those of us advocating for a different drug policy

[xchrom]

are are advocating for that because what we are currently working with is a failure.

we are not advocating for a drug free for all.

there are better, more cost effective ways to deal with drugs, drug addiction and the societal side effects of what we are currently doing.

i don't care what the drug is really -- but what we're doing is nothing but failure.

it's past time to let rationality and reason into the discussion..

***i say this as a former intravenous meth and cocaine user.

[Bluenorthwest]

1. Too many Americans like to nurture failures instead of making improvements

because changing course means admitting they had once been wrong.

[xchrom]

2. +1

[fredamae]

3. I would agree

Treatment is woefully Inadequate--28 days for those lucky enuf to get a bed when they're ready--is essentially useless..there needs to be a comprehensive assortment of treatment options-not everyone is the same-each, as with all illnesses - needs a "customized" treatment plan--and Enough Time and counsel to actually Recover well enuf to become productive, healthy members of society again.

I believe All drugs should be legal, controlled, administered in a clinic with medical supervision.
We need to get over the Negative Stigma/Stereotype attached to this disease.

There is absolutely NO justification for approaching this social health care problem with Law Enforcements solution of locking people up--over and over and over again...
Incarceration costs us about $3,000.00 per month per person-not considering the "ripple expenses" that touch us all throughout society. If we can afford Billions annually for that--why not take that $3k investment, pay for treatment, in a clinic/healing center for a period of time that is at least Equal to their prison sentences?

I'd like my tax dollar investment to do something Good--not just making big corps More wealthy by preying upon the sick amongst us.
This "socialist" program could be repaid, if you will, by those who have completed treatment, volunteering to help those behind them.

[xchrom]

4. well said. nt

[smokey nj]

5. My nephew is a recovering heroin addict and I

agree with you. My sister - his mother - agrees with you as well. I suspect there were as many, if not more lives were ruined by the war on drugs as there were by the drugs themselves.

[jeff47]

6. But if we did that, we'd have to admit we were wrong!!

I think that's the main barrier to sensible drug policy.

[Bonx]

7. You're appealing to passion with reason

Gonna be a tough sell.

[Warren DeMontague]

8. I've discovered that any arguments for personal freedom on DU mean one is a libertarian doody-face

So, fuck it. Throw the pot smokers in prison, put the government in peoples bedrooms, fuck it.

Don't want to be accused of not being a real progressive, anymore.

[RainDog]

13. conventional wisdom

isn't always wisdom.

Something Taylor Branch, a historian, wrote about prohibition (in general) when people talked about changing drug policy in the past - is that the reason Surgeon General Koop was able to make so much traction on the issue of cigarette smoking was exactly BECAUSE cigarettes were legal and research was possible, and Koop was able to make factual claims, rather than demonizing something and, therefore, making any and every claim against it "okay" because the "greater" goal was to keep such substances (practices, etc.) away from people for their own good.

If tobacco were illegal, it would be the same social problem that other addictive drugs are, plus a billion. But because it is above ground and discussed rationally, people can make the decision to not smoke, or to quit smoking, and there are plenty of FREE smoking cessation groups, or pay for, too. And people can decide to continue smoking. They also have to consider rights of others in relation to this. Someone can argue no one decides to use an addictive product after they have become addicted, of course, but we also have to acknowledge that human actions are complex and maybe even acknowledge that societies will contain humans who make choices that may not be the best, but are the best they can do at that time.

I don't really know everything about what libertarians think, by a long shot, but, as I've noted here before, I had a conversation with a libertarian woman who was fine with the idea that churches could be in charge of schools, as long as no one had to pay taxes for the same. I think she fails to realize how such a potential "monopoly" is horrid in the eyes of many people - and, with other views of theirs on policy - decriminalization of drugs, or how ever someone would move this into the realm of something we could talk about rationally, would have to include some sort of treatment and maintenance for those among us who may be addicts who are at a place in life where they need these things. Conservatives online, when I've seen them talk about this, generally say something like... make it all legal and let the addicts kill themselves. No one I know thinks of the issue in this way.

What's interesting with libertarians is that you can even get them to talk about the idea of a basic minimum income - they just don't want to talk about a reasonable level for that income, maybe. Their justification for their support is that it would be cheaper and also reduce the need for govt. bureaucracy that deals with various problems that don't address a core problem - which is poverty, no matter what the reason for it. So, there are times when opinions overlap, but the implementation of policy related to making such ideas successful isn't necessarily the same.

but nuance doesn't play well on DU.

[Warren DeMontague]

14. "libertarian" is a shorthand label to shut down discussion on DU, I've noted.

Not to mention an easy "look, over here!!!" distraction for when someone points out uncomfortable truths about the historic and easy alliances between would-be censors on the left, and repressive, religious fundamentalist culture warriors on the right.

I've spent enough time deconstructing the differences between left-libertarianism, small-l libertarianism the philosophy, and the big-L Libertarian party... it's pointless. Fact is, most people here would end up on the lower left quadrant of the political compass test, if they took it... the left libertarian one. O NOEZ!

I support the right of people to, generally, make their own decisions about their own bodies and personal lives, if they're not harming or endangering others. That means reproductive choice and decisions regarding a pregnancy, that means the right of the terminally ill to choose a pain-free, humane exit if that's what they want, and it includes the right of people to even make bad decisions about altering their own consciousness or putting things like nicotine in their bloodstreams. Drive a car, rob a bank, neglect your kids... then you're committing a crime and should be handled as such.

Doesn't mean I soft-pedal how bad some of these things are. I had a parent die of lung cancer. I had a friend killed by a drunk driver. I've seen what alcohol can do to people. But I think a sane approach starts with recognizing that people ought to have the leeway to make up their own minds about a whole host of stuff, and then working on the societal ramifications of things like hard drugs from a harm reduction instead of a draconian LEO one.

Really, there are two sides to the "libertarian" coin, and one side is the economic one, which I think is wack-a-doo land. Ayn Rand shit.

But people on DU (not you, obviously) love to conflate the terms and ideas, to try to imply that anyone who thinks pot or porn should be legal for consenting adults is secretly an Ayn Rand flat-taxer who wants to privatize fire departments.

It's disingenuous, to say the least.

[RainDog]

15. unintended consequences

Last edited Sat Feb 22, 2014, 12:53 AM - Edit history (2)

I think a lot of ideas are intended for good reasons, at least initially, and can find agreement across various povs - but when they need to be changed because they are not working, or are creating worse problems - that's where something as large as a society has problems.

People get invested in opinions, they want to feel they can rely upon the actions of important institutions, and their impulses are often toward protections of others. All entirely reasonable.

That's why creating taboos are so bad - it precludes rational discussion. Which is what happens here, too.

As far as the idea that strange agreements are part of societies - one instrumental lesson, to me, is to remember the suffragettes aligned with the KKK on alcohol prohibition. The suffragettes' goal was to improve the plight of women - who had to rely upon male income to survive, so living with an active alcoholic in a system with no safety net was a danger for women and children, not to mention the stats on domestic violence related to alcohol, or just violence in general. The KKK's goal, of course, was something else entirely. Prior to prohibition, drinking (and smoking) were not something a decent woman did, in most contexts, beyond the glass of sherry. Suffragettes among white women were also willing to throw African American women under the bus by refusing to desegregate voter marches and by aligning with the white view that such inclusion was asking too much of white structures of power.

Of course, everyone knows the outcome of prohibition was huge amounts of violence, huge amounts of money made and spent because of criminal violence, women moving out into the world to have a drink, since it was only available through certain underground venues (and, of course, right minded people wouldn't keep liquor at home anymore) and the KKK was a power house in politics throughout the early 20th century until Irish and German immigrants and city dwellers wrested a big chunk of power away from the white, southern and midwestern and rural, mostly racists who now leave, looking back at history, the Democratic party with a shameful legacy of political expediency at the expense of basic human rights.

A lot of social issues, to me, ultimately have to do with economic ones.

It's always cheaper when you can create an underclass to underpay, etc. That's an arena where women and minorities have a very common core of interests.

[WillyT]

9. For You, xchrom:

'This Is Working': Portugal, 12 Years after Decriminalizing Drugs
Twelve years ago, Portugal eliminated criminal penalties for drug users. Since then, those caught with small amounts of marijuana, cocaine or heroin go unindicted and possession is a misdemeanor on par with illegal parking. Experts are pleased with the results.
By Wiebke Hollersen - DerSpiegel
March 27, 2013

Link: http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/evaluating-drug-decriminalization-in-portugal-12-years-later-a-891060.html

[xchrom]

10. +1

[nomorenomore08]

12. +2

[tecelote]

11. Imagine what would happen if the money spent on the War on Drugs...

went to rehab programs and community outreach!

[JoeyT]

16. I sort of advocate a drug free for all.

With heavy taxes levied on legal narcotics and the proceeds to be used for exclusively for treatment and rehabilitation. We could take out the crime syndicates, the damage the drug war itself causes, and paying for help for those that want it in one fell swoop.

ETA: And we could take all that money we blow on the drug war and spend it on something that's apparently totally unnecessary and wasteful, like feeding the hungry or housing the homeless.