Posted on 06/16/2010 9:58:48 AM PDT by logician2u
I'm confused. When I walk around busy midtown Manhattan, I often smell marijuana. Despite the crowds, some people smoke weed in public. Usually the police leave them alone, and yet other times they act like a military force engaged in urban combat. This February, cops stormed a Columbia, Mo., home, killed the family dog and terrorized a 7-year-old boy -- for what? A tiny quantity of marijuana.
Two years ago, in Prince George's County, Md., cops raided Cheye Calvo's home -- all because a box of marijuana was randomly shipped to his wife as part of a smuggling operation. Only later did the police learn that Calvo was innocent -- and the mayor of that town.
"When this first happened, I assumed it was just a terrible, terrible mistake," Calvo said. "But the more I looked into it, the more I realized (it was) business as usual that brought the police through our front door. This is just what they do. We just don't hear about it. The only reason people heard about my story is that I happened to be a clean-cut white mayor."
Radley Balko of Reason magazine says more than a hundred police SWAT raids are conducted every day. Does the use of illicit drugs really justify the militarization of the police, the violent disregard for our civil liberties and the overpopulation of our prisons? It seems hard to believe.
I understand that people on drugs can do terrible harm -- wreck lives and hurt people. But that's true for alcohol, too. But alcohol prohibition didn't work. It created Al Capone and organized crime. Now drug prohibition funds nasty Mexican gangs and the Taliban. Is it worth it? I don't think so.
Everything can be abused, but that doesn't mean government can stop it, or should try to stop it. Government goes astray when it tries to protect us from ourselves.
Many people fear that if drugs were legal, there would be much more use and abuse. That's possible, but there is little evidence to support that assumption. In the Netherlands, marijuana has been legal for years. Yet the Dutch are actually less likely to smoke than Americans. Thirty-eight percent of American adolescents have smoked pot, while only 20 percent of Dutch teens have. One Dutch official told me that "we've succeeded in making pot boring."
By contrast, what good has the drug war done? It's been 40 years since Richard Nixon declared war on drugs. Since then, government has spent billions and officials keep announcing their "successes." They are always holding press conferences showing off big drug busts. So it's not like authorities aren't trying.
We've locked up 2.3 million people, a higher percentage than any other country. That allows China to criticize America's human-rights record because our prisons are "packed with inmates."
Yet drugs are still everywhere. The war on drugs wrecks far more lives than drugs do!
Need more proof? Fox News runs stories about Mexican cocaine cartels and marijuana gangs that smuggle drugs into Arizona. Few stop to think that legalization would end the violence. There are no Corona beer smugglers. Beer sellers don't smuggle. They simply ship their product. Drug laws cause drug crime.
The drug trade moved to Mexico partly because our government funded narcotics police in Colombia and sprayed the growing fields with herbicides. We announced it was a success! We cut way back on the Colombian drug trade.
But so what? All we did was squeeze the balloon. The drug trade moved across the border to Peru, and now it's moved to Mexico. So the new president of Mexico is squeezing the balloon. Now the trade and the violence are spilling over the border into the United States.
That's what I call progress. It the kind of progress we don't need.
Economist Ludwig von Mises wrote: "(O)nce the principle is admitted that it is the duty of the government to protect the individual against his own foolishness ... (w)hy not prevent him from reading bad books and bad plays ... ? The mischief done by bad ideologies is more pernicious ... than that done by narcotic drugs."
Right on, Ludwig!
John Stossel is host of "Stossel" on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of "Give Me a Break" and of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity." To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at johnstossel.com. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2010 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS, INC.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM moved to Mexico. So the new president of Mexico is squeezing the balloon. Now the trade and the violence are spilling over the border into the United States.
If the pharmacological effects of some of these legal painkillers are similar to illegal drugs like heroin, would that falsify the claim that heroin users commit more crimes due to “lowered inhibitions”, given that soccer moms don’t generally commit crimes while under the influence?
Would we therefore have to look elsewhere for the explanation of a higher crime rate among heroin users?
“People decide to give into their “lower inhibitions”, and some pretend that, once they get “high”, they can’t stop themselves from doing reprehensible actions like assault and robbery. I don’t want to give them that excuse.”
No, it depends on the drug. You can become absolutely psychotic.
If you take a psychoactive drug, enough of it, you absolutely lose your head. I have seen it.
How many on this board have at some point in their life been so high on one thing or another they don’t remember what they did? Or they do remember and think I did WHAT?
The moral stumbling lies in the taking of it, knowing what it does to you.
Thus, it doesn’t excuse anybody. Unless someone snuck a drug in their drink or something. So I don’t see the lowered inhibitions or psychotic activity as any sort of excuse.
“Absence of federal intervention, and recognition of the State’s authority to make their own laws and manage enforcement within their own borders. “
Aha, we have found common ground. A nice conversation will often have that result.
Sometimes it's just a matter of semantics, but "the drug war" is a federal government construct.
very interesting post/thread I just read here on FR, concerning the drug war:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2538875/posts
How many arguments do you see there that rely on a premise of false alternatives - you either have to have absolute federal control or anarchy?
“How many arguments do you see there that rely on a premise of false alternatives - you either have to have absolute federal control or anarchy?”
Many. It seems most of the “legalize drugs” arguers on FR think that, if we make recreational drugs and prescription drug abuse illegal, we have an intolerable, goose-stepping nanny state depriving us of our Liberty.
As though drug abuse is what Liberty is.
Many. It seems most of the “legalize drugs” arguers on FR think that, if we make recreational drugs and prescription drug abuse illegal, we have an intolerable, goose-stepping nanny state depriving us of our Liberty.
Fortunately, we don't have anyone who thinks that anything but zero toleranance of recrational drug use is a license to stay stoned 24/7, eh?
Some examples:
“I’m also afraid you can’t convince me that sending people to jail for growing plants has made the world a better place.” by Nate505. So people are going/will go to jail for growing plants.
“One could stub their toe or scrap a knee - so better not...there ought to be a law about running too fast too...got to love the Nanny-state...” by Libertarian207
“Take that a little further and if the government implanted remote control chips into people’s brains, then no one would hurt anyone.” by gogogodzilla
And no, I don’t think everyone will stay stoned 24/7. Most of those who can, would, but. . .
I think they will:
a) realize they are killing themselves and endangering others, and quit, possibly with long term side effects;
b) keep using until they die; or
c) commit some sort of crime wherein they get caught and spend their time detoxing in prison. Depending on the crime(s) they may die in there.
Do you believe there is something unique about alcohol as a drug that prevents most people of legal age and the wherewithall to purchase it from becoming alcoholics?
“Do you believe there is something unique about alcohol as a drug that prevents most people of legal age and the wherewithall to purchase it from becoming alcoholics?”
I don’t know.
According to TIME mag, take it as you like, “The report on alcohol addiction states “About 18,7 million people, or 7.7% of the population, are dependent on or abuse alcohol.””
According to Gallup, “According to Gallup’s July 6-9 Consumption Habits poll, 64% of adult Americans aged 18 and older say they drink alcoholic beverages, “
So I guess about 1/9 of Americans who drink are apparently alcoholics. Why are the other 8/9 apparently not?
Perhaps it’s because alcohol is a food as well as a drug. That’s a theory, anyway. You get nutrition, even vitamins, certainly antioxidants, calories, etc., from various alcoholic beverages. Also there are demonstrable positive effects for moderate alcohol consumption - heart health and certain cancer fighting effects.
What does Time magazine have to say about the addiction rates of the other drugs, compared to alcohol? If we’re going to base public policy on your assesment that given the opportunity most people would become drug addicts except for alcohol users, then I expect to see equivalent data on the other drugs that will confirm it.
I was responding to your question:
““Do you believe there is something unique about alcohol as a drug that prevents most people of legal age and the wherewithall to purchase it from becoming alcoholics?”
which was alcohol specific.
Time doesn’t seem to have an article about the addiction rates of other drugs.
Okay. I’ll leave it at that. If you can convince yourself that “it’s a food” and “you can get some vitamins” from it when it’s mixed with other things makes it non-addictive to most of the peole who use it, I probably can’t talk you out of that. You can’t reason someone out of a idea they didn’t arrive at by reason.
Ok. You asked what the difference was between alcohol and any other drugs. That seems to me to be an obvious difference. Sorry if I for some reason seem stupid to you.
Maybe it's harsh, but I can't get my head around the kind of thinking that results in those kinds of arguments.
Alcohol is an addictive drug. Some people have addictive personalities and become addicted to it easily. The same addictive personalities are prone to becoming addicted to other drugs as well as behaviours like sex and gambling.
Most people have to capacity to recognize the signs of addiction and moderate their behaviour. You construct an argument that manages to deny that by attributing to all the drugs except alcohol an almost magical ability to immediatly addict anyone who uses it.
I read the Shaefer Commission report from the 70's, and I did some research on Robert Shafer. I've read several articles laying out the horrors of marijuana from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and did some research on who they are. There is something very wrong with the "drug warrior" mentality that argues that Schafer is lying to me and RWJF is telling the truth.
Correction. The head of the Shafer Commission was Raymond Shafer, not Robert, if you’d like to research his credentials as a political conservative.
Look, you asked, what’s the difference between alcohol and other drugs? I thought about it, and said, one difference I see is that alcohol provides some nutrition and positive health benefits.
That doesn’t mean I support drunkenness, or that I think alcoholism is a good thing.
All drugs can be addictive. You do a risk/benefit analysis. Is the benefit derived from marijuana worth the deficit? How about the benefit from LSD? How about alcohol?
And then you decide what substances should be totally pervasive; what substances should be legal but controlled (alcohol, tobacco, prescription drugs in our country) and what substances should be illegal if not prescribed for legitimate medical reasons (that’s when the benefit outweighs the negative).
I really don’t think that is stupid at all.
And I don’t believe any drug magically addicts anybody. I also freely acknowledge that there are addictive personality types that are far more subject to addiction of all kinds than other personality types.
You are projecting arguments on me that I don’t make.
And no, I don’t think everyone will stay stoned 24/7. Most of those who can, would, but. . .
I think they will:
a) realize they are killing themselves and endangering others, and quit, possibly with long term side effects;
b) keep using until they die; or
c) commit some sort of crime wherein they get caught and spend their time detoxing in prison. Depending on the crime(s) they may die in there.
I took that to mean the you believe that given the opportunity, most people would become drug addicts, and if they stopped at all, it would only be after doing substantial damage to themselves or winding up in prison.
The plain language of it says as much. There is very little if any recognition there that people are capable of using an addictive drug and being able to moderate their use of it without killing or doing irreparable harm to themselves or becoming criminals.
“I took that to mean the you believe that given the opportunity, most people would become drug addicts,”
I don’t think you comprehend my list very well. Option a) was that they would quit, realizing that they were being stupid and self-destructive, as well as endangering others.
I don’t know how you can get from that that I believe most people would become drug addicts if given the opportunity.
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.