Gyroscopic Investing

Forgive me for not dropping this but I was struck by how Malcom X said that the best example of how any minority needed to act inorder to pre-empt any trouble was post-holocaust Jewery. Perhaps he has a point. Perhaps any possibility of insinuation needs to be loudly jumped on. I agree though that I find it hard to imagine how what moda said could be taken as that I read it and it never occured to me that it might be taken to refer to Jews.

I also agree that it is hard to google for anything to do with the history of banking etc without a deluge of anti-semitic bile coming up.

stone wrote: Tortoise, in the lead up to the Rwanda genocide, there was a radio station putting out a torrent of sectarian bile. Would you support such a radio station being allowed to continue? Would you be happy to associate at all with any polician who had actually supported that radio station?

No, certainly not. I'm just saying such a politician shouldn't be sent to jail. "Racism" isn't a crime; it's a vice.

I can sort of understand the free speech argument. I might just still vote for a politician who did not want the radio station closed on free speech grounds. I would not vote for any politician who had given or received anything from the radio station.

Agreed. In the case of Ron Paul, I've heard totally conflicting accounts of how much knowledge he really had regarding racist statements made in newsletters bearing his name over the years. When it comes to political mud-slinging like this, I'm not sure what to believe. But given everything Ron Paul has written in his books and everything he's said in the interviews and debates I've seen on YouTube and TV (i.e., the stuff he's clearly personally involved in), he does not strike me as a racist person. If someone is truly bigoted and racist, I think it's hard for them to hide it; they tend to exude it either consciously or subconsciously in their personal writing and speaking over the years. That seems not to be the case with Ron Paul.

Personally I do think hate crimes are different. They have different effects on the victim and involve a different mind set from the perpetrator. Lets face it, sexual assults only warrant the seriousness they do because of the emotional aspect. The physical harm might be negligable. Same rationale for hate crimes IMO.

What about when jocks beat up nerds simply because they are nerds? It's not racism, but it's definitely the targeting of a particular type of person in a particular category of appearance and behavior. Why should the targeting of a victim based on skin color be considered more heinous than the targeting of a victim based on the presence of coke-bottle glasses and a membership in the chess club?

Declaring some categories of people to be more highly protected than others under the law (e.g., with more severe penalties) is dangerously subjective and creates a slippery slope unless those categories are objectively identifiable and near-universally agreed upon within the community. In the case of sexual assault, the parts of the victim's and/or perpetrator's body involved in the assault are relatively objective to demonstrate in court. In the case of race, the very concept of race itself is somewhat controversial and lacks near-universal agreement. There is an entire spectrum of skin color and other appearance- and behavior-based categories, but there is not a spectrum of body parts and orifices. A hand is a hand, a foot is a foot, etc. But is a "full" black person the same as a "1/2" black person--or a "1/4," or "1/8," or "1/16" black person? Where does one draw the line when it comes to subjectively categorizing people based on physical appearance and behavior?

Regarding Storm's question of whether any of the presidential candidates could do everything they promised without getting overridden by the establishment: In most cases, no. In Ron Paul's case, I would tentatively say "maybe" based on his highly atypical voting record as a Congressman. Atypical in the sense that the guy has consistently put his votes where his mouth is. He's virtually unique in that regard on Capitol Hill. Bribes, special interests, and intimidating admonitions by the establishment seem not to affect him. So if anybody has even the slightest chance of actually accomplishing everything they promise on the campaign trail, I'd say it's Ron Paul.

Tortoise,

I realize the specifics tilt to very odd applications of hate crime laws, but I do think hate crimes are simply another subset of trying to look at the crime and the criminal:

We consider certain types of murder more "cold-blooded" than others.  We DO look at what the criminal was thinking before the crime was commited.  Was he just caught up in a school fight, or did he specifically plan, with a cool head, the crime he was going to commit?

First degree murder vs. manslaughter have to do with the amount of time a killer has had to think about the crime before they committed it, because that truly does tell you more about the nature of the crime.  A bar fight accident and a calculated assasination are two completely different things.

A hate crime may not be calculated over a long period of time (though it's even worse if it does), but the nature of the psychology of the killer/abuser before hand is especially more disgusting during a hate crime than car-jacking turned-struggle turned murder, or something similar.  I don't agree with "protected classes" within hate crimes where some groups get protected while others don't, but I think that looking at that psychological aspect of the criminal is completely valid in deciding punishment.  I simply find it horrifying and disgusting that a group of thugs would beat somebody to a pulp because they think/know he's gay or he's a black kid going to a white school.  I find it relatively predictable, though sleezy, shallow, inconsiderate and animalistic, that a young poor kid would car-jack a car or shoot someone during a robbery after things get heated in the store or the store-owner pulls a weapon.

There are fundamentally different things going on in the heads of standard criminals vs people who attack someone for racial or other reasons.  There is a degree of sociopathy in hate crimes that just doesn't exist in other crimes of an otherwise similar nature.  We tend to take those things into consideration in criminal proceedings every day, and that's a good thing.

moda0306 wrote: We consider certain types of murder more "cold-blooded" than others.  We DO look at what the criminal was thinking before the crime was commited.  Was he just caught up in a school fight, or did he specifically plan, with a cool head, the crime he was going to commit?

First degree murder vs. manslaughter have to do with the amount of time a killer has had to think about the crime before they committed it, because that truly does tell you more about the nature of the crime.  A bar fight accident and a calculated assasination are two completely different things.

You are talking about the presence or absence of pre-meditation. That is based on the objectively measurable duration of time between when a person decides to commit murder and when he or she actually commits it. The law does not care whether a pre-meditated murder was committed by a murderer with hate in his heart or just cold-blooded sociopathy. The punishment is the same in either case, because the punishment is based on the presence of pre-meditation--not emotion.

I simply find it horrifying and disgusting that a group of thugs would beat somebody to a pulp because they think/know he's gay or he's a black kid going to a white school.

How about a white kid walking through a predominantly black neighborhood getting jumped by a gang of black kids and beaten to a pulp while they're shouting racial slurs like "whitey" at him? Should the attackers be convicted of a hate crime, or just regular assault?

Tortoise,

The time factor may be objectively measurable, but let's be honest here... it's not the time that's really at issue.  It's the sociopathic, calculating, cold-blooded nature of pre-meditation... the time is just a helpful indicator.  There are other factors than just the dates in between the idea was had and the crime was commited.  They look at what steps he took to plan the crime... or basically, does this person have any regard for human life?  I can imagine doing things in the heat of a tense situation that I wouldn't if I had time to think it out.  They truly seek to understand why the person committed the crime and judge the cold-bloodedness... the time is incidental to the psychology of the criminal.  The psychology of those who would beat someone who is gay simply because he's gay, even if there wasn't much time before when he decided to do it, is fundamentally different than criminals with economic circumstances driving his behavior.  I'm hardly trying to paint a picture of a "criminal with a heart of gold," but maybe one of truly evil behavior vs something a bit less.

Regarding the white kid assaulted by blacks, use the same standards as they do the other way around.  I'm not sure all the factors that come into play.

All in all, I never plan to commit any type of these crimes, so I'm not too worried about these laws that try to more accurately judge the nature of the criminal and punish them accordingly.

moda0306 wrote: The time factor may be objectively measurable, but let's be honest here... it's not the time that's really at issue.  It's the sociopathic, calculating, cold-blooded nature of pre-meditation... the time is just a helpful indicator.

My point, Moda, is simply that U.S. federal law appears not to draw the distinction between first- and second-degree murder based on the nature of the emotions going through the perpetrator's head. The distinction seems to be based simply on whether or not there was pre-meditation:

First Degree Murder is any murder that is willful and premeditated. Felony Murder is typically first degree.
Second Degree Murder is a murder that is not premeditated or planned in advance.
Source: Wikipedia

A resentful wife can plot the murder of her husband over a number of weeks, or a sociopath can plot the murder of some random person over the same time period. In the former case, emotions are running high. In the latter case, there is a complete lack of emotion. But in both cases, according to the definitions above, the crime is defined as first-degree murder--and the penalty is life imprisonment or death.

There are other factors than just the dates in between the idea was had and the crime was commited.  They look at what steps he took to plan the crime... or basically, does this person have any regard for human life?

My understanding is that looking at the steps taken by a perpetrator, along with his/her state of mind, prior to the murder is mainly to help strengthen the case that the murder was pre-meditated beyond a reasonable doubt. If it's pre-meditated, it's pre-meditated--period--and the accused gets convicted of first-degree murder. It's not so much about why the murderer wanted to commit the murder; it's about how deliberate the murder was.

In any case, I fully agree with you that there is something borderline-sociopathic about a person who attacks another person not for immediate financial gain (like a robbery), but simply for being some kind of "other." But shouldn't we focus on that broad, largely objective distinction in motivation rather than trying to focus on specific, ill-defined concepts like race and sexual preference?

To bring this back to Ron Paul, I seriously doubt he's a bigot. You can tell just by watching the guy talk that he's not a typical snake-in-the-grass politician, and that he means what he says. This actually works to his detriment much of the time, since people often perceive his honest, straightforward way of speaking as unsophisticated and naive. (Most people hate to admit it, but they like their politicians at least a little bit slimy--slimy enough to be smooth-talkers.) With Ron Paul's transparently honest way of speaking, I don't think he could hide bigotry even if he tried. The guy is the real article, and although he has some shortcomings, he's no bigot.

MediumTex wrote: for some reason this topic gets noisy and when we discuss it here I don't know if any of us walks away from it any smarter.

Oh, so now you blame the Jews for this, too?  ~zing.
(I kid, I kid.)

Actually, not being in possession of a soul might be a prerequisite for the job!

I think UK criminal law puts a lot of emphasis on intention and motivation in general. Our definition of theft is "A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft#United_Kingdom

In the UK, if you break into a car and drive off with it you will typically be prosecuted for TWOCing (taking without consent) not theft. The fact that you might intend to just drive it around and then abandon it is taken to mean that it is not theft. Only if there is evidence that you intend to burn it or export it or somehow prevent the previous owner from getting it back do you get done for theft.

Sexual assults are only sexual assults on the basis that the victim did not consent. Likewise I think the perception of the victim is a key part of determining whether a hate crime was a hate crime. I realize this all makes law messy and hard to conduct but let's face it rape prosecutions are also very hard. We shouldn't shirk from it just because it is hard.

Storm wrote: I have yet to hear one cogent argument for prohibition of controlled substances.  Did you know Thomas Jefferson grew marijuana?  If our founding fathers grew it, don't you think they're probably rolling in their graves over the police state we've created to imprison people who commit victimless crimes?
And how has somebody committed a crime when there were no victims?

Do you think there is any merit in the idea that Singapore doesn't have a drug problem and is better for it?

stone wrote:

Storm wrote: I have yet to hear one cogent argument for prohibition of controlled substances.  Did you know Thomas Jefferson grew marijuana?  If our founding fathers grew it, don't you think they're probably rolling in their graves over the police state we've created to imprison people who commit victimless crimes?
And how has somebody committed a crime when there were no victims?

Do you think there is any merit in the idea that Singapore doesn't have a drug problem and is better for it?

Singapore has a drug problem.  I don't know of one country where drugs are prohibited that doesn't.  Please read this story from Salman Khan, of Khan Acadamy.  You can be fairly certain that when 14 year olds are having drug problems, drugs are pretty readily available in a country.

Blocked name for privacy (although I think he is probably cool with sharing it):
Hi my name is ****** ** and I'm a second year student in the University of Western Australia (UWA) majoring in Physics and Maths. I was originally from Singapore where I spent the first 15 years of my life failing school, day after day I would not understand a word the teacher was saying as they said, "you must remember this or you won't get a job in your future." and every year I would fail school. When I was 14, I started failing pretty badly and fell into a world of drug addiction. When I was 15, my drug addiction got so intense that it affected my grades so badly that I had to be held back a grade in my high school in Singapore. Finally in January 2008 (the year I was 16), my parents decided to move to Perth in Western Australia. They had me enrolled in a private school where within 8 months I was expelled for fighting and drugs. At the end of that ordeal and closely evading arrest, my parents had me enrolled in a local public school where I was faced with the worst problem of my entire life. The final exam of high school that determines if you go to University or not was coming, and I had no idea what to do as I never listened in class since I was 13. All I could do was expand a bracket and that was it, no factorizing, solving an equation or doing trigonometry. I first met the Khan Academy in December 2009 where I stumbled on his videos on Complex Numbers on YouTube. I had a whole load of heavy weight subjects like Literature, Physics, Advanced Maths, Chemistry and Biology. Everyday when I came home from school, it would be a 4pm - 10pm study session driven by my own fears. With 5 years of work to catch up on and only Khan Academy helping me, it was a grueling experience. I failed every test and exam that year, thankfully none of those tests and exams contribute to your final University determination grade. I worked through the Khan Academy playlists on Basic Algebra, Trigonometry, Physics, Chemistry and Biology before moving on to the "higher level" things like Calculus and Differential Equations. Thanks to Salman Khan for quitting his day job as a Hedge-fund Analyst, he has allowed a drug addict whom the public would look down upon to persevere through his A levels and come out on the other side with a result good enough to get into Western Australia's best University. I hope and pray that the Khan Academy will expand to do subjects like Modern Physics and Maths topics like Topology, Differential Geometry and so on. In any case, I thank you Salman Khan, and the effort you have put into the Khan Academy. You've opened doors for us that we would have never been able to unlock alone.

Storm, that is an eye opener. Thanks

I think we at least have to be careful calling something a "victimless crime" if it causes a severe bending of their behavior towards addiction as opposed to true happiness.

This isn't out of a will to regulate peoples' lives, but while most people smoke marijuana as a relatively harmless pass-time in their lives, it would be tough to convince me that crack, meth, and heroine are similar.

Do people really demand these drugs on their merits, or simply because their brain is now hard-wired to tweak out of they are off the drugs.  Further, whether on the drugs or off of them, most of these people have become fundamentally different people than they otherwise would have been.

I have no problem with legalizing marijuana and mushrooms, but drugs that have an almost guaranteed "swtich" that they trigger in peoples' brains seem to me to really offer no value to individuals who think they might want to occassionally feel as good as herione can apparently make people feel.  Addiction is destructive and self-fulfilling, and I think we need to ask ourselves if drugs where brutal addiction is almost a scientific, chemical certainty have a place in a modern society.

moda0306 wrote: I think we at least have to be careful calling something a "victimless crime" if it causes a severe bending of their behavior towards addiction as opposed to true happiness.

This isn't out of a will to regulate peoples' lives, but while most people smoke marijuana as a relatively harmless pass-time in their lives, it would be tough to convince me that crack, meth, and heroine are similar.

Do people really demand these drugs on their merits, or simply because their brain is now hard-wired to tweak out of they are off the drugs.  Further, whether on the drugs or off of them, most of these people have become fundamentally different people than they otherwise would have been.

I have no problem with legalizing marijuana and mushrooms, but drugs that have an almost guaranteed "swtich" that they trigger in peoples' brains seem to me to really offer no value to individuals who think they might want to occassionally feel as good as herione can apparently make people feel.  Addiction is destructive and self-fulfilling, and I think we need to ask ourselves if drugs where brutal addiction is almost a scientific, chemical certainty have a place in a modern society.

Moda, I subscribe to a view that if you do not harm the person or property of another, you haven't committed a crime.  If we are to regulate anything that is addictive or can be self-destructive, it's a slippery slope.  What's next, cheeseburgers?  Cheeseburgers are addictive and can cause heart disease, the #1 killer in the US.  Illegal drugs are nowhere near the top of that list.  If you're going to go down the nanny state route and ban anything that can possibly be harmful, let's start first with fattening food, then we'll move on to cigarettes, alcohol, and way, way down on that list, illegal narcotics.

Personally, I don't believe we need a nanny state to tell us what we should or shouldn't put in our bodies.  Let everyone decide that for themselves.  Redirect some of the billions that are used to feed the prison industry into treatment and education programs so that those who do have a problem can get help.  Don't incarcerate them.  A lot of drug users could be productive members of society, until they get a criminal record, can't get a job, and are forced into a life of crime.  The prison industry likes this, because it's big money for them.

moda, as Storm says tobacco is very addictive. Some people get addicted to alcohol. Even caffeine is addictive. Also some people develop permanent mental illness from taking hallucinogens or marijuana. It seems a very messy subject to me. I wonder whether increasing the sanctions on users (rather than sellers) is the answer. Users could perhaps be disuaded -so shrinking the market. Targetting those selling the drugs just pushes the price up until that counteracts efforts to control supply.
The friends and families of drug users can suffer a lot even if the drug user never comes into contact with the law. Becoming a drug mess doesn't just effect the user him/herself. Perhaps using drugs amounts to acting with reckless disreguard to your responsibilities to be able to continue being a decent person?

Storm,

I usually agree with you, and even in the case of most drugs I do.  Tobacco may be pretty addictive, but it doesn't significantly alter a person's motivations... they still go to work, remain relatively productive, can live happy, fulfilled lives, etc.  They aren't going to go up to some guy on the street and offer to suck him off (sorry for the imagery, but I wanted to point out how crazy certain drugs make people) for a cigarette.

I wonder if there are people out there who do heroine or crack that actually do it in a casual manner and otherwise remain happy, fulfilled and productive.

So the question is, if you could repeal the laws outlawing Heroine, meth, and crack, would you?  Other than treatment centers, how would you regulate the distribution of these drugs?  Where could you buy these?  A strip-mall store?  What about the one near your neighborhood? 

I'm not trying to be condescending... I just ask myself these same things, and I don't think I could sign on the dotted line.  I'm not saying I know how to successfully enforce drug use, just that I can't imagine the Starbucks and Chipotle having a "Skeeter's Crack Shack" between them.  Further, I can't imagine demand existing for drugs like that outside of people that are blights to society, and that might otherwise have not been.  I am probably being extremely closed-minded, but certain drugs appear to not only be for the lower class, but actually by biological necessity lower your class from the first closed synapse.

That "Inside Job" movie gives the impression that that cocaine abuse may have fueled the behaviour of some of the 2008 crisis creators .

moda0306 wrote: Storm,

I usually agree with you, and even in the case of most drugs I do.  Tobacco may be pretty addictive, but it doesn't significantly alter a person's motivations... they still go to work, remain relatively productive, can live happy, fulfilled lives, etc.  They aren't going to go up to some guy on the street and offer to suck him off (sorry for the imagery, but I wanted to point out how crazy certain drugs make people) for a cigarette.

I wonder if there are people out there who do heroine or crack that actually do it in a casual manner and otherwise remain happy, fulfilled and productive.

So the question is, if you could repeal the laws outlawing Heroine, meth, and crack, would you?  Other than treatment centers, how would you regulate the distribution of these drugs?  Where could you buy these?  A strip-mall store?  What about the one near your neighborhood? 

I'm not trying to be condescending... I just ask myself these same things, and I don't think I could sign on the dotted line.  I'm not saying I know how to successfully enforce drug use, just that I can't imagine the Starbucks and Chipotle having a "Skeeter's Crack Shack" between them.  Further, I can't imagine demand existing for drugs like that outside of people that are blights to society, and that might otherwise have not been.  I am probably being extremely closed-minded, but certain drugs appear to not only be for the lower class, but actually by biological necessity lower your class from the first closed synapse.

Moda, I may be a more radical libertarian when it comes to prohibition.  I would legalize all of it, and sell it through liquor/package stores.  The thing a lot of people fail to realize is that precisely the reason why people commit crimes for drugs is because they were made illegal.  When you make something illegal, you create a black market for it and drive the price up.

When alcohol was illegal, this created the organized crime and mafia in our country.  People were also committing crimes for booze.  At speakeasys, people were selling questionably manufactured moonshine that sometimes had lead in it and made people blind.  Now, you just don't hear a lot about people committing crimes for booze.  You certainly don't have drive-by shootings like you did in the 1920s for booze, and like you do today for cocaine.

The thing about the police/prison state is that once something is criminalized, vast swathes of the population are made into criminals overnight.  1 in 20 americans uses marijuana.  The prison industrial complex uses the very nature that they are criminal to justify even harsher punishments, thus feeding the prison industrial complex more bodies.

I highly recommend a free book called "Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do," by Peter McWilliams.  It will educate you on the real problems created by all laws based on morality.  Laws against prostitution, gambling, and drugs, are all based on religion and cause our government to spend trillions of dollars punishing and incarcerating people who have never harmed the person or property of another.  Why should our government spend so much of our tax dollars telling people what they can and cannot do in the privacy of their own home?

Storm, you make a good argument. I'm still not clear where you stand reguarding age of the user (ie children) or advertising of drugs.

stone wrote: Storm, you make a good argument. I'm still not clear where you stand regarding age of the user (ie children) or advertising of drugs.

Probably similar to the current restrictions on alcohol and tobacco.

You can advertise alcohol on TV here so long as the advert is not depicting abject drunkeness. So the crack and heroin adverts would show people being effavescent or cool rather than bombed out I guess.

stone wrote: You can advertise alcohol on TV here so long as the advert is not depicting abject drunkeness. So the crack and heroin adverts would show people being effavescent or cool rather than bombed out I guess.

Realistically, I think that pot stands apart from the rest of the current crop of illegal drugs.  I think that the arguments for decriminalization of pot are far more compelling than for the decriminalization of things like heroin, methamphetamine and other things that are cooked up in a lab.

I view pot as being very similar to alcohol, except it's far less destructive overall.

If you want less of something, then tax and regulate it.  That is the common argument from the republican propagandists when they pimp for lower tax rates and lesser regulations.  However, when you apply that logic to the drug wars, the laissez faire attitude changes. 

Our current policy has created an efficient black market free of taxes and regulations that (as you would expect of an unregulated and untaxed industry) delivers drugs in a highly effective manner.  Only price to pay is a criminal one, which is unfortunately paid by the poor and minorities.  Meanwhile, the taxpayers fund a never-ending war that feeds the prison, military, and law enforcement industries. 

These industries (prison, law enforcement, and military) are government entities.  Republican propagandists regularly argue that government entities are corrupt and inefficient.  They also argue that government entities once created will not die, but instead look to justify and grow their existence.  When you state that the drug war is administered by ever growing government agencies, the government is bad attitude changes.  Talk about Reefer Madness.  Back to my legal and expensive Victory HopDevil beer.  So it goes... 

brick-house wrote: Our current policy has created an efficient black market free of taxes and regulations that (as you would expect of an unregulated and untaxed industry) delivers drugs in a highly effective manner.  Only price to pay is a criminal one, which is unfortunately paid by the poor and minorities.  Meanwhile, the taxpayers fund a never-ending war that feeds the prison, military, and law enforcement industries. 

These industries (prison, law enforcement, and military) are government entities.  Republican propagandists regularly argue that government entities are corrupt and inefficient.  They also argue that government entities once created will not die, but instead look to justify and grow their existence.  When you state that the drug war is administered by ever growing government agencies, the government is bad attitude changes.   Talk about Reefer Madness.  Back to my legal and expensive Victory HopDevil beer.  So it goes... 

Earlier in my legal career I did a bit of criminal defense work, and what is striking is how completely everyone in the system accepts the idea that our whole approach to criminal justice is really just a "catch and release" system. 

The police pick up a "bad guy", process him, let him go, and then wait to encounter him again and repeat the process.  Each time the bad guy moves through the system, various parties (bail bondsmen, lawyers, court clerks, probaton officers, etc.) take a cut of the person's normally already small amount of money, thus ensuring that the guy who was poor to start with will be even poorer at the end of the process, and thus more tempted than ever to turn to crime as a way of meeting his material needs.

There are the occasional people who only move through the system once, but it's unusual.  What is far more common is that the criminal justice system will make a "customer for life" with many first offenders.

It's also surprising how self-righteous prosecutors can be when they are in front of the TV cameras, but the rest of the time they treat criminal offenses the same way a business person would treat widgets; they're just a commodity used to provide job security to the police, judges, jailers, etc.

I used to see prosecutors make probation deals constantly that they knew couldn't possibly be fulfilled in most cases.  Thus, the 18 year old who received 10 years probation would find himself over the next ten years in and out of jail for a variety of minor probation violations, even assuming that no more crimes were committed during that 10 year period.  Over that ten year period, you will typically see a very significant percentage of the probationer's earnings turned over to the state or his attorneys as part of the probation process. 

It's really sad, because a lot of the people who enter the system could successfully exit it at some point with a little constructive effort to help them get their lives straight, but that idea would be about as foreign to the average member of the criminal justice apparatus as it would be to ask a fisherman if he would be interested in removing some of the fish from his favorite fishing spot.  This observation is really not as cycnical as it sounds; rather, it's just rational economic actors pursing their own self-interest within a flawed system.

MediumTex wrote:

stone wrote: Storm, you make a good argument. I'm still not clear where you stand regarding age of the user (ie children) or advertising of drugs.

Probably similar to the current restrictions on alcohol and tobacco.

Exactly.  You should still be a consenting adult before you are allowed to purchase any intoxicating substance.