Fact before faith: Marijuana and the religious right

[Huckleburry]

Does it matter? Both are matters of personal choice. Somthing we claim to honor and protect in this country.

 

[mattskramer]

Does it matter? Both are matters of personal choice. Somthing we claim to honor and protect in this country.

Yes. I agree with you there. While there are some "personal choices" that I think people should not be allowed to make, there are many things that I believe should be legal for people. One thing that amazes me is that it wasn't until 2003 that the US Supreme Court struck down the criminal prohibition of homosexual sodomy in Texas. It should not be long before people are also allowed to smoke marijuana.

Now, this does not mean that I am a pot-smoking sodomite.

 

[Diuretic]

If I can add something from my own national and cultural perspective - on the issue of prohibition of drugs in general. And I can only comment on what I know from my own jurisdiction - these are general comments, not trying to tell anyone what their policies should be (except my own government that they're fair game for me).

Prohibition has boosted both organised and casual crime to levels that, thirty years ago, I would have scoffed at. Remember this is my country I'm referring to, not anyone else's. We didn't think through the issues and we developed our policy approach in a reflexive and not reflective fashion. We criminalised drugs which many years earlier were not criminalised. Cocaine was available from pharmacists - it was a required ingredient in many proprietary medicines. I won't go on about how drugs were criminalised, let's just say they were.

If we wanted to hurt organised crime - and to a lesser extent casual street crime - then we would decriminalise and regulate drugs. The market would force prices down as legal corporations began to produce high quality (ie without dangerous additives) drugs sold in a regulated market. The morons making big money out of clan labs would go bust overnight. Here it's easy to grown cannabis, you plant it, water it and wait. You don't have to be a horticulturalist to produce plenty of it. Demand and supply should see the price of cannabis plunge and it would cease to provide seed capital (sorry for the awful puns) for bigger operations.

And as far as personal harm goes. Yes, drugs are a big issue as has been pointed out in the thread. But any drug, by definition, has an affect on our physiology, both acute and chronic. But if we know how to use it safely (eduation) then go for it. As far as public safety goes, no quarter given. You drive a motor vehicle on a road affected by any drug at all which affects your ability to drive safely then your driving days are finished. Same for other behaviours. No excuses. The excessive use of liquor or drugs has in fact in our criminal law been a defence (!) to some charges. A druggie who stabbed an off-duty cop had his charges reduced on appeal to our High Court because he told the court his ability to intend to harm the cop was impaired by the use of drugs (O'Connor, 1980). You use any drug and someone gets hurt, no excuses.

 

[Huckleburry]

It seems to me that you are on the right track. The only thing that makes drugs so profitable is their illegality. This profit margin is simply too much for some to resist and it drives them to a life of crime. Decrimanlizing drugs would probably reduce the crime rate (violent or otherwise) while also stablizing the drug market. Additionally they would provid a new source of tax income and stabalize other regions (Columbia, Afghansitan) by drying up a significant source of illicit income.

If you choose to use drugs and you end up hurting someone well then its bye bye for you.

 

[mattskramer]

http://www.lp.org/issues/lp-oss.shtml

Drug prohibition does more to make Americans unsafe than any other factor. Just as alcohol prohibition gave us Al Capone and the mafia, drug prohibition has given us the Crips, the Bloods and drive-by shootings. Consider the historical evidence: America's murder rate rose nearly 70% during alcohol prohibition, but returned to its previous levels after prohibition ended. Now, since the War on Drugs began, America's murder rates have doubled. The cause/effect relationship is clear. Prohibition is putting innocent lives at risk.

What's more, drug prohibition also inflates the cost of drugs, leading users to steal to support their high priced habits. It is estimated that drug addicts commit 25% of all auto thefts, 40% of robberies and assaults, and 50% of burglaries and larcenies. Prohibition puts your property at risk. Finally, nearly one half of all police resources are devoted to stopping drug trafficking, instead of preventing violent crime. The bottom line? By ending drug prohibition Libertarians would double the resources available for crime prevention, and significantly reduce the number of violent criminals at work in your neighborhood.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

If drugs are legal what are all the freaks selling dime bags to pay rent gonna do? Kill us instead? Don't think this isn't a concern for the powers that be. Allowing petty criminals to sell weed, is a fairly harmless gig for them which keeps them from harder crimes.

 

[Diuretic]

If drugs are legal what are all the freaks selling dime bags to pay rent gonna do? Kill us instead? Don't think this isn't a concern for the powers that be. Allowing petty criminals to sell weed, is a fairly harmless gig for them which keeps them from harder crimes.

Fair question. What will they do? Since they've got a criminal proclivity and they're basically work-shy they'll probably commit petty crime. Like breaking into houses. That's a good one for crooks who don't like confrontation (and want to maximise their chances of staying out of the slammer). Will they rob stores? Probably not. Can't rule it out though.

But on balance the benefits are there. Organised crime will lose its big earner. It won't wipe out organised crime because, like any business, various units will adapt and spread into other areas, but it will reduce the direct and indirect harm caused by prohibition.

Another point. People will be free to talk about drugs without the stigma of being accused of promoting criminal acts. In my jurisdiction there is a group which wants to test pills used by patrons at nightclubs and at raves. The idea is that people will know exactly what they're using and if it's not safe they can dump it. It saves fatal overdoses. But they can't do their work because it looks as if they're encouraging illegal activity (they're not but they've been attacked by troglodytes in that manner).

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

If drugs are legal what are all the freaks selling dime bags to pay rent gonna do? Kill us instead? Don't think this isn't a concern for the powers that be. Allowing petty criminals to sell weed, is a fairly harmless gig for them which keeps them from harder crimes.

Well, if legalizing all drugs were our only major policy change, they'd go on welfare, or get a job created by the no-more-drug-war-tax-cut, I suspect.

Ideally though, dropping the war on drugs would only be one piece of the puzzle in dismantling big government. Government welfare would be abolished, and dopeheads would have to shape up, because private charities won't tolerate junkie bums for long. There would be more jobs though, as the size of government goes down. It's tempting to think that they would turn to violent crime, but history shows us that wasn't true, back when there weren't any drug laws.

 

[Huckleburry]

A common misconeption of drug dealers is that they are lazy and stupid. Yet this is not the case, peddling drugs is actually pretty hard work. Think of all the effort and risk that goes into even a single transaction. Someone has to manage a informal, massive, and underground global supply train. People have to move around large sums of illicit funds. Granted the guy on the corner does not have to worry about it but he does have to manage his supply, his customers, and his finances, all while not going to jail. If drugs were made legal these folks would probably go out and find a new way to make a living.

Huck