The drug war vs. the war on terror

Chicago Tribune ^ | December 13, 2001 | Steve Chapman

[CrossCheck]

On Oct. 25, six weeks after the worst terrorist atrocities in our history, the United States was bombing Afghanistan, Colin Powell was discussing a post-Taliban government, investigators were grappling with anthrax in the mail, and federal agents were . . . well, they were going after pot smokers in California. If John Ashcroft had been around during the Chicago fire, he would have been handcuffing jaywalkers.

[Texaggie79]

You have officially lost all credibility as a debator.

I'm sorry I though you possessed the ability to reason. We were talking about how our culture treats legal drugs. Uriel claimed that we would not have strong forms of drugs if they were legal. I just proved him wrong by pointing out our cultures affection to double expressos.

[LazarusX]

I support legalized POT!

I realized that when I read more of your posts. I think that marijuana legalization is essential to any rational drug strategy. With the current situation we create disrespect for the law by enforcing laws that are obviously irrational. There can be no justification to ban marijuana when tobacco and alcohol are legal. If we stopped wrecking the lives of marijuana users and used that money or the money from taxing marijuana to fight addiction to crack and heroin we could make this country a much better place. I do not support jailing crack and heroin users just for their drug use. If they commit a crime to support their habit put them in a rehab program. If they continue to commit crimes, lock them up.

[Melinator]

So, the destruction wrought by alcohol and tobacco gave you no pause?

[bassmaner]

Legalize and there is no legal consequences in using them. They are cheaper, therefore more people can afford them. And they are safer, and no one will have to worry about getting a bad drug so they will feel no reason to not do them.

Way back in 1919, there was a little ol' Amendment to the Constitution - Amendment XVIII - that gave the fedgov the right to pass laws forbidding any American from drinking alcohol. Sure enough, the Volstead Act passed and Prohibition had begun. A whole pantheon of moralists, some religious, some political "progressives" hailed Prohibition as the salvation of the republic.

Alas, it wasn't so.

Good old human nature got in the way -- despite the "legal consequences", people still wanted their alcoholic beverages, and went to great lengths to get them. Some made their own. Some imported it clandestinely. Others, who couldn't afford the aforementioned options, substituted dangerous concoctions made from poisons such as methanol - the main ingredient in antifreeze at the time. (The term "blind drunk" actually arose from these unfortunates: imbibing too much methanol had the unpleasant side effect of causing blindness to the drinker.)

It wasn't long before the majority of Americans realized just how absurd Prohibition was. The rapid rise of organized hoodlums who controlled the trade in illegal booze, the number of people jailed on Prohibition charges, the consequences of drinking poisonous substitutes became too much for Americans to take, and in a mere 14 years, Prohibition was consigned to history's dustbin. And after it was repealed, we did not become a nation of alcoholics; rather, after a slight uptick, alcohol use leveled off to the same level it was prior to Prohibition, but alcohol abuse declined dramatically.

I believe that "repealing" drug prohibition would have the same positive effect as the repeal of the XVIII Amendment.

Despite the rationalizations of the drug warriors, such positive effects happen today in places where the tactics of the WOD have been replaced by more saner approaches (such as Holland), and if given a chance, would no doubt work here as well. Certainly the cost to the taxpayers would be far less than the WOD, and the renewed respect for law-enforcement officers that would accrue when people view them as public servants instead of jack-booted thugs would be priceless.

Answer to me this. Why is alcohol and tobacco usage WAY beyond that of illegal drugs. Tell me.

Simple. Alcohol and tobacco use have always been higher than that of the "illegal" drugs, because they have always been used across a broad range of society. The "illegal" drugs usually had a "niche" market: e.g. in addition to its legitimate medical uses as part of the physician's pharmacopia, marijuana was commonly used by Mexican immigrants prior to its outlawing. BTW, the prohibitionist Harry Anslinger, who was the architect of marijuana prohibition, claimed in the hearings leading up to the passage of the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act that the evil weed made Mexican farm workers crazy enough to chase after and rape white women (A similar argument was pressed regarding cocaine and black men). So, racism is one of the roots of the War on Drugs. Nice, eh? Imagine the hue and cry if such an argument was raised today - we all know the results of that hypothetical Congressional testimony! :-)

[Texaggie79]

If so, you're way off base putting psylocybin and LSD in different categories

I don't both should be illegal to sale.

The rest of your post is quite telling of you. You need help.

[Texaggie79]

They are CAPABLE, that does not mean that they DO.

[FreeTally]

It's not dangerous if used responsibly. Stupid people use way too much or mix it with alcohol and put themselves at risk.

This is my experience as well. The stupid people I used to know who started using drugs got no smarter - and it screwed their lives up even more than they already were. The smart people I know got no dumber. They made smart choices while "on drugs", and did not let the effects interfere with their lives. But really, this is common sense.

I feel it's wrong to allow the government to criminalize responsible Americans, and cause drugs to be of questionable purity and unknown dosage because a few fools try to take themselves out of the gene pool.

Agreed! If your childhood/school experience was anything like mine, it probably made you mad as hell when the teacher said that nobody got recess, instead of just the few kids who were acting up, because the teacher didn't want to single them out and punish them individually. Thats the way I see government - this childish notion that "because a few misbehave, they have spolied it fore you all". I say NO, punish the individual for their violations of rights, and leave the rest ALONE!

[Texaggie79]

still not convinced that these drugs are really more dangerous than alcohol

You apparently have not lived or been related to a hard drug user. I have alcoholics in my family and I have hard drugs addicts in it. Mostly my extended family. The alcoholics still hold jobs and are at least functioning humans. The hard drug users are worthless beings, that do nothing but exist. One is to such a point, that I feel that her kids would suffer less if she would hurry up and die. She is the equivalent of a demon.

[Texaggie79]

BTW, she used to be a GREAT person before she found the joys of injecting coke.

[Texaggie79]

Should we ban guns because of the small minority of gun ownrs who do stupid things?

I don't see a large majority of other HARD drug users being responsible. The drugs make it impossible for them to be. As I said, GHB is questionable, and I would like more info before I decide. However, still this is all very simple. Simply allow the people of each state to decide if they want to allow that drug or not.

[Texaggie79]

I forgot the (:-P) in that post. I was being funny. You might take that wrong.

[clamper1797]

I wouldn't count on it sir ... seems even out here on FR people who tend towards my viewpoint seem to outnumber the ones that share yours. Go back and count them thru the last few days threads. Plus I NEVER said I wanted to legalize all drugs. I said that I want to stop the draconian ways drugs laws are enforced. if it means to legalize them .... so be it. AND I will tell and have told MANY people in person my views. As far as my balls ... I proved my intestinal fortitude under fire ... HAVE YOU

[LazarusX]

Only a fool thinks that hard drug users are good responsible people.

I knew a heroin user who was a good responsible person. He was horrible to be around when he used, but that wasn't all that often, and he gave it up when he met a girl. He held down a job, paid his bills, helped out his friends when they were in trouble. He just liked to lose an occasional evening to heroin. No harm was done, and he was always responsible. I expect this isn't true of the hardcore heroin user, but it shows it can happen.

I believe you listed lsd as a hard drug. In the case of that one I expect most users are good responsible people who have more interest in exploring their own minds than mainstream america does. as long as you don't get obsessive about it, it's a very healthy drug. I use it once in a great while, probably averaging out to once a year or so and have seen great benefit. for example while under the iunfluence I realized I was a moron to smoke cigarettes, and that if I wanted to be a healthy person I had to stop smoking and start taking care of myself. I no longer smoke and now get a great deal of exercise, and live a healthy lifestyle because of LSD.

[realpatriot71]

After all this time and all these movies and such, do you now think homsexuality or pedophillia is normal? I really don't think you do. So why do you think the affects would be any different for drugs? Obviously, the attempts at normality have failed and will always fail with some things, including drugs.

[Texaggie79]

Drug use does not constitute a threat

IT ABSOLUTELY DOES!! Just because you think a person high on crack is not a threat gives you no right to force me to be threatened by him. It is a THREAT of direct force. You are a tyrant if you think you can force the people of my state to be put in harms way by allowing hard drugs to be freely sold and used. I don't take kindly to TYRANTS.

[bassmaner]

Simply allow the people of each state to decide if they want to allow that drug or not.

A great start on the road to sanity, but the Federal Holy Drug Warriors at the DEA and ONDCP would never let it happen.

Kudos to the first congress-critter that can get a bill enacted to make the DEA and ONDCP illegal -- anyone that truly believes in the 9th and 10th Amendments should support it.

Ron Paul, are you listening??

[LazarusX]

I don't both should be illegal to sale. The rest of your post is quite telling of you. You need help.

Why do you say I need help? You seemed fairly rational and then attack for no reason. I'm going to assume we've somehow miscommunicated and look forward to your reply.

[Texaggie79]

Can you put simply a bit alcohol in a girls glass and have your way with her while she never knows what it happening and will never know? All against her will?

What if a scientist invented a device that could stop time for everyone but the person using the device and they could go around and violate anyone they wished and do anything they wanted without anyone ever knowing. Would you allow that device to be privately. Owned.

[Texaggie79]

The BoR DOES list those rights which we have, even if it didn't list them. The right to self defense is existent no matter what.

[clamper1797]

Texaggie79, on the other hand, while getting a bit "out there" on the last few posts, I feel actually contributes to the debate.

You're probably right about that ... the other drug warrior that actually debates with a semblence of intelligence is strela. haven't seen him in a while though