PDA

View Full Version : WOD - A reasonable endgame


OdderMensch
20th May 2003, 02:47 PM
Ok this is a follow up thread to some questions raised in other threads. I believe it deserves a new thread in order to limit the discussion to this: What is a reasonable endgame senario to the war on drugs.

My belief is that 'wiping out drugs' is impossible. People will inevitably find new ways to alter their brain chemistry even if the current drugs were magically removed from existence (ie all opium, coca and cannabis seeds in the world suddenly became sterile.)

So what effect will ending the drug war have? Will its implications be far reaching, or short lived? Or will we always maintain prohibition to some level?

I would like to propose this as a possible endgame.

Step one - end Marijuana prohibition.

This is done on several fronts simultaneously. First and foremost would be the removal of marijuana from the 'schedule process' or reclassifying it as schedule 4 (as has been done in the UK I think)

Then propose legislation on the states to classify MJ as an intoxicant analogous to beer and wine, then regulating it acordingly. This will hinder minors from gaining access to the new legal market, and provide a level of tax return for the states.

Also, i believe we should continue the ban on imports until such time as new trade agreements can be made with our former 'partners' in the drug war. (selflessly this will also allow for the reemergence of our own domestic production, and offset the need for massive importation)

One major sticking point will be the people currently under incarceration for drug crimes. I belive they should be pardoned and their records wiped clean, if and only if, their crime was solely those of possession, production or distribution. (ie if your were serving a 5 year sentence for distribution, nd a three year sentence for an illegal hand guns, you would continue the sentence for the gun, but would be pardoned of the drug crime.)

Now, to this point I have only adressed MJ. This is due to the nature of the substance being substantially different from that of the other, harder drugs. images of stoned, midless rape zombies ravaging through the land as proposed in old propaganda films simply will not happen. While you will see an overall spike in drug use, it will be similar to the spike that has been seen in the homosexual population since the 70's and 80's, it will be the rusult of the population being brought out into the open. You will see your old managers and teachers stopping by seven-eleven for an ounce of kind and a slurpie. It will be shocking to many at first, but will cause no major breakdown in society.

Step two - the hard drugs

Much more difficult will be the reintroduction of legal sources for cocaine, opium, there derivatives and the hallucinogens. Oddly I see opium as the simplest of these to mainstream. But these questions are better left to experts, so I'd propose that a team be established as soon as the decision is made to end the war, and they be given such time is necessary to confer amongst themselves and suggest the best means of distribution and sale. But the substances must be off the black market as soon as is reasonable. If anyone is curious, I'll post my nonexpert plan.

Some also suggest a surge in actual drug use at first as the substances are made legal, and while this is possible, I do not see it as a cause for alarm. While more people will be exposed to the substances, also more education about the substances will become available. Drugs will lose the magical rebellious nature they has acumulated over the years and will once again be another set of tools we use to make life more livable.

It is also important to note that drug use is cyclical in nature, as is prohibition, both China and the Turkish empires had banned or allowed drug use several times thought their respective histories, and the use of cocaine and opium wax and wane over the decades, re legalization will give us a measure of control that does not currently exist.

Roadtoad
20th May 2003, 07:20 PM
My suspicion is that the sound you're hearing from Philadelphia is Benjamin Franklin applauding in his grave.

Interesting thoughts. I could almost go for the part on MJ. It's the harder stuff I have a problem with. I can't put my finger on it, but I just don't see that as a viable move. For one thing, there's the involvment of some committee, which may or may not know what the hell it's doing. Don't we have enough of those around?

blackpriester
21st May 2003, 09:35 AM
I agree wholeheartedly.
It might be advisabel to have some sort of "driver's license" for drug use which you'd need to acquire drugs - and that you would get after getting specific education on how to use them, including the medical basics etc..

A fun way to improve science eduation in America ;)

RichardR
21st May 2003, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by blackpriester
I agree wholeheartedly.
It might be advisabel to have some sort of "driver's license" for drug use which you'd need to acquire drugs - and that you would get after getting specific education on how to use them, including the medical basics etc..

A fun way to improve science eduation in America ;) Exactly!

schplurg
21st May 2003, 03:41 PM
I disagree with the idea of needing a "drug license" to buy any drugs. Alcohol has proven to be more damaging to the body, more addictive than most other drugs, and causes the most harm to non-users (auto accidents etc) than all the others, yet most people use alcohol responsibly. Would I need a license to buy beer too?

I don't see or hear much about crazed heroin addicts and cocaine users rioting in the streets and starting fights at football games. No, it's the alcohol drinkers. If hard drugs were legalized, I don't think we'd suddenly have a surge in overdose cases (maybe short term until the novelty wore off), violent crimes, or anything else. If the bottle of pills came with safety instructions, just like with any other medication, that may be enough. Most people using morphine or other drugs with a prescription don't abuse the drugs or become violent or cause problems for society, and they don't receive any more drug education than a quick warning from a pharmacist, if that. Some do get addicted but the majority do not. In fact, most hardcore drug users don't overdose and know what a good doseage is for themselves. No I don't have a link.

I think it's time for our government to let us adults act like adults and make our own decisions. Just legalizing all drugs across the board would be a radical step, and I'm not saying I'm 100% behind that, but what problems would exist that don't already? And if the government had to provide medical or rehab for those with no health coverage, wouldn't it still be cheaper than the current method of putting people in jail?

Maybe if drugs were legalized, drug education on TV and public awareness would naturally increase, as with beer and cigarettes, making the license unnecessary. Maybe not. I'd be interested in finding out.

Odder:
So I guess you WERE kidding a few months ago when you said you got a job with the ATF or some drug enforcement org? You almost got me goin on that thread ;)

OdderMensch
21st May 2003, 04:13 PM
you mean that day at the begining of April? ;)

My non expert plan does involve makeing people gain some sort of licence in order to purchase 'hard drugs' It would basicly be a piece of paper you read and signed saying that yes, you understood the risks posed by takeing such substances and admited that you chose to take that risk freely.

I would see in such a sheme the argument being made that liqour is a hard drug and might require a simmilar licence, and I would be ok with that.