War on Drugs

[Onine]

Cannabis may aswell be legal it seems to remain illegal so some people can live in a fantasy that it being illegal actually stops anyone getting hold of it.

I would love to believe that but it simply isn't true.

I can't go into detail on the record though.


However, just the other day I was flipping channels and turned on WNED, channel 3, to see a debate. Some guy with white hair was talking about how all our healthcare problems stem directly from our association with illegal drugs. It was obvious he was talking about marijuana ... but I would laugh my white little butt off if he ever once said cocaine clearly instead of vague associations to marijuana.

 

[rathi]

The war on drugs is a joke. We spend billions on enforcement and they manage to grab street dealers and fill our prisons with them. We then have to pay for everyone in prison. Then they get out of prison, and find it hard a get a job because of a felony record. They get on welfare and we pay yet more money. Legalizing pot is obvious, and hard drugs need to not have felony possession. Kids need to educated using facts and not fear. Kids need training on how drink responsibly. A glass of wine a day is harmless, alcohol poisoning is not. Most American teenagers drink, but few know how to be safe about it.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

But, aside from that, I have no problem with the legalization of marijuana. Its a waste of police time and a waste of law enforcement funding to continue to enforce a law that there is no desire to follow. Although I would say that some of that funding needs to be diverted from enforcement of marijuana laws to improving the ability of which local jurisdictions can process blood samples for chemical analysis. Since I am completely certain that the legalization of marijuana will make some folks who are law abiding citizens and refused to use before become users or just "experiment" with it. And with a large number of users, like with alcohol, your going to have a large number of impaired drivers on the roads. And since implied consent laws (at least here) give officers the authority to take blood from a suspect for chemical analysis, with the legalization of marijuana, I foresee that this occurrence with greatly increase when dealing with impaired driving.

This is, perhaps, the best argument I've ever heard for the legalization of marijuana. If I understand you correctly, by diverting funds from the enforcement of marijuana laws to the further enforcement of impaired driving laws, it is your opinion, as a law enforcement agent, the more people who's substance use affects others will be stopped. I the statement I just made, correct?

 

[Jerry]

Do you want the "war ended"?

After all these years we still haven't "won"

actually, the people who are currently high alone are kicking the governments ***.

please explain your reasons.

Given the profits of big pharmacy, I'd say we lost.

 

[Kasmos]

The government is very foolish actually in not legalizing marijuana. It would solve many of the drug dealer problems we see in America today (turf wars/etc. in regards to pot) and the government could actually make a fortune off of it. Imagine if everytime you bought marijuana you were taxed as much as you were taxed on cigarettes? The government would be MAKING money!

 

[Arillious]

First things first, make pot legal. The fact that people are in jail for smoking pot is retarded. Make pot legal, and try again. If the war on drugs still fails then try other options.

 

[rivrrat]

The "war on drugs" is a useless war that consumes precious resources that could be used elsewhere for actual good.

All drugs should be decriminalized. I should be free to put whatever the hell I want into my own body. And, I should be free to suffer the consequences of said actions, should there be any. And, if I (for some reason) commit some crime while using drugs, I should be punished accordingly.

Your post implies that heroin is worse than coke and possibly worse than meth.
In my experience, that isn't the case.
Heroin addicts only need one or two shots per day; at between ten and twenty dollars a pop (depending on geographical region), this is viable. Many heroin addicts I've known were functional citizens, lived a semi-productive existence on the fringes of mainstream society, holding down jobs, being inconspicuous neighbors, passive, not really bothering anyone.
It is not uncommon for a heroin addict to live with this addiction for twenty, thirty, or forty years, which is not the case with other hard drugs.

Very true. But one need not inject heroin either.

Coke fiends and crackheads are something else altogether.
They can consume massive quantities of narcotics in a single day, sometimes needing upwards of a thousand dollars a day to fuel their habits; an ordinary job or a mainstream existence are entirely out of the question. They are frequently aggressive.

Incorrect. One must separate coke from crack because they are two different monsters altogether.

Numerous successful businessmen, etc use coke. It's a helluva lot more common than heroin. It doesn't make people more aggressive unless they have aggressive tendencies (see alcohol). People can and do lead completely "normal" lives while using coke. It's not the least bit difficult at all. Use of coke is completely manageable.

Now, crack on the other hand is different. It is powerfully addictive (at least it was for me), and the drive to obtain more is terribly, terribly strong. I can easily see how it could become uncontrollable with repeated use. In my personal experience, I cannot see a "crack head" living a "normal" life for very long. I will tell you that I used it once about 15 years ago and I still crave it on some level. I've been at parties wherein I could smell someone smoking it and something just triggered in my body and the desire to find them was strong (though not uncontrollable by any means).

Ditto the meth heads; while they don't need the quantity of narcotics that coke fiends do (meth lasts longer), they are often even more aggressive; and meth wreaks havok on the body like no other drug.

Meth is not something I've ever tried, nor will I ever try. So I have no experience with this.

 

[americanwoman]

The war on drugs is a useless waste of money.


http://www.debatepolitics.com/323131-post1.html

 

[Joby]

The government is very foolish actually in not legalizing marijuana. It would solve many of the drug dealer problems we see in America today (turf wars/etc. in regards to pot) and the government could actually make a fortune off of it. Imagine if everytime you bought marijuana you were taxed as much as you were taxed on cigarettes? The government would be MAKING money!

Not on my home-grown bee-yotch! :lol:

 

[DeeJayH]

It all depends on where you live when it comes to how serious marijuana use/minor possession is viewed by criminal law.

In the county I work in, we write citations for possession of marijuana, and those violators pay it off in Administrative/Traffic court without ever needing a lawyer or going before a criminal court.

Now, when you are in possession of a large amount of marijuana, it is viewed as possession with intent to sell/distribute. That is viewed slightly more seriously.

However, possession of cocaine/heroine/etc is viewed much more seriously. And it doesn't take much of these substances to constitute a felony charge.

And that doesn't bother me at all, as these are the drugs that usually create the need to commit a crime in many of the Robberies and Burglaries that occur in the area. They want some cocaine but they don't want to actually use their welfare check to get it.

But, aside from that, I have no problem with the legalization of marijuana. Its a waste of police time and a waste of law enforcement funding to continue to enforce a law that there is no desire to follow. Although I would say that some of that funding needs to be diverted from enforcement of marijuana laws to improving the ability of which local jurisdictions can process blood samples for chemical analysis. Since I am completely certain that the legalization of marijuana will make some folks who are law abiding citizens and refused to use before become users or just "experiment" with it. And with a large number of users, like with alcohol, your going to have a large number of impaired drivers on the roads. And since implied consent laws (at least here) give officers the authority to take blood from a suspect for chemical analysis, with the legalization of marijuana, I foresee that this occurrence with greatly increase when dealing with impaired driving.

if memory serves, in NY
if you had less than an ounce of weed, and it was not bagged up like you were a dealer, it was decriminalized
only when you had an ounce or more, or you had it bagged for distribution did it become criminal
and I believe they also can take anybodies car if you use it to purchase/sell/distribute any drugs

 

[RightinNYC]

if memory serves, in NY
if you had less than an ounce of weed, and it was not bagged up like you were a dealer, it was decriminalized
only when you had an ounce or more, or you had it bagged for distribution did it become criminal
and I believe they also can take anybodies car if you use it to purchase/sell/distribute any drugs

Possession of under 25g in NYS is a "civil citation" and a fine of $100. Basically a traffic ticket.

 

[Caine]

This is, perhaps, the best argument I've ever heard for the legalization of marijuana. If I understand you correctly, by diverting funds from the enforcement of marijuana laws to the further enforcement of impaired driving laws, it is your opinion, as a law enforcement agent, the more people who's substance use affects others will be stopped. I the statement I just made, correct?

Yep, pretty much.
When it comes to the use of controlled substances, (unless in the situation of impaired driving, domestic violence, or being impaired on a controlled substance in public) generally speaking, the only person affected by the actions of those impaired are the persons themselves. There is no direct victim of the "criminal act" of possessing a controlled substance or using a controlled substance other than the user themselves. Now, I say direct because there could be many indirect victims based upon how that person acts when impaired by said substance. For example, a guy we have regular problems with goes over his girlfriend's house and runs around the neighborhood butt naked after he has consumed cocaine. Anyone who witnesses this idiot in public could be considered an "indirect" victim. It wasn't the act of use/possession of the drug that made them a victim, but the individual's actions while impaired by it. The same could be said for domestic violence situations in which the victim was attacked by a suspect who was impaired by a substance, when they normally would not act in that manner. This already occurs with alcohol, so it isn't much of a change. And then there is the addition of people acting out in public due to being high on drugs, and this impairment causing them to act irrationally towards others. Not to mention the previously discussed impaired driving increases.

So, to recap, as even I think my wording of this post is confusing, the abolition of controlled substsance prohibition laws would decrease alot of unnecessary criminal prosecutions, but also has the potential to add more in the way of victims of impaired driving, domestic violence, and general "acting out" in public. However, this already occurs with alcohol in all situations so its not much of a change. And, we must remember that its not the government's job to make laws prohibiting something just because they don't have faith in the ability of grown adults to make good judgement decisions when using these drugs.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Yep, pretty much.
When it comes to the use of controlled substances, (unless in the situation of impaired driving, domestic violence, or being impaired on a controlled substance in public) generally speaking, the only person affected by the actions of those impaired are the persons themselves. There is no direct victim of the "criminal act" of possessing a controlled substance or using a controlled substance other than the user themselves. Now, I say direct because there could be many indirect victims based upon how that person acts when impaired by said substance. For example, a guy we have regular problems with goes over his girlfriend's house and runs around the neighborhood butt naked after he has consumed cocaine. Anyone who witnesses this idiot in public could be considered an "indirect" victim. It wasn't the act of use/possession of the drug that made them a victim, but the individual's actions while impaired by it. The same could be said for domestic violence situations in which the victim was attacked by a suspect who was impaired by a substance, when they normally would not act in that manner. This already occurs with alcohol, so it isn't much of a change. And then there is the addition of people acting out in public due to being high on drugs, and this impairment causing them to act irrationally towards others. Not to mention the previously discussed impaired driving increases.

So, to recap, as even I think my wording of this post is confusing, the abolition of controlled substsance prohibition laws would decrease alot of unnecessary criminal prosecutions, but also has the potential to add more in the way of victims of impaired driving, domestic violence, and general "acting out" in public. However, this already occurs with alcohol in all situations so its not much of a change. And, we must remember that its not the government's job to make laws prohibiting something just because they don't have faith in the ability of grown adults to make good judgement decisions when using these drugs.

Excellent and informative post, Caine. Let me ask you this, would you support laws that add consequences to a criminal act that were committed under the influence of a substance? For example, if someone committed an act of domestic violence under the influence, receiving sterner consequences than if they were not. Could this be part of an enforcement policy that could deter substance use better than our current 'War on Drugs' does? I'm curious, considering you are a law enforcement officer, what your opinion on this would be.

 

[Rhapsody1447]

I have been browsing this website quite extensively.

Montana Meth Project

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

To interject, I'd think that would be a bad idea. The stern response is to hold users accountable for any actions committed while under the influence, and not allow intoxication to serve as a mitigating circumstance. That's all that's necessary, make sure people know as they get ****ed up that they're accountable for everything that happens when they're ****ed up.

Since a substantial number of crimes are committed by people under the influence of substances, and since consequences can be a proactive deterrent, additional consequences could reduce the amount of substance use, therefore reducing the amount of crime. And additional piece may be some sort of substance use/abuse assessment/counseling/education for lesser crimes.

 

[Caine]

Excellent and informative post, Caine. Let me ask you this, would you support laws that add consequences to a criminal act that were committed under the influence of a substance? For example, if someone committed an act of domestic violence under the influence, receiving sterner consequences than if they were not. Could this be part of an enforcement policy that could deter substance use better than our current 'War on Drugs' does? I'm curious, considering you are a law enforcement officer, what your opinion on this would be.

On this my answer would be.... "Yes and No"

I would gear it more towards North Carolina's current laws regarding being intoxicated in public as they have laws against that when dealing with alcohol already. Actions that are taken "in public" while under the influence of an formerly illegal drug would then fall under the same statues as those that are already in place when dealing with drunk and disruptive people. However, on the same note, when something happens within the boundaries of a private residence, the factor of substance impairment shouldn't add additional charges. Although, I would think that their status of impairment should have SOME aggravating factors when dealing with an assault, depending on the severity of injuries to the victim. And of course, the problem with adding additional penalties based upon impairment from a substance would be the burden of proof placed upon the State. As alcohol is easily detected, some abused substances are not so easily identified if they have no odor, or there is no direct evidence of paraphernalia used in the consumption of a specific drug. Of course, there is blood testing but that process takes quite some time, and the labs would be over burdened by the increase in requests that such a law may create. Thus my concern for additional funding for blood labs when dealing with impaired driving cases if present day controlled substances were to become fully legal. As, with our current system not nearly as many impaired driving cases deal with those impaired by controlled substances (with absolutely no alcohol to factor in), there would be a HUGE increase in this if it were to become fully legal. Because, whether anyone wants to believe it or not, it is this Officer's opinion that there are many out there who are deterred from using these substances due to the current laws, adding to that, that the due to these laws, the substances are not easily accessible to someone for experimental use who has no connections (at least in some areas, others are so over-run by drugs that you don't even have to look, they will come to you). My concerns with impaired driving are that with the legalization of all present day controlled substances and the lack of ability to properly test defendants for these substances will create a loophole allowing blitzed folks to run around on the streets slamming into innocent soccer moms, killing them, and getting away with it due to the burden of proof.

Now, in regards to whether or not ANY additional laws or changes in statute allowing for a crime committed under the influence of an impairing substance to constitute a higher level of punishment would deter use of said substances.......No. Its my opinion that it won't deter anyone from doing anything.

 

[1069]

If my sister's boyfriend started beating her, I really couldn't give a **** whether or not he was high.

When people commit violent crimes, their families and friends hope they're on drugs, often stubbornly insist that they must have been on drugs, even in the face of evidence to the contrary.
It's better than the alternative.

 

[Cephus]

Exactly, in the eyes of many being high is a mitigating circumstance, he was high, that wasn't really him. But I have to say that I agree with CC in so far that I think it would be dangerous to allow being high to be a mitigating circumstance, for although logically it would be, it is important that when people get ****ed up they know, and thusly take into account, that they will be held accountable for everything they do while impaired, so they either don't get so ****ed up or plan for ways to not cause any damage while ****ed up.

Precisely. I've brought this up before but there were a series of radio ads for Prometa, a drug treatment, that had Chris Farley's brother on saying that Chris dying wasn't all his fault because he was addicted. Well stupid, if your moron fat-*** brother had never taken drugs in the first place, he wouldn't have been addicted, would he?

It's this really ridiculous liberal idea that nobody is ever responsible for anything they do, it's got to be society or drugs or whatever that makes people do bad, stupid things.

No, some people are just stupid.

 

[Caine]

Exactly, in the eyes of many being high is a mitigating circumstance, he was high, that wasn't really him. But I have to say that I agree with CC in so far that I think it would be dangerous to allow being high to be a mitigating circumstance, for although logically it would be, it is important that when people get ****ed up they know, and thusly take into account, that they will be held accountable for everything they do while impaired, so they either don't get so ****ed up or plan for ways to not cause any damage while ****ed up.

I absolutely agree. In fact, I think the #1 Excuse offered for someone's ignorant behavior in America is "I was drunk". When accepted by friends and family as a viable excuse, some folks tend to think they can get wasted and do whatever the hell they want to, even knowingly doing these things with the intent to plead "I wuz drunk". In fact, those family and friends who accept being drunk or high as an excuse and forgive the abuser are more likely to have to call 911 for police in the same situation in the future. Alot of times when these are domestic assaults and such, they tend to get worse over time, the injuries get worse, the suspect becomes more uncooperative with police, etc.

I believe it would be extremely dangerous to allow being impaired by drugs or alcohol to be a mitigating factor when dealing with criminal behavior.

 

[zero18]

pwned!

.............

I must've seen that video at least 10 times now, I love the expression on the kid's face when Paul says, "maybe you should be forced to go on a diet" as if saying "how dare u tell me what to do with my body!" Yeah, well how dare you suggest I should be imprisoned for smoking a joint.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

On this my answer would be.... "Yes and No"

I would gear it more towards North Carolina's current laws regarding being intoxicated in public as they have laws against that when dealing with alcohol already. Actions that are taken "in public" while under the influence of an formerly illegal drug would then fall under the same statues as those that are already in place when dealing with drunk and disruptive people. However, on the same note, when something happens within the boundaries of a private residence, the factor of substance impairment shouldn't add additional charges. Although, I would think that their status of impairment should have SOME aggravating factors when dealing with an assault, depending on the severity of injuries to the victim. And of course, the problem with adding additional penalties based upon impairment from a substance would be the burden of proof placed upon the State. As alcohol is easily detected, some abused substances are not so easily identified if they have no odor, or there is no direct evidence of paraphernalia used in the consumption of a specific drug. Of course, there is blood testing but that process takes quite some time, and the labs would be over burdened by the increase in requests that such a law may create. Thus my concern for additional funding for blood labs when dealing with impaired driving cases if present day controlled substances were to become fully legal. As, with our current system not nearly as many impaired driving cases deal with those impaired by controlled substances (with absolutely no alcohol to factor in), there would be a HUGE increase in this if it were to become fully legal. Because, whether anyone wants to believe it or not, it is this Officer's opinion that there are many out there who are deterred from using these substances due to the current laws, adding to that, that the due to these laws, the substances are not easily accessible to someone for experimental use who has no connections (at least in some areas, others are so over-run by drugs that you don't even have to look, they will come to you). My concerns with impaired driving are that with the legalization of all present day controlled substances and the lack of ability to properly test defendants for these substances will create a loophole allowing blitzed folks to run around on the streets slamming into innocent soccer moms, killing them, and getting away with it due to the burden of proof.

Now, in regards to whether or not ANY additional laws or changes in statute allowing for a crime committed under the influence of an impairing substance to constitute a higher level of punishment would deter use of said substances.......No. Its my opinion that it won't deter anyone from doing anything.

Hmmm...now in this post you seem to be advocating for the continued illegality of substances in order to control impaired drivers. I'm confused.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I absolutely agree. In fact, I think the #1 Excuse offered for someone's ignorant behavior in America is "I was drunk". When accepted by friends and family as a viable excuse, some folks tend to think they can get wasted and do whatever the hell they want to, even knowingly doing these things with the intent to plead "I wuz drunk". In fact, those family and friends who accept being drunk or high as an excuse and forgive the abuser are more likely to have to call 911 for police in the same situation in the future. Alot of times when these are domestic assaults and such, they tend to get worse over time, the injuries get worse, the suspect becomes more uncooperative with police, etc.

I believe it would be extremely dangerous to allow being impaired by drugs or alcohol to be a mitigating factor when dealing with criminal behavior.

I completely agree. My questions were around wondering if committing a crime while under the influence should garner additional consequences. Perhaps using the existing laws around public intoxification are sufficient. One's substance use is never an excuse around any action committed while under the influence of said substance. It is one's responsibility when one takes the substance, it is, therefore, one's responsibility for all actions that occur while under the influence of that substance.

 

[Caine]

Hmmm...now in this post you seem to be advocating for the continued illegality of substances in order to control impaired drivers. I'm confused.

I'm sorry if I confused you.. However, I was speaking of my "concern" about how the situation would end up, not necessarily that I still support keeping them all illegal. I do however, believe that marijuana should be fully legalized and taxed like beer and tobacco.

I don't agree that cocaine/heroine/crack/meth/lsd/etc should be legal. These drugs are too powerful and too dangerous in my opinion to be sold at the local supermarket or pharmacy.

It does make one think though... if these substances were never banned, I wonder if those markets would have the same problems the tobacco market seems to be having in the sense of smoking's popularity decline?