Dispatches from the Creation Wars

there are six groups that benefit from drug prohibition

Posted by: James Hanley | March 15, 2010 9:43 AM

I dunno about those, CRM. Yes, defense lawyers profit from the WoD, but they profit from every law that makes something illegal. I'd agree with Judge Gray, law enforcement and the prison industry profit a lot more than defense attorneys. As for Big Pharma, I think it's been exaggerated. Yeah, Pfizer probably doesn't love the idea of people growing weed in MI to treat their own problems, but there's bigger fish to fry, kind of like how Monsanto isn't trying to prevent the average home gardener, it's just not on their large-scale radar. Big Pharma would have a lot of profit in ending the WoD as well. In Europe for instance, diamorphine (we call it heroin) is sometimes used instead of regular morphine b/c it has a faster acting time. It's still the same powerful drug, but it works better as heroin when you need the pain relief quickly. If we relax our drug laws a bit, whatever drug corp. gets to sell diamorphine now has a new way to market a slightly different version of morphine, with all the attendant profits and very little additional testing needed.

Posted by: Rob Monkey | March 15, 2010 12:05 PM

Yes, Matty, it's illegal to use heroin for medical use in the States. Specifically it's a "Schedule I" drug per the DEA, which means the following:

(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

Marijuana is also in this list perversely enough. You're correct about the British situation, which seems sensible to me as well. My pharmacist friend HATES this kind of crap, since he knows all sorts of examples like this, where the DEA doesn't follow any sound medical reasoning at all.

Posted by: Rob Monkey | March 15, 2010 12:52 PM

I'm not sure I would use the word "winning" with respect to juvenile gangs. That's a highly arbitrary term.

That said, I agree with the other five. I'd be down to grow opium in the United States (not me, personally, but someone who knows something about it) for the same reason I support using more American energy resources (oil, what little we have, and alternative means).

Interesting stuff. I generally agree with the position, though I'm not sure if I agree that the economic side is that big a deal. I prefer the position he opens with, which is the government overreaching. The bit about the Holland effect seems highly speculative, but very interesting.

I don't know Judge Gray very well, but given his position on this issue, he seems like a pretty reasonable guy.

Posted by: JStein | March 15, 2010 1:43 PM

Rob Monkey I haven't seen Reefer Madness in ages. Or maybe I have. The past is, like, ephemeral, man. You reach out to grab it and...it's...like...gone, y'know?

Posted by: Modusoperandi | March 15, 2010 2:02 PM

The only real difference between stoner philosophers and "real" philosophers is that the latter group writes it down. They don't realize, man, that you can't lock words with a pencil on a cage of paper! Seriously! Break your pencils, man. Tear up your paper.
Free your words...free your mind!

Posted by: Modusoperandi | March 15, 2010 2:46 PM

Yup. He pretty much said what I have been saying for a long time - only he did it in more explicit detail. I don't do drugs myself (or drink or smoke for that matter), and do not enjoy being around those that are drunk or stoned (and I hate breathing other people's smoke), yet, I fully agree with pretty much every part of his argument to legalize recreational drugs.

One statistic I came across recently (sorry, I don't have the link), stated that approximately 60% of all prison inmates in the US were there on drug related charges. And that the US has the highest per capita incarceration rate of any nation in the world - including China.

Let's put organized crime out of business and claim all of that revenue for ourselves and legalize recreational drugs.

Posted by: Jeff Knapp | March 15, 2010 3:42 PM

jstein: Street gangs benefit from the WoD in the same fashion the mob benefited from Prohibition in the '20s. Black marketeers always profit from restrictions on trade. And the gang leaders have learned--use kids for at least one stage in getting your product on the street, because the kids will never be used by the cops as plants. Perversely, it's safer in this country to sell drugs to kids than to an adult, since the kid can't be a narc. So the gangs flash the kids (whose neighborhoods have been viciously abandoned by the outside world) some cash, offering the closest most of them will ever see to a better life. The kid takes the gifts, becomes a mule or a lookout, and gives the gangbangers a buffer to keep away from the cops.

Posted by: Freemage | March 15, 2010 5:34 PM

I choked just a little at the mention of the Dutch claiming to have "made marijuana boring."

To anyone who enjoys smoking marijuana but is not presently smoking marijuana or anticipating smoking marijuana or trying to score some more marijuana, marijuana is boring. Even if you're sitting on a ton.

Unless a person who doesn't smoke marijuana is nonetheless convinced that marijuana is a communist socialist plot to undermine America by melting the minds of its youth, or that marijuana's erosive assault on the moral fiber of anyone foolish enough to inhale constitutes a clear and present danger to the Union, marijuana is boring.

A person who is stoned might seem boring by an observer who has not smoked. A person who is stoned might appear hilarious to an observer who had also smoked. A person who has not smoked marijuana might appear boring or hilarious to a person who is stoned. Two stoned people might appear boring or hilarious to each other simultaneously or, ah, alternately. Marijuana has always been boring to most people most of the time. Except maybe when you are trying a new strain for the first time. That's not boring. But outside of the shrill cries of the perpetually horrified and deeply bothered, I can't remember marijuana being more than mildly interesting for mumble years. It's always seemed so normal. So neat and discreet. All reet! Like Brylcreme, a little dab'll do you. It comes from across the border and you can get it across the street. I can't recall when I couldn't. Obtaining marijuana is ridiculously easy. The law has not hurt marijuana; but it's done a world of hurt to the sense of values that users and nonusers have of themselves and others. Of such values is the personality of the nation created and this is a large part of the face we present to the world.

I am heartened to hear the judge's words. For a while now I've been sensing something in the Force - the great tide of public opinion is doing what the Dutch claim to have done, to make marijuana boring. I have a guarded sense of anticipation regarding a continuing and gradually increasing loosening and liberalizing of pot laws nationwide. Don't quote me, I'm just reading the tea leaves.

Marijuana should be boring. Except to anyone who is just lighting up. Like aspirin. It's only value is in its use and only the user can judge its worth and desirability.

Marijuana is like pudding. You know, where the proof is said to be? Wrong. The proof is not in the pudding or the marijuana. For pudding the proof (that is, the test that indicates worth and desirability) is in the eating of the pudding. For marijuana then, the proof is in the smoking of it. All of the other values, dollars and power, that accrue to those who take advantage of the illegality (and Schedule One classification!!!!) are no proof of marijuana's value. They prove only the foolishness of the laws that tell me and you what we an put in our bodies and also eschew growing scientific, medical, psychological knowledge while bringing out the worst in those of us who can't resist a quick profit and will justify killing to get it.

Posted by: Crudely Wrott | March 15, 2010 9:28 PM