- Joined
- May 21, 2005
- Messages
- 10,204
- Reaction score
- 11,592
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
I want to start with a prediciton. At least one person is going to say to themselves, "Bah, another pot-head liberal!", skip past all the points I am about to make, and continue to hold the same prohibitionist opinions as before. If you are that person, I thank you for at least reading this far, and I sincerely invite any well-reasoned counter arguments you may have - but only if you will fairly and objectively consider all of my points too.
I also want to point out what I feel is a common goal between pro and anti-prohibitionists. That common goal is to minimize the negative effects these dangerous drugs have on our society. Nobody can deny the harmful effects of most illicit drugs on the user's body. Nobody can argue with the belief that being addicted to any drug is a bad thing. The main question to answer is, what's the best way to handle this problem? And by "best", I mean "least harmful". Remember that our common goal is harm reduction.
Drug prohibition has made America's drug problem worse. The war on drugs has handed the trade over to gangs and organized crime on the black market. Just as alcohol prohibition in the 1920's gave us Al Capone and the mafia, today's drug war has given us the Crips, the Bloods, and Pablo Escobar. The criminal element in America has a monopoly on the drug trade, and it's a multi-billion dollar industry to fight over.
Drug prohibition inflates the cost of drugs, leading users to steal to support their high priced habits. It is estimated that drug addicts commit 25% of all auto thefts, 40% of robberies and assaults, and 50% of burglaries and larcenies.
Nearly half of all police resources are devoted to stopping drug trafficking instead of preventing violent crime. As a result, six out of ten federal inmates are in prison for non-violent drug-related offenses. It has been estimated that every drug offender imprisoned results in the release of one violent criminal.
http://www.bergen.org/AAST/Projects/libweb/issues/vcd.txt
Some drugs have withdrawal symptoms that can be fatal. Quitting cold-turkey can kill the addict. So it's not surprising that some will commit crimes if it means they get their fix. The higher the price of drugs, the higher the chance they will have no choice but to quit cold-turkey or steal to get more drugs.
Legalize does not mean glamorize, it means de-stigmatize. It's not illegal to be an overweight, alcoholic chain smoker, but these are three traits that most Americans seek to avoid. There's a lot to be said for how we as a society condone or condemn certain things, regardless of whether or not it's against the law.
Drugs are easier to get now than if they were legal. Under prohibition, drugs are sold by thugs who could care less how old their customer is, or whether they're severly addicted and need help. Drugs should be sold by reputable distributors who are strictly monitored by the police and bound by law to maintain certain ethical standards for distribution, similar to the way we handle alcohol and tobacco today.
Decriminalization will not result in more intoxicated drivers on the road. This myth is based on the assumption that, if drugs became legal, otherwise law-abiding citizens will not only start using drugs, but will also start breaking the law by driving under the influence. Not only is this myth not logical, it is not supported by statistics in other countries that have decriminalized drugs, such as the Netherlands, England, and Canada.
Decriminalization does not mean being allowed to use drugs in public. We have public drunkedness laws for good reason, in my opinion, and there's no reason why the same laws shouldn't apply to any intoxicating drug.
In a decriminalized environment, drug users are not automatically prone to commit other types of crime. The fact that many crimes in America today often involve drugs is actually because of prohibition, not in spite of it.
Nobody should be intoxicated while at work, behind the wheel, operating machinery, or anywhere else that requires them to be alert and attentive. Each of us are responsible for what we do, when, and where.
Drug use is actually safer in a legal environment for a number of reasons, not the least of which is better quality control. Drugs in Liverpool, England were most likely never hidden in a box of laundry detergent or doused in gasoline to cover the scent from drug dogs. They probably weren't made using cheaper yet more dangerous ingredients. And the "potency" can be regulated and is easily known to the user, which undoubtedly reduces the number of overdose deaths.
The Reagan and Bush era Supreme Court has upheld police powers to detain and interrogate travelers who bear a resemblance to "drug couriers," to engage in surveillance, including secretly taping conversations and sifting through garbage. An anonymous tip is now sufficient grounds for a search warrant, meaning the police no longer have to verify that their source is reliable. New anti-crime legislation entails granting the police the power to submit as admissible evidence any property gained as a result of entering your home without a warrant. The new legislation also includes extending mandatory death sentences to include drug convictions which do not involve a homicide, and to limit federal death sentence appeals thereby speeding executions. The U.S. Supreme Court has recently ruled that a mandatory life sentence for a first-time drug offender acting as a drug courier is not cruel and unusual punishment.
http://www.anotherperspective.org/utopiaunarmed.html
I have two older brothers who are recovering drug addicts. I watched their lives get totally wrecked by drugs. And when they were finally ready to give it up, I watched their chances of social recovery totally wrecked by the legal system and its bias against drug users, both past and present. The younger of the two has spent the better part of his adult life in prison for non-violent drug posession charges. Thankfully he's out now and has been clean for several years, but because of his "criminal" record, hardly any company wants to hire him. It was hard enough for them to overcome the addiction, so why should we make it even harder to reestablish themselves in society when they finally decide to get clean? We need a system that encourages drug addicts to get clean and better themselves. Harm reduction!
Drug addiction is a medical problem, not a legal problem, therefore drug addicts should be handled by doctors and medical experts, not by judges and prison guards. Education is how we've reduced the number of alcoholics and cigarette smokers over the last decade. Education, not incarceration, is the only way to win the war on drugs.
Thank you for reading, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts!
I also want to point out what I feel is a common goal between pro and anti-prohibitionists. That common goal is to minimize the negative effects these dangerous drugs have on our society. Nobody can deny the harmful effects of most illicit drugs on the user's body. Nobody can argue with the belief that being addicted to any drug is a bad thing. The main question to answer is, what's the best way to handle this problem? And by "best", I mean "least harmful". Remember that our common goal is harm reduction.
Drug prohibition has made America's drug problem worse. The war on drugs has handed the trade over to gangs and organized crime on the black market. Just as alcohol prohibition in the 1920's gave us Al Capone and the mafia, today's drug war has given us the Crips, the Bloods, and Pablo Escobar. The criminal element in America has a monopoly on the drug trade, and it's a multi-billion dollar industry to fight over.
Drug prohibition inflates the cost of drugs, leading users to steal to support their high priced habits. It is estimated that drug addicts commit 25% of all auto thefts, 40% of robberies and assaults, and 50% of burglaries and larcenies.
Nearly half of all police resources are devoted to stopping drug trafficking instead of preventing violent crime. As a result, six out of ten federal inmates are in prison for non-violent drug-related offenses. It has been estimated that every drug offender imprisoned results in the release of one violent criminal.
http://www.bergen.org/AAST/Projects/libweb/issues/vcd.txt
Some drugs have withdrawal symptoms that can be fatal. Quitting cold-turkey can kill the addict. So it's not surprising that some will commit crimes if it means they get their fix. The higher the price of drugs, the higher the chance they will have no choice but to quit cold-turkey or steal to get more drugs.
Legalize does not mean glamorize, it means de-stigmatize. It's not illegal to be an overweight, alcoholic chain smoker, but these are three traits that most Americans seek to avoid. There's a lot to be said for how we as a society condone or condemn certain things, regardless of whether or not it's against the law.
Drugs are easier to get now than if they were legal. Under prohibition, drugs are sold by thugs who could care less how old their customer is, or whether they're severly addicted and need help. Drugs should be sold by reputable distributors who are strictly monitored by the police and bound by law to maintain certain ethical standards for distribution, similar to the way we handle alcohol and tobacco today.
Decriminalization will not result in more intoxicated drivers on the road. This myth is based on the assumption that, if drugs became legal, otherwise law-abiding citizens will not only start using drugs, but will also start breaking the law by driving under the influence. Not only is this myth not logical, it is not supported by statistics in other countries that have decriminalized drugs, such as the Netherlands, England, and Canada.
Decriminalization does not mean being allowed to use drugs in public. We have public drunkedness laws for good reason, in my opinion, and there's no reason why the same laws shouldn't apply to any intoxicating drug.
In a decriminalized environment, drug users are not automatically prone to commit other types of crime. The fact that many crimes in America today often involve drugs is actually because of prohibition, not in spite of it.
Nobody should be intoxicated while at work, behind the wheel, operating machinery, or anywhere else that requires them to be alert and attentive. Each of us are responsible for what we do, when, and where.
Drug use is actually safer in a legal environment for a number of reasons, not the least of which is better quality control. Drugs in Liverpool, England were most likely never hidden in a box of laundry detergent or doused in gasoline to cover the scent from drug dogs. They probably weren't made using cheaper yet more dangerous ingredients. And the "potency" can be regulated and is easily known to the user, which undoubtedly reduces the number of overdose deaths.
The Reagan and Bush era Supreme Court has upheld police powers to detain and interrogate travelers who bear a resemblance to "drug couriers," to engage in surveillance, including secretly taping conversations and sifting through garbage. An anonymous tip is now sufficient grounds for a search warrant, meaning the police no longer have to verify that their source is reliable. New anti-crime legislation entails granting the police the power to submit as admissible evidence any property gained as a result of entering your home without a warrant. The new legislation also includes extending mandatory death sentences to include drug convictions which do not involve a homicide, and to limit federal death sentence appeals thereby speeding executions. The U.S. Supreme Court has recently ruled that a mandatory life sentence for a first-time drug offender acting as a drug courier is not cruel and unusual punishment.
http://www.anotherperspective.org/utopiaunarmed.html
I have two older brothers who are recovering drug addicts. I watched their lives get totally wrecked by drugs. And when they were finally ready to give it up, I watched their chances of social recovery totally wrecked by the legal system and its bias against drug users, both past and present. The younger of the two has spent the better part of his adult life in prison for non-violent drug posession charges. Thankfully he's out now and has been clean for several years, but because of his "criminal" record, hardly any company wants to hire him. It was hard enough for them to overcome the addiction, so why should we make it even harder to reestablish themselves in society when they finally decide to get clean? We need a system that encourages drug addicts to get clean and better themselves. Harm reduction!
Drug addiction is a medical problem, not a legal problem, therefore drug addicts should be handled by doctors and medical experts, not by judges and prison guards. Education is how we've reduced the number of alcoholics and cigarette smokers over the last decade. Education, not incarceration, is the only way to win the war on drugs.
Thank you for reading, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts!