Sympathy for the Devil

As this column has been reporting, there is a growing movement in America to “reform” the nation’s tough laws against drug dealing.  The pressure is coming primarily from liberal and libertarian groups who see the use of narcotics as a personal choice, something that freedom should allow.

That opinion is fallacious in the extreme because of the public safety issue involved.

In 2010, more than 38,000 people died in the USA from drug overdoses, far more than have been killed in the Iraq and Afghan wars combined.  If you add two years of drug od’s, you get more deaths than occurred during the Vietnam War.

The Department of Health estimates that an astounding 22 million Americans, ages 12 and older, currently need rehabilitation for substance abuse.

Also, a variety of studies say that up to 70% of all child abuse and neglect cases are caused by parents who are drug-involved.

Still think drug abuse is a victimless crime?

The pro-drug people often point to alcohol to make their legalization case.  Why should one intoxicating agent be legal while another is not?  But everybody knows you can have a beer or a glass of wine without losing sobriety, right?

The sole reason for ingesting narcotics is to alter consciousness.  It is the apple compared to the booze orange.  Comparing drugs to alcohol is an invalid comparison.

People who sell drugs like cocaine, meth, heroin and other opiates are certainly committing a violent act.  They are delivering an agent of destruction to another person.  While all who use hard drugs do not become addicted, millions do.  There is a reason certain substances are categorized as “dangerous drugs.”

But to hear the pro-drug people tell it – the pushers are victims because of some of them are drug addicted themselves.  I guess when you become an addict you get a get out of jail free card.  Don’t blame drug users for stealing, dealing or mugging.  They shouldn’t be held accountable for criminal behavior because they have a disease!

In one of the most absurd things I’ve seen in a long time, a list of celebrities including Will Smith, Cameron Diaz, Jamie Foxx, Kim Kardashian and Jim Carrey signed a letter to President Obama asking him to “address the increased incarceration rates for non-violent crimes.”

Nonviolent crimes?  Are you kidding me?  Ask a parent whose son or daughter is in the cemetery because of an overdose if the drug pusher is committing a “nonviolent” crime.

Since the nation began sentencing drug dealers to major prison time (circa 1979), the nation’s violent crime rate has fallen more than 32%.  After vicious crack cocaine traffickers started getting decades in the slammer, cocaine use dropped 71%.

But now the Hollywood pinheads and many other Americans want those tough mandatory sentences repealed.

That is sympathy for the devil.  But we are living in strange times.  Let’s hope Kim Kardashian isn’t appointed Attorney General.

  • mcweijun

    Come to San Bernardino, Ca if you want to be sick to your stomach. There are 5 new medical marijuana dispensaries within a 1 mile radius of my house. Everywhere I go is smells like weed and I’m constantly walking on those little empty cannisters the users throw on the ground when they finish smoking their crap. Once you go as far down the toilet as San Bernardino, there is no climbing out. I hope the rest of the country is watching California. There may still be some hope for them.

  • jq2intx

    I know about drug use and death as I had a brother who died in 1992. He had started on Marijuana, ended up with heroin. Don’t tell me that drug pusher didn’t help him to his death.

  • Dusty Thompson

    Arguing with the GOP about drugs is exactly like arguing with the Libtards about abortion. Any actual critical thinking has long since been replaced by this insane hypocritical ideology war.
    When someone forces you to do drugs then come talk to me about drugs. Till then shut your idiotic pieholes you make Conservatives look stupid with your Libtardian style non-arguments.

  • Dusty Thompson

    You all sound like Libtards… Seriously… Obviously the War against Americans that choose to use has failed on every level yet YOU think it didn’t go far enough? Youre supposedly the people for small Govt? How small must Govt be to prevent everyone from using drugs? Its an illogical thought process based in some form of fascism not Capitalism.. The obvious failure is, just like Libtards YOU think telling people how to live their lives instead of letting human nature take its course is somehow the correct action. Nobody has forced YOU to do drugs have they?> Now we get the GOP progressives using the exact same argument Libtards make and don’t see the utter hypocrisy. You wonder why youre a effing laughing stock of a party…

    Hey progressive do-gooders of the GOP EFF YOU…

  • Barjandor

    A very serious matter, something that has to be dealt with AND WITHOUT anyone crying “racism”. The decline of the family unit, whatever the cause, is appalling. Addressing the culture of drugs’ acceptance needs immediate attention because the situation is acute. Unfortunately, Hollywood misfits carry some weight. Hopefully, the majority of Americans aren’t so vacuous.

  • kcman

    Thanks, everyone should read Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s entire graduation address
    at Harvard University in 1979, he was quite prophetic about our country.

  • Dennis

    I think more needs to be made of the fact that people who buy illegal drugs, including such ‘harmless’ drugs as marijuana, are sending money to terrorist groups that are as brutal and bloodthirsty as Al Qaeda. Would you give money to the Taliban? How about Hamas or Hezbollah?
    Then why give money to the Mexican drug gangs that are destroying Mexico? Or the cartels of South America? They are the same thing as Al Qaeda except for the religious aspect. Legalizing drugs will not put an end to this. Do people really believe that legalizing drugs will put these murderers out of business?
    Another in a long and growing list of ‘feel good’ measures that liberals come up with and give absolutely no thought to the consequences.

  • RLenyPincus

    The writer of this column completely fudges the difference between an intoxicant and a narcotic, which makes his conclusions an exercise in stupidity. His personal life makes any comment by him on behavior of others ironic to the extreme.

  • Steven Litvintchouk

    Back in the 19th century, narcotics were not considered a menace. We didn’t have drug lords shooting it out. We didn’t have crack houses. In fact, many over-the-counter cough medicines, such as laudanum, contained opium. Back then, you could walk into any corner drugstore and buy preparations containing opium.

    What changed was the start of the law-enforcement approach to drug use, which began with the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914. It criminalized all non-medical prescription and sale of narcotics. And we’ve been going down that primrose path ever since. America’s very own Hundred Years’ War.

    Two years from now, we will be celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Harrison Narcotics Act. It’s probably a good time for a pot party.

  • chief98110

    i have spent almost 30 years representing adults who have lost their children and their souls to drugs and alcohol, anyone who thinks they are harmless is a moron.

  • Avi Israel

    How about the Doctors Bill ? my son was prescribed in to addiction by his doctor Bill . so we should treat the doctors the same way …do you agree? most doctors today do not practice medicine they are nothing but drug pushers in white coats.

  • Masculist Man

    Bill O’Reilly’s type will throw those who smoke marijuana in prison as well. Bill won’t let you smoke anything. Unless it’s tobacco-which has killed more people than all the illegal drugs combined.

  • allen goldberg

    Again shows how absolutely damned dumb these celebrities are…and how far the LIBTARDS live from reality….maybe they need to go to some other country and try their stupidity out…

  • TS1776frdm

    Oh, and…think what this will do to the already dumbed down Health Care System-is this the start of Agenda 21. What a great way to eliminate more of the population.

  • ARJ127

    Banning drugs, like we banned alcohol during Prohibition, makes the criminals who supply the stuff rich. I don’t see that as being a good policy. Let’s face it. The tactics we are using aren’t winning the war on drug use. Let’s start thinking of better ways to stop the demand for illegal drugs. Simply banning them and criminalizing their possession for personal use hasn’t worked.

  • Guest

    Bernie, Some people are born with a defect that makes them sexually attracted to children. If it becomes really common should we give Nambla a thumbs up and go ahead and legalize that and give it a financial incentive? We are on a slippery slope here and the l;ast thing we should be doing is bring an extra can of grease.

  • TS1776frdm

    I worked with drug addicts.. Some became chemically addicted the first or second time they used-cocaine or/and meth. After that they were psychologically addicted. Rehab for this, depending on the length and amount of use is at least 6 months in-house and 3 years tri-weekly then bi-weekly with UAs 3 times a week. **Whitney Houston didn’t have to die. With her length of use she needed to be in a 1 year in-house facility, then out-patient for 6 more months. Drug rehab makes billions. Many have a 98% recidivism rate and still get funding from the Fed…beginning at about $80K a year, each year this doubles if they show they used all the money – these are the non profit organizations. Making billions…. I have a master of science in Behavioral Science and a BA in Bio-Chem and Bio Physiology. Nothing I studied prepared me for working with welfare/skid row terribly addicted people during my masters work or my internship. Most people don’t know that addicts on hard drugs-cocaine-meth-especially heroin cannot just stop cold turkey -heroin addicts will die from seizures, coke and meth addicts will follow – it’s a horrible and unhealthy step. Drugs cause the neuro chemicals found in the brain to be metabolized, then fool the body into believing they are the same thing – thus chemical addiction. Constant use means psychological addiction. It takes about 25 years of drinking to do the same damage to the liver, brain and kidneys that 1-2 years of coke/meth use does. Think about this. Then think about Whitney. Did no one care enough to help her through a real cure or did they just want her performing and paying for the same light “rehab”? After 6 months of going without drugs, one gets a skewed evaluation…brains are not, NOT stable enough to show cognitive thinking. This also means that the addict may think he or she is “cured”. Nothing can be further from the TRUTH.

  • ted

    Marijuana will be legalized first. Then cocaine. Then heroin. That might be the end. The bigger point is that the UtopianFabianFantizers — Progressives — have won and whatever they want to do will be done. Legally. Kim whatever might even be a better AG than Holder — Holder has some education — but whatever, enjoy conservatives you have lost our country.

  • Dominic

    Bill will have more luck trying to stop the sun from rising.Toke up America.

  • annettaf3

    I wonder whether people think they will be able to take jobs that require drug testing once drug laws are eased and they’ve only ingested a little pot? The dangers to self, coworkers, and equipment will be the same and reduced reaction time or judgement will not be changed by eased drug laws.

    If I had children in school I certainly would not a bus driver or teacher who had puffed a little before taking responsibility for my kids.

    With alcohol there are standards so law enforcement have a measure as to how how impaired a driver might be. With marijuana there are no measures that I know of.

    We are on a rocky road to easing drug standards for marijuana, let alone the harder drugs, and the pressure is on to lighten up and be happy. Heaven help us.

  • jim

    I’ve been in law enforcement for over 30 years and travel the country training, without question the general public has no idea how drugs negatively affect society on most every level. Bill is 100% right and legalizing pot won’t have a positive impact in any way, even financially. Drug dealers are not going to submit their product to the government for testing, jump through hoops to sell and they certainly don’t want to be taxed, so we will still need enforcement, jails and prisons. The Hollywood elite are clueless to reality, our politicians and the public need to reexamine this issue from the point of reality.

    • supie

      a sincere cop that’s been in law enforcement for 30 years would NOT write something like this.. the issue is no where near this simple… I suspect o’rielly wrote this himself and posted – much like what he does at the end of his T V show… hence – the “Bill is 100% right…” :) nobody is that !

  • Ramon Espinosa

    Stick it to the un believers Benie the Hollwod crowd are Loons and 50 % 0f
    America agrees the other 50 are on food stamps

  • D Parri

    I agree with Mr. O’s contention that drug use is not a crime void of victims–be they considered to be violent or non-violent. The bottom line is that open and liberal drug use laws will encourage increased drug use, and the ranks of drug users would increase…exponentially. As an alternative approach, perhaps we could issue drug-use permits and require that drug users be labeled (maybe identifying mark or tattoo on a visible part of the body) in order that non-drug-use citizens might be better able to protect themselves from drug users. After all, serious drug users inevitably turn to illegal activities in order to support their habits. If they don’t turn to drug distribution, then they will need to either commit B&E, robbery, prostitution, or other less agreeable methods for securing a drug supply. The purpose of labeling those Hollywood elite multimillionaires is to be able to positively identify those who support such a change in our social and legal environs and not allow them to hide behind a veil of tears as they continue to project their sympathy for the Devil. They are doing his work for him.

  • TAFKA Gary Busey

    The drug in almost all of those 70% of cases is alcohol, Bill.

    • D Parri

      And what is the analogous organization for drug use to AA?

  • Roadmaster

    Bill; Your argument has been consistent over the years, and I agree with it, but didn’t always. Introduced to MJ in the Army, and living in So. Cal throughout the 70’s, I was a willing volunteer on the wrong side of the so-called drug war. Today (sober 25 years and drug free for 30) you prompted me to think of ALL the people, acquaintances and relatives that I know who are DEAD, because of drugs. They got off easy – their good friends and family are still suffering.

    A Hell’s Angel (yes, a real one) I was toking with one time told me to NEVER take heroin, because it was SO good, I’d instantly want more. Good advice – I never did. I just wish he’d have warned me about all the other poison that’s out there, too.

    • D Parri

      Ditto here. But aren’t we fortunate that we’re here today to warn others…but that’s now our responsibility. “But by the grace of God, there go I.”

  • Cyberquill

    This piece is about what not to do, namely legalize. But what exactly is to be done in order to combat the recreational drug problem in the U.S., including alcohol abuse? The current “War on Drugs” doesn’t seem to working too well.

  • MMF

    And of all the violent effects of drugs, Bill has overlooked the number of people who have been killed by drug induced drivers just like alcohol induced drivers. But, here’s my take. If a person using drugs or alcohol doesn’t hurt maim or kill another individual, then it’s their choice. The problem is that few druggies and drunks manage to avoid hurting another individual!

  • Iklwa

    Hello Bill,

    One of the many things I find confusing about the Left in America is their willingness to promote an well proven killer of young people and adults (drug usage) and then rail against something else that has proven beneficial uses (i.e. private ownership of firearms).

    Government statistics show over 38,000 people died from drug over doses (a large portion of those deaths involved already legal, prescription drugs) and only 33,000 died from firearms incidents…including police shootings, accidental shootings and 61% of the total of all firearms deaths were suicide.

    It would seem the Left thinks killing one’s self with chemicals is acceptable because it quieter and doesn’t make a big mess???


    Dear Bernie,

    I don’t know whether to congratulate you on the addition of Bill to your roster or to tell you to duck and cover. I too am a simple man and these things confuse me easily (as you can tell from my preceding comments).

    As Bill is the “new guy” will he be bringing Leona and Burt coffee?


  • wally12

    Although Bill has many articles that I agree with, I do not agree completely with the statement that legalizing some drug causes an increase in the use of other drugs. For instance, I use alcohol but even if weed were legalized, I would not have any desire to even try it. In fact, I believe weed is a smoke similar to regular tobacco. I believe weed is more dangerous in that it changes the mind and can result in driving accidents whereas regular tobacco does not. I also have read that weed used by children causes permanent brain damage and that does make weed a real problem. I believe that all other drugs should stay illegal. The question is should weed be legalized? I think yes, based on the feeling that there would be less children smoking weed if it was controlled the same as tobacco is now and if the cost reduced the black market sales and it should. Would legalizing weed result in more adults smoking it? I think there would be some who would try. I and most people who don’t smoke probably would not. Thus by legalizing weed, the incentive for the black market peddling of weed would be shut down since the cost benefit is not there. I understand that the government excessive taxing on regular tobacco has resulted in more black market sales of tobacco so the profit motive of making even standard tobacco high priced has been negated by the government due to an unintended consequence of improving citizen health. What ever is decided on weed, I believe at least the stiff penalty for using it should be reduced and the sale of small amounts should be minimal.

  • David Caskey

    The whole issue boils down to the fact that people in the US want the government telling them what to do. For some reason, people feel that if you have a choice that the situation should be turned over to the government. I would also argue that those that want control of drugs are progressives and no better than Obama and this bunch. This all started in 1913, at the same time that the initial laws against alcohol were being set in place. Prior to 1913, you could self medicate as you desired. Now who was responsible for these laws? It was the progressives. Most of those who were conservative did not favor government intrusion into how you recieved medical care.
    Now, lets look at the issue to the drugs doing bad things. This is the same argument that the left uses for guns. To the left way of thinking, the killing of the children in Conn. was secondary to the gun, not the nut behind the gun. The same goes for drugs. It is not the drugs doing bad things, it is the nuts who are abusing the drugs. And just with guns, if you withhold drugs, then the law abiding citizens are adversely effected and not those that will break the law. Certainly we do not want anyone impaired in any way driving a car. But they are and with our system of transportation, that will not be effected. Yet, we keep people who need medication from having them because we want to alter the activities of a few. As to drug over dose, that is called suicide. People will come up with a method no matter what we do.
    Then you have to ask, does all this really transform society in a beneficial manner. No and no. We have only created more problems with our drug prohibitions. The funds are used by the bad guys, terrorist and gangs. You can not go into Northern Mexico due to the gangs who are only there secondary to the drug profits. This is starting to go into the US. Many countries have more freedom than we do. They have started eliminating controls on drugs and their violence and all other aspects of the society have improved.
    Finally, who cares if taking a medication makes some one feel better in this cruel world? I had a vetern in my office crying the other day. He was in this 80’s and had a broken back. But due to drug laws from Boddy Jindal, he could not get adequate help. We need to stop this stupidity and get the government out of our lives.

  • DOOM161

    Drunk drivers kill people all the time. How is alcohol victimless again?

    • nickshaw

      Did someone say it was?

  • Dave O’Connor, Boston

    Is Mommie Dearest ‘down’ with the weed-blowing (Rx or ‘victim’ therapy) Nanny with whom she leaves the kids, ‘what’s their names’ as she hustles herself off to a Code Pink ralley or Committee for Islamic Ecumenism – or per “Tempura” et “Mores” just hustles herself.

  • Drew Page

    Bill, you are 100% correct citing the differences between alcohol and drugs like cocaine, heroine and meth-amphetamines. When buying/using beer, wine or liquor, you know who brewed, made or distilled the product and you know what’s in it. When you buy something from a drug dealer, you have no idea what the product really contains until you ingest it. Surely those who manufacture and/or sell illegal drugs would not include anything harmful in the concoction they peddle to you, would they? I guess you have to take the drug to find out what’s in it.

    • Stimpy

      If you grew your own weed, you’d know what went into its production and you’d deprive the cartels of their money. Oh and the beer and spirits brewers too. They wouldn’t like that, would they?

  • David Bern

    Your rejection of the alcohol to “booze orange” comparison is bizarre given that
    heroin is functionally identical to prescription morphine. Unless your
    arguing for outlawing the entire prescription drug industry, your argument is
    internally inconsistent.

    You base your rejection on the assertion that “you can have a beer or a glass of
    wine without losing sobriety….The sole reason for ingesting narcotics is to
    alter consciousness” I reject that assertion on it’s face. Is the cancer patient
    smoking Marijuana for it’s medical benefits somehow more nefarious than the
    beer swilling baseball fan? Why does one choose to have a beer with a hot dog at a ball park rather than a nice refreshing glass of Iced Tea; is it not for the intoxicating altered consciousness effects of alcohol. Is this not the exact argument used in the early 20th century to pass the Volstad Act.

    Which brings me to the most compelling argument for legalization, that the war on drugs itself causes at least as much death and destruction as the drugs they target, infinitely more so in the case of marijuana which nobody as ever died of an overdose from or beat their wife or child while under its influence.

    Feb 14, 1929 six people were murdered in Chicago by Al Capone in his turf war with North Side Irish gang lead by Bugs Moran. This became known as the Saint Valentine’s Day Massacre.

    Now ask yourself when was the last time you heard of competing liquor distributors killing each other over whom was going to be able to deliver booze to the local brewpubs. It’s precisely the war on Alcohol that forced out honest Americans from the distribution business leaving only criminals, like Capone, whom could enjoy vast wealth of monopoly pricing courtesy, ironically enough, of the Volstead Act. All they had to do was be willing to kill the neighboring crime syndicate if they ventured onto their turf.

    This is exactly what is happening today with the war on drugs and it has gotten over 50,000 people killed in Mexico over the last 5 or 6 years and has delivered
    unspeakable wealth to the Mexican drug lords courtesy of the monopoly pricing
    granted by the US war on Drugs.

    Our country would be much better off offering
    drug addicts detox and treatment rather than 20 year prison sentences. Drug addicts would be better served by the treatment and Mexican Drug Lords would go out of business for the same reason Kodak Corp went bankrupt.

  • Stimpy

    Bill, take your nanny state and shove it. I’m not a lib, I’m a republican with libertarian views. Also, take your police state and shove it. On a per capita basis we have more people incarcerated than any other country with the possible exception of N Korea. Get a clue — the war on drugs is a colossal failure in terms of money and human lives destroyed. Freedom, what a concept.

  • Bruce A.

    Heroin & other drugs destroys brains, lives & famlies. If you choose to use these drugs do not ask me or anyone else to pay for any health care or disability after your addicted brain is fried. If the Hollywood elite thinks that drug dealing or use is ok, they could pick up the health care tab for these losers.

    • Stimpy

      Alcohol destroys livers, brains, lives and families. Why is it OK for you to pay for these ‘losers’ but someone who wants to smoke a joint on a Fri night at home, or to treat a medical condition is considered a dangerous felon?

      • D Parri

        In 50 of 50 states, DUI is considered a felony. Most states now even have “open container” laws, making it a crime to ‘possess’ alcohol in a vehicle if the container has been opened. No longer a benign crime.

        • Stimpy

          The difference is that simple possession of weed is a felony in most places. The swat team doesn’t come and bust down your door if you have a six pack or a bottle of Jack Daniels. I agree that impaired driving, whether alcohol or other drugs should be a felony offense.

  • genann59

    He is right for the most part. The only thing OReilly didn’t mention is that there are now more overdoses on abuse of “legal, prescription” drugs than on “illegal” drugs. And many of these are stolen from parents or bought from friends who stole them, and people who are able to get prescriptions and then sell them. Abuse of prescription drugs now kill more than “illegal” drugs.

    I do feel laws need to be lessened for “illegal” drugs, but need to be tightened for abuse of prescription drugs. We are rapidly nearing a Brave New World type world, and we do not need the majority of our citizens stoned on whatever form of “Soma” is available to keep the masses turned on and tuned out of what is going on around them. We need clear thinking people if we are to ever regain the society that once made us the shining light on the hill, instead of becoming, as it appears we are, the dim light in hell.

  • hihoze

    The Great Decline & Fall of America continues.

  • beniyyar

    Bill makes an excellent set of arguments against legalizing illegal drugs, and those arguing that legalizing illegal drugs make an excellent set of arguments for their position. Both O’Reilly and those who disagree with him are both pretty much right, yet the use of drugs is a personal choice and will occur whether the drug is legal like alcohol or illegal like cocaine or marijuana. That being the case, and the huge financial and legal costs of trying to fight illegal drug abuse versus the legalization of illegal drugs will almost certainly lead, eventually, to the legalization of illegal drugs.

  • Charles Ivie

    Drug use is a matter of choice. How the government chooses to deal with the problem is a function of how much responsibility the government should have when it comes to controlling irresponsible behavior. True liberty includes the freedom to behave foolishly and irresponsibly, it does not provide freedom from the consequences of doing so. As long as the government has a role in providing or controlling health services and medical attention it also has the right to control behavior. You cannot have one without the other. It is a simple matter of fiduciary responsibility. Government control of the health provision process must include control of personal behavior. That is the price we pay when we chose government security over liberty. As Benjamin Franklin said, when you do that you deserve neither.

    • Shane

      Anybody who uses heroin, PCP, meth, or other drugs which do great damage to the body and mind has proven to be irresponsible and not capable of making intelligent decisions. Therefore, the government needs to act as the parent for these morons. Marijuana is a different matter as it is much less destructive to one’s health than stronger drugs are. Children need parental guidance, and so do foolish drug addicts need guidance from the government.

      • Stimpy

        So the government should be our parents? Wow, I thought that was the Left’s bailiwick.

  • Chris Mallory

    Please provide the stats on the number of people who have died from overdosing on marijuana. Then please provide the stats on the number of people who have died from using Tylenol.

    I would also suggest that your 70% of child abuse has to most assuredly include booze. Ask any cop, how many domestic violence calls involve booze and how many involve pot? They won’t answer that question.

    • nickshaw

      Not many, if any, have died from ODing on weed, Chris, however, many have died because they were under the influence of weed at the time of death.
      Unfortunately, innocent others have died with them in traffic accidents, for instance.
      As to child abuse, neglect is a form of child abuse as well, not to mention the idiots who get their little children to toak up for the Youtube cameras (disregarding those who don’t bother to film it).
      Of course, alcohol does the same thing, with the added bonus of ODs occasionally.

      The vast majority smoke weed for the express purpose of getting high while the vast majority of people who drink don’t do it to get high.
      Don’t get me wrong! Moderation in the use of either one is fine with me and, in fact, I would council my kids to go with the weed over alcohol.
      But, I don’t think Bill has that much of a problem with the pot smoker who can imbibe responsibly (though I think he considers it a “gateway drug” which I do not).
      He has a point with the sellers of hard drugs though, most of which are indeed for the purpose of getting wreaked (despite the occasional “functional” user).
      I believe these drugs should be legalized (making things illegal never stops people from doing them and drug use, like prostitution, will never be eradicated, ever), with government stores selling them. This would eliminate a large portion of the crime connected to the sale of drugs.
      Further, it would lessen the huge expense of keeping people locked up.
      Would there be a public health expense to treat people who can’t handle their drugs? Of course there would but, it would be more than balanced by fewer incarcerations and drug enforcement resources.
      In the long run, I think there would be no more addicts needing any treatment than there are today or not many more anyway.
      There is only a certain segment of the population that succumb to over use of drugs, as there is only a certain segment that overuse liquor.
      It could be handled better if it were out in the open.

      • Pelham123Guy

        Not to worry. The gov’t is broke and will soon legalize, regulate and TAX at least marijuana, To overcome the objections of the huge gov’t/private prison and recovery clinic ‘complex’ that has benefitted immensely over the years, maybe the gov’t will offer to substitute the incarceration of otherwise law abiding citizens for possession of an unregistered firearm.

        • nickshaw

          I’m not worried nor am I one to go out and demonstrate or agitate for relaxed drug laws. I’m just stating an honest opinion.
          Just like I agree with your whole last sentence.