Posted on 08/02/2002 1:38:04 PM PDT by bat-boy
So thoroughgoing is the unofficial ban on debate of the nation's drug laws that American politicians prefer smoking pot to talking about it.
They typically try marijuana as teen-agers or young adults, suffer no consequences, then go on to maintain as elected officials that anyone with the temerity to do what they did should be arrested and maybe even jailed.
Once and probably future presidential candidate Al Gore, for instance, spent much of his post-adolescence smoking dope and skipping through fields of clover, according to biographer Bill Turque.
He somehow still managed to become one of the most notoriously uptight and ambitious politicians in the country. But Gore, like nearly everyone else, thinks smoking pot should be a criminal offense.
Not everywhere in the world is there such conformity on drug issues. Much of Europe is reconsidering its drug laws - in Britain, the Labor Party recently proposed downgrading the possession of marijuana to a wrist-slapping offense. Meanwhile, in the United States "the war on drugs" grinds pointlessly on.
At least there is some fresh air in the media. John Stossel took an ax to drug-war clichés in a special report on ABC this week.
Drug Enforcement Agency Director Asa Hutchinson had to insist wanly on air that, despite all the billions of dollars spent and countless thousands arrested, the war just hadn't yet been fought hard enough.
He sounded like one of those diehards who argued during the Cold War that socialism hadn't failed, it just had never been truly tried.
When it comes to marijuana, it's unclear why anyone would try to stamp out its use in the first place.
Alcohol and tobacco kill hundreds of thousands of people a year. In contrast, there is no such thing as a lethal overdose of marijuana.
Yet federal law makes possessing a single joint punishable by up to a year in prison, and many states have similar penalties. There are about 700,000 marijuana arrests in the United States every year, roughly 80 percent for possession.
For the vast majority of its users, marijuana is nearly harmless and represents a temporary enthusiasm.
Most marijuana users are between the ages of 18 and 25, and use plummets after age 34, by which time children and mortgages blunt the appeal of rolling papers and bongs.
Since drug warriors have a hard time arguing that marijuana itself is dangerous, they instead rely on a bank shot: Marijuana's danger is that it leads to the use of drugs that are actually dangerous - it is a so-called "gateway drug."
Not so. According to a report by the Institute of Medicine, "Of 34- to 35-year-old men who had used marijuana 10-99 times by the age 24 to 25, 75 percent never used any other illicit drug."
And users simply don't get addicted to marijuana the way they do harder drugs. One key indicator of the addictiveness of other drugs is that lab rats will self-administer them. Rats won't self-administer THC, the active ingredient in marijuana.
Two researchers in 1991 studied the addictiveness of caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, heroin, cocaine and marijuana. Both ranked caffeine and marijuana as the least addictive.
Despite the heated rhetoric of the drug war, on marijuana there is a de facto consensus: Legalizers think marijuana laws shouldn't be on the books; prohibitionists think, in effect, that they shouldn't be enforced.
A compromise would be a version of the Dutch model of decriminalization, removing criminal penalties for personal use of marijuana, but keeping the prohibition on street-trafficking and mass cultivation.
That, of course, would require that politicians apply some of the energy they once devoted to enjoying marijuana to discussing forthrightly its legal status. But they prefer to smoke, then keep forever mum.
* Rich Lowry is editor of the National Review, 215 Lexington Ave., New York, NY 10016; e-mail: comments.lowry@ nationalreview.com.
Todays pot has been so high-breed that it is not normal. It is basically man made. Same thing with hard alcohol of today, it has been distilled to such strenghth that it is no where where Biblical days.
Funny I always assumed that an argument consisted of more than just name calling. Something you can't seem to master.
Perhaps you'd share your definition of freedom.
Unless you can, you should be in favor of letting the States handle the issue as they choose.
I'm assuming that everyone here believes the Constitution should be the supreme law of the land.
I've heard of people being killed for a pair of sneakers, should we outlaw them too?
My view is that if you wish to go the 3000 Ammmendments way with the law, no problem with me. Just know they would add anti-drug Ammendments when they do to have the laws be what they are today. The first position is of what Congress said and the second part is my willing to go along with you the Ammendment method for everything. But it doesn't matter. Drug users get aced out no matter which way the law gets formed as I see it.
What thought, if any, have you given to the costs of your tyranny? Do you suppose you can ursurp any power, apply any restraints, and there will be no cost? Your immaturity is more harmful than you suppose.
Heck,the last time I looked our statehouses were already filled with prostitutes. Unfortunately,the ones in the statehouses(unlike the honest working women in Nevada sporting houses),are very seldom capable of providing a fair value for their paychecks.
(This thread is fun!) ;^)
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.