Potheads, puritans and pragmatists: Two marijuana initiatives put drug warriors on the defensive

Townhall ^ | October 18, 2006 | Jacob Sullum

[eleni121]

Sir Francis: Mandatory drug testing for all including politicians of course--- When do we start? I love it!

[SampleMan]

I've noticed there are two types of people who advocate legalizing pot. The first group smokes pot.

[Unknown Pundit]

I've noticed there are two types of people who advocate legalizing pot. The first group smokes pot.

And the second group supports legalized tyranny.

[microgood]

I've noticed there are two types of people who advocate legalizing pot. The first group smokes pot.

And the second group believes its none of their business if someone does and that government is to here protect our freedom, not tell us what we can or cannot ingest.

I admit the notion of live and let live is outdated, since now we live under my way or the highway at the mercy of the latest whims of the currently in power anal retentive control freaks.

[Turbopilot]

Since you addressed the question for general discussion, I'll give you what I would view as a failure:

Police still being able to conduct no-knock SWAT raids on what may or may not be the right house to make a marijuana bust. Young people still getting convictions that prevent them from getting student loans or joining the military. Street dealers still financing criminal enterprises through obscene profits, and selling unknown green substances that could be anything from oregano to poison. Billions of tax dollars still spent to locate, arrest, process, prosecute, and incarcerate people for buying or using marijuana. People still being killed over marijuana, or marijuana profits.

If marijuana were legal to produce, sell, buy, and consume, and those things still occurred, that legalization would have been a failure from a practical perspective, in my opinion.

[RobRoy]

I havent touched the stuff since 1977. I think it is stupid. I also think it should be legal.

That is, in a free country it should be legal.

[RobRoy]

Wow. That's a good idea. And all it would take is a hair sample.

[SampleMan]

There's a second group? ;)

I fall into the category that's open for discussion of the issue as a non-constitutional question. I don't think that all behavior such as polygamy, drug use, and non-murderous cannibalism are constitutionally protected. Thus, I think there is a discussion to be had beyond, "I'm being repressed."

[SampleMan]

Well that was a complete dodge of the question if there ever was one.
I'll just mark you down as, "The only failure could be not getting free and easy weed."

[dirtboy]

I don't want THC users living next door to me or my kids. Or anywhere in my neighborhood.

I would much rather have a THC user living next to me that a violent drunk. Or especially someone who goes out to a bar and then drives home drunk.

[microgood]

I don't think that all behavior such as polygamy, drug use, and non-murderous cannibalism are constitutionally protected. Thus, I think there is a discussion to be had beyond, "I'm being repressed."

The constitutional part of my original reply was based on drug testing being advocated and my objection based on the Fourth Amendment, which it clearly violates.

On the larger issue, my problem with the drug war is that the cure has been worse than the disease, and no other regulation of vices has spawned the militarization of the police, no-knock searches, widespread abuse of asset forfeiture, corruption of our police, judges, politicians, and erosion of our Fourth Amendment rights. Drugs are truly the gateway issue the government is using to trash the Constitution.

And especially with pot, it is rather hypocritical to leave it illegal when alcohol is not. It really makes no sense from a rational perspective.

[eleni121]

That's bad too. Put them away and lock them up for ever. Just don't add insult to injury by making THC legal.

[dirtboy]

For those who advocate legalization on practical grounds, NOT constitutional grounds, what outcome of legalization would constitute a failure in your book?

Can't think of too many. Colorado already has pot decriminalized to where possession of an ounce or less is a summary offense, and we haven't seen an outbreak there of crazed potheads committing armed robberies of junk food from 7-11s as some have claimed would be inevitable.

Seriously, I smoked the crap when I was younger. And did beer. Still drink beer. Don't smoke pot any longer. My experience with both is that some people can handle alcohol, some can't. Some people can handle pot, some can't. There will be problems with people in the latter categories. But the number of people in the latter category when it comes to pot who also present a clear and present danger to society is far smaller than with booze.

So it's stupid to make pot possession criminal. It's a waste of law enforcement resources and prison cells. Best to decriminalize it but still allow some law enforcement levers for the few people that do become social problems from abuse of weed.

[SampleMan]

I assume you are OK with an employer being able to not hire or fire an employee for any reason, including drug use, as a matter of this being a free country. I can't see that the pure libertarian argument can force an employer to do otherwise.

In the public sector, the employer would be the electorate, deciding who gets government employment, help, etc. and who doesn't.

[satchmodog9]

I am actually surprised the stuff isn't legal. It gives government one more thing to regulate the crap out of along with every other sin tax. The logistical problem with legalizing drugs would be the constant black market. Government legalizes certain drugs, others become hotter commodities. You also have a black market for stronger versions of the government regulated drug.

[FUBAR12]

Does that mean if it was a choice btw a non-user or a user you would want to have a user next door?

[SampleMan]

I think its stupid to legalize the possession of small amounts. It should either be legal or illegal. To legalize small amounts is like making stealing $5 legal.

I'm OK with a state legalizing pot if the majority of that state decides to, but I'm not OK with the concept that its a constitutional right.

I'm also OK with employers, including government (the electorate), having very broad rights in who they hire and fire, or otherwise hand out money to. If a man doesn't want to employ someone who smokes pot or drinks alcohol or smokes, that should be his business. Same goes for how government funds are spent.

Do what you want, but bare the consequences, might indeed be the best alternative to drug use.

[microgood]

I assume you are OK with an employer being able to not hire or fire an employee for any reason, including drug use, as a matter of this being a free country.

For the most part. I believe employment is a kind of contract which binds both sides in certain ways. The Fourth Amendment does not apply to employers but at the same time, they should not be able to fire you one year before retirement to screw you out of your benefits either. There has to be good faith on both sides.

Actually I just read an article about a month ago where many employers are ending their drug testing programs because they have not been beneficial or cost effective and so now the drug testing companies are lobbying public schools trying to make up the shortfall (it was posted here a FR a month or so ago).

[SampleMan]

The constitutional part of my original reply was based on drug testing being advocated and my objection based on the Fourth Amendment, which it clearly violates.

If the government holds a person down and conducts a drug test without a warrant, you have a point, otherwise you don't.

If I'm an employer, private or government, I have a right to set limits on that employment, even if I'm misguided. The prospective employee is in no way forced to undergo a drug test. They can simply go elsewhere.

Employers or any person giving out money, should be able to set their conditions for the voluntary contract. Of course, the drug user can also refuse and go elsewhere.

[Tailback]

I think mandatory drug testing as an OSHA standard for all employment (including politicians) would take care of it.

I love your plan, that way when I retire I can stop drinking and start smoking pot legally.