Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Prison Nation?
Posted by: McQ on Monday, July 02, 2007

Look, I'll be the first to admit that we have a lot of people in prison, and further admit I think the War on Drugs is the reason (and feel that it is the WoD which should be ended).

But this is simply hyperbole:
America has become a prison nation. More than 2 million people are behind bars.
2 million is .66% of 300 million. So that hardly makes us a "prison nation". But we do need to look at a number of things to reduce that percentage. And in that regard, the intent of the article cited is understandable and supportable even if I don't necessarily support the programs highlighted there. Why?
Congress needs to pass the Second Chance Act, which would provide grants, guidance and assistance to states and localities that are developing programs to reintegrate former inmates into their communities.

....The Second Chance Act would bolster the re-entry movement with money, training, technical assistance — and the federal stamp of approval.
Because it is another in a long line of federal bureaucratic boondoggles which will most likely end up long on rhetoric and spending and short on results.

Obviously we need a way to handle low-level non-violent criminals in a way that doesn't necessarily involve incarceration. But a better way is to take a look at the War on Drugs and what it has done in terms of upping the prison population, and consider that perhaps instead of repeating the failure we once suffered when we tried prohibition of another substance, that perhaps there are some valuable lessons to be learned there and we might want to try to apply them now.

Since we're all so interested in an exit strategy concerning the Iraq war, I'd love to hear an exit strategy for the War on Drugs, which, by any count, has been a dismal failure.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
On a basic level, I understand the "don’t criminalize drugs"...

But at the same time, if you do that, you need to add huge penalties to crimes commited while high.

If you get into a car acciednt and kill someone, you aren’t anywhere NEAR as screwed as you would be if you were drunk when you had the crash.

Same thing for other drug use.

Just my opinion...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Just say no to the war on drugs. We learned faster with prohibition.
 
Written By: MarkD
URL: http://
How about we treat pot like we do alcohol? Let it be legal to possess and consume small amounts of the stuff if you’re over 21, let the cops throw you in jail if you get pulled over and have whatever the THC equivalent of a 0.10 BAC is.

Or, instead of throwing a guy in jail for a week for having a dimebag, offer him a choice - (a) get hazed for 20 minutes (b) burn it all, not smoke it, right then and there (c) jail (d) fine.
 
Written By: James
URL: http://
I don’t think it’s that simple. If pot, why not other drugs? Why not cocaine bars and opium dens? Well, more seriously, why not?

What isn’t so simple is the mindset change necessary to get the idea across that legal != right and illegal != wrong.

My kids don’t have that problem since they’ve got two parents telling them that legality has nothing much to do with right and wrong or how they should behave but what percentage of the population will hear "legalize pot" and hear "pot isn’t bad?"

Well, frankly, that’s what I hear from the pot legalizers most often. That pot should be legal because it’s not bad.

But it is. Just like alcohol is bad. Just like cigarettes are bad.

Just like "harder" recreational drugs are bad.

They are bad for children and bad for our society. Bad, bad, bad. The fact that making them illegal doesn’t stop the bad stuff and then adds additional law enforcement related bad stuff is important, but an "exit strategy" needs a heavy component of preaching about personal responsibility and the proper relation of legality with right and wrong.
 
Written By: Synova
URL: http://synova.blogspot.com
They are bad for children and bad for our society.
So is abuse of alcohol, but we seem to have learned it is better to deal with the problems it brings in the open than allowing criminal enterprises to run the business and jail the users.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Look, just because you have untold friends and relatives locked up does not make it a prison nation. I can only presume that’s why lefties get so crazed about this stuff.

Myself, I dont have any... since my release...
 
Written By: rob
URL: http://
I agree with the war on drugs, BUT as a show of big-heartedness let me hereby propose this, Comprehensive Grand Bargain Compromise; we will:
1) Legalize drugs or at least decrimalize drugs for those over 18; AND
2) Abolish Welfare.

Unless you do "2" don’t bother talking about "1". I’m not about to pay my money for treatment or welfare so a bunch of stoners can sit around and recover or practice some alternative "hippie" lifestyle whilst I pay ever higher taxes.

This is the silly little thing about libertarians, they want to fiscal conservatives AND social liberals, but unless you enact them simultaneously or institute fiscal conservatisim first, you’ll just end up creating more "social" programs, for the problems that your social liberalism "caused."

I thought someone at The American Spectator put it well, today you can not be a social liberal and a fiscal conservative, because social liberalism brings, in it’s wake, all sorts of problems that do-gooders then try to fix with social welfare programs. I think you can be a social Conservative and a fiscal conservative, not much of that in the GOP admittedly, but the reality is that social liberalism can be popular, but then the fiscal conservatism never seems to arrive...usually because Hillary or the NYT or the Children’s Defense Fund or 60 Minutes begins to run stories about the "horrors" that our ’utes, poor, womyn, and People of Colour are enduring because of (insert faddish problem here) and only MASSIVE spending can cure it. Sure we all like being tolerant, but then we can’t be hard-hearted and not "H’ep" the victims of the problems...or otherwise be sexist, racist, bigot, homophobes.

Example, divorce. "No Fault" Divorce, very popular...the result lots of men leaving their wives and famblies...want a child in poverty? Rear that child in a single parent household. Want to perpetuate the cycle, allow single parent households to become the norm and to pass the practice on to THEIR offspring. So now we’ve got to DO SOMETHING about Child Poverty and Child Health and Child Insurance.

Bottom-Line: You get rid of Welfare first, then get back to me about decrimina;izing drugs. Otherwise you’re just raising taxes on all of us, except the smelly hippies sitting around readding Timothy Leary and Abbie Hoffamn, watching Cheech and Chong movies.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
If pot, why not other drugs? Why not cocaine bars and opium dens? Well, more seriously, why not?
Is should immediately be pointed out that we had far less trouble with all the dugs you mention when they were freely available at the corner drug store.

So very seriously, why shouldn’t that relatively happy circumstance be resumed?

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
If those figures don’t make us a "prison nation" then there has never been such a thing in the history of the world. We imprison more people than any other nation on earth, both per capita and as a percentage of population. Name any of the worst countries in history that you hate: Iraq, Soviet Union, South Afric, China—nope we imprison far more people per capita than any of them.

We currently have more people in jail than China and India combined. Happy 4th of July—Let freedom ring!
 
Written By: sponge joe
URL: http://
So very seriously, why shouldn’t that relatively happy circumstance be resumed?
And not so seriously, because Pepsi doesn’t want to lose market-share to Coke Ultra-Classic.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Joe wrote:
This is the silly little thing about libertarians, they want to fiscal conservatives AND social liberals
Joe, I know of none who want to be social liberals. In fact, the very ideas that there should be comprehensive welfare and also that recreational drugs should be controlled are Progressive ideals—nothing to do with libertarianism of any stripe.
I thought someone at The American Spectator put it well, today you can not be a social liberal and a fiscal conservative
Who’s saying you can be?
You get rid of Welfare first, then get back to me about decrimina;izing drugs.
While watching you dissolve into unspellchecked incoherence was enjoyable, I have to point out that even before the current drug regime, recreational drug use co-existed frictionlessly with welfare, it just wasn’t centralized, conditionless welfare.

The "deserving" were helped a great deal, while the "underserving" were let to die under a bridge if they refused to be sober enough to get into a soup line.

The idea welfare must be done away with in order get a net social benefit from legalizing drugs is simply counterfactual.

Not that I really think you care about the facts, you enjoying your hobby horse too much.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
We could reduce our prison population by accepting other sorts of punishment such as caning. But we can’t spank criminals. It’s cruel. So we have to lock them up... because that’s not cruel.

As for China, I don’t recall what I was watching but it was a documentary and one of the people profiled was a police officer in China and one of the things she was doing was supervising drug searches as a border and they arrested people with drugs and the show said that drug smuggling was a capital offense. The men that they caught during filming wouldn’t be imprisoned, they’d be killed.

True?

So, sponge joe, Let freedom ring!
 
Written By: Synova
URL: http://synova.blogspot.com
I know of none who want to be social liberals
I should modify that. As you are ideosyncratically using the term, I know of none who are social liberals at others (tax) expense.

Thank you, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
The War on Drugs needs to be perceived for what it is, an enablement act for drug dealers. The drug laws create their market and the moment that the drug laws are abolished, the worst aspects of illegal drugs will disappear.

Illegal drug dealers market to kids, because what they are doing is ALREADY illegal, so it’s not a big stretch to go that extra step in the marketplace. Legal purveyors would NOT market to kids, as you can see from alcohol marketing.

Instead of the criminality of drugs pulling $30B plus out of our economy (prisons, courts, probation, enforcement, and tax free transactions) legal drugs might raise in revenues to do more to mitigate the damage that drugs cause rather than we taxpayers paying for the costs of drug use, the drug users would bear the burden.

As soon as people get it that drug laws are a boondoggle to scumsucking drug dealers, they might decide to stop helping them out.

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Social liberalism: Gay Marriage, Legal Drugs, Abortion on Demand, in short recognition of the rights of consenting adults to be free in their actions...gee sounds like the LP platform to me, but I could just be wrong. And "social liberalism" didn’t come from me, ask the Major of NYC or a host of other "liberal" folks.
The idea welfare must be done away with in order get a net social benefit from legalizing drugs is simply counterfactual.
Well whip out dem dere ole facts that demonstrate that Modern Welfare State can co-exist with drug legalization...or are you telling me that the Nederlands are a Libertarian Paradise? Since 1932, well really, 1964, the deserving AND undeserving have seen a massive increase in benfits, or di you just miss the Great Society, Tom?
Name any of the worst countries in history that you hate: Iraq, Soviet Union, South Afric, China—nope we imprison far more people per capita than any of them.
Actually Sponge Joe, Iosif Stalin had about 10% of his populace in the GULAG and about 5% guarding them...Might inquire of the Red Guards about the Red Chinese as well. Sorry to interupt you with some facts.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Finally Tom, you didn’t see the small note on "Divorce" as evidence? There is a massive body of evidence about what makes for poverty in the US? And single parenthood is one of the PRIME causes of it.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Joe, you pinheaded idiot, read this line again.
The "deserving" were helped a great deal, while the "underserving" were let to die under a bridge if they refused to be sober enough to get into a soup line.
Also, as much as you desperately want it to be so, the legalization of drugs is not a socially liberal goal, it is a return to the status quo ante—an inherently conservative political position.

You’re carrying water for such leftist/proto-leftist personalities as Mother Jones and Carrie Nation.

And it’s a good look for you, too.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
"Name any of the worst countries in history that you hate: Iraq, Soviet Union, South Afric, China—nope we imprison far more people per capita than any of them."
How many do they execute?

 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
"Name any of the worst countries in history that you hate: Iraq, Soviet Union, South Afric, China—nope we imprison far more people per capita than any of them."
How many do they execute?
With little to no due process...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Joe,

You ignore the vast expenses drug prohibition imposes on the economy. For example, getting rid of the DEA and the other national, state, and local drug enforcement programs would save vast amounts of tax money.

I don’t buy the argument that legalizing drugs would increase the number of people on welfare. However, I guarantee maintaining someone on welfare is vastly cheaper then maintaining them in prison.

As an added bonus ending drug prohibition would markedly improve the functioning of the healthcare system and substantially reduce tax money spent in the healthcare system.

Trauma centers and emergency rooms would not have to deal with drug seeking patients anymore. The reduction in violence related to the drug trade would decrease the number of hugely expensive trauma case the public currently has to pay for.

Finally it would lead to much better pain control for cancer patients and those suffering from chronic pain.

Pain control specialists would no longer have to deal with drug seeking patients. They would would be able to prescribe adequate amnounts of pain control medications without having to fear being arrested by the DEA.
 
Written By: TJIT
URL: http://
Joe, you pinheaded idiot, read this line again.
The "deserving" were helped a great deal, while the "underserving" were let to die under a bridge if they refused to be sober enough to get into a soup line.
Also, as much as you desperately want it to be so, the legalization of drugs is not a socially liberal goal, it is a return to the status quo ante—an inherently conservative political position.
Well that was certainly a reasoned argument, and I’M the one in love with his/her hobby horse...
Well suffice it to say Tom, that for the last 40-50 years the MODERN Welfare state has not been in a position to help the deserving but not the undeserving poor.

So let us recap, IF we abolish the Modern Welfare State we can legalize drugs...until we do that drug legalization will not be in the tax payer’s best interest as the UNDESERVING will be receiving tax payer benefits, right ...Tom? Because the example, such as they are, that you present are from the PRE-1964 era.....you know the Modern Welfare State?
So we agree, wow must hurt to be in agreement with a pinhead or is it more painful to realize that you simply didn’t grasp the pinhead’s argument?

So get back to me on how we abolish the Welfare Stae and then get back to me on legalization.....
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Name any of the worst countries in history that you hate: Iraq, Soviet Union, South Afric, China—nope we imprison far more people per capita than any of them.
That’s because they execute instead of imprison.

Sponge Joe....let idiocy ring!
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
You ignore the vast expenses drug prohibition imposes on the economy. For example, getting rid of the DEA and the other national, state, and local drug enforcement programs would save vast amounts of tax money.
Bet they represent less than 1% of GDP

I don’t buy the argument that legalizing drugs would increase the number of people on welfare.
Really, check out poor neighborhoods, lotsa drugs already...
However, I guarantee maintaining someone on welfare is vastly cheaper then maintaining them in prison.
In my state it’s 32K a year for a prisoner, betcha that comes close to the cost of welfare.
As an added bonus ending drug prohibition would markedly improve the functioning of the healthcare system and substantially reduce tax money spent in the healthcare system.
HUH, MORE people doing drugs, and most drug addicts aren’t productive citizens, will REDUCE healthcare costs? Are you HIGH, right now writing this stuff?
Trauma centers and emergency rooms would not have to deal with drug seeking patients anymore.
No just deal with the increased incidence of the direct effects of substance abuse on the patient and his/her families.
The reduction in violence related to the drug trade would decrease the number of hugely expensive trauma case the public currently has to pay for.
Why is this trade in drugs going to be less violent? Again, Mr Crackhead is not holding a 9-5 job, he’s sticking people up and/or on Welfare...so when we make it easier for him to do drugs and easier for more folks to do drugs, they’re simply going to be more stick-ups and/or more welfare payments.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
One set of statistics I read puts the total cost of the drug war at $178B annually, not including the untaxed illegal drug sales of $50B annually.

Woah!!!

It’s worth it to shut down this miserable failure of a policy if it cost $1B, but this is insanity if even 25% of these amounts are accurate.

Cap

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
 
Written By: TWB
URL: http://taylorwbuley.com
One set of statistics I read puts the total cost of the drug war at $178B annually, not including the untaxed illegal drug sales of $50B annually.
Wow 1.3% of US GNP, that ranks the WoD above Foreign Aid, but pretty much below most other things....
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
As someone who is a recovering drug abuser, the way to deal with drug use is not to criminalize it, but to not allow it to be a lame excuse. It’s a disease, I suppose, but it is one which is self-inflicted, one you choose to have.

It is also not a libertarian position to take to allow people to use drugs and operate planes, autos, perform brain surgery, and such.
 
Written By: The Gonzman
URL: http://
Joe said,
Why is this trade in drugs going to be less violent? Again, Mr Crackhead is not holding a 9-5 job, he’s sticking people up and/or on Welfare...so when we make it easier for him to do drugs and easier for more folks to do drugs, they’re simply going to be more stick-ups and/or more welfare payments.
I guess your comment explains the shootouts the liquor store owners have been having with each other to defend their territory. The drive by shooting done by the coors and budweiser gang killed dozens of people.

We can’t forget the ongoing scourge of armed holdups and home invasions done by booze junkies trying to get money to get a hit of their drug of choice, thunderbird. The Joe Sixpack game was famous for the robberies they used to finance their Rolling Rock habit.

Who can forget the terrible ’boilermaker" habit many steelworkers had. This horrible addiction meant those who got involved with the "boilermakers" lost their jobs and were never able to hold gainful employment again.

You remember those terrible events right Joe?

What, you mean they did not happen because booze was cheap and legal?

Joe, the same economic facts apply to the drug trade. You can ignore the economic facts if you want to.

That just means you are exactly like many liberals, ignoring economic truth because it disagrees with your feel good political philosophy.
 
Written By: TJIT
URL: http://
TJT the person ignoring truth is you...1) alcohol is dangerous 2) alcohol affects very few people badly or rather few people abuse it 3) hard drugs are different. I would submit a far larger portion of those using crack, heroin and the like are ADDICTS, unlike those who do alcohol. from this flows, 4) that when we make crack, heroin and the like more accessible we will create far more addicts. 5) Addicts don’t lead productive lives 6) Addicts support themselves thru crime and state hand-outs 6) Drug legalization will yield no drop in crime and no drop in social spending costs, and in fact may increase them

Now those are some facts and some reasoning, you may not agree because they don’t jive with YOUR political philosophy.

But btw, I do note that people rob liquor stores a lot....gee why is that? For the money, to pay for their habits? So whilst liquor store owners aren’t "bumping" one another off, the clientele sures seems to be willing to do it. And I wonder just how the street soldiers/dealers are going to go "legit"? You think they have a business plan and a marketing budget and strategy or if they will just go along with what has worked for them previously? Plus, their clientele won’t have changed, you’ll always have drugs and cash, so you’ll always have to be armed. Again, this seems to follow from the sort of folk who frequent shooting galleries and crack houses. You know they are poor and desperate not because drugs are illegal, "I’d go back to my 60K a year job IF ONLY heroin were legal", but because THEY ARE ADDICTS.

Now I realize that you and YOUR compadres don’t have a problem with drugs, but your posse isn’t how everyone rolls.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Joe,

In terms of biochemistry and drug metabloism.

1. Booze is very toxic. It can and does cause extensive damage to those who consume it.

2. This toxicity has an additive impact when combined with other easily available drugs like tylenol.

3. Opiates are far less toxic then booze. We have clear evidence of this with patients who have been on long term opiate therapy for chronic pain.

Pot is probably even less toxic.

It is worth noting that crack would not exist if it were not for drug prohibition and the need to provide small, easily transported, easily subdivided substitute for expensive powder cocaine.

As far as economics and social productivity.

4. The vast majority of alchol addicts manage to hold down jobs and pay their bills. This is because alchol is legal, cheap, and easily available. The cost of booze has not been artificially increased by prohibition.

5. It is entirely reasonable to assume that the vast majority of users of currently illegal drugs would be able to hold down jobs and pay their bills if their drugs of choice were available in a legal environment. Large amounts of them do so right now, even though their drug of choice is illegal.

6. Prohibition vastly increases the cost of illegal drugs. This increases the profit margins and provides a vast revenue source for crime gangs and police corruption.

7. The corruption / crime situation in Mexico clearly shows how damaging drug prohibition is to civil society and law enforcement.

8. Drug prohibition destabilizes Afghanistan by providing vast amounts of money to Taliban groups. It also destabilizes countries like Peru and Columbia where expensive, (because it is illegal) cocaine provides excellent revenue stream to Shining path and FARC rebel groups.

Booze prohibition provides crystal clear evidence of just how damaging drug prohibition is.

When booze was made illegal crime skyrocketed and the mafia and other crime groups made vast amounts of money.

When prohibition ended so did the revenue to the crime groups. Murder, police corruption, and other crimes also decreased.
 
Written By: TJIT
URL: http://
One set of statistics I read puts the total cost of the drug war at $178B annually, not including the untaxed illegal drug sales of $50B annually.
Wow 1.3% of US GNP, that ranks the WoD above Foreign Aid, but pretty much below most other things....
Considering we spend a total of about $500B on K12 education in the US, I’d say that throwing $200B down the toilet is a significant waste of money. Interesting that you are so cavalier about it, I wonder how many things that cost LESS have you all bent out of shape.
1) alcohol is dangerous


Yep
2) alcohol affects very few people badly or rather few people abuse it
If you mean rather few as a relative term in comparions to drugs, you are wrong, even compared to your most extreme example of heroin use.

From Reason Magazine...
A 1994 study based on data from the National Comorbidity Survey estimated that 23 percent of heroin users ever experience substance dependence.
The comparable rate for alcohol in that study was 15 percent, which seems to support the idea that heroin is more addictive: A larger percentage of the people who try it become heavy users, even though it’s harder to get. At the same time, the fact that using heroin is illegal, expensive, risky, inconvenient, and almost universally condemned means that the people who nevertheless choose to do it repeatedly will tend to differ from people who choose to drink. They will be especially attracted to heroin’s effects, the associated lifestyle, or both. In other words, heroin users are a self-selected group, less representative of the general population than alcohol users are, and they may be more inclined from the outset to form strong attachments to the drug.
3) hard drugs are different, I would submit a far larger portion of those using crack, heroin and the like are ADDICTS, unlike those who do alcohol.
You are submitting inaccurate information, so any conclusions you draw from your invalid submission would be invalid as well. Very FEW drugs are as addictive as alcohol, perhaps crack cocaine and heroin, and the difference is not great.
from this flows, 4) that when we make crack, heroin and the like more accessible we will create far more addicts.
Invalid assumption based on an invalid premise.
5) Addicts don’t lead productive lives


Nonsense, millions of people who are physically dependant on substances, legal and illegal, lead productive lives. People can be addicted to nicotine, caffeine, alcohol, heroin, and still lead productive lives. 85% of alcoholics have jobs and 70% of heroin addicts have jobs. keep in mind that being chronically unemployed can increase the likelihood of depression and abuse of some substance, artificially inflating both figures. Having more options for people to become addicted does not mean that a larger number of people will become addicts. We would likely see the number of alcoholics go down if the number of people addicted to other substances went up.
6) Addicts support themselves thru crime
Nonsense. Remember, these drugs are illegal today, so the self selected group that uses these drugs are already willing to commit a crime, so for a criminal to commit a crime is not a big stretch, and still a small minority of drug users ever commit any other crime (besids the use of the drugs themselves) but far, far more people are addicted to alcohol, and few ever commit a crime to support their habit, because they are NOT criminals. If people outside of this self selected group used the same drugs, there is no reason to make the assumption that they would commit crimes to support their habit.
and state hand-outs
Again, when productive use potentially addictive substances, a significant majority would not become addicted, and of those that become addicted, a large majority would continue to be productive.

Trust people to make their own decisions, they may surprise you and give you cause to rethink your self appointed need to try to force them to behave on eeh basis of your own misconceptions.

The actual sad reality is that some folks just want to get high, and the narcotics that have been around for thousands of years will prove safer than the stuff people are coming with out of their garage.
6) Drug legalization will yield no drop in crime and no drop in social spending costs, and in fact may increase them
There will be instant drop in crime when you you make the repeal the laws that are the basis of 25% of criminal convictions.

Every drug dealer in the country will be immediately out of business.

Revenue from taxation would cover the spcial spending costs, making the net outlay far less than the $200B in society’s costs today.

And when the cost of drugs is reduced because the estimated 5000% blackmarket premium would allow for even addicts to afford their habits without resorting to crime... you know, the way a drunk can always scrounge up enough for a sixpack without having to rob a liquor store.

I submit to you that you are simply misinformed and make a LOT of invalid assumptions based on this misinformation.

Oh, and by the way, here’s some examples of people were productive while using hard drugs, and some while being addicted to drugs, and I’ll bet you know at least one personally, though you probably could not point them out...



The Drug User The Drugs
Lewis Armstrong, musician ("Satchmo") marijuana
Marcus Aurelius, philosopher, Emperor of Rome opium
Ginger Baker, musician amphetamines
Tallulah Bankhead, actress cocaine
The Beatles, musicians LSD marijuana
Elizabeth Barrett Browning, poet opium
Lewis Carrol, mathematician, photographer,
author: "Alice in Wonderland" mushrooms
Grover Cleveland, U.S. President cocaine
William Clinton, U.S. President. marijuana
Samuel Taylor Coleridge, poet: opium
Salivor Dali, painter hashish
Charles Dickens, author: opium
Arthur Conan Doyle, logican, author opium
Isadora Duncan (revolutionized dance) cocaine
Thomas Alva Edison, inventor, industrialist cocaine
Ben Franklin, inventor, publisher, scientist,
American statesman opium marijuana
Sigmund Freud, physician, cocaine
Newt Ginrich, Speaker of the US Senate marijuana
Al Gore, U.S. Vice-President marijuana
Ulysses S. Grant, U.S. President cocaine
Aldous Huxley, author mescaline
Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President, inventor,
architect, marijuana farmer marijuana
Steve Jobs, co-creator of the Apple computer,
the NeXt computer, and former head of Apple LSD marijuana
John Keats, poet opium
Pope Leo XIII cocaine
Willi Nelson, musician marijuana
Philippus Aureolus Paracelsus, Father of
Modern Medicine opium
Pablo Picasso, painter opium
Plotinus, Roman philosopher, 205-270 AD opium
Edgar Allen Poe, poet, author opium
Cole Porter, composer cocaine
Sir Walter Scott, poet, author opium
Shelly, poet opium
Clarence Thomas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice marijuana
Jules Verne, author cocaine
George Washington, U.S. president, marijuana



But you would have rather have seen all of these people locked up, eh?

People like you put the "nanny" in "nanny state".

Cap (productive addict... nicotine)










 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
"The drug laws create their market and the moment that the drug laws are abolished, the worst aspects of illegal drugs will disappear."

Having seen some of the results of the usage of these illegal drugs, I rather doubt that the worst aspects will disappear by making it easier for the users to get them.

"Legal purveyors would NOT market to kids, as you can see from alcohol marketing."

Right. And that is why children do not obtain alcohol. Lord knows I and my friends never obtained or used alcohol while underage. Or cigarettes. Or adult magazines.

*************************

"4. The vast majority of alchol addicts manage to hold down jobs and pay their bills. This is because alchol is legal, cheap, and easily available."

LOL. Do you have any experience with drugs or narcotics users? Legalizing heroin will not turn heroin addicts into productive citizens. Opiates may be less toxic than alcohol, but toxicity is not what renders users unproductive.

"5. It is entirely reasonable to assume that the vast majority of users of currently illegal drugs would be able to hold down jobs and pay their bills if their drugs of choice were available in a legal environment. Large amounts of them do so right now, even though their drug of choice is illegal."

Got any evidence? Perhaps census data? I think this statement answers one of my previous questions.

********************

Unless you folks are in favor af absolute leagalization, with absolutely no restrictions including sale to minors, you are still going to have a war on drugs. There will still be some bureaucratic structure. BATF stands for Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, which regulates those things, all of which are legal. There will still be administrative costs, people going to jail, and medical costs.
Sheer fantasy.

**********************
"here’s some examples of people were productive while using hard drugs"

And it only took a couple of thousand years of history to produce this vast list of average folks! Imagine! (Assuming, of course, that this is reliable information).
Marijuana is a hard drug? You sound like my father.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
There is certainly no evidence that the U.S.’s abominal rates are due to leniency with respect to the death penalty. In fact, the U.S. is one of the few industrialized nations that still uses the death penalty and virtually none of the people in its prisons would be eligible for the death penalty anyway, which generally only applies to charges of first degree murder.

When compared to the nations that people in the U.S. are most likely to regard as friendly to, and similar to, the United States, countries like Ireland, Canada, Australian and the United Kingdom, the United States imprisons its own people at a rate of more than five times more per capita.

Around the world
Nations with highest incarceration rates per 100,000 residents (includes all individuals held in prisons and local jails)

1. USA 702
2. Russia 635
3. Cayman Islands 600
4. Belarus 577
5. Kazakhstan 494
6. Bahamas 478
7. US Virgin Islands 476
8. Kyrgyzstan 462
9. Belize 459
10. Bermuda 447

Source: International Center for Prison Studies
 
Written By: sponge joe
URL: http://
"Right. And that is why children do not obtain alcohol. Lord knows I and my friends never obtained or used alcohol while underage. Or cigarettes. Or adult magazines"

What are you talking about? It’s vastly easier for underage kids to get a wide array of illegal drugs (hard, soft, you name it) than it is to get alcohol or cigarettes. To get alcohol, you need someone that’s 21, and willing, to get it for you... and you don’t know a lot of those. Illegal drugs already have alternate channels, and contrary to after school specials, it’s not the 45 year old shady looking guy. It’s a 16 y.o. getting it from a 17 y.o.
 
Written By: Tito
URL: http://
Legal purveyors would NOT market to kids, as you can see from alcohol marketing."
Right. And that is why children do not obtain alcohol. Lord knows I and my friends never obtained or used alcohol while underage. Or cigarettes. Or adult magazines.
What are you talking about? It’s vastly easier for underage kids to get a wide array of illegal drugs
So you agree, then that it is foolish to expect that drug legalization will in any way help with ’utes and drugs.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
It’s vastly easier for underage kids to get a wide array of illegal drugs (hard, soft, you name it) than it is to get alcohol or cigarettes.
I agree - getting booze was nearly impossible until we had friends who were old enough to buy, or we had friends who had friends. Getting weed, shrooms, LSD, coke... easy as 1-2-3, for me as early as 7th grade. Couple of phone calls and ta-da, here’s your stuff.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Getting weed, shrooms, LSD, coke... easy as 1-2-3, for me as early as 7th grade. Couple of phone calls and ta-da, here’s your stuff.
But once drugs are legal this will change, how?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
But once drugs are legal this will change, how?
Do you buy beer from a guy on the street or from a store? If drugs were legalized, they would be controlled. There would be a controlled market place for them. Take away the INSANE profit margin, and (most) people won’t waste the effort of selling them on the black market.

The whole point is that the things that are illegal now, I could get easier than the things that are legal (because of my age). All they need to do is label this ’for the children’ /sarcasm
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Do you buy beer from a guy on the street or from a store?
IF I’m under 21 I do, and so you’re saying that the under 21 y.o.’s who USED to buy drugs will now abate their desires and that those who SOLD to under 21 y.o.’s will forgo their market?
If drugs were legalized, they would be controlled There would be a controlled market place for them..
To an extent yes, but you’d still be dealing with addicts and have to have both drugs and cash on you so that violence would STILL be a part of the market expectation.
Take away the INSANE profit margin, and (most) people won’t waste the effort of selling them on the black market.
And yet, according to Freakonomics the insane profit margin isn’t there, NOW, for the folks at the street and franchise level. You’d make as much working at or managing a McDonalds. My point being that currently there isn’t that much money made, but it will change for the better upon legalization?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
and that those who SOLD to under 21 y.o.’s will forgo their market?
Pretty much yes. The market will go away. I won’t buy beer on the street now (in general) because I don’t know where it came from, or even who’s it is. Why take the chance when I can go to the store, get it legally, and know certain controls are in place? Besides, the guy on the street can’t compete with the WalMart on the corner for price and variety.
To an extent yes, but you’d still be dealing with addicts and have to have both drugs and cash on you so that violence would STILL be a part of the market expectation.
This seems to me unlikely, and to whatever extent it happens, it will be far less than what occurs today. They can get it cheap, legally - why risk robbery and jail?
And yet, according to Freakonomics the insane profit margin isn’t there, NOW, for the folks at the street and franchise level. You’d make as much working at or managing a McDonalds.
I’d say the profit margin is still pretty damn good at the local levels. Buy it for $500, sell it for $1,000. I read Freakonomics and understand where he’s coming from. But I also believe that if it is legal, everything costs less. Which means the local dealer has to move more to stay in business. But his market is drying up because they can get what they want legally.

And even if the current margin is lacking, it’s cooler to tell the ladies you peddle drugs than is is to tell them you shuffle burgers. The hours are better, and there are no taxes.

 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
This seems to me unlikely, and to whatever extent it happens, it will be far less than what occurs today. They can get it cheap, legally - why risk robbery and jail?
Uh because Meagain they are addicts...you know no job no job prospects, unproductive slugs, with a yearning need, and a maxed out credit card? So they will rob me, for goods to hock or try to rob the dealer because he’s got drugs or cash, from all those other addicts with no credit cards?

Look libertarians if you want to legalize drugs, please at least admit what the net effect is going to be, you’re just making it easier for addicts to die and shorten their squalid lives? Also along the way my social security bill goes up paying for their disastrous lives and the lives of all they touch.

Bottom-line: repeal the Welfare State and we can go with drug legalization. Secondly, it will not be very nice at all for those using drugs and those dealing them after legalization, because it is a squalid trade. Look at legal prostitution, the pimps and prostitutes have nasty and short lives in their trade, even if ti IS legal, because it is a nasty trade. So too, drugs. Just stop trying to fool me and yourselves about the nature fo the beast you are dealing with.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Joe says,
Uh because Meagain they are addicts...you know no job no job prospects, unproductive slugs, with a yearning need, and a maxed out credit card? So they will rob me, for goods to hock or try to rob the dealer because he’s got drugs or cash, from all those other addicts with no credit cards?
Joe apparently never noticed how lots of nicotine addicts and booze addicts are able to hold jobs and be productive. They can do it because booze and nicotine are legal and easily available.

Joe further conflates drug use with drug addiction. Is someone who has a beer or a glass of wine everyday after work addicted? How about the person who smokes pot at the same or slightly less frequency? Probably none of those people are addicted. Furthermore, all of them are capable of holding down excellent jobs and being productive members of society.

Joe is willfully blind to this. He has to be because that is the only way his position makes any sense.
 
Written By: TJIT
URL: http://
Joe says
Look libertarians if you want to legalize drugs, please at least admit what the net effect is going to be, you’re just making it easier for addicts to die and shorten their squalid lives? Also along the way my social security bill goes up paying for their disastrous lives and the lives of all they touch.
Joe lots of conservatives would like to end drug prohibition. We realize the pernicious influence drug prohibition has on law enforcement, on foreign policy, on personal responsibility and on civil society.

We also recognize there is little difference between those who would like to have firearm prohibition and those who support drug prohibition. They both have an irrational fear of an inanimate object.

Addiction is a medical problem and prohibition makes treatment much more difficult. Drug prohibition increase the squalor associated with addiction, and provides vast amounts of additional damage to civil society in the process.
 
Written By: TJIT
URL: http://
"Joe apparently never noticed how lots of nicotine addicts and booze addicts are able to hold jobs and be productive. They can do it because booze and nicotine are legal and easily available."

Incredible. Are you seriously comparing the effects of nicotine and alcohol to heroin, cocaine, or methamphetamine??


"Joe further conflates drug use with drug addiction. Is someone who has a beer or a glass of wine everyday after work addicted?"

Jumping jellybeans! They must have already legalized hallucinogens in your state. Heroin. Opium. Methamphetamine. Cocaine. Crack. There is a reason Joe conflates use of these drugs with addiction. That you seem to conflate use of them with a glass of wine or beer shows your abysmal ignorance of these drugs and those who use them. There ain’t no casual smack users.

I get the impression some people think that some people think that making some of these drugs illegal is due purely to some arbitrary religious or other puritanical zeal against pleasure. Kids, these things will f*** you up.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
"They both have an irrational fear of an inanimate object"

I just noticed this line. You go live with some smack freaks for a while, and use it yourself, then get back to us. Do some volunteer work if that doesn’t appeal to you. By the way, there is nothing irrational about a fear of guns.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
By the way, there is nothing irrational about a fear of guns.
There is something irrational about an irrational fear of guns, and that is point that passed you by.

I have a few guns, and in my hands, they are nothing to fear, unless of course you are breaking into my house in the middle of the night, in which case you may want to fear God’s final judgement, which would be imminent at that point.



 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
There is something irrational about an irrational fear of guns, and that is point that passed you by.
Mine and, I assume, Tim’s is not an IRRATIONAL fear of guns or drugs. I fear guns, I fear the M-16 or the 9mm when it’s in my hands or yours. I realize that these weapons can kill, quickly, and that many people die from "Unloaded" weapons, all the time. The muzzle is always under control and pointed AWAY from myself and others. I have threatened a friend of mine to "shove the pistol up his @rse if he points it at me one more time", though I KNOW that the weapon came to my house unloaded and has been checked and cleared by 4 other folks as they inspected it...why because bad habits with firearms are easy to develp and have DISASTRTOUS consequences. I understand the nature of the weapon and capacity of the weapon...

So too, with drugs, hard ones at least, they are not toys and all too easily "recreational use" become dependence. It is NOT an irrational fear, but as with firearms, an appreciation of the dangers and risks they pose. Many here, it seems, have a far more casual, "A-Team" (You know, you can fire 400 rounds of 5.56mm at the bad guuys and no one gets hurt.) attitude to hard drugs, that you can use them heavily and all will be well with few or no consequences. As fear as I’m concerned that is a cavalier attitude and a foolish conceit.

In sum:
1) Hard drugs are very bad; and
2) Addicts aren’t poor because the drugs cost so much; they are poor BECAUSE they’re addicts; and
3) If you legalize hard drugs (Probably marijuana too, as the next step will be to legalize ALL drugs use); the social costs will be enormous, in the intangible and fiscal realm; and
4) Before you can legalize drugs you need to end the current Welfare State, otherwise the fiscal costs will be astounding, and nothing a l/Libertarian would care to see;
5) And that to reverse the procedure, Legalize drugs, BEFORE abolition of the Welfare State will set the libertarian position back by decades, as Welfare costs and therefore the size and scope of the state, will rise dramatically, making it HARDER not easier to advance the libertarian position.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
"There is something irrational about an irrational fear of guns, and that is point that passed you by."

No, had he specified an *irrational* fear of guns, I would have agreed since, by definition, it would have been irrational. I might add that it is definitely not irrational to fear guns in the hands of those without a fear of guns. I have also been told that an empty gun is nothing to fear. I don’t believe that anymore, either.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Timactual says
No, had he specified an *irrational* fear of guns, I would have agreed since, by definition, it would have been irrational.
Tim you need to pay attention. I said
We also recognize there is little difference between those who would like to have firearm prohibition and those who support drug prohibition. They both have an irrational fear of an inanimate object.
 
Written By: TJIT
URL: http://
Tim Actual
Jumping jellybeans! They must have already legalized hallucinogens in your state. Heroin. Opium. Methamphetamine. Cocaine. Crack. There is a reason Joe conflates use of these drugs with addiction. That you seem to conflate use of them with a glass of wine or beer shows your abysmal ignorance of these drugs and those who use them. There ain’t no casual smack users.
Tim I have watched what happens when opiate addicts hit the emergency room, I have no illusions about how damaged and damaging a heroin addict can be.

But the fact is we have drug prohibition and addiction.

The presence of drug prohibition adds the following disastrous consequences to addiction.

1. Increased crime rates so addicts because prohibition makes drugs expensive.

2. Increased use of injectable opiates (heroin) as opposed to oral opiates.

3. The use of injectable opiates combined with prohibition leads to the spreading of bloodborne diseases like HIV, and Hepatitis C.

4. These bloodborne diseases are then vectored into the innocent population at large by the boyfriends / girlfriends of the addicts.

5. Increased usage of emergency services related to overdose treatment. The drug is illegal so the addicts don’t know what dose they are taking and tend to OD. This results in an ambulance trip to the ER increasing expenses and causing unnecessary use valuable medical resources.

6. Because opiates are illegal drug seeking patients go to the ER with various improvised symptoms in order to try and trick the physicians into prescribing them some form of opiates. Again wasting valuable medical resources in the process.

7. Because of addicts and their drug seeking behavior emergency room physicians are in the difficult position of having to sort out real pain from the drug seeking kind. This is not easy on the physicians and it is very damaging to those who have actual pain but appear to be drug seekers. Because these innocent people are not going to get the pain relief they need.

8. The damage prohibition causes continues in the area of palliative care for terminal illnesses like cancer. It grows even greater when we look at the treatment of chronic pain for patients who have chronic diseases but could lead functioning with proper pain control.

It is unfortunate drug prohibition supporters like Joe and timactual are not aware of the vast damage drug prohibition does to innocent people.

If they were aware of it I’m sure they would reach the rational conclusion that drug prohibition has been a social disaster and it needs to be ended or substantially modified.
 
Written By: TJIT
URL: http://
Let’s put this all together.

In my view, and I suspect you agree, people who support a firearms prohibition have an irrational fear of guns.

The very idea of prohibiting guns shows no qualification for responsible ownership, it assumes that rsponsible ownership is impossible. That is irrational and untrue.

Just as responsible gun ownership is not only possible, it is the norm, in the absence of drug prohibition, responsible drug use would be the norm.

Even the hardest drugs like heroin are only slightly more addictive than alcohol, so people will ruin their lives. That’s a sad side effect of freedom.

But the tragic side effect of tyranny is that people are capable of responsible drug use are now languishing in prison, deprived of their freedom because of the effects that drugs can have on others.

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
The Richard Paey case provides a good example of how destructive drug prohibition has been to innocent people who need adequate pain control for chronic medical conditions.

This article at National Review describes the case

Paey’s difficulties finding treatment were in large part due to federal- and state-government efforts to prevent the illegal use — or "diversion," as the feds call it — of prescription pain medicine.
Doctors today face fines ,suspension, the loss of license or practice, the seizure of property, or even prison time in the event that drug cops (most of whom have no medical training) decide they are prescribing too many painkillers. As a result, physicians are understandably apprehensive about aggressively treating pain.
I’m sure the police would not appreciate physicians with no training in law enforcement telling them how to investigate crimes.

But drug prohibition has created a situation where police and bureaucrats with no training in medicine are telling physicians how to practice medicine.

Yet another example of the damage drug prohibition does to innocent people
 
Written By: TJIT
URL: http://
"Tim you need to pay attention. I said..."

I know what you said. Don’t you think I know what you said? What makes you think I don’t know what you said? What did I say? I think you don’t know what I think you think I said. I think it sounded good when I wrote it. But I think you don’t think I thought it was what I thought it was when I thought it. There. Are we clear now? I thought so. All it needed was a rational explanation.

some info. on heroin prices.
http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/fed-data/heroin-prices.htm

"Prices of heroin remain stable. At the street level, heroin is sold in $5, $10 and $15 bags that contain approximately 1/8 ounce of heroin and adulterant. Sources in California and Colorado report slightly higher prices. One notable exception is in Baltimore, where prices have dropped significantly since the last Pulse Check. In fact, the Baltimore ethnographer comments that "it is hard to imagine prices falling any lower, and there is no size or purity difference between a $6 and a $10 capsule—just the time of day the sale is made.""
From;
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/drugfact/pulsechk/spring96/p_6sher.html

"Decreasing heroin prices indicate that heroin is increasingly available in Hawaii. The price of wholesale and retail quantities of heroin decreased significantly from 1992 to 2000. Wholesale quantities of Mexican black tar heroin sold for $8,000 per ounce in 1992 and $3,000 per ounce in 2000, while retail heroin prices were $600 per gram in 1992 and $150 to $300 per gram in 2000. Retail heroin purity in Hawaii ranged from 50 to 75 percent, according to DEA."
From;
http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs07/998/heroin.htm

Just hang on a little while, and the price of illegal drugs may decrease to a level where it is unprofitable to sell, thus swolving the problem.



"I have no illusions about how damaged and damaging a heroin addict can be."

Yet you seem to blame all this damage on the legal status of the drug, not the drug itself.

"But the fact is we have drug prohibition and addiction."

Are you implying that prohibition causes addiction?

"The presence of drug prohibition adds the following disastrous consequences to addiction."

To be brief, I disagree that prohibition is wholly, and in some cases even partially, responsible for all these things.

"It is unfortunate drug prohibition supporters like Joe and timactual are not aware of the vast damage drug prohibition does to innocent people."

I am perfectly aware of damage done by drug prohibition, I just know that it is not responsible for all the things you say it is, and that legalization would not cure all the ills you say it would.

****************************
"Even the hardest drugs like heroin are only slightly more addictive than alcohol,"

do you have any evidence to support that rather interesting statement?


 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
>"Even the hardest drugs like heroin are only slightly more addictive than alcohol,"do you have any evidence to support that rather interesting statement?From Reason Magazine...

A 1994 study based on data from the National Comorbidity Survey estimated that 23 percent of heroin users ever experience substance dependence.
The comparable rate for alcohol in that study was 15 percent, which seems to support the idea that heroin is more addictive: A larger percentage of the people who try it become heavy users, even though it’s harder to get. At the same time, the fact that using heroin is illegal, expensive, risky, inconvenient, and almost universally condemned means that the people who nevertheless choose to do it repeatedly will tend to differ from people who choose to drink. They will be especially attracted to heroin’s effects, the associated lifestyle, or both. In other words, heroin users are a self-selected group, less representative of the general population than alcohol users are, and they may be more inclined from the outset to form strong attachments to the drug.
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
timactual says

Just hang on a little while, and the price of illegal drugs may decrease to a level where it is unprofitable to sell, thus swolving the problem.

So in the face of drug prohibition we have such a massive amount of drugs imported that the street price of these drugs is dropping. If true this points out what a flop drug prohibition is.

Drug prohibition is failing to keep the drugs out while causing massive damage to innocent civilians like Richard Paey and spending a huge amount of money to create this glorious failure.

The mind boggles at the sight of "conservatives" who continue to support this flop of a big government program.
 
Written By: TJIT
URL: http://
Thanks (I think) for the article from Reason. I am not convinced, but it is something to consider. I could pick nits, but that would be a waste of time. In any case, I still don’t see how that refutes my argument that legalizing drugs is not a panacea, and that the problems are not due exclusively to prohibition.


***********************
" If true this points out what a flop drug prohibition is. "

Maybe so, but you have yet to show that your alternative would be any better. A different mix of problems and victims, perhaps, but not necessarily better.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Drug prohibitions is supposed to prevent drugs coming into the US and if prohibition was working drug prices would be going up because of lack of supply. Instead, we have so many drugs coming into the US that according to timactual

"Just hang on a little while, and the price of illegal drugs may decrease to a level where it is unprofitable to sell, thus swolving the problem."

If timactual is correct this is a crystal clear indication that drug prohibition has failed at its primary goal of reducing the supply of drugs.

Even worse then the failure at drug prohibitions primary goal is the damage this failed policy has done to innocent civilians and law enforcement.

Kathryn Johnston obviously didn’t know that the invaders forcing their way into her home were police. She had the right to defend her home.
We now know that Kathryn Johnston fired only a single bullet, through the door as police were trying to break in. They responded with a storm of bullets, which apparently both wounded Johnston and the officers themselves. When they realized their fatal error, they planted cocaine and marijuana in the woman’s home. They then pressured an uninvolved informant to testify to having made controlled buys at Johnston’s home to cover their tracks.

The New York Times is now reporting that the officers have told federal investigators that their behavior was not out of the ordinary. That corruption, planting evidence, and giving false testimony are routine at APD.
The mind boggles at the continued support for the status quo on drug prohibition in the face of overwhelming evidence that the current policy is an utter failure that does far more harm then good.
 
Written By: TJIT
URL: http://
I still don’t see how that refutes my argument that legalizing drugs is not a panacea, and that the problems are not due exclusively to prohibition.
Ending drug prohibition is not a panacea, and no one is arguing that it is. A panacea is a cure-ALL, and there is no such thing. However, what ending prohibition would cure is the tyranny of making people into criminals because a small percentage of people engaging in the same activity engage in criminal acts.

If a person who uses drugs never violates or deprives ANYONE of their rights, what gives you the right to deprive them of theirs?

This ill is what ending prohibition would cure.

Exactly what is more important than that?

If the mythology of drugs were true, the prohibitionists would have a point. Certainly if a drug made you an uncontrollable addict willing to commit murder to get a fix after a few uses, then that drug would literally be deadly poison. But the reality is that this is just a hoax. And if the government has to make fraudulant claims in order to maintain support for continuing to deprive people of their freedom, then perhaps the deprivation of freedom is worse than the drug in the first place.

If prohibition were ended, people will die, people will kill, and that is tragic, but while we have prohibition, people are killing and dying, as well as the hundreds of thousands of people who are deprived of their rights basically just in case. It’s really just a logical heartbeat away from rounding up Muslims because they might be terrorists, and yet almost no one wants to do that because it would violate their rights. In every other aspect of American life, people are free all the way up until the moment they commit a crime, but with drug prohibition, we lock them up in prisons because some people in similar circumstances did bad things.
Maybe so, but you have yet to show that your alternative would be any better.
IF the alternative is NOT depriving people of their freedom when they have not violated anyone’s rights, that would be better.

Frankly, I would rather see the death penalty for people who commit a crime on drugs, than see so many hundreds of thousands of people’s lives ruined as they are deprived of their freedom and tied to a felony record for the rest of their lives when they have violated no one’s rights, and I am an opponent of the death penalty.

Cap



 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider