Posted on 01/04/2004 10:44:31 AM PST by patdor
Once we understand that the War on Drugs is an abject failure, the question arises, what can we do? What is the solution for ending the drug war?
The answer is very simple.
The core issues of crime and other social ills of the drug war come directly from the black market, not the drugs themselves. The black market is created by, and in fact encouraged by, the socio-economic effects of prohibition (called the “War On Drugs”).
As a result, the cure can only come by ending prohibition. But ending prohibition does not mean a sudden "free for all" of "legalization".
When alcohol prohibition was repealed, it was replaced by regulations and tax statutes that restricted distribution and maintained purity and dose (alcohol content by percentage). It also placed the methods of regulation for sale to the public largely in the hands of local and state governments, where it rightly belongs.
As a nation we are a very diverse culture. The values and cultural heritage of the east are different from the south and are quite different from the values of the west. The result is that federal level recreational substance laws fail in their ignorance of underlying social issues that are highly variable across the nation.
In other words, each state and locality should be afforded their own means of dealing with issues relating to drug abuse.
Thus, ending drug prohibition will be handled much like the end of alcohol prohibition - with the strict regulation and taxation of the manufacture, distribution, and sale of recreational substances.
The model of alcohol
For instance, comparative analysis of even the most pessimistic studies of marijuana show it to be safer and more benign than alcohol. Therefore it’s easy to see marijuana regulations mirroring those for beer and wine.
Hard alcohol is regulated more strictly than beer and wine, and certainly there are substances that should receive stricter regulation than marijuana. Soft drugs such as MDMA (Ecstasy), Psilocybin (Mushrooms), and Peyote, would need stricter regulation - along the lines of hard alcohol, which has significant restrictions on public use and distribution.
The very hardest of recreational substances, (i.e. the drugs with the highest physiological addiction rates, such as cocaine and heroin), would be regulated and distributed only by the government and directly to users. This distribution would seriously undercut, and virtually end, the black market for these drugs. This would greatly discourage the creation of new drug addicts.
It’s important to consider this last aspect of ending prohibition most thoroughly. It is the demonized “hard drug” user that the prohibitionists point to when declaring that the drug war must be continued.
(Excerpt) Read more at civilliberty.about.com ...
Statements like that make me wonder what you're smoking.
How much more do you suggest we do to combat drugs? Would another $100 billion a year be worth it? How about another four million prison inmates? Would that be sufficient?
Upon that we can agree, which is why I wonder people keep repeating it.
Stay Safe !
Baloney. You took him to task for citing an individual: "Sorry Jim, you'll have to do better than one man's opinion".
Then you turn right around and cite one man's use of marijuana and asking if he's a stoner.
In today's society, unlike the 50's, we dare not criticize lest we be labeled "intolerant". Our silence is our acceptance.
If drug users had morals and values, they wouldn't use drugs. The laws are in place to protect and preserve the rest of society. Drug use is down.
No, but they were confirmed illegal in 1970. Was that racist?
Did some Senator come to the podium and say, "Yeah, too many "jigaboos" and "wetbacks" smoking the demon weed and playing their demon music and attracting our "white wimminz."
Give it up already. You've beat it to death and it's irrelevant.
Absent that, you have a better way for manufacturers to avoid these suits from stupid greedy people and their slimy greedy lawyers?
Didn't think so.
You look at the laws and say, "Hey. It's not illegal so I can do it and don't you dare impose your morals on me!", right? I bet I'm right.
You are right. I don't want you or anyone else imposing your morals on me or anyone else.
I know Baptists that would make dancing illegal. I have neighbors that think divorces should be illegal. I know of several groups of people that think alcohol should be illegal. I know muslims that think that women should have to cover themselves in public. I know people that think that bicycle riders should have to wear helmets. I know people who think that overeating should be against the law. I know people that think that parents should not be able to have children unless they have taken a parenting class.
You would like to change the law to make it much harder to sue someone. Would a requirement that the plaintiffs post a 10 million dollar bond (to be forfeited if they lose) satisfy you?
You think that alcohol causes terrible problems in our society, but since everyone has been drinking since the pilgrims landed you don't want to do anything about it. You would rather throw people that overuse pain pills into prison.
I would like to live in a perfect world, where no one gets hurt or damages their bodies in any way. But until that time comes I would rather live in a world that errors on the side of freedom and liberty rather than a world of laws and penalties no matter how good the intentions are.
Nah, in the long run prevention is always cheaper than dealing with a problem after the fact. What my suggestion does do is reduce the scope of unConstitutional federal government power.
No, they said that when they first made Marijuana illegal, in 1936. The even made a propaganda movie at the time called "Reefer Madness", that spread the belief that MJ made women wild for sex and made black men so wild for sex that they would rape your white wives and daughters. Aren't you a little embarrassed to keep up the war on drugs that had such a dishonest start.
Dishonest? Maybe "ignorant" is a better word for it.
But, call it what you will. It in no way explains the rationale for the passage of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970.
That act was passed for the same reason that the War on Drugs is still going today. People are making money from it, on both sides of the law.
Drug dealers of course make a lot of money but also lawyers, prosecutors, prison guards and police depend on the WoD to keep their jobs. The beer and liquor industry depend on the WoD to keep a very powerful competitor at bay. Who would take the damage that alcohol does to their body when they could smoke benign MJ (if there were no legal risk)?
How many times have you read, "If not for the WOD, the police could focus on the "real" criminals"? "If not for the WOD, we could prosecute and have room in our prisons for the "real" criminals"?
So, what's makes you think that the lawyers, prosecutors, prison guards and police won't have just as much to do if we eliminated the WOD?
I have yet to read where someone says, "Get rid of the WOD and we can close X% of our prisons, shut down X% of our courts, or cut the size of the police force by X%, have you? Ever?
With or without the WOD, these people would still have a job. Plus, you only mention "benign MJ". Is that the only drug you wish to legalize? And you think that will have a big impact on the illegal recreational drug black market?
I disagree.
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.