Keeping Heroin Users Safe From The Police

Bush Country ^ | 07/01/03 | Paul Walfield

[westgirl123]

In the so-called war against illegal drugs, we have lost every battle. Clear across the globe, just about every concerted effort to eradicate drug use has failed. The given reasons for the dismal results are many, but the prevailing theory is that there is just too much money involved in the drug trade. So much so that the key people fighting the war get paid off, and the “war” is in reality just a “war” in name only. While there might be spectacular sounding successes reported on the evening news, the reality on the ground is never a real setback for the drug cartels.

[FITZ]

Did that have any measurable effect on overall U.S. supplies?

I don't know. I don't go out looking for cocaine so I don't know if it's easier, harder, or the same to find. Also since some drugs aren't that physically addicting ----what happens if they aren't available? Maybe the user just goes out and buys a bottle of alcohol? I'm not sure how we can know about supplies.

[FITZ]

Execute the drug pushers. Works for me.

We don't need to ----eventually they execute each other ---which is fine with me. Look at all the executions that have been going on in Mexico ---the turn-over rate for drug dealers seems to be very very high.

[MrLeRoy]

FR is blocking out content from this website.

Are mods closing such article posts, or is the posting form autorejecting that URL?

[MrLeRoy]

eventually they execute each other

But it seems there's always someone else willing to take the fallen dealer's place.

[cjshapi]

How can Johnny put in a full week's work to pay for his drugs if he is stoned? How can he then be an employable, productive worker?

[MrLeRoy]

How can Johnny put in a full week's work to pay for his drugs if he is DRUNK? How can he then be an employable, productive worker?

[MrLeRoy]

("his drugs" in that case being the drug alcohol)

[Wolfie]

Its auto-rejecting the URL. The messgage says somehting like "Material from AlterNet.Org not welcome on FR".

[gaspar]

To answer your questions. Can you commit a crime by assaulting yourself: sure, viz., suicide, shooting up, etc. Can you defraud yourself? Sure, vote Libertarian. Can you press charges against yourself for damaging your property? No, but the police sure can, viz., arson.

In recorded history no civilization has ever opted for the legitimization and legalization of narcotics. Nonetheless, Libertarians reject the wisdom of the ages which underscores the idea that a drug that is harmful to one's intellect or to one's health is bad for the person and bad for society.

[jayef]

This point has been made to the woddies so many times it's becoming farcical. You're wasting your breath. The will never get it.

[gcruse]

Call off useless war on drugs

This fight has become a war on people and the Bill of Rights

DANNY BROOKS
Special to The Observer

As most Libertarians agree, the best way to win the so-called war on drugs is to end it once and for all. Not partially, but completely. As long as there are any drugs that are illegal, there will be people willing to risk prison in order to profit from them as well as use them.

It's a classic no-win situation.

You would think that someone would've paid attention to that old adage about being doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past if we don't learn from them and draw a correlation between the current drug war and alcohol Prohibition. But, for a non-Libertarian politician to apply a little common sense to this multibillion dollar-a-year fiasco would be political suicide.

In what has become a war on people and the Bill of Rights, millions of nonviolent high school and college kids have had their lives shattered by prison sentences that are not at all proportional to their "crimes."

Ironically, many of these "criminals" were caught doing the very things that politicians have been accused of, and even admitted, doing. In the 2000 presidential campaign, both George W. Bush and Al Gore decreed that the punishment for doing what many believe they themselves did should be a minimum of 10 years in prison. Former Libertarian presidential candidate Harry Browne wanted to ask both Bush and Gore, "Would your lives have been better had you spent 10 years in a federal prison for your youthful indiscretions?"

The debate over the war on drugs has people firmly entrenched on both sides of the issue. Some people believe it is no business of our government if they want to partake in moderate drug use, not unlike smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol, in their homes after a hard day at work. If they don't hurt anyone else or break any laws then they should be left alone. By contrast, I'm sure families who have lost members to drug overdoses would like to see all drugs destroyed.

But when are people going to start being held accountable for their own actions? Yes, drug addiction, like alcoholism, is a disease. But unlike cancer, it is 100 percent preventable. If the inflicted person had chosen to not start abusing drugs in the first place, there would be no problem. But there are always people who are going to be addicted to something and willing to risk their very lives for some sort of "high."

Suppose that every drug in existence were legalized tomorrow. Would people still die of overdoses? Absolutely. Would children still try drugs? Sure. But how would that be any different than what goes on now?

For starters, legalizing drugs would remove the criminal element much the same way that ending Prohibition cleaned up our streets of gangs fighting over territories. These thugs would not be able to compete with pharmaceutical companies that produce affordable, safe, nontoxic drugs.

There will always be crime, but legalizing drugs would remove the black market and allocate resources to fight violent crime instead of being used to go after people who may harm themselves but are no threat to us.

Our own government has used the drug war to check out bank accounts, perform strip-searches at airports, monitor e-mail and even take property without even charging a crime because of asset forfeiture laws that state that property, unlike people, is not innocent until proven guilty.

If you give a police officer the OK to search your car, he can disassemble it completely and does not have to put it back together. Think about that the next time someone's argument is, "Well, if you aren't doing anything wrong, what do you have to worry about?"

Drug use is a moral decision, and you cannot legislate morality. When people break the law, whether on drugs or not, they should be prosecuted. Otherwise they should be left alone if they aren't hurting anyone else. Making drug use illegal is wrong. Legalizing drugs would solve more problems than are caused by this insane war.

Danny

Brooks
Observer community columnist Danny Brooks of Davidson is a computer programmer/analyst and member of the Cabarrus Libertarian Party. Write him c/o The Observer, P.O. Box 30308, Charlotte, NC 28230-0308, or at lbrooks2@carolina.rr.com.

[FITZ]

How can Johnny put in a full week's work to pay for his drugs if he is DRUNK? How can he then be an employable, productive worker?

Shouldn't businesses have the right to have non-drug addicted and non-alcoholic employees if they wish? I could almost see legalizing drugs if abusers couldn't get free medical care, food stamps, housing, disability pay, SSI or workplace protections. So many drug users want the government out of their lives until they run into problems because of their drug use, then they want the government back in their lives --providing a living for their families, giving them rehab, emergency care for their overdoses and whatever else.

[gaspar]

The essayist seems absolutely unconcerned with those who, as you put it, "may harm themselves but are no threat to us." I would suggest one would be better served reading Dante's Inferno instead of Ayn Rand. There is a special place in Hell for people who hold that view.

[gcruse]

The essayist seems absolutely unconcerned with those
who, as you put it, "may harm themselves but are no threat to us"

If you are not free to do as you will with yourself, then you
don't really have freedom.  You own yourself.  Don't throw
that away.

[TamiPie]

The solution is simple: don't take heroin. Less headaches in the long run.

[Ken H]

In recorded history no civilization has ever opted for the legitimization and legalization of narcotics.

Are you sure about that?

[bc2]

there are plenty of folks like that out there, I'm sure you know a few.

[bc2]

suicide is the only possible exception to this model. Shooting up isn't a crime, unless you can force yourself to do something against your will. Arson is fraud, of course it's a crime. We already covered that one.

Cute comment about voting and fraud, but I would think it more accurate to label fraud as voting for "conservatives" who are socialist baby killing big government enthusiasts hell bent on undermining our Constitution.

No one is saying drugs aren't harmful. Alcohol, tobacco, perscription meds, these are all harmful. What we are seeing now is a remedy much worse than the initial problem: the drug war. Talk about rejecting the wisdom of the ages! Haven't we covered this issue once already in our recent history? And narcotics weren't illegal in America until 1914 with the Harrison Tax Act. Not an accurate history lesson but thanks for trying.

[gaspar]

If you are a Christian or Jew you are not "free" to do with yourself or your person as you choose. This was answered in the first book of the Old Testament which resolved the issue of the inherant social contract with a few choice words: "Am I my brother's keeper?"

[vigilo]

Not everything that is a sin should also be a crime. In fact, there are many things that are sin but not crime. I'm sure you can think of several, some of which you yourself practice, just like we all do. Not even God Himself criminalizes every sin. We should follow His lead.

If we don't follow His lead then eventually nearly everything will be a crime: being fat, eating the wrong kind of food, having a non-pc thought.... See what I mean?

It's amazing how many people say, 'Drugs are bad, they cause you to lose your job, ruin your marriage, make you go broke, destroy your family. Therefore, because we 'love' you and don't want bad things to happen to you we will outlaw these horrible drugs, and if you are caught using them we will throw you in prison.' Of course being thrown in prison will cause you to lose your job, ruin your marriage, make you go broke and destroy your family. So, the WOD does as much or worse than drugs themselves. If you really want to help the druggy then we need to treat them like alchoholics, not bank robbers, murderers and rapists.

Taking drugs may be really stupid but should it be a crime?
Really? Is that the only way? We can and do, as a culture, frown on different behaviors without making those behaviors a crime. That's how we need to handle drugs.

Also, the WOD is good for what group of people? The lawyers and the cops. Those who arrest, prosecute and defend. That right there speaks volumes. The WOD is great for the cops and lawyers and a disaster for everyone else.