Posted on 04/29/2002 6:10:32 PM PDT by gcruse
By Carl J. Cieslikowski
We are in a seemingly insoluble budgetary crisis in California. A significant part of this crisis results from the prosecution of the "War on Drugs." One of every six state employees is now working in the Department of Corrections. California has 185,750 state employees, and 30,800 work for Corrections. In 1990, the total number of full-time criminal justice personnel in the entire state of California was 146,157.
California is home to 25 prisons and 40 conservation camps. In the past 12 years we have constructed 18 new prisons with five additional prisons planned for construction. In our misguided effort of constructing 18 new prisons, we have taken money from libraries, schools, sports, prevention and music programs. We simply cannot have it both ways. Taxpayers should be outraged at the average expenditure of $22,000 a year to house an inmate, while we wonder why basic children's services are being gutted.
A number of factors contributed to the building of the largest prison system in the United States. Politicians believed they could further their political careers by being "tough" on crime. So, a tidal wave of punitive bills, signed by former Governor Deukmejian, burdened California with the highest incarceration rate in the world! Now, we are encumbered with huge bureaucracies and solidly entrenched industries (DEI) who have built their own political machine to maintain their vested interests at our expense. The proof of the atrocious political result is best demonstrated in the outrageous growth in prison population. In 1980 there were 23,726 inmates in prison. By 1992, prison population skyrocketed to 102,554.
In 1990 there were 32,300 new law violators sent to state prison. Of this number, 21% were for violent crimes, 34.5% were for property crimes, 31.9% for drug law violations, and all others were 12.6%. Offenders who crave expensive drugs indulge in crimes of violence and property to sustain their habits. It is estimated that 75% of the state's offenders are serving time for drug or drug related crimes. There is even a highly structured and immensely profitable drug trade within prisons. This industry not only perpetuates the existing user's dependencies, but also introduces new converts to drugs and sabotages the efforts of individuals who are making an honest attempt at remaining free from illicit drugs. As long as the profit in illegal drugs remains obscenely high, free enterprise will prevail and drug dealers will continue to pollute every corner of our society.
There is hope we can avoid financial destruction through a realistic Drug Reform Policy which is in contrast to an inflexible strategy that is dragging our state into bankruptcy. We are feeding the voracious appetite of both private and public industries who have selfish interests in increasing the present bloated bureaucracy and status quo, regardless of the dire consequences to our economy. We simply cannot depend on private and public industries to provide us with a realistic assessment of the value of their contribution to solving the drug problem.
The appointment of more judges to fill newly constructed courtrooms is big business. The building of new prisons is big business. The feeding, clothing and maintaining of inmates is bug business. The exploding number of new employees hired by the Department of Corrections is big business. These factors and more contribute to an already large armada of private and public agencies whose primary goal include keeping drugs illegal to preserve profits, ensure job security and promotional opportunities. Sadly, all this human effort is being wasted on unproductive expenditures of public funds while our basic social institutions are being devastated through financial starvation. We have had ample opportunity to test the present methods of arrest, prosecution,, incarceration and treatment. These practices have clearly failed, compromised our liberties, placed our police officers in dangerous situations, and created financial chaos.
Although politically unpopular to espouse, a viable solution to the prison nightmare is the revision of our failed drug policies. As a cornerstone of an effective policy - we must emphasis drug maintenance for those already addicted because mandatory drug treatment does not work. We must face reality and reject the hollow arguments of those individuals whose jobs or profits depend on mandatory "drug rehabilitation programs." Less than 10% of mandatory treatment works. We must stress the cost effectiveness and the importance of education, jobs, prevention, hope, encouragement and the value of achievement. Contrast that with bearing the custodial expenses of the human tragedy stemming from the lack of an investment in our people and their future. We must admit the criminal model for drug offenders was a noble experiment which has failed, not because our goals are flawed, but because the policy is flawed. We must adopt a policy emphasising decriminalization and regulation, yet admit any policy change is fraught with difficulty. We must recognize our country has a health crisis and adopt a model which is realistic, cost-effective and humane.
The reality of actual drug use in our country is obscured by an exclusive emphasis upon "illicit" drugs which deludes us about the damage done by "legal" drugs. The biggest drug dealers in this country are not publicly recognized because the profits from the alcohol and tobacco industries are used for campaign contributions and deceptive advertising messages which hide their real effect on our population. During Prohibition, when we tried to legislate alcohol intake behavior, we instead created organizations which benefit from huge profits. Today, we have created a similar situation wherein drug organizations have affected the world our grandchildren will inherit. Now, we should embark on a strategy against drug prohibition and strengthen education which proved successful in reducing tobacco use in this country. The fact is 600,000 Americans die per year from alcohol and tobacco use compared with 10,000 from heroin and cocaine!
[...] In order to stop the "War on Drugs" from destroying our society, the
following realities should be considered:
We must -
* Realize legislating morality has been a destructive societal policy and that drug use and abuse are medical problems.
* Admit we are in denial about the true drug issues and problems.
* Be logical and refrain from hysteria which has been generated by politicians and hired advertising firms.
* Recognize the reasons the current drug policies have failed.
* Take the profit out of drugs by ending prohibition
* Admit "tougher" sentences have not proved successful
* Resist furthering political careers based on "public safety" rhetoric
* Admit mandatory rehabilitation programs for addicts have failed to produce effective results
* Recognize any new drug policy will have imperfections. Progress will require flexibility and the challenge of experimentation.
* Begin prosecuting more serious crimes rather than wasting tax dollars on drug offenders who are clogging the courts
[...]
Laws against murder serve to protect other people from would-be murderers. The act of murder, essentially without exception, impairs another person's right to live.
Laws against drug possession protect exactly whom from exactly what? It would seem that the essential desired protections could be provided by less restrictive laws. For example, if the goal is to protect people from the hazards that stoned drivers would pose, pass a law against driving while stoned. If the goal is to protect people from having people pushing drugs on the schoolyard, pass a law against open-air sales and sales to minors.
Nearly all of the problems "caused" by drugs are the result of overt acts. As such, laws against such acts may be enforced without the privacy violations necessary to enforce statutes restricting covert acts.
And it would be...okay to violate someone's rights? Or is it wrong? Maybe even morally wrong? ;)
Like I said, I'm not unsympathetic to the article or its goals, but this notion of attacking laws based on morality is just nonsensical. Even in the example you give, it is implicitly understood that it is morally wrong to violate another's right to live, which is what justifies a law against it.
Maybe we should help Darwin along. Everybody that gets sent to prison for a violent crime gets a liberal dose of drugs in their food every day and as much more as they want. Confine them to concrete cells for 23 hours a day and let them wash their own single set of clothes in the shower. That ought to cut down on the violent criminals and the expense of the prison system.
Governments are established by people to protect their (real and perceived) rights. Whether violation of someone's rights is morally right or wrong is irrelevant; what matters is that those in power don't want certain rights violated and are willing to use force to protect them.
Is it? That's a very interesting distinction you draw parenthetically - what, precisely, is the difference between a "real" right and a "perceived" right?
The right to own human slaves, for example?
So I want to know how we differentiate a real right from one that is only perceived to be a right. Imagine that we are presented with a claim of a new right, one that has never been encountered before. When looking at this claimed right, how do we know whether it is "real" or not? Surely there must be some standard we can apply...
These guys are employed by the WOD. They depend on our tax dollars going towards the WOD for the food they eat. And they publish this?
Kudos and a Cheer from this ANTI-WOD Man!!
No new information but it nice to hear this from an inside source.
EBUCK
Look at the numbers. 600 thousand die from alchohol and tobbacco each year. 10 thousand die from the most heinous drug available, heroin, every year. Do we have dead nicotine addicts in the streets? Do we have dead alchoholics in the streets? Well, not in my town we don't either.
And just to help you out I'll let you in on a little secret. All those celebs you named....got their drugs regardless of the WOD. That's right!!!! The WOD did nothing to save them from themselves!!! Oh the humanity. How come we didn't try harder to make sure that they were safe? Why, Oh why, didn't we do something to keep them from exercising their free will?
EBUCK
EBUCK
The only reason we don't see that very much now is DEA and BATF etc police up the bodies they lay in the streets fairly quickly. Then they burn and buldoze the sites to quickly clean up the unsightly results of their work.
We do in Phoenix. Not a large number but some none the less. And alcohol is not anywhere near as addictive as crack, meth, heroin, etc. I work with drug users daily and can tell you that there is no turning back FOR MOST. I almost never say all or none< g>.
Please understand, I am an alcoholic and getting off the stuff was easier than quitting smoking by a factor of 100:1. I am also a physicist and criminal defense lawyer. I speak from experience on this subject. Doesn't make me right but it does provide a perspective that most do not enjoy!
Doncha just hate it when that happens?
If there is no chance of turning them back why do we put them in prison? If what they are doing to themselves is in-curable without their consent why force them into treatment? You obviously know that getting forcing horeses to drink is nearly impossible so why do we continue to try?
Please understand, I am an alcoholic and getting off the stuff was easier than quitting smoking by a factor of 100:1. I am also a physicist and criminal defense lawyer. I speak from experience on this subject. Doesn't make me right but it does provide a perspective that most do not enjoy!
I don't think you are entirely wrong. I just think (especially with your experience) that you would understand the completely hopeless situation our current system is in. The current system has been built, tested, measured, revamped, measured, restructured, measured ect. and has come up short every time. It's time for a new method because the old imprison/forced treatment scheme does not work, will never work and has never worked.
I understand that you are heavily vested in the current system but you have to understand that the rest of us (as taxpayers) are just as vested if not more so. You have your job to think about but we have our entire way of life to consider. And those of us that understand the price and responsibility of freedom are willing to let the addicts die in the street if it means freedom for us.
EBUCK
Somehow I can't understand the logic behind that. But I'm sure some jackbooted jackass who supports the war on drugs will explain it to me.
This is social conservatism in a nutshell.
Most drug USERS currently in the system are also criminals in other respects. Theft, assault, burglary, and violent crimes. In AZ, since Prop 200, users are given the opportunity to take a treatment program the first couple times. Charges are dismissed and no crime shows on the record. Just how many chances to straighten out does one need.
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.