Mark Kleiman, in a good post â€” Bullsh*tting Against Drug Legalization â€” takes a look at a new publication by the DEA and the International Association of Chiefs of Police (you know nothing good’s going to come from that alliance): Speak Out Against Drug Legalization
Kleiman handily dismantles the absurd claims in this government document that legalization won’t affect criminal activity and that there’s no proof of marijuana’s medical safety and efficacy.
The United States should be embarrassed by this document (of course, our government is way beyond embarrassment). It’s full of absolute nonsense. Check out this one example of a single bullet point:
â€¢ If we were to regulate marijuana, we would have to concede that itâ€™s acceptable for society to profit from a personâ€™s addiction. There were approximately 38,000 overdose deaths for illicit drugs and non-medical use of prescription drugs during 2006, according to the Center for Disease Control. How much are those lives worth?
Is there any kind of coherent thought there?
Or check out the coherence of this one:
The â€œlegalization lobbyâ€ claims that the â€œEuropean modelâ€ of the drug problem is successful. However, since legalization of marijuana in the Netherlands, heroin addiction levels have tripled. Their â€œNeedle Parkâ€ is a poor model for America.
Then there are portions which are absolutely hilarious:
In addition, the idealistic goals of [alcohol] prohibition went beyond what many initial supporters of prohibition thought they were supporting, and lacked flexibility that would allow policy adjustments to changes in the facts surrounding alcohol. In contrast, our nationâ€™s current drug laws are built upon the Controlled Substances Act, which contains a series of increasingly restrictive schedules that allow for the appropriate regulation of various drugs, as well as a mechanism to move substances from one regulatory status to another should new information about the use of a controlled substance be established.
or how about this one (John Adams must be rolling in his grave)
John Adams, who helped draft the Constitution and later became our second president, declared, â€œOur Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to govern of any other.â€ This means that any and all just laws must be based on moral considerations. Our elected representatives are therefore bound to legislate morality.
I expect the right-wing political preachers to interpret Adams’ statement that way, but not anyone with, oh, an education.
As a separate note in his post, Kleiman asks:
Footnote If the Tea Partiers and their tame politicians were genuinely against nanny-state big government and for statesâ€™ rights, wouldnâ€™t they favor repeal of the Controlled Substances Act? Under the theories they espouse, wouldnâ€™t hey regard it as unconstitutional? Just askinâ€™.
Yeah. Now, I realize that Tea Party isn’t really an organized entity, and that there are many people who follow the Tea Party who are strongly opposed to prohibition. Yet it baffles me (and concerns me somewhat) that you hear so little about drug policy as a Tea Party issue. Because Mark’s right. It’s a natural for being a core view for the Tea Party, assuming that the Tea Party truly opposes big government, and not just partisan-selected big government.