Hey, man.... Some guy told me that if we go with him, he’ll hide us out in a cave, man! Where he lives, dope is free and the chicks don’t talk back, man!
Posted on 12/03/2001 11:53:17 PM PST by FF578
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.
Hey, man.... Some guy told me that if we go with him, he’ll hide us out in a cave, man! Where he lives, dope is free and the chicks don’t talk back, man!
No, instead of fighting socialism, you and your type wish to use it as an excuse to stop your totalitarian actions. No one, ever, with your views, has proposed anything such as decriminalizing drugs and ending publically funded health care. Why not? Its a cop out. In one breath, you and your kind "oppose" socialism and trumpet "personal responsibility", and in the next breath, you seek to curtail personal rights due to the socialism you supposedly abhor. You also act as if you have a right to health care. You sound like Hillary.
That is childish and a leap of logic. Please go back to your freshmen dorm and study for bit.
Childish logic? A definition of "childish logic" would be when a poster such as yourself makes such a comment as you did to another poster who's profile page clearly states that he is a college graduate. But anyway, you didn't come here to discuss logic...
No, it won't solve those problems but it will solve the problems created when we jail a large proportion of our society for non violent "crimes".
But I still have reservations about legalizing drugs
Yes the arguemnet of moral equivalency(i.e watching too much TV is the same as shooting up heroin) is very logical on paper, but it doesn't work in the real world, IMHO.
What the hell are they teaching you down in Alabama anyway? Prison Industrial Complex? Which liberal arts class did you pull that leftist jingosim out of? Do tell me - do you have a "Mean People Suck" bumper sticker on the back of your Jeep?
The liberals have taught you well. Resort to personal attacks when reason runs out.
Cool. I like reading your stuff too, Dane. If nothing else, you're consistently consistent.
Oh BTW, I am a male.
Based on your writing style, I would have thought so too, actually. Now back to the discussion at hand: you asked if the recreational use of MJ has ever helped anyone, and I sucked it up and told my tale. Now what was the point of your question?
that just about wraps it up. naturally, the democrats think of the tax implications to fund their social programs that now include drug rehab.
But I still have reservations about legalizing drugs.
Wow -- I ALMOST convinced you? Cool. Thanks for the compliment!
I guess it'll take someone close to you getting BUSTED and put through the criminal-justice system wringer to make you realize the stupidity of JAILING people for their own self-injurious behavior.
”AAAGGGGGGGGG, MAN!!!! HEY, NORTHERN ALLIANCE, ZAP YOU, MAN!!! ZAP YOU AND YOUR CIA WOD PIGS, MAN”
Why does everyone except those who drool for a WOD understand that crack, heroine and meth are ILLEGAL, and this happens. The WOD has stopped no one who wants to take drugs from taking them. The only point of the poster is that we have "human misery" right now, and people are not "supposed" to even possess "drugs".
In fact, something like 90% of these cases are substance related.
I would agree, and the substance is LEGAL ALCOHOL!!!
No, I have a Ron Paul for President sticker on my vehicle. Sounds like somebody has taught you a word or two "leftist jingoism?" I am ANYTHING but leftist.
Who said that I wanted publicly funded health care? Certainly not I. If you can find a quote supproting that within the almost 4 years I have been here at FR, please show me.
The reality is that some people believe (even though they are wrong) they do have a right to health care and those people have agents, like Ted Kennedy, in Washington. You should know (but then again...) that one of the basic tenets of government is that "If you subsidize something, then you get more of it".
I would have liked to start off on a good discussion, but you chose to sling insults since your arguments are so flimsy. Sorry, you had to do that, but maybe in the future we can have a grown up discussion.
what you have said is correct. but remember, traditionally people went to church, had ethical values and communities self policed each other. as our moral fiber has eroded, more laws have been passed that protect us from each other, unfortunately. i wish this was not the case, but people being what they are, i am satisfied that there is a need for government laws to protect us from each other.
your comment on the income tax is right on. i had a relative that wrote and ammendment to repeal it ... irs got involved early and often...
Personal attack
Prison Industrial Complex? Which liberal arts class did you pull that leftist jingosim out of?
Another personal attack.
Do tell me - do you have a "Mean People Suck" bumper sticker on the back of your Jeep?
Yet another personal attack.
No, man, I'm Fred, come on, open the door, I got the stuff ---
Fred ---
Come on, man, the cops are outside --- open the door, man
Fred's not here ---
I realize this sets aside the philospohical arguments about rights, the Constitution, etc. Practically, if the people want to end the "war", they can. Some states have passed initiatives for medical marijuana. Problem is, that would be illegal. What they need to do is promote a candidate for President, or at least form a special interest lobby, that will change the status of marijuana from Schedule 1 to a less restrictive schedule. Maybe the Governor's Association could take it up en masse, if enough of them agreed. All that would be perfectly legal, and perfectly Republican. The fact that it hasn't happened, IMO, speaks to the fact that not many people care enough about the issue, and that not many people take the time to understand how our government works.
From "each other", not "ourselves". That's where the War on Drugs is wrong and unconstitutional.
LOL!!! I chose to sling insults??? Didn't you just get through asking AUgrad, "What the hell do they teach you down there in Alabama" and "Do you have a 'mean people suck' bumper stikcer on your car'"????
And a "grown up discussion"??? You can never have a "grown up discussion" with someone who wants to yell, "Mommy, mommy, stop that man from smoking marijuana".
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.