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, March 25, 2009
John Stossel :: Townhall.com Columnist
Butt Out, Feds
by John Stossel
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Authorities raided Charlie Lynch's California home.

"They say, 'Search warrant! Open the door, or we're gonna tear it down!" Lynch told me for my ABC special "Bailouts and Bull".

"I opened the door, and about 10 to 15 agents with shields, bulletproof vests, guns, masks. [They] threw me on the ground and ... had a gun to the back of my head."

The federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) seized 30 pounds of marijuana. Sheriff Pat Hedges said the facts were clear, "Charlie Lynch was making a profit off of selling marijuana."

It wasn't hard for the authorities to locate Lynch's marijuana operation. They were probably tipped off by the public ribbon-cutting ceremony Lynch held -- the one that the mayor of his town attended, along with city councilmen and the president of the Chamber of Commerce. The police were invited, too.

You see, Lynch sold medical marijuana, which has been declared legal by California and 12 other states. California says if a doctor recommends that you use the drug, it's perfectly legal.

Singer Melissa Etheridge is happy about that. When she got breast cancer, chemotherapy took her hair and made her sick. She told me that chemo kills more than cancer. "It's like putting acid in your body. You have absolutely no strength."

The pills to treat the side effects have their own side effects.

She said, "Take the one drug for pain. It makes you constipated. So then you have to take the drug that helps you not be constipated. But that drug [gives you] diarrhea, and so you have to take another drug to combat the side effects of that."

So her doctor recommended marijuana.

"I had a choice: those drugs and all these side effects, or ... one remedy that takes care of all of the [side effects]."

It worked for high school student Owen Beck, too.

"I was playing soccer, and [my leg] was really hurting one day. ... I went and got an MRI. It was a medium-sized tumor."

Doctors amputated Owen's leg and gave him chemotherapy. Chemo tortured him the way it tortured Etheridge.

"It destroys your appetite, and whatever you can eat, you throw up."

When prescribed medicine didn't relieve the side effects, his doctors suggested medical marijuana.

"With the marijuana, I could do what I needed to do during the day and just not be in pain. I could be comfortable."

Owen bought his marijuana from Charlie Lynch's dispensary. Sheriff Hedges says that Lynch's business "is not in the best interests of the community."

He was helping people, wasn't he? I asked Hedges.

"Well, you're making an assumption that he's helping people. He was primarily helping himself."

The sheriff's office's staked out Charlie's dispensary and sent in undercover agents to see if Charlie was breaking any part of California's law. He wasn't.

So after a year of diligently documenting that marijuana was indeed being sold by a marijuana dispensary, the sheriff handed the case over to the federal police, the DEA. U.S. law ludicrously calls marijuana a schedule 1 narcotic. That puts it in the same category as heroin.

Federal authorities cleverly avoided California's state courts and took Charlie into federal court, where his lawyers were not even allowed to tell the jury that medical marijuana is legal in California. Not surprisingly, Charlie was convicted. Possible sentence: 100 years in federal prison.

He told me his life has been destroyed. He is bankrupt; his girlfriend left him; and friends are afraid to talk to him.

President Obama has joked about his own marijuana use, but since his inauguration, federal police have raided five marijuana dispensaries in states where state law permits them. Last week, however, the administration announced it would no longer raid legal dispensaries. That bought Charlie Lynch some time. This week the federal judge postponed sentencing -- pending more information about the Justice Department's new policy.

The feds still wanted to lock up Charlie Lynch. I don't know why. The DEA refuses to talk to me about it.

The war on drugs is idiotic. It deters few, drives drug use underground -- making it more dangerous -- and creates horrible crime.

Adults should be free to ingest whatever they want, knowing they are responsible for their actions.

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
Awesome article
It's sad that some conservatives SAY they believe in states' rights, then violate these rights when states do something with which they disagree? Do they simply believe states have a right to agree with them?

I posted some info on poker -- which is being treated similarly by big government social "conservatives" -- on my blog, at http://poker.townhall.com . Check it out.

But,
But but how could we get by without someone watching over us ? Without Imperial federal overseers we may actually do something unapproved and then must be punnished.

What a crock these drug laws are.

And, what's with the sheriff?
His job is to enforce laws -- not to invent them.

At what point do you draw the line?
My guess is Melissa toted before she had cancer. Maybe she didn't inhale.

Alcoholism increased at the end of Prohibition. It's a Hollywood lie that it wasn't effective in drastically reducing consumption. While some illegal entities (like the Kennedys) made money, most Americans followed the law.

Medical Mary Jane is okay. How about recreational use? If recreational marijuana is okay, is cocaine next.

As for prohibited substances lead to organized crime, when was the last time concrete was illegal in NYC. Be careful how you answer or you might end up with 'cement slippers.'

Hey randomthoughts:
Go take your self-righteousness elsewhere and mind your own business!

What I do on my own time, without harming others is no consequence of yours!

And another thing
Who are you to tell ANYONE what they can do with their body?

You have no right or claim to anyone but yourself.

You're disgusting.

One point
The medical marijuana debate is contributing to the left's approval rating. Most Americans agree that a doctor should be able to recommend marijuana for treatment of illnesses. I'm afraid the right's going to make a fuss out of this new medical marijuana policy at some point, and they're going to discover just how popular medical marijuana really is.

Prohibition is a terrible thing. It is the root of so much crime and violence. Drugs aren't that huge of a problem to begin with. Over 90% people say "No" to "Would you start using drugs if they were legalized?" I'm telling you, this drug war is blown way out of proportion, especially in regards to marijuana. It gives teenagers an uncontrolled market they can buy any drug they want from. Yet they say this drug war is to protect the kids. There's so much confusion involved with this drug war. And it's silly because educated minds keep saying "Legalize drugs" to fix our problem, but nobody's listening. Milton Friedman was one of those gifted individuals. It isn't as radical of an idea as people make it out to be. Prohibition, however, is radical.

medical marijuana
Just in the past two weeks I wrote in to the News-Sentinel, Fort Wayne, IN, about this.

"Marijuana, medical and other, and drugs, too. Although I believe that Nixon was a good man, he really screwed up when he took on the ‘War on Drugs’! I have tried marijuana about three times and it put me to sleep. With my medication I’m on now, I don’t do alcohol or drugs, but feel we should not have anything to say if someone one else does it. If they are 18, let them do it! BUT, tax it! Make it reasonable so the drug dealers are out of business, but educate, educate, educate! You will see cars NOT being broken in to, home thievery and invasion NOT, etc."

TAX the weed!!!
LICENSE a limited number of medium capacity growers in each state. Keep detailed records for tax purposes. Allow sale of small quantities up to one oz. at a time ONLY IN LIQUOR stores!!! Those guys are experts at spotting fake IDs because their businesses depend on it.

The "Weed Tax" would pay for oversight and regulation AND boost STATE revenues, particularly in CA, WA, AK and most of the South. In the Northeast indoor hydroponic farms in old warehouses could yield small "micro brew" designer strains for the more demanding.

Without the cash cow of pot the Mexican narco terrorists and MS-13 would not have the funding to run the more lucrative heroin trade across the border or sneak in Al-Quaeda terrorists. MS-13 HAVE been in talks with terrorists to help smuggle them AND arms into the U.S.!!

-Ray
NRA Life Member
Soli Deo Gloria!!

The DEA is unconstitutional
Prohibition made bootlegging immensely profitable and thus fostered a massive increase in organized crime activity. The same dynamic is true in cases where state and federal laws allow unionism to significantly alter the market, which is why the "illegal cement" analogy is so demonstrably ill-informed. The same dynamic is involved with the illicit drug trade.

But that's beside the point. Prohibition was, at least, constitutional. It was recognized as obvious at the time - as it is - that for the federal government to exercise power to conrol substances that it had to be added to a Constitution that otherwise contained no provision for such activity. As in so many other cases, the DEA is just an example of the government doing whatever it pleases, the Constitution be damned.

the engineer
With respect, why the diatribe against conservatives in reference to this article? As near as I could tell, these acts were not perpertrated by conservatives, although some of the DEA agents may have been, and there is an equal chance that some of the agents were liberals also. My point is, it seems that you are infering things in this article that weren't said. Now, having said that, I can't disagree with the sentiment of the posters. It's a slippery slope when you start regulating what we can put in our bodies.

It's not complicated
We have a government that interferes with what people do to themselves. Why then, is anyone surprised (Jim Cramer et. al.) that the government is interfering with peaceful transactions between willing participants? I no more intend to take marijuana than I intend to become a banker. But neither do I want anyone to interfere with either activity on my behalf. That goes double for government, and ten-fold for the federal government.

Legalize it
People are to get pot if they want it, whether it is legal or not. It is relatively easy to find. Why not tax and regulate it rather then let a criminal element profit from it.

Ummm...excuse me
Tax the weed? Issue limited licenses? Wouldn't that imply that the government owns the plants? How did they manage that?
Who decides who gets a permit? Big Ag?
Wouldn't that imply the government is socialist? ie."public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods..." Are we now advocating socialism, hmmm?
Maybe we should issue permits and regulations for fruit and tomatoes too? Oh that's right-we do. Maybe we should get the EPA to write rules and regulations on what defines toilet paper?
Oh-I forgot-we do that too. -But we aren't socialists-yet (huh?)

How in the world do men get to decide what plants are good and what plants are bad? Tell me please. Where do these ideas come from?

Maybe we should regulate whether women can get 'Brazilian' bikini waxes too, huh? (but we can't regulate her uterus)...
Maybe we should regulate how many miles you can drive your car? Oh-that'll never happen.
Of course-since you have to get a license to drive your car and you have to register your car and display a license on it, and insure it, and submit it for 'safety' testing you can bet your last nickel they can do whatever they want with 'your' car.

BTW-Nixon didn't start the war on drugs he just ratcheted it up...
The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 started it.

Maybe, just maybe we're all slaves and we're just afraid to admit it?
After all-they have a lien on your wages and income?
Doesn't that imply they own your labor?
Wouldn't that make them the master?

Happy now?



If you know where to go
you can get pot for free. It grows wild all over this country.

There is regulation on ALL farming!!
From wheat to mushrooms we tax and regulate all agriculture now. I would rather see a cottage industry of pot growers who self-regulate and manage their product. Of course indoor family farms make more sense since you can have some safety from "snippers" helping themselves and outright thieves stealing whole plants and selling it in schoolyards.

ONCE you get the week sold through legal venues such as liquor stores and pharmacies you can legitimately target ANYONE selling on the street as an illegal vendor and fine them seriously.

-Ray
NRA Life Member
Soli Deo Gloria!!

While I agree with the point of...
the article, there is more to be considered.

Mr. Stossel made this statement:
"Adults should be free to ingest whatever they want, knowing they are responsible for their actions."

Ahh, but were that true in THESE United States. You see, the modern liberal has seen fit to engage the government in nearly all facets of our fair citizens lives. That means that you really are not longer responsible for your actions. People are screwing up their lives all the time and we, the taxpayer, step in via big gubment to bail them out.

Whether it be inability to pay your mortgage or too doggone lazy to work so you get food and housing allowances, there are millions of "Americans" demanding that someone else take care of them. I would love to see the war on drugs end, but only AFTER the liberals war on capitalism and the taxpayer ends FIRST!

Tod Kozeluh
Lexington, KY

A few thoughts
Legalizing drug use won't stop illegal sales. If it has an age restriction then there will still be an illicit market.

Most states have made smoking illegal in all but private homes and they are working on that. Tobacco is heavily taxed yet we are told the ill effects out weight the tax revenue. You can't have it both ways.

How much will it cost the taxpayers once liberals decide that our drug dependent public needs healthcare and assistance because they are too stoned to work. Liberals would like nothing better than a easily controlled drug addicted population. See opium wars, China.

Trail lawyers will love having a new manufacturer to sue for manipulating THC levels, although, I'm certain that they will find any negative effect that may have been overlooked by medical science.

While I agree in principle with the concept that freedom grants choice, this can't work in a society that has abandoned personal responsibility.

Lastly, am I really expected to believe the Melissa Etheridge just discovered marijuana after chemotherapy?

BTW, John, you really ought to write these stories BEFORE you smoke that blunt.


Chris, if I may, I'll take a shot ...
at answering for TheEngineer. I think he was taking a stab at some of us social conservatives who use laws to foist our faith upon society. Many of my Christian brethren feel it their duty to try to save people from themselves via legislation. In reality, that's Jesus' job and He's only going to do it by changing someones heart.

I hope I at least got close to what TheEngineer was referring to.

Tod Kozeluh
Lexington, KY

Prohibition leads to gun crime
which then gives politicians an excuse to confiscate and ban guns. Just look at the current misinformation coming from the Mexican drug wars which has brought about a new call for more gun control. Wake up people !

I saw this story on ABC
the other night and it really ticked me off. Once again, the imperialist federal government has usurped power from the states, and prosecuted someone for something that California says is legal. The mayor, city counsel and police department knew Charlie Lynch was selling medical marijuana and thought it was a benefit to the commumity. Apparently the county sherrif didn't agree. The fact that Charlie's attorneys were not allowed to disclose in the federal court trial that what Charlie was doing was legal in California shows that the judicial system is broken. Judges can manipulate what evidence is allowed to be presented and that affects the outcome. That is cr@p.
Charlie Lynch's prosecution is a travesty. The federal prosecutors who pursued this should lose their jobs. Please write your Congressmen and the President and demand that Charlie be pardoned and his record cleared He should also be compensated for his expenses and loss of income.
By the way, in my humble opinion, we are losing the war on drugs. As long as there is a demand, there will always be a supply, legal or not. Until we can either kill off or educate those that use the stuff, there will always be someone to supply it. Medical use of marijuna should be legal.

Human nature
Dear Mr. Stossel
The best way to understand conservative thinking has always been to understand human nature. We are creatures who are always being pulled one way or another in any situation, which the true conservative understands, then he usually leans towards the harder and simpler solution,knowing it's the right way to go. This surrender,(I can't think of it as anything else) has me perplexed. If we learned anything in Iraq it would be a surge, not surrender, that can lead the way to a solution.
Can you imagine what would happen to this country if illegal drugs were made more readily available to the millions who would become quickly addicted? Do you suppose for one moment that our government could possibly make this work? Can you see the millions of man hours lost at jobs, families destroyed, and tragic rise in crime?
I'm sensing a very Libertarian pull from you in this essay from you. I do believe that we do have rights to do what we want with our bodies. But to ignore human nature and pretend that things will get better is quite, 'liberal' of you. Perhaps you should sit in on a couple of sessions of Congress and get a refresher course in the follies of human nature.

Frog
Ah, gotcha. To continue my thought on the slippery slope, I think the knee-jerk reaction of people is that, well "Drugs are bad, mmkay?" And I agree with that statement. However, so is saturated fat. So is cholesterol. So are cigarettes, alcohol, red meat, butter, and sugar. Do you see where I'm going with this? Where's the line? Where do we say "well, this is bad for you and you can't use it, this is bad for you, but you can use it."? I will never use drugs, and will encourage my kids to avoid it. But why do I need government regulation to tell me it's bad?

Chris, instead of risking ...
a really long post, I tried to keep it short. I agree with you. I don't want government regualating every facet of my life. I agree with the libertarian view of limited government (but not NO government!). I have no problem with decriminalization or even legalization of many drugs. I agree with some of Stossels previous articles like me being able to sell a kidney if I want to. But as I stated earlier, to do so, we must remove the safety net/hammock that is the result of all our social programs.

Tod Kozeluh
Lexington, KY

I agree
To tell an adult what they can and cannot ingest is silly. Don't even get me started on Smoking laws--and I don't even smoke!

And the story presented here, of the man selling medical marijuana, is appalling--not that he was selling it, but the way he was treated.

BUT---when I think of drugs, and pot, being legalized for adult use---i get a little nervous. Why? Because I have children--teens and young adults. Yes, they stay away from drugs. And yes, they understand the dangers. But if you lift the laws, it's a given that the increase in young adults using drugs will increase dramatically--to be followed by increased drug addictions and death.

As a society we barely tolerate drinking laws--and kids ignore them. We argue over driving ages. How would you set up a law for drug use?

As soon as you do, the floodgates will open, and kids will go crazy with the newfound "freedom."

Skywalker...
You must have been confused when you wrote this,
"Until we can either kill off or educate those that use the stuff..."

Have you not heard...
Genesis 1:29-31
And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. 30 And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so. 31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

And yet, you want me to believe that Politicians know what constitutes a bad plant?

Gen. 2:17
"17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

Deut. 5:11
'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain."

Happy Now?

Accountablity??
Once again John gets it all wrong. The article sounds resonabile up until his final point. Are people going to be held accountable? In this country? In this day and age? Of course not. Anybody hear about the lady crashing into cars, but it was not her fault, she was taking prescribed Ambien. She will get a free pass. So will those taking prescribed weed or other drugs. I know a lot of people want to be able to take what ever drugs they want, then when they are out of control and kill my family members, they can get off with a warning because they are not considered responsible for their actions. These drugs are bad and should not be in the general population. Get over it.

verbivore
I do see you're point, and I've thought the same thing. But it all comes back to what do we regulate, how much do we regulate, and who decides to do the regulating. Right now, We The People seem to have absolutely no say in any of that. And that's what is making me nervous. Ultimately, I believe it's going to have to come down to the parent to put their kids on the right path and trust that they'll stay there. And if they stray, well, it'll be up the to parent to deal with it. Unfortunately, there's no easy answer.

Mark
Alcohol is legal in this country, yet it's illegal to drive drunk. The same laws would apply here also.

Verbivore, your concerns are normal, but
they are easy to answer. Once the stigma and "coolness" of drugs are removed, you will find that reasonable people will either use recreational drugs in a limited fashion or not at all. The losers will be losers whether or not they use drugs, they are illegal and they use them or any other permiatation you wish to think of. Once you discover that using drugs or abusing them adversly affects your life (limited job advancement, stupid accidents, etc), reasonable people will alter their behavior to come to a balance in their life of use and standard of living. Unreasonable people are unreasonable no matter the circumstances.

AnnRkey
No, drug lords specialize in drugs. The illegal alcohol is supplied by parents, convenience store clerks and older friends and siblings.

Weren't you ever young?

If it ain't broke don't fix it.
For the three people in the world who cannot see that our drug system is broken, I advise them to stay the course.

BTW, what are our exit strategies from the quagmires of the Wars on Drugs and Poverty?

Legalizing drugs woudl be a disaster
But with all the gangs pushing the hard stuff and killing anyone in their way, it makes no sense to go after people like Charlie.

All we hear is that the police don't have the manpower to go after the crimminals yet they always have the man power to go after the little guy.

Honesty
The fallacy of "medical marijuana" is the same as kids drinking socially. Distilling alcohol and brewing your own beer is time consuming and costly, hence regulating sales and taxes on it is measurable and unchallenged. However, why would anyone pay taxes on legal marijuana when they could grow it themselves with little inconvenience. So the tax and make it legal argument is totally dishonest.
What alcohol, tobacco,and addictive drug use costs EVERYONE annually is staggering -- 1 in every 4 hospital beds for alcohol alone . . .so stop with the idea that addiction is victimless. Families are destroyed, deaths and injuries are all preventable under the influence, and the idea that ONLY smoked marijuana can ease discomfort and ONLY cancer patients or those with wasting diseases will use medical marijuana is totally dishonest.

Addiction
Please explain why people understand that the circuitry of their computer is damaged by spilling any substance on it, but don't respect that ingesting mind altering substances that collect in the brain (THC, THIQ)has consequences as well? Your computer is as primitive as sledgehammer compared to your brain. The argument that adults should be able to do what they want to is specious -- there is a public price tag for repairing the damage done by addiction not to mention the collective impact on society. The "forbidden fruit" theory implies being able to use and control mind altering, addictive substances without consequences -- that's called DENIAL

Kids
Stossel, Its the people growing up we should be concerned with. I don't want my grandchildren getting reefers from the corner convenience market. We kill 20,000 per year on our highways
due to the drug alcohol. Many of those are young that cant handle it.

drugs for good
I say legelize drugs. The trolls will stay to stoned to vote and real Americans can take the country back.

Karen
Yes, those are the results of irresponsible people, but we are supposedly a society where you're innocent until proven guilty. Making something illegal, creating a regulation, placing hard-line laws on certain things (like blood alcohol levels which are not even consistent across states nor are they consistent with individual inebriation) violates this.

Furthermore, the violence that is created by any prohibition of the substances far outweighs the life lost caused by irresponsible users. Can you argue that marijuana use has killed 7,000 people like in Mexico last year due to drug wars over the substance, wars caused by the legal status in America? Pot doesn't kill that many people, directly or indirectly, in 10 years, let alone one.

Don't treat people like criminals without the commission of a crime. We can't punish a person until AFTER they've caused harm to another. Mr. Lynch and his customers have done no such thing. If they had, only that person can be punshed and only for whatever crime was committed.

Amazing...
The reason the police go after the 'little-guy' is simple:
The war on drugs is not about stopping drug trade. It is about generating revenue through fines. It is about creating jobs (police, administrative, prisons, construction, ad nauseum) and generating new sources of tax revenue. It is about expanding the power of the police and the state. It's about power and control.

The only reason drugs, "cost everyone" is because the state believes it has the power, the right and the authority to interfere in the health care industry, through the public health and safety mantra.
Otherwise, whatever happened to personal responsibility?

What is the difference between an illegal drug and a legal drug?
Answer: Who makes it, who sells it, and who dispenses it. Nothing more nothing less. And guess who legally does it? The State. The state issues licenses, permits and all regulations related thereto.

So then, the state controls the production, the manufacturing, and the distribution. That makes us socialists.

But aren't we always told, "We aren't socialist-yet."
This crap has been going on since 1906.

Good grief- you people are ignorant.

Happy Now?

Justin
If the law says that using a substance is illegal -- you have committed a crime if you possess or use the substance -- age 21 for alcohol purchase and possession in all states since 1987 -- 18 for cigarettes . . .the law doesn't say anything about having caused harm to another . . .so, being denied marijuana or other drugs is a form of punishment?

As for the variation in BAC levels, almost all states have .08 and the remaining ones are higher. Impairment can be measured at lower levels as well so to argue that somehow a crime is committed only if someone else is harmed doesn't even make sense -- not obeying the law is the crime -- running a stop sign without hurting anyone is still breaking the law . . .

Fascism
Once we allow enough "reasonable" government regulations on our activities, we have fascism.

bud
Effects of Prohibition in the 1920s:

Drunk Driving Deaths: Increased 81%
Thefts and Burglaries: Increased 9%
Homicide: Increased 13%
Prison Population: Increased 366%
Federal Expenditure on Prisons: Increased 1,000%
Annual Average Law Enforcement Cost Increase: $114 million (a lot of money back then)

The simple fact is, your attempts to prohibit illicit substances, as evidenced by alcohol prohibition in the 1920s, has the exact opposite effect of what you want. Prohibiting alcohol nearly doubled drunk driving deaths in America and killed 13% more people due to murder.

Legalizing drugs can halve the deaths related to drugs in any given year. Most of those deaths are kids. So, wouldn't you agree that legalizing drugs is beneficial for the kids as you'll now cut their death toll in half in America?

Karen
Until you drop the straw men argument (your stop sign argument), I will no longer discuss this with you as you're not a rational debater.

my two cents
Stossel is right; prohibition causes more problems than it purports to alleviate.

Republicans and conservatives are hypocritical to complain about tobacco smoking laws (among others) as privacy and property rights violations while at the same time supporting anti-marijuana laws.

Democrats and liberals are hypcrites for supporting drug legalization laws while trying to ban everything else under the sun. But let's face it, liberals don't care about being hypocrites because they're demented or idealogically naive to start with. Thank God some of them (many of us I'm sure) grow out of it.

Liberal movers like George Soros DO support drug legalization BECAUSE they like the idea of a drugged and easily manipulated public.

A great many people who would vote conservative over issues related to respect of the Constitution and Bill of Rights vote for jackasses like B.O. because of their stance on
marijuana issues (I know young people who smoke weed and are members of the NRA. Guess where their admittedly skewed and short sighted priorities lie).

People will behave how they want regardless of government attempts to stifle that behavior. How can any conservative justify depriving someone of their liberty for growing and or ingesting a product of nature? That's just dumb; which is not to say that refined drugs like opium, heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine et. al. should be legal, or their use encouraged in any way shape or form, but there should be a rational line somewhere between drugs of that nature that cause real harm, and a drug like pot which is far more benign than alcohol.

Mark was right on....
I agree with most of Mr. Stossel's article, but I do take issue with the last paragraph. Taking responsibility for one's actions today is so 50's values.

The government pays people who have become infirm due to drug and alcohol use. To be responsible for one's actions means to take one's lumps for choices and actions, and today, that isn't about to happen.

Just on example: Look at the people who were given government home loans via AIG. The gubmint is now planning to rescue them from their "bad" decision to buy a home they couldn't afford in the first place.

No sir, taking responsibility for one's actions isn't about to become a cultural value again in this country. Legalize drugs and it will become fodder for Democrats who will demand the addicts be paid for their "suffering". They'll get a loyal vote during election time, and the stoners will get their financing.

WOD is DOA
The War on Drugs has taken up TOO MUCH of the DEA’s time and OUR money and has done little good. Legalize ALL of it, Tax & Regulate ALL of it, EXEMPT ALL OF IT from wrongful death lawsuits and include tobacco in the legislation. Have HARSH penalties for selling ANY OF IT to minors and GET THE H311 out of the way. Legalization CUTS THE THROAT of Drug Dealers by taking the profit motive out of it and the taxes and fee open a new revenue stream. Besides which, the death of ANYONE who is STUPID ENOUGH to drink, smoke, shoot or snort themselves to death is addition by subtraction.

Parker
The FDA, not the states, regulate the production and licensing of drugs. Not all drugs are pychotropic or mind altering so all drugs are not equal. The chemically addictive drugs are "controlled substances." To imply that drug laws are just fee generating instruments is preposterous. FACT: Age 21 drinking laws save lives and reduced the number of underage fatalities by 49% FACT: Before the enforcement of BAC per se laws fatalities on the highways were 55,000 every two years . . .
FACT:Prohibition reduced health consequences of alcohol by 50% -- not bad for a "failed" policy which was implemented actually to conserve the grain for the war effort -- unintended consequence was bootlegging, but how else could Joe Kennedy have amassed his fortune??

J-10
Did you see my book recommendation yesterday?

You can't go wrong ..
basing ALL laws on the respect for individual liberty. Restore individual accountability and responsibility, and get the H - E - double tooth picks out of the way!

Tod Kozeluh
Lexington, KY

Justin
Your ad hominem proves my point . . .you don't understand law enforcement. You were suggesting that a person who breaks the law is only guilty if someone is harmed . . .my mistake was thinking you were capable of understanding that you don't break laws you don't agree with.

Marijuana as a stepping stone drug.
I've always heard people argue that marijuana has to be banned because it's a stepping stone to harder drugs. I agree that its a stepping stone, but draw the opposite conclusion.

A large percentage of the population (including the last few presidents) has at some point tried marijuana. Society appears to have judged marijuana as not that big a deal. So as a somewhat "socially accepted" illegal drug, pot fills a gap midway between alcohol (socially acceptable/legal) and hard drugs (socially unacceptable/illegal).

I believe that if we legalize marijuana, we can actually reduce it's role as a "stepping stone" drug. By moving marijauna into the same camp as alcohol, we widen gap between the socially accepted drugs and the unaccepted & illegal ones. Result: less people making the jump.

Does this make sense to anyone else but me?


Legalizing drugs at a cost
Legalizing elicit drugs would do a few more things too:
(1) Vastly increase its use/market share. Post-prohibition alcohol use in America is enormously higher than during prohibition (note-- I'm not advocating alcohol prohibition, just making a point).
(2) The incidence of alcohol-related death and disability decreased during prohibition. Now we have estimates of 50,000 alcohol-related traffic fatalities yearly and the vast majority of motor vehicle accidents after midnight are alcohol related. Imagine adding the rest of the drug buffet to that.
(3) Look at the situation with fetal alcohol syndrome -- two of our foster daughters were affected, so it is personal. Imagine that level of prevalence for meth babies, heroine babies, and so forth. The neonatal intensive care bill would be staggering, not to mention other costs thereafter.
(4) The drug crime rate would go down. Why wouldn't it? Use and sales would no longer be crimes. Similarly, legalizing theft, forgery and perjury -- all potentially nonviolent offenses-- would make the crime rate plummet. Legalizing something just means it no longer counts as an infraction, it does not mean the results improve.

Justin
Before you go throwing around statistics related to prohibition check what they really mean . . . how many people do you think owned vehicles in 1920? Citing 81% is dishonest . . .you imply it was a staggering number of deaths . . . you didn't cite the improved health benefits and reduced numbers in domestic violence . . .shame on you. You are just plain wrong about the percentage of youth fatalities related to DWI. Go to the NHTSA website and do some homework before posting irresponsible opinions

Join Stop the Spending grp on Facebook
Congress and Obama are about to bankrupt our country!

Help spread the word to your friends by joining the Stop the Spending group on Facebook!

Connect with others and find links to take action.

Join the group today!

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=54031821902

Stossel a Bit TOO Libertarian
I have to wonder if the active ingredients were available in pill form without the "high" would these people be interested in using the drug then to avoid "side effects" of chemo? I have considerable doubt about that! As for the "side effects", what the hell, millions have had to go thru it and managed to handle it ... toughen up ... everybody wants to never have to face reality!

Spare me the whining about Charlie's sad fate ... Charlie knew damn well the feds intended to enforce the law and made a bad CHOICE! Weed is a gateway drug and it is NOT the business of this country to allow people to fry their brains ... and then have the taxpayers pick up the pieces as we surely would be compelled to do in the name of "compassion", not to mention the societal damages caused by millions of slackers!

"The war on drugs is idiotic. It deters few, drives drug use underground -- making it more dangerous -- and creates horrible crime."

So, what's the answer, Stossel ... making any kind of drug available didn't work out that well when tried. As for the crime ... it's once again, CHOICES made by people inclined to be evil [see Mexico's drug cartels] ... and the USERS are abetting it, but they don't give a damn except for their own artificial gratification! It's NOT the people wanting to restrict these poisons from the general population who are at fault here!

"Adults should be free to ingest whatever they want, knowing they are responsible for their actions." The problem is, THEY are NOT responsible, and WE become responsible for their actions and the effects it has on their families, neighbors, and civilization! Ever seen people who are doing moderate drugs [I have] ... THEY ARE DYSFUNCTIONAL but it's not always obvious right away!

Karen...
The 'state' is the government. I wasn't suggesting it was only an individual state although I do believe it should be a state issue.

Being a Jew was against the law too. So if you want to make silly arguments about the infallibility of 'the law' go ahead.

"Wir waren gerade folgende Ordnungen."

And I suppose when marijuana was re-classified as a narcotic, it had nothing to do with William Randolph Hearst protecting his vast tree farms used in the production of paper, in response to a patent filing for paper production from hemp? Oh no, that would never happen. It was all due to Public Health and Safety. -I am sure.

Since the FDA regulates the manufacture and distribution of drugs, shouldn't the FDA be liable for their property? Or would that be like making 'the king' responsible for his deer when they run into someone's car? You know -the king-
The king who pretends to own the deer. The king who issues licenses to shoot his deer. The king who protects the deer. The king who lets his deer roam the forests, your backyard and the highways. You know-the king who wants all the benefits of owning and regulating the deer but none of the responsibility-that king.

It's still fascism whether you believe it or not.

Happy Now?

Butt out, Feds
Marijuana contains more carcinogens than tobacco and they are 5 to 7 times stronger. It dimishes the learning curve and freezes the intelectual level. Seventy(70) to Eighty (80) percent of the THC will remain in the smokers brain for the rest of their life. It creates a coating around the receptor site in the brain and depletes the natural cannabinol (nuerotransmitter) in the brain. Isn't it interesting when our young people say "Hey man, let's go get stupid and smoke a little weed". Well, they are going to stay stupid. Marijuana changes brain function and can create genetic mutations. This is treatment??? No it's called getting high and that is the only reason people use this drug. We failed to learn from alcohol and the mean age for drinking is now as young as eleven (11). Americans have become hoplessly and helplessly stupid. We live in a "man centered" culture and it's only about maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. We live in the greatest country in the world, or we used to and the best we can offer a cancer patient for chemotherapy nausea is to smoke a cancer causing drug that will make them stupid. Mr. Stossel says "Adults should be free to injest whatever they want, knowing they are responsible for their actions". That means it must be ok for the kids because if it is good enough for Mom and Dad it should be good enough for their kids! The "pot heads" can relax though because the great president of change will instruct the new head of the DEA to disregard the Constitution and cease enforcing Federal Law in California.

The war on drugs is ludicrous
or the war on marijuana is ludicrous. What about cocaine and heroin?
Heck Americans do not give a sh-t about anything now so why not smoke pot and become even better. We'll be great competitors in the world markets. Yes, marijauna is our solution to everything. Forget stimulus. Who needs stimulus. We'll pot our way into prosperity.

I do believe and have seen
for myself that the government would prefer to keep the poor on drugs. Then they are fined and the government has a steady income. They hand out welfare bucks and get the bucks right back. The poor never grow dissatisfied because they are high.

Parker
Was it really worth chewing through your retraints to post such an inane response? You obviously missed meds this morning --

These high inner- city people
are then driven in bus loads to the polls. To keep which party in power?

Theres is nothing...
In the event that drugs of any kind were to become legal, there would be nothing to prevent employers from refusing to hire or even firing employees who either fail or refuse to take a drug test. Some employers do not hire tobacco users, and there are no employers whose work force is allowed to drink alcohol on the job (except maybe the brewmasters).

In the case of medical marijuana: So what? Even if it's even just a placebo, what's the harm? We let people sell colon cleansers and and horny goat weed when a salad and a lingerie catalog will do.

I say blaze up, America! And don't bogart that thing!

Yessiree bob-
Marijuana does all those bad things to everyone who smokes it..

"It even makes negroes go wild and rape white girls too!" -Reefer Madness

Not so sure about his last sentence....


ingest anything they want? You mean it should be legal to mainline heroin in a public park?

TrueConservative's subject heading was exactly what I was thinking....a bit TOO libertarian...

PS...
If America legalizes drugs, and you suffer from some illness as a result of voluntarily using them, you forego all government assistance - period.

Cancer from smoking weed? To bad. Smoke some more weed to deaden the pain.

Liver dead from chronic heroin use or Hep C? Pick up an extra large fix of el primo smacko and ride the OD train out of town.

Hey, we solved the drug enforcement problem and national healthcare all in one morning? Time for lunch - where are those Twinkies?

Freedom
People who are free "do what they want" and accept the consequences, good and bad, for what they do. One more time. People who are free "do what they want" and accept the consequences, good or bad. If the penalties for bad consequences are sufficient we will be better off than we are now. The drug interdiction, law enforcement is too expensive. Put the DEA guys to work producing something useful.

I Voted Against
Living in CA I voted against the medical marijuana initiative. It seemed to me that it amounted to license for potheads to indulge themselves while everybody else faced asset forfeiture or worse on the basis of unfounded suspicion.

I would have voted for it had it read something like this: "The State of California shall neither make nor enforce nor assist in the enforcement of any law that forbids a licensed physician to prescribe thereapuetic medication
according to his best judgement".

That would have neutralized a lot of the consequences of the current law, IMO. That
could have made some luddite lawmen keep a civil tongue in their heads and leave DEA without any local assistance.

At the federal level, Congress could and should
enact legislation keeping judges from concealing pertinent evidence concerning local legality. And additional legislation to require feds to respect state law in their own activities.

I am no fan of J. Edgar Hoover. But even that unsrupulous empire-builder had enough sense to keep the FBI from becoming narcs. And I have noticed that, as a class, seasoned officers do their best to avoid that kind of duty. 'Nuff said.

Admittedly my proposals here are but half-measures towards establishing a more proper framework of law. However, they just might work a few wonders.

Thought he was going with state's rights
The federal government has no business violating state's rights. As long as this guy's business doesn't bleed over into another state, the federal government should "butt out".

But as far as adopting the libertarian stance of legalizing recreational drug use, no way.
Where conservative and libertarian thinking intersect, I agree. Where liberal and libertarian thinking intersect I strongly disagree. Sorry Mr. Stossel.

Let 'em
Use ALL the DRUGS they want/need. Let 'em all DIE from it. There will be that many LESS Druggies on WELFARE, Makin' MORE Drugg-letts, to go on Welfare. Let the Weak-Minded Croak, and make more Room for Useful Citizens, doing useful Citizen Stuff. They will NEVER Cease to be a DRAG on our Social Programs.--- Retired Correction Officer, 16&1/2 years. I KNOW the GAME

Steve...I like my version better
I removed your caveat regarding drugs.

If you suffer from some illness you forego all government assistance - period.

I say do it the old-fashioned way.
Let your family and friends take care of you. If you're too expensive to care for, then the big OD could resolve problem and reduce the health care costs, as you suggested.

And I don't think Stossel said, "Injecting drugs intravenously in public places."
I believe he said, "Ingesting whatever with responsibility."
My take on that would mean: Drinking poppy tea in the park is okay.

WOOT!

Chewing through my restraints and missing my meds must have shut Karen up!
Now my teeth hurt...

Happy Now?

Legalize All Drugs
Sell them to adults - heroin (which was patented by Bayer to cure morphine addiction), cocaine, opium, you name it, at CVS, Rite Aid, Walgreens, wherever. Get caught driving, operating machinery, selling to a minor, spend 20 years in prison. Natural selection takes out the dummies. Prisons warehouse the incorrigible. The rest of us get on with our lives without Big Brother in our business and no longer seeing our taxes going down a rathole on the war on drugs.

DEA agents will need to apply to ICE or FBI. Maybe they'll decide that keeping illegal aliens instead of illicit drugs south of the border is a better use of their skills.

I've been sober over 21 years. Prior to getting sober, I had no problem acquiring whatever substance I wanted from the time I was 15. The prospect of getting busted was a nuisance, but not a deterrent. The war on drugs is total failure. If Obama wants to find a place to cut federal spending, I recommend he start there.

Roy in FL
Quick note before I go to work: People are going to compare your #71 to extermination camps. WRONG! WRONGER! WRONGEST!

Leaving people to their own devices is the ONLY humane approach available to the human race.

The nanny state is but the flip side of Auschwitz. It checks people into a deluxe hotel, caters to their every whim, and slowly poisons them with pallatives. If it does not kill them outright, it leaves them in no condition to survive the real world outside their fantasy suite.

That srufulous damnyankee, Abraham Lincoln, had lucid intervals. During one of which he penned a masterful essay on why prohibition destroys temperance. He referred to John Barleycorn, but the principle apples to all other substances as well.

I guess as the zookeeper you have seen more "reptiles" kept alive to harm others than I have. Catch you later.

Karen,

waht war were you talking about?

Also, it is hard to imagine that the incidence of illegal drug use will skyrocket if the drugs are legalized. Nicotine is supposedly the most addictive drug there is and nicotine use has been declinging steadily without outlawing it. Perhaps someone else has some logic that demonstrates that legalizing drugs increase the damages drugs do to people.

Every drug in the world can be used safely when used in moderation.

It is typical nanny-government to try and protect the few by punishing the many.

I am sure that sexual activity outside

of marriage is far more costly to society than the use of all illegal drugs combined.

Also, the costs to society of using illegal drugs is greatly increased by trying to enforce drug laws.

The whole drug war concept was designed to oppress and demean Americans.

What are the damages society suffers from illegal drug use other than those damages caused by the war between the dealers and the law?

Mr. Stossel gets it wrong
The primary problem with marijuana and what distinguishes it from alcohol is that its effects are unquantifiable under current technology. That means that a user can be impaired but that degree of impairment cannot be determined. And that problem creates big issues with liability law.

Mr. Stossel concludes that people should be "free to ingest whatever they want." I disagree in that when you are impaired due to what you've ingested, you pose a threat to the community, and government is forced to intercede.

Our teenage daughter decided to rebel by running away to parties on the weekends. We had three choices. 1. Pretend it wasn't happening, the result of which would be that she would continue until she got tired of it. 2. Approve of the behavior the result of which would be that she would continue until she got tired of it, and 3. take a stand against it, the result of which would be that she would continue until she got tired of it. In the end, the outcome was not as much of an issue as was our responsibility to ourselves as parents. We could not in good conscience either ignore or condone the behavior. The taxpayer's demand for accountability of government puts it in a similar position. Mr. Stossel is suggesting that we ignore the behavior and just pony up and pay the damages for the social and property destruction for the sake of not having to listen to the drug users carp. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that either. Seems like a capitulation.

Illegal for our own good.
Of course legalizing drugs will increase their use. I know that for me, the only reason I don't shoot heroin into my veins is because it is illegal. I'm sure every other American can relate to this.

Geet a Petition
Mr. Stossel:
If you truly believe that street drugs should be legal, then you should do something about it.
Here's what you need to do: Get petitions going, get enough valid signatures on them, and then present them in every state that allows initiative petitions.
OR Find a like-minded member of the House or Senate to introduce a bill legalizing it. Let our representatives vote on it.
OR, you could start the process of amending the constitution. You will a minimum of 3/4 of the states to agree with you.
OR, you should just shut up, and stop flapping your jaw for self-promotion.
I don't happen to agree with you, and I have started a nonprofit to try to do something about this national epidemic of street drugs.
DrugAwarenessAndPrevention.org

Everybody must get stoned.
Let's just go to la la land and pretend we don't have any problems.

Get a Petition
Mr. Stossel:
If you truly believe that street drugs should be legal, then you should do something about it.
Here's what you need to do: Get petitions going, get enough valid signatures on them, and then present them in every state that allows initiative petitions.
OR Find a like-minded member of the House or Senate to introduce a bill legalizing it. Let our representatives vote on it.
OR, you could start the process of amending the constitution. You will a minimum of 3/4 of the states to agree with you.
OR, you should just shut up, and stop flapping your jaw for self-promotion.
I don't happen to agree with you, and I have started a nonprofit to try to do something about this national epidemic of street drugs.
DrugAwarenessAndPrevention.org

Eddie
I'm guessing use of sex on girls goes up with her drug usage. Don't you remember being a stupid teenager?

Oil patch
What does the nanny state have to do with law and order. The nanny state is about $$$$$. Taking care of voters for the Democrat Party.

Drug and Alcohol Tolerance
Terbreugghen writes:

"The primary problem with marijuana and what distinguishes it from alcohol is that its effects are unquantifiable under current technology."

That suggests that we all react to alcohol (and other drugs) in a predictable fashion. That is ridiculous. Everyone over time develops a tolerance to alcohol, which is why hard-core alcoholics are found driving with blood alcohol levels that would be lethal to a non-drinker, and why freshman college students die of alcohol poisoning trying to keep up with their upperclassmen.

My wife is a nurse who administers a lot of palliative care. She tells me that every patient reacts differently to different drugs and different doses, and consequently it often takes a lot of trial and error to find the right dose of the right drug to get the desired result.

So, to suggest that marijuana should be kept out of the hands of consenting adults because it is somehow different in the predictability of its effects compared to other drugs is absurd.

I agree... . Are you for the rights
of the individual or not? People should be free to do what they want as long as they are not infringing on someone else's right to do the same. Plus I don't know how else you're going to kill the supplier's business than to legalize.

Alcohol vs pot
Why do people insist on comparing alcohol to mariujaua. They are two distincly different drugs, with different dangers, they are used entirely differenly and have been regulated for entirely different reasons. Alcohol can impair the brain and other bodily organs, but is gone from one's system in about 24 hours. It was regulated as a tax measure, not to try to limit it's use. It is used to whatever limit the user chooses, as a relaxer, social lubricant, to get a buzz, or to get drunk. Pot on the other hand, was regulated to inhibit it's use, because it alters the user's state of mind by distorting reality. It is used for it's maximum effects, to get as high as possible. It stays in the fatty tissues of user'sfor months to a declining degree, but can damage the brain and the reproductive system in men. Has anyone done a study on all the babies born with mental and health problems to the pot smoking parents of yesteryear since the '60's? And does anyone truly believe that if we legalize marijuana, or any other elicit drug, that it will not increase the use and abuse of that drug? If so, that is truly delusional, or reflects the belief of a person in denial.

state versus fed
this is why marijuana needs to be treated like oxycontin and other narcotics---on a federal level. Legalize it, prescribe its non-smoke form (I do not want to get high because the guy next to me has cancer and needs medicine) or devise a nebulized (bong) form that has a filtration system to prevent second hand smoke. And then regulate it.

Socialists want a federal free for all, but libertarians want a local free for all. There is a balanced, reasonable, middle ground that will address legalizing medical marijuana and will put the DEA out of this particular business.

olderguy - point taken
But in the case of cancer patients - why not give them any relief available? And again, how else are you going to stop the drug war?
I'm sure I'll get jumped on this, but it would be really interesting to see what would happen if we legalized certain drugs. I'd bet money it would be a positive outcome in the not so long run.

Libertarian stance on marijuana
The public assumption that Libertarians want a (local free for all) is a misunderstanding. Libertarian policy is: I should be able to do whatever I want as long as it does not negatively affect some one else. I do not want, or expect, the government to be my nanny.

Prohibition
Prohibition of alcohol didn't work. It just led to an increase in violent crime and a general disregard of the law. The only good thing to come out of prohibition was NASCAR. The government should give up on prohibition of marijuana and start regulating and taxing it like alcohol and tobacco. Punish bad behavior, not simple possession or dealing of substances.

skywalker81
"Once again, the imperialist federal government has usurped power from the states, and prosecuted someone for something that California says is legal."

Unfortunately, federal law trumps state law, and nobody in authority cares much about reserved powers anymore. I'm sure that there are many in California who'd love to declare the state a peace zone and shut down all the naval and military bases. Not even an anti-military administration, e.g., this one, would put up with such effrontery.

I don't have much to say in favor of the War on Drugs. But hundreds of thousands died in the War on the South to establish federal primacy once and for all, and a lot of Southerners still live under the trailing edge of Reconstruction to serve as examples of what happens to the rebellious. I would not have that expensive lesson lost. Californians should be reminded that they're no more exempt from federal law than Virginians are. And anyone dim enough to break a federal law on the say-so of officials in Sacramento probably deserves to have his door kicked in.

Once these lessons have taken hold from coast to coast, we can talk about whether this law or that is just, productive, or sensible.

We're ONLY talking cannabis here!!!!
Heroin has NO place on the street or in stores. Nor does cocaine, meth, morphine, or any of the many hallucinogens.

Cannabis HAS legitimate medical uses AND the average "head" is less likely to think he can drive better stoned than a boozer who OFTEN thinks he drives better drunk.

DUI is still DUI so ENFORCE THE LAW THERE but get out of the pot business. Spend the savings fighting the cheap Mexican Brown flowing over the border or the Asian heroin coming in like the dam's broken.

-Ray
NRA Life Member
Soli Deo Gloria!!

Responsibility?
Adults should be free to ingest whatever they want, knowing they are responsible for their actions.

Surely you jest. Since when is anyone responsible for their actions? Don't you know that anything that happens to me is somebody else's fault? Don't you know that if I mess up my own body through drinking myself silly or drugging myself silly that it is society's responsibility to fix me?

I would agree with you if the drunk/doper could not hide behind the "I did not know what I was doing" excuse. I would agree with you if the drunk/doper could not hide behind the "I had a rough childhood" excuse. I would agree with you if the drunk/doper were held responsible for both their actions and the damage they cause while under the influence. Unfortunately, not even stone cold sober criminals are held to this standard. Those of us (taxpayers) who pay for the societal damage are expected to not only pay up, but feel good about doing so.

Legislating Morality
I always thought the dumbest thing a leader could do was to give an order, or in this case, make a law, that he or she knows can ever be truly enforced. Not only does it make lawbreakers of many, it eases the stigma of violating other laws.
I spent quite a while down south observing the absolute futility of the "war on drugs." We can't stop it, plus we are making criminals of people whose only crime is being stupid. No legislation in the world can prevent stupid people from doing stupid things. I think our money would be far better spent on rehabilitation and education.
Two Cents

Decriminalize
Personally, I think all substances should be decriminalized. The anti-legalization people on this thread talk about peoples' brains being compromised from drug use. I say more than 50% of the voters in the last election were stupid enough to vote in a Marxist pushing for a socialist form of government. What's somebody getting a little high going to do that's worse than that? Every society is composed of mostly idiots. Even idiots have a right to injest anything they want. It's that pesky "life,liberty,and pursuit of happiness" thing that gets in the way of the DEA and supporters of their assinine policies....

Great Column Stossel
Once again Stossel gets it right. Good work and thanks for all you do on 20/20.


The problem with Legalization
Is not that it would be legal. I do not care what you do to yourself. What I care about is having to subsidize your health care. I care about the possibility that I might not be able to fire you due to your "disability" or some other nonsense. You can have the right to your drugs only if I can have the corresponding right to treat you as the fool you are. You should have no right to my money to deal with your problems. Liberal is bad. Libertarian is good - just so it goes both ways.

Good column John
Also, a lot of good comments here.

Question for Mr. Stossel. If it hasn't occurred to you, would you please check and see what law enforcement agency would have benefited financially from this conviction? My bet would be the sheriff's office. Perhaps if the asset forfeiture laws were extended to violent crimes like murder, we would see more law enforcement efforts in that area. Sheriff Hedges probably wanted a new cruiser or maybe some nicer furniture for the office.

Cons/Libs or Indiv/Collectivist
Reading all these comments makes me wonder how either a conservative or a liberal can function. Cognitive dissonance can be debilitating. How can a liberal be FOR individual freedom when it comes to privacy of phone conversations yet AGAINST individual freedom when it comes to property rights.

On the other hand, how can a conservative be FOR individual freedom when it comes to gun ownership yet AGAINST individual freedom when it comes to marijuana?

The real continuum is individualist/collectivist. Libertarianism is the only political philosophy that can place themselves 100% on that continuum. The rest of you are some odd mix.

Right on Pro from Dover
The war on "drugs" is a money play by law enforcement.

And those of you making an argument against legalization because you have to pay the drug users medical bills really have your heads up your you know what. Remember, two wrongs don't make a right?

You should be fighting to change the first wrong. No one is responsible for another's poor choices, period.

These stupid arguments are another good example of why the GOP is a goner.




So, then what about this...
"Adults should be free to ingest whatever they want, knowing they are responsible for their actions." - John Stossel

Agree'd. So what about this: http://nfpa.typepad.com/firesafecigarettes/
(you may have to type in the above link, as it has no www, PLEASE do)

On the same subject, are you aware of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTXZVCOM0Y

And on the same subject, please help out with this: http://thepetitionsite.com/1/repeal-fire-safe-cigarette-la ws

This, same subject, should be brought to public attention, please,: http://www.newscientist.com/commenting/browse?id=dn3192

Dear Mr.Stossel and all readers, please help.

Thad Bouchelle

Oh, my...
All but one of the links I offered must be typed in. I wish that wasn't the case, but PLEASE take the time. HELP.

Thank you, Thad

Decriminalize and DO NOT TAX!
I think drug laws that restrict what anyone can put in their body are nuts. However, I am shocked by the number of people who also think that drugs, in this case plants, should be regulated and taxed! WHY?

Because you are all trying to bargain with the statists who believe they know what is best for you and who see everything as an opportunity to insert government and make money. It's liberal-light! This is NOT conservatism. I wouldn't give ONE INCH to government to have ANYTHING to do with a plant I could grow in my own backyard. What if all those regulations and taxes came into being? How much will MJ cost? Oh, yeah it'll be cheap----NOT! And why would you think growing it wouldn't be restricted to "medical" or "pharmaceutical" companies? Get a grip people! Tell everyone to "decriminalize" and not legalize pot and that you won't pay one red cent in taxes!

Eddie to John
I was addicted to cigarettes by the Federal Government. After the Federal Government got me hooked on this dangerous drug that kills TRILLIONS of Americans every second of everyday (Al Gore Syndrome),then the Federal Government told the American People to hate me and to blame me for all their illnesses. You would think the Federal Government had punished me enough after not allowing me to smoke in the City/State I pay taxes in, but now they treat me like an AIG Executive and tax me at 90% on the way to 100%.
Being "The Poor" this has inflicted a higher level of emotional and physical stress, and depression on me, and the side effects of Prozac is worst than smoking the Cigarette. All Poor American Smokers experience the exact same effects. So can your next article be about me. If you can sympathize with those of us who need Marijuna Cigarette to deal with the side effects of their condition,surely you can sympathize with those of us who need to smoke a cigarettes to deal with the side effects of being an American after November 4th or being the President. Cigarettes are legal in all 57 States.

Hitchhiker
Asset forfeiture is where you can't tell the difference between the cops and the robbers.


To Eddie
Here you go Eddie to help you understand Prohibition was more than trying to stop drinking:
1917 - The US Senate passes the Volstead Act on December 18th which is one of the significant steps to the passage of the 18th amendment.

1918 - The War Time Prohibition Act is passed to save grain for the war effort during World War I.

1919 - On October 28th the Volstead Act passes the US Congress and establishes the enforcement of prohibition.

1919 - On January 29th, the 18th amendment is ratified by 36 states and goes into effect on the federal level.

1920's - The rise of bootleggers such as Al Capone in Chicago highlight the darker side of prohibition.

1929 - Elliot Ness begins in earnest to tackle violators of prohibition and Al Capone's gang in Chicago.

1932 - On August 11th, Herbert Hoover gave an acceptance speech for the Republican presidential nomination for president in which he discussed the ills of prohibition and the need for its end.

1933 - On March 23rd, Franklin D. Roosevelt signs the Cullen-Harrison Act which legalizes the manufacture and sale of certain alcohol.

1933 - On December 5th, prohibition is repealed with the 21st amendment.


It's a Health Issue Parker
Drug use is a HEALTH issue NOT a moral issue. Drug Laws are enacted because people are basically uninformed about the consequences of using addictive substances. You do not have the right to impair someone else's health by smoking in public and subjecting others to secondhand smoke -- you have the right to become addicted but you don't have the right to ask anyone else to pay for your health care -- again -- people who are addicted are not "bad" -- they are sick and recovery is never easy -- NHTSA is currently collecting information on the number of fatalies on our highways that show marijuana was a contributing (amazing, people who use one drug usually combine drugs. Alcohol and marijuana are frequently ingested together). I've spent 30 years in the prevention field and find comparing Hitler's annihilation of the Jews as an argument for ignoring Federal laws prohibiting the use the marijuana except in those states who buy the "it's the ONLY way to ease my pain" argument incomprehensible . . .please do some homework, some research and if you want to smoke own the consequences . . .just don't ask the public to pay for your health care.

Stossel
Please study Libertarian philosophy before you write uninformed op-ed pieces -- there are health consequences to using marijuana -- one you might be interested in is testicular cancer. You have the right to be stupid and to remain stupid, but when you express yourself and it influences others, you really should know what you are writing about. Very disappointing.

Karen on Libertarianism
quoth Karen of TX: "Stossel, Please study Libertarian philosophy before you write uninformed op-ed pieces"

He has, and his op-ed piece is exactly in line with Libertarian philosophy.


"-- there are health consequences to using marijuana -- "

So what?

There are health consequences in smoking cigarettes, eating fatty food, watchin TV without exercise, jumping out of airplanes, and driving automobiles.

Where in the Constitution is any government agency authorized to outlaw any of those activities based on their health consequences?

Karen - Irrational?
It should be obvious to anyone reading Karen's comments that she thinks emotionally -- not that there is anything necessarily wrong with that. I just don't like to see irrational people voting and making laws.

Karen, I'm not trying to be unkind. See if you can construct a logical syllogism that supports a single point you have made.

Your arguments with Stossel bring to mind the dialogue between Gene Hackman and Clint Eastwood in The Unforgiven. After Eastwood shoots the bar owner, Little Bill (Hackman) says to Eastwood "You just shot an unarmed man" to which Eastwood replied "Well, he should have armed himself."

Next time you want to argue with one of Stossel's columns, you should arm yourself.

Karen...
Nowhere did I ever ask or call for others to pay for health care. I am not a fascist/socialist. In fact, I do not subscribe to the concept at all. I personally believe the government has no right, no authority, and no legitimate power to force anyone to subsidize someone elses health care. I would strongly suggest to you there is a far larger drain on 'health-care' due to elderly people and their modern-day delusion of living forever; their lazy no good children, and family who dump them at some long-term facility for everyone else to pay for rather than drugs. If, as you say, I have a "'right' to get addicted..." do I not also have the right to provide myself the addictive substance without molestation? Yet in your convoluted fascist world I should be denied that right. How so?

Furthermore, if you could read and comprehend, you would know I was not comparing drug laws to the Holocaust. I was making an analogy between the nonsense you spew regarding 'the law' most notably your inane remark regarding running a stop sign when no one is looking. Law Enforcement routinely uses the same excuse as the Nazi's; It's the law! I'm just doing my job. Just like the jurors excused their role in convicting someone rather than judge the law, which is every jurors right.

I repeat My original question: Where does the 'state' get the idea it owns all the plants? By what authority do politicians declare some bad and others not? If we subscribe to legal theories such as this, there is no limit to man's power to legitimize tyranny.

Happy Now?

Get your bubble wrap here!!!!
THAT'S what the statists want to do, put us all in bubble wrap "for our own good". It's the same with kids. NO contact sports. No. Play T-ball and don't keep score it hurts the losers' self-esteem. Bullocks!!! Kids ALWAYS keep score even if they don't tell you. It's human nature.

Libs are much like the USSR's apparatchiks. They tried to eliminate human nature and create the "New Soviet Man" who lived for the state. HAH!!!

-Ray
NRA Life Member
Soli Deo Gloria!!

People crack me up,
People crack me up, they talk about how bad pot is to smoke as it is bad for your health.

But will ingest all the drugs that are legal as if they are safer to use, just because they are legal.

Which is load of crap,the legals are worse than the sickness lots of time

The gov. to this day will not let you use a plant that has health benefits, but will let you use drugs that are more deadly than pot is with all their side effects.

There are natural substances that are derived from plants that you can not use legally, because the gov says there is no proof that they work, but people used them for thousands of years, and were safe to use.

And you know why because the pharmaceutical companies can not patent them. So they can not make money from them. The billion dollar drug business is behind a lot of the prohibition going on.

Legalize it all and then use the money for rehab and education.

Do you know that right now there are alternatve ways to fight sickness that is safe and inexpensive, but are not use, because some big wig some where can not make money from it.


penny


And finally Karen wrote...
"Drug use is a HEALTH issue NOT a moral issue."
Once again you attribute statements never made. However, I would suggest the attempt by mortal men to proscribe certain drug use while permitting and prescribing other drug use is quite the moral issue.

For one, what differentiates purified opium (illegal) from morphine (legal)? Answer: Nothing.
Yet, you think nothing of someone first being required to see a doctor, obtain a doctors prescription, take it to a pharmacy, and then require 'society' to cover all the costs associated with this activity.

Whereas some cannot pay for their own basic survival you want to use government force to plunder them and everyone else in the name of 'public health' in order to further your fascist ideology. You want to add to this legitimized stealing by calling for education, rehab programs, prisons, trials, law enforcement, legal fees and thus, further increase the need for more legitimized theft which your ideology produces. This creates a black market rife with crime and the inherent social ills associated thereto, requiring even more 'costs' for which you demand more stealing now in the of 'public safety.'

All this while crowing it isn't a moral issue.
Since when is stealing not a moral issue?

The whole problem with your entire approach to this issue is you want to force your world view on others by assuming society, through government force has the right, the power and the authority to interfere in every area of peoples lives. Government does not and neither do you.

One final thought...
Karen wrote, "Drug use is a HEALTH issue NOT a moral issue."

Are you saying all drug use is a Health issue, therefore, all drug use should be regulated?

Define a drug please...

If I follow your argument, is it not just as reasonable to say, "Promiscuity is a HEALTH issue," therefore the government has a legitimate right to regulate all sexual activity?

Should the government then require licenses to people for engaging in sexual activity? How about college degrees too? Would it be just as reasonable to assume this since, promiscuity is a health issue?
I think it would. The difference being of course, you don't see it as the same thing despite the obvious correlation.

Happy Now?

Thanks Parker!
Very well said. Karen is the kind of person that scares me the most.

Amen, Mr. Stossel!!
How tragic for America that the infantile legions who support our current criminalization of an exercise of free will and self-ownership are utterly incapable of adult conversation on the subject.

Bless you for your courage in continuing to raise the issue.

You can add to the costs of criminalization the billions in law enforcement, court, and prison expense, along with the danger and death meted out to our law enforcement officers in this evil exercise in futility. Then add to it the corruption of entire nations, as well as elements of our own law enforcement community. The opportunity for profit made possible by criminalization is enormous and seductive. Add again to that sum the wealth we expend to combat what these profits buy our enemies, both foreign and domestic: the roadside bombs and weapons of the Taliban, and the assault rifles of the various gangs that earn fabulous sums of money off of the risk posed by the illegality of the drug trade. The drugs themselves are cheap. It's the risk of incarceration or murder at the hands of rival drug dealers that produces the profits.

There is not one redeeming feature of drug criminalization!

Another question...
Karen, you provided this tidbit of history:
1919 - On January 29th, the 18th amendment is ratified by 36 states and goes into effect on the federal level.

Maybe you can explain to all of the 'ignorant' people here on this board, why it took a constitutional amendment for the federal government to take control of the production, manufacture and distribution of all alcohol in the united States?

Why, praytell, didn't the federal government do what all other quasi-gods do and just name it and claim it?

They did it with plants which exist in nature, why not alcohol?

Could it be, just maybe, perhaps what they did with plants is unconstitutional? Oh, no that couldn't possibly be could it?

It's the law! It's the law!

I know, maybe they just said the magic words..."These plants are bad." Or was it, "These plants are hereby declared to be drugs!" They belong to the 'state' and are forever outlawed. Just like magic...

Anyone caught with these plants shall be deemed, sick or labeled as criminals or both.
Furthermore it shall be legal to plunder them of all worldly possessions, strip them of all property, beaten, imprisoned for life, shot or killed whichever the state deems most necessary in order to protect public health and safety.

Egad, you think this is good government?

Happy Now?


Parker, et al
Huh? You wrote, "being a Jew" was against the law -- it wasn't, a total of 13 Million were exterminated -- to accommodate Hitler's need to take over and purify his country -- he was mentally ill.
Regulating narcotics doesn't mean the state owns them, the plants, the substances . . .you idiot . . .it means someone much smarter than you are understands the consequences of not having a third party (i.e. doctor) administer the use of the addictive substance is not a good idea -- and that regulating the production and quality of alcohol and cigarettes to make sure what is being sold protects CONSUMERS -- ah,the Consumer Protection Law . . .
I won't be happy until being STUPID like you is against the law. Do some homework and know what you are talking about before posting -- also, I never said no one wasn't looking when the stop sign wasn't observed -- I said, the law is still the law whether you like or not and there are consequences when it is broken -- before recommending solient green distribution, you might want to consider you are paying for illegal use and legal use of a controlled substance whether you want to or not with your tax dollars -- YOU obviously aren't happy and Stossel is still wrong -- and OBTW there are STILL many towns and cities in the US that chose to remain DRY prohibiting the sale of alcohol -- know your laws and know what you are talking about before posting after pot . . .

What Are You Thinking?
John Stossel, you are normally a right on target, clear thinking reporter. What happened this time? What kind of example does this set for our kids? If we can't obey the law "comfortably", it's OK to break it? And for Parker, "the law is the law". Soon I expect to hear "If someone wants to mix draino and over the counter drugs and swallow the result, that should be OK." What a brilliant argeuement that will be.

Why Have Laws?
Clearly there are some so intent on taking drugs that they are trying to legalize them. Little matter what it does to their performance or that it feeds criminal activities of all kinds. I guess it'll be OK when, as a parent, they have to identify one of their kids on a morgue slab, and can give themselves a pat on the back for being such a great role model.

Darrel in Texas
The point you seem to be missing is that some laws are BAD LAWS and need to be repealed.

The effect on society of these bad laws is far worse than whatever problem they were put in place to address.

If we can't talk about the negative effects of these bad laws, how are we ever supposed to get them repealed? Drug laws in this country are BAD LAWS. More lives are destroyed by drug LAWS than all the drugs themselves put together.

The repeal of these laws is long overdue.

Darrell...
The issue is not making drugs legal in order to allow people to get high.

The issue is one of proper government; its authority, its delegated powers and the right to interfere.

How does government get the power, the authority and the right to interfere so far into the lives of the citizens that it believes it owns and controls the plants of the earth?

Sheesh...
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.