Check out this video and see if you can make a cogent argument against legalising all forms of illegal recreational drugs, in America and everywhere else.
Ever see the 1973 film Magnum Force? There is a charming scene near the beginning in which a pimp catches up with a whore who has double crossed him, and murders her in the back of a yellow cab by pouring a can of drain cleaner down her throat. Drain cleaner is one of innumerable toxic substances that ordinary people buy every day.
No person of sound mind would dream of drinking a tin of drain cleaner, but you can walk into your local supermarket and buy Vitamin D, or Paracetomol. Many people take dietary supplements and vitamins; they even give them to their kids. Most people will take Paracetomol or some other over the counter or prescription drug when they have some kind of pain, which all of us do from time to time. It is far easier to overdose on Paracetomol or Vitamin D than it is on drain cleaner, but most people who take fatal overdoses of any drug (with the exception of alcohol) do so consciously.
Have you ever wondered why you or even your children can walk into a supermarket and buy poison, when in most countries possessing even a small quantity of recreational drugs will very likely land you in gaol, or in some places in front of an executioner? Now watch the video.
If you want to learn more about Judge Gray, he lives here. You may consider his biography rather exceptional but as far as his education and family background go, he appears to be a run of the mill product of the top end of the American ruling class, to borrow a phrase from the comrades. The big difference between him and other judges is that he is talking about a verboten subject. It is probably fair to say that 40 years ago, a judge in the US and certainly the UK who called for the legalisation of recreational drugs would have put his career on the line; certainly he would not have been considered suitable material for the High Court in Britain or the Supreme Court in the USA. Even 30 years ago, only the very brave would have said such a thing. Now, not only judges but very senior police officers are making similar noises, and have been for some considerable time.
Is everything Judge Gray says true? Well, he is probably wrong about the terrorism connection. Most terror nowadays is coming from Islamist sources, and because of the willingness of these fanatics to give their own lives in their phony war, they are able to bring death and destruction on a massive scale at bargain basement prices.
Probably the most expensive items the 7/7 terrorists paid for were their train tickets, and it has been estimated that 9/11 was planned and executed on a budget of around half a million dollars. In America, there are over 8 million households worth at least a million dollars, which puts that into its proper perspective.
There is no doubt though that legalisation would reduce considerably something akin to terror, and that is the power of the drug cartels, in Mexico on Uncle Sam's own doorstep, and elsewhere. If America were to go down this route, other countries would surely follow.
Would there be risks involved with the legalisation of all recreational drugs? Of course, and to legalise them is not desirable, but it is by far the lesser of evils. What would be the likely results? Well, probably for about six months, many people would experiment, a few would go crazy, and there might even be an increase in the number of deaths from overdoses and the like. After that, as the judge said of Holland, these substances would lose their allure. Obviously, legalisation would have to come with strings attached; there is no way we can allow airline pilots, train drivers or people who hold responsible positions to use them, at least not at times they are likely to interfere with their duties. You don't want a dentist to be extracting one of your teeth while he is under the influence.
Legalisation would allow indeed would require big companies - perhaps the tobacco companies - to move into the field, and with this would come quality control. There would be no more impure drugs available, and no more deaths of people injecting the wrong substance into their arms.
Taking drugs out of the crime equation would reduce crime not significantly but massively. Not only would users and distributors not be locked up but a lot of crime that is associated with drugs would disappear. Burglary, mugging, serious theft and fraud, even the murder rate, would fall. Many prisons could be more or less emptied, and the overstretched resources of the criminal justice system, especially the police, could be concentrated where they are needed.
One group especially in America has a lot to gain from the legalisation of drugs, blacks. Johanna Fernández, apologist for cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, is fond of spouting vacuous statistics about blacks in the criminal justice system, and of course the reason for this can only be racism. No, dummy, if you kill a cop, you can expect gaol or worse.
Here is yet another vacuous example of RACIAL DISPARITY: “More than 60% of the people in prison are now racial and ethnic minorities. For Black males in their twenties, 1 in every 8 is in prison or jail on any given day.”
In spite or parroting the same boring statistics, the real culprit is identified here, it is not racism but the war on drugs; take drugs out of the equation, and the black crime rate will plummet.
One final avenue no one seems to explore is alternatives to recreational drugs themselves. The obvious thing would be for drug companies to develop drugs that have the same effects as heroin, cocaine, etc, but none of the terrible physiological or psychological consequences. Another alternative, which appears never to have been explored, is the use of computers to duplicate these effects, either by wearing some sort of head set, or perhaps by stimulating certain areas of the brain and/or other parts of the body. With the abandonment of the war on drugs, there would be plenty of money available from government sources to investigate these neglected fields of research.
The bottom line is that like that other far more recent war, the one on terror, the war on drugs is a collective psychosis, and one which is being used both consciously and unconsciously to destroy our freedoms and turn one country after another into a police state, something that it has already done to a great extent to the UK and most especially the US with the introduction of civil asset forfeiture and all manner of other repressive legislation by which the willing servants of Big Brother can spy on, control and criminalise us.
The really big question is now that you understand both the real problem and the real solution, what are you going to do about it?
This opinion article was written by an independent writer. The opinions and views expressed herein are those of the author and are not necessarily intended to reflect those of DigitalJournal.com