Retired Cop Waves White Flag in War on Drugs

The Standard-Times (MA) ^ | 15 Jan 2003 | John Doherty

[MrLeRoy]

After fighting the war on drugs for nearly 30 years, Lt. Jack Cole is ready to admit defeat.

The retired New Jersey State Police detective -- who spent 12 years as an undercover narcotics officer -- spearheads a movement to legalize all narcotics as a way of ending the bloody, expensive war.

"The war on drugs was, is and always will be a dismal failure," said Mr. Cole yesterday to a meeting of the Fairhaven Rotary Club.

Mr. Cole is one of the founders of an international nonprofit group called Law Enforcement Against Prohibition -- LEAP.

That group, which includes current and former police officers, judges and others, is proposing nothing short of legalizing all narcotics -- including heroin, cocaine and marijuana -- and having the federal government regulate them.

While that might sound radical for a detective who spent the better part of his career looking to jail both users and sellers of drugs, Mr. Cole said it is the only rational viewpoint after a career on the front lines of the war on drugs.

While spending what Mr. Cole estimates to be $69 billion per year in law enforcement and prison costs for drug offenders, Americans have seen drug supplies become more plentiful and the drugs themselves more powerful and cheaper.

Mr. Cole acknowledged to the dozen Rotarians yesterday that the idea of legalizing narcotics -- similar to policies in Amsterdam -- sounds foreign.

The first question many people ask is whether drug decriminalization will increase drug use, especially among the young.

Mr. Cole pointed to studies in which young Americans said it was easier to obtain marijuana and other drugs than it was to purchase government-regulated alcohol and tobacco products.

Holland sees a lower rate of marijuana use among its young people, in part because decriminalization has made the drug boring, Mr. Cole said.

"We at LEAP are asking you to listen and to think about these ideas," said Mr. Cole, who is pursuing a doctorate in public policy at UMass Boston.

[MrLeRoy]

The market forces that exist for murder for hire or burgurlary are minuscle compared to the market forces that drive the drug trade. The two are hardly comparable.

Good point.

[Mark Bahner]

"Or 37 states ratify an amendment to that effect."

Good point. I would have mentioned that there will also never, ever be a constitutional amendment to ban all abortion. But I know that conservatives also know that, and I know that the vast majority of them have no intention of actually trying to restrict abortion in a constitutional manner.

[motzman]

Sorry Dan,

Any objective person without a dog in this fight that stumbles across this thread will clearly see that you got pummeled, and that you have no logical arguement whatsoever.

That doesn't make you a bad person; just as me arguing the opposite of your position doesn't make me a "druggie".

It never ceases to amaze me how yourself, Dane, and even KC can be so rational and correct on other topics, but fall to pieces and act like knuckle-dragging liberals when it comes to this topic. Oh, well.

[Mark Bahner]

"Abortion violates rights."

No rights yet recognized by the Constitution. The Constitution only protects "persons"...and the unborn aren't "persons" under the Constitution. (The Census requires all "persons" to be counted, but the unborn have never been counted. So they aren't persons.)

[Tony Niar Brain]

Well, if my opinions and concerns are correct, then there is an urgent and continuing national need for drug education, not just a passing spending whim. I wouldn't say it's forced, I say it's consented to as a citizen.

[Mark Bahner]

"Personally, I believe that abortion (except partial birth) should be legal."

I simply want all levels of government to follow The Law (the Constitution). I don't think the Constitution protects the "right to life" of the unborn, OR the "right to choose" of a woman. It should be a matter for each of the states.

[krb]

I don't want to pay for drug addicts health care or subsidize their use.

I agree with your self-serving priorities (no sarcasm, I am being serious) but we already pay for that stuff. Legalization or not, we are already paying. It sux either way, which is why I favor legalization. I believe that if we legalize, the usage will go down, and thus save us all a lot of dough.

[MrLeRoy]

The Census requires all "persons" to be counted

Wrong---it requires all "free persons" to be counted.

[MrLeRoy]

I wouldn't say it's forced, I say it's consented to as a citizen.

How did I "consent" to have my money spent on purposes not authorized by the Constitution?

[MrLeRoy]

there will also never, ever be a constitutional amendment to ban all abortion. But I know that conservatives also know that

I don't know that. How do other conservatives know that?

[Mark Bahner]

"Wrong---it requires all "free persons" to be counted."

No, you're looking at an obsolete version. See Amendment 14:

"Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed."

Since the unborn have never been counted to apportion Representatives to the U.S. House of Representatives, the unborn must not be persons.

[Tony Niar Brain]

...purposes not authorized by the Constitution?

That's where you and I must disagree. I believe it is not only authorized, but an absolute requirement to, when in the preamble the Constitution states it's purpose is to "insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence," and "promote the general Welfare".

[MrLeRoy]

Since the unborn have never been counted to apportion Representatives to the U.S. House of Representatives, the unborn must not be persons.

Not for Constitutional purposes, no. But that does not negate my statement that "abortion violates rights."

[MrLeRoy]

"promote the general Welfare".

• The Preamble is a statement of purpose, not a grant of authority.
• There is no element of the liberal Welfare State---existing or desired (by liberals)---that cannot be justified by that clause; are you willing to accept all that just to get drug education funding?

[A2J]

Knock it off already. People may begin to think you are dim witted.

You're confusing him with the "dim witted" who support the legalization of drugs.

[EBUCK]

To support the current WoD, one must also support militarily trained US federal agents actively engaged in paramilitary operations in (at least) Central and South America.

Not to mention, THE USA, which is the target of 90% of the WOD budget.

[A2J]

Unlike drug "crimes," the crimes you mention all have victims---

In your opinion, is there such a thing as a "collective victim," such as a community?

I'd like an honest response and not an emotionally "high" one, please.

[EBUCK]

But couple legalization with welfare and medicaid is making me pay for their drug use.

Which would still cost less than "enforcement"....

[eno_]

No rights yet recognized by the Constitution. The Constitution only protects "persons"...and the unborn aren't "persons" under the Constitution. (The Census requires all "persons" to be counted, but the unborn have never been counted. So they aren't persons.)

I am in way over my legal head here, but don't both the concepts of unenumerated rights and the state's interests in protecting the weak rest in part on English Common Law precedent? Third trimester fetuses were on that basis found to be inside the boundaries of protectability by the individual states of the U.S. The other side of that coin is the intrusiveness of trying to criminalize abortion before the third trimester.

As Bork so famously said, we do not have a constitutional right to privacy. But neither do we need that right enumerated to have it, since the Constitution is not addressed to us - it is a list of "thou mays" and "thou shallt nots" addressed to the federal government.

[MrLeRoy]

In your opinion, is there such a thing as a "collective victim," such as a community?

Not beyond the vitimization of the community's individual members. Joe Smith smoking a joint in his living room victimizes no person, and thus no community.