Marijuana.com

PotShot

The many and sizeable benefits of "Drug" Legalization
Tracy Bullet | RedState.com | July 22, 2006

It is my purpose with this diary to show that conservatives should consider proposing laws to immediately decriminalize the great majority of drugs now considered illegal under federal law. In my opinion, such a move could yield great benefits to the nation's citizens and laws.

I used to be a big supporter of the Drug War. During my life, I have never once, ever, used alcohol or illegal substances of any stripe, because

a) I've noticed that people who overindulge in them tend to fall behind at work and bills
b) they tend to be a replacement for social contacts
c) they tend to be harmful to health - both legal alcohol, and illegal stuff too
d) illegal actions come with jail time and other penalties

I never plan to start drinking or shooting up either, and I would recommend never using the majority of what people call "drugs," since many of them, even alcohol, have stupid side effects. But I am convinced that the illegalization of things like marijuana, cocaine, ecstasy, etc. has done way more harm than good, and that the immediate repeal of the laws that keep them illegal would yield huge benefits to taxpayers, convicts, policemen and women, the economy, the family, and to the more nebulous concept of "the law" in general. First I'll go over the arguments against drug legalization, then for, then why I think the 2nd wins out. Then I'll deal with why we'd accrue so much benefit from legalization of these drugs - even the ones some might consider hardcore, like coke.

The argument in favor of keeping drugs illegal is straightforward, and definitely worth considering. Never for a moment will I say that the answer to the drug question is clearcut - it is not. Continuing on, that argument is simple: legal drugs will cause more drug usage, which will result in deviant behavior that costs society ablebodied (and minded) people, time for rehab, and money. This argument has a lot of power, because it's easy to see the negative outcomes caused by addiction; one need simply visit AA or have a friend or relative at a rehab clinic. I come out here and say that THERE ARE NO DOUBT PEOPLE FOR WHOM THIS ARGUMENT HOLDS. Drug legalization will cause SOME people to lapse into greater drug use than they would have previously, lessening their effectiveness, and costing society more in terms of ruined families and social programs to rehabilitate the addicted.

But...consider the following. While there is a large cost that might occur with legal drugs, there is already a HUGE cost that exists by keeping drugs illegal.

First, 1,000 petty criminals in Detroit, Miami, LA, NYC, El Paso, Yuma, and more are created out of people who would be nothing but cranks without the drug money their cartels create. 10s of billions of illegal dough can buy automatic rifles, gang territory, crooked politicians, crooked cops, and more. And that's just the ringleaders. Consider the huge number of gang members and poor youths necessary to keep the drug lines intact from Miami up to North Dakota. Consider the drug related crimes of murder, theft, arson, and more that would die away without the drug trade, and die they would - I'd like to see drug lords keep buying guns when cocaine and marijuana cost as much as cigarrettes. Anyone ever hurt of cigarette gangs? Didn't think so. Legalizing drugs would cut this evil supply and demand structure off at the source. Alcohol smuggling doesn't pay, and neither would crime, all of a sudden. Good luck affording henchman on zero income.

Second, how many good police officers have to be murdered or subverted by druglords before we admit the Drug War isn't being won? How many police officers could go back to things that matter: war on terror, murder, rape, etc. Shouldn't we release our officers from endless stings to land some 20 year old kid in jail, and let them spend more time keeping some 40 year old engineer from sneaking in explosives?

Third, 1 million poor young men in cities around the nation would suddenly have to search for honest work, as the prospect of hitting it big in the drug lotto as a gold chained little dictator would evaporate overnight. That's kids back together with dads, that's income for single moms, that's legitimate income for the economy.

Fourth, national safety would prosper. If I were a terrorist, I'd make damn sure I had a cozy relationship with drug traffickers (opium ring a bell from Afghanistan?), should the opportunity arise to sneak other things in too. If I were an illegal alien trafficker, I'd make sure to cash in too. I have seen news stories that indicate that the border is a giant drug combat zone in some places of Arizona, and I see no reason why this isn't also true in NM, CA and TX. Can't we free up feds for things that matter and also deny those who wish to harm us one more route into the U.S.?

Fifth, taxpayer money is needed, in droves, to keep prisons staffed for drug abusers, and for their rehab costs.

Sixth, we spend a decent amount of money trying to fight crime in Latin America, as if there were some way to actually stop the poor from farming Coca down there when they can sell it for so much in some prosperous suburb up north. As a bonus, this would probably relieve some tensions with South America.

Seventh, by keeping drugs illegal, we incur the costs of the side effects that free market drugs might eliminate. If the pharm industry could get into the picture, it's possible that many of the negative side effects of many drugs would lessen or disappear entirely.

Eighth, we incur a hidden cost that expresses itself through disdain for the law. People are not angels, and college kids least of all. At my colleges, I was pleased to see that some of the biggest liberal jerks were the biggest druggies. "Illegal wiretaps" are bad, but illegal drugs apparently didn't set off their moral radar. I used to always say things like "even if you think they're dumb laws, what about all the gang members that will die to get you this marijuana? What about the poor children in South America you profess to care so much about? What about crime you cause?" Apparently, liberal college kids become much less concerned about their causes when it's time to light up. But the truth is, that all kinds of college kids, liberals and conservatives bear blame. And while I have disdain for the hypocrisy of people that claim to have a bleeding heart for the poor yet use illegal drugs, I have to realize the following: when your laws turn kids into criminals at a young age, you demean the law for the rest of their lives.

Put another way, drug laws turn kids into criminals at a very young age. How can we expect someone (think Clinton here) who breaks laws right out the gate from high school to take other laws seriously? I think that when people believe some laws are bad, they believe they have a certain right to flaut all laws. In the ultimate irony, our attempt to make society better by keeping it from drugs makes it worse in some ways, by telling it that the law is powerless to stop them most of the time. Yes, I realize that the rightness of a principle doesn't always have a lot to do with how many follow it, but you get my point, I hope.

So like I said: i don't know how many additional people would spend their time on drugs, or what those costs would be. But I DO know that the price of the drug war, as it is, is too high for me to want to pay.

Destroying the crime that results from the drug cartel alone would be worth it for me. Think of all the police officers, young men, and families that we could save here. Isn't that worth it?

I think it is also necessary to consider that some people would do drugs no matter what. John Stossel outlines in his newest book "Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity" that in Holland, the majority of LEGAL drug users in Amserdam are Americans. Ouch. They've legalized marijuana, and their sky hasn't fallen with respect to substance abuse. Stossel also points out the glaring hypocrisy of Bush II, Clinton, Cunningham and Gore, all of whom have the balls to enforce the drug laws on those of us whose daddies can't get us out of trouble, yet who never get around to using it on themselves or their kids.

Last, to be especially crafty, I'm pretty sure the GOP could reap an electoral fortune with this, if done right. Yes, it would be a headache to frame...initially. But there is one demographic, namely the poor urban one, that would be eternally grateful - and we would deserve it. Think of all the young black, hispanic, and white men in thrall to crime, or in prison across our country. Wouldn't it be great to relieve all the evils I listed above, while gaining their votes at the same time? Our shares of the Hispanic and black community especially are low right now. Imagine going to the NAACP and being able to confidently state that it is the GOP, and not the Democrats, that is taking concrete steps to alleviate the suffering of the black community, not with saturated anti-poverty programs, but with steps like those outlined above. I'm not saying we could turn the poor young man vote into ours overnight, but even a moderate swing to the Republican party would destroy democratic power in states like Illinois, Maryland, Delware, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.

Second to lastly, before anyone responds to tear me a new one, I'd appreciate a kind explanation for why it's legal/acceptable to drink booze til I get an ulcer, but marijuana is acceptable? Am I missing something here? Why is alcohol not illegal? Oops.

Lastly, I don't want any protracted arguments about libertarian this and libertarian that. This pro-life boy's got enough to do without convincing people his journal is underwritten by Cato.

Hit me up.

 

Nugget Lover

Did he leave anything out?

Buzzby

Although "logically obvious", this has simply not proven to be true in jurisdictions where drug laws have been eased. It seems that just about anyone who wants to use drugs is already using them. They're certainly available enough on the black market.

Where are all these jobs supposed to come from? For most of these "poor young men", dealing drugs isn't an alternative to working in a corporate highrise. It's an alternative to a minimum (i.e. non-living) wage job or no job at all. I find it far more likely that they'd find alternative employment in some other kind of criminal enterprise.

Hmmm... All drugs become legal and the smugglers all become bakers, butchers, and candlestick makers? Get real. They'd be looking for something else profitable to smuggle, such as guns and terrorists.

Illegal wiretaps violate the letter and spirit of the Fourth Amendment, a basic principle of the government under which we're supposed to be living. Drugs are illegal because of racism, corporate interests, and the ambition of politicians: no good reason at all.

That might be true for a few not-to-bright people, but the intelligent among us can see which laws promote the public good and which ones don't.

__________________

king cola

Just my opinion but when alcohol became legal again, pot became illegal. I don't know why it happend like that but the pot was banned because of the racism and other reasons. They are both mind altering, for some reason they didn't want people to have both marijuana and alcohol. If they banned alcohol they would start throwing people in jail for that again and drugs. Alcohol would just be smuggled again anyway. In some ways, by keeping alcohol legal, the cops know where people are drinking when they go out (the bars) it makes it easier for them to follow drunks from that destination without even having to see them start swerving and they have a good idea that the person probably drank during the time they were inside.

You make a good point about the ulcer because time and time again we see people argue that marijuana causes cancer and other effects from smoking, but tobacco products are known for those symptoms and remain legal too.

Alcohol and tobacco serve no purpose in the medical world, but they say a glass of wine is supposed to be good for you so i don't know. If marijuana was legal just for recreational use the pharmacutical would probably have no control over it and wouldn't be able to step in if people were using it for medical purposes. That would kind of go along with Buzzby talkin about corporations controlling things.