Drugs: The Legalization Debate
The Nov 13 2008 issue of Rolling Stone magazine has an interesting article 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.
Your still focused on the commodity
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.
Broken Glass Theory applied
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.
Bill You Were Right The First Time
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
We can pass another one too
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?
North Dakota Farmers Appeal to Grow Hemp
Courtesy of USA Today. 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?
Quote:
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."
Global war on drugs 'has failed' say former leaders
A panel of experts and ex-dignitaries have issued a report:
Quote:
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.
The nonsense of a 'War on Drugs': The Wire's writers get it...
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:
Quote:
[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/to...istently-dont/