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.
For the majority of the people behind bars for use only, you have to ask, "is the punishment worse than the crime?" For it seems putting someone in prison for 10 years will destroy his life far worse than if he had used pot for the same time period on the outside.
You should read what I propose before assuming too much. I've lived a fair part of the drug war first hand.
"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
Sorry Sunny, your circle of friends and acquantances differ from mine. My circle desires stricter enforcement of our laws.
Spam.
Its the "for the children in the crossfire" argument. Touching.
How so?
No I don't, I don't argue that at all.
If someone commits a crime be it on drugs or not the penalties should be harsh.
This is my take on why I believe we should end the WOD.
This war takes up a huge amount of police and court and prison resources. More than fighting other crime
But what is the WOD, at its heart its a War to stop you from harming yourself with drugs.
Now that might seem like a good thing to protect tjose who cant protect them self's from them self's.
But the point is we have finite resources, how much do we need to spend to fight this war how tough do we have to get all to protect a individual from his own actions.
I say stop the WOD, and put those resources into fighting other crime.
If someone uses crime to feed a drug habit, drink habit gold chain habit deal with them.
If some kids wants to smoke a joint or some wall street exce wants to snort a line well its there health there body as long as they don't use criminal means to feed that habit.
Money not spent chasing those who take drugs but don't commit crimes to feed that habit can be diverted into dealing with those who do.
The same with drink, if you commit criminal activity to feed a drink habit or commit a crime while under the influence of drink, then you should face the law.
Drug users are a public health problem. If someone chooses a destructive lifestyle that affects the public, then lock them up.
According to your illogic obesity is a public health problem and obese people should be locked up. They pollute more than non-obese people and raise health care costs. Lock them up along with the junk food and fast food dealers, right?
Growing number of what.
Are you sure? From the State Department website:
The GOS[Government of Singapore] nonetheless is concerned about the increase in addiction rates and recidivism among drug offenders who have undergone treatment. There are currently about 9,000 addicts undergoing rehabilitation in Singapore treatment centers, the same number as in 1995.
Figures for the Netherlands--
Demand Reduction. The Netherlands has extensive demand reduction programs and lowthreshold medical services for addicts, who are also offered drug rehabilitation programs. Authorities believe such programs reach about 7080 percent of the country's 25,000 harddrug users (in a total population of 15.1 million).
http://www.state.gov/www/global/narcotics_law/1996_narc_report/index.html
_______________________________________
Using a figure of 3 million for Singapore in 1996, that works out to an addiction rate of about 0.30%. Using the State Dept. figures for the Netherlands, the addiction rate was about 0.17%.
For comparison, here are the latest govt. figures I could find for the US:
"There were an estimated 980,000 hardcore heroin addicts in the United States in 1999, 50 percent more than the estimated 630,000 hardcore addicts in 1992." [that's a 0.35% rate in a population of 280,000,000]
--www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs07/794/heroin.htm
Our cities would be more civil and peaceful? Bwahahahaha. Lemme see - materialistic worldview fueled by a welfare state mentality and cultural disregard for laws and personal property. Your solution? Everybody must get stoned!
Don't be a simpleton.
We are just now beginning to map the functions of the human mind. Those physical components as they relate to mental function can enter the area of handicap. However,I do not know how such disabilities relate to those who crave euphoria inducing drugs. I would think that the quest for euphoria has an almost universal appeal. The scientific community must talk about the barbaric nature of the law enforcement community in its insensitivity to those with an abnormal addiction to euphoria producing drugs. You would think there would be a call for a more humane treatment for the addict. Throwing them in jail may leave more psychological scars than the drug use. In fact, if the drug use has caused some type of mental deficiency, it would be better to approach the problem through a clinician rather than a jail cell. Given the cost of incarceration, the clinicians would be a bargain.
LOL very funny, or it may be because I am freeping as well as carrying out other activities, freeping on the run so to speak.
But thanks for pointing it out.
Nothing quite like a false analogy to show your true colors. Obese people rarely cause any harm to others.
They pollute more than non-obese people and raise health care costs.
For which they should pay higher health insurance costs.
post 21
Bump post.
It also created the Kennedy crime family that still plagues the nation.
but I'm a recovering addict and former all-around bad guy who comes equipped with a conscience now, and I have to go where my conscience takes me. Maybe that is why we differ.
I served in the Army for over 20 years, I don't smoke rarely drink and at age 45 I skip three times a week for a hour and a half and I am in fact a health fanatic.
I also have a strong work ethic.
Maybe because you were weak and needed to be sorted out by others, that is why you feel strongly about this.
As someone who has never needed to be sorted out by others.
I have made a few mistakes n my life, but not major ones.
I see it as you are responsible for your self not others.
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.