Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[CortJstr]

I haven't studied the phenomenon in depth, but it seems to me that a lot of people think that the illegal drug trade would go away if you legalized it.

I suspect that the underground market would persist - it seems to me that legalization would include controls, possibly registration, and other necessary regulations (not to mention taxes) that would keep people away from the legitimate market. Unless there is some sort of massive culture change that would make it OK (non-stigmatic) for people to use drugs and be known as drug users, it seems to me that there will always be that secondary market.

I'd think it would follow the sex-toy market. Lots of people are too ashamed to go to stores and buy butt-plugs and real-dolls but are perfectly fine buying them online. Plus no sales tax.

[KeithHernandez]

I can't agree more with some of you and less with others.

KH's premise about some drugs being legal and others not due to economics is confusing....the enforcement of the laws is probably different, and the courts may deal with people differently for these reasons but I can't think of a drug that is legal (or illegal) and only available to certain people. It's a market and it's pretty much about affording the drugs.

I meant when the first became illegal.  I will say more later, but for now:

"1936 - 1938: William Randolph Hearst's newspaper empire fuels a tabloid journalism propaganda campaign against marijuana. Articles with headlines such as Marihuana Makes Fiends of Boys in 30 Days; Hasheesh Goads Users to Blood-Lust create terror of the killer weed from Mexico.

Through his relentless misinformation campaign, Hearst is credited with bringing the word marijuana into the English language. In addition to fueling racist attitudes toward Hispanics, Hearst papers run articles about marijuana-crazed negroes raping white women and playing voodoo-satanic jazz music.

Driven insane by marijuana, these blacks -- according to accounts in Hearst-owned newspapers -- dared to step on white men's shadows, look white people directly in the eye for more than three seconds, and even laugh out loud at white people. For shame!"

http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/mj004.htm

Here is a better article: http://www.rivetmagazine.org/articles/R15/hashing.html

Have you ever met a heroin addict?
Or a crack addict?
Have you ever met a heroin addict's kid?
These are not people who are good for society (I mean, the kid was an example of impact. I don't mean that kids are bad for society.)

Personal freedom doesn't mean getting to fuck up other people's lives.

yes, yes and no.  They were not that bad, but the crack addicts would rip you off if they got a chance.  However, they are going to be there whether or not you legalize drugs.  You can either put them in jail and pay for them because you don't think smoking rock is good, or you can legalize it and create cheaper products, reducing crime.  As for their kids, what is the difference between them and the ones who's parents work all the time or are alcoholics?

Here is another article:  http://www.njweedman.com/history_of_drugracism.html

to see if you are interested, here is the first paragraph:   

The association of particular drugs with hated minority groups and foreign enemies has a long and colorful history in the United States. The association of opium with the Chinese, of cocaine with Blacks, of, alcohol with urban Catholic immigrants, of heroin with urban immigrants, of Latinos with marihuana, the claim that a myriad of foreign enemies were using these drugs against the U.S., and the image of drug crazed bohemians such as Ludlow, Baudelaire, and DeQuincy all were integral to the propaganda that generated the prohibitionist policies on each of these drugs.

[FlipConstantine]

Thought I'd throw in a few cents here.  I'm in favor of drug legalization to an extent.  I can certainly see people's reasoning for not wanting unconstrained consumption of highly addictive substances to be legal, but when you look at the drugs that are being prescribed to people these days, to kids and adults, it really makes me wonder how a government can justify spending billions of tax dollars putting people in prison for possessing a few grams of marijuana.


[This post preserved as evidence in the case of Literacy Vs. Me]

[V-Adore]

The problem, once again, is that it depends on the drug. I honestly believe that, for marijuana, you would essentially destroy the black market if it was legalized; while you might still have small-scale growers and sellers, there don't seem to be any major barriers (beyond supply, which can presumably be alleviated) to legal marijuana being as relatively inexpensive as cigarettes, and there isn't a huge moral stigma attached to marijuana use the way there is to, say, heroin use.

The problem with a lot of the "inability to hold down jobs" argument, I think, is that there are already perfectly legal drugs that can have the same negative effects if abused. God only knows that alcohol can, if abused, keep somebody from being able to hold down a job and promote domestic violence and harm to others, but nobody seems to be arguing anymore that it should be illegalized. While I will admit that harder drugs are more problematic, and while any drug can be abused, I can't see marijuana being intrinsically more likely to cause harm than alcohol.

[robot_god]

This discussion doesn't even need to be had:  we can all just agree that there should be mild amounts of THC in the world's water supply.  Problems solved.

[Fooker]

Holy shit.  I'm sure glad escaped psychiatric patients can get their hands on assault weapons!

Assault weapons have been regulated by the NFA since 1934, or did you mean "weapons which cosmetically resemble fully-automatic firearms but lack the happy-switch"?

[AlohaDawg]

to see if you are interested, here is the first paragraph:   

The association of particular drugs with hated minority groups and foreign enemies has a long and colorful history in the United States. The association of opium with the Chinese, of cocaine with Blacks, of, alcohol with urban Catholic immigrants, of heroin with urban immigrants, of Latinos with marihuana, the claim that a myriad of foreign enemies were using these drugs against the U.S., and the image of drug crazed bohemians such as Ludlow, Baudelaire, and DeQuincy all were integral to the propaganda that generated the prohibitionist policies on each of these drugs.

That is interesting. I think that history should be considered in context, though - Racism is racism; I view this discussion of the substances abused as just another stereotype to go with laziness, or greed, or criminal proclivity. I grew up in the 80's so I associate powder cocaine with guys who wear ties, work in tall buildings and live in the suburbs. And Heroin with vietnam vets.  I think a lot of those associations are contextual to your experience, the norms and mores of the time, and obviously your psychology. Today, we don't see the yellow journalism and objectionable stereotypes that were apparently permissable 100 years or so ago, but we do see the bad side of drug abuse - the crime, the destruction of families, the reduction of potential through lost work opportunities, impaired abilities, and the like. And we still see racism, occasionally associated with the drug use but I think less so, at least overtly, than back then.

It's interesting to consider that some Black leaders use the racism card the other way; rather than the myriad of enemies using the drugs against the US, the CIA imports crack cocaine to keep Black communities fragmented. I think that the writings you cite can be distilled to a few messages: 1) that there was a lot of very overt racism at that time and 2) that it was recognized even then that drugs were a recognized problem in communities and especially minority communities and 3) that racist people will use any lever they can find to fan hatred for a minority group.  I'm not convinced that the drugs were made illegal specifically for racist reasons. From those few black leaders perspective, were it legalized, I can envision some sayint that it would be legalized for racist reasons.

And V-. yeah, mostly agree about the marijuana. I'd much rather share the road with a pot smoker than a drunk. The pot smoker is going 15 miles an hour and laughing the whole way. However, I'm not sure about the black market part - the tax on the pot and the expense of maintaining whatever government structures you place to control it would probably make pot cheaper outside the system.

This is the reason why hijacking cigarette trucks still occurs. Smokes cost a lot (If you can't get to an Indian reservation to buy them) and the tax is a huge bite. There is a black market for cigarettes and, booze even aside from illegally distilling your own... anyone who lives in NY, OH, MI has made a run to Canada for booze for a wedding or a party at some point, because it's cheaper - point being, there are grey-to-black markets for very common things (pharmaceuticals from Canada and Mexico, too) so there is no reason for me to believe marijuana wouldn't fall into that category if it were legalized and controlled.

[AlohaDawg]

Assault weapons have been regulated by the NFA since 1934, or did you mean "weapons which cosmetically resemble fully-automatic firearms but lack the happy-switch"?

An assault weapon does not have to be fully automatic. The NFA act prohibited so-called "machine guns". (Probably a response to the whole Bonnie and Clyde, Al Capone, etc. thing) Assault weapons are defined in various ways but generally, a semi-automatic weapon with a high-capacity detachable magazine (10 rounds +) would not fall under the NFA act but would be considered an assault weapon. Other characteristics that can make a weapon an assault weapon include threaded muzzle (for sound/flash suppression), bayonet mount, forward pistol grip, a pistol with the magazine attached outside the grip, and, silly in my opinion, semi-automatic weapons designed to replicate military weapons (i.e. M-16 or AK-47 styling).  Also, some states have caliber restrictions, i.e. 50 caliber weapons are considered assault weapons in CA.

[theinevitable]

good lord, I am terrified of guns.

[Fooker]

An assault weapon does not have to be fully automatic. The NFA act prohibited so-called "machine guns". (Probably a response to the whole Bonnie and Clyde, Al Capone, etc. thing) Assault weapons are defined in various ways but generally, a semi-automatic weapon with a high-capacity detachable magazine (10 rounds +) would not fall under the NFA act but would be considered an assault weapon. Other characteristics that can make a weapon an assault weapon include threaded muzzle (for sound/flash suppression), bayonet mount, forward pistol grip, a pistol with the magazine attached outside the grip, and, silly in my opinion, semi-automatic weapons designed to replicate military weapons (i.e. M-16 or AK-47 styling).  Also, some states have caliber restrictions, i.e. 50 caliber weapons are considered assault weapons in CA.

Well, if you're going to take the misused terminology of the so-called 1994 crime prevention act which merely banned features and use that to say "this is what an assault weapon" is, then just say so. An assault weapon is any weapon used to assault people, OR a mid-caliber weapon with full auto capabilities... 10 rounds is not high capacity, we've had twenty round handguns since the Civil War. In CA, .50 caliber weapons are banned because everyone knows that they can shoot down satellites, airliners, destroy fuel tank railcars, and pass through a dozen orphanages and daycare centers without stopping.

[AlohaDawg]

Well, if you're going to take the misused terminology of the so-called 1994 crime prevention act which merely banned features and use that to say "this is what an assault weapon" is, then just say so. An assault weapon is any weapon used to assault people, OR a mid-caliber weapon with full auto capabilities 10 rounds is not high capacity, we've had twenty round handguns since the Civil War. In CA, .50 caliber weapons are banned because everyone knows that they can shoot down satellites, airliners, destroy fuel tank railcars, and pass through a dozen orphanages and daycare centers without stopping.

(emphasis added by AD)

Fooker - if you are transparently anti-gun, that's OK. But I'm not misusing any terminology, I'm only stating how the definition is generally applied. There are also assault cars, baseball bats and hands that are assault weapons under your broad definition, but in this case 'assault' is used in the military sense, not the 'personal violence' sense. Also, my statement is neutral in that I don't have an opinion about the NFA act or what is or isn't an assault weapon - (with the exception of the word 'silly' applied to the replica guns (and clearly stated as my opinion)) it's just a statement of fact. It's a definition. If you disagree with the definition, contact your congressional delegation and work in changing the legislation. Clearly you have a strong opinion, and good for you - but don't take it out on me when all I do is explain what is and isn't covered under NFA. 

Also, an 'assault weapon' need not be fully auto as you state. A mid-caliber semiautomatic weapon with a detachable magazine holding >10 rounds (or a handgun with a magazine that extends beyond the grip or attaches outside the grip) qualifies. Any weapon that fires and chambers a single round without the shooters action beyond pulling the trigger is semiautomatic. If you need to throw a bolt, cock a lever or if the weapon has a revolving chamber it's not semiautomatic.


This next part is my opinion.

Inevitable - I'm sorry you're afraid of guns. But since there are lots of people with really bad experiences that cause them to be afraid of guns, I won't tell you you should or shouldn't, but I would ask you to think about why you're afraid of them and how your experience with guns and/or people with guns has shaped your feelings about guns.

I've had to have words with more than one school about the whole 'all guns are bad' thing they try to tell my kid. What does a soldier or a cop look like to a kid who has been taught that all guns are bad? She knows she should tell a parent or a policeman if she sees a gun. She knows she should never ever touch a gun unless her mom or I are with her and tell her it's OK. And she knows that a person with a gun can kill another person, even by accident. I try to avoid attaching a moral value to the concept of a gun - it's an inanimate object, a device, a tool. But I do try to teach her to respect it's power and potential for destruction in the wrong hands. For those of you interested the NRA has a safety program for kids called Eddie the Eagle Gunsafe

I agree with the ban on assault weapons and also machine guns. I also agree with requiring people to qualify to own a gun - and it should be any gun. And the stiffer the requirements, the better within reason. I agree with harsher punishments for gun crimes.  But I don't believe a firearms ban is a feasible or reasonable idea in today's America.

My seven year old daughter will probably get to shoot some very small guns (or possibly air guns) at the Shooters Fair in Hawaii in July. I want to take her to understand that there are many, many people with guns who are not police or soldiers that are good, careful and professional people. She can make up her own mind about the politics and morality of guns later, and she surely will. But I don't want her to make that decision in a vacuum of experience and knowledge.

I also believe that the owner of a gun should be at least partially responsible for a crime committed with the gun - particularly in the cases where a teenager gets a dad or uncle's gun and carries out some kind of crime...like a school shooting or the kid shooting at the police. An unsecured gun should result in its owner bearing some share of responsibility for the crime.

[FlipConstantine]

I'm scared of guns because regardless of how careful or professional one is, being in a room with a gun raises my chances of dying spontaneously to a statistical level that I'm just not comfortable with.  I'll agree that a all-out ban on guns is probably not neccessary or even a good solution to gun violence, after all there are plenty of people who own guns all their lives without killing anyone, but seeing as they are devices built expressly for the purpose of killing things and are very good at that, their sale and usage definitely need to be regulated and documented.  And that's all I'll say on that.

[Fooker]

Funny that none of my guns have killed a person or animal, not even once. They're steadily working toward causing paper targets to go onto the endangered species list, though.

Even more amazing- not once has one of my guns lept out of the safe and started killing people. I once sat my Krinkov pistol on the coffee table and watched it for several days, and it didn't even go off once!

By the way, guns already are heavily regulated. Do you think that more is the answer? That'll be a resounding success, much like the current war on some drugs.

[AlohaDawg]

Ok, Fooker, so you don't seem to be anti-gun! I can't figure if you think the legislation goes too far or not far enough...and, I'm sure explaining what semi-auto means is not something you need to know, so I'll consider that background for the readers who may not have that knowledge. Also, you get a tiny can. It's also interesting to note that legislation also mandates the US made or imported semiautomatic weapons be nearly impossible to convert to full auto and manufacturing specifications are regulated to make sure.  (Although I'm sure that there are hobbyists out there with the capability and probably the experience).

Flip, you are right. But the statistical change in your chances of death are probably not nearly as high as if you, say, eat a lot of red meat or get behind the wheel of a car. You also get a tiny can as does The Inevitable.

Being concerned, conscious and responsible about the presence of guns is a good thing. Being paranoid about the presence of guns is usually a bad thing although there are undoubtedly situations where it's not paranoia but a very rightful high level of concern. Hope you never get in that situation and if you do, you get out quickly.

[theinevitable]

yes. I realize that my absolute fear of guns is probably irrational. I cannot attribute it to any specific story or circumstance. They just really scare me. I appreciate that some people can handle guns in a safe manner.

my assertion (that I am scared on guns) is mostly based on a time as a young child when I was shown some guns (while touring a police station with my cub scout troupe) and completely freaked out.