You’ve gotta love it when old people start spouting off radical ideas. My grandma started at age 91, when after a lifetime of middle-of-the-road values she started talking about invoking the Second Amendment to overthrow the Bush Administration with armed militias. Tony Bennett started doing it at age 85, when this September, on the ten-year anniversary of 9/11, he told Howard Stern, “They flew the plane in, but we caused it.”
Yesterday after Whitney Houston’s death Bennett backed a different kind of controversial idea: legalizing drugs.
“First it was Michael Jackson, then it was Amy Winehouse, and now the magnificent Whiteny Houston,” Bennett said at Clive Davis’ pre-Grammy party. He continued:
“I would like every gentleman and lady in this room to commit themselves to get our government to legalize drugs. So they can be getting to a doctor, not to some gangsters who sell them up under the table. There’s enough going on, and it’s time to straighten out our own lives. We’re the greatest country in the world, and we should never forget that.”
Bennett is totally right—we should legalize drugs. But this has nothing to do with the three stars he name-checked. They weren’t even killed by illegal drugs—Jackson and now reportedly Whitney were killed by misusing prescription drugs, and Winehouse was killed from alcohol poisoning.
As for illegal drugs, of the 250 million people worldwide who use them, only 10% are addicts. And those 10% aren’t deterred from finding and abusing drugs because they happen to be illegal. And as seen in places like Holland where drugs are legal, legalizing them doesn’t suddenly turn the other 90% into addicts. It just re-classifies them as being non-criminals. This is why the Global Drug Policy recommended worldwide decriminalization last year, claiming that “the war on drugs has failed.”
Bennett is right—we should legalize drugs, but not because it will save a few rock stars’ lives. It won’t. It will, however, keep thousands out of jail and keep families from being broken apart, which in turn causes more crime down the road. It’ll cut down on crime by creating a legitimate market where there now exists only a black market and raise millions in sales tax revenues. Not to mention the incredible impact it would have on the Mexican drug cartel, whose violence has killed over 48,000 in the last five years alone.
Whiney, Winehouse and Michael are basically the opposite of the reason we should legalize drugs—they’re the outliers who push abuse to the limit. They didn’t need illegal drugs to kill them. Likewise all the evidence says that legalizing the drugs that are currently illegal won’t kill more. When you factor in black market crime it would save many lives and keep many more out of jail.
Bennet’s right Houston’s death is a great tragedy and that we lose too many great artists to abuse. But the kind of care they need is altogether a different issue from drug legalization. Check out Bennett’s comments below.
February 13, 2012 at 4:48 pm, Everett Catherine said:
Calling her Whiney is a bit mean, doncha think?
February 13, 2012 at 4:51 pm, Kirk Muse said:
This article is right on target.
February 13, 2012 at 8:03 pm, Tom Angell said:
Find out why more and more cops, judges, and prosecutors who have fought on the front lines of the "war on drugs" are standing up and saying we need to legalize and regulate all drugs to help solve our economic, crime, and public health problems: http://www.CopsSayLegalizeDrugs.com.
February 13, 2012 at 9:04 pm, Eric Jaffa said:
If Whitney Houston was abusing prescription drugs, she still may have worried that she'd be admitting to a crime by talking about it.
February 15, 2012 at 12:41 pm, Malcolm Kyle said:
Prohibitionists dance hand in hand with every possible type of criminal one can imagine.
An unholy alliance of ignorance, greed and hate which works to destroy all our hard fought freedoms, wealth and security.
We will always have adults who are too immature to responsibly deal with tobacco alcohol, heroin amphetamines, cocaine, various prescription drugs and even food. Our answer to them should always be: "Get a Nanny, and stop turning the government into one for the rest of us!"
Nobody wants to see an end to prohibition because they want to use drugs. They wish to see proper legalized regulation because they are witnessing, on a daily basis, the dangers and futility of prohibition. 'Legalized Regulation' won't be the complete answer to all our drug problems, but it'll greatly ameliorate the crime and violence on our streets, and only then can we provide effective education and treatment.
The whole nonsense of 'a disaster will happen if we end prohibition' sentiment sums up the delusional 'chicken little' stance of those who foolishly insist on continuing down this blind alley. As if a disaster isn’t already happening. As if prohibition has ever worked.
To support prohibition is such a strange mind-set. In fact, It's outrageous insanity! –Literally not one prohibitionist argument survives scrutiny. Not one!
The only people that believe prohibition is working are the ones making a living by enforcing laws in it's name, and those amassing huge fortunes on the black market profits. This situation is wholly unsustainable, and as history has shown us, conditions will continue to deteriorate until we finally, just like our forefathers, see sense and revert back to tried and tested methods of regulation. None of these substances, legal or illegal, are ever going to go away, but we CAN decide to implement policies that do far more good than harm.
During alcohol prohibition in the 1920s, all profits went to enrich thugs and criminals. Young men died every day on inner-city streets while battling over turf. A fortune was wasted on enforcement that could have gone on treatment. On top of the budget-busting prosecution and incarceration costs, billions in taxes were lost. Finally the economy collapsed. Sound familiar?
So should the safety and freedom of the rest of us be compromised because of the few who cannot control themselves?
Many of us no longer think it should!
February 18, 2012 at 8:04 am, Gavin Putland said:
You don't need to legalize drugs. You need to concentrate law enforcement on RETAIL SALES (i.e. on "street sellers") and get rid of the reverse onus of proof in drug-possession trials. That reversal is incompatible with the rule of law and is therefore unconstitutional in ALL jurisdictions. More: http://is.gd/noreverse.