Freedom vs. Security

[Didymos Thomas]

Well, there is always a risk of false arrest -- but frankly never having touched illegal drugs I don't particularly fear it.

All well and fine, but you're not the only American.

There are millions of Americans who frequently have cause to fear such arrest.

Yup. And I'd argue that the marginalization of the educational system and social programs is, as we might say in medicine, an ex vacuo type of severe oppression on the part of the government.

The government maintains many criminal policies, the War on Drugs being one example.

So change the law -- or accept it if you fail. It's a democracy -- you have the opportunity to try and change the law. If it doesn't work, and you're outnumbered, then you can leave, you can change your behavior, or you can accept the risk. I'd love handguns to be illegal, but that's not going to happen either.

Yeah, the Constitution has some things to say about firearms, and in light of the most recent SCOTUS decision, that hope is dead - at least for several decades.

I still don't buy this argument. Law or not, laws can be oppressive - even in Democracy. It's possible for a majority to oppress a minority. Not to mention the fact that some states have changed their laws, and are then harassed by the Federal government - look at the marijuana dispensary raids in California.

You're in the medical field, doesn't it seem oppressive that Americans are locked up for their medicine, prescribed by a doctor?

I'm not overly concerned by the stresses faced by recreational drug users who can choose to behave otherwise, so I don't have much sympathy for a claim of oppression.

Religious practitioners have the choice to change their style of worship - should we have no concern for those persecuted for their faith? I know this example is extreme, but the argument is the same.

Either way, you may not be overly concerned, but your lack of concern does not translate into the current laws being anything other than oppressive.

[Zetetic11235]

Personal use laws are injust, there is no way you can defend them unless they are aimed only at rehabilitation and not punishment. To throw one in jail for personal use does nothing to help anyone involved. Drug use is rampant in prisons, and it is a burden to the tax payers to keep throwing thousands of people caught with a joint in hand in prison for 1/2 to 3 years (standard class D felony in many southern states for either first or second offense marijuana possesion, more for harder drugs).
I think the answer is decriminalisation of personal use, but keep a fairly large fine, say $500 set fee which will be justified as 1) A tax for under the table monetary exchange, 2) To help pay for public rehabilitation centers along with the money saved from the new aquisition of funds once a chunk of the prison population is eliminated thanks to the decrim. Also we can defer the money currently being used by the horribly failed anti drug ad campaign to the rehabilitation centers. Personally, it seem to me a contradiction of policy to keep alcohol legal while throwing a couple guys with a joint in jail and taking their money as 'drug money' without proof of its status as drug money. Ades, you seem more concerned with drugs such as heroin that are administered via i.v., but this is not even one of the most common; Heroin Abuse in the U.S. cites 2.4 million, however, I have seen estimates around 50% marijauana use among college students( I can dig up the sites if you want, I limit to .edu and .gov), meaning that a good percent of the most educated people in our society have smoked marijuana at some point in their lives(if you can even trust the statistics at all), and coccain is second on the list. Both of these drugs have potential heath risks, though certainly coccain more than marijuana. My point is that many of the people who use drugs are people who are potentially sucessful contributing members of society(most of the presidential candidates in the last decade) because many drug users are wealthy or more highly educated especially as far as coccain use goes. George Bush and Obama sniffed a bit of ol saint nick as it were, and they seem to have come out ok...although I am not so sure about Bush. I suppose that the lesson to learn is that harder drugs are the playthings of the rich and the death of the poor. That being said, the fine is probably a bigger deterrent for inner city peoples and thus more effective in adressing the issue in the inner city...or is it? It also drives up the price of the addiction and probably the prevalence of crime since they need more money. This is a very sticky situation..perhapse a fine for those who can pay it, this will affirm that they are more likely to have the money to support their addiction, and rehab for those who can't pay, as they are in more danger of commiting a crime to support their addiciton. The problem here is that the party has to be willing to get better or the rehab is just more wasted tax payer money.

As for selling and trafficing, keep those illegal, and gradiate them with respect to risk of use and ammount(ammount is already generally done to a reasonable degree i.e. 1-10 lbs 10-20 lbs and up). I think that alcohol should be used as a guage of risk, if it is similar to alcohol, it should be legalized, if it is greater, then it will be gradiated by ammount of risk and this will be used to determine penalty. Note that I also do not agree with any type of socialized medicine, health risks are the sole responsibility of the person partaking of the drug, however, there should be an ernest attempt to educate the potential users if real effects of drug use.

[Aedes]

I'm glad we finally disagree about an issue -- it's good to stir things up

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Law or not, laws can be oppressive - even in Democracy.

This one doesn't strike me as such. Medical marijuana should be available, particularly if people can conduct studies that convincingly show medical benefit. In fact I routinely prescribe tetrahydrocannabinol (marketed as Marinol) as a mild antiemetic and appetite stimulant. If marijuana or its derivatives can be well studied, then the parameters for controlled use can be set and it can undergo an evidence-based review. But whiny college kids who say they're smoking pot so that they don't get glaucoma 40 years later -- sorry, doesn't count.

You're in the medical field, doesn't it seem oppressive that Americans are locked up for their medicine, prescribed by a doctor?

Well, you're oversimplifying it here. No patient is going to jail because I give him amoxicillin for an ear infection or because I give him codeine for pain. Patients who go to jail for prescription drug abuse are almost exclusively patients who "doctor shop" in order to get multiple prescriptions for narcotics and benzodiazepines -- and this IS illegal and should be illegal -- they are taking advantage of loopholes in a medical system that lacks perfect transfer of information. Some of them collect prescription drug prescriptions to sell on the street (in the city I live in Klonopin is sold on the street routinely, and it's not hard to trick a doctor into prescribing it). If I'm working at some walk-in clinic in the middle of nowhere and I don't have access to a patient's records from elsewhere, then it's nearly impossible for me to check on what other prescriptions they take -- and believe me we encounter this all the time.

However, insofar as it is possible to appropriately and inappropriately prescribe things, I agree with you that the honus is on the doctor to avoid egregious and inappropriate prescriptions, esp for things like HGH and anabolic steroids. I have no problem refusing certain meds to patients if it's not indicated.

Religious practitioners have the choice to change their style of worship - should we have no concern for those persecuted for their faith? I know this example is extreme, but the argument is the same.

Sure, and for all the Native American kids who are going to use peyote for an occasional ritual, and for all the Jewish kids who are going to have wine during Passover, there should be tolerance and permission for this kind of use.

Either way, you may not be overly concerned, but your lack of concern does not translate into the current laws being anything other than oppressive.

No, but your characterization of them as such doesn't make them oppressive either. I don't hear anything in what you're writing that sounds even unjust, let alone oppressive or "terrorizing". I have ZERO pity for reckless kids who get arrested for pot. They don't need to do it, they know what the law is, so they have to assume the potential consequences for their actions. That's not oppressive, that's just learning to live within the laws of a country -- and that is part of adulthood. And whether it's an administrative waste for the government to pursue such crimes or prosecute them as they do is a different matter.

[Zetetic11235]

This thread has gotten way off topic, does anyone want to add anything of value to the original problem? Any insights? The war on drugs might be wholly ineffective and in fact even more harmful than helpful, however, that is not what this thread was intended to discuss. If you want to debat the litigation concerning the war on drugs, go start a new thread, otherwise, please redirect your conversation to the original problem. I know I threw a post in on the afformentioned tangent, however, I am much more interested in whether anyone has somthing to say about the subject of the thread.

[Didymos Thomas]

This one doesn't strike me as such. Medical marijuana should be available, particularly if people can conduct studies that convincingly show medical benefit. In fact I routinely prescribe tetrahydrocannabinol (marketed as Marinol) as a mild antiemetic and appetite stimulant. If marijuana or its derivatives can be well studied, then the parameters for controlled use can be set and it can undergo an evidence-based review.

I'm familiar with the product. Marinol isn't always tolerated very well. Plus, THC is not the only active cannabanoid in marijuana.

And why pay big pharma top dollar for for Marinol when you can grow the stuff in the back yard? Sounds like a way to keep big pharma well funded, and rip off the people a little more. Sounds oppressive.

But whiny college kids who say they're smoking pot so that they don't get glaucoma 40 years later -- sorry, doesn't count.

Why does the drug have to have medical use? What's wrong with getting high? We can get drunk, but not high? Strikes me as odd that I can destroy my liver and drink myself to death, but I can't smoke a joint, eat too much, and rest assured I'm not going to overdose.

Medical use isn't the only issue. We also have to ask why in the world government has the right to ban something. If that something is so dangerous that our society depends on it (China banning opium before the Opium Wars seems sensible to me, for example), sure. But marijuana? The fear was from government propaganda and Mr. Hearst trying to protect his timber investment from hemp. Alcohol and tobacco are clearly more dangerous than marijuana, yet marijuana is legal. This is hypocritical, and the only result is that the government has one more thing to arrest me for.

Well, you're oversimplifying it here.

No, I think you missed where I was going - which was easy to do, I didn't say where I was going. Medical marijuana patients go to jail, go to prison for years at a time.

Patients who go to jail for prescription drug abuse are almost exclusively patients who "doctor shop" in order to get multiple prescriptions for narcotics and benzodiazepines -- and this IS illegal and should be illegal -- they are taking advantage of loopholes in a medical system that lacks perfect transfer of information.

You're talking about people I know, brother. Couldn't be more right. They are killing themselves.

Some of them collect prescription drug prescriptions to sell on the street (in the city I live in Klonopin is sold on the street routinely, and it's not hard to trick a doctor into prescribing it).

Some, but that's a very small slice of the pie. Most of that stuff comes up through Mexico, or some other foerign place where drug controls are lacking. Ship it in, big bucks.

Sure, and for all the Native American kids who are going to use peyote for an occasional ritual, and for all the Jewish kids who are going to have wine during Passover, there should be tolerance and permission for this kind of use.

Why only Native American kids? Why can't I follow whatever religion I please? As an adult American citizen, I have the right to worship as I want to.

No, but your characterization of them as such doesn't make them oppressive either. I don't hear anything in what you're writing that sounds even unjust, let alone oppressive or "terrorizing".

Medical marijuana patients going to jail.

The use of racism to reinforce government propoganda about certain drugs.

Big business lobbying to adjust government policy on certain drugs.

This is a matter of how far the government can go, and under what circumstances.

I have ZERO pity for reckless kids who get arrested for pot. They don't need to do it, they know what the law is, so they have to assume the potential consequences for their actions. That's not oppressive, that's just learning to live within the laws of a country -- and that is part of adulthood.

I'm not sure what your argument is. Laws can be unjust. I don't know about you, but I have pity for people who are prosecuted under unjust laws.

And whether it's an administrative waste for the government to pursue such crimes or prosecute them as they do is a different matter.

That depends on the motivation. If the government uses those laws to felonize a portion of the population as a way to manage those eligible to vote, I'd say that is oppressive. Mr. Nixon was more than a crook.

[urangutan]

The war on drugs was focused on the wrong end of the scale. The legalization of drugs is not designed to just allow drugs in a free trade. The biggest problem with drugs is not the physical abuse one does to themselves but the instances of crime that feed the sydicates and streets with the flow of money. Remove dealers and propogaters that you object too like the whole of Columbia, by dealing with let’s say Bolivia. There can be conditions tied to this trade deal, the product can be monitored for quality and no chemical interferences, plus you have the added bonus of limiting the clientel to those who are addicted or on the drug. Therefore you can begin to phase out introduction of drugs to new and young users. Funny that Didymos Thomas, mentions Afganistan and opium. This is a separate problem and really doesn’t need to be about drugs at all. Maybe you could look at the argument that the outside world has. Why is it that an American (USA), product is allowed to be legal across the world. Massive American conglomerates reeping the rewards of trade. Don’t misunderstand me I am not blaming America for the problem of smoking tobacco.

Zetetic11235, you asked to have the topic redirected then how is this. Giving up the freedom of free trade for the product of opium that is directly grown in Afganistan, through an encouragement program as it is about the only product that will grow there well but the condition is that other countries like Australia and I guess the USA agree not to grow the poppies for pharmacutical purposes and deal directly with Afghanistan. This will help kerb the problem of illicit deals being run out of that neck of the woods. In return adding some form of stability within the region, which can be referred security back towards the United States of America and dwindling marketable opium for the purpose of drug trafficing.

Line this concept up with Benjamin Franklins idea about freedom and security and I could well imagine that the entire idea seems a little less solid. Freedom v’s Security. Security one, Fredom nil.

[Zetetic11235]

You're talking about specific restriction of economic freedom to build stability in a region which has become instable for many reasons aside from opium trade in order to stem the flow of opiates from that region, however you fail to address the fundamental problem didymos raises, ie whether it is correct that the government can restrict the personal use of anything at all.

Im not sure that I understand the solution you pose in the first paragraph, are you suggesting legally shipping in drugs to guarantee quality for those who are now using and then restrict the use of the drugs to only these people? If so, how could this help? It still means that someone else is dealing with Columbiam coke in America illicitly and selling it on the street to new users, who in turn buy it form the legal source(unless that quality control process drives up the price too much) it forms a bizzare dichotomy in the business that doesn't seem the do much at all, rather it enables users without eliminating the illicit drug trade completely.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

I'm familiar with the product. Marinol isn't always tolerated very well.

Nothing is free of side effects. Marinol is very well tolerated. I've only had one patient discontinue it because of side effects, and I actually didn't believe him -- because he didn't develop the side effects until he learned that it was a marijuana derivative, and it was almost certainly an adverse placebo effect.

Plus, THC is not the only active cannabanoid in marijuana.

Yes, but until a different one is demonstrated to be clinically effective, cost effective, safe, and clinical indications are clearly delineated, then they all remain natural compounds with no demonstrated medical benefit. So show me the research.

And why pay big pharma top dollar for for Marinol when you can grow the stuff in the back yard? Sounds like a way to keep big pharma well funded, and rip off the people a little more. Sounds oppressive.

That's ludicrous. Why aren't you making the same argument for growing cinchona trees to treat malaria instead of buying quinine, Chinese wormwood instead of buying artemisinin, and willow trees instead of buying aspirin? Why isn't that oppressive? In all these cases the active compound has been identified, purified, and it's administered in a standardized way in which the quality and the actual dose are known.

So what makes marijuana special, as opposed to all these other drugs that come from plants? Oh, that's right, you can get high on marijuana.

Why does the drug have to have medical use? What's wrong with getting high?

I don't care if you get high as long as you're not driving or operating a jackhammer. Don't kid yourself that there are no side effects, including long-term, from marijuana, but I'm content with you assuming responsibility for it. But the fact remains that it's illegal for better or for worse -- so either go and get enough support to change the law, or accept that you live in a democracy that chooses to keep your pet chemical illegal. You might get arrested for smoking pot, you might get a speeding ticket for going 75 in a 45 zone, you might get audited by the IRS if you "forget" to declare cash income, etc. Live by the rules or violate them at your own peril.

But marijuana?

Change the law if you don't like it. And if you can't change the law, accept that your viewpoint is in the minority, and you can go move to the Netherlands if you don't like it.

the only result is that the government has one more thing to arrest me for.

They wouldn't if you didn't choose to smoke it.

Medical marijuana patients going to jail.

I don't count that as oppressive or terrorizing. If you don't want to go to jail, then don't break the damned law. There is plenty of research coming out about medical marijuana, and the laws WILL change. Until then, it's illegal, it's on the books, so smoke it at your own peril.

The use of racism to reinforce government propoganda about certain drugs.

Big business lobbying to adjust government policy on certain drugs.

That's oppression and terrorization? If you want me to send you a list of citations that CLEARLY shows that marijuana use predicts future hard drug use, then I'd be happy to. What hasn't been shown (to my knowledge) is if prevention of marijuana use will prevent future drug use -- but I'd be shocked if that weren't true.

It's just as much feeble rhetoric and propaganda to claim terrorization and oppression -- you're just on the other side of the coin.

Laws can be unjust. I don't know about you, but I have pity for people who are prosecuted under unjust laws.

If they're unjust then change them. But this is not sufficiently unjust -- in fact I think it IS justified to keep marijuana illegal EXCEPT for clearly documented medical use. I think the penalties are more unjust than the law, frankly.

If the government uses those laws to felonize a portion of the population as a way to manage those eligible to vote, I'd say that is oppressive.

Good luck proving that claim. Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, liberals, for the most part all approve of marijuana being illegal. In fact the only three significant constituencies who want it to be legal are advocates for medical use, libertarians, and potheads.

[Holiday20310401]

Why doesn't the government just tax illegal drugs like crazy and allow them to be legal. When I mean 'like crazy' I mean like enough for incentive to have the potheads forced to stop due to financial conflicts. And instead of the government having to loose money to keep the criminals at bay they could gain money.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

Why doesn't the government just tax illegal drugs like crazy and allow them to be legal.

Tax something enough and you'll get a black market to undersell the legal market.

The tax on cigarettes, however, has a very important twofold purpose. The ostensible purpose is to defray the cost of caring for patients with smoking-related illnesses (which include very common things like pneumonia and asthma). But the main reason is that it discourages teenagers from smoking -- very few people begin smoking after their teenage years, so you can really drop the number of smokers by preventing teen smoking.