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.
Amazing. How did we ever get this far without a War on Fast Food or a War on Tobacco?
Politicians and bureaucrats give us 3,000 new federal laws each year to rescue us from the brink of disaster. Each year the save us. I'm simply terrified that myself, you, everyone and society will plummet over the cliff-edge without the 3,000 new laws that will come next year and the 3,000 new laws to come the following year to rescue us right now. We need those laws right now. 3,000 new laws and regulations annually is not enough. It should be double or triple that. Perhaps then people and society can finally prosper.
The Commerce Clause has nothing to do with California Attorney General Bill Lockyer.
Read a book.
Well, in that case, I don't think either one of us could prove we were actually harmed. Which was the point of my example -- is this the kind of society in which we wish to live?
I guess you're saying that, in the libertarian world, there is no law against flashing. Correct?
I've told you several times that I'm not a libertarian. There would be a law against flashing. As tpaine wrote in post 255: "Paulsen, when you wag your willy in some innocent young girls face on the subway, - you have not only harmed her, -- you have 'breached the peace'.
I could see a jury fining you heavily in order to "cope with" your behavior, and to compensate your victim."
The offended person would have to go in front of a jury to prove actual "harm", and request some type of compensation?
I already answered that in post 151. Read it again:
Offense: guy flashes a girl.
Before an impartial jury nine out of ten juries would find the flasher guilty if it was public flashing. Though the monetary restitution would likely be small. The next step is to go to criminal court, if the victim chose to press charges which is highly likely. With the civil court finding guilty, again with an impartial jury nine out of ten juries would find the flasher guilty.
Juxtaposition:
Offense: person ingests drugs in privacy of their own home.
Before an impartial jury nine out of ten juries would find the home-drug-user not guilty of harming you by his act of ingesting drugs in his home. The next step is to go to criminal court, if the victim chose to press charges which is highly unlikely. Having lost in civil court, in the odd event that you pressed charges in criminal court, with an impartial jury nine out of ten juries would find the home-drug-user not guilty.
Well, in that case, I don't think either one of us could prove we were actually harmed. Which was the point of my example -- is this the kind of society in which we wish to live?
So you think that there is no harm or threat of harm done by the guy flashing the girl? Now hear this: Robert Paulsen thinks there is no harm in flashing!
Let's get past you and flashing. Here's what Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) has learned from community leaders.
"LEAP presents to civic, professional, educational, and religious organizations, as well as at public forums but we target civic groups; Chambers of Commerce, Rotaries, Lions and Kiwanis Clubs, etc. The people in these organizations are conservative folks who mostly agree with the drug-warriors that we must continue the war on drugs at any cost. They are also very solid members of their communities; people who belong to civic organizations because they want the best for their locales. Every one of them will be voting in every election. Many are policy-makers and if they are not, they are the people who can pull the coat tails of policy-makers and say, "We have someone you must hear talk about drug policy."
?After making more than nine hundred presentations where LEAP calls for the government to "end prohibition and legalize all drugs‹legalize them so we can control and regulate them and keep them out of the hands of our children," we have discovered that the vast majority of participants in those audiences agree with us. Even more amazing is that we are now attending national and international law-enforcement conventions where we keep track of all those we speak with at our exhibit booth; After we talk with them, 6% want to continue the war on drugs, 14% are undecided, and 80% agree with LEAP that we must end drug prohibition. The most interesting thing about this statistic is that only a small number of that 80% realized any others in law enforcement felt the same." LEAP
Police officers know that their job is to keep the peace. ...To protect people from one another. They know they cannot stop people from harming themselves.
Who profits? Drug dealers, corrupt police, politicians and bureaucrats.
Who dies? Drug dealers fighting over turf. Every drug dealer that dies or goes to prison is quickly replaced by another. Innocent people die when hit by stray bullets. The drug policy -- prohibition -- creates the black market for drugs. Just like it did with alcohol prohibition. Prohibition creates huge black market profits selling drugs thus turf battle ensue. Most deaths are overdose from indeterminate quality of drugs. No Budweiser dealers fighting turf battles. Budweiser has quality control of their beer.
Communities where drug use is rampant? In 1916, 1.3% of the population was addicted to drugs. In 1966, when Nixon created the War On Drugs, 1.3% of the population was addicted to drugs. In 2000, 1.3% of the population was addicted to drugs.
After nearly four decades of fueling the U.S. policy of a war on drugs with over half-a-trillion tax dollars and increasingly punitive policies, our confined population has quadrupled over a 20 years period making building prisons this nation's fastest growing industry. More than 2.2 million of our citizens are currently incarcerated and every year we arrest an additional 1.6 million for nonviolent drug offenses -- more per capita than any country in the world. The United States has 4.6 percent of the population of the world but 22.5 percent of the world's prisoners. LEAP
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them." - Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged
Private prison contractors lobby government officials to create more mandatory minimum laws.
Why? I thought something is illegal only if it harms someone through force or fraud. If the individual has to prove in a court of law they were harmed, well, we don't even know a crime has been committed!
If it's on the books as an illegal activity, then why doesn't the state bring a criminal case against the individual?
Lastly, how does this individual go about proving harm? Just on her say-so? I'm on the jury -- please tell me how she was actually harmed. Offended, insulted, shocked, sure. I agree she could be any of these. How was she harmed through force or fraud? Why will no one answer this question?
BECAUSE YOU CAN'T. She was not "harmed". The answer is that in the libertarian utopia, flashing is not illegal. Annoying, at best.
You're not a libertarian? Then perhaps you're not the person to be addressing my question, since you seem to know nothing about this libertarian concept of "harm".
please tell me how she was actually harmed. Offended, insulted, shocked, sure. I agree she could be any of these. How was she harmed through force or fraud? Why will no one answer this question?
BECAUSE YOU CAN'T. She was not "harmed".
Paulsen, -- the harm is intrinsic in your act. Wagging your weenie in public is a forceful aggressive act, intended to offend, insult, & shock your victim, who is entitled to fight back.
-- Now, - in order to stop fights between weenie waggers & their victims on crowded subways, -- we have laws against wagging & flashing.
The answer is that in the libertarian utopia, flashing is not illegal. Annoying, at best.
That 'answer' only proves that you're an anti-libertarian troll, bobby.
You're not a libertarian? Then perhaps you're not the person to be addressing my question, since you seem to know nothing about this libertarian concept of "harm".
I'm a libertarian paulsen, and you have no concept of how our philosophy works, because you are blinded by communitarian dogma.
The problem in your country is not the drugs, or whatever else...It's your close minded way of not taking exemple on other society...What is so wrong about other countries that makes you think you are made to govern this world, because whatever you might say, this is what is happening...
Haslinger proposed that law (sorry for my lack of specificy, but i am posting on my free time at work and i am still learning english) that obliged all country to have approx. the same laws on drugs.
The only thing that forbids canada to pass laws softer on drug is the US saying they will create problem at the borders...What is so wrong with canada that makes you think you have the right to dictate them?? We are not enforcing the laws of th WOD and still we have approx. 160 murder for 30 millions citizen... you guys are 350 millions and well over 10 000 murders by guns!!! WTF is wrong with you guys? Have you ever thought about it??
And i am reading all of the posts of this board and i see you guys (lots of intelligent one), whatever your political beliefs, canot get off the boundaries of these political beliefs, whatever conservative, republicans, and even libertarians!!! You are stuck with a close mind of what can be taught in the books, of what your "constitution" tells you, the patriot acts and all that f*cking BS!!!
Again what is so wrong with all those other countries around you that you could share some "laws" or way of thinking from them in order to become the perfect society that you want so much to reach! why are you stuck with your own pride?
The united states alone have the potential to become that perfect society but you guys let yourself dictates your lives by politicians with a profit motive only...Don't tell me bush cares about it's citizens, please, or i might just jump off a bridge!! (only kidding obviously!)
Of course some of of you will curse about me but read the next line, i've heard it somewhere else before and experimented it...
Take a frog, put in a bowl of water. Put that bowl on the element of your oven and turn on the heat really gradually; the frog will die of heat before noticing it! Take that same bowl with hot water and take another frog and throw it in nad she'll do anything to get off that bowl. Now you guys are in a bowl that you do not notice but it's getting hotter and hotter... yes there's a lot of people who critisizes your country, and a lot of them are wrong...But don't you think there is a valuable reason (other than jealousy )why your country gets so much bad critics???
There's no real answer to that, so i won't be waiting for one, but think about it...Something is wrong with your country, and it is not getting any better, as a whole...
I thought something is illegal only if it harms someone through force or fraud.
I already responded to your strawman you posted at 169 in my 172 post.
Robert Paulsen: My question concerned your argument that laws should be based on harm. 169
Zon: Strawman. You cannot quote me anywhere on this thread where I made that argument because I never did and you know it. 172
If the individual has to prove in a court of law they were harmed, well, we don't even know a crime has been committed!
After the girl won in civil court for you wagging your wennie at her she'd most likely press charges of sexual assault in criminal court.
If it's on the books as an illegal activity, then why doesn't the state bring a criminal case against the individual?
You want to make protecting the State more important than protecting the individual. The first objective after a crime is for the victim to gain restitution. Second objective is to protect the public from the criminal. The State already failed at protecting the victim in the first place. It's ludicrous to think the State should get first crack at the criminal after the crime.
Lastly, how does this individual go about proving harm? Just on her say-so?
Witnesses. You assume a he-said she-said hypothetical. The victim has to press charges to set the process in motion. The victim has the choice of where to press the first charge: in civil court or criminal court.
I'm on the jury -- please tell me how she was actually harmed. Offended, insulted, shocked, sure. I agree she could be any of these. How was she harmed through force or fraud? Why will no one answer this question?
You're the one that has failed to convince an impartial jury how you have been harmed by the the act of a guy sitting at home smoking a joint. You already said you can't prove you have been harmed. As I have said several times: in nine out of ten cases the jury would side with the flasher victim, and, in nine out of ten cases the jury would side in favor of the guy smoking a joint at home having not harmed you by that act.
BECAUSE YOU CAN'T. She was not "harmed". The answer is that in the libertarian utopia, flashing is not illegal. Annoying, at best.
She was threatened by your attempt to urinate on her or worse, rape her and perhaps spread AIDS to her.
You're not a libertarian?
Libertarian, conservative/republican, liberal/democrat are irrelevant. The Point is honesty. That's how an impartial jury would decide.
Then perhaps you're not the person to be addressing my question, since you seem to know nothing about this libertarian concept of "harm".
An impartial jury would decide if harm has been done and to what extent. You can't stand it that the State doesn't get "first" crack at the criminal despite the State having failed to protect the victim in the first place, just as you can't stand the victim having the opportunity to gain restitution via an impartial jury before the State has a chance in criminal court. You prefer a communitarian police state, IMO.
Voting for the lesser of evils always begets evil. Not Canadians nor any nation's citizens are above that. They all remain inside the vote-for-evil box.
so close minded... Than the humans are doomed to evil and nothing good will ever happen to this planet...You see, this is what i wanted to show, think outside the predetermined parameter and stop comparising which country is the best...There is no best country! we all know it! Share ideas and you will get a better results though! The problem is your country is the one that has the most influence on the others, yet not able to be influenced from other, so only getting more "evil: faster than a lot of other one and thus spreading this "evil" all around...i would use the word sh*t instead of evil actually... stop thinking about your own belly button, you are one of the best "argument finder" of this board, but gees, what you gave was senseless... especially against what i wrote...
Neo-tech is to communitarians/socialist/fascists/tyranny-of-the-majority as conscious man is to bicameral man. Neo-Tech is to Libertarian as Ayn Rand is to Aristotle.
so close minded... Than the humans are doomed to evil and nothing good will ever happen to this planet.
You're the one stuck in the vote-for-evil box. Politics is not the solution, it's the problem. You're a frog in denial.
You see, this is what i wanted to show, think outside the predetermined parameter and stop comparising which country is the best.
Which is what I did by identifying that all citizens are in the vote-for-evil box. I thought outside that closed boundary/parameter. The rest of your post you go on comparing within closed boundaries.
stop thinking about your own belly button, you are one of the best "argument finder" of this board,
You've been on this forum for how long, newbie? All of two days. You can stuff your patronizing.
"You're the one stuck in the vote-for-evil box. Politics is not the solution, it's the problem. You're a frog in denial."
i don't know where that's coming from!! this is what i am trying to say, politics is not the solution and thats why the US is stuck with so many problems!!! everything is politicized in this country, and what's worst, your political parties are only interested in destroying the other party, they are not working together, that's a problem, which, as per exemple, in canada is not a problem... im a frog that was thrown in a hot boiling bowl when i started studying the united states case...
"Which is what I did by identifying that all citizens are in the vote-for-evil box"
this is not thinking outside the perimeter, that's the easiest thing to do than to put everybody in the same categorie! you are relieving your country from certain responsability...
"You've been on this forum for how long, newbie? All of two days. You can stuff your patronizing."
that's another case of being stuck in a box of idea already predetermined, put the newbies a side, the easiest thing to do, a newbie doesn't have credibility, does it mean he doesn't have arguments to discuss about? you just plainly easily bashed on me ...
I am maybe new on this forum but that's not the first time i am on a forum at all!!! By the way i was making a positive statement on your side, saying you have good arguments!
But still that wasn't the point, why is america stuck with such violence? Would enforcing those laws of the WOD create such violence? that was more my point... the frog thing is that by being lied since the first prohibition a lot of the united states citizens cannot even understand they are being lied to, and cannot understand a thing outside their country...Of course that doesn't apply to you Zon, the frog thing, as showed in your previous post, this was applied to anti-drug dudes... I am trying to get your help in solving problem from the united states, that's why i argumented against you, to gain your attention because you have some great ideas and your knowledge seems pretty wide, as for me i am only a philosoph, not a man of book, so the way that i am expressing myself is not always clear as you saw!!!
thanks for answering!! interesting story to consider, obviously not the first time i hear a jail/ god related story... Do you have friends that were doing this drug and got off the addiction? sorry if i persist with questions, but i am for now in favor of legalizing drugs, but i like to view the other side of the coin, as i never stop myself to only one point of view...Again thanks for sharing some hard moments of your life!
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.