Drug Prohibition Item

[Flick James]

I started feeling bad that the debate between myself and Skull, with the contributions of some others, had unfairly hijacked the You Know What Really Grinds My Gears? thread. So, hopefully, this will steer this stimulating conversation away from there. In any case, the following link leads to the LEAP Statement of Principles. LEAP, or Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, is an organization of members of various law enforcement agencies who are in favor of the removal of drug prohibition and the sensible, state-by-state regulation of the control and distribution of these substances. This statement of principles is nearly a mirror image of my own views on the matter, and anyone who was paying attention or had any interest in my arguments in the other thread will recognize many of the points in that statement. It is, in my opinion, a common sense approach to the failed decades old "war on drugs," and particularly poignant in that it comes from a collection of members of the law enforcement community who have seen, first hand, the damage that this so-called "war" have brought to our country. The organization is run by Jack Cole, a retired DEA undercover officer who has seen the war on drugs from a variety of perspectives.

I cherish the open discourse that this site encourages and has never restricted, at least not to my knowledge. I welcome opposing views. I think Skull will attest to that, as we have been disagreeing vehemently on this matter for several days now. But, from the bottom of my heart, I simply cannot understand what the American fascination with holding onto the war on drugs is. It makes no sense to me, and I can't understand how people haven't recognized the utter failure and lack of logic behind it. However, I am sure there are several who are up to the task. So, for those interested, please check out the following link, and I welcome your comments.

http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php?name=Content&pid=61

[HappyGilmore]

Oddly, I wrote an article for high school about this very topic.  And even more oddly, years later would be a practicing drug user for a bit of time (that's a long discussion and I still struggle with it.)

Overall, I see where they're coming from and agree with it to a degree.  One thing I'm curious about is the amount of people being thrown in prison for drug offenses instead of some sort of other type of punishment.  Obviously, the war on drugs, while not completely 'futile', well, the fact that the war is still ongoing is a concern, that 20 some odd years after it started, they're nowhere close to ending it. 

From what I read, I support the idea (and correct me if I'm wrong), that police should have a very limited presence in the drug underworld, meaning they only get involved if some drugged up guy goes on a rampage causing damage or injuries to people and their property.  Fortunately, I haven't been arrested yet for anything I've done, but I dread that day. I kinda have some points to make but I'm a bit tired.

I'm saving the site to my "favorites' and I'm gonna look it over tomorrow.  Seemed a decent sized read with a pretty good point.

[Flick James]

Oddly, I wrote an article for high school about this very topic.  And even more oddly, years later would be a practicing drug user for a bit of time (that's a long discussion and I still struggle with it.)

Overall, I see where they're coming from and agree with it to a degree.  One thing I'm curious about is the amount of people being thrown in prison for drug offenses instead of some sort of other type of punishment.  Obviously, the war on drugs, while not completely 'futile', well, the fact that the war is still ongoing is a concern, that 20 some odd years after it started, they're nowhere close to ending it. 

From what I read, I support the idea (and correct me if I'm wrong), that police should have a very limited presence in the drug underworld, meaning they only get involved if some drugged up guy goes on a rampage causing damage or injuries to people and their property.  Fortunately, I haven't been arrested yet for anything I've done, but I dread that day. I kinda have some points to make but I'm a bit tired.

I'm saving the site to my "favorites' and I'm gonna look it over tomorrow.  Seemed a decent sized read with a pretty good point.

I was impressed with the site. It's a very no-nonsense approach to the issue. I was on a tangent with Skull on this in the other thread, and I completely appreciate his perspective, we're both operating from a concern for the well-being of our country, I don't deny that for a bit. Because I agree with the abolishment of drug prohibition and am NOT a drug user, I wanted to research for organizations coming from a similar perspective as my own, and stumbled upon LEAP. Here are a bunch of people from the law enforcement community who have had real, visceral experience fighting the war on drugs, and have come to the conclusion that it cannot be won, or even reasonably contained. If we can't even keep drugs out of our prisons, how in the hell do we ever hope to keep them out of our schools? Drugs flourish during in a prohibition environment, as does police and political corruption. One of my favorite points on the list is that drug abuse shouldn't be a law enforcement matter, it should be a public health matter, just like alcohol and tobacco. It's been a long road, but treating tobacco as a health concern rather than a legal issue, cigarette use is going down. Far less people are smoking now than they were 20 years ago. That's the point that all of these former law enforcement agents and judges and prosecutors are trying to say. The legal system is failing. For every drug lord they take down, another two pop back in his place. It's an endless cycle that can't be broken. Perhaps it's time to cut our losses, admit defeat, and perhaps we can win in another way. Hasn't the U.S. been fighting unwinnable wars long enough?

[Rev. Powell]

My favored approach to the drug problem is decriminalization (not legalization).  That is, don't punish mere users harshly, but continue to go after the dealers and suppliers. 

A single person smoking a joint (or even shooting up heroin) isn't an inherently evil or criminal act.  It needs to be discouraged because, like speeding or reckless driving, it creates societal risk; when huge numbers of people do it, many of them will inevitably cause trouble. 

I think the appropriate and just way to deal with mere users is with misdemeanors and fines.  To a large extent, this has already happened in states with regard to marijuana.  It would be ridiculous to try to put every marijuana user in jail, no state could afford that kind of enforcement.   
     

[Flick James]

My favored approach to the drug problem is decriminalization (not legalization).  That is, don't punish mere users harshly, but continue to go after the dealers and suppliers. 

A single person smoking a joint (or even shooting up heroin) isn't an inherently evil or criminal act.  It needs to be discouraged because, like speeding or reckless driving, it creates societal risk; when huge numbers of people do it, many of them will inevitably cause trouble. 

I think the appropriate and just way to deal with mere users is with misdemeanors and fines.  To a large extent, this has already happened in states with regard to marijuana.  It would be ridiculous to try to put every marijuana user in jail, no state could afford that kind of enforcement.   
     

Not a bad notion, Rev. Your stance is fairly in-line with my own. Yes, law enforcement would likely still have to go after anyone who manufactures these substances in an uncontrolled way. This is also true of alcohol and tobacco. Without licensing, nobody can produce or distribute their own alcoholic beverages without breaking the law. If they want to make their own beer at home for personal consumption, fine, but they cannot sell it or distribute it to the public. This is pretty common sense stuff. I think the problem that those who think drug prohibition needs to stay in place get into is they assume that drug decriminalization means the wild west. Well, no wonder they oppose it, I would too if it meant that. I don't fault pro-prohibitionists for their position. They genuinely operate out of a concern for the health and safety of society. They just haven't come to the conclusion that prohibition doesn't work. It's not an easy topic. There are alot of emotions involved. People that have had someone close to them destroyed by drug abuse, it is very easy for them to become very militant about drugs, and very understandable. I get it. It doesn't change my position, however.

[lester1/2jr]

I can't help but think of britney murphy. I saw some thing on tmz of the drugs found in her meicine cabinet and her system: all legal.

I don't know much about this issue but the drug companies will be hit just as hard or harder than the american public if any of this stuff, especially marijuana, were to become legal

[JaseSF]

O.K. I've seen the debate between Skull and Flick James going on and on. Anyways I'll stand by my reasoning that legalizing certain drugs would give the unfortunate impression of their use being "acceptable" within society. I think natural by-product is more abuse and addiction. Suddenly it's like the government, and in essence overall society, would be giving the O.K. for people to get high and use drugs, many of which can be extremely addictive even on a first try. How this won't lead to more widespread recreational drug use and addiction is beyond me?  Do we really need to fuel the fire even further? Also I believe the government would likely come to profit off of drug sales (which I already kind of disagree with now - government profiting on poison), as they already do by heavily taxing legal recreational drugs where I currently live.

[Flick James]

O.K. I've seen the debate between Skull and Flick James going on and on. Anyways I'll stand by my reasoning that legalizing certain drugs would give the unfortunate impression of their use being "acceptable" within society. I think natural by-product is more abuse and addiction. Suddenly it's like the government, and in essence overall society, would be giving the O.K. for people to get high and use drugs, many of which can be extremely addictive even on a first try. How this won't lead to more widespread recreational drug use and addiction is beyond me?  Do we really need to fuel the fire even further? Also I believe the government would likely come to profit off of drug sales (which I already kind of disagree with now - government profiting on poison), as they already do by heavily taxing legal recreational drugs where I currently live.

Dangerous substances SHOULD be taxed heavily. Tobacco, alcohol, drugs, all of these substances cause health and addiction problems. So, the cost of treating these should fall on the user, not the rest of the taxpayers who don't use. So, heavily taxing substances that have a stong chance of leading to treatment for that individual is a good thing. Skull was talking about how treating addicts costs money. Well, problem solved. Tax the users, not the non-users.

[JaseSF]

Yeah I'll agree with you on that last point, although it still bothers me that government might profit on someone's misery.

[Rev. Powell]

Anyways I'll stand by my reasoning that legalizing certain drugs would give the unfortunate impression of their use being "acceptable" within society. I think natural by-product is more abuse and addiction.

That's the reason I'm against full-out legalization and support decriminalization instead.  There are also other factors besides the penal ones that make drug use socially unacceptable, including most importantly drug testing by employers.   

[JaseSF]

Yes I can't imagine too many employers who'd be thrilled with hiring someone with a drug problem. I think Skull's previous point of teen alcoholism is important to remember...more easy access to currently illegal drugs would likely lead to more youth culture users (not that we don't have too many already, as I understand high school is the prime place for acquiring illegal drugs these days )  and an even greater number of addicts. Abusing drugs aren't ever the way to go kids. Hard work & self-discipline - those very qualities gained from abstinence - now that can lead to success and respectability and it won't cost you your life, your family, your loved ones, your health, your record, your freedom.

[Newt]

Dangerous substances SHOULD be taxed heavily. Tobacco, alcohol, drugs, all of these substances cause health and addiction problems. So, the cost of treating these should fall on the user, not the rest of the taxpayers who don't use. So, heavily taxing substances that have a stong chance of leading to treatment for that individual is a good thing. Skull was talking about how treating addicts costs money. Well, problem solved. Tax the users, not the non-users.

This works only if the users are actually paying the tax. Users will go to great lengths to get around the extra cost added by taxes.  They will go to a 'black market'/illegal dealer in order to get what they want, cheaper.   As an example: Cigarettes are legal. In my neighbourhood (in Canada so yes it does affect health care costs directly) there is HUGE traffic in contraband (illegally imported from the US!) and tax-free (sold on the Reserves: illegally to non-natives) cigarettes because the taxes add significantly to the cost if bought legally.  (Which as an additional contavention of the laws are at the same time actively being sold to underage kids.)  So they are not paying more than anyone else for the additional costs to the health care system that their habit incurs. Oh and organized crime is involved in this. 

[JaseSF]

Yes Newt's right on that. In Newfoundland too, there have been cases of illegal cigarette and alcohol import seizures particularly from Quebec and St. Pierre and Miquelon where the laws are different and the items are often much cheaper. My own cousin was approached some time back to assist in hiding smuggled contraband cigarettes but he wisely refused. Not long after that, there were several arrests made connected to contraband tobacco. So again, it really wouldn't eliminate drug dealers, just move more to the black market. Heck, there's even black market codfish here given the restrictions placed on fishing.

[HappyGilmore]

I can't help but think of britney murphy. I saw some thing on tmz of the drugs found in her meicine cabinet and her system: all legal.

I don't know much about this issue but the drug companies will be hit just as hard or harder than the american public if any of this stuff, especially marijuana, were to become legal

Were the drugs legally prescribed? If so, by the same doctor? Cause there's many, many ways to get prescription pills legally prescribed to you.  I know many people who "fish", using many doctors to obtain pills.  But every doctor, when prescribing such strong medications like Percocet, OxyContin or Vicodin have to ask the patient if they're on ANY medication.  Granted, said patient can LIE to obtain said pills.

Pills are an epidemic.  My main concerns with her case were if they were 'legally' prescribed by her actual practicing physician, did he warn her as to the potential side effects of mixing such pills?  Taking Percocet or Vicodin by themselves can get you high, although they have medical reasons for being legal.  But, taking certain pills together or in too close of a timeframe can have counter effects, as the chemical compounds in said pills counteract each other in a lethal dosage, even if both pills have small mg dosage.  Sad thing is, many pills are on the streets as a result of said 'doctor fishing.' 

[Skull]

Dangerous substances SHOULD be taxed heavily. Tobacco, alcohol, drugs, all of these substances cause health and addiction problems. So, the cost of treating these should fall on the user, not the rest of the taxpayers who don't use. So, heavily taxing substances that have a stong chance of leading to treatment for that individual is a good thing. Skull was talking about how treating addicts costs money. Well, problem solved. Tax the users, not the non-users.

This works only if the users are actually paying the tax. Users will go to great lengths to get around the extra cost added by taxes.  They will go to a 'black market'/illegal dealer in order to get what they want, cheaper.   As an example: Cigarettes are legal. In my neighbourhood (in Canada so yes it does affect health care costs directly) there is HUGE traffic in contraband (illegally imported from the US!) and tax-free (sold on the Reserves: illegally to non-natives) cigarettes because the taxes add significantly to the cost if bought legally.  (Which as an additional contavention of the laws are at the same time actively being sold to underage kids.)  So they are not paying more than anyone else for the additional costs to the health care system that their habit incurs. Oh and organized crime is involved in this. 

Often times the argument on taxes seems like a good idea (let the users pay) but in the only people paying the taxes are those that are willing to obey the law.

On a simular topic in another forum, I told those posters what if the Government does legalizes drugs but restricts the age to 21 years old and taxes are somethere between an additional cost of 10 to 100 dollars then you'll normally pay a drug dealer.


Newt, I agree that the drug market will be around and much stronger, because why would anybody need to inform on the drug dealer when you can tell the cops you got the junk from 7-Eleven.