Drugs: Legalise or Prohibit?

[Sukerkin]

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...orth-is-right-the-war-has-failed-2162491.html

This article in the Independant is one of several doing the rounds today after a former minister responsible for the 'war on drugs' made his feelings known.

I have to say that I am in agreement with the major thrust of the article. It is a position I have held pretty much since my teenage years and I have never seen any evidence to convince me that the present approach does any good at all.

Given that the (no doubt exaggerated) international perception is that America is afloat on a tide of illegal narcotics, what do our trans-Atlantic cousins think on this issue?

 

[elder999]

Legalization is inevitable-and inevitably profitable, from both a monetary and public health standpoint. Whether it's a "solution" or merely trading one set of problems for a smaller set of others is debatable.

As an aside, the Netherlands just got underway abolishing drug tourism. Only citizens will be allowed into the hash cafes, after they're issued special licenses.

 

[Steve]

I think that if they're legal they should be regulated. Some should remain illegal, such as meth. Others, like mary jane, should be legalized and controlled much as we currently control alcohol.

 

[Omar B]

Worked great for Portugal. The economic growth in Colorado since Medical Marijuana has become acceptable is another great argument.

 

[cdunn]

Most of the current prohibited crop should remain prohibited. However, a series of designed and reasonably safe competitors should be introduced to the market: we would be better off opening up LSD and Adderall than we would meth and crack.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Prohibition of anything where there is a demand for it does not work, and it creates a criminal class where none existed previously. It also (as your linked article states) creates and feeds a criminal network, with the attendant violence (beheading in Mexico) and untaxed revenue that can also be used against the state which funds it (drug money going to fund terrorist organizations).

I will compare two popular activities here. Recreational drug use and illegal immigration. They are actually quite comparable on many levels, even though I draw different conclusions with regard to my own opinions on the respective issues.

With regard to illegal immigration, it is clear that prohibition does not work. It is also clear that it is in demand, since illegal immigrant workers find work quickly once in the USA.

There is a criminal network that supports illegal immigration, and it brings with it both violence and avoidance of government revenue through taxation.

One can argue that ending prohibition of migrant workers (essentially the situation we have, since legal immigration is extremely numbers-limited and by lottery for unskilled workers) would end the criminal organizations that support illegal immigration.

With regard to recreational drug use, it is also clear that prohibition does not work. It is likewise clear that such drugs are in demand, since they are quickly distributed and sold on the streets of America.

There is, as with illegal immigrants, a criminal network that supports drug importation and distribution. Likewise, it brings with it both violence and avoidance of government revenue through taxation.

Given that these two situation are quite similar, one might argue that both should be dealt with in a similar fashion. Logic would dictate that all things being equal, legalization in both cases would yield positive results.

And yet, I do not feel this way. I feel that prohibitions on immigration should be ended, and prohibitions on drugs should be continued.

There are many reasons I feel this way, some of the deeply personal (and some of you know to what I refer). However, I can summarize without getting too icky.

The first priority of any organized form of society is that it be able to survive. No society can condone activity inimical to its own survival and expect to survive.

So the question is not JUST whether or not legalizing illicit drugs and illegal immigration is the cost-effective and expedient thing to do, but ALSO whether or not such legalization would be ultimately destructive to society as a whole.

Many things which are legal are also destructive to society. Many things which are illegal are not that destructive overall. So I accept that there are no clear bright lines drawn, and that in many cases, there are both positive and negative effects on society for a given behavior or activity.

However, on balance, I do not see allowing the massive numbers of illegal workers who are already in the USA to remain on a legal basis as destructive of society. Detrimental, perhaps, but no more so than they are already. Drugs, on the other hand, I do see as quite destructive to society, and liable to increase that damage as they become legal and available. The increasing popularity of 'medical' marijuana in states such as California and Colorado, with the attendant popular wink-wink of declaring a medical 'problem' requiring the use of marijuana to alleviate pain, is proof enough of that to me. Illicit drug users do not care about anyone but themselves; their actions make that clear.

This is a deeply personal issue, and I'm not going to spend the next few days or weeks getting sucked into this thread to defend why I think recreational drug use is incredibly destructive to society; it is my opinion and although I strive to remain open-minded on most issues, on this particular issue I do not feel I will ever change my mind. I have a dim view of recreational drug use and not much respect for recreational drug users. For drug dealers, I would only wish we had a death penalty.

I feel that people who continue to buy illegal drugs for recreational use in the USA are knowingly supporting the criminal organizations that fund terrorism and crime cartels that pose significant risks to all Americans; and when they buy their pot in a baggie, they're essentially buying bullets for Al-Queda. Since they are willing to overlook that in order to get their high, I am willing to say that should be removed from society as a threat to us all. If they cannot control themselves to extend of forgoing their hobby in exchange for, say, fewer beheadings in Mexican border towns, then they're a danger to us all. Life behind bars would be fine with me. Yes, those organizations would vanish to a large extend if drugs were legal; but they are not. So continuing to buy from dealers is funding the criminals directly and indirectly funding terrorism. I can't comprehend how anyone considering themselves a good person can do that with a clear conscience except through denial.

Of course this means that I also support the status quo to some extent - continued prohibition of recreational drugs means continued criminal organizations to support the demand for illicit drugs. I accept that. However, although there is no solution to this problem that will work 100%, I feel that stronger enforcement against drug users and low-level dealers is a good start. Life in prison, capital punishment, and the like. Lock 'em up and execute the dealers. Won't cure the problem, but it will make it harder for the drug cartels to continue to operate as openly as they currently do.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Touch Of Death]

I think that if they're legal they should be regulated. Some should remain illegal, such as meth. Others, like mary jane, should be legalized and controlled much as we currently control alcohol.

Meth has really been an issue since its criminalization.
sean

 

[Nomad]

To me, it's more an issue of freedom. The freedom, as adults, to decide what to put into our own bodies (whether that's alcohol, marijuana, or high fructose corn syrup) is one of the most basic freedoms available... and yet, it's one we don't have. The government has decided in it's infinite wisdom that it's ok for an adult to drink a bottle of Jack Daniel's, but not to smoke a joint.

From a public safety standpoint, this distinction doesn't hold water; many studies have shown the relative rates of direct (alcohol poisoning, cirrhosis, etc) and indirect deaths (drunk driving, alcohol promoted violence and so on) caused by alcohol to be far far higher than those even suspected of being caused by marijuana use.

The real danger around illicit drugs tends to come from the fact that they're illicit, and thus controlled by cartels who have violent clashes with each other and the police, in which innocent bystanders are frequently harmed (especially south of the border).

I prefer Portugal's view of drugs as a public health concern rather than a legal one. Financial reasons aside, I just don't think that there's much "moral" ground to stand on behind the current drug laws. I also believe that much of the fascination with marijuana and other drugs comes from their illicit nature; teenagers especially are more likely to try something if they know that it's against the rules. Backing this up, studies have shown that drug use in Portugal and the Netherlands has actually gone down following legalization. It just becomes less of a big deal.

If you don't like them, don't indulge. The same way that teetotalers and nonsmokers have not indulged in their respective vices for a very long time.

 

[ballen0351]

I know this thread is a few weeks old but I feel I needed to reply. I currenty work as an Narcotics Detective in the Baltimore/ Washington DC metro area. I deal with this issue everyday. I work all aspects of drug cases from interviewing addicted crack mothers, to multi-kilo cocaine suppliers. Ive bought everything from $10.00 worth of Marijuana up to multi-kilos of Cocaine and Heroin. Im by no means an expert on the subject but I have a very clear working knowledge of the topic.

Making narcotics legal will do nothing to reduce crime it will only change they types of crimes being commited. Drugs are illegal here but they are not hard to get. Any day, any time 365 days a year 24 hrs a day I can go into areas as big a Washington DC to rural farmlands near the PA border and I can buy anything I want. So that fact that they are illegal does nothing to hurt the supply its here and despite my and 1000's of other officers al over the worlds best effort that wont change. Crack heads will still want crack and Heroin addicts will still need it every day to keep from getting sick.

So we decide to make it legal ok. So what happend next? 1st that .1gram of crack cocaine I pay 10 bucks to the local dealer is now going to cost $15 from the Govt run clinic once they tax it. So now Mr. Crack head has to go break into 2 houses to get enough money to get his fix instead of one.
Mr local street hustler drug dealers is now not making his $1500 a day crack sales so now hes got to go start robbing people to make money. Mexican drug cartels are now out Billions of dollars a month they have to find someway of making money so what do they turn to?
Where do we start gettig all the drugs that are now legal? Do we have Govt run drug makers to process and manufacture Cocaine and other drugs now? OK where do they get the raw materials from? The same terriorst groups they are selling to the dealers will now cut out the middle men jack up the price and sell directly to the Fed Govt.

How do you teach your children not to use drugs when the Govt says its ok? Look how many teens drink and smoke now its way higher then the # that use illegal drugs.

I always hear the argument well people are going to do it anyway and you cant stop it so just make it legal. Well the same can be said about Rape, child molestation, murder. Its always going to happen so why try to stop it?

You want to put a dent in the drugs here you need to cut off the supply. You need to seal off the borders, Ive interviewed a 27 year old Mexican man that drove a pick up truck from Mexico to Washington DC loaded with 247 kilos of pure uncut Cocaine. It was just loaded in boxes in the bed of the truck and had a bed cover over the back. He was never stopped at the border and drove from Texas to Washington with out ever being stopped. We only found out thru an informant he was coming and was able to stop him. He told us he has made that trip every 2 months for the last 3 years and was never stopped.

You want to treat it as a health issue not a legal one sure. What about the users that dont want help dont want to stop smoking crack cocaine. What do you do with them?

Oh but what about all the great tax money we will make right? Thats not even going to be enough to cover the medical cost of all the new addicts. Ive talked to people that used a drug once and were hooked and couldnt stop. now make it legal and every 18 year old on their birthday is going to "Try it once" because they are now old enough. So then what ok we make the tax even higher well now all you have dome is created a black market where the same old dealers make the same old connections to sell lower priced untaxed drugs that are now legal so there is nothing you can do to them other then what tax fraud? Weve now come full circle have the same dealers making money and no way to punish them.

Ohh ok well lets just do marijuana and not the other stuff. Sure the same will apply as above you will tax it until its to expensive and people will import it from other places tax free. It happens here now with tobacco. Theres a hugh problem in places like NewYork where a pack of cigarettes can cost 3 tmes as much as they do in South Carolina so smugglers drive to SC buy hugh amounts of them and drive them to new your and sell them for half price illegally.

Until we face reality and Close off the supply theres nothng we can do but try to make a dent in the problem and clean up one corner at a time and hope it stays clean for a little while but I know as soon as I move on to the next corner that last one is right back at it.

 

[billc]

Ballen 0351, Thanks for the work you do. I have to say I haven't heard anyone bring up your points before. They are points that are not readily obvious and it is good to hear from someone with practical experience at the human level of this problem.

 

[Big Don]

The idea of legalizing the so called, "Recreational drugs" troubles me for a few reasons.
First, there is a difference between a cocktail on Friday night with the boys and an injection of heroin.
Second, the argument that legalizing these drugs would allow the government to tax them. Um, the government squanders BILLIONS of tax dollars now, why should we give them another source?
Third, and not close to finally, if we woke up Monday and all drugs were legal, and taxed, would the anti-smoking zealots be after pot heads, would MADD and their ilk be protesting against cocaine, heroin and marijuana?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I saw an excellent interview on some TV show last night dealing with the issue of pot legalization. A fellow noted that the 'damage' pot does was compared to the danger alcohol does, with the argument that since we allow alcohol, we ought also to allow pot. The fellow noted that you know what? We don't do all that well with alcohol - we have a huge problem with it nationwide. In fact, we humans don't behave very well with intoxicants in general; we're virtually too immature to deal with mind-altering substances at any age. His reply to the pot-lover's argument is that adding MORE problems to the list of things that are legal and we do poorly with is not really a logical argument. I had to agree. Yes, alcohol is legal. We have a lot of people who have a lot of problems with it; it causes huge problems in our society, costs us innocent lives and huge money, and we want to increase that problem by legalizing pot too? I don't think so.

 

[ballen0351]

I once was on the other side of the argument. I believed it's your body do what you want it's not hurting anyone but yourself. That's what alot of people who have no knowledge on the topic think. Oh it's a victimless crime.

Tell that to the mother and father whos 20 yr old daughter steals from them to get her fix and they stay up all night and pray she is ok and that they won't get a knock on the door from me telling them I need you to come identify the body. The newborn baby born hooked on crack cocaine. The 7 yr old hit by stray gunfire between 2 dealers fighting over a corner. The wife of the drug smuggler who is kidnapped, raped and her head cut of by the mexican drug lords whos shipment was missing some product. The young stupid girl that tries a hit of meth to impress the boy she likes thens she hooked. Tell that to the little boy whos house I raid on a weekly basis that's sound asleep in his bed and has 2 big ugly police men with guns and masks wake him up to search his room because his dad hides his crack in the kids closet. Tell that to the wife of a fallen officer who was killed cause some kid didn't want to go to jail over a bag of weed. Tell me it's a victimless crime and they are not hurting anyone but themselves.

 

[billc]

Some friends of mine went through the problems of their son being addicted to drugs. He stole form them and eventually died from the abuse.

 

[Sukerkin]

A most thought-provoking post above, ballen.

The point you made about those taking "try it once just to see what it's like" route I had not really considered before. The 'instant addiction' problem is definitely something to be weighed in the balance to be sure :nods:.

 

[Blade96]

i'm not sure about an outright ban, most drugs have a medicinal use as well.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

i'm not sure about an outright ban, most drugs have a medicinal use as well.

I have no problem with medical uses; the problem is that most 'medical use' marijuana is pure 'wink-wink' backdoor recreational use. Read some of the old threads here - even some MT members frankly admit either using 'medical' marijuana for recreational use or thinking it's just fine to do so.

In California, it's clearly a simple backdoor legalization scheme. You can get a 'prescription' from a doctor for medial marijuana for 'chronic pain'. Any kind of pain. You name it. Let us not pretend this is 'medical'.

That's not to say that there are not people who honestly derive a medical benefit from marijuana; but the provisions of the law are being abused for recreational use.

 

[ballen0351]

I have no problem with medical uses; the problem is that most 'medical use' marijuana is pure 'wink-wink' backdoor recreational use. Read some of the old threads here - even some MT members frankly admit either using 'medical' marijuana for recreational use or thinking it's just fine to do so.

In California, it's clearly a simple backdoor legalization scheme. You can get a 'prescription' from a doctor for medial marijuana for 'chronic pain'. Any kind of pain. You name it. Let us not pretend this is 'medical'.

That's not to say that there are not people who honestly derive a medical benefit from marijuana; but the provisions of the law are being abused for recreational use.

when medical marijuana first passed in cali a news show sent 10 people to a doc to get a prescription. Each one they sent got less and less serious. One woman said he eet hurt when she wears 4 inch heels. 9 of the 10 got a prescription and the only one that didn't was because he was 16. All the rest no matter what "medical" problem they had they got the prescription

 

[Bill Mattocks]

when medical marijuana first passed in cali a news show sent 10 people to a doc to get a prescription. Each one they sent got less and less serious. One woman said he eet hurt when she wears 4 inch heels. 9 of the 10 got a prescription and the only one that didn't was because he was 16. All the rest no matter what "medical" problem they had they got the prescription

I read your previous posts and agree with your stance. FWIW, I am former LE, and I am anti-legalization. Everything you described as the human cost of drugs has happened to my family due to one of my family members' addictions to various drugs, including marijuana. The cost is high and extends down the generations. It destroys families and damages society.

I have a libertarian base - my first instinct is to not regulate if it is a matter of individual choice. However, we also live in a society that is ravaged by drugs and it destroying us. I do not subscribe to the notion that if we simply legalize it, we'll all be OK; all the bad stuff will magically disappear and our society will be just peachy keen.

If one buys marijuana on the street today, one is supporting the criminals who import and distribute it. The guys shooting police officers and beheading innocent people in Mexico and other nations. There is no way to shift that moral responsibility; if the pot came from non-domestic sources, the end-user is indirectly responsible for murder in a very traceable and clear-cut way. This makes pot-smokers angry, but it's the truth.

I would have some respect for people who wanted marijuana to be legal for whatever purpose, but who refused to use it until it became legal to do so. However, pot smokers are the main proponents, and though their arguments are correct - that legalization would eliminate the illicit drug trade to a large extent - while they currently smoke non-domestic pot, they are criminals in my mind, responsible for murders and terrorism, and I'm frankly not all that interested in their opinions. They are actually prime examples of how people cannot control themselves - if they want drugs, they'll get drugs, regardless of the laws; and if people get killed to bring those drugs to them, they'll shift the blame and pretend they themselves are not responsible for it.

The supply will never end; only the ending of the demand can change this. The demand can be change by legalization - which I do not support - or by drug users not using the drugs - which addicts will never stop doing, though they claim their drug is not addicting and they are not addicted. Really? Then quit smoking dope until it's legal. No, they can't do that. Q.E.D.

 

[Steve]

I would have some respect for people who wanted marijuana to be legal for whatever purpose, but who refused to use it until it became legal to do so.

That is the only reason I don't smoke weed now, and haven't for over 20 years. But I'd happily buy a pack of Marleyboros if it's ever legalized.

Ultimately, the reasons pot is illegal are financial and political and have nothing to do with any sane arguments to the contrary. People don't get angry on weed. They don't get into fights. It's not addictive. It's not a gateway drug. It's not any more unhealthy for us than things we do every day. In many ways, it's much, much safer than alcohol.

Should it be regulated? Sure. Should it be legal for minors? Absolutely not. Should people be able to drive under the influence? Of course not.

The topic of weed has come up several times before.

Starts here: http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=73168

Continues here: http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=78867