Replies

The law defines what is acceptable within a culture. The tougher the law, the more the deterrent. Having a law prohibiting a behavior -- even a weak one -- does deter that behavior. EVERY time marijuana has been legalized, there has been an INCREASE in marijuana use and in harder drug use:

In the Netherlands:

According to a 1998 report from the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, the number of heroin addicts in Holland has almost tripled since the liberalization of drug policies - Similarly, the 1998 European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addictions overview report states that drug-related arrests in the Netherlands were up over 40 percent in the last three years, with the main offense being trafficking in so called hard drugs

- According to a 1998 report by the Office of National Drug Control Policy, when the so-called Dutch "coffee shops," started selling marijuana in small quantities, use of the drug more than doubled between 1984 and 1996 among 18 to 25 year olds.

Modern-day Netherlands is often cited as a country which has successfully legalized drugs. Marijuana is sold over the counter and police seldom arrest cocaine and heroin users. But official tolerance has led to significant increases in addiction. Amsterdam's officials blame the significant rise in crime on the liberal drug policy. The city's 7,000 addicts are blamed for 80 percent of all property crime and Amsterdam's rate of burglary is now twice that of Newark, New Jersey.U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Legalization. See also: Roques, Legalization 27 December 1994

In the US:

California decriminalized marijuana in 1976, and, within the first six months, arrests for driving under the influence of drugs rose 46 percent for adults and 71.4 percent for juveniles.

Permissive drug policy was an abject failure in the U.S. A drug criminal was four times more likely to serve prison time in 1960 than in 1980 and the incarceration rate plummeted 79%. This drug tolerant era brought a doubling of the murder rate, a 230% increase in burglaries, a ten fold increase in teen drug use, and a 900% rise in addiction rates. The peak years for teen drug use and murder were the same years that drug incarceration rates hit an all time low point.

From 1980-1997, the drug incarceration rate rose over fourfold and crime and drug use began a steady unprecedented decline. Murder rates fell by over 25%, burglary rates dropped 41%, teen drug use reduced by more than a third, and heavy cocaine and heroin use levels fell. With peak drug incarceration rates, many cities, such as New York, reached record low crime levels.

BTW, public intoxication should be illegal. That covers alcohol.

Mr. Sparky, I really appreciate that you've discussed this matter with me, without resorting to the petty name calling that some others have engaged in. I believe that you sincerely believe what you're saying. But I simply don't agree.

Certain drugs weren't made illegal until the 1930s, just as socialism was taking hold here in America. Before that, they weren't illegal (except for alcohol in some times and places due to Islamic laws IIRC), yet somehow humanity survived for thousands of years. How can that be?

I'll tell you. It's because before the government started rewarding people for their stupid and unproductive behavior by handing out "benefits" off the sweat of other people, drug abuse and excessive drunkenness were good ways to get yourself thrown out of your community and into the gutter. If no charitable soul helped you out of the goodness of their heart, and you didn't straighten up, you died. People saw that this wasn't a good way to end up, and so most of them avoided excessive indulgence in such things.

Now, these people look to government to hand them their livelihoods, if not on a silver platter at least with some rent subsidies and free cheese, and negative behavior has lost the consequenses that used to automatically come with the territory. Being the helpful entity that it is, the government, which caused the problem in the first place, said, "oh, no problem! Since we've eliminated the natural bad consequenses of these people's irresponsible behavior, we'll add on some new consequenses of our own and throw such people in prison". Great. So now we have the productive people paying, to shore up through "social benefits" people who behave irresponsibly, and also to build and staff the ever-expanding number of jails and prisons to lock those we deem "undesirable" away from polite society. Instead of government backing off from their policies that created the problem in the first place (which would reduce its scope and power, incidentally), it piled on yet more policies. And that's what they continue to do.

The whipsaw us back and forth, doling out the fruits of our labor first to the deadbeats, then to the law enforcement/court/prison/treatment system to chase after people and search for inanimate objects, while murderers, thieves and rapists run free and wreak mayhem. Perhaps having the real criminals loose is helpful to them, since they can be used to terrorize citizens into giving up even more loot and freedom, to be kept "safe" from them.

That's my view of it anyway. It's one of those vicious downward spiral things.

BTW, public intoxication should be illegal. That covers alcohol.

This, I don't have a problem with, unless it involves checkpoints rather than an observation of erratic behavior, to determine whether someone is intoxicated.

Thanks again for the polite discussion. I don't have time this morning but if I run across statistics that seem to refute some of the ones you've posted here, I'll send them your way.