| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | | Current drug laws are wholly ineffective. While not significantly limiting supply or use, they waste billions of dollars, incarcerate millions of people, and fund criminal enterprises. Legalization and regulation will eliminate the problems with limiting supply and will finance efforts to limit demand. President Obama, an admitted cocain user, managed to avoid the consequences of the laws that he now continues to enforce. All drug users should hope to be so fortunate.
| |
<
< | Why stop at drugs? | >
> | Why stop at drugs? | | | -- DRussellKraft - 28 Feb 2010
Derek, can you clarify what you mean by this question? Are you referring to other vice crimes? Regardless, I don't think this essay was about line drawing. The legalization of other activities would require separate analyses beyond the scope of John's essay.
-- PeterCavanaugh - 28 Feb 2010 | |
<
< | | >
> | Read my paper  -- DRussellKraft - 02 Mar 2010 | | |
What bothers me more are the widespread misconceptions about drugs. MDMA, for example, during its DEA scheduling was recommended for Schedule III. Any doctor who knew anything about the drug said it had medicinal value. It had been used by psychotherapists with extraordinary success, some even calling it a miracle drug. For some, it blew anti-depressants out of the water. Of course, it ended up on the Schedule I, "no recognized medicinal value" along with Marijuana. Thank the pharmaceutical companies. | | | How about this - instead of trying to go whole hog and ask "why stop", let's think about how to make an argument of why it wouldn't go any further. Granted, I'm not opposed to the idea of pushing further, but that is probably not going to be an overwhelmingly popular argument. Heck, even this argument will meet stiff resistance, and it makes a pretty good deal of sense. Most people who may not be totally against the legalization of drugs may be afraid of the "slippery slope" that follows the legalization of a vice crime. If there's ever going to be a change like this one, it will be met with fear, so we should look at if those fears can be realistically met and calmed. I'll give it a shot. | |
<
< | First, the "slippery slope" argument would have to be met. I do not, and probably never will never will, accept the idea of a slippery slope. I think the courts have a little more self-control than that, and it's not very hard to point out. Look at the application of racial discrimination laws we've been reading about in ConLaw? . The Court set a precedent that legislation which disparately affected a minority group without relating to a governmental purpose of exceeding importance would be examined with strict scrutiny. Then, through a series of decisions that found creative readings of former decisions as ways to fly in the face of that idea, the Court decided that's actually not how things are going to be. Poof! That slippery slope got pretty sticky. We all know the Court will decide what it's going to decide, precedent can be found anywhere, or made up on the spot. The slippery slope argument has little truth to it, and a exists generally as tactic used to stagnate social change and keep the status quo. If it can be beaten (using some pretty words so the general public will accept what we already know), that's one fear, and argument against legalization, out of the way. | >
> | First, the "slippery slope" argument would have to be met. I do not, and probably never will never will, accept the idea of a slippery slope. I think the courts have a little more self-control than that, and it's not very hard to point out. Look at the application of racial discrimination laws we've been reading about in ConLaw. The Court set a precedent that legislation which disparately affected a minority group without relating to a governmental purpose of exceeding importance would be examined with strict scrutiny. Then, through a series of decisions that found creative readings of former decisions as ways to fly in the face of that idea, the Court decided that's actually not how things are going to be. Poof! That slippery slope got pretty sticky. We all know the Court will decide what it's going to decide, precedent can be found anywhere, or made up on the spot. The slippery slope argument has little truth to it, and a exists generally as tactic used to stagnate social change and keep the status quo. If it can be beaten (using some pretty words so the general public will accept what we already know), that's one fear, and argument against legalization, out of the way. | | | Sweet, so let's just say we beat the slippery slope argument (upsetting however many hundreds of years of legal thought). What's next? If we legalize this specific type of "vice crime" then the next thing to deal with would be the idea/argument/fear of a moral unraveling. To be honest, I'd anticipate this noise coming largely from conservative christians, people with a lot of money in pharmacy, and your run of the mill (ignorant) racists. |
|