The goofiest argument for the drug war is that not having drug laws implies somehow that the government condones their use. If there isn’t a ‘War On Umbrella Eating’ does that mean they condone eating umbrellas? Does the fact that millions of other things for which there isn’t a ‘War on ___’ — much less laws against — imply the government is in favor them? I think not. And why is providing treatment (which works) seen as supporting drugs when supporting law enforcement handling it (which doesn’t work) is seen as being the way to go?
SF Mayor Gavin Newsom: War On Drugs Is A Failure
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom proclaimed the nation’s war on drugs a total failure and insisted the crime rate would go down if the government spent money on treatment as opposed to jailing people with drug problems.
“If you want to get serious, if you want to reduce crime by 70% in this country overnight, end this war on drugs,” he told reporters at City Hall on Thursday. “You want to get serious, seriously serious about crime and violence end this war on drugs.”
The mayor maintained local jails are overcrowded with people incarcerated for drug offenses, taking up room that could be used to hold more violent criminal offenders. He said violent criminals with lengthy felony records are being turned loose, too often.
San Francisco Sheriff Mike Hennessey, who has run the county jail for 28 years, told CBS 5 that 60 to 75 percent of the 2,000 inmates currently held are there for drug crimes or have underlying substance abuse problems.
He also agreed with Newsom.
“No, the war on drugs is not working. The war on drugs is not working because we are relying on law enforcement instead of on treatment,” Hennessey said.
Mayor Newsom
The facts are there and widely available. I’m not doing your research for you.
You can walk into any ‘coffee shop’ in Amsterdam and buy it. It is ubiquitous.
But it ubiquity does not translate into increased usage. Any adult in America can easily, cheaply, legally buy alcohol.
But does everyone drink? No. Your argument has been thoroughly blown out of the water long ago. If you think you have any new, previously unseen evidence that suggests that availability increases usage, instead of merely your emotional reactions, then trot it out. Otherwise, can it.
How’s about a l’il recap?
People who want to use, or abuse, certain psychoactive substances will do so, despite any law. They will get them, and they will take them. Therefore, legalizing those substances will cause no change in the behavior of those who want to use them. And those who don’t want to use them have much the same access to them; they choose to not use them for reasons of health, safety or morality. These concerns will not disappear with legalization. Nonusers will still abstain from use.
As I asked Greg Allen, supra, are you going to smoke crack – or ice – or snort coke, or shoot H, or drop acid, if they were legalized tomorrow?
No, you won’t. And if you’re not a egocentrc fool, you will also realize that everyone else who has no desire or inclination to do those things currently are any more likely than you to suddenly change their minds. If you are of a mind to do those things, you have already done so in the past, and either a) have quit for reasons other than legality, or b) are still doing them, despite their illegality.
And kids don’t buy gov’t propaganda about drugs. They hear “Drugs Kill!” and go to school and see their contemporaries who do drugs, who are not dead. They then conclude that “Drugs Kill” is a lie, which it is, and thereafter close their minds to any further propagandizing from the gov’t.
Look, for a perfect example, at the wonderfully effective D.A.R.E.
scamprogram. A pathetic joke.