Posted on 01/20/2015 10:24:15 AM PST by ConservingFreedom
Local law enforcers, such as Rock Island County State's Attorney John McGehee and Quad City Metropolitan Enforcement Director Kevin Winslow say the solution to the heroin problem is to stop the dealers.
"We don't focus on addicts and users," Mr. Winslow said. "I think law enforcement as a whole wants to get the source of the problem."
In 2014, local officials filed their first case of drug-induced homicide against Jamil Steward, 26, of East Moline, who was accused of selling heroin that caused the overdose death of Michael Reid, 26, of Silvis.
Mr. Steward entered an Alford plea on Dec. 8 to felony unlawful delivery and is serving seven years in prison. In an Alford plea, the defendant doesn't plead guilty but admits there is enough evidence to convict him.
Similar cases have been brought to federal court, where the penalties are stiffer.
Prison not the answer
Not everyone thinks prison is the answer.
Former Davenport police officer Brian Gaughan was 20 when began his career in 1980. He said he became disenchanted with the War on Drugs while working as an undercover cop in Chicago.
He said he befriended a drug dealer to gather information against him and, at one point, was taken aside by the dealer's mother, who thanked him for being a positive influence on her son, who had gotten involved with the wrong crowd after his father died.
That conversation was life-altering, said Mr. Gaughan, who left police work for a career in firefighting. Now a speaker with the national nonprofit Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, he advocates for decriminalization and regulation of controlled substances in the United States.
"Arresting a dealer doesn't solve any problems at all," he said. "In fact, it exacerbates problems.”
Game of whack-a-mole
He believes the theory that "going after dealers will mean less drugs" is misguided, comparing it to a game of whack-a-mole -- "You arrest one guy and three more pop up.”
Mr. Gaughan said there's an endless supply of drug dealers to replace ones who are arrested, and that can lead to turf wars and gang violence.
He supports reform of the criminal justice system, saying more resources should be allocated for drug treatment and social support on the front end to reduce demand and curb drug-related criminal behavior.
“We spend an awful lot of money in jailing people. We don't spend nearly as much money treating them,” said Mary Engholm, executive director of the Rock Island County Council on Addictions.
Overcrowding and lack of local treatment providers has led to lengthy wait times for treatment and limited long-term case management, she said.
That's created a “different class of criminal,” including users -- some homeless and without proper help -- who commit petty crimes and cycle in and out of the courts like a "revolving door," Ms. Engholm said.
More people have been able to access treatment since the Affordable Care Act was passed, but RICCA's long-term residential facility remains filled to its 34-bed capacity, she said.
Naloxone for overdoses
In Iowa, activists are seeking to pass a Good Samaritan law similar to ones passed in Illinois and 19 other states that allow people to report an emergency overdose without fear of being arrested.
"It could save lives," said Kim Brown, of Davenport, co-founder of the QC Overdose Awareness Walk, an annual event that started last year. The bill would allow over-the-counter purchase of Naloxone, a drug carried by paramedics that can reverse opiate overdoses, she said.
According to the Trust for American Health, a national group concerned about a prescription drug “epidemic,” from 1999 through 2013, the number of drug overdose deaths quadrupled in Iowa and increased by 49 percent in Illinois.
Ms. Brown, whose 33-year-old son Andy died from an overdose in May 2011, believes those numbers could be reduced if Naloxone were more readily available.
She said her son was a fun-loving man who played football and loved his two sons. She doesn't know when his addiction began, but she speculated it may have been after he was prescribed opiates following a surgical procedure.
No one wants to be an addict
“Nobody's born saying they want to grow up to become an addict.” Ms. Brown said, adding that addicts often are “stigmatized and shamed” rather than treated. “We've got to find a better way.”
Mr. Gaughan points to places such as Portugal, where drug use was decriminalized in 2001, and Switzerland, which offers heroin addicts access to clinics with clean needles and pure heroin as part of drug treatment services, as examples to emulate.
“Putting someone in a cage doesn't solve the problem at all,” he said.
Mr. Winslow said he realizes "we're not going to arrest our way out of this."
He recommends a coordinated effort by local police, courts and treatment centers to identify and treat the source of addiction for users, while halting those who profit from heroin distribution.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Go ingest some non-FDA approved drugs. Take some heroin while your at it too. I don’t care what you do to yourself.
Please note carefully my use of the word "smaller" - and note that this word is not synonymous with "nonexistent."
Let's look at dope like we do Tylenol or something similar...
The amount of federal bureaucracy involved in getting that bottle of caplets to your medicine chest is enormous.
Whereas the amount of bureaucracy involved in detecting and punishing illicit drug making, selling, and using is miniscule?
Now we inject drugs that are instantly addictive in nature
I know of no evidence that any drug is "instantly" addictive - there are addicts of many drugs, including alcohol, who swear that they were addicted from the very first use, but refusal to accept responsibility is a hallmark of the addict.
to the flow...I won't go into the current federal laws that are creating opportunities for thieves to rob the "stores" as result of banking regulations [see Colorado and laws of unintended consequences].
I wasn't talking about the sort of regulation that's meant to bolster a prohibition.
Who institutes the "treatment" centers? Who runs the "treatment" centers? Who regulates the treatment centers?, most importantly, WHO PAYS?etc., etc. ad nauseum.
Who does these things now?
For anyone to naively or intentionally disregard the fact that the government will NOT get engaged in this at some point is absurd
Again, please note carefully my use of the word "smaller" - and note that this word is not synonymous with "nonexistent."
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Either you don't or you think other FReepers won't - in neither case can I bring myself to care.
Okay big mouth, let's just go over to the way back machine and see what transpired, shall we? You said:
It’s easier (and there are fewer repercussions) for a kid in high school to get heroin than a 6-pack of beer.
To which *I* said:
That is a blatant and bald-faced Libertarian lie. It is nonsense on the face of it.
To which you responded:
That right there is a deliberate attempt to MISSTATE MY POINT. You re-characterize my point as being about Libertarians "Legalizing Beer" when it had not a f***ing thing to do with the legality of beer or Libertarians opinions thereof, and EVERYTHING to do with the availability of Heroin and the ease of obtaining and cost differential between Heroin and beer.
It is a normal and usual tactic for Libertarians to try to divert a discussion on drugs to Alcohol and Alcohol "Prohibition". It is dishonest, and it is childish.
It is what LOSERS do when they can't come up with any VALID points. That, and say "You are too!" a lot, as you routinely do.
I dare say, when it comes to Libertarians, if they can't make a childish deceitful or childish argument, they are pretty much helpless.
Putz.
The part that automatically assumes such a thing is possible with deadly drugs that tamper with human minds. *THAT* is the part I do not get.
I have said, over and over, that the most effective means of fighting drug abuse is to legalize and regulate.
Well there we disagree. I think the most effective means of fighting drug abuse is to make ghosts out of drug suppliers.
Meaning that heroin addicts are given a 24 hour supply of heroin at government-regulated centers.
So you think the government should be in charge of drug distribution? I'm not in favor of another entitlement program ran by the government.
How about this: Don't let people get started, and you won't have to worry about needing a government program to attempt to repair all the broken people?
Eradicate supplies, and more importantly eradicate the people who produce the supplies, and the rest of the problem will take care of it's self.
It is the same methodology we would use for deadly pathogens, and it will work just fine for drugs, which match the spread of a disease pretty well.
I simply ignore any figures you cite. I ignore any “truths” you proclaim. You are a trouble maker who is intent on misleading people about drugs. I’ve dealt with your upside down switchback logic plenty of times before, and I’m not going to waste my time playing these loopy loop word games with you.
What's available says that addiction was low and declining in post-Civil War America: "In 1880 [...] there were over 400,000 opium addicts in the U.S. [...] By 1900, about one American in 200 was either a cocaine or opium addict." (http://web.archive.org/web/20110529221013/http://www.justice.gov/dea/demand/speakout/06so.htm) 400,000 in a population of 50M is one in 125 - ergo, between 1880 and 1900 addiction declined. [emphasis added]
I simply ignore any figures you cite.
My figures are from the DEA - are they libertarian propagandists too?
“That is a blatant and bald-faced Libertarian lie. It is nonsense on the face of it.”
You lost your own argument at the word “Libertarian”.
That was misstating MY point. Then you do nothing but squeal like a stuck pig after that.
Give it a rest, will you?
' APAIC reviewed drug use in Indonesia and found the following; between 2006 and 2010 the use of meth, barbiturates, heroin, and cannabis resin increased, while the use of ecstasy and cocaine remained about the same. APAIC also found that domestic production of meth and ecstasy is on the rise. Evidently the death penalty and decades long prison sentences are not deterring drug users or drug dealers.'
You are citing a UN organization, so it is an utter crock right out of the gate.
As you've said, "Till someone presents an argument that there are better figures, I will have no choice but to use what is available."
That was misstating MY point.
It is axiomatic that if you favor legalizing drugs, you are a defacto Libertarian, regardless of how you chose to characterize yourself.
This appears to be the essential defining characteristic of the whole movement.
Then you do nothing but squeal like a stuck pig after that.
Which is what I would say too if I was getting my intellectual @$$ handed to me.
Give it a rest, will you?
I was giving it a rest until our local drug pusher decided to rattle my cage by ONCE AGAIN bringing up this God forsaken topic. How about the F***ing drug pushers give it a rest? How about that?
They are like F***ing Homosexuals who will not stop talking about all things "Gay". They will not stop putting the topic out there because they are f***ing Drama Queens who will not stop demanding attention from the rest of us who are tired of it.
Give it a rest? I wish.
Besides that, i've SEEN you quote sources that were absolutely contradictory to each other, and i've called you down on it.
Life is too short to bother looking at your cites. Once you're credibility is gone, you're done.
No, you've pointed out that the DEA drew the wrong conclusion from its data - which impugns only the DEA's ability to draw conclusions, not its data.
Life is too short to bother looking at your cites.
Oh, I know you'll always eventually stick your fingers in your ears and sing la-la-la - I post to you in order to reach sane honest readers.
This appears to be the essential defining characteristic of the whole movement.
"All libertarians support drug legalization" doesn't imply "all who support drug legalization are libertarians" - any more than "all crows are black" implies "everything that's black is a crow."
Logic is one of the drug criminalizers' many weak points.
“It is axiomatic that if you favor legalizing drugs, you are a defacto Libertarian, regardless of how you chose to characterize yourself.”
It is axiomatic that you pulled that “legalizing drugs” bit out of your posterior orifice. I spoke of legalizing BEER.
“Which is what I would say too if I was getting my intellectual @$$ handed to me.”
Yeah, ok, Einstein.
“How about the F***ing drug pushers give it a rest? How about that?”
Fine with me. Why don’t you ask them to?
Again, I accept your apology in advance for calling me a “Libertarian”.
That it is just like or no worse than alcohol? The pro-pot lobby has worn that angle out.
More accurately, the hurts done to others are not government's business to prevent...
But railings are put in high places to keep people from jumping off and injuring those below them. We have volumes of laws about not operating motor vehicles under the influence of a number of debilitating substances. Where is the intersection of a person's 'right' to get messed up and the expectation of the rest of humanity to not be endangered by that? (Serious question, because that can cover a lot of ground on a lot of levels.)
At any rate, the fallacy was what I was pointing to. If you don't believe me, imagine your little princess on Meth. Everyone affects others through their actions, even those who imagine themselves alone.
It's not "impossible to inform" people about the reality of addiction
You can bombard them with reality. Getting them to listen is something else.
Breaking Bad is probably the best example. It didn't start showing the drug world in such a negative light (or the main character would not credibly have become so involved). There, too, there is a question of focus. Some people will focus on money, power, short term gains, and not long term losses. It is a question of what people are looking at.
Marie, that is a novel approach, and one which just might work, provided that it doesn’t actually encourage new addicts.
The amount of government that would be changed is quite the debatable point and I will concede that there is the chance it will get smaller. However, knowing what I know, I highly doubt it and I suspect you do as well.
Government, in its most base form, will find a way to intertwine its tentacles into just about anything it can. Thus the reference to the treatment centers...it’s not too much of a leap in logic to presume the government will involve itself there.
When talking about “instantly addictive”...meth and heroin come to mind...
I can’t cross that bridge of legalizing drugs of that nature...just can’t do it.
The current federal laws regulating banks prevent banking institutions in Colorado from performing electronic banking transactions at their dope stores. This has created a new cottage industry of robbing those stores for their cash and dope. It’s also created another cottage industry for security companies...
What a freakin’ mess.
Ah, there’s nothing novel about it. (It took me 30 years to realize that I’ve never, in my life, had an original idea)
Sweden is leading the pack with impressive results. A few years ago Brittan did a trial and managed to get 3/4th of their trial participants completely sober.
http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1926160,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin-assisted_treatment
Denmark is also reporting success.
http://sciencenordic.com/heroin-clinics-improve-addicts-lives
Here are the actual numbers from the Netherlands:
Treating heroin with heroin really does work. It’s much more effective than arresting them. And, in the long run, cheaper.
I've never heard that said about any drug -
That it is just like or no worse than alcohol?
Widen those goalposts. I've never heard that it's just like alcohol as you originally stated. That it's no worse than alcohol is very arguably true; alcohol is more implicated in user violence and is the only one of the two that can cause a fatal OD. They're both hard on the brain, and while one is bad for the lungs the other is bad for the liver.
It's MY body, I am not hurting anyone else"
More accurately, the hurts done to others are not government's business to prevent...
But railings are put in high places to keep people from jumping off and injuring those below them. We have volumes of laws about not operating motor vehicles under the influence of a number of debilitating substances. Where is the intersection of a person's 'right' to get messed up and the expectation of the rest of humanity to not be endangered by that? (Serious question, because that can cover a lot of ground on a lot of levels.)
Clear and present danger is government's business to prevent. "Some people who have endangered others have been found to have been under the influence of pot at the time" does not add up to pot use being a clear and present danger to others.
At any rate, the fallacy was what I was pointing to. If you don't believe me, imagine your little princess on Meth. Everyone affects others through their actions, even those who imagine themselves alone.
Taken literally, the statement you noted is a fallacy as you said; I think such statements are meant to address "hurt that's your business to prevent" rather than literally any "hurt."
It's not "impossible to inform" people about the reality of addiction
You can bombard them with reality. Getting them to listen is something else.
Many do listen and have listened, so it's not impossible as was claimed.
Breaking Bad is probably the best example. It didn't start showing the drug world in such a negative light (or the main character would not credibly have become so involved).
As I recall, the main character was barely getting by working two jobs, one well beneath his abilities, and went for the bigger payday; other than that bigger payday, which is a simple matter of fact and IMO not a "glorification," I recall nothing positive at any point about the drug world.
There, too, there is a question of focus. Some people will focus on money, power, short term gains, and not long term losses. It is a question of what people are looking at.
To acknowledge the existence of those short term gains is not in my book "glorification."
And none of that has anything to to with the original topic of addiction and being "steered" toward "tampering with your brain chemistry" with drug use, which was never remotely glorified in any way.
The amount of government that would be changed is quite the debatable point and I will concede that there is the chance it will get smaller. However, knowing what I know, I highly doubt it and I suspect you do as well.
On the contrary, the real-world example of alcohol Prohibition convinces me of it; I can see no way to argue that alcohol regulation is bigger government than was Prohibition.
Government, in its most base form, will find a way to intertwine its tentacles into just about anything it can. Thus the reference to the treatment centers...it’s not too much of a leap in logic to presume the government will involve itself there.
Is it not involved there now?
I know of no evidence that any drug is "instantly" addictive - there are addicts of many drugs, including alcohol, who swear that they were addicted from the very first use, but refusal to accept responsibility is a hallmark of the addict.
When talking about “instantly addictive”...meth and heroin come to mind...
Of all those who have used heroin, 77% never became dependent (James C. Anthony, Etiology Branch, Addiction Research Center, National Institute on Drug Abuse and Johns Hopkins University; Lynn A. Warner and Ronald C. Kessler, University of Michigan, "Comparative epidemiology of dependence on tobacco, alcohol, controlled substances, and inhalants: Basic findings from the National Comorbidity Survey," Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology 2:244-268).
I can’t cross that bridge of legalizing drugs of that nature...just can’t do it.
It's a theoretical exercise until we've had a good while to learn what we can from pot legalization.
I wasn't talking about the sort of regulation that's meant to bolster a prohibition.
The current federal laws regulating banks prevent banking institutions in Colorado from performing electronic banking transactions at their dope stores. This has created a new cottage industry of robbing those stores for their cash and dope. It’s also created another cottage industry for security companies...
What a freakin’ mess.
A mess created in pursuit of bolstering pot prohibition - not what I'm talking about.
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.