Posted on 01/16/2003 7:43:37 AM PST by 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.
Hey, it is what it is, regardless of any analogy.
If you insist on having some sort of hang-up about the nature of drug use in this country, fine, but we need to think with our heads when writing drug policy. Any way you figure it, it's going to cost money; nothing in this life is free.
That's a big step, that all of that immediately follows those four words in the preamble of the Consitution. I think it'd be a better idea to not jump to such forgone conclusions.
Besides, there's nothing wrong with welfare in and of itself; we all worry about our family's welfare, for example. And as it pertains to drug education in this country, I believe we should use a - yes - liberal interpretation. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and teaching the public about the consequences of drug use, both good and bad, will help them make learned decisions and avoid problems.
So you were and remain a liar. Duly noted.
From the U.S. Department of Justice's National Criminal Justice Reference Service (publication NCJ 145534): "Of all psychoactive substances, alcohol is the only one whose consumption has been shown to commonly increase aggression. [...] Marijuana and opiates temporarily inhibit violent behavior [...] There is no evidence to support the claim that snorting or injecting cocaine stimulates violent behavior. [...] Anecdotal reports notwithstanding, no research evidence supports the notion that becoming high on hallucinogens, amphetamines, or PCP stimulates violent behavior in any systematic manner."
That's a big step, that all of that immediately follows those four words in the preamble of the Consitution. I think it'd be a better idea to not jump to such forgone conclusions.
There's no jump or big step involved; "promote the general Welfare" implies federal drug education no more than it implies AFDC, food stamps, WIC, Section 8, etc., etc.
And as it pertains to drug education in this country, I believe we should use a - yes - liberal interpretation.
So you're willing to discard the plain meaning of the Constitution as a whole when it suits your purposes. There's a name for that philosophy: liberalism.
You are repeating yourself and not giving me a reason why all those things follow. If you are so certain, then there's little I could say to dissuade you.
So you're willing to discard the plain meaning of the Constitution as a whole when it suits your purposes. There's a name for that philosophy: liberalism.
You do not know the "plain meaning" of the Constitution any more than I do, Mr. High and Mighty. Much in the Constitution is open to liberal - yes, look it up - interpetation. If we wanted to use a strict interpretation all the time, the area drained by the Mississippi River system wouldn't be part of the U.S., nor would we have an Air Force or a Coast Guard.
Please, do not start accusing me of my pet causes. My purposes are out in front.
I support drug education in America because I believe it is a good, benevolent idea for all of us that warrants national coordination and effort. I don't see how that makes a severe breach of the Constitution.
You are repeating yourself and not giving me a reason why all those things follow.
And you've given no reason why drug education follows, other than you think it's a good idea---which liberals can say about AFDC, food stamps, WIC, Section 8, etc., etc.
So you're willing to discard the plain meaning of the Constitution as a whole when it suits your purposes. There's a name for that philosophy: liberalism.
You do not know the "plain meaning" of the Constitution any more than I do, Mr. High and Mighty.
Yes I do, because I've read it.
Much in the Constitution is open to liberal - yes, look it up - interpetation.
Which has given us the liberal/Democratic nanny state we "enjoy" today.
If we wanted to use a strict interpretation all the time, the area drained by the Mississippi River system wouldn't be part of the U.S.,
Perhaps. You support lawbreaking because it sometimes has beneficial results?
nor would we have an Air Force or a Coast Guard.
Nonsense. The authority to "support armies" includes the power to equip them, including with planes; and as far as I know none of the Coast Guard's functions are outside the scope of a navy, which the Constitution explicitly provides for.
Actually, alcohol is a depressant.
Your own posts put the lie to yourself. Note that one.
Nope. And even when I did drink, it was not Grand-Dad. The fact remains that you abuse your employer's graces.
You're not seriously trying to deny that alcohol use often leads to aggression, are you? Ever hear of a 'mean drunk'?
That's a lie.
I think the drugs have fried his brain cells.
That's not a "fact" but another of your baseless assumptions. Your personal attacks show the lack of character of Drug Warriors.
Why do you think people don't support it, and what do you think we should do about it?
Adult cows have those.
If conjoined twins are born, such that there are two bodies (or parts of bodies), sharing a single brain, do you think that both bodies (or parts of bodies) have a "right to life?" That is, do you think it should be against the law to cut away one body (or part of a body), to produce a single live body and brain?
No.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.