Tobacco, Alcohol, Drugs Kill 7 Million a Year

Reuters ^ | 25 Feb 2003 | Reuters

[biblewonk]

Great character assination! Maybe he's a child molester too. :-D

[robertpaulsen]

If you look at arrests, half are for marijuana, half for all others. I don't know about the validity of your 70-80% numbers.

Looking at the FBI's 2000 numbers, possession arrests were 40% marijuana and 25% hard drugs (heroin & cocaine). The illicit drug deaths in the article are based on this ratio of soft (less dangerous) to hard (more dangerous) drugs.

My point is that if all drugs were legalized, the 40% - 25% ratio would change. Not only would more people do drugs, more would do harder drugs. The ratio might go 25% marijuana, 40% hard drugs.

Therefore, "illicit" drug deaths would increase dramatically.

[robertpaulsen]

"At the very core, Drug Warriors want drugs to remain illegal in order to protect people from themselves."

Not me. I want to protect my children (first), my neighborhood/community (second), and my wallet (third). If I have these protections, drug users are free to commit slow suicide (or fast suicide). Do you really think that the WOD is about saving people from themselves?

Your 3% statement is insulting to my intelligence. If smoking tobacco kills 5M people annually, and smoking Drano kills 5 people annually, should everyone switch from tobacco to Drano since fewer people are killed by that substance?

I have no problem with America spending billions (and billions) of my tax dollars protecting me, my children, and my community from drug dealers and drug users.

[eno_]

Not only would more people do drugs, more would do harder drugs.

There is a historical record prior to drug prohibition. It does not show a tenfold higher rate of hard drug use.

You also leave out state and local arrests. These are overwhelmingly marijuana arrests.

You also dance around the following point:

If marijuana were legalized, almost all state and local, and 40% of federal (IIRC, about half the Drug War cost is state and local) arrests would go away. That's easily 70% of the Drug War, possibly more than 80%. That would put Drug Warriors effectively out of business. THAT is why they will not broach the subject of marijuana leglization.

On top of all of which, I explicitly said that keeping a prohibition on hard drugs is a marginal issue. If marijuana were legalized, we would see the end of the Drug War, and bascially no effect on hard drugs.

You also avoid the issue of states rights. States should be free to prohibit or not. THEN we would see hard results: Would hard drug use go up, or not? But, again, true blue Drug Warriors won't go there.

[eno_]

Do you really think that the WOD is about saving people from themselves?

No, it's more cynical than that. It is an employment program for goons. Read up on the history or it. You might find it less attractive.

[robertpaulsen]

If you're going to keep a prohibition on hard drugs, then everything I said goes away. The article was referring to all illicit drug deaths -- I don't know why you're suddenly changing the subject, although I can guess.

I thought I read where 99% of marijuana arrests are done by the state and not by the feds. If true, the states would certainly save money if marijuana were made legal, but where's the savings (of billion and billions) at the federal WOD level?

Also, couldn't a state save nearly as much by decriminalizing rather than legalizing? What does it cost to write a ticket for possession? Make the ticket a $250. fine and the state would probably make money.

[eno_]

I said all along that hard drugs were statistically and economically insignificant compared to marijuana, and that, therefore, legal or not, there would be little difference. Moreover I said that ending marijuana prohibition would end the perverse incentives behind the Drug War, and that I would support that happening before complete legalization is considered, in order to clear the air (hmmm, maybe a differnt metaphor...).

That is, in fact, the point of the numbers: Hard drugs are a minor part of drug fatalities worldwide. That fact alone shines a light on the Drug War scare tactics.

It's a pity you believe your kids are less at risk from needle drug use because of illegality. Just consider: how far your kids would have to fall before they start shooting up. Would the issue of legality enter their minds at that point?

Or consider it this way: Is the billions spent in the public schools good just because it too is "for the children?" Or is it possible that government programs can actually be destructive to their claimed beneficiaries? Damn the cost, what is it worth to go back to a law enforcement system without no-knock raids, uncontitutional searches, domestic surveillance, snitches and plea bargains instead of real trials, Clintoon's 100k new goons, etc.?

Booze is legal. Gambling is legal. Buggery laws are unenforced. I assume you rely on your parenting skills to prevent your kids ending up as drunk broke hustlers in the Port Authority terminal men's room? The law won't help you there. Maybe greater respect among our government for the Constitution would make more people reflect on their personal responsibility, and turn out to be good people.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Not me. I want to protect my children (first), my neighborhood/community (second), and my wallet (third). If I have these protections, drug users are free to commit slow suicide (or fast suicide). Do you really think that the WOD is about saving people from themselves?

Ostensibly, yes, the War on Drugs is very much about saving people from themselves. Here are the first two points from the CSA itself:

The Congress makes the following findings and declarations:

(1) Many of the drugs included within this title have a useful and legitimate medical purpose and are necessary to maintain the health and general welfare of the American people.

(2) The illegal importation, manufacture, distribution, and possession and improper use of controlled substances have a substantial and detrimental effect on the health and general welfare of the American people.

If the War on Drugs weren't about protecting people from themselves, why would the CSA start off with verbage on the health of the American people? That's where it attempts to draw its legitimacy---who wouldn't be "for" the health of the American people?

Your 3% statement is insulting to my intelligence. If smoking tobacco kills 5M people annually, and smoking Drano kills 5 people annually, should everyone switch from tobacco to Drano since fewer people are killed by that substance?

No, once again you're failing to see the big picture. The point I was making w/r/t tobacco was not about switching or encouraging people to switch from one form of substance abuse to another. It was about scale: the appropriate government response to the appropriate level of harm. Spending billions of billions and billions of dollars to "stamp out" (or attempt to stamp out) a killer evil that statistically kills relatively few is an exercise in squandered resources.

If this were any issue besides drugs, you, as a conservative, would probably be outraged.

I have no problem with America spending billions (and billions) of my tax dollars protecting me, my children, and my community from drug dealers and drug users.

You enjoy paying ultra-premium prices for little or no results? God, please tell me you don't work as an investment banker or a venture capitalist.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Are you a character assassin? Post your resume, please, otherwise, why is your post germane to the discussion at hand? This guy's credentials seem perfectly fine.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

I thought I read where 99% of marijuana arrests are done by the state and not by the feds. If true, the states would certainly save money if marijuana were made legal, but where's the savings (of billion and billions) at the federal WOD level?

You don't think your friendly local DEA task force plays any part in those arrests?

[AUgrad]

I would like to point out that, despite all the advances in medicine, and all of the government programs, the human mortality rate still is firmly fixed at 100%.

Life: Sexually transmitted and 100% fatal.

[robertpaulsen]

When you used the phrase "Drug Warriors", I didn't know that you were referring to the political language of the Controlled Substances Act. Actually, I thought you were referring to some of the posters on this board.

"Spending billions .. of dollars to "stamp out" a killer evil that statistically kills relatively few .."

Maybe it's relatively few because we're spending billions and billions and billions and billions and ... you get my point. How many would die if all drugs were legal and we didn't spend a dime? 2 million? 10 million? Do you care? If death is the criterion, when do we start spending these billions?

"God, please tell me you don't work as an investment banker or a venture capitalist."

God, please don't tell me that you look at the WOD only as a financial decision.

[robertpaulsen]

"Hard drugs are a minor part of drug fatalities worldwide."

Care to explain this statement?

"It's a pity you believe your kids are less at risk from needle drug use because of illegality."

You do exaggerate, don't you? There are plenty of hard drugs that do not need a needle. And yes, I believe that my kids are less at risk because a.)Our society has collectively said that drugs are bad, thereby reinforcing my same message to them and b.)Drugs are less available and expensive.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Maybe it's relatively few because we're spending billions and billions and billions and billions and ... you get my point. How many would die if all drugs were legal and we didn't spend a dime? 2 million? 10 million? Do you care? If death is the criterion, when do we start spending these billions?

Hard drug users are hardcore people who'd use hard drugs under any circumstances. It doesn't matter if you wage a full-scale war against them or leave them alone.

Which do you think is more responsible for keeping the vast majority of people off hard drugs: the fact that they can kill you or hurt you really, really bad, or the fact that the government will come down hard on you if you use them?

God, please don't tell me that you look at the WOD only as a financial decision.

Any expenditure of public funds must face the rigor of a cost-benefit analysis. Do you enjoy paying $400 for DOD hammers and $4,000 for toilet seats on USAF bombers?

[robertpaulsen]

"Which do you think is more responsible for keeping the vast majority of people off hard drugs .."

It starts at home with the children. It starts with the parents saying that drugs are really, really bad and can kill you. This statement is then:

Reinforced by the parents not doing drugs,
Reinforced by living in a drug-free neighborhood/community,
Reinforced by anti-drug messages by other authority figures such as teachers, clergy, etc.,
Reinforced by other anti-drug messages in commercials, movies, TV programs, etc.,
Reinforced by drug-free schools and workplaces,
Reinforced by the rule of law.

By the time the child is an adult, the above messages and examples are the only thing in the way of choosing drugs. The law only serves two uses: 1.)To send a message that the activity will not be tolerated, and 2.)As authorization to remove the offender from the people who don't want them around.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

By the time the child is an adult, the above messages and examples are the only thing in the way of choosing drugs. The law only serves two uses: 1.)To send a message that the activity will not be tolerated, and 2.)As authorization to remove the offender from the people who don't want them around.

By your own admission then, the law is but a mere sixth of the the things that keep the vast majority of people off hard drugs. Yet you support throwing billions and billions and billions of dollars down the War on Drugs rathole every year . . .

How could supporting and even championing such a thing be considered conservative?

[laredo44]

increasing taxes on alcohol ...

Of whose concern is it if I choose to drink myself to death?

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Of whose concern is it if I choose to drink myself to death?

Well, according to people who participate on these W.o.D. threads, it's the village's concern. That's the whole point. No man is an island, don't you know.

[laredo44]

We need to physically stop these people from endangering themselves.

I think we should all be locked in cages and have to ask permission to do anything at all. Permission of whom? I don't know, but I'm sure some will step forward.

[headsonpikes]

"Do you enjoy paying $400 for DOD hammers and $4,000 for toilet seats on USAF bombers?"

Oh, sure, $$$$$$, but to a Drug Lord, the fact that billions of $$$$$$ are being spent on the campaign to protect his market...priceless!

The WOD is successful at its stated aims of keeping illegal drugs 'scarce, expensive, and of unreliable quality', as John Walters put it.