In the debates today and Tuesday (listed below), here are some prohibitionist tricks and traps to watch for…
Numbers of use
They like to cherry-pick certain numbers to show the success of criminalization (use of x is down among y population…) and then use other numbers to show use is up when asking for funding.
The fact is that this debate is irrelevant. “Use” is unhelpful because it includes all non-problematic use. The real actual debate is whether the overall harm to society (from drug use and the drug war) is greater under prohibition than under legalization.
Perfect Solution Fallacy
“Legalization won’t eliminate the cartels, therefore we shouldn’t do it.” “Legalization won’t eliminate drug abuse, therefore we shouldn’t do it.” “Legalization won’t eliminate corruption, therefore we shouldn’t do it.”
Obviously, legalization will not solve everything, and at once. With the “cartels,” for example, they are entrenched because of decades of being fueled by prohibition. Cutting off the major source of funding will hurt them dramatically over time, because it will eliminate their funds for hiring new soldiers and bribing government agents. As that continues, the government can more easily fight them (if they remain in violent crime) because the cartels will no longer control the government.
As Peter Christ said (paraphrased) “Legalization is about solving our drug war problem. Then we can actually deal with our drug problem.”
The Irrelevant Lies
Watch for the common lies that are trotted out. “Marijuana has more carcinogens than tobacco. It’s more harmful than people think.” Sorry, but that dog won’t hunt. It’s an attempt to get people to believe that marijuana causes cancer, and despite the fact that they’ve love you to believe a tiny, improperly done study in New Zealand, the truth is the science is not out on this. Marijuana does not cause head, neck or lung cancer.
“More people are in treatment for marijuana than any other drug. It’s dangerously addictive.” Another lie. They’re in treatment because they were sent there or signed up to avoid jail, not because they’re addicted.
There are a few others like these, and not only are they lies, but they’re also irrelevant. Even if marijuana was more cancer-causing and addictive than tobacco, that still wouldn’t justify criminalization as the way to deal with it. Legal regulation and education is the solution (as it is with tobacco).
What about the Children?
I don’t know anyone who says we should legalize drugs and promote their use for children. In fact, most legalizers want regulations to control use by children that are more restrictive than what criminal dealers follow.
Talking about children is an intentional distraction from the real issues in the discussion about legalization.
The roads
You’ll probably hear that with legalization we’ll face a fiery Armageddon on the highways from all the stoned people crashing.
Yesterday, the Illinois House of Representatives passed a ban against using cellphones while driving a car. Interestingly, they did not criminalize the ownership, manufacture, sales of cellphones or the use of cellphones outside the car. Because that would be stupid.
Pass laws that address the actual problem.
Drug abuse versus Drug war abuse
You may get a smart prohibitionist who admits that the drug war has its problems, but asserts that the problems of drug abuse outweigh those problems, so that it’s a necessary evil.
That’s a false dichotomy. It’s not “drug abuse problems” on one side and “drug war problems” on the other side. You do, in fact, have drug abuse problems under prohibition. Here’s what it really looks like:
Legalization: drug abuse problems
Criminalization: drug war problems AND drug abuse problems
And there’s absolutely no evidence that drug abuse problems are significantly less under criminalization (quite a bit of evidence that they are not).
….
So, for those who are able to watch the debates, how many of these distractions did the prohibitionists use, and how well were they countered by our side?