cannabisnews.com: Legalizing Drugs Makes Matters Worse





Legalizing Drugs Makes Matters Worse
Posted by FoM on September 02, 2000 at 18:01:37 PT
By James Q. Wilson
Source: Slate
When I mentioned in my last column that our federal and many state drug laws were irrational, I was immediately greeted with the demand that we solve the problem by legalizing drugs. If only things were so simple. The central problem with legalizing drugs is that it will increase drug consumption under almost any reasonable guess as to what the legalization or more modestly, the decriminalization regime would look like. The debate, I think, must be between those who admit this increase and then explain why they would find it tolerable and those who admit the increase and find it intolerable.
Illegal drugs—and here I refer chiefly to cocaine, heroin, PCP, and methamphetamine—have three prices that are much higher than what they would be if the sale were legal.First, under legalization the cash price would be lower. No one knows by how much, but the most cautious scholar says by a factor of three, the boldest one says by a factor of 20. Now take a powerfully addictive substance, one that not only operates on but modifies the human brain by producing compelling effects that often can only be achieved again by increasing the dosage, and ask how many more people would buy it if its cash price were only 30 percent or even 5 percent of its current price. Unless you think that everybody who wants the drug is already using it, a most unlikely possibility, then the answer must be—a lot.Second, under legalization the quality price would be lower. Drugs are now purchased in most cases from people who offer no meaningful promise of quality. You can buy cocaine or heroin that has been cut five times or 20 times, and cut with sugar or rat poison. The Food and Drug Administration does not require accurate labeling, and unless you are a repeat customer, you probably have no idea what you are getting. Feel like taking a chance? Buy a drug from the furtive fellow on the street corner.Third, under legalization the search price would be zero. You would not have to search or run risks of being mugged or arrested. Maybe you would be able to buy it in the local pharmacy, but you would get it from some dealer operating in the open with no risk to you.Cut all of these three prices—the cash cost, the risk of not getting a decent quality, and the absence of searching and running risks—and the total price reduction would not be by a factor of 20 but probably by a factor of 50. Consumption will go up dramatically.Now what happens? Here is where the only meaningful debate can exist. Do you think that there will be a decrease in drug crime? Maybe—if the crime committed by users seeking money to buy drugs and the dealers protecting their right to sell drugs falls by an amount greater than the increase in crime committed by addicted users who are no longer capable of holding a job. Not all coke or heroin addicts are incapacitated, but a significant fraction—perhaps one-fifth, perhaps more—are. Say we have 1 million users now, with 200,000 of them so dependent on the drug that they are useless for any activity, including holding a job. Now suppose after legalization we have 5 million users, with 1 million totally zonked. We can support the 1 million on welfare, though I think the political chance of that is utterly remote. Or we can let them fend for themselves by stealing. They may well steal more than the 200,000 steal when the price of drugs is much higher. Take a guess. But remember that after we create the 1 million, we can't turn the clock back. We shall have them forever.Or to take another example. Suppose we have 15,000 people killed by drunken drivers. How many will be killed by coke- or heroin-addicted drivers if access to those products becomes as easy as access to alcohol is now? There is no way to tell, but it would be foolish to assume that the number would be trivial.Or ask how many marriages, now afflicted by alcoholism, will be afflicted by drug abuse when drugs become legal. Or how many pregnancies that now are harmed by fetal alcohol syndrome will be harmed by fetal drug syndrome. Recall also that most people in drug treatment are there because of some form of coercion. Very few walk in on their own. Take away coercion, and you take away treatment for all but a few burned-out addicts.John Stuart Mill, the father of modern libertarians, argued that people can only restrict the freedom of another for their self-protection, and society can only exert power over its members against their will in order to prevent harm to others. I think that the harm to others from drug legalization will be greater than the harm—and it is a great harm—that now exists from keeping these drugs illegal. Mentioned Article:Gore, Bush, and CrimePosted Friday, Aug. 25, 2000 By James Q. WilsonJames Q. Wilson is the author of books about crime, politics, bureaucracy, and human character. For perhaps the first time since 1964, crime is not a major issue in the presidential election. Both candidates have positions on crime, but they are remarkably similar. George W. Bush supports the death penalty, a constitutional amendment that would give victims the right to be heard in criminal proceedings, and tougher juvenile crime laws.Al Gore supports the death penalty, a constitutional amendment that would give victims the right to be heard in criminal proceedings, and tougher juvenile crime laws.Not much of a choice. And there shouldn't be one, because these views are fully in accord with what the public wants. The Democratic Party, after spending decades in the crime wilderness, finally figured out in 1992 that it was not going to win many presidential elections if it did not back the death penalty and deal with crime as a fact instead of with "root causes" (some real, some imaginary) of crime. Before 1992, Republicans used crime as a wedge issue, but they cannot do this any longer.Besides, crime rates have fallen dramatically in the country, and so most voters do not place this issue at the top of their list of priorities. But crime rates will not stay down forever. In Los Angeles, the murder rate has begun to rise sharply, largely because of heightened conflict between street gangs. I suspect serious crimes will go up in other cities as well for one simple reason: They always move up and down, and there is nothing in history to suggest that the present levels will persist. And in any event, the rate of violent crime today is still three times higher than it was in 1960.But since I doubt that presidents can do much about crime, I doubt that presidential candidates should claim they will do much about it. My doubts, of course, are from a political perspective quite irrational; what candidate for office ever denies that he or she can do something about a major issue? But I have another reason for resisting presidential claims. Too often we have tried to combat crime by nationalizing the penal code, making ordinary crimes committed in cities, and thus investigated and prosecuted by local authorities, federal offenses so that the president and Congress can claim they are doing something about crime. Now we have made carjacking and failure to pay child support federal crimes, many would like to see "hate crimes" (whatever they are) a federal offense, and federal law imposes draconian penalties for possessing small amounts of crack cocaine.The public may feel good when these laws are passed, and Congress may love doing something symbolic without having to appropriate any money to do it, but the process is worrisome.First, and most important, it risks converting the FBI and other federal agencies into a national police. The authors of the Constitution would have been appalled by the idea. And when some of the first federal crime laws were passed, such as the Mann Act (which forbids the transportation of women across state lines for "immoral purposes"), many in Congress were worried that the FBI would usurp the authority of local governments. The FBI clearly has an important role—namely, to investigate criminal behavior that is truly national because it involves actions that cross state lines or the national borders. But if federalism means anything at all, it means local control of our central local institutions, such as the police and the schools.Second, Congress often gets carried away in its search for headlines by passing laws that impose absurd penalties. To make the penalty for possessing crack cocaine 100 times more severe than it is for possessing powdered cocaine implies that the former is 100 times worse than the latter (which is nonsense), and it helps fill up prisons with people serving five-year sentences for possessing a rock when people who have burgled someone's home are serving two-year sentences.Third, Congress, like every legislature, is exposed to interest groups who ride politically fashionable hobbyhorses. A good example is the demand for a hate-crime law. A law should punish behavior, not the thought behind the behavior. The criminal law assigns great weight to intent (that is, the desire to hurt someone) but little to motive (that is, the reason for having the intent). A premeditated murder is worse than an unintended one, but it should make no difference whether the premeditation reflected a desire to get rich, respond to a Mafia contract, blow up a federal office building, or kill a black or a homosexual. Some state hate laws go even further. In California, you commit a hate crime if your motive for selecting a victim is political affiliation or position in a labor dispute. Why not add attitudes toward global warming, bilingual education, or government employment?But at least the states differ in these matters, and so silliness can be discovered. But when the federal government makes it a national offense—not just one for federal offenders—the silliness is made universal. I think we ought to keep silliness under control.But there is one area where Washington, D.C., and thus either Bush or Gore, can make a difference, and that is to help cities and states reduce drug abuse among criminals. It can be done by inducing, with generous grants, the states to supply drug treatment programs in every prison and to reshape probation and parole so that every offender not in prison who has had a drug problem undergoes frequent drug tests. The goal is not only to get drug-abusing criminals started on the road to recovery, but to insist that when in the community they stay clean or risk a return to jail. Reducing drug use among criminals would be a huge step to addressing a real root cause of crime. Source: Slate (US Web)Copyright: 2000 Microsoft CorporationAddress: Slate site articles provide feedback on the item's page.Website: http://slate.msn.com/CannabisNews Articles On Legalization:http://cannabisnews.com/thcgi/search.pl?K=legalization
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #13 posted by dddd on September 04, 2000 at 13:50:47 PT
awards
Another excellent insight from Dr. Nemo. Between you,and the dazzling stuff from Professor Observer,I'm starting to think that my compliments will be seen as alarming,in their redundancy.......nonetheless,,my encomia is sincere,and well deserved...............dddd
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #12 posted by kaptinemo on September 04, 2000 at 09:54:31 PT:
A note about Holland's laws
Observer brings up an interesting point (among an entire constallation of them) which actually serves to illustrate the paucity of Wilson's argument.As Observer stated, there exists no penalty in the Netherlands for a cannabis *consumer* to purchase and use cannabis products - within bounds. The limits of which are the usual, obvious ones of individual rights vis-a-vis the public weal.But the trade itself is still *illegal*; the smiling lady or gent behind the counter still has to deal with a technically 'criminal' element in order to secure his or her wares. For example, even though 'nederhasj' is preferred by many, there are plenty of traditionalists who have to have their Double 00 Moroccan. Where do you think they get it? It's illegally imported, as is so many other, much more *deleterious* substances.This is the answer to Observer's question of why cannabis costs the same in Holland as it does in the US; the price remains high simply because the criminal element and all the intendant hidden costs involved in its maintenance are still in operation.But there is a solution. The Dutch government, in typically sensible style, has come to the conclusion that to remove the criminal element from cannabis sales and distribution, they will allow Dutch citizens to openly grow their own. Thus undercutting the need for consorting with that same criminal element. This will, presumably, cause a lowering of the cost of supply and and a concommitant lowering of the cost of consumption. (That is, provided that the Dutch government does not insert some new tax upon the product.) But since cannabis use in Holland has pretty much remained stable for over 20 years or more, the likelihood that this anticipated reduction in price will lead to a rise in consumption - as postulated by Wilson - is simply not borne out by ther facts. The facts being that de facto inflated prices have been paid by the average Amsterdammer for years, with little or no fluctuation in use. Those who wanted, bought; those who didn't...didn't. With regards to addictive drugs, it works roughly the same way: Those who want alcohol or tobacco...or 'need' it...buy it and pay very punitive taxes upon their purchase. Those who don't...don't. The obvious physiological effects of abuse of those drugs are warnings to those with the sense to see it, and they stay away... as they always have. Heroin and cocaine abuse have their own particularly horrific 'signs' and 'wages'. Yes, such excesses are both sad and unsightly. But I have yet to be held at gunpoint by a nicotine addict or a boozer. A heroin or cocaine addict who could maintain him or herself would be relegated to the same pathetic level, but would be a threat largely to themselves.And at the risk of raising the ire of some of our regulars, Nature has a tendency to reward stupidity with death sentences; no one held a gun to their head and told them to inject or snort, or face an early reunion with their Maker. Dancing with this particular form of devil is always fatal in the long run. They did it to themselves. Frankly, barring iatrogenically caused addiction (your doctor got you hooked), they have only themselves to blame. Not me, not you. To answer Wilson's question about 'welfare' for addicts, at one time the Social Security Administration sought out addicts to enroll them in a program that effectively subsidized their addictions; when conservative pols heard about it, the program was swiftly killed. No similar programs exists that I know of. Nor, IMHO, should one. Although I am fully in support of rehabilitation, if they don't want it, that's their problem. If they want to commit slow suicide, that's their business. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #11 posted by FoM on September 03, 2000 at 19:04:14 PT
Good Info Observer Thanks & Hi CongressmanSuet
Hi CongressmanSuet! Good to see you again! I was wondering where you've been. I wound up not reformatting but fixing a few things and it appears to be working better. The news has been so busy I actually think I was having problems just because of that. I have everything saved away if I have to go totally back to square one but for now I chickened out. I know how to make simple web pages but am dumb as all get out when it comes to working on these tempermental things we love so much! LOL! I am tired and taking it easy today so I can get ready for whatever happens next. The news can be so slow and then out of the clear blue sky something monumental happens and we're off to the races to get it all done. It is fun to do but hard at times when the news is bad and great when it's good! Talk to you again soon!Peace, FoM!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #10 posted by observer on September 03, 2000 at 18:39:05 PT
Rebuttal 1/4
The central problem with legalizing drugs is that it will increase drug consumption under almost any reasonable guess as to what the legalization or more modestly, the decriminalization regime would look like. That's not necessarily the case. The Dutch have decriminalized small amounts of cannabis for personal use (with light penalties for growing or trafficking in small amounts). Compared to prohibitionist countries like the US, the UK, Sweden and others, the Dutch have fewer users, percentage-wise than in prohibitionist countries.The debate, I think, must be between those who admit this increase and then explain why they would find it tolerable and those who admit the increase and find it intolerable.And I think the restricted choice Wilson presents is a classic false dilemma. The premise that legalizing drugs will cause horrific increases in use is highly questionable. For starters, it is difficult to accurately measure the use of an illegal substance. Also, experience shows that legalization does not mean automatic increases in use.More fundamentally, the premise that amount of use is to be the most important criteria for evaluating criminal law and policy is far from certain. Many argue that the degree of restoration of traditional freedoms and liberties -- rights that all Americans and others enjoyed at one time -- is the most relevant yardstick for evaluating laws. Some see the reduction of overall harm as the most important measure. So it seems that a basic presupposition used by Wilson in this piece is itself highly arguable.Illegal drugs -- and here I refer chiefly to cocaine, heroin, PCP, and methamphetamine -- Now this is curious. Is Wilson intending to say that cannabis should therefore be legalized? What is the scope of Wilson's definition of "drugs" as only "cocaine, heroin, PCP, and methamphetamine"? The previous sentence? Is Wilson suggesting that he agrees that cannabis should be re-legalized for adults? Cannabis is in the same CSA schedule as cocaine and heroin, why does Wilson obit it here? This definition of drugs here seems more than a little equivocal, as "drugs" in this context nearly always refers to all illegal drugs, including and especially cannabis. When you remove cannabis arrests and laws from the equation, the "drugs crisis" shrinks by an order of magnitude. This is the reason that law enforcement vested interests fight so hard to always ratchet up the penalties for "drugs" (i.e. "marijuana"): that's where all the seizure and enforcement "action" is. Remove cannabis enforcement and drug warrior budgets and salaries become much harder to rationalize.(The addition of PCP in his list is interesting, also. There is little demand for or use of this drug: it is not believed to be addictive as is heroin or cocaine. It does, however, have a lurid history of producing bizarre and violent behavior, which, perhaps, explains Wilson's inclusion of the rarely encountered and unpopular PCP with the addictive heroin and cocaine.)Wilson, as with many prohibitionists, seems to have a rather flexible and expedient definition for "drugs". Doubtless, Wilson's words here will be used by drugs warriors to justify marijuana laws (i.e. to justify imprisoning adults who use cannabis).Let's stop talking about drug use, drug abuse, and drug misuse. Fact is, there's no way to make distinctions like that unless you want to write a four-paragraph disclaimer every time you want to use such a term. Same thing with saying "casual" or "recreational" use. They make it sound like fun. Let's end the use of those terms forever.Another distinction to get rid of is the one we make between "hard" drugs and "soft" drugs, Williams argued. It's all bad news, from smoking a little pot to mainlining heroin, and if we're trying to discourage that behavior, let's call all of it drug abuse and be done with it.Finally, Williams convinced Dogoloff to all but forget about heroin addicts and instead play to the strengths of the moment: the parents movement and the public's newfound alarm about marijuana. Forty million pot smokers versus half a million heroin addicts: we reach more people taking a firm stand on marijuana.[Reagan administration drug-policy staffer Dick Williams, circa 1980. From Smoke and Mirrors, Dan Baum, 1996, pp.134-135http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0316084468/Cannabisnews/ ] It is interesting that Wilson feels he needs to make that distinction. It is typical, however, for drug warriors to conflate the properties and disctinctions among the various types of drugs when convenient for ideological and propaganda purposes.have three prices that are much higher than what they would be if the sale were legal.Not necessarily. When alcohol was re-legalized in the 30's with the repeal of the Volstead Act, prices were and are kept high with taxes. For some products, like cigarettes, taxes can constitute the majority of the retail price. But for cocaine, and heroin, yes: the price is kept very inflated by prohibition.First, under legalization the cash price would be lower. No one knows by how much, but the most cautious scholar says by a factor of three, the boldest one says by a factor of 20. If that were always true, then why is the retail price of cannabis in the Netherlands, where there is no criminal penalty for buying small quantities in approved shops, about the same as the black market price for cannabis in the US? (both about $10/gm) 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #9 posted by observer on September 03, 2000 at 18:37:31 PT
rebuttal 2/4
Now take a powerfully addictive substance, one that not only operates on but modifies the human brain by producing compelling effects that often can only be achieved again by increasing the dosage,Like nicotine? and ask how many more people would buy it if its cash price were only 30 percent or even 5 percent of its current price. Unless you think that everybody who wants the drug is already using it, a most unlikely possibility, then the answer must be -- a lot.I'm not sure that cigarettes were 5 cents a pack that many more people would use them. I'm also not sure Wilson's suppositions are verified by actual experience.Another relevant country is the Philippines. After seizing the islands the United States abolished the Spanish opium license system and opened the trade to the free market. Consumption saw a "marked increase,"6 but U.S. corporations still found their Philippine operations to be profitable. After the country of Hawaii became an American territory it legalized the opium trade in 1903, allowing access to the drug by anyone. Consumption rose somewhat, but the High Sheriff stated that the islands were better served by legalization than by the old restrictions.7 In the 1950s, cough syrups with heroin were available in the country of Sweden without producing chaos in society or degradation in individuals.8 In the 1970s and 1 980s the country of Holland decided to ignore use and small sales of marijuana although it remained illegal. In those conditions of free availability, a 1983 survey found that 0.5 percent of Dutch youths aged 15 to 24 reported daily marijuana use, compared to 5.5 percent of U.S. high school seniors.9 The 1983 Dutch rate of use was higher than in 1979, but the rate was no more than in neighboring jurisdictions with stringent anti-marijuana law enforcement.10 Figures from 1985 showed marijuana use among Netherlands youth declining.11 Regarding illegal drugs such as heroin and cocaine, a 1989 report stated that the "number of hard-drug users in the Netherlands has been stabilized or is even decreasing."12 (The Case For Legalizing Drugs, Richard L Miller, 1992, p.130 ) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0275934594/Cannabisnews/ Second, under legalization the quality price would be lower. Drugs are now purchased in most cases from people who offer no meaningful promise of quality. You can buy cocaine or heroin that has been cut five times or 20 times, and cut with sugar or rat poison. The Food and Drug Administration does not require accurate labeling, and unless you are a repeat customer, you probably have no idea what you are getting. Feel like taking a chance? Buy a drug from the furtive fellow on the street corner.Another reason that drugs should be legalized: quality control. While prohibitionists may applaud the fact that the back market cannot be regulated, and hence, increases danger to the user, it takes quite a perverse spin to convert this poisoning due to black market adulteration into a positive attribute. Yet that's what Wilson appears to be doing. By the same reasoning, posionings from adulterated alcohol during the 20's was a benefit of alcohol prohibition. The black-market inflated prices of addictive drugs like heroin fuel crime, as has been pointed out manty times. Third, under legalization the search price would be zero. You would not have to search or run risks of being mugged or arrested. Maybe you would be able to buy it in the local pharmacy, but you would get it from some dealer operating in the open with no risk to you.Again, this is a positive attribute: the harm for addicts is reduced. The alternative to this is to increase the risk of harm in this situation.Cut all of these three prices -- the cash cost, the risk of not getting a decent quality, and the absence of searching and running risks -- and the total price reduction would not be by a factor of 20 but probably by a factor of 50. Consumption will go up dramatically.All pure speculation, speculation that seems not to be born out be experience. Why did not consumption increase "dramatically" in the the Phillipines, or Hawaii? Or Holland, more recently?Now what happens? Here is where the only meaningful debate can exist.No, not unless you buy into the mentioned assumptions and false dilemmas. Consumption has never increased "dramatically" when prohibitions are repealed in other cases. The opposite seems to be the case. By making some things illegal, the appeal of those things are heightened, not lessened.And again, should any increase in consumption be the measure of success or failure of a policy? . . . Should success of a drug control policy be measured by amount of drug use? Most users experience no difficulties caused by drugs themselves, so maybe the number of users does not measure a nation's drug problem. Perhaps other factors are a better measure -- whether users are accepted as members of normal society and allowed to hold jobs, whether the price of drugs harms users and their families, whether drug purity and availability of sterile paraphernalia reduces illness among users, whether a black market is so insignificant that citizens do not fear the power and violence of dealers. If those kinds of factors are important, Britain's experience compares favorably with the United States. Foreign experiences with drug legalization are encouraging, but the differences between those countries and the United States may be more I important than similarities. One clearly relevant jurisdiction does exist, however, one with experience in permitting inexpensive access to opiates, cocaine, and marijuana to adults and children without a doctor's prescription.That jurisdiction is the United States of America, before anti-drug zealots took charge on that subject around 1915. The American experience is often forgotten or ignored. An earlier chapter of this book, however, noted that free access did not hinder national productivity, injure public health, or degrade morality. We do not know how many people used drugs in that era; estimates vary wildly. Perhaps the number was small; if so, free access did not lead to widespread use. Perhaps the number was large; if so, the nation nonetheless prospered and normal family life continued. We do know that no drug houses blighted neighborhoods, no drug gangs had street corner shoot-outs, "drugrelated" crime did not exist, and people lived ordinary middle class lives while consuming drugs avidly. We are talking about twentieth-century America, just before World War I, a country with great urban centers suffering from most problems known today and even from some that have since ended. Our own history proves that we have nothing to fear from legalizing drugs, and much to gain.(The Case For Legalizing Drugs, Richard L Miller, 1992, pp.132-133 )http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0275934594/Cannabisnews/ 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #8 posted by observer on September 03, 2000 at 18:36:21 PT
rebuttal 3/4
Do you think that there will be a decrease in drug crime? Maybe -- if the crime committed by users seeking money to buy drugs and the dealers protecting their right to sell drugs falls by an amount greater than the increase in crime committed by addicted users who are no longer capable of holding a job. Not all coke or heroin addicts are incapacitated, but a significant fraction -- perhaps one-fifth, perhaps more -- are. Say we have 1 million users now, with 200,000 of them so dependent on the drug that they are useless for any activity, including holding a job. Now suppose after legalization we have 5 million users, with 1 million totally zonked.Experience shows that providing access to inexpensive, pure heroin helps the addicts and lowers resulting crime, contrary to the hype and scare stories.He said that in many cases, the combination of a small regular dose of heroin and intensive counselling allowed clients to hold down responsible jobs without their employer knowing of their addiction.Earlier, the conference was told that latest unpublished results from the Swiss trials showed significant gains in the welfare of addicts.According to Professor Ambrose Uchtenhagen, preliminary data from 1998 suggested that addicts given regular, supervised doses of heroin made significant gains in the first 18 months of treatment.This include more stable housing and employment records, less use of other illicit drugs and dramatically lower levels of debt.He said blood-borne disease had been cut and police had reported a drop in crime in the trial areas.[Roland Stahl, director of Switzerland's St Gallen heroin treatment clinic, as reported in the Australian "Herald Sun", March 1999 http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99/n294/a02.html ]We can support the 1 million on welfare, though I think the political chance of that is utterly remote. Or we can let them fend for themselves by stealing. They may well steal more than the 200,000 steal when the price of drugs is much higher. Take a guess.We don't need to guess: the Swiss experience shows that the heroin addicts are helped: they maintain jobs, are healthier, and pay their own way.But remember that after we create the 1 million, we can't turn the clock back. We shall have them forever.But isn't that exactly what happened in 1914 when the Harrison Act was passed? Heroin and cocaine were legal to buy, sell and use prior to that year. A stroke of the pen made them illegal; laws can be similarly repealed or reinstated.Or to take another example. Suppose we have 15,000 people killed by drunken drivers. How many will be killed by coke- or heroin-addicted drivers if access to those products becomes as easy as access to alcohol is now? There is no way to tell, but it would be foolish to assume that the number would be trivial.Another boogey man thrown up by Wilson. Impaired driving has always been a crime and always will be. Wilson assumes that heroin and cocaine impaired drivers will flood the highways in ever greater numbers. How does he know that? He doesn't. How does he know that fatalities won't fall: because cocaine use displaces alcohol use? He doesn't know that. Much like the presumed dangers of cannabis-driving turned out to be non-existant, so too are Wilson's scare stores here. Where's his evidence?Or ask how many marriages, now afflicted by alcoholism, will be afflicted by drug abuse when drugs become legal.Or how many marriges won't split up due to a drug prison sentence? Or how many marriages will be saved due to adults calmly discussing things over a marijuana cigarette instead of fighting in drunken spats?Or how many pregnancies that now are harmed by fetal alcohol syndrome will be harmed by fetal drug syndrome.Alcohol is a known producer of birth defects; not so with heroin or cocaine. If pregnant mothers switched from alcohol to heroin or cocaine, such birth defects woould be avoided. (Not that pregnant mothers should use any drugs of course.)Recall also that most people in drug treatment are there because of some form of coercion. Very few walk in on their own. This is another whole vast expanse of government abuse: forced treatment for drug users. As for the so-called addict, he is the target of a major "war on addiction," fought by powerful troops on many fronts. In New York State, a new antiaddiction law, enacted in 1967, authorizes the incarceration, for up to five years, not only of proven addicts, but also of persons "in imminent danger of becoming dependent upon narcotics."3 This far-reaching repression of the addict is again justified on the grounds that addicts are "physically and emotionally sick ... [and] must be treated as if they were the victims of a contagious and virulent disease."4There is a fundamental similarity between the persecution of individuals who engage in consenting homosexual activity in private, or who ingest, inject, or smoke various substances that affect their feelings and thoughts -- and the traditional persecution of men for their religion, as Jews, or for their skin-color, as Negroes. What all of these persecutions have in common is that the victims are harassed by the majority not because they engage in overtly aggressive or destructive acts, like theft or murder, but because their conduct or appearance offends a group intolerant to and threatened by human differences.Thomas Szasz, The Manufacture of Madness, 196, pp.208-209http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0815604610/ Take away coercion, and you take away treatment for all but a few burned-out addicts.People innately realize they have the right to ingest what they choose, and naturally rebel against redefinition of a voluntary act which many enjoy, as some kind of a disease. Most people don't buy it. This is why, when making their perenial requests for continued and ever greater funding, treatment "professionals" decry the high "relapse rate" of the said treatments. Which is simply another way of saying that such treatments don't work. People stop and start using drugs when and because they want to.John Stuart Mill, the father of modern libertarians, argued that people can only restrict the freedom of another for their self-protection, and society can only exert power over its members against their will in order to prevent harm to others. Drug laws, being the victimless crimes that they are, are "crimes" that hurt only the people who use the drugs. The so-called "drug-related" damage that prohibitionists are forever claiming is caused by use of the drugs, is damage that can be laid at the feet of the drugs laws, not the drugs themselves.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #7 posted by freedom fighter on September 03, 2000 at 18:35:45 PT
There is always a limit
First, under legalization the cash price would be lower. No one knows by how much, but the most cautious scholar says by a factor of three, the boldest one says by a factor of 20. Now take a powerfully addictive substance, one that not only operates on but modifies the human brain by producing compelling effects that often can only be achieved again by increasing the dosage, and ask how many more people would buy it if its cash price were only 30 percent or even 5 percent of its current price. Unless you think that everybody who wants the drug is already using it, a most unlikely possibility, then the answer must be—a lot.(Personally disagree with this statement. Most addicts know their limit. Some even control their habits for years. So, it is oversimplifying the problem. I do not know what is the answer to these "hard drugs" problem. But, one thing I do know is that we should not criminalize people because of using the any substances themselves. If I choose to take some rat posion, who's business is that? I, of course will be in the ground if I did that. For most folks who became addicts know they have two choices. Keep up what they were doing and die or quit. Most of us stop doing these drugs ourselves by using cannabis!Education and treatments for those who want it, are the key. It is time for soft approach instead of tough approach to this problem.)
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by observer on September 03, 2000 at 18:35:18 PT
rebuttal 4/4
I think that the harm to others from drug legalization will be greater than the harm -- and it is a great harm -- that now exists from keeping these drugs illegal.Given the terrible abuses and abbrogation of rights and common law that drug prohibition, as alcohol prohibition before, has visited upon users and non-users of drugs alike, we owe it to ourselves to return the the traditional freedoms that all Americans once shared: the right to ingest what one chooses. THE RIGHT TO DRUGS AS A RIGHT TO PROPERTYObviously, viewing the right to drugs as a species of property right presupposes a capitalist conception of the relationship between the individual and the state, incompatible with a socialist conception of that relationship. We are familiar with the fact that capitalism is premised on the right to property. As for socialism, Webster's defines it as "a system or condition of society or group living in which there is no private property."22 Q.E.D.: Drug censorship, like book censorship, is an attack on capitalism and freedom. Psychiatrists either ignore this cardinal connection between the chemicals we call "drugs" and politics, preferring to treat drug use as if it were purely an issue of mental health or psychopathology, or -- if they recognize it -- treat the relationship with their customary hostility to liberty and property.. . . In 1922, Ludwig von Mises -- the most unappreciated genius of our century -- published a book entitled Socialism, establishing his reputation, at least among the cognoscenti. His closing sentences in that work read thus: "Whether Society is good or bad may be a matter of individual judgment; but whoever prefers life to death, happiness to suffering, well-being to misery, must accept. . . without limitation or reserve, private ownership of the means of production."23. . . Unfortunately, modern liberals continue to focus on human rights rather than on property rights. Why? Because it makes them appear socially concerned -- "caring" and "compassionate." By splitting off property rights from human rights, liberals have succeeded in giving the former a bad name, undermining the moral legitimacy of all other rights in the process. But property rights are not only just as valid as human rights; they are anterior to, and necessary for, human rights.Liberty as ChoicePrivate property is indispensable as an economic base and precondition for forming a government fit for freedom. I use this unfamiliar expression to emphasize that no government is, or can be, committed to freedom. Only people can be. Government, by its very nature, has a vested interest in enlarging its freedom of action, thereby necessarily reducing the freedom of individuals. At the same time, the right to private property -- as a political-economic concept -- is not a sufficient foundation for a government serving the needs and meriting the loyalty of free and responsible persons. It may be worth remembering here that Adam Smith, generally regarded as the father of free-market capitalism, was not an economist (there was no such thing in the eighteenth century). He was a professor of moral philosophy. As such, his brand of economics made no attempt to be value-free. Today, professional economists and observers of the economic scene err in their efforts to make the study of these human affairs into a value-free social "science." What, then, is the moral merit of the free market? What is good about it, besides its being an efficient mechanism for producing and delivering goods and services? The answer is that the free market is good because it encourages social cooperation (production and trade) and discourages force and fraud (exploitation of the many by a few with the power to coerce), and because it is a legal-moral order that places the value of the person as an individual above that of his value as a member of the community. It is implicit in the idea of the free market that persons who want to enjoy its benefits must assume responsibility, and be held responsible, for their actions; that they look to the principle of caveat emptor -- not the paternalistic state -- for protection from the risks inherent in the exercise of freedom; and that among the risks with which they must live are those associated with drugs and medical treatments. In short, the fundamental precepts of moral philosophy and political economics cannot be separated: They are symbiotic, the one dependent on the other. "It is.. . illegitimate," Mises warned, "to regard the 'economic' as a definite sphere of human action which can be sharply delimited from other spheres of action... . The economic principle applies to all human action."26If we are willing to use our political-economic vocabulary precisely and take its terms seriously, we must conclude that just as the Constitution guarantees us the right to worship whatever gods we choose and read whatever books we choose, so it also guarantees us the right to use whatever drugs we choose. Mises's observation about the characteristic conflict of the twentieth century -- which, with welfare-statism in mind, he offered at its beginning -- remains true toward its end and applies with special force to the drug problem:In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries religion was the main issue in European political controversies. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in Europe as well as in America the paramount question was representative government versus royal absolutism. Today it is the market economy versus socialism.27Mises never ceased emphasizing that our bloody century is characterized by a struggle between two diametrically opposite types of economic systems: command economies controlled by the state, exemplified by socialism (communism), versus free-market economies regulated by the supply and demand of individual producers and consumers, exemplified by capitalism (classical liberalism). States based on command economies are inherently despotic -- a few superiors issuing orders, and many subordinates obeying them. States based on market economies are inherently democratic -- individuals deciding what to produce, sell, and buy and at what prices, producers and consumers alike being free to engage or refrain from engaging in market transactions.Thomas Szasz, Our Right To Drugs, 1992, pp.13-15http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0815603339/ Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now. Thus in France the emetic was once forbidden as a medicine, and the potato as an article of food. Government is just as fallible, too, when it fixes systems in physics. Galileo was sent to the Inquisition for affirming that the earth was a sphere; the government had declared it to be as flat as a trencher, and Galileo was obliged to abjure his error. ... Reason and experiment have been indulged, and error has fled before them. It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. -- Thomas Jefferson, "Notes on the State of Virginia," 1787
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by CongressmanSuet on September 03, 2000 at 18:07:53 PT:
Hi FoM, I have been a away for a while...
and Im sure there are people going "oh no, not this idiot again" but, yes Im back, and it seems I got here at a truly historic juncture. This is some incredible stuff! And, hey, good luck with the comp. fix, Im too lasy to ever think of any kind of re-organization. But, Im sure your machine is overloaded with all kinds of great info[hey, Id pay money to peruse Kaptinemo's hard drive, has to be some incredible stuff there.] So, no need to apologise for spending some down time working on the machine. Good luck.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by Abe on September 03, 2000 at 10:03:38 PT:
Simplify the Decision
The debate about the effects of de-criminalizing the possession of cannibis, and/or the cultivation of moderately small amounts of cannibis for personal use, has become ridiculously over complicated. The best solutions, the best decisions, and ultimately the highest truth, is usually found in the simplest explainations.Some very wise and much celebrated poltical innovators once noted that some simple truths are so obvious as to be "self evident". At the heart of this insite is a fundamental and unshakable belief in freedom, and a human beings ability to choose. In fact, in terms of political wisdom any decision or point of view that does not first embody these fundamentals, will fall short of the truth, and ulitimatly not serve the highest good. One doesn't need a great deal of expertise to sort out this issue. In fact, this decision can be made "self evident" by using a simple balance sheet. In this method you simply list all the negatives on one side, and then list all the positives of the other. Then make your decision based on which side of the equation is less harmfull, and in fact most positive.It is important that the truth be protected and honored in this process. Which leads to another fundamental about the freedom of information, and the freedom of expression. Because at the heart of the fundamental belief in a human beings ability to chose, is the understanding that knowledge, education and truth are essential to that process, and must be protected.Based on those criteria; What are the Negatives: to continuing the current policy of criminalising the pocession of cultivation of Cannibis for personal use?1/ Total cost of enforcement, and incareration of those convicted, including the side effects on other areas of society due to unavailbility of those same funds for other needs.2/ Total impact on individuals lives and their families lives, due to convictions, and the total cost and impact of this to other members of society.3/ Creation of a huge black market and an enormously profitable criminal subculture within our society.4/ Creation of a huge governmental drug enforcement subculture with excessive powers that are often in violation of the basic prinicpals of the our free society.5/ The corruption of the political process due to creation and combined influence of these two powerfull "subcultures" in our government. What are the Positives: to continuing the current policy of criminalising the pocession of cultivation of Cannibis for personal use?1/ In a worst case senario should Cannibis possession be decriminalised, show the total cost to society for this type of policy, and compare it to the total cost of the current policy, as summarised in answer 1. of " What are the Negatives" above. Is it in fact a positive number, yes or no?1/ Drug use has in fact declined and therfore can be expected to continue declining under current drug policy, yes or no?2/ Society has clearly bennefited and has been much improved by the current emphasis on the pursuit, conviction and incarceration of anyone possessing or cultivating cannibis for personal use, yes or no? 3/ The creation of a huge black market and an enormously profitable criminal subculture within our society has been a real bennefit to our society, yes or no?4/ The creation of a huge governmental drug enforcement subculture with excessive powers that are often in violation of the basic prinicpals of our free society, has demonstatibly improved the level of freedom, justice and the pursuit of happiness in our society, yes or no?5/ The political process of our government at all levels has become less corrupted, and much improved due to the powerful financial influence of a extremely wealthy criminal drug subculture, and by the growing influence of an increasingly powerful drug enforcement subculture , within our system of government, yes or no?Decode your answers now...
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by Frank on September 03, 2000 at 09:43:44 PT
Keep Prohibition -- Profit Sharing
Yes it is true; legalizing drugs would make matters worse. The politicians, legal system and police would not be able to make the money they do now on drugs. My god it would be terrible; they could not make the payment on their summer homes and their bi-yearly trips to Europe would have to stop. My god we would have to lay off the domestic servants! We need the “War on Drugs (profit sharing)” if we are to keep up our life styles and our shares stock in the prison industries. The truth of the matter is we don’t care who snorts or smokes what as long as the money keep rolling in. Keep Prohibition in Place -- We need the money!SincerelyThe Police, Politicians, Prison System and the legal profession.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by FoM on September 03, 2000 at 07:46:24 PT
Hi dddd and Everyone!
Hi dddd and everyone!I saw your comment here and I want to let you know so you can tell others if they ask that I am reformatting my computer today and will be down hopefully not for long. I have needed to do this for awhile but the news was too busy to stop but I haven't found any important news this morning and it being Sunday I thought today would be best. I dread doing this but my warranty is up in the next week or so and I want to make sure this is running bug free. Right now I'm gathering up information that I can't lose. I probably won't start this for a few hours but I wanted to let you all know if I don't get any news up until late tonight or tomorrow morning please know it is for this reason. Keep your fingers crossed! This is far from something I want to do but feel I should!Peace, FoM!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by dddd on September 03, 2000 at 05:28:45 PT
analytically prudent
 Although I respect this article(s) nicely presented points,and somewhat balanced flavor...;"Now what happens? Here is where the only meaningful debate can exist. Do you think that there will be a decreasein drug crime? Maybe—if the crime committed by users seeking money to buy drugs and the dealers protectingtheir right to sell drugs falls by an amount greater than the increase in crime committed by addicted users whoare no longer capable of holding a job." The writer has,perhaps purposely, neglected to mention marijuana,which is one of the main,basic problems.Marijuana has been purposely been maintained with the simplistic title of "illegal drug",,,and to place it in with crack,PCP,or heroin,,is like saying unleaded regular gasoline,and rocket fuel,,are both "fuel".....dddd
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment


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