Legalize It All? Harper's Weekly

[Kirk Freeman]

How often do you deal with alcoholics robbing 7-11's to score their next $3 bottle of wine?

Only a couple of times in 22 years. Both Village Pantry.

Most crime with alcoholics is driving, battery, theft and Burglary (had a guy break into a liquor store and snag a 6 of O'Douls).

 

[Kirk Freeman]

So you believe a person would walk into CVS and buy this stuff dirt cheap?

Under optimal conditions it would be available on-line. I don't think we as a society are there yet.

 

[phylodog]

Of course, they'd somehow have to figure out how to get 5 times as many people in rehab as they currently send to prison in order for them to break even on draining our tax dollars - and I'd say that's highly unlikely.

I don't think it would take them a year to get there. Instead of prison, an environment where things are expected to be unpleasant (not that they are) they would be operating "medical" facilities. The only savings would come from not buying steel bars, fences and concertina wire. They'd still need to rooms, beds, cafeterias, televisions, work out facilities, libraries, teachers, pharmaceuticals, additional medical experts, doctors, etc.. "We" would be paying $12 for a kleenex, $4 for a Q-Tip and $16 for a roll of toilet paper. The revolving doors would get at least the same amount of use if not more so no money to be saved there.

 

[steveh_131]

I don't think it would take them a year to get there. Instead of prison, an environment where things are expected to be unpleasant (not that they are) they would be operating "medical" facilities. The only savings would come from not buying steel bars, fences and concertina wire. They'd still need to rooms, beds, cafeterias, televisions, work out facilities, libraries, teachers, pharmaceuticals, additional medical experts, doctors, etc.. "We" would be paying $12 for a kleenex, $4 for a Q-Tip and $16 for a roll of toilet paper. The revolving doors would get at least the same amount of use if not more so no money to be saved there.

I don't get how legalizing drugs would make this more of a problem than it is currently. And even if it had some small, indirect effect - that wouldn't add up to the $20,000 per year per inmate money that we're wasting on keeping people in prison.

Do you have any evidence to back up any of this speculation? I at least supplied historical evidence to back up my arguments. Ending alcohol prohibition lowered violent crime and saved us money. If what you're saying is true then we need to prohibit alcohol again, right?

 

[phylodog]

I don't get how legalizing drugs would make this more of a problem than it is currently. And even if it had some small, indirect effect - that wouldn't add up to the $20,000 per year per inmate money that we're wasting on keeping people in prison.

Do you have any evidence to back up any of this speculation? I at least supplied historical evidence to back up my arguments. Ending alcohol prohibition lowered violent crime and saved us money. If what you're saying is true then we need to prohibit alcohol again, right?

I haven't argued against legalizing narcotics at any point in this thread, you're misunderstanding me. Prohibition is a joke. It was with alcohol, it has been with drugs and it will be with guns if they ever try it on a large scale.

My argument is that making the legalization of narcotics contingent upon tax payer funded rehab is BS and I'd rather keep things the way they are.

Legalize it all tomorrow, make people accountable for their own actions and decisions and you'll have no argument from me. I'll celebrate with you.

 

[steveh_131]

My argument is that making the legalization of narcotics contingent upon tax payer funded rehab is BS and I'd rather keep things the way they are.

I agree that it's BS, what we're arguing is if it would be better than the status quo. I think that it would be better based on the economics of the situation, but we do agree on the fundamentals.

 

[T.Lex]

Ok, I usually ignore these threads. Lessons learned, and all. But I skipped to this part when I noticed certain people posting.

So my question is (and apologies if this is addressed upthread) - would we still have prescriptions for certain meds? Medically, I can see certain kinds of drugs more proper if actually prescribed. Antibiotics actually come to mind first, since there is evidence that the more they are prescribed the more resistant bugs become.

But that also brings up certain highly effective painkillers. Would all those become "legal" without a prescription? If not, would we criminally punish those who are found in possession of them without prescriptions? Where would those lines be drawn.

I'll hang up and listen to the responses.

 

[phylodog]

Interesting question. When discussing legalization and the war on drugs I haven't considered anything other than the schedule I substances. Meth, heroin, cocaine, LSD, etc.. I could see the medical field being in favor of keeping prescription pain meds as they are since they lose effectiveness once the pain receptors become saturated. I'll have to give that some thought.

 

[T.Lex]

I'll have to give that some thought.

Welcome to INGO, but that kind of response is not favored. You must have an opinion, and have it now.

 

[phylodog]

Well alright. Oxycodone from vending machines is probably not a great idea.

 

[T.Lex]

Well alright. Oxycodone from vending machines is probably not a great idea.

Hell, given the markup on vending machines, the Black Market is probably cheaper!

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Interesting question. When discussing legalization and the war on drugs I haven't considered anything other than the schedule I substances. Meth, heroin, cocaine, LSD, etc.. I could see the medical field being in favor of keeping prescription pain meds as they are since they lose effectiveness once the pain receptors become saturated. I'll have to give that some thought.

Codeine cough syrup is legal to be sold otc. iirc It requires a signature, but no script. And if heroin was legal, what is the difference between it and morphine, hydrocodone, demerol, or oxycodone?

Well alright. Oxycodone from vending machines is probably not a great idea.

Hell, given the markup on vending machines, the Black Market is probably cheaper!

You have a point sir.

And I share the same concerns regarding antibiotics. Except for one thing, a lot of Drs. hand them out like candy for anything. I've actually had a Dr tell me they were going to write me a script but since what I had was viral it wouldn't help. I told them don't bother.

 

[steveh_131]

So my question is (and apologies if this is addressed upthread) - would we still have prescriptions for certain meds? Medically, I can see certain kinds of drugs more proper if actually prescribed.

They should all be available for sale over the counter at drug stores, on amazon.com, or wherever somebody wants to sell them.

Antibiotics actually come to mind first, since there is evidence that the more they are prescribed the more resistant bugs become.

I do not think that drugs, medications, or firearms should be prohibited or regulated for the sake of the 'common good'.

I support individual liberty.

 

[T.Lex]

They should all be available for sale over the counter at drug stores, on amazon.com, or wherever somebody wants to sell them.

I do not think that drugs, medications, or firearms should be prohibited or regulated for the sake of the 'common good'.

I support individual liberty.

First, and I believe I've stated this to you before, I do admire your consistency.

Second, though, let's say someone uses antibiotics on their kid every time they sneeze. Because freedom. Over time, their kid turns into an incubator for bugs that resist antibiotics. Then, your kid gets one of those bugs.

Is there any culpability there?

On the pain meds, we could conceptually shift to a action-based punishment system. Use too much painkiller and get in a car accident and kill a family - the car accident is what gets punished. My concern is whether that kind of cost is too high (pardon the pun) on a societal basis, when we can take reasonable steps to limit access and avoid a certain percentage of those costs.

 

[steveh_131]

Second, though, let's say someone uses antibiotics on their kid every time they sneeze. Because freedom. Over time, their kid turns into an incubator for bugs that resist antibiotics. Then, your kid gets one of those bugs.

Is there any culpability there?

If you can prove culpability and injury then bring a lawsuit and let a jury sort it out. No need for regulations.

On the pain meds, we could conceptually shift to a action-based punishment system. Use too much painkiller and get in a car accident and kill a family - the car accident is what gets punished. My concern is whether that kind of cost is too high (pardon the pun) on a societal basis, when we can take reasonable steps to limit access and avoid a certain percentage of those costs.

Then we should also take 'reasonable steps to limit access' to firearms - people are irresponsible with this as well, no?

I support individual liberty and individual responsibility. Period.

But if I was to base my principles on some sort of cost/benefit analysis as most here seem to do then I would still side with liberty. Government regulations don't work. MRSA? VSRA? There are all kinds of drug-resistant bugs out there even with a bloated, over-regulated bureaucracy for medical care.

People are going to drive drunk and high. The costs, both in dollars and liberty, of trying to regulate these mostly victim-less crimes is too dang high.

 

[T.Lex]

If you can prove culpability and injury then bring a lawsuit and let a jury sort it out. No need for regulations.

Well, I'm as much of a fan of the jury system as anyone, but I also recognize that juries can't bring dead people back to life. And some people are judgment-proof with no assets.

I would prefer to avoid the problem in the first place, as much as possible.

I will also grant that the current lines should not be final. Culturally, we should recognize that some lines change over time and be willing to have those lines/laws reflect modern temperaments.

Then we should also take 'reasonable steps to limit access' to firearms - people are irresponsible with this as well, no?

Abso-f'n-lootly. Just like the Founding Fathers did.

A bit more seriously, some people are mentally ill (for example) and should not have access to firearms. Some places are inappropriate for firearms - like prisons.

People are going to drive drunk and high. The costs, both in dollars and liberty, of trying to regulate these mostly victim-less crimes is too dang high.

The current cost is considerable, no doubt. I am open to re-assessing, but don't think scrapping the entire system makes sense.

 

[steveh_131]

I would prefer to avoid the problem in the first place, as much as possible.

Yes, that would be nice. Unfortunately it doesn't work - at least not when the government does it. And even if it did, I wouldn't trade our individual liberties for it.

If you're worried about that particular subject then start an ad campaign. Educate people. Donate to charities that do so. Encourage pharmacies to sell responsibly, boycott those that don't. Get creative. There are ways to solve problems other than big government.

A bit more seriously, some people are mentally ill (for example) and should not have access to firearms. Some places are inappropriate for firearms - like prisons.

Prisoners have lost their individual liberty following what was hopefully a fair trial. They are not really relevant to the discussion of the liberties of the rest of us.

The current cost is considerable, no doubt. I am open to re-assessing, but don't think scrapping the entire system makes sense.

I think it makes a lot of sense - but that's because I value liberty higher than the false sense of security offered by big government. YMMV.

 

[T.Lex]

Prisoners have lost their individual liberty following what was hopefully a fair trial. They are not really relevant to the discussion of the liberties of the rest of us.

For the sake of discussion, let's explore this a bit. If we accept that person's actions can result in the loss of "unalienable" rights, after due process of course, either temporarily or permanently, then we necessarily accept that there are lines to be drawn. If someone does X, then Y can be the punishment. And Y can include the loss of rights.

Would it be acceptable to say that, if someone self-prescribes an antibiotic more than... let's pick a big number that we might agree is more than reasonable, and we could get expert confirmation, but let's say weekly for 6 weeks, then that person has lost the right to self-prescribe an antibiotic for a year. A doctor could still prescribe for that person, since, clearly, we don't want them to suffer needlessly, but a framework like that - would that be acceptable?

 

[steveh_131]

For the sake of discussion, let's explore this a bit. If we accept that person's actions can result in the loss of "unalienable" rights, after due process of course, either temporarily or permanently, then we necessarily accept that there are lines to be drawn. If someone does X, then Y can be the punishment. And Y can include the loss of rights.

Would it be acceptable to say that, if someone self-prescribes an antibiotic more than... let's pick a big number that we might agree is more than reasonable, and we could get expert confirmation, but let's say weekly for 6 weeks, then that person has lost the right to self-prescribe an antibiotic for a year. A doctor could still prescribe for that person, since, clearly, we don't want them to suffer needlessly, but a framework like that - would that be acceptable?

There needs to be a demonstrable, named victim for criminal or civil proceedings to begin. You are now right back in the realm of pre-crime.

If this is a real issue then pharmacies could work together in a voluntary system to accomplish something like this. It would probably be more effective than one run by the government and wouldn't trample on our liberties.

 

[seedubs1]

Yup. Legalize it all. People have the right to do whatever stupid crap they want to their own body.

Prosecute actual crime where victims are involved. Stop prosecuting, incarcerating, and ruining lives because of victimless "crime."

There needs to be a demonstrable, named victim for criminal or civil proceedings to begin. You are now right back in the realm of pre-crime.

If this is a real issue then pharmacies could work together in a voluntary system to accomplish something like this. It would probably be more effective than one run by the government and wouldn't trample on our liberties.