Legalizing Drugs

[JackPhantasm]

Now this is not a debate about the whether or not this would happen.

I am interested in the question that no one asks. How? How the fuck would anyone even begin to do this?

Even if they have public support, conservative positions would no doubt filibust any major legislation concerning such a thing.

So, me not being an expert, I pose the question to you.

How would a politician, a lobbyist, or anyone for that manner go about actually getting this passed?

Do you think it's even possible? Do you think people are already doing this? (So, do you think there are already examples of this "how.")

Again please do not turn this into moral rights or wrongs. It is simply how. A to B. Where you do not concern yourself with the fact of what is A or what is B, but what is between the two.

[aninjaman]

Start of slow such as legalizing medical marijuana or simply legalizing small amounts of the drug.
Maybe you could make the penalty for having the drug so small cops won't bother to go throught the effort to arrest people with it.

[Pontificate]

Mayhap I'm simply naive but one would hope that, according to democratic principals, change will occur when the majority shift their views on the subject. If this will ever occur is doubtful but it could be achieved through education and genuine information so one must not lose all hope.

[JackPhantasm]

At 2/23/09 05:25 PM, Pontificate wrote: Mayhap I'm simply naive but one would hope that, according to democratic principals, change will occur when the majority shift their views on the subject. If this will ever occur is doubtful but it could be achieved through education and genuine information so one must not lose all hope.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I already put forth that you should assume majority public support is already on board. This is a topic about the purely political obstacles that would arise. And many conservatives are against it still. As they no doubt would be irl.

This could also pose another question, what state of finances would the country have to be in to resort to such a thing? Would the economy have any say in it at all? I would doubt it, but you never know.

[Ericho]

They legalized alcohol pretty easily back in 1933. I don't see why it would be so difficult now.

[Pontificate]

At 2/23/09 05:30 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Don't take this the wrong way, but I already put forth that you should assume majority public support is already on board. This is a topic about the purely political obstacles that would arise. And many conservatives are against it still. As they no doubt would be irl.

Perhaps you meant to but if you read your post that's not how you phrased it. The most given was, seperate from the question I might add, 'even if they had public support' which does not suggest that they have public support but rather it would be difficult even if they did; a rhetoric device to get across the extreme difficulty of the situation rather than explaining the hypthetical itself.

This could also pose another question, what state of finances would the country have to be in to resort to such a thing? Would the economy have any say in it at all? I would doubt it, but you never know.

I'd argue that if the economic times had anything to do with it it'd be during prosperous times rather than a desperate state as you imply; drug abuse (rather than use) traditionally soars during such times and with it the evils that brings giving a (false) negative impression. Additionally it is during economic downturns that, generally, the conservative mindset is most popular (whether any current political party is currently actually conservative is up for debate).

[Patton3]

Start off with marijuana and slowly move toward legalizing the hard stuff like cocaine ( although I would legalize coca leaves immediately, would really move the plan for the FTAA along). By legalizing it, leaving it's production to private enterprise, and taxing it, we can do so many good things.
-putting people to work
-increasing government revenue
-expand trade with South America
-put many drug cartels out of business

[Sexydude01]

At 2/23/09 06:21 PM, Pontificate wrote:

This could also pose another question, what state of finances would the country have to be in to resort to such a thing? Would the economy have any say in it at all? I would doubt it, but you never know.

I'd argue that if the economic times had anything to do with it it'd be during prosperous times rather than a desperate state as you imply; drug abuse (rather than use) traditionally soars during such times and with it the evils that brings giving a (false) negative impression. Additionally it is during economic downturns that, generally, the conservative mindset is most popular

I think the economy would have a role, but not a major one. I also believe that if it were to be legalized, it would be during a time of depresion, rather than prosperous times as stated above. The government would probably legalize it, but put tax on it, (kinda like cigarettes) so they could get more money during the hard times. Drug abuse soars during prosperous times, because there is more money to spend on the drugs, but usage wouldn't affect the timing of legalization. Actually, I believe there would be a lower chance of legalization during prosperous times, because they could get more money from fining the users.

But back to the original question, how would they do it? The same way they legalized alcahol and cigarettes. By just doing it. Especially if the majority of public opinion is in favour, it could be a good move to get elected for example. If everyone wants it legalized, and only one guy says he'll do it, that guy is more likely to win an election. It could also have other benefits, but that is just one example.

[SolInvictus]

i would have to say that the best way to get around to legalizing drugs (the seriously dangerous ones) is by having the government fund and control production and distribution.
addictive and dangerous drugs have no place being sold by ordinary companies who rely on profit i order to operate. the legalization of drugs is about removing profit from organized crime, not about letting people have it simply because we have no business telling them what and what not to do.
the drugs should be controlled but available in the same manner tobacco is and for relatively low prices (since many addicts do resort to less than legal activities to fund their needs). prevention and rehabilitation should also be a major part of this new drug program.

[Nitroglys]

The problem with this question is it should be immediately answered by the idea of democracy. If the public majority favors legalization, it should be so. This question, ironically, is an example of the fallacy of democracy. Im just saying, legislation (in a just and static government) should reflect the majority public opinion.

All that aside, It would be the simple bill-on-capital-hill approach. Nothing fancy like claiming medical reasons for any said drug. (ex.) Cocaine was used in eye surgery until 1999. Medical Marijuana has been becoming more and more of a joke. In fact my home state, Montana, is passing legislation that would highly decrease the medical requirements for a receiving marijuana license, and furthering the amount of plants from only 6 plants to 6 mature and 8 immature plants. Source. But if the public wanted it in mass this would be pointless. All that would need to be done is simply apply the bill, maybe it would get tweaked a bit in committee as everything does. But by and large it wouldn't be that hard of a task, IF the public was entirely behind it. But you have to remember, do you really want your drugs in the hands of the government???

In my opinion, every drug (except pot) had a chance at freedom and somehow fucked it up. And guess who exploited them to illegalization, the white man. Ya good ole whitey got so hung up on pushing them onto minorities, that when they finally saw the backlash of drug addiction they quickly severed the ties and left the minorities with the blame. Eventually the hatred for the addiction, and alot of racism, got the drug banned. So i still don't see how we would not instantly do the same with all drugs. Exploiting them for a great amount of money, and once the backlash comes; quickly get out of the game and point the blame. And i couldn't imagine the backlash since all of the drugs that have been invented since then. Then we'd just be back where we are now.

Oh yeah, pot totally got banned by religious reformist of the progressive era and the rope trust!!!!

[JackPhantasm]

Another question:

If genetic manipulation becomes common place in the future, do you think it will be seen as drug abuse, (one could alter their genetic code so that their body itself made them high if they so chose to, I suppose. Among other things.)

That is to say, what role do you think technology plays in the concept of what we deem legal and illegal in our society.

[JoS]

At 2/23/09 05:40 PM, Ericho wrote: They legalized alcohol pretty easily back in 1933. I don't see why it would be so difficult now.

Because it had only been illegal for a few years and the majority of the population wanted a drink. Its much more difficult to take something away from people once they have had it then to not give it to them in the first place.

Try taking a coffee away from your co-worker first thing in the morning and see what happens.

[Nitroglys]

At 2/23/09 11:33 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Another question:

If genetic manipulation becomes common place in the future, do you think it will be seen as drug abuse, (one could alter their genetic code so that their body itself made them high if they so chose to, I suppose. Among other things.)

That is to say, what role do you think technology plays in the concept of what we deem legal and illegal in our society.

No, most drugs are merely the methods used to induce the flow of brain juices like serotonin(This stuff is basically liquid conscientiousness) and dopamine. Our body naturally produces these things, but drugs enhance that. if you found a way to naturally induce it, it would not be drug abuse. there would require no drug to abuse.

[JackPhantasm]

So you're saying that if I genetically engineered myself to be stoned all the time, or better yet, so that I could fly with bird-like wings, it would be natural? (in your opinion)

[Nitroglys]

At 2/24/09 02:00 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: So you're saying that if I genetically engineered myself to be stoned all the time, or better yet, so that I could fly with bird-like wings, it would be natural? (in your opinion)

Natural in the sense that you are not dependent on any other thing than yourself to do such things. Like i said before, drugs are only the means to become "stoned." Furthermore, I am personal witness to placebo drugs having the same effect as normal drugs. Thus purposing that drugs are all in our heads, partially anyways. But identical legislation has been passed for "look-alike drugs." But if you could somehow induce such feelings without even a placebo you go above any law. For if someone was to pass legislation against your ways it would be discriminatory.

Another way to look at this is how our laws are articulated and used. There is no law that prohibits you from being high, unless you are behind a wheel but that is another story entirely. All of our laws are based around possession of the illicit substance. So therefore, if you could make a human able to feel "high" without a substance than there is no law prohibiting that.

Now i do not believe this to be natural. Genetic engineering, in my mind, is playing god and shouldn't be toyed with.

[Ericho]

At 2/24/09 01:10 AM, JoS wrote:

At 2/23/09 05:40 PM, Ericho wrote: They legalized alcohol pretty easily back in 1933. I don't see why it would be so difficult now.

Because it had only been illegal for a few years and the majority of the population wanted a drink. Its much more difficult to take something away from people once they have had it then to not give it to them in the first place.

Try taking a coffee away from your co-worker first thing in the morning and see what happens.

Oh yeah, good point. I wasn't thinking about the time intervals. Well, a lot of people do like weed at least.

[JackPhantasm]

Therein lies the dilemma, Nit, if we invent something that goes above and beyond the law, will the law change to be for or against it?

[blackattackbitch]

Well, I imagine that one way to do this is to start an organized movement in support of legalization of smaller, less-dangerous drugs. Build this coalition slowly through volunteer work and arduous campaigning until it engulfs a state. Then expand to neighboring states until you have a national movement. At the moment, congress dismisses the legalization call because there isn't an organized political movement, just a bunch of random guys saying "Legalize it!".

But once it becomes a major political movement, Congress will no longer be able to ignore it, and as long as this movement has clear ideas on how to best deal with the problem of cartels, addicts, and the works, then this could concievably pass.

Of course, this would take several years to happen, and right now there isn't anyone who really feels that strongly about it who's not high right now. (including me)

[Nitroglys]

At 2/24/09 08:14 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Therein lies the dilemma, Nit, if we invent something that goes above and beyond the law, will the law change to be for or against it?

Man, if you could make someone able to feel that way on demand, there would be no drug market what so ever. No need for such laws. Time would do away with the rest.

[Brick-top]

At 2/23/09 04:58 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: How would a politician, a lobbyist, or anyone for that manner go about actually getting this passed?

Find a practical useage for them with no other alternatives and if they are harmful.

[ThePretenders]

I would suggest gradual change, starting first with publishing counter studies to the 'cannabis causes schizophrenia' theory. Then decriminalise small amounts of cannabis for personal use and legalising medical marijuana provided if it's supplied by the government. I don't think allowing private distribution of marijuana would be a wise move by the government because the plant can be growed in most areas and the government wouldn't receive significant tax revenues from it.

As for more serious drugs like heroin the government could provide the drug to the patient, as long as he attend treatment programs. The public isn't sympathetic to hard drugs as much as soft drugs and even small steps towards legalisation would be thwarted by various public health agencies.

I also suggest that you study cases of minority influence in order to maximise your chances of drugs being legalised by trying to win over the majority of the public.

[JackPhantasm]

At 2/25/09 01:35 AM, Nitroglys wrote:
Man, if you could make someone able to feel that way on demand, there would be no drug market what so ever. No need for such laws. Time would do away with the rest.

Would the "genetic" material necessary for such feelings become "the drug."

Think, Bioshock. If it became apparent that genetic engineering was being abused on a personal level, how could the government not step in?

At 2/25/09 08:23 AM, Brick-top wrote:
Find a practical useage for them with no other alternatives and if they are harmful.

Entirely dependent on personal perception. Because what is harmful. Is a fish crawling out of the water and dying on the banks of a shore harmful? Or is it evolution?

[Nitroglys]

At 2/25/09 09:20 AM, JackPhantasm wrote:

Would the "genetic" material necessary for such feelings become "the drug."

In a technical sense, yes; but it could only be scene as the source of it and not a substance being abused. So without that connection to drug world it would be hard to pass any legislation against, basically, people. Could you imagine if a bill got passed banning an entire group of people, and not a faceless drug?

Think, Bioshock. If it became apparent that genetic engineering was being abused on a personal level, how could the government not step in?

They could regulate it to licensed professionals, but you have to remember this nation has borders. Other countries are even less likely to pass against something like this. People could simply leave on vacation and come back with the surgery already done. Then what do you do? It would be another pointless and un-fightable "Drug War." The only step latter to legislation against this would be a grass roots religious movement shunning the "surgery." Even that would be an underdog. Its just too hypothetical, taboo and controversial to get that detailed about it.

[JoS]

At 2/24/09 06:31 PM, Ericho wrote: Oh yeah, good point. I wasn't thinking about the time intervals. Well, a lot of people do like weed at least.

64% of Americans drink. 71% of them drink on a weekly basis.

9% of Americans smoke pot regularly. Even if you take into account the number of people who smoked pot at least once in their life you still are at 47%.

Try taking away something from 64% of people and you get a much stronger reaction then taking something away from 9% of people.

[Brick-top]

At 2/25/09 09:12 AM, ThePretenders wrote: I would suggest gradual change, starting first with publishing counter studies to the 'cannabis causes schizophrenia' theory.

A few studies suggest it only increases the severity of schizorphrenia and even if it did anyone with the condition would be on regulated medication especially if they cause harm to themselves or others.

[AntiangelicAngel]

Easy. Slip it in as an earmark in a military spending bill.

[ReiperX]

At 2/25/09 10:14 PM, JoS wrote:

At 2/24/09 06:31 PM, Ericho wrote: Oh yeah, good point. I wasn't thinking about the time intervals. Well, a lot of people do like weed at least.

64% of Americans drink. 71% of them drink on a weekly basis.

9% of Americans smoke pot regularly. Even if you take into account the number of people who smoked pot at least once in their life you still are at 47%.

Try taking away something from 64% of people and you get a much stronger reaction then taking something away from 9% of people.

I would have thought that pot usage was higher in the US, but then again 9% is for regular usage. I'd like to see the % of people that smoke pot on occasion but not regularly (like at concerts).

[Korriken]

At 2/26/09 01:22 AM, AntiangelicAngel wrote: Easy. Slip it in as an earmark in a military spending bill.

only a liberal in a heavily liberal state (california) could even ATTEMPT that without killing off his own career.

[JoS]

At 2/26/09 05:10 AM, ReiperX wrote: I would have thought that pot usage was higher in the US, but then again 9% is for regular usage. I'd like to see the % of people that smoke pot on occasion but not regularly (like at concerts).

Well since we do not know what their definition of regular is (daily use I read is only about 1% so regular use may be concerts and parties). The answer will fall somewhere between 9% and 47%.

[morefngdbs]

The 9% number of marijuanna users doesn't make sense.
If it was such a small amount of users, there would be no where near the amount of arrests etc. that we see daily, not too mention the hundreds of TONNES of the stuff they find & seize each year.

Anyway on topic, the best way to get pot out there is very simple.
Decriminalize it.
THat's it, that's all you would need to do.
The market for it will spring up all on its own.
You want to sell pot out of you local head shop, then you would have to charge tax on it, just like booze & tobacco & everything else.

I personally believe that decriminalizing pot would put the Mom & Pop system into effect, people would grow pot at home in their gardens, for their own use & to share/trade/sell to friends etc.

I really don't believe making cocaine, amphetamines, speed, heroine is a good idea. That stuff is so addictive people cannot function, the addiction is dibilitating & you don't live very long. Not too mention how strung out & homicidal some of these substances can cause people to behave.
Look around how many freaked out pot heads have you read about causing violence & mayhem ?
Look at the cocaine trade & tell me you don't hear of murders & cartels etc.
Look at opium..same problem. Ice, Ecstacy, speed...the stuff is all poison.

THis is another reason why I don't believe pot should even be compared to coke or other drugs, its more like caffine & tobacco, it effects you, but doesn't completely fuck you up .
Also pot is a good pain reliever, especially for long term pain where you would have to take strong prescription medication, & they (prescription drugs) can do much harm to your body & internal organs . It can also be addictive as other illegal drugs.