The American Spectator : Drug Legalization Chic

Text Size

Drug Legalization Chic

By Manon McKinnon on 1.11.12 @ 6:05AM

Another area where Ron Paul isn’t right.

Every so often, alas, the subject of drug legalization reappears. This time it is back as one of many bad ideas from presidential candidate Congressman Ron Paul and is cheered on by the usual fans, from libertarians to pot heads. But many were surprised when conservative columnist Mona Charen joined the argument in a column she called “Where Ron Paul is Right.”

“Paul deserves full credit for endorsing drug legalization,” writes Ms. Charen as she goes into all the reasons she thinks the U.S. should give up and give in to corrosive drugs. Not surprisingly the reasons are the same ones we’ve heard since before and beyond the “just say no” days; such as the imagined wrongful incarceration of simple users (no — such prisoners have plea bargained down from major trafficking and violent crimes); medical necessity (banned drugs are not medicine); and the existence of drug crime.

To that last one observer writes, “[If] Drug prohibition creates drug crimes, so legalize drugs and, poof, no more crime. However, it should be pointed out that no one makes the same argument for rape.” And United Nations drug fighter Antonio Maria Costa adds, “Human trafficking is another tough crime problem, worldwide — perhaps second in size, after drug trafficking. Should we legalize modern slavery, given the intrinsic difficulty in dealing with it? Of course not.”

It is common for legalizers to speak of rights without responsibilities and to make the case that all drug problems are associated with drug illegality. They seem to ignore the rest: child abuse and neglect, fetal damage, domestic violence and highway deaths to name a few. All these come when, as former Drug Czar Bill Bennett wrote, “People addicted to drugs neglect their duties… they will neglect God, family, children, friends and jobs — everything in life that is important, noble and worthwhile — for the sake of drugs… drugs undermine the necessary virtues of a free society — autonomy, self reliance, and individual responsibility… for a citizenry to be perpetually in a drug-induced haze doesn’t bode well for the future of self-government.”

Once on my way home to Washington, my flight was canceled due to unusually severe thunderstorms in D.C. Back the next day I heard a radio report that I have never forgotten. Two small children were found that night wandering alone in the storm with no coats. They were trying to find their grandmother’s house with food and warmth because their own parents had passed out on drugs. Would legalization have helped here?

The former prison physician who writes under the name Theodore Dalrymple has seen up close the ugly world of drug use and its consequences and warns Americans that although advocates say “legalization will remove most of the evil that drugs inflict on society; don’t believe them…. If the war against drugs is lost, then so are the wars against theft, speeding, incest, fraud, rape, murder, arson, and illegal parking. Few, if any, such wars are winnable. So let us all do anything we choose…” Then he adds, “few are the situations so bad they cannot be made worse by a wrong policy decision.”

And here are the words of sociologist James Q. Wilson who once put it: “drug use is wrong because it is immoral and it is immoral because it enslaves the mind and destroys the soul.” Let’s not legalize that.

About the Author

Manon McKinnon is a writer living in Falls Church, Virginia.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (287) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Clint| 1.11.12 @ 6:41AM

" Congressman Paul has stated that the federal government does not possess the authority to establish laws regulating drug possession, and that the federal government was not intended to fight a war on drugs. He has stated that he does not support drug use, but that the role of the federal government is not to regulate behavior. He supports state laws to regulate drugs as each state sees fit."

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To South Carolina.

Big Tony| 1.11.12 @ 9:20AM

Clint is exactly right, as is Dr. Paul the federal government has over stepped it's consitutional limits on this issue and many others as well. But let's not worry about Consitutional formalities if it suits our purposes. Most of McKinnon's arguments are absurd on their face and the comparisons he makes are laughable, again with no mention of the fact that these laws are blatantly unconsitutional, as are the drug wars . But he makes the typical conservatives argument here, by ignoring the U.S. Consitution and the U. S. government's violation of the supreme law of the land when it's to his liking, I'm sure as most all typical conservative do he will scream bloody murder about constitutional violations when and only when he doesn't like the results.

John Navratil| 1.11.12 @ 9:44AM

Big Tony,

When Ron Paul is right, he is very, very right, and when he is wrong he is horrid.

Hobbes| 1.11.12 @ 10:04AM

Your comment means nothing. What is your point?

John Navratil| 1.11.12 @ 10:17AM

Read it. It's in English.

John Navratil| 1.11.12 @ 10:21AM

Hobbes,

Pardon my flippancy. The point was the Paul is right on many things - chiefly spending. I think he thinking on the Fed is incomplete and his foreign policy views will get us into a war. Most Paul supporters disagree with me.

Hobbes| 1.11.12 @ 11:18AM

"His foreign policy views will get us into war..." Excuse me while I have a stroke here... In case you haven't noticed, we are at war! We've been in two wars ever since the Neo-Cons came to power!!! The reason we are at war is because we have been muddling around in the Middle East where the Muzzies will not abide us. Had we stayed home, we would be in zero wars and we would not be bankrupt.

John Navratil| 1.11.12 @ 11:36AM

Hobbes,

As one who has lived in the Middle East, I will tell you that they do not think as we do. It's their culture. I'll submit that any people who refuse to educate one-half their population are starting with a distinct disadvantage, but without getting into qualitative arguments, it is evidence of my point.

Please have that stroke. However, I could not disagree with your last statement, or Paul, on this point more completely.

Hobbes| 1.11.12 @ 12:16PM

Obviously no talking sense to the guy. sigh.

John Navratil| 1.11.12 @ 12:23PM

One is free to disagree, but it is a supreme arrogance to suggest that one is the arbiter of what is sensible.

Cunte'| 1.12.12 @ 1:21PM

you have no clue. we're broke because of 60 plus years of socialism. the new deal, great society, fannie mae, freddie mac, social security. any ring a bell?

Jack in Wi.| 1.11.12 @ 11:25AM

John Navatril: We have been in endless warsfro 100 years. The best and only solution to our defenses is to be well armed and not go looking for fights. All the isnterventionism has got us is a lot of dead American soldiers and bankruptcy. Defend America and let the world defend itself. One war only leads to another. Israel, Europe, the Arabs, the Japanese and the Koreans can all defend themselves with their own blood and treasure.

The regulation of vice has always been in the Constutional province of the states. They are the ones to regulate abortion, homosexuality, pornography, smoking, alcohol, drugs, prostituion, gaambling etc. The national userpation of this authority is leading us to a police state. The Federal government is becoming everyone's nanny. Get the Federal government out of the state's business.

TrueBlue | 1.11.12 @ 12:55PM

WWII came to us. Even if Japan hadn't attacked us because we cut off their oil the Germans would have come at us from the other side after they took out the rest of Europe. Non-interventionist thinking is only going to make the world hate us even more as we trade with everyone, regardless of what side of a war they are on with anyone else. We'd become the equivalent of international arms dealers for resources or products.

As for the Constitutionality, drug use actually DOES fall under the general welfare clause. It is in the best interest of the COUNTRY for its citizens to be able to think as clearly as possible. (insert alcohol argument here) Alcohol has been around for so long because it used to be the only thing drinkable without getting various illnesses from untreated water. Although some people have the problem of alcoholism (an actual genetic issue) the majority of the population does not, they make the choice to get wasted to the point of incoherence. Alcohol is not addictive, neither is gambling (people lacking self control is not proof of an addiction, sorry). You can argue cigarettes are addictive, but they don't make people non-functioning.

The same can't be said of illegal drugs; they are massively addicting (most actually manufactured that way) and cause instant noticeable changes in the person. Marijuana is about the only drug you could argue for to legalize simply because many of the effects are similar to alcohol. The problem being, the effects may look similar, but they stay with the person MUCH longer than alcohol in most cases.

megapotamus| 1.11.12 @ 2:41PM

The general welfare clause? Hmm. What could possibly NOT be proscribed? Also, while you deride the alcohol agument, you do not address it. Why was an Amendment required for Prohibition? Or was it? Was that all much ado about nothing? I propose a federal mandate for all persons to purchase reflective vests and wear them whenever out in public. Is there any doubt that this would increase public safety? A study not long ago found, unsurprisingly, that black American men have much better longevity and health outcomes incarcerated than at liberty (ooh, that word). Can we jail them? It's for their own good? Also, your dire characterizations of drug effects are not supported by science, but that is immaterial. The Federal government does not have the powers you desire to exercise over your fellow men. Sorry. Try Cuba.

Hobbes| 1.11.12 @ 4:40PM

Preach, brother Megapotamus, Preach!

Big Tony| 1.11.12 @ 3:07PM

Your line of reasoning is flawed in my opinion. On your first point are you seriouly suggesting that Stalin, who starved to death 10 million Ukrainians alone and killed an estimated 100 million people was somehow better than Hitler? The total dead from WW2 was 50 million by the way, compare that to Stalin's 100 million. And are you saying that we could not possibly have fought and won cold war with Hitler? Are you actually saying you can forecast the outcome of an alternative version of history?

With respect to alcohol and the current drug wars aren't you aware that it took a Constitutional Amendment to make alcohol illegal? Wasn't the general welfare clause in the constitution at the time of Prohibition? What changed? Other that the respect for the supreme law of the USA by it's president, elected representives and Supreme Court and a willingness to overlook the law in an unrelenting desire for additional power not granted to them by the consittution. Or are you one of those living document types that believe the constitution means whatever 9 people in black robes say it means?

Quartermaster| 1.11.12 @ 8:42PM

We provoked the Japs in WW2. We may not have liked what they were doing in China, but it did not involve any American interest. There is very clear evidence FDR wanted us in the war, which is why he sent US Destroyers to sea with Brit convoys before the Germans declared war on us.

It was much the same with WW1 and Wilson's weak excuse for war. We also helped make Stalin the menace he became to us.

As for drugs, Paul and his opponents are both right and wrong. It's heart breaking to see kids out in the weather looking for help from another family member because those responsible aren't in any condition to give what they are supposed to give.

OTOH, FedGov has no authority to engage in a war against drugs. Alcohol is just as addictive as drugs are, but we do not have near the problems with it as we do narcotics. It was also agreed that an constitutional amendment was required to wage war on demon Rum as well. Now why do you think that was the case?

The Drug War has spawned nothing but evil, and has done nothing to interdict their flow. We saw the same trouble with prohibition in the 20s. The Alkie war also gave something we did not have prior to that on a national scale - organized crime. All the drug war has done is reinforce the problems we already had, and strengthen the gangs. Unfortunately, one of those gangs is the Police on the Federal State and local levels, and they are becoming as much a menace as the other criminal gangs. The FedGov gangs is also being extended with DHS and TSA on their way to becoming omnipresent.

The US is well on its way to becoming a Police State. In that Paul is exactly correct, and vilifying Paul for it marks many of you as bigger morons than you could ever accuse Paul of being.

Occam's Tool| 1.11.12 @ 11:06PM

I’m done commenting on the Paulbots this week. It’s like kicking a quadriplegic retard in the balls. There’s just no sport in it.

(My thanks to Big Pete from Weasel Zippers, from whom I stole and changed this line, origninally applied to "Tingles.")

Cunte'| 1.12.12 @ 1:34PM

i'll reserve the comment i'd like to make to you. that said, prohibition resulted in one of the most troubled periods of time in our history. once legalized again, we regulated alcohol and the turf wars went away (along with all the drive by murders and other associated evils). and your assertion that alcohol is not addictive is laughable. the general welfare clause. how does prohibition of anything promote the general welfare? we can't keep illicit substances or criminal activity out of the prisons. how then do you propose we keep it out of the general population. wave a magic wand? what rock have you been living under?

buck| 1.16.12 @ 7:29AM

i would argue that the genetic susceptibility to addiction you attribute to alcohol only can be said for any addiction, be it alcohol, drugs, gambling or OCD. It all has to do with impulse control. That is universal.

ken| 1.17.12 @ 12:38PM

Alcohol not addictive? What planet did this idiot come from? Has this moron ever even met an alcoholic? Alcohol is the most destructive legal drug in the entire world. It is responsible immeasurable misery. This twit lost any credibility when he stated that alcohol is not addictive. What an A$$!

malcolm kyle| 1.17.12 @ 3:10PM

TrueBlue, you are possibly the same type of person who cheered in 1919 when federal alcohol prohibition was introduced. And most probably the same type of person who opposed it's repeal in 1933.

According to DrugRehabs.Org, national mortality figures for 2009 were: tobacco 435,000; poor diet and physical inactivity 365,000; alcohol 85,000; microbial agents 75,000; toxic agents 55,000; motor vehicle crashes 26,347; adverse reactions to prescription drugs 32,000; suicide 30,622; incidents involving firearms 29,000; homicide 20,308; sexual behaviors 20,000; all illicit drug use, direct and indirect 17,000; and marijuana 0.

Researchers led by Professor David Nutt, a former chief drugs adviser to the British government, asked drug-harm experts to rank 20 drugs (legal and illegal) on 16 measures of harm to the user and to wider society, such as damage to health, drug dependency, economic costs and crime. Alcohol scored 72 out of a possible 100, far more damaging than heroin (55) or crack cocaine (54). It is the most harmful to others by a wide margin, and is ranked fourth behind heroin, crack, and methamphetamine (crystal meth) for harm to the individual.

You probably consume alcohol every day. It's a drug that's clearly more dangerous than cocaine. The only difference between you and a crack-head is the time-period we live in.

claygooding| 1.18.12 @ 11:10AM

""The problem being, the effects may look similar, but they stay with the person MUCH longer than alcohol in most cases.""

Cannabis stays in your body because it belongs in your body.

Alcohol and many of the other drugs are poison and your body gets rid of them as rapidly as it can while cannabis is hardwired for your body,,see endacannabanoid(SP) research.

Occam's Tool| 1.11.12 @ 11:13PM

I’m done commenting on Clint and Jack this week. It’s like kicking a quadriplegic retard in the balls. There’s just no sport in it.

(My thanks to Big Pete from Weasel Zippers, from whom I stole and changed this line, originally applied to "Tingles.")

aware| 1.12.12 @ 5:43AM

You have succeeded in lowering my opinion of psychiatrists. Something I didn't think was possible. I suppose you prefer "kicking someone in the balls" that would give you the satisfaction showing their pain.

Other than ball kicking and nuking millions, do you have any other fantasies that occupy your idle moments?

Rich Birkett | 1.14.12 @ 2:59PM

I agree Dr Paul's thinking about the Fed and the gold standard needs further thought. However, I don't buy that a non-interventionist foreign policy will lead us into war. I do believe a hawkish, aggressive, neo-con-ish foreign policy advocated by Paul's competitors will certainly lead to war. Is it possible war may be inevitable no matter which candidate we vote for?

Occam's Tool| 1.11.12 @ 4:21PM

Sorry, guys, but I'm a Conservative Psychiatrist whose experience parallels Ted Dalrymple's very interestingly. Paul is an OB/Gyn. If you saw what I saw on a routine basis, you would not want to legalize drugs.

No, what I prefer is forcing users to go through rehab or go to prison. Failure to succeed in rehab would add 1 year to the sentence.

John Navratil| 1.11.12 @ 5:19PM

Occam's Tool,

At least it's a carrot!

Occam's Tool| 1.11.12 @ 11:06PM

Yeah, to a degree. But also a stick.

buck| 1.16.12 @ 7:39AM

Your prescribed treatment is cold and thoughtless. I believe i would prescribe to you behavior modification. Such as spending a week in the shoes of your "patients". Your position of smug intellectual self superiority is quite sickening. The fact of your existence in your capacity is proof in my eyes that man kind is poorly equipped to lead his own kind in any manner that would be considered helpful or productive.

The trend in psychiatry has unfortunately been in your way of thinking. It is my opinion that placing fallible individuals in a position of dealing with vulnerable people causes the aforementioned individuals to feel superior to the disadvantaged under their care. Sad really.

claygooding| 1.18.12 @ 11:17AM

So,,9% of marijuana users can become addicted or form a dependency and you want to put them in rehab for using it,,perchance are you connected with a rehab center and trying to line your pockets with forced rehab patients from the courts.

Marijuana addiction is rated the same level as caffeine addiction,according to NIDA,our governments version of "drug research",so maybe you can get the courts to send coffee addicts to your rehab and double your money.

A Critic| 1.19.12 @ 3:41PM

"No, what I prefer is forcing users to go through rehab or go to prison. Failure to succeed in rehab would add 1 year to the sentence."

Reeducation camps or prison camps? Brainwashing and imprisoning political prisoners is the hallmark of an evil mind.

Mimi| 1.11.12 @ 1:32PM

I wonder if Ron Paul was specific on the meaning of that explanation and cleared this up to the youth who think he is a God by condoning drug use. No one will ever know the damage to families and society of rampant drug and alcohal use, abuse and addiction....the terrible harm can never be measured...surely the EVIL of our time.
To play with peoples head for political gain is just horrible. It's a LIBERTATIAN thingy and that should be NO WHERE NEAR a Republican Primary....It sure brings out the DEMS, LIBS and Independents to vote for Ron Paul....sick!!!

Warrior | 1.11.12 @ 2:27PM

He is not condoning drug use. There is no enumerated power that allows the federal government to regulate this behavior. It is the individual states responsibility to create the laws to make them legal or illegal. Same with Roe v. Wade, the government should never be allowed to tell the states that this behavior is legal. Again, there is no enumerated power that allows for the federal government to tell the states what laws they can create as it relates to abortion.

megapotamus| 1.11.12 @ 2:43PM

If the "harm" can never be measured, how do you know it even exists? You don't. This is just a screech.

Occam's Tool| 1.11.12 @ 4:23PM

Oh, the harm can be measured---have you ever had to squirt milk down a cocaine baby's throat because the child's suck reflex was so damaged by the mother's use? (Predictive of other neurological deficits) I have.

What you guys who disgree with me know about the clinical outcome of this type of stuff can be measured on the head of a pin.

Quartermaster| 1.11.12 @ 8:48PM

Why leave alcohol out of this Occam? Your arguments are much the same as the temperance people that conned Congress and the states to try prohibition, and it got us nothing.

Yes it's heartbreaking. It's the result of sinful people and the hopelessness that enshrouds them. We can see the same with men in the former Soviet Union too.

The general welfare argument will not hold water in light of the prohibition amendments either. The constitution is not a "living document" as some of you seem to think (right along with the libs who have just as little respect for the constitution). Prohibition is not a conservative argument. It has always been a leftist action, and it has never worked.

Occam's Tool| 1.11.12 @ 11:10PM

I don't leave alcohol out, but alcohol is already out of the bag. Synthetic cannabinoids and bath salts are worse than alcohol.

The Commies, by the way, have a male life expectancy rate of 59 years.

Schooling you| 1.17.12 @ 1:14PM

And yet, how did prohibition help that cocaine baby? You mean, people use drugs ANYWAY? *gasp*

The pro-drugwar argument has died. Thanks for stopping by.

Dave in Florida| 1.17.12 @ 5:49PM

Please read this article and the links it provides and then respond..

Dave in Florida| 1.17.12 @ 5:50PM

Sorry, I forgot the link..

http://www.opposingviews.com/i.....-mortality

Hobbes| 1.11.12 @ 4:42PM

Mimi, you are so dumb, I am surprised you are not a democrat.

Occam's Tool| 1.11.12 @ 11:10PM

I’m done commenting on the Paulbots this week. It’s like kicking a quadriplegic retard in the balls. There’s just no sport in it.

(My thanks to Big Pete from Weasel Zippers, from whom I stole and changed this line, originally applied to "Tingles.")

ken| 1.17.12 @ 12:44PM

Hey Mimi.....yes, it is a Libertarian "thingy" Also known as liberty and freedom. I'm not surprised that a republican doesn't want those concepts anywhere near his or her primary.

Occam's Tool| 1.11.12 @ 11:11PM

I’m done commenting on Clint and Jack this week. It’s like kicking a quadriplegic retard in the balls. There’s just no sport in it.

(My thanks to Big Pete from Weasel Zippers, from whom I stole and changed this line, originally applied to "Tingles.")

Occam's Tool| 1.11.12 @ 11:12PM

I’m done commenting on Clint and Jack this week. It’s like kicking a quadriplegic retard in the balls. There’s just no sport in it.

(My thanks to Big Pete from Weasel Zippers, from whom I stole and changed this line, originally applied to "Tingles.")

Like the repetition, Clint? Kind of boring, eh?

MikeN| 1.11.12 @ 6:55AM

YOu know National Review has been on the legalization push for decades?

Appleby| 1.11.12 @ 7:01AM

A drug habit is an expensive proposition, and if you legalize drugs, does that mean the government will now start selling/giving away drugs? And when half the country has a $8,000 a day habit, how will they finance that habit? By preying on the other half, if history is any teacher.

Legal drugs will still cost money, and not only for the drug habit, but for all the ancillary habits including burying all the bodies of the men, women and children who will be victims of people desperate for the $8,000 for today's fix. Welcome to Blade Runner USA.

Congressman Paul is an old man who will not live long enough to see the ruination his ideas would unleash. It's easy for him to propose actions whose consequences he will not live to see.

Hobbes| 1.11.12 @ 9:43AM

Hello! Anybody home Appleby? Paul is for state's regulating drugs, not the feds. What could be more conservative than that? Geesh!

TrueBlue | 1.11.12 @ 12:57PM

Drug legality is one of the few proper uses of the 'general welfare' clause that gets so abused.

megapotamus| 1.11.12 @ 2:44PM

Nope, it is just an abuse of which you approve.

Occam's Tool| 1.11.12 @ 4:24PM

Actually, Hobbes, he's for legalization, and has just co-sponsored a bill with Barney Franks regarding Marijuana. You should read his stuff.

Dagny| 1.11.12 @ 9:04PM

At the federal level, yes, but the states would retain their right to criminalize marijuana as they see fit.

Occam's Tool| 1.11.12 @ 11:11PM

Fed laws overrule State laws.

aware| 1.12.12 @ 5:49AM

As I've said before, neo cons love the idea of the Federal Leviathan, they just hate when they aren't running it.

JimH| 1.11.12 @ 1:31PM

Few drugs are intrinsically expensive. It is the risk and lack of competition because of the illegality which drives up the price.

Dagny| 1.11.12 @ 9:16PM

I am always amazed at how fast so-called conservatives abandon the principle of "less government intrusion" any time someone suggests curtailing the state's power to break into the houses of peaceful citizens who enjoy marijuana.

Whether its guns, or drugs, or booze, or gambling, there will be responsible users and irresponsible users. However, no matter how distasteful some conduct may seem to us, the irresponsibility of some (or even of the majority) is a flatly insufficient reason to prohibit conduct which does not infringe upon the right to life, liberty and happiness.

The answer is not to criminalize everyone's poor choices, but rather to crack down swiftly and harshly on those who choose to infringe upon the freedom of others. If an increase in guns leads to an increase in homicides, punish the gun owners who kill. If an increase in alcohol or drug use leads to more death at the hands of drunk/drugged drivers, punish those who drive while intoxicated. If more casino gambling spurs an increase in theft and embezzlement, punish those gamblers who steal.

But DO NOT use my government to punish those peaceful members of our communities merely because you find their lifestyle disgusting or contemptuous.

Once you cross that line, the state is no longer the defender, but indeed the enemy, of individual freedom.

ken| 1.17.12 @ 12:50PM

Hey appleby....the reason people have so called "8000 per day" habits is because drug prohibition drives the cost of drugs through the roof. What about all of the victims of our stupid drug policy. 50000 dead in Mexico and counting all because of our stupid drug laws.

Old Soldier| 1.11.12 @ 7:13AM

I used to believe in the Drug War. At this point I just don't care any more.

Nobody is not using cocaine, heroin, or marijuana because it is illegal. It's easily available. I don't do because I'm a responsible adult.

Enough money on this nonsense. Enough deaths - one cop dead, a couple more shot while breaking down the door of a guy growing pot last week in Utah. Why?

Why should I care if people some pot? I just don't any more.

Tony in Central PA| 1.11.12 @ 12:29PM

Would you care if somebody who smoked pot 24 hours ago ( read about THC's pharamocology and length of CNS impairment ) crashed his car into one of your loved ones ?

Old Soldier| 1.11.12 @ 12:46PM

Drunk, high, distracted. None of it would please me. Drunk or high would make it a crime.

TooHiCat| 1.11.12 @ 12:49PM

Considering the FACT that pot smokers drive slower than the public at large, your agrument is mute.

TrueBlue | 1.11.12 @ 12:58PM

Slower reaction times also cause accidents. Also, it is NOT a fact that they drive slower.

TooHiCat| 1.11.12 @ 1:30PM

In terms of behavior, marijuana use is more difficult to pinpoint than alcohol use. The police have developed a fairly accurate system for pinpointing drunk drivers, i.e. they swerve and exhibit signs of absent-mindedness. In 2010, an Israeli lab conducted a simulated experiment comparing drunk and drivers on marijuana. The results showed that stoned drivers tend to drive slower and more cautiously "because they have a different sense of time" while drunk drivers, of course, exhibited less caution considering their lack of self-awareness. Both drivers are dangerous but there's no denying the high driver is less of an exhibitionist.

Warrior | 1.11.12 @ 2:29PM

As I understand it, driving while impaired is a crime in every state (57 of them if you are a democrat). The argument isn't whether pot smokers are less impaired than drunks, they are both impaired and should not be endangering others while operating cars or equipment. The individual states need to be setting and enforcing the laws as their citizens see fit.

megapotamus| 1.11.12 @ 2:49PM

Indeed, impairment is a separate issue. There are many sorts of impairment and "illicit drug" impairment scarcely tips the statistical scales. The vast spectrum of legal, prescribed and often government subsidized psychoactives are also prone to abuse and productive of impairment. For the record, I would have a severe problem with anyone who drove through my house and killed my family whatever the reason or indeed, no reason. Lack of sleep is a dangerous drug by this definition and worthy of federal intervention. Shouldn't motorists be subject to a random blood test to determine their level of alertness? Such is possible and certainly it could not be forbidden on Constitutional grounds, if we are consistent. Are we?

L. Ross| 1.11.12 @ 7:23AM

To start with, the comment on legalizing rape is specious. A more accurate comparison would be with legalizing prostitution. And guess what, it is legal in many parts of the civilized world, including our country.

That said, I have been to Amsterdam where there is a lot of legal drug use. I suppose Amsterdam is a special case because as I recall it is the only city in Holland with legal drug use and that is only in a small section of the town.

But that area of town is depressing. It is dirty, filled with burnout loosers, hypodermic needles line the streets, trash piles up.

Wait a second. Now that I think of it, it isn't that different from Haight-Ashberry in San Fran. Maybe this isn't such a big deal.

Old Soldier| 1.11.12 @ 7:32AM

Correct. Rape has a victim. Smoking hemp doesn't.

David W| 1.11.12 @ 11:29AM

Tell that to the children? In Dallas Police were called to an apartment. It was full of pot smoke, and there were little children in there. One woman who was smoking was holding her toddler in her arms. What kind of life does that child have to look forward to, even if they some how remain healthy?? How about the organization I belonged to that had it bank account wiped out because our treasurer was a "recovering" addict and stole the money to finance her habit? Or my uncle who abandoned his family (granted, he started on pot when young but had graduated to heroin when he abandoned his wife and two children). No victims my foot.

Old Soldier| 1.11.12 @ 11:46AM

So it would be better if they were drinking liquor, gambling, frequenting prostitutes, or just plain assholes? All legal in at least parts of this country.

TrueBlue | 1.11.12 @ 1:00PM

Liquor, gambling, prostitutes, and being an asshole are not addicting. Smoking is addicting but doesn't lead to criminal activity to support the habit.

Conservative Bob| 1.11.12 @ 1:26PM

What do you think would happen if tomorrow cig smoking were outlawed? I suspect given the nature of that particular addiction and the difficulty in kicking it, that criminal activity woudl spike immediately.

Old Soldier| 1.11.12 @ 2:22PM

Liquor isn't addicting? That is some wonderful new to all the alcoholics! Gambling and sex are supposedly too.

megapotamus| 1.11.12 @ 2:52PM

If we admit addiction as a disease then booze is Public Enemy #1. There is no rational or empirical path to another conclusion. There are OTHER paths, however.

Finrod| 1.11.12 @ 12:59PM

The War On Drugs has plenty of victims, too, such as the grandmother here in Atlanta who was shot and killed by the cops that busted down her door because a felon informant gave the drug cops bogus information. Until drug warriors acknowledge these victims, their arguments are bogus.

Conservative Bob| 1.11.12 @ 1:22PM

These terrible things occurred while the War on Drugs continues... How exactly did the war and the vast expenditure of funds favorably impact these events? The only honest answer is not at all.

I do not pretend to know the answers but I can see the growing negative effects of continuing these in effective policies.

The damage done to our liberty by the pursuit of this war on drugs now far exceeds the social benefit.

Look at how property seizure laws born of the drug wars have eroded the 4th amendment. Look how well our liberty is preserved with the no knock provisions we have enacted.

As the government has been unable to produce meaningful results they have sought and received evermore power and tools to save us from the scourge of drugs. After 40 years all we have done is surrender our rights and the only tangible difference between now and then is that some drugs are more expensive and the law abiding non-drug using people of this country are measurably less free.

The Bruce| 1.11.12 @ 1:39PM

In other words, David, making drugs illegal hasn't changed a thing. People will do it anyway.

Seventy-five percent of the prison population consists of drug users/dealers.

I'm beginning to think the only reason drugs are still illegal (a failed drug war) is because it employs so many people (police/judges/lawyers/prison guards, etc).

Yes, my position on the "War on Drugs" has changed over the years.

Boy, if there ever was a quagmire in war, there's the best example on the planet.

ken| 1.17.12 @ 12:56PM

Wow, and pot being illegal failed to stop that from happening. Geez, what a shock!

Lev Tolstoy| 1.11.12 @ 9:03AM

Marijuana is legally available all over the Netherlands. Now one will need a resident permit to buy outside of Amsterdam. Amsterdam is merely the most famous location. The red light district is no more depressing or dirty than Georgetowne or Adams Morgan are. Its also very safe.

kerry| 1.11.12 @ 4:30PM

Georgetown is not dirty, sorry bud. Adams Morgan, yes a little, as that is the bar hopping area and more edgy.

Agamemnon| 1.11.12 @ 7:23PM

Its about as dirty as the Amsterdam red light district. Amsterdam also gets about ten times the tourists that Georgetowne does. The rest of Amsterdam is rather clean and orderly. Did you know that only 2% of Dutch citizens are even marijuana users? I've been to both places many times in my day. Sorry bud, but you exaggerate to make a specious point.

shock nagasaki| 1.11.12 @ 11:44AM

Agreed, L Ross. Including the "legalizing rape" comment in this article removes credibility. There is no comparison because in actual cases of rape, there is a victim...and in cases where someone is lying about rape there is a victim. Sure, there is the argument that there are indirect victims of drugs...robberies committed to obtain money to continue a habit, etc., but those actions are against the law, as well.

Occam's Tool| 1.11.12 @ 4:26PM

Yeah, Ross, prostitution is legal in New Zealand. There was a brothel on the main street in Rotorua, easily visible, not at all discreet. Added a lot of class to that town, let me tell you.

Agamemnon| 1.11.12 @ 7:25PM

Its legal in the Netherlands and Germany as well as France, Belgium and Luxembourg. What's your beef?

Pete Guither | 1.17.12 @ 3:07PM

When you take a drug dealer off the street, all it does is create up a lucrative job opening. As long as there is demand, there will be supply.

When you take a rapist off the street, there isn't suddenly an unfilled demand for rapists. Rather you have the rapist taken out of circulation with no replacement, making the streets safer.

The people who talk about secondary "victims" of drug use are not really contributing to the discussion, because those things happen whether the drug is legal or illegal, since legality has very little impact on problematic users. In fact, legalizing and regulating it can, in some instances, help to mitigate the secondary victimization (such as making it possible for abusers to obtain drugs without stealing and also making it possible for them to work toward a more stable situation that might lead to the end of drug abuse for them).

Ted| 1.11.12 @ 7:43AM

What most people don't realize is that we used to have legalized drugs.... And it was a disaster. Which is why we then made them illegal. As for old soldier's comment about hemp, about the only thing that will happen if you smoke the type of hemp used to make rope and fiber is that you will get sick. That type of hemp doesn't have the high concentrations of THC and other active ingredients that the variety used for "recreational" smoking has.

The Dutch model is much more controlled than people realize. It is not the free wheeling wild west of drug legalization that people think it is.

Old Soldier| 1.11.12 @ 8:21AM

Yes - drugs used to be legal and we had addicts - just like today.

I don't like the damage that alcohol abuse causes either. But alcohol Prohibition was a total failure - we faced that fact as a nation. Time to understand that drug Prohibition is every bit the same failure.

I'm also infuriated by the basic premise of Prohibition - that I'm too stupid to handle the choices so the government will make it for me. How is that a Conservative position?

Alan| 1.11.12 @ 8:57AM

Most people who drink alcohol don't become addicted to it. However, the need for drugs increases with use, as the body needs more and more in order to get high.

If drugs are legalized, won't even more people try them and get hooked? And the more hooked they become, as their need increases, won't they have trouble earning enough money to support their ever-growing habit? Will they be able to hold down jobs that will help them feed their habits, or will they start committing crimes in order to get enough money?

I have a gin-and-tonic about once a month. Are there people who are content with just one hit of heroin per month?

John Navratil| 1.11.12 @ 9:10AM

Alan,

There are many people who are addicted to alcohol. The progressive nature of the disease is similar. It's costs to productivity are, by reports I've read, higher than that of illegal drug use. I, myself, would not be content with one gin-and-tonic a month.

Old Soldier| 1.11.12 @ 9:13AM

There are lots of people content with one joint a week.

TooHiCat| 1.11.12 @ 12:55PM

Maybe two joints........

Occam's Tool| 1.11.12 @ 4:27PM

OS,

you are not familiar with the literature on MJ and psychosis. I am. Moreover, I'm the one who has to put them back together again.

Old Soldier| 1.11.12 @ 6:04PM

Nope - Never touched the stuff.

De-criminalizing a substance doesn't mean you have to use it.

buck| 1.16.12 @ 10:11AM

You must be a tool. Cases of cannabis "induced" psychosis are present only in cases where there was a preexisting condition such as borderline schizoid disorder or full blown Schizophrenia.

malcolm kyle| 1.17.12 @ 3:06PM

Care to supply us with some peer reviewed studies to back up your claims?

“Associated with” is not the same as “causation.”

Schizophrenia affects approximately one percent of the population. That percentage has held steady since the disease was identified, while the percentage of people who have smoked marijuana has varied from about 5% to around 40% of the general population.
Source: http://www.schizophrenia.com/szfacts.htm

Kindly Google any of the following combinations:

Nicotine and Schizophrenia
Alcohol and Schizophrenia
Chocolate and Schizophrenia
Sugar and Schizophrenia
Gluten and Schizophrenia

So should we hand the market in any of the above substances to criminals (which is what prohibition effectively does) because its use is 'associated' with a certain minute part of the population? Many bipolar patients misuse caffeine and tobacco in an effort to bring on a manic state, thus becoming a danger to themselves or others. Should tobacco and caffeine or whatever works for each individual be prohibited to boost ratings or rhetoric also? Where does it end?

Persons with chronic mental illness die 25 years earlier than the general population does, and smoking is the major contributor to that premature mortality. This population consumes 44% of all cigarettes.

Cigarette smoking rates in the American population are approximately 23%, whereas rates of smoking in clinical and population studies of individuals with neuropsychiatric disorders are typically two- to four-fold higher.
Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....=pmcentrez

Caffeine is most certainly linked with mental illness; psychosis even. Here’s some reading:

Broderick, P. & Benjamin, A.B. (2004). Caffeine and psychiatric symptoms: a review. Journal of the Oklahoma State Medical Association, 97(12), 538-542.

Hedges, D.W., Woon, F.L. & Hoopes S.P. (2009). Caffeine-induced psychosis. CNS Spectrums, 14(3),127-129.

malcolm kyle| 1.17.12 @ 3:04PM

Alcohol is a factor in the following:

* 73% of all felonies * 73% of child beating cases * 41% of rape cases * 80% of wife battering cases * 72% of stabbings * 83% of homicides.

According to the Australian National Drug Research Institute (2003): "Tobacco, alcohol and illicit drugs are prematurely killing around seven million people worldwide each year, and robbing tens of millions more of a healthy life. The research into the global burden of disease attributable to alcohol, tobacco and illicit drugs found that in 2000, tobacco use was responsible for 4.9 million deaths worldwide, equating to 71 percent of all drug-related deaths. Around 1.8 million deaths were attributable to the use of alcohol (26 percent of all drug-related deaths), and illicit drugs (heroin, cocaine and amphetamines) caused approximately 223,000 deaths (3 percent of all drug-related deaths)."

The American Journal of Preventive Medicine found that in the U.S. alone, an estimated 79,000 lives are lost annually due to "excessive" drinking. The study estimates that the overall cost of excessive drinking by Americans is $223.5 billion each year.

Health-related costs per user are eight times higher for those who drink alcohol when compared to those who use marijuana, and are more than 40 times higher for tobacco smokers, according to a 2009 review published in the British Columbia Mental Health and Addictions Journal.
It states, "In terms of [health-related] costs per user: tobacco-related health costs are over $800 per user, alcohol-related health costs are much lower at $165 per user, and cannabis-related health costs are the lowest at $20 per user."

http://www.heretohelp.bc.ca/pu.....abis/bck/7

Having three or more alcoholic drinks a day increased lung cancer risk by 30 percent.
“Heavy drinking has multiple harmful effects, including cardiovascular complications and increased risk for lung cancer,”
- lead researcher Stanton Siu, MD, of Kaiser Permanente

http://www.drugfree.org/join-t.....ancer-risk

Apart from the fact that legal drugs kill far more people than all the illegal drugs combined, debating whether a particular drug is harmless or not is missing the whole point. Are drugs like Heroin, Meth or Alcohol dangerous? It simply doesn't matter, because if we prohibit them then we sure as hell know that it makes a bad situation far worse. If someone wants to attempt to enhance or destroy their lives with particular medicines or poisons, that should be their business, not anybody else's. Their lives aren't ours to direct. And anyway, who wants to give criminals, terrorists and corrupt law enforcement agents a huge un-taxed, endless revenue stream?

A great many of us are slowly but surely wising up to the fact that the best avenue towards realistically dealing with drug use and addiction is through proper regulation which is what we already do with alcohol & tobacco, clearly two of our most dangerous mood altering substances.

A Critic| 1.19.12 @ 3:42PM

"I have a gin-and-tonic about once a month. Are there people who are content with just one hit of heroin per month?"

Most heroin/hard drug users don't use that often.

Drutis| 1.22.12 @ 3:20PM

um.... alcohol is a DRUG. Tell me, if heroin were legal would YOU use it? Getting "hooked" is harder than it sounds. I have tried heroin, morphine, cocaine and many drugs you have never heard of, and the only thing I want is pot. I don't even drink.

David W| 1.11.12 @ 11:59AM

What was the problem with alcohol prohibition? ALCOHOL WAS ALREADY LEGAL!!!!!!! Making something that is legal and widely used illegal is very difficult if not impossible.

At one time, cigarettes were illegal in some states. Then, as I understand it, cigarette companies provided free cigarettes to soldiers in WWI. By the time they came back to the states they were hooked. For how many years have we heard that tobacco is bad, that it causes thousands of pre-mature deaths and untold suffering and results in millions of dollars of unnecessary health expenditures? Yet we still have millions of "addicts" who can't stop smoking. And we know what kind of costs "legal" tobacco has to society (and other than throwing cigarette butts out of windows, will a cigarette smoker be a danger on the highways like a pot smoker is?).

It is unfortunate that there are so many weak willed people who cannot seem to make it through the day without resorting to drugs (liquor or nicotine or other). Perhaps if we had rational, responsible, and ethical people in government, the entertainment industry, in the news media, and who post to conservative web sites who would tout the huge problems associated with drugs instead of the "wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more" crap that they currently provide we might not have the need to make it illegal.

malcolm kyle| 1.17.12 @ 6:02PM

Prohibition has triggered the worst crime wave in history.

* It has helped escalate the number of people on welfare who can't find employment due to their felony status.

* It has created a black market with massive incentives to hook both adults and children alike.

* It has made these substances widely available even in schools and prisons.

* It has escalated gang warfare beyond what was experienced in the days of alcohol bootlegging.

* It has create a prison-for-profit synergy with drug lords.

* It has helped remove many important civil liberties from the very citizens it falsely claims to represent.

* It has put previously unknown and contaminated drugs on the streets.

* It has grossly escalated Murder, Theft, Muggings and Burglaries.

* It has diverted scarce law-enforcement resources away from protecting citizens from the ever escalating violence against their person or property.

* It has overcrowded the courts and prisons, thus making it increasingly impossible to curtail the people who are hurting and terrorizing others.

* It has evolved local gangs into transnational enterprises with intricate power structures that reach into every corner of society, helping them control vast swaths of territory while gifting them with significant social and military resources.

Imagine if we were to chop down every single tree on the planet as a response to our failure to prevent tree-climbing accidents. That's what our misguided drug policy looks like. Isn't it time we all should up and told the government we're tired of being beaten and jailed so that pharmaceutical companies can poison and kill us for obscene profits?

Prohibition Prevents Regulation : Legalize, Regulate and Tax!

David Hart| 1.20.12 @ 5:50PM

"What was the problem with alcohol prohibition? ALCOHOL WAS ALREADY LEGAL!!!!!!!"

So were all the other drugs before they were made illegal. None were as widespread as alcohol, but several decades of prohibition have failed to prevent the huge rise in the number of users of drugs other than alcohol since the start of the 60s. Now cannabis is genuinely endemic to American society. It's used by millions and if the widespread use of alcohol is an argument that its prohibition was doomed to failure, surely the current widespread of cannabis is also evidence that its prohibition is also doomed to failure, even if that wasn't obvious to the legislators who first criminalised it before its use became widespread.

As regards tobacco, your arguments point to the need for tighter regulation of the tobacco industry (including such things as a ban on advertising, plain packaging if there is good evidence that that reduces their appeal to children, minimum age of purchase) and public health interventions, such as publicly funded help to people who want to quit. We will, of course, want the same sort of legal restrictions placed on other drugs - no one but a few ideological libertarians are advocating that they be sold as freely as apples. Our experience with irresponsible tobacco marketing does not imply that the health risks associated with tobacco would be humanely and effectively addressed by throwing smokers in jail, and there is no reason to assume that the harms associated with other drugs are well addressed by criminalisation either.

As regards cannabis users being a danger on the roads, of course we will want to keep DUI laws. But the fact that someone can drive while stoned (or drunk, or tired, or speaking on a mobile phone) in no way supports the argument that it it even morally acceptable, let alone effective, to criminalise people who use pot (or alcohol, or a mobile phone, or who fail to get enough sleep) and do not then get behind the wheel of a car.

Drutis| 1.22.12 @ 3:32PM

What was the problem with alcohol prohibition? ALCOHOL WAS ALREADY LEGAL!!!!!!!

What? So were heroin (opium), cocaine and marijuana. The difference is that opium was used by Chinese, cocaine by African Americans and marijuana by Hispanics. So making them illegal didn't affect "white" populations.

Warrior | 1.11.12 @ 2:36PM

Old Soldier, nobody is discussing that which is legal. A kid has a lot of energy and they are trying to pump Ritalyn down their throats. How many soccer Moms are addicted to Vicodin? Look at Rush Limbaugh's battles that started with prescribed pain killers. I knew a guy who was addicted to the inhaled nasal decongestant that you get over the counter. What about people addicted to video games, sex, coca cola, coffee, energy drinks, sniffing glue and maybe the worst of it all, those who eat 10,000 calories a day. Where does it end when the government can dictate individual liberties?

Occam's Tool| 1.11.12 @ 4:29PM

Warrior:

we are not trying to pump Ritalin "down" their throats. The degree of disruptiveness which an ADHD kid has to show to get treated is fairly huge.

Again, you have no clue what the F you are talking about.

Warrior | 1.11.12 @ 6:04PM

I guess there are no studies or articles that can be produced that will point towards the overprescription of Ritalin and drugs of this type. Again, your condescending attitude to those you have a disagreement with seems to get in the way of civil discussion.

Conservative Bob| 1.11.12 @ 6:57PM

I would have to disagree with you here Occam based on my experience. In AL the school had me take my son to Kirkland clinic for evaluation. He was not disruptive nor was he a discipline problem he just preferred not to do his homework. After 2 minutes total with Dr we had a script... because the school recommended we see him.
Fast forward several years my grandson was just at the Dr with his sister and the Dr. (Pediatrician) suggested he take it because she did not like his answer to some questions she posed. He now has a new Dr and we passed on the script. So you may not push it but my personal experience is otherwise.

megapotamus| 1.11.12 @ 2:56PM

I'm dying to know the nature of this "disaster"? As far as history can reveal, American drug culture pretty much started with Civil War veterans using opiates for the pain of hasty amputations and such. And probably that addiction was troublesome but less than the blinding pain. So what were the facts of this "disaster" that have been mitigated, seriously, by federal prohibitions?

malcolm kyle| 1.17.12 @ 6:05PM

Drug use among all echelons of society is essentially an unstoppable and ongoing human behavior which has been with us since the dawn of time, any serious reading on the subject of past attempts at any form of drug prohibition would point most normal thinking people in the direction of sensible regulation.

By its very nature, prohibition cannot fail but create a vast increase in criminal activity, and rather than preventing society from descending into anarchy, it actually fosters an anarchic business model - the international Drug Trade. Any decisions concerning quality, quantity, distribution and availability are then left in the hands of unregulated, anonymous and ruthless drug dealers, who are interested only in the huge profits involved. Thus the allure of this reliable and lucrative industry, with it's enormous income potential that consistently outweighs the risks associated with the illegal operations that such a trade entails, will remain with us until we are collectively forced to admit the obvious.

There is therefore an irrefutable connection between drug prohibition and the crime, corruption, disease and death it causes. Anybody 'halfway bright', and who's not psychologically challenged, should be capable of understanding that it is not simply the demand for drugs that creates the mayhem, it is our refusal to allow legal businesses to meet that demand. If you are not capable of understanding this connection then maybe you're using something far stronger than the rest of us. So put away your pipe, lock yourself away in a small room with some tinned soup and water, and try to crawl back into reality A.S.A.P.

Because Drug cartels will always have an endless supply of ready cash for wages, bribery and equipment, no amount of tax money, police powers, weaponry, wishful thinking or pseudo-science will make our streets safe again. Only an end to prohibition can do that! How much longer are we willing to foolishly risk our own survival by continuing to ignore the obvious, historically confirmed solution?

If you support the Kool-Aid mass suicide cult of prohibition, and erroneously believe that you can win a war without logic and practical solutions, then prepare yourself for even more death, tortured corpses, corruption, terrorism, sickness, imprisonment, economic tribulation, unemployment and the complete loss of the rule of law.

The only thing prohibition successfully does is prohibit regulation & taxation while turning even our schools and prisons into black markets for drugs. Legalized Regulation would mean the opposite!

Prohibition is nothing less than a grotesque dystopian nightmare; if you support it you must be either ignorant, stupid, brainwashed, insane or corrupt.

"A man with conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point."
-- Leon Festinger

Agamemnon| 1.11.12 @ 7:32PM

They sell marijuana, peyote, and sylocibin mushrooms. Mostly marijuana and they have very few problems with any of those drugs. Marijuana should definitely be legal for people over 21. Its the safest by far of the common drugs and was made illegal because only Mexicans and Blacks used it and in 1937 the Narcotics Enforcement Agency needed a new problem to solve in the aftermath of lifting alcohol prohibition. Most of the other popular illegal drugs are dangerous. Certainly crystal meth or cocaine should remain illegal. Locking up addicts is stupid and expensive, though. Lord knows kids do way more stupid stuff when drunk and the popular, "in" crowd ones drink heavily, contrary to most parents' sense of denial.