HRC: We can't legalize, there's too much money in it.

It's not like we have any economic problems that might benefit from the legalization of marijuana. It makes much more sense sinking billions every year into a war that cannot be won, which simultaneously keeps criminals in lifestyles to which they've become accustomed.

Now it's clear why she's the smartest, most capable woman in D.C.

That's certainly an odd statement. If she's suggesting that legalizing it wouldn't put an end to turf wars and various drug dealers having more power than the Mexican police or government, she might be right... but that's a hard sell.

I bet she doesn't understand Marshall McLuhan, either.

"It must remain illegal because we've got too much invested in enforcing laws against it."

As someone who started out very pro-War on Drugs, I'm beginning to see the intellectual bankruptcy (great term!) of that position...

I don't look at her response as saying she supports keeping thing illegal because of money for law enforcement.

I think she failed to understand the question was about total legalization of all drugs. She seems to be answering the question based on the legalizing small amounts of possession argument. In which case she's right that there is so much money in it even under such a scenario that you would have no impact.

Intellectual bankruptcy and ignorance. Surely the hallmark of the politician.

She won't say it, but one of the main reasons that maruijana remains illegal is social rather than economic. It helps criminalise the right groups.

So this is like the fake, endless war in "1984?"

Anyway, what did Rick mean by "criminalize the right groups?" If it's what I think he means, I'm about to blow holes in his logic.

Take a look at the socio-economic groups who use maruijana as compared to those who use more dangerous drugs.

In my town it's mostly whites who use weed and blacks who use crack.
Whites also use meth a lot. Thus, the majority of people locked up for drugs are white. The blacks get locked up for armed robbery + homicide.

Your results may vary, since the armed robbery/homicide factor is taken out of the equation for the most part.

Marijuana is pretty much tolerated, since we have way, way more pressing issues for law enforcement.

Not talking about blacks, specifically. Or crack. That's not a rich-person drug either.

Mark me down to actually understanding where Rick was going on this one. There still are some racial problems in America but the biggest problems are with class.

White. suburban teens and twenty/thirty-somethings? You mean the myth that marijuana use is more prevalent among poor, non-whites? As opposed to, for instance, crack use? Heroin?

If what you were saying is true, the focus of enforcement would be on crack, and clearly it's been pot for a very long time. (Although curious that powder cocaine, certainly Hollywood's drug of choice, not to mention far more addictive and deleterious than pot has managed to remain a low priority in the war on drugs - you gotta wonder why that is).

The justice system may be selective in it's enforcement and severity of punishments, but the notion that your pitching here doesn't hold water. Not only is it a socio-economic thing, it's an overall control thing. The war on drugs has been a bi-partisan spending party for more than two decades, not to mention the fact that it's a sandbox for taking new violations of our constitutional rights for a test drive.

I think he's going on about the enforcement and penalty differences between crack and powder cocaine, among others.

While I understand the intellectual appeal of ending drug prohibition and regulating the drug industry, I do think that the consequences of allowing lots of drugs to become both cheaper and more easily available could easily overwhelm the negative consequences of drug prohibition.

Of course you're right. Much better to perpetuate a social and legal climate which discourages those who need help from actually trying to get help for fear of criminal consequences.

For starters....

Where do you think the focus of drug enforcement is, if not on crack?

You seem to be admitting that it's not on cocaine. That seems to be the point Rick is making -- drugs used by the lower classes get heavily enforced, whereas expensive drugs favored by the elite are less the focus.

If it were a deliberate thing based on class, I would have thought the powers that be would let the masses have their opiates, but what do I know?

If you accept that the justice system may be selective in its enforcement and severity of punishments, then how does Rick's idea that it's class-based not hold water?

Accepting everything you said as true after that point, it could simply be that the control is aimed with class in mind, as is the violation of constitutional rights and the spending.

I don't remember hearing too many cases of police allegedly violating the rights of people rich enough to afford their own lawyers in connection with drugs. But the allegations are commonplace among the relatively poor.

Portugal disagrees.

I don't have to guess where the enforcement focus is. It's on marijuana, and has been for the better part of the last 20 years.

1. I don't claim to be right here. It's just my opinion, and no one could know for sure one way or another which would be better on this for reasons that should be obvious.

2. Our social and legal climate does plenty to encourage drug users to get help. Most first-time offenders qualify for drug diversion programs and rehab, for instance. AFAIK, most people with families and friends support them and encourage them to go to rehab.

The barriers for people not seeking help or following through with the help the receive largely come from a) their not wanting to go through the program in the first place b) biological addiction being too strong c) availability of programs/inability to afford programs. It seems likely that drug legalization would lead to greater drug use. It wouldn't help with a or b. It might make rehab programs more widely available, possibly even more affordable. But I would say a) and b) are the biggest factors and they would stay the same.

3. Even accepting for argument's sake the notion that our current culture doesn't do enough to encourage people from trying to get help, it is not as though drug legalization is necessary or sufficient for it to do more.

4. Even accepting for argument's sake that drug legalization would result in much more being done for people to receive help or indeed to not get hooked in the first place, that doesn't mean that the other negative consequences of drug legalization wouldn't on balance be worse than the negative consequences of drug prohibition.

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with me about...

And I'm not just describing the US. Much of Europe is similar. A journalist went into the toilets of our national parliament and did a swab test on the urinals for cocaine. All but one tested positive. And it's an open secret that cocaine is a major issue in our national broadcaster.

Portugal's demographics, crime rates and other factors are probably different enough from the U.S. that it's unlikely to be a very good predictive model for how drug legalization might work in the U.S.

Legalizing would remove the legal stigma altogether. Despite your claims that society "does a lot" to encourage people with his type of problem to seek help, the threat of legal consequences is off putting for many, if not most. The notion that a "slap on the wrist" for first time offenders is somehow not a disincentive is silly.

Getting it out in the open and out of the hands of criminals and criminal organizations would be nothing but good. It takes the money out of the hands of bad people, both from the supply side, and from the enforcement side.

Not to mention that human collateral pursuant to the war on drugs would be drastically reduced, if not virtually eliminated.

Sensible legalization or decriminalization would yield far more positive benefits than negative.

I don't know how anyone in America can support the war on drugs as is when you have the whole prohibition era of your history to look back on and see the mess it caused and how many were solved by removing the prohibition.

Then again I don't know how anyone can logically justify similar laws here, and we don't have a prohibition-analog to use as an example.

This.

She's right about the reasoning behind it, but I disagree on the claim that we can't legalize.

There is no doubt whatsoever that legalizing drugs would lead to a lot of problems, especially if the legalization were done right. (Meaning that you can mess yourself up as bad as you want, but you can't sell, loan, share, or otherwise provide it to a minor, and society has no obligation whatsoever to provide for you, your job, your health care, or any other financial problems you incur due to using it.)

But that's where natural selection comes in. Those who can use the stuff wisely should be able to, since they aren't hurting others, by definition. If those who can't get weeded out, well, it's their choice.

Heartless? Sure. But that's how natural selection works.

Natural selection can be resisted by civilised societies.

^ Only to a point.

Sooner or later, it catches up with you.

Yeah. Most'a you guys don't got none.