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.
follow the money. Fighting the war on drugs is just as big of an industry as the drug trafficking is if not bigger.
Keep reading genius. Drug users are a public health problem. If someone chooses a destructive lifestyle that affects the public, then lock them up. I didn't say choose for them. I said get them out of the public domain. I feel the same way about other vice crimes like prostitution.
I would love to think that people can do whatever they want, but societies need laws and activities that affect the general public need to be dealt with seriously.
I think many people visit there for the drugs. Do you honestly believe the US would become filled with drug crazed zombies? I have faith in most people to make good choices. I agree people should be responsible for their actions. I suggest you move to Singapore and be happy. I would be happy in an America where the WOD ends and the violence of the drug was is gone. Utopia will never exist on this Earth and believing this WOD can be one is a Utopian type dream. I'd rather lived with flawed Americans, than live in the police state that is Singapore. Remember, most people wanting to take drugs are taking them. If they were legalized I doubt it would increase much. Please see post#33 for a good way to deal with decreasing drug use. I respect your views, but don't agree with them. Good night.
Bull pucky. Go look at Amsterdam.
Ok... looking... seems to be a lot of drugged up foreigners looking for cheap drugs because every place else has them illegal. Seems to me if you kicked the drugged up foreigners out things would be fine there.
Some thoughts on drug addiction based on years of direct observations and training in counseling.
One young white male from an upper middle class family addicted to cocaine took me to the projects when he made a buy. The seller was a poor black woman with two children. Her son was an honor student in high school, and hated what his mother was doing to keep a roof over their head. She used cocaine intermittently for menstrual cramps. The white male had been sexually abused by his mother and physically abused by his successful father who also used cocaine sometimes. He was in constant emotional pain and used cocaine, alcohol and nicotine to suppress it. He often said he wished pot would be decriminalized because it was almost as effective and a lot easier on the body. He is dead now or I would not be discussing his case. On the day of his funeral, his father couldn't wait to get the guests out of the house so he could get drunk.
Everyone I have ever known well enough to know their history, who was addicted to drugs or alcohol, was in a continual state of emotional (and sometimes physical) pain. Any substance which kills pain is addictive to those who are in pain. There is NO such thing as a NONADDICTIVE PAIN KILLER. People whose reaction to pain is to want to be reved up will go to cocaine and crystal meth. Those who want to mellow out and zone out will go to heroin or pot.
Sending people to jail simply increases the pain these people are already in. It is like trying to cure a broken leg by perscribing jumping rope. If it were an enforced detox, it might make some sense, but drugs are easily obtained in prison. Why some prisoner or civil liberties group has not sued the prison systems for failure to prevent those who are jailed on drug charges from getting drugs, I can't fathom. Surely if you are going to jail for drugs, you shouldn't still be getting them. What hypocracy.
There is a major prison industry with a stake in keeping these laws. Most drug use and minor distribution should be decriminalized. Keep penalties for major dealers and selling to minors. Use the empty space to jail the increasing number of illegal immigrants coming from countries with a potential for terrorism. Thus the prison lobby would continue to get its money. Potentially dangerous illegal aliens would not be paroled and disappear. And minor drug offenders would not have their lives destroyed even further. NOTE, I HAVE SAID DECRIMINALIZE, NOT LEGALIZE.
I say we draw the line here, now. Better to fight the good fight and lose than to passively acquiesce. That would be such a European thing to do.
Kettle Pot calling black an all that.
Ok lets get to the nub you stated "that a society that either passively abets or actively promotes behaviors". You got me coming and going
If we end the WOD does that mean we are actively promotes behaviors such as drug taking.
Many would argue not.
But your first part either passively abets means that by ending the WOD we are passively abbeting people making bad choices.
The only way to not be passive is to actually intervene in someones life style choice to make sure they make the right choices albeit the ones dictated by those with a serous moral and responsible attitude towards society.
"Keep reading genius. Drug users are a public health problem. If someone chooses a destructive lifestyle that affects the public, then lock them up. I didn't say choose for them. I said get them out of the public domain. I feel the same way about other vice crimes like prostitution.
I would love to think that people can do whatever they want, but societies need laws and activities that affect the general public need to be dealt with seriously."
Well genius how does someone smoking pot hurt anyone else? It doesn't.
I would suggest the Welfare state spending by our government over the past 40years have destroyed many times the lives. Governments are the biggest entities that threaten the family, liberty and general peace. It is disgusting how people always assume everyone's a libertarian and therefore a crackpot. I am not a libertarian; I am just someone who looks at government with a skeptical eye. Remember, most of our Founders had little faith in government to solve most problems. They wanted people to be left alone. I have ultimate faith that most people left alone, will make wise choices. I am sorry so many think through government action, we can be all be "made" to be happy and never do wrong.
No, they LIVE there for the drugs. Guess who pays for it, "libertarian"?
Do you honestly believe the US would become filled with drug crazed zombies?
Broken homes, more divorces, more single parent kids, more auto accidents, more welfare cases... yes. It's bad policy.
I suggest you move to Singapore and be happy.
I suggest you grow up. Enforcing draconian penalites for crimes committed under the influence does not a police state make. I'm not for making possession, sale, or use illegal, but I AM in favor of heavy penalties for damages done to others while under the influence subject to due process of law. If you call that a police state, get a grip.
I'd rather lived with flawed Americans, than live in the police state that is Singapore.
Just go on with your strawman fantasy and I won't bother responding again.
I am all for that, for both drugs and drink.
I must of missed something in your article. Why wont the public accept stricter punishment for under the influence criminal offences?
Yes but they also have a very strong respect for the rule of law.
We were in Australia last December when some kid was executed in Singapore for smuggling in some dope. It was amazing, there were all these heartfelt stories in the media about why the kid shouldn't be executed [it was some pitiful amount, like 300 grams; he was doing it to help pay off his twin brother's gambling debts, etc. etc] but still over 50% of the country thought he should be executed for breaking the law.
And amazingly I think something like 52% of Australians thought he should be punished as well! I couldn't believe how high the numbers were, you'd never get numbers like that here.
Thank you for a thoughtful post. I used to have a drug problem. I wound up homeless on the streets of Oakland. I'm lucky to be alive.
Still you don't get where I'm coming from: I am not in favor of criminalizing possession, use, or sale, I AM in favor of heavily criminalizing the damage done when under the influence. I want sellers and users to either be accountable or go to jail. Maybe then the market will provide more attractive and safer means for people to check out or get better.
We agree about the causes of use and the need for treatment, but we disagree about why people don't seek help before using. There are all sorts of solutions in life that reduce pain, living by a stringent code of personal conduct being chief among them.
There is a major prison industry with a stake in keeping these laws.
Agreed, with a proviso. The system makes certain that the first offense for lighter substances goes virtually unpunished so that the person is habituated before dropping the hammer. The current system baits the hook. By contrast, when I was a kid, we used to bewail the heavy penalties "for one joint" but the risk kept me from taking the chance.
For the same reason the laws changed in the '60s: the middle class parent whose spoiled brat can do no wrong won't tolerate their pretty kids in jail.
Not all gambling is about the luck of the draw. Poker for example, requires a great deal of memorization, understanding of mathematics and fast computation of probabilities, as well as being a quick study of human psychology. Sure, luck beats skill everytime, but the law of large numbers will make sure skill wins out eventually.
I assume you are talking about gambling games which are purely random and which have no strategery to pursue.
Aangenaam kennis te maken (I've been there too). It appeared to me to be a lot of drugged up pensioners, "students," and welfare cases.
You should stick to clarifying environmental issues. You do so well at that. Seriously. Else wise educate yourself to the realities of protecting individual rights and property rights. You seem to understand them regarding the environment. It's a wonder why you don't see the common denominator with other issues such as the WOD.
Why? As if a life behind bars is not a life destroyed just as much as if it had been destroyed by drugs on the outside.
Enlighten us with real statistics on the "growing number".
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.