Should pseudoephedrine be by prescription only in Oklahoma?

[AquaMan]

It's nothing like legalizing extortion. Extortion is something that one person does to another. Ingesting drugs is something that one person does to themselves. Clearly it should be illegal to force-feed people drugs without their prior consent or their being declared incompetent to care for themselves by a court of law. We can keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect a different result, but we'll continue to be disappointed and we will continue to be complicit in, although not directly responsible for, the deaths of thousands of innocent people for no particular reason at all.

You might note that even with heroin the Netherlands has had fairly good luck with maintenance programs. Yes, heroin addicts are perfectly capable of holding down a good job when they have the necessary support structure behind them. Sometimes, they even get off the stuff entirely after a while. Whocouldanode?

Seriously, the prohibition often does more damage than the drug and only encourages people to turn to crime as their options become worse and worse as they get processed through the criminal justice system time and time again.

I think you are seriously deluded. Please don't compare America with the Netherlands and I won't compare Detroit, Michigan with Toronto, Canada.

Blanket statements like you and H made about prohibitions are the same generalizations that fit bumper stickers quite well. I think less of you both for saying such bs. We prohibit the use of unpasteurized milk. That of course accounts for most of the crime in America because it turns out most criminals were actually weened on the stuff. Whowoodaknown?

We prohibit all kinds of products, processes, and activities to protect the public from dangers they aren't even aware of. Now it seems that is what is causing all the rampant crime. Go figure.

I feel strongly that a lot of drugs need to be de-criminalized so that the money the justice system spends on tracking down, prosecuting and incarcerating abusers can be re-dedicated to effective rehabilitation. Families can be spared the catastrophes that the current system pounds them with. Something better than your suggestion to just let them work and wait for enlightenment to bring them back around. Meanwhile we end up riding on trains, planes and automobiles that they are piloting.  

You don't end crime by re-classifying it as freedom.

[nathanm]

AM, that is fearmongering at its finest. Note that at no time did I say that people should be able to drive or fly stoned, drunk, or whatever else. Something not being illegal does not mean society approves of it, only that we recognize that it's not a place appropriate to criminal law.

You seriously think that people here are somehow deficient compared to the Dutch? If that's not what you mean by saying we can't learn from their experiences, please be more clear.

Maybe this isn't what you're saying, but you seem to think that we can force people off drugs. Don't you think that the stiff penalties we currently have would do the trick if it were that simple? Nobody's saying we should tell schoolkids that drugs are awesome and we should all be addicted to at least one. Legalization does not mean that we have to lie to them about the lack of risk involved. We can still tell them how it will affect their life in a bad way. However, we must be realistic about that. Even now, kids are told that all sorts of terrible things will happen to them if they try drugs. When they see their friends try them and not suddenly and immediately turn into some crazed maniac they see through the BS and presume that the whole spiel was a pack of lies.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Actually, I don't have a bank account. And while I do have an ID (finally renewed it after the TNF lunch), there are plenty out there that don't.

The logic you were trying to use was that it should be legal because by it being illegal it gives criminals power.  That is seriously flawed, which is what I was pointing out. You don't make something legal just to keep the people who are involved from being considered outlaws.  And the steps that are taken to get people really and truly hooked on drugs (it was done legally with tobacco, so making it legal won't stop it) are dangerous to those who are on them.  My point is that you need to go for the source.  I don't agree that throwing someone in jail for smoking a joint is going to do any good.  At the same time, you can't act like the need to get the next fix has nothing to do with a number of crimes committed.

No ID makes life more difficult for me.  I'm too old, so I just gave up and go along.  Revolution is a young man's sport.  But remember; rust never sleeps!


I know that second part was for nathan, but I just want to say that I feel grass should be legal just for its own sake - there need be no further justification than just if someone wants to use it, the government has no business butting in.  I don't indulge, but it is just stupid that it is criminalized.  Pretty much the same for psilocybin (magic mushrooms).

As for the other chemicals, well, I have made my thoughts known about manufacturing things like meth, crack, heroin (NOT to be confused with heiron!), and processed opiates outside of medical usage.  At least mandatory life, no parole, if we don't have the guts to make it capital crime.

[custosnox]

No ID makes life more difficult for me.  I'm too old, so I just gave up and go along.  Revolution is a young man's sport.  But remember; rust never sleeps!


I know that second part was for nathan, but I just want to say that I feel grass should be legal just for its own sake - there need be no further justification than just if someone wants to use it, the government has no business butting in.  I don't indulge, but it is just stupid that it is criminalized.  Pretty much the same for psilocybin (magic mushrooms).

As for the other chemicals, well, I have made my thoughts known about manufacturing things like meth, crack, heroin (NOT to be confused with heiron!), and processed opiates outside of medical usage.  At least mandatory life, no parole, if we don't have the guts to make it capital crime.

These are things that we can pretty much agree on.  I think that a degree of regulation is needed on MJ, but probably less than what we have in place for alcohol in this state.  But I think we have a better chance of simply getting it decriminalized than full on legalizing it.  The other, chemically engineered stuff, yeah, we need to aggressively go after the manufacturers and distributors (not to be confused with the guy that had a small stash that me might have been sharing with his buddies), not those who are hooked on it.  However, we need to ramp up our recovery programs for such things. 

As far as the ID goes, I don't have a problem with having an ID, it's just that there are a lot that don't have them, often because something has limited them from doing so. It took me so long to renew simply because I didn't have the $26 to do so, but I could, occasionally, come up with $5 for some allergy meds, if I could have gotten them.

[nathanm]

Where are these tobacco smokers stealing anything other than tobacco for their next fix?

Anyway, I think the "research chemicals" thing we've seen over the last year is proof enough that we can never criminalize every dangerous drug. In that case, it seems that many of the alternatives are much worse for the user than the illegal drugs they're intended to replace.

custosnox, think about it the other way round. Why is it illegal? Remember that you can't fall back on the harms that come from interaction with the criminal justice system or otherwise result from its illegal nature. Overdoses, for example, are largely, although not entirely, attributable to the criminalization making it impossible to accurately dose.

[custosnox]

Where are these tobacco smokers stealing anything other than tobacco for their next fix?

Anyway, I think the "research chemicals" thing we've seen over the last year is proof enough that we can never criminalize every dangerous drug. In that case, it seems that many of the alternatives are much worse for the user than the illegal drugs they're intended to replace.

custosnox, think about it the other way round. Why is it illegal? Remember that you can't fall back on the harms that come from interaction with the criminal justice system or otherwise result from its illegal nature. Overdoses, for example, are largely, although not entirely, attributable to the criminalization making it impossible to accurately dose.

Tell me, how many people have you known that have fallen victim to drugs?  How many lives have you seen destroyed by them?  And I'm not just talking about the person that is doing them, but the lives around them.  tobacco, while very addicting, doesn't warp the mind like these things do.  And what's worse is that once a person reaches a level with a drug, they start looking for the next, better point.  Anyone who pushes for legalizing this kind of insanity obviously has not had first hand experience with the damage that is caused by them. 

[nathanm]

Actually, growing up in NW Arkansas during the height of the meth epidemic there, I know a lot more people than I'd care to count who ran into trouble with it. Some even died. And that's with it being a felony worthy of years of prison time for first offense possession. Clearly the prohibition doesn't help any of the people whose lives were destroyed, nor did it make it difficult to get. It does, however, end up killing a lot of innocent people in Mexico now that the local cooks are mostly out of business (shake 'n bake, problem that it is, isn't really large enough scale to supply all the demand). I can categorically say that I have never known someone who said "I would be all over that meth if it wasn't illegal."

Seriously, you think that people would do a lot more coke, meth, acid, or whatever else if it were legal? I might believe you if you were talking about pot or ecstasy or something like that.

[custosnox]

Actually, growing up in NW Arkansas during the height of the meth epidemic there, I know a lot more people than I'd care to count who ran into trouble with it. Some even died. And that's with it being a felony worthy of years of prison time for first offense possession. Clearly the prohibition doesn't help any of the people whose lives were destroyed, nor did it make it difficult to get. It does, however, end up killing a lot of innocent people in Mexico now that the local cooks are mostly out of business (shake 'n bake, problem that it is, isn't really large enough scale to supply all the demand). I can categorically say that I have never known someone who said "I would be all over that meth if it wasn't illegal."

Seriously, you think that people would do a lot more coke, meth, acid, or whatever else if it were legal? I might believe you if you were talking about pot or ecstasy or something like that.

By making it legal you, one, make it a lot more available, and two, send the message that there is nothing wrong with it. 

[Conan71]

Unfortunately, we've gone at the drug problem from the wrong end since the early 1980's.  Far too many end-users have been incarcerated, and apparently not enough on the distribution end.

[DolfanBob]

Phew ! This topic got long winded.

[AquaMan]

AM, that is fearmongering at its finest. Note that at no time did I say that people should be able to drive or fly stoned, drunk, or whatever else. Something not being illegal does not mean society approves of it, only that we recognize that it's not a place appropriate to criminal law.

No it is not fearmongering, its practical experience and logical consequences. You don't have to say that people should be able to drive meth'd up, they simply will be more likely to when you remove all regulation and education efforts and legalize it. We already have experience with people doing these things while they are illegal, why do you think making them common place would decrease that frequency? Isn't logical. All you'll do is boost up business for the clinics doing drug tests which will boost up the businesses making concoctions to hide the drug tests and on and on.

Decriminalizing drugs like MJ or other light weight drugs does what Conan suggests.  Reduces the craziness associated with drug arrests that mostly punishes the family, results in a deepening financial crisis for the user that most cannot escape from. It is back assward and easily corrected. Legalizing? Not so much. Just opens up markets for low brow corporate citizens and tax hungry cities.

You seriously think that people here are somehow deficient compared to the Dutch? If that's not what you mean by saying we can't learn from their experiences, please be more clear.

The discussion of the Dutch experiments is enough for a separate thread. First, you cannot draw much from their experience without understanding the massive differences in culture, size, employment, socio-political nature, education and religion of all the Scandinavian countries. Being married to a Norwegian I can tell you they are substantial. Thats why I mentioned Detroit and Toronto. They sit close to each other on opposite sides of Lake Ontario. Yet they may as well be Tulsa and Hong Kong. Detroit is the crime capital of the states and Toronto has low crime. Detroit is loaded with legal and illegal guns. Toronto has strong gun laws and acceptance of that by the population. Yet it would be a spurious correlation to assert guns were the difference between the two cities. Agreed?

Maybe this isn't what you're saying, but you seem to think that we can force people off drugs. Don't you think that the stiff penalties we currently have would do the trick if it were that simple? Nobody's saying we should tell schoolkids that drugs are awesome and we should all be addicted to at least one. Legalization does not mean that we have to lie to them about the lack of risk involved. We can still tell them how it will affect their life in a bad way. However, we must be realistic about that. Even now, kids are told that all sorts of terrible things will happen to them if they try drugs. When they see their friends try them and not suddenly and immediately turn into some crazed maniac they see through the BS and presume that the whole spiel was a pack of lies.

I have become more of a realism junkie since I turned 40 two decades ago. It is hard to fight the cynicism when you see the same mistakes being made generation after generation and you know the solutions are often so simple. I don't mean to be rude, so accept my apologies if I am or have been. A couple cups of coffee, a pitcher of beer and we could probably come to some meaningful end to this thread and find more common ground. I do like Custo's perception and Conan seems to understand. You don't have kids do you? Have any of your family members been through the downward whirlpool spiral that drugs cause a human being and the resulting ripples through the entire family? If so and you still feel this way then we can pursue your last paragraph. Otherwise its just mental gymnastics. Suffice it to say that kids rely upon what we do, not what we say.

[DolfanBob]

Kudo's AuqaMan. Well thought out and articulated.
Conan. I alway's liked the wording of end-user. They are usually the ones punished the worst in the hopes of having them roll over on their contacts. Prison is not a rehab. It is a learning ground for how to commit crimes better.

[patric]

By making it legal you, one, make it a lot more available, and two, send the message that there is nothing wrong with it. 

Like we did with alcohol?
...or gun ownership?

Just because something is legal doesn't absolve an owner/user of responsibilities.

[custosnox]

Like we did with alcohol?
...or gun ownership?

Just because something is legal doesn't absolve an owner/user of responsibilities.

So, by this reasoning, those who get strung out on drugs, since it is illegal, should be spending all their time in prison, because it is their responsibility. 

Alcohol can be addictive, can cause social and financial problems, and becomes all consuming in a person's live.  However, those that reach this stage are a low percentage of the users.  Drugs such as meth and heroin, on the other hand, have the same effect on a much, much higher percentage of their users.  There are very few people who have had a few drinks, just to see what it's all about, and have become alcoholics.  Can't say the same about many of the street drugs out there.

Guns are not chemicals that alter perception, thought, decision making and personality.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Guns are not chemicals that alter perception, thought, decision making and personality.

As big a fan as I am concerning the Second Amendment and everybody's RIGHT to own firearms, and to protect themselves, I would disagree with that last statement.  I have seen a lot of people whose personality, decision making and thought processes did change when they picked up a gun.  At the very least, one gets a little more self-confidence in certain situations.  At worse, people can become Dark Score Crazy.  Luckily, there are very few of those.