Drugs: The Legalization Debate

[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.

[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. 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.

[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.

[davidbfpo]

Last week IISS published a new Adelphi book on , co-authored by Nigel Inkster and Virginia Comolli:http://www.iiss.org/publications/ade...f-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...ise-drugs.html and summarised here:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...-on-drugs.html