Slog Comments
Inch by Inch, Prohibition Is Ending
1
Yes, because if we legalize weed and cocaine, all those Latin American drug thugs will overnight become productive members of society, maybe even social workers.
2
If all those nations just went ahead and made those drugs legal, we would have no choice. They don't want to lose the aid we send.
3
Obama is a staunch opponent of drug legalization or decriminalization. He said so during his 2008 election campaign, he lived it during his 4 year term in the White House, and he remains an opponent now, during his 2012 election campaign. Never once has Obama hinted that he might be more receptive if the political climate were to change, there is no reason to believe that Obama will support legalization should he get another term in office. Obama is just more conservative than many of us want to believe.
5
Obama will have a hard time getting liberals to the table with his actions. I could easily see millions of democrats standing down and allowing Romney to win because of a failure of DNC leadership and the personal failure of Barrack Obama. I'm still on the fence but won't be voting for a democratic candidate for president if things don't change in a variety of areas - environment, personal liberty, wars in foreign countries - the list goes on and on.
6
@ 1. You clearly haven't thought this through. We're not talking about waving a magic wand and changing conditions, economics, and crime overnight. We're talking about a policy shift that would have moderately beneficial effects for our generation, but profoundly beneficial effects for the next generation.
@ 3. Maybe so. But he has proven himself to be very clever, politically speaking. Remember how his administration dealt with DADT? He caught lots of flack from the left for being too conservative on that issue while his people were quietly working on a solution. I'm very curious to see what Obama's second term looks like. I'm guessing it'll be a lot more dramatic than his first.
@ 3. Maybe so. But he has proven himself to be very clever, politically speaking. Remember how his administration dealt with DADT? He caught lots of flack from the left for being too conservative on that issue while his people were quietly working on a solution. I'm very curious to see what Obama's second term looks like. I'm guessing it'll be a lot more dramatic than his first.
7
I think we can put drug prohibition in the same category as death and taxes. One of life's great certainties.
8
Until the political establishment decides that a serious, credible candidate can support decrim and still have a legit shot at winning, we will not see a serious presidential candidate, Democrat or Republican, support it (no, Ron Paul doesn't count). The risk of losing the moderate/independent/undecided vote by taking a strong stance on drug policy reform is still perceived as being too great. And changes to establishment thinking - while not impossible - tend to occur at a glacial pace.
9
@ 5, WTF are you talking about. Only the hardest of hard left moonbats are going to stand down, because letting the whole thing burn is more important to them than compromise.
12
That's true @6, but Obama was talking about repealing DADT from the beginning, it was one of his campaign promises. Obama caught flack because he was taking too long and at one point actually seemed to be changing his mind. That's not the case with drug legalization. Obama has always been an opponent, and he did substantial harm during his first term. Obama's justice department was the reason Gregoire cited for vetoing Washington's medical marijuana reform bill, and DEA raids of medical pot dispensaries continue all over the country. Will Obama change his mind once he no longer has to worry about re-election? Maybe, but it would be one hell of an about-face.
13
I'm with @12: @6 just seems like magical thinking of the kind Paul Constant is near-constantly engaged in re: Obama.
Go on, @6, explain to us why - given your contention that Obama really agrees - DEA raids have stepped up over the past several years. In what universe does the man who secretly favors decriminalization step up enforcement on medical marijuana?
Go on, @6, explain to us why - given your contention that Obama really agrees - DEA raids have stepped up over the past several years. In what universe does the man who secretly favors decriminalization step up enforcement on medical marijuana?
14
@11 In 1776/1800 there were no laws prohibiting the production and sale of cocaine or heroin because neither cocaine nor heroin had not been invented yet. Drug prohibition is like child labor laws and the federal income tax in that it is a necessary evil of the industrial age.
15
I also agree with Brandon. We're a lot further along on gay rights than drug reform and look at how sluggish the progress remains. This issue has yet to approach the mainstream and Obama is a very pragmatic politician and a moderate lefty at best. But he's still a hell of a lot better than Romney! Boycot the election, let Romney win, and you may end up regretting it for decades, specially if he wins the Supreme Court lottery.
16
@14
Opium.
Cannabis.
You DO realize that there were drugs used prior to heroin, right?
And that the plant forms were used prior to any extraction process, right?
How about you do some research on drug laws and WHY certain drugs were banned?
Opium.
Cannabis.
You DO realize that there were drugs used prior to heroin, right?
And that the plant forms were used prior to any extraction process, right?
How about you do some research on drug laws and WHY certain drugs were banned?
17
@16 Sure they had drugs back then, but the drugs they had were far less addictive. Also things like the Department of Social Services and the Social Security Administration and hospital emergency rooms didn't exist, so an addict was not a burden on society in the way he or she is now.
18
@17
"Sure they had drugs back then, but the drugs they had were far less addictive."
WTF?
Opium is "less addictive"?
"Also things like the Department of Social Services and the Social Security Administration and hospital emergency rooms didn't exist, so an addict was not a burden on society in the way he or she is now."
You know NOTHING about drug laws, do you?
Maybe you missed a little thing called The Opium Wars?
You know, history has been going on for a lot longer than the last 20 years. Which is all that you seem familiar with.
"Sure they had drugs back then, but the drugs they had were far less addictive."
WTF?
Opium is "less addictive"?
"Also things like the Department of Social Services and the Social Security Administration and hospital emergency rooms didn't exist, so an addict was not a burden on society in the way he or she is now."
You know NOTHING about drug laws, do you?
Maybe you missed a little thing called The Opium Wars?
You know, history has been going on for a lot longer than the last 20 years. Which is all that you seem familiar with.
19
@18 I'm familiar w/ the opium wars. China decided to ban the importation of opium because to many people were getting hooked on the stuff. British businessmen had been making a lot of money dealing opium to Chinese addicts. When the Chinese government tried to put a stop to the opium trade the British fleet shelled various Chinese ports until the policy was reversed. In the 19th century, white people did a lot of horrible things to non-whites. The British East India Company pushing opium in China was one of them.
20
@ Brandon J.
Obama does not have to support actual legalization in the US (which he won't, I agree); it would be enough if he just didn't interfere with the small steps toward de-criminalization that the Latin American leaders appear to be willing to take over the next years, which I think is what Brendan Kiley meant as well. Once you see somewhat positive effects there over the next 10 years, the discourse may change in the US as well.
Obama does not have to support actual legalization in the US (which he won't, I agree); it would be enough if he just didn't interfere with the small steps toward de-criminalization that the Latin American leaders appear to be willing to take over the next years, which I think is what Brendan Kiley meant as well. Once you see somewhat positive effects there over the next 10 years, the discourse may change in the US as well.
22
But if we legalized drugs how could the biggest Wall Street mega-conglomerates like Wells Fargo and Bank of America launder the 700 billion in liquid black market cash?
23
@19
Yay! You found Wikipedia.
Now, how do you explain your claim that opium was "less addictive" and that the addicts were "not a burden on society" back in 1800?
Pro-tip: providing a dissertation when a compare-contrast is suitable means that you just looked it up on Wikipedia.
There are hundreds of years of history of drug laws.
There are thousand of years of history of drug use.
And you think that the past 20 years is how it has always been.
At least Wikipedia is getting a work out.
Yay! You found Wikipedia.
Now, how do you explain your claim that opium was "less addictive" and that the addicts were "not a burden on society" back in 1800?
Pro-tip: providing a dissertation when a compare-contrast is suitable means that you just looked it up on Wikipedia.
There are hundreds of years of history of drug laws.
There are thousand of years of history of drug use.
And you think that the past 20 years is how it has always been.
At least Wikipedia is getting a work out.
24
@23 I've been studying such things since before there was a Wikipedia or an internet for that matter. Everyone should have a hobby.
BTW if anybody's interested this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Drugs-Drug-Policy-…
gives a clear, concise, and not-crazy argument for why the war on drugs can not and should not be ended.
BTW if anybody's interested this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Drugs-Drug-Policy-…
gives a clear, concise, and not-crazy argument for why the war on drugs can not and should not be ended.
25
@24
"I've been studying such things since before there was a Wikipedia or an internet for that matter."
Sure you have. Which is why you failed to explain your comment about how opium was "less addictive" and that the addicts were "not a burden on society" back in 1800?
You have no idea about the history of drug laws in American.
"I've been studying such things since before there was a Wikipedia or an internet for that matter."
Sure you have. Which is why you failed to explain your comment about how opium was "less addictive" and that the addicts were "not a burden on society" back in 1800?
You have no idea about the history of drug laws in American.
27
@25 My understanding is that the potential for addiction is determined by factors particular to the user, as well as the drug itself. This variation within consumers has always existed. However, modern opiates and narcotics - heroine, percocet, etc. - are significantly more potent than the dried chunk of opium from the days of yore. (That's the general idea. I couldn't tell you from first hand experience.) What follows from this is that, all things being equal, the modern opiates are more addictive, due to their heightened potency.
As for the burden to society, I imagine that this varies by nation, but I would think history and culture are big factors. Opiates lend themselves to addiction, but how many are introduced to it in the first place? For example, opiate addiction was one social problem in 19th Century England, as depicted, for example, in the Sherlock Holmes stories. However, what percentage of the English population were addicts, and what was its direction of growth? I couldn't tell you, but it apparently became a big enough problem in China that the emperor launched a war of prohibition against it, butting heads with the drug-pushing English in the process.
So the term "burden to society" needs to be further defined, but as it pertains to narcotics, we would need to compare how other nations in history have compared to our current USA in terms of percentage of population that are addicts, how much of the public fund is spent caring or dealing with these addicts, how much of the public fund is spent on our militarized, so-called war on drugs, etc. And that's just for illegal use (including non-prescription) of narcotics. Other drugs, including alcohol and tobacco products, come with their own social burden, however we're defining it. I can't speak for 19th Century England, but ours is pretty impressive.
More...
As for the burden to society, I imagine that this varies by nation, but I would think history and culture are big factors. Opiates lend themselves to addiction, but how many are introduced to it in the first place? For example, opiate addiction was one social problem in 19th Century England, as depicted, for example, in the Sherlock Holmes stories. However, what percentage of the English population were addicts, and what was its direction of growth? I couldn't tell you, but it apparently became a big enough problem in China that the emperor launched a war of prohibition against it, butting heads with the drug-pushing English in the process.
So the term "burden to society" needs to be further defined, but as it pertains to narcotics, we would need to compare how other nations in history have compared to our current USA in terms of percentage of population that are addicts, how much of the public fund is spent caring or dealing with these addicts, how much of the public fund is spent on our militarized, so-called war on drugs, etc. And that's just for illegal use (including non-prescription) of narcotics. Other drugs, including alcohol and tobacco products, come with their own social burden, however we're defining it. I can't speak for 19th Century England, but ours is pretty impressive.
28
Out biggest problems of addiction/OD//deaths by far is from prescription drug abuse. Not shit from Latin America. How does ending the "drug "war" affect that? Unless you think there should be no such thing as prescription medicine?
30
@28 I've heard that legal drugs, alcohol and prescription meds, cause more harm than illegal drugs. I would argue that this is evidence that the war on drugs is not as great a failure as Mr. Kiley would have us believe.
31
@30
"I've heard that legal drugs, alcohol and prescription meds, cause more harm than illegal drugs."
Fascinating. What was it you had posted?
"I've been studying such things since before there was a Wikipedia or an internet for that matter."
So how is this "more harm" than the illegal drugs coming in through Mexico? You are aware of what is happening in Mexico, right?
Yet that does not seem to be happening down at the local liquor store.
It's amazing how incorrect your scholarly pursuits are. Almost as if you get all your information from Wikipedia.
"I've heard that legal drugs, alcohol and prescription meds, cause more harm than illegal drugs."
Fascinating. What was it you had posted?
"I've been studying such things since before there was a Wikipedia or an internet for that matter."
So how is this "more harm" than the illegal drugs coming in through Mexico? You are aware of what is happening in Mexico, right?
Yet that does not seem to be happening down at the local liquor store.
It's amazing how incorrect your scholarly pursuits are. Almost as if you get all your information from Wikipedia.
32
@23: "Yay! You found Wikipedia."
Maybe one day you'll get to the part where prohibition didn't work. I doubt it, you don't sound very capable of grasping any ideas of value.
Maybe one day you'll get to the part where prohibition didn't work. I doubt it, you don't sound very capable of grasping any ideas of value.
33
@31 Yes, business disputes between beer distributors are generally settled by lawyers instead of gunmen. That's a reason to end drug prohibition. On the other hand, alcohol abuse causes more harm than use of any single illegal drug because it is more widely used. Alcohol is far less addictive than cocaine or heroin, yet there are far more drunks than crack heads. Is it possible that this is because beer is cheap, legal, and widely available? Might we have a few more crack heads if all drugs were legal?
34
@33
"Yes, business disputes between beer distributors are generally settled by lawyers instead of gunmen."
So by "more harm" you really meant "less harm" but you spelled it wrong?
"On the other hand, alcohol abuse causes more harm than use of any single illegal drug because it is more widely used."
You might want to hit Wikipedia again and look up Prohibition. You know, what gave us the Mafia? And Al Capone? Or did you misspell "less harm" as "more harm" again?
"Is it possible that this is because beer is cheap, legal, and widely available?"
Now you're confusing addiction (a medical condition) with crime.
"Might we have a few more crack heads if all drugs were legal?"
It's possible. So?
Again, you're confusing addiction with crime.
They are not the same. Maybe you missed that in your scholarly pursuits.
But why would I need to explain the difference to someone who has spent so many years researching this?
This country gave up on Prohibition because the increase in crime was not worth any perceived improvements.
Oh, didn't you know about Prohibition? Guess you'll be hitting Wikipedia again.
"Yes, business disputes between beer distributors are generally settled by lawyers instead of gunmen."
So by "more harm" you really meant "less harm" but you spelled it wrong?
"On the other hand, alcohol abuse causes more harm than use of any single illegal drug because it is more widely used."
You might want to hit Wikipedia again and look up Prohibition. You know, what gave us the Mafia? And Al Capone? Or did you misspell "less harm" as "more harm" again?
"Is it possible that this is because beer is cheap, legal, and widely available?"
Now you're confusing addiction (a medical condition) with crime.
"Might we have a few more crack heads if all drugs were legal?"
It's possible. So?
Again, you're confusing addiction with crime.
They are not the same. Maybe you missed that in your scholarly pursuits.
But why would I need to explain the difference to someone who has spent so many years researching this?
This country gave up on Prohibition because the increase in crime was not worth any perceived improvements.
Oh, didn't you know about Prohibition? Guess you'll be hitting Wikipedia again.
35
In rememberance of "Black Friday", the 2011 shutdown of top online poker sites, let's talk about this prohibition, specifically in Washington State. As you know this is when these sites went dark; however, it now appears that was more for fraudulent banking activities rather than hosting the gaming/gambling itself.
In December, a reinterpretation of the 1961 Wire Act was declared by the Justice Department.
“It clears a legal point that has been out there for a long time, as to whether or not states can go forward and legalize games of chance or poker, within their own borders,” he said.
According to Cabot, since web poker is legal in Nevada and will occur intrastate, it’s completely legal under the Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act — a 2006 federal law banning financial transactions for gaming activities that are deemed illegal.
If poker on the web is legal in a given state, the UIGEA, which was a tool in charging the offshore operators in poker’s Black Friday, would not be implicated.
http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news/125…
Yet, in Good 'Ol WA...we reaffirmed our 2006 ban on online poker:
Superior Court Judge Mary Roberts of King County in Washington state, dealt a huge blow to online poker fans yesterday. Roberts upheld a 2006 law passed in Washington State, that made playing Internet poker a felony. Roberts announced her decision as nearly 70-80 poker supporters outside the Justice center exuded their disbelief.
http://www.aintluck.com/internet-poker-i…
Too bad, as now online is making a comeback and even PG rated Zynga is thinking of taking its audience Vega$:
http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.j…
36
@34 "This country gave up on Prohibition because the increase in crime was not worth any perceived improvements."
If legalizing drugs is such a good idea why didn't they end cocaine prohibition and heroin prohibition while they were at it? The first federal federal drug law was enacted in 1915, only five years before alcohol was made illegal. In the early '30s drug prohibition would not have been the entrenched social institution that it is today. Yet nobody talked about ending it then.
If legalizing drugs is such a good idea why didn't they end cocaine prohibition and heroin prohibition while they were at it? The first federal federal drug law was enacted in 1915, only five years before alcohol was made illegal. In the early '30s drug prohibition would not have been the entrenched social institution that it is today. Yet nobody talked about ending it then.
37
@36
"If legalizing ... blah blah Wikipedia blah blah Wikipedia blah."
What was that you had previously claimed?
"I've been studying such things since before there was a Wikipedia or an internet for that matter."
So you really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? None at all. Not a smidgen.
But you're really quick to claim that you've spent years "studying" this. Wright?
"If legalizing ... blah blah Wikipedia blah blah Wikipedia blah."
What was that you had previously claimed?
"I've been studying such things since before there was a Wikipedia or an internet for that matter."
So you really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? None at all. Not a smidgen.
But you're really quick to claim that you've spent years "studying" this. Wright?
38
It's not all black or white. Legalization of drugs doesn't necessarily mean creating a commercial product, as is done with alcohol. It's possible to legalize within a framework of public health. No branding of products, government regulation of how products are distributed and to whom. Access to not only the drugs, but social services to help with addictions, housing, access to medical treatment, etc. The goal being reducing the harms associated with drug use. Why not reallocate the huge amount of money wasted on enforcement into social services for people addicted to drugs to help them manage their addictions and, ultimately, get into treatment when they are ready? Marijuana is simply in a different class of drug than opiates, amphetamines, cocaine, alcohol, nicotine, and prescription drugs. Unless one in partaking in large amounts on a daily, regular basis - there's no harm from the drug. You can avoid the harms from smoking it by a vaporizer or eating a brownie.
39
The Prison-Industrial Complex is one of the pillars of the current government and economy. The Drug War is essential to its ongoing prosperity. Obama is not gonna touch it.
40
@38 What makes you think money spent on drug enforcement is wasted? One thing we can be certain of is that drug prohibition makes cocaine and heroin very expensive. Driving up the cost is a good way to discourage people from doing pretty much anything.
41
@40, because it's ineffective. After adjusting for inflation, prices for cocaine and heroin are down 80% over the last 30 years. We spend billions investigating, trying, and warehousing people for participating in an activity that is as old as humanity.
How about we treat drug use & abuse as a public health problem instead of a crime problem? We'd see more effective and cheaper results.
How about we treat drug use & abuse as a public health problem instead of a crime problem? We'd see more effective and cheaper results.
42
@40
"I've been studying such things since before there was a Wikipedia or an internet for that matter."
Looks like your claim was false.
"One thing we can be certain of is that drug prohibition makes cocaine and heroin very expensive."
The same as it made alcohol "very expensive".
Which is really just "more expensive than if it were legal".
But the criminals like "very expensive" because it drives their profits.
You're still confusing "addiction" which is a medical condition with "crime" which is the problem.
And you skipped a reply. Why is that? Is it because you did not have any facts?
"Driving up the cost is a good way to discourage people from doing pretty much anything."
And how has that worked for drug crime?
Doesn't the current drug crime level contradict your claim?
Even Prohibition contradicts your claim.
"I've been studying such things since before there was a Wikipedia or an internet for that matter."
And yet you make claims that even a cursory understanding of the history of drug crime would show to be incorrect.
"I've been studying such things since before there was a Wikipedia or an internet for that matter."
Looks like your claim was false.
"One thing we can be certain of is that drug prohibition makes cocaine and heroin very expensive."
The same as it made alcohol "very expensive".
Which is really just "more expensive than if it were legal".
But the criminals like "very expensive" because it drives their profits.
You're still confusing "addiction" which is a medical condition with "crime" which is the problem.
And you skipped a reply. Why is that? Is it because you did not have any facts?
"Driving up the cost is a good way to discourage people from doing pretty much anything."
And how has that worked for drug crime?
Doesn't the current drug crime level contradict your claim?
Even Prohibition contradicts your claim.
"I've been studying such things since before there was a Wikipedia or an internet for that matter."
And yet you make claims that even a cursory understanding of the history of drug crime would show to be incorrect.
43
@41 I don't think a 'public health' approach to the problem of drug abuse would lead to less restrictive laws. Things far less dangerous than heroin have been declared strictly illegal on public health grounds. Cigarettes and booze remain legal only because they are exempt from public health rules governing most consumer products.
44
Dream on, sucker.....
The FDIC just took over a bunch of bank accounts belonging to legitimate sellers of medical marijuana in several states where it had been legalized, the very same FDIC which was pressured by the Federal Reserve Banksters not to go after any of the criminal banksters who have now broken millions of laws and screwed over the economy for many, many years to come.
The FDIC just took over a bunch of bank accounts belonging to legitimate sellers of medical marijuana in several states where it had been legalized, the very same FDIC which was pressured by the Federal Reserve Banksters not to go after any of the criminal banksters who have now broken millions of laws and screwed over the economy for many, many years to come.
45
@43
"I've been studying such things since before there was a Wikipedia or an internet for that matter."
And yet you make such uninformed statements.
"Cigarettes and booze remain legal only because they are exempt from public health rules governing most consumer products."
Alcohol was illegal during Prohibition. You don't know what Prohibition was, do you?
"On the other hand, alcohol abuse causes more harm than use of any single illegal drug because it is more widely used."
Because "Ken Mehlman" thinks that a drunken panhandler is WORSE than rum runners shooting cops and hitting innocent bystanders.
It seems that Mexico offers a great counter example but people like "Ken Mehlman" cannot address that so they ignore it.
"I've been studying such things since before there was a Wikipedia or an internet for that matter."
And yet you make such uninformed statements.
"Cigarettes and booze remain legal only because they are exempt from public health rules governing most consumer products."
Alcohol was illegal during Prohibition. You don't know what Prohibition was, do you?
"On the other hand, alcohol abuse causes more harm than use of any single illegal drug because it is more widely used."
Because "Ken Mehlman" thinks that a drunken panhandler is WORSE than rum runners shooting cops and hitting innocent bystanders.
It seems that Mexico offers a great counter example but people like "Ken Mehlman" cannot address that so they ignore it.
46
@45 "It seems that Mexico offers a great counter example but people like "Ken Mehlman" cannot address that so they ignore it."
I agree that President Calderon's crackdown on the Mexican drug cartels was a mistake.
I agree that President Calderon's crackdown on the Mexican drug cartels was a mistake.
47
@46
"I agree that President Calderon's crackdown on the Mexican drug cartels was a mistake."
Perfect.
1. Who are you agreeing with?
2. How is not enforcing the anti-drug laws any different from de-criminalization or legalization?
Because you are the one claiming that an addict is worse than being shot by a criminal.
But I guess that's what you've discovered through your many years of research.
"I've been studying such things since before there was a Wikipedia or an internet for that matter."
"I agree that President Calderon's crackdown on the Mexican drug cartels was a mistake."
Perfect.
1. Who are you agreeing with?
2. How is not enforcing the anti-drug laws any different from de-criminalization or legalization?
Because you are the one claiming that an addict is worse than being shot by a criminal.
But I guess that's what you've discovered through your many years of research.
"I've been studying such things since before there was a Wikipedia or an internet for that matter."
48
We got all the drugs we can take We make a bunch of drugs? we all the guns we need? We trade Viagra for intelligence in the Middle East? Even George Bush is a pot smoker as is most of congress. More Drugs! Less B/S.
Comments (50) RSS