New at Reason

Drug Warrior|1.18.07 @ 8:27AM|#

thoreau|1.18.07 @ 8:40AM|#

Groups like LEAP are exactly what we need in terms of respectability for the legalization movement.

I read the article in the latest print edition about San Francisco medical pot clubs. I saw a picture of a blonde woman in dreadlocks, dressed kind of hippie. I know some people don't like it when male posters focus on the appearance of women too much, but in this case it matters. She was working behind the counter at a medical pot club. She's the face that a journalist, a concerned citizen, or an interested policymaker will see if they visit the place. She's young, thin, and has an attractive face. But instead of dressing professionally and adopting a conservative hairstyle, maybe looking like a pharmaceutical sales rep (which would actually be the perfect look for a pot club playing up the medical angle), she looks like a hippie.

I'm all in favor of a hippie's right to look like a hippie or whatever else she wants to look like. But I'm glad when people who don't look like hippies provide a more mainstream face for the legalization movement.

Several years from now I hope to be a tenured professor. Once I am, I will gladly join any appropriate mainstream legalization movement and act as a public face for legalization.

Guy Montag|1.18.07 @ 8:52AM|#

I read the article in the latest print edition about San Francisco medical pot clubs.

Wait! You can actually smoke pot indoors in a California business? Can you smoke tobacco there too? I have a good guess for the second question.

Guy Montag|1.18.07 @ 8:59AM|#

BTW, I misread the post as "Radley Balko bread with former cops" and thought he was having a much better, and different, experience than what was really happening. Might want to move the closing tag on the link a word to the left or right. Or not :)

|1.18.07 @ 9:27AM|#

Good for these guys. I am not optimistic, however. Whenever I bother to engage people on the subject, which granted is rarely, I find most people are just down right insane when it comes to drugs. Michael Vick's getting caught with pot in the Miami airport yesterday brought out people's true feelings. We are talking "we should have drug camps where everyone caught with drugs is sent to a life of living hell for a year" kind of insane. There is just no reasoning with people. Society has succeeded in convincing a fairly large number of people that drugs are absolutely the worst form of poison on earth and anyone who touches them or is involved with them deserves literaly any fate one can dream up. It is just hopeless.

Warren|1.18.07 @ 9:27AM|#

For several years now, LEAP has been looking for a debate with the country's top drug policymakers - anyone from DEA Administrator Karen Tandy to Drug Czar John Walters to powerful prohibition politicians like Indiana Rep. Mark Souder.

Oh man, that would be a tide turning event. I don't know about Souder, but Walters and Tandy are both known to spew, completely divorced from reality, rhetoric. I suspect that knowing it's all bullshit only encourages even more outrageous claims. And what's to stop them? No matter how ridiculous drug warriors claims get, they're always swallowed whole by the press, and every parent in America.

If they ever did debate, you know it would be a total set-up, with the audience packed with drug-war supporters, and a lapdog moderator. Most likely they'd have some sort of panel with hand picked teachers, scientists, etc. to lay down the post-debate no-rebuttal propaganda. Even all that might not be enough.

Which is why they'll never do it. Why should they? Everything they say is taken as Gospel now.

Guy Montag|1.18.07 @ 9:33AM|#

John,

The Michael Vick news was no comfort to me. Neither was the "guys stopped in a truck at the port of Miami" story. I would like Miami to be peaceful for the next couple of weeks.

No, I don't think that what Vick did was inherrantly wrong, but I am forced by the firm I work for to work in Miami for the next 2.5 weeks and I just want it to be quiet during my stay. That's all, nothing more, nothing less.

Oh yea, all of you clown suited hippies on stilts, please stay away too? I just need to monitor a system and go home without having to fill out a bunch of paperwork.

Thank you.
Guy Montag
Perminant Evil Goon and temporary Big Brother System Worker

Sam Franklin|1.18.07 @ 9:59AM|#

Several years from now I hope to be a tenured professor. Once I am, I will gladly join any appropriate mainstream legalization movement and act as a public face for legalization.

*ctrl+D*

|1.18.07 @ 10:12AM|#

Warren,

They will never debate because they have won. They have nothing to gain. Forty years of drug propeganda and the addiction industry has brain washed a pretty large chunk of America.

grylliade|1.18.07 @ 10:18AM|#

*ctrl+D*

End of file?!?

|1.18.07 @ 10:21AM|#

I think the biggest problem that the pro-legalization crowd has is that they generally have no good answer to the obvious result of legalization - that is, more people will use more drugs and therefore more people will abuse them. To what degree is uncertain, of course, but you don't have to be crazy to hypothesize that a culture where drug abuse is rampant might not be a great one to live in.

|1.18.07 @ 10:23AM|#

You know, I have tried to go along with whole "I am not saying cops are bad. Most are honest hardworking people..blah blh blah. It's the policies that are bad. blah blah blah blah. The policies also put the police we care about in harm's way and all that good junk, blah blah blah.etc" for years now. However, I can't take it any more.

It is obvious from reading about all these cases, personally knowing police officers ( many of whom were stoner losers themselves, and not too bright), dealing with them, knowing others including regular "law abiding" people who have been abused by the police, reading the police online forums,etc-

MANY or A LOT ( I don't know if it's a majority, 50%+ or 30%, 40%, whatever) of police are absolute scum, idiots, complete assholes and so on. I can't just pretend that most police officers are great people. A great many take perverted PLEASURE in abusing citizens or at least fucking/screwing with them and ruining their lives.
*

* I do think it is GOOD for persuasion purposes and trying to preach outside the choir. Probably easier to butter people up than screaming "Fuck the police."

|1.18.07 @ 10:26AM|#

Of course, the LEAP officers are probably good buys, and of course a lot of EX cops are. It's telling that they are in the minority though.

|1.18.07 @ 10:26AM|#

outlander,

I can't vouch for the veracity, but this was an interesting Google find on drug usage rates for the Netherlands vs. US.

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/thenethe.htm

|1.18.07 @ 10:26AM|#

I think the biggest problem that the pro-legalization crowd has is that they generally have no good answer to the obvious result of legalization - that is, more people will use more drugs and therefore more people will abuse them.

It must be recognized that there will be enormous social consequences to the decriminalization of drug use. But is must also be recognized that drug use MUST be treated as a SOCIAL problem not a CRIMINAL problem.

|1.18.07 @ 10:27AM|#

*good guys ( maybe good buys too, but I don;t know)

|1.18.07 @ 10:29AM|#

Outlander- There are several responses to your point, but I'll concede that drug use might spike after legalization. However, saying that drug use would be "rampant" is a bit histrionic. Would you smoke crack if it were legalized? Do you know many people who would?

But I'll grant your assertion, for the sake of argument. My question is this: which is less bad: a society in which drug prohibition encourages violent crime and the drive to imprison drug users and dealers results in the steady erosion of civil rights, or one in which more people use (and occasionally abuse) drugs?

|1.18.07 @ 10:35AM|#

Outlander- There are several responses to your point, but I'll concede that drug use might spike after legalization. However, saying that drug use would be "rampant" is a bit histrionic. Would you smoke crack if it were legalized? Do you know many people who would?

That's a tough question - one could say that the main reason people avoid crack is because it's illegal, and to a large extent therefore socially unacceptable. But I agree that if crack was legalized tomorrow I wouldn't start using it. But at least some people would - being able to purchase some in a store would give many the idea that it's not so bad after all.

But I'll grant your assertion, for the sake of argument. My question is this: which is less bad: a society in which drug prohibition encourages violent crime and the drive to imprison drug users and dealers results in the steady erosion of civil rights, or one in which more people use (and occasionally abuse) drugs?

That's the question, I suppose.

One thing to consider is the known vs. unknown factor. As bad as the WoD can be, it's kind of a known entity that the majority of Americans have chosen to accept. OTOH, it's really difficult to predict what full-scale drug legalization would be like. Perhaps it would result in a better society, perhaps not.

Jennifer|1.18.07 @ 10:37AM|#

Sam/Dave W.,

If you got over your obsession with Thoreau you'd be considerably less pathetic.

|1.18.07 @ 10:40AM|#

outlander,

I can't vouch for the veracity, but this was an interesting Google find on drug usage rates for the Netherlands vs. US.

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/thenethe.htm

I agree that we should consider the Netherlands' approach regarding cannabis, at least.

Jennifer|1.18.07 @ 10:41AM|#

it's really difficult to predict what full-scale drug legalization would be like. Perhaps it would result in a better society, perhaps not.

Is our current society better or worse off than it was during Prohibition, do you think? I don't even live in a particularly nice neighborhood, but I can still walk outside without seeing drunks reeling and puking in the streets. In fact, I can literally go for weeks at a time without seeing a single person who is drunk or even buzzed on booze. Prohibition ended without turning America into a nation of lushes; why do you expect drug legalization to be any different?

Gray Ghost|1.18.07 @ 10:43AM|#

"The Addiction industry" seems a good way to think about it. I don't see legalization---despite Radley's comforting examples---making too many inroads because there's so much money being made the way things are now.

While I believe (I don't have the stats) that our society as a whole would save more money, a lot more, if drugs were legalized, executive agencies would in the short-term lose quite a bit of funding. They'd have to find another way to support themselves at their current size, and I don't see anyway of getting them to want to do that, or to shrink to previous levels of law enforcement. I also don't see our legislatures making up the shortfall from general revenue. Funding = Power in our democracy and few people willingly cut their own power.

I think asset forfeiture laws, and the tortured jurisprudence they've inspired, are far more corrupting for law enforcement than any amount of bribery. They're another example of Parkinson's Law, with a bullet.

|1.18.07 @ 10:55AM|#

Is our current society better or worse off than it was during Prohibition, do you think? I don't even live in a particularly nice neighborhood, but I can still walk outside without seeing drunks reeling and puking in the streets. In fact, I can literally go for weeks at a time without seeing a single person who is drunk or even buzzed on booze. Prohibition ended without turning America into a nation of lushes; why do you expect drug legalization to be any different?

Not a bad point, but I would say that the difference might be in the nature of alcohol as a drug compared to others. Alcohol doesn't seem to be all that addictive for most people, basically - not compared to what seems to be the case with meth or crack.

It's also worth noting that there are still plenty of legal restrictions around the consumption of alcohol.

|1.18.07 @ 11:02AM|#

outlander,

First, any legalization scheme would certainly have legal restrictions around use that were as strong as those around alcohol, so that's a straw man.

As for addiction, alcohol is an extremely addictive drug that rips apart people's lives. Here's one measurement: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/addictiv.htm
In any case, crack is not any more addictive than cocaine, no matter what the media hype machine says.

Guy Montag|1.18.07 @ 11:02AM|#

I think the biggest problem that the pro-legalization crowd has is that they generally have no good answer to the obvious result of legalization - that is, more people will use more drugs and therefore more people will abuse them.

How about: Why do you care if someone else is abusing anytyhing as long as we stop paying for their treatment too? Nobody should be telling you what to do to yourself, why should you tell someone else what they can do to themselves?

Guy Montag|1.18.07 @ 11:04AM|#

Brian24,

Alcohol is NOT extremly addictive. Tobacco and other things are, but alcohol is not and anybody who has ever bothered to leave home can see that.

|1.18.07 @ 11:12AM|#

How about: Why do you care if someone else is abusing anytyhing as long as we stop paying for their treatment too? Nobody should be telling you what to do to yourself, why should you tell someone else what they can do to themselves?

This is the libertarian answer, but what I'm saying is that it's not one that many people are going to buy into.

Why? Because people understand that we're all sharing this world and to some degree or another we're all in it together. We depend on one another to make society work, and so the poor decisions or ill health of one person does affect everybody else to some degree.

In other words, I think most people are comfortable with the basic notion that it's okay for there to be rules if they result in an overall better situation than if there aren't any. (This is not to say that what those rules should be is not worthy of discussion, of course.)

Jennifer|1.18.07 @ 11:13AM|#

Alcohol is NOT extremly addictive.

I have multiple boozehounds in my family tree who would beg to differ. There are many people who are indeed addicted to alcohol, and many more who drink it in moderation with no problems whatsoever. Just as there are people addicted to currently illegal drugs, and other who use them with no difficulty (save the fear of arrest).

Guy Montag|1.18.07 @ 11:20AM|#

Jennifer,

There are LEGIONS of people who try alcohol and NEVER become addicted. If it were extremly addictive the addiction rate would be much higher.

Sorry about your family, that is a sad story, but substituting hysterics for facts is a really bad way to alert people to a problem. Actually, it is the same tactic used by the government about pot.

|1.18.07 @ 11:25AM|#

Why? Because people understand that we're all sharing this world and to some degree or another we're all in it together. We depend on one another to make society work, and so the poor decisions or ill health of one person does affect everybody else to some degree.

And the road to hell is paved with good intentions . . . .

Jennifer|1.18.07 @ 11:27AM|#

There are LEGIONS of people who try alcohol and NEVER become addicted. If it were extremly addictive the addiction rate would be much higher.

Uh. . .yeah. I know. Did you not read the part of my comment where I mentioned the many people who drink responsibly with no problems whatsoever? Or did you just read my first sentence and then start your indignant sputtering?

joe|1.18.07 @ 11:29AM|#

Did you not read the part of my comment where I mentioned the many people who drink responsibly with no problems whatsoever?

Alcohol has a long history of use in western society. Other stuff would cause downstream effects on society, which is why they are not legal.

|1.18.07 @ 11:35AM|#

Jennifer, the problem with your point here is that you seem to be contending that all drugs are equally dangerous as far as addiction and negative health effects go.

Perhaps the effects of something like meth are exaggerated or overhyped, but there does seem to be a lot of evidence that such drugs are more detrimental to users than alcohol.

Jennifer|1.18.07 @ 11:43AM|#

Jennifer, the problem with your point here is that you seem to be contending that all drugs are equally dangerous as far as addiction and negative health effects go.

NO, I'm sure that some illegal drugs are worse than alcohol (while others, such as marijuana, are most likely better). But I am saying that being illegal makes them ever worse than they'd otherwise be. Even the dreaded meth is basically just a form of speed; let the stuff be manufactured and sold legally, rather than made illicitly from nasty household chemicals and cut with God knows what, and you'll find it's not nearly as bad as it seems now.

|1.18.07 @ 11:45AM|#

Alcohol has a long history of use in western society. Other stuff would cause downstream effects on society, which is why they are not legal.

The War on Drugs has downstream effects on society as well.

The big question is whether drug prohibition has larger downstream effects than does drug tolerance (with its associated increase in drug use).

There have been several real world tests of drug tolerance (England and the Netherlands for sure) that show that the long term consequence of drug use to individuals can be minimized by providing low cost, high quality products (something that the free market is optimized to do). While at the same time showing that the social costs (due to theft, acts of violence, etc) decrease dramatically because the cost of acquiring product goes way down.

Whereas the US has shown that the downstream effects of escalating the WoD has enormous destabilizing effects on minority populations (who bear the brunt of prosecutions) and on the law enforcment infrastructure (corruption of the infrastructure and redirection of limited resources from more important activities).

Why on earth should we, as a society, continue to persue this madness?

thoreau|1.18.07 @ 11:45AM|#

Do people here even bother to read Jennifer's posts? Sometimes I wonder, because they clearly aren't arguing with anything that she actually said.

dhex|1.18.07 @ 11:52AM|#

i noticed the same thing thoreau did in that article. part of it is just the effect that black markets have - non-professional types (in terms of appearance) are going to be more involved in stuff like that than someone wearing a suit because of the external costs mentioned.

Sam Franklin|1.18.07 @ 11:57AM|#

Do people here even bother to read Jennifer's posts? Sometimes I wonder, because they clearly aren't arguing with anything that she actually said.

It is too bad she can't ban ppl, like Hanky lets her do. Then she could show'em.

|1.18.07 @ 12:02PM|#

thoreau, Jennifer brought up prohibition and alcohol as a comparison to the current WoD ("Prohibition ended without turning America into a nation of lushes; why do you expect drug legalization to be any different?")

So I think it's fair for us to explain why it might be different.

Jennifer|1.18.07 @ 12:06PM|#

Sam/Dave W., pretend you're a man and behave accordingly. Real men don't whine and obsess the way you do.

Outlander, the citizenry didn't go whole-hog in favor of alcoholism when Prohibition ended, so I ask again why you think drugs would be any different? Would you start taking meth if only it were legal? I wouldn't. Nor do I have any desire to take cocaine or heroin, legalization status be damned. I doubt I'm the only one who feels that way, either. Legalize all drugs tomorrow and I doubt you'll find Americans closing out their bank accounts and spending the money getting high.

As for the ones who ARE prone to taking drugs and becoming addicted to them. . . well, they're already doing that despite the laws against it.

thoreau|1.18.07 @ 12:15PM|#

outlander-

I think Jennifer was pretty up-front with the limitations of the analogy.

Sam-

Grow up. Take some meds. Get over your mancrush.

|1.18.07 @ 12:23PM|#

Why don't we shut up about cocaine/heroin, etc, and focus on legalizing Marijuana? More people casually smoke pot without being addicted than use the harder drugs similarly, more people are in favor of its legalization, it's got medical uses...once we've dragged society down that slippery slope a ways and the world hasn't ended, we can then talk about the harder drugs.

Trying to do it all at once is making the perfect the enemy of the good.

Jennifer|1.18.07 @ 12:27PM|#

Jb, I'd be more than happy to focus exclusively on marijuana and ignore everything else, at least for now. Then, with any luck, once people realize that the legalization of pot did not result in the collapse of society despite the government's reefer madness tales, maybe they'll realize that the government lied about the other drugs, too.

Dan T.|1.18.07 @ 12:28PM|#

If you got over your obsession with Thoreau you'd be considerably less pathetic.

Jennifer, like you of all people should be scolding someone for having an obesession with a commenter.

Warren|1.18.07 @ 12:28PM|#

Alcohol is about as addictive as anything. There are WAY more alcoholics than all other drug addicts combined. It's unclear if, and to what extent, addiction rates are greater for say crack or meth. However, smoking crack or meth is the most extreme method of ingestion. Most junkies didn't shoot up the first time they tried heroin. The fact is that most people using cocaine or speed are not addicts, but by the time they start smoking it, they most likely already are.

As always, a comparison to alcohol is a compelling argument to end prohibition.

|1.18.07 @ 12:31PM|#

Outlander, the citizenry didn't go whole-hog in favor of alcoholism when Prohibition ended, so I ask again why you think drugs would be any different?

Like I said, the evidence generally indicates that other drugs are more addictive and more harmful to the user.

Would you start taking meth if only it were legal? I wouldn't. Nor do I have any desire to take cocaine or heroin, legalization status be damned. I doubt I'm the only one who feels that way, either.

I doubt it, but then again the recreational drugs that are legal (alcohol, caffeine, and tobacco) seem to be the ones most popular so who knows? Refer to my earlier post about how legality is related to social acceptability.

Legalize all drugs tomorrow and I doubt you'll find Americans closing out their bank accounts and spending the money getting high.

Who can tell, really? We'd be getting into all sorts of uncharted territory with something like that. I think any drug legalization to be successful would have to be very gradual.

As for the ones who ARE prone to taking drugs and becoming addicted to them. . . well, they're already doing that despite the laws against it.

I think you're wrong about this. Surely the threat of legal trouble keeps some people from taking illicit drugs, and surely some of those people would find that they enjoy them to the point of addiction if they were to try.

Warren|1.18.07 @ 12:33PM|#

Like I said, the evidence generally indicates that other drugs are more addictive and more harmful to the user.

Pure bullshit. There is no such evidence.

Skole|1.18.07 @ 12:34PM|#

Oh Sam, you crafty, crafty butcher you.

biologist|1.18.07 @ 12:41PM|#

Jb, I seem to recall that heroin and opium have some medical uses...as painkillers?

Warren|1.18.07 @ 12:43PM|#

outlander,
You completely ignore the effect prohibition has on propelling people into addiction.

All users are criminals and must deal with criminals. The legal and social consequences require users to keep their use secret. Users are reluctant to involve themselves with family, church, or civic groups. They are more likely to socialize with other users and dealers. If a user is identified he will almost certainly loose his job, and most likely be ostracized by friends, family and other common support groups.

Everything about prohibition makes the social problems of drugs far worse. Without it, there might very well be more drug users but not more drug addicts.

|1.18.07 @ 12:57PM|#

outlander,
You completely ignore the effect prohibition has on propelling people into addiction.

All users are criminals and must deal with criminals. The legal and social consequences require users to keep their use secret. Users are reluctant to involve themselves with family, church, or civic groups. They are more likely to socialize with other users and dealers. If a user is identified he will almost certainly loose his job, and most likely be ostracized by friends, family and other common support groups.

This is true and I agree is one of the better arguments in favor of legalization.

The problem remains, however, that we really have no way of knowing how legalization will affect public health/addiction, etc.

I'm beginning to think it's a "devil you know" situation for most people. I'd hope we'd all agree that legalizing drugs would be a risky proposition, at the very least. It's hard to predict how people will react when the rules are changed so drastically.

|1.18.07 @ 1:12PM|#

I think the biggest problem that the pro-legalization crowd has is that they generally have no good answer to the obvious result of legalization - that is, more people will use more drugs and therefore more people will abuse them.

I don't think that's the obvious long-term result at all.

It may well happen that more people will use drugs casually. And if so, what's the harm in that? By definition, casual drug use is pretty harmless.

But to assume that casual drug use drives addiction is simple ignorance, spread through drug war propaganda. The addicts are precisely the ones use drugs now. I don't think you'll see any more addiction post-legalization than pre-; legality and addiction simply operate in different universes.

|1.18.07 @ 1:21PM|#

Like I said, the evidence generally indicates that other drugs are more addictive and more harmful to the user.

Sullum does a great job of demolishing this myth (using independent and government studies, as well) in his excellent book, "Saying Yes."

Like alcohol, most people who try meth and crack and heroin don't get addicted.

If you have evidence to back up this statement, I'd love a link.

Warren|1.18.07 @ 1:22PM|#

It's hard to predict how people will react when the rules are changed so drastically.

I don't agree (I think history provides ample precedence) but I'll happily concede the point. I hope we can at least agree that we don't need federal prohibition. States and smaller communities should be allowed the freedom to write their own drug laws. Certainly we should stop interfering with other sovereign nations.

Sam Franklin|1.18.07 @ 1:28PM|#

Sam/Dave W., pretend you're a man and behave accordingly. Real men don't whine and obsess the way you do.

Real women don't treat ppl the way you treated Horace. I am glad we have a place to have this conversation. How is Crazee Mona?

Ellie|1.18.07 @ 1:49PM|#

Real men don't spell it "ppl", or spend their Friday evenings crying and masturbating over a picture of C. Everett Koop.

Sam Franklin|1.18.07 @ 2:14PM|#

It's the only way I can get my wife to put on the Thoreau mask. Love is a 2-way street sometimes.

dhex|1.18.07 @ 2:29PM|#

real, fake, whatevs; this shit is played out.

Jennifer|1.18.07 @ 2:29PM|#

Dave/Sam, considering your psychotic obsession that drives you to cyberstalk Thoreau, I'm not the least bit surprised to find you empathize with the psycho who chose to cyberstalk me. You're a one-note bore and your mancrush on Thoreau has long since ceased to be amusing.

|1.18.07 @ 2:34PM|#

Alcohol Prohibition results as analogy:
In a nutshell, while in the first few years of prohibition Alcohol use declined, by the end of prohibition use was almost as high, if not higher than at the start while the median age of use had declined indicating younger initiation to the drug. I suspect that non-alcohol prohibition has the same effect, younger people use it because the dealer has nothing to loose by selling it. It is easier for a high school kid to buy an ounce of pot than a fifth of whiskey. If "protecting the children" is really the aim of legislation, then legalization combined with regulation is the key.

As for the addictive potential of Alcohol vs. Other Illicit drugs, I refer you to this graph. For the purposes of comparison, cocaine and amphetamines are relatively interchangeable, though some studies indicate that long-term high doesage use of amphetamines may induce more toxic effects.

|1.18.07 @ 2:35PM|#

Umm, that should have been dosage, not "doesage". Preview is my friend.

Jennifer|1.18.07 @ 2:38PM|#

Also, once alcohol prohibition ended you no longer had drinkers going blind from bad bathtub booze, or suffering other immediate health problems.

|1.18.07 @ 2:44PM|#

I don't think that's the obvious long-term result at all.

It may well happen that more people will use drugs casually. And if so, what's the harm in that? By definition, casual drug use is pretty harmless.

But to assume that casual drug use drives addiction is simple ignorance, spread through drug war propaganda. The addicts are precisely the ones use drugs now. I don't think you'll see any more addiction post-legalization than pre-; legality and addiction simply operate in different universes.

It's tough to prove either way, I suppose. But I have a hard time believing that drug abuse doesn't often begin as casual use. Also, it's not unusual for people to abuse legal drugs, as Rush Limbaugh and Brett Favre could tell you.

Sam Franklin|1.18.07 @ 2:45PM|#

"Cyberstalking" (at least as u seem 2 define it) is not a crime. It is not even a problem, Hilla . . ., I mean, jennifer.

Free speech.

Jennifer|1.18.07 @ 2:46PM|#

Also, it's not unusual for people to abuse legal drugs, as Rush Limbaugh and Brett Favre could tell you.

What does "abuse" mean in this context? When Rush was taking all that Oxycontin he didn't seem to suffer any ill effects. Actually, if the stuff were not illegal I don't think it would have mattered at all.

|1.18.07 @ 2:47PM|#

I don't agree (I think history provides ample precedence) but I'll happily concede the point. I hope we can at least agree that we don't need federal prohibition. States and smaller communities should be allowed the freedom to write their own drug laws. Certainly we should stop interfering with other sovereign nations.

I pretty much agree with you.

If anything, I'm a proponent of gradual legalization, meaning let's start relaxing drug laws and decriminalizing softer drugs and see what happens. If overall results are positive, then take it a step further. If not, then at least we'll know that drug prohibition is necessary.

Jennifer|1.18.07 @ 2:50PM|#

"Cyberstalking" (at least as u seem 2 define it) is not a crime. It is not even a problem, Hilla . . ., I mean, jennifer. Free speech.

I never said it was a crime, Dave. I'm just pointing out that it's one indication that you're an emotionally unstable lunatic. And "free speech" doesn't mean a blogger can't moderate the comments on her own blog. If you don't like the commenting policies at the blogs where I write, go start a blog of your own. Then perhaps you'll have your own commenters, assuming anybody gives a rat's ass what you have to say. If you want, I'll even post a comment there so you can have the pleasure of banning my IP address.

|1.18.07 @ 2:56PM|#

Whatever's going on here between Jennifer and Sam is more interesting than the drug question I think!

Sam Franklin|1.18.07 @ 3:00PM|#

And "free speech" doesn't mean a blogger can't moderate the comments on her own blog.

No, but it does mean that if someone does a bad or unfair job at that moderation, then they will be called on it.

usually, the solution to words is more words, rather than carrying on like the Queen of Hearts.

Jennifer|1.18.07 @ 3:04PM|#

Whatever's going on here between Jennifer and Sam is more interesting than the drug question I think!

In many ways, yes. Especially since the right drugs might solve some of Sam/Dave's chemical imbalances. Dave's got a serious hard-on for Thoreau, and followed him to his own (group) blog, where I also post. And he thinks that Thoreau and I are very, very mean for being far less tolerant of trolls than Hit and Run is.

|1.18.07 @ 3:08PM|#

Back to the fucking topic children.
Another effect of the WoD which is more likely to be noticed by the average "law abiding" citizen is the DEA's increased policing and arresting of doctors who prescribe pain medication. In some cases this has led pain sufferers to obtain thier needed medication by illegal means.

Sam Franklin|1.18.07 @ 3:12PM|#

followed him to his own (group) blog, where I also post

I joined that blog and was posting on my own.

Then Thoreau complained because I wrote a post arguing that the Earth revolves around the Sun just as much as the Sun revolves around the Earth. Without going into too much detail, I came to this conclusion because I believe there is inertial frame of reference in the Universe.

Now you would think a physicist would groove on such Einsteinean thoughts. But no. Young Jedi, in one of his fits of smug hegemony, arranged it so that my posts no longer appeared on the front page of the Hankie blog because I had suggested such a crazee thing.

This thing is not so one sided as you make out. Sometimes payback is a bitch.

Sam Franklin|1.18.07 @ 3:13PM|#

"there is inertial frame of reference in the Universe"

should have been

--there is no preferred inertial frame of reference in the Universe--

Sam Franklin|1.18.07 @ 3:32PM|#

I joined that blog and was posting on my own.

Oh, left out part of the story. I was reluctant to join the blog as a memeber at first. I only did after DA Wrigley's persuaded me that there would not be arbitrary banning.

(and to his great credit, DAR himself always seemed to be evenhanded and fair -- too bad he was not put in charge)

thoreau|1.18.07 @ 3:46PM|#

Sam, in brief, the thing about posting on the front page of Inactivist had nothing to do with me or any opinions I might have.

Somebody (not me, and not Jennifer) said "Hey, wait, why is it that people without admin privileges are posting on the front page?" and somebody else said "Oh, yeah, huh, we should fix that. If every registered user starts posting on the front page, and not just the admins, the place will get cluttered." So it was fixed.

Quite innocuous, really. Nothing to do with any sort of opinions regarding your posts, and nothing to do with me.

That's all.

VIkingMoose|1.18.07 @ 3:47PM|#

"Ellie | January 18, 2007, 1:49pm | #
Real men don't spell it "ppl", or spend their Friday evenings crying and masturbating over a picture of C. Everett Koop."

does the Noam Chomsky Blow Up doll count as a close substitute?

:)

(oh - and usually Monday morning, not Friday evening, but close enough)

(basket full of kittens lounging in the sun)

(that's for a much less disturbing mental image, BTW)

Outlander makes a good point: do the fine citizens here have any limits to which drugs hit the okay list? As for the localities making those legality decisions, we have plenty of case studies from dry towns, townships, counties, etc.

Kwix: good call. I apologize for throwing fuel on the non-constructive fire here (couldn't resist, because I got to bring up NOAM!).

|1.18.07 @ 3:55PM|#

"What does "abuse" mean in this context? When Rush was taking all that Oxycontin he didn't seem to suffer any ill effects. Actually, if the stuff were not illegal I don't think it would have mattered at all."

I have a dim recollection that abuse of opiates and particularly oxycontin sometimes causes nerve damage to the ear. As I am sure you know, Rush had a coclear implant because he went stone deaf. So maybe there was some blowback to Rush's foray on the other side of the War on Drugs.

PS, I am tired so I assume no responsibility for misspellings or even the factual accuracy of this post.

|1.18.07 @ 4:06PM|#

OK, I am tired but I did a web search (oxycontin effects ear) and here is what I got from Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh]
regarding oxycontin effects on the ear.

So, Rush's illegal drug use deafened him. We really should put him in prison for his own good.

"December 2001, Limbaugh underwent cochlear implant surgery, which restored a measure of hearing in his left ear. His voice and enunciation returned to normal after the implant. According to his doctors, the deafness was caused by an autoimmune disease.

Some medical experts pointed out that chronic use of opioids, such as OxyContin and particularly hydrocodone, both which Limbaugh later admitted abusing,[25] can compromise the function of the immune system[26] and cause deafness, speculating that his use of these drugs could have caused or contributed to his problem.[27][28] Limbaugh's doctors stated that "they were unsure of the exact cause of Limbaugh's hearing loss, but said that overuse of medication was not a factor."[29]"

Sam Franklin|1.18.07 @ 4:15PM|#

that wasn't the way it looked, but I take your word on that T.

Also to T.'s credit, he did stick up for me a bit the day Mona got into her snit. Not many people in T.'s shoes would have done that. Good integrity.

Further to T.: I am not sure why my ctrl+d joke got taken as something so ominous here. it was meant along the lines of "I like the sentiment so much I am going to hold you to this." I don't want to have sex with you. I have never been curious about what you look like. I like many of your posts. Some I don't like (that hegemony thing rubs me the way leftwingers rub John and rightwingers rub joe). When you don't post I don't really think about you. I don't really get the feeling that you pay me that much mind either, but there have been so many insinuations that I am somehow physically attracted to you that I wanted to clear the air with some candor.

|1.18.07 @ 5:13PM|#

Creepiness factor all the way up to 10!
Me disgusta.

Warren|1.18.07 @ 5:28PM|#

highnumber,
since you're not new around here, you must have no long term memory. I'd point you to some creepier threads, but I don't want to cross the T.

|1.18.07 @ 6:00PM|#

Warren,

Who the heck are you? ;-)

This creepfest got way too out there. It freaks me out to see this nutty feud carrying over from this blog to other blogs and back again.
If you feel that someone has crossed some line, ignore them. Don't encourage them. Why some seemingly intelligent people can't get that through their skulls, I don't get.

I don't want to cross the T.

Ha! You made a pun.

SteveHeath|1.19.07 @ 1:02AM|#

OUTLANDER ponders: That's a tough question - one could say that the main reason people avoid crack is because it's illegal, and to a large extent therefore socially unacceptable.

SH: As a former user and abuser of crack cocaine, I can testify the two primary reasons avoid crack in the year 2007.

1) It's WAY TOO MUCH COCAINE WAY TOO FAST.

Best analogy is that the reason most people avoid drinking straight Everclear is that it's Way Too Much Alcohol Way Too Fast.

2) With only a few hundred thousand exceptions each year, those people who give any serious thought to trying crack are simply persuaded to desist by listening to trusted sources of information that honestly deliver the downsides of using it.

====
OUTLANDER: But I agree that if crack was legalized tomorrow I wouldn't start using it. But at least some people would - being able to purchase some in a store would give many the idea that it's not so bad after all.

SH: Not really.

Not unless they were absolutely deaf and blind to the honest and accurate messages all around them from people who know better.

And in the event they succumb and join the few hundred thousand people a year who try crack for the first time, experience has demonstrated that only a tiny, tiny few will continue to use it for much longer than a few months.

Why? See reason #1 listed above.

Those of us with long experience using cocaine in both powder and rock form can testify with confidence that in a legal, regulated market which provided powder cocaine in controlled sales environments akin to liquor stores, the shelf space for crack would be like the current shelf space allotted for Everclear. Less than 1/10 of 1% of the store inventory would be rock. The rest would be powder.

SteveHeath|1.19.07 @ 1:12AM|#

SECOND submission to this discussion is in response to those who query in one form or another, "What will it be like in society with legal drugs??"

ANSWER: Look around you and the answer is right there.

In the United States in 2007, well over 99.5% of in-demand drugs are already LEGAL.

And each is subject to varying levels of regulation (federal, state, county, local) with regard to production and distribution for commercial purposes.

The legal drugs run the gamut from low impact stimulants (caffeine, ephedrine) to pharmaceutical grade amphetamines.

Tranquilizers (Xanax etal), Sleep Aids (Ambien etal), Anti-Depressants, Anxiety drugs (Paxil etal)

Alcohol in all its many forms.

Tobacco

OTC analgesics, laxatives, topical anesthetics

Insulin, glucophage, heart pressure meds

Viagra, Cialis etal

and on and on and on

ONLY ABOUT a dozen truly in-demand drugs are deemed worthy of being left on the street with 100% of commercial production and distribution unregulated.

The question to ask those who say, "Well tell me what drugs you want to legalize?"

should be in return,

"How about you tell me which drugs should be ILLEGAL, given that this will force their production and commercial distribution onto the street and will instantly motivate dealers to market to minors and to recruit minors to help them sell?"

Which drugs do you want to place in the power of unmonitored criminals, gangs and foreign cartels?

I'm listening.

(beats giving a lecture any day. Let the Prohibitionist defend his rap instead of trying to sell your own).

Two cents, plus a smoke break

Steve

SteveHeath|1.19.07 @ 1:26AM|#

Oh, final note (smoke breaks often inspire Just One More Note):

The above suggestions on discussing drug policy with others should be broken down into two possible settings.

1) with a self-defined Prohibitionist, you'll likely get some kind of answer about "which drugs should be illegal" and it will of course center around some kind of health care scenario.

ie, Drug ?? is so bad/risky/dangerous/addictive that we must NEVER make it legal. Making a drug legal tells kids that it's an Okay Drug. (as opposed to a Bad Drug!)

WE PERSONALLY advise politely ending the conversation there, save for perhaps one final return parry of, "So you're saying this extremely risky/dangerous/addictive drug is best sold on the street by unregulated dealers - in our residential neighborhoods by people who focus on kids for customers?"

To which they reply, "NO, I want people to stop dealing Drug ?? completely!!"

THEN END the conversation because they are disconnected from the reality of free market human economics.

SURRENDER and permit them their freedom to be in the small percentage of people who are not

a) IN full agreement with legalized drugs

or

b) unsure of the differences between a legal drug market and an illegal drug market.

======
Lead us to the other type of conversation, which is

2) with someone who is not yet fully on board with us, but who haa no moral or other compunction to motivate them to reject legalization regardless of rational reasons for it.

For the "fence sitter" or "sincere inquirer" we simply ask them to tell us which drugs should be illegal after making clear the differences between a legal drug market and an illegal drug market.

I've found that with only a few exceptions in the past four years since I first started promoting the LEAP message nationwide, PEOPLE GET ON BOARD when you let THEM TELL YOU what drugs should be illegal.

Quite simply, once presented with the differences between a legal and an illegal drug market, 70% of voters wills say, "Legal is better".

"It's not a PERFECT system. It is however, far preferable to an illegal system."

ANd from that point, the only discussion remaining is what are the most agreeable ways within your own community to regulate the legal drug market.

Feedback, comments, questions and suggestions pertaining to any of my above three posts are welcome via email heath at leap.cc

Reason.com

New at Reason

Drug Warrior|1.18.07 @ 8:27AM|#

thoreau|1.18.07 @ 8:40AM|#

Guy Montag|1.18.07 @ 8:52AM|#

Guy Montag|1.18.07 @ 8:59AM|#

Warren|1.18.07 @ 9:27AM|#

Guy Montag|1.18.07 @ 9:33AM|#

Sam Franklin|1.18.07 @ 9:59AM|#

grylliade|1.18.07 @ 10:18AM|#

Jennifer|1.18.07 @ 10:37AM|#

Jennifer|1.18.07 @ 10:41AM|#

Gray Ghost|1.18.07 @ 10:43AM|#

Guy Montag|1.18.07 @ 11:02AM|#

Guy Montag|1.18.07 @ 11:04AM|#

Jennifer|1.18.07 @ 11:13AM|#

Guy Montag|1.18.07 @ 11:20AM|#

Jennifer|1.18.07 @ 11:27AM|#

joe|1.18.07 @ 11:29AM|#

Jennifer|1.18.07 @ 11:43AM|#

thoreau|1.18.07 @ 11:45AM|#

dhex|1.18.07 @ 11:52AM|#

Sam Franklin|1.18.07 @ 11:57AM|#

Jennifer|1.18.07 @ 12:06PM|#

thoreau|1.18.07 @ 12:15PM|#

Jennifer|1.18.07 @ 12:27PM|#

Dan T.|1.18.07 @ 12:28PM|#

Warren|1.18.07 @ 12:28PM|#

Warren|1.18.07 @ 12:33PM|#

Skole|1.18.07 @ 12:34PM|#

biologist|1.18.07 @ 12:41PM|#

Warren|1.18.07 @ 12:43PM|#

Warren|1.18.07 @ 1:22PM|#

Sam Franklin|1.18.07 @ 1:28PM|#

Ellie|1.18.07 @ 1:49PM|#

Sam Franklin|1.18.07 @ 2:14PM|#

dhex|1.18.07 @ 2:29PM|#

Jennifer|1.18.07 @ 2:29PM|#

Jennifer|1.18.07 @ 2:38PM|#

Sam Franklin|1.18.07 @ 2:45PM|#

Jennifer|1.18.07 @ 2:46PM|#

Jennifer|1.18.07 @ 2:50PM|#

Sam Franklin|1.18.07 @ 3:00PM|#

Jennifer|1.18.07 @ 3:04PM|#

Sam Franklin|1.18.07 @ 3:12PM|#

Sam Franklin|1.18.07 @ 3:13PM|#

Sam Franklin|1.18.07 @ 3:32PM|#

thoreau|1.18.07 @ 3:46PM|#

VIkingMoose|1.18.07 @ 3:47PM|#

Sam Franklin|1.18.07 @ 4:15PM|#

Warren|1.18.07 @ 5:28PM|#

SteveHeath|1.19.07 @ 1:02AM|#

SteveHeath|1.19.07 @ 1:12AM|#

SteveHeath|1.19.07 @ 1:26AM|#

Leave a Comment

Most Popular Stories

Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey

advertisements

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices: