Constructive gadfly
First Priority: Youth
Published on February 17, 2004 By stevendedalus In Politics


In a hedonistic society a sin tax such as proposed on smokers is arguably the preferred way—more so as a disincentive to smoke than as revenue enhancement for a health plan. And if this is indeed the case, then why is there not a heavier sin-tax on gambling, drinking and drugging as a disincentive rather than revenue enhancement? Because the existing sin tax is precisely revenue enhancement and further levies could actually jeopardize consumption, resulting in less revenue. Since vices are a proven tax windfall, then, why not legalize drugs? — especially in face of the prodigious cost to the nation with respect to crime and off the books income, not to mention its related health costs. If nicotine, recognized as a legal drug subject to regulation, is considered addictive, should not illegal drugs be deemed so and placed under regulation? Logically, yes. Hospital costs ascribed to the tobacco sin is waning in relationship to the immediate widespread costs to the nation in terms of narcotics’ deleterious effects on the health of citizenship and the rise in crime.


However, smokers in being legal and open, the government has nothing to fear. The tobacco lobbyists stir up sound and fury but mostly fall on deaf ears. Legalize drugs and terrorism from the criminal world would break out to the degree that no pharmacist in his right mind would dare vend the stuff, for fear of being bombed out of business. Keep in mind this is not the same as when prohibition came to a close since drinking was a vice that never should have been outlawed to begin with. The Mafia used to adapt, and "business-like" looked for other markets. With demoniac drug lords world-wide even the Mafia cowers. The government is up against irrational, impassioned fanatics— dealers and users — that see a thriving industry and life-style threatened, especially since narcotics has never been perceived as anything but illegal and rightly the jurisdiction of the underworld. Besides, this nation is notorious for painting itself into a corner by letting problems slide too long. Other countries early and successfully have legalized drugs without ado. Were we to legalize now, I fear there would be outbreaks similar to abortion clinics and may do more harm than good. Though this is a wimpy view, at this stage of extraordinary criminal infrastructure, it is far better to concentrate expenditure for the ultimate defeat of the cartels. On the other hand, I am not advocating destructive arrests of heavy users — rather a moderate either/or position.


Addiction in the nation is every bit as insidious as a fifth column; it therefore warrants serious and severe solutions. Dedication of old crime-fighters, however, is no longer here. The nation's police, FBI or DEA are not equipped to deal with this pervasive encroachment on public safety. Nor is it solely a local matter any longer. Community organizations have tried to stamp out drugs to no avail. It is a national crisis that tears away at the fibre of effective democracy. Consequently for internal security — not unlike homeland security — meticulously trained special forces made up of police, community leaders, together with a detachment of state militia in the wings, must put down this dreadfully corrupt invasion upon the youth of the nation and ensuing generations well into the century.


If governmental investment in the nation is to have any strategy it must first remove one of the major stumbling blocks to the prerequisite that a mentally stable citizenry is a must in an enlightened and thriving economy. These fighting units, needless to say, must be channeled to launch surgical in-city skirmishes and also to engage in defensive strategies against foreign narcotics sources. The longer the authorities wish away the problem and stall this fated action, the closer the situation becomes hopeless. Further, economically it makes no sense to have a professional army to police the world when the infrastructure is imploding. Nor should there be petty qualms over federal agencies guiding or assisting local enforcement. A segment of the army could be trained to deal in policing hot spots in and outside our borders. The national guard and federal troops, despite being undermanned in Iraq have shown relative effective control in dealing with city strife; thus the army should therefore be on alert in the event the special forces require its advice and physical presence. Though critics will howl that such an outrageous police state proposal crosses the grain of decentralized policing, and inalienable rights and eventuate another Waco, the fact remains that the nation and particularly its future is in jeopardy — no less so than terrorism. No citizen, if its definition is to mean anything, has the right to subvert the sacred trust of the very society that nurtures him. Drug abusers must begin to understand that society expects them to be clear-headed contributors to its matrix and can no longer continue to disrupt the common good by their addiction. Their rationale that they inflict no harm but themselves, is complete fallacy, inasmuch as it generates immense policing cost and emotional duress to families involved. It goes without saying, Drug lords and their gangs must be terminated; for their tentacles extend to gun-running and capital for terrorists as well. Until then there can be no effective legalization of drugs.


"Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded."


- Abraham Lincoln Speech, 18 Dec. 1840; "Quote of the Day" [from the internet on drugs]


Lincoln’s view still stands even in relation to relatively harmless drugs; unfortunately and currently crime-busting is the thrust necessary.


Too Late for Legalization


Narcotics is too widespread now to consider legalization of certain kinds as an alternative to surgical militia or SWAT-like action. The nation cannot chance further deterioration of the mental state of its citizens. To permit a two hundred year tradition of relatively steady progress to unravel because an obdurate minority is bent on spreading its deadly hedonistic habit would go down in history as the tragic flaw that undid the greatest nation on earth. Unless sweeping action is taken, program proposals — whether conservative or liberal — to solidify and enhance a nation is almost laughable in face of drug addiction undermining the nation's not too distant future.


Trade with and aid to, South American nations, such as Colombia and Peru unable to control drug cartels should end. The Coast Guard should no longer be the major defense against drug traffic from abroad; it should serve as back up to the Navy and Marines that would patrol drug import and export shores and airfields for search and permanent seizure of planes, boats and ships. The engineer corps and private companies would follow up to improve agricultural standards of legitimate farming there. In addition, Army helicopters could assist in drug traffic domestic shore patrol and also lace the Mexican border as a detachment to an Army Ranger regiment that should be assigned there to search out drug-runners, as well as illegal immigration.


The special community forces backed up by the National Guard must target drug suppliers of major cities to eliminate drug-operations across the nation. All convicted drug-dealers that are non-violent and severe drug abusers should be assigned to the armed services boot camps for six months at which time they would be evaluated; those with a promising record may enlist in an armed service of their choice; the rest should be hired at a buck an hour as civilian employees confined to the base for another year at which time they would be placed on parole and given work at prevailing wages — subject to garnishment if liable for drug-related damages — on public projects for the next five years and at no time, but for a Christmas or other religious observance visit, would they be permitted to return to their home city unless married with children and have passed a stringent rehabilitative responsibility test. The police and special forces would continue to keep these metropolitan areas drug-free and clear the streets of teenage gangs by rounding them up for due process and subsequent community clean up and supervised training in citizenship.


Targeting The Schools

To rebuild the morale of metropolitan areas, school buildings built over fifty years ago that are in decay must be demolished and replaced on sufficient acreage with campus style structures, including extensive cultural parks and athletic fields. Its perimeters walled and patrolled, along with guarded gate entries, would be executed by welfare recipients. male and female, carefully screened and trained in youth counseling.


Early head start and day care should be readily available for the children of mothers who work. Welfare mothers with children two years old and above could assist in these programs and be given training to become nurse and teacher-aides for the entire school system and community hospital children's wards. Welfare for the addicted would be terminated and placed in a rehabilitation program. In this respect, Gingrich was right: there should be massive support for Boys Town like centers for the nation’s children abandoned by indifference to social values.


Greater effort must be made in the field of learning disabilities, together with a serious commitment to class size, in the earlier grades particularly to avert dangerous confusion and idleness that could lead to drugs and crime. School extra-curricular activities consist of more than basketball, and all city schools should reflect the same after school program as the wealthiest districts in the state. Local physicians, policemen, firemen and university professors would be expected to volunteer nominal time in the public schools. These same professionals who reside in the communities should be given bonuses for their local loyalty. The business community would be encouraged to materially and morally support the vocational schools by hiring and would be partly subsidized for their efforts. The government on all levels should create honest summer jobs for the community's youth at 40-70% of the minimum wage depending on performance and also offer the option of cultural schooling; this would cost far less than if left abandoned to do mishief, eventuating into crime. With the support of the various levels of government the private-sector could hire young adults to rebuild impoverished districts with a history of drugs.


All the resources for homeland security and responsibility of citizenship means little in face of this plague on youth, that not only ruins minds but contributes directly to underground cults. After a five year clean up, those still helplessly addicted would be given access to prescription and rehabilitation centers. Then and only then could legalization of less dangerous drugs become a reality.


Continuing indifference to this plague does not even make economic sense, let alone to tear at the moral fiber of a nation beset with Me-ism. Countless businesses conduct drug tests before hiring, knowing full well that one addicted is not very productive. Of course, there are still countless strategies to fake this prerequisite and little defense against those who become addicted after the hiring. Nevertheless, the intent is there and should be encouraged, despite the cries of privacy rights. The paramount concern is to create a better cultural environment for youth.


Another problem far more-reaching, though not as dramatic, is alcoholism — among youth particularly, notwithstanding the repeal of Prohibition. A good start would be to ban all forms of advertising that blatantly glamorize this unfortunate path to a serious addiction and growing DUIs endangering motorists, passengers, and pedestrians. Entertainers, too, should be challenged for their outrageous libertarian practice in so-called art that has repercussions in the psyche of our youth.



Comments
on Feb 17, 2004
there some dispute over whether lincoln said that: it is listed as a fake quote in some book (mentioned here)
on Feb 17, 2004
Please tell me your joking. Please, make this easy. You honestly think that, after years of being a complete failure, we should INCREASE the "war on drugs." Please, show me the results that this has had any true impact on the usage of drugs compared to the vast, vast expenditure wasted away on equipment, manpower and time to track down the illict drug users. Please show me the decrease in teenage usage of drugs, alochol and tobacco that has resulted from the billions of dollars that we've pandered away on it.

Lets not even start on the loss of freedoms that your talking about. Its already ridiculus that the teens of America today have basically no rights and what we do have is constantly being taken away in some misguided persuit of "the perfect system." I say misguided because many of the ideas and concepts to control and limit teenage usage are widely off base and, from all of my experiences, have done little to curb usage. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, IN THAT AREA, but the way it is being done and many of the ways you propose would just take it further underground increasing the dangers and problems resulting.

This nation is too far gone to consider legalization? Umm, what? Frankly, the pathetic consumption of TV, crappy music and reality shows does more to damage the mentality and intelligence of this country then drugs EVER could. Your trying to blame years of decandence and apathy on one minor symptom. Nice try, please play again. There are plenty of drugs that could be legalized and have about the same dire effects as alochol and tobacco. Frankly, if your going to say that weed and a few other drugs should be illegal then tobacco and alcohol should be right there next to them. Get rid of them all, they're all bad and lead to decandency and apathy.

Your arguments been proposed before. Creating a police state would possibly work but at the loss of too much. Frankly, it scares me that people would even consider it. There's far worse things in this world and in this country that we should focus on than tossing away our civil liberties to make mommy and daddy feel better. Put the money to other useful ways for the kids. Please.
on Feb 17, 2004
Another problem far more-reaching, though not as dramatic, is alcoholism — among youth particularly, notwithstanding the repeal of Prohibition. A good start would be to ban all forms of advertising that blatantly glamorize this unfortunate path to a serious addiction and growing DUIs endangering motorists, passengers, and pedestrians. Entertainers, too, should be challenged for their outrageous libertarian practice in so-called art that has repercussions in the psyche of our youth.


It is funny how alcohol is advertised shamelessly everywhere, and yet these same people are acting as if they're responsible and watching for the children beause they say no to smoking. Consistency would go a long way toward their integrity.
on Feb 17, 2004
integrity doesn't exist in the corporate world. its all about the bottom line.

Chris, i would be interested to hear your opinion on this article - http://muggaz.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=5395 You are certainly correct in saying that there are much bigger problems than drugs out there, and the resources required to make a police state, you couldn't really justify it.

Peace Out.
on Feb 17, 2004
Muggaz: I posted a reply at your post though I'll probably forget to check it in the next couple of days. Like I said there I'm also avalible at http://www.tealart.com
on Feb 17, 2004
I've been in a hilarious conversation with muggaz and a few others about this here: Ending the War on Drugs. Go and read the way they ridicule people that don't want drugs legalized. It's like watching a bad hippy movie. Imagine that they are speaking in a Dennis Hopper accent and it is even better.
on Feb 17, 2004
Or you could observe for yourself, and see that not once we have we ridiculed anyone that dont want drugs legalized. Crap, you are putting words into my mouth.

I dont want drugs legalised either... maybe some drugs decriminalised...

we will let the readers decide for themselves.

Peace.
on Feb 17, 2004
Dennis Hopper? Nah....I like Tommy Chong's voice better.

Too bad that you feel ridiculed (??) and that you have to ridicule in return. So you have a different viewpoint....no need to get nasty.
on Feb 18, 2004
So far I heard a lot of stuff like:

"you sound really silly... "

"Another mindless citizen stuck in a box who doesn't even recognize the box, and probably would not even acknowledge said box."

"before you knock it, try it first"

"fukk the war on drugs"

"I know how you are thinking, and I wouldn't want to go back there."

"If you are so against drugs, you had better get rid of all of your albums"

"Why would you want anyone to take away MY right to smoke it?"

"What is the difference in smoking a couple of bongs in front of the TV than drinking a couple of wine coolers..."

it is the same ignorant crap people were saying 20 years ago, and it doesn't do a single thing to validate drug use. Alcoholic beverages are beverages. Like I said, I drink beer and wine on a regular basis and I can't remember the last time I got drunk. Equating a couple of wine coolers with a couple of bongs? What a load of crap. It makes your opponenet's point for you

If that discussion is about the 'war on drugs', then it is silly ass. It is about legalization, not how the criminalization is handled. All I have heard is about how people somehow have the inherent right to use drugs. If you want to editorialize for 'High Times' then do it, but don't pretend you want to talk about politics. You wanted to talk about why it is illegal, and I see a lot of reason in your posts. You guys decide to leave the house with a baggy in your pocket or grow weed in your garden, don't blame the law for feeling imposed upon. This is a democracy, and the vast majority of people in the US don't want drugs legalized. Roll the dice and take your chances.
on Feb 18, 2004
I 'm saying that legalization at this stage has reached the point of no return. Drug cartels are as entrenched as the oil cartel. As for the police state, I tried to balance it by eliminating the current practice of wholesale arrests of abusers. Yes, youth culture is pretty shitty, witness the super bowl show, still, we have to redirect priorities to reduce drug dependence, which far worse. I also mention the need to crack down on alcohol as well.
on Feb 18, 2004
Messy, yes, we are definitely hypocritical--the drunken father blasting the son for smoking pot--I have a son who is having a hell of a time trying to kick the alcohol habit.
on Feb 18, 2004
stevendedalus : It is about economics. Every third world nation that exports drugs has a million little wanna-be drug lords. As long as there is a demand, there will always be someone to step up and take the place of the ones we kill or jail. They kill each other at a far greater rate than we do, and there is no limit to their reserves of manpower.

As a matter of fact, when you temporarily decrease supply, the demand is willing to pay *more* to get drugs. This is just more incentive for people to step up and sell.

So, the only possible way to stop the drug trade is for them to not make money doing it. Companies don't make Edsels for the logical reason that no one wants them. I don't know if the current "War on Drugs" is the way to get things done, but I am positive that the only way to stop the supply is to stop the demand. There is no question in my mind, especially after these two conversations, that legalization is anything to be remotely considered. All it would do is put drug-pushing in the hands of corporate interests and tax-hungry beauocrats, who are already too good at killing people for profit.
on Feb 18, 2004
BStreet: you're probably right. If the users suddenly gave it up, the drug lords would diminish, but most would cook up some other vice. See "flipside."
on Feb 18, 2004
Well, I don't think anyone can pretend that 'vice' in general is the target of laws like this. The definition of vice is too broad and subjective. When there is such a glaring, objectively observable cause and effect, though, the problem has to be addressed.

People should go back and look at why recreational drug use was addressed by law to begin with. It has much less to do with puritanical values than pro-legalization people would have you believe.
on Feb 18, 2004
Granted there were no pervading demonstrations like the anti-saloon drives to bring on prohibition, yet I'm sure there was pressure from neighborhoods complaints that "partying" was getting out of hand and different from beer parties, since suppliers were "invading" heretofore peaceful surroundings.