Comments (9)

• David C

  Often people just assume the government wants to stop drug use. They Don't. What they want is to expand their power and reach into peoples personal lives. By that measure they are winning the war on drugs. Why would they stop a war that they are winning?
  

  Published: September 16, 2006 12:10 AM

• GunderDog

  I've got to say, that in general I have always held the view that government prohibitions on vice are bad, bad, bad, as the alcohol prohabition experiment has shown. But, we now have a case where government prohabition may appear to have been good, and that is on gambling. I live among a dozen Indian casinos that were not here 10 or 15 years ago. And it certainly appears to me that a lot more people are gambling a lot more than they used to, losing a lot more money than they used to, and in many cases facing some serious financial problems that I doubt they would have experienced if they could only gamble at the church bingo event or a poker party at a house.

  It's tough, because I think people should take responsibility and have free choice. But it's not that simple, and unless somebody can show me an objective study that says different, it appears that many/most compulsive gamblers (especially the idiots who can not control themselves) would have been better off without easy access to all this gambling.

  Also, it is clear that the government has become more violent and powerful in a bad way because of the drug war - but it also gets a lot of new cashflow because of the legalization of gambling.

  What am I missing?

  Published: September 17, 2006 9:55 PM

• Roger M

  Gunderdog, I don't think you're missing anything. Prohibition didn't prove that making something illegal increases its use. A lot of myths exist about prohibition that people believe because they want to, not because they're true. When something is illegal, law abiding people won't do it; those with criminal bents will always do what they want whether legal or not, but they're a small portion of society. Also, we tend to equate legality with morality, which stops some people from those acts.

  Legalizing something that has been illegal will definately increase its use. You can compare it to prices. By making something illegal, you essentially increase the costs of that item. Legalizing gambling made it not only less expensive to engage in, but morally acceptable, too.

  The majority of people can gamble, drink and maybe even take drugs responsibly. It's those people on the edge without self control who damage themselves, their families and others with their misuse of alcohol and gambling. Making gambling illegal helps those on the edge, but punishes the majority who can gamble responsibly. So the answer is not total legalization or illegalization, but a mechanism to keep those on the edge away from gambling, alcohol and drugs.

  My suggestion has always been licensing. But I know that won't work because I see how poorly states enforce gun licenses and drivers licenses. They don't. So the lesser of the evils is to keep things like alcohol, gambling and drugs illegal.

  Published: September 18, 2006 8:49 AM

• banker

  If you accept the fact that prohibition laws are good, then I am terribly sorry. By definition law abiding people won't break the law, but I would call them a small minority. It's rare that I don't come across someone my age who has not tried at least cannibas.

  You seem to show a lot of compassion for those "on the edge". It would be helpful if you would invest your entire wealth and time on pursuing the problems you see, rather than pursuing the time and assets of other people who choose to pursue other charitable (or none) causes. Using the law (government) as a charity to help people from themselves is not a nice thing to do because the government has the exclusive right to use force.

  Published: September 18, 2006 9:00 AM

• Dean Becker

  Roger M stated: "So the lesser of the evils is to keep things like alcohol, gambling and drugs illegal."

  ... forking over 400 to 500 billion dollars per year to terrorists, cartels and violent gangs is lesser? Arresting 1.8 million Americans each year for having plant products in their pockets is lesser? Allowing the DEA to seize 1.8 billion as foreiture from drug users each year is lesser? Assuring more overdose deaths and increased number of Hep C and AIDS is lesser? Allowing our children easier access to drugs is lesser? Increased corruption of cops, DA's, judges and politicians from black market billions is lesser?

  Published: September 18, 2006 2:52 PM

• Dean Becker

  Mr. Thornton,

  I would like to invite you to be a guest on my radio show.

  Please send an email to dean@drugtruth.net

  Thank you,

  Dean Becker

  Published: September 18, 2006 3:16 PM

• Roger M

  "... forking over 400 to 500 billion dollars per year to terrorists, cartels and violent gangs is lesser?"

  Let's assume your figures are not exaggerated. I don't have any figures to compare, but I would guess that the costs to society from alcohol abusers alone is far worse than those figures when you consider the rapes, incest, violence, murders, bankruptcies, deaths in car accidents, healthcare costs, legal fees, police costs, etc. And you want to add the costs of drug abuse?

  Besides, the answer to the problems you raise is not to legalize drugs and add to the costs, but to change strategies and attempt to reduce demand. This country has never tried to reduce demand. The entire focus has always been on supply while we wink the user.

  Published: September 18, 2006 4:15 PM

• TGGP

  What would you propose to "reduce demand"? That sounds a lot more difficult then reducing supply, which we've down a pathetic job of.

  Published: September 19, 2006 7:51 AM

• Roger M

  "What would you propose to "reduce demand"?"

  Someone mentioned on another thread that The Netherlands has been successful at attacking demand. I'm not familiar with their policies, but that would be a good place to start.

  The first place I would start would be to enforce existing laws on drunk driving and driving without a license. We should start with alcohol abuse. Then, those who commit crimes under the influence of drugs should get much stiffer penalties, especially those who commit violent crimes. Then, those whose families are on welfare because their drug abuse keeps them from holding a decent job should be forced into rehab. Also, we shouldn't allow drug abusers to file for bankruptcy if drug abuse is the cause of their inability to pay their bills.

  Published: September 19, 2006 8:41 AM