Unintended Effect Of War On Drugs Found In Study

LA Times ^ | 20 September 2002 | EDDY RAMIREZ

[Texasforever]

I don't and, never have, turned any drug user in. I don't care if they shoot up Drano. I want them to live short and painful lives. If a cop busts them that is their problem not mine and I hope they go cold turkey in the joint. It is all the same to me.

[KingKongCobra]

It's a strawman. People seldom get turned in, they get caught. I have a narc friend and a pothead friend. They know each other. I keep quiet about each. I quit camping with the pothead because he wouldn't leave his baggie at home. If he started dealing, I'd rat him out. He'd deserve it. If he got caught holding the bag, he'd deserve that too. When I smoked, I ran the risk of getting caught. Now, I'm older and wiser. I gave it up because it's no good.

[GailA]

You notice they very conviently left out the amount of drugs that got them sent to prison. Some of these dope dealers had NO prior violent offenses, but were caught selling substantiel amounts of their killing product...Personally I think they should have been charged with attempted murder. They are after all selling a known poison that can kill.

[putupon]

Are we to assume that imprisoning people found guilty on rug charges is an "unintended effect" of the War on Drugs?

Maybe at first, back in the "Reefer Madness" days, it was only an emotional issue for politicians to work up a cheap knee jerk vote and an issue to keep the lifestyle police occupied after their alcohol prohibition failure. Intended or unintentended, once the lawyers found out what a gold mine it was and the nanny state pols found out how much freedom and money they could take from the people in the WOD's name, it's growth into the monster it is was inevitable.

So called conservatives that believe state sponsored prohibition against substance abuse will have any effect on drug abusers are as fooled by the politicians as the leftists are that the social engineering such as housing projects, food stamps, midnight basketball, etc. will make any progress on the War on Poverty.

Left and Right are easily conned by the lawyers (politicians, prosecuters, defense attorneys, social workers, LEO's, jail guards, drug testing labs and others whose income is obtained by funds leeched from the taxpayers.

The "powers that be" now know full well that the illegality of something only creates a criminal class attempting to profit from an opportunity provided by the state. Drug suppliers make money, the politicians make money, the state makes money, everyones happy because of a simple minded chump populace that has been willfully snookered. http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/more/MGBSZ11WC6D.html

[coloradan]

What is the significance of this, beyond the notion that a disproportionate number of offenses are made by people from poor, minority communities?

There is a history of institutionalized racism and/or oppression in the War on (some) Drugs. Chinese immigrants tended to use opium, so that was banned and those users jailed. Then blacks tended to use MJ, and the reefer madness scare was born and that was banned, and blacks were jailed. When counterculture hippies started using psychedelics in the 60's, those were banned and those people were jailed. Then crack became popular in the black community and sentences were made stricter for crack crimes than "regular" cocaine crimes - and blacks again were targeted. The history of drug control is covered with instances where a particular group is officially oppressed for ostensibly good reasons.

[robertpaulsen]

"Then crack became popular in the black community and sentences were made stricter for crack crimes than "regular" cocaine crimes - and blacks again were targeted."

Isn't it true that crack is more dangerous than "regular" cocaine, and that this is the reason for stricter sentences?

[hosepipe]

There is a history of institutionalized racism and/or oppression in the War on (some) Drugs. Chinese immigrants tended to use opium, so that was banned and those users jailed. Then blacks tended to use MJ, and the reefer madness scare was born and that was banned, and blacks were jailed. When counterculture hippies started using psychedelics in the 60's, those were banned and those people were jailed. Then crack became popular in the black community and sentences were made stricter for crack crimes than "regular" cocaine crimes - and blacks again were targeted. The history of drug control is covered with instances where a particular group is officially oppressed for ostensibly good reasons.

SOoooo, you see this as a problem?, eh!...

[headsonpikes]

Love the H.L. Mencken quote on your home-page.

[Schmedlap]

"Personally I think they should have been charged with attempted murder. They are after all selling a known poison that can kill."

Is that attempted murder?

[cajun-jack]

not necessarily....definition of a jury....12 people gathered together to determine which side has the best lawyer..job description of "court appointed attorney" get a plea bargain and conviction for the D.A.....i worked for dept of corr here in La for a # of yrs and the disparity comes because the minorities and poor white trash can't afford the "good" lawyers..which in turn, will tell you that they weren't very sucessful in their venture as independent businessmen either. as an aside: don't break the law and you won't need a defense attorney of any kind.

[Schmedlap]

"There is a history of institutionalized racism and/or oppression in the War on (some) Drugs."

I think there is a history of oppression, in that the government defeats its purpose for existence, by trampling on rights, rather than safeguarding them. Racism? No.

"Chinese immigrants tended to use opium, so that was banned and those users jailed. Then blacks tended to use MJ, and the reefer madness scare was born and that was banned, and blacks were jailed.When counterculture hippies started using psychedelics in the 60's, those were banned and those people were jailed. Then crack became popular in the black community and sentences were made stricter for crack crimes than 'regular' cocaine crimes - and blacks again were targeted."

Each of these statement relies upon the same logical fallacy. Each is a non-sequitor, of the type known as "affirming the consequent". See this link: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/affirm.htm

If A occurs, then B occurs, that does not mean that B occurs as a result of A. Unless you can show a causal relationship, your argument is inadquate.

"The history of drug control is covered with instances where a particular group is officially oppressed for ostensibly good reasons."

Your case does not support this, but I look forward to you presenting a case that does.

[Trailerpark Badass]

Your case does not support this, but I look forward to you presenting a case that does.

There is a great deal of scholarship which asserts the points made by the other poster and provides compelling evidence. Surely you don't expect the poster to reproduce it all, here, now?

[FastCoyote]

To answer your repeated "Why?", use a little logic and don't be a 2 year old. I can reply to each why in detail (I've done so many times), but I am not so stupid as to believe you wouldn't just string another round of "whys" together till we are debating angels on the head of a pin.

Turn in a druggie friend, or admit you are a lawbreaker.

[FastCoyote]

I don't and, never have, turned any drug user in. I don't care if they shoot up Drano. I want them to live short and painful lives. If a cop busts them that is their problem not mine and I hope they go cold turkey in the joint. It is all the same to me.

Hot damn, that is the libertarian position. So I guess you are a closet libertine! lol

[Texasforever]

Hot damn, that is the libertarian position. So I guess you are a closet libertine! lol

In your dreams pal.

[Dakmar]

Keep on dreaming. As soon as he loses a family member to Draino, he will be demanding a new Federal agency to regulate all household chemicals.

[Schmedlap]

"To answer your repeated "Why?", use a little logic..."

I was hoping that you would explain your reasoning. Here are several posts that outline mine, in addition to the main article: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/rlc/738016/posts

"I can reply to each why in detail (I've done so many times)..."

Is there a link for this?

[Dakmar]

LOL, I just want to make crystal clear that I posted my comment about "keep on dreaming" before I read your "in you dreams" comment.

[Schmedlap]

"There is a great deal of scholarship which asserts the points made by the other poster and provides compelling evidence. Surely you don't expect the poster to reproduce it all, here, now?"

I do not.

[Dakmar]

Would you at least give this page a fair hearing?

http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et0199/et0199s11.html