Don't Send Wrong Message to Kids about Drugs

Don't Send Wrong Message to Kids about Drugs
Posted by FoM on March 10, 2001 at 07:48:43 PT
By Rick M. Anglada VP NM State Police Association
Source: Santa Fe New Mexican 
For some time now, public officials and a handful of citizens have been debating drug legalization - decriminalization, medical marijuana, the compassionate-use act - whatever words they decide are politically correct or generally accepted for the furtherance of their agendas. Some have been preaching a deceptive argument, downplaying the dangers of drugs. Why does the public remain so apathetic and silent about such deception? Why is there not a much greater public outcry, especially by our community leaders? 
Gov. Johnson is not the first to push for legalization and he will not be the last. Several states have gone through this issue. Variations of legalization bills have deceptively been passed in some states because voters have been confused by camouflaged, clever wording such as "The Compassionate Use Act"; "Truth In Sentencing Initiatives"; and "Get Tough on Crime Propositions." Sound familiar to anyone? The "tough-on-crime stance" that got many politicians elected appears to go limp quite often.Advocates of legalization claim that we have lost the war on drugs so we should just legalize them. God help us if our military forces and police officers ever turned their backs on this country and gave up on any fight.Advocates of legalization would eliminate forces that now investigate and enforce drug violations, claiming police would then be free to investigate real crimes, such as murder and rape and robbery. Who do they think are the majority committing these types of crimes? Straight and sober law-abiding citizens in the heat of passion? Come on! Think about the latest homicides you have read about in the papers or seen on the news. What was the one thing that they had in common? Drugs and drug users.Advocates of legalization contend that illegal narcotics are not as dangerous as the media and officials have been portraying. Defenders of truth, why do you remain silent? Tell your lawmakers that drug legalization/decriminalization will not change anything, and it sends mixed messages to our children. Children are very impressionable and easily influenced. Tell lawmakers to not be fooled into believing that legalization is the answer. Do not give in to the pressures of a few outspoken people who push for legalization and decriminalization. Many will continue to use drugs whether they are legal or not. Source: Santa Fe New Mexican (NM)Author: Rick M. Anglada Vice President N.M. State Police AssociationPublished: March 10, 2001Copyright: 2001 The Santa Fe New MexicanAddress: 202 E Marcy, Santa Fe, N.M. 87501Fax: (505) 986-3040Contact: letters sfnewmexican.comWebsite: Articles - Governor Gary Johnson
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help

Comment #8 posted by Big Ab on March 11, 2001 at 07:26:26 PT:
LIAR !!!!
 This post is nothing less than babbling B.S.It all comes down to the cops not wanting to give up a multi-billion dollar a year government tit !!!! They have become so use to slopping at the trough I wonder if they TRUELY could do police work anymore...... If they loose this 'Gravy Train" they just might have to really work OR get a REAL job.........  Just another example of how the U.S. has gone down the toilet.....
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #7 posted by kaptinemo on March 11, 2001 at 06:21:57 PT:
They always save the best for last
Friends, didn't you see the very last statement of this anti's spleen-venting? He has let a very large and mangey cat of the bag: in just one short sentence, he completely destroyed his own raison d'etre for penning this article in the first place. And in so doing, ruined his own credibility, and that of every anti, everywhere, at any time in history. Because the antis have always maintained it as an article of faith that criminal sanctions against possession and use are effective..This fool has just admitted that they aren't. Look at the very last sentence:"Many will continue to use drugs whether they are legal or not."Isn't this exactly what people like us have been saying for decades? Isn't this the basis for harm-reduction? To remove the criminal element from the drug use equation, replacing it with the far less socially destructive aspect represented by regulation and control?  This anti has, in essence, committed the act of heresy: he has admitted that the DrugWar is ineffectual. Yet, he also calls for continuing the hopeless farce of interdiction and imprisonment. As others here have better explained it, we are witnessing an example of the logical convolutions exhibited by someone whose paycheck is being threatened. Truly, a 'vested interest' if ever there was one. In his last sentence, he has as much as admitted it.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by topaztic on March 10, 2001 at 19:21:03 PT
rhetoric, i read the news today, did you?
a kid shot up his school, a Dr was convicted of killing his girlfriend and their unborn child, neither were on drugs. However perhaps he is speaking of the violent gangsters who flourish in the illegal drug market fostered by prohibition and who will fade away when it is abolished, just as they did in the twenties. No drug abuse is not a good thing but it happens whether drugs (or alcohol) are legal or not, and as long as drugs are outside the law they are outside the control of society.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by Tim Stone on March 10, 2001 at 17:42:13 PT
Useful Information
This is actually an interesting article in how it contains the essential assumptions and fears of those who oppose drug policy reform. Notice that "drugs" are, as always, lumped together, with no distinctions among them. Notice that "legalization" is undefined. This is particularly important. And, as usual, notice that there are no distinctions made between the harms caused by the actual drugs themselves, and the harms caused by prohibition of drugs. In the interests of furthering drug policy reform, it might be useful to try and get into the mind of the writer, clearly a senior spokesman for law enforcement. For this writer, and for the Prohibition position he represents, "drugs" are all the same. All the illegal drugs have the same magical power of moral corruption. Unlike alcohol, "drugs" are so seductive and alluring that on one could possibly resist them without the force of criminal sanction. If we were to remove those criminal sanctions, this writer clearly believes that in short order we would become a nation of - pick a number - 100 million cocaine addicts. "Legalization" to this prohibitionist - this is particularly important to my point - means a total suspension of all social rules and sanctions. You don't need to get up in the morning and go to work anymore. And if you do get bored enough, you can show up at work, but it would be ok to show up stoned and incompetent. "Legalization" to this writer means "anything goes," a total suspension of the layers upon layers of tacit rules of acceptable social behavior, and a total suspension of the tacit social restraints against a**hole behavior and total jerkery. The writer's underlying fears can be rebutted by a s**tload of circumstantial evidence culled from the entire spectrum of human history. But that's not the point. This writer really, really believes that "legalization" means suspension of all laws and social norms. It doesn't, but that's why this guy is so scared. Another Chicken Little croaking about another sky falling. And my point would be that in trying to understand this writer's fears, however unfounded and irrrational, we can get a better handle on the emotional hobgoblins that drive the Prohibitionist Last Stand. Better understanding those imaginary hobgoblins in turn better enables us reformers to learn how to argue in a way that assuages those emotional hobgoblins. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by observer on March 10, 2001 at 09:57:45 PT
vested interest
Says Rick M. Anglada VP NM State Police Association: Come on! Think about the latest homicides you have read about in the papers or seen on the news. What was the one thing that they had in common? Drugs and drug users. Classic, classic. The Drug is Identified as Solely Responsible for Many Problems in the Culture, i.e., Crime, Violence, Insanity.The attributing of crimes of violence, sexual assault, insanity, moral decay, etc. have been an integral part of efforts to prohibit the currently illicit drugs. A key element in this theme is the arbitrary designation of "good" and "evil" drugs with evil drugs possessing powers that can overwhelm all efforts at human control. "The Devil made him do it" is changed to "the drug made him do it." This aspect of prohibitionist philosophy is so often reported, there is no need to belabor the point. . .. . .If we look at the few years preceding passage of the Marijuana Tax Act in 1937, we see equally vociferous statements on the evils and destructiveness of marihuana. An advertisement distributed by the Federal Bureau of Narcotics in 1935 read as follows: Beware! Young and Old -- People in All Walks of Life! This (picture of a marijuana cigarette) may be handed to you by the friendly stranger. It contains the Killer Drug 'Marijuana' - a powerful narcotic in which lurks Murder! Insanity! Death! 28 In 1936 the International Narcotic Education Association in conjunction with the Federal Narcotics Bureau published Marihuana or Indian Hemp and Its Preparations which included statements such as: Prolonged use of marihuana frequently develops a delirious rage which. . . sometimes leads to high crimes such as assault and murder. Hence marihuana has been called the 'killer drug.' The habitual use of this narcotic poison always causes a very marked deterioration and sometimes produces insanity. Hence marihuana is frequently called 'loco weed.' . . Marihuana often gives man the lust to kill unreasonably without motive. Many cases of assault, rape, robbery, and murder are traced to the use of marihuana. 29 Themes in Chemical Prohibition, William L. WhiteDrugs in Perspective, National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1979 Rick M. Anglada VP NM State Police Associationvested interest -- "a special concern or stake in maintaining or influencing a condition, arrangement, or action especially for selfish ends", "one having a vested interest in something; specifically: a group enjoying benefits from an existing economic or political privilege" 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by J.R. Bob Dobbs on March 10, 2001 at 09:09:48 PT
Stop the insanity!
>>Come on! Think about the latest homicides you have read about in the papers or seen on the news. What was the one thing that they had in common? Drugs and drug users.  NO!!! It's PROHIBITION!! Say it with me now! When was the last time you saw rival violent gangs vie for control of the alcohol market?  This also doesn't account for all the victims of no-knock raids, raids which sometimes go to the wrong house, or target the most expensive house they think they can seize and steal... all the violence made by the POLICE in an effort to stop their citizens from committing a consentual act.
Send a pro-reform fax to G.W. right now for free!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by ekim on March 10, 2001 at 08:31:21 PT:
History will repeat itself
"God help us if our military forces and police officers ever turned their backs on this country and gave up on any fight." ---Like Prohibition--Segragation--Viet. Nam. what other's have I missed.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by Duzt on March 10, 2001 at 08:27:54 PT
Basically take out the words "drugs" and "drug users" and you have the same arguement from those that wanted to keep slavery. The black folks needed the whites to keep them in control, most of the crimes were committed by blacks, blah, blah, blah. It's people like this one who help to keep that fire burning under my ass so I feel the need to get out there and educate as many people as possible so people like this will sound as absurd to everybody else as they do to me. I'll let someone else here tear his arguement apart piece by piece, we all know the truth, I'm going to write, ohhhhh, I just noticed who this person is, Vice Predident of the N.M. State Police Department. Why don't they ask dealers if drugs should be legal? The only people opposed to legalization (the large majority) are dealers, police and prosecuting lawyers, really tough to see through this.
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment

Name: Optional Password: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: