Drug Legalization - Expensive and Deadly Lie

Washington Witness ^ | by Eric Lobsinger

[billbears]

What? I can't have an opinion against drugs? I said it wasn't the right of the national government to enforce the law, but I have to agree that it's a good idea to take drugs as well? I'm not the one sounding like a Democrat

[clamper1797]

please tell me the last time when the recreational(addictive) use of a joint

Does that mean you're FOR medical MJ Dane ????

[fod]

Drugs already cause so much harm. Imagine the societal mayhem if illegal drugs were legalized!

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...

[aruanan]

Except that the major costs to society have been as a direct consequence of having made drugs illegal. The same thing happened with tobacco centuries ago with the death penalty, asset forfeiture, mutilation (lips and noses removed) being imposed for tobacco use. Making a substance illegal, especially a substance that people want, guarantees that it will become the subject of criminal enterprise. The costs to society of this criminal enterprise cannot be blamed on the drug. It's just a substance. It cannot be blamed on the behavior of people who desire to use it, because their desire is not what made the drug illicit. The costs to society, beyond the physical effects of addiction or other physical/health consequences of the drug, must be placed on directly on the actual cause--decisions made by legislators pandering to pressure groups for votes (or worse, attempting to use the law to engineer society in their own image)--and consequent enforcement actions. The United States had easily--available drugs of all sorts for hundreds of years. Yes, there were some addicts (there will ALWAYS be addicts), but there weren't the legislative-added consequences of property seizure, organized crime (both by criminals and police), home invasions (both by criminals and cops), etc., etc., etc.. Folks, you need to get real. Even if drugs were being sold on every street corner if made legal (oh wait, in a lot of places they're sold on just about every corner even though illegal), your attitude as a parent will have a greater effect on preventing drug use by your children than will anything else.

[aruanan]

Drugs already cause so much harm. Imagine the societal mayhem if illegal drugs were legalized!

You just hit on the core of the problem; "imagine". Reality doesn't work this way. Imagine the horror we'll have if we don't stop global warming. Imagine the starvation that will ensue if the government were to stop providing food stamps. Imagine how illiterate the U.S. would be if it weren't for public schools. Remember, when you base your actions on what you "imagine" will happen, you're putting yourself on the same intellectual level of John Lennon.

[zeaal]

Include Ritalin with the Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil ... it is too late.

[Nate505]

Just change a couple of words in the above italicized paasage and you sound like a democrat.

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....

[Nate505]

Legalizing drugs will produce a nation of zombies who are impossible to live with individually and who will impose their stunted mentalities politically.

As opposed to the political geniuses who are running the country right now?

[philman_36]

...I could almost believe that the author is secretly for legalization and that this entire article is an attempt to point out the absurdity in prohibitionist arguments.
Shhhh...satirist at work. Don't let the cat out of the bag.

[alpowolf]

When you see the arguments drug warriors use, how can you tell the difference?

[realpatriot71]

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

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?

[eleni121]

Oh those human desires again! When your human desires interfere and endanger my life or anyone's life then laws that prohibit, limit, curtail etc are the only tools society has to defend itself.

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.

[realpatriot71]

You're right, there is no "drug right" clause, or "drug right amendment. However, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Right were all based on natural inalienable rights, these being life, liberty, and property. These are rights that cannot being given nor taken away, but rather just "are" by the nature of being human. Humans had these rights long before there ever was a society or government, so to now say that society and government now grant these rights is rediculous. The logical extension of life, liberty, and property rest on the body of the individual human himself, because if one has nothing, one still has his own body. Therefore we have a natural inalienable right to do what we want to our bodies, including drugs. However, I'm sure this is too much for you and other drug warriors to understand.

[jimt]

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.

Are there any facts to back up this absurd bald assertion?

I thought not.

[christianswindler]

That the Consitution and the Declaration of Independence are written on hemp fiber, notwithstanding.

That's a fascinating little irony, isn't it?.

[68 grunt]

I quess the 'pursuit of happiness' is right out, huh?

[68 grunt]

Hey, he's the Pope! Let him pontificate his arse off, I, for one couldn't give a ratz about his position.

[FreeTally]

Oh those human desires again! When your human desires interfere and endanger my life or anyone's life then laws that prohibit, limit, curtail etc are the only tools society has to defend itself.

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.

[Nate505]

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.

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!