2009.06.11
Is Casey a flaming hypocrite about alcohol and drugs?
Marijuana, ecstasy, heroin, cocaine and some other stuff
"Let me get this straight," one Roanoke Times editor began. "We should talk about legalizing drugs but not about lowering the drinking age? Nobody can call you predictable, Mr. Casey."
And she may as well have added "consistent," too.
She was referring to Thursday's column (it's the next post below this one) , in which I endorsed an open debate about the possibility of legalizing drugs, AND a May 31column in which I warned that lowering the drinking age to 18 would increase alcohol's accessibility to 14- 15- and 16-year-olds.
I can certainly understand the question.
BUT ... I did not call for alcohol to be outlawed. AND ... I don't believe drugs, if they are legalized, should be sold to anyone under 21.
HOWEVER ... it indeed is possible that legalizing drugs could make them more accessible to youngsters. And that remains a concern I share with Nancy Hans, council coordinator for the Roanoke County Prevention Council, who is quoted in the column below.
And I'm also concerned for some other reasons. As one wise pol lectured me early in my journalism career:
- The 2 legal drugs, alcohol and tobacco, irrefutably account for more sickness, hospital admissions and deaths every year than all illegal drugs combined. To that toll you have to add in all the other societal costs of alcoholism: lowered productivity because of missed work, family strife, carnage from drunken driving, senseless violence, and so on.
- With all of those problems from two legal drugs, do you really think that legalizing all OTHER drugs wouldn't magnify the problem of drug abuse, even if you limited their sale to adults? How could it not make the drug problem worse?
It was a point that was hard to debate.
Jim Ford, the other guy in the column below, believes that money taxpayers now spend on drug enforcement and incarceration could be rechanneled to prevention, education and treatment in a way that heads off any increase in drug use, which he certainly doesn't favor. It might even reduce it, and reduce drug-associated violence and property crime.
That's an issue that should be studied. If Ford is right, legalization could be well worth it. If he's wrong, it would not be.
SO, let's debate lowering the drinking age, keeping in mind the real possibility that the carnage could include increased alcoholism in teenage and later years. And if that would be the case, don't lower the drinking age.
AND, let's study drug legalization combined with vastly increased prevention efforts. And if those studies conclude it would only worsen problems of drug abuse in society, let's not legalize drugs.
Unless you are willing to outlaw it all and make it a capital offense punishable by life in prison or the death sentence, you are fighting a losing battle in any regard. If the only barrier to sane people using drugs is that it is illegal, we have already lost and the argument is moot.
Lowering the drinking age is not a solution to the alcohol problems. As Mr. Ford opines on drug use, education, prevention and treatment are the only options. "Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other." ~Ben Franklin
The solutions for all are the same. Society will absorb the added problems with the returned savings from the law enforcement/prison end.
The legal age for all three should be 21 bar none.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 11, 2009 @ 11:43 am
This is an interesting discussion. Certainly alcohol and tobacco are dangerous drugs and kill many people. Marijuana may have some medical benefits and it's as easy to obtain as booze. You don't find pot heads killing people with their cars or getting involved in violence. But drugs, all drugs legal and illegal pose threats for some people more than others. You can watch the game and have a few beers, drink responsibly, smoke a little pot, take drugs legally prescribed by doctors and make a little moonshine. I am recovering alcoholic, and for me its not an option to take a drink. Some drugs are more addictive than others, but to those of us who are either alcoholics or addicts its russian roulette. We've spent fortunes on enforcement to no avail. The problem is a social one. We create the need. Can we eliminate that need? Probably not. People take drugs everywhere, opium in SE Asia, Cannibis in the Middle East, booze in the west, coca leaves in Bolivia. Some take them for medicinal purposes, some for spiritual reasons and some mostly just for "fun". Some say legalize to save money and tax drugs to gain revenue. The real money needs to be spent, whatever decision is reached on drugs, on treatment and education. Treatment based on 12 step programs that proved their worth, treatment that is free and easily available, and carries no social stigma. And on education, not so much the evils of drugs, but on how to win the struggle. Try telling a teenager, who thinks smoking is cool about lung cancer. Education must include the tools necessary to deal with addiction when it begins, where to go, who to talk to, etc. Most members of AA( the group I have experience with) will tell you people need to reach bottom before breaking out of the shell of denial and getting treatment.Legal or not, people will seek out mind altering substances. We need to be able to help then back into the world.
Comment by Brett Hensley — June 11, 2009 @ 12:13 pm
BTW Dan, Dave, or whoever you are, whether people think you are a hypocrite is one thing, whether you indeed are a hypocrite is quite another. That particular pejorative is used to the point of meaninglessness these days. Most people using it do not even use it in the right context.
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion 2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
— hypocrite adjective
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite
So do you put on a false appearance of virtue or religion? Not that I can tell.
Do you act in contradiction to your stated belief or feelings? Again, not that I can tell.
As a mother, I can assure you I can and will be a hypocrite at the drop of a hat. "Do as I say, not as I do" ring any bells?
Do you think you are a hypocrite?
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 11, 2009 @ 12:38 pm
Sandi,
As a father, there have been occasions when I've definitely fit definition #2!
(I'm enjoying your participation on these boards, btw.)
Comment by Dan Casey — June 11, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
Oh, don't encourage me, your buddy Dan R can assure you I am a royal pain and then some. But I enjoy your blog as well.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 11, 2009 @ 1:41 pm
Well said, great post Brett! Your perspective is probably more important and certainly more involved than some of ours.
The fact that we could not even stop drugs in the most restrictive locked down facilities on the planet should have been a big clue long ago. We are big on "law and order", "lock 'em up and throw away the key" in this country, even to our own detriment and shame. We create or enable and then decry. The solutions to many of our society's ills can more and more be found in education, tolerance and kindness and yet Liberals get ripped to shreds for that mentality on a daily basis. Instead of improving education, some want to abolish the Department of Education at the federal level. Instead of increasing money to programs that are proven to work or give a chance to new ideas, we would rather build ever bigger (and meaner) jails and prisons. We have it bassackwards and fight any attempt to prove the emperor is naked. (speaking of naked bike rides). The debate and discussion MUST continue.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 11, 2009 @ 2:20 pm
I agree with Brett. unfortunatly the war on drugs is big business for the government so i doubt any real progress will be made on a more realistic approach for quite some time.
Comment by will — June 11, 2009 @ 3:44 pm
The drinking age should be lowered to 18..Old enough to vote and die for your Country..should be able to drink.
Legalize drugs...Why..Because when their illegal we have no Control..If drugs were legal..no more drug war deaths across the world..Including here!ID required for purchase..potency could be regulated...less Overdoses..Also people with drug problems will be less stigmatized when seeking help in addition the excitement of doing illegal drugs would be gone..They would become more mundane and less interesting to young potential drug users.....Locking people up is not working
When people have a drug deal go bad they cant go to the police..they handle it themselves..that means violence..
Legalize it,tax it and reduce crime..the sooner the better
Comment by Tony — June 11, 2009 @ 4:20 pm
I think the drinking age should remain 21 and the "vote and die for your Country" along with the right to marry age should be raised to 21. I know it is not a realistic goal, but this is a blog not the Senate and that is what I think.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 11, 2009 @ 4:44 pm
O.K. legalize drugs,but any company or government entity can require drug testing if they don't wish their employees to be on drugs. Also drug testing before one can get welfare or food stamps. Drug testing before getting any kind of driver's license. These are all privileges not rights. If someone wants to spend their time getting high all the time so be it. The drug war is big business on both sides. Lots of money involved.The war on drugs is obviously not working, so time to try something else.
Comment by Dennis — June 11, 2009 @ 6:00 pm
Dennis, for your solution to workable, then alcohol usage should be tested for also. Boy would that run up the employment rate. Anyway people will find something else that's presently being untested. I know people who have smoked pot, now drink because of job testing. Some of them may developing a serious booze dependency. We live in a world where spiritual values have eroded into hate. Someone once said that in some cases anyway, alcoholism is a low level search for spirituality. This is probably true of drug usage too. Having both drank to excess and smoked pot, I would not want either employee in my business, but if i had to choose, I'd take the pot smoker over the drunk any day. Also aggressive political systems tend to favor alcohol as the drug of choice. Who would want an army of stoners?
Comment by Brett Hensley — June 12, 2009 @ 8:19 am
Until we are willing to look at the root cause for self medication (Rx, alcohol, or illegal drugs) and attempt to make a better society for us all, these problems will continue unabated and we will continue to waste money on inneffctive treatments, unhelpful incarceration and yes, job loss and further dependence on 'the dole'. There is a HUGE substance abuse problem in America and the people in jail and losing jobs are only the TIP of that iceberg. The success stories are there, but the failures and relapses are what make the headlines. We need to decide we are not going to accept that this is the best we can do. Testing is a side issue. Getting to the root and crippling the cause is our best bet for a better society.
1. EDUCATION.
2. TREATMENT without shame
3. ACCEPTANCE without judgment
4. RESPECT without caveats
5. Then and only then, PUNISHMENT for the refusal to become a productive part of society.
My way or the highway is not working out for us.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 12, 2009 @ 10:02 am
First off and unrelated.. the title of this blog post doesn't really make sense? "Is Casey is a flaming hypocrite..."?
I was raised in Roanoke and I could name maybe 3 people in my grade growing up that didn't smoke pot on a regular basis. Now that I'm adult, I have throngs of friends using cocaine and heroin. I guess because Roanoke offers little entertainment for the non-outdoorsy types, young people turns to drugs. I attended VCU several years ago and was surprised to find that the kids from NOVA, a large percentage of the school's population, had rarely even seen or heard of drugs, much less used them. Drugs are a huge problem in Roanoke and I'm glad the topic is getting attention.
The problem with every drug is that there will always be some that let it destroy them. With pot, one out of every 50 will probably become a couch potato with no ambitions. Probably 10 out of 50 drinkers will develop an addiction. I have several friends that I loved dearly that got so sucked into cocaine or heroin that they might as well be dead. Having seen all of these situations, I get upset at the idea of certain things being legalized. In all actuality, someone who is going to let drugs ruin their life is going to regardless. If it hadn't been the cocaine it probably would have been alcohol. Still, knowing that 10 minutes after using cocaine you want nothing more than to do more.. that instant addiction, even if it doesn't last more than few hours, makes me wary about it being legal. It is SO addictive and if it was actually affordable, I wonder how many of my friends would be cokeheads.
I'm all for the legalization of marijuana but would not like the addictive stuff to be readily available. I know people should have self control against those type of things but the fact of the matter is that they don't.
Comment by Allison — June 12, 2009 @ 11:27 am
Allison,
I wrote the headline. Hypocrite was the term I chose; it seemed like the editor was suggesting a hypocrisy-like inconsistency when she noted that one column warned against lowering the drinking age while a later column endorsed studying whether all drugs should be legal.
But you probably have a point that it's not the best word choice....
Comment by Dan Casey — June 12, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
No the word hypocrite wasn't what sounded weird. "Is Casey is" seems wrong, like one of the "is"s shouldn't be there.
Comment by Allison — June 12, 2009 @ 2:21 pm
Allison,
Indeed! It's corrected now. Thank you for the catch!
Comment by Dan Casey — June 12, 2009 @ 4:25 pm
Allison says, "I was raised in Roanoke and I could name maybe 3 people in my grade growing up that didn't smoke pot on a regular basis. Now that I'm adult, I have throngs of friends using cocaine and heroin." Wow. I've lived here 23 years and don't know anyone who smokes pot on a regular basis or uses cocaine and heroin. I guess it's a matter of who your friends are.
Comment by Ricky — June 12, 2009 @ 10:56 pm
Ricky,
There has been an upsurge in heroin use here in the valley in recent years. One of my friend's (young adult) children got caught up in that: young, middle-class -- and addicted, but got treatment and is recovering now.
Though the feds recently put away a significant heroin-dealing gang, there still is demand for the drug in Southwest Roanoke County, Salem, and other valley neighborhood that heretofore it hasn't infected in a significant way.
Salem Police made two arrests for heroin just last week; one for possession, the other for distribution. (I get their police reports). These occurred long after the aforementioned gang was busted, so it's still around.
Heroin is the nastiest of ALL illegal drugs out there; nothing will change a good and loving kid overnight into a lying, stealing, untrustworthy leech like it will. And frankly, a lot of that is because of its illegality.
BTW cocaine is a real sissy drug, the most silly and overrated of all dope.
Comment by Dan Casey — June 12, 2009 @ 11:16 pm
I agree with the comments by Ferdinand, and hope they aren't edited out because they are politically incorrect.
Comment by Roanoke Ron — June 20, 2009 @ 10:20 pm
Legalize all drugs and let people buy anything they want at the drug store. That would take care of the "crime" problems in the country and the health care "crisis."
We can stop incarcerating people for selling or using drugs. We wouldn't need many prisons after those laws are off the books. People "on" drugs don't commit crimes, people who "need" their drug commit crimes. If the drugs are sold, taxed, and affordable, no more drug related crime.
Let people buy antibiotics across the counter and that would stop most people from having to go to the doctor. Get a book, check what hurts, then buy the antibiotic that would be prescribed by a Dr. How much money is wasted each year when parents take their child to the Dr. to get amoxicilin for an ear ache?
The legalization of drugs would save so much money on so many levels.
Comment by Arlo — June 22, 2009 @ 5:29 pm
So Dan, you think the nasty, life-changing effects of heroin and cocaine are mostly because of they are illegal? I guess you have never read the pharmacological and physiological information about them have you.
Comment by AMAC — June 22, 2009 @ 7:11 pm
AMAC,
Let's not generalize here. Aspirin is a drug and so is methamphetamine. But you would not necessarily lump them together, would you?
I have read the pharmacological information. Have you? Fyi, heroin is one of the least harmful drugs you can ingest in your body, assuming you don't OD. And the danger of OD'ing is related to its lack of regulation, i.e. the black market.
Heroin: yes,the nasty, life-changing effects are MOSTLY because it is illegal. Notice, that is qualified.
Cocaine: the nasty, life-changing effects are quite distinct from its illegality. It will harm your body and your brain, no doubt about it.
Comment by Dan Casey — June 22, 2009 @ 7:35 pm
Dan, yes I have read the pharma lit on those drugs, and yes they are used in medicine in a controlled manner with definite health benefits. I work in health care.
But what you have is a bunch of people who want it and they want it for their own entertainment, and yes they will kill, steal and lie to get it.
ALL medicines have negative side effects and most have beneficial properties when used by the right people for the right purpose, i.e., doctors and hospitals for surgery patients.
But like I said, the people who misuse and abuse drugs would be delirious if drugs were easily available with no criminal consequences, but alas they still will not be able to control themselves.
Comment by AMAC — June 22, 2009 @ 8:49 pm