Saca - Again most of your argument is brilliant but you do need to research US drug laws. Most of the naturally occurring substances were legal and readilly available until at least the 1890s, some well into the 20th century. Yes we had addiction problems (laudanum for one), no we did not have the same type of criminal activity. As for the rest about further invasion of privacy, loss of liberty - a very telling point. Can't refute that one. Peregrino

Peregrino-
I paraphrased and cut/paste and modified other smart people that I happen to agree with for the most part... I don't write that well. :D Airborne Lawyer is the only one on this site that can write posts like that and not cheat by Plagiarizing. :p Glad you liked the argument though... :lifter

Sacamuelas,

I'll try to address your questions.

"What is the "outside of the box" thinking concerning current Rx drugs dispensed by licensed practitioners out of legal pharmacies? Should these be legalized to sell in 7-11's or should the current illegal drugs be controlled as Rx drugs?"

I don't know what anyone else is suggesting in regard to these issues. Don't know what the "outside the box" thinking would be, only my own ideas. I'm not advocating drug use, nor am I advocating the legalization of, currently illegal, drugs. I'm for decriminalizing drug use and possession, and that is a real and legitimate difference, not mere semantics.

"If the current illegal drugs are legalized, then why should the government provide the court system personnel (civil or criminal) and bureaucracy to administer counseling/enforcement/institute fines/etc that you indicated the need for in your earlier posts ?"

I'm not sure that I understand this question. What I am proposing is a civil system to discourage irresponsible recreational drug use, that would largely (granted to what degree is uncertain) pay for itself and would treat such use as prinarily a medical problem. In so doing it would free up law enforcement resources, take less court time and resources, relieve prison overcrowding, save an enormous amount of money, deprive enemies of this nation of a revenue source and support network, and allow some of these resources to be deployed other places where they are needed.

"Should people on drugs be allowed to access our government social service programs such as welfare, food stamps, loans, subsidized housing, etc?"

How would the system know that they're "on drugs"? If this is a civil issue, how would it come up? If it goes beyond the civil system, i.e., they continue to use, continue to get caught are unwilling/ unable to get clean and it becomes a criminal matter, my first thought is to handle it as it is now handled, though I don't really know how it's currently dealt with.

"Can employers in your ideal world refuse to hire druggies?"

Sure, but how do they know they're "druggies"? Employers should be free to hire as they deem fit. If they think someone is unable to a job, for whatever reason, or is going to be a disruption in the work place, employers should be free to continue to look at other applicants.

"based on your idea of drug users, it is obvious to me that you need better SA on exactly who it is in the prisons creating all the overcrowding, and where they come from, how they got there, and what they were doing to actually land their butts in prison."

The Economist reports that approximately one third of those in prison in this country are there for marijuana possession. Are they wrong? Under Ashcroft the DoJ prosecuted Ed Norton (may have the name wrong) for growing medical marijuana, IIRC, for the City of Oakland, and Tommy Chong, of Cheech and Chong, for selling pot pipes.

"I would be careful about calling out the QP's on this site concerning your little trolling attempt with your example of the retired SF soldier smoking dope. "

I don't really think the charge of trolling is justified. While there have been occasions, in this thread and no doubt elsewhere, where I may have made an intemperate or ill considered remark, or perhaps something I thought was, and intended to be, humorous was not taken that way, in general I believe I have been respectful and I certainly am sincere.


Doc,

Probably should have replied to you first. No disrespect intended.

First, kudos for your work with the mentally ill. I care for my mother who has alzheimer's, her dementia is not too far along, I have help from my father and my sister, and I'm motivated by my love for her and it is still a frustrating and demanding experience. I commend you for doing a difficult and I expect largely thankless job.

I agree that "self medication" for the mentally ill is usually a bad idea. Frankly, I think most self medication is a bad idea. My issue is with the government making this a crime. The desire to relieve suffering is natural, acting upon it shouldn't be criminal.

I don't have to be for drug use, to be against the drug laws.

Ahhh!!! I started writing my previous post after reading Saca's post and when RL's was the most recent post up. Obviously, volumes have been written in the mean time and my reply is sort of out of sequence. I'll read more carefully, and perhaps reply to Saca's more recent posts tomorrow.

One thing that struck me as I skimmed these newer posts is that my position is being mischaracterized. I'm not for drug use, nor am I for legalization. I favor decriminalization and treatment as being more just and less expensive. These are not trivial differences.

I too believe changes are needed for how people look at drugs, in a longer perspective - how to promote a good culture.

What you propose is essentially the case of tobaco in Sweden. Important differences are costs of rehab and associated criminality, power and speed of addiction and history of use.

The costs and addictive properties are both lower in the tobaco case, while the last point - amount of use - is lower for drugs. This means that the cost per person is higher for drug users than those of tobaco.

To stem the sale of tobaco and bring in revenue to state coffers, said to finance health services, warning texts have been printed on all tobaco products and the tax has gone up.

The tax is set to 56 öre (100 öre per SEK, 7.63 SEK = $1 USD) per cigarette, but a lower limit of the tax sets the effective rate to 86 öre per cigarette. This means that for a package of 20 cigarettes with a non-taxed price of 37.5 SEK, the additional tax is 17.2 SEK, or 45%, bringing the price for one pack up to 54.7 SEK. That is a lot of money for little substance.

According to statistics from the Statens Folkhälsoinstitut (State's Institute of the People's Health) from 1980-2004, the added tax has not brough forward any significant change in use in comparison with previous years. The tax was introduced in 1994 and after an initial drop in 1995 of 3% of smokers (does not include popular Swedish chew) from 25% to 22%, it has averaged 20% over the last six years.

From 2002-2004, 14-15 year old (9th grade) smokers and male chewers have nominally decreased while the proportion of female chewers has increased by 3%. This means that new users are continually attracted.

The Swedish government holds a monopoly on alcohol (except on less than 2.5% contents). Sweden has a big smuggling problem, of most substances. That does not get taxed.

The point is that I do not see how taxing of legalized drugs would pay for the associated problems. I think it will be a far cry from stopping smuggling.

Sources for the numbers are Statens Folkhälsoinstitut (State's Institute of the People's Health) and Skatteverket (Swedish IRS). Both are governmental institutions.

I meant it. I don't care what the incarceration rate is as long as there are sufficient numbers remaining outside to support the system and provide security. If I am not allowed to chlorinate the gene pool, I want them locked up. As noted, jail is not jammed with occasional dope smokers or one-time bad check passers. Most inmates are bad hombres who would have been killed off a hundred years ago.

I have ridden Harleys for more than 20 years now. My hair is irrelevant. I do not use illegal substances, or associate with those who do, and resent the generalization by a non-QP. If you know some, and they are committing crimes, lock them up.

Isn't that the problem? They bumble along till they get capped, then the missing family pops out of the woodwork with an expensive attorney and sues for the logical outcome of a wasted existence. Do you know what percentage of inmates are incarcerated for committing crimes to support various drug habits?

Is a NAMBLA member who finds a willing partner self-medicating his condition as well? How about the pedophile who assaulted and buried Jessica Lunsford alive. Was he just a poor misunderstood individual who was self-medicating, along with his tweaker associates?

I refuse to buy into your generalizations and excuses. I admit that the system that we have now is not working to my satisfaction. I think that we should be much more draconian rather than lenient with dealers.

TR

you could start here...
http://www.lehmantrikes.com/motorcycles-fls-bandit.asp

Sac,

Still want to address your points, but between having a house guest, Mom's health taking a bad turn for the worse, and generally having my hands full, haven't been online much this week. On top of that I've got an injured shoulder and have been told to stay off the kbd. So it will be a while before I can respond at length.

Reaper,

Ditto.