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.

[Mark Bahner]

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

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

A reasonable and defensible reply, sir. :-) I must admit, I can't recall ever having gotten this far in a conversation on abortion with a conservative on Free Republic, before...without the conservative starting to call me names. ;-)

You say "abortion violates rights," even though you concede those rights aren't (presently) secured by the U.S. Constitution. I'm certainly willing to entertain the possibility that "abortion violates rights."

But first, it seems that we should both acknowledge that there are many difficult questions about "rights" regarding abortion.

For example, suppose a woman (or girl) is impregnated by rape? Would you concede that the woman or girl then has a right to abortion?

Personally, it seems to me that the woman or girl would indeed have such a right. The embryo or fetus is there against her will. It is trespassing (even if unintentionally). So, in my opinion, making abortion illegal in cases of rape, violates the right of the woman or girl.

Then there are the cases of embryos or fetuses that have one of the truly horrendous congenital diseases. For example, Tay-Sachs disease:

"Tay-Sachs disease is a fatal genetic disorder in which harmful quantities of a fatty substance called ganglioside GM2 accumulate in the nerve cells in the brain. Infants with Tay-Sachs disease appear to develop normally for the first few months of life. Then, as nerve cells become distended with fatty material, a relentless deterioration of mental and physical abilities occurs. The child becomes blind, deaf, and unable to swallow. Muscles begin to atrophy and paralysis sets in."

http://www.ninds.nih.gov/health_and_medical/disorders/taysachs_doc.htm

Now, what are the rights of an embryo or fetus with Tay-Sachs disease? And who has the moral standing to define them?

In the case of Tay-Sachs, which is 100% fatal, and always in early childhood, I maintain that the most qualified person to act for the fetus/embryo is the mother.

To me, it seems highly *immoral* for the State to step in, and command that the woman bring the child to term, knowing that the child will die a slow and painful death, very early in its life. I support a Right to Life. But I also support a Right to Die. And if I could chose only one person to decide what my wishes would be, if I was not yet born, it would be my mother.

So in the case of diseases such as Tay-Sachs, I think that making abortion illegal: 1) violates the embryo/fetus' right to die, and 2) bring the State into a position that only the mother should morally hold.

Don't you think that there are cases such as those I mentioned, where who has the (moral) rights, and what they are, aren't very clear?

[Protagoras]

However, practically, legalization of "hard" drugs will have it's consequences,

As if it doesn't have consequences now. Anyone who wants drugs can get them easily.

one being that there will always be a percentage of the population that cannot control their addictive behaviors

As now. Nothing changes in these regards.

[EBUCK]

Probably a bad example but some worms only need one living cell to recreate itself under propper circumstances. Now that isn't a human equivilant and not meant to be, but would you consider that one living cell a life?

That doesn't make my being on the respirator voluntary.

Yes, yes it does..you got it.

[Mark Bahner]

I quoted the Constitution's 14th amendment: "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."

A2J responded, "So, according to your opinion, Indians, at least those who are not taxed, are not "persons?""

No, of course not. You need to accurately parse the sentence. The 14th amendment requires all persons to be counted, except for those Indians who aren't taxed. So presumably Indians who ARE taxed ARE counted, for the purposes of determining Representatives in the U.S. House.

(I don't know much about tax laws regarding Indians, but my guess would be that Indians living on a designated Indian reservation are not subject to U.S. government taxes. Whereas Indians who live outside of designated reservations are taxed like the rest of us.)

So a update of that amendment into modern American might be:

"...counting every person in each state, excluding those Indians who aren't taxed."

[MrLeRoy]

For example, suppose a woman (or girl) is impregnated by rape? Would you concede that the woman or girl then has a right to abortion?

Personally, it seems to me that the woman or girl would indeed have such a right. The embryo or fetus is there against her will. It is trespassing (even if unintentionally). So, in my opinion, making abortion illegal in cases of rape, violates the right of the woman or girl.

I agree.

in the case of diseases such as Tay-Sachs, I think that making abortion illegal: 1) violates the embryo/fetus' right to die, and 2) bring the State into a position that only the mother should morally hold.

Why not the father? Unlike Mom, he has no inherent conflict of interest.

[EBUCK]

Well put and I understand that denial is almost as bad as taking something already possessed. But, there's always a "but" with me, is destroying that "potential" the same as murder?

Like Clint said, "It's a hell of a thing , killing a man. You take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have."

[MrLeRoy]

Now that isn't a human equivilant and not meant to be, but would you consider that one living cell a life?

A worm life, sure.

That doesn't make my being on the respirator voluntary.

Yes, yes it does

Nope, no more than my mugging being dependent on my having gotten out of bed makes my being mugged "voluntary."

[Dead Corpse]

Dude, not only are you throwing out "straw-men" as fast as you can think 'em up, but we are also wandering kinda far afield from the topic of the thread.

None of us LIKES abortion. I think it is pretty safe to say we can all agree that we would rather live in a world without it.

Anyone remember "how" we got way over here on a WOD thread?

[EBUCK]

A worm life, sure.

OK then. Guess that you are on board with ApesforEvolution in that potential is the defining characteristic of life. I disagree but I'm not sure that I can justify my position to you.

I will say this regarding voluntary/involuntary...can a fetus voluntarily put itself in danger? Can you voluntarily put yourself in danger (which you do every waking second in some way)?

[Mark Bahner]

"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?"

I'm way over my legal head here, but I don't see how that matters. I find it hard to believe that English Common Law ever considered rights of the unborn. And even if it did, I don't see how that would be relevant.

We had a period of "four score and seven" (plus) years where the United States Constitution specifically and clearly defined a right of one person to own human "property." NOT "persons."

Every one makes a big deal about the Dred Scot case, but from my reading of it, it is completely as the Constitution was then written. Slaves weren't "persons." They had absolutely no rights. That was certainly immoral...but it WAS The Law. In the United States. (English Common Law be d@mned.)

It took a war, and 2 constitutional amendments to change that. For abortion, it shouldn't take a war. But it most certainly would take a constitutional amendment to LEGALLY provide *federal* protection to the unborn. (I happen to think that it would also take a Constitutional amendment to LEGALLY provide a "right to choose," also.)

"As Bork so famously said, we do not have a constitutional right to privacy."

I gotta admit, after reading "Slouching Towards Gemorrah" I have basically zero respect for Robert Bork's legal opinions/mind. I thought that, as a book by a legal "scholar," it was absolutely pathetic.

For example, he had almost half a chapter on the Vietnam "War," without once mentioning that it was completely unconstitutional.

And don't get me started on his desires to obliterate the First, Ninth, and Tenth amendments! :-/

"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."

Well, I guess I no longer have zero respect. Now it's a smidgeon. I completely agree with him, there.

[Mark Bahner]

"Anyone remember "how" we got way over here on a WOD thread?"

My bad. ;-)

I remember, it seemed relevant when I first brought it up. And I hate to leave any comment/question unanswered.

My apologies to everyone. (Though I can't promise I won't sin again. ;-))

Best wishes,
Mark

[Dead Corpse]

"To err is human..."

Me? I'm perfekt! ;-)

I'm out a here for the day. Peace...

[Mark Bahner]

"Why not the father? Unlike Mom, he has no inherent conflict of interest."

But he also has zero work until the delivery. It seems quite cruel to force a woman to go through nine months of pregnancy, plus childbirth, carrying a child she knows is going to slowly and painfully die, while it's still very young. Obviously, it would be a mess, if the mother and father didn't agree. But I still wouldn't have the State step in. And I'd still go with the mother.

[Mark Bahner]

I'm out, too.

Best wishes to all. Mr. LeRoy, I don't recall reading you, before. It's been a pleasure chatting.

G'night.

[ApesForEvolution]

"But, there's always a "but" with me, is destroying that "potential" the same as murder?"

If you destroyed your one day old newborn son, and destroyed the 'potential' of his life, would it be any different?

[BlackJack]

Good for Mr Cole-he is right

[EBUCK]

Yes, because the potential had been realized in a living viable, seperate individual. Something that can't be said for embryos "yet".

Just for the record, this for me is a philosophical discussion, in practice I abhore abortion at any point up to rape or certainly fatal disease.

[ApesForEvolution]

Without the time to go into the entirety of the logical argument against abortion, I will simply assert that I find no basis for claiming that, after conception has taken place, anything maliciously done to terminate that baby's life (the result of the sperm fertilizing the egg) is nothing short of murder. A society that rationalizes or condones it is doomed.

[Wallace T.]

In an ideal world, where people avoided destructive behavior and lived by the Golden Rule, governments would be unnecessary. But we do not live in such a world. A nation where local government could place no restraint on public behavior would be unpleasant for all but libertines. I respect my neighbor's privacy but I don't want them using their front yard as an outdoor privy. I believe in freedom of speech but I do not want to see billboards with private parts in full view. I support the free market, but I do not want a residential neighbor turning his home into a junk yard or a slaughterhouse.

Unlike the "big government" pro-War on Drugs conservative, I do not believe criminal or civil laws are to be used as an instrument of moral reform or societal improvement. But unlike many libertarians, I would fear the consequences on others of unrestrained public behavior.

In the 19th Century, an individual had the option of living in a wide open city with little restraint on vice, like San Francisco, New York, or New Orleans, or in an area where the sidewalks "rolled up at 6 PM," as was the case of most of small town and rural America. The genius of Federalism is that, although the Federal government ensures basic rights (speech, religion, press, firearms ownership, et. al.), localities have the option of a wide set of standards.

[dcwusmc]

Kev's brain might explode.


Promises, promises! Or is it that wacky-weed you're smoking?