Drugs Won The War

I took a full course based on this subject taught by a lawyer who does part-time prof work who has been lobbying against drug prohibition for about 20 years. The article basically sums up some of the main arguments against drug prohibition. The most logical one being that it obviously doesn't work.

"The stakes are huge, the uncertainties great, and there’s a genuine risk that liberalizing drug laws might lead to an increase in use and in addiction." -- although after making this statement the article confirms that research has been done saying the risk is slight. I'd say the risk is closer to zero. There has been a good deal of research done on whether there is a relationship between the legality of a drug and its usage rates and the results have all stated that the legality or illegality of a drug doesn't seem to influence usage rates.

I'm completely in favour of eliminating drug prohibition and turning towards a health, treatment, and regulation approach.

Rather than eliminating problems, legalization creates it's own, and it's road we should not go down.

There is an alternative to outright legalization of drugs. Just end the war. Seriously, even if it is illegal, what is the point of kicking in a door and arresting a kid for having some pot? It just doesn't need to be done. You can call it turning a blind eye if you want, but how we enforce the drug laws in this country is a matter of policy, and it can be toned down dramatically. What I'm saying is you don't have to make something legal to stop putting people in jail for it. I believe it would be better to try to get law enforcement to shift their priorities away from interdiction. Lobbying is this direction would go a long way to solve the problems associated with the so called war on drugs.

In Denver CO they passed a law that they were supposed to treat marijuana possessions like Jaywalking, where it's illegal but no one ever gets any trouble for it unless it's a bad situation (you jaywalk and get hit by a car). And I've heard that if you get found with less than 1/8th then your supposed to get a ticket at the most. There's also been introduction of medical marijuana and if you get a card then you're clear to smoke and buy from special stores.

These are definitely good changes and I haven't heard anything about crazy increases in marijuana consumption or % of druggies or violence on the streets for families breaking up or any shit.

I still think they should go the next step and legalize marijuana and just have it available like cigarettes/alcohol.

On June 18 2009 12:23 k2o4 wrote: I still think they should go the next step and legalize marijuana and just have it available like cigarettes/alcohol.

I really think that this move would ruin it. It's funny how the same group railing against tobacco (not saying you are k2o4, just a general observation) is the one promoting legalization of pot. It's a no brainer that the tobacco companies are best positioned to benefit from the legalization of weed. I'd rather take my chances with the law than have my weed taken over by the corporate world and government regulation.

Note: Gil Kerlikowske was Chief of Police here in Seattle. A bit of a wussy I thought, but a softened stance on drug enforcement is the best approach.

Curtinsea, looks like you are missing one of the main points of the article:

"Second, we have empowered criminals at home and terrorists abroad. One reason many prominent economists have favored easing drug laws is that interdiction raises prices, which increases profit margins for everyone, from the Latin drug cartels to the Taliban."

If you do not legalize marijuana, then yes, you avoid government regulation and taxation. But that also means prices are kept artifically high and the dollars being spent on marijuana are going into the pockets of drug dealers and drug cartels rather than helping fill the tax coffers which pay for the police that protect us, the roads that we drive on and the schools that our children will attend.

I love how someone rather get his drugs from someone who has zero accountability as opposed to the alternative

On June 18 2009 12:44 TenBagger wrote: Curtinsea, looks like you are missing one of the main points of the article: "Second, we have empowered criminals at home and terrorists abroad. One reason many prominent economists have favored easing drug laws is that interdiction raises prices, which increases profit margins for everyone, from the Latin drug cartels to the Taliban." If you do not legalize marijuana, then yes, you avoid government regulation and taxation. But that also means prices are kept artifically high and the dollars being spent on marijuana are going into the pockets of drug dealers and drug cartels rather than helping fill the tax coffers which pay for the police that protect us, the roads that we drive on and the schools that our children will attend.

Well I think the argument for weed is different than for cocaine and heroin. Drug cartels aren't in the weed business. Neither is the Taliban. The best weed is grown indoors right in your own neighborhood. Brown outdoor weed, ick! I haven't even seen any imported weed in 20 years.


Also, weed won't get cheaper legalized, that is a false assumption. Over the last thirty years, cigarettes have gone up in price ten fold, while weed has not yet doubled.

Do you care if your local weed dealer gets the money over corporate america and the government? Free enterprise at work in it's purest form!

On June 18 2009 12:47 Highcard wrote: I love how someone rather get his drugs from someone who has zero accountability as opposed to the alternative

What accountability do you need? I can tell on sight if it's quality and if it weighs.

Besides, I've known Bob a long time. He's a reputable distributor I have full faith in! lmao

On June 18 2009 12:23 k2o4 wrote: I still think they should go the next step and legalize marijuana and just have it available like cigarettes/alcohol.

This is NEVER going to happen. We currently have a Democrat President and the Dems have strong holds on the congress. If not now, when?

This if from Kerlikowske . . . .

In a May 22, 2009 interview on KUOW radio, he said any drug 'legalization' would be "waving the white flag", "legalization is off the the charts when it comes to discussion, from my viewpoint" and that "legalization vocabulary doesn't exist for me and it was made clear that it doesn't exist in President Obama's vocabulary." Specifically about marijuana, he said, "It's a dangerous drug" and about the medical use of marijuana, he said, "we will wait for evidence on whether smoked marijuana has any medicinal benefits - those aren't in."

TenBagger, yours is my favorite blog, and I thank you for not (so far) banning me from commenting. Your opinions clearly come from the left, and I respect your beliefs and opinions. I don't call you stupid, naive, misguided or retarded. I believe that you believe in your point of view. We all should. But we also need to be realistic, take a pragmatic view of the situations, and find common ground to solve the problems of our society. Take a look at an opposing view with the same respect with which you want your own view taken.

The thing I hate most about American politics is that it is all about making opposing arguments instead of searching for solutions. We hammer each other with our differences and biases instead of looking at the common ground. So often there is a solution to the problem there in the middle, that while not fulfilling either side's wish list, serves to benefit society. One extreme is never going to win an argument over another.

Most can agree that the 'war on drugs' is not working. But that doesn't mean the only two choices are legalization and increased interdiction efforts. I am a pragmatist, and I see both of these choices as pointless. Legalization is never going to happen, and interdiction is simply not working. So a solution must be somewhere in the middle ground.

What most would agree that we want is less drug use and less associated crime. Weed is arguably the least offensive of all illicit drugs. It's associated crimes (excluding possession and distribution of said illicit drugs) are mostly property crimes, stealing for drug money. Those crimes would not be affected by legalization, as those who are stealing to get drug money will still steal for drug money regardless of who they by the drugs from. And incarceration or even the threat of it has little effect on usage. So if we take money away from interdiction and spend it on anti drug education, I think we could agree that it would be +EV.

About drugs other than weed, I'm not so open minded. I have known too many people whose lives are ruined by meth. It is the scourge of society and should be wiped out with extreme prejudice

legalization = profit
war on drugs = trillions of dollars spent for nothing

On June 18 2009 14:32 tapatapaz wrote: legalization = profit war on drugs = trillions of dollars spent for nothing

again no room for middle ground?

legalization = ain't never gonna happen
war on drugs = unsustainable ineffective effort

curtinsea, our views on this topic are actually very similar.

I agree weed is a unique "drug" since unlike coke, meth, heroin and most other drugs, it can easily be produced by an average guy in his backyard. As a result, weed is nowhere near dominated by cartels to the extent that most other illicit drugs are.

I also agree legalization will never happen in the USA, at least not in the next 10 years. Though I do believe it is the best solution.

However, we disagree on the legalization of marijuana. Even if enforcement is limited and possession is decriminalized, the fact remains that the production and sales will remain a crime and that alone will ensure that the weed industry, much like prostitution, gambling and loan sharking, will remain underground and the profits will eventually flow to criminal enterprises rather that tax paying corporations that support the very infrastructure of this nation.

On June 18 2009 15:03 TenBagger wrote: curtinsea, our views on this topic are actually very similar. However, we disagree on the legalization of marijuana. Even if enforcement is limited and possession is decriminalized, the fact remains that the production and sales will remain a crime and that alone will ensure that the weed industry, much like prostitution, gambling and loan sharking, will remain underground and the profits will eventually flow to criminal enterprises rather that tax paying corporations that support the very infrastructure of this nation.

Agreed, but as a smoker I fear legalization will ruin it. I don't want mass produced weed where the plants are grown for yield rather than quality, and I don't want to pay the massive taxes that would be imposed on it (in the state of Washington the total tax on a pack cigarettes is $3.23 before sales tax, which is another 10%. tax on top of tax, and that represents half the cost of a pack. Something to think about when talking about just who is profiting off of tobacco. The tobacco companies don't make as much as government does). Not to mention the fact that weed smokers would face the same issues that cigarette smokers face now in the form of persecution and vilification. This is one case where I am for the status quo.

I would like to know how you feel about the tobacco industry. I think it is important to the debate of legalization because it is they who will pick up the ball and run with it. And all the evil things they do with tobacco they will do with weed. It doesn't paint a rosy picture. I personally no longer smoke cigs, haven't for a long time, and I don't really object to it nor do I vilify the tobacco industry for making a buck. But with weed, I would rather just grow my own and be left alone. I'll share with my friends and nobody is the wiser, and nobody gets hurt. No one need go out of their way to hassle me about it either. It's a perfect system just as it is imo, just remove the threat of jail because it's pointless.

curt aren't u for free markets?
that is really interesting considering out of all the drugs, weed cost imo would be the most malleable and easily managed to be kept low

you are forgetting that even if weed was legalized, the process of obtaining the end product, unlike alcohol and cigarettes, is still alot simpler
nothing really stops you from being self reliant and growing your own very easily if you wanted to
yes it could be industrialized and taxed but at the same time why would you have to go to the store and pay those excessive taxes to get weed if it was legal? you could just continue going to bob
point is don't forget how big your free market principles would play a role in legalization

On June 18 2009 22:31 ToTehEastSide wrote: curt aren't u for free markets? nothing really stops you from being self reliant and growing your own very easily if you wanted to

Yes, I am for free markets. And in this example I like the way the market works right now. As for prices, those have stayed well below inflation since I first inhaled (1980). I think you can look at the way the price of cigarettes has gone to see what would happen to weed.

nothing stops me from being self reliant now. not the law. not the threat of jail. that was my point. removing that threat would be nice, but I do what i do in spite of the law. But if it were legalized, and taxed of course, it would have to be controlled. Growing your own would be akin to 'bootlegging' and would have to be banned. These are the unintended consequences of legalization I refer to. Bob would still be in business, but his business would be an illegal 'black market' that would still need to be eliminated for the legalization model to succeed. My argument for tolerance rather than legalization is based on this.

How do you see a scenario of legalization? do you see one without strict control of process to be sure of proper taxation? do you see it where you still get a baggy? how do you think the taxes will be collected? These are the issues with legalization, the devil in the details if you will. There will still be complex laws and regulation governing it's manufacture and distribution, and in the long run I don't think we would like them.

My point to begin with was that for right now, a simple policy shift at the enforcement level could put an end to kicking in doors to bust pot heads, and to the money wasted busting pot farms, and the wasted space in prisons and jail for weed offenses, with immediate effect, while trying to change laws takes ages. A practical solution to the situation regarding marijuana. And in the end, I don't think there will ever be consensus in our government to change this law, which makes the argument for legalization an exercise in futility,

I ask you do we address what's wrong and fix it or just argue for a law change that will never happen?

interesting
So you consider the black market part of the free market - to u they are one and the same.
Is that correct?
I guess I can see that tho I don't agree with it at all as it seems so hypocritical
There is absolutely nothing "free" about a black market as any action u do in that area places you inside the criminal system. I'm reminded of the justification people have given me when I prod them about having individual self choice on drugs when they say, "Well you do have a choice, you can either not do drugs or go to jail" -.-a

As for the prices on the black market, from what I have seen, there has been a big increase in price the last few decades no?
Are u telling me in the US a dime bag and a quarter bag is still 10 or 25 dollars respectively? I could be wrong but last I checked the prices were nowhere near the same. Also, cigarette prices have gone up because of the increased "need" of a government involvement, crackdown, lawsuits, inflation etc
I do not think that if weed was legalized it would have the same industrial history and pricing as cigarettes. But who knows. For all I know legal weeds prices could be more similar to beer

When you say you are self reliant now and free to do what you want, to me you are kidding yourself. You may think you are able to do what you want but in reality you are not as you are having to gamble with your welfare (tho yes I realize depending where you are and amount you have depends on how bad a "crime" it is etc)
I mean if you happen to get caught by local police your "freedom" could be stopped because of this transaction yes? So then the reality would be in this area, with the drug laws and war trying to stop you as you make this purchase, you are not really free.

I was saying you could still be self reliant once it was legalized and while you may be right about bootlegging in the future, it is a really good guess, ultimately it is still just a guess and we can not predict the future and this just seems nothing more than giving up before it's started type thinking. I mean let's fight that bootlegging battle when it comes? To me what's more important here is first getting the power back in the correct place, which is legal as our choice. If we want to play the guessing game I can make my own guess. I'll say that the word is growing that the amount of good that can come from legalizing vastly outweighs the bad and so it becomes legal. Now in the minds of everyone the importance will eventually in time vastly shrink down and become an everyday thing. Then, if a bootlegging law did follow sometime down the road (as it definitely wouldn't come immediately) that battle could be fought and won as now we have a) legalization in the minds of the majority on our side as well as b) weed being a natural plant - and if you can legally grow tomatoes and potatoes why can't u grow herb?

To me you gotta fight for what's important. When you mention an exercise in futility that would sum up my thoughts pretty well about arguing tolerance being greater or better than legalization. Tho I do love your shift in policy idea and think that would be a great step in the right direction and cutting back, I disagree with it being a solid or valid solution because there are way to many minds out there that won't ever budge just based on the fact that if something is illegal it is wrong. Period. Nothing good will ever come in fighting for tolerance of something illegal. IMO we'd have a better chance fighting for it to become a state issue and completely out of the federal level than getting tolerance from society.

Saying "there will never be a consensus in our government to change this" irks me. To me thoughts like this are exactly what is wrong with us as a nation - the whole mentality of, "it is just an exercise in futility" or "we the people can never win" is frankly a negative-docile-fall asleep answer that tends to make one take their eyes off the ball/goal. Fear is the mind killer and those thoughts to me are proof of it.

I ask you do we address what's wrong and fix it or just argue for a law change that will never happen?

My answer is yes it should be addressed, taken care of and fixed correctly, by being legalized
Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't you not wanting to fix it? Aren't u arguing for tolerance vs legalization because it suits your needs and wouldn't that just ultimately keep this issue in place? How do you think tolerance is going to really fix anything? It still gives power to the law enforcers that choose to use it and it surely doesn't help any of those sitting in jail or about to be sitting in jail for what I call self choice crimes

I mean I fully see where you are going with the process after legalization, but just because you are wary of taxation (and rightfully so) does not mean we should conform our thoughts, want or need in this area. It means we should fight for what we believe in and if you and I and everybody are against excessive taxation so much well we should fight against that too. I'd recommend auditing the fed and getting it at least transparent.
To me regulation and taxation are like a needed weed that needs to be cut back from time to time. I feel I have to say again that bootlegging/regulating/taxation/total control of drugs is a different battle far far off from happening in this area and just because we dislike taxes so much or will dislike them doesn't give me enough reason to say we should keep drugs illegal and the war on drugs legal.

I believe in fighting for what's important, but I think are more important things to fight for than legalizing weed. It's not that I am against legalization, if that is the impression I have given. I simply wanted to make two points, one that there is something that can be done in the mean time about draconian punishment for what I consider victimless weed crimes while the debate for legalization goes on forever, and two that there is a downside to legalization that I feel a lot of it's promoters fail to take into consideration. Legalization itself would be great, but the regulations would bring changes that a lot of us would not like. Isn't it clear that the tobacco companies are in the best position, having the infrastructure for manufacture and distribution? And aren't they the enemy of the side promoting legalization of marijuana (the left I mean)?

Just FYI, an eighth ounce of (good) weed in 1988 was $35. Today it's $40. At least in the green bud rich pacific northwest. It may be different in different places, but I haven't seen skyrocketing prices at all.

wow u must live up north
glad I misunderstood and ur for legalization
I like being wrong