John Stossel: End The Drug War

[pjfootballer]

I've always been on the fence about this. It wouldn't bother me to allow pot to be legalized, but when you take the pot away from the drug cartels, they'll move on to something else. It's their life, their job and their business. So then what? Make Cocaine legal, then heroine, crack? I've always had a hard time justifying making drugs legal and I understand that it would help in certain areas of getting rid of crime. I also hate that we imprison so many people for petty drug possession. Go after the drug lords, not the pushers or users. In other words, cut the snake off at the head. Do think if we took away Marijuana from the Mexican drug cartels, they wouldn't seek another drug? Not exactly alot of jobs for them to do. Even if it is legal, the price would go down and they would want to make something else.

[pjfootballer]

NavyDave's ignorance is FAR worse than marijuana (which, BTW, has NEVER directly killed anyone.

I do have a problem with this statement. I lived with 3 potsmokers in the early 90s and when they were high, they were some of the laziest, most annoying, unproductive jerks around. And when they weren't high, they were looking to get high. I wouldn't want anyone driving, operating machinery or such while they are high. I know there are very productive pot smokers out there just as there are functioning acholics (my dad is an alcoholic and has never lost a job) in the world. But most pot smokers get defensive about their "abilities" when high. I say bullspit. They don't call it "stupid weed" for nothing. It would not bother me too much if they made it legal, but don't say that it doesn't effect the person, their families or even causes death.

[ACW]

Oh, fair enough, but I'm saying that pot, directly, has killed ZERO.

[warriorz]

One of the few times I agree with the hard-core libertarians on this board.

.

Whoa whoa WHOA!!

I don't know much about politics, but I classify myself as independant because, even though I agree with alot of liberal policies such as a womans right to choose if they want an abortion, and I think that governments should be able to step in if a state is out of control, I also agree with some conservative policies such as supporting the second amendment.....

But when it comes to libertarians, all I've seen is them questioning Obama's citizenship, with posters of him as Hitler and as a muslim....basically lots of anti Obama to the point where it's racist. So I've seen racism...

But your telling me, that they agree with the legalization of Marijuana??? wow... If this is true, which I'm not sure it is, but if it is, and they could get rid of the racist image that is out there, then I know ALOT of people that could jump on that bandwagon.

[Larry]

A thought has been occurring to me, regarding one of the classic arguments used on this topic.

The popular theory is: If pot is legal, then people who are simply doing it to rebel, will quit smoking it.

Let's just assume that that theory is true.

Doesn't that same theory, if true, imply: Corollary: If pot is legalized, then people who are only smoking it because it's illegal, will move to some other thing which is still illegal.

Does one imply the other?

[bird_1972]

I'm all for drug users killing themselves by willing ingesting narcotics, etc as long as my tax dollars don't have to pay for their medical bills, housing, rehab or unemployment.

Do you feel the same way about cigarettes? Alcohol? High-fructose corn syrup? Fast food?

I'm guessing the answer is no.

[ACW]

Whoa whoa WHOA!!

I don't know much about politics, but I classify myself as independant because, even though I agree with alot of liberal policies such as a womans right to choose if they want an abortion, and I think that governments should be able to step in if a state is out of control, I also agree with some conservative policies such as supporting the second amendment.....

But when it comes to libertarians, all I've seen is them questioning Obama's citizenship, with posters of him as Hitler and as a muslim....basically lots of anti Obama to the point where it's racist. So I've seen racism...

But your telling me, that they agree with the legalization of Marijuana??? wow... If this is true, which I'm not sure it is, but if it is, and they could get rid of the racist image that is out there, then I know ALOT of people that could jump on that bandwagon.

Okay, let this be said: SOME libertarians are of the type you describe, but MOST libertarians think Birtherism, MuslimObamaism, etc, is stupid.

EDIT: Larry, I think there might be some movement both ways.

[thebluefood]

Okay, let this be said: SOME libertarians are of the type you describe, but MOST libertarians think Birtherism, MuslimObamaism, etc, is stupid.

EDIT: Larry, I think there might be some movement both ways.

Thank you. And really, the people that are pushing those ideas are Neo-Cons posing as libertarians (after Bush left office, that is).

I, for one, really couldn't care less where Obama's from. I don't agree with his platform, and that's enough for me to not vote for him.

Anyway, that's why I support ending the war on drugs altogether. People are going to find ways to get high, no matter what the law says.

If it were my decision, I'd say "Hey, it's all up for grabs, so enjoy; but if you mess up and break the law while you're high, that will not be an excuse and you will be severally punished for your crime."

[DCsportsfan53]

I truly believe people underestimate just how many people dabble in and recreationally use all manner of drugs, even the harder ones, without it having major impacts on their lives. The campaign against the whole concept of recreational drugs has been so successful that even otherwise reasonable and educated people fail to understand that. Imho, it is simply unamerican and something less than freedom to punish someone for using or possessing a drug. It's just not right. Obviously, everyone's different and plenty of people can't handle it and should be treated as a medical problem in those cases. However, the idea that the gov't can tell me as I go to work everyday, pay my taxes and contribute to society that, if I want to get a little coke and go to town one night on a 3 day weekend that I should be punished is quite simply bull****. There's no honest justification for it and I think most people who aren't around it don't understand just how common that type of user is.

[mojobo]

Funny how medicare/caid pay for a HELL OF A LOT of smokers' conditions -- where is the personal responsibility with the smokers? If you only knew the amount of care/caid $$$ goes to dealing with smoking-related conditions, you'd realize that the lack of a ban does NOT shift squat.

I doubt you'll find many libertarians who agree with medicare/medicaid for this exact reason. These policies place the financial burden of unhealthy behaviors on others. It not only forces the cost on others, but subsidizes these unhealthy behaviors which in turn leads to an increase in these behaviors.

But in any case they are a reality of our system so I'll argue it from there. Using smoking (I'm guessing you mean smoking tobacco) as an example, banning it would do way more harm than good. By banning them you would have to pay police to patrol for it, arrest those who do and pay for a trial, pay their medical bills anyway if they are locked up as well as their housing and food, pay to find out how the tobacco is being smuggled in, etc.

To say it doesn't shift the medical costs is fair since we have a somewhat socialized medical system which is becoming more and more socialized. In a system like this all the financial burdens are shared, and therefor the burden of medical costs of all unhealthy behaviors are put on the public rather than the individual.

In order to eliminate that cost though you would have pay for all the things I mentioned previously. Banning doesn't even remove it from a society so your still paying for the healthcare of people, but it would be reduced if less people smoked under the ban.

[Hubbs]

Whoa whoa WHOA!!

I don't know much about politics, but I classify myself as independant because, even though I agree with alot of liberal policies such as a womans right to choose if they want an abortion, and I think that governments should be able to step in if a state is out of control, I also agree with some conservative policies such as supporting the second amendment.....

But when it comes to libertarians, all I've seen is them questioning Obama's citizenship, with posters of him as Hitler and as a muslim....basically lots of anti Obama to the point where it's racist. So I've seen racism...

But your telling me, that they agree with the legalization of Marijuana??? wow... If this is true, which I'm not sure it is, but if it is, and they could get rid of the racist image that is out there, then I know ALOT of people that could jump on that bandwagon.

Damn, dude. You've been here since 2008? You must not come around the Tailgate much. You'll find our resident libertarians - I'm one of them - all openly laughing at the "Obama = Hitler" people. (And as far as I know, nobody around here who's as whacked out as you describe has ever even tried to take up the mantle of libertarianism.) None of us would consider the crazies to be libertarian in the least - hell, the only reason any of them even know how to use the word "libertarian" is because, for a brief period in time, it was the chic way to describe elements of the Tea Party movement. Sadly, those elements were pretty much snuffed out long ago.

The fact that you're surprised that libertarians support the legalization of marijuana tells me that you've been shown a terribly warped definition of libertarianism, one that probably has virtually nothing to do with the word. Try hanging out in the Tailgate a little bit more - I think we'll be able to change your impression pretty quickly.

(For example, I genuinely like Obama. I don't always agree with him, but I do like him. And I'd absolutely prefer him over Palin. For a second example, the fact that you're both pro-choice and pro-gun rights is already a little libertarian. You might be surprised about what your views add up to.)

Do you feel the same way about cigarettes? Alcohol? High-fructose corn syrup? Fast food?

I'm guessing the answer is no.

Oh, you underestimate ND. I'm very confident that his answer is yes.

1st Amendment though...

I would assume that restrictions on drug advertising could match those placed on cigarette advertising, since those restrictions are already legal.

[techboy]

If it were my decision, I'd say "Hey, it's all up for grabs, so enjoy; but if you mess up and break the law while you're high, that will not be an excuse and you will be severally punished for your crime."

Speaking as somebody that is in favor of decriminalization and reclassification as a health issue, this is naive. A person that is high on PCP is not cognitively capable of making rational choices, so to rely on criminal penalties as a deterrent, which requires rational thought, doesn't make any sense.

[Larry]

The fact that you're surprised that libertarians support the legalization of marijuana tells me that you've been shown a terribly warped definition of libertarianism, one that probably has virtually nothing to do with the word. Try hanging out in the Tailgate a little bit more - I think we'll be able to change your impression pretty quickly.

1) Pointing out that libertarianism is a really big tent. Including people who want to legalize drugs, eliminate welfare, eliminate all laws that apply to corporations, to outright anarchists.

The word "libertarian", to different people, means people who want one of the many variations of the "fair tax".

2) I think you'll find that, lately, if you call yourself "libertarian", a lot of folks are gonna say "one a them Ron Paul weirdos, huh?" (Because a lot of people had never heard the word until they heard it applied to Ron Paul.)

[elkabong82]

Of course. Heroin should be 100 percent banned, and dealers put to death in my opinion.

Cocaine as well.

Pot? No way

yet by the archaic gov't ranking system, marijuana is more dangerous than coke or heroine. though current draconian laws do levy more time for cocaine and herione users and dealers than pot, the gov't system of ranking still goes unupdated.

same with the formula they use to determine how much money a family or individual needs to survive, but that's another topic.

the problem is, IMO, that when the gov't, regardless of who is in office, makes something illegal, then it is a long and arduous uphill battle to reverse that decision. The gov't, afterall, like most people doesn't like to admit when its wrong, and that is a non-partisan truth IMO.

Pot unfortunately made the worst possible enemy in the 1920's in William Randolph Hearst. He was heavily invested in the timber industry, but hemp was a cheaper product, so the major newspapers he owned all ran ridiculous stories about pot users killing people and going crazy in order to create a panic over something most did not know,

Now, pot has been lumped in with all the other illegal drugs, and stoners so negatively stereotyped into a walking joke, that the drug remains illegal. However, its becoming decriminalized in many areas and could be on the verge of full legalization in several states, namely CA.

With legalization comes better enforcement and regulation. Just as with alcohol there will be problems that arise from legalization, but also just as with alcohol the results of drugs being illegal are, IMO, far worse (drug cartels and associated violence, ridiculous numbers of prisoners which leads to economic strain as well as creating higher-class criminals and dealers from what they learn while incarcerated).

The concern for health doesn't hold validity, IMO, in a country with such an alarming obesity rate. If pot, which is less harmful than alcohol IMO, is illegal than high-fructose corn syrup should be as well. That crap is making people early on put a large foot and cankle into the grave.

[thebluefood]

Speaking as somebody that is in favor of decriminalization and reclassification as a health issue, this is naive. A person that is high on PCP is not cognitively capable of making rational choices, so to rely on criminal penalties as a deterrent, which requires rational thought, doesn't make any sense.

They had a choice. They took the drug. Whatever they do after that can be traced back to their decision to take PCP.

[Hubbs]

1) Pointing out that libertarianism is a really big tent. Including people who want to legalize drugs, eliminate welfare, eliminate all laws that apply to corporations, to outright anarchists.

The word "libertarian", to different people, means people who want one of the many variations of the "fair tax".

2) I think you'll find that, lately, if you call yourself "libertarian", a lot of folks are gonna say "one a them Ron Paul weirdos, huh?" (Because a lot of people had never heard the word until they heard it applied to Ron Paul.)

You think I'm unaware of these factors?

[Skin'Em84]

Speaking as somebody that is in favor of decriminalization and reclassification as a health issue, this is naive. A person that is high on PCP is not cognitively capable of making rational choices, so to rely on criminal penalties as a deterrent, which requires rational thought, doesn't make any sense.

If I get 'hammered drunk', black out, and get in a fight, do I get off because I am incapable of rational thought at the moment?

[DCsportsfan53]

They had a choice. They took the drug. Whatever they do after that can be traced back to their decision to take PCP.

I agree and the bottom line to me are these two things

1) There are plenty of people who can use drugs and do so responsibly, without hurting themselves or others. Obviously, plenty can't as well. In a free society, those that can should not be preemptively punished because of the bad that may or may not come from their decision. I hate that the conversation on this topic always seems to start with the ingrained premise that using drugs=ruining lives, period. It's not true of alcohol and the main difference between it and any other drug is simply perception

2) From a purely economic and societal standpoint, the criminality of drugs is a losing proposition. You don't decrease use so the problems remain, you don't receive any of the revenue from the sales, you enrich organized crime and you make otherwise law abiding, productive citizens into criminals along with the users who actually do do criminal things.

Bottom line, the reasons behind prohibition are emotional and moral, not rational and practical and that's no place for the government to be making our decisions for us.

[ACW]

I'm more of a mainstream reason.com/CATO libertarian; you've also got the anarcho-capitalists at lewrockwell.com

[thebluefood]

Yeah. I know a few anarcho-capitalist. That's too much for me, personally. As much as I distrust the government, I know its a necessary evil. There must be an entity to defend our God given rights to life, liberty, and property.

An anarcho-capitalist society is just that: anarchy.

[ACW]

Agreed. Hence why I'm more of a Cato/Reason libertarian.

[PeterMP]

If I get 'hammered drunk'' date=' black out, and get in a fight, do I get off because I am incapable of rational thought at the moment?[/quote']

techboy's point isn't that you get off. His point is the fact that you won't get off doesn't act as deterent.

To pretend like adicts aren't going to do things that are dangerous to others because they can go to jail is dumb.

[techboy]

They had a choice. They took the drug. Whatever they do after that can be traced back to their decision to take PCP.

That is correct, and irrelevant. You seem to want to think that stiff sentences will act as a deterrent to dangerous behavior while high on drugs.

It will not.

If you want to argue for legalization or decriminalization, fine, but don't advance an argument that is so clearly flawed.

If I get 'hammered drunk'' date=' black out, and get in a fight, do I get off because I am incapable of rational thought at the moment?[/quote']

No, you are prosecuted, generally.

Does that reduce the number of drunken bar fights in this country?

techboy's point isn't that you get off. His point is the fact that you won't get off doesn't act as deterent.

To pretend like adicts aren't going to do things that are dangerous to others because they can go to jail is dumb.

Precisely.

[DCsportsfan53]

That is correct, and irrelevant. You seem to want to think that stiff sentences will act as a deterrent to dangerous behavior while high on drugs.

It will not.

If you want to argue for legalization or decriminalization, fine, but don't advance an argument that is so clearly flawed.

No, you are prosecuted, generally.

Does that reduce the number of drunken bar fights in this country?

Precisely.

The problem with that argument is when you get in a bar fight you've violated someone else's rights, getting drunk in itself wasn't the problem. Do all people who go to bars get in drunken fights? Your argument is clearly flawed because it's based on the assumption that using the drugs will result in another sort of legal violation. That's simply not a given and therefore, as with getting drunk, the act of getting high itself should not be punishable because it does not inherently bring with it a violation of others. To me, that's simply unAmerican and is an infringement on personal liberty. How can you punish me because my choices may or may not result in harm to others?

[techboy]

? Your argument is clearly flawed because it's based on the assumption that using the drugs will result in another sort of legal violation.

Please quote the post where I made this argument.