Legalizing Drugs

Just as a side tid-bit of info on the economic part of the discussion here about whether or not the government is fighting legalization,etc.. because of loss of jobs and such; when prohibition of alcohol was lifted the number of government employees actually increased. It takes a lot more people to handle the taxing and tax enforcement side of the game than it does the prohibition side alone. The DEA for one, wouldn't fold. It would continue to operate just as the BATF does post-prohibition.

wenchilina, drugs that become addictive within a few uses and have the power to ruin lives in little or no time. Usually opiates (herion especially) and cocaine.

Guatam, during the Iran-Contra affair a man named (spelling may be wrong) Eugene Hosenfuss crashed an airplane (DC-3) somewhere in Central America. He worked for the CIA and the plane was full of cocaine. His destination - USA.

A General Secor and Admiral Poindexter were connected with this operation (yes, same Poindexter that Bush hired for secret operations in the Pentagon and has just recently been fired) - their jobs with the CIA go back to the late 50's and 60's when they helped smuggled tons of tar opium out of Laos to fund CIA operations. Candlestine CIA operations have always been funded with drug monies made on sales to American youth. Sad but true!

Unless I misrecomember (I was a bit of a pup when this stuff happened), part of the deal with the S&L scandals some time back was that CIA operatives were able to -- and did -- procure large sums of cash from the banks without having to disclose what the money was for or where it was going. But my mind is a bit of a cobwebby mess, and I don't trust much of the information I get from it. Some day I'll tidy up and throw out the trashy bits, I hope.

fbaezer,
your humor was lost on everyone else. I thought your post was hilarious. MOTAMEX!!! HA HA HA HA!!!

The way I envision the decriminalization of the hard, highly addictive drugs, they would be available through a pharmacy, and propaganda campaigns would be enacted to show these drugs are for the infirm--those with the addiction to them.

Propaganda campaigns would be enacted to equate these drugs with medications.

I could just see Pfizer with an ad on television with a conservative looking woman, chronically addicted, with a relieved smile on her face saying,
"My life is much more stable now thanks to Pfizer's Heroinutol."

Tobacco (whose active component is nicotine, which is highly addictive) use had declined since the very first propaganda campaigns of the late nineteenth century, not to mention the more restrictive use controls of late.

The same criteria could be applied to marijuana.

And probably to alcohol also.

The problem with alcohol is that it is a much more ingrained recreational/social drug than the others in the U.S. of A, having made its way to the New World right along with the colonizers, conquerors and arrogators. Its addictiveness is nonetheless powerful, especially to those with the genetic disposition to its addiction.

I don't see the total average number of continuous users or chronic abusers to change much if decriminalization were to take effect, however.

I think it will remain the same as the averages we now have under the criminalization model, with the same fluctuations throughout years, but averaging pretty constantly.

Merely, a decriminalization model will change it from a legal/judicial and military issue, to a medical/social issue.

I believe inebriation and intoxication is a natural impetus.

This is all anecdotal, but I know of hunters using fermented corn to attract deer, and I've read of deer getting buzzed on fermented field corn.

I've also read of deer stumbling into marijuana patches and getting stoned out of their gourds eating the tender colitas.

I've got a humming bird feeder of about a quart. I use a cup of sugar in the water mixture. I tell you, the birds go back more often toward the last of the sugar water, after it has started fermenting. It takes on a distinctive, mildly alcoholic aroma. They love it.

Bill O'Reilly had a libertarian, Jacob Sullum, on his show last week, which was supposed to be a fair and balanced discussion of the issue of legalization. Yeah, right.

This guy made some very incisive and blunt points comparing between some of the harder drugs with alcohol, which O'Reilly kept interrupting.

O'Reilly ended up calling him a pinhead.

One of the other commentators on that network proudly featured O'Reilly's antics as an example of FoxNews' "fair and balanced" reporting in a clip of that show:

"O'REILLY: Pinheads like you are encouraging intoxication...
. . .

"O'REILLY: Look, you irresponsible libertines cause so much damage to this society, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. I'll give you the last word."

He didn't.




After looking for a transcript of the show on google, I found a transcript from an earlier show that Sullum had guest appeared on O'Reilly's show. Sullum makes some very good points in that interview as well, and O'Reilly is as "fair and balanced" as ever. He refrains from ad hominem attacks though:

http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/transcripts/sullumvoreilly.htm

Date: March 13, 2001

O'REILLY: Thanks for staying with us. I'm Bill O'Reilly.

And in the "Unresolved Problems" segment tonight, although I believe it will never happen in this country, there is a growing movement to legalize drugs here. Places like Holland and Denmark allow citizens to intoxicate themselves at will, and this is the heart of the legalization issue.

With us now is Jacob Sullum, the senior editor of "Reason" magazine, and the author of the book "For Your Own Good."

All right, now, you want anybody in America to take any substance and be left alone.

JACOB SULLUM, SENIOR EDITOR, "REASON" MAGAZINE: I think that adults should be free to use any intoxicant they want, as long as...

O'REILLY: Heroin, cocaine.

SULLUM: ... as long as they don't violate other people's rights. I think you have a fundamental right to control your own body and your own mind, and as long as you're not violating other people's rights, you should be left alone, yes.

O'REILLY: But how do you know they're not violating other people's rights? SULLUM: Well, at the point where they do, for example, get behind the wheel while intoxicated, whether they happen to be intoxicated on alcohol or on marijuana or on heroin, they can be penalized for that.

O'REILLY: But isn't that reactive rather than proactive? We have right now 1.1 million arrests for DWI in the United States every year. So you're saying, wait till they do it, then get them, but allow them to do it.

SULLUM: Well, you're suggesting...

O'REILLY: That's reactive.

SULLUM: You're suggesting that we ought to ban alcohol because some people drive while drunk.

O'REILLY: No, no, this is...

SULLUM: That's the logical conclusion...

O'REILLY: ... (inaudible)...

SULLUM: ... is that (inaudible)...

O'REILLY: This is a combo here, drugs and alcohol, DUIs, OK, this is not just alcohol.

SULLUM: No, what my point is, that it's true, some people do drive while drunk. But the vast majority of drinkers are responsible, drink moderately...

O'REILLY: Correct.

SULLUM: ... and the same is true of illegal drug users...

O'REILLY: But there is a law on the books...

SULLUM: ... the vast majority of illegal drug users use drugs in moderation, either occasionally or perhaps once a week. The vast majority of illegal drug users are marijuana users, in fact.

O'REILLY: Well, OK, but look...

SULLUM: Now, we're talking about (inaudible)...

O'REILLY: ... you're getting off, you're getting off the topic in the sense that you believe -- See, I believe public intoxication should be against the law, and it is. If you're intoxicated in public, it's against the law.

SULLUM: Not everywhere. I mean, New Orleans would be an example of a place where you're allowed to drink on the street.

O'REILLY: You may be allowed to drink on the street. You're not allowed to be intoxicated on the street. There's a blood alcohol level everywhere in this United States. If you're over it, you get hauled in. And I believe that's a fair and good law. You don't.

SULLUM: Well, whatever the standard is, the same sort of standard could be applied to illegal drugs. In other words, if you're creating a nuisance because you're intoxicated or while you're intoxicated, it's...

O'REILLY: All right, (inaudible).

SULLUM: ... you can be penalized for that. If you commit an assault...

O'REILLY: That sounds good.

SULLUM: ... while you're intoxicated, no matter what drug it happens to be...

O'REILLY: That sounds good, but it doesn't...

SULLUM: ... you can also be arrested for that.

O'REILLY: ... here's why it doesn't work, and just keep -- I want the audience to keep this in mind. What Mr. Sullum is saying is reactive. You react after the fact to person being caught intoxicated and doing an antisocial act. Now, here's why intoxication is so bad and why it shouldn't be allowed anywhere.

Over the past 10 years, the number of abused and neglected children has more than doubled, from 1.4 million in '86 to more than 3 million in 1997. All right? Children whose parents abuse drugs are almost three times likelier to be abused and more than four times likelier to be neglected. Society cannot protect those children because they can't go into the home, all right?

So if you are going to say, and say anybody can take whatever substance they want, heroin, crack cocaine, regular cocaine, methamphetamine, hallucinogens, you are putting children in danger, and society cannot protect them. And that is the crux of this matter.

SULLUM: All right, we could say the same thing about alcoholics. (inaudible) percentage of...

O'REILLY: No, look...

SULLUM: Hang on, hang on...

O'REILLY: You're just dodging the issue.

SULLUM: You said -- no, I'm not...

O'REILLY: Stay with the powerful drugs.

SULLUM: ... the issue is...

O'REILLY: Stay with the powerful...

SULLUM: ... there's a difference between use and abuse.

O'REILLY: Don't wimp out with the alcohol business.

SULLUM: No, alcoholics beat their children...

O'REILLY: Don't wimp out with it.

SULLUM: ... right?

O'REILLY: That's a wimpy thing, you always divert...

SULLUM: (inaudible)...

O'REILLY: ... to alcohol.

SULLUM: You're saying (inaudible)...

O'REILLY: I'm saying heroin is more powerful...

SULLUM: ... (inaudible) what's the difference? In what sense is it more powerful?

O'REILLY: ... than a beer? More powerful than a beer.

SULLUM: And it's going to make you beat your children in a way that being drunk is not going to?

O'REILLY: Cocaine -- sure will.

SULLUM: Well, that's a myth. I mean, if you look at so-called crack- related homicides, all right, which I'm sure you've heard about, and you say, what actually happened? Almost never is it the case that a quote-unquote "crack-related homicide" is committed under the influence of crack. Almost all of these crimes are related to the black market. And those conditions of violence are created by prohibition, the same way that we had violence during alcohol prohibition.

SULLUM: That's an important point (inaudible), the drug does not cause the violence...

O'REILLY: We have a...

SULLUM: ... the violence is associated with the black market.

O'REILLY: All right. We got you.

SULLUM: OK.

You want to compound that problem by allowing all intoxicants, all illegal drugs, as powerful as these drugs are -- you know how powerful methamphetamine is. You want to say that's OK, bring it on in, compound the alcohol problem by 10, so that these children, 3 million of them, can be abused, because society can't stop it, can't go in the house.

SULLUM: What I'm saying is that the same kinds of moral dis -- and legal distinctions that we apply to alcohol can and should be applied to other drugs.

O'REILLY: It's nuts.

SULLUM: So we don't say, because some drunks beat their kids or beat their wives or screw up at work or get drunk, get behind a wheel, and kill people, therefore all drinking is banned. We distinguish between responsible and irresponsible use, between moderate drinkers and alcoholics. Furthermore, we distinguish between alcoholics who ruin only their own lives, right, they drink themselves to death, but they still show up for work on time, they still -- you know, they don't beat anybody, they don't drive while drunk...

O'REILLY: But this is such a -- this is such a morally...

SULLUM: These kinds of distinctions...

O'REILLY: ... hollow argument that it makes me shake.

SULLUM: Why is it hollow? Explain to me the distinction...

O'REILLY: It makes me shake.

SULLUM: ... between...

O'REILLY: It makes me shake, because what you're saying is that you don't care about these 3 million children...

SULLUM: That's not what I said.

O'REILLY: ... you don't care about them.

SULLUM: We could play back the tape...

O'REILLY: You would rather that...

SULLUM: ... and I'm pretty sure that's not what I said.

O'REILLY: Well, I'm telling you, this is what I'm taking from your argument. Your argument is that any adult in America has a right to intoxicate themselves, period. Society shouldn't intervene...

SULLUM: All right, so (inaudible)...

O'REILLY: That's what you're arguing (inaudible).

SULLUM: ... so are you -- if you -- do you want to ban alcohol? (inaudible), do you...

O'REILLY: What I would say is...

SULLUM: ... ban alcohol? No.

O'REILLY: What I would say is this. You deflect the argument against drugs...

SULLUM: Because the principle...

O'REILLY: ... by falling back on alcohol.

SULLUM: Alcohol is a drug, and the principle is the same.

O'REILLY: Right. We have a big problem with alcohol...

SULLUM: I want you to explain to me the distinction, what's the...

O'REILLY: ... we have a big problem with alcohol. You want to compound it, compound it by adding all of these other intoxicants in, and the kids are going to suffer.

SULLUM: All right, let's -- (inaudible) let's step back...

O'REILLY: I'll give you the last word, I'm...

SULLUM: ... let's step back, OK. Let's talk about the typical drug user.

O'REILLY: I don't have time...

SULLUM: The typical drug user...

O'REILLY: ... (inaudible), wrap up your argument. We're through. And the audience can decide.

SULLUM: The typical drug user is not beating his kid. The typical drug user is a responsible citizen...

O'REILLY: Oh, yeah.

SULLUM: ... and who is using marijuana from time to time, perhaps at that...

O'REILLY: All the stats...

O'REILLY: All the stats show that as the intoxicants rise in this society, child abuse rises, DUIs rise, and all kinds of other social things, homelessness and everything else.

But look, the audience will make up their own mind (inaudible). Thanks for a lively debate, we appreciate it.




Leave it to Fox to present current issues like a pro-wrestling match.

O'Reilly did introduce me to Jacob Sullum, and I am now going to buy his book, "Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use."

Sullum seems to have a pretty good handle on this issue.

Honest to god... The right-wing (and O'Reilly's clearly in that sector) never "wins" honestly. It wins by stopping the argument, pulling the plug. I think and hope that "audience" will have left that discussion thinking they've been cheated of a real discussion.

Do it in politics also Tartarin - part of the hateful, vengeful attitude at all levels of the party. Whether it is the media arm or the political arm of the party.

OF COURSE drugs should be legalized, let me count the ways.

- If drugs were legal addicts would no longer pay black market prices to criminals,they would get drugs from legitimate pharmaceutical companies and pay market prices. They would no longer die from buying toxic drugs,and they would no longer have to mug innocent people to support their habits.

- If drugs were legal criminal drug dealers would no longer be on our streets. They couldn't compete with the low free-market prices for drugs sold at pharmacies.

- If drugs were legal, criminal drug dealers would no longer prey on our children - any more than distilleries and breweries try to infiltrate schools to hook kids on alcohol.

- If drugs were legal, our government would no longer be dispensing propoganda that make children want to try the forbidden fruit.

- If drugs were legal, our prisons would be emptied of hundreds of thousands of non-violent people who have never harmed anyone. No longer would over-crowded prisons cause truly violent criminals to be free on early release and plea bargains to terrorize the rest of us.

- If drugs were legal, law enforcement resources would be available to fight violent crime, instead of being used to chase people who may harm themselves but are no threat to us.

If drugs were legal,police corruption would diminish, because criminals could no longer use drug money to gain immunity by bribing weak policemen.

- If drugs were legal, much of the street violence would end - as it did when Alcohol Prohibition ended - because gangs would no longer be fighting over drug territories.

- If drugs were legal, the government could no longer use the Drug War as an excuse to tear up the Bill of Rights and pry into your bank account,tear your car apart,monitor your email,or seize your property without even charging you with a crime.

People don't seem to recognize the enormous harm to society the Drug War has caused. ... End of rant

Amen to that. We seem slow to learn from the failures of prohibition.

what we learned from prohibition was how to create organized crime, we learned very well.

Before that, crime was highly disorganized, and it was a disgrace. Thank you, temperant ladies!

something that should be considered, and planned 4 in advance, if drugs should ever b decriminalized, is where the minions of organized crime would turn 4 their business without the drug trade 2 plunder.

for example, it would be best 2 also legalize the sex trade, and licence and regulate it or it might take the brunt of the changeover. there is enough harm being done here allready, alway 2 the small 'players' of course!

Bogowo - apart from the fact that I am finding it bloody difficult to read yr posts in their new avtar .....

sex trade has been legalized at places like Netherlands, and so are some kind of drugs. It would be interesting to compare figures of drug/prostitution related crimes from such countries to the ones which havent !

absolutely;
it's a little tricky 2 compare due 2 cultural diferences and population densities, but i'm sure that only 'vested interests' r keeping the change from being considered; Canada may, once again lead the way!

[and as 4 my "Buggered English" (see my thread in 'english'), if you are having trouble reading it, it isn't working! ]

The sex trade is killing the farmer.

Prostitute offers breast milk service A New Zealand prostitute is offering fresh breast milk as an extra service at the brothel where she works.

The 25-year-old, who uses the name Brooke and works in Hawera, gave birth to a son six weeks ago.

Business at the brothel has picked up since it began running explicit advertisements after prostitution was decriminalised.

Brooke said she started offering her breast milk after a suggestion from a client. "Most of these guys are clean cut, well-presented nice guys," she said.

But hygiene fears have been raised on behalf of the woman's baby by the breastfeeding advocacy group, La Leche League, says The Daily News.

League director Rosemary Gordon, said there could be a risk of infectious diseases like herpes, hepatitis and tuberculosis, being spread through cross-infection, between the baby, clients and the mother.

She said it would also be a concern if the baby's milk supply was being compromised: "The baby should have first option," she said.

Brooke said she washed herself with hot salt water and showered before feeding her son, and did not believe there was a risk of cross-infection. "My kid comes first," she said

Hey! Wot's this?

(Hastily putting away bagpipes and black armband.)

'sureal'K (sorry) ;
breast milk is available for puchase generally, and i don't know if it is tested 4 transferrable ills, but i would note the La Leche League's comments as offensively stereotypical, being a sex trade worker she is more likely 2b tested regularly, than most, and not likely 2 abuse her baby's needs because of her chosen profession. i find the suggestion coming from a customer somewhat odd, but perhaps now i am stereotyping.