A modest proposal for reforming US narcotics laws

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Here's how I'd reform laws relating to intoxicants.

1 Legalize Marijuana, make shrooms/X/LSD be decriminalized(as in only fines for using or selling but not much focus on it) and crack down SEVERELY on hard drugs.
2 Instead of warning people that using at all is bad, the (lessened amount broadcast) Public Service announcements would instead stress moderation of use, getting help if you're addicted and not using them underage.
3 Abolish the concept of drunk driving and treak drunk crashes the same as regular crashes. Basically no more breathalyzers. Actions have consequences and people will have to live with their own idiocy. A few generations of this and people will get the hint and stop doing it as much.
4 Make doing crimes high/drunk simply be another charge tacked on with more time added. Also depending on what they're using(either pot, booze, "decriminalized" drugs or hard drugs) apply a secondary charge. People who do crimes while on "decriminalized" drugs would see a third additional charge tacked on. Lastly for people who do the hard drugs I'd crack down on I'd apply the first 4 extra charges and a special charge for doing crimes under the influence of hard drugs. I can live with massively full prisons and largescale use of capitol punishment.
5 Abolish all public intoxication/public smoking laws/ordinances. However as in proposal 5 increase sentencing for anyone caught doing a crime high/drunk. Relax rules on police "brutality" with regards to crimes done high/drunk.
6 allow grocery stores to sell booze and make liquor/smokes/marijuana available in vending machines
7 Make the age for buying booze/smokes/ganja be 18 with there being no downwards age for drinking in private(drinking in public would be legal at 18). This is to remove the idiotic emphasis on constantly carding people, the wasted police effort patrolling neighborhoods looking for parties and endless busts for underage drinking.
8 Lower the high excise taxes on marijuana, alcohol and tobacco. However as part of it make Tobacco be under FDA regulations to make sure that the tobacco companies are made to stop putting in things like extra tar/more additives.
9 Re-allow alcohol and tobacco advertisement on TV/Radio. Also allow advertisement for marijuana. Also don't mandate putting on the surgeon general's warning. People make stupid choices and they should have to live with it.
10 Apply california type 3 strikes rules for sentencing plus mandatory minimum sentencing on a national basis. Also make the extra charges relating to doing crimes on the influence count for 3 strikes laws. I am not a nice person.
11 Do a grand bargain with mexico to settle the immigration, environmental, border crime and drug smuggling issues. Basically bring in US Capital and promote industrialization of mexico(by taking the US out of the washington consensus model of free trade and doing severe restrictions on non-mexican second/third world immigration). This may seem unrelated to the rest of my proposal but it creates a mexican government willing to help the US government enforce anti-smuggling of heroin/coke in mexico. Also if the DEA is able to intercept the coke in chiapas MUCH less makes it into the US.

Unfortunately we'll probably to wait 20-30 years when the political consequences of protestantism's shrinking proportion on the population/demographic changes actually has an effect and the boomers are gone to see serious reform on this front.

[memphis]

Here's how I'd reform laws relating to intoxicants.

1 Legalize Marijuana, make shrooms/X/LSD be decriminalized(as in only fines for using or selling but not much focus on it) and crack down SEVERELY on hard drugs.
2 Instead of warning people that using at all is bad, the (lessened amount broadcast) Public Service announcements would instead stress moderation of use, getting help if you're addicted and not using them underage.
3 Abolish the concept of drunk driving and treak drunk crashes the same as regular crashes. Basically no more breathalyzers. Actions have consequences and people will have to live with their own idiocy. A few generations of this and people will get the hint and stop doing it as much.
4 Make doing crimes high/drunk simply be another charge tacked on with more time added. Also depending on what they're using(either pot, booze, "decriminalized" drugs or hard drugs) apply a secondary charge. People who do crimes while on "decriminalized" drugs would see a third additional charge tacked on. Lastly for people who do the hard drugs I'd crack down on I'd apply the first 4 extra charges and a special charge for doing crimes under the influence of hard drugs. I can live with massively full prisons and largescale use of capitol punishment.
5 Abolish all public intoxication/public smoking laws/ordinances. However as in proposal 5 increase sentencing for anyone caught doing a crime high/drunk. Relax rules on police "brutality" with regards to crimes done high/drunk.
6 allow grocery stores to sell booze and make liquor/smokes/marijuana available in vending machines
7 Make the age for buying booze/smokes/ganja be 18 with there being no downwards age for drinking in private(drinking in public would be legal at 18). This is to remove the idiotic emphasis on constantly carding people, the wasted police effort patrolling neighborhoods looking for parties and endless busts for underage drinking.
8 Lower the high excise taxes on marijuana, alcohol and tobacco. However as part of it make Tobacco be under FDA regulations to make sure that the tobacco companies are made to stop putting in things like extra tar/more additives.
9 Re-allow alcohol and tobacco advertisement on TV/Radio. Also allow advertisement for marijuana. Also don't mandate putting on the surgeon general's warning. People make stupid choices and they should have to live with it.
10 Apply california type 3 strikes rules for sentencing plus mandatory minimum sentencing on a national basis. Also make the extra charges relating to doing crimes on the influence count for 3 strikes laws. I am not a nice person.
11 Do a grand bargain with mexico to settle the immigration, environmental, border crime and drug smuggling issues. Basically bring in US Capital and promote industrialization of mexico(by taking the US out of the washington consensus model of free trade and doing severe restrictions on non-mexican second/third world immigration). This may seem unrelated to the rest of my proposal but it creates a mexican government willing to help the US government enforce anti-smuggling of heroin/coke in mexico. Also if the DEA is able to intercept the coke in chiapas MUCH less makes it into the US.

Unfortunately we'll probably to wait 20-30 years when the political consequences of protestantism's shrinking proportion on the population/demographic changes actually has an effect and the boomers are gone to see serious reform on this front.

You're completely nuts if you don't care about drunk driving. It is a major issue that costs many lives.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

There's no need to do the extra harassent of checkpoints and wasting police efforts. If they crash into someone oyu can get them for either attempted murder or vehicular manslaughter plus the extra charge of commiting a crime drunk tacked on.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Also stop swallowing the garbage spouted by MADD.

[Alcon]

There's no need to do the extra harassent of checkpoints and wasting police efforts. If they crash into someone oyu can get them for either attempted murder or vehicular manslaughter plus the extra charge of commiting a crime drunk tacked on.

So, I assume you think that child neglect is OK until it causes harm?

Crazy, sir.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

I believe in cracking down on things which until someoen gets hurt have no effect on anyone besides the idiot doing this. Drunk driving is in this catagory and child neglect is NOT in it. I believe in focusing resources to things which are more important/easier to enforce.

[Alcon]

I believe in cracking down on things which until someoen gets hurt have no effect on anyone besides the idiot doing this. Drunk driving is in this catagory and child neglect is NOT in it. I believe in focusing resources to things which are more important/easier to enforce.

How are you differentiating the two?

When you drive drunk, you have even less control over the well-being of others and are more likely to cause direct harm than with child neglect, after all.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

I believe in cracking down on things which until someoen gets hurt have no effect on anyone besides the idiot doing this. Drunk driving is in this catagory and child neglect is NOT in it. I believe in focusing resources to things which are more important/easier to enforce.

How are you differentiating the two?

When you drive drunk, you have even less control over the well-being of others and are more likely to cause direct harm than with child neglect, after all.

The police can only go after so many people at once. I'd rather they went after violent criminals rather than doing roadblocks.

[Alcon]

The police can only go after so many people at once. I'd rather they went after violent criminals rather than doing roadblocks.

You don't have to legalize DUIs to do that, though.

And don't you think drunk drivers probably kill many more people than violent criminals anyway?

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

The police can only go after so many people at once. I'd rather they went after violent criminals rather than doing roadblocks.

You don't have to legalize DUIs to do that, though.

And don't you think drunk drivers probably kill many more people than violent criminals anyway?

1 Until they crash into someone they haven't harmed anyone else. And if they do crash we can simply charge them with attempted murder or vehicular homicide.
2 My belief is that if you do a crime while intoxicated it should just add on another charge. Making legislation to target specifically people doinug one thing while drunk is IMO a waste of time when it should just be handled as attempted murder
3 Unlike far too many people in the electorate I'm willing to factor in an element of chance/risk. I do not subscribe to the zero defects mentality.

[Alcon]

1 Until they crash into someone they haven't harmed anyone else. And if they do crash we can simply charge them with attempted murder or vehicular homicide.

So, under no situation should we prosecute people for reckless disregard, unless someone is killed?  Even if it is inevitable that someone will be killed?  Why does hitting a car suddenly elevate it from not a crime to attempted murder?

3 Unlike far too many people in the electorate I'm willing to factor in an element of chance/risk. I do not subscribe to the zero defects mentality.

Err, I don't follow what that has to do with drunk drivers versus criminals...can you clarify?

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Reckless disregard on itself does not qualify as a crime in my book.

[Alcon]

Reckless disregard on itself does not qualify as a crime in my book.

But why?

When you lose control of yourself to the extent that you cannot control whether you harm/kill someone else, you pretty much sacrifice intent.  It's not even as if it's a balance between saving lives and punishing those guilty of committing a crime without intent.  Whose rights are being infringed if recklessness is prosecuted?  And how do those rights even approach outweighing the safety of others?

And you still haven't told me why you think DUIs should be de-emphasized when, even before your legalization of driving intoxicated and with current levels of enforcement, they (I imagine) account for much more deaths than serial killers or high-profile criminals.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

It opens the door to MADD type legislation. MADD's goal is to abolish social drinking. There may be a price to pay for not having those laws but its IMO a smaller price to pay than the loss of freedom/social engineeirng imposed by neo-prohibitionists like MADD.

[Alcon]

It opens the door to MADD type legislation. MADD's goal is to abolish social drinking. There may be a price to pay for not having those laws but its IMO a smaller price to pay than the loss of freedom/social engineeirng imposed by neo-prohibitionists like MADD.

Uh, the door has been open for how many years since prohibition?  And how close are we to neo-prohibition?

That's a slippery slope argument without any basis for the slide.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

I'm not talking about neo-prohibition I'm talking about things like the age 21 law, excessive zoning restrictions for bars etc

[Alcon]

I'm not talking about neo-prohibition I'm talking about things like the age 21 law, excessive zoning restrictions for bars etc

And what does that have to do with DUI laws?  Do you have any proof that getting rid of DUI law will get rid of those?  Since DUI repeal is even more unlikely than a lower drinking age, why not support a lower drinking age instead?

And, above all, don't you think that the increased number of DUIs from your plan would probably be the most likely element here to render a second Prohibition?

[J. J.]

Here's how I'd reform laws relating to intoxicants.

1 Legalize Marijuana, make shrooms/X/LSD be decriminalized(as in only fines for using or selling but not much focus on it) and crack down SEVERELY on hard drugs.

Welcome to North Philly!

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Here's how I'd reform laws relating to intoxicants.

1 Legalize Marijuana, make shrooms/X/LSD be decriminalized(as in only fines for using or selling but not much focus on it) and crack down SEVERELY on hard drugs.

Welcome to North Philly!

No thanks

I'd prefer a place with a better climate like California.

[tik 🪀✨]

I would like US narcotics laws to be reformed, but many of your suggestions are hardly 'modest', especially your notions for driving under the influence.

One reason this kind of reform is interesting is in relation to victimless crimes. It is argued that a law should only be in place for when the actions of one harms another. Responsible use of 'soft' drugs should hopefully not affect anyone except yourself. When you take the risk of driving under the influence of just about any drug, however, you are actively endangering those around you. I still think it should be illegal in and of itself, not an extra charge tacked on if you actually do cause harm.

[opebo]

DUI laws certainly are ridiculous - essentially convicting the person before they have actually done anything, such as run over someone, etc.