Legalize all drugs?

[johnster999]

I'd like to see the money we are spending fighting the drug war put to more productive use. Honestly, I don't mind if someone else wants to use drugs; that's their business. However,

Testing and approval:

Does legalization mean currently illegal drugs will be freely sold without regulation or standards? Currently, the FDA must approve all drugs for sale on the US market. This is supposed to ensure the drugs are reasonably safe. Will the same approval process apply to cocaine, heroin, meth, etc? I doubt these drugs would pass the current approval process due to their inherent qualities. Does this mean the overall drug approval process must be changed (special exceptions for some drugs) or abandoned altogether? Won't the pharmaceutical companies sue (successfully) if their drugs are regulated more strictly than former street drugs?

Taxation, licensing, pricing:

Some have suggested that legalized drugs will be available for taxation and that money can be used for education and rehab programs. How do we keep the prices low enough that people don't bypass the taxed drugs and buy untaxed drugs on the street anyway? High taxes lead to high drug prices and most addicts have little money of their own. They may still have to steal to get money for the now legal drugs. Also, how do we decide who can sell these drugs and where? Over the counter or by prescription only? Licensing? More gov't bureaucracy?

Healthcare:

Since hard drug use will be legal that means it will be generally covered by health insurance, medicare, ss, etc. Some insurance companies will put exclusions in their policies, but they’ll get sued. Won't that increase costs overall?

I look forward to your comments.

999

 

[Firethorn]

Testing and approval:

This will be done on a 'best effort' basis. Their certification will be completely different from the medical drugs. IE if you want your new drug to be covered by insurance you have to get approval from the FDA for a medical drug, not a recreational drug. As a recreational drug, the FDA simply assures that the drug is pure, cut with medically safe materials, of a consistant quality and quantity. Oh, and the sellers would be immune from abuses of the product, as long as the product met the standards. As in they can still get in trouble for selling a tainted product, but if your cocaine habit blows out your heart, it's not their fault.

Taxation, licensing, pricing:

The profit margin on currently illegal drugs is huge, and that's despite all the expenses imposed by the drug war. As one of the ones who argues it'd be a good thing to use taxes on the drugs to fund (youth)prevention and treatment centers, I admit that it would be a balancing act.

Preventing illegal drug dealers would be fairly easy, remember that we aren't stopping law enforcement against illegal dealers. Bayer & Osco don't have to worry too much about the law busting them, don't have to smuggle goods, can depend on the legal system, sell 'safe' drugs, etc. It's just like the illegal alchohol & tobacco business. You don't get much moonshining anymore because it's cheaper & easier to buy it from the legal store. The only 'illegal' tobacco is generally in states that have raised the taxes to ridiculous levels, so you get some people buying the legal product in one state and importing it into another. It's the same thing that happens in border towns when sales tax and such make the prices of goods different.

As for being prescription or over the counter, I imagine a sales model something like tobacco products, but in a pharmacy. IE you have to go to a druggist and ask, so it's not quite OTC, reducing theft and underage people getting it, but still not requiring a prescription. And if the user turns to crime to buy his legal dope, well, we treat him just like the crook who steals to get money for that big-screen TV, DVD player, or for whatever reason. We throw him in jail. Where he gets to dry out...

Healthcare:

Well, they're legally able to discriminate based on tobacco use. So I don't see it being a big deal. Think about it, the healthcare industry ends up taking care of them anyways, we might as well get it out in the open, so they end up getting early treatment rather than ending up in the (expensive) emergency room. Sure, it might increase costs some for the users, who end up having to buy coke-snorters insurance or something. But how would that affect those of us who don't use drugs?

 

[RealGun]

Why do libertarians need to keep harping on this point? Without a complete background, it just makes them sound kooky...a bunch of dope heads. They need to get a foot in the door with a more mainstream pretense before disclosing what they are really all about.

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

I thought equal rights and limited government were ,"mainstream" ?

Without getting back into the other threads on this topic, if my body does not belong to me then whose is it ? If the problem is the quality of the product then adress that issue(like alcohol regulations) and be done with it! Morality should not be dictated to the people from anyone in the government......You can't force someone to be civil.......

What you like I might not like and that is what the Constitution is about....You can't force me to be like you....(you meaning anyone not state not federal)! Governments job is to regulate behavior in public and that is it ! How does private drug use(like alcohol) hurt someone else? It doesn't and that is the bottom line.....As has been stated the FDA(Federal Drug Advocates) would still have to ok the amounts/purity/quality of whatever drug it was, just like alcohol, caffiene and cigarettes....If it could not be made to CURRENTLY ACCEPTABLE addictive or harmful standards, then it would be disqualified.....

So put that in your pipe and smoke it... I couldn't resist and meant only in jest,NOI no offense intended.....

 

[RealGun]

I thought equal rights and limited government were ,"mainstream" ?

No, they aren't. That's the point.

 

[fjolnirsson]

They need to get a foot in the door with a more mainstream pretense before disclosing what they are really all about.

Well, since what Libertarians are "all about" is freedom, I don't see how they will find a "mainstream pretense".
I do think the party should concentrate its efforts in areas other than drug legalization and the presidency, in order to build a larger base.

 

[wasrjoe]

Without getting back into the other threads on this topic, if my body does not belong to me then whose is it ? If the problem is the quality of the product then adress that issue(like alcohol regulations) and be done with it! Morality should not be dictated to the people from anyone in the government......You can't force someone to be civil.......

This is an argument that, while it may or may not be valid, ignores a core belief of many who are against the legalization of all drugs. Ignoring people who wish drugs to remain illegal for purely moral* reasons, there is still the argument that drugs drastically change the person who uses them. PCP is a good example. Enragement, inability to feel pain, and general psychotic behavior are often associated with it. By taking this drug, many feel you are endangering everyone around you. To them, it is not an issue of simple "free choice" like, perhaps, marijuana. It's a matter of turning yourself into a real life Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde.

I, personally, am for the legalization of marijuana. I am much more skeptical about the legalization of all drugs, although I admit I am no expert on the human brain and how these chemicals interact with it.

*I am aware that all laws are based on morals, but I am speaking of moral reasons in the sense that an action is wrong whether or not it hurts someone other than yourself.

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

I also said that if a drug could not be made to what are CURRENTLY ACCEPTABLE addictive or harmful standards then it would remain effectively banned,since nothing is actually banned(not allowed ever) just severly limited(opiates are given in the hospital and to the military completely legally)

I guess some people don't mind being hypocrites, in allowing alcohol but not allowing things that are no more harmful and possibly safer when used in moderation.....The problem ,as always is you can not hold the individual up to be the public prototype......Meaning one person will not react the same as another so laws need to keep that in mind adn not punish all for the irresponsible acts of a few ....Especially when there is no proof that this position is not self defeating and or detrimental to individual liberty

 

[wasrjoe]

I misunderstood you. I thought you were only talking about the purity of the substance, not its inherent qualities. My apologies.

However, I have to ask, which drugs (besides marijuana) would fit into "CURRENTLY ACCEPTABLE addictive or harmful standards" that are currently illegal for recreational use? With that provision in your post, I don't see the current laws changing very much.

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

I honostly don't really know.....

I guess pot and mushrooms since they grow....but of the manufactured stuff, I thought it was a matter of quality/quantity vs terminal effects on brain tissue just like with alcohol.....If it could not be manufactured to a degree that is user friendly(I know oxymoron) like alcohol/cigarettes its a no go.Remember cocaine and all other drugs(insert "banned" item of choice) really aren't banned at all,they are simply for government use only......

 

[Pward]

Quote: How does private drug use(like alcohol) hurt someone else?

DUI

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

You just failed the I.Q test.....

Private use hurts no one.....If I drink and go out into public before sober that is no longer private use.... PS You also just said that it is illegal to drink and drive so how do we regulate that action more again You see by including the word "private" I have limited circumstances to non-public areas such as private property.....If some one is going to drink and drive they are going to do it....same with shoot up, snort a line, smoke a joint, watch tv, eat, listen to music, talk on the phone, etc , etc,.......You see they all slow reaction time. Some, simply by taking your mind off the road, the others by actually impairing your reflexes. Still a case could be made for all road distractions unless you quantify the impairment level....a little off topic but true....Now as I said and you don't want to admit or realize,"Private" drug use hurts no one, just like private cigarette and alcohol use......

 

[Chris Rhines]

Does legalization mean currently illegal drugs will be freely sold without regulation or standards?

We'll leave aside the FDA's legacy of corruption, mismanagement, and bueracratic inertia for the moment.

There would be no gov't-enforced regulation or standards. Purveyors of presently-illegal drugs would be free to enact whatever quality assurance protocols they desire, whether in-house or third party.

oes this mean the overall drug approval process must be changed (special exceptions for some drugs) or abandoned altogether?

Ideally, they would be abandoned altogether. The private market is quite capable of providing quality assurance for any product you care to name - drugs are no different.

Some have suggested that legalized drugs will be available for taxation and that money can be used for education and rehab programs.

Not a good idea. Taxing drugs is just as bad, morally and economically, as making them illegal.

Since hard drug use will be legal that means it will be generally covered by health insurance, Medicare, ss, etc. Some insurance companies will put exclusions in their policies, but they’ll get sued.

Very, very unlikely. Medicare and Social Security would hopefully be defunded by this time. Private insurance companies, on the other hand, are free to put whatever exclusions they wish in their policies. It is probable that users of hard drugs would find themselves unable to afford health insurance. Which is fine.

- Chris

 

[Bear Gulch]

I think that the idea has some merits. I really personally feel that it is not the role of government to protect people from their own stupid behavior. So on that basis and in support of the broadest possible personal freedom, I'd say yes.
But there will always be a banned drug that will be made or smuggled or whatever to get around govermental policy and its attendant costs. For instance Cigarettes are totaly legal in New York. Yet they continue to be smuggled in from the Carolinas to circumvent taxes. So there is an element of a desire to engage in criminality that must be addressed as well. Some folks just want to break laws, they always have they always will.

 

[johnster999]

I just can't see the drug approval process as we know it today going away altogether. I don't think the public trusts, or can be made to trust, in the self-policing capabilities of an unregulated drug market. Even the unregulated supplements market cannot be trusted to make reasonable claims about their products. A Google search on weight-loss supplements reveals the results.

I have to think the current street drugs would have to be treated as seperate and distinct regulated substances, like alchohol or tobacco. Fine and dandy, but I'm thinking of the fact that some of these drugs are instantly addictive and virtually impossible to quit for many. These are far more potent substances than alchohol or tobacco. As we've tragically seen throughout the US a little curious experiment with crank by a young person often leads to a lifetime of addiction.

Thoughts?

 

[Chris Rhines]

I don't think the public trusts, or can be made to trust, in the self-policing capabilities of an unregulated drug market.

It's curious, isn't it? The public trusts the regulatory capabilities of the government that are known to be incompetent, but is unwilling to trust private regulatory agencies that actually have a pretty good track record in other fields. Better the devil you know, I guess.

I'm thinking of the fact that some of these drugs are instantly addictive and virtually impossible to quit for many.

And so? If one is concerned about becoming addicted to something, they should just never do it in the first place. If they do, they'll have to deal with the consequences. Life sucks that way.

- Chris

 

[AQUINAS]

The problem with drug legalization is how it impacts the non user. Who ends up paying for the "drug babies"? Who ends up having to wait in the emergency room because some waste of life druggie can't hold his high and is taking up space? This is the angle that some, not all, libritarians do not address. Substance abusers commit a disproportionate amount of crime compared to those who do not us chemicals inappropriately.

Most all chemical substances that are used/abused are availible for medical usage/prescription if needed. Marinol is availible for the marijuana crowd that truley need it. Opiates are availible for pain relief. Bottom line is most people that abuse drugs do so for their own pleasure, not a legitimate need.

If drugs are legalized it would lead to a greater burden on society in many ways.

I realize this has all been said before on THR at some time or another. Forgive the repeat.

 

[RealGun]

Using valid parallels with alcohol abuse, I too wouldn't try to ignore that private use can indeed impact others and present a cost to taxpayers. Public use is definitely a problem.

 

[dolanp]

I think the FDA only comes into play when the drug is marketed as curing or lessening the effects of some disease or illness. They should make sure it does what it says it does and without any terrible side effects.

Cigarettes and alcohol have no medical purpose that the FDA must deem them "useful" before they can be sold. They are sold with the knowledge that they are dangerous to your health but you can have them if that's your "cup o' tea". The government stands to gain more from their legalization than from prohibition. History has taught us this lesson. Many argue that the streets will be filled with drug dealers and all of that crap, but guess what folks? That's the way it is right now. Do people sell alcohol and cigarettes on the street or in shady basements? No, they are sold in legitimate stores. You don't see too many gangland shootings over "alcohol territory" do you? We used to, back when the government's idealistic prohibition of alcohol gave birth to the mafia.

 

[dolanp]

The problem with drug legalization is how it impacts the non user. Who ends up paying for the "drug babies"? Who ends up having to wait in the emergency room because some waste of life druggie can't hold his high and is taking up space? This is the angle that some, not all, libritarians do not address. Substance abusers commit a disproportionate amount of crime compared to those who do not us chemicals inappropriately.

Most all chemical substances that are used/abused are availible for medical usage/prescription if needed. Marinol is availible for the marijuana crowd that truley need it. Opiates are availible for pain relief. Bottom line is most people that abuse drugs do so for their own pleasure, not a legitimate need.

If drugs are legalized it would lead to a greater burden on society in many ways.

Who ends up paying for babies with fetal alcohol syndrome? Is that worth banning alcohol over? Is it worth creating yet another mafia stronghold that is enforced by thugs?

The truth is that poor people commit a disproportionate amount of crime compared to those who have money and/or education. Even someone who is not addicted to drugs but has no money will typically spend their earnings on booze and other vices. They haven't broken any laws but the pattern is the same. They will probably turn to crime to feed their habits.

Anyone who buys a TV, smokes a cigarette, has a drink, buys an SUV, has children, or does ANYTHING that resembles the idea of "free will" has exercised something that is for their own pleasure and not a "legitimate need".

Sounds exactly like the reasoning the antis use to try and ban guns to me.

 

[Control Group]

It's curious, isn't it? The public trusts the regulatory capabilities of the government that are known to be incompetent, but is unwilling to trust private regulatory agencies that actually have a pretty good track record in other fields. Better the devil you know, I guess.

The public trusts the body that has no inherent profit motive for allowing inferior/harmful products into the marketplace. The competence of that body is a separate problem from the conflict of interest. It's much easier to trust someone who is incompetent but disinterested than it is to trust someone who is expert but stands to gain by screwing you.

I hate the government, but that doesn't mean I think BigCo. is necessarily a good guy, either. We've seen what happens when there's no oversight of supposedly "medical" treatments: snake oil, Lysol being touted as a ****** (for both birth control and hygiene!), or selling mercury as a cure for syphilis.

It's easy to say the market will take care of it, but that presupposes a level of expertise on the part of the public that is unreasonable to assume or to require. Either that, or a Darwinian elimination of the trusting.

 

[publius]

Control Group,

Here's an interesting speech. Here's an excerpt:

The Pure Food and Drug Act

Then the single law which has done the most in this country to reduce the level of drug addiction is none of the criminal laws we have ever passed. The single law that reduced drug addiction the most was the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act.

The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 did three things:

1). It created the Food and Drug Administration in Washington that must approve all foods and drugs meant for human consumption. The very first impact of that was that the patent medicines were not approved for human consumption once they were tested.

2) The Pure Food and Drug Act said that certain drugs could only be sold on prescription.

3) The Pure Food and Drug Act, (and you know, this is still true today, go look in your medicine chest) requires that any drug that can be potentially habit-forming say so on it's label. "Warning -- May be habit forming."

The labeling requirements, the prescription requirements, and the refusal to approve the patent medicines basically put the patent medicine business out of business and reduced that dramatic source of accidental addiction. The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, not a criminal law, did more to reduce the level of addiction than any other single statute we have passed in all of the times from then to now.

Making medical fraud illegal worked.

As far as criminal drug laws, they were originally based on Congress' power to tax, since it was understood at the time that Congress had no power to pass a general criminal law. Later, with expanded interpretations of the Constitution, Congress acquired that power via the interstate commerce clause. Liberals didn't object because they're not in the business of limiting government. Conservatives didn't object because they hate drugs, and hate blinds reason.

A few wild-eyed libertarians objected that this kind of stretching of the Constitution would come back to bite us in the @$$, and one day we would wind up in a situation where the legal fate of a homegrown plant for personal consumption would wind up controlling the legal fate of federal gun laws. Of course, that is exactly what has happened.

 

[Glock Glockler]

Not a good idea. Taxing drugs is just as bad, morally and economically, as making them illegal

Chris, this is unmitigated nonsense.

Can you, with a straight face, tell me that our situation today in regards to alcohol being taxed, is no different than the prohibition era? Simply taxing it without banning it still allows market access and prevents the creation of the black market.

Two different worlds, my friend.

 

[johnster999]

More fuel for the fire:

I have to think that all the major street drugs could be made more cheaply by a legal operation than they are now in illegal labs, etc. If a person is addicted to a street drug and completely unable to kick the habit, I think it would be cheaper just to give them their drugs at low or no cost than to incarcerate them. They will be less likely to steal to buy their drugs if they don't have to pay the big street markup for them.

Instead of blanket legalization, why don't we just allow several private non-profit groups to raise money and produce some drugs. Other such groups could provide the means of administering the drugs to the addicts. This would eliminate the primary street drug market and weaken the gangs and dealers that thrive off it.

Addicts would have to register and sign disclaimers, etc. Individuals would be screened to ensure they were already addicts and not just experimenters. Drug rehab could be provided for those addicts which show will and desire to give up their destructive habit. Funds would be privately raised. All the gov't would need to do is write the law allowing it.

It sounds sadly like social engineering, I know, but so is locking them up for awhile and telling them "don't do it anymore."

Thoughts?

999

 

[Brian Dale]

Aquinas,

If drugs are legalized it would lead to a greater burden on society in many ways.

OK, If {people do ANYTHING I don't like} it would lead to a greater burden on society in many ways.

Skip school. Study less than I think they should. Drink. Smoke. Get FAT! The list has no end.

I'd apologize for appearing to use the "slippery slope" argument except for one thing: thousands of the useless laws that currently constrain our actions are based on hypothetical possibilities which were logically derived from plausible stories.

Your mention of "a greater burden" implies that you have numbers. Share them, please: remember to quantify all of the harmful effects of any increased drug use as well as all of the benefits that would flow from ending both of the current prohibition-based wars: the war against the populace and the war against the rule of law. Please be exhaustive, specific and concise.