'Demon drug' propaganda doesn't cut it anymore

The Providence Journal ^ | May 10, 2006 | Froma Harrop

[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.

[tpaine]

"-- Weasel Award --"
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1629808/replies?c=284


Troll award for paulsen.

[William Terrell]

A 1998 poll. Find another organization find completely different results. I don't see the actual questions asked, the demographic, sample size, the method. The study did say it was the result of 47 polls between 1978 and 1997, the greatest period during which even talking about doubt that drug policies should be looked at was taboo.

Now, even prominent republicans are raising the question. Considering the vector for legalization of cannabis, you would have to show me the results now. I don't use polls positive or negative; I use commonsense and history.

The war on drugs has been pissing people off for decades. Each year more decide that getting rid of the war is a good thing.

My impromptu analyzes of FR drug threads indicate many who argue against federal drug policy and few who argue in favor.

You have to do better than that.

[tpaine]

paulsen weasels:

The War on Drugs is a totally different issue -- hell, there are aspects of it that even I don't like. A survey on the WOD means nothing. I want a survey that asks, "Should all drugs be legal for adults"? You can do even do it on FR and I doubt you'd get 5% -- if people were honest.

Terrell:

You've seen the drug threads I've analyzed pro-con. You've seen the FR poll about the feds using 1-8-3 to prohibit drugs. Only 5%? Hardly.

Don't remind our two 'warriors' of the thrashing they took on that Commerce Clause 'poll' thread. They'll throw another hissy fit.

[Mojave]

A 1998 poll. Find another organization find completely different results.

Do it, smoke blower.

[robertpaulsen]

"Wouldn't you think the war on drugs has to do with not legalizing all drugs? Not legal=war on drugs. No war on drugs=legal. Right?"

Not necessarily. There are those who wish to keep drugs illegal but do not like what the WOD has done to constitutional protections such as no-knock and asset forfeiture, for example. Then there are those who want to keep the WOD for hard drugs but make soft drugs legal. And all variations in between.

"How about a survey that asks, "Should drugs now regulated by the federal scheduling system be regulated instead by the states?"

How? By a constitutional amendment similiar in wording to Section 2 of the 21st amendment? Or just by waving a magic wand and forcing the states to do it this way? Big difference, amigo.

Besides, you've talking about a method. I'm talking about an attitude.

"You've seen the FR poll about the feds using 1-8-3 to prohibit drugs."

IIRC, that poll covered drugs and guns.

Yes, I saw the poll. My conclusion was that there is a dearth of constitutional scholars on this forum. How are those who think that the 2nd amendment protects their inalienable right to own a M249 SAW supposed to feel about 1-8-3 being used to regulate ownership?

[Mojave]

You've seen the FR poll about the feds using 1-8-3 to prohibit drugs.

You left out the gun spin. In any case, this article is pissing about:

"The war on pot fills our jails. America arrests 755,000 people every year for marijuana infractions -- the vast majority for possession, not dealing."

99%+ of pot possession arrests are made by the states, not the fed.

[Know your rights]

Anyone who covets possession and use of recreational drugs are the recreational drug worshipers in my book.

Where is your evidence that pro-legalizers covet possession and use of recreational drugs?

As far as which Freepers might be in that category, I do think the ones that continually ping people to drug threads with the statue of liberty graphic

How does pinging others to a thread imply coveting possession and use of recreational drugs?

I just don't buy there is no use interest by people who continually obsess about legalization on such threads.

What you "don't buy" doesn't count for squat in the forum of reasoned debate.

[A CA Guy]

Where is your evidence that pro-legalizers covet possession and use of recreational drugs?

Easy enough, they are one note Charlies and almost never participate in anything else in FR. They are part of the pro-recreational drug movement and that seems to be also part of the Libertarian platform.

How does pinging others to a thread imply coveting possession and use of recreational drugs?

Because almost all those pings are to only drug threads. What would you give as the percentage of those pings to drug threads, in excess of 90% right?

What you "don't buy" doesn't count for squat in the forum of reasoned debate.

I don't see debate, I see pushing drugs. They need their drugs and that is about it as I've seen it.

[Know your rights]

Where is your evidence that pro-legalizers covet possession and use of recreational drugs?

Easy enough, they are one note Charlies and almost never participate in anything else in FR.

That's not evidence that they covet possession and use of recreational drugs. Do you have any evidence for that claim of yours?

How does pinging others to a thread imply coveting possession and use of recreational drugs?

Because almost all those pings are to only drug threads.

How does that imply coveting possession and use of recreational drugs?

What you "don't buy" doesn't count for squat in the forum of reasoned debate.

I don't see debate

You choose not to see it ... much less to even try to participate. Probably because you have no actual arguments to support your position.

[Know your rights]

Can you name any FReepers who support both drug legalization and open borders, or are you once again making up "facts" as you go along?

I notice you never responded to this. Can you name any FReepers who support both drug legalization and open borders, as you claimed?

[A CA Guy]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1642891/posts?page=85#85

[A CA Guy]

Libertarians on open boders:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_perspectives_on_immigration

[Know your rights]

Can you name any FReepers who support both drug legalization and open borders, as you claimed?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1642891/posts?page=85#85

I don't support open borders.

[Know your rights]

Can you name any FReepers who support both drug legalization and open borders, as you claimed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_perspectives_on_immigration

No mention there of any FReepers.

[A CA Guy]

Can you name any FReepers who support both drug legalization and open borders, as you claimed?

We know the libertarian platform is for open borders.
We know the libertarians are pro-drugs.

To get them talking open borders and drugs at one time would be impossible and like YOU most of the libertarians talk nothing but drugs all the time.

As an example, check out this famed banned tool called MrLeRoy who suggested heroin being legalized because if adults could buy it legally he said the sellers would probably have no interest in going after the children anymore...
Check it out, the guy was out of his rocker.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/897243/posts?page=22#22

[Hacksaw]

As an example, check out this famed banned tool called MrLeRoy who suggested heroin being legalized because if adults could buy it legally he said the sellers would probably have no interest in going after the children anymore... Check it out, the guy was out of his rocker.

I'm sure Know Your Leroy's... ooops I mean Know Your Rights is familiar with MrLeRoy.

[Chena]

Placemarker for when I have time to sit back and enjoy the show. BTW, I highly doubt that the good Lord would call marijuana a "demon drug". I think he'd prefer it be categorized as just another one of His medicinal herbs.

[A CA Guy]

Did MrLeRoy also average 493 or so drug posts out of every 500?

[Doctor Stochastic]

But we've made Afghanistan peaceful enough to grow poppies profitably.

[William Terrell]

Is it necessary to call me names? Why should I waste my time. You have been on many of these threads where numerous such references have been posted.

The fact is the vector against the war on drugs is against the feds involvement. Twenty years ago, no one would have spoke out about it. Now there are articles galore, including criticism by well know known conservatives.

You are one of a vast minority that still holds to insane policy on FR.

People with your mindset are rapidly growing extinct. The only thing that keeps it going is the lobby of rich drug dealers to keep the price up.

"Extinct", my friend. Look it up.