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.

[vin-one]

sounds reasonable, if we were to follow this guys script

I have a hard time believing that we would offer to pay, everything for addicts

However that being said if everything were legalized the price would not be as high as it is today due to the WOD
keeping prices high, because they are illegal

[Protagoras]

Provide evidence for your "1920's" claim that legalizing alcohol will not increase the number of users, will not increase the number of innocent victims killed by drunk freaks and will not increase crime.

I made no such claim.

[Fester Chugabrew]

"Sounds like Hillary's campaign platform."

Perhaps in a way it does. But government authority is only another manifestation of parental authority, and parental authority is but an earthly manifestation of Divine Authority. Each is of great benefit when excercised in the right manner and given due honor.

Hillary does not know the proper manner or measure of any of the above. Indeed, she shows herself to be a subversive element in regard to authority, not unlike her boyfriend.

[MrLeRoy]

It was BANNING liquor that increased crime:

"America had experienced a gradual decline in the rate of serious crimes over much of the 19th and early 20th centuries. That trend was unintentionally reversed by the efforts of the Prohibition movement. The homicide rate in large cities increased from 5.6 per 100,000 population during the first decade of the century to 8.4 during the second decade when the Harrison Narcotics Act, a wave of state alcohol prohibitions, and World War I alcohol restrictions were enacted. The homicide rate increased to 10 per 100,000 population during the 1920s, a 78 percent increase over the pre-Prohibition period.

"The Volstead Act, passed to enforce the Eighteenth Amendment, had an immediate impact on crime. According to a study of 30 major U.S. cities, the number of crimes increased 24 percent between 1920 and 1921. [...] homicides and incidents of assault and battery increased 13 percent." - 'Alcohol Prohibition Was a Failure', Prof. Mark Thornton (O. P. Alford III Assistant Professor of Economics at Auburn University), Policy Analysis No. 157, July 17, 1991

[MrLeRoy]

government authority is only another manifestation of parental authority

Not in this country: "to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed."

[RinaseaofDs]

Yeah, I have to agree.

I was in the USCG for 10 years, and we couldn't make a dent. Add to this the fact that the people most vehemently opposed to legalization are terrorist groups, the mob, and the cartels.

The profit on illegal drugs is something like 1500%. The industry that comes next in profitability is Legal Pharma at around 22%.

Making marijuana and cocaine legal would pretty much wipe out that particular industry for the bad guys. Terrorism, drugs, the mob, prisons as academies for criminal education, etc. - they are all linked.

I seriously don't know the answer here, but I do know that the WOD is expensive in the extreme, and we keep losing. It's coming in now by submarine sometimes.

I do know that economically, legalization would destroy the drug industry for criminals.

[Fester Chugabrew]

" . . . deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed."

Yes indeed! And the governed had best understand that they are granting government the same powers they themselves have by right as God's creatures first, and also according to their vocations, including that of "parent."

[MrLeRoy]

the governed had best understand that they are granting government the same powers they themselves have by right as God's creatures first,

Yes, the right of SELF-governance. I have no power over you, so I cannot authorize government to exert power over you, nor you me.

and also according to their vocations, including that of "parent."

My only power as a parent is over MY children---not over yours, and CERTAINLY not over other adults.

[MrLeRoy]

Slightly lower.

:-D. Thanks for the correction.

That would put US heroin treatment at $6-7 billion per year.

I'm still against it.

[MrLeRoy]

people tend to dream up new, exotic ways of "getting high"

Much more so when the less potent ways are also illegal---much like Prohibition boosted the populatity of liquor versus beer and wine.

[Fester Chugabrew]

"Yes, the right of SELF-governance. I have no power over you . . ."

Would that life in the U.S.A. were that simple and free! But we live under laws that were written by the collective will of the governed, and so the will and authority of others necessarily impends upon each of our daily lives.

No, I certainly do not have direct authority over your children and have abosultely no desire for it. It's hard enough to raise up my own. But, indirectly, I do excercise control over you and your children insofar as my representatives enact laws that reflect my will as a "parent" (i.e. agent of self-control in the loose sense).

Together we aim toward laws that are of benefit to all of the governed.

[dread78645]

Switzerland $625,000 (US) per addict per year to provide them ...

Care to source that number ?

The Dutch spend about $25 per day /addict --same as the UK. The proposed Australian plan was 12,000(AUD) per year, or about 22(USD) per day.

At $30/day that would be $10,950 per year /addict. A 9.9bil program if the government was to give it away for free.

As a comparison, the federal government spends about $20 billion per year now on the War on Drugs.

And the states ?

[TopQuark]

That's not the excuse they gave for ending alcohol prohibition.

That was not the point. Regardless of the virtues/benefits sought, it is unrealistic to outlaw something that has been used in this culture for millennia. The end of the prohibition return it to the previous stable state (using alcohol).

In contrast, the stable state for this culture in terms of drugs is non-use, amd return to it is realistic.

[TopQuark]

TQ: By contrast, widespread drug use is a recent phenomenon.

OD: So is drug prohibition.

Try to keep the argument straight here: drug use is a social phenomenon. Drug prohibition is legislation.

[dennisw]

Anyone who wants illegal drugs can get them anytime they want. And they do.

That is such a doped out lie. Let's say I want to buy some heroin to shoot up tonight. I don't have a clue where I could buy heroin and a hypodermic needle without any police hassles. In Florida they'll seize your car if you're found cruising for drugs.

If drugs were legalized I would know right where to go tonight. There would probably be 10 places in a 2 mile radius. Ergo you legalize drugs they will be cheaper and more available. Use will greatly increase since Americans lack discipline. But what to you care since you have the selfish, demented philosophy of libertarianism to justify stupid ideas such as open borders, gay marriage and drug legalization.

[dennisw]

Those who deal death should recieve death. Ideally drug pushers (of heroin, crack, meth, cocaine etc) would be tried and executed and the supply whould dry up. Druggies would have to find their own way out by detoxing hard and fast.

[Orangedog]

Try to keep the argument straight here: drug use is a social phenomenon. Drug prohibition is legislation.

I'd say that the widespread loss of privacy and growing police state to fight a drug war that has done nothing but create vast criminal empires transends both "social phenomenon" and "legislation." By the way, why did it require a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol but not other drugs?

[TopQuark]

Those who deal death should receive death.

And the war on drug would be one is a week (OK, make it a month). I completely agree: the war on drugs seems to be stalled because we are not fighting.

We conduct the war on drugs in the same way as that in Vietnam: we have the troops deployed but we are not fighting. And the same forces declare the war "lost" and "quagmire."

[Orangedog]

In Florida they'll seize your car if you're found cruising for drugs.

And you don't see any problem with the state seizing someone's car or house or anything else if they are thought to be "cruising" for drugs? This is what this damned drug war has gotten us.

If drugs were legalized I would know right where to go tonight. There would probably be 10 places in a 2 mile radius. Ergo you legalize drugs they will be cheaper and more available. Use will greatly increase since Americans lack discipline.

Really? Would you actually go and use drugs if they were legal? What about your parents, your friends, everyone else you know? Probably not. Believe it or not, there was actually a time when one could go to the local drug store and walk out with all the cheap cocaine and morphine you could carry and somehow the republic survived and thrived. IMO, it will do just fine without the drug war.

[gd124]

>>Provide evidence for your "1920's" claim that legalizing alcohol will not increase the number of users, will not increase the number of innocent victims killed by drunk freaks and will not increase crime.

You might be interested in this thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/446159/posts