cannabisnews.com: Don't Legalize Drugs





Don't Legalize Drugs
Posted by CN Staff on July 19, 2002 at 18:33:03 PT
By John P. Walters
Source: Wall Street Journal 
The charge that "nothing works" in the fight against illegal drugs has led some people to grasp at an apparent solution: legalize drugs . They will have taken false heart from news from Britain last week, where the government acted to downgrade the possession of cannabis to the status of a non-arrestable offense. According to the logic of the legalizers, it's laws against drug use, not the drugs themselves, that do the greatest harm. The real problem, according them, is not that the young use drugs , but that drug laws distort supply and demand. 
Violent cartels arise, consumers overpay for a product of unknown quality, and society suffers when the law restrains those who "harm no one but themselves." Better, the argument goes, for the government to control the trade in narcotics. That should drive down the prices (heroin would be "no more expensive than lettuce," argues one proponent), eliminate violence, provide tax revenue, reduce prison crowding, and foster supervised injection facilities. Sounds good. But is it realistic? The softest spot in this line of reasoning is the analogy with alcohol abuse. The argument goes roughly like this: "Alcohol is legal. Alcohol can be abused. Therefore, cocaine should be legal." Their strongest argument, by contrast, is that prohibition produces more costs than benefits, while legalized drugs provide more benefits than costs. But legalizers overstate the social costs of prohibition, just as they understate the social costs of legalization. Take the statistic that more than 1.5 million Americans are arrested every year for drug crimes. Legalizers would have us believe that otherwise innocent people are being sent to prison ( displacing "true" criminals ) for merely toking up. But only a fraction of these arrestees are ever sentenced to prison. And there should be little question that most of those sentenced have earned their place behind bars. Some 24% of state prison drug offenders are violent recidivists, while 83% have prior criminal histories. Only 17% are in prison for "first time offenses," while nominal "low-level" offenders are often criminals who plea-bargain to escape more serious charges. The reality is that a high percentage of all criminals, regardless of the offense, use drugs . In New York, 79% of those arrested for any crime tested positive for drugs . Drug abuse alone cost an estimated $55 billion in 1998 ( excluding criminal justice costs ), and deaths directly related to drug use have more than doubled since 1980. Would increasing this toll make for a healthier America? Legalization, by removing penalties and reducing price, would increase drug demand. Make something easier and cheaper to obtain, and you increase the number of people who will try it. Legalizers love to point out that the Dutch decriminalized marijuana in 1976, with little initial impact. But as drugs gained social acceptance, use increased consistently and sharply, with a 300% rise in use by 1996 among 18-20 year-olds. Britain, too, provides an instructive example. When British physicians were allowed to prescribe heroin to certain addicts, the number skyrocketed. From 68 British addicts in the program in 1960, the problem exploded to an estimated 20,000 heroin users in London alone by 1982. The idea that we can "solve" our complex drug problem by simply legalizing drugs raises more questions than it answers. For instance, what happens to the citizenship of those legally addicted? Will they have their full civil rights, such as voting? Can they be employed as school bus drivers? Nurses? What of a woman, legally addicted to cocaine, who becomes pregnant? Should she be constrained by the very government that provides for her habit? Won't some addicts seek larger doses than those medically prescribed? Or seek to profit by selling their allotment to others, including minors? And what about those promised tax revenues -- how do they materialize? As it is, European drug clinics aren't filled with productive citizens, but rather with demoralized zombies seeking a daily fix. Won't drugs become a disability entitlement? Will legalization eliminate violence? The New England Journal of Medicine reported in 1999 on the risks for women injured in domestic violence. The most striking factor was a partner who used cocaine, which increased risk more than four times. That violence is associated not with drug laws, but with the drug . A 1999 report from the Department of Health and Human Services showed that two million children live with a parent who has a drug problem. Studies indicate that up to 80% of our child welfare caseload involves caregivers who abuse substances. Drug users do not harm only themselves. Legalizers like to argue that government-supervised production and distribution of addictive drugs will eliminate the dangers attributed to drug prohibition. But when analyzing this "harm reduction" argument, consider the abuse of the opiate OxyContin, which has resulted in numerous deaths, physicians facing criminal charges, and addicts attacking pharmacies. OxyContin is a legally prescribed substance, with appropriate medical uses -- that is, it satisfies those conditions legalizers envision for cocaine and heroin. The point is clear: The laws are not the problem. Former Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan observed that drugs place us in a dilemma: "We are required to choose between a crime problem and a public heath problem." Legalization is a dangerous mirage. To address a crime problem, we are asked to accept a public health crisis. Yet if we were to surrender, we would surely face both problems -- intensified.  Note: Mr. Walters is director of the National Office of Drug-Control Policy.Source: Wall Street Journal (US)Author: John P. WaltersPublished: July 19, 2002Copyright: 2002 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.Contact: wsj.ltrs wsj.comWebsite: http://www.wsj.com/Related Articles:Drug Czar and Latest Strategy are 'Highly' Deludedhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13265.shtml Pot Policy Scandalizes Drug Czar http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13146.shtmlDrug Czar Wants Tougher Stance Against Marijuana http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13116.shtmlDrug Czar Visits Canada Wants Tougher War on Pothttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13109.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #18 posted by freedom fighter on July 23, 2002 at 00:30:04 PT
I used to admire WSJ
Not anymore.. and I wondered why? Why publish this rubbish? In 1980, I don't read this kind of article in WSJ. And today, in this century, they bothered to do so, Why?Why? I must ask! Does the "majority" actually believe what the ""author"" stated? Or because of this article, the "majority" thought differently and those war criminalizers felt they had to do the oppose of what the majority want to do? Oh, I can't wait for the bewildering stampde of buffaloes stamping the war criminalizers out of the picture!ff
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by krutch on July 22, 2002 at 12:49:11 PT:
Bob Dobbs commends Walter for signing his name.
I am shocked that he can spell his own name. We have heard his stupid argument before. He adds some new twists here.We are supposed to take solace in the fact that most first time offenders are not sent to jail. As if jail is the only social cause of prohibition. This is false. Processing the case takes up valuable court time, and arresting the offender takes up valuable police time. I read in this forum that 15% of all arrests in NY,NY are for MJ possesion. Even if the offender is not jailed he may lose his driving privleges, and he has the stigma of a criminal record to deal with for the rest of his life.No group I know of has lobbied for the legalization of cocaine, but note how the talented Mr. Walters uses cocaine as his example drug.He is a moron. Just like his boss.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by dddd on July 20, 2002 at 19:40:47 PT
...."Criminalizers"
....I like that Jose!.... The term really fits the job description....John Walters job could be described as,,,"..Responsible for maintaining the criminalization of certain drugs"...dddd
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by Jose Melendez on July 20, 2002 at 15:50:43 PT
The truth is out.
Cannabis fits the description of a Schedule 5 substance. Therefore, cannabis should be as legally available as cough syrup.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by aocp on July 20, 2002 at 13:28:17 PT
wrong angle
The argument goes roughly like this: "Alcohol is legal. Alcohol can be abused. Therefore, cocaine should be legal."No, the argument goes like this: Cannabis is illegal. Alcohol fits the description of a Schedule I substance. Therefore, alcohol should be illegal.After all, it's the most-abused drug of choice for the kids. I thought y'all were on their side.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by john wayne on July 20, 2002 at 09:31:42 PT
waters: drug war reformer
if inadvertently.  Everywhere that Waters, Hutchinson, and Ashcroft go and say "please don't", that place turns around and say "screw you, we're tired of your crazy drug war" and votes/institutes reform. Drug war reformers couldn't pay for better advocacy.Please ass-a.  Please waters (pee, heh). Please asscrotch. Don't stop what you're doing!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by R-Earing on July 20, 2002 at 09:26:27 PT:
I feel sorry for your country.
This diatribe and pretty much all the nonsense coming out of that office are artifacts from a prescientific age when racial fear mongering was the norm.You can hear the echo of the whipcrack over those slave bodies if listen closely.You can hear the sweet strain of admiration for the countries' mushrooming prison for profit industry.You can hear the clatter of the hobnail jackboots and the flutter of the bloody swastika standards.In short this is an anachronism.Why a developed country can be led so far down the garden path by a simple PR campaign with buckets of public money defies comprehension.Americans had better start demanding less "superstitious" and more informed government very soon or you will find yourself isolated from the rest of the civilized world.This is far beyond Bush vs Gore.You need to fundamentally rethink what kind of leadership works in THIS century.This kind of bureaucratic nonsense wouldn't have been out of place for some 18th century colonial governor.You're a pretty nice country, but your collective apathy leads you to elect any rich fool who can afford to spam you with "my opponent is soft on crime" ads.You deserve someone who has a vision and a plan for moving forward rather than merely warring with each other.(a good case in point is the various anti-Israel factions who bomb each other to shreds over who hates Israel more)That's the kind of leaders you have now.You should be very worried about where they are "leading".Terribly sad for all of you who paid cash for that speech.  
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by Jose Melendez on July 20, 2002 at 06:20:43 PT
lets start calling them...
criminalizers.It makes them sound like they are doing something wrong, but hey, if the shoe fits...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by xxdr_zombiexx on July 20, 2002 at 06:16:28 PT
Mr. Walters
Is it not true that you are paid by the US governemnt to tell a repeating set of lies about cannabis?No further questions your Honor.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by Sam Adams on July 19, 2002 at 21:51:47 PT
overall impression: scary
I read this through and want to immediately start picking it apart, point by point. But by now, the lies are just a like a broken record anyway.What scares me more is overall feeling I get after reading this. It's basically a speech to a huge, ignorant mob. "the legalizers this, legalizers that" oh Gawd Jeb, the durn legalizers are a-comin' to get the keeeeids!  He knows damn well what the reality of the WOD is, as well as you or I. This is just dumbed-down ridicule and lying to stir up the hatred among the bit fat Walmart shoppers sitting around the TV in middle america. That and the 70-year old businessman set ...."yeah, kill the krauts! I mean drug addicts! Whatever - get me another scotch!"I can just imagine Ethan Nadelman patiently and methodically explaining to a roomful of people for an hour why the drug was isn't working, then Walters coming running in "Legalizer! Legalizer!" and everyone panics.I guess the whole dumbing-down thing is what works for the Republicans. There aren't enough CEOs to vote anyone into office, so you have to whip up the dumb people, the haters, against various segments of society. The people too stupid to realize they're being played.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by VitaminT on July 19, 2002 at 21:09:09 PT
my bad
I couldn't find a listen live link on the previous post  $#!^% Oh you can figure out what I mean!
this link is correcter than the other link
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by VitaminT on July 19, 2002 at 20:45:58 PT
Cultural Baggage
Judge Gray is Deans Guest on KPFT tonight. The show is "Cultural Baggage" and it's on at midnight Central.Previous guests have been Daniel Forbes, Kevin Zeese and Sanho Tree. Dean Becker and Steve Nolin are doing a great job and as soon as they get the flow working in the studio it'll all go without a hitch. If you want to call in the number is 713-526-5738.BTW "Democracy Now!" with Amy Goodman is repeated at 11:00 p.m. immediately before Cultural Baggage.
Todays show has some hair-raising stuff about MKUltra and other more recent Military drug weapon experimentation.
I heard it this morning and it's well worth a listen if you are up and online. Don't log on too early though, the Prison Program with Ray Hill needs the streams for families of Texas prisoners who live outside the listening area. It's so nice living in the Gulag State! 
Cultural Baggage
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by p4me on July 19, 2002 at 20:22:34 PT
You may call these people leaders but not me
First I would like to say that you should not listen to a liar. So knowing that Walters is a liar I completely discount everything he says. If they really want me to listen they better get someone that can speak openly and truthfully. My general comment is that he tries to cover everything with a broad brush. It is like going down the road and looking at the forest and saying that the forest is green. Of course it has different colors of bark and the forest floor is probably brown, but you cannot see that when you take a long view of it. That is what Walters bullshit does here. He wants to talk about the forest and not talk about the trees.The rumble is not about legalizing everything. The rumble is first to quit lying about the medical value of marijuana and stop murdering people by denying them the thing that might save their lives and improve the quality of life. The second thing is legalize marijuana because it is not addictive and will not kill you or do immediate harm.Once you take marijuana out of the equation and begin to talk sense and have an open debate with state experimentation, we can begin to solve the rest of the problem.And for myself, just because the T&A industries escaped getting their drugs listed in the schedule of narcotics does not mean that they should not be discussed. It raises the question of where is the Surgeon General on all of this and what is his/her name anyway. Someone needs to say here are the biggest problem drugs and we are going to focus on the biggest problems first which would be T&A.The point is clear: The laws are not the problem.
Now how inept and misguided would a person have to be to say that.
1,2
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by VitaminT on July 19, 2002 at 20:13:31 PT
I'm guessing
that the typical Wall Street Urinal reader has far bigger things to worry about at the moment than Goose-stepping into the flames with this fanatical lying moron!Whoever wrote that Charles Schwab commercial where the guy says "Let's put some lipstick on this PIG" must of been thinking of "our" Drug Czar.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by ekim on July 19, 2002 at 19:43:35 PT
hey p4 notice he gives no arrest #s 
John Pee never gives one arrest figure. Plenty of percents but of what? Ol Pee says "Drug abuse alone cost an estimated $55 billion in 1998 ( excluding criminal justice costs" Man that says it all. Does he mean that drug abuse cost-- like drug testing, and brain drain like all those going elsewhere for jobs that don't test. Like up north with Canada just saying that its a human rights violation. Have drained $55 billion from our GNP. remember when Ross use to say "Whats that sucking sound it must be jobs leaving the country" now that sucking sound is like when a babys bottle is empty and all these John Pee types are whinning cause the milk is running out.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by E_Johnson on July 19, 2002 at 19:30:49 PT
I love it
Telling peopleDon't legalize drugsis rather like telling themThink a bit more about legalizing drugs
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by xxdr_zombiexx on July 19, 2002 at 19:00:13 PT
Slagging Away, Sir!!
But legalizers overstate the social costs of prohibition, just as they understate the social costs of legalization. Take the statistic that more than 1.5 million Americans are arrested every year for drug crimes. Legalizers would have us believe that otherwise innocent people are being sent to prison ( displacing "true" criminals ) for merely toking up. But only a fraction of these arrestees are ever sentenced to prison. And there should be little question that most of those sentenced have earned their place behind bars. Translation: No matter what transgressions there are in the WOSD - be they uncostitutional siezures of land, young ladies sentenced to 24 years for holding other people's money, or teenagers shot dead in bungled para-military raids - marijuana smoking does more damage to the "social fabic".Next he misstates stats: 1.5 million arrested for "all drugs", but fails to mention that half are for marijuana. And he perpetuates the Myth that these people are not sent to jail, sent fleeing to canada, and doesnt include the handful shot to death every year.Then he goes on to forecast gloom and despair for britain cessation of Lockstep Aerobics.The entire article is easiy demolished. The Journal is just allowing this man to ventialte the methane that builds up inside him. For free, of course.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by JR Bob Dobbs on July 19, 2002 at 18:44:43 PT
Before we all slag him...
... I would like to commend John Walters on one small point. That is, he signed his name to this editorial, which is more than some care to do.  Let the slagging commence.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment