By Tom Snyder and Tracy Schreiber
Today the people of California get to decide whether to legalize marijuana. Let’s hope they decide against it.
Whatever happens, however, let’s put an end to the stupid arguments that libertarians, liberals and red diaper doper babies make in favor of legalizing drugs, including marijuana.
One of the arguments these airheads make is that the War on Drugs is “unwinnable.” When people say it’s an “unwinnable” war, what do they really mean? What does it mean to win the drug war? You can’t possibly mean winning the drug war means no one using drugs, because, by that same logic, the war against violent crime is unwinnable.
This argument is specious. When confronted with such an argument, ask the person, What level of drug use constitutes “winning” the War on Drugs? Just because there’s rampant crime of any sort, that shouldn’t make us just give up!
Another argument in favor of legalization has the pro-legalization person asking the anti-legalization person, “If you make drugs legal, would you do drugs?”
The person’s answer to that question probably will be no, but what if it isn’t?
Of course, if they legalized rape or prostitution tomorrow, we ourselves wouldn’t suddenly become a pimp or a prostitute, much less rape anyone. Just because the average person wouldn’t do these things does not mean that a lot of other people wouldn’t do them.
Robbing banks is a perfect example here. If they made robbing banks legal, or-de-criminalized it, the average person probably isn’t going to start robbing banks, but many other people will.
Often, the pro-legalization person cites America’s allegedly bad experience with the Prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s.
The fact is, however, during Prohibition, the consumption of alcohol did indeed decline. Thus, Prohibition did indeed inhibit drinking.
Of course, according to our reading of the Bible, it’s not bad or sinful to drink; it’s only sinful to get drunk and intoxicated. Drinking isn’t the problem, drunkenness and public intoxication are the problem.
In reality, contrary to what the legalization crowd says, we don’t have drug “prohibition” in the United States. What we actually have in the U.S. is drug control, just like we now have alcohol control. For example, you can’t make privately make hard alcohol. We also don’t allow 200 proof alcohol in sold alcohol. Beer can’t have 20 percent alcohol in it. We control all of these things, including the times that bars are open.
Thus, you can buy tons and tons of drugs in the drugstore with a doctor’s prescription, including a handful of “illegal” drugs. And, certain forms of alcohol are also illegal. So, we really don’t have Prohibition like in the 1920s.
If they made all drugs legal today, hardcore drug users would still commit crimes to do their drugs. Crack is one of the cheaper drugs, but people who use crack still commit crimes.
If you make these hard drugs legal, why don’t we make a host of things legal, including 200 proof alcohol?
Furthermore, whatever happened to multiculturalism? Why should all states be the same?
Go to Nevada if you want to gamble or buy a whore. Go there and live. But, Nevada clearly breeds a distasteful, godless community that harms the family and hurts children because of all its gambling and legal prostitution.
Conservatives believe in limited government. They don’t believe in no government at all.
For example, border control is designed for the feds and the state police to keep an eye on illegal immigrants, but local police should be able to alert the feds when they find an illegal immigrant, especially one committing a traffic violation or some other crime.
Some libertarians and leftists say using pot or hard drugs is a “victimless” crime. But, why should THAT be the standard? Why should that be the determining factor for legality?
They seem to be arguing in a circle and begging the question here. They’re assuming that THEIR definition of liberty, freedom and victim is correct, but they must prove that it is, not simply assert it willy nilly!
Ultimately, we’re glad for the War on Drugs. It keeps our neighborhoods, and our children, relatively safe and free from drug addicts and potheads. When, of course, the voters all decide that the authorities should enforce all the drug laws to the fullest extent of the law.
We can indeed “win” the War on Drugs, but only if we truly take it seriously.
And, we’re glad we have alcohol and drug control in a relatively limited way that’s not totalitarian. It makes for a better, safer, more civilized local and state community.
Thus, there’s no really good reason to turn around and make drugs like pot, cocaine, LSD, heroin, etc., legal, much less available to people under 18.
Finally, please consider the children when you decide how you think about the War on Drugs. Our children are already susceptible to the temptations of evil drug dealers. Legalization of hard drugs, including marijuana, will just make them more susceptible!
Wow… What a terribly written article. Did you edit this at all before posting?
For starters, I’m confused where “libertarians, liberals and red diaper doper babies” enter this argument at all. Ignoring the childish insults hurled at people simply because they have the audacity to disagree with you, isn’t this discussion about people in favor of drug legalization against people opposed to it? You can’t draw party lines along this and say “conservatives believe this and liberals believe that.” Well, obviously you can, since you did, but it’s stupid.
When people say the war on drugs in unwinnable, well, I can’t speak for everyone who makes that claim, but most people I talk to would point out that even though the amount of money the US spends fighting drugs has ballooned to over $1 trillion per year, the purity of drugs has only gone up and drug usage has remained unaffected. Does that help quantify it for you? Maybe next time do some research before assuming everyone you don’t like is a moron…
I think you’re missing the point of the prohibition analogy (which isn’t surprising, give how tenuous your grasp of what an analogy is seems to be…). It may have reduced drinking, it also dramatically increased levels of violence from people, mostly mobsters, illegally importing and selling alcohol and more or less created Al Capone’s empire. The war on drugs has, according to those in favor of legalization, had the same sort of effect.
Who exactly is the “we” in this argument? You keep throwing out this pronoun time and again and expect me, as the reader, to understand what you are talking about. What group does it represent? And what gives you the right to speak for them?
I love the irony of you including a paragraph bashing others for begging the question and asserting things “willy nilly” without proving them first. By my estimation, the two of you should be considered heavy contenders for World Champion of Logical Leaps and Fallacies.
I could go on for a while, (seriously, a WHILE) but at this point I’m beginning to realize why no one else on the entire internet took the time to respond… not even to troll. I mean, your arguments are so erratic and half-formed, they’re next to impossible to comprehend, let alone respond in any sort of rational way to. From ignoring what other people actually say, to ambiguous statements of right and wrong to the most ludicrous “slippery-slope” argument ever proposed (a distinction in its own right) it really is amazing the network of half-truths, half-quotes and half-thoughts you have spun here. But even if I somehow manage to navigate it, and then take the time to respond with things like logic or facts, well all I’ve done is serve to validate your opinion. So, in short, I’ll go spend my time doing something smarter and more useful, like reading a book or bashing my knee repeatedly with a hammer.
We NEVER said “all” libertarians, liberals or leftists. In fact, at one point we even said “some.”
Also, the article is written by TWO people; the we is assumed to be the two authors. Duh!
Finally, it’s become clear that drug enforcement is becoming more lax in many places in the U.S., not more strict. Certainly nowhere near as strict as I would make it. And, more and more movies and cultural icons are jumping on the legalization and drug use bandwagon, which makes Law Enforcement’s job that much harder as well as encourages young people to habitually use drugs! After all, how many anti-smoking ads do the media show these days as opposed to anti-pot or anti-meth or anti-cocaine, etc., ads?
One might ask where did you learn how to read, but I won’t be as snotty as you appear to be here.
– Tom Snyder
Hi there would you mind sharing which blog platform you’re working with? I’m looking to start my own
blog soon but I’m having a hard time choosing between BlogEngine/Wordpress/B2evolution and Drupal. The reason I ask is because your layout seems different then most blogs and I’m looking for something unique.
P.S My apologies for getting off-topic but I had to ask!