Reject Notion That We're Winning War on Drugs

The Southwest News-Herald ^ | February 15, 2006 | By JACOB G. HORNBERGER

[rolling_stone]

Victims of those types crimes are not victims of illegal drugs, but illegal acts, the drug just being one of many possible poisons.

Splitting hairs as to how they got into someone else's body does not change the fact of the drug killing some people.

That is not splitting hairs, its like saying we should outlaw lead because too many people are getting shot to death with lead bullets....

So heroin and cocaine have ill effects, so does smoking, alcohol, obesity, etc, should we outlaw those too?

Death from those drugs isn't necessarly a long term death, most of the time.

So is it a short term death? Is that better or worse? Is the time involved your sticking point?

Nor is it merely an "ill effect." Again, users aren't always sure what the drug has been cut with and legalizing those would just end up adding to already growing problem.

why are drugs cut? if they were legalized what would be the purpose of cutting them?

Make it available cheaply and there is no incentive to try to get off of it nor is their any longer a barrier to some who might not have tried to before to try it now.

So let them continue their habits. Do you really think a few dollars is going to stop someone from trying a drug? Remember the first one is free to whet the appetite.

Haven't you heard of the smoking bans? That is just one step towatds illegalizing that too.

Yes and that is where smoking impacts others not just the user, thanks for making my point!

As a later poster pointed out, you can't change human nature (or regulate morality)the WOD is a loosing proposition, and our society would be better off spending its time and resources on more important things like real crime and produictive efforts. The WOD is a circle jerk that enriches drug smugglers, drug dealers and takes our LEO's away from crimes that have real victims and perpetrators. Think of how the money could be better spent, oh by the way how many smugglers and dealers do you think report their income and pay tax on it?

[GovernmentShrinker]

I seriously doubt that most users of illegal drugs are financially self-sufficient over their lifetime. They are short-term sensation seekers, and most are spending money on drugs that they ought to be saving for retirement or a rainy day. In addition, their drug habits make them disproportionately heavy users of medical care, meaning that whether they're covered by private insurance or Medicaid or Medicare (through which nearly everybody is now covered in old age) they are taking out more than they put in. Furthermore, the illegal status of drugs gives employers the legal basis for not hiring and for firing drug users whose habits are interfering with their work. Take away the illegal status, and they'll be stuck with suits under the ADA from firees and non-hirees claiming they're being discriminated against because of their "disability" which is what they call their drug addiction. This has already happened with alcohol. AFTER we get rid of the welfare state, and the crap in our legal system that allows people to get off the hook for serious crimes by claiming they aren't responsible because the drugs they were on made them incapable of forming the "intent" that is a criteria for many crimes, then by all means leave them to their own devices to use whatever drugs they like and to reap the natural consequences. Currently, the portion of government expense that goes to propping up drug users, with "treatment", housing subsidies, food stamps, "job training", etc., is much larger than the portion that goes to fighting the "war" on drugs.

[jmc813]

Reagan praised libertarian principles, but he stopped way short of buying into the libertarian "anything goes" drug agenda. He was a stalwart opponent of drug abuse and was committed to keeping drugs like marijuana, cocaine, and heroin illegal.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/5/11/12343.shtml

When NewsMax reported that Ronald Reagan did not oppose legalizing marijuana, we were surprised by the buzz the story created. Why the surprise? Reagan had a strong libertarian streak. He opposed such things as mandatory seat belt laws and requirements that motorcyclists wear helmets. We know Reagan was one of the first to challenge the Nanny State. Last week NewsMax publicized comments Ronald Reagan made in one of his radio broadcasts before he became president. (Reagan gave about 1,000 radio commentaries just before he became president.) After decades, the tapes have recently been released. In August 1979, Reagan dedicated one program to marijuana. While he warned of the many health risks, he did say, "If adults want to take such chances [using marijuana], that is their business." Soon after NewsMax ran the story we received a call from NORML, the Washington-based group that wants to legalize the drug. NORML had created controversy when it took out huge billboards of former Mayor Rudy Giuliani and current New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, quoting their admission they both smoked pot. Bloomberg and Giuliani weren't chuckling and asked NORML to pull the ads. One person who was chuckling was Michael Reagan, the popular radio host and son of President Reagan. Mike saw the NewsMax story and said, "Of course Dad was for legalization." "He wasn't crazy," Reagan added, laughing, "He didn't want his kids in jail!" Of course, Ronald and Nancy Reagan's four kids came of age during the turbulent '60s and '70s. For the most part, the Reagan kids' lifestyles were not as straight-laced as their parents.

[pageonetoo]

[lastchance]

Oh dear I've fallen down the rabbit hole yet again. I am veddy, veddy sorry and promise not to let reason happen again.

[TheSpottedOwl]

Well, I guess it doesn't matter now. Some 14 yr olds can drive in an emergency. Poor kid...

[DakotaRed]

Yes and that is where smoking impacts others not just the user, thanks for making my point!

You have no point other to try to quote made up points about tobacco. Studies say there are no effects from second hand somke, but that doesn't stop smoke gnatzies from still making the claim.

As for legalizing drugs, maybe you should check how well the program has worked were it was implemented. And, not only from pro-druggie people.

[William Terrell]

Cocaine hooks those who are weak to it, as does hot fudge sundaes. It produces no physical addiction, and in that way is in the same class as cannabis. If you use too much of it, you will have physical effects, but the other drugs will destroy you. I watched students snort cocaine all through college, and saw them graduate.

I have no real experience with it, but what I have observed, it is as much maligned with lies and disinformation as cannabis. You need to remember, it is not a opium derivative.

[TKDietz]

"alcohol was decriminalized"

I know this is just a picky point but alcohol was not "decriminalized," it was legalized. I realize some people use those two words interchangeably, but they don't really mean the same thing. Decriminalization can mean a lot of things to different people. You'll even find it as a synonym for legalization in dictionaries written for lay persons. As a legal term of art in drug policy discussions, it is understood by most of the policy wonk types to mean removing criminal but not civil penalties for possession of a small amount of marijuana for "personal use," or at least removing the possibility of jail, although these do not appear to be hard and fast rules. Several states are said to have "decriminalized" marijuana, but it is legal in none of them. In some states said to have decriminalized marijuana you can still actually get a criminal record still for possessing a small amount of marijuana (not sales). In some you can still technically get a little bit of jail time for simple possession. In others you only get a ticket and it's considered a "civil penalty" not leaving you with any criminal record. There is a lot of variation in what decriminalization actually means, but in drug policy discussions most understand it to mean something other than outright legalization with regulation, which is what we have with alcohol.

Sorry for butting in. I just though it might be helpful to clarify the meaning of the term a little so that people are all on the same wavelength in the discussion.

[BlackbirdSST]

Not you, the other poster, that attempted to ridicule your remarks, when up the thread, to which I inserted his remarks, doing the very thing he ridiculed you over. Make sense? You and I are pretty much in agreement. Blackbird.

[TKDietz]

I probably used to think the same way you do about cocaine. I think most addiction specialists and doctors who deal in this sort of thing would now say cocaine is physically addictive, just not in the same way as opiates. It won't produce the same types of physical withdrawals, but there are most definitely cocaine withdrawals.

I don't know that there is such a giant difference between "physical" and "psychological" addictions. What goes on in our brains is not magic. Every thought, every brain function, is some sort of physical neurobiological chemical and/or electrical action/reaction. Prolonged cocaine use actually causes physical changes in the brain. People addicted to it are very much addicted. It can be extremely hard to quit. I've watched it just take over people's lives. I've watched them try to quit over and over again and fail.

Is it just because they are weak? I don't think so. Cocaine, much like meth, is a powerfully addictive drug. Both of these drugs give people a high they get used to and really have a hard time feeling good again without it. I'm no expert on this stuff, but I do deal with drug addicts all the time as a lawyer, and was kind of a party person myself growing up and watched what some of these drugs, white powder drugs in particular, have done to some really good people I've known for decades. This "psychological addiction," or whatever you want to call it, is far more powerful than you give it credit for. Some people just become absolute slaves to these drugs. This is the kind of addiction people will sell their bodies to feed, steal from their families, do all sorts of things they would never have done but for this monster that takes over their lives. I've seen this sort of thing happen with people who had so much going for them at one time, sharp people on top of the world, people who were fundamentally good.

Maybe you just have to see it to believe it. I'm forty years old and I grew up with a fairly wild crowd of friends. Not criminal types by any means mind you, but people who liked to party. Being a lawyer has brought this stuff to my attention even more so, not just because of all the people I know only through my work, but also because people I grew up with will call me when they are in trouble. I end up learning all their dirty little secrets, stuff I don't even want to know, whether it's within the context of a criminal case, a divorce, child custody matter, whatever, I've had to learn the extent of people's addictions. It can be absolutely heartbreaking and frightening even to see what the white powder drugs can do to people.

I used to think like you do that these drugs are not that big of a deal and that people can "do the drugs and not let the drugs do them," but it has become crystal clear to me that things are not so simple. For whatever reason some people just go down the tubes hard on this stuff. No one thinks it will happen to them. It happens even to people who are by all appearances strong people. They might play around with these substances for years before it happens or it might only take a short while, but at some point the addiction sneaks up on them and takes over their lives. And the prognosis is not good for these people. I don't want to be anywhere around them after that happens. I never believe any who have been bitten by that bug are off the stuff until I know they've gone several years without it, because I've seen so many go in and out of their addictions. God I hate white powder drugs. Don't even put them anywhere close to the same category as marijuana. They are in another league entirely.

I will grant you this though, a lot of people do go through periods of cocaine and even meth use and come out of it fine. Most fool around with these drugs a while and grow out of that phase in their lives without ever becoming addicted. Some continue to fool with these drugs on an occasional basis and never become addicted. I don't know why that is. Maybe some people are just built differently than others. I don't think all those who become addicts are necessarily weaker, or less intelligent, or even less careful than others who used drugs like them and did not become addicted. All I know is that addiction to these white powder drugs is a very powerful and destructive thing. It's real. It does happen, and it's not pretty.

[Know your rights]

AFTER we get rid of the welfare state, and the crap in our legal system that allows people to get off the hook for serious crimes by claiming they aren't responsible because the drugs they were on made them incapable of forming the "intent" that is a criteria for many crimes, then by all means leave them to their own devices to use whatever drugs they like and to reap the natural consequences.

So you think using one violation of rights (welfare) as a justification for another violation of rights (drug criminalization) is a conservative argument? Then I'm sure you also support a ban on alcohol until get rid of the welfare state and the crap in our legal system, right?

[Know your rights]

marijuana usage is for morons and has no place in our society.

Your view of marijuana is based on those users who attracted the attention of law enforcement; if your only exposure to alcohol was from such users, you'd be saying the same thing about that drug. In fact, since alcohol is more addictive than marijuana and, unlike marijuana, systematically increases violent behavior, it has even less place in our society. But we wisely decided that the harms done by criminalizing that drug, in lost freedom and enriched criminals, outweighed the harms of alcohol ... and we're slowly but surely finding our way to the same wisdom as regards marijuana.

[Know your rights]

But when comparing the War on Murder, the War on Rape, and the War on Drugs, one doesn't fit, one isn't the same as the others.

Not to mention that murder and rape violate rights, whereas drug sale and use do not.

[PsyOp]

You and I are pretty much in agreement. Blackbird.

OK. I was a bit confused by your wording and wanted to clarify that.

[GovernmentShrinker]

I recognize that decriminalizing drugs at this point would cause a huge expansion in the welfare state, and thus further entrench socialism without providing any incremental restoration of liberty. Have you paid attention to the child welfare aspect of meth? Virtually all the growth in recent years in child abuse/neglect cases and accompanying state-funded foster care and medical care (the later often being very expensive due to the exposure to toxic substances in homes where meth is being manufactured), are attributable to the spread of meth use among adults exercising their "liberty". At present, we don't have the legal wherewithal to imprison these adults at hard labor for the rest of their lives, to help make a dent in the costs they have inflicted on society; we don't have the right to sterilize them; and we are obligated to pay for all the medical care they can benefit from because they are eligible for Medicaid due to their "indigence". Meanwhile they are free to continue exercising their "liberty" to use meth while popping out more babies who will be permanently damaged from the start due to mom's meth use during pregnancy, and further damaged from neglect and malnutrition for however long it takes for the authorities to show up and consficate their latest offspring.

And yes, I'd be happy to outlaw alcohol until the welfare state can be dismantled, because it inflicts much the same harm on other people's liberty as illegal drug use does. Personally, I don't drink alcohol at all, and will teach my children that it is utterly self-destructive to drink it. But the main reason I'd support outlawing alcohol pending the dismantling of the welfare state, is that I know that if that could actually be accomplished, the hordes of booze-lovers in this country would make sure the welfare state was dismantled within a week.

[PurVirgo]

I read an article somewheres about 2-3 years ago that white, middle class suburban MOTHERS were one of the fastest growing groups of meth abusers.

Soccer moms trying to be super moms.

Also - I wonder if many people are aware that the drug Adderal, prescribed for AD(H)D, is amphetamine. It's the new Ritalin for the kiddoes to sell to their classmates. It's not as powerful as crystal meth (the differences are similar to how cocaine differs from crack cocaine), but the potential for addiction is still pretty high I assume.

Anyhow, I said all that to say that those who assume meth is a "trailer park" drug, really need to think again. Crack is not exclusively a "ghetto" drug, either, and addiction is not classist.

[Know your rights]

I recognize that decriminalizing drugs at this point would cause a huge expansion in the welfare state,

"Huge"? Only if the increase in drug use was huge ... and what reason is there to think it would be? Is illegality YOUR primary reason for not using meth? It's way down on my list.

and thus further entrench socialism without providing any incremental restoration of liberty.

The liberty to use drugs, like the liberty to overeat, is a true liberty.

And yes, I'd be happy to outlaw alcohol until the welfare state can be dismantled, because it inflicts much the same harm on other people's liberty as illegal drug use does.

Are you aware that outlawing alcohol was tried in this country? Have you heard how that experiment in social engineering turned out?

[FierceDraka]

In your brave new world, state power would remain intact and overpowering. It would just be harnessed to the task of protecting drug dealers.=

Huh??? Where the hell did I mention drug dealers?

I'm all about REDUCING and DECENTRALIZING the power of the state. Where the hell did you pull that one out of?

Oh, I know. You're one of those "Liberty and justice of me, but prison and persecution for thee" types.

I can tell from your immediately twisting things and putting words in my mouth - as well as the old "protecting drug dealers" straw man argument. Just like my XXXXXXXX, XXXXX XXXXX ex-father-in-law:

He'd rant, "Drug users should be executed without trial!" as he swigged down another shot of rotgut. Lucky for him he never got his wish - he would have had to murder his own kids.

In the interest of promoting civil discourse on this subject, I will hold my tongue, sir.

[dcwusmc]

"I am speaking here with 12 years as an undercover narcotic officer..."

What, you didn't have what it took to be a REAL cop? Like Homicide or Robbery or Fraud? Someone I knew years ago had been married to a cop and she told me that all the cop parties she ever went to, they had the best drugs in town, ALL OVEr the house, courtesy of the drug cops. Is THAT what you do and why you want to keep drugs illegal for the poor schmoes who want to have an alternative to booze?