cannabisnews.com: Column: Legalization Logic Fails To Solve Problem Column: Legalization Logic Fails To Solve Problem Posted by FoM on October 29, 1999 at 06:59:17 PT By Adrian Haymond, Daily Bruin U. California Source: U-WIRE One need only turn on the 11o'clock news to determine whether the "war on drugs" has been a success or a failure. Border police and the FBI continue to nab ever-increasing caches of illegal drugs, while our "tough on crime" policies haul thousands to jail on drug trafficking and possession charges. Yet, people young and old continue to purchase and consume large amounts of drugs for a variety of reasons, ranging from medicinal to escapism. Even the most ardent drug enforcers have to admit that the current offensive against drugs has been a dismal failure, because the government cannot prevent what people want to do merely through laws (and their enforcement). But does this automatically mean that drugs should be legalized? We already have a case study to determine whether drug legalization policies will be successful. America's struggles with alcohol provide a ready-made experiment in which the pros and cons of drug legalization can be measured in terms of lives affected and dollars spent. In the early portion of the 20th century, our government responded to the demands of various temperance groups and prohibited the sale and distribution of alcoholic beverages. At about the same time, organized crime gained power in cities such as Chicago and New York. Since the general populace still had a voracious appetite for alcohol, gangsters such as Al Capone made millions dealing in this illicit trade. As their motive was to maximize profits regardless of cost, the gangsters handled rivals in their own, intimate way - as the "Valentine's Day Massacre" graphically showed. The violence contributed to the eventual repeal of Prohibition laws, and America enjoyed the products of fermented grapes, wheat and barley once more. In 1999, we can see what more than a half century of legalized alcohol use has done. Gangs do not shoot each other and innocent bystanders for the right to sell beer and wine. No one has to sneak into "speak-easies" in order to enjoy alcohol. Jails do not bust at the seams due to arrests for alcohol possession and sales. Our major brewing companies fund many of our sporting events and account for an enormous amount of television revenue, helping to support the majestic stadiums, arenas and player-coaching salaries that have skyrocketed in recent years. No one has to attack anyone to get a beer; an alcoholic is more likely to beg for a dollar or so than rob someone at gunpoint to obtain his or her "fix." And when was the last time you heard of someone burglarizing a house to steal items for resale later just to obtain cheap wine? But there are costs for the use of alcoholic beverages, and those costs are enormous. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported that in 1998, 16,189 people in the United States were killed in crashes involving alcohol alone (not cocaine or speed, just alcohol), and 1,058,990 more were injured. Economically, this resulted in an estimated $45 billion just from the direct results of such accidents. Indirectly, $75 billion is estimated to be lost in reduced quality of life. With all the messages telling people to drink responsibly and to use a designated driver or taxi, it seems that people will do what they want to do, whether it may kill someone or not. Can we honestly say that those who use other drugs will act any more responsibly on the road than drunks? If one does not drive, there is still the danger of alcohol-induced violence. We know that alcohol acts as a depressant, suppressing inhibitions that otherwise prevent us from doing terrible things to others and to ourselves. The U.S. Department of Justice reported in 1998 that four out of every 10 violent crimes involved alcohol. The victims of such crimes reported financial losses of more than $400 million, with the average victim experiencing out-of-pocket medical expenses of $1,500 an episode. More depressing is the fact that in two-thirds of violent crimes in which the perpetrator and victim know each other, alcohol is a contributing factor. In spousal abuse cases, three out of every four incidents involved alcohol use by the offender. Knowing that other drugs stimulate (methamphetamine and cocaine), depress (barbiturates), impair (marijuana) or bend reality (heroin), are we playing with fire when suggesting that such items should be made legal (even under heavy restrictions)? Since drugs can be highly unpredictable in their effects on the human psyche, can we say with a straight face that there will be no increase in such crimes (and the resultant financial effects) with legalization? The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism states that in 1992, $18.8 billion was spent on health care services for alcohol problems, of which $13.2 billion was for alcohol-induced health problems such as cirrhosis and trauma (due to falls, accidents, etc.). In addition, in the same year, 107,400 died as a result of alcohol use. Even if we assume that such numbers have dropped 25 percent (a hefty amount), one can see the costs are still staggering. We must remember that all drugs are lethal in sufficient amounts; are we willing to pay the costs of legalized abuse? What do we want to show to the next generation? Already, we see that "Just Say No" is a joke, in part because the messengers are hypocritical. Our high-profile celebrities make a mockery of efforts to stop drug use with well-documented plunges into addiction and abuse. We tell young people to stay off the bottle, but our social gatherings, athletic events and media reek of irresponsible alcohol use. We're afraid to take the moralistic "high road" because of all the "skeletons" of drug abuse that bang around in our collective closets. So, instead of changing strategy in the current war on drugs, we either doggedly try the same old tactics that fail miserably or surrender unconditionally in the name of individual "rights." Well, what about the right of someone to drive without fear of sudden death via intoxicant? What about the baby doomed to a painful life from drug-induced ailments? What about the spouse painted black, blue and red by someone's fists, bat or gun? Or the fan too scared to talk with a blustery drunk for fear of pulverization? Or of anyone paying higher car and health insurance rates? A famous person once said, "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it." In this situation, it would be doubly tragic, for "history" continues even today, instructing us on decisions of past generations. And yet once more, we're about to fail the final exam. October 28, 1999(C) 1999 Daily Bruin via U-WIRE Related Article:Column: War on Drugs is a Waste of Time, Money - 10/26/99http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread3436.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #3 posted by kaptinemo on October 29, 1999 at 16:00:07 PT Bang on target, Observer! Inevitably, eternally, this matter always distills into the exercise of common sense of free people as opposed to the dictates of the State which can brook no challenges to its' authority.But those hampered by an education encompassed by that very State don't even recognize the extent to which they have been intellectually maimed. The writings of this author only goes to show the value of the old computer proverb, "Garbage in, garbage out." He was told garbage about drugs, and now he, under the false assumption that he is being original in his thinking, composed this... [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by rainbow on October 29, 1999 at 10:42:32 PT: prohibition So the only solution for this reporter then Let's start the prohibition on Alcohol again. It only makes sense if we use this persons logic.The "We" seemed to be afraid of what is not known. Fear of Uncertainty is always a force to reckon with. If they do not know the benefits of MJ or MMJ then they will fear it because they have been taught it.It would really be helpful to get these type of people to reduce their fear. Seems that they might be more paranoid than the MJ user. How ironic.CheersRainbow [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by observer on October 29, 1999 at 08:32:12 PT "We, We, We!", all the way home > can WE say with a straight face that there will be no increase in such crimes (and the resultant financial effects) with legalization? ...> are WE willing to pay the costs of legalized abuse? ...> What do We want to show to the next generation? ...> WE tell young people ...> WE're afraid to take the moralistic "high road" ...> WE're about to fail ...The mainstream media does well its job of pounding into the heads of everyone who will listen, the collectivist notions of what "WE should do".However, rights, inalienable rights, do not belong to groups, for they cannot. Rights belong to individuals. ''Rights belong to individuals, not groups.'' -- Ron Paul http://www.house.gov/paul/freedomprinciples.htm> WE either ... or surrender unconditionally in the name of individual "rights." The author of this piece dismisses "individual `rights'", and replaces them with the 'rights' of some reified "we". The author doesn't understand the concept of individual rights. The Bill of Rights exists, in part, to make explicit pre-existing protections that every individual has against tyranny, be it a tyrant, or the the tyranny of a majority.see: "What are rights?" http://www.capitalism.org/capitalism/faq/rights.htm> Well, what about the right of someone to drive without fear of sudden death via intoxicant? Murder was never a right; does the author assume that anyone is attempting to "legalize" murder? But taking substances into one's own body is a voluntary act, the author intentionally conflates the two.''If people let government decide which foods they eat and medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.'' -- Thomas Jefferson Taking medicines of one's own choice into one's own body is an ancient and traditional right.> What about the baby doomed to a painful life from drug-induced ailments? Like a fetal-alcohol syndrome baby? Such is tragic, but is not a reason to pack jail with beer-drinkers. Also, exactly what marijuana- "induced ailments" doom babies to "a painful life"? Notice the conflation, the intensional blurring: "drugs" etc. are taken together as a 'reason' to keep marijuana illegal.> What about the spouse painted black, blue and red by someone's fists, bat or gun? Clue: Taking drugs is not the same as beating people. The author throws this emotive bit in here for a rhetorical florish: it is a non-sequitur. And is an statistical argument is to be made, alcohol is the drug associated with violence, not marijuana, for example. > Or the fan too scared to talk with a blustery drunk for fear of pulverization? The "fan" needs to apply some common sense?> Or of anyone paying higher car and health insurance rates? More knee-jerk collectivist reasoning ... The government "mandates" (forces people at gunpoint/jail) to collectivize "car and health insurance", and now this becomes yet another 'reason' to take more rights away from those victims of this brand of socialism. * * *''And here we come to the vital distinction between the advocacy of temperance and the advocacy of prohibition. Temperance and self-control are convertible terms. Prohibition, or that which it implies, is the direct negation of the term self-control. In order to save the small percentage of men who are too weak to resist their animal desires, it aims to put chains on every man, the weak and the strong alike. And if this is proper in one respect, why not in all respects? Yet, what would one think of a proposition to keep all men locked up because a certain number have a propensity to steal?'' -- Felix Mendelsohn, 1915 [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: