Care to argue in favor of Drug Prohibition Laws & on-going Drug Wars?

[Abe Linkman]

I haven't been to this forum very often, but with all the anti-gun ownership rights threads (I don't own a gun, but I do support the right to own one - regardless of whether or not one has ever been convicted of a crime), I'm wondering if there is anyone here who favors Drug Prohibition Laws and continuing the long, seemingly endless so-called Drug Wars (are we into the seventh or is the eighth decade of THESE wars)?

If you do, I'd be interested in hearing why you believe the way you do.

[library_max]

1. I think I see where you're going with this

So let me point out three differences.

1) Drugs aren't used to kill other people, only (arguably) oneself.

2) Nobody is addicted to guns. Not physically, anyway.

3) It's hopeless to try to stop drug trafficking when it's possible to carry a million dollars worth of cocaine in a small briefcase.

[kanrok]

2. Ok...I'll bite

For 8 years of my professional life, I was a criminal prosecutor. I was the Chief of Narcotics for a mid-sized State's Attorney's office in the suburbs of a major city. I was cross-designated as a fderal prosecuor on cases of mutual interest. I believed then, as I do now, that drug laws are an important part of our criminal justice system. I believed then, as I do now, that rehablitation and treatment are of utmost importance in these cases. My core belief is that if we, as a society, decriminilize drugs, we place our imprimatur upon their use. That is, at bottom, a horrible precedent to set. I don't want our children to believe that using drugs is a good or fun thing to do. Legalizing them makes it that much easier for them to gain access. By this I am not turning a blind eye to the fact that those who want drugs can get them readily. I just believe that legalizing drugs puts many, many more kids at risk to use. Is this paternalistic? probably, but I just don't care how it plays. It is a part of my beliefs, and will always be. I've prosecuted murderers, rapists, burglars and assorted other criminals who had almost always had one thing in common, either drug use when doing the crimes, or doing the crimes to get drugs. Let the games begin.

[Wcross]

3. What about marijuana?

"My core belief is that if we, as a society, decriminilize drugs, we place our imprimatur upon their use. That is, at bottom, a horrible precedent to set. I don't want our children to believe that using drugs is a good or fun thing to do. Legalizing them makes it that much easier for them to gain access."

When I was a kid, I could score illegal drugs much easier than I could score booze. Nobody was selling booze at the park, but there were always dealers.

I believe marijuna is safer than alcohol, and should not be a crime to use. I bet you have tried marijuna in your lifetime, why should marijuna be illegal and alcohol be legal?

[kanrok]

5. Marijuana

By and large is decriminalized when it comes to personal use. If you want to deal, you'll get prosecuted as a dealer. If you are possessing marijuana for personal consumption, the penalties are much the same as they would be if you were a minor in possession of alcohol. As a prosecutor, I never got all that upset with marijuana use. It's not as harmless as proponents make it seem, and it certainly is not the scourge of mankind that some people feel that it is. As for it being "safer" than alcohol, I guess that's a matter of degree. It is probably not as addictive as alcohol, but using it for the purpose is was designed to be used puts a person in as much risk to cause a collision when driving as alcohol does. BTW, I support the use of medical marijuana, but that's as far as I am willing to go.

[Wcross]

8. Still a silly law isn't it?

"By and large is decriminalized when it comes to personal use. If you want to deal, you'll get prosecuted as a dealer. If you are possessing marijuana for personal consumption, the penalties are much the same as they would be if you were a minor in possession of alcohol."

But adults being prosecuted? Come on, the only reason it isn't legal is because the government can't figure out how to tax it.

The laws for cultivation are draconian, property confiscation is the norm. I saw an episode of "cops" where people were forfitting their cars because they tried to buy pot from a cop in a sting operation. Is that fair?

How can we say, as a society, that what god provided is bad, but what man invented is good? You have to distill alcohol, marijuna is a freakin plant. Are our laws more significant than the law of Nature?
Treat it like booze, if caught driving while stoned prosecute, if in your living room, what business is it of society?

[kanrok]

12. Huh?

Isn't tobacco a plant? Last I checked it was taxed pretty well. As for forfeiture laws, you have a valid point. They are not fair when applied to the demand side of the equation. But arguing forfeiture laws is arguing apples and oranges. BTW, property confiscation is not the norm, IMHO. Judges are loathe to confiscate a person's automobile for mere possession, your experience watching "Cops" notwithstading.

[Abe Linkman]

9. Again, respectfully, it's the opposite of what you said

By and large, every day all across America people get arrested on marijuana charges. A huge number of people get locked up every day for smoking a flower which has never killed one person in recorded history.

As for impairing one's ability to drive safely; you're more at risk being on the road with someone who is mad, or talking on a cell phone, or who has just consumed alcohol.

Marijuana slows everything down, so most people are less keyed-up when they're behind the wheel, and unlike with alcohol, they are apt to more more conscious of the need to drive more carefully. Few people speed while driving after they've smoked a joint.

[kanrok]

13. Sorry

Gotta take you to task for this post. I can only speak from my experience. I worked as a prosecutor in a fairly conservative jurisdiction. I can't speak for other offices, except to the extent I dealt with others in positions similar to mine all over the country at seminars and meetings. (I left govt. practice 9 years ago, and concede hat things may be different today) but people rarely, (actually never) in my experience ever got "locked up" for simple possession of marijuana.

Now, with all due respect, where on earth did you get the idea that being less "keyed-up" behind the wheel makes a person less likely to cause a collision? Also, where can point out for me medical literature that supports that conclsion. Again, I can only speak from my own personal experience. I have tried over 100 trials to juries over the years. I have prepared and presented more toxicologists at trial than I can count. They would be surprised to hear that people using marijuana are "apt to be more conscious of the need to drive more carefully" and that "few people speed while driving after they smoked a joint." Since you concede that marijuana "slows down everything" when driving, I expect that you'll agree that having everything "slowed down" is inconsistent with careful and prudent driving?

[DoNotRefill]

20. Dude...

I think you might have watched "Reefer Madness" a few times too many. ;-)

Pot is much less harmful than most other drugs out there, including legal ones like alcohol. Pot smokers, as a class, are much less likely to engage in high-risk behavior than abusers of other drugs. Did you ever get to go to a Grateful Dead show? They tended to be 50-100K people living in a parking lot for 3 or more days under absolutely awful conditions, and yet there was little or no violence associated with them. Why? Because most of them were stoned. Have you EVER seen a case where pot consumption led to violence? I haven't, and I've had a LOT more experience with pot users than it sounds like you have, both inside and outside of the criminal justice system. Obviously, neither of us can say that about alcohol, can we?

The worst side effect of pot consumption is the tendency to spreading waistlines due to munchies. And I personally know people who have had their lives saved by developing a pot habit, ending their other life-threatening behavior.

[kanrok]

22. Dude

Read my post C A R E F U L L Y. If, and when, you do so, you'll note that I never asserted that marijuana causes V I O L E N T behavior. My point was (and still is, BTW) that marijuana is just as responsible for automobile collisions as alcohol is. If you happen to have evidence to the contrary, I'd be happy to consider it.

[DoNotRefill]

24. OK...

States keep track of the number of cases where highway fatalities are alcohol related, right? Ever wonder why they don't do that for pot? Think about it....what are the symptoms of pot intoxication? Slightly decreased reation times, paranoia, and a slowing of perceived passage of time, whoich makes the stoned person think they're going much faster than they really are. You were a prosecutor, right? How many cases did you come across where the police stopped somebody for speeding, and a DUI-D resulted with pot as the drug? I've never seen one. I HAVE seen plenty of cases where the person was stopped for driving way UNDER the speed limit, and a DUI-D for pot resulted. With alcohol, the opposite happens. It seems like you're going slow when you're really going fast, leading to increased speed and higher risk of accident.

[Withergyld]

26. Wouldn't an

altered perception of time and slower reaction times make it more difficult for someone stoned on pot to drive? I don't see how either effect would "improve" a person's driving ability.

[kanrok]

28. Precisely

Now, I'm going into the kitchen to refill my wine glass.

[DoNotRefill]

30. It would tend...

to make the person drive slowly. I've seen several cases where the person testified that they thought they were going the speed limit (55 or 65) when in fact they were going under 30, which led to the stop. Compare this with the effects of alcohol, and the high rates of speed that drunks often achieve, and evaluate which poses the greater threat to them and other drivers.

[kanrok]

27. Your hypotheses would be interesting to a toxicologist

I've personally prosecuted a half dozen DUI cases involving pot. Twice it was in conjunction with alcohol. One was a reckless homicide involving a stoned driver who's passenger (his best friend) was killed. The other two were accident cases where intoxication was suspected and a blood and urine draw were mandated. These cases are rare, but for reasons you may not be aware of. Alcohol causes outward, obvious characteristics of intoxication. The odor of alcohol probably is responsible for the majority of DUI arrests. Pot just doesn't have the same markers. In addition, alcohol is many times more commonly abused BECAUSE IT'S LEGAL and widely socially acceptable. The salient point in my argument, however, is that pot causes a reduction in cognitive capabilities that lead directly to decreased ability to drive safely. Are you really contesting this?

[DoNotRefill]

29. heh...

"The salient point in my argument, however, is that pot causes a reduction in cognitive capabilities that lead directly to decreased ability to drive safely. Are you really contesting this?"

sort-of, but not really. My point is that pot has a much smaller effect towards dangerous driving than some legal drugs, like alcohol. A person that's majorly stoned to the point that it seriously interferes with their driving skills tends to stay on the sofa dribbling bean dip and Doritos crumbs on himself, while a drunk will think nothing of driving. Which poses a greater danger to society? Stoned kids making bongs in Shop class and then eating junk food, or those same kids drunk and driving home? Do you seriously contend that if we could turn alcoholics exclusively into pot smokers, the roads would somehow be MORE dangerous than they are when those people are drunk?

As for pot smoking being less frequent than drinking alcohol, I think the numbers are closing on each other quickly. We have had both a Supreme Court Justice (at least one, I suspect more, but only one admitted it that I know of) and several Presidents that have been pot smokers at some point in their lives. It's rapidly becoming sociologically destigmatized, Ashcroft notwithstanding.

Oh, BTW, smoking pot leaves the smoker with a very distinctive odor making them easy to catch, and at least here, the standards of intoxication necessary to support a conviction for DUI (.08 BAC) are much higher than they are for DUI-D (acting funny with ANY drugs in their system, even trace amounts). Given that, and the relatively low numbers of DUI-D cases in this country compared to the widespread use of drugs, make a prima facia case that drunk drivers pose a much higher threat to society than stoned drivers.

[kanrok]

40. Ummm

So what's the BAC level required for a person to be considered to be "under the influence" of marijuana in your state? (Here's a hint: there is no real way to measure marijauna "intoxication" in a reliavble manner). Hence, the reason why prosecuting someone for "driving under the influence of marijuana" is so darned hard to prove. Sorry, but "the standards of intoxication necessary to support a conviction for DUI" are not "much higher" than for drugs. A person is considered to be prima facia "under the influence" of alcohol when their BAC is .08% or above. No such measure with drugs. Gotta prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction to result. Judges and the Appellate court take this burden seriously. We all know how you feel about marijuana being legalized. Frankly, if this happens I wouldn't get all that upset about it. What about cocaine? How about LSD? What about heroin? PCP? Methamphetamine? Now that we've exhausted the "easy" drug, how do you feel about legalizing thess?

[DoNotRefill]

42. Wrong.

Where I live, strange behavior, coupled with ANY illicit substance in the bloodstream, even trace amounts, is grounds for conviction. That's how our statute is worded.

I support legalization of ALL drugs, with reasonable limits on things like operating motor vehicles, et cetera.

[kanrok]

45. I'd like to read that statute

Give me a hint. In which state do you reside? I'd like to send that statute to my state rep. I'm sure he'd be interested to see whether it meets Constitutional muster. Even, for the sake of continued argument, that you are corect in the wording of the statute ("Strange behavior?") I'm sure prosecutors are having difficulty proving their case.

[DoNotRefill]

46. I'll PM the info to you...

'K?

[Abe Linkman]

48. Legalizing freedom means legalizing ALL drugs (including TV)

I support the legalization of ALL drugs. Including those which are not currently classified as illegal, but easily could be. Caffeine, cell phones, excessive shopping, fried foods, red meat, alcohol, tobacco, sloth, the consumption ethic, money, Television, sex, expectorating, rock and roll music, celebrity worship, and your particular Jones here ______.

[1a2b3c]

62. What about mushrooms?

Coke, heroin, and meth are all forms of legal perscription drugs. Isnt PCP a tranquilizer? Other than the meth, i would say legalize them all, controlled and given to anyone wishing to use them.

[1a2b3c]

61. Most states have a mandatory jail sentence for possesion

Washington state is 24 hours. Do i need to sit in a jail for 24 hours because i smoke a plant? Its all about the money, no matter how you spin it.

[demsrule4life]

35. Would you want a surgeon

to operate on you after smoking a joint? Alcohol makes everything slow down also so why do we have so many drunk driving deaths with everybody driving more carefully? That is one of the ways I used to catch dui's, carefull drivers, stopping a 100 yards from a stop sign, driving slow in the on coming lane, I could go on and on.

[Abe Linkman]

36. Interesting, maybe. But irrelevant to the issue at hand.

I don't want a surgeon operating on me who has just had an argument with his mistress, either. And, I don't want a judge who is hung over from a weekend hunting trip hearing my case, either.

The question is a simple one: why should the Government be able to lock people up because of something they ate?

[demsrule4life]

37. What does food have to do with this thread?

I'am in agreement that the drug war should be stopped. I believe crime would drop at such a rate that the gun control issue would become moat, and the money can be used for treatment and prevention.

[DoNotRefill]

39. Sorry...

one of the symptoms of alcohol is your perceptions slow down, making you think you're going slower than you are, so you go faster. With pot, the opposite is true, resulting in slower driving.

[demsrule4life]

41. So driving on the expressway at 30 MPH

is a good thing? :)

[DoNotRefill]

43. It's a lot less dangerous...

than driving on the expressway at 90 MPH...

[demsrule4life]

44. Here in Alabama

everyone seems to drive 90 on I-65 drunk or sober so 30 will get you killed. All I know is most of the fatal accidents I have investigated alcohol/drugs played some part of it. I dont care what people drink, smoke or ingest into their bodies, but please do it in the comfort of your home.

[Abe Linkman]

6. Actually, it's just the opposite of what you say.

"Legalizing them makes it that much easier for them to gain access."

You were referring to children in the above quote, but the reality is just the opposite. If you legalize drugs, there wouldn't be any dealers trying to sell them to kids. They'd have no incentive to. It's the Drug Prohibition Laws that make dealing drugs profitable (legalize them, and the rate of crimes committed to get the money for the artificially high price of illegal drugs - would drop like a brick).

The rest of your message is, as you said, your "beliefs".

[kanrok]

11. It's not as though I just made this up

My "beliefs" are the product of years and years of dealing with this issue on the front lines. I, too, was a child once. I remember how easy it was to gain access to alcohol as an underage drinker. All we needed to do was either hang around the liquor store and have someone buy for us, or get an older sibling to get it for us. A similar phenomenon occurs when drugs are legalized. If we legalize drugs it makes them more accessible to children because society places it's imprimatur upon their use. It just increases, exponentially, the number of children who are at risk to use. This is not just the product of my beliefs, it is common sense. Also, your hypotheses regarding crime ignores the other side of the coin, i.e., the amount of crime linked to the use of drugs rises, in likelihood, at a greater level than the rate of cries would drop because of the "artificially high prices of illegal drugs."

[Abe Linkman]

15. Legalize drugs and the crime rate will drop like a brick

Then you can go back to prosecuting people who hurt other people and who take things that don't belong to them.

Very few children today use drugs, but there are certainly some dealers who would sell them to anyone because of the profits they can make. Legalize them, and the dealers would go out of business. FEWER kids, not more, would have access to them. Where would they buy them from if there wasn't enough profit in them for dealers to be hanging around taking the risk of getting busted trying to sell to kids?

There is simply no rational argument for making it a crime to use certain drugs but not others. Let's not tempt cops to plant evidence, perjure themselves in court, entrap people, and all the rest. Let's free up the entire criminal justice system so they can help bring about a lower rate of crimes in which there are real victims, and stop making victims our of otherwise innocent people. Legalize drugs and you want have to worry as much about someone breaking into your car to steal something they can fence because they need the money to pay the high cost of drugs that would otherwise be cheap, if legal. Years ago, the Wall Street Journal (whose editorial pages are not exactly founts of progessive or enlightened thinking) had a front page story that said that if drugs were legal, the most strung-out heroin addict could buy all of the heroin s/he needs each day for less than a quarter. So, let's be generous and say that in today's money, you'd be talking about a dollar. At that price, you wouldn't have very many junkies stealing and mugging just to get enough money for a fix. They wouldn't need to resort to that kind of thing.

[kanrok]

19. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree

I respect your argument, but it ignores the other side of the equation. Legalizing drugs is not a panacea. Yes, by definition, all arrests for possession will evaporate. But let's not kid ourselves. Legalizing drugs will increase use. Increased use will lead to increased crimes of violence, and increased morbilty and mortality relating to abuse connected to motor vehicle crashes. To argue otherwise is to ignore common sense. In addition, and perhaps more importantly, from my point of view, it diminishes our society.

[pnb]

75. No study done has shown that crime would go up

You are ignoring common sense when you don't point out that much of the crime related to drug use involves trying to pay for them. If legalized, the price goes down so much that people don't have to go rob someone every time they want a fix.

Also, how many people die in 'wars', shootouts, etc., over turf and supply?

In addition to no longer sending people to prison who are no dangers to society, you would actually be reducing violent crime as well. Look at stats on prohibition of alcohol. Violent crime increased dramatically with the advent of prohibition and decreased when prohibition was repealed. Also BTW, alcohol usage, after an initial spike, decreased when its prohibition was repealed.

[smb]

64. Government Policy, Not "Imprimatur"

If we legalize drugs it makes them more accessible to children because society places it's imprimatur upon their use.

Government != Society

By this reasoning, the fact that Fred Phelps is not in jail (because the First Amendment protects even obnoixious opinions) somehow gives a social "imprimatur" to his spewings.

[kanrok]

70. Um....what on earth are you trying to say?

Our government is a mirror of our mores. If we, as a society, wish to have all drugs "legalized" we must do so through our representatives in the "government." You, and all of you who want to see cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, LSD and all these other seriously dangerous drugs legalized, have to convince the rest of us law abiding citizens that it is in our best interest to do so. My argument is that if we do so (and we NEVER will) it will make drug use "acceptable" much like alcohol use is "acceptable." "Imprimatur", defined (Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition): "A license or allowance, granted by the constituted authorities, giving permission to print or publish a book." A more colloquial definition of this word is found in Webster's 9th Edition: n: sanction, approval. This is how I meant for this word to be understood by those who deigned to read it. Kapische?

[smb]

74. Simple

"Imprimatur", defined (Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition): "A license or allowance, granted by the constituted authorities, giving permission to print or publish a book."

You've cited the perfect refutation of your "legalization means that it's been deemed acceptable" notion.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees its people "permission" to publish pretty much any damn thing: neo-Nazi Holocaust denial literature, exposes of space alien CIA agents, pictures of nekkid wimmen, lesbian separatist propaganda, whatever. By your reasoning, this somehow gives a cultural acquiescence to all of these notions, even the ones that contradict one another.

[kanrok]

76. No

The first rule of "response" is to actually read the entire post. I gave you 2 definitions of "imprimatur." One is the technical, legal term , which you chose to use to "refute" my contention. The other is the colloquial definition from Webster's, which I provided to inform you that this is how I wanted the reader to understand what I was saying, which, I guess you either failed to consider or ignored. As for your argument on the 1st Amendment, is it your position that we as a society do not support this freedom? I don;t think that's your position, but it may be. Actually, if we disect what you are trying to say, it really supports my position. I really don't see how you can confuse what I'm saying, but I guess anything is possible. As for your assertion that the 1st amnedment gives a cultural acquiesence to all ideas in the marketplace, I believe you are mixing apples and oranges. I'll make it simple: free speech GOOD, Drugs BAD. Kapische?

[1a2b3c]

63. This is how i got started smoking pot in high school

You couldnt find someone to buy you alcohol but it was quite easy to go to school and buy a sack of the green sticky icky.

[DoNotRefill]

16. Of course you don't oppose the drug war....

You were a white-collar Drug Warrior. You had a direct financial interest in fighting it, just like all the cops who get paid to arrest people for it, and all the corrections officers who get paid to keep them locked up. It added prestige and resources to your job.

BTW, when was the last time you heard of a criminal committing a crime to buy cigarettes? If drugs weren't priced on a black market scale, there would be a lot less crime necessary to finance drug habits, wouldn't there? After all, even the poorest of the poor can afford cigarettes without robbing and killing to buy them...

[Abe Linkman]

18. DoNotRefill telling it like it is

Excellent points; right on the money. The police criminal justice prison complex is a huge web of interlocking special interests who are addicted to the benefits of an insane, irrational, and corrupt Drug War that has devastated millions upon millions of people all over the world.

[kanrok]

21. That's quite a stretch

This is a new one on me. I've never been called a "white-collar Drug Warrior" before. Next time my daughter asks me what I do (did, because I've been in private practice for 9 years now) I'll tell her tha Daddy was a "white-collar Drug Warrior." Your argument on this point is, to put it politely, specious. As noted above, I have not been a prosecutor for 9 years. If you think I did my job for the financial benefits, you're ignorant of the facts. Try again.

[DoNotRefill]

23. OK....

most people who join prosecutor's offices do so to gain experience to help them later in their practice. True or False?

Most prosecutor's offices get additional funds and resources from the war on drugs, to handle the additional case load. These resources allow them to hire more prosecutors. True or False?

Without the Drug War, all parts of the criminal justice system would have to downsize considerably. True or False?

Without the Drug War, the police, the corrections systems, and prosecutor's offices would have much less to do, much fewer resources, and much less prestige. As such, you directly benefitted from the Drug War one way or another.

[kanrok]

25. Oh, I see

Now were changing the parameters of the argument. It was "you have a financial interest" in the "drug wars" to " directly benefitted from the Drug War one way or another." Did I "benefit" from the drug wars? You betcha. I went to law school specifically to become a prosecutor. I happened to love that job. I became interested in drug cases becaue it was my belief that most violent crimes were related to drug use (I include alcohol in this equation, BTW). I was (and still am) a "strict constructionist" when it comes to the application of Constitutional law, and I found the 4th Amendment to be particularly interesting. Still do, but ironically, I don't practice criminal law. I received a tremendous amount of trial experience, for which I am eternally grateful. BTW precious few drug cases go to trial, so most of my trial experience in that vein was violent crime. I quit the SA's office because I could not sustain a family on the money I made at that job. (There goes your "financial interest" argument). Now to answer your questions, as follows:

1. "Most people who join prosecutor's offices do so to gain experience to help them later in their practice." I have no idea what motivates "most people." I went to law school specifically to become a proscutor because I felt I had a lot to offer. I, as a "liberal" Democrat had (and still have) a strong desire to help those who are taken advantage of by others.

2. "Most prosecutor's offices get additonal funds...etc." False. ALL prosecutor's offices get additional funds from the Federal Government to fight the war on drugs. Some offices don't hire more prosecutors, but many do.

3. 'Without the drug war all parts of the criminal justice system would ave to downsize." Absolutely false. Legalize drugs and the crime rate would escalate. You have to look at both sides of the equation.

[DoNotRefill]

31. Heh...

"I quit the SA's office because I could not sustain a family on the money I made at that job."

Are you currently making more money now because of the trial experience you gained at the SA's ofice?

"Absolutely false. Legalize drugs and the crime rate would escalate. You have to look at both sides of the equation."

Do you have ANY supporting facts for that? I recall what happened with alcohol prohibition...the societal problems stayed the same (drunk driving, wife-beating, things like that) while the black market aspects added an additional level of violence to the problem. Drug prohibition has fueled the rise in crime since at least the 1970's. Much of that was directly due to it's illegal status and associated costs.

Everybody who wants to do drugs already does them, despite the fact that they're illegal. It's MUCH easier to get drugs than alcohol or guns for young people, despite the fact that alcohol and guns are generally only age-restricted for people who are not legally disabled. There are more illicit outlets selling drugs than there are legal outlets for alcohol and guns, even if you include licensees with on-premise licenses only.

[Abe Linkman]

32. Ego

I think there must be some ego involvement in those who argue in favor of continuing our irrational Drug Wars.

Saying that we should lock people up because they robbed a store to get money to pay for illegal drugs and therefore drugs should be illegal because some crimes are associated with drugs is a circular argument like saying that all of the robberies you've heard about involved someone who needs money, and therefore we should outlaw poverty in order to eliminate robberies, but you know they won't support outlawing poverty because that might involve crushing our corrupt police/prison/criminal injustice industrial complex...and that might mean a deterioration in the budgets and profits of all those special interests who benefit from Drug Prohibition Laws.

btw - what percentage of drug arrests (other than those where cops simply burn gasoline and time driving around poor neighborhoods, jumping out of cars and threatening to shoot people because they might have just handed someone a joint) are the result of Entrapment, Set-ups, Framing someone, planting evidence, paying informants (with drugs and/or money), and other forms of police misconduct and criminality? I'd say the percentage is probably somewhere over 90-97% of the cases, and maybe even higher.

[kanrok]

38. Geez

Were you bitten by a police officer when you were young? Let's keep this in perspective. You solicited the information I'm presenting you in this thread. If you truly wanted a colloqy about this issue, you have a strange way of showing it. I have no "ego" problem with respect to illicit drugs. Neither do the bulk and the majority of people in this country. I respect your opinion that drugs should be legalized, but I disagree. So do the vast majority of our citizens. Unfortunately for you, drugs are illegal, and will continue to be illegal until you can convince our elected officials to change the law. I, for one, simply don't want to live in that world. As for "somewhere between 90-97% of all drug cases resulting from police misconduct and criminality"....please. If you want to have a rational discussion about this, keep away from gross hyperbole. Until then, bye-bye.

[Abe Linkman]

49. Truth hurts.

Saying it ain't so, doesn't change anything.

I do agree that the public will always prefer nonsense to sense; and therefore, the large group of special interests (including prosecutors - nearly every single one of whom believes that the definition of justice is "a conviction and maximum sentence") will do everything in its power to keep pumping the public full of propaganda about drugs.

No one who has studied the subject in-depth sees the drug war as being any different than alcohol prohibition.

[kanrok]

50. Ouch! Quit it, Your Killing Me!

How many prosecutors do you know personally? I'm gonna bet none. I love it when you presume. It really makes me want to change my mind. If I can come up with one person who studied this subject in-depth and disagrees with you do I win? Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make their arguments "nonsense." Now you're arguing like a Freeper. I don't believe in "pumping the public full of propaganda about drugs" I have no vested interest in doing so. You can sit in your home and pound yourself full of any kind of drug you want, as far as I'm concerned. Cheers. I'm going home to enjoy a nice glass of wine.

[Abe Linkman]

51. YOUR drug of choice may get outlawed. Again.

"to enjoy a nice glass of wine."

I believe (like that?) that alcohol has caused more deaths, more heartaches, and more problems than all of the cocaine that went up Bunnypants's noZe, and all of the Oxycontin that Rush Limbaugh has eaten...combined.

Alcohol is the worst of all drugs. It should be a crime to consume it. Too many people get violent, cause deadly car accidents, and get into family fights...because of the Demon alcohol.

Can we agree that you would be better off not consuming such a dangerous drug? What kind of message are you sending to "the children" by using that awful drug?

[kanrok]

52. Ummmm...wrong again!

Wine, in moderation, is healthy. Can you say the same for your drugs of choice? Try again.

[Abe Linkman]

55. Your drug is fine and mine is too - that's the whole idea

If you want to consume liberal libations of a ninety proof nerve tonic til you puke; ain't nobody's business but your own.

Freedom. Freedom of choice. That's what we're talking about here. You don't have the right (or you shouldn't have the right) to be able to dictate what someelse can consume. I don't have that right; and our Government shouldn't either.

Wine is a well-known gateway drug to hard liquor, and that leads to alcoholism, with all its heavy toll on society - but, I believe that I have the right to tell you that you can't drink what you want, and as much of it as you want to.

You say that wine relaxes you. So does yoga. Other people say that marijuana relaxes them.

Interesting that the only person here who favors locking up people who take drugs other than the most lethal (nicotine and alcohol), is someone who was in the system that benefits from Drug Prohibition Laws.

[smb]

65. There Is One Big Difference

No one who has studied the subject in-depth sees the drug war as being any different than alcohol prohibition.

Well, except that alcohol prohibition was legitimately authorized (via amendment giving Congress the authority to impose it). It was stupid, but at least it was legal.

[Abe Linkman]

66. Ever heard of jury nullification?

The public is easily fooled, and often is...by those in power, those with money, fame, celebrity etc.

It's also "The Law" that you not exceed the posted speed limit, and in some states it's illegal to use the left lane for anything other than passing.

Do you consider yourself a law violator?

[kanrok]

71. Okay, now you forced me to go back to law school

Speeding (and most other traffic laws) is not a "specific intent" crime. It is a "general intent" crime. Actually, it is not considered a "crime" as such, it is usually, but not always, treated as an "ordinance" violation, with the prosecution able to avail itself of the lesser burden of proof, i.e., "by a preponderanceof the evidence" rather than the more onerous "beyond a reaosnable doubt" standard. Additionally, most drug crimes are felonies, rather than petty offenses. So, Yes, I have been known to "speed" on occasions (not amphetamine "speed") but I am not considered to be much of a "law violator" compared to serial "felons."

[1a2b3c]

59. Seems to me that you dont want people to make their own life decisions

I don't want our children to believe that using drugs is a good or fun thing to do.

When am i of age to legally smoke something less harmfull than alcohol?

[Abe Linkman]

68. Re: "our children"

Why doesn't s/he just teach their children to "just say no" to whatever drugs they want their children to avoid. Maybe their kids need some different friends if they're being pressured to use (illegal) drugs.

One wonders what they teach their kids about the Demon alcohol? That it has caused more misery, more violence, more lost lives, than any other drug in the history of mankind? Maybe even more than the drugs of power, greed, lust, and anger.

[Wcross]

4. Abe!

"but I do support the right to own one - regardless of whether or not one has ever been convicted of a crime),"

I am a gun rights supporter, I can not agree with your statement. A felon has no business owning a gun. If someone has a track record of violent behavior, they should not have any weapons.

[Abe Linkman]

7. Wcross - why do you want to make me look bad?!!

You're right about an exception for people with a "track record of violent behavior". As a compromise, I'd go along with that. (course, most violent people don't use guns, but those that did would just have to turn to a legal weapon like a baseball bat or a knife or a car, or a two by four or _____)

[Wcross]

10. I apologize Abe!

I am by no means trying to make you look bad Abe. I just think you were too broad in the statement on anybody owning a gun. I know you meant non-violent offenders, but many other posters would say you advocate arming felons on down the line.

I hope you understand, no malicious intent on my part Abe.

I am an advocate of legal marijuna use, I see no more harm in it than you do.


K+ dude.

[Abe Linkman]

17. NO: I owe you the apology, Wcross

I was teasing when I said "don't make me look bad". I should have said what you just did (exclude non-violent offenders). Although, I must say that I'm not 100% certain that THEY shouldn't at least have the right to defend their house, property, and family with a firearm. After all, if they are on probation or parole, maybe they should have to find some other way to defend themselves (some people may feel they have forefitted the right to defend themselves)...but if they aren't currently in the criminal justice system, I don't know why they should be forced to be "sitting ducks" in their house or apartment.

[Wcross]

53. Lets call it even Abe!

It is only a matter of time Abe. It is time to rethink the drug war, most people see the lies for what they are.

[kanrok]

54. What lies are you referring to?

[Wcross]

56. Alcohol=good Marijuna=Bad?

The lies of the right wing anti-marijuana people who are out to save us for ourselves.

[kanrok]

58. Just Curious

Are they lying about cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, LSD, and any other hard drug that you can name? I can always count on drug legalizers to talk only about marijuana in this debate. These drugs are not illegal to save you from yourself, it is to save the people who obey the law from the lawbreakers.

[Wcross]

60. Marijuna

I would rather refrain from the debate about hard drugs. My beef is the Marijuna laws. If it were legal, would law enforcers have to spend more time on alcohol violations or Marijuna violations? I suspect everthing would remain about the way they are now- without the "drug raids" or the need for dealers and the associated crime when illegal substances and illicet money are involved.

[Abe Linkman]

67. Yes, of course they're lying. It's in their interest to.

Everyone who benefits from the Drug Wars has a strong incentive to lie about the drugs that are illegal. 99.99% of the Drug Warriors ("thugs with a badge") couldn't care less about what other people do, except that they WANT people to "do drugs", because they benefit from arresting people who use outlawed drugs and they want to increase the numbers of Americans in the criminal justice system.

[kanrok]

69. Huh?

That has to be the most ridiculous argument you've come up with yet. I really don't get it. You solicit a "debate" about this subject, then when your provided with a cogent, well-reasoned, logical argument you call me "egotistical" a "liar" a "thug with a badge" (and mine is now on a plaque on the wall behind me and has remained there for the last 9 years) and, by implication, you argue that I want people to continue doing drugs. How do you ever hope to be taken seriously by anyone when you argue so poorly?

[Abe Linkman]

72. Which part of that message do you dispute?

Are you a "thug with a badge"? I thought you claimed to have been a prosecutor, not a cop.

If you disagree that Drug War backers lie about the dangers of drugs, then you need to tell us what it is you disagree with. I know that Rush Limbaugh's followers all claim he that they've never noticed one bit of evidence that he has consumed huge quantities of what is known on the street as "hillbilly heroin". I've only seen scare stories about how dangerous and fatal that particular drug is. (so far, I've yet to see any stories claiming dealers want to "poison our children" with Oxycontin, but that's the issue here)

"when your (sic) provided with a cogent, well-reasoned, logical argument you call me "egotistical" Oh, come on, you're with friends; no need for so much false modesty.

[kanrok]

73. Well

I happened to go to an autopsy of an 18 year old young man who died after ingesting heroin. I have first-hand experience beyond that of the actual dangers inherent in "hard" drugs. (I can't get all that excited over marijuana). I guess I just don't see what "lies" you are referring to. Be specific so I can answer cogently. However, even you cannot dispute that heroin, LSD, cocaine, and methamphetamine are seriously dangeous drugs. As for the "badge" issue, as a supervisor in the office in which I was employed, we had "badges." As I said above, mine is now on a plaque on a wall behind my desk. (if that isn't scary enough for you, some offices allow the assistants to carry guns).

[Abe Linkman]

77. Scary, but not surprising.

About the badge, that is.

All kinds of things are "dangerous". Cops, most judges, all prosecutors. TV, driving recklessly, right-wingers, holier-than-thou people, people who don't believe in freedom, people who feel they have the right to decide what should be legal (Alcohol - THE MOST DANGEROUS DRUG ON PLANET EARTH...is okay, as far as you're concerned), etc.

The lies I'm talking about are the ones that Drug Warriors tell to scare the public about the supposed dangers of drugs. Like the ones about Oxycontin that Rush Limbaugh takes by the fistful.

We live in a very corrupt society. One in which many people believe that prisons are the gated communities for poor people and minorities.

Mick Jagger had it right, when he sings: "and all the cops are criminals."

[kanrok]

78. Oh, that is illuminating!

"The lies I'm talking about are the ones the drug warriors tell to scare the public about the supposed dangers of drugs..." What's the color of the sky in your world? What lies about OxyContin are we "drug warriors" spreading now? I know that OxyContin is a prescription drug, regulated by the DEA, is purported to be habit forming, and potentially damaging to the liver. What about that statement is a lie? If you really want to be taken seriously in a debate, give concrete, factual and logical arguments. I'm still waiting to hear what lies are being spread about cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and LSD. Care to give me ONE example? I'll remind you ONE MORE TIME....you solicited this thread. If you want a debate, come armed with arguments. So far it appears that you came to a gunfight with a water pistol. I'll fill my wineglass with some "Meritage" and wait for your cogent reply. Cheers!

[kanrok]

79. Oops!

Boy, you really caught me with my pants down with that (sic)!!! Let me edit my response: I'd like to change "your" to "you're"...there..are you happy now? Maybe now you can argue substance rather than style.

[DoNotRefill]

14. I don't...

I've never favored the drug war. I've never been caught with drugs, and I don't do illegal drugs now.

It's a collosal waste of resources that has eroded our fundamental civil liberties.

[Liberal Classic]

33. The so-called drug war is as effective as alcohol prohibition

Which is to say it isn't.

[Abe Linkman]

34. Drug Wars ARE effective...from the standpoint of:

* Drug "Lords"

* Mafia

* Local/Regional Distributors and Dealers

* Police and the thousand other "law encforcement" agencies

* Bailbond companies

* Prosectuors

* Criminal Defense lawyers

* Alcohol Beverage Companies

* DEA, CIA etc.

* Businesses that sell to all of those on both sides of the Wars

* Drugs Testing Companies

* Companies that sell products that "hide" drugs from tests

* Large corporations that use Drug Wars as cover for plundering the assets of other countries (such as what is going on in Columbia)

* Security companies who cater to people and businesses who (rightly) fear being targeted by addicts who need money to pay the artificially exhorbitant cost of drugs sold by cartels operating as monopolies.

* ____ (you name some more; I'm tired of writing)

[Wcross]

47. My God!

We agree on something :)

[Nikia]

57. I disagree with it

The police should concentrate on arresting and imprisioning real criminals who hurt, rape, steal, and kill. Money spent on the srug war could be used to fight real crime or be used for other programs. It really upsets me that my tax dollars are going to arrest people for doing what I do in my own home as well as putting out bogus advertisements against my drug of choice. As far as dangers in highway deaths, I suppose that detecting high drivers might be a problem but that is no reason to keep drugs illegal. Many users do not drive when they are high. The people who do not do drugs because they are illegal who might try it or even become regular users will probably be less likely to drive while high if that is illegal. Drug dealing related violence often occurrs because their businesses are outside of the law. They are not protected by contracts or theft so they or their associates take things into their own hands.
I use small amounts of marijuana to get high. I am generally more social in that state just as people claim to be with alcohol. It has benefited my health. I have had stomach problems that apparently do not have a physical cause that have responded to marijuana better than antacids, acid reducers, or other digestive products. It also has decreased my anxiety significantly. I feel for much sicker people who have found it to help them tremendously and have been arrested for it.

[op6203]

80. Somebody please explain it to me

Seriously - I could go both ways on this. I agree as long as you're only hurting yourself, it's your business (very similar to the legalized prostitution arguement IMO).

But here's my problem - how do you control it or the people taking it. People do some crazy stuff when under the influence of certain drugs and are willing to do some really messed up stuff to get more (addicts). I know a lot of you agree with only marijuana being legal, but some say it should ALL be legal.

Two local cases:
There was a fight at a local club. It started when a guy there jumped on stage wearing nothing but a condom and started touching himself - he was on PCP. When they tried to make him leave, he lost it. It took several officers to restrain the guy (they say it was because PCP makes you so strong - I think part of it was nobody really wanted to touch the fool).

A woman was arrested that had been on meth for about 6 months. She was so hooked, she told the officers she was glad they arrested her when they did. She said she was to the point that she would have sold her kids for her next hit if she had to. Plus, in 6 months she'd gone from average-looking to death-warmed-over.

Please educate me on your ideas of how legalization of this crap would work. I'm honestly willing to consider. And yeah, I know alcohol makes people do some crazy stuff, too - but not that crazy (not that I've seen).

OP

[kanrok]

81. OP

There is no good reason to legalize "hard" drugs. I've been trying to get a cogent argument to back up the claim and have yet to read one. You'll hear arguments about marijuana 'till the cows come home, but no one will touch cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and LSD with a 10-foot pole. I've heard the arguments (mostly economic-based, i.e., make the drugs available, have the govt. produce them, be assured of quality and take away the "profit" motive). I simply don't buy these arguments for various reasons, many of them tied up in the types of examples you provide. My bottom line is that if we "legalize" hard drugs we place society's imprimatur upon their use, in essence making their use socially acceptable. This, in my humble estimation, would lead to a sharp increase in use. I just don't want to live in a society that condones the use of these drugs.