ZOT: How Do We End The War On Drugs?

about.com ^ | Andrew Somers

[patdor]

Once we understand that the War on Drugs is an abject failure, the question arises, what can we do? What is the solution for ending the drug war?

The answer is very simple.

The core issues of crime and other social ills of the drug war come directly from the black market, not the drugs themselves. The black market is created by, and in fact encouraged by, the socio-economic effects of prohibition (called the “War On Drugs”).

As a result, the cure can only come by ending prohibition. But ending prohibition does not mean a sudden "free for all" of "legalization".

When alcohol prohibition was repealed, it was replaced by regulations and tax statutes that restricted distribution and maintained purity and dose (alcohol content by percentage). It also placed the methods of regulation for sale to the public largely in the hands of local and state governments, where it rightly belongs.

As a nation we are a very diverse culture. The values and cultural heritage of the east are different from the south and are quite different from the values of the west. The result is that federal level recreational substance laws fail in their ignorance of underlying social issues that are highly variable across the nation.

In other words, each state and locality should be afforded their own means of dealing with issues relating to drug abuse.

Thus, ending drug prohibition will be handled much like the end of alcohol prohibition - with the strict regulation and taxation of the manufacture, distribution, and sale of recreational substances.

The model of alcohol

For instance, comparative analysis of even the most pessimistic studies of marijuana show it to be safer and more benign than alcohol. Therefore it’s easy to see marijuana regulations mirroring those for beer and wine.

Hard alcohol is regulated more strictly than beer and wine, and certainly there are substances that should receive stricter regulation than marijuana. Soft drugs such as MDMA (Ecstasy), Psilocybin (Mushrooms), and Peyote, would need stricter regulation - along the lines of hard alcohol, which has significant restrictions on public use and distribution.

The very hardest of recreational substances, (i.e. the drugs with the highest physiological addiction rates, such as cocaine and heroin), would be regulated and distributed only by the government and directly to users. This distribution would seriously undercut, and virtually end, the black market for these drugs. This would greatly discourage the creation of new drug addicts.

It’s important to consider this last aspect of ending prohibition most thoroughly. It is the demonized “hard drug” user that the prohibitionists point to when declaring that the drug war must be continued.

[patdor]

Simple. The same way you end the War on Murder, War on Rape, War on Armed Robbery, etc.

Stupid analogy. The other acts you cited are violent offenses against others, not matters of personal morality. Exactly how far do you believe the state should go in regulating personal morality comrade.

[The Mayor]

Bump!

[Servant of the 9]

I would prefer the Constitutional way.
If the Federal Govt. did not have the power to ban alcohol without a Constitutional amendment, then how did it gain the power to outlaw drugs?
By liberal over interpretation of the Constitution is how.
Support a return to strict construction.

SO9

[patdor]

More simplicity. I guess you also support federal laws against overeating and smoking, too.

[_Jim]

I copied this awhile back from one of the 'drug legalization' threads - didn't write it or the intro. It works to counter the notion that drugs/drug use is a victimless crime and therefore an acceptable 'practice' ... 'legalize'/decriminalize/make drugs avaiale - you WILL have increased use, to the detriment of our society I might add, though the repeated/continued self-administration of some of the more powerful addicting substances that will become available legally (if they are not legal - they are illegal and we're now back to premise of this article and yet ANOTHER 'Drug War' therefore ALL substances WILL have to be made 'legal' - and that implies available) ...

This is writen by RLK, who is so sick of dealing with dopers and their fellow travellers that he no longer participates in these threads. I share those sentiments, and this is posted for those who imagine drug legalization merely a civil rights issue.

"In the normally functioning human being, there is a complex feedback process that directs human thinking and behavior. Old time Freudians call it the pleasure principle. In behaviorist psychology it's looked at as a positive/negative reinforcement behavior shaping and extinguishing process. That is, certain behavior which produces a pleasurable state of affairs is repeated. Behavior or thinking that produces painful outcome is not repeated or is avoided. There are complex corollaries to these rules, but basically that's the idea. This positive and negative feedback system maintains a sense of reality, or maintains the realistic quality of a person's thinking and behavior in their life.

So-called recreational drugs short circuit this realistic feedback process by intervening or replacing it with something that produces unconditional pleasurable feedback. All behavior or thought becomes pleasurable or positively reinforced. Behavior which produces what would normally felt as painful consequences has the discomfort blunted. If you will, drugs occlude necessary danger signals in life. That's one of the reasons people like the stuff.

One of the problems with frequent drug use is that there is a type of unconditional reinforcement within the brain for random thought which results in a drifting mentality or a drift from reality. It's not as noticeable or of concern to the person who develops the mentality, as it is to the person to the observer who doesn't have it. For someone who doesn't share the condition, trying to live with and reason with someone who does have the condition can be difficult or impossible. There are serious social consequences here. People who are high on weed feel wonderful. Attempting to have a lucid conversation with, or counting on any sense of responsibility from, people with the weed mentality isn't very wonderful.

I long ago gave up trying to have any serious productive working relationships with anybody smoking weed. Such people might be able to function as musicians or something similar which are primarily expressions of emotion. But, if I need work done that demands rigorous cognitive acuity, discipline, grit, and determination, potheads can't get the job done. It's a loser. While drug use is claimed to be a victimless crime, working around such individuals, or working in a society of such individuals introduces a harsh unjust burden upon me. Let's make it clear. If I have an editor whom makes tainted or poor decisions, if I have a co-worker who can't function, if I have a supervisor who can't function, if I have an employee who can't function because they are jacking around with drugs, then I am a victim of their drug use. In the event such condition becomes the character of the nation, then I become a victim with little recourse for remedy. In the event such national character facilitates the economic or other decline of the nation, then all of us become the victims of jacking around with drugs. Got it? Drug use is not a victimless crime in the adult real world. Got it?

This state of unconditional positive reinforcement can be very psychologically, that is psychologically, addicting. Many novices are concerned about the physical addiction, the physical side effects, and the physical withdrawal from drugs. The reality is, the purely mental or psychological condition is more of a difficulty than the physical effects.

The initial attraction toward drugs is always purely psychological and occurs before physical addiction. Physical addiction takes time and escalating dosage. When someone comes back for more of a drug a second, third, fourth, or fifth time, they aren't coming back to avoid acute withdrawals or because they are physically addicted. They are coming back because they are psychologically hooked. They like the feeling. Later, they become physically as well as psychologically hooked. Still later, if you can manage to get them off the stuff, they are still hooked on the feeling and a great many other things including the residual mentality.

Frequent drug users adapt to the unconditional reinforcement of the drug world to a point where they slowly develop a mentality that is too soft to want to tolerate real world realistic feedback and effort. They lose capacity to handle real life while simultaneously becoming intrigued with existence in the unconditional positive feedback and insulation of the drug state. When the going gets rough, they head for the insulating state obtained through drugs instead of growing."

[Steel Wolf]

War on Murder, War on Rape, War on Armed Robbery

Common Sense break!

-Murder, rape and armed robbery have a doer and a victim.

-Drug use, alcohol use, and cigarette have a user.

Thus, the two categories are not comperable, neither morally nor legally.

[Pahuanui]

The American people overwhelming support interdiction and incarceration as the best remedies to control and reduce the spread of illegal drugs in America today. (Pew Survey, Feb.2001)

So these are the same folks who pass state ballot measures liberalizing, and in some cases legalizing drugs, who are 'overwhelmingly' supportive of interdiction?

The efforts by America's Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) is working well. Could it be better? Yes. But the legalization of illicit substances like marijuana, cocaine and heroin is not the answer. Increased law enforcement efforts are the answer. Education and drug treatment are also part of the equation. We have enough problems with alcohol in our society and shouldn't be opening the flood gates to drug legalization.

Yes, decrim and possibly legalization are the answers. I work in law enforcement, and know from daily experience that your answers are not answers at all.

[cyborg]

yup

[cyborg]

That requires effort

[patdor]

No one is suggesting drug use is a good thing (although the majority of drug users are functional members of society.) The issue is that criminalization (at least on the federal level) has cause far more problems than it has solved, and it's debateable it has solved ANY problems.

[patdor]

Who said I use drugs?

The problem with you drug warriors is that you can't come up with any logical replies to the drug war issue except:

Duhhhh.... drugs are a bad thing.

[PeteFromMontana]

That requires effort

____________________

Not to mention some self control.

[zeugma]

If you don't believe that free people, armed with the truth, can make good decisions for themselves, then our Republic is as good as dead.

I'm sorry, but this nation ceased to be a Republic many years ago. It is a democracy now, and we have to live with the consequences of that.

[PeteFromMontana]

The problem with you drug warriors is that you can't come up with any logical replies to the drug war issue except:

Duhhhh.... drugs are a bad thing

____________________________

Did Cyndi Lauper sing that song True Colors?

[Steel Wolf]

Change a few words, and you're making an argument for alcohol prohibition.

I don't like working with people who smoke or dip. I don't like working with people who are alcoholics. I wouldn't want to work with a pothead.

BUT

I don't want my tax money going to fight against the dumb consumption choices other people make in their off time. They should be forced to live with their own decisions, and if that means they have to learn the hard way that you can't succeed in life until you clean up your act, then so be it. I also see the harm to the Constitution and our rights as far more important than babysitting adults to make sure they don't hurt themselves. If that makes me a jerk, I can live with that.

Unless he's planning on banning fast food, SUVs, cigarettes and alcohol, for starters, then RLKs position is flawed and illogical.

[Trailerpark Badass]

That is simply the most inane, bizarre rationalization for regulating the private behavior I've ever heard. But, seeing as it was written by RLK, I'm hardly surprised.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

I never implied that you did. My answer was directed to the title.

[patdor]

Cute, but "cute" is typical of the intellectual depth of drug warriors.

Ther bottom line is that there is no logical reason (well, except for graft, corruption, and payola among our police and elected officials) to continue the drug war at the federal level.

[Cultural Jihad]

Greetings! I'm Andrew M. Somers, your About Guide for Civil Liberties. As an About Guide I hope to bring forth reason and understanding to some of the most pressing topics of our time.

Experience:
First and foremost, I'm an American Citizen. Born in Southern California, I've lived in many states of this great nation. As a writer and public speaker, I worked in broadcast radio for over a decade before moving into filmmaking and television, where I have received 3 Emmy awards, plus 9 Golden Reel noms. I am the founder of the Drug Action Network - a grass roots anti-prohibition organization.

From Andrew Somers:
I was brought up on the beliefs in personal freedom and inalientable [spelling!] rights that many of us take for granted. Tragically, Civil Rights and CIvil [spelling!] Liberties are fragile. Remember that if we trade "freedom" for "Security", no one shall be safe.

From Other Sources:
Drug Action Network A non profit organization seeking to end prohibition

[_Jim]

IF 'drug use' wasn't/had not become a problem - it (drugs) wouldn't have been banned.

That's the premise in this piece I penned a few years back - it contends that your *real* problem is the stupid people in society - ELIMINATE them and, virtually ALL laws could be eliminated. (So I exaggerate - you get the point.)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's the stupid in society who brought this upon themselves in the first place.

As is often the case - it is several, usually the stupid - who ruin it for the many.

The stupid I refer to at this point are those few dopers who ruined it for the balance of the dope ingesting populace who *can* ingest or inhale their stupifying substances without running afoul of Johnny Law.

This is not to say that other debilitating effects take hold ... they do but the doper in his indulgence in his drug of choice coupled with denial do not see it.

Take for example the doper who has a burglary occur, calls the law who promptly discovers his 'grow' operation - this is the type of advanced IQ I am referring to when I use the term the stupid ...

The following must be considered before launching off on wild-eyed pro-drug or drug legalization diatribes.

IF drug use HAD NOT been a problem - would laws restricting drug use have materialized?

Some simple, clear-headed deductive reasoning (not always achievable by dopers) can shed some light on how we arrived at the point we currently find ourselves.

Following this premise further - problems with this early, growing population of dopers) - and short of actually educating people (not all people are educable, it seems, given those felons who commit multiple buglaries *after* their release from prison) the imposition of rules (laws) with an enforcement body became the norm in controlling the growing problem.

To sum it up, the growing doper population became first - a simple nuisance - then a problem at which point the problem was solved in the manner in which civil order is normally restored. We pass laws. Then *surprise* we enforce those laws ...

What most people in these drug legalization threads are really advocating (in the case of mj) is the freedom to ingest or inhale the stupifying compound THC (active ingredient in mj) via a tobacco-like delivery mechanism (smoking).

More to the point - they are looking for the right to inhale or ingest stupifying substances without repurcussion.