cannabisnews.com: Legalizing Drugs Not The Answer Legalizing Drugs Not The Answer Posted by FoM on May 05, 2001 at 10:24:28 PT By Nigel Hannaford Source: Calgary Herald New Mexico's Gov. Gary Johnson has just spent six days in Washington, trying to win support for his controversial views on the decriminalization of first, marijuana and, ultimately, all drugs. He leaves, apparently, a frustrated man. The Bush administration shows every indication of continuing a vigorous prosecution of the so-called war on drugs. Oddly, Johnson, like Bush, is a Republican. Perhaps it is not so odd. The decriminalization of drugs is one of the great fault lines in the conservative movement. Bush is characteristic of those who favour fiscal responsibility but require the state to preserve the rule of law and give some moral leadership to society. The libertarian wing, however, while favouring a conservative approach to public policy, would permit citizens greater latitude in their private behaviour, if it does not infringe upon the rights of others. This would be the Johnson position. He shares it with the Marijuana Party, now contesting the election in B.C. The party advocates small government, has a right-wing take on gun control and has recruited a former Canadian Alliance worker, Matthew Johnston, erstwhile aide to MP Rahim Jaffer. Like the Republicans, it likes the big tent. Conservatives who would legalize drugs, however, must slalom around awkward contradictions. Drug abuse should be regarded, they argue, as a medical rather than a criminal problem. Government should not be trying to legislate morality, and were marijuana and other hard drugs to be decriminalized, criminals would no longer find them profitable. The exorbitant costs of fighting the war on drugs -- $50 billion in the U.S and perhaps as much as $1 billion in Canada -- would be saved; government regulation would ensure purer product, with consequent diminished costs to the health and welfare systems. If only it were so. First, we assume that not even the most earnest advocates of liberal drug laws would wish to see them any more readily available to children than cigarettes. This, of course, would be a moral decision for the government to administer with both preventive educational programs and enforcement. Decriminalization does not therefore, unfortunately, relieve government of an ongoing commitment to policing, or regulation, if indeed it is to administer purity standards. Nor are the putative savings in health and welfare assured. Cocaine will be no less destructive to the human body for being acquired legally. Further, as free competition reduces prices, drugs will become more affordable and inevitably more widely used. Where is the health dividend if more people need care? Above all though, it is specious to argue that government cannot legislate morality. Behind government stands a company of citizens and it is they who define morality: Government is merely their instrument. Drunk driving, for example, was once considered foolish but not widely condemned. Since laws were changed to permit vigorous prosecution of driving under the influence of alcohol (or drugs), offenders are now considered to have committed a serious wrong. It is a strange thing which Johnson and his ilk ask of society, that even while there is so much pressure to take tobacco out of the workplace, restaurants, public spaces, even the home, they would have drugs eased legally into the marketplace. Even stranger is their idea that as the drug war cannot be won, it should be abandoned. One wonders what taboos could stand if society were to accept that premise. Should we legalize child molestation, on the grounds that we can't eradicate it? If we don't make that kind of case for pedophilia, we have no business making it for drugs or any other activity we struggle to control. Whatever argument might be advanced that drug addiction itself is a medical problem, there can be no question that any person who leads another into dependency upon something that will destroy their body, has committed a criminal act. . One needs a few libertarians around to keep interventionist conservatives honest. On this issue, though, their logic seems obscured by smoke. Clearer heads should prevail, so to speak. Nigel Hannaford can be reached at: annafordn theherald.southam.caSource: Calgary Herald (CN AB)Author: Nigel HannafordPublished: Saturday, May 5, 2001Copyright: 2001 Calgary HeraldContact: letters theherald.southam.caWeb Site: http://www.calgaryherald.com/Related Articles & Web Site:BC Marijuana Partyhttp://www.bcmarijuanaparty.ca/Johnson Gets Mixed Reviews On East Coast http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9494.shtmlVirtually NORMLhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9476.shtmlGov. Preaches To Choir On Drug Reform http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9424.shtml END SNIP --> Snipped Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #11 posted by dddd on May 09, 2001 at 01:16:39 PT Far out Right on Peaceful Flower.The sixties,,,,,man,those were the days....warm andspecial.....Unfortunatly,nothing like the 60s will ever be allowedto happen again.When people try to speak out for changenowdays,,,there are met with armies of storm troopers,rubber bullets,tear gas,and basic agressive brutality.Oh well,they still havnt got our minds ...yet,,,,,and wecan still have free spirits,dreams,and nice memories.Peace.....................dddd......nostalgic old Hippie [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by Peaceful Flower on May 09, 2001 at 00:59:54 PT: So why not? I think they should have experimented with Marijuana and the more common drugs being used today, a little more then they did cause they would have realized that marijuana is not all the bad compared to half the things out there now! Alcohol and cigarrettes are, I find, more dangerous than pot. Reasons being that drinking alcohol can give you liver problems, bladder problems (if you dont use it right), huge facial pores if you were a massive alcoholic and overdosing is another one that you rarely see pot smokers going through. Hey just think, Bush's daughter just finished going through that, which shows that it could happen to anyone. Also, Alcohol has been proven to alot of people that it can lead to alot of violence which is obviously sometimes a scary situation. Marijuana on the other hand, is just trippin', chillin', never ending smiles, silly comments and even to go to bed for a certain time (if it makes you tired). I personally use it to concentrate and to gain more interest in my subjects that I work with and I haven't seen a big difference in my smart sense so it doesn't always make you stupid like some people have quoted. It also sometimes can make you paranoid which I find shouldn't bother the cops because that would mean less crimes being done (but then again they wouldn't be getting paid as much so maybe that's a reason they haven't done it yet), but anyways, to make a long story short, I think they should relook all the drugs out there that are illegal and legal and see the outcomes that each one has. *"I think this should be a nationwide thing", is a very good idea. They should also look more at the points why people want marijuana to be legallize to give them more of a visual of what we are going to be like in the year 2015 or so :o) Just think of it as the 60's all over again when it comes.... Groovy!Peace :o) [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by Kevin Hebert on May 07, 2001 at 10:30:32 PT: My response to the Calgary Herald Dear Editor: I was shocked and appalled to read Nigel Hannaford's editorial,"Legalizing Drugs Not The Answer". In it, he claims that the governmentshould have the right to dictate morality, since the government is made upof the people. This line of reasoning would legitamize suchgovernment-sponsored evils such as the Holocaust, which was after allcarried out by elected officials. Drugs can cause harm, but not nearly as much as drug laws. Even inAmerica, where drug use is widespread, only 15,000 people die every yearfrom all illegal drug use combined. Compare this to 500,000 a year who die from tobacco use, and you can see that our priorities are misplaced. Finally, Mr. Hannaford says that legalizing drugs is akin to legalizingpedophilia. This is an irresponsible and inflammatory statement. Thedifference is that, with drug use, the user makes the decision to putdrugs in his or her own body. In pedophilia, the molester preys on a childtoo young to make decisions about his or her own body. Please refrain fromprinting such foolishness in the future. Sincerely, Kevin M. Hebert [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by Revolutionary 30.06 on May 05, 2001 at 22:40:34 PT Nigel "the hore" Hannaford Nigel lies from the beginning. From the very first paragraph. I've seen Gary Johnson speak and he has said that he is ONLY advocating the legalization of MJ, not everything. Johnson has, however given examples of decriminalization that work in Switzerland and other nations.Nigel says: It is a strange thing which Johnson and his ilk ask of society, that even while there is so much pressure to take tobacco out of the workplace, restaurants, public spaces, even the home, they would have drugs eased legally into the marketplace. Even stranger is their idea that as the drug war cannot be won, it should be abandonedFirst of all, Nigel, you're a f-cking moron.The reason CIGARETTES were taken out of public places, restaurants and such is the same reason they were banned from commercial flights they DESTROY the HEALTH of anyone nearby. Did you ever fly on an airplane when 20 tobacco-heads are puffing away? It was horrible. I wouldn't have minded the least bit if someone was doing cocaine because it would not AFFECT ME at all. While we're at it lets bring back the Prohibition laws of the 20's and 30's, when the streets were owned by the all those great bootleggers. The good 'ole days. [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by narkotik on May 05, 2001 at 16:50:57 PT i think this is...well....funny this in no way upset me i almost feel sorta bad for the poor kid hes trying so hard to be the best "anti" that he can but only comes off like an eager child trying to be a man like his father...it almost seems as though this guy feels threatend by us "legalizers"... he probably should be....oh and i liked the quote "when has a drug dealer asked for your I.D?" primo stuff [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by Rambler on May 05, 2001 at 16:03:19 PT wow! Not only does Nigel stun us by putting his foot into his mouth to thepoint of tasting ankle,he does so while his head is in his ass. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by kaptinemo on May 05, 2001 at 14:32:31 PT: The same tiresome conflations (Thank you, Observer, for teaching me that wonderful word)Okay, friends, time to fire up your trusty word processors and let 'im have it.First off, as usual, this anti has not done his homework and prefers to try the "Baffle 'em with bulls**t" option they are so fond of. "First, we assume that not even the most earnest advocates of liberal drug laws would wish to see them any more readily available to children than cigarettes. This, of course, would be a moral decision for the government to administer with both preventive educational programs and enforcement. Decriminalization does not therefore, unfortunately, relieve government of an ongoing commitment to policing, or regulation, if indeed it is to administer purity standards.And the vastly larger costs, human and monetary, of maintaining the DrugWar are more preferable? It has been estimated by some scholars that the drugs that presently are illegal would drop their price to one-tenth or less of their present 'street value' if legalized. In an of itself, even if the cost of administrating the above mentioned quality control was equal to the cost of the hypothetically now-licit drugs, it would still amount to a savings of 80% of the present budgetary requirements demanded by the various government agencies gorging themselves at the Federal (Canadian or American, makes little difference) trough.And little kids like Alberto Sepulveda wouldn't get shotgunned by overly-enthusiatic DrugWarriors. whose operations depend a great deal upon Federal monies. Because in a legal milieu, the drug purchaser would be carded, just as anyone who looks too young does for tobacco or liquor is now."Nor are the putative savings in health and welfare assured. Cocaine will be no less destructive to the human body for being acquired legally. Further, as free competition reduces prices, drugs will become more affordable and inevitably more widely used. Where is the health dividend if more people need care? Obviously, this gentleman, being a Canadian, hasn't had to apply for health insurance in the States. Because one of the first things you are asked, right up front, is whether your lifestyle includes harmful habits, like tobacco or alcohol. The premium goes up, for obvious reasons. You wind up paying more, to reduce the burden upon other enrollees. Things balance."Above all though, it is specious to argue that government cannot legislate morality. Behind government stands a company of citizens and it is they who define morality: Government is merely their instrument. Now, this is really getting sophomoric.Both the Canadian and American governments have been guilty of fiat laws acting contrary to their citizens' wishes. For example, a freind of mine residing in Toronto told me once that she couldn't bring a liquid amino acid compound commonly found in US health food stores into Canada because it violated an international treaty the Canadians were party to. No one asked the Canadian electorate whether they wanted such inanities on the books. When it comes to unwarranted paternalism towards their citizenry, neither side of the border is blameless. To paraphrase Robert Anton Wilson, "Law" is usually whatever governments can get away with.But then he really jams his feet into his mouth with:"t is a strange thing which Johnson and his ilk ask of society, that even while there is so much pressure to take tobacco out of the workplace, restaurants, public spaces, even the home, they would have drugs eased legally into the marketplace. Even stranger is their idea that as the drug war cannot be won, it should be abandoned. I see. So, if beating your head against the wall is deemed an effective means of dealing with a toothache (courtesy of brain damage) it should be continued and the 'treatment' expanded to include electroshock therapy followed by lobotomy? When all you've got is a toothache? Given that this kind of reasoning is endemic in antis, one wonders whether their frontal lobes have been re-arranged without their knowledge. The following makes me certain something is not quite right:One wonders what taboos could stand if society were to accept that premise. Should we legalize child molestation, on the grounds that we can't eradicate it?Here is the conflation that antis should be taken to the rhetorical woodpile for. Drugs = murder, drugs = child molestation, drugs = _______________ (fill in the blank with your favorite vile perversion). They always fall back on that one, it's their final refuge. And where they are at their weakest.I just love antis, they make it sooooo easy. They so obligingly stretch their necks out for the axe. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by Microsoft Bob on May 05, 2001 at 13:47:18 PT Hmm.. The difference between drug dealing and child molestation: Drug transactions and their use are CONSENSUAL CRIMES, both buyer and seller are not harming any one but themselves (and harming themselves less than with alcohol). A lot of the crime that stems from the drug trade is the illegality of the drugs themselves, the same thing that happened with alcohol prohibition.I don't like a government that tries to prevent me from altering my mental state with a pyschoactive chemical, and then tells me that what I am doing is the equivalent to murder, rape, robbery, etc. Prohibition is a cure that is worse than the disease it attempts to combat.I am not depriving *anyone* of their rights when I choose to consume cocaine, marijuana, etc. Anti-drug rhetoric is just silly, it is mental bankruptcy, and a failure of logic and common sense. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by Greg on May 05, 2001 at 12:28:09 PT: stupid How can this person possibly compare something like pedophilia to the drug issue. This person weven contradicts themself because drugs involve harming yourself, not a kid. It's easier for a child to get drugs now then it is to get alcohol. When was the last time a drug dealer asked for your ID? [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by MikeEEEEE on May 05, 2001 at 12:26:07 PT Speading Fears Some of the less promising news reporters feel they should spread fear though-out the land, I find the lesser life forms do this.An example:"One wonders what taboos could stand if society were to accept that premise. Should we legalize child molestation, on the grounds that we can't eradicate it?" [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by freedom fighter on May 05, 2001 at 10:35:43 PT Weeeffffer Insanfity!!!! Same ole story...fafafaLaLaLa! [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: