Legalize drugs, advocates say, and you'll, decrease drug use, virtually empty our prisons, end the violence between cartels in Mexico and move toward a more humane society in which abuse is treated as an illness, not a crime.
You see, they further instruct us, the so-called war on drugs has won nary a battle, but is essentially a hugely expensive replay of Prohibition, which did nothing to lessen alcohol consumption. What we're talking about here is liberty. Drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, heroine and methamphetamines are no worse than cigarettes or whiskey and the only ones hurt by their consumption are the adults who decide to use them.
It's on the basis of such fictions that some well-meaning people - including some of my libertarian friends - are trying to march our society off a cliff. They really ought to take a close, hard look at the facts and some well-argued, contrary analyses that come to us not just from stubborn right-wingers, but from research by think tanks, governmental agencies and highly regarded social scientists.
One such scientist is James Q. Wilson of Boston College, who makes the common sense case that legalization will increase drug use because it will reduce the price of drugs, give increased assurance of their quality and make them easier to obtain.
In the Netherlands, the government decided to permit legal cannabis shops, and soon enough you had twice as many people aged 18 to 20 using the drug, says one report. We once had legal opiate and cocaine drugs in the country, mostly sold as medications in the late 19th century to cure what ailed you, varied sources say. The drugs ailed us into high rates of debilitating addiction that began to lessen dramatically with the passage of inhibiting laws.
With more drug use, Wilson says, will come more people on welfare, more traffic deaths and more ruined marriages. That's just the beginning. Because they so decisively unravel our self-control, drugs can render us more likely to do all kinds of things we would not do if we were straight and sober. Half of all those arrested for committing violent crimes were under the influence of drugs, says John Walters, former director of the Office of National Drug Policy, in a Wall Street Journal piece. He then gives us this startling statistic: 80 percent of all child abuse cases are drug-related. So this is the great libertarian cause - increase child abuse in America?
The obvious fact is that use of illegal drugs does more than harm the user, but the user does in fact get harmed. Cocaine is reportedly something like seven times as addictive as alcohol, and even marijuana -- probably the least dangerous of these drugs -- can cause cancer, according to a study published in 1998. It's true that drinking and smoking are hugely damaging themselves, but that's hardly an argument for more people than now to harm themselves with these drugs.
More treatment than incarceration of drug abusers makes sense, but you don't get there through setting up legal methamphetamine stores for people to introduce their neighbors to health wreckage and possibly death. Walters and others observe that courts are increasingly getting users in rehabilitation programs. And, it has been pointed out, users make up a relatively small percentage of those in federal prisons for drug-related crimes.
Despite the brouhaha to the contrary, Walters notes that anti-drug efforts have significantly decreased usage and addiction, just a Prohibition, for all its failures, did lead to less alcohol consumption, as another writer says. Decriminalizing marijuana, as some states have done, may turn out to be workable, but commercializing it? Surely not.
And what about Mexico? Walters observes that ending Prohibition did not end organized crime and that Mexico's gangs have other markets besides the one in the United States. We don't need to worsen our own state of affairs to help the Mexicans.
(Jay Ambrose, formerly Washington director of editorial policy for Scripps Howard newspapers and the editor of dailies in El Paso, Texas, and Denver, is a columnist living in Colorado. He can be reached at SpeaktoJay(at)aol.com.)
COLUMN
Expand Your Source Information to Include Less Biased Facts
"easier to obtain" - Patently FALSE argument. 86% of high school kids report that they can get cannabis and other illegal drugs "within an hour" and that it's easier to obtain them than alcohol.
"usage will increase" - Statistically true, but not true in actual usage because people who ALREADY use cannabis will no longer be afraid to admit that they do. Whereas now, when asked, most people deny their use.
"Use in Netherlands is 2x the US use" - Get your facts straight before you write. Your figures are reversed. Drug use is HIGHER in the USA and has been twice that of the Netherlands since they decriminalized personal drug use.
"John Walters" - Is paid to be biased and to lie to the American public. Almost every argument he makes against cannabis is based on the Reefer Madness mindset of prohibition and propaganda.
"Marijuana causes cancer" - False. No one has ever reported cancer caused directly by cannabis. Moreover, a recent study shows that cannabis has the affect of preventing head, neck and throat cancers. Do more research!
The fact is, sir, that your arguments are based on 70 years of propaganda, lies, and deception. Alcohol and tobacco are far more destructive than cannabis. To oppress and ruin people's lives by making them criminals and arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating them for making a safer choice is not only wrong, it is arguably insane. Millions of lives have been ruined because of prohibition, because of this War on "Drugs", by law enforcement stripping families apart and ruining people's chances for education, decent jobs, and a future. And it is predominantly biased against minorities. It was, in fact, originally created solely to oppress minority mexicans and blacks in the early part of the last century.
And YOU believe this is right? One might argue your sanity.
The time has come to stop wasting the billions of taxpayer dollars on this never-ending American Civil War. The time has come to stop being hypocrites by allowing adult use of deadly drugs (alcohol, tobacco) but making criminals out of those who desire to use a mellower, safer alternative. The time has come to see the drug war for what it is: A LIE.
Falsehoods Galore
More 'reefer madness' insanity.
"Drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, heroine and methamphetamines are no worse than cigarettes or whiskey and the only ones hurt by their consumption are the adults who decide to use them."
Who said that?? I have not heard anyone say or print that cocaine or heroine is no worse that whiskey.
"In the Netherlands, the government decided to permit legal cannabis shops, and soon enough you had twice as many people aged 18 to 20 using the drug, says one report."
Drug use in the Netherlands is lower than Europe and the US.
"...and even marijuana -- probably the least dangerous of these drugs -- can cause cancer, according to a study published in 1998."
Completely false. Can you name a single case where someone contracted cancer due to cannabis? No. To date, there is ZERO evidence that cannabis causes cancer. Quite the contrary, there have been numerous studies - both long and short term - that consuming cannabis can reduce the chance of getting cancer.
"Half of all those arrested for committing violent crimes were under the influence of drugs, says John Walters, former director of the Office of National Drug Policy, in a Wall Street Journal piece."
The 'Office of National Drug Policy' is a propaganda machine, dis-proving over and over throughout the years. Anyone in that office who deviates from the prohibitionist stance can and will be fired.
"So this is the great libertarian cause - increase child abuse in America?"
That's disgusting, and wrong. Shame on you. Yeah, right, libertarians want to 'increase child abuse'. How childish.
"And, it has been pointed out, users make up a relatively small percentage of those in federal prisons for drug-related crimes."
Buy not State prisons. That's where there kept. The federal government prosecutes a very small percentage of drug cases vs the States. And even if the percentage was small for imprisoning drug offenses, our governments has severely damaged the lives by marking them with a lifetime criminal record.
"Walters notes that anti-drug efforts have significantly decreased usage and addiction, just a Prohibition, for all its failures, did lead to less alcohol consumption, as another writer says."
Completely false. And during alcohol Prohibition the use did not go down much. Why? Do you really think people are going to admit to some survey or pollster that they are consuming an illegal substance?
"Decriminalizing marijuana, as some states have done, may turn out to be workable, but commercializing it? Surely not."
You wanna bet? It's working now in many parts (but not all) in California. When it's re-legalized (and it will) the commercial market will work very well.
"And what about Mexico? Walters observes that ending Prohibition did not end organized crime and that Mexico's gangs have other markets besides the one in the United States."
Ending Prohibition??? What are you talking about? Prohibition is a raging fire in Mexico. Only very small amounts for personal use were decriminalized.
"We don't need to worsen our own state of affairs to help the Mexicans."
Just the opposite. We all have known for decades that this nearly 100 WAR has failed completely. It is disgraceful for such a great country. Yet, even though we know that it fails every single day in America, certain 'enlightened' people still want to continue this.
Everything that prohibitionists say *might* happen are based on the unknown. No-one alive today knows what it's like to not live under the unconstitutional oppression of Prohibition. People fear the unknown, so they believe the lies of the government.
One could write a book debunking this phony article.
Learn to do research and
Learn to do research and garner facts based on scientific data from non-biased sources before touting your arguments.
You FAILED. Good Day.
***Please do not run for public office***
Marijuana is safe. More
Marijuana is safe. More importantly it should be up to a private citizen to make that choice for themselves. THAT WAS THE ENTIRE POINT OF THIS COUNTRY!
Listen Mr. Ambrose, if you do not agree with the use of drugs, be it coffee, alcohol, cigarettes, or illicit. Then here is a thought.... then don't partake in their use nor associate yourself with people who chose to use them. Go about your life and get the hell out of mine as who the F$#@ are you to tell me what to do with my own body? Eh? You're a moron and worse than that you base your arguments on logical fallacies and lies. Please crawl back into the dark cave from wince you came, and stay there.
Thank you have a nice day!
Don't legalize drugs
Don't legalize drugs. Keep them completely unregulated, untaxed and controlled by criminals.
Ambrose; your deceit and inaccuracies leave me breathless!
Ambrose; you are blatantly helping to increase robberies and assaults on innocent people. --The high prices of drugs caused by prohibition force many drug addicts to turn to robbery in order to pay for their drugs. Legalized regulation would drop drug prices. Drug users would no longer need to rob/assault innocent people in order to support their drug habit. This violence against innocent people would end if drugs were legally regulated.
Ambrose; you have helped clog our prisons and jails with nonviolent people. --Nearly 50% of all people in prison and jail are serving time for nonviolent drug charges. There are thousands of people in prisons for 5, 10, 50 years—even life—for possessing marijuana or cocaine! The average rapist is set free after serving only 3 years in prison, the average murderer is set free after serving only 9 years in prison! To house just one prisoner for one year costs the taxpayer $40,000! The result of these harsh penalties? Drug use has increased!
Ambrose; you obviously support organized crime, terrorists and drug cartels. --criminal organizations thrive off the enormous profits caused by drug prohibition. These organizations are responsible for thousands of murders! Many of the people killed or hurt are innocent people who "get in the way" These violent organizations will never be put out of business unless drugs are legally regulated.
Ambrose; you are aiding and abetting environmental destruction. --Underground illegal cocaine and methamphetamine labs use toxic chemicals to produce those drugs. The wastes are recklessly dumped in forests and streams. These highly toxic chemicals are causing major environmental damage in South American rain-forests and now also in the U.S. This environmental destruction will stop only if drugs are legally regulated.
Ambrose; you appear to help lure thousands of young people into quitting school. --It is a fact that thousands of inner-city youths drop out of school to make enormous profits by selling drugs. The incentive to drop out of school would end if drugs were legally regulated.
Ambrose; you are helping to make/keep drugs easily available for kids. --In spite of what you may believe, keeping drugs illegal does not keep drugs away from children! Drugs are easily obtainable in almost every high school in America. Legalized regulation would put schoolyard drug dealers out of business! There would be less drugs in our schools if drugs were legalized. Drugs would still be illegal for minors!
Ambrose; you are subsidizing criminals by letting them reap huge drug profits without paying taxes. --Since drugs are sold anyway, wouldn’t you rather have them heavily taxed so it would reduce our tax burden? You are giving criminals a free ride and it’s coming out of our own pocket. Working people pay 100% of all taxes for the drug dealers! Why do you want us all to pay taxes for drug dealers?
Ambrose; the drug war harms/kills hundreds of thousands of innocent people and burdens all of us as taxpayers. The drug war has not reduced, and never will reduce, drug use!
Ambrose; prohibition is not regulation; prohibition is a dangerous "free-for-all" where all the profits go to organized criminals and terrorists!
Jay, I just lost all faith in
Jay, I just lost all faith in your ability to do an opinion piece with actual facts playing an important part of the discussion. Are you secretly dating Calvina Fay? Geez, you're quoting a thoroughly discredited 'study' from '98? Quoting from John Walters? Come on! Walters calls people locked up for cannabis possession 'unicorns' because, in his words, 'they don't exist'. So, then, exactly where are the 872,721 people that were arrested last year staying? In Motel 6? Try looking at newer studies, you know, something done this century. Google "new study shows marijuana laws not effective". That was released yesterday...not last century. Quit being a tool for an unsustainable drug policy.
The opposition to ending prohibition is based on the fear of the unknown. Continued prohibition is based on institutional insanity.
Look Jay, cannabis is all around you. Seriously, all around you. It's the largest cash crop in several states. What does that say about the effectiveness of prohibition? Millions have used it and continue to do so. Prohibition only breeds disrespect for the law. And, prohibition makes the wrong people rich. Re-Legalize it and let American farmers grow cannabis and hemp.
Wow, Jay, you got owned!
I love the internet. People like Jay can't just write some ridiculous BS and get away with it anymore. I was going to post a response, but the previous posters already tore your argument to shreds. This is one reason that marijuana legalization is gaining so much support. People are spreading the truth via the internet, and the corporate media propaganda machine can't stop it anymore. Newspapers are dying. William Randolph Hearst must be rolling in his grave right now.
Email to Jay Ambrose
Hello Jay,
I came across your article this morning and was inspired to write you. Most prohibitionist articles leave me feeling ill from the amount of misinformation, speculation and outright lies contained within the writing. I have to say that while your article still left me with a modicum of that familiar "ill" feeling, I thought your arguments were presented sensibly and with a noticeable level of
curiosity for the truth which is so important. You also began the article by acknowledging common arguments made by the legalization movement, which I found refreshing. I will present my counter arguments to you, and maybe you can let me know what you think.
1. "In the Netherlands, the government decided to permit legal cannabis shops, and soon enough you had twice as many people aged 18 to 20 using the drug, says one report."
Intoxicants have been a part of human culture from the time we learned we could alter our perception, and they will ALWAYS play a role in our society, as they have in every society in human history (besides the inuits who could not grow these plants in their environment). This is a fact of the human condition that need not be faught against as it is fundamentally NOT evil to freely choose whether or not to intoxicate one's self. Children learn at an early age that by spinning in circles, their perception of reality temporarily changes. We soak our bodies in hot water to relax and escape our stress. We've learned to do this
with alcohol and cannabis as well.
The fact that the use of cannabis would double in a society where one could freely smoke a relatively benign plant without the fear of state arrest, black market purchases, employment termination and social ostracism is hardly
surprising to me. Given this observation, I need to address the issue that you did not cite your sources for your article. I cannot find a study that substantiates your claim, but I can cite statistics from other studies which you may find interesting...
-Lifetime prevalence of marijuana use of ages 12+ (2001): 36.9% USA 17%
Netherlands
-Past month prevalence of marijuana use of ages 12+ (2001): 5.4% USA 3%
Netherlands
-Incarceration rate per 100,000 (2002): 701 USA 100 Netherlands
-Homicide rate per 100,000 (average 1999-2001): 5.6% USA 1.51% Netherlands
(Sources listed here... http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/node/67)
2. "One such scientist is James Q. Wilson of Boston College, who makes the common sense case that legalization will increase drug use because it will reduce the price of drugs, give increased assurance of their quality and make
them easier to obtain."
Though this claim may contain some common sense economic principles, I think it severely underestimates the unspoken "cost" associated with various drug use. To speak practically, while the usage rates of various drugs may increase individually with legalization, they will not necessarily increase in direct proportion to each other relative to the current usage rates. That is, if marijuana, which is a relatively benign drug, were to increase by 40%, cocaine, which is a much harder drug, might only increase by 10% given the additional health cost associated with cocaine use of which consumers are very well aware. A drug like crystal meth, for example, would have an even more insignificant increase in usage rates. Those abstaining from these types of hard drugs are not doing so on the grounds of illegality like is happening with marijuana or even cocaine to a much lesser degree.
3. "Half of all those arrested for committing violent crimes were under the influence of drugs, says John Walters..."
This does not prove causation in any way whatsoever. Also, what would John Walters consider as "under the influence"? Would it include someone who smoked marijuana within four weeks who's levels are still detectable? Furthermore, citing a government appointee who was hired to justify the billions spent on the drug war is something you should have taken into consideration before quoting him as a source. Please google "John Walters lies" to find a myriad of documented falsehoods this man has knowingly propogated.
4. "80 percent of all child abuse cases are drug-related."
Again Jay, what does "drug related" mean? Does it mean that drugs were simply found in the house? What percentage of these abuses are from alcohol which is currently legal? Is this number even correct (please cite study)? I don't mean to be difficult here, but these are important questions to ask. Nobody wants children to be abused, but without specifics this seems like an empty appeal to
our emotions.
5. "It's true that drinking and smoking are hugely damaging themselves, but that's hardly an argument for more people than now to harm themselves with these drugs."
If you wanted to truly advocate for an ethically consistent set of principles, you would state that these legal drugs should be outlawed as well, especially if you believe that prohibition decreases use and saves children from getting beaten and sexually abused. Deep down, you know this. Please be consistent and stand firmly on your principles.
6. "And, it has been pointed out, users make up a relatively small percentage of those in federal prisons for drug-related crimes."
During 2006 the total Federal, State, and local adult correctional population — incarcerated or in the community - grew by 159,500 persons to over 7.2 million
(http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/62). Drug offenders made up 19.5% of all people doing time in the states, or roughly 400,000 people. "In the federal system, drug offenders account for well over half of the 200,000 prisoners (those numbers are not included in this report), bringing the total number of people sacrificed at the altar of the drug war to more than half a million." (http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/564/US_jail_prison_population_all_time_high_drug_offenders)
5. "Despite the brouhaha to the contrary, Walters notes that anti-drug efforts have significantly decreased usage and addiction, just as Prohibition, for all its failures, did lead to less alcohol consumption, as another writer says."
Jay, if you can cite random authors, then so can I... "Alcohol consumption rose to record levels during alcohol prohibition. National alcohol prohibition began in 1920. Apparent alcohol use fell from 1914 to 1922. It rose thereafter. By 1925, arrests for public drunkenness and similar alcohol-related offenses were already above the pre-prohibition records. Consumption by women and children increased dramatically." (http://www.druglibrary.org/prohibitionresults1.htm) And what were the costs??? By the time Prohibition was repealed, nearly 800 gangsters in the City of Chicago alone had been killed in bootleg-related shootings. And, of course, thousands of citizens were killed, blinded, or paralyzed as a result of drinking contaminated bootleg alcohol (Behr, E. Prohibition. New York: Arcade, 1996).
If discovering the truth about these issues is important to you, I would ask that you post a follow up article addressing some of these lapses in your research, and possibly in your logic. I think this is something you owe to your readers who may take whatever you write as truth. I would be happy to continue this debate if you would find it helpful.
Thank you for taking the time to read through this!
Post new comment