The 'Jim Crow' Injustice of Crack Cocaine Continues

Neither of those is a great example of effectively regulated businesses.

 

Actually, the rates of teen use of tobacco and alcohol were drastically affected when the "We Card" program started in the '90s. Teen use of tobacco dropped by 25% and use of alcohol dropped by 50%. The rates of teen drug use of mar1juana are half what we see in the US compared to Holland, where mar1juana is tolerated.

Right now, minors report that it is easier for them to get illegal drugs than it is for them to get alcohol because of the program mentioned above. If we took it seriously and had severe, escalating penalties for providing drugs and alcohol to kids, I think we could make a major impact in rates of teen drug use.

I don't need an "archetypal" business environment, all I need is the reality of a regulated market. When it has been tried with drugs, it has been effective.

 

No, a system tolerating sales of mar1juana has shown in the real world an instance of mar1juana use that is half what we see in a country that arrests nearly a million people a year for drugs.

Certainly, there are differences, but those differences are not enough to explain a level of teen drug use that is half of America's and lower than its European peers as well.

I am looking at a situation where the biggest difference in variables is a prohibitionist system against one that is tolerant of adult use of mar1juana. A 50% lower rate of teen drug use shows me that they are doing something right and the most visible difference is the decriminalization of mar1juana.

 

You haven't provided any Swiss gun statistics, so I don't know what you are talking about.

 

In that case, you are ignoring the single most salient fact, which is that all adult males in Switzerland have, as part of military service, engaged in extensive education about guns. I would posit that the education is the causal link in their system.

IMO, education is the causal link in the Dutch system as well. They are far more honest with their youth regarding drugs and drug use and have removed the "forbidden fruit" aspect, which encourages people to use drugs when they are young and the penalties are not perceived as being as harsh as when one is an adult. Still, the key difference between their system and ours is the policy of toleration of mar1juana use and, while you might not believe the link is causal, I believe that policy is a major part of their relative success with regards to teen drug use.

The policy we have, prohibition, is the absolute worst way to deal with the issue of drug use and abuse in our society. This policy cedes control of some of the most dangerous chemicals in existence to criminal gangs and thugs. Criminals have no reason to refrain from selling to children, selling bogus or adulterated products, or using violence instead of the courts to solve disputes. We proved this conclusively during the '20s and '30s and have many of the exact same problems now with regards to drugs.

You haven't given me a single good reason to believe otherwise.

 

The point is that white people use powdered cocaine primarily while black people are more likely to use (and deal) crack. A "crack rap" is an arrest for crack cocaine, where a mandatory minimum sentence is triggered on 18 times less cocaine than the powdered form of the drug. This leads to massive racial disparities including the fact that low level crack dealers get incarcerated for as long as many white people who were violent criminals.

The logic is there, you seem to have made the choice to ignore it.

 

I believe that education about things that are dangerous tends to reduce accidents that can happen with dangerous items. Whether those items are guns, drugs, or cars, I believe that statement is valid.

The problem is that many, many people don't know how to handle a gun, to check whether the safety is on or off, how to check for a chambered round, etc. That level of education will definitely reduce gun deaths.

Similarly, a (pardon the pun) high level of education about drugs could be mandated in a regulated system, to acquire a license to purchase. I would suggest that this education should start before a person can purchase tobacco products. The classes would cover addiction, the physical affects of the substance on the body, and the treatment options that are available to the user. Honest education is the best way to deter drug use.

 

This is where your analogy to the situation we are discussing breaks down. The primary purpose of a gun is to hurt or kill, where the primary purpose of drugs is to change the mental state of the user. When people are educated to the proper uses of drugs and shown the consequences of problem drug usage, they will make better choices with respect to drug use. It is likely that 1.3% or so of our population will become addicted to drugs, so the responsible thing to do is make sure that their drug use will not kill them, they can get treatment when they need it, and they are more likely to seek out help rather than committing crimes to support a habit.

Our current policy is akin to throwing gasoline (prohibition) on a fire (drug use and abuse in our society).

 

Crack exists because it is a portable and easy for a dealer to measure or discard. Crack exists directly because of the drug war and in a regulated market, a tiny number of people would use crack. Don't believe me, look at history. When people were able to get legal alcohol after 1933, very few people resorted to "bathtub gin" and other concoctions that were likely to make you blind or kill you.