Here, yet again, is Bill Bennett pushing dubious material, this time at CNN:
My friends at National Review begin their case [against the drug wars] by stating the illegalization of drugs has “curtailed personal freedom, created a violent black market and filled our prisons”…[T]he question is: “Whose freedom?” The drug dealers’, sure — the drug consumers, no. As any parent with a child addicted to drugs will explain, as any visit to a drug rehab center will convey, those caught in the web of addiction are anything but free.
Over at Reason, Jacob Sullum retorts:
Bennett’s reasoning is airtight, as long as you accept his premises that all drug users are addicts, that addiction is slavery, and that adults are children.
Quite.
The war on drugs has weakened liberty, strengthened big government, enriched criminals and damaged America’s security. It has turned what should be a matter for individual adult decision into a national disaster. And it has been doing so for decades. It’s long past time that it came to an end.
I agree, provided we are talking about marijuana, as was the referenced NR editorial. There is scant support for lifting federal prohibition of cocaine, heroin, "The Jeffrey", etc.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually, cocaine and heroin are in different legal categories. Heroin is a Schedule I drug and as such, cannot be medically prescribed (which is ludicrous as far as dying cancer patients are concerned). Cocaine is recognized for its medical benefits and remains classified in the Schedule II category.
I'm personally not for the "all out" legalization of heroin (like I am marijuana), but I am for re-scheduling it in the II category so that dying patients can benefit from its obvious medicinal qualities.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDoctors should be able to give patients (esp. terminal patients) anything that would relieve their suffering.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Baines 1348
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat could possibly be more obvious. (And it is equally obvious that individuals have the absolute right to end their lives without interference from a bunch of busybody religionists, especially Catholics who want desperately to believe that in their sacredness-of-life stance they have found at least one issue in this confused world that justifies their love of dogma.)
Hijack alert: Not two hours into a discussion of drug legalization, and we're attributing a moral stance of the RC church to their 'love of dogma.'
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"religionists"
tune out.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAh, the scheduling system...big-government lunacy at its finest. If you ever take a pharmacology class, you'll soon learn that a drug's scheduling has virtually nothing to do with its actual risks or medicinal benefits and almost everything to do with its public perception. Heroin, for example, has obvious benefits, especially for terminally ill patients, and close chemical analogues of heroin are legal via prescription, but heroin is not because, you know, it's HEROIN--eek!
Marijuana has the silliest classification of all. It's under Schedule I, which consists of drugs that "have a high potential for abuse, have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and ...a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision." This is ludicrous, of course, but that's how it is. Even the arguments of Bennett, the right-wing authoritarian and former drug czar, don't support this classification.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI completely agree with everything you said and also understand the ridiculous stigmas in place for drugs like heroin and marijuana. If we could only get past politics and misguided perceptions, we'd be much better off (and that could probably be argued for other subjects).
I read Bill's commentary yesterday and simply shook my head at the screen (literally). I've enjoyed his debates with Donna in the past (his being regularly more reasonable), but I wholeheartedly disagree with his position on this subject. Of course, he might have to admit that he was previously in a meaningless job if he opines otherwise, but everyone should be able to admit their mistakes.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh, and Donna wasn't involved with this particular article. I only mentioned her since that's when I see Bill the most.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSure, a lot of this is based on circular reasoning: It's illegal because it's bad. And it's bad because it's illegal. Etc.
(reply was to Lorraine, if the reply to this comment feature is still on the fritz.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Bennett's arguments, like too many drug warriors, pretty much start and end with children in rehab.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusewe are a moral, conservative country by culture, not libertarian. In our culture we do not tolerate behavior that has a demonstrated record of causing sloth, bankruptcy, and violence. Particularly conduct that leads to addiction. The only exception (apart from existence of welfare) is alcohol. With that there is a long human history of use, and in short order after prohibition, we learned that banning it was overall unworkable and undesirable. The drug war is different. It could work with consistent enforcement of the laws. We do not need to condone more activities that lead to lack of productivity.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLess still do we need to make a crime out of every activity that we do not condone.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFalse dichotomy alert: "every activity"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Moderator, if I wasn't clear enough, my point is that there are a host of activities that people may not "tolerate" or "condone" personally, but which remain legal. One could accept SeanB's argument 100% and still not be persuaded that it leads to continuing a constitutionally-baseless federal prohibition of marijuana.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat's better, thank you. Such hyperboles raise my hackles.
I am neutral on the marijuana issue.
But I am dead-set against bad-faith arguments.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAmen, brother!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAndrew’s reasoning is airtight, as long as you accept his premises that all drug dealers will get honest jobs, that addiction is a myth, and that only adults will have access to drugs, not children.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGriswel, in my high school days it was far easier to obtain marijuana than it was to get booze.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere are many more drugs out there than just marijuana. And todays marijuana is not that of your high school days.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse