War on drugs: Definition of insanity
The timing was probably coincidental, but days after announcing that the feds would no longer prosecute folks for using medicinal marijuana, Attorney General Eric Holder and the Drug Enforcement Administration publicized huge raids conducted nationwide, including in metro Atlanta, against the Mexican drug cartel La Familia. In other words, they want it known that they are still heavily involved in the futile “war on drugs.”
In metro Atlanta, authorities arrested 31 people in Gwinnett County, three in Cobb and one in Clayton while recovering a total of 188 pounds of crystal meth, 17 kilos of cocaine, 13 guns and $50,000.
Gwinnett police officers raided 10 locations in that county alone. Rodney Benson, special agent in charge of the DEA’s Atlanta Field Division, said metro Atlanta, Dallas and the Los Angeles area were La Familia’s biggest operational centers.
Of course, there is a huge difference between cancer patients smoking a little pot and the savagely violent La Familia, which traffics in meth and cocaine, launders drugs and kidnaps and kills. Still, the feds wouldn’t say whether they arrested any cartel leaders, which suggests they didn’t. And as long as cartel leaders remain free, the family’s violent work will continue.
And why wouldn’t it when they have so many customers here in the United States?
Analysts said the operation appeared designed to allay skepticism among Mexico’s political leaders about the U.S. government’s commitment to Mexico’s crackdown on cartels. The drug-related violence has taken about 15,000 lives since President Felipe Calderón entered office in 2006. Mexican authorities have arrested 80,000 drug suspects, and Washington has responded with $1.4 billion in aid under the Merida initiative, but some in Mexico have grown frustrated with the U.S. market’s continuing demand for illegal drugs.
In other words, the war on drugs still isn’t making any progress. Both Mexico and the United States would be better off if the US shifted billions in resources away from police and prosecution and into education and drug treatment. Yes, we should still target violent cartels. But until we can curb the appetite for meth through drug treatment, the violence will continue.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2009 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
72 comments Add your comment
Turd Ferguson
October 23rd, 2009
7:58 am
Here HERE Cynthia!! The appetite will NEVER be curbed. I know people in their late 40’s still enjoying “high times” and appears they have no intent on stopping.
“You see it in the headlines, you hear it ev’ry day
They say they’re gonna stop it but it doesnt go away
They move it through Miami, sell it in L.A.
They hide it up in Telluride, I mean its here to stay…”
woodbutcher
October 23rd, 2009
8:13 am
qoute: [[But until we can curb the appetite for meth through drug treatment, the violence will continue.]]
There is a simple answer to the methamphetamine problem .
Desoxyn!! im not sure if i spelled it right but it is a brand name for pharmacutical meth.that is why meth is classified as a schedule 2 drug and not a schedule 1 drug like heroin and cannabis and lsd .The ONLY way and i do mean the ONL way we will rid our selves of drug cartels is through medicalization of hard drugs and legalization of cannabis and other mild halucigens .yrs ago in america when people were still actually free you could go to the doctor if you had a problem with drugs and they could prescribe what you needed and try to help you ween off when you are ready.But now we have legislaters and cops and judges all who think they are more experianced and knowledgable about how to deal with a medical problem than a person who actually have a medical degree like maybe a doctor for instance!!Drug dependence is a medical problem the govt made it a legal problem only furthur complicating a already hard to deal with issue.Until judges and prosecuters and cops get medical degrees they have no buisness screwing with addicts who need help not persecution by a bunch of people who want to push their morals and belief that drug addicts should be punished even if they have not committed a crime other than use a substance that some believe is immoral .
BKB
October 23rd, 2009
8:15 am
AMEN! This insane war needs to stop. All the lives lost, money wasted, and people incarcerated for nothing!
Call it like it is.
October 23rd, 2009
8:21 am
I just want to make sure I understand you. The war on drugs is futile, and you also don’t want Americans to be able to carry a handgun to protect themselves.
Before you leave OZ tell Dorthy I said hi.
SouthernGal
October 23rd, 2009
8:45 am
The drug war is insane. I would like to see drugs legalized with the same controls we have on alcohol. A new source of revenue for the dumbest of society.
Chris Broe
October 23rd, 2009
8:46 am
There was a drug war in OZ. The witch made a field of poppies (opiates) appear in the path of the free government handouts, (heart, brain, courage and a balloon ride home). This was the last stand of small government, low taxes and personal responsibility. (The witch was definitely a conservative). The “good” witch foiled her plans with snow, (so much for global warming, eh?).
Joan
October 23rd, 2009
9:24 am
Ok, the war on drugs doesn’t make progress because people will still insist on killing themselves the slow and destructive way. But to say you can educate the uneducable is absurd. Druggies are dropping out of this so very politically correct society that is so horribly, and clearly corrupt. Frankly, in sum, I agree with you–let them all die and the quicker the better. But don’t spend good money after bad trying to educate them.
jconservative
October 23rd, 2009
9:35 am
Americans say they do not like to lose wars. In fact, the US has had its national butt kicked up oneside of the country & down the other side in the “war on drugs.” But the majority insist that the war continue. But they do not want to spend the trillion dollars it would take to win the war. So we pretend we are fighting a war we can win.
TnGelding
October 23rd, 2009
10:03 am
Yes, it’s insane. So what’s new? Leagalize and tax it so the funds will be available for education and treatment without being a drain on the treasury; a net gain of at least $200 billion.
What are we doing wrong in raising our children? Why do they grow up to be drug addicts? Is it as simple as putting them on that big yellow bus before dawn when they’re 5 years old?
TnGelding
October 23rd, 2009
10:11 am
jconservative
October 23rd, 2009
9:35 am
Who are those majority? I don’t know anyone that doesn’t think it’s stupid, even our sheriff.
Eric
October 23rd, 2009
10:11 am
You’re right of course, but treatment only works for people who want treatment. Education is paramount, but the right wing thinks of education as indroctination. The war on drugs is only one of the wars we’ll never win. It’s like trying to legislate morality. Can you say David Vitter?
TnGelding
October 23rd, 2009
10:12 am
Joan
October 23rd, 2009
9:24 am
The education has to start from the day they are born, which doesn’t cost anything.
TnGelding
October 23rd, 2009
10:14 am
SouthernGal
October 23rd, 2009
8:45 am
What about requiring alcohol to be sold by a pharmacy instead oc making it so convenient? Ditto for nicotine.
TnGelding
October 23rd, 2009
10:16 am
Call it like it is.
October 23rd, 2009
8:21 am
I’m sorry, but I miss the connection. Just keep thinking you’re protecting yourself. You’re putting yourself, and everybody else, at more risk.
TnGelding
October 23rd, 2009
10:18 am
BKB
October 23rd, 2009
8:15 am
If only it cost nothing! 70% of drug users incarcerated held fulltime jobs.
TnGelding
October 23rd, 2009
10:20 am
woodbutcher
October 23rd, 2009
8:13 am
It’s job security for the justice system. It’s become a cottage industry.
TnGelding
October 23rd, 2009
10:22 am
Turd Ferguson
October 23rd, 2009
7:58 am
What creates the appetite in the first place? Are we born drug addicts?
TnGelding
October 23rd, 2009
10:27 am
Eric
October 23rd, 2009
10:11 am
Whatta you mean? Prohibition wiped out alcohol didn’t it? And we’re no longer bothered by prostitutes and have eliminated poverty. And things are going swimmingly in Iraq in Afghanistan, if you like swimming in red ink and blood. The terrorists have withdrawn in abject fear.
Turd Ferguson
October 23rd, 2009
10:46 am
“I was gonna call Ms Tucker
but then I got high
I was gonna send some flowers
but then I got high
I was gonna take her out
but then I got high…”
jt
October 23rd, 2009
10:52 am
whut?….?
TnGelding
October 23rd, 2009
10:59 am
Turd Ferguson
October 23rd, 2009
10:46 am
High and dry.
See if you can’t get a rally going on Wall Street.
RealityKing
October 23rd, 2009
11:28 am
Drug treatment has proven just as ineffective and wasteful as the war.
Which leaves us right back where we started. Not able to morally give drugs a green light and yet also not able to stop its use.
EROCK
October 23rd, 2009
11:36 am
We have two choices. Let the cartels regulate the drugs or the government, because DRUGS WILL NEVER GO AWAY. There is no middle ground. The most addictive drug in the world is nicotine, we cut the use of nicotine in half by educating not incarcerating!
Turd Ferguson
October 23rd, 2009
11:41 am
TN…appears a day of some consolidation and thats ok. Had some decent runs of late so have let market breath, let shorts cash out then next leg up.
In the mean time…
“Dont bogart that joint my friend, pass it over to me…”
demwit
October 23rd, 2009
11:54 am
Speaking of drugs..,
Wheres the H1N1 vaccines Obama told us not to worry about??
And hand cream.., I need some hand cream due to all the hand washing..
Giant Squid
October 23rd, 2009
12:20 pm
@ RealityKing .. drug treatment is not ineffective. I went at the suggestion of others and have stayed clean for 6 years. Depends on the person and kind of treatment. I will say the success rate is low (prob 5%) for those forced to go to rehab since treatment is for those who want it , not necessarily for those that need it. You have to at least try and plant a seed though and when ppl get “sick and tired” they may come in from the cold. I have seen this time and again. Have also seen quite a few get clean from the Cobb county drub court which is one of the strictest in the nation. Better to spend the money to offer treatment to users (or at least try) than sending them to jail unless they’ve been stealing, murdering, etc. What good does that do? Now they’re just addicts in jail and they will just continue when they get out. It’s not a criminal issue, as others have said, its a medical one. Most of the things that harm society about drugs stem from the fact that they are illegal and therefore expensive.
Sven Turgidsen
October 23rd, 2009
12:48 pm
I agree the “war on drugs” has failed, and should end . . . but let’s be clear-eyed about what will happen when it does. When drugs are de-criminalized, the middle class will have the resources to pay for its highs. Poor, minority communities won’t. If drug use expands in those communities after de-criminalization, so will the criminal activitiy (thefts and robberies) needed to finance it. Can you really claim that “drug education” is the answer? These same communities can’t be bothered to support academic education, so why will drug education work? The irony here is that Ms. Tucker undoubtedly opposes the war on drugs because it ensnares and imprisons so many in poor minority communities . . . . yet the de-criminalization of drugs will accelrate the decline of those same communities at an ever faster rate. Either way, they lose.
Jesse
October 23rd, 2009
2:06 pm
Sven,
You need to consider why drug users commit crimes…
It’s because anything illegal will automatically SKYROCKET in price for those who want it.
Basic supply and demand laws… Why would anyone steal to buy their drugs if they could pick it up for 3 bucks just like ibprofen?
-also, before people start throwing around the blanket term “junkie” for anyone that uses drugs… remember over 50% of people in the nation have tried cannibis. That means statisitcally speaking, if you have 2 children, AT LEAST one will try drugs. does that make your kid a junkie? hell no.
You want to incarcerate 50% of the nation? good luck with that. I hope your kids are the ones caught in the snare.
sherm
October 23rd, 2009
2:19 pm
Rendition. Mexico sends secret squads into the US and grabs the kingpins, wherever they are and transports them to some nasty place in South America for the rest of their lives.
The drug war is a much bigger immediate threat to Mexico’s security than al Qaeda or the Taliban are to the US. – 15,000 lives. Our government embraces the right of rendition, and can grab anyone in the world it feels like, then toss that person into a black hole. Why not Mexico?
I’m sure Mexico and the US know who the kingpins are, but arrest means probable cause. The kingpins keep themselves clean, have the best lawyers, and unlimited bribe money. Rendition eliminates all the problems. They’ll get the wrong guy once in while – what ever happened to uncle Pedro? But that’s life.
The main obstacle of course is that we would never tolerate having a foreign government coming on our soil and grabbing someone off the street. How dare they even think about it! The US is the only country in the world that has the divine right to use rendition as it sees fit.
Chris Broe
October 23rd, 2009
2:39 pm
What if they gave a drug war and nobody came?
2 cents worth
October 23rd, 2009
2:43 pm
TnGelding Where do you get that 70% of those incarcerated held fulltime jobs!!! Fulltime pushing and selling drugs!!!! It isn’t just about drug users being incarcerated; more than likely they are also drug pushers/sellers, they do have to support their habit afterall.
We are just a very sick society. . . bottomline!
Shananeeeeee Fananeeeeeeee
October 23rd, 2009
3:10 pm
You know that big drug bust in Gwinnett that the poice as so proud of yestesrday, well a new operation will be up and running by the end of the weekend.
Conservative White Male
October 23rd, 2009
3:52 pm
They need to keep the drugs out of the inner cities where the violence is.
Where I am from we use rugs without having to kill each other.
A little meth, or hillbilly heroin never hurt anyone. It helps me stay awake when I am driving my 18 wheeler
woodbutcher
October 23rd, 2009
6:41 pm
Every country that has decriminalized drugs has seen not omly drops in their crime rates but have seen significant drops in the use of drugs by children. this is a fact. the netherlands this year is closing 8 prisons due to a lack of inmate’s .Canada just completed the NAOMI project recntly. A program tha supplied heroin to addicts . the results are aval for reading online. they had a 98 % success rate in getting people their lives back in order jobs homes rebuilding their relationships with family members.The war on drugs will never be won for every plant they pull up we will plant 100 more in it’s place. stop arresting addicts and start arresting these crooked politicians and bankers who are bleeding our country dry.
TnGelding
October 23rd, 2009
7:33 pm
Sven Turgidsen
October 23rd, 2009
12:48 pm
Why do you think it would expand? How could it possibly be any worse? The politicians and their children get caught in the web as well. That alone should be enough for them to have the courage to end it.
TnGelding
October 23rd, 2009
7:35 pm
Jesse
October 23rd, 2009
2:06 pm
I haven’t because I’m uneducated. Why is it a rite of passage in high school and college? Can’t we raise our children to be smarter than that?
TnGelding
October 23rd, 2009
7:38 pm
sherm
October 23rd, 2009
2:19 pm
Did you miss the part about the raids and arrests?
TnGelding
October 23rd, 2009
8:02 pm
2 cents worth
October 23rd, 2009
2:43 pm
Only 61% in this study:
From Sentencingproject dot org
4. Community Ties
A final area of inquiry concerns the background characteristics of drug offenders. We have already seen that there are a substantial number of low-level offenders filling the nation’s prisons. An approach to this level of drug abuse that emphasizes law enforcement and incarceration over prevention and treatment inevitably will result in excessive use of imprisonment. Further analysis illustrates that increasing incarceration for drug offenders can also prove deleterious to the network of informal personal bonds that exists in communities and neighborhoods.
Of our sample of inmates, 61% had a job or business during the month before their arrest. Of those respondents who answered in the affirmative, 78% (or 48% of the full sample) were employed full-time, with a median monthly income of approximately $1050. This profile reports a startlingly different tale than common perceptions of drug
offenders. Prior to their incarceration, drug offenders were for the most part employed, residing in private living quarters, and earning a wage.
TnGelding
October 23rd, 2009
8:03 pm
Conservative White Male
October 23rd, 2009
3:52 pm
Ever heard of meth mouth? That alone should be enough to make yu stop.
TnGelding
October 23rd, 2009
8:05 pm
woodbutcher
October 23rd, 2009
6:41 pm
But Big Brother wants us to think they’re protecting us from the evil weed, as well as the evil-doers. Not true in either case.
TnGelding
October 23rd, 2009
8:10 pm
ST. LOUIS — American taxpayers would save more than $46 billion if drug addicts now in prison were instead treated, according to a study released Friday at a national convention of drug court professionals.
Retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey, a former U.S. drug czar, and actress Melanie Griffith joined experts in calling on lawmakers to increase funding for such courts.
“This is not a war on drugs,” McCaffrey said. “This is a problem for our families in America. In order to turn drugs around in this country, we’re going to have to treat those 1.5 million people who are addicted.”
Griffith, a recovering alcohol and drug addict, said she believes drug courts are effective because they provide both support and accountability for abusers.
“I had a long struggle with addiction because I didn’t have that. And by the grace of God, I didn’t end up in prison,” Griffith said. “There are so many people, who with this kind of help, can lead beautiful lives.”
The study from the Urban Institute in Washington found that about 3 percent of arrested addicts are referred to a drug court, which offers supervised treatment to nonviolent offenders whose records are expunged if they complete the program.
“Most addicts need something more than being warehoused,” said Judge Charles Simmons Jr., a drug court judge in Greenville, S.C. “Drug courts are putting families back together, and they are decreasing crime at a tremendous savings to taxpayers.”
Housing an inmate in prison can cost up to $40,000 a year while drug court treatment costs up to $3,500 per offender a year, Simmons said.
McCaffrey said 15 years of research has yielded definitive proof that drug courts significantly reduce crime by as much as 35 percent. He said legislators and the public may get behind the system once they understand its cost savings.
“The math in unarguable,” McCaffrey said. “If you want to unclog America’s prisons, drug courts need to be taken to scale.”
Many prosecutors, judges, social workers, health providers and attorneys who participate in the 2,100 drug courts nationwide attended the three-day conference at America’s Center that ended Friday.
Missouri has 110 drug court programs serving more than 3,400 participants. Since their inception, more than 6,200 people have graduated from a drug court in Missouri with a 10 percent recidivism rate.
Illinois has 19 drug courts in operation, including one in Madison County, with more in the developmental stages.
john
October 24th, 2009
10:01 am
If you support the war on drugs, you are by definition misinformed. No rational, sane, well informed person could possibly support such a disasterous counterproductive public policy as the war on drugs. If you do support this fiasco, please educate yourself on the real effects of the war on drugs and educate your fellow citizens. In a democracy we are only as smart as the ignorant masses want to be.
Rita Stricker
October 24th, 2009
12:12 pm
Drugs don’t cause violence. War, by definition, does. If you want to stop the violence, end the war. If you support the war, accept that the violence will continue as well. Maybe you don’t care that the once-proud “Land of the Free” has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Maybe you don’t care that your rights to privacy have been eroded to the point that you no longer have sovereignty even over your own body. Maybe you believe that somehow you can be free when your government dictates what you may or may not own. Maybe you even believe that Washington politicians have some right or obligation to make medical decisions for the rest of us. Or — maybe you think there’s a better use for your hard-earned dollars. Ending prohibition would not only put an end to drugwar violence, but would save taxpayers over $60 billion a year AND increase revenues by not incarcerating drug-using taxpayers and by taxing sales of currently illegal drugs and the income derived from those sales. Consider the restoration of freedom and an end to the drug cartels’ reign of terror just inconvenient but necessary side-effects.
Rita Stricker
October 24th, 2009
4:06 pm
BTW, TnGelding, meth mouth may be reason enough to quit; it is NOT an excuse to send heavily-armed SWAT teams to invade and ransack our homes and terrorize our children.
newageblues
October 24th, 2009
9:43 pm
RealityKing
October 23rd, 2009
11:28 am
“Drug treatment has proven just as ineffective and wasteful as the war.
Which leaves us right back where we started. Not able to morally give drugs a green light and yet also not able to stop its use.”
2 points in response:
cannabis deserves more of a green light than alcohol does, not less, because it rarely causes violence, don’t we wish we could say the same about alcohol.
Using your traffic light analogy, I wouldn’t want to give a green light to hard drug use either, but an orange caution light might be in order, warning potential users of the dangers, perhaps requiring drug education or other hoops to go thru before allowing hard drug use, but not outright prohibition which has had such terrible consequences
John Williams
October 25th, 2009
2:00 am
Looking at the drug problem from an entirely cost benefit analysis, harm reduction, would create massive tax payer savings. Punishing drug addicts by imprisoning them instead of treating it as a genetic mental health problem or disease is akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face. Society and taxpayers pay huge sums of money for the war on drugs. I do not think drugs should be legalized but addicts should be treated as though they have a mental health disorder or a genetic disease that is also due to bad choices similar to heart disease. There is evidence from twin studies that there is a genetic component and the bad choices are apparent.
There is no way to not pay for addicts, either one way or the another, it will cost society. It makes no sense to continue to pay large sums of money due to theft, law enforcement, correctional services, justice system, lawyers, health costs that result from unhealthy lifestyles, plus the lost tax revenue that could be gained by the income tax payed by the addicts who become gainfully employed if drugs are supplied to them in a disease/mental health harm reduction model.
After realizing this I do not think it makes sense to pay all these costs to try to force someone to straighten out and live a normal drug free life if they are not ready or willing too. Utilizing a harm reduction model that supplied drugs, when possible, until the addict stabilized while encouraging them to quit, would be better for the addict and society. The money society would save could be used for childrens’ education and other worthy causes including proper drug education for children.
This could also have the further benefit of destroying the profitability of drug dealers and pushers since their customers would gradually move into a harm reduction program. Hopefully this would help to destroy the infrastructure of the blackmarket drug dealers and cartels so that they do not have the resources to supply children, hopefully also destroying the cycle of drug addiction.
Giving control of the illicit drug market to cartels and pushers whose sole purpose is to create profits and therefore customers is much worse than strictly regulating drugs by treating addicts through a harm reduction/mental health model that seeks to stabilize lifestyle then encourage abstinence.
Markmiwords
October 25th, 2009
3:56 am
End the drug wars by ending drug prohibition. Visit leap.cc for info. Educate kids with factual education. Don’t lie to them and say, “marijuana/cannabis is a shedule 1 drug, & this means that it’s as deadly, & addictive as heroin, with no medical value”. Kids try pot, it doesn’t kill, or addict them. It actually treats a host of health problems, & a lot of minors successfully self-medicate with pot. This doesn’t mean I’m for letting minors smoke pot. I believe it should be legalized. But, I’m for making the minimum age 25. My point is kids know they’ve been lied to about pot. So, how many pot seeking kids were forced into buying their pot from dealers who gladly expose them to hard core drugs to create repeat customers? How many kids got exposed to heroin, hooked on heroin, & die from heroin overdose due to prohibitionists lieing about pot? Making kids think they’ve been lied to about heroin, too. Lay a whole bunch of addicted kids & their overdosed dead bodies right down there in front of the Drug Czar & D.A.R.E. There ya go! Good little prohibition victims. no one’s going to miss you, but your loved ones. Anyone who talks that crap about how prohibition keeps kids from getting pot is full of sh*t. They can buy pot easier than alcohol. Because, alcohol is regulated & licensed merchants successfully prevent minors from getting booze 90% of the time. What % of the time do you figure criminals sell pot to kids who have the money? That’s right. 100% of the time. Pot prohibition keeps kids from buying pot, how? End the pot prohibition, now.
Pat Rogers
October 25th, 2009
1:40 pm
Well put and all good observations Ms. Tucker.
Criminalizing more and more people is no way to wean them from either the drugs or the black market economy that people who are consuming ‘illegal’ products become economically dependent upon.
The war on drugs is not simply a waste of time but counter-productive.
As long as addicts, abusers and gangsters control the sales of drugs children will have unfettered access to drug sales. When drug distribution is put under regulated and licensed adult supervision the values of society against premature access to drugs by children will finally prevail.
Prohibition abandons American children to addict dealers, gangsters and social predators who use drugs to prey on children.
Finally, as we can see in Afghanistan today, the war on drugs also abrogates American constitutional values. The Obama administration has issued an assassination list of drug gangsters in that country. This subverts the rule of law and invites both gangsters and terrorists to turn the same tactics back on American political leaders who sanction such atrocious tactics.
Pat Rogers
October 25th, 2009
3:56 pm
Police and the DEA are really just government paid enforcers for the drug lords.
The police and DEA track down and remove the smaller and dumber dealers leaving the market free for the bigger smarter gangsters.
And the Drug Czar, Gil Kerlikowske, is nothing more than a shill for the cartels. As long as he propagandizes against legalization he is defending the black markets status quo for the drug cartels, gangsters and even terrorists who all thrive in the black markets imposed by the war on drugs policy.
Supporting the war on drugs is supporting America’s sworn terrorist enemies. Giving them “aid and comfort”. That is treason according to the United States constitution.
The Sage
October 25th, 2009
7:02 pm
I’m so tired of people who don’t know what they are talking about trying to sound intelligent by suggesting the answer is legalization and treatment. Legalizing drugs isn’t going solve anything. Most of the crime in this country can be linked back to junkies trying to support themselves. The problem is not that drugs are really expensive because they are illegal. Drugs are actually quite cheap. The problem is the junkies can’t even support a cheap drug habit because they can’t keep a job.
Treatment is there for just about anyone who wants it. The FACT is, most junkies are content with their condition. They may say they’d like to get off drugs, but actions speak louder than words. If they really wanted to, they would. Look at the way family members have to twist people’s arms on that show “Intervention” to get them into rehab. 99% of them don’t want to go. So how is “more treatment” going to solve anything?? If they won’t go to treatment, it’s going to do nothing.
The answer is to have treatment available for those who want it and have stiff penalties for people who continue to use drugs and commit crimes to support their habit. Either you get clean, or you go to prison for a long time. Either you stop selling drugs, or you go to prison for a long time. When you just give out “slaps on the wrist” there is no incentive for people to stop making bad decisions.
And Pat Rogers, you’re a fool. Make sure you wear your tin foil hat next time you post!
Nick
October 25th, 2009
10:48 pm
Thank you to all the voices of reason posting here. The war on drugs is genocide, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity and the peace. A policy by a “government” that generates or inflicts the harm that this black market has is a criminal offense. There are no two ways about it. These people need to be exposed and prosecuted.
As for you, the “sage” your uncouth manners are not welcome here. There is a corrupt bureaucracy that feeds off of this black market as well as serve many other nefarious purposes in our society.
If you had read the first comments you would have seen that “druggies” for the most part are people who supported themselves:
From Sentencingproject dot org
4. Community Ties
A final area of inquiry concerns the background characteristics of drug offenders. We have already seen that there are a substantial number of low-level offenders filling the nation’s prisons. An approach to this level of drug abuse that emphasizes law enforcement and incarceration over prevention and treatment inevitably will result in excessive use of imprisonment. Further analysis illustrates that increasing incarceration for drug offenders can also prove deleterious to the network of informal personal bonds that exists in communities and neighborhoods.
Of our sample of inmates, 61% had a job or business during the month before their arrest. Of those respondents who answered in the affirmative, 78% (or 48% of the full sample) were employed full-time, with a median monthly income of approximately $1050. This profile reports a startlingly different tale than common perceptions of drug
offenders. Prior to their incarceration, drug offenders were for the most part employed, residing in private living quarters, and earning a wage.
The black market is what needs to be eliminated; that trillion dollar recession-proof blood spattered little teat for redneck “law enforcement” and right wing politicians attempting to strip our democracies to corporate peonage here and overseas. Oh yes, they’re exporting this crap.
For folks who want first hand video testimony of just who is behind this crap and why go to:
or Google “operation watchtower” and read about the “cia” creating the modern day cocaine industry in Colombia.
John Williams
October 26th, 2009
12:27 am
Sage
I also am tired of those “who don’t know what they are talking about trying to sound intelligent”. What is even worse is people that believe no one else knows what they are talking or that, other opinions don’t matter, because it is extremely arrogant.
Here is an example of a subjective declaration with no basis in reality:
“The problem is not that drugs are really expensive because they are illegal. Drugs are actually quite cheap.”
I have no idea how anyone could say drugs are cheap. The price of drugs is anywhere from 20-40 times more than the selling price in the country of origin. This price difference is entirely due to the fact “that drugs are really expensive because they are illegal”. I have never seen anyone deny this and, in fact, one of the indicators used to gauge how well the drug war is doing is based on how expensive drugs are. The National Drug Threat Assessment explicitly uses the costs of drugs as an indicator of whether or not the drug war is reducing supply. I would suggest looking at it so in the future you will actually know what you are talking about instead of pretending to know what you “are talking about trying to sound intelligent.”
Now in regard to you self centered belief that “Drugs are actually quite cheap.” this is entirely relative. If I am Bill Gates I can say that owning a personal jet is really quite cheap. For those that have the ability to step out of there self centered worldview they would realize that it is not always “quite cheap” and instead that cheap or expensive is subjective and depends on ones economic status. The economic status of drug addicts is obviously generally low and if the addict is well off that generally will not last. This is obviously their own fault and is due to poor choices,
The other side of this though is that, as I wrote above, drug prices are 20-40 times the cost in the country of origin. What this means is that someone who steals to support a $500 day drug habit would only pay $12.50 to $25.00 for the same amount of drugs were they legal. Even if that cost is doubled or trebled for transportation and middle man costs the difference is still staggering.
I personally do not believe hard drugs should be legal but paying for the huge costs the drug war incurs in law enforcement, foreign drug wars through international agencies operations, corrections, justice system, lawyers, corrections, emergency room medical costs, loss of potential wages of stabilized drug addicts etc.. to leave the control of drugs to blackmarket gangs and cartels whose sole desire is to create more “customers” makes no sense.
If the ultimate societal goals of the drug war are enumerated it becomes readily apparent that there are other options that are much better suited to fulfilling those goals.
Goal:: Reduce the spread of addiction throughout society and lower the costs and harms of addiction to society.
Strictly regulated harm reduction .models that treated addiction as having a genetic component that increases predisposition to addiction with an emphasis on the addicts personal responsibility for making choices that aggravated that predisposition could fulfill the above goal. This is no different than someone with a genetic predisposition to heart disease aggravating that predisposition through poor diet choices except unhealthy eating is not illegal yet whereas drugs are.
Regulating drug control through giving drugs to proven addicts, when possible, in order to stabilize their lifestyle and then encourage abstinence would fulfill the goal of the drug war and would cost society no where near as many harmful consequences or monetary cost. Cartels and drug dealers would lose their customers to harm reduction as quickly as they could create them. If strict laws were created to punish the remaining dealers the illicit drug dealing business would collapse as would drug related crime and all the costs associated with crime. The profits for dealing drugs would drop to nothing if addicts had access to cheap drugs in a harm reduction system. Low profit potential combined with stiff trafficking laws would eradicate pushers. Whether or not this would be possible with all stimulants through appropriate substitutes I am not sure but if drug companies where given the green light to create less harmful stimulant substitutes they could and some exist today. The only way to destroy pushers is to diminish demand and jail does not work and is very expensive. A harm reduction system could actually accomplish a complete takeover of supply and demand at a fraction of the cost in a way that would reduce harm to addicts and society in general.
Stuart Rosenthal
October 26th, 2009
8:40 am
The War on Drugs has many supporters. All of the Kingpins and most of the dealers support it.
Their livliehood depends on it. Legalization means lower use , lower cost for drugs , healthier users and fewer users.
Prohibition is the life blood of criminals.
itsme
October 26th, 2009
2:06 pm
i think its important kids dont do drugs even tho this is for one of my projects on drugs rite now
Sage
October 26th, 2009
3:21 pm
John Williams, I’ve been investigating narcotics trafficking quite some time. Don’t presume to tell me what I do and don’t know. You may think you know you are talking about because you read a few articles, but I have been dealing with it first hand from street level all the way up to the cartel members.
No, drugs are not expensive. Your HABIT might be expensive when you require a large amount of drugs to keep you satiated. But no, drugs are not expensive.
E.J. Jones
October 26th, 2009
6:32 pm
I think she gets paid by the word. Do a google search on the name o bama, japanese and verb. They have a handle on what’s happening in this country. That’s what this article is. More than half of it is cut and pasted from another source.
The other day, ole cyth was on NPR, AGAIN, and they mentioned black votes abandoning the dems. She said that was a one time thing. The announcer said what if they become “habitual” voters. Habitual is usually used in a negative way. Shouldn’t have been regular voters?
Can’t have it both ways.
john
October 27th, 2009
9:08 am
Sage you are a complete idiot. If you actually believe that drugs are inexpensive and that prohibition does not drastically inflate their price you are a complete moron. Please simply type a few key words into google to at least give yourself some minimal level of education before making yourself look like a complete fool. Cocaine costs a few cents per gram to make and yet costs around 50 dollars a gram on the street. The reason for this is because the guy selling it and everyone in the supply chain risks going to prison for engaging in this business therefore they charge a hugh premium to compensate for this risk. It is simple economics. The reason an addict robs and steals is because an addict might be supporting a habit that costs several hundred dollars a day and there is no other way to generate that amount of money. If it were legalized and regulated it would not be so expensive and an addict could support a habit for a few dollars a day. You don’t see tobbacco addicts robbing old ladies to buy a pack of cigs do you?? You can legitimately debate a lot of the aspects of the drug war and its pros and cons. One thing that is not debatable is that the drug war dratically increases the cost of drugs. Even the DEA admits that is one of the benefits and goals of the war on drugs. You the perfect example of why the drug war will never end. People are too ignorant and misinformed to ever be able to see that drug prohibition is truely a failure.
Sage
October 27th, 2009
11:14 am
John, I know you think you know everything because you read a few articles online and you can quote a few anti-war on drug sound bytes, but I deal with it in real life every day. I’ve been investigating it and arresting people for it for years and years. You only know what you heard from a friend or read somewhere. When is the last time you saw multiple kilos of cocaine? When is the last time you saw thousands of pounds of marijuana?? People like YOU are one of the biggest problems in America today. You think you know everything when have ZERO real world knowledge and ZERO first hand experience.
Do you know why cocaine costs less per gram in Columbia than it does on the streets of Atlanta?? Because every time it passes through someone’s hands, they add their own profit to it. Do you know what that is like?? EVERY SINGLE THING YOU BUY!! It costs a brewery very little to brew beer, but they have nerve to charge me $8 for a six pack at the grocery store. Before you get your cocaine on the streets of Atlanta, it’s probably passed through dozens and dozens of hands. Each of those hands ups the price.
Yes, supply and demand will drive up the cost of drugs. The more successful the war on drugs is, the higher the prices of drugs will be. But I stand by my original statement, because I deal with this stuff on a daily basis. Drugs are not expensive. Junkies may develop expensive habits. The habit may become especially expensive when they lose their jobs.
I don’t tell you how to flip burgers. Don’t presume to tell me how the drug scene works.
Cindy, parent of two
October 27th, 2009
5:21 pm
Sage:
Thank you for chiming in, its always interesting to see what the actual people who deal with this think. Its interesting you see things the way you do, especially when there are thousands upon thousands of police officers, judges, law makers, and even ex-DEA agents and judges that feel prohibition is a complete failure, along with most of us regular everyday citizens (who you assume all flip burgers. weather we flip burgers or run private businesses were all paying your salary) You ask when was the last time we saw 100 lbs of pot, well with it being illegal I would imagine its not common for regular citizens to stumble upon a 100 lbs of pot, what is your point? Are you insinuating that you are doing a good job? Because I highly disagree, even a burger flipper can see that drugs are readily available to anyone who wants them, and even a burger flipper can see that you are worried about losing your job if you lose the “war on our own people” funding.
IF you did have some incite that everyone else was blinded to because of your profession, then wouldn’t all officers with your same real life experience feel the same? How come there are so many who feel the same as we burger flippers do? Why did the former chief of police Norm Stamper forward the new book “Marijuana is Safer, so why are we Driving People to Drink” and why is there a organization of former judges, Law makers, and Law Enforcement agents called LEAP, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, are they all liars about how destructive prohibition is for no reason? Spare us, the laws that strip good people of their rights and belongings for doing something safer than drinking alcohol have created a huge disrespect for law enforcement, but I’m sure the great money you steal from the American tax payers is enough for you not to care what anyone thinks. Good people loose their jobs in this bad economy while we WASTE BILLIONS paying you to play G.I. Joe with the most expensive tools and show zero results for it, I think its time we better spent OUR money!
Cindy
October 27th, 2009
5:46 pm
Sage, how can you say
“I don’t tell you how to flip burgers. Don’t presume to tell me how the drug scene works.”
When even with all the Billions we spend each year, and all the Task Forces that we start, and all the agents we employ just as yourself we have these huge drug busts on a daily basis and yet, the DEA is admittedly saying they would be surprised if they are even getting 1% of all the drugs being shipped around the world? I think someone needs to remind you that even though you feel like your getting a lot of drugs off the street, in reality your not even denting the supply, and at the cost of Billions.
Maybe you should apply at McDonald’s, I heard their hiring Burger Flippers!
Sage
October 27th, 2009
8:54 pm
Of course there are always going to be people who disagree. I’m sure I could find some ex-Judges who think a man should be able to swat his wife. Does that make it right?
People who think the war on drugs is a failure have set an impossible standard for success: the total eradication of drugs. No, we have not eradicated drugs. No matter how much money and time you throw at it, it’s not going to go away. Neither is armed robbery, identity theft, fraud, and murder! Is the FBI a failure because people continue to rob banks??
No, the war on drugs hasn’t eradicated the drugs from America, but imagine how bad things would be if hard working people, like me, weren’t knocking off as much of it as we are.
And as far as the “costs” go, you really don’t know what you’re talking about. There aren’t many cops, outside of the DEA, whose sole job it is to focus on drugs. Most of the drug arrests are made by cops who pulled over a guy for driving without a license, and then they happened to find half an ounce of cocaine on him. There is very little additional cost to the tax payers. What you probably don’t hear much about, because you aren’t in the game or in the know, is that police departments seize a LOT of money and assets from drug traffickers. Some departments have narcotics units that pay for themselves and lots of new equipment for the department. Would you rather we buy that stuff by raising your taxes??? Didn’t think so! It’s much better for everyone if we arrest drug traffickers and take their assets.
mark
October 27th, 2009
9:44 pm
Sage,
The standard for success should be reducing the consumption of drugs, making drugs harder for young people to obtain, and reducing the crime and violence associated with drug use and dealing. Prohibition does none of that. We have pursued prohibition for so long we have forgotten those goals and punishing drug use, possession, and sale has become an end in itself. We have the same percentage of addicts as we did at the turn of the century when drugs were legal. Prohibition means no regulation. Violent criminal gangs decide what to sell, where to sell it, when to sell it, who to sell it to, and how much to charge. Dealers don’t ask for ID and don’t care who their selling to or what their selling as long as they get paid. People opposed to drug prohibition don’t think drug use is a good thing for society. We aren’t stupid like you try to brand us, we fully understand how harmful and destructive drugs can be and that is exactly why they need to be tightly regulated and controlled. Most kids today will tell you its easier to get illegal drugs than booze. You support the drug cartels in Mexico more than anyone else. You subsidize their product. Your work and the work of fellow officers ensures that their product stays expensive and that they make billions off it. I wouldn’t worry too much about your job security. The only way the drug war will ever end is if Americans become educated enough to see that we have all been lied to and that will probably never happen, so keep up the good work. This used to be a free country where people were free to do as they please as long as they did not harm others. Somehow we lost our way and redefined freedom to mean that the government knows best and you better do what you are told. Its sad, but it certainly creates a lot of good government jobs.
Sage
October 28th, 2009
12:55 am
Ok, Mark. Keep believing the crap you read online.
“We just need ton tightly control drugs!” Oh yeah, that will work great! Because drugs like meth are 100% illegal now, but if we legalize it, and make you require a “prescription” for it, NO ONE is going to become a junky and run a meth lab in their house, because these are such law abding people!!
You guys kill me. You think you’re so “enlightened,” but you’re really just naive. Keep living in your fantasy world!
David from WI
October 28th, 2009
6:34 am
Your solution to solving alcohosm would be to buy em all a six pack each. It makes as much sense.
Face it the far left want to solve social and polital problems?!?!?! THEY ARE THE ROOT OF SO MANY OF THE PROBLEMS.
Has it ever occurred to you that the far left make things WORSE?????
Who just LOVED drugs in the 60s and now they want lecture ANYONE the VERY PROBLEM THEY HAD A BIG HAND IN CREATING.
The far left are have made things WORSE and KEEP DOING IT.
They are the root of so many of our social conflicts for a long time and are out of ther minds when THEY lecture others.
Tell us who is a coward.
Who are racists.
Who are Nazis
Who helps police race relations by
a. having a kegger (national embarrasmet)
b. saying the police acting stupidly when knowing zero facts and saying so FIRST
c. showing how being rich and powerful is more important than the truth
d. it really IS about your skin color NOT the TRUTH.
Who MAKES THINGS WORSE?????
Tell me Cyintia WHO MAKES THINGS MUCH MUCH WORSE.
The far left are living in their own fantasy worlds and meanwhile PEOPLE STILL SUFFER AND THEY BLAME EVERYONE BUT THEMSELVES.
The far left need collective therapy.
John Williams
October 28th, 2009
6:32 pm
Quick note: the John who posted above is another John.
Sage, I know you think you know everything because you believe your anecdotal evidence, which is notoriously known to be faulty due to the influence of Cognitive bias, back up your beliefs, which appear to be part of a very close minded self-centered worldview. The fact that you would say “The National Drug Threat Assessment” (the only article I mentioned) which is written by the National Drug Intelligence Center (a part of the U.S. Department of Justice) is “a few anti-war on drug sound bytes” is hard to understand. I am not sure why you think “The National Drug Threat Assessment” is “anti-war on drug(s)” but my first guess would be that anything that does not agree with your preconceived notions would always automatically be considered anti-drug war in your opinion. This obvious prejudice, which leads to you calling the USDOJ’s NDIC article anti-drug war, is a strong indication that your personal anecdotal evidence is strongly influenced by a cognitive bias. Due to this you should seriously consider reevaluating your worldview and questioning your prejudices which are probably due to the hard to avoid cynicism that is part and parcel of working in a stressful job that brings out the most negative, manipulative traits of individuals but which also unfortunately encourages skewed beliefs, in law enforcement and addicts, which are not necessarily reflective of reality. My guess is that this cynical worldview helps you to do your job well enabling you to justify sacrificing the liberties and freedom of individuals in reverence of the state and society at large but because of this you are not a good candidate for formulating a logical policy that is beneficial to individuals, addicts, and society at large. Actually to the contrary reverence of individual liberty, not of the state, according to the historical traditions of the U.S., and as exemplified by the founding fathers (whose fight for individual liberty is one of the greatest accomplishments of mankind), and which is immortalized in the spirit of the constitution is the best indicator of a good candidate for formulating policy beneficial to both society at large and its individual members. Therefore your anecdotal evidence based on the experience of seeing “multiple kilos of cocaine” and “thousands of pounds of marijuana” is irrelevant. Until you decide to back up your beliefs with non-anecdotal objective evidence with a basis in logic, not emotional reactivity, you are “taking sand to the beach”.
As far as the drug prices you should reread the post where I said even if the price is doubled or trebled due to middlemen and transportation costs the difference is still staggering. To give you an example here is a comparison of the price of 30mg morphine sulphate from an online pharmacy vs online answers about street prices:
Morphine Sulphate Cost per pill Total cost
30mg 120 tablets 50 cents each $59.96
30mg 120 tablets $10-$20 each $1200-$2400
So the blackmarket charges about 20-40 times more than the legal pharmaceutical market. Also pharmaceutical drugs would have much lower markup since it involves diversion within the country which would be much cheaper than the cost of international smuggling since diversion requires less middlemen and risk. So the markup is at least 20-40 times and almost definitely more even after accounting for your middlemen and their individual profits.
Sage
October 28th, 2009
11:08 pm
John, my opinions are based on years of first hand experience. You can try to dismiss it as “anecdotal” because that’s all you have. You just read about stuff. I do it for real.
So let me get this straight, just so I understand you: you are suggesting that we would have LESS problems in this world with junkies is the cost of daily meth use dropped fro about $30 a day to $.45??
See, what you fail to understand is that junkies don’t just need their fix. They need clothes, food, an shelter too. Their drugs aren’t expensive. You keep trying to make the argument that they are, but you’re just wrong. Sorry. Quote all of the articles you want. I deal with it for real. If I want a book review, I’ll let you know! But back to my point, you think everything will be just fine and dandy if the junkies can get their poison cheap. What you’re failing to realize is you have only reduced ONE of their costs. Since most junkies can’t keep a job, where are they going to get money to eat? To live? To buy clothes?? Oh, they’re going to commit robberies and burglaries like they are not!!! Under YOUR plan, I guess they’ll just steal $20 to $30 less, since their drugs will be sooooo much cheaper. Hey, I have a better idea!! Since you want to make it easier to create junkies, why don’t you buy their clothes and food for them too!! What a great idea!! We can just tax hard working people more to put clothes on the backs of people who do nothing but smoke crack and meth all day!! And we can tax hard working people more to pay for food for these junkies!! Why should the junkies have to pay for anything at all!?!
John Williams
October 29th, 2009
6:16 am
What you fail to realize is that addicts become criminals because their unending quest for drugs is expensive and is not amenable to a job that pays every 2nd week. A job requires some stability which is completely missing from the criminal subculture addicts are drawn to in order to feed their addictions on a daily basis. Satiating a never ending addiction is expensive and creates a chaotic lifestyle that is too far removed from mainstream society for most addicts to even consider getting a job. The impression I get from your reply is that you have managed to cynically dehumanize your perception of addicts believing they are criminal scum first, drug addicts second and humans last, if at all. This is not true most addicts become criminals after becoming addicts. This is obviously their own fault but that does not mean that they would not eventually become contributing members of society if they had a stable lifestyle that was amenable to becoming a part of mainstream society because they were no longer scamming and stealing to feed their never ending quest for drugs. The never ending quest for drugs and the criminal subculture that goes hand and hand with that drug seeking behavior is the biggest roadblock to addicts becoming productive members of society; not some innate desire to rob and pillage but an innate desire to get drugs. The cost of clothes, food and shelter is not the same as hundreds of dollars a day for drugs and acquiring necessities is compatible with a job since acquiring clothing, food and shelter does not induce the compulsive self-defeating behavior that drug seeking does. The cost of living could easily be as low as $700-$800 month and is agreeable with day jobs and pay periods, whereas the cost of an addiction could be anywhere from $1500 up to obscene amounts per month plus living costs and is in no way is agreeable to working since the lifestyle is far to chaotic. Your assertion that addicts would steal to pay for food and shelter is unfounded and based only on your obvious cognitive bias. Even if you are right though the amount of crime would still be drastically reduced since the necessities of life would be less than the cost of living plus the cost of whatever crimes the addict commits to support his habit. But the truth is that when the chaotic lifestyle of seeking drugs is mitigated addicts do tend to be more apt to become self sufficient and abstain from drugs. Their is evidence that backs this up and the reason I know this is because harm reduction is not MY plan . That you would suggest that indicates you are not very wordly or educated on the drug policies of other nations. The Netherlands, United Kingdom, Switzerland,Denmark,Switzerland, Germany all practice harm reduction by supplying heroin to addicts with Canada and Belgium starting trials. Why an arbitrary line has been drawn at giving methadone to addicts while heroin or potential pharmaceutical alternatives to stimulants is unacceptable is an inconsistent part of the illogical American drug policy. There is also Portugal which abolished criminal punishment for possession of drugs in 2001. Scientific reports on the efficacy of harm reduction are all favorable and even Portugals’ decriminalization of drugs has reduced the use of heroin, while other drugs have remained relatively the same except marijuana which increased but is still much lower than U.S. and its hardline approach which has led to America having %25 of the worlds prison population even though it only has %5 of the worlds population. Marijuana use in Portugal for 15 and over is %10 while in the U.S. 12 and over is %40. The money Portugal has saved prosecuting addicts with personal amounts of drugs has gone to treatment and much more resources for targeting traffickers without any additional revenue needed. Portugal is at least on the right track since they are targeting both supply and demand. Supply is targeted through the extra law enforcement and legal resources being focused on traffickers while demand is targeted through decriminalizations which entails treatment for drug possession, people going to treatment has doubled even though it is basically voluntary.
Even if none of that were true it is obvious that targeting supply while jailing users is an ineffective and expensive way of dealing with drugs. You complain that with a harm reduction system that people would need to be taxed to pay for addicts food. The ironic thing about that statement is that taxpayers already are paying for their food and shelter through welfare and imprisonment and all the many other costs associated with addiction, crime and the war on drugs. Harm reduction would be much cheaper and more effective at reducing crime if it treated addiction as a mental or genetic disease, which as I have wrote before has been shown to be true, while not excusing the individuals personal responsibility for bad choices. Any drug policy that does not focus on curbing demand will not work unless prison sentences become much more extreme than they are now which would make the drug war even more insanely expensive. A two pronged strategy that effectively targets demand through different treatment options such as harm reduction and therapy for users while redoubling the criminal resources that would be freed up to target trafficking would be cheaper and more effective than the current war on drugs. There is scientific evidence that harm reduction lowers criminal behavior, increases abstinence, and turns some of the most incorrigible addicts into productive members of society. Even if you were right and all addicts continued doing crime for food and shelter, which I think is crazy, the crime rate would still be drastically reduced since the money gained through crime and spent on drugs plus necessities would far outweigh the money spent on necessities alone. Maybe you are satisfied with the status-quo but alot of people are beginning to realize what a hugely inefficient use of resources the current “war on drugs” is especially with the current economic problems.
john
October 29th, 2009
4:47 pm
Sage,
It is a proven fact that allowing addicts to purchase their drugs at affordable prices in a secure setting allows the addict to stabilize their life and even maintain gainful employment. We already do that in this country. Ever heard of a methadone clinic?? Other country’s do this with heroin maintenance clinics. Addicts are allowed to purchase reasonably priced heroin in a steady supply and are able to then get and keep jobs, houses, and maintain family responsibilities. Every study that has looked at the effectiveness of methadone and heroin maintence have found them to be tremenously effective at reducing crime and improving the health of addicts and others in the community. Unfortunatly many, like yourself, view drug use as somehow immoral in and of itself and therefore the goal is not to reduce harm and improve health but rather to attempt to eliminate the use of about 10 or 12 drugs, regardless of the associated costs and futility of such an effort. You cannot deny the scientific fact that drug maintenance programs have all been much more successful at reducing crime and other harms than drug prohibition could ever hope to be.
Cathy
October 30th, 2009
1:29 pm
Sage:
You are only seeing things from your own view, not at all correct either. You mention what tax payers are paying for, how about BILLIONS EACH YEAR for the War on Drugs, why is it that you don’t mention this enormous tax payers waste? So let me get this straight, you think using tax dollars to help sick and addicted people become members of society again is a wasteful expense, yet you see no problem in the tax payers paying BILLIONS so you can confiscate other peoples homes and money which you also get to use to buy yourself new toys for the department. So helping people who need help is a waste, but helping you is completely OK? This is exactly why you with all your experience are not a good candidate to dictate drug policy. You sound like a greedy self deserving person who has no compassion for other people. I guess that’s the kind they breed in the DEA, heartless people with a hunger for financial forfeiture. So let me ask you, when you arrest a family for growing marijuana, do you guys high five each other as if you just did something cool or good? I bet you feel you guys did society a good service, but if you look further down the road you may see your actions are pushing our people toward a more harmful substance in alcohol to avoid legal trouble, which is further harming our peoples health and society as a whole. Your actions may seem productive in the moment, but outside of your world their is a country full of people that are being affected negatively by your actions when it comes to marijuana. People know its safer than alcohol and know it does not cause violence or the health problems as are caused by alcohol and tobacco, this in turn creates a disrespect for drug enforcement agencies.
Chester Felds
October 30th, 2009
7:12 pm
Look up on google, obama, japanese and verb. See what you find. She’s doing an obama on us here.
Sage
November 2nd, 2009
1:37 pm
Cathy, why don’t you show us some actual numbers on how much money is spent on the war on drugs and how much revenue is generated from drug seizures instead of just pulling numbers out of your butt?
I find it humorous that people who only know what they have read in a few article think I don’t have enough experience to talk about this stuff because I’ve only been doing for about a decade now.
Treatment is there for people who want it. The sad fact is, most people don’t want it. They’d rather continue to be leaches on society and make us all less safe and victims of their crimes to support the pathetic addiction. I’m sick and tired of hearing, “We need more education.” Bull. How many times do you have to be told not to do meth?? Anyone with half a brain would see a picture of one meth junky’s meth mouth and decide, “I’m never doing meth.” If you aren’t smart enough after that to avoid the stuff, I don’t have sympathy for you. No one holds a gun to your head to make you a junky. It’s time to stop making these people out to be victims. They are not. It was THEIR CHOICE. They chose to be junkies. If they truly want help, help them. Otherwise, lock ‘em up!
John Williams
November 9th, 2009
11:20 pm
How about easing up on non-violent drug addicts so that child molesters and rapists can stay in jail until the day they die and other violent criminals can serve longer terms that keep them locked up until they are too feeble to be a danger to anyone! That would be a much better use of limited resources especially when non-violent drug addicts could be treated through harm reduction methods for much less than the current costs of housing them in prison plus the exorbitant cost of the justice system, potential lost tax revenue of addicts in harm reduction who go back to work, foreign drug wars, local drug wars, imprisoning marijuana users not to mention the fact that limiting supply of drugs drives up prices paradoxically creating more crime because addicts rob to feed their addiction due to the increased price of street drugs. I have to say I do not believe in the nanny state that says an individual cannot do drugs because they cause crime when what is actually causing high crime rates is the jacked up drug prices which are created by law enforcement and the war on drugs. To me this is a slippery slope because the underlying idea is government regulating something because it is unhealthy. Since the war on drugs is in large part actually responsible for higher crime rates the only logical basis to regulate drugs is because it is unhealthy and could cost society through lost productivity, the target is not crime because “the drug war” itself exacerbates crime. The idea underlying the nanny state could be used to regulate many unhealthy things people take for granted such as alcohol,sugar,caffeine,fatty foods,etc. Outlawing drugs is not much different than the nanny state outlawing anything dangerous, unhealthy, or potentially costly to society because of potential lost productivity and/or increased health costs. To me this constraint on liberty is not worth the safety it supposedly imparts and reminds me of something Benjamin Franklin said:
“Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither and will lose both.”
The “war on drugs” is also a perfect example of circular logic and if the policy makers were really against high crime rates they would have to be extremely stupid to not realize that their war on drugs was the cause of much of the high crime rates. If they were really against crime, were rational people, and self-consistent they would realize that they and their drug war are the cause of much of the existent crime and decide to find better alternatives to the drug war which would actually save tax payers money while at the same time lowering crime, giving addicts a little bit of their dignity back, remove addicts from the criminal subculture that exists in jails and perpetuates the self destructive beliefs and behaviors of addicts, disassemble the loose confederation of cartels, traffickers, pushers and their infrastructure which is used to create new customers by targeting children. By supplying drugs to addicts through harm reduction and driving prices down due to an increased supply controlled by government for treatment using a disease model and then using the freed up justice system and law enforcement resources to aggressively target pushers and other violent offenders there would be multiple benefits.
1) A tightly regulated supply that treated addicts under a disease model that involved gradually changing lifestyle from an unhealthy lifestyle to a healthy lifestyle would drive down the cost of drugs due to supply being controlled by government. This harm reduction system could be equated to heart disease and diet, there are genetic components that create a predisposition to both heart disease and addiction but lifestyle choices and therefore personal responsibility are just as important as the genetic component in both. Also just like a person with heart disease may not change his diet overnight but instead would change diet and lifestyle gradually and in parallel with changing understanding of the problem,changing beliefs, and changing paradigms the same could be said of a drug addict. Basically lifestyle changes do not generally happen all at once but overtime with new understanding due to a changed worldview.
2) The lower cost of drugs could be combined with long sentences for traffickers and the stronger focus on traffickers by law enforcement. This could be done using the prison, justice system, and law enforcement resources that would be freed up because these resources would no longer be wasted on non-violent addicts and marijuana users. The lower cost of drugs combined with much longer jail time for pushers and traffickers, streamlined court system and stronger focus of law enforcement on targeting traffickers would quickly destroy the drug trafficking industry since no one would risk many years in jail to sell drugs that had no profit potential. Instead of creating higher prices by targeting supply creating ever more violent competition and gangs due to higher profits the goal should be to completely take control of supply and drive down costs then create extreme disincentives such as long prison sentences for traffickers that when combined with low profit potential destroys the entire industry of selling drugs.
3) The treatment of addiction as a disease with a genetic component that increases predisposition for addiction along with personal responsibility for lifestyle choices similar to heart disease.would serve to separate addiction from any tendency to romanticize drug use. Some movies, mass media, cult classics, books etc create an idyllic impression of drugs especially in the minds of impressionable youth, by equating drug addiction to disease or mental health problems any inclination of impressionable youth to think along these romanticized lines will be destroyed due to the stigma of disease especially if addiction is framed as a problem involving mental health which in many cases it has been shown to be. Drug addiction education that painted drug addiction in a disease model or mental health model would very quickly reduce drug use and abuse by adolescents as long as it did not attempt to pigeonhole marijuana into the same category, many young people who have had experience(s) with marijuana would disregard the whole campaign if it targeted marijuana believing it to be untrustworthy about marijuana based on their own experiences and therefore untrustworthy in all respects about addiction.
As I said above I do not really think the nanny state approach to drugs is worth the liberties that are traded in exchange for the little security it supposedly creates especially when it is realized that the nanny state entails an underlying assumption that is inherent in the system and completely taken for granted or not even considered by most people. The underlying assumption that is inherent in the nanny state system presupposes that the state is better at choosing what is beneficial for each individual than individuals choosing for themselves. To be a self consistent presumption there are many unhealthy choices that individuals make that should or could be removed from individual control and decided by the government. Examples of these would be alcohol, sugar,caffeine, coffee, tobacco, fatty foods, and many other vices that are addictive, mind altering and cost society due to health costs and lost productivity. If any one of these vices were made illegal crime would rise as people continued making individual choices due to the continuing desire to consume these mind altering substances irregardless of whether they are legal or not. This is the problem with prohibition. People will generally do whatever they want to do whether there are laws or not. Alcohol prohibition did not stop drinking and likely barely reduced it but it did create violent gangs who did not contribute taxes and only served to increase crime and multiply the problems prohibition was trying to stop, much like todays drug prohibition. Today it is also very hard to believe that drug use would increase if drugs were decriminalized or legalized as long as there was no marketing and truthful rational addiction education and campaigns that framed addiction as a mental health issue or disease were created. If many people wanted to do drugs they would do them today whether they were legal or not just like drinking alcohol during prohibition. Today drug use is not rampant not because laws stop drug use but because most people have no interest in doing drugs knowing the harms they cause. The only people who would ignore the negative consequences of drug use are those who are uneducated about the harms of drugs or people who believe the benefits they gain from drug use are greater than the harm it causes them. This would indicate either someone who is self medicating due to a mental health condition or someone with a predisposition to addiction who made bad choices or a lack of education about the harms of drug use. As long as the addict or marijuana user is not violent punishing them and using the limited resources that could be used to punish sexual predators, child molesters, and violent criminals makes no sense. Considering America has 25 percent of the worlds prisoners but only 5 percent of the worlds population it would seem that anyone who does not want this unbalanced, unsustainable use of resources to continue would realize that the best way to create change that would cost less and also lower crime would be an overhaul of the current abysmal failure called “the war on drugs”. The main people who benefit from the status-quo are rapists,molesters, and violent criminals who get lighter sentences than they would if resources were not being wasted on non-violent drug offenders including marijuana users. The current war on drugs does not work, it actually increases crime while imprisoning non-violent addicts who only harm themselves and has created a situation where the prison population is growing in an unbalanced way at an unsustainable rate that only serves to create criminal networks which are paid for by taxpayers that criminals use to network with each other, disseminate new criminal techniques while consolidating the self reinforcing criminal subculture and the self defeating beliefs that subculture entails.