04/01/2009 03:59:43 PM EST

Cenk's idea of solving the drug issue... ABSURD!

posted by bigdaddylone

I've been listening to Cenk go on and on about how he wants to solve the drug issue by legalizing it. Not only does he want to legalize some of it, he wants to legalize ALL of it! Now, I love my man Cenk and love his socio-political commentaries. I would say I agree with his point of view 80% of the time. The thing I like most about him is that he takes on a point and educates himself about it and then hammers home the point. However, I'm sad to say in this particular argument Cenk is sounding like an uninformed, uneducated, ignorant airhead. Yes, its true...he sounds like a REPUBLICAN on crack!

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook

Cenk's argument seems to be that just because the decades old war on drugs has not proved credible results we should stop and go the other way by totally legalizing all drugs. I mean, that's just so ridiculous on so many levels that its sad that I even have to prove it further.

So lets see, making drugs illegal has not done anything to stop the drug problem so the obvious solution is to legalize it and make it readily available to who ever wants it? Hmmm, by this mode of reasoning we should legalize child pornography and rape as well. After all, those are social/psychological ailments as well. We have been fighting with those issues since time immemorial with out any significant decrease. Lets quench the thirst of the child molesters by making it legal for them because the current option doesn't seem to be stopping these pedophiles. How absurd does that sound?? It is the exact same argument Cenk. All these vices have an adverse negative effect on the individual who partakes in them and others who become their victims. 

I don't get it, on one hand Cenk is flabbergasted by the NRA and legalization of guns because it is so obvious to him that more guns in the hands of more people is the most ridiculous notion. Yet, when it comes to drugs like heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, marijuana, he is perfectly clear that the only viable solution is to legalize them and let people have the choice to decide for themselves. Yes, THAT seems like the logical course of action!?

Just because the law enforcement agencies are inept and do not have the right drug policies in place does not mean that they are the wrong option. Proponents of legalizing drugs love to quote the fact that other countries like Netherlands, Switzerland and Spain (among others) have legalized drugs to some capacity and are doing just fine. Well, the facts do not support this assertion one bit.

Let me quote, "The Netherlands is the most crime-prone nation in Europe and most drug addicts live on state welfare payments and by committing crimes. [Robert E. Peterson, "Legalization: The Myth Exposed" in "Searching for Alternatives: Drug Control Policy in the United States," Hoover Institution Press, 1991]

"Because of its drug problem, Amsterdam is required to have a police force much greater than those of U.S. cities of similar population." [Ramon Bracamontes, citation above]. .

Now i can give you a list of experts who have done studies that disprove the notion that legalizing drugs is the right way to tackle the drug problem, but I won't. Instead, let me just give you one small website that popped up out of many that show studies that support my point (http://www.druglibrary.org /schaffer).

As for the old prohibition argument that crime rose when alcohol was illegal. Once, prohibition was lifted the world all of a sudden became a better place.  Alcohol is perhaps the biggest killer in the U.S. today but i don't see Cenk going crazy over that. Its because, it is an acceptable vice and folks love their alcohol and can't even fathom letting it go. I don't want to get into the debate about the individual's responsibility to drink only as much as he/she can handle etc etc. its a bogus argument. The numbers of deaths related to alcohol consumption (criminal or non criminal) every year speak for themselves. You can choose to ignore that... that's your problem. 

Cenk, man... you're hurting me. I don't want to think that you are not as smart and rational as I KNOW you are...most of the times. What the hell is going through your head on this issue??!

P.S. Ana Kasparian... please for the love of GOD, you don't have to agree with EVERY single thing that comes out of Cenk's mouth. It makes you sound and look like an airhead. Although, i enjoy your comments on the entertainment news rants but you lose me when you just seem to agree with Cenk by default on anything you don't have an intellectual grasp of. 

 

 

< Newt Gingrich: My Third Wife Wants Me to be a Good Catholic | The 10/31 Project >
 Display:
Cenk's idea of solving the drug issue... ABSURD! | 15 comments (15 topical, 0 hidden)
I agree with Cenk. (none / 1)

ALL drugs should be legal and regulated like alcohol.  Its EASIER to get marijuana and coke in most places if you are under 21 than it is to get alcohol. 

Who would really shoot up some Heroin tomorrow if it was suddenly legal?  Hardly anyone. The drugs are already readily available to anyone who wants them.

 

 

by alienufo on 04/01/2009 05:17:58 PM EST

Somebody would, though (4.00 / 2)
Who would really shoot up some Heroin tomorrow if it was suddenly legal?  Hardly anyone.

I know who would do it. Bloggers. Every June in Japan, Pepsi releases some god-awful promotional product. Last year it was called "Hawaiian Blue Pepsi" (tasted like a snowcone). The year before that is was "Ice Cucumber Pepsi" (tasted like toothpaste). I'm reasonably sure that the majority of people who bought these products were bloggers who just wanted something to write about.

by OneHitKill on 04/01/2009 09:22:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
My quick thought (none / 1)
If you're going to come out swinging like this, you HAVE to support your argument with some (credible) numbers. Preferrably numbers/stats from within the last 5 years (sorry, but a LOT has changed since 1991).

You know, like Cenk already did when comparing U.S. rates of drug to places where it's legalized, etc.

PS---How To Stop The Drug Wars: Prohibition has failed, legalisation is the least bad solution

Mar 5th 2009
From The Economist print edition

NOTE: The Economist isn't exactly known as a liberal publication or some pro-pot paper funded by pro-drug special interests.


by Tom Hanc on 04/01/2009 05:19:28 PM EST

The Economist are commies :) (none / 1)
The Economist, out of all "mainstream" "serious" magazines, would be the most rightwing one IMO

they are so die hard Gordon Gecko it isn't funny anymore :)

by callisto on 04/01/2009 05:34:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Be careful with what you quote (none / 1)
"The Netherlands is the most crime-prone nation in Europe and most drug addicts live on state welfare payments and by committing crimes. [Robert E. Peterson, "Legalization: The Myth Exposed" in "Searching for Alternatives: Drug Control Policy in the United States," Hoover Institution Press, 1991]"

1. it's from the Hoover Institute
2. it's from 1991
3. that really doesn't seem right, I'm sorry, but I would need to see some statistics on it (not usually one to defend Holland)

"Because of its drug problem, Amsterdam is required to have a police force much greater than those of U.S. cities of similar population." [Ramon Bracamontes, citation above].

it's so naïve to only put it on drugs, you also have to look at the socio-economic make-up of the city + Amsterdam is an amusement park, you can't compare that to other cities of the same size, you have to take into account all the people who come to Amsterdam aka those drunk English :)

Now, I'm not for legalizing everything, decrimilizing use yes, but if you would think about legalizing you would need to beef up education and have a cheaper, better healthcare system that covers everyone, without that it'll be a disaster

by callisto on 04/01/2009 05:29:38 PM EST

Legalization is the Right Course (none / 1)

First of all, the Robert Peterson book around which you build your argument is a sketchy source at best.  Published by the far-right Hoover Institution, and I went and read the "chapter" you quoted and there are scant few objective source citations in it.  Most of the "data" presented comes from other anti-legalization sources or from the DEA.  At one point, the author even uses his own newsletter as a source.  So the claims he makes are questionable at best. And the fact that the chapter concludes with an "if they say, then you say" guide for arguing against legalization shows that it is hardly a scholarly undertaking of the question.

Even so, the arguments are still flawed even if we assume they are true.  So what, the Netherlands has the highest crime rate IN EUROPE? The Netherlands may be the most liberal, but no country in Europe has the U.S.'s insane drug policy, so you're comparing apples to oranges.  To conclude that drugs are the reason for that the Netherlands has a higher crime rate than other European countries (if that is even accurate) is fallacious.

Similarly, the size of a city's police force isn't really relevant here.  Amsterdam may have a larger police force, but has a much lower crime rate , and much less drug related crime, than major American cities.  They can probably AFFORD to have a larger police force because they AREN'T wasting billions on a DEA or wasting billions incarcerating people who committed no crime other than drug use.  We don't need to make tax revenue to make legalization fiscally attractive.  Just the things we can STOP doing will save us countless billions.

Finally, the idea that people are saying that legalizing will solve "EVERY drug problem" is a straw man.  No one is arguing that.  We all know drug problems will be around no matter what.  But considering that it costs about $0.15 to produce a kilo of marijuana, and about $2 to produce a kilo of cocaine or heroin, there is no doubt that legalization would substantially put the drug cartels out of business and substantially curb the violence but cutting off their ability to make billions selling something that is very cheap to make, but is only expensive because it is illicit.

Problems with users will still exist, but we need separate, effective programs to deal with those problems.  Not prohibition, which is a strategy that has been a demonstrable failure for centuries.  No one is arguing that EVERYONE should use drugs and that we should stop trying to address the problem of addiction and lower drug use.  Most everyone agrees we should do those things.  It's a straw man argument that those who are for legalization are for ignoring the problems that drug addiction can create.  But the intelligent among us recognize, prohibition is a 100% failed strategy for preventing drug use or dealing with the problems that arise from addiction.

by mdavidboyd on 04/01/2009 05:47:17 PM EST

What's Absurd ...... Amsterdam's a bag (none / 1)
Is your comparison of drugs to child molesters.  I don't understand why our culture associates these inert substances with such magical powers of temptation and destruction. Should we start banning rat poison out of fear people don't have the mental faculties to resist these temptations?

I will admit, Cenk gets out of hand with the Netherlands.  Personally, I think there's a lot to learn from their harm reduction strategy, but in my opinion they do not go far enough. DRUGS are NOT LEGAL in the Netherlands.  If anyone has been to Amsterdam, they know they can only go to coffee houses and buy small amounts of weed or hashish, though technically it's not legal.  

Personally I find it ridiculous that you can't even have a frickn' beer with your smoke at a coffee house, but I'll save that rant for another day.  Just last year they banned shrooms so check tripping balls in the Redlight District off your things to do list.  Don't plan on any hard drugs jumping out and taking over your body because these too are illegal.  Next thing you know, they're going to start banning the legal testing of drugs like MDMA so more people will get all f'd up on sh*t laced with who knows what - have fun kids!  It sounds like we need to start showing the Netherlands how to have a healthy drug policy and that's where Cenk's views come in.  

by rev24 on 04/01/2009 06:21:16 PM EST

general cenk (none / 1)

You're right, hard drugs aren't legal in the Netherlands, and Cenk keeps misrepresenting that fact. It kinda pisses me off, too. Cenk is definately wrong if he wnats to completely legalize hard drugs (he hasn't been very specific on that).

Heroin can turn you into an addict for life at your first shot, so there's no way people should be able to buy it wthout restrictions. People who are already addicted to it should be able to buy it  in some places that are controlled by the authorities, anything to get the gangs out of business. They should be treated like patients, not criminals. Anyway, Cenk has to get much more specific on that issue.

by OldGerman on 04/01/2009 07:10:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
heroin propaganda (3.50 / 2)
Although I don't do drugs, I know with a certainty that no one has ever become physically addicted to heroin on their "first shot."  Most people who experiment with heroin often get turned off by the initial nauseous effect and subsequent vomiting.  To be clear, I'm not recommending people go out and use heroin, especially with the risk of overdosing or getting diseases from dirty needles if they shoot up, but the benefits of legalizing all drugs including heroin outweighs these so-called risks along with the fact that the numbers show otherwise.  

by rev24 on 04/01/2009 08:04:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The points that way, you seemed to miss it (none / 1)

I signed up just to make a point to respond to your absurd comment

 "So lets see, making drugs illegal has not done anything to stop the drug problem so the obvious solution is to legalize it and make it readily available to who ever wants it? Hmmm, by this mode of reasoning we should legalize child pornography and rape as well."

 

And you claim Cenk is the absurd one.  To use your words, its sad i have to even prove it further.  But unlike you I will address what you seem to not or possibly not be capable of understanding, drugs hurt YOU, rape and child porn hurt OTHERS.  Drugs do not harm other people unless you count the crime associated in distributing and violence over territory to sell, both of which would be removed by legalization.   Drugs do not harm those around you unlike guns which kill innocent people around you, drugs do not.  http://www.gun-control-netw ork.org/International.gif

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stor ies/2008/07/01/health/webmd /main4222322.shtml

"Marijuana use was more widely reported worldwide, and the U.S. also had the highest rate of use at 42.4%"

"For example, Americans were four times more likely to report using cocaine in their lifetime than the next closest country, New Zealand (16% vs. 4%)"


"In contrast, in the Netherlands, which has more liberal drug policies than the U.S., only 1.9% of people reported cocaine use and 19.8% reported marijuana use."

 

These are current numbers from a non-biased research group unlike the Neocon study from 1991 which isn't true in the first place.  Finally you claimed (the vice) of drugs have a negative effect on the individual who partakes in them (which is somewhat true, however not so with pot at all) and their victims.... who are there victims this is just a generallized statement and NOT TRUE.  The only victims of drugs are the 2 million people in prison for drug use or sale and the murdered civilians who've died because gangs try to control streets to sell drugs, which they only have a market for because its one we have failed to provide.  Once again to paraphrase your words.

I'm sad to say in this particular argument Cenk bigdaddylone is sounding like an uninformed, uneducated, ignorant airhead. Yes, its true...he sounds like a REPUBLICAN on crack!

by Suiseiseki on 04/02/2009 01:29:11 AM EST

You should really check your sources. (none / 1)

Let's break down you're argument.

You say making all drugs legal is like saying lets make child molesting and rape legal???? I don't follow your logic here at all.

Rape/Child molesting seriously affects and can destroy someone else's life. If someone takes drugs it's affecting their own life. To compare these to things as "exactly the same" is absurd.

So you could make the argument that drugs sometimes hurt the user but it's not a very solid argument as there are plenty of things people can do legally that hurts them, hell even trying to commit suicide is legal. Obviously nobody wants to see people to do damage to themselves but at the end of the day that's not really something you have a right to control.

 

As other people have said it's a bit annoying that Cenk keeps bringing up Holland as a place where all drugs are legal as this is completely false, however, they are more lenient. He should really be talking about Portugal because all drugs are in fact legal there. Oh and in case you're wondering, drug usage in Portugal is even lower than in Holland. Of course I have found numbers to back that up.

European Monitering Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction

http://www.emcdda.europa.eu /stats08/gpstab1a

Now lets look at your "facts". I have a question about your references, did you actually look at the website you linked?

Because this is the funny part,

The creator of that website you linked wrote an article about how an Australian newspaper columnist by the name of Miranda Devine had used information archived on his website in her piece titled "It Pays To Be Tough on Drugs". In fact she used the same quotes that you did from [legalization: the myth exposed]

Do you know what he had to say about that? No otherwise you wouldn't have posted his website.

This is a direct quote from your linked website by the creator of that website.

"The document cited was from "Drug Legalization: Myths and Misconceptions" by the U.S. Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration. If Ms. Devine had checked the title alone, the truth about this document should have been immediately apparent. It is US Government propaganda, not serious research. It is riddled with inaccuracies, omissions, misleading statements, and outright falsehoods."

 

Here's the web link for the rest of the article it's pretty damning of your whole argument.

 http://www.druglibrar y.org/schaffer/debate/miran da_devine.htm

 

So lets see some actual facts.

Here's just a few links for you.

http://drugwarfacts.org/cms /?q=node/67

http://www.csdp.org/researc h/dutch.pdf

http://www.medscape.com/vie warticle/577082

Also Cenk actually said that he thought alcohol was perhaps the worst drug and that people forgot that it is a drug because it's become so acceptable pretty much what you just said he didn't say so yeah that comment doesn't fly.

So in essence you've tried to prove your point that Cenk has made an uneducated, uniformed and ignorant case by presenting no real facts or numbers and one link to a website which provides information completely contradicting what you say.

 

Well done sir!

 

by 0f course on 04/02/2009 02:19:08 AM EST

Thanks for the great responses... (none / 0)

Its great to get such informative responses to my blog... it allows me to expand my mental horizon and qualify my stance further... By the way, you guys really have a hard-on for Cenk man... lol... 

I apologize for the lopsidedness of the Right wingish link i quoted in the original blog. Its just that, that was one of many that was in line with my view on this topic and i didn't want to spend too much time in getting you the perfect source (no such thing). Since then, i have found many more lopsided links (some right wing and some left wing). I guess it depends on what your personal preference is and you can find backing for it one way or another.

So, instead of going to the Right wing sources i went into the left wing sources and did some research.  Instead of using Holland as an example I decided instead to use a better case study.  I came about a very decent and un biased (more leftist than anything) piece on the Portuguese case study (http://www.idpc.info/php-b in/document/BFDPP_BP_14_Eff ectsOfDecriminalisation_EN. pdf.pdf)

It examines the before and after of Portuguese  "decriminalization&quo t; of all drugs in 2001. The study is pretty good and can be used by right wingers and left wingers alike to prove their respective cases. Pro legalization folks will read this and say that this study shows that decriminalization is showing signs that it works. However, I argue that many of the successes achieved under the banner of "decriminalization&quo t; can be achieved with out decriminalization as well. 

It is important to note that drugs are not LEGALIZED in Portugal but rather DECRIMINALIZED. In short, it takes "consumption" of drugs out of the criminal realm and puts it into the "civil" realm if you will.  Drug trafficking and distribution is still a criminal offense. The main aim is still to discourage and stop the user of all drugs. However, it makes you wonder how you can justify decriminalizing one and not the other? I mean, if one of the core aims of the war on drugs is to cut the roots which is the supply then how can that be achieved by this? If on one hand you make drugs more socially acceptable by passing legislation on behalf of the consumer, but on the other hand make the seller/supplier a criminal, wouldn't this guarantee an endless demand and supply cycle? Wouldn't this ensure that the drug manufacturing base becomes even more innovative in making sure they keep producing drugs because they know that there is a continuous demand? 

One thing this report shows is that it is very difficult to get a large sampling of factual data which can prove correlation between drug related tenancies.  For example, the tendencies of drug use to criminal activities. Also, the increase or decrease in drug consumption trends as a result of decriminalization is not clear. For example, the report shows a decrease in Heroin use but an increase in other drugs (Cocaine, ecstasy,Marijuana). There are a number of factors that are listed to support the case from both directions but it is not reliable enough to make a definitive case. The report also lists the view that since 2001 (when decriminalization went into effect) it has become difficult for law enforecement agencies to distinguish "traffickers" and "consumers" because there is an additional category of "trafficking consumers" added in the legislation.Obviously, every trafficker will try to use this as a fall back defense if arrested.

Also, there is no information on the cost aspect of decriminalization. What is the difference between pre 2001 and post 2001 periods. The effect on the penal system is logical and apparent to see. There are less people in prisons for drug related charges. Well of course! However, what is the cost of enabling and establishing this massive decriminalized bureaucracy as apposed to the costs that were incurred by the system prior to 2001? The most important figure that I could not find was weather decriminalization has REDUCED the number of NEW users picking up the habit. After all, the end goal is to reduce THAT number isn't it? Sure, we can find supporting figures that we are able to treat existing users better and keep the rate of users to pretty much the same level as pre-decriminalization. But are we able to prove that we are actually significantly DECREASING the number of users (casual or addicts)? No...

So, i will leave it to you to read the study for yourself and decide.

I deduce that although some major improvements can be seen in cases concerning  decriminalization. For instance, better identification and treatment of addicts and renewed focus on going after the traffickers. Also, the increase in drug trafficking seizures and other policing successes. These improvements are not ONLY possible through decriminalization or legalization alone. Same results CAN be achieved through existing legislative systems as well if organized and actioned appropriately.  I also believe that the history of decriminalization is not mature enough to make a case for its success or failure based on data.

Some things are clear though. Decriminalization does make drug use more acceptable, it does provide freer access to drugs, it does ensure an endless manufacturing and supply network. So, in es sense what we are achieving by decriminalization is a better understanding and medical care for the current addict/user, a less stigmatized environment for the the addict/user, less crowded and financially over burdened penal and judiciary system.  In my opinion, by doing this we are merely feeding the drug world by accepting it and giving into it. It is not rational to think that this course of action will stop the long term use or supply.Sure, it will help more addicts in treatment and care but it will never stop the cycle.

P.S. I also wanted to say something to those who couldn't fathom my comparisons of a drug user to that of a child molester and the similarities the two may have. In many medical opinions, child molestation can also be an addiction of sorts (psychological abnormality caused by childhood experiences etc etc). Those who indulge in it can't seem to control themselves knowing fully well that it is the WRONG thing to do. They are obviously psychologically disturbed and that is why they are sent to psychologists for assessment and treatment. They are harmful to others obviously. Now, what is so far fetched about comparing them to drug users?? Drug users are also addicted to using drugs (we can argue an "addict" and a "casual user" some other time). They also know fully well that drugs are causing them harm. They fully know it is the WRONG thing to do. They are not only harmful to themselves but also to OTHERS. For example a mother on crack puts her life in danger and that of her children, a father on crack commits criminal acts against others while in a state or being high. If alcohol causes drunk driving accidents and deaths, so does driving under the influence of drugs. So, its not apples to oranges by friends.The two have stark similarities.

  

 

by bigdaddylone on 04/02/2009 02:38:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Alright. (none / 0)

First I'm glad that you seemed to have taken some things on board and perhaps done a little more research and I think you make some better points this time round Secondly I am not aroused by Cenk.

I am however annoyed by people who make wild claims with no real evidence, actually worse than that using evidence that disproves what they are saying you can't expect me not to call you out on that.

The first link you posted wasn't a right wingish website it was, if anything, left wing but it mainly seemed to archive statistics and pulications as well as peoples posted opinions. And most importantly government documents (the ones you quoted) which are clearly marked underneath it as saying they are obvious propoganda and contain complete innacuracies. It's just ironic that the source you use to prove you point says clearly underneath it that it is Government Propoganda.

I'm sad to see that you're still trying to link child molestors in with drug abusers. Now your point seems to be they are both addicts they can't control themselves they know it's wrong but they still do it. Ok you're right they are both addictions and that would be a fair comparison but that's not the comparison you were making. You were making the claim that legalizing one is the same as legalizing the other which is bonkers.

People get addicted to all sorts of things, video games, chocolate, shopping they know they shouldn't do it but they can't help themeselves does that mean they are on the same level as child molestors? The main point was and it still is that child molestors, rapists have an addiction that inherently harms someone else where as drug addicts have an addiction that inherently harms themselves. I'm sure you can drag up a few cases where someone else has been harmed by someone's drug abuse but they are few and far between (not to mention the fact I could bring up cases of people's addictions to things such as shopping leading to people being killed) so It's not a valid argument.

 

I don't think anyone believes that legalizing drugs is going to completely solve the problem. And I would agree with you that there is perhaps not enough data to make a final conclusion on whether legalizing drugs reduces the number of drug users and there are various factors to take into account with the situations of different countries and all sorts of things. However all evidence so far points to similar numbers or lower in a lot of cases and not to mention you'll be hard pressed to find statistics were the US comes out favourably in drug usage. Now you were wondering about costs well lets look at that,

 

http://www.drugsense.org/wo dclock.htm

This website states that in 2003 $19 billion was spent by federal government and a further $30 billion was spent by state and local government totalling $49 billion and apparently that number has only got larger.

Most of that cost is on enforcing drug laws and incarceration if we decriminalized drugs that cost would disappear.

Not to mention the government could tax drugs providing a completely new revenue stream like they get from taxing cigarettes and alcohol.

As for it becoming more acceptable there are a lot of places where there is a stigma associated with people who smoke cigarettes and most people who smoke want to get help to quit. And it's a lot easier for them to get that help because there are so many places that they can get that help, quite often places that are supported by the government. The negative properties of drugs will never change whether you change the law or not, and if people are educated properly on the effects of drugs (good and bad) then they will be able to make an informed decision. The best way you can make someone curious about something is to tell them not to do it, I mean that's just human nature. So in summary and I'm sorry my replies have been so long so well done if you read it all,

 

Decriminalizing drugs would,

Save money (in the region of $49b) and even create a new source of money for the government. So on the money front decriminalizing is a clear winner.

Get rid of drug cartels (An increasingly signnificant problem)

 

Drug use would either go down or stay very similar which could be argued isn't really a categorical win for decrimanlizing drugs but at the same time even if drug use stays the same then the other two advantages make it obvious which is the best course of action.

 

Oh also one other thing would be that if drugs were de-criminalized then the government could put warnings on them (as with cigarettes) you can bet dealers don't care about telling first time drug users about the negative effects. And final thought on the same track is that a lot of drugs obtained illegaly have spurious contents mixed in with them, rat poison for example or irregular doses the government would be able to erradicate this problem which quite often leads to unintentional overdoses or poisoning.

 Phew!

by 0f course on 04/02/2009 05:32:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Pick and Choose (none / 0)
It would appear that you have reached a conclusion and are now in search of facts to support it. Hardly the Scientific approach to things.

When your Holland example didn't pan out you went looking for another "case" study.  The question you must research is what other factors played part in the Portugal study?

Here is one fact you must consider, for all the talk Forbes magazine  listed the 9th best place to live in Europe. I'm almost positive that they wouldn't rate a crime infected slum filled with nothing but crack heads quite that high.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 04/02/2009 08:06:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Legalizing heroin will not inspire me to try it. (none / 0)
Have you ever experimented with drugs? Ever known people who take them?

In my experience, that of being thoroughly surrounded by drug abuse growing up as a ward of the state, having tried, inhaled and thoroughly enjoyed, amongst other heretofore nameless experiences; I find that people who take drugs are usually self medicating because they have an underlying mental illness.  I've seen awful things happen to people under the influence too, and as tragic as those things may have been, it usually wasn't the drug, it was the underlying mental illness.

'Legalize' is the wrong frame.  I think even Cenk would agree, that 'decriminalize' is the more proper frame.  The Europeans treat it as a disease and it should be.  We treat alcoholism as a disease and alcohol is undeniably a 'drug'.  Let's spend our resources on education and treatment for those addicted.  It'll cost us half as much than jailing people and ruining what futures they may have.

by veeve on 04/02/2009 05:52:39 PM EST

Cenk's idea of solving the drug issue... ABSURD! | 15 comments (15 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: