"Ours is a federal republic. The federal government has only the powers granted to it in the Constitution. And the United States has a tradition of individual liberty, vigorous civil society, and limited government: just because a problem is identified does not mean that the government ought to undertake to solve it, and just because a problem occurs in more than one state does not mean that it is a proper subject for federal policy."

Apparently our elected leaders didn't get that memo or just don't give a rat's ass about it. There's is a want to consolidate all power in their hands, which means the federal government. Hamilton would be proud.

Also, the drug war won't end because there is too much money involved...for those fighting it. When local, state and federal agencies all have their fingers in the Asset Forfeiture pie, there is too much at stake to dump the program.

It's a "full employment act" for law enforcement at all levels.

Excellent article, thanks, Coach.

Oops...should read "their's is a want", not there's.

my bad grammar thingy...

As a former Customs Special Agent who worked on only narcotics smuggling cases on the Mexican border I have to agree somewhat with the proposition that drug legalization has a place in the debate. I would suggest legalizing marijuana only in order to eliminate the black market for this substance.

Weed is regularly used by smugglers as a diversion so that dozens of coke, heroin, and meth loads can get through. Smugglers will recruit a peasant with a green card and give him the keys to a car loaded with 50 lbs. of weed in several parts of the vehicle. Canines can hardly restrain themselves from hitting on the weed load causing all attention at the port to focus on that car. Meanwhile 10 cars driven by professional smugglers blow through the port loaded with coke and the inspectors pat themselves on the back for catching some poor mope with the weed.

Marijuana could be sold much in the same way that alcohol is now, and in return, draconian penalties should be imposed against adults who allow minors to obtain it. I remember that when I was in HS, it was easier to buy weed from 5 guys on campus while you had to talk an illegal alien into buying you a six pack of beer (in spanish no less).

My $.02

I agree in principle, but wonder about the burdens that legalization would pass on to the public, for example, in the form of treatment for drug addicts; lawsuits against companies selling drugs (much like lawsuits against tobacco companies, firearms companies, and even food companies [McDonalds]); and the likelihood of increased drug use, especially among children.

On another note, should an employer have the right to test employees for drugs, especially those that endanger the safety of other workers and bystanders (e.g., the trucking industry)? Or what if I just don't want to hire heroin addicts?

TimW (#1), I completely agree with the comments on asset forfeiture. The arbitrariness of this law is something that few people understand and that would shock most people.

As a devil's advocate, I wonder why people who break the law are surprised when they are punished? If something is illegal, the best way to avoid punishment for engaging in that activity is to, well, not engage in that activity.

wow! what a bunch of spurious correlations and conclusions.

I guess everything was bad during prohibition and everything has been good since?

The anecdotal examples were certainly striking, and who couldn't have sympathy for someone incarcerated for medicinal marijuanna use? However, the cost to families and children of drug-using parents (whether that use is legal or not) is staggering and dehumanizing on a daily basis.

The example of Washington DC was particularly weak. The high murder rate is not due to marijuanna (okay, I'd buy that) or crack (c'mon, now)? I guess if crack were legal, all the junkies would be much more mellow and loving toward their fellow man. Equating an often impulsive act (murder, assault, violence)with rational motives (economic and social status advancement) is another spurious assumption.

I'd be more interested to read comparative studies citing countries wherein drugs are not criminalized on a federal scale. This smacks of speculation based on Prohibition, which may or may not have been enforced and prosecuted in an effective manner.

More fitness, less politics.

Mike Donnelly

Long time no post, so hello to all my xfit boys and girls out there.
Yesterday
18:06 felt good
Today
"Murph" 39:09w/21lbs of armor
I puked more during the last 20 minutes of that workout than I have in the last 10 years. 115 heat index and a new diet?
No excuses, RIP brothers.

#6

Here's a comparative study for you. Compare the Netherlands' statistics to the US and even to other European countries. These statitics bear out that the prohibition of drugs does nothing to reduce drug use, and probably even increases it.
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/thenethe.htm

I am in favor of the Netherlands' approach. The "hard" and "soft" drug differentiations deal with the clear need for control of more harmful drugs. But that is control, not prohibition.

Take the billions of dollars the US spends on the War on Drugs and use it for treatment programs to cure the problems that lead people to uncontrollable and harmful addictions.

Like Crossfit!

Thanks for the article Coach.

To those interested in further reading of this sort, I would HIGHLY recommend Chapter 49 (I believe) of Alexander Shulgin's book, PIHKAL (Phenylethylamines I Have Known And Loved) entitled 'Lecture at the University"

If drugs become legal will the current users no longer be labeled addicts considering recreational alcohol users are not called addicts? I am for legalizing drugs and taxing the sales just like another highly addictive drug called nicotine. Now there's a scam, cigarettes are legal but other drugs are not.

I had a discussion in one of my college courses about the legalization of marijuana and the least intelligent arguments against legalization was that people would light up at work during lunch/smoke breaks and go to work high. I thought that this statement lacks credibility because most people don't drink alcohol during their lunch/smoke breaks so why should they light up. Treat marijuana like alcohol and there should be no problems with legal non-medicinal marijuana.

Last but not least, keep the issues coming. There are no problems here with mixing fitness and discussion.

People would be less inclined to use drugs if they properly understood their implications to their mental and physical health.

Controlled supply would provide a far more effective means of communicating with users. At the moment, the government is left putting adverts on toilet walls.

amazing, finally an article that makes some sense

If drugs become legal will the current users no longer be labeled addicts considering recreational alcohol users are not called addicts? I am for legalizing drugs and taxing the sales just like another highly addictive drug called nicotine. Now there's a scam, cigarettes are legal but other drugs are not.

* Claiming that you should legalise a drug because other drugs that are legal are killing 100.000 of people is a strange arguement to me!

* In Russia they had a problem with people drinking too much vodka. So they started making a massive amount of comercials for beer, thinking that was a better alternative. Guess waht it worked! People started drinking lots of beer, only problem was that they didn´t drink less vodka...

* Concerning soft and hardrugs. Marijuana today contains more THC than than most "hasch" did 10 years ago. More and more studies are showing that THC use is involved in violent crimes, (in Europe).

I don't know, while it may make things easier in many areas to legalize drugs, I think more people would end up doing drugs and messing up their lives and the lives of those around them. The probation of alcohol was different because that was something that was legal before the prohibition and was a big part of the mainstream culture in the states. Drugs are not a big part of the mainstream culture in the US, but they could very well become so if legalized.

I do think that having a controlled, legal flow of drugs would end up making things safer for those who already use them and reduce crime involved with drugs, but it seems that would come at the cost of introducing them to a large number of other people who would not normally use them.

Okay, I did the last two WODs so I feel like I can comment now.

This is a ridiculous article. I love the part that said that drug prohibition creates high levels of crime. As if people on methamphetamines or PCP would suddenly stop beating the crap out of people because the actual drug was legal. And then it gets better when it says drug laws break up families because people who do drugs get locked up. Oh, please. You may as well say that murder laws break up families. Those poor murderers. WHy can't people take responsibility for their own bad decisions and accept the consequences?

Oh, and this is great. "Like Donald Scott, whose home was raided at dawn on the pretext of cultivating marijuana, and who was shot and killed when he rushed into the living room carrying a gun." Well, gee willikers, if anybody in any crime ran into the living room with a gun got shot, does that mean the crime should be legalized?

"or people like the Rev. Accelyne Williams, a 75-year-old minister who died of a heart attack when police burst into his Boston apartment looking for drugs--the wrong apartment, as it turned out" -- What does THAT have to do with drug law? Again that could happen with any search.

As far as smoking marijuana for pain, oh please. I am an herbalist, so I know that people can try a wide variety of other legal substances, including California poppy, valerian, verbena, willow bark, oatstraw, anemone, the list goes on and on. These people are not concerned about pain, they just want their drug.

And maybe people don't come to work drunk, but I've worked and gone to school with many people who show up stoned.

And what about all of the car accidents caused by these drugs, not to mention theft and violence and a million other related crimes? Check out THESE before and afters: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/photos/gallery.ssf?cgi-bin/view_gallery.cgi/olive/view_gallery.ata?g_id=2927

The war on drugs is a global war on drugs and international treaties prevent the US and other UN countries from legalizing pot, coke, heroin, etc.

The UN Treaty called "The Single Convention on Drugs" that prohibits any member country from legalizing drugs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_Drugs

The article didn't even mention this treaty.

Futhermore, alcohol was prohibited by a Constitutional Amendment. That means prohibition was fully supported by the individual states who ratified the Amendment. It wasn't simply a matter of Congress "experimenting" with the rohibition of alcohol.

I could continue on but the article is full of provocative rhetoric and short on a real understanding of the drugs laws, their history, or how they work.

What do we legalize after drugs? How about we legalize theft? That will reduce crime since theft won't be a crime. Why not legalize domestic violence too? Why should the government interfere with the relationship between a husband and wife? That's the type of logic in the article. It's obvious illogic is displayed when you substitute drug laws for other crimes.

"Winners are not afraid of losing. Losers are afraid of failure. Losers are afraid to get into the game or on the platform. Failure is part of the process of success. If we avoid failure, we also avoid success! Play hard, work hard, make mistakes, correct them, make more mistakes, correct those and improve performance. We all learn from our mistakes (hopefully). Mistakes are not fatal, when accompanied by faith, planning and perseverance in working one's plan." Coach Greg Glassman CrossFit Forging Elite Fitness

This quote was posted on the other link for today's WOD. It may have just been there as coincidence, however I think it is appropriate that we find something of both links dealing with failure. Yes, current drug policies are failing. Does that mean we shold just give up and legalize it? I don't neccesarily think so.

[Drug abuse is a problem, for those involved in it and for their family and friends. But it is better dealt with as a moral and medical than as a criminal problem--"a problem for the surgeon general, not the attorney general," as Mayor Schmoke puts it.]

Things that are wrong will always be wrong, things that are right will always be right. Just the circumstances change. If our policies are not working, try something else. Give the authority to the states, sure. However, putting a stamp of approval on it by legalization would be wrong, it might get some of the desired results, but it would still be wrong. Just my opinion.

Isn't Crossfit comments supposed to be about Crossfit, workouts, and like subjects. Drugs...how does this pertain? Just checking...

"If our policies are not working, try something else. Give the authority to the states"

The states have the authority. They are illegal at the state level. The problem is that there is drug trafficking between the states and the commerce clause allows the government to take action to fight drugs.

The argument that the founding fathers didn't intend congress to have these powers is absurd. It is right in the constitution, in the commerce clause.

People talk about legalization forget that all drugs start out legal. They become illegal because they create problems for people who don't do drugs. The people who don't enjoy the benefit pay the cost and put pressure on the government to criminalize the activity. That's how it works. Laws aren't passed for the fun of it.

I agree with the article. I think we should legalize 'soft' drugs and decriminalize 'hard' drugs. Some people will use drugs regardless of the law, some people won't use drugs regardless of the law, and some people would try drugs if they were legal. But I don't think it would be disruptive to society.

Another rest day, another article spewing republican propoganda!

CF is SO conservative!

I don't feel welcome here with my forward thinking, progressive, modern, liberal ideas...

...oh wait...um, nevermind.

This is crazy. Alcohol's legal and everyday people get killed from geeting clobbered by a drunk. So let's make more stoners behind the wheel. I don't drink alcohol. I don't use drugs. I prefer to deal with reality instead of escaping into a stupor. Drunks and stoners are irresponsible loosers. So let's make more of them. Drugs and alcohol (and tobacco) won't go away until people want to stop using them. But people don't. Use whatever you want but stay away from me and those I love.

On a different subject, I just wanted to say thanks to Coach and everyone involved with Xfit. You have been very helpful and as of this morning after only 4 months of training and no dietary changes I'm 10 lbs lighter and I know a lot more fit than ever before.

Thanks Coach and keep the workouts coming!

Anthony

I hate to see these slipperly slope arguments:
"What do we legalize after drugs? How about we legalize theft? That will reduce crime since theft won't be a crime. Why not legalize domestic violence too? Why should the government interfere with the relationship between a husband and wife? That's the type of logic in the article. It's obvious illogic is displayed when you substitute drug laws for other crimes."

The above statement is not logical at all. It assumes that just because something is illegal it must therefore be bad. Laws are passed for lots or reasons, often because someone powerful pushes them on an un-informed legislative body.

Some drugs are bad, really bad ( Meth, Herion ). Others are just bad because they 'keep people from being productive." ( e.g. marijuana ).

I think the question to ask is, How are we helping society be more productive by throwing marijuana users in jail?

Is our goal to punish users or to educate them about the dangers of drug use?

It seems the currect system is only designed to punish drug users. Punishment rarely works because no one ever expects to be caught. So it no surprise that the 'Drug War' has failed to work.

#18, you must be new to Crossfit, so first of all, welcome to the family.

Every rest day (every 4th day) Coach posts an article meant to generate some discussion in the posts. So on rest days you'll find a lot of debate, views, discussion, etc about the article.

My best advice is if you don't get into whatever the article is that day, skip reading the posts.

I couldn't agree LESS with the article. Basically what is stated is,"If you can't beat them, join them and out compete them!" This is ridiculous. I agree that the way the War on Drugs has been fought has not been exceptionally effective, but that doesn't mean that you just give it up and say drugs are OK.

And I am all for state's rights, but this is a federal issue. These 'commoditites' would be crossing interstate lines for one, and two, it affects the nation's image and standards as a whole. When a lot of people think of the Netherlands, many believe that it's all like Amsterdam. If drugs are legal in just Massachusetts and no where else, the U.S. will still be viewed as a drug-friendly country. This is about a "National Standard'. People should rise to meet the standard, not lowering the standard to meet the mediocrity of the people. I thought that was what Crossfit was all about....setting a high standard that people had to actually WORK for to attain.

Drugs are wrong. Period. Whether it's marijuana or crack cocaine, they all dull the senses, affect reflexes, and impair judgement. I don't want my family driving on the road with people who've just been smoking pot same as I don't want them driving on the road with intoxicated drivers. By legalizing the drugs, you are condoning their use as being safe and that is just idiotic.

Increased energy?

Huge endorphine rushes?

Feel like you can fly?

Take another hit of Crossfit!

Originally posted by Leep.cc---
"I think the question to ask is, How are we helping society be more productive by throwing marijuana users in jail?

Is our goal to punish users or to educate them about the dangers of drug use?

It seems the currect system is only designed to punish drug users. Punishment rarely works because no one ever expects to be caught. So it no surprise that the 'Drug War' has failed to work."

Punishments don't work? Tell that to the people in Singapore. I tell you, if you started caning people in this country for things like drug use, trafficking, theft, drunken driving, I'll GUARANTEE YOU you would have a reduction in all of the above. The problem is not that punishment doesn't work, it's that we do not apply the punishments properly of severely enough to deter repeat offenses.

How bad is it to be put in a cell with 3 hot meals a day, work out, educate yourself and even get your degree, file your own appeals, watch tv and play video games, and find Jesus.....all at the tax payers expense? Come on people! Prisoners in Turkey have got to be laughing at the pansy prisoners in the U.S.! Ahhh...put that's 'cruel and unusual punishment' you say....That depends on your definition of 'cruel and unusual'. I think it's more cruel and unusual for the victim to have to sit back and watch as their tax dollars get spent so these creeps get to do all of the above. Convict them, cane them immediately afterward, and then let them go and the crime rate would drop through the floor. Take away the 'incentive' to go to jail.

Just wanted to let everyone know my wife gave birth to a little crossfitter. George Alex Husack 7lb 9oz 21.5" long. Have a great day!!!

MWU,

Have we "finally" hit upon a subject on which you've actually given some original thought or have first hand knowledge?

Per usual there's no way to tell from your input, but your approval is heart rending and may even suggest you've read the article.

I'd have more expected you to respond with a link to dog sledding above the the arctic circle or some such, and, of course, the obligatory "bush lied" chant.

Drugs are bad, Umkay...(ala south park's couselor, Mr. Mackey:)

Congrats, George on the new baby boy!

I don't have much to say about this article. I'm sure it's the liberals' fault. :)

I will say that I HATE the analogy that alcohol is the same as other drugs. I don't know how cocaine tastes with veal marsala, but I much prefer a nice chianti.

treelizard has some good points. Maybe those "medicinal marijuana" types would get more sympathy if they didn't toke from a glass-blown, jester's head. Try marinol. All the benifits without the high.

Also, I've met very few "purist" weed smokers in my days in the nightscene. It's usually the triple threat: drinking, tobacco smoking and weed. Very healthy.

Maybe it's a case of, "It's too hard, so let's give up!" I don't care for that either. And if anyone thinks for a second that these billion dollar cartels are going to just go away once drugs are legal, I've got some beachfront property to sell you.

Thanks Coach!

-Dennis

-Dennis

With all due respect to the law enforcement personnel on this site, I can't disagree with the author: the "War on Drugs" has been fought to a draw thus far. I think the Libertarians (with whom I'm agreeing more and more lately) have the right idea about this: it's a matter of personal responsibilty -- not an area for government involvement.

My opinions on this issue were formed from the experiences of prosecuting and later defending all manner of drug cases from nickel bag marijuana possession to planes loaded with 700 kg of pure cocaine.

I think that drugs should be legalized. Aside from the other arguments pro and con, what I have seen from the drug wars is the gradual perversion of the law and of the men who enforce the law, all happening while criminal gangsters become multi-millionaires.

The courts, beginning in the 1960s, have been dealing with search and seizure law mainly in the context of drug cases, and it is now a morass, often excluding overwhelming evidence of guilt in murder cases. There is also a HUGE temptation to law enforcement officers to lie about the probable cause needed under the nit picky search and seizure laws. Their frustration at watching guilty drug dealers walk the streets laughing at them while getting rich is almost too much to bear. And when they take that step, their first lie about probable cause, it is not too much a step to start lying about substantive evidence of guilt or planting evidence on those they judge guilty.

Another perversion of the law enforcment system is the massive opportunities and temptations for bribery. My city, Atlanta, GA is a case in point. We had a guy who was head of the Atlanta Police Drug Squad who just happened to attend a sting party put on by the DEA at a local restaurant. He was the guest of one of the biggest cocaine dealers in town. During his reign as head of the Drug Squad, dealers were rarely busted, but the users got nailed all the time. He later became Chief of Police. What a farce.

National Review devoted an entire issue to this subject some years back, with many police chiefs and other law enforcement personnel agreeing with legalization.

Duuuuude, reading that article makes me want to smoke a doobie. Doh....37, married, kids, responsibilities, sh*t - guess I need to go Crossfit instead.

Caught up on the jumping pull-up WOD this morning then did todays CFLondon Sumo dead high pull SSDC (http://www.crossfitlondon.com/) this pm with 35kg and got 32 reps then followed up with the requested row/ swing comparisons.

DB swings w/ 16kg (35lb) 41 reps

DB swings w/ 24kg (54lb) 37 reps

Row (damper setting 5) 32 calories

Allowed 2-3 mins between each attempt and went all out to give the best values for comparison. Will note that I have never done swings with the 16kg before and there was a bit of a learning curve as I really had to pull it down hard to get any sort of re-cycle rate. Also, all swings well above head height (although not vertically overhead).

To finish re-did yesterdays push-press challenge w/ 35kg (77lb) and got 41 reps

Cheers, kempie

Interesting how the author mentions drugs and their negative effects on inner city crime and then boasts then advantages of "leagalized" drugs being manufactured in the open market place by legitimate companies. Seems to me that inner city drug crime would continue because I'm sure large pharmacutical companies wouldn't hire ex-crack dealers as sales reps. This would create a socio-economic division between rich addicts who could afford quality drugs, and poorer addicts who still needed to buy the cheap stuff off the street. Either way, leagalizing drugs would not act as the "On/Off" switch the author indicates. As with every problem in society there are more complex issues coupled with the drug problem and unfortunatly there is no easy way to make these problems go away.

That's my LE perspective from doing the job on the streets everyday....Can't wait for the workout tomorrow!

After spending last week in Pacific Grove I see why a lot of the Santa Cruz Cross Fitters wear black-to absorb heat. The breezes off the bay are enough to bring goose bumps to this Swede.

Didn't Switzerland also legalize drugs for awhile. Then, after that experiment blew up, the reversed themselves. Anyone hear follow the results on that? Interesting!

DEA put out a position on marijuana in May. It makes several points with explicit references to the studies and articles used to support them. Here are some of the main points, in a very abbreviated form:
1) Medical use of marijauna is not supported by research "a crude THC delivery system that also delivers harmful substances." (Institute of Medicine, "Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base." (1999) www.nap.edu/html/marimed)
2) Marijuana is far more powerful and more dangerous today than in the 70s. (Marijuana Potency Monitoring Project. "Quarterly Report #87 8 November 2004)
3) Marijuana is a precurser to other drugs: "marijuana-using twins were four times more likely than their siblings to use cocaine an crack cocaine, and five times more likely to use hallucinogens such as LSD." ("What Americans Need to Know About Marijuana." Office of National Drug Control Policy October 2003)
4) Marijuana usage is linked to depression, sucicide and schizophrenia, as well as respiratory symptoms. (Kearney, Simon, "Cannibis is a Worst Drug for Psychosis," The Australian, 21 November 2005) and ("Marijuana associated with Same Respiratory Symptoms as Tobacco," YALE News Release, 13 January 2005)
5) At one large trauma center 17 percent of crash victims tested positive for marijuana and 19 percent of crash victims under 18 yoa were positive. ("Drugged driving poses serious safety risk to Teens; Campaign to urge tenas to 'Steer Clear of Pot' during National Drunk and drugged driving prevention month," PR Newswire, 2 December 2004)
6) In 2001 only 186 people (2.3% of Federal drug offenders) were imprisoned for simple marijuana possession; most had pled to reduced charges from distribution charges. In state courts in 2005, 13% of drug offenders were marijuana related and only 0.7% were incarcerated for marijuana possession alone. (Office of National Drug Control Policy, "Who's Really in Prison for Marijuana?" May 2005, pp. 20, 22) and (Office of National Drug Control Policy, "Marijuana Myths & Facts: The Truth behind 10 Popular Misperceptions," www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/marijuana_myths_facts/index.html 12 January 2006)
7) Foreign experience with drug legalization hasn't been a panacea. For example, in Canada marijuana usage or experimentation has passed its 26 year peak, rising to 29.6 of 7 - 12 graders in 2003. ("Marijuana tops tobacco among teens, survey says: Youth cannibis use hits 25 year peak" The Ottawa Citizen, 29 October 2003)

Anyway, you get the point. While you may say that all the sources are government related, they are all out in the public domain.

The fallacy of the Boaz legalization argument is the assumption that legalization would make drug farming, cultivation, processing and distribution free of the thugs and criminals that have controlled it for years. Why is that a valid assumption? Why would the criminals give up the lucrative market? Why would they suddenly submit to control and standardization with higher infrastructure and marketing costs for lower profits?
Additionally, why would users quit stealing or selling drugs to buy the drugs, after all, there is still a purchase cost? Most drugs don't help improve long-term work habits, especially marijuana. Dr. Ernest Bunning, formerly with Holland's Ministry of Health, described suft drug abusers: "The place cannabis takes in their lives becomes so dominant they don't have space for the other important things in life. They crawl out of bed in the morning, grab a joint, don't work, smoke another joint. They don't know what to do with their lives." (Collins, Larry, "Holland's half-baked drug experiment," Foreign Affairs Vol. 73, No. 3 May-June 1999)

Love crossfit! I've been doing the WOD for about two months. I've lost about 10 pounds, lost a fair amount of bodyfat with the weights and even relearned to like weightlifting. I can do pull-ups and skip rope again after stopping in grade school. My biking and swimming has improved measurably. Keep up the good work!

sing along with me people....."it's my birthday and i'll train if i want to....train if i want to....train if i want to!"

back from the honeymoon and back into it!

3 rounds of;
5 dbell deadlifts
5 dbell hang squat cleans
5 dbell push press
5 dbell front squat

used 16kg, 18kg and 20kg respectively, then did a lighter version of the WOD from Coach Rut

3 rounds of;
500m row
400m run

didn't time it, but it worked, cos it sucked...

wanted to shout out thanks to all the guys and gals in San Diego who made mine and Rachel's CrossFitting honeymoon one to remember! Brand X, CrossFit Weekend Warriors/SoCal and CrossFit San Diego!

btw. Congratulations on the nipper George!

Karl

I agree wholeheartedly with the article. I reside in a "third world" country where narcotics smugglers are becoming kings, uncontested, untouchable and mercyless murderers who exercise illegimitate power over entire regions of the country. They value no one but their personal and often easily obtained new wealth. They do it by respecting no one.
Corruption is easy, as post #33 mentioned. All levels are within grasp. All.
The reason these people can behave in this manner is that a market exists that has created this wealth and power.
Eliminate the market. The information posted by Paul in comment #38 is excellent. That information must be passed on to potential consumers. Regulated, as with some medications today, risks are communicated. As with tobacco and alcohol.
No, I am not in Colombia.

Really enjoy the challenge on CrossFit. Someday will get a branch going down here.

legalize it...don't criticize it.

Its all about the money. Unfortunately law enforcement has no chance of stopping the drug trade, there is too much demand, and consequently too much money and resources for the importers. I'm clean and straight and unfortunately have seen the damage drug use does to both the users and their families, but law enforcement seems to have little effect. I would rather law enforcement be freed up to chase down murders and child molesters etc. The fact that we are taking up prison space for dealers so there is less space for molesters is in my opinion a much more serious problem.

Ultimately the workplace will dictate user policy and already performs that function. There are already functional alcohol and drug users among us. Those who can't control their habits are ultimately driven from both work and their families and end up living a wretched life. I have seen the best of men and women destroyed by cocaine use, walking away from their children.

No law will change that.

I say change the law and regulate it. It will remove a tremendous amount of income from organized crime including the terrorist organizations. We can use income from the taxed sales to bolster our law enforcement and border control.

It's interesting to read perspectives from people like Dan MacD, and contrast that with perspectives from those like treelizard. I don't know that I've yet formed an opinion on whether or not I favor drug legalization. I can say that had I been forced to take a side based on the arguments made in this article, I would come down whole-heartedly on the side of keeping drugs NOT LEGAL.

This has to be one of the poorest arguments with no apparent logic to it that I've read since starting CrossFit and reading the rest day articles. Talk about correlation not equating with causation!

"Second, drug prohibition creates high levels of crime. Addicts are forced to commit crimes to pay for a habit that would be easily affordable if it were legal. Police sources have estimated that as much as half the property crime in some major cities is committed by drug users. More dramatically, because drugs are illegal, participants in the drug trade cannot go to court to settle disputes, whether between buyer and seller or between rival sellers. When black-market contracts are breached, the result is often some form of violent sanction, which usually leads to retaliation and then open warfare in the streets."

This has to be one of the most asinine statements I've ever come across. This statement is supposed to bolster the argument that drugs should be legal?! There's a latin saying, "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" which translates as "after this, therefore because of this". IMHO, the entire crime angle to this argument falls into this logical fallacy (another way of saying that correlation does not equal causation). Boaz is claiming that the enforcement of laws is causing the crime. I don't see how this is possible as the laws were put in place to deal with the crime(s) that were already happening.

I also don't agree with the comparison to alcohol prohibition. Alcohol was legal, was then made illegal, and is now legal again. Drugs such as are discussed in this article (to the best of my knowledge) have always been illegal.

The economic argument is also completely lacking in merit. I agree with Paul. How would making illegal drugs legal suddenly make them more affordable? Anyone who thinks that need only refer themselves to the somewhat recent arguments over prescription drug benefits for low income seniors.

Anyway, thanks for making me think Coach.

George, congrats on the new arrival.

As a former drug-addict, drunk, and all-around devient; here are my thoughts:

If the goal is to limit the incidence of drug abbuse and addiction in our society, then framing the challenge in terms of "legality" is an over-simplification of a massive degree.... it's indicative of one of the major weaknesses of humans; the desire to ignore their weaknesses.

Drug addiction is a mental disorder driven by a hormonal and physiological reaction to certain substances. The idea that you can educate people enough or scare them enough to elliminate or lesson incidences of addiction is just pure ignorance... that's like saying you can educate or scare people enough to elliminate incidences of scizhophrenia.

My opinion is that all drugs (alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, cocaine, saturated fat, etc...) should be legal, but we as a society should not be afraid to regulate their availability and to help off-set the health-care related costs of them by imposing sin taxes... aggressivley. We should also be more comitted to providing the health/mental-care services that are necessary to the segment of our society that suffers from these afflictions... but, that of course requires levels of complexity, empathy, and sacrifice that are hard to find amongst our largley self-centered population.

First you have to give a crap about someone other than yourself, then you have to have the fortitude to try and help them.

Zach

BTW - congrats George!

As a new dad myself, I can only reccomend that you get used to doing the dishes, cleaning the house, making the bed, etc... Mom has enough work to do :)

Zach

If drugs are outlawed, only outlaws will have drugs! Or, something like that.

Karl,
Glad to see you got back across the pond OK. Good talking to you the other day; just sorry I couldn't get down to SD to see you and Rach. Blame the Martins. They scare me.

As for this drug legalization thingy. I wonder what certain narco cops around here think? And what about Dan Silver? I'm sure he's seen a few addicts in the past 24hrs.

My stay in SF back in February was filled with the sights of crackheads, tweekers, and heroin addicts lining the streets of the Tenderloin. Couldn't get to Tommy's Joynt for a sandwich and a beer without tripping over a few. I wonder how legalization would help them? Money for diversion programs? Yeah right.

I think the point of the article is something needs to change. Obviously, we are loosing the war on drugs.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
Benjamin Franklin

This is how we approach the war on drugs. We keep throwing more and more money at it, expecting it to change.

I think putting the decision in the states hands is a good idea. Let the people decide. Isn't that the way it's supposed to be?

I think I will use my rest day to smoke a fat blunt. Then back at it tommorrow.

WWMD?

What Would Marley Do?

Ron,
We don't bite anymore. Mikki made us stop. Come down sometime and play.

Karl and Rachael,
Miss you guys. Good luck with CrosFit North England

Susan,
Heard the seminar was great. Actually I think the quote was "FREAKIN AWESOME". Nice pic.

Anyone doing CrossFit in Houston?

does anyone know where to get info on the exercises listed in the mass/strength article on the performance menu, I have never heard of some of them (sotts press, 3 position cleans,snatch balance, snatch pull, rack jerk). Anyone know what these are, Thanks.

The "war" on drugs, like the "war" on terror, is not a war at all. Some very, violent engagements have been fought, some "victories" attained, but it is still a "war" of half measures. Legalize it, or wipe it out, but take a stand. Not choosing a course of action, is choosing a course of action.

My Humble Opinion: You won't eliminate the market by legalizing it. You won't "de-criminalize it", you will simply become the criminal. Non-violent does not mean non-destructive. Heroin, cocaine, crack, crank, meth, speed, opium, Extacy, LSD is all poison. To the body, the mind and the social fabric. It is destructive. The fact that the government hands it out, will not change that. Some may have "experimented" and come away unscathed. If you did, I bet you came from a pretty decent, strong family. Or you at least had somebody who cared about you to look up to. Or you were smart enough to not go too deep. Everybody is not that blessed. Legalize it and we won't have women (and men) selling themselves for a high? So how will that work exactly? Are we are just gonna, feed the junkie until he dies? Just keep 'em stoned until they drive into a family of four? Or burn down the house? Or committ suicide? Are you going to give drugs to parents?

The American people have got to decide what they want, and muster the National Will to attain it.

Are you willing to have the forces that represent you, napalmn coca fields? Shoot down drug planes? Are you willing to pay the billions it would take to "win"? Are you willing to kill the people who would kill your children with bombs and drugs? Are you willing to sometimes kill the wrong people?

Can you live with the ugly truth that there is, and never has been, a neat and clean WAR. That you will have sleepless nights and have trouble looking in the mirror sometimes. Are you willing to do all that?

I didn't think so. So you might as well legalize drugs, cut and run on Iraq, give Afghanistan back to the Taliban, let Iran have nukes. No skin off our nose, its not like they are going to murder hundreds of police officers and young women in Nuevo Laredo, fuel murder in our cities, fly a plane into a building. Nah, I think we are all pretty safe in our cozy living rooms. Your daughter is not out somewhere exchanging sex for drugs, your son is not in prison, your grand kids are not dead from an overdose.

Anyway, American Idol is probably on TV tonite.

interesting thought that flies in the face of the 8th amendment (no cruel or unusual punishment)... drug use could easily be stopped by poisoning a percentage of drugs entering the country

i worry about legalizing drugs because we can't control people who drink and drive, how do we think that we will be able to regulate people from harming innocents when they are using much stronger mind altering drugs???

Kyle - niiiice one.

Many people are reading the article as a statement to completely legalize all drugs. I interpreted it as a moderate transition from 'illegal' to a 'controlled but strict and taxed' condition.

The real point is 3 fold.

Governmental Will Imposement - The Federal gov and the UN are imposing laws and regulations without public input.

Government Spending -There is only a finite amount of money in the government. A finite amount of prison space, etc. By redistributing the 'finite' we may be able address drug use before it starts, as well as become more effiecient at tackling the more serious crimes.

Economics - The drug trafficking trade needs to be gutted. There will always be an economic division between the rich and the poor (40s of Colt vs Cristal Champange, etc). What needs to happen is the prevention of those who sell illegal drugs from buying the Crystal. The prevention of addict production.

Drug use is a symptom, not the problem.

Zach #44...did you really just compare saturated fat to cocaine and heroin?

coach #30

- thanks for the sarcasm

- i think you mean "heart warming" not "heart rending." they have opposite meanings.

- while i agree with the article you posted, it's hardly an "original" thought, as your comments suggest. the concept of drug legalization has been around for years

on other matters, did anyone see the recent NYT article on water consumption? according to the article, it's a myth that one needs 8 glasses of water a day -- about half that amount is fine for sustaining vigorous activity. i've since cut down on my water intake without any adverse effects. in fact, i think i look a little more ripped at the lower intake levels. has anyone had a similar experience?

The "war on drugs" has become the archetypal example of the cliche: "the cure is worse than the disease." All drugs are potentially harmful. Marijuana is much less harmful than alcohol, and yet for some reason we let booze companies "push" the legal drug by saturating our culture with advertising. Prohibition didn't work the first time, and it clearly is not working this time.
All of us have our political prejudices, but it is nice to see the libertarian branch of the right wing look at some of the objective facts about this issue rather than the knee-jerk reactions which have dominated the discussion in our country.

DOH! posting seconds after mwu, just my luck, now nobody will even SEE my posting. Go mwu.

I have been an EMT for 4 years and drove an ambulance in a metro system for two. I have seen every kind of drug and its effects on the planet. I truly believe that drugs should be, if not legalized, at least decriminalized. Hard drugs (meth, heroin, etc...) should be differentiated from soft drugs or marijuana. Through observation of long time users of marijuana who are personal friends. I would say that it is less harmfull when used intensely than alcohol. My experience on the ambulance backs this up. You do not have to worry about someone who is high trying to kill you, a drunk just might.

Pretty sure Coach meant heart rending.

"Zach #44...did you really just compare saturated fat to cocaine and heroin?" - Scott#56

Sure did... you can very easily argue that all of those, when used in moderation, are useful... You can also argue that they all have equally damaging effects to our society.

As someone who has been addicted to all three, I can tell you that it has taken me longer to moderate my sat-fat intake than it did for me to quit coke and heroin... though, the transition was not as dramamtic.

Zach

if pot is legal only outlaws Won't have it

groovy

pass the Little Debbie's Star Crunches

Great article. Hits every major point.

Good article, unfortunately our Constitution is too often ignored by our elected officials...most of what they do nowadays doesn't pass constitutional muster. Again, thanks Coach.

If soft drugs were legalized would there be a net decrease in usage (lower hard drugs usage). That is the big question. America continues to throw funds @ problems with no significant benefit. Case in point education. Washington D.C. spending per child is $18M per year and the results are dismal. I don't believe we should continue the same programs if nothing changes. Governments tend to believe spending more will change the personal choices of individuals. One chooses to be a drug user/abuser and no matter how much money is thrown at drug enforcement will stop the user. Personal responsibility is the key. What is best for citizens should dictate policy. I am all for trying something new if the benefits are material.

Here is a good work out I came up with yesterday.
"Forty Thieves"
1-40 yrd dash followed by 10 pullups(soccer goal)
2-40...8 pull ups
3-40...7 pull ups.
Etc. to 10 fourty yard dashes and 1 pull up.

I crushed me.
L8
Eric-SLC

This is my first "politics" post. I cannot spell sorry.

I am neither right nor left wing. I voted Libertarian in last election.

I am guessing that many people on this forum are in drug enforcement roles, they may feel threatened to have their livelyhood and philosophy threatened: I honestly have not seen logical arguments against the article posted. The anti-decriminalization comments seem emotionally based to me.

I believe people should be able to do whatever they want with their own bodies. Drug use is a victimless crime. The drug most often related to violence is alchohol, due to it's specific disinhibiting effect, which includes breaking down the societal prohibition on violence. If one is against drug legalization, that should include alchohol and tobacco.

Illegal drugs and crime sydicates are DIRECTLY related. Did you know the first gang-crime alcohol related incident happened just six hours after Prohibition started? 100,000 gallons of "medicianal whiskey" was hijacked and six feds were killed. That was just the beginning.

The "war on drugs" has not, does not, and will not work. Period. It is an innate human trait to want to get high and there are no people on Earth, anywhere, ever who have not or do not use some substance. Well, the Eskimos, but that ended about 2 seconds after they met whites who introduced them to liquor. After more than 30 years in practice the war on drugs is having little or no effect on the trafficking of drugs, except to make dealing in them more profitable, and using them more expensive. "Since the use of all major recreational drugs except opiates has increased since the they were outlawed, the increase in cost cannot be said to discourage the use of the drugs. Rather, it increases robbery and other illegal means of generating income to buy them." (wiki).

Also since illegal drugs are not regulated, the quality is uneven at best and life-threatening at worst.

I could go on and on, but this is already a long post.

Few random, non-sequential thoughts: drugs are expensive, because of supply and demand issues. Increase supply, downward price pressure. Crack cocaine--which is much more addictive than normal coke--exists to provide a coke high to poor people. If we substituted purer coke at the same price, we would have less coke whores, and less health damaging impurities.

It has long seemed to me that if I were a drug kingpin, I would hire lobbyists to make sure drugs stayed illegal. Monopoly, in all areas of business, is good. If you uniquely control access to something many people want, you get a premium price. Now, you can't price yourself out of the market--make it so no one can afford what you are selling--but you can cheapen your production costs to make the most of what money you can charge. Hence crack.

The interstate commerce idea on Federal enforcement would only apply if at least one of the states considered the commerce illegal. If, for example, California and Oregon both fully legalized Marijuana, in my view the Feds should have nothing to say about trade between them. Our Constitution is a brilliant document, and we need to take it as seriously as possible in every detail. The Federal Government is to build highways, bridges, and defend the country.

It is simply not factually accurate that drugs have always been illegal. Speed was readily available for a long time, and Valium was regulated but readily available. Pot was smoked almost openly for a long periods of time, but nobody cared. Sigmund Freud used cocaine:http://cocaine.org/history/sigmundfreud.html

Anybody that thinks that ANY drug is inherently worse than alcohol should read the Alcoholics Anonymous Big Book. People that are fit for trouble, will find it, somewhere. Maybe they will huff paint or cleaning solvents, but they will get high.

Personally, the people I know who smoke weed, smoke weed, now, even though it's illegal. Some of these same people used to take pills, or do coke, or whatever. They found it.

Our current policies, by increasing scarcity to a point, but not infinitely, increase the attractiveness of drugs as a business. If the Columbians were competing with Eli Lilly and Searle, they would find the business much, much less lucrative. There is just so much money on the table, now, that the incentive is sky-high, to pay bribes, to take bribes, to keep the number of players low, and keep raking it in. We increase that incentive, paradoxically, by trying to reduce the flow of drugs.

I think this is a situation very much characterized by unintended consequences. The longer I live, the less value I see in straight lines, which I certainly haven't followed here. I'm just thinking out loud.

For the first time in my life, though, I actually think, on consideration, that we should legalize ALL drugs, and that the more serious ones should be dispensed, with prescription from pharmacies, like valium used to be. With national databases, we could monitor excessive use, and target people for substance abuse treatment.

I live in a tobacco state, and from what I understand, the tobacco companies would hop on marijuana in a heartbeat if they could. That would be taxable revenue.

Prisons are crowded?

Build More Prisons. I'd gladly accept a one-time tax levy to pay for a modern prison where inmates have an opportunity to reform and learn a trade.

*$%#@'ing Crack cocaine destroyed a large section of North Philadelphia in the 80's. Many of the abandoned crack houses of this area of the city remain, and the neighborhood still has not recovered.

Brave small business owner's have store windows barred and are heavily equiped with security systems to prevent larceny. It's an ugly place.

Black-marlet drug dealers would just disappear if drugs were legalized? I doubt it. Who would want to take that risk?

Build More Prisons.

Drug use is a victimless crime? What about all the kids that have to get taken out of their homes because their parents are on crack? Do you think people on crack can care for children properly? What about people that get shot and killed by people who cause car crashes, accidents, etc.--they create unsafe and unhealthy conditions for others.

The argument that legalization wouldn't increase drug use...

ie: Drug use would not increase if drugs were legalized or decriminalized. "Between 1972 and 1979 eleven states decriminalized marijuana. By 1979 drug use tripled among adolescents, doubled among young adults, and quadrupled among older adults."

I don't think anybody else has the "right" to endanger my health and safety and that of my friends and family.

Sorry, typo there... I meant people get shot and killed by tweakers, AND drug users cause accidents. Two different negative effects. :)

5x (5x 225# deadlift)
then:
50 pull-ups
50 ring dips
50 glut-ham situps (hands behind head)
50 squats
TOTAL TIME=20:19 (3:45/11:16/3:57/1:21)

Legalize hard drugs, no way ! Illegal drug sales represents an entire economy in the inner cities. These punks selling crack on the corner have had a taste of "easy money", no way will they actually try to get a legitimate job when drugs are legalized. Take this method of "getting paid" away from these low-lifes and they will find another easy way to make their money,(burglaries, robberies etc.) Legalizing drugs will certainly not lower the crime rate, only change the types of crimes committed.

I hate to see these slipperly slope arguments:
"What do we legalize after drugs? How about we legalize theft? That will reduce crime since theft won't be a crime. Why not legalize domestic violence too? Why should the government interfere with the relationship between a husband and wife? That's the type of logic in the article. It's obvious illogic is displayed when you substitute drug laws for other crimes."

The above statement is not logical at all. It assumes that just because something is illegal it must therefore be bad. Laws are passed for lots or reasons, often because someone powerful pushes them on an un-informed legislative body.

I think it's very important to differentiate between crimes'that harm others ( theft, abuse, murder ) and moral 'crimes' that are illegal simply because there is a law making them illegal..

Some drugs are bad, really bad ( Meth, Heroin, PCP, crack ). Others are just bad because they 'keep people from being productive." ( e.g. marijuana ). The public and apparently some members of law enforcement need to be educated about the distinction between the 2.

I think the question to ask is, How are we helping society be more productive by throwing marijuana users in jail?

Is our goal to punish users or to educate them about the dangers of drug use?

It seems the currect system is only designed to punish drug users. Punishment rarely works because no one ever expects to be caught. An excellent example of this is the speed limits on the road. Everyone knows they exist, but almost everyone seems to speed. Do police officers ticket everyone that goes faster than the posted speed limit?

Of course they don't, that would be horribly innefficient, they only punish the people that are putting others at risk. Isn't that what the Legal system was designed for in the first place, to protect individual rights?

The whole 'potency' argument is crap too. THC levels may be higher, but that is 'healthier' for to consumer because it required less material to reach the desired state. With marijuana you can't get 'higher' than high.

Building more prisons is like smoking 2 packs a day, getting cancer, and having surgery to 'fix' it. Then picking back up smoking, and planning on surgery again. Some resources need to be devoted to prevention.

I'd rather pay for prevention than punishment.

I don't think drug use is victimless, but I do believe that you are not going to stop an addict with laws and the threat of a warm bed. People are going to put you and your family at risk whether it is against the law or not.

The example of marijuana use in the 70s is an example of one unregulated extreme over a short period of time. This example just proves that a more intelligent plan is required.

MWU,

Any chance of response by coach has clearly been lost after your weak attempt at what would normally be considered a rebuttal. You have made a contextual error, at least I believe so anyway.

Coach states: "Have we 'finally' hit upon a subject on which you've actually given some original thought or have first hand knowledge?"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this statement addresses your possible(?)lack of original thought in previous discussions, and that your rare and current approval might be the culprit of some original thought on your part. He even suggests that you may possibly be in possession of some inside information-in whatever form that is may be endless, but it is a possibility nonetheless.

You seem to believe he means that the article is orginal in its arguement/theory: "while i agree with the article you posted, it's hardly an 'original' thought, as your comments suggest. the concept of drug legalization has been around for years."

Tell us how you came to this conclusion based on coach's statement above.

Also, for your knowledge, I believe both words will suffice:

1.)rending- a. To tear apart violently:split b. To remove forcibly c. To disturb
as if by tearing.

2.)warming (as used in coach's post)- a.Enthusiatic:ardent b. Marked by excitement or emotional tensions. . .take your pick.

*Definitions taken from "Webster's II New Riverside Dictionary (Revised Edition)."

So, what we see here isn't a grammatical error, but a clear attempt to explain that your post, while appreciated and welcome, still causes coach "pain," i.e. your words "tear" coach's heart apart. But I could be wrong in my analysis. I will never presume that I can speak on the behalf of coach nor will I ever, but one thing is certain MWU, be careful who you challenge and/or engage beacause in this case his Kung Fu is stronger than yours!

Did "Daniel" I missed it on the 7th and felt like a slacker. 23:47 40# dumbells. Thanks and God Bless!

FWIW, I am for extremely robust treatment/punishment for DUIs, and 'hard' drug manufactures.

I also believe in Tobacco tax, Liquor tax, and wish we had a 'fat' tax.

Does anyone see the similarities of drug use legalization and gambling legalization? From what I understand, gambling addiction induces many of the same problems that drugs do. Legal gambling has a track record of social benefits that are hard to argue with. Could we expect the same results with a well monitored drug control program?

sorry it was the 15th. All sets broken. good stuff!!

How will legalization help reduce crime?

When was the last time we saw a shoot-out between the Bud-man and the Coors delivery guy? How much moonshine is being run down South (not just the personal consumption stuff)?

If drugs were legalized tomorrow, I wouldn't suddenly be overtaken with the urge to go toke up, nor shoot up, nor anything else. Those predisposed to doing this likely already are.

Sure, there will be some curiousity usage. But Darwin is a harsh teacher.

Also, drugs WERE legal in this country until around the 1910s. Marijuana, Opium, Cocaine were all legal. They were made illegal. This argument is JUST like prohibition.

The states do NOT have any power...there've been several states, Arizona (my home) included, that have passed (multiple times) medical marijuana laws, but the feds keep coming down on the states and doctors who try to implement it. If we truly live in a federal republic, then there should be no issue at all. But there is.

Finally, Donald Scott was gunned down by cops who were pulling a drug raid on his house in Malibu, CA. The pretext of the raid was marijuana cultivation, which he didn't do. The cops were merely acting on the warrant. Turns out the local government wanted his land to expand a park.

Well, cops break in to serve a drug warrant, wife downstairs making morning coffee screams at the sight of masked gunmen, husband comes downstairs armed to protect his wife. You know the rest.

The report of the Ventura County District Attorney, Michael Bradbury (whose office I worked in for a time as an investigative assistant, long before this happened), concluded that the police lied to obtain the search warrant, that there had never been any marijuana cultivation on the Scott property, and that the raid was motivated by a desire to forfeit the multi-million dollar ranch.

Despite the conclusions, no officer was ever indicted, or even lightly disciplined for the lies or the killing.

Read the report for yourself:
http://www.fear.org/chron/scott.txt

MWU,

"Independent thought" might have better served my meaning than "original thought". The reference was not to the article itself but your reaction to it.

(Now I like both "rending" and "warming".)

Drug policy discussion can be a great starting place for introducing liberals to libertarian thought. Thanks for being a good sport.

I have one major beef with antidrug laws:

They're inconsistent.

Nicotine & alcohol are legal, marijuana etc. are not. Why?
Health reasons? Then why is fast food legal?

Personally I'd vote for a sin tax as with alcohol & tobacco, plus prohibition of endangering the lives of others: no driving under heavy influence of alcohol, for example.

But maybe that's because I have a strong will, common sense, and self-discipline.

Hey, maybe they should just legalize drugs for CrossFitters!

"Drug policy discussion can be a great starting place for introducing liberals to libertarian thought."

Or, libertarians to liberal thought, for that matter.

Zach

Some very interesting and thought provoking comments here.

Mr. Messano (#70) - while I certainly agree that the urban blight brought on by the crack epidemic is a major problem, I'll have to disagree with you on the solution of building more prisons. More prisons means more of my tax dollars being used on keeping prisoners in there. And now that prisons are being run by private firms as profit centers, the less control I (as a voting citizen) have over them; there is no real oversight by public agencies and/or elected officials due to their being "private" not "public" entities.

Some thoughts - to those commenting on the proliferation of drug use in inner city communities and "easy money" (eg, Mr. Clarkson) a good read is Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner's chapter on the drug trade and how it is organized like a "legal" corporation in the book "Freakonomics". Specifically, for those who are street-level workers, the pay is barely above minimum wage. There are no good jobs there (or future for that matter), which leads to risk-taking behavior such as murders on the basis of insults to "face" and teenage pregnancies (see Wilson and Daly's article on this in the British Medical Journal - http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/314/7089/1271). A further problem is the lack of food choice in such neighborhoods - and as this list knows, bad food leads to bad outcomes, such as lack of impulse control.

I'm sure there are many of those on the list who know people who are drug users, yet "legal" in the sense they are pharmaceuticals sold by major corporations. For instance, one rugby player I knew got his oxycontin, crushed it and snorted it for the "cocaine-like" high, then maintained that high by taking the pills themselves. Other instances of "legal" drug abuse proliferate. If we want to stop drug abuse, stricter enforcement of what is prescribed (including Viagra - but who wants to do that?) would be a start.

Prohibition, in any form, doesn't work. Here in Arkansas, some counties are wet, some are dry, and some only can sell alcohol at "private clubs". Problem is, this policy doesn't work - automobile accidents due to alcohol and arrests due to alcohol are not statistically different based on whether a county is wet or dry (or in-between). The only time the policy made a difference is with juvenile drug arrests - kids from 13-17 were more likely to be arrested for drug use in dry than wet counties - presumably because they couldn't get alcohol... (by the way, if anyone wants a copy - email me directly).

The only thing prohibition has been successful at has been leading to more potent/easily transported intoxicants. The U.S. was a beer and wine country before prohibition; during and afterwards it moved towards harder alcohol. Arguably, drugs have become more potent due to greater ability to move them.

If anything, alcoholism and drug use is a complex issue (individual biology, age and sex [most abusers are males 15-30], environment) that has been simplified on the basis of "law and order" as a political issue (beginning, I believe, with Richard M. Nixon - who actually, was quite progressive on many issues). As long as we continue to consider drugs a law and order issue, the "war" will continue, money will be spent ineffectively, and we all lose in one way or another.

coach #81 -- (1) any thoughts on my water intake questions? (2) come on, you know you meant heartwarming, own up to it! (3) i think liberals are closer to the libertarian pov than conservatives (4) thanks for the great workouts.

eddie lugo #77 -- were the drugs you were taking when you wrote that message legal or illegal?

"Drug use is a victimless crime? What about all the kids that have to get taken out of their homes because their parents are on crack?"

--What about the kids who have to be taken out of homes because of alchohol? Anyway they don't
'have to' be taken out. Lawmakers have made a decision to do so, and there are many reasons to do so. Legalizing cocaine would make less toxic and damaging drugs available to people and crack (a poor persons drug) would go the way of the dodo. So it would reduce the harm done.

"Do you think people on crack can care for children properly? What about people that get shot and killed by people who cause car crashes, accidents, etc.--they create unsafe and unhealthy conditions for others."

--So alchohol should be illegal? I'm sorry but you cannot legislate perfection, and as above legal drugs would provide harm reduction. The flaw in your thinking is that prohibition works. It does not and legalizing drugs would indeed reduce harm and crime. Perhaps you have a moral view against it.

"The argument that legalization wouldn't increase drug use...
ie: Drug use would not increase if drugs were legalized or decriminalized. "Between 1972 and 1979 eleven states decriminalized marijuana. By 1979 drug use tripled among adolescents, doubled among young adults, and quadrupled among older adults."

--I'm sorry but there is not proof of causation here, and I am highly skeptical of this "statistic". It sounds made up to me: where did you dig this up?? Let me re-write you sentence:

Between 1998 and 2006 crossfit quadrupled in populatity. By 2006 obesity increased 20% among adolescents, increased 30% among young adults, and increased 40% among older adults.

The logic is the same (flawed) and the stats are also made up.

"I don't think anybody else has the "right" to endanger my health and safety and that of my friends and family."

--? Is someone proposing to involuntarily drug you?

The stats come from Drug Watch international.

Re: #86

Thanks, btw I did not mean YOU made them up, they just seemed questionable.

I looked over the page and I am not impressed. It is in a Lie/Fact format, with the facts seemingly plucked out of thin air. While I would have to do more research I am HIGHLY skeptical of what is found there:

http://www.drugwatch.org/T&L%20Drug%20Legalization.htm

I'm a paranoid type, this almost seems like disinfo put out by drug lords to keep drugs illegal, but I'm sure that's not true!

#80, TimW,

Re: my post #43
"I also don't agree with the comparison to alcohol prohibition. Alcohol was legal, was then made illegal, and is now legal again. Drugs such as are discussed in this article (to the best of my knowledge) have always been illegal. "

Re: TimW #80
"Also, drugs WERE legal in this country until around the 1910s. Marijuana, Opium, Cocaine were all legal. They were made illegal. This argument is JUST like prohibition."

I had a feeling that the "best of my knowledge" on this subject might not be as good as someone else's best. Thanks for the knowledge. I hereby retract that portion of my statement.

Here is an illuminating page:

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/druguse/index.html

30 years of the "war on drugs" and use continues to climb. Newflash: PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK! Wishful thinking won't make it work, so let's move on as a society and stop doing the same thing and expecting different results (madness).

Maximus, if murder rates were going up, would you say we should legalize it?

Time to post limited. Disagree strongly with article. Treatment based drug courts are the way to go. Legalizing drugs will no more stop the addiction problem than legalizing alcohol did in 1933.

Treelizard

Drug use, in and of itself, isn't inherently bad, like murder is. if I sit at home and drink a 6-pack, or smoke some weed, what harm? Currently, one of these options is legal for me were I of a mind to do either.

If I do either of those then get behind the wheel of a car, neither is legal.

My decision to watch Dangerous Housewives while enjoying some Colombian Gold doesn't inherently deprive anyone of their rights.

Murdering them does.

Try another comparison.

maximus just mopped the floor with treelizard, wrung him out, hung him to dry, and then used him to buff said floor to a high-gloss wax finish.

(credit to dana stevens)

1 mile run 7:03
100 burpees 12:40

TimW,
I'm asking, if something is illegal (murder, drug use, forgery, whatever), and the rates of it increase, does that mean it should be legal?

MWU, can't you come up with your own quote? I thought you were trying to develop your original/independent thinking skills. ;)

did Lynne
bench-215X30,13,6,3,3
pullup-16x,10,6,4,3
5 rounds in 3:57 min
then 20min eliptical
then 1600m row in 7:00min

Did yesterday's WOD today. 24:30...Thought I would do better. Had to run upstairs for the back extension apparatus and then back down for the situps and the tredmill. Still, I don't think I would have broken 20 minutes even if everthing was closer. Weakest exercise was the back extension Got through all 50 on the first round, but had to break it up on the 2nd and 3rd rounds. Something to work on.

treelizard, that was good man, you got me.

Treelizard

You cannot lump all illegal things into one category.

Some things are illegal because they are inherently bad (murder, rape, robber, arson, assault, kidnapping, etc.), the "mala en se" crimes.

Some things are illegal because they are prohibited by government edit (drug use, gambling, adultery, underage drinking), the "mala ad prohibitum" crimes.

Certainly, some things could be "mala ad prohibitum" and move into the "mala en se" category (drug use at home, then driving and getting into a wreck and killing someone), but the originating act in itself wasn't inherently "evil" or bad.

So, I think your question is flawed. If the rate of neighborhood poker games increases, absent any other issues such as someone breaking into homes to get money for the games, etc., yes, it should be legalized.

If rapes suddenly went up, no.

Compare apples to apples.

Tried a made-up WOD today, and rather enjoied it:

CFWUx2.

5 rounds for time:

25 Wallball shots - 10 ft target
25 Slamball slams
15 pullups
20 dips

22:44

Felt just as hosed as I normall do after Coach's WOD's.

Might read the ATIDOD later (Article to Incite Discussion Of the Day).

4x5 HSPU from approx 5inch blocks
one-arm handstand pressing work

3x5,5 16kg windmills
2x2,2 16kg+35lb 2hands anyhow
2x5,5 16kg turkish get-ups with floor press
1 min l-sit
50,50 16kg snatch

"The left fully embraces a philosophy, Socialism..."

Coach, not sure that I agree with this comment. The obvious, logical counter to this is to say that "the right fully embraces a philosophy, Fascism..." Neither comment can be proven to be as definitive as they claim to be.

I'm sure that there are more left-leaning people in this country that would be offended by such a charachterization as not... likewise right-leaning folks.

Assigning such broad and arguably extreme charachteristics to parties on ANY side of the political fense serves only one purpose; It elliminates any chance of debating in good faith and reaching compromise or consensus.

Zach

BTW - first time to do "Murph" today... 63:35... my only defense is that it's 103 degrees here today, and I did it in my garage:)

You know it's an interesting article when I didn't see one creepy "She's HOT!" post when a picture of a female is put up.

Zach,

I follow you; you make some good points about getting along and all. But...my conservative friends are far from fascist and my liberal friends are, without a doubt, socialists.

Group Moffett

1/4 mile run, rest 1 min-- 1:30
1/4 mile run, rest 1 min-- 1:33
1/4 mile run, rest 1 min-- 1:50
1/4 mile run, rest 1 min-- 1:45

800 meter run, rest 1 min-- lost time
800 meter run, rest 1 min-- lost time

Post times for each round

The total times for the 2 miles were the first person completed it in 17:02:78 and the last person to completed it in 22:50:38

democrats/liberals = socialist?

this doesn't seem consistent with the fact that during the 8 years of the clinton administration, the u.s. economy was the healthiest it's ever been.

heck, if booming stock markets and huge budget surpluses are equated with liberalism, call me a liberal!

TimW,
My point is that the argument that drug use going up means it should be legalized is flawed.

Yes, drug dealers shoot and beat each other but they there are a lot of people addicted to crack killing other people for money. So do you think crack should be free, to prevent these crimes?

I have little tolerance for people who do illegal drugs, if they screw up their life it's their own fault. I do feel for their children, though, and all the people whose lives they ruin along the way. And if you really think that drug use is a victimless crime, maybe you should go visit some of the crack babies and then tell me it's a victimless crime. Or maybe you're going to argue next that they should just make crack legal but make it illegal for crack addicts to have babies?

Meth is a huge problem in our community and is not getting any better. It has cause our crime rate to explode and court ordered treatment, rehab, and jail hasnt even come close to slowing it down. To say that drug use is a victimless crime is crazy. This is the excuse used by people who use, have never been victimized by some tweaker, or have never been intimately involved in the dope world.

They have never served a search warrant and found a 4 year old locked in a back bedroom with a pile of dirty clothes for a bed, pizza crusts for dinner, and a wet wipe bin to #$% in while mom is out trying to score a teener. Talk to some families who have been devastated financially by their son, Tweaker Ted, and cant retire. Go to some of the home invasions, shootings, stabbings, and auto thefts. Not to mention the forgery, mail thefts, credit card frauds, etc.... There are plenty of victims to be found.

I know we cant completely stop drug use and sales. But I do know that when a neighbor shakes my hand and thanks us for taking off a lab next door or a dope house down the street the belief that we are doing the right thing is confirmed.

Lets get back to doing some more burpees and overhead squats.

Used my rest day to map out 200m and 400m distances in the alley behind my health club. Now I can do the runs outside instead of on the treadmill

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_36/b3898028_mz001.htm

great link tracy.

coach, i don't see anything in recent history that supports your claim that liberalism equates to socialism.

in fact, FDR, Harry Truman, JFK and LBJ, all democrats -- not just any democrats, mind you, we're talking New Deal democrats -- were on the front lines on the fight against communism.

if you're talking about pre-WWII liberals, yeah i guess maybe you have a point. albeit a totally irrelevant point.

Whew...caught up!
"Michael" aiming for sub-30
29:29!
Need to do some interval work to get my running times down on the 400 and 800M runs.

D.

I think more of the USA is Libertarian than anyone would care to admit. We vote along party lines out of habit, often choosing the lesser of the evils.

I vote republican, but the Rush Limbaugh conservatives are mindless lemmings. My father thinks I am liberal because I'm for Immigrant's Rights and I support pro-choice.

Funny thing, what bugs me about the Liberal equivilants of the Limbaugh conservaitives is that there is a natural tendancy to argue, and when a counterpoint is offered, the solution is to argue louder, and quote other sources. Original thought is non existent.

Flip side, I get really frustrated by conservatives who spout opinions on everything from war, immigration, taxes and economics, yet their "opinions" are based more on groupthink and ignorance.

Personally, I have no tolerance for ignorance. It is impossible to NOT to have an opinion on everything. However, if you want to argue with me, you better have a solid basis in rationed, original thought. Otherwise, liberal or conservative, you are taking up space and wasting oxygen.

For what it is worth, I would rather be accused of being a socialist than being a liberal. I would also rather be called a capitalist rather than a conservative. One is an economic theory, the other is broader attitude toward where you stand on the self-reliance><government support axis.

Given the recent news about Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, I would have to call them Liberal Capitalists.

Who'da thunkit?

hey D Moege,
Some of us don't need to get stoned to be happy. :) And yes, I *am* happy that people are out there risking their lives for my freedom, and yours.

felt a little squirelly today
400m run
50 pushups
400m run
50 situps
400m run
50 jumping pu's
400m run
50 dumbell thursters(25lbs)
16:00 even

and BTW, nice pic!! REAL women ROCK!!!!

and BTW, nice pic!! REAL women ROCK!!!!

Some random thoughts and corrections.

People who are analogizing booze to drugs - bad analogy. Same for McDonalds and cigarette analogies. Analogies are good as far as they go, but those arguing that booze, alcohol, and saturated fat are the same thing are ignorant about some realities.

"Hard" drugs and "soft" drugs are already recognized in the law --
"The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) places all substances which were in some manner regulated under existing federal law into one of five schedules. This placement is based upon the substance's medical use, potential for abuse, and safety or dependence liability. The Act also provides a mechanism for substances to be controlled, or added to a schedule; decontrolled, or removed from control; and rescheduled or transferred from one schedule to another. The procedure for these actions is found in Section 201 of the Act (21 U.S.C. 811)." http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/abuse/1-csa.htm

This is very distinct from cheeseburgers, a glass of wine, and yes, even cigarettes. I can have a smoke (I once took up pipe smoking on the ship while on float out of boredom) or a beer responsibly -- I know of no 'responsible' use of methamphetamine, or special K(ketamine), or PCP. That's part of why they are prohibited -- you can argue weed is mischaracterized and we can have that debate, but please don't analogize crack to a six pack. It fails and shows a lack of ability to think out the reasoning. it's just some bromide devoid of serious consideration of the issues.

I've been a prosecutor and defender and seen both sides of this. Been a school trained drug counselor (SACO) in a squadron, too. Certainly the "war" on drugs isn't being "won".

One other thought about prevention - in the late 70's, I believe, there was an aircraft mishap on a carrier. Bunch o' people killed. Post crash toxicology revealed a number of people, both on the aircraft and on deck, had weed or drugs in their systems. In came the ZERO TOLERANCE policy. Worked very well for some time until drugs like ecstasy and meth started coming into clubs and are almost undetectable (ketamine is not even tested for in urine by NDSL) after a few days. I wonder if there isn't a lesson to be learned from an in depth study of the military's success against drugs through the 80's and 90's. again, there are limits as the military ejects people from its society asa result of drug use. Don't have that option in the regular world. but there might be something to learn.

Decriminalizing also has a moral component that makes me uncomfortable. Do we now say that heroin has the same stigma as abusing painkillers? How about penalties for violations? And do we believe that legalizing and making drugs available via some bureaucratic mechanism will not result in massive fraud in that process? Addicts won't bribe pharmacists or use a gun to rob a CVS to get their fix? Decriminalizing may work, but those claiming it's a panacea seem to be waving away a lot of legitimate complaints against it by saying merely that "the war on drugs is failing".

All of this, of course, helps not one whit. I know. Just some random thoughts.

Coach, I enjoy every time you come by and drop some thoughts on here. Hope some day to get a chance to come out west to CFSC and say thank you for this site. One of the great acts of altruism I've seen.

Treelizard said:

"Maximus, if murder rates were going up, would you say we should legalize it?"

This has already been answered, but I must point out this is an absurd comparison. Who is advocating legalized murder?? There are precedents, the Roman Empire for example, but I don't really see this as a modern problem.

This is a classic logical flaw called a "flawed analogy" and more specifically an "irrelevant comparison".

What I am saying is that our present "war on drugs" policy does not work and must be re-evaluated. My personal opinon is that drugs should be legalized.

If we had had a 30 year "war on murder" and murder rates continued to climb, I would in fact advocate a re-evaluation of the policy.

These are logical comparisons, unlike your completely silly analogy.

Crossfit Cheerchick, my post was a response to D. Moege who said "I'll just continue being a child; at least I'm happy and have good humor (even in the dark times of WAR)."

And btw I'm not a man and won't be retiring for another 38 years.

Thanks for the laughs!

Maximus,

The comparison is not absurd at all. I'm simply asking whether, if something is illegal, the fact that the rates are increasing means it should be legalized. The argument was that legalization wasn't working because rates of use are increasing.

If we had a 30-yr war on murder and murder continued to climb, I don't think that legalizing murder would be a viable solution. That's where we differ.

And by the way you have not responded to the numerous points made that show that your assertion that drugs are a "victimless crime" are incorrect.

And if you want to talk logical fallacies you may want to look at your old posts. Ad hominem, circulus in demonstrando, complex question, non sequitur, pestitio principii, I could go on and on...

I've posted more than my share for the day, I'm done on this topic.

Thank you so much for the sincere compliment CFCC! And you make an excellent point...best to not appear dim.

Irony really is the most sublime form of humor.

Dale Saran-thank you for the "random thoughts". Best thing I've read on this thread.
Coach- since you seem to be on board today, let me take this opportunity to say thank you for all that you do.

Cheerchick WOD-Hold breath for as long as it takes. Post O2 sats to comments.

Like most of you, I enjoyed the transcript speech presented by Cato institute, but I also saw many flaws in their arguement. First and foremost, they were speaking to the wrong audience. In addition, the speech had no real (hard) evidence to back up their claims. Everyone knows that the war on drugs is failing- even producing undesired results-but if you are going for the homerun (to convince congress), you need to have actual statistics and logical evaluations to back those statistics. A lot of what I saw in the transcript was a libertarian getting up in front of a majority republican audience and trying to convince them that they are wrong by making unsubstantiated arguments and fallical analogies. Not going to happen! We all know that libertarians and democrats have a point when it comes to certain policies, but, at the momment, their point simply seems to be that they are the counter republican ideals. Using that sort of argument will not get you far in our government, as it stands. Nice article, I wish it would actually make it through, but I'll believe it when I see it. Can't wait for Friday's workout!

DN

Oh yeah,

mcf- I'm not sure if she'd burn enough calories holding her breath to make any difference :)

Treelizard: you claim various logical flaws in my reasoning, yet you claim to be "too tired" to illuminate them. Fie! An obvious attempt at misdirection! The day is mine Sir!

*phew*

See you here next rest day.

Maximus #136 - Where did she say "too tired"?

And there are a LOT of points made today you did not respond to. See #113 + 125 for starters...

Re: #70, "Build More Prisons. I'd gladly accept a one-time tax levy to pay for a modern prison where inmates have an opportunity to reform and learn a trade."

LOL, you must in the prison business. And good luck to all the reforming drug war prisoners learning their trade while they are also being taught the fine craft of anal rape.

How about spending your "one-time tax levy" on Education in order to create better educated citizenry? Or better yet, no more new taxes?

To the States, I say.

D. Nelson #134,

Somewhat off-topic but you wrote, "...but if you are going for the homerun (to convince congress), you need to have actual statistics and logical evaluations to back those statistics."

Are you implying that Congress only acts when they have actual statistics and logical evaluations to back their actions?

I think that's giving Congress more credit than is due, but then again, I'm just a lowly skeptic.

"man who stand on toilet....high on pot."

Burn one before xfit to double your cardio.

I'd like to share a ground-level perspective on drug use. I am a college student currently working a summer job to save some money for the upcoming semester.

I've worked in several kitchens, and they had more similarities than differences. Many employees at restaurants routinely come to work stoned. It's hard to blame them when they are getting paid 7 dollars an hour to scrape gum off of dishes.

Some might say that if they have a problem with low-wages they should just get an education, then a job. Some of those workers are in school and work part-time. However, some workers will always be uneducated laborers. At the end of the day, someone is going to have to scrape gum off the dishes for minimum wage. There are always going to be dishwashers and they aren't going on a carnival cruise any time soon. If they want to escape with a joint and a movie, more power to them.

If you are getting mad about this article, I think you're taking it the wrong way. The author advocates legalizing hard and soft substances, but encourages the states to decide. I doubt much more than marijuana could ever be legalized by a political assembly.

"Build more prisons." Sounds like some people have been smoking weed, because we have a huge deficit at the federal level, and many states are having budget problems. The prison system is cracking under the weight of nonviolent drug offenders.

I thought about it some more.

States should each decide, like gambling. If Nevada wants to be the anything goes drug state, they should be able to.

As far as I know, it is not currently against the law to hit yourself in the fingers repeatedly with a balpeen hammer. Suicide is (ironically) against the law, but stupidity isn't. It IS against the law to hit other people with a hammer. In the one case, it's your own business, in the second you are involving someone else.

Likewise, with drugs, the interface that creates a hazard is when drugs increase interpersonal behaviors that are injurious to others. Let's assume for a moment that all drugs are legal, and prices are low. There is no reason to steal to get high, unless you also have to steal to feed yourself.

The main issues I see are driving while high, becoming an unfit parent, becoming violent, and damaging your health--all of which happen now with alcohol. A fifth a day of bourbon would compare pretty poorly, health-wise, with almost every drug in existence, and you get the same other stuff too.

The goal, in my view, should be to allow responsible people the freedom to do what they want, and penalize irresponsible people. You could limit people to some small amount of drugs per week. You could double the sentence of any crime committed while high, including drunk driving (they don't have as much of an issue in Europe with this, in my understanding, due to pretty severe penalties). You could have people get "drug cards", like we get gun permits, so that anyone with a demonstrated history of not handling drugs could not get them, and such people WOULD properly belong in jail if caught with narcotics.

You could have set aside areas for drug use, with paid "adult supervision", paid for by the people who wanted to use the drugs.

Personally, I've smoked weed occasionally with friends, but it's not really my thing. I haven't ever used any other drug, and really have no interest in it. It just seems to me we need to be very careful about being clear that what power is not SPECIFICALLY given to the Federal Government in the Constitution, devolves to the States. That point is very clear.

It seems to me as well that transparency in all aspects of life is a desirable goal. People sin. They just do. It's in the Bible, and it's observable every day of your life, if you pay attention. Sneaky people worry me much more than out and out sinners. I'm sure I'm not alone in finding William Bennett's gambling addiction highly ironic. To be generous.

two words: legalize drugs.