Whitney Houston, she of the musical gift we may see only once in a lifetime, is dead at 48. There has been no final determination, but there is little doubt: drugs killed her.
Houston, they say, and I have no reason to doubt it, was troubled by the pressures of show business, celebrity and stardom, and with a little help from her dead-beat, abusive husband, singer Bobby Brown, sought to relieve the stress with a variety of illegal substances, including cocaine. Over the past 15 years or so, Americans have been able to watch the relentless deterioration of Houston, once the epitome of a beautiful, intelligent, ebullient and charismatic presence, into an emaciated, ruined shell with only a hint of the glorious instrument that once, in the middle of a war abroad, delivered the most stirring rendition of the Star-Spangled Banner I have ever heard, or ever will hear.
This happened to Whitney Houston because when illegal drugs were among the options she could have chosen to accept or reject as a way to get through difficult days and troubled times, she did not have the instant reaction, hard-wired in her brain, that has to stop all of us from doing terrible, dangerous, irresponsible and anti-social things. There can be little doubt that some theoretical options would have triggered that reaction. They would be the options that did not seem like options at all, because the culture Whitney Houston lived in was unequivocal and unshakable in its verdict, a verdict virtually all members of that culture naturally adopted and accepted—because that’s what cultures do. And when that option presented itself, Whitney Houston, like the culture she was a part of, would have said “No.”
That she didn’t say no to drugs, and is dead because of it, was the direct result of an American culture that does not give its constituency a clear message and verdict. Instead, the clearest and most unequivocal signal from the culture, the fact that recreational drugs are illegal and that America enforces the laws against them, is progressively weakened by ridicule, attack, popular culture, and the defiance or hypocrisy of role models and public figures. Incredibly, though the deaths by drug-abuse among the tiny proportion of the world that is famous and talented—Michael Jackson, Amy Winehouse, Whitney—should make it obvious how massive the number of anonymous victims of drug abuse there must be, the destructive refrains grow louder: Legalize drugs! End the War on Drugs! And those calls weaken the cultural resolve further. Actually doing what they advocate would cripple it….and that day might come.
Whether they are preventing the culture from rejecting drug use because enforcement is expensive, or because they have a relative or friend in prison for drug-dealing; whether they are calling for legalization because they are libertarians and academics or Ron Paul, or because they are public officials who see a new revenue source; whether they are longing for the halcyon days of Haight-Ashbury and the Strawberry Alarm Clock, or just like getting stoned, these are the people whose advocacy continues to nurture a competing culture that killed Whitney Houston, as surely as if she had been shot her between the eyes.
I would say that if their insistence on legalization is followed, and the nation’s laws join the popular throng in pronouncing addictive and life-destroying drugs as legitimate “options,” many more like her will die….except there aren’t many more like her. But there are countless lives to destroy, and unimaginable losses to families, businesses and America to be endured.
I just watched the video of Whitney Houston’s glorious performance of our National Anthem at the Super Bowl, before the drugs had finished their work. She radiates confidence, strength and character, as well as that special joy that the fortunate few with magical gifts have. She brings a stadium full of Americans to their feet in cheers, with an exhibition of artistry that will continue to inspire forever. Drugs took all of that away, from Whitney Houston and from us.
Because our culture could not say no with enough conviction to save her.
Update (2/15/12): With some regret, I am closing comments on this post. Too many commenters refused to discuss the issue it was intended to raise, which was how cultural approval and disapproval of conduct is more powerful, ultimately, than the law in establishing standards. I have committed on this blog to responding to as many comments as possible, but the onslaught of pro-drug zealots whose tactic was to keep repeating the same arguments no matter how many times I gave my response led me into too many frustrated responses, too many nasty exchanges, and too many hasty replies that I wish I had stated more clearly. For those I apologize, both to the visitors involved and other readers. I also apologize for ending the discussion here, but I don’t have the time to monitor it. You are welcome to e-mail me personally.
Ethics Alarms 
I wish people had the personal experience I have had with drugs. By that I mean I watched my brother lose everything in his life because of drugs. He used to be in the Navy and fixed the computer boards on helicopters. He was thrown out for alcoholism and drugs. He stopped for a few years and went back to school and got a job.
It didn’t last. Drugs caught back up with him and he dropped out of school and left his daughter at home alone as he was strung out. My dad and I took him in to help clean him up and give my niece shelter. He once again went to school, this time at UCR. He got a job again. It lasted for a while and his body was finally healing.
He didn’t make it to school. He moved back into the valley that claimed him and very quickly went back to drug use. Now he is on probation for shooting his girlfriend in the leg. This has all happened over the course of ten or so years.
Drugs don’t just claim the person doing them. Drugs claim every single person in our world. I do my part every single day to help prevent meth from being made by following the laws Colorado has in place to make sure ephedrine sales are tracked.
What kills me is people seem to think that because some plants grow naturally that they aren’t dangerous. Marijuana grows naturally, but so does nightshade and oleander, etc.
Sorry to hear of your brother’s troubles, but seizing my house and throwing me in jail for growing cannabis is not going to straighten him out. I can grow nightshade, oleander and rhubarb leaves and no cop is going to bust down my door for doing so. I can ingest them at my peril and the legal system could not care less…why is marijuana different ??
See earlier responses about rationalizations. So if there are harmful plants that escape regulation, that means to you that all regulations are invalid? Nonsense.
Jack, old chap, I was asking Joshua why only some plants that he lists as dangerous are regulated. I don’t know.
If it is illegal to posses and grow one type of dangerous plant material why not all, since from what I understand ingesting marijuana will not kill you outright, unlike certain members of the nightshade family.
Oh, and Jack, you toss out the word “nonsense” rather cavalierly for a fellow who dares publish the pap in the italicized paragraph..
Plants do not need to be regulated and controlled. Also, to do so is impossible. Prohibition is genocide. Jack, you lost the argument now and forever.
“See earlier responses about rationalizations. So if there are harmful plants that escape regulation, that means to you that all regulations are invalid? Nonsense.”
So seeking a rational policy, consistent liberty or consistent prohibition, is a rationalization? That is insane.
You know what else is insane? Jimsonweed and angel’s trumpet are legal. I do believe every deliriant is legal. Those are the psychedelic drugs which in which the overwhelming majority of people suffer negative effects. Those are the drugs that most closely resemble the prohibitionist’s stereotype of drugs. And are they prohibited? Nope, they are readily available. Any rational attempt at prohibition for the benefit of the public would prohibit the most dangerous drugs. The fact that the state prohibits the safest while permitting the most dangerous is overwhelming evidence that the entire war on drugs is a fraud.
Completely backwards logic by all legal theory and reasoning! If there are more drugs that are legal despite being as dangerous or more so than cannabis, then the solution is to make them illegal, not to use them to bootstrap a justly illegalized drug to legal status. This is the same rationalization as the alcohol canard…it should be illegal but we can’t do it, so for consistency’s sake we should make all other less dangerous drugs legal. Makes no sense, if we acknowledge that liquor is legal not because it deserves to be, but because it is an anomaly. Multiplying a mistake for consistency’s sake isn’t rational. There are several players in Baseball’s Hall of Fame who don’t deserve to be there…the liquors of the Hall, if the Hall were “legal drugs.” Every year, someone argues that an inferior player should be elevated to Hall status because of “X”, who was as mediocre or worse. Wrong. And foolish. It is embracing a slippery slope that doesn’t have to be embraced, and shouldn’t be, using the false standard of consistency for consistency’s sake, giving up standards in the trade.
THAT’S insane.
Sorry to hear about your brother. How did drug prohibition help him?
DING! Prohibition euphemism! FOUL.
“DING! Prohibition euphemism! FOUL.”
You should contact all of the dictionary publishers and inform them that they are wrong about the definition of “prohibition”. I’m sure they will believe you and immediately issue a retraction.
This is a sad day. I didn’t know how bad things had gotten for her. I really didn’t follow news about her. From what I’ve seen of her she seemed to have a sweet personality and an unbelievable voice. She deserved and should have had a life with love and laughter. That’s how I envision her but that wasn’t her reality.
The libertarian view as I understand it isn’t so much in favor of legalizing drugs but is for taking it out of the Federal government’s domain and allowing states to decide. I would guess the states would not legalize them.
Like the states wouldn’t legalize casino gambling? Most states would legalize cannibalism if there was money in it for them. Don’t kid yourself. And drugs are obviously something that the Feds have to control, if it is to be controlled. Talk about inter-state commerce; this is international commerce.
The all powerful Fed is something people are getting fed up with. No pun intended. It has done virtually nothing to stop the flow of drugs into this country. Borders are virtually wide open. I can’t tell that they’re even half-a$$ed serious about this so called war on drugs.States are labeled racist when they try to stem the flow and are blocked by the Fed. The corruption is paramount. Fast and Furious is evidence of that. Surely the states can’t be any more corrupt than the Fed.It already has far more power than was intended for it. Maybe we should give up the notion that we are states. The Federal State of America.
The states should think about making alcohol illegal again. But then again that resulted in gangs,bootlegging,murders,etc.
No, the alcohol genie was permanently out of the bottle centuries ago—that’s why the pot-alcohol analogy is so dishonest. Pot’s not part of religious ceremonies or ceremonial toasts; it was culturally imbedded before prohibition,and Prohibition was doomed. Genies don’t go back into bottles, and the drug genie is halfway out already.
” Pot’s not part of religious ceremonies or ceremonial toasts; it was culturally imbedded before prohibition,and Prohibition was doomed. ”
Alcohol,whether ceremonial or not, has a history of being destructive unlike the lowly bud…at least in use. I know several people who use pot who suffer no adverse effects,has not destroyed their lives or anyone else’s. So ethically speaking,I’d say alcohol is the worst offender.
And pot has been used in ceremonies among native Americans but that doesn’t stop it being illegal for them now.
ARRRGH. Now Karla, forgive me for being harsh while you’re fencing with tgt, but I am really sick of the bone-headed alcohol argument from drug-legalization flacks, because it defies logic, and is just an “everybody does it” rationalization using drugs in place of people. Look: if alcohol is worse then pot, that’s not an argument for seeing how bad pot can get. If it’s not as bad, it isn’t an argument for it either. We have one legal drug (two, counting nicotine) that kills people, costs society dearly and ruins lives. That is an asinine argument for adding 10 more…lets see, coke, meth, PCP, heroin, pot…you tally them up. And because OJ got away with murder, it doesn’t mean that it’s smart to let every murderer loose, either.
Alcohol is a disaster, but we’re stuck with it. If we could make it vanish from the Earth, we would all be better off. You’re arguing that because we can’t do anything to stem alcohol abuse, we shouldn’t do anything to stop other drugs from becoming just as harmful, and we have NO IDEA how widespread drug abuse would become if we legalized them.
The fact that I keep getting the same nonsensical argument from the pro-drug crowd simply shows how non-rational—and non-ethical— their motives are.
Jack,I don’t want to give you a heart attack! See my comment to you below. I’m willing to admit when I’m wrong but I never said I was in favor of legalizing hard drugs. Legal or not pot doesn’t seem to me to be a big priority. Make it a misdemeanor or something…or is it? Do you see letting the states decide as equivalent to being pro drug? I guess I’m naive. I thought the states would do the right thing but if not that just serves to further disillusion me about the goodness of America and the rottenness of government.
“The fact that I keep getting the same nonsensical argument from the pro-drug crowd simply shows how non-rational—and non-ethical— their motives are.”
You are the one not thinking logically.
If prohibition works, then it will work to solve the problems of alcohol and tobacco.
Since drugs are readily available to anyone with cash prohibition doesn’t work.
“Alcohol is a disaster, but we’re stuck with it. If we could make it vanish from the Earth, we would all be better off.”
And prohibition has made prohibited drugs vanish? Nope. It fuels the creation of new drugs. There are so many new drugs I can’t even begin to keep them straight. In order merely to track their development I need to create a database.
“And because OJ got away with murder, it doesn’t mean that it’s smart to let every murderer loose, either. ”
Murder is a malum in se crime. It is wrong to commit murder regardless of the laws relating to it. Drugs are a malum prohibitum crime. They are considered wrong only because of the laws prohibiting them. The laws against malum per se crimes make sense as those things are actual crimes. The laws against arbitrary types of drugs do not make sense as those things are not really crimes.
You say the pro-drug crowd is unethical – but it is you who are advocating an impossible, ignorant, insane, barbaric campaign of violence against those who drug differently than yourself.
What is this, the online version of a filibuster? Are there really 20 of you using the same screen name? Are you obsessed? Quantity isn’t quality, you know. Or do you?
Thanks for the non-response. I only use one screen name. I doubt that any one else is trolling you. You were linked to by a popular blog, DrugWarRANT.com, and perhaps others. Your classic drug-warrior screed is circulating around the Internet.
And I do know quantity isn’t quality. That’s why I post quality arguments. As for the quantity, I am motivated by three factors. First, I like political discourse with people who hold opposing views, most especially prohibitionists who I find fascinating (and after spending the last year “debating” gun prohibitionists this is a nice change of pace). Secondly, I have a brand new awesome keyboard. Third, and most importantly, my brother died from the War on Drugs. Awesome, super intelligent person who didn’t take any prohibited drugs and yet was still “collateral damage”. My favorite person in the world died because of the stupid, ignorant, insane, immoral and epic failure you are advocating and defending.
You obviously don’t know anything about drugs. Your knowledge is limited to propaganda. You might even know less about drugs than the gun prohibitionists know about guns, and that’s really saying something. You don’t know jack about drugs (pun not intended but hey that’s pretty funny) and having no understanding you want to prohibit it. That’s just plain ignorant.
And for the record, there is no “pro-drug” crowd. As a former prosecuting attorney who has seen first hand the crime created by drug prohibition (not drugs, but drug prohibition), I’m pro-regulation. I’m certainly not “pro-drug.”
For the record, there IS a pro-drug crowd, whether YOU happen to be a member of it or not.
“No, the alcohol genie was permanently out of the bottle centuries ago—that’s why the pot-alcohol analogy is so dishonest”
That doesn’t make any sense.
“Pot’s not part of religious ceremonies or ceremonial toasts;”
Yes it is! There are at least two organized religions that use pot (Rastafarians most famously, but also the Eastern Coptic Church) and there are likely hundreds of other churches that remain underground at this time. That doesn’t include the many millions of individuals who use marijuana for genuine religious purposes.
“Genies don’t go back into bottles, and the drug genie is halfway out already.”
It’s all the way out. You are in denial. The drugs are everywhere. The knowledge on how to produce them is readily available. There is no way to turn back the clock.
Alcohol genie is out of the bottle in the west, but in other cultures the use of cannabis, coca and opium are ‘out of the bottle’ and part of their culture for centuries. The fact that one culture opposes the practices of other cultures makes this a xenophobic culture war. Used properly, there is less danger in most illegal drugs than there is in alcohol. To stop taking alcohol and instead take cannabis leads to healthier, longer-lived, happier people.
Uh-huh. And to quote “Cheers”–“What’s the color of the sky on your planet?” The crazies are out in force now! This is your brain on pot..
“And drugs are obviously something that the Feds have to control, if it is to be controlled. ”
Cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and judging from the news, now meth are available at your local high school. Even China and Thailand with their draconian death penalty for drugs are unable to slow, let alone stop, the drug trade.
Prohibition doesn’t work now. It has never worked in history. So long as people are people it will never work.
Just saying the same thing over and over again in longer and longer posts doesn’t make it true, logical of convincing, guys.
Prohibitionists have been doing it for the last 40+ years. What’s your point?
How’s this for short?
You are 100% ignorant on this topic. You fail. G’night.
Drugs killed my daughter, as you well know. Nothing I did to try to help made a damn bit of difference. She was part of that culture that thought it was glamorous and okay. Another beautiful, talented young woman gone. Could I have prevented it? I hope not. I don’t think I could live with myself thinking that there was something – anything – I could have done to change the outcome.
What was the story behind that?
Less than 24 hrs after her death, we’re speculating (not completely without reason) about the cause. At least give us a day to mourn this incredible talents passing.
As it relates to the legalization of drugs, I believe that drugs must be controlled and largely remain illegal. However,the decriminalization of marijuana absolutely should be considered. I”m aware of the gateway drug research, and the arguments in favor of treating all drugs the same. But this is simply not necessary, or sound policy. The fact is, we are so caught up in budget deficits and not wanting to raise taxes, that it’s simply impossible to fund every aspect of our government the way it would be in a different economic environment. So like most arguments, it boils down to priorities. Pay to punish drug offenders because we can say we’re doing something to solve a tragic, but highly complex issue, or fund programs that provide a helping hand to those in need and trying, in spite of those who say let them eat cake.
Regardless of how Whitney Houston died, and I’m a fan, her issues were personal. Even at the time of her death, she had money, fame, a solid family and support system, and enough positive examples of how to live a good life. She had her struggles with addiction, a disease. Stiffer drug penalties do little to deter the hard core addict from seeking and finding their drug of choice. This is why addicts kick for a period, then stumble. When we finally decide to treat them more like those with a disease, and less like criminals, we’ll all be better off.
Whitney’s problems, tragic as they were, were hers. Society and the culture in the entertainment business had little to do with it. RIP Whitney….
Excellent insight Roger.
My major difference with your take: I do not believe that the law is necessary to provide punishment for drug abuse. I believe it is essential to make society’s statement that drug use in not a victimless crime, but selfish misconduct that does widespread harm to children, families, the economy, business, government resources and societal standards generally.
Absolutely: Whitney is responsible for her own actions—so is every criminal. But the culture contributes decisively to making many of us irresponsible.
As for waiting, absolutely not. In fact, I want to heae the drug legalization advocates make their case NOW, in the immediate shadow of her death. They lay low, knowing that their case looks absurd and foolish when the natural consequences of the “right” they champion is on full display. No, now is the time to talk about the role of drugs in killing Whitney Houston.
Nobody is laying low Jack. I think until the cause of death is known, it is perhaps better not to make or even comment on judgements made without information.
I would like to point out however, that this death occurred under prohibition. The criminal sanctions on drugs did not result in Whitney Houstion living a sober life now, in fact these drugs are freely available to any one with the incentive to look. With no regulation of purity, no age restriction, no doctor’s supervision…not even label instructions. In light of those inarguable facts, how might the prohibition of these substances have saved her?
“In fact, I want to heae the drug legalization advocates make their case NOW, in the immediate shadow of her death. ”
Sure thing. Assuming Houston didn’t commit suicide (the combination of drugs I saw reported makes that seem likely) her death could have been prevented had she been properly educated on drug doses and interactions. Ignorance is the cause of overdoses. Prohibition encourages ignorance. Liberty encourages knowledge and the wise use of it.
“the natural consequences of the “right” they champion is on full display. ”
Actually Jack, the natural consequences of the “power” of prohibition that you champion is on full display. Houston didn’t die while living in freedom. She died living in tyranny. You have blood on your hands. You can try to spin this on those who would have not threatened her with cruel and unusual punishments for her problems, but it is on your head, and the heads of all of those who refuse to allow others to be free.
DING! “Prohibition!’ FOUL.
“DING! “Prohibition!’ FOUL.”
Fascinating way to attempt to control the discourse.
Webster’s: : the act of prohibiting by authority
Definition number 1.
Any other standard definitions you wish to establish a prohibition of?
This is yet another example of how a prohibitionist’s mind works. “I don’t like it. BAN IT!” You can not approve our use of the language, you can censor our posts, you can even shut down comments entirely. Will your actions stop us from using the word as it is defined? Only in your small little fantasy world.
I think we’re again, closer to like thinking than we realize. The laws role in punishing the individual abuser should be miniscule. Few if any drug abusers are responsible for manufacturing, importing or distributing drugs. This is where drug laws should focus their constantly diminishing resources.
Drug use is not a victimless crime. But it’s so much easier to scold and seek punishment for the individual abuser/casual user etc, than to go after the people who make the money, not to mention the bankers who launder these enormous sums. why is it that we don’t hold them to the same standard? Why no outcry and call for the arrest and prosecution of those that provided the drugs that killed Amy Whinehouse, and potentially killed Whitney Houston?
As for waiting, I hear your point, but feel that the immediate shadow can safely include a period that begins a proper and private mourning. Monday is soon enough to start delving into the gossip and misinformation that is sure to come. This morning alone, I was sicked by the sight of paparazzi aimlessly snapping pictures of the coroner van windows as her body was removed from the hotel. Plain disrespectful….
Roger, I realize we’re in the same orchestra, playing complementary themes. Here’s my concern: tonight the Grammys will be all about Whitney, and I’ll bet anything that drugs will never be mentioned. Yet these are the very same people who do their utmost to glamorize drugs for vulnerable individuals and populations—in their lyrics and in their lives. We focus on rap and hip-hop, but Paul McCartney, who will perform tonight, did his part to undo the social consensus against drugs too.
I feel that talking about Whitney’s death without talking about what ended her career and life without is like talking about Abraham Lincoln’s death without mentioning John Wilkes Booth, or Muhammad Ali’s Parkinson’s without talking about the punches he absorbed that left him speechless. By Monday, too many people in this short-attention span culture will have moved on.
Jack, like it or not, there has never been, and nor will there ever be, a drug-free society; the use of addictive or recreational drugs is a natural part of human existence. Nobody here is claiming that any substance is beneficial for either the individual or society. It is true, however, that certain substances help the soul heal and relieve pain while others provide short-term relief from a monotonous existence at the risk of possible long-term health problems.
An important aspect of Individual freedom is the right to self-medicate, or to do with yourself as you please, as long as your actions cause no unnecessary suffering or direct harm to others. You may disagree with this, and you should be free to believe what you wish, but the moment you are willing to use force (paid for with our hard-earned taxes) to impose your will on the rest of us, is the exact same moment that the petty criminals/dealers, the Mafia, drug barons, terrorists and corrupt government officials/agencies enter the equation. The problems created by any possible self-harm then rapidly pale into insignificance as society spirals downwards into a dark abyss, while the most shady characters and black-market corporate entities exponentially enrich themselves in a feeding frenzy likened to that of piranhas on bath-tub meth.
Prohibition does nothing but bring harm, always has, always will. There’s simply not a single thing you or I can do to change that fact!
Be well Jack!
Amy Winehouse drank herself to death. What’s your point? That those who sold her the vodka were responsible for her death? That is such BS. Whatever demons drive any of us, they are our demons, our bodies and our choices. The government’s involvement should only extend to making sure that the substances sold are good quality and known potency. That means regulated sales. It’s the only sane approach, knowing what we now know.
Libertarian, pro-drug, societally suicidal cant. “knowing what we now know”—you mean that people who can’t think of anything better to do than get stoned will scream and yell about their rights to incapacitate themselves to the detriment of society? Yeah, I know that. I don’t have to give in to it though.
But at this point, we don’t know that drugs were involved in her death. No drugs were found at the scene, and an official cause of death has not been provided. We’re merely speculating, albeit not without reason. To be fair, her career was far from over. She was signed to do a movie this year, and had a lot of people rooting for her. So do we not allow her family ( a mother who was a famous gospel singer who is living a church inspired drug free life by the way) some space to mourn solely so we can capitalize on a teachable moment that can’t begin to adequately cover the full issue? Why must we forgo the equivalent legal standard of innocent until proven guilty? Celebrities are always thought better in death than in life. Let the Grammy’s turn into a love fest. Let Whitney have her posthumous moment. It’ll be no less honest than our continued failure to truly deal with the full causes of drug abuse, addiction, and the so called war on drugs……
See how this works? If we don’t say anything, we are avoiding and if we say something we are ghouls. Can you say trap? Who’s the lawyer?
Rather than get on the drug debate, I just want to say that I very deeply felt her pain within. The fact that she put up with an abusive significant other tells me that she struggled with self-esteem and the resulting depression. And clinical depression hurts worse than any physical pain. In these cases, escape from pain is the driving force to find something, anything, to relieve the pain. Then there is dependent personality disorder that hard wires a person towards a propensity to be dependent upon others, drugs, alcohol, whatever. It doesn’t have to be drugs because culture, environment, beliefs, and such can help a person to resist. Then, there is also our most early infant attachment style. If I recall correctly, only about 50% of our American population enjoyed a healthy attachment style which was hard wired into our brains to guide all other wirings as we experience life. The other 50% were not so lucky, thus they struggle with bonding relationships. The anxiously attached tend to be needy to various extents and fear the loss of love, admiration, and acceptance. The avoidant eventually don’t even try. They are not worthy, so why bother. Or, they don’t care anyway.
My point is that there are many, many reasons for any individual to go the path they choose or indirectly choose. And, Artists seem more prone to emotional pain and sensitivity, which is why I think I connected so deeply with Whitney’s powerful voice. She sang Dolly Pardon’s song “The Greatest Love of All” from a depth of emotion that only someone who really feeeeels it could possibly do. I celebrate that Whitney has moved on from this painful life, but her delicate yet powerful spirit will remain in her songs.
Robyn
Atlanta, GA
Whitney wasn’t a dope head. Kobe didn’t rape anyone . OJ didn’t kill anyone and Michael Jackson wasn’t a child molesting pervert.It’s all our fault so lets name streets and holidays after them. that will teach our kids the right way to live.
Give me a break.
Why would I give you a break? That’s a simple-minded, non-responsive comment that either shows a lack of reading comprehension or the IQ of a June bug.
Here here. Seems very contrary to the usual responses on this blog. Let’s continue the solid thought provoking comments.
Let me offer a slightly contrarian view, Jack.
Let’s stipulate your premise that drugs killed her (I will await post mortem results, but I suspect you’re correct).
Did the fact that drugs are illegal prevent her from getting them? Obviously not. Can we, as a society, keep people who engage in self-destructive behavior from doing so? I don’t think so, and I would NOT wish to live in a society that believes it can – the opportunities for abuse of such a policy are obvious and truly frightening.
So what we’ve essentially done is create a situation in which we haven’t addressed demand – I would argue that our opportunities to address demand are minimal. But because we’ve made drugs illegal, we’ve limited supply to the point that drugs are obscenely profitable, and one doesn’t have to go far south of the Rio Grande to see the consequences of THAT.
I mourn for those here who have suffered personal loss due to drugs. But I also mourn for the families of the innocents who have been caught in a crossfire of the amoral bastards who traffic in them, and the hopeless souls who die or are incarcerated after getting caught up in the trade, because they saw it as their best option. I don’t forgive them for doing so, but I do understand it.
Those lives are ruined too. So we see this horrible calculus: a certain number of people will die because they can’t resist the drugs. Under our current system, a certain number of additional people will die because of the lure of the money.
I’ll opt for the former over the latter. Marijuana, cocaine and opioids were all legal for more than half of America’s history, and while some people and families were horribly wrapped up in the drugs during that time, we did not see the associated collateral carnage we do today.
1. No, and the fact that anything is illegal won’t stop someone with her wealth and contacts, but that’s not the point at all. The fact that society unequivocally raises its citizens to abhor drug use requires that society’s laws reflect that verdict.
2. If society, by definition, were not a latticework of interlocking dependencies and obligations, I would agree with you. But you and I have to pay for drug addiction, in dozens of ways, and drug abusers don’t just destroy themselves. And I speak from experience.
3. “Innocents”? Nobody is forced to use drugs. Like Whitney, all are accountable. I do not get this argument, and never will. Someone breaks a law, knowing the consequences, and I’m supposed to feel that they are victims because there is a law? The law deters most Americans. Why?
4. OK, you understand it. So do I. I understand a lot of anti-social conduct. Understanding it doesn’t mean we should make it easier.
5. You have no idea how many more will die once addiction becomes a “choice,” and the government pronounces coke at all as fine and dandy. And if the addiction levels approach that of alcohol est. (75,000 premature deaths per year; 17.6 million alcoholics, billions in cost to society) then what? Is that still a trade you would make? I sure wouldn’t. It’s an insane trade.
“The fact that society unequivocally raises its citizens to abhor drug use requires that society’s laws reflect that verdict.”
Um, our society adores drugs. The government allows us three of the most deadly and dangerous drugs to use as we please, we get several hundred more drugs from government controlled doctors, and then we get a few hundred more drugs from drug dealers (including certain parts of the government which are well documented as being involved in the drug trade.)
“Someone breaks a law, knowing the consequences, and I’m supposed to feel that they are victims because there is a law? ”
Yep. When your actions cause people to die because of your actions – you should feel guilt and a whole bunch of negative emotions.
“The law deters most Americans. Why?”
No it doesn’t. You are living in a fantasy world. In the real world there are plenty of drug users in every class, group, race, religion, political party, et cetera.
“You have no idea how many more will die once addiction becomes a “choice,” and the government pronounces coke at all as fine and dandy. ”
It’s a choice currently. You can try to deny other people their right of liberty, and you can add unnecessary risks and costs to their choices, but you can’t make them stop choosing.
It’s not your life. It’s not your choice. It’s not your life. It’s not your right. What you are advocating is as immoral as any evil that has ever been wrought by mankind. Any attempt to find refuge for your abominable position in collectivism is a reflection of your desperation to justify the unjustifiable. Since we all pay costs of drug addiction, we must incarcerate those who use drugs responsibly? That’s the logic of a moral monster. Would you apply that to cars or any other dangerous property? I should hope not.
I also don’t respond to wise-asses who begin snotty sentences with “Um.” Again, your comments appear to be irrespective of my post. I acknowledge that a strong force in society “adores” drugs. That’s much of the problem. It doesn’t mean its a positive thing. Don’t repeat my points back to me as a rebuttal.
“I also don’t respond to wise-asses who begin snotty sentences with “Um.””
Perhaps you should prohibit that word too. You have quite a long list of reasons you don’t respond to arguments.
“I acknowledge that a strong force in society “adores” drugs.”
It’s why the war on drugs was lost as soon as it started. People love drugs. You know what makes people use more drugs? Cages. Same thing with mice. Put mice in a natural habitat and almost all of them will use cocaine in moderation, a few might go nuts, but most won’t. Put them in a bare cage and they all go nuts for the cocaine.
And what do you advocate? Making the world into a giant cage. And what is going to happen? More drug use.
And while I appreciate your sincere effort not to respond, you didn’t respond. You said “society unequivocally raises its citizens to abhor drug use”. As I said with disbelief dripping from my text, that’s not even remotely true. It is a statement that reflects a fantasy.
“3. “Innocents”? Nobody is forced to use drugs. Like Whitney, all are accountable.”
Right, but you just spent an entire article saying it’s society’s fault for liking drugs so much. Well which is it, jacko? Is she responsible or is society? Do you even understand your own arguments?
I’ll let you figure it out. It’s not a tough problem. Your question is simple-minded…go ahead, I’m sure the answer will come to you. Hint: Parents beat and abuse their child, and he becomes a serial killer. He is 100% responsible, but his parents made him what he is. Now…what’s the analogy? I’m sure you can figure it out.
By the way, my friends call be Jacko–you may call me, “Master.”
“…society unequivocally raises its citizens to abhor drug use…”
Jeez, dude, don’t you ever watch TV? The commercials? Butterflies and scary side-effects? Get REAL.
Wow, Rick—truncating a quote to completely misrepresent its meeting. Who do you work for, Brietbart?
1) We’ve tried that. Drug laws were once harsher than they are now. Look where we are.
2) We agree that we’re paying for it. However, one of the costs you’re overlooking is that due to the price of drugs created by their illegality, most addicts are forced into illegal activity themselves.
3) The innocents I was referring to are not those actively involved in drugs. They are the victims of drive-bys, gang feuds, etc.
4) We’ve been trying it your way for quite a while. It’s not working.
5) See #4.
That’s like saying that seatbelts aren’t working because people still die in auto accidents. Who says it’s not working? It’s reasonable to assume that without the laws and enforcement efforts, the drug-use related problems would be worse. How many of those in jail for drug offenses would just break other laws? My guess: most of them. “Let’s try something different that if the worst case-scenario occurs, we’ll be in Hell” isn’t a rational recommendation.
Jack,I think everyone knows at least one friend or family member who has issues with drugs. It is epidemic. I would hate to think it could get any worse. My own son,through much prayer and love,isn’t one of those who died,thank God,but has been off meth for 4 years now,has a job and is enjoying life.I understand where you’re coming from I think. To legalize drugs is the same as saying America doesn’t care or is alright with it’s abuse. Maybe your right. If the states were in charge or the Fed legalized it, it would be worse. I don’t know what the answer is. All I know is that what we’re doing isn’t working. Do we need to crack down on it harder? Will that make a difference? I don’t know. I wish to God someone had the answers.
“Who says it’s not working?”
Anyone who can see.
“It’s reasonable to assume that without the laws and enforcement efforts, the drug-use related problems would be worse. ”
You should study what reason is before you believe anything is reasonable.
“How many of those in jail for drug offenses would just break other laws? My guess: most of them. ”
So we should incarcerate people for crimes they would commit if we weren’t prohibiting their rights? That goes beyond Orwell…to being Marshallian?
“Anybody who can see.” Now there’s a persuasive argument.
The point about the imprisoned drug=users is that they are law-breakers, not law-abiding innocents caught in a web of persecution.
Obviously.
You aren’t interested in a discussion, you just have an agenda,
“It’s reasonable to assume that without the laws and enforcement efforts, the drug-use related problems would be worse. ”
There is no evidence of that, only counter-evidence, such as Portugal’s successes in reducing crime rates and aids contractions by decriminalizing all drugs. In-site, the safe-injection facility in Vancouver has reduced the spread of aids and other ills associated with unsafe injections.
These are real societal benefits. Your assumptions are wholly unfounded.
As to your claim that your view is based on “experience”, well, obviously! Everyone’s opinion is based on his own experience, and your experience is no more valid as an authority than the next man’s. Scientific evidence is what is required here.
Portugal isn’t the United States. Sweden isn’t the United States. You have no proof at all. Just wishes, hopes and bias. I deleted your other comment. Name-calling, however concise, is not valid commentary.
Wow. Wild claims. I gave out the alcohol stats, which are conservative. We know what harm drug use causes in the streets; we know there are deaths. We know the problem became epidemic in the Sixties when being stoned was celebrated by elites and the pop culture. We know the problem has gotten infinitely worse as a result, and know you have no proof that in the US, legalizing wouldn’t lead to an overwhelming drug problem effecting schools, businesses and families.
And don’t tell me what I have gall saying—you don’t even have the guts to use your own name. This is my site, Clyde, and you’re my guest. You’re welcome to your opinion, but not to insult the host.
“you have no proof that in the US, legalizing wouldn’t lead to an overwhelming drug problem effecting schools, businesses and families.”
We do have proof that the War on (some) Drugs (used by some people) grows the drug problem. You blame the people who are smart and aware enough to realize that there are positive benefits that can be obtained from drugs while giving a free pass to the many consequences of your favored policy. The drug warriors are running the show – you are the one responsible for all of the coke, smack, and dope in high schools. That’s what you wanted, that’s what you got, and the fact that you lack the intellectual capacity to connect cause and effect doesn’t change the nature of reality.
“Portugal isn’t the United States. Sweden isn’t the United States. You have no proof at all. Just wishes, hopes and bias. ”
The United States is the United States. When cocaine, morphine, opium, and cannabis were all readily available over the counter there was only one drug that was so addictive, so toxic to the bodies and minds and souls of it’s users, so effective at inducing men to become violent, that the public rose up and called for it to be prohibited. What drug was that Jack? It wasn’t cocaine, morphine, opium, or cannabis. It was alcohol!!!
First tell me when “cocaine, morphine, opium, and cannabis were all readily available over the counter.”
And for the 400th time regarding the silly alcohol, irrelevent refrain—SO WHAT? So what? What do you think that proves?
Jack, cocaine and opioids were freely available until 1914, when the Harrison Act required anyone who sold them to have a license. By the 1930s most states had some form of law regarding cannabis on the books; it wasn’t made illegal by the Federal government until 1937.
“Jack, cocaine and opioids were freely available until 1914, when the Harrison Act required anyone who sold them to have a license. By the 1930s most states had some form of law regarding cannabis on the books; it wasn’t made illegal by the Federal government until 1937.”
I remember hearing how Coca Cola started out.
1. Heroin, crack and crystal meth were never available “over-the-counter.” The commenter was making a dishonest point—the drugs you mentioned were legal because 1) there was no regulation of any drugs, including fake medicines 2) there was no real data on their health effects 3) the social stigma on opium use was strong enough to inhibit use without laws, supporting my original point, and 4) it was 1914, for heaven’s sake. Child labor was legal. Wife beating was legal. Lynching was legal. What does pointing to hundred-year old policies prove? You might as well cite Mars.
2. Karla, you’re late to this party, unfortunately. After being called a Nazi and reading over and over again the same stupid pro-drug arguments, I’m not up for having an intelligent one, which I know you would provide. There are are other pressing issues. I’m sorry.
Jack, heroin actually WAS available over the counter until the Harrison act passed. Crack and crystal meth are more recent developments, and one could certainly argue that their development is a direct result of the so-called “war on drugs.” Seeking opportunity to increase the obscene profits generated by recreational drug use, criminals sought and produced ever more intense and addictive agents for doing so.
Like it or not, some people like to get high, and the other course of action (beyond overtly criminal activity) is the creation of psychoactive agents that are new enough and chemically different enough that they can be sold freely until government catches up with them – recent examples being bath salts and synthetic marijuana. Would these agents be on the market were it not for current drug policy? it’s hard to imagine that they would.
We agree on the potentially destructive nature of recreational drug use. Where we disagree is the remedy. When I look at the violence the criminal activity related to drug distribution has caused, and when I look at both the financial and societal costs – including the destruction of neighborhoods and the incarceration of those involved, I can’t come up with any conclusion beyond “this isn’t working.”
This is nice…the crazies and zealots are gone, and the rational commenters are back! Question, Arthur: elborate on “this isn’t working.” “This isn’t working….
1. …at all”?
2. …as well as something else I can authoritatively identify” ?
3….as well as we would like”?
My second question is: Do you really think that the gangsters killing people in drug trade violence will just open newspaper stands and soup kitchens if drugs are no longer their best business? Is it fair to say that the illegality of drugs generates crime and violence, or is it more likely that those who are attracted to crime will find objects for their chosen occupation whether it is drugs or something else?
“Do you really think that the gangsters killing people in drug trade violence will just open newspaper stands and soup kitchens if drugs are no longer their best business? ”
That’s good question. What happened to the gangs after prohibition was lifted?
” After being called a Nazi and reading over and over again the same stupid pro-drug arguments, I’m not up for having an intelligent one, which I know you would provide. There are are other pressing issues. I’m sorry.”
A Nazi? I fail to see how you even come close to that. This discussion has gotten way out of hand.
Ya think? The original post was limited in purpose—the idea was to raise the importance of societal values, norms and taboos in building ethics alarms for celebrities and non-celebrities alike. Hardly discussed in the comments, which centered on pro-drug arguments, most of them left over from the 60’s. I’m sick of it.
What other laws would they break Jack? Petty theft? Purse snatching? These are the crimes of addicts. And if caught they should be punished. But we still have not discussed the bigger issue of those at the top end of the drug heap. Many of us have friends that smoke a little weed, or have a few drinks. If they’re busted for possession, or driving under the influence, they go into the system. But the real benefactors of the drug culture are largely anonymous. I fail to understand why we treat the individual with a problem disproportionately harsher than the real players. Why? I’m not so sure that drug related problems would be worse without rigid enforcement. However, I also see a danger in European style needle exchanges, and the health problems that would surely follow blind acceptance to wide spread drug use.
I for one, am going to watch the Grammy’s and engage in fond remembrances of Whitney, and at least for a night, not think about how she might have died, or the larger issues related to drug use. Plenty of time to reengage tomorrow…..
Pingback: Don’t let Whitney Houston become the next Len Bias | Nobody's Business
The drugs you hate are already illegal in every single state, Jack. What more do you want?
How many millions of people do you suppose are “hurt” not primarily, or not at all, by the drugs they consume, but by the way that law enforcement and the judicial system comes down on them like the proverbial ton of bricks, destroying careers, families, and communities?
In large part thanks to the drug war, the United States has five percent of the world’s population and roughly twenty-five percent of the world’s prisoners. So are we somehow a much more wicked, diseased, and dangerous people than any other population on the planet? Or would the stunning prison statistics have something to do with an approach to illicit drugs that is not, in fact, working nearly as well as you make it out to be?
Oh, that’s right, you think the system isn’t working well enough, because “American culture does not give its constituency a clear message and verdict.” What does that mean (apart from the fact that I don’t know how a “culture” can have a “constituency”)?
Does it mean that we need to further escalate the drug war? Would that do it for you, Jack? Strangely enough, we’ve not wiped drugs from our fair land since we started applying the still-prevalent draconian, hard-edged, ton-of-bricks method more than eighty years ago, when the first drug czar, Harry Anslinger, rode into Washington.
Or does it mean that we should stop talking about solutions that do not involve more SWAT teams, more bloodshed, and more prisons?
And speaking of the 1920s, you are familiar with the history of alcohol prohibition, are you not? You do understand that prohibition creates black markets which attract criminal gangs that drive up violence and murder and corruption, correct? Hey, you know who else understood that? Congress, which by 1933 had turned so ashen and shocked by the unintended but predictable effects of the alcohol-banning Eighteenth Amendment it had passed in 1920, that those same lawmakers repealed prohibition en masse, to the great relief of Americans everywhere, drinkers and non-drinkers alike.
You say that drugs cause self-destruction, and ruin too many lives of users and the people who love them. Aye, that they do (although you’ll never read in the papers about the millions of recreational users who didn’t overdose the day before). Anyway, yup, drugs can kill. And so can alcohol, Jack. That doesn’t change the fact that the vast majority of people enjoy beer or wine or liquor without falling into addiction and squalor, and without ultimately damaging/killing themselves. Do you want to re-classify the pleasure-seeking of beer-drinkers and wine connoisseurs as a crime? Shall we go back to full-on alcohol prohibition? If not, what is your rationale for insisting that alcohol’s OK, but all other recreational drugs must stay illegal and their users publicly reviled, mercilessly prosecuted, and imprisoned at rates the world has never seen?
Insanity, as you know, is repeating the same action over and over while expecting different results. That’s drug prohibition to a T (I think T stands for Total War). We’ve tried it the drug warriors’ way for the better part of a century. It’s beyond time that we now do something more rational that, however counterintuitive it may seem to you, arguably stands a much better chance of working in reducing the number of deaths as well as the assaults on our liberty.
I have to hand it to you, Roger—you hit all the cliche arguments, invalid today, invalid forever.
1. Nobody makes people break laws. Saying law enforcement hurts law breakers is stating the obvious, but it ignores where responsibility lies. If there were no laws, nobody would be hurt by law enforcement…people would just be hurt by the consequences of the conduct that should be illegal.
2. The US has more people in prison because it has a more risk, freedom and pleasure oriented culture that is also more diverse than most, and because the population still does not live in fear of the government, arrests notwithstanding. This statistic doesn’t prove a thing. Again, people are in jail because they break laws. That’s within their control.
3. Culture is always more powerful than law. We had laws against drugs in the 50’s, but far fewer people violated them because it was considered dangerous and shameful behavior. Taking the shame out of it is what gave us the drug epidemic. You and others like you are working to build a pro-drug culture, undermining the laws and then arguing that the laws have failed.
Yeah, “constituency” wasn’t the best word. “Member”? Presumably you know what the people who make up a culture are.
4. I’m not advocating policy; that’s not my job. I’m talking about the ethical function of law to define what a society believes is right and wrong.
5. As I just wrote to another commenter, the alcohol comparison is lazy fallacy and I’m really sick of hearing it. Here’s my latest response:
“….I am really sick of the bone-headed alcohol argument from drug-legalization flacks, because it defies logic, and is just an “everybody does it” rationalization using drugs in place of people. Look: if alcohol is worse then pot, that’s not an argument for seeing how bad pot can get. If it’s not as bad, it isn’t an argument for it either. We have one legal drug (two, counting nicotine) that kills people, costs society dearly and ruins lives. That is an asinine argument for adding 10 more…lets see, coke, meth, PCP, heroin, pot…you tally them up. And because OJ got away with murder, it doesn’t mean that it’s smart to let every murderer loose, either.
Alcohol is a disaster, but we’re stuck with it. If we could make it vanish from the Earth, we would all be better off. You’re arguing that because we can’t do anything to stem alcohol abuse, we shouldn’t do anything to stop other drugs from becoming just as harmful, and we have NO IDEA how widespread drug abuse would become if we legalized them.
The fact that I keep getting the same nonsensical argument from the pro-drug crowd simply shows how non-rational—and non-ethical— their motives are.”
6. First time, first offender drug users, as opposed to peddlers and repeat possession defendants, are almost never imprisoned. This is a constant misrepresentation by your cabal. And I’m supposed to feel sorry for someone who was caught, given a suspended sentence with a requirement to take some anti-drug classed, and gets caught AGAIN? You know what? Someone who does that deserves jail on principle, for defying the law…any law.
7. Your last paragraph is simply untrue.
Jeez, Jack. Have you opened your shades and looked around recently? I hate to go all caps lock on you and all, but, DRUGS ARE A PART OF OUR CULTURE AND WE’RE STUCK WITH THEM. Moreover, it’s is a fact of human behavior and hard wired into our psychology. Addiction is an illness. It has been around since humans have walked the earth. Prohibition is a policy that has been around for about a hundred years (don’t go all freaky on me and suggest that religios taboos are the same as government sanctions, they are not). In 1937 there were an estimated 100,000 marijuana users nationwide. That was with a population of 36 million people, roughly. Now we have a situation under 70 years of it’s absolute prohibition where 40% of the population have tried marijuana, and there are about twelve to seventeen million people who use it regularly. As a policy designed to restrain public use, it is an abject failure. It might be reasonably argued we would be better off with a return to pre1937 policies which were no restrictions, no labeling requirements, nothing. But no reasonable person is suggesting anything like that. Instead these hated legalization advocates are calling for strict regulation, control through taxation, and real harm mitigation policies in place of expensive, inneffective punitive legal sanction.
Sorry, but the ideas you are clinging to have caused or enhanced the damages that you claim will be the result of their abandonment.
Don’t be condescending by calling his arguements cliche. They are valid points.
1. Arresting people for assaults, beatings and robberies doesn’t bring money back to police departments, but drug cases do in a couple of ways. First, police departments across the country compete for a pool of federal anti-drug grants. The more arrests and drug seizures a department can claim, the stronger its application for those grants.
The availability of huge federal anti-drug grants incentivizes departments to pay for SWAT team armor and weapons, and leads our police officers to abandon real crime victims in our communities in favor of ratcheting up their drug arrest stats,” said former Los Angeles Deputy Chief of Police Stephen Downing.
Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/21/drug-war-incentives-police-violent-crime_n_1105701.html
scroll down to the section titled misplaced priorites. It’s principles like this that help spread corruption which does hurt people who aren’t even involded with drugs.
In response to your second point, i would disagree. incarceration rates are increasing because pirsons are privatized. they want you in jail so they make more money. These laws that people are breaking are not laws that are genuinely good for you and me. this isnt about right and wrong. this is about making laws that they know you will break so that they can throw you in jail to make money off of you.
Link: http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=104877
in response to your third point i would say that yes it is the responsibility of the culture to define the laws and not the other way around. thats what America is about. Also you have this notion that change is bad. Change happens all the time everywhere regardless. the old die and the young come into play with new ideas to scultp a new world. trying to stop that is futile. it would be like the 50’s how you described above only instead of fear there would be tolerance and understanding. instead of jail cells there will be clinics with arms open. there would be PEOPLE not criminals. Just because a law is does not mean it should be.
I also don’t like the word ‘drugs’ for it is a poor colloquial/umbrella term that groups many different chemicals into one group. sure meth and crack and coke and heroine prolly arent the best choices when indulging, however does this mean that truly wonderful drugs like MDMA, marijuana, magic mushrooms, LSD, Peyote/mescalin etc should also be feared, should also carry around such terrible connotations? I do not think so. Lets not forget about other things that are ‘drugs’ : sugar, caffeine, salt, fat, adrenaline etc. these things lead to poor lifestyles which can lead to death and suffering. Lets recognize these chemicals for what they are, different concotions with different effects. If anything, drugs should be respected. There are plenty of drugs that can teach us about ourselves and others more so than you could ever imagine (im speaking from experience).
Lastly on your point about ethics. ethics is relative based on perspective. One could easily argue that concepts of right and wrong don’t exist at all. When i see people make this arguement i think that the real issue here is the person making the statement “drugs hurt third parties too”. im not denying that you have been hurt, for i have been down that road as well. When you boil it down though the issue seems to be that you know better than the drug user. you are hurt by their actions toward themselves and because of this you feel the need to intervene, to control the outcome. this is a power struggle between the drug user exercising their free will on themselves and the third parties being hurt by that free will. The only way you can prevent yourself or someone else from being hurt is by taking away their free will, which is to take away the ability to explore the many wonders and mysteries that this world has to offer. Not everbody is going to see it your way, not everyone is going to walk your path and that is part of what life is about, dealing with things that are beyond your control. dealing with hurt, loss and suffering. Yes that means letting people fall, but it also means helping people get back up (via clinics, compassion and understanding and not jail cells). There have been plenty of countries which have demonstrated that effectiveness of drug legalization. Did everyone flock from their homes to do drugs cause they are legal now? No. Did violent crime decrease? Yes. Did property crime decrease? Yes. Have deaths via overdose decrease? Yes.
Here’s one link: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html
If we are going to get through this together, then we need to accept the fact that humans are curious creatures and that people usually need to learn lessons the hard way before they have any real wisdom. Also i know this is last minute but most drug overdoses are caused my pharma meds like opioids. That’s right, legal pills are killing more people than crack or heroin or meth or coke. Legal pills that are PERSCRIBED by doctors that are pushed by pharma companies.
Link: http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/rxbrief/
Anyways what i was saying is lets treat like adults that have respect for each other. Lets leave our minds open and finally lets have some compassion for each other. Nobody wants to be hurt, everyone wants to be loved. Lets replace this resentment with love.
I do not need to waste time debating with someone who seriously argues that concepts of right and wrong don’t exist at all. This is an ethics blog. Go hang out at the ignorance and chaos blog.
And those arguments meet the definition of cliche in every respect.
I never argued whether right or wrong exists only that one could make that arguement, which one can idiot. Have you ever taken Philosophy? The only one who is ignorant here is you, shooting down everyone who doesnt agree with you. i feel as though im arguing with my teenage self. apparantly everything anyone has posted is cliche to you. i suppose in your world validity = cliche. Go ahead and throw some fact my way why dont you. show my some link or documentation that furthers your opinion. until then you have nothing but banter on your side. The fastest way to lose an argument is to not engage in it. dismissing valid points does nothing to further your point, simply discredits you. offer up some facts instead of wild speculation or do you not have time for that either?
“6. First time, first offender drug users, as opposed to peddlers and repeat possession defendants, are almost never imprisoned. ”
What does happen to people the first time they are caught? These days they are sent to re-education camps just like China does where they are subject to sad attempts to brainwash them. You call these camps “rehab”. The great irony of course is that these camps serve as drug using/dealing hubs where people can network with other users and dealers and obtain higher quality and a greater variety of drugs than they had before.
The other great benefit to establishing people as a drug offender is that it entraps them in the system so they can be arrested again and again.
I’m confused here. Prohibition didn’t save Whitney, but prohibition is the only way to save others like her?
Rather than blaming these senseless deaths on prohibition (punish rather than treat), the blame is on those who support legalization? Those who want to get people with drug problems the help they need rather than throwing them in jail? They are the problem? Does this actually make sense to anybody?
Apparently nobody realizes that for the entire history of mankind we managed to keep drug abuse under control. All drugs were legal, yet civilization didn’t collapse. Until 100 years ago when somebody came up with the idea of prohibition. Since then, we’ve had a drug problem. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to connect the dots.
Prohibition has never accomplished anything other than punishing people for their personal choices. Yet prohibition is the only solution. To a problem it created.
I think I’ve decided that any commenter who uses the dishonest euphemism “prohibition” to describe the illegality of any drug other than alcohol will get the no courtesy of a response from me, and I may just ban such comments outright. It’s misleading, and I’ve said why. Alcohol is not a required slippery slope to allow all drugs.
See Webster’s for a definition. I’ll second A Critic’s assessment. Fascinating way to attempt to control discourse. Banning words. Wow.That does, however, answer a whole lot of questions about how you see the world.
Jack, try a simple google search with the following: “Whitney Houston Prescription drugs” and then get back to us!
What does that prove? Houston’s life was dominated by drug abuse. So prescription drugs and alcohol killed her…that’s a triumph for you? Her body was ravaged…obviously…from the drugs you champion. The drug culture killed her. The specific drug, or its legal status, is irrelevant.
It becomes relevant when some drugs are banned and some are not and you argue for continued or enhanced punishment for those that are. Those prescriptions don’t carry a jail sentence unless they were fraudulantly obtained. Yet it was likely those that killed Whitney, not the banned drugs. The banned, schedule one drugs did not, because they do not kill people (with the exception of methamphetamine, which is the only drug that is simultaneously in schedules one and three). Yet you use her death, even though the cause is not yet known to trumpet from the rafters. You make it relevant by calling for penalties on some, but not all drugs.
If prohibition prevents drug abuse, why is Whitney Houston dead?
Seems like a blindingly obvious hole in your rant.
This idea that the chemical properties of certain drugs cause drug addiction is horribly flawed. The majority of people who use drugs (legal or illegal) do not end up as degenerate addicts.
Did you read my “rant”? (and it was not a rant.) I said nothing of the sort—in fact, I said the opposite. The way to prevent drug abuse is to have a powerful cultural consensus that drugs are harmful, destructive and wrong. Laws are an essential aspect of that demonstrated consensus and social message. You question shows a disturbing lack of comprehension, or that, more likely, you never actually read the post.
An educated people do not need laws to reach a consensus. I believe a firm consensus already exists, just as there is consensus that tobacco use is harmful. There is no evidence that legalizing and regulating these substances will increase use. On the contrary, there is some evidence that it may reduce use, especially among high school and younger kids.
The Dutch have far lower rates of adolescent use than the rest of europe.
And we’ve said nothing at all of the benifits of harm reduction. Are those who have already fallen to addiction, and those who will not be saved regardless of intervention not worth saving? Because the current system of prohibition lets them die, just to send that firm message that “Drugs are bad, m-kay?” I had these people in the populations I treated for sixteen years. These people don’t have to die, you know. We cannot do anything to stop familes greiving the loss of a loved one to drugs, but I am guessing that these people would be happier doing that than mourning their deaths. This current system fits a definition of insanity popular in the recovery community. “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, each time expecting different results.”
Gee, what about people who keep writing the same thing over and over again, when it is neither true nor persuasive?
The consensus you claim simply does not exist, and it is a lie to claim otherwise.
It is almost comical how one-note all the pro-drug arguments are, and how empty. Except that it is tragic.
“The consensus you claim simply does not exist” Why don’t you test that theory, Jack? Go into your church and ask a sample of people there. While you’re at it, go ask at a grocery store, or even a high school. The consensus is there, to assert otherwise is worthy of ridicule.
“Neither true nor persuasive.” They are true and persuasive. And they are the conclusions being reached by anybody who has taken the time to look at this problem.
Jack, you present nothing but the same old failed costly unsustainable prohibition. And you fail to present any ideas on how to change this. Your argument is authoritarian in the extreme and for you and your ilk there can be no middle ground, even if it means saving lives. I and people like me are looking for solutions, not ways to maintain the status quo. ‘Course, that means less money for the lawyers….
Jack is an idiot who plugs his ears with his fingers screaming lalalalala cant hear you while screaming his opinion at the top of his lungs.
“It is almost comical how one-note all the pro-drug arguments are, and how empty. Except that it is tragic.”
All you have is “Drugs are bad, mmmkay?”
And you criticize those who recognize and differentiate between the incredible range of drugs and their effects and their uses and their abuses and their consequences as being one note?
Drugs are great, drugs are awful. Depends on the person and the dose and the drug and their interaction.
Out of curiosity Jack, do you drink alcohol? I’d really appreciate an honest answer. So far every single prohibitionist I’ve met drinks alcohol. Are you totally straight edge, no caffeine no tobacco no alcohol? Or are you a hypocrite? This is a serious question. It goes straight to the heart of a key ethical problem with prohibitionists.
“The way to prevent drug abuse is to have a powerful cultural consensus that drugs are harmful, destructive and wrong.”
The way to prevent negative consequences is to create a mass delusion about the characteristics of a type of property? The misuse and abuse of drugs have those characteristics. The proper moderate use of drugs is not harmful, destructive, or wrong. Encouraging ignorance is not going to help.
Right, C…drugs are a benefit to all, and the easier it is to get stoned, the better. Read a book. Tend a garden. What a pathetic set of priorities you have.
“Right, C…drugs are a benefit to all, and the easier it is to get stoned, the better. Read a book. Tend a garden. What a pathetic set of priorities you have.”
Thank you for proving my point. You have one message and only one message. “Drugs are bad, mmmkay?”
It’s a very simple view you have. Drugs are complex. You wish to pretend that drugs are simply bad, but reality is not conforming to your wishes or your pretense.
I’ve been making progress on my reading list so I’m only reading eleven books at the moment (and no Jack, these books are not pop fiction or stoner reads, instead they are intellectual and academic books all best in their class).
It is February so I can not tend my garden, I am however planning it. Last year was my first year gardening and I dug (by hand) and planted 3500 sq. ft. This year I am going to dig another 4000 sq. ft. and plant all of it. I am also going to be planting an acre or so on a friends land. I also will be starting a publishing company and I will publish at least my first novel, perhaps more if the muse strikes me right in addition to works by other authors, and depending on how my R&D goes I may launch my second business. I didn’t realize that these priorities of mine were pathetic, I suppose I should dig deep to find the resolve to do something meaningful with my life. Oh yes, I am developing my own strength training regimen, but I suppose that is also pathetic.
Some might tell you that judging people based upon a stereotype that isn’t relevant is pathetic, but don’t let them grind you down Jack.
Some simple facts:
* Colombia, Peru, Mexico or Afghanistan with their coca leaves, marijuana buds or poppy sap are not igniting temptation in the minds of our weak, innocent citizens. These countries are duly responding to the enormous demand that comes from within our own borders. Invading or destroying these countries, thus creating more hate, violence, instability, injustice and corruption, will not fix our problem.
* A rather large majority of people will always feel the need to use drugs such as heroin, opium, nicotine, amphetamines, alcohol, sugar, or caffeine.
* The massive majority of adults who use drugs do so recreationally – getting high at the weekend then up for work on a Monday morning.
* Apart from the huge percentage of people addicted to both sugar and caffeine, a small minority of adults (nearly 5%) will always experience the use of drugs as problematic. – approx. 3% are dependent on alcohol and approx. 1.5% are dependent on other drugs such as methamphetamine, cocaine, heroine etc.
* Just as it was impossible to prevent alcohol from being produced and used in the U.S. in the 1920s, so too, it is equally impossible to prevent any of the aforementioned drugs from being produced, distributed and widely used by those who desire to do so.
* Prohibition kills more people and ruins more lives than the drugs it prohibits.
* Prescription drugs kill over 200,000 Americans every year– even when taken as directed and not abused.
* Due to Prohibition (historically proven to be an utter failure at every level), the availability of most of these mood-altering drugs has become so universal and unfettered that in any city of the civilized world, any one of us would be able to procure practically any drug we wish within an hour.
* Throughout history, the prohibition of any mind-altering substance has always exploded usage rates, overcrowded jails, fueled organized crime, created rampant corruption of law-enforcement – even whole governments, while inducing an incalculable amount of suffering and death.
* Apart from the fact that the DEA is the de facto enforcement wing of the pharmaceutical industry, the involvement of the CIA in running Heroin from Vietnam, Southeast Asia and Afghanistan and Cocaine from Central America has been well documented by the 1989 Kerry Committee report, academic researchers Alfred McCoy and Peter Dale Scott, and the late journalist Gary Webb.
* It’s not even possible to keep drugs out of prisons, but prohibitionists wish to waste trillions of dollars in an utterly futile attempt to keep them off our streets.
* The United States jails a larger percentage of it’s own citizens than any other country in the world, including those run by the worst totalitarian regimes, yet it has far higher use/addiction rates than most other countries.
* Prohibition is the “Goose that laid the golden egg” and the lifeblood of terrorists as well as drug cartels. Both the Taliban and the terrorists of al Qaeda derive their main income from the prohibition-inflated value of the opium poppy. An estimated 44 % of the heroin produced in Afghanistan, with an estimated annual destination value of US $ 27 Billion, transits through Pakistan. Prohibition has essentially destroyed Pakistan’s legal economy and social fabric. – We may be about to witness the planet’s first civil war in a nation with nuclear capabilities. – Kindly Google: ‘A GLOBAL OVERVIEW OF NARCOTICS-FUNDED TERRORIST GROUPS’ Only those opposed, or willing to ignore these facts, want things the way they are.
* The future depends on whether or not enough of us are willing to take a long look at the tragic results of prohibition. If we continue to skirt the primary issue while refusing to address the root problem then we can expect no other result than a worsening of the current dire situation. – Good intentions, wishful thinking and pseudoscience are no match for the immutable realities of human nature.
Never have so many been endangered and impoverished by so few so quickly!
* The urge to save humanity is almost always a false-face for the urge to rule it. – H. L. Mencken (1880-1956) American editor, essayist and philologist.
Some of these are facts, some are falsehoods, some are opinions, some are spin, some are arguments, and almost all of them are irrelevant to the post at hand. I’ve seen these talking points before, in almost the same order. Cut and pasting a blog post isn’t an argument.
By the way, I am on to the use of your mpvement’s deceitful use of “prohibition” as a clever avoidance of the real issues by calling the mind back to Prohibition, which is universally unpopular, widely misunderstood, and a rotten analogy with drug enforcement. Euphemisms are a form of lie, as they aim to deceive.
“By the way, I am on to the use of your mpvement’s deceitful use of “prohibition” as a clever avoidance of the real issues by calling the mind back to Prohibition, which is universally unpopular, widely misunderstood, and a rotten analogy with drug enforcement. Euphemisms are a form of lie, as they aim to deceive.”
Wow Jack, wow! That’s one of the most classically dishonest things a drug warrior has ever said! Are you drinking right now?
Malcolm Klyle is the author of that blog post, as well as thousands of others. He is one of the most prodigeously productive people I have ever had the good fortune to know. Hthe sheer volume of his production staggers me, and so you’ll have to fogive his use of “boilerplate” posts occasionally. It saves constant retyping of the same points. If something he posts is not one hundred percent relevant that is the reason. You can rest assured that the contents that are relevant were what he intends.
Any thing Malcolm posts that is not his work is accompanied by attribution and/or links.
Jack, you may not think any of it relevant but I wager you are firmly in the minority here – even if it is your blog.
If there was just one single false statement or fact in my above list I’m sure you would have triumphantly jumped all over it and ripped it apart. But there wasn’t, and I guess you didn’t because you simply couldn’t.
Why do you threaten the rest of us for simply ‘calling a spade a spade’?
Here is Wikipedia’s entry for ‘Drug Prohibition’:
“The prohibition of drugs through sumptuary legislation or religious law is a common means of attempting to prevent drug use.” – Isn’t that what we’re discussing here? And did you notice they use the word, “attempt”?
Jack, in addition to the many societal costs of prohibition, it has a long history of driving the spread of harder or more dangerous drugs.
* Poppies to morphine to heroine to krokodil
* Coca to cocaine to crack
* Ephedra to ephedrine to speed to methamphetamine
* Marijuana to skunk to dangerous synthetic concoctions such as ‘spice’ or ‘bath salts’
* Mushrooms to ecstasy to 2CB/designers
At every step the reasons for the rise in popularity of the new form of the drug are one or more of the following:
* It may easier to smuggle.
* It may be more addictive, thus compelling the buyer to return more frequently.
* It may be cheaper to produce therefore yielding more profit.
* Like a game of “whack a mole” a shutdown of producers in one area will mean business opportunities for another set of producers with a similar product.
Prohibition’s distortion of the immutable laws of ‘supply and demand’ subsidizes organized crime, foreign terrorists, corrupt cops & politicians and feeds the prejudices of self-appointed culture warriors. So called Tough-On-Drugs politicians have happily built careers on confusing drug prohibition’s horrendous collateral damage with the substances that they claim to be fighting, while the big losers in this battle are everybody else, especially taxpayers.
Jack, how come you’ve allowed yourself to be deluded into believing that big government is the appropriate response to non-traditional consensual vices?
Imagine if we were to chop down every single tree on the planet as a response to our failure to prevent tree-climbing accidents. That’s what our misguided drug policy looks like!
*** And as darkcycle kindly pointed out to you: What I post I most certainly own!
Thanks, Malcolm….This is a coherent, respectful, helpful and reasonable post, and one of the very few I received on the topic. If I had received it earlier, I would take the time to go through it point by point, but rebuttals are scattered throughout the thread, and I’m sorry, I’m sick of repeating myself when most of the pro-drug lobby have no interest in listening to reason.
I’ll even give you a pass on my ban of using the false “prohibition” euphemism to call out to the invalid alcohol argument. But in brief:
*It’s not “consensual” if society, families, and everyone else adversely affected by drug use doesn’t consent to it.
* “[Substance illegalization]’s distortion of the immutable laws of ‘supply and demand’ subsidizes organized crime, foreign terrorists, corrupt cops & politicians and feeds the prejudices of self-appointed culture warriors. So called Tough-On-Drugs politicians have happily built careers on confusing drug prohibition’s horrendous collateral damage with the substances that they claim to be fighting, while the big losers in this battle are everybody else, especially taxpayers.” I don’t deny much of this, actually. But the fact that forbidding harmful societal conduct is not a complete solution and that there are resulting problems cannot be used to argue that the conduct is good, desirable and safe–and when the society says something should be legal, it is saying that it is “OK.” It’s not OK.
* My post said nothing about big government. It was about the importance of strong cultural disapproval. But one of the things that government should and must do is law enforcement.
Good post, and good points to raise. Thanks. This is the way to do it.
I suppose it’s a comfort to know that whenever I need a little boost in traffic, I can point out the obvious dangers of drug legalization and the harm done by drug advocates, and get deluged by the exact same flawed arguments, statistics and rationalizations.
Except that it’s soooo boring….
“Except that it’s soooo boring….”
You would find it more interesting if you were to actually think about what we are saying.
C’mon. That is sooo transparent. That is exactly why you do it. You’ve never seen hits like you see when you take us on. You don’t even engage seriously. Nearly everything you’ve posted in response has been a grade school provocation designed to get a reaction. You are basking in this.
“a powerful cultural consensus that drugs are harmful, destructive and wrong.”
In your opinion. Any such sweeping generalization should always be questioned. Granted, ABUSING a drug (or a food or a hobby) can be harmful or destructive to the individual or family. On the other hand, USING a drug is something completely different. Where’s the harm in having a glass of wine with your dinner? Is that really so destructive? Or smoking a joint to help you go to sleep? Who’s harmed?
Who are you to tell me what’s right and wrong? If your religion or personal philosophy tells you certain activities are wrong, then don’t do them. But don’t interfere with me living my life according to my beliefs. And that doesn’t just apply to drugs.
If someone has a problem with drug abuse, deal with that person’s problem. Help them. Don’t put them in jail. Or blame society. And don’t let the misbehavior of a few ruin things for the rest of us.
“Who are you to tell me what’s right and wrong?” We all tell each other what is right and wrong, Tony—it’s called living in a society, and societies have standards. It’s everybody’s job. I just happen to get paid for it.
“We all tell each other what is right and wrong, Tony—it’s called living in a society, and societies have standards. ”
Then you won’t mind me telling you that you are wrong.
I have a dream – a world in which those who try to prohibit liberty are imprisoned for the rest of their lives because of the grave danger they pose to society.
The St James Etthic’s Centre in Sydney sponsors a series of public debates under the banner IQ2. Last year one of those debates was on the topic ‘All Drugs Should be Legalised’.Details of the high calibre speakers and video of the debate are here: http://www.iq2oz.com/events/event-details/2011-series-sydney/may.php. .A poll of the attendees is taken pre and post the debate. showed that the percentage for the motion rose from 47$ to 69% after hearing the arguments. Thise against has also risen from 20% to 23^. This demonstrates the effect of having an open mind, which this blog prides itself on according to the comment policy, not boredom.
I do have an open mind, but I need more than rationalizations and cliches to change it, particularly when the consequences of the drug-lovers being wrong is the alcohol abuse problem X 6. The dearth of honest and serious arguments in this thread by the pro-pot lobby is pretty striking. It all translates to “we want our drugs, we can handle it, let’s roll the dice with everyone else.
Tell it to Belushi, Whitney, Janis and the rest.
“I do have an open mind, but I need more than rationalizations and cliches to change it,”
You reject every fact and argument in favor of drugs while uncritically accepting every myth and argument in favor of the war on drugs. Your mind is closed.
“It all translates to “we want our drugs, we can handle it, let’s roll the dice with everyone else.”
We can handle it. Can you handle your booze? Doesn’t seem like you answered my question. You are an alcoholic aren’t you Jack? You can’t handle your booze and so you support punishing other people who can handle their drugs just so that you feel like your lack of control and abuse are socially and legally acceptable.
I am correct, aren’t I? You are an alcoholic, just like every other drug warrior. What is it like to be a hypocrite?