It's time to rethink drug war strategy

Detroit News ^ | 10/3/02 | Police Chief Jerry A. Oliver

[MrLeRoy]

We have laws against murder and people still murder each other.

Drug laws are particularly prone to failure because, as the chif points out, "Drug law violations are generally consensual. In almost every case, willing buyers and motivated sellers participate secretly in this highly profitable criminalized industry."

[Asclepius]

Drug laws are particularly prone to failure because, as the chif points out, "Drug law violations are generally consensual. In almost every case, willing buyers and motivated sellers participate secretly in this highly profitable criminalized industry."

The same is true of any so-called vice, prostitution, gambling etc. Consensual. Secretive. Lucrative. What's your point?

[mg39]

Okay, here's a pertinent excerpt from a Supreme Court case in which the constitutionality of S.S. was challenged:

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, NO. 910.--OCTOBER Term 1936

Guy T. Helvering, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, et al, Petitioners,

vs.

George P. Davis, Respondent.

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. [May 24, 1937.]

Mr. Justice Cardozo delivered the opinion of the Court.

Congress may spend money in aid of the "general welfare". Constitution, Art. I, section 8; United States v. Butler, 297 U. S. 1, 65; Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, supra. There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. United States v. Butler, supra The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison, which has not been lacking in adherents. Yet difficulties are left when the power is conceded. The line must still be drawn between one welfare and another, between particular and general. Where this shall be placed cannot be known through a formula in advance of the event. There is a middle ground or certainly a penumbra in which discretion is at large. The discretion, however, is not confided to the courts. The discretion belongs to Congress, unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power is not an exercise of judgment. This is now familiar law. "When such a contention comes here we naturally require a showing that by no reasonable possibility can the challenged legislation fall within the wide range of discretion permitted to the Congress." United States v. Butler, supra, p. 67 Cf. Cincinnati Soap Co. v United States, May 3,1937,--U. S.--; United States v. Realty Co. 163 U. S. 427, 440; Head Money Cases, 112 U. S. 580, 595. Nor is the concept of the general welfare static. Needs that were narrow or parochial a century ago may be interwoven in our day with the well-being of the nation. What is critical or urgent changes with the times.

Congress may spend money in aid of the "general welfare". Constitution, Art. I, section 8; United States v. Butler, 297 U. S. 1, 65; Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, supra. There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. United States v. Butler, supra The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison, which has not been lacking in adherents. Yet difficulties are left when the power is conceded. The line must still be drawn between one welfare and another, between particular and general. Where this shall be placed cannot be known through a formula in advance of the event. There is a middle ground or certainly a penumbra in which discretion is at large. The discretion, however, is not confided to the courts. The discretion belongs to Congress, unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power is not an exercise of judgment. This is now familiar law. "When such a contention comes here we naturally require a showing that by no reasonable possibility can the challenged legislation fall within the wide range of discretion permitted to the Congress." United States v. Butler, supra, p. 67 Cf. Cincinnati Soap Co. v United States, May 3,1937,--U. S.--; United States v. Realty Co. 163 U. S. 427, 440; Head Money Cases, 112 U. S. 580, 595. Nor is the concept of the general welfare static. Needs that were narrow or parochial a century ago may be interwoven in our day with the well-being of the nation. What is critical or urgent changes with the times.

[mg39]

"The same is true of any so-called vice, prostitution, gambling etc. Consensual. Secretive. Lucrative. What's your point?"

The key is "consensual." Two adults engaging in consensual behavior. Not only should such an act be legal in a country that values freedom, but from a practical standpoint, people are far more willing to engage in and support consensual acts; only a lunatic would voluntarily engage in or agree to murder, especially if they were playing the part of victim.

[Asclepius]

The key is "consensual." Two adults engaging in consensual behavior. Not only should such an act be legal in a country that values freedom, but from a practical standpoint, people are far more willing to engage in and support consensual acts; only a lunatic would voluntarily engage in or agree to murder, especially if they were playing the part of victim.

Once again, the same is true of any so-called vice, gambling, prostitution etc. Consensual in nature. So you believe that any consensual act should be legal, right?

Here is where we disagree.

Not everyone can consent, not everyone has the right to consent (e.g. minors, people incapacitated), and not every act of consent is in the best interests of the consentor or the consentee or the community.

[layman]

If the federal government would stay out of it, as they should, then each state would approach the problem separately. Somewhere along the line one state would find the political will to treat MJ separately from the hard drugs. This state would be more successful than the others so other states would follow their lead, and eventually we'd all be better off. As long as the Feds are involved the problem will, as others have stated here, remain the vested interest of those earning their livings inside the WOD bureacracy ... like all federal bureacracies.

[mg39]

We don't disagree as much as you think. I am referring to consensual acts between two adults of sound mind.

Usually this is also accompanied by the caveat that neither the two adults nor a third party be harmed. Here is, admittedly, where things get complicated.

Should one adult be allowed to beat up another adult, if that's what the two want? How about one killing the other? What about the social costs to society, when weighed against the right of the individual? All of these are valid concerns, and I'm not about to resolve them all now. Each activity entails different costs and benefits.

I scuba dive. It's dangerous, and I could get into a lot of trouble. I could get the bends, meaning sociey would have to fish me out of the ocean and put me in a pressure tank, followed by a stint in the hospital until I got better. Or, I could die, meaning my family, friends, and workplace suddenly lose the benefits (dubious, of course) of having me around. Should scuba diving be outlawed?

I look at illicit drugs the same way as I do alcohol and tobacco. None of these things are healthy, although they do make you feel better and can be fun social activities. Society has struck a pretty good balance: you can get drunk and stupid, but you can't drive a car. True, people drive drunk, but not nearly as much as before society really made an effort to discourage it. I believe you should be allowed to get high as long as you don't go out and endanger others.

I appreciate your concern about the effects of drugs, gambling, and prostitution on society, but I feel that on balance, prohibiting these activities causes more harm than good. Just my opinion, of course.

[headsonpikes]

Bumping my #10 in support of your position.

We can't let a bunch of hippies interfere with 'our thing'.

[jenny65]

They (the gubermint) can produce stats in a heartbeat to suit their agenda.

I seem to recall reading that the (non-partisan) agency in charge of national crime statistics is now under the control of Ashcroft. Until this change occurred, they were free to publish statistics at will. Now, all releases must be cleared through the Justice department, specifically the AG.

One thing I keep wondering is why no one here ever wants to talk about why the Republicans are so gung-ho about the War on Drugs. It ought to be discussed. Personally, I don't know the answer, other than the generally accepted "tough on crime" stance the Republicans have.

[Asclepius]

Should scuba diving be outlawed?

Excellent analogy. Permit me to develop it somewhat. We require drivers to wear seatbelts and honor speed limits, and many states require motorcyclists to wear helmets. We do this because we acknowledge the social costs of otherwise individual behaviors--when a motorcyclist careers off of an embankment and into a persistent vegetative state, we all pay, through our insurance premiums, through the costs of healthcare, through our state tax contributions etc. So we limit our exposure by requiring that riders wear helmets.

So too with our drug laws. The social costs of substance abuse, some would argue, are simply too high. Consent or non-consent simply isn't an issue.

[Asclepius]

We can't let a bunch of hippies interfere with 'our thing'.

But we can. And we do. And it's right, good, and proper that we should. And besides, hippie chicks put out. Do mini-van driving soccor moms do that? No, damn it. So we can let a bunch of hippies interfere with "our thing"--whatever "our thing" could possibly be--and we can be glad about it.

It's the international drug cartels that we need to suppress by all available means.

[Pahuanui]

It's the international drug cartels that we need to suppress by all available means.

Oh really? Like which ones, for example?

[waterstraat]

When will the Drug War end, and the killings stop? I also think the situtation now, and the number of drug related crimes, are much worse NOW than back in 1912 when all drugs were legal, BEFORE the Drug War.

[headsonpikes]

Excuse me, it's the 'international drug cartels' that desire the existing fatuous WOD.

That was the genesis of my ironic 'our thing' comment, as I suspect you well knew. ;^)

[Asclepius]

Oh really? Like which ones, for example?

The narco-terrorists that traffic in drugs and kill Columbian judges, fund terrorists and mercenaries and guerillas etc., etc. The Cali cartel, for example.

Try this link: http://www.abqjournal.com/news/drugs/

But whatever, man. I mean, who cares who has to die so that I can enjoy a bowl or two of Maui-wowee while watching Friends reruns and snarfing Doritos. I can do what I want with my body, man. (It's all those innocent bodies that worry me.)

[Asclepius]

Excuse me, it's the 'international drug cartels' that desire the existing fatuous WOD.

Oh, yeah. Because they love it when their assets are confiscated, their revenues depressed, their soldiers and associates hunted down and killed or imprisoned etc., etc. I mean, who wouldn't love being at war?

That was the genesis of my ironic 'our thing' comment, as I suspect you well knew. ;^)

Oh. I thought you were just anti-sex. I mean, I realize that drug use will render you impotent and all, but I could not understand why you would want to foist your condition on the rest of us. Thank you for clearing that up.

[headsonpikes]

"like which ones..."

Don't expect the smudge generator to acknowledge the FACT that it is THEIR interest being served by the current state of affairs.

And the cynical and corrupt politicians know it.

There will be trials, I believe, at least for the lucky ones.

[headsonpikes]

"Oh yeah."

Spare us the standard schtick.

It's a FACT that the WOD serves their interests, and the interests of the state employees charged with the task of harassing American citizens for smoking leaves.

The WOD is directly opposed to the interests of America and Americans.

[takenoprisoner]

But whatever, man. I mean, who cares who has to die so that I can enjoy a bowl or two of Maui-wowee while watching Friends reruns and snarfing Doritos. I can do what I want with my body, man. (It's all those innocent bodies that worry me.)

What if nacho man could grow his own maui wowee. Wouldn't he then be saving the lives of all those "innocent bodies" you seem to be fretting over?

[Asclepius]

... It's a FACT ...

Yuh-huh. You know, writing things in all-caps doesn't make them so, all-caps guy. Maybe you should stick to simply taking drugs and allow those who are better stewards of their brains and bodies debate policy issues. Just a thought.