• DPMC Moderators: thegreenhand | tryptakid
  • Drug Policy & Media Coverage Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Drug Busts Megathread Video Megathread

The GOP should stand firm against drug legalization

23536

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
7,725
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...bd5f7a-915c-11e2-bdea-e32ad90da239_story.html

Some say that the Republican Party needs to find new issues to champion if it hopes to become America’s majority party. There is something to this. But being a conservative party, the GOP should also look to the past, where wisdom often resides.

In that spirit, Republicans once again should take a strong stand against drug use and legalization. Virtually no lawmaker in either party is doing so.

For his part, President Obama has said more about the NCAA men’s basketball bracket than he has about the dangers posed by illegal drugs. Gil Kerlikowske, the president’s “drug czar,” said last month that “The administration has not done a particularly good job of, one, talking about marijuana as a public health issue, and number two, talking about what can be done and where we should be headed on our drug policy.”

This is a startling admission, and there is a cost to abdication.

The drug-legalization movement is well-funded and making inroads. Voters in Washington state and Colorado passed ballot initiatives in November legalizing marijuana for recreational use. A bill to legalize marijuana was introduced in the Maryland House of Delegates last month. And Democrats in Congress have introduced legislation to end federal prohibitions on marijuana use.

This is the perfect time for Republicans to offer counterarguments grounded in medical science, common sense and human experience.

For example: One of the main deterrents to drug use is because it is illegal. If drugs become legal, their price will go down and use will go up. And marijuana is far more potent than in the past. Studies have shown that adolescents and young adults who are heavy users of marijuana suffer from disrupted brain development and cognitive processing problems.

Drug legalization will lead to more cases of addiction, which shatters lives. The vast majority of people who are addicted to harder drugs started by using marijuana. John P. Walters, the drug czar in the George W. Bush administration, noted last year, “Legalization has been tried in various forms, and every nation that has tried it has reversed course sooner or later.”

Strong, integrated anti-drug policies have had impressive success in the United States. Both marijuana and cocaine use are down significantly from their peak use in the 1970s and ’80s.

So the policy arguments against drug legalization are all there; they simply need to be deployed.

cont. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...bd5f7a-915c-11e2-bdea-e32ad90da239_story.html
 
Blah blah blah. Evidently this author does believe "wisdom resides in the past," since he wrote an article from the mid-20'th century.
 
MJ and coke use are "down", yet he provides no sources for those claims. Typical.
 
I think the Washington Post is credible enough that it doesn't need to explicitly state a source for such conjectures.
 
MJ and coke use are "down", yet he provides no sources for those claims. Typical.
That's because you read it here on Bluelight. Never do that because there's often further links on the news source website, namely: http://www.samhsa.gov/data/NSDUH/2k11Results/NSDUHresults2011.htm#Fig2-1


I'm more inclined to question the supposition that law enforcement has resulted in the decline than that the decline has occurred at all. Many of the claims in the article blatantly and conveniently ignore prominent counterarguments, which is simply to sway the ignorant who already generally agree convenient happiness attained without expressing religious devotion or providing legitimate economic benefits can never be condoned.
 
Nothing says Small Government like spending billions on preventing people from putting certain chemicals in their body!
 
A riposte that is objectively better than the original article:

The War on Drugs Is Far More Immoral Than Most Drug Use

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...s-far-more-immoral-than-most-drug-use/274651/

In the Washington Post, Peter Wehner advises the Republican Party to reassert itself as the anti-drug-legalization party. "One of the main deterrents to drug use is because it is illegal. If drugs become legal, their price will go down and use will go up," he writes. "And marijuana is far more potent than in the past. Studies have shown that adolescents and young adults who are heavy users of marijuana suffer from disrupted brain development and cognitive processing problems." Of course, no one is advocating that adolescent marijuana be made legal. And does Wehner understand that prohibition creates a powerful incentive for upping drug potency?

But rather than focus on mistaken arguments common to drug prohibitionists, I want to address a relatively novel claim: "Many people cite the 'costs' of and 'socioeconomic factors' behind drug use; rarely do people say that drug use is wrong because it is morally problematic, because of what it can do to mind and soul," Wehner writes. "In some liberal and libertarian circles, the 'language of morality' is ridiculed. It is considered unenlightened, benighted and simplistic. The role of the state is to maximize individual liberty and be indifferent to human character."

What he doesn't seem to understand is that many advocates of individual liberty, myself included, regard liberty itself as a moral imperative. I don't want to ridicule the "language of morality." I want to state, as forcefully as possible, that the War on Drugs is deeply, irredeemably immoral; that it corrodes the minds and souls of those who prosecute it, and creates incentives for bad behavior that those living under its contours have always and will always find too powerful to resist. Drug warriors may disagree, but they should not pretend that they are the only ones making moral claims, and that their opponents are indifferent to morality. Reformers are often morally outraged by prohibitionist policies and worry that nannying degrades the character of citizens.
Perhaps I should be more specific.

See the man in the photo at the top of this article? It isn't immoral for him to light a plant on fire, inhale the smoke, and enjoy a mild high for a short time, presuming he doesn't drive while high. But it would be immoral to react to his plant-smoking by sending men with guns to forcibly arrest him, convict him in a court, and lock him up for months or even years for a victimless crime. That's the choice, dear reader. So take a look at the guy in the photo and make your choice: Is it more moral to let him smoke, or to forcibly cage him with thieves, rapists, and murderers?

My own moral judgments don't stop there.

cont. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...s-far-more-immoral-than-most-drug-use/274651/
 
Okay, so the statement is verifiable... but I wonder what the damage has been to people, property, and economy as a result of the crackdowns?

They are so afraid of people altering their consciousness and seeing things differently that they will tear down the nation over this.
 
Top