Every now and then I come across yet another article regarding the United States' epic failure in they call their "war on drugs". Since this futile effort started some 40 years ago during the Nixon administration, it has cost the American taxpayer over one TRILLION dollars, hundreds of service men and women and of course the occasional innocent bystanders.
So what do we have to show for it? Well, in terms of success, the answer is NOTHING. I mean if the government measures success by the number of jail cells occupied by non-violent pot-peddlers then I suppose they are hitting it out of the park but wait, don't we have a current problem with our prisons being overcrowded? And what are the latest statistics that do a side-by-side comparison between fatal alcohol related car accidents and pot-related ones? I find it alarming that the government can't seem to distinguish one drug from the next and views an 18 year old brat that is smuggling a Zip-loc bag of marijuana in his underpants with the same public ire as that of an armed Cocaine or Heroin dealer sneaking across the border.
Alcohol is a drug and it is legal. Why? Because the government realized many years ago that it was unconstitutional and even a bit morally reprehensible to tell a U.S. citizen that he or she can not enjoy and adult beverage any longer. And that as long as they enjoy it responsibly without doing harm to others then it is a case of freedom of choice. Most of us are able to abide by these rules however that doesn't stop the occasional idiot that goes too far and causes a fatal crash. The government was able to admit (with of course a bit of "encouragement" by its citizens) that the Prohibition was a horrible idea. And as long as it is able regulate alcohol and create laws to deter citizens from irresponsible abuse, then it should be allowed. The idea of this country is freedom and liberty to do what you want to make yourself happy as long as it doesn't harm others. Laws are created to prevent that from happening. Outlawing the entire practice goes against our foundations. I have the right to flail my arms all over the place right up until the point I hit you in the nose with them. That would be where the illegality starts. And it is my responsibility to know the difference.
I personally would like to see harsher sentences for multiple DUI offenders to act as a greater deterrent against irresponsible behavior. How many times have we seen a 45 year old mom pulled over while driving the speed limit in her own neighborhood at 2AM with a BAC of about .081 getting the book thrown at her? The punishment doesn't match the crime. Careers literally are destroyed over a mistake. I could go on a tangent regarding that fact that the vast majority of violent alcohol related car crashes are caused by people whose BAC is way over the limit and are often multiple offenders. Not a grandmother who had a glass of wine at the Olive Garden. But that is another story.
My entire case is regarding the fact that I have to assume that the past several administrations are smart enough to off-the-record realize that the car on drugs is a blithering failure and a horrible die ago continue. But at the same time it is horrible P.R. and quite frankly political career-suicide to step up and insinuate that perhaps the government should reevaluate the entire campaign. Perhaps drop it entirely and consider legalizing and strictly controlling a few of the more manageable substances.
Alcohol is a drug and it is legal. Why? Because the government realized many years ago that it was unconstitutional and even a bit morally reprehensible to tell a U.S. citizen that he or she can not enjoy and adult beverage any longer. And that as long as they enjoy it responsibly without doing harm to others then it is a case of freedom of choice. Most of us are able to abide by these rules however that doesn't stop the occasional idiot that goes too far and causes a fatal crash. The government was able to admit (with of course a bit of "encouragement" by its citizens) that the Prohibition was a horrible idea. And as long as it is able regulate alcohol and create laws to deter citizens from irresponsible abuse, then it should be allowed. The idea of this country is freedom and liberty to do what you want to make yourself happy as long as it doesn't harm others. Laws are created to prevent that from happening. Outlawing the entire practice goes against our foundations. I have the right to flail my arms all over the place right up until the point I hit you in the nose with them. That would be where the illegality starts. And it is my responsibility to know the difference.
I personally would like to see harsher sentences for multiple DUI offenders to act as a greater deterrent against irresponsible behavior. How many times have we seen a 45 year old mom pulled over while driving the speed limit in her own neighborhood at 2AM with a BAC of about .081 getting the book thrown at her? The punishment doesn't match the crime. Careers literally are destroyed over a mistake. I could go on a tangent regarding that fact that the vast majority of violent alcohol related car crashes are caused by people whose BAC is way over the limit and are often multiple offenders. Not a grandmother who had a glass of wine at the Olive Garden. But that is another story.
My entire case is regarding the fact that I have to assume that the past several administrations are smart enough to off-the-record realize that the car on drugs is a blithering failure and a horrible die ago continue. But at the same time it is horrible P.R. and quite frankly political career-suicide to step up and insinuate that perhaps the government should reevaluate the entire campaign. Perhaps drop it entirely and consider legalizing and strictly controlling a few of the more manageable substances.
Below are some statements by the past administrations I've read. I've found a few variations from source to source so these are slightly paraphrased but the gist is conveyed properly.
PRESIDENT RICHARD M. NIXON: "We’ve turned the corner on drug addiction in the United States. Drug addiction is under control."
Well of course drug addiction is under control. There are some that choose to avoid all substances while others are hooked on any variety of crack, beer, pot, pain killers, sniffing glue, aspirin, herbal tea and eating fertilizer. People make this choice without government intervention. Washington has simply decided which ones are "controlled" substances and which are not. And when a neurologist puts a 6 year old on anti-depressants because she gets a little separation anxiety when dropped off at kindergarten, he or she creates an addicted patient for life, someone whose brain never gets the opportunity during developmental years to learn basic coping skills and will thus almost certainly end up at the very least on psychiatric medication for life if not picking up a few other "self-medicating" habits along the way. I realize that neurologists are more educated and more intelligent than I am. But smart people do stupid things all the time. That's why they call them "stupid mistakes". If only stupid people made them, they'd just be run-of-the-mill mistakes. Oh but wait, they are "controlled" by Washington and a doctor gave them out as an Rx. So it MUST be OK then. Right?
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN: It’s time, as Nancy said, to just say “no” to drugs.
When it comes to drugs, there have always been those that "just say no" and those that "just say yo!" Educating the children on the dangers of drugs and alcohol is a campaign I support 100%. I actively participate in that practice by my own volition all of the time. People were doing it long before the "Just say NO" campaigns. But drug-traffickers don't respond well to a stern "no" and getting smacked in the head by a rolled up newspaper. And STOP making ads with this so called "Drug pusher" on the corner that is praying on school children. He is as real as the Boogey-man. He doesn't exist. Children are broke and make lousy customers. They also can't drive cars nor keep secrets well and therefore make lousy traffickers as well.
PRESIDENT GEORGE H. W. BUSH: It is imperative to put more resources into our fight, so I am asking Congress to put $12.7 billion to wage this war on drugs. If Congress approves my request, funding for the war on drugs will have increased by 93% to nearly double the rate just three years ago when I took office.
Well of course that is the solution! I mean in the real world when a business fails at a project, they either replace the leaders, change the strategy or scrap it entirely. But everyone knows that in Washington, our offices are filled with wizards and magicians and that when they have a failed project that hemorrhages money like the US Postal Service, they just throw more and more money at it - OUR money. And it fixes it EVERY time! Right? um.... right? (crickets crickets)
PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: If we ever expect to reduce crime and violence in our country to the low level that would make it the exception rather than the rule, we have to reduce the drug problem. We know it is a difficult battle. We know that overall drug use and crime are down in all segments of society but one: young people. And that makes the battle more difficult and more important.
I like Bubba's quote because it is the hardest to follow and thus the hardest to counter. Violence and crime used to be considered something that directly harmed or injured another person. Otherwise you can harm yourself as much as you want. Drug related violence for the most part does not come from an addict shooting up. The majority is from illegal trafficking. I'm not saying legalize it entirely - just accept that your approach is still wrong. The fact remains that if you are going to call this a "war" then treat it like one. Take up heavy arms and go on the offensive and start carpet bombing their strongholds. You know where they are now go get them. An ad campaign is NOT waging a war and neither is setting your sights on the victims.
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Drugs help supply the deadly work of terrorists, that’s so important for people of our country to understand … which is why the budget I submitted to Congress calls for $19 billion to fight drug use.
I appreciate W because he is correct in pointing out where much of their funding comes from. It financially backs their cause because the black-market of illegal substances has ALWAYS been a gold mine for organized crime and now terrorists. Look how well the mob did during the prohibition. If you legalize and control certain substances, the violent crime goes down, the addiction rate does not go up and the goverment stands to make money as opposed to wasting it while absolutely devastating a major revenue source for our enemies. The problem here is there are entire foreign governments that participate in drug trade. By calling it illegal, you know have foreign states that are actually illegally exporting drugs across our borders. If it is a war then you have to engage them. Otherwise they will keep on keeping on and laugh their way to the bank. Of course you have the compounded issue of narcotics trafficking coming from some of our allies with whom we trade with and must remain diplomatic. Oops. Now what??
So you may assume my premise is to legalize drugs. Not exactly - just some of them. When you create an environment where certain drugs are available in a society and the government has established regulations that control the distribution outlets, age-minimums and of course the concentration of ingredients in the drug, you allow for a stable, non-violent use of the drug. When you allow certain substances in, you remove demand from the really nasty ones - the same ones some addicts use because they are either easier to obtain or cheaper to buy. That's the main reason they use them. Let's choose the lesser of two evils and actually let them get their hands on the controlled less reactive kinds. People rarely steal alcohol or cigarettes even though they can get a little pricey. Why? Because paying a little more for them legally is far easier than going to jail over it. People always ask "What about the drugs that cause people to go on violent rampages?". First of all, most substances do NOT do that. Oh wait, alcohol sometimes does. Oops. Regardless, my point again can be understood when you look at places in Europe where they are permitted and regulated. Is crack in widespread use in these regions? No.
In closing, I am a good example. Aside from beer and wine occasionally, I have no interest in putting mind altering substances in my body. In fact I rarely even allow myself to get intoxicated on the few drinks I have. I actually feel guilty having a second cup of coffee in the morning. This has nothing to do with peer pressure, government programs nor even the illegality. It's a combination of being informed as a kid and what experimenting I did as a kid. Pot was as far as a went but I hated the way it made me feel, dress and smell. I was lazy, unshaved and started putting on weight. I think actually a good sense of vanity is the best deterrent.
I challenge someone in Washington (perhaps one close to retirement) to step up and say the obvious - that you need to drop this entire "war" and try a different malady. Stop worrying about the raging Moms out there that will then accuse you of trying to let drug dealers kill their babies. Moms who are widows of men killed in this nonsensical war will have your back I guarantee it as will THEIR babies.
I challenge someone in Washington (perhaps one close to retirement) to step up and say the obvious - that you need to drop this entire "war" and try a different malady. Stop worrying about the raging Moms out there that will then accuse you of trying to let drug dealers kill their babies. Moms who are widows of men killed in this nonsensical war will have your back I guarantee it as will THEIR babies.
No comments:
Post a Comment