7 ms·

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

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.
  - mey 17y ago
    A lot of things people ingest are toxic, the trick I feel is making that well known and public knowledge, not necessarily illegal. For example, the surgeon generals warning on the pack of a cigarette, or the chemical warnings on a bottle of bleach, I feel are a better way to approach the problem. Part of my attitude comes from growing up in New Hampshire. For example, if you are a consenting adult, and you are only harming yourself, then that is your prerogative. Why you don't need to wear a seatbelt if you are over 18, or a motorcycle helmet. The risk you are taking on is not against other people, like drunk driving, but mostly only to your own health. Now an effective part of that comes down to knowledge, but certain ideas can be ingrained in a society over time. Like put on a seatbelt or be thrown through the windshield like a crash test dummy.
    - rick888 17y ago
      "A lot of things people ingest are toxic, the trick I feel is making that well known and public knowledge, not necessarily illegal. For example, the surgeon generals warning on the pack of a cigarette, or the chemical warnings on a bottle of bleach, I feel are a better way to approach the problem." This still won't stop people from trying to sue companies that try to sell them something that knowingly harms them. Hell, even fast food restaurant chains have been sued in the US for making someone fat. My problem is that the same people that want drugs legalized then want the tax payers to pay for an addict to get clean. Most people aren't born addicted to drugs. You have to make the decision to start taking drugs. I have no problem allowing anyone to have the freedom to put whatever the hell the want into their body as long as it doesn't affect other people. This includes leaching off of the government. This may seem harsh. But if you take the risk you also need to be prepared for the consequences (good or bad).
jrockway 17y ago
Surely locking someone in a cage for possessing a non-toxic plant goes against "common sense".
- roc 17y ago
  The proper argument is the American ideal of personal liberty. Our rights are only supposed to be curtailed in situations where the expression of one's rights negative impacts another. The plant being non-toxic, this does not happen. An appeal to an undefined "common sense" is unnecessary.
  - jacobolus 17y ago
    > American ideal of personal liberty Community control has been an ideal just as long. Go re-read your Tocqueville.
  - netcan 17y ago
    Ethics, the kind deferred to in politics, usually boils down to some vague, undefined but shared (common) something. The American liberty is also essentially a common American sensibility. Very few of those who defer to it could articulate one of the (usually pretty technical) liberal arguments.
- lukifer 17y ago
  Common sense is what tells you that the world is flat. In this context (and in most others), what we actually should be thinking of is the scientific method, with a little basic human decency.
- nandemo 17y ago
  What do you mean, "non-toxic"? Hemp is toxic. But then, so is alcohol, tobacco and other legal drugs.
  - jawngee 17y ago
    Citation on marijuana's toxicity? I guess everything is toxic to a certain degree, even water is toxic if you swallow enough of it.

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.
- mey 17y ago
  A lot of things people ingest are toxic, the trick I feel is making that well known and public knowledge, not necessarily illegal. For example, the surgeon generals warning on the pack of a cigarette, or the chemical warnings on a bottle of bleach, I feel are a better way to approach the problem. Part of my attitude comes from growing up in New Hampshire. For example, if you are a consenting adult, and you are only harming yourself, then that is your prerogative. Why you don't need to wear a seatbelt if you are over 18, or a motorcycle helmet. The risk you are taking on is not against other people, like drunk driving, but mostly only to your own health. Now an effective part of that comes down to knowledge, but certain ideas can be ingrained in a society over time. Like put on a seatbelt or be thrown through the windshield like a crash test dummy.
  - rick888 17y ago
    "A lot of things people ingest are toxic, the trick I feel is making that well known and public knowledge, not necessarily illegal. For example, the surgeon generals warning on the pack of a cigarette, or the chemical warnings on a bottle of bleach, I feel are a better way to approach the problem." This still won't stop people from trying to sue companies that try to sell them something that knowingly harms them. Hell, even fast food restaurant chains have been sued in the US for making someone fat. My problem is that the same people that want drugs legalized then want the tax payers to pay for an addict to get clean. Most people aren't born addicted to drugs. You have to make the decision to start taking drugs. I have no problem allowing anyone to have the freedom to put whatever the hell the want into their body as long as it doesn't affect other people. This includes leaching off of the government. This may seem harsh. But if you take the risk you also need to be prepared for the consequences (good or bad).

jrockway 17y ago

Surely locking someone in a cage for possessing a non-toxic plant goes against "common sense".

roc 17y ago
The proper argument is the American ideal of personal liberty. Our rights are only supposed to be curtailed in situations where the expression of one's rights negative impacts another. The plant being non-toxic, this does not happen. An appeal to an undefined "common sense" is unnecessary.
- jacobolus 17y ago
  > American ideal of personal liberty Community control has been an ideal just as long. Go re-read your Tocqueville.
- netcan 17y ago
  Ethics, the kind deferred to in politics, usually boils down to some vague, undefined but shared (common) something. The American liberty is also essentially a common American sensibility. Very few of those who defer to it could articulate one of the (usually pretty technical) liberal arguments.
lukifer 17y ago
Common sense is what tells you that the world is flat. In this context (and in most others), what we actually should be thinking of is the scientific method, with a little basic human decency.
nandemo 17y ago
What do you mean, "non-toxic"? Hemp is toxic. But then, so is alcohol, tobacco and other legal drugs.
- jawngee 17y ago
  Citation on marijuana's toxicity? I guess everything is toxic to a certain degree, even water is toxic if you swallow enough of it.