Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Alcohol, Drugs and Guns

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
MicaelS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-22-08 08:55 PM
Original message
Alcohol, Drugs and Guns
Americans have a history of scrambling from one Moral Panic and resulting Moral Crusade to another. Those zealots (and most often they are religious zealots) who scream Moral Panic at the top of their lungs, that the sky is falling, and America with it, always invoke the idea America will become a better, more lawful and more just society if only their Phobia will be implemented into law. Two of the enduring Moral Crusades Americans have been bombarded by with over the last four to nine decades are Gun Control and the War on Drugs.

Guns are not the problem. Gun Control will not solve “the problem”. The problem is violence and crime, and that problem is driven by the facts of:

(1) Americans apparently insatiable appetite for street drugs,
(2) The money to be made from those drugs.
(3) Our unwillingness to accept those facts and to legalize those drugs.

How long does a “noble” experiment need to continue before it's declared a failure? For Alcohol Prohibition, that means The Eighteenth Amendment and The Volstead Act, it was about 13 years.

The Alcohol Prohibitionists during their Holy Moral Crusade, which started in 1840, assured us that Temperance would make America a better and more just society. It would Save Lives, It would Save Families, and most importantly to them, it would Save Souls. It was just the reverse. Americans went blind or died from bad liquor. Corruption of Law Enforcement was widespread. Government budgets suffered from the lack of revenue from alcohol taxation. Murders became National Celebrities. Prohibition’s ultimate result was the creation an entirely new class of criminals, the Bootleggers, who used extreme violence to achieve their ends. Violence shot up as the bootleggers used machines guns to kill each other, as well as innocents.

This led directly to the first nationwide gun control, the National Firearms Act of 1934, which initially banned machine guns and sawed-off shotguns. Previously, automatic weapons like the Thompson Submachine Gun, or the Browning Automatic Rifle, aka the B.A.R. could be bought unrestricted, even through mail order via the Sears catalog. There were no mass killings with these weapons before Prohibition. It was the power and wealth available through bootlegging that drove the violence.

With the passage of the 21st Amendment in 1933, the repeal of Prohibition occurred. The bootleggers, aka Organized Crime, lost nearly all of their black market alcohol profits because of competition with low-priced alcohol sales at legal liquor stores. So Organized Crime eventually turned to drugs. On December 17th, 1914, the Harrison Narcotics Act passed the US Congress. So the Prohibition of Opiates and Cocaine has been ongoing for 94 years. NINETY-FOUR YEARS. Marijuana prohibition was enacted in 1937. Today, marijuana can be purchased anywhere in the United States, even in schools.

The findings are on the drug prohibition experiment are conclusive -- it's an absolute, utter and complete failure. Want proof? We have half a million people incarcerated in US jails and prisons for drug offenses to show for this “Ignoble Experiment”. FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PEOPLE. In jail. For Drug related offenses. And have all these people incarcerated caused American’s demand for drugs to decrease? No, they most certainly have not. The day we legalize drugs is the day we can begin to clean up the (un)Holy mess that drug prohibition has created.

One of the most prominent supporters of Prohibition helped hasten its end. A letter written by wealthy industrialist John D. Rockefeller, Jr. to Nicholas Murray Butler, was published on the front page of the New York Times in 1932. Butler was President of Columbia University, President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and had received the Nobel Peace Prize. The letter stated:

‘When the Eighteenth Amendment was passed I earnestly hoped- with a host of advocates of temperance-that it would be generally supported by public opinion and thus the day be hastened when the value to society of men with minds and bodies free from the undermining effects of alcohol would be generally realized. That this has not been the result, but rather that drinking has generally increased; that the speakeasy has replaced the saloon, not only unit for unit, but probably two-fold if not three-fold; that a vast array of lawbreakers has been recruited and financed on a colossal scale; that many of our best citizens, piqued at what they regarded as an infringement of their private rights, have openly and unabashedly disregarded the Eighteenth Amendment; that as an inevitable result respect for all law has been greatly lessened; that crime has increased to an unprecedented degree-I have slowly and reluctantly come to believe.”


Sound familiar? Change the context to drugs and see what you get.

You want to end violence associated with guns? Then stop offering the simplistic, feel-good solution of Gun Control, and start demanding the much more difficult solution of Drug Legalization.

Demand that drugs be legalized, regulated and taxed, just like alcohol. No matter of the outcry of the Moral Zealots on the both the right AND the left, that the sky will fall.

Demand that no state, county, city, town or village be allowed to be "dry".

Demand anyone incarcerated on non-violent drugs charges be immediately released, and receive a pardon from their Governor, or from the President.

Demand that laws not be based on "doing it for the children", since what they do is to erode the rights of adults, while doing little, or nothing to save children. State clearly and loudly, that adult Americans, as adults, have more rights than children.

Demand that Sin Based Laws in America cease, and accept the fact that it is not the job of American jurisprudence to Save American Souls. This will be the hardest part of all, since Americans do love encoding an Old Testament notion of Sin into American Law.

Finally, accept and loudly acknowledge the fact that America is based on the ideas and ideals of Rights and Freedoms of the Individual, and the of price Individual Freedom is the fact that some people are going to suffer, either because Drugs are Legal, or Guns are Legal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-22-08 08:59 PM
Response to Original message
1. 21 years clean and sober. I agree completely.
Addiction is not a legal problem, it's a medical one. K and R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Irreverend IX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-22-08 09:01 PM
Response to Original message
2. K+R nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ghost in the Machine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-22-08 09:06 PM
Response to Original message
3. Bravo! Excellent post MicaelS.....
I couldn't find one thing to disagree with...

Welcome to DU...


Peace,

Ghost

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-22-08 09:08 PM
Response to Original message
4. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DavidMS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-22-08 09:36 PM
Response to Original message
5. I agree
Now if only we can convince the immoral minority to go and express their neurosis elsewhere we would be making progress. On the bright side most people of my (I am 28) generation and younger are dramatically less religious.

Its progress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. I think that's been a big part of it.
As for the drugs, everything in moderation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hydra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 11:52 AM
Response to Original message
7. If the Fundies don't get us nuked in the near future
They're going to become irrelevant.

Every generation, there is less support for their BS. Most of my generation doesn't care who you share a bed with(as long as they are human and of legal age), many support legalization of drugs and oppose censorship and are interested in a green world where we don't fight wars. Worse, they support religious tolerance(I'd prefer "acceptance", but that will come too)

The Religious Perverts can kick and scream all they want. Their reign of terror has a definite lifespan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
radioburning Donating Member (146 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 12:13 PM
Response to Original message
8. I heartily agree, except for the fact that...
...it will never happen because American society, as a whole, has the cumulative maturity level of a 6 year old child. France disagrees with us on the war in Iraq, and we want to change french fries to freedom fries. We'll be living the "war on drugs dark ages" for a long time...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bdf Donating Member (430 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 12:45 PM
Response to Original message
9. The insanity of the War on Drugs
Some of those drugs which are currently illegal are more intrinsically harmful than alcohol and tobacco, many are less intrinsically harmful (if they can be obtained in uncut form).

There is no intrinsic harm of those illegal drugs which is not made more harmful by their illegality. There are additional harms caused by making those drugs illegal: not just to the users but to the non-users.

Let me quote the Chief Constable of North Wales police (well, that was his title on 15th October 2007, but after his comments it may no longer be so):

If policy on drugs is in future to be pragmatic not dogma, then the current prohibitionist stance will have to be swept away as both unworkable and immoral, to be replaced with an evidence-based unified system (specifically including tobacco and alcohol) aimed at minimisation of the harms to society.


He also stated that the war on drugs was "unwinnable."

These opinions are echoed by the more-intellectual end of the British press. New Scientist magazine frequently publishes articles showing that most of the illegal drugs, if legalized, would be less harmful than the legal drugs alcohol and tobacco; in editorials it calls for legalization. The Economist weekly newspaper calls for full legalization not, as you may think, on economic grounds (although I suspect that's the real reason for their stance) but on the grounds of John Stewart Mills "Harm Principle" articulated in his essay http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/m/mill/john_stuart/m645o/">On Liberty:


The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.


By contrast, take a recent statement of Gordon Brown, the former poodle's poodle (when Tony Blair was sucking up to Dubya for political advancement, Gordon Brown was sucking up to Tony in order to get the Prime Ministerial position when Tony quit). Brown asked the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to take a look at cannabis policy. He then ignored their advice when he said (emphasis mine)

I don't think that the previous studies took into account that so much of the cannabis on the streets is now of a lethal quality....I have always been very strongly of the view that cannabis is unacceptable and we have got to send a message.


There has never been a documented case of cannabis use causing death. The ratio between lethal dose and effective (recreational or medicinal) dose is about 40,000:1. For aspirin the ratio is between 10:1 and 20:1; for alcohol it's between 4:1 and 10:1. People die of alcohol poisoning and choking on their own vomit after drinking excessively every day. Not once in recorded history has anyone died from using cannabis.

As somebody sagely remarked: the lethal dose for cannabis is 2lb (about 1kg) - dropped onto your head from the top of a skyscraper.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tburnsten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Would that even be dense enough to harm you? N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
east texas lib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. I'll take my chances!
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tburnsten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Classic sig!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
east texas lib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-08 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #12
19. Thanks, I forget who originally said it, but I like it!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prophet 451 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. In fairness to Brown, he was no more a prat than usual
Over the course of time, I've reached the conclusion that Brown is not stupid exactly but tends to believe the last thing he was told. I suspect that here, Brown was thinking of a widely circulated study which linked pot use with an increased risk of mental illness. The study itself was accurate because what it actually said was that if you have a mental illness or a tendancy toward one, anything which alters your perceptions (such as cannabis or many other things) can act as a trigger. Naturally, the media took chunks out of context and made it appear that the study was suggesting pot use could cause mental illness in otherwise healthy people. The irony is that, in vastly exagerating the dangers of cannabis use for years, our government have caused teenagers to distrust everything the government has to say about drugs, even those which genuinely are dangerous.

In theory, it must be possible to OD on cannabis since it's theoretically possible to OD on anything with an active chemical but I honestly doubt it's ever happened simply because the quantity consumed would have to be so vast.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. +1
"The irony is that, in vastly exagerating the dangers of cannabis use for years, our government have caused teenagers to distrust everything the government has to say about drugs, even those which genuinely are dangerous."

Excellent post!

Yep, all we heard was how evil and terrible weed was, and how it led to cocaine and jumping off of buildings.......well, you get the picture.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 06:00 PM
Response to Original message
13. Kicked and recommended.
Thanks for the thread, MicaelS.:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 06:12 PM
Response to Original message
14. Excellent...
First, they tried to ban alcohol to prevent violence.
Next, they try to ban drugs to prevent violence.
Now, they want to ban guns to prevent violence.

Booze, dope, abortion, gay rights, guns, tobacco: all face(d) prohibition policy, a policy of failure.

My question: why are many liberals/progressives so enamored with prohibitionism?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Edweird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 06:19 PM
Response to Original message
15. Right on!
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 07:43 PM
Response to Original message
18. $7500.
Edited on Wed Jul-23-08 07:44 PM by kgfnally
$7500 to give an attorney motivation to write a nastygram to our local drug task force to make it go away.

I just found this out... the hard way.

Please, allow me to point this out: had we not insisted upon a warrant, we would have been able to plead it down.

I'm dead broke now, and then some (several thousand dollars :cry: :cry: I've no clue how to pay for it if the loan doesn't go through), because I insisted on asserting my rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toucano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-08 08:09 PM
Response to Original message
20. Yes, yes, and no. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC