Tom Tancredo: It's time to legalize drugs?!

[MRoCkEd]

Tom Tancredo Says: Legalize Drugs! (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/05/21/tom-tancredo-says-legalize-drugs/)
Former Rep. Tom Tancredo is no libertarian. After all, he made his name attacking immigration. But the former member is now speaking politically painful truths.

Yesterday he spoke to a local Republican group in Denver: (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/politics/19519306/detail.html)


Admitting that it may be “political suicide” former Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo said its time to consider legalizing drugs.

He spoke Wednesday to the Lincoln Club of Colorado, a Republican group that’s been active in the state for 90 years. It’s the first time Tancredo has spoken on the drug issue. He ran for president in 2008 on an anti-illegal immigration platform that has brought him passionate support and criticism.

Tancredo noted that he has never used drugs, but said the war has failed.

“I am convinced that what we are doing is not working,” he said.

Tancredo told the group that the country has spent billions of dollars capturing, prosecuting and jailing drug dealers and users, but has little to show for it.

“It is now easier for a kid to get drugs at most schools in America that it is booze,” he said.

He said the violent drug battles in Mexico are moving north. A recent ABC News report profiled how easy it has become for violent drug cartels to smuggle cocaine into the United States. Drug enforcement officials told ABC that Denver is a hub city for distribution.
It’s time for politicians like Tancredo to start telling the truth while they are still in office.

[torchbearer]

It would destroy the mexican cartels, and tom can't stand mexicans.

[ozark]

It's about time more politicians started to come to there senses. Billions wasted, millions in jail and for what? So Johnny can find meth easier than alcohol?

How about someone making it there parties platform to abolish the drug laws.

[sirgonzo420]

It would destroy the mexican cartels, and tom can't stand mexicans.

ROFL

Hahaha


:D

[bricardo]

We need to embrace our Mexican brothers and stop arresting them for being wacky pot smokers.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Won't happen unless a miracle occurs, sadly. They'll sell the ever expanding 'violence' from the cartels to round up lots of people for 'society's safety'. And there is the fact that Tancredo has come to his epiphany when its too late.

[forsmant]

We need to embrace our Mexican brothers and stop arresting them for being wacky pot smokers.

Embrace them how?

[Chamdar]

I'm pretty surprised by it. I always thought he was a drug warrior.

[specsaregood]

And there is the fact that Tancredo has come to his epiphany when its too late.

It's not "too late". It simply gives more creditiblity to RP's message. Tancredo was liked but not considered a real contender last presidential election cycle by many right-wing conservatives. The more people like him that have epiphanies the better. And he was a member of RP's RLC so, this is not all too surprising of a position for him to take. Perhaps he has felt this way for awhile, and just now felt the need to make it public?

[Bossobass]

Obanana will give the legalized drug sales monopoly to Goldman Sachs with 20 billion in tax payer grants to kick off the ad campaign.

Bosso

[Dieseler]

He should run for Governor of California after it goes bankrupt.
I think he will find a lot of new support.

[BuddyRey]

Wow...My respect for Tom Tancredo just took an upward soar.

[andrewh817]

Thanks for taking a stand for something when your voice counts for something Tancredo!

[foofighter20x]

The counter-drug-war movement ought to change their rhetoric to something like "decriminalize marijuana" or "re-legalize marijuana".

[Deborah K]

Tom Tancredo Says: Legalize Drugs! (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/05/21/tom-tancredo-says-legalize-drugs/)
Former Rep. Tom Tancredo is no libertarian. After all, he made his name attacking immigration. But the former member is now speaking politically painful truths.

Yesterday he spoke to a local Republican group in Denver: (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/politics/19519306/detail.html)


It’s time for politicians like Tancredo to start telling the truth while they are still in office.


Tancredo never attacked immigration. He attacked ILLEGAL immigration. HUGE difference.

[malkusm]

Great, another politician who is silent about the drug war for the entire duration of his service, only to speak out against it after he leaves office.

If it sounds familiar, it probably is. See: Bob Barr

[Deborah K]

Does everyone believe that the drug cartels are gonna just sit back and take it on the chin if our inept, corrupt gov't decides to legalize drugs and take over regulating them? Do you really believe they are going to just fall in line, open legit businesses and pay their taxes on the sales of their dope? This I gotta see.

It ain't like the good ole prohibition days folks. It's much, much worse. Giving this f'kd up gov't another reason to expand is NOT the answer. Neither will be the growing rate of addiction if this country legalizes dope.

[torchbearer]

Does everyone believe that the drug cartels are gonna just sit back and take it on the chin if our inept, corrupt gov't decides to legalize drugs and take over regulating them? Do you really believe they are going to just fall in line, open legit businesses and pay their taxes on the sales of their dope? This I gotta see.

It ain't like the good ole prohibition days folks. It's much, much worse. Giving this f'kd up gov't another reason to expand is NOT the answer. Neither will be the growing rate of addiction if this country legalizes dope.

It will definitely hurt the CIA's trade.

[malkusm]

Does everyone believe that the drug cartels are gonna just sit back and take it on the chin if our inept, corrupt gov't decides to legalize drugs and take over regulating them? Do you really believe they are going to just fall in line, open legit businesses and pay their taxes on the sales of their dope? This I gotta see.

It ain't like the good ole prohibition days folks. It's much, much worse. Giving this f'kd up gov't another reason to expand is NOT the answer. Neither will be the growing rate of addiction if this country legalizes dope.

I don't think anyone is arguing that cartels will "fall in line" and become legitimate operations; rather, I think they would suffer the problem of being highly cost ineffective when compared to readily available, legal alternatives. Although, of course, the best option would be to not have government regulation...I think it's highly preferable to have other drugs treated in the same way as alcohol, rather than to cause addicts to be led into crime, with their money trafficked out of the country.

As far as the "growing rate of addiction" that will occur, I disagree wholeheartedly - suffice it to say that there are more people addicted to prescription painkillers in this country than marijuana. Then again, neither of us can prove this point one way or the other.

[MRoCkEd]

Does everyone believe that the drug cartels are gonna just sit back and take it on the chin if our inept, corrupt gov't decides to legalize drugs and take over regulating them? Do you really believe they are going to just fall in line, open legit businesses and pay their taxes on the sales of their dope? This I gotta see.

It ain't like the good ole prohibition days folks. It's much, much worse. Giving this f'kd up gov't another reason to expand is NOT the answer. Neither will be the growing rate of addiction if this country legalizes dope.
I'm not for the government taxing or regulating drugs, but I'd rather they do that than spend tens of billions of dollars each year arresting and jailing people for nonviolent drug offenses.

Legalization will render the vicious street dealers and cartels powerless. In the current system, dealers resort to intimidation and violence to enforce business protocol and protect property. If drug transactions become legal, violations of rights within the drug business will be resolved through the judicial system, thereby decreasing gang violence, and saving the many innocent lives that often get caught in the crossfire. By eliminating the black market, drug users and local communities will be safer.

It is morally reprehensible to initiate force against another who chooses to participate in a victimless activity. Therefore, granting the government this same authority is equally objectionable.

[Deborah K]

I don't think anyone is arguing that cartels will "fall in line" and become legitimate operations; rather, I think they would suffer the problem of being highly cost ineffective when compared to readily available, legal alternatives. Although, of course, the best option would be to not have government regulation...I think it's highly preferable to have other drugs treated in the same way as alcohol, rather than to cause addicts to be led into crime, with their money trafficked out of the country.

As far as the "growing rate of addiction" that will occur, I disagree wholeheartedly - suffice it to say that there are more people addicted to prescription painkillers in this country than marijuana. Then again, neither of us can prove this point one way or the other.


I contend that the reason there are more prescription addicts and alcholics is because they are legal. I am not against decriminalizing weed and other illicit drugs. I don't believe users should ever be put in jail.

I've written about the statistics here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=181493&highlight=deborah+alcohol&page=7

[trey4sports]

Does everyone believe that the drug cartels are gonna just sit back and take it on the chin if our inept, corrupt gov't decides to legalize drugs and take over regulating them? Do you really believe they are going to just fall in line, open legit businesses and pay their taxes on the sales of their dope? This I gotta see.

It ain't like the good ole prohibition days folks. It's much, much worse. Giving this f'kd up gov't another reason to expand is NOT the answer. Neither will be the growing rate of addiction if this country legalizes dope.

jesus......

[trey4sports]

I contend that the reason there are more prescription addicts and alcholics is because they are legal. I am not against decriminalizing weed and other illicit drugs. I don't believe users should ever be put in jail.

I've written about the statistics here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=181493&highlight=deborah+alcohol&page=7


yet they should pay a fine?
yet government should be the ultimate ruler of what you put in your body?
yet we are not capable of making our own mistakes?

give me a fucking break

[Deborah K]

give me a fucking break


Do you always react with such hostility to someone you don't agree with? Or is this your reaction whenever you can't come up with a decent argument?


yet they should pay a fine?

It's better than going to jail or prison which is what is happening now.



yet government should be the ultimate ruler of what you put in your body?

You say the gov't is the ruler of what you put in your body if dope ISN'T legalized, yet you're willing to let that same gov't grow exponentially to regulate said dope. You think they're not controlling what you put in your body anyway? Ever heard of the FDA?


yet we are not capable of making our own mistakes?
As if this makes any difference at all.

[KenInMontiMN]

Tancredo never attacked immigration. He attacked ILLEGAL immigration. HUGE difference.

^Truth. There is no contradiction between favoring legalization of fairly harmless drugs and supporting the integrity of our sovereign borders. Both are vastly preferable to the current situation.

[Danke]

I contend that the reason there are more prescription addicts and alcholics is because they are legal.


And some contend teen pregnancy and abortions would decrease if we adopted Sharia Laws...

[KenInMontiMN]

Does everyone believe that the drug cartels are gonna just sit back and take it on the chin if our inept, corrupt gov't decides to legalize drugs and take over regulating them? Do you really believe they are going to just fall in line, open legit businesses and pay their taxes on the sales of their dope? This I gotta see.

It ain't like the good ole prohibition days folks. It's much, much worse. Giving this f'kd up gov't another reason to expand is NOT the answer. Neither will be the growing rate of addiction if this country legalizes dope.

This, however, I can't embrace. If Marijuana is truly legalized, and done right, there will be little elicit trade, and not much in the way of legalized trade either- since its very simple and not that expensive for those who want a steady source to simply grow their own, making both the black market and the govt-regulated legalized market irrelevant. Now that is liberty- controlling who is allowed to grow and sell it is not liberty, but rather a controlled cartel which should not be allowed. We don't need any more of those.

Lastly, where marijuana is legalized, 'addiction' rates (its non-addictive, but carries the same compulsive dangers to the compulsive personality as about a thousand other things, many of them with greater risks), or rather rates of usage, haven't changed that significantly or have declined.

One last observation- the present black market delivery system exposes users to all the other goods on that black market, along with potential for violence and robbery. If you work out an arrangement with your neighbor who grows it down the street, much less likelihood that he's stocking the much more dangerous full inventory. Plus everyone knows where he lives- making him a whole lot less likely to sell to the neighborhood kids. They'll have to sneak their own, LOL.

[Deborah K]

And some contend teen pregnancy and abortions would decrease if we adopted Sharia Laws...

Ridiculous analogy.

[Deborah K]

This, however, I can't embrace. If Marijuana is truly legalized, and done right, there will be little elicit trade, and not much in the way of legalized trade either- since its very simple and not that expensive for those who want a steady source to simply grow their own, making both the black market and the govt-regulated legalized market irrelevant. Now that is liberty- controlling who is allowed to grow and sell it is not liberty, but rather a controlled cartel which should not be allowed. We don't need any more of those.



If the gov't takes over, do you really think they would allow people to grow their own weed? It's illegal to have a distillery, so my guess is they will regulate and control the hell out of it. Weed, btw, is in a different category than hard drugs, imo.

I do, however, have a huge, gigantic, enormous problem with the other forms of dope like heroin, cocaine, meth, acid, etc. being made legal, (although I am against jailing anyone for their use) for reasons I've already mentioned, namely addiction.

Addiction doesn't just affect the addict, it affects society. I know this isn't a popular opinion on this board, but no one will ever be able to convince me using the "liberty argument" that allowing masses of people to become addicted is good for society. We are already an addicted nation. Opening the floodgates is just stupid.

[KenInMontiMN]

Of course people will grow their own, they already do. Legalization/decriminalization will spur that. Whatever the govt tries to do to horn in for a profit, is in our hands always, not theirs, so long as we never convict the govt is out in the cold.

I touched on that addiction premise already- its not addictive. And I can assure you that everyone who really wants to get high on marijuana from time to time already is doing so.

[MRoCkEd]

If the gov't takes over, do you really think they would allow people to grow their own weed? It's illegal to have a distillery, so my guess is they will regulate and control the hell out of it. Weed, btw, is in a different category than hard drugs, imo.

I do, however, have a huge, gigantic, enormous problem with the other forms of dope like heroin, cocaine, meth, acid, etc. being made legal, (although I am against jailing anyone for their use) for reasons I've already mentioned, namely addiction.

Addiction doesn't just affect the addict, it affects society. I know this isn't a popular opinion on this board, but no one will ever be able to convince me using the "liberty argument" that allowing masses of people to become addicted is good for society. We are already an addicted nation. Opening the floodgates is just stupid.
http://www.wchstv.com/abc/2020/johnstossel.jpg
This "war" does more harm than any drug.

Independent of that harm, adults ought to own our own bodies, so it's not intellectually honest to argue that "only marijuana" should be legal -- and only for certain sick people approved by the state. Every drug should be legal.

"How could you say such a ridiculous thing?" asked my assistant. "Heroin and cocaine have a permanent effect. If you do crack just once, you are automatically hooked. Legal hard drugs would create many more addicts. And that leads to more violence, homelessness, out-of-wedlock births, etc!"

Her diatribe is a good summary of the drug warriors' arguments. Most Americans probably agree with what she said.

But what most Americans believe is wrong. (http://tinyurl.com/5fo2eo)

Myth No. 1: Heroin and cocaine have a permanent effect.

Truth: There is no evidence of that.

In the 1980s, the press reported that "crack babies" were "permanently damaged." Rolling Stone, citing one study of just 23 babies, claimed that crack babies "were oblivious to affection, automatons."

It simply wasn't true (http://tinyurl.com/r922k). There is no proof that crack babies do worse than anyone else in later life. (http://tinyurl.com/5zvow6)

Myth No. 2: If you do crack once, you are hooked.

Truth: Look at the numbers -- 15 percent of young adults have tried crack, but only 2 percent used it in the last month (http://tinyurl.com/68d5yj). If crack is so addictive, why do most people who've tried it no longer use it?

People once said heroin was nearly impossible to quit, but during the Vietnam War, thousands of soldiers became addicted, and when they returned home, 85 percent quit within one year. (http://tinyurl.com/6ojfpr)

People have free will. Most who use drugs eventually wise up and stop.

And most people who use drugs habitually live perfectly responsible lives, as Jacob Sullum pointed out in "Saying Yes".
(http://tinyurl.com/689rw2)
Myth No. 3: Drugs cause crime.

Truth: The drug war causes the crime.

Few drug users hurt or rob people because they are high. Most of the crime occurs because the drugs are illegal and available only through a black market. Drug sellers arm themselves and form gangs because they cannot ask the police to protect their persons and property.

In turn, some buyers steal to pay the high black-market prices. The government says heroin, cocaine and nicotine are similarly addictive (http://tinyurl.com/5f7z25), and about half the people who both smoke cigarettes and use cocaine say smoking is at least as strong an urge. (http://tinyurl.com/5kl8n7) But no one robs convenience stores for Marlboros.

Alcohol prohibition created Al Capone and the Mafia. Drug prohibition is worse. It's corrupting whole countries (http://tinyurl.com/y63lot) and financing terrorism. (http://tinyurl.com/4kjyzm)

The Post wrote, "Stossel admitted his own 22-year-old daughter doesn't think [legalization] is a good idea."

But that's not what she said. My daughter argued that legal cocaine would probably lead to more cocaine use. And therefore probably abuse.

I'm not so sure.

Banning drugs certainly hasn't kept young people from getting them. We can't even keep these drugs out of prisons. How do we expect to keep them out of America?

But let's assume my daughter is right, that legalization would lead to more experimentation and more addiction. I still say: Legal is better.

While drugs harm many, the drug war's black market harms more.

And most importantly, in a free country, adults should have the right to harm themselves.

[Deborah K]

Of course people will grow their own, they already do. Legalization/decriminalization will spur that. Whatever the govt tries to do to horn in for a profit, is in our hands always, not theirs, so long as we never convict the govt is out in the cold.

I touched on that addiction premise already- its not addictive. And I can assure you that everyone who really wants to get high on marijuana from time to time already is doing so.


I know people who are definitely addicted to weed. They can't sleep at night when they try to quit. They have to have it first thing in the morning, several hits a day, and a hit or two before bedtime. Otherwise they can't function normally and they can't sleep. Every time they've ever tried to quit, they can't.

I will say, though, that of all the drugs - prescription, alcohol, even cigarettes, and all the hard street drugs - weed seems to me to be the least harmful in terms of what it does to the user and how its use affects society.

Let me just put it this way - if tomorrow, they legalized weed in Cali, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But if they legalized everything across the board, I'd have a problem.

[Deborah K]

Look, as I mentioned in my first post, I am for decriminalizing use. I don't think anyone should spend a second in jail for using. And as someone who has worked with addicts, I can tell you that addiction costs this country much more than the drug war. Aside from the crime and violence, here are some other statistics:

Untreated addiction costs America $400 billion per year

Untreated addiction is more expensive than 3 of the nation’s top 10 killers: 6 times more expensive than America’s number one killer: heart disease ($133.2 billion/year), 6 times more than diabetes ($130 billion/year), 4 times more than cancer ($96.1billion/year)

23 million Americans suffer from substance abuse addiction

Drug related deaths have almost doubled since 1990--approximately one in four deaths each year is attributable to substance abuse.

(Source: Substance Abuse: The Nation’s Number One Health Problem, Brandeis University, Schneider Institute for Health Policy, 2001)

In addition, according to estimates from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, a combined $276 billion was spent or lost in 2005 on health care, lost productivity, premature death, crime and auto accidents relating to alcohol and drug abuse. Roughly 75 percent of all that money was paid for by public sources, which means American taxpayers are footing three quarters of the bill. With 117 million taxpayers in the U.S., this means that the average amount paid by each individual taxpayers amounted to approximately $1,800. [list]
More than 9 million children live with a parent dependent on alcohol and/or illicit drugs.

A recent study in the UK breaks down the estimated cost of an individual drug addict to society over the course of his or her lifetime. Auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers found that the average abuser costs taxpayers over £800,000 or $1.4 million in crime prevention, health care, jail and prision accomodation and treatment. Interestingly, they also estimated that this could be reduced to under 1/10 of the cost when treatment is provided before the age of 21. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7454338.stm
According to the federal Household Survey, more than 48 million Americans use alcohol an average of one or more days each week of the year. This is more than the combined total number of Americans who have ever tried cocaine, crack, and/or heroin (29.7 million), and two and a half times the number of Americans who have used marijuana once in the last year (18.7 million).

Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, US Department of Health and Human Services, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Population Estimates 1998 (Washington DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 1999), pp. 19, 25, 31, 37, 85, 91, 105.

WHY? Why is alcohol abused more than illicit drugs? Because alcohol is legal! Illicit drug use and the resulting addiction will go off the charts in this country if it is legalized.

Look, I don't care what people do in their spare time as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. So casual users don't apply to my argument. And I realize that most users don't become addicts and eventually mature out of it. But addiction is a huge problem and hurts not only the addict, but the people who employ the addict, and the people who love the addict.

Addiction is my issue, as well as not giving this inept gov't yet another reason to expand. I don't see how legalizing street drugs is going to improve the addiction problem. I don't know what the answer is, but I know legalizing street drugs isn't it.

[Deborah K]

http://www.wchstv.com/abc/2020/johnstossel.jpg
This "war" does more harm than any drug.

Independent of that harm, adults ought to own our own bodies, so it's not intellectually honest to argue that "only marijuana" should be legal -- and only for certain sick people approved by the state. Every drug should be legal.

"How could you say such a ridiculous thing?" asked my assistant. "Heroin and cocaine have a permanent effect. If you do crack just once, you are automatically hooked. Legal hard drugs would create many more addicts. And that leads to more violence, homelessness, out-of-wedlock births, etc!"

Her diatribe is a good summary of the drug warriors' arguments. Most Americans probably agree with what she said.

But what most Americans believe is wrong. (http://tinyurl.com/5fo2eo)

Myth No. 1: Heroin and cocaine have a permanent effect.

Truth: There is no evidence of that.

In the 1980s, the press reported that "crack babies" were "permanently damaged." Rolling Stone, citing one study of just 23 babies, claimed that crack babies "were oblivious to affection, automatons."

It simply wasn't true (http://tinyurl.com/r922k). There is no proof that crack babies do worse than anyone else in later life. (http://tinyurl.com/5zvow6)

Myth No. 2: If you do crack once, you are hooked.

Truth: Look at the numbers -- 15 percent of young adults have tried crack, but only 2 percent used it in the last month (http://tinyurl.com/68d5yj). If crack is so addictive, why do most people who've tried it no longer use it?

People once said heroin was nearly impossible to quit, but during the Vietnam War, thousands of soldiers became addicted, and when they returned home, 85 percent quit within one year. (http://tinyurl.com/6ojfpr)

People have free will. Most who use drugs eventually wise up and stop.

And most people who use drugs habitually live perfectly responsible lives, as Jacob Sullum pointed out in "Saying Yes".
(http://tinyurl.com/689rw2)
Myth No. 3: Drugs cause crime.

Truth: The drug war causes the crime.

Few drug users hurt or rob people because they are high. Most of the crime occurs because the drugs are illegal and available only through a black market. Drug sellers arm themselves and form gangs because they cannot ask the police to protect their persons and property.

In turn, some buyers steal to pay the high black-market prices. The government says heroin, cocaine and nicotine are similarly addictive (http://tinyurl.com/5f7z25), and about half the people who both smoke cigarettes and use cocaine say smoking is at least as strong an urge. (http://tinyurl.com/5kl8n7) But no one robs convenience stores for Marlboros.

Alcohol prohibition created Al Capone and the Mafia. Drug prohibition is worse. It's corrupting whole countries (http://tinyurl.com/y63lot) and financing terrorism. (http://tinyurl.com/4kjyzm)

The Post wrote, "Stossel admitted his own 22-year-old daughter doesn't think [legalization] is a good idea."

But that's not what she said. My daughter argued that legal cocaine would probably lead to more cocaine use. And therefore probably abuse.

I'm not so sure.

Banning drugs certainly hasn't kept young people from getting them. We can't even keep these drugs out of prisons. How do we expect to keep them out of America?

But let's assume my daughter is right, that legalization would lead to more experimentation and more addiction. I still say: Legal is better.

While drugs harm many, the drug war's black market harms more.

And most importantly, in a free country, adults should have the right to harm themselves.


I have a great-niece who was born addicted. She is permanently damaged from it. I also know that whether or not hard drugs become legal, addicts will always commit crimes to get their drug of choice, if they don't have the money to buy it. That is NOT going to change just because their drug becomes legal.

[MRoCkEd]

Yes, but people will be more able to afford their habit if drugs are legal.


http://s3.amazonaws.com/twitter_production/profile_images/137261896/John_Stossel_normal.JPG
Deborah K argued that legal hard drugs would probably lead to more use. And therefore probably abuse.

I'm not so sure.

Banning drugs certainly hasn't kept young people from getting them. We can't even keep these drugs out of prisons. How do we expect to keep them out of America?

But let's assume Deborah K is right, that legalization would lead to more experimentation and more addiction. I still say: Legal is better.

While drugs harm many, the drug war's black market harms more.

And most importantly, in a free country, adults should have the right to harm themselves.

[Deborah K]

Yes, but people will be more able to afford their habit if drugs are legal.

Deborah K argued that legal hard drugs would probably lead to more use. And therefore probably abuse.

I'm not so sure.

Banning drugs certainly hasn't kept young people from getting them. We can't even keep these drugs out of prisons. How do we expect to keep them out of America?

But let's assume Deborah K is right, that legalization would lead to more experimentation and more addiction. I still say: Legal is better.

While drugs harm many, the drug war's black market harms more.

And most importantly, in a free country, adults should have the right to harm themselves.


People are already harming themselves without gov't intervention. That's why I don't accept the "liberty argument" with regard to this issue. Also, as I stated, addiction affects everyone, not just the addict. Legalizing this mess is not the answer. I don't know what is, but I just don't see how making it easy for our society to become MORE addicted is the answer. Also as I stated, prescription drug addiction and alcoholism are greater in numbers than are illicit drugs. Why? Because they are legal. Addiction is a huge problem already. How do you propose to deal with it? Assuming I'm right, and addiction would increase exponentially.

[MRoCkEd]

People are already harming themselves without gov't intervention. That's why I don't accept the "liberty argument" with regard to this issue.
Fine, let me refine this. People should be able to harm themselves without being punished by the government.


Also, as I stated, addiction affects everyone, not just the addict. Legalizing this mess is not the answer. I don't know what is, but I just don't see how making it easy for our society to become MORE addicted is the answer. Also as I stated, prescription drug addiction and alcoholism are greater in numbers than are illicit drugs. Why? Because they are legal. Addiction is a huge problem already. How do you propose to deal with it? Assuming I'm right, and addiction would increase exponentially.

Are you implying that alcohol should be illegal?

[KenInMontiMN]

Addiction isn't criminal, though some behaviors associated with it are. Let gov't deal with those real crimes. Let families and communities deal with addiction. It isn't the Federal govt's business to try to Nanny-state all over it, to everybody's detriment. Nor has it even remotely approached solving the problem.

The universe is a free will machine. To use heavy-handed govt to put an end to the efficient operation of that machination is to subvert the purpose of the creation.

Prohibitionism ftl.

[Deborah K]

Are you implying that alcohol should be illegal?

No, not at all. Just trying to make the analogy that when a drug becomes legal, more people use it, and thus more people are vulnerable to addiction.


Fine, let me refine this. People should be able to harm themselves without being punished by the government.

My argument goes a step further. I am claiming that addiction doesn't just affect the addict. It affects society.

[Deborah K]

Addiction isn't criminal, though some behaviors associated with it are. Let gov't deal with those real crimes. Let families and communities deal with addiction. It isn't the Federal govt's business to try to Nanny-state all over it, to everybody's detriment. Nor has it even remotely approached solving the problem.




I will concede that the Fed should stay out of it. They shouldn't throw you in jail for using it and they shouldn't REGULATE IT! Perhaps where we could find a middle-ground is in the states dealing with it. Although, I honestly don't think that would work.

[torchbearer]

I've done all of the above drugs more than once.
The only one I haven't been able to kick(on my own) is alcohol.
Anyone says crack is more addictive than cigarettes is lying.
Heroin is less addictive than Oxycontin or Morphine.
In fact, they used heroin to get people off of morphine.
In the end, it should be everyone's right to do it.
The only argument that can be made is- at what age can an informed decision be made.
16? 18? 21? That is the only valid argument.
With rights comes the responsibility of dealing with the consequences. That is the only valid argument.

[torchbearer]

To add to my above post-
Not only was I able to simply walk away from everything but alcohol.
I have a college degree and my own computer business.
And all my friends who were there for those wild rides with me are also successful, most of them attorneys, one of them a doctor, a couple of social workers.
Each one of them successful in their field, but each have to live a lie- because if people knew, they'd reject them.
Hypocrisy everywhere.

[Dr.3D]

Yeah, they kept telling me when I was in school, "drugs are terrible and they ruin peoples lives".
I have to agree with them there! Every drug user I have known who was caught with the drugs and went to prison, pretty much had his life ruined.

Humm... perhaps it isn't the drugs ruining peoples lives, but instead it's them being illegal that is ruining peoples lives. Just a thought on that.

Many of the people who have been put in prison, were hard working people who brought home the bacon to their families and then after they were caught with the drugs, ended up being a burden on the system and using tax dollars to keep them in prison.

Maybe it is those who own the prison system who are making out from the so called 'war on drugs'.

[andrewh817]

Does everyone believe that the drug cartels are gonna just sit back and take it on the chin if our inept, corrupt gov't decides to legalize drugs and take over regulating them? Do you really believe they are going to just fall in line, open legit businesses and pay their taxes on the sales of their dope? This I gotta see.

It ain't like the good ole prohibition days folks. It's much, much worse. Giving this f'kd up gov't another reason to expand is NOT the answer. Neither will be the growing rate of addiction if this country legalizes dope.

We'd be better off stopping the cartels source of income now rather than later.........be realistic, no amount of law enforcement is ever going to stop the drug trade.

[speciallyblend]

We'd be better off stopping the cartels source of income now rather than later.........be realistic, no amount of law enforcement is ever going to stop the drug trade.

the best way to put the drug cartels out of business. Is to regulate the drugs just like alcohol, end of story!!!

mexican bud sucks anyway;)

[idirtify]

Deborah K,

Although the source to which you referred (“Substance Abuse: The Nation’s Number One Health Problem”, Brandeis University http://www.rwjf.org/files/publications/other/SubstanceAbuseChartbook.pdf ) is not accessible, I am going to assume you have misrepresented the stats. You said “aside from the crime and violence…untreated addiction costs America $400 billion per year”, yet all reviews of the study I’ve seen indicate no such distinction. IOW the figure likely INCLUDES crime and violence and your point is mostly circular - and prohibition is to blame for incurring a large percentage of that cost. If you disagree, please provide a workable link to your source AND quote where it makes said distinction. Until you do that, I will also assume that your other sources also made no such distinction.

Now … even if you are able to do that, you STILL have no argument against the complete legalization of all drugs. Since you base your position on “costs to society”, it’s clearly fallacious. All kinds of things incur “costs to society”, but most are not even considered as candidates for prohibiting. Sports come to mind. What is the cost of legalized sports? I don’t know the figure but I do know that it would never justify prohibition even if prohibition were to cost less. The main reason should be excruciatingly obvious to any libertarian; that since that the behavior risks direct harm to no one but the participant, it violates no one’s rights and should not be controlled. As MRoCkEd said, “in a free country, adults should have the right to harm themselves”.

But nevertheless, you seem to disagree with this definition of individual liberty. You said: “addiction … hurts not only the addict, but the people who employ the addict, and the people who love the addict.” You thereby attempt to take an individual behavior that directly harms no other and transform it into a non-consensual rights violation (an act of aggression). I’m sorry, but since there are millions of completely legal things that also present an indirect risk to employers and loved ones, your attempt fails. Unless you are arguing that virtually no thing or behavior in this world should be completely legalized (since virtually EVERYTHING falls into your possibility-category of indirectly affecting employers and loved ones), your reasoning is not consistent (or valid).

You wrote:
“I also know that whether or not hard drugs become legal, addicts will always commit crimes to get their drug of choice, if they don't have the money to buy it. That is NOT going to change just because their drug becomes legal.”
I’m sorry if I’m being too direct with you. I thought I was dealing with someone who had given it some thought, but your quote suggests a lack of education on one of the most fundamental elements of prohibition: black-markets economics

You wrote:
“How do you propose to deal with it? Assuming I'm right, and addiction would increase exponentially.”
You deal with the actual non-consensual rights violations – not the consensual things you think might influence another to commit them. You are not required to deal with anything more; but if you do, YOU become the violator and the one who needs dealing with. That’s because prohibition violates rights, and drug addiction does not. Legalization does not claim to solve the problems related to drugs; only the problems created by prohibition; because prohibition not only fails to solve them, it makes them far far worse.

[Dreamofunity]

My only hope is he is sincere and not trying to jump on the quasi-libertarian bandwagon going on at the moment.

Sadly, even if his sincerity comes from some under lining hatred of brown people I'll take it if it helps decrease the problems of the drug war.

[james1906]

Tancredo is merely echoing Pat Buchanan's thoughts

http://www.creators.com/opinion/pat-buchanan/afghanistan-south.html

[Deborah K]

Deborah K,

Although the source to which you referred (“Substance Abuse: The Nation’s Number One Health Problem”, Brandeis University http://www.rwjf.org/files/publications/other/SubstanceAbuseChartbook.pdf ) is not accessible, I am going to assume you have misrepresented the stats. You said “aside from the crime and violence…untreated addiction costs America $400 billion per year”, yet all reviews of the study I’ve seen indicate no such distinction. IOW the figure likely INCLUDES crime and violence and your point is mostly circular - and prohibition is to blame for incurring a large percentage of that cost. If you disagree, please provide a workable link to your source AND quote where it makes said distinction. Until you do that, I will also assume that your other sources also made no such distinction.

Now … even if you are able to do that, you STILL have no argument against the complete legalization of all drugs. Since you base your position on “costs to society”, it’s clearly fallacious. All kinds of things incur “costs to society”, but most are not even considered as candidates for prohibiting. Sports come to mind. What is the cost of legalized sports? I don’t know the figure but I do know that it would never justify prohibition even if prohibition were to cost less. The main reason should be excruciatingly obvious to any libertarian; that since that the behavior risks direct harm to no one but the participant, it violates no one’s rights and should not be controlled. As MRoCkEd said, “in a free country, adults should have the right to harm themselves”.

But nevertheless, you seem to disagree with this definition of individual liberty. You said: “addiction … hurts not only the addict, but the people who employ the addict, and the people who love the addict.” You thereby attempt to take an individual behavior that directly harms no other and transform it into a non-consensual rights violation (an act of aggression). I’m sorry, but since there are millions of completely legal things that also present an indirect risk to employers and loved ones, your attempt fails. Unless you are arguing that virtually no thing or behavior in this world should be completely legalized (since virtually EVERYTHING falls into your possibility-category of indirectly affecting employers and loved ones), your reasoning is not consistent (or valid).

You wrote:
“I also know that whether or not hard drugs become legal, addicts will always commit crimes to get their drug of choice, if they don't have the money to buy it. That is NOT going to change just because their drug becomes legal.”
I’m sorry if I’m being too direct with you. I thought I was dealing with someone who had given it some thought, but your quote suggests a lack of education on one of the most fundamental elements of prohibition: black-markets economics

You wrote:
“How do you propose to deal with it? Assuming I'm right, and addiction would increase exponentially.”
You deal with the actual non-consensual rights violations – not the consensual things you think might influence another to commit them. You are not required to deal with anything more; but if you do, YOU become the violator and the one who needs dealing with. That’s because prohibition violates rights, and drug addiction does not. Legalization does not claim to solve the problems related to drugs; only the problems created by prohibition; because prohibition not only fails to solve them, it makes them far far worse.


You're new here, so I'll cut you some slack on the "misrepresentation" accusation. Btw, the link that you claim doesn't work, works.

Obviously, since you think my only objection to legalizing drugs is the societal impact, you haven't read my entire argument against legalization.

1. Yes, I am deeply worried about the rise in addiction. I've already posted the studies etc. for that.

2. As I have stated repeatedly, I am against giving this inept, corrupt gov't another reason to expand. You claim you don't want gov't control yet if they get their hands on this market that's exactly what they are going to do. I highly doubt this will fall under the ATF. My guess is that it will fall under the jurisdiction of the FDA. And when pharma gets a hold of it, everyone wanting gov't control and regulation now will be wishing for the good ole days when it could be bought and sold underground.

Do you know what codex alimentarius is? Codex was started in the 1960s under the auspices of the U.N. and the WHO. It started out to “…protect the health of consumers and ensure fair practices in the international food trade." The Codex Alimentarius is recognized by the World Trade Organization as an international reference point for the resolution of disputes concerning food safety and consumer protection. But like all things that start out helping people originally, it was co-opted by people whose sole purpose is to cause chaos, gain personal power, create a stratified society, control food production and just make an everyday person’s life a living hell because they can.

How does this fit in with the legalization of drugs?

According to John Hammell, a legislative advocate and the founder of International Advocates for Health Freedom (IAHF), here is what we have to look forward to:

“If Codex Alimentarius has its way, then herbs, vitamins, minerals, homeopathic remedies, amino acids and other natural remedies you have taken for granted most of your life will be gone. The name of the game for Codex is to shift all remedies into the prescription category so they can be controlled exclusively by the medical monopoly and its bosses, the major pharmaceutical firms.” http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?page_id=157

Just HOW do you think heroine, cocaine, meth, weed, etc. are going to be dispensed? You think the gov't is going to let you just buy it over the counter when they're already implementing plans to take your vitamin supplements away, or switch them into prescription category? Codex Alimentarius is meant to go into full global effect by 2010.

Honestly, an underground economy is sounding better and better to me, based on the impending global governance we're about to fall victim to.

Be careful what you wish for.

[nickcoons]

1. Yes, I am deeply worried about the rise in addiction. I've already posted the studies etc. for that.

Alcohol addiction rose during prohibition. The fact that it was illegal didn't curb its use. If anything, the opposite is true:


Legalize Methamphetamine! (http://www.strike-the-root.com/61/victor/victor1.html)

I have heard the saying that those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. I suspect some criminal defense lawyer in the 1920’s incurred wrath from the establishment for writing an article advocating the legalization of alcohol. I would bet the nice attorney was attacked by small thinkers who repeatedly pointed out the harmful attributes of alcohol.[21]

In case you are unaware, the government decided in 1919 to amend the United States Constitution to grant power to Congress to prohibit the manufacture, sale and distribution of alcohol.[22] Their drug war played out just like ours; a complete and total disaster. However, it was the best thing that ever happened to organized crime. The manufacture, sale and distribution of alcohol were conducted entirely in illegal and violent markets. Criminals prospered and criminal organizations grew. A major crime wave began in the 1920s and continually increased until the end of prohibition in 1933 when it immediately started to reverse.[23] Prohibition did nothing to curb the desire of people to use alcohol. Indeed, both the per capita consumption of alcohol as well as the rate of alcoholism increased during prohibition.[24] [25] Illegal clandestine stills manufactured alcohol of inconsistent and unpredictable quality. Law enforcement was overwhelmed chasing after people involved in alcohol-related crimes. Does any of this seem familiar to you?

In 1933, they figured it out and repealed the 18th Amendment.[26] To be fair, we still have people with substantial alcohol abuse problems. It is a real problem. We have no shortage of alcohol-related crimes. However, violent criminal street gangs do not make money from the sale of alcohol. Although few people “home brew” alcoholic beverages, people do not brew alcoholic beverages in clandestine labs. Nobody is offered large cash rewards to transport alcohol. The Budweiser guy doesn’t fight the Miller guy if they both happen to arrive at the store at the same time to deliver their drug. Alcohol companies settle disputes peacefully in court. Alcoholics can seek help without the fear of criminal prosecutions. More resources can be devoted to apprehending real thugs because our justice system is not overloaded with cases of people manufacturing, distributing or selling alcohol. Isn’t this obviously a better deal?


As I have stated repeatedly, I am against giving this inept, corrupt gov't another reason to expand. You claim you don't want gov't control yet if they get their hands on this market that's exactly what they are going to do.

I don't think anyone here agrees that currently prohibited drugs should be legalized only to fall under full control of the FDA, so it looks like you're making a strawman argument. idirtify made an excellent argument for full legalization. The fact that the government will very unlikely take that course does not detract from his points.

[Deborah K]

Alcohol addiction rose during prohibition. The fact that it was illegal didn't curb its use. If anything, the opposite is true:





I don't think anyone here agrees that currently prohibited drugs should be legalized only to fall under full control of the FDA, so it looks like you're making a strawman argument. idirtify made an excellent argument for full legalization. The fact that the government will very unlikely take that course does not detract from his points.


And alcoholism is worse than illicit drug addiction. Probably because it is legal and more accessible so that argument doesn't hold water.

idirtify's argument is full of holes, and I remain unconvinced. No one has yet to provide any stats from other countries that conclude that drug legalization has been good for the country. I've been looking and can't find any. And I'm talking about studies from journals, etc. NOT blog articles per say. Perhaps if someone can show me how well it has worked out in countries comparable to ours - NOT full blown socialist countries with socialize medicine - then maybe I'll believe differently about how much better our society would be if all street drugs were legal.

[HOLLYWOOD]

I just heard the DEA, ATF, FBI, CIA, HHS, FDA, Big Pharma, oh, and The Central America Drug Lords and Drug Cartels, all those South American Drug Cartels, have hired the BEST Lobbyist K-Street has to offer to hit Capital Hill politicians... NOT TO LEGALIZE drugs in US.

This would cut into their; Justifications, Power, Control, Funding, and of course, Profits... :rolleyes:



Does everyone believe that the drug cartels are gonna just sit back and take it on the chin if our inept, corrupt gov't decides to legalize drugs and take over regulating them? Do you really believe they are going to just fall in line, open legit businesses and pay their taxes on the sales of their dope? This I gotta see.

It ain't like the good ole prohibition days folks. It's much, much worse. Giving this f'kd up gov't another reason to expand is NOT the answer. Neither will be the growing rate of addiction if this country legalizes dope.

[torchbearer]

I just heard the DEA, ATF, FBI, CIA, HS, FDA, Big Pharma, oh, and The Central America Drug Lords and Drug Cartels, all those South American Drug Cartels, have hired the BEST Lobbyist K-Street has to offer to hit Capital Hill politicians... NOT TO LEGALIZE drugs in US.

This would cut their; Power, Control, Funding, and of course, Profits... :rolleyes:

CIA lost another coke shipment last year due to a plane crash. That was sad.

[Deborah K]

I just heard the DEA, ATF, FBI, CIA, HS, FDA, Big Pharma, oh, and The Central America Drug Lords and Drug Cartels, all those South American Drug Cartels, have hired the BEST Lobbyist K-Street has to offer to hit Capital Hill politicians... NOT TO LEGALIZE drugs in US.

This would cut their; Power, Control, Funding, and of course, Profits... :rolleyes:


Please convince me otherwise. Start by citing some legit sources where illicit drug legalization has worked out in comparable countries that are NOT socialist and don't have socialized medicine to deal with the addiction problems.

Then convince me of how this inept, corrupt gov't is going to be hands off when it comes to your use of heroine, cocaine, meth, acid, etc. Will they dispense it OTC? I submit that they will regulate and control the hell out of it. And since we're headed toward global governance, I wouldn't be so excited about letting the gov't control your drug of choice.

You people seriously need to look at the big picture here. You claim to want freedom from gov't control and then you demand gov't control over your drugs. Think this through to its logical conclusion. You all assume that since alchohol regulation turned out just fine (ha!) that illicit drug legalization and regulation will also turn out fine. In this day and age, and with what's coming down the pike, it doesn't make any sense that it would. This isn't the 1930's. That world is gone forever.

As I have stated however, I am for decriminalization of all drug use. And I am against the WOD as I think it has been an abject failure. It is not the answer anymore than gov't control over illicit drugs is.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

I just heard the DEA, ATF, FBI, CIA, HHS, FDA, Big Pharma, oh, and The Central America Drug Lords and Drug Cartels, all those South American Drug Cartels, have hired the BEST Lobbyist K-Street has to offer to hit Capital Hill politicians... NOT TO LEGALIZE drugs in US.

This would cut into their; Justifications, Power, Control, Funding, and of course, Profits... :rolleyes:

You forgot the Bank Cartel, where all the illegal money is laundered. They don't wanna lose that massive source of cash that flows through their hands.

[nickcoons]

And alcoholism is worse than illicit drug addiction. Probably because it is legal and more accessible so that argument doesn't hold water.

Correlation does not equal causation; a logical fallacy. There are many many variables between alcohol and drugs. To pick one at random, legal status, and equate it to another statistic without providing evidence of that connection is what does not hold water.

A more accurate comparison of the effects of prohibition are to compare alcohol with prohibition to alcohol without prohibition. Factually, alcohol use and abuse increased during prohibition. It stands to reason, while not certainty (but more likely than your correlation) that prohibition increases use and abuse. There's a very good chance that we would see less use and abuse without prohibition, given that alcohol's legal status revealed those same traits.


idirtify's argument is full of holes, and I remain unconvinced. No one has yet to provide any stats from other countries that conclude that drug legalization has been good for the country. I've been looking and can't find any.

Did you not read the very lengthy article that I linked you to in my last post, titled "Legalize Methamphetamine!", which includes citations to outside references for its claims?


Perhaps if someone can show me how well it has worked out in countries comparable to ours - NOT full blown socialist countries with socialize medicine

There are no examples. The only one I know is in Amsterdam, where drug abuse there is lower than it is here in the face of legalization of some drugs, but I wouldn't say that it compares to the US.

What you're asking for is a catch-22. You want someone to provide you a demonstration that it works without allowing them the means to provide the demonstration.


then maybe I'll believe differently about how much better our society would be if all street drugs were legal.

"Better our society" is not the proper role of government. Government's role is to defend us from the aggression of others. When government becomes the aggressor, but prohibiting drugs, you would be hard-pressed to argue that they are bettering our society anyway. Allowing an environment where people can engage in peaceful, non-aggressive, voluntary interaction is the only proper role of government, and the only thing that can improve a society.

[Lord Xar]

It would destroy the mexican cartels, and tom can't stand mexicans.

That reply is unbecoming of you.

[torchbearer]

That reply is unbecoming of you.

He doesn't have a problem with Canadians coming here. So shove it.
He is a racist.
Immigrants didn't come here with permission. They came here, and then asked for permission.
When I moved to Jamaica for 6 months, I didn't ask for permission. I moved. Stayed. Worked then left.
The only reason people don't want Mexicans here is because they are racist.
Racism is unbecoming of you. You've been called out. Yes. I know- we shouldn't be so direct.

[idirtify]

You're new here, so I'll cut you some slack on the "misrepresentation" accusation. Btw, the link that you claim doesn't work, works.

snip

Deb K,

The link still does not work for me. It displays the error message “the file is damaged and could not be repaired.” While this may be an issue with my PC, it’s not actually relevant. While you say you’ll “cut me slack” on my misrepresentation accusation, you provided nothing that refutes it. What’s up with that? Are you denying my accusation or not? If you correctly represented the stats, why did you not back them up with a quote from the source? You certainly provided plenty of other quotes. What’s the problem with quoting the relevant premise behind them; the part that represents the stats as you did? Not only did you fail to do that originally, you failed to do it AFTER I confronted you. So here is your third chance. Besides, I can’t see your source article and am only guessing – you have the advantage. Of course you really don’t have to do it at all if you aren’t worried about your credibility.

Regarding your other comments about other government agencies potentially controlling drugs, nickcoons spoke for me very well.

[Theocrat]

Tom Tancredo Says: Legalize Drugs! (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/05/21/tom-tancredo-says-legalize-drugs/)
Former Rep. Tom Tancredo is no libertarian. After all, he made his name attacking immigration. But the former member is now speaking politically painful truths.

Yesterday he spoke to a local Republican group in Denver: (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/politics/19519306/detail.html)


It’s time for politicians like Tancredo to start telling the truth while they are still in office.

We shouldn't legalize drugs. We should decriminalize them, Rep. Tancredo.

[Danke]

Deb K,

The link still does not work for me. It displays the error message “the file is damaged and could not be repaired.” While this may be an issue with my PC, it’s not actually relevant.

Is this the link?



Aside from the crime and violence, here are some other statistics:

* Untreated addiction costs America $400 billion per year
* Untreated addiction is more expensive than 3 of the nation’s top 10 killers: 6 times more expensive than America’s number one killer: heart disease ($133.2 billion/year), 6 times more than diabetes ($130 billion/year), 4 times more than cancer ($96.1billion/year)
* 23 million Americans suffer from substance abuse addiction
* Drug related deaths have almost doubled since 1990--approximately one in four deaths each year is attributable to substance abuse.


(Source: Substance Abuse: The Nation’s Number One Health Problem, Brandeis University, Schneider Institute for Health Policy, 2001)

In addition, according to estimates from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, a combined $276 billion was spent or lost in 2005 on health care, lost productivity, premature death, crime and auto accidents relating to alcohol and drug abuse. Roughly 75 percent of all that money was paid for by public sources, which means American taxpayers are footing three quarters of the bill. With 117 million taxpayers in the U.S., this means that the average amount paid by each individual taxpayers amounted to approximately $1,800. [list]

* More than 9 million children live with a parent dependent on alcohol and/or illicit drugs.
* A recent study in the UK breaks down the estimated cost of an individual drug addict to society over the course of his or her lifetime. Auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers found that the average abuser costs taxpayers over £800,000 or $1.4 million in crime prevention, health care, jail and prision accomodation and treatment. Interestingly, they also estimated that this could be reduced to under 1/10 of the cost when treatment is provided before the age of 21. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7454338.stm

According to the federal Household Survey, more than 48 million Americans use alcohol an average of one or more days each week of the year. This is more than the combined total number of Americans who have ever tried cocaine, crack, and/or heroin (29.7 million), and two and a half times the number of Americans who have used marijuana once in the last year (18.7 million).

Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, US Department of Health and Human Services, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Population Estimates 1998 (Washington DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 1999), pp. 19, 25, 31, 37, 85, 91, 105.

[idirtify]

And alcoholism is worse than illicit drug addiction. Probably because it is legal and more accessible so that argument doesn't hold water.

idirtify's argument is full of holes, and I remain unconvinced. No one has yet to provide any stats from other countries that conclude that drug legalization has been good for the country. I've been looking and can't find any. And I'm talking about studies from journals, etc. NOT blog articles per say. Perhaps if someone can show me how well it has worked out in countries comparable to ours - NOT full blown socialist countries with socialize medicine - then maybe I'll believe differently about how much better our society would be if all street drugs were legal.

Deb K,

Speaking of “holes”:

Your ideas about the “worse addiction” and is “probably because” are technically irrelevant. There are many problems in society that should not be treated with prohibition. That’s because these “problems” have no direct victims / do not consist of rights violations / do not consist of initiated aggression. Yet a simple extension of your logic would apparently treat any societal problem with prohibition. Sports injuries are a big problem. Would you solve that problem by prohibiting sports, or just by prohibiting “unapproved sports”, or just “harmful sports”, or just “unprotected sports”, or just “sports that indirectly risk employers and loved ones”? Another big problem is STDs. A very large percent of Americans have (had) them. Will you be advocating sex prohibition? If not, why not? It follows your reasoning perfectly. You know, your reasoning that totally fails to recognize the individual’s right to engage in activity that has no direct victim – or that considers such a thing as “good for the country”.

[nickcoons]

Yet a simple extension of your logic would apparently treat any societal problem with prohibition. Sports injuries are a big problem. Would you solve that problem by prohibiting sports, or just by prohibiting “unapproved sports”, or just “harmful sports”, or just “unprotected sports”, or just “sports that indirectly risk employers and loved ones”?

Of course not.. you'd just prohibit sports injuries. :D

[Deborah K]

Deb K,

The link still does not work for me. It displays the error message “the file is damaged and could not be repaired.” While this may be an issue with my PC, it’s not actually relevant. While you say you’ll “cut me slack” on my misrepresentation accusation, you provided nothing that refutes it. What’s up with that? Are you denying my accusation or not? If you correctly represented the stats, why did you not back them up with a quote from the source? You certainly provided plenty of other quotes. What’s the problem with quoting the relevant premise behind them; the part that represents the stats as you did? Not only did you fail to do that originally, you failed to do it AFTER I confronted you. So here is your third chance. Besides, I can’t see your source article and am only guessing – you have the advantage. Of course you really don’t have to do it at all if you aren’t worried about your credibility.

Regarding your other comments about other government agencies potentially controlling drugs, nickcoons spoke for me very well.

If the link doesn't work on your computer, how does that mean I misrepresented the facts? As I stated initially, the link works in your own post. Reread my post with the studies. I backed up everything I asserted. And, if it's not relevant anyway, then why are you making such a big deal about it?

I'm not worried at all about my credibility. I don't see the legalization of drugs the same way you do. However, I suggest that if your goal is to attempt a character assassination on me, by calling my credibility into question, and in an effort to divert attention away from your weak argument, you would do well cease and desist.

I see you haven't provided any source for your assertion that prohibition is the cause for untreated addiction. Second request.

[idirtify]

Is this the link?

No. That was Deb K’s post. Here’s the link:
http://www.rwjf.org/files/publications/other/SubstanceAbuseChartbook.pdf

[Danke]

No. That was Deb K’s post. Here’s the link:
http://www.rwjf.org/files/publications/other/SubstanceAbuseChartbook.pdf

Ya it works, maybe update your Adobe Reader?

[Deborah K]

Deb K,

Speaking of “holes”:

Your ideas about the “worse addiction” and is “probably because” are technically irrelevant. There are many problems in society that should not be treated with prohibition. That’s because these “problems” have no direct victims / do not consist of rights violations / do not consist of initiated aggression. Yet a simple extension of your logic would apparently treat any societal problem with prohibition. Sports injuries are a big problem. Would you solve that problem by prohibiting sports, or just by prohibiting “unapproved sports”, or just “harmful sports”, or just “unprotected sports”, or just “sports that indirectly risk employers and loved ones”? Another big problem is STDs. A very large percent of Americans have (had) them. Will you be advocating sex prohibition? If not, why not? It follows your reasoning perfectly. You know, your reasoning that totally fails to recognize the individual’s right to engage in activity that has no direct victim – or that considers such a thing as “good for the country”.

I don't really care about your "technically irrelevant" issues with my verbiage. I'm not at a podium in front of an audience for the sole purpose of debating the issue against the legalization of drugs. If I were, that would be an entirely different story.

You are trying to imply, using illogical analogies, that I am against individual rights. I believe that people should be able to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone elses rights or property. In the case of addiction, this is almost never the case. Someone besides the addict becomes affected sooner or later. Often it is young children. My other issue is gov't control and regulation in the event drugs become legal. No one here can provide any solid evidence that drug legalization in other countries like the US has been successful. Until such time as someone can do that, I remain unconvinced.

We are going to have to just agree to disagree. I'm finished with this debate.

[nickcoons]

The arguers for prohibition, when asked who the victim is, often answer that society is the victim. But there are a lot of problems with that answer.

First, society is not an entity that can be victimized, only individuals can be victims. Let's take an extreme example -- a nuclear attack. The individuals in that society are victims, and as a result the quality of life of individuals within society has fallen. This is a direct result of the fact that large numbers of individuals have been victimized. So clearly, this violates the non-aggression principle.

Second, let's say that at this very moment, I shoot up / smoke / sniff meth (however meth is administered). Who's the victim? How is society a victim? Well I might go out and get in my car, cause a fatal accident, or be involved in some other property damage. But society is not the victim, the individual in the other vehicle is. And the possibility that I might cause damage to someone else is not victimization of society.

We should all be free to use (our abuse) our bodies as we see fit, so long as we don't infringe on the rights of others to do the same. The notion that we can use violent force to coerce people to behave the way we want them to; that's the real danger to society.

[nickcoons]

You are trying to imply, using illogical analogies, that I am against individual rights. I believe that people should be able to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone elses rights or property. In the case of addiction, this is almost never the case. Someone besides the addict becomes affected sooner or later.

"Affected" is not equal to "Violation of rights". If my wife loses her job, I am affected, but no rights were violated.

Similarly, if one person engages in drug use, no rights are violated. That is the only necessary argument for legalization if you truly support individual rights.

Now, if someone takes drugs and then engages in rights-violating behavior, then you prosecute the rights-violating behavior, just as if someone had engaged in the rights-violating behavior had they not taken drugs.


No one here can provide any solid evidence that drug legalization in other countries like the US has been successful.

I addressed this.. there are no countries that exist like the US that have legalized drugs en masse.


Until such time as someone can do that, I remain unconvinced.

Unconvinced of what? That prohibition is a direct violation of the individual's rights? There's no question that it is.

[Theocrat]

The arguers for prohibition, when asked who the victim is, often answer that society is the victim. But there are a lot of problems with that answer.

First, society is not an entity that can be victimized, only individuals can be victims. Let's take an extreme example -- a nuclear attack. The individuals in that society are victims, and as a result the quality of life of individuals within society has fallen. This is a direct result of the fact that large numbers of individuals have been victimized. So clearly, this violates the non-aggression principle.

Second, let's say that at this very moment, I shoot up / smoke / sniff meth (however meth is administered). Who's the victim? How is society a victim? Well I might go out and get in my car, cause a fatal accident, or be involved in some other property damage. But society is not the victim, the individual in the other vehicle is. And the possibility that I might cause damage to someone else is not victimization of society.

We should all be free to use (our abuse) our bodies as we see fit, so long as we don't infringe on the rights of others to do the same. The notion that we can use violent force to coerce people to behave the way we want them to; that's the real danger to society.

Some people would argue that the use of some kinds of drugs would cause the user to become a danger to individuals in society by reason of the drugs' effects on the individual. A person who becomes addicted to heroin, for instance, may be so desperate to get more heroin that the person would put someone else's life or property at risk just to get money for more heroin. I don't buy that argument, and even if that were the case, I would say we need to ensure we have the right to arm ourselves publicly to prevent such mishaps from occurring.

Drug rehabilitation or prohibition should always be solved at the lowest level. It should start with the family and then work its way out to churches and private organizations of concerned citizens. The federal government really should not be involved in any drug legalization, for it has no authority to legalize substances which come from the earth nor does it have the constitutional jurisdiction to regulate responsible behavior on such a personal level. If our nation understood that, we would probably see a decrease in drug users and pushers. Empowerment of individuals and faith in God are hallmarks to this issue.

[nickcoons]

If the link doesn't work on your computer, how does that mean I misrepresented the facts? As I stated initially, the link works in your own post. Reread my post with the studies. I backed up everything I asserted.

Let me try to clarify what I think he's saying. In one of your posts, you made the following claim:


Aside from the crime and violence, here are some other statistics:
* Untreated addiction costs America $400 billion per year

He suggests that wherever this information came from (it's not in the PDF you linked, it's 133 pages, but I did a textual search for "400", as in $400 billion, and nothing was found), it does not separate "crime and violence" from the other costs. That is, he suggests that crime and violence are included in the $400 billion that Americans pay annually due to drugs. If this is true, then you did misrepresent it, because you're saying that the $400 billion is in excess of the crime and violence. He asked that you please provide a source for this so that he could verify it for himself. Without re-reading the thread to be sure, I don't believe you responded to this request.

The reason this is important is because most crime and violence associated with drugs is an effect specifically of drug prohibition, which would mean that the prohibition of drugs, not their use, is largely responsible for the $400 billion.

[nickcoons]

Some people would argue that the use of some kinds of drugs would cause the user to become a danger to individuals in society by reason of the drugs' effects on the individual. A person who becomes addicted to heroin, for instance, may be so desperate to get more heroin that the person would put someone else's life or property at risk just to get money for more heroin.

That's the argument that my "shoot up with heroin, get in a car" scenario was intended to address.


I don't buy that argument, and even if that were the case, I would say we need to ensure we have the right to arm ourselves publicly to prevent such mishaps from occurring.

Drug rehabilitation or prohibition should always be solved at the lowest level. It should start with the family and then work its way out to churches and private organizations of concerned citizens. The federal government really should not be involved in any drug legalization, for it has no authority to legalize substances which come from the earth nor does it have the constitutional jurisdiction to regulate responsible behavior on such a personal level. If our nation understood that, we would probably see a decrease in drug users and pushers. Empowerment of individuals and faith in God are hallmarks to this issue.

Other than the faith in god part, I'm in agreement with you.

Interestingly, an individual came to my house today raising money for a faith-based organization that helps people kick their drug habits, and he was helped by that organization to get him off heroin. He asked for a few bucks, because they don't take government funding. I told him jokingly, "As an atheist, I don't support faith-based organizations. But as a libertarian, I'm glad you don't take government money," and I made a donation.

[idirtify]

If the link doesn't work on your computer, how does that mean I misrepresented the facts?

snip

Deb K,

You wrote:
“If the link doesn't work on your computer, how does that mean I misrepresented the facts?”
It doesn’t. The malfunctioning link is not the slightest bit associated with your misrepresentation. But here is a short list of things that suggest you misrepresented the stats:
1) You failed to quote the part that was integral to your argument;
2) You failed to quote the part after I confronted you;
3) You failed to quote the part after I confronted you again;
4) Instead you are currently distracting with some very strange replies.

You wrote:
“As I stated initially, the link works in your own post.”
If you mean what I think you mean, that’s YOUR PC – it still doesn’t work on mine.

You wrote:
“Reread my post with the studies. I backed up everything I asserted.”
OK. Apparently I missed the quote that backed up your original assertion that said this:
“Aside from the crime and violence…”
So I will go reread your post #33. ……… Nope, still not there. If you still insist that it is, please quote your quote that backed up your assertion that the stats were “aside from the crime and violence”.

You wrote:
“And, if it's not relevant anyway, then why are you making such a big deal about it?”
First, YOU made it relevant to the validity of your argument when you tried to claim it as the premise. Second, it becomes a bigger deal every time you fail to provide the back up quote.

You wrote:
“I'm not worried at all about my credibility.”
Do you not care whether your posts are credible?

You wrote:
“I don't see the legalization of drugs the same way you do. However, I suggest that if your goal is to attempt a character assassination on me, by calling my credibility into question, and in an effort to divert attention away from your weak argument, you would do well cease and desist.”
Obviously, my reference was to your posting credibility and NOT to your personal character.

You wrote:
“I see you haven't provided any source for your assertion that prohibition is the cause for untreated addiction. Second request.”
Well I would try to provide a source if I thought I had made such an assertion. Please tell me where I did. If you are not going to quote it, at least give me the post number.

[idirtify]

Ya it works, maybe update your Adobe Reader?

I did. Updated from 8 to 9. Didn't help. Keyboard problems too. It's to the shop toimorrow.

[Deborah K]

Perhaps I was not clear in what I wrote, since it seems that you two are misinterpreting it. I am not claiming that the costs of "crime and violence" are included or not included in the 400 billion. Which is what you are trying to claim that I stated. Let me clarify: besides crime and violence associated with addiction, here are some other statistics. Does that help?

This is sheer nonsense. This is no longer about a debate over the legalization of drugs - you have turned this into an attack on my words, all while attempting to deny your own. You've made two claims that you have yet to back up with sources. It's right in here for everyone to read.

I have not misrepresented any statement I have made. I have sourced my assertions which is something you have yet to do. Your argument is weak so instead of sticking to the facts your angle is a feeble attempt at dissecting my phraseology.

[idirtify]

I don't really care about your "technically irrelevant" issues with my verbiage. I'm not at a podium in front of an audience for the sole purpose of debating the issue against the legalization of drugs. If I were, that would be an entirely different story.

You are trying to imply, using illogical analogies, that I am against individual rights. I believe that people should be able to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone elses rights or property. In the case of addiction, this is almost never the case. Someone besides the addict becomes affected sooner or later. Often it is young children. My other issue is gov't control and regulation in the event drugs become legal. No one here can provide any solid evidence that drug legalization in other countries like the US has been successful. Until such time as someone can do that, I remain unconvinced.

We are going to have to just agree to disagree. I'm finished with this debate.

Maybe you should care more, because your “verbiage” = your POSTS. If I am not to reply to your words, then what?? Maybe you SHOULD place more importance on word choice – because you ARE “debating the issue against the legalization of drugs”.

How are my analogies of sports injuries and STDs “illogical”. Please explain.

Your view of addiction as something that infringes on others’ rights or property is not reasonable. Besides, people can get addicted to many things. You want overeating prohibited? How about work? Many people are addicted to it. According to your standard, it has many victims (including young children) and therefore should not be completely legal.

Regarding your idea of what is “successful” for a country, suffice it to say that it leaves a lot to be desired by libertarians.

Sorry, I do not recognize the term “agree to disagree”. Of course you are free to stop debating at any time, but if you stop now my accusation will certainly stand and you will have knowingly committed a blatant misrepresentation.

[Deborah K]

You don't get to pick when I tire of debating an issue with someone. Besides, you are not debating an issue, you are mincing words and phrases because you can't debate the facts. It is called "intellectual dishonesty" and you are full of it.

[Deborah K]

QUOTE=nickcoons;2140791

(it's not in the PDF you linked, it's 133 pages, but I did a textual search for "400", as in $400 billion, and nothing was found),
It's there, it's just that it's broken down into the different costs per untreated addiction. Added up it comes to exactly 414.4 billion. It's on pages 21 and 22. And I already addressed the confusion with regard to my quote :"...crimes and violence...."

[idirtify]

Perhaps I was not clear in what I wrote, since it seems that you two are misinterpreting it.
snip

Deb K, your words are in quotes. Mine are not.

“Perhaps I was not clear in what I wrote, since it seems that you two are misinterpreting it.”
OK. Let’s look at what you wrote again, and analyze its clarity:
“Aside from the crime and violence, here are some other statistics”.
1) That’s very clear;
2) No one is misinterpreting it;
3) Its meaning was already established by your preceding sentence: “I can tell you that addiction costs this country much more than the drug war”.

You were writing quite clearly. The stats (costs to society) either included crime and violence or they didn’t. You indicated more than once that they did NOT. Now you want to claim I misinterpreted your simple lines? GMAB! You were clearly making a distinction between drug-war crime & violence and the cost of addiction, yet your source made no such distinction. That’s blatant misrepresentation and your current behavior effectively admits it.

“I am not claiming that the costs of ‘crime and violence’ are included or not included in the 400 billion."
You definitely claimed that crime and violence was NOT included in the costs you posted, despite what you are trying to claim NOW. You are now apparently trying to misrepresent your misrepresentation because you got caught.

“Which is what you are trying to claim that I stated.”
Good luck blaming your words on me, or blaming me for misinterpreting them. It’s a very old face-saving tactic.

“Let me clarify: besides crime and violence associated with addiction, here are some other statistics. Does that help?”
Apparently you are trying to go back and change your words, but it’s not even much of a change. It looks to imply the same thing; that THESE stats do NOT include crime and violence – also misleading.

“This is sheer nonsense. This is no longer about a debate over the legalization of drugs - you have turned this into an attack on my words”
I will freely attack you words as I see fit. And since your words are entirely about legalization, the debate is still on-topic (and not “sheer nonsense”).

“all while attempting to deny your own. You've made two claims that you have yet to back up with sources. It's right in here for everyone to read.”
Have I falsely denied something? Are you referring to your earlier accusation (that you failed to quote, and I asked you to and you failed again)? If so, why don’t you just quote me? I know you know how to copy-and-paste.

“I have not misrepresented any statement I have made.”
You are making it very difficult to continue to abstain from accurately characterizing your increasing amount of intentional misstatements.

“I have sourced my assertions which is something you have yet to do.”
What exactly do you need me to source? Please specify. Regarding my assertion that confronts yours, the issue is how you represented your source – so I can’t really 'source’ that beyond pointing it out.

“Your argument is weak so instead of sticking to the facts your angle is a feeble attempt at dissecting my phraseology.”
I disagree. I think my argument is good. I think I stick to the facts. I think I did a pretty good job rebutting your words.

[idirtify]

It's there, it's just that it's broken down into the different costs per untreated addiction. Added up it comes to exactly 414.4 billion. It's on pages 21 and 22. And I already addressed the confusion with regard to my quote :"...crimes and violence...."

Deb K,

What are you saying now? Are you saying that your representation of the stats is “there…on pages 21 and 22”? Please explain; because while you have “addressed the confusion” about your representation, you have certainly not validated your representation. If the validation is on those pages, why did you not quote it?

[Deborah K]

If your link is still broken that is not my problem. It's been there the whole time, I've been hoping you would get the link to work. Everyone else can look on pages 21 and 22 to verify that the 400 billion only involves untreated addiction and NOT crimes and violence. As I stated, I never claimed crimes and violence were or were NOT included. You are the one who misinterpreted my statement and are now trying to use your own misunderstanding as a way to discredit me.

You decided I was misrepresenting the facts due soley because you couldn't get my link to work on your computer. Guilty until proven innocent. I'm not going to read your other very looooooong post as I am sure it is just more of the same intellectually dishonest crap. Where are your sources? You claim in your first response to me that the findings you've read about ....blah blah blah.....well???? Post those findings? You proposed that the 400 billion includes crimes and violence. Post your source. Stick to the issue at hand and quick attacking my cred.

[Deborah K]

Deb K,

What are you saying now? Are you saying that your representation of the stats is “there…on pages 21 and 22”? Please explain; because while you have “addressed the confusion” about your representation, you have certainly not validated your representation. If the validation is on those pages, why did you not quote it?

I just took another look at the report, and as to illicit drugs it states:

cost: 109.9 billion. of that 58% is cost incurred due to crime. HOWEVER drug war crimes are NOT included in the definition of crime costs in this section of the study.

You stated that "prohibition is to blame for incurring a large percentage of that cost." (of this study) Yet this part of the study does not include costs for the war on drugs or drug war crimes. Page 87 of the study provides the numbers for the WOD, completely separate from the 400 billion dollar cost of untreated addiction.

To be clear, on page 22, the study states: "Crimes: Direct costs of crime (i.e. for the criminal justice system; property damage and private legal defense. And indirect costs (i.e. value of lost productivity related to victims of crime, incarceration, and criminal careers)

You also stated: "You were clearly making a distinction between drug-war crime & violence and the cost of addiction, yet your source made no such distinction."

My source does make a distinction. Although I admit, my original post on the study was not clear. It obviously caused confusion and for that I apologize. I should have been more specific about crimes and violence as it pertained to the study.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

YouTube - Ron Paul on CNN April 09, 2009 Rep Dr Ron Paul and former Congressman Ernest Istook debate whether marijuana should be legalized HD (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YbZ-JW_2bY)

Istook is a douchenozzle. If CNN had any sort of class, they would have cut off his mic when he basically tried to shout down Ron.

[Objectivist]

It would destroy the mexican cartels, and tom can't stand mexicans.

Mexicans? Or Mexican Cartels?:eek:

[Objectivist]

The only people that want drugs to be illegal are the people making money off of them.

[idirtify]

If your link is still broken that is not my problem. It's been there the whole time, I've been hoping you would get the link to work. Everyone else can look on pages 21 and 22 to verify that the 400 billion only involves untreated addiction and NOT crimes and violence. As I stated, I never claimed crimes and violence were or were NOT included. You are the one who misinterpreted my statement and are now trying to use your own misunderstanding as a way to discredit me.

You decided I was misrepresenting the facts due soley because you couldn't get my link to work on your computer. Guilty until proven innocent. I'm not going to read your other very looooooong post as I am sure it is just more of the same intellectually dishonest crap. Where are your sources? You claim in your first response to me that the findings you've read about ....blah blah blah.....well???? Post those findings? You proposed that the 400 billion includes crimes and violence. Post your source. Stick to the issue at hand and quick attacking my cred.

Deb K,

You are not being reasonable. You originally quoted plenty from your source that supported your point. Yet you now refuse to quote anything from it that supports how you represented the quotes. Instead you are now making multiple incongruous statements. These two appear to be diametrically opposed:

1) “Everyone else can look on pages 21 and 22 to verify that the 400 billion only involves untreated addiction and NOT crimes and violence.”
2) “As I stated, I never claimed crimes and violence were or were NOT included.”

Your first sentence claims what your second sentence says you never claimed. What exactly are you claiming at this point? Do the costs you quoted include crime and violence or NOT??

BTW, “untreated addiction” would not necessarily rule out crime and violence. It only means that the addict has not received any therapeutic treatment.

And immediately after those two sentences, you again accuse me of misinterpreting you. While you are being very contradictory now, your original representation was very clear.

And how could my inability to see your link possibly have caused me to accuse you of misrepresenting it? If anything, it would discourage me from doing that. If I can’t read it, how could I know you misrepresented it? Your logic escapes me. Although I was merely making an educated guess as to your misrepresentation, it so far appears that I was correct.

All is not lost! I accessed the link today. Yea! (I think I have an intermittent overheating problem.) So I went to pages 21 and 22, and while I am at a loss to decipher your CURRENT position, I saw nothing there that supported your original representation of the stats (that they are “aside from crime and violence”). Now regarding your accusation that I am presuming your guilt (of committing misrepresentation) before your innocence, how exactly would you have me prove what does not exist on pages 21 and 22? I would offer to quote the two pages in full here, but for some reason my PC will not allow me to copy-and-paste from that link. Nonetheless, I simply can not find anything on those two pages that defends your claim. You apparently want me to prove that the states DO include crime and violence, but I believe the burden to support your claim lies on YOUR shoulders. If the stats included such a distinction, do you not think it would have been stated?

[idirtify]

I just took another look at the report, and as to illicit drugs it states:

cost: 109.9 billion. of that 58% is cost incurred due to crime. HOWEVER drug war crimes are NOT included in the definition of crime costs in this section of the study.

You stated that "prohibition is to blame for incurring a large percentage of that cost." (of this study) Yet this part of the study does not include costs for the war on drugs or drug war crimes. Page 87 of the study provides the numbers for the WOD, completely separate from the 400 billion dollar cost of untreated addiction.

To be clear, on page 22, the study states: "Crimes: Direct costs of crime (i.e. for the criminal justice system; property damage and private legal defense. And indirect costs (i.e. value of lost productivity related to victims of crime, incarceration, and criminal careers)

You also stated: "You were clearly making a distinction between drug-war crime & violence and the cost of addiction, yet your source made no such distinction."

My source does make a distinction. Although I admit, my original post on the study was not clear. It obviously caused confusion and for that I apologize. I should have been more specific about crimes and violence as it pertained to the study.


Deb K,

You have WAY more to apologize for than that. Read on.

Page 22 of this link
http://www.rwjf.org/files/publications/other/SubstanceAbuseChartbook.pdf
is titled: “Further Reading” and contains nothing but a list of related reports. Your quote “Crimes: Direct costs of crime (i.e. for the criminal justice system…” does not appear on that page.

But it does appear on page 19, as does the chart headed by the “$109.9 billion” figure. But you have misread this chart, and the ones above it. They make the exact opposite distinction of what you claim. The charts itemize everything that falls under the $414 billion cost. This particular pie chart cuts a large piece for “crime” to show that crime is INCLUDED in the cost figure. IOW, crime is not only included, it is a large fraction of the cost. It’s just as I suspected: you completely misrepresented the cost. My accusation is affirmed. Your guilt is proven beyond …. If you still want to deny it, just read this extra evidence from page 18 that prefaces the charts: “this cost includes productivity losses caused by premature death … as well as costs related to treatment, CRIME, destruction of property and other losses” (emphasis mine). (I don’t know what you are claiming is on page 87 but it doesn’t rebut anything from pages 18 or 19.) Now that you could have not gone any further out on the limb, you are BUSTED! You blatantly made repeated misrepresentations, including repeated false denials.

Now let me ask you once again: Do you not care about the credibility of your posts?

[Deborah K]

Deb K,

You have WAY more to apologize for than that. Read on.

Page 22 of this link
http://www.rwjf.org/files/publications/other/SubstanceAbuseChartbook.pdf
is titled: “Further Reading” and contains nothing but a list of related reports. Your quote “Crimes: Direct costs of crime (i.e. for the criminal justice system…” does not appear on that page.

But it does appear on page 19, as does the chart headed by the “$109.9 billion” figure. But you have misread this chart, and the ones above it. They make the exact opposite distinction of what you claim. The charts itemize everything that falls under the $414 billion cost. This particular pie chart cuts a large piece for “crime” to show that crime is INCLUDED in the cost figure. IOW, crime is not only included, it is a large fraction of the cost. It’s just as I suspected: you completely misrepresented the cost. My accusation is affirmed. Your guilt is proven beyond …. If you still want to deny it, just read this extra evidence from page 18 that prefaces the charts: “this cost includes productivity losses caused by premature death … as well as costs related to treatment, CRIME, destruction of property and other losses” (emphasis mine). (I don’t know what you are claiming is on page 87 but it doesn’t rebut anything from pages 18 or 19.) Now that you could have not gone any further out on the limb, you are BUSTED! You blatantly made repeated misrepresentations, including repeated false denials.

Now let me ask you once again: Do you not care about the credibility of your posts?

As usual you are trying to distract from the real issue here. My link, that you can now access, yet were so willing to accuse me of "misrepresenting" proves that the costs of untreated addiction are more than the cost for the war on drugs, which is what I asserted in the first place, and for which you claimed: "prohibition is to blame for incurring a large percentage of that cost." The study shows clearly that you are wrong about that claim as those costs are shown separately on page 84.

The itemized crime costs included on page 19 DO NOT include interdiction, the term used for the war on drugs, or prohibition. Your whole assertion, aside from trying to detract from your own weak argument by bringing my credibility into question, was that the 400 billion HAD to be including the WODs. Wrong!

My mistake was in the way I presented my argument. I see now that it was confusing. I tried to clarify it. I didn't do a good job. And, I have apologized for it. So sue me! The study backs up my original assertions. If you had been able to access it in the first place and seen for yourself that the cost for the drug war was not included, none of this would have been an issue. Instead, you decide to parse my words and assume I'm misrepresenting my source, without so much as a look at what I was basing my argument on. Really unfair of you. Now that you know you were wrong, what do you have to say about it?

Edit: The page numbers I wrote about in post #82, are the page numbers at the top of the pdf and are NOT the pages on the actual report, notice that they are different. For example what is page 22 on the pdf, is 19 on the report. In this post I referenced the pages on the report, since that is what you used. Sorry AGAIN for the confusion.

[Icymudpuppy]

Legalizing this mess is not the answer. I don't know what is, but I just don't see how making it easy for our society to become MORE addicted is the answer.

I have the solution.

Anti Drug Education, Parental Involvement, Community Activism are the answer.

Legalize drugs, license and tax the refined drugs. Let people grow MJ, Coca Leaves, Poppies, Peyote, Mushrooms, Tobacco, etc, and ferment alcohol with no controls.

Refined Drugs, for example: Cocaine and Crack from Coca leaves; Opium, Morphine, Codeine, Heroine, PCP, Angeldust from Poppy seeds; Alcohol above the naturally obtained yeast fermentation content of 18%, could only be sold or given away with a license, but home production for personal use should also be legal.

Completely Artificial Chemical based drugs not derived from natural sources (LSD, Meth, most Pharmaceuticals, etc) Prescription use only.

[idirtify]

As usual you are trying to distract from the real issue here. My link, that you can now access, yet were so willing to accuse me of "misrepresenting" proves that the costs of untreated addiction are more than the cost for the war on drugs, which is what I asserted in the first place, and for which you claimed: "prohibition is to blame for incurring a large percentage of that cost." The study shows clearly that you are wrong about that claim as those costs are shown separately on page 84.

The itemized crime costs included on page 19 DO NOT include interdiction, the term used for the war on drugs, or prohibition. Your whole assertion, aside from trying to detract from your own weak argument by bringing my credibility into question, was that the 400 billion HAD to be including the WODs. Wrong!

My mistake was in the way I presented my argument. I see now that it was confusing. I tried to clarify it. I didn't do a good job. And, I have apologized for it. So sue me! The study backs up my original assertions. If you had been able to access it in the first place and seen for yourself that the cost for the drug war was not included, none of this would have been an issue. Instead, you decide to parse my words and assume I'm misrepresenting my source, without so much as a look at what I was basing my argument on. Really unfair of you. Now that you know you were wrong, what do you have to say about it?

Edit: The page numbers I wrote about in post #82, are the page numbers at the top of the pdf and are NOT the pages on the actual report, notice that they are different. For example what is page 22 on the pdf, is 19 on the report. In this post I referenced the pages on the report, since that is what you used. Sorry AGAIN for the confusion.

Deb K,

You claim I am trying to distract. Let’s look.

The part on pages 84-87 of the PDF at this link
http://www.rwjf.org/files/publications/other/SubstanceAbuseChartbook.pdf
is titled “Illicit Drug Control”. It states how much $ the feds spend to operate the drug war. On pages 84 & 86 is a textual accounting; page 85 is a graph showing the 12-fold rise since 1981; and page 87 is a pie-chart titled “Indicator 34 / Law Enforcement and Interdiction Dominate the Federal Drug Control Budget, FY 2000 Request”. It shows the federal drug control budget for 2000. “Interdiction” occupies 11% of the pie. Other categories are “Criminal Justice System” 49%, “Drug Treatment” 18%, “Drug Prevention” 12%, etc.

Are we reading the same document? Assuming we are, I will continue.

You claim that the report uses the term “interdiction” to mean “the war on drugs, or prohibition” and that the cost for it is not included in the itemized crime costs on page 19. Your first claim is not correct. As you see, interdiction is only 11% of the cost, which includes other items like ones listed above (like “Criminal Justice System”, “Drug Treatment”, etc). But you are correct that none of the costs of drug abuse illustrated on page 19, particularly the one called “crime”, are included in the drug war operating costs on pages 84-87. That’s because they are accounts of two entirely different things.

But the above paragraph is just me splitting your hairs. That’s because neither our debate, nor your original assertion, was about the drug war’s operating budget; they were/are only about the amount of damage inflicted upon society by drug abuse. My disagreement was/is with your claim that the $400B worth of drug-abuse damage didn’t even include crime/violence (“aside from the crime and violence…untreated addiction costs America $400 billion per year”). I have proven your claim to be false (via your own report). Granted that your claim was preceded by this one: “I can tell you that addiction costs this country much more than the drug war” - our debate has not been about the federal drug-war operating budget.

Speaking of “trying to distract”:
When you wrote that “your whole assertion…was that the 400 billion HAD to be including the WODs”, you magically transformed the crime and violence caused by the WOD into the operating cost of the WOD. That’s quite a strawman! (Hint: was not my assertion.) Apparently you are attempting to confuse the central issue because you can not support your argument. Another way to accurately characterize your present desperation tactics would be “misrepresenting your original misrepresentation; and when that doesn’t work, misrepresenting my argument with it”.

Gosh, what face-saving maneuvers will we see next? What pages will you send me to this time?

[Deborah K]

Deb K,

But the above paragraph is just me splitting your hairs. That’s because neither our debate, nor your original assertion, was about the drug war’s operating budget; they were/are only about the amount of damage inflicted upon society by drug abuse. My disagreement was/is with your claim that the $400B worth of drug-abuse damage didn’t even include crime/violence (“aside from the crime and violence…untreated addiction costs America $400 billion per year”). I have proven your claim to be false (via your own report). Granted that your claim was preceded by this one: “I can tell you that addiction costs this country much more than the drug war” - our debate has not been about the federal drug-war operating budget.



Since you insist on splitting hairs, and insist on harping on three words that I wrote out of my entire argument "crime and violence", show me where in that phrase "aside from crime and violence here are some other statistics" I included the COST of crime and violence. Had I written, "aside from the cost of crime an violence, here are some other statistics". YOU are the one that has been assuming that I included the cost of crime and violence in the numbers. YOU are the one who assumed that the cost of the WOD was included in the numbers.. I have been trying to tell you that I never claimed the cost of crimes and violence were or were not included in the numbers. That was never my original intention when I wrote that sentence, I've already apologized for the vagueness of the phrase, and I'm getting sick and tired of you harping on it!!! This is ridiculous, you're like a pit-bull. Enough already.

[idirtify]

Since you insist on splitting hairs, and insist on harping

snip

Deb K,
You are misrepresenting my “splitting hairs”, which was only a metaphor for my disagreeing with inaccurate statements you made about irrelevant material. You also mischaracterize my persistence as “harping”. Sorry, but this is no small point. But instead of trying to follow your every maneuver of distraction, I’ll refocus on the point of my disagreement.

Readers,
Remarks that attempt to comingle damage (crime and violence, etc) caused by prohibition with problems related to drug pharmacology is a deceptive trick commonly pulled by prohibitionists. It’s not only circular reasoning, it’s usually intentional. The intent of such comments is to suggest false blame; to blame drug addiction for causing the crime and violence that is actually caused by prohibition. Even though prohibition causes crime and violence to skyrocket, prohibitionists will incessantly use rhetoric designed not only to obfuscate but to reverse the chain of events. (Do we need a finer example than the present rhetoric of my esteemed opponent?) Their point is to misrepresent the terrible cause-and-effect sequence initiated by their own policy. In order to retain their facade of legitimacy, it is essential that they maintain the drug-blaming fallacy. They have only been able to get away with this deception for so long because drug pharmacology can cause problems and there is a deep-seated prejudice/fear against certain drugs (and their users). It’s just a version of the old fear-mongering tactics so favored by statists; embellish a known fear which allows for the creation a false protection, which in turn creates a far greater danger. I feel this is important to point out because it is such a universal fallacy propagated by the majority and its establishment media. You see it and hear it virtually everywhere.

[n1x]

It would destroy the mexican cartels, and tom can't stand mexicans.

But the cartels would find another drug to traffic in...

[mczerone]

We need to embrace our Mexican brothers and stop arresting them for being wacky pot smokers.

?

There are about 4 things to correct in this 1 sentence post. Can you spot them?

[torchbearer]

Mexicans? Or Mexican Cartels?:eek:

did i say mexicans or mexican cartels?
A lot of mexicans that stay in Mexico work for the cartels, the mexicans that come to louisiana work on the farms and plant nurseries.
One group wields weapons, one group wields farm implements.
Which one does Tommy boy hate the worst?

[torchbearer]

But the cartels would find another drug to traffic in...

then legalize all drugs here. problem solved.

[Flash]

Actually Tom Tancredo is not a racist. He is dead-on about illegal immigration. And even legal immigration can be dangerous if too many of a certian ethnicity are allowed into the nation. They will refuse assimilation and work against the best interests of America. The borders need to be shut down more.