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.
True,true...and if they were occupied with amusing themselves,just maybe they wouldn't have quite as much time and energy as they do now. Time and energy,by the way,that's usually devoted to stealing...uhh..."starting programs",that is,to benefit...well..."the people who bought my election for me..."(ohboyohboy...almost told the truth there!!! gotta think up a different stretcher...)
Check the threads on the Sawgrass Rebellion. They're fighting the exact same abuse of the Commerce Clause.
Who's "they"? Do you thing Congress amends the Constitution?
Well I am talking to you..
Most marijuana users are between the ages of 18 and 25, and use plummets after age 34,
Which proves thar life after 34 is full of enthusiasm, whereas that of a younger adult is not. Indeed the 18-25 group is well known for the lack of enthusisasm. The members of this group tend to be very mature, measured in their actions and judgements, but... lacking in enthusiasm. This is in sharp contrast to the typically euphoric 40-year-olds.
Now, how much more stupid than this writer can one get?
I believe you're right. He probably said something like, "Freedom, hmmm? Hold on, I have to go ask the tyrannt."
However, in the case of criminalizing the growth of a particular species of plant, that sort of "law" is as anti-American as they get, as someone pointed out it would have landed many of our Funding Fathers in jail, though obviously they would never have abandoned their principles long enough to adopt it.
The dumbed down population of today loves to wave flags but they often have no idea what they stand for.
The truth known even to territorial animals is very simple: in order to protect oneself, one has to guard the perimeter. This is why a grizzly attacks you when you step on his land, although you may still be far away from him.
We have failed to live by this simple truth a few decades ago. It started with Vietnam, where we were fighting communism at the perimeter. Later that failure has extended to other areas of life.
In behavior, too, you have to hold your envelope. You have to enforce seemingly minor laws so that other laws are not broken. It is precisely the lack of enforcement that creates a public that has no respect for the law. We have not properly crashed this nonsense and raised several generations of people who think that it is OK to smoke pot; hence view it as a minor issue; hence, being rational, direct expenditure of resources to "bigger fish."
This is not how one fights wars. But we do, and this is why we lose --- first in Vietnam and recently on September 11.
I have seen my brother make a late payment on his cell phone to get a bag, but never get violent. Most stoners are way to lazy to even pass you the chips . . .
Yeah, I've seen the drug warriors post that drivel.
In hopes of beating a Drug Warrior thinking of posting that again (I've seen it, too) to the punch, you should pardon the expression: if that were true, then wouldn't all currently alcoholic beverages be sold with the alcohol removed? Even if people don't drink until thoroughly intoxicated, they still get the effects of mild alcohol usage--e.g. lowered inhibitions.
Aside from the Tenth Amendment, there are good reasons for keeping domestic policy decentralized.
When the Federal government screws up, such as educational policies, welfare, social security, and forest management, it is hard to reverse and affects the entire country.
When a State screws up those policies, the ill effects are contained and serve as an example to the rest of the country.
It allows for more trial and error to see what works, while inflicting less overall damage when it fails.
It allows variation so that people can live in States that are more in keeping with their values and beliefs.
It promotes competition and accountability.
Quite the strawman there. I see that you also use the Drug Warrior tactic of labeling anyone opposing prohibition a "pro druggie." I suppose that's a little better than just plain "druggie," but it's just as inaccurate.
Read post 22. That is the basis for our federal prohibition on marijuana. Respect for the law is directly dependent on people's perception of the law as having been fairly and justifiably arrived at. If we need to "crash nonsense", then we better go back and start at the beginning.
Laws that make no sense to the public will also,in my opinion,lead to a public that has no respect for the law. This principle was exhibited during the experiment with alchohol prohibition,and every one of us is getting a good look at the same principle in action right now,as we watch the failures and the excesses of the WOD.
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.