Quote: In 1992, Jim Gray, a conservative judge in conservative Orange County, California, held a press conference during which he recommended that we rethink our drug laws. Back then, it took a great deal of courage to suggest that the war on drugs was a failed policy.
Today, more and more Americans are coming to the realization that prohibition's costs—whether measured in lives and liberties lost or dollars wasted—far exceed any possible or claimed benefits.
Reason.tv's Paul Feine interviewed Gray about drug policy and the prospects for reform. The interview was shot by Alex Manning and edited by Hawk Jensen.
Judge Jim Gray is the author of Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It: A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs.
Approximately 8.30 minutes.
__________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 09 Mar 2010 20:29
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 193
Join Date: Nov 2009
You know it's ironic about the war on drugs. The term was coined in the Nixon administration which at the time had a policy of drug treatment (as opposed to incarceration) as it's central tennant.
I don't object to the term war on drugs, because at it's core it can be and should be about treating those addicts whose lives are a mess, rather than incarcerating people.
All that said however, it should be noted that the idea of a nonviolent drug offender is something of a misnomer.
Very few people are prosecuted for just possession unless it was pled down from a larger crime (usually posession with intent to distribute) While it is unfortunate that like the man act, the possession laws are used as leverage against people, the violence related to the drug trade (much like the violence related to the sex trade) can justify it's use to force cooperation. The drug trade's violence makes virtually all drug crimes violent. Even if you yourself a not violent in your use, the system that manufactures and distributes the drug in maintained by violence and the threat of violence.
Legalization of course undoes much of that stigma, but I really don't think allowing people to buy heroine at the corner drug store (again) is that good of an idea either. You can legalize pot and undermine the drug trade, but pot is only one part of a very large whole. And for the rest of the drugs available the war continues.
Posted: 09 Mar 2010 22:04
Registered User
Posts: 3771
Join Date: Aug 2007
In relation to buying heroin at the corner drug store, why not? Not even with a prescription? __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 09 Mar 2010 22:20
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 193
Join Date: Nov 2009
What medical condition (aside from Heroine addiction) could you possibly have that would require you to buy heroine at the corner drug store even with a prescription?
The reason you don't want heroine in the general public is that it is infact highly highly addictive, and debilitating.
You know those statements about how nicotine is harder to kick than heroine? That's because you can't bum heroine. Imagine if you could? Imagine how hard it would be to get off heroine if every corner store had Red Scorpion Brand Heroine for sale?
You know, there are some very real negative outcomes to regular and repeated drug use, negative outcomes that the state does have a vested interest in curtailing.
It's not really the illegality of the drugs that cause these negative outcomes so much as the drugs themselves.
you can make the mostly harmless argument for pot, but it's alot harder to do for cocaine or heroine or even opium.
Posted: 10 Mar 2010 13:30 Last Edited By: pakratmak
Registered User
Posts: 3771
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote: What medical condition (aside from Heroine addiction) could you possibly have that would require you to buy heroine at the corner drug store even with a prescription?
If there were no prohibition on it you wouldn't need a medical condition, just the desire for it, with or without a doctor's note.
Quote: it is infact highly highly addictive, and debilitating.
I've seen people that are functional addicts with my own eyes, and this is with a product that would be inferior to anything allowed to be sold in a drug store or dispensary. Heroin is not automatically or necessarily debilitating.
Quote: Imagine how hard it would be to get off heroine if every corner store had Red Scorpion Brand Heroine for sale?
If it became legal tomorrow, would you start the habit? That's probably a no. I wouldn't either. Neither would most rational people. Removing the prohibition is not likely to cause a sudden rush for people to start doing it, just because they can. The same for coke. Crack would probably just be eliminated from the equation if the addicts had access to decent coke at a decent price as well.
'every corner store' = argument from fear yes?(maybe slippery slope) I'll play along and answer with my own 'argument from optimism'. What if these products were engineered to be a (relatively speaking)harmless high that anyone could use with no longterm adverse effects?
Quote: there are some very real negative outcomes to regular and repeated drug use
If you want someone to make your decisions for you, get a manager or a coach and leave the rest of us alone. Regular and repeated smoking has the same problem, without the prohibition. Regular and repeated drinking has the same problem, without the prohibition. Fast food and sitting on your butt all day in front of the TV or computer can have as much of a negative impact on individuals and society at large. It's hypocritical to allow these other dangers and have a 'war' on the other. The state should stick to state functions and leave their hands off parenting.
Quote: It's not really the illegality of the drugs that cause these negative outcomes so much as the drugs themselves.
The illegality is what drives up the price/value of it and the violence factor surrounding it. In turn this leads to stepped on product which affects the effects of the substance to improve the bottom lines of the suppliers and dealers. Some days it's laxitive or sugar to boost weight and others you get soap flakes or rat poison. A regulated product sold by licensed vendors would have a drastic decrease in the lethal lottery spin to it.
Quote: you can make the mostly harmless argument for pot, but it's alot harder to do for cocaine or heroine or even opium.
None of these things is harmless. Pot is simply the least harmful with the most benefit to it, primary and beyond. That was not the argument or an accompaniment though. Nobody is saying they are harmless or good activities(at least not anyone you should take seriously). Refer back to my statements about the hypocrisy of allowing a slew of some dangerous things and prohibiting these. It's an odd place to put a line in the sand, and yet if we consider the profit motive of how the government views any of these products or activities, we get a very clear sense of where their priorities lie, and none of it is actually for our personal benefit- that's just something you say when you want approval ratings or to make more sales. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 10 Mar 2010 16:30
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 193
Join Date: Nov 2009
Functionality with regard to hard drugs is a temporary state.
I know of know researtcher who would argue otherwise. Essentially, here is the basic break down of hard drug functionality.
Step 1) I can handle the drug, and I can afford it, and it's not interfering with my life.
Step 2) I need more of my drug, and I can afford it, and it's not interfering with my life.
Step 3) I need more of my drug, and I can work harder to make sure I can afford my drug, and its not interfering with my life.
Step 4) I need more of my drug, and I can afford it if I engage in some practice that I ordinarily wouldn't, and it's not interfering with my life.
Step 5) I need more of my drug, other options are closed to me to afford it, and I feel very ill, I will either do something very drastic to afford my drug, or I will do need to seek out detox, rebuild my life, and then start the spiral again. As my drug has become my life, I can say that it is not interfering with my life.
How long it takes to get to level 5 is going to vary by person, but the path is pretty well established.
Now, there is the tack of cost, however hard drug's costs are not unreasonable. You or i could easily afford heroine with a standard middle class job, if the drug was an occasional use issue. The problem is that it use of the drug isn't an ocasional issue. I have never met the heroine user who doesn't in time wish to spend all his time using heroine. And then it's kind of hard to maintain a steady job. Once you can't maintain a steady job it doesn't matter how inexpensive the drug becomes the downward spiral continues.
The thing is the state does in fact have an obligation to stop us from destroying ourselves, primarily because there is a cost to the society as a whole when we do so. It is a careful balance between personal freedom and societal well being. The state solves this by allowing some products, and restricting others. Those that have the highest (relativly) tendency for functional use are legal, those that do not are made illegal.
Now maybe if Heroine were legal you would see more people who could "handle" their heroine on par with people who can "handle" their booze. But that's a pretty big experiment to try given the history of the drug, and the cost to society if the experiment works out wrongly.
Posted: 11 Mar 2010 01:13
Registered User
Posts: 3771
Join Date: Aug 2007
I'm going to base this off one person. I have no extensive study or long list of subjects. He never slipped past step 3 and he's been driving with our company for 19 years. Going to step 5 is not an absolute necessity.
Quote: The problem is that it use of the drug isn't an ocasional issue.
I'm going to bring up the suggstion of engineering/designing the product better. Which pharmaceutical company wouldn't jump on that opportunity if it were legal to produce and vend?
Quote: I have never met the heroine user who doesn't in time wish to spend all his time using heroine. And then it's kind of hard to maintain a steady job.
Through me you now know there's at least one in the world. Cabbie with the same company for 19 years- never misses a day.
Quote: The thing is the state does in fact have an obligation to stop us from destroying ourselves
The hypocrisy of allowing alcohol, cigarettes and fast food rears it's head again if what their goal is, is to protect us from this set of items and not the others.
Quote: Those that have the highest (relativly) tendency for functional use are legal, those that do not are made illegal.
How accurate is the information this choice is being made from? For a bit of comedic relief, consider who is making that choice at all; the same group who's wasted over a year now on health insurance bickering on their own interests instead of the issue itself.
Quote: you would see more people who could "handle" their heroine on par with people who can "handle" their booze.
Exactly the point on several levels.
Quote: But that's a pretty big experiment to try given the history of the drug, and the cost to society if the experiment works out wrongly.
How about hedging our bets a bit? I think the order of things matters greatly here:
Congress allows pharma to design/engineer new forms of the harder drugs and trial them on regular users. Once we have positive results, congress lifts the prohibitions at the federal level, leaving the states to decide for themselves. We have a less harmful product, less wasteful spending on pointless 'wars', more jobs, a new source of tax income and a new set of exports that will boost our economy to unheard of levels.
That sounds like a pretty worthwhile experiment to me. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Regular and repeated smoking has the same problem, without the prohibition. Regular and repeated drinking has the same problem, without the prohibition. Fast food and sitting on your butt all day in front of the TV or computer can have as much of a negative impact on individuals and society at large. It's hypocritical to allow these other dangers and have a 'war' on the other. The state should stick to state functions and leave their hands off parenting.
