I’ve always thought that a war on “a substance other than food intended to affect the structure or function of the body,” was pretty stupid. And unconstitutional.
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
I'm with you Ted. Legalize pot, geeze, and tax it to death to fund treatment programs for the harder stuff.
I've always had a real problem with mandatory-minimum sentences, especially for substance abuse which is as much an affliction as criminal behavior. I've seen some innovations in different States, like special drug courts which emphasize rehab.
Trafficers (except the pot growers) should be locked away and banished, especially one's hang around schools. But when you have three-strikes rules and your crime is being an addict -- a status, really -- I can't support it.
Of course, such a reasonable approach just lumps me with the dirty hippies and meth-lab pushers that the right likes to lump together with all liberal terrorist loving people.
Mark,
Rehab ONLY works if the person wants it to. I'm unconvinced that forcing people into rehab helps. I will say, it makes for a good business for those supplying the rehab service.
How about legalizing it and adding school choice? That way people who want more "Just Say No" instruction and advice about rehab combined with a little preaching can have it, and those who want to leave out the preaching will be happy, too.
Oh, and a requirement that those who sell it some devote a fairly hefty portion of the price to rehab programs would be good.
Drug users are in a lot of pain, and deserve compassion. This matches the guys I know who used. They tried the heavy stuff but never got hooked, because they just weren't personally messed up enough to need it. One guy said he didn't like the loss of control. That's why I don't drink to get drunk, myself.
The various Christian churches have really messed this up. Take every instance of the phrase "tax collectors and prostitutes" in the New Testament. Replace it with "gang bangers and crack-whores". Reflect on how poorly Christ's disciples imitate Christ. Especially me, the ultimate cocooner.
My father was a friend with a lawyer named Joel Proyect. He was an occasional marijuana user but never did it in my presence. He was a hard working guy and whenever I would visit he was working hard on his house, building furniture, moving lumber, and the like. That was in addition to being a fine lawyer. He had a beautiful house by his own private three-acre lake. Apparently, it wasn’t having any real ill effects. If he says it helped him deal with life then who am I to disagree? He was certainly doing better than my non-using father in many ways. His one mistake was that he was open about the fact that he smoked marijuana. He said it helped him deal with life.
Do a Google search on his name and “marijuana". You can read about how his family was devastated by just these kinds of laws. People who pretend to be concerned about families are for such laws. It still saddens me that people support the stealing of his house and his five-year incarceration.
BTW, I never saw a single pot plant while at his home. Nor smelled any pot smoke. I think he started growing the plants after the times I had visited because I was quite the avid explorer as a kid, and am quite the botanist.
"If one is going to legalize drugs for users, why not also legalize it for dealers?"
If the dealer is big enough and peddling the right drugs, say Marlboro's or Scotch, it is legal. However, it is government's business to regulate commerce, not private, individual behavior.
I had a good friend who was in court-ordered rehab with other heroin junkies. They weren't interested in drug rehab, they were interested in drugs.
They used to snort instant coffee. They had a 15 minute 'free-time' I think once a week. One guy was a marathoner. He used to run to the liquor store and smuggle it back in.
My friend died of an overdose.
It's like cigarettes, you can only quit if you want to quit. If you don't, there's just about nothing that will make you quit. Except having your wife's fingers cut off if you don't.
This is OT, but I don't want to put it on an old thread, the Minnesota taxi-cab deal appears to be spreading to Minneapolis buses. (hat tip, Tim Blair)
They don't mention the driver's religion. Blair appears to think they're Muslim, I don't know if I would say that as many very religious Christians are just as homo-phobic as any theocratic Muslim. Well, except the Christians usually want to "save" them and not drop a wall on them.
"it is government's business to regulate commerce, not private, individual behavior."
We have laws against all types of individual behavior, like stealing, murder, speeding, ect.
I would expect that legalizing drug use, but not suppliers would drive up the cost as it would increase demand without a corresponding increase in supply. This would give drug suppliers a larger incentive to supply drugs.
It stikes me as inconsistent to legalize use, but not sales.
"We have laws against all types of individual behavior, like stealing, murder, speeding, ect."
Those behaviors all have direct effects on other people (why I said "private, individual behavior" - and probably why you left out the "private" requirement from your reply). Government has a role: 1) protecting citizens against the acts of other citizens (or organizations thereof) but a much more limited role protecting citizens from themselves. What don't you supposed libertarian types get about this rather elemental concept?
"I would expect that legalizing drug use, but not suppliers would drive up the cost as it would increase demand without a corresponding increase in supply."
That is a gross assumption (I say demand is mostly static, regardless of prohibition. Prove me wrong.). In any event, "market forces" (increased supply or reduced demand due to cost) would correct any imbalance, right?
If there is no penalty for using drugs, then I would expect more people to at least try drugs and some would become regular users.
Since drugs can be addictive, I would expect demand to be highly inelastic. With demand increasing and prices also increasing, I would not be surprised to see users take to stealing to buy drugs.
I still don't see why, if one is going to legalize drug use, we don't also legalize sales. They you have a chance to make sure the drugs are no contaminated and you can tax the sales.
Legalizing sales should drive down prices as it would reduce the cost of production.
Legalizing and taxing pot would at least make a huge dent in the deficit and probably leave a bunch left to help pay for social security.
I just checked, years ago many of the cig companies had trademarked various pot names for when it was legal but at least "panama red" has been abandoned. I guess they're not very confident that it will be legalized.
"I just checked, years ago many of the cig companies had trademarked various pot names for when it was legal but at least "panama red" has been abandoned. I guess they're not very confident that it will be legalized."
I'd bet they just decided there was no money in it - probably the real reason why is hasn't been decriminalized or legalized. You're not about to farm tobacco or set up a distillary at home but you can grow the best pot in the world in a closet for relatively little money.
"you can grow the best pot in the world in a closet for relatively little money"
I think the conenience of buying it ready to go, would far outweigh the cost savings. Look at grocery stores. More and more they are moving to ready cooked foods.
"I think the conenience of buying it ready to go, would far outweigh the cost savings. Look at grocery stores. More and more they are moving to ready cooked foods."
People buy ready cooked foods to save time on daily cooking because it can be very inconvenient and time-consuming to cook. Also because the cost of ready-cooked isn't that much greater than uncooked food. Pot would often be home grown unless it was sold cheaply (my point about it not being profitable for manufacturers) because it's cheap and easy to do so.
My friend tried to grow some once using lights and hydroponics and stuff. He spent over $300/month for electricity alone to grow some of the crappiest stuff imaginable (or so I was told). He lost quite a bit of money on that.
On the other hand, another friend grew some outside in land that had had various fruit trees (apples, pears, peaches) for probably 100 years.
That was nice.
Then, Harry Anslinger was no liberal.
I've always had a real problem with mandatory-minimum sentences, especially for substance abuse which is as much an affliction as criminal behavior. I've seen some innovations in different States, like special drug courts which emphasize rehab.
Trafficers (except the pot growers) should be locked away and banished, especially one's hang around schools. But when you have three-strikes rules and your crime is being an addict -- a status, really -- I can't support it.
Of course, such a reasonable approach just lumps me with the dirty hippies and meth-lab pushers that the right likes to lump together with all liberal terrorist loving people.
Rehab ONLY works if the person wants it to. I'm unconvinced that forcing people into rehab helps. I will say, it makes for a good business for those supplying the rehab service.
Ahem. Rehab.
Oh, and a requirement that those who sell it some devote a fairly hefty portion of the price to rehab programs would be good.
Drug laws are racist.
Drug users are in a lot of pain, and deserve compassion. This matches the guys I know who used. They tried the heavy stuff but never got hooked, because they just weren't personally messed up enough to need it. One guy said he didn't like the loss of control. That's why I don't drink to get drunk, myself.
The various Christian churches have really messed this up. Take every instance of the phrase "tax collectors and prostitutes" in the New Testament. Replace it with "gang bangers and crack-whores". Reflect on how poorly Christ's disciples imitate Christ. Especially me, the ultimate cocooner.
Yours,
Wince
What is "school choice?"
<sarcasm>
All of which are clearly overrun by theocrats!
</sarcasm>
Yours,
Wince
Use the profits/taxes to fund national health care and treatment programs for abusers.
Do a Google search on his name and “marijuana". You can read about how his family was devastated by just these kinds of laws. People who pretend to be concerned about families are for such laws. It still saddens me that people support the stealing of his house and his five-year incarceration.
BTW, I never saw a single pot plant while at his home. Nor smelled any pot smoke. I think he started growing the plants after the times I had visited because I was quite the avid explorer as a kid, and am quite the botanist.
Oh, THAT.
If the dealer is big enough and peddling the right drugs, say Marlboro's or Scotch, it is legal. However, it is government's business to regulate commerce, not private, individual behavior.
They used to snort instant coffee. They had a 15 minute 'free-time' I think once a week. One guy was a marathoner. He used to run to the liquor store and smuggle it back in.
My friend died of an overdose.
It's like cigarettes, you can only quit if you want to quit. If you don't, there's just about nothing that will make you quit. Except having your wife's fingers cut off if you don't.
This is OT, but I don't want to put it on an old thread, the Minnesota taxi-cab deal appears to be spreading to Minneapolis buses. (hat tip, Tim Blair)
They don't mention the driver's religion. Blair appears to think they're Muslim, I don't know if I would say that as many very religious Christians are just as homo-phobic as any theocratic Muslim. Well, except the Christians usually want to "save" them and not drop a wall on them.
We have laws against all types of individual behavior, like stealing, murder, speeding, ect.
I would expect that legalizing drug use, but not suppliers would drive up the cost as it would increase demand without a corresponding increase in supply. This would give drug suppliers a larger incentive to supply drugs.
It stikes me as inconsistent to legalize use, but not sales.
Those behaviors all have direct effects on other people (why I said "private, individual behavior" - and probably why you left out the "private" requirement from your reply). Government has a role: 1) protecting citizens against the acts of other citizens (or organizations thereof) but a much more limited role protecting citizens from themselves. What don't you supposed libertarian types get about this rather elemental concept?
"I would expect that legalizing drug use, but not suppliers would drive up the cost as it would increase demand without a corresponding increase in supply."
That is a gross assumption (I say demand is mostly static, regardless of prohibition. Prove me wrong.). In any event, "market forces" (increased supply or reduced demand due to cost) would correct any imbalance, right?
Since drugs can be addictive, I would expect demand to be highly inelastic. With demand increasing and prices also increasing, I would not be surprised to see users take to stealing to buy drugs.
I still don't see why, if one is going to legalize drug use, we don't also legalize sales. They you have a chance to make sure the drugs are no contaminated and you can tax the sales.
Legalizing sales should drive down prices as it would reduce the cost of production.
I just checked, years ago many of the cig companies had trademarked various pot names for when it was legal but at least "panama red" has been abandoned. I guess they're not very confident that it will be legalized.
I'd bet they just decided there was no money in it - probably the real reason why is hasn't been decriminalized or legalized. You're not about to farm tobacco or set up a distillary at home but you can grow the best pot in the world in a closet for relatively little money.
I think the conenience of buying it ready to go, would far outweigh the cost savings. Look at grocery stores. More and more they are moving to ready cooked foods.
People buy ready cooked foods to save time on daily cooking because it can be very inconvenient and time-consuming to cook. Also because the cost of ready-cooked isn't that much greater than uncooked food. Pot would often be home grown unless it was sold cheaply (my point about it not being profitable for manufacturers) because it's cheap and easy to do so.
On the other hand, another friend grew some outside in land that had had various fruit trees (apples, pears, peaches) for probably 100 years.
That was nice.
Or so I was told.