-- Willam Buckley, July 15, 1986
Cocaine use peaked in 1982 and has since gone down 66%. Without legalization.
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When alcohol prohibition was repealed, it was replaced by regulations and tax statutes that restricted distribution and maintained purity and dose (alcohol content by percentage).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 ...
Sure it does.
You're just unwilling to go there. Or anywhere near it.
When I'm right - I'm right.
And you're wrong, incorrect, off-track - playing some sort of game that defies logic and common sense.
Failure to accept certain fundamental truths or basic concepts that underlie the motives or desire of, say, our law-making bodies as applies to their reasons for passing certain drug-laws is, well, living in a fantasy world ...
But hey, that's your choice, not mine.
Sure it does.
This is like trying to teach algebra to a goat.
You limited the choices of motivation for sponsoring and/or passing legislation to three categories.
I, conversely, recognize this as a false dictomony, since there are practically as many reasons as there are consituents.
You're just unwilling to go there. Or anywhere near it.
When I'm right - I'm right.
Yes, I'm sure you're looking forward to that special, first time.
A capricious and completely arbitrary appraisal by yourself carries little weight ... for all I know you could be the most contentious person on this board contesting our very existence and the validity of any thought!
There is no pleasing some people - kinda like the appetite of Hades; unquenchable, unfulfillable.
A capricious and completely arbitrary appraisal by yourself carries little weight ... for all I know you could be the most contentious person on this board contesting our very existence and the validity of any thought!
No, not arbitrary or capricious in the least.
You are laughably ignorant of the rules of logic, so I don't expect you to understand when they apply and when you have violated them.
Do try and grow up some time, hmmmm? It would make your posts that much more interesting.
This is the only way to stop the crime associated with drugs (gangs, black market, addicts stealing and prostituting to buy drugs).
Addicts can get methadone for free, but most choose to steal to purchase herion. You don't think this would happen with government provided crap drugs? Look what's happening in Canada with government provided "medical" marijuana -- nobody wants it!
Reminds me of Lance's description of his heroin for sale in Pulp Fiction:
"Now this is Panda, from Mexico. Very good stuff. This is Bava, different, but equally good. And this is Choco from the Hartz Mountains of Germany. Now the first two are the same, forty-five an ounce -- those are friend prices -- but this one... (pointing to the Choco) ...this one's a little more expensive. It's fifty-five. But when you shoot it, you'll know where that extra money went. Nothing wrong with the first two. It's real, real, real, good $hit. But this one's a f##kin' madman."
But they did have that power. Now what?
Let's do it! Let's write our representatives, fight against the huge financial resources of the alcohol industry with miniscule funds, write petitions, get major organizations to sign on touting our agenda, ask for more laws instead of constitutional amendments...
WHOA...deja vu!
I wonder if, every now and then, Elliott Ness wished that prohibition were over. I wonder if he thought organized crime would go away if only alcohol were legal, that the price would be lower and people wouldn't have to steal to buy it, that the level of violence, murders, and death due to alcohol would decrease.
Granted, his job would have been much easier if he didn't have to arrest all these people. But that's not the reason you advocate it, I'm sure.
The reason I'm sure is this: As a homicide detective, what percentage of your cases involve the use of legal alcohol by the perpetrator or the victim? Yeah, that's what I thought.
Excluding DWI's, alcohol is associated with over 100,000 deaths per year. I wonder how many died annually during Elliott Ness' days?
Cocaine use peaked in 1982 and has since gone down 66%. Without legalization.
Wouldn't drugs still be illegal for teens?
But if you're saying that because drugs would be legal for adults, the glamour would be gone for teens, you're dead wrong.
Despite the fact that every survey shows that teens say marijuana is easier for them to obtain than alcohol, twice as many teens use alcohol over marijuana (34.6% vs. 15.8%). You can find it here.
Care to explain how this fact fits your theory?
But they did have that power. Now what?
No, they did not, which is the reason they passed the:
Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
Section. 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section. 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
====================================================
But when it came to drugs, they just made the right to control up out of whole cloth and arogance to 'protect us from ourselves' So9
Best job I've ever had.
I wonder if, every now and then, Elliott Ness wished that prohibition were over. I wonder if he thought organized crime would go away if only alcohol were legal, that the price would be lower and people wouldn't have to steal to buy it, that the level of violence, murders, and death due to alcohol would decrease.
I have absolutely no idea.
Granted, his job would have been much easier if he didn't have to arrest all these people. But that's not the reason you advocate it, I'm sure.
That is not the reason I advocate it.
The reason I'm sure is this: As a homicide detective, what percentage of your cases involve the use of legal alcohol by the perpetrator or the victim? Yeah, that's what I thought.
Some, but in my area, a great deal more are gang-related.
Excluding DWI's, alcohol is associated with over 100,000 deaths per year. I wonder how many died annually during Elliott Ness' days?
I wonder if you realize what an utter non-sequitur that is to the issue of decrim of most currently illegal substances.
"An amendment to the Constitution obviously appealed to temperance reformers more than a federal statute banning liquor. A simple congressional majority could adopt a statute but, with the shift of a relatively few votes, could likewise topple one. Drys feared that an ordinary law would be in constant danger of being overturned owing to pressure from liquor industry interests or the growing population of liquor-using immigrants. A constitutional amendment, on the other hand, though more difficult to achieve, would be impervious to change. Their reform would not only have been adopted, the Anti-Saloon League reasoned, but would be protected from future human weakness and backsliding."
-- druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/rnp/RNP1.html
Now, if you have information supporting your statement that a constitutional amendment was required, I would (seriously) be interested in reading it.
Since the courts have shown 70 years of gutlessness, it is time to ammend the Interstate Commerce Clause and limit it to its original purpose.
So9
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.