The American Spectator : Legalize It

Text Size

Legalize It

By Christopher Orlet on 1.21.11 @ 6:08AM

The push to legalize drugs gets a shot in the arm.

Three items from the recent news that even a cynical bastard like me thought could never happen:

• Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi has voluntarily turned over the speakership to John Boehner, thereby avoiding the potentially ugly, but totally radical spectacle of Republican stormtroopers taking the Capitol by force.

• Nicolas Cage has somehow managed to make an even worse movie (Season of the Witch) than his last worst movie (The Wicker Man).

• Pat Robertson has called for legalizing pot.

As Hunter S. Thompson used to say, "We are living in dangerously weird times." It's true. Last month the founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network told his television audience that marijuana should be decriminalized. Not because he has developed a strange new appreciation for Cheech and Chong movies, but because, in his words, "it's ruining young people. Young people go into prisons, they go in as youths and come out as hardened criminals."

There's just one small problem: Pat was about as confused by the facts as Kirstie Alley is by a salad fork. Evidently, the Rev. Robertson thinks states are imprisoning teens that take a couple hits off a joint:

We're locking up people that have taken a couple puffs of marijuana and next thing you know they've got 10 years with [a] mandatory sentence…

FACT CHECK: No one is going to prison for a decade for a couple puffs of the magic dragon, even with some states' three strikes legislation. Most felony drug convictions are for dealing the hard stuff. Even so, it was one of those moments that makes you check the calendar to see if it's Opposites Day, or wonder if you took a wrong turn at Albuquerque and ended up lost in some freaky parallel universe.

It used to be the only people calling for legal pot were the half-baked fans of The Big Lebowski and certain Nobel Prize-winning economists. Nowadays, the only ones who think marijuana should not be legalized are the uplifters in the Obama Administration, one lawnmower mom in Dubuque, and the Beer Industry (because they sincerely CARE ABOUT YOUR HEALTH).

More crazy -- I mean controversial -- is the suggestion to legalize all dope.

ANOTHER WEIRD THING that made headlines this month was conservative pundit and noted drug pusher John McWhorter's piece in the New Republic in which he, like Britain's former Drug Tsar Bob Ainsworth (the Brits spell czar with a TS because it makes them feel superior), called for the legalization of ALL drugs. McWhorter notes that America has two major problems: drugs and race. Not to worry, though. He has the solution for both: End the endless war on drugs:

With no War on Drugs there would be, within one generation, no "black problem" in the United States. If there were no way to sell drugs on the street at a markup, then young black men who drift into this route would instead have to get legal work. They would. Those insisting that they would not have about as much faith in human persistence and ingenuity as those who thought women past their five-year welfare cap would wind up freezing on sidewalk grates.

Here's what we know: Wars against social problems (poverty, drugs, illiteracy, teen pregnancy) work about as well as Prof. Clark Stanley's Snake Oil Liniment, and only slightly better than our urban public schools. And prohibition worked only for Al Capone. And nobody else has any ideas.

So why not give it a shot? The great fear is that legalizing heroin, etc., will turn America into a land of useless, leeching junkies -- like Seattle. I'm not so sure I'd mind that. Think of all the hipsters who will be too stoned to vote. Also, it might free up a lot of jobs for people like me who don't really have any useful skills to begin with, so we'd be solving the unemployment problem too.

We could try it first in my hometown of St. Louis. I say we give it five years. If St. Louis dissolves into a kind of dystopian nightmare where everyone becomes a gun-toting junkie and robs everyone else to buy drugs (in other words, if it stays pretty much the way it is now), then we can call the pilot program a qualified success. If the situation worsens… well, how could it possibly get any worse?

Okay, we've just solved this nation's three most intractable problems, drugs, race and unemployment. I'm off for a beer, before the president declares war on Pabst.

About the Author

Christopher Orlet writes every Thursday from St. Louis.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (74) | Leave a comment

Booger| 1.21.11 @ 6:34AM

Cheech and Chong for Obamacare (which will of course provide free pot for all). Since socialized medicine will of course have to provide the free ("medicinal") pot, all I want to know is whether I get to pick out my own bong or do I have to settle for a government-issued water pipe? Maybe I could at last find a use for that souvenir hooka. Also, would this make Michelle Obama for or against brownies? I guess we can look forward to an increasing teen pregnancy rate as well (yes, there is a connection between getting tweeked and doing something stupid, especially when you're a teenager).

Alan Brooks| 1.21.11 @ 4:39PM

Robertson thinks the New World Order is out to get us, when the UN can't even get enough funds -- let alone take over the world.
Demented Paranoid Robertson.

Eric Cartman| 1.23.11 @ 1:55AM

Looks like Pat Robinson hates me. I looked up from my bong in mid-toke when I heard Robinson say this, started coughing and blew all the water out of the bowl! Wasted about 20 bucks worth of Maui bud! Then the lighted buds that blew out the bowl landed on my lamb-skin rug and started to burn. But since Rainbow Sky Child and I were both naked, we were too freaked out to stomp the smoldering rug out and had to run out of the back of the van right into the busy downtown streets of Houston, me still holding the wet, stinky bong. We just stood there looking at the smoke start billowing out of the van. It was then I felt a cold nose on my rear end, which made me jump and turn at the same time. There, right there in front of me (now), were two cops on horseback looking at us. It was Cop #1's horse that poked me. So there I was . . .naked . . . holding a stinky wet bong . . . my van on fire . . . staring at two cops on horseback. I was thinking things couldn't get any worse when Cop #1's horse mistook my, um, my, you know, for a carrot or something and took a bite. So now I'm in Methodist Hospital having reattachment surgery. What will Pat Robinson do to me next? God only knows.

Occam's Tool| 1.26.11 @ 8:27AM

Dear Eric,

Man, I feel for you. Some days suck more than others.

You know, my wife tried to find a website on indoor growing of tomatoes, and all she got was Pothead U.

Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 1.21.11 @ 7:12AM

I've seen the destruction that drugs cause, up close and personal, and I don't think "We" as a Nation need to open this door up anymore than it has been already. Fighting drugs, is liking fighting the weather, it's a never ending fight, that you can never win, but you just keep fighting it anyway. We have Hurricanes, Forest Fires, Tornados, Floods, Earthquakes, and the ever growing threat from the rising number of Global Warming believers, and we don't stop doing battle with them and just give up because it seems pointless. We clean up, rebuild, and start all over again, like we've done before, and will do again tomorrow. Legalizing drugs is a Pandora's Box, that once opened will never be closed, and you might not like the results you get from it once you look inside.

JimH| 1.21.11 @ 8:09AM

The destruction caused by the use and abuse of alcohol and tobacco is measurably worse. Many of the social consequences from drugs stem from their illegality. If you defend Liberty you have to allow people to make their own choices including the mistakes. Advocating legalization is not advocating use. Needed with legalization are severe penalties for anyone who provide drugs to children. The consequences of doing this for tobacco and alcohol should be increased as well.

Alan Brooks| 1.21.11 @ 9:24PM

You are correct, but this is a bad time to do anything about it, People don't listen when you attempt to explain it to them.

John Navratil| 1.21.11 @ 2:59PM

LL&L,

There are more ways to fight the problem than laws and incarceration. I support your sentiments and do not wish my children to use drugs, but cannot see any evidence that the world - since Richard Nixon appointed the nations first Czar - has had any measurable success with this problem.

We may not like what we see. But I suspect from your statements that you don't much care for what you see, today.

As for the despair you have that the box, once opened, cannot be closed, consider that the box was, at one time, open.

Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 1.21.11 @ 4:35PM

John: I completely agree with you that the "War on Drugs" has been a total failure, but legalizing drugs will result in so many things that cannot be seen at the moment, the old Law of Unintended Consequences (LUC). I'm all for personal responsibility, hell I wake up everyday and face that in the mirror myself, actually last week was my eleventh anniversary of being clean and sober, but I'm the exception to the rule, not the rule. I was lucky to escape, God spared me, and gave me the strength to prevail, but the failure rate in getting clean is above 80% for anybody who becomes an addict. It's a different World today John, people don't buy into that silly notion of personal responsibility, taking the hard road instead of the easy one, saying NO to themselves instead of YES, and it takes a crapload of self control to break free from drugs and alcohol once it takes hold of you. So all I'm saying is, beware of the solution that makes sense on paper, because it's not worth a thing in the real World, when addiction comes knocking on your front door.

John Navratil| 1.22.11 @ 8:28AM

LL&L,

Congratulations on your personal success. I'm familiar with the issues myself. I still drink, but had the battle with cigarettes. Fortunately for the both of us, these are legal.

The Law of Unintended consequences tells us we cannot foresee to down sides to this legislation. For that matter, when have we ever. Your biggest fear seems to be that, once legal, we would have a torrent of addiction which we otherwise would not and assert that once addicted, closing the box legally would do nothing for the problem. I cannot say you would be wrong, but offer the experience of heroin users in Viet Nam returning to the states as a contraindication.

I also suggest that your struggle was and is an individual one (mine was). Knowing what you know now, perhaps you would have never taken that first drink, but we really aren't given that choice are we. I respectfully suggest you are wishing upon those for whom you are concerned that which you would never have accepted yourself.

Occam's Tool| 1.21.11 @ 6:06PM

I work with Native Americans in the US and have worked with the Maoris in New Zealand. I have seen numerous cases of psychotic agitation on marijuana. I'm busy enough. Don't legalize it, and feel free to criticize it.

John Navratil| 1.22.11 @ 9:05PM

Occam's Tool,

You have identified a cost of legalization, but you have ignored the cost of continued prohibition. The murder rate in Cuidad Juarez is keeping a lot of people busy.

Occam's Tool| 1.26.11 @ 8:29AM

Yessir, but it's preferrable, believe it or not. 70-80% of my inpatient psych cases are THC positive in urine drug screen.

drutis| 1.22.12 @ 10:19PM

And making it illegal doesn't stop them from getting it. It does however stop them from getting a clean product to at least lessen negative effects. A recent study found that most illegally gotten marijuana has pesticides, fertilizers and other contaminates.

John Navratil| 1.22.11 @ 9:06PM

P.S.

It is not a contradiction to legalize drugs and continue to criticize their use and to work against it.

Occam's Tool| 2.17.11 @ 5:56PM

Let's say I accept that---it will still make my job harder, not easier.

Richard Baker| 1.21.11 @ 7:27AM

Hey, legalize ALL drugs. I've been saying that for years. Within 18 months we'll have so many overdose deaths that will rid us of these weak sisters. Our society will be better off AND we'll starve the drug cartels of customers. A two-fer.

Chuck| 1.21.11 @ 8:23AM

Pat needs to reread his bible, talks of legalization, global warming, etc. smacks of apostasy a falling away if you will from the faith. These are truly the last days when the elect will be deceived and Pat has fallen into that pit...showing a form of godliness but denying the power thereoff. Your body is your temple, how does drug contamination fit into that Pat Robertson?

Len| 1.21.11 @ 9:09AM

Did Pat say that Christians should take drugs? Does your bible say that Christians are supposed to make laws for unbelievers, or that they are to preach the gospel?

Did not the messiah rebuke the pharisees for adding burdens on the people?

Do the scriptures speak of governments actually governing over the hearts of men, or protecting men from each other?

Joe D.| 1.21.11 @ 8:39AM

Christopher Orlet am I in the Twilizone or what? Cliff May agreeing with gun control for special people, Congressman??? No you and Pat for drugs. Don't you both know that we have a bigger problem with the drug of choice in this country, Alcohol, than pot. That is because it is legal. No I am not for proabition. However, legalizing it will only make our streets less safe then now. Just ask Jared.

Len | 1.21.11 @ 9:14AM

Less safe? Talk about not learning from history. When this country enacted prohibition violence rose and crime became more organized, and this true of the "war on drugs". All that it accomplishes is creating more violence because of the black market, where violence is the only means of resolving disputes, and more people in prison from selling it, more authority to be abused by those in government due to their "need" to monitor everything, and more violence on their part as they will send a swat team in for even what are misdemeanors.

Tim the Enchanter| 1.21.11 @ 5:25PM

Len- I've been re-reading the James Herriot books (All Creatures Great and Small, et. al.) lately, covering his career as a vet from the mid-thirties to the late fifties. One thing that struck me was that in England at that time they used COCAINE as a dental anesthetic and HEROIN as a pain killer for a terminally ill cancer patient. I'm not advocating for these to be over-the counter, but could it be that the Schedule has actually spawned the illegal drug market? I don't remember reading anything about England in those days as being full of stoners (note that the cocaine and heroin were prescribed by medical and dental professionals). Maybe those "good intentioned" people actually created a Frankenstein?

bob alou| 1.21.11 @ 9:13AM

I thought you drank Stag?

Thomas| 1.21.11 @ 10:00AM

When people speak of "legalizing" marijuana, and other banned substances, they fail to take into account the massive ramifications of such a path.

In the first place, they envision "legalization" as meaning over the counter, non-prescription purchase, as is the case with alcohol. This may be feasible with marijuana, but what about cocaine and the opiates? The purchase of oxycodone to get a reality altering buzz on is illegal, now. Should those restrictions be lifted, as well?

Marijuana poses additional problems as well. In the case of cocaine, heroin, etc. the direct effects of the drug can be limited to the user. In a drug that is "smoked", the direct effects of that drug are passed to everyone close enough to the user to inhale the smoke. We see the actions of the no-smoking police with regard to second hand smoke from an extremely benign drug vehicle, tobacco. Where do people expect to be allowed to fire up a doobi? Probably not in public places, or even at home if they have children or live in an attached dwelling, such as an apartment. I suppose that people could use marijuana like snuff or chewing tobacco. But, would they?

The problem with drug use is not the suppliers, but the users. What is the rationale behind scoring a lid of grass and running the risk of being arrested and convicted of a drug violation if you can legally purchase an alcoholic beverage and, through judicious use, enjoy a mind altering experience, legally?

Then there are the health related problems of drug, any drug, use. The detrimental effects of alcohol and tobacco are very well documented, as is the cost, to both individuals and society, of treating these effects. No one argues that cocaine or heroin is a benign recreational chemical. And studies of long-term marijuana users point out significant long-term medical problems from its use. Increasing the potential pool of long-term drug users is unlikely to reduce the cost of treating drug related medical conditions and is likely to increase it.

In my opinion, the societal and personal costs associated with drug use, be it enforcement, regulation or treatment will not decrease significantly, over the long run, with legalization. But, if the majority of people in the United States wish to conduct that experiment, that is what representative government is all about.

Len| 1.21.11 @ 10:44AM

So you are basically saying you have a right to tell other people how to live?

Yea socialism!!

Yea progressivism!!

Yea unlimited government!!

DRed| 1.21.11 @ 3:11PM

Here's the thing, Thomas. A lot of what you say is right. It's not like drugs are healthy. But the war on drugs isn't stopping anyone from getting drugs. It's a war that we've completely lost.

jstwndring| 1.22.11 @ 2:39AM

"So you are basically saying you have a right to tell other people how to live?"
------------------------------------------------------
The short answer is, yes. But, you are confused, obviously, about what freedom loving, pro-Constitutionalists are all about, so let me clarify. Wanting freedom from government tyranny does not equate to wanting anarchy. We are a nation built on laws, as well as establishing liberty and freedom for individuals. We tell each other how to live all the time by what we outline as acceptable behavior through the legal code. Can you not grasp that? We also tell people they cannot commit murder, for example. Some people do it anyway. I guess we're losing that war, so, we might as well allow for its legalization, right? No. Wanting laws in place to put a check on irresponsible behavior does not make us socialists. Nice try though.

Having said all that, i'm not necessarily against legalizing marijuana. It's just that we'd better be damn sure of what we think will be the result. It may backfire on us big-time. I kind of think it would.

kon| 1.23.11 @ 2:25AM

Murder, theft, assault, etc. Result in harm to others. Harming others is wrong. There should be laws to punish people who harm others. Those things should be illegal. However getting high harms no one. You might make an argument about the users health but then you open the door to the government forbidding you from anything that it determines is "Bad for you"
If pot is readily available everywhere now(which it is). Where is the upside to keeping it illegal?

drutis| 1.22.12 @ 10:41PM

"What is the rationale behind scoring a lid of grass and running the risk of being arrested and convicted of a drug violation if you can legally purchase an alcoholic beverage and, through judicious use, enjoy a mind altering experience, legally?"

Well alcohol makes me violently ill, and marijuana makes me hungry.... answer your question?
Who the hell are you people?
Have you ever seen someone stoned?
Have you ever seen someone drunk?
Someone stoned has bloodshot eyes and is usually in a good mood. Someone drunk (I mean really drunk) is likely belligerent, incoherent, and stumbling all over the place. Have you read any statistics on alcohol deaths? What about marijuana deaths? Even heroin and cocaine dont even come close to alcohol in deaths. And dont give me that crap about heroin use going up when it is legal. Would you go out and use it? I bet you wouldnt have much trouble finding it if you tried now(if you live in a city) and I know for a fact it is easier for an inner city kid to get heroin than alcohol because it is widely accepted that you dont give kids alcohol and it is illegal, but the heroin dealer (likely a user and under the influence at the time) has no such convictions!

Stop assuming that everyone around you is a degenerate and realize that some people ARE degenerates, regardless of the law. Lock them up when and ONLY when they actually HURT SOMEONE. Not because you find their actions repugnant (If we locked up everyone I find repugnant there would be REAL prison overcrowding, not this 0.5% of the population we have today, starting with bigots and idiots)

Pelligrino| 1.21.11 @ 10:03AM

Ortlet writes in the first line, "even a cynical bastard like me...."

I guess your mother is proud.

No standards at all, eh? Quality?

L. Ross| 1.21.11 @ 10:31AM

I don't care what they do, as long as they leave my sterno alone.

Obama Torme| 1.21.11 @ 10:49AM

"Under my plan, if you want your old cans of sterno, you can keep your sterno."

"In addition, if you want your old Whip-It brand nitrous-oxide cylinders, you can keep your old Whip-It brand nitrous-oxide cylinders".

NotALibertarian| 1.21.11 @ 10:51AM

No one even remotely conservative should be calling for legalization. But we should all be screaming for an end to the draconian laws that the War on Drugs produced.

The focus needs to be on re-issuing higher paper denominations ($500 bills, etc.) and on repealing the laws that give the government the right to snoop into cash transactions, or cash being carried overseas. And it should be none of the government's business if I buy cough syrup, for goodness' sake. Oh, and funds for medical care and rehab programs need to come from private charities, not the government.

Keep the drug laws on the books, but give normal people their rights back.

Mel Torme| 1.21.11 @ 10:58AM

Seriously, Len is the only commenter here who really believes in freedom and the Constitution, I guess.

All these others are all for freedom, when it suits their needs - sunny-day freedom-lovers, I guess. You hear a whole shit-ton of talk from these commenters about the US Constitution when it's about elections, Obamacare, etc, and good on 'em for that. Here you've got the War on Drugs (TM) failing to do much more than obliterate the 4th, 5th and 10th Amendments for well nigh 40 years, and these people have nothing but praise for it.

Face it, most of you are just plain scared of freedom. You should admit that, as step 1 of a 12 step program.

As for you, Orlet, good article, but you admitted the most important point here - the US government has no authority to regulate drugs, per the Law of the Land (US Constitution, Amend. 10). It makes one wonder what that whole Amend. 18/21 thing was about, with prohibition of alcohol. They must have still had a tad bit of respect for the Constitution back then, as opposed to the people nowadays.

Mel Torme| 1.21.11 @ 1:01PM

oops:

WAS: "... but you admitted ..."
S/B: " ... but you omitted ..."

NotALibertarian| 1.21.11 @ 3:48PM

Uh, Mel, if by "afraid of freedom" you mean "afraid of the destruction that would be caused by creating a libertarian utopia that has never actually existed", I would say, why, yes! Yes! We ARE "afraid of freedom"!

Mel Torme| 1.21.11 @ 5:21PM

Thanks for the honest answer.

jstwndring| 1.22.11 @ 2:56AM

Face it, you don't know any of us well enough to know why we are against it in the first place. We are all for freedom for individuals. What we are against is irresponsible behavior. When has the use of recreational drugs led to responsible behavior? Never. You'll never hear anyone say, "My life was a complete mess before I started doing drugs." It just doesn't happen. We are justifiably concerned about just how far out of hand things will get if marijuana is legalized. Most of the problems with the war on drugs are associated with the half-assed method by which it is pursued. Those on the front lines are doing their best, but, they keep arresting the same jackasses over, and over, and over again. Thank-you justice system.

You are, like Len, confused by who we pro-Constitution types are. We are not anarchists. We do not want a lawless society. If you do know that, then your criticisms are disingenuous, self-serving, and callous. Don't you care what will happen to the lives of those who may be more inclined to try something that's legal, than they would be if it weren't? No. You want yours. Period. Sad.

What's even sadder, is that I actually had to explain any of that to an adult.

Mel Torme| 1.22.11 @ 10:45AM

What's sad to me is that you can write this long of a post as a reply to me yet never understand my post to begin with. Reading comprehension does not come easy to you, but you don't see me mandating jail time for you, even if you aren't on "the pot".

Read the Constitution before you say you support it. You obviously haven't read amendment 10, which limits US Gov't powers.

You are for freedom but against irresponsible behaviors? What's new, aren't we all? The difference is that you want the long arm of the law to violate the US Constitution (this time I'm talking about Amendments 4 and 5) to do something about it. You are a statist, jstwndring; that's pretty clear to me.

Don't sully the name of freedom loving people with the name "jstwndring". Just be honest and say you want the authoritah!

Oh, this gem: "No. You want yours. Period. Sad." That's your last argument, a wrong assumption. No, I don't partake. It doesn't mean I want to control this decision for others, you statist bastard.

Steve B| 1.23.11 @ 10:31AM

" We are all for freedom for individuals. What we are against is irresponsible behavior."

That leapt off the page at me.

"Irresponsible behavior." As defined by whom?

Driving an SUV, consumingBig Macs, smoking (tobacco,) engaging in capitalist acts between consenting adults - these are all considered "irresponsible acts" by totalitarian leftists. Who of course, aren't against freedom, heaven forbid! Merely "irresponsible acts."

So tell me sir, what is the difference between you and they, aside from your personal definition of "irresponsible acts"?

jstwndring' conscience| 1.23.11 @ 4:29PM

None whatsoever.

e cowan| 1.21.11 @ 1:53PM

' Pat Robertson has called for legalizing pot.
" It's true. ....... Last month the founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network told his television audience that marijuana should be decriminalized.'
I believe his statement was retracted/clarified by his organization. I think it may be time for Mr Robertson to retire. His mental faculties may no longer be up to the challenge of the job.

Seek| 1.21.11 @ 2:45PM

Oh? And I suppose his mental facilities were intact when he claimed that a certain hurricane here in the U.S. was God's wrath for the "sins" of the area struck. At least on the issue of grass, the guy is beginning to make sense.

jstwndring| 1.22.11 @ 3:04AM

Hmmm. Not seeing any reference whatsoever in e cowan's post about justifying Pat's claims about hurricanes, wrath of God, or in fact, anything else said by Robertson. I'm sorry, could you show me where he did? You can't? So, what are you talking about? To whom are you speaking? Are the voices in your head starting to overwhelm you? Yeah, I want drugs for people like YOU legalized.

Mel Torme| 1.22.11 @ 10:51AM

"Yeah, I want drugs for people like YOU legalized"

With my assumption that the above is sarcastic, that is a perfect example of why I believe you are a statist freak, jstwndring. Pat Robertson notwithstanding (I don't know the details of what he said), your answer to Mr. Seek shows your authoritative streak. He could be totally wrong and you right, about Mr. Robertson - I don't care. He could be so deluded about it due to his drugged-up state (I'm not claiming this, hence "could be ..."). If this were so, why is that a reason he shouldn't be able to use drugs? People might spout off wacky opinion? That happens all the time anyway - you are Exhibit A.

Seek| 1.24.11 @ 7:46PM

Quite obviously, you have a problem reading text. Of course, "cowan" made no reference to hurricanes. My point is this: He claimed Pat Robertson is beginning to go batty. I responded that he always has been batty, his various comments about the relationship between natural disasters and God's wrath being a good example.

Fact: In June 1998, Rev. Robertson warned residents of the Orlando, Fla. area that Disney World's promotion of "gay days" would bring about natural disasters. Here's Robertson's take: "I would warn Orlando that you're right in teh way of some serious hurricanes, and I don't think I'd be waving those flags in God's face if I were you." Homosexuality, he added, "will bring about terrorist bombs, it'll bring earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor." Is that explicit enough for you?

No, I'm not gay. But I don't like prominent conservatives making idiots of us all. It's gratifying that Robertson, at least, now believes that possession of marijuana shouldn't be a cause for imprisonment. I call that progress, of sorts.

As for you, get a life. Your style is most witless and insulting.

Tom| 1.21.11 @ 2:05PM

Find out why more and more cops, judges, and prosecutors who have fought on the front lines of the "war on drugs" are standing up and saying we need to legalize and regulate all drugs to help solve our economic, crime, and public health problems: http://www.CopsSayLegalizeDrugs.com

jstwndring| 1.22.11 @ 3:09AM

Probably because of the corrupt politicians that are working against them in the system. Just like the border patrol agents that have to not only try to stem the tide of illegals crossing the border, but, also have to fight the a-hole politicians that threaten to have them thrown in jail for doing their job.

Consider why prohibition didn't work. Corrupt politicians and judges on the mob payroll that allowed the illegal activity to prosper. That's exactly why we need moral people in office. I know that's a foreign concept to some.

Occam's Tool| 2.17.11 @ 5:58PM

Well, I'm on the "Fronter" line than the Attorneys and Judges---I'm the guy who stabilizes the drug using psychotics that the police drop off and stabilizes them. Legalization is a bad idea. Bad, bad, idea.

drutis| 1.22.12 @ 11:01PM

I could seriously believe you guys are some NSA or DHS or maybe DEA -plant! You make no sense at all. What good has locking up any of your patients done for anyone. PLEASE explain!!!!!
And Jstwngdingbat, the reason cops and judges are corrupt is because someone drove up to thier house with a dumptruck load of money, and they could afford this because the drugs (alcohol) they sold was illegal and HIGHLY inflated. Hard to pass that up when refusal gets you a bullet.

Clinton Lovell| 1.21.11 @ 2:10PM

FACT CHECK: if you are busted for possession in Louisiana you go to jail for up to 20 years on the third offense, 5 years for the second offense and 6 months on the first.

FACT CHECK: In Kentucky the second joint can get you 5 years.

FACT CHECK: possession busts are FELONIES in many states.

The author makes jokes about mental facilities. Should we consider his inability to research to be evidence of the same?

jstwndring| 1.22.11 @ 3:16AM

Fact check: The author was talking about how law enforcement handles teenagers. At worse, they go to juvie. They don't see 6 months, 5 years, or, anywhere near 20. Teens don't do hard time. They are usually just warned, and turned over to their parents. Re-read the article.

AzDave| 1.21.11 @ 2:39PM

My son was involved in a car crash 2 years ago. He received a Traumatic Brain Injury. He is currently 19 years old. The other driver was at fault. The 14 year old girl in my son's car was killed.

When my son drinks alcohol he blacks out and gets extremely violent.

When he smokes marijauna he is mellow and happy.

I do not condone marijauna but it is the lesser of 2 evils in this case for sure.

My son now has a felony and has been in jail for MJ possession. He had enough to be considered "intent to sell " even though he was not selling.

My son cannot drink alchohol the rest of his life. this is actually a blessing.

He has another felony on the back burner for MJ.

He is getting ready to go on probation for 3 years with drug testing. he can go to prison for up to a year if in violation of probation. if he doesn't pass the piss test it could end up that he is in jail.

There are numerous fines! My son can't get a job with a TBI and felonies!

Az just passed the medicinal MJ law which I was opposed too but I am seriously contemplating getting my son a script so he can't get arrested.

I don't condone MJ but I also don't want my son in jail forever.

there are a lot of kids and families in my situation who's son's and daughters do not have a TBI.

They get busted for possession multiple times and end up in The "System"..Once in the "System" they can't get out.

I actually agreed with Pat Robertson on this issue
because the state has taken it too far!

j| 1.22.11 @ 2:44AM

I agree with Pat on this issue also. Legalize it now.(I am a Christian also). I hope your son stays the legal course during probation. That's a treacherous path on which many a perp gets gigged. Keep him straight for the next three years. Otherwise, the "system" perpetuates itself.

Tommy Tune| 1.21.11 @ 3:09PM

"It used to be the only people calling for legal pot were the half-baked fans of The Big Lebowski and certain Nobel Prize-winning economists."

Buckley writes in 2004 here: http://old.nationalreview.com/.....291207.asp
National Review took the editorial stance for legalization in it's July 1996 issue.
http://old.nationalreview.com/12feb96/drug.html

Chaucer| 1.21.11 @ 4:20PM

Nicholas cage made a worst movie between those. It was called The Sorcerer's Apprentice.

Joe| 1.21.11 @ 4:43PM

Can anyone say exactly when drugs became illegal? Wasn't CocaCola a source of coacaine at one time? In the 1800's, were known drugs like cocaine, marijuana, and opium illegal?

The truth is that the addictive type personalities are already using these substances and the only ones benefitting are the drug dealers. The comparison with alcohol has been made often, and only the mob and Joe Kennedy made any money. These days, we still have drunkards, but most of us enjoy a beer or drink and don't lose it.

So what are we really accomplishing by keeping drugs illegal?

Mojo Nixon| 1.21.11 @ 10:25PM

if you want freedom, you will say no to war. War on drugs, war on iraq, war on afghanistan, war on global warming. Time for a war on war suckers!

Occam's Tool| 1.21.11 @ 10:59PM

By the waqy, THC, in pill form, is legal and prescribable. It's called marinol.

Occam's Tool| 1.21.11 @ 10:59PM

Sorry, typo. "By the way"

Lakewood Bob| 1.22.11 @ 1:54AM

Don’t legalize pot, heroin, or any other drug; just decriminalize them! If no one is being harmed, leave them alone. If they commit a crime under the influence, throw the book at them and stake them out on an ‘ant hill.’ The results should be amazingly beneficial to society!

I believe legalized ‘abortion’ is a far more sinister and loathsome abomination to mankind and God than drug use, and it is the practice that should suffer the opprobrium of a civilized society!

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." -- John Stuart Mill, "On Liberty" 1859

FTM| 1.22.11 @ 5:33AM

Here's another example of a "problem" that is falling down simple to fix. Leagalize drugs, plain and simple. Get the government of of the smoker's back, let people smoke. How hard can it be to let big people make decisions with what to do with their own lives?

Where in the constitution is the government obliged to dictate what I can put in my mouth, brethe into my lungs or inject into my arm?

Now, on the other side of the coin...

When you get sick because of the life choices that you've made, say for example that you come down with lung cancer after smoking a pack and a half for twenty years, you're on your own pal.

Perhaps either that or allow insurance companies to sell "smoker's insurance" that would actually be prorated out to cover the expense of the habit. Crack head insurance.

Same with drugs, when you turn up unable to work because you've been kicking the gong around or you blew your heart up with good 'ol number one pure white Peruvian flake, you're on your own.

Ergo... stop forcing the productive to subsidize the useless. Doesn't it stand to reason that if you stop subsidizing a counterproductive activity that people will stop engaging in the counterproductive activity? If you stop paying little girls to have babies then little girls will stop having babies?

On the one hand by what moral, ethical or legal precident do you or anyone else have the right to attempt to control the decisions that I make in regards to my life, my body. In the same vein what moral, ethical or legal precident do I have in attempting to force other people to pay for my own foolishness?

Do like they do in the EU. You can do whatever you want with your cell phone. Be on the cell phone when you have a car wreck, based on the assumption that you survive the car wreck and you'll never leagally operate a car again. Simple. You know when the wreck happened and the cell phone company has a record of your usage. If the two happen at the same time, game over. You don't need a titanic, expensive government organization to fix this.

And don't trell me that if you legalize drugs that people will be out driving cars on drugs, they're doing that now. The whiney people used that arguement when the leagalized concealed carry debate was on, "you'll have people out driving cars with guns." Like they weren't already. personally I like to use my hands to drive a car, it's hard to turn a steering wheel with a gun.

The legitimate question is do we or do we not legalize drugs. The legitimate question is why is it so impossibly difficult to adequately cope with simple problems.

Richard Baker| 1.22.11 @ 8:24AM

Joe:
Coca Cola had trace amounts of Cocaine in the original formula. Remember, the gentleman who developed it was a druggist named John Pemberton in Atlanta. Shortly after the turn of the 20th Century, that trace amount was gone.

djones| 1.22.11 @ 12:16PM

If some one murders several people in a vicious and horrible manner most of us would agree to the execution of the murderer. Well doesn’t a drug dealer not murder hundreds if not thousands who die in overdoses or accidents or crimes that they would not been involved in except for their habit. Does not a drug dealer enslave hundreds or maybe thousands in a life of prostitution or crime to pay for their next "rock". Yes the profit motive in dope is great. Your first offence only gets you 7 or 8 years in prison but you've made millions. The death penalty for dealers is justice for the crime. It seems that sometimes all we can do protect people from themselves until they wake up.....

FTM| 1.22.11 @ 6:19PM

Sorry, I screwed up my reply. The reply is below.

FTM| 1.22.11 @ 6:19PM

Or you could do the intelligent thing and get the government out of the interdiction business altogether and let the free market correct the problem. In a free market economy if you drove a truck to Peru from the US and bought a truckload of the best quality cocaine available and drove back to the US to sell the stuff you wouldn't pay for the diesel to make the trip. As for the drug dealer standing on the street corner, it's a tough economy to try to compete with a Walgreens or a grocery store pharmacy when it comes to selling drugs. It's that "economy of scale" thing. I read one time that the calculated value of cocaine in a free market economy is less than an equal volume of powdered sugar.

As a further evidence take a look at what the Chinese did to themselves in the 1800's in trying to eradicate the opium problem. They were shooting dealers and users by the mass grave/land fill and didn't even make a dent in the problem.

As for me, I don't have an intrest in messing with drugs. I have a bottle with over a hundred doses of oxycontin that a doctor prescribed for me well over a year ago. If I want to get all tore up I can do it pretty much any time that I want. Thing is, I don't want.

Not to be derrogatory toward you but consider for a moment that you have accepted some really bad logic for a long time. Consider the outright perversion of a federal, state and local law enforcement community that relies in large part for it's existence on the existence of "illegal" drug dealers and of "illegal" drug dealers relying on the law enforcement community to keep the price of their commodity high. Who gets screwed? You do, you're the one that has to pay to support this perverse symbiosis. Legalize drugs and two out of three cops, lawyers, judges, correctional ossifers, jails, prisons would be out of work/empty overnight. The only reason that people are willing to shoot at each other over who is going to sell what where is due to the profit margin. Legalize the drug, eliminate the profit margin eliminate the violence.

Drug interdication turns Andy Griffith style peace officers into "Law Enforcement Officers." The Gestapo in 1930's era Germany were just "Law Enforcement Officers" doing their jobs too.

Consider the difference in the "cost to society" between alcohol and marijuana. How many pot heads you ever hear of smoking a joint and then beating the holy hell out of their wives and children? The other side of the coin, the guy that drinks up a bunch of beer then beats the wife and kids half to death doesn't even make it into the papers anymore it's so common.

In the early 1900's in America anybody could walk in off of the street and buy heroin or cocaine in a drug store, over the counter no questions asked. Where are the documented cases of out of control drug crazies stealing anything that wasn't nailed down raping the wimmins and killing everyone that got in their way? There weren't any because it didn't happen.

Sadly my friend you have bought into the government's arguement that justifies bigger and ever bigger government at your expense. The effects of drugs in society are bad. The effects of a glutted, out of control, unaccountable government are far, far worse. I'll take the drugs any day.

Occam's Tool| 2.17.11 @ 6:01PM

I have seen HUNDREDS of pot heads who did marijuana and beat the crap out of their wives. Sorry, it ain't innocuous.

drutis| 1.22.12 @ 11:07PM

But alcohol is?

Steve in Pittsburgh| 1.23.11 @ 9:50AM

I thought St. Louis WAS a dystopian nightmare .

From what I hear (and see in the movie National Lampoon's Vacation) East St. Louis certainly is.

Allen Hanson| 1.23.11 @ 7:05PM

Pat Robertson is an old fool whose mind has been gone for a long time, since back when he and Jerry Falwell declared that 9/11 was God's judgment on America (for what I have no idea). Pat was a great leader for Christians at one time, but he has gone senile. Therefore, it's kind of dishonest to use his mind-feeble present mumblings as if he was the whip-smart Christian advocate he was 20 years ago.

albert constantine, jr.| 1.23.11 @ 8:26PM

I’m afraid I must weigh in against the stated position of Messrs. Robertson, Orlet and McWhorter regarding drug legalization. While I think the use of the metaphor “War on Drugs” is misplaced (when do we declare war on Car theft, vandalism, forgery, homicide or any other crime), I think the continued legal prohibition of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, marijuana and other street drugs is a better choice than legalization. With respect to the assertion credited to Mr. McWhorter that if drugs are legalized, all of the street pharmacists will find legitimate work, I think the lessons of history are ignored. After Prohibition ended, did all of the bootleggers and fellow gangsters left the business and/or became legitimate liquor distributors, like Joe Kennedy, or did many just find new vices to exploit and contraband to import (such as heroin, cocaine, etc.)? Today, not only do we have all of the problems associated with the availability of alcohol, we have those associated with the expanded street drug market. Despite my sentiments in this regard, though, I personally believe the unlawful street drug market is declining significantly, and it is the shrinking nature of the market that drives the violence that one sees in Mexico, as rival gangs fight each other for declining market share (which is still in the billions of dollars). Today, the chief competition is in the form of diverted pharmaceuticals, subsidized by the federal government, the states and private insurance. Why bother with heroin smuggled in from Khun Sa’s stash in the Southeast Asian Golden Triangle, when oxycodone paid for with the cash from Obama’s stash does just as well for less personal expense? Where law enforcement officers in the recent past noted Mother’s Day (the day early in the month when AFDC checks were issued) as the point in a month where government was subsidizing the unlawful drug market, now with Medicaid drug benefits the taxpayers can pick up the tab all month long. I also believe that this is why the young street pharmacist entrepreneurs of whom Mr. McWhorter speaks have branched out into the armed robbery field in many communities(such as St. Louis, as Mr Orlet describes). While I am hardly an unbiased party, after 25 years in law enforcement, I know there is still much to improve in how we as a society approach drug abuse (and organized crime, and racial issues, and many others), but legalization would be a step in the wrong direction.

drutis| 1.22.12 @ 11:14PM

You sir are a bigot. You act like every pothead in America is a second story man. Most have JOBS, but they can't get good ones so they work way too hard for way too little money just so they can smoke a little and feel good for a bit. Some develop a real "problem" most do not. unless of course they have a run in with your former gang members... I mean police officers.