LEF is Live on the Radio as we Speak

[StanSwitek]

Myth #3:

Legalization Makes Economic Sense

Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke believes drugs can be a revenue source for the government. "Remove the profit motive, and you put the dealers out of business... have government stores and buy marijuana cigarettes... nicely wrapped, purity and potency guaranteed with a tax stamp."[42]

Ethan Nadelmann, a former Princeton University professor and now director of the Lindesmith Center, states: "Make sure that junkies have access to clean needles; make it easy for addicts to obtain methadone; give heroin-maintenance programs a chance to work; decriminalize marijuana; stop spending billions on incarcerating drug users and drug dealers. We know we can reduce drug abuse more effectively by spending that money on education, pre and post natal care and job-training programs."[43]

Nadelmann told the Rolling Stone audience, "...The Pentagon's interdiction efforts, which cost U.S. taxpayers close to $1 billion... had no impact on the flow of drugs.... [The] drug war has been most efficient at filling up the country's prisons and jails."[44]

Dr. Robert Dupont, founding director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and president of the Institute for Behavior and Health in Rockville, Maryland, refutes the economic myth. "We now have two legal drugs, alcohol and tobacco. We have 113 million current users of alcohol and 60 million tobacco users. The reason marijuana and cocaine use is so much lower is because they are illegal drugs. Cocaine and marijuana are more attractive than alcohol and tobacco. If we remove the prohibition of illegality we would have a number of users of marijuana and cocaine similar to that of tobacco and alcohol."[45]

Health costs associated with legalization would be very high. And legalization would have consequences elsewhere. For example, the Drug Enforcement Administration says legalization of drugs will cost society between $140-210 billion a year in lost productivity and job-related accidents. And insurance companies would pass on accident expenses to consumers.[46] The Institute for Health Policy at Brandeis University found that in 1990 dollars the societal cost of substance abuse is in excess of $238 billion, of which $67 billion is for illicit drugs. The report states, "As the number one health problem in the country, substance abuse places a major burden on the nation's health care system and contributes to the high cost of health care. In fact, substance abuse -- the problematic use of alcohol, illicit drugs and tobacco -- places an enormous burden on American society asa whole."[47]

The claim that legalization provides an opportunity to tax new products is misleading. For example, total tax revenue from the sale of alcohol is $13.1 billion a year, but alcohol extracts over $100 billion a year in social costs such as health care and lost productivity.[48] There is no evidence to demonstrate that taxing cocaine, heroin, and marijuana would bolster revenues any more than do alcohol and tobacco, nor would the revenue from such taxation offset the social and medical costs these illicit drugs would impose. The pro-drug lobby argues that legalization will save on enforcement costs. But elimination of drug enforcement would provide little funding for other uses. The government now spends 3.3 percent of its budget on the criminal justice system and half of that goes to enforcement. Less than 12 percent of law enforcement money goes to drug law enforcement.[49] Former Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare Joseph Califano cautions that in a post-legalization world, "Madison Avenue hucksters would make it as attractive to do a few lines [of cocaine] as to down a few beers."[50] This would line the pockets of legal drug producers, but it will clearly hurt the American taxpayer and American families.

[StanSwitek]

Myth #4:

Criminalization Of Drugs Is Like Alcohol Prohibition

Conservative columnist William F. Buckley, Jr., writes that the"...New York Bar in 1986 advocated the repeal of all federal legislation dealing with drugs, leaving it to the states to write their own policies. This will remind you of the 21st Amendment: when prohibition was repealed in 1933, each state was left free to write its own liquor laws."[51]

Lindesmith Institute director Nadelmann argues that "Prohibition...financed the rise of organized crime and failed miserably as social policy. Likewise, the war on drugs has created new, well-financed, and violent criminal conspiracies and failed to achieve any of its goals."[52]

Prohibition was a solitary effort by this country while the rest of the world was essentially "wet." However, most drugs are illegal throughout much of the world. This makes enforcement much easier. History shows that prohibition curbed alcohol abuse. Alcohol use declined by 30 to 50 percent; deaths from cirrhosis of the liver fell from 29.5 per 100,000 in 1911 to 10.7 in 1929; and admissions to state mental hospitals for alcohol psychosis fell from 10.1 per 100,000 in 1919 to 4.7 in 1928.[53] Mark Moore, Harvard professor of criminal justice, wrote: "The real lesson of prohibition is that society can, indeed, make a dent in the consumption of drugs through laws."[54]

The DEA found that during prohibition, suicide rates decreased 50 percent. The incidence of alcohol-related arrests also declined 50 percent.[55] Yale history professor David F. Musto comments on the myth that prohibition is a good parallel for illicit drug legalization:"Unless drugs were legal for everyone, including children...illicit sale of drugs would continue. Legalization would create more drug-addicted babies, not to mention drug-impaired drivers."[56]

[TXCharlie]

Dammit Stan, shut up - I want to be able to buy my cocaine from those little gumball machines in the mall - Why should kids be the only ones to be able to take drugs?

[StanSwitek]

Myth #5:

Other Nations Have Successfully Legalized Drug

Mr. Nadelmann points to foreign nations when he writes, "We can learn much from Europe and Australia, where governments have turned their backs on the 'war on drugs.' They began by accepting the obvious: that it is both futile and dangerous to try to create a drug-free society."[57]

Dr. John Marks of Liverpool, England promotes Great Britain's"enlightened" drug programs. "The results are zero drug-related deaths, zero HIV infection among injecting drug takers, a... reduction of... 96 percent [in] acquisitive crime. And perhaps most puzzling of all, a fall in the incidence of addiction, among the public at large of... 92 percent."[58]

History provides evidence that legalization of drugs in foreign nations has not been successful. For example, opium was legalized in China earlier this century. That decision resulted in 90 million addicts and it took a half-century to repair the damage.[59]

Egypt allowed unrestricted trade of cocaine and heroin in the 1920s. An epidemic of addiction resulted. Even in Iran and Thailand, countries where drugs are readily available, the prevalence of addiction continues to soar.[60]

Modern-day Netherlands is often cited as a country which has successfully legalized drugs. Marijuana is sold over the counter and police seldom arrest cocaine and heroin users. But official tolerance has led to significant increases in addiction. Amsterdam's officials blame the significant rise in crime on the liberal drug policy. The city's 7,000 addicts are blamed for 80 percent of all property crime and Amsterdam's rate of burglary is now twice that of Newark, New Jersey.[61] Drug problems have forced the city to increase the size of the police force and the city fathers are now rethinking the drug policy.[62]

Dr. K. F. Gunning, president of the Dutch National Committee on Drug Prevention, cites some revealing statistics about drug abuse and crime. Cannabis use among students increased 250 percent from 1984 to 1992. During the same period, shootings rose 40 percent, car thefts increased 62 percent, and hold-ups rose 69 percent.[63]

Sweden legalized doctor prescriptions of amphetamines in 1965. During the first year of legalization, the number of intravenous"speed" addicts rose 88.5 percent. A study of men arrested during the legalization period showed a high correlation between intravenous use and a variety of crimes.[64]

Dr. Nils Bejorot, director of the Swedish Carnegie Institute and professor of social medicine at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, believes the solution to the growing drug problem is consistent social and legal harassment of both users and dealers.[65]

Great Britain experimented with controlled distribution of heroin between 1959 and 1968. According to the British Medical Journal, the number of heroin addicts doubled every sixteen months and the increase in addicts was accompanied by an increase in criminal activity as well.[66] And British authorities found that heroin addicts have a very good chance of dying prematurely. On the crime front, Scotland Yard had to increase its narcotics squad 100 percent to combat the crime caused by the "legal" addicts.[67]

The Swiss opened a "legalized drug" area in Zurich seven years ago and local addicts were given drugs, clean needles, and emergency medical care. Unfortunately, the liberal policy backfired and the number of addicts surged to 3,500; violence surged, too. "Needle Park," as it came to be known, was a place of open warfare among rival gangs, and even police faced gunfire. Their cars were attacked and overturned. In February 1995, officials ended the experiment, conceding that it had evolved into a grotesque spectacle.[68]

In April 1994, the mayors of 21 major European cities formed a group called "European Cities Against Drugs," an acknowledgement that legalization had failed.[69]

There are some countries, especially in the Middle East, which extract a high price for drug trafficking. These countries enjoy relative freedom from the plague of drug abuse and crime associated with illicit sales. This is never mentioned by Legalization proponents.

[StanSwitek]

Myth #6:

Legalization Would Lead To Health Benefits

Nadelmann states, "We should immediately decriminalize the sale and possession of small amounts of marijuana and make it easily available by prescription to those suffering from cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis and other diseases."[70] He tells Rolling Stone readers, "DEA's own administrative law judge Francis Young declared in 1988, marijuana is possibly One of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man."[71]

Arnold S. Trebach, former president of the Drug Policy Foundation, calls for the medical use of certain illegal drugs. He claims there is "no scientific or ethical reason why government denies heroin and marijuana to people suffering from cancer, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, and other diseases."[72]

In January 1994 the Clinton Administration decided to review the federal ban against the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Allen St. Pierre, deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), commented on the review decision: "It's encouraging to see that the public health service is going to get information about the efficacy of marijuana as a therapeutic agent.... If marijuana can never be made available to people suffering pain or going blind, it's never going to be legalized more generally."[73]

Legalization advocates cite cases like that of James Burton, who has glaucoma. Drug agents seized his home for growing marijuana, and he now lives in the Netherlands where "I can buy or grow marijuana here legally, and if I don't have the marijuana, I'll go blind."[74]

Burton has a rare form of low-tension glaucoma. At Burton's trial, ophthalmologist Dr. John Merritt testified that Burton needed marijuana to keep him from going blind.[75] Others claim that marijuana can be used to treat the side-effects of chemotherapy such as nausea and vomiting and the "wasting"phenomenon associated with AIDS. There is substantial and contradictory evidence indicating that illicit drugs should not be legalized for medical purposes. Most advocates for medical use of illicit drugs only address marijuana. Consider the evidence: Philip Lee, Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services, announced in July 1994, "The scientific evidence doesn't support using marijuana to treat glaucoma or nausea caused by AIDS or cancer treatment." Harvard medical school professor Lester Grinspoon has challenged Lee's decision. Grinspoon said there is only anecdotal evidence that marijuana smoking is beneficial because "the government has prevented the scientific studies for years."[76]

The DEA reports that marijuana is not accepted as medicine by a single American health association.[77]

Dr. David Ettinger, professor of oncology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, states, "There is no indication that marijuana is effective in treating nausea and vomiting resulting from radiation treatment or other causes."[78]

A research review published in the Annals of Pharmacotherapy found no scientific studies that confirmed the benefit of the use of crude marijuana on HIV-wasting syndrome. The use of marijuana might actually be counter-productive because it poses a needles and serious endangerment to the already compromised immune systems of AIDS patients.[79]

Two studies in a 1991 book entitled Drugs of Abuse: Immunity and Immunodeficiency found that the active ingredient in marijuana, THC, suppresses or interferes with the function of white blood cells, which fight bacterial infection.[80] Any reduction in the fighting power of white blood cells could accelerate an HIV-positive patient's transition to AIDS. Additionally, marijuana increases the health risk to AIDS patients because the smoke causes pulmonary problems. Glaucoma studies found that THC can decrease intraocular pressure. However, in order to ingest sufficient THC, the patient would have to be stoned all day. Alcohol also decreases intraocular pressure. According to Dr. Keith Green, who has served on the boards of eight eye journals, "Marijuana... has little potential future as a glaucoma medication."[81]

[BigDawg]

Holy shit Im a Nazi?????? I must not be a very good one, I havent killed anyone. Damn good thing Im going to New England in a few weeks. Ill have to make a point to mosey over to NH where most of these Pot head, brain dead, idiots are.

[StanSwitek]

CONCLUSION

There is no "civil right" to do what is wrong or harmful to yourself, your family, or your society. The facts show that legalization is a mistake for America because: Illegal drugs are more addictive and dangerous than the legal drugs alcohol and tobacco, which is verified by thousands of scientific studies. Legalization would result in more crime such as driving while intoxicated; child abuse, including child pornography; random violent crime; and a prosperous black market. Legalization has no economic justification. Taxing illicit drugs would offset only a small fraction of the social costs. Banning illicit drugs is not like alcohol "Prohibition." Drug laws reduce abuse and the medical costs associated with abuse. Legalization would do the opposite. Other nations have learned that liberalizing drug policies only leads to more addicts and unacceptable social consequences. Illicit drugs offer no offsetting health benefits. Rather, marijuana damages most major body systems and provides minimal help for glaucoma victims and only when they are constantly stoned. Cocaine is far more addictive than alcohol, and marijuana is at least 10 times more potent today than a generation ago.

[Coloradocop]

these guys need to join in the discussion in the chatroom

[StanSwitek]

You morons, no one is going to round up the Jews...

[TXCharlie]

Yeah - Let's take some offense to liberals in Washington, DC, New Orleans, and NYC confiscating guns!!!

[Smitty507]

Holy shit Im a Nazi?????? I must not be a very good one, I havent killed anyone. Damn good thing Im going to New England in a few weeks. Ill have to make a point to mosey over to NH where most of these Pot head, brain dead, idiots are.

Ease up on the ad hominem attacks

[StanSwitek]

No officer has to carry out an unlawful order. That is in almost every department manual.

[Vendetta]

Nazi Germany argument again, typical garbage.

But the SS did have some kick ass uniforms

[Signal_W]

OK Ian I unbanned your account. I am gonna PM you woth my phone number cal me so I can get on air

[Smitty507]

You morons, no one is going to round up the Jews...

thats not the point the point is that certain law enforcement officials would blindly follow orders and not accept responsibility for their actions.

[lynnz05]

So apparently saying shit on the radio is a super big deal...they never told me the rules when i called in...

[Terminator]

Now they are talking about me, and putting words in my mouth, about felons and voting...

[StanSwitek]

You cannot be disciplinned for refusing an unlawful order

[TXCharlie]

I think every politician and public official in New York City, New Orleans, Washington DC, and anywhere else involved in disobeying the 2nd Admendment should be jailed for violating their oath to the Constitution.

[Smitty507]

What if the law were that "Jews are illegal," therefore the order to round them up and place them into concentration camps would be lawful, correct?