Posted on 12/04/2002 3:05:07 PM PST by MrLeRoy
MIDDLETOWN -- Peter Christ and Cliff Thornton are two men with very different backgrounds: Thornton was a substitute teacher in Hartford’s schools, and Christ is a former police officer in western New York state. But both men have reached the same conclusion -- that the ‘war on drugs’ is a massive failure that only deepens the national crisis of addiction and drug-related crime.
After 20 years on opposite sides of a war that has cost over $1 trillion in 30 years, with millions of casualties on both sides, the two men, and many more around the country, are pursuing campaigns to decriminalize illicit drugs.
"No matter how many (drug offenders) are locked up, the problem doesn’t go away ..it gets worse," said Thornton, an educator for a Hartford-based drug law reform group. "The drug war is a colossal waste of resources (and) we must dismantle this monster."
Speaking to a large group of students at Wesleyan University Tuesday, Thornton and Christ explained their shared perception of the so-called drug war as a policy that not only fails to keep drugs off the streets and out of schools, but leads to the incarceration of large sectors of the population -- mostly poor people and minorities.
"The average drug user in the United States has a 40-hour per week job and is white," said Thornton, who cited reports from Amnesty International condemning U.S. drug policy for its violations of human and civil rights. "But the faces of prisoners are overwhelmingly black and brown."
African-American men make up only 3 percent of Connecticut’s population, according to Thornton’s group, Efficacy, but constitute 47 percent of all inmates in the state’s prisons and halfway houses.
Prisons themselves are "largely violent, drug-ridden places," he said, where inmates are not likely to get the treatment they need."
Although Thornton likened the "war on drugs" to "class and race warfare," Christ said he views the prohibition of drugs as a matter of practicality -- prohibition simply doesn’t work.
Alcohol prohibition ended in the 1930s, "not because alcohol became benign ..but because we realized the policy (of prohibition) caused more problems than (alcohol did)," said Christ.
A founding member of the national group Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, Christ said he wants to see drugs legalized as a way to reduce drug-related crime and to regulate dangerous drugs.
Comparing drug prohibition to abortion and gambling laws, Christ said legalization will not cause an increase in the number of drug addicts.
"I want to regulate and control drugs in this country," said Christ. "You can’t regulate the black market."
The forum was sponsored by the Wesleyan group Students for Sensible Drug Policy.
Ah, but what fact? Surely, you mean that polls and surveys and be manipulated to get any kind of response you desire?
In that case, I am inclined to agree with you.
The only logical fallacy is the number of deaths from illicit drug use would either stay the same or get even lower if drugs were legalized.
So you would support the return of alcohol prohibition?
Did I say that?
Oh, really? You mean, the ones in two states?
Get your facts straight before re-posting so you will not further embarass yourself.
*Yawn.*
The point of eliminating the "WOD" is not to encourage drug use. Stopping the "WOD" does not automatically mean legalization, actually. But you can stop making possession a mandatory prison-time serving criminal offense, and replace it with an exhorbitant fine, should you prefer. The "WOD" has given the government an excuse to trample on 4th Amendment rights, which I (as a NON-drug user) am concerned about.
Then you should harass your Congressman and Senators and get those particular laws removed, instead of throwing out the baby with the bath water.
Otherwise, if you don't like the idea of doing jail time for drug possession, the simple answer to that is to stay away from them. Problem solved.
"In February 2001 the Pew Research Center polled people on the nation's drug war. In September and again in late November and early December 2001, Peter D. Hart Research Associates surveyed people on crime and punishment for George Soros' Open Society Institute.
"Respondents to both polls largely agree that the war on drugs has been a failure. In the Pew poll, 74 percent agreed with the statement "We are losing the drug war." Seventy percent in Hart's September poll said the war on drugs had been "more of a failure" than a success." - http://www.rollcall.com/pages/columns/bowman/00/2002/bowm0307.html
Nobody I know thinks we should just throw up our hands and legalize drugs.
The people you know are a non-randomly selected group, so what is true about them cannot be reliably extrapolated to the larger population.
And I have never been called and polled about anything.
So I seriously doubt the veracity of any poll
Which proves only your ignorance of basic statistical methods.
Quite---see post 48.
The last I saw a survey, 88% of respondents approved of the Drug War and wanted to see it continued at least.
Have a source for that?
one doesn't argue for a policy position by using its popularity.
Nor have I---I was merely correcting Houmatt's error (who seems to have been arguing for a policy position by using its popularity).
Then look into it: www.google.com.
I know that---but I guess whoever writes the Middletown Press' headlines doesn't.
This is your best point, and has made me stop and think for a few minutes. Then I realized where the difference of opinion comes from. You seem to be indicating that it is the job of government to regulate, criminalize, or control almost any inanimate object that could injure the user when it is used or abused. Many here disagree, wanting the government to have as little to do with our daily lives as possible.
Is it the government's job to protect us from ourselves doing unhealthy things?
Many pro-WOD would say that drugs harm more than the user. My response would be that law enforcement should handle those effects without making the item in question illegal. Auto accidents kill 55,000 per year but cars should not be declared off-limits. Police regulate the cars speed; legislatures control the safety, emissions, and licensing; individuals are left to enjoy the "privilege" of driving as they see fit after that. Many are abusive, and are punished for those abuses. Why aren't drugs controlled, monitored, and enforced the same way (controlling their potency, content, and strength; punishing those who used them in ways that harmed or endangered others after the fact; and leaving citizens the freedom to use recreationally)? Yes, the number of deaths may increase... so what? It is not the government's job to make us as healthy as possible against our will.
I've always admired your keen insight and judge of character :<)
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.