I was wrong.

[Perd Hapley]

Since joining this board some years ago, I don't recall if I've ever voiced (or typed) support for anti-drug legislation.  I have said I was undecided, and I've criticized drug-legalization arguments (and will probably continue to do so). But I am ready to say now, that I no longer support drug prohibition, at least as we know it today. I've said this a time or two in passing, but I really appreciated it when CAnnoneer made an "official" announcement about his own re-evaluation of the abortion issue. So here I am.

My anti-drug stance was just one that I acquired along with my other conservative views, which I picked up from my parents and my church friends while growing up. While I've given a lot of thought to other planks of the conservative movement, and feel confident about most of them, the issue of drugs was never one that I spent much time on. For many years, I wondered if it was consistent with the libertarian impulse of modern American conservatism. And probably, I felt repulsed by the image of drug legalization as a political doctrine of pot-heads and other dirty hippies. And maybe I just felt more comfortable being in agreement with most of my friends and family on a fairly important issue.

Then again, it really doesn't seem that important to most people I know. We don't talk about it much. I think a huge segment of the population is OK with drug prohibition, because it doesn't affect many of us, at least directly. And I still wouldn't say it is in the top tier of problems confronting the nation. But even so, I think many would be surprised to find that even the Bible-thumping crowd is not uniformly in support of drug laws.

My church had a visit from an Alabama evangelist last week, a man that many in the congregation praised for his "old-time religion." And in my church, you've got to be a real, rock-ribbed, hard-shelled, old-school type of guy, to get that accolade.  We got to talking, after the last revival service, and he surprised me by coming out against drug laws.  You can read more about him here: http://www.crawfordcampaign.com/
He lost the run-off election.

[gunsmith]

The anti drug laws ruined my life, thanks to God I am completely sober, I no longer want or need any mind altering substance, way back in 1977 in Boot Camp I admitted to an overzealous DI that I had smoked weed, got a ding on my record that ended up me losing my security clearance 

It seemed unfair and I ended up running with the liberals for a long time afterwards.

I hate the stuff and most pot heads/stoners seem awfully dumb, but equally hate all the attacks on civil rights too.

funny enough, as a pre weed kid I was prolife -as a weed smoker I wasn't, now that I'm drug alcohol free I'm prolife again.

[vaskidmark]

And I still wouldn't say it is in the top tier of problems confronting the nation.

Given that the majority of those incarcerated are there for violation of drug laws, and that the USA has an incarceration rate in the top 5 world-wide (I'm too lazy to see if we are still #1 oe have sliped to #3), I wonder how you arrived at that conclusion.

Had you said the issue was not in the top tier of problems most folks even thought about, I probably would agree with you.

And for fun, let's all play a "suppose" game:  Suppose drugs were leagalized and the criminal element currently engaged in the drug trade just vanished, as the liberals probably imagine would happen post-legalization.  1)What happens to all that money that the criminals had already stockpiled?  2) What happens to all that money that was being diverted into the illegal drug trade?  3) What happens to all those folks who were not actively seeking employment because their lives were so messed up by drugs?

Y'all have fun for a while.

stay safe.

PS - for the record, I think the "War on (some) Drugs" has done and continues to inflict far too much damage on society for the returns we get.  However, I remain without a comprehensive, integrated plan that has a tinker's damn of a chance of sucessfully resolving the issue.

[dm1333]

And probably, I felt repulsed by the image of drug legalization as a political doctrine of pot-heads and other dirty hippies.

That made me laugh.  I live in hippie central.  You can tell harvest season is upon us by the annual influx of dirty people with backpacks and dogs. 

And for fun, let's all play a "suppose" game:  Suppose drugs were leagalized and the criminal element currently engaged in the drug trade just vanished, as the liberals probably imagine would happen post-legalization.

The "suppose" game that has been going on here in Mendocino, Humboldt, Del Norte and Lake counties has been "suppose they legalize pot this fall" and now the growers are, rumor has it, hoping that it doesn't get legalized because they are worried about the bottom falling out of the market.  It will be interesting to see what happens if Proposition 19 passes and what the effects will be.

[230RN]

As I've said before, it takes a lot of guts to re-evaluate a position one has held virtually since birth and has been reinforced by one's peers, the press, one's pastors, and which one has parroted all one's life.

Congratulations.

Many comparisons have been made to Prohibition, yet the lessons learned then seem to be universally ignored.

Many laws have been passed on the basis of "the cost to society" without considering the cost to society when these laws are implemented. How much does it take to house and keep a prisoner --$20,000, $30,000 per year?  More?

Many folks, including some above, have said they'd like to see drugs legalized but cannot come up with a plan for implementation.  I'm thinking a "plan" is secondary.  To my mind, the first step is to de-federalize its regulation and see what happens in the states.

Let this "Grand Experiment" in Liberty work itself out.  I discovered a long time ago that sometimes it does not pay to over-cerebrate a plan of action, but to "just do it" and worry about the "yeah, buts" later.

A rash position?

Yeah, but...

Terry, 230RN

[RevDisk]

And probably, I felt repulsed by the image of drug legalization as a political doctrine of pot-heads and other dirty hippies.

Aye, that is a hard step to get over.  But using a flamethrower on dirty hippies while wearing a "End the War on Drugs" button will make you feel a lot better.  Try it.  Seriously, it's a great stress reliever.

[grampster]

The problem is not whether drugs are legal or illegal.  The problem is there are those who wish to control by force of law, behavior that they either are opposed to simply because they insist others are to behave as they believe, or see that money and power is to be gained and kept by criminalizing or controling human behavior.

Americans, and most humans, have an au priori yearning for freedom.  When the powerful stamp certain behaviors as illegal, humans tend to resist.  This is more true with freedoms that are associated with recreation.   

Think about it.

[Jamisjockey]

The problem is not whether drugs are legal or illegal.  The problem is there are those who wish to control by force of law, behavior that they either are opposed to simply because they insist others are to behave as they believe, or see that money and power is to be gained and kept by criminalizing or controling human behavior.

Americans, and most humans, have an au priori yearning for freedom.  When the powerful stamp certain behaviors as illegal, humans tend to resist.  This is more true with freedoms that are associated with recreation.   

Think about it.

This.  Times 10 and divided by pi.

[Monkeyleg]

I, too, was opposed to legalization, but the libertarian types here have turned me around.

I just don't think we're going to see it anytime soon. Maybe someday with pot, but anything harder would be a tough sell.

[Tallpine]

So... now we find out that fistful was just a dirty hippie pothead all this time 

Congratualations at being "born again" on this issue 

first step is to de-federalize its regulation and see what happens in the states

That would be the Constitutional way to do it. 

I think the "War on (some) Drugs" has done and continues to inflict far too much damage on society for the returns we get.  However, I remain without a comprehensive, integrated plan that has a tinker's damn of a chance of sucessfully resolving the issue.

There's an old saying: when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.

[Ned Hamford]

I used to be pro-legalization, but have grown into having strong doubts.

I've worked with the DOJ [hurrah internships] in the fight against international drug cartels and I've done in depth reports on drug rehab programs in college and law school [visitations, interviews ect].  I've seen a fair number of lives ruined by drug abuse; even ignoring the criminal side of that equation.  One of the brightest guys I knew in HS is/was a drug user and is now a cafeteria worker at that same High School. 

I would be in favor of a massive change in policy, maintaining the illegality, but on the individual level making it a petty offense with a focus on non-draconian rehabilitation; essentially a health issue.  And of course, lets move the no knock swat team response to folks known to be violent offenders with automatic weapons, not the guy in apartment 420 rumored to keep a few roaches about. 

Acknowledging my imperfect knowledge, I think this works in my scheme as its a move away from a bad/non-working system towards liberty.

I don't think making it a state issue would work due to the state spill over. 

[roo_ster]

And probably, I felt repulsed by the image of drug legalization as a political doctrine of pot-heads and other dirty hippies.

Aye, that is a hard step to get over.  But using a flamethrower on dirty hippies while wearing a "End the War on Drugs" button will make you feel a lot better.  Try it.  Seriously, it's a great stress reliever.

This.

The great thing about Liberty is that one can still despise the despicable without requiring they be incarcerated and washed at taxpayer expense.

[roo_ster]

Ned:

I agree that folks do a lot of damage to themselves with currently illegal drugs.  Legalize them and that will continue, but with less profit for organized criminal enterprises.

I don;t expect gov't to be able to fix all ills and "make people better."

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

What was it that caused you to change your position, fisty?  Was it just that a respected evangelist leader told you he was in favor of legalization, or were there specific reasons and arguments that won you over?

I had a similar experience to yours, only in reverse.  I was raised conservative, but didn't much care about politics until I was in college and took on strong libertarian leanings.  My parents were against drugs and their legalization, but I never much cared about the issue until I went libertarian and thought that it was a huge outrage that others might deign to tell me what I can put in my body.  So I basically started out pro-drug and thought the pro-criminalization folks like my parents were stupid.

Then I grew up.  Got out into the real world, got some experience.  Saw first hand what drugs can do. After arguing again and again that drug use was a personal issue, I had my nose rubbed in the fact that drug use often damages people other than the user himself.  People that never have used and never would use drugs are still subjected to the harms of drug use, and subjected to it against their will.  People like me.  I was forced to re-evaluate my opinions on drug legalization, and I reluctantly began to see that my parents were right and I was wrong.

I am curious, though, what kinds of reasoning leads people to change their minds on issues like these.  What was it for you, fistful?

[Ned Hamford]

I am curious, though, what kinds of reasoning leads people to change their minds on issues like these.  

Crackbabies, Classmates, Narco-terrorists

Pretty much that order/timeline.

For the thought of legalization cutting off funding, that would be just jumping into a radically different cultural position and I don't see that happening.  Scaling down, legalizing this and that, lowering penalties, I think is much more doable. 

Having met an international cartel leader and studying him, I think they would just move onto some other illegal focus and largely continue status quo.   

[AZRedhawk44]

Ned:

I agree that folks do a lot of damage to themselves with currently illegal drugs.  Legalize them and that will continue, but with less profit for organized criminal enterprises.

I don;t expect gov't to be able to fix all ills and "make people better."

Ditto, + eleventyone.

Drug using street-trash have no relationship to narco-crime other than the fact that they fund it.

If [crack/heroine/pot/lsd/ecstacy/whatever] truly was eliminated, they'd huff magic markers or eat mushrooms or something.  You can't stop the despicable from being disgusting.

But you can stop the economic incentive for organized narco-crime to profit off that group.

And if the price of narcotics drops, then drug-incentivised crime (opportunistic smash and grabs to pawn your wife's jewelry) also drops.

The War On (some) Drugs is fighting the despicable, with our tax money, and the despicable will never be rehabilitated.  If they can get by with less money, they will have less criminal impact on our society until they kill themselves via recreational drug use and are no longer a problem.  The easiest way to win The War On (some) Drugs is to take the financial motive away from the narco-criminals.

[BridgeRunner]

The anti drug laws ruined my life, thanks to God I am completely sober, I no longer want or need any mind altering substance, way back in 1977 in Boot Camp I admitted to an overzealous DI that I had smoked weed, got a ding on my record that ended up me losing my security clearance 

Fyi, the DEA's current policy is that "youthful experimentation" with mj may be acceptable in their employees' backgrounds. 

[MicroBalrog]

Even if you won the war on drugs completely - eradicated every marijuana plant, every poppy seed, ever LSD pill in the world - the universe would shrug and go on to sniffing gasoline.

The use of mind-altering substances and practices is such a culture- and time-transcending practice it's hard to imagine it will ever be eliminated.

The reason why drug prohibition is horrible is not for what it is, but for what it stands for: namely that we feel empowered, morally, to go up to our neighbors, shove a gun up their nose, and demand they cease consuming something because it's bad for them. Then, when they refuse, we pull the trigger and claim it's their own fault - after all, we warned them.

Should we strike a powerful blow against this mindset here, the consequences would reverberate through the entire culture.

[BridgeRunner]

I agree that folks do a lot of damage to themselves with currently illegal drugs.  Legalize them and that will continue, but with less profit for organized criminal enterprises.

I don;t expect gov't to be able to fix all ills and "make people better."

Ditto +eleventytwo.

Let's not forget the unintended consequences to medical care.  Wasn't there a thread recently about police departments seeking access to individuals' medical and prescription records?  The DEA of course, already has that access.  Should one use a drug on the list of morally ambiguous drugs as determined by the federal government, life can get complicated.  I've never had any problems getting narcotics when I needed them, but people do.  Especially people who really need them, have developed tolerance, and are therefore on high doses, beyond that which the fedgov and its representative may arbitrarily decide are reasonable.  Woe be unto the doctor who has one too many patients on dosages the DEA decides are too high. 

I recently learned, to my chagrin, that there is no manufactured-sponsored reduced cost program for a drug I am taking because it is a controlled substance.  It's too risky and they won't do it.  Apparently they don't supply samples to doctors' offices either.  The War of Drugs has resulted in some conditions and treatments being morally ambiguous--and I'm not even talking about medical marijuana, but ordinary prescriptions drugs. 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

I remain without a comprehensive, integrated plan that has a tinker's damn of a chance of sucessfully resolving the issue.

i think darwin has it covered

[MicroBalrog]

Suffice it to say here that I have ample experience with friends and family screwing themselves up with drugs. My views are known to everybody on this forum.

[Tallpine]

People that never have used and never would use drugs are still subjected to the harms of drug use, and subjected to it against their will.  People like me.

And prohibition is stopping this 

[Seenterman]

Hooray for Fistful!

It's long past overdue for an reformation of our drug laws. Last time I checked the stats something like 50% of people in prison are in there for a drug related offense and of that 50% something like 75% of them is for marijuana.  I think the best way to legalize drugs would to be experiment (hehehe) with marijuana, making that 100% legal, regulating it and licensing like tobacco, and then see what happens to the criminal element that mainly profits from marijuana.

Personal quantities of up to say 5 plants / 10 ounces would be legal to have, but for retail sale it would have to be regulated and you could still get arrested / fined for unregulated sale of marijuana such as with alcohol and tobacco.
It's the least harmful of the illegal substances, less harmful that alcohol IMO, and the best way free up prison space, clean court dockets for more important crimes, and open up a billion dollar revue stream for the gov that people would actually be HAPPY about.

Check results, repeal more laws as necessary, rinse and repeat.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

of that 50% something like 75% of them is for marijuana.

no

[vaskidmark]

I remain without a comprehensive, integrated plan that has a tinker's damn of a chance of sucessfully resolving the issue.

i think darwin has it covered

I have parts of the issue covered pretty well.  Even got to show that some of them actually worked - at least as long as the grant money kept the program running.  Never got to the point where I could demonstrate it was absolutely the program and not the force of personality, but came close.

I have a deep, burning insane curiosity as to what would happen if the DEA, DOJ, DOD and other federal initials just up and quit spending on the War on (Some) Drugs.  Where would the money be directed?  What would the rationale(s) be for doing so?  Would a social ill actually be cured, even accidentally?  (OK, that was a cheap shot.  I admit it, but I'm not going to retract it.)

And even more preverse - what happens to all the money the cartels have warehoused now that they would not face penalties for putting it into circulation?  My mind keeps coming back to that talk my father always tried to have with me about how having too much money to be able to spend would not make me happy.

stay safe.