13 ms·

It feels like we're just about at the tipping point with cannabis. Once enough states in the US legalize it, the Feds will have to back down. The next step wil

by pstuart 13y ago

It feels like we're just about at the tipping point with cannabis. Once enough states in the US legalize it, the Feds will have to back down. The next step will be for people to wake up to the fact that harder drugs need to be legal too. Not so that more people can take them, but so we can have less crime and eliminate a key justification for the growing police state.

tga_d 13y ago
>Once enough states in the US legalize it, the Feds will have to back down. Or the federal government can just use it as a means to arrest pot-smoking undesirables at will? I don't really see how state laws come to a head with federal ones in this case - state police and lower will not enforce the federal laws, but FBI/DEA etc. can and probably will continue to. When it's a federal law granting someone a right (e.g. Roe v. Wade, the 14th amendment) then the federal government gets to go in and change state laws, but I've never heard of a case of federal laws changing because something it criminalizes was explicitly legalized in state laws. The most analogous historical precedent we have is prohibition, and iirc state laws didn't change until after the ratification of the 21st amendment, so that doesn't really apply. Unless you're saying that states would pass a constitutional amendment, which seems a little far fetched to me, though not impossible.
- cstejerean 13y ago
  Look at what is happening with gay marriage. It started changing at the state level, and once the public sentiment changed enough some of the previous federal restrictions are starting to fall as well. The same could (in theory) happen with marijuana if a critical mass of states begin to legalize.
  - ojbyrne 13y ago
    Excellent point. Consensus seems to come at the state level. Another example that seems to be happening lately is reforming of mandatory sentencing/3 strikes laws.
    - ISL 13y ago
      Some would argue that this is the point of federalism. Many small experiments carried out in parallel. The good ideas get adopted; the poor ones get dropped. It's a little like the MVP of government.
  - MichaelApproved 13y ago
    On a similar note but different law, some feel abortion was federally legalized before the states had a chance to fully settle it. Some say the previous abortion battle was never fully litigated and that's why there's a resurgence in anti-abortion laws. There's an advantage to allowing the states to hash out laws. It's frustrating because it's slow but it also gives people a chance to catch up with the progression.
- throwaway0094 13y ago
  Washington state actually (partially) legalized alcohol ahead of the Federal repeal of prohibition. So there's a kind of historical example.
  - mburns 13y ago
    Except prohibition was a constitutional amendment, and the Supremecy Clause of said Constitution says that an amendment take precedence over any state (or federal) law. Drug prohibition laws are federal, but not part of the constitution. Very different, legally speaking.
    - emiliobumachar 13y ago
      The difference you pointed out seems to make the precedent stronger, favoring the theory that states may just contradict the feds on the drug issue.
- jfoutz 13y ago
  It turns out it's really really expensive to enforce laws without the help of local law enforcement. One example (i think) is New York's repeal of prohibition.
- benihana 13y ago
  >I don't really see how state laws come to a head with federal ones in this case - state police and lower will not enforce the federal laws, but FBI/DEA etc. can and probably will continue to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_S...
- rayiner 13y ago
  > The most analogous historical precedent we have is prohibition, and iirc state laws didn't change until after the ratification of the 21st amendment, so that doesn't really apply By 1928, long before the repeal, 28 states had stopped funding prohibition enforcement: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/view-tenth/2013/dec/5/dec-5-1933-prohibition-repealed-after-state-resist http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/view-ten.... This effectively killed the law in those states that refused to enforce, because the federal government simply couldn't.
thenmar 13y ago
Obviously it's not that simple. We need massive reform in public education and affordability of healthcare (such as rehab facilities) before sane drug laws can possibly be implemented.
- pstuart 13y ago
  Actually we don't. Those would be nice to have, but the current drug policy has failed horribly. The meth "epidemic" is a perfect illustration of this: it's illegal but it hasn't stopped those that want to use it from using it.
  - thenmar 13y ago
    So your solution to the meth "epidemic" (scare quotes yours) is to... legalize meth?
    - Crito 13y ago
      That would solve most of the problems with meth. Quality control issues would be wiped out (and with them, many of the health and 'zoning' concerns). Stabilized price and availability would reduce many of the social concerns. The money formerly spent on pointless enforcement (lets face it, anybody who actually wants meth, has meth...) could instead be spent on actually helping people. With destigmatization, and eliminated potential consequences for not keeping a low profile, people who need help would be more inclined to seek help.
    - rhizome 13y ago
      Mine is. It's a medical problem, so allow it to be treated that way instead of throwing people in prison to rot over and over.
    - rosser 13y ago
      Drug abuse and addiction is a medical problem, not a criminal one. Let's try treating it like that, and see what happens.
    - pstuart 13y ago
AndrewKemendo 13y ago
Disagree. The US bases all of it's drug laws after the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (Which arguably was US engineered)[1]. So the federal government has an international treaty obligation to create and enforce drug laws. This is the major distinction between Cannabis prohibition and Alcohol prohibition. The latter could be turned off by the US government, the former requires snubbing the UN. There is always the unilateral option but the US wouldn't do that in this case because it would open the gates for every other country and the political interests are way too strong. Basically for the US to formally "legalize it" the rest of the world would have to as well, which is why Argentina and Uruguay are great examples of leadership when it comes to the Drug war; they are both UN members and implied signatories to the treaty. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_Drugs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_D...
- dbpatterson 13y ago
  Funny, the US seems perfectly willing to ignore the UN when it wants to (for example, environmental agreements). Not sure why this would necessarily be any different.
  - toomuchtodo 13y ago
    Or drone strikes against civilians?
- insickness 13y ago
  The US hardly ever takes its cues from the UN. It's fairly obvious that if the US wants to take action that's not sanctioned by the UN, it will find a way to take that action or get the UN to follow along. The difficult part here is the US changing it's internal stance on drugs. Compared to that, dealing with the UN is a piece of cake.
  - AndrewKemendo 13y ago
    That's also not true. The vast majority of UN treaties which the US is a signatory to are enforced by the US* on US citizens. If your claim is that we only enforce the ones we lead on then that is an impossible claim to prove - by design. 99% of UN treaties no one will ever know of, things related to fisheries, wildlife preservation, telecommunications, arms control etc... check it out for yourself on their database [1] There are of course major examples of unilateral actions on the part of the US to be sure, but those are outliers albeit extreme ones. [1] http://treaties.un.org/pages/ParticipationStatus.aspx http://treaties.un.org/pages/ParticipationStatus.aspx
spoiledtechie 13y ago
No offense, but your thoughts are ridiculous. Do you really want to see the country enter a shit hole? Ask those folks in Michigan on the other side of the 8 Mile if they feel drugs need to be legalized. If they feel that drugs didn't destroy their town and community. Look at your history and check your ideas. While I will defend the fact that you have ideas, you are grossly wrong.
- adventured 13y ago
  The country already entered a giant shit hole, decades ago, thanks to the war on drugs. Only Stalin's gulags held more in prison than the US has under the war on drugs. It's easily arguable that over the span of the program, we've outdone Stalin. Poverty, crime, cartels, destroyed families, destroyed lives, millions in prison: hundreds of billions of dollars spent without solving a single thing, without fixing anything, without ever reducing addiction or stopping drug use. America's cities became war zones when the war on drugs began. Tell Mexico's tens of thousands of innocent victims that have been slaughtered by our war, that it's all working out just swell.
  - thenmar 13y ago
    He's not supporting the drug war. He's saying that "legalize everything" is not a solution to what is a complicated problem that involves intersectionality.
    - Crito 13y ago
      Ending prohibition is not "the solution", it is an essential part of the solution.
- thenmar 13y ago
  As unpopular as this comment is, it needs to be said. Privileged, white, upper class libertarians simply don't care how drugs affect poor communities. The free market will sort everything out.
  - 13y ago
oakaz 13y ago
See the family photo on the right top: http://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&ALID=2K1HRGQK1_Q http://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&ALID=2K1... Should that be legal?
- Crito 13y ago
  Oh oh, I know! Can we help them by imprisoning them? I bet that will work great. Throwing the lower classes in jail for being uneducated and addicted does not solve anything. These people need help, not more prohibition. (And to be clear, it is overwhelmingly the lower classes that are targeted by prohibition. Prohibition is a powerful tool for class warfare)
  - oakaz 13y ago
    I'm curious why the option of blocking this business completely is not an option. US has the biggest army in the world, right? Doesn't it have a budget for occupying an entire country in somewhere far away? Then what does stop you from asking this simple question: why don't we fight for more life quality for everybody? Why doesn't Japan has this problem, have you ever asked this to yourself?
    - Crito 13y ago
      Are you suggesting that we enact martial law for the sake of prohibition? Are you insane?
    - oakaz 13y ago
      Yeah may be, or you have too much dead brain cells.
      - Crito 13y ago
        I know I shouldn't feed clear trolls, but what exactly are you suggesting then? Because it sure as hell sounds like you are just interested in putting the warfare into "class warfare". Prohibition does not work. The war on drugs does not work. Throwing more money at it will not work.
collyw 13y ago
Harder drugs are already legal - alcohol and tobacco. They were classified as more harmful in a study by professor David Nutt in the UK. He was then sacked as Government adviser.
- Nursie 13y ago
  He also said MDMA is safer than horse-riding. This annoyed the politicos no end, especially as a lot of them are from the horse-riding classes. It sounds like a flippant remark until you realise it was triggered by him knowing people who have died or become brain-damaged pursuing equestrian hobbies. He then did the statistical calculations and found out that the risks of horse-riding were higher but roughly comparable to those of MDMA use. People think MDMA is more dangerous mostly because of intense press coverage when someone does die from it. When was the last time you saw "girl dies in tragic polo accident" on the front page?
  - hrkristian 13y ago
    I understand the sentiment, but lets not get away from ourselves here, there is a huge difference between acquiring skills through physical activities and ingesting chemicals for a short period of bliss.
    - widdershins 13y ago
      Not in terms of risk there isn't, at least in this case.
    - Nursie 13y ago
      No, no there's not. Both are leisure activities some people choose to indulge in, and they have similar risk profiles. I'm not sure what you mean by 'getting away from ourselves', but considering one worthy and the other not is purely subjective and I would say prejudicial.
    - throwaway_yy2Di 13y ago
      Horse riding is a leisure activity. Any "skill" involved is objectively useless and unproductive. (Disclaimer: I've used horses recreationally. No, I did not inhale. I do not recommend inhaling. They smell bad.)
meerita 13y ago
Define harder drugs. There are many many prescribed drugs today from professionals you can buy.
meerita 13y ago
The difference between crack and marijuana to me is because crack was made to replace another drug by using and implementing a different making system. Tomorrow another drug with non-controlled chemicals will hit the street, and it will be there because it will be cheaper and easy to manufacture than cocaine or other sustitutes. Those hard drugs aren't designed to provide a new experience, they're designed to jump the system and to have maximum profit.

by pstuart 13y ago

tga_d 13y ago

>Once enough states in the US legalize it, the Feds will have to back down. Or the federal government can just use it as a means to arrest pot-smoking undesirables at will? I don't really see how state laws come to a head with federal ones in this case - state police and lower will not enforce the federal laws, but FBI/DEA etc. can and probably will continue to. When it's a federal law granting someone a right (e.g. Roe v. Wade, the 14th amendment) then the federal government gets to go in and change state laws, but I've never heard of a case of federal laws changing because something it criminalizes was explicitly legalized in state laws. The most analogous historical precedent we have is prohibition, and iirc state laws didn't change until after the ratification of the 21st amendment, so that doesn't really apply. Unless you're saying that states would pass a constitutional amendment, which seems a little far fetched to me, though not impossible.

cstejerean 13y ago
Look at what is happening with gay marriage. It started changing at the state level, and once the public sentiment changed enough some of the previous federal restrictions are starting to fall as well. The same could (in theory) happen with marijuana if a critical mass of states begin to legalize.
- ojbyrne 13y ago
  Excellent point. Consensus seems to come at the state level. Another example that seems to be happening lately is reforming of mandatory sentencing/3 strikes laws.
  - ISL 13y ago
    Some would argue that this is the point of federalism. Many small experiments carried out in parallel. The good ideas get adopted; the poor ones get dropped. It's a little like the MVP of government.
- MichaelApproved 13y ago
  On a similar note but different law, some feel abortion was federally legalized before the states had a chance to fully settle it. Some say the previous abortion battle was never fully litigated and that's why there's a resurgence in anti-abortion laws. There's an advantage to allowing the states to hash out laws. It's frustrating because it's slow but it also gives people a chance to catch up with the progression.
throwaway0094 13y ago
Washington state actually (partially) legalized alcohol ahead of the Federal repeal of prohibition. So there's a kind of historical example.
- mburns 13y ago
  Except prohibition was a constitutional amendment, and the Supremecy Clause of said Constitution says that an amendment take precedence over any state (or federal) law. Drug prohibition laws are federal, but not part of the constitution. Very different, legally speaking.
  - emiliobumachar 13y ago
    The difference you pointed out seems to make the precedent stronger, favoring the theory that states may just contradict the feds on the drug issue.
jfoutz 13y ago
It turns out it's really really expensive to enforce laws without the help of local law enforcement. One example (i think) is New York's repeal of prohibition.
benihana 13y ago
>I don't really see how state laws come to a head with federal ones in this case - state police and lower will not enforce the federal laws, but FBI/DEA etc. can and probably will continue to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_S...
rayiner 13y ago
> The most analogous historical precedent we have is prohibition, and iirc state laws didn't change until after the ratification of the 21st amendment, so that doesn't really apply By 1928, long before the repeal, 28 states had stopped funding prohibition enforcement: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/view-tenth/2013/dec/5/dec-5-1933-prohibition-repealed-after-state-resist http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/view-ten.... This effectively killed the law in those states that refused to enforce, because the federal government simply couldn't.

thenmar 13y ago

Obviously it's not that simple. We need massive reform in public education and affordability of healthcare (such as rehab facilities) before sane drug laws can possibly be implemented.

pstuart 13y ago
Actually we don't. Those would be nice to have, but the current drug policy has failed horribly. The meth "epidemic" is a perfect illustration of this: it's illegal but it hasn't stopped those that want to use it from using it.
- thenmar 13y ago
  So your solution to the meth "epidemic" (scare quotes yours) is to... legalize meth?
  - Crito 13y ago
    That would solve most of the problems with meth. Quality control issues would be wiped out (and with them, many of the health and 'zoning' concerns). Stabilized price and availability would reduce many of the social concerns. The money formerly spent on pointless enforcement (lets face it, anybody who actually wants meth, has meth...) could instead be spent on actually helping people. With destigmatization, and eliminated potential consequences for not keeping a low profile, people who need help would be more inclined to seek help.
  - rhizome 13y ago
    Mine is. It's a medical problem, so allow it to be treated that way instead of throwing people in prison to rot over and over.
  - rosser 13y ago
    Drug abuse and addiction is a medical problem, not a criminal one. Let's try treating it like that, and see what happens.
  - pstuart 13y ago

AndrewKemendo 13y ago

Disagree. The US bases all of it's drug laws after the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (Which arguably was US engineered)[1]. So the federal government has an international treaty obligation to create and enforce drug laws. This is the major distinction between Cannabis prohibition and Alcohol prohibition. The latter could be turned off by the US government, the former requires snubbing the UN. There is always the unilateral option but the US wouldn't do that in this case because it would open the gates for every other country and the political interests are way too strong. Basically for the US to formally "legalize it" the rest of the world would have to as well, which is why Argentina and Uruguay are great examples of leadership when it comes to the Drug war; they are both UN members and implied signatories to the treaty. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_Drugs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_D...

dbpatterson 13y ago
Funny, the US seems perfectly willing to ignore the UN when it wants to (for example, environmental agreements). Not sure why this would necessarily be any different.
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  Or drone strikes against civilians?
insickness 13y ago
The US hardly ever takes its cues from the UN. It's fairly obvious that if the US wants to take action that's not sanctioned by the UN, it will find a way to take that action or get the UN to follow along. The difficult part here is the US changing it's internal stance on drugs. Compared to that, dealing with the UN is a piece of cake.
- AndrewKemendo 13y ago
  That's also not true. The vast majority of UN treaties which the US is a signatory to are enforced by the US* on US citizens. If your claim is that we only enforce the ones we lead on then that is an impossible claim to prove - by design. 99% of UN treaties no one will ever know of, things related to fisheries, wildlife preservation, telecommunications, arms control etc... check it out for yourself on their database [1] There are of course major examples of unilateral actions on the part of the US to be sure, but those are outliers albeit extreme ones. [1] http://treaties.un.org/pages/ParticipationStatus.aspx http://treaties.un.org/pages/ParticipationStatus.aspx

spoiledtechie 13y ago

No offense, but your thoughts are ridiculous. Do you really want to see the country enter a shit hole? Ask those folks in Michigan on the other side of the 8 Mile if they feel drugs need to be legalized. If they feel that drugs didn't destroy their town and community. Look at your history and check your ideas. While I will defend the fact that you have ideas, you are grossly wrong.

adventured 13y ago
The country already entered a giant shit hole, decades ago, thanks to the war on drugs. Only Stalin's gulags held more in prison than the US has under the war on drugs. It's easily arguable that over the span of the program, we've outdone Stalin. Poverty, crime, cartels, destroyed families, destroyed lives, millions in prison: hundreds of billions of dollars spent without solving a single thing, without fixing anything, without ever reducing addiction or stopping drug use. America's cities became war zones when the war on drugs began. Tell Mexico's tens of thousands of innocent victims that have been slaughtered by our war, that it's all working out just swell.
- thenmar 13y ago
  He's not supporting the drug war. He's saying that "legalize everything" is not a solution to what is a complicated problem that involves intersectionality.
  - Crito 13y ago
    Ending prohibition is not "the solution", it is an essential part of the solution.
thenmar 13y ago
As unpopular as this comment is, it needs to be said. Privileged, white, upper class libertarians simply don't care how drugs affect poor communities. The free market will sort everything out.
- 13y ago

oakaz 13y ago

See the family photo on the right top: http://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&ALID=2K1HRGQK1_Q http://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&ALID=2K1... Should that be legal?

Crito 13y ago
Oh oh, I know! Can we help them by imprisoning them? I bet that will work great. Throwing the lower classes in jail for being uneducated and addicted does not solve anything. These people need help, not more prohibition. (And to be clear, it is overwhelmingly the lower classes that are targeted by prohibition. Prohibition is a powerful tool for class warfare)
- oakaz 13y ago
  I'm curious why the option of blocking this business completely is not an option. US has the biggest army in the world, right? Doesn't it have a budget for occupying an entire country in somewhere far away? Then what does stop you from asking this simple question: why don't we fight for more life quality for everybody? Why doesn't Japan has this problem, have you ever asked this to yourself?
  - Crito 13y ago
    Are you suggesting that we enact martial law for the sake of prohibition? Are you insane?
  - oakaz 13y ago
    Yeah may be, or you have too much dead brain cells.
    - Crito 13y ago
      I know I shouldn't feed clear trolls, but what exactly are you suggesting then? Because it sure as hell sounds like you are just interested in putting the warfare into "class warfare". Prohibition does not work. The war on drugs does not work. Throwing more money at it will not work.

collyw 13y ago

Harder drugs are already legal - alcohol and tobacco. They were classified as more harmful in a study by professor David Nutt in the UK. He was then sacked as Government adviser.

Nursie 13y ago
He also said MDMA is safer than horse-riding. This annoyed the politicos no end, especially as a lot of them are from the horse-riding classes. It sounds like a flippant remark until you realise it was triggered by him knowing people who have died or become brain-damaged pursuing equestrian hobbies. He then did the statistical calculations and found out that the risks of horse-riding were higher but roughly comparable to those of MDMA use. People think MDMA is more dangerous mostly because of intense press coverage when someone does die from it. When was the last time you saw "girl dies in tragic polo accident" on the front page?
- hrkristian 13y ago
  I understand the sentiment, but lets not get away from ourselves here, there is a huge difference between acquiring skills through physical activities and ingesting chemicals for a short period of bliss.
  - widdershins 13y ago
    Not in terms of risk there isn't, at least in this case.
  - Nursie 13y ago
    No, no there's not. Both are leisure activities some people choose to indulge in, and they have similar risk profiles. I'm not sure what you mean by 'getting away from ourselves', but considering one worthy and the other not is purely subjective and I would say prejudicial.
  - throwaway_yy2Di 13y ago
    Horse riding is a leisure activity. Any "skill" involved is objectively useless and unproductive. (Disclaimer: I've used horses recreationally. No, I did not inhale. I do not recommend inhaling. They smell bad.)

meerita 13y ago

Define harder drugs. There are many many prescribed drugs today from professionals you can buy.

meerita 13y ago

The difference between crack and marijuana to me is because crack was made to replace another drug by using and implementing a different making system. Tomorrow another drug with non-controlled chemicals will hit the street, and it will be there because it will be cheaper and easy to manufacture than cocaine or other sustitutes. Those hard drugs aren't designed to provide a new experience, they're designed to jump the system and to have maximum profit.