Drug Legalization - Expensive and Deadly Lie

Drugs. What a concept. Drugs carry an aura of excitement, rebellion, and just plain coolness. On a campus such as Washington University, drugs like marijuana can even seem innocent, soft, and harmless. Little wonder then the drug legalization movement claims many adherents from university ranks.

The real world, though, is very different from the safe haven of college life. Drugs in the real world cause real problems. Far from being substances that liberate the mind and body, drugs shackle humans to very inhumane conditions and circumstances. Worst of all, drugs infect all of society. No one is completely sheltered from the violence, destruction, and costs that arise as a result of drugs.

Those who wish the legalization of drugs are often fond of claiming that drugs only affect the individual using them. To penalize someone for using drugs is to convict them of a "victimless crime." Unfortunately, nothing is further from the truth than that belief. The sad reality is that drugs do cost society. In fact, in every case in which drug laws have been softened or not enforced, the rate of crime has increased. The famous city of Amsterdam has had to greatly expand its police presence ever since drugs became tolerated. This is not surprising, considering 80 percent of the 7,000 regular drug addicts commit all the property crime in the city.

Great Britain experiemented with softening its heroin laws from 1959 to 1968. The result was that Scotland Yard had to double its narcotics squad just to keep up with the ever increasing drug related crimes. Switzerland's experimental "legalization zones" in Zurich started in the late 1980's and only lasted until 1995 because the rude upshot of violence within the "legalized zones" became too much for the Swiss police to deal with. The crime waves that rippled through China in the early twentieth century and Egypt in the 1920's after the legalization of opium and cocaine are all too well known.

Despite the argument made by legalization advocates that decriminalizing drugs will make drugs more available so people will no longer have to resort to unsavory means to acquire and pay for the substances, the real issue at hand are the consequences from drug use. Committing crime to acquire or pay for drugs actually contributes very little to the sum of drug related crimes. Department of Justice statistics reveal that only 12 percent of violent offenses and 24 percent of property crimes are drug money related. This is in contrast with the 78 percent of men and 84 percent of women in prison who commited crime under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Moreover, researchers have found a correlation between increase drug use and the increase likelihood of committing domestic abuse. In Philadephia, the city of brotherly love, 80 percent of parents who beat their children to death were under the unfluence of drugs or alcohol. The mental imbalance drugs induce on users, which leads to rash decisions and often violent behavior, is something that affects more than just the individual users. Drugs are a societal problem.

Perhaps some may interpret these last few points as attacks against alcohol too. Tobacco and alcohol, however, cannot be grouped together with drugs for one simple reason: the dangers behind tobacco and alcohol are far less severe than drugs. Although alcohol is a factor in half of all murders, sexual assaults, robberies, and violent crimes, this is actually rather benign compared to drugs. Even though 400,000 babies are born every year to some sort of disability because of irresponsible, drunken mothers, drugs are still worse. For example, mothers who smoke marijuana give their babies a 500 percent greater chance of developing disabilites and eleven times greater chance of getting leukemia over mothers who drink alcohol while pregnant. Cocaine is addictive to 75 percent of first-time users. Compare this to alcohol, which is addictive to 10 percent of first-time users. Although tobacco contributes to roughly 400,000 deaths per year, marijuana is much more carcinogenic than tobacco, which means it supresses the human immune system in a more fatally powerful way. Therefore, while it is true that alcohol and tobacco are unkind products, to argue that drugs ought to be legalized because alcohol and tobacco are legal completely ignores the vast differences in harm between the legal and illegal.

Furthermore, the drug legalization camp misses some of the finer points in their proposed decriminalization policies. For example, should "designer drugs" also be legalized? What about LSD and PCP? These drugs, after all, have some nasty side effects on users and those nearby the users. Would not some of these "hard drugs" still need to be kept out of public hands? If not, what about age restrictions for drugs? If candy cigarettes are no longer considered acceptable for children, how can one justify giving an eight-year old a joint to smoke? Thus, the legalization of drugs would still require government restrictions, which goes against the claim that legalization would strip the government of costs tied to drug enforcement. Even with the potential taxes the government could harness from the legal sale of drugs, the costs associated with drug maintenance would not justify legalization. Alcohol, for example, generates $13 billion in taxes a year for government. Society, however, pays $100 billion a year for the numerous alcohol related social costs, i.e. health care, treatment, property destruction, etc.

Drugs would not be any different. In fact, by their more dangerous nature, drugs would likely be a lot more expensive on society than alcohol. Also, with the increasing potency of marijuana and other drugs over the last thiry years, the social costs for the use of such drugs rise as well. In the end, the public pays for these social costs. Expanded health care, easier access to rehabilitation centers, and new education initiatives would be only some of the added costs to legalizing drugs. The auto insurance companies have already hinted at higher premiums with the legalization of drugs. Therefore, whether it is through government programs or the private sector, all people would have to pay for the social costs of legalized drugs.

Drugs are not just "feel good" substances that have no effect outside of the user. Quite the contrary, the legalization of drugs would harm everyone financially and socially. Increased violent crime, domestic abuse, and disabilities for children, as witnessed in countries that have legalized drugs, are severe social costs. The inevitable spending increases for health care, social programs, and insurance from legalized drugs would furthermore cost all people in a direct manner. Once one unpacks all the issues hidden behind drugs, one realizes that drugs are not simply chemical toys to amuse oneself with; drugs are expensive poisons that waste the resources of all of us.

Man, I didn't even get a chance this time...Dane and RLK (as usual) have run away as soon as the heat came on.

----------------------

What heat? I have other things to do and other responsibilities beyond sitting at a keyboard 24 hours a day replying to mindless 15 year old juvenile delinquents. I'm involved in real life other than the fantasy kid's lives some of you live and bring to this forum.

The inevitable spending increases for health care, social programs, and insurance from legalized drugs would furthermore cost all people in a direct manner

As opposed to prisons, drug warriors, courts and lawyers. Not to mention broken families and the general loss of credibility by the government.

Last I checked, guns don't alter your mind.

So if a burglar breaks into your house and threatens to rape you, your mindset would be no different if you were pointing a shotgun at him instead of just standing there naked?

HOWEVER the Constitution does not give that power to the federal government. It is up to the stateS. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees that. But 140 years ago, we had a war over that and are still paying the price today. It's great that Nancy Reagan can stand up and say 'Just Say No'. It's a great little catch phrase. But that still does not give the national government the right or the duty to enforce laws that they never were meant to.

Bravo. This is the COMMON GROUND, between libertarians and conservatives. Constitutional government! State sovereignty over common crimes (as per the 9th and 10th amendments)!

Sorry about your divorce, don't know the other side. I surmise that your penchant for escape, could have been part of the problem though.

My ex-wife committed adultery, hence the divorce, and that's really the end of the story. Before that, I didn't smoke.
The "escape" gave my mind the time to heal. To that end, I can say without reservation that MJ was more important to my recovery than any of the standard treatment options---counseling, professional psychiatrists proscribing "approved" drugs like Zoloft & sleeping pills, priests (though talking with a Jesuit did help me put things into perspective), etc. So there's your one example.

Yawn the old drugs are morally equal to guns arguement.

Guns and drugs are inanimate objects and have no morality, good or bad. Bad people can misuse guns and good people can use drugs without hurting anyone, but that doesn't mean that guns are bad and drugs are good.

Firearems help save innocent life and property, please tell me the last time when the recreational(addictive) use of a joint, crack pipe, or heroin needle have saved a life.

How does a firearm in the hands of a car-jacker help save innocent life and property? Marijuana, cocaine, and opiates have saved many many lives, but like guns or anything else, in the hands of the irresponsible they may be misused -- but that doesn't justified a general ban of either.

You are very pro-drug. You want all drugs legalised.

A person who wants all abortion legal is called pro-abortion.

There are many here who are opposed to federal hate crime laws. Care to label them pro-hate?

As opposed to prisons, drug warriors, courts and lawyers. Not to mention broken families and the general loss of credibility by the government.

Thats actually a very good example of what I pointed out before. Create a problem(drugs), give people jobs to solve the problem(DEA, etc.) and then steal money from me to pay people to solve the problem, thus making my life harder through taxes, government spying, drug tests, etc..

I think even the hard core drug warriors don't really realize the amount of money stolen from the people to fight this phoney war. When you think of all the costs of law enforcement from the regular cops, to the janitors at the DEA, to an overwhelmed justice system, the costs of paramilitary gear, cars, helicopters, informants, etc....., you realize the billions and billions wasted. And for what? Nothing at all. Nothing at all.

Drug criminalization is no doubt the brain child of someone selling drugs. Someone who only thinks of themselves.

follow the money honey ...

so true , so true

I don't know what all the fuss is about. This is America, land of the free. If someone wants to ingest or consume something they should be able to as long as they don't harm or indanger someone else, ie: Driver a car.

Why is the government even involved in this? Why are there thousands of these government stormtrooper teams breaking into peoples homes etc? This is a joke and should be done *ONLY* in a dictatorship. Send these guys to our bleeding borders.

Even most police officers will tell you in private that the WOD is a sad joke on the poor tax payers, and an absolute waste of resources and the government has done nothing but turn millions of American citizens into criminals. This is a fact.

If an American has a damn medical or drug problem and obviously needs or wants help, give them some help. You don't throw them in a G-damn cage for years at a time. Thats insane. These are our own people. What in the hell are we doing? Gezzzz.

My ex-wife committed adultery, hence the divorce, and that's really the end of the story. Before that, I didn't smoke.

The "escape" gave my mind the time to heal. To that end, I can say without reservation that MJ was more important to my recovery than any of the standard treatment options---counseling, professional psychiatrists proscribing "approved" drugs like Zoloft & sleeping pills, priests (though talking with a Jesuit did help me put things into perspective), etc. So there's your one example.

Like I said I only know one part of the story and your ex-wife is not here to give hers, also I really didn't want to know your story, but you are the one who brought it up twice.(like you wanted to flaunt your victimhood and anybody who disagrees with you about MJ is just as "evil"(for lack of a better word) as your ex-wife)

Your ignorance of the principles of individual liberty and personal responsibility on which this nation was founded never ceases to amaze me.

Got those jackboots polished brightly today, Herr Freddy?

.(like you wanted to flaunt your victimhood and anybody who disagrees with you about MJ is just as "evil"(for lack of a better word) as your ex-wife)

BS. You posed the question, rhetorical or not, and I called you on it. I'm not a victim, nor would I ever use my divorce to evoke pity, and I don't think people who disagree with me about MJ are evil. I gave you an honest answer to your question, and since it wasn't the answer you were looking for, you seem willing to dismiss it.
Exactly what point were you trying to make, then?

If this were the standard for outlawing something, we would have no television, Nintendo, or public schools!

Isn't is ironic that drug warriors sound so much like the Taliban!!

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.