Let's be realistic, folks. The government throws hundreds of millions, even billions, of our tax dollars down a black hole in order to combat the spread of narcotics.

Go to Little Five Points in Atlanta, someday, and then tell me it's working. "Trees?! Trees!?" can be heard the instant you hit the streets, from both the sellers and the buyers. Thousands of dollars change hands, and the color of the hands is irrelevant.

The fact of the matter is that this mythical war has failed. And the strongest defenders of quite possibly the largest source of government largesse and waste are, ironically, social 'small government' conservatives! Wow, imagine that!

The proponents of the War on Drugs mainly derive their rhetoric and firepower from the 'it's for the children' chapter of liberal talking points. Naturally, nobody (except for those already suffering from burnout reefer madness) desires a society in which every member is stumbling around, much less driving, stoned out of their minds. Social conservatives (of course, the reality being that they are the 'Religious Right') point to the degradation of society, the need to protect 'the children' and show statistic after statistic to support their claims.

The hypocrisy here is astounding. The vast majority of these so-called conservatives have absolutely no problem with Prohibition having come to an end. After all, it's such an inconvenience to not be able to come home after a hard day of work and pound a few brewskies. It's not like alcohol does anything to degrade society, alter the human mind, and destroy families, right? Oh wait.

And don't even get me started on people who quit smoking cigarettes. Nothing irritates me more than some guy who's smoked for years jonesing and reiterating "man I need a cigarette" ad nauseum. However, if the government stepped in to correct our ailing society by outlawing the two most commonly abused legal drugs, I'm relatively certain that these conservatives would cry foul. After all, that's expansion of government!

But of course, it's okay to legislate morality in regards to other narcotics. People die from cocaine, heroin, and other drug-related overdoses all the time. And, of course, that's not even including prescription drug overdoses.

But hmm, let's compare!

According to the ONDCP 2001 survey of Americans 12 and older:

Illicit drug use in month before survey conducted: 7.1%
Illicit drug use in year before survey conducted: >12%
Illicit drug use at least once in lifetime: 41.7%

Okay, so to sum it up, 41.7% of Americans who responded to this survey have used or tried an illicit drug at one point in their life. Paralleled to alcoholism, this equates to having your first beer.

Now, in the year 2001, according to the CDC:

Alcohol use in the year preceding the survey: 62.5%
Alcohol use of five or more drinks in any one day: 32.4%

And now, the fun part.

Alcohol-related deaths excluding accidents and homicides: 19,817
(Everyone knows this is a stupid statistic. The fact of the matter is that thousands more are killed by either driving drunk, being hit by a drunk driver, or getting in a drunken fight that involves a homicide.)

Alcoholic deaths from cirrhosis or chronic liver disease: 27,035
(Name me one person who has died from smoking a non-laced joint, barring the 'accidents or homicides' that are somehow missing from the alcohol survey. Please. E-mail me.)

The cigarette one is just too easy. Borrowed this from the CDC as well.
Annual deaths attributable to cigarette smoking, 1995-1999:

Of course, it would be foolish for me to say that nobody dies from drug use. But the purpose of this article is not to say that, but rather to expose the hypocrisy of drug warriors. If you claim to be in favor of small government, you must practice what you preach in all aspects of your philosophy. Desiring small government for everything except what you find convenient is not conservatism. It is not 'for the children'. It is not 'taking the high road of morality'. It is liberalism, and it is hypocrisy.

Hey drug warriors, instead of expanding the government in the name of 'social conservatism', how about you try one simple step in keeping your families drug-free? It's called PARENTING. If you don't want your kids doing drugs, then how about you try PARENTING THEM instead of expecting the government to do it for you? How is it any different that my tax dollars are being spent on a useless War on Drugs than being spent on food stamps for Welfare moms to buy their eight illegitimate children double cheeseburgers?

I anticipate I'll be getting plenty of "LOL TIM U STUPID LIBERTARIAN" e-mails from folks who read this article. Fact of the matter is, ever since I was old enough to know what politics consisted of, I've been a conservative. However, to me, conservatism and small government go hand in hand. And yes, that means that it should not be up to the government to decide what drugs stupid people should be allowed to ruin their own lives with. If you honestly think that somehow alcohol is less destructive to society than marijuana, I'm sorry, but you're delusional.

Well, actually, I'm not sorry. You're just a liberal masquerading as a social conservative.

I challenge anyone out there who thinks that the War on Drugs is a productive use of billions of taxpayer dollars to ask your Congressional representatives to sponsor legislation outlawing alcohol and cigarettes FOR ALL AGES. Otherwise, you're a hypocrite.

Back to index...