Legalization of drugs urged: Ex-police officer says 33-year-old 'war' is a failure

The Arizona Republic ^ | Sept. 21, 2003 | Judi Villa

[MrLeRoy]

It sounds radical. Even more so when it comes from a former narcotics cop.

But Jack Cole, a retired detective lieutenant with the New Jersey State Police, says the nation's 33-year "war on drugs" is a failure and the only way to really save lives, reduce addiction and lessen crime is to make drugs legal.

[headsonpikes]

For the sake of argument, I will agree with you that legalization of marijuana would increase use marginally.

So would the legalization of opium and cocaine marginally increase their use.

Even conceding for the sake of argument that all drug use is bad, I would nonetheless argue that the damage to our society, political life, and the relationship between citizen and state being done by the obsessive-compulsive enforcement of these sumptuary laws is FAR worse. Historical rights against abusive searches and arrests have been abrogated by the 'necessities' of SWAT-teams.

The puritanical streak in the American personality will certainly be the foundation of any American Totalitarianism, whether led by the so-called left, or by the so-called right.

I encourage all young people, of every country, to disrespect wrongful authority; and wrongful authority is certainly what the WOD represents.

[TopQuark]

As I said, you really have trouble concentrating.

Arrogance is when a few "annointed" people think they can make society better by using force to violate basic rights for the "common good". It's the epitome of arrogance. True.

But once again, entirely disconnected from anythig I said.

As expected, the incivility is a trait: your rudeness with DennisW, which you pooly justified a minute ago, is followed by your rudeness to me.

The only question I have is, why would someone with an almost total inability to think chose the name Protagoras?

That question will remained ananswered: I'll not read any of your posts whether or not they are addressed to me. I do not wrestle with children and swine.

[Stu Cohen]

You go to the garbage dump and then agonize over which of the substances available there you would prefer your child to use.

I disagree.

I believe I stated clearly that I would prefer, and indeed vigrously discourage and forbid (to the extent possible) them them from using anything. This including cigarettes, caffeine, and junk food. My children currently do not partake in any of the above.

If I didn't clarify this, please allow this post to do so.

[MrLeRoy]

"Unrestricted distribution by physicians and pharmacies created an enormous drug abuse problem; in 1924 federal narcotics officials estimated that there were 200,000 addicts in the United States

That's NOT "enormous." And do we have any fewer heroin addicts today because it was banned?

[dennisw]

I must use more gentle phrasing in the future but you understood what I meant. While Protagoras could not digest it.

[Protagoras]

Bump to that post.

The only thing worse than drugs is the War on Drugs.

[MrLeRoy]

Even conceding for the sake of argument that all drug use is bad, I would nonetheless argue that the damage to our society, political life, and the relationship between citizen and state being done by the obsessive-compulsive enforcement of these sumptuary laws is FAR worse.

Not to mention that self-inflicted harm, like drug use, should not even be weighed on the same scale as other-inflicted harm like that of the War On Some Drugs.

[Protagoras]

I do not wrestle with children and swine.

LOL, does this namecalling qualify as rude? You don't love me anymore Bunky?

[robertpaulsen]

'While I probably already know the answer.. would you support such action?"

Would I support this? No. I would, however, support a counter-suit for a frivolous lawsuit, and award millions.

But that's me. That's not the people suing, or the lawyers willing to representing them in this legal lotto, or the judges who will hear the case, or the juries who will award millions if not billions.

Call YOU crazy? No, I call our system crazy -- the system that awards money to people who spill hot coffee, smoke cigarettes, pass by a building containing asbestos or lead paint, are the victim of a gun crime, or (almost, but it's not over yet) eat fattening food.

One possible solution: Loser pays. They have that system in England (the source of our laws). The loser pays the legal cost of the other side.

Second solution: Punitive damages do NOT go to the plaintiff (and their attorney). This "punishment" money would go to the state or to an appropriate charity. The plaintiff would still receive actual (compensatory) damages, and the defendant would still be punished.

If I were king.

[TopQuark]

Thanks for the clarification. I may have indeed misunderstood your post.

[Protagoras]

New tag line for the day.

The only thing worse than drugs is the War on Drugs

[robertpaulsen]

"How many abused it last month?"

I'm not sure, but I've heard the figure of 10%, which would put the number at 28 million.

But the purpose of my post was to compare the number of people who have ever tried a drug with the number of people currently using that drug. There's no comparison between alcohol and marijuana.

[sweet_diane]

"This "punishment" money would go to the state or to an appropriate charity. The plaintiff would still receive actual (compensatory) damages, and the defendant would still be punished."

well now you've gone and made sense Mr. Paulsen...

[headsonpikes]

BTW, the WOD is the most prominent manifestation of utopian American Socialism.

Nothing so betrays a totalitarian agenda than the proclaimed desire to 'improve the health of the population'.

[Protagoras]

So you have chosen not to answer the question about your past drug use? Whatsamatta?

You bore false witness pretty easily, but the question is difficult?

[KDD]

There's no comparison between alcohol and marijuana.

True.

Alcohol is a much more insidous drug.

[RinaseaofDs]

Great point, and another excellent reason to decriminalize it.

[robertpaulsen]

It's legal for adults. I would expect the ratio to be higher.

Either compare something legal for both groups or illegal for both groups.

[RinaseaofDs]

It's about market size and share.

Even in inner cities nowadays crack sales have fallen. Not because all the money spent on ads is working, but because crack is so lethal that it can't be called recreational. Same is true with Heroine.

Too dangerous for recreational use.

Now, if you want to talk about Ex or meth, then you have a good point.

[RinaseaofDs]

It's about market size and share.

Even in inner cities nowadays crack sales have fallen. Not because all the money spent on ads is working, but because crack is so lethal that it can't be called recreational. Same is true with Heroine.

Too dangerous for recreational use.

Now, if you want to talk about Ex or meth, then you have a good point.