« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

What’s Tony Bennett Smoking?

In response to the tragic death of Whitney Houston, perennial lounge act Tony Bennett told the world how such a tragedy could be prevented:

“First it was Michael Jackson, then it was Amy Winehouse and now the magnificent Whitney Houston,” Bennett said. “I’d like to have every gentleman and lady in this room commit themselves to get our government to legalize drugs, so you can it from a doctor, not just some gangsters that just sell it under the table.”

This argument is so nonsensical it makes me think Bennett has ulterior motives for wanting drugs legalized. Whitney Houston died of a combination of alcohol and prescription drugs that are already legal:

Whitney Houston died from mixing a cocktail of Xanax and other powerful prescription drugs with alcohol, it has been reported.

Her family has allegedly been told by Los Angeles County Coroner officials there was not enough water in her lungs to conclude she had drowned in her luxury hotel bathtub and in fact died before her head went under water, said gossip website TMZ.

The revelations come as it emerged that her daughter Bobbi Kristina, 18, allegedly fell asleep in a bathtub in the same Beverly Hilton hotel just 24 hours before her mother died. TMZ claims security was called to unlock the door and to help the 18-year-old on that occasion.

[...]

On Thursday she is said to have gone on a ‘wild binge’ where she clashed with security guards. The next evening she ‘partied heavily, drank and chatted loudly’ with friends at the hotel bar.

Bottles of Lorazepam, Valium, Xanax and a sleeping medication were found in the hotel room, it has been claimed.

So much for that theory about doctors being more responsible than pushers. Michael Jackson, who Bennett also mentions, was killed by his doctor turned pusher who doped the addict singer with a dangerous mix of perfectly legal prescription drugs. This was done at the drug addled Jackson’s request.

Heath Ledger overdosed on a combination of legal prescription drugs to which he was addicted. For all her public troubles with illegal drugs, Amy Winehouse actually died of alcohol poisoning. I would remind Mr. Bennett that alcohol is quite legal.

In non-celebrity drug abuse news, a woman named Debra Annemarie Blackmon pimped out her 13-year-old daughter to a drug dealer in return for drugs. Not illegal drugs, these were the perfectly legal prescription drugs Oxycodone and Percocet. Marijuana does show up in this story though–the dealer used it to make the girl more compliant before raping her.

It’s almost as if the social ills we find related to drug abuse have less to do with the legal status of a drug and more to do with the addictions, habits, and moral decay of drug users.

I have found that conservatives seem to have lost interest in drug policy issues in the last few years, which is understandable given the other issues we face. Yet ceding this issue to liberals and libertarians is not possible for any conservative who understands the import of our crumbling social fabric. I am against legalization because it makes the government both your pusher and your babysitter, it both incentivizes your drug use and makes society at large–through the instrument of government–responsible for ensuring your safety. I’m not against decriminalization if we lived in a society where drug users would be disqualified from things like driving cars, fostering children, working as teachers and the like. But drug abuse, and death by overdose, is a cultural and societal problem that cannot be fixed by legislation.

Tony Bennett illustrates the true drug problem in America which is our lack of real education about drug abuse. None of the deaths he complains about would have been stopped by legalizing illegal drugs. People don’t abuse drugs because the drugs are illegal, they abuse drugs because they are addicts or troubled or in some cases because they’ve been told by groups like NORML that drug abuse is consequence-less.

This message of consequence-free drug use–the mythical “victimless crime”–has seeped into every part of our culture. We have doctors prescribing highly addictive drugs like Xanax to children and wonder why death by drug overdose is on the rise. We have spent more than 50 years teaching children though our education, media, and behavior that drug and alcohol abuse is relatively minor. And now conservatives have exited the stage and allowed the national discourse on drug policy to be dominated by specious arguments that are based on the politicization of drug-seeking behavior.

It’s time to reengage the drug war as not just a legal issue, but an educational, cultural, and moral issue for which conservatism is the answer. The Tony Bennetts of the world cannot be allowed to spread these Cheech and Chongisms to another vulnerable generation.

 

COMMENTS

  • aesthete

    “But drug abuse, and death by overdose, is a cultural and societal problem that cannot be fixed by legislation.”

    This is exactly what current drug law purports to be able to do — a utopian goal, I’m sure you’ll agree. There is nothing conservative about utopian programs designed to drastically curtail freedom on a dubious basis and with results contrary to those predicted by proponents of said programs, and this is what you find with current drug law: monstrous federal bureaucracies empowered to violate the Constitutional rights of the citizenry, and un-Constitutionally authorized to supersede laws passed by the states regarding drugs and their criminalization.

    A healthy appreciation for the flexibility and ability to deal with problems and incentives as opposed to government is one that conservatives have internalized with regard to poverty, A recognition that there is no ideal solution to social problems, and that grasping for one enables bad legislation which deprives the citizenry of freedom, is the primary lesson of conservatism, IMO. Respect for the ability and morality of allowing decisions to be made by the localities themselves, especially when doing otherwise violates rule of law, is what is behind the “states’ rights” argument.

    While I can hardly condone Mr Bennett’s fallacious and factually wrong argument, you paint with a broad brush when you suggest that this is all that the pro-legalization, or even the anti-status quo, folks have to offer. I agree that it is past time for a reinvigorated conservatism to deal with the issue of drugs assertively — and I would suggest that they start by internalizing the philosophy which has made conservatives so perspicacious when it comes to other big government programs, as well as the tremendous amount of datum showing that the policies in place over the past 30 years have not had the outcomes that drug warriors have predicted.

    • Scope

      Drugs should be legalized, end of story. It shouldn’t have taken you so many 50 cent words or theories to say that.

      • Scope

        The leftist CNN beeitches want the food police to ban “bad foods” from the school menus. They are pushing what people should eat. Is it not the same kind of “push” to legalize drugs?” Who is correct, you who want to push that drugs should be legalized, or the leftists who think the correct diet should be pushed? Is one push different from another. Hey it’s weed, or it’s argula. You push drugs, they push veges, where does it stop?

        • satchman3

          Your words seem contradictory – you want to be responsible for your own food choices but you don’t want to make your own choices regarding drugs. Are you worried that you’ll make the wrong choice and become a heroin addict?

        • JSobieski

          than a system of capitalism constitutes the “pushing” of greed and selfishness. Enabling choices may not always be prudent, but it is logically the opposite of “pushing”. Legalizing something is the opposite of making something mandatory.

          One side wants to expand choices and the other wants to prohibit choices it finds undesirable. No side is pushing drugs, and aesthete is consistantly spoken against drug use. No drug pushing there, or anywhere else on RS for that matter.

          There are many steps between federal prohibition and outright legalization. In California, they are releasing violent offenders early, while prisoners convicted on a three-strikes drug conviction stay in prison.

          I am not in favor of legalization, but it is pretty clear that the Drug War is no more effective on drugs than the War of Poverty has cured chronic poverty. I favor the Palin approach on the War on Drugs—continued criminalization, but imposing sentences that place non-violent drug users below rapists, bank robbers, and other violent criminals.

          Frankly, the distinction between legal and illegal drugs makes little sense. High school students know how to abuse cough medicine, nitrous oxide, prescription drugs like vicodin used by another family member, paint, glue, etc. to “get high”. Alcohol isn’t exactly hard to get either.

          If you don’t favor prohibition of alcohol, does that make you a pusher of booze?

          • http://www.red-alerts.com/ Rob Taylor

            By selling drugs as medicinal and promising tax revenues. It’s completely immoral to have a government make money on keeping people high.

            If people want to decriminalize that’s a different discussion. But the idea that addiction should be treated by society as no big deal is preposterous. I agree with the Palin approach too, but I think the real issue is the miseducation about drug use our society hands to our children courtesy groups like NORML.

          • JSobieski

            Is decriminalization merely no criminal sanctions while legalization involves buying currently illegal drugs at a drug store?

            Is someone out there advocating for selling cocain and heroin at a local CVS?

            I don’t think there is a chance in hell that CVS would voluntarily do so, and a mandate requiring them to do so is contrary to the entire directional movement in law that we are talking about.

            Bottom Line: I do agree with the Palin approach, particular with the softer drugs. Three strikes and you’re out makes no sense in the context of a marijuana user.

          • http://www.red-alerts.com/ Rob Taylor

            In NYC for example when I was a kid if someone was caught with a dime bag the cop gave you a ticket, took it away and moved on. Dealers were still arrested but some guy just paid a fine the same as public drinking. I’m all for a system like that where parents caught high could still be referred to CPS but some idiot in college just pays his $100.

            Most legalization proponents on the right tend toward hypocrisy with drugs – wanting to legalize their favorite but not others – but legalization has always been about ALL drugs and indeed if heroin and coke were legalized and prescribed by doctors as Bennett wants they’d sell it at the CVS.

          • aesthete

            I think that some form of legalization is possible for even the harder drugs, and we should be open to the possibility in the future depending on how legalization and decriminalization schemes in various states look when the war on drugs is repealed. It is undoubtedly the case that legalization will still involve lots of regulation and restriction from government: I’m fine with that and would like to see which regulations and restrictions are best for what type of drug. I wouldn’t be opposed to a tax on drugs for the purpose of funding anti-drug education (though hopefully of better quality than what we have now) — and if some of that money goes towards roads or paying down the debt? So much the better! I like the idea of drug users paying for what they use. Some sort of legalization/decriminalization rubric seems the way to go to me.

            From a moral standpoint, the most problematic part of the war on drugs undoubtedly has to do with criminalization of personal use and possession — decriminalization does more or less solve that problem.

            From a pragmatic standpoint, many, if not most of the social problems caused by the war on drugs are the result of criminals cornering a very lucrative market — quality control, cartels, subversion of law enforcement and the legal system, networks of organized crime, and other hazardous effects of the war on drugs are largely supply-side problems, and I would like to deal with these problems in addition to the ones caused by criminalization of personal possession.

          • JSobieski

            Porn is legal, but you can’t buy it everywhere.

            Guns are legal, but you can’t buy those everywhere either.

            The idea that removing criminal sanctions will result in the Walmart Pharmacy selling cocain is to adopt a liberal worldview on society—-that a society is nothing more than its government.

            I subscribe to the conservative framework that acknowledges the existence of society outside of merely government contexts.

          • JSobieski

            If its illegal to use a drug, how is that decriminalization.

            I like the approach of focusing prison resources on violent offenders over all other types of crimes.

          • Finrod

            It

  • http://www.red-alerts.com/ Rob Taylor

    But none of that has anything to do with what I said Legalization makes society interact with users – I think they should be shunned and believe that some legal remedies (like having children removed from addicts) are necessary. I think that’s why many want legalization as opposed to decriminalization. What they want, including Bennett, is the ability to inflict the consequences of their drug addiction on others.

    Like I said, drugs that are already legal are responsible for many overdoses and many acts of criminality. Drug users are the problem and society needs to have limiting the amount of users as the main goal of drug policy and education. That means reexamining not only current drug laws but medical practices that promote addiction, welfare benefits for users etc.

    But making it legal and taxable only give incentive to the government to promote and subsidize addiction. I’m talking specifics here, not ideology.

    • bonnman

      to promote addiction. Do you feel that alcohol should be made illegal then? Prohibition round two?

      • http://www.red-alerts.com/ Rob Taylor

        Or did I point out that decriminalization of possession while keeping drug abuse a factor in certain legal processes (taking away of welfare, child placement etc) was more ideal?

        • bonnman

          “But making it legal and taxable only give incentive to the government to promote and subsidize addiction.”

          Since you think addiction is more the problem and in your post you mentioned drug AND alcohol abuse, I was interested to know your position on prohibition of alcohol. Its a reasonable question.

          • http://www.red-alerts.com/ Rob Taylor

            Amy Winehouse died of alcohol poisoning. Like all other drugs we need better education about it’s abuse, which is what I said in the piece. Alcoholism is already cause for removal of children from drunks, firing on jobs etc and states have individual laws regarding it’s use (public intoxication, open containers etc) which I think is fine.

            I don’t drink personally, but I also recognize that wine is used in religious ceremonies by Christians and Jews, other religions use alcohol for various things and if the power goes out long enough and there’s no clean water treating water with rum was a traditional method of water preservation that still works as a last resort. So unlike other drugs you need to have access to alcohol in a free society of many religions.

            I have never advocated prohibition on anything, just honesty about the social and cultural costs of drug and alcohol abuse.

          • bonnman

            for Native American Indians and peyote. Or any religion and any drug for that matter. But I think I get your point.

    • aesthete

      Throwing people in jail… that’s a bit more than mere “shunning”. The Amish “shun”. The DEA sends in SWAT teams, warrants, and court appointments. Addictions should be borne by the addict, but as of today, they are being borne by the US taxpayer: unless you think that the current criminalization and enforcement is costless or desired by all taxpayers. While I think that the idea of “rehab” for those who refuse to help themselves is a sham and a racket (I expect you feel the same way), it is no less of one than the grift perpetrated by the DEA and other enforcers profiting from the status quo. Paying off the “rehab” industry is certainly cheaper, more humane, and less obviously failed a strategy than having the DEA bust down doors. The best option, of course, would be to have the addict pay his own way in life — to that end, I support taxes on legalized substances to support the programs that the rest of us should not have to pay. It is unfair to the responsible user of drugs, but it is the closest that we can approach the ideal of the drug user paying for problems caused by drugs, and certainly less anti-freedom than the status quo.

      I’m amenable to decriminalization as opposed to legalization, myself (especially for the harder drugs), but I would prefer a comprehensive approach which would divest criminals from a lucrative source of profits for their twisted endeavors — say what you will about the legal private market in addictive substances (beer, tobacco), but it doesn’t make a habit of starting civil wars in Latin American countries, of subverting an entire system of law, or of destroying inner cities. Cannabis, mescaline, and many of the opiates and hallucinogens on the Controlled Substances list seem like particularly good candidates for potential supply-side legalization of some sort.

      • http://www.red-alerts.com/ Rob Taylor

        As I point out in the article all stories I deal with have to do with drugs that are already legal – including the rape of a junkie’s child by a dealer.

        The Mafia didn’t stop making money after prohibition was repealed and still have their hooks into liquer themed industries like clubs, warehouses etc. It’s far too late to think you can break gangs or cartels.

        But can we refocus our efforts into keeping people from wanting to be on drugs through education? That’s my goal. Inner cities haven’t been destroyed by drugs – drugs are a symptom of inner city decay caused by government having an incentive to keep people dependent. I grew up in one, and around many crack dealers. The area was bad before the crack came in.

        • aesthete

          but only in part. It’s indisputable that the Mafia was much more powerful and damaging during Prohibition than it was after that point. Likewise, while the inner cities were in bad condition before the Great Society and the war on drugs, the bad incentives created by both exacerbated already existing problems. The same applies to Latin America: it’s difficult to say that it was particularly inclined towards order and stability before the criminal drug trade became a fixture, but the civil war in Mexico and the disorder in Columbia and the Caribbean before that is far from the norm.

          Personal responsibility should not be obviated, nor personal behavior excused as a result of these bad incentives — but these incentives should not be ignored out of hand.

  • deVere

    I agree with Mr.Bennett that legalization(or decdecriminalization) is a good idea, although obviously it would not have saved Whitney Houston’s life. I find it ironic that she survived illegal drug use but lost her life to legal prescription drugs plus alcohol.

    After the deaths of Heath Ledger, Anna Nicole Smith, and Whitney Houston, perhaps the general public is finally starting to realize that prescription drugs can be deadly. I take prescription drugs only as a last resort, if non-presciption treatments fail. It wouldn’t bother me if we went back to the era when prescription drug ads on TV were considered unethical and illegal.

    • funwithknives

      Not so very long ago he stated the U S had it coming {paraphrasing},where 9/11 was concerned. At this point nothing he says or does has the slightest mystery, or need to know, to/from me.
      He’s had his day and NOW it’s over ,done,finis. Where’s a boycott when you want one?

  • http://www.red-alerts.com/ Rob Taylor

    You want coke and meth legal but don’t want Xanax advertised on TV? Isn’t that simply the reverse of the situation we have now?

    Legalization and decriminalization are very different as I point out. Legalization entails responsibility from the rest of society while decriminalization just means we shift resources.

    Legalization schemes give the government the ultimate power over people. They are invested in addiction and drug abuse. Decriminalization leaves the government out of the use, but still entails the social and cultural (and legal when needed) penalties to addicts. For example if we legalize heroin then we have to wait for addicts to hurt their children for those children to be removed. If we just stop prosecuting possession and use (decriminalization) we still have the option of getting children out of bad situations before they are raped, burned etc.

    But again, the point here is education. Laws or not conservatives need to push for real drug and alcohol education that doesn’t minimize and encourage drug and alcohol abuse.

    • deVere

      Many have claimed that marijuana is the most valuable cash crop in the USA. If so it is a shame not to be able to tax it at all, even though it is apparently hazardous to the mental health of adolescents. I remember when I was young the business we now call the state lottery was call “the numbers racket”. Times change.

      Use of both legal and illegal drugs is a serious public health problem . I am doubtful that current problems would be materially worsened by legalization. But I can understand that reasonable people might prefer decriminalization. Either course of action would be a big improvement over the current legal regime.

  • greyeagle

    Children born to crack addicted mothers go through withdrawal immediately. It is a pitiful sight to see. Then when they start school, they have behavior problems and learning disability. There also seems to be some connection to birth defects in babies born to pot smoking parents. Babies born to mothers who are alcoholics exhibit something called fetal alcohol syndrome. This a smaller than usual infant and mental retardation. I would say that these cause problems especially for children of these addicts.

    • aesthete

      whose mother used crack cocaine and drank alcohol before he was born — he turned out better than most people who come into life that way, but he was still a bit odd, very short and slight, and could sometimes be a bit slow. Whole raft of medical problems, of course. Got teased and bullied mercilessly by the church kids — Lord only knows how bad he got it at school, kids being what they are. Last I heard from him, he got his high school diploma early, and was pursuing a degree in computer science at a community college in Yuma.

      Incidentally, that kid is who I always see when I hear abortionists talk about the “rape, incest, and life of mother” exceptions, or about how it’s a mercy to kill certain of God’s children in the womb.

    • acat

      I’ve never had the need to write the history paper proving it, but .. there sure looks to be evidence of fetal alcohol syndrome – the symptoms and the lifestyle match – among the rulers of Tsarist Russia…

      Mew

      • http://MichaelHarrington.org creinstein

        I have been on the front lines of the drug war, though not as a cop or doctor.

        I have seen into the eyes of a man and saw an animal, feral, scared, and needing.

        I have restrained addicts so dangerous to themselves and others that a medical facility was granted custody of the person, and placed those addicts in wrist, ankle, and head restraints.

        I have lived with addicts in the rooms next door, and I have made reports (in my capacity as employed) that resulted in evictions from public housing.

        I even have had addicts inside my family.

        I have been on the front lines.

        any scheme to legalize drugs will lead to pushers pushing that it is legal, it will lead to more addicts, it will lead to companies adding drugs to products to addict people to their products like Coca Cola did before regulations!

        Many will enjoy the high of the entry level drugs, and try harder drugs. This to will be enjoyable to them. The hooks will dig deeper, the NEED will become stronger, and crime will sky rocket as a result.

        Those seeking legalization never even care to look at history, nor at facts. They fail to hear the words of ex-addicts, or those who know how dangerous such an act would be.

        Such monsters are worse than Liberals, worse than Socialists, worse than Marxists, worse than Communists, worse than Fascists, and on par with the people who have Genocides and Democides happen!

        They would result in a destructive society where many are mere puppets to their drugs, and where death would be an all to often outcome.

        SAY “HELL NO” TO DRUGS!

        • aesthete

          Legalized drugs was a death sentence on America. Before the 1970s, America was a desolate wasteland with nothing but heroin junkies, discarded needles, and the occasional bandage. No progress made, hardly a sign of civilization — until that glorious day in 1970, when the Controlled Substances Act was signed! It’s a wonder that James Madison was able to crawl over the piles of bodies and away from the drugz long enough to draft a governing document for our nation so many years ago. Surely, his lack of mention of that national affliction, drugs, was an oversight — but not a bad document, considering the suicidal society Madison was a part of. We’re so much better off today.

          • http://MichaelHarrington.org creinstein

            Before the CSA there was other efforts.

            And there was a lot of death due to heroin back in its heyday.

          • aesthete

            on your once-normal mind.

          • http://MichaelHarrington.org creinstein

            Once again I am proven right that you ignore all the downsides for some supposed upside.

            Tell me how well did the opium users fare when China started killing them? How many could just stop using in the face of a certain death? How many were able to resist to protect their ‘right’ to use?

            I have seen the harm drugs do.

            There is a reason most ex-users still call themselves addicts in the programs.

            All of them say it haunts them their whole life.

            Your theory fails.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            Precisely because of your history you are disqualified, because you are thinking with emotion and not intellect.

            I have read and studied a large portion of the huge research and writing on the drug war and all I can say is that our current policy is a total, abject, utter, and contemptible FAILURE.

            Hard prohibition has always been a failure in every time and in every culture in history. Something else has to be tried.

            All you are doing is arguing for more of the same horror stories that you claim to be so agonized about.

          • deVere

            nt

          • aesthete

            China also banned Christianity, and that the punishment applied was capital punishment — right? The latter years of imperial China should not be a model from either an effectiveness or moral standpoint. All laws are defied by some, no matter how stupid the law or how insane the punishment. Many of the opiate addicts in China did stop, and many more nursed their addictions in private — you don’t actually think that drug addicts in China were so addled that they opened opium dens right next to the Emperor’s palace, do you? “Certain death” is not so certain if you’re good at sneaking around — and judging by the vibrant drug trade in China, Chinese drug addicts have gotten very good at sneaking around. You’d be a fool to believe that this universal pattern of illicit lawbreaking is a unique feature of drug addicts — it, in fact, permeates every aspect of our laws, from jaywalking to murder.

            I can believe that you’ve seen the harm that drugs do — I have too, in my family, in the prison ministry that my church runs, in the many rehabilitation programs that my church is involved in, and as a consequence of having friends and family who work in mental health. t is truly heartbreaking — but in very few of those cases could I say, “this person and society would be better off if he were forced to stay in a cage with rapists and murderers for 2-5 years”. Since the premise of the drug war is that it improves society such that there is no other choice, the burden of proof is on you to show that the drug war has resulted in a marked and provable increase in the metrics that drug warriors contend have improved. Apocalyptic hyperbole about “cultural suicide” aside, this is something that no drug warrior has been able to do.

          • http://www.red-alerts.com/ Rob Taylor

            As a crime blogger I can tell you I get at least one story of that sent to me per week, it always involves drug use. Isn’t that an apocalypse?

          • aesthete

            the “mothers pimping out daughters” to “regular, non-psychotic people” ratio is thankfully low in both countries that have more permissive schemes, and countries that take a hard line on criminalization. The difference between the two has not been cited, and is assuredly not sufficiently large either way to justify condemning pro-legalization forces as being in favor of society’s death. Would you agree with me that characterizing those in favor of legalization as desiring a “Death Sentence upon Society” are engaging in hyperbole which has no place in a serious discussion about substance abuse and government response to same?

          • http://MichaelHarrington.org creinstein

            Drugs addict people, people will do anything to stop their craze.

            I was the only Veteran in a Homeless to Housing group. The rest were ex-addicts. (I was scammed by some people who were under eviction notice, and lost everything)

            Those addicts will nay say you alone.

            The drugs used in ‘not government controlled lands’ of S. America, Asia, and Africa should serve to educate that such addictions happen.

            Heck the slave trade, the modern sex slave trade should serve as an example. To keep their prostitutes from running away they addict them, and the poor girls never get away.

            Drugs destroy.

            Abd trying to invalidate anyone who has knowledge of drugs… what a canard.

            If I had to choose a social group to get lobotomized… I would not choose liberals… they can grow up or change. I would not choose Libertarians, though only by a few margins. No I would choose those who wish to legalize all drugs, for such an act would be the most damaging of them all.

            Hell talk of destructive behavior… paint addicts. Paint is very available if your the right age, and very addicting, and the damage it does is tremendous. So much for legalization.

          • aesthete

            I don’t think you know what you’re even arguing for, whatwith the far-flung references to paint (!), lobotomies (!!), and the sex trade (!!!). Suffice it to say, I’m pro-paint, anti-lobotomies, and anti-sex trade, though I don’t know what any of that had to do with the price of oranges in Madagascar.

            For the record, there is no country in Latin America that has legalized sale or consumption of most of the drugs criminalized by the Controlled Substances Act. Very few of the countries in Africa and Asia have legalized drugs (most have laws as severe, if not more severe, than ours). Those countries which have legalized drugs have legalized only recently.

          • http://MichaelHarrington.org creinstein

            I said area’s not under Government Control which is a significant difference.

            Paint addicts however destroys any claim that legalization will lead to reduction of abuse.

          • aesthete

            I’m *really* not sure what you think you’re arguing for or against — since I have not addressed the question of whether legalization will reduce addiction rates or not, and since the main thrust of your argument thus far has been that legalization = societal destruction.

            If you’ll allow me to condescend, I would suggest that less hyperbole and more clarity would improve your writing.

          • JSobieski

            Jail is for people who hurt others.

            Treatment is for people who hurt themselves.

            Freedom is the birthright of everyone else.

          • Finrod

            So by your position, I presume you are perfectly OK with these results of the War On Some Drugs:

            http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/01/31/fbi-uses-chainsaw-in-raid-on-wrong-fitchburg-apartment/

            http://reason.com/blog/2011/10/13/wrong-door-raid-and-flash-bang

            http://articles.philly.com/2009-03-30/news/24984334_1_surveillance-cameras-officers-wires

            http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/us/24savana.html

            http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/08/02/another-police-raid-more-dead-dogs/

            http://www.reason.com/news/show/117095.html

            http://www.reason.com/news/show/33289.html

            http://reason.com/blog/show/126284.html?redux

            http://www.reason.com/news/show/125449.html

            How about a page listing corruption of police officers, mostly thanks to the War On Some Drugs?
            http://stopthedrugwar.org/taxonomy/term/27

            Did you know that thanks to asset forfeiture laws passed to support the War On Some Drugs, it’s illegal to drive with cash in your car?
            http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/special/forfeiture.html
            http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/12/1296.asp


            http://www.boingboing.net/2009/02/24/tearful-atlanta-cops.html

            That last one is so good, I’m going to quote its headline:

            Tearful Atlanta Cops Express Remorse for Shooting 92-Year-Old Kathryn Johnston, Leaving Her To Bleed to Death in Her Own Home While They Planted Drugs in Her Basement, Then Threatening an Informant So He Would Lie To Cover It All Up

            THAT is what the War On Some Drugs is giving us.

            I have seen the harm that the War On Some Drugs causes.

            It’s why there are cops that have been enforcing drug laws for years and years that are strongly in favor of legalization: http://www.esquire.com/the-side/richardson-report/drug-war-facts-090109 http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-legalize16oct16,0,4914395.story

            And the kicker? The federal government has its own medical marijuana program that it’s been running for decades, even as federal officers raid and shut down state medical marijuana dispensaries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassionate_Investigational_New_Drug_program

            Your War On Some Drugs is a complete, abject, total failure, you just won’t admit it.

        • JSobieski

          All the drug laws that we have, and there are still many who are “mere puppets to their drugs”.

          Nobody here is championing drug use any more than any free market economist champions poverty or unemployment.

          Sometimes the cure hurts the patient. Sometimes the cure is not worth the cost.

          The question you need to answer is not wether drugs are bad, but rather what are the costs/benefits of different approaches to dealing with the problem of drugs.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    take the time to get informed instead of mouthing off about something they have little knowledge of. Bennett is ABSOLUTELY correct. That Houston died of a combination of legal drugs does not make his point invalid. She was addicted to illegal drugs then merely used her money to switch to legal drugs.

    Bennett’s point remains, she was an addict, the legality or illegality of the drugs did not matter. Hard prohibition does nothing to curb drug use, but it does lead to a huge amount of cost, organized crime, and an unwillingness of those with a drug problem to seek help.

    Here are some recommended books:

    Smoke and Mirrors: The War on Drugs and the Politics of Failure by Dan Baum

    Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed: A Judicial Indictment Of War On Drugs by James Gray

    Drug War Crimes: The Consequences of Prohibition by Jeffrey A. Miron

    Drug War Heresies: Learning from Other Vices, Times, and Places by Robert J. MacCoun and Peter Reuter

    Ain’t Nobody’s Business if You Do: The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in a Free Society by Peter McWilliams

    Undoing Drugs: Beyond Legalization by Daniel K. Benjamin, Roger LeRoy Miller

    Drugs in America: The Case for Victory : A Citizen’s Call to Action by Vincent Bugliosi

    Waiting to Inhale: The Politics of Medical Marijuana”, by Alan W. Bock

    I have a partial list of well researched books about the subject. They come to different conclusions, but they all contain a lot of information. I doubt that anyone could read any three of these books and not come away with the opinion that our current drug laws are bad.

    • http://www.red-alerts.com/ Rob Taylor

      Even if your theory was right legalizing hard drugs would just mean Houston stayed on them and eventually died from them instead.

      Instead of political tracts by people who won’t just say “I really like getting high and it’s my business” maybe you should read the medical literature on drug addiction. If you think Houston staying on crack would have had a better outcome than her being on pills you really need to – which is the point of my piece.

      • deVere

        So why expend vast amounts of public money, and give up an important part of our personal freedom,, to maintain that apparently inessential distinction?

  • nfloridapatriot

    Is that the War on Drugs is a Big Government solution to a problem, and like all other Big Government solutions – is a failure. After 40 years, it’s time to take a serious look at small government solutions in regards to this issue.