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)
I believe that the full quote, being part of Scripture, is commanded by God as revealed in his Holy Word:
Deuteronomy 21
“18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.”
Furthermore, in Deuteronomy 19, we see this:
“15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.
16 If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong;
17 Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days;
18 And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother;
19 Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.”
So if the parents are caught testifying falsely about this, then they would receive the penalty themselves.
You're saying that like it matters or is anyones business except the ones using drugs and alcohol. And the feds don't have any authority under the constitution to make either one of those things illegal. I know you really want it to be there, but it's not.
some liberturdians want to abolish the age of consent altogether
Anything to say about the subject of the thread?
drug legalization is a retarded idea
Why is that - because the War On Drugs is working so well?
about as well as the war on murder and the war on rape is
about as well as the war on murder and the war on rape is
Wrong. As I've already posted in this thread: 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.
lolz.
two out of seven hundred billion, probably
and that would mean we should stop saying its wrong?
A manful concession that your "about as well as the war on murder" was way wrong.
and that would mean we should stop saying its wrong?
Say it's wrong all you want - but since it violates nobody's rights, and laws against it are manifest failures, let's stop blowing $40 billion a year of the taxpayers' money on those laws.
Matthew 5
“17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”
John 14
“15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.”
Romans 3:31 “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.”
Romans 6
“1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?”
“12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.”
Romans 7
“5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.”
A honest study of Scripture reveals that the moral law of the Old Testament is not abrogated but eternal. The ceremonial laws, the system of sacrifice that typified and pointed to Christ are not needed after Christ’s one perfect sacrifice on the cross. In Galatians 4 Paul goes on to write what he was concerned about:
Galatians 4:10 “Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.”
He continues with circumsion in Galatians 5:
“3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.”
This is the “law” that is declared as not the path to salvation. But in the same chapter, the Apostle goes on to condemn the breaking of Old Testament moral law:
Galatians 5
“13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.
16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24 And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
26 Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.”
Over and over we see that the New Testament does not abrogate any of the Old Testament moral law, and in no way is drunkenness somehow acceptable to God under the New Covenant.
I see nowhere that the Old Testament penalties remain in place.
Still awaiting your response to post #38.
Post 38 had much more in it than that - and had nothing to do with Scripture. Try again.
If you review what I posted and read those whole chapters you will see that they are a whole exposition on the fact that the moral law continues for Christians.
The question at hand is whether the imposition of Old Testament penalties (e.g., death for an unruly son) by civil governments is prescribed; I don't see that it is.
Yes. Which applies to my main point that societal institutions and their influence are more effective than government's laws.
And, yes, also, to your example of turning right on red. But that's a trifling matter. The personal reward for turning right does not outweigh the penalty for doing it.
We haven't come up yet with the penalty that would convince people that using drugs (or alcohol) isn't worth it. Perhaps, the death penalty for possession, but I don't think that would, either.
It is obvious to me that our increasingly draconian drug war has not worked. Yes. People will destroy their lives. But we can't seem to stop them.
And though I'm pleased you do see the abuses of the War on Drugs [SWAT teams, etc.], that is only the logical progression of a crusade based on laws and punishment. If it hasn't worked yet; get tougher.
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.