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.
It never fails to amuze me utterly how some people here will throw in the most asinine non sequitur to try to associate something they disapprove of (drugs) with something that every sane person would disapprove of (child molestation). When someone has to resort to this kind of specious nexus, it's apparent that they have no credibility and no merit to their own argument.
Sexual exploitation of children is no different from exposing them to hashish/heroin fumes in the home.
Respectfully, sir/madam, there is no similarity whatsoever and you do a grave injustice to the victims of child sexual abuse to say there is. Beyond that ill twist of logic, I would presume that most people who may be doing drugs are doing it out of the view of their children, rather than grabbing them by the throat and blowing the smoke in their faces.
Enough with the Reefer Madness nonsense.
Nope, you're wrong. I've seen it smoked. And hash is a close variant of weed. And it would be more widely used if there were non limits on drug use.
See, there are TWO PEOPLE involved in your scenario. See where you have gone wrong?
Wrong again. When one uses drugs, others are affected unwillingly. But, you know, I wouldn't be against enclosed isolated places where the drug users could do it to their heart's content. JUST NOT AMONG UNWILLING MEMBERS OF SOCIETY!
What!? Reefer Madness isn't the truth? How can that be? Wasn't it put out by the all-mighty, all-knowing gubmint? That means it must be true!
First of all, that is not my principle. I believe the consequences for one's actions should be punished harshly. If the initial action has no consequences that go beyond the user, than the action's shouldn't be punished. However, to compare second hand smoke/fumes to the sexual explotiation of a child is so asinine that it boggles the mind. It's like comparing jaywalking to rape.
The Constitution limits the power of government, and only deliniates certain rights which are "God Given." It is not the purpose of the document to list every right held by man.
I am wrong that it takes two people to constitute sexual abuse, but only one to ingest "drugs"? Ok. You are right.
When one uses drugs, others are affected unwillingly.
No one is unwillingly affected. You willingly put up with a spouse, child, family member or friend who abuses drugs. You let others abuse affect you. People have OPTIONS, and they are not always easy.
But, you know, I wouldn't be against enclosed isolated places where the drug users could do it to their heart's content. JUST NOT AMONG UNWILLING MEMBERS OF SOCIETY!
When are people forced to be around drug use? You have CHOICES!! If you are being held down and forced to inhale something, that is a crime. Your scenario sounds a whole lot like the way alcohol is treated. You know, it is illegal to be PUBLICALLY DRUNK!?!?
Secondly, regarding your argument, you are again dictating legality of the possession of an object based upon only your desires.
And again, you started by making a silly, illogical argument comparing "child abuse" and "voluntary drugs use". You are not getting any further with, "let me dictate where possession is legal".
Thats not the point.
"SOCIETY" has a "right" to defend itself?
The VILLAGE will rule our life, eh Hillary?
So you apparently approve of taking my money and using it to control the peaceful, consensual actions of others all in the name of the state.
That makes you a thief, socialist and and marxist.
Your true colors are showing
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.
So sorry dear, that is your faulty reasoning trying to equate consensual activities of adults with child abuse...It is quite crazy the lengths some will go to defend thier pet projects.
And whose to say all 3 arent "Hopped Up" on alcohol right now ?
After all this time I can't believe people still use that intelectually bankrupt argument. The Constitution does not enumerate all of your rights. It mainly deals with restricting the power of government.
While I dont exactly agree with the libertarian mind set on drugs, I will say this reasoning is flawed. Does the constitution guarantee your right to flush a toilet, sneeze on a train, wear revealing clothing, etc ?
you mean like the privacy of their own home ?
interesting idea
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.