HaCKeRz Kr0nlcKLeZ 1/HaCKeRz Kr0nlcKLeZ.iso/drugs/keep.drugs.illegal

Text File | 1996-05-06 | 9.7 KB | 163 lines

Newsgroups: alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs
From: [e-mail] (P. C. Kilinskas)
Subject: "Keep Drugs Illegal"
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1993 19:37:41 GMT

This is a anti-legalization article written by Mr. Dennis Vacco, former U.S.
Attorney under the Bush administration, which appeared in the _Alternative
Press_, printed in Buffalo, NY.  I'd like to perhaps write a good response,
ripping his falsehoods and fear-hyping techniques to shreds, and send it
to him, or to the paper.  I'm sure we've all seen this kind of bullshit before,
but would someone mind posting some good counter-arguments to this?

begin article
--------------------
Keep Drugs Illegal
by Dennis Vacco, former US Attorney

The concept of legalizing illegal drugs as a means to solve our nation's drug
problem has been offered for years.  Usually, this argument is offered by the
liberal side of the political scale.  Recently, however, it has gained
momentum across the spectrum, as advocates such as Baltimore Mayor Kurt
Schmoke, Federal Judge Robert Sweet, economist Milton Friedman, conservative
columnist William Buckley, and even former Secretary of State George Schultz
have added their voices in support.  People who are as diverse in their
political views as Schmoke and Schultz are undoubtedly well intended, yet
they are wrong as to what they suggest will be the benefits of drug
legalization.
Legalization is a hollow and simplistic solution to a very complex problem,
one that has grown worse over the course of many years.  There is no simple
solution.  The promises of what legalization would accomplish are illusory
and false.  Can the legalists prove any of what they claim?  There is no
proof to substantiate any of the claims.
All we know for certain is that these illegal drugs destroy human health,
obliterate the mind, open the body up to all sorts of disease, create mental
and physical illness that is a drain on the individual and all society to
support (for we are a humane society), and creates in their users abhorrent
social behavior that is often dangerous to innocent members of society.  We
know drugs are dangerous, and drug abuse is not without cost to society at
large.  Will legalization be a panacea?
On what grounds to the advocates base their assumptions?  Is it, as I suspect
it must be for some, just the promise of a "quick fix" that is attracting the
converts to the legalization doctrine?
We live in a society that is increasingly attracted to quick fixes and
60-second sound bites, and simplistic solutions; yet despite the ever growing
chorus, legalization is likely to be no more a solution to our drug problem
than the naive attempt of the Reagan administration's urging the populace to
"Just Say No."  But at least that simplistic policy was directed at lessening
drug use, whereas this latest naive approach (legalization) would do nothing
to stem the tide of drug abuse.  In fact, one suspects just the opposite
would occur.
The concept of legalization is misleading and false.  In a sense there is a
good analogy to be had for the legalist to ponder, to compare, as a frame of
reference, with the war in Vietnam.  In those days, as you may recall, Nixon
talked about "peace with honor."  Ultimately, what "honor" meant was that
Americans were to retreat hastily from the rooftop of the U.S. embassy while
South Vietnam was totally consumed by the North Vietnamese.
If the legalists get their way, it will be tantamount to an outright
admission that the only way to confront the problem of drug abuse is to
ignore it, to pretend the problem has gone away and retreat with "honor."
Ignored at the same time will be the intangible costs of that retreat in
human terms -- the catastrophies of lives shattered, destroyed, and lost, not
by the law against drugs, but by the drugs themselves, such as the 350,000
plus babies born each year suffering from the effects of narcotics abuse.
Legalizationists offer no solution, no cure to these narcotic newborns, other
than to promise better treatment (which they'll surely need as the numbers of
drug users increase).  But what treatment will suffice for them that will
grow up    and live with an infirmity that will debilitate them for the rest of
their lives?  Now the advocates of legalization point out, and this is their
perceived major weapon, their principle argument, that Prohibition failed.
Yet did it?  Did it entirely fail?  Ignored is the fact that alcohol
consumption actually decreased during the Prohibition era.  As a public
health measure Prohibition achieved laudable results.
We have not adopted, nor are we likely to adopt, a laissez-faire attitude
toward public health.  For example our society makes a big deal out of the
fact that apples were being sprayed with alar or that second-hand cigarette
smoke causes health problems so that smokers are being confined to certain
areas and prohibited from smoking altogether in some public places.  At the
same time people are advocating the legalization of mind and health
destroying drugs.  From a public health standpoint legalization would be a
disaster.  It is a bankrupt notion.
It is, as a policy, one that appears to be willing to allow whole segments of
our society to destroy their lives in a quick fix effort to solve society's
drug problem.  Behind this thinking is almost the implied message -- if the
people in the inner city want to destroy their lives why should we as a
society stop them?
There are many reasons.  First as a society we would be sending a horrible
message to our children, our most precious natural and vital resource.  They
are bombarded daily with so many negative and subliminal message piped in to
their young and impressionable minds about alcohol, sex, violence, money, and
the easy path thereto.  Will the young be able to understand the terrible
destructive nature of drug abuse if drugs are legal?  Educational efforts to
reduce consumption, to abstain completely would be undermined by this
conflict of messages -- "it's wrong to use drugs -- but it's legal."
Legalization will not work.
Furthermore society's ability to insulate our youth from drugs would be no
greater than what we do regarding alcohol.  It is illegal for minors to
purchase alcohol, even cigarettes, yet the number of teenagers consuming both
continues to climb.  If legalization were to become a reality, our youth
would have an even greater access to drugs than they already have now, and
that access could not be denied.
Another area of debate that legalization advocates concentrate much of their
rhetorical skills on is economics.  The theory is that government would save
nearly $10 billion a year in law enforcement and judicial resources.  They
suggest that this money could be spent on rehabilitation and education.  Yet
would there be a savings?  With more drug accessibility -- to a much wider
market -- wouldn't any savings from reduced law enforcement be consumed by
increased costs of health, education, and social rehabilitation that more
drug use would inevitably create?
Less intelligent is the argument that legalization would reap billions in tax
revenues because drug transactions would be taxable.  In light of the
demographics of the consuming market (for the most part people who can ill
afford to spend money on drugs), one is forced to consider the question of
how they will afford to pay the higher price for drugs that taxes will
inevitable [sic] produce.  Either the black market will thrive or the
consumers will turn to crime (as so many drug addicts historically have done)
to feed their habit.  In either event the result of legalization will be
failure.  There will be no economic gain for society at large.
The other and perhaps last argument of the legalizers is that the crime rate
will decline.  Often they point to the reduction of homicides after the end
of Prohibition.  The argument is specious.  Aside from the fact that the data
are far too outdated to mean anything, they totally ignore other societal
factors which contribute to the crime reate.  More crime can be traced to the
influence of the "narcotic" state of mind than to gang turf wars.  In
addition, unless all drugs are legalized, the criminal element will merely
focus on whatever is illegal.  And even if all drugs were legal and one could
buy heroin, crack, marijuana, cocaine, and other debilitating and health
destroying drugs at local drugstores and dispensaries -- there would still be
government control and costs that would make it profitable for criminals to
circumvent.
Legalization represents yet another diminishment of societal mores and resolve.
One that would further serve to jeopardize the weak and fragile members of
our society, while others meekly and perhaps self-servingly turn their backs
on the problem.  The real answer to the problem is in character building, not
character destruction.  And we will never build character in a society that
hasn't the courage to resolve its national problems.


end article
-------------------------------------------------

I think my personal favorite inconsistency in this article is the way Vacco
uses Prohibition as an example to support his argument, then later dismisses
Prohibition facts as "far too outdated".  What a joke!   His constant use
of the buzz words "health destroying" and "debilitating", especially when
referring to marijuana, are also quite humorous.    I'm also very touched
by his concern for the "weak and fragile" members of society.  I'll be he
donates his spare time to a soup kitchen in the inner city. :)

Thanks,
Phil
____________________________________________________________________________
[e-mail] /  "Our days are like grass..." - Psalms 103:51
Your eyes are weary from staring at the CRT.  You feel sleepy.  Notice how
restful it is to watch the cursor blink.  Close your eyes.  The opinions
stated above are yours.  You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.