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.

[Mr. Mojo]

Too many judges and politicians and bureauracrats on the take.

Yep, that's ALL this whole WOD is about. ...And the majority of the American public remains completely ignorant of this fact.

[ApesForEvolution]

"Can you see what finger tip I'm holding up now? How old are you, that you haven't yet learned even a teaspoonful of civility?"

Yes, I see you have the market on civility cornered. Baby butchers get no quarter from me.

[Mark Bahner]

"...the child has never, and probably *will* never (since most have brains that are sufficiently damaged that they never get to the point of speech) express a desire to live OR to die."

"Neither will seriously retarded adults, yet they are persons."

Yes, I wasn't implying that Tay-Sachs children aren't persons, merely because they will never speak. I was only pointing out that their desires can't be known.

"Something like 1 in 4 pregancies end in abortion; I see little ground for confidence there."

Something like 1 in 3 pregnancies end in spontaneous (natural) abortion. Does that mean that God doesn't love children?

Do you really think no one could end the life of another person out of love?

[Mark Bahner]

Jerks get no further posts from me.

You're exactly the type of loser who makes discussion of abortion on Free Republic a waste of time.

Read posts of Mr. LeRoy, and learn. He's capable of carrying on a civil discussion, even when he doesn't agree. (Since you seem to have learned little civility thus far in your life, I doubt you're capable of learning it from him. Or anyone else.)

Signing off for YOU, forever,
Mark Bahner

[MrLeRoy]

I was only pointing out that their desires can't be known.

I'm not sure they even HAVE desires---but they do have a right to life, and I think the presumption must be in favor of life.

"Something like 1 in 4 pregancies end in abortion; I see little ground for confidence there."

Something like 1 in 3 pregnancies end in spontaneous (natural) abortion. Does that mean that God doesn't love children?

I think God is the Author of Life and as such has the right to take it, and does so out of love.

Do you really think no one could end the life of another person out of love?

I think they could, but I don't think most of those 1 in 4 mothers end the lives of their children out of love.

[Pure Country]

It doesn't work you idiot. Billions spent on removing 1 tenth of one percent of all drug traffic off the streets.

Leagalizing abortion really slowed down the abortion industry, right? There comes a point when the weak give in to what's wrong. I'm not counting myself as one of those.

As to it only being a crime to self. That's hogwash! I have seen to many high parents unable to come to the aid of their children when needed. Sure, they stay in their houses and everyone thinks that it is okay--their business only, BUT what about the kid who has an accident at home and needs a run to the emergency room and there is not one that can get him there. Believe me, this happens more often than you would like to know.

My son-in-law is a dreaded cop that says that 85% of domestic violence and accidents are drug or alcohol related. So, with your logic, like that of the pro-abortion group, go ahead and legalize it and see where it gets you.

[MrLeRoy]

Leagalizing abortion really slowed down the abortion industry, right?

Banning abortion is inherently more effective than banning drugs because abortion is harder to hide and requires more skill.

I have seen to many high parents unable to come to the aid of their children when needed.

I'm sure drunk parents are sometimes unable to come to the aid of their children when needed, too. Does it follow that we should ban alcohol for ALL adults (even childless ones) because SOME parents get drunk and violate their children's rights?

[Mark Bahner]

"No; I am a species-ist, just not an axiomatic one."

OK. On further thought, I'm not either. So I withdraw my expression of resentment. :-)

"Explain to me how the statement "Humans are superior to nonhumans" is as an axiom any better than "Men are superior to women.""

OK. Good point. Sorry I took offense.

I wrote, "A dog or a cat actually HAS reasoning free-willed individuality."

Mr. LeRoy responded, "Provide evidence for your claim."

Oh, geez, Mr. LeRoy! You must not have been around dogs and cats very much!

When I was growing up, my family owned a cocker spaniel. She exhibited "reasoning" all the time! We had a game where we would have her jump over a yardstick to get a treat. We'd progressively put the yardstick higher and higher. But when it got really, really high, such that she wasn't sure she could jump over, she'd try to run UNDER the stick. Classic reasoning. ("Why bother to jump over this stick, when I can run under?")

Another time, we took her to get her hair cut, professionally. Usually, my parents did it themselves. When she came back with her new haircut, she was all happy. But her haircut was really, really short. She looked just like a rat, we all laughed. She went behind the couch to hide. (Which made us feel really, really bad.)

Dogs are so close in intelligence to humans that it's occasionally uncanny. And they aren't even the smartest non-human animals.

I read about two parrots. One was learning to talk, the other already knew how. As the one who was learning was struggling through a sentence, the other said sharply, "Speak clearly!" Tell me that isn't reasoning!

I read in Discover magazine about scientists teaching a chimpanzee how to make stone tools. (To cut a rope, to get a banana.) The scientists wanted the chimp to use it's hands, to bang two rocks together. But the chimp found he could make good tools by throwing the rock against the concrete floor. The scientists didn't like that, so they put carpeting down over the concrete. The chimp ripped up the carpeting!

Animals can be really, really smart. Without question, there are some animals that are smarter than some (severely retarded) humans.

[ApesForEvolution]

"Signing off for YOU, forever,"

Ahhhh. Shucks. I was just starting to have fun with the thread's resident baby-butcher...

[Mark Bahner]

"I'm not sure they even HAVE desires---but they do have a right to life, and I think the presumption must be in favor of life."

I don't see how something without ANY brain (the embryo, before 6-8 weeks) either has a right to life, or needs a right to life.

"I think they could, but I don't think most of those 1 in 4 mothers end the lives of their children out of love."

That may be your assessment. But I think their thoughts about what constitutes love are simply different from yours.

[Mark Bahner]

"As to it only being a crime to self. That's hogwash! I have seen to many high parents unable to come to the aid of their children when needed."

That is a crime (child neglect). And no one is saying it shouldn't be.

[MrLeRoy]

You must not have been around dogs and cats very much!

I've owned a dog for three years. While I'm often impressed with what apparently goes on in his noggin, I don't think any of it, or any of the examples you cite, rises to the level of what I call reasoning; I mean the term to imply a degree of abstraction that I don't see in those cases.

[Mark Bahner]

"I mean the term to imply a degree of abstraction that I don't see in those cases."

OK, how about the parrot that told its young companion to "Speak clearly!"

That's pretty darn abstract, in my opinion. The bird was, on it's own: 1) recognizing that the other bird wasn't speaking clearly, and 2) knowing what "speak clearly" even means.

There's the chimp who makes tools (he subsequently learned how to make them with his hands, just like the scientists wanted). There are chimps who even know sign language.

[Dead Corpse]

As to it only being a crime to self. That's hogwash! I have seen to many high parents unable to come to the aid of their children when needed.

Then how about charging them with child endangerment? Abuse? Assault? None of this pussyfooting around with victemless charges. How many parents out there function just fine no matter what they are on? I don't have those numbers, and neither do you.

My father was LEO for 27 years. I was a Marine for 6. I've seen more abuse perpetrated by drunks then anything produced by all the other drugs out there combined.

Boy, you are one confused person you know that? Not only do you compare apples and oranges, but you seem unable to forward an argument without resorting to a straw-man.

We'll log you firmly in the camp that wants to tell EVERYONE how to live their lives, because a small percentage of "everyone" may not do the things you want them to.

[ApesForEvolution]

"But I think their thoughts about what constitutes love are simply different from yours."

In your world, love=murder. You are extremely void of logic and are wrapped in darkness.

[Pure Country]

It doesn't work you idiot. Billions spent on removing 1 tenth of one percent of all drug traffic off the streets.

Whew! No one's opinion counts but yours, right. So you were a Marine, big deal! I actually was a teacher who worked with neglected children through alcohol and drug abusive parents. I have probably seen more abuse than a Marine anyday. Don't hide behand a title. Marine means absolutely nothing when dealing with children. Go toot your permissive tongue somewhere else. I have every right to think what I think without you hiding behind your daddy's credentials. Whoop de doo! I guess your idea of victimless charges are a little different than mine! Apples and Oranges--both have caused more deaths than necessary. Choke on an apple or choke on an orange. Dead is dead either way.

[merak]

We need to legalize most of it, anything demonstrably no more harmful than booze on the same basis as booze, and take all the money out of the whole deal. I don't see how you can legalize the Jeckyl/Hyde formulas like PCP, crack, or LSD. In areas in which PCP is abundant, it's basically the ultimate answer and solution to every sort of heinous and unbelievable crime for which there is no obvious motive or rationale.

[EBUCK]

You got a right to say whatever you want but when you chose to exercise that right, in open forum, and with your idiotic comments, prepare for a few others to exercise the same right in response.

[Dead Corpse]

Looks like EBUCK beat me to it.

So you are a teacher who works in a ghetto. Big deal. Half your fellow teachers are probably selling crack and pushing Ritalin anyway, so what is the big deal?

How does it feel to teach in our government run indoctrination camps? Nice union protected salary for only working 6-8 months out of the year.

If you are an example of America's teachers, no wonder we are getting our asses beat on an international scale.

[Pure Country]

Why do I feel like I am conversing with a drug-addicted person trying to justify his habit without actually putting it into words?