Posted on 02/11/2003 6:49:57 AM PST by MrLeRoy
WASHINGTON--A friend recently remarked to me, "Alcohol is the original date-rape drug." That's very sadly true. And it's why I found it hypocritical that the national drug czar's new ad equating marijuana use with teen pregnancy should debut during the Super Bowl, in which beer and sex were the dominant advertising themes.
Teen drinking is the bigger problem, both in sheer numbers as well as health risks, yet the federal agency overseeing drug-control policy ignores it. An antiteen drinking commercial would have been a powerful counterpoint during that game; the antipot ad came off as a clumsy attempt to maintain beer's market share.
These ads are emblematic of the government's overall war on marijuana. Since marijuana was first federally outlawed in 1937, prohibition has had the perverse effect of making marijuana more popular, particularly among youth and the counterculture. Our government insists on staying the course even though there is no evidence that criminalizing marijuana has ever reduced its use, let alone its trafficking. Meanwhile, the focus on marijuana diverts attention away from more serious problems.
Historian Barbara Tuchman once defined folly in government as the perverse persistence in bad policy in spite of evidence of its failure and the existence of a reasonable alternative.
Marijuana prohibition is a clear example of this. Reports by governmental commissions in several countries point out its failure and call for drastic changes, from decriminalization (for example, the Shafer Commission in 1972) to legalization (a Canadian Senate committee report in 2002). So many of our political leaders have tried marijuana that it becomes news if a politician ever denies any "youthful indiscretions." And yet, still prohibition persists. Why?
Some argue that marijuana is a dangerous drug so it must be banned. Yet we've decided that the dangers of alcohol and tobacco present an acceptable risk, so let's compare:
Alcohol overdoses kill more than 15,000 people each year in the United States, and alcohol-related deaths push the toll up to more than 100,000 annually; marijuana, according to the scientific evidence, has not racked up a single overdose death in centuries of use.
Alcohol use is involved in 40 percent of the violent crimes committed in the United States annually; marijuana is associated with meditative, peaceful behavior, while violence in the marijuana trade is the result of prohibition, not the drug.
Tobacco use is credited with more than 400,000 deaths annually, according to the Surgeon General; in spite of decades of trying, the federal government has still not found anyone dying from marijuana use.
Clearly, marijuana prohibition is not justified by health concerns.
Prohibitionists say we don't need to legalize yet another drug because the ones we have do too much damage. That argument misses the point in many ways.
First, marijuana is widely used, legal or not. At least 21 million people used it last year, according to the federal Household Survey. (The real number is much higher, possibly 40 million; government surveys of illegal behavior are not noted for their accuracy and are widely believed to underreport the true totals.)
More important, marijuana is not simply another substance, it's a less dangerous--not safe, but less dangerous--alternative to drugs we already make available. And, if regulated as we do with alcohol, there would be guarantees of marijuana purity as well as regulation of potency, something the illegal market does not provide.
Prohibitionists counter: Ending marijuana prohibition "sends the wrong message" that legalizing drugs supposedly connotes societal approval of drug abuse. Oh, really? Then we need to bring back alcohol prohibition because, by that logic, legal alcohol sends the message that alcoholism and alcohol abuse are OK. Obviously, that's not true. And we're not going back to alcohol prohibition. We need to turn in a different direction.
It makes no sense to continue threatening people with arrest over their simple use of marijuana. A regulated system takes control of the marijuana market away from the criminals. This means age limits, just as we have for alcohol--drug dealers never ask for ID.
As for the "gateway" theory? Research shows that alcohol and tobacco are more likely suspects than marijuana. A recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that early alcohol and tobacco use were strong indicators of later drug use. That study's authors contended that the link between marijuana and other illegal drugs may be due solely to marijuana's illegality, nothing more.
A regulated marijuana market--similar to alcohol but a little more restricted (no Super Bowl marijuana promotions, for example)--is workable. And selling U.S.-grown marijuana through state-run outlets similar to Virginia's ABC stores could bring in millions in tax revenue to states and the federal government.
So why does prohibition persist? As Tuchman put it in her book "The March of Folly": "Wooden-headedness, the source of self-deception, is a factor that plays a remarkably large role in government. It consists in assessing a situation in terms of preconceived fixed notions while ignoring or rejecting any contrary signs. It is acting according to wish while not allowing oneself to be deflected by the facts."
Seventy years ago, we ended the tragic mistake that was alcohol prohibition. The time has now come to end the folly of marijuana prohibition.
Look, I disgree with your stance that drug laws are good -- especially WRT federal drug laws. The exact analog is alchohol, and how we, the US of A, have carefully tread the line of federal regard for alchohol and alchohol use. From the whiskey rebellion, to the temperance movement, to *Constitutional* prohibition, to that amendment's rescinding. The LAW was respected.
You seem to hold that the drugs (all sorts of which, btw) that are federally banned are so dangerous that the clear terms and history of the Constitution shoould be ignored if that is what is needed to ban them. And you also have held that discussion counter to that theory is trivial, ignorant, unwise.
But you haven't marshalled much more than cyncism, spite and ad hominem to make your arguments -- and any fact or logic you do bring forward, gets buried under that poor packaging. You can do better, or at least change your screen name -- say to "CitizenJackson".
You're good.
And, fortunately, wrong.
He thinks his windbaggery can save him. If he cares nothing for the opinion of decent people, he's right.
A lesson you obviously never learned is that respect is earned, it's not an entitlement.
If the anti-drug war momentum were not gaining, the issue wouldn't come up in any state for any reason, like the lack of efforts a decade ago. As it was, a suprisingly sizable percentage of the population supported the measure. Only through direct, personal intervention of the drug czar and a lot of public money did it fail. 
Not a danger on one of your threads.
No...I don't know of any sympathetic to your cause. We had one once but he popped positive on the pee test. He didn't get any high fives from his fellow chiefs when he was court martialed.
With this momentum you folks should have a drug free state in 20-30 years.
the gun rights crowd hereI really don't understand how some members of the gun rights crowd can support the WoSD. They must not realize who's next.
-Eric
So you don't think any decent people read these threads? That explains your behavior. I suspect your premise is wrong, though.
Hey dude, it's your free my dope thread in the smokey backroom.
Actually I was refering the time since I got out and NOT have worn the uniform. If you do NOT have the knowledge or experience of a servicemans respect for another regardless of rank ... my opinion is even more reinforced ....
As far as respect on this thread .. I will submit to you ...SONNY that there is precious little for you.
But that is what you really seeking ... isn't it ... that low opinion of you held by others only confirms the opinion that you have for yourself ... isn't it? Self verification is a powerful urge
I would hate to live in a world filled with anger and self contempt ... such as yours
How would drug dealers profit from an end of the WOD?Well obviously people would continue to buy from the same dealers if drugs were legalized just like they kept buying from bootleggers after the end of Prohibition. This is why Anheuser Busch and Seagrams have such a small share of the market compared to moonshiners and home brewers.
-Eric
And you just inferred that I'm a drug user -- not only is that far from true -- hell, I can't even *drink* more than a couple of ounces a month anymore -- whether it was true or not it is a spurious form of slander in the category of an "ad hominem" diversion from my actual argument.
Well, a few of the pro-WOD folks claim that the Second Amendment does not protect the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.
They claim the Second Amendment can be trumped by State gun grabber laws.
Knowing that you folks have no respect for me is gratifying and mutual. And don't waste your concern on my world...I actually enjoy the society I live in. Seems you folks don't enjoy that society much though.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.