war on drugs getting bigger?

[Alpinfox]

that's kinda the point, jay - from my conversations with kids in my classes over a decade, many indicate to me that they want the government to play the job of parent to them, even when they're older - they want to not have the option to get in trouble, so support any goverment policy which takes freedom from those who do

 

This is very depressing.

[ashw_justin]

Actually I haven't been to the Netherlands. I just assumed that since they have their drug situation mostly under control, they must be a smarter people.

 

You might try heading there, might broaden your horizons and change yer tune.

 

Well thanks for meaninglessly condescending. Would you mind telling me a little about your experiences in the Netherlands, as they relate to the idea that the United States is capable of adopting its social policies?

[chucK]

that's kinda the point, jay - from my conversations with kids in my classes over a decade, many indicate to me that they want the government to play the job of parent to them, even when they're older - they want to not have the option to get in trouble, so support any goverment policy which takes freedom from those who do

 

This is very depressing.

 

There's a reason that we don't let kids vote, drink, drive, live on their own. Before a certain age most kids aren't really capable of making good decisions. Having someone protecting them is a good idea.

 

To assume that kids who live in this kind of protective-bubble world can conceptualize the utility of not being constantly directed and cared for is asking a bit much.

 

Ask that question to kids who are actually out on their own, making their own decisions (like ashw_justin!) and you'll probably get a bit of a different answer than from middle-schoolers.

 

So anyway, this was a long-winded way of saying that the results of Ivan's survey of barely pubescent children is neither unexpected nor too depressing.

[Alpinfox]

well I can say that as a junior high/high school student I neither felt nor expressed any desire for a nanny state. Quite the opposite. All of my friends felt similarly.

 

Apparently kids are thinking a little differently these days?

[chucK]

Well, you do have a point there. But also you should consider this probably in no way constitutes a random (i.e. representative) sample of younguns.

 

We have here a survey of middle-schoolers who were willing to hang out and discuss shit with a teacher. Probably over-represented in this bunch are those who trust the authorities.

[ashw_justin]

from my conversations with kids in my classes over a decade, many indicate to me that they want the government to play the job of parent to them, even when they're older - they want to not have the option to get in trouble, so support any goverment policy which takes freedom from those who do

 

Let me apologize in advance for this twist in logic, but if this is what the youth are thinking, then legalizing hard drugs would be an invitation to use them. They will equate 'legal' with 'okay.' Yes sadly enough, the masses are willing to let the system do their thinking for them. Perhaps all they need are a few overdoses to set them straight... but that could get ugly.

[Recycled]

Middle school or high school? I thought Ivan was a HS teacher.

 

My high school years are a ways back (class of '79), but I sure as hell don't remember such a passive attitude toward "authority." As a matter of fact, I think my age group was the first to be tapped for the newly reinstituted selective service registration and it looked to a lot of us like we were about to invade Iran with a draft to support it.

[JayB]

Yes - the Netherlands is tottering on the edge of collapse as we speak.

 

The United States are not the Netherlands. That's like comparing a spoiled 13-year-old to a college professor. Would you tell your 13-year-old daughter that it's okay to do heroin? (It's okay, she'll just use her judgment.)

 

The notion that the large numbers of people who don't already smoke crack, inject heroin, etc would do so if it were legal is one of the most idiotic arguments against legalization that anyone has ever conjured up.

 

Intentional oversimplification? First, greater availability would lead to greater consumption. Second, 'legal' equals profitable and marketable. If McDonalds' sexy ad convinces you to try a Big Mac and it sucks, you don't have to buy another one. It's not that simple with hard drugs.

 

Honestly, I want to believe in the ideal of free will and personal judgment. But in practice that ideal is defeated in a society where many if not most people are too stupid to take care of themselves (such as the US). Should we let them kill themselves? Perhaps. Is that going to suck for the rest of us? Yes. But how many will self-destruct? That's the key question--how many addicts does it take to ruin a society? Is that a storm that you want to try to weather? And for what? 'Freedom' to get wasted on hard drugs?

 

Are you counting yourself amongst those too stupid to look after themselves? If not, what grounds do you have for the monumental conceit that your statement rests upon? I've spent time on the shop floor and at the lab bench, and when it comes to exercising the basic judgments necessary to lead a happy and productive life - I can't say that the advantage necessarily always goes to those in academia.

 

As far as the link between legalization and consumption is concerned, there probably would be an increase in both consumption and addiction as a result of legalization - but any adverse effect from either would be no worse than the rampant violence and criminality that flourish under the current regime of prohibition, not to mention the massive transfer of wealth to criminal organizations that results from it, and all of the corruption, targeted killings of judges, etc. When you legalize drugs, you don't eliminate all suffering associated with drugs, but at least the vast majority of the harmful effects are visited upon those who consume them.

 

In my experience the people who argue that the state should be invested with the power to protect people from themselves have quite a bit in common with the folks who are convinced that because they can't imagine living a happy, productive, and ethical life without believing in a particular deity and religious creed, and therefore it's incumbent upon them to insure that others do the same - voluntarily or no. Swap "God" for "State" and the two perspectives are almost interchangeable.

 

 

[JayB]

from my conversations with kids in my classes over a decade, many indicate to me that they want the government to play the job of parent to them, even when they're older - they want to not have the option to get in trouble, so support any goverment policy which takes freedom from those who do

 

Let me apologize in advance for this twist in logic, but if this is what the youth are thinking, then legalizing hard drugs would be an invitation to use them. They will equate 'legal' with 'okay.' Yes sadly enough, the masses are willing to let the system do their thinking for them. Perhaps all they need are a few overdoses to set them straight... but that could get ugly.

 

Again - the conceit. If academic qualifications were all that mattered, then Ted Kacynski would have become a model citizen.

[joblo7]

our gov should legalise spirituality..........

[ashw_justin]

As far as the link between legalization and consumption is concerned, there probably would be an increase in both consumption and addiction as a result of legalization - but any adverse effect from either would be no worse than the rampant violence and criminality that flourish under the current regime of prohibition

 

Apples and oranges. The negative effects of widespread addiction vs. criminal trafficking are different phenomena, the relative potential magnitudes of which neither of us can claim to know. Where I simply seek to highlight the potential danger for widespread use of hard drugs, you attempt to do explicit mathematics with abstract principles.

 

In my experience the people who argue that the state should be invested with the power to protect people from themselves have quite a bit in common with the folks who are convinced that because they can't imagine living a happy, productive, and ethical life without believing in a particular deity and religious creed, and therefore it's incumbent upon them to insure that others do the same - voluntarily or no. Swap "God" for "State" and the two perspectives are almost interchangeable.

 

Take a breath man. I don't want people buying crack at the store because I'm afraid that it will turn our country into a drug-enslaved shithole. And I already said that I'm sympathetic to the idea of natural selection--just that the real manifestation of it is never pretty, especially if it occurs on a massive scale. Here's some conceit for you: why do the lab rats keep hitting the cocaine until it kills them? Clearly they wanted to live?

[joblo7]

when i was a kid i lived in a town (30k) where a couple families were controling the cops. you could go in almost any bar or pub and chop and roll on the table as you ordered your food or drink. basicallly made dope legal. the only crime was when some dumbass outsider showed up with stuff. a few people abused coke or smack but most people dont actually want to fuck up their lives....myth..

dope is not the best way to experience this life we live ,but sometimes.............

 

alcool is a dangerous drug, so is oxycontin etc. ask why they are legal.in reality it should be called;

THE WAR ON EASILY GROWABLE DRUGS!

[ivan]

yeah - so i teach high-schoolers - and the class that horrified me were seniors, 17 and 18, so of an age where such an attitude would seem damned odd. definetly a sampling bias here though, as i teach at a country-club-being-in, bmw-driving, latte-swilling kinda school - having also taught inner-city kids, i can attest to the inverse relationship between minority status and/or previous expereince w/ the justice system and one's trust of government. still - it's those folks kinda folks who dominate the political system and thereby create this nanny-state reality.

 

legalizing hard-drugs is a condundrum. pot (and khat, the original point of the post) are no-brainers, if you'll forgive the pun - they should be legal. but the logic that justifies there legalization points to the same for heroin and coke, which are clearly more destructive. humans aren't lab rats though - most of us do have the capactiy for long-term thought. it certainly is an insult to be told that i don't. i've done hard-drugs, fully aware of their dangerous potential, but was intelligent enough to arrange natural constraints that would prevent me from over-indulging - wouldn't i be an elitest prick to say that others aren't as smart as me so they have to be protected? a society full of meth-heads isn't a pretty one, but jeebus-christ, ITS ALREADY HERE. legalizing it will not wildly excerbate the situation while minimizing some of the huge problems associated with its current criminalization (locking up huge amounts of minority/poor-folks, corruptiving governmnet, and turning countries like columbia into criminal cess-pools). it's also philsophically the most consistent thing to do.

[jmace]

why do the lab rats keep hitting the cocaine until it kills them? Clearly they wanted to live?

 

keep watchin TV man, they got you where they want you..

 

ya its the drugs thats the problem get rid of those and our problems go away..ya thats the ticket

[ashw_justin]

keep watchin TV man, they got you where they want you..

 

ya its the drugs thats the problem get rid of those and our problems go away..ya thats the ticket

 

Put the bong down man. I haven't had TV for over 8 years.

Give yourself a couple of squirts of visine and re-read my posts--I said that people were the problem, not the drugs.

[JayB]

As far as the link between legalization and consumption is concerned, there probably would be an increase in both consumption and addiction as a result of legalization - but any adverse effect from either would be no worse than the rampant violence and criminality that flourish under the current regime of prohibition

 

Apples and oranges. The negative effects of widespread addiction vs. criminal trafficking are different phenomena, the relative potential magnitudes of which neither of us can claim to know. Where I simply seek to highlight the potential danger for widespread use of hard drugs, you attempt to do explicit mathematics with abstract principles.

 

In my experience the people who argue that the state should be invested with the power to protect people from themselves have quite a bit in common with the folks who are convinced that because they can't imagine living a happy, productive, and ethical life without believing in a particular deity and religious creed, and therefore it's incumbent upon them to insure that others do the same - voluntarily or no. Swap "God" for "State" and the two perspectives are almost interchangeable.

 

Take a breath man. I don't want people buying crack at the store because I'm afraid that it will turn our country into a drug-enslaved shithole. And I already said that I'm sympathetic to the idea of natural selection--just that the real manifestation of it is never pretty, especially if it occurs on a massive scale. Here's some conceit for you: why do the lab rats keep hitting the cocaine until it kills them? Clearly they wanted to live?

 

Have you actually got any evidence to suggest that your doomsday scenario will materialize if drugs are legalized? The experience of the Netherlands, and of pretty much every country in the world prior to the advent of laws against drugs and the law enforcement apparatus necessary to enforce them suggests otherwise.

 

People have made these arguments against pornography, gambling, and every other species of vice under the sun, and they all rest on the false assumption that the law is the only operational check on human behavior at work in society. This is about as logical as concluding that enacting laws against suicide would actually curtail the practice, and that if such laws existed, the second that they were rescinded, all of humanity would stampede to the local bridge and do themselves in.

 

 

"Apples and oranges. The negative effects of widespread addiction vs. criminal trafficking are different phenomena, the relative potential magnitudes of which neither of us can claim to know. Where I simply seek to highlight the potential danger for widespread use of hard drugs, you attempt to do explicit mathematics with abstract principles. :rolleyes:"

 

This argument rests on the assumption that the criminalization of drugs can either eliminate or substantially reduce the use of and addiction to whatever drug it is that's outlawed. Experience says otherwise.

 

So as things stand now, we have a large number of addicts, *and* a system which results in a massive transfer of wealth to organized crime, widespread corruption of the judiciary and law enforcement in less developed countries, rampant street violence, massive diversion of funds away from other priorities into the incarceration of nonviolent drug offenders, and the costs both in money and personal liberties that have resulted from the legal and bureaucratic enforcement mechanisms necessary to maintain the present prohibition. You are making the determination that it's worth people who never touch drugs enduring all of the above to save the minute fraction of the population who have hitherto avoided drugs like meth, crack, and heroin because of their illegality - from themselves. Not a reasonable trade, IMO.

 

 

[JayB]

that's kinda the point, jay - from my conversations with kids in my classes over a decade, many indicate to me that they want the government to play the job of parent to them, even when they're older - they want to not have the option to get in trouble, so support any goverment policy which takes freedom from those who do

 

This is very depressing.

 

There's a reason that we don't let kids vote, drink, drive, live on their own. Before a certain age most kids aren't really capable of making good decisions. Having someone protecting them is a good idea.

 

To assume that kids who live in this kind of protective-bubble world can conceptualize the utility of not being constantly directed and cared for is asking a bit much.

 

Ask that question to kids who are actually out on their own, making their own decisions (like ashw_justin!) and you'll probably get a bit of a different answer than from middle-schoolers.

 

So anyway, this was a long-winded way of saying that the results of Ivan's survey of barely pubescent children is neither unexpected nor too depressing.

 

It's not the kids that worry me, its the adults that share this perspective that concern me.

 

It's a slippery slope from "stop me or I'll smoke crack" to "stop me or I'll eat this Big Mac," and those that argue for the former seem to have a tendency to argue for the latter as well.

 

 

[Alpinfox]

I'm surprised to hear ashw_justin advocating keeping drugs illegal since, if I remember correctly, he went to Wee.... er, Reed College.

 

 

[ashw_justin]

humans aren't lab rats though - most of us do have the capactiy for long-term thought. it certainly is an insult to be told that i don't. i've done hard-drugs, fully aware of their dangerous potential, but was intelligent enough to arrange natural constraints that would prevent me from over-indulging - wouldn't i be an elitest prick to say that others aren't as smart as me so they have to be protected? a society full of meth-heads isn't a pretty one, but jeebus-christ, ITS ALREADY HERE. legalizing it will not wildly excerbate the situation while minimizing some of the huge problems associated with its current criminalization (locking up huge amounts of minority/poor-folks, corruptiving governmnet, and turning countries like columbia into criminal cess-pools). it's also philsophically the most consistent thing to do.

 

You're right, people should be smart enough to figure out on their own that a hard drug habit is a bad idea. They shouldn't have to be protected from their own bad judgment. Otherwise we are doomed. But as you say, people are already experimenting with whatever they want. So the philosophical principle is not in danger.

 

The real danger of official legalization that I see is that this would almost certainly lead to hard drugs going big business. If you thought the tobacco industry was evil for the way it promoted and peddled nicotine, just wait until Phillip-Morris gets its hands on cocaine. That could be bad. But at least they won't have to kill any judges.

[JayB]

One could easily toss this red-herring "I'm not against personal freedoms, I'm against the CORPORATE DOMINATION OF THE UNIVERSE!!! [C'mon fellow travelers, I know my other argument was weak, but no one here likes Walmart...]" overboard by granting the government a monopoly on the distribution and sale of all drugs that are currently illegal.

[ashw_justin]

I'm surprised to hear ashw_justin advocating keeping drugs illegal since, if I remember correctly, he went to Wee.... er, Reed College.

 

Well drugs aren't 'legal' at Reed College. But the honor code there is that you're not doing anything wrong until you're a threat to yourself or to the community, as deemed by a group of your peers, without reference to official policy. It was nice to live in such an organic society, where the concept of what is 'right' is infinitely malleable by its members. Unfortunately this isn't efficient enough for a society of 300 million people (and you can't punish your average self-destructing crackhead by putting them on academic probation).

[Alpinfox]

 

why do you need to "punish" a "self-destructive crackhead" at all?

[ashw_justin]

One could easily toss this red-herring "I'm not against personal freedoms, I'm against the CORPORATE DOMINATION OF THE UNIVERSE!!! [C'mon fellow travelers, I know my other argument was weak, but no one here likes Walmart...]" overboard by granting the government a monopoly on the distribution and sale of all drugs that are currently illegal.

 

I'm not sure which weak argument you're referring to. Personal freedom is absolute; laws are merely deterrents. I stand by my assertion that the naive can and should be protected by laws that deter extraordinary risks to themselves. For example, we have a seatbelt law not because we want to crush free will, but because we're pretty sure it makes you safer.

[ashw_justin]

why do you need to "punish" a "self-destructive crackhead" at all?

 

Yeah you'd think that devastating drug addiction would be punishment enough. A testament to just how strong of a hold this stuff can get on people.

The 'punishment' in that example though is more of a wakeup call, like "next we're going to call your rich parents and tell them you're getting kicked out for selling dope."

[Alpinfox]

My point is that punishing drug addicts with incarceration/fines/seizure of property/whatever has been shown to be an ineffective deterrent to future drug use, whereas treatment programs ARE effective at getting people off of drugs.

 

Treatment is the solution, not punishment.