Colombian Bio-War?

[Roguish Lawyer]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8156573/

Scientists believe insects would kill coca crops
Environmentalists warn against use of moth caterpillars

The Associated Press
Updated: 8:55 a.m. ET
June 9, 2005

BOGOTA,Colombia - A group of Colombian scientists believe they've found a way to wipe out cocaine production: unleash an army of hungry moth caterpillars. But critics of the proposal say the chance for "ecological mischief" is high.

The plan envisions breeding thousands of beige-colored Eloria Noyesi moths in laboratories, packing them into boxes and releasing them into steamy coca-growing regions of Colombia, the world's main supplier of the drug. The moths, about twice the size of a fly, are native only to the Andean region of South America.

Colombian Environment Minister Sandra Suarez told The Associated Press that the government considers the proposal an "interesting alternative" to existing eradication methods.

Carlos Alberto Gomez, president of the privately funded National Network of Botanical Gardens, made the proposal last week. He said the moths would naturally make a beeline for the coca plants and lay their eggs on the leaves. About a week later, caterpillars would emerge and destroy the plants by devouring the leaves.

Each moth could lay eggs on more than a hundred plants in one month, said Gonzalo Andrade, a biology professor with Colombia's Universidad Nacional, who has been working with the botanical garden group. He called it a natural solution to eradication. "It would be like fumigating the crops with moths," Andrade said.

But the idea has already drawn criticism. Ricardo Vargas, director of the Colombian environmental group Andean Action, contended that while the moths may be native to this region, there's nothing natural about releasing thousands of them into small areas. The tropics have the world's most diverse plant life, he said, so the moths would likely threaten other plants as well. "With a plan like this, the chance for ecological mischief is very high and very dangerous," Vargas said.

Gomez's association also recommended the use of other natural enemies of coca such as fungus.

The proposal, and the Colombian government's interest, comes five years into a massive fumigation program of coca crops in Colombia, paid for and mostly carried out by the U.S. government.

A record number of acres was fumigated by the crop dusters last year, but the total number of acres under cultivation at the end of 2004 was slightly more than the number left over in 2003 after spraying. Peasant farmers have been simply replanting the fast-growing coca, frustrating the eradication efforts.

Andrade said moths would better counter the replanting problem because they would continue to reproduce and attack the plants.

The idea to use biological agents to eradicate coca is not new. In 2000, the Colombian government rejected a proposal by the United States to introduce a fungus called Fusarium oxysporum to coca plants as a means of eradication. Colombia said it was concerned about possible mutations and adverse affects on people and the environment in the delicate Amazon basin, where most of Colombia's coca is grown.

[aricbcool]

What's next, Frogs? Rivers running red with blood? :D

[Doc]

I like the idea even if it doesn't work just to give the bad guys something to worry about for a while. If it does work don't discuss it on the internet or press, just do it, kinda like the Nike commercial mantra.

The next question is how can science help us with liberals in the U.S.? :p

Doc

[NousDefionsDoc]

Killer bees, killers ants - now killer moths? Bad idea to be jacking around with Madre Nature.

[ghuinness]

The next question is how can science help us with liberals in the U.S.? :p

Doc

Oxytocin - trust me (http://www.iew.unizh.ch/home/kosfeld/ottruste.html) :D

[magician]

never mess with Mother Nature.

we really need to tighten up our border security, and address the problem from the demand side. It is the only thing that makes sense after decades and billions of dollars chasing a chimera abroad.

better to spend the money on treatment, enforcement, interdiction, and security here at home.

I used to be a fan of interdiction and suppression efforts abroad....until I saw them failing at close range in Perú in the early 1990's.

Economic development overseas can also play a role, but...we are talking about massive, Marshall Plan dimensioned initiatives, and with our current priorities, there is no global will for that sort of engagement and investment.

[Cincinnatus]

We should treat it as a medical problem. Make use and possession civil offenses, use the fines to finance treatment for those who seek it or for those whose use becomes such a problem that treatment is mandated. Hit FARC, the Taliban, and the various criminal syndicates HARD in their pocket books, free up the courts and the prisons, reduce corruption, and save a fortune on interdiction, prosecution, and incarceration. Never happen, but definitely the way to go.

[magician]

We should treat it as a medical problem. Make use and possession civil offenses, use the fines to finance treatment for those who seek it or for those whose use becomes such a problem that treatment is mandated. Hit FARC, the Taliban, and the various criminal syndicates HARD in their pocket books, free up the courts and the prisons, reduce corruption, and save a fortune on interdiction, prosecution, and incarceration. Never happen, but definitely the way to go.

Not to be adversarial, and please do not interpret my remarks that way, but when you make statements like "hit FARC, and Taliban, and the various criminal syndicates hard in their pocket books," I cringe.

Let's break it down:

1. Hit FARC.

This is beset with sovereignty issues, and incidentally, Colombia has been at war for decades against FARC. I am not saying that it cannot be done. I am saying that it is a snarled undertaking, one that requires a fresh look, new thinking, and by no means is it amenable to resolution with a glib wave of the hand. We need a modern incarnation of Edward Lansdale here.

2. Hit the Taliban.

Well, we pretty much invaded Afghanistan because the Taliban were harboring UBL and AQ. It has finally dawned on policy makers that this was trivial in comparison to the allocation of national will, resources, and troops that would be required to sincerely address the opium problem in Afghanistan. Yes, I just said what I said. The invasion of Afghanistan pales in comparison to the potential dimensions of a sincere effort to definitively resolve opium cultivation in Afghanistan.

3. Hit the criminal syndicates.

Well...where to begin. (*Sigh*). We have entire agencies and umpteen bureaucracies dedicated to doing exactly this, and their victories have historically been shallow, ephemeral, and ultimately inconsequential. Again, I am not saying that it cannot be done. I am saying that the way that we have been doing it has failed, and not just a little bit. Our historical approach to combating the cultivation, trade, and abuse of illegal substances has failed massively. We need a whole new mojo, a completely new paradigm. Anything else...is merely throwing more good money after bad.

4. Free up the courts and prisons.

This one....well, let's just talk about America and prisons for a moment. Guess what? They are full. We have a huge slice of America behind bars, and law enforcement is not able to stem the onslaught. Cops are overwhelmed. Prosecutors are buried. Courts are jammed. What exactly do you propose? Building more prisons? Hiring more cops? Hiring more prosecutors and judges, and running the courts 24/7? Fine. If nothing else, the construction and the expansion creates jobs. But the numbers of criminals behind bars has never been higher, and simply building more prisons, and incarcerating more criminals, is not going to fundamentally change the dynamics of the problem. Again, throwing more good money after bad. A fundamental reassessment is required, and this is tantamount to re-evaluating all social relations. In short, it will not happen until the Next Revolution.

5. Reduce corruption.

My favorite. All that I am going to say on this one is that anyone who is not familar with Alfred McCoy (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=alfred+mccoy&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8) is not equipped to have an informed conversation. His classic, Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author-exact=Alfred%20W.%20McCoy/104-0689912-5059101), is required reading.

Again, do not interpret my remarks in a personal manner.

This problem of illegal substances....goes far deeper, and is much vaster, than most Americans can imagine. We are very much in tinfoil hat territory here.

Just my opinion.

[ghuinness]

we really need to tighten up our border security, and address the problem from the demand side. It is the only thing that makes sense after decades and billions of dollars chasing a chimera abroad.

better to spend the money on treatment, enforcement, interdiction, and security here at home.

.

Seems appropriate to ask this here. I have been wondering about this retired Texas LEO (http://leap.cc/howard/index.html) . I agree with Medical Marijuana, but complete legalisation? Not sure...I'm sure there are plenty of opinions on this board.

[Cincinnatus]

Magic Man,

I don't take anything you've said as any kind of attack. It's quite clear from your response that either I didn't make my point very clearly, or you missed it almost entirely. If we were to decriminalize drugs and treat drug possession and use as civil offenses we would to a very great extent take the money out of business.

The cost of illicit drugs has more to do with the costs and risks of importiing, transporting, storing and protecting them than it does with producing them. If we're not interdicting and prosecuting for possession, these costs should fall precipitously. THAT will hit FARC, the Taliban, and the various criminal syndicates in their pocket books.

I'm not so foolish as to see this as a panacea, we would be trading one set of problems for another, but we'd definitely be "trading up." FARC and the Taliban won't go away and the criminal enterprises will also only be diminished. (The crime associated with illegal drug use is actually many different types of crime. There is the possession and use which would go away entirely. There is the theft and other crimes [e.g., prostitution] that users commit to finance their habits, this would be reduced, but certainly won't go away, There is the violence between gangs over turf, punishing snitches and welchers, hijacking each other's product, etc., this too, would be reduced, but won't disappear. There is the stupid shit that people do when they're high on drugs, this not only won't go away, it's likely to increase in the short term. There is the bribery and corruption of police, customs, judges and prosecutors and the system as an organism, this will be reduced enormously. Finally, there are the people who, for whatever reason, feel compelled to make their living outside the law, they will simply be displaced.)

According to the Economist, something like a third (been awhile since I read the article, so I can't be more precise) of all those incarcerated in the US are there essentially for marjuana possession. Half or more are there for crimes that would cease to be crimes under this proposal. The savings in incarceration, prosecution, and interdiction costs would be enormous. While we should expect to spend a great deal in treating those with substance abuse problems, it would amount to a tiny fraction of what we now spend and could to some extent be offset by a system of fines for possession (e.g., $100/ gram [or part thereof] for cocaine, $200/ oz [or part therof] for marijuana, $20/ pill for MDMA, amphetamines, and barbituates, etc.)

If someone is caught using or possessing drugs, they get a ticket. If they pay their fine and don't get any more tickets for a year (at which point their slate gets wiped clean), end of story. If within a year of getting a ticket, they get another, the fine doubles and they must either attend AA or NA daily for a month, see a court approved counselor/ shrink weekly for six weeks, or enter into a resident treatment program (these last two at tax payer expense.) If within a year of the second offense the person is caught a third time, they must enter a residential treatment program (usually 30 days) and for a year thereafter are subject to random testing. If, during that year, they test positive for illicit substances, it's back to the treatment facility and then a year in jail, during which they get tested weekly. If during any one of these tests they test positive, their sentence starts over.

Committing a crime while under the influence gets treated as an aggravating, rather than a mitigating, circumstance and is punished more harshly. The overall message is that you won't be prosecuted for getting high, you'll be given plenty of chances to adjust your behavior, but not getting help when it's offered and harming threatening or endangering others, damaging, destroying or stealing property will be punished.

The overwhelming majority of users would never reach the point where they were incarcerated. Most would likely never reach the point where they had to attend a treatment program. The cost of a program as outlined, while not cheap, would be only a tiny fraction of what we now spend. This is not only a more humane way of addressing the problem, it serves to undermine our enemies, for not only would they suffer a huge revenue hit, they would also lose the existing alliance with smuggler's and dope dealers and access to these networks.

I've got McCoy's book and agree it should be required reading.

When they make me king, the above will become law, along with raises for teachers and the military and the outlawing of bras on college compuses.

[magician]

thanks for your cordial reply.

these are interesting ideas.

we definitely need new approaches, new paradigms....and most of all, leadership.... to start thinking outside the box.

I cannot tell you what mix of tools that we need to start over, but I am fairly convinced that a demand-side rather than a supply-side revision is required.

[The Reaper]

Magic Man,

If we were to decriminalize drugs and treat drug possession and use as civil offenses we would to a very great extent take the money out of business.

The cost of illicit drugs has more to do with the costs and risks of importiing, transporting, storing and protecting them than it does with producing them. If we're not interdicting and prosecuting for possession, these costs should fall precipitously. THAT will hit FARC, the Taliban, and the various criminal syndicates in their pocket books.


How is that working out for the Dutch?

What is the effect on their addiction, incarceration, economy, and crime rates?

TR

[Sacamuelas]

The savings in incarceration, prosecution, and interdiction costs would be enormous. While we should expect to spend a great deal in treating those with substance abuse problems, it would amount to a tiny fraction of what we now spend and could to some extent be offset by a system of fines for possession (e.g., $100/ gram [or part thereof] for cocaine, $200/ oz [or part therof] for marijuana, $20/ pill for MDMA, amphetamines, and barbituates, etc.)

If someone is caught using or possessing drugs, they get a ticket. If they pay their fine and don't get any more tickets for a year (at which point their slate gets wiped clean), end of story. If within a year of getting a ticket, they get another, the fine doubles and they must either attend AA or NA daily for a month, see a court approved counselor/ shrink weekly for six weeks, or enter into a resident treatment program (these last two at tax payer expense.) If within a year of the second offense the person is caught a third time, they must enter a residential treatment program (usually 30 days) and for a year thereafter are subject to random testing. If, during that year, they test positive for illicit substances, it's back to the treatment facility and then a year in jail, during which they get tested weekly. If during any one of these tests they test positive, their sentence starts over.

Committing a crime while under the influence gets treated as an aggravating, rather than a mitigating, circumstance and is punished more harshly. The overall message is that you won't be prosecuted for getting high, you'll be given plenty of chances to adjust your behavior, but not getting help when it's offered and harming threatening or endangering others, damaging, destroying or stealing property will be punished.

LOL

THat is perfect Cincy... all these law abiding drug users in your civilization will surely complete their "programs", pay their fines, and follow the law... just like they are doing right now. After all, why wouldn't they just follow the law,right? :rolleyes:

What are you going to do with the people that CAN"T simply pay their fines ( b/c they are cracked up addicts with no job), can't pay their "double fines" for the 2nd offense, don't show up for counseling, and refuse to particpate in an intervention? You do realize that most of the people who actually end up in prison are very low income citizens in the first place right? How does the court get blood from a turnip with these wonderful little fines? What is next, a "time out" program? Maybe they should have to sit in the naughty chair? Where is that damn supernanny from TV when these drug dealers need her?

Your solution sounds like a great plan for the wealthy rich kids and those that have since grown up into wealthy rich adults with drug habits who can actually afford to pay the fines and attend treatments while missing work.

BTW- How many times have you been IN a prison and talked with these drug offenders? I don't think your plan is going to hit the target market....

not an attempted attack on you, just your plan.

[Cincinnatus]

Reaper,

I've only anecdotal evidence to draw from on the Dutch experience, but I don't think that it serves as a valid example in this case. The Netherlands has relaxed laws on marijuana and hashish, but they have relatively open borders and are surrounded by countries with less enlightened attitudes. So they get a disproportionately high percentage of users/ abusers. Also, there is the phenomenon akin to that of a vacation city (think NOLA during Mardi Gras) where people behave in a manner that they would never do at home.

If we as a nation were to decriminalize drug use we'd be unlikely to see any sort of, statistically significant, increase in users/ abusers rushing to our shores. If one state were to decriminalize drug use, they could count on an influx of users/ abusers, and those who prey on them, and would likely see at least some increase in crime (as is the case with jurisdictions that legalize gambling.)


Sacamuelas,

I made it clear that I recognized adapting a program such as I propose would not be a panacea, but I think some of your criticisms are unreasonable.

People who don't pay their traffic tickets, won't pay their dope tickets. When caught they get prosecuted. The majority of drug users are "casual users" who hold a job and are, at least marginally, productive members of society. Others are the rich kids and spoiled adults you mentioned. They will likely pay their fines and be more careful in the future. Some unemployed, and unemployable, people will use their unemployment, panhandle, con friends or family members into loaning them money, kite checks or steal it from the collection plate at church.

If they pay their fine, they get another chance. If they get caught stealing to pay their fine they're prosecuted, If they don't pay their fines, they're prosecuted. This can happen more swiftly because the courts aren't choked with drug cases. If they're convicted the jails now have room for them, because they are not filled to overflowing with people serving mandatory sentences for possession.

If upon getting ticketed they realize they've totally fucked their lives up and are in such dire straits that they will be unable to pay, they check in to one of the treatment centers, get clean, get out and move into a half way house, get a job and pay the fine off when they can. As long as it can be demonstrated that they are making progress the fine is held in abeyance.

Some people will be chronic fuck ups. They won't get clean. They'll use in jail if they can and their sentences will continually reset. The burdens of the system will weigh disproportionately on the poor.

All these problems are preferable to what we have now. We spend a staggering amount of money on interdiction, prosecution and incarceration, but the street price of drugs never rises. In our efforts to stem the flow of drugs we compromise other civil liberties (e.g., forfeiture of assets without due process, ever more restictive gun laws, etc.) and the problem doesn't get any better.

In addition to the above, there is the consideration of denying FARC and the Taliban the revenue stream. If street prices were to fall by only fifty percent, and that is a very conservative estimate, the blow to the finances of the narcotrafficantes would still be huge.

I've not spent any time in jail. I have spent a lot of time in NA and AA meetings. Almost fifteen years ago I organized an intervention on a friend of mine. He's been clean and sober ever since, is married, owns a home, has a bright and beautiful daughter, is active in the PTA. When he first got sober I made my self available to ferry him to meetings and in the first year or so probably attended 75-80 meetings with him. I think that I have a reasonable appreciation of the "target audience" and I recognize that some people are not salvagable. Many are, and while mine is an imperfect solution it's a hell of a lot better than what we're doing now.

A saying that one hears repeated in AA meetings is that "a pretty good definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting a different result." Though they are not necessarily talking about "the war on drugs" they might as well be.

[The Reaper]

Yeah, thank God that we are not surrounded by "countries with less enlightened attitudes".

I have to agree with Saca on this one. You are oversimplifying, optimistic, and expecting too much from fellow humans. Lowering the price and increasing the volume is an unsuccessful strategy for drug control.

Did repealing Prohibition reduce the number of alcoholics or alcohol related crimes? I don't think so. Did it end the reign of organized crime by the bootleggers? Hardly. They just moved on to other endeavors.

I am not dissatisfied with the number of Americans incarcerated. I think there are many more who should be off the streets. While it is expensive and they are non-productive, until they determine a better way to rid society of these people, it seems to be the best alternative. Build more prisons and fill them till everyone who cannot function legally in society is removed from it. Spend the effort trying to keep kids in school and rehabilitate them while they are still malleable. A 40-year old three time loser is not likely to get out and become a model citizen, regardless of what he went in for.

Just my .02, YMMV.

I am sure that AL will be along shortly with his usual well-reasoned argument fully supported by statistics and pie charts. :D

TR

[Roguish Lawyer]

So, should we bring back Prohibition? :munchin

[The Reaper]

So, should we bring back Prohibition? :munchin

Isn't that what we have with drugs?

TR

[Peregrino]

So, should we bring back Prohibition? :munchin

Isn't that effectively what we've got now? Legislated morality, powerful crime syndicates, corrupt officials, an indifferent public, an illegal economy, and the blatant erosion of constitutional rights? The only difference I see is the name. The people pushing the "war on drugs" are smart enough to realize that the title "prohibition" still has negative overtones. Cincinnatus has some valid points. I don't necessarily agree with everything but it's a good start. Decriminalize it, tax it appropriately (they call it a "sin tax" for a reason), spend the money on treatment for those who want it, put the excess into healthcare, and treat use as an aggravating circumstance in any crime. Get law enforcement back into catching and punishing real criminals. Malum in se vs. malum prohibitum. Only idiots and tyrants try to regulate morality. Peregrino

[Roguish Lawyer]

It was a rhetorical question. Peregrino, I couldn't have said it any better myself.

[Cincinnatus]

"Did repealing Prohibition reduce the number of alcoholics or alcohol related crimes? "

Maybe not the number of alcoholics, but certainly the number of alcohol related crimes, if only by virtue of the fact that simply consuming alcohol was no longer illegal. I would hazard a guess, though admittedly it's only a guess, that other alcohol related crimes went down as well. Oh, I've no doubt that the stupid shit that drunks do was largely unaffected, but the violence between gangs of bootleggers almost certainly dropped off, and the bribery and corruption had to take a hit.

"I am not dissatisfied with the number of Americans incarcerated."

Really? I'm not baiting you, but I'm surprised if you really mean this. If I have it correctly, the US has a greater percentage of its population incarcerated than any other developed nation. I find it troubling that the land of the free should have so many locked up. Not that the goal should necessarily be to have the lowest incarceration rate, but rather to have the most just society.

There are certainly SF guys who retire, grow their hair, buy a Harley, and start smoking dope. I don't know how widespread this is, but it would apply to at least one or two of my accquaintance and I suspect that you probably know a few who meet this description. Should they be jailed?

Again, I'm not baiting you or trying to score rhetorical points off you, just get you to look at things a little differently.

"I think there are many more who should be off the streets."

There are certainly people walking around who should be in prison. I'd like to see mandatory minimum sentences for armed robbers, not dope smokers. Nor am I deluding myself that some of those who use drugs aren't thoroughly despicable creatures. If a mother smokes crack and neglects her kids, I don't have a problem with child services taking the kids and the mother getting locked up for endangering them. Some tweaker loses it and attacks someone, I hope they get shot and if they survive, get tried, convicted, and locked up.

I just believe that drug use is an attempt to self medicate and that this should not be a crime, in and of, itself. Further, I think something along the lines of what I'm recommending is more just and far less expensive.

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

"I just believe that drug use is an attempt to self medicate and that this should not be a crime, in and of, itself. Further, I think something along the lines of what I'm recommending is more just and far less expensive.

Right and shooting someone is just a way to left off steam, robbing folks is just a way to redistribute wealth, selling drugs is just a way to help others self medicate themselves, rape is just a form of propagating the race, and then breaking the law is just a form of self-expression. We can pontificate all day long on how to solve the drug problem and share opinions but the bottom line is that drug use is illegal and as such it should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. You want justice, I'll give you justice. Someone gives my kids/grandkids drugs I will beat them justifiably senseless. You hurt someone in my family because you are "attempting to self-medicate" yourself I will beat you justifiably senseless. You do anything that puts my friends or family at risk because you are on drugs I will beat you justifiably senseless. I have seen what drugs do to families up close and personal and I have absolutely no tolerance for anyone that uses drugs and even less for those that sell the stuff.

Jack Moroney-unemotional, simple, uncomplicated, and mild point of view on this subject

[Cincinnatus]

If I understand what you're saying, Jack, you can't lend your full support to my proposal at this time.

[Ambush Master]

You want justice, I'll give you justice. Someone gives my kids/grandkids drugs I will beat them justifiably senseless. You hurt someone in my family because you are "attempting to self-medicate" yourself I will beat you justifiably senseless. You do anything that puts my friends or family at risk because you are on drugs I will beat you justifiably senseless. I have seen what drugs do to families up close and personal and I have absolutely no tolerance for anyone that uses drugs and even less for those that sell the stuff.

Jack Moroney-unemotional, simple, uncomplicated, and mild point of view on this subject

Sir,
I can take that to an even more BASIC level !!! Quite simply put, A WARNING SHOT THROUGH EITHER TEMPLE will suffice !!! As we say in Texas, there is NO JUSTICE like HOT JUSTICE !!!

Standing by to stand by !!
Martin

[NousDefionsDoc]

If I understand what you're saying, Jack, you can't lend your full support to my proposal at this time.
Dad and I still agree - you have at least one talent.

[lksteve]

If I understand what you're saying, Jack, you can't lend your full support to my proposal at this time.i'm not sure, but the POG might be looking for help....

[Peregrino]

It was a rhetorical question. Peregrino, I couldn't have said it any better myself.

Sorry - It's one of my hot buttons. I worked source interdiction in Bolivia and did some program work in SOCSOUTH in the late 80's - early 90's. I have a fair (though dated) understanding of the problem and no tolerance for the current "solution". I do not think the answer is anywhere near as complicated as the pundits want us to believe. As others have noted it's a consumption problem - no demand, no reason for the market. Fix the demand - deglamorize drug use and remove the economic incentives that exist because of the prohibition economy, and the problem becomes much easier to address. I recommend one of two approaches - either decriminalize it and treat it like we do any other form of intoxication (and rigorously enforce the existing DUI laws) or start summary executions for selling any quantity. The middle road we insist on cleaving to is the practical and moral equivalent of giving a cancer patient placebos.

Please don't misunderstand - I do not condone drug use/abuse (that includes alcohol and tobacco, let's not forget them in our haste to condemn - they just get the benefit of a better lobby). I personally do not care what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home - I firmly support the broadest definition of the "castle doctrine". My key is "consenting adult" - there are specific legal concepts that define the term fairly well. Society has a well recognized responsibility (though not necessarily a duty) to protect persons incapable of consent for whatever reason. So long as the actions of the supposed consenting adults do not infringe on the rights of others let them do as they please. Just don't expect me to feel sorry for them, nor expect me to pay for their stupidity. On the other hand - as soon as they step out the door and rejoin the rest of us, all bets are off. Especially if they mess with me or mine. COL M and AM have the right of it. Sadly, society is more afraid of the vigilanteism inherent in the concept of self defense/personal responsibility than they are of the drugs and the failures of the current system to protect them in the first place. (Somebody once said something about sheep not liking the sheepdog - even with the wolf breathing down their neck.) Enough rambling - I'm getting frustrated. Peregrino

[Cincinnatus]

I kind of regret my last post, as it was flip and this is a serious subject. My overarching issues are two.

The first is philosophical. I think what someone wants to put in their own body is their business. I support the notion that an individual has the right to take their own life, so it would be hypocritical (sp?) for me to say "but you can't poison yourself a bit at a time."

Jack was incensed by my "self medicating" comment, but I was serious. People in pain from chemo, or the woman who just lost her case in SCOTUS who's been suffering from back pain, find relief smoking pot. I just can't see that it's anyone else's business. Now I think that a lot of people medicate when they shouldn't and I support education, intervention, and other methods to get and keep them off drugs, but feel that the decision is their own.

My second objection is purely pragmatic. What we are doing hasn't worked. When I was in college a gram of cocaine went for $100 and I'm told, was generally about 25% pure. When I asked, while having a discussion not dissimilar to this one, what that same gram of cocaine would run today, I was told (by a narcotics officer who works an interjurisdictional task force [I think Sneaky knows who I'm referring to]) that it would probably be LESS than $100 and would probably be closer to 40% pure. So in twenty five years the price has fallen, pretty dramatically when one adjusts for inflation, and the quality has gone up!

We've spent untold millions, lives have been lost and others ruined and we're no better off than when we started. So even if I didn't have severe philosophical reservations about "the war on drugs" I have grave practical reservations.

I don't kid myself that my proposal solves all the problems, but this is something that I've thought a great deal about and it's the best that I've been able to come up with.

The thing about freedom is that if you want to be free you have to support other people's right to be free even if you know they're going to do some really stupid shit.

[Peregrino]

The thing about freedom is that if you want to be free you have to support other people's right to be free even if you know they're going to do some really stupid shit.

Effective if not necessarily elegant. You make valid points. What gets overlooked in the rhetoric is that freedom also entails responsibilities and limits - a concept not popular with a vocal percentage of the legalization crowd yet something most of us here acknowledge and support. A civilized society operates on a "code of conduct". We have all of us, constrained our public personas within society's rules, written or otherwise, in order that we might participate more fully in that society. The "counterculture" (drugs, criminals, etc.) seeks to derive benefit from society yet avoid overtly conforming to the norms for selfish purposes. Life doesn't work that way. What's worse, a lot of the "really stupid shit" you obliquely refer to crosses the line between liberty and liscense. I personally refuse to grant liscense for idiots to impinge my liberties. And yet between the threat posed by the criminal underclass, the users they prey upon, and the overbearing government combatting the drug "problem" that's exactly what has happened. (Let's not forget the "War on Terrorism" either.) I (and everyone else in this country) am now less free than any previous generation of American. All because some selfish bastard wants to get high and expects to be able to do it without paying consequences and some other power mad bastard wants to control everybody's life. That infuriates me.

BTW - The "self medicating" argument isn't a very good one. Medical THC has been available by prescription for years - my father's second wife used it in the 80's to control pain and nausea for chemo. My mother used it for the same reasons in the early 90's. So relief is available without resorting to illegal consumption of controlled substances. The current "medical marajuana" craze is mostly politics. Though the SCOTUS needs to remember the 10th Ammendment the next time it deliberates. My .02 - Peregrino

Edited to add: Back to the original thread - If they sic moths on the Colombian coca crop what will the ecologic impact be? Rabbits to Australia? Snakes to Guam? Snakeheads in the Potomac? You would think we had learned by now - don't mess with Mother Nature!

[magician]

got to say....Peregrino, I am your biggest fan, and I think that Thomas Jefferson, were he still with us, would feel likewise.

I am fascinated by the approaches taken by other countries in confronting this behemoth problem. Here in the Kingdom of Thailand, the Prime Minister last year declared "war" on drugs. At the end of it, I want to say that over 2,000 ostensible drug dealers had been summarily shot dead on the streets, typically while "evading arrest." Maybe it was over 4,000 dead. I forget.

But anyway, the point was made. You sell drugs, and you get caught, you just might be shot down in the street like a dog, and never make it to the police station, much less a court.

Thai public opinion was overwhelmingly favorable.

No doubt, abuses....violations of due process....mistakes....abounded. But overall, the primary complainers were overseas NGOs. Thai public opinion supported the bloodshed.

There have been two further "wars" declared since then, both with dramatically lower body counts.

I do not have access to statistics which can inform an assessment of the efficacy of these measures, but I can tell you that simple street trafficking has been significantly curtailed.

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

IThe thing about freedom is that if you want to be free you have to support other people's right to be free even if you know they're going to do some really stupid shit.


Well I don't think you are going to get much of an argument from folks here, most of us have stood in harms way to defend the right of others to enjoy the freedoms paid for in blood that many now take for granted. The thing that makes us free is that we are a country of laws and all have an obligation to follow and support those laws until they are changed. You are not free to do anything that impinges on the legal freedoms of others regardless of what label you wish to give it be it "really stupid shit" or otherwise.

Jack Moroney

[Cincinnatus]

Peregrino,

I agree on the issue of responsibility. I quite like the quote, I've seen it attributed to both Heinlein and Orwell, to the effect that "Pacifism is a shifty doctrine, where a man enjoys the benefits of the community while refusing to contribute to it's defense, yet claims a halo for his dishonesty." We're straying rather far afield here, but another thing that will happen when I become king (btw, shall I infer from the lack of dissent that the no bras on campus measure has unanimous support? Or should that be lack of support?) is mandatory national service, whereunder everyone, some time between their 17th and 21st birthdays will go through a boot camp or Outward Bound type program, that would include physical stress, team building, first responder training, marksmanship and firearms safety, guided discussions on civic responsibility, poli sci and government, etc., and thereafter be required to perform 100 hours community service annually for the next ten years. Military service (active and reserve), Peace Corps, AID, would count toward this total, as would service on a fire and rescue squad, AmeriCorps, teaching inner city kids to write, etc,, but everybody would have to do something.

Now one can argue that my advocating mandatory service contradicts my supporting people's freedom to do as they choose. I'll just have to plead guilty to certain inconsistencies, much as Jack can go, in more or less the same breath, from urging the strictest enforcement of the existing laws to advocating vigilante type behavior. But the above would be my way, or part of it, of addressing the responsibility issue.

I've also made pretty clear in the above posts that while I support the decriminalization of drug use, I don't condone behavior that endangers others or their property. In considering sentencing, or even the decision to prosecute, I think intoxication should be considered an aggravating circumstance. If some meth freak attacks someone I care about, or even someone I don't, in my presence, I'm going to do my best to shoot him to the ground. That an attacker might be high, or off their meds, suffering from PTSD, come from a broken home, or been abused as a child is irrelevant under the circumstances. It also doesn't change my basic premise and position.

Part of the issue may also be the mental image one has of drug users and one's ability or inclination to see them as other than oneself. I tend to think of someone sitting on the porch getting high and watching the sunset or smoking a joint at a Buffet concert, as that's really the only first hand (or actually I guess it would be second hand) exposure I've had in many years. Jack or AM may think of crackheads pulling stick ups and doing drive bys. Half a dozen QPs have responded since I posted about "SF guys who retire, grow their hair, buy a Harley, and start smoking dope" without commenting on this. Is that because they don't see this as a problem? Don't think it's realistic? Think different rules should apply?

One last point on the medical marijuana issue, I've both read, and have anecdotal evidence (a friend of mine is dying of leukemia) to support the reading, that the synthetic THC (forget the brand name) is not as effective at controlling pain, preventing nausea, or encouraging appetite, as the real thing. However, my self medication argument is by no means limited to medical marijauna, I think most drug use is an attempt to self medicate and even that which I find the most offensive and self destructive should not be criminalized.

At this point, I think I've made my arguments about as clearly as I'm able. Further repetition is likely to dilute my points and as I don't want to debate corner cases or see what has been pretty much a well reasoned discussion of a serious issue degenerate into something else, I'll try to withhold further comment.

[Doc]

Half a dozen QPs have responded since I posted about "SF guys who retire, grow their hair, buy a Harley, and start smoking dope" without commenting on this. Is that because they don't see this as a problem? Don't think it's realistic? Think different rules should apply?

I was SF.

I am retired.

My hair is a "little" longer and I have a goatee and mustache.

I have a Harley.

I don't do illegal drugs because I don't want to and I especially don't want to go to jail.

Those that do the crime can do the time.


Doc

[Doc]

I spend time around sick people. One of my fields is mental illness. A lot of patients with mental diseases self-medicate. Alcohol and illegal drugs are not the solutions to their problems and this has been documented by medical experts.

I do not work with cancer patients. The use of medicinal marijuana is not an area I feel able to respond to. I do think many illegal users of marijuana cling to the idea of medicinal marijuana to justify their own use of the drug.

I wonder what mother nature did to protect herself prior to humans arriving?

Doc

[NousDefionsDoc]

The bottom line is there is no way to stop it. But you gotta love the work. There's just something satisfying about watching a lab burn in the jungle first thing in the morning or seeing them standing in front of a camera and behind a table with all their snow and guns piled on it and their shirts pulled over their heads trying to hide their faces. And I love extradition days. Just knowing what awaits them when they lock down with Bubba later that night. Of course shooting them in the face always brightens a day.

[lksteve]

There are certainly SF guys who retire, grow their hair, buy a Harley, and start smoking dope. hmmm...i have to go along with Doc on this one...i retired, my hair is a bit longer than when i was in, i have a Harley and i've damn near given up drinking....but the question was should one of those guys go to jail? is smoking dope against the law? is jail time a potential sentence for violating that law? whether the guy was SF or not, if he gets caught breaking the law (jay-walking, speeding, stealing (not to be confused with liberating), smoking dope), he should be subject to an appropriate punishment under the law....

[lksteve]

There's just something satisfying about watching a lab burn in the jungle first thing in the morning...Of course shooting them in the face always brightens a day.just when i thought we were going for that 'napalm in the morning, smells like victory' theme...

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

I was SF.

I am retired.

My hair is a "little" longer and I have a goatee and mustache.

I have a Harley.

I don't do illegal drugs because I don't want to and I especially don't want to go to jail.

Those that do the crime can do the time.


Doc

Damn, guess I just don't fit the mold. Got no hair, don't do drugs, don't drink, and couldn't begin to figure out where to get training wheels for a Harley-but evidently I am a vigilante.

Jack Moroney

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

just something satisfying about watching a lab burn in the jungle first thing in the morning or seeing them standing in front of a camera and behind a table with all their snow and guns piled on it and their shirts pulled over their heads trying to hide their faces. .

I quess that depends on whether or not you are standing up or down wind :D

Had an opportunity for unintended "self-medication" when a Nigerian Aircraft was siezed and all the luggage contained MJ. The locals took all the bags, placed them in a pile inside a courtyard behind the Ministry of Defense and commenced to burn it. Even the rats and fruitbats where happy about that adventure. I think everyone in the building was hung over for days and the acrid smell of burning hemp lingered in the air and coated the building for days. As most of the locals were hopped up on one drug or another in order to commune with the local "gods" of the day I sort of think that this might have been more of a planned event than a one time mistake.

Jack Moroney

[Sacamuelas]

Cinci-
What is the "outside of the box" thinking concerning current Rx drugs dispensed by licensed practitioners out of legal pharmacies? Should these be legalized to sell in 7-11's or should the current illegal drugs be controlled as Rx drugs?

If the current illegal drugs are legalized, then why should the government provide the court system personnel (civil or criminal) and bureaucracy to administer counseling/enforcement/institute fines/etc that you indicated the need for in your earlier posts ?

Should people on drugs be allowed to access our government social service programs such as welfare, food stamps, loans, subsidized housing, etc?

Can employers in your ideal world refuse to hire druggies?


Again I said earlier even before you posted the following, "I tend to think of someone sitting on the porch getting high and watching the sunset or smoking a joint at a Buffet concert... based on your idea of drug users, it is obvious to me that you need better SA on exactly who it is in the prisons creating all the overcrowding, and where they come from, how they got there, and what they were doing to actually land their butts in prison. Before I started working for the DoD, I worked in a state prison for three years and NEVER met an inmate that was incarcerated long term for being an occasional dope head at a jimmy Buffet concert ... :rolleyes: All of the druggies that you conveniently describe as the average or standard druggie in your legalization argument, already receive the court mandated rehab treatment , pay fines, and get probation in the current system. They are not the ones who are being locked up for 20 yrs on a marijuana charge. To "think of someone on a porch or at a concert" as your basis for legalization is a dramatic oversimplification of the problems and consequences of drug use and abuse.

BTW-
I would be careful about calling out the QP's on this site concerning your little trolling attempt with your example of the retired SF soldier smoking dope. Jack or AM may think of crackheads pulling stick ups and doing drive bys. Half a dozen QPs have responded since I posted about "SF guys who retire, grow their hair, buy a Harley, and start smoking dope" without commenting on this. Is that because they don't see this as a problem? Don't think it's realistic? Think different rules should apply?
You are lucky nobody delivered the response that a little quip like yours usually initiates when someone tries to instigate personnel on this site.

[Roguish Lawyer]

BTW-
I would be careful about calling out the QP's on this site concerning your little trolling attempt with your example of the retired SF soldier smoking dope. You are lucky nobody delivered the response that a little quip like yours usually initiates when someone tries to instigate personnel on this site.

I would not assume the delay means that no such response is forthcoming. :munchin

[Sacamuelas]

There has always seemed to be a trend: first the unthinkable becomes thinkable, and then it becomes a revelation whose truth seems so obvious that no one remembers that anyone ever thought differently. This is just what is happening with the idea of legalizing drugs. It has reached the stage when thinking men (Hey, I’m being generous- LOL) suggest that allowing people to take whatever they like is the obvious, indeed only, solution to the social problems that arise from the consumption of drugs.

From what I have read, there are two main sides to this argument. Philosophic and Pragmatic.

Cinci’s philosophic argument seems to be that, in a free society, adults should be permitted to do whatever they please, always provided that they are prepared to take the consequences of their own choices and that they cause no direct harm to others. This point of view is probably based on Mill’s famous essay On Liberty: “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of the community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. “His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.” This radical individualism allows society no part whatever in shaping, determining, or enforcing a moral code: in short, we have nothing in common but our contractual agreement not to interfere with one another as we go about seeking our private pleasures.

In the real world, of course, it is exceedingly difficult to make people take all the consequences of their own actions—as they must, if Cinci’s great principle is to serve as a philosophical guide to policy. Addiction to, or regular use of, most currently prohibited drugs cannot affect only the person who takes them—and not his spouse, children, neighbors, or employers. No man, except possibly a hermit, is an island; and so it is virtually impossible for Cinci’s principle to apply to any human action whatever, let alone shooting up heroin or smoking crack. Such a principle is virtually useless in determining what should or should not be permitted.

Perhaps we ought not be too harsh on Cinci and Mill’s principle: it’s not clear that anyone has ever thought of a better one. But that is precisely the point. Human affairs cannot be decided by an appeal to an infallible rule, expressible in a few words, whose simple application can decide all cases, including whether drugs should be freely available to the entire adult population. Pointing out instances of philosophical inconsistency in policy—such as permitting the consumption of alcohol while outlawing cocaine—is not a sufficient argument against that policy. We all value freedom, and we all value order; sometimes we sacrifice freedom for order, and sometimes order for freedom.

Unlike some, even Mill came to see the limitations of his own principle as a guide for policy and to deny that all pleasures were of equal significance for human existence. It was better, he said, to be Socrates discontented than a fool satisfied. Mill acknowledged that some goals were intrinsically worthier of pursuit than others.

It has been argued by Cinci that the freedom to choose among a variety of intoxicating substances is an important freedom and that millions of people have derived innocent fun from taking stimulants and narcotics. But the consumption of drugs has the effect of reducing men’s freedom by circumscribing the range of their interests. It impairs their ability to pursue more important human aims, such as raising a family and fulfilling civic obligations as suggested by Cinci. It impairs their ability to pursue gainful employment and promotes parasitism. Moreover, far from being expanders of consciousness, most drugs severely limit it. One of the most striking characteristics of drug takers is their intense and tedious self-absorption; and their journeys into inner space are generally forays into inner vacuums. Drug taking is a lazy man’s way of pursuing happiness and wisdom, and the shortcut turns out to potentially be the deadest of dead ends. FWIW, we lose remarkably little by not being permitted to take drugs.

The idea that freedom is merely the ability to act upon one’s whims is surely very thin and hardly begins to capture the complexities of human existence; "a man whose appetite is his law" strikes most “thinking men” not as liberated but enslaved. And when such a narrowly conceived freedom is made the touchstone of public policy, a dissolution of society is bound to follow. No culture that makes publicly sanctioned self-indulgence its highest good can long survive. A radical egotism is bound to ensue, in which any limitations upon personal behavior are experienced as infringements of basic rights. Distinctions between the important and the trivial, between the freedom to criticize received ideas and the freedom to take LSD, are precisely the standards that keep societies from barbarism.
So the legalization of drugs cannot be supported by philosophical principle. But if the pragmatic argument in favor of legalization were strong enough, it might overwhelm other objections. It is upon this argument that Cinci’s legalization argument seems to depend on for making his/her case.

(continued below)

[Sacamuelas]

The pragmatic side of the argument of Cinci’s argument is that the overwhelming majority of the harm done to society by the consumption of currently illicit drugs is caused not by their pharmacological properties but by their prohibition and the resultant criminal activity that prohibition always creates. Simple reflection tells us that a supply invariably grows up to meet a demand; and when the demand is widespread, suppression is useless. The vast profits to be made from cocaine and heroin—which, were it not for their illegality, would be cheap and easily affordable even by the poorest citizens—exert a deeply corrupting effect on producers, distributors, consumers, and law enforcers alike. Besides, it is well known that illegality in itself has attractions for youth already inclined to disaffection.

Moreover, since society already permits the use of some mind-altering substances known to be both addictive and harmful, such as alcohol and nicotine, in prohibiting others it appears hypocritical, arbitrary, and dictatorial. Its hypocrisy, as well as its patent failure to enforce its prohibitions successfully, leads inevitably to a decline in respect for the law as a whole. Thus things fall apart, and the center cannot hold.

It stands to reason, therefore, that all these problems would be resolved at a stroke if everyone were permitted to smoke, swallow, or inject anything he chose. The corruption of the police, the luring of children of 11 and 12 into illegal activities, the making of such vast sums of money by drug dealing that legitimate work seems pointless and silly by comparison, and the turf wars that make poor neighborhoods so exceedingly violent and dangerous, would all cease at once were drug taking to be decriminalized and the supply regulated in the same way as alcohol.

I argue to Cinci and others that a certain modesty in the face of an inherently unknowable future is advisable. What stands to reason should happen does not necessarily happen in practice. It is of course true, but only trivially so, that the present illegality of drugs is the cause of the criminality surrounding their distribution. Likewise, it is the illegality of stealing cars that creates car thieves. It could be said that the ultimate cause of all criminality is law. As far as I am aware, Cinci and the other legal it crowd have never suggested that law should therefore be abandoned. Moreover, the impossibility of winning the “war” against theft, burglary, robbery, and fraud has never been used as an argument by these same people that these categories of crime should be abandoned and made legal. And so long as the demand for material goods outstrips supply, people will be tempted to commit criminal acts against the owners of property. This is not an argument, in my view, against private property or in favor of the common ownership of all goods. It does suggest, however, that we shall need a police force for a long time to come.

In any case, there are reasons to doubt whether the crime rate would fall quite as dramatically as Cinci has suggested. The idea behind crime—of getting rich, or at least richer, quickly and without much effort—is unlikely to disappear once drugs are freely available to all who want them. And it may be that officially sanctioned antisocial behavior—the official lifting of taboos—breeds yet more antisocial behavior, as the “broken windows” theory would suggest.

Having met large numbers of drug dealers in prison, I doubt that they would return to respectable life if the principal article of their commerce were to be legalized. Far from expressing a desire to be reincorporated into the world of regular work, they express a deep contempt for it and regard those who accept the bargain of a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay as cowards and fools. A life of crime has its attractions for many who would otherwise lead a mundane existence. So long as there is the possibility of a lucrative scheme or illegal traffic, such people will find it and exploit it. Therefore, since even most “legalize drugs” types (Cinci???) would not allow children to take drugs, legalizing drugs might actually result in dealers turning their attentions to younger and younger children, who—in the permissive atmosphere that even now prevails—have already been inducted into the drug subculture in alarmingly high numbers.

Those who do not deal in drugs but commit crimes to fund their consumption of them are, of course, more numerous than large-scale dealers. And it is an accepted finding that once opiate addicts, for example, enter a treatment program, which often includes maintenance doses of methadone, the rate at which they commit crimes falls markedly. This is impressive, but it is not certain that the results should be generalized. First, the patients are self-selected: they have some motivation to change, otherwise they would not have attended the clinic in the first place. Only a minority of addicts attend, and therefore it is not safe to conclude that, if other addicts were to receive methadone, their criminal activity would similarly diminish.

Second, a decline in convictions is not necessarily the same as a decline in criminal acts. If methadone stabilizes an addict’s life, he may become a more efficient, harder-to-catch criminal. Moreover, when the police do catch an addict, they are less likely to prosecute him if he can prove that he is undergoing anything remotely resembling treatment.

Third, the rate of criminal activity among those drug addicts who receive treatment from a clinic, though reduced, remains very high. Opiate addicts who receive their drugs legally and free of charge continue to commit large numbers of crimes. In prison, there were numerous prisoners who were on methadone when they committed the crime for which they are incarcerated.

...(continued below)

[Sacamuelas]

Why do addicts given their drug free of charge continue to commit crimes? Some addicts, of course, continue to take drugs other than those prescribed and have to fund their consumption of them. So long as any restriction whatsoever regulates the consumption of drugs, many addicts will seek them illicitly, regardless of what they receive legally. In addition, the drugs themselves exert a long-term effect on a person’s ability to earn a living and severely limit rather than expand his horizons and mental repertoire. They sap the will or the ability of an addict to make long-term plans. While drugs are the focus of an addict’s life, they are not all he needs to live, and many addicts thus continue to procure the rest of what they need by criminal means.

For the proposed legalization of drugs to have its much vaunted beneficial effect on the rate of criminality, such drugs would have to be both cheap and readily available. Cinci must assume that there is a natural limit to the demand for these drugs, and that if their consumption were legalized, the demand would not increase substantially. Those psychologically unstable persons currently taking drugs would continue to do so, with the necessity to commit crimes removed, while psychologically stabler people (such as you and I and our children) would not be enticed to take drugs by their new legal status and cheapness. But price and availability, I need hardly say, exert a profound effect on consumption.

It is perfectly possible that the demand for drugs, including opiates, would rise dramatically were their price to fall and their availability to increase. And if it is true that the consumption of these drugs in itself predisposes to criminal behavior (as some data suggests), it is also possible that the effect on the rate of criminality of this rise in consumption would swamp the decrease that resulted from decriminalization. We would have just as much crime in aggregate as before, but many more addicts.

The problem of reducing the amount of crime committed by individual addicts is emphatically not the same as the problem of reducing the amount of crime committed by addicts as a whole. I can illustrate what I mean by an analogy: it is often claimed that prison does not work because many prisoners are recidivists who, by definition, failed to be deterred from further wrongdoing by their last prison sentence. But does any sensible person believe that the abolition of prisons in their entirety would not reduce the numbers of the law-abiding? The murder rate and the rate of drunken driving have not been reduced by a sudden upsurge in the love of humanity, but by the effective threat of punishment. An institution such as prison can work for society even if it does not work for an individual.

Of particular note is that the situation could be very much worse than I have suggested above , however, if we legalized the consumption of drugs other than opiates. So far, I focused only on opiates, which exert a generally tranquilizing effect. If opiate addicts commit crimes even when they receive their drugs free of charge, it is because they are unable to meet their other needs any other way; but there are, unfortunately, drugs whose consumption directly leads to violence because of their psychopharmacological properties and not merely because of the criminality associated with their distribution. Stimulant drugs such as crack cocaine, crystal meth, powder coke, etc provoke paranoia, increase aggression, and promote violence. Much of this violence takes place in the home, as the relatives of crack takers will testify. It is something we have all seen and accept from personal experiences of those involved.

And no one should underestimate the possibility that the use of stimulant drugs could spread very much wider, and become far more general, than it is now, if restraints on their use were relaxed.
>>>Example: The importation of the mildly stimulant khat is legal in Britain, and a large proportion of the community of Somali refugees there devotes its entire life to chewing the leaves that contain the stimulant, miring these refugees in far worse poverty than they would otherwise experience. The reason that the khat habit has not spread to the rest of the population is that it takes an entire day’s chewing of disgustingly bitter leaves to gain the comparatively mild pharmacological effect. The point is, however, that once the use of a stimulant becomes culturally acceptable and normal, it can easily become so general as to exert devastating social effects. And the kinds of stimulants on offer in Western cities—cocaine, crack, amphetamines—are vastly more attractive than khat.

In claiming that prohibition, not the drugs themselves, is the problem, Cinci and many others—even policemen—have said that “the war on drugs is lost.” But to demand a yes or no answer to the question “Is the war against drugs being won?” is like demanding a yes or no answer to the question “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” Never can an unimaginative and fundamentally stupid metaphor have exerted a more negative effect upon proper thoughts of “thinking men”.

The argument made just doesn’t hold water. If it did, then where are those that ask whether medicine is winning the war against death. The answer is obviously no, it isn’t winning: the one fundamental rule of human existence remains. Unfortunately, one man = one death. This is despite the fact that around 15-20% of the gross domestic product of the United States (to say nothing of the efforts of other countries) goes into the fight against death. Was ever a war more expensively lost? Let us then abolish medical schools, hospitals, and departments of public health. If every man has to die, it doesn’t matter very much when he does so.

If the war against drugs is lost, then so are the wars against theft, speeding, incest, fraud, rape, murder, arson, and illegal parking. Few, if any, such wars are winnable. So should Cinci be arguing that we all should do any of those actions if we choose without punishment.

(continued below)

[Sacamuelas]

Even Cinci and other's argument that permitting the purchase and use of drugs freely will necessarily result in less governmental and other official interference in our lives doesn’t stand up. To the contrary, if the use of narcotics and stimulants were to become virtually universal, as is by no means impossible, the number of situations in which compulsory checks upon people would have to be carried out, for reasons of public safety, would increase enormously. Pharmacies, banks, schools, hospitals—indeed, all organizations dealing with the public—might feel obliged to check regularly and randomly on the drug consumption of their employees. The general use of such drugs would increase the locus standi of innumerable agencies, public and private, to interfere in our lives; and freedom from interference, far from having increased, would have drastically shrunk.

The present situation is bad, undoubtedly; but few are the situations so bad that they cannot be made worse by a wrong policy decision.

The extreme intellectual elegance of the proposal to legalize the distribution and consumption of drugs, touted as the solution to so many problems at once (AIDS, crime, overcrowding in the prisons, and even the attractiveness of drugs to foolish young people) should give rise to skepticism. Social problems are not usually like that. Analogies with the Prohibition era, often drawn by those who would legalize drugs, are false and inexact: it is one thing to attempt to ban a substance that has been in customary use for centuries by at least nine-tenths of the adult population, and quite another to retain a ban on substances that are still not in customary use, in an attempt to ensure that they never do become customary. Surely we have already slid down enough slippery slopes in the last 30 years without looking for more such slopes to slide down.

[Peregrino]

but I can tell you that simple street trafficking has been significantly curtailed.

Reminds me of an anecdote I read. Seems some liberal was giving a Muslim a hard time about having a drug problem in his country despite the death penalty for trafficking. The Muslim replied "that is true - but we don't have repeat offenders!" One of the things I learned observing the "Narcotraficante Hard Knocks School of Economics" - Death tends to distort cost/risk - benefit analysis somewhat.

Saca - I am humbled! Talk about an intellectual broadside. :eek: As you can discern from my previous posts I adhere to elements of both arguments. My only quibble with your counter-argument is the portion of your "pragmatic" argument where you equate crimes with a clear victim to illicit drug use (the actual act - not the frequent criminal activities that often support the act) which by Mills' definition would be essentially a victimless crime (self destruction being a right of the individual). Sorry - the world is too full of individuals bent on self destructive behavior for me to waste concern on them. Law exists to deter criminals and (speaking personally) should be restricted to preventing crimes against other persons - infringements of their rights, so to speak, not on regulating self destructive behavior. Intelligent people are (usually) self-regulating. I wear a seatbelt when I drive - not because its the law but because I've rolled several vehicles. When I used to ride a motorcycle, I wore a helmet - because I've dumped a bike several times. I disagree with both laws. I do agree with child (vehicle) restraint laws - children are not consenting adults and society has a duty to them until they reach the age of consent/competency.

NDD - You sound like you're having way too much fun. It also doesn't sound like much has changed. I remember working in the Chaparre, we could chart our effectiveness by what it cost to bribe the UMOPAR (Unidad Movil de Patrullaje Rural - the local counternarcotics police) per planeload. $1500 was routine, if we had closed them down for a while and the Colombians were getting antsy for more Base or Paste, the price went way up - in excess of $10-15,000. The corruption was incredible. The police officers (military style rank structure) actually planned on bribes as part of their pay. Rotating in and out of the Chaparre on regular "tours of duty" was good for a new car, private school for the kids, a nest egg for retirement, baubles for the wife - you name it. Of course the soldados didn't share in the bounty at quite the same level. Very class conscious society. And the ultimate sign of failure in the "War on Drugs"? It's now reaching the American street cheaper and purer than ever. The economics of volume. A practical measure of the absolute failure of the current strategy and tactics.

Doc - I'm with you on the self-medicating issue. People consuming illicit substances need to have their heads examined. That means they're psych cases. Ergo - "Catch 22" - they are incapable of competently recognizing, diagnosing, or treating their own disorders. So why allow/encourage them to self-medicate? (Especially when it never solves the underlying problem.)

COL M - No sir (ref vigilante), but what you advocate doing to deserving dirtbags would fit some liberal DA's definition of vigilante quite nicely. Within limits I like the concept of vigilantes, they have a legitimate purpose in disfunctional societies. Nature abhors a vacuum, rampant lawlessness absent an effective counter creates a vacuum, vigilantes fill the vacuum and (ideally) serve at need. Governments and society in general fear vigilantes because their existence and actions challenge the prerogatives of government, they are difficult to guide, impossible to control, and they invariably stray from their intended purpose. As an example I submit the various paramilitaries in Colombia. NOTE: I am not lionizing/glorifying/etc. them or their actions, I merely use them to illustrate both side of my point. Think of the concept the way somebody once described fire - "a dangerous servant, a deadly master".

Just a few thoughts to add to an already overlong and somewhat meandering thread. Peregrino

[Peregrino]

Analogies with the Prohibition era, often drawn by those who would legalize drugs, are false and inexact: it is one thing to attempt to ban a substance that has been in customary use for centuries by at least nine-tenths of the adult population, and quite another to retain a ban on substances that are still not in customary use, in an attempt to ensure that they never do become customary. Surely we have already slid down enough slippery slopes in the last 30 years without looking for more such slopes to slide down.

Saca - Again most of your argument is brilliant but you do need to research US drug laws. Most of the naturally occurring substances were legal and readilly available until at least the 1890s, some well into the 20th century. Yes we had addiction problems (laudanum for one), no we did not have the same type of criminal activity. As for the rest about further invasion of privacy, loss of liberty - a very telling point. Can't refute that one. Peregrino

[Sacamuelas]

Peregrino-
I paraphrased and cut/paste and modified other smart people that I happen to agree with for the most part... I don't write that well. :D Airborne Lawyer is the only one on this site that can write posts like that and not cheat by Plagiarizing. :p Glad you liked the argument though... :lifter

[Cincinnatus]

Sacamuelas,

I'll try to address your questions.

"What is the "outside of the box" thinking concerning current Rx drugs dispensed by licensed practitioners out of legal pharmacies? Should these be legalized to sell in 7-11's or should the current illegal drugs be controlled as Rx drugs?"

I don't know what anyone else is suggesting in regard to these issues. Don't know what the "outside the box" thinking would be, only my own ideas. I'm not advocating drug use, nor am I advocating the legalization of, currently illegal, drugs. I'm for decriminalizing drug use and possession, and that is a real and legitimate difference, not mere semantics.

"If the current illegal drugs are legalized, then why should the government provide the court system personnel (civil or criminal) and bureaucracy to administer counseling/enforcement/institute fines/etc that you indicated the need for in your earlier posts ?"

I'm not sure that I understand this question. What I am proposing is a civil system to discourage irresponsible recreational drug use, that would largely (granted to what degree is uncertain) pay for itself and would treat such use as prinarily a medical problem. In so doing it would free up law enforcement resources, take less court time and resources, relieve prison overcrowding, save an enormous amount of money, deprive enemies of this nation of a revenue source and support network, and allow some of these resources to be deployed other places where they are needed.

"Should people on drugs be allowed to access our government social service programs such as welfare, food stamps, loans, subsidized housing, etc?"

How would the system know that they're "on drugs"? If this is a civil issue, how would it come up? If it goes beyond the civil system, i.e., they continue to use, continue to get caught are unwilling/ unable to get clean and it becomes a criminal matter, my first thought is to handle it as it is now handled, though I don't really know how it's currently dealt with.

"Can employers in your ideal world refuse to hire druggies?"

Sure, but how do they know they're "druggies"? Employers should be free to hire as they deem fit. If they think someone is unable to a job, for whatever reason, or is going to be a disruption in the work place, employers should be free to continue to look at other applicants.

"based on your idea of drug users, it is obvious to me that you need better SA on exactly who it is in the prisons creating all the overcrowding, and where they come from, how they got there, and what they were doing to actually land their butts in prison."

The Economist reports that approximately one third of those in prison in this country are there for marijuana possession. Are they wrong? Under Ashcroft the DoJ prosecuted Ed Norton (may have the name wrong) for growing medical marijuana, IIRC, for the City of Oakland, and Tommy Chong, of Cheech and Chong, for selling pot pipes.

"I would be careful about calling out the QP's on this site concerning your little trolling attempt with your example of the retired SF soldier smoking dope. "

I don't really think the charge of trolling is justified. While there have been occasions, in this thread and no doubt elsewhere, where I may have made an intemperate or ill considered remark, or perhaps something I thought was, and intended to be, humorous was not taken that way, in general I believe I have been respectful and I certainly am sincere.


Doc,

Probably should have replied to you first. No disrespect intended.

First, kudos for your work with the mentally ill. I care for my mother who has alzheimer's, her dementia is not too far along, I have help from my father and my sister, and I'm motivated by my love for her and it is still a frustrating and demanding experience. I commend you for doing a difficult and I expect largely thankless job.

I agree that "self medication" for the mentally ill is usually a bad idea. Frankly, I think most self medication is a bad idea. My issue is with the government making this a crime. The desire to relieve suffering is natural, acting upon it shouldn't be criminal.

I don't have to be for drug use, to be against the drug laws.

[Cincinnatus]

Ahhh!!! I started writing my previous post after reading Saca's post and when RL's was the most recent post up. Obviously, volumes have been written in the mean time and my reply is sort of out of sequence. I'll read more carefully, and perhaps reply to Saca's more recent posts tomorrow.

One thing that struck me as I skimmed these newer posts is that my position is being mischaracterized. I'm not for drug use, nor am I for legalization. I favor decriminalization and treatment as being more just and less expensive. These are not trivial differences.

[Martin]

What I am proposing is a civil system to discourage irresponsible recreational drug use, that would largely (granted to what degree is uncertain) pay for itself and would treat such use as prinarily a medical problem. In so doing it would free up law enforcement resources, take less court time and resources, relieve prison overcrowding, save an enormous amount of money, deprive enemies of this nation of a revenue source and support network, and allow some of these resources to be deployed other places where they are needed.
I too believe changes are needed for how people look at drugs, in a longer perspective - how to promote a good culture.

What you propose is essentially the case of tobaco in Sweden. Important differences are costs of rehab and associated criminality, power and speed of addiction and history of use.

The costs and addictive properties are both lower in the tobaco case, while the last point - amount of use - is lower for drugs. This means that the cost per person is higher for drug users than those of tobaco.

To stem the sale of tobaco and bring in revenue to state coffers, said to finance health services, warning texts have been printed on all tobaco products and the tax has gone up.

The tax is set to 56 öre (100 öre per SEK, 7.63 SEK = $1 USD) per cigarette, but a lower limit of the tax sets the effective rate to 86 öre per cigarette. This means that for a package of 20 cigarettes with a non-taxed price of 37.5 SEK, the additional tax is 17.2 SEK, or 45%, bringing the price for one pack up to 54.7 SEK. That is a lot of money for little substance.

According to statistics from the Statens Folkhälsoinstitut (State's Institute of the People's Health) from 1980-2004, the added tax has not brough forward any significant change in use in comparison with previous years. The tax was introduced in 1994 and after an initial drop in 1995 of 3% of smokers (does not include popular Swedish chew) from 25% to 22%, it has averaged 20% over the last six years.

From 2002-2004, 14-15 year old (9th grade) smokers and male chewers have nominally decreased while the proportion of female chewers has increased by 3%. This means that new users are continually attracted.

The Swedish government holds a monopoly on alcohol (except on less than 2.5% contents). Sweden has a big smuggling problem, of most substances. That does not get taxed.

The point is that I do not see how taxing of legalized drugs would pay for the associated problems. I think it will be a far cry from stopping smuggling.

Sources for the numbers are Statens Folkhälsoinstitut (State's Institute of the People's Health) and Skatteverket (Swedish IRS). Both are governmental institutions.

[The Reaper]

"I am not dissatisfied with the number of Americans incarcerated."

Really? I'm not baiting you, but I'm surprised if you really mean this. If I have it correctly, the US has a greater percentage of its population incarcerated than any other developed nation. I find it troubling that the land of the free should have so many locked up. Not that the goal should necessarily be to have the lowest incarceration rate, but rather to have the most just society.

I meant it. I don't care what the incarceration rate is as long as there are sufficient numbers remaining outside to support the system and provide security. If I am not allowed to chlorinate the gene pool, I want them locked up. As noted, jail is not jammed with occasional dope smokers or one-time bad check passers. Most inmates are bad hombres who would have been killed off a hundred years ago.

There are certainly SF guys who retire, grow their hair, buy a Harley, and start smoking dope. I don't know how widespread this is, but it would apply to at least one or two of my accquaintance and I suspect that you probably know a few who meet this description. Should they be jailed?

I have ridden Harleys for more than 20 years now. My hair is irrelevant. I do not use illegal substances, or associate with those who do, and resent the generalization by a non-QP. If you know some, and they are committing crimes, lock them up.

Again, I'm not baiting you or trying to score rhetorical points off you, just get you to look at things a little differently.

"I think there are many more who should be off the streets."

There are certainly people walking around who should be in prison. I'd like to see mandatory minimum sentences for armed robbers, not dope smokers. Nor am I deluding myself that some of those who use drugs aren't thoroughly despicable creatures. If a mother smokes crack and neglects her kids, I don't have a problem with child services taking the kids and the mother getting locked up for endangering them. Some tweaker loses it and attacks someone, I hope they get shot and if they survive, get tried, convicted, and locked up.

Isn't that the problem? They bumble along till they get capped, then the missing family pops out of the woodwork with an expensive attorney and sues for the logical outcome of a wasted existence. Do you know what percentage of inmates are incarcerated for committing crimes to support various drug habits?

I just believe that drug use is an attempt to self medicate and that this should not be a crime, in and of, itself. Further, I think something along the lines of what I'm recommending is more just and far less expensive.

Is a NAMBLA member who finds a willing partner self-medicating his condition as well? How about the pedophile who assaulted and buried Jessica Lunsford alive. Was he just a poor misunderstood individual who was self-medicating, along with his tweaker associates?

I refuse to buy into your generalizations and excuses. I admit that the system that we have now is not working to my satisfaction. I think that we should be much more draconian rather than lenient with dealers.

TR

[lksteve]

couldn't begin to figure out where to get training wheels for a Harleyyou could start here...
http://www.lehmantrikes.com/motorcycles-fls-bandit.asp

[Cincinnatus]

Sac,

Still want to address your points, but between having a house guest, Mom's health taking a bad turn for the worse, and generally having my hands full, haven't been online much this week. On top of that I've got an injured shoulder and have been told to stay off the kbd. So it will be a while before I can respond at length.

Reaper,

Ditto.