Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Posted on 03/28/2006 10:51:21 PM PST by goldstategop
Getting high can be bad. Putting people in prison for it is worse. And doing the latter doesn't stop the former.
I was once among the majority who believe that drug use must be illegal. But then I noticed that when vice laws conflict with the law of supply and demand, the conflict is ugly, and the law of supply and demand generally wins.
The drug war costs taxpayers about $40 billion. "Up to three quarters of our budget can somehow be traced back to fighting this war on drugs," said Jerry Oliver, then chief of police in Detroit, told me. Yet the drugs are as available as ever.
Oliver was once a big believer in the war. Not anymore. "It's insanity to keep doing the same thing over and over again," he says. "If we did not have this drug war going on, we could spend more time going after robbers and rapists and burglars and murderers. That's what we really should be geared up to do. Clearly we're losing the war on drugs in this country."
No, we're "winning," according to the federal Drug Enforcement Administration, which might get less money if people thought it was losing. Prosecutors hold news conferences announcing the "biggest seizure ever." But what they confiscate makes little difference. We can't even keep drugs out of prisons -- do we really think we can keep them out of all of America?
Even as the drug war fails to reduce the drug supply, many argue that there are still moral reasons to fight the war. "When we fight against drugs, we fight for the souls of our fellow Americans," said President Bush. But the war destroys American souls, too. America locks up a higher percentage of her people than almost any other country. Nearly 4,000 people are arrested every day for mere possession of drugs. That's more people than are arrested for aggravated assault, burglary, vandalism, forcible rape and murder combined.
Authorities say that warns people not to mess with drugs, and that's a critical message to send to America's children. "Protecting the children" has justified many intrusive expansions of government power. Who wants to argue against protecting children?
I have teenage kids. My first instinct is to be glad cocaine and heroin are illegal. It means my kids can't trot down to the local drugstore to buy something that gets them high. Maybe that would deter them.
Or maybe not. The law certainly doesn't prevent them from getting the drugs. Kids say illegal drugs are no harder to get than alcohol.
Perhaps a certain percentage of Americans will use or abuse drugs -- no matter what the law says.
I cannot know. What I do know now, however, are some of the unintended consequences of drug prohibition:
1. More crime. Rarely do people get high and then run out to commit crimes. Most "drug crime" happens because the product is illegal. Since drug sellers can't rely on the police to protect their property, they form gangs and arm themselves. Drug buyers steal to pay the high black market prices. The government says alcohol is as addictive as heroin, but no one is knocking over 7-Elevens to get Budweiser.
2. More terrorism. The profits of the drug trade fund terrorists from Afghanistan to Colombia. Our herbicide-spraying planes teach South American farmers to hate America.
3. Richer criminal gangs. Alcohol prohibition created Al Capone. The gangs drug prohibition is creating are even richer, probably rich enough to buy nuclear weapons. Osama bin Laden was funded partly by drug money.
Government's declaring drugs illegal doesn't mean people can't get them. It just creates a black market, where even nastier things happen. That's why I have come to think that although drug addiction is bad, the drug war is worse.
Although the war on drugs can't be won, it can be forfeited.
The city of Baltimore, MD tried this under the aegis of former mayor Kurt Schmoke.
The results weren't pretty.
And we do have to get scrap the idea that drug use or its consequences is a legitmate disability.
If the US legalized all drugs and they were cheap? Of course we'd become filled with drug crazed zombies. Why would an addict pay 100X more for a drug and risk arrest and imprisonment in his country? Aren't Vegas and Reno and Atlantic City filled with gamblers?
Plus, we'd become a magnet for all the drug traffickers, gangs and cartels who'd headquarter here (where drugs are legal) to illegally export to the rest of the world.
I understand what you're saying, but I don't believe our society will heavily criminalize anything. If we did it now with alcohol, I'd have a different opinion.
Rose wrote:
"Are there actually people who shoot up heroin and do not end up addicted?"
Yes.
"Evidence for Controlled Heroin Use?"
Shewan and Dalgarno, British .J. Health Psych. 2005
http://www.doctordeluca.com/Library/AbstinenceHR/ControlledHeroinUseEvidence05.htm
--
Comment (DeLuca):
In this study, subjects had occupational and educational status comparable to that of general UK pop. Ongoing problems were rare; heroin was not a significant predictor. Use frequency data suggests importance of psych factors. The pharmacological properties of opioids, per se, do not inevitably lead to harmful use patterns.
See also:
Occasional and Controlled Heroin Use - Not a Problem? - Warburton et al., Rowntree Foundation, 2005
http://www.doctordeluca.com/Library/AbstinenceHR/ControlledHeroinUse05.htm
..alex...
Alexander DeLuca, M.D., MPH
doctordeluca@gmail.com
http://www.doctordeluca.com/
War on Doctors and Pain Crisis Weekly RSS feed:
http://www.doctordeluca.com/
What did these people do before the 60's hippie protesters popularized illegal drugs? In 1955 I graduated from a very large high school and no one I knew had even heard of any drugs. Today we even have elementary school kids taking drugs. We have freepers advocating drug use. I don't think we can change back to the way it was. The WOD confuses me. I hate drug users, dealers and apologists. I don't see any viable options. If we legalize drugs, elementary school kids will still use them.
Are you under the impression that we put pot users in prison for 10 years? Wow.
You would agree, wouldn't you, that putting a drug dealer in prison for ten years is far better than letting him destroy hundreds of lives by selling drugs?
Exactly. Ask KenH to explain why saki use is higher in Japan compared to the U.S. Is it because of Japan's drug laws?
The Netherlands has a huge problem with teen drinking -- teen abuse of alcohol is double ours. Perhaps the teens there would rather drink than smoke pot?
To conclude that marijuana use in the Netherlands is down because of their laws is ludicrous. Might just as well conclude that we can reduce marijuana use in the U.S. if we built more windmills and wore wooden shoes.
and add to your statements the fact that before these items were made illegal in the 1920's ( yes, 1920's ) they were ALL available over the counter, cocaine, heroin, opium, etc. The country was not overrun with addicts. People bought the stuff and made their own medicines with it. The government created the problem, and the government can end the problem. All they have to do is stay the hell out of my life.......
The government in Atlas Shrugged was basically a dictatorship. We are a self-governing nation. If our government is cracking down on criminals, it is because the majority of the people want it that way.
Spam = Anything Zon doesn't want to read.
Nobody that I'm aware of.
Currently, 30% of marijuana users are underage. That percentage would likely grow with legalization -- it could turn out that half the marijuana users, after adult legalization, are underage. Who's going to enforce the laws against underage use after we disband the DEA and downsize the local police force?
In order to reduce this "crime", the pressure will be on to reduce the age for legal use. Making the legal age 16 or even 14 will result in less "criminals". Problem solved.
"If we legalize drugs, elementary school kids will still use them."
This is a real problematic issue. With NO controls and full illegality, yes, there is nothing to keep children away from them. As a former user who, by the grace of God, am clean (and who started at the age of 15), the threat and eventual reality of imprisonment was enough to help me see it was the wrong path after six bad years.
The bigger issues about the WOD is intertwined in these threads. It is true that alcohol, drugs, tobacco - some people are given over to addiction, period. You cannot change that, so society needs to try to make the dangers of abuse visible, regardless of its legal position. The problem, as mentioned in the gambling post, is that making drugs legal only helps legitimize it. Those people prone to addiction will still be a drain on society, and the questions will again be the same as they are now - what is the right solution to helping them get over it when they decide they have had enough? Free or additional meds? Incarceration? Hospitalization? Group therapy? And who pays the bills for this, if the user cannot?
On the legalization side, yes, the WOD is a failure. There is a LOT of dope out there, and a lot of bad people making money with it. I wholeheartedly agree with the post that stigmatization and public shame would go a long way to help prevent drug use initially. As long as the culture makes this a positive or value-neutral activity, the idea it is a bad thing to do will never take. Like tobacco, convincing people there is no good end to it would help solve the problem regardless of legality.
Also, yes, legalization would allow the substances to be regulated (taxed) and better kept out of the hands of the underaged; however, the feds would still remain in place to chase ILLEGAL creation/distribution/sale, which would not disappear with legalization. Moreover, given the various substances available, where would legalization stop? Pot? LSD? Herion? Crack? Meth? What level of psychotic reaction are we willing to live with legally as a society?
Next, what do we do to regulate the potential consequences of making this stuff legal? Right now, we deal with alcohol on a legal level, with stiff penalties for those who misuse it and hurt others as a result. 'Nothing more than that' is a feeble answer, because people on some of this stuff are not rational in many instances; a tab of microdot LSD is not like drinking a glass of wine with dinner. So do you register users when they buy? Do you restrict them to specific 'high' environments? Do you take away thier ability to drive? If they are too f*cked-up to work steadily, who pays for thier dope so they are not street criminals? Are they wards of the state? These are all questions that the legalization crowd needs to answer before I am on that band wagon.
In my case, the court system and punishment was enough to help shake me out of it; I don't know where I would be now if that fear hadn't worked. Freaked-out parents, caring teachers, reasonable friends, and associating with felons who were doing worse, non-drug related activites to support their drug use - nothing else could convince I was on the wrong path until I realized that this was my future.
They were never the good old days....
Your solution to that incident would be that if the girl felt that she or her property was damaged by that flasher, that she should take him to court and try to convince an impartial jury that she was harmed and the extent of that harm so that she could gain restitution for her loss?
The government created the problem,
Yes. One example is Harry Anslinger's propaganda campaign to outlaw marijuana. Another is the defense department's introduction of LSD to Americans. They conducted several mind control tests using LSD. The US government opened Pandora's box. And of course there's the WOD which is the problem much worse than the drug problem.
I would strongly recommend that truly interested people challenge the research in a book written by Peter McWilliams. The book is titled Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do. The book reviews the absurdity of all consensual crimes in our free country.
Now that you are armed with an informed opinion ask this question; where in the Constitution is the federal government granted the power to deny the citizens?
Check out some of the state laws. I randomly checked out a few. In Mississippi the mandatory sentence for possession of more than 500g of marijuana is 6-24 years. In North Dakota possession of more than 1 oz is a mandatory 5 year sentence. In South Dakota possession of more than 1 lb is a mandatory 10 year sentence. In Louisiana a second offense for possession of any amount is a mandatory 5 year sentence, a third offense for possession of any amount of marijuana no matter how small is a mandatory 20 year sentence! In Georgia, for simple possession of marijuana within 1,000 feet of a school, for a first offense you will get a mandatory sentence of 20 years!
I would call reducing drug use from 15% down to 5% to be a success. And, after dramatically reducing drug use, keeping drug use at that level for the last 15 years would be my definition of a success.
Perhaps you can give me your definition of failure.
After seven-odd years of participating on FR WoD threads, I've yet so see a WoD-supporter answer this question . . .
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.