Print • Email • permalink • (48) Comments • (3382) Hits •  subscribe • • • • • •

---

What to do about drugs?

Mike Treder

Mike Treder
Ethical Technology

Posted: Oct 7, 2010

---

Print • Email • permalink • (48) Comments • (3383) Hits •  subscribe • • • • • •

Drug laws exist for one reason and one reason alone.

Prejudice.

First it was those “damn chinks” and their opium. Hey, outlaw opium and we can persecute all the chinese we want!

Then it was Hearst and his hatred for all things that didn’t make him a profit, using “marijuana” to stir up hatred against mexicans and this “Dangerous new drug” that most of america had no idea was cannabis. Followed by other drugs attributed to “Those gawddam N#####s corrupting our pure white youth. and ad infinitum.

Even today, drug laws are selectively enforced. 99.9999999999999% of all arrests are of poor minorities, with outrageous sentences. In some cases, simple possession can lead to a longer sentence than rape or murder.

Prohibition DOESN’T WORK. Period. It didn’t work for Alcohol, in fact prior to the “Prohibition” it was UNHEARD of for hard liquor to be sold outside of bars, and NEVER before in American history was it common in HOMES where children had access to it.

The drug laws have made American police forces an UNWELCOME sight to most Americans, and corrupted our justice system with easy cash from bribes as well as the idiotic RICO act which allows the legal system to simply confiscate anything “suspected” of being used for drugs REGARDLESS OF WHETHER PROOF OF SUCH USE ACTUALLY EXISTS.

Decriminalization is not enough. So long as it remains illegal in any sense, it will continue to provide cartels all the money they need to continue business as usual. Full legalization and regulation is the ONLY MEANS to cut off the money supply to organized crime and the drug cartels. Legalize everything, and put strong regulations in place, like the drinking and driving laws, and you will instantly shut off the flow of money to the syndicates, immediately close out the prime cash income for violent gangs, and immediately save billions in incarceration of people who have never committed any crime but “personal use”

And you will restore the american police force to the welcome “protectors” of the public, instead of forcing them to be the unwelcome “gestapo” that they are seen as now.

And once cannabis is restored as an American cash crop, we will see billions of return into the American economy that is currently being sucked down a black hole to mexico, columbia, and other drug lord havens.

Perhaps the best argument in favor of legalizing ALL drugs here in the United States is to take a look at what our demand for illegal drugs has done to the countries to the south of our borders. After all, while it is true that there would likely be a human cost in the United States to be paid from legalizing more serious, addiction-causing narcotics like cocaine or heroin, I would argue that the human cost of continuing to keep them illegal is already prohibitively great in Mexico, Central America, and South America—where drug cartels and criminal gangs use violence and intimidation to keep open their supply lines to American drug consumers. So, quite simply,  American drug consumption = death/violence in Latin America.  Thus, if we take away the North American demand for illicit drugs, one would have to assume that the death/violence we are presently seeing in Latin America would be significantly reduced (this is admittedly, a pretty optimistic assumption).

> “In Portugal, meanwhile, drug decriminalization has, according to some, been a resounding success.”

Can you be more explicit than just “according to some?

Come on, Veronica, it’s very easy to find:

Here, here, here, and here.

That’s with about 30 seconds worth of Googling.

All drugs ought to be legalized in America, however there is no evidence to suggest America will legalize drugs in the near future (the far future doesn’t interest me anymore, it is unknowable; a mirage receding into the distance). It is very difficult in such a large & diverse nation to build consensus even on something as unavoidably vital as energy policy. Police, courts, other agencies, plus uncountable rightwing (but not conservative) activists, can keep drug decriminalization and legalization a fight for many decades to come. It took at least 44 years (1965 to 2009) before marijuana was partially decriminalized—and then only in certain locations.

I also favor complete legalization. Drug abuse should be treated rather than punished.

The Grand Old Potatoheads think we want to ‘coddle’ drug users.
The author of “Social Security Cuts Would Increase Inequity and Keep Deficits, Er, High” points out the Republican’ts are no longer self-controlled, they are shrill.

Valkyrie: “Drug laws exist for one reason and one reason alone… Prejudice.”

Not so. Drug laws exist for one reason and one reason alone: greed. They exist because they make lot of money for greedy drug dealers and their even more greedy friends in government.

Like the prohibitionist laws of the 1920s, created by organized crime for organized crime.

Some lessons are never learned, and very soon forgotten.

Of course I am for complete drug legalization, no questions asked.

Here are some facts concerning the situation in Holland.—Please save a copy and use it as a reference when debating prohibitionists who claim the exact opposite concerning reality as presented here below:

”Cannabis coffee shops” are not only restricted to the Capital of Holland, Amsterdam. They can be found in more than 50 cities and towns across the country. At present, only the retail sale of five grams is tolerated, so production remains criminalized. The mayors of a majority of the cities with coffeeshops have long urged the national government to also decriminalize the supply side.

A poll taken earlier this year indicated that some 50% of the Dutch population thinks cannabis should be fully legalized while only 25% wanted a complete ban. Even though 62% of the voters said they had never taken cannabis. An earlier poll also indicated 80% opposing coffee shop closures.
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2010/02/public_split_on_cannabis_legal.php

It is true that the number of coffee shops has fallen from its peak of around 2,500 throughout the country to around 700 now. The problems, if any, concern mostly “drug tourists” and are largely confined to cities and small towns near the borders with Germany and Belgium. These problems, mostly involve traffic jams, and are the result of cannabis prohibition in neighboring countries. “Public nuisance problems” with the coffee shops are minimal when compared with bars, as is demonstrated by the rarity of calls for the police for problems at coffee shops.

While it is true that lifetime and “past-month” use rates did increase back in the seventies and eighties, the critics shamefully fail to report that there were comparable and larger increases in cannabis use in most, if not all, neighboring countries which continued complete prohibition.

According to the World Health Organization only 19.8 percent of the Dutch have used marijuana, less than half the U.S. figure.
In Holland 9.7% of young adults (aged 15–24) consume soft drugs once a month, comparable to the level in Italy (10.9%) and Germany (9.9%) and less than in the UK (15.8%) and Spain (16.4%). Few transcend to becoming problem drug users (0.44%), well below the average (0.52%) of the compared countries.

The WHO survey of 17 countries finds that the United States has the highest usage rates for nearly all illegal substances.

In the U.S. 42.4 percent admitted having used marijuana. The only other nation that came close was New Zealand, another bastion of get-tough policies, at 41.9 percent. No one else was even close. The results for cocaine use were similar, with the U.S. again leading the world by a large margin.

Even more striking is what the researchers found when they asked young adults when they had started using marijuana. Again, the U.S. led the world, with 20.2 percent trying marijuana by age 15. No other country was even close, and in Holland, just 7 percent used marijuana by 15—roughly one-third of the U.S. figure.
thttp://www.alternet.org/drugs/90295/

In 1998, the US Drug Czar General Barry McCaffrey claimed that the U.S. had less than half the murder rate of the Netherlands. “That’s drugs,” he explained. The Dutch Central Bureau for Statistics immediately issued a special press release explaining that the actual Dutch murder rate is 1.8 per 100,000 people, or less than one-quarter the U.S. murder rate.

Here’s a very recent article by a psychiatrist from Amsterdam, exposing “Drug Czar misinformation”
http://tinyurl.com/247a8mp

Now let’s look at a comparative analysis of the levels of cannabis use in two cities: Amsterdam and San Francisco, which was published in the American Journal of Public Health May 2004,

The San Francisco prevalence survey showed that 39.2% of the population had used cannabis. This is 3 times the prevalence found in the Amsterdam sample

Source: Craig Reinarman, Peter D.A. Cohen and Hendrien L. Kaal, “The Limited Relevance of Drug Policy”
http://www.mapinc.org/lib/limited.pdf
Moreover, 51% of people who had smoked cannabis in San Francisco reported that they were offered heroin, cocaine or amphetamine the last time they purchased cannabis. In contrast, only 15% of Amsterdam residents who had ingested marijuana reported the same conditions. Prohibition is the ‘Gateway Policy’ that forces cannabis seekers to buy from criminals who gladly expose them to harder drugs.

The indicators of death, disease and corruption are even much better in the Netherlands than in Sweden for instance, a country praised by UNODC for its “successful” drug policy.”

Here’s Antonio Maria Costa doing his level best to avoid discussing the success of Dutch drug policy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lExNjEhdSkY&feature=related

The Netherlands also provides heroin on prescription under tight regulation to about 1500 long-term heroin addicts for whom methadone maintenance treatment has failed.
http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/free-heroin-brings-everyone-a-bit-peace

The Dutch justice ministry announced, last year, the closure of eight prisons and cut 1,200 jobs in the prison system. A decline in crime has left many cells empty. There’s simply not enough criminals
http://www.nrc.nl/international/article2246821.ece/Netherlands_to_close_prisons_for_lack_of_criminals

For further information, kindly check out this very informative FAQ provided by Radio Netherlands: http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/faq-soft-drugs-netherlands
or go to this page: http://www.rnw.nl/english/dossier/Soft-drugs

Mike, thanks for the links. I was just puzzled why you wrote “according to some” instead of “according to many” or “according to analysts I consider wise.”

Giulio, are you sure you mean you want complete drug legalization?  For example, just to give a far out example (which isn’t so far out considering which inner city you’re from), are you OK with drug dealers being allowed to set up their business near schools?

Remember what Mr. Treder wrote: “Freedom is not license to act without limits.”

Oh, I see now why you wrote “some.” That last link you gave was indeed a mixed bag. It included the sentence, “critics of the policy, such as the Association for a Drug-Free Portugal, say overall consumption of drugs in the country has actually risen by 4.2 percent since 2001 and claim the benefits of decriminalization are being “over-egged.”

I see I need to understand Portugal’s laws better. After all, that article said the penalty for owning drugs over a certain amount is jail time: “Possession over a certain amount can still land you in jail, as can dealing and trafficking”, but it also said that all criminal penalties were abolished: “Instead of cracking down on drug abusers, the government decriminalized the possession of drugs for personal use in June 2001.”

@Veronica:

Complete drug legalization means legalization of all drugs, not legalization of all that one can do related to drugs. All cars are legal, yet driving any car into children is illegal I believe.

So, since I am from Napoli, I must be OK with drug dealers selling to school children?

I will not dignify this racist comment with a reply.

“...are you OK with drug dealers being allowed to set up their business near schools?”

This is such a simple-minded question that prohibitionists keep reiterating. They are unable to grasp the connection between alcohol and drugs. Alcohol is legal yet you don’t see it being sold in schools and vending machines in school cafeterias. Yet, somehow they assume that legalization of drugs will suddenly mean that children will have this unrestricted access to drugs and that they’ll be able to just walk in local walgreens, insert a quarter in a bubble gum machine and they’ll get a meth crystal in a jiffy. Ridiculous…
Veronica, I hate to break it down to you but your child can get drugs in a few minutes near the school or on the school grounds right now, thanks to the law that has made it a huge incentive for unscrupulous drug dealers to do exactly that.

I know it was a simple minded question, V. Perhaps it blinded you to the query I was asking. I just wanted to know just how ‘complete’ Giulio meant when he said, “complete drug legalization.” Thanks, Giulio for your answer.

@ Giulio.

Actually, Organized Crime DID NOT EXIST prior to Prohibition.

Prohibition came about because of a religious movement, the “Temperance Movement” which was in a sense an early womans movement as it was composed primarily of women who were against the “drunken revels” common in bars across the the west and in the cities which most commerce with the west passed through. This spread with the help of numerous fundamentalist churches to become a national campaign to “outlaw demon alcohol”

Why? Because prissy ladies were offended by the “lack of morals” of patrons of “saloons”  It was ENTIRELY BASED ON RELIGIOUS PREJUDICE against the non-religious.

Once prohibition came into effect, the demand for alcohol SKYROCKETED. People who had never drunk before, or those who had only been moderate drinkers were now demanding far more alcohol than had ever been demanded before. Public Drunkenness, which prior to the Prohibition, had been socially unacceptable, was suddenly the new way to socialize.  Women drinking suddenly became popular too, and thus the whole “flapper” movement.

To met demand, various groups of brewers and alcohol manufacturers banded together with various criminal types, and over the course of the first few years, began organizing, because the volume of demand for alcohol could not be met WITHOUT MASSIVE ORGANIZATION AND A DISTRIBUTION NETWORK.

Where previously “crime gangs” could have consisted of hundreds of members across a single city, you now had a need for crime gangs in the millions of members spread across entire states or multiple states. PROHIBITION CREATED THE ENVIRONMENT THAT CREATED ORGANIZED CRIME.

And once prohibition was repealed, guess where all that organized criminal element went? Nowhere, they just switched products to the recently criminalized “Marijuana” and as the brewers and bottlers left the black market to return to legitimacy, the violent criminal element absorbed the cannabis farmers.

However to understand why cannabis is “illegal” you have to understand that it suddenly became a threat to three very large organizations.  A new invention that could separate hemp fibers more economically than even cotton was created. This was a problem for Hearst, because hemp fiber made SUPERIOR paper to wood pulp (Hearst had a monopoly on wood pulp paper, owning nearly every paper mill and paper forest in America). It was a danger to DuPont Chemical, because Hemp fibers could be made more cheaply than their new “Miracle fiber” nylon, and it was a danger to the cotton industry.

Enter a man named Henry Anslinger. He was the head of the FDA, and jealous of the power of the FBI and Hoover. He went to Hearst, who had already started a hate campaign against “marijuana” and the “dirty Mexicans who are peddling this dangerous drug to our pure american youth” and formed an alliance with him and DuPont. With generous funding from the pair, a massive media campaign run by the Hearst publishing empire (which included Reefer Madness) and Anslinger using the patent medicine laws to lock up 3000 AMA doctors until they finally started making the claims about MJ he wanted them to make, Anslinger rammed legislation through multiple state governments and the federal government allowing them to classify MJ as a Narcotic, and thus a substance under FDA jurisdiction, and prohibited as a dangerous drug. By the time the American public, enflamed by Hearst’s non-stop barrage of anti-mexican/anti-marijuana hysteria (remember that Hearst is also suspected of blowing up the Maine to force the Spanish American War) realized that Marijuana was CANNABIS, it was already illegal to grow, own, or use. Almost overnight, hemp (which had been America’s Number 1 cash crop) was a criminal offense, and paper was still made from wood, DuPont got to make billions off Nylon and other synthetic fibers, and Anslinger was the head of an organization that had gone from being a near joke to nearly as powerful as the FBI.

So yes, MJ is illegal because of greed, but when you then look at what MJ was classified as, a “Narcotic” and look at the history of how and why narcotics became illegal, you begin to see the bigotry behind all drug laws.

The first “narcotic” was Opium, brought over by the Chinese, and smoked in “Opium dens”. As part of the overwhelming prejudice against chinese “coolies” in california, Opium became seen as a easy way to persecute Chinese and prevent the chinese laborers from organizing and being able to demand fair treatment.

Continue to follow the history, as various other drugs became classified as “narcotics” you will find bigotry and prejudice or “religious moral values” has been the justification of nearly EVERY LAW PASSED.

The enormous profits to be made, and the massive greed that keep them illegal CAME AFTER THE BIGOTRY AND PREJUDICE, not PRIOR.

Bigotry MADE THEM ILLEGAL. Greed KEEPS THEM ILLEGAL. Those are two entirely separate facts.

Now @ Veronica.

What part of legalizing and regulation makes you think that at any point “drug dealers selling to school kids” would be allowed?

Do we sell Cigarettes to Kids?  No. Why? BECAUSE IT IS REGULATED. any vendor that sells to children NOT ONLY COULD LOSE THEIR LICENSE, BUT THE CLERK WHO SOLD THE CIGARETTES IS SUBJECT TO FINES, JAIL TIME, AND JOB TERMINATION.

Do we sell Alcohol to Kids? No.  Why? SEE ABOVE PARAGRAPH.

So if we make drugs legal, and regulated, at what point do you see “pushers” selling to Kids being allowed when cigarettes and alcohol aren’t?

When the cost to do business legally is far less than the cost to do business illegally, that “street corner drug dealer” is going to stop selling on a street corner, and stop selling to kids.  Why? because by following the rules, he makes money, where not following the rules means jail time, and NO MONEY.

It means growers can sell to legitimate vendors for guaranteed income, without having to worry that an entire years crop could be seized and burned. Sure profit Vs. highly risky, possibly life threatening and potentially profitless crop growing? I know which one I’d take.

Legalize and regulate. Sell MJ Joints just like we do cigarettes. In one fell swoop you destroy the basis for the organized criminal distribution network, create an immediate (and massive) job market, and turn a multibillion dollar industry into a TAX PAYING AND EMPLOYEE PAYING boost to the economy, verses a multibillion dollar DRAIN

Combine the savings from ending the failed drug war, and the earnings from the legitimate production of recreational drugs, and we are probably looking at more than a trillion dollars in combined revenue for the nation.

And no “Dealers on street corners” anymore.  Legal drug merchants will drive them out of business permanantly in less than a month.

Save your propaganda fears for those who lack the intelligence to comprehend how business actually works.

Such excellent thoughts! (particularly enjoyed Valkyries passionate responses).

On a personal level, I am excited about the prospect of psychadelic/entheogenic legalization, as it’s an alternative to treating my mental illness that goes largely ignored right now.
So much pain and suffering could have been prevented in my life if I had access to DMT treatment.

@Valkyrie - your perspective on prohibitionism is very interesting.

At the same time, I don’t think ideologies and moral convictions are a valid explanation for social phenomena like prohibitionism.

Of course some individual supporters were motivated by “moral values” or similar crap, but those who organize things, those who lobby, those who push the buttons, were motivated by their usual values: money and power.

So while I found your thoughts intriguing I am still persuaded that the war on drugs has a very simple explanation: it is a means for the drug cartels, organized crime, and their bribed buddies to make a lot of money.

Of course I fully agree with your last comment.

More @Valkyrie:

“Continue to follow the history, as various other drugs became classified as “narcotics” you will find bigotry and prejudice or “religious moral values” has been the justification of nearly EVERY LAW PASSED.

Of course they needed a justification to win the support of the bigot and idiot sheeples of the “moral majority”. Sure they could not say “support this anti drug law because it will make a lot of money to the criminals who pay fat bribes to me”.

*giggle* Your points are semi valid hun, but I’VE DONE THE RESEARCH. I have actually studied the history of drug prohibition.

They all started as cynical bigotry, got pushed into being political issues by populism, and only then got taken over by money interests.

They STARTED as “popular movements” then got HIJACKED.

Both our points are valid, and both contributed, I am simply pointing out that you have the cause and effect reversed.

ValkyrieIce wrote: “And no “Dealers on street corners” anymore. Legal drug merchants will drive them out of business permanantly in less than a month.

Save your propaganda fears for those who lack the intelligence to comprehend how business actually works.”

I’d like to remind you that my example was a “far out” example, as I wrote. I did that to elicit a more detailed explanation from Giulio. I see I wasn’t careful enough in my rhetorical style. 

I still wonder how a teenager would get the drugs he craves under this new proposed law.

We have to take a chance on legalizing drugs because the outlook is fairly good that a modus vivendi can someday be arrived at, and because even if taxpayers are willing to continue funding the drug war, it is unseemly to have such an arbitrary patchwork of laws.
It’s been 40 years—game over.

PS,
I hasten to add, so that no one would mistake the above for optimism, the great timeframe involved in legalizing drugs; marijuana isn’t legal after over four decades.

@Veronica

No, you chose the rhetoric used over and over by various anti-drug propagandists for nearly my entire lifetime. If you chose to use the far too commonly used BS used by the absolute worst of the BS spreaders, you got to expect to be taken as a BS spreader yourself.

“dealers pushing drugs to kids on street corners” is the exact wording used in the anti drug “classes” I was forced to attend back IN HIGH SCHOOL.  It’s been done to death.

drugs are not nice.

“If you chose to use the far too commonly used BS used by the absolute worst of the BS spreaders, you got to expect to be taken as a BS spreader yourself.”

I didn’t expect that because I haven’t studied this issue enough to know that that rhetoric was so common.

Oh, while I’m at it, you wrote: “Drug laws exist for one reason and one reason alone.”

Frankly, in my house, drug laws exist for one reason and one reason alone, and it’s not prejudice.  Nor is it greed, as Giulio writes. It’s to keep my kids away from the crap. Why is it so hard for you to think that maybe a few policy makers here and there were primarily motivated by the same feeling?

@Veronica

Your house hold rules aren’t “THE LAW”

And EVERY law that has been created that legislates “Consensual Crimes” or “Crimes against yourself” has been started by some busybody “Do-Gooder” who thinks they had a right and a “Duty” to prevent people from doing something with themselves or their own property, “For their own good.”

It’s your house, feel free to make rules. It’s when you decide YOUR HOUSE RULES “OUGHT” TO BE “THE LAW” FOR EVERYONE ELSE TOO that it stops being OK.

“The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Those ladies who formed the “Temperence movement” thought that they were doing something to drunks “For their own good”

Why? Because they thought that THEIR PERSONAL MORAL STANDARDS SHOULD BE APPLIED TO EVERYONE.

“They aren’t US, so WE NEED TO FORCE THEM TO BE US.”

Worded another way, Those poor pitiful people are lesser beings than we moral people, and so we need to “lift them up” and make them moral BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY.

Implicit in the veiwpoint you are arguing Veronica is the unspoken assumption that YOUR MORAL CODE AND BELIEF SYSTEM IS SUPERIOR TO EVERYONE ELSES, AND THAT BECAUSE IT IS SUPERIOR, IT IS JUSTIFIED TO USE FORCE TO MAKE OTHERS COMPLY WITH IT.

In otherwords, “I don’t want my kids to use drugs, so instead of educating them responsibly, I’d rather use the government to force EVERYONE IN THE NATION to stop using drugs, condemn millions to ruined lives and decades in jail, encourage violent criminal organizations to greater violence and excess, all because MY morals are superior, and everyone HAS TO LIVE UP TO THEM REGARDLESS OF PERSONAL CHOICE.”

That’s a “Superiority Complex” Veronica. And Superiority complexes are the HEART OF EVERY FORM OF BIGOTRY AND PREJUDICE.

“I’m better than you are, so YOU have to CHANGE TO SUIT ME.”

“I’m SPECIAL, so the rules for me should be different than the rules for you, because your NOT SPECIAL.”

“You are a dirty filthy drug user, and I am not, so that makes me a better person than you.”

Semantics, Veronica. It’s about knowing not only what the words say, but the unspoken text and assumptions BEHIND THE WORDS as well.

I’ve been a security guard for 20 years. I’ve dealt with this issue DIRECTLY AS AN ENFORCER OF “THE LAW.” I’ve had to call the cops on kids WHO’S ONLY CRIME HAS BEEN SMOKING A JOINT AND RELAXING. I’ve seen kids who’s cars have been ripped apart and left laying in pieces on the ground after the police have done a “search” that found NOTHING. I’ve had friends stopped for walking down the street and interrogated, searched, and harrassed as “Suspected drug dealers” FOR NO BETTER REASON BUT THAT THEY WERE BLACK.

Is keeping your kids “safe from drugs” worth the cost in human lives and misery, all so that you don’t have to face your responsibility as a parent to properly educate them in the real pros and cons of drug use? How about cigarettes? Are you willing to teach them about WHY they shouldn’t smoke, and what the risks are? Are you willing to let them know the real information and trust them to decide for themselves? How about alcohol? Did you educate them about the dangers, or have you abdicated that responsibility as well to rely on “THE LAW?” that throws kids in jail for drinking?

And if you answered yes to those two questions, and you have educated your children like a responsible parent, I applaud you. Drugs are no different. Responsible education leads to responsible adults who can make responsible choices, and use “drugs” responsibly.

But at what point do you think you have either a right or a duty to enforce your moral views on the rest of the world?

@Valkyrie Ice: “Those ladies who formed the “Temperence movement” thought that they were doing something to drunks “For their own good.”

Frankly, I see that statement as contradicting your earlier one, “Drug laws exist for one reason and one reason alone. Prejudice.”

“Is keeping your kids “safe from drugs” worth the cost in human lives and misery, all so that you don’t have to face your responsibility as a parent to properly educate them in the real pros and cons of drug use?”

I think this is a weak argument. I’d have to face this responsibility whether the anti-drug laws existed or not.

“But at what point do you think you have either a right or a duty to enforce your moral views on the rest of the world?”

I wish I could see which candidates you’ve voted for. I bet many of them have tried to enforce their moral views (in one area of life or another) on the rest of their constituents.

“It’s to keep my kids away from the crap”

You keep your kids away from alcohol, too? alcohol is dope—anything one uses to get high is to get doped-up on.

@ Veronica.

You obviously skimmed my rather detailed response, since you failed to note that I POINTED OUT THAT THEY WERE GUILTY OF THE PREJUDICE I DESCRIBED LATER. That of assuming that THEIR MORAL STANCE WAS SO SUPERIOR THAT IT JUSTIFIED THE USE OF GOVERNMENT FORCE TO INFLICT THEIR MORAL VIEWS ON THE NATION.

Fine I get that you disapprove of Drugs. IT STILL DOES NOT JUSTIFY FORCING YOUR MORAL VIEWS ON OTHERS.

Feel my argument is weak all you want. Do you feel I have the right to force YOU TO BE PROMISCUOUS?  I’m a SUCCUBUS. In my opinion sex should be a common form of greeting.  But if I tried to make it ILLEGAL NOT TO HAVE SEX AS A FORM OF GREETING, I bet you would fight tooth and nail to prevent me from succeeding, no?

Ridiculous example? Damn right. But not any more ridiculous than your arguments that just because YOU disapprove of drug use that NO-ONE SHOULD BE ALLOWED to use drugs.

And there is a VAST difference between ALLOWING people the freedom to CHOOSE vs DENYING THE RIGHT TO CHOSE VIA FORCE OF LAW.

You don’t want your kids to use drugs, teach them yourself not to. Educate them in why you feel it is not in their best interests. Then trust them to make their own choices. 

But supporting the continued prohibition of drugs simply shows you don’t care about allowing people the freedom to choose. You feel it’s justified to deny them that right because YOU have decided FOR THEM.

Which comes right back to that SUPERIORITY COMPLEX I was talking about.

As for who I voted for? Exactly what is that question supposed to do other than act a weak attempt to divert the conversation, since it seems you are unwilling to acknowledge that you’re trying to justify forcing your moral views on others? The answer is meaningless, because no candidate has EVER truly represented my views, and I’ve had to vote for the lesser evil. Satisfied? Now, back to the point, WHY DO YOU FEEL IT IS JUSTIFIABLE TO FORCE OTHERS TO FOLLOW YOUR MORAL CODE OR SUFFER JAIL, VIOLENCE, AND RUINED LIVES?

(Oops, used my real name by mistake—Alan Brooks has negative connotations that “postfuturist” doesn’t).
Veronica, let’s attempt to communicate, you are correct as far as it goes… kids don’t need dope; marijuana is another temptation on top of alcohol. However there is a difference between being a concerned parent and being a paranoid parent. Concerned means you want to keep your kids away from dope; paranoid is slippery slope thinking: such as thinking phantom dealers might sell dope in schoolyards.

PS,
Marijuana was used as an example above, but it’s much the same to me what people get wasted on; and some responsible users can take opiates, and other hard drugs. Religion, drink, drugs, sex: it is all necessary escapism, IMO. Politics as well. Safety valves.

But schoolyard dealers??—that is corny & paranoid.

@ Alan Brooks: “You keep your kids away from alcohol, too? alcohol is dope—anything one uses to get high is to get doped-up on.”

Actually, I drink withmy kids.

to V.I.: “WHY DO YOU FEEL IT IS JUSTIFIABLE TO FORCE OTHERS TO FOLLOW YOUR MORAL CODE OR SUFFER JAIL, VIOLENCE, AND RUINED LIVES?”

That is such a caricature of my position that I can’t even address it. All I can say is that I’m not looking out for the would-be-drug-taker’s own good. I’m looking out for the country’s own good. Y’know, as in “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. “

(Try using html code so that it doesn’t sound like you’re yelling.)

The DEA, the Drug War in America proper, was instigated in 1970.
Not much to show for it after 4 decades, Veronica. 40 years is about where we ought to draw the line. For instance, the Cold War wound down after four decades. Don’t you think the Drug War status quo is untenable? At any rate, as long as you are—hopefully—a moderate conservative, not a rightwing libertarian, your doubts are reasonable, better skeptical to a degree than being led by blind faith.
One can’t reason with rightwing libertarians; they are too guided by their emotions; they are hotheads, IMO

@ Veronica

SINCE WHEN IS IT YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO FORCE ANYONE TO DO ANYTHING “FOR THEIR OWN GOOD”

And I AM YELLING.

You are being obtuse because you cannot bear to admit that your responsibility to see to anyone’s “own good” stops with YOU and YOUR OWN CHILDREN (but only until they turn 18)

Rather than admit that you have NO RIGHT to tell ANYONE what they can and cannot do, You have to come up with justification after justification as to why OTHERS HAVE TO LIVE BY YOUR MORAL CODE.

Yet should anyone try TELLING YOU that YOU have to live by THEIR MORALS, you would scream bloody murder.

And that makes you just as guilty of prejudice, hypocrisy, and double standards as anyone else I discussed in my previous posts above.

And since, like them, you have this sincere belief that ONLY YOU ARE RIGHT, and that EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG, and are pedantically refusing to see the facts because your beliefs won’t allow you to see them, then you are making a text book example of exactly what I was defining as a “Fundamentalist” in the thread about them

“Don’t bother me with the facts, My beliefs won’t change no matter how many facts you show me.”

Well your beliefs are your own affair. JUST STOP TRYING TO INFLICT THEM ON EVERYONE ELSE.

Y’know, I like your intention that no one try to inflict their morals and beliefs on everyone else. It’s a good intention. Then again, some wise man said that some road is paved with good intentions.

Translation.

Yeah, it’s a nice idea that no one should tell you how to live based on their religious and moral beliefs… so long as YOU still get to tell others the “right way to live” based on YOUR religious and moral beliefs.

Likely dealers in schoolyards will continue to be fellow students, not outsiders.
Of course student dealers get dope from the underground outside schools; however a black market exists virtually everywhere.

I used to jokingly call the “War on Drugs” the “War on Dregs”, because that is what it really is. It is a war on people someone in authority thinks are vermin, more or less. How this hypocritical thinking developed to the hysterical extent that it has requires serious an ongoing inquiry and scrutiny.
When I read what appeared to be a truthful article about how heroin use in England was once legal and quite under control, and then was illegalized and became the nightmare it now is, I converted.
A friend whose brother was a heroin addict ( here in Minneapolis) said if his brother could simply get the drug he craved he would stay indoors all day and not bother anyone. Further, he said the Fire Department could be enlisted to deliver drugs to the addicted, and as a plus that would give them something to do.

You’ve got it right, the War on Dregs exacerbates the preexisting dysfunction at the bottom of the food chain; it is based on a revolving door ‘justice’ system wherein attorneys and police—who confiscate illicit funds & materiel—are the ones who win. Plus a conservative estimate is that 15 percent (see ‘Serpico’, the situation has not changed) of police take bribes; though the amounts may be very small in many cases, bribery only makes the revolving-door system keep turning around & around.
After 4 decades of the Drug War, we have to start ending it: the revolving door spins ceaselessly.

postfuturist, you claim that “a conservative estimate is that 15 percent of police take bribes…”

Really??

That’s an incendiary charge. Do you have any statistics to back it up? If not, I’d say you owe an apology to all the law enforcement professionals who might read this blog.

For starters, I did qualify the statement by writing that the individual amounts of the bribes may usually be nickle & dime—that is a dollar or so here, a dollar or so there.
All the same, my charge was not weaved from whole cloth. Just as a beginning, in the book ‘Serpico’, Peter Mass cites a professional law enforcement study (1966) in which it was stated about “one in five” police officers in a number of cities were engaged in illegal activities “even though they knew they were being watched.” The study cited did not say they were taking bribes, nevertheless bribery does exist; and taking into account that a very small bribe is still a bribe, I don’t think 15 percent is unreasonable a figure- it may very well be conservative in the context of all lawenforcement bribery both substantial and negligible. You may think I am agitating, but I don’t break laws and have been treated well by the police, holding no grudge aside from having witnessed for many years the very real ‘revolving-door’ nature (NOT aspect, Mike, but nature) of law enforcement involving the bottom quintile; I have observed the police in action for many years, and though most of them are clean, a certain percentage of them are corrupt as in any profession—that is an obvious fact. Frank Serpico was and is an authority on the subject, to him police corruption was and still is real and not an academic abstraction or, in my case, an amateur one; Serpico almost lost his life when he was a policeman, plus also as a detective. Best thing would be to go to Serpico’s site (where he maintains a monthly update on police corruption) to observe what he writes- and possibly contact him. As Serpico said: “the situation hasn’t changed, it has gone underground… corruption [is] just ‘there’, permeating the [police] department.
So there is no mistake, I am not grinding an ax in this case as I have been treated fairly; nonetheless, those at the very bottom are not IMO treated very fairly. IMO law enforcement enforces the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law. Hence the ‘revolving door’ justice in America.
As for the charge I made, of an approximately 15 percent bribery rate relatable to all forms and quantities of bribes, 15% might actually be conservative—I do not know, but you as of yet cannot prove otherwise. As Serpico said, “if anything, police [including detectives and the brass] should be held to a higher standard than the public”, which means, again, ALL bribery in all its forms.
That has to be reiterated so there is no misunderstanding. Serpico knew, “if he took so much as dollar he would be as tainted as his fellow police”, many of whom, as he was always aware, were taking large and small bribes throughout his long police career.
You naturally cannot accept an unsubstantiated charge of bribery. I turn this around and ask that the degree of bribery existing ought not be minimized in a discussion. So if you would be willing to contact an authority on police bribery we might be able to ascertain an approximation of its extent. It may be that we are both mistaken: the figure for all bribery may be lower than 15 percent, albeit higher than you yourself might surmise.

I have no doubt that some corruption exists. That’s inevitable. But I have no idea what the percentage is of cops who take bribes. I wouldn’t even know how to begin making an estimate. And it appears that you have no idea either.

I consider it irresponsible for you to throw a figure out there as if it has some meaning when you’re literally just making it up. Either quote something that can be verified or stop making unwarranted assertions.

Yes, agreed; though everyone involved or interested in h+ ought to cease making unwarranted assertions of all sorts—perhaps then might h+ be held in a higher regard than it is. At this time I do not share the optimism of anyone here; such optimism is not at this time verified by the facts, less so is optimism verified by any opinions presented at IEET or any other site anywhere. Then there are the ‘issues’ of climate change; of the rightwing/teaparty takeover (a la 1995) coming January 2011, etc. At this time I perceive no basis for the degree of optimism having been pushed for the past 45 years.
I do take back what I wrote concerning police corruption, but not the heavy-handed authoritarian motivation lurking in the wings. Mike, the overall political situation is not encouraging, and, as this is a blog entry concerning drug legalization, politics can be mentioned: you might not be aware of this, however the GOP/tea party has no intention of legalizing or decriminalizing drugs, nor will I warrant they even care much at all; I converse with them everyday, and they think America is their possession—and they may be right.
Until the situation improves, not only will I not be involved, but I will tell any interested parties who might want advice that they should ignore h+ until the situation improves.
If you feel the above position is unwarranted, please present verifiable assertions as to why such might be the case.

In “The Bonfire of the Vanities” Tom Wolfe wrote of the officials of the courts, including law enforcement, referring to the criminal class as “chow”. Meaning of course they were the meal ticket for these professionals.
Theodore Dalrymple wrote an interesting book called “Romancing Opiates” wherein he stated that contrary to the common wisdom, but well known to medical professionals, heroin withdrawal is not the tour of hell it is made out to be. Actually it is not worse than a bad flu, and lasts about as long. The army of apologists for coddling addicted narcissists keeps the disinformation circulating.
Police corruption is a very high price to pay for keeping the childlike adults amongst us in their comfort zone.

“In ‘The Bonfire of the Vanities’ Tom Wolfe wrote of the officials of the courts, including law enforcement, referring to the criminal class as ‘chow’.”

Also attorneys; lawyers aren’t exactly motivated by the all-forgiving love of eternal Providence. There’s another Tom Wolfe book, “The Electric Kool Aid Acid Test”, wherein he writes, as a neutral mouthpiece for the subjects of the book, of “lags”. Lags of all sorts: lags in the echo & feedback of a microphone for instance. Other, less, positive lags as well. As per our present topic, the Drug War is (taking 1970, with the creation of the DEA, as the time of its institutionalization) is now forty, no light at the end of the tunnel save for le-mar. What a lag; what a drag.
How embarassing it will be in 2020 when the Drug War will be 50; however we know this is how things are done, every possibility has to be exhausted until positive change comes. As for the casualties: as long as there are vacancies in cemeteries, we wont lose much sleep.

Great article, Mike - I am rooting for marijuana legalization in my state of California, hopefully leading to decriminalization in other states in the future, and then in Mexico, which really needs help.  I find what happened in Portugal very interesting. Personally, I believe that teens are attracted to drugs precisely because they are illegal -  there’s fun in being rebellious and dangerous at a young age. 

Hank, I agree with your last point, but I still wonder: What gives a teen a greater attraction to drugs: knowing that it is forbidden by the government, or knowing that it is forbidden by their parents?

“What gives a teen a greater attraction to drugs: knowing that it is forbidden by the government, or knowing that it is forbidden by their parents?”

The latter. When his father starts to smoke marijuana, then junior knows it’s time to go to church, get a haircut, study hard, and always be sober

Next entry: Mixed Results on Robot Honesty

Previous entry: The Clinton Global Initiative on Long Term Viability