Posted on 02/27/2009 2:41:00 AM PST by Kaslin
I believe it is long past time to end the War on Drugs. That’s not because I approve of drug use or have any desire to encourage it. But this particular war has already gone on longer than the ones in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, put together, with no end in sight and far less to show for it.
I would not only decriminalize drug use, I would give it the same legal status as tobacco and alcohol, and with the same age restrictions. For one thing, this would provide a great source of new tax revenue. Also, it would free up jail space for non-drug related crimes.
With the legalization of drugs, the profits that currently accrue to dealers, who use a portion of their ill-gotten gains to pay off politicians, judges and corrupt cops, could go to American companies and American workers.
In Mexico, the majority of murders and kidnappings can be traced directly to the illegal drug trade. Here in the U.S., just in the past two years, over 700 drug-related kidnappings-for-ransom have taken place in Phoenix, Arizona, and those are just the ones we know about. That city can now boast that in addition to all that sunshine and all those golf courses, it is the number one drug gateway to America.
In spite of what the bleeding heart liberals would claim, it’s not poverty, but greed, that has turned most of our big cities into shooting galleries where innocent bystanders seemingly get plunked more often than the punks battling over drug turf.
I realize that among those people opposed to my suggestion are those who’d see it as the government’s endorsing drug use. Considering all the rotten stuff the government has been up to, ranging from the confiscation of private property to the redistribution of wealth, I don’t think many people look to the government for their moral guidance. I would suggest that such people are not only naïve, but dangerously shortsighted. First of all, the War on Drugs has been going on for decades, and the good guys aren’t winning. I wish we were, but that’s simply not the case. Prohibition didn’t work in the 1920s and it’s not working any better today. And as was the case 80 years ago, it only works to the advantage of the criminal class to keep the price of the product so much higher than it would be if the drugs were made legal.
One of the most irksome aspects of the War is that we Americans are always claiming the moral high ground, righteously condemning the poppy growers in Afghanistan, the drug czars in Colombia and the Mexican cut-throats, as if they all conspired to turn us into a nation of junkies. The fact is, if so many of us weren’t infantile hedonists who can’t even go 24 hours without snorting, shooting or smoking, this crap, the Afghanis would start planting potatoes and the Latino criminals would have to find another way to make a living.
Besides, when millions of us go through as much booze, nicotine and Prozac, as we do, we’re hardly in a position to be casting stones at someone else’s habit.
Furthermore, without the high cost that goes with the stuff being contraband, there wouldn’t be such a major campaign to hook school children. Actually, if the drugs were as legal as soda pop, a good deal of their present allure would evaporate. And not just for the kids, but for most of the overpaid louts in Hollywood and on Wall Street.
If drugs were legalized, we could all finally stop pretending that addiction is an illness, and that those who commit crimes while under the influence are automatically entitled to a Get Out of Jail Free card. Using drugs in the first place is a choice, not an imperative. By this late date, even 10-year-olds know that the damn things are addictive.
I would think that rational people, whatever their political affiliation, could agree that legalizing drugs would be beneficial. After all, Libertarians don’t think it’s anybody’s business -- let alone the government’s -- what people elect to do to themselves. Conservatives, who already believe in smaller government and individual responsibility, should also be delighted by the additional tax burden that would be carried almost exclusively by liberals.
I stopped at this horse crap. Make drugs legal and then the criminals would be law abiding citizens? IS that the premise?
I weep for what public education has done to this nation.
For one thing, this would provide a great source of new tax revenue.
.
Disagree, Politicians won’t lower anyone’s taxes in exchange, and the author probably doesn’t want to pay tax at some druggie’s expense. Drugs Poison Brains. Drugs Poison Brains.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see Obama emulate his idol, Roosevelt, and legalize, regulate, and tax Marijuana. Prohibition ended Dec 1933.
FDR did not “legalize, regulate, and tax Marijuana”, ending marijuana prohibition. It was legal at the Federal level but unregulated prior to Henry Anslinger’s (head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics - predecessor of the Drug Enforcement Agency - and the passage in 1937 of the Marijuana Tax Act. At the time the 10th Amendment to our Constitution was still in force. Remember that alcohol prohibition required a Constitutional Amendment, not just a law. Congress couldn’t just pass a prohibition, but the tax was effective. It was high enough to drive the price up, if someone actually paid the tax the individual State could then move in and make an arrest under existing State laws.
The 21st Amendment was proposed on Feb 20, 1933 - the day of Roosevelt’s inauguration. It was his project to end prohibition.
Just more "raise the taxes" bs.
Burt, one day your life may be forever darkened, and perhaps suddenly and horribly shortened, by someone under the influence of drugs. If that happens, it won’t matter to you whether they got that poison legally or illegally, and it won’t matter if the govt got a cut of the profits.
Right now your chances of experiencing that awful fate are slim. Let’s legalize the s#i+ and increase your chances. There must be a lot of infantile hedonists out there who are just too chicken to break the law, but once they see how acceptable it is to get high, I’m sure they’ll be more open to experimentation and recreational use.
What people? Oh, your doctor, your kid’s school bus driver, your pilot, your neighbor, your legislator...
Or maybe one day you’ll look out your window and realize that the huge turd floating and bloating in your pool is the neighbor’s kid, and he didn’t overdose, he drowned while in a drug-induced stupor. Better scan your insurance policy...top drawer where you used to keep that Bible.
Really Burt, America’s not compromised enough for you yet? You want the price of mind-altering and addictive drugs to come down so the govt can have more money, and prisoners more elbow room? WTH are you smoking?
I see the prohibitionist’s all ready have their knickers in a knot
Minors would uses drugs as they do tobacco and alcohol, setting an age limit on it would not prohibit use. And stores and customers and “bars” that sell to minors would still be prosecuted. And there would be no “exceptions” to law for people who are “close” to the age of consent as there are with our nation’s sex laws (which permit minor members of the opposite or same sex to engage in prohibited acts with people over the age of majority if they are ‘close’ in age).
There would still be enforcement by law officials, and prosecution by DAs, and legal defense by defense attornies. There is money in it.
Plus the DEA would go under the ATF (”tax the hell out of it”) doesn’t work when people can manufacture on their own and avoid the taxes.
How about death penalty for corrupt politicians, judges and cops who engage in the drug trade?
MADD has brought us neo-prohibition. They are now pushing for a 0.01 BAC for bar “employers AND entertainers”. Ever see a local band at midnight that has had A drink?
We certainly have to remove the taxpayer funded safety net BEFORE we unlock the door to the pillbox (which would have to include crack, meth, lsd, stp, xanex, aids and cancer ‘cures’, etc, or else there would STILL be some product to “smuggle” or sell on the black market).
Several problems with your commentary.
Of the over 850,000 incarcerations for pot in this country, approximately 740,000 of those are for personal possession.
With the average cost of a trial, the average cost of incarceration and enforcement, the cost of personal possession of marajuana is somewhere around 50,000 per person who is busted.
That comes out to 30,000,000,000 that would be saved in drug costs and jail costs.
So, let’s see now. Is it worth it?
Also, aside from $30 billion in savings, we’re talking about probably close to that much in taxes, and nearly that much reducing enforcement costs because many illegal drugs would no longer be transported. Pot seems to be the gateway.
Most kids try drugs today as some form of protest. “I’m going to do something bad.” No, it’s not going to get much worse.
And yes, I can tell you from experience, not every kid tries them. I was offered over and over and didn’t ever partake. Even when offered going through chemo.
2. Personal possession is a meaningless definition. It means what they were caught with. If they had more money would they have more pot? If they could make money at it would they be dealers? After all, they chose to break the law, now we are talking about scale.
3. The biggest assumption you are making is that other than pot, they are law abiding citizens. Who says? How many people in those stats have other convictions? They have already decided they don't have to obey the law. Being a criminal you violate more than one law by nature.
If you legalize pot, does that mean they won't be burglars, forgers, thieves, welfare scammers etc.? Al Capone was convicted of tax evasion. Was that all he was into? My point is that to take the number alone it means nothing.
Example: The civil rights people decry that the majority of those incarcerated are black. They take the number alone, like you do for pot, to push their preconceived notions of how things are. The civil rights people don't figure in that the majority of the victims of those incarcerated are also black. You don't take into consideration that the people incarcerated more than likely have other activity that would also land them in jail. Do you have any stats for first time offenders incarcerated with no other history? If you do, then that would lend weight to your argument.
4. As for the cost, I doubt your number is anywhere close to accurate. Most cases never go to trial and are pled. Most times court costs are attached to fines. Therefore your extrapolated number is without foundation.
5. Your final assumption on savings, having been discounted, we can turn to the legalization question. It won't reduce enforcement costs at all. In fact, it will raise them exponentially. The basis for this is alcohol. It's legal, yet most of the personal crimes, DUI’s, person crimes, etc. are alcohol fueled. You are simply expanding the legal drugs out there, adding to the problems.
That being said, I don't really care if you do. But don't base the reason on specious facts. At one time just about everything was legal. Go ahead and do it again....with the provision that if you do, then you release the taxpayer from all financial responsibility for your medical care and actions. Also, law enforcement has civil liability protection from use of force issues when dealing with someone under the influence.
Give me those two points and legalize all you want. Then watch as society reels around you and peoples lives are destroyed. Personal freedom should come with personal responsibility.
Finally, using my crystal ball, the numbers of people in prison won't shrink a bit. Criminals are about lack of respect for other people and society. That isn't going to change with their choice of drug.
Look how much money they are wasting now though with little to show for it. Personally, I'm dead set against legalizing anything other than marijuana, but legalizing that alone would save us several billions of dollars a year and the tax revenues would be enough to cover the costs of regulating the industry and a lot more. Our government spends more money than it brings in. We need for them to stop wasting so much money, but they also need tax revenues keep operating. Realistically we are not going to see government spending shrink so much that they are able to bring in more money then they spend unless drastic measures are taken. This is one of many that needs to be done. The hard stuff is too prone to causing us lots of problems for us to legalize it, but when we take marijuana out of the black market for illegal drugs it is going to be tiny compared to what we have today, much less of a problem. We'll probably generate enough money from taxing marijuana to cover the cost of regulating it and the cost of fighting against the other drugs, and then some.
You’re just flat out wrong.
As far as the numbers, I’m going off what was on Glen Beck’s show Wednesday.
Now, as far as the dollars because it’s being pled down? I’m adding in court costs, incarceration costs, enforcement costs and estimating based on an average that it’s about $50,000 for an 18 month average sentance.
Sorry if I don’t have the exact numbers in front of me, but I’m giving you as close to an approximation as I can. Do you think given the police, court, jailers time/cost, that it would be $30,000? $40,000? I was giving a fairly reasonable estimate given all the factors.
I believe personal responsibility is also key.
I do not believe it would be the ruination of our country. They said the same thing about alcohol. Look where it got us.
You probably should have stopped reading at the sentence before that, reading:
For one thing, this would provide a great source of new tax revenue
This is where I have the problem with any drug legalization argument. Anything that wouldn't grow the size of government--and basically, that's what I think this would do--would be perfectly okay. But this does the exact opposite of what it's intended to do.
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.