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, June 18, 2008
John Stossel :: Townhall.com Columnist
Legalize All Drugs
by John Stossel
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



The other day, reading the New York Post's popular Page Six gossip page, I was surprised to find a picture of me, followed by the lines: "ABC'S John Stossel wants the government to stop interfering with your right to get high. The crowd went silent at his call to legalize hard drugs".

I had attended a Marijuana Policy Project event celebrating the New York State Assembly's passage of a medical-marijuana bill. (The bill hasn't passed the Senate.) I told the audience I thought it pathetic that the mere half passage of a bill to allow sick people to try a possible remedy would merit such a celebration. Of course medical marijuana should be legal. For adults, everything should be legal. I'm amazed that the health police are so smug in their opposition.

After years of reporting on the drug war, I'm convinced that this "war" does more harm than any drug.

Independent of that harm, adults ought to own our own bodies, so it's not intellectually honest to argue that "only marijuana" should be legal -- and only for certain sick people approved by the state. Every drug should be legal.

"How could you say such a ridiculous thing?" asked my assistant. "Heroin and cocaine have a permanent effect. If you do crack just once, you are automatically hooked. Legal hard drugs would create many more addicts. And that leads to more violence, homelessness, out-of-wedlock births, etc!"

Her diatribe is a good summary of the drug warriors' arguments. Most Americans probably agree with what she said.

But what most Americans believe is wrong.

Myth No. 1: Heroin and cocaine have a permanent effect.

Truth: There is no evidence of that.

In the 1980s, the press reported that "crack babies" were "permanently damaged." Rolling Stone, citing one study of just 23 babies, claimed that crack babies "were oblivious to affection, automatons."

It simply wasn't true. There is no proof that crack babies do worse than anyone else in later life.

Myth No. 2: If you do crack once, you are hooked.

Truth: Look at the numbers -- 15 percent of young adults have tried crack, but only 2 percent used it in the last month. If crack is so addictive, why do most people who've tried it no longer use it?

People once said heroin was nearly impossible to quit, but during the Vietnam War, thousands of soldiers became addicted, and when they returned home, 85 percent quit within one year.

People have free will. Most who use drugs eventually wise up and stop.

And most people who use drugs habitually live perfectly responsible lives, as Jacob Sullum pointed out in "Saying Yes".

Myth No. 3: Drugs cause crime.

Truth: The drug war causes the crime.

Few drug users hurt or rob people because they are high. Most of the crime occurs because the drugs are illegal and available only through a black market. Drug sellers arm themselves and form gangs because they cannot ask the police to protect their persons and property.

In turn, some buyers steal to pay the high black-market prices. The government says heroin, cocaine and nicotine are similarly addictive, and about half the people who both smoke cigarettes and use cocaine say smoking is at least as strong an urge. But no one robs convenience stores for Marlboros.

Alcohol prohibition created Al Capone and the Mafia. Drug prohibition is worse. It's corrupting whole countries and financing terrorism.

The Post wrote, "Stossel admitted his own 22-year-old daughter doesn't think [legalization] is a good idea."

But that's not what she said. My daughter argued that legal cocaine would probably lead to more cocaine use. And therefore probably abuse.

I'm not so sure.

Banning drugs certainly hasn't kept young people from getting them. We can't even keep these drugs out of prisons. How do we expect to keep them out of America?

But let's assume my daughter is right, that legalization would lead to more experimentation and more addiction. I still say: Legal is better.

While drugs harm many, the drug war's black market harms more.

And most importantly, in a free country, adults should have the right to harm themselves.

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
I Am The Son Of A Drug Addict
I understand your pleas, and believe me, I support the legalization of certain drugs for medicinal purposes, like marijuana. However, not all drugs are the same, and some of them have consequences. I should know, because I am the son of a deceased drug addict. That addict was my mother, who almost always, unnecessarily, pushed herself to the brink of destruction to get to the things that poisoned her body: crack cocaine, heroin, you name it.
She started when she was thirteen because of an abusive relationship between her and her father, who had less than comforting feelings toward her. She abused her body for the rest of her life, even though she quit cold turkey several times, like the time I was born and the time she went to prison for drug possession for 10 months.
There, I would agree that some of the punishments for drug possession are unnecessarily harsh. Because of her incarceration, I began to fail in middle school, I was picked on by bullies, and I threatened to commit suicide.
I do sympathize with your belief about the rather harsh treatment inflicted upon poor souls who need help. But drugs are just like alcohol or tobacco: there is a risk of addiction and there is a point where you need help in quitting when it endangers your life.

Mr. Stossel,
At the very least you offer some food for thought that's off the beaten (talking points) political track.

However, don't expect the social cons in the party to read your message with an open mind. The so-con arm of the conservative movement is IN FAVOR of governmental control. They favor governmental control over a woman's right to choose (or not) her own pregnancies, over the general populace to engage in homosexual sex, over ingesting drugs (they have resigned themselves to letting the populace have their presciption drugs and alcohol... evangelicals learned their lesson controling alcohol consumption during Prohibition).

To modern evangelicals, drugs and gay sex is WICKED. Just as, to much older generations, gambling and masterbation and the women's sufferage movement were WICKED. In another century, there will be a whole new laundry list of wicked behaviour.

The so-cons are not in the least bit "libertarian" regarding drugs, and fail to make connections regarding the war on drugs being the SOURCE of crime. So-cons are about power and control, ultimately. They want their beliefs (selected sins culled from the Torah) codified into law. It's, at root, an anti-democratic stance.

excellent column
The government does not own our bodies. We do.

The one that really hacks me off is when the doctors say you've got a terminal disease and all they can do is make you comfortable, but it's ILLEGAL to try treatments unapproved by the FDA. I mean - come on - so what if it doesn't work or harms me - I'M DEAD ANYWAY.

Stupid.

Legalize Drugs?
If adults have a right to do drugs, I, as a taxpayer have the right to refuse to pay for their treatment or their drug addicted children, clean needles, Medicaid, Welfare, Rehab and all other taxpayer dollars wasted on "addicts" I am tired of paying for their stupidity.

With 2 tours in Vietnam I have never done drugs of any kind and I stopped drinking at the age of 22. Why? Not because I'm some kind of hero, I just grew up.

Addicts that quit think they are some kind of hero, your not, you had a problem and you fixed it, that does not make you a hero now grow up and stay off of them, because I'm tired of paying for you.

Great post
Ayn Rand has stated that most so-called liberals and most so-called conservatives are merely opposite sides of the same metaphysical coin:

"Both camps hold the same premise - the mind-body dichotomy - but choose opposite sides of this lethal fallacy.

"The conservatives want freedom to act in the material realm; they tend to oppose government control of production, of industry, of trade, or business, of physical goods, of material wealth. But they advocate government control of man's spirit, ie., man's consciousness; they advocate the State's right to impose censorship, to determine moral values, to create and enforce a governmental establishment of morality, to rule the intellect.

"The liberals want freedom to act in the spiritual realm; they oppose censorship, they oppose government control of ideas, of the arts, of the press, of education. But they advocate government control of material production, of business, of employment, of wages, of profits, of all physical property--they advocate it all the way down to total expropriation.

"The conservatives see man as a body freely roaming the earth, building sand piles or factories--with an electronic computer inside his skull, controlled from Washington. The liberals see man as a soul freewheeling to the farthest reaches of the universe--but wearing chains from nose to toes when he crosses the street to buy a loaf of bread.

"Yet it is the conservatives who are predominantly religionists, who proclaim teh superiority of the soul over the body, who represent what I call the 'mystics of spirit.' And it is the liberals who are predominantly materialists, who regard man as an aggregate of meat, and who represent what I call the 'mystics of muscle.'

"This is not merely a paradox, not a contradiction: each camp wants to control the realm it regards as metaphysically important; each grants freedom only to the activities it despises."

to will
in response to his 12:26 post:

I'm an evangelical - socially conservative for myself and my family, but libertarian politically. I believe any sex outside of heterosexual marriage and the abuse of recreational drugs are WICKED, as you say.

But I would not have government force others to follow my code of conduct - that is between them and God. As Stossel says, we have the right to harm ourselves.

Plus, I don't want people imposing their false religious beliefs and practices on me...


Abortion is a different matter. To a libertarian, the proper function of government is to prevent the taking of its citizens life, liberty or property without due process of law by force or fraud. Therefore, protecting the life of an unborn child from being taken by force is among the primary functions of a proper libertarian government.

Unlike drug abuse, a woman getting an abortion is not "choosing what to do with her own body" - she is choosing to end the life of another person without due process.

Good essay
Good going John Stossel.
This is an intellectually honest opirion that is consistent with conservative political values (though not with a conservative valued lifestyle). It is time that we (conservatives) realize that if we truly believe in individual freedoms, then we must legalize drugs.
I don't do drugs, I pray my kids won't (and raise them very religiously) and I hate the culture and lifestyle of drug users. But the conservative ideal is to get the government out of people's lives, isn't it. Besides, anyone can simply go into their medicine cabinet or laundry room and find substances that are legally sold in stores and get their high.

More study is needed
I can accept the concept that an adult should have the right to harm himself, but matters are rarely that simple. A drug-addicted mother is very likely to harm her children, either directly through abuse or indirectly by failing to handle situations in the home properly. In many cases, such harm does get discovered and the children are often removed from that home, but in most instances the damage has already been done. I don't know what John Stossel's solutions for problems such as these are, but I don't think we can ignore them.

David

Regulation Creates Classification
I couldn’t agree more Mr. Stossel, and I’ve held this same opinion for thirty-five years.

By its very nature, regulation of any sort creates classification. Primarily three groups, those who seek to regulate, those who accept regulation and those who avoid regulation.

A party of the first part determines driving while drunk causes death. The party of the second part accepts the premise and capitulates. The party of the third part regularly drinks and drives. All parties are culpable in facilitating enforcement of the myth.

But, not everyone who drives drunk dies or kills. So, if you’re in the party of regulation and you can convince the capitulators that stopping drunks from driving will save even one life, it’s worth it, right?

Now replace the drunks in the previous scenario with cell phone users, radio listeners, elderly persons, twelve year old drivers, short people, anyone with an indiscriminate attitude or the terminally distracted (read: ADD) and you see that just about anyone capable of driving is just as likely to kill and die while driving.

Everyone chooses to drive in the face of its inherent danger because the self determined benefits are more valuable than the degree of probability you will die or be injured.

You choose to use drugs for the same reason.

Spot On!
As a physician, I have said for many years that the biggest problem with drugs is the illegality. If they were cheap, and clean needles and other paraphernalia made available, there would be no crime and less of a public health issue. Users will still use, while most won't, after an itial period of experimentation. we did not become a whole nation of drunks when prohibition ended. If there were no black market, the cartels would go out of business, there would be no need for addicts to steal, etc., etc. We need to forget about the Victorian morality of drug prohibition and take a realistic, common-sense approach.

Health and welfare
Give me a break Stossel. Tell me about the harmlessness of cocaine nose jobs, bleeding lungs and all the people we all know from the news who died famously of drug abuse. It's illegal precisely BECAUSE of the dangers, not the other way around, nincompoop.

Note there has never been a mass movement to outlaw chocolate.

I'm sorry, but this stupidity just irks me. Find something worthwhile to talk about.

Legalize & build rehab instead of prison
Does it not make perfect sense that one owns the rights to one's own body? Alcohol and prescription pain-killers are legal, so why draw the line there? It's each person's own choice and you certainly shouldn't be sent to prison because you're self-medicating for depression, pain or whatever reason.

An addict is an addict, and they will get their hands on whatever it is they want, legal or not. I say legalize all drugs and watch the crime rate drop. Then concentrate on replacing prisons with rehabilitation centers and release all the people in jail for drug-related charges.

Legalize
Like many others of my generation, a number of drugs were sampled in my youth. Ethanol remains a favorite (some folks actually poison good ethanol by mixing it with gasoline!). Why many people pay exorbitant amounts for the like of Cocaine is a mystery, but the chronic users I meet are little more than than befuddled losers, certainly not worth the ~$100/day it costs taxpayers to incarcerate or "rehabilitate" such unfortunates.

Presidents' drug use
Our current president, and our next president (Barack Obama), used drugs. It is obvious, if you want to be president, use drugs. If drugs were legal, the price would be lower. Consistent with the law of demand, more people would smoke pot. Therefore, the pool of people likely to be president would increase. With the likely increase in quality of supply of presidential candidates, we'd have better leaders than Bush,the big expander of government,and Obama,whose expansion of government will make FDR look like an anarchist. I think Bush was cracked out when he said "mission accomplished," but maybe it was just good Texan ganja.

Hurt by drugs? Tough
I can hardly believe that they had this column on TH. I have been advocating this for years. There is, however, one other thing that will have to go with the decriminalization of drugs. That is the removal of all type of public aid for those who test positive for drugs.

I believe that we lost the war on drugs a long time ago and we lost a lot of freedoms in that battle. People scream about the patriot act but it doesn’t hold a candle to the loss of freedoms from the drug war.

As for people who lose their lives etc due to using drugs; tough.

Excellent column Stossel
This war on liberty has cost incalculable harm on the the country through disruptions of families, lost wages and productivity, creation of huge self funding bureaucracies of different policing agencies able to seize money and property from the very market they are supposed to eradicate but cannot and can't ever. It boggles the mind considering the systems we have created in a vain attempt to control what people do. Give it up already. Walter William's column is a good example of what happens when a new police agency is formed. The carbon police are right around the corner. What's next?

Stupid?
In my book, ShaneRoach, you're the nincompoop. After all, you have to be either obtuse, or just not too bright, to support the asinine war on drugs.

The war on drugs does not prevent people from doing drugs.

The war on drugs makes criminals rich.

The war on drugs goes against the principles of personal liberty and freedom this nation was founded upon.

The war on drugs results in police energy, time, and focus on drugs, as opposed the thousands of unsolved murders, rapes, and other violent crimes each year.

The war on drugs has resulted in several third world countries -- Columbia, Peru, etc. -- becoming virtual war zones, destroying the lives of millions of innocent third world victims.

And the only argument you can come up with to support this insanity is that drugs are bad for you?

Couldn't your argument also be used against booze? Or fatty foods?

Nincompoop, indeed.

the hey lets party party...
Democrats are the hey lets party party...

Strategists can guarantee Republicans win every national election for at least ten years...

One week before each election, permanently legalize one more street drug...

The Democrats will never know there was an election...

But what about. . .
Didn't prohibition also create Joe Kennedy? I would really hate to see these criminals given the opportunity to go legit. Are they really going to stop being greedy cop murdering thugs just because they can walk in the light of day?
And supposing we do legalize drugs, are we going to tax them the way that we do cigarettes until we create a black market for them too? Is someone finally going to sit down and standardize all of these drugs? How many milligrams of TCH am I getting in my marijuana? What is the proper dosage of GBH that creepy guy at the bar needs to slip into that nice young woman's drink? It's a consumer issue.
If I'm on a bus and it crashes and my spine is shattered because the driver has an LSD flashback, do I sue the drug manufacturer, the bus line, or the now dead driver's estate?
Are you saying that people don't sometimes die from a single hit of cocaine, or are you saying it's okay?
What shall we do with the heroine addicts who will be lying around in the parks in puddles of their own urine?
I wouldn't mind legalized drugs so much if users weren't the only victims of their behavior. We all nod sagely when someone brings up prohibition (okay, so it didn't work) but consider in 2006 alone, there were 13,470 fatalities in crashes involving an alcohol-impaired driver (BAC of .08 or higher) – 32 percent of total traffic fatalities for the year. Keep in mind that it isn't always the drunk who is killed. That would be wishful thinking. Legal or not, wouldn't crack addicts still make lousy parents?
In a free society there can't be rights without responsibilities. The problem with drugs is that they make one less responsible.
Mr. Stossel assumes that the consequences of legalizing drugs would be better than continuing under the current system. I'm not so sure.

Susan
No prohibition didn't create Joe Kennedy; it only gave him the money to operate. The voters created the Kennedy franchise.

If people are stupid enough to vote for drug dealers, or ex drug dealers and their families, then they deserve what they get.

Kennedy
If prohibition created Capone, then it created Joe Kennedy. I'm not saying it created all of the Kennedys, just their foundation.

St Ann's Infant & Maturnity Home

I echo The7Sticks sentiment.

If you want to know the ramifications of drug use...go volunteer at St. Ann's Infant & Maturnity Home in Hyattsville Md.

Tell me the visible and invisble trauma these children suffer is not severe and not DIRECTLY linked to drug use.

The ramifications of drug use is ESPECIALLY tragic for children.

However, I have visited Holland and while there had an opportunity to talk with the youthful locals. The peer pressure NOT to do drugs is HUGE. I was impressed by their response to the legalization of "soft" drugs in Amsterdam. They utterly rejected it as part of their life.

I think sometimes seeing it right out in front of you is MORE instructive of its ills than forcing folks into hiding.




Bravo!
I call myself a conservative. Yet many prominent conservatives are not to my taste, for the same reason for which I reject welfare-state liberalism: paternalistic authoritarianism.

The most notable lacks among commentators on the Right are honesty and candor: honesty about the consequences of their paternalistic policies, and candor about why they continue to support them.

Whereas liberal paternalism is about compelling Smith to support Jones, onservative paternalism is about trying to prevent Smith from harming himself. It doesn't work any better than the liberal variety. But conservative authoritarians are so wedded to their revulsions (http://www.eternityroad.info/index.php/weblog/single/revulsions/) that they're as unwilling to concede the harm such policies have done as the most doctrinaire liberal. In defending those policies they can be quite as dishonest, and quite as rhetorically shifty, as any liberal arguing against drilling in ANWR.

We need a million more John Stossels.

Drug War
The drug war doesn't cause crime--criminals cause crime. Bad people will always find bad things to do.

Porretto #23
You are not a conservative, you are a libertarian (social liberal, fiscal conservative).

Conservative: social conservative, fiscal conservative.

Liberal: social liberal, fiscal liberal.

Populist: social conservative, fiscal liberal.

The 7 sticks
I couldn't tell how old you are, or I missed it - but I'm curious: If quality drug rehabilitation treatment had been available to your mother, would she have availed herself of it?
How did she feel (at least from your observation) about her addiction?

Your story is very painful. I'm sorry that you had to have the childhood that you did,I wouldn't wish it on anybody.

Susan
"The drug war doesn't cause crime--criminals cause crime. Bad people will always find bad things to do. "

You're around 12 years old, right? do you understand anything at all about the nature of addiction, the physiolgy of it, how the brain works?

Criminals only exist in terms of the laws that they break. If certain drugs are legal, there will be fewer criminals.

You should also do a little thinking about the nature of micro-economies. Drug sales often pay the rent, get the kids educated, improve the local park, employ people. This is not to say it's a worthy thing, just that it is more complicated than you seem to be able to think about about it.

Criminal? If you say bad things about the government in Myanmar you are a criminal.


Francis Porretto
Well said! Intellectual honesty is a, no THE huge problem with many political commentators on either side. I remeber one particular moment when one of the big three conservatives stated (as he often does over and over and over again) that one's religion should not be a disqualifier for particular office( he was extolling the virtues of Mitt at the time), Yet has made it very clear for years that being an atheist or even "No Religious Preferrence" as was stamped on my dog tags, certainly is. Too bad. A little Intellectual consistancy and honesty would serve us all well, on both sides of the aisle.

*sigh*
All of the consequences of drug abuse that posters note could be said of alcohol abuse. Some people will ALWAYS abuse narcotics. Stossel is not contradicting that. He is saying that the harm warned of is not as bad or as widespread as we've been told to justify the BILLIONS of dollars spent on interdiction. That may be little comfort to posters like The7Sticks, but it's true nevertheless. I've worked on initiatives to make palliative (pain relief) care more available to terminally and chronically ill people, and we face the same ignorance about opiates. Everyone thinks they are hopelessly addictive. Number one, that's not true for people using them for pain relief. There is a difference between DEPENDENCE, which is based upon the body's physical need for pain relief, and ADDICTION, which is more psychological and emotional. And number two, even if it WERE true, who cares if someone dying of cancer gets "addicted" to morphine? Or would you prefer to tell a patient with chronic debilitating back pain that they should simply stay in pain, rather than develop a dependence upon a painkiller? Studies have shown that ill people who receive enough pain relief are dramatically less likely to want to commit suicide.

More to the point, our ignorant and self-serving drug policy has destroyed the economies and political systems of a number of entire countries - think Colombia, for one. And it's just human nature and economics. Because drugs are illegal here, the billions upon billions that can be made in the black market are too tempting to pass up. Countries that produce the drugs we want cannot control the growth, manufacture or sale of these drugs, and internal war is the result. Who are we to insist that Colombia and Afghanistan be torn apart, because we refuse to wake up and deal with reality?

Are we free men? or not?
Who owns us? Ourselves or the governmemnt?

Democrats want government to be your mommy.
Conservatives want government to be your daddy.
Libertarians want government to treat you like an adult.


Brain Dead
It's a proven fact that drugs kill brain cells. It is also proven once on them they have to have them if they have to steal or kill to get them they will.

Drugs even prescription drugs are killing this society and raising dumb kids.

A slight inaccuracy
In explaining away myth #3, Stossel opines,
"Few drug users hurt or rob people because they are high." This is true of most drugs, but there are two notable exceptions: Alcohol and PCP. These two seem to make some of their users violent. A large percentage of prison inmates are there for something they did while drunk. Of course, outlawing it was tried, as Stossel noted, and the cure was worse than the disease. As for PCP, there are very few users; it is a relatively minor problem, and would legalization suddenly make people want to try it? I think not.

Thank You Lisa Location: VA
Just try to talk to someone that is on drugs, the more they get into them they see things that aren't there, they think someone is watching them and out to get them, then they get in a car and drive.

Drugs makes you nuts.

Definitely Legalize
Over half of the people incarcerated in this country are non-violent drug offenders. The United States has the highest incarceration rate per adult in the world (1 out of 99 adults are in jail or prison). It cost taxpayers $60,000 a year to take care of inmates. The prison system has become big business at the expense of the taxpayer. Holland were drugs are legal, has a lower addiction rate then the United States. The war on drugs has not and never will be effective. The war on drugs has made the wrong kind of people wealthy just like prohibition did. Stop the madness!!!

JUST SAY NO!
to authoritarian liberals and conservatives.

Five Stars
The war on drugs is another lost cause - over 100 years old and still not victorious - that employs a lot of government - law enforcement & prison - workers at all levels. In fact, it is the King Kong of jobs programs. Politicians like government jobs programs.

The war on drugs also has a racial element: blacks and Hispanics were smoking pot when whites were using "patent medicines" and other ingestible narcotics; blacks and Hispanics are more likely to use crack while whites are more likely to use powder cocaine.

And of course, the social conservatives who purport to know what God wants for the rest of us oppose intoxication of any kind.

Meanwhile, the alcohol related deaths and illnesses far exceed drug related illness and death. Alcohol is much harder on the body than most illegal drugs. Nobody ever died of smoking too much pot; hard core drug addicts often live normal life spans. Alcoholics always die before their time.

But if you could buy your drug of choice at CVS without a prescription, you wouldn't have to go to a doctor first, and supply wouldn't be artificially limited, so doctors wouldn't get their fees and pharmaceutical companies couldn't charge what they now get for their products. I suspect people in this category are also significant donors to political campaigns.

So, the law & order types keep the war on drugs at the top of their list of things to do in order to continue getting elected and keep government drones working.

More logic falling on deaf ears
Stossel is spot on.

An individual's civil liberty to do with his or her own body as she or he sees fit is none of my business or anyone else's. If those choices do not infringe on my personal pursuit of happiness, life and liberty then have it and enjoy. Any consent by two people to engage in a contract is none of my business.

Ever notice the people who claim freedom and being liberal are always the people trying to control everyone's behavior.

Great article John.

Sorry for the double post
I refreshed too soon.

Drugs and Crime
John is right. Over 30 years ago my economics professor pointed out that by keeping drugs illegal, we are increasing crime. Because drugs are illegal, only those who are willing to break the law sell them. Because drugs are illegal, criminals make billions of dollars by selling drugs. Because drugs are illegal, those who sell them have an incentive to get young people to try them. Because drugs are illegal American taxpayers spend billions of dollars to try (unsuccessfully) to limit their supply, which pushes the price up, which causes more crime by addicts to get the money to pay for drugs. Because drugs are illegal, the profits go to terrorist groups who are trying to kill Americans.

I think you get the idea.

Chocolate
At 1:47 ShaneRoach wrote: "... It's illegal precisely BECAUSE of the dangers."

You missed the point. We have the right to harm ourselves! We own our bodies - the government does not.


ShaneRoach continues "Note there has never been a mass movement to outlaw chocolate."

Just wait a few years. These statist yahoos are already trying to outlaw cigarettes, french fries, and beef.

I'm not into drugs & cigarettes, and only rarely abuse french fries - but if they try to criminalize beef and/or chocolate there's gonna be a problem.

Billions of dollars later
and many violent crimes. This is the one area where government, criminals, church all agree. The war on drugs is a total failure just as prohibition was a failure. Making drugs (in the past they were legal) illegal has created the criminal organizations. If you eliminate the profit motive most of these drug related problem would go away. I care about the poor old lady that gets robbed of her social security check much more than the idiot that wants to zone out and drop out. Make drugs cheap and legal and you get rid of half the crime in the US

Well said Stossel
I'm noticing most of the anti-posts are saying drugs are illegal because they ruin lives. None of the anti-posts address whether making drugs illegal ruins more lives.

This Christian Conservatives Agrees
Most people think if you are a Christian, you will want all sorts of government protection from evil. I don’t. I understand that evil is a quality of the human condition and only we, with God’s help, can protect ourselves.

Most efforts to protect us thru government coercion are really an attempt at control and have their roots in totalitarianism. Once we allow the government to “protect us from ourselves” they will have Carte Blanche to do as they see fit in every area of our life.

Doctors have seen their authority to prescribe legally available, legitimate pain killers to patients with chronic pain severely limited because of the war on drugs and the publicity that goes with it. The only people who aren’t concerned with this are those who have never lived with chronic pain. Both me and my adult daughter live with chronic pain. It can be debilitating. Chronic pain robs you of your joy in living and can even make you feel you would be better off dead. I sometimes worry that my daughter might try suicide during some particularly bad period with her pain. She is not able to get the pain medication she needs but must rely on lesser effective remedies. This is not what a free country is about, and this was never what our Republic was suppose to be.

Protecting people from themselves
John, it is not about protecting people from themselves as much as it is to protect the public from others. On the ever congested roadways in America we all must avoid the occassional drunk, and all the other inattentive drivers, and the rare driver high on legal or illegal drugs. Do we want this to become a free for all? What about overdoses, intentional or otherwise? What about the experimental user who tries it once and never lives to tell about it? What about the person who has "a little something" slipped into his or her drink? What about their loved ones?
I pity people who smoke and overeat as it will cost them their lives or severely affect their quality of life. I despise those who drink, do drugs and then drive as they often walk away from accidents with their lives while their victims do not.

Stop funding terrorists with my tax $
After many decades of fighting this same war on illegal drugs; it would be safer, faster and much cheaper to end this war by legalizing the drugs. The worst resistance would come from the drug cartels and the terrorist networks in the Middle-East. Without the illegal drug industry funding the terrorists, this global war on terror could end much sooner. At the same time for just a few more years (not decades) the United States will still have to continue clearing up the mess by the once illegal drugs; the same way as usual, with tax-payer funded drug rehabs, including heroine or methadone babies and their medical costs etc. Our society needs to get more faith in itself, because in the Middle-East where it is much easier to get heroin than it is to get clean drinking water, they are not a society of drug addicts.


This would also cut off the funded government corruption in the Middle East, Mexico and the United States. In time this will also solve many other problems in our economy especially the cost and availability of health care. The repercussions this would help to create for a few years (not decades) is one of the best examples of why our forefathers emphasized so strongly on the necessity of separation between the church and state. We should take one-third of the drug rehabs in the U.S. and turn them into hospice units for the “drug challenged”.

Reluctantly agree
Other than my personal opinion that addiction is evidence of succumbing to weakness (hey, I've been there too), I reluctantly agree with Mr. Stossel. His argument is cogent & reasoned.

If you don't want to do drugs - and reject the negative consequences - more power to you. But the government should not forbid you the means to do them, even if they could be personally destructive. Like alcohol and tobacco, regulate and control their distribution - tax the heck out of it if you want! - but legalize them.

Conservative Agrees
I am a conservative and I have been saying the same thing for years. Being a former Marine I am considered a prosecutor's dream, but I got kicked off a jury for a drug crime once because I said I thought the drug laws were insane. They don't stop people from taking drugs, they just make the drugs expensive. A man with an alcohol habit can buy his nightly fix for less that $10/day and still support his family. A man with a cocaine habit must pay ten times that and his family suffers.

Moreover, the large amounts of money in play corrupt people, countries, societies - look at the Mexican border. The people who benefit most from our drug laws are not the general public - who pay significant sums through taxes for the "War on Drugs" - but drug producers and transporters. Simple supply and demand.

One definition of insanity is repeating the same behaviour and expecting different results. Prohibition worked for alcohol didn't it? Let's try it again for other mind/mood altering substances. Just crazy.

Legalize All Drugs
This issue has always pushed at the core of my philosophy about freedom. Individual liberty is not a sound byte, our human craving for it is real and palpable. In the simplest of terms, wherever in the world you find the highest level of individual liberty, you find the highest level of happiness. You also find the greatest level of personal risk.

I am 60 years old, becoming an adult during the turbulent 60s. When we came of age, way back when, we had all of the enthusiasm of youthful dreams with a wide and crazy world awaiting our arrival. For most of us, what we believed, or believed in, was floating in a swirling caldron of conflict. With powerful forces, of both good and evil intent, continuously grabbing at the ladles to stir in their own ingredients, we clung to that which seemed most buoyant and watched as others where swept under all around. Many would choose to simply close their eyes and allow themselves to be swept along; it seemed for them the object was to avoid aggravating the currents and thus avoid being drowned. Others would reach out, as far as they dared, to offer a hand to any around them more desperate then they. For all, fear of drowning defined our purpose of the moment.

Sometimes now, as I lay down a few of the fears which I allowed to guide me for so long, it seems easier to focus on the root questions about what makes life good and what does not. The shackles I once thought bound me do not; others I never noticed so much before do. The difference is always clearer when I focus on my personal liberties and the inevitable cost to me to enjoy them. Every effort I make to shift my burdens on others, intentional or not, invariably surrenders some of those liberties and some of that happiness.

This, to me then, is the basis for improving the human condition in any circumstance: Protect every individual's right to liberty while insisting that the cost of enjoying it is theirs alone to bear.

Drug Enforcement
Dear Mr. Stossel,

If one accepts the position that illicit drug use is legitimate, then at the very least, I think the equation is exactly backward. That is to say, enforcement ought to be directed at the end user, not the supplier. Without an end user, the supplier does not have a job. The standard, then, ought to be ZERO tolerance, with the harshest penalties levied on the smallest amounts of drugs as a deterrent. Our society would reject such a methodology out of hand. And, as long as we are on the subject, what about age 21 as a legal drinking age. This society glamorizes drinking by making it, in effect, a right of passage--more important than the right to vote (age 18) the right to make contracts (the age varies from state to state but in all cases, younger than 21), the right to join the military (age 18), the right to emancipate from parental control (age 17), etc., etc. Your thoughts?

Sarah Hirz
Bellevue, NE

Think_4_Yourself
"Criminals only exist in terms of the laws that they break. If certain drugs are legal, there will be fewer criminals." So you're saying that if we legalize everything that there will be no crime? Score one for moral relativism.


Don't legalize drugs
Anyone, like Mr. Stossel, advocating legalizing drugs, should first read an essay by Theodore Dalrymple titled "Don't Legalize Drugs." Dalrymple is a British doctor who worked in prisons & has insights into the consequences of drug use beyond the standard libertarian analysis.

Thomas Sowell has written columns like Stossel's, advocating legalizing drugs & calling off the drug war. However, after reading Dalrymple, he has said he is taking a second look.

Charlie Disque
Indianapolis

No-Brainer
This is such a no-brainer. CAn anyone explain why so called "conservatives" support the war on drugs?

In almost every aspect of life, conservatives favor a free market, and if people make bad decisions, then it's their own fault. That is, except if the issue is drugs. In that case, the government has to spend billions of dollars, operate a 100% government support penal industry, provide employment for millions of criminals, porvide a funding source for terrorists, and undermine the stability of a number of nations.

ANd don't give me the argument that we are doing it to protect the lives and well-being of others. Free marketers don't suggest we control the mortgage industry because a parent losing a home can devastate the children, do they? Or suggest we provide free medicine becuase losing a parent can ruin a child's life?

SO, can anybody explain this.


John Stossel is...
100% correct. Amen brother, amen.

Drug war not a failure!
It is a successful and lucrative business for the government, courts, prison systems, and police forces in the USA.

Drug Enforcement
Not enough coffee, so it seems. In my post I said, "If one accepts the position that illicit drug use is legitimate, then at the very least, I think the equation is exactly backward." What I meant to say was "If one accepts the position that we must police drug use, then at the very least the equation is exactly backward."

So, I agree with you that the whole drug enforcement "thing" should be tossed out or in my scenario, go after the user, no matter how small a fish because the user creates the market.


And break the prescription drug monopoly
When we legalize freedom, we will let adults choose to purchase any drug or medical device they want, with or without a prescription, and with or without FDA approval. The FDA, by delaying useful treatments, has killed more people than all of the quack medicines put together. I just recently had to spend over $5000 to go thru the medical bureaucracy in order to buy a simple medical device which could never be abused and could never be life-threatening. The only roles for law in what we do with our own bodies should be (1) protecting us against fraud, i.e., false statements of fact and (2) prohibiting certain rare practices where your use of drugs threatens me, such as abuse of antibiotics to breed drug resistance, drunk or stoned driving, etc.

I agree in principle, but
I agree in principle, but the argument that heroin should be legal because alcohol is reminds me of the Pit Bull/Chihuahua argument.

Fans of Pit Bulls argue that since Chihuahua's are more prone to biting than Pit Bulls, that Chihuahua's should be banned.

The fact that it's a rare Chihuahua that can overpower you to rip out your throat is completely ignored. The fact that alcohol overdoses are extremely rare is mostly ignored in the alcohol=heroin argument.

My example is not perfect, but hopefully you get the point.

Dalrymple
I have read Dalrymple's essay. Half od it is a philosophical position that is really irrelevant. The other half is based on his experience in prisons and in Africa. Neither of the populations or situations he describes is a valid baisis upon which to generate an opinion on the topic.


Disagree, but
I strongly disagree, but I'm open minded. Will drug use be unchanged if we legalize or decriminalize drugs? If so, go ahead.

But I have reservations about what the effects will be. I'm also concerned about children and how families will be affected. I'm particularly concerned about possible increases in teen drug use if it's legalized.

It is tempting to agree...
...on this one. Where I live it is easy to see what the problems being created just in the "transport" end of the business.

Having relatives in Laredo it has been easy to watch the change in just the last few years, when visiting we don't even consider crossing over into Nuevo Laredo any more.

The problem with an overnight change goes deeper than just our laws now though. We have literally financed governments, in some cases helped to create them, from funds and materials supplied to them to help fight our "war on drugs".

And it isn't just the United States, most industrialized nations have in some degree or another gone literally around the world getting governments to help destroy poppy fields, coca plants and marijuana farms. We have initiated programs in some places to help the peasants farm other crops, which I'm sure lasted just long enough for us to pack our lugage and move on. What now, we go back and ask them to now contract out their harvest?

Last week we were spraying it and plowing it under, this week it now classifies as a farm subsidy. Is this a great nation or what?


Tadd
Your claim that alcohol overdoses are "extremely rare" beggars the imagination. There are some 50,000 cases of acute alcohol posioning each year. Few of them result in death, but the numberr is not insignificant. Worse, some 14,000 deaths a year are directly attributed to auto crashes involving alcohol.

And we haven't even gotten to the health problems.

Lucky, do have a clue as to how much
of your money you give to fight the "war on drugs" that has been and will continue to be a complete failure unless they do away will all our rights? If we legalized drugs and spent half of the money saved not fighting this ridiculous "war", we could build thousands of treatment facilities for those that want help quiting drugs. Plus the allure of drugs would be greatly reduced and actual factual information may become available to the public about drugs vs. the propaganda garbage fed to up by the government since the 1930's.

As John aptly stated, in a free society, we as adults should be free to choose what we do, whether or not it is harmful to us.

We could easily end our deficit spending, pay off the debt and provide treatment for a medical issue instead of creating a criminal issue out of what should only be a medical one!

Galltegfa
You have one thing incorrect; doctors are plenty busy without having to be the de facto regulators of narcotic medicines. We spend a not insignificant amount of time trying to decipher whether a patient is truly in chronic pain or is trying to score drugs. If we decide incorrectly we either do a disservice to the patient and can be sued or we contribute to a person's problem and can be investigated. It would be great if the drugs were all legalized and we only had to advise what is appropriate for the patient to purchase. The big pharma companies would also see an increase in profits, so they would support this, as well. Of course, antibiotics would be rendered useless in a few years since overuse and improper usage would result in most common pathogens becoming resistant. Does anyone think that maybe we should try this on a limited basis and check the results prior to going full-tilt with the entire nation. I suggest California be the test site.

One More Point
Govt subsidies for drug addicts and users must end. If some fool wants to be a crack head, I don't want to pay for their rehab. Drug testing for anyone receiving govt assistance; if you have money for drugs, then you don't need my tax dollars. Let's not build "thousands of rehab facilities" and, instead, save all of the money from the "War on Drugs" and cut taxes on those that pay the most. Heck, tax the snot out of them and MAKE money on them.

Stossel.....
what are you smokin', dude?

Bravo Stossel
I still find it difficult to believe that anyone presented with this information in conjunction with the proven results (failure) of alcohol prohibition can actually support the War on Drugs. We would immediately remove a huge expense from our government as well as take billions of dollars from those who seek to do us harm (how do you think the Taliban got their $$$). To those who might worry about your children getting their hands on drugs, ask a sixteen year old which is tougher to get, marijuana or alcohol, and you might change your tune.

"in a free country, adults...
...should have the right to harm themselves."

As objectionable as this might sound to my would-be keepers, the right to be wrong is the very essence of liberty, and the foundation of any prosperous healthy nation. What I choose to do with my own person, and I currently choose not to ingest any of the illicit drugs, is nobody's business but my own. If I don't have the right to be wrong, I am not free. Butt out!

If drugs were decriminalized
Businesses could STILL be 'drug-free' as well as 'smoke-free' and 'alcohol-free' places. Drug testing could STILL be done to assure sensibility for work.

Parents found guilty of using drugs would not be found guilty of being an addict and get off like they do, they would be found guilty of neglect or abuse and would get stiffer sentences.

Drivers who drive 'under the influence' of drugs would STILL be guilty of the same thing. Driving while impaired is still on the books.

Some things that would NOT happen:

Driving your car after your son uses it will NOT result in forfeiture of said vehicle because jr left his 'stash' in the glove box. (Makes no difference if you KNEW about it or not.)

Police could clean up 'crack houses' as 'public nuisainces' instead of taking YEARS to find "evidence" of criminal activity.

Police would NOT be required to 'go undercover' with all the resultant illegal activity for years (at GREAT COST) which results in a LOT of police officers in rehab.

When Stossel first started talking about this, I thought he was NUTS! Abso (***)lutely! But the more I think about it, the more I see benefits and fewer and fewer disadvantages.

Mr. Stossel
This is where I have a parting of the ways with you.

You failed to mention the horrific violent crime perpetuated not in the pursuit of drugs but because they are on drugs.

P.S.
I, however do support the use of medical marijuana and do not understand why a pharmacy is not allowed to dispense it.

Legalizing drugs
A narcotics officer, speaking to our college class many years ago on the subject of legalizing drugs, referenced the death and mayhem caused on highways by drivers intoxicated on legal alcohol. His query: "Why would we want to unleash another scourge like this by legalizing other drugs?" Good point!

I have to disagree.
About five years ago a reporter was given access to a document storage vault in Washington that documented the use of unregulated drugs during the early 1900's. They were banned because there was too much crime, too much family abuse, and too much violence associated with their use.

The use of drugs was stopped by making it very hard on those caught with them. Twenty year sentences on the hard rock pile were common.

The documents were locked up due to a fear that if they were discussed in schools it would make the youth curious about taking the drugs.

If the drugs, which were legal at the time, caused so much trouble then, why do people in favor of legalizing them now so sure that there will not be trouble now? Isn't the definition of insanity the belief that if you repeat something you will get different results?

This would be ok if....
Harsh punishments for criminals who steal.... to support there habit.

Absolutely no taxpayer support to break addiction.

If you die from an overdose and fall into a street gutter, that's where you stay.

Total freedom, and total responsiblity.

Agreed
The government should not have any function to protect anyone from their foolish actions unless those actions directly infringe on someone else's life, liberty, or property.

I once heard the late economist, Milton Friedman, state at an economic forum that the easiest way to curtail the spiraling cost of drug enforcement and of the criminal justice system in general would be to simply leagalize all drugs.

He had it right. Much greater harm is placed upon society from the drug laws than from the drugs themselves. If the drugs were taxed and regulated (for purity etc.) the money generated could be used to fund drug treatment programs that have been shown to have a high success rate. This would be a much, much more cost effective way to deal with the problem than the billions of dollars wasted on failed interdiction programs and costs associated with incarceration.

As to the affect on children and families, it seems that locking a mother or father away for years on draconian manditory minimum laws is much harder on children than treatment would ever be. It often has the affect of creating an angry, bitter child than is at a much greater risk of becoming a criminal as well.

Teens tend to want to do what is forbidden to them anyway. If drugs are legal, it is no longer a rebellious act to use them. In countries that have tried a harm reduction strategy, there seems to be an initial spike in overall use that rapidly drops off within 3-5 years.

I agree that drugs are scourge of society. But, the criminal element that is created by making drugs illegal is a much greater threat than the drugs themselves will ever be.

Lolo1
Where are the stats? Even the government statistics that I've seen blur the lines between alcohol/illicit drugs to come up with their statistics on whether or not offenders were under the influence. They say that offenders were under the influence of 'some drug', but do not distinguish one from the other. And even most of those offenders are those arrested for drug crimes. It would stand to reason that someone arrested for possesion of a drug might be under the influence of that drug. There is no denying that drugs are bad, but how is the War on Drugs doing anything to help the problem?

Abolish gang financing
Synonymous: Illegal Drugs and Gang financing.

Billions of dollars are being wasted annually on a failed effort to control illegal drugs.
People will overdose on illegal and legal drugs. But legalizing will get rid of the gang violence.

45caliber
Do you happen to have the reporter's name or a link to their work? I'd be curious to read the material.

'Isn't the definition of insanity the belief that if you repeat something you will get different results?'

Remember the 18th amendment? It didn't work for alcohol, so why would we think that it's working for drugs?

LeftRudyRight...
"Remember the 18th amendment? It didn't work for alcohol, so why would we think that it's working for drugs?"

PW: Because the prison industrial complex needs a constant supply of fresh meat.

And drug war policies -- complete with asset forfeitures -- have been a boon to local and federal law enforcement agencies.

It's just another toxic jobs program that won't go away...and further proof we're getting progressively dumber as a society.

Prohibition era folks eventually came to their senses. We're not that smart.

John Stossel thank you
for this column. I agree 100%. Here in NY it is terrible how many people are in jail for drug violations.

you could do it
You can't legalize drugs untill you get rid of the governemnt's forcing of people to subsadize other people mistakes i.e wellfare. Now I have no problem if you want to throw your life away but I will be damned to have to pay my tax money to help you when you do.

We love you Stossel, BUT...
Drug legalization should not even be considered until other nanny-state legislation is reversed. For starters, I do not wish to pay for a drug-user's medical treatment at any time for any reason. Not in an emergency room, nowhere.

The democrats wish to impose socialized health care. Imagine having to pay for the consequences of an irresponsible habit like smoking. Cigarettes would have to be banned in fairness to the taxpayers. More dangerous drug use, in turn, will never be a "victimless crime" so long as productive citizens pay the tab.

Despite Stossel's rosey stats, everyone who has encountered drug users knows the extent of their miscreant behavior. Any efforts to legalize must be met with harsher sentences for their ensuing crimes (no treatment in lieu of prison). Addicts must quickly learn the consequences of their dereliction.

Once our government instigates such sweeping reforms, then we should seriously debate Stossel's suggestion. Of course, we may be too busy dealing with the ubiquitous flying pigs.

d
Thank you for your sensible assertion in the midst of some incredible naivette.

Sure we can legalize drugs...
without any preliminary legal reforms. Look at how well Holland has fared!

Legalize All Drugs
Using economic theory, it just makes sense to legalize drugs. The sale of drugs, as OTC, would result in sales tax. In addition, the "dealers" and "suppliers" would have to pay payroll, corporate, and federal taxes. This would be a HUGE tax base! Talk about being able to provide the funding to treat the idiots who get hooked!

Mark writes...
"This would be ok if....Absolutely no taxpayer support to break addiction... die from an overdose and fall into a street gutter, that's where you stay."

PW: penny wise, pound foolish.

I hope you're as fierce a critic of the $12 billion per month vanity war in Iraq as you are of the relatively miniscule tax expenditures for things like drug treatment programs and carting fallen street people off to the morgue.

BTW: google "cost of incarceration U.S. prisons" sometime.

About half the inmates are in on drug charges, and every nickle of their confinement cost comes out of your pocket.

I agree with John,



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

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



DRUG ADDICTION IS A DEATH WARRANT
Having had one of my kids go through the hard times of finding out just how harmfull drugs can be by cutting off four of his fingers while operating a power tool, he was smoking that insignificant doobie, he was using his cooked brain to make judgement.

After very expensive surgery and a trip to the vets hospital drug ward for a informative objective lesson, I can say I have never known anyone who can tell you in detail why drugs are a death warrant in a matter-of-fact way.

Losers do drugs, and they make everyone lose.

give it time
i think its one of those things where no one knows for sure what would come of it until u tried it. maybe less violence in the war on drugs if its legalized or maybe u have more crackheads not being an adult an not taking care of there kids. who knows what side u get if u legalize it but u do know what u get if u dont. as a christian an a person very true to my southern heritage i have a hard time being for the legalization of drugs but then again alcohol is legal an its basically a drug. its a intresting debate that needs more real discussion on a grander scale

Violance caused by drugs is overhyped BS
In wehat ever small numbers it is, it is nowhere as bad as the solution that we have been paying for for the past 100 years in both money and loss of freedom.

Lolo
Two issues.

First, far more crime is related to the illegality of drugs than to the "crimes" committed by people who are using drugs. In fact, there is no substance that carries a bigger cost -- in terms of crime, illness, family distress, death, and lost wages -- than alcohol.

And the reason Marijuana is not medically available is closely related to its status as a schedule 1 drug. Marijuna is listed as a schedule 1 drug, which means it is sooooo dangerous that researchers can't reasonably get permission to study its effects.

The same people who support the war on drugs support the status of pot as a schedule one drug. It's absurd.



"Harm Reduction"
was a big topic a few years ago, with much academic study and interest. Google It. It made the case that less harm would be done, overall, if drugs were legal.

Try this awhile

Do you remember a few years ago when people complained that when the Govt sprayed the Marijuana fields, it might hurt the poor little drug abuser.

I’ve got an idea, at least do this until a legal distribution method is in place.

Let’s take each and every speck, or ton, of illegal drugs that we find on the street, treat it with something that will turn the users ear green, make him stand on his head in the middle of the freeway, or just plain eliminate him.

Then put the drug back on the street at a low price.

I can assure you we would lose not one person of value.

And don't tell me that anyone using illegal drugs is worth while. Forget it.




We should legalize drugs
We spend huge amounts of money in the "War on Drugs", drug related crimes touch all of us. There isn't anything the government can do better than private enterprise. If drugs were sold legally they could contribute to our tax revenue and help pay taxpayers back for the money that has been wasted ineffectively trying to fight drugs. The criminals who smuggle drugs across our borders would have to find a new line of work. The drug dealers lounging on street corners wouldn't have anything to sell. Rather than incarcerating people for selling drugs we could free up the cells for murders, rapists, pedophiles and other violent criminals. I might even make some really good brownies.

Dumb as a post
This article is stupid, a clear indication of the author abusing drugs himself. Not worth the minute it took to read it.

Well, Jim -- #92
There goes Rush Limbaugh.

Why drugs are illegal
The current drug laws are generally a reflection of what the majority of the people in this country want. Drugs are illegal because people don't want to be around drug users (obviously I'nm talking about the illegal drugs here). Drug use makes people erratic. They also don't want their kids, or other young people they care about, getting in over their heads-which they think would be easier to do if drugs were legally available.
I understand a good case can be made that the cost to society of prohibition is greater than the costs of possible increased usage would be if drugs were made legal. I can also see the point that a person should have the right to do whatever they want regarding drugs. However these rights have to be fought for. People cared enough about drinking alcohol to pass a constitutional amendment repealing prohibition. You can try to have a similiar constitutional amendment passed saying that the peoples right to consume any substance they wish shall not be infringed upon. However, I can't see this happening. Politicians are always on the lookout for a wedge issue that could differentiate them from their opponent but yet also be popular enough to get them elected. Not enough people use illegal drugs for a politician to try this.
Most people over a certain age have at least tried some of these illegal drugs. But most realize that it is a dead end lifestyle that ends up destroying your physical and mental health. That's why they don't fight for it to be legal. And that's why it is still illegal.

Legalize all of them but,...
Do not provide any help if they become addicted.

The most compassionate approach is to put the users life in their own hands. Let them make the decision to either break their addiction or die.

Drug use and abuse are self-correcting problems.

Disagree
I have alot of respect for John Stossel, but I disagree with his position on this issue. Using his logic, there is no reason for any law to be passed if it protects the public. Taken to the extreme, let's get rid of all posted speed limits, and regulations and statutes governing all personal behavior. I think perhaps this type of libertarian utopia sounds best on paper but in a country of 300+ million might not be as pleasant in which to live, just as the socialist workers paradise envisioned by liberal democrats wouldn't be so attractive either. We don't have a war on drugs. Wars involve killing people and we don't do that here anymore. I also think it's intellectually disingenuous to postulate that somehow the same people who rob, and kill to pay for drugs when their illegal will magically find the funds to pay for them should they become legal. Ha!

I also agree with Lucky from NY that do what you want, but don't come to my front door or stick your hands in my wallet looking to pay for treatment. I'm tired of being responsible for other people's kids, addictions, education, national security, housing, food, healthcare, lifestyles, mistakes, etc....

jim
I share your frustration completely. See my 12:54-12:59 posts.

To PerryWhite
What about

Total freedom, and total responsiblity.

Don't you understand.

If you choose to get on the stuff by yourself then you need to choose to get off the stuff by yourself.

More Historical Perspective is Needed
I agree with some others here who wrote that reasons would be needed
to explain why history wouldn't repeat itself before considering
re-legalizing drugs.

A good reason might be that such drugs could legally be used in a very highly regulated manner, being manufactured under high quality-control standards, bottled in packaging covered by grave warnings, and prescribed and monitered only by doctors, trained to discourage drug use, as with other prescription drugs, and laws were also passed to ban advertizing that promoted these drugs, or in any way associated them in a positive light with mainstream society.

This would kill the drug trade, destroy the social mystique associated with them, keep the users safer than they are now, and end most drug related crime. But all these priorities would need to be addressed at the same time to get the intended benefits out of "legalizing drugs".


Mark writes...
"PerryWhite, What about total freedom, and total responsiblity don't you understand?

If you choose to get on the stuff by yourself then you need to choose to get off the stuff by yourself."

PW: What part of perspective and proportion don't you understand?

A relatively small investment in prevention and treatment (which as one poster noted could be mostly financed with a tax on legalized drugs) could end up saving you lots of tax dollars that otherwise would go toward incarceration costs...which are typically upwards of $25,000 per year per inmate.

It's not how much treatment would cost you...it's how much it would save you.

Rubbish!
Heroin doesnt cause any permanent effect? In 1840 the British forced the Chinese to legalize opium. It totally destroyed a three thousand year old culture.The Chinese still hate the West for that. I grew up in a drug culture in Las Vegas and I can tell you that once you stick a needle in your arm there is no going back, you are never the same person again. Later, in the 1970s I worked delivering ounces of cocaine to the customers of my employer. I watched people visibly deteriorate before my eyes. Drugs turn you into a self-centered, conscienceless,lying, inept, worthless piece of debris ready to wallow in any sordid behavior just on a lark. Ask any teacher, policeman, social worker or grandparent what happens to the children of the slovenly pigs who choose to exercise their 'human right' to lay around stoned all day long. In fact, just ask one of the many refugees from places like Jamaica or Yemen who have fled these dangerous, poverty-stricken societies which are cursed with almost universal drug use what trying to live a normal life is like when everyone around you is stoned. Drugs would NOT be cheaper if they were legal, the state would intervene to tax their helpless slaves more ruthlessly than any gang of criminals. Legalization is a horrible idea.

L writes...
"Using (Stossel's) logic, there is no reason for any law to be passed if it protects the public. Taken to the extreme, let's get rid of all posted speed limits..."

PW: They don't put you in prison for 20 years for speeding.

Nobody's suggesting laws protecting the public be repealed.

Drinking alcohol is legal, but drinking lots of it and then crashing your car into a school bus isn't. That's how it should work with drugs.

Besides, do the laws crimminalizing drugs keep you safe from addicts or gangs now?


Rehab
Rehab works in limited cases but as a policy it is a dismal failure. The approach suggested by some on this thread would open the doors to mass methampetamine and cocaine use. Our society would be completely destroyed.

To PerryWhite
You're talking about incarceration costs for drug offenders, which I'm saying would be zero because they won't be in jail since all drugs would be legal.

If they are incarcerated for theft, burglary, armed robbery then that is where they should be...

Jim
You are the worst kind of idiot (the arrogant kind). I would bet my life that more than a few of your ancestors used what we now call "illicit" drugs; after all, they used to be sold over the counter in any drugstore. Too bad they survived, huh? We could have been spared you.

Jack*ss.

Right on!!

And there should be no speed limits...

And and traffic signals should be abolished...

And vision requirements should be lifted for licensing drivers...

And the issuing of driver's licenses should cease once one reaches adulthood...

And what about ridiculous laws against littering...

Adults should be assumed to be responsible, moral beings who will generally do what's best for them and best for society...

And John Stossell should stick to news reporting and leave news commentary to Paul Harvey and Charles Krauthammer, et. al.

Myth 2
Mr. Stossel,

You ask the questions, if crack is so addictive why are only 2 percent addicted if 15% have tried it?
Umm . . . maybe BECAUSE IT'S ILLEGAL?

You ask, why did 85% of Vietnam Veteran heroin users quit during their first year home?

Let's see . . . could it be because IT'S AGAINST THE LAW?

Decriminalize not legalize
Semantics will get you every time. Government can't make drugs illegal any more can they make a food illegal. My body is MY personal and private property. As I see it the fourth amendment protects me whether I chose to ingest eye of rhino, thalidomide, or pot. Therefore laws against any drug are unconstitutional. Further, I am sick to death of having to give anyone my drivers license so I may purchase only one box of Sudafed. Let the junkies or the meth "cooks" have it; let 'em all have their drugs of choice. Quite frankly, this is Darwinism in its perfect form. I am not interested in saving people from themselves. I have done what I can to teach my children about the ill effects of any drug which includes those prescribed by physicians. From there they will make their own decisions. I can no more control their actions as adults than can government. The drug "war" is another example of government "parental" meddling in the life of the citizen. How can one be guilt of a crime when there is no victim?

Drugs
The Government loves it's War of Drugs. It's an unending money machine for them. They can accuse anyone of being involved in the drug trade, even if they never charge them, take their property with impunity and ensure that it costs more than most people can afford to get the property back. Pretty good racket if you can get the Government to sanction it; if you can't you're just a thief.
The "morally superior" love "The War on Drugs" because they can be "right" and "rightfully" condemn any ideas for actually alleviating the problem.
Decriminalizing drugs and placing the sources inside pharmacy type establishment, run by licensed medical professionals is just to logical for the Drug War Cheerleaders. It would take the profit out of the drug trade and eliminate the ever popular "community drug shootout and corner competition". Can't have that. It would allow the tracking of the quantity of drug dispensed and who it was dispensed to. Can't have that. It would allow the dispensing authority to know when and how many children were being put a risk by their parents/guardians drug dependency. The little kids don't deserve that kind of protection; you might violate their drug addict parents rights to abuse them.
Your "Drug War" is a load of politicized horse-crap, that exists for the benefit of the Government excesses and to assuage the sensibilities of hypocrites and idiots.

Dwain Cleveland

Have someone read it for you again
esse Location: NC
Reply # 107
Date: Jun 18, 2008 - 3:28 PM EST
Subject: Jim
You are the worst kind of idiot (the arrogant kind). I would bet my life that more than a few of your ancestors used what we now call "illicit" drugs;

=====

Dimwit, I said illegal. Something that is now called "illicit" was not illegal, as I understand it.

And please explain this again. If my ancestors had died early from any cause, would I be here complaining about what they did here and there.



Bill writes:
"(Stossel asks) if crack is so addictive why are only 2 percent addicted if 15% have tried it? Umm . . . maybe BECAUSE IT'S ILLEGAL?

why did 85% of Vietnam Veteran heroin users quit during their first year home? Let's see . . . could it be because IT'S AGAINST THE LAW?"

PW: Yet people who are addicted or merely curious always seem to find a way to get their drugs, legality notwithstanding.

And there are lots of reasons other people don't use drugs now and wouldn't if they were legal.

Some, like me, avoid drugs because the anti-drug campaigns in the schools in the 50s and 60s scared the hell out of me.

Others don't use them because they're well-adjusted and happy and feel no compulsion to alter their reality.

In fact, I'm guessing those who refrain exclusively out of fear of criminal penalties form a pretty small minority of non-users.

Still I realize this is one of those issues on which people form an opinion early then dig in.

Hydrogen Production Engineer...#111
Excellent post!

about time someone said it out loud
john stossel for president

John, what are you smoking??
You want to legalize all drugs, just because we as adults can do what we want with our bodies? The same thinking has resulted in the death of millions of unborn children because women think they can do what they want with their bodies, with complete disregard to the life of their child.
Just as the government has a say in who is allowed to marry (since marriage is not just about love but also about procreation and therefore the formation of additional citizens) the government has a vested interest in keeping people off addictive drugs. Legalizing all drugs would be as detrimental to our society as abortion and gay marriage already have been.


Tom...
"John, what are you smoking??
You want to legalize all drugs, just because we as adults can do what we want with our bodies? The same thinking has resulted in the death of millions of unborn children because women think they can do what they want with their bodies..."

PW: I guess it was just a matter of time before an abortion zealot turned this into a culture of life forum.

Costs
"I also think it's intellectually disingenuous to postulate that somehow the same people who rob, and kill to pay for drugs when their illegal will magically find the funds to pay for them should they become legal. Ha!"

You're failing to take into consideration the fact that if drugs were legalized, the price would fall. If drugs were legal, the addict would have to find $5 for his fix instead of $400.

Efficiency!!
"It cost taxpayers $60,000 a year to take care of inmates."

They really got efficient! :)

(assuming that was a typo and you meant "each" inmate)

Give
me the right to have a concealed weapons permit recognized in every state first before legalizing drugs.

History of Drug Laws
An earlier poster said:

"It's illegal precisely BECAUSE of the dangers, not the other way around, nincompoop"

This is demonstrably false.

The history of drug laws in the United States is very easy to find if you care to look and these laws DID NOT come about because of the "dangers" of drugs. These laws came about because at the time people feared that the drug dens would lead to race mixing.

"Prohibition of opium
The first law outright prohibiting the use of a specific drug in the United States was a San Francisco ordinance which banned the smoking of opium in opium dens in 1875. The claimed inspiration was "many women and young girls, as well as young men of respectable family, were being induced to visit the Chinese opium-smoking dens, where they were ruined morally and otherwise," although there is no evidence to suggest this actually happened. This was followed by other laws throughout the country, and federal laws which barred Chinese people from trafficking in opium."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_laws

More History of Drug Laws
Prohibition of cocaine
Cocaine was prohibited in the first part of the 20th century. Newspapers used terms like "Negro Cocaine Fiends" and "Cocainized Niggers" to drive up sales, causing a nationwide panic about the rape of white women by black men, high on cocaine. Many police forces changed from a .32 caliber to a .38 caliber pistol because the smaller gun was supposedly unable to kill black men when they were high on cocaine.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_laws

Tom #116
Abortion and the "Drug War" have only the faintest of similarities. Last time I checked the Police can't take your car and all the money in your pocket for hanging around an Abortion Clinic or after having their "Abortion-Dog hit on money that smells like a doctor. Last time I checked there was no organized gangs of "abortion marketeers" on street corners, armed to repel their competition with a 357 magnums and woe to the innocent bystander. You sound as if you might be one of those "morally superior" hypocrites I mentioned in an earlier post. You don't mind at all the harm perpetuated by the existing manner that the U.S. addresses it's drug problems. You are more concerned with maintaining the perception of righteousness and upright indignation, than you are with the children caught in the crossfire. The best way to influence children at risk is to eliminate the environment that exposes them to that risk and educate them in the danger. De-criminalizing Drugs would do that. Your method has not worked to date and never will work. You, nor any of your lofty ideals can legislate moral conduct. Can't be done. You have to control the physical source of the problem; document who is at risk and work to rehabilitate the user and protect & educate the innocent victims; The Children. You need to figure out what you are arguing and whether it has any relevance to the subject at hand. Thus far you aren't hitting on much of anything.

Dwain Cleveland

We are not free to destroy civilization!
We should be free to buy drugs on the open uncontrolled market in pursuit of whatever purpose we have in mind....but,

We are not free to live with a community of others and ignore their right to set community standards. This doesn't mean that you lose your right when society says NO! You just have to take your body someplace else and aid or destroy it any way that you want that is acceptable to those around you.

You are not free to rob from others to pay for your wants unless that is the standard of your society. Be big, strong, rich and willing to disregard others and do as you wish, if you can. But, don't be too hurt when someone shoots you, claiming it is their right!


STOK54...
"Give me the right to have a concealed weapons permit recognized in every state first before legalizing drugs."

PW: I think you can relax on both counts, STOK54.

A little over a decade ago a brave New Mexico governor advocated legalizing drugs only to be handed his head.

No politician will risk doing that again.

And, of course, there's probably even more hysteria about guns than there is about drugs.

Home of the free, land of the brave and all that stuff.

War on Drugs
The war on drugs is a joke! A very expensive joke! Chemicals are required in the manufacture of cocaine, heroin, crack, LSD and other sophisticated drugs like ecstasy, et cetara.

STOP THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF THE CHEMICALS REQUIRED TO PRODUCE THESE DRUGS and the drug wars will end. That simple.

Whether or not the drugs are legal or illegal is of no concern of the grower, the cartel, the manufacturer, the seller or the user.

Both legal and illegal drugs are addictive. So making the drugs legal or keeping them illegal does not change this fact.

The answer is make all drugs legal and sold ONLY at government designated and government controlled stores with 'bank vault' security 24/7 PROVIDED by LOCAL POLICE.

TAXES! We all know how much 'sin tax' is collected by the county, city, state and federal governments from the sale of beer, wine, whiskey and tobacco.

The sale of 'legal drugs' that are manufactured in the USA would destroy the drug cartels, eliminate the 'drug wars' and prevent gangs from killing people over drugs.

And the country receives more taxes for schools, roads, bridges, parks and whatever...paid with taxes from the sale of legal drugs.


No moral foundation, no freedom
As a follow up to my 3:08PM entry, you can't really have a free society without a moral society, so if drugs are legalized, society must have in place laws and practices I discussed to discourage using these substances.

Legalize and then be prepared to....
...pay the enormous social costs due to this new "freedom".

Business will try to fire their junkie-employees, and then they'll get sued with the demand for treatment as well as a payout. The junkie will win his or her case, if anyone has witnessed court decisions these days. The costs? Passed on to the consumer, of course.

I often work in the area of substance abuse treatment. In alcohol abuse alone, the costs are enormous in regard to the families of the alcoholic, and the chidren suffer the most. It's bad enough when momma or daddy is getting their drink on, but the emotional and physical abuse toll on their offspring is the most tragic and sickening. Addicts absolutely don't care about their children once hooked. We've had cases where heroin-addicted women were busted for loaning out their young daughters to male strangers as payment for their beloved drug of choice.

Then, if you're prepared to pay for the certain demands for government-financed treatment centers as well as programs for their children, by all means, legalize the poison. Just don't whine when the checks come due in the form of larger paycheck deductions. This makes Democrats happy, of course, but you'll be poorer. And if you think that "family breakdown" is bad now, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

Legalizing drugs will only add to our already accelerating social decay.



Mr. Stossel
You're absolutely right. As part of a free society drugs should be legally and freely obtainable. Just as the consequences for abusing those drugs should be visited on those who abuse them. Driving while stoned should land you in clink just like driving while drunk. Giving narcotics to a minor without an MD's say so should be grounds for prosecution. And above all we should make sure the existing addicts get the purest form of their drug of choice in the quantity they desire. Note: I said desire not need. Generally, with addicts the two are very differnt things.

WOW...getting nasty here!
I can't believe that people who say that they are any kind of libertarian, conservative, Republican, or Constitutionalist propose that government be the dispenser and therefore gatekeeper of any kind of drug that the public may consume. Or worse that they should tax these drugs. Or that they could then "keep tabs" on the users/purchasers in order to "protect" them or their unborn children and/or offer rehabilitation services. The FDA, as a gatekeeper of drugs, routinely denies their "approval" of potentially lifesaving drugs to many terminally ill patients in order to "protect" them from what? Death! We are all sinking from taxes of every single thing we buy, use, earn, practice, and ad nausem. To propose ANY new tax is insanity---you have lost your direction by getting bogged down in the issue. And what person who truly believes in personal liberty could agree with government keeping track of any of your purchases? Have you lost your marbles people? As to protecting "the unborn"--- they are unborn; they reside in the belly of a citizen who has the right to be left alone. Government can't "protect" a future person---hell, it can't even protect (actually insure the safety of) the children referred to child protective services! It is up to people to educate their families and friends, to intervene, and to keep an eye out for one another. NONE OF THESE THINGS ARE THE PROVINCE OF GOVERNMENT IN ANY CASE!!! Stand on your own two feet and trust that you can change the world one person at a time.

Oh, a P.S. You don't need to have a "permit" (permission) from government to have a gun. Any law contrary to the Constitution is invalid. And if ya' gotta carry one, do it "Arizona style"---wear it on your hip. You don't get any points for concealing a weapon. Heck, there'd probably be a heck of a lot less crime if the dirtbag criminals knew you had a weapon going in!

Right on Stossell!
Making drugs illegal has not kept Americans from doing them. They are bad for you, BUT you and I paying to lock up more marijuana violators in this country than violent criminals has not made us more safe, nor curbed drug use.

The drug war by our Federal government is intrusion into our lives as well as instrusion into States rights/powers. It has terribly backfired.

Its true...
...myself and my peers can get any illegal drug we want, anytime we want, so why don't we? Because we choose not to. Take the money making power out of the gangs hands and much of the violence would stop.

Education and intact, strong families made up of good mother and fathers; that's all that really matters.

Dave - More study isn't *ALLOWED*
--
...or - if it promises to vary from the "Drug Warrior" line - can't get funded and commonly can't get published in a journal or at a conference where it can make any impact.

Interestingly enough, says Dave:

"I can accept the concept that an adult should have the right to harm himself, but matters are rarely that simple. A drug-addicted mother is very likely to harm her children, either directly through abuse or indirectly by failing to handle situations in the home properly."


Jeez, but do you understand the concept behind the study of history?

In Great Britain back in the 18th and 19th Centuries, there were similar "social" pseudoconservative lines of argument that sang *PRECISELY* that same song, but instead of "drugs" the word they used was "gin."

Hard liquor had become more accessible to poor people, and instead of drinking small beer, folks in the "lower classes" were blunting the pain of their miserable existences with booze of various sorts.

Gin came over from Holland with William and Mary in the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688, and because it could be made from poor-grade grain unsuitable for baking bread or brewing into beer or ale, it could be produced cheaply.

Dave, you sound like one of those intemperate "Temperance" clowns who were responsible for the Eighteenth Amendment, the Volstead Act, Prohibition, and what we all know and despise today as the BATF (which started out and continues as one of the most corrupt, inept, and completely unconstitutional federal agencies in our history).

Haven't you learned your lesson yet?

The important initials are "KYFHO."

--

Hey John,
Who gets to pay for the resulting problems of these drug users? The way our system is set up, it would be all taxpayers. Now if each individual were made to be responsible for their own problems, I might agree with you, but since they won't, I have to disagree.

Hey Chris,Newsflash:
Taxpayers are currenly paying the criminal justice system to shuffle these people around.I knew a girl that went to prison for 6 months because she was arrested for posession of one lortab pill then violated probation by failing a drug test.Is it worth it to house someone for posession of a pill and failing a drug test?

sad
We must remember why well fell in love with this country when we were childern. The ideas of freedom and choice and liberty were the reasons I loved and do love this country,(that and us kicking the some British). When you lock up someones father or mother, it seems we create really bad children. These bad children end up replacing the parents locked away in our judicial system. If we invest a little more in our prisons, we can do a lot of good for those that need to be rehabed not punished. As it stands our prisons are not serving society very well, in fact they are encouraging a Balkinization that could prove harmful.

Too much money to stop them?
There's too much money in illegal drugs, both for the drug-dealing scum AND the budget of the government/keystone cops of "drug enforcement."

Drug Prohibition is a vile evil and fascist inroad. Responsible Republicans better get on ending Prohibition from the inside out. Remember to credit the Libertarians too!

To Will
I don't recall seeing "gay sex" mentioned anywhere in John Stossel's article. Dude... you seriously need some help.

Absolutely
It's time for the vile, fascist charade to be over.

I'm not just talking about the "drug war" either.

It's time for the government to stop attacking its citizens. It's indeed a war. The US government is using paramilitary soldiers with military gear on taxpaying sovereign citizens.

A sea change is occurring in this country. People are sick and tired of the lies.

Wrong argument
To those people who have posted about thier refusal or reluctance to pay for the cost of rehab and treatment should legalization be implemented, I think you miss the point.

The choice is whether we continue to pay $100 for the war on drugs or $5 for treatment.

The argument should be about what to do with the newly found $95.

Repub's should be arguing to use the $95 for paying down the debt and lowering the tax rate

Dem's should be arguing to use the $95 for a $300 spending increases while pretending they are not

Then we'd be back to standard operating procedure

Dear Mr. Brainoncapitalist
I respectfully disagree with part of your comment...

"The liberals want freedom to act in the spiritual realm; they oppose censorship, they oppose government control of ideas, of the arts, of the press, of education. But they advocate government control of material production, of business, of employment, of wages, of profits, of all physical property--they advocate it all the way down to total expropriation."

Liberals (the left) no longer opposes censorship or the government control of ideas.

Examples.

- Hate speech laws (more international at present) i.e. Mark Steyn in Canada
- Hate speech codes on campus
- Hate crime laws (penalizing intention and thought rather than action)
- political correctness movement
- groupthink educational system that bars or at least ridicules and discourages conservative thought
- the need for security at conservative speeches


Dear Susan..
"The drug war doesn't cause crime--criminals cause crime. Bad people will always find bad things to do."

It's basic economics, you get more of the type of behavior that is incentivized by the rules.

Criminals are responsible for their own actions - true - but we'd have less if the profit motive evaporated

Tax benefit
I haven't read all the comments.. so this may hav already been brought up. If we were to legalize drugs just think of how they could tax the hell out of them. It would be a windfall. We would save money on the drug wars and make money on the sales tax. We could make more money if they could only be purchased at a govt. store.

I love the healthy life
Any of form depended is bad. Drug, Alcohol, smoke and etc is. I love the healthy life, I wish everybody change the life style with health. I have witnessing many grievous matter of effect depended the drug, alcohol and others. Prevent better than cure. We have to tell DON'T to any kind of do the cause the ruining at ourselves the can result the others also its falling victim to.
healthytips-atana.blogspot.com

Smart man
Tax it and use the proceeds to fund any problems or issues associated with it, from paying for addiction clinics to dealing with paying for the occasional "drug driving" victim.

The War is far more lost than the libtards could ever hope Iraq would be. All the laws in the world can only drive up the price and corrupt nations.

Soniq
Hi Soniq, thank you for your thoughtful reply.
"It's basic economics, you get more of the type of behavior that is incentivized by the rules."
May I ask, what are economics if not the result of billions of people making billions of decisions every day about how they will live their lives? All of those decisions stew about in the ether and create the conditions that we have to deal with.

"Criminals are responsible for their own actions - true - but we'd have less if the profit motive evaporated"
I'm afraid that reducing the profit motive from the drug trade (it will never go away, you can trust me on this one) that the nature of the criminals themselves will remain the same. Drug lords will still have to pay the rent and terrorists will still have to pay for illegal arms. They will almost certainly expand the other branches of their businesses (kidnapping, for instance) and perhaps come up with whole new ways of being harmful to their fellow humans. The same thing with gang members. Naturally some criminals will go legitimate, as Joe Kennedy did following prohibition, but sadly, they will remain drug peddlers preying on the weaknesses of fools. They will become even richer and more powerful when they can lobby and run for office. Honestly, I'm not sure how any of that would make anyone more free.

Agreed
The main social problem with legalizing drugs would be the livelyhood of the people who currently support themselves and their families with its proceeds. In fact, if upon legalization we allowed the release of those serving prison terms for sales, possesion, etc. crimes that don't include force or fraud -- the money saved in the courts and prison system could actually be used for something good, like paying our teachers even more money not to educate our children....

Taxation?
This is a response to ed's comment that we should "tax the hell" out of drugs if they were legal.

In the words of Doug stanhope, "If you're gonna tax drugs, tax every vice. And tax some Jesus while you're at it because the Catholic Church has a lot more money than any columbian cartel and they leave a lot more bodies in the lake."

A is A
Your always going to have "drugs". Do you want them with or with out crime? Legalization will cuse a new host of problems but we can learn from the other countries that have tried and failed and we will have tons of money from the WAR to solve these problems.

What a moroon
Your sir, are an irresponsible idiot. First you wanted to legalize sex with minors, now you want to legalize all drugs. You need some real help.

legalize all drugs
I agree wholeheartedly with Stossel. Prohibition didn't work in the twenties and it hasn't worked on drugs in the last 50 years. Like he says they can't even keep it out of prisons. After a 50 year "war on drugs" you'd think there would be less of a problem than say in 1966. If it was above board it could be fought effectively. Right now we have a drug dealer (kids) in every classroom in America extolling the "virtures and benefits" of dope. Would you rather have CVS, Rite Aide and Pfizer selling regulated drugs or AL Capone type gangsters? I read a few days ago of drug thugs dropping off a human head on the doorstep of a Mexican newspaper editor with a note saying he was next if he kept reporting on the drug "lords". Corruption is rampant within many law enforcement circles. Think about it because it's coming to a theatre near you. I live outside suburbia in a nice big house but still have to worry about a crackhead driving by and breaking in to feed his habit. How about you?

Good stuff!
I'm a rock-ribbed, 67-year-old, real Goldwater conservative, and the son of an alcoholic. I think you're absolutly right in every word you say in this article.

I do think that driving a car, truck, train or bus under the influence of any drug, even sacred ethanol, is something we should bring back public whipping for. But if you want to get high and ride a motorcycle, that should be OK. It's time we let problems that tend to solve themselves go ahead and do so.

Right arm! Power to the Poodle! I was a Stossel fan before, but this article makes me a devotee.

make them all legal
But if a crime is commited under the influence, then make the punishment 5 times worse than if they were not useing. For example, speeding gets you X amount of dollars fined, but speeding while drunk gets a far worse penalty. Abuse your kids and they get taken away and you do some time or just counsling, under the influence, again much worse. And if a crime is commited to obtain your drug of choice, a harsher penalty should be applied. Make it a free choice, but understand the consequences of abuse.

I support legalizing all drugs.

However, there would most likely be, at least initially, an increase in usage simply because of the accessibility issue. I think the difficulty in obtaining illegal drugs does limit the number of people who experiment with them.

One other point that has not been mentioned is that millions of people use illegal drugs without any negative consequences. The government is like one of my old teachers who threatened all with punishment if even one stepped out of line.

Drugs should be legalized.
I would like to try heroin because it sounds great. I don't want to be addicted to it, and have little doubt that I would not abuse it, just as I don't currently abuse alcohol or cigarettes. But I don't like being told not to by big Daddy government, it makes me want to try it just to spite them.

what we can do is this
Send a message to the judicial system by uniting and doing our civic duty by sitting on a jury and when we come accrossed a case such as drugs etc... that we do not agree with prosecuting we vote not guilty and either hang the jury or acquit this use of jury duty is our greatest tool for changing the system how did we stop prohibition? by standing together and refusing to convict bootleggers etc... jury nullification was a great tool in ending that era and yes drugs are victomless crimes and if we want to blame the dealer he would not exist without the addict and look at those countries that export the drugs they are starting to surpass the u.s.a. economically

Subject: Drugs should not be legalized.
If drugs were legalized, the price would drop and more people would use them. I think our society already has too many people who use and/or abuse drugs, and we don't need any more.

Case closed.

dont b hippocrites
either legalize drugs r get rid of tobaco,alchol,which have caused more damage than all drugs combined

Pro-prohibition? Why?
I don't understand how people can say that the drug war "helps people" and/or "reduces usage".

But...

If you truly believe the drug war has had some positive impact on communities...


...then why isn't it done for alcohol too?


You let them simply pay the appropriate luxury taxes, and go on living their lives.

If its acceptable to use one of the most harmful, addicting, and intoxicating drugs and simply pay a tax...

...then why is this not offered to users of drugs which cause far less damage to society as a whole????

Their is no answer, therefor you have NO GROUND to stand on when you claim its a good thing.

That's my $0.02

Just another thought...
I noticed a lot of you prohibitionist talk about drug use leading to a lack of motivation and productivity, that and/or a decline in health with an increase in health care costs.

But if you actually compare drug use and its negative effects in those categories to making unhealthy diet choices and/or living a sedentary lifestyle, the drugs have played an insignificant role!

What???

Thats right, you being lethargic and overfed is more detrimental to our health as a nation than all illicit drugs combined.

And that's by a landslide!

We're talking about drugs being the mole hill, next to the mountain of trouble that poor diet and lifestyle is!

And yet we receive the lion's share of the legal repercussion, actually, WE TAKE ALL OF IT!

You propagate this war on my rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, based on my having made one small unhealthy choice...

...and yet you can make many, many bad health decisions throughout the day, all of which have far worse impact on you and society...

...with ABSOLUTELY NO legal repercussion at all?

I just don't think any sane person could explain that away.

Word.
This article is really awesome. Sometimes the conservative mindset is so perfectly logical, it really amazes me.

Drug users
Recent research shows that nearly half of all 15-16 year old have used an illegal drug. Amongst young people, illegal drug use is seen as normal. Intensifying the 'war on drugs' is not reducing demand. In Holland, where cannabis laws are far less harsh, drug usage is amongst the lowest in Europe. Legalisation accepts that drug use is normal and that it is a social issue, not a criminal justice one. How we deal with it is up to all of us to decide.
________________________________________

julie

[url=http://www.legalx.net]california dui[/url]

Love John Stossel!
At least John has a brain that works.

I do not need or want a Federal, state or local babysitter. What I do with my body is my own business and not subject to the whims of those who stand to make money on either side of the "drug trade", the anti-abortion trade, the religious trade, or any other trade, for that matter.

I read one comment here that stated that drugs are illegal because a majority of the People want them that way. Perhaps this person should get outside their narrow social circle with its narrow mindset and take a long walk among the majority, maybe even speak to one or two.

The "war on drugs" exists because of money, on both sides of the issue, and both sides, so-called legitimate and criminal, can afford powerful lobbyists in Washington to ensure the laws stay exactly as they are, our personal freedoms notwithstanding.




I could say more
Think about it where thier is no order thier is caos granted when people are busted for paraphernalia,drugs, or both the punishment doesn't necessaraly fit the crime. But laws where placed to prevent sowething from happening that had previously happened becouse of the use of that particular drug.Our law makers although sometimes like the wrighters of most of the replies as well as mr.stossels outlook on this subject are and is arrogate never the less our Elected have had to try to address the problem due to the affects drugs have had on our country. Now I agree that marijuana was ellegalized without enough reserch into the actual effects,but all other drugs were made ellegal becouse of the negative affects it has on the people that do them and everyone and everything around them. Now the main problem with your theiry legalize and watch the crime rate go down is that the only part of the "CRIME" that's going to go down is the arrest of possesion and paraphernalia but the rest of the crime from drugs is going no where,When a drug addict runs out of money and dope where do you think thay are going to get their next hit & the one after that?, maybe your wallet or something thay stole from your house, thay don't have to be High to commit these acts just determained to be able to get what they feel like thay need, I say this becouse I spent four and a half years in places most of you think you can imagine but no matter how bad you can imagine something could be Trust me it's worse, CRACK cocaine & Harion are drugs that if I hated you with every ounce of my being, even if your the one that murdered my mother when I was twelve years old I would never wish these addictions on anyone. Oh P.S. taking away help from people that where in a weak state of mind when thay made more than likely the worst mistake of their lives is NOT the answer.

Drugs -Legalization
You are on target.
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.