Mark Kleiman – Which Drugs Should Be Legal? How Legal Should They Be?


 

Mark Kleiman – Which Drugs Should Be Legal? How Legal Should They Be? – September 20, 2012 Which Drugs Should Be Legal? How Legal Should They Be? Room 003, Rockefeller Center 4:30 PM Mark Kleiman Professor of Public Policy, UCLA Mark Kleiman is Professor of Public Policy in the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs. This fall he is Visiting Professor at the University of Virginia’s Batten School of Leadership and Policy, and a Visiting Fellow at the National Institute of Justice. He teaches courses on methods of policy analysis and on drug abuse and crime control. Mr. Kleiman edits the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis and serves on the Committee on Law and Justice of the National Research Council. He is the author of When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment and co-author (with Angela Hawken and Jonathan Caulkins) of Drugs and Drug Policy and (with Hawken, Caulkins, and Beau Kilmer) of Marijuana Legalization. Previous books include Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results and Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control. In addition to his academic work, Mr. Kleiman provides advice on crime control and drug policy to governments here and abroad. He has held policy positions with the US Department of Justice and the City of Boston.

 

Vt. Doc Tele-consults Boosted by New Regs

Filed under: drug rehab centers in nh

Kinney Drugs in South Burlington is one of them. They've seen a huge spike in people looking to get the shot, and … Vermont State Police say a 28-year-old New Hampshire woman interfered with a drug investigation. Police say Julene Alva dropped Luke …
Read more on Fox44abc22yourvoice

 

NY charity finds shelter for homeless in Hamptons

Filed under: drug rehab centers in nh

Some landscape laborers curl up in barns with the mowers and leaf blowers. Others, who struggle with mental problems or drug and alcohol issues, live in tents deep in the Long Island woods. Then there are those with minimum-wage jobs who simply can't …
Read more on NBC 29 News

 

18 Responses to Mark Kleiman – Which Drugs Should Be Legal? How Legal Should They Be?

  • orbenn says:

    I don’t agree with all of this, but it’s some good? stuff to think about.

  • rantingsoberly says:

    Great lecture!?

  • ForrestSCS says:

    Q) I completely fail to see how society via the means of Gov’t has helped me become a contributor to society through it’s force, and am completely wary of those that wish to expand upon it’s failed concepts. I do not understand the justification of use of force upon Individuals’ personal choices in order to build a more peaceful? and prosperous people. It seems very contradictory to me. Thanks for reading.

  • ForrestSCS says:

    P) I was extremely, extremely lucky to be given equal opportunity in regards to income via legal employment, was assisted in payment for higher education,? and was given trust and confidence in my job, all through and by an Individual’s good will to whom I am forever indebted. Absolutely no force was required. In time I quit what I consider my worst drug addictions, and the drug business altogether. While I still have to conquer my smoking addiction, I use an i-cig to assist me in that goal.

  • ForrestSCS says:

    O) For people that are attracted to this risk for whatever reason, I gave mine, motivation for more profit will only encourage more to attempt fate in the pursuit of? higher reward having already accepted great risk.
    In summary, I only express these as my opinions from my own experience. I can also only explain for myself what helped be become a productive, legal, job provider in our society. Upon great reflection of my life and choices, I believe it was by no means any amount of law en*forced.

  • ForrestSCS says:

    N) Making the drug distribution business more? dangerous to one’s liberty will not hinder the market. Most of us in that line of business have already accepted that our lives are at great stake, from both Gov’t and possibly each other. It’s an attempt to reason with life when we have already reasoned our life is at great stake… a little more is not really much.

  • ForrestSCS says:

    M) While marijuana has much more users, and both meth and marijuana were easier to obtain, cocaine bar none raked in the most profit. It was also the only business I dealt in where guns were a norm to carry, and tension was high in dealings. Having a friend in the illegal arms trade, he made even? more money, while being even more dangerous to deal in, with even less clientele. With my experience, I’d draw a conclusion exactly opposite of Mark Kleiman.

  • ForrestSCS says:

    L) It was easy, and to me, lacking education, a very profitable means. I know now I can make more money legally and safely, hence I say lacking education, as it only appears very profitable and worthy of pursuit until one learns? how much more can be made by providing a product that all people want, and is given opportunity to provide that. Anyway, as I discovered, the most dangerous business was the most profitable, with less clientele. Cocaine was indeed extremely profitable.

  • ForrestSCS says:

    K) From my own experience in the world of the black market, the more dangerous the business, the more profitable it is. I cannot agree that increasing the sentencing on distributors will hinder the market; I believe exactly opposite. It surely does not solve the issue of demand. As a person looking for opportunity, and lacking education, full foresight, and most of? all confidence, I felt the best method to achieve my goal of monetary safety was to sell drugs.

  • ForrestSCS says:

    J) Lacking available and ample studies of course doesn’t help, which is understandable. However, I believe it’s dangerous to draw conclusions for solutions lacking experience and ample study. I surely cannot approve of the use of monopoly force upon individuals who offer choice, or those that chose that personal choice, absent infringement upon others’? Liberties.

  • ForrestSCS says:

    I) Overall, I felt the method? in which he is targeting a goal in reduction of drugs and it’s usage is dramatically under-funded by fact. Having much experience in the business of doing and distributing drugs, I believe he fails to address the core reasons why drugs are prolific in our society. He fails to address at all why come people turn to drugs in the first place, and why others do not; why certain communities and cultures have far greater drug usage than others.

  • ForrestSCS says:

    H)? I don’t have an answer or response, but I just felt it important to mention that this argument was not brought forth. I personally feel it’s worthy of discussion, as it too may appear to be Morally ethical to attempt to “save” people from bad choices, but may also be a bad decision to allow a possible hereditary “disease” to continue forcefully by man in our DNA.

  • ForrestSCS says:

    G) Lastly on the point of Morality in use of force to prevent personal choice, he mentioned nothing on Darwinism.? And I have to ask, as “unethical” as some would say it is to even ask, is it ultimately best that we not let these people die early from poor decision making, rather than attempting to use some sort of force to keep these people alive in and the gene pool. I don’t have this answer, and I image our science around hereditary drug usage is extremely limited.

  • ForrestSCS says:

    F)? I have a feeling much more of us would have said, I’ll take my liberty over beating, caging, and/or theft. There is also little data to support that these methods are an effective means of deterrent in the first place with drug usage, which he does address to some degree.

  • ForrestSCS says:

    E) Since you tried that choice, tried crossing that bridge to begin with, or tried smoking, and I attempted to stop you with force (en*force) would you have rather me beat, or cage, or steal your money (our meaning of enforcement) rather than let you try to cross that bridge, or? smoke that cigarette in peace. After all, the analogy of stopping someone from crossing the bridge is in our current system to beat, cage, steal money, or all of the above.

  • ForrestSCS says:

    D) Likewise, he used a survey of smokers by asking if they wished they never started, to justify that he thought People had the Moral? Authority to limit other’s choices; same with Mills example of crossing a blown down bridge. What I feel is unfair about this question, is he did not offer the other side of the coin, which is:

  • ForrestSCS says:

    C) I thought his argument was extremely weak; perhaps weakest of all. Maybe this is because we have little discussion around the Morality of such, especially with use of Force being the only real way to En*force law in our current paradigm. I have to ask, which is more criminal: The Individual that offers other Individuals choice? Or the person or people that beat, cage, steal money, and/or kill Individuals who offer that choice? It’s? a valid moral question that I have not found discussed much.

  • ForrestSCS says:

    B) Today, at 34, I partake in none of that, with exception to the fact that I love my coffee, still smoke cigarettes, and probably have? a slight food addiction of which I noticed was not in discussion here.

    To start, I would think it’s important to validate the conversation by reasoning that People have the Right and Moral Authority via Gov’t to limit others’ private choices, even if that choice is bad just for the user. Because if not, then the discussion cannot viably continue as rational.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *