Drugs: The Legalization Debate

[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

[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]

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.

[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

[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]

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