Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Nick Gillespie: What Would a Sensible Drug Policy Look Like?
In December 2006, reason's Nick Gillespie spoke on a plenary session at the annual conference of Students for a Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP). The panel's topic was "What Would a Sensible Drug Policy Look Like," and Gillespie focused not just on that topic but on how drug prohibition functions as what he calls a "structuring event" in American life, forcing all sorts of activity—from education and athletics, from law enforcement to foreign policy—to pay hypocritical and misdirected lip service to a Just Say No mentality.
"The drug war screws with everything that it touches, and it touches everything," says Gillespie. Snippets from his talk:
What I want to do is try to create a post-prohibitionist mind-set, where we are no longer merely reacting to prohibition and trying to get rid of it, because in a way we become twinned with it....
When we talk about the Tour de France, we talk about drugs. When we talk about Major League Baseball, we talk about who's using them. Plan Colombia and a good chunk of our foreign policy is all about drugs. Hundreds of thousands of people are in jail because of drug policy. All of you [students] probably went through some form of bogus drug education program, all for no good reason. The real dead-end of this is...[found] in men's rooms in America. When you go and take a piss, there is a pretty good chance that the urinal cake holder, the thing that deodorizes it...says 'Say No To Drugs' on it....
The quick version of my sensible drug policy, of a post-prohibitionist policy, is that it would be smarter to regulate all drugs, including prescription drugs, somewhat like we do with alcohol....
Like drug warriors...we will need to stop imbuing inanimate objects with supernatural powers.
The drug war is over, if we want it—to paraphrase a famous anti-Vietnam war slogan. The end of the war starts up here, in our heads, and then proceeds out to the actual America. The starting point for a sensible drug policy, a true post-prohibitionist mind-set that does not participate in any way with prohibitionist thinking, would be take seriously the credo of the Whole Earth Catalog..."We are as gods, and we might as well get good at it." Ironically, the first step to becoming gods may be to recognize that drugs are only one means among many for changing who we are, how we live, and what we will become.
Approximately 17 minutes; click on the image above.
To embed this video on your website, go here.
SSDP's 10th annual conference will take place in Washington, D.C., from November 21-23 and will feature, among many other speakers, reason's Radley Balko.
|10.25.08 @ 2:29PM|#
The video is stopping around the two minute mark. Anyone else having this problem?
Elemenope|10.25.08 @ 2:44PM|#
The video is stopping around the two minute mark. Anyone
else having this problem?
No, but I was having other video stuttering/stopping issues earlier
this week.
Reinstalled Flash, updated DirectX drivers (which I ultimately
suspect was the real problem due to other symptoms), and problem
was solved. You might want to give it a try.
twv|10.25.08 @ 2:47PM|#
I was going to say that a sensible drug policy would look an
awful lot like NO drug policy.
But perhaps that's misleading. To the extent that drugs can
diminish responsible human action, a responsibilitarian policy
would turn to ways to put responsibility back into the social
equation, where drugs are involved.
The only way to do this, I think, is the way Gillespie suggests:
move beyond thinking in terms of prohibition. How that would work,
I'll leave to others. But the key concept in drugs, hormesis, must
be recognized always.
I have to do the responsible thing and get back to work.
(I'll look at the video when I have time.)
Naga Sadow|10.25.08 @ 2:52PM|#
I would definitely adhere to NO drug policy. Though I agree that it is unreachable. When humans are involved, a certain amount of corruption is inevitable.
SIV|10.25.08 @ 3:24PM|#
Sensible drug policy?
Free market.
If the seller chooses to label his
product(ingredients,dosage,weight etc.) then one should consider
intentional mislabeling to be fraud.
|10.25.08 @ 3:29PM|#
We are NEVER going to have a sensible drug policy. There are just too many busy-bodies to allow it.
|10.25.08 @ 3:30PM|#
Sensible policy?
Let anyone use whatever they want. Hold any of them responsible for
what they do while on whatever they take. Hold sellers accountable
in product liability like we do any seller of goods.
Kolohe|10.25.08 @ 3:31PM|#
Trying to stop the drug war by saying some variation of 'drugs
are good, mmmkay,' rather than with a cost-benefit benefit analysis
is a political non-starter.
Just sayin'
As an analogy, the plurality American public was interested in
getting out of Vietnam not because Communism was good, but because
people felt it was no longer worth the cost in blood and treasure.
(Similarly, that same plurality wishes to leave Iraq not because
the anti-govt/anti-social forces are good, but because they feel it
ain't worth the effort anymore.)
And besides, just like there are some people who should not drink,
there are some people who should not use drugs. What is impossible,
of course, is to determine a priori who is who.
Elemenope|10.25.08 @ 3:42PM|#
What Would a Sensible Drug Policy Look Like?
A geek in a cool leather jacket.
|10.25.08 @ 4:13PM|#
REGULATORS!!! MOUNT UP!
It was a clear black night, a clear white moon
Nicky G was on the streets, trying to consume...
|10.25.08 @ 4:18PM|#
Sensible government policy is an oxymoron. Any time you throw 'political feasibility' into any policy debate, it's over.
|10.25.08 @ 4:18PM|#
Any sensible policy should legalize production and distribution rather than just consumption. If production is not legalized than the drug war will not end.
Robert Goodman|10.25.08 @ 4:29PM|#
Sensible government policy is an oxymoron. Any time you throw 'political feasibility' into any policy debate, it's over.
Not so. Consider how sensible food policy is compared to drug
policy. The most the political interests have achieved there is to
get price supports of various kinds. Extremely few foods are
subject to drug-like controls. One could easily imagine a world in
which many foods are subject to drug-like controls, but that hasn't
happened, so clearly controls aren't inevitable and an absence of
them is politically feasible.
SIV|10.25.08 @ 4:33PM|#
RG,
Wait till the next 4+ years for food controls.
You will think we are now in food Libertopia.
IIRC, didn't the FDA under Clinton try to ban the consumption of
raw shellfish?
TallDave|10.25.08 @ 4:41PM|#
Seems like we're seeing some movement lately. A couple cities
have moved toward decrim.
If Obama wins, supposedly the federal raids on clinics will end
(unless we get thrown under the bus like public campaign
financing). That will create more and more pressure for outright
legalization, as a doctor's scrip is generally fairly easy to get
(and why shouldn't it be? they hand out prozac like candy) and the
more exposure people have the more the realize it's just like
having a beer or a cigarette.
Looking forward to the day I can legally get a little high before
taking the Corvette out on the road with the top down.
TallDave|10.25.08 @ 4:42PM|#
Any sensible policy should legalize production and
distribution rather than just consumption.
/agree, but one step at a time...
JMR|10.25.08 @ 4:45PM|#
AFAIK the shellfish requirement ended up being a posted sign with scary words if they want to sell oysters. In most cases, the scary words don't apply, but in a few it's the truth, so I don't think it's THAT bad...
|10.25.08 @ 4:49PM|#
Legalize marijuana and see what happens. Nothing else yet, but
so many people smoke pot, I never have, but so many people do, and
I don't care, as long as I am allowed to personally say no.
No more "don't knock it before you try it." You can have it. I like
soda, hamburgers, and trolling random articles sometimes ;-)
Elemenope|10.25.08 @ 4:55PM|#
I don't care, as long as I am allowed to personally say
no.
I think you're fairly safe on that end. Nobody I know of is
advocating forcing people at gunpoint to toke up.
Though I admit the image is compelling in an absurd way.
geniusiknowit|10.25.08 @ 5:00PM|#
I want my drugs unregulated and untaxed.... might as well keep them on the black market. Shit, I wish I could buy more things on the black market.
Reason Fashion Editor|10.25.08 @ 5:01PM|#
What Would a Sensible Drug Policy Look Like?
Clearly, it would be wearing a black leather jacket.
HornetsFan|10.25.08 @ 5:03PM|#
What's with Gillespie and that leather jacket? His whole look
went out of style in the 50's. What next, powdered wigs?
Anyway, we do have the most punitive, awful drug policy out of all
first world countries. But when did we ban hard rock/metal?
|10.25.08 @ 5:05PM|#
Rushing away.
In the light
of a new song
I like the
perception of
a sweet sensibility,
the height of
the season and
a burning desire.
Francesco Sinibaldi
Elemenope|10.25.08 @ 5:11PM|#
But when did we ban hard rock/metal?
Never, to my knowledge, as a nation. However, individual
communities did perennially throw up some absurd public morals
regulations banning things like rock music just to keep people on
their toes.
IIRC, they never lasted long.
Boston|10.25.08 @ 5:24PM|#
OT but if you are into pop "culture" you might find this
funny.
http://www.drunkenstepfather.com/cms/u.php?u=25612
Mad Max|10.25.08 @ 6:06PM|#
"take seriously the credo of the Whole Earth Catalog...'We are
as gods, and we might as well get good at it.'"
Wait, isn't this the sort of attitude which drug-law reformers
impute to prohibitionists?
Warty|10.25.08 @ 6:22PM|#
Legalize marijuana and see what happens.
It's practically legal in a lot of places, especially if you're
white and rich. In my experience, You have to fuck up spectacularly
to get a cop to bust you for pot possession. They'll normally just
confiscate it and send you on your way.
Of course, it's pretty outrageous that a cop is allowed to steal
your bud. Fucking pigs.
|10.25.08 @ 6:28PM|#
It's practically legal in a lot of places, especially if
you're white and rich.
Warty, are you rich and white?
|10.25.08 @ 6:55PM|#
A Pittsburg Steelers WR was pulled over for a 'minor'traffic violation and arrested for having a few blunts in his car.I guess being black and rich doesn't work.
|10.25.08 @ 6:56PM|#
A sensible drug policy would be no policy at all... no policy,
no regulation, not even like alcohol, no accurate labeling,
nothing. Nothing.
The one and only direction for the first step toward a sensible
drug policy is an amendment to the Constitution that expressly
protects our right to put whatever we choose into our bodies.
Everyone with an ounce of sense needs to grasp it that, if the
First Amendment protects our right to put whatever ideas we choose
to put into our minds, which it was intended to do, then the Second
Amendment SHOULD HAVE BEEN to protect our right to put what we
choose into our bodies.
Mercy Otis Warren, Abigail Adam's buddy, the woman who first
thought of a Bill of Rights, just had an understandable oversight
that took about a century for "hackers" to find.
|10.25.08 @ 7:24PM|#
If Obama wins, supposedly the federal raids on clinics will end
Ha ha ha! Ha! Hee hee! Oooooweee, that's a good one!
Elemenope|10.25.08 @ 7:37PM|#
Ha ha ha! Ha! Hee hee! Oooooweee, that's a good
one!
Your derision is reasonable, given the lengthy list of betrayals on
drug policy from politicians left and right alike.
However, *this* politician has yet to screw anyone on the issue.
Let him do so, then mock him. (Or let him shock you by not
doing it.)
Paul|10.25.08 @ 7:51PM|#
Let anyone use whatever they want. Hold any of them
responsible for what they do while on whatever they take. Hold
sellers accountable in product liability like we do any seller of
goods.
Like cigarettes and trans-fats... oh wait..
SIV|10.25.08 @ 7:53PM|#
Elemenope,
Obama and his campaign already backed off the "ending Federal
medical marijuana raids" statement so unless he changes position
yet again he already screwed everyone on the issue.
Elemenope|10.25.08 @ 8:07PM|#
Obama and his campaign already backed off the "ending
Federal medical marijuana raids" statement so unless he changes
position yet again he already screwed everyone on the
issue.
I googled for it and found many references to him saying he would
end the raids (May of this year), but could not find one of him
repudiating that position.
Might you have a linky?
SIV|10.25.08 @ 8:11PM|#
Not handy, and I'm busy but here is a clue. His last statement on the matter was qualified by "if medical marijuana is FDA approved". There is NO chance of that happening ever. I've ragged on Sullum repeatedly for not acknowledging Obama's abandonment of his prior position.
Elemenope|10.25.08 @ 8:23PM|#
His last statement on the matter was qualified by "if
medical marijuana is FDA approved". There is NO chance of that
happening ever.
I imagine the truth of that prediction depends greatly on:
1. Who runs the FDA
2. What the interests are of the person who appointed them
I'll freely admit that putting Biden, of all people, on the ticket
was not an encouraging sign...but at least I'm pretty sure he isn't
there *for* his drug-policy views.
SIV|10.25.08 @ 8:45PM|#
I imagine the truth of that prediction depends greatly
on:
1. Who runs the FDA
2. What the interests are of the person who appointed
them
Bureaucracies are a greater impediment to "change" and liberty than
elected governments in the USA.
The Justice Department makes the decision.
There is a near unstoppable inertia in federal (and other)
bureaucracies that is not affected by who the appointed leader
is.Out of the Justice Department this is a push for more power,more
restriction of liberty and less rights for citizens.That is why
there is a steady erosion of liberty no matter who is
elected.Specific events accelerate this. Oklahoma City and the
1990s anti-abortion violence under clinton, 9/11 under Bush.
In regard to the FDA I couldn't imagine the institutional
bureacracy shifting in such a manner as to approve marijuana or any
natural plant as "safe and effective". If they have approved a
whole plant as a drug in the past 50+ years I would be shocked.
Boston|10.25.08 @ 8:58PM|#
uh not really a porn sight. its a picture of two celebrities reading Harry Browne. I thought it was funny. YMMV
boston|10.25.08 @ 9:06PM|#
but i should have mentioned the nature of the site, so you are right about that.
|10.25.08 @ 10:00PM|#
After about 25 comments, the munchkins are always up to their
crowns in a quicksand of irrelevant details... end of
discussion.
Such is the nature of humanity.
Could I go through a black hole and become silicon-based?
(Come to think of it, maybe quicksand is the black hole for
munchkins. Naah.)
Brandybuck|10.25.08 @ 10:12PM|#
Elemenope, are his lips moving? Then he's lying. It's what politicians do. The more sincere they seem, the greater the odds that they are actively lying.
Elemenope|10.26.08 @ 12:01AM|#
Elemenope, are his lips moving? Then he's lying. It's what
politicians do. The more sincere they seem, the greater the odds
that they are actively lying.
Uh huh.
So...how do you figure out who to vote for? Do you vote at all?
|10.26.08 @ 12:19AM|#
Ele:
Stoners are paranoid and annoying though, sometimes.
If you say you don't smoke pot, they lecture to you and assume you
are against them doing it.
Either you love Bob Marley and Dave Matthews Band, or you're the
feds. :-P
That's what I noticed with a couple of guys I lived with. I had to
inform them both I thought it should be legal but I had no desire
to try it. Took one of them a while
|10.26.08 @ 12:20AM|#
Biden overstates his crime bills etc. He just likes to "out rudy rudy" for no reason.
|10.26.08 @ 1:00AM|#
Stoners are paranoid and annoying though,
sometimes.
So are drunks, cokeheads, and pillheads, but they're far less
likely to violate my fourth amendment rights than any drug warrior
I've ever met.
-jcr
Paul|10.26.08 @ 2:22AM|#
1. Who runs the FDA
The Government.
2. What the interests are of the person who appointed
them
The Government's.
Well, that was easy. Next topic?
Paul|10.26.08 @ 2:25AM|#
Uh huh.
So...how do you figure out who to vote for? Do you vote at
all?
I have to agree with the OP, lmnop. The default position one should
always take when the government is talking to us is:
They're lying.
That way, when they tell the truth on occasion, we can be
pleasantly surprised.
Oh, and speaking for myself, I no longer vote.
Because. They're. Lying.
Paul|10.26.08 @ 2:26AM|#
He just likes to "out rudy rudy" for no reason.
Oh there's a reason, Jesse, there's a reason.
The Wine Commonsewer|10.26.08 @ 2:34AM|#
Never met a paranoid drunk.
Dude, I used to hear cops knocking at the door. And you know what I
mean. It wasn't the Bud Lite or the cheap red.
Guy Montag|10.26.08 @ 8:25AM|#
I am with the legalize all and let the free market sort it out.
Don't force employers to allow employees to be on anything the
employee likes at work, etc.
OT: So, how about that Sen. Biden on Orlando television last night,
eh? Seems he was at a loss for the words of others in his first
real interview of the campaign.
Guy Montag|10.26.08 @ 8:37AM|#
If you say you don't smoke pot, they lecture to you and
assume you are against them doing it.
Yep, I have run into a lot of that. Two of the most extreme cases
were both around the same time a couple of years ago, two people I
knew well but did not know each other. Both were endlessly trying
to get me to read about how weed was "better" for me that
cigarettes, constantly wanting me to "try it" so I would not have
such a negitave attitude towards it, etc.
How the hell is "go ahead and do what you want" a "negative
attitude"?
bob|10.26.08 @ 9:00AM|#
Stop the madness. Legalization now for growing , using what we please. Stop the legal discrimination against us who smoke a little pot, unless your just scared we can do your jobs better.
|10.26.08 @ 9:40AM|#
Of course if you are going to regulate drugs, you will have to
enforce the regulations. Currently, we regulate prescption drugs
and still have all kinds of nonsense involving the use of pain
killers; doctors going to jail for proscribing "too much" to
cronically ill patients and so forth. I think Gillespie is being
very disengenous when he claims we can just regulate drugs and get
out of our problem. Ok, so we regulate heroin. What does that mean?
Presumably it means that only certain people can get it. Then we
have to make sure only certain people get it and then we end up
throwing people in jail when the wrong people get it and we are
right back where we started.
The middle ground between prohibition and no regulation is very
messy. I don't think anyone right now really has a good grasp on
what post prohibition would look like. Therefore, rather than
pushing for pie in the sky universal legalization, the better first
step would be to get the Federal Government out of the drug
prohibition business. Leave it up to the states to experiment with
drug legalization as they see fit. Go ahead and ban the importation
of drugs and let the CBP and ICE concentrait on that and then let
the states form their own drug policies. Some states, like
California and Alaska would probably legalize marijuana. As states
began to realize it is a hell of a lot cheaper to just legalize the
stuff rather than prohibition, more and more states would legalize.
Some wouldn't but more than you think would. More importantly, it
would start a gradual drawing back of the drug war. We didn't get
here overnight. It is foolish to think that we will get back
overnight.
Guy Montag|10.26.08 @ 9:42AM|#
bob,
What exactly are you meaning by that "just scared we can do your
jobs better" bit? Hope it is not some veild call for the government
to prevent employers from controlling their workplaces.
You know, if you can do a job better then it is not a problem.
There will be an employer who will compensate you better for your
increased productivity.
Guy Montag|10.26.08 @ 9:54AM|#
John,
I think Gillespie is being very disengenous when he claims we
can just regulate drugs and get out of our problem.
I really don't believe that Nick is being disengenous at all. I
believe that it is his true position and he thinks that it is
workable. He just happens to disagree with you a bit and me a lot
on a solution to this violation of adult personal choice.
TallDave|10.26.08 @ 11:48AM|#
If Obama wins, supposedly the federal raids on clinics will
end -- Ha ha ha! Ha! Hee hee! Oooooweee, that's a good
one!
Well, I have to defend Obama here: at least he's made the promise.
That's more than McCain has done.
I really don't believe that Nick is being disengenous at all. I
believe that it is his true position and he thinks that it is
workable.
It's weird that people argue this isn't workable. I can only assume
it comes of watching too many of those Reefer Madness movies in
public school indoctrination daycamp.
Were we better or worse off under alcohol Prohibition? All the same
arguments apply.
Robert Goodman|10.26.08 @ 11:57AM|#
We have examples of "post-prohibition" w.r.t. various other objects & activities. One example is given by the states that went from strict control policies on concealed weapon carriage to "shall issue". Another example is professional boxing, which was widely prohibited but later legalized with state commissions regulating it. We have examples of a few controlled substances that have been decontrolled -- loperamide (Imodium) comes to mind. There's also the example of gold coins & bullion. It always takes its own course.
Elemenope|10.26.08 @ 12:29PM|#
Robert Goodman | October 26, 2008, 11:57am | #
It's nice to see an occasional optimist.
bob|10.26.08 @ 12:34PM|#
You know, if you can do a job better then it is not a problem.
There will be an employer who will compensate you better for your
increased productivity.
This is not the case, as long as there are drug tests that
discriminate against those who use marijuana a week ago.All who use
it must find jobs where the employer does not drug screen, or lie
and refrain sometimes weeks just to pass a piss test, that does not
reflect on character,or work ethics.
Scott|10.26.08 @ 1:44PM|#
Thanks Nick..wonderful talk!
Advocates of harm reduction (as I understand it) hold that
individuals will continue to use subtsances no matter what (and
have every right to) and asks how they can do so in the safest way
possible (in an often extremely hostile pro-drug war society).
Moreover, every human culture has included drug consumption and
every single attempt at drug prohibition has failed.
Nick correctly points out that there is "a basic human impulse to
alter your conciousness." At every harm reduction training I have
ever attended, I have heard the instructors voice the same exact
idea.
I don't necessarily see any conflict between the philosophy of harm
reduction and what Nick is advocating in his talk here (Please
clarify if I am mistaken - I am learning). As I understand harm
reduction, it is all about what goals the individual wants to
pursue. The individual is ultimately the true "expert" on his or
her life - while the "clinican" can be a positive support along the
way (Any decent therapist - I would hope - would embrace this
philosophical approach).
Is it perhaps more of a question of what key ideas should be
emphasized in our dialogues with others on this subject?
I think that some clinicians emphasize way too much the supposed
destructive influence of substance use. In my opinion, the typical
clinical labels that I keep hearing from trained professionals
(many of whom believe in legalization of all substances) are: 1.
Addiction. 3. Clean/Sober. 4. Disease.
I feel that we need to discard all of the labels thus mentioned
(and many others). They are destructive - and only serve to back
the claims of prohibitionists that all illicit substances are
"bad." I think that when speaking to others on this subject it is
absolutely crucial to note that most use of subtances (regardless
of their "legal" status in our society) results in no harm
whatsoever.
|10.26.08 @ 2:15PM|#
I tried to listen to the talk, but even after turning its
built-in volume all the way up, and turning my laptop's volume all
the way up, I can't hear it well enough to understand him over the
ambient noise in my house. Any .mp3 on the same laptop can be
turned up to ear-splitting levels.
Why is it that online content is so often artificially quiet?
|10.26.08 @ 3:41PM|#
"Stop the legal discrimination against us who smoke a little
pot, unless your just scared we can do your jobs
better."
Great point! I was a great / productive employee for 15 years with
the same company. I was never drug tested for any reason. The
company I worked for went out of business a couple years ago and it
has been very tough finding a job which does not drug test.
I am willing to match my skills, abilities, work record and ethics
against anyone else, but I have a hard time seeing how my off time
non violent, voluntary and private behavior has any effect
what-so-ever on my on the job performance, or my life in
general.
I have a MS in Environmental Evaluation and I have a solid work
ethic and record and I'm sick and tired of being considered a
criminal and rejected out of hand by prospective employers because
I responsibly use cannabis.
I consciously avoid all job offers which say "drug testing
required", but even some adds don't mention it and it isn't until
you are filling out the application and it comes up as an, "oh, by
the way.." moment.
Drug testing is the biggest problem in the legalization picture and
that will only be solved when we are declared "owners" of our
bodies and the chemical reactions within and no company can use
your own bodily fluids against you when making a hiring decision,
accident testing is OK if it can show actual impairment.
SIV|10.26.08 @ 3:42PM|#
Scott,
The "harm reduction" strategy, while preferable on humanitarian
grounds, is in no way libertarian.The legalization of drugs is a
property rights issue.It isn't about being more "permissive" on
some illegal drugs as a matter of social policy.Those countries
where you can buy most pharmaceutical drugs w/o a prescription have
a more "libertarian" drug policy than the IS would with our same
system + legal marijuana.
Elemenope|10.26.08 @ 3:47PM|#
I am willing to match my skills, abilities, work record and
ethics against anyone else, but I have a hard time seeing how my
off time non violent, voluntary and private behavior has any effect
what-so-ever on my on the job performance, or my life in
general.
The drugs I take most definitely have a positive influence on my
job performance.
SIV|10.26.08 @ 3:48PM|#
zig zag man,
Employers should have the "right" to drug test and discriminate in
hiring based on the results.It may not be in there economic
interest to do so but that is their decision.
I can understand avoiding companies with a random testing policy
but how hard is it to pass a pre-employment test.Quit for a
month.
|10.26.08 @ 4:10PM|#
Great talk, Nick.
I've followed reason from the beginning, 40 years ago. It's quite
clear that Reason, while remaining true to it's founding
principles, has evolved. For example, I can't quite imagine Robert
Poole giving your talk...
|10.26.08 @ 4:12PM|#
Consider a "million man march" on DC, composed of acknowledged
drug users--responsible, white, middle-class, professionals,
college-students--with the theme, "Arrest us all or end the drug
war".
There's civil disobedience for you.
|10.26.08 @ 4:20PM|#
"Employers should have the "right" to drug test and
discriminate in hiring based on the results.It may not be in there
economic interest to do so but that is their decision."
Sure they should have the right, but they are getting impetus from
the government prohibitionist cheeleaders who have a financial
stake in drug testing. Dupont and Johhny Pee Walters both held /
hold positions of influence in the government which directly
benefits from drug testing mandates, both of them are involved in
piss testing companies.
It would be really interesting to see how popular drug testing
would be if the war on some drugs did not exist. How many people
really think that responsible cannabis use is a problem in the
workplace? I would suspect less than the government would like you
to think.
I use cannabis recreationally and medicinally, even though in my
state my PTSD is not treatable with cannabis. I have quit in the
past, but I choose not to now and I do not think that I should be
denied / discrimated by a government policy rather than a personal
one made by each company owner.
|10.26.08 @ 4:30PM|#
So...how do you figure out who to vote for? Do you vote at all?
What I do is to look at their actual <gasp> record. The vast
majority of Dems and Reps fail in this regard. This is why so many
Libs are leery of Barr, he has a record that isn't that
clean.
p.s. Regarding Obama's "promise" to stop federal drug raids. So
what? Both Obama and McCain have promised to pound you in the ass,
and Obama "promise" not to pull on your ears while doing it won't
make your sphincter any less painful. Libertarians voting for Obama
because he mumbled something about stopping federal raids is like a
victim voting for rapist number two because he uses a condom.
SIV|10.26.08 @ 4:36PM|#
I'll say it again: Obama qualifies his support of respecting State medical marijuana laws by requiring it be FDA approved.Ain't gonna happen folks.
PicassoIII|10.26.08 @ 4:44PM|#
Elemenope | 12:29pm | wrote:
It's nice to see an occasional optimist.
They probably don't smoke tobacco..
Free the weed(s), ban the Shrub(TM).
Another point where one can separate Reagan from Goldwater Rs.
|10.26.08 @ 4:57PM|#
The company I worked for went out of business a couple years ago and it has been very tough finding a job which does not drug test.
I am a contractor/consultant, and my company does not drug test.
Last week the discovered a client who said they needed us to do
drug tests. This is the first we have ever been asked this, and we
have numerous military and financial center clients. So I was asked
if I would take a job were I was required to pee in a bottle.
My response was to first push back at the client and see if they
would reconsider, and if not, then to charge them extra for my
urine.
Hacha Cha|10.26.08 @ 6:50PM|#
the only sensible drug policy is one where I can walk into a drugstore and legally purchase cannabis, morphine, cocaine, and/or any other drug I want cheaply.
Scott|10.26.08 @ 7:18PM|#
SIV: The "harm reduction" strategy, while preferable on
humanitarian grounds, is in no way libertarian." Whoa, (with all
due respect) I beg to differ (I would love Nick to clarify his
remark on harm reduction as well).
Your clarification of the property rights issue was very helpful to
me. But harm reduction philosophy holds that we have a right to do
with our bodies (our most cherished possession) as we choose.
SIV: "It isn't about being more "permissive" on some illegal drugs
as a matter of social policy." Actually, that's not what harm
reduction is about. It has nothing to do with a certain level of
permissiveness. It has everything to do with respecting the right
of the individual to make decisions to improve one's life (And that
might have nothing to do with a person's actual substance use). I
work for a program that embraces the harm reduction philosophy.
Many of our clients ask for help with finding employment or better
housing. Most of our clients actively use illicit substances. We
assist them with what THEY determine to be the main obstacles to a
more fulfilling existence.
SIV: "Those countries where you can buy most pharmaceutical drugs
w/o a prescription have a more "libertarian" drug policy than the
IS would with our same system + legal marijuana." I totally agree.
Most committed harm reductionist clinicians that I know believe in
a complete end to prohibition (not just marijuana legalization).
I'm not implying that libertarianism = harm reduction. I am just
pointing out that harm reduction philosophy definitely shares the
same ideals of libertarianism. The difference is in the details on
how social services should be funded. As a libertarian, I strongly
believe in the idea of private charities (funded by private
donations) - as opposed to government run social services (which
are cruel and coercive).
Scott|10.26.08 @ 7:20PM|#
Also, the program I work for does no drug tests of its employees. Many of my colleagues use illicit substances.
Scott|10.26.08 @ 7:24PM|#
Just to clarify, harm reduction advocates hold different views on the issue of social servcie funding. "Harm reduction," of course, is not an organization..it is more of a holistic philosophy if anything.
SIV|10.26.08 @ 7:55PM|#
My apologies Scott. My understanding of harm reduction was that
it is a mix of decriminalization and a replacement of criminal
sanction with therapeutic sanction.
I favor a restoration of property rights in regard to all drugs
without regard to any positive or negative social outcomes.
|10.26.08 @ 7:56PM|#
Gail makes some great points. Rarely does one ever hear about
proper nutrition and lifestyle. Too often, we hear about
industrialized nations that are much healthier. How much of that is
health care, or could the fact that we have the worst diets and are
arguably the least mobile of these nations cause many or our
problems?
Another post mentions smoking. In one of the more ironic twists,
the California grocers decided to strike a few years back because
of rates being raised- marginally I might add. One of the strikers
was pictured taking a break, and smoking. With all due respect,
does a logical person still smoke? Let alone believe they shouldn't
get hammered on rates?
How will the government address the obese? Smokers? The drinkers
and pill poppers? This is a country full of people with nutrition,
alcohol, and lack of mobility. That clearly translates to health.
And the taxpayer is supposed to pick up the nickel? And we trust
the feds to come up with creative and logical solutions to solve
these challenges?
I reread Gail's post. Damn, I couldn't imagine feeding a kid 80% of
what most American put in their stomachs.
Oh yea, any means testing for this *universal health care*?
LarryA|10.26.08 @ 9:03PM|#
One example is given by the states that went from strict
control policies on concealed weapon carriage to "shall
issue".
Obama and Biden will take care of that.
Scott|10.26.08 @ 9:14PM|#
SIV: "I favor a restoration of property rights in regard to all drugs without regard to any positive or negative social outcomes." I completely agree with you... I hate the whole decriminalization movement. It is still state coercion - and certainly immoral.
bob|10.26.08 @ 10:23PM|#
Gotta love ya'll. I am ready for the million man march.I think the working class work to dam hard, and deserve more freedom from proabition, free health care and education. It benefits everyone.
|10.27.08 @ 5:58PM|#
Decriminalize all drugs for Adults 21 and over.
Provide 'draconian' penalties to adults for negligence in regard to
children gaining access to their parents stash.
Offense 1 = civil fine of $1000 + warning
Offense 2 = 1 year in jail + social services
Offense 3 = 3 years in jail + lose your kids
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245