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.

[jmc813]

Conservatives see law as a set of rules made to allow the optimum functioning of society as a whole

That sounds more like socialists to me. From each according to his ability and all that.

[xrp]

In the US, we have about 900,000 heroin addicts. So, if Jack Cole has his way, this will cost you and me about $500 BILLION per year, just for the heroin addicts.

Uhm...no one is saying that we'd federally subsidize heroin addicts. They would purchase their own and use it in their own private property, not in public. Public smoking needs to be outlawed, too.

[eyespysomething]

bump for later

[KDD]

Feds spend 20 billion.

The States spend more.

http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm

[MrLeRoy]

And the other 78% of them cost Switzerland $625,000 (US) per addict per year to provide them with free shooting galleries, free heroin, free medical, and free drug classes.

I can't even fathom how they managed to spend that much. Disposable gold needles? And though I'm opposed on principle to such a program, I can't imagine we'd spend anywhere near that much.

[waterstraat]

Its not 33 years, it is more like 90 years. The only thing the drug war has done, is make more crime, more violent crime, and made the mafia and attorneys, and politicians, and police , and judges, and prison guards, etc rich.

[xrp]

...and LOCKED into their positions of POWER.

[robertpaulsen]

"Legalizing drugs alcohol will increase the number of users, increase the number of innocent victims killed by drugged-out drunk freaks and increase crime. There I fixed it for you. Welcome to the 1920's."

After Prohibition, didn't the number of alcohol users increase? Didn't the number of innocent victims killed by drugged-out drunk freaks increase? Didn't crime increase (including crimes committed while drinking)?

I don't understand your statement. Were you attempting to be sarcastic?

[Res Nullius]

Consider:

Congress passes a five year, experimental, moratorium on the sale, possession, and use of cocaine, for example. The exclusive right to distribute is awarded, by bid, to an established drug company. Bidding starts at, oh say, one billion dollars. The winning bidder would have to agree to buy only from the established govenment of the producing country and distribute through licensed pharmacies. Better to have a licensed pharmacist dispensing than a fifteen year old illegal on a street corner.

Sales would be taxed with the revenue dedicated to establishing detox centers for those who wish to kick the habit. Once the "glamour" of using illegal drugs passes, following legalization, the former detox centers could be converted to senior centers for the aging population.

Nah, . . . . never work; makes too much sense.

[twittle]

Indeed---the War On Some Drugs is just welfare for drug dealers.

And elevates crime levels as the addicts must steal and rob to get the funding for their habits.

Of course the police state proponents love this as it just further empowers the enforcers.

[Hugin]

I'd rather they stay out of it altogether as the constitution prescribes.

The constitution does allow for Federal excise taxes.

[MrLeRoy]

After Prohibition, didn't [...] crime increase

Murders decreased.

[xrp]

Didn't the number of innocent victims killed by drugged-out drunk freaks increase? Didn't crime increase (including crimes committed while drinking)?

Post a reference for this please.

[LearnsFromMistakes]

I amaze my liberal friends when I tell them I could go for legalization. But I would like to use an exit strategy on free health care first. If I have to pay for the health care for people who freely use drugs, I am not going to be a happy camper - whatever the amount we end up spending.

[TopQuark]

"I cannot help but think that alcohol prohibition was incorrect. There certainly is a correlation."

NO there is not.

Prohibition ourlawed alcohol, which has been used en masse since times immemorial. By contrast, widespread drug use is a recent phenomenon. If this this society could live without it, one can argue that it can return to that state.

Comparisons with prohibition are popular but flawed.

[Protagoras]

After Prohibition, didn't the number of alcohol users increase?

People who never would have consumed alcohol did so during prohibition because of the forbidden fruit syndrome and after it ended, they admitted it and kept up the prctice. An entire nation was dragged down into being confortable committing crimes such as consumption and many other crimes connected with it. It would be a predictable consequence if indeed it happened. I have seen no reliable numbers which indicate that however.

that drinking increased

Again, no reliable numbers have been shown.

Didn't the number of innocent victims killed by drugged-out drunk freaks increase?

As a percentage? Again, cite numbers.

Didn't crime increase (including crimes committed while drinking)?

No. Crime decreased markedly.

[KDD]

Prohibition ourlawed alcohol, which has been used en masse since times immemorial.

That's not the excuse they gave for ending alcohol prohibition. Do you want to know the common reason for ending probition on booze?

[robertpaulsen]

"Uhm...no one is saying that we'd federally subsidize heroin addicts."

Mr. Cole is saying precisely that: "Cole advocates the federal government producing drugs, controlling quality and potency, distributing free "maintenance doses" ..."

That's the dirty little secret to the Swiss (and others) claims. By making free heroin available to the addicts, you 1) reduce crime since they donn't have to steal to feed their habit, and 2) reduce deaths due to overdoses since the quality and purity of state-provided heroin is controlled.

The Swiss experiment started out, like Canada is now doing, with free clinics and clean needles to get the addicts off the streets and stop the spread of HIV. They were still stealing and still OD'ing until the free heroin was provided.

Interesting side note. Most of the heroin addicts are also cocaine addicts. The money they save by getting free heroin is spent on cocaine. Now the Swiss are considering adding cocaine to the drugs provided (voted down, surprise).

[Protagoras]

The constitution does allow for Federal excise taxes.

It does not allow for federal involvement in substances period. Taxation and regulation on a discriminatory basis to get around the spirt of the constitution is old hat. No matter how many times they exceed their enumerated powers it will not be constitutional. Only allowed by an ignorant populace.

[vin-one]

yeah, right, 625,000 per addict, I find these numbers to be suspect.