Man, I wish I would have returned to the City just a few days earlier so I could have caught this thread in it's hour of glory. So much to comment on in the last 4 pages! First let me get the quick comments out of the way:
Peyote rituals are legal only for members of the Native American Church. Membership requires that you show proof that you are at least one-sixteenth (or maybe it's one-thirtysecond) Native American. Why are they legal for them and not the rest of society? Separation of church and state. That's what it boils down to. Besides, to them, it's a revered ritual not a recreational pasttime.
"i want to apologize for the sand in my vagina earlier..." CLASSIC analogy! I must remember that one!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cheebaa
there would need to be a huge plan to actually go about this
|
Plans have been offered. Let me take a couple of pages from my research and post them here. All the italicized stuff was taken from researched sources. The non-italicized stuff is my own. Sorry for the length, but trying to say it all over again when I've already said it elsewhere would be too taxing on this aging brain of mine:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
******
"I readily grant that the ethical issue is difficult and that men of good will may well disagree. Fortunately, we need not resolve the ethical issue to agree on policy. Prohibition is an attempted cure that makes matters worse -- for both the addict and the rest of us. Hence, even if you regard present policy toward drugs as ethically justified, considerations of expediency make that policy most unwise.
"... Legalizing drugs would simultaneously reduce the amount of crime and raise the quality of law enforcement. Can you conceive of any other measure that would accomplish so much to promote law and order?" -- Milton Freidman, senior research fellow, Hoover Institute
******
In proposing the legalization of drugs, advocates invariably point to the advantages of crime reduction and increased budgetary revenues. As our national attention is currently focused on these two major issues, it is hopeful that these proposed advantages will lead to further discussion and ultimately a repeal of the repressive policy of prohibition.
Before a repeal can be achieved, a plan must be worked out in which the shift of responsibility can be carried out smoothly and in an organized manner. Such a plan is proposed by Ethan Nadelmann in his article "Toward a Sane National Drug Policy." He proposes the following:
1. Decriminalize marijuana
2. Expand methadone treatment programs
3. Implement needle exchange programs
4. Repeal minimum sentences for drug offenses
5. Steer legislative control of policy toward state, county, and city governments
6. Provide legal distribution of drugs in conjunction with educational information
7. Allow citizens to be responsible for their decisions concerning drug use
He continues by suggesting the advantages that such a proposal will produce:
1.The disintegration of the black market influence
2. Benefits in the form of tax revenues and profits from sales
3. Crime reduction due to the elimination of competition among gangs who sell drugs
4 Reduced prison populations
This "hands off" approach is intended to abolish the war on drugs in an attempt to allow citizens and communities to make responsible choices concerning drug use. The freedom of choice issue stands out as the only responsible course of action. Upon further observation, this tactic of self regulation will promote personal responsibility, which seems to be a more acceptable incentive than incarceration in the deterrence of drug abuse. When left to their own devices, people tend to make more responsible choices.
In the course of researching this paper, Terence McKenna has emerged as the ultimate voice of reason in the eyes of this researcher. Although his voice at times appears to call from somewhere out in the cosmos, his opinions and ideas deserve an audience beyond that of the underground radicals and the obscurity of their followers. His ideas promote responsible drug use while, at the same time, preaching a message condemning drug abuse. His eclectic proposal concerning drug legalization is summarized here:
-- Legal or illegal, from the highly addictive cocaine and heroin to the seemingly innocuous caffeine and sugar, drugs are drugs. When legalized, they should all be taxed - ranging from a 200% tax on the hard drugs to 20% on non-addictive ones.
-- All drugs sold should carry warning labels regarding their true impact on health.
-- All foreign aid should be withdrawn from countries that produce and traffic in hard drugs. Proof of compliance through international inspection could restore the aid.
-- Gun control should be tightened and enforced to restrict the availability of firearms since violent crime and the drug abuse problem feed off of each other.
-- Possession and cultivation of all plants should be legalized.
-- Expand insurance coverage to include psychedelic therapy
-- Financial institution regulation should be strengthened to avoid collusion and money laundering schemes.
-- Make a national commitment to support scientific research of drug use and abuse. An equally committed stance regarding public education of the issues is also called for.
One year after implementing the above goals:
-- Decriminalize all illegal drugs. In doing so, we effectively cut out the middleman, government takes over as supplier and inspector, and the resulting income stays in the US and is applied toward the social, medical and educational costs of legalization.
-- Pardon all prisoners convicted of drug related offenses except those involving firearms or felonious assault.
In conclusion to his proposal, McKenna states:
"At the foundation of the American theory of social polity is the notion that our inalienable rights include 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' To pretend that the right to the pursuit of happiness does not include the right to experiment with psychoactive plants and substances is to make an argument that is at best narrow and at worst ignorant and primitive." He has a point there.
It seems, as I review my research, that the main objection to legalization stems from a fear of the unknown. Not only is the fear of the unknown dimensions of awareness apparent in the controversy, the fear of the unknown effects upon society is surely a concern. By legalizing drugs, aren't we setting the stage for our nation to become a nation of addicts? By repealing the existing drug laws, aren't we sending out a message to the public that we are condoning the use of drugs? The assumption prevalent in such fears is that we are a nation of idiots lacking the capacity for a rational assessment of information. The implication of such an attitude should be insulting to all Americans. Yet this is the attitude implied by the mere existence of our current laws.
When being offered drugs, shouldn't we be allowed to make a choice based on the information we've gathered? If we answer 'yes', why is it that the choice is already made for us through the presense of existing laws? If our answer is 'no', what choices should we be allowed to make based on gathered information? The notion that we should control personal choice through the imposition of laws is dangerous indeed.
A more rational course presents itself in the form of education. By supplying both the objective and subjective information on a national scale regarding the responsible use of drugs, it seems logical that we could create an adequately informed populace capable of making a rational choice when confronted with drugs.
Therefore, I propose that, upon repeal of the existing laws, we initiate a program in which every citizen wll have access to a "drug mentor", a civil servant with an extensive background of responsible drug use. He would administer a program designed to supply the information that will allow for an informed choice regarding drug use. Successful completion of the program by a citizen would permit the issuance of a drug use "license" certifying that the bearer had completed the program and was legally allowed to take drugs responsibly. The details of this plan would take up more space than allowed in this paper. It should be noted, however, that the main emphasis of this plan is on education. Education seems to be the course leading to the desired goal of creating a civilized nation, a nation of truly free people.
The alternative would be to allow the continued practice of spreading the current misleading propaganda, virtually guaranteeing that, eventually, we will blindly hand over all personal responsibility to a system eager to assume control over our every action. The result? Picture a nation of herded sheep.
Information on the issue of legalization is plentiful. Information provided in the previous pages addresses a few of the issues contained in the original plans. Most important are the issues of rights and personal freedom, for these are the stakes in the current war. The thought of surrender leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------