Here's a real simple test for whether or not a (currently illegal) drug should be legal- if it:

(a) eats into your face, teeth or skin to the point that people don't want to look at you; or

(b) makes you spend every f'ing dime you have, and then try and steal from friends, relatives and strangers, then it should be illegal and sellers/manufacturers/importers of it need to be punished with extreme prejudice.

Meth, crack, blow, oxycontin, heroin and other similar drugs meet this test. Pot doesn't.

Come on, government dudes, leave the stoners alone. Go after the nut cases that make the rest of us worry about someone breaking in and stealing all our Oreos, Twinkies, Fiddle Faddle, TVs and Floyd CDs.

Hell, you could even tax the crap out of dope. Since the price would drop so much, we wouldn't care. You could even make it illegal to import, but legal to grow in the US. Buy American, man.

Ummm, Dogstar, just so you know, oxycontin is a prescription painkiller. I don't think the FDA approves flesh-eating drugs.

If you legalized drugs, you'd lose a big chunk of one whole generation to them. Then all the kids who grew up watching that happen would learn by observation that they didn't want that kind of life, and we'd go back to about the level of drug abuse we have now (and we had before the Harrison Narcotics Act of...ummm...I'm thinking 1914, because I'm too lazy to Google, when it was a merry free for all and everything was legal). So, it would restore the proper relationship of adults to their government, but at a big initial cost in human life. I like those odds, but I don't think the politician's been born who would agree.

My personal crusade is to see most prescription drugs de-prescriptionized. It's ridiculous that I have to grovel to some pompous phony in a white coat for toe fungus medicine when I'm smart enough to comprehend my own Medline searches, and WAY more motivated to get it right. The fact that some people are stupid and will injure themselves is a given. Stupid is dangerous, and all the law in the world won't fix that.

It is obvious that Mr. Tierney has not bothered visiting my neck of the woods. I live in the center of a three-county triangle that helps my state lead the country in meth lab busts. He has probably never seen the blackened eyes, hollowed-out faces and near-anorexic bodies of the addicts. I have, because they are all around me.

He's probably never had a neighbor threaten to kill him for suggesting that he set up a fenceline incorrectly because he was high on meth (and manufacturing, as we later learned). My in-laws have.

He's probably never been overcome by meth lab fumes billowing from a respectable-looking, middle class house less than a block from the local police station, as has my sister-in-law.

He probably doesn't have a cousin-in-law (for want of a better term) whose two children are being raised by her sisters and mother because she's too stoned to see straight most of the time.

He probably doesn't frequent a seemingly normal hair stylist who it turns out is having her three children raised by her parents because she shacks up with meth manufacturers to get freebies. Those three children live next door to me and the oldest is on the verge of following in his mother's addictive footsteps.

All this in a small town right out of a Rockwell drawing. And my experience is limited compared to most folks in our town because I commute to a large metro area to work. Mr. Tierney needs to get out of his office.

My experience is much like Tongueboy's, though possibly at even closer quarters, hence my concern.

There wll always be glaciers, but we ought to divert the ones that are crushing our nieghborhood.

Another opinion on this.

Good stuff.

jen

You know, tongue-boy, that what you describe doesn't make it sound like the war on drugs is too damned effective. If I were to make the case that the prohibition is the problem, I would start with your community.

Take those addicts and send them to a guy in a white coat for their fix, at state expense if need be, and get them help. Remove the profit motive and take the glamour and romance out of the Drug Outlaw lifestyle. You know what I'm talking about.

Legalization doesn't have to mean a free-for-all. It can mean getting this business out of the hands of dirtbags.

"It can mean getting this business out of the hands of dirtbags."

And into the hands of the government. Great.

"Still, I think if you weighed all the plusses of our anti-drug efforts (reducing drug use, chiefly) and all of the minuses (too many to count-- invasions of privacy, cops being used for secondary-priority tasks, costs, jailing many people who are either just hurting themselves or providing the means for others to voluntary hurt themselves, etc.) the balance sheet would come out pretty close to zero at this point."

Except that the "pluses" mainly involve preventing idiots from hurting themselves and the minuses mainly involve innocent people getting hurt, killed, or screwed over.

It's not right to get innocent people killed, or take away any of their rights, to stop idiots from hurting themselves. I don't give a damn about the number of idiots in question.

The libertarian let-them-poison-themselves argument has a certain intellectual appeal for me. But real life tends to be more complicated. Take a look at this article about the meth orphans.

Thanks for the artical link Michael. I'm living with the residue of this mess every day too. My wife and I have fostered 31 children; all but one were drug related (the other was violence for what it's worth), and adopted two drug affected kids. I am also a community mental health counselor in my spare time. Anyone who thinks even pot use is a victimless crime should do my job for a few days.

Parents who smoke pot are emotionally useless to their children (assuming they even have contact with them - same result) and the emotional and social problems they experience are numerous and severe. The net affect is that they will usually end up being as big a burden on society as their parents. They certainly soak up the lion's share of my professional services.

As for Meth, I don't even know where to start. Parents who are addicted to this stuff have almost no chance of recovering to the point that they can regain custody of their kids, and there is no way in hell the kids should be exposed to either the substance itself or the coercive parenting that results from it. THIS SHIT CAUSES PERMENANT BRAIN DAMAGE FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! Once done, you are permenantly psychotic with no possibility of recovery and little if any relief from medications. Bin Laden himself couldn't have come up with a better weapon against America than Meth; it is destroying out country from the inside out.

I am completely fed up with the libertarian "see no evil" stupidity on this issue. Want to learn the truth first hand? Go sign up to be a foster parent, and let me know in about a year what you think about "recreational" drugs. Appologism for drug abuse is contributing to the monumental suffering that street drugs are doing to children and communities all over this country. Don't care? Fine, but for God's sake, don't excuse it or believe morons like Tierney who think we should let truck drivers use it to keep them safely in their own lane.

There's a "meth crisis" because liberals like pot and coke (which are more expensive).

Scot, I'm unaware of a mainstream libertarian argument (hang on, is there such a thing as a mainstream libertarian argument?) that drugs should be legalized because they're harmless. Well, maybe pot. But even the most libertarianish libertarian acknowledges that some drugs are quite dangerous.

The libertarian argument is that prohibition doesn't work. And your anecdotes only serve to prove the point. Lots and lots of people are using drugs despite the fact they are illegal. Now what? Make them double super illegal?

Point taken Weasel, and I appologise if I stepped on any libertarian toes with my remarks (assuming that toes can even BE libertarian.) I don't necessisarily dissagree wtih your point about prohibition. Certainly the prohibition on alcohol earlier in the last century gave us organized crime and the distribution networks to create the drug trade we had later on.

My issue is with those who would legalize it because it is individual choice and it only hurts the user; the so called "victimless crime." I'm sorry again, but there is simply no such thing. Anyone who uses drugs is at the very least supporting the trade, if not actively screwing up their own lives and dragging down their children and families with them. Anyone with an addict in their family has had their turn cleaning up the messes, loaning the money, rearing the children, etc. Prohibition doesn't create those problems, the drugs do. Prohibition may not be the answer either, but the lack of it won't heal the burden on families and social services; just prisons.

I have yet to find an argument against decriminalizing marijuana that outweighs the potential good it would do. But ONLY pot, not drugs. ;-) Alcohol is a lot worse than pot, and if it were regulated, you wouldn't see it in schools like it is now.

And btw, Dogstar; PLEASE don't classify oxycontin with meth, smack, etc.--if you must, you should classify alcohol in that group too. At LEAST oxycontin serves a purpose. I know; I was on it legally and safely (at high doses, no less) for two years, with honestly no side effects. Without it, I wouldn't have been able to move. And I didn't have trouble getting off it, either. All anyone ever hears about is the idiots who abuse it, but there are FAR more people whose lives are destroyed by alcohol than prescription, FDA-approved oxycontin will ever do.

Some of the arguments from conservatives on drugs resemble liberal social engineering arguments for substances taht are considered more mundane, but have an arguably much larger practical effect on society.

Why no arguing against banning booze, fast food and cigarettes, given the "complicated" issues surrounding heart disease, cancer, drunk driving fatalities, etc?

I'm not saying that all drugs should be legalized in a big free-for-all, but contextually, tossing people in the pokey for weed is fairly ridiculous. So is looking down one's nose at them like their scum (which some conservatives find fairly reasonable).

tsk tsk S. Weasel, you forgot to THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!

The war on drugs is nothing more than a full employment act for law enforcement and prison personnel. If you want to see what's wrong with the war on drugs, watch the episode of COPS where they run a sting on drive-up weed buyers. The whole operation was designed not to "fight drugs" but to confiscate cars for auction. The dollar amount of the weed was $30. The lesson here is to always take public transportation when buying drugs.

Ok, oxy's OFF the list.

And with regards to TheDude, Google for images of meth, crack and heroin addicts. You'll see more rotted teeth and flesh than you can stand.

My problem with the anti-legalization argument is that it is always based on the proponent's concern for "others" who will run amok if they have legal access to drugs. I always ask them, "well, will you become addicted and allow your life to waste away if drugs are legalized?" They always snort in derision, but continue worrying about those "others." [This is an adults-only argument, by the way. Children should most definitely be denied access to alcohol and drugs.]

Thanks, worked with addicts, seen it in person, don't need any vivid reminders..

First of all, it's pretty hard these days to get sent to prison for weed in most places., especially heavily populated ones. There is simply not enough room in the jails. Simple possession of marijuana is a misdemeanor offense that usually results in probation. But I can still listen to the argument for pot decriminalization. Drugs like meth and heroin, however, you would have to be out of your skull to let shit like that become legal. These drugs are poison that turn people into pitiful, soulless zombies or psychotics who would kill their own mothers to score. The drug war ain't perfect, but the alternative is no alternative.

That's right, Dawg. I'm familiar with bible-totin' rural jurisdictions where simple possession doesn't draw a sentence of jail time. In fact, nowhere in the country are people being hurled into the pokey for months over a couple of joints--maybe on a third offense, a few days. It's NORML propaganda that they are.

If you've ever had a family member messed up on meth you would have a different opinion. People like JOHN TIERNEY are more full of Sh*t than a Christmas goose. What an above-it-all, elitist A-hole.

I'm with Dogstar 100%. Pot just can't be lumped in with Crank or PCP (Remember PCP?) or Heroin. I grew up in a very seedy enviornment, and saw these things with my own eyes.

My libertarian leanings have always tended towards legalization across the board. If you want to fucking rot your teeth and pick scabs til your face is raw...go ahead. Just don't try to steal my shit in order to pay for it.

But this is where pure libertarian dogma is simply incongruent with reality. If we lived in a utopian universe it would all work out. But we don't. Tweakers commit crimes. Junkies have addicted babies. If and when our society evolves enough to deal with those issues constructively, then go for it.

But not today. Our society simply does not need any more license for Vice. Sad but true.

I've seen friends wither away. Three guys I went to school with contacted HIV through shared needles. One was even an Eagle Scout. I've been in a room with a junkie so strung out he was shooting up Everclear just for the rush. It's ugly shit that you really can't imagine unless you've seen it with your own eyes.

But don't try and convince me that the average suburban stoner with 2.3 kids, a mortgage and a Labrador is in that same group. Just not the same. Not by a long shot.

Guess I should clarify that I agree with the posters that say pot can be abused. Parents who would rather get stoned than spend quality time with their kiddos are scum. But, I've got a feeling that if they didn't have weed, they would be getting soused on beer, etc. and STILL ignoring the kids. Some people are just plain stupid about parenting.

And in my little legalized pot fantasy, it would be sold in prerolled cigarette packs, over the counter, in liquor store-type establishments, with an 18 and above age limit.

And since the smell of burnt weed is so obvious, it should be pretty easy for cops to bust under-age kids, just like they bust them for beer on the breath.

And I agree with that point as well. But ANYTHING can be abused. There are straight-laced dad's that spend entire weekends on the sorry fat asses watching football instead of interacting with their kids. Or hanging out at a sports bar. Or playing golf. You name it. If you don't have the wish to be involved with your kids, you will find an alternative. It's all about judgement. And a quick bowl before a four-hour session of hotwheels and little-golden-books on a rainy day is hardly what I'd call being a bad father.

That Jeff Harrell guy is on crack if he thinks that smoking pot is remotely equivalent to doing meth.

I hate to like point out the obvious here, and probably bring down a shit storm, but when did it become ok to go through life altered? Seriously. This whole pot will not harm you nonsense is just that, nonsense.

If you are chronically ill and pot makes your life more livable, then by all means you should be able to light up. Making nice little packs of Maui Wowie with pictures of Cheech and Chong on the label should at least include the warning that prolonged use of enclosed joints will render you like these two, with an arrow pointing at the two comedians.

Also a question for you guys that are for legalizing, how to suppose to stop folks from growing it at home? I mean you cannot tax what you cannot control. Would it still be illegal to sell without a license from the ATF&P? Wasn't it made illegal to grow tobacco in an effort to protect that industy eons ago? is that what would have to happen? Though tobacco isn't quite as easy to grow or hide as say a greenhouse full of Pot plants so that probably wouldn't even work.

I think it just easier to say legalize it but in the end would end up being a bigger pain in the ass and just generate more money for the substance abuse Industry that is already raping folks to get them clean and sober.

Also, how long will it take for the Insurance companies to stop paying for treatment and pot related illness? Sounds like making a situation worse not better.

I think as a mom and someone who has watched people throw their lives away on this shit I just have a hard time with legalizing drugs. Hollywood has already glamorized it, now legalize it? Cigarettes are not to be sold to minors and they still smoke. It will not be any different with pot or whatever.

Just my opinion, for what its worth.

-jen

Well, you know: the ATF manages to make a fine pest of itself with respect to firearms purchases. I suspect they'd find a way to keep themselves busy without outright busting people just for possession. Paperwork, snooping around. You know.

Trust bureaucrats to be bureaucrats.

Spongeworthy, you comments deserve a response.

You know, tongue-boy, that what you describe doesn't make it sound like the war on drugs is too damned effective. If I were to make the case that the prohibition is the problem, I would start with your community.

I would add that prohibiting driving while intoxicated, manslaughter, and battery has not been terribly effective either, yet our society somehow has gotten this silly notion that they should be prohibited. And I really don't want to hear the tired argument that drugs are different because their use only affects the person ingesting them. That's just BS, as I illustrated earlier.

Take those addicts and send them to a guy in a white coat for their fix, at state expense if need be, and get them help. Remove the profit motive and take the glamour and romance out of the Drug Outlaw lifestyle. You know what I'm talking about.

I think Scot was more eloquent than I could ever be about the pitfalls of a treat-instead-of-prohibit strategy. How do you propose to take the profit motive out of meth manufacturing and distribution? It seems like one method is to apprehend and incarcerate those who manufacture meth; sitting in a jail cell is not exactly the path to obscene profits. Additionally, taking the glamour and romance out of meth manufacturing is exactly what a felony conviction is designed to accomplish.

Legalization doesn't have to mean a free-for-all. It can mean getting this business out of the hands of dirtbags.

And in the hands of salesmen and marketers. I'm sorry, but there are practical limits to libertarianism and this issue happens to be one of those for me. Any system of government or law that allows or encourages companies to manufacture and distribute a product which, in a single dose, can destroy significant dopamine reserves in certain sections of the brain and induce addiction, which contains such inocuous ingredients as Drano, pseuodoephynephrine, anhydrous ammonia, and leaves behind five to six pounds of highly toxic waste for every pound produced will get a fight from me.

If I decide to smoke marijuana, it's a bad decision. You have every right to look down on me for making a bad decision like that. But you have absolutely no right to kidnap me for it. No right whatsoever.

That is what society has done. They have told us that if we smoke marijuana, we may be imprisoned. Society is using a very serious threat to discourage me from making my own mistakes, and society has no right to do so.

I'm not a libertarian, and I don't think pot is harmless. But discouraging me through violent threats to destroy my life is seriously messed up.

http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/toc.htm

That's a link to a pretty interesting read which covers pretty much all the arguments presented here. (And to get a much better look into the REAL libertarian viewpoint, not some of the crazy "Screw the Innocent' arguments some folks claim is the libertarian stance.)

Jennifer - Since when ? Well shit, for at least a couple millenium if I have my history straight. Drinking and getting drunk has been around longer than any of the great empires of history.

You may be a tea totaller, but thousands of years of civilization has kinda, sorta, put the stamp of approval on going through life "altered".

Oh, and in case you were misinformed, not everyone on earth who has ever partaken of some mind altering substance, be it caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, marijuana, LSD, cocaine, or ecstacy does it regularly. Certainly regularly enough to consider themselves "going through life altered".

Generalize much ?