andymoon, In your regulated drug utopia, where would the drug companies be getting the cocaine and heroin? Would all of that money still be going to third world drug lords and terrorists?
I'm confused. Isn't the 2.1 million the TOTAL number of those imprisoned in the U.S., regardless of their crimes? If so, then what does 2.1 million have to do with the war on drugs?
I know, but it was an opportunity to talk about some of the ancilliary benefits to regulating drug sales.
No, it would be going to legitimate, regulated businesspeople. For cocaine, we would buy as much as possible from South America at reasonable prices and destroy everything over what is used. This would have the effect of uplifting millions of peasants like the cocaleros in Peru who have been growing coca on that land for generations. The big losers would be the criminal organizations, who we will refuse to do business with. A few of the WOD era "drug lords" may slip through, but we can weed most of them out with the intelligence we already have from narcotics operations. Make no mistake about it, on this issue you are on the same side as the drug lords you decry. They are the ones with the most to lose, followed closely by the (largely privatized) prison corporations and the alcohol distributors (the largest contributors to the Partnership for a Drug Free America). But the drug lords stand to lose $400 billion dollard per year worldwide if prohibition ends (according to the UNODCP). They aren't going to give this up without a fight. Are you sure you want to be on the same side of the drug issue as the drug lords?
We had less than a half million people in jail when Reagan started ratcheting up the War on Drugs. In the 20 some odd years after that, we have QUADRUPLED that number and are reaching even higher. The 2.1 million were created by the war on drugs. We are now the largest per capita incarcerator in the world. Land of the free and home of the brave? We're not even brave enough to take on personal responsibility for our own intoxicants.
So by purchasing drugs from South American lords, you would supporting the removal of valuable rainforests....that can't be good.
No, there is already more than enough arable land that is already being farmed. Actually, it is YOU who supports the drug lords cutting down rainforest areas. As the drug war moves "forward," it drives the drug dealers deeper into the jungle, where they typically just set an area on fire and once it is out, they have the perfect land on which to plant coca. Instead, I would like to see peasant farmers have a cash crop they can plant on already existing farmland. In addition to coca, they could also plant hemp, an INCREDIBLY useful and margin friendly crop.
So the 2.1 million number you cite are NOT all drug offenders? It looks to me like the vast majority of the 2.1 million folks are in jail because they broke the law, and I suspect that the vast majority are not in jail for first time simple possession offenses. To stay out of jail, simply don't break the laws that put you in there. Talk about personal responsibility all you want, but if a person is willing to break the law, then they are accepting the personal responsibility to take their punishment. On a side note, what do your congressman and/or senator say/write to you when you express your displeasure with the current state of the drug laws?
Of course not. I have explained this already AND pointed out that a half million people are in jail for nonviolent drug offenses. That alone is nearly a quarter of our prison population. I suspect that they are in jail because they broke the law, but you are avoiding the question of whether many of those people belong there in the first place. Again, you are avoiding the question of whether they belong there in the forst place. You are also avoiding answering the question of why our prison population QUADRUPLED after Reagan started ratcheting up the War on Drugs. I know how to stay out of jail, I have been highly successful at that. The point is that we are not going to incarcerate our way out of the drug problem, no matter how many people we condemn. When I write, they respond with a form letter decrying the "drug problem" and the "degradation of the family," but nothing of substance. My Representative won't talk to me about it since the exchange I had with him a couple of years ago at a fundraiser. Andy - I think you really need to look at the problems caused by prohibition. They are far more substantial than the problems posed by drugs. Rep. - I think if you ask these people (gesturing to the people attending the BBQ fundraiser) that they will say that we are moving in the right direction. Andy - I would like to test that theory if you don't mind. Rep. - What do you mean? Andy - I will get back to you after a bit. At this point, I pulled out my notebook and proceeded to ask everyone at the BBQ "Do you think the drug war is working?" I tallied all of the answers and came up with 75 nays, 7 ayes, and 2 I dunnos. I showed my results to him and he has avoided me ever since. People who support prohibition typically have major issues when minor things like facts enter the discussion.
Really? So I should be against legalization? It seems like you have been talking about legalization, or at the very least decriminalization since your first post on this board, are you suggesting that is the wrong path to take? Be careful when you assume.
No, you should be against the drug lords, which would put you squarely FOR regulation of currently illegal drugs. Your statement here doesn't make any logical sense based on what I said. You asked where the government would acquire drugs and I replied that it would be from legitimate businesses in the drug crop producing regions. I went on to point out that you are on the same side of this issue as the drug lords (who have the most to lose from regulation) and that based on that, you really should rethink your position.
Once again, andymoon, I admire your resourcefulness and tenacity in puncturing holes in the myth of the drug war. I disagree with some of your ideas, but your rationale and approach to fixing the country's draconian drug laws are very reasonable. Of course, not everybody sets their own standards and ideals. They let their government do that for them -- if the government says it's wrong, then it must be wrong. Until we each re-examine what we believe and how we arrived at that conclusion, progress will be difficult.
I didn't think I avoided the question. People who break the current laws on the books, SHOULD receive the punishment associated with the crime. If it is jail time, they should serve jail time. If it's a fine, probation and/or community service, they should serve that. If getting caught snorting cocaine is a jailable offense, then anyone caught, regardless of race, creed, color or finances should serve the assigned punishment. It is a shame that our prison population has climbed from 500,000+ to 2,000,000+ in the last 20 years. It would be great if those folks didn't break the laws that earned them their jail time. I agree with others who say that smoking pot should be a fineable offense (at least the first offense) and not jailable. In that respect, I would agree that all first time pot smokers should NOT be in jail and should have some other punishment, but as I have written, I strongly suspect that most drug offenders currently imprisoned are not first time pot smokers. It is a shame that your representative won't intelligently discuss the issue(s) with you. I suspect that you are actively working for his/her opponent in any elections. Whenever I have emailed/discussed various issues with my rep, she has responded with intelligent discourse.
No kidding. It strikes me that far too many people are of the opinion that the government must have had good reasons for prohibiting drug sales when, in examining the record, the only reasons were big money interests, political posturing, and xenophobia. Once again (not for you, GV, but for the ones supporting prohibition), before drugs were prohibited, there were so few deaths due to drugs that no statistics were even kept. When one could buy heroin and cocaine at the general store, everyone was aware of the danger, everyone knew the consequences, and the vast majority of people used them responsibly. Prohibition CAUSED the problems we are now seeing with drugs, not the other way around.
You continue to avoid the question. Here are a few direct questions. Why should a responsible drug user be jailed because of their choice of intoxicants? What justification is there for continuing with prohibition, given its abject failure (based on the statistics I have mentioned ad nauseum)? How many MORE people is it acceptable to incarcerate for choosing a politically unpopular intoxicant? What positive impact has prohibition had on our society? We arrested over 700,000 people for mar1juana offenses last year alone. How is it justified to arrest even ONE person for mar1juana, given its low toxicity, low potential for addiction, and near total lack of physical damage? I don't have to, he has been gerrymandered out of his seat by the GOP redistricting. Don't get me wrong, I agree with the whole "do the crime, do the time" thing, but I am not arguing that. I am arguing that criminalizing drug users is simply not justified.
According to FBI statistics, between 1984 and 2002, violent crime has decreased, property crime has decreased, murder has decreased, rape has decreased, robbery has decreased, burglary has decreased, aggravated assault has increased. Perhaps quadrupling the prison population has led to those decreases. If that is the case, then it has certainly made me and my family safer. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/offreported/02-table01.html
Also according to FBI statistics, there were 2 periods with elevated murder rates in the 20th century. During alcohol prohibition, murder rates spiked dramatically only to subside after prohibition was repealed. Once the War on Drugs was coined by Nixon, the rates spiked again and, despite having gone down slightly in recent years, are still not anywhere NEAR as low as they were from the 1940s up until the 1970s.
But, according to you, Reagan "ratcheted up the war on drugs" in 1984. Between that time and now, crime rates have decreased across the board (I suspect with the main exception of drug incarcerations). Further, in 2002, the murder rate was down to 5.6 per 100,000 (as opposed to the abysmal 9.x in 1990-1994). If the war on drugs is to blame for the increase, then the war on drugs should be credited with the decrease. By the way, I consider a decline from 9.8 in 1991 to 5.6 in 2002 a dramatic drop as opposed to your definition of "gone down slightly". The rates are actually lower than from the period of 1945 to around 1950 (hard to tell exact numbers with the chart).
I never claimed that the WOD was the only cause of the increase in murder rates, I just pointed out what seems to be an interesting coincidence in the highest murder rates our country has ever seen. This is indicative of the violence created by a policy of prohibition and of a thriving black market. I agree that we have seen a substantial drop in murder rates in the past few years. It is almost certainly a response to the increase in forensic technology and the advent of widespread DNA testing, especially in murder cases. People are learning that it is becoming extremely difficult to get away with murder. I don't have a problem with locking up the real criminals that you mentioned as those are the people that deserve to be locked up. Again, the point of this thread is to highlight the glaring problems with the way we are fighting the war on drugs. Despite MASSIVE increases in expenditures and the quadrupling of our prison population, drugs are cheaper, purer, and more available to kids than they have ever been.
