Okay, but isn't the decimation left by alcohol due, in large part, to its legality? It was legal, then illegal briefly, then legal again and has remained so for a long time. Habits don't change that quickly or easily.
I am not advocating for legal heroin next week, but I would invite you to study the results of a Swiss program in which they provide free prescription heroin to users. The users in the program hold down jobs, pay taxes, and do not commit crimes for their drugs because they do not have to pay the black market profits created by prohibition. I would advocate for a system that allows states to experiment with their drug laws so that we can find out what actually works through science and data.
That is absolutely correct. It works with mar1juana in Holland as they have semi-regulated (decriminalized actually) mar1juana and at the same tome have the lowest rates of usage by minors in the entire world. I am an ex-drug user who has found that even the harms created by heroin and cocaine (two drugs that I would never use and that I will try to convince everyone I ever come in contact with not to use) are far, far less than the harms created by prohibition. When you could buy cocaine and heroin at any apothecary, there were virtually no deaths and usage rates were the lowest in our history. In the (nearly) hundred years that they have been illegal, usage rates have skyrocketed and overdoses and cross reactions are commonplace. Please look at the numbers and try to get over your prejudices.
It was legal, then a few groups convinced the government (with much of the same made up information that they use with drugs today) to demonize and prohibit it, which led to the astronomical growth in power of organized crime, increased violence in our society dramatically, and caused so many problems that they were forced to repeal alcohol prohibition. The war on drugs is approaching the levels of violence, unjust treatment, and social disorder that Prohibition gave us and some people want it to get worse. By the way, the actual problems with alcohol stem from the lack of education we devote to the subject along with the extremely dangerous nature of that drug. Alcohol is easily as toxic as cocaine and addicts a higher percentage of users than either heroin or cocaine. The problems with alcohol are the same as they are with drugs, it's just that the flames of the drug problem have been fanned by prohibition. No, of course not, but we made it to the moon in a decade. I believe that with a new strategy based on science and facts, we could measurably reduce drug usage rates (both by minors and overall), availability to minors, and deaths. In addition, we could actually measure rates of use instead of assuming and as such could promote policies that ACTUALLY reduce drug usage rather than policies that "send a message" but do not affect drug usage at all. I just saw 60 Minutes and one of the stats out there is that in 1991, we had 12 million drug users. Today, there are 19 million. For those of you that are simply attacking regulation as a solution, please defend the policy we have now. Here are some questions about our current drug policy. Do you really want a policy where teens find it easier to get illicit drugs than alcohol (the results of a study done by Harvard)? Do you really want a policy that encourages use by minors? Do you really want to keep the wedge between the police and the policed in place? Are you prepared to increase expenditures (from their current $100 billion plus) on a program that has not lowered drug use or availability at all? Defend your program if you can.
Andy, thanks so much for posting all of this information, I really appreciate learning about this. For several years now, I have been for the legalization of drugs just for it's impact on crime alone. Think about it- the number one currency of all organized crime is drugs. The vast majority of economic support of almost all organized crime in America comes from sale of illegal drugs. You legalize it, make it cheap and of government assured quality and purity, and you pull the plug on the number one support structure of crime in this country. Bam. Now, the mafia would survive, of course, there are other rackets to manage like gambling, etc., but the loss of drug sales would be nothing less than crippling. Inner city gangs? This would remove big-cash income from their economy almost entirely. No more bling-bling, kids. That's just organized crime. Then you reduce crime committed by individual addicts because the drug is available inexpensively at approved outlets- and unlike their dealers, who will be constantly pushing them to get more, the pharmacy employees will be looking out for addiction symptoms, and able to offer help- real help, for free in a rehab program paid for by taxes from drug sales. Once the stigma of being an addict is reduced from being a criminal to being a person with a health problem, addicts will be more likely to seek help. Then you gradually remove the massive, massive amounts of governent money that go into this ridiculous war on drugs that doesn't work at all, and generate income from government-regulated drug sales and taxes, which will go towards education, prevention, therapy and treatment. Now, I was for this before I read the information that Andy has posted in this thread. I may have been on the fence before, but there's little question in my mind now that legalization of drugs, and taking them off the black market and making them available in restricted access would do absolute wonders for this country in terms of crime prevention, and lopping hundreds of billions of wasted dollars from our federal, state and local budgets.
Andy, my question was to help illustrate the problem I have with your rationale. Alcohol is all those things - and it's the one that's legal. As giddyup pointed out, it's that legalization that has made alcohol as widespread and accepted as it is, despite the negative impact you point out. We already have one potentiall harmful device readily available, do we need to add another? The number you stated - 12 million to 19 million - is very much a concern. But if you're trying to tell me that making drugs legal will diminish those totals, I think you're way off base. I'd like you to explain to me the logic behind that. Legalization would effect crime, sure...but you know what happens then? The people that perpetuate criminal activity move on to something else. Because there will be something else of equal demand created. That's the way it works. Because we're human. And being human...well, there are a lot of people who make a lot of different types of rationalizations. Case in point: Cigarettes are legal, and don't contribute much to a person other than potential health risks. The demand is still there.
Yes, alcohol is much more dangerous than many of the other drugs and it is still legal while the other, less dangerous drugs are prohibited. Actually, alcohol use went UP during prohibition and went back down to pre-ban levels after they overturned it. We have arguably the MOST dangerous drug legal while the other drugs with less impact remain banned. Alcohol is not accepted because it is legal, it is accepted because we have a long human tradition of consuming it. Even during prohibition, people who would not normally drink would go to speakeasys because it was the "in" or "hip" thing to do. Regulating drug sales is not about adding another potentially harmful device (drugs), it is about removing a device that is considerably MORE harmful than drugs have ever been. Prohibition causes far more harm than drug use ever has and anyone who tells you differently is trying to sell you oceanfront property in Arizona. First, please read my description of the system that I would create if I had the power: http://bbs.clutchcity.net/php3/showthread.php?s=&threadid=63243 Then, realize that it is a long term strategy. The first step is to ACTUALLY reduce drug use by minors by making it somewhere between difficult and impossible for minors to acquire drugs. Then, in order to purchase drugs, one must attend an education class to learn EVERYTHING about the drug they are being licensed to purchase. An educated adult who has not used drugs before adulthood will be FAR less likely to try the more dangerous drugs, especially once they have learned what those drugs can do to them. Over time, we will see usage levels drop off as people begin making informed decisions about what they put in their bodies. If you really think my logic is wrong, how can you explain that Holland has decriminalized mar1juana and yet has lower teen usage levels than any other industrialized nation and far lower overall drug usage than the US? This statement makes very little sense to me. Are you saying that the criminals will move on to other enterprises like gambling or prostitution? Are you saying that they will create other drugs to sell? If we regulate drug sales, organized crime in this country alone will (overnight) lose $60 billion dollars per year in funding. Do you really think they will be able to keep the same power they have now? When we ended alcohol prohibition, organized crime rings shriveled dramatically because there wasn't any money to make. Very true, but since we started education campaigns (like the "Truth" campaign on TV), usage of cigarettes has dropped significantly. In addition, simply through the expansion of the "We Card" program, we have seen teenage smoking rates drop by 50% over the course of the '90s. This is because we can have an effect on usage rates in a regulated market while in a black market, we can't even tell (outside of a wild-a$$ guess) how much of this stuff is used every year. The demand is still there, but we are shrinking the demand through education and reasonable regulation of manufacture, distribution, and sales. We can do the same thing with drugs.
For those of you still on the fence on this issue, ask yourself why the ones attacking regulation do not defend their policy. If prohibition were less harmful than drugs, then the proponenets of the war on drugs would defend it that way. Instead, they spew cliches and one liners about drugs or the people who use them. The reason is that the war on drugs cannot be defended on the basis of harms created versus harms averted.
Can you back this up with numbers? Link? I knew many young Dutch people who smoked, I think their usage of marihuana by minors is probably not higher either, but lowest in the world seems made up just to support your argument.
I do have numbers, but I will have to look them up. It may take a bit b/c of my new sleep deprived status, but those are real numbers. It might have been the industrialized world, but the numbers are half of what we see in the United States. I am not saying that Dutch young people don't smoke, but the I saw an interview (60 minutes or 20/20) with the Dutch president and he attributed the low numbers to the "forbidden fruit" phenomenon. Since it wasn't (totally) illegal in adulthood, their youngsters are far less likely to use.
Here you go, SJC! July 20, 1998 From the Washington Times letter@twtmail.com http://www.washtimes.com/ DEFENDING THE NETHERLANDS’ DRUG-CONTROL POLICY In a July 15 article, "McCaffrey takes his charge to officials in Netherlands," you repeat statements and information about the Netherlands’ drug policy made by the Office of National Drug Control Policy. I am disturbed that you made no attempt to verify this material after being confronted with concrete information to the contrary. When your reporter called this embassy to investigate the story, he was given detailed information countering the charges about Dutch drug policy. He was told clearly and plainly that the homicide rate in the Netherlands was 1.8 per 100,000 (273 homicides in 1996), which is one-fifth that of the U.S. rate of 8.22 per 100,000. He also was told that the incidence of cannabis use in the Netherlands was 4.6 percent of the total population vs. 6 percent in the United States and that the incidence of youth drug use in the Netherlands was almost 50 percent less than in the United States in recent years. In fact, U.S. government data show that in 1995, almost 50 percent of high school seniors had tried an illegal substance, which is much higher than the 30.2 percent attributed to the Netherlands. We also explained our strong belief that most of the other claims made by Gen. McCaffrey’s office regarding Dutch drug policy were based on an incorrect reading of the data, or simply incorrect data, and our belief that a responsible examination of the facts would put this odd, puzzling controversy to rest. The Netherlands and the United States have, in some respects, different approaches to domestic drug control policy. However, our goals in reducing the harmful costs to society of illegal drug use are the same, and our two countries have a close, constructive, cooperative relationship in this field. Joris Vos Ambassador Royal Netherlands Embassy Washington
That was the Dutch ambassador to the US writing that article, but he does not mince words when he says that McCaffrey's office lied to the media about Dutch drug use (and homicide rates). Our government doesn't care how many lies it has to tell and it doesn't care how many lives it has to ruin. Prohibition is the next in a long line of atrocities Americans have inflicted upon each other and we can find a much better drug policy. Our drug policy should be BASED on healthcare and education rather than criminal justice. The criminal justice system will catch those that rob, steal, maim, and murder and if we design the system correctly, drug users will sign away their rights to use drugs as a defense. We can come up with a sane policy, but we must come together to do it.
No, the numbers sound absolutely plausible and correct. They just don't support the statement that the Netherlands have "the lowest rates of usage by minors in the entire world. "
Irish Teens Top European Drug Users 11/7/97 The annual report of the European Union Drug Monitoring Service shows that Ireland's 16 year-olds are using drugs at the highest rates in the EU. Nearly 2 of 5 Irish teens have used drugs, mainly cannabis. The revelation surprised some as Ireland is among the most repressive states in the EU on issues of drug prohibition. In contrast, The Netherlands, which has, for years, tolerated the sale of "soft drugs" in coffeeshops and which deals with even personal use sale and possession of "hard drugs" as a health, rather than criminal problem, had far lower use rates among its teens. According to the report, only 14% of Dutch 16 year-olds had experimented with drugs. In the US, which was not included in the EU report, estimates of the number of high school-aged teens who have used drugs range from 25 to 35%. http://www.stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/018/irish.shtml This was part of the basis for the claim of lowest teen drug use in the world. Again, I may have misstated and the rate might have been lowest in the industrialized world, but Holland does have a markedly lower rate of teen drug use than the US, the EU, and the industrialized Orient. I will continue looking for the actual quote.
I would say that drug use help me become the person I am today. My father was an "Just say No", "Never have never will". Turned out he was a hypocrite and a liar, besides being a bigot and a racist. I had no respect for him at all. My mother on the other hand was a recreational/medicinal pot user. She had insomnia and a couple tokes would help her sleep with out having to take pills. She lost countless jobs because she couldn't sleep, took pills, then couldn't wake and work effectivly. She discovered a couple tokes fixed her problem. I know my laid back attitude is due in large part to my late teen and 20's use of pot. I no longer partake very often but I never had a problem holding a job or being a responsible citizen. The anxiousness I had when I was younger I no longer have and I'm much more patient with my children than my father ever was with us. When the time comes I'll talk with my kids about the dangers of drugs and drug use at a young age. I'll also explain that there are a lot of people who lead productive lives despite the fact that their recreational drug of choice is not legal. In the end... I would much rather my 18 year old smoke a joint than drink a 5th of whiskey.
andymoon, don't worry about the actual quote. I think their numbers are similar to those of Germany and lower than the US numbers. Just wondering, you keep mentioning your sleep deprivation. Does it have anything to do with drugs?
