Posted on 05/10/2006 7:31:03 AM PDT by cryptical
America's war on drugs is actually a Raid on Taxpayers. The war costs an estimated $70 billion a year to prosecute, and the drugs keep pouring in. But while the War on Drugs may have failed its official mission, it is a great success as a job-creation program. Thousands of drug agents, police, detectives, prosecutors, judges, anti-drug activists, prison guards and their support staffs can thank the program for their daily bread and health benefits.
The American people are clearly not ready to decriminalize cocaine, heroine or other hard drugs, but they're well on their way to easing up on marijuana. A Zogby poll found that nearly half of Americans now want pot legal and regulated, like alcohol. Few buy into the "demon drug" propaganda anymore, and for a simple reason: Several countries have decriminalized marijuana with little effect on public health.
Americans could save a ton of money doing the same. The taxpayers spend almost $8 billion a year enforcing the ban on marijuana, according to a report by visiting Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Miron. State and local governments consume about $5 billion of the total.
The war on pot fills our jails. America arrests 755,000 people every year for marijuana infractions -- the vast majority for possession, not dealing. An estimated 80,000 people now sit behind bars on marijuana offenses.
The Bush administration stoutly supports the campaign against marijuana, which others think is crazy. Compare the Canadian and American approach to medical marijuana: The Canadian Postal Service delivers it right into the mailboxes of Canadian cancer patients. The U.S. Justice Department invades the patients' backyards and rips out cannabis plants, even those grown with a state's blessing.
The Bush administration isn't going to last forever, nor is the patience of Americans paying for and suffering under the ludicrous war on marijuana. Surely letting sick people smoke marijuana to ease their discomfort -- 11 states have approved such, including Rhode Island -- would be a good start for a more enlightened drug policy.
For the drug warriors, however, this toe in the water seems a foot in the door for eventual decriminalization of pot. That's understandable. Relaxing the rules on marijuana would greatly reduce the need for their services.
Remember the Supreme Court case two years ago, when Justice Stephen Breyer innocently suggested that the federal Food and Drug Administration be asked to rule on whether marijuana had an accepted medical use? Well, the FDA has just ruled. In a total lie, the FDA said that no scientific studies back the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Actually, the prestigious Institute of Medicine issued its findings in 1999 that marijuana helped patients for pain and for the relief of nausea and vomiting caused by chemotherapy.
The federal government "loves to ignore our report," John Benson, a professor of medicine at the University of Nebraska and co-chairman of the committee that wrote the Institute of Medicine" study, said after the FDA issued its "advisory."
The Drug Enforcement Administration, which feeds off the drug war, plays a big part in stopping this and all future efforts to reach educated opinions on marijuana. Lyle Craker, a University of Massachusetts authority on medicinal plants, wanted to grow marijuana for the purpose of evaluating its possible medical uses. The DEA said no, insisting that he use marijuana from a University of Mississippi lab. The DEA knows full well that the UMiss pot is low-quality and therefore useless for study.
The drug warriors' incentive to keep the game going is pretty obvious. But what's in it for taxpayers?
Miron's Harvard study looked beyond what the public pays to enforce the marijuana laws. It also investigated how much money would roll in if marijuana were legal and taxed like alcohol. The answer was over $6 billion in annual tax revenues. Do the math: If government stopped outlawing marijuana and started taxing it, its coffers would be $14 billion richer every year.
We could use that money. For example, $14 billion could pay for all the anti-terrorism port-security measures required in the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002.
More than 500 economists of every political stripe have endorsed the Miron study. Growing numbers of Americans are beginning to agree with them: The war against marijuana is an expensive failure -- and pointless, too.
Froma Harrop is a Journal editorial writer and syndicated columnist. She may be reached by e-mail at: fharrop@projo.com.
Without knowing, you have little to stand on, don't you? I mean, you make reference to pre- and post-FDR court decisions as though somehow you knew for a fact that they are based on different constitutional interpretations.
But you can't cite any pre-FDR cases that were decided any differently than if the cases were heard post-FDR. Telling.
WHO'S AFRAID OF ENUMERATED RIGHTS?
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1635527/posts
No to legalization of any kind no matter how many left wingers want it. Longitudinal research on marijuana use among young people below college age indicates those who used:
have lower achievement than the non-users,
more acceptance of deviant behavior,
more delinquent behavior and aggression,
greater rebelliousness,
poorer relationships with parents,
and more associations with delinquent and drug-using friends.
And worse.
As for its usefullness as an anelgesic, if science can prove that THC does relieve pain in a way that is superior to other pain meds then I would agree to having available in prescripion pill form.
I can't think of a more definitive "nanny goverment" than to base public policy on an assumption that we are all children.
nanny goverment
_____________________________________________________
Tough luck. I have no patience those who endanger all of us...the collective USA.
you can't cite any pre-FDR cases that were decided any differently than if the cases were heard post-FDR. Telling.
Even more "telling":
A Communitarian Ethos
The Groton influence of Endicott Peabody showed in a speech Roosevelt gave at the People's Forum in Troy, NY in 1912.
There he declared that western Europeans and Americans had achieved victory in the struggle for "the liberty of the individual," and that the new agenda should be a "struggle for the liberty of the community."
The wrong ethos for a new age was, "every man does as he sees fit, even with a due regard to law and order." The new order should be, "march on with civilization in a way satisfactory to the well-being of the great majority of us."
In that speech Roosevelt outlined the philosophical base of what would eventually become the New Deal.
He also forecast the rhetorical mode by which "community" could loom over individual liberty.
"If we call the method regulation, people hold up their hands in horror and say 'un-American,' or 'dangerous,'" Roosevelt pointed out. "But if we call the same identical process co-operation, these same old fogeys will cry out 'well done'.... cooperation is as good a word for the new theory as any other.
I have the plain language of the Constitution to stand on ... a much firmer foundation than "substantial effect" emanations from penumbras.
Does that research demonstrate that those bad outcomes are not simply caused by the same psychological factors that cause marijuana use, rather than being caused by the marijuana use?
And if the same results could be shown for alcohol use, as I think quite likely, would you then support a general ban on alcohol?
How do marijuana users "endanger all of us"? In any way that alcohol users don't also "endanger all of us"?
Once a person is so reckless as to question the wisdom, nay, even the authority of our benevolent government in the matter of marijuana, then that person is more likely to question the wisdom of the government in other spheres.
If we do not have absolute faith in the wisdom of the American people and its various governments, and obey with a glad heart their every regulation, then the sky would fall - right on our heads!
I had to double-check to see if this lazy and lame response was from tpaine.
No facts. No cases. No opinions. You're guessing.
Mostly people control, as far as the natural drugs go, but heavily processed drugs are very debilitating; but then so is suicide........
Is that picture ment to imply that women with large thighs and skinny calves are better in the sack? Or that that is what you will get with pot?
Paulsens commmunitarian new order advocates:
"march on with civilization in a way satisfactory to the well-being of the great majority of us."
In that speech Roosevelt outlined the philosophical base of what would eventually become the 'New Deal', and the paulsen's of this world received their orders.
I have no more for those who claim to speak for "the collective".
"Of course, the same drug lords who control pot and other drugs today will find ways to run the bootlegged pot operation (meaning that the crime and violence associated with drug trafficking would continue, legalization proponents arguments to the contrary notwithstanding)."
Right, like we still have all that alcahol bootleg related violence after the prohibition ended. What are you smoking?
No facts.
The Constitution is not a fact?
No cases. No opinions.
Which part of "the Constitution" did you not understand?
The part that you're standing on. Move your feet and you'll see that the clear language of the Constitution supports my claims.
It's right there, for all to see. Plain as day. I'm right. You're wrong.
Wrong. It says "among the states". Plus you've already admitted (need your quote?) that Congress may regulate intrastate traffic.
Where are you going with this? Why do I always have to argue this exact same point with you, time after time after time?
I'm done. You're not adding anything -- you're simply trolling. Tell your buddy Soros you did your job by getting this drug thread to 280 posts.
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.