Wow.

I do not know what else you people want from me. I have given you proof in facts to prove everyone one of your arguements wrong. There is nothing else I can do. if you can't see the light in the wake of this abundance of knowledge I have provided for you than there is nothing else I can do for you. i really do feel sorry for you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by marine16:
I know what you morons are going to say

---

I don't care if you have a thousand sources saying exactly what you're trying to prove, it's just not okay to address people as "morons" because they have different opinions than you do, and to just have such a superior attitude.

It seems like you're generalizing people again Marine16. But I really wanted to know how taxes would effect the economy and/or availability. One of those questions was answered, though lightly:

"If marijuana were legal, federal, provincial and local government would save the resources currently being used to arrest, prosecute, and incarcerate marijuana offenders."

By the way, I never compared fact to opinion in court.

Looks like my taxationa rguement is no longer speculation...

"Tax Revenue from Legalized Marijuana
To estimate the tax revenue that would result from marijuana legalization, it is necessary to assume a particular tax rate. This report considers two assumptions that plausibly bracket the range of reasonable possibilities.
The first assumption is that tax policy treats legalized marijuana market identically to other goods. In that case tax revenue as a fraction of expenditure would be approximately 35%, implying tax revenue from legalized marijuana of $263 million.[11] The amount of revenue would be lower if substantial home production occurred under legalization.[12] The evidence suggests, however, that the magnitude of such production would be minimal. In particular, alcohol production switched mostly from the black market to the licit market after repeal of prohibition in 1933.
The second assumption is that tax policy treats legalized marijuana similarly to alcohol or marijuana, imposing a “sin tax” in excess of any tax applicable to other goods. Imposing a high sin tax can force a market underground, thereby reducing rather than increasing tax revenue. Existing evidence, however, suggests that relatively high rates of sin taxation are possible without generation of a black market. For example, cigarette taxes in many European countries account for 75–85 percent of the price (US Department of Health and Human Services 2000).
One benchmark, therefore, is to assume that an excise tax on legalized marijuana doubles the price. If general taxation accounts for 30% of the price, this additional tax would then make tax revenue account for 80% of the price. This doubling of the price, given an elasticity of -0.5, would produce a 50% decline in quantity consumed, but since the price has doubled, it would cause a 50% increase in revenue, implying total expenditure on marijuana would be $1.125 billion (=$750 x 1.5). Tax revenue would equal 80% of this total, or $900 billion. This includes any standard taxation applied to marijuana income as well as the excise tax on marijuana sales.
The $900 million figure is not necessarily attainable given the characteristics of marijuana production. Small scale, efficient production is possible and occurs widely now, so the imposition of a substantial tax wedge would probably drive a significant component of the market underground. The assumption of a constant demand elasticity in response to a price change of this magnitude is also debatable; more plausibly, the elasticity would increase as the price rose, implying a larger decline in consumption and thus less revenue from excise taxation. The $900 million figure should therefore be considered an upper bound.
These calculations nevertheless indicate the potential for substantial revenue from marijuana taxation. A more modest excise tax, for example, might produce revenue on legalized marijuana of, say, $400-$500 million per year."

(http://www.bccla.org/prohibition/post%20prohibition.htm)

So there you go. I have proven that taxation will result in legalizing marijauana. I know what you morons are going to say, this rpoves why marijuana should be legal. However, I have provide sufficent devidence to disrprove the assumptions in this article as to why marijauana should be legalized. To not woute the entire arguement would be biased, but you people would do it. I guess that is what seperates me from you - I do not pick and chose my facts, I simply use the facts. Every arguement for legalization has been debunked. My presence is no longer on this thread because if you refuse to listen to the facts, you have no hope and I feel sorry for you. In a court of law it is the facts that wins, not your opinion.

I don't expect my opinions to be treated like they are coming from an expert. (But I would like them to be heard with open ears and open minds.) And I try not to diminish your speculations, but I put into questions the things I can't easily believe. Sorry if that's a problem. But thanks for answering my question to the best of your ability.

Yes, thank you though Marine16. I'm just not seeing my question answered in these facts.

We can ot come to a consensus on how taxes will effect marijuana because it is not legal yet. All either one fo us can do is specualte. You speculate everytime you open yor mouth and demand that it is treated as an expert opinion. However, when I speculate you demand that it should not be considered by anyone. Anyways, you have yet to specualte anything different.

Okay Bushsupporter, could you cite where these taxing and marijuana facts are? Thanks.

quote:

---

marijauna is used to treat 30 different illneses, maybe there was a reason he put it here. But maybe he did make a mistake and thats why he had to create republicans.

---

It's pointless to even try to have an actual conversation with you. For your information, I'm not republican. The only issue I have a firm stance in is abortion, and there ARE pro-life democrats.

Marine should be commended for his knowledge and research capabilities. Some of you do not posses these helpful traits.

Yes, Marine16, that is the site I went to. So good for you for pointing out nothing about how taxes won't affect marijuana sales when/if it is legalized.

(Fact 10: Most non-violent drug users get treatment, not just jail time.
There is a myth in this country that
U.S. prisons are filled with drug users. This assertion is simply not true. Actually, only 5 percent of inmates in federal prison on drug charges are incarcerated for drug possession. In our state prisons, it’s somewhat higher—about 27% of drug offenders. In New York, which has received criticism from some because of its tough Rockefeller drug laws, it is estimated that 97% of drug felons sentenced to prison were charged with sale or intent to sell, not simply possession. In fact, first time drug offenders, even sellers, typically do not go to prison.


Most cases of simple drug possession are simply not prosecuted, unless people have been arrested repeatedly for using drugs. In 1999, for example, only 2.5 percent of the federal cases argued in District Courts involved simple drug possession. Even the small number of possession charges is likely to give an inflated impression of the numbers. It is likely that a significant percentage of those in prison on possession charges were people who were originally arrested for trafficking or another more serious drug crime but plea-bargained down to a simple possession charge.


The Michigan Department of Corrections just finished a study of their inmate population. They discovered that out of 47,000 inmates, only 15 people were incarcerated on first-time drug possession charges. (500 are incarcerated on drug possession charges, but 485 are there on multiple charges or pled down.)


In Wisconsin the numbers are even lower, with only 10 persons incarcerated on drug possession charges. (769 are incarcerated on drug possession charges, but 512 of those entered prison through some type of revocation, leaving 247 entering prison on a “new sentence.” Eliminating those who had also been sentenced on trafficking and/or non-drug related charges; the total of new drug possession sentences came to 10.)

Policy Shift to Treatment

There has been a shift in the U.S. criminal justice system to provide treatment for non-violent drug users with addiction problems, rather than incarceration. The criminal justice system actually serves as the largest referral source for drug treatment programs.


Any successful treatment program must also require accountability from its participants. Drug treatment courts are a good example of combining treatment with such accountability. These courts are given a special responsibility to handle cases involving drug-addicted offenders through an extensive supervision and treatment program. Drug treatment court programs use the varied experience and skills of a wide variety of law enforcement and treatment professionals: judges, prosecutors, defense counsels, substance abuse treatment specialists, probation officers, law enforcement and correctional personnel, educational and vocational experts, community leaders and others — all focused on one goal: to help cure addicts of their addiction, and to keep them cured.


Drug treatment courts are working. Researchers estimate that more than 50 percent of defendants convicted of drug possession will return to criminal behavior within two to three years. Those who graduate from drug treatment courts have far lower rates of recidivism, ranging from 2 to 20 percent.


What makes drug treatment courts so different? Graduates are held accountable to the program. Unlike purely voluntary treatment programs, the addict—who has a physical need for drugs—can’t simply quit treatment whenever he or she feels like it.


Many state governments are also taking the opportunity to divert non-violent drug offenders from prison in the hopes of offering treatment and rehabilitation outside the penal facility. In New York, prosecutors currently divert over 7,000 convicted drug felons from prison each year. Many enter treatment programs.


States throughout the Midwest are also establishing programs to divert drug offenders from prison and aid in their recovery. In Indiana, 64 of the 92 counties offer community corrections programs to rehabilitate and keep first time non-violent offenders, including non-violent drug offenders, out of prison. Non-violent drug offenders participating in the community corrections program are required to attend a treatment program as part of their rehabilitation.


In July of 2002, the Ohio Judicial Conference conducted a survey of a select group of judges. The results from the survey demonstrated that judges “offer treatment to virtually 100 percent of first-time drug offenders and over 95 percent of second-time drug offenders.” According to the survey, these percentages are accurate throughout the state, no matter the jurisdiction or county size. The Ohio Judicial Conference went a step further, reviewing pre-sentence investigations and records, which demonstrated that “99 percent of offenders sentenced to prison had one or more prior felony convictions or multiple charges.”


The assertion that U.S. prisons are filled with drug users is simply untrue. As this evidence shows, more and more minor drug offenders are referred to treatment centers in an effort to reduce the possibility of recidivism and help drug users get help for their substance abuse problems. The drug treatment court program and several other programs set up throughout the United States have been reducing the number of minor drug offenses that actually end up in the penal system. The reality is that you have to work pretty darn hard to end up in jail on drug possession charges. )

(http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/demand/speakout/10so.htm)

(Fact 9: Europe’s More Liberal Drug Policies Are Not the Right Model for America.
Over the past decade, European drug policy has gone through some dramatic changes toward greater liberalization. The Netherlands, considered to have led the way in the liberalization of drug policy, is only one of a number of West European countries to relax penalties for marijuana possession. Now several European nations are looking to relax penalties on all drugs—including cocaine and heroin—as Portugal did in July 2001, when minor possession of all drugs was decriminalized.


There is no uniform drug policy in Europe. Some countries have liberalized their laws, while others have instituted strict drug control policies. Which means that the so-called “European Model” is a misnomer. Like America, the various countries of Europe are looking for new ways to combat the worldwide problem of drug abuse.


The Netherlands has led Europe in the liberalization of drug policy. “Coffee shops” began to emerge throughout the Netherlands in 1976, offering marijuana products for sale. Possession and sale of marijuana are not legal, but coffee shops are permitted to operate and sell marijuana under certain restrictions, including a limit of no more than 5 grams sold to a person at any one time, no alcohol or hard drugs, no minors, and no advertising. In the Netherlands, it is illegal to sell or possess marijuana products. So coffee shop operators must purchase their marijuana products from illegal drug trafficking organizations.


Apparently, there has been some public dissatisfaction with the government’s policy. Recently the Dutch government began considering scaling back the quantity of marijuana available in coffee shops from 5 to 3 grams.


Furthermore, drug abuse has increased in the Netherlands. From 1984 to 1996, marijuana use among 18-25 year olds in Holland increased two-fold. Since legalization of marijuana, heroin addiction levels in Holland have tripled and perhaps even quadrupled by some estimates.


The increasing use of marijuana is responsible for more than increased crime. It has widespread social implications as well. The head of Holland’s best-known drug abuse rehabilitation center has described what the new drug culture has created: The strong form of marijuana that most of the young people smoke, he says, produces “a chronically passive individual—someone who is lazy, who doesn’t want to take initiatives, doesn’t want to be active—the kid who’d prefer to lie in bed with a joint in the morning rather than getting up and doing something.”


Marijuana is not the only illegal drug to find a home in the Netherlands. The club drug commonly referred to as Ecstasy (3, 4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine or MDMA) also has strong roots in the Netherlands. The majority of the world’s Ecstasy is produced in clandestine laboratories in the Netherlands and, to a lesser extent, Belgium.


The growing Ecstasy problem in Europe, and the Netherlands’ pivotal role in Ecstasy production, has led the Dutch government to look once again to law enforcement. In May 2001, the government announced a “Five Year Offensive against the Production, Trade, and Consumption of Synthetic Drugs.” The offensive focuses on more cooperation among the enforcement agencies with the Unit Synthetic Drugs playing a pivotal role.


Recognizing that the government needs to take firm action to deal with the increasing levels of addiction, in April 2001, the Dutch government established the Penal Care Facility for Addicts. Like American Drug Treatment Courts, this facility is designed to detain and treat addicts (of any drug) who repeatedly commit crimes and have failed voluntary treatment facilities. Offenders may be held in this facility for up to two years, during which time they will go through a three-phase program. The first phase focuses on detoxification, while the second and third phases focus on training for social reintegration.


The United Kingdom has also experimented with the relaxation of drug laws. Until the mid-1960s, British physicians were allowed to prescribe heroin to certain classes of addicts. According to political scientist James Q. Wilson, “a youthful drug culture emerged with a demand for drugs far different from that of the older addicts.” Many addicts chose to boycott the program and continued to get their heroin from illicit drug distributors. The British Government’s experiment with controlled heroin distribution, says Wilson, resulted in, at a minimum, a 30-fold increase in the number of addicts in ten years.


Switzerland has some of the most liberal drug policies in Europe. In late 1980s, Zurich experimented with what became known as Needle Park, where addicts could openly purchase drugs and inject heroin without police intervention. Zurich became the hub for drug addicts across Europe, until the experiment was ended, and “Needle Park” was shut down.


Many proponents of drug legalization or decriminalization claim that drug use will be reduced if drugs were legalized. However, history has not shown this assertion to be true. According to an October 2000 CNN report, marijuana, the illegal drug most often decriminalized, is “continuing to spread in the European Union, with one in five people across the 15-state bloc having tried it at least once.”


It’s not just marijuana use that is increasing in Europe. According to the 2001 Annual Report on the State of the Drugs Problem in the European Union, there is a Europe-wide increase in cocaine use. The report also cites a new trend of mixing “base/crack” cocaine with tobacco in a joint at nightspots. With the increase in use, Europe is also seeing an increase in the number of drug users seeking treatment for cocaine use.


Drug policy also has an impact on general crime. In a 2001 study, the British Home Office found violent crime and property crime increased in the late 1990s in every wealthy country except the United States.


Not all of Europe has been swept up in the trend to liberalize drug laws. Sweden, Finland, and Greece have the strictest policies against drugs in Europe. Sweden’s zero-tolerance policy is widely supported within the country and among the various political parties. Drug use is relatively low in the Scandinavian countries.


In April 1994, a number of European cities signed a resolution titled “European Cities Against Drugs,” commonly known as the Stockholm resolution. It states: “The demands to legalize illicit drugs should be seen against the background of current problems, which have led to a feeling of helplessness. For many, the only way to cope is to try to administer the current situation. But the answer does not lie in making harmful drugs more accessible, cheaper, and socially acceptable. Attempts to do this have not proved successful. By making them legal, society will signal that it has resigned to the acceptance of drug abuse. The signatories to this resolution therefore want to make their position clear by rejecting the proposals to legalize illicit drugs.”)

(Fact 9: Europe’s More Liberal Drug Policies Are Not the Right Model for America.
Over the past decade, European drug policy has gone through some dramatic changes toward greater liberalization. The Netherlands, considered to have led the way in the liberalization of drug policy, is only one of a number of West European countries to relax penalties for marijuana possession. Now several European nations are looking to relax penalties on all drugs—including cocaine and heroin—as Portugal did in July 2001, when minor possession of all drugs was decriminalized.


There is no uniform drug policy in Europe. Some countries have liberalized their laws, while others have instituted strict drug control policies. Which means that the so-called “European Model” is a misnomer. Like America, the various countries of Europe are looking for new ways to combat the worldwide problem of drug abuse.


The Netherlands has led Europe in the liberalization of drug policy. “Coffee shops” began to emerge throughout the Netherlands in 1976, offering marijuana products for sale. Possession and sale of marijuana are not legal, but coffee shops are permitted to operate and sell marijuana under certain restrictions, including a limit of no more than 5 grams sold to a person at any one time, no alcohol or hard drugs, no minors, and no advertising. In the Netherlands, it is illegal to sell or possess marijuana products. So coffee shop operators must purchase their marijuana products from illegal drug trafficking organizations.


Apparently, there has been some public dissatisfaction with the government’s policy. Recently the Dutch government began considering scaling back the quantity of marijuana available in coffee shops from 5 to 3 grams.


Furthermore, drug abuse has increased in the Netherlands. From 1984 to 1996, marijuana use among 18-25 year olds in Holland increased two-fold. Since legalization of marijuana, heroin addiction levels in Holland have tripled and perhaps even quadrupled by some estimates.


The increasing use of marijuana is responsible for more than increased crime. It has widespread social implications as well. The head of Holland’s best-known drug abuse rehabilitation center has described what the new drug culture has created: The strong form of marijuana that most of the young people smoke, he says, produces “a chronically passive individual—someone who is lazy, who doesn’t want to take initiatives, doesn’t want to be active—the kid who’d prefer to lie in bed with a joint in the morning rather than getting up and doing something.”


Marijuana is not the only illegal drug to find a home in the Netherlands. The club drug commonly referred to as Ecstasy (3, 4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine or MDMA) also has strong roots in the Netherlands. The majority of the world’s Ecstasy is produced in clandestine laboratories in the Netherlands and, to a lesser extent, Belgium.


The growing Ecstasy problem in Europe, and the Netherlands’ pivotal role in Ecstasy production, has led the Dutch government to look once again to law enforcement. In May 2001, the government announced a “Five Year Offensive against the Production, Trade, and Consumption of Synthetic Drugs.” The offensive focuses on more cooperation among the enforcement agencies with the Unit Synthetic Drugs playing a pivotal role.


Recognizing that the government needs to take firm action to deal with the increasing levels of addiction, in April 2001, the Dutch government established the Penal Care Facility for Addicts. Like American Drug Treatment Courts, this facility is designed to detain and treat addicts (of any drug) who repeatedly commit crimes and have failed voluntary treatment facilities. Offenders may be held in this facility for up to two years, during which time they will go through a three-phase program. The first phase focuses on detoxification, while the second and third phases focus on training for social reintegration.


The United Kingdom has also experimented with the relaxation of drug laws. Until the mid-1960s, British physicians were allowed to prescribe heroin to certain classes of addicts. According to political scientist James Q. Wilson, “a youthful drug culture emerged with a demand for drugs far different from that of the older addicts.” Many addicts chose to boycott the program and continued to get their heroin from illicit drug distributors. The British Government’s experiment with controlled heroin distribution, says Wilson, resulted in, at a minimum, a 30-fold increase in the number of addicts in ten years.


Switzerland has some of the most liberal drug policies in Europe. In late 1980s, Zurich experimented with what became known as Needle Park, where addicts could openly purchase drugs and inject heroin without police intervention. Zurich became the hub for drug addicts across Europe, until the experiment was ended, and “Needle Park” was shut down.


Many proponents of drug legalization or decriminalization claim that drug use will be reduced if drugs were legalized. However, history has not shown this assertion to be true. According to an October 2000 CNN report, marijuana, the illegal drug most often decriminalized, is “continuing to spread in the European Union, with one in five people across the 15-state bloc having tried it at least once.”


It’s not just marijuana use that is increasing in Europe. According to the 2001 Annual Report on the State of the Drugs Problem in the European Union, there is a Europe-wide increase in cocaine use. The report also cites a new trend of mixing “base/crack” cocaine with tobacco in a joint at nightspots. With the increase in use, Europe is also seeing an increase in the number of drug users seeking treatment for cocaine use.


Drug policy also has an impact on general crime. In a 2001 study, the British Home Office found violent crime and property crime increased in the late 1990s in every wealthy country except the United States.


Not all of Europe has been swept up in the trend to liberalize drug laws. Sweden, Finland, and Greece have the strictest policies against drugs in Europe. Sweden’s zero-tolerance policy is widely supported within the country and among the various political parties. Drug use is relatively low in the Scandinavian countries.


In April 1994, a number of European cities signed a resolution titled “European Cities Against Drugs,” commonly known as the Stockholm resolution. It states: “The demands to legalize illicit drugs should be seen against the background of current problems, which have led to a feeling of helplessness. For many, the only way to cope is to try to administer the current situation. But the answer does not lie in making harmful drugs more accessible, cheaper, and socially acceptable. Attempts to do this have not proved successful. By making them legal, society will signal that it has resigned to the acceptance of drug abuse. The signatories to this resolution therefore want to make their position clear by rejecting the proposals to legalize illicit drugs.”

(http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/demand/speakout/09so.htm)

(Fact 8: Alcohol has caused Significant Health, Social, and Crime Problems in this Country, and Legalized Drugs would only make the Situation Worse.
Drugs are far more addictive than alcohol. According to Dr. Mitchell Rosenthal, director of Phoenix House, only 10 percent of drinkers become alcoholics, while up to 75 percent of regular illicit drug users become addicted.


Even accepting, for the sake of argument, the analogy of the legalizers, alcohol use in the U.S. has taken a tremendous physical and social toll on Americans. Legalization proponents would have the problems multiplied by greatly adding to the class of drug-addicted Americans. To put it in perspective, less than 5 percent of the population uses illegal drugs of any kind. That’s less than 16 million regular users of all illegal drugs compared to 66 million tobacco users and over 100 million alcohol users.



According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), during 2000, there were 15,852 drug-induced deaths; only slightly less than the 18,539 alcohol-induced deaths. Yet the personal costs of drug use are far higher. According to a 1995 article by Dr. Robert L. DuPont, an expert on drug abuse, the health-related costs per person is more than twice as high for drugs as it is for alcohol: $1,742 for users of illegal drugs and $798 for users of alcohol. Legalization of drugs would compound the problems in the already overburdened health care, social service, and criminal justice systems. And it would demand a staggering new tax burden on the public to pay for the costs. The cost to families affected by addiction is incalculable.


If private companies were to handle distribution—as is done with alcohol—the American consumer can expect a blizzard of profit-driven advertising encouraging drug use, just as we now face with alcohol advertising. If the government were to distribute drugs, either the taxpayer would have to pay for its production and distribution, or the government would be forced to market the drugs to earn the funds necessary to stay in business. Furthermore, the very act of official government distribution of drugs would send a message that drug use is safe. After all, it’s the U.S. Government that’s handing it out, right?


Alcohol, a “legal drug,” is already abused by people in almost every age and socio-economic group. According to the 2001 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, approximately 10.1 million young people aged 12-20 reported past month alcohol use (28.5 percent of this age group). Of these, nearly 6.8 million (19 percent) were binge drinkers. American society can expect even more destructive statistics if drug use were to be made legal and acceptable.


If drugs were widely available under legalization, they would no doubt be easily obtained by young people, despite age restrictions. According to the 2001 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, almost half (109 million) of Americans aged 12 or older were current drinkers, while an estimated 15.9 million or 7.1% were current illicit drug users. )

(http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/demand/speakout/08so.htm)

(Fact 7: Crime, Violence, and Drug Use Go Hand-In-Hand
Proponents of legalization have many theories regarding the connection between drugs and violence. Some dispute the connection between drugs and violence, claiming that drug use is a victimless crime and users are putting only themselves in harm’s way and therefore have the right to use drugs. Other proponents of legalization contend that if drugs were legalized, crime and violence would decrease, believing that it is the illegal nature of drug production, trafficking, and use that fuels crime and violence, rather than the violent and irrational behavior that drugs themselves prompt.


Yet, under a legalization scenario, a black market for drugs
would still exist. And it would be a vast black market. If drugs were legal for those over 18 or 21, there would be a market for everyone under that age. People under the age of 21 consume the majority of illegal drugs, and so an illegal market and organized crime to supply it would remain—along with the organized crime that profits from it. After Prohibition ended, did the organized crime in our country go down? No. It continues today in a variety of other criminal enterprises. Legalization would not put the cartels out of business; cartels would simply look to other illegal endeavors.


If only marijuana were legalized, drug traffickers would continue to traffic in heroin and cocaine. In either case, traffic-related violence would not be ended by legalization.


If only marijuana, cocaine, and heroin were legalized, there would still be a market for PCP and methamphetamine. Where do legalizers want to draw the line? Or do they support legalizing all drugs, no matter how addictive and dangerous?


In addition, any government agency assigned to distribute drugs under a legalization scenario would, for safety purposes, most likely not distribute the most potent drug. The drugs may also be more expensive because of bureaucratic costs of operating such a distribution system. Therefore, until 100 percent pure drugs are given away to anyone, at any age, a black market will remain.


The greatest weakness in the logic of legalizers is that the violence associated with drugs is simply a product of drug trafficking. That is, if drugs were legal, then most drug crime would end. But most violent crime is committed not because people want to buy drugs, but because people are on drugs. Drug use changes behavior and exacerbates criminal activity, and there is ample scientific evidence that demonstrates the links between drugs, violence, and crime. Drugs often cause people to do things they wouldn’t do if they were rational and free of the influence of drugs.


Six times as many homicides are committed by people under the influence of drugs as by those who are looking for money to buy drugs.


According to the 1999 Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) study, more than half of arrestees for violent crimes test positive for drugs at the time of their arrest.


For experts in the field of crime, violence, and drug abuse, there is no doubt that there is a connection between drug use and violence. As Joseph A. Califano, Jr., of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University stated, “Drugs like marijuana, heroin and cocaine are not dangerous because they are illegal; they are illegal because they are dangerous.”


There are numerous statistics, from a wide variety of sources, illustrating the connection between drugs and violence. The propensity for violence against law enforcement officers, co-workers, family members, or simply people encountered on the street by drug abusers is a matter of record.


A 1997 FBI study of violence against law enforcement officers found that 24 percent of the assailants were under the influence of drugs at the time they attacked the officers and that 72 percent of the assailants had a history of drug law violations.


Many scientific studies also support the connection between drug use and crime. One study investigated state prisoners who had five or more convictions. These are hardened criminals. It found that four out of every five of them used drugs regularly.

· Numerous episodes of workplace violence have also been attributed to illegal drugs. A two-year independent postal commission study looked into 29 incidents resulting in 34 deaths of postal employees from 1986 to 1999. “Most perpetrators (20 of 34) either had a known history of substance abuse or were known to be under the influence of alcohol or illicit drugs at the time of the homicide. The number is likely higher because investigations in most other cases were inconclusive.”


According to the 1998 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, teenage drug users are five times far more likely to attack someone than those who don’t use drugs. About 20 percent of the 12-17 year olds reporting use of an illegal drug in the past year attacked someone with the intent to seriously hurt them, compared to 4.3 percent of the non-drug users.


As we see in most cases, the violence associated with drug use escalates and, in many instances, results in increased homicide rates. A 1994 Journal of the American Medical Association article reported that cocaine use was linked to high rates of homicide in New York City.


As these studies, and others, prove—violence is the hallmark of drug abuse. Drug users are not only harming themselves, but as we can see, they are harming anyone who may have the misfortune of crossing their path. Dr. Mitchell Rosenthal, head of Phoenix House, a major drug treatment center, has pointed out that, “there are a substantial number of abusers who cross the line from permissible self-destruction to become ‘driven’ people who are ‘out of control’ and put others in danger of their risk-taking, violence, abuse, or HIV infection.”


It is impossible to claim drug use is victimless crime or deny the relationship between drugs and violence, especially when looking at an Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) estimate for 1995, which estimates there were almost 53,000 drug-related deaths in that year alone, compared to 58,000 American lives lost in eight and a half years in the Vietnam War. The assertions dismissing the connection between drugs and violence by legalization proponents are simply not true. Drug use, legal or not, is not a victimless crime; it is a crime that destroys communities, families, and lives. )

(http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/demand/speakout/07so.htm)