Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Heroin Addicts for the Drug War
The LAPD officer who writes under the pseudonym "Jack Dunphy" has a wrap-up of The Wire at Pajamas Media that concludes with a stirring defense of the drug war. It goes like this:
Some addicts can and do clean up, but will legalization make honest citizens out of drug dealers willing to kill over control of a street corner?
The argument for drug legalization is a rational one, but it is not one that I, after more than twenty years as a cop in Los Angeles, can endorse. Watching Bubbles struggle with his demons over these last five years, I was often reminded of a heroin addict I arrested years ago. As I was about to close the cell door on him, I asked him if he thought heroin should be legalized.
“No way,” he said.
I asked him why not.
“If you legalize it,” he said, “pretty soon everybody will be like me.”
This is what drug warrior arguments have come to. Cheap appeals to emotion that rest on the authority of a heroin addict.
Let's start with the line about "dealers willing to kill over a street corner." In fact, legalization would take care of that problem, because when a product is legal, "turf wars" are better known as "market share." That is, there are legitimate ways of expanding your business. You innovate. You offer a better product (like, say, one that doesn't kill people). And there are legitimate ways of handling bad business associates. You sue them. Or you call the police. You don't kill them. I haven't read about a Michelob transaction gone wrong in a long, long time.
As for Dunphy's strange appeal to a junkie's authority, there are several problems with the "if you legalize drugs, everyone will become an addict" argument. Among them:
1) It assumes that prohibition is actually preventing access to illegal drugs in any meaningful way today. It isn't. I could have a bag of marijuana in my hands in about five minutes. As fast or faster than I could get a sandwich. It would probably take me 20 minutes to a half hour hunt down a small bag of heroin, but it wouldn't be difficult. And I could get either without any real fear of arrest. And I'm not a drug user. If I had actual connections, it'd be even easier. Some survey data shows high school kids can get marijuana as easily or easier than they can get alcohol.
2) It wrongly assumes that the all of the problems we associate with drugs--the bloody turf wars, the presence of particularly potent drugs like meth, the lengths to which dealers will go to get their premium, etc.--are the product of the drugs themselves, and not the product of them being prohibited. This chart helps slay that argument.
3) It assumes that the laws against using and distributing drugs are the only thing preventing a huge portion of the population from trying them, and becoming addicted to them. Legalization may indeed increase the use of currently banned drugs. But I have my doubts about a massive increase in addicts. The social stigma would still be there, as it is with alcoholism. Perhaps more people would experiment. But it isn't clear that that's a bad thing. Use is not abuse, no matter what ONDCP says in its press releases. And the vast majority of drug users—even "hard" drug users—don't turn into addicts.
Certainly, the overwhelming majority of people who currently abstain from drug use solely due to drugs being illegal are unlikely to become violent addicts should those drugs be legalized, robbing and killing at will to maintain a fix. To the extent that there would be increases in experimentation, the drugs people would be experimenting with would be safer. At minimum they'd be regulated by market forces, and more likely, heavily regulated by government. Would excessive regulation lead to a violent black market in unregulated drugs? I doubt it. Is there a violent black market in unregulated alcohol? Tobacco? There are limited black markets, yes. But they aren't nearly the problem the black markets for cocaine, heroin, and the like are.
4) It rests on the absurd assumption that it's appropriate and logical to throw people in jail in order to protect them from becoming addicts.
For an alternate take on the drug war from a former LAPD cop, see my interview with David Doddridge.
|3.17.08 @ 5:13PM|#
"Jack Dunphy", Pseudonymous LAPD Officer Extraordinaire, is a heroin-using gay man... not that there's anything wrong with that!!
Episiarch|3.17.08 @ 5:15PM|#
As I was about to close the cell door on him
When I hit that part, that was it. Dude, you are locking someone up
that is hurting no one (but himself) and clearly wants and needs
help. It's fucking insane.
Click. Read. Think. Learn.|3.17.08 @ 5:15PM|#
Even in the Libertarian Fantasy Universe, some form of drugs or some form of drug sales would be illegal, and the violence will simply switch from fighting over all the trade to fighting over the crack trade, or the trade to minors, etc.
|3.17.08 @ 5:18PM|#
Is there a violent "selling Budweiser to underage kids" market that I've missed?
|3.17.08 @ 5:24PM|#
I believe I've read "Dunphy's" articles on NR before, and there's pretty much no police activity that he won't defend. Probably all the stuff that Radley has profiled for us.
|3.17.08 @ 5:25PM|#
Click. Read. Think. Learn. | March 17, 2008, 5:15pm | #
Even in the Libertarian Fantasy Universe, some form of drugs or some form of drug sales would be illegal, and the violence will simply switch from fighting over all the trade to fighting over the crack trade, or the trade to minors, etc.
Changed your handle I see...
In the my Libertarian Fantasy Universe, only the violent
actions of the so called fighters/wackos/assholes would result in
any legal/offical responses... not "things". In short simple
language; people and their actions are subject to consequences and
rules of conduct, not objects. Clear?
BakedPenguin|3.17.08 @ 5:25PM|#
David - yes, but it's covered up by all the news stories about
the violent trade in supplying high schoolers smokes.
Lonewacko - look out! It's an immigrant
Spanish speaking drug dealer!
Dello|3.17.08 @ 5:25PM|#
"If you legalize it," he said, "pretty soon everybody will be (an alcoholic/chronic smoker) like me."
TrappedEastOfTHeBigMuddy|3.17.08 @ 5:27PM|#
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/Modifiedmurderchart.gif
Is the very low value around the turn of the 20th century the
result of poor data or is it real? If the later, does anyone have
any theories on what the hell happened?
|3.17.08 @ 5:29PM|#
I favor marijauna legalizationa, but I don't have the first clue where to get it or heroin or any other illegal drug if you held a gun to my head. 20 minutes? What kind of company do you keep?
SIV|3.17.08 @ 5:34PM|#
Even in the Libertarian Fantasy Universe, some form of drugs
or some form of drug sales would be illegal,
Cite please. Should be easy to find as there aren't a lot of pages
in the LFU criminal code.
|3.17.08 @ 5:38PM|#
What drug warriors fail[or omit on purpose]to say is when legal most would use the safer,manufactured drugs.Pot is the #1 illegal drug and the bedrock of the most violent cartels.It's also safer than alcohol.The crack market would dry up.Why use 'bath tub gin' when you can get pure,controlled cocaine?As I stated before,we replaced Al Capone with Bud,Coors and Miller and it worked.
|3.17.08 @ 5:50PM|#
When was the last time you heard of a Michelob deal at
all?
About thirty seconds ago, when somebody bought a sixer at the
corner stop-n-shop.
|3.17.08 @ 5:53PM|#
Here's a question; is there anyone who is actually surprised
that they got addicted to heroin. "Oh! Now I'm a junkie; never my
heroin use to lead to this!"
Some survey data shows high school kids can get marijuana as
easily or easier than they can get alcohol.
My driver's license has a crack in it, so for me its easier to get
beer by asking my 19-year-old roommate to buy it for me then to
actually buy it myself. And yet my cracked diver's license never
gets me in trouble when I cash a check, weird...right?
|3.17.08 @ 6:01PM|#
Here's a question; is there anyone who is actually surprised
that they got addicted to heroin. "Oh! Now I'm a junkie; never my
heroin use to lead to this!"
This is what happens to your grammar when you've been up for over
32 hours.
|3.17.08 @ 6:08PM|#
I favor marijauna legalizationa, but I don't have the first
clue where to get it or heroin or any other illegal drug if you
held a gun to my head. 20 minutes? What kind of company do you
keep?
I live in Detroit. Midtown to be precise. If I want crack cocaine
or heroin, I don't have to ask anybody. I'll walk down the street
(Cass, Second or Third) and somebody will say to me "Rocks" (crack
cocaine, $10 each), "Blow" (Heroin, $10 a pop, which I'm told is a
fix), or both. Occasionaly somebody will say "Trees" but the reefer
trade is still mostly indoors.
The drug war is being fought in my neighborhood, and my neighbos
are the losers.
Who the fuck am I supposed to thank for this?
I know who to
blame.
BTW, I tried everything available in the '70s. Got
addicted to nothing. Hell, I never missed a day of work.
miche|3.17.08 @ 6:20PM|#
I could have a bag of marijuana in my hands in about five minutes. As fast or faster than I could get a sandwich. It would probably take me 20 minutes to a half hour hunt down a small bag of heroin, but it wouldn't be difficult. And I could get either without any real fear of arrest. And I'm not a drug user.
Your "not a drug user" clarification is unnecessary. EVERYBODY
knows that you wait 17 hours after you reach the dealer to actually
get the shit in hand. Or is that just within surburbia? OTOH, I did
score an Ambien from an unknown person (doc to boot) on the flight
from Santiago to Miami yesterday.
Timely dealers wear white coats these days.
Robert|3.17.08 @ 6:22PM|#
Even in the Libertarian Fantasy Universe, some form of drugs or some form of drug sales would be illegal, and the violence will simply switch from fighting over all the trade to fighting over the crack trade, or the trade to minors, etc.
I don't see why any form of drugs or sales would
be illegal, because the reasons would be the same regardless of the
product or method of sale.
Can you think of any other consumer product which can't be allowed
on the market because people will like it too much??!!
The Wine Commonsewer|3.17.08 @ 6:30PM|#
........ and the violence will simply switch from fighting
over all the trade to fighting over the crack trade, or the trade
to minors, etc
Well, i haven't noticed Bud & Coors shooting it out in my
neighborhood over the trade to minors. Yours?
|3.17.08 @ 6:47PM|#
Uhh.. I have no idea where to get marijuana and certainly have
idea where to get herion. If it was legal, I'm pretty sure I'd know
where to find it... so, it's a pretty stupid argument that access
isn't currently limited.
Secondly, the argument isn't that if you legalize drugs the
companies which produce and sell drugs will continue killing people
- it's that the type of people who are currently killing each other
will continue to do so, with or without legal drugs. Some people
are just scumbags...
Third, anyone who has taken any economics understands supply and
demand which will ensure that legalization will lead to more drug
use (total price will go down, hence demand will increase).
Any argument for legalization needs to deal honestly with these
issues, otherwise you just sound like an ignorant jackass.
Rimfax|3.17.08 @ 6:58PM|#
from the Wikipedia
article
In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism in which one attributes one's own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions to others. Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted subconscious impulses/desires without letting the ego recognize them. The theory was developed by Sigmund Freud and further refined by his daughter Anna Freud, and for this reason, it is sometimes referred to as "Freudian Projection"
It reminds me of the evangelists who preach against "teh gay" as if
everyone is dogged by homosexual interest the way that they
themselves are. (Note: I am not arguing moral, or other,
equivalence between homosexuality and drug abuse.)
|3.17.08 @ 7:01PM|#
Read "The theory was developed by Sigmund Freud" as "The complete nonsense developed by know moronic lunatic Sigmun Freud"...
|3.17.08 @ 7:13PM|#
Third, anyone who has taken any economics understands supply
and demand which will ensure that legalization will lead to more
drug use (total price will go down, hence demand will
increase).
Hm. I wonder how closely drug use and abuse are correlated for
illegal drugs. For that matter, I wonder how closely alcohol use
and abuse are correlated. It's sometimes remarked by drug warriors
that Prohibition did, in fact, reduce alcohol consumption in the
US, but that doesn't necessarily say anything about the prevalence
of alcohol abuse/alcoholism during that time period. I have no
doubt that use would go up were drugs made legal, but that's not to
say that the population of junkies would go up appreciably.
talk-n-dog|3.17.08 @ 7:15PM|#
"I could have a bag of marijuana in my hands in about five
minutes."
You can't get that cop to your house in five minutes.
By making such a large segment of the population criminals, you are
heading the country for a replay of the Great Depression. If you
look back at the time line you'll notice that Prohibition created
more criminals and turf wars and more bar stools, then it ushered
in the Great Depression and a few more years of the process of
making the population criminals and prohibition failed and was
repealed then it took about 4 years to start improving.
Check it out...
|3.17.08 @ 7:21PM|#
So, anyone think "Jack Dunphy" would be willing to admit that,
if drugs were legal, *HE* would have no choice but to become a
floor-crawling smack addict? Or is this the infamous "everyone else
would become an addict because they're not smart and disciplined
like I am" approach to law?
Legal or not, I ain't doing anything that involves a needle. Screw
that.
|3.17.08 @ 7:32PM|#
Would excessive regulation lead to a violent black market in
unregulated drugs? I doubt it.
Ummm, considering that the WoD IS excessive regulation, this
sentence makes no sense in the context of the rest of the article.
The more you regulate it, the more likely a violent black market
will arise. And if you completely deregulate it, by definition you
can't even have a black market.
|3.17.08 @ 7:34PM|#
Not all drug related violence is due to prohibition. A large
portion is due to the fact that a junkie generally has very few
options available to him to financially support his habit. One
option, of course, is armed robbery. Had a childhood friend (dead
now), who supported his habit that way.
I don't know what the solution to that is. I suppose we could
consider treating the hardcore junkies like we do schizophrenics.
Treat 'em, release 'em and keep as good an eye on them as we
can.
|3.17.08 @ 7:37PM|#
I favor marijauna legalizationa, but I don't have the first
clue where to get it or heroin or any other illegal drug if you
held a gun to my head. 20 minutes? What kind of company do you
keep?
Richard, he lives in DC. 'Nuff said.
AND works at Reason. If multiple people working there aren't
holding illegal drugs, then they might as well all turn in their
libertarian secret decoder rings, yeah?
Kevin Carson|3.17.08 @ 7:47PM|#
Know who else he should have asked? A heroin *dealer*. The biggest advocates of the Drug War are the racketeers who profit from the black market trade. And that includes the biggest drug gang of all, the racketeers in blue whose operation involves civil forfeiture, planted evidence, jailhouse snitches and plea blackmail
Dave B.|3.17.08 @ 7:55PM|#
Not all drug related violence is due to prohibition. A large
portion is due to the fact that a junkie generally has very few
options available to him to financially support his
habit.
If not for prohibition, it wouldn't be so difficult to support a
drug habit, as costs would go down. People don't tend to turn to
violent crime to buy cheap, legal things.
|3.17.08 @ 8:00PM|#
And that includes the biggest drug gang of all, the
racketeers in blue whose operation involves civil forfeiture,
planted evidence, jailhouse snitches and plea blackmail
American League Umpires?
|3.17.08 @ 8:05PM|#
If not for prohibition, it wouldn't be so difficult to
support a drug habit, as costs would go down. People don't tend to
turn to violent crime to buy cheap, legal things.
And, sans urinalysis, it would be far easier for the user to obtain
gainful employment, contributing to the economy, society and the
tax base.
Would that be such a terrible thing?
tarran|3.17.08 @ 8:20PM|#
J sub D,
It would be terrible! Then we'd go back to the way things were
before marijuana was outlawed; when black men would smoke a joint
and begin to think they were just as good as a white man.
|3.17.08 @ 8:23PM|#
when black men would smoke a joint and begin to think they
were just as good as a white man.
IIRC, that is an Ansliger quote. Don't you just love the
immorality encountered with just a cursory examination of drug war
history?
|3.17.08 @ 8:27PM|#
Yep, it was Anslinger. Tarran you cleaned it up a bit. Here is the original quote -"Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men."
TallDave|3.17.08 @ 8:37PM|#
It assumes that prohibition is actually preventing access to
illegal drugs in any meaningful way today. It isn't.
This is the problem with the drug war: it just doesn't work in a
free society.
The only way we'll stop people from using drugs is by living
Orwell's 1984.
|3.17.08 @ 8:47PM|#
jose sez Third, anyone who has taken any economics
understands supply and demand which will ensure that legalization
will lead to more drug use (total price will go down, hence demand
will increase).
Anyone who has taken any economics should also understand
elasticity; and you can make a pretty good argument that demand in
this case isn't all that elastic. Demand after all calls forth the
supply - not vice versa.
TallDave|3.17.08 @ 8:49PM|#
A large portion is due to the fact that a junkie generally
has very few options available to him to financially support his
habit.
If you hear someone say this, tell them about William Stewart
Halsted, one of the fathers of modern surgery... and a lifelong
morphine addict.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halsted
tarran|3.17.08 @ 8:49PM|#
J sub D,
I had to clean up the language to since people don't use the word
'darkie' any more.
|3.17.08 @ 9:03PM|#
Gee, since booze is legal, I guess I have to become a drunk,
right?
I've been a teetotaler all my life, and the premise that we only
refrain from self-destructive behavior when it's illegal is 100%
unmitigated bullshit.
-jcr
|3.17.08 @ 9:06PM|#
Folks on this thread would be very interested in the results of the Zogby poll StoptheDrugWar.org recently commissioned -- we asked "If hard drugs such as heroin or cocaine were legalized, would you be likely to use them?" Ninety-ninety percent of respondents answered, "No." Only 0.6 percent said "Yes." The remaining 0.4 percent weren't sure. See: http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle_blog/2007/dec/05/poll_hard_drug_legalization_little_use
|3.17.08 @ 9:08PM|#
Dunphy's junkie is contradicted by a recent poll released by Zogby International (and featured prominently on the website of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition; www.leap.cc). The poll asked respondents if they would try "hard drugs," such as Heroin or Cocaine if they were legalized. Ninety-nine percent of those polled answered NO! Only .06 said yes. These results are dramatic, but not overly suprising. Most people just aren't going to binge on dangerous narcotics simply because they can. Some will try them, but most of these people will not organize their lifestyle around drugs. The minority of drug users that become addicted likely have other problems (generally a sad, empty life, mental issues, etc.) that make them particularly vulnerable to self-destructive behaviors. Incarceration will not remedy a screwed up life.
|3.17.08 @ 9:10PM|#
Oops, sorry David. Didn't mean to steal your thunder. I'm glad there are others out there that saw the poll.
876|3.17.08 @ 9:17PM|#
>>Your "not a drug user" clarification is unnecessary.
EVERYBODY knows that you wait 17 hours after you reach the dealer
to actually get the shit in hand. Or is that just within
surburbia?
It's in places without slums, suburban or otherwise. If you know
the right neighborhood and are willing to risk it, you just walk
down the right street, lingering a fraction of a second near
loitering males, and they mumble whatever is the local slang for
the drugs they've got. It's not the safest strategy but it
works.
McBeelzebub|3.17.08 @ 9:26PM|#
I'm so very tired of the arguments from effect. Elasticity,
demand kurv, blablabla. I have the perfect right to f**k myself up
in any way I please. This is because I own myself.
If you think I do not own myself, and am consequently a slave,
please tell me why I don't, who does own me and why they own
me.
Otherwise, please shut the hell up. It's very annoying to have a
gun shoved in your face for no good reason.
|3.17.08 @ 9:42PM|#
"And, sans urinalysis, it would be far easier for the user to
obtain gainful employment, contributing to the economy, society and
the tax base. Would that be such a terrible thing?"
I'm not talking about failing to find employment because of drug
testing. I'm talking about failing to find employment because the
junk makes you an unemployable worker. There are functional heroin
addicts out there to be sure, but it seems like there's a lot more
who just would be unable to hold down anything remotely close to a
'job.'
I'm not trying to justify the drug war, I'm just saying that
there's some violence committed by junkies due to their inability
to get money any other way.
Jen|3.17.08 @ 9:54PM|#
miche, yeah that's a surburbia thing. I live in the Atlanta
area, haven't used in ages, yet if I decided to go on a three-day
coke bender I know exactly where to go to get some decebnt shit. I
guess it's part of the whole "urban experience".
As for the "if it were legal everyone would do it" argument, if
that held true we would be a country of raging alcoholics and
chain-smokers. Last time I checked we were neither.
A side note; the legal druges scare me more than the illegal ones.
Ever watched someone ween themselves off an anti-depressant? Not
good times.
McBeelzebub|3.17.08 @ 10:05PM|#
I'm not trying to justify the drug war, I'm just saying that
there's some violence committed by junkies due to their inability
to get money any other way.
I think that this is mainly a feature of the illegality of drug use
and trading, not the use/trading themselves. The prices, risks of
use, and the web of incentives for drug dealers are all much
different in a black market than an open market.
For one thing, drugs are much more expensive when outlawed--heroin
was unbelievably cheap in the UK before it was illegal. Dealers
consequently have much more to gain by getting people addicted in a
black market, as it is bothmore profitable to supply addicts with
high-priced goods and more risky to have a loose commercial
relationship like you do with your grocery store when you could be
attacked for doing business.
SIV|3.17.08 @ 10:10PM|#
I'm not talking about failing to find employment because of drug
testing. I'm talking about failing to find employment because the
junk makes you an unemployable worker.
Most junkies hold down jobs. If they were mostly engaged in violent
criminal behavior they wouldn't last very long. There is nothing
inherent in opiate psychopharmacology to encourage crime or
violence-if fact quite the opposite.
robc|3.17.08 @ 10:19PM|#
Is Voros the most famous person to have posted
on H&R?
BTW Voros, Thanks. My fantasy baseball pitching staff has been
cheap and good since I first read your stuff.
The Wine Commonsewer|3.17.08 @ 10:23PM|#
If you legalize it.....pretty soon everybody will be like
me
Why are the drug warriors willing to spend billions of dollars,
millions of man hours, and willing to flush my children's birth
rights down the toilet just to keep some junkie from sticking a
needle in his arm?
Why do they care so much about THAT guy? You know, the guy that is
still sticking the needle in his arm despite the cops best efforts
to stop him.
robc|3.17.08 @ 10:24PM|#
Voros,
it seems like there's a lot more who just would be unable to hold
down anything remotely close to a 'job.'
Any reason to expect it to be any different that for alcohol? There
are far more "funtional" alcoholics than the other kind.
The Wine Commonsewer|3.17.08 @ 10:34PM|#
funtional
Freudian slip, my man?
There are far more "funtional" alcoholics than the other
kind.
And the upside is no stupid meetings.
miche|3.17.08 @ 10:37PM|#
Jen,
I could go to a Dallas club and find some blow in a second but it
seems to be easier to get drugs you don't really need on airplanes
or at the office these days. Once you get the shit lined up with a
dealer, you have to wait, wait, wait for him to show up. It's not
like we could call the BBB about poor customer service.
Seriously, I could hit speed dial and find an illicit source right
now but it's still less time consuming to get an unknown doc to
write (or provide as sample) a mood altering drug or have a friend
play at medicine.
People don't care about drugs, they care about packaging and
prescription. Now, where is my phone? I need to sober up from the
booze and Ambien that I legally inbibed.
BakedPenguin|3.17.08 @ 10:40PM|#
And the upside is no stupid meetings.
Not quite true, TWC. The meetings "funtional" alcoholics hold are
known as "parties". Whether they're stupid or not depends on who
shows up.
robc|3.17.08 @ 10:41PM|#
the upside is no stupid meetings.
Nah, thats the upside of being a member of the Southern Baptist
Homebrewers Association.
Dont assume freudian what can be ascribed to bad typing.
The Wine Commonsewer|3.18.08 @ 12:39AM|#
Baked, you call them parties, I prefer to call them wine
tastings.
Sounds a bit pretentious, eh?
The Wine Commonsewer|3.18.08 @ 12:44AM|#
I'm doing a little wine tasting right now, actually. A little red and a couple of chapters of Duma Key. So far, pretty good. On both counts.
The Wine Commonsewer|3.18.08 @ 12:46AM|#
Southern Baptist Homebrewers Association
I heard that Southern Baptists aren't allowed to have sex while
standing up.
Might lead to dancing..........
The Wine Commonsewer|3.18.08 @ 12:50AM|#
Southern Baptist Homebrewers Association
cue cognitive dissonance.........
.......since when are Southern Baptists allowed to drink
brewskis?
|3.18.08 @ 2:02AM|#
I could have a bag of marijuana in my hands in about five
minutes.
Yo can you hook me up? It's been pretty dry here lately.
|3.18.08 @ 2:06AM|#
I don't see why any form of drugs or sales would be illegal,
because the reasons would be the same regardless of the product or
method of sale.
so you guys seriously want it to be legal to to sell crack to
10-year-olds. lol @ libertarianism.
|3.18.08 @ 2:28AM|#
"There is nothing inherent in opiate psychopharmacology to
encourage crime or violence-if fact quite the opposite."
No it's the addiction, and for reasons we don't fully understand
yet, the addiction and the lengths folks will go to feed it seems
to be more severe than other addictions both legal (booze,
cigarettes) and illegal (gambling, pot). Folks will ruin their
lives over gambling, but they'll abandon them altogether over
heroin.
Again I'm not justifying their prohibition, but I don't think
equating it with booze is quite right either. Heroin legalization
comes with it, I think, a pretty much automatic government run (or
at least extremely heavily subsidized) program to treat the
hardcores. For political reasons, if no other. I don't know how you
could ever sell legalization (at this point) to people
otherwise.
|3.18.08 @ 3:21AM|#
Voros McCracken
The typical heroin user is non-functional when he can't get a fix
rather than when he is "high".
A reliable reasonably priced supply works wonders on a users
ability to function.
Places that have such a thing tend to have fewer of those addiction
related crime problems you seem so obsessed with. Have they
eliminated street crime altogether? No, as another commenter
observed we will always have a ready supply of scumbags.
Daniel|3.18.08 @ 5:09AM|#
The turf war analogy I prefer is:
You don't hear of McDonald's shooting at Burger King when they open
up a restaurant in the same street.
Arho|3.18.08 @ 6:57AM|#
I'm not quite sure how this story from the WoD in Europe relates
to the thread at hand, but I still wanna share:
A few years back, heroin users here in Finland largely switched to
buprenorphine (Subutex), a prescription drug for opiod addiction
that is apparently fairly similar to heroin, if used intravenously.
The switch was due to supply going down with the war in Afganistan,
and easier access to blackmarket buprenorphine from Estonia.
The result was zero heroin overdose deaths over a couple of years.
Also, with milder and longer withdrawal, bupre-addicts are much
more functional human beings than heroin users, and the switch to
rehab and maintained addiction, with prescribed dosages used orally
should be easier from buprenorphine.
Obviously, the official response was a crackdown on the alarming
new drug, including discrediting doctors who prescribe Subutex for
outpatient use. ODs are happening again.
|3.18.08 @ 8:43AM|#
"If you legalize it," he said, "pretty soon everybody will
be like me."
It must be comforting for a person to believe that everyone is as
weak and pathetic as he is.
PC|3.18.08 @ 9:29AM|#
Did Dunphy ever pick up a zooted stockbroker?
"No man, if you make it legal, everyone will be driven, rich, and
happy like me?"
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|3.18.08 @ 9:46AM|#
American Idle is legal yet I have never watched a single episode.
|3.18.08 @ 10:08AM|#
And BTW 'a,' what drug are you on that has you up at 4 AM, commenting on a blog?
The Wine Commonsewer|3.18.08 @ 10:16AM|#
so you guys seriously want it to be legal to to sell crack
to 10-year-olds.
Oh, absolutely. Smokes and booze too. But the overarching goal of
libertarians is to see to it that poor people who are too stupid to
inherit their own money starve in the streets instead of living on
the dole. That and using guys with no arms and legs for third base
in every major league ballpark.
|3.18.08 @ 10:22AM|#
I did a quick survey of a middle school girl that is in the
house talking to her aunt.
she claims that she can get any of the drugs mentioned in this
thread within a day.
And that one of the hardest ones for her to get is alcohol (heroin
would be harder), but can still be obtained if she wanted to.
That is the war on drugs for you.
robc|3.18.08 @ 10:31AM|#
TWC,
cue cognitive dissonance.........
.......since when are Southern Baptists allowed to drink
brewskis?
Just checking in from lat night, if you can find a mention of
alcohol here let
me know. They even dodge it in the Lord's Supper section, refering
to "fruit of the vine" instead. No mention of dancin either, for
that matter.
One of the prime rules of being a baptist is "never acknowledge
knowing a fellow baptist in the liquor store". :)
Hence the SBHA having no meetings (this is a non-existent org, but
Ive considered setting up a website for it). Unfortunately,
sbha.org is taken, but .net is available.
|3.18.08 @ 11:04AM|#
TWC--I thought we agreed to use the limbless guys as pinatas at
children's birthday parties? No reason they can't do both I
suppose. Might as well maximize their productivity in the
off-season.
We still plan on stealing their wages so we can use it for cheap
hookers, right? None of the $4K/night stuff for me.
|3.18.08 @ 11:32AM|#
As the line goes in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest: "Jack Dunphy's full of shit!"
|3.18.08 @ 1:07PM|#
I support drug legalization. But aren't hardcore drugs like
heroin and meth much more addictive than alcohol? Watching a show
like "Intervention" makes me worry.
Could you imagine Madison Avenue pushing something like heroin,
which already sells itself? I think the whole country would be
hooked on it in a minute.
This doesn't mean prohibition is the right policy, but this is not
an easy thing to sort out.
|3.18.08 @ 1:08PM|#
By the way, on that murder chart, what explains the uptick in murders circa 1960, before the start of the war on drugs? Also, what about the other initial increase, in the early 1900s? I'm just curious.
|3.18.08 @ 2:03PM|#
Tim,
The life time addiction rate for alcohol is about 11%. The life
time addiction rate for heroin is about 17%. Meth falls somewhere
in between, I seem to recall.
So for everyone 100 people who try either alcohol or heroin, about
11 will become alcohol addicts sometime down the road, while about
17 will become heroin addicts sometime down the road.
Now why are we fighting a war on drugs?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245