Cafe Hayek - Latest Comments in War on Humanity

Re: War on Humanity

Bakri Elomeri — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:48:32 -0000

I believe that all drugs should be legal. I say this because we as human beings should adopt “freedom” as a doctrine. There are some advantages and disadvantages to doing this of course. First the negatives, if drugs are legalized I believe that there would be a slight decline in the economy. I say this because humans tend to do more of something when it is prohibited and making drugs legal would cause humans to consume less. On the other hand one might think that making drugs legal would cause the economy to incline because the consumers would have nothing more to worry about and they would stop being conservative and purchase more.

The legalization of marijuana for example, is a very controversial subject. If marijuana was legalized it would have both a negative and a positive impact on the economy. The recreational use of marijuana could introduce new products thus leading to more spending which then leads the economy to go up. Products such as hemp, which is made from a male cannabis plant, can be used in many different industries. It can be used to make clothing, shoes, paper, and even jewelry. It is also more environmentally friendly to produce paper from hemp rather than using the traditional method of chopping down trees. Hemp can also be used as a cash crop for many farmers because if these products are introduced into the economy then someone will have to produce them thus resulting in a huge economic boom.

The United States is an advocate of freedom, so why not allow people to have the freedom to choose to use drugs.

Re: War on Humanity

triticale — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 14:41:28 -0000

Standard double blind tests would be difficult, as a placebo would be obvious. What would make sense would be to get a hybrid purported to be medicinal, and double blind it with something super stony like White Rhino. If patients with genuine symptoms to be alleviated prefer the healing variety, we would have some evidence.

Re: War on Humanity

Acad Ronin — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 18:06:30 -0000

1) The Mexican government just busted a meth lab where they seized US$206mn in US100 bills, i.e., approximately a literal ton of bills. Clearly there is money to be made in the drug business.

2) Nitroglycerine is a very dangerous explosive and a very useful medicine. One use does not preclude the other. Run standard double blind tests on medical marijuana and live with the results, win, loose, or draw, whichever outcome you define as winning or loosing. Let the concrete facts decide, not an abstract ideology.

I watched my brother die of stomach cancer. He didn't smoke and didn't want to try weed. I have always wondered if he might have lived a little longer, or even just suffered a little less, if he had and therefore could have eaten a little more.

Re: War on Humanity

Sam Grove — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 09:47:11 -0000

Marijuana is not classified as a medicine by the classification bureaucracy, hence it is not a medicine. Same for nicotine.

If the medicine classification bureacracy reclassified marijuana as a medicine, then it would be a medicine.

OTOH

Medicines are drugs that are used medically.

If marijuana, or nicotine, can be used medically, then in such usage, they are mdeicines.

It has long been accepted that opiates can be used medically, but they can also be used recreationally. The fact that they can be, and are used recreationally does not negate their medical uses. The same logic therefore must apply to cannabinoids.

If they can be used medically, as many doctors and researchers have testified, then they are medicines when used in that capacity.

The fact that emotions run high over the issue, leading many into a state of denial, does not alter the reality.

There are various ways to define drug categories. Some believe the political/bureacratic process is the only authentic way to define such things. Others accept the legitimacy of actual usage and the authority of expertise (rather than the expertise of authority).

This point comes up with off-label usage of many drugs.

Re: War on Humanity

DQ — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 23:47:55 -0000

And for those of you who deny it's usefulness, I suggest you offer to hold the bucket the next time a friend of yours suffers from cancer.

Re: War on Humanity

DQ — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 23:42:45 -0000

> DQ,

>

> It's asinine, overly simplistic, caustic and idiotic comments like

> yours that help keep libertarianism nothing more than a fringe

> cult. You're an amazing ass if you believe the crap you write.

> Grow up and get a grip.

First, I'm not a libertarian.

Second, I watched my uncle die of multiple myloma over a 5 year period, and if it wasn't for weed he would've probably missed a lot more of his kids high school years before he died.

You are entitled to your opinion, but I've watched the country debate the finer points while directly watching people suffer.

Apparently you have not, yet.

Re: War on Humanity

Ray G — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 17:04:13 -0000

Sam

"Then why does the government grow pot for certain medical reasons?"

I don't know, why? The federal govt does all kinds of things I'm sure you don't agree with, so why use such a simple minded limtus test now?

Tri:

Smoking tobacco really does calm one's nerves, so it must be a medicine also.

Re: War on Humanity

triticale — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 15:19:53 -0000

"But marijuana is NOT a medicine, and the entire legalization movement will only gain credibility when they drop the silly facade."

Much to the embarresment of the DEA, the research they have suppressed to maintain this fiction can be repeated outside of their jurisdiction.

More generally, there are ailments, and treatments, which produce nausea so severe oral anti-emetics cannot take effect. Ask any oncologist whether smoking marijuana can be useful in such a situation. Not all would prescribe it, even if they could, but they all know it works.

Re: War on Humanity

Sam Grove — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 13:56:51 -0000

"But marijuana is NOT a medicine, and the entire legalization movement will only gain credibility when they drop the silly facade."

Then why does the government grow pot for certain medical reasons?

Re: War on Humanity

Ray G — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 13:42:08 -0000

I don't believe that Raich needs marijuana to survive, but a singular case doesn't disprove the facts.

The war on drugs has failed, period. I could buy as much pot as I wanted, easily, as early as 12 years old (1982) and not only is still easy to buy today, but from what I hear from a pot smoking co-worker, the price has stayed relatively low.

The supposed war has failed.

Attempting to legalize pot along the lines of medical purposes I believe does the overall issue a disservice. It's a recreational drug that makes a person slow, dimwitted and lazy. But it's a far cry better than alcohol, and no one is calling for a new alcohl prohibition.

Point being that, in a debate online, at work, or wherever, whatever one's defense for keeping alcohol legal works just as well for pot, and the reasons against bringing back prohibition work just as well for legalizing pot.

But marijuana is NOT a medicine, and the entire legalization movement will only gain credibility when they drop the silly facade.

Re: War on Humanity

Sam Grove — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 12:15:42 -0000

People are willing to consider a police state as a viable solution to societal problems when they don't actually live under one.

Capone may have been a sociopath, but alcohol prohibition made it possible for him to be a powerful and rich sociopath.

I don't know if you are hard harted Flash, but I would suggest that you are operating on some erroneous premise. Only an _____ would suggest that the multi-billion dollar war on drugs has been effective or efficacious.

The problem with prohibition is that it makes addicts desperate, criminals wealthy, the streets more dangerous, and law enforcement corrupt (either venally or systemically).

Re: War on Humanity

LisaMarie — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 09:12:30 -0000

Flash,

How could you possibly know someone else's pain? That is so incredibly presumptuous that it defies belief. Would you ban prescription narcotics because people who use them are just junkies who want to get high?

As for your other argument about the damage that addicts do, so what? I have alcoholics in my family, and whatever they've done, it doesn't justify taking away other people's freedom by banning alcohol. The war on drugs has not stopped people from becoming addicts- it has only victimized the innocent. If you want to ban everything anyone could possibly do that "damages their families", you will end up with a truly totalitarian society.

Re: War on Humanity

Flash Gordon — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 08:01:58 -0000

Call me hard hearted but I am not the least bit outraged at this woman's problems with getting marijuana for her illness. That's because I don't believe for one second that she needs it to stay alive. Or that it has any medicinal value for her at all. What I do believe is that she and her ilk are a bunch of lying creeps who simply want to toke up.

There are other things that I know as opposed to merely believe. I know that the damage drug addicts do to themselves, their families, and their communities is so enormously awful that no sane society can continue to tolerate it.

I also know that the "War on Drugs" is having some success in that drug use is down everywhere except on college campuses. Perhaps there are too many libertarians running those campuses.

Re: War on Humanity

Ray G — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 07:29:41 -0000

I'm a pro-legalization person, but the whole lets make it legal because of the epidemic of exploding meth labs is silly. For our side's sake, pick a better argument.

One successful meth lab affects hundreds, if not thousands of mostly young people in a harmful way. The exploding meth lab is relatively rare when compared to how many young people are doing meth on a daily basis.

And even then, the facilitators get what they get. People that run meth labs now, will be doing something else illegal if the meth option is taken away from them. I've been around that crowd, they're not nice, they are criminals outside of their drug making activities, and basing a legalization argument on saving them is akin to warning against prohibition lest Al Capone become injured. As if Mr. Capone would be running a nice legal barber shop if his gin empire were made inoperative.

Or maybe poor Al Capone was driven to his illegal activities by "the man", and prohibition made him a criminal where otherwise he wouldn't have been. Likewise, anyone dealing with a meth lab is not the focus of anyone's genuine concern. They'll just turn all of their attention to stealing cars, and generally menacing their neighborhoods.

Re: War on Humanity

dagny — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 05:25:45 -0000

My point was it would be worth it even if we had more meth addicts it would be worth it if we had fewer meth lab explosions which are much more harmful than meth itself. There would still be illegal trade but it would be more along the lines of someone over the legal age buying and reselling.

The same thing could be said of other drugs, too, in various ways, but I can't think of any that make the point more obviously than people being burned, scarred and blinded.

Re: War on Humanity

trumpetbob15 — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:36:14 -0000

Chris,

You write:

"Aren't there people who view the fact that something is illegal as a factor in not doing it? Won't some of those people start to use drugs when they wouldn't have before?"

It might be anecdotal, but as a recent college graduate, one thing I noticed was the number of students under 21 drinking alcohol vs. the number over 21, as well as the amount consumed. I knew a number of people who would drink to excess because it was "cool" to drink illegally. Once the person turned 21, the "cool" factor disappeared and so did the excessive drinking.

While it is true some people may start using drugs if they become legal, there would probably be a large group that stops, or never starts, simply because it would no longer be an act of defiance.

Re: War on Humanity

Ray G — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:00:07 -0000

It's illegal to sell alcohol and cigarettes to minors but it still happens, true. . . but no one is proposing to completely rid the world of drugs, not even the staunchest of drug warriors.

The bottom line, supported by real life evidence is that, for the minor, the illegal drugs such as pot and LSD are easier to obtain than the otherwise legal alcohol.

Think of it another way, the name Al Capone would not be so easily recognized, even today decades after his reign, had it not been for the boon prohibition gave to his business concerns.

And the parent is responsible if their 15 year old is doing drugs. That parent has failed somewhere in the rearing of that child. Failed.

And yes, I am a parent, and I also did drugs at the age of 15. My parents are good folks, but they were naive and woefully ignorant of my daily life during those times. They put enough good stuff in me that it all worked out in the long run, but the whole drug scene could have, and should have been avoided.

Re: War on Humanity

josh — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:36:29 -0000

Steve,

I don't believe anybody has even mentioned the fact that prohibition leads to murder, and lots of it. Drug gangs maintain monopolies over "turf" via violence against rival gangs. The do this so that prices are not competed down to marginal cost and profits remain high. Since they are commiting felonies that call for serious jail time just by selling the drugs, the marginal cost of murder is low. Low marginal cost of murder, high marginal benefit of murder; this is the result of drug prohibition.

Re: War on Humanity

Chris — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 13:26:09 -0000

Dagny --

I think you should carry your analogy a little farther. It is illegal to sell Alcohol and Cigarettes to minors. But, it's downright easy for minors to buy such things at a convenience store have an older brother or sister buy them. I suggest that if you're a teenager who has tried a drug once, you are much more likely to get your second hit if your brother can easily buy it for you than if you had to find a street dealer.

If drugs are legalized, one of three things will happen. The total price, including things such as acquisition costs and risk of getting tainted drugs will (a) drop, (b) stay constant, or (c) rise.

If (a), usage will go up unless demand for drugs is highly inelastic over time. I know of very few products where this is true and doubt that drugs would be one of them. If (c), the illegal drug trade will still happen in competition with the regular market. (b) is the only option of getting it remotely right.

But, there are other problems -- will legalization change the perceived cost? Aren't there people who view the fact that something is illegal as a factor in not doing it? Won't some of those people start to use drugs when they wouldn't have before?

Considering that pharmaceutical companies can be sued for drugs which are inadvertently addictive, who is going to start selling a product which is deliberately so?

Re: War on Humanity

Kent Gatewood — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 11:31:49 -0000

When a 15 year does drugs, the CEO of legal drugs company will be sued just as Philip Morris' was. When drugs are legal and cheap, how many more users will there be? Will the savings from prisons and cops go to support a big increase in welfare?

Re: War on Humanity

Keith — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 11:08:59 -0000

For all you parents of 15 year-olds, if you haven't convinced your children not to do drugs by the time they're 15, then its too late. You are not going to influence that decision making process at that age. You needed to be working on that when your kids were 10 and younger.

If your 15 year-old is thinking about doing drugs, then the war on drugs is no longer protecting him, its targeting him. Now decide how you would like this "war" to be fought.

Re: War on Humanity

LisaMarie — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:25:52 -0000

Steve,

All you have to do is look at your own words. The War on Drugs did not prevent the bad things that happened to your brother, nor is it preventing the problems you describe where you live. Even if your desire to do away with the abuse of drugs is something that can be achieved (I personally doubt it; addiction has always been with us), the way we're going about it now is a colossal failure, and it blinds us to better alternatives.

Re: War on Humanity

Randy — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:23:01 -0000

I don't see the need to make the drugs themselves illegal because there are already laws to prohibit harming others. That is, you don't go to jail for possession or use of drugs, you go to jail for theft, or DUI, or creating a public disturbance, etc.

As a former user myself, I think the approach to stopping drug use is misdirected. Forget going after suppliers and distributers. Set up subsidized testing facilities and allow employers to discriminate on the basis of test results. Make all forms of government assistance (including unemployment insurance and tuition assistance) dependant on the results of random drugs tests. Take away drivers licenses for DUI - even on first offense (you can have it back in a year if you test clean). The user is creating the costs to society and the user should pay them.

Re: War on Humanity

nunyabidness — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:42:49 -0000

DQ,

It's asinine, overly simplistic, caustic and idiotic comments like yours that help keep libertarianism nothing more than a fringe cult. You're an amazing ass if you believe the crap you write. Grow up and get a grip.

Re: War on Humanity

Kent Gatewood — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 08:47:09 -0000

Once drugs are legal, they won't be legal for minors.

Trial lawyers will go after sellers the way they go after the tobacco companies.