Author Topic: the conservative argument against prohibition  (Read 1805 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Oz girl

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1459
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
the conservative argument against prohibition
« on: February 25, 2007, 09:57:54 PM »
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_3986708


One soccer mom's take on the drug war
By Jessica Peck Corry
Article Launched: 06/28/2006 01:00:00 AM MDT

I hope my daughter will never smoke marijuana. Regardless of whether she does one day, I know one thing for sure: Keeping it illegal can only harm her future.

Since 1998, the Office of National Drug Control Policy has spent more than $2 billion in taxpayer dollars on twin advertising campaigns seeking to discourage marijuana use. The first speaks to parents, calling them the "Anti-Drug." It fails before it begins. Good parents are going to talk to their children about drugs. All the feel-good ads in the world aren't going to get indifferent parents to engage in such an awkward but essential dialogue.

The second campaign fails as well. In these, youthful but sophisticated graphics tell kids not to use marijuana. If there is one sure way to get adolescents to smoke pot, tell them that the government and their parents don't want them to. In fact, a recently published national study indicates that after viewing commercials for this campaign, young people were more likely to exhibit positive responses about the drug.

Politicians whisper quietly behind closed doors about the insanity of the drug war. Neither party, however, has had the courage to take a stand against prohibition publicly. Just imagine if the $2 billion invested in these ads - or the billions more spent prosecuting peaceful marijuana users every year - had been diverted instead into tuition grants for needy students or back to taxpaying parents who could directly invest in college funds.

Earlier this year, many Colorado Republicans - myself included - expressed outrage against a new statewide smoking ban, saying it runs contrary to our American ethos of individual rights, private property rights, and personal responsibility. But where is the GOP's outrage now as the government spends billions to tell people they can't make the decision to use marijuana, a drug proven to be less harmful than cigarettes?

Democrats are no less guilty. They silently watch as our government's addiction to prohibition becomes a national epidemic, taking money out of the pockets of working families and sending thousands behind bars every year.

Both parties do nothing because they believe in the same urban myth. They know they must get the "soccer mom" vote if they want to win, but they are confused on how to achieve this. Their logic goes like this: Moms don't like drugs. Moms don't want their kids to use drugs. Do not advocate legalization or decriminalization if you want moms to vote for your party.

This strategy is tied to reliable studies demonstrating that women are now the decisionmakers in most American families. Just as mom decides which brand of toilet paper to buy for her family, she increasingly plays decisionmaker when it comes to voting. Democrats and Republicans alike believe they would gain nothing by advocating an end to prohibition, but both have failed to consider that they might just gain votes if they could learn to speak to mothers about drugs in a way that they could relate to.

Parents across America are trying to find a way to fund college. By legalizing marijuana, taxing it, and turning this revenue into college scholarships and treatment programs, the future of every child could be just a little bit brighter.

Compare this with the system we have now. Marijuana prohibition, violated by millions every year, has become the laughing stock of American public policy. Kids have seen first-hand that it's not as damaging as they've been led to believe. In the process, they begin to believe that some laws aren't meant to be obeyed. This is by far prohibition's most damaging side effect and only makes the job of being a mom that much tougher.

When I sit my daughter down to talk about marijuana, I'm not going to sugar-coat the facts. Marijuana can be addictive and destructive - just as alcohol can be - when abused. I'm going to let her know that life is exciting enough without turning to drugs for fun. She will learn that every law should be respected and that she should work to change those she believes are unjust.

At the end of the day, our government knows it cannot enforce marijuana prohibition. In the absence of being able to do so, it sends the damaging message to our young people that marijuana should be illegal simply because "I'm the government, and I said so." Moms know better - and may ultimately be the single key to bringing sanity back to American drug policy.

Jessica Peck Corry ([email protected]) is a public policy analyst with the Independence Institute, where she specializes in civil rights, higher education, and land use policy.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
n case you\'re worried about what\'s going to become of the younger generation, it\'s going to grow up and start worrying about the younger generation.-Roger Allen

Offline Antigen

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12992
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
    • http://wwf.Fornits.com/
the conservative argument against prohibition
« Reply #1 on: February 26, 2007, 01:34:22 AM »
I knew it would be the conservative libs to come out publicly and forcefully. They had to.

One reason why the politicians are scared of drug policy is that they know how it's made. They know about the psyops involvement and they know how effective it is. I wonder if Ms. Corry would appreciate the stellar career of Bobby DuPont?

If not, I bet she'd richly appreciate the fact that the drug war is, was and ever shall be, Wilsonian left wing politics and part and parcel of the New Deal.

I want the Old Deal back, the one where we're each responsible for provision of our own  basic needs, from food to medicine to entertainment and education. When we did it that way, an American was voted best loved man in the world, American engineers solved the Panama Canal problem.

Quote
During the first 144 years of this nation anyone could purchase opium, heroin, morphine and cocaine-even from the Sears Roebuck catalog. Yet, despite the ready availability of legal drugs, the percentage of addicts in America's population was steadily declining for two decades before prohibition. Drug crime was negligible. But more important, by the government's own calculations, the percentage of addicts has quadrupled under prohibition. Crime associated with illegal drug trafficking menaces our society. This being true, what purpose does prohibition serve?
The Enemy Is Us: How to Defeat Drug Abuse and End the "War on Drugs" (Paperback)
by Robert H. Dowd (Author)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
"Don\'t let the past remind us of what we are not now."
~ Crosby Stills Nash & Young, Sweet Judy Blue Eyes

Offline StraightPinellas

  • Posts: 9
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
the conservative argument against prohibition
« Reply #2 on: March 21, 2007, 08:26:38 AM »
That is an excellent op-ed piece.  Thanks for posting.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline ajax13

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1614
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
the conservative argument against prohibition
« Reply #3 on: April 02, 2007, 08:20:41 PM »
How was it again that the US had anything to do with the Panama Canal?  Oh right, the US took Spain's possessions away during the Spanish American war.  That was the good old deal!  And why was the US taking away Spain's colonies?  Because they were done killing Indians in the West and were ready to become an empire.  Now old Wilson and his ilk, they knew that the old days of killing a few miners here and there and reaping the benefits of paying factory workers just enough to shit, sleep and make more little factory workers was coming to an end.  Or were you referring to the real good old deal where you could own slaves to harvest your sugar or cotton?  And as for being responsible for your own education, those were great old days when everyone was illiterate!  So this old deal, did it start after the US tried to invade Canada in 1812?  Or after those folks just looking after their own basic needs decided to steal Texas?  How about after the civil war?  No?  When exactly was this golden time?  Was it when the Federal Reserve was created to give private control over the wealth of Americans to a few bankers?  And providing your own medicine?  Fantastic!  Nothing like dying of broken arm because you can't afford to have it set by a skilled physician!  What a reverie!
Anyhow.
Keeping drugs illegal is the greatest business ploy in the world after war.  The value added to the drugs is created by their very illegality.  If drugs are illegal, then the price will go up to take into account the risk involved in grow, ship, distribute etc.  This transformation from mere substance to valuable commodity is paid for by the public.  The public pays for interdiction, the courts and prisons.  So the coca leaf grown for next to nothing in Colombia is worth thousands per kilo in the Western World's drug market as cocaine.  Dealers at a number of levels have cash to invest, so more folks, like those on Wall Street, reap the benefit of the public investment in law enforcement and the whole circuit of illegal substances.  If the drugs were legal, they wouldn't be worth as much.  The illegal quality of drugs helps to concentrate the wealth they generate, since only powerful criminals can run the type of operations necessary to process and distribute narcotics.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
"AARC will go on serving youth and families as long as it will be needed, if it keeps open to God for inspiration" Dr. F. Dean Vause Executive Director


MR. NELSON: Mr. Speaker, AADAC has been involved with
assistance in developing the program of the Alberta Adolescent
Recovery Centre since its inception originally as Kids of the
Canadian West."
Alberta Hansard, March 24, 1992