SOROS' $$ TOPPLES DA IN WAR OVER DRUGS (This Is Gettin' Scary)

New York Post ^ | September 16, 2004 | KENNETH LOVETT

[publius1]

SOROS' $$ TOPPLES DA IN WAR OVER DRUGS By KENNETH LOVETT Post Correspondent September 16, 2004 -- ALBANY —

In an unusual infusion of big money into local upstate politics, billionaire George Soros poured cash into the Albany County district attorney's race — and engineered a stunning defeat of the incumbent because the DA supports the strict Rockefeller drug laws.

The Soros-founded Drug Policy Alliance Network — which favors repeal of the Rockefeller laws — contributed at least $81,500 to the Working Families Party, which turned around and supported the successful Democratic primary campaign of David Soares.

Trying to become Albany's first black DA, Soares on Tuesday unexpectedly trounced his former boss, incumbent Albany DA Paul Clyne, who has opposed changing the drug laws. The victory was overwhelming: Soares took 62 percent of the Democratic vote.

"This was more than a local race, that's what the [Soros] funding shows," said Assemblyman John McEneny, who supported the challenger's candidacy.

Soros, an international financier and philanthropist who says he is dedicating his life to defeating President Bush, favors legalizing some drugs.

Clyne backers claim that the Working Families Party, using the Soros money, illegally involved itself in the Democratic primary. They charge the Soros cash was used to target Democratic voters with mass mailings and phone calls labeling Clyne as the reason the drug laws were not reformed, as well as highlighting his anti-abortion stance.

[Henchman]

I only looked because I thought it said a "TOPLESS" DA!

[robertpaulsen]

"in the worst-case scenario"

We are getting a hint at what a worst-case scenario looks like with cigarettes in New York.

Greedy, tax-hungry politicians at all levels of government have combined to raise the price of cigarettes to such a level that they're being driven underground.

In that case, the government gets squat in revenue (Result? Raise the tax!). The smugglers make out.

Of course, we have your iron-clad assurance that this won't happen with drugs. Drugs are different.

[wideawake]

The implication you seem to be making is that when you drink, you always drink the same amount, and adjust your alcohol intake by the alcohol content of the beverage. I don't think anyone's buying it.

I don't much care what you buy or don't buy.

I know my buzz limit is about six beers or three glasses of wine or three helpings of liquor (the exact alcohol amounts don't exactly match, but that's affected by how quickly one likes to drink different things).

So I generally like to consume half that much.

[robertpaulsen]

"In what way does that differ from a ban?"

By how one judges success.

[Protagoras]

The only high-inducing substance I've ever partaken in is alcohol. I've been drunk a few times, mostly when I was an amateur drinker.

Drunk? Wow! And a serial drunk. More then once.

I guess you need to go to prison. You did the same thing as the pot smokers.

OK, that s over the top, for effect.

I'm on my way right now to meet a bunch of friends at a Bar. I will drink several beers. I look forward to the relaxation and laughs we will have. I'm going to drink them because I like beer and I like the feeling it brings.

As long as I don't violate anyone's rights, it's none of the governments business. If I do violate someone's rights, I will take the consequences. I won't blame it on the beer.

That's what people do when they use other substances.

Gotta go now, it's Miller time. Bye

[TKDietz]

"And what is Soares' alternative? "... treatment programs, education and job opportunities are needed to effectively tackle the problem."

Uh-huh. A drug treatment program for a scumbag drug dealer. That'll work. Actually, that'll introduce him to whole new clientele, won't it?"

Your judgment is clouded by your hatred. Step back and think about this. Big drug dealers need to go to prison to for whatever deterrence that will provide and hopefully to get some of the drugs off the streets. But we really need to to look hard at the limitations of the current system when it comes to a lot of these little guys. Most of them are drug addicts. Most of the guys who end up getting busted aren't exactly major drug traffickers. In a lot of cases they aren't even regular drug dealers because of the way the whole narcs and confidential informant game works. One guy gets busted with drugs and the cops scare the heck out of him telling him they're going for the max on him but that if he helps them make some busts they'll either go easy on him or let him slide. He starts running through his brain thinking about who he could set up. He may know some bigger players but he also knows that these are the guys most likely to hurt him or kill him if he narcs them out. So he starts trying to think of who he can set up who won't retaliate, and often those are just people he's gotten high with in the past who might know where to score some dope. Then he puts on a wire and talks them into scoring him a gram, a half gram or whatever, or he talks them into helping his good friend (undercover narc) find some dope. A couple of buys are made and this dufus who thought he was helping out a friend is all of the sudden facing multiple serious felony counts. The CI often walks or gets a suspended sentence and then they lean on this next guy. If he's afraid of his supplier or for some other reason just really doesn't want to stab the supplier in the back, the buck is going to stop there and that guy is going away for a few years.

Now when these little guys go away does it stop the flow of drugs? Hell no, there are plenty of others out there to keep an uninterrupted supply to those who want the product. When the guy goes to prison is he likely to be reformed? Again, hell no, nationwide about 70% of those released from prison are rearrested on felony charges within three years of their release, and those are just the ones who get caught. At least where I live in standard prisons where people go for more than a year, they don't even offer any drug treatment programs, counseling or anything like that, and they aren't going to get anything like that on parole either. They'll just have to meet every few months with a parole officer and once in a blue moon give a urine sample for a drug test all of them have a pretty good idea how to beat.

Aside from making you feel good because you hate these people so much, this whole process is an expensive waste of time that gives us little return on our investment. Keeping people in prison for longer periods may keep them off the streets longer so they won't be out here committing crimes, but most all of them do end up getting after a few years and most fall right back into the same lifestyle. Unless we can get substantial numbers of these addicts off the drugs and steer them toward more productive lives, we are never going to put a lasting dent in all of the drug dealing and other crime addiction to hard drugs causes.

Drug treatment works much better than prison if it's done right and it's a whole lot cheaper for the rest of us. Sticking somebody in a thirty day rehab and then cutting them lose won't work, I'll grant you that. It takes a lot longer than that to get off of these drugs. We need long term solutions that last at least a year, maybe even up to three years that include outpatient counseling, maybe some inpatient treatment and/or halfway houses for people who can't make it and intensive probation. Short term inpatient treatment or even just a little jail time to dry people out is often enough if they can't leave the drugs alone, provided they are kept on a short leash through probation with real sanctions imposed if they get out of line. Drug test them so often that they most won't be able to cheat their way through. Force them to get jobs and take care of their responsibilities under threat of jail. Force them to work the program. Make them participate. Give them homework. Make them pay for at least part of the program. Give them a few chances on minor screw ups because almost all of them will screw up and have relapses, but impose consequences for every single screw up, consequences that increase with every infraction. Anyone who gets new serious charges, has too many small infractions, or otherwise won't cooperate goes straight to prison.

Those who make it through the program should have their records expunged so they'll have the opportunity to get decent jobs and be productive citizens. By the end of the program, they'll be working, they'll have a place to live, most will have turned away from their friends who use drugs and they'll have a head start in leading drug free lives.

This is basically what we are doing with our drug court program. Those of us in our office have worked hard to get the prosecutors to agree to letting people in charged with more serious offenses and there are a lot of people in there now who were selling drugs or involved in kitchen meth labs. Some of them fail out of the program and still go to prison. Some of them do still get into to trouble after they complete our fifteen month program, but most of them haven't been getting back into felony trouble. Recidivism rates are much better than those for people who go to prison. The program is saving the state money. It's a lot cheaper than prison and our prisons are so full now the state is having to let more and more people out before their parole eligibility dates to free up space. Besides saving on prison costs, drug court is taking some of the burden in litigating these cases from the court and our office and the prosecutor's office. All that and it actually works far better than prison at turning peoples lives around.

We have record numbers of people in prison in this country now, more than in any other country in the world. Our rate of incarceration per capita is the highest in the world, far higher than that of most civilized countries. Even so, though crime has gone down considerably here in the last ten years, our crime rate is still very high for a non third world country. It would be stupid for us not to consider other alternatives that might save us money and work better than what we have now.

[Protagoras]

Soros is your boogey man. If it wasn't him you would have to find some other great satan to blame things on.

Look to yourself if you want to find evil, it's in all of us. It should keep you busy until you meet your maker.

Until then, ideas cannot be kept under wraps. Good ones or bad ones. Soros has no power over you. He's the easy one because you can keep an eye on him easily.

Free speech for free men.

[wideawake]

I guess you need to go to prison. You did the same thing as the pot smokers.

A college student who is high on cannabis is no more likely to be arrested than a college student who is drunk from alcohol.

If they are causing trouble they will both be arrested. If they are carrying cannabis or alcohol they may well be arrested.

Equivalent severity already obtains.

[ex 98C MI Dude]

"I guess you need to go to prison. You did the same thing as the pot smokers."

Note to wideawake: He was being sarcastic.

[tacticalogic]

I know my buzz limit is about six beers or three glasses of wine or three helpings of liquor

I'd say that's a pretty good exercise in moderation. I'm a little curious though, how it is you can have and know what your "buzz limit" is on alcohol, and how to get there, yet automatically assume that people can't, don't or won't do the same with cannabis.

[wideawake]

I'm a little curious though, how it is you can have and know what your "buzz limit" is on alcohol, and how to get there, yet automatically assume that people can't, don't or won't do the same with cannabis.

Because I don't think that people smoke cannabis for the taste - I think they smoke it for the effect of the THC.

Cannabis smokers can modulate their use to make sure they do not get high, but why would they even bother smoking in the first place if they did not want to get high?

[getsoutalive]

You're starting to slide off the issue. The issue was limited to the wheat farmers, since not too many non-farmers grow their own wheat.

No, your issue was limited to wheat farmers. My original questions was:

Does the Interstate Commerce Clause (which you changed to the powers of the several states) enable FEDGOV to regulate what I grow and consume in my backyard?

[Quix]

PLENTY OF GREAT TRUTH

in what you wrote.

However, I don't believe Soros is HARMLESS.

[tacticalogic]

Because I don't think that people smoke cannabis for the taste - I think they smoke it for the effect of the THC.

Cannabis smokers can modulate their use to make sure they do not get high, but why would they even bother smoking in the first place if they did not want to get high?

Now the implication is that people who drink don't care at all about the "buzz", only the taste. I don't expect that's going to get very far, either especially considering that alcohol is classified as colorless, tasteless, and odorless.

[robertpaulsen]

"So, in other words, it is your view that a state can make medical marijuana legal?"

Yes, but for the fact that Congress has a finding that marijuana "has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States." It is, therefore, classified as a Schedule I drug and is illegal for any use by anyone anywhere.

IF it were found that marijuana has medical use, then it would be reclassified as a Schedule III or IV drug -- availability would be the same as other drugs in that Schedule (prescription, prescription w/office visit, 90 day maximum, whatever).

This would be a nationwide law, and the states would be expected to follow suit.

Now, if marijuana were, say, a Schedule III drug, and California wanted to make it legal to grow your own for medical use only (yeah, right), it would probably pass muster with the USSC.

Which then begs the question, "Can patients make other Schedule III drugs for their own "medical" use? Ketamine and Lysergic acid are Schedule III drugs -- dude! This would be a potential problem, and Pandora's Box would be opened.

[MarMema]

Soros is the forerunner for the antichrist.

[ex 98C MI Dude]

A drunk buys the cheapest, nastiest alcohol in order to get drunk, not becuase he likes the taste. Further, how do you know that some people like the taste of marijuana (as unlikely as that may seem). Tobacco tastes good when smoked, though it tastes bad when chewed. Yet, some still chew it.

And if someone wants to stay home and get rip-roaring drunk, it is their business, not anyone elses. Point being, he/she/it is drinking to get drunk. Under your scenario, that would be illegal.

[robertpaulsen]

Drug use is down 60% since the late 70's. What's your yardstick? If one person is using drugs then that means the "ban" is a failure?

[wideawake]

I don't expect that's going to get very far, either especially considering that alcohol is classified as colorless, tasteless, and odorless.

So is water, but it definitely affects foods prepared with it.

A fine cognac is probably composed of 99% water and alcohol - it's the other one percent interacting with the water and alcohol that make it taste delightful.

Of course, those other flavors could never achieve that perfect balance without the fermentation, nor is the effect of alcohol on the tastebuds wind up being simply neutral.

[ex 98C MI Dude]

"Which then begs the question, "Can patients make other Schedule III drugs for their own "medical" use? Ketamine and Lysergic acid are Schedule III drugs -- dude! This would be a potential problem, and Pandora's Box would be opened."

That runs smack into the 'slippery slope' argument, which I think is valid for this discussion. Thanks for the well reasoned answer.