Editor:
I think that legalizing all currently illicit drugs, at the very least, marijuana, would go a long way towards eliminating the crime connected with it and the terrorist activity in the world today, and here’s why.
By making some drugs illegal, this, by its very nature creates a black market in them, as there are some people who WILL use, REGARDLESS of whether or not those drugs are illegal. Because there is a cash incentive, run-of-the-mill criminal types will always be attracted. Also, currently, and for probably some time now, some of those dirty monies have been skimmed off by agents of our own shadow government, mostly comprised of rogue CIA agents who have been using them to fund mostly unwitting terrorists and the internal strife in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East and the world. If those drugs were legal, and people could, at the very least, grow their own marijuana, say about four to six plants, I guarantee, that those ill-gotten funds would dry up overnight, and the malevolent entities behind all this warring and crime would be left without legs to stand on.
The drug monies skimming scheme is not as far-fetched as it sound; this very scheme was coupled with the selling of missiles to Iran for cash during the 1980′s Iran-Iraq war. Those combined monies were used in the Iran-Contra debacle to subsidize the good-guy Contras in their fight against the nasty Communist Sandinistas (our very own little, backyard war devised solely for the purpose of making members of the military-industrial complex richer, all under the banner of benevolence of “fighting” Communism. Kind of sounds like what’s happening now with Halliburton making out while we ram the “goodness” of democracy down the Iraqi peoples’ throats whether or not they want it. Benevolence my ass. Not that I don’t believe democracy is a good thing; we just weren’t asked for help in getting it, and I’m not so sure that destroying a country, and killing, maiming and allowing the torturing of its people is the best way to accomplish its establishment.
Of course, those who have a vested interest in keeping some drugs illegal will raise the biggest hue and cry against legalizing them because, ultimately, they don’t want to compete against, or see their best source of cash and power dry up. (That’s their “fix”: money and power). The alcohol and pharmaceutical industries: because of the competition (For instance, pot would beat both in the marketplace, hands down); criminals: because the money from the black market funds their oftentimes lavish lifestyles; prison and law enforcement officials: because with the burgeoning prison population, thanks to some drugs being illegal, and resulting arrests for their use, or criminal activity connected with them, they can ask for (and usually get) more money, and can give themselves bigger salaries (and you can forget about rehabilitation, Buster!); those in the drug rehab business who rely on an never-ending stream of hard-core, use-regardless-of-the-consequences clientele faithfully running afoul of the law: again, it’s really all about the money, bottom-line; the DEA: it’s all about the power and the money, and they, too, play their part in the world domination plan that follows; and finally, those rascally, rogue CIA terrorism-funders: because fear of terrorism is primary for getting Americans to willingly give up their Constitutionally-guaranteed rights and liberties in exchange for the ILLUSION of safety from terrorism – all part of the plan for world domination, man.
Many of the people fighting the “war” on drugs are operating under the banner of benevolence, but don’t really give a damn about your welfare; that’s, for the most part, a facade. Bottom line, it’s really all about the money to be had, not about providing protection of the people from possible abuse or addiction or crime. Hell, it’s the making of drugs a crime that makes it pay, for God’s sake! The big stink about the record opium crop in Afghanistan or the massive amounts of coca leaves being grown which are used to make all the cocaine coming out of South America? All posturing, to cover up what really amounts to turf wars because the shadow isn’t being given enough or any cut, and sometimes those black market monies are used to beat it at its own game. The nerve. Both sides of the fence leave behind ruined careers and destroyed lives in their wakes. The scum. War on drugs indeed.
This is not to say that there aren’t some folks who are a part of the preceding industries who sincerely and honestly want to deal with the root causes and problems of drug abuse and/or addiction, which are primarily mental, physical, and societal issues which ought not to be a law enforcement issue if they are to truly be solved; these folks are to be commended; they are the true heroes of the drug war, but the illegality issue simply compounds and exacerbates the problems for them.
Please understand that I am not, repeat, not advocating the use of drugs, far from it. I think their use exacerbates already existent, or creates mental health problems which oftentimes develop into physical or societal health issues. I am simply of the mind that by making certain drugs illegal, you’re virtually guaranteeing the creation of a black market and the criminal and terrorist activity connected with it because some people will use them regardless of the consequences. I say, legalize, and get rid of the black market in drugs which will assure the virtual disappearance of the criminal and terrorists activity connections, and get to the root of why people want to use drugs in the first place (education and treatment are key), and not continue to make drug use and ever-spiraling-upwards law enforcement problem that can never be solved from that standpoint. The proposal for the legalization of possession of an ounce or less of marijuana that’ll be on the November ballot doesn’t go far enough as people will still have to rely on a black market just to get the stuff. Only by legalizing at the federal level, cultivation of, say, up to six marijuana plants will the black market in marijuana truly be eradicated. But then, hey, where’s the money in that?
Bob Keenan
Carbondale
At first I thought Bob Keenan was going to offer a good argument for his stance, but in reading about his “shadow government” conspiracies and “malevolent entities” who are really behind the war on drugs, I cannot take him seriously, however I can address a few of his assertions if I can wade though the rest of his ramblings.
First assertion: “By making some drugs illegal, this, by its very nature creates a black market.” Black markets exist for many legal commodities. I give you a few as examples: cigarettes, (a Palestinian ring just recently broken up on the east coast that was smuggling them from Canada to the US and the proceeds were being used to fund terrorist groups in the middle east) liquor, automobile parts, computer chips and weapons just to name a few.
Second assertion: “rogue CIA agents who have been using them to fund mostly unwitting terrorists.” I have extensively studied terrorist and terrorist organizations and don’t know of any “rogue CIA agents” involved. Ex-KGB yes, and to classify some terrorist as “unwitting” is naive and demonstrates a total lack of understanding of terrorism and terrorist groups.
Third assertion: Iran contra was about drugs for missiles. Not so, it was about selling missiles to Iran and the money from those sales was used to purchase weapons on the black market for the contras since congress would not continue funding them.
Fourth assertion: “Of course, those who have a vested interest in keeping some drugs illegal will raise the biggest hue and cry against legalizing them because, ultimately, they don’t want to compete against, or see their best source of cash and power dry up.” Then you follow this up by saying those with the vested interest are, “The alcohol and pharmaceutical industries; criminals; prison and law enforcement officials; those in the drug rehab; the DEA; and the rogue CIA.” I am trying to find out who doesn’t have a vested interest in this case, because you listed just about every entity possible. Who is left to do anything about your legalization and the problem goes away theory?
Fifth assertion: “…plan for world domination.” Ok, who’s plan? The US? The European Union? The former Soviet Union? China? You better have a good plan because in order to dominate any of these “super powers”, let alone all of them you had better have one heck of a plan.
Sixth assertion: “Many of the people fighting the “war” on drugs are operating under the banner of benevolence, but don’t really give a damn about your welfare.” This is in fact true, in that it’s your mom and yourself who are concerned about your welfare, those “enforcing” the drug laws could care less about you and only become concerned about “you” when you break the law. Not even Sheriff Braudis cares about your welfare. He has stated openly that if you want to stay home and do drugs till you die, it’s up to you and your decision.
Seventh assertion: “it’s the making of drugs a crime that makes it pay.” No it’s the demand for drugs, either legal or illegal that makes it pay. Prescription drugs are the most abused drugs there are. Criminalization of a drug does not lessen its demand, though it can make it tougher to obtain. If you want to stamp out drug abuse, crime associated with drugs, money made from drugs, have people stop using them. It’s simple, cheap and 100% effective.
All the arguments of “just make it legal” and the problem will just go away is such a juvenile and naive argument that it is hardly worth addressing. Nothing is taken into account about demand, social costs associated with the problems that go hand in hand with drug use, family impacts, impact of worker productivity, dangers of operation of anything while under the influence of drugs, deadly effects of these drugs when not used under a doctors care, etc, etc, etc.
Eight assertion: “root causes and problems of drug abuse and/or addiction, which are primarily mental, physical, and societal issues.” Why is it that those who feel a need to abuse drugs think they are the only ones with mental, physical and social issues? These problems exist though out the world, yet the appetite of drugs in the US out paces everyone else. Did you know that the US, with only 8% of the world population consumes 50% of the drugs manufactured in the world? Of course no figures are available as to what percent of the illegal drugs we consume, but I imagine that it is in line with what is known. The problem with drug use in the US is not the drugs or the law; it’s a problem with lack of individual responsibility. Once people are willing to take responsibility for their own life and actions, and then many of these “issues” and “problems” will go away.
Ninth assertion: “Please understand that I am not, repeat, not advocating the use of drugs, far from it,” followed by, “Only by legalizing at the federal level, cultivation of, say, up to six marijuana plants will the black market in marijuana truly be eradicated.” Ok, if you want to smoke your marijuana and grow your own weed, fine, who cares? But under your own argument, that you have asserted throughout your whole post what do you propose to do if someone decides that six plants just isn’t enough, and grows seven? Or 7000? What then? Time to rethink your logic and look at reality. One again, the key to ending all the madness associated with this whole issue is acting responsibly, have people take control of their lives and for people to stop using them. Simple I know, but effective.
At first I thought Bob Keenan was going to offer a good argument for his stance, but in reading about his “shadow government” conspiracies and “malevolent entities” who are really behind the war on drugs, I cannot take him seriously, however I can address a few of his assertions if I can wade though the rest of his ramblings.
First assertion: “By making some drugs illegal, this, by its very nature creates a black market.” Black markets exist for many legal commodities. I give you a few as examples: cigarettes, (a Palestinian ring just recently broken up on the east coast that was smuggling them from Canada to the US and the proceeds were being used to fund terrorist groups in the middle east) liquor, automobile parts, computer chips and weapons just to name a few.
Second assertion: “rogue CIA agents who have been using them to fund mostly unwitting terrorists.” I have extensively studied terrorist and terrorist organizations and don’t know of any “rogue CIA agents” involved. Ex-KGB yes, and to classify some terrorist as “unwitting” is naive and demonstrates a total lack of understanding of terrorism and terrorist groups.
Third assertion: Iran contra was about drugs for missiles. Not so, it was about selling missiles to Iran and the money from those sales was used to purchase weapons on the black market for the contras since congress would not continue funding them.
Fourth assertion: “Of course, those who have a vested interest in keeping some drugs illegal will raise the biggest hue and cry against legalizing them because, ultimately, they don’t want to compete against, or see their best source of cash and power dry up.” Then you follow this up by saying those with the vested interest are, “The alcohol and pharmaceutical industries; criminals; prison and law enforcement officials; those in the drug rehab; the DEA; and the rogue CIA.” I am trying to find out who doesn’t have a vested interest in this case, because you listed just about every entity possible. Who is left to do anything about your legalization and the problem goes away theory?
Fifth assertion: “…plan for world domination.” Ok, who’s plan? The US? The European Union? The former Soviet Union? China? You better have a good plan because in order to dominate any of these “super powers”, let alone all of them you had better have one heck of a plan.
Sixth assertion: “Many of the people fighting the “war” on drugs are operating under the banner of benevolence, but don’t really give a damn about your welfare.” This is in fact true, in that it’s your mom and yourself who are concerned about your welfare, those “enforcing” the drug laws could care less about you and only become concerned about “you” when you break the law. Not even Sheriff Braudis cares about your welfare. He has stated openly that if you want to stay home and do drugs till you die, it’s up to you and your decision.
Seventh assertion: “it’s the making of drugs a crime that makes it pay.” No it’s the demand for drugs, either legal or illegal that makes it pay. Prescription drugs are the most abused drugs there are. Criminalization of a drug does not lessen its demand, though it can make it tougher to obtain. If you want to stamp out drug abuse, crime associated with drugs, money made from drugs, have people stop using them. It’s simple, cheap and 100% effective.
All the arguments of “just make it legal” and the problem will just go away is such a juvenile and naive argument that it is hardly worth addressing. Nothing is taken into account about demand, social costs associated with the problems that go hand in hand with drug use, family impacts, impact of worker productivity, dangers of operation of anything while under the influence of drugs, deadly effects of these drugs when not used under a doctors care, etc, etc, etc.
Eight assertion: “root causes and problems of drug abuse and/or addiction, which are primarily mental, physical, and societal issues.” Why is it that those who feel a need to abuse drugs think they are the only ones with mental, physical and social issues? These problems exist though out the world, yet the appetite of drugs in the US out paces everyone else. Did you know that the US, with only 8% of the world population consumes 50% of the drugs manufactured in the world? Of course no figures are available as to what percent of the illegal drugs we consume, but I imagine that it is in line with what is known. The problem with drug use in the US is not the drugs or the law; it’s a problem with lack of individual responsibility. Once people are willing to take responsibility for their own life and actions, and then many of these “issues” and “problems” will go away.
Ninth assertion: “Please understand that I am not, repeat, not advocating the use of drugs, far from it,” followed by, “Only by legalizing at the federal level, cultivation of, say, up to six marijuana plants will the black market in marijuana truly be eradicated.” Ok, if you want to smoke your marijuana and grow your own weed, fine, who cares? But under your own argument, that you have asserted throughout your whole post what do you propose to do if someone decides that six plants just isn’t enough, and grows seven? Or 7000? What then? Time to rethink your logic and look at reality. One again, the key to ending all the madness associated with this whole issue is acting responsibly, have people take control of their lives and for people to stop using them. Simple I know, but effective.
Dear Diary,
The Braudis bashing…I mean, rational discussion regarding the merits of current drug enforcement policy, legalization/decriminalization of drugs…has entered its record-setting 986th consecutive day of discussion on “Con Games”, and here’s what we have:
Con Man: Go ahead, you’re live with the Con Man.
Chuck from Basalt/Ed from Aspen hybrid: Hi, Michael, I’m not a drug user and I don’t condone the use of drugs, but here is a rationally-based argument (perhaps steeped in libertarian ideals) that provides compelling arguments as to why we should re-examine our criminalization of drugs, the “drug war”, and its effects in Pitkin County.
Con Man: OK, ChuckEd, here’s the thing. Although I purport to be the open-minded but liberal host of my show, for some reason I just can’t seem to grasp your points. But here’s how you can convince me of your arguments….
Drugs are bad. Drugs are illegal because they are bad. Other callers have illustrated why drugs are bad. I have seen and experienced first-hand the evil effects of drugs. I am willing to give your arguments credence if you can prove to me that drugs are good. What? You can’t demonstrate one good thing about drugs? Then I’m right, your arguments have no merit, and YOU ARE IN A STATE OF DENIAL.
Chuck/Ed: (this is the question I’d love to hear) Con Man, is there anything I can say to you that would change your mind on this topic? No? Well, then, that just proves that Chuck is wrong about the war in Iraq, and the Con Man has conned himself about his personal war on drugs.
All kidding aside, I don’t purport to take a position on:
1) Braudis’ job performance. I don’t know him, I don’t live in Pitkin County, and clearly he has determined to inject his personal morality into the department’s drug enforcement policy. The Con Man has a hard on for the sheriff–that’s clear. It will be interesting to see if the personal grudge and the Con Man’s access to the airwaves has an effect on the election.
2) The nature of illegal drugs. I will readily accept that drugs are “bad”. Like Chuck and Ed, I don’t use drugs, don’t condone the use of drugs, and will not make arguments that drugs are good for you or that the use of drugs is “victimless”.
If we are to accept the arguments against decriminalization of drugs that have appeared in this blog and throughout the Con Games discussion, the linchpin relates exclusively to the inherently “bad” nature of drugs. We’ve all heard it, and to some extent experienced it: ” My brother/cousin/daughter/boss/ex-husband (or perhaps the bartender) has a problem with drugs–it has destroyed their life and caused great harm to me, other family members, friends, acquaintances, and the people they have betrayed. If nothing that dramatic, then at least we recognize that drug use interferes with the resume-building ethic toward which we all strive. Quite simply, there is no counter-argument to the fact that the use of drugs are, in almost all cases, a damaging activity.
I submit that the world is full of “bad” things. Depending upon one’s perspective, the following could easily be considered “bad”: Drugs, alcohol, gambling, fast food (as Chief Hosa alertly pointed out), SUVs, abortion, pesticides, corporate greed, the war in Iraq, reckless skiing, not having health insurance, perhaps even capitalism when viewed through a (non-drug-induced) creative lens. Bad things fall into three broad categories: legal, illegal, and regulated. If the ultimate efficacy of a given policy is to be based merely on the good/bad analysis of the activity, in short order we would live in a society where many activities would be illegal when they should be more appropriately decriminalized or regulated.
The first point of my argument is that not all things that are “bad” are appropriate for criminalization. The second, and primary, point, is that the activity and all logical, correlative effects of the activity must be analyzed in a way that determines the overall cost/benefit to society. Based upon that analysis, the activities should be properly placed in one of the categories: legal, illegal, regulated.
Our constitution is steeped in personal liberty, with notions of freedom and justice interwoven. Hey, that sounds a lot like “with freedom and justice for all’–the jingle from Con Games! I would argue that the principles of Rousseau’s social contract overlay our founding fathers’ desire for freedom and personal liberty. Citizens submit to be governed in a manner that attempts to balance personal liberty with restriction on personal behavior for the overall good of society.
The debate over legalization/criminalization/regulation of drugs must fall within the parameters of personal liberty and social good. I believe the correct analysis to be a refined balance sheet with pros and cons (no pun intended). The following is only a rudimentary balance sheet, but I feel it is a more appropriate departure for discussion, rather than the emotional, yet logically limited, ends-justifies-the-means arguments which accompany the “drugs are bad” springboard.
Rudimentary balance sheet, take one:
1. Continue criminalization of drugs
Pro:
-sends a societal message that drug use is not condoned.
-lessens or deters drug use by those who fear the consequences of criminal penalties.
-protects people (including children) from their own destructive behaviors.
-protects others (namely, family members, friends, acquaintances, and third party victims) from the effects of drug use.
Con:
-criminalization of drug use costs a lot of money, funded by taxpayers–hence, a true societal cost. The cost of criminalization at a minimum impairs the ability of society to allocate funds for education/treatment-based solutions.
-empirical evidence suggests that criminalization does not substantially curb drug use/abuse. At a minimum, empirical evidence has demonstrated that criminalization does not solve the problem.
-Con-sequences (pun intended) of drug use can be devastating in a criminal environment. For example, if the Con Man had been busted during his pothead days, he may have found that his achievement ceiling was unfairly lowered. A needless consequence for an individual with unlimited promise.
-grossly elevated levels of incarceration. Last I checked, one in seventy Americans is incarcerated, many for drug crimes. That is an enormous social cost.
-criminalization of drugs creates a black market, with inflated prices and control by the shadowy underworld (no, not the Bush administration). Even though alpha6 would have you believe there is some comparison with the black market for cigarettes, the fact remains that criminalization of drugs exclusively creates the “drug dealer”. I do not fear the cigarette dealer.
-increases sphere of influence related to the devastating effects of drugs. In addition to the effects on the user, family, and friends, the artificially-induced high price of drugs and involvement of the underworld increases the level of violence and secondary crime. Ask yourself these questions: how many innocents are killed to satisfy the fix of a drug junkie? how many innocents are killed to satisfy the fix of a cigarette or alcohol junkie? Is that because drugs are ‘bad” and cigarettes/alcohol are not?
The foregoing represents a mere starting point. The list of pros and cons can be modified with a more sophisticated discussion and analysis beyond that conceptualized in my pea brain. I suggest that these points, along with the theoretical pro/con list of decriminalization and regulation, are the ones that should be analyzed to reach a more logical answer.
Just spare me the “drugs are bad” justification–that’s about as sophisticated as the “Saddam is a despot” argument that in and of itself is used to justify the war in Iraq. If the answers were that simple, we wouldn’t have problems, or better yet, we’d just ask Rush Limbaugh–he always has an answer.
Dear Diary,
The Braudis bashing…I mean, rational discussion regarding the merits of current drug enforcement policy, legalization/decriminalization of drugs…has entered its record-setting 986th consecutive day of discussion on “Con Games”, and here’s what we have:
Con Man: Go ahead, you’re live with the Con Man.
Chuck from Basalt/Ed from Aspen hybrid: Hi, Michael, I’m not a drug user and I don’t condone the use of drugs, but here is a rationally-based argument (perhaps steeped in libertarian ideals) that provides compelling arguments as to why we should re-examine our criminalization of drugs, the “drug war”, and its effects in Pitkin County.
Con Man: OK, ChuckEd, here’s the thing. Although I purport to be the open-minded but liberal host of my show, for some reason I just can’t seem to grasp your points. But here’s how you can convince me of your arguments….
Drugs are bad. Drugs are illegal because they are bad. Other callers have illustrated why drugs are bad. I have seen and experienced first-hand the evil effects of drugs. I am willing to give your arguments credence if you can prove to me that drugs are good. What? You can’t demonstrate one good thing about drugs? Then I’m right, your arguments have no merit, and YOU ARE IN A STATE OF DENIAL.
Chuck/Ed: (this is the question I’d love to hear) Con Man, is there anything I can say to you that would change your mind on this topic? No? Well, then, that just proves that Chuck is wrong about the war in Iraq, and the Con Man has conned himself about his personal war on drugs.
All kidding aside, I don’t purport to take a position on:
1) Braudis’ job performance. I don’t know him, I don’t live in Pitkin County, and clearly he has determined to inject his personal morality into the department’s drug enforcement policy. The Con Man has a hard on for the sheriff–that’s clear. It will be interesting to see if the personal grudge and the Con Man’s access to the airwaves has an effect on the election.
2) The nature of illegal drugs. I will readily accept that drugs are “bad”. Like Chuck and Ed, I don’t use drugs, don’t condone the use of drugs, and will not make arguments that drugs are good for you or that the use of drugs is “victimless”.
If we are to accept the arguments against decriminalization of drugs that have appeared in this blog and throughout the Con Games discussion, the linchpin relates exclusively to the inherently “bad” nature of drugs. We’ve all heard it, and to some extent experienced it: ” My brother/cousin/daughter/boss/ex-husband (or perhaps the bartender) has a problem with drugs–it has destroyed their life and caused great harm to me, other family members, friends, acquaintances, and the people they have betrayed. If nothing that dramatic, then at least we recognize that drug use interferes with the resume-building ethic toward which we all strive. Quite simply, there is no counter-argument to the fact that the use of drugs are, in almost all cases, a damaging activity.
I submit that the world is full of “bad” things. Depending upon one’s perspective, the following could easily be considered “bad”: Drugs, alcohol, gambling, fast food (as Chief Hosa alertly pointed out), SUVs, abortion, pesticides, corporate greed, the war in Iraq, reckless skiing, not having health insurance, perhaps even capitalism when viewed through a (non-drug-induced) creative lens. Bad things fall into three broad categories: legal, illegal, and regulated. If the ultimate efficacy of a given policy is to be based merely on the good/bad analysis of the activity, in short order we would live in a society where many activities would be illegal when they should be more appropriately decriminalized or regulated.
The first point of my argument is that not all things that are “bad” are appropriate for criminalization. The second, and primary, point, is that the activity and all logical, correlative effects of the activity must be analyzed in a way that determines the overall cost/benefit to society. Based upon that analysis, the activities should be properly placed in one of the categories: legal, illegal, regulated.
Our constitution is steeped in personal liberty, with notions of freedom and justice interwoven. Hey, that sounds a lot like “with freedom and justice for all’–the jingle from Con Games! I would argue that the principles of Rousseau’s social contract overlay our founding fathers’ desire for freedom and personal liberty. Citizens submit to be governed in a manner that attempts to balance personal liberty with restriction on personal behavior for the overall good of society.
The debate over legalization/criminalization/regulation of drugs must fall within the parameters of personal liberty and social good. I believe the correct analysis to be a refined balance sheet with pros and cons (no pun intended). The following is only a rudimentary balance sheet, but I feel it is a more appropriate departure for discussion, rather than the emotional, yet logically limited, ends-justifies-the-means arguments which accompany the “drugs are bad” springboard.
Rudimentary balance sheet, take one:
1. Continue criminalization of drugs
Pro:
-sends a societal message that drug use is not condoned.
-lessens or deters drug use by those who fear the consequences of criminal penalties.
-protects people (including children) from their own destructive behaviors.
-protects others (namely, family members, friends, acquaintances, and third party victims) from the effects of drug use.
Con:
-criminalization of drug use costs a lot of money, funded by taxpayers–hence, a true societal cost. The cost of criminalization at a minimum impairs the ability of society to allocate funds for education/treatment-based solutions.
-empirical evidence suggests that criminalization does not substantially curb drug use/abuse. At a minimum, empirical evidence has demonstrated that criminalization does not solve the problem.
-Con-sequences (pun intended) of drug use can be devastating in a criminal environment. For example, if the Con Man had been busted during his pothead days, he may have found that his achievement ceiling was unfairly lowered. A needless consequence for an individual with unlimited promise.
-grossly elevated levels of incarceration. Last I checked, one in seventy Americans is incarcerated, many for drug crimes. That is an enormous social cost.
-criminalization of drugs creates a black market, with inflated prices and control by the shadowy underworld (no, not the Bush administration). Even though alpha6 would have you believe there is some comparison with the black market for cigarettes, the fact remains that criminalization of drugs exclusively creates the “drug dealer”. I do not fear the cigarette dealer.
-increases sphere of influence related to the devastating effects of drugs. In addition to the effects on the user, family, and friends, the artificially-induced high price of drugs and involvement of the underworld increases the level of violence and secondary crime. Ask yourself these questions: how many innocents are killed to satisfy the fix of a drug junkie? how many innocents are killed to satisfy the fix of a cigarette or alcohol junkie? Is that because drugs are ‘bad” and cigarettes/alcohol are not?
The foregoing represents a mere starting point. The list of pros and cons can be modified with a more sophisticated discussion and analysis beyond that conceptualized in my pea brain. I suggest that these points, along with the theoretical pro/con list of decriminalization and regulation, are the ones that should be analyzed to reach a more logical answer.
Just spare me the “drugs are bad” justification–that’s about as sophisticated as the “Saddam is a despot” argument that in and of itself is used to justify the war in Iraq. If the answers were that simple, we wouldn’t have problems, or better yet, we’d just ask Rush Limbaugh–he always has an answer.
Wharf Rat,
Great post. Though I don’t totally agree with your pro and con list, I do appreciate someone actually thinking out the issue instead of attacking it from an emotional perspective.
I look forward to your other comments.
Wharf Rat,
Great post. Though I don’t totally agree with your pro and con list, I do appreciate someone actually thinking out the issue instead of attacking it from an emotional perspective.
I look forward to your other comments.