Posted on 11/16/2006 1:21:07 PM PST by zarf
You are not mistaken in believing that drugs are a scourge that is devastating our society. You are not mistaken in believing that drugs are tearing asunder our social fabric, ruining the lives of many young people, and imposing heavy costs on some of the most disadvantaged among us.
You are not mistaken in believing that the majority of the public share your concerns. In short, you are not mistaken in the end you seek to achieve. Your mistake is failing to recognize that the very measures you favor are a major source of the evils you deplore. Of course the problem is demand, but it is not only demand, it is demand that must operate through repressed and illegal channels. Illegality creates obscene profits that finance the murderous tactics of the drug lords; illegality leads to the corruption of law enforcement officials; illegality monopolizes the efforts of honest law forces so that they are starved for resources to fight the simpler crimes of robbery, theft and assault.
Drugs are a tragedy for addicts. But criminalizing their use converts that tragedy into a disaster for society, for users and non-users alike. Our experience with the prohibition of drugs is a replay of our experience with the prohibition of alcoholic beverages.
BINGO!! You're right!
After Prohibition was repealed, organized crime infiltrated into other areas--there is every expectation that current drug organizations would also continue to diversify.
What other areas did organized criminals drift into? Legitimate businesses and jobs? What violent crime areas did they drift into? The primary reason for the repeal of prohibition was to stop the violence. Did organized crime drift into the illicit drug prohibition business?
When a bank robber or murderer is taken off the streets it's the end of the problem. When a drug dealer is sent to jail there's ten dug dealers fighting to take over the old dealers turf.
Wow... an intelligent argument. Thank you.
I have engaged in debates with Greens and Libertarians on the issue of the WOD and often they will cite the fact that Denmark legalized marijuana and now they have no marijuana problem.
I did some research though and found out that since Denmark legalized marijuana, use by teens has increased pretty dramatically (to around 25%) but even worse, the use of hard drugs (coke, heroin, meth) has increased by 5X.
Milton Friedman - RIP
When a bank robber or murderer is taken off the streets it's the end of the problem.
To me this is very obvious. All sorts of risky activities cause people to die: skydiving, for one, flying ultralight planes, swimming and surfing in shark-infested waters, driving recklessly. We know these things are dangerous, but we can't stop people from doing them. Homosexual activity was illegal for centuries, but now that it is not really illegal, we don't see people dropping like flies because of it, leaving aside the issue of AIDS, of course. But even with AIDS, they still aren't dropping like flies. Why? Because there is now a medical response to AIDS, rather than prohibiting the risky behavior.
Drugs being illegal doesn't stop huge numbers of people from tweaking on crank. If you go to any supermarket, you can spot four or five individuals who use crank. They are everywhere, and they are hard to miss. Anyone who can't spot a tweaker has absolutely no right telling other people they can't use drugs, because they have no idea what drugs do. Nothing can stop tweakers from getting their crank. Illegality makes it expensive, so they break into peoples cars and houses or shoplift from stores or do prostitution, but they get their crank, you can be absolutely certain of that. And they get enough of it to satisfy their needs. Illegality has insufficient deterrent effect.
Legalizing them actually will only make it so that I don't have to worry about them breaking into my house or car, because they will be abe to buy it from the income they derive from gathering recyclables from the side of the road. And if they die from overdoses or go berserk in public and frighten a bunch of people, I can live with that. We will deal with it when the time comes. Maintaining the status quo is not the only answer.
I know several people who used IV methamphetamine for a significant amount of time. After they recovered, which had absolutely nothing to do with legality, they became conservatives. They all 3 vote Republican. I have also known of a few people that died from methamphetamine, and the fact it was illegal did not save their lives.
Secondly, I would appreciate if you could verify what areas organized crime drifted into after the repeal of prohibition.
I think that most of the people doing hard time were either;
a) Selling drugs
b) Transporting drugs for sale
c) Carrying large amounts of drug money & guns
d) Violated prior parole conditions
I commented/asked:
Just goes to show ya, -- it's now a 'crime' to carry large amounts of money & guns?
you left out "drug" in the "drug money and guns" part of my sentence.
Read much? I quoted your post verbatim, then commented with my question.
Carrying money and guns is not illegal.
It shouldn't be; -- but many State & fed statutes ['rico laws'] make it an iffy practice.
Drug money is that stuff that you have absolutely no way to demonstrate that you have earned it. Often, there is a tax evasion charge (felony) involved. Often, there is drug residue of substantial quantities on the money or in the car or on your person.
Yep, and thats just the way you prohibitionist warriors want it. Feel proud.
I still say that there are not that many people in prisons for a "small amount of pot", but then I guess you can edit that to "amount of pot" and change the meaning of that too.
It makes no difference what I post, as you edit it in your mind to suit, -- as we see above..
This is really silly.
Yep, you've sure made it so.
First of all, in quoting me, you BOLDED my sentence and intentially UNBOLDED the word drug. Then you asked the question and LEFT OUT the word drug from the the phrase I had used. And you resort to calling me delusional.
You are what you are. -- The exchange above proves it.
Look. You think the WOD is a bad idea. I think it is a GREAT idea because I could care less if scum who get stoned are sitting in jail. You don't like my opinion? Tough shit. Get over it.
Sorry, but I will never 'get over' warriors that want to jail people over non-violent constitutional activities.
And finally, the original post which I was rebutting stated that many people are sitting in prisons (not jail, prisons) for a "small amount of pot" and I find this ludicrous. Nobody has demonstrated this to be an accurate point, instead they emphasize/de-emphasise parts of my post, phrase questions leaving out parts of phrases that I used and then argue with the accuracy of my reference to that behavior, and call me delusional.
Great discussion. Its been fun. Not.
Unhappy? -- Then I'd suggest you 'get with' our Constitution's program. Try not to advocate infringements on our inalienable rights, -- just for a change.
Why would you assume that? My point is that the reason normal people don't take drugs is not the lack of commercial availability.
The whole premise of libertarianism is liberty for all as long as my liberty doesn't impinge on your liberty. Very easy to subscribe to on paper. Not so easy when you have young children and there's drugs on campus.
Friedman was not a philosopher, he was an economist.An economist of Friedman's caliber (and I am a fan of his, by the way, even though I don't agree with him on drugs), is also a philosopher.
(A philosopher who needs one hand tied behind his back.)
Milton Friedman brilliance BTTT.
A true conservative left this earthly realm.
Remove or reduce the profit motive to a bare minimum thus reducing the criminal justice element of this issue to it's lowest possible level. Everything after that is fair game.
***I used to hold that same viewpoint until I saw the way the legislators in California acted towards Proposition 37, which was the state lottery where the money was supposed to go to schools. Within a few weeks of it passing, the legislators essentially matched the funds going into schools from the lottery and pulled them into the general fund. It proved that we cannot trust our lawmakers to act in our best interest when it comes to modulating socially dangerous behaviors. By legalizing drugs, our government would now be in the business of gaining funds by taxation of those drugs and the moral impetus for fighting the evil has been removed.
Your attitude is responsible for much of the war against the right to keep and bear arms. We have to disarm the criminals, don't you know?
There will be no "getting over it" until people with your opinion decide to stop trying to live other people's lives. In the mean time, it is costing me my freedom.
Like I said, I have yet to see an argument for the War on Drugs that doesn't stem from the premise that society trumps the individual. That premise is flawed. It is also the basis of every Authoritarian government on Earth.
Good to see you, gonzo! Friedman had it right. The Drive By Media seems to have misinformed the public on certain points. Singapore has not done as well in the War on Drugs as the DBM lets on:
"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."
--http://www.state.gov/www/global/narcotics_law/1996_narc_report/index.html
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. [my note: in a total population of 15.1 million]
--http://www.state.gov/www/global/narcotics_law/1996_narc_report/index.html
_______________________________________
Using a population 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, and a population of 15.1 million, the addiction rate was about 0.17%.
Also note that the Singapore figure only takes into account the addicts under treatment, whereas the figure for Holland is the estimate of the total number of addicts. For a more recent report on Singapore's struggling efforts:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1651454/posts?page=206#206
-- Excerpt: It cited Singapore Central Narcotics Bureau statistics showing 3,393 people arrested for drug offences in 2002 and the number of new drug abusers up 16 percent from 2001. Use of methamphetamines, or "ice," also showed a significant increase.
Which countries?
Could you cite your sources?
Also, I didn't know Denmark had adopted such a policy. Are you sure you don't mean the Netherlands?
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.