Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

California and the law ...

Feb 22, 2004 3:24AM PST

I've been intrigued by the events in San Francisco. I gather from the number of posts on that subject there are others in the forum who find the subject interesting.

Given the "gay marriage" news from San Francisco I found this news piece from NPR interesting:

California legalized marijuana for medical use almost a decade ago, but under federal law, distributing or selling the drug remains illegal. Some Oakland residents fear an increase in non-medical drug traffic. Judy Campbell of member station KQED reports. (audio link at Weekend Edition - Sunday and scroll down to Oakland Wary of Drug Laws' Impact

Personally I think marijuana and heroin and cocaine and ... should be legalized, regulated and taxed, but that is irrelevant right now. The folks in Oakland (and other parts of California) have decided that Federal law does not apply to them, so they decided to ignore it. Marijuana is openly sold in the community described in the news piece.

It seems to me that there is a connection between the events in San Francisco and the story from Oakland. In either case you can call the actions "civil disobedience" or "moral decadence" or "scofflaw" depending on your perspective, but there is a common thread there.

Only in California?

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
It means the rule of law is being openly cast aside by the liberals.
Feb 22, 2004 7:29AM PST

People now feel bold enough to ignore the law particularly when they know it won't be enforced. If the Feds moved in, think of the outcry there would be. Rosa would be up the creek with a paddle in this climate. It does not bode well for the future of the Republic if law is ignored for the latest fashionable trend.

- Collapse -
Consider something, Bill...
Feb 22, 2004 10:51AM PST

Bill, consider something. Lucky Luciano, the famous mobster, made his big fortune in illegal alcohol after prohibition ended. Why? Because his product was much cheaper, as he paid no tax on it.
Have you noticed that organized crime is into smuggling cigarettes into places like New York? Why? Same reason, to beat the new taxes which were imposed as an attempt to cut sales.
If heroin, cocaine, or whatever were legalized and taxed, don't you think that criminal types would still smuggle in and sell them? Same deal, they wouldn't have to pay the tax, so they'd have a built in price advantage in an already existing market.

- Collapse -
Smuggling develops anytime taxes are too high...
Feb 22, 2004 2:47PM PST

...Not just because something has a tax on it. New York, and in my opinion other states too, have what can clearly be considered "punitive" taxation on cigarettes. Tobacco has been their "whipping boy" for a long time now. More people have probably died from clogged arteries from too many milk products, or had intestinal distress from lactose intolerance, but you don't see them passing high taxes on products from Wisconsin and other large dairy product states. From the days of King Cotton, "if it's southern, let's tax it!".

- Collapse -
The taxes don't necessarily have to encourage smuggling ...
Feb 22, 2004 6:43PM PST

Smuggling only occurs when the price of the illegal product is high enough that the extra profits justify the extra risk. We could tax drugs at the Federal level and continue to attempt to intercept illegal imports at the border. If the taxes were not too high the incentive to smuggle would be small. Other benefits would include a reduction in the 'private armies' (aka gangs) supported by drug money. Furthermore, crops like marijuana would become legal, which would have significant ripple effects in the US economy.

- Collapse -
NT- Bill, you are a visionary.
Feb 22, 2004 11:52PM PST

.

- Collapse -
It's odd hearing a doctor propose such
Feb 23, 2004 1:16AM PST

I'm not in disagreement. The War on Drugs is unnecessary and being used to push and enact laws that affect the freedoms, the liberties of us all. It has placed us all at greater risk.

- Collapse -
I recall in 70's many thought before 2000 pot would be legal and tobacco illegal.
Feb 23, 2004 4:55AM PST

.

- Collapse -
(NT)This and above was NT.
Feb 23, 2004 5:17AM PST

.

- Collapse -
They seriously underestimated the power of the tobacco lobby ...
Feb 23, 2004 6:37AM PST

The chances of tobacco smoking ever becoming frankly illegal are still pretty small. I suppose it is possible that smoking restrictions could gradually become so onerous that people don't think it's worth the bother, but until then making it illegal would be a non-starter.

It seems to me that predictions that marijuana would become legal suffered from several flaws:
(1) The whole business of labeling marijuana as an evil recreational drug has made legalization almost as dangerous as cutting Social Security (the political "third rail");
(2) Legalizing marijuana would make sense. Never underestimate the stupidity of lawmakers in large groups;
(3) For all y'all conspiracy buffs, consider the theory that marijuana was outlawed because its popularity reduced alcohol sales after Prohibition. If that theory has any merit at all (which is more than I know!) then the beverage alcohol industry will make sure that legalization dies an untimely death.

- Collapse -
Beverage alcohol industry plot, Bill...
Feb 23, 2004 12:12PM PST

The legaization proponents often like to mention some supposed "plot" by the alcohol industry being responsible for marijuana being outlawed, but that's a bunch of hooie.
The 1st Federal Marijuana law was passed in 1937. It was a result of heavy pressure by the Southwestern states, who saw it as a law to control Mexican migrants (let's face it, all Mexicans). The head of the Bureau of Narcotics had his hands full with heroin and cocaine with his limited budget and number of agents. He made it clear at first that he didn't have the money and manpower to take on a weed that grew wild in most areas of the U.S., but eventually gave into the pressure from those states and got behind it.
Of course, people love to believe in big bad plots by some big bad industry.

- Collapse -
Re:Beverage alcohol industry plot, Bill...
Feb 23, 2004 12:26PM PST
The head of the Bureau of Narcotics had his hands full with heroin and cocaine with his limited budget and number of agents. He made it clear at first that he didn't have the money and manpower to take on a weed that grew wild in most areas of the U.S., but eventually gave into the pressure from those states and got behind it.

Actually, Harry Anslinger, head of the Federal Narcotics Bureau, lead the crusade against marihuana as soon as the prohibition on alcohol was lifted in 1933. In 1937 Anslinger testified before Congress in favor of Marijuana Prohibition by saying: "Marijuana is the most violence causing drug in the history of mankind." "Most marijuana smokers are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes." He was obsessed with the evils of hemp. He truely was the "Father of the Drug War". Google him for more.

- Collapse -
At first, Clay...
Feb 23, 2004 1:27PM PST

Clay, when Anslinger was put in charge, there were no Federal laws against it, and he wanted to keep it that way. He wanted the states to control it (and needless to say, pick up the tab). In 1924 12 states did just that, so it's not an idea that he just came up with. Anslinger had a budget of 1.5 million dollars and a total staff of 300 so it's no wonder that he wanted to stick it onto the states. But the western states wanted a Federal Law, as did William Randolph Hurst. In 1931, Mexican Repatriation threw a lot of migrants out of the country, and those states wanted a new weapon. Anslinger, the typical bureaucrat (he wasn't a law enforecement type)saw the states clamoring for it, Hurst clamoring for it, and as a good brueaucrat does, changed his mind, went with the flow, and started screaming. In 1937 he, the western states and "I'll supply the war" Hurst got it.
Oh, yes, you are right, states used marijuana laws against blacks, but the western states wanted it as a bigger weapon, they had another weapon, they were tossing people out of the country.

- Collapse -
I never said that I subscribed to that theory ...
Feb 24, 2004 6:04AM PST

I do, however, appreciate the history lesson. I've never been a conspiracy buff, but I've never felt inspired enough to research the history of the US marijuana ban so I've never known what to make of that particular conspiracy theory.

- Collapse -
Come now, Bill...
Feb 23, 2004 12:39PM PST

Come now, Bill, do you think that taxes on heroin and cocaine would be small? Look at what they are doing to cigarettes, justifying it by saying that it causes medical expense. Do you honestly think that the same logic won't come into play and the tax will remain small?
We had legal opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine etc. in the late 1800's and into the early 1900's. If you had a cough, you could nip into the drug store and pickup just the thing for it, Bayer Heroin tablets. Guess how long it took for some kids to learn to crush one into powder and inhale it for "fun". Bill, we had your legalized drug world in the past, and it wasn't the situation that you might picture. Bill, have you ever seen a heroin addict? O.K., let's pretend that it's legal and we gave one 100 lbs of it and said, "help yourself". No expense, no legal worries, but what do you think he would do to his health? It's not the laws nor expense that kill junkies, it's the "junk" itself.

- Collapse -
Paragoric
Feb 23, 2004 1:26PM PST

I took paragoric as a child when sick. I didn't turn into a drug addict. Your argument is similar to the one that is used nowadays to ban PNut Butter sandwiches and crackers from home brought school lunches. It's the concept that the many should be restricted because of the few.

- Collapse -
Your logic escapes me, James...
Feb 23, 2004 1:49PM PST

James, your logic escapes me. Some prescription drugs given to kids contain narcotics, and that does not automatically make them addicts. I have been "shot up" with morphine several times in the hospital, and I'm not an addict. Does that mean that we should sell morphine over the counter? Hey, why not, I have taken it, and to use your same words, "I didn't turn into a drug addict.".
Do you remember when you could buy OTC cough/cold remedies containing codeine? Remember kids getting it for a "thrill".
Narcotics are not peanut butter sandwiches. In the late 1800's and early 1900's before the drug laws, there were more than a few addicts. (such an understatement)

- Collapse -
Paragoric was an Opiate
Feb 23, 2004 10:56PM PST

You got my "logic" in your first sentence, basically that everyone using a drug for a health problem isn't going to turn into an addict. Furthermore that many, many, children received Paragoric during the 50's and early 60's before it was taken away and I sure don't remember a bunch of drug addicted playmates.

Addiction is a individual's problem and his responsibility to admit and overcome or get help. The addiction or possible addiction of some should not be used as the excuse to deprive the many of some very effective drugs. You can claim since they are prescription that one is not being deprived. Wrong.

There is no guarantee that the doctor you use will prescribe the drug you know will give you the most relief during an illness. Too many doctors are justifiably worried for themselves because of this War on Drugs.

Some people are economically deprived if they can't cover the doctor fee and the prescription cost. I can, but chose not to. These past 2 weeks I certainly would like to have gone out and bought some codeine based cough syrup, Nyquil cough being a poorer substitute. Yes, I could have taken the time to go see the doctor, pay an office fee in order to beg for a prescription for something I already knew would help me. I chose not to, instead suffering through it with Nyquil and some brandy instead.

I'm tired of seeing health and/or safety being used as a legal sledgehammer against the general population in so many arenas, not just health care and drugs, simply because there are a few who don't act responsibly.

- Collapse -
You better sit down, James
Feb 23, 2004 10:38PM PST

We agree on two things! The stupidity of the failed war on drugs, and peanut butter restrictions.

Where's the OTC codeine when you really need it?

Wink

Dan

- Collapse -
It's good to know we have agreement once in awhile.(nt)
Feb 23, 2004 10:57PM PST

.

- Collapse -
Re:Come now, Bill...
Feb 23, 2004 10:35PM PST

Where does anyone suggest that recreational drugs be given to anyone? I haven't asked Bill but I doubt he'd go for that plan. I also doubt anyone would speak against age limits for the purchase of drugs.

As to drug use in the past, I don't recall any stories of hundreds of murders every year by druggists protecting their turf. The current policy of a failed war on drugs just ain't working at all.

Dan

- Collapse -
Have I ever seen a heroin addict? ... What a silly question to ask an MD ...
Feb 24, 2004 6:00AM PST

Of course I've seen drug addicts of various types. Part of my training was spent at an inpatient rehab facility in which I participated in evaluation, therapy groups, AA meetings, ... I don't pretend these substances are safe or harmless. What I'm claiming, though, is that the attempts to outlaw them are doing more harm than the substances themselves.

Sure, cigarette and alcohol taxes are high. Yet, despite the high taxes, there is relatively little smuggling because the taxes are not high enough to make profit from smuggling all that attractive. Furthermore, what little tobacco smuggling goes on is not accompanied by private armies terrorizing our cities.

The fact that drugs are illegal, and there is real risk to smuggling them in and real risk to distributing them, raises the street prices far more than any imposed tax could. The profits from that risky endeavor fund the armed thugs who are a huge part of the destruction of our inner cities as well as the narco-terrorists who are major players worldwide. We need to rid ourselves of those plagues.

Would we see more addicts if we made drugs legal? Probably. Would the situation get wildly out of control? I don't think so. Most alcohol users (but not all) are not really addicts. Most drug users (but not all) are not really addicts. There is a real social cost to increasing the number of addicts, but what I'm claiming is that the social gains of legalization would far outweigh the social costs of legalization. Furthermore, admitting defeat in the 'war on drugs' would allow police to focus on more important things than drug pushers and drug users.

- Collapse -
(NT)- In your opinion; Is addiction due more to emotional/psychological reasons, or to physical cravings?
Feb 24, 2004 1:39PM PST

.

- Collapse -
We know that for some drugs addiction is at least partly genetic ...
Feb 25, 2004 8:32AM PST

The catch is that we really do not know how much is biochemically determined and how much is environmentally determined. Probably a bit of each.

- Collapse -
Not at all, Bill...
Feb 24, 2004 3:46PM PST

Not at all, Bill, it raises a question. If heroin were legal, as you proposed, would you give it to a heroin addict? The "do no harm" question comes to mind, would your enabling his continued addiction not have an effect on his health that might be harmful? Or, should that addict be enabled to continue his addiction "over the counter" without a doctor's assistance?

- Collapse -
Heroin does have potential legitimate medical uses ...
Feb 25, 2004 8:36AM PST

There are problems with potency of some of the legal narcotics, and pure heroin is certainly quite potent. There have been occasional proposals to legalize heroin for severe pain unrelieved by available narcotics like Dilaudid.

However, for most purposes there is no medical need for heroin. I doubt I would ever have occasion to prescribe it. If it were legal folks could get it 'OTC'.

There are real risks to this approach, but there are real benefits. The problem is that nobody will seriously debate the idea on its merits because of our cultural perspective on drugs.

I guess you can't tell I side with the hard core libertarians on this one, can you?