7 ms·

Does the findings in this article surprise anyone? No? Good. I'm not a hippy, but let's get over this b.s. "War on Drugs" and begin to use our common sense when

Does the findings in this article surprise anyone? No? Good. I'm not a hippy, but let's get over this b.s. "War on Drugs" and begin to use our common sense when dealing with social issues and impeding on natural rights.

philk 17y ago
Unfortunately common sense is often electoral suicide.
- protomyth 17y ago
  Isn't calling something "common sense" when it isn't the common belief kinda against the definition?
  - jrockway 16y ago
    People are weird. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_the_Plumber http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_the_Plumber
- bOR_ 17y ago
  Start educating your social circle then, they are part of the electorate. At least, that is my view. I don't like things being unmovable :).
huherto 17y ago
I don't support the use of drugs either. But we are living very difficult times and a lot of truly innocent people are suffering. We need to find a better way, but the first step is to have a better understanding of the problem and that is why I think these articles are good. I'm writing this from one of the most violent places in Mexico.
CWuestefeld 17y ago
While I strongly support your conclusion in this case, I'm infuriated every time I hear a call for a policy change based on "common sense". As far as I can tell, this is just a euphemism for "I am unable to articulate a rational basis for my position", or even "I refuse to let the actual evidence interfere with my position".
- mey 17y ago
  Here is my understanding on why decriminalization of drugs is beneficial. First, legitimate competition from suppliers would drive down costs, forcing high risk/high reward illegal operations from other countries out of the market. How can a Mexican drug cartel compete against grand-ma and her backyard? Secondly, what is the violent side of drug activitey? Again my understanding is that it's mostly revolved around protecting/hiding illegal production, and moving the drugs to a dealer. If you eliminate that supply chain, that vector of violent activity would be cut off. Thirdly, why do people use drugs. I see three distinct reasons, recreational, escapism, addiction. The first two can easily lead to the third. The second two could be helped/resolved through rehabilitation programs, or solving the cause to need of escapism. (8-14% unemployment can't be helping). The first case, there isn't much a reason to have otherwise productive members of society be in jail. I don't believe that drugs are marked as illegal because of fear from pharmacy companies, or from paper/cotton companies. I believe it is that same reaction as prohibition, blue collar laws. Bad stuff can happen, bad stuff does happen, and government officials wish to prevent that from happening, on the immediate time line, without generally considering that the long term effects can be disastrous. One additional thing. As part of decriminalization and in addition to rehabilitation programs, the government should be watching new recreational drugs entering the market, and doing studies to determine the health risks / benefits of these fringe drugs. I seems that like sniffing glue, kids seem to assume that just because a drug has not been classified as an illegal substance, it somehow isn't dangerous, when the case is really that the government is rather slow to address anything of relevance in a timely fashion. (Except steroid abuse in MLB, and communists)
  - protomyth 17y ago
    Some of the current drugs out there need to stay illegal. Not because they get you high, but because they are toxic. I do believe, if some form of decriminalization happens, we really need to up the penalty for crimes committed while under the influence. Maybe assume premeditation. I should point out I believe the same thing about alcohol. Killing someone while drunk should be considered premeditated.
    - 17y ago
nerfhammer 17y ago
I would take the article a lot more seriously if it wasn't based entirely on a study by the Cato Institute.
- steveklabnik 17y ago
  I voted you back up from 0. It's true, even though it's not incorrect BECAUSE it's from Cato, it deserves extra scrutiny since the study comes from someone with an agenda.
shelly 16y ago
Agreed. The US spends something like $10 billion a year on marijuana prohibition, and what do we have to show for it?
- chbarts 16y ago
  A few happy prison owners, a few happy cartel kings, and a lot of happy DEA agents and police officers who will never be out of work.
  - dagw 16y ago
    And a lot of voters who feel safer believing their elected officials are doing everything they can to combat this so called evil.
w00pla 16y ago
> when dealing with social issues and impeding on natural rights. Maybe. I am a firm believer that your rights stop only where my rights start. I would not be against drug use by other individuals (even if I personally think it is a stupid idea). Unfortunately, drug addicts do their best to make their problems your problems (i.e. they externalise the consequences of their actions). This is manifested in such things as free health care and constant welfare and unemployment benefits. So, yeah, if you want complete individual freedom, it should be coupled with individual consequences.
- Devilboy 16y ago
  So what's your stance on alcohol and nicotine?

philk 17y ago

Unfortunately common sense is often electoral suicide.

protomyth 17y ago
Isn't calling something "common sense" when it isn't the common belief kinda against the definition?
- jrockway 16y ago
  People are weird. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_the_Plumber http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_the_Plumber
bOR_ 17y ago
Start educating your social circle then, they are part of the electorate. At least, that is my view. I don't like things being unmovable :).

huherto 17y ago

I don't support the use of drugs either. But we are living very difficult times and a lot of truly innocent people are suffering. We need to find a better way, but the first step is to have a better understanding of the problem and that is why I think these articles are good. I'm writing this from one of the most violent places in Mexico.

CWuestefeld 17y ago

While I strongly support your conclusion in this case, I'm infuriated every time I hear a call for a policy change based on "common sense". As far as I can tell, this is just a euphemism for "I am unable to articulate a rational basis for my position", or even "I refuse to let the actual evidence interfere with my position".

mey 17y ago
Here is my understanding on why decriminalization of drugs is beneficial. First, legitimate competition from suppliers would drive down costs, forcing high risk/high reward illegal operations from other countries out of the market. How can a Mexican drug cartel compete against grand-ma and her backyard? Secondly, what is the violent side of drug activitey? Again my understanding is that it's mostly revolved around protecting/hiding illegal production, and moving the drugs to a dealer. If you eliminate that supply chain, that vector of violent activity would be cut off. Thirdly, why do people use drugs. I see three distinct reasons, recreational, escapism, addiction. The first two can easily lead to the third. The second two could be helped/resolved through rehabilitation programs, or solving the cause to need of escapism. (8-14% unemployment can't be helping). The first case, there isn't much a reason to have otherwise productive members of society be in jail. I don't believe that drugs are marked as illegal because of fear from pharmacy companies, or from paper/cotton companies. I believe it is that same reaction as prohibition, blue collar laws. Bad stuff can happen, bad stuff does happen, and government officials wish to prevent that from happening, on the immediate time line, without generally considering that the long term effects can be disastrous. One additional thing. As part of decriminalization and in addition to rehabilitation programs, the government should be watching new recreational drugs entering the market, and doing studies to determine the health risks / benefits of these fringe drugs. I seems that like sniffing glue, kids seem to assume that just because a drug has not been classified as an illegal substance, it somehow isn't dangerous, when the case is really that the government is rather slow to address anything of relevance in a timely fashion. (Except steroid abuse in MLB, and communists)
- protomyth 17y ago
  Some of the current drugs out there need to stay illegal. Not because they get you high, but because they are toxic. I do believe, if some form of decriminalization happens, we really need to up the penalty for crimes committed while under the influence. Maybe assume premeditation. I should point out I believe the same thing about alcohol. Killing someone while drunk should be considered premeditated.
  - 17y ago

nerfhammer 17y ago

I would take the article a lot more seriously if it wasn't based entirely on a study by the Cato Institute.

steveklabnik 17y ago
I voted you back up from 0. It's true, even though it's not incorrect BECAUSE it's from Cato, it deserves extra scrutiny since the study comes from someone with an agenda.

shelly 16y ago

Agreed. The US spends something like $10 billion a year on marijuana prohibition, and what do we have to show for it?

chbarts 16y ago
A few happy prison owners, a few happy cartel kings, and a lot of happy DEA agents and police officers who will never be out of work.
- dagw 16y ago
  And a lot of voters who feel safer believing their elected officials are doing everything they can to combat this so called evil.

w00pla 16y ago

> when dealing with social issues and impeding on natural rights. Maybe. I am a firm believer that your rights stop only where my rights start. I would not be against drug use by other individuals (even if I personally think it is a stupid idea). Unfortunately, drug addicts do their best to make their problems your problems (i.e. they externalise the consequences of their actions). This is manifested in such things as free health care and constant welfare and unemployment benefits. So, yeah, if you want complete individual freedom, it should be coupled with individual consequences.

Devilboy 16y ago
So what's your stance on alcohol and nicotine?