Three Cheers for Drug Legalization

[Elderberry]

Lawrence Person's BattleSwarm Blog 11/11/2020

Let’s take a break from election results to look at an election result: Oregon decriminalized hard drugs:

    Oregon became the first state to decriminalize small amounts of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and other drugs on Election Day, according to New York Times’ Thomas Fuller. In South Dakota, Montana, Arizona and New Jersey, voters chose to legalize recreational marijuana. Mississippi also adopted an initiative to create a medical marijuana program for patients with debilitating conditions.

    These Election Day results effectively mean cannabis is now legal across a broad swatch of western states, from Arizona to Montana.

    Due to Oregon measure 110, the possession of small amounts of harder drugs like heroin and cocaine will now amount to a violation, similar to a traffic ticket. It is no longer punishable by jail time. The Oregon measure passed by 60 percent of the vote and serves to help treat people with addictions rather than giving them jail time.

    “This is the most significant reform in our nation’s failed drug policies in a generation,” The Executive Director of Drug Policy Alliance Kassandra Frederique told Washington Post’s Jaclyn Peiser. “It’s particularly significant because most people don’t realize that drug possession is the number one arrest in the country.”

Reasons this is a good thing:

The purpose of government is not to protect people from themselves. Ending the war on drugs should theoretically free up resources for police to go after more important crime. (That is, if lunatic leftists don’t defund the police.)

Clearly previous drug war policies have not ended the problem. It’s time to try something else.

More: https://www.battleswarmblog.com/?p=46338

[Elderberry]

Oregon’s Decriminalization Vote Might Be Biggest Step Yet to Ending War on Drugs

The Intercept by Natasha Lennard 11/4/2020

https://theintercept.com/2020/11/04/oregon-drugs-decriminalization/

Oregon voters’ drug decriminalization applies an anti-carceral logic to more than just weed.

Thanks to voters, Oregon will be the first state in the country to decriminalize the personal possession of all drugs, including heroin and cocaine. Oregonians passed Ballot Measure 110, also known as the Drug Decriminalization and Addiction Treatment Initiative, with 59 percent of the vote; it’s the most far-reaching of numerous successful drug-related measures on ballots nationwide, including the legalization of recreational marijuana in New Jersey, Arizona, Montana, and South Dakota. Every one of these victories constitutes a long overdue challenge to the racist, carceral logic of drug criminalization. Oregonians have taken a historic step in recognizing that if a carceral approach to drug use is harmful, it is harmful regardless of the drug in question.

In a general election between two candidates proudly committed to “law and order” politics and aggressive policing — regardless of Joe Biden’s minimal gestures towards marijuana reform — Oregon’s ballot decision offered a glimmer of hope for those interested in significant criminal justice changes. The success of Measure 110, alongside other decriminalization and legalization efforts, is a rebuke to the notion that any person who uses illegalized drugs, no matter what the substance, is best served by an interaction with the police and prison system.

“This is part of how we reform policing: by getting them out of the drug business,” wrote Brooklyn College sociology professor Alex Vitale, author of “The End of Policing,” on Twitter. Vitale was referring to the four states that voted to legalize recreational marijuana, but he added that “Measure 110 in Oregon is even better.”

More at link.

[rustynail]

What about those who can't afford to buy drugs?  If  food assistance is a right  should not the ability

to purchase drugs be also?

[bigheadfred]

What about those who can't afford to buy drugs?  If  food assistance is a right  should not the ability

to purchase drugs be also?

Sure. Why not? But there is a limit.

[The_Reader_David]

The trouble is, decriminalizing possession of small amounts only removes one of the harms of keeping psychoactive substances illegal -- the needless incarceration of users.  It still leaves the trade in such substances the hands of ruthless criminal cartels, with the consequence of drug-related murders, since criminal cartels cannot resort to the law to settle disputes.  It still means no quality control (a major contributing factor to overdose deaths, esp. since adulteration of other drugs with fentanyl became a trend).

Sensible drug policy needs to weigh, on a substance by substance basis, whether the benefit of decreased use under an illegalization regime is greater than the harms outlined above of keeping (or making) that substance illegal.  The experience both of Prohibition and the "War on Drugs" (which John Ehrlichmann, who was there when Nixon launched it, tells us was never really meant to address the problem of addiction, but was an excuse to lock up blacks and hippies) really suggests that turning a public health problem (drug addiction) into a crime problem, rather than addressing it as a public health problem, is a bad idea.

(As an aside on a related point of law, I'm still mystified by why it took a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, but not to ban opium, cocaine or marijuana.)

[Slide Rule]

I have had a change of heart on drug legalization.

Go ahead and allow all the stupidity to thrive. The expendables will perish.
So be it. Sorry if your friend, son, or daughter is stacked like cords of wood.

Lets decrease the profit and provide these drugs free.

Expunge the pushers and the users. Let it be over.

Slide Rule

[dfwgator]

As long as I don't have to pay for your hospitalization and your welfare when you can't find a job, knock yourself out.

[Fishrrman]

From the article:
"In South Dakota, Montana, Arizona and New Jersey, voters chose to legalize recreational marijuana."

I wouldn't be surprised if this was a large factor in Biden winning the state (presuming that he survives the final tally).

Naturally, the dopeheads vote for the democrat-communists...

[Fishrrman]

dfw wrote:
"As long as I don't have to pay for your hospitalization and your welfare when you can't find a job, knock yourself out."

But you WILL be paying for their hospitalization and welfare. Do you really believe otherwise?
Eventually, you may even be required to pay (through taxes) for their DRUGS...

[Elderberry]

If drugs are to be legalized, the growing of natural drugs should be legal as well. Why should the source of drugs be under government control. Let it be like brewing your own beer and wine. While they are at it why don't they legalize the personal distillation of spirits for consumption? Let the govt maintain control over pharmaceuticals for quality controls. And let free enterprise take care of the rest.

[bigheadfred]

GDed revenures.

[Sighlass]

So when you work next to that Hyster driver that drives next to you all day are you just happy to see them still hung over on some drug that affects judgement often days later after taking it. Mere feet away is some person driving something that can squish you into the next life.... all is good right? /s

One Christmas eve one such druggie side swiped my wife with two kids in the car in a town 70 miles away. Kids took it well (child safety seat probable save my 3y/o). Wife was sore for months.

No, I don't cheer when others think that what they do in their homes does not affect the rest of us.

[Elderberry]

My sister's car was impacted with about the same amount of damage by a County Deputy. It didn't come out if he was under the influence. Roads can be dangerous at times.

[Sighlass]

My sister's car was impacted with about the same amount of damage by a County Deputy. It didn't come out if he was under the influence. Roads can be dangerous at times.

We all know the reason big companies especially in areas around big machinery do drug testing. Their insurance providers gives them a better rate if they thin out the druggies. Why do insurance providers want less drug addled folks around machinery? Because stats show them that certain factors up the rate of accidents. When you have a factor of double the rate of accidents or so (studies say some more some less, nobody knows for sure especially when folks mix drugs and are only tested for one at the scene of an accident).

It is just common sense that drugs are bad for other folks that don't take them. We have no way to force drug takers to stay in their homes (basements) and not mix with others. All we have is law that lets them know to try to be careful with their unwise life decisions, otherwise they face losing their freedom (to get more drugs is freedom they tend to worship more than anything).

Again, no cheers from this side. People are dangerous enough without compounding the risks.

P.S. Look at Portland... What could go wrong.  Perhaps a Christmas day when all you have is a wrecked car to look at cause your wife and kids are in the hospital.

[sneakypete]

What about those who can't afford to buy drugs?  If  food assistance is a right  should not the ability

to purchase drugs be also?

@rustynail

NOPE!

Apples and oranges. Mankind is born with the need to get food in order to stay alive. There was no choice involved.

I happen to think legalization is long overdue for a nation that likes to consider itself to be a "beacon to freedom",but along with the freedom to get high,comes the freedom to pay your own damn rent and buy your own damn food.

I do NOT want to hear about addicts getting welfare benefits because they are unable to work. They brought it on themselves,so let them "wear it".

BTW,this goes for people addicted to alcohol,also.

[mountaineer]

https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1752768071113081117

[sneakypete]

@Jack Russell   @Sighlass

I agree with  you both,but  it is NOT the drugs that caused those deaths and injuries.

Let's put the blame where it REALLY lies,on the heads of the clueless idiots stupid enough to drive while drunk or drugged out.

BTW,in the spirit of truthfulness, *I* was one of those idiots are one time. I suddenly became aware one day that I was no longer in control of ANYTHING,and not only quit doing drugs,I quit smoking and I quit drinking alcohol,beer,and wine on the same day.

If ya desperately need to do something,you  need to do it all the way,not just nibble around the edges.

The most surprising thing was that my friends quit inviting me to their parties,despite the FACT that I  didn't get "pushy wid it" over OTHER people drinking alcohol or doing drugs. I once even got into a mild argument about MY not wanting to drink and take drugs with a guy I just met who  sat down at the same table I was sitting at. Finally,one of my cousins came over that knew the guy well,and he told him to leave me alone or he would NOT like what happened to him. I believe he used the words "Let sleeping monsters alone".

I quit drinking and doing drugs in the early 70's,and as recently as last year when I was at a birthday party given by my ex,another woman came up  to her and asked her WHY she had invited me to the party,and didn't she know what a monster I was. I was sitting next to my ex's mother one side and her sister on the other,and the woman speaking couldn't see me. I DID hear my ex break out her "colder than ice" tone of voice and inform the woman  that "I have known him since I was 17 years old,and I have NEVER seen him hurt anyone that wasn't trying to hurt him",and that if she didn't like me being there,she was welcome to leave.
 
For once in my life,I made the intelligent decision to just sat right there and say nothing.

BTW,her mother had the "good old girl network" check me out when I started dating one of her daughters,and was told by someone married to one of my cousins that "There in no danger at all of him hurting her in any way,or anybody else hurting her while she is with him." I know this to  be a fact because one night when I went to her house to pick up  one of her daughters to go to a rock concert,she informed that "I had her approval to take either one of her daughters with me,anywhere and any time they and I wanted to go",and told me where the info came from. Endorsements as to character just don't get any higher than that.

BTW,I just visited with my ex  and her mother earlier today.

One thing you MUST understand about rural living is there ARE no actual secrets when it comes to personalities and their good OR bad deeds.  You can deny all you want,but you can't hide it.

[The_Reader_David]

There are reasonable arguments in favor of drug legalization, but so far as I can tell none in favor of decriminalization as done in Oregon.  Oregon left the trade in the hands of criminal gangs, thereby ensuring lack of quality control and inability to tax the trade.  The illegality of the trade means police resources are still tied up in suppressing it, and the fact that the trade is still illegal means that those engaged in it must still settle disputes over market share and the like with drive-by shootings.

Actual legalization would move the trade into the legitimate economy, allowing quality control -- if you think you're buying heroin of a certain strength, that's what you're getting, not fentanyl, not stronger heroin, not heroin laced with [fill in the blank], this alone would cut-down on overdose deaths, which are mostly due to the product being stronger than expected -- allowing the collection of taxes on the trade, allowing an ordinary market to develop, rather than one in which competition for market share involves murdering rivals, allowing either reduction of expenditures on policing or, better, retargeting of police resources on crimes against persons and property. Since civil liberties abominations like no-knock warrants are justified by the 'war on drugs', they could be abolished, restoring at least in part the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

Plainly a legalized drug regime would also require stronger laws against impaired driving, impaired operation of heavy equipment and the like, and should include treating drug use, no longer a crime problem, as a public health problem, with well-funded treatment programs and public health measures to discourage if not use qua use, use at levels leading to addiction.

[Smokin Joe]

Eff all that recreational stuff.

How about letting me buy antibiotics for humans? No $250 doctor visit with an interminable wait for an appointment, just let me walk in and get the $10.00 (or less) prescription for a course.

Chances are very good I'd be using some older antibiotic to get the job done, so it isn't like I'd be rendering some new drug useless, and I'm in my 60s, so I already know when I'm sick and what worked before.

[mountaineer]

How about letting me buy antibiotics for humans? No $250 doctor visit with an interminable wait for an appointment, just let me walk in and get the $10.00 (or less) prescription for a course.

My first trip to Europe was with a group from school in the late 70s. One of the boys got sick (sinus infection) in Spain, and our Spanish group leader went to a pharmacy and got him antibiotics over the counter at very low cost. Having spent a summer working in my uncle's drugstore, I was floored. Antibiotics without a prescription!