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?
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
Originally Posted by sapperfitz82
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.
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.
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
Hi Bill look at this about how the drug war undermines our foriegn policy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdYwA...eature=related
A Thought or Two
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?
The Iron Bowl(Alabama vs. Auburn) is fixin to kick off so this will have to wait till later.
Afghanistan tie in?
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.
Sapere Aude
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.
FYI - The broken glass article by James Q. Wilson is available here: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print...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.
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
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.
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 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.
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.
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 kind of covered my feelings about this in my above post.
Is that a drug pun?
SFC W
No answers here
Posted by Bob's World,Amen! I mean I agree.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.
Strongly agreeThe 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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
Something to ponder...
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.
Sir, what the hell are we doing?
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.
This doesn't address the fact that chronic meth users become unemployable and will still need to resort to crime to finance their habit.
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
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.
The two biggest and most important points IMHO.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks