My Marijuana Site

E-mail me    E-mail a Friend

Guestbook

View   Sign

links

ANTI-LEGALIZATION FORUM

In August 1994, in an effort to identify compelling arguments against legalization, DEA sponsored a two-day Anti-Legalization Forum at Quantico, Virginia, for experts in the field. Several police chiefs, representatives from Government agencies, and private sector authorities dedicated their time to this important task. The participants were asked to refine the arguments that can be made against legalization and evaluate ways to address the legalization issue in an effective and meaningful way.

Three groups were formed to discuss various aspects of the legalization debate: Social/Economic issues, Health Effects, and Crime and Violence. All of the arguments espoused by legalization proponents impact on these three areas, and many of the claims outlined in this publication transcend the topics discussed by the three groups. At the end of the two-day session, group leaders presented the recommendations of each group.

While individual groups arrived at specific conclusions, there were a number of general concerns and ideas raised by all participants:

• Those speaking against legalization need to be positive and confident about that position. Legalization opponents must constantly ask just how many drug addicts will be created under legalization, and who will pay for the social, criminal, and other associated costs of legalization.



• Legalization opponents often have a hard time being heard. Although only a small minority of academics, social scientists, and other public figures advocate legalization, the forum participants felt that the legalization advocates make better use of the media (in particular the Internet) in making their opinions known than the far larger group of legalization opponents. A current climate of frustration with crime, violence, and drug abuse is fueling the legalization debate, while accomplishments in controlling drugs do not get adequate attention. The costs of the fight against drugs are generally not put in perspective, and the costs of inaction are never discussed. Nevertheless, forum participants agreed that a positive, proactive campaign against legalization could be very effective.
  
  
• Legalization proponents are formidable opponents. The forum participants acknowledged that proponents of legalization are generally well-prepared and credible people whose arguments, though compelling, are faulty. Proponents effectively use lawyers and public relations firms to espouse liberalization of drug policies.



• Misperceptions drive the debate. The legalization debate is being driven by the perception that the costs of solving the drug problem in America are far too high. The group cited public mistrust of government and a perception that federal agencies attacking the problem are fragmented and have no consensus about direction as reasons that the legalization debate rings true with many people. There are also numerous misperceptions about the foreign experience relating to drug legalization and the system for prescribing heroin. Forum participants stressed the need to bring to the forefront the facts relative to the British, Dutch, and Swiss legalization experiments. Americans are frustrated by the drug problem. While an overwhelming majority of the American people are not convinced that legalization is an effective option, there is a sense of frustration that we have spent so much money on controlling drug trafficking and use, yet violence and crime continue. The group noted that most Americans erroneously think that legalization advocates are only suggesting that marijuana be legalized, and are generally unaware of the dramatic impact that legalizing cocaine and heroin will have.



• The debate must not take place in the abstract. The debate on legalization must be refocused from its current abstract conceptualization to a common sense scenario. Audiences need to understand that of all the current illicit drug users age 18-49, 70 percent are employed full-time according to the 1994 & 1997 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse published by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). This fact has very clear implications for society. For example, the school bus driver who drives your children to school may smoke marijuana, the surgeon who operates on you may have cocaine in his system, and the driver behind you may be under the influence of methamphetamine. The debate needs to demonstrate graphically how the common person will be impacted by drug legalization.

Here's another one I don't like it, but it does work
http://www.trafficcommander.com/main.cfm?id=1662