Here’s an excerpt of a dialog I am having with someone in my local newspaper that I thought was of interest. (I cleaned up a few typos.) Creed wrote:
If we treat drug addiction as a disease, yet legalize drugs, are we not offering up the disease to even more weak-willed persons?
Yes. But protecting weak-willed persons from their own self-destructive behaviors is not a legitimate use of government. I’m addicted to those Little Debbie Swiss Rolls. I know I shouldn’t eat them. They’re little rolls of sugary goodness, but they are detrimental to my health. I don’t think anyone would seriously make the case that making them illegal is a legitimate use of government. BTW, I just ate a whole box of HEB Swiss Rolls while I was writing this reply. [Don't say it. Don't say it.] Creed wrote:
And who bears the cost of this disease? We, the law abiding, tax paying citizens do.
You are paying for it one way or another. Law enforcement, foreign relations, drug convictions and the subsequent incarcerations cost a lot more than treating people with a drug addition. Law enforcement officials mistakenly kill and injure a lot of innocent, law abiding, tax paying citizens in their pursuit of drug users. Illicit drug laws do not make it cheaper for tax payers. According to a December, 2008 report by Jeffrey A. Miron at the Department of Economics at Harvard University, entitled The Budgetary Implications of Drug Prohibition, ‘The report estimates that legalizing drugs would save roughly $44.1 billion per year in government expenditure on enforcement of prohibition.’ It goes on to summarize that: ‘drug legalization would yield tax revenue of $32.7 billion annually, assuming legal drugs are taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco.’ According to my handy dandy calculator illegal drugs cost law abiding, tax paying citizens $76.8 billion per year (about $2,435 per second). And the costs are going up, not down. People who are currently addicted to drugs have a hard time seeking treatment. In order to be treated you pretty much have to admit you are a criminal. If that was not the case, more people might come forward. Treatment clinics could use drugs which are currently prohibited to taper some addicts off their drugs. And let’s not forget that anyone who sells drugs through legal markets would be subject to product liability laws. Try suing a drug dealer in civil court today. It is almost impossible, but try suing a legal business and you have a much better chance of reaching a settlement. Think how much harder a tobacco settlement would have been if tobacco was illegal. Creed wrote:
How would legalizing drugs keep drunks off the roads?
It wouldn’t. How does keeping drugs illegal keep drunk drivers off the road? Creed wrote:
We would have stoned AND drunk drivers both to contend with.
We have that now. Criminalizing drugs doesn’t reduce the access to drugs. The demand for illicit drugs is so great that suppliers literally put their lives (and the lives of innocent and guilty people) on the line every day to get it to their customers. Creed wrote:
[Someone else] also said “our current policies send the message to our young people that alcohol and pharmaceuticals are a safer choice, not true! ” They ARE a safer choice when used legally and correctly as intended.
That’s a double standard. If illegal drugs were legal there would be a better chance that safe doses would be found. If for no other reason than that it would no longer be criminal to compare notes about drug dosages. Many legitimate drug dealers would need to get liability insurance which would increase the likelihood of safe dosages being discovered. Illicit drugs would also be safer if used “correctly as intended.” Creed wrote:
Charles, I agree we all should be free to pursue happiness, but I don’t believe ‘happiness’ can be found in using drugs any more than one can find happiness in being a drunk. Even Colleen’s writings attest to the misery drugs can bring upon us.
I am not asking you to believe that happiness can be found by taking doses of mind altering drugs. I am asking you to respect the opinions of those people who think the pursuit of happiness does included experimenting with deadly chemicals. Don’t use government to promote your private beliefs at the expense of other people’s private beliefs. That’s the basis for the freedom of religion. I certainly do not agree with many definitions of an immortal soul, but I cannot ethical force my religious beliefs on others through the force of government. It is not legitimate use of government. Creed wrote:
I know of 6 people in my lifetime that have used drugs throughout their lives and have (mostly) evaded the law. None have been responsible for themselves or anyone else and 2 have, for the most part, ruined the lives & prosperity of their families. These people have been left with no happiness at all.
Are they living in the U.S. where these drugs are illegal? Are they happier now than they would be if those drugs were legal? How has the criminalizing of their behavior helped them out?
Digg!