Posted on 01/04/2013 1:21:20 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies
The DEA Web pages on "Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization" are linked with some regularity on FR. They're full of errors in fact and logic; since I couldn't find a comprehensive rebuttal online, I've started creating one. Here's my rebuttal to their "Fact 6;" more to come as time permits. ("Fact 1" rebutted at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2858443/posts; "Fact 2" at /focus/f-bloggers/2861557/posts; "Fact 3" at /focus/f-bloggers/2864032/posts; "Fact 4" at /focus/f-bloggers/2893202/posts; "Fact 5" at /focus/f-bloggers/2932390/posts.)
Claim 6: "Legalization of Drugs will Lead to Increased Use and Increased Levels of Addiction. Legalization has been tried before, and failed miserably."
|
Fact: So the DEA admits that Americans modify their drug use in light of information - undermining its claim above that it's laxity or tightness of drug policy that determines rates of abuse and addiction.
Claim: Specific federal drug legislation and oversight began with the 1914 Harrison Act, the first broad anti-drug law in the United States. Enforcement of this law contributed to a significant decline in narcotic addiction in the United States. Addiction in the United States eventually fell to its lowest level during World War II, when the number of addicts is estimated to have been somewhere between 20,000 and 40,000. Many addicts, faced with disappearing supplies, were forced to give up their drug habits.
What was virtually a drug-free society in the war years remained much the same way in the years that followed. In the mid-1950s, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics estimated the total number of addicts nationwide at somewhere between 50,000 to 60,000. The former chief medical examiner of New York City, Dr. Milton Halpern, said in 1970 that the number of New Yorkers who died from drug addiction in 1950 was 17. By comparison, in 1999, the New York City medical examiner reported 729 deaths involving drug abuse.
Fact: Where is the evidence that controls were more "lax" in 1999 than 1970? In fact, 1970 is about when President Richard Nixon declared a "war on drugs" - a "war" that coincided with that 42-fold increase in drug deaths.
The Alaska Experiment and Other Failed Legalization Ventures
Claim: The consequences of legalization became evident when the Alaska Supreme Court ruled in 1975 that the state could not interfere with an adult's possession of marijuana for personal consumption in the home. The court's ruling became a green light for marijuana use. Although the ruling was limited to persons 19 and over, teens were among those increasingly using marijuana. According to a 1988 University of Alaska study, the state's 12 to 17-year-olds used marijuana at more than twice the national average for their age group.
Fact: The comparison to the national average says nothing about whether use increased after the ruling.
Claim: Alaska's residents voted in 1990 to recriminalize possession of marijuana, demonstrating their belief that increased use was too high a price to pay.
Fact: Or demonstrating that they were taken in by the DEA's illogic.
Claim: By 1979, after 11 states decriminalized marijuana and the Carter administration had considered federal decriminalization, marijuana use shot up among teenagers. That year, almost 51 percent of 12th graders reported they used marijuana in the last 12 months. By 1992, with tougher laws and increased attention to the risks of drug abuse, that figure had been reduced to 22 percent, a 57 percent decline.
Fact: More cherry-picking by the DEA - 5 years later the figure was back up to 39% (http://monitoringthefuture.org/pubs/monographs/mtf-vol1_2011.pdf). And note that from 1997 to 1992 not one of the 11 states recriminalized marijuana, which undermines the DEA's claim above that it's laxity or tightness of drug policy that determines rates of drug use.
Claim: Other countries have also had this experience. The Netherlands has had its own troubles with increased use of cannabis products. From 1984 to 1996, the Dutch liberalized the use of cannabis. Surveys reveal that lifetime prevalence of cannabis in Holland increased consistently and sharply. For the age group 18-20, the increase is from 15 percent in 1984 to 44 percent in 1996.
Fact: More cherry-picking by the DEA - they use the only measurement, lifetime prevalence, that agrees with their claim. "Available data on last year and last month prevalence do not indicate a causal relationship between decriminalization and cannabis use in the Netherlands." (https://www.tlupress.com/files/arts/9117/Semind04285ff846b9e4048da727e6231a4d5.pdf)
Claim: The Netherlands is not alone. Switzerland, with some of the most liberal drug policies in Europe, experimented with what became known as Needle Park. Needle Park became the Mecca for drug addicts throughout Europe, an area where addicts could come to openly purchase drugs and inject heroin without police intervention or control. The rapid decline in the neighborhood surrounding Needle Park, with increased crime and violence, led authorities to finally close Needle Park in 1992.
Fact: This proves only that legalization of drugs in a very small area will lead to increased use in that very small area, as users from elsewhere gravitate there - but that's merely a redistribution not an overall increase.
Claim: The British have also had their own failed experiments with liberalizing drug laws. England's experience shows that use and addiction increase with "harm reduction" policy. Great Britain allowed doctors to prescribe heroin to addicts, resulting in an explosion of heroin use, and by the mid-1980s, known addiction rates were increasing by about 30 percent a year.
Fact: England's harm reduction policy dates back to at least 1930. During the period the DEA cites, heroin policy was if anything becoming tighter: "Responsibility for the treatment of addicts generally was shifted from general practitioners (GPs) to Drug Dependency Units (DDUs)," "many clinic directors shifted most patients from injectable to oral methadone maintenance," and "many clinics shifted away from oral methadone maintenance. Instead, the treatment policy at several clinics was to provide gradual withdrawal (detoxification in the United States); rarely were patients provided with long-term maintenance doses." (http://www.enotes.com/heroin-british-system-reference/heroin-british-system)
Claim: The relationship between legalization and increased use becomes evident by considering two current "legal drugs," tobacco and alcohol. The number of users of these "legal drugs" is far greater than the number of users of illegal drugs. The numbers were explored by the 2001 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. Roughly 109 million Americans used alcohol at least once a month. About 66 million Americans used tobacco at the same rate. But less than 16 million Americans used illegal drugs at least once a month.
Fact: Apparently the DEA would have us believe that if alcohol were illegal its use would drop almost 7-fold. Unfortunately for their fantasy, this experiment was tried - Prohibition - and there is no evidence whatsoever that anything like a 7-fold drop took place; no study finds a drop of more than 40%. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_during_and_after_prohibition)
” No culture values cowardice.”
No, but ours values freedom... Including the freedom to be wise or stupid, the free choice to be a coward or be brave, etc.
Oh, forgot to answer that part.
Last February, my sister's 26 year old son, Matthew, died of a heroin overdose. He'd been in and out of jail and boot camp three times. He was a smart and handsome boy. We all miss him terribly.
So, don't presume to lecture me about that.
All the drug laws in the world [or even New York State] couldn't make him stop taking drugs. If laws don't work, then why keep them on the books? As I said, open your eyes.
Laws aren't magic. I don't use drugs. If they were legal, I still wouldn't use them.
Though they are illegal, many still do use them. What's the point? Laws can only specify the punishment for breaking them. They cannot stop people from doing what they make illegal.
A few humble questions, if you would permit me.
If I’m not mistaken, it seems to me that you’re suggesting that criminal laws do not restrain activities that are deemed to be criminal offenses in the eyes of the law.
So I’m curious, do you think should we have criminal laws, or no criminal laws at all ?
If you do think we should have criminal laws, please explain why we should, i.e., what purpose do criminal laws serve ?
The War On Drugs contributes to ODs by increasing the variability of heroin's potency - even within a single batch if the 'cutting' isn't properly done.
People OD on the legal drug alcohol with some regularity - should we ban that drug too?
Laws against real crimes with actual victims are much more successful than laws against acts that harm only willing participants - because the former, but not the latter, have victims who avoid and resist the crime before it occurs and who cooperate in investigation and prosecution afterward. According to the FBI , two out of three murder cases are cleared; in contrast, the number for drug sales is assuredly no more than two out of three-thousand.
Also, real crimes with actual victims are the legitimate business of government, whereas acts that harm only willing participants are not (the opposite point of view leads to banning Big Gulps ... and beyond).
So I’m curious, do you think should we have criminal laws, or no criminal laws at all ?
If you do think we should have criminal laws, please explain why we should, i.e., what purpose do criminal laws serve ?
I'm not terribly convinced that laws do have a deterrent effect. It is upbringing and societal pressure that have traditionally served as deterrents to criminal behavior. Laws simply spelled out the penalties for engaging in it.
We have misunderstood the relationship between laws and behavior and increasingly expect the police and the courts to maintain the ordered society we remember fondly. They can't do it. They can't ride herd on society any more than teachers can impart an education to children who don't want one.
We certainly should have criminal laws. We still need to punish behavior that harms others. But drug laws, I think, should be limited to bad behavior while using drugs -- not the use itself.
It's how we treat alcohol. We punish, for example, driving while drunk, but not the drinking itself.
Very good question. I hope I answered it satisfactorily.
Yes. Seat-belt and helmet laws spring to mind.
do you need to ask, some of these liberturdians would legalize kiddie porn
do you need to ask, some of these liberturdians would legalize kiddie porn
Yes. Seat-belt and helmet laws spring to mind.
Yup. I could support laws requiring beltless drivers and helmetless bikers to be bonded for the cost of cleaning up their carcasses after an accident - but beyond that, if government may ban activities to protect adults from their own choices, then there is no such thing as limited government.
So, in that vein, should prostitution be legal ?
Yes - as has successfully been done for years in Nevada.
So, in that vein, should prostitution be legal ?
do you need to ask, some of these liberturdians would legalize kiddie porn
Child porn must remain illegal because children are unable to meaningfully consent to do porn - unlike adult participation in drugs, prostitution, or porn.
Funny how some will grossly smear others without even pinging them on the smear - while pretending to be guardians of morality.
It is also quite common for people to drink and become drunk.
Drugs, however, are only taken to become intoxicated on the drug,
That's how the drug alcohol was used when that drug was illegal.
And usage typically increases over time; very few people can control their use to mitigate the destructive effect on their lives (again, most of us have seen this firsthand).
What some of us have seen is certain individuals not controlling their use - some of us have also seen individuals controlling their use. And even someone who has seen only the former should understand that their personal experiences are not randomly selected and so are not reliably extrapolated to the population at large - and that since users who control their use are also careful to not be seen breaking the law, not seeing them doesn't mean they don't exist.
The Biblical argument is simpler - the Bible exhorts us to refrain from drunkenness.
But not to ban alcohol. Thanks for the pro-legalization argument.
IMHO, there's something very wrong with the idea of the government of a supposedly self-governing nation using the tax money of it's citizens to pay bureaucrats who's job is to try to prevent them from changing the law.
That's how the drug alcohol was used when that drug was illegal.
The Biblical argument is simpler - the Bible exhorts us to refrain from drunkenness.
But not to ban alcohol. Thanks for the pro-legalization argument.
The only purpose to taking drugs is drunkenness. Alcoholic drinks are part of eating and drinking, drugs are not.
Marijuana brownies are eaten.
Drugs have one purpose - getting drunk.
As I already noted above, criminalizing a substance has been shown to increase the degree to which its use goes beyond mild 'relaxation' to outright intoxication - becasue there's less exposure to legal consequences if one concentrates one's use into as few separate episodes as possible.
Yes.
And yet you argue for laws that are directly contrary to Scripture ?
Only a law mandating sinful acts would be directly contrary to Scripture.
If you advocate for your nation to legalize sinful acts, God have mercy on your soul.
Lying is generally legal, as is acting unlovingly toward one's spouse and being uncharitable toward the poor. Do you support criminalizing all these sinful acts?
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.