Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, February 08, 2008
Burt Prelutsky :: Townhall.com Columnist
Time Once Again to Prohibit Prohibition
by Burt Prelutsky
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



Admittedly, it’s a little late to make resolutions for 2008, but seeing as I only make them for other people, I don’t think the same time constraints are in order. So, while the rest of you are selfishly occupied trying to diet or break your nicotine habit or swear off your unseemly addiction to so-called reality TV, my focus is on trying to improve society in general.

For openers, I’d like to suggest that the athletes, both in college and the professional ranks, break a couple of really obnoxious habits this coming year. I, for one, am sick and tired of watching baseball players point to the sky each time they cross home plate after hitting a home run. It’s as they’re suggesting that God had personally lifted the ball over the fence, when we all know that most of them owe their inflated power stats to steroids, and not divine intervention.

But football players are even worse. I suppose it all began with that idiot, former New York Jet lineman Mark Gastineau, who always pranced around after sacking a quarterback. Now you see the same boorish behavior each and every time a cornerback deflects a pass or a linebacker makes a tackle. The offensive players, not to be outdone, feel compelled to boogy all over the end zone any time they score, even on one-yard plunges. As some football coach, who was obviously as turned off as I by these egotistical displays, once put it to his players: “Behave as if you’ve been there before.”

Not only are these celebrations stupid, but except when they occur at game’s end, they tend to be embarrassingly premature. I mean, one second some 300-pound bozo is strutting around because he’s tackled a running back for no gain, and the next second the same guy has deked him out of his shoes and scampered 65 yards for a touchdown.

Next, I would like to see an end to the War on Drugs. It’s a colossal waste of time, money and resources. I am not an advocate for illegal drugs, but for commonsense.

I don’t use drugs and I very rarely drink alcohol, so I’m not campaigning on my own behalf, but what difference does it make to you what some fool decides to smoke, snort or shoot into his arm?

If you make the junk legal, we’ll not only be able to collect tax revenue, but the price comes down and users aren’t forced to steal in order to finance their habits. Plus, overnight, it would free up jail cells so that we could put an end to early release for those cretins who should never see the light of day.

On the other hand, if a person gets stoned on drugs that would now be legal and, say, gets into an automobile accident, I wouldn’t let him cop a plea by blaming it on the substance. It’s time we started holding people responsible for their acts. So, if you decide you’d like to try rehab, that’s fine and dandy. But don’t wait until you’ve been arrested. This is the real world and not a board game. You shouldn’t get to use your addiction as a Get Out of Jail Free card.

The way things stand, illegal drugs are a multi-billion dollar business with most of the money going directly into the hands of vicious criminals who use it to bribe corrupt police officers, judges and politicians. The rest of the dough goes to Islamics who use it to finance terrorism. So much for those assorted Hollywood celebrities and Wall Street yuppies who insist that their recreational use of cocaine isn’t hurting anyone.

Yet another downside to having made this stuff illegal is that it promotes hypocrisy. We Americans get to look down our noses at poppy farmers in Afghanistan, drug lords in Colombia and cops in Mexico, all the while overlooking the odious fact that they’d all have to start earning an honest living if millions of our fellow countrymen didn’t constitute the world’s single biggest market for this crap.

It took Americans just 14 years to conclude that Prohibition did nothing more than make folk heroes and millionaires of bootleggers, speakeasy owners and Al Capone. But, now, after several decades, we still haven’t caught on that this latter day prohibition is an even bigger disaster.

Have we really gotten that much stupider since 1933? Perhaps so, or maybe it’s just the drugs. In either case, we should all grow up and resolve in 2008 to face the music and acknowledge that sometimes good intentions don’t necessarily pave the way to Paradise, but to Hell.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
W. Burt Prelutsky is an accomplished, well-rounded writer and author of "The Secret of Their Success: Interviews with Legends and Luminaries."
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
I41say - -
"I don't think drug use or trafficking will ever go away. If now-illegal drugs are legalized, I think that there will be MORE users, and drug sales will go up."

Perhaps. But crimes due to trafficking would go DOWN.


"I think more violent crimes (among drug traffickers) would occur, because the government would be a competitor, too."

That did not happen when alcohol prohibition was repealed. Why would it happen with drugs?


"The majority of teenagers/college students haven't committed crimes before they experiment with drugs; most of them try it because of peer pressure."

And almost NONE of them commit crimes.

The vast majority of the people who commit crimes do NOT come from the community of college students. They come from urban slums and inner-city gangs.


"And drug users wouldn't be in jail if they hadn't gotten hooked on drugs in the first place;"

Make it legal, and they won't go to jail!


"they commit crimes to feed their habit."

In the cases where this happens, it's because the drug is EXPENSIVE. The same thing happened with alcohol prohibition.



"Drugs destroy minds, and they cause ADDICTED drug users to become violent if they don't get their fix."

First of all, this statement is false -- but let's entertain it for a moment, and once again shift to the alcohol analogy -- how many alcohol addicts have any difficulty whatsoever getting their next beer? Almost none.

Same with drugs. If you're afraid that an addict will become violent if he doesn't get his fix, then make it legal so he CAN get his fix.

If it destroys his life, let him destroy his life. This is supposed to be a free country. It's his life, isn't it? Not yours?

Don't we get upset when liberals try to take control of our lives "for our own good"? Why is it any different with drugs?

Unka Alby:

I agree with your second post that people who start down the path of a criminal career, are more likely to "do other things that are illegal"; and that "criminal behavior exposes a person to criminal influences."

On post two, you asked:

"Does marijuana et al CAUSE people to commit crimes? Does it increase the likelihood?"

More people who use marijuana commit crimes, than people who don't; and it's not the only drug that would be legalized. People use drugs to get high, and marijuana leads to the use of other drugs.

http://www.isp.state.id.us/investigations/marijuana.pdf

"... There is proof that marijuana increases harmful and criminal behavior on the user..."

Crack smoking driver causes multiple car crash:

http://www.miamiherald.com/460/story/414345.html

You wrote: "So if there's any sort of causal relationship at all, it's probably the other direction: i.e., committing crime CAUSES a person to be more likely to do illegal drugs."

The majority of teenagers/college students haven't committed crimes before they experiment with drugs; most of them try it because of peer pressure. And drug users wouldn't be in jail if they hadn't gotten hooked on drugs in the first place; they commit crimes to feed their habit. Drugs destroy minds, and they cause
ADDICTED drug users to become violent if they don't get their fix.

And legalizing now-illegal drugs would become another way for Americans to rely on the government to "do what's best for someone" (in this case, the drug addict). It would be like saying that "bad choices don't have consequences and the government approves of a bad habit."

That's my honest opinion.

Unka Alby:

Yes, I did read the conclusion.

You wrote: "... the biggest factor in the link between drugs and crime is TRAFFICKING -- which simply would NOT exist were drugs legalized."

I don't think drug use or trafficking will ever go away. If now-illegal drugs are legalized, I think that there will be MORE users, and drug sales will go up.

I think more violent crimes (among drug traffickers) would occur, because the government would be a competitor, too. Drug traffickers won't be sitting in the church pews if drugs are legalized; they will never become law-abiding citizens, so all their crimes will continue.

You wrote:

"... Too many people inside government and otherwise benefit from the War on Drugs...

"It's an excuse for more government oversight, more government power, more tax revenues, all of which make politicians of all stripes drool like a kid in a candy store."

If now-illegal drugs are legalized that could happen,too, and we could never go back. Think of the corruption that could occur if the government was in complete control and corrupt people became the "drug dealers."

***

Why Causal vs. Correlation is Important
All sorts of things can create a correlation between the usage of drugs and the committing of crimes, the most important one probably being that once people start down the path of a criminal career, they're more likely to do other things that are illegal.

So this is why a CAUSAL relationship must be proven. Does marijuana et al CAUSE people to commit crimes? Does it increase the likelihood?

Or is it rather that criminals are more likely to do other things that are illegal? Are they more likely to associate with other criminals, who are doing illegal things, and thus have an influence?

If a person has done actual jail time, this is a certainty. It's been said, with some accuracy, that if you send a first-time, "amateur" law-breaker to jail, he'll learn from the "experts". He'll come out of jail a much improved criminal.

So if there's any sort of causal relationship at all, it's probably the other direction: i.e., committing crime CAUSES a person to be more likely to do illegal drugs. It's probably more accurate to say the criminal behavior exposes a person to criminal influences.

But millions of people use illegal drugs all the time and NEVER commit any crime other than using illegal drugs. These people are not on the government's crime statistics (coz they don't commit crimes!) Millions of drug users, especially marijuana, have full and happy lives, full employment, families, and don't fit the "stoned pothead" stereotype in the least bit. Just like millions of beer drinkers have full and happy lives, and don't fit the "drunken slob" stereotype.

It's just that beer drinkers don't get locked up.

Oy -- thought this topic died -- Sorry
"Drugs cause violent behavior:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/drrc.pdf"


But did you read the CONCLUSION --

"Assessing the nature and extent of the influence of drugs on crime requires that reliable information about the offense and the offender be available, and that definitions be consistent. In face of problematic evidence, it is impossible to say quantitatively how much drugs influence the occurrence of crime."

Even in this paper (which I think, without looking in great detail, is likely biased in favor of the government position) -- it is admitted that the biggest factor in the link between drugs and crime is TRAFFICKING -- which simply would NOT exist were drugs legalized.

The best they were able to determine is that there is a correlation between using drugs and committing crimes -- not that using drugs CAUSED people to commit crimes. Well, there's also a correlation between driving automobiles and committing crime.

What this study failed to find was any CAUSAL link between drugs and crime, outside of using just being illegal to begin with, and the trafficking issues already mentioned.

Whereas, for alcohol, there HAS been found a CAUSAL link between alcohol and aggression, which can lead to violence, which can lead to crime. This much is medical fact.

No such causal link exists for any other drug.


"Last question (I promise), do you think illegal drugs will be legalized?"

Snowball's chance in you-know-where. Too many people inside government and otherwise benefit from the War or Drugs.

It's an excuse for more government oversight, more government power, more tax revenues, all of which make politicians of all stripes drool like a kid in a candy store.

Unca Alby wrote:

"Yah, but don't forget, I'M RIGHT! ;-)"

Okay, I won't. :)
****

You wrote: "...only alcohol is proven to increase aggressive behavior that leads to violence."

I read an article that said that cocaine is more addictive than alcohol, and marijuana is more potent today than it used to be.

Drugs cause violent behavior:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/drrc.pdf

Excerpts:

"Cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and amphetamines are examples of drugs classified to have abuse potential..

Drugs are also related to crime through the effects they have on the user's behavior and by generating violence and other illegal activity in connection with drug trafficking...

The evidence indicates that drug users are more likely than nonusers to commit crimes, that arrestees and inmates were often under the influence of a drug at the time they committed their offense, and that drug trafficking generates violence."

I agree with Elizabeth Bennet's post. But I've been paying attention to what both sides have had to say. I like the idea of putting the illegal drug trade out of business, but would it?

Last question (I promise), do you think illegal drugs will be legalized?

I41say --
"There are a lot of interesting opinions for and against legalizing drugs."

Yah, but don't forget, I’M RIGHT! ;-)



I don't want to keep responding two posts for one, so I'm going to cut out a lot of my response. You strike me as the sort of reasonable person who probably won't be convinced anyway, so I don't want to waste too much effort here.

I'll be happy to respond to any specific questions or points you think I should address, but otherwise, I'm cutting it short.



"Drugs themselves have side effects on people who use them and can cause violent behavior."

No. ONLY alcohol is PROVEN to increase aggressive behavior that leads to violence. Heroin, for example, puts the user to SLEEP.

An LSD user may have a flashback to a hallucination, but it doesn’t cause aggression the second time any more than the first.



"Alcohol is legal, but it is responsible for crimes."

It was responsible for MORE crimes when it was ILLEGAL.

Newspaper headlines were full of gang violence. Replace the word “alcohol” with “drugs”, and the headlines sound familiar.




"I don't see the problem of drug abuse going away if now-illegal drugs are legalized."

I agree. But crime and violence will shrink.

Some people are ALWAYS going to abuse things. Making those “things” against the law does not address the problem of abuse.

You don’t expect to ban guns and see homicides to go down?

Unca Alby:
I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my post.

There are a lot of interesting opinions for and against legalizing drugs.

You wrote: "Crime and violence is NOT caused by drugs. It's caused by drugs being against the law."
****

Drugs themselves have side effects on people who use them and can cause violent behavior. A person can have flashbacks from LSD years later.

Hallucinogens:
http://www.drug-rehabcenter.com/hallucinogens.htm

Excerpts: "Hallucinogens dramatically distort the users perception of reality, causing hallucinations... Chronic use of LSD may lead to depression, violent behavior, anxiety, and distorted perception of time."
****

Alcohol is legal, but it is responsible for crimes.

The role of alcohol in crime victimization:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm

Excerpt: "Two-thirds of victims who suffered violence by an intimate (a current or former spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend) reported that alcohol had been a factor ... victims also reported they believed the offender to have been using DRUGS as well."
****

U.S. Department of Justice Statistics

Drug Use and Crime:
http://ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/duc.htm
Excerpts:

"According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), in 2005, there were 5.2 million violent victimizations of residents age 12 or older. Victims of violence were asked to describe whether they perceived the offender to have been drinking or using drugs.

About 27% of the victims of violence reported that the offender was using drugs or alcohol."
****
In my opinion, I don't see the problem of drug abuse going away if now-illegal drugs are legalized. And I think more people, especially college students, will experiment with drugs.

And S.A.M. made an excellent point: "The drug dealer will be your state."

State Run
If we can get the federal government out of the picture, then each state can decide how they want to handle things.

States that have state-run liquor stores would probably want to handle drugs the same way. States that don't, probably won't.

States have all sorts of peculiar rules, such as beer or wine can not be sold within X-hundred feet of a school, can't be sold on Sunday, can't be sold in restaurants (but you can bring your own), etc. etc. These states would probably set up similar rules for marijuana.

Either way, whoever ends up actually running the show, and no matter how silly the rules are, making it LEGAL is the ticket.

State run "drug stores"
I've noticed in some states that there are State Liquor Stores. Why could "recreational" drugs not be sold the same way? They should be sold so cheaply that there would be no criminal advantage in street sales. And the purchasers of the drugs would be identified, and known to law enforcement and mental health officials. Purchasers would have to meet age requirements just as current alcohol and tobacco purchasers do. Persons abusing "reasonable" amounts of these drugs could be counseled into programs to help the addictive person break the habit that is likely causing both physical, social, and economic ruin in their lives. Is this reasonable?

Legal alcohol
doesn't stop people from drinking and driving and killing others, and legalized gambling just makes the illegal gambling worse (they don't have to pay taxes on ill-gotten gains) Actually, I'm for legalization of drugs, just not the way the government would do it - if the government runs the liquor industry at a state level, who do you think will run the drug business? The drug dealer will be your state.

Answers - part 2
The DEA even admitted that half of all homicides are caused by the illegal trade in drugs. Of course, they use that for job security; they aren’t going to admit that legalization would make all of that evaporate virtually overnight.

But all of these risks the dealers take translates into higher prices for the product, much higher than it would be if sold legally. This exact phenomenon occurred with alcohol during Alcohol Prohibition.

These higher prices leads to addicts stealing to pay for their habit.

“It won't stop teenagers from taking drugs; the drug dealers would continue to go after them, so we'd still have the black market (undercutting legal drug prices)”

Well again, remember that the reason the price is high is because it’s illegal. You don’t see dealers going after kids trying to sell them beer. People wait a long time and jump through a large number of regulatory hoops in order to get a license to sell beer and wine. Selling alcohol legally is quite profitable. Legal sellers generally don’t want to take the chance of losing that license (plus paying fines) if they get caught. It’s just not worth the risk.

“Would we be able to prosecute the drug dealers?”

We prosecute people for selling beer to minors, so why not?

“Maybe the next Republican presidential candidates will add the "War on Drugs" to their to-do lists.”

Not likely. The government is the biggest beneficiary.

Answers - part 1
“Who would be in charge of regulating the "now-illegal" drugs, the government? If all drugs were legalized, wouldn't we need more laws and end up with more government control over our lives?”

This question confuses me.

I suppose you could say that having 20,000 pages of tax code is “more government” than having a Dictator who simply says “GIVE ME EVERYTHING YOU OWN.”

In other words, we can have reasonable regulations about drugs; no driving under the influence, no selling to people without proof of age, etc. What we do now is PUT PEOPLE IN JAIL.

Reasonable regulation vs. jail-time just doesn’t seem to me as being “more government.”



“Would businesses be forced to hire [drug] addicts?”

I don’t see why. Indeed, I can envision all sorts of jobs, bus drivers, aircraft mechanics, etc., where it really should be a job requirement to remain drug-free. Whereas, the fellow who takes care of my lawn can toke all he wants. What’s the worst he can do? Shred the petunias?

Employers already have all sorts of job requirements; high school diploma, driver’s license, etc. Would the ACLU go after a taxi company for not hiring people who can’t get a driver’s license?


“Legalizing more addictive drugs won't stop violent behavior caused by drugs, so I don't see the crime rate going down.”

This is a common misconception. Crime and violence is NOT caused by drugs. It’s caused by drugs being against the law.

Dealers take a large number of risks, and those on the bottom of the hierarchy don’t get much reward for that risk. The risk includes, of course, getting caught by the cops and incarcerated. But it also includes being attacked by competing dealers.

There is quite a large amount of gang violence that is linked directly to fighting over turf. That turf is for selling drugs. And they can't take disputes to the judge, so they settle them with violence.

I41say - Questions
These are some reasonable questions. Forgive me if I give some relatively long answers. In two parts.

Questions

Who would be in charge of regulating the "now-illegal" drugs, the government? If all drugs were legalized, wouldn't we need more laws and end up with more government control over our lives?

Would businesses be forced to hire cocaine, crack, or heroin addicts? If they weren't hired, could addicts sue because their civil liberties would be violated? One thing for sure is that the ACLU would become richer.

Legalizing more addictive drugs won't stop violent behavior caused by drugs, so I don't see the crime rate going down.

It won't stop teenagers from taking drugs; the drug dealers would continue to go after them, so we'd still have the black market (undercutting legal drug prices). Would we be able to prosecute the drug dealers?

I've never taken illegal drugs, and I don't have the answer to the problem. But, in my opinion, I think we'd end up with more problems if "now-illegal" drugs were legalized.

Maybe the next Republican presidential candidates will add the "War on Drugs" to their to-do lists.

*****

Five stars for the chuckles.

Tubbs, will you help your sister Jack
off her high horse?

The libertarian wing of the republican party has a substantial number of strong voices speaking out against the insane war on drugs.

Who speaks for truth and justice on your side?

Obama would be a felon, ineligible to even vote -- much less run for office -- in many states had he been caught doing (perhaps even selling?) cocaine, as he has admitted. Yet he changed his stance on de-criminalization of weed, which he used to be for, before he was against.

Obama - what a hypocrite.

War on drugs = miserable Failure
Excellent article Burt.

The saddest part of the current "War on Drugs" is that is has turned into the war on Marijuana.
You could be cooking meth a block from the police station and they don't bother you. I know I saw it happen near here. But let a cop pull over someone with a roach in their pocket and the cops treat them like charlie manson.

Our government is imprisoning cancer patients, and other sick people for using medicine their doctor recommended.

Want a real eye opener? Read up on why Marijuana was originally made illegal.
Here's a Hint, it was to stop illegal immigration! (don't believe me? Google Henry J. Anslinger)

and for the folks crying that "the kids will get it" have no idea of the world around you. The Kids ARE getting the drugs. It's easier for a teenager to get a bag of pot than a pack of cigarettes!

Think about it. If drugs were regulated like alcohol or even cigarettes, the national debt would diminish in a couple years, heck we could probably even afford to keep the social security monster viable for another decade or 2.

Of course the bureaucrats at the DEA will never go for it, a bureaucrat's #1 job is keeping His.

Legalize Drugs?
I respect the opinion of Mr. Prelutsky and other posters, but I just cannot see the wisdom in making heroin etc. more readily acccessible and socially acceptable through legalization. I am picturing seeing brands of cocaine and heroin competing for a market through advertising and explaing to my sons the billboards and semi-trucks featuring white-teethed, sexy and attractive young people tossing around needles and crack-pipes at their happy "cool-people" party and the sitcoms featuring the zany antics of meth-freaks. I am picturing pushers brazenly selling drugs to kids, and making purchases for underage kids. All the while creating more and more addicts who cannot take care of themselves or their children, sending more and more children into the state system. I would be surprised if the cost of imprisoning offenders would exceed the cost to society of cleaning up the mess an addict makes of his and his family's lives.
Free societies have always placed reasonable limits on behavior and it would, in my opinion, be reckless and unwise to officially legitimatize such dangerously destructive narcotics.

Dear Burt
How right you are, I have never messed with drugs
except smoking tobbaco, and that was a pain to
quit. But like you say, make it legal, tax it,
put it in the gov's pockets. That way our congress will never run out of money. They can build bridges to nowhere everywhere. Large buildings to put their names on. Give themselves a pay raise twice a year instead of once. I just love politicians don't you.

War on drugs = war on poverty =
war on terror.

All are failures.

Time to end them all.

More lolo news


A couple of days ago I got this message from lolo.

“The good is I should be home in about a week. We have to make some arrangements first, and I have to get a different neck brace first.”

----

I’ll post more info when I have some.

----------

My response to lolo was,

I bet Meg and Hubby (and your dogs) will have to change their ways.

I remember one time Sweetie was gone somewhere for a couple of days (can't imagine where or why) and when she got home she said, "I can see what you did every day, and what you ate every meal."

I agree,end it
The way things are is good for gangs,terrorists,dictators and the like.It's also good for the people that are paid to enforce this failed war in one way or another.There are entire books of reasons to end prohibition,but basically it's just not worth the dead police officers,violence,disease,slavery,wasted tax dollars and lives the current system has brought us.

Nick38
What you are missing is what I said in an earlier post. By the drugs being illegal ALL of the dealers are croooks with no incentive to keep them out of the hands of children and no controls whatsoever.

it is far easier for children to get drugs now than it is beer and liquor.

Again, there is no logical argument for this insane "war on drugs".

nick38
Teqsand does make the error of attributing motivations to an impersonal government bureaucracy but, the point is valid.

Some probably do think like that but, most don't. The incentives built into the current war are undeniable. How do you suppose police depts, federal agencies, etc react to that incentive. I know what an economist would say. Subsidize a certain behavior and you will get more of it. They do have an actual real monetary incentive to put more effort into drug crimes rather than others.

Teqsand
Hog wash.

Miss the point
Folks we are missing the point about winning the war on drugs. The government, local and federal does not want to win the war on drugs (WOD). Can you imagine the police dept's not getting the extra funding they get to fight the WOD? This funding buys equipment, manpower, etc.. that enhances the abilities of the police, hence the abilities of the federal govenment who control these depts. No folks they will not win this WOD, they DO NOT want to win, its too costly to them to win.

Legalize the drugs
If you are going to make them legal, then make them legal. How are you going to make them legal for some but not for others and not continue the war on drugs?

nick38
Just for the record, I do not advocate giving dangerous drugs to children.

I also do not advocate:

Giving them off road vehicles and sending them out to play without a helmet.

Putting them back into a home with derelict parents for their own good.

Letting them watch mind numbing television (proven to rewire the brain) instead of healthy interaction.

Forcing them to attend a failing school because it is best for the union or the district.


Now suppose for a second that drugs are bad. I think we all agree on that. How easy is it for them to acquire alcohol. They have to have a fake id, know the one store in town that doesn't check id, or get an older sibling or friend to buy it. It is not impossible but, there are obstacles. Now consider marijuana or any illegal drug. Don't need a prescription. Don't need an ID. Don't need a car to get to the store. Just need a couple bucks. But, hey let's be democrats. The results of spending $500 Billion are negligible but, that is no reason to expect that spending another %500 Billion won't turn the tide and solve the problem.

It can be solved with the proper punishment though. Someone already stated the solution earlier. The same solution has been used many times in history to solve any number of problems. Just kill them.

HH
WHen straw men is all ya got......

nick38
I haven't read every post, but I'm pretty sure no one has advocated selling or giving drugs to children. Or, are you just being a JA?

nick38
You can come up with a thousand straw men. I can come up with the same response to each. Let's save time shall we.

I don't have the stomach!!!
I don't have the stomach to read the lunacy of people who would sell or give cocaine, heroin or any other drug to children.

I don't have the stomach
to read all these posts. I agree with Burt, been saying it for 30 years. Common sense.

The so called conservatives can come up with nothing better than it "feels" wrong. Harsher penalties will stop it. Think of the children.

Just a bunch of feeling liberals aren't ya? It just depends on the subject. Screw principles. Screw the constitution.

You wonder why the republican party is demonized by the left. They wonder why they are demonized. The problem is both sides behave exactly the same. They just come down on different sides of different issues.

Liberal: "Think of the children. We must force everyone to pay more taxes to furnish them playstations"

Conservative : "Think of the children. We must force everyone to stop using drugs, they are dangerous".

No difference. None. You are part of the problem.

Get the government out of my life, except for this, and well, maybe that, and well maybe those other things but, get them out of my life. Both sides scream for more government intervention. They simply want it to intervene in different things. That is why we have McCain as nominee and one party rule. Because you are all the same. Apologies to the social liberals/fiscal conservative/libertarians. The only ones that truly think like our founding fathers.

Social conservatives need to chill. Take a toke. Relax. Trying to save everyone from themselves will lead to exactly the same place as trying to support everyone financially. The ship is headed to hell with all those on the left rowing in time with all those on the right. The rest of us are simply staring transfixed at the idiots rowing.

Prescriptions???
If we legalize all drugs, why bother with prescriptions? Make all drugs over the counter or off the corner.

Tubbs...I know about Jack and I but...
what the heck are you on!
Sounds like X :)

Tubbs
Gestell had it right a while back.

The ability of the conservatives on TH to develop and support a meaningful argument has seriously declined in recent times.


I'm a TH celebrity!
"On the other hand, just read something posted here on TH by lilly, t r, tubbs, Doofus, wobbie and well, you get the picture. What a waste of brain cells that"

I'd like to thank all the little people that lose arguments to me on TH consistently. Without you I could never have achieved such infamy.

Thank You All! Sniffle sniffle. Really I had no idea. You like me! You really like me!

now THAT's Funny
Heh..Heh...heh

No evidence exists which suggests Pot poses any meaningful danger to anyone, bystander or not.

Jack..I would submit that...
There are more problems with drunks then stoners because....
Pot is illegal...alcohol is not...
As for aggression...Its apples and oranges...
Alcohol, more times than not induces aggression…
Pot, not so much.
But...Both impair the user and endanger both the user and the bystander.

and...I have lost track of your original argument
what was it again? :)

beyond the pale
You need to move to a real State. In my State it doesn't matter what the consition of the ntruder is, if he comes in your house uninvited you can blow him/her/it away.

Aurora Watcher

Legalizinf/decriminalizing drugs and on the job drug use are two very separate issues. So is driving while stoned/drunk. Drunk is legal, driving while drunk is not.

Most large companies now do drug testing for initial hire and after any accident. The intention is to not hire drugggies and to fire druggies. I retired from a job that REQUIRED random drug testing all the time.

Companies that do not hire druggies can be protected from stupid regulations like ADA which should be repealed anyway.

Another way of looking at it
Another way o flooking at this is to compare the downside of the actual drug with teh downside of being caught with teh drug.

The downside of using, say, Heroin, is quite possibly going to be death. Gettin arrested, having a record, etc etc are not worse than that.

However, the worst thing about pot is the possibility of being caught. The outcome of being caught is far worse than the likely consequence of doing the drug.

That's an upside down state of affairs


Ron
Been to Alaska. Lots more problems with drunks than stoners.

Worked construction. Lots more problems with drunks than stoners.

I also know cops and they will tell you that booze is a million times more problematic for them than pot.

If a cop gets a call to come and get someone in a bar who is causing trouble, you can bet he'd rather find a looped out pothead than a tanked up tough guy.

Good points, Burt, as usual.
.

Jack.Congrats on your driving rec, mine
..Not as good.
And I agree with your response, also from my own experience...So
why would you challenge Aurorawatcher's experience in her posting? :)

Ron
I doubt it. But probably better than I can drunk.

ACtually, being 55 years old and never having had a ticket, moving violation, or accident (knock on wood), I am very attentive to when and how I drive.

Jack..If Aurowatcher says it...
You can be D*m sure of it...
but anyway from your experience...
Can you drive as well stoned as sober? :)

Yo Maldain
Got that data yet?

Aurorawatcher
These are very nice claims, but noticeably unsubstantiated by any data. Saying the we "know" something to be the case doesn't cut it.

What we do "know" is that Alcohol is directly responsible for literally hundreds of thousands of deaths each year. The actual data is incontrovertible, and I would be glad to provide this data if you wish.

aurorawatcher - Alternatives
"As for medical marijuana, the doctors I work with say there are much more effective ways to treat glaucoma and chemo-related nausea than pot, it's just that they don't have the side benefit of getting you high."

Ask your doctor friends how much those "more effective" ways cost, and how they are administered.

The most common "legal" alternative to MJ is marinol, administered orally. One problem with many chemo patients however is that they can not hold down anything they take. They throw it up. MJ can be smoked, until the nausea is calmed enough that the patient is able to hold down his food.

Plus marinol costs a LOT more than MJ. You can not grow your own marinol in your backyard.

BUT -- maybe your doctor friends know of something I haven't heard about?

beyond the pale -- Huh?
What does drug legalization got to do with police protection?

Aren't the police supposed to be protecting us from robbers, rapists, murderers, child molesters and other assorted baddies?

"you better repeal any law that ties the hands of the common citizen to defend his family and his property!!"

Well, I agree wholeheartedly, but really that's a separate issue.

maldain -- Traffic
"And there have been a rather large number of traffic fatalities as a result of pot."

This statement is patently false.

Indeed, there was a study done (which I'd have to look up) which discovered that people under the influence of marijuana were actually SAFER drivers than those driving completely straight and sober.

You can always tell the pot smokers -- they stop two or three car-lengths before they need to.

The pot smoker feels as if he's going faster than he really is. So he drives more slowly. Hence, fewer accidents, and what accidents he does have are at lower speeds.

Not that anybody's advocating smoking while high -- I'm sure there are effects on your reaction time, etc. --

But regardless. Even if it could be proven that pot smokers drive more recklessly than alcohol drinkers -- and I don't think you can prove that, but suppose you could --

This has nothing whatsoever to do with making it 100% illegal. Sure, make it illegal to drive, fly aircraft, or operate machinery more complex than an office stapler -- but otherwise, it needs to be LEGAL.

From the front lines
I work for community mental health where our psychiatrists will tell you that they've known for 30 years that marijuana use was in psychotic disorders. Of course, a research study in England recently confirmed the results of their in-the-field knowledge.

I live in Alaska where it has been legal to smoke marijuana for about 30 years. This state has a large drug problem and a population of lazy unmotivated people who live on the dole, but insist they don't drink. They're all growing marijuana, however. My husband works in the construction industry and he says most of the work-place accidents come back hot for marijuana. In other words, yeah, it matters what your coworker is smoking because in the construciton industry you can end up dead or crippled because your coworker is not firing on all cylinders. Cops tell us that there are quite a few under-the-influence accidents that are probably mj-related. Unfortunately, there is no test for level of intoxication in mj (as opposed to alcohol), so since it's legal to smoke it, they can't hold someone for a hot spit test unless they're so baked they can't coordinate. Problem with that is your judgment is affected with the first hit of pot, which is a long time before you're obviously unable to operate a vehicle. Judgment error is the primary cause of accidents!

The DSM-IVTR has several drug-related diagnoses. Why do you assume drugs are harmless when doctors have known for generations that they aren't?

As for medical marijuana, the doctors I work with say there are much more effective ways to treat glaucoma and chemo-related nausea than pot, it's just that they don't have the side benefit of getting you high.

Conservatives...
...who have been supporting this insane war on drugs ought to think again. One of the results is fighting between rival gangs over turf in the drug trade. That leads to large numbers of shootings, which helps left-liberals get political traction for their efforts to undermine our right to keep and bear arms. Other rights keep getting eroded as well, such as when swat teams bash down doors with little or no notice, brandishing automatic weapons, terrrorizing people, sometimes killing the innocent, all to get the evidence before it's flushed, or to get the upper hand on well armed drug lords.

Go ahead
Go ahead and legalize drugs, it really, truelly is a waste of resources. People will reap what they sow. . . but you also better be willing to allow citizens to defend themselves. We don't allow that now. The implication is because drugs are illegal it is the responsibility of the police to protect you. As it stands now, you can get in bigger trouble from shooting a drugged up intruder than from BEING a drugged up intruder.

I say, if you repeal the drug laws, and the implication of police protection, you better repeal any law that ties the hands of the common citizen to defend his family and his property!!

While we're at it seat belt laws, trans-fat laws, smoking laws, 6 foot fence bans, etc. I'd love to see ALL those go as well. I am all for people being held resposible for their own actions, and for reducing the "stupid descision taxes" that are becoming all too common.

Burt -- I'm Surprised!
I'm surprised you'd bring up the issue of making illegal drugs legal.

That's a very -- "Ron Paul-ish" -- type of thing! I thought you didn't like Ron Paul?

I would have expected you to opine that, since promoting the Drug War is good cheap way for politicians to generate votes and campaign contributions, and almost no one is against it, that you'd come down on the "Guliani-ish" side of the fence, and argue for more cops!

(was that a run-on sentence? sorry)

Nevertheless, I agree wholeheartedly. The War on Drugs is a huge waste of taxpayer money, and does nothing but enrich criminals, prison builders, cops (corrupt and otherwise), politicians, etc., plus put a significant fraction of our population either in jail or under legal supervision.

You'd have thought we'd have learned our lesson with Alcohol Prohibition -- but it seems the only lesson learned is that government no longer needs concern itself with mere Constitutional objections, so long as they can "sell" the idea to enough voters.

JasonAce -- an Answer or Two
"1. We NEED a way to discourage bad behavior."

The government is NOT your parent.


"2. We are NOT the same society we were before 1914,"

True. We seem to be a lot stupider, much more reliant on the Government to wash our undies for us.


"3. The idea that we can tax legal narcotics is as cynical to me as what the legalizers think the 'war on drugs' is. Isn't our goal to be LESS cynical?"

Well, no, that's not the goal at all.

I'd love to eliminate taxes altogether, but given that we as a society have decided to finance government through taxation, then it's just an issue of choosing what to tax.

We tax alcohol and cigarettes; so tax weed and coke.



"4. Legalization of drugs right now, with Al Qaeda and other religious fundamentalists wanting to destroy Western Civilization, would only add to their view of us as a weak, decadent society that needs to be destroyed."

But at least we won't be PAYING THEM to destroy us with over-inflated prices for poppies!


"5. The vicious criminals who profit from drugs will find some other way to get rich."

I expect they could open a chain of laundrymats with the moneys they've collected so far.

We will always ALWAYS have a criminal element. That doesn't mean we should do things that create MORE criminals! That's what the drug war does!

Advice for Burt
Burt:

You may want to reconsider your personal alcohol consumption. A drink now and again can get you past the frustrations of the idiocy of our world. So, when you start thinking about how our fine Constitution has been lost to the Nanny State and creeping socialism, try a nice American Whiskey. Add ice and a little water, if you must. If NAFTA bothers you, a good Mexican Tequila may sooth your spirit.

I’m sorry to say, however, that no amount of drink can beautify Hillary or her message. But there’s only so much a body can take, right?

Clarification
When I said "The drug legalization crowd, . . . have NEVER said how we would do this", I was referring to how I myself NEED a better reason than "if you OD, its your own fault". Self destructive behavior is bad for EVERYONE.

I have never used drugs...
but I have been for legalizing and controlling certain drugs much as the FDA now controls prescciptions drugs, for many of the same reasons that the article brings out.

BTW, it was Chuckk Noll, coach of Super Steelers of the seventies that made that memorable statement.

Against Legalization
I have come up with the following reasons to oppose legalization:
1. We NEED a way to discourage bad behavior. The drug legalization crowd, even people who do not use, have NEVER said how we would do this.
2. We are NOT the same society we were before 1914, when our first serious anti-narcotics were enacted. Since then, we have become more permissive and less concerned with personal responsibility.
3. The idea that we can tax legal narcotics is as cynical to me as what the legalizers think the 'war on drugs' is. Isn't our goal to be LESS cynical?
4. Legalization of drugs right now, with Al Qaeda and other religious fundamentalists wanting to destroy Western Civilization, would only add to their view of us as a weak, decadent society that needs to be destroyed.
5. The vicious criminals who profit from drugs will find some other way to get rich. Whatever happened to making an honest living?
I would like to see the legalization show how to handle drug abuse first WITHOUT the government BEFORE they start talking about legalizing. If you can get people off this garbage without the threat of the law, we'll talk.

Maldain
You will have to produce some evidence to back your claim that marijuana can be designated as the cause of "a rather large number of traffic fatalities."

In fact, if you can find one verifiable case, I will be surprised.

Please, indulge me. Point to some data which shows your contention to be true.




Your right
Jack, its all the republicans fault!!! BDS BDS
BDS
BDS
BDS
BDS
BD
B

Burt, Vic, etal, I agree with you. SSGT
Your examples of Woobie, Doofus, etc. does not make the case for continued criminalization of drugs. Some people are worthless no matter what they do. Might as well let them stay in a stupor and do no harm.

Getting the drug money out of the criminals and terrorists hands should be the primary reason, not to mention that with all the money now spent on the war on drugs, many treatment facilities could be funded for those that want to stop using them.

Vic, I have been advocating legalization for a long time also simply as a personal liberty/responsibility issue and am glad that someone with Burt's exposure has joined the common sense approach. Drugs should be a medical issue, not a criminal one!

Rick, most ODs are from legal prescription drugs, see Heath Ledger, Anna Nicole, etc. And marijuana is not a drug!!! It is a weed and is not processed into anything stronger, although it has been "improved" through selective cultivation. Hemp, a relative used to be used widely and would have a dramatic possitive effect on our economy if allowed to be grown. But, demagogues will not allow even a rational discussion of drug legalization. Sounds too similar to the global warming nutcases that want to stamp out discussion of that issue too!

Ordinarily I don't do this but I'll make
an exception this time.

All of you who claim to be small government conservatives adn defenders of the Constitution but who support this "war on drugs" by the Feds are either liars or hypocrites.

SSGT
Exactly how Marijuana became illega is a great sotry in itself. My point, however, is that teh Bush administration (You know the Republican one that ostensibly favors states being able to make their own decisions without Washington influence) has actively pursued a policy that prevents physicians from prescribing pot to terminal patients.

Ironically, you'd have to be high as a kite to think this makes any sense at all.

alcohol problem in my life


I led a sheltered life. I didn’t leave home and be on my own until I was nearly 15, I was in the Merchant Marine at 17, and over a period of 30 years I hosted at least 1,000 business lunches and dinners, and provided Hospitality suites at conventions, all in the computer business.

So it is not a surprise that I had an alcohol problem in my life. One day I took Sweetie to a very nice restaurant in Palm Springs, and as a celebration of some kind, they had a glass of wine at each place setting. Just for fun (ugh) I placed the tip of my tongue in the wine, a quarter of an inch, and it took 10 minutes to get rid of that horrible taste.

And that was my total time with an alcohol problem, and that was too much.

On an airplane years ago, when I had the choice of sitting next to a smoker or a drinker, I selected the smoker. That didn’t smell as bad as what ever the drinker was having, and it still doesn’t.

As for drugs, I have never in my life, including multiple times in the military, in college a short time, business travel almost weekly for 20 years, never ever did I even hear the word. I guess I just hung out in the right places, and as I said, I lived a sheltered life.

My Beloved Sweetie, waiting for me at home was all the hallucination I needed.

re Jack:
Two problems with your assertion about the Bush administration going against medical pot. The first is that pot is against federal law. Secondly, as the top law enforcement officer for the feds he is required by his job to go after anybody growing, distributing or using pot. Want to change that then work to change federal law not state laws since pot is illegal on a federal level.

The next issue is with your assertion that pot is benign. It damages your short term memory and as a result your long term memory. It reduces your coordination. And there have been a rather large number of traffic fatalities as a result of pot. The fact is the charge given is driving under the influence of a controlled substance. It gets less air time as it's not demon rum and it's less frequent because controlled substances are illegal. But it does happen.

Conservatives versus the Neo-Cons
This debate really highlights the difference between conservatives and neo-cons. We, the conservatives, believe in liberty over one's body, but we also realize that drug use is wrong and should not be condoned. No matter how much we know that drugs are evil, we accept that its your life to ruin if you want to.

This is in stark contrast to the neo-cons who want to impose their version of morality on America by force.

triple-double-overdose

Why not let anyone use any banned, illegal "substance” they wish — including cocaine, opium, alcohol, marijuana, oxy-condin (or whatever) — in any amount they can afford, but just one thing.

The only medical treatment permitted when that person gets sick because of that substance, is a triple-double-overdose of whatever it was that caused the problem.

And do not permit any medical person, or facility who receives any money from the government for any medical performance, to take care of anyone with a drug problem.


I agree too, Burt.
Better to allow marijuana and heroin (I demure regarding cocaine and methamphetamine because of their tendency to promote violent behavior), than endure the problems of their illegality and accompanying crime and violence. What a lot of people do not know is that many of the prescription psychotic medications have such severe side effects that one would be crazy to take them even if one is clinically crazy. This is one reason that the homeless seek out marijuana and heroine. They calm the demons in their heads without making more. Legalizing certain illegal drugs for the mentally ill and homeless would, in fact, be a humane treatment until better institutional facilities are available and the causes of mental illness better understood. Until then, let these poor critters get stoned.

Religious Lib
You say alcohol is a drug and is more damaging than any other, I beg to differ.

Yes, it's a drug. Yes, it's addictive. Yes, it causes severe health problems when abused (so does red meat). But the damage it does per user is not more than that done by hard, illegal drugs. Cocaine and narcotic addiction is easier to get and harder to get rid of than alcoholism. Cocaine, in particular, can kill with a relatively small dose (lookup Len Bias), whereas alcohol requires a fairly large volume to be lethal.

Alcohol consumed in small amounts is actually beneficial and non-addictive (unless the drinker is already an alcoholic).

REALLY hard drugs (like halucinogens) are even worse. They affect your mind long after you use them. And what people do under their influence is usually worse than any other drug.

I find the idea of making cocaine, marijuana, LSD, heroine, etc. readily available to children without any penalty worse than buying your kid a beer is the polar opposite of "common sense."

The thought I posted earlier is probably way too far the other way, but simply stopping all regulation is the wrong way to fix it (see my point about prescriptions in the earlier post. That's a bit less extremist.)

Drugs and Corruption
In his early 20's my son was a mid level dealer of ecstasy making $1M/year. When he finally got busted by the DEA he had $80K in his apartment. When asked to sign the inventory form it indicated $20K seized. Its amazing how 60K disappeared on the way to the Federal building. (He did 41 mo Fed time is now going straight)
This kind of crap is apparently relatively common. There is so much illicit money available cops at any level can't stay clean.
I agree with several above, it's a lost cause but my gut still wants to scream NO!

don't often agree with burt
but this is simply common sense.
alcohol is a drug and does much more damage than any other.

as a left center libertarian liberal i beleve people should be allowed to make personal decisions without government interference.

this is an endless war--- unless we grow up as a society and recognize some people are always going to find ways to get high.

we might as well make money on it and get the crimianl element out.


PASS THE BUCK-ITIS

Recently I made a comment to a "sound off" column in the newspaper that there's a pervasive attitude of "pass the buck, pass the buck." It seems there isn't anybody who wants to take responsibility for his actions.

Then I asked the question, "Where is Harry Truman when you need him?"

Truly, it seems that everyone who gets in trouble by reason of addictions wants to find something or someone to blame for the offensive behavior.

Re addictions: one may be badly addicted to a substance. That's unfortunate.

The first item of business is to admit the addiction and admit powerlessness over it. The second items of business is to decide what to do about it.

One may not wallow in a bed of blame, hoping that such wallowing will somehow excuse the bad behavior that may result from an addiction. Blame doesn't work. Taking responsibility does.

If a lifting of legal prohibitions would ease the burdens of crime and general mayhem inflicted on society by the addicted, perhaps we should give it a try. It seems that what we've been doing so far hasn't worked very well.

The idea of depriving countries of the income they obtain from "plantations" of illegal drugs sold to Americans is also delightful to contemplate.

Drugs Generally
(A) There are a number of perfectly legal drugs that are abused by teens and adults. Prescription drugs are a common source, as are some OTC medications (like Sudafed, and NyQuill). Never mind Alcohol. Making Cocaine, LSD, Marijuana, Heroine, etc. legal would simply put it in the hands of resourceful teenagers much more easily. Besides that, if Codine and Morphine are prescripion drugs (not legal without a note from your doctor) why should Cocaine or Heroine be legal OTC? And any doctor that would prescribe a drug for recreational purposes should be shot.

(B) Which brings me to my other point. Here's a simple solution to the drug problem. Summary Execution. Yes, it's a bit extreme, but so's the problem. And I don't discriminate between a poor black teenager on crack and a rich, white Wall-Street type on powdered cocaine. Use the Communist Chinese method of execution, one shot to the head and a bill to the family for the bullet. Dealers, Users, Refiners, Growers, Mules, whatever, doesn't matter. That's pretty much the only way to stop it. Maybe (I stress Maybe) I'd give first time users a break and force them through rehab, or whatever medical technique can cure them of addiction most quickly. But recidivist users, and anyone in the supply chain doesn't get a second chance. That's about the only way to stop it. Not education (which is a miserable failure), not idiotic TV commercials (like the one on the Super Bowl), and not leaving it to Customs (unless you hire about 6 million more Customs Officers and another 6 million more Border Patrol Officers on each border.) I'd wager that after a few months of summarily executing everyone involved in the drug trade, drug use and sales would either fall dramatically (it would never go away) or the market would shift to Europe which is fine by me.

Listen Jack
I have a news flash for you. Marijuana was ILLEGAL long before the POTUS (Bush) took office. And if it your that important of an issue, why don't they take it to the Left leaning courts systems. I'm sure they would make it legal. And, what about the sick that don't smoke? What would you have them do, forced smoked it to them?

Price Point
"If you make the junk legal, we’ll not only be able to collect tax revenue, but the price comes down and users aren’t forced to steal in order to finance their habits."

Oh yeah? So when your kid develops a $2,000 per day heroin addiction, he's going to finance that out of his allowance?

The problem with the price of drugs is that a lot of these drugs require more and more of them to give you the feeling you started them for to begin with. Ask anybody who has had to lock up their kid in a mental ward to get him off crack cocaine. Add to that the cost of medical care and methadone, clean needles and "safe" shoot-up places in middle school and high school (and breaks during the day so the kids can get high, especially the pregnant teenaged girls) and the fun of trying to teach them anything, or do any business, when the little brats are either stoned to the eyebrows or desperately trying to round up enough cash to score another hit, and that's a world I don't want to live in, myself. You've already taught your little Whiners that the universe exists solely to make them Happy, and if they're not happy every nanosecond Somebody Is Going To Pay Big-Time. Are you prepared to finance a $2,000 per day drug habit just to keep Susie happy -- not to mention the program to get her baby off drugs and institutionalize him should he be born brain damaged?

Nah, I wanna smoke DOPE, MAAAAAAAAN! And I wanna smoke dope FREE, MAAAAAAN! Gimmee DOPE STAMPS or I'm gonna make you, like, PAY!

Not in my universe and not in my lifetime, maaaaan.

YLG/SSGT
Will be gone for a few hours. Back later.

SSGT
Exactly the point.

Morphine, which is a much more seriously problematic drug than pot, can be prescribed by doctors at thier discretion.

Marijuana, which is relatively benign, is deemed so dangerous that doctors can'teven prescribe it.

Go ahead. Tell us that makes sense.

Chopper John
I wonder if Jack ever heard of the terminal drip of morphine for those who don't have long to live. My grandmother was placed on it. It was not pretty, but very effective!

YLG
And a very good morning to you as well.

I see the same people come back with the same arguments for this insane war.

ALL

LOL, innocent girls picking the scabs from the "bugs" crawling on their skin.

To that I answer yes, I have seen young girls absolutely destroy their lives wirh drugs right here in River City. I guess it was because they didn't have uniforms for a band that did it, but I digress.

All of this destruction has come about IN SPITE of the laws. It seems to me that the destruction of young girls was not ocurring at the rate that it is now back in the 1800s when all of these drugs were legal.


Chopper John
Facts is facts.

It was the Bush administration that pushed forward anti-medical marijuana policies. If that bothers you, talk to the Republican administration, not me.

I have seen cars ripped in two
and bodies dis-membered, but, it wasn't from coke, meth, or pot, it was from alcohol. The war on drugs is one of the biggest hypocrisies of our federal and state governments. Legal liquor, illegal drugs. How is growing your own weed, then smoking it in the privacy of your own home a threat to the community? Is it any more harmful than a couple of beers watching the game at your local bar? The difference is, liquor is taxed, pot is not. It's really all about power, police, and morality. No thanks!

Another Prohibition
I agree 100% about how it's time to end the drug war.

While we're at it, we ought to repeal all of the anti-tobacco laws in this country. It is ridiculous that the owners of so many restaurants and bars are not allowed to tell customers to go ahead and light up.

I don't care how noble the alleged intention of the anti-smoking activists. The fact is that they, too, are trying to use the state to impose their will on others, by force. Protecting people not only is an excuse, it's a lousy excuse. Protecting someone against his will is immoral. Freedom means freedom to take risks.

What about a person's "right" to enjoy clean air? A person can enjoy non-smoking air in his house, in his car, or in restaurants which voluntarily prohibit smoking, just as (for the time being) I can enjoy smoking in my car and in smoke-friendly restaurants and bars around where I live.

Jack,
you had a good one going there until you had to sling out the old 'republicans originate all evil' garbage. Just couldn't hold it in, huh?

YLG
gotta scoot for about 45. be back soon.

Okay
We won't call you Mata Hari!!!!
But we will say thanks for the help!
Really!

YLG
mission,
You can take the person out of the Corps
But you can't take the Corps outta the person!
OOHRAH



Wobbie: Hal, I want to be a Marine!

Doofus: sorry poochie, they need people with heart, brains and charecter!

What the hey!!!
I'm trying to help out a fellow THer, and all I get is GRIEF!!!

Mata Hari I'm not!!!

Nick
No, I have never seen the results of a cocaine caused accident. However, I have seen the results of alcohol caused accidents, of which there are tens of thousands every year.

I have never seen the results of a women being beaten by a drug crazed husband, but I have indeed seen the results of women beaten by drunken husbands, of which there are tens of thousands. This makes sense given that alcohol and spouse abuse are highly correlated.

I have never seen the results of either car accident or spousal abuse that resulted from marijuana use. The overall lunacy of American drug policy is encapsulated in the Conservative insistence that marijuana is a dangerous drug.

Drug A:

No deaths ever recorded from direct use
No deaths certifiably associated with accidents attributed to use
Little of no tendency to cause physical addiction
No correlation with violence

Drug B:

2000 deaths every year associated with direct overuse
25000 deaths associated with accidents attributed to use
Highly addictive, with hundreds of thousands of addicts developing each year
Exstremely high correlation with violence, spouse abuse and murder

Which drug is sold in every corner store?
Which drug do Republicans consider so dangerous it can't even be prescribed by a doctor to terminally ill patients?






OOPS
sorry, that should have been "Our fair Tigress"
Don't shoot! pleassssseeeee

RON!!!
HEY!!!

Just trying to help a Marine!!!

;-)

Ron
Yeah, tell me about it. Out-foxed by a tiger once again! LMAO

SSGT
I feel like I'm trapped in an episode of "Mission: Impossible".

Is this website going to self-destruct in five minutes? If so, I have to shut down!!!

;-)

YLG
Mission accomplished on this end. I'll wait to hear from you.



SSGT
Be careful...
unless you are familiar the Apple Opsys...
this may be a veiled attempt to commit you to an expensive user support contract.
YLG is very clever...as you know :)

Drugs
Fiest off this cigarette bs I keep hearing on tv.A child has never been killed smoking a cig,but thousands have been killed because of booze.Smokers now have to buy in states where they are cheaper.Many people are happy abot this as they don't like smoke.Just remember you just took away a persons liberty,the next liberty you may use is one that that you like.I do not smoke.Drugs could be controlled somewhat if the dea got a lot nastier.Example if a boat is found bringing drugs in don't arrest them sink the boat and everyone on board.Same for planes and cars>some but not all will soon get the message

YLG
I will do this on a couple of conditions which I will have the Guns foward to you in that e-mail. I'll send him the address right now. Then use it to pass your response to my conditions. GOT IT?!!
GOOD!!! Talk atcha soon.

SSGT
Dang, you are funny!!

It came to my attention that you do not own a PC or a laptop, and I just found a donor willing to mail you a laptop, free of charge. MsOz has one collecting dust in a spot, and she wanted to know if you could use it. It ain't charity, so don't go all high horse on me. She has no use for it, and thought you might like it.

It's all part of our nefarious plan to get you hooked at the No Troll Zone!!! If you are interested (and only a hermit with saint-like qualities wouldn't be), send GunnyG your address and permision to pass it on to me. The laptop is a Mac, and in great condition. She will run the updates before sending it off.

See!? Nothing bad....sheesh...

;-)

Ever seen.....
Have you ever seen the broken body of an innocent victim mangled in a car wreck caused by a person driving under the influence of cocaine or other drugs? Have you ever seen a teenage girl covered in sores that resemble cigarette burns from where she picks her skin to get the bugs out from under her skin because she is hallucinating from meth? Have you ever talked to a wife beaten half to death by her drug crazed husband?

YLG
"YO" Miss Scarlett!! Well, I almost fell out of my chair, but then I read your last line. Oh well, as they say, better luck next time! HAHA
GunnyG has my e-mail address. At least he did. I could zag him another one if he erased it. I have not been propositioned in a long time, so my curiosity is peeked!!
:-)

SSGT, Doc, Vic, et al
Good morning!

Just a quick note to wish you a good day, and a restful weekend.

SSGT, wanted to know if GunnyG has your e-mail and/or physical address. Have a proposition for ya!

No, not that kind of proposition...sheesh...

Thank you, Burt
For providing a humorous, yet insightful look into the stupidity of the "War on Drugs". I am completely burned out on the candidate schtick. Your column brought me out of my doldrums!!

FIVE STARS!!

newfem
What you are missing is that all drugs were legal in this country for far longer than they have been illegal and the country was in better shape then.

What a mess
this article is. I suppose the fans shouldn't cheer either after witnessing an accomplishment. Or maybe I should be fined because I raisewd my arms, screamed a cheer, and cried a bit after I finished my first marathon at 51. Clearly Burt doesn't know that kind of exhilaration. Of course there are the extreme reactions that indeed should be tempered.
Wasn't alcohol consumption legal before prohibition? Once you legalize pot, etc you can never go back.
As a parent, it helped to teach the kids that in addition to being stupid behavior, will hurt you, etc, I also said "by the way, it's illegal". And YES that gives them pause, as it did me when I was growing up. Why condone more things to mess up people's heads?

Chopper
I was over at David L's line earlier, and I just can't sit here and read that cr*p anymore. Maybe I just need the weekend off and refresh with some brews. Don't do drugs, so Moosehead will suffice. HAHA

Thanks Burt, Vic, et al.
Good post. The bottom line is that the attempt to prohibit alcohol failed, whereas what has increasingly worked is enforcing public safety laws as is the case with drinking and driving. You cannot sneak into every house and regulate personal behavior, but you can do a pretty good job of regulating its excesses when it affects others. The public, after all, supports the latter fully. Drugs are no different. The "War on Drugs" simply doesn't work. What would work is taking a page from alcohol. Control its distribution, remove criminals from the distribution chain, control where and how they can be used, monitor behavior, and legislate the excesses. None of which we can now do because everything is happening under the radar. You can never entirely stop those under 21 from getting their hands on alcohol, for example. Every parent knows that. But the fact that we control all the other elements at least takes our children and all users out of the hands of the thugs.

'morning SSGT.
Yeah, I'm already burnt out on this mess, and the cause is not substance abuse. And Katy, you're not only mean, you're smart. Continue to keep us lined up smartly.

Thanks Burt!
So many of our anti-drug crowd seem to spend a lot of money on the so-called legal mood adjusters.

We have no lack of "writing doctors" here in South Florida, and no lack of the truly goofy whacked out on Prozac.

Meanwhile the dealers own the streets and a local judge got arrested for smoking a joint.

Hayull, if I had to deal with some of the crapola he has to listen to, I'd be firing up a fattie right on the bench..


Doc/Chopper John
morning to ya!
I agree with this election BS stuff. Enough already. I like reading Burt's articles and laughing. Its much better medicine than, well, seeing a picture of the road-map-to-peace, Hitlar's thighs!
argh!!!

Complete waste of our tax dollars
As a member of a 12 Step recovery program, I can give you a small picture of how well D.A.R.E. & other government-mandated "education" programs do. Every person I know in recovery who is under the age of 30 is a graduate of the D.A.R.E program. It's been around for over 20 years, after all. In every school in the nation.

The "war on drugs" is a complete waste of money, and as was said before, it's unConstitutional.

Great column, Burt, as usual.

Burt,
thank you for the pause in the pre-election election cacaphony. The relatively small percentage of drug-addled whack-a-doos of the '60s have grown up to be a surprisingly large influential percentage of the voting public, which, sadly, is a depressingly small percentage of the country's population. Maybe we can blame drugs, including alcohol, as the reason why, we collectively, as a supposedly innovative, forward thinking populace, cannot come up with a method of election that doesn't automatically rule out the best that we have.

Oh well, looking at our past and current choices, it's going to take more than one drink, or one toke, to get past this mess.

SSGT
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA LiLLy!
5 of them Burt. I will be so glad when the dems and MSM put McQuack in his place and the election is over. Then we can get back to regular pieces such as this. IMO do legalize them, and then after a period of time, the natural progress of nature will cull the herd!

http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=956&title=Vietn am_Veterans_Against_McCain&vpkey=62acaf320c

http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/text/crimevictims.htm l
Free Ramos and Compean
Write in a name folks, it is still a free country!




Burt
I agree with you on the baseball issue, the football thang and generally all your articles that you have written. BUT!!!
This drug thing, I have to take issue with. On the one hand, I don't think that drugs are any different than alcohol or gambling. You either have a problem, or you don't! So I agree that they should be legal.
On the other hand, just read something posted here on TH by lilly, t r, tubbs, Doofus, wobbie and well, you get the picture. What a waste of brain cells that drugs can cause. Then you feel sorry for them! Oh well, I guess they chose that path.
Anyway, another good article, Burt!

nanny state..how much is too much?
Laws are enacted to regulate behavior. In a perfect world, there would be no need for regulation of behavior. No one would ever need regulating, since by definition he is perfect and his behavior would always be thus.

And so it is a matter of where to draw the line.

States require seat belt usage; many states require motorcycle riders to wear helmets.

Many people see no problem with those restrictions.

But what about local governments banning trans-fats in foods or restaurants, or prohibiting smoking in restaurants? Some radicals would even prohibit smoking within one's home.

I also have been vexed by this issue.

But increasingly I am on the side of getting the government out of prohibition of "illegal" drugs.

Huge bureaucracies, government police agencies, have sprung up with ever more encroachment upon our rights...all in the name of protecting us from drugs.

These institutions are self-serving and constantly seek more power, more appropriations.

Government's primary role is protecting the people from external threats, as well as internal, and in not permitting any citizen to violate the space, tranquility, or rights of another citizen.

You may have a right to smoke weed, but you have no right whatsoever for the behavior resulting from the smoking of your weed to impact my life in any way.

It is a tough call.

A huge cost...
Vic says: It costs society billions of dollars in added heath care costs. This is another absurd argument. Drugs cost society NOTHING.

Yeah, right, Vic. I'm sure all those trips to the emergency rooms for overdoses are free... after all, _you're_ not paying for it, until your hospital has to close because between treating the uninsured junkies and the uninsured illegals, they can bring in enough revenue to stay open. Or if they are insured, when your rates keep climbing, because I'm sure all those people who are asked if they use drugs by their insurance companies aren't completely honest.

Regardless of how well or not prohibition works, these drugs are illegal because they are dangerous, and legalizing them might help insure they aren't cut with rat poison or something else stupid, they aren't going to stop overdoses and the other huge problems (and costs) associated with people being impaired, ill or dead.

Sharel
You wrote: "My intellect tells me that your arguments for legalization of anything is sound. Let the idiots kill themselves, but my gut just plain screams NO!"

You're not alone. I've been struggling with this issue for a really long time. I'm not sure about how I feel/think. I find myself agreeing a little more all of the time...

And here I thought
that someone might just be taking on the this article would address the real "New Prohibition." That is, smoking cigarettes. Why a chapter of MACS (Mothers Against Cigarette Smokers) has not yet been formed until now, I'll never know. Now, of course, we won't try to pass a constitutional amendment, we've learned our lesson. We'll just gradually litigate and legislate cigarette smoking out of existence, right? Finally, we'll all be free of smokers forever. And, just like alcohol, we all know how violent a smoker gets after he's been on a "bender." We also know that statistics will show a striking correlation between alcohol vehicular homicides and smoking related vehicular homicides. Teenage boys will no longer be able to get a girl to smoke some cigarettes to lower her resistance to having sex.
It's all working so well, let's just do the same thing to drugs.

It might be better
if the stuff wasn't specifically made legal with all the age etc. issues, the laws against drug use were simply cancelled/repealed?

Excellant
Excellant column Burt. I always enjoy reading it.

My Mind Vs My Gut
My intellect tells me that your arguments for legalization of anything is sound. Let the idiots kill themselves, but my gut just plain screams NO!

Lessons from alcohol prohibition
This Cato Institute study makes a fascinating read.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1017&full=1

Highlights include the facts that, during prohibition:

Homicide and other crimes skyrocketed;
Total spending on alcohol increased dramatically;
Consumption of alcohol, and the number of people drinking, actually INCREASED when alcohol was illegal;
The potency of alcoholic beverages increased;
The number of places where alcohol was sold increased;
et cetera.

The parallels to the current drug war are amazing. If only the powers-that-be would pay attention!

I'm with you Burt
I’m with you Burt and I have raised this issue before here on Townhall and received a lot of grief and castigation for it. The fact of the matter is that this so-called war has been a dismal failure for many reasons, but primary among them is that you simply can not regulate what people perceive as a personal issue. Or in the words coined long ago, you can not regulate morality.

You will get the same tired arguments about the drug trade:

1. It costs society billions of dollars in added heath care costs. This is another absurd argument. Drugs cost society NOTHING. If supporting drug addicts or their families is a problem, then don’t support drug addicts and their families.

2. Another fallacy, the use of drugs causes crime. Getting MONEY to to buy drugs from the pushers is what causes crime. If the price of drugs were not so high the crime would go down. Besides that, the high price of gasoline causes the crime of stealing gas. Does that mean we need to outlaw gas?

3. Drugs should be illegal because they harm children (AKA do it for the children). This canard has been used for every evil under the sun. I see that someone posted it above also. Establish an age limit, be that 18, 21, or what ever and the ENFORCE it with strict sanctions. The fact is that if you get rid of the criminals and the big dollars enforcing laws regarding age become much easier.

And finally before I hit the 2000 word limit the biggest reason for getting rid of the federal laws and the DEA et al; …….it is unconstitutional and the laws rest on a foundation that does not exist.

I agree wholeheartedly
Time to STOP turning in little old ladies/gentlemen and those undergoing chemo who use pot for a REASON. Or aids patients. Or heck, even the old hippy down the street. They bother NO ONE but the government. Many even GROW their own.

I am sick of those who have been caught with a little over 'personal use' amount to be sent 'upriver' on extended terms because they can't NAME anyone. Yet, the 'big fish' get off completely by turning in the 'bigger fish.'

Mockery of justice.

And I do NOT USE either.


sorry Burt, don't agree with you
So we legalize drugs. Just exactly what age would you allow a person to "do" drugs? 16? 18? 21? We have enough problems with underage drinking in this country (it's just so cool to drink and make a fool of yourself, as Hollywood films demostrate)than to allow legalized drugs to enter the arena. Don't we have enough homeless people on the streets already? Do you really want to add young kids to the group?

Instead of the government preaching "drugs can kill" the better program would be to show young kids how stupid and "uncool" it is to drink or use drugs. Demostrating that drinking and taking drugs are for losers and people with no self-esteem. Kids "get it" when it's presented this way.

Unfortunately, I think we have
gotten that much more stupid, Burt. But thanks for having the courage to speak out against our absolutely asinine war on drugs anyway.

Not only has our drug policy decamated our own inner cities, we've also managed to create war zones in several foreign countries.

And let's not forget the police seizures of private property. They'd rather spend time busting drug dealers than solving murders. Murder solving takes a lot of work, time, and money. And there's no glory in it, unless it's one of the cable news favorites.

Drug busts, on the other hand, allow them to seize tons of cash, homes, cars, boats, etc., which are sold at auction to generate even more revenue.

Sometimes, I feel like we're living in Soviet Russia, or Nazi Germany. Our citizens are just as easily led down the road to ruin.

And if I have to follow you knuckleheads down the road to ruin, the least you could is let me get stoned once in a while on the way.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.