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
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
John Stossel :: Townhall.com Columnist
Big, Big Government
by John Stossel
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Two weeks ago, U.S. drug agents launched raids on 11 medical-marijuana centers in Los Angeles County. The U.S. attorney's office says they violated the laws against cultivation and distribution of marijuana.

Whatever happened to America's federal system, which recognized the states as "laboratories of democracy"?

According to the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, 11 states (Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington) have eliminated the penalties for physician-approved possession of marijuana by seriously ill patients. In those states people with AIDS and other catastrophic diseases may either grow their own marijuana or get it from registered dispensaries.

But the U.S. government says its drug laws trump the states' laws, and in 2005, the Supreme Court agreed.

This is not the way it was supposed to work. The constitutional plan presented in the Federalist Papers delegated only a few powers to the federal government, with the rest reserved to the states. The system was hailed for its genius. Instead of having decisions made in the center -- where errors would harm the entire country -- most policies would be determined in a decentralized environment. A mistake in California would affect only Californians. New Yorkers, Ohioans, and others could try something else. Everyone would learn and benefit from the various experiments.

It made a lot of sense. It still does. Too bad the idea is being tossed on the trash heap by big-government Republicans and their DEA goons.

Drug prohibition -- like alcohol prohibition -- is a silly idea, as the late free-market economist Milton Friedman often pointed out. Something doesn't go away just because the government decrees it illegal. It simply goes underground. Then a black market creates worse problems. Since sellers cannot rely on police to protect their property, they arm themselves, form gangs, charge monopoly prices, and kill their competitors. Buyers steal to pay the high prices.

Alcohol prohibition in the 1920s gave America Al Capone and organized crime. Drug prohibition has given us South American and Asian cartels that finance terrorism. Even the government admits that the heroin trade bankrolls terrorists. Prohibition's exorbitant black-market prices make that possible. In the United States, drug prohibition spawns gangs that are sometimes better armed than the police. Drug prohibition does more harm than drugs.

The war on drugs hasn't even accomplished what it promised to do. Drugs are abundant and cheaper than ever. "ABC News" reported last month, "marijuana is the U.S.'s most valuable crop. The report, 'Marijuana Production in the United States,' by marijuana policy researcher Jon Gettman, concludes that despite massive eradication efforts at the hands of the federal government, 'marijuana has become a pervasive and ineradicable part of the national economy.'"

The destructive failure of the drug war is why it makes so much sense to let states experiment, which 11 of them have done with medical marijuana.

Legalizing only medical marijuana brings its own problems. For one thing, it invites state authorities to monitor the practice of medicine to make sure doctors don't prescribe pot promiscuously.

But government officials shouldn't be the judges of what is and isn't medicine. That should be left to medical researchers, doctors, and patients. The effectiveness of medicine is too dependent on individual circumstances and biochemistry. One size does not fit all, so politicians and bureaucrats should butt out.

More fundamentally, why should only people whom the state defines as sick be able to use marijuana? This is supposed to be a free country, and in a free country adults should have the right to ingest whatever they want. A drug user who harms someone else should be punished, but a peaceful user should be left alone.

Despite my reservations about medical marijuana, the states' experimentation is still better than a brutal federal one-size-fits-all crackdown. There is no role here for the federal government. If the people of a state want to experiment by loosening drug prohibition, that should be their right. Washington should mind its own business. The feds and rest of us should watch. We might learn something.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
John Stossel blogs at http://blogs.abcnews.com/johnstossel/ is an award-winning news correspondent and author of Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel--Why Everything You Know is Wrong.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read John Stossel's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
medical marijuana CA vs US DEA
I've lived in the "bible belt" for many years.

That sheriff in CA that called the DEA to "bust" the marijuana dealer -- has Mafia connections.

The ONLY reason any "official" tries to stop legalizing anything, is to let their "brother in-law" continue selling it at street value!

I willing to bet the Taco Curtain is driven by the same forces -- for the same reasons.

State Laboratories of Democracy
Stossel asks, 'Whatever happened to America's federal system, which recognized the states as "laboratories of democracy"?'

History is not my forte, but I think the concept of the several states being actual, independent, sovereign entities went out the window with the Civil War.

Before the Civil War, they were "states". Like little countries. Completely sovereign unto themselves, with only the agreement in the Constitution binding them to the other states.

Simply from the perspective of States' Rights, the South was Right. They should have had the right and privilege to peaceably leave the United States any time they wanted to. In forcing the issue, at the cost of many millions of lives, Lincoln rammed home the concept that the States were *not* sovereign, but were instead *subservient* to the Federal Government.

They are no longer "states" in the traditional sense that the word originally meant. Today they should be more properly called "provinces", the way they're called in other countries such as Canada.

When the Constitution was written, they wrote in items that prevented the several states from charging each other tariffs and duties for inter-state trade. At the time, that was quite commonplace, and each state thought of itself as a -- well, as a STATE. Like the State of France, or the State of Italy, and charging fees for trade was no biggie. In agreeing to the Constitution, they did not intend to give up ALL their sovereignty. They only wanted to have a stronger unified government, more able to protect all from enemies abroad -- together we stand, or divided we fall.

Nowadays, the very concept of, say, California and Arizona being two different "countries" is utterly foreign to everyone. We can't even consider such an idea, it being so foreign to the modern mind. So naturally, local politics consists mainly of getting more and more local benefits from Sugar Daddy (formerly Uncle) Sam.

Laboratories of Democracy? Ha! Not anymore.

The Bill of Rights used to guarantee that whatever wasn't given to the Federal Government was reserved to the States, or to the People. Nowadays, it's the other way around -- the People and the States can only do what the Federal Government says they can do.

Who are the "drug runners"?
Ever wonder why we appear to have been so unsuccessful in fighting the War on Drugs?

Perhaps it is because there are a lot of people in high places benefitting from drug-running. You remember Mena, AK, right? If not, it's easy to look up. Why wasn't Clinton investigated more thoroughly on THIS, instead of some stupid affair with Monica Lewinsky? Personally, I wonder if it is because those profiting sit on BOTH sides of the aisle.

Do we really want Govt to be our nanny?
If a person is not infringing on someone else's liberty, what right does the government have to regulate their behavior?

Stoners are losers?
CathyB
It might interest you to know that I know quite a few "lifetime stoners" (marijuana users) who've raised their families well, and brought home the bacon from a steady job with the same employer for anywhere from 20 to up to 35 years. Some have created wonderful landscapes on their properties over the years, or created wonderful works of art. Most have never had a traffic ticket, many are political activists, and damn near all of them are active in some kind of athletic activity -- working out at the "club" regularly, walking daily, riding bicycles daily, snowboarding or skiing in season, skateboarding and or surfing in season, horseback riding, playing softball, etc. -- additionally, some of them compete in those "leisure" sports.

Then again maybe it won't interest you, you seem to have your mind made up, already, that all stoners are losers. You are so wrong.

shanevanderhart -- on Penalizing Dealers
The big-time dealers never get penalized. Ever.

They're the ones who can afford high-priced attorneys. They're the ones who can afford to "grease the wheels" and bribe the police, the judges, the politicians, etc. So the really big guys are almost never nailed.

So the little guys are nailed all the time. Despite repeated rhetoric of "going after the big guys", they *have* to go after the little guys. Otherwise, they'd never be able to "show progress."

Every once in a while you'll hear about a "big bust", coz when they luck out and nail somebody with a train-car-load of the stuff, they hold a news conference to keep up the favorable publicity. The big dealers just laugh it off. They know the most that's accomplished is to make the prices and profits higher, and they'll just replace the poor saps who got caught.

This has been going on for more than 70 or 80 years (depending on when you want to peg the "official" start of the Drug War). Psychiatrists say that doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is a sure sign of insanity.

shanevanderhart -- on Libert-Abortion
There is actually quite a large number of libertarians, both small "l" and Big "L", that agree with you about Abortion. Indeed, as elsewhere, that subject can generate some very heated discussions in both directions.

So you should think of something else to disagree with them about.

In my view, the most rational concept is to leave it up to the states. That's the most libertarian, it's the most conservative, it makes the most sense.

I don't like Big Government, but....
I'm a little concerned by what may happen with legalizing all drugs. I understand the rationale, one person earlier commented that we would need to take away the safety net, and I definitely agree with that.

It does seem like those who are punished by the "war on drugs" are the users, not so much those who distribute or grow.

I would really love to see limited government, one area that I can not agree with Liberterians (actually there are several) is on abortion. The Liberterian would say - it isn't the government's business. But who's looking out for the unborn? Right now no one.

For SassafrasTea, Irt Quip
Actually, God made beer, too!

Haven't you seen the Nature Channel when the animals discover the tree with the fruit that's been on the ground long enough to ferment? Big fun!

As it turns out, virtually any plant with any sugar in it, left to its own devices, will ferment and become an alcoholic beverage of some sort.

God truly has been good to us!

Basically, all Man did was figure out how to make Beer Commercials for the Super Bowl.

:-)

Just a quip...
I read somewhere...

Man made beer, God made pot...
Who do YOU trust???

~SassafrasTea

For Parker -- de Jure vs. de Facto
I've been meaning to discuss this, but other topics came up first.

quoth Parker: "I've got some news for those who want to argue for "legalization" and "regulation"; all drugs are legal-with the exception of marijuana.
As long as you get the proper permit, (prescription) you can take any drug. Morphine (purified heroin) all sorts of opiate derivatives and other sedatives, and analgesics. You can take all the cocaine you want with the right doctor writing the right prescription. Cocaine, novacaine, lidocaine, benzocaine and a whole host of coca derivatives."

Technically, this is true. In actual practice, no, it's not.

The DEA watches doctors who prescribe opiates and pain-killers like proverbial hawks. Any doctor who doesn't dot every "i" and cross every "t" takes the chance he'll be investigated, and risk losing his license. If he loses his license, he loses his livelihood.

It has gotten so bad until many patients who are in severe chronic pain can not get the medications they need to relieve that pain. If they find a doctor willing to take the chance and write the prescription, then everything is good -- for a while -- but the doctor might not be willing to take that chance for *long*. Plus, if the patient moves, then they have to find *another* doctor to write prescriptions for them.

Doctors will do everything *except* prescribe the drugs that can actually *help*. They might feel sorry for the patient, but they're unlikely to risk their own career.

There was an article about this problem here at TownHall a few weeks ago. I don't recall which author wrote about it -- Sullum, I think. If I recall the details correctly, a chronic pain sufferer moved to Florida, hadn't found a new doctor yet, and was caught with the medications he had left over. He was arrested, tried, convicted and jailed for a 24 year sentence.

We don't even send murderers up for *that* long.

Essentially, the government is so irrationally paranoid about drugs until they don't care about the thousands of people who suffer every day. Many of them are terminally ill, which makes it even worse -- who CARES if they get addicted? They'll be DEAD in a year! Why can't they live the last months of their lives free of pain?

So, my point, Parker -- technically, you are correct. Opiates and coca derivatives *are* legal under a prescription. But just try *getting* a prescription some time, and you'll find it might just as well be illegal.

the War on Drugs / the War on Terror ...
Dubya didn't fall far from the tree did he? When he announced the so called war on terror I was like, What? Where exactly is that? and Do they really think the terror will fire back any more than the drugs do? Terrorists and drug lords maybe.

I say we pull out of the war on drugs before giving up on the "terror war" in Iraq. At least we have a reasonable end in Iraq, however far off you may think that is. Just think what it would do to coyote prices at the border if the war on drugs were retracted. While we're at it, we could move the DEA to the border (after cutting it considerablely of course) and handle our immigration problem with Mexico in no time - that is if the Fed actually wants to do its job and actually use our border agents for something other than prosecutor practice.

Something FeedFwd didn't Mention - -
quoth FeedFwd: "... today is a different world with with a wider variety of drugs ..."

It has to be recognized that a big part of the reason why there's a wider variety of drugs is due to existing drugs being illegal.

One of the things that gave marijuana use a jump-start was Alcohol Prohibition.

One of the things that caused the invention of the "cocktail" was Alcohol Prohibition -- earlier, people mostly drank beer or wine, and very few drank anything stronger. Prohibition made possession dangerous, so the stronger the drink, the less space it took, the easier to hide from the police, the safer it was. But few people wanted to actually *drink* anything that strong -- so, they added fruit juices and such to bring the strength down to around what beer or wine would be normally. Hence, the cocktail.

One of the things that caused the invention of crack was a very similar motivation, to concentrate a stronger drug into a smaller space that can be more easily hidden.

It's usually not a good idea to speculate on a hypothetical, but I daresay it's quite likely we would have never seen today's "wider variety" of drugs had all the old drugs remained legal.

Bafundi -- On Meaningful Exchange
Sorry, Bafundi, but I reject the notion that I need to "be there" before we can have a "meaningful exchange."

That's as ridiculous as the notion that you need to be a war veteran before being qualified to have an opinion on any given war. Or that you need to be an actor before having an opinion on a movie.

Or perhaps you need to have a lung removed before discussing the health effects of smoking cigarettes?

I appreciate the pains you're going through to help those in need, and both FeedFwd and Cat Trapper have already make some excellent points that can serve as a "rebuttal".

-- but I still would like an answer to my original question to you -- it was NOT a rhetorical question --

In your work at the alcohol/recovery facility for ten years, is there anything in that work that makes you believe that ALCOHOL should be made ILLEGAL again?


hey Bafundi
tell what you have to say to the relatives of....

Annie Rae Dixon, an 84 year old bedridden woman who was shot in the head by police during a no knock raid. No drugs were found.

or

Willie Heard who was shot to death in front of his 16 year old daughter in a no knock raid in Kansas. Police were at the wrong address.

or

Alberto Sepulvada, an 11 year old who was shot with a shotgun in the back of the head while obeying police orders to lie down.

or

Ashley Villareal, a 14 year old girl who went outside at night and got in the family car. DEA agents were wathing her father and thought he was the one in the car. They shot and killed her. They had no warrant for her father.

The list goes on and on.

Bafundi...
I really don't think anybody underestimates the horrors of addiction. The issue, at least for most honest libertarians, is that government is not designed or suited to control individual behavior and consequently regulation and enforcement (i.e. the war on drugs) has led to more and more addiction. You could argue that addiction would be worse without the war on drugs, but some of these drugs like cocaine and marijuana were around before the war on drugs and there were fewer problems. So while today is a different world with with a wider variety of drugs and available in increasing purity, the only available empirical evidence suggests that the WOD has made things worse rather than better. We know there are problems with alcohol today, but we also know that it was prohibition that spawned organized crime.

Some people are simply self-destructive. We can pity them and we can try to help them. But like you learn in any 12 step program, the addict must recognize that they have a problem and want to be cured.

Rather than spending resources holding the problem at bay or making it worse, why not teach parents how to teach their children to seek out friends and spouses who recognize the harm addiction can bring and who are committed to avoiding drugs and to avoid it themselves. This used to be the province of the church, but as Americans drifted from God and the church for a variety of reasons, most related to self-indulgence, the church has fewer people around to help and has watered down its message to try and bring back the dissaffected. We all want our kids to be popular, have the stuff they want, do good in school, participate in things like athletics, etc. But we do them a terrible disservice if we don't help them develop the skills to become self-reliant and responsible.

Getting off my soapbox, my point is that the government cannot replace good parenting and trying to use DEA et al to stop drug abuse is like using a fork to add sugar to your coffee.

Back at You Learned Friend
You really need to take a tour (like two weeks)of an alcohol / drug recovery facility; starting with all the sights and sounds of detox, and then maybe we can have a meaningful exchange.

And, as well I know, maybe not.

So, Bafundi, Tell me something --
You really want to go back to Prohibition? Make alcohol against the law?

ANY "BEEN THERE DONE THAT" ERS IN HERE?

Hey George, seems like this long line of commenters' exchange has stirred up some "geekers" out there. That's fine. I've heard a lot of their projective excuses, and denial before. And, as in this columnist's case I've heard, and read bravado before from writers that try to sound so all knowing, but are clueless as to what the rotten end of addiction misery looks, and smells like.

May I say I've been working in addictions ministry for over ten years, with men's residence programs in Fla., and NC.

In addition, our only son, of whom we are most proud, is an agent with the Drug Enforcement Agency.

Our own family has seen up close, and personal how alcohol, and drugs can trash lives. We've also joyfully seen countless restorations of many written off individuals, marriages, and whole families.

And finally, Mr. Stossel, I know our son definately holds a different view than yours on how he, and his fellow agents, [or "goons" as you ignorantly put it], perform their jobs of public service everyday.


legal alcohol vs illegal pot
How many stories have you heard about someone's
wife divorcing him and he goes home and smokes some pot and kills his whole family and then commits suicide? Now substitute alcohol for pot... ?

We wage a war against our own citizens. We throw many of them in jail for minor drug infractions and brake up their family. We send jack-booted, black clothed, gestapo types into their homes in the middle of the night. Many times thew cops have the wrong address. Many times the cops kill innocent people. We confiscate their cars, homes and cash immediately with no due process. DA's arbitrarily enforce what they want... I know of a woman who spent 18 months in jail for 2 joints...intent to distribute you know, while the drug kingpins make deals with the feds and get off with very little time. I also know of a fellow who did 14 months(plea bargain and good lawyer) for emptying a 25 caliber smi-auto into a man in the restroom of a bar.

I dare anyone of you to go down to the bank and withdraw $5000 in $100 bills and then go down to your local police station and let their drug dog sniff it... say goodbye to your money.

cannot have one with out the other
Legal drugs with a governmnet safety net would be a disaster. However legal drugs with no governmnet safety net would work, usage would drop thanks to insuance companies not covering people who test positive for drugs, no job, no money to buy drugs. plus freeing all the marijuana users from the prisons and jails would leave a lot more space for pedophiles, violent offenders, theives and the like. Legalize it all .... sure there would be some people who couldn't deal with it and overdose, but as kindly as I can put it do we really need those people around anyway. Same with firearms if someone wants a RPG let them have it as long as it is not misused, however if misused punish appropriately. But there are some Americans who think the average person isn't smart enough to make their own decisions,so they have to make them for us ( i.e. socialist/demos/greens etc.)
As with all things with rights come RESPONSIBLITIES which are often forgotten by many

Frigglesnitz - - -
We already HAVE another Prohibition Era!

We're trying to get RID of it!

STATES' RIGHTS

My dad talked a lot about states' rights. He believed in them. He didn't believe the federal government had a right to go sticking its big nose into the business of the states. He was absolutely correct.

Legalizing marijuana for medical purposes is an experiment the states should follow closely. What many of us fear is the next would-be-illegal-drug-medicinal-purpose legalization.

There is no question that there is a black market for perfectly legal drugs, and that people steal and kill for them. What about meth as the next drug of choice for some physical problem?

It opens up a very ugly can of worms that probably nobody has the stomach for.

Nobody wants another Prohibition Era, either.

Marijuana Myths
To Cathy B and other Big Government Prohibitionist

I love this acronym.
A.D.A.R.E. -
Anti-Drug-Activist-Requiring-Education.

If were going to prohibit dangerous drugs then we need to be for real about it. ( I'll post a list of the most dangerous drugs then you decide or not, it's your choice. )

Most people hear have been taught to believe in the "War on Drugs". If they educated themselves about Marijuana and it's history they would see it's one of the safest "illegal" drugs on the planet and safer than most legal OTC drugs.

Anyway, here is a list of most dangerous drugs.

Related deaths from drugs in US.

TOBACCO -- 350,000 to 400,000

ALCOHOL (Not including 50% of all highway deaths and 65% of all murders)-- 150,000

CAFFEINE (From stress, ulcers, and triggering irregular heartbeats, etc.) -- 1,000 to 10,000

Legal Drug Overdoses (Deliberate or accidental) from legal, prescribed or patent medicines and/or mixing with alcohol - e.g. Valium/alcohol -- 14,000 to 27,000

Illegal Drug Overdoses (Deliberate or accidental) from all illegal drugs. -- 3,800 to 5,200

MARIJUANA -- 0

(source- US surgeon general)

As John Stossel correctly points out it's all about big, big, big, government.

Guess what? Prohibitionist simply put are for big, big, big government.
There is no excuse for such blantant liberalism in the conservative party.

DEA practicing medicine without license
It would seem that the legal system (state) might be used to prosecute DEA agents and the agency itself for practicing medicine with a license.
HIPPA act requires privacy of medical records to insure the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship.

DEA practicing medicine without license
It would seem that the legal system could be used on a state level to prosecute DEA agents individually and the organization itself for practicing medicine without a license.

Thanks, John, --
-- you said what I wanted to say before I could say it.

Let me add, this is why we call it a "War on SOME Drugs." Alcohol is probably THE drug with the MOST "mind-altering" characteristics -- such as leading people towards more violent behavior -- and yet we keep it legal. We know how to handle it, and we handle it. Nicotine is probably THE drug with the MOST health destructive properties -- such as causing all sorts of illnesses in people -- and yet we keep it legal. Again, we know how to handle it, and we handle it.

It makes absolutely NO sense to keep illegal drugs illegal. If anything, marijuana should be legal, and alcohol illegal. Then we could say the law, while still a bad law, at least treats the substances more rationally.

re: houtex
quote: "I'd be in favor of repealing laws criminalizing the use of most drugs with this caveat: If you want the ability to destroy your mind and your judgment, you can do so, but you have to give up certain privileges (not rights) granted by state and federal government. That means turning in your driver's license and any other professional licenses you might have. That also means disclosing to your health insurer, if any, that you are choose to use certain mind-altering and judgment-impairing substances and you waive your ability to recieve any medical care, emergency or otherwise, that you do not pay for yourself entirely out of your own pocket. You would also have to post a bond or provide other proof of financial ability to pay for any property damage or injuries to others you might cause while under the influence of those substances."

Why should the government decide what not private professional organizations and insurance companies should and shouldn't do? An insurance company could decide for itself whether drug testing is a requirement for insurance, or for a better rate, just as a non-smoker can get a better rate now. That shouldn't be up to the government.

As for the "proof of financial ability" part, do you think this should be required now for someone who wishes to drink alcohol? Take prescription drugs? Take a job on the night shift? Work more than 12 hours a day?

CORRECTION
"the more you can charge FOR it".

Faulty logic
> [More severe criminal penalties for sellers] would deter many people and would make narcotics selling an unprofitable venture. <

Uh, no, that would actually make it *more* profitable. The more risky something is, the more you can charge it. Even the Fed gov't, as much as it tries, cannot revoke the free market.


smoke 'em if you got 'em
I'd be in favor of repealing laws criminalizing the use of most drugs with this caveat: If you want the ability to destroy your mind and your judgment, you can do so, but you have to give up certain privileges (not rights) granted by state and federal government. That means turning in your driver's license and any other professional licenses you might have. That also means disclosing to your health insurer, if any, that you are choose to use certain mind-altering and judgment-impairing substances and you waive your ability to recieve any medical care, emergency or otherwise, that you do not pay for yourself entirely out of your own pocket. You would also have to post a bond or provide other proof of financial ability to pay for any property damage or injuries to others you might cause while under the influence of those substances.

One of the Problems with WoSD
(and for those of you unfamiliar, WoSD stands for "War on Some Drugs", because there's only a selection of drugs that War is waged on, and even there it's not the worst drugs -- only the ones that failed to gain social respect 100 years ago.)

At any rate, this is truly a War, and one of the first casualties in any war is Truth. So we are not told the truth about "The Enemy."

In particular, CathyB mentions a friend who started cocaine, having already been using marijuana and alcohol, and thus figured it would be "no big deal." Well, the government's propaganda campaign against drugs is partially responsible for that.

They treat ALL drugs as being EQUALLY bad, simply because they're illegal. People who habitually smoke marijuana already know this to be a lie. Millions of people smoke marijuana periodically -- the way others might relax with a beer on week-ends -- and have absolutely NO problems with the stereotypical "pothead" or "junkie" or "addict" we're all so diligently warned against. They hold down good jobs, they don't steal, they take care of families.

When someone knows from personal experience that the government lies about marijuana, who's to say they're telling the truth about cocaine? Or heroin? Or meth? Or ecstasy? Etc.? Hence, many people will be more likely to try the harder stuff than they would be with a rational persuasion campaign based on truth instead of lies.

Nevertheless, even so, MOST of the people who try the harder stuff give it up. The "Instant Addict" is just another lie. Millions of people try -- only a percentage of those become habitual users.


Howee -- Hush!
You're giving them ideas!!

They've already banned trans fat in New York, so your idea of banning everything is well on its way to fruition!

So don't start telling 'em what to ban next, coz they'll take you seriously and do it!

)-:>

re: CathyB
First of all, I'm sorry to hear about your experiences with drugs and alcohol.

However, you use these bad experiences as reasons for the government to get involved, then try to say you are against big government?!? So you're saying that the government's job is to protect us from ourselves? I'm sure then that you advocate the liberals' bans on trans-fats, because they can cause heart disease can rip families apart. Perhaps you even want the government to mandate exercise, lots of water, time limits for exposure to the sun, and other laws that would protect us from bad health. Oh wait, that isn't limited government at all. And it certainly doesn't fall in line with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

If you want to warn people about the dangers of drug and alcohol abuse, then use your freedom of speech to try to persuade them. Use your freedom of association to band together with other like-minded people to increase awareness. Volunteer your time at drug centers. But don't confiscate my money to use the force of a gun to enforce your own personal beliefs.

Protect us from ourselves!
Why stop with drugs? How 'bout alcohol and tobacco? Doritos, and calorie-laden soda? Do it all..."for the children!"

Banning all of these may be a very authoratative way to create a "pure" society. It sure as hell isn't conservative.

Does anyone remember freedom? Individual rights and personal responsibility? Anyone?

One last word
Yes, my friend's granddaughter (17) is hooked on crack despite the fact that it is illegal. But she didn't try the drug because it was illegal -- she got it because her boyfriend offered it to her. She tried it because she had already been using alcohol and marijuana and thought it was no big deal. As to my other friend, she is a waitress I once worked with. She and her husband both were heavy marijuana users and tried cocaine at a party. Some people like it more than others -- she liked it alot and thought she was in control. Most users do. I moved away and did not see her for several years. I ran into her (she is still waitressing) and noticed how thin she was. She is now divorced and her husband kept the house and custody of their son. She did not fight to keep either. She still "parties" and lives in a little apartment she shares with two other waitresses so she is functioning but she bears little resemblance to the woman I once called a friend.

If I believed that people could make an informed choice about drug use then I would agree with the majority here -- leave the government out of it. In my experience the choice is over once the drug takes effect. The user is no longer in control of his life or his body and whether he is at the mercy of the drug dealer or the corporations that would spring up to fill the need, he/she is still without the ability to just say no.

So for me it all comes back to keeping as many drugs out of the hands of as many people as possible and right now the only effective way to do that is to make both drug selling and drug using illegal.

good timing!
Perfect timing on my post by the way!

If you get that joke you are clearly for legalization or at the very least de-criminalization.


JK Libertarian
JK Libertarian:

Outstanding post but don't go confusing people with actual facts!


Tobacco may be a pretty good model...
They haven't criminalized tobacco, they have just made it illegal to smoke anywhere. Look at how that has reduced smoking, in spite of its addictive properties and the fact that lots of kids still want to experiment and try it. Also look at how it has been shunned. Even more kids won't try tobacco because they have been brainwashed to believe it is the most evil thing they can do. More and more smokers are shunned by non-smokers.

Look at cigars. Cubans are illegal in the US and it should be very expensive. Well, they are expensive, but because there are so many good alternatives, there is a limit to what people will pay for Cubans. There is probably some smuggling and such, but it is small scale compared to illegal drugs. The risk is too high for the reward.

CathyB, you do make some interesting points and I appreciate them. As a foster parent, I have seen the seemier side of drug/alcohol abuse and its impact on families. I have tried to raise my kids right, but they are ultimately going to have to spread their wings and live their own lives. Ask me in 15 or 20 years and I can tell you how I did.

CathyB
And, again, the woman is hooked on crack despite the fact it is illegal. The whole situation involves much more than taking the crack. The people from whom she obtains the crack are criminals out to make big bucks.

I sure don't object to continuing the anti-drug messages. And with less incentive for lowlifes to cook up a batch of crack, might not fewer people ever be enticed into trying it?

CathyB
I'm sorry your friend lost so much because of her cocaine use. But of course cocaine use is illegal, so it's hard to know what all contributed to her losses.

And I sincerely hope you don't mean you would welcome the return of Prohibition. I'm not so sure there's another Eliot Ness out there.

FeedFwd
I agree with most of your post. I am not an advocate of big government. And I agree that a large part of the problem with the "war on drugs" is that we are only half seriously waging it. We do not advocate 12 step programs or forced rehabilitation programs for murderers.

I guess my problem is two-fold: I do not necessarily agree that crime rates will fall if drugs become legal. There's still that pesky business of where will the druggies find the money to purchase their legal drugs? So I do believe that crimes like theft will continue or even increase if drug use increases -- and there is some reason to believe it may. There are people who do not do drugs because they are illegal and may try them if they are legalized. Even without increased theft there is bound to be increases in anti-social behaviors like domestic violence, prostitution (to pay for drugs), child abuse and the like. And I know the cuddly marijuana users would never engage in such behavior, but you're not going to get one (marijuana) without the others (cocaine, heroin, crack...) being legal also. See the arguments based on alchol use if you doubt me.

My second problem is more personal. Not me personally because I've never used drugs, or been drunk, or smoked cigarettes. But I know people who've used and are using drugs. I know their families and the utter devastation that a grandparent (a dear friend) feels when learning that their bright, sunny child, so full of promise is hooked on crack. And she doesn't want help -- cannot be forced into it and that grandmother (father, mother etc...) must just sit on the sidelines watching in horror at the wasted potential of a real human being. And I wonder where the choice part comes in.

Does anyone choose to be a junkie? Does anyone choose to be an addict? Or does the drug make choice irrelevent? impossible?

I'll concede again, I don't have a perfect answer but making this poison legal and pretending that that will make it all okay isn't any real answer either.

George W Bush
Thanks for the recommendation. I will find and read a copy of "Send in the Waco Killers."


Pee test for Politicians for sure
I think all judges, politicians and government agencies, should be drug tested, before anyone is drug tested.
After all, politicians do hold the most important jobs in our country.
Hell they fail and lack all the time in job performance and no drug test that I know of are performed. in fact they give themselves raises.

This should be an amendment to the Constitution so long as we spend $1 taxpayer dollar on the "War on Drugs".
I guarrantee Prohibition would end the next day after it's passage.

Would you use drugs if they were...
Would you use drugs if they were legal?

If illegal drugs became legal tomorrow, who here that doesn't use drugs, would start using?


I'm sure most of you said no.

Most people are not going to go out and do drugs if there legal.
In fact I believe prohibition makes it easier to get into the hands of people under 18.
Especially even younger than 14 or 15.

Prohibition works only for big government socialist. It provides a job to someone who can't make a living in the free market on their own.

The Only Real Cure
Back in 1962, my junior high social studies teacher, Mr. McCloud, who personally lived through the prohibition period, noted that during that period, robberies declined and so did the divorce rate. I'd venture to add that every social ill associated with alcohol declined also.

I'm not so quick to buy into the premise that the cure is worse than the disease. The fact is, when men are high, the crime rate goes up, not down. Drugs and alcohol sear the conscience. That's the appeal.

The only real cure, regeneration of the heart, is definitely seen by men as worse than the disease, since men love darkness rather than light.

Gary Gordon

Feds too deep in the pockets
Feds are too deep in the pockets of the profits that come from prohibition, for them to ever relinquish the power back to the states.

Even when the majorities in every state pass a medical marijuana law for there state, the feds still will not give up there place at the feeding trough to the tune of billions per year.

That is big, big, super big socialist government for you.
Thanks social Republicrats for your brilliant big government socialism.
Big government again all in the name of a false security.
As far as the marijuana issue in the War on Drugs, every bad thing thats been said about the plant is not true and was based upon our racist views towards Mexicans and black Americans in early 1900's.

It's time to start facing up to the truth on how we did get to such a radical socialist agenda when it comes to the War on Drugs.

I don't consider anyone who supports prohibition to be a true conservative.

The problem is...
You are comparing an illegal activity with a legal one. Since alcohol is legal, people freely consume it in all manner of public and private venues and they have to get home afterwards.

If you could go to the clubs hunting for dates and pot was as legal and available as beer and frozen daquiris, do you not think that the incidence of driving under the influence of marijuana would go up?

The only thing marijuana has going for it based on anecdotal observation is that it tends to cause users sit and "veg out" rather than moving around from club to club or place to place. I remember we used to joke about our pothead friends growing roots.

Big Big Gov
Perhaps a little truth to counter the misinformation?

A 1983 study by the US National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) used stoned drivers on simulators, and concluded that the only statistically significant effect associated with marijuana use was slower driving.

A comprehensive 1992 study by the NHTSA found that marijuana is rarely involved in driving accidents, except when combined with alcohol. It concluded that "the THC-only drivers had an [accident] responsibility rate below that of the drug free driversS While the difference was not statistically significant, there was no indication that cannabis by itself was a cause of fatal crashes." This study was buried for six years and not released until 1998.

Another NHTSA study performed in 1993 dosed Dutch drivers with THC and tested them on real Dutch roads. It concluded that "THC's adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small."

A massive 1998 study by the University of Adelaide and Transport South Australia analyzed blood samples from 2,500 accidents, and found that drivers with cannabis in their system were actually slightly less likely to cause accidents than those without.

A University of Toronto study released in March 1999 found that moderate pot users typically refrained from passing cars and drove at a more consistent speed.

Media stories on the UK driving study:
UK Times: Cannabis May Make You A Safer Driver http://www.mapinc.org/newscc/v00/n1161/a02.html
Ottawa Citizen: Researchers Say Pot Makes Drivers Safer http://www.mapinc.org/newscc/v00/n1209/a07.html

Media stories on the UK drugged driving roadside test:
Reuters: British Police Plan New Drug Tests For Drivers http://www.mapinc.org/newscc/v00/n1105/a12.html
Irish Independent: Drug Test Drivers To Walk The Line http://www.mapinc.org/newscc/v00/n1108/a04.html

1983 National Highway Transportation Safety Administration study: Stein, AC et al., A Simulator Study of the Combined Effects of Alcohol and Marijuana on Driving Behavior-Phase II, Washington DC: Department of Transportation (1983)

1992 National Highway Transportation Safety Administration study: The Incidence and Role of Drugs in Fatally Injured Drivers, by K.W. Terhune, et al. of the Calspan Corp. Accident Research Group in Buffalo, NY (Report # DOT-HS-808-065) http://www.drugsense.org/tfy/nhtsa1.htm

1993 National Highway Transportation Safety Administration study: Marijuana and actual Driving Performance, By Hindrik WJ Robbe and James F O'Hanlon. Institute for Human Psychopharmacology, University of Limburg http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/general/mjdrive.htm

1998 University of Adelaide and Transport South Australia study: http://www.netaxs.com/~sparky/policy/highway.htm

1999 University of Toronto Study: http://newsandevents.utoronto.ca/bin/19990329a.asp

For a better way to test people for impairment, read this: http://www.pdxnorml.org/performa.html

For a 1986 Australian study comparing alcohol and marijuana, go here: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/mjdriv1.htm

For a UK Department of Transport report on Cannabis and Driving: http://www.dft.gov.uk/roads/roadsafety/research98/road/3b.htm

Another good reference for marijuana and driving: http://www.mapinc.org/pdxnorml/Exposing_12_1095.html

CathyB
Today: Organized crime has ratcheted up violence and recruitment because of the profits selling a prohibited substance that some people want and are going to buy on the black market. Some recreational drug users/abusers really are harming nobody but themselves and can easily afford their habit, but are being arrested and sent to jail, anyway. Some folks are addicted and can't afford their habit and they resort to crime to pay for it, either joining organized crime or acting freelance. Taxpayers pay for the criminal justice system to go after organized crime and the small fish as well as for rehabilitiation (with poor results to boot) for drug users.

If drug use was decriminalized, there would much less risk and much less profit in producing/selling drugs and private legitimate businesses would displace organized crime. Taxpayers would see reduced cost associated with criminal justice. There may or may not be more users and abusers, but since it is currently an illegal activity, we will probably never know. We do know that drug use has not responded to the war on drugs.

If we eliminated government programs and regulations that make it difficult for society at large to discourage people from using drugs, we would likely minimize drug use. By this, as I've posted previously, we need to enforce penalties for criminal activity even or especially when the perp is under the influence, rather than using it as an excuse for leniency, we need to give the labor market and other associations the unrestricted ability to test applicants or members for drugs and the unrestricted right to fire/expel those who test positive, and we need to stop taxpayer funded rehabilitation programs.

I am happy to admit that drug use is counter-productive to society. I just believe that making it illegal and continuing to force taxpayers to accept the consequences of individual drug users (i.e. the war on drugs) is aggravating the problem rather than mitigating it.

Drugs don't kill people..
tyrannical governments kill people. The “Drug War” is nothing but an excuse for the government to expand and extend its power then using it to crush whomever it sees fit.
"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the U.S., and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana can cause white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others... The primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races."
--- the testimony of Harry J. Anslinger, director at the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, before the U.S. Senate in 1937.

Your government owns you, even your consciousness. Now, the Commerce Clause has been decided to mean that everything you could possibly grow or produce belongs to them as well. First it was wheat then cannabis and before long it will be tomato plants in your Granny’s backyard garden.
You Yanks make me smile. Your beloved Constitution is a document long since emasculated and void of any of it’s original intention and purpose.
As for your “Freedom”? Reminds me of something Goethe once stated, “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.”
And that's just how you like it.


Drugs don't kill people..
tyrannical governments kill people. The “Drug War” is nothing but an excuse for the government to expand and extend its power then using it to crush whomever it sees fit.
"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the U.S., and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana can cause white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others... The primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races."
--- the testimony of Harry J. Anslinger, director at the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, before the U.S. Senate in 1937.

Your government owns you, even your consciousness. Now, the Commerce Clause has been decided to mean that everything you could possibly grow or produce belongs to them as well. First it was wheat then cannabis and before long it will be tomato plants in your Granny’s backyard garden.
You Yanks make me smile. Your beloved Constitution is a document long since emasculated and void of any of it’s original intention and purpose.
As for your “Freedom”? Reminds me of something Goethe once stated, “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.”
And that's just how you like it.


Don't blame the judge
Blame the people who brought the whole case in front of the judge.

If in this case the judge had ruled in favor of the state, his ruling would then be precedent should a state do something monumentally stupid that warrants being overridden federally. Sometimes the locals *are* wrong. Just ask some Duke lacrosse players about that.

If, say, Alabama decided to bring back segregation, or Massachusetts decided to allow clinics for pediatric clitoridectomies, his ruling would be a weapon in the hands of segregationists and Islamists. Some things are expressly forbidden by federal law, and the question becomes whether the states can legalize what has already been illegalized on the federal level----generally, they can't.

The law in this case needs to be changed on the federal level. Don't count on judges to want precedents set that will bite them in the gluteus.

Legalization Won't Stop Abuse
Has anyone seen the "O'Reilly Factor" recently? He did a series of stories on those drug raids that Stossel talks about. The agents found that a whole bunch of shady clinics had sprung up in places like LA. These doctors were basically handing out prescriptions to any Tom, Dick, and Harry who wanted pot, with no questions asked. O'Reilly even proved this by sending one of his producers undercover to one of these "clinics." The doctor there simply rubber-stamped the prescription. And a policeman interviewed on the show said they had caught dealers selling pot in schools who admitted getting it from these clinics. So having the government legalize pot won't make crime go away. Stossel talked about alcohol. Well, guess what? I used to work in a convenience store, and we busted underage people trying to buy alcohol and cigarettes all the time. We even busted people who were the right age giving away cigarettes and alcohol to teenagers near our store. So again, legalizing something won't eliminate the criminal activity associated with it.

If you're suggesting
If you're suggesting that the only way to eliminate drug use is to prohibit alcohol as well -- go ahead. Sign me up. As the child of an alcoholic and the granddaughter of one and the niece of another and the step-daughter of another.... well you get the point. And as for functioning -- yeah know a few of those too. A dear friend started using coke only at parties, once in a while. Three years later she lost her home, her husband and her son but, hey she's still functioning.

I don't have the answer but maybe it involves a little more shame and a lot less "who cares?" When such behavior made you an outcast fewer people engaged in it. Perfect -- no. We don't get perfect here. That's for another time and place but while we are here shouldn't we all try to do the best we can? And is it in anyone's best interest to go through life too stoned or high or drunk to care? Every addict is someone's father, mother, son, daughter, sister, brother, .....

If you see someone about to jump off a bridge do you just stand by respecting their choice or do you try to intervene -- by force if necessary -- until you can get them in a better frame of mind?

Legalization & Regulation
I've got some news for those who want to argue for "legalization" and "regulation"; all drugs are legal-with the exception of marijuana.
As long as you get the proper permit, (prescription) you can take any drug. Morphine (purified heroin) all sorts of opiate derivatives and other sedatives, and analgesics. You can take all the cocaine you want with the right doctor writing the right prescription. Cocaine, novacaine, lidocaine, benzocaine and a whole host of coca derivatives.

Hell you can even drive a vehicle without jeopardizing your 'legal' status. Because it's legal to be under the influence if you have your proper papers.

The issue is simply the criminal code which criminalizes recreational use no matter what.

But I find it utterly hypocritical for the government to say on the one hand, "these are bad drugs, unless..." And because we say so, you get thrown in a cage, wiped out financially, or shot and killed.

That's just plain old tyranny. Especially when every one of these substances ( "drugs" ) grows naturally by virtue of the creation. Or a bird crapping in your yard.

Wake up for crying out loud. People are going to be stupid and dangerous whether they drink opium tea, or smoke pot, or snort cocaine.
Just the same as they will murder with their bare hands if every single gun is banned and beaten into a plowshare.

CathyB
I've known many people who use drugs recreationally, even cocaine, and still hold responsible jobs. One friend who did so just retired from Hewlett Packard.

By the way, I don't use illegal drugs and have no desire to ever use illegal drugs. Or legal drugs, if they ever become so.

Bot
Most people would say the Constitution does not authorize the Federal government to take my money or yours and give it to anyone else, just because they don't care to work, whether or not it's because they take drugs.

CathyB
Stop for one minute and think about how many of the ill effects of drug use are because drugs are (1) illegal, and thus (2) expensive, and also involve (3) really bad people profiting from drug sales and, hence, pushing them--hard.

Then stop one more minute and think about how "alcohol" (both legal and harmful) could be substituted for "drugs" in your post.

My younger brother died rather early because he drank waaaaay too much alcohol. He was poor and couldn't afford drugs, yet wasn't about to turn to a life of crime so that he COULD buy drugs. He died of multi-organ failure, strictly as a result of his use of alcohol.

I don't know if he ever drove drunk, but I know that he never hurt anyone by driving drunk. He worked as a gardener until his body gave out. I can't believe that, say, coke, would have been worse for his body than alcohol. I believe he could have worked as a gardener while using marijuana, coke, or any number of drugs which are now illegal.

Many of the people who die from drug use die because they ARE illegal and unregulated, resulting in the occasional overdose, or the use of tainted drugs.

Legalizing drugs might result in some unemployment, as DEA agents and a few others hunt for other occupations, but then they might just find something constructive to do.

Pick and Choose...
Scanning through the vast array of "for and against" in this matter I think Frog nailed it. You can't have it both ways.

How revealing to see how many of you are quoting the Constitution verbatim on this particular matter but are quick to run like wounded children to the Supreme Court to re-interpret areas you don’t agree with.

You want to nix the “Big G”, then allow the States there Constitutional rights and let the pot smoking hippies kill themselves off. But, please don’t ask us to back national entitlement programs that throw away money on problems created by your “right to choose”.

And, PLEASE, by all means, keep quoting the Constitution.


Vic
Exactly my point. If drug users cannot be employed then how are they going to buy their drugs -- legal or otherwise? We are engaging in fantasy that if only drugs were legal then people would just smoke or shoot up in their free time and be otherwise productive citizens. That the only problem with drugs is the fact that they are illegal and if we make them legal then it will all be okay.

To CathyB
That is not a problem with legalizing it. Companies all over the country are already testing for drug and alcohol abuse before hiring and some provide continuous random testing (place I retired from). In any case, you may already have people doing the things you are talking about if the companies are not testing for it. How do you know the bus driver for the local bus did not do 2 or 3 joints before coming to work when you get on the bus with him?

You're Right as Usual, John!
There is only one problem and that is he doesn't go far enough.

Do you know the history of marijuana prohibition? You'd laugh if it weren't so serious. I learned the most from a book called _The Emperor Wears No Clothes_ which I bought in 1995 for about $20, one of the best $20's I have ever spent.

It is just mind-boggling to me that this plant is not as legal as tulips. I thought that way even before I knew the medicinal value of the herb.

People have died at the hands of the federal government (also state and local) over this, when it has been demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that, under a doctor's supervision, it could save the lives of many very sick people.

Steve Kubby is a prime example. He would have been dead for 25 or 30 years were it not for marijuana, as he is an adrenal cancer patient, diagnosed about 30 years ago. You can read about this case at kubby.com.

According to what I have read, the intoxication affect of the plant is milder than alcohol and, unlike alcohol, it is not physically addictive. But establishment propaganda says different. Don't you think the liquor industry has something to do with this?

Even if I am totally misinformed, the fact remains that the insane war on drugs has done nothing at all to reduce drug use but has done plenty to reduce the use of our God-given, Constitutionally guaranteed *RIGHTS!*

To grow any plant on your land, do whatever you wish with your body, and to buy, sell and trade with willing participants are *RIGHTS* and no government can interfere in a truly free country, which this is most decidedly *NOT.*

When are we going to grow up anyway?

Not so fast
I admit it sounds good. After all -- "my body my choice" and "as long as I'm not hurting anyone..." However, the reality of drug users is not all that cute and cuddly. Most of us like to think of ourselves as insulated from that world. Maybe some here have dabbled and look back fondly on their experience -- "see I did it and I turned out okay". But the reality is that most drug users don't "turn out okay". Drug use isn't benign. It isn't some private exercise that has no lasting impact on anyone else because it doesn't occur in a vacuum.

How many people want some stoner driving a bus, managing your 401K, working on an assembly line putting together your vehicle, constructing your home, teaching your child or even serving your happy meal? And if not then where is this wonderful, warm, fuzzy human being supposed to go to earn his drug money? That is if he is so motivated to do so. Many drug users do not hold down steady jobs -- they show up late, or not at all -- in short, they make lousy employees.

How about parenting? Think a stoner makes a good parent? Picture one with an infant or a toddler running around. Well, maybe we can find some way to prevent them from having children or maybe not.

Even without their effects on others how about the personal destruction in their own lives? I know "my body -- my choice". But anyone high on something whether marijuana or stronger no longer has a firm enough grip on reality to make those decisions. Most first time users are doing it as a lark or using it as an escape. No one goes into drug use thinking it will be forever.

The idea behind criminalization is to deter that first time user. Before the destruction is done before it's too late to turn back. Yes, I know some life-time stoners -- who doesn't -- and yes, they sort of function. But it's like they're in a time warp. They never progressed beyond those teenage years. No ambition, no drive and as a few of them age I've seen them turn to speed or coke just to get moving in the morning.

I'll admit the "drug war" as waged is a failure if you'll admit that drug use is counter productive to a successful society.

A&E has an excellent series on the subject titled "Intervention". It follows real addicts and their families and lets people see first hand what drug use does to real people in the real world. Watch a real family being destroyed and then tell me it's no big deal.


Stoned and Cold Journalism
Stossel's broad band manner of coveraging on this issue is, ten miles long and, maybe, an inch deep. Perhaps he forgot where he 'stashed' his common sense.

He cries about the "one size fits all"... "big government Republicans" passage of intrusive drug law that is, in his learned / most thoroughly researched view, wrongfully applied inside state domains, and rabidly enforced via "DEA goons".

First of all, when did we start finding Republican labels on our Drug Laws?

Secondly, When did our law enforcement officers in the Drug Enforcement Agency take on, as "smack down Stossel" so aptly puts it, the "goon" moniker? Before, or after those stars were applied to that memorial wall for the agents that have lost their lives in performance of their duty?

Thirdly, any state that has NOT dipped it's funding bucket into the Federal trough should rightfully take up Stossel's invitation to say "butt out!" [Can you name one O wise columnist person?]

Let's lay Stossel's words out bare. "If the people of a state want to experiment by loosening drug prohibition, that should be their right. Washington should mind it's own business. The feds and the rest of us should watch. We might learn something." Hey, I say fair enough!

[If] that "experimenting" is kept within the confines of that particular state, and doesn't spill over onto a neighbor state's turf.

For example, the "experimentor state" would have to prevent the exporting of any waves of drug enduced criminal activity, any breakout of mindless euphoric displays in the streets, on the job, in schools, hospitals, malls, etc., and to be sure, the increase in human road kill just for starters. (Way to go Dr. Stossel, specialist in Human Behavioral Science.)

Perhaps if Mr. Stossel had investigated "the horse" before writing about "the cart", his research might have flagged him down with more appropriate facts. Had his investgative reporter's nose first led him to an interview with any family that has been brutalized, ripped and forever scarred through drug addiction, it would have spoken volumes to him.

The sobering thought of any "stoned free spirit, it's my body fuit loop" barreling down on me or my loved ones at 80 mph, in a 3,000 lbs. bullet makes me very very glad we have a D.E.A., A.T.F., and F.B.I.

Yes, if that's what it takes, send in the "goons"! And God bless them all!




Legalize and prescribe
I heard that suggestion on the radio last week, I think, perhaps, on Dr. Dean Edell's syndicated show. It is worthy of considering.

Legalize marijuana and opiates, let users get perscriptions from doctors for calculated doses and remove the need for crime to support the habits.

Vic
No liberal outcry over Waco at all. They had no problem with 17 kids getting burned alive by the Feds. Must be that they're used to butchering the young.

We have a corrupt government....
The governement only raided 11 out of hundreds of pot houses in the LA area, it appears that some pot houses were spared, the corrupt government is the goon squad for organized crime arresting any & all who don't pay a vig.

During prohibition those who didn't pay their vig had legal problems too.

i
Yes it is funny isn't it. All this talk of Constitution gone to h*ll never came up when Klinton was in office using the IRS for retribution and using FBI background files for dirty tricks. Naagh, nothing here people, move on down the road.

Vic
What a lot of the libidiots fail to note is that the "rolling" wiretaps that they mewl about so vociferously wereactually created to fight organized crime and drug dealers.

Funny how everything from rolling wiretaps to Katrina to the melting polar caps on Mars is somehow Bush's fault.

He sure does get around!

People decry the patriot act
People decry the patriot act but you don’t hear much of a squeak about the evils committed under the “war on drugs”. Under some of these laws your money can commit an infraction by being on your person and is subject to a federal cause of action (civil forfeiture) without you being charged with anything. I find actions like this to be absolutely awful. In addition, things like the “no knock drug raids” have caused unnecessary death and destruction when agents hit the wrong house and shooting occurs between the agents and the occupants. As I said the other day, who gives a sh*t if the government gets a list of books you checked out of the library when they can kick your door in and ransack your house based on unsupported allegations of the first loser they arrest who seeks a lighter sentence and has a grudge against you.

Feedfwd
I've been saying that for years. Take away the welfare and make people work. If they have to be drug free to get a job, they will stop doing the drugs since they can either get sober or starve. An empty stomach is a wonderful enforcement tool that requires no beaureaucratic layers to administer.

Take away any laws that forbid employer testing for drugs. There are many.

Lastly, stop enacting gun control laws that would keep people from protecting their homes. That way, if the druggies decide to go on a robbery spree instead of getting a job, they will be dealt with. Call the police to have them pick up the body.

Just -- LEGALIZE IT already!
There is NO rational reason for drugs to be against the law. NONE.

Every single "rationale" that's been brought up so far is a straw man.

"What if they're driving under the influence?" So WHAT? Are you aware that the biggest killer today is people driving under the influence of SLEEP? You wanna make SLEEP illegal?

"Omigosh, we have to protect the children!" From WHAT? We believe in the 2nd Amendment, don't we? We don't let "The Children" stand in the way of gun ownership! We just make sure kids don't have access until they're old enough and mature enough! Same with drugs.

"We already have an alcohol problem! Adding drugs will just make things worse!" HOW? Making alcohol ILLEGAL is what made things worse! Before Prohibition, criminal activity was a nuisance -- Prohibition created ORGANIZED crime, which today has gone international. Didn't we learn ANYTHING from Prohibition?

"Kids will get it, like they get alcolhol!" NO! Kids can *not* get alcohol easily. Go to any high school, and ask around. Most of the kids will not only tell you how much easier it is to get drugs than alcohol, they'll also be able to finger the on-campus connections!

The thing about it being illegal is, the sellers have got nothing to lose. With alcohol, a vendor can lose his license if he sells to minors, and that'll cost him a LOT of money. It seems every month, when I go into a liquor store, they've gotten MORE vigilant against selling to minors. "If you look like you're under 35, have your ID". It used to be 30 -- before that, it was 25 -- the way it keeps going up, I expect soon, *I'LL* have to show ID, and I'm over FIFTY!

When you don't have a free market, you get a black market. It is possible to have a mostly free market with some reasonable regulations -- and the outright ban we have today is NOT reasonable.

JUST LEGALIZE IT ALREADY.

Polly
So well said. If you write too much, sometimes no one reads it so I left out a few things. The overcrowding of jails and the criminal element involved because of artificially high prices are great points.

tq & feedfwd
Well said, both of you. I don't smoke, do drugs, and have only an occassional drink socially so I believe I have a neutral, unbiased view. Many of the arguments used against legalization of drugs can be used for alcohol. A lot of friends and family get mad when I say this because it is the "drug of choice" for them. Alcohol rins lives also. In fact, when I lived in a dorm in college, the druggies were only trouble to themselves. The guys getting in fights and hassling women beyond what is acceptable, were the drinkers. People have died from too much alcohol but there are no cases of overdose death from marijuana.

So punish those in society like we do the drunks. I don't want either on the road but there is no logical difference in the danger they pose when behind the wheel. Plus, when you make something "taboo", it just makes a certain percentage more curious. Take the mystery and rebellion factor out of it and you may even see usage go down with younger people.

We have freedom in this country-even freedom to be an idiot. If you are doing drugs, I think you are pathetic and really missing something in your life. However, it is none of my or my government's business, even if you want to ruin your life. You can't help those who don't want help.

Polly
Vin Suprynowicz's books "Send in the Waco Killers" and "The Ballad of Carl Drega" are excellent Libertarian books. "Send in the Waco Killers" is the book that changed my life. It really caused me to look at the world in a different manner, got back to my Patriot movement roots, and the fact that I read it during the Harriet Miers episode created the perfect storm, the last straw that caused me to join the Libertarians, eventhough now I will register as a Republican just so I can vote for Ron Paul in the primaries.


Go Pound Sand
That should be the the Republican response to the Religious Right. Let's give it all to the states. People like mountain rose can ban everything, throw cancer patients in jail, and teach their kids in school that Adam and Eve rode to church on dinosaurs, have their kids mumble like retards and call it speaking in tongues and the rest of us limited government people can get on with our lives in other localities. More Goldwater less Robertson. I don't care what you people do in your personal lives as long as it doesn't break my leg or pick my pocket.

Ron Paul '08
Conservatives need to put up or shut up. The funny thing is that the Goldwater and Libertarian types will be voting for a pro life candidate and all the bible peddlers, those that use the word for personal and financial gain, are convincing their sheep to vote for the pro choice, Massachusetts liberal that is Romney. Gull-i-ble.

Legalize all drugs
For years I was on the verge of calling myself a libertarian, but that "legalize drugs" thing was just too unthinkable. Then I read Larry Elder's "Ten Things You Can't Say in America," in which he argued--effectively, for me--for legalizing drugs, and I became libertarian.

My sister-in-law just couldn't agree, because "it would make it seem like we thought it was okay." Which, of course, could just as easily be said of alcohol.

Not only would legalizing drugs free up jail space and bring drug prices down so that addicts might not commit crimes to get the huge amounts of money needed to support their addiction, it would also take the incentive out of dealers' convincing children to become addicts--why bother when there's no real profit to be made?

By all means, attempt to keep drugs away from minors (I have no children but friends assure me that drugs are NOW easily acquired by any child who looks for them). And make drug treatment available for anyone who realizes drugs are ruining his or her life, much as smoking cessation programs are currently available. Still way less expensive than fighting this war.

Way too much money is spent fighting a war that really is unwinnable; too many innocent people are killed in the crossfire when dealers go to war (and when enforcement officers err); too much money goes to too many conscienceless lowlifes; too much money encourages corruption of law enforcement; too much money goes to support terrorism.

This is America; we should be free to ruin our own lives--or not.

we already have legal medical marijuana
Medical marijuana already exists and is completely legal in the entire US. It has been around for years and it is called marinol or dronabinol. It is composed of the same delta 9 tetrahydro-cannibinol (aka THC). It is used for the same purposes; antiemetic and appetite stimulant. The pharmaceutical companies probably don't give a democ-"rats" tail about this issue. If you want to call severe tachycardia or acute psychotic episodes that could last for months, "not dangerous," you must already be out of your marijuana induced euphoric mind. Anyone with half of a brain will know that ingesting ANY kind of smoke into your lungs is always dangerous. I guess the legalization of marijuana is really just to ease the pain for those of us who continue to resist what LD has so kindly and perfectly explained.

Pick and Choose
Fine, legalize addicting drugs. But by all means don't allow someone to smoke a cigarette in a puble area.
By the way, pot, coc, etc. have primary harmful effects to an individual user, as well as secondary harmful effects on others.

just a nod
to Parker
Some plants can kill you if eaten and give you a rash if touched. Eat too many carrots and you die of scirrosis. No criticism of your point which I liked. As one here said, It is my body, leave me alone.

Rehabilitation is not the answer...
When you prop up drug users with the promise of rehabilitation, funded by public expense, you provide a dangerous incentive for drug use. The idea is to provide a disincentive for drug use. Incarceration failed because it proved to not be much of a disincentive, or in many cases, an incentive, since prison provided better living conditions (for free) for many addicts while still providing access to drugs. I have no problem with private rehabilitation, since in these instances, the addict would be directly accountable to the individuals who supported him financially through rehab.

The most effective disincentive would naturally be, as ugly as it sounds, to let addicts die in the gutter.

re: Fledermaus
quote: "What would you think if the "peaceful user" was driving under the influence and drove head on into your mother's car killing her?

Drug users should be aggresively targeted by law enforcement and there should be mandatory incarceration for even the smallest amounts of drugs. First time offenders should receive a mandatory minimum of at least one year in prison, preferably five. Community service, etc. is a waste of time.

This would deter many people and would make narcotics selling an unprofitable venture. "


There is a big difference between possessing and using a drug versus driving under the influence. Driving under the influence and killing someone infringes on the victim in an obvious way. Puffing on a joint by a terminally-ill person doesn't.

As for your "solution", do you really want to see your tax money spent to build all the prisons you'd need and all the police you'd need to enforce it? I already pay too much in taxes, and I don't want my money confiscated to put casual drug users in jail. I also don't want to see the infringements in liberty for the innocent by the government who is trying to "aggressively target" drug users.

Oh wait, that's the system we already have. Yours is only different in degree of Big Government. Perhaps you believe Prohibition would've been successful if they would've only been tougher on it...

You can legalize drugs without...
becoming Amsterdam! There are 2 things that have to happen in parallel or even prior to legalization of drugs and they should have happened already.

1) Crimes committed under the influence of intoxicants (any kind, anyplace, for any reason) should not be the basis for reducing the sentence or justifying/excusing the action. If anything, crimes committed under the influence should be punished more harshly! As noted earlier, we should be punishing the action that hurts others (e.g.armed robbery), not the drug use itself.

2) Eliminate the government safety nets for people who destroy their lives by abuse of drugs or other intoxicants. Let them reap what they sow or at best let their families or charities take up the burden of helping them. It's called tough love. As a corollary, it should be permissable for drug testing to be used at anytime for any purpose by anybody who wants to screen members, employees, prospects, etc. It would be interesting to see companies competing on the basis of employee drug testing... (e.g. My airline is routinely tested and has been 100% drug free for the past 10 years as certified by xyz drug testing and certification, inc.)

Now it should also be left up to the local community whether or they at the community level, drugs will be permitted, just as we do today with smoking and drinking. Further, it is reasonable (again preferably at the local level) to restrict sales of drugs to minors. If you are concerned about children of abusers and believe the government has a role in child welfare, then consider using drug abuse/addiction as a sufficient reason to remove the children from the home and place them under state guardianship.

rehab
Flagwaver - the proponents of legalized drugs propose that it would take much less money than spent spent on the "war" on drugs to be used to rehabilitate people from those drugs - (I believe we have already spent 5 trillion on the drug war and have we "won"?) It is also a misconception that the minute drugs are made illegal that everyone will run out and smoke some crack. Use the money to wean those currently using off their drugs and make those who still want to use the harsher drugs (coke, crack, etc) register as an addict and only they can buy the potent drugs.
The government made pot illegal to protect the paper industry - (I believe the history channel had a show on it) because using hemp was a better way to make paper and it would hurt those companies.
The government lied to people about pot - the movie "Reefer Madness" was a joke. When people think they are lied to about pot, they will think they are lied to abpout other drugs and possibly try them. Alcoholism is a disease that some cannot stop overcome. I know people who smoked pot 3 plus times a day for years and just stopped. It is not as addictive as booze or cigarettes. It would free up a lot of prison space for the child molesters and rapists and murderers who sometimes spend less time in jail than some do for minor pot possesion.

Fledermaus
Your post is interesting. First you talk about driving under the influence of drugs. That part is the correct way to think. It should be just the same as driving under the influence of alcohol.
But then you get off on this outrageous idea that has already been shown to not work. Incarceration for drug possession has been tried all around the country. It has never worked, because people who want drugs will get them, illegal or not.

This is what I like about Stossel...
...he makes you think about things you wouldn't agree with off the bat. I'm not a fan of drug decriminalization, although I agree with it in principle, because like so many issues, rampant drug use owes to more factors than just the criminalization of the substance.

I think many already touched on it, but the social safety net has contributed heavily to the drug predicament we face as a nation. When people are not held responsible for their behavior, then no amount of decriminalization of that behavior is going to correct its abuse.

We have two problems that Stossel doesn't quite differentiate between: drug abuse, and drug crime. Drug crime could effectively be curtailed by decriminalization, just like cheating on taxes could be curtailed if we didn't have taxes. Drug crime for the most part proves to be infractions of regulatory laws, and then accompanying violent crime committed in the process of violating regulatory laws. Remove the laws, and the regulation infractions disappear and the accompanying violent crime with it to a great degree.

Drug abuse would not necessarily be corrected by decriminalization. Currently America has a widespread alcohol abuse problem among young adults of college age. Alcohol regulations, despite what you think of them, are fairly loose and anyone under the age of 21 can access alcohol with varying degrees of ease. If we were to completely deregulate and decriminalize underage drinking, do you think alcohol abuse among young adults would subside?

Flagwaver (More)
".... we the people have demanded that the G get tough on crime; that includes the drug trade as well as other types of crime."

That's a bit circular, isn't it? If drugs aren't made illegal, then there aren't any drug crimes. And as Stossel pointed out, the reason people have to steal and commit other crimes to get drugs is because drugs are so expensive. And the reason they are so expensive is because they are illegal.
Marijuana would be free for most people. You can grow it indoors in a potted planter if you want. Watering is about the only expense, so the cost is virtually zero.

re: Mountain Rose, CVN65
re: Mountain Rose
The purpose of the government is to protect individual liberty, so insofar as someone is infringing upon your liberty, then yes, the government should protect you from them.

That does NOT mean, however, that the government's job is to protect a person from HIMSELF.


Anytime the government declares "war" on anything other than another country that is threatening us, hold on to your liberties because they are being threatened, whether that "war" is on poverty, drugs, or "terror".

re: CVN65
quote: "the problem that conservatives seem to have is that the libertarians pulled up and left the tent rather than work to effect change from within. This is a net loss of votes to the great unknown which benefits the democrats only."

Libertarians didn't "pull[] up and [leave]", we were mostly pushed away by social conservatives obsessing over birth control and gays. I'm still active in some Republican circles and it is amazing how people who claim to believe in limited government want to use the government to advance their own agenda. Tom DeLay and others sold the soul of the power to obtain and keep power; now the party is lacking in both soul AND power.

John Stossel says:
"A drug user who harms someone else should be punished, but a peaceful user should be left alone."

What would you think if the "peaceful user" was driving under the influence and drove head on into your mother's car killing her?

Drug users should be aggresively targeted by law enforcement and there should be mandatory incarceration for even the smallest amounts of drugs. First time offenders should receive a mandatory minimum of at least one year in prison, preferably five. Community service, etc. is a waste of time.

This would deter many people and would make narcotics selling an unprofitable venture.

whoa
loyaldemocrat - gee that sounds just like communism to me. 1984 anyone? Did you read the part about the 'oops factor' If a state tries something and it stinks, the other states get spared. When the feds try something that stinks, the beaurocracy will never go away.
Our country is a REPUBLIC no matter how many times we are called a democracy. That is why we have survived longer than any democracy in history. We were founded on the states having these rights. The states elect our president, not the majority. Anyone that finds a big problem with that is free to move to any socialist country and give that a try. Just quit trying to change what we have. As you are most likely a product of government indoctrination centers (government schools) the blame is not entirely yours.

Odd that the feds bemoan that drugs are responsible for helping finance terrorism, when it is the war on drugs that has elevated the prices to the extent that makes it a viable venue to finance terrorism.

Flagwaver
Sorry, but the last time I checked, marijuana isn't a dangerous drug. And there is huge difference between regulating (what you said) and criminalizing (which is what the govt wants).
Yes, the folks in Amsterdam don't get very much accomplished, but they don't go around bombing people or cutting off people's heads.
And just because some of the masses get stoned, doesn't mean that those in charge do. For instance, it could be made mandatory that all who hold public office are tested randomly for drugs. But you know the politicians wouldn't allow that! "We can do it to you, but it's different for us!!!"

DEA
DEA/ATF they are in cahoots in all this stuff.

TK_libertarian
The DEA was just as bad under Dem control. Don't blame the GOP. Remember WACO? And the guy and his family who were shot in Idaho or Montana or someplace like that? That was during the Clinton administration.

I have problem with medical pot
I have no problem with the states legalizing medical marijuana as I understand that it is the best treatment for some ailments. We all know about the relief it gives those that suffer from glaucoma and it is good for people going through chemotherapy as well because it handles tha nausea and restores the appetite. And I am all for allowing the individual states to decide on this issue without federal interference.

Where I have to part ways with Stossel is that I understand why the G feels it has to regulate this drug and others as well. One reason is because to have unregulated drug trafficking would lead us to becoming the Amsterdam of the Americas! We already have a big problem with the use of illegal drugs now, and legalizing all drugs would just make it worse. I understand that prohibition creates black markets but we have to make an effort to keep dangerous drugs out of the hands of our citizenry. Further, we the people have demanded that the G get tough on crime; that includes the drug trade as well as other types of crime. We cannot cry for more police and governmental involvement to slow the flow of drugs, and then turn and cry foul when the fed does exactly what it has been asked to do! Finally, this logic could lead to a very slippery slope. Imagine that after legalizing marijuana for meical use California looked at the weight problems of the people and decided to legaliz cocaine as a weight loss drug? I know it is far fetched, but it is not out of the realm of possibility...would we be so cavalier in citing state's rights and Constitutional provisions in a case like that? Or would we be on this forum screaming that California has lost it's collective mind and their policy is presenting a grave threat to us all?

We should not be legalizing.......
"We should not be legalizing
all manner of destructive substances that make people into useless bums."


Then why stop with drugs? Play Station, X-Box, American Idol and fast food do the same things.

What happened to the concept of individual freedom?

losertarians
TK and others- I don't agree with this tag, mainly because I prefer to not hurl insults. From what I read, the problem that conservatives seem to have is that the libertarians pulled up and left the tent rather than work to effect change from within. This is a net loss of votes to the great unknown which benefits the democrats only.

Loyal Democrat
You wrote:
"Instead, a common set of guidelines need to be set forth that dictates the actions of every citizen of the nation equally, regardless of some artificial state boundary.

On this same line of thinking, the concept of individual states needs to be eradicated as well. States could be redrawn into fifty equal districts that would have a representative voice their interests at the Federal level. State legislative bodies could then be omitted, and all control could then be delegated to one Federal congressional institution."

Good enough for as far as you were willing to go, but methinks you don't really grasp the potential for centralization.
As state boundaries are artificial national boundaries are as well. You see the national boundary is made up of state boundaries. Most reasonable people will agree that the land knows no borders. I believe that you are on the right course but I think that the centralized government in Washington D.C. (being the most powerful on this connected two continents) should simply acknowledge what is obvious and extend its power and ability to rule by decree to the entire continental masses of both North and South America.
Why should the pesky masses have any input when it is so obvious that they don't know what is good for them whereas learned politicians and educated and intellectual advisors could do so much better a job.
This would satisfy folks such as Mountain Rose, but admittedly leave a few malcontents who believe that freedom is the most precious thing on Earth.

Don't you get it??!!
How many of you have read the Constitution of this country? How about the Federalist Papers and correspondence by the franers of the constitution? Things are clearly spelled out as to states rights and powers GRANTED by the people to the federal government. We the people are the government. Keeping your head in the sand is not going to change anything! Wake up and educate yourself as to what is really going on in this country and in big government!

Trumping the 10th
I once listened to a local talker who would regularly have a very likable lefty on his show. Some one was discussing the idea of term limits and correctly pointed out that since the COnstitution did not address term limits for Representatives and Senators, the 10th Amendment implied that the decision should be left up to the "several States."

Likalbe Lefty went nuts. You crazy 10th Amendment junkies! Every time you want to break Federal law you drag out the 10th Amendment! Haven't you ever heard of the 14th Amendment? If it's illegal in one state it's illegal in all states. Equal justice under the law means all states must follow the same laws.

10th Amendment junkies? And there a level at which Likable Lefty was correct. The 14th Amendment, Full Faith and Credt Clause (Homosexual Marriage is legal in Massachusetts so it should be recognized in Ohio, right?), and the (misinterpretation of) Interstate Commerce Clause are regularly used to trump the the 10th Amendment. It's as though the Civil War nullified it wherever convenient.

But that leads to an odd patchwork of what is or is not allowed by the 10th Amendment and what is or is not controlled by the 14th Amendment and the Interstate Commerce Clause and the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

I cannot have a local movie censor board in my state (not that I want one but it actually came up in MD in the '60s) because that violates the 1st Amendment (even though it says "Congress shall make no laws").

Yet the overbearing and over reaching gun laws in here MD are Okey-dokey because the the 2nd Amendment says Congress shall make no laws and Annapolis is not Congress and hence the 10th Amendment kicks in.

Stossel's question in this regard is therefore spot on.

I can carry a gun in Florida, but I can't even own one in DC!

So, why can't I legally grow, sell and smoke dope in California and even if it still carries the 20 years in, say, Texas for the same actions?

Precisely the same principle.

Safety net
Simply tighten- or else drastically curtail- the government's "safety" net. Get into trouble as a result of your drug use? Apply for private charitable aid, rather than suck off of the state's teat.

Some people run into social, financial, and health touble as a result of alcohol and tobacco use, too. More do not. But we do no as a society ban their ingestion for adults. As for the argument of a War on Drugs "for the children"- nothing wrong w/ having an age requirement as we do for alcohol and tobacco to keep minors from purchasing it. But ultimately- as with alcohol and tobacco- it is up to parent- NOT GOVERNMENT- to raise and protect their children. Anything else is Nanny Stating, something folks on the Left are wont to do. Conservatives- REAL conservatives, not the Big Government type- understand that individuals are accountable for thier actions, that a free people have rights and with those rights responsibilites. Conservatives- REAL conservatives- do not abrogate these rights and responsibilites to government.


I would like to agree with ...
Mr. Stossel, and for the most part I do. The problem that we have is that our social safety net has become so broad that it softens the blows for people when they screw their lives up. Thus, they never truly take responsibility for their actions and never learn from their mistakes. Go ahead and remove the restraints. But also take down the social programs that have become hammocks for many in our society to "nap" in while the rest of us work.

And man said, "Those plants are bad."
'And then God said, "Let the earth bring forth vegetation: every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of tree which bears fruit with its seed in it."
And so it happened: the earth brought forth every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree on the earth which bears fruit with its seed in it. And God saw that it was good.' Gen 1:11,12

"And God looked upon all that He had made and saw that is was very good." Gen. 1:31

And that's the just way it is...

or if you'd prefer the other side of the aisle...

"It's MY BODY and I should have control over it!" and this theory has been upheld over and over and over by the SCOTUS but apparently it only applies to a womans uterus???
So we can conclude that: Men don't have a uterus. Thus, men don't have constitutional rights.

And man said, "Those plants are bad." So man saw the bad plants and sent swarms of armed soldiers hitherto throughout the earth. And man killed the bad plants, and the bad people that grew the bad plants, and people who liked the plants, and people who just happened to be standing near the plants. But the plants grew anyway.
So man made more good men go after the bad men and the bad plants. Now the good men built big cages to fill with bad people. And they built really tough chemicals to kill the bad plants..."

whaddya think Mr. Spock?

"Illogical."

Textualism Lost
With Ashcroft v. Raich I lost some of my respect for Anton Scalia. Previous to this case I had assumed, like many other followers of the court, that he was a “textualist”. In this case he abandoned the 10th amendment and the constitution for his more “nuanced” approach (any time I see that word it makes we wonder what we are about to step in). I realize that, although not as bad as some of the other justices, he too is an “interpreter” who is capable of finding “penumbras” in the constitution.

On a side note, ya’ll should have seen the look on the Federal Judge’s face when I was called to the bench to explain why I put on the Jury Questionnaire that I believed in Jury Nullification. I told her that I did not believe in Federal Drug and Gun laws (the trial we had been called in for was a big DEA drug and gun case).

What bothers me most-the war on Drugs
The drug kings are protected by their cartels, and enough money to buy the best legal defense.
the drug pushers are protected by their gangs and because they turn on each other and the drug kings and every single customer they ever had.
So who gets punished - the little guy who got the pot from 'some dude he never saw before.'
Or grandma who grows just enough for everyone down at the senior center who suffers from glaucoma, who can't grow their own.
Then, we turn around and give all kinds of government help/money/stipends to drug addicts!

Ron Paul
I voted for Paul for President before. I probably will again.

From one who would know
"If you destroy a free market, you create a black market."

And:

"If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law."

Both are by Winston Churchill.

Mountain Rose
Usually I agree with most of what you say. But in this instant I don't. Twice.

You say the.. "government has a duty to protect us from each other." That is exactly what 'socialism' demands. Our governments only duty is to protect us and our borders from foreign invasion. Local gangs and drugs are a police matter.

And you said.."The drug companies would just love for Marijuana to be legalized so they could make a fortune on the misery of other people." I don't believe that to be true. If legalized, folks who use it would grow all they need in their backyards like they did in the 60's.
After all, it is a weed and grows anywhere.

Mountain Rose
I would disagree that America is great because our people have "values." We have a very high crime rate, put a greater % of our people in prison than almost any other country, we have rampant single parenthood (though not as much as in most of europe), plenty of premarital sex (well, maybe not plenty, but a lot) and drug problems of all kinds.

America is the greatest country on earth. We lead the world in entertainment, military defense, inventions, science, technology, industry, Nobel prizes, medicine and about everything else. Stossel hit it on the head; it's our governmental system, not the politicians and not the people. Hell, we got our people from other countries. I'm nothing special, I'm the same German jerk that my great grandfather was, but because I grew up in America I got to get a PhD and a good job that rewards innovation.

Liberty
I learned yesterday that LD is indeed a satirist. And one of the best.
But a girl? As "voice of reason" says?

Loyal Democrat
I am hoping that you were kidding in what you wrote. In case you were not....

Can you not see that what you are proposing is Communism? Yes, and we're almost there if not there already.

Ever read the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto?

http://www.criminalgovernment.com/docs/planks.html

By the way, you say that centralized government has worked everywhere it has been tried? LIKE WHERE?


We should not be legalizing
all manner of destructive substances that make people into useless bums.

The government has a duty to protect us from each other, and when you allow compulsive addicts to just go with no control, it is harmful to the rest of society.

The drug companies would just love for Marijuana to be legalized so they could make a fortune on the misery of other people.

Without a population with character and values, the United States is not any better than any other nation.

I fear we are losing our goodness, andtherefore our value to the world.

RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT !

RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT !

LD you go, girl!
Good satire, but you need a new schtick ..

well said Mr. Stossel
Careful, you sound like a libertarian, and around here we are called "Losertarians" by the conservative powers that be!

In all seriousness, yet another great article by Stossel. Big DEA is one of the best examples of Republican big government, which is just as bad as Democrat/socialist big government.

Loyal Democrat must have a lot of free time on his hands by the way...

Centralize, centralize, centralize.
Since we are a common nation, it would best to let a single, centralized government take control and dictate policy for all of its citizens equally. It is a strange policy indeed that allows the resident of one state to engage in an activity that an individual in another state cannot. Instead, a common set of guidelines need to be set forth that dictates the actions of every citizen of the nation equally, regardless of some artificial state boundary.

On this same line of thinking, the concept of individual states needs to be eradicated as well. States could be redrawn into fifty equal districts that would have a representative voice their interests at the Federal level. State legislative bodies could then be omitted, and all control could then be delegated to one Federal congressional institution.

By reducing the number of elected officials that are involved in hearing the demands of the people, the operation of our government would then be streamlined, and decisions would not have to be approved through so many layers of politicians. All decisions would be handled by a relatively limited number of centralized representatives, and such decisions could be made without becoming clouded by the input of so many individuals along the line.

A centralized government controlled by a relatively few representatives would ensure that all functions of government operate in the most efficient manner. The few people left in charge would have enormous power, so they would be able to better dictate the policies that they see fit to implement without the pesky interference of the masses. So often, the politicians that have the best answers for the people are hindered because they have to endure endless amounts of input from the virtual mob of the citizenry.

It is time to end this method of distributing power to the Federal level, the State level, the county level, and the city level. All control needs to come from one body of idea makers, and the rest of the representatives should only be tasked with implementing the ideas that are created by the very few in the central authority.

By centralizing all decision making, we will enable the gifted few to see to our needs in the manner that they know is best for us. Centralized government has worked everywhere it has ever been tried. Only the obsolete concept of individualism keeps such an efficient system from becoming a reality here in the United States.
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.