Tom Tancredo: It's time to legalize drugs?!

[torchbearer]

I've done all of the above drugs more than once.
The only one I haven't been able to kick(on my own) is alcohol.
Anyone says crack is more addictive than cigarettes is lying.
Heroin is less addictive than Oxycontin or Morphine.
In fact, they used heroin to get people off of morphine.
In the end, it should be everyone's right to do it.
The only argument that can be made is- at what age can an informed decision be made.
16? 18? 21? That is the only valid argument.
With rights comes the responsibility of dealing with the consequences. That is the only valid argument.

 

[torchbearer]

To add to my above post-
Not only was I able to simply walk away from everything but alcohol.
I have a college degree and my own computer business.
And all my friends who were there for those wild rides with me are also successful, most of them attorneys, one of them a doctor, a couple of social workers.
Each one of them successful in their field, but each have to live a lie- because if people knew, they'd reject them.
Hypocrisy everywhere.

 

[Dr.3D]

Yeah, they kept telling me when I was in school, "drugs are terrible and they ruin peoples lives".
I have to agree with them there! Every drug user I have known who was caught with the drugs and went to prison, pretty much had his life ruined.

Humm... perhaps it isn't the drugs ruining peoples lives, but instead it's them being illegal that is ruining peoples lives. Just a thought on that.

Many of the people who have been put in prison, were hard working people who brought home the bacon to their families and then after they were caught with the drugs, ended up being a burden on the system and using tax dollars to keep them in prison.

Maybe it is those who own the prison system who are making out from the so called 'war on drugs'.

 

[andrewh817]

Does everyone believe that the drug cartels are gonna just sit back and take it on the chin if our inept, corrupt gov't decides to legalize drugs and take over regulating them? Do you really believe they are going to just fall in line, open legit businesses and pay their taxes on the sales of their dope? This I gotta see.

It ain't like the good ole prohibition days folks. It's much, much worse. Giving this f'kd up gov't another reason to expand is NOT the answer. Neither will be the growing rate of addiction if this country legalizes dope.

We'd be better off stopping the cartels source of income now rather than later.........be realistic, no amount of law enforcement is ever going to stop the drug trade.

 

[speciallyblend]

We'd be better off stopping the cartels source of income now rather than later.........be realistic, no amount of law enforcement is ever going to stop the drug trade.

the best way to put the drug cartels out of business. Is to regulate the drugs just like alcohol, end of story!!!

mexican bud sucks anyway

 

[idirtify]

Deborah K,

Although the source to which you referred (“Substance Abuse: The Nation’s Number One Health Problem”, Brandeis University http://www.rwjf.org/files/publications/other/SubstanceAbuseChartbook.pdf ) is not accessible, I am going to assume you have misrepresented the stats. You said “aside from the crime and violence…untreated addiction costs America $400 billion per year”, yet all reviews of the study I’ve seen indicate no such distinction. IOW the figure likely INCLUDES crime and violence and your point is mostly circular - and prohibition is to blame for incurring a large percentage of that cost. If you disagree, please provide a workable link to your source AND quote where it makes said distinction. Until you do that, I will also assume that your other sources also made no such distinction.

Now … even if you are able to do that, you STILL have no argument against the complete legalization of all drugs. Since you base your position on “costs to society”, it’s clearly fallacious. All kinds of things incur “costs to society”, but most are not even considered as candidates for prohibiting. Sports come to mind. What is the cost of legalized sports? I don’t know the figure but I do know that it would never justify prohibition even if prohibition were to cost less. The main reason should be excruciatingly obvious to any libertarian; that since that the behavior risks direct harm to no one but the participant, it violates no one’s rights and should not be controlled. As MRoCkEd said, “in a free country, adults should have the right to harm themselves”.

But nevertheless, you seem to disagree with this definition of individual liberty. You said: “addiction … hurts not only the addict, but the people who employ the addict, and the people who love the addict.” You thereby attempt to take an individual behavior that directly harms no other and transform it into a non-consensual rights violation (an act of aggression). I’m sorry, but since there are millions of completely legal things that also present an indirect risk to employers and loved ones, your attempt fails. Unless you are arguing that virtually no thing or behavior in this world should be completely legalized (since virtually EVERYTHING falls into your possibility-category of indirectly affecting employers and loved ones), your reasoning is not consistent (or valid).

You wrote:
“I also know that whether or not hard drugs become legal, addicts will always commit crimes to get their drug of choice, if they don't have the money to buy it. That is NOT going to change just because their drug becomes legal.”
I’m sorry if I’m being too direct with you. I thought I was dealing with someone who had given it some thought, but your quote suggests a lack of education on one of the most fundamental elements of prohibition: black-markets economics

You wrote:
“How do you propose to deal with it? Assuming I'm right, and addiction would increase exponentially.”
You deal with the actual non-consensual rights violations – not the consensual things you think might influence another to commit them. You are not required to deal with anything more; but if you do, YOU become the violator and the one who needs dealing with. That’s because prohibition violates rights, and drug addiction does not. Legalization does not claim to solve the problems related to drugs; only the problems created by prohibition; because prohibition not only fails to solve them, it makes them far far worse.

 

[Dreamofunity]

My only hope is he is sincere and not trying to jump on the quasi-libertarian bandwagon going on at the moment.

Sadly, even if his sincerity comes from some under lining hatred of brown people I'll take it if it helps decrease the problems of the drug war.

 

[james1906]

Tancredo is merely echoing Pat Buchanan's thoughts

http://www.creators.com/opinion/pat-buchanan/afghanistan-south.html

 

[Deborah K]

Deborah K,

Although the source to which you referred (“Substance Abuse: The Nation’s Number One Health Problem”, Brandeis University http://www.rwjf.org/files/publications/other/SubstanceAbuseChartbook.pdf ) is not accessible, I am going to assume you have misrepresented the stats. You said “aside from the crime and violence…untreated addiction costs America $400 billion per year”, yet all reviews of the study I’ve seen indicate no such distinction. IOW the figure likely INCLUDES crime and violence and your point is mostly circular - and prohibition is to blame for incurring a large percentage of that cost. If you disagree, please provide a workable link to your source AND quote where it makes said distinction. Until you do that, I will also assume that your other sources also made no such distinction.

Now … even if you are able to do that, you STILL have no argument against the complete legalization of all drugs. Since you base your position on “costs to society”, it’s clearly fallacious. All kinds of things incur “costs to society”, but most are not even considered as candidates for prohibiting. Sports come to mind. What is the cost of legalized sports? I don’t know the figure but I do know that it would never justify prohibition even if prohibition were to cost less. The main reason should be excruciatingly obvious to any libertarian; that since that the behavior risks direct harm to no one but the participant, it violates no one’s rights and should not be controlled. As MRoCkEd said, “in a free country, adults should have the right to harm themselves”.

But nevertheless, you seem to disagree with this definition of individual liberty. You said: “addiction … hurts not only the addict, but the people who employ the addict, and the people who love the addict.” You thereby attempt to take an individual behavior that directly harms no other and transform it into a non-consensual rights violation (an act of aggression). I’m sorry, but since there are millions of completely legal things that also present an indirect risk to employers and loved ones, your attempt fails. Unless you are arguing that virtually no thing or behavior in this world should be completely legalized (since virtually EVERYTHING falls into your possibility-category of indirectly affecting employers and loved ones), your reasoning is not consistent (or valid).

You wrote:
“I also know that whether or not hard drugs become legal, addicts will always commit crimes to get their drug of choice, if they don't have the money to buy it. That is NOT going to change just because their drug becomes legal.”
I’m sorry if I’m being too direct with you. I thought I was dealing with someone who had given it some thought, but your quote suggests a lack of education on one of the most fundamental elements of prohibition: black-markets economics

You wrote:
“How do you propose to deal with it? Assuming I'm right, and addiction would increase exponentially.”
You deal with the actual non-consensual rights violations – not the consensual things you think might influence another to commit them. You are not required to deal with anything more; but if you do, YOU become the violator and the one who needs dealing with. That’s because prohibition violates rights, and drug addiction does not. Legalization does not claim to solve the problems related to drugs; only the problems created by prohibition; because prohibition not only fails to solve them, it makes them far far worse.

You're new here, so I'll cut you some slack on the "misrepresentation" accusation. Btw, the link that you claim doesn't work, works.

Obviously, since you think my only objection to legalizing drugs is the societal impact, you haven't read my entire argument against legalization.

1. Yes, I am deeply worried about the rise in addiction. I've already posted the studies etc. for that.

2. As I have stated repeatedly, I am against giving this inept, corrupt gov't another reason to expand. You claim you don't want gov't control yet if they get their hands on this market that's exactly what they are going to do. I highly doubt this will fall under the ATF. My guess is that it will fall under the jurisdiction of the FDA. And when pharma gets a hold of it, everyone wanting gov't control and regulation now will be wishing for the good ole days when it could be bought and sold underground.

Do you know what codex alimentarius is? Codex was started in the 1960s under the auspices of the U.N. and the WHO. It started out to “…protect the health of consumers and ensure fair practices in the international food trade." The Codex Alimentarius is recognized by the World Trade Organization as an international reference point for the resolution of disputes concerning food safety and consumer protection. But like all things that start out helping people originally, it was co-opted by people whose sole purpose is to cause chaos, gain personal power, create a stratified society, control food production and just make an everyday person’s life a living hell because they can.

How does this fit in with the legalization of drugs?

According to John Hammell, a legislative advocate and the founder of International Advocates for Health Freedom (IAHF), here is what we have to look forward to:

“If Codex Alimentarius has its way, then herbs, vitamins, minerals, homeopathic remedies, amino acids and other natural remedies you have taken for granted most of your life will be gone. The name of the game for Codex is to shift all remedies into the prescription category so they can be controlled exclusively by the medical monopoly and its bosses, the major pharmaceutical firms.” http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?page_id=157

Just HOW do you think heroine, cocaine, meth, weed, etc. are going to be dispensed? You think the gov't is going to let you just buy it over the counter when they're already implementing plans to take your vitamin supplements away, or switch them into prescription category? Codex Alimentarius is meant to go into full global effect by 2010.

Honestly, an underground economy is sounding better and better to me, based on the impending global governance we're about to fall victim to.

Be careful what you wish for.

 

[nickcoons]

1. Yes, I am deeply worried about the rise in addiction. I've already posted the studies etc. for that.

Alcohol addiction rose during prohibition. The fact that it was illegal didn't curb its use. If anything, the opposite is true:

Legalize Methamphetamine!

I have heard the saying that those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. I suspect some criminal defense lawyer in the 1920’s incurred wrath from the establishment for writing an article advocating the legalization of alcohol. I would bet the nice attorney was attacked by small thinkers who repeatedly pointed out the harmful attributes of alcohol.[21]

In case you are unaware, the government decided in 1919 to amend the United States Constitution to grant power to Congress to prohibit the manufacture, sale and distribution of alcohol.[22] Their drug war played out just like ours; a complete and total disaster. However, it was the best thing that ever happened to organized crime. The manufacture, sale and distribution of alcohol were conducted entirely in illegal and violent markets. Criminals prospered and criminal organizations grew. A major crime wave began in the 1920s and continually increased until the end of prohibition in 1933 when it immediately started to reverse.[23] Prohibition did nothing to curb the desire of people to use alcohol. Indeed, both the per capita consumption of alcohol as well as the rate of alcoholism increased during prohibition.[24] [25] Illegal clandestine stills manufactured alcohol of inconsistent and unpredictable quality. Law enforcement was overwhelmed chasing after people involved in alcohol-related crimes. Does any of this seem familiar to you?

In 1933, they figured it out and repealed the 18th Amendment.[26] To be fair, we still have people with substantial alcohol abuse problems. It is a real problem. We have no shortage of alcohol-related crimes. However, violent criminal street gangs do not make money from the sale of alcohol. Although few people “home brew” alcoholic beverages, people do not brew alcoholic beverages in clandestine labs. Nobody is offered large cash rewards to transport alcohol. The Budweiser guy doesn’t fight the Miller guy if they both happen to arrive at the store at the same time to deliver their drug. Alcohol companies settle disputes peacefully in court. Alcoholics can seek help without the fear of criminal prosecutions. More resources can be devoted to apprehending real thugs because our justice system is not overloaded with cases of people manufacturing, distributing or selling alcohol. Isn’t this obviously a better deal?

As I have stated repeatedly, I am against giving this inept, corrupt gov't another reason to expand. You claim you don't want gov't control yet if they get their hands on this market that's exactly what they are going to do.

I don't think anyone here agrees that currently prohibited drugs should be legalized only to fall under full control of the FDA, so it looks like you're making a strawman argument. idirtify made an excellent argument for full legalization. The fact that the government will very unlikely take that course does not detract from his points.

 

[Deborah K]

Alcohol addiction rose during prohibition. The fact that it was illegal didn't curb its use. If anything, the opposite is true:





I don't think anyone here agrees that currently prohibited drugs should be legalized only to fall under full control of the FDA, so it looks like you're making a strawman argument. idirtify made an excellent argument for full legalization. The fact that the government will very unlikely take that course does not detract from his points.

And alcoholism is worse than illicit drug addiction. Probably because it is legal and more accessible so that argument doesn't hold water.

idirtify's argument is full of holes, and I remain unconvinced. No one has yet to provide any stats from other countries that conclude that drug legalization has been good for the country. I've been looking and can't find any. And I'm talking about studies from journals, etc. NOT blog articles per say. Perhaps if someone can show me how well it has worked out in countries comparable to ours - NOT full blown socialist countries with socialize medicine - then maybe I'll believe differently about how much better our society would be if all street drugs were legal.

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

I just heard the DEA, ATF, FBI, CIA, HHS, FDA, Big Pharma, oh, and The Central America Drug Lords and Drug Cartels, all those South American Drug Cartels, have hired the BEST Lobbyist K-Street has to offer to hit Capital Hill politicians... NOT TO LEGALIZE drugs in US.

This would cut into their; Justifications, Power, Control, Funding, and of course, Profits...

Does everyone believe that the drug cartels are gonna just sit back and take it on the chin if our inept, corrupt gov't decides to legalize drugs and take over regulating them? Do you really believe they are going to just fall in line, open legit businesses and pay their taxes on the sales of their dope? This I gotta see.

It ain't like the good ole prohibition days folks. It's much, much worse. Giving this f'kd up gov't another reason to expand is NOT the answer. Neither will be the growing rate of addiction if this country legalizes dope.

 

[torchbearer]

I just heard the DEA, ATF, FBI, CIA, HS, FDA, Big Pharma, oh, and The Central America Drug Lords and Drug Cartels, all those South American Drug Cartels, have hired the BEST Lobbyist K-Street has to offer to hit Capital Hill politicians... NOT TO LEGALIZE drugs in US.

This would cut their; Power, Control, Funding, and of course, Profits...

CIA lost another coke shipment last year due to a plane crash. That was sad.

 

[Deborah K]

I just heard the DEA, ATF, FBI, CIA, HS, FDA, Big Pharma, oh, and The Central America Drug Lords and Drug Cartels, all those South American Drug Cartels, have hired the BEST Lobbyist K-Street has to offer to hit Capital Hill politicians... NOT TO LEGALIZE drugs in US.

This would cut their; Power, Control, Funding, and of course, Profits...

Please convince me otherwise. Start by citing some legit sources where illicit drug legalization has worked out in comparable countries that are NOT socialist and don't have socialized medicine to deal with the addiction problems.

Then convince me of how this inept, corrupt gov't is going to be hands off when it comes to your use of heroine, cocaine, meth, acid, etc. Will they dispense it OTC? I submit that they will regulate and control the hell out of it. And since we're headed toward global governance, I wouldn't be so excited about letting the gov't control your drug of choice.

You people seriously need to look at the big picture here. You claim to want freedom from gov't control and then you demand gov't control over your drugs. Think this through to its logical conclusion. You all assume that since alchohol regulation turned out just fine (ha!) that illicit drug legalization and regulation will also turn out fine. In this day and age, and with what's coming down the pike, it doesn't make any sense that it would. This isn't the 1930's. That world is gone forever.

As I have stated however, I am for decriminalization of all drug use. And I am against the WOD as I think it has been an abject failure. It is not the answer anymore than gov't control over illicit drugs is.

 

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

I just heard the DEA, ATF, FBI, CIA, HHS, FDA, Big Pharma, oh, and The Central America Drug Lords and Drug Cartels, all those South American Drug Cartels, have hired the BEST Lobbyist K-Street has to offer to hit Capital Hill politicians... NOT TO LEGALIZE drugs in US.

This would cut into their; Justifications, Power, Control, Funding, and of course, Profits...

You forgot the Bank Cartel, where all the illegal money is laundered. They don't wanna lose that massive source of cash that flows through their hands.

 

[nickcoons]

And alcoholism is worse than illicit drug addiction. Probably because it is legal and more accessible so that argument doesn't hold water.

Correlation does not equal causation; a logical fallacy. There are many many variables between alcohol and drugs. To pick one at random, legal status, and equate it to another statistic without providing evidence of that connection is what does not hold water.

A more accurate comparison of the effects of prohibition are to compare alcohol with prohibition to alcohol without prohibition. Factually, alcohol use and abuse increased during prohibition. It stands to reason, while not certainty (but more likely than your correlation) that prohibition increases use and abuse. There's a very good chance that we would see less use and abuse without prohibition, given that alcohol's legal status revealed those same traits.

idirtify's argument is full of holes, and I remain unconvinced. No one has yet to provide any stats from other countries that conclude that drug legalization has been good for the country. I've been looking and can't find any.

Did you not read the very lengthy article that I linked you to in my last post, titled "Legalize Methamphetamine!", which includes citations to outside references for its claims?

Perhaps if someone can show me how well it has worked out in countries comparable to ours - NOT full blown socialist countries with socialize medicine

There are no examples. The only one I know is in Amsterdam, where drug abuse there is lower than it is here in the face of legalization of some drugs, but I wouldn't say that it compares to the US.

What you're asking for is a catch-22. You want someone to provide you a demonstration that it works without allowing them the means to provide the demonstration.

then maybe I'll believe differently about how much better our society would be if all street drugs were legal.

"Better our society" is not the proper role of government. Government's role is to defend us from the aggression of others. When government becomes the aggressor, but prohibiting drugs, you would be hard-pressed to argue that they are bettering our society anyway. Allowing an environment where people can engage in peaceful, non-aggressive, voluntary interaction is the only proper role of government, and the only thing that can improve a society.

 

[Lord Xar]

It would destroy the mexican cartels, and tom can't stand mexicans.

That reply is unbecoming of you.

 

[torchbearer]

That reply is unbecoming of you.

He doesn't have a problem with Canadians coming here. So shove it.
He is a racist.
Immigrants didn't come here with permission. They came here, and then asked for permission.
When I moved to Jamaica for 6 months, I didn't ask for permission. I moved. Stayed. Worked then left.
The only reason people don't want Mexicans here is because they are racist.
Racism is unbecoming of you. You've been called out. Yes. I know- we shouldn't be so direct.

 

[idirtify]

You're new here, so I'll cut you some slack on the "misrepresentation" accusation. Btw, the link that you claim doesn't work, works.

snip

Deb K,

The link still does not work for me. It displays the error message “the file is damaged and could not be repaired.” While this may be an issue with my PC, it’s not actually relevant. While you say you’ll “cut me slack” on my misrepresentation accusation, you provided nothing that refutes it. What’s up with that? Are you denying my accusation or not? If you correctly represented the stats, why did you not back them up with a quote from the source? You certainly provided plenty of other quotes. What’s the problem with quoting the relevant premise behind them; the part that represents the stats as you did? Not only did you fail to do that originally, you failed to do it AFTER I confronted you. So here is your third chance. Besides, I can’t see your source article and am only guessing – you have the advantage. Of course you really don’t have to do it at all if you aren’t worried about your credibility.

Regarding your other comments about other government agencies potentially controlling drugs, nickcoons spoke for me very well.

 

[Theocrat]

Wrong Tactic

Tom Tancredo Says: Legalize Drugs!
Former Rep. Tom Tancredo is no libertarian. After all, he made his name attacking immigration. But the former member is now speaking politically painful truths.

Yesterday he spoke to a local Republican group in Denver:


It’s time for politicians like Tancredo to start telling the truth while they are still in office.

We shouldn't legalize drugs. We should decriminalize them, Rep. Tancredo.