Why Frank & Paul are wrong on drug legalization

23536

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
7,725
Location
Stop resisting!
(CNN) -- From certain precincts on the left, notably Barney Frank, to certain precincts on the right, notably the editorial page of National Review, we are witnessing a new push to end the so-called war on drugs and legalize drug use, starting with marijuana. Indeed, Ron Paul, Barney Frank's co-sponsor in the latest legislative effort, said recently he would go so far as to legalize heroin.

It's a bad idea. My friends at National Review begin their case by stating the illegalization of drugs has "curtailed personal freedom, created a violent black market and filled our prisons." But the legalization of drugs, including marijuana, would exacerbate each of these problems.
Ron Paul, Barney Frank: End pot prohibition

Starting with the basics, keeping drugs illegal is one of the best ways to keep drugs out of the hands -- and brains -- of children. We know three things here: First, children who don't use drugs continually tell us one of the reasons they don't is precisely because they are illegal.

For example, since at least 1975, report after report has found that "perceptions of the risk and social disapproval of drug use correlate very closely with drug taking behavior." When those in the drug prevention community ask teens who don't use drugs why they don't, time and again, the answer comes back "because it's illegal." This, of course, explains why a greater percentage of teens abuse legal substances like tobacco and alcohol over illegal drugs such as marijuana -- even when they say marijuana is easily accessible.

Second, keeping drugs out of the hands of children is the best way to prevent drug addiction generally, as study after study has confirmed that if we keep a child drug free until age 21, the chances of use in adulthood are next to zero.

Third, we don't need to guess at hypothetical legalization schemes. Our experience with legally prescribed narcotics has already proven it, and we now have an epidemic. This, despite doing everything the theorists have asked, from oversight to regulation to prescription requirements.

. . .

As for the current drug policies curtailing personal freedom, the question is: "Whose freedom?" The drug dealers', sure -- the drug consumers, no.
As any parent with a child addicted to drugs will explain, as any visit to a drug rehab center will convey, those caught in the web of addiction are anything but free. And it is not because of their incarceration or rehabilitation, it is because of the vicious cycle of dependency, waste and brain damage addiction and abuse cause.

more: http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/06/30/bennett.drug.legalization/

Editor's note: William J. Bennett is the Washington fellow of the Claremont Institute. He was U.S. secretary of education from 1985 to 1988 and was director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy under President George H.W. Bush.
 
Wow! Judging by the flood of comments, folks are getting quite impatient in the US with prohibition.
 
When those in the drug prevention community ask teens who don't use drugs why they don't, time and again, the answer comes back "because it's illegal." This, of course, explains why a greater percentage of teens abuse legal substances like tobacco and alcohol over illegal drugs such as marijuana -- even when they say marijuana is easily accessible.

How can anyone think this is a good thing?

Can you honestly say you'd rather your teen abuse alcohol and tobacco than marijuana?

Also, this is poorly written: "teens abuse legal substances..." Assuming some of these 'teens' are under 18 and all of them are under 21 years of age, then these substances are illegal for them.
 
God, it's not just drugs either, this man is just a complete dick (looked him up on wiki).

^ I agree about the fist thing!
 
the dude apparently said if we aborted all black babies the crime rate would go down
what a natzi
 
Second, keeping drugs out of the hands of children is the best way to prevent drug addiction generally, as study after study has confirmed that if we keep a child drug free until age 21, the chances of use in adulthood are next to zero.

So how would this change if the drugs were only legally available to people over 21? If the kiddies want to shoot smack they probably don't care if it's legal or not. On the other hand, kids who don't use heroin probably don't stay away from it soley because it's illegal.

Many kids are going to use drugs, legal or not. So instead of ruining lives by turning simple drug users into career criminals via the prison industry, it makes more sense to me to set up a recovery system rather than a punishment system for drug use. Threatening people with imprisonment doesn't seem to be working.
 
LSDMDMA&9785266 said:
the dude apparently said if we aborted all black babies the crime rate would go down
what a natzi

when they legalized abortion, crime went WAY down. a lot of governments say this correlation is due to being tough on crime, but it is purely about the U.S. adopting a PRO-CHOICE perspective on pregnancy. killing all african-american children is absolutely an unacceptable statement but to say that abortion would help african-american parents have better choices for their pregnancy, and overall more control of their life, is completely different. make sure you interpreted what his policy was because those are very different ideas.
 
no, this guy actually said aborting all black babies would decrease the crime rate
 
Bennett is a complete asshole, and also doesn't know what he's talking about. Tom Palmer of the Cato Institute was once giving a talk at my university and ranted about Bennett for a good while - it was pretty brilliant. He told us that he was once at a press conference given by Bennett when he was drug czar, where he was attempting to defend his statement that public beheadings of drug dealers was morally plausible. When questioned on the ethics of that stance, Bennett responded that he taught ethics at the University of Texas, and so was qualified to say that his stance was ethical. What an enormous tool.

The comments section of that article, however, is really encouraging - it looks like there has been a growing push against prohibition in the US, and I really hope that it sticks.
 
LSDMDMA&9786066 said:
no, this guy actually said aborting all black babies would decrease the crime rate

He did actually say that, but he did say that this was a purely hypothetical statement, and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on that one. The guy's enough of an asshole without having to inflate the importance of an innocuous statement that he made. Granted, it was an idiotic thing to say, and he really shouldn't have said it, but he's said more worrying things in his time o.0
 
innocuous?
thats straight up eugenics man, thats not just a stupid thing to say, thats advocating eugenics.
 
LSDMDMA&9786186 said:
innocuous?
thats straight up eugenics man, thats not just a stupid thing to say, thats advocating eugenics.

Sorry, what I meant is that he didn't word the statement as if he supported it - it'd be like saying that if we wiped out the African continent, the average human life expectancy would go up. The statement is true for purely statistical reasons, but it's unspeakably unethical and I would obviously in no way support that. Bennett's statement is vacuously true, but he didn't indicate that he would in any way support that tactic. At least, I hope not, but again, giving him the benefit of the doubt. That aside, it was an incredibly insensitive thing to say, and he should not have said it. The man's a moron.
 
Last edited:
Top