Replies

The whole problem here is trying to make a political case against the WOD on the basis of Rush's addiction. The only reason we have a WOD is to control access. I know our Libertarian friends will not hear of this but the rationale is both valid and clear.

For example, white male physicians have a substance habituation history (especially for prescription narcotics) many times that of the general population. The reason is simple--they have both access and the money to become addicted. Every State Board of Medical Examiners has noted this and has developed tough standards to deal with the problem.

Our WOD has been almost entirely restricted to dealers. I know a few users with large amounts in posession sometimes face a prison sentence but this is an anomoly of the courts and the law as much as anything else. In Singapore (right in the middle of the dope producing area of the world) substance abuse or habituation is virtually unknown. The reason is if you use even once, you are incarcerated and treated or just incarcerated. If you are a recividist the legal roof falls on you. If you are dealer and are caught you get a mandatory death sentence. Initially, there were death sentences but now there are few since any dealer knows his or her life span is brief once they are arrested. Users are so legally and socially punished there is little incentive even to experiment. Of course, such Draconian legal measures cannot be instituted in a modern, Western democracy.

In a certain sense, the WOD is a misnomer. We should call it a war on dealers. In the meantime, users are not prosecuted with any vigor; hence, we have a schism between what we think we want --control of access--and what we actually want--dealers only punished--resulting in a failing WOD.

Our WOD has been almost entirely restricted to dealers

Go to any AA meeting and see if the members blame the BARTENDERS (dealers)

In a certain sense, the WOD is a misnomer. We should call it a war on dealers. In the meantime, users are not prosecuted with any vigor; hence, we have a schism between what we think we want --control of access--and what we actually want--dealers only punished--resulting in a failing WOD.

Baloney that drug laws only target dealers or that cops only focus on dealers---take a look at the actual drug laws for a given state, like Massachusetts' drug laws. Possession of a drug over a certain threshold amount makes one a "dealer" (i.e., possession with intent to distribute) de jure . . . the government does not even have to prove intent to distribute. Further, I did a statistical analysis on the drug task force of the city of Cambridge, MA. Far from targeting just dealers, an astounding percentage---well over 50%---of their anti-drug activity was busting marijuana users for simple possession. I don't have a copy of the research paper in front of me, but will gladly post it tonight if you want me to.

For example, white male physicians have a substance habituation history (especially for prescription narcotics) many times that of the general population.

Cite?

I could take you across the street to the jail and prove to you that drug users are too arrested and jailed simply for possessing small amounts of drugs. Many are even sent to prison. It is true that a great many also get away with fines, community service and probation or suspended sentences. Where I live most who don't get prison offers generally get around $3650.00 in fines and costs, a three year suspended sentence, and 30 days of community service they have to complete on the weekdays within sixty days of the judgment. They also lose their drivers license for six months and are left with a felony record that makes it hard for them to ever get a decent job. It's hardly a slap on the wrist. Many end up getting their suspended sentences revoked not because they commit another drug offense, but because they can't come up with the money for the fines or because they just can't miss work enough to complete the community service.

There is hardly uniformity across the states when it comes to drug enforcement. In some places marijuana smokers and small time hard drug offenses are largely ignored. In other places the people are nailed to the wall. It varies for state to state, county to county and so on. If I get in my car and drive less than a mile over the bridge, I'll be in another county where the fines people get for drug possession are much lower, where people hardly ever get community service and where second and third marijuana offenses are generally prosecuted as if they were first offenses because they don't like giving felony convictions for a couple of joints over there.

If you look into it much, one thing you'll find is that the severity of the laws and enforcement seem to have very little to do with the per capita drug use statistics in a given area. An area with harsh marijuana laws will often have higher numbers of their population per capita using marijuana than their neighbors who have decriminalized marijuana use.

I agree that if we went around punishing people accused of drug crimes with death and other extreme punishments, we'd have less drug use. But I think that if you looked more into that issue you would find that there certainly is still an awful lot of drug use and drug trafficking going on in many places where the most extreme and draconian drug laws are enforced. And like you said "such Draconian legal measures cannot be instituted in a modern, Western democracy." So even if they might work, it's a moot point because it won't ever happen here.

In my mind, the "war" method of drug control is never going to work. We will never arrest our way out of this problem. It might be more successful if we went all out, gave up all the pesky protections granted us in the Constitution, and just let law enforcement run wild spying on us all and killing at will those suspected of being involved with drugs. But most of us wouldn't want to live in a society like that.