One day we'll look back on this period with incredulity
August 21, 2006 4:32 PM   Subscribe

If... Drugs Were Legal [1 hr Google video]. Last January, BBC Two produced a drama-documentary showing a future where drugs have been legalised. I missed the whole series, but if they're as good as this, they're worth watching out for.
posted by iffley (64 comments total) 4 users marked this as a favorite
 
A relative of mine directed this one. He's a good director, but the subject matter was completely absurd, as was the debate on Newsnight afterwards (which you can watch from that link).
posted by riotgrrl69 at 4:42 PM on August 21, 2006


I saw clips from the panel discussion last year and I have to say the legalizers botched it. Unlike alcohol, where the aspects of taste and texture allow a pretense that intoxication is an unfortunate or unpopular side-effect among respectable people, other drugs are expressly taken for getting high. So the key obstacle to drug war reform is whether intoxication should be tolerated. Cost-benefit analyses are currently the only safe platform for pragmatic advocates, but they are not very potent for the general public unless the key obstacle is tackled sooner or later.
posted by daksya at 4:43 PM on August 21, 2006 [5 favorites]


Drugs are illegal?
posted by obeygiant at 4:48 PM on August 21, 2006


YEah wtf??

*packs another bong*
posted by Jimbob at 4:48 PM on August 21, 2006


By the way, daksya, you just got a favourite because you brought to light something I had never considered. I've been wracking my brain for years trying to figure out why the hell we tolerate alcohol (and tobacco) but lock people up for selling weed. I always figured it was somehow cultural - alcohol was there first, alcohol has always been used by the "respectable" classes, therefore it's here to stay. But I think you may have come across a vital point with the whole "pretend not to like intoxication" bit. This explains a hell of a lot, and it also explains the solution. Somehow, get people to admit they enjoy being intoxicated. Make it fashionable and out in the open. No idea how to do that, though.
posted by Jimbob at 4:51 PM on August 21, 2006


Make it fashionable and out in the open. No idea how to do that, though.

I think the question is, do we really want to do that?
posted by IronLizard at 4:55 PM on August 21, 2006


daksya, how did nicotine hold up against the "aspects of taste and texture" test? genuine taste indeed.

On preview, kinda what Jimbob said.
posted by kaytwo at 4:55 PM on August 21, 2006


Make it fashionable and out in the open. No idea how to do that, though.

If you want to see how to do that, spend some time on the party scene of an otherwise straight-laced liberal arts college. I can tell you that intoxication is very fashionable and out in the open, for better or worse.
posted by OverlappingElvis at 4:59 PM on August 21, 2006 [1 favorite]


The video's got a digital distractions watermark, so you might look there for a higher-quality download..
posted by unmake at 5:00 PM on August 21, 2006


I fear that I wouldn't enjoy drugs nearly as much if they were legal. Same goes for sex in public parks and parallel parking.
posted by odasaku at 5:01 PM on August 21, 2006


Somehow, get people to admit they enjoy being intoxicated.

We have to chip away at the guilt and shame that the churches / US gov't / North American society piles on about needing to be in control of yourself. It's nice to be buzzed. There's nothing wrong with you for wanting to feel that way. It doesn't make you an evil person for enjoying being high.

That bears repeating: don't feel ashamed, it's OK to like being high.
posted by Meatbomb at 5:12 PM on August 21, 2006


I think the question is, do we really want to do that?

Yes. Yes we do.

If you want to see how to do that, spend some time on the party scene of an otherwise straight-laced liberal arts college.

Yeah, but these kids aren't making the laws, or running the newspapers or thinktanks.

Sure, they will be eventually, but by that stage they will have buried their party-time past.

We have to chip away at the guilt and shame that the churches / US gov't / North American society...

North American? Mate this shit is worldwide. Ever tried smoking a spliff in Singapore?
posted by Jimbob at 5:20 PM on August 21, 2006


OverlappingElvis - I can tell you that intoxication is very fashionable and out in the open

A college party is a perfect example of selection bias. Those parties pretty much self-select those who are OK with intoxication, or haven't formed firm opinions about it.

The National Survey on Drug Use and Health is a nice treasure trove on related info, such as, just over half of 18 year olds think that there's great or moderate risk in smoking pot once a month. The other half think there's no or slight risk. 64% think there's great risk in trying acid once or twice.
posted by daksya at 5:33 PM on August 21, 2006


the aspects of taste and texture allow a pretense that intoxication is an unfortunate or unpopular side-effect among respectable people, other drugs are expressly taken for getting high.

Brilliantly said daksya. It's something I never thought about and it's so clear now you said it so concisely.

Good post iffley, thank you.
posted by nickyskye at 5:33 PM on August 21, 2006


Was that Substance D the drug company was making?
posted by Citizen Premier at 5:37 PM on August 21, 2006


I just watched this earlier today after missing it last year... The prohibitionists' arguments seemed weak to me - they seemed to have immense doubts about the ability of governments to properly regulate legal industry while thinking that the same governments could plausibly regulate illegal industry, and they claimed that people would have unlimited access to drugs as if that wasn't the actual state of affairs. I thought it was amusing that the drama made a much more arresting argument against prohibition than the legalisers were prepared to, though.
posted by topynate at 5:40 PM on August 21, 2006


Actually, I think alcohol is still legal largely because of its history and immense usage. Remember also that, in the past, water was usually unsafe to drink so light alcoholic drinks were necessary for life. And what percent of the populace uses alcohol? Probably more than 60%.
posted by Citizen Premier at 5:45 PM on August 21, 2006


How is daksya's insight commensurate with pre-prohibition (Harrison Act, 1914, Marijuana Tax Act, 1937) attitudes towards drugs? I find it surprising that even the Victorians, who objected to the use of the word "leg" in mixed company as immoral, had not so strong an attitude toward the use of narcotics. While the medical harm caused by such drugs was poorly understood at the time, the intoxicating effects were well know and widely enjoyed.
posted by headless at 5:52 PM on August 21, 2006


A college party is a perfect example of selection bias. Those parties pretty much self-select those who are OK with intoxication, or haven't formed firm opinions about it.

I couldn't agree with you more! I was just trying to give as an example a group of people who do self-select for being OK with intoxication - I wasn't trying to say that those people represent the attitudes of a larger culture.
posted by OverlappingElvis at 5:55 PM on August 21, 2006



Actually the idea that drinking is not for intoxication and drugs are *only for* intoxication is absolute nonsense.

There are plenty of marijuana afficianados who would happily outbore the wine critics on the taste question (if High Times Cannabis Cup is anything to go by) if marijuana were legalized.

Alcohol is legal because it has a long cultural history in the culture that came to dominate the world; likewise, tobacco.

But when both tobacco and coffee were first introduced to the West, the rhetoric around them was every bit as off-the-wall as the Reefer Madness film. Every drug that comes from an "alien" culture is generally first viewed as degenerate and likely to corrupt youth and especially likely to make *our* women sleep with *their* men and be defiled. This rhetoric is seen over and over in the news coverage and propaganda used to make cocaine, heroin and marijuana illegal in the U.S.

it's especially amazing how drugs with the opposite pharmacological effects (stimulants v. depressants) can reliably be used by those evil *others* to woo our otherwise virtuous and incorruptible women.

Drug prohibition can be directly linked to racist and sexist propaganda pushed by moral entrepreneurs that had absolutely no relation to the relative harmfulness of the drugs in question. The fact that tobacco is legal (the most harmful and most addictive drug known, bar none-- it kills half its users and addicts roughly 1/3, which is worse than heroin or cocaine or methamphetamine or any other most-evil-drug of the moment) should let us know that.
posted by Maias at 6:02 PM on August 21, 2006 [2 favorites]


RJ reynolds and Phillip Morris would both LOVE to sell me a pack of twenty pre-rolled "joints" with filters to keep out all the bad stuff. With a perscription.

Legalization will do this.

I'd rather have De-criminalization. This will allow you to buy seeds out of a greenhouse, and grow your own, like tomatoes and strawberries.

Legalization will make it like peanuts, tobacco, or other license only plant. You will have to get permission to use it.
posted by Balisong at 6:21 PM on August 21, 2006


You can't grow your own tobacco, or peanuts? Well, maybe not. But weed is considerably easier. It's the economies of scale that might lead to a Big Cannabis situation; whether this sort of commercialisation is good or not is a separate issue entirely.
posted by topynate at 6:26 PM on August 21, 2006


headless - How is daksya's insight commensurate with pre-prohibition (Harrison Act, 1914, Marijuana Tax Act, 1937) attitudes towards drugs?

Mainly under medicinal auspices, like cough syrups, diarrhea..etc; not "relax with a speedball this Saturday".

The nonmedicinal use of opiates, while legal in both the United States and England, was not considered respectable. Indeed, as an anonymous but perceptive and well-informed American writer noted in the Catholic World for September 1881, it was as disreputable as drinking alcoholic beverages--- and much harder to detect:

"The gentleman who would not be seen in a bar-room, however respectable, or who would not purchase liquor and use it at home, lest the odor might be detected upon his person, procures his supply of morphia and has it in his pocket ready for instantaneous use. It is odorless and occupies but little space. . . . He zealously guards his secret from his nearest friend--- for popular wisdom has branded as a disgrace that which he regards as a misfortune. . ."


the intoxicating effects were well know and widely enjoyed

"widely" is quite off the mark. From the same 1972 Consumer Unions report as above, "The Annual Report of the Michigan State Board of Health for 1878 reported three opium eaters in the village of Huron (population 437), four opium eaters and one morphine eater in the village of Otisville (population 1,365), 18 opium eaters and 20 morphine eaters in the town of Hillsdale (population 4,189), and so on around the state."

Malas - There are plenty of marijuana afficianados who would happily outbore the wine critics on the taste question (if High Times Cannabis Cup is anything to go by) if marijuana were legalized.

First, I'm talking about perceptions, not prescriptions. As for pot taste, that's all after the fact. How many of those Cannabis Cup potheads would keep smoking pot if they didn't get high from it?
posted by daksya at 6:28 PM on August 21, 2006


I keep saying this, someone needs to get Big Tobacco behind this while they still have some power. Have their lobbyist push for legalization and tax the hell out of it. We would be putting money back in to the economy with something that never should have been made illegal in the first place.
posted by quin at 6:42 PM on August 21, 2006


I want drugs legal, but I don't want the government to tax the hell out of it.
posted by spaltavian at 6:46 PM on August 21, 2006


I'd rather have De-criminalization. This will allow you to buy seeds out of a greenhouse, and grow your own, like tomatoes and strawberries.

That depends completely on what sort of decriminalization they offer.

I lived for many years in a jurisdiction where cannabis was "decriminalized".

It started out you could grow 10 plants before you faced court, or be caught with up to 2 ounces of buds. Any less than that and you were just fined.

Then they changed it to 3 plants.

Then they changed it to 1 plant, with a limit of half an ounce of prepared buds, and any hydroponically grown cannabis was illegal. Now when you add in the number of plants that fail, the number of plants that turn out male, how the hell are you supposed to grow your own weed like that? Small time, personal growers just gave up, and went back to buying off the bikie gangs.

And they could change the rules without any debate because the rules were all defined in the regulations.
posted by Jimbob at 7:03 PM on August 21, 2006


I want drugs legal, but I don't want the government to tax the hell out of it.

I am so cynical at this point, I truly believe that the only way it will ever be legalized is if it's for the profit of someone in power. It's easy to come up with scare tactic reasons for it's illegality, it's also easy to refute this on a point by point basis. Arguing against something that could stand to bring in billions in tax revenues is a much harder point to defend.

Also, it's a model that has worked well for alcohol and tobacco so it only makes sense. Plus, once it's legal there is no prohibition on people growing their own, just as there is no reason someone can't start their own personal microbrewery. Taxation won't affect people who are willing to put in the work to make their own product, but as that will be a great minority, the tax will benefit everyone else.
posted by quin at 7:15 PM on August 21, 2006


just as there is no reason someone can't start their own personal microbrewery.

Try making a still.
posted by Balisong at 7:19 PM on August 21, 2006


.

That said (five years ago), I don't know if i want to live in a world where drugs were as freely available as tictacs or Big Macs. That's not how it'd go down of course.

Parents vote. Parents don't want their children wildly experimenting when they're not around. If you pull away law enforcement, you will of course turn illegal black market into a fully legal and up front industry. However, it wouldn't allow just anyone to sell to anybody. Licensing would become an issue, and how DO you regulate it?

Prohibition doesn't work at all, but regulation is going to be complex as hell. You can't just let anybody grow it or brew it in their house. It's theoretical that the basics of economics and common sense will win out if left alone, but there's gonna be many years there where it'll be touch and go, mistakes will be made, and people will die. Admittedly, probably about as many as are dying now. Best case? A little less.

Good news? Research and Development will have billions more poured into it. You'll be able to see the stock market fueling it. Result? More and better and more varied recreational drugs. Bad news? Lawsuits. A lot of them. Every time someone died using a fully legal drug? The company would be paying out the nose to keep it out of the papers. Good news? Lawyers would be in hog heaven. ..Or is that more bad news?

Just regulating it wouldn't cause the police to suddenly have nothing to do. In fact it would increase their workload. However, while drug use would no longer be a reason to bring someone in, anything done while under the influence wouldn't be acceptable as a defense. Unlike temporary insanity, drug usage was a CHOICE made by the individual, and therefore they'd be responsible for whatever actions they take while under the influence. Just like drunk driving, if you're driving while under the influence? You're going to jail.

The theory is the criminal element would go away tomorrow if we legalized drugs today. That's not true. It would actually cause a sort of crash among current big wheeler dealers who couldn't just adapt overnight to the new laws. Big business would fly into the situation faster than air enters a vacuum. The little guy would get wedged out. Think you could just make enough in your house to take care of yourself? Don't think for a second big business would allow that to happen.

Objectively speaking, warping and manipulating the human body is like commiting jackass antics to the inside of your body. Every time you do drugs of any kind, you're essentially riding the back of a pick up truck on a skateboard tied by twine. You might make it out without a scratch. You might not. I'm not sure if I'd want to hang with people who are shells of humanoid on the outside but fifteen to twenty years of major fucked up on the inside. I could be dealing with saints or demons. Or both. But then, we're doing that already just on a less extreme scale.

And look at this: do you want the guy waiting on you at a restaurant to be high? Or coming off a high? What about the cop pulling you over? Or the athletes on the playing field? Or your politicians? Admittedly, that's probably happening now, but if you legalize it, it's gonna happen even more often. How are we to know who's been using and who isn't? Is it not anyone's business? What if you get in a taxi, and during the accident it dawns on you maybe his eyes were dialating in the rear view mirror? Does it become your business then? Or maybe the pilot of a plane was using a couple days ago, took some other drugs to counteract the withdrawal, but is still exhibiting minor side effects. Would that be okay with you?

Would usage be legal but abuse be illegal? If someone gets too strung out for too long a period of time, are they still okay so long as they don't hurt anyone but themselves? What if they stop being any kind of support for society, and have to start sucking on the gov't tit or waste away? How would rehab function? We can't handle medical insurance complications now. They'll multiply a hundred fold if we legalize drugs.

Maybe legalization would decriminalize it, but users would be just as stupid now as they were before, and the ramp up of drug education would take a few years at least to catch up, if not decades. Do we educate in public schools how to properly use drugs? At what age should we start?

To be honest, I don't see how legalizing drugs would make things better. It'd make them different, but no better or worse ultimately than things are now.
posted by ZachsMind at 7:36 PM on August 21, 2006 [1 favorite]


And Caffene! How many people do you think approach you every day that have had there whole perception altered by CAFFENE! You've seen the ones, pissed off that the Starbucks girl can't get their doubble frappachino mocha frothy enough, and they never even topped it off with whipped cream like they asked. Or NICOTINE! How often have you notices that some other co-worker really needs to take a smoke break before you can go talk with them. Or HAM! Have you ever noticed that guy that can't get anything done after 10:30 because he's squirming in his pants too much to think about anything else besides that ham sandwich in his lunchbox.

I tell ya, if it's not one thing, it's another!
posted by Balisong at 7:49 PM on August 21, 2006 [1 favorite]


Never trust a junkie.
posted by Balisong at 7:52 PM on August 21, 2006


Wtf. Why can't you grow peanuts?
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 8:02 PM on August 21, 2006


After having seen the entire documentary drama thing, damn! That was tight shit. Felt like a cross between Second Sight and the CSI franchise, with just a tinge of Bleep sans the terrible aftertaste.
posted by ZachsMind at 8:10 PM on August 21, 2006


Zach's mind - how the fawk is that any different from alcohol now? Why can't something like weed follow the same footsteps as alcohol. Do I want some asshole driving drunk...hell no just like I don't want a stoned dude driving around either. Regarding the education, etc - it sure didn't take long to start lieing in DARE and other antidrug programs so I think the other way would work as well. Every single person who smokes weed knows this to be true already. There are people who disapprove of alcohol and everything else that can affect the body so that won't change but it doesn't need too. People understand the ramifcations of driving around drunk but people still do it, I don't think you will see much if an increase, if any, if drugs were decriminalized (or legalized). Make the drugs and the penalties for doing something bad (to others) under the influence the same as alcohol and that's all you gotta do.
posted by evilelvis at 8:17 PM on August 21, 2006


to add to my post in summary I feel that if they follow the same laws as alcohol (can do some for person use, otherwise you should be regulated to make sure you aren't making people blind, taxed so services like rehab can exist (welll...you could at least justify the tax that way), go to jail if you drive under the influence, etc. Why wouldn't that work? You take an extereme drug (alcohol) and applies the principles into handling that to lesser drugs like weed.
posted by evilelvis at 8:19 PM on August 21, 2006


Wtf. Why can't you grow peanuts?

OK, you can.. kinda.

^

"Peanuts were designated by the U.S. Congress to be one of America's basic crops. In order to protect domestic industry by keeping prices artificially high, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) conducts a Program for Peanuts. Two USDA programs for domestic peanuts are the Price Support Program and the Production Adjustment Program (National Poundage Quota). The Price Support Program consists of a two-tier price support system that is tied to a maximum weight quota. Domestic peanuts produced subject to the weight quota are supported at the higher of two prices, while peanuts over quota or those produced on farms not having a quota are supported at the lower rate. The quota support price acts as a floor price for domestic edible peanuts. For producers who fail to fill their quota in any given year, there is a maximum 10 % over marketing allowance for the subsequent year. Pursuant to the program, producers may place peanuts under nonrecourse loan with the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) at the designated support price or they may privately contract for the sale of their crop. It is also illegal under Federal Law to grow peanuts on more than one acre (4,000 m²) of land for commercial consumption. This effectively creates a peanut monopoly, as it is not economically feasible to grow peanuts on only one acre (4,000 m²) of land, while drastically increasing prices."

The bold is mine. You can grow peanuts, or tobacco, or coffee, or whatever, just not enough to make it worth your while.
posted by Balisong at 8:20 PM on August 21, 2006


Well, it's good to see there's still CDs and bad hair in the future.
posted by ninjew at 8:36 PM on August 21, 2006


Also, I want my weed the way it is now. I would 100% expect that Big Pharma would figure out ways to make their version of weed addictive. Or who knows what other sort of nasty 'improvements' they'd make to the substances in the plant.

Decriminalization, maybe. Legal? I really fuckin hope not.
posted by ninjew at 8:40 PM on August 21, 2006


ZachsMind: As a pro-legalization/decriminalization guy, I want to say I almost flagged your post. Your first few points, as one might imagine, really made - and make - me want to give my position deeper thought. However, when you start bringing up bullshit scare tactics, it kind of made me less open to even your good points. No, I don't want my surgeon high. You know what else I don't want him? Drunk. Which would be illegal, just like being high at many of the above jobs would be.

And, if you don't want your waiter serving you while he is high, I suggest don't eat out. I'm just sayin'.
posted by absalom at 8:45 PM on August 21, 2006


Actually, I think alcohol is still legal largely because of its history and immense usage.

Don't ignore the fact that it is stupendously simple to make. Water, sugar & yeast is all it takes.

It's pretty hard to regulate something that ordinary people can make for themselves with little or no training, out of common household grocery items.
posted by UbuRoivas at 9:04 PM on August 21, 2006


I thought the BBC documentary was more than a tad overwrought. When we're driving around in loin clothes, fighting over the last dregs of oil in dune buggies, only then will drugs be legal.
posted by dobie at 9:17 PM on August 21, 2006


PS. Can anybody hook me up with a joint? Serious. I'm dying over here.
posted by dobie at 9:17 PM on August 21, 2006


I don't know if i want to live in a world where drugs were as freely available as tictacs or Big Macs

they may not be as freely available, but youre only one 'friend of a friend' away from making them as easy to obtain
posted by Satapher at 9:20 PM on August 21, 2006


<\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\#~~~
posted by Balisong at 9:21 PM on August 21, 2006


I have a feeling that one of the factors which has allowed alcohol to flourish within a nation state context is the cognitive dimension.

Based on my own experience and observation, alcohol does not inspire "thinking outside the box" or "critical thinking".

Government conspiracy theories are much more likely to be thought up while under the influence of the more "cerebral" drugs.
posted by spacediver at 9:47 PM on August 21, 2006


"Zach's mind - how the fawk is that any different from alcohol now? "

It's not. I'm still saying we should legalize drugs and regulate them and tax the shit out of them. I said that well over five years ago and I'm saying it now. I'm completely in agreeance with the public domain docudrama thingy.

And for the record I don't do recreational drugs. Don't have to. My brain's already warped without them. I like to tell myself that I wouldn't do them if they became legal.

I'm just saying decriminalization is not going to improve things. It will resolve some current predicaments but create entirely new problems, and may be like swallowing a spider to kill the fly. Or swallowing the horse...

Am I showing my age with that analogy or do parents still tell kids that bedtime story?

"...youre only one 'friend of a friend' away..."

I keep myself blissfully unaware of what's probably happening under my nose every day.

I mean I don't know if I wanna live in a world where I'm driving down the street and "The Gas Pipe" has boutiques in between Starbucks and McDonalds. I know it's readily available now. It's just not in superbowl commercials or magazine ads. It's not in my face everywhere. If we legalized it, that would probably change.

I only staved off the temptation to give in to compact discs for a few years. I've managed thus far to not give in to the ipod or cellphone, but don't know how much longer I can hold on. I put crack cocaine there with most extreme sports. Interesting from a distance but not something I'd personally want to try myself.

However, if someone gave me free parachuting lessons? And built a little airport in my neighborhood? And everybody else around me was going skydiving and having a good time and nobody was dying.. much?

I don't like my odds in a decriminalized drug world. I might have fun. I might even *gasp* inhale. We can't have that.
posted by ZachsMind at 9:55 PM on August 21, 2006


One takes a drug to alter their perception of the world.

If you want no drugs, try creating a world where no one feels the need for altering their perception of reality.
posted by rough ashlar at 9:58 PM on August 21, 2006


Legalizing drugs would lead to two major benefits, which I find quite compelling--enough for me to lean in the pro-legalization capm: 1) the govt could earn substantial revenues from taxing the sales of drugs at the same rate that they tax tobacco (which could be designed to off-set the cost to society of legalization), and 2) drug producers, distributors and vendors (cartels and the like) would have to find alternative work or pay taxes in order to sell their wares at such absurdly high profit margins.
posted by Azaadistani at 10:03 PM on August 21, 2006


Rough Ashlar, as was (I thought) beautifully demonstrated in the opening scene of the "If Drugs Were Legal" video, altering one's perception of reality can be as simple as giving oneself the illusion their lives are beautiful and colorful and elegant and trendy when actually it's grey.

A paint job is probably not a suitable alternative to being high, not that i speak from personal experience. Maybe for the painters, if they're into fumes...
posted by ZachsMind at 10:05 PM on August 21, 2006


UbuRoivas - it's not like growing S. cannabis is that hard, either. Less dangerous than having a bactierial or fungal contamination of your mash.

As for the prohibition against distilling? I think that it's still on the books because drunk distillers statistically are more at risk of letting their stills burn dry. Explosions aren't fun. Any 10th grade chemistry student shoud be able to distill alcohol from mash safely. It's a damn shame that that is not the case.
posted by porpoise at 10:11 PM on August 21, 2006


Bottom line for me, I'm for decriminalization and will support any candidate who supports decriminalization, tho I doubt any serious contenders would ever have such balls. However, I would go gently into that good night, and I will not rage. In fact I will probably hide under my bed with my tylenol and ginkgo and saint john's wort.

All this is academic anyway. An impotent argument.

Decriminalization of even the least risky of current illegal drugs like pot is not possible unless you overthrow the Catholic Church with a Timothy Leary clone, get Pat Robertson off the air, and spike the water supply of every major metropolitan american city with X.
posted by ZachsMind at 10:15 PM on August 21, 2006


it's not like growing S. cannabis is that hard

I think you mean Cannabis sativa. More Cannabis indica. But I agree completely. That stuff grows wild and fast - a hell of a lot easier than producing drinkable alcohol from raw materials.
posted by Jimbob at 10:52 PM on August 21, 2006


dobie: PS. Can anybody hook me up with a joint? Serious. I'm dying over here.

Ditto. Clearly prohibition works!
posted by Freaky at 11:26 PM on August 21, 2006


Do we educate in public schools how to properly use drugs? At what age should we start?

Yes. Maybe not in our public schools, but we need to teach our children how to use recreational drugs responsibly, becuase our "Drugs are Bad, MMMMkay" bullshit leaves them entirely unprepared for the the situations they will find themselves in.

I taught my kids that people get high because it feels good- that they would probably one day get high with their friends and it would turn out okay, as long as they were aware of the risks associated with too much of a good thing. I told them true stories from my own youth about people I had known who had suffered unfortunate and tragic consequences from being irresponsible and uninformed about drugs, sex, weapons, credit cards, etc.

Brutal honesty- there is no substitute, because kids can smell bullshit a mile off.
posted by squalor at 11:39 PM on August 21, 2006 [1 favorite]


It takes serious courage to do that squalor, well done.
posted by Jimbob at 2:15 AM on August 22, 2006


a) it should be a person's right to do with their own body as they wish.

b) illegal drug profits fund criminals, organized crime, and corrupt regimes. if legalized, that money would be going to the economy and the government.

c) when drugs are legal you can control their distribution. ask any high schooler what is easier to get: weed or alcohol. the answer is invariably weed, because they can buy that off the school dealer. alcohol... well you gotta find someone who is 21 for that.

d) responsibility, not prohibition. driving/operating machinery/doing surgery/etc on any kind of drug is obviously not ok. legalization does not change this.

e) quality assurance. most of the people that die directly from drugs do so because they don't know wtf they are getting (purity-wise) or they get something that was cut with bad whatever.

i have yet to see any coherent argument against these 5 points. all the anti-legalization people can seem to say is... omg if we legalize drugs everyone will be running around on drugs 24/7 and society will collapse!#$@
posted by sophist at 3:40 AM on August 22, 2006


(f) Most drug-related crime is a direct result of high prices. If, say, heroin were available for a realistic price, rather than the hyper-inflated price that results from it being illegal, a hell of a lot fewer old ladies would be mugged, a lot fewer convenience stores would be held up, and a lot fewer DVD players would be stolen.
posted by Jimbob at 4:29 AM on August 22, 2006


"I always figured it was somehow cultural - alcohol was there first, alcohol has always been used by the 'respectable' classes, therefore it's here to stay."

"Actually, I think alcohol is still legal largely because of its history and immense usage."

You mean white history of use. Gotta keep them brown people drugs down; it's bad for the tobacco businesses 'we' came here to start.

"Alcohol is legal because it has a long cultural history in the culture that came to dominate the world; likewise, tobacco."

Thank you.

I'd be interested to know whether it's easier to grow a personal supply of weed or tobacco. I'd say weed, but then, how many people need to undertake to grow their own tobacco when you can buy it at the store? It wouldn't surprise me if the answer was weed, though, especially after the information quoted by Balisong.
posted by Kwanzaar at 5:23 AM on August 22, 2006


Against Legalization by anarchist hipster fave Hakim Bey.
posted by sonofsamiam at 5:45 AM on August 22, 2006


I'd be interested to know whether it's easier to grow a personal supply of weed or tobacco.

Tobacco is a pain in the ass to do correctly. Plus you only end up with tobacco.

I truly believe that the only way it will ever be legalized is if it's for the profit of someone in power.


This is the reason why it will never happen - all those profits generate tremendous amounts of power, and too many of the entrenched powerful have too good a reason to maintain the status quo.

For an entertaining take on the power and flow of drug money, read Narco-Dollars for Beginners -"How the Money Works" in the Illicit Drug Trade By Catherine Austin Fitts.

And you thought all those drug profits were being spent on bling.
posted by Enron Hubbard at 6:21 AM on August 22, 2006


Jimbob - Most drug-related crime is a direct result of high prices. If, say, heroin were available for a realistic price, rather than the hyper-inflated price that results from it being illegal, a hell of a lot fewer old ladies would be mugged, a lot fewer convenience stores would be held up, and a lot fewer DVD players would be stolen.

This point needs to be hammered in.

(the slides are from the first part of a 2003 UK 10 Downing Street report; not out in the public domain till a freedom of information request forced it.)
posted by daksya at 9:21 AM on August 22, 2006


sophist - ask any high schooler what is easier to get: weed or alcohol. the answer is invariably weed

Technically not true. As per the latest MTF study, 93% of 12th graders report alcohol 'very easy' or 'fairly easy' to get, compared to 85.6% for marijuana. An absolute difference of 7.4%, which is pretty small, so it can be said that roughly both are just as easily available. The other key variable is risk perception: the results among 12th graders for those who think that there's 'great risk' in

Try marijuana once or twice is 16.1%,
Smoke marijuana occasionally is 25.8%,
Smoke marijuana regularly is 58.0%,

Try one or two drinks of an alcoholic beverage is 8.5%,
Take one or two drinks nearly every day is 23.7%,
Take four or five drinks nearly every day is 61.8%,
Have five or more drinks once or twice each weekend is 45.0%.
posted by daksya at 9:38 AM on August 22, 2006


To be honest, I don't see how legalizing drugs would make things better.

Uhh... people wouldn't be arrested for choosing what to put into their own bodies, maybe?
posted by spaltavian at 12:09 PM on August 22, 2006


ZachsMind writes "And look at this: do you want the guy waiting on you at a restaurant to be high? Or coming off a high? What about the cop pulling you over? Or the athletes on the playing field? Or your politicians? Admittedly, that's probably happening now, but if you legalize it, it's gonna happen even more often."

I'd rather them be high than drunk. As far as the waiter is concerned, he probably is already high, or drunk, or coked up, if my years in the service industry were any indication. I really don't care as long as he doesn't act like an idiot. He's much more likely to do that if he's drunk than anything else.

"Objectively speaking, warping and manipulating the human body is like commiting jackass antics to the inside of your body. Every time you do drugs of any kind, you're essentially riding the back of a pick up truck on a skateboard tied by twine. You might make it out without a scratch. You might not. I'm not sure if I'd want to hang with people who are shells of humanoid on the outside but fifteen to twenty years of major fucked up on the inside. I could be dealing with saints or demons. Or both. But then, we're doing that already just on a less extreme scale."

Putting people in prison who may or may not have a predisposition to addiction isn't a sane way to deal with the situation. It's driven by one's own fear of losing control. It has nothing to do with anyone else. It's no different than the Temperance movement, the Puritans or prohibition of alcohol in that respect. Putting people in prison for getting high is a backwards and rather barbaric practice, particularly when it's done by people who proclaim to the world their wonderful freedoms. There is nothing inherently evil about it, but the seeking of intoxicants does cross species boundaries. Lots of animals seek out and ingest intoxicants. We're the only one who feels shame over it, and that varies by culture and setting.

I've met some people who would possibly benefit from use of marijuana and psychedelics. Others, not so much. But I can't really say the same about booze, but it's not a good idea to put people in jail for the act of drinking or possessing alcohol.
posted by krinklyfig at 10:31 PM on August 24, 2006


« Older Five links that I can't believe haven't been...   |   sacreligious smackdown? Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments