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.

Is there any evidence that any of the Constitution's authors disagreed that it founded a federal government whose powers were strictly limited to those that were explicitly enumerated?

I think so. According to my reading, the first Bank of the United States involved just that sort of controversy. You had Hamilton and Washington going one way, and Madison and others going the other. As I recall, it involved the breadth of certain now famous phrases, i.e., "necessary and proper", "interstate commerce", etc.

Anyway, my reason for not wanting to debate the subject is that, IMO, it is settled. The Constitution is, generally speaking, broadly interpreted. There are piles and piles of SCOTUS caselaw, and therefore, piles and piles of state and Federal law, built on such interpretations. Further, my impression is that, culturally, Americans are not too concerned about following a standard, and therefore are willing to "cheat" the Constitution, even if we did decide to strictly interpret it. So, from my point of view, it would take a revolution to make any headway on that subject.

Therefore, I find it more practical and realistic to explore ways of producing change within the system as it is currently understood. In my mind, if you can have enough important victories-on rights, entitlements, taxes--you breed a culture more amenable to a debate on 9th, 10th and limited Government. However, sucha debate has to address the abject failures of the states in the past, namely slavery and Jim Crow, both of which were STATE systems tolerated for a time by the FedGov. They are also a big reason the original sense of the 10th changed, IMO.

According to my reading, the first Bank of the United States involved just that sort of controversy. You had Hamilton and Washington

Washington was not an author of the Constitution. (Was Hamilton? I forget.)

going one way, and Madison and others going the other. As I recall, it involved the breadth of certain now famous phrases, i.e., "necessary and proper", "interstate commerce", etc.

The Constitution, like any meaningful document, is not properly interpreted phrase by phrase.

You may be right about all that. But is has no bearing on the important question of what is the conservative position---and whether a truly conservative position can ever countenance a violation of the Constitution (which the intrastate portion of the federal War On Some Drugs clearly is).

In my mind, if you can have enough important victories-on rights, entitlements, taxes--you breed a culture more amenable to a debate on 9th, 10th and limited Government.

Perhaps. Or perhaps by ignoring the 9th and 10th amendments in fighting those battles, we'll have practically conceded that they are dead letters.

However, sucha debate has to address the abject failures of the states in the past, namely slavery and Jim Crow, both of which were STATE systems tolerated for a time by the FedGov. They are also a big reason the original sense of the 10th changed, IMO.

Nonsense. The post-Civil War amendments addressed those issues, which are nonetheless the liberals' favorite brushes for smearing the Founders' basic principle of limited federal government.

Washington was not an author of the Constitution. (Was Hamilton? I forget.)

Washington presided over the Constitutional Convention as a delegate from Virginia. After the convention the electoral collage unanimously elected him our first President. If you are going to attempt to discount George Washington's authority on our Constititution, you are in for an uphill climb.

Alexander Hamilton was a delegate to the convention from New York, and served under Washington as our first Treasury Secretary, and was also a co-author of the Federalist Papers. Again, if you wish to get around him, you are in for some rough going.

Incidentally, among those who did NOT attend the Constitiutional Convention were Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, John and Samuel Adams.

The Constitution, like any meaningful document, is not properly interpreted phrase by phrase.

On what authority do you make such a statement? Could you cite your reference? What is your expertise in the area?

But is has no bearing on the important question of what is the conservative position---and whether a truly conservative position can ever countenance a violation of the Constitution (which the intrastate portion of the federal War On Some Drugs clearly is).

Aaaah, a "truly" conservative position. That is, I guess, an interesting theoretical argument, but I choose to remain in the real world.

Or perhaps by ignoring the 9th and 10th amendments in fighting those battles, we'll have practically conceded that they are dead letters.

Practically, they are dead letters, from a conservative point of view. That is my point.

Nonsense. The post-Civil War amendments addressed those issues, which are nonetheless the liberals' favorite brushes for smearing the Founders' basic principle of limited federal government.

You can't skip ahead to the post-Civil War so easily. In reality, it was the WAR which addressed the issues. When the post-war amendments were passed, the slave states were still firmly ensconced under the Union's bootheel. Later on, with Jim Crow, the same mess was played out again, thankfully,without a war. But the fact remains, the problems of the old south were examples of state governments engaging in tyrannical rule, and the Federal government interceding to ensure liberty. This has left the concept of states rights in disrepute ever since, fairly or not. It is a shame, IMO. Many fine states were quite capable, from the beginning, of governing themselves.

Washington was not an author of the Constitution. (Was Hamilton? I forget.)

Washington presided over the Constitutional Convention as a delegate from Virginia. After the convention the electoral collage unanimously elected him our first President.

None of which makes him an author of the Constitution.

If you are going to attempt to discount George Washington's authority on our Constititution, you are in for an uphill climb.

He had no more authority on our Constitution than any other delegate---and here's what the other delegates thought: "At the convention Hamilton was unable to play a significant role. His desire for a strongly centralized federal government, including a president for life, was not shared by the other convention delegates." (Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia)

Alexander Hamilton was a delegate to the convention from New York, and served under Washington as our first Treasury Secretary, and was also a co-author of the Federalist Papers. Again, if you wish to get around him, you are in for some rough going.

See above. Not to mention that what, once holding the reins of power, he claimed to think the Constitution said proves little about what he understood it to say at the time of its ratification. I'll see if I can find anything in his Federalist Paper writings that indicates a belief in "loose construction."

The Constitution, like any meaningful document, is not properly interpreted phrase by phrase.

On what authority do you make such a statement? Could you cite your reference? What is your expertise in the area?

My authority and expertise is that of a native speaker of English and a reader and author of many documents in that language.

Aaaah, a "truly" conservative position. That is, I guess, an interesting theoretical argument, but I choose to remain in the real world.

So "real world" conservatism gives up the Constitution for dead? I think you've confused the "real world" with the grave.

Practically, [the 9th and 10th amendments] are dead letters, from a conservative point of view. That is my point.

So you hope to "breed a culture more amenable to a debate on" dead letters? And you claim to live in the real world??

the problems of the old south were examples of state governments engaging in tyrannical rule, and the Federal government interceding to ensure liberty.

Interceding through Constitutional means, i.e., the passing of appropriately empowering amendments.

This has left the concept of states rights in disrepute ever since, fairly or not.

Not. This disrepute is a sleazy tactic of the Left and has no bearing on the proper interpretation of the Constitution.

None of which makes him [Washington] an author of the Constitution.

I don't know what you mean by "author". He was the presiding delegate of the Convention which created our Constitution. What is your point? If you think Washington is of no importance in the matter, say so.

So your contention is that Washington was considered an equal with all the others? OK, you can believe that if you like. As for your quote, you didn't identify which other delegate said that, and anyway it's beside the point. If it is your contention that Alexander Hamilton was inconsequential in the crafting of our government, say so.

My authority and expertise is that of a native speaker of English and a reader and author of many documents in that language.

I see. You speak English.

So "real world" conservatism gives up the Constitution for dead? I think you've confused the "real world" with the grave.

Real world conservatism competes in the marketplace, not the ivory tower. What is "truly" conservative is totally meaningless if it can't be applied to our government. It is easy for people to sit on the sidelines, pure and unvarnished. Let one such person win an election, or pass a law, then they can talk.

So you hope to "breed a culture more amenable to a debate on" dead letters? And you claim to live in the real world??

Abraham Lincoln once said "Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed." I agree with him on that. If the public is convinced of the ideas behind the law, the law will succeed. Therefore, I believe we should foster the ideas, if we ever hope to have the laws observed.

Interceding through Constitutional means, i.e., the passing of appropriately empowering amendments.

It was a lot more than just that. First and foremost it meant going to war. And let's not forget as recently as 1968 a majority of Southern states voted for a segregationist third party candidate for President, even though such a policy had already been ruled unconstitutional. This type of ongoing disregard for civil liberty has left many Americans with grave doubts about states' ability to govern themselves.

Not. This disrepute is a sleazy tactic of the Left and has no bearing on the proper interpretation of the Constitution.

You know best. I can see you have it all figured out. Maybe you can write a book and change the world. Take care.

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.