Drugs: The Legalization Debate

[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=RdYwA...eature=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 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. Worst-case outcomes by government can confer victim status on people that are the problem. (Read 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

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

[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 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. Worst-case outcomes by government can confer victim status on people that are the problem. (Read 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.

[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 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 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 levels of violence 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.