While I'm glad to see growing support for rolling back some of the most obviously horrific excesses of the War on Drugs, we still have a generation or two of Americans who eagerly support simply destroying the lives of people involved with drugs they've been trained to be afraid of. I mean, it's great so many people are finally willing to stop obliterating the lives of strangers who like to smoke weed instead of get drunk, but why do they still think it's OK to ruin the life of some twenty-something selling cocaine to his friends?
I was with you until the end. You lost me at 'selling cocaine to his friends'
I personally support legalizing and/or decriminalizing a significant array of drugs; but I do not think we should ever accept the distribution of drugs by non-regulated entities. Possession/consumption, fine. Distribution: Not fine. Drugs sold on the street are not tested for purity or manufacturing standards. There is no accountability, no regulated employee rights, no taxes levied, etc. Selling drugs should remain a felony.
Personally, I think the gov't should grant licenses for the manufacture and distribution of these substances with rigorous controls, and adult citizens should be legally allowed to purchase an amount that is fit for personal consumption, on a schedule that would make it exceedingly difficult to resell/stash (e.g. You may purchase 1-2gs of cocaine or 2 tabs of acid every 6 months)
Obviously, we have seen problems with this, as this scheme is essentially just prescription drugs combined with Canada's 'beer stores'.
Letting "users" off the hook but going after the people who must exist for those users to obtain drugs makes no sense. The distinction is mostly imaginary (I say this as a former drug dealer).
I'd further argue that decriminalizing a drug for "personal use" but keeping it a crime to participate in the market for that drug is essentially a government endorsement of a black market.
Being a former drug user of various substances, I think it makes perfect sense. Addiction is a health issue, and addicts shouldn't be punished for it.
The dealers, those responsible for the deterioration of both physical and mental health of the users, are directly responsible for that and should face charges for the damage they inflict on society. I think that is a very real and not imagined distinction.
I obviously concede that without a legal alternative to obtaining drugs that yes, the gov't would be endorsing an illegal market. But, clearly, I've stated that's an intermediary step and I believe the sale of these drugs should be legal in a highly controlled environment to consenting adults.
I also think meth and opiods are exceptions and should never be legalized for consumption outside of a prescription, but then I'm splitting hairs based on opinion and experience.
I agree, although I think putting harsh limits will just continue to drive addicts and users with high tolerances to a black market. We don't place limits on alcohol, I'm not sure why we should on these things either. If there are legal, regulated places to buy them the "black market" would be mostly crushed anyway, just like the black market for alcohol is today.
It's true we don't limit alcohol consumption, unless one is at a bar, where a bartender legally must cut you off in some instances, and has discretion otherwise.
I think we should place limits specifically designed to prevent tolerance buildup or the ability to repeat said habit-forming behavior on a habit-forming schedule, basically. Like, I can do coke 1x a year and have a good time but not be addicted, especially if I can't get it again for a year. If one could just go back the Drugs'R'Us and pick up another g, well... we're even worse off than square 1.
That does nothing to stop the black market though. I would actually argue allowing people to legally get one fix of a addictive substance and then not allowing them a second would be a great boon to the black market. The concept doesn't really make sense. And then you also give law enforcement the headache of determining what is illegal coke and what is legal coke. What if I bought a bag 6 months ago,never consume it, then police find me with it.How can they possibly know if I used it six months ago and refilled the container on the street or not.
The environmentally-conscious side of me hates this: Single use, tax stamped containers that, once opened, cannot be resealed or reused. Theoretically, ne wouldn't have any trouble because possession is legal/decriminalized. If any drugs are found in a search by police that aren't in the state-approved containers, they are confiscated and destroyed, but the possessor is obviously not charged with anything. Problem solved, mostly.
I also don't care about any difficulties the purveyors of state-backed violence (police) may encounter as a result of this. They can spend their budgets that way instead of purchasing weapons of war. Win win win.
OK, so the plan is to make owning drugs legal, and sell drugs once to users, then tell them they can't have any more, and that is supposed to accomplish what, exactly? I'm not even against legalizing drugs, I'm just against legalizing them occasionally arbitrarily, that seems to be the worst of both worlds. Now we have legalized crackheads and opium addicts, with a legal method of getting addicted (but once you are addicted and desperately want more the govt cuts you off) and a crime fueled black market coexisting
I think a goal of legalization should be making buying coke easy for addicts, and hard for non-addicts.
The problem with your solution is that's not nearly enough cocaine for addicts, so compared to the current drug war you've made it far easier for non-addicts to buy drugs, without really influencing the supply for addicts.
I think a better solution is to allow people to buy up to a personal amount of coke for an addict, 1g per day. But require a request one month in advance. This allow addicts to purchase enough cocaine to satiate their habit, while still making it difficult for an individual to pick up some coke on a bad day and never stop.
It'd be way cheaper to just seize and destroy any drugs that didn't have a tax stamp. It also creates a nice incentive for the legal distribution system to charge cost+a bit instead of way too much.
What limits on purchasing do stores impose in Canada? If you buy a handle on Monday do you have to wait 6 months until you can buy one again?
The problem with this is that the opioid crisis has shown a large majority of people simply can't handle "hard" drugs. They either get physiologically addicted or psychologically dependent and rapidly enter downward spirals as a result. So even if you legalized and regulated the distribution of cocaine, for example, many people would still turn into addicts and pursue the black market to get their fix after their monthly allowed amount runs out. I don't think there really is a good answer in the near-term, honestly. You either go the Portugal route and trade massive spending on anti-drug policing for massive spending on rehab and mental healthcare or you get one opioid crisis after another. Long-term I personally think the solution would be to invent recreational drugs that are non-dependency forming and distribute those in the same way some states are now handling marijuana.
> Long-term I personally think the solution would be to invent recreational drugs that are non-dependency forming and distribute those in the same way some states are now handling marijuana.
I totally agree. In fact our ridiculous anti-drug stance has no doubt delayed or prevented the development of these things. I would imagine we would have some pretty good options if a legitimate pharmaceutical company could do this. Recreational, non addictive (or minimally addictive) options would be available.
Instead our harsh prohibition and penalties means the R&D are from drug cartels who want the most addictive/powerful product possible. I read a book called "Narconomics" which discusses how bad the Heroin has gotten because of this.
> why do they still think it's OK to ruin the life of some twenty-something selling cocaine to his friends
I think they think that he’s ruining their lives and hope to deter him.
But I think the view that there’s no limit to how badly his life can justifiably be ruined (or ended) is receding, there was multi-partisan (& independent) support for the First Step Act. And I think many reasonable people across spectrums could agree on more steps like the Justice for Breonna Taylor Act, but some politicians love to laser focus on racial tensions and divide them.
"I think they think that he’s ruining their lives and hope to deter him."
Yeah, that's the War on Drugs in a nutshell. People imposing life-ruining penalties on strangers because they are afraid "something bad" might happen. But as decades of embarrassing failure have taught us, the "something bad" is far more likely to be a consequence of the laws than the drugs.
Rights, checks, and balances can go out the window because something bad might happen. Eurasia or Eastasia will end the world. Five times as many civilians as died on 9/11 must be secretly killed because something bad has happened. The messenger who told of those 15,000 hidden deaths must be killed because he shone the best disinfectant on our allies Eastasia as brightly as he did on our eternal enemies from Eurasia before, and caused the world to end for four years.
Hold on, that ending was a surprise. Rolling back most of the war on drugs and focusing it just on the sellers of class a drugs (once classification is corrected) is a fair summary of what most of the rest of the first world is heading towards. It’s the balanced option.
15 years ago, when I was in Uni, I smoked a bunch of weed and because I was smoking it and had contacts, friends who wanted some would ask me. I only ever charged them the cost price, I did not make any money from drugs, ever, but, technically, that would count as dealing at least by the laws in my country. I'd typically only have a small amount on me, but on occasion I did pick up enough for ~5 people. In aggregate, definitely enough that the police would have claimed it was far too much for personal use (nevermind that their "personal use" amount is always super low compared to what a moderate to heavy smoker would go through).
Every single one of my friends that I did this for is now an upstanding member of society, in well paying jobs paying over the average amount of taxes, some with children now. Point is, that I provided them with weed every so often had no negative effect on their lives or on society. Yet the law says it was a crime and if I had been caught it would have fucked up my life. I don't think that's particularly fair.
I know that's weed and the commenter mentioned cocaine, I've got friends who were in similar situation as me but with cocaine and would provide -- at no extra cost -- to friends who wanted it for parties and such. I don't think these people were any worse than I was. Distributing to friends really shouldn't be a big deal in my opinion.
The balanced option is ruining the lives of some people involved in recreational drug use, but not others, based on who is the point of distribution for a group of friends on a given weekend?
People don't buy drugs from kingpins and importers. They buy drugs from a friend who has a hook up who has a hook up and that is the only way drugs can be distributed if we insist on maintaining laws that ensure a black market.
Is the act of doing some drugs enough to ruin your life? The wealthy do drugs all the time. I'm willing to bet the majority of our politicians have done "illegal drugs" during their adult lives.
