So, the economist and time agree: It's about fucking time to LEGALISE IT

[Cramulus]

It wouldn't be less effective.  It's just, that the goal posts would be farther away. 

I didn't mean to imply that your program doesn't reliably prevent youth addiction btw, just that your program seems to be the exception in a country where attitudes towards substances are mired and complex. You should know that when my druggie friends go off on legalization, I try to do my best RWHN impression and talk some sense into them.    Do you think that if your program was more widespread, it would balance out the potential harm to youth which will stem from drug legalization?

For what it's worth, I don't mind my freedoms being curtailed a bit if it prevents kids from starting their lives on the wrong foot. I don't think kids are equipped to resist the temptations of awesome drugs. And even bad drugs.

But I do wonder where exactly the line should be drawn. Somehow we've given this legal authority over our lifestyle to the government, and I don't think they always make the best choices, but at least they're trying? To me, a lot of contemporary problems stem from the nature of institutions - that once they're funded, their funding generally goes to extending their lifespan whether or not the cause is a "good" one.

Example: Reagan tried to reduce the size of the Navy (because hey, do we really need a huge ass navy when we have such a sick airforce AND a nuclear arsenal?) and found he wasn't powerful enough to do it. In this case, the survival mechanisms of that institution overrode the rational reason for having them around.

So if a great solution came up which balance out America's fucked up drug attitudes and the fucked up notion of criminalizing [relatively] victimless behavior --- I wonder if the idea will ever be strong enough to overcome the institutional resistance to the end of prohibition. Time will tell! I view California as a test lab for these things, and the data collected in the coming years will give us some insight as to how medical marijuana will do in the rest of the country.

[Captain Utopia]

Example: Reagan tried to reduce the size of the Navy (because hey, do we really need a huge ass navy when we have such a sick airforce AND a nuclear arsenal?) and found he wasn't powerful enough to do it. In this case, the survival mechanisms of that institution overrode the rational reason for having them around.

Actually, I really like the framing of this effect in terms of 'institutions'.. too much focus on this within corporations, when it is a wider and more generic phenomenon.

[BabylonHoruv]

if i am following the RWHN argument correctly, your liberty as an adult to smoke weed in the same manor and conditions as alcohol must be sacrificed for the safety of the children...

That is exactly what I have gotten from his arguements as well, both here and on the other board I debated this with him.

If that's not what he's arguing than either fomenter and I need to work on our reading comprehension or he's being unclear.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

if i am following the RWHN argument correctly, your liberty as an adult to smoke weed in the same manor and conditions as alcohol must be sacrificed for the safety of the children...

That is exactly what I have gotten from his arguements as well, both here and on the other board I debated this with him.

If that's not what he's arguing than either fomenter and I need to work on our reading comprehension or he's being unclear.

That's what I get from it, too.

[AFK]

fair enough. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on whether or not that would be worth the increased personal liberty for adults.

not being snarky either, if you're going to take the position that anything is worth decreasing the personal liberty of adults, protection of children is about the only reason I can think of that has any merit whatsoever.

You posited it before as a choice between liberty and security.

Another way to think about it is a choice between sacrificing the futures of a portion of our youth for the pleasure of a portion of our adults. 

[AFK]

if i am following the RWHN argument correctly, your liberty as an adult to smoke weed in the same manor and conditions as alcohol must be sacrificed for the safety of the children...

That is exactly what I have gotten from his arguements as well, both here and on the other board I debated this with him.

If that's not what he's arguing than either fomenter and I need to work on our reading comprehension or he's being unclear.

As I just posted, And my impression from you, fomenter, RCP, others is that it is necessary to sacrifice the futures of a portion of our youth for the pleasure of a portion of our adults.  Is that incorrect? 

[AFK]

It wouldn't be less effective.  It's just, that the goal posts would be farther away. 

I didn't mean to imply that your program doesn't reliably prevent youth addiction btw, just that your program seems to be the exception in a country where attitudes towards substances are mired and complex. You should know that when my druggie friends go off on legalization, I try to do my best RWHN impression and talk some sense into them.    Do you think that if your program was more widespread, it would balance out the potential harm to youth which will stem from drug legalization?

For what it's worth, I don't mind my freedoms being curtailed a bit if it prevents kids from starting their lives on the wrong foot. I don't think kids are equipped to resist the temptations of awesome drugs. And even bad drugs.

But I do wonder where exactly the line should be drawn. Somehow we've given this legal authority over our lifestyle to the government, and I don't think they always make the best choices, but at least they're trying? To me, a lot of contemporary problems stem from the nature of institutions - that once they're funded, their funding generally goes to extending their lifespan whether or not the cause is a "good" one.

Example: Reagan tried to reduce the size of the Navy (because hey, do we really need a huge ass navy when we have such a sick airforce AND a nuclear arsenal?) and found he wasn't powerful enough to do it. In this case, the survival mechanisms of that institution overrode the rational reason for having them around.

So if a great solution came up which balance out America's fucked up drug attitudes and the fucked up notion of criminalizing [relatively] victimless behavior --- I wonder if the idea will ever be strong enough to overcome the institutional resistance to the end of prohibition. Time will tell! I view California as a test lab for these things, and the data collected in the coming years will give us some insight as to how medical marijuana will do in the rest of the country.

Oh, I didn't think you were implying that at all.  I just wanted to put a plug in for my program (sans program name, gotta protect my true identity and all)  I just wrapped up my last training and I'm just very impressed with the group of kids I'm working with this year.  I love to brag them and my program up any chance I get. 

[rong]

if i am following the RWHN argument correctly, your liberty as an adult to smoke weed in the same manor and conditions as alcohol must be sacrificed for the safety of the children...

That is exactly what I have gotten from his arguements as well, both here and on the other board I debated this with him.

If that's not what he's arguing than either fomenter and I need to work on our reading comprehension or he's being unclear.

As I just posted, And my impression from you, fomenter, RCP, others is that it is necessary to sacrifice the futures of a portion of our youth for the pleasure of a portion of our adults.  Is that incorrect? 

you mean like social security?

[P3nT4gR4m]

Where do you draw the line, tho? Some kids might get their hands on our stash and get strung out on it - ban the stash. Some kids might get their hands on our car keys and die in a pile-up - ban the automobile? Some kids might put on a jacket that's too big, trip over the sleeves and fall down the stairs and die - ban clothing?

Truth is theres a fuckton of shitty parents out there, bringing up a bunch of shitty kids in some of the most fucked up ways imaginable. Those kids are fucked any way you want to look at it. If they are alive long enough to reach breeding age all they'll do is shit out a whole new generation of fucked up idiots and the cycle will repeat. Yeah it's fucking tragic cause all those kids need is some guidance* and/or parenting and they could turn out fine but fuck it, they aint gonna so why bother obsessing over what-if's? Makes no fucking difference whether I'm allowed to buy crack over the counter or not - there will be shitheads regardless.

Strikes me as the same fucking "save them from themselves" - bleeding heart mentality that puts up all those fucking fences where some idiot who deserved to die did exactly that when he stood too close to the edge and now the view is fucked cos there's a fence and a lameass sign saying "you might fall".

So the question is - where do you draw the line? Personally I choose not to. Lines are ugly and every one takes another little slice of my freedom.


* that's where people like WHN come in.

[LMNO]

I would think that one line could be drawn by the purpose of the item in question.

The purpose of a car is transportation.
The purpose of clothing is warmth and social signals.
The purpose of hash is to fuck you up.

[AFK]

if i am following the RWHN argument correctly, your liberty as an adult to smoke weed in the same manor and conditions as alcohol must be sacrificed for the safety of the children...

That is exactly what I have gotten from his arguements as well, both here and on the other board I debated this with him.

If that's not what he's arguing than either fomenter and I need to work on our reading comprehension or he's being unclear.

As I just posted, And my impression from you, fomenter, RCP, others is that it is necessary to sacrifice the futures of a portion of our youth for the pleasure of a portion of our adults.  Is that incorrect? 

you mean like social security?

Maybe I'm still groggy but you're going to need to expand upon this because I'm not quite sure what you are getting at. 

[Captain Utopia]

The purpose of hash is to fuck you up.

I think you may have been doing it wrong. Or I have. There are certain classes of thought which are easier to perform under the influence, which pass muster with a sober mind at a frequency high enough to make the process beneficial to me.

I know I'm not the only one with this experience, though the only documented source I can think of is Carl Sagans/Mr X essay.

[LMNO]

As I just posted, And my impression from you, fomenter, RCP, others is that it is necessary to sacrifice the futures of a portion of our youth for the pleasure of a portion of our adults.  Is that incorrect? 

you mean like social security?

Maybe I'm still groggy but you're going to need to expand upon this because I'm not quite sure what you are getting at. 

I think this was a joke-ish thing: There's an idea that social security taxes future generations to support present-day retirees.

The purpose of hash is to fuck you up.

I think you may have been doing it wrong. Or I have. There are certain classes of thought which are easier to perform under the influence, which pass muster with a sober mind at a frequency high enough to make the process beneficial to me.

I know I'm not the only one with this experience, though the only documented source I can think of is Carl Sagans/Mr X essay.

Care to post link, and explain yourself better?

[AFK]

Okay, I'm feeling more refreshed today, AND I have the day off.  So.....

But, that does seem to be the current trend. In the 1990's particularly, arrests and convictions (at the state level) increased dramatically for simple possession. A study published in 2006 (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/524483) had the following result:

The study found that since 1990, the primary focus of the war on drugs has shifted to lowlevel
marijuana offenses. During the study period, 82% of the increase in drug arrests nationally
(450,000) was for marijuana offenses, and virtually all of that increase was in possession offenses.
Of the nearly 700,000 arrests in 2002, 88% were for possession. Only 1 in 18 of these arrests
results in a felony conviction, with the rest either being dismissed or adjudicated as a misdemeanor,
meaning that a substantial amount of resources, roughly $4 billion per year for marijuana alone, is
being dedicated to minor offenses.

(I don't assume these people to be unbiased as they are focused on reducing sentencing etc)

Okay, and have I not said several times now that sentencing and law enforcement need to continue to be addressed?  I've said several times now that we need to be sensible when it comes to enforcement and that someone caught with a small amount of pot should not be serving time along side a murder, rapist, or Bernie Madoff. 

BUT...the solution isn't simply lifting the ban and hoping it will be okay.  The solution is to work on law enforcement policies.  I would encourage anyone living in a state where low level offenders are being jailed to have their legislators look to the Maine example.  Law enforcement and people like myself work side by side to craft sensible policies around substance abuse and to make sure that people who need help get help, and not a jail cell. 

Yet during that same time, ONDCP claimed that these sorts of arrests had decreased, because they used federal statistics. Feds are arresting mostly dealers etc... but local law enforcement is still incarcerating non-violent possession offenders. Maybe thats 'data interpretation', but it seems awfully close to not being truthful.

Well it's two completely different data sets.  Sure, when you look at it on a state by state basis you are going to see states that are very harsh and states that are more progressive.  Obviously when you lump them all together the trend is going to look different.  What you are describing isn't special to these kind of statistics.  Certainly, federal data isn't helpful when you are examining what is going on in Ohio.  But you shouldn't be looking at federal data when you are examining what is going on in Ohio.  That doesn't make any sense and will not help you. 

However, before I sound like a completely paranoid ass, I would like to point out that even the ONDCP now seems to disagree with the past reports by the ONDCP... I just found this summary which has some interesting conclusions and statements... they appear opposite of the ONDCP position over the past several years. This is obviously not a policy paper, but I think it makes some very forward thinking statements which seem MORE IN LINE with most reports I've read... as opposed to past documents which seem at odds with similar reports from other sources.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20082705/ONDCP-White-Paper-Summary-Email

Well sure, with any agency in the federal government their views are going to shift from administration to administration.  I mean, do you think it makes any sense to compare the EPA under Clinton that tried to strengthen environmental regulations to the EPA under Bush that went in the opposite direction?  Of course it doesn't.  Why would the ONDCP or any of the other agencies under the thumb of the President be any different?  Besides, if someone wanted to, they could look at the data and do their own analysis of it.  You can get plenty of stats from SAMHSA and decide for yourself the extent of the issues around drugs in this country.  Don't let the government do all of the work for you.  I don't. 

The last Drug Czar touted how well the Drug War was going. ONDCP published lots of POSITIVE numbers... However, this ONDCP doc now says:

Despite incarcerating millions of Americans and spending hundreds of billions of dollars, illegal drugs remain cheap, potent, and widely available, and the harms associated with them – addiction, overdose, and the spread of HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C – continue to persist in every community. Meanwhile the war on drugs is creating problems of its own - broken families, increased poverty, wasted tax dollars, prison overcrowding, and eroded civil liberties.  America desperately needs a coherent and compassionate national drug policy that reduces the problems associated with both drugs and the war on drugs.

Right.  And so adjustments should be made.  New policies around enforcement should be enacted or old ones amended so these ills are reduced.  And that IS happening.  And I am an active participant in that process. 

The ONDCP has over the past decade claimed that most drug violations that result in prison... are SERIOUS OFFENDERS. This ONDCP doc says:

The United States ranks first in the world in per capita incarceration rates, with less than 5 percent of the world's population but almost 25 percent of the world's prisoners. The incarcerated population has grown from 500,000 in 1980 to 2.3 million today, of which almost one-fourth are for drug law violations.   In addition, nearly one-third of the roughly 5.1 million probationers and parolees in 2007 were supervised on account of a drug law violation. The U.S. incarcerates more of its citizens for drug law violations than all of Western Europe (with a much larger population) incarcerates for all offenses combined.

What is the breakdown of those violations?  That is important information.  For example, how many of those are for dealing?  Trafficking?  Providing to minors? 

The United States lags behind much of the advanced industrialized world, and even many developing nations, in making sterile syringes widely available to reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS, enacting life-saving overdose prevention policies, ensuring that people with drug-related problems have on-going access to healthcare, and making methadone and other quality drug treatment readily available to those who seek it. When it comes to the most widely used drugs in the U.S. – alcohol and tobacco – comprehensive public health strategies have reduced misuse and saved lives without incarcerating millions of Americans. Applying similar strategies to marijuana, cocaine, heroin and other drugs could reduce the problems associated with those drugs while also reducing incarceration.

And how many times have I said that same thing in this thread?  Drug courts et al. 

Here's a good idea that also flies in the face of past ONDCP documents:

Our country's failed drug policies persist in part because of ineffective evaluation and assessment.  There are two problems.  First, the key measurements - drug seizures, arrests and annual surveys of drug use – tell us little of importance and mostly distract from more important criteria.  Second, many programs persist even in the face of overwhelming evidence that they fail to meet their stated objectives. What is needed are a new set of criteria for evaluating the success or failure of federal drug policies.  Key measurements should focus on reducing the death, disease, crime and suffering associated with both drugs and prohibitionist policies. Programs proven to be ineffective or counterproductive should be eliminated.

Speaking as a professional evaluator, I would argue that strides have been made doing a better job of measuring the effectiveness of policies and outcomes.  Indeed the focus of today is on evidence based strategies and policies.  If a program cannot demonstrate outcomes, it is not funded.  Period.  I believe the same is going on at the federal level since it is the federal government who has really dictated this shift.  And that comes from SAMHSA not the ONDCP. 

There are many other good statements in this doc, including an admission that the main focus of ONDCP historically was focused on reducing drug use, but that it should instead be focused on reducing harm associated with drug use. They also seem to admit that the current view of all drugs being equally bad is not working:

Whatever one's views on drug use as a moral issue, there should be no argument that certain kinds of drug use are more problematic than others, with some drug use relatively benign in the context of the grave consequences associated with other types of drug use. And yet, ONDCP's historically undifferentiated views on drug use – where marijuana is as serious as methamphetamine – distorts this obvious dimension.  Moreover, ONDCP's focus on drug use rates obscures whether drug policies actually reduce the negative consequences of drug use, such as overdose fatalities or new HIV or hepatitis C infections.

It is true that it is more effective to have a more nuanced approach to different substances.  Particularly when you are talking to kids.  Obviously you can't go into a classroom and say that a joint is just as deadly as a hit of heroin.  Kid will stop listening to you.  But nobody really does that anymore.  I'm sure there are a few here and there who are stuck in the 80s version of substance abuse prevention, but that shit can't get funded in this day and age.  But I also know what signals it will send if society decides to go 180 in the other direction and formally gives approval to the use of marijuana.  I know how that will impact youth, particularly troubled youth looking for something to medicate the shit they feel inside. 

In short this appears to be one of the few documents which I have read that has been produced by someone at ONDCP which agrees with most other studies.... AND DIsagrees with ONDCP's past studies. Up to this point Drug Czars have claimed we're winning, reducing the users, reducing the kids that try it... and now this documents concludes with:

While the Four Pillars model could provide the optimal framework for a national drug policy, implementing such an approach in the United States would be complicated by the daunting task of mitigating the profound consequences of its failed 40-year war on drugs.

I note that the document references Pres. Obama several times, and both he and his current Drug Czar have expressed these views in the past... However, the disparity between the admissions in that document and the 'reports' from the ONDCP in the past seem at odds.

You mean an agency under a Democratic President is at odds with the agency as it was under a Republican President? 

I'll still be digging into a more detailed review of government statements which appear false to me... but I think this sampling here at least indicates that there is some disagreement in the ONDCP about the veracity of their past statements.

Of course.  Different administration AND we know a whole lot more now then we did in the 80s and even the 90s.  As in any area, knowledge is always evolving and thus policy needs to adjust with that knowledge.  To borrow from myself.  A policy is simply where you stopped legislating. 

That's listed as a "summary email" for a whitepaper by ONDCP. "  The Role of an Effective Office of National Drug Control Policy" August 2009 However, I can't find the full document which may have different conclusions than the available summary. RWHN, if you can get a copy of the full whitepaper I'd love to read it.

I'll look around and see if I can get my mitts on it.  No promises. 

[AFK]

Imagine if beer were illegal.  How many kids who normally find ways to steal, cajole, or use fake IDs to buy beer would now be unable to do so?  In order to get beer they'd have to go and find someone who brewed their own, in small batches, or they'd have to make their own at home, hidden from their parents.  Hence, most kids would no longer have access to beer.

If adult access to pot is made more available, minor's access to pot is also made more available.

It's not that simple.  If beer were made illegal, a black market would be created for it, and many people who don't make beer now would start making it.  So the difference would be that instead of getting it from stores and bars they would get it from friends and neighbors, and they would no longer need fake IDs.

I'm not trying to say that banning booze would increase kids' access to it.  I don't know whether it would or wouldn't.  I'm just saying that it's not as simple as you're making it out to be.

Also, aside from the question of increasing/decreasing access, illegalization of booze would mean that the government no longer has a say in ingredients or production process, meaning the black market version is potentially more dangerous.  That's probably not a serious issue with black market beer, but it was a big problem with prohibition era distilled spirits, and it's a problem with black market drugs today.

I'm just going to throw this theory out for the hell of it.  And it is just a theory, I could well be wrong.  I am fully convinced that if we knew then what we know now about the impact of alcohol on the developing brain, and if we knew then what we know now about the developing brain, alcohol prohibition would still be in place, or, it would've lasted longer.  Or perhaps it would have been decriminalized instead of being legalized.  We've learned a lot about human biology and brain development since the 30s and it is still evolving.  The more we learn the more we realize how fucked up the brain can become when you introduce chemicals to the party (no pun intended, seriously (too much Alton Brown)).