Posted on 09/22/2003 10:07:00 AM PDT by MrLeRoy
Edited on 05/07/2004 5:21:39 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
It sounds radical. Even more so when it comes from a former narcotics cop.
But Jack Cole, a retired detective lieutenant with the New Jersey State Police, says the nation's 33-year "war on drugs" is a failure and the only way to really save lives, reduce addiction and lessen crime is to make drugs legal.
(Excerpt) Read more at azcentral.com ...
70 million Americans have used marijuana; that toothpaste is out of the tube. The War On Marijuana has failed and will continue to fail until we have the good sense to end it.
I don't think a specific reference to drugs can be found in the Constitution, no more than for city parking ordinances. Laws against drug use are a way of instilling a certain amount of "good behaviour" on the part of all. Reality, however, is not necessarily in agreement with the intended results.
To the extent drugs (whether legal or not) have the capacity to incite disorder and general lawlessness, not to mention health problems, the law acts as a "parent" to protect us from ourselves.
I have no doubt there are people who can exercise self-control in everything, including drug use. But they are probably few and far between, especially in light of the fact we elected Clinton TWICE. It is up to them to make a sensible case for legalization for the rest of us. The article above is a start.
As with alcohol, we'll still have people who do harm to others through negligence and abuse. We are debating how much potentially harmful intake we should allow for society in general; how we can live peaceably with the least amount of self-inflicted harm and the most liberty. Difficultfor either side not to have an agenda that goes against common sense.
Either way, the world isn't getting any better.
I don't think a specific reference to drugs can be found in the Constitution, no more than for city parking ordinances.
The federal government does not enact or enforce city parking ordinances.
the law acts as a "parent" to protect us from ourselves.
Sounds like Hillary's campaign platform.
Right, just like bartenders and liquor store clerks are dropping like flies.
Federal parking ordinances? Maybe in DC.
The powers of the federal government are few and enumerated. If they aren't enumerated, they don't exist. Tenth amendment.
Trouble is, people tend to dream up new, exotic ways of "getting high", some of which no drug company would touch. For example, I can't envision any drug company selling crack cooking kits.
As for allowing the government to get involved, look at how cigarettes and alcohol are being regulated right now: Every year brings yet another "sin tax" increase.
One thing's for sure, the current system isn't working. Not only is drug use and drug-related crime rampant in our own country, but it's made life pure hell for the citizens of other countries. Random highway stops and car searches by heavily-armed Federales are commonplace in Mexico, and the elected officials who aren't murdered outright are often offered a "lead or silver" ultimatum by local drug lords. Life has changed in many of the countries to our south, and much of the change as come as a consequence of our own nation's renewed efforts in the war on drugs.
So is drug prohibition.
Comparisons with prohibition are popular but flawed.
Opinions vary. It took an amendment to the constitution to outlaw alcohol, which IS a drug, regardless of how long it has been around. This failed federal war on drugs is just as unconstitutional as the departments of education, energy, health & human services, and housing and urban developement. If you want your drug war, fine...do it legally like they did with prohibition in the 20's.
I originally got the numbers from Wolfie's post which stated "This currently benefits about 1300 addicts ... cost is covered by Swiss health insurance to the tune of SwF1114·5 million (US$810·5 million) per year."
This works out to my figure of $625,000.
But, it did sound high, so I looked up the original article which states, "The cost is covered by Swiss health insurance to the tune of SwF11-14.5 million (US$8-10.5 million) per year".
So, TO ALL, the average cost per addict per year should be $7,000. Slightly lower.
That would put US heroin treatment at $6-7 billion per year.
Yep, welcome to the next one if the wish that the government becomes a drug dealer comes to fruition.
BTW, the wrong side won the conflict you cite IMO.
And 60 million of those Americans have quit.
Only about 4% of those Americans 12 and older have smoked marijuana in the last month.
True. My argument is flawed in that regard. All I'm saying is that the lack of a specific prohibition in the Constitution does not thereby nullify all prohibitions outside of the text itself. I'd be happy to see the issue addressed on a local level as opposed to federal.
It hasn't helped society, it has eroded our rights, and the drug usage hasn't been decreased much less stopped. Anyone who wants illegal drugs can get them anytime they want. And they do.
We are working on the wrong side of the equation. If you want to decrease usage you need to decrease demand. Supply will always exist to satisfy demand.
And 60 million of those Americans have quit.
Which in no way contradicts my point: "70 million Americans have used marijuana; that toothpaste is out of the tube. The War On Marijuana has failed and will continue to fail until we have the good sense to end it."
Provide evidence for your "1920's" claim that legalizing alcohol will not increase the number of users, will not increase the number of innocent victims killed by drunk freaks and will not increase crime.
Unclear to me what the question is, please rephrase.
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.