1 - 10 Next
Prohibitionists like Harris are not only infantile, their insatiable need to inflict suffering on the rest of us and their greed for both money and power is a threat to every single civic institution of our "once proud and free" nation. Their final objective, a drug-free society, toward which all their deceit is directed, is not even obtainable in a single maximum security prison anywhere on this planet. She may claim to be protecting society, but she would gladly destroy every single liberty guaranteed by the Constitution, or even commit murder rather than admit defeat: "Frustrated that people continued to consume so much alcohol even after it was banned, federal officials had decided to try a different kind of enforcement. They ordered the poisoning of industrial alcohols manufactured in the United States, products regularly stolen by bootleggers and resold as drinkable spirits. The idea was to scare people into giving up illicit drinking. Instead, by the time Prohibition ended in 1933, the federal poisoning program, by some estimates, had killed at least 10,000 people." —an extract from: The little-told story of how the U.S. government poisoned alcohol during Prohibition with deadly consequences. “Together, they would watch everything that was so carefully planned collapse, and they would smile at the beauty of destruction.” ? Markus Zusak, The Book Thief
Prohibition is an authoritarian war on our economy and Constitution. It's all about market and cost/benefit analysis. Whether any particular drug is good, bad, or otherwise is irrelevant. As long as there is demand for any mind altering substance there WILL be supply! The only affect prohibiting it has is to drive the price up while increasing the costs and profits, and where there is illegal profit to be made criminals and terrorists thrive. "We are speaking of a plague that consumes an estimated $75 billion per year of public money, exacts an estimated $70 billion a year from consumers, is responsible for nearly 50 per cent of the million Americans who are today in jail, occupies an estimated 50 per cent of the trial time of our judiciary, and takes the time of 400,000 policemen—yet a plague for which no cure is at hand, nor in prospect." William. F. Buckley Jr. National Review, July 1st, 1996 Only pretend-conservatives get scammed into believing that big government micromanaging people's lives is a conservative concept.
Prohibition guarantees to criminals and terrorists the power to threaten communities, and even whole countries. Ending drug prohibition won't be the complete answer to all our drug problems, just as the end of alcohol prohibition didn't end all the problems associated with alcohol. But it will surely ameliorate the crime and violence on our streets, lessen the huge burden on our judicial system, and shrink the immense incentives for corruption in public office. Prohibition is the most destructive, dysfunctional, dishonest and racist social policy in America since Slavery. Prohibition is a holocaust in slow motion. We MUST end it NOW!
Alcohol (United States) is a factor in the following: * 73% of all felonies * 73% of child beating cases * 41% of rape cases * 80% of wife battering cases * 72% of stabbings * 83% of homicides. According to the Australian National Drug Research Institute (2003): "The research into the global burden of disease attributable to drugs found, that in 2000, tobacco use was responsible for 4.9 million deaths worldwide, equating to 71 percent of all drug-related deaths. Around 1.8 million deaths were attributable to the use of alcohol (26 percent of all drug-related deaths), and illicit drugs (heroin, cocaine and amphetamines) caused approximately 223,000 deaths (only 3 percent of all drug-related deaths)." Marijuana doesn't get a mention. According to DrugRehabs.Org, national (USA) mortality figures for 2009 were: tobacco 435,000; poor diet and physical inactivity 365,000; alcohol 85,000; microbial agents 75,000; toxic agents 55,000; motor vehicle crashes 26,347; adverse reactions to prescription drugs 32,000; suicide 30,622; incidents involving firearms 29,000; homicide 20,308; sexual behaviors 20,000; all illicit drug use, direct and indirect 17,000; and marijuana 0. Researchers led by Professor David Nutt, a former chief drugs adviser to the British government, asked drug-harm experts to rank 20 drugs (legal and illegal) on 16 measures of harm to the user and to wider society, such as damage to health, drug dependency, economic costs and crime. Alcohol scored 72 out of a possible 100, far more damaging than heroin (55) or crack cocaine (54). It is the most harmful to others by a wide margin, and is ranked fourth behind heroin, crack, and methamphetamine (crystal meth) for harm to the individual. http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm
Legalization actually lowers usage rates; prohibition does the opposite! Here are the main paragraphs from the address of His Eminence, Cardinal Dougherty, the Archbishop of Philadelphia, to the Catholic societies of the Archdiocese on New Year's Day 1931: "Having heard the report on behalf of the members of the Total Abstinence Society, it occurs to me to say that when the law prohibiting alcoholic drink was passed, many thought that there would be no further need for our temperance or total-abstinence societies. Hence the practice of giving a pledge against intoxicating liquors to boys and girls at Confirmation was discontinued. There seemed to be no need of it." "But, unfortunately. Prohibition has not performed the miracles that were expected. According to experts, such as judges, public officials, social service workers, and others, there is as much, perhaps even more, drunkenness and intemperance today than before the passage of the Volstead Act." "When in the past did we see young men and women of respectable families carrying a flask of liquor when going to social events? When did we see young girls, not yet of age, drinking in public, perhaps to excess, cocktails and the strongest kind of intoxicating liquors, and perhaps being overcome by them? That, today, is not an uncommon sight."
Legalization does not increase usage rates. The claim that alcohol prohibition lowered alcohol consumption is also totally false! Not only did alcohol Prohibition in the 1920s increase usage http://i.imgur.com/Ga1Gs.png it also exacerbated all other related problems while bootleggers, just like many of our present day drug lords, became rich and powerful folk heroes as a result. "It has made potential drunkards of the youth of the land, not because intoxicating liquor appeals to their taste or disposition, but because it is a forbidden thing, and because it is forbidden makes an irresistible appeal to the unformed and immature." -- That was part of the testimony of Judge Alfred J Talley, given before the Senate Hearings on Alcohol Prohibition in 1926 http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/HISTORY/e1920/senj1926/judgetalley.htm And the following paragraphs are from WALTER E. EDGE’s testimony, a Senator from New Jersey: "Any law that brings in its wake such wide corruption in the public service, increased alcoholic insanity, and deaths, increased arrests for drunkenness, home barrooms, and development among young boys and young women of the use of the flask never heard of before prohibition can not be successfully defended.". http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/HISTORY/e1920/senj1926/walteredge.htm
The US National Prohibition Act of 1919 was implemented in early 1920 and ran until 1933. According to the U.S. Census Bureau "deaths from chronic or acute alcoholism" increased 400% between 1920 and 1927. Source: "Vital Statistics Rates in the United States" by Forrest Linder and Robert Grove From the exact same data (the U.S. Census Messrs) Linder and Grove found that prior to prohibition (during the period 1907-1920) the rate of "deaths from cirrhosis" actually fell by 52.027%. The assertion that drug legalization/regulation would bring higher usage rates blatantly ignores what has occurred since the early 1970s. The percentage of Americans who have used an illegal drug has gone from less than 5% to about 40%. The cost of one dose of street heroin has gone from $6 to 80 cents while average purity has also increased. The only drug that has decreased in use during this time is tobacco, which has plummeted from about 65% during World War II to about 20% today. Tobacco, one of the most addictive substances known to man, has never been illegal but many Americans have quit using it for personal reasons that clearly have not been influenced by it's legal availability. They will decide whether or not to use other drugs for the same reasons. Prohibition continues unabated for shameful political reasons. It cannot, and never will, reduce drug use or addiction.
Yes; Prohibition is an absolute scourge —The End!  The use of drugs is NOT the real problem, the system that grants exclusive distribution rights to violent cartels and terrorists IS. If you support prohibition then you support bank-rolling criminals and terrorists. There's simply no other logical way of looking at it.
Trying to control each and every thing that 350 million people do with their bodies is not small government, so kindly stop pretending to be a conservative. Your brand of fake-conservatism has much in common with socialism. If you support prohibition then you are NOT a conservative. Conservative principles quite clearly are: 1) Limited, locally controlled government. 2) Individual liberty coupled with personal responsibility. 3) Free enterprise. 4) A strong national defense. 5) Fiscal responsibility. Prohibition is actually an authoritarian war on our economy and Constitution. It's all about market and cost/benefit analysis. Whether any particular drug is good, bad, or otherwise is irrelevant - as long as there is demand for any mind altering substance there WILL be supply; THE END! The only affect prohibiting it has is to drive the price up while increasing the costs and profits - and where there is illegal profit to be made criminals and terrorists thrive. The cost of criminalizing citizens who are using substances similar but no more harmful than those that are perfectly legal—like alcohol and tobacco, is not only hypocritical and futile, but also simply not worth the incredible suffering and damage it causes.
It is extremely disingenuous to compare laws that are obviously there to protect us from each other, such as those pertaining to Pedophilia, Rape and Murder, with laws solely and foolishly designed to protect individuals from themselves, such as prohibition. While it is true that taking any drug (especially alcohol and tobacco) can sometimes indirectly affect others, this exact same argument was used to implement and painfully prolong alcohol prohibition in the US during the 1920s. Domestic violence, wife battering and child neglect were definitely not curtailed, or even slightly ameliorated during this earlier period of insanity. Not only did Alcohol Prohibition increase usage http://i.imgur.com/Ga1Gs.png but it also exacerbated all other related problems while bootleggers, just like many of our present day drug lords, became rich and powerful folk heroes as a result. Historically, the prohibition of any mind altering substance has never succeeded in providing what is needed - which is a safer environment for the users, the addicts, their families and society at large; Prohibition always spawns far worse conditions than those its supporters claim to be able to alleviate. So shouldn't we all be aware by now of the difference between sensible public policies designed to protect us and those foolishly designed by despotic imbeciles to create as much mayhem as possible?
1 - 10 Next