mikeyj.suck respected junglist
crackhead |
30 Jul 2002 09:54 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx
++ | [reply][?][+/-][ed]
|
John Stossels take: "The War on Drugs" airing tonight
An EXERPT from WAR ON DRUGS -- A WAR ON OURSELVES
with John Stossel -- to be aired TONIGHT at 9pmCST on ABC.begin:
ABC News Special "War On Drugs, a War On Ourselves"
with John Stossel" on tomorrow night, Tuesday, July
30, 10 P.M EST. -- Note from ABC's John Stossel about
his drug policy news special, airing Tuesday night
(30 July) at 10 p.m. EST: ABC has given me a full hour
Tuesday night at 10 p.m. ET for a show on the drug war.
I use the time to raise the question: Does the "War on
Drugs" do more harm than the drugs?I think it does.
We know the terrible things drug abuse does, but we
rarely consider the terrible things drug prohibition does.
The government declaring drugs illegal doesn't mean
people can't get them. (We cannot even keep the drugs
out of prisons -- how could we keep them out of America?)
It only means people get drugs on the black market, where
they pay more for them.
This creates the nasty, unintended consequences of the drug war:
It sucks children into the underworld
Why should a kid from a poor neighborhood work at McDonald's,
when he can make 10 times the money selling drugs? Those who
resist the temptation are heroic. The neighborhood role models,
the people with the best cars and the best clothing, are drug
dealers. Who commands respect in the neighborhood? Criminals!
Had I grown up there, I bet I would have succumbed. We interview the kids.
It corrupts copsHow many cops turn down a bribe that would double their pay?
We'll show video of a police officer taking the money.
It corrupts entire countries
We go to Colombia, which now produces most of America's heroin
and cocaine. I don't recommend vacationing there. Colombia is
now the world leader in kidnappings. Murder is common. There
have already been 15 attempts on the life of Colombia's next
president; he's decided to stay in Europe until his inauguration
next month. Drug money trumps law.It creates crime
Films like "Reefer Madness" (we'll show you a clip) suggested
people take drugs and go crazy. In reality, people rarely get
violent because they're high on drugs.
Most drugs users get high privately, live a reasonably normal
life, and eventually quit. The violence we associate with drugs
happens because warring dealers arm themselves to protect their
turf, and because addicts steal to pay the high prices for drugs.
Nicotine is about as addictive as cocaine or heroin, but few people
rob 7-11s to get Marlboros or Budweiser. Drugs hurt people, but it's
the law that causes most of the crime. Alcohol prohibition gave rise
to criminals like Al Capone; drug prohibition is making criminals even
richer. The State Department says that's how Osama bin Laden got some
of his money.So what should be done?
I talk to a Bronx priest who argues that life would
be better if drugs were legal. "Legal means control,"
says Father Joseph Kane. "Illegal means the bad guys have control."
California Judge James Gray agrees. "Hold people
accountable for what they do, not for what they put into their bodies," he says.
The head of the DEA, Asa Hutchinson, calls these
arguments "giving in." I go to Europe to look at
the "Dutch experiment" which separated "hard" and
"soft" drugs by legalizing the sale of marijuana
in licensed "coffee shops." The menus offer marijuana
joints, baggies, teas and chocolates.
Despite legalization, fewer Dutch teens use marijuana
than American teens. Today police in most of Europe
ignore marijuana use. In Spain, Italy and Luxembourg,
they've decriminalized most drug use, and in Portugal
recently, all drug use. Switzerland and a few other
countries now prescribe heroin to some addicts. I visit
a Rotterdam priest who allows addicts to smoke and inject
heroin in "user rooms" in the church basement. Rotterdam's
local police superintendent says the problem is "bigger"
when the police interfere.LEGAL drugs sounds frightening --
but the DRUG WAR is frightening too
Legal drugs might lead more Americans to experiment,
but would it create a health crisis? I suspect use
would go up, and then down, as it did with crack.
People aren't endlessly foolish. In any case, don't
we own our own bodies? Whose decision is it to control
what we put in our own bodies? Ours? Or the state's?-end |
