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
Cops Say Legalize Drugs; Here's Why
Writing in today's Washington Post, former Baltimore cops Peter Moskos and Stanford Franklin argue that "it's time to legalize drugs." Moskos and Franklin, both members of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, emphasize that the war on drugs fosters violent, open-air drug dealing; that it needlessly endangers police officers; and that the alternative of "a legal and regulated free market," though "not a cure-all," would be "a vast improvement on the status quo," since "drug manufacturing and distribution [are] too dangerous to remain in the hands of unregulated criminals." They also propose what strikes me as the most viable route to reform:
We simply urge the federal government to retreat. Let cities and states (and, while we're at it, other countries) decide their own drug policies. Many would continue prohibition, but some would try something new. California and its medical marijuana dispensaries provide a good working example, warts and all, that legalized drug distribution does not cause the sky to fall.
Federalism would not only allow instructive experimentation; it would allow national politicians to avoid taking positions on emotionally charged local issues that the Constitution leaves to the states. Californians should not have to worry about the president's views on medical marijuana, and the president should not have to worry about the political ramifications of coming down on one side or the other.
Craig|8.17.09 @ 12:18PM|#
Obama should be required to read this the next time he chuckles mockingly at his supporters for suggesting legalization.
Anonymous|8.17.09 @ 12:38PM|#
We simply urge the federal government to retreat.
Power is water, not just a noun.
Never retreat. Never back down.
Never stop swimming, or you're going to drown.
|8.17.09 @ 12:42PM|#
Californians should not have to worry about the president's
views on medical marijuana, and the president should not have to
worry about the political ramifications of coming down on one side
or the other.
Nice sentiment, Sullum, but you're clearly unaware of the
importance of the culture war. Our side (so said by both sides)
must be allowed to impose our beliefs on the others, lest they do
the same to us. If you're not with us, you're against us! Rational
discussion has no place here!
|8.17.09 @ 12:52PM|#
Wouldn't there be some legitimate border disputes in this
formulation?
If, say, CA legalizes all drugs and AZ keeps them all illegal.
There would be a an influx of illegal drugs into AZ, with all the
associated crime, and AZ would have real complaint against CA. How
would this get resolved?
edna|8.17.09 @ 12:52PM|#
actually the sky is falling in california. admittedly, the pot has nothing to do with it- it's just a nice diversion while ducking falling sky bits.
Xeones|8.17.09 @ 12:57PM|#
it would allow national politicians to avoid taking
positions on emotionally charged local issues that the Constitution
leaves to the states.
Who are these mythical national politicians who could bear to avoid
taking a stance on something, whether constitutionally relevant or
not?
|8.17.09 @ 1:00PM|#
The sad truth is that America is a bunch of pussies. Instead of
standing up for the principle that you own your own body and are
the sole legitimate "decider" of what it gets as food, drink,
medicine, recreation, etc., we cower meekly while doing the
Prohibition Shuffle, often with not so much as a peep in
protest.
If America is truly to be the "land of the free and the home of the
brave," then let's be brave so we can be free. End Federal
prohibition now. Elect NOBODY and defeat EVERYBODY who is not
pledged to this goal. Ignore advice that you should not be a
"litmus-test" voter because Prohibition provides one of the most
all-inclusive and accurate litmus tests there can possibly be: the
naked assertion that government owns you and can override your own
decisions about your own body. This issue really separates the
rulers from the ruled. Which are you?
|8.17.09 @ 1:06PM|#
Fresno Dan says legalise drugs
Here's why:
I like drugs?
O, thats too truthy
OK
It will ensure the peace and prosperity of future generations,
while fortifying our bulwarks against radical islamasism
Muttley|8.17.09 @ 1:07PM|#
@Joe_D: Soft drugs are legal in the Netherlands but illegal in neighbouring countries, and you get a lot of drug-related tourism, but not an increase of crime. So if CA legalizes pot but AZ doesn't, I expect lots of border towns increasing their revenue and occupation levels.
|8.17.09 @ 1:09PM|#
# Joe_D | August 17, 2009, 12:52pm | #
# Wouldn't there be some legitimate border
# disputes in this formulation?
# If, say, CA legalizes all drugs and AZ keeps
# them all illegal. There would be a an influx
# of illegal drugs into AZ, with all the
# associated crime, and AZ would have real
# complaint against CA. How would this get
# resolved?
If AZ wants to take the authoritarian stance, they need to man up
and provide the border enforcement that is consistent with their
policy of prohibition. It is not CA's responsibility to lift one
finger to help AZ keep illegal what CA has legalized. But the same
is true in reverse. AZ has no obligation to help CA stem the flow
of banned firearms into the Golden State, for example.
I mean, really, do we expect Fidel to help the US enforce its ban
on Cuban cigars?
AZ and CA (and the US, in the case of Cuba) should "resolve" their
disputes on the basis of the clear signals that their own people
give them. Smuggling exists to supply demand. If people want
something, and the acquisition, possession and use of it harm or
injure nobody, then a State is wise not to ban that thing. I admit
that it can take decades for governments to learn that simple
lesson, but they do need to learn it.
|8.17.09 @ 1:10PM|#
If, say, CA legalizes all drugs and AZ keeps them all
illegal. There would be a an influx of illegal drugs into AZ, with
all the associated crime, and AZ would have real complaint against
CA. How would this get resolved?
One resolution would be for AZ to end prohibition, too, so all the
shit goes down in New Mexico. Then maybe New Mexico will pass it on
to Texas who will probably secede. Oh well.
|8.17.09 @ 1:18PM|#
Nick, that domino effect will stop dead in its tracks in Mississippi. With a legal system that operates under no evidence necessary guidelines, it wouldn't be long afore everyone in Mississippi ended up in the pokey.
|8.17.09 @ 1:19PM|#
If, say, CA legalizes all drugs and AZ keeps them all
illegal. . .
This is no different a problem then you have today with fireworks
and booze (dry counties). The people of the "import"
states/communities will ultimately have to decide how hard ass they
want (can afford) to be.
Kevin|8.17.09 @ 1:24PM|#
On a smaller scale, there are still "dry" counties in the US. All are presumably adjacent to at least some non-dry counties. How do they handle the situation?
|8.17.09 @ 1:26PM|#
brotherben, I was operating on the premise that MS is FUBAR and therefore irrelevant to any law enforcement related conversation.
|8.17.09 @ 1:28PM|#
Do we get to call prohibtion states "low" because all the legal states will be "high?" Just taking a cue from wet and dry counties.
Douglas Gray|8.17.09 @ 1:28PM|#
If CA legalizes, the sky doesn't fall and the State saves tons of money, AZ will likely follow suit. It will be contagious.
|8.17.09 @ 1:32PM|#
On a smaller scale, there are still "dry" counties in the
US. All are presumably adjacent to at least some non-dry counties.
How do they handle the situation?
In Kentucky at least, it is not illegal to possess alcohol in a dry
county, just to sell or buy it. It's about making it inconvenient
to drink, not prohibition. When the county cops want to be dicks,
they will set up roadblocks to search vehicles to hand out bogus
open container tickets unless the alcohol is in your trunk or truck
bed.
|8.17.09 @ 1:35PM|#
So, the bottles or cans don't even have to be truly open to be
considered "open?"
Yo, fuck dry counties and their cops.
|8.17.09 @ 1:37PM|#
If, say, CA legalizes all drugs and AZ keeps them all
illegal. There would be a an influx of illegal drugs into AZ, with
all the associated crime, and AZ would have real complaint against
CA. How would this get resolved?
Per statute, the presumption for sale of marijuana, in AZ, is 2
lbs. That means anything less than 2lbs is considered to be for
personal use...or at least they cannot assume it is for sale.
2ndly, awhile back AZ passed what was called prop 200. The effect
is that first time pot arrest CANNOT do jail time, even if they
blow off their probation. The effect that if you are busted with
small amounts of pot, you are looking at a misdamenor. The main law
enforcement entities in Mohave County are the city police
departments, the mohave county sheriffs office, and the Highway
Patrol. That is the legal background.
I would expect that there would be increas in traffic on I-40 from
kingman and Lake Havasu City, to needles, CA and Laughlin, NV (a
mini las vegas) Mohave county is a huge county and given the budget
crisis that it has I don't think that it has resources to park
itself off the main thoroughfares to catch potheads. Oh I am sure
that they might set up roadblocks every now and then, but not many.
Just enough to show that they are the man. That is a lot of work
for a misdameanor that (if it is a 1st or 2nd timee bust) that
isn't going to end up in jail time. Weed is defacto decriminalized
in nevada, so I don't thing Cook county LEO would do
anything.
What I think would happened is certainly it would be noticed if
Needles picked up lots of out-of-state traffic. I would hope that
the traffic would be enough that AZ and/or NV would see all that
money leaving their state and decide to legalize here. I'd bet that
more people would go to Reno as it is closer to the border.
|8.17.09 @ 1:38PM|#
Wouldn't there be some legitimate border disputes in this
formulation?
If, say, CA legalizes all drugs and AZ keeps them all illegal.
There would be a an influx of illegal drugs into AZ, with all the
associated crime, and AZ would have real complaint against CA. How
would this get resolved?
Price of sovereignty. AZ's power to regulate how they see fit is
only as legitimate as their recognition of CA's power to
regulate.
Sports betting is illegal in CA, but not NV, so people may cross
state lines to place bets. How is this NV's problem?
"Assault weapons" are perfectly legal in NV, but not CA. Would NV
be forced to adopt CA style gun laws because doing nothing would
upset California?
|8.17.09 @ 1:40PM|#
If, say, CA legalizes all drugs and AZ keeps them all illegal. . .
Best answer:
This is no different a problem then you have today with fireworks and booze (dry counties). The people of the "import" states/communities will ultimately have to decide how hard ass they want (can afford) to be.
And J.A.M is absolutely correct. Do people own their own fucking
bodies or not? This a fundamental issue that we once went to
fucking war over.
|8.17.09 @ 1:48PM|#
Do people own their own fucking bodies or not?
Are we talking about cadavers or Real Dolls? I don't own either,
but agree it is a fundamental issue worth going to war over.
AB390|8.17.09 @ 1:49PM|#
Federalism is the way to go. Observe how the states are handling
medical marijuana.
Now it's time to apply the same approach to recreational adult use
of marijuana, a drug far less harmful than alcohol.
Californians: Tell your state legislators to legalize, tax, and
regulate marijuana. Visit yes390.org
Paul|8.17.09 @ 1:54PM|#
Writing in today's Washington Post, former Baltimore cops Peter Moskos and Stanford Franklin argue that "it's time to legalize drugs."
I propose a new game. 'Cause I just love pointing this out
again...and again...and again. How many decades are we going to be
treated to "former" officials calling an end to the drug war? I
propose everytime a "former" official calls and end to the drug
war, everyone has to drink.
Meter's still runnin' on my other bet, too. Just sayin'.
Paul|8.17.09 @ 1:58PM|#
Oh, and since we're teetering-- TEETERING I SAY-- on the brink
of legalization, I provide to you for your dining and dancing
pleasure:
The raids were part of "Operation Somalia Express," a national crackdown on the smuggling of "khat," a leafy herb that is illegal is the United States but as commonplace as a cup of coffee in the Horn of Africa, where it has been chewed for centuries for its effect as a mildly euphoric stimulant.
What's that? Didn't know it was even illegal in the U.S.? Yeah,
neither did I.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009674798_khatsuit17m.html
|8.17.09 @ 2:19PM|#
this won't be a popular view, but with legalization there will
be more drug use, and more drug addicts
will the cost of this be worse than the current approach? i don't
know, but we should not assume legalization is without costs &
risks
Paul|8.17.09 @ 2:22PM|#
will the cost of this be worse than the current approach? i
don't know, but we should not assume legalization is without costs
& risks
Legalization does have costs and risks, but it's hard to imagine
they'd be worse than the costs and risks of the current drug
war.
|8.17.09 @ 2:24PM|#
this won't be a popular view, but with legalization there
will be more drug use, and more drug addicts*
*Citation Needed
Paul|8.17.09 @ 2:25PM|#
In addition, Meerdahl, one of the costs and risks we're enduring
right now is the loss of constitutional rights in the name of the
drug war. I don't do drugs, but yet I've lost tangible chunks of my
civil liberties to be free from unreasonable search and seizure due
to this immoral war.
While it's nigh impossible to put a dollar figure on that (my civil
liberties are priceless), I'd live with a few more heroin addicts
and even a slightly expanded welfare machine to aid them if I could
gain some civil liberties back.
|8.17.09 @ 2:40PM|#
new school - "we should not assume legalization is without costs
& risks"
old school - we should not assume FREEDOM is without costs &
risks
|8.17.09 @ 2:43PM|#
maybe if arizona and crapafornia decide whoever got it done first, could keep the name Needles. then they might be interested in looking at the real problems.
|8.17.09 @ 2:52PM|#
kool: do you seriously believe that if marijuana or cocaine were
available in bars, or in stores, that there would not be more
people using & abusing these drugs?
paul: In China, after 1860 opium use continued to increase with
widespread domestic production in China, until more than a quarter
of the male population was addicted by 1905. Late Qing dynasty is
not the same as 21st century US, but drug addiction spiraling out
of control (although unlikely) is not that hard to imagine as a
possibility. And the cost would certainly be more than "a few more
heroin addicts and even a slightly expanded welfare machine".
Like I said, the cost of criminalization may be higher than
legalization, but the cost of legalization will be substantial.
|8.17.09 @ 3:01PM|#
meerdahl - honestly and seriously? I live in a state where
marijuana isn't even close to becoming legal, and its hardly
difficult to obtain it.
If you want marijuana, you know where and how you can get it. I
have to believe that legalizing marijuana today would result in
very little increase in abuse.
Most pot smokers smoke pot and most that don't smoke pot haven't
avoided it simply because its illegal. If you want to smoke pot,
even now, you will.
|8.17.09 @ 3:06PM|#
meerdahl
Like I said, the cost of criminalization may be higher than legalization, but the cost of legalization will be substantial.
What costs? And imposed on whom?
Meta4|8.17.09 @ 3:11PM|#
"In China, after 1860 opium use continued to increase with
widespread domestic production in China, until more than a quarter
of the male population was addicted by 1905"
If you've ever smoked opium, you'd know why it is so
addictive.
Even so, legalize it.
Paul|8.17.09 @ 3:11PM|#
In China, after 1860 opium use continued to increase with
widespread domestic production in China, until more than a quarter
of the male population was addicted by 1905. Late Qing dynasty is
not the same as 21st century US, but drug addiction spiraling out
of control (although unlikely) is not that hard to imagine as a
possibility.
I'm not convinced the social conditions are right in this country
to see what happened in 1905 China. For instance, with alcohol
being legal in this country, why do we not see similar
problems?
I understand that different drugs have different addictive profiles
so it's not necessarily a fair comparison.
And lastly, it seems reasonable that if addiction rates did get
alarmingly high, that we might have other tools to combat that.
Because it's quite clear that the current tools aren't working all
that well. And us non-drug users have measurably lost our civil
liberties-- which I noticed you didn't address.
But worry not. All this debate is merely intellectual exercise.
Ain't nothin' gonna be legalized for the foreseeable future.
|8.17.09 @ 3:24PM|#
Big B: "hardly difficult" advertised, packaged, cute waitress
offering you some when you've already had a few drinks. And if you
can with great ease and no risk find some heroin & cocaine on
short notice now, you're a cooler dude than I am.
Isaac Bartram: on me, when more of my tax dollars are taken to pay
welfare to people who are stoned all the time, or hospitalizing
them when they OD, or replacing stuff they've stolen from me. On
family members, as there is no joy like having a heroin-addicted
sibling (don't ask me how I know), especially when she has kids.
Plus, on the addicts themselves, as they waste their lives and
destroy the relationships with family and friends.
Of course the current regime does not stop all of this (maybe
reduce it somewhat), and the legal weapons used in the drug war are
being applied to a lot of non-drug situations where they are
abusive and inappropriate, plus my money being spent on law
enforcement, etc.
But there is this view that legalization is a panacea without cost,
and that is not 100% the case.
|8.17.09 @ 3:28PM|#
"If you've ever smoked opium, you'd know why it is so
addictive."
mmmmm, opium....
|8.17.09 @ 3:33PM|#
meerdahl - my post dealt exclusively with marijuana. I'm not a
user myself and still, yes, its that easy to get marijuana.
My feelings on the legal status of cocaine and herione are
mixed.
|8.17.09 @ 3:34PM|#
do you seriously believe that if marijuana or cocaine were
available in bars, or in stores, that there would not be more
people using & abusing these drugs?
That wasn't your original point was it? You used the word "addict."
And my answer remains an emphatic "no" (see Amsterdam). As for your
new argument, my answer obviously depends on the difinition of
"abuse" (see the post on binge-drinking)... Clearly different
definitions... So your definition of "abuse," might be the same
that a friend of mine think is, "just having a good
time."
Paul|8.17.09 @ 3:40PM|#
On family members, as there is no joy like having a
heroin-addicted sibling (don't ask me how I know), especially when
she has kids.
So, the current drug war is a success? I'm so confused now. Or is
this a hypothetical example for if and when the drug ware
ceases?
Paul|8.17.09 @ 3:44PM|#
But there is this view that legalization is a panacea
without cost, and that is not 100% the case.
I agree that sometimes libertarians present this. It's not true. I
always like to remind my fellow libertarians that [most] drugs were
made illegal for a reason. The effects of them can be horribly
debilitating. By legalizing many drugs, the debilitating effects
don't go away. It won't matter if heroin is legal, you'll still be
an addict, peeing yourself in an alley. However, I'd rather see the
addict peeing herself in the alley without an official government
talking head telling me what a great job they're doing keeping
heroin off the street, or demanding my infant child take her shoes
off at the airport because they're searching for drugs... I er, I
mean bombs.
|8.17.09 @ 3:47PM|#
Kool: a certain percentage of persons using a drug (alcohol,
heroin, meth, whatever) will become addicted. The % depends on the
drug. So more people using equals more people addicted.
Big B: I assume when we are talking about the legalization of
drugs, and that covers cocaine, heroin, and meth as well (according
to Meta4, add opium to the legalization list). Marijuana on its own
is probably no worse than alcohol. I know I'd probably use it on
occasion if it were legal.
Paul: I'd say that the current drug war reduces the amount of drug
use & abuse. There is no way to know by how much. The question
we are discussing is whether the costs of the drug war
slightly/greatly/vastly/immensely outweigh the costs of greater
drug use and addiction.
|8.17.09 @ 4:04PM|#
meerdahl, all the "costs" you mentioned at 3:24pm are already
present under the current regime of prohibition.
Some of them are a consequence of prohibition.
And if you're upset about junkies collecting welfare, abolish
welfare too. Impossible, you say? It's as likely as
decriminalization of drugs.
|8.17.09 @ 4:21PM|#
Issac Bertram: "meerdahl, all the "costs" you mentioned at
3:24pm are already present under the current regime of
prohibition."
Of course. The point is that they would likely be greater under
full legalization than they are now due to an increased number of
users/addicts, but the question is whether those increased costs
are less than the cost of the current approach (in $, civil
liberties, etc).
I would say that decriminalization is more likely than abolishing
welfare: Holland has done the former and not the latter, for
example.
Green for drug peace|8.17.09 @ 4:25PM|#
300,000 people at the Seattle Hemp fest.
it brings in hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Seattle treats it like a dirtu red headed step child, thought the
brag about being tolerant and open. The city is full of shit.
We had 70-90 Leap Offers volunteer their time at Seattle hemp Fest.
Not a single clash.
Its time to stop the draconin drug wars and bring SAFE ACESS to
all.
check out www.COC.com
Medic001|8.17.09 @ 4:28PM|#
it is easier to get Crack and heroine now then it was 20 and
even 10 years ago. I'd say its doing a great job for the drug
lords. Making drugs CHEAPER and easier to get.
Way to GO!
|8.17.09 @ 4:35PM|#
I'd say that the current drug war reduces the amount of drug
use & abuse.
Reality doesn't bear that out. Portugal's drug use
has gone down since legalization.
Holland's marijuana > drug use is 1/2
ours.
This is a canard that prohibition types like to perpetuate. I saw a
graph, soorry I don't have the link, that showed that after booze
prohibition ended, there was indeed a spike in use, but that since
then there has been a gradual, albeit slow decline.
|8.17.09 @ 4:48PM|#
I need to be more specific. That first link actually says that
drug use among children, specifically, has gone down since
legalization....which I think is an even bigger nail in the coffin
of prohibitionist.
Here
and
here are a couple more places that show the reduction in drug
use amongst the general population in Portugal.
|8.17.09 @ 4:48PM|#
Just out of curiosity, how does making cocaine more easily
available reduce the number of users (other than them OD'ing)? Why
would an existing heroin user decide to stop using once the drug
became legal?
Plus, the Portugal chart is a self-reported poll of high school
students, not a particularly accurate measurement of actual drug
use in the general population. Your second link is a NORML press
release from 1999.
|8.17.09 @ 4:59PM|#
Plus, the Portugal chart is a self-reported poll of high
school students, not a particularly accurate measurement of actual
drug use in the general population.
Really? Evidence please. That is all we have here too. The
Portugese numbers are likely more acuarate than ours because
Portuguese students don't have to worry about jack booted thugs
knocking their way into their houses killing their dog to be a
photo whore for the 6:00 news.
Your second link is a NORML press release from 1999.
Ug.....so? Unless you can show some evidence that inthe last ten
years there has been a substantial increase in marijuana use in
Holland, which you can't, cuz there isn't, or a substantial
decrease in US numbers, which you can't because it hasn't, then
those numbers are still good.
So, unless you can pony up some evidence to substantiate your
arguments, shut the fuck up.
polio robot|8.17.09 @ 5:00PM|#
"The sad truth is that America is a bunch of pussies.
Instead of standing up for the principle that you own your own body
and are the sole legitimate "decider" of what it gets as food,
drink, medicine, recreation, etc., we cower meekly while doing the
Prohibition Shuffle, often with not so much as a peep in
protest.
If America is truly to be the "land of the free and the home of the
brave," then let's be brave so we can be free. End Federal
prohibition now. Elect NOBODY and defeat EVERYBODY who is not
pledged to this goal. Ignore advice that you should not be a
"litmus-test" voter because Prohibition provides one of the most
all-inclusive and accurate litmus tests there can possibly be: the
naked assertion that government owns you and can override your own
decisions about your own body. This issue really separates the
rulers from the ruled. Which are you?
I have made a conscious choice to not apply for any job which
requires me to pee for my employment. It's too bad that so many
other people sold out to the prospect of a job which can be
outsourced or downsized. I'm struggling but at least I have my
dignity and cognitive liberty.
|8.17.09 @ 5:01PM|#
These reports show a reduction of some of the negative
repercussions of drugs (it refers to "street overdoses", and "HIV
infections), not a reduction of drug use. True legalization, with
purer drugs, and clean needles, would offset some of the costs of
drug use, but not necessarily reduce usage.
Plus, your other link states that drugs were NOT legalized in
Portugal, only somewhat decriminalized ("drug possession for
personal use and drug usage itself are still legally
prohibited").
Plus, Glenn Greenwald is a wacko. If you want to cite someone with
some credibility, look at the work of Mark Kleiman:
"Legalizing possession but not sales is the weird hybrid policy
usually referred to as "decriminalization." It would have the
advantage of eliminating several hundred thousand arrests per year,
but it wouldn't eliminate the illicit market or reduce our
contribution to the extraordinary violence now shaking northern
Mexico. On the contrary, decriminalization would leave what
presumably would be a somewhat larger market in the hands of the
criminals. Now that might still be a good idea, since the effect of
decriminalization alone seems to be small. But it seems to me that
once you decide to allow possession for personal use, you might as
well allow production for personal use. "
|8.17.09 @ 5:03PM|#
"The question we are discussing is whether the costs of the drug
war slightly/greatly/vastly/immensely outweigh the costs of greater
drug use and addiction."
- ask the people who live under corrupt regimes financed by the
lucrative nature of prohibition in the u.s. most certainly we
should continue to export our societal misery to other countries
b'cause were not willing to face up to it here...
|8.17.09 @ 5:09PM|#
Troy: "shut the fuck up"
nice comeback, looks like you put a lot of work into that one
Any poll of behavior that society frowns upon is notoriously
inaccurate. There are some good comments in that Portugal study
link you submitted, here is one:
"While I don't have a problem with legalizing, regulating and
taxing marijuana, I fail to see the advantage of legalizing
methamphetamines, cocaine, opiates, psychadelics, etc. These drugs
are involved, DIRECTLY, with more than 70% of the crimes I
investigate.
Let's take meth. People who use meth become addicted to meth. It
starts with snorting, then smoking and finally injecting the drug,
because it takes more and more to achieve the same level of
intoxication over time. It becomes the central point of these
peoples lives. They get high, steal to either buy the drug or the
ingredients to make the drug, get high, steal to …well, you get the
point. How would legalizing this "solve" this problem? Even if it
could be bought at WalMart, they don't have a legitimate income, ad
would still have to steal to get the money to buy the drugs. We, as
a society, would still pay the price."
|8.17.09 @ 5:11PM|#
Just out of curiosity, how does making cocaine more easily
available reduce the number of users (other than them
OD'ing)?
It might not. It may very well increase the numbers as you pointed
out above. But that isn't the point. Yeah, after prohibition eds we
might have more coke heads. To me, that is a no-fucking-duh. But
those people that DO want to get off coke will be able to go find
treatment without haveing to worry about law enforcement. Like
argued above, if you want coke today, you can find it. I am 43 and
too old to start using coke. I think many people feel the same
way.
Why would an existing heroin user decide to stop using once the
drug became legal?
Well first lets assume that the heroin use wanted to get off
heroin. I hate to break this bubble but there are probably some
functional heroin addicts. And if they are fucntional, who the fuck
cares? And there are probably a lot of people who can use heroin
with becoming addicted. I'd bet that the vast majority of heroin
users do NOT get a dependency.
But those that wanted to quit would likely have more opportunities
to seek treatment from the savings from not putting them in
jail.
|8.17.09 @ 5:13PM|#
People who use meth become addicted to meth.
I believe you meant to say some people who use
meth become addicted to meth.
|8.17.09 @ 5:18PM|#
Meth really is a tricky one. I wonder how many of those terrible
photos you see are from buying crappy meth. If it was legalized and
manufactured in a regulated setting if that would effect anything?
Assuming it wouldn't, here is my take.
I think we should subsidize meth for those people. NO really. Let
them use it until they kill themselves. Think of it as passive
eugenics. Less stupid people make for better gene pool.
|8.17.09 @ 5:27PM|#
I'm not sure that treatment is impossible in the US without
going to jail, try googling "drug treatment center". Certainly it
is better to spend money on treatment than jail for many
addicts.
But your points before were not that criminalization is worse than
legalization, but that drug use actually decreases upon
legalization. I do not think that would be the case.
|8.17.09 @ 5:30PM|#
How would legalizing this "solve" this problem? ?
If legal, it would likely be cheaper. Hopefully so cheap you could
work at Taco Bell and still get your fix. I don't buy the crackhead
breaking into peoples house to get drugs. People break into houses
for all sorts of reason, e.g. to get cigarettes, to pay the cable
bill, the thrill of it, etc. My expericence, as a former
prosecutor, is that if you are kind of person who is going to break
into someones else's house, you are probably already such a piece
of shit human being that somehow is going get you intertwined in
the criminal justice system with or without drugs. Yeah, they steal
to get drugs. But they also still to feed themselves, to pay their
cell phone bills, and because they are kleptomaniacs.
|8.17.09 @ 5:38PM|#
I'm not sure that treatment is impossible in the US without
going to jail, try googling "drug treatment center"
No it isn't. But it cost money....lots of money. And if you don't
have it, the only way that you might get some
treatment is to get busted.
And by the way, faith based drug treatment is a joke.
But your points before were not that criminalization is worse
than legalization, but that drug use actually decreases upon
legalization. I do not think that would be the case.
My links show that it does.... here is another one
http://www.gadling.com/2009/05/21/portugal-decriminalizes-drugs-world-doesnt-end/
Again. If you don't have any evidence to refute mine, shut the
f..... go find some.
|8.17.09 @ 5:46PM|#
These drugs are involved, DIRECTLY, with more than 70% of
the crimes I investigate.
What do you mean by directly and what do you mean by
investigate?
|8.17.09 @ 5:55PM|#
Here is the language driectly from CATO paper. You are going to
do better than an ad hominem to get out of the numbers. from
18-24's there has been a slight increase. I stand by my stntment
however. 10 years from now, portugal, assuming they keep this
policy, will have less drug use than when it was illegal. Sorry
about the formatting. I am too lazy to fix it.
Effects Viewed in Absolute Terms
Usage Rates. Since decriminalization, lifetime
prevalence rates (which measure how
many people have consumed a particular drug
or drugs over the course of their lifetime) in
Portugal have decreased for various age groups.
For students in the 7th-9th grades (13-15
years old), the rate decreased from 14.1 percent in 2001 to 10.6
percent in 2006.30 For
those in the 10th-12th grades (16-18 years
old), the lifetime prevalence rate, which
increased from 14.1 percent in 1995 to 27.6
percent in 2001, the year of decriminalization has decreased
subsequent to decriminalization,
to 21.6 percent in 2006.31 For the same
groups, prevalence rates for psychoactive substances have also
decreased subsequent to
decriminalization.32
In fact, for those two critical groups of
youth (13-15 years and 16-18 years), prevalence
rates have declined for virtually every
substance since decriminalization (see Figures
4 and 5).33
For some older age groups (beginning with
19- to 24-year-olds), there has been a slight to mild increase in
drug usage, generally from
2001 to 2006, including a small rise in the use
of psychoactive substances for the 15-24 age
group,34 and a more substantial increase in the
same age group for illicit substances generally.
35 For other age groups of older citizens, increasesin lifetime
prevalence rates for drugs
generally have ranged from slight to mild.
Such an increase in lifetime prevalence rates for the general
population is virtually inevitable in every nation, regardless of
drug policy and regardless of whether there is even an actual
increase in drug usage.
|8.17.09 @ 6:23PM|#
The war on drugs has been more harmful than the drugs: in money, personal tragedy, erosion of civil liberties, official corruption, militarization of policing, and presecutoral misconduct and abuse.
|8.17.09 @ 6:34PM|#
troy:
1) "ad hominem" does not mean what you think it does
2) you seem to be doing a lot of arguing against what was written
at your original portugal link:
"These drugs are involved, DIRECTLY, with more than 70% of the
crimes I investigate.
What do you mean by directly and what do you mean by
investigate?"
"How would legalizing this "solve" this problem? ? If legal, it
would likely be cheaper. "
"I believe you meant to say some people who use meth become
addicted to meth."
I don't know, this link was used as evidence of your position, so
you tell me. The quotation marks are an indication that someone
else said it.
3) You seem to have conceded my main point:
"Yeah, after prohibition eds we might have more coke heads."
4) Your main evidence is based on writings by Glenn Greenwald, who
is not an expert on the subject of drug use and addiction. Plus,
see the following from Greenwald in the quote you pasted
above:
"including a small rise in the use
of psychoactive substances for the 15-24 age
group,34 and a more substantial increase in the
same age group for illicit substances generally.
35 For other age groups of older citizens, increases in lifetime
prevalence rates for drugs generally have ranged from slight to
mild."
5) I think if you are going to show something counterintuitive,
such as existing cocaine and heroin users stopping their drug use
upon legalization, and no additional users, you need to show more
than continually citing one author, who actually indicates that
post-decriminalization in Portugal there have been "increases in
lifetime prevalence rates for drugs".
Fletch|8.17.09 @ 6:47PM|#
Paul-
I propose a new game. 'Cause I just love pointing this out
again...and again...and again. How many decades are we going to be
treated to "former" officials calling an end to the drug war? I
propose everytime a "former" official calls and end to the drug
war, everyone has to drink.
Second!
"All in favor"?
|8.17.09 @ 8:33PM|#
The Obamanation is corrupt. But before you jump to conclusion about my viewpoint... Bush is also corrupt. Our two major parties have failed us. Both are corrupt.
|8.17.09 @ 9:13PM|#
meehrdahl: You are resurrecting one of the compelling points
from the ORIGINAL declaration of the drug war. Back then (even with
the counterexample of alcohol prohibition still fresh in the minds
of many) people bought it. Now, it is decades later, and we can say
with some confidence, from hard-won experience, that the costs of
the war on drugs exceed the benefits, and that the problems of drug
use and abuse (nobody is saying they aren't here now or will go
away when Prohibition II is lifted) are more than compensated (for
the nation as a whole) by the benefits of a free(r) society. You
really can't play the "benefit of the doubt, better safe than
sorry" card anymore. We are not safer than before the drug war, and
we sure are sorrier.
Regarding the Chinese Opium problem: I also read (citation eludes
me at the moment, but I will try to find it) that the basic level
of hard-core addiction has remained fairly steady for many decades,
regardless of intensity of laxity of drug war enforcement. This
suggested to me that, as with Prohibition I before it, we shouldn't
expect to see everyone become addicted to drugs, were Obama to
declare drug War Peace With Honor tomorrow.
Again, I don't know any libertarian who is both serious about this
issue and pretends that everything will be sweetness and light if
the drug war ends. On the other hand, every libertarian I know who
is serious about the issue believes the residual problems will NOT
flare up into addiction crisis, and that the residual problems will
be both manageable and much preferable, when all is said and done,
than the manifold evils of the drug war.
|8.17.09 @ 9:16PM|#
xxx we sureLY are sorrier
xxx regardless of intensity OR laxity of
Any other typos, too bad. ;-) I'm on an unfamiliar keyboard, away
from home, and need to get on the road in a moment or two, so
that's it from me for now.
EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy|8.17.09 @ 11:42PM|#
On a smaller scale, there are still "dry" counties in the US. All are presumably adjacent to at least some non-dry counties. How do they handle the situation?
The cops, county commissioners, and private citizens all
go to the package store just across the county line.
What did you expect?
BakedPenguin|8.18.09 @ 4:44AM|#
I guess this thread is over, but I still want to make these
points, especially to meerdahl:
1) If you're talking about consenting adults, it's none of your
fucking business what they do unless they violate the rights of
others. I don't think I can say it any clearer than that. If an
adult does meth every day, or drinks 15 ounces of vodka every day,
or eats four 1 lb. bags of corn chips every day, or fucks every
consenting HIV+ person they can find, it is none of your god damn
business unless and until they violate the rights of others.
2) Having said that, we can discuss "utilitarian" arguments. Drug
use might well go up after legalization. Keeping what I said in #1
in mind, there was a study linked to by Sullum a few months ago
that said that if drugs were legal, the percentage of people who
would try them who haven't already was 1%. One fucking percent. 99%
of everyone who wants to try presently illegal drugs already has.
We are fighting a horrible, bloody War to stop one fucking percent
of people from trying drugs. I guess I shouldn't say the War on
Drugs isn't stopping anyone from doing drugs. It is stopping an
incredibly small percentage of dilettantes from (probably) smoking
a joint or two.
3) The current WoD is costing us billions, and destroying thousands
of lives, while saving next to none. Addicts are still addicts, but
hundreds of thousands of otherwise peaceful individuals have been
thrown in prison to be brutalized, raped, and killed just so
asshole politicians can look like they're "doing something" and
douchebag housewives can feel better "about the children".
|8.18.09 @ 6:13AM|#
# AB390 | August 17, 2009, 1:49pm | #
# Californians: Tell your state legislators to
# legalize, tax, and regulate marijuana. Visit
# yes390.org
Sadly, I visited
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0351-0400/ab_390_bill_20090401_status.html
first. This is the official legislative website and the citation
here is to the status for AB 390.
As of 3/31/2009, this bill was sent to committee, with instructions
for that group to set the first hearing. That hearing was CANCELED
at the request of the author, and nothing has been done
since.
What's going on?
By the way, the text of the bill (PDF here:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0351-0400/ab_390_bill_20090223_introduced.pdf)
is 41 pages long. It specifies a whole laundry list of requirements
for commercial cultivators and vendors, including initial
"licensing" fees for cultivators of $5K and renewal fees of $2.5K.
It imposes record-keeping requirements on vendors and cultivators.
And of course, it imposes a hefty tax on sales to "discourage
abuse" and fund abuse-related social programs.
I do like that the legislation directs local cops and authorities
not to cooperate with federal prosecution of pot cases, and
(apparently, from what I can see) cessation of State asset
forfeiture related to pot.
But I am very disappointed that there is no acknowledgment that
people own themselves. Pot prohibition is treated as something that
the State is completely within its authority to do, and just now
happens to elect NOT to do. To be sure, this is the BEST I expect
from government -- my expectations being very low -- and they did
not disappoint me. But it is not the best I demand from government,
which is to respect citizens and acknowledge both their political
primacy and their inherent right to be left alone by minions of the
State unless they are responsible for harming others or damaging
the property of others.
|8.18.09 @ 9:53AM|#
BakedPenguin: "...it's none of your fucking business what they
do unless they violate the rights of others."
Philosophically I agree with you. But it is naive to believe that
drug addiction does not impose costs on non-addicts.
James Anderson Merritt: "Now, it is decades later, and we can say
with some confidence, from hard-won experience, that the costs of
the war on drugs exceed the benefits"
You are probably right. But my original point was that full
legalization has costs as well in the form of additional addicts,
and this has to be considered in any discussion. There are those,
such as Troy, who actually believe that existing drug addicts will
stop using due to legalization.
James Anderson Merritt: "we shouldn't expect to see everyone become
addicted to drugs"
I don't recall anyone arguing that. But a % of new users after
legalization would become addicted. That is the cost we are talking
about, and of course there is no way to quantify it.
BakedPenguin: "study linked to by Sullum a few months ago that said
that if drugs were legal, the percentage of people who would try
them who haven't already was 1%"
I'm not sure how someone could accurately measure that. But let's
say that out of 300m people in the US, 150m have not used weed,
meth, coke, etc. So 1% of that is 1.5m people, and depending on the
drug a % of those will become addicts. I think more than 1% would
try these drugs if they are marketed, packaged, and easily
available.
BakedPenguin: "Addicts are still addicts, but hundreds of thousands
of otherwise peaceful individuals have been thrown in prison to be
brutalized, raped, and killed just so asshole politicians can look
like they're "doing something" and douchebag housewives can feel
better "about the children"."
Of course. Addicts who have not committed violent crimes should not
be doing hard time in a regular prison. They should be treated.
Just be ready because upon full legalization, there will be more
addicts to treat.
Medic001|8.18.09 @ 4:12PM|#
Its only going to get uglier here real quick.
In san Diego ( my home town) I've had reports from close freinds of
the drug cartells buying up the repo houses in Chula Vista.
yesterday 8 tanks were rolling down the 5 heading to the
border.
You tell me WHAT the HELL is going on down there.
I'm soooo glad I moved 1400 miles away!
Sorry CALI you're F**KD
Medic001|8.18.09 @ 4:17PM|#
They should be treated. Just be ready because upon full
legalization, there will be more addicts to treat.--
and where did you get THAT statistic?
That's like saying..well they made alcohol legal..now there are
more drunks.
History shows, that when something is made legal and the " dark-
seedy" side of a substance is taken away from it, less people are
likely to do it.
IE Booze and teenagers.
Tobacco is legal, and I don't smoke.
Alcohol is legal and I DON"T drink.
MJ however is the ONLY substance out side of food that goes in to
my body.
Take away the stigma, you take away the lure and draw.
And if Weed is legal, people are less likely to use other
substances.
The only reason pot is considered a "gate way drug" is because you
have to get it illegally, and well dealers don't usually just deal
with weed.
Take away the criminal, and Timmy and Tommy won't have to go to 5th
ave past the hookers to big up a joint.
IE removing them from the prospect of being introduced to Crack or
heroin.
Show me your numbers.
|8.18.09 @ 5:49PM|#
# meerdahl | August 18, 2009, 9:53am | #
## James Anderson Merritt: "we shouldn't expect
## to see everyone become addicted to drugs"
# I don't recall anyone arguing that.
# But a % of new users after legalization
# would become addicted. That is the cost we
# are talking about, and of course there is no
# way to quantify it.
In my earlier response to you, I indicated that, from our
experience and data derived from the past several decades, I
expected this percentage delta to be very small. As I see it, the
thing that drove earlier pro-Drug War decisions -- which kept many
people from opposing Prohibition even though it seemed clear that
it wasn't working -- was the fear that the delta would be large,
that we would become, or would take a large step toward becoming a
nation of addicts. Since your argument concerning the addiction
delta relies on (or at least benefits from) that fear for any
persuasive force it may have, I thought I would tackle that very
much unfounded fear head-on.
We didn't have relevant data or experience to competently assess
the "addiction delta fears" 20 or 30 years ago. We do now, tons of
it. Today, it seems that the only people who still seriously argue
the "addiction delta" question are the ones who also maintain "if
prohibition saves just one life, it is worth it," no matter how
many other lives are disturbed, destroyed, or simply ended by the
terrible downside of the Drug War.
|8.22.09 @ 3:15PM|#
The title to this article is deceptive. Both authors of the editorial are former cops. One was a cop for only about a year.
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