A1CJonathanLane
"Make drugs legal"
Say what you want about what you want
Join | Log In
Restore some sanity to drug laws.
-
Dec 2, 2010
- by einhverfr
- posted in Big Government
Rating:
Our drug laws are messed up. There is no sense of proportionality of threat in what is regulated or how heavily. Strangely marijuana plants are the only plants subject to an outright ban in the US under the Controlled Substances Act. Even opium poppies are not banned by that act (though putting the flowers in ornamental, cut flower arrangements is, bizarrely).
+5
I do not smoke pot. I did a few times in college and found it, well, boring. Moreover as a software developer, I would expect that pot would reduce the effectiveness of my work. However, I support legalization entirely.
We need to restore some sanity to our drug laws. Most drug law enforcement occurs at the state and local level. Legalization shifts the burden to the federal agencies and it helps ensure that our local police forces are protecting us. Moreover this places the federal government under some pressure. Already Holder has issued a statement saying that medical marijuana laws will be taken into account by the DoJ. Outright legalization laws would eventually receive such recognition too.
The simple fact is that mind altering substances are relatively easy to come by, and they are not usually illegal. Historically herbs like mugwort and wormwood have been used, as well as more potentially toxic ones such as henbane. None of these are controlled, and even if they were, substitutes could be found. Does anyone really expect that it would be possible to ban plants and spices such as lettuce, chilli peppers, or nutmeg? Yet each of those has potential mind altering uses as well (lettuce plants can be made to produce an opium-like substance, chilli peppers can trigger euphoria if consumed in large quantities, and nutmeg is a hallucinogen).
The time has come to fundamentally rethink drug laws. I'd like to offer my recommendations here:
1) Draw a strong line between raw plant matter and chemically purified or synthesized drugs. Heroin is not the same as opium. Cocaine is not the same as coca leaf. Pure caffeine is not the same as coffee. The chemically purified and synthesized drugs are almost always more powerful, more addictive, more dangerous, etc. than the raw plants. Indeed Salvia divinorum 30x extracts are quite different from the plant matter that such was extracted from. Raw plant matter should be given a free pass.
2) Draw a line regarding what level of risk is acceptable and assess such chemically refined or purified drugs by that risk. Approach things carefully and rationally, rather than accepting hype.
Marijuana doesn't pass either prong of my suggested test. It is generally less harmful than alcohol and tobacco. It's a raw plant matter. It should be legal. Even if it isn't legal, there is no justification for treating it more rigidly than, say, opium.
What did you think of this review?
Helpful
18
Thought-Provoking
18
Fun to Read
17
Well-Organized
18
More Marijuana Legalization reviews
As a committed Libertarian yet disapprover of drug abuse, I have to say it's time we Freed The Weed. Personally, I'm sick of the smell of pot whenever I walk around San Francisco and I only stick to drugs that advertise during Superbowl commercials, but the criminalization issue has become ridiculous. Protect the children! Anyone who seriously believes that teenagers are not already smoking pot privately is naive (I found out what boofing … more
Comments (29)
Compliments (207)
Heated debate broke out in my home shortly after ten o'clock last night after a Law and Order SVU (duh, duh) episode, a debate which will probably make my brother hate me and question my political beliefs for a long time to come. I'm not going to go into detail about how the debate started, but what I will tell you is that I questioned whether a man can be held lawfully responsible and imprisoned for an act which never impeded on the rights of another human being, no matter how sick and perverted … more
Comments (5)
Compliments (121)
I think if they came up with laws and guidelines as with alcohol and tabacco, the legalization of weed would be much better! I mean, Amsterdam had legalized it, so why can't we? It would also make the stuff much cheaper and we would probably have more control over its distribution (as with not selling to minors) If it does get legalized, I hope the restrictions and guidelines don't get as annoying as with cigarettes. SF had gotten very silly with some ordinances, … more
Comments (3)
Compliments (9)
About the reviewer
Chris Travers (einhverfr)
I live in a haunted house Beneath a tall and mighty tree With my wife Mia and my sons Wilhelm and Conrad Where I write software and carve runes It is a … more
Consider the Source
Use Trust Points to see how much you can rely on this review.
You
einhverfr
Your ratings:
Recent reviews by einhverfr
About this topic
Attempts to decriminalize cannabis in the United States began in the 1970s. Several jurisdictions have subsequently decriminalized cannabis (also referred to as marijuana or marihuana) for non-medical purposes, as views on cannabis have liberalized, peaking in 1978. The decriminalization movement supports efforts ranging from reducing penalties for cannabis-related offenses to removing all penalties related to cannabis, including sale and cultivation. Proponents of cannabis decriminalization argue that a substantial amount of law-enforcement resources would be freed, which could be used to prevent more serious crimes, and would reduce income earned by street gangs and organized crime who sell or traffic cannabis. Opponents argue that cannabis on street level today has a much higher percent of THC with a stronger drug effect, the decriminalization will lead to increased crime, increased cannabis usage, and subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs. Gonzales v. Raich, 2005 ruled in a 6-3 decision that the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution allowed the federal government to ban the use of cannabis, including medical use.
view wiki
First to Review
- About Lunch
- Press
- FAQs
- Contact Us
- Terms of Service
- Privacy Policy
- Sitemap
- Report Abuse
© 2013 Lunch.com, LLC All Rights Reserved
Lunch.com - Relevant reviews by real people.
To my knowledge none of these are on the books today. At the time, however, they were imposed for a complex set of reasons including concern over folks getting intoxicated with gruit beers (hop beers were said to be less intoxicating), and a concern over funding various parts of the Catholic church in this process. In other words, the reasons were economic and political as much as hostility towards intoxication. (Recently gruit beers are making a come-back in some craft-brewing circles, btw.)
In the end, though, these laws proved impossible to enforce when the Church no longer had a monopoly on gruit and home brewing was at issue, but commercial brewing was still required to use hops for some time afterwards.
I think the current set of anti-drug laws will suffer the same fate, but it will be a slow death. What's more important is to ask ourselves what we really want out of the anti-drug regulatory regime, be realistic about it, and then device a new scheme to replace it. Certainly heroin on every street corner is not a desirable outcome.