Sam (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
l33tminion) wrote2008-09-19 10:03 am
l33tminion) wrote2008-09-19 10:03 am
The Questions Behind Question 2
There's apparently a ballot initiative up in Massachusetts for decriminalizing marijuana, bringing the state back into the drug war debate. One of the bill's detractors from the linked article notes:
"To see all the young black boys I've had to bury ... because of drug-related violence... Show me how marijuana can improve someone's judgement [sic], how it can bring families together, how it can curb the violence that plagues our society. I'd like to see it."
When I read that, I thought it was a good example of how prohibitionists are missing the point. Of course drugs don't bring families together. Of course they don't improve judgment (not in any way the prohibitionists would accept, anyways, and certainly not if the judgment in question is "don't do drugs"). But the same can be said about alcohol, tobacco, and television. They ignore that violence is motivated by the high price of drugs, and little boosts the price of something more than making it illegal. Furthermore, everything on their favored side of the status quo is ignored. What is the effect of arresting nearly 100 people an hour, the vast majority for non-violent offenses?
There are two factors to weigh here. First, what is the social cost of an activity, and does that justify restricting people's freedom by outlawing it? Second, is the cure worse than the disease?
I'm not going to go in depth on either of those questions. I will say that pretty much everyone agrees that the radical prohibitionist stance (anything bad for you is illegal) and the radical libertarian stance (it's fine to have ballistic missiles filled with crystal meth in your backyard) are both absurd. Thus, people need to come together to figure out where to draw the line, instead of the current setup, where pretty much everyone stands on one side of the status quo and opposes any change in that direction. Those on the either side would be well advised to frame their arguments in terms of when things should be illegal and why.
"To see all the young black boys I've had to bury ... because of drug-related violence... Show me how marijuana can improve someone's judgement [sic], how it can bring families together, how it can curb the violence that plagues our society. I'd like to see it."
When I read that, I thought it was a good example of how prohibitionists are missing the point. Of course drugs don't bring families together. Of course they don't improve judgment (not in any way the prohibitionists would accept, anyways, and certainly not if the judgment in question is "don't do drugs"). But the same can be said about alcohol, tobacco, and television. They ignore that violence is motivated by the high price of drugs, and little boosts the price of something more than making it illegal. Furthermore, everything on their favored side of the status quo is ignored. What is the effect of arresting nearly 100 people an hour, the vast majority for non-violent offenses?
There are two factors to weigh here. First, what is the social cost of an activity, and does that justify restricting people's freedom by outlawing it? Second, is the cure worse than the disease?
I'm not going to go in depth on either of those questions. I will say that pretty much everyone agrees that the radical prohibitionist stance (anything bad for you is illegal) and the radical libertarian stance (it's fine to have ballistic missiles filled with crystal meth in your backyard) are both absurd. Thus, people need to come together to figure out where to draw the line, instead of the current setup, where pretty much everyone stands on one side of the status quo and opposes any change in that direction. Those on the either side would be well advised to frame their arguments in terms of when things should be illegal and why.
marijuana, legal? not OK with me
no subject
Honestly, I think we largely agree. I'd love to see tobacco banned in all public places, and I don't want to see pot smokers lighting up in public either. I just don't think the government should be concerned with what people do to themselves in the privacy of their own homes. Of course, there may be issues when second-hand anything is concerned, especially when children are involved, and I'll recognize that many drugs are obviously too dangerous to permit at all (heroin, crystal meth, etc.). Obviously, government employees shouldn't be allowed to do drugs on the job (but the tobacco lobby is so powerful that's basically considered a right at this point).
Tobacco smokers are an obnoxious lot. They view the world as their ashtray, accost strangers in the street for cigarettes or paraphernalia (this happened to me just yesterday, some random guy asked me "are you a smoker?" with that drugged-out, desperate look in his eye), always need another fix and right now (if you ever travel by train you'll see just how true this is). Tobacco makes people irritable in general. You could say that's a side-effect, but really that's the largest effect. Smokers are always talking about how smoking "calms them down" but they're lucky if it makes them a hair more calm than baseline, they're just on edge the rest of the time. If a tobacco smoker acts like a jerk, they're probably not just having a bad day.
By contrast, what have potheads ever done to you? Honestly, I suspect you're just woefully ignorant of the issue and you're taking a knee-jerk position. So much so that you don't even take the time to to remember that "people who die in drug-related violence" are often law-enforcement officers, not to mention the role of coercion in people becoming involved with taking or selling drugs.
Wow! I can't believe that went over my head