Drugs: The Legalization Debate

[carl]

The Nov 13 2008 issue of Rolling Stone magazine has an interesting article (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/24012731/the_war_next_door) about this subject by a reporter who tried to interview one of the major narcos and didn't get killed for the attempt.

The author points out that our drug policy can be described as asking other countries not to sell us something we very much want; which results in a lot of Mexicans getting killed.

He further states that the we should be talking about the one thing that can really put a stop to all this: legalization. I agree with him.

[reed11b]

Most correctional officers would agree with that as well.
Reed

[selil]

Prohibition has rarely worked unless the item could be tied to imminent danger and even then excused. Blowfish anybody? There is a huge body of literature that looks at the use of behavior/puritan law systems as a means of controlling subject populations. The fact that prohibition is enacted is more important than the items that are prohibited. (e.g) highly punitive drunk driving laws, restricting the driving age, creating a population of convicts has done nothing to stop drunk driving deaths in America. The numbers fluctuate more based on the economy than enactment of punitive laws.

[carl]

Since mere possession and use is such a minor offense, in most places, as to be no offense at all; we have in effect legitimatized the market for drugs. So our drug policy states the market is legitimate but serving that market is not. Which is a little screwy. It can't work. And that leads to foreign cops and soldiers dying in large numbers trying to stop their countrymen from selling us something we really really want. Which is not only screwy but dishonorable.

A small point but one of the reasons for drug prohibition is to make sure the potential economic contribution of users isn't lost. From observation I believe most of those people will never contribute in any event so we are trying to preserve something that isn't there in the first place.

[reed11b]

Since mere possession and use is such a minor offense, in most places, as to be no offense at all; we have in effect legitimatized the market for drugs. So our drug policy states the market is legitimate but serving that market is not. Which is a little screwy. It can't work. And that leads to foreign cops and soldiers dying in large numbers trying to stop their countrymen from selling us something we really really want. Which is not only screwy but dishonorable.

A small point but one of the reasons for drug prohibition is to make sure the potential economic contribution of users isn't lost. From observation I believe most of those people will never contribute in any event so we are trying to preserve something that isn't there in the first place.
Unfortunately, that simply is not true. Prisons are filled with individuals who’s crime is “simple possession”. In fact, due to the mandatory sentencing laws for drug offenses, when overcrowding occurs, it is thieves, burglars, and assault convicted criminals that will be released first. Simply being associated with a dealer or even a user is now a felony in most states. The point about the contribution of the individuals is erroneous as well and plays on the stereotype of the typical drug user being nearly homeless and stealing car stereos to feed there addiction. The actual majority of drug abusers maintain fairly steady work and manage to meet there basic needs. Many of the individuals that fall into the stereotype were already at an economic disadvantage or have MH issues. Remember super addictive crack? It wasn’t, not any more then cocaine. Crack was cheaper and more available in area’s were people were already socially on the edge. Most “common sense” knowledge about drugs is simply not true.
Reed

[Bill Moore]

There is a huge body of literature that looks at the use of behavior/puritan law systems as a means of controlling subject populations. selil

The War on Drugs is a war of our making that has caused great harm to our country and others. The saddest part is that it has only made the problem worse in many respects. Unfortunately, the war supports a number of government cottage industries now, and as Selil implied it still has strong support from the influencial Christian Right, so it will be interesting to see if a politician can develop enough political support to end it. Perhaps when the new administration swears in, they can take it upon themselves to make this part of their change agenda, they might have enough political strength to weather the propaganda storm that will attack them.

Failures:

1. Like the war on terror (a tactic) we have no strategy for the war on drugs. You can't wage a war on a commodity, so instead we are waging war on an economic system that results in undesired effects on social and political systems.

2. Targeting the leadership of drug organizations only assists their competitors, it does little to decrease the flow of illegal drugs, it only changes the names of the players involved.

3. As stated in numerous posts, we are not impacting the demand for this commodity, so by enactng tough laws we not only destroy the potential for an incredible tax base (assuming we legalize marijuana), we also created a huge and powerful underground economy that undermines the legitimate economy and government. During prohibition Capone made millions of dollars providing a commodity that the above ground economy couldn't. This gave Capone the power to buy cops, lawyers, judges, and if they couldn't be bought, hit men could. Prohibition gave guys and organizations like Capone's the power to subvert the government. This is exactly what we're seeing in Latin America (the corruption is spreading), especially Mexico, Central Asia, and increasingly in parts of Africa. They are not only narcoterrorists, but they are a narcostate (like a parallel universe).

4. Trillions of dollars generated from this trade has resulted in severe corruption, the raise of paramilitaries that can challenge the State, State protection for criiminals in some cases, etc. Mexico is only one case, and the results of this failed strategy are now seriously effecting our national security.

5. If we effectively marginalize one drug, another one takes it place (meth for example), so again the real issue is the demand side, the market always wins. We can either exploit it by regulating and taxing it, thus shifting the profits from the narcoterrorists to legitimate business men and the State. Before you jump on your high horse, we have legal tobacco and alcohol industries, or continue to make the situation worse. How many more prisons do we need to build?

I think we're past the myth that marijuana is a gateway drug, and I wonder what would happen if Marijuana was legalized, regulated and taxed? Would it undermine the demand for other drugs? We could make the penalties tougher for the other drugs if the market provided an alternative. Would it dry up the bank accounts of the narcoterrorists? Without their money, how much power would they be able to generate? You could call this leg of the strategy shifting the wealth.

I'm a realist, the narcoterrorist organizations must be destroyed, but until we destroy the lucrative market for illegal drugs (unforunately that probably means we'll have to provide legal ones), our current tactical efforts will have only result in a temporary impact at most. Once we have a strategy for undermining market demand, we can aggressively pursue destroying the narcoterrorist organizations with strict population and resource control measures.

[Uboat509]

Would it undermine the demand for other drugs? We could make the penalties tougher for the other drugs if the market provided an alternative. Would it dry up the bank accounts of the narcoterrorists? Without their money, how much power would they be able to generate? You could call this leg of the strategy shifting the wealth.

This argument is predicated on the idea that all illegal drugs are equal. They are not. You are going to have a hard time selling anyone on the idea of marijuana as an "alternative" for crack cocaine or methamphetamines, least of all to the addicts. I doubt very much that the difficulty in procuring pot was a factor in getting people addicted to crack cocaine or methamphetamines. Conversely, I doubt that an abundance of legally available marijuana is going to make much difference in dealing with harder drugs and unless I have been misinformed, hard drugs are where the narco-terrorists make their money. Unless you are prepared to legalize those then you aren't going to really have that much effect on their bottom line.

SFC W

[Bill Moore]

My argument isn't based on the assumption that all illegal drugs are equal, but that rather it based on the fact that we have a failed strategy that is not only is failing to stop drug abuse, but it is also undermining numerous nations creating narco-states within those states.

The State can't stop John and Sue from abusing drugs by declaring draconian laws, regardless of what color the drug may be. The State can and should encourage people not to do so, but the ill effects of over crowded prisons (real criminals that intend to harm your family competing for space for some kid caught abusing drugs), undermining friendly governments, etc. just isn't worth it. I realize it would appear to be morally reprehensible to suddenly say anything goes, but it equally reprehensible to continue along the same track we're on now.

The drug market (the demand side) can be best be undermined through an intelligent education program (it will take time), private and government business testing for abuse (yea it may be legal, but if you're going to use it, you can't work here), and even getting the insurance companies involved (if you're going to engage in risky behavior you have to pay more for it).

The benefits of legalizing it appear to be greater than the risks, especially if we in fact shift the wealth from narco-terrorist organizations back to the State, take a burden off our police and prison system so they focus on real criminals, and shift the money we currently use now to entrap kids from buyng small amounts of drugs to education and deterrance programs.

Some people are going to abuse drugs regardless of what we do. If they have to, they'll stiff glue or paint thinner. Some folks are going to commit suicide regardless of what we do. We'll try and continue to try to help all, but the war on drugs isn't working and it is making other problems worse.

[reed11b]

This argument is predicated on the idea that all illegal drugs are equal. They are not. You are going to have a hard time selling anyone on the idea of marijuana as an "alternative" for crack cocaine or methamphetamines, least of all to the addicts. I doubt that an abundance of legally available marijuana is going to make much difference in dealing with harder drugs and unless I have been misinformed, hard drugs are where the narco-terrorists make their money.
SFC W
Then why do we spend so much money hunting down marijuana producers, traffickers and users?
Reed

[Uboat509]

The drug market (the demand side) can be best be undermined through an intelligent education program (it will take time), private and government business testing for abuse (yea it may be legal, but if you're going to use it, you can't work here), and even getting the insurance companies involved (if you're going to engage in risky behavior you have to pay more for it).

All of these things are in place now. Why would they work better if these drugs were legal?


The benefits of legalizing it appear to be greater than the risks, especially if we in fact shift the wealth from narco-terrorist organizations back to the State, take a burden off our police and prison system so they focus on real criminals, and shift the money we currently use now to entrap kids from buyng small amounts of drugs to education and deterrance programs.

The only way to shift the wealth from the narco-terrorist organizations would be to legalize the hard drugs. That is a guaranteed loser. This is not like alcohol. Alcohol certainly has the potential for abuse but no where near the abuse potential of drugs like crack or meth. You can have a drink now and again without becoming addicted, you can even have a drink or two every day with out becoming addicted. It's not like that with the hard drugs. Some drugs begin forming physical addictions with the first dose. If you make these drugs legal then you simply make it more available to people who were unable or unwilling to try them before.

SFC W

[Uboat509]

Then why do we spend so much money hunting down marijuana producers, traffickers and users?
Reed

I don't know. How much money do we spend on that as compared to hunting down those who traffic harder drugs?

SFC W

[reed11b]

I don't know. How much money do we spend on that as compared to hunting down those who traffic harder drugs?

SFC W

One way of factoring the cost would be to look at the cost of keep an individual incarcerated for a year, and then count the number of convicts incarcerated on mandatory drug laws for marijuana. According to most sites, like this one, (http://www.fedcure.org/documents/07032005-FedCURE-TalkingPoints-ReviveSystemOfParoleForFederalPrisoners-FINAL-30-FC-sig.pdf) the cost is between $20,000 to $40,000 a year. The estimation of # of marijuana users confined primarly for marijuana offenses is 1 in 7 or 1 in 8 of all prisoners or 40,000 individuals. This equals approx $800,000,000 to 1.6B.
Saying that we are spending a Billion dollars a year on marijuana enforcement is probably being very conservative.
Reed
P.S. That 40,000 is State and Federal prisoners only. There are no compiled records on how many of the 600,000 local prisoners are there for marijuana offenses.

[reed11b]

Alcohol certainly has the potential for abuse but no where near the abuse potential of drugs like crack or meth. You can have a drink now and again without becoming addicted, you can even have a drink or two every day with out becoming addicted. It's not like that with the hard drugs. Some drugs begin forming physical addictions with the first dose. If you make these drugs legal then you simply make it more available to people who were unable or unwilling to try them before.

SFC W
Wrong. By clinical definition, if you are having a drink or two every day, you are an alcohol abuser, period. alcohol and nicotine have greater addictive qualities then most "hard" drugs. It is the effect of the drug on the body after long-term use that determines wether a drug is "soft" or "hard", not it's addictive quality. Of course by that standard, Alcohol is a "hard" drug.
Reed

[Bill Moore]

First, the argument isn't over the merit of drug abuse, the argument is over the so the war on drugs strategy. Uboat, you keep taking the argument back to the Puritian argument that drugs are bad. Most of us would agree with you, but I also agree with Reed, that a lot of information out there is simply propaganda to justify the war, because those fighting the war have established their own industry/economic system, and they need to keep it going.

The education against drugs is grossly underfunded, so assuming you can shift some of the wasted millions from the front line effort to the demand side, it may have more effect. The key is make it culturally unacceptable, and that means recruiting some shallow pop stars to help sell that message.

Alcohol is still legal in the military, but is is much less culturally acceptable than when I first joined a few years ago. It takes time, but it can be done. Admittedly my argument for legalizing drugs shouldn't include all drugs, but you have to yet to challenge any of my points regarding strategy. That is the normal response, and that is why we continue to go down the same old road.

[Uboat509]

Wrong. By clinical definition, if you are having a drink or two every day, you are an alcohol abuser, period.

That's interesting because most of the literature that I have read states that one drink a day is beneficial and is, in fact, suggested. I'm having trouble making the jump from one drink a day is beneficial to two is abuse. Both of my parents were alcoholics. I would have loved for them to only have had one or two drinks a day. I'm not sure that just having x number of drinks per day is as useful a definition of abuse as a need to have those drinks.



alcohol and nicotine have greater addictive qualities then most "hard" drugs. It is the effect of the drug on the body after long-term use that determines wether a drug is "soft" or "hard", not it's addictive quality. Of course by that standard, Alcohol is a "hard" drug.
Reed

I did not say that addictive quality was what determines whether a drug is hard or soft. I was only stating that many hard drugs, cocaine and its derivatives, meth and opiates in particular, are highly addictive. And yes they are highly damaging to the body, even over the short term.

Nicotine is not really relevant to this discussion. While it is addictive it doesn't really have any mind altering properties.

SFC W

[reed11b]

That's interesting because most of the literature that I have read states that one drink a day is beneficial and is, in fact, suggested. I'm having trouble making the jump from one drink a day is beneficial to two is abuse. Both of my parents were alcoholics. I would have loved for them to only have had one or two drinks a day. I'm not sure that just having x number of drinks per day is as useful a definition of abuse as a need to have those drinks.
SFC W
First off, let me apologize for my tone. On reading what I typed, I can see where I could be interpreted as being rude. My point on the "clinical" definition of abuse has little to do with my personal feelings on what is healthy or unhealthy, but an example to caution you on buying to much into the current definitions of drug abuse. Can a person drink 1 or 2 drinks a day and be OK? Yep. They could probably to a "hit" or two of hard drugs a day and still function too. Drugs ARE bad for people, no doubt, but the language of some of these posts seem to be based on assumptions and misinformation. Drugs have been demonized beyond recognition to justify the on-going "war on drugs" despite the cost to society as mentioned above. Over a Billion a year to incarcerate marijuana users? There are greater needs for that money. Crime for drugs is based on cost of drugs. Cost of drugs is based on supply and demand (and risk). De-criminalizing drugs (different then legalizing) has a potential to pay big dividends. But don't just take my word for it, talk to police officers and correctional officers. Most of Ken's kids seem to have gravitated LE or correctional work, perhaps he will weigh in on this.
Reed

[Uboat509]

First, the argument isn't over the merit of drug abuse, the argument is over the so the war on drugs strategy. Uboat, you keep taking the argument back to the Puritian argument that drugs are bad.


That's because the center of your argument is that benefits of legalizing drugs is greater risks associated with that course of action. I am disagreeing with that point. I have no doubts that if many of these drugs were legalized that it would drive most of the narco-terrorists out of business. My disagreement is with the idea that once drugs became cheaper and easier to obtain legally that the demand would go down.


Most of us would agree with you, but I also agree with Reed, that a lot of information out there is simply propaganda to justify the war, because those fighting the war have established their own industry/economic system, and they need to keep it going.

The education against drugs is grossly underfunded, so assuming you can shift some of the wasted millions from the front line effort to the demand side, it may have more effect. The key is make it culturally unacceptable, and that means recruiting some shallow pop stars to help sell that message.

Certainly there is a lot of propaganda on both sides of the marijuana issue but I don't think that there is a whole lot of that with most of the harder drugs. Now I would wholeheartedly agree that it is a cultural problem as much as anything else but I don't think that pouring more money into education at the cost of enforcement is going to make a huge difference.


Alcohol is still legal in the military, but is is much less culturally acceptable than when I first joined a few years ago. It takes time, but it can be done. Admittedly my argument for legalizing drugs shouldn't include all drugs, but you have to yet to challenge any of my points regarding strategy. That is the normal response, and that is why we continue to go down the same old road.

Honestly that has not been my experience since I have been in. I have seen a lot less tolerance for DUIs and other alcohol related incidences but I haven't really noticed any change in the tolerance for drinking, just so long as you stay off the blotter.

SFC W

[Uboat509]

One way of factoring the cost would be to look at the cost of keep an individual incarcerated for a year, and then count the number of convicts incarcerated on mandatory drug laws for marijuana. According to most sites, like this one, (http://www.fedcure.org/documents/07032005-FedCURE-TalkingPoints-ReviveSystemOfParoleForFederalPrisoners-FINAL-30-FC-sig.pdf) the cost is between $20,000 to $40,000 a year. The estimation of # of marijuana users confined primarly for marijuana offenses is 1 in 7 or 1 in 8 of all prisoners or 40,000 individuals. This equals approx $800,000,000 to 1.6B.
Saying that we are spending a Billion dollars a year on marijuana enforcement is probably being very conservative.
Reed
P.S. That 40,000 is State and Federal prisoners only. There are no compiled records on how many of the 600,000 local prisoners are there for marijuana offenses.

I did find this document. (http://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/publications/pdf/whos_in_prison_for_marij.pdf)


In 1997, the year for which the most recent data are available, just 1.6 percent of the state inmate population were held for offenses involving only marijuana, and less than one percent of all state prisoners (0.7 percent) were incarcerated with marijuana possession as the only charge, according to the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). An even smaller fraction of state prisoners in 1997 who were convicted just for marijuana possession were firsttime offenders (0.3 percent).
The numbers on the federal level tell a similar story. Out of all drug defendants sentenced in federal court for marijuana crimes in 2001, the overwhelming majority were convicted for trafficking, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Only 2.3 percent—186 people—received sentences for simple possession, and of the 174 for whom sentencing information is known, just 63 actually served time behind bars.

More at the link.

SFC W

[Uboat509]

First off, let me apologize for my tone. On reading what I typed, I can see where I could be interpreted as being rude.

No Problem.


Can a person drink 1 or 2 drinks a day and be OK? Yep. They could probably to a "hit" or two of hard drugs a day and still function too.

This is the crux of my issue with all this right here. I'm not sure that that statement is true. Perhaps the problem is that when I think of hard drugs I automatically think of Crack, Meth and Heroin. With those drugs there is no safe dose. They are incredibly addictive and incredibly destructive, whereas other drugs that are considered hard drugs such as X are less so.

SFC W

[carl]

Unfortunately, that simply is not true. Prisons are filled with individuals who’s crime is “simple possession”. In fact, due to the mandatory sentencing laws for drug offenses, when overcrowding occurs, it is thieves, burglars, and assault convicted criminals that will be released first. Simply being associated with a dealer or even a user is now a felony in most states. The point about the contribution of the individuals is erroneous as well and plays on the stereotype of the typical drug user being nearly homeless and stealing car stereos to feed there addiction. The actual majority of drug abusers maintain fairly steady work and manage to meet there basic needs. Many of the individuals that fall into the stereotype were already at an economic disadvantage or have MH issues. Remember super addictive crack? It wasn’t, not any more then cocaine. Crack was cheaper and more available in area’s were people were already socially on the edge. Most “common sense” knowledge about drugs is simply not true.
Reed

In the state in which I worked, possession of very small amounts of marijuana resulted in a simple ticket, if the officer even bothered. If I remember correctly, possession of any amount of cocaine or heroin was charged as a felony, but whether if was vigorously prosecuted as such was another matter. For a first offender or a rich guy, good luck. So I would continue to argue that simple possession and use aren't really penalized. (One thing to consider also is if you can't get a guy for what you really want him for, and he happened to have some drugs on him, you get him for that and that is what the stat will be.)

The users and addicts I saw didn't make any economic contribution to society and in my view never will no matter what. I only rarely saw the ones who were able to function more or less normally. That they were able to carry on without a fuss meant they would never come to our attention. I agree with you about these people being the majority of drug users. What that means is use of prohibited drugs really doesn't have anything to do with whether you are going to be a productive member of society. You are or you're not.

Also agree with you completely about "common sense" knowledge about drugs.

As noted already, the "drug war" takes away from other police work, the kind with victims who complain. Money always seemed to be available for drug stuff but was not so much for burglars.

[Bill Moore]

Since we digressed from the drug war strategy, I'll continue to pile on because I'm deeply interested in this topic.

In short the Broken Glass Theory (discussed elsewhere in the Council) states any form of lawlessness (jaywalking, vandalism, graffiti, etc.) tends to create an environment where law breaking is more acceptable. This implies all laws must be strictly enforced, which in turn creates an environment where crime of any sort is not tolerated. Theory mind you, but......

Assuming there is any merit to that theory, do we then create an environment where we encourage kids/young adults to break the law by making drugs illegal? Assuming that some are such losers they're going to pursue drugs regardless, but perhaps they wouldn't be law breakers if they had a legal venue to buy them (and pay their taxes). Once they break one law, they extended their tolerance for breaking other laws, and the law has less effect as a moderating factor on their behavior. Breaking the law becomes the norm, and no one really cares (note Carl's latest post above mine). The law should have teeth, or it should be taken off the books, because it isn't required.

Uboat I know you're going to have kneejerk reaction to this one, but think about it first.

[slapout9]

No broken windows Bill, we passed a law. Like the military doesn't get to choose wars, I never got to choose the laws, I just had to enforce them.
Take a look at the link and find out how much Mexico(immigration) really had to do with it


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QgoLqvj180

[Bill Moore]

Slapout I was hoping you would join this discussion. I'm amazed at how often an old guy like you posts uTube videos, and they're always relevant. You're still on the cutting edge.

I understood broken glass to also include the enforcement of all minor laws such as jay walking, to demonstrate a zero tolerance for crime. Assuming that is the case, and the following assumptions are true:

- Some folks are going to buy drugs no matter what
- If drugs are illegal, then we're setting the conditions where more and more folks are getting desensitized about breaking the law.

That was my point.

I was hoping some current and former law enforcement officers would have surfaced some other issues, such as crimes related to drug habits (gotta have it, gotta pay for it, so I need to rob a 7-11, etc.).

The debate on whether to legalize drugs is complex, but my argument still stands that our methodology of prosecuting the drug war is undermining friendly nations and having little impact on the supply side. I proposed one socialably unacceptable proposal to think about. What are your thoughts? Continue to the same? A course change? What is it?

[reed11b]

Bill, there is a level prior to legalization by the way. It is called de-criminalization. Narcotics in general have been proven to be destructive to the human body and mind, and taxing them is probably not a very "moral" or wise choice. Realizing that individuals that use these things to fill social and emotional needs probably need help, i.e treatment, instead of viewing them as hideous criminals and spending billions to keep them locked away would be the goal of de-criminalization
Reed

[SethB]

Treatment is an incredible thing. It doesn't work for everyone, but it works for some. And for the cost of a years incarceration the government could buy six months of treatment in an inpatient setting. And the recidivism rate would be lower.

You have to treat the demand side, because the supply side will always be there.

[carl]

De-criminalization would still result in the market being legitimate but serving the market not being legitimate. I think this is not logical and is untenable.

[slapout9]

The debate on whether to legalize drugs is complex, but my argument still stands that our methodology of prosecuting the drug war is undermining friendly nations and having little impact on the supply side. I proposed one socialably unacceptable proposal to think about. What are your thoughts? Continue to the same? A course change? What is it?

Hi Bill look at this about how the drug war undermines our foriegn policy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdYwAXZh0ME&feature=related

[Sergeant T]

This is a thread that deserves a wider audience and a lot more discussion. Wish I'd come across it sooner. I'm by no means an expert, but have a few tiny observations from the driver's seat of a Crown Vic:

1: The drug war is twisting the Constitution. I get monthly updates on new appellate and (state) supreme court rulings. The vast majority are search and seizure related, originating from drug arrests. Thirty years ago search and seizure was relatively straighforward. Now it's a complex, nuanced maze that changes on an almost daily basis. This will become painfully apparent if terrorism ever makes it to the next level in this country. I'd hate to be the one that has to explain to the public that yes, we had an anonymous tip about the suicide bomber before he acted, but because of Florida v JL (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=98-1993) we couldn't do anything.

2. Treatment is an overrated option. As anyone who's been through AA will tell you, a person has to want to get better. Most abusers don't want to get better, they want to get out of their current trouble/discomfort. While there aren't nealy enough treatment options currently available for those that do want out, we as a society could spend enourmous amounts of money for a minimal return on investment. The county I work in has over 3000 inmates in the county jail. Fewer than 2 dozen are in the jail's drug treatment program.

3. Broken Glass Theory is nice if you have a community that will let you police it to that level. Ask LAPD how their community relations have been for the past 20 years. If the community thinks it is being occupied instead of policed they will push back (lawsuits, citizen complaints, jury nullification) to the point where you will be completely ineffective. (There's a corollary COIN concept that ties in with that, I'm not awake enough yet to pull it out.) Again, ask Atlanta PD how much fun they're having as a result of the Kathryn Johnston shooting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Johnston). Worst-case outcomes by government can confer victim status on people that are the problem. (Read Rampart Scandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rampart_Scandal).)

4. Legalization/decriminalization tends to run aground on states vs. federal rights. California moved to partially legalize marijuana and the feds promptly sicced the DEA on users that were dying of cancer. (Can't find the cite.) We've got 51 dogs in this fight, each on a different leash.

5. There is no plan. As I said elsewhere on this board, no one's written a modern, comprehensive outline of what legalization would look like. I'd happily sign off on anything that was halfway reasonable. It can't be a magic wand, "Now everything is permitted" decree. The plan will have to cover production, distribution, sales and permits, retail vending, and penalties for violation. Unless the plan covers the first three on that list it simply legitimizes the cartels and drug organizations and won't change an effing thing. They'll still kill over profit. The plan doesn't have to be fullproof, just articulate and comprehensive.

I've had a hypothetical working around in my head for a few weeks. What would be the downside to the US Government announcing it would engage in the production and distribution of heroin and cocaine for domestic consumption? The heroin would be purchased directly from farmers in Afghanistan, cutting out layers of intermediaries that use the money for nefarious purposes. We could buy cocaine directly from Bolivia, a country that's been by and large a victim of the drug war. (Fair Trade Crack anyone?) It would render moot the cocaine cartels in Mexico and end street-level dealing in the U.S., which is a big driver on the violence rate.

Surely this has stirred the pot. Anyone?

[slapout9]

The Iron Bowl(Alabama vs. Auburn) is fixin to kick off so this will have to wait till later.

[Surferbeetle]

From today's BBC webpage (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7755664.stm)


Voters in Switzerland go to the polls on Sunday to decide whether to make a controversial heroin prescription programme a permanent, nationwide health policy.

[Bob's World]

I spent a year prosecuting Felony drug crimes in Portland, Oregon (a great, but insanely liberal city). In addtion to dealing with the daily run of users and dealers, we also had year-long program of rehab for those facing a felony possession charge; make it through a year of treatment, piss tests, and court visits every 6 weeks, and get the charge dropped. So my comments are shaped by this experience. Sitting in a courtroom two afternoons a week representing the state while 150 drug addicts get up one by one to lie to the Judge gives one a unique insight to the mentality of those who get sucked into this mess.

By law and policy we would hammer dealers, and coddle users. Most judges would refuse to even hear a marijuana case. As many of you have stated, this is complicated, but I think we would be hard pressed to adopt a new system as horribly flawed, with such devastating 2nd and 3rd order effects as the current one.

Some form of legalization makes sense. To target supply only affects price. What we need is a way to legally buy the stuff so that it can be regulated and taxed, and to disempower the tremendous criminal and terrorist networks funded by the current system. We then need a strong family of laws as to who can use what, when and where. Let people make choices. If your choice is to use drugs, you opt out of most responsible positions in society. Finally you'd need common-sense, relatively low cost ways to enforce. Easy testing, and ways to punish those who violate the system that does not ruin them for life or punish the taxpayers in the process.

We'd need to let go of some of our Puritanical impulses to adopt such a system, but I believe we really need to.

Frankly our current policy, like so much foreign policy, is racist. Put the onus on brown people, but hold white people harmless. It's not my kids using that are the problem, it is some Columbian's kids growing or manufacturing a product that pays enough to put food on the table that is the problem. We need to evolve. We need to take responsibility at a personal and national level. I don't see many politicians prioritizing this issue beyond the status quo though.

[Schmedlap]

FYI - The broken glass article by James Q. Wilson is available here: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/198203/broken-windows

Odd coincidence that I downloaded it two days ago after reading a short article in last week's Science. That one-pager basically said that when people see some petty crimes (littering, speeding, etc), they are more likely to engage in those crimes and to go one step further (stealing, vandalism, criminal speeding, wreckless driving). The article referenced the Wilson article from 1982.

I always thought that the view expressed in that one-pager was common sense. Apparently, it is the cutting edge of criminology. As someone who has apparently been on the cutting edge for years, I think a large part of the drug problem is simply what we have allowed to become societal norms. Personal responsibility died many years ago in this country. We really should give it a proper burial.

The root of the problem is not demand. It's deeper than that. The root of the problem is the catalyst for the demand. Drug use is acceptable and glorified. You can turn on the television during prime time network broadcasts and see individuals joke about marijuana use and discuss it as if it is normal. This is even more so in the movies (Friday, Cheech and Chong, White Castle - about 100 others, at least). Stoners are common main characters in movies that appeal to teens and post-teens (those in their 20s still living off mom and dad). Combine that acceptability and glamorization with the complete lack of self-control that most teens and post-teens have and neither laws nor enforcement are going to do anything to stem demand. Laws are useless if the society does not accept them. Drive down any road in this country to see that proven - how many people actually abide by traffic laws? Most are in such a habit of breaking laws that they probably couldn't drive 5 miles without breaking several even if they put their minds to it.

As per the Science article, when you see others doing "soft" drugs like marijuana and shrooms, they are more likely to go ahead and try "harder" drugs like cocaine and LSD. I saw it on a wide scale at colleges in Washington DC and Boston. Clean cut kids from middle class and upper-middle class families think being pot heads is a fun way of life. Eventually it gets old. Progressing from cigarettes to coke would be a pretty dramatic step. One is legal, but merely unhealthy, whereas the other is illegal, mind-altering, and flat out dangerous. But progressing from pot to coke is more of a baby step. Both are illegal, addictive, mild-altering substances. By their senior years, the kids are experimenting with coke and LSD (crack apparently has a ghetto image to it, but coke is fashionable and LSD is just curious). And most of them are pretty open about admitting to it, joking about it, and even bragging about it so long as you're not their job interviewer and you don't know their parents.

I don't see see demand slowing unless society changes in a way that makes drug use as unfashionable as having a large carbon footprint. And making "soft" drugs even more permissible is likely to detach much of the stigma from "harder" drugs. It seems that we can continue fighting a lost war on drugs or acquiesce and get used to even more drug use.

I'm one of the oldest people in my law school class and one of the youngest in my church - I can't help but think that there is some significance to that.

[Uboat509]

I think that it is important to separate the discussion between the so-called soft drugs, which as far as I can tell is principally marijuana, and hard drugs like cocaine and its derivatives, methamphetamines and heroin. I'm not going to get into the health benefits of marijuana. There has been so much propaganda on both sides of the issue that it is impossible to asses whether or not there is any real benefit. I will say that in terms of danger to people other than the user, marijuana seems comparatively benign. Someone who is high on marijuana is generally not dangerous. They certainly don't tend toward violence, whereas reactions of people on harder drugs are more unpredictable, particularly with chronic users. You don't hear many stories about potheads committing violent crimes because they were high or because they were trying to get money for their next fix, petty crimes maybe but nothing extreme. Chronic users of the harder drugs will often do whatever they think they have to do to get their next fix. It's gotten to the point where the term "crack whore" has entered the common lexicon. Legalizing drugs like that will serve no good purpose. One of the common arguments for legalization is that by legalizing these drugs it will lower the price and allow users to afford their fix with out resorting to crime. The gaping hole in that argument is that many of these drugs aren't all that expensive in the first place and if the chronic users could hold any kind of meaningful employment they could afford their fix now, but they can't. Making these drugs cheaper isn't really going to change things. Without steady employment, which very few chronic users will have, they will still be forced to some sort of illegal activity to finance their habit. The only thing that will change is who profits, a drug cartel in Juarez or a pharmaceutical company in Connecticut. Furthermore, I suspect that legalization of these drugs would lead to more usage by people who formally had no access or simply were unwilling to break the law to do it. Marijuana is a totally different drug and the discussion about whether to legalize it or not needs to be framed separately from the discussions about harder drugs.

SFC W

[Uboat509]

This is a thread that deserves a wider audience and a lot more discussion. Wish I'd come across it sooner. I'm by no means an expert, but have a few tiny observations from the driver's seat of a Crown Vic:

1: The drug war is twisting the Constitution. I get monthly updates on new appellate and (state) supreme court rulings. The vast majority are search and seizure related, originating from drug arrests. Thirty years ago search and seizure was relatively straightforward. Now it's a complex, nuanced maze that changes on an almost daily basis. This will become painfully apparent if terrorism ever makes it to the next level in this country. I'd hate to be the one that has to explain to the public that yes, we had an anonymous tip about the suicide bomber before he acted, but because of Florida v JL (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=98-1993) we couldn't do anything.
I would say that this is more of a consequence of the combination of unscrupulous lawyers combined with judges who want to legislate from the bench with a helping of liberal white guilt thrown in. I suspect that the drug war more of an enabler than a cause of this problem.

2. Treatment is an overrated option. As anyone who's been through AA will tell you, a person has to want to get better. Most abusers don't want to get better, they want to get out of their current trouble/discomfort. While there aren't nearly enough treatment options currently available for those that do want out, we as a society could spend enormous amounts of money for a minimal return on investment. The county I work in has over 3000 inmates in the county jail. Fewer than 2 dozen are in the jail's drug treatment program.
I would be very surprised if many of those who do seek treatment do so to avoid jail. If you legalize these drugs and remove that motivator, how many fewer will seek help?

3. Broken Glass Theory is nice if you have a community that will let you police it to that level. Ask LAPD how their community relations have been for the past 20 years. If the community thinks it is being occupied instead of policed they will push back (lawsuits, citizen complaints, jury nullification) to the point where you will be completely ineffective. (There's a corollary COIN concept that ties in with that, I'm not awake enough yet to pull it out.) Again, ask Atlanta PD how much fun they're having as a result of the Kathryn Johnston shooting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Johnston). Worst-case outcomes by government can confer victim status on people that are the problem. (Read Rampart Scandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rampart_Scandal).)
I suspect that this is more of a cultural thing than anything else. People will often point to Europe as an example of how effective legalization of drugs or gun control can be. This ignores the gaping cultural differences. I have spent five years stationed in Germany. It is not uncommon to see Germans patiently waiting at a crosswalk for the Walk/Do Not Walk sign to change, with nary a car in sight. That, not stricter gun laws, is why they have lower incidents of gun violence. And I don’t think that that comes from stricter community policing. I think it is a cultural thing, that they are raised in.

4. Legalization/decriminalization tends to run aground on states vs. federal rights. California moved to partially legalize marijuana and the feds promptly sicced the DEA on users that were dying of cancer. (Can't find the cite.) We've got 51 dogs in this fight, each on a different leash.
Again, legalization of marijuana is one thing, legalization of other drugs is another thing altogether. I did post a link in an earlier post about marijuana users in federal prison and the total of marijuana users in prison for possession only as of, I believe 2005, was something like 63 individuals. The federal government doesn’t like marijuana use but I don’t think that they go after ordinary users all that much.

5. There is no plan. As I said elsewhere on this board, no one's written a modern, comprehensive outline of what legalization would look like. I'd happily sign off on anything that was halfway reasonable. It can't be a magic wand, "Now everything is permitted" decree. The plan will have to cover production, distribution, sales and permits, retail vending, and penalties for violation. Unless the plan covers the first three on that list it simply legitimizes the cartels and drug organizations and won't change an effing thing. They'll still kill over profit. The plan doesn't have to be fullproof, just articulate and comprehensive.
One of the biggest problems that I can see with this is that two of the biggest proponents of legalization tend to be the users, who often aren’t the best spokespeople for their cause and often don’t see past the fact that they want drugs to be legal, and the big L libertarians who believe that market pressures can fix pretty much any problem.

I've had a hypothetical working around in my head for a few weeks. What would be the downside to the US Government announcing it would engage in the production and distribution of heroin and cocaine for domestic consumption? The heroin would be purchased directly from farmers in Afghanistan, cutting out layers of intermediaries that use the money for nefarious purposes. We could buy cocaine directly from Bolivia, a country that's been by and large a victim of the drug war. (Fair Trade Crack anyone?) It would render moot the cocaine cartels in Mexico and end street-level dealing in the U.S., which is a big driver on the violence rate.
I kind of covered my feelings about this in my above post.

Surely this has stirred the pot. Anyone?
Is that a drug pun?

SFC W

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Bob's World,
Some form of legalization makes sense. To target supply only affects price. What we need is a way to legally buy the stuff so that it can be regulated and taxed, and to disempower the tremendous criminal and terrorist networks funded by the current system. We then need a strong family of laws as to who can use what, when and where. Let people make choices. If your choice is to use drugs, you opt out of most responsible positions in society. Finally you'd need common-sense, relatively low cost ways to enforce. Easy testing, and ways to punish those who violate the system that does not ruin them for life or punish the taxpayers in the process.

We'd need to let go of some of our Puritanical impulses to adopt such a system, but I believe we really need to.

Amen! I mean I agree.


The root of the problem is not demand. It's deeper than that. The root of the problem is the catalyst for the demand. Drug use is acceptable and glorified.

Strongly agree


I've had a hypothetical working around in my head for a few weeks. What would be the downside to the US Government announcing it would engage in the production and distribution of heroin and cocaine for domestic consumption? The heroin would be purchased directly from farmers in Afghanistan, cutting out layers of intermediaries that use the money for nefarious purposes. We could buy cocaine directly from Bolivia, a country that's been by and large a victim of the drug war. (Fair Trade Crack anyone?) It would render moot the cocaine cartels in Mexico and end street-level dealing in the U.S., which is a big driver on the violence rate.

Interesting hypothetical, but why would we purchase the drugs from the cartels? Does our government sell illegal DVDs from China? I don't think we're even considering legalizing heroin and cocaine, this is an outdated reactionary argument against legalizing marijuana.


As per the Science article, when you see others doing "soft" drugs like marijuana and shrooms, they are more likely to go ahead and try "harder" drugs like cocaine and LSD.

Complete conjecture, the real link is that they have to break the law to smoke marijuana, so now that the line has been crossed, it is easier to keep crossing it and experment with other drugs. Legalize it, and we may be able to keep a substantial portion of our population from crossing that line. It would be interesting to see if the great number of Americans who violated the law during prohibition by drinking acohol were more inclined to break other minor laws, since they crossed the line.

The war on drugs has perverted logic, and has become nothing but a political issue (one guy is tough and the other isn't allegedly). Either fight the war ruthlessly, or end the nonsense.

[jkm_101_fso]

A very good high school friend of mine has battled drug addiction for ten years. I talked to him on the phone recently and we discussed this topic. He told me that he thinks pot should be legalized because according to him "all pot smokers will find a way", and "it's relatively harmless". But he was AGAINST the legalization of hard drugs, claiming, "if meth was legal, I'd be dead".

This guy is a great person. He works, supports his family and is a good citizen, aside from the fact he smokes pot daily. I don't hold that against him. He has experimented with most "hard drugs". He claims that they are all highly addictive (more than booze) and they should NEVER be legalized. He told me that one reason he stays away from "hard drugs" is that they are illegal and he doesn't want to go to jail...again.

[Bob's World]

Meth is definitely poison. It kills. But illegal meth is made in all kinds of insane ways that makes it even more poison; and as the illegal meth trade expanded in Portland, there was a corresponding explosion of Identity Theft related crimes. Perhaps with legal meth and known buyers you gain some degree of control over these problems. Problem is that we associate legalizing a vice with sanctioning it. We need to get over that. Legalize it to control it.

The drug user with the discipline to not use because it is illegal is I suspect rare. I don't not use because it is illegal, I don't use because I understand the longterm consequences are far more devastating than any shortterm benefit. Those that do use will do anything to get their next hit, all sense of morality, let alone criminal deterence, is a distant thought with little deterence value.

[Uboat509]

Meth is definitely poison. It kills. But illegal meth is made in all kinds of insane ways that makes it even more poison; and as the illegal meth trade expanded in Portland, there was a corresponding explosion of Identity Theft related crimes. Perhaps with legal meth and known buyers you gain some degree of control over these problems. Problem is that we associate legalizing a vice with sanctioning it. We need to get over that. Legalize it to control it.

This doesn't address the fact that chronic meth users become unemployable and will still need to resort to crime to finance their habit.


The drug user with the discipline to not use because it is illegal is I suspect rare. I don't not use because it is illegal, I don't use because I understand the longterm consequences are far more devastating than any shortterm benefit. Those that do use will do anything to get their next hit, all sense of morality, let alone criminal deterence, is a distant thought with little deterence value.

I would suspect that it has kept more than a few from ever even trying it, or at least kept them to a small amount of "experimentation," but not enough to become hooked. I would also guess that more than a few of those who got clean did so at least partially because of an overwhelming desire not to go back to jail. If you make it cheaper and more readily available and with out legal consequences you open it up for a more people to get hooked on and become chronic users. Now as for those chronic users who have lost their sense of morality, I believe that anything, including drug laws, that keeps at least some of these people off the street is a good thing.

SFC W

[Schmedlap]

Complete conjecture, the real link is that they have to break the law to smoke marijuana, so now that the line has been crossed, it is easier to keep crossing it and experment with other drugs. Legalize it, and we may be able to keep a substantial portion of our population from crossing that line.

I don't think that what I typed is conjecture (for example, I think it agrees with the research mentioned above) and I don't even think that what you wrote is any different from what I went on to state in the same paragraph: "But progressing from pot to coke is more of a baby step. Both are illegal, addictive, mild-altering substances."

I think that you outlined "A" way to tackle this. Making pot legal would make the progression from pot to coke less of a baby step. This would probably have short term benefits. Laws against passing the bong and consuming the brownies are widely viewed as unnecessary by a large portion of the population. For many, there is no stigma attached to breaking the law in order to toke a "soft" drug, just as there is no stigma attached to violating the speed limit. Changing the law to conform with their deviant behavior will likely result in a short period of exuberance as they enjoy their newfound freedom to turn their brains to mush and it may distract their focus upon other drugs. In the long term, the novelty of such a freedom will wear off. Until then, would there be a window of opportunity to exploit the reduction in demand for harder drugs and destroy the production and distribution networks? Or would there just be a 5 year recession in Columbia? Or something else? I would hope that such a change in the law were only done with a significantly larger and more ambitious accompanying effort to crush remaining elements of the drug trade in order to exploit the short term benefit.

[slapout9]

5. There is no plan. As I said elsewhere on this board, no one's written a modern, comprehensive outline of what legalization would look like. I'd happily sign off on anything that was halfway reasonable. It can't be a magic wand, "Now everything is permitted" decree. The plan will have to cover production, distribution, sales and permits, retail vending, and penalties for violation. Unless the plan covers the first three on that list it simply legitimizes the cartels and drug organizations and won't change an effing thing. They'll still kill over profit. The plan doesn't have to be fullproof, just articulate and comprehensive.

2. Treatment is an overrated option. As anyone who's been through AA will tell you, a person has to want to get better. Most abusers don't want to get better, they want to get out of their current trouble/discomfort. While there aren't nealy enough treatment options currently available for those that do want out, we as a society could spend enourmous amounts of money for a minimal return on investment. The county I work in has over 3000 inmates in the county jail. Fewer than 2 dozen are in the jail's drug treatment program.




Surely this has stirred the pot. Anyone?


The two biggest and most important points IMHO.

[jmm99]

One brief set of comments and I'm gone. Re: the following comments:


Sergeant T
Thirty years ago search and seizure was relatively straightforward. Now it's a complex, nuanced maze that changes on an almost daily basis.

Uboat509
I would say that this is more of a consequence of the combination of unscrupulous lawyers combined with judges who want to legislate from the bench with a helping of liberal white guilt thrown in.

Unless Sergeant T speaks from a personal experience of 30 years past different from mine, the search & seizure situation in the period (say) 1968-1978 was far from "straightforward".

Nor, was it any more "straightforward" during Prohibition when S&S cases also multiplied. That era was prior to my life experience (snide comments are OK :)); but, I studied those cases to handle S&S cases in the 70's and 80's - hat tip to the old judge who suggested I would find gold in those old cases of the 20's.

Uboat509's comment is worthy of BillO on Fox and goes as far to solve the real problem - which is nowhere. Since I am not burdened with a "helping of liberal white guilt", I will continue.

S&S law, in the vast majority of cases, is made by prosecutors and public defenders, who are not "unscrupulous". Some of them (metrics not anecdotes here would be helpful, Uboat509, if you wish to prove your case) may be "unscrupulous".

Those who are that, primarily are that by forgetting their primary duty is to support the Constitution; and the next, which is to preserve the integrity of the judicial system (the oath we all take as officers of the courts). Those who do that become mercenaries - whether they do that for love of money or love of cause.

So, my experience (albeit a limited sampling) has been that prosecutors and public defenders are not "unscrupulous"; nor are most privately-retained defense counsel (some are, within my definition).

As to "judicial legislation", get real. Both liberal and conservative jurists legislate - both with abandon - and have done so since the founding of our Republic. After 40 years in this "racket" (as some would call it), my conclusion is that judges should be screaming moderates. Not that I belong to that part of the political spectrum, but because screaming moderates will do less harm in the long run.

So, what is the real problem in S&S ? The elephant in the room is the simple fact that the product of the S&S - the real evidence - is generally credible and trustworthy (plants we can handle and are a separate issue). A .38 in a jacket pocket speaks for itself.

So, what justifications are presented for the exclusion of credible real evidence where the constable has blundered. Two are primary:


1. Exclusion serves as a general deterrent to future unconstitutional conduct by other constables in the future. That argument has never impressed me; but experienced cops would be in a better position than I to say how court decisions have changed them into more "constitutional citizens".

2. Integrity of the judicial system. The constables are a very essential part of that system. So, when the constable's blunder goes beyond a mere blunder, something has to be done. Obviously, that involves balancing - one of my reasons for preferring screaming moderates as judges.

What has happened in S&S cases from roughly 1960 is a concentration on Constitutional capillaries. Once a "constiutional violation" is found, the automatic remedy is exclusion of the evidence - no balancing of interests occur. The SCOTUS Florida case, IMO, is a good example where no damage to judicial integrity was involved.

I could ramble on (my "senior thesis" at Mich Law ended up several hundred pages long, calling for abolition of the exclusionary rule, except in limited special circumstances - fat chance that was going to be published by Mich Law Review :().

Bob's World - wearing your other hat as a DA, am I somewhat on target - or full of crap.

PS: Uboat509 - hat tip on including the swim test flap in another thread.

[Uboat509]

Those who are that, primarily are that by forgetting their primary duty is to support the Constitution; and the next, which is to preserve the integrity of the judicial system (the oath we all take as officers of the courts). Those who do that become mercenaries - whether they do that for love of money or love of cause.

These are the ones to whom I was referring. I did not intend suggest that all lawyers are unscrupulous, just just the really good criminal attorneys. :D Seriously though, it seems like it only takes a few of them to dig and find all the loopholes to twist the law back on itself and confuse the system, never mind the jury.


As to "judicial legislation", get real. Both liberal and conservative jurists legislate - both with abandon - and have done so since the founding of our Republic. After 40 years in this "racket" (as some would call it), my conclusion is that judges should be screaming moderates. Not that I belong to that part of the political spectrum, but because screaming moderates will do less harm in the long run.

Just because it has been going on for a long time doesn't make it not a bad thing. Ideally judges shouldn't even be moderates, they should be apolitical but of course that runs more or less counter to human nature so moderates are fine as far as that goes. Now as far as conservatives legislating from the bench, I'll have to defer to your many decades of experience on that. I haven't really seen it but I am no more in favor of that than liberals doing the same. I dislike the concept of legislation from the bench no matter what the political stripe.

SFC W

[AmericanPride]

I think part of the difficulty in this question is first answering: in regards to legalization, how do we measure the "national interest"? What is in the "national interest" as far as this subject is concerned? Who measures the "national interest" and legalization/prohibition affects it?

[Bob's World]

80 percent of felony drug cases that I had scheduled for trial were what us prosecutors called "a long plea." We would begin by responding to a motion to suppress the evidence, and if we won the motion, the defendant would plea. If we lost, well, we'd have to drop the case.

I talked to a lot of frustrated cops, and we put tremendous pressure on these guys to not only be in harms way, often alone, in a bad neighborhood late at night; but to also understand and employ a sophisticated understanding of how to make a proper stop, search, siezure, and arrest. My hat's off to every one of them.

Most cases that did not survive the motion were not based on officer error, or attorney error, but by how the judge chose to interpret the large grey area. Getting the right judge was key, and defense attorney's have much greater flexibility in getting set overs if they draw the "wrong" judge. A defense attorney claims a key witness has a medical appointment, no problem, come back in two weeks. A prosecutor has a key witness who just came off a 36 hour shift and is at the hospital getting stitches because some meth head resisted arrest. Case dismissed. Its not fair, but it is what it is.

[Ken White]

...A defense attorney claims a key witness has a medical appointment, no problem, come back in two weeks. A prosecutor has a key witness who just came off a 36 hour shift and is at the hospital getting stitches because some meth head resisted arrest. Case dismissed. Its not fair, but it is what it is.sons who are Cops, one on each coast. Both have said much the same. Too many judges will tie the DepDA's hands while offering the Defense pretty much a free ride. Both of 'em have a lot of respect for prosecutors who are severely constrained by the system. Plenty of frustration for everyone in that system at this time...

[Sergeant T]

Courtesy of USA Today. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-11-06-hemp_N.htm) From the "I'm with the Government and I'm here to help" files. Would someone refresh my memory as to why marijuana is a Schedule 1 drug (http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/scheduling.html)?


Canadian farmers 20 miles north of his Osnabrock farm do a brisk business selling their hemp to Detroit carmakers who use it inside door panels and for insulation in seats, he says. Monson says the hemp has no value as a drug because it has a low concentration of THC, the ingredient in marijuana that causes a high.

Hemp fibers, oil and seed can be imported from Canada, Europe and Asia and used to manufacture products in the USA, but growing hemp in the USA is illegal, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration says. "The level of THC in the plant doesn't matter. If there's any THC in the plant, it's illegal," DEA spokesman Garrison Courtney says. "To get those pieces of stalk that are legal, you have to grow a marijuana plant."

[davidbfpo]

A panel of experts and ex-dignitaries have issued a report:
The Global Commission on Drug Policy report calls for the legalisation of some drugs and an end to the criminalisation of drug users.

"Political leaders and public figures should have the courage to articulate publicly what many of them acknowledge privately: that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that repressive strategies will not solve the drug problem, and that the war on drugs has not, and cannot, be won"....

...Instead of punishing users who the report says "do no harm to others," the commission argues that governments should end criminalisation of drug use, experiment with legal models that would undermine organised crime syndicates and offer health and treatment services for drug-users.

It calls for drug policies based on methods empirically proven to reduce crime and promote economic and social development.

Link to BBC report:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13624303

Curiously the BBC story has a photo of a field of poppies in Afghanistan and in the background a right-hand drive military vehicle, which looks like a Land Rover and UK military aboard. Why curious? It is the first time I've seen that image on BBC News; normally it is an issue preferably out of sight.

[davidbfpo]

I admit not to watching the series, but the article's title did get my attention, in full: 'The nonsense of a 'War on Drugs': The Wire's writers get it, governments consistently don't'.

Within the article are some promising links on reputable studies into the issues and the script writers remarked:
[The US government's war on drugs is] nothing more or less than a war on our underclass, succeeding only in transforming our democracy into the jailingest nation on the planet.

Link:http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100090450/the-nonsense-of-a-war-on-drugs-the-wires-writers-get-it-governments-consistently-dont/

[carl]

The problem in the US is that the politics of the drug business are rock solid stable. The politicians and most of the electorate get to preen with moral superiority because we are tough on drugs. The drug warriors get plenty of money and something interesting to do. The drug users get access to drugs and the monetary cost is low. Drug users with political and social influence don't have to worry about their drug use embarrassing them or inconveniencing them (except for occasional sacrificial lambs like Robert Downey Jr., when was the last time a star went up or for that matter, when was the last time a CEO or State Supreme Court justice went up). Drug traffickers get rich. The underclass have to live in bad neighborhoods but so many of them are hoods or related to hoods there isn't that much interest in changing things. There is even a political constituency built around prisons that would be upset if the number of prisons were reduced. Everybody is pretty happy.

This is a stable and practical system that has existed for decades and there is no domestic reason for it to change. The only way change will come is from without. If it does come it will come I am guessing from Mexico. What would shake things up is if the Mexicans legalized drugs or drug transhipment and export. That would cause a stir. Otherwise nothing will change.

[ganulv]

Frontline (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/) has a good gateway (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/) to Drug War-related content.

Just my opinion, but I don’t see there to be any unproblematic plausible outcomes in relation to drug trade-related policy, only less worse possible outcomes. Americans like to think things can be put right—either the Drug War is going to create a world without drugs or legalization is going to eliminate all recreational drug-associated suffering. What did Voltaire say? “The perfect is the enemy of the less worse” or something like that?

[motorfirebox]

Responding to an older post because it largely sums up the anti-legalization argument (such as it exists outside the Federal government and local law enforcement).


Conversely, I doubt that an abundance of legally available marijuana is going to make much difference in dealing with harder drugs and unless I have been misinformed, hard drugs are where the narco-terrorists make their money.
Mexican cartels take significantly more than half of their income (http://www.usatoday.com/news/topstories/2008-02-21-2221217072_x.htm) from marijuana.


I would be very surprised if many of those who do seek treatment do so to avoid jail. If you legalize these drugs and remove that motivator, how many fewer will seek help?
I'm assuming you mean you wouldn't be very surprised. Whether or not one chooses to seek help is up to that person, unless that person does something under (or otherwise due to) the influence that gets them hauled in front of a judge. And I think that's how it should be, for alcohol and for any other substance. The common mythology is that alcohol is pretty mild, in terms of abusable substances, but there is mounting evidence (http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/health/medical/2010-11-01-alcohol-drugs_N.htm) that it belongs with cocaine and heroin in the category of hard drugs. Which begs the question, if we as a society can deal with alcohol addiction without resorting to prohibition, why can't we do so with other drugs? Even harder drugs?

More importantly, how does the damage that might be caused by legalization stack up to the damage caused by the war on drugs?


Again, legalization of marijuana is one thing, legalization of other drugs is another thing altogether. I did post a link in an earlier post about marijuana users in federal prison and the total of marijuana users in prison for possession only as of, I believe 2005, was something like 63 individuals. The federal government doesn’t like marijuana use but I don’t think that they go after ordinary users all that much.
That's something of a moot point given the horrific (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/25/jose-guerena-arizona-_n_867020.html) levels of violence (http://dailycaller.com/2010/05/05/swat-team-shoots-pit-bull-and-corgi-in-marijuana-bust-video/) brought against pot dealers and suspected pot dealers. Sure, if you have a joint in your pocket you probably won't go to jail--but if you have a handful, or if they think you have a handful, they'll kill you and/or your dog without trial.


One of the biggest problems that I can see with this is that two of the biggest proponents of legalization tend to be the users, who often aren’t the best spokespeople for their cause and often don’t see past the fact that they want drugs to be legal, and the big L libertarians who believe that market pressures can fix pretty much any problem.
I don't use, or even drink. Or smoke. I've done all three in the past and came to the conclusion that they didn't fit the lifestyle I prefer to lead. But I don't think my decision is right for everyone, and I don't want to see it forced on everyone. As far as market pressure goes, I view it in this case as a useful tool against criminal elements who are currently empowered by our misuse of it. I don't think market pressure has anything at all to do with handling substance abuse.

[davidbfpo]

Last week IISS published a new Adelphi book on , co-authored by Nigel Inkster and Virginia Comolli:http://www.iiss.org/publications/adelphi-papers/adelphis-2012/drugs-insecurity-and-failed-states-the-problems-of-prohibition/

From the link a summary:
The world’s wealthiest nations have expended vast blood and treasure in tracking and capturing traffickers, dealers and consumers of narcotics, as well as destroying crops and confiscating shipments. Yet the global trade in illicit drugs is thriving, with no apparent change in the level of consumption despite decades of prohibition. This Adelphi argues that the present enforcement regime is not only failing to win the ‘War on Drugs’; it is also igniting and prolonging that conflict on the streets of producer and transit countries, where the supply chain has become interwoven with state institutions and cartels have become embroiled in violence against their rivals and with security forces.

What can be done to secure the worst affected regions and states, such as Latin America and Afghanistan? By examining the destabilising effects of prohibition, as well as alternative approaches such as that adopted by the authorities in Portugal, this book shows how progress may be made by treating consumption as a healthcare issue rather than a criminal matter, thereby freeing states to tackle the cartels and traffickers who hold their communities to ransom.

I have yet to finish reading the book, so may remark upon it later.

Nigel's views being an ex-SIS deputy head aroused some publicity, much of it in Latin America and some UK press coverage. He wrote a piece in one of our more populist papers, The Sun:http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/4261050/Former-MI6-chief-Nigel-Inkster-reveals-why-we-should-legalise-drugs.html and summarised here:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9208815/Former-MI6-deputy-joins-calls-to-end-war-on-drugs.html