Posted on 05/07/2006 7:17:42 PM PDT by found_one
The Young Pay the Price for Dutch Drug Experiment
by Don Laigle
Ever hear a liberal or libertarian say that we need to legalize “soft” drugs like cocaine and marijuana because they did this in Holland and it was wildly successful? You know: kids immediately lost interest in these drugs and stopped taking them?
Here’s what Republican Governor Gary Johnson of New Mexico said on CNN on Feb 22, 2001:
“Holland has 60 percent the drug use as that of the United States by kids and adults and that's for hard drugs and marijuana both. So if you want to look at a country that really has rational drug policy, Holland would not suggest that it would be a worse alternative than what we've currently got.”
Gary was referring to the fact that Holland had legalized soft drugs and was implying that it wouldn’t hurt American kids a bit to have these drugs available. He was apparently trying to appear "progressive." He was not the only one.
The web is awash with the same kind of conclusions, drawn by liberals, that drug use must be legalized because drug laws are antiquated and the more we enforce them, the more drugs kids will use. In fact, a quick search shows that the number of sites that agree with this hypothesis far outweighs the number that don’t [1], [2], [3]. Guess we old fogies need to stop holding up progress, then, right?
I love it when objective information proves what people with common sense knew in the first place. On May 6, the web site for the Dutch paper Volkskrant ran an article on a group of mothers in Holland who are concerned about their kids’ drug habits. Seems drugs are out of control there. Surprise surprise!
The writer says (my translation):
“One out of every 20 kids has at least experimented with hard drugs such as cocaine [note that they admit this drug is not soft!] or xtc. Coke is becoming more and more popular as a starting drug. The mothers have nothing good to say about regular social services, which are usually located too far away.”
The article ends with:
“ ‘The problem is a major one and is prevalent everywhere’ says Bak [one of the moms interviewed]. She gets calls from mothers from all over the region with the same stories. Kids of 12 or 13 who deceive their own parents. School kids tell her that the lockers at the high schools are sold to dealers so that they can deal from them.”
Notice that it seems not to have occurred to any of the mothers to call for making these drugs illegal. They only call for help from mothers themselves tackling the problem. You see: banning drugs is now a dead issue in that part of Europe (and may soon be in other parts as well). There can be no reasonable discussion of legalization of soft drugs. That is “settled law.”
Does this sound like the “enlightened” Europeans are years ahead of us? More progressive? Just remove the barriers and kids will follow their good instincts? Kids only do things that are forbidden, and since cocaine isn’t forbidden in Holland any more, kids will stop taking it, right?
Christians know that man is born in sin. He does not have the sweet nature that European philosophers believe he does. In “L’éducation d’Emile,” Jean Jacques Rousseau recommends letting kids do whatever they want to when they are very young. For example, he says that it is foolish to tell a child not to break a window. The child should be allowed to break one so that he can see that breaking windows is not a good thing.
Today’s Europe is proof enough that trusting in human nature simply doesn’t work. And that whenever people try social experiments, it is the young who pay the heaviest price.
Let's pray that Europe starts to see how much they need God before it is too late. Truly it can be said of Europe: eyes they have but they do not see (Psalms 115: 5).
Don Laigle copyright© Laigle's Forum
Permalink: LAIGLESFORUM.COM/2006/05/07/the-young-pay-the-price-for-dutch-drug-experiment.aspx
Really. I know everybody likes to point to Holland and scream, "See! Some of them still take drugs!", and throw that up there as a "failure", but it ain't so. They have less drug use, and even better, much less Drug War.
Anyone who thinks cocaine is a soft drug is an idiot.
Looks more like anecdotes that contradict statistics.
"Debunk" means to expose and disprove. If the material in this article stands as acceptable proof, you're operating based on disturbingly low standards of proof.
Drugs are already readily available regardless of the law.
That's the point.
The drug lords are drug lords because drugs are illegal. Take the money out of drugs and you would wipe out a huge segment of organized (and otherwise) crime.
Al Capone (And Joe Kennedy) became very wealthy - and produced major crime of all sorts because of prohibition. It was a failure. It was a failure for all the same reasons as the WOD.
There are plenty of conservatives that see the collateral damage caused by the WOD as being far worse than the original problem being addressed.
A better solution is to teach our children not to use drugs and the reasons why. It starts at home. The government makes a lousy mom and/or dad.
Study? If the views of the article author were correct, there would be nothing left but scattered ruins prowled by hideous mutants where Holland used to be.
No worse off than with people going to jail.
Yes - of how many are being led around by the nose....
I guess that's called a bad pun.
Alcohol and tobacco use are severly restricted.
Restricted by age (18/21).
Restricted by vendor (authorized importer/distrubtor/distiller/vendor only, no unliscensed resale).
Restricted by hours of sale (alcohol is only available 24 hours in 3 North American cities that I know of and one of those is in Canada).
You cannot have a 0.08 Blood Alcohol Content level and drive a car (even if impairment occurs at higher levels).
TABC (Texas Alcohol Beverage Commission) did a series of sweeps of bars (including hotel bars serving patrons of the hotel) arresting thousands of people for "public intoxication" in a six month period if they had ordered more than a couple of beers. And there is no requirement for a breatalizer test for a charge of "public intoxication".
The ATF (Alcohol - Tobacco - Firearms) do things differently than the DEA.
ZI'm sure there are more restrictions that can be cited.
And DRY counties still exist.
Seems to me that what today's Europe proves is that relying on the government to solve social problems simply doesn't work. The War on Alcohol was fought almost a century ago in the US and showed clearly the gangsterism which results from outlawing a substance that people want.
Unfortunately, the present War on Some Drugs is being fought without the benefit of a Constitutional Amendment to permit it. As a result, there is no amendment to repeal in order to stop the madness.
My reading of Islam is that the strict laws are for some, not for all. The Communists were or are strict in the same way.
The harsher the penalties, the more people find a way around them.
My answer for the drug problem is - stop taking illegal drugs. They fund the global criminals and crap up the mind. My mind has enough kinks in it without adding toxic waste to the mix.
On the other hand, millions of adults smoke tobacco, and they are not doing it to rebel. Millions of adults drink alcohol, and they are not doing it to rebel. So if marijuana is available at every corner drug store, the total usage will go down or stay the same? Sorry, still not buying that. I believe that the most likely outcome of legalization is that the big two (alcohol and tobacco) will very quickly become the big three (marijuana), or the big four (pot and coke). I have met many many people over the years who don't smoke pot simply because it is illegal. Holland aside, how come nobody ever mentions the idea that drug use might (would probably) go up in the U.S., and that the costs to society would exceed the savings from the drug war. I have smoked pot all my life, and I have never, at any time, advocated legalizing it. I think it should be way decriminalized, but legal? No. I just can't see how the wholesale introduction of another drug into society can have any positive net result.
"...wholesale introduction of another drug into society can have any positive net result."
That introduction took place long ago.
It is readily available in spite of your best efforts.
That is simply a fact.
I choose not to use them. I'd like not to be robbed, car jacked, shot, raided or otherwise be harmed so someone else can get a fix.
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.