4 ms·
this is sad.... and also a result of a war on drugs. Decriminalization of drug use would actually allow people to get help without losing their job/life/everyth
by mv 14y ago
this is sad.... and also a result of a war on drugs. Decriminalization of drug use would actually allow people to get help without losing their job/life/everything. There is no reason for this senseless madness.
End the War on drugs. Portugal hasn't fallen apart because they decriminalized:
https://www.google.com/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=5&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=portugal+drug https://www.google.com/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=5&source...
... Why should we be any different? Clearly empowering cartels and criminalizing addicts is a problem. Help the addicted!
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- mtgx 14y agoI'm surprised more people in Washington don't see this as a parallel to the rising influence of the mob when alcohol prohibition happened. There are probably no wiser words than "those who don't learn from history, are doomed to repeat it".
- einhverfr 14y agoThere's a problem though. If you legalize marijuana and get rid of the cartels, then what? Are you just going to make that giant industry aroudn drug enforcement go away?
- InclinedPlane 14y agoYes. You must. It won't be easy, but it's a necessity.
- einhverfr 14y agoThe point is, there is organizational inertia regarding lobbying etc which more or less guarantees that Congress cannot act on this. The best thing is to force a Constitutional crisis by states refusing to cooperate with federal drug enforcement. Given the recent health care reform case, the federal government has far fewer options than they did before the ruling on the Medicaid expansion issue there. They certainly cannot cut off all funding, and certainly cannot even cut off a large amount of funding.
- praptak 14y agoC'mon, they are basically police. Couldn't they just go fight some non-victimless crimes?
- smacktoward 14y agoNo, you just take the people who used to enforce prohibition and make them collectors of taxes on the newly-legal substance. This would not be a new concept. For most of the period alcohol prohibition in the US, for instance, Federal enforcement of the prohibition laws was the responsibility of the IRS and the Treasury Department (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Prohibition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Prohibition), because of those agencies' long experience as collectors of alcohol taxes. (When you hear hillbillies in old movies complain about "revenuers," they're complaining about Treasury agents who shut down their untaxed backwoods stills.) And the Prohibition Bureau's successor agency, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, was part of the Treasury from the repeal of Prohibition until the big reorganization after September 11.
- euroclydon 14y agoWow, I've always thought that if drugs were decriminalized, you'd have to continue to let employeers have testing and drug-free workplace policies as part of the new laws. To do otherwise is really asking for this never to happen.
- pyre 14y agoWhy though? If it's about on-the-job performance, alcohol can affect that just as much, and we don't test for alcohol use outside of work.