Comments on: Legalize All Drugs Now!

By: Mexico’s President Talks Drugs, Arizona Immigration Law, and Violence | Denver Marijuana

Fri, 21 May 2010 14:18:21 +0000

[...] Calls for Restoring Assault Weapons Ban – Nytimes.comLegalize All Drugs Now – Debatethisbook.com Stoner [...]

By: Steven Strang

Steven Strang — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:16:07 +0000

Before addressing drugs, I’d like to point out the danger inherent in: “President Obama recently announced that his administration would bring a halt to “preemption”, a practice that used federal regulations to override state laws on the environment, health, public safety and other issues.” More times than not, state laws are repressive, ill-conceived, short-sighted, and prejudiced–we’d still have slavery if federal laws did not preempt state laws. Tossing the baby (the good that federal laws do in trumping state laws) out with the bath water (federal laws mistaken about drugs) is not a good plan. Change the federal law–don’t return to states’ rights.
That being said, I agree that federal laws about drugs have been a collosal mistake. The whole concept of a “war” on anything except another coutnry makes no sense–war on poverty, war on terrorism, war on drugs–all are emotional appeals that make no logical sense. As others above have pointed out, laws that don’t work and have no chance of ever working need to be re-examined and tossed out.

By: Amy

Amy — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:30:17 +0000

I agree on many of the points made, but I see a very long road between now and legalizing all drugs. Marijuana may be in the near future, but the “hard” drugs have far fewer reasons to be legalized. Sure, there would be a financial benefit, but by saying it is ok, does that encourage young kids to just try heroin once…and become addicted for life? This is less likely to happen with alcohol and even marijuana. Good read, however. I will be happy to read more.

By: Mikaila Arthur

Mikaila Arthur — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:40:21 +0000

We like to say that the legal system is based on natural law–on some underlying conception of morals. It is, of course, but the question is WHOSE morals. Drug illegalization is a great example of this, particularly given the history of marijuana, opiates, and crack in the U.S. in terms of race-based eradication efforts. Reading the history of opiate exclusion and the racist attitudes towards Chinese immigrants at the turn of the 1900s can be particularly enlightening in thinking about these issues, since the stereotypes of opium dens as places where Chinese immigrants would seduce white daughters into prostitution are so different from the stereotypes we tend to hold today.

Legal scholars know that deterrence does not work unless people believe the thing in question is wrong, punishment is severe, and the offender is almost certain to be caught. These are not and cannot be true of drug prohibitions (even in Singapore, where drug users may be executed, people still use drugs).

But as we consider moving in the other direction, toward legalization, the questions are not always so easy. Do we legalize and regulate the substances, like alcohol and tobacco? Will they then be marketed to children? Do we decriminalize a la Portugal, and increase dollars spent on treatment while prohibiting marketing and losing the potential tax revenues? Do we take one approach for marijuana and another for heroin–and then how do we decide which drugs go in which categories? We know illegal doesn’t work, but what will?

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:11:17 +0000

I’ve never thought that legalizing marijuana was a vague, “hippy” notion designed to turn the world on. There is economical merit to making marijuana as “mainstream” as alcohol, and it seems that this excerpt from “High” reveals that point. Similarly, I think Timothy Leary’s heart was in the right place regarding LSD, but his methods were far too extreme for society to take seriously. Had he approached the subject with some…restraint, perhaps his message wouldn’t have been so shocking then and now.

It seems that O’Dea’s approach to his subject matter is realistic – alomost anthropological – akin to Burroughs’ approach to heroin in “Junky”. We can only see where this debate will go in the future.

By: Amber McCurdy

Amber McCurdy — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 18:24:00 +0000

“Does that mean our morals have a price? Or does that mean it was not really a moral issue in the first place, and our financial distress simply pulled that beard from it?”
Aren’t most of our “moral” issues just really ways we SHOULD act based on comon sense, gone way into the “dark side” of taboo and becoming codified into our society?
Don’t all of our morals eventually break down in the face of enough money? Look at how acceptable it is for Rush Limbaugh to be an addict, and yet there he is, day in day out, still ranting. I know an addict, addicted to pain killers like Mr. Limbaugh, but he is not accepted in society. He is an “addict”, and Mr. Limbaugh a tragedy. Yet, they both made the same decisions, both ended up in the same “dis-ease”.

Let’s start throwing money at things that IMPROVE society, like legalizing a drug that helps so many, and could help so many more. Prescription marijuana, its better than valium, and we STILL take that by the dixie-cupful. That way, HEMP can be legal, and can be used in so many ways. By demonizing marijuana, hemp too was demonized by association. Money did that, cotton money to name but one.
Let’s also stop overcrowding our prison system with drug offenders. Imagine the money we’d SAVE by simply stopping that, on top of what we could make as we taxed the sale of said drugs.

By: Jess

Jess — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 20:34:11 +0000

I see the point O’Dea is making here, and I have to note that it makes perfect sense.

Alcohol is an excellent example. It’s a harmful drug to those who abuse it (publicly, privately..). At the same time, it’s culturally acceptable and legal to use alcohol at one’s own discretion (assuming legal age). This industry makes tons of money, even when, and perhaps especially when our country is in recession.

Making drugs legal, taxable, controllable, is def something that needs to be given more thought.

“War on drugs” is a war on some people, and these people are going to buy and sell them whether it’s legal or not.

By: Bryce

Bryce — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:02:22 +0000

This sounds like a fantastically interesting read- one which I hope to pick up.

I think your point on the fluidity between the EFFECTS of drugs (legal or illegal) is especially salient as we approach H1N1 vaccine time. While doing field work in Europe, numerous articles suggested potential negative effects (as far as neurological damage). If true, then we can say that the illegal-ness of drugs is not based on health issues.