War on drugs a waste of time, energy and money

Connecticutt Daily Campus ^ | 2/19/03 | Sean Vivier

[MrLeRoy]

There has long been a call to legalize marijuana. Quite noticeably, the effort has been spearheaded by "potheads" more concerned with their next high than social justice. This has led to a tendency for polarization in the debate. That's why

I, the author of last year's article, "A Straight Edge Manifesto," have decided to enter the ring. But I won't stop at marijuana like those sissy "potheads." I say legalize all drugs.

There is no doubt in my mind that using drugs is a bad idea. But just because something is a bad idea, does not mean it should be against the law. The litmus test for government intervention should be, "harm to others." If an action harms others, the authorities should act. If it stands to harm no one but the individual acting, then the authorities should stand aside. The government should concern itself with dangerous felons: murderers, rapists, vandals, arsonists, thieves and the like. Any effort directed at victimless crimes draws our energy away from confronting real dangers. It would be more efficient and more worthwhile to concentrate focus just on real threats.

Drug dealers are currently a threat; yes. That's because they're already looking at jail time, so why not add a few counts of murder? We should learn from Prohibition. Prohibition created the very circumstances that allowed Al Capone to become a violent offender. With alcohol legal, Budweiser and Heineken aren't waging a street war. If we legalized drugs, drug dealers might still be scum, but at least not the kind of scum that shoot people.

Drug users are a threat to no one but themselves. There's no need to punish them because they're already punishing themselves with the natural consequences of their actions. If destroying their minds isn't enough to stop them, then no amount of prison time will. Besides, it's better to associate reasons to "just say no" with the real reasons to avoid it. If people think only of artificial sanctions that we impose, then they aren't thinking about the real dangers of drug use. And then, do we really want to waste our time hunting down anyone who took "a hit," only to decide they didn't like it? Or even a habitual "pothead" who stays in his or her basement, bothering no one?

As a matter of fact, I believe that legalizing drugs will actually reduce drug use. Without a sense of "forbidden fruit," many people just won't feel the need to try drugs. Habitual drug users will act as examples to others. Mothers can point to the middle-aged stoner and say, "See, Johnny, do you want to end up like him?" When a man dies of a heroin overdose, anyone with half a brain should think, "Gee, maybe heroin is a bad idea." Plus, with no possible legal repercussions for admitting to drug use, addicts can look for help quitting that much easier.

Still, some regulation may be necessary. The FDA can print Surgeon General's Warnings on "dime-bags" to make sure people are making an educated decision.

Those substances that are smoked - tobacco, marijuana and crack - will have to be banned in public, because the second hand smoke forces others to smoke with them. Thus, smokers can be allowed their habit in their homes or in restaurants or bars that condone them, but will be fined heavily for smoking anywhere else.

But here's the crux: if anyone gets behind a wheel or commits a violent crime while under the influence, he or she will be held completely and utterly responsible for his or her own actions and prosecuted as if he committed the crime while sober. Think that's harsh? Well, so is killing someone while driving drunk or almost beating someone to death because you weren't in control of your own faculties. These people chose to get drunk or high knowing full well that it would change their behavior. It shouldn't be an excuse. That way, we can oppose those who become violent and ignore those who don't. Even if the figure is outrageously high, something like 70 percent of drug users becoming violent offenders, then that's 30 percent of our original effort that we've saved.

Ending the War on Drugs saves time, money and effort originally spent on a lost cause. Letting things happen as they will happen will also decrease drug use much more effectively than direct opposition.

[MrLeRoy]

Not all ... but lately some Backroomings have been inexplicable (and unexplained).

[cinFLA]

Now MrLeRoy has posted the most senile piece of garbage I have ever seen.

[cinFLA]

As a matter of fact, I believe that legalizing drugs will actually reduce drug use.

Unbelievable.

[cinFLA]

("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.")

The least dangerous man, to any government is the man who is unable to think things out for himself because he is continually stoned.

[Ol' Sparky]

Never mind that monthly drug users significantly declined from 26 million in 1979 to 14 million in 2000, according to the National Household Survey. And, never mind that going soft on drugs, decriminalization or legalization is a total failure everywhere it's tried.

[dcwusmc]

("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.")

The least dangerous man, to any government is the man who is unable to think things out for himself because he is continually stoned.

I will, once only, presume that you have not read ANY of my previous posts which state quite clearly that I do not now, have not ever and will not, even post-RE-legalization, use pot or other currently illicit recreational substances. My dog in this hunt is the restoration of the Constitution for the United States. Having said that, you are invited to prove your statement which, being directed to me and mocking the tagline after my name, can only be construed as a libelous attack on me. Since proving such libel is not possible, I offer you one chance to apologize for your scurrilous attack. You have shown yourself to be nothing but a liar and troll throughout these threads, typical of certain drug warrior tactics, but utterly unworthy of this forum.

[dcwusmc]

If you don't mind a suggestion, perhaps our rather limited police forces could be far better employed chasing REAL criminals instead of FIAT "criminals." Our national Daddy can retire to tend his OWN family and mis-run his OWN life instead of everyone else's. Then you can spend your time decrying people like that idiot in TN who got himself shot when he wouldn't drop his (toy) gun after a botched robbery attempt. Admittedly the Keystone Kops who were after him need a lot more practice, but HE is the kind of perp our VERY LIMITED resources need to go after.

[cinFLA]

I am still waiting for the apology from tdadams when he called me a liar and only after I forced him to post a link with quotes that he backed down and admitted he was in error. I am still waiting for an apology for being blasted as a bad parent for saying (falsely) I would let my children watch the neighbors doing wierd things with duct tape while naked in the front yard. I am still waiting for an apology for being called a dirty ol' man when I brought up the subject of how legalized drugs such as ecstasy could increase crime. When I get an apology for these, then I consider your request.

[cinFLA]

I have seen enough paid spammers on the financial forums to know one who has a dog in the hunt.

[cinFLA]

Seeing the destructive nature of drug abuse should be the #1 deterent.

Tough to see anything when you are stoned.

[dcwusmc]

I am still waiting for the apology from tdadams when he called me a liar and only after I forced him to post a link with quotes that he backed down and admitted he was in error. I am still waiting for an apology for being blasted as a bad parent for saying (falsely) I would let my children watch the neighbors doing wierd things with duct tape while naked in the front yard. I am still waiting for an apology for being called a dirty ol' man when I brought up the subject of how legalized drugs such as ecstasy could increase crime. When I get an apology for these, then I consider your request.

Since none of the above have anything to do with me and since you have shown yourself to be a troll and a liar, not just once but CONTINUOUSLY, I will ask that the Admin Moderator or JimRob have their way with you.

[FreeTally]

Stick to using your flame bait on other posters. I will not bite.

[MrLeRoy]

Never mind that monthly drug users significantly declined from 26 million in 1979 to 14 million in 2000, according to the National Household Survey.

This could have more to do with demographic shifts than drugs.

And, never mind that going soft on drugs, decriminalization or legalization is a total failure everywhere it's tried.

Provide evidence for your claim.

[Clinging Bitterly]

Don't know what makes him think he's so special.
Lots of folks hereabouts don't do drugs, but think they shouldn't be outlawed, or at least think the methods of the war on drugs are wrongheaded. The statists will just dismiss him as a pothead, as they do all libertarians.

Dave in Eugene

[cinFLA]

This could have more to do with demographic shifts than drugs.

Prove it.

[cinFLA]

Lots of folks hereabouts don't do drugs, but think they shouldn't be outlawed,

Amazing. Another non-druggie pushing drugs. That makes about 58 of you. Why aren't there any out there that use drugs pushing this topic?

[cinFLA]

Provide evidence for your claim.

Why? You will only say that it is not applicable, unacceptable or call him a liar.

[cinFLA]

(from your source)

Quite frankly, I can't see how Bush would make the subjugation of Iraq a higher priority than throwing off the shackles of a brutal, dictatorial deity.

Saddam Hussein has many qualities that all good Americans find appalling. He tried to kill Abdul Karim Qassim, then the Prime Minister of Iraq in 1959, but was shot in the leg and was forced to flee Iraq. On June 30, 1968, Hussein purged his new government of all political opposition (i.e. killed them). On July 17, 1968, he became a lawyer. On June 1, 1972, he became a socialist. He married his cousin. He invaded Iran in 1980. He uses the metric system. He invaded Kuwait in 1990. He likes The Godfather Part III, and he's probably not a big fan of Pink Floyd.

But what has Saddam Hussein done that God hasn't already topped?

[cinFLA]

Here is another column from your buddy Sean. Believe it or not, this is the WHOLE column. I think he was smoking too much the night he wrote this one.

"Inevitably there comes that awkward moment when you see someone you've met coming down the hallway or sidewalk. And what do we all do? While still distanced from each other, we dart our eyes to the wall or the grass, as if there were something very interesting that caught our attention, when we all know we're just trying to pretend we haven't seen the other person yet."

[cinFLA]

And I am sure you will enjoy this little piece about your buddy:

The quotes, which have always been placed beneath each senior's photograph, will appear this year below seniors’ names in an alphabetical index of all NHS students, grades 9-12. Should a reader wish to view the quote of a particular senior, he must flip to the back of the yearbook and look up that student's name. This fact has stirred up a host of complaints from seniors and underclassmen alike. Senior Sean Vivier complained, "That's just wrong. It makes the whole thing cold and impersonal."