Skip to comments.The Young Pay the Price for Dutch Drug Experiment
Posted on 05/07/2006 7:17:42 PM PDT by found_one
The Young Pay the Price for Dutch Drug Experiment
by Don Laigle
Ever hear a liberal or libertarian say that we need to legalize soft drugs like cocaine and marijuana because they did this in Holland and it was wildly successful? You know: kids immediately lost interest in these drugs and stopped taking them?
Heres what Republican Governor Gary Johnson of New Mexico said on CNN on Feb 22, 2001:
Holland has 60 percent the drug use as that of the United States by kids and adults and that's for hard drugs and marijuana both. So if you want to look at a country that really has rational drug policy, Holland would not suggest that it would be a worse alternative than what we've currently got.
Gary was referring to the fact that Holland had legalized soft drugs and was implying that it wouldnt hurt American kids a bit to have these drugs available. He was apparently trying to appear "progressive." He was not the only one.
The web is awash with the same kind of conclusions, drawn by liberals, that drug use must be legalized because drug laws are antiquated and the more we enforce them, the more drugs kids will use. In fact, a quick search shows that the number of sites that agree with this hypothesis far outweighs the number that dont , , . Guess we old fogies need to stop holding up progress, then, right?
I love it when objective information proves what people with common sense knew in the first place. On May 6, the web site for the Dutch paper Volkskrant ran an article on a group of mothers in Holland who are concerned about their kids drug habits. Seems drugs are out of control there. Surprise surprise!
The writer says (my translation):
One out of every 20 kids has at least experimented with hard drugs such as cocaine [note that they admit this drug is not soft!] or xtc. Coke is becoming more and more popular as a starting drug. The mothers have nothing good to say about regular social services, which are usually located too far away.
The article ends with:
The problem is a major one and is prevalent everywhere says Bak [one of the moms interviewed]. She gets calls from mothers from all over the region with the same stories. Kids of 12 or 13 who deceive their own parents. School kids tell her that the lockers at the high schools are sold to dealers so that they can deal from them.
Notice that it seems not to have occurred to any of the mothers to call for making these drugs illegal. They only call for help from mothers themselves tackling the problem. You see: banning drugs is now a dead issue in that part of Europe (and may soon be in other parts as well). There can be no reasonable discussion of legalization of soft drugs. That is settled law.
Does this sound like the enlightened Europeans are years ahead of us? More progressive? Just remove the barriers and kids will follow their good instincts? Kids only do things that are forbidden, and since cocaine isnt forbidden in Holland any more, kids will stop taking it, right?
Christians know that man is born in sin. He does not have the sweet nature that European philosophers believe he does. In Léducation dEmile, Jean Jacques Rousseau recommends letting kids do whatever they want to when they are very young. For example, he says that it is foolish to tell a child not to break a window. The child should be allowed to break one so that he can see that breaking windows is not a good thing.
Todays Europe is proof enough that trusting in human nature simply doesnt work. And that whenever people try social experiments, it is the young who pay the heaviest price.
Let's pray that Europe starts to see how much they need God before it is too late. Truly it can be said of Europe: eyes they have but they do not see (Psalms 115: 5).
Don Laigle copyright© Laigle's Forum
Really. I know everybody likes to point to Holland and scream, "See! Some of them still take drugs!", and throw that up there as a "failure", but it ain't so. They have less drug use, and even better, much less Drug War.
Anyone who thinks cocaine is a soft drug is an idiot.
Looks more like anecdotes that contradict statistics.
"Debunk" means to expose and disprove. If the material in this article stands as acceptable proof, you're operating based on disturbingly low standards of proof.
Drugs are already readily available regardless of the law.
That's the point.
The drug lords are drug lords because drugs are illegal. Take the money out of drugs and you would wipe out a huge segment of organized (and otherwise) crime.
Al Capone (And Joe Kennedy) became very wealthy - and produced major crime of all sorts because of prohibition. It was a failure. It was a failure for all the same reasons as the WOD.
There are plenty of conservatives that see the collateral damage caused by the WOD as being far worse than the original problem being addressed.
A better solution is to teach our children not to use drugs and the reasons why. It starts at home. The government makes a lousy mom and/or dad.
Study? If the views of the article author were correct, there would be nothing left but scattered ruins prowled by hideous mutants where Holland used to be.
No worse off than with people going to jail.
Yes - of how many are being led around by the nose....
I guess that's called a bad pun.
Alcohol and tobacco use are severly restricted.
Restricted by age (18/21).
Restricted by vendor (authorized importer/distrubtor/distiller/vendor only, no unliscensed resale).
Restricted by hours of sale (alcohol is only available 24 hours in 3 North American cities that I know of and one of those is in Canada).
You cannot have a 0.08 Blood Alcohol Content level and drive a car (even if impairment occurs at higher levels).
TABC (Texas Alcohol Beverage Commission) did a series of sweeps of bars (including hotel bars serving patrons of the hotel) arresting thousands of people for "public intoxication" in a six month period if they had ordered more than a couple of beers. And there is no requirement for a breatalizer test for a charge of "public intoxication".
The ATF (Alcohol - Tobacco - Firearms) do things differently than the DEA.
ZI'm sure there are more restrictions that can be cited.
And DRY counties still exist.
Seems to me that what today's Europe proves is that relying on the government to solve social problems simply doesn't work. The War on Alcohol was fought almost a century ago in the US and showed clearly the gangsterism which results from outlawing a substance that people want.
Unfortunately, the present War on Some Drugs is being fought without the benefit of a Constitutional Amendment to permit it. As a result, there is no amendment to repeal in order to stop the madness.
My reading of Islam is that the strict laws are for some, not for all. The Communists were or are strict in the same way.
The harsher the penalties, the more people find a way around them.
My answer for the drug problem is - stop taking illegal drugs. They fund the global criminals and crap up the mind. My mind has enough kinks in it without adding toxic waste to the mix.
On the other hand, millions of adults smoke tobacco, and they are not doing it to rebel. Millions of adults drink alcohol, and they are not doing it to rebel. So if marijuana is available at every corner drug store, the total usage will go down or stay the same? Sorry, still not buying that. I believe that the most likely outcome of legalization is that the big two (alcohol and tobacco) will very quickly become the big three (marijuana), or the big four (pot and coke). I have met many many people over the years who don't smoke pot simply because it is illegal. Holland aside, how come nobody ever mentions the idea that drug use might (would probably) go up in the U.S., and that the costs to society would exceed the savings from the drug war. I have smoked pot all my life, and I have never, at any time, advocated legalizing it. I think it should be way decriminalized, but legal? No. I just can't see how the wholesale introduction of another drug into society can have any positive net result.
"...wholesale introduction of another drug into society can have any positive net result."
That introduction took place long ago.
It is readily available in spite of your best efforts.
That is simply a fact.
I choose not to use them. I'd like not to be robbed, car jacked, shot, raided or otherwise be harmed so someone else can get a fix.
There is no one anymore "conservative" than William F. Buckley, founder of The National Review magazine which was the founding of the modern American conservative movement, and he long advocated decriminalizing marijuana - not making it free and legal, just not creating an economy for the gangsters out of it and putting people in long-term incarceration for possessing more than an ounce.
His view, that we have created the crime environment, and it is winning, just as it won with prohibition.
This nation had the worst heroin and opium epidemic of its history, from the late 1800s to the early 1900s. It was fought, and quit successfully with large and consistent amounts of public education, in schools and the media and treatment in publicly supported clinics. We did not create a socially destructive criminal environment for it. It had been reduced to a minor social nuisance when we started enacting drug control laws in the 1920s.
Just imagine how many criminals there would be if tobacco was illegal, and how criminally profitable it would be.
We would be better off literally buying the entire drug supply in Columbia and Afghanistan - 100% of it, at prices the drug cartels could not afford. No supply, no crime. Then we'd just have to help the current addicts through their withdrawal.
Oh, I forgot, other drugs are being invented all the time.
Can't win. Just help the addicts try to get off and don't make a criminal mess out of whatever you do to suppress the use of bad substances. The crime environment you create is worse than the numbers of people who will not avoid the addictions. Those numbers are probably the same no matter what.
Sigh. Oh yeah - it's real tough to find pot these days.
What is overlooked in the discussion of pot laws is the effect of decriminalization - why buy it when you can grow it? Its called weed for a reason. If it wasn't for the threat of police helicopters snooping at folk's backyards the smuggling of pot from S.America would plummet.
Probably not a good idea to expect a lot of tax revenue from legally sold pot - not when it grows so easily.
As soon as you figure a way to tax/regulate a cup full of dirt and sunshine, they'll legalize it!
Till then follow the cash!!!
But you got to consider whats worse for society, a constant war that makes criminals rich, costs tax payers billions upon billions, and throws people in jail who have done no harm to anyone, permanently ruining their life, or 20% more people trying dope?Told ya so. Now go ahead and lawyer your way out of this one.
Not on the scale that legalization would cause.
It is readily available in spite of your best efforts
I am not making any efforts one way or the other, and I don't need you to tell me about availability.
I'd like not to be robbed, car jacked, shot, raided or otherwise be harmed so someone else can get a fix.
I see. And legalizing drugs is going to change this how exactly? Cheaper prices? That will just make more of the type of addicts that will commit dangerous crimes.
LOL anecdotal evidence debunks nothing.
How? It comes right out and says that Holland has much less drug use than we do.
"Revenuers" (ATF) do raid people because of suspected alcohol activity.
Stills can blow up.
You can make your own beer and wine, but not distill your own liquor.
If you want to move the DEA under the ATF and "regulate" things, so be it. And those penalties and fines for violations won't go away.
Some employers prohibit their employees from smoking tobacco even in off hours. Your drug tests won't go away.
Cities regulate even WHERE you can smoke tobacco (prohibit its use in bars, restaurants, office buildings, city parks, etc.).
I fail to see how "legalizing it" will result in less prosecution or regulation.
"I have smoked pot all my life, and I have never, at any time, advocated legalizing it. I think it should be way decriminalized, but legal? No. I just can't see how the wholesale introduction of another drug into society can have any positive net result."
Are you afraid you might start smoking it if it becomes legal? Oh, wait, you already do smoke it, as do millions and millions of others in this country. In fact, most adults under 60 have in this country have already tried it, at least that's what the government surveys say. I guess it's a little late to worry about "wholesale introduction" of marijuana into this country. That introduction took place decades ago.
"That's five out of twenty compared to Holland's one out of twenty."
Should have been "...four out of twenty..."
Told ya so.
You implied that someone claims that ALL those arrested for pot have their lives permanently ruined; this person isn't saying that, so your claim remains baseless bunk.
If the caterwauling of moms was proof of anything, then we should let the Million Mom March disarm us.
That's what you lawyered into what I said. I wasn't that that specific, and post 22 wasn't that specific either. If you want to behave like a lawyer, go ahead. Most people don't like lawyers, and that means more points for me.
Yeah, just like a FR thread on medical marijuana (My best friend's cousin smoked marijuana for athlete's foot and the problem cleared right up. Nothing else worked.)
Than before they passed their liberal drug laws? Do you have statistics on that? What's the link to your information?
Availibility and use are two different things.
Every single survey has shown that teens say marijuana is easier to get than alcohol -- yet teens use alcohol 2:1 over marijuana. Legalization (even restricted to adults) carries a societal acceptance.
And, despite all those restrictions (you left out the high "sin" taxes imposed by all levels of government) teens still use tobacco and alcohol 2:1 over easy to get marijuana.
"A substance that people want" being the key phrase. Two-thirds of the people passed a constitutional amendment to repeal the 18th and turn the alcohol legalization decision exclusively over to the states.
Do you think you can get even one-third to legalize maruijuana much less all drugs?
Conservative? I don't think so.
Are you proposing the legalization of all drugs or just marijuana? Do you think we will eliminate "a constant war that makes criminals rich, costs tax payers billions upon billions, and throws people in jail" by simply legalizing marijuana?
Then why is it used so much on the medical marijuana threads? I'll look for you LOLing some of those posts, though I haven't seen you do it so far.
Better yet, I'll ping you to those posts so you can LOL to your heart's content.
PLUS, drugs will still be illegal for those underage. Currently, 30% of marijuana users are underage, and I would expect that percentage to rise with legalization.
So, the government's manpower, money, and time will still be expended for arrest, trial, conviction, incarceration and drug treatment for that group of drug users.
You can't argue that MJ can alleviate symptoms of various conditions. I think it should be an available option, but I don't think it's a cure-all. Letting someone decide on their choice of medicine isn't really a laughing matter when they're dying anyway, but I wouldn't put it past you to laugh at a terminal cancer patient that wanted the freedom to use alternate meds.
It's a bad idea to start an article off with something as stupid as this: "Ever hear a liberal or libertarian say that we need to legalize soft drugs like cocaine and marijuana because they did this in Holland and it was wildly successful? You know: kids immediately lost interest in these drugs and stopped taking them?"
I've never heard anyone refer to cocaine as a "soft" drug. The rest of the article is short on facts. So at least one out of every 20 kids has experimented with coke or ecstasy? Note that there's no proof of this "fact" in the article. Also, how does that compare to other countries?
This article debunks nothing.
Hmmm, is that a black jazz musician in that poster? And what's he doing - shooting her up with marijuana? Hilarious!