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.

What the hell are they teaching you down in Alabama anyway? 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.

Don't give him too hard a time, he may take his computer and go home.

I have some reservations about legalizing some of the currently prohibitied substances, and I am in the anti-prohibition camp. It isn't that drugs aren't expensive or deadly, rather for one are drugs more expensive and more deadly than the policies put in place to eliminate them, two what cost to traditional rights such as expectations of privacy and property must we sacrifice to see prohibition succeed, and three will drug prohibition ultimately succeed?

if somebody wants to screw up his life with drugs, that is his business

i am sorry that you would let a good friend screw up his life with drugs and not get involved in saving that person's life.

there are two problems with your argument: first, the person who screws up his life will become another government dependent. secondly, before he has screwed up his life, he has the potential to screw up someone else's life while he is high on drugs. lawyers making poor decisions, doctors who accidently slice an artery, rail switch operators who cannot keep track of what direction the trains are going on any one track.

it is people that want freedom, but who do not want the responsibility that comes with their freedom that are a bane to society.

Some states have passed initiatives for medical marijuana. Problem is, that would be illegal.

What the DEA did in California on October 22nd is unconstitutional -- the 9th and 10th Amendments were thrown out the window when the medi-pot clinics were raided.

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.

Two things:

1. GWB claimed during the 2000 election that he would respect state's rights regarding medical marijuana. On October 22nd, he broke that promise.

2. The DEA has over the years commissioned studies on rescheduling marijuana. Every time, the studies came back in favor of rescheduling. Every time they were ignored.

The "war" doesn't have to end. The CSA of 1970 leaves all the tools necessary for the people of America to legalize drugs. Controlled substances can be removed from the "schedules" as provided by law. And it is done by the Executive Branch, so all the people have to do is elect a President who shares their views. And there are different schedules, with different levels of control, giving people flexibility. So there it is.

This has been discussed time and time again. "The people" can not change drug policy. Those in charge are APPOINTED. No one who runs for government office is going to end government control. Its just that simple, and you know it.

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

You just contradicted yourself. If the feds still deem "drugs" illegal, then "the people"(who are the States) cant change anything. Where did the Constitution give the Feds the power to dictate drug policy to the States? It didn't, and you know it.

It is already common knowledge that the basis of the 1970 CSA is fraudulent. The entire basis for drug prohibition is fraudulent. How do you expect a government who still recognizes fraudulent laws and rational to change anything. The "average person" can not even hope to be appointed to a position that could change things. The "people can end the WOD" arguments is the most flimsy argument around. The government will not give up control without a war.

from each other, not ourselves

i understand your point. but when a person goes to work high, he is putting people at risk. doctors, lawyers, airline pilots, etc. can kill people with poor judgment. in addition, the corruption that follows a drug trail is bad for society.

people often times cite amsterdam as a place where drugs have been successfully decriminalized. i have been there and am disgusted by parts of the city. further, knight hawk, a freeper, has said that the drug problem has caused amsterdam to now be the murder capital of western europe, surpassing london. this from the very non-violent hollanders!

it is people that want freedom, but who do not want the responsibility that comes with their freedom that are a bane to society.

That is the libertarian message, in a nutshell. Without responsibility, there can be no liberty. Without liberty, there can be no morality. It's that second statement that drug warriors have such a hard time with.

That is the libertarian message, in a nutshell. Without responsibility, there can be no liberty Without liberty, there can be no morality. It's that second statement that drug warriors have such a hard time with.

Soory bass, but you you and the Libertarians have the message backwards. Below is the message that works.

Without morality, there can be no liberty. Without liberty, there can be no responsiblity.

Your above italicized message in the first paragaraph is anarchy.

i>i understand your point. but when a person goes to work high, he is putting people at risk. doctors, lawyers, airline pilots, etc. can kill people with poor judgment.

The same problems are noted with that legal drug, alcohol. And employers have every right to ban use of mind-altering substances while employees are on the job. That has nothing to do with prohibition, and everything to do with an employer's discretion on who gets hired and fired.

in addition, the corruption that follows a drug trail is bad for society.

"Bad for society" ONLY because of the legal status. My guess is that the CEO's of Anheuser-Busch and Seagram's are probably not sociopaths, because they run businesses that operate within the framework of the law. Drug kingpins, however, succeed only through utter ruthlessness, as there are no laws to serve as a framework for their "commerce".

Don't know much about Amsterdam - never been there - but I am aware that Holland is a bloated welfare state that has other problems besides drugs. And remember, drugs are not LEGAL there; only possession has been decriminalized. The drug TRADE is still illegal, with all the violence associated with the black market.

Without morality, there can be no liberty. Without liberty, there can be no responsiblity.

In our world, that means morality is whatever the government says it means. That, my friend, is the essence of totalitarianism.

Your above italicized message in the first paragaraph is anarchy.

No, it's freedom, just as the Founding Fathers intended.

No one is completely sheltered from the violence, destruction, and costs that arise as a result of drugs.

The article starts off with a false premise. That sentence should read:

No one is completely sheltered from the violence, destruction, and costs that arise as a result the illegalization of drugs.

If drugs were legal there would be very little violence, destruction or costs arising.

No. He has no clue what he is talking about. He's just regurgitating McCaffrey's lies.

Click here.

Or here.

I think you get the idea.

Let's Make a Dope Deal!

Behind Door #1: 20 lbs of Afghani hash

Behind Door #2: 200 reds

Come on, take the reds, man!

Behind Door #3 are Narcs -- Officer Fred25 and Officer Kevin Curry ---> YOU'RE BUSTED!!

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.