GOP Should Stand Firm Against Drug Legalization
function share_this(num) {
 tit=encodeURIComponent('GOP Should Stand Firm Against Drug Legalization');
 site = new Array(5);
 return false;

GOP Should Stand Firm Against Drug Legalization
Posted by CN Staff on April 03, 2013 at 08:07:20 PT
By Peter Wehner
Source: Washington Post
Washington, D.C. -- Some say that the Republican Party needs to find new issues to champion if it hopes to become America’s majority party. There is something to this. But being a conservative party, the GOP should also look to the past, where wisdom often resides. In that spirit, Republicans once again should take a strong stand against drug use and legalization. Virtually no lawmaker in either party is doing so. For his part, President Obama has said more about the NCAA men’s basketball bracket than he has about the dangers posed by illegal drugs. Gil Kerlikowske, the president’s “drug czar,” said last month that “The administration has not done a particularly good job of, one, talking about marijuana as a public health issue, and number two, talking about what can be done and where we should be headed on our drug policy.”
This is a startling admission, and there is a cost to abdication. The drug-legalization movement is well-funded and making inroads. Voters in Washington state and Colorado passed ballot initiatives in November legalizing marijuana for recreational use. A bill to legalize marijuana was introduced in the Maryland House of Delegates last month. And Democrats in Congress have introduced legislation to end federal prohibitions on marijuana use. This is the perfect time for Republicans to offer counterarguments grounded in medical science, common sense and human experience. For example: One of the main deterrents to drug use is because it is illegal. If drugs become legal, their price will go down and use will go up. And marijuana is far more potent than in the past. Studies have shown that adolescents and young adults who are heavy users of marijuana suffer from disrupted brain development and cognitive processing problems. Drug legalization will lead to more cases of addiction, which shatters lives. The vast majority of people who are addicted to harder drugs started by using marijuana. John P. Walters, the drug czar in the George W. Bush administration, noted last year, “Legalization has been tried in various forms, and every nation that has tried it has reversed course sooner or later.” Strong, integrated anti-drug policies have had impressive success in the United States. Both marijuana and cocaine use are down significantly from their peak use in the 1970s and ’80s.So the policy arguments against drug legalization are all there; they simply need to be deployed. But there is another, deeper set of arguments to be made.In his dialogues, Plato taught that no man is a citizen alone. Individuals and families need support in society and the public arena. Today, many parents rightly believe the culture is against them. Government policies should stand with responsible parents — and under no circumstances actively undermine them.Drug legalization would do exactly that. It would send an unmistakable signal to everyone, including the young: Drug use is not a big deal. We’re giving up. Have at it.In taking a strong stand against drug use and legalization, Republicans would align themselves with parents, schools and communities in the great, urgent task of any civilization: protecting children and raising them to become responsible adults. But the argument against drug legalization can go even further. As the late social scientist James Q. Wilson noted, many people cite the “costs” of and “socioeconomic factors” behind drug use; rarely do people say that drug use is wrong because it is morally problematic, because of what it can do to mind and soul. Indeed, in some liberal and libertarian circles, the “language of morality” is ridiculed. It is considered unenlightened, benighted and simplistic. The role of the state is to maximize individual liberty and be indifferent to human character.This is an impossible stance to sustain. The law is a moral teacher, for well or ill, and self-government depends on certain dispositions and civic habits. The shaping of human character is preeminently — overwhelmingly — the task of parents, schools, religious institutions and civic groups. But government can play a role. Republicans should prefer that it be a constructive one, which is why they should speak out forcefully and intelligently against drug legalization. Peter Wehner is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He was director of the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives in the George W. Bush administration and special assistant to the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy during the George H.W. Bush administration. Source: Washington Post (DC) Author:  Peter WehnerPublished: April 2, 2013Copyright: 2013 Washington Post CompanyContact: letters Website: URL:  -- Cannabis Archives 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help 

Comment #9 posted by afterburner on April 03, 2013 at 22:03:25 PT
End of Drug War Parallels End of Civil War
1.‘We’re unready for peace too, ain’t we? Yeah, when it comes, it’ll present us with conundrums and dangers greater than any we’ve faced during the war, bloody as it’s been. We’ll have to extemporize and experiment with what it is when it is.’
Agile Thinking By Abe Lincoln: Top 5 movie quotes from “Lincoln” prohibitionists need to back off and not try to control the agenda of peace. Otherwise, we will have another travesty like the carpetbaggers during Reconstruction.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #8 posted by mexweed on April 03, 2013 at 17:49:15 PT:
Questions for Wehner
"If drugs become legal, their price will go down and use will go up. And marijuana is far more potent than in the past. Studies have shown that adolescents and young adults who are heavy users of marijuana suffer from disrupted brain development and cognitive processing problems."Check out this quote because it shows how much he is depending on some weak or disproven arguments, for which answers are readily abundant now.1. Note how he mixes everything into "drugs" in the first sentence, but then mentions "marijuana" in the second. Ask him about the chance that we distinguish between the two, legalize marijuana but NOT drugs. Try that for a time and see what happens.2. Even if marijuana were far more potent than in the past, who would care, don't we have vaporisers, don't we know how to serve a 25-mg toke in a one-hitter instead of lighting up a 500-mg joint as media-indoctrinated youngsters may do in imitation of movies full of dying $igarette smokers? Why doesn't he even mention or take issue with modern equipment reforms that eliminate any chance of overdosing on any herbal cannabis that is "too strong"?3. As for the urgant task of every civilization, protecting children, note that the law enforcement campaign against cannabis over decades has created a PRICE DIFFERENTIAL of cannabis usually costing about ten times as much as $igarette tobacco ($200/oz. versus usually under $20 for two PACks (28 grams)-- driving youngsters who "experiment with smoking" into the arms of the nicotine slavers. Note ratio: about 400,000 Americans die of $igarette-related disease each year; about 900,000 more young smokers are recruited into nicotine addiction each year. If you get hooked you have a 44.5% chance of dying prematurely.So why didn't Wehner anywhere take issue with the proposal that legal, inexpensive cannabis could REPLACE $igarette tobacco in the lives of millions of "experimenting" youngsters and PREVENT a massive share of "tobacco-related" US-national costs of $97-bil./yr. for medical care, $96-Bil./yr. productivity losses (CDC figures).4. Ask Wehner why (visible money, last time I looked before election) the tobacco industry gave $120,000 to the Republican candidate, Romney, compared with $25,000 to the Democratic candidate, Obama? AND: how much more dark uncharted PAC(k) money do Republicans get to pursue their vendetta against cannabis? How about Speaker Boehner having two $igarette company lobbyists serving on his Advisory Council?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #7 posted by The GCW on April 03, 2013 at 14:34:04 PT
Thanks, I was wondering how that viewpoint was accepted. I'm glad He didn't keep His pinkies off the keyboard. It helps those ignoids know where it's at. Helps, but I don't think they will actually get it in the near time elections.With the lightning bolts, Dem's and cannabis activists should keep bringing this issue up. They'll hate it. It must drive young voters to quit even realizing there is a REpub party. There's an oxymoron: Republican - party.  -That's a good one.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by kaptinemo on April 03, 2013 at 14:10:20 PT:
Wehner is finding out what multiple lightning 
strikes are like; the comment section of the online article is composed of one thunderbolt after another hurled at his screed and himself.See for yourself: should have kept his pinkies off the keyboard. The old duffers that run the party apparatus are so out of touch with what's happening, they remind me of how the Commies in the late-and-unlamented Sov Union were, right up to the end. And Wehner's screed is a perfect example.The Repubs thought by shutting out the Paul delegates, they had stopped the march of History. But their other actions (like continuing support of drug prohibition when the latest crop of voters have made it abundantly clear they DON'T) will alienate the very 'fresh blood' they desperately need to act as a facade for their Uber-Rich 1% masters...and will doom them as a viable political party. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by Swazi-X on April 03, 2013 at 14:09:42 PT
Are You Kidding Me?
This drivel was old in the '60s. "Save the Children!"? Really?And you say science is what is needed to decide this?Science says cannabis is non-toxic in any amount, contains substances that improve mood, immune system function, aid digestion and the ability to fight cancer and depression, and is able to be grown in anyone's backyard for almost nothing.You're worried that "legalizing drugs will send the message that drug use is ok"? What sort of message does prescribing anti-psychotic drugs for 6-year old kids send then? What drug messages could "our children" take from your medicine cabinet full of painkillers, anti-depressants, diuretics, cholesterol drugs, etc. that you've been on for decades?Do you worry about "messages" when your kids raid your stash of oxycontin and sell it to their friends? Or worse - combine it with a few more drinks than they should and wind up dead?The author of this article needs to spend some time with the dictionary and really read the definition of "drug". It's not just weed or meth - it's Vicoden and Celebrex too.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by Sam Adams on April 03, 2013 at 09:48:49 PT
Dunce is right
Look how short and simple his sentences are - these Repubs are desperately trolling for a wedge issue that will get them any traction with the masses of ignorant rednecks!"Drugs are bad. Drugs are bad for kids.  Vote for us."
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by The GCW on April 03, 2013 at 09:14:25 PT
The more REpubs go against RE-legalizing the God-given plant cannabis, the more the general population will ignore them and refuse to vote for them.And supporting caging responsible adults for using cannabis flies in the face of those Repubs who claim to be Christians, when You realize God indicates He created all the seed bearing plants saying they're all good on page 1. What messed up people!Dunce party hats for them.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by HempWorld on April 03, 2013 at 08:28:08 PT
"Drug legalization will lead to more cases of
addiction, which shatters lives."Patently false arguments; prohibition is shattering lives and legalization would lower consumption and lower fatalities, see the Netherlands and Portugal.But drugs need to be prohibited so that they can exact the highest toll from society in terms of deaths and suffering that way, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy!If this (and many other) articles would stick to the truth, however, they have another agenda and it is not for the benefit of you and me.
Pot Law
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by FoM on April 03, 2013 at 08:08:39 PT
I Like This Article
It shows why so many are not Republicans.
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment