After what I've learned on this thread today about US Govt Medical Marijuana, I found Med Pot on a Dutch site that is not chaff.
Posted on 03/28/2006 10:51:21 PM PST by goldstategop
Getting high can be bad. Putting people in prison for it is worse. And doing the latter doesn't stop the former.
I was once among the majority who believe that drug use must be illegal. But then I noticed that when vice laws conflict with the law of supply and demand, the conflict is ugly, and the law of supply and demand generally wins.
The drug war costs taxpayers about $40 billion. "Up to three quarters of our budget can somehow be traced back to fighting this war on drugs," said Jerry Oliver, then chief of police in Detroit, told me. Yet the drugs are as available as ever.
Oliver was once a big believer in the war. Not anymore. "It's insanity to keep doing the same thing over and over again," he says. "If we did not have this drug war going on, we could spend more time going after robbers and rapists and burglars and murderers. That's what we really should be geared up to do. Clearly we're losing the war on drugs in this country."
No, we're "winning," according to the federal Drug Enforcement Administration, which might get less money if people thought it was losing. Prosecutors hold news conferences announcing the "biggest seizure ever." But what they confiscate makes little difference. We can't even keep drugs out of prisons -- do we really think we can keep them out of all of America?
Even as the drug war fails to reduce the drug supply, many argue that there are still moral reasons to fight the war. "When we fight against drugs, we fight for the souls of our fellow Americans," said President Bush. But the war destroys American souls, too. America locks up a higher percentage of her people than almost any other country. Nearly 4,000 people are arrested every day for mere possession of drugs. That's more people than are arrested for aggravated assault, burglary, vandalism, forcible rape and murder combined.
Authorities say that warns people not to mess with drugs, and that's a critical message to send to America's children. "Protecting the children" has justified many intrusive expansions of government power. Who wants to argue against protecting children?
I have teenage kids. My first instinct is to be glad cocaine and heroin are illegal. It means my kids can't trot down to the local drugstore to buy something that gets them high. Maybe that would deter them.
Or maybe not. The law certainly doesn't prevent them from getting the drugs. Kids say illegal drugs are no harder to get than alcohol.
Perhaps a certain percentage of Americans will use or abuse drugs -- no matter what the law says.
I cannot know. What I do know now, however, are some of the unintended consequences of drug prohibition:
1. More crime. Rarely do people get high and then run out to commit crimes. Most "drug crime" happens because the product is illegal. Since drug sellers can't rely on the police to protect their property, they form gangs and arm themselves. Drug buyers steal to pay the high black market prices. The government says alcohol is as addictive as heroin, but no one is knocking over 7-Elevens to get Budweiser.
2. More terrorism. The profits of the drug trade fund terrorists from Afghanistan to Colombia. Our herbicide-spraying planes teach South American farmers to hate America.
3. Richer criminal gangs. Alcohol prohibition created Al Capone. The gangs drug prohibition is creating are even richer, probably rich enough to buy nuclear weapons. Osama bin Laden was funded partly by drug money.
Government's declaring drugs illegal doesn't mean people can't get them. It just creates a black market, where even nastier things happen. That's why I have come to think that although drug addiction is bad, the drug war is worse.
LOL...
That gif is worth a thousand words!
Great link...Thanks!
nice post!
I believe that nearly any war can be won, all it takes is the will to do whatever it takes to win the war. The problem is that what it might take would be far beyond what anyone, myself included, are willing to do. In the case of the WOD, even a country like Singapore can't stop illegal drugs, even with the death penalty for smugglers and dealers. And the penalties are terribly harsh for users there as well.
Of course, people will ask if I'm in favor of legalizing murder, since it's all but impossible to stop all murders as well. The key difference is the costs associated with enforcement versus the costs it places on society. There's no doubt that drug abuse places a terrible cost on society: However, as Stossel states, the prohibition actually costs more to society. During prohibition there were mob wars over liquor distribution and profits. Once legalized, the profit motive went out of liquor distribution, at least as far as a criminal enterprise.
Criminals will do what it takes to ensure a healthy profit, but like any other "businessmen," if there isn't enough profit to outweigh the potential cost, they will find something else to do. Which is why crime based on smuggling cigarettes is up now.
Mark
Actually you can buy illegal drugs in Singapore. They're just far more expensive. Every now and then, you hear about a foreign citizen who's put to death for drug smuggling (like the Aussie, not long ago), but you have to wonder how many natives are killed, and never makes the news). Same with Cuba.
Mark
You're welcome.
I've been working publicly to change failed drug war policies since 1999, but only discovered LEAP about 30 months ago. It's easily the best org to point average citizens to, especially "right wing" or "conservative" political folks. In the year 2006, the only people who will speak publicly in support of drug Prohibition using their real names and faces are either elected officials or public employees getting paid to wage one or more aspects of the drug war (read - Cops and Prosecutors).
LEAP provides a very real alternative to the myth that, "Just ask any cop who spends time on the street and you'll know that drugs should be illegal."
LEAP has given over 2000 public presentations to the groups I mentioned above during the past four years. And in those presentations, we've had a chance to speak directly face to face with several thousand members of law enforcement and the criminal justice system. Here's the breakdown of how they respond to us face to face when asked their opinion of the War on Drugs.
Just over 80% agree with LEAP's mission statement calling for an end to drug Prohibition and to legalize and regulate the production and commercial distribution of all drugs.
Just over 10% firmly disagree with LEAP's message.
And the remainder will not take a public stance either way.
Of that strong majority who agree with LEAP's message, here is the most common followup comment they add - "I thought I was the only cop who felt this way."
Most cops on the Job are terribly afraid to openly criticize the War on Drugs because LE in general is so dependent on the literal billions in annual tax dollars aimed at fighting the so-called Drug War. Even though they fully realize that the WOD does nothing to help our communities problems with drugs and in fact increases the danger to society, they dare not speak out save for these candid moments when they are not having to sign their name in agreement.
2. In New York and other states, draconian laws on users continue.
Comparing Amsterdam to Leave it to Beaver neighborhoods is a poor comparison.
MARK, while there is a detectable rise in cigarette smuggling due to possibly excessive taxes on legal tobacco, over 99.9% of all commercial tobacco transactions are carried out by licensed and regulated sellers.
Opponents of drug legalization often decry reform suggestions with, "But there will still be illegal drug dealing!!!"
Yep. Legalization will not solve every problem related to the production and distribution of in-demand drugs. However it will eventually move over 99% of all production and distribution off the streets and out of our neighborhoods.
Legalization will not eliminate access to drugs by minors. But it will eliminate over 99% of the illegal dealers. And the illegal drug dealers are the only ones who knowingly market to minors and worse, the only drug dealers who actively recruit minors to assist in distribution.
A legalized drug distribution system is not perfect. It is however, incredibly superior to society than an illegal system.
That's a good point... In highschool, in 1976, a buddy and I were busted by a football coach with a 1/2 ounce of pot. He confiscated it (to this day, I'm sure he smoked it himself), and we each got 10 swats. Today, we would have been held for the police, arrested, and probably been charged with "intent to sell." And wound up in prison for many years.
Mark
Really? So I can get drunk, go driving, and not have to worry about being punished if I get caught, or if I cause some damage in a crash (I refuse to call it an "accident, when a drunk drives and causes damage).
You can use a legal substance, then do something illegal, and still be punished.
Mark
SAMANTHA's isolated quip helps us better understand the zealot Prohibitionist.
This small minority of Americans have a priority higher than their purported, "saving people from the perils of drug abuse".
That priority is to "punish" those who do not comply with their zero-tolerance "Drug-Free" lifestyle counsel.
After what I've learned on this thread today about US Govt Medical Marijuana, I found Med Pot on a Dutch site that is not chaff.
Yes, there ARE heroin users who are not addicts, just as there are vicodin and oxycontin users who are not addicts. So what's your point?
Imagine Rosie O'Donnel in a six-year-old's ballerina tutu.
Even if I could be God for a moment and know what the outcome would be, I still would be in favor of legalizing elicit drug usage on the grounds of liberty. I suspect that if legalization were to occur, the market for drugs regulated, a consumption tax levied (though I don't support this), and the money that used to be allocated for enforcement, legal defense, and long-term incarcerations was now (hypothetically) used to educate, the teenage drug usage would not increase. Society may even spend less on education/prevention that what they do now fighting the criminal aspects...and the reduction of violent crime would be a positive externality that would greatly benefit society. Only my opinions, of course, but I've thought about this one and have read and/or heard some very strong opinions - combined with my own experience as a youth - that have shaped my current opinion regarding this issue.
I like it. Any mileage allowance?
Bingo! We Have A Winner! There may be other symbiotic relationships in our society such as this (military-industrial complex?) but I can think of none so corrosive to individual liberty than the WOsD.
Legalization does not necessarily imply endorsement of use. SOCIETY (not government) has largely shamed tobacco users into quitting without outlawing tobacco. The no smoking laws are more akin to the drug laws and need to be eliminated. I would take up smoking again just to flout these laws... and I might one of these days. However, my wife convinced me to quit for good and it's now been three years. All without LAWS sgainst smoking. Same can and likely will happen when other drugs are relegalized. Right now Hollywood glamourizes drugs and drug use in way too many ways. Thus it becomes the forbidden fruit and entices MORE kids to emulate their Hollyweird idols.
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.