Posted on 05/10/2006 7:31:03 AM PDT by cryptical
America's war on drugs is actually a Raid on Taxpayers. The war costs an estimated $70 billion a year to prosecute, and the drugs keep pouring in. But while the War on Drugs may have failed its official mission, it is a great success as a job-creation program. Thousands of drug agents, police, detectives, prosecutors, judges, anti-drug activists, prison guards and their support staffs can thank the program for their daily bread and health benefits.
The American people are clearly not ready to decriminalize cocaine, heroine or other hard drugs, but they're well on their way to easing up on marijuana. A Zogby poll found that nearly half of Americans now want pot legal and regulated, like alcohol. Few buy into the "demon drug" propaganda anymore, and for a simple reason: Several countries have decriminalized marijuana with little effect on public health.
Americans could save a ton of money doing the same. The taxpayers spend almost $8 billion a year enforcing the ban on marijuana, according to a report by visiting Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Miron. State and local governments consume about $5 billion of the total.
The war on pot fills our jails. America arrests 755,000 people every year for marijuana infractions -- the vast majority for possession, not dealing. An estimated 80,000 people now sit behind bars on marijuana offenses.
The Bush administration stoutly supports the campaign against marijuana, which others think is crazy. Compare the Canadian and American approach to medical marijuana: The Canadian Postal Service delivers it right into the mailboxes of Canadian cancer patients. The U.S. Justice Department invades the patients' backyards and rips out cannabis plants, even those grown with a state's blessing.
The Bush administration isn't going to last forever, nor is the patience of Americans paying for and suffering under the ludicrous war on marijuana. Surely letting sick people smoke marijuana to ease their discomfort -- 11 states have approved such, including Rhode Island -- would be a good start for a more enlightened drug policy.
For the drug warriors, however, this toe in the water seems a foot in the door for eventual decriminalization of pot. That's understandable. Relaxing the rules on marijuana would greatly reduce the need for their services.
Remember the Supreme Court case two years ago, when Justice Stephen Breyer innocently suggested that the federal Food and Drug Administration be asked to rule on whether marijuana had an accepted medical use? Well, the FDA has just ruled. In a total lie, the FDA said that no scientific studies back the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Actually, the prestigious Institute of Medicine issued its findings in 1999 that marijuana helped patients for pain and for the relief of nausea and vomiting caused by chemotherapy.
The federal government "loves to ignore our report," John Benson, a professor of medicine at the University of Nebraska and co-chairman of the committee that wrote the Institute of Medicine" study, said after the FDA issued its "advisory."
The Drug Enforcement Administration, which feeds off the drug war, plays a big part in stopping this and all future efforts to reach educated opinions on marijuana. Lyle Craker, a University of Massachusetts authority on medicinal plants, wanted to grow marijuana for the purpose of evaluating its possible medical uses. The DEA said no, insisting that he use marijuana from a University of Mississippi lab. The DEA knows full well that the UMiss pot is low-quality and therefore useless for study.
The drug warriors' incentive to keep the game going is pretty obvious. But what's in it for taxpayers?
Miron's Harvard study looked beyond what the public pays to enforce the marijuana laws. It also investigated how much money would roll in if marijuana were legal and taxed like alcohol. The answer was over $6 billion in annual tax revenues. Do the math: If government stopped outlawing marijuana and started taxing it, its coffers would be $14 billion richer every year.
We could use that money. For example, $14 billion could pay for all the anti-terrorism port-security measures required in the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002.
More than 500 economists of every political stripe have endorsed the Miron study. Growing numbers of Americans are beginning to agree with them: The war against marijuana is an expensive failure -- and pointless, too.
Froma Harrop is a Journal editorial writer and syndicated columnist. She may be reached by e-mail at: fharrop@projo.com.
Ah, yes, the old "ultra-republican" argument, under which the Federal Government can neither forbid nor permit anything, including slavery and secession. I think the courts have, for better or worse, worked their way around "conundrum" a long time ago. It sounds like the argument made by those who claim that the Federal Income Tax is unconstitutional. Commercialized "legal" drugs which are moved and sold across state lines, do fall under the "commerce clause", as you well know.
You are basing your argument on a fallacy. What makes you think that legal pot would be more expensive than contraband pot? Illegal marijuana is quite expensive - the government could tax it and still sell it for less than half the street price. The drug lords would lose all their business. That's the whole point of legalization.
I bow to your knowlege of the price of illegal drugs, but I think you need to follow the chain of my replies to some of your fellow Rastafarians to know "where I'm coming from".
The point is that the Constitution need not prohibit Federal powers
but that the Feds possess only those powers which have been delegated
by the Constitution. There is no delegated federal power to determine
the substance from which we constitute ourselves nor is their one which
would allow the feds to control the chemistry of our minds.
Some seem to believe that an herb given by God to man and beast alike at the beginning of time and which has grown freely almost everywhere, including here long before our nation was formed, is permissibly eradicable or controllable by the federal government through powers granted by the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. It is an impossible task to devise a logical explanation of how the commerce clause can prohibit the personal growth and consumption of an herb gifted by God. In light of the rest of the Constitution any such perceived mandate dissolves and exposes the government as deluded by its own grandeur.
Pot sells for an average of $200 an ounce. Probably costs $5 to produce. The government could put a $95 tax on it and it would still end up costing half of what illegal pot costs.
"I'm still looking for the "right to smoke dope" provision in the Constitution. "
Amendment IX:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
And the Amendment that prohibits governments from the Federal to the local level from controlling or outlawing specified noxious drugs (i.e. the "right to smoke dope") is?
The 10th clearly says that some powers are prohibited to States.
The 14th makes clear that:
"--- No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Drugs, guns, booze, - all sorts of "noxious" property can be 'reasonably regulated' using local police powers.. [those powers not prohibited in the 10th].
Fiat prohibitions on "noxious" property cannot be written or enforced without infringing on human rights outlined in the Constitution.
Thus there is no 'power to prohibit' delegated to any level of government anywhere in our Constitution.
The 18th was necessary in an attempt to 'prohibit' booze, and failed because 'we the people' refused to accept an unconstitutional act. -- Drug prohibitions are also unconstitutional acts, due to fail for the same reasons.
Okay, so when conservative Chief Justice John Roberts said that Roe v. Wade was "settled law", he was lying and you know better. Okay, got it.
And the onus in a philosophical debate is far different than the onus in a courtroom.
How very convenient, for you. Guess that leaves me free to say that I wish we had Singapore's drug laws, so that we could finally get a handle on the drug problem.
Like Patton rolling to Moscow it would be a beautiful thing to see Sam's Club scythe the Drug Lords down to size!
Unlike Patton rolling to Moscow, the Fall of the Drug Lords may actually occur...someday.
Here's the current one...
The War Between North and South
One poster is arguing that paper money is unconstitutional and we should go back to a barter economy.
You are indeed free to say that, but once again, you would be wrong:
"The GOS [Government of Singapore] nonetheless is concerned about the increase in addiction rates and recidivism among drug offenders who have undergone treatment. There are currently about 9,000 addicts undergoing rehabilitation in Singapore treatment centers, the same number as in 1995."
--http://www.state.gov/www/global/narcotics_law/1996_narc_report/index.html
For the Netherlands--
"Demand Reduction. The Netherlands has extensive demand reduction programs and lowthreshold medical services for addicts, who are also offered drug rehabilitation programs. Authorities believe such programs reach about 7080 percent of the country's 25,000 harddrug users. [my note: in a total population of 15.1 million]
--http://www.state.gov/www/global/narcotics_law/1996_narc_report/index.html
_______________________________________
Using a population of 3 million for Singapore in 1996, that works out to an addiction rate of about 0.30%.
Using the State Dept. figures for the Netherlands, and a population of 15.1 million, the addiction rate was about 0.17%.
Also note that the Singapore figure only takes into account the addicts under treatment, whereas the figure for Holland is the estimate of the total number of addicts.
"I'm still looking for the "right to smoke dope" provision in the Constitution. "
Amendment IX:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
And the Amendment that prohibits governments from the Federal to the local level from controlling or outlawing specified noxious drugs (i.e. the "right to smoke dope") is?
The 10th clearly says that some powers are prohibited to States.
The 14th makes clear that:
"--- No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Drugs, guns, booze, - all sorts of "noxious" property can be 'reasonably regulated' using local police powers.. [those powers not prohibited in the 10th].
Fiat prohibitions on "noxious" property cannot be written or enforced without infringing on human rights outlined in the Constitution.
Thus there is no 'power to prohibit' delegated to any level of government anywhere in our Constitution.
The 18th was necessary in an attempt to 'prohibit' booze, and failed because 'we the people' refused to accept an unconstitutional act. -- Drug prohibitions are also unconstitutional acts, due to fail for the same reasons.
Roe v. Wade is only "settled law" if we're willing to let it be. Is that what you want?
"The price of beer increased by more than 700 percent, and that of brandies increased by 433 percent, but spirit prices increased by only 270 percent,"
You've made my case, far better than me.
If I could grow my own tobacco, my pack would cost .75 a pack.
Not 8.00 a pack in New York and California.
If I could run my still, my bottle of bourbon would be
3- 4.00 a bottle. Not, 45.00 and up in New York and California.
Since neither is possible, both ( of any quality) are 7-10 times that.
Legal pot for "medicinal" use,in California, according to many posters on this thread is 850.00 a bag.
You could grow it in the back yard for pennies.
The government won't allow a "pot" garden any more than they allow a still, or a tobacco farm that doesn't report
how much crop they harvested.
Yikes man,
You keep wanting us to be Amsterdam.
Totally different government, and mindset.
Will never happen.
Pot smokers have had no problem forking out 200.00 - 850.00
a bag.
Don't look to the government to give you a discount.
They will only charge you more.
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.