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.
Does that mean you're FOR medical MJ Dane ????
Imagine the costs involved (human and monetary) of prohibition and the corruption involved in trying to supress human desires
oops- we don't need to imagine, just pick up a history book and read about prohibition I...
Look, I'm against drugs abortion. Don't like them the procedure, never used them knew anbody who had one. Anybody that does use 'illegal' mind altering drugs has an abortion IMHO is out in left field and needs serious help. That being said, I have slowly changed my mind over the past few months about legalizing drugs abortion.
How interesting....you whine about guns not being the moral equivalent to drugs, then you compare drug use to abortion....
As opposed to the political geniuses who are running the country right now?
Violence always accompanies an illegal market. As long as drugs are illegal, keep on looking for the violence.
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.
This guy lost ALL credibility when he made this statement. Alcohol, impairs judgement, slows down motor coordination, too much will poison you, stop your breathing, and you will die. But alcohol is benign, right? Its not dangerous, right?
By your reasoning, society should permit the sexual abuse of children because it is your desire. Sexual exploitation of children is no different from exposing them to hashish/heroin fumes in the home.
Are there any facts to back up this absurd bald assertion?
I thought not.
That's a fascinating little irony, isn't it?.
Endangering your life can only be accomplished through the initiation of force. When some initiates force against you, then the action is punished, regardless of the reason, whether it be they hate you or what not. Your perception does not constitute an initiation of force. IF we base law on the "perception principle", then I have just reason to ban almost anything because of my "perception" of what could happen or be done with an object. This IS the basis of the argument of HCI, MMM and others - that is, because they "perceive" mere ownership of an object as a threat, then they should be able to ban its possession becasue of their perception. Not every person who ingests every illegal drug(which many are no different than legal drugs) engages in crime or threatens harm to someone. Your perception of "drug users" does not give you any such right to have the "government"(who represents even those who use drugs) inprison of kill persons for possessing "drugs".
By your reasoning, society should permit the sexual abuse of children because it is your desire.
It may be one's desire, but it probably not the childs desire. See, there are TWO PEOPLE involved in your scenario. See where you have gone wrong?
Sexual exploitation of children is no different from exposing them to hashish/heroin fumes in the home.
Im not sure you even know what you are talking about now. There are no "fumes" from heroine and hash is not even a widely used drug. Secondly, this is the same arguments many Cities, Counties and "communities" have used to effectively ban smoking.
That could be one of the dumbest analogies I've ever heard here, and that is saying a lot. Exposing children to hashish/heorin fumes is nothing close to comparable than exploiting them sexually.....it is more like exposing them to second hand tobacco smoke (and if you think that is no different from sexually exploiting children, you have me for a loss of words).
Here's another newsflash. Not everyone has children!
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.