4 ms·

In response to negativity around the drug war, I'd say that for the first time in a long time we should be very optimistic about the future of legalization in t

In response to negativity around the drug war, I'd say that for the first time in a long time we should be very optimistic about the future of legalization in the United States. Washington, Oregon, Alaska, Colorado, and D.C. now have full legalization in legislation. Florida got nearly 58% on medical marijuana vote that unfortunately needed 60%. 23 states have legalized medical marijuana. (Up to date map: https://localtvwtvr.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/marijuana-ma.. https://localtvwtvr.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/marijuana-ma.... ) More importantly, criminalization is moving towards citations across the nation. We are getting rid of draconian mandatory sentencing for drug crimes. This is all very good news, and while it's slow, remember that the government moves slow, but as long as it keeps moving in the right direction, we can look forward to a time in which full legalization of all scheduled drugs may eventually become a reality. So instead of being defeatist or spouting sarcasm, step up and support the people making this happen. It's not just public opinion changing, it's SSDP, MPP, NORML putting money, time, and effort into lobbying for these changes. That's against stiff competition from lobbying being done by prescription drug manufacturers (http://www.thenation.com/article/180493/anti-pot-lobbys-big-... http://www.thenation.com/article/180493/anti-pot-lobbys-big-...) Now is a time of pendulum swing in the right direction, and we should be keeping the momentum going behind it.

meowface 12y ago
Legalization of marijuana within the next 30 years is inevitable for most states. But legalization of heroin, crack, cocaine, meth? That's really a pipe dream. It might happen some day, but that'd be more on the range of 70-100 years if I were to guess, and perhaps a lot longer. Marijuana is a significant portion of sales on all of the dark markets, but other more addictive narcotics still constitute the majority compared to marijuana.
puredemo 12y ago
Sure, for marijuana. But the ethical imperative to allow people full control over what substances go into their own bodies seems to be as ignored as ever. Simple example: I'm not legally allowed to control the levels of testosterone in my own body. That seems absurd. #MyBodyMyChoice
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  Because we balance it against other ethical imperatives, such as impact to the people around the user, and safety/health. Many drugs have indirect impacts. Jacking up on testosterone, for example, makes you aggressive and violent. Many people want the government to look out for them. For example, the regulatory rigor around new medicine. Many proponents of complete legalization of all substances argue that responsible users have no impact on others. However while this may be true of responsible users, empirical evidence suggests vanishingly few users are responsible, which is the major problem. You have to weight the infringement on the rights & freedoms of innocent bystanders suffering at the hands of the abusers, against the infringement of rights from outlawing the drug. Somebody must loose; which should it be? Maybe the rational conclusion is still, "make it legal", but this is the real question. It is not as simple as "my body, my choice".
  - malka 12y ago
    About 23% of the people that use heroin becomes addicts[0]. Most users are responsible, but since they are responsible, they won't impact you, or anyone, and you'll never hear of them [0] http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/heroin http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/heroin
    - sliverstorm 12y ago
      I would argue that avoiding physical dependence (the 23% number) is not the bar for "responsible use".
      - malka 12y ago
        behavior that have a negative impact on other people, such as stealing for drugs, comes from the physical addiction. And, I took the most addictive drug to illustrate this. What is the net negative impact that MDMA users, for instance, have on other people ? Other than being nice to the point of being annoying, but, well, if we talk about this kind of negative impact, what are we waiting to make ethanol illegal ?
jeangenie 12y ago
I think the term "legalization" needs to be qualified. The situation is moving towards extremely limited government-controlled privatization. Citizens can buy recreational pot in an approved store but it's still illegal to grow a single plant in your own back yard. I'm almost positive someone will be absolutely indignant at my temerity for suggesting the above, but it's worth thinking about what real legalization would look like.
- jfoutz 12y ago
  It'll never be like growing tomatoes. It'll probably end up like alcohol. You can't distill at home either. Well, you can, but it's illegal.
  - jonnybgood 12y ago
    It's actually legal to brew alcohol for personal use. No selling, however.
    - rogerhoward 12y ago
      The parent specifically referred to distilling (making spirits) at home, which is in fact illegal in the US without a license. Laws vary in other countries, though this seems pretty common (with the exception of NZ, apparently). http://www.ttb.gov/spirits/faq.shtml http://www.ttb.gov/spirits/faq.shtml This is different from brewing beer, cider and winemaking, which are quite differently regulated.
- jonnybgood 12y ago
  > Citizens can buy recreational pot in an approved store but it's still illegal to grow a single plant in your own back yard. One of the primary selling points of legalization was to increase state revenue. This is how the state collects. Personally, I'm not at all bothered by this.

meowface 12y ago

Legalization of marijuana within the next 30 years is inevitable for most states. But legalization of heroin, crack, cocaine, meth? That's really a pipe dream. It might happen some day, but that'd be more on the range of 70-100 years if I were to guess, and perhaps a lot longer. Marijuana is a significant portion of sales on all of the dark markets, but other more addictive narcotics still constitute the majority compared to marijuana.

puredemo 12y ago

Sure, for marijuana. But the ethical imperative to allow people full control over what substances go into their own bodies seems to be as ignored as ever. Simple example: I'm not legally allowed to control the levels of testosterone in my own body. That seems absurd. #MyBodyMyChoice

sliverstorm 12y ago
Because we balance it against other ethical imperatives, such as impact to the people around the user, and safety/health. Many drugs have indirect impacts. Jacking up on testosterone, for example, makes you aggressive and violent. Many people want the government to look out for them. For example, the regulatory rigor around new medicine. Many proponents of complete legalization of all substances argue that responsible users have no impact on others. However while this may be true of responsible users, empirical evidence suggests vanishingly few users are responsible, which is the major problem. You have to weight the infringement on the rights & freedoms of innocent bystanders suffering at the hands of the abusers, against the infringement of rights from outlawing the drug. Somebody must loose; which should it be? Maybe the rational conclusion is still, "make it legal", but this is the real question. It is not as simple as "my body, my choice".
- malka 12y ago
  About 23% of the people that use heroin becomes addicts[0]. Most users are responsible, but since they are responsible, they won't impact you, or anyone, and you'll never hear of them [0] http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/heroin http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/heroin
  - sliverstorm 12y ago
    I would argue that avoiding physical dependence (the 23% number) is not the bar for "responsible use".
    - malka 12y ago
      behavior that have a negative impact on other people, such as stealing for drugs, comes from the physical addiction. And, I took the most addictive drug to illustrate this. What is the net negative impact that MDMA users, for instance, have on other people ? Other than being nice to the point of being annoying, but, well, if we talk about this kind of negative impact, what are we waiting to make ethanol illegal ?

jeangenie 12y ago

I think the term "legalization" needs to be qualified. The situation is moving towards extremely limited government-controlled privatization. Citizens can buy recreational pot in an approved store but it's still illegal to grow a single plant in your own back yard. I'm almost positive someone will be absolutely indignant at my temerity for suggesting the above, but it's worth thinking about what real legalization would look like.

jfoutz 12y ago
It'll never be like growing tomatoes. It'll probably end up like alcohol. You can't distill at home either. Well, you can, but it's illegal.
- jonnybgood 12y ago
  It's actually legal to brew alcohol for personal use. No selling, however.
  - rogerhoward 12y ago
    The parent specifically referred to distilling (making spirits) at home, which is in fact illegal in the US without a license. Laws vary in other countries, though this seems pretty common (with the exception of NZ, apparently). http://www.ttb.gov/spirits/faq.shtml http://www.ttb.gov/spirits/faq.shtml This is different from brewing beer, cider and winemaking, which are quite differently regulated.
jonnybgood 12y ago
> Citizens can buy recreational pot in an approved store but it's still illegal to grow a single plant in your own back yard. One of the primary selling points of legalization was to increase state revenue. This is how the state collects. Personally, I'm not at all bothered by this.