Everything you've heard about crack and meth is wrong

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Okay now Lester, I'm not saying that legalizing all drugs/drug use is crazy; I'm saying that the political position is considered "crazy"...there is a difference. ;)

 

I'm suggesting that most people think that lifting the laws regarding drugs/drug use is a crazy idea (I'm not saying it is crazy; just that it's perceived that way and you can blame that perception on "propagandist" or whatever; the point is that they perception is there) and when libertarians suggest such things those people think that libertarians are a bit crazy.  If memory servers if W.F. Buckley argued for legalization and received pretty negative responses even from those who thought he was conservative's patron saint!

 

It is an area for honest disagreements. Of course as in most any topic, there can be emotions and prejudices which make logical discussion impossible. However, the differences in people's values, goals, expectations, "world view" can't be settled with logic. A person with one particular set of values might with complete logic argue for a draconian drug enforcement police state, and another person could logically argue the other way around.

 

Depending on one's basic values and priorities (which can't be either justified or invalidated with logic), one could logically propose that ALL drugs, even aspirin, dandruff shampoo, coffee, beer or cigarettes-- Should be prescription-only because somebody somewhere might be hurt by using the stuff incorrectly, or if they have an allergy or whatever. The only way to convince such a person (since one doesn't have much chance of changing the fellow's values) is to claim that such a policy would be incredibly expensive and we can't afford for people to go to the doctor for every prescription of aspirin, shampoo, or coffee. That the occasional human suffering is unfortunate, but we don't have enough resources to prevent it. Or argue that it would never work even if we could afford it, because people are too ornery to put up with it. A pragmatic implementation argument or cost-benefit analysis. One can't argue that such a thing would be fundamentally anti-freedom, because such a person would value OTHER PEOPLE'S PHYSICAL WELL-BEING more than he values freedom, or he would never suggest such a policy. Either that, or the fellow has the authoritarian personality thinking that everyone should live as he himself lives. He wants to be protected and regulated against all risks, and thinks everybody else should be treated the same.

 

The opposite "all or nothing" view logically springs from love of freedom above love of order and security. People should be free to shoot themselves in the head if that is what they want, so obviously they should also be free to off themselves in whatever perverted fashion they desire, as long as they leave other people alone.

 

Then the majority of folks straddle with one foot on either side. Whether they think much about it or not. Some "evils" are not worth the cost of abridging freedom, but other evils are too dangerous and people should be protected against them as much as possible.

 

If one allows that it is valid to spend money and abridge freedoms to dry up supply of only the drugs most dangerous to society, then perhaps antibiotics would be under stricter control than the most addictive and damaging of the drugs of abuse. Over-use of antibiotics puts EVERYBODY at risk, regardless whether a person is at risk of addiction. An addict doesn't present near the magnitude of threat to society as super-bugs evolved out of the over-use and mis-use of antibiotics.

 

A long time ago when I worked in substance abuse counseling, concluded that drugs which don't "as a rule" make people crazy and violent should be allowed, even if weak people kill themselves with the drugs. Weak people were killing themselves with the drugs regardless whether the drugs were legal, and so the enforcement effort seemed wasted. Good money after bad.

 

But I considered such things as meth, cocaine, pcp as harmful to society, because the abuser doesn't just quietly kill himself off. He tends to pose a danger to others because of his crazy actions. So I thought it wouldn't be wise to legalize certain drugs that have fairly high probability of making people dangerous to be around.

 

Nowadays I don't know if it makes much difference. Unless the drugs could be "uninvented", people who tend to abuse that class of drugs will act just as crazy regardless whether the drugs are legal. Back in the 1960's, speed freaks might have jobs and take prescription speed, or take "diverted pharmaceutical speed". A lot of people took prescription speed who were not addiction-prone, and they eventually quit of their own accord because the stuff has some rather bad side-effects, and a normal person just won't take such a substance long-term of his own volition. Sometimes normals give initial symptoms of addiction, perhaps using a LOT of drugs for a few months or a year or two-- Like a person suddenly addicted to an interesting hobby. But the normals get bored with it and move on to more interesting endeavors.

 

Others would get hooked on the legal speed and then also take illegal crystal meth on top of it. It all worked about the same in the body, and the overall quality of illegal street meth in the 1960's was generally fairly good. In general it was manufactured by people who might have taken a course in chemistry some time or t'other, rather than toothless rednecks following an alarming "recipe" of hardware store poisons.

 

So the people back in the 1960's who started on legal speed and then ruined themselves-- Some recovered and some did not. There are strong people and there are weak people. I think if those same people I knew back then, were growing up nowadays instead, that they would still get hooked on speed today even though there is hardly any legal speed prescribed any more, and it is tightly controlled. So I wonder, if there is no difference, then what do we spend all that enforcement money for? Why do we kick down so many doors if the societal end result is about the same regardless? The problem is the same and then the cure just adds more problems on-top of the original problem.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

"Why do we kick down so many doors if the societal end result is about the same regardless? The problem is the same and then the cure just adds more problems on-top of the original problem."

 

Laws like that end up being used for control more than anything else. The drug problem hasn't gone away, but the door kicking

has come to stay for good with these laws.

[BigK]

If we do legalize all drugs, maybe me and my kids can sit next to this guy at Chili's some Saturday night. It actually might not be any worse than sitting next to the guy who had 4 beers and a pitcher of margaritas. :)

 

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5q8KWL6Ezw[/media]

[Guest Lester Weevils]

If we do legalize all drugs, maybe me and my kids can sit next to this guy at Chili's some Saturday night. It actually might not be any worse than sitting next to the guy who had 4 beers and a pitcher of margaritas. :)

 

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5q8KWL6Ezw[/media]

 

Thats pretty funny.

[RobertNashville]

Good points, Lester as usual.

 

I'm pretty much on the fence about the whole "legalize" thing...certainly the "war on drugs" has been a colossal failure but I'm not sure that automatically means these drugs should be legal for anyone to buy anytime.  Then again, it's difficult for me to really care about the whole mess anyway.  For one thing, I think it's highly unlikely that anything is going to change (certainly not within my lifetime) and secondly, well...I guess I think there are more important things to address than whether we change the drug laws. ;)

[E4 No More]

If we do legalize all drugs, maybe me and my kids can sit next to this guy at Chili's some Saturday night. It actually might not be any worse than sitting next to the guy who had 4 beers and a pitcher of margaritas. :)

 

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5q8KWL6Ezw[/media]

Come on! I wasn't THAT bad!! :)

[BigK]

Come on! I wasn't THAT bad!! :)

 

That was you?!

 

 

Just kidding, of course. And before I get railed for that comment, I don't mean everyone who drinks $30 worth of alcoholic beverages at a restaurant is unpleasant to sit near. Plenty of people are rude and obnoxious enough sober, LOL.

[Chucktshoes]

That was you?!

 

 

Just kidding, of course. And before I get railed for that comment, I don't mean everyone who drinks $30 worth of alcoholic beverages at a restaurant is unpleasant to sit near. Plenty of people are rude and obnoxious enough sober, LOL.

:wave:

Edited November 7, 2013 by Chucktshoes

[E4 No More]

That was you?!

 

 

Just kidding, of course. And before I get railed for that comment, I don't mean everyone who drinks $30 worth of alcoholic beverages at a restaurant is unpleasant to sit near. Plenty of people are rude and obnoxious enough sober, LOL.

Ain't that the truth!!