times safer than alcohol, so what societal benefit is there from jailing sellers for long periods of time while at the same time writing laws that effectively encourage the use of pot, but only home-grown?

Either the sale and use of pot should be punished harshly because of the damage it does to the person and/or society, or not. If not, then let the market work like it does for shoes, corn, and booze. The regulatory stuff will work out very quickly, like it has for booze, beer and wine, and in less than a generation with many legal outlets, the VAST majority of consumers will mostly abandon the black market because the legal market provides better selection, quality controls, at predictable hours 6 or 7 days a week, carries no risks of dealing with a criminal, etc. Same reason almost no one depends on bootleggers for their booze these days. What's the point? Same reason few make their own, although really anyone can make good beer. I can spend 4-6 hours on a batch over two weeks, OR, go to the Food City and pick up a case in 5 minutes...
 
Skirting the laws in pot-friendly CA has been going on for decadess, as been a healthy black-market. Taxes and other obstructions still force legal pot prices higher.

CA's legal recreational pot laws are still pretty new, change takes time.
 
Lutherf said:
If the possession of pot and cultivation of pot, up to a certain limit, were decriminalized we could solve a lot of these issues....
Click to expand...
Replace the word "pot" with "alcohol" or "gambling," and it should be obvious why the core of your idea doesn't work.
 
Visbek said:
Replace the word "pot" with "alcohol" or "gambling," and it should be obvious why the core of your idea doesn't work.
Click to expand...

Well, I can't speak for everywhere but gambling is pretty much legal everywhere. What's illegal is for the "house" to take a skim unless they are a licensed casino. Other than that you can have a home poker game with your buddies no problem.

There is a federal prohibition on the unlicensed distillation of spirits even for personal use and the reasons they give tend to revolve around taxation (which was the whole point of this thread), and safety. Personally, I'd be perfectly willing to have distilled spirits in the same category as pot. Again, as long as you aren't selling it (or killing people with it) I figure it should be fine to produce for personal use.
 
Lutherf said:
Well...

California seizes $30 million in black market cannabis from illegal pot shops - Los Angeles Times



So if the state doesn't get their cut of the proceeds then it goes after "illegal" distributors. The good news is that those raids and fines aren't a "war on drugs" because....well, because...

Hmm, maybe legalization hasn't really fixed anything. Maybe all it did was cut the state government in on the trade.
Click to expand...

Correct, hence why wanted decriminalization instead of legalization, because the later allows the State to dictate the rules and of-course getting their cut.
 
Lutherf said:
I've got a better idea and I've voiced it before. If the possession of pot and cultivation of pot, up to a certain limit, were decriminalized we could solve a lot of these issues. Keep the sale of pot as an illegal activity. In fact, make the sale of even small amounts of pot a high level felony. But when you do that you also decriminalize the possession of even large amounts of pot and the cultivation of up to a dozen plants for personal use. Anyone can grow more pot than they will ever need and they can GIVE AWAY as much as they want. They simply can't lawfully sell their product. Maybe the law would also make distribution to kids a criminal act. Driving under the influence of pot would be illegal. Crimes committed while under the influence of pot would have enhanced penalties. Possession of other illegal drugs while also in possession of pot would have enhanced penalties but possession of 20 pounds of pot, by itself, would not constitute a criminal act.

You want to get rid of the black market for pot? Get rid of the profit motive.
Click to expand...

JasperL said:
I've never understood that thinking at all. You have a market based transaction - a willing seller providing a willing buyer a product at an agreed upon price. If the police happen upon that transaction, one is a serious felon, jailed for YEARS, while the cop says to the other - "Thanks, have a nice day." :confused:

And what "issues" are we solving? Pot is a very safe intoxicant, 100 times safer than alcohol, so what societal benefit is there from jailing sellers for long periods of time while at the same time writing laws that effectively encourage the use of pot, but only home-grown?

Either the sale and use of pot should be punished harshly because of the damage it does to the person and/or society, or not. If not, then let the market work like it does for shoes, corn, and booze. The regulatory stuff will work out very quickly, like it has for booze, beer and wine, and in less than a generation with many legal outlets, the VAST majority of consumers will mostly abandon the black market because the legal market provides better selection, quality controls, at predictable hours 6 or 7 days a week, carries no risks of dealing with a criminal, etc. Same reason almost no one depends on bootleggers for their booze these days. What's the point? Same reason few make their own, although really anyone can make good beer. I can spend 4-6 hours on a batch over two weeks, OR, go to the Food City and pick up a case in 5 minutes...
Click to expand...

- I tell you there's an unstated moral judgment under his stance. I smell it.

- There is also no coherence to saying people should be able to grow and possess pot, but not sell it legally via regulated shops. Saying they can grow and possess, not sell illegally but sell through regulated shops is MA. Why would you want grow it yourself vs. black market? What benefit there?

- I also smell dishonesty. Ever since we legalized, I've grown as much pot as I can within the rules. Almost 10oz last year. Gave a bunch away. Still have a some left, while the next crop is going just fine. Why do I say dishonesty?

It isn't easy. I spend a whole lot of time during the growing season. I've got to monitor water. I have a fertilizer cycle (nothing harmful). I have to check for pests and/or spray non-toxic deterrents occasionally. I've got to excise any bud rot that happens - it's a fungus that gets in any wound in the plant and can wipe them out quickly. I have to make sure that I stop even the non-toxic fertilizers about 2 weeks before harvest. I have to dry it properly. Etc. I want to say 20ish hr/month, loaded towards the end of growing when it's cool and humid. (Fungus). Meanwhile Lutherf......well he can't have grown anything or he got unbelievably lucky if he did.

To me it sounds like feigned personal knowledge. I know people who tried the "plant it in a field and let it grow" method. Most of their crop was wiped out and while it was consumable, I sure wouldn't have bought it. Brownie material, at best.
 
Last edited:
Mr Person said:
- I tell you there's an unstated moral judgment under his stance. I smell it.

- There is also no coherence to saying people should be able to grow and possess pot, but not sell it legally via regulated shops. Saying they can grow and possess, not sell illegally but sell through regulated shops is MA. Why would you want grow it yourself vs. black market? What benefit there?

- I also smell dishonesty. Ever since we legalized, I've grown as much pot as I can within the rules. Almost 10oz last year. Gave a bunch away. Still have a some left, while the next crop is going just fine. Why do I say dishonesty?

It isn't easy. I spend a whole lot of time during the growing season. I've got to monitor water. I have a fertilizer cycle (nothing harmful). I have to check for pests and/or spray non-toxic deterrents occasionally. I've got to excise any bud rot that happens - it's a fungus that gets in any wound in the plant and can wipe them out quickly. I have to make sure that I stop even the non-toxic fertilizers about 2 weeks before harvest. I have to dry it properly. Etc. I want to say 20ish hr/month, loaded towards the end of growing when it's cool and humid. (Fungus). Meanwhile Lutherf......well he can't have grown anything or he got unbelievably lucky if he did.

To me it sounds like feigned personal knowledge. I know people who tried the "plant it in a field and let it grow" method. Most of their crop was wiped out and while it was consumable, I sure wouldn't have bought it. Brownie material, at best.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the account. I've never grown it, but I suspected it wasn't as easy as it was made to seem. It's basically like most agriculture. My uncle grew apples and, sure, you can plant an apple tree and get apples and do nothing at all, but they'll be small and terrible mostly, those that aren't eaten by bugs. So he spent a lot of time trimming before the season, then during, spraying, keeping weeds down, etc. It was a big job and he had a small orchard, really. Maybe a hundred trees. And then there were the bears, that would knock a tree down to get to the apples, and the local hillbillies who came to steal the apples and who he hired armed guards to scare off (this was just what was done in the mountains - the guard being was respected and honored...). I can't imagine anyone raiding an outdoor pot area though, with plants ready to harvest!...;)
 
Lutherf said:
Well, I can't speak for everywhere but gambling is pretty much legal everywhere. What's illegal is for the "house" to take a skim unless they are a licensed casino. Other than that you can have a home poker game with your buddies no problem.

There is a federal prohibition on the unlicensed distillation of spirits even for personal use and the reasons they give tend to revolve around taxation (which was the whole point of this thread), and safety. Personally, I'd be perfectly willing to have distilled spirits in the same category as pot. Again, as long as you aren't selling it (or killing people with it) I figure it should be fine to produce for personal use.
Click to expand...
Allow me to rephrase my argument.

California already allows you to grow up to 6 plants at home. Under optimal conditions, that's about 1.5 pounds / 112g of MJ every 4 weeks. (That is a huge amount btw.) This did not in any way eliminated the profit motive or black market.

Why? Because as already noted, growing good MJ is not, in fact, easy. You need a dedicated space; you need special lights, running 24/7; you need to constantly monitor it; you need to dry it out properly; you need to remove seeds and stems; and you need to store it properly (it loses potency and flavor over time). I might add that MJ is very pungent, so if you're growing a few plants your indoor space will reek of ganja. That's a nonstarter for the tens of millions of people who live in apartments.

I.e. growing MJ is not like growing tomatoes.

Retail is far more convenient. It's regulated; grown by experts; they offer a wide variety not just of strains, but of methods (edibles, tinctures, pre-rolled joints etc); quality is consistent, and typically *cough* high; you can get what you want, when you want.

As I tried to suggest earlier: When the US ended Prohibition, the answer was not "let people brew at home, because that will kill the profit motive!" That simply isn't how it works. Brewing and growing at home is too inconvenient and inconsistent, so without retail sales, people will continue to patronize black markets.
 
jimbo said:
If pot is to be made legal, then Congress needs to get away from endless do nothing hearings and repeal that portion of the drug laws. Until that happens, all the states are doing is voting to violate the law. I'm not opposed to legal pot, but let's do it right.
Click to expand...

I'm all for that.
 
jimbo said:
If pot is to be made legal, then Congress needs to get away from endless do nothing hearings and repeal that portion of the drug laws. Until that happens, all the states are doing is voting to violate the law. I'm not opposed to legal pot, but let's do it right.
Click to expand...

Somewhat seriously, if we could just tell Trump that Obama was a pot banner, and could have legalized pot with an EO moving it off Schedule 1, maybe get Kanye to get a face to face with POTUS to push this, and then get Fox and Friends to run some segments on how it would be another stake in the Obama presidency, it just might get done.

Seriously, from what I understand this could all get done without Congress. Just the President directing DEA to move it off Schedule 1 would do it. I'm not sure why he didn't. Seemed like a no brainer to me. Heck, here in Tennessee which is very red, there was a GOP candidate for Governor that quoted Trump making pro-legalization comments in campaign ads. I assume she had polling that was a winner in this deep red state and I have to believe it's very popular with Democrats.
 
Felis Leo said:
I disagree, lwf. I think personal overindulgence in vice creates victims all the time. You can "victimize" others without killing or injuring them. Ask anyone who has lost a friend or loved one to alcoholism, even cases in which they did not get killed in a drunk driving accident or the like; or who has had to go through the emotional torment of taking care of them in their final days as their body began shutting down. Society has to pay a high financial price for taking care of people who have engaged in personal dissipation, and their families and friends often end up paying a high and hard financial, emotional and psychological cost. None of us are islands unto ourselves standing apart from the main. When we damage ourselves for our own momentary pleasure or escapism, we end up damaging those to whom we are connected and are loved by.

And where love, dignity and self-regard have no purchase upon the conscience, the law must intervene.
Click to expand...

Well that's a fine appeal to emotion, but if a person is neither killed nor harmed by another, how can the former be a victim of anything?

Life can be cruel you know.
 
MovingPictures said:
And so your solution to preventing drugs from ruining lives is to ruin peoples lives with criminal prosecution before the drugs can?

Being sad that a loved one died because of drug use doesn't entitle you to make laws to change their morality. That kind of reasoning can swing both ways and people can apply it to personal choices you make for yourself, for which you feel strongly you should have the freedom to make on your own.
Click to expand...

My point is this, MovingPictures: The war on drugs does not and has not worked because most of the focus is mainly placed on drug dealers and distributors who often plead guilty to the lesser charges of drug possession. If we wanted to effectively fight the war on drugs (for which there is little sentiment because it has been fought so ineffectively), the onus has to be on the people purchasing drugs and they have to be punished with the utmost harshness. If you lower the demand for the illegal good or service, then the incidence rate of the crime drops. And deterrence is one way of lowering demand.

Imagine, if you would, if instead of being sent to rehabilitation, celebrities such as Robert Downy Jr. were given the same sentences that gangland drug dealers are given? Imagine if he had to take a plea where he would spend twenty years in Federal prison for possession of cocaine without parole in exchange for avoiding a 55 year sentence. Now, you may so that is horrifically harsh. But if you want to effectively fight a war, you must make an example of people who have the public's attention such that other people stop and take notice, and I cannot think of a better example to set than when the rich and famous are treated with the same harshness under the law as the poor and obscure. If that happened, I think a lot fewer young men and women would be interested in taking drugs. But that is just me, I suppose.

I mean, would you ever think of starting to take any kind of illegal narcotic if you knew that you would be handed a minimum sentence of ten to twenty years just for possession? Especially if you saw several celebrities (or even people to whom you were acquainted) lose the best years of their lives rotting in Federal Prison for the offense? I certainly would not.

The alternatives to the present situation are thus: Either we go fully libertarian on drugs and allow people to effectively kill themselves by becoming addicted and engaging in acts of personal dissipation that harm society as people then engage in other criminal acts as a result of their lowered capacity (or to feed their habit), OR we can fight the war effectively changing the culture where drugs are seen as forbidden fruit and a way to kick loose and a have fun but instead seen as absolutely taboo and any and all who knowingly engage in drug use are punished with such brutality that few think to do it.
 
Last edited:
Felis Leo said:
The alternatives to the present situation are thus: Either we go fully libertarian on drugs and allow people to effectively kill themselves by becoming addicted and engaging in acts of personal dissipation that harm society as people then engage in other criminal acts as a result of their lowered capacity (or to feed their habit), OR we can fight the war effectively changing the culture where drugs are seen as forbidden fruit and a way to kick loose and a have fun but instead seen as absolutely taboo and any and all who knowingly engage in drug use are punished with such brutality that few think to do it.
Click to expand...
Then "full libertarian' and punish them for crimes they commit while under the influence.

As for their conditions that require treatment...it's a true slippery slope. We're already on it. We are stuck treating people with conditions from smoking, alcohol, sex, extreme sports, motorcycles, too much sugar, too much food (obesity), etc....
 
Felis Leo said:
My point is this, MovingPictures: The war on drugs does not and has not worked because most of the focus is mainly placed on drug dealers and distributors who often plead guilty to the lesser charges of drug possession. If we wanted to effectively fight the war on drugs (for which there is little sentiment because it has been fought so ineffectively), the onus has to be on the people purchasing drugs and they have to be punished with the utmost harshness. If you lower the demand for the illegal good or service, then the incidence rate of the crime drops. And deterrence is one way of lowering demand.

Imagine, if you would, if instead of being sent to rehabilitation, celebrities such as Robert Downy Jr. were given the same sentences that gangland drug dealers are given? Imagine if he had to take a plea where he would spend twenty years in Federal prison for possession of cocaine without parole in exchange for avoiding a 55 year sentence. Now, you may so that is horrifically harsh. But if you want to effectively fight a war, you must make an example of people who have the public's attention such that other people stop and take notice, and I cannot think of a better example to set than when the rich and famous are treated with the same harshness under the law as the poor and obscure. If that happened, I think a lot fewer young men and women would be interested in taking drugs. But that is just me, I suppose.

I mean, would you ever think of starting to take any kind of illegal narcotic if you knew that you would be handed a minimum sentence of ten to twenty years just for possession? Especially if you saw several celebrities (or even people to whom you were acquainted) lose the best years of their lives rotting in Federal Prison for the offense? I certainly would not.

The alternatives to the present situation are thus: Either we go fully libertarian on drugs and allow people to effectively kill themselves by becoming addicted and engaging in acts of personal dissipation that harm society as people then engage in other criminal acts as a result of their lowered capacity (or to feed their habit), OR we can fight the war effectively changing the culture where drugs are seen as forbidden fruit and a way to kick loose and a have fun but instead seen as absolutely taboo and any and all who knowingly engage in drug use are punished with such brutality that few think to do it.
Click to expand...
You're right about one thing, it is "just you". This is one of the most openly fascist posts I've seen on this forum.

Do you think you're on some sort of mission from god like the Blues Brothers? What you're proposing is to literally destroy peoples lives, so we can save people from ... destroying their lives. Yes, your insane fascist ideas of throwing people in jail for simple possession is horrific. As matter of fact, it's one of the most unAmerican ideas I've heard on this message board so far - and I've heard a number of them.

You clearly have no idea how human beings work. That part of the reason people use drugs in the first place is because they are forbbiden fruits. Making them illegal and punishable by jail creates a forum for young people especially, who are looking for an outlet to feel rebellious and independent in their new found adulthood. It's the same kind of feeling that draws us to cheer for the bad guys in the movies. Life on the otherside of the law is interesting to humans, largerly because we are minds are not hardwired to be loyal to society.

The more your parents told you not to watch a certain movie, the more you wanted to watch it. The more the PMRC tried to keep youth forbidden from listening to Judas Priest and Ozzy Osbourne, the more they wanted to hear the records and judge for themselves.

The people that give drug dealers the best promotion are people like you. By making drug use such a matter of law, you are drawing it to youth rebellion. The more dangerous the consequences become, the more they'll want to do it, like a game of high stakes five card poker to older adults.

Seriously, your post is degrading to those that have mental illness related to addiction, as you treat otherwise decent human beings like trash to be discarded "for their own good", and as somonee who has seen family struggle with it, I for one am deeply disgusted by it.

BTW, those west asian countries you adore for their brutal laws on drugs, also have terrible free speech and civil rights laws. Please, go live there for a few years and tell us how you like the governments filtering every element of your life, I'm sure it will be interesting to hear.
 
Last edited:
Felis Leo said:
If we wanted to effectively fight the war on drugs (for which there is little sentiment because it has been fought so ineffectively), the onus has to be on the people purchasing drugs and they have to be punished with the utmost harshness.
Click to expand...
Cool story bro

Here's the thing: We already do that. 84% of all drug-related arrests in 2017 were for possession only. 36% of all drug-related arrests were for marijuana possession alone.

Yes the penalties can be harsh, and we're already locking up people like mad. And it hasn't stopped people from doing drugs.


If you lower the demand for the illegal good or service, then the incidence rate of the crime drops. And deterrence is one way of lowering demand.
Click to expand...
You are right about demand, but flat-out wrong about prison as a deterrent. The evidence is clear that throwing people in jail does not significantly lower demand, and that increasing prison sentences does not result in greater deterrence (e.g. Five Things About Deterrence).


Imagine, if you would, if instead of being sent to rehabilitation, celebrities such as Robert Downy Jr. were given the same sentences that gangland drug dealers are given?
Click to expand...
Uh, hello? Jail did not help him. Treatment did. Why would you take that away?


Imagine if he had to take a plea where he would spend twenty years in Federal prison for possession of cocaine without parole in exchange for avoiding a 55 year sentence.
Click to expand...
You mean, imagine a completely disproportionate punishment for simple possession? Yeah, we tried that too.

New York State, possession of 8 or more ounces of substances containing a narcotic drug: 8 to 20 years imprisonment or a fine of $100,000. Smaller amounts can still get you 1.5 to 9 years or fines ranging from $15,000 to $30,000.

And no, massive punishments on famous people just to "send a message" is not justice, and it doesn't work. Heck, drug use outright killing celebrities doesn't deter a lot of people.


I mean, would you ever think of starting to take any kind of illegal narcotic if you knew that you would be handed a minimum sentence of ten to twenty years just for possession?
Click to expand...
Uh, hello? Millions of Americans got hooked on opiates because of legal prescriptions, which were pushed by pharmaceuticals chasing a profit margin. Once they were hooked, it's too late to deter them with threats of jail.


The alternatives to the present situation are thus: Either we go fully libertarian on drugs and allow people to effectively kill themselves by becoming addicted and engaging in acts of personal dissipation that harm society as people then engage in other criminal acts as a result of their lowered capacity (or to feed their habit), OR we can fight the war effectively changing the culture where drugs are seen as forbidden fruit and a way to kick loose and a have fun but instead seen as absolutely taboo and any and all who knowingly engage in drug use are punished with such brutality that few think to do it.
Click to expand...
"My way or the highway," really? Thanks, but no thanks, for the false choice. We can also:

• Legalize marijuana, and possibly other non-habit forming drugs (like MDMA)
• Modify existing drug laws to funnel users into treatment, and reserve jail for only the hard-core who can't be helped
• Realize that we can use medications to treat addiction (e.g. methadone, Naltrexone etc)
• Take all the money we're wasting on incarceration and put it into treatment
• Punish the pharmaceuticals that pushed addictive drugs onto millions of Americans
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom