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.

[Dead Corpse]

I don't supposed you've managed to put together a cogent argument yet have you?

No?

I didn't think so.

[A2J]

"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."

So, according to your opinion, Indians, at least those who are not taxed, are not "persons?"

[free me]

May I just say to you and all other reasonable posters on this thread that this is the first WOSD thread I have seen where reasonable folks were able to argue the pratical effects of ending the un-constitutional prohibition of some drugs.
I often read these threads but never post because of the seeming uselessness of arguing with the "danes" of FR.

I applaud all of you for your patience and tenacity and hope you will continue to work to educate and stimulate the many folks like myslef who read the threads but don't have the patience to argue with brick walls.

[Dead Corpse]

Only an individual has Rights.

[A2J]

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.

Ah, but Joe Smith's addiction to drugs taken to the point where he requires medical attention that he can't pay for because said addiction has cost him a job, places or forces the community to pay for his medical attention, thus creating a "collective victim" in the form of the forced requirement upon the community.

[DAnconia55]

End 99% of the welfare. Axe Social (in-)Security. NRST, instead of a flat-tax, and disband the IRS.

I understand you're having trouble typing the number 100. Let me help.

100
100
100
End 99% 100% of welfare. Axe Social (in-)Security. NRST, instead of a flat-tax, and disband the IRS.

Ah, that's better :)

[MrLeRoy]

this is the first WOSD thread I have seen where reasonable folks were able to argue the pratical effects of ending the un-constitutional prohibition of some drugs.

I'm glad we could get that in before A2J slithered in.

[DAnconia55]

so should not have their liberties restricted because of what OTHER users cost you.

Welfare is a liberty now? We're screwed.

[FreeTally]

thus creating a "collective victim" in the form of the forced requirement upon the community.

Those are forced requirements imposed by your authoritarian-socialist brethern, not by those who seek freedom from government tyrrany.

A "collective victim" can only be created by authoritarian socialism.

[MrLeRoy]

forces the community to pay for his medical attention

False; the community CHOOSES to pay for the medical attention of addicted messes. I recommend to all communities that they make a different choice.

[eno_]

The great plank in the WoDdies eye is that even as the futility of the Drug War becomes more apperent, police performance is solving crimes we all agree on is in decline:

80% of murders solved is the long-term standard rate. Now it is something like 65% on average and below 50% in some big cities. Yes, odds are you can get away with murder in some places.

Rape solution rates are on a similar trend.

When is the last time you heard of a burglary being solved in your town? Do the cops take DNA from burglary scenes. Noooooo they have to go dress up in ninja suits and break down doors. Your burglary does not rate any concern.

Police corruption is up, alcoholism is up, divorce is up, delinquency among cops' kids is up, systemic corruption due to siezure laws is up, coerced confessions and bad capital prosecutions put the death penalty in jeopardy, bad shootings by cops are up, police costs are WAYYYYY up, and the solution rate to crimes that middle class conservatives care about are down.

And the WoDdies wonder why conservatives have abandoned them.

[EBUCK]

When do you suppose a fetus becomes an individual?

[MrLeRoy]

so should not have their liberties restricted because of what OTHER users cost you.

Welfare is a liberty now?

Read much? Drug use is a liberty.

[eno_]

When do you suppose a fetus becomes an individual?

Wrong question. The relevant question is "When can the state protect an individual?" The long-standing answer is "third trimester."

[EBUCK]

Ah, but Jane Smith lay out in the sun too long and now requires medical attention that she can't pay for...BAN THE SUN!!!!!!!

[MrLeRoy]

The relevant question is "When can the state protect an individual?" The long-standing answer is "third trimester."

That's a long-standing (since 1973) Constitutional fabrication.

[EBUCK]

Right question...the state can and does change its stance with diarrhea like consistency. What should not change is the recognized point in which the fetus becomes an individual, worthy of its natural rights, no longer an outgrowth of moms material.

[EBUCK]

Further, the State has no duty to protect individuals, only rights. Refer to the Federal Oath of office for proof.

[DAnconia55]

Misread you. I went back and read it again. For a second it appeared that you were arguing that it was a right to have welfare, while using drugs. That is to say, that the government couldn't make drug testing a condition of receiving welfare 'benefits'.

[MrLeRoy]

For a second it appeared that you were arguing that it was a right to have welfare, while using drugs. That is to say, that the government couldn't make drug testing a condition of receiving welfare 'benefits'.

There is no right to welfare---in fact, it's a violation of the rights of those who are made to pay for it.

That said, does it follow that government may impose any test it wants? Can it deny welfare to smokers? Marxists? Jews?