🚀 go-pugleaf

Key:

>> Me, Rob Berry, berry@osc.edu
>  Frank Chloupek, chloupek@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu.  Excerpts taken from
>  article <1993Dec17.003455.3727@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu>.


>In article <2eqf39$6kg@krakow.osc.edu>, berry@osc.edu (Robby Berry) writes:
>> I think legalizing drugs is an excellent idea, for several reasons.
>>
>> 1.  Violence in America would drop dramatically.[snip]
>>     a.  People who use violence while stealing to support their habit.[snip]
>Let's make it free.  Then nobody will ahve to steal for drugs

By that logic, we should make *everything* free, so that nobody will have to
steal for anything.  Is this what you are advocating?

>>     b.  Drug deals gone bad.[snip]
>>     c.  Gangs and syndicates who battle over turf.[snip]
>Then we should legalize gambling as well.  Even "respectable businesses" have
>resorted to illegal activities in their pursuit of turf.  

It is certainly true that "respectable businesses" have resorted to illegal
activities in pursuit of turf; I do not claim otherwise.  I *do* claim that
they are *far* less likely to use *violent* (not just illegal) means in their
pursuit of turf than are black marketeers.  I haven't seen any news stories
recently about Pepsi employees being killed by Coke employees in a gunfight.
Nor have I heard of six year old children being killed by IBM employees as
they were shooting it out with Gateway employees.  And when a Gateway customer
complains about the quality of the product he or she has purchased, Gateway
sends a technician, not a hitman.  You get the idea.

Curiously, I noticed in your response that you said respectable businesses have
resorted to *illegal* activities, when I was actually talking about *violent*
activities.  The two are not the same.

By the way, I support legalized gambling.  As do you, unless you want to outlaw
lottery tickets.

>>     d.  Criminals out on the street due to lack of prison space.[snip]
>I will agree that if jail space is limited for whatever reason that the most
>dangerous criminals should be locked up preferentially to less dangerous ones
>and for longer periods.  I also agree that the sentencing for possession (which
>is a minor crime IMO) is out of whack relative too other crimes and likely also
>on an absolute scale.  However, that does not lead to the conclusion of
>legalization, only to more rational sentencing.

If the above were the *only* argument I had offered, it would indeed not be an
argument for legalization.  However, *in conjunction with* the other arguments,
it does indeed strengthen my case.  Still, nice to see we agree on something.

>>     e.  Dealers who use violence to avoid being caught.[snip]
>All these arguments are variations on a theme.  Legalize drugs to reduce drug
>related crimes.  I still don't believe that is a reasonable rationale to
>legalize an activity.

That is incorrect.  As I stated earlier, my argument is not, "Legalize drugs
to reduce drug related crimes".  It is, "Legalize drugs to reduce drug related
*violence*."  Again, the two are not the same (though the one often implies the
other.)

>> 2.  Legalizing drugs would help to make drug use safer.[snip]
>>     a.  The Drug War makes it difficult to obtain pure, high-quality samples
>> of the drugs in question.[snip]
>Well that means that the government must *regulate* the drug trade if it
>legalizes it (which will probably lead to more bureaucracy then the current
>drug war)  Taxes to pay for drug inspectors, etc.

The question of whether the government should regulate the drug trade if drugs
are legalized hinges upon whether or not one believes the government should
regulate *anything*.  That question would require a separate article and cause
us to stray from the topic.  For now, I submit that illicit drugs should be
regulated by the same standards as legal recreational drugs, without specifying
what the standard itself ought to be.

However, claiming that drugs should remain illegal because regulating them
would create too much beauracracy is invalid.  After all, government regulation
of the medical industry has created a vast beauracracy, yet we would never
consider ban the practice of medicine.

>Seriously though, yes that is a cost and why you can't make bootleg alcohol
>(among other reasons).  You do have to consider whether drugs in their "pure"
>form (as would be obtained through whatever governmental regulation you desire)
>are harmful and the extent of that harm.  I believe that harm exists and varies
>for variuos drugs. 

It is insufficient merely to prove that harm exists and varies for various
drugs.  You must prove that the harm caused is *greater* than that caused by
the Drug War.  Given the rapidly escalating crime rate, I find this difficult
to believe.  I find it even more difficult to believe in the light of our
experience with Prohibition.

Other things to consider are *who* the harm affects.  In a society where drugs
are legalized, the harm will mostly affect the abuser (not all drug users, just
those who use unwisely) and maybe his/her immediate family and close friends.
In a society that criminalizes drugs, the violence spawned by the anti-drug
laws can touch anybody anywhere.  Stray bullets from a turf war can kill people
who don't use drugs or even know anybody who does.  Thieves stealing to support
a habit will use violence against anybody with cash, whether the victim uses
drugs or not.  A rapist released from jail to make room for a drug dealer is
not likely to check whether his intended victim is a user before raping her.
And so forth.

>>     b.  The Drug War has halted all progress towards the creation of safe
>> recreational drugs.
>So we should legalize things that are dangerous in the hope that something
>safer comes along?

Yes.  As an analogy, consider medicinal drugs.  Many medicines have dangerous
side effects when first created.  However, since research into medicinal drugs
is for the most part legal, drug companies can refine these drugs until the
side effects are minimized or eliminated.  If we were to outlaw research on
medicinal drugs, safe versions would never be developed, and the only medicines
available would be the dangerous ones.  The Drug War is a *de facto* ban on
research into recreational drugs, and has the same results.

Lest this all seem hypothetical, remember that there are doctors pushing for
the legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes.  Given that one drug is
already known to possess medicinal value, it seems unwise to rule out the
possibility that others will too.

>> 3.  The Drug War hinders the economy.[snip]
>Yes it does.  There is an economic cost to every action that the governemtn
>takes, be it enforcement of drug laws, environmental regulations, tarriffs,
>maintanance of an army, etc.  You must ceratinly balance these costs against
>whatever risks you take by letting things go unchecked.

Prohibition seems to indicate that the economics cost of governmental bans on
recreational drugs is greater than the benefits.  There are certainly cases of
alcohol-related violence, injuries and death; but things were far worse during
Prohibition, when people died of bootleg beer and gangster shootouts were as
common as turf wars are now.  This suggests that legalizing drugs, while not
solving all problems, would dramatically reduce drug-related violence and
death.

>> 4.  The Drug War is endangering freedoms Americans once took for granted.
>> [snip]
>The Supreme Court has recently declared the confiscation of property in that
>manner unconstitutional and I applaud that decision.  I support either of the
>bills icurrently in Congress (though I prefer the Conyers bill) to establish
>much stricter criteria for property confiscation.

I'm certainly happy with any Supreme Court decision supporting the rights of
the innocent, but I doubt it will last.  Why?  Because eliminating confiscation
without conviction simply leaves us back where we started.  People will once
again complain about the cops "having their hands tied behind their back," and
the same forces that led to confiscation without conviction before will do so
again, barring some radical change in the public's perception of the Drug War.

>> 5.  The Drug War has turned drug users, most of whom are ordinary people "just
>> like us", into second-class citizens.[snip]
>Its only a useless prejuidice if you feel there is no reasonable criteria for
>making drugs illegal.  If there is then it is not an artificial distinction. 
>Many criminals are "ordinary citizens"  (in fact, most ordinary citizens are
>criminals in some way or another.)  That does not mean that their particular
>crime should be eliminated.

Well, by the same token, racism is only a useless prejudice if you feel there
is no reasonable criteria for hating other races.  At any rate, you seem to
being claiming that there *is* a reasonable criteria (for banning drugs, not
for hating other races).  Fine.  Please state your criteria and show why it is
reasonable.

>> 6.  The Drug War is likely to keep expanding to cover drugs that are currently
>> legal.  [snip]
>Why will it expand?  Can you support this claim?  The next round of large use
>legal drugs are alcohol, tobacco, and caffiene.  I see no serious move to make
>any of them illegal.

It will expand because the same arguments used to outlaw marijuana, cocaine,
heroin, etc. can also be applied to alcohol, tobacco and caffeine.  After all,
nobody needs alcohol, tobacco or caffeine to survive, and their medicinal
values seem limited, and they are known to have dangerous side effects.  So
why not criminalize them?

[Granted, alcohol does seem to possess some medicinal value when used in
 moderation.  But then, so does marijuana, and it's still illegal.]

>> For the record, I don't use recreational drugs-- not even politically correct
>> drugs such as alcohol, tobacco or caffeine.  [snip] If
>> you don't like drugs, don't use them.  If you don't like drug users, don't
>> associate with them.  But trying to control the bloodstreams of everybody in
>> America is worse than useless-- it engenders violence, causes death and injury,
>> drags down the economy, endangers freedom, and promotes hatred.  All without
>> even achieving its goal.
>Fine, I don't use drugs except for alcohol and caffiene.  I have friends who do
>use them and use them responsibly.  There are legitimate arguemnets for the
>legalization for *some* drugs, but these arguements are complicated and do not
>rely on the "if we legalize it, it will reduce crime" arguement.
>One must balance the right of the individual to control one's own body versus
>the interest of the state in protecting its citizens (from themselves and
>others).  Then one takes into account the addictiveness and side effects of the
>drug in question, coupled with its main effects and detectability (to prevent a
>pilot from flying while stoned for example, no Exxon Valdezes)


Once again, you bring up the "if we legalize it, it will reduce crime"
argument-- an argument I am *not* making.  I *am* making the argument, "If we
legalize it, it will reduce violence, death and injury, poverty due to a
sagging economy, the potential for government tyranny, and hatred."  *That* is
what you must argue against.

You claim that there are arguments for legalizing "some" drugs.  Who decides
which drugs?  Me?  You?  Timothy Leary?  Bill "I didn't inhale" Clinton?  If
I were to set drug policy based on *my* personal tastes, I'd outlaw alcohol,
caffeine and tobacco, and you would be a criminal.  Perhaps you'd like a
"majority rules" approach.  But majorities are fickle; already we are fairly
close to banning tobacco, one of your drugs of choice.  If that happens, I
suspect you will no longer be as keen on the mob rule approach.  Why not simply
allow adults to decide for themselves which substances they will and will not
put into their bloodstreams?  If they end up frying their brain, too bad, they
knew the risks.  If they hurt somebody else in the process, then hold them
accountable.  (And I mean *really* hold them accountable, not this "Well, you
killed six people in a car crash while intoxicated, so we'll give you 18 months
in prison" deal we often get now.)

You say we should look at the "addictiveness" of a drug.  How does one define
when something is "addictive"?  After all, humans are born with a number of
"addictions":  Food, water, and air, for instance.  Indeed, air seems more
addictive than marijuana.  After all, withdrawl from marijuana is seldom fatal,
but withdrawl from air is always fatal.  Shall we ban air?  There are other
addictions as well.  I'm addicted to music.  I spend large amounts of money
on CDs and listening equipment, and large amounts of time listening to music.
Sometimes, I sacrifice needed sleep and study time to listen to music.  I often
listen to music to relax, or recover from a bad day, or to forget something
troubling.  After listening to the same music for a few months, I find it no
longer affects me as intensely as it once did.  When I go without music for
long periods of time, I become quite irritable (as my wife can attest).  And
while listening to music, my emotional state becomes erratic as the music
alters my mood (as my wife can also attest).  And if I listen to music in the
car, my driving abilities can become impaired (as several anonymous ambulance
drivers can attest).  These are all classic addiction symptoms.  Shall we ban
music on the grounds that I and other music lovers like me seem to be addicted?

Perhaps you think I'm just being silly.  If so, I challenge you to produce a
definition of the term "addiction" that is consistent, testable, and doesn't
suggest that we enact silly bans on things like air or music (or alcohol or
tobacco or caffeine), but *does* suggest we should ban drugs like marijuana
and cocaine.

You also claim we should worry about side effects of drugs; yet you propose to
continue the very Drug War that makes it impossible to create drugs without
side effects.  And your mention of the Exxon Valdez is irrelevant-- Joseph
Hazelwood was high on *alcohol* at the time.  Shall we ban alcohol, then?
(Of course not-- after all, that's one of *your* drugs. :-)

>Frank
>[snip]
>Tea is still popular in Washington, D.C., where any sort of useless and 
>silly activity can always find a place."	   	   --P.J. O'Rourke

I can't resist asking:  If your opinion of Washington is so low, why do you
trust them to tell you and others what they may and may not put in their
bloodstream? :-)

Rob Berry