News (Media Awareness Project) - US KS: LTE: Legalization Of Drugs Is A Dangerous Idea |
Title: | US KS: LTE: Legalization Of Drugs Is A Dangerous Idea |
Published On: | 2000-05-14 |
Source: | Topeka Capital-Journal (KS) |
Fetched On: | 2008-09-04 18:42:20 |
LEGALIZATION OF DRUGS IS A DANGEROUS IDEA
Dick Snider is correct about one thing in his April 28 commentary on drug
legalization. My response is, to quote him, "Rot, balderdash, nonsense,
bilge, and baloney" -- or perhaps something more colorful.
The advocates of legalization are quick to assert that legalizing drugs
would reduce crime. I fail to see how; 70 percent of violent crime takes
place under the effect of alcohol or other drugs. So how is legalizing
drugs going to reduce it? Organized crime groups don't just dry up and blow
away, they find other venues.
In Holland, a country where drug enforcement is lax, the murder rate is
three times that of the United States. The Dutch have also seen staggering
increases in violent crime, and marijuana use among their teens is up 277
percent since the policy changes. Australia has twice the heroin-related
deaths than a country like Sweden, a country with restrictive drug policy.
In Alaska, during its period of marijuana legalization, use of marijuana
and other drugs was almost twice that of the rest of the country.
I just returned from Los Angeles after speaking to a large group of state
and federal law enforcement officers. They are acutely aware of the surges
in drug availability every time drug policy softens. They are now extremely
concerned about the tremendous influx of MDMA (Ecstacy) from, guess where,
Holland.
Functionally speaking, how would we legalize drugs? Only a few? Only
certain strengths? Any type of control would create a black market.
Snider's comment about the government providing drugs wold be a fiasco.
Imagine if the government provided any drug that a user desired. Alcohol
and other drugs already cost the United States at least $170 billion in
lost productivity annually. And finally, look at the effects of our two
legal drugs, alcohol and tobacco. Between those two we have around 500,000
deaths annually, 11 million alcoholics. Why would we even think of
increasing those numbers and adding other drugs?
Our most effective approach to reducing drugs is prevention, but how can
you prevent drug use with a nod and a wink? That has been the big problem
in controlling alcohol use among teens. You might be interested to know
that a new study on the effects of driving under the influence of alcohol
and marijuana doubles the effects of alcohol alone. Dick, maybe you ought
to start quoting some of the information that I send you so you don't have
to share the road with more stoned drivers.
- -- ERIC A. VOTH, M.D., chairman, International Drug Strategy Institute.
Dick Snider is correct about one thing in his April 28 commentary on drug
legalization. My response is, to quote him, "Rot, balderdash, nonsense,
bilge, and baloney" -- or perhaps something more colorful.
The advocates of legalization are quick to assert that legalizing drugs
would reduce crime. I fail to see how; 70 percent of violent crime takes
place under the effect of alcohol or other drugs. So how is legalizing
drugs going to reduce it? Organized crime groups don't just dry up and blow
away, they find other venues.
In Holland, a country where drug enforcement is lax, the murder rate is
three times that of the United States. The Dutch have also seen staggering
increases in violent crime, and marijuana use among their teens is up 277
percent since the policy changes. Australia has twice the heroin-related
deaths than a country like Sweden, a country with restrictive drug policy.
In Alaska, during its period of marijuana legalization, use of marijuana
and other drugs was almost twice that of the rest of the country.
I just returned from Los Angeles after speaking to a large group of state
and federal law enforcement officers. They are acutely aware of the surges
in drug availability every time drug policy softens. They are now extremely
concerned about the tremendous influx of MDMA (Ecstacy) from, guess where,
Holland.
Functionally speaking, how would we legalize drugs? Only a few? Only
certain strengths? Any type of control would create a black market.
Snider's comment about the government providing drugs wold be a fiasco.
Imagine if the government provided any drug that a user desired. Alcohol
and other drugs already cost the United States at least $170 billion in
lost productivity annually. And finally, look at the effects of our two
legal drugs, alcohol and tobacco. Between those two we have around 500,000
deaths annually, 11 million alcoholics. Why would we even think of
increasing those numbers and adding other drugs?
Our most effective approach to reducing drugs is prevention, but how can
you prevent drug use with a nod and a wink? That has been the big problem
in controlling alcohol use among teens. You might be interested to know
that a new study on the effects of driving under the influence of alcohol
and marijuana doubles the effects of alcohol alone. Dick, maybe you ought
to start quoting some of the information that I send you so you don't have
to share the road with more stoned drivers.
- -- ERIC A. VOTH, M.D., chairman, International Drug Strategy Institute.
Member Comments |
No member comments available...