DEA "Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization" Claim 2 - a rebuttal

(self) | March 20, 2012 | (self)

[JustSayNoToNannies]

The DEA Web pages on "Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization" are linked with some regularity on FR. They're full of errors in fact and logic; since I couldn't find a comprehensive rebuttal online, I've started creating one. Here's my rebuttal to their "Fact 2;" more to come as time permits. ("Fact 1" rebutted at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2858443/posts.)

Claim 2: "A balanced approach of prevention, enforcement, and treatment is the key in the fight against drugs."

• Claim: Drug treatment courts are working. Researchers estimate that more than 50 percent of defendants convicted of drug possession will return to criminal behavior within two to three years. Those who graduate from drug treatment courts have far lower rates of recidivism, ranging from 2 to 20 percent. That’s very impressive when you consider that; for addicts who enter a treatment program voluntarily, 80 to 90 percent leave by the end of the first year. Among such dropouts, relapse within a year is generally the rule.

  Fact: The recidivism comparison between drug court graduates and others convicted of possession can be explained by the fact that those selected for drug court are those who were less likely to re-offend anyway: non-violent offenders charged only with simple possession (http://www.justice.gov/dea/ongoing/treatment.html) and who are willing to waive their right to a speedy trial and sign a pre-emptive confession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_court).

  And it's not clear why it's "very impressive" that those who complete a treatment program have lower relapse rates than those who don't — that would seem to be a minimum requirement for a treatment program.

• Claim: Law enforcement plays an important role in the drug treatment court program. It is especially important in the beginning of the process because it often triggers treatment for people who need it. Most people do not volunteer for drug treatment. It is more often an outside motivator, like an arrest, that gets —and keeps— people in treatment.

  Fact: Getting people who need it into treatment doesn't justify imprisoning people who don't need treatment.

• Claim: There are already more than 123,000 people who use heroin at least once a month, and 1.7 million who use cocaine at least once a month. For them, treatment is the answer. But for most Americans, particularly the young, the solution lies in prevention, which in turn is largely a matter of education and enforcement, which aims at keeping drug pushers away from children and teenagers.

  Fact: No medical or mental health professional defines abuse or addiction as using once a month; for many of these users, treatment is unnecessary.

• Claim: The role of strong drug enforcement has been analyzed by R. E. Peterson. He has broken down the past four decades into two periods. The first period, from 1960 to1980, was an era of permissive drug laws. During this era, drug incarceration rates fell almost 80 percent. Drug use among teens, meanwhile, climbed by more than 500 percent. The second period, from 1980 to 1995, was an era of stronger drug laws. During this era, drug use by teens dropped by more than a third.

  Fact: Education, which was mentioned as a preventive factor in the previous claim, also increased during the second period ("Just say no to drugs"), so it's unknown how much — if any — of the teen drug use is due to enforcement.

• Claim: Enforcement of our laws creates risks that discourage drug use. Charles Van Deventer, a young writer in Los Angeles, wrote about this phenomenon in an article in Newsweek. He said that from his experience as a casual user—and he believes his experience with illegal drugs is “by far the most common” — drugs aren’t nearly as easy to buy as some critics would like people to believe. Being illegal, they are too expensive, their quality is too unpredictable, and their purchase entails too many risks. “The more barriers there are,” he said, “ be they the cops or the hassle or the fear of dying, the less likely you are to get addicted….The road to addiction was just bumpy enough,” he concluded, “ that I chose not to go down it. In this sense, we are winning the war on drugs just by fighting them.”

  Fact: For most drugs, the risks of the drugs themselves — such as addiction and death — certainly outweigh any additional risks imposed by law enforcement, so any additional discouragement to use from the latter will therefore be slight.

• Claim: The element of risk, created by strong drug enforcement policies, raises the price of drugs, and therefore lowers the demand. A research paper, Marijuana and Youth, funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, concludes that changes in the price of marijuana “ contributed significantly to the trends in youth marijuana use between 1982 and 1998, particularly during the contraction in use from 1982 to 1992.” That contraction was a product of many factors, including a concerted effort among federal agencies to disrupt domestic production and distribution; these factors contributed to a doubling of the street price of marijuana in the space of a year.

  Fact: Again the DEA cherry-picks its data; the report (http://www.nber.org/chapters/c10691.pdf) shows that after a 74% jump in price from 1990 to 1991, the price fell back by 1998 to within 17% of its 1990 value. (And over that period, potency increased by 79% — so price per gram of THC actually fell substantially.)

[Ken H]

I think we should use Singapore as a model for our anti- drug laws.

Drug situation shows sign of worsening: Minister

01 March 2012

SINGAPORE: The drug situation in Singapore shows signs of worsening, particularly among the young.

Speaking in Parliament on Thursday, Minister of State for Home Affairs Masagos Zulkifli says the number of drug abusers arrested is on a rising trend, increasing from 2,537 in 2008 to 3,265 last year.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1186388/1/.html

[flintsilver7]

Unless you are a true anarchist, everybody believes in “freedom with limits.”

Pro-drug legalization people make such continually stupid arguments that I’m amazed any of them call themselves conservatives. All of that typical stage one thinking usually comes from the left.

Of particular interest is the fact that *any* amount of legalization of *any* currently banned substance will substantially INCREASE the size and scope of government. Is that what you want?

[starlifter]

“the fact that *any* amount of legalization of *any* currently banned substance will substantially INCREASE the size and scope of government”

Citation?

[JustSayNoToNannies]

just because the law says a woman CAN have an abortion, that is not a claim on anyone that THEY must provide it for her. She can go to anyone who agrees to provide it, but no one can be required to be that provider. And, the government cannot command anyone to be an abortion provider, against their will, just because of Roe-V-Wade. Just because it is “legal” does not make it mandatory for anyone not wishing to be part of it.

The unborn person is forced to be a part of it - the part who is murdered.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

Go the way of Portugal and decriminalize all drugs and watch the crime rate go down.

Go a step further and legalize making and selling, and watch the crime rate go down even more. All making those acts illegal accomplishes is to hyperinflate the profit margin while restricting the market to criminals.

If you decrease the number of activities that are considered crimes, of course crime will go down.

The decrease I was referring to was the decrease in crimes financed by the hyperinflated profits made available to criminals by drug criminalization.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

It's strange how many people don't see that "freedom - but not for acts I disapprove of" is not freedom at all.

Unless you are a true anarchist, everybody believes in “freedom with limits.”

I didn't say just "limits," did I? I used a much more restrictive phrase. Go look up "straw man argument" - then feel embarassed.

Pro-drug legalization people make such continually stupid arguments that I’m amazed any of them call themselves conservatives. All of that typical stage one thinking usually comes from the left.

At least save the chest-thumping till you've actually won the argument - and learned not to commit stage one thinking like your straw man argument above.

Of particular interest is the fact that *any* amount of legalization of *any* currently banned substance will substantially INCREASE the size and scope of government.

It's theoretically possible that it takes more bureaucracy to regulate a legal substance than to seek, prosecute, and imprison sellers and buyers of an illegal substance - but it seems unlikely, and you've presented no reason to believe it. And it's clearly false that the scope of government increases - the scope of "we forbid all buying or selling" is self-evidently greater than the scope of "we forbid buying or selling that doesn't conform to regulations X, Y, and Z."

[Wuli]

“The unborn person is forced to be a part of it - the part who is murdered.”

I am not arguing against that moral point.

But, until Roe-V-Wade is overturned, conservatives, whether social conservatives or Libertarians, should be united, as Conservatives, on what should be understood as the true LEGAL limits of Roe-V-Wade - abortion is “legal” but just being “legal” does not mean that anyone who does not want to participate in providing it can be required to be part of providing it.

Roe-V-Wade only means its “legal” which only means that yes, if you can find someone willing to help you perform it, it is not “illegal”. That’s it. And that is not a mandate, Constitutional or otherwise, that any individual or organization MUST be part of providing it, against their own conscience.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

conservatives, whether social conservatives or Libertarians, should be united, as Conservatives, on what should be understood as the true LEGAL limits of Roe-V-Wade - abortion is “legal” but just being “legal” does not mean that anyone who does not want to participate in providing it can be required to be part of providing it.

I think they're united on this trivial point now - I've never heard anyone disagree.

[Wuli]

“I think they’re united on this trivial point now - I’ve never heard anyone disagree.”

I think some social conservatives, besides rejecting Roe-V-Wade, believe it does not go as far as it does, in terms of what’s legal and protected, and some Libertarians believe the “protections” of Roe go farther than they actually do, sometimes assuming that just because it is legal that medical facilities capable of performing it must do so, if asked, out of respecting the choice of the individual to have it.

Many non-thinking conservastives, of a Libertarian type have been caught up in the language that calls the results of the Roe decision as a declaration of an individual “right”, and some then fail to acknowlegde the “individual rights” of those who fall into the category of persons capable of performing/assisting an abortion - as if medical assistance is a robotized societal public service and only the “rights” of those needing it’s service need be considered. Some “pro-choice” Libertarians I know have fallen into this “populist” notion. I have told them they have lost their Libertarian roots.

[flintsilver7]

It’s simply common sense. Since everybody loves Portgual, let’s use that as an example.

In the U.S., making, selling, possessing and using illicit drugs is illegal.

In Portugal, making, selling, possessing and using illicit drugs is illegal. However, those who possess a small amount are not prosecuted criminally. They are sent to a “dissuasion commission” which attempts, at taxpayer expense, to stop them from using. The results of this range from a fine to taxpayer-funded rehabilitation.

In the U.S., legalization would not be as simple as “free the seed” that most stage one thinkers advocate. We’d be going from “making, selling, possessing, and using illicit drugs” is illegal to something else. It is an absolutely certainty that restrictions on age would be placed, and given the potency of the currently illicit drugs relative to alcohol we would be looking at a minimum age of 21 (if not older). Unfortunately, this still means that the vast majority of users in the U.S. would be forbidden from buying legally. Thus, the black market would still exist, only this time we’d have thousands of bureaucrats from the former BATF (now the BATFMMPPECCH or some such) regulating the market. Furthermore, among legal users, there would certainly be restrictions on activities (such as driving).

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2010/061.pdf

This really isn’t that hard to figure out.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

It is an absolutely certainty that restrictions on age would be placed, and given the potency of the currently illicit drugs relative to alcohol we would be looking at a minimum age of 21 (if not older). Unfortunately, this still means that the vast majority of users in the U.S. would be forbidden from buying legally. Thus, the black market would still exist, only this time we’d have thousands of bureaucrats from the former BATF (now the BATFMMPPECCH or some such) regulating the market. Furthermore, among legal users, there would certainly be restrictions on activities (such as driving).

There would also be fewer illegal sellers, so less bureaucracy needed to seek, prosecute, and imprison them. That this decrease would be outweighed by the increase on the legal regulation end is utterly unclear.

[flintsilver7]

You can replace “with limits” with “but not for acts I disapprove of” if you like. The phrases are interchangeable. I suggest you go look up “straw man argument” because I do not think that phrase means what you think it means.

You’re trying to sound intelligent but you aren’t really reading what you are writing (or at least it doesn’t seem that way). See my above post for a concise explanation as to why legalization would substantially increase the size and scope of government while still leaving the vast majority of the black market untouched.

It’s simply mind-boggling how the pro-drug folks fail to recognize the key similarities and differences between the respective policies on drugs and guns. In particular, note that while guns are essentially universally “legal,” a gigantic black market still exists to provide guns to those who can’t legally own them. The key difference, of course, is that guns have many safe, legal, and useful purposes (defense of life and property) while drugs have few.

[starlifter]

In other words, what you asserted to be a fact is, instead, something you simply made up and want to believe. Got it.

You are entitled to your own opinion.

You are not entitled to your own facts.

[flintsilver7]

What happened in Portugal is fact and the increase in government is evident.

What *would* happen in the United States is opinion, but it’s very well-supported by the existing facts. Are you going to argue that legalization would *not* be accompanied by a massive increase in bureaucracy?

Unless you’re going to argue against the facts of Portugal and the well-supported opinions referring to potential legalization in the United States, you’re not actually saying anything. It’s no different than me saying that the Lakers would obliterate your local high school team and you saying that it’s merely my opinion.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

You can replace “with limits” with “but not for acts I disapprove of” if you like. The phrases are interchangeable.

No, they're not. "Acts I disapprove of" is (for most people) a substantially larger set than acts that are legitimately excluded from freedom.

See my above post for a concise explanation as to why legalization would substantially increase the size and scope of government while still leaving the vast majority of the black market untouched.

Done. See my reply.

In particular, note that while guns are essentially universally “legal,” a gigantic black market still exists to provide guns to those who can’t legally own them.

How "gigantic"? As large as it would be if guns were as illegal as illegal drugs?

[flintsilver7]

Well, I’m making progress. You’re at least thinking a bit more critically about this.

The usage statistics indicate that the *likely* minimum age being placed at 21 or older would still leave a significant black market. It would be extraordinarily difficult to quantify either the decrease in illegal sellers or the increase in legal regulation. Aside from the fact that this is comparing apples to oranges, without a specific policy to critique there are far too many unknowns. I do not see any situation where the decrease in bureaucracy resulting from a potential reduction in the pursuit of criminal suppliers would be greater than the increase in bureaucracy resulting from the regulation of legal sellers, the taxation of legal sellers, the regulatory and mandatory impacts on health insurance from these legal substances, the expansion of state and local police to determine “safe” limits for the use of currently illicit drugs, the determination and enforcement of restrictions on such usage based on their mind-altering characteristics, and so on.

Obviously, a black market is smaller when the subject in question is legalized wholly or in part. That would very likely be offset, however, by substantial problems elsewhere.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

Well, I’m making progress. You’re at least thinking a bit more critically about this.

ROTFL! I'm saying what I've said all along - it must be your reading skills that are progressing.

The usage statistics indicate that the *likely* minimum age being placed at 21 or older would still leave a significant black market. It would be extraordinarily difficult to quantify either the decrease in illegal sellers or the increase in legal regulation. Aside from the fact that this is comparing apples to oranges, without a specific policy to critique there are far too many unknowns.

"Far too many unknowns" - yet you don't hesitate to draw a conclusion. Is that an example of what you regard as critical thinking?

I do not see any situation where the decrease in bureaucracy resulting from a potential reduction in the pursuit of criminal suppliers would be greater than the increase in bureaucracy resulting from the regulation of legal sellers, the taxation of legal sellers, the regulatory and mandatory impacts on health insurance from these legal substances, the expansion of state and local police to determine “safe” limits for the use of currently illicit drugs, the determination and enforcement of restrictions on such usage based on their mind-altering characteristics, and so on.

The fact that you can find a way to use more words to describe the increase than you use to describe the decrease proves squat about their relative magnitudes.

Obviously, a black market is smaller when the subject in question is legalized wholly or in part. That would very likely be offset, however, by substantial problems elsewhere.

Why should anyone think it likely that the offset would be complete (or more)?

[JustSayNoToNannies]

Claim 3 rebutted here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2864032/posts